U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Assessment UT-040-07-20 UTU-82972 and UTU-82973 October 15, 2008
Milford Wind Corridor Project Millard and Beaver Counties, Utah
Milford Wind Corridor, LLC c/o First Wind 85 Wells Avenue, Suite 305 Newton, MA 02459 (617) 964-3340 Phone (617) 964-3342 Fax
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Cedar City Field Office 176 East D.L. Sargent Drive Cedar City, UT 84720 (435) 865-3005 Phone (435) 865-3058 Fax
Fillmore Field Office 35 East 500 North Fillmore, UT 84631 Phone (435) 743-3100 Fax (435) 743-3135
Table of Contents
Section Page
Table of Contents ...... i 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED...... 1 1.1 Introduction...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 1 1.3 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 2 1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action...... 3 1.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans...... 4 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans...... 4 1.7 Identification of Issues...... 8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION.11 2.1 Introduction...... 11 2.2 Proposed Action ...... 11 2.2.1 Construction Schedule...... 12 2.2.2 Wind Energy Facility ...... 12 2.2.3 Transmission Line ...... 31 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis...... 39 2.3.1 Alternative Wind Energy Facility Site...... 39 2.3.2 Alternative Transmission Line Interconnection...... 39 2.3.3 Utah State Route 257 Corridor Alternative Transmission Line Route...... 39 2.3.4 Other Alternative Transmission Line Routes...... 39 2.4 No Action Alternative...... 40 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 41 3.1 Introduction...... 41 3.2 General Setting...... 41 3.3 Critical Elements of the Human Environment and Other Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis ...... 42 3.3.1 Land Use...... 42 3.3.2 Soils...... 43 3.3.3 Paleontological Resources...... 45 3.3.4 Water Resources ...... 46 3.3.5 Air Quality...... 48 3.3.6 Vegetation...... 49 3.3.7 Wetlands and Riparian Zones ...... 53 3.3.8 Wildlife...... 55 3.3.9 Sensitive Species ...... 56 3.3.10 Cultural Resources ...... 65 3.3.11 Visual Resources...... 68 3.3.12 Socioeconomics...... 71
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 76 4.1 Introduction...... 76 4.2 Proposed Action ...... 76 4.2.1 Land Use...... 76 4.2.2 Soils...... 79 4.2.3 Paleontological Resources...... 81 4.2.4 Water Resources ...... 82 4.2.5 Air Quality...... 84 4.2.6 Vegetation...... 87 4.2.7 Wetlands and Riparian Zones ...... 92 4.2.8 Wildlife...... 94 4.2.9 Sensitive Species ...... 103 4.2.10 Cultural Resources ...... 108 4.2.11 Visual Resources...... 115 4.2.12 Socioeconomics...... 119 4.2.13 Compliance and Monitoring...... 124 4.3 No Action Alternative...... 124 4.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis...... 125 4.4.1 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis...... 125 4.4.2 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Analysis ...... 126 4.4.3 Timeframe...... 126 4.4.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 126 4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts ...... 129 4.5 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ...... 131 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...... 132 5.1 Introduction...... 132 5.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted...... 132 5.3 Summary of Public Participation ...... 133 5.3.1 Comment Analysis...... 134 5.3.2 List of Commenters ...... 134 5.3.3 Response to Public Comment...... 134 5.4 List of Preparers...... 146 6.0 REFERENCES, GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...... 148 6.1 References Cited ...... 148 6.2 Glossary ...... 157 6.3 Acronyms and Abbreviations...... 160 APPENDICES...... 164
Figures Figure 1 Project Overview Figure 2 Wind Energy Facility Layout Figure 3 Typical Wind Turbine Figure 4 Anticipated Construction Work Force Figure 5 Conceptual Electrical Collection System Home Runs Figure 6 Typical H-Frame Transmission Line Tower Structure
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT II MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008
Tables Table 1 Potential Authorizations, Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Table 2 Anticipated Project Construction Schedule Table 3 Wind Turbine Specifications Table 4 Approximate Limits of Temporary Disturbance - Proposed Wind Energy Facility Table 5 Approximate Limits of Permanent Disturbance - Proposed Wind Energy Facility Table 6 Approximate Limits of Temporary Disturbance – Proposed Transmission Line Table 7 Approximate Limits of Permanent Disturbance – Proposed Transmission Line Table 8 Designated Corridors in the Milford Wind Corridor Project Area Table 9 Approximate Ages and Elevations of Lake Bonneville Shorelines Table 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table 11 Wetland and Riparian Features Table 12 Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Wildlife Species in Beaver and Millard Counties Table 13 Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species with Known or Potential Occurrence in the Milford Wind Corridor Project Area Table 14 Estimated Acreage of Each Grazing Allotment Potentially Impacted by Construction Table 15 Project Emission Profile Table 16 Dust Suppressants and Environmental Considerations Table 17 Projected Concrete Batch Plant Emissions Table 18 Projected Annual Emergency Generator Emissions Table 19 Estimated Acreage of Each Vegetation Type Potentially Impacted by Construction Table 20 Summary of Cultural Resource Sites Table 21 Employment and Income Impacts of the Proposed Action Table 22 Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Consulted Table 23 List of Preparers
Appendices Appendix A Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout and Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Appendix B Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklists Appendix C BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices Appendix D Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures Appendix E GAP Land Cover Descriptions Appendix F Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines Appendix G Wildlife Species Observed within the Milford Wind Corridor Project Area Appendix H Utah Sensitive Species Appendix I Utah Partners in Flight Priority Avian Species Appendix J U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Management Concern
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT III MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Appendix K Visual Contrast Rating Worksheets and Photographs of Key Observation Points Appendix L Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan Appendix M Visual Simulation
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IV MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the environmental consequences of the Milford Wind Corridor Project (the project) as proposed by Milford Wind Corridor, LLC (MWC). The EA is a site-specific analysis of potential impacts that could result from the implementation of the Proposed Action. In 2005, BLM prepared a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Wind Energy development in the western United States. This EA is tiered to the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States (Wind Energy PEIS) (BLM 2005a) and incorporates the analysis conducted in that document. This EA assists the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in evaluating whether to grant a right- of-way (ROW) to MWC for developing the project on public lands. It also assists BLM in project planning, in ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in making a determination as to whether any “significant” impacts could result from the analyzed actions. “Significance” is defined by NEPA and is found in regulation 40 CFR 1508.27. An EA provides evidence for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). If the decision maker determines that this project has “significant” impacts following the analysis in the EA, an EIS would be prepared for the project. If not, a Decision Record (DR) may be signed for the EA approving the Proposed Action (or another alternative).
1.2 Background MWC is proposing to develop a commercial wind generating facility near Milford, Utah (see Figure 1, Project Overview). The proposed Wind Energy Facility would consist of up to 159 wind turbine generators with an anticipated total generating capacity of up to 300 megawatts (MW). Supporting components would include an underground electrical system to collect energy from the turbines and an interconnecting road system. The Wind Energy Facility would occupy an area encompassing approximately 40 square miles on private, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) lands, and BLM-managed lands in Beaver and Millard counties. The conceptual layout for the Wind Energy Facility is illustrated in Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and in Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout. Electrical power from the proposed Wind Energy Facility would interconnect to the substation at the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) generating station north of Delta, Utah. This connection would require the construction of a new, approximately 88-mile-long, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line crossing predominantly public lands in Beaver and Millard Counties. MWC’s proposed transmission line route would travel west from the Wind Energy Facility to the existing IPP 500-kV transmission line, which it would generally parallel north to the IPP substation (see Figure 1, Project Overview). Transmission facilities would include a
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Idaho Wyoming
¨¦§80 JUAB COUNTY
UV132 ado
r T15S UV272 T15S T15S T15S R11W R10W T15S T15S T15S Leamington R9W ! ! !R8W Leamington 15 ! ! ! ! ! R7W! ! ! R6W R5W Nevada ¨¦§ Utah !
Colo ! ! UV174 Lynndyl !
!
! ¤£6 !
T16S T16S ! T16S Proposed Interconnection T16S R11W R10W R9W T16S ! R6W R5W Arizona (IPP Substation) ! T16S R8W T16S R7W UV125 !
! Oak Delta ! Staging Site 3 City T17S T17S T17S T17S T17S R11W ! T17S T17S R10W R9W R8W R7W R6W £50 R5W ! Hinckley ¤ UV257 !
!
!
T18S T18S ! T18S T18S T18S T18S R11W R10W T18S R9W R8W R6W ! R7W R5W
¤£6 !
! ¤£50 ¤£50 r ! e r Riv ie ! T19S T19S v T19S e T19S R11W R10W S ! T19S T19S R9W R8W T19S R6W R5W ! R7W
!
!
! UV64 ! T20S T20S T20S T20S T20S T20S T20S R11W R10W R9W R8W R7W ! R6W R5W ! Staging Site 2 ! UV100
!
!
T21S T21S T21S Sevier Lake ! T21S T21S R10W R9W R8W T21S T21S R11W R7W R6W ! R5W UV99 Proposed Transmission ! Fillmore Line Route !
!
T22S ! T22S T22S R11W T22S T22S R10W R9W T22S T22S ! R8W R7W
r R6W UV257 R5W
! e v
i
R Meadow r ! e v ! a
e
! B T23S ! T23S T23S UV133 R11W T23S T23S R10W ! R9W T23S R8W R7W R6W T23S ! R5W ¨¦§15 ! Kanosh !
!
! T24S ! T24S R10W T24S T24S R11W ! T24S T24S Staging Site 1 R8W T24S R4.5W R7W R6W R5W ! T24S R9W
! UV257 ! !
! T25S T25S T25S T25S MILLARD R11W ! R10W T25S MILLARD R9W R8W T25S T25S R7W SEVIER UV118 COUNTY R6W R5W ! COUNTY UV161 !
! 70 ! ! ! Cove Fort ¨¦§ ! Cove Fort ! T26S R8W T26S R7W T26S T26S T26S R10W R9W BEAVER Wind Energy Facility R6W COUNTY
¤£89 T27S R10W T27S R9W T27S R8W T27S R7W T27S R6W UV21 PIUTE Marysvale Land Ownership COUNTY Marysvale
BLM
Private Milford State UV129 UV257
Legend Figure 1 Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures Proposed Access Road Wind Energy Facility Project Overview Proposed Transmission Line Route Temporary Crane Path Township/Range County Roads Staging Sites ¯ 05102.5 Miles
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\BLM_MWC_PROJECT\EA_FIGURES\EA_FIGURE_1_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 11:46:11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
Idaho 13 18 17 16 15 14 Wyo 13 18 17 16 15 ¨¦§80
ada
15 Nev ¨¦§ Utah 24 19 20 23 21 22 24 19 T25S Temporary 20 21 22 R11W T25S R10W Use Areas T25S 10-13 !( 10-12 R9W !( 10-11 !( 10-10 10-9 !( !( 25 30 29 28 17300 South 26 Construction Water Supply 27 25 30 27 10-8 Well Field !( 10-7 !( 10-6 29 28 !( !. !.!. !. !. 10-5 !( 10-4 !( 10-3 !( 10-2 !. !( 10-1 !( 36 31 32 33 34 35 9-8 36 8-19 !( 31 !( 8-18 !( 9-7 9-6 32 33 !( !( 34 8-17 9-5 !( 8-16 !( 8-15 9-4 !( 8-14 !( 9-3 !( !( !( 9-2 8-13 !( !( 8-12 9-1 !( !( 8-11 !( 8-10 !(
8-9 West 21400 !( 8-8 1 !( 8-7 6 5 !( 4 3 8-6 8-5 7-26 2 1 !( !( #* !( 6 5 7-25 !( 7-24 8-4 4 3 !( 7-23 !( 8-3 T26S !( 7-22 !( 8-2 !( 7-21 !( MILLARD !( 8-1 MILLARD R11W 7-20 !( 7-19 !( !( 7-18 !( 7-17 !( 7-16 COUNTY (! 7-15 !( #* 7-14 8 6-20 !( !( 6-19 7-13 !( 7-12 !( 6-18 !( 7-11 BEAVER !(#* 6-17 !( 12 Proposed !(!( 7-10 !( 7-9 7 6-16 6-15 !( 7-8 9 !( 6-14 12 !( 7-7 COUNTY Transmission 10 !( 6-13 11 !( !( 6-12 7-6 (!7 7-5 8 !( 6-11 !( 7-4 9 10 6-10 Proposed !( 7-3 Line Route !( !( 6-9 !( !( 6-8 7-2 !( 6-7 !( 7-1 !( 6-6 Substation !( !( 5-18 !( 5-17 !( 5-16!( 5-15 !( 5-14 !( 5-13 6-5 !( 5-12 !( 6-4 !( !( 6-3 #* 5-11 !( 6-2 13 18 17 !( !( 6-1 16 15 5-10 !( !( 14 13 18 17 16 15
T26S R10W 5-9 T26S R9W !( 5-8 5-7 !( !( 5-6 Proposed !( 5-5 4-10 !( 5-4 24 !( !( !( 5-3 19 UV257 4-9 !( 5-2 20 #* 4-8 Batch Plant 21 22 23 !( 4-7 !( 5-1 !( 4-6 24 19 !( !( 4-5 20 21 22 !( 4-4 3-20 !( 3-19 !( 4-3 !( !( 4-2 3-18 !( 3-17 !( 4-1 !( 3-16 !( !( 3-15 !( 3-14 !(
25 3-13 30 !( 3-12 29 28 !( 3-11 27 26 !( !( 25 3-9 30 3-10 !( 29 3-8 28 27 !( 3-7 !( 3-6 !( 3-5 !( 3-4 2-6 !( 3-3 !( 2-5 !( 3-2 !( 2-4 !( 3-1 !( 2-3 !( !( 2-2 !( 2-1 36 !( 1-19 !( 1-18 31 32 !( 33 1-17 !( 1-16 34 !( 35 36 31 1-15 !( 1-14 32 33 !( 1-13 34 !( 1-12 !( 1-11 #* !( 1-10 !( 1-9 !( 1-8 !( 1-7 ^` !( 1-6 !( 1-5 !( 1-4 !( 1-3 4 !( 1-2 !( 1-1 6 5 3 !( Proposed 2 1 6 5 3 Operations and 4 Maintenance Facility
7 Wind Energy Facility 8 9 T27S R10W T27S R9W 10 11 12 Boundary 8 9 10 7 Land Ownership BLM
18 Private 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 State
19 20 Legend Figure 2 !( Turbine Locations Electrical and Telephone Lines Wind Energy Facility Milford Wind Corridor Project # * Meteorological Towers Proposed Access Road Temporary Workspace Wind Energy Facility Layout ^` Information Kiosk Temporary Crane Path Buildings .! Well Locations Electrical Connection and Fiber Optic Line Material Storage/Staging/ Laydown Areas Proposed Transmission Line Route 34.5-kV Collection Cable County Boundary County Roads Temporary Use Areas To w ns hip /R a ng e ¯ Section 00.510.25 Miles
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\BLM_MWC_PROJECT\EA_FIGURES\EA_FIGURE_2_11X17.MXD 10/6/2008 12:02:04 substation at the Wind Energy Facility to convert the voltage of the Wind Energy Facility’s electrical collection system to that of the transmission line. A power interconnection bay is available at the IPP substation. If approved, construction of the Milford Wind Corridor Project is anticipated to commence during the fall of 2008. The Plan of Development (POD) for the project, prepared by MWC, describes the entire proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project in detail and is available at the BLM Fillmore Field Office, the BLM Cedar City Field Office, or online at https://www.blm.gov/ut/ enbb.
1.3 Need for the Proposed Action Recent national and regional forecasts project an increase in consumption of electrical energy continuing into the foreseeable future. Renewable energy, including wind generation, is expected to provide a larger component of the electrical supply in the future. Continued increased consumption requires development of new generation facilities to satisfy demand, as substantiated by the following sources:
• The Energy Information Administration, a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), states in the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030 (June 2008) that total electricity demand is projected to grow by 1.1 percent per year from 2004 through 2030. Renewable sources of electricity are expected to grow at a higher rate of 2.2 percent annually, which represents an increase of over 270 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) by 2030. Wind energy alone is anticipated to provide 124 billion kWh of electricity by 2030, compared to 26 billion kWh in 2006 (DOE 2008). • The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) forecasts electricity demand in the western United States. In the 10-Year Coordinated Plan Summary 2006-2015 (July 2006), the WECC states that capacity margins are declining and, from 2006 through 2015, annual energy use is projected to increase 2.2 percent (2.0 percent annual compound growth rate) (WECC 2006). • Further substantiation of the need for energy development is provided through the Western Governors’ Association goal of developing 30,000 MW of clean energy by 2015 from traditional and renewable energy sources and by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which encourages the development of renewable energy resources, including wind energy, as part of an overall strategy to develop a diverse portfolio of domestic energy supplies for the future.
In response to this demand, MWC proposes to develop a commercial wind energy project and associated transmission line. The need for developing the Milford Wind Corridor Project specifically is based on the availability of the wind resource for commercial energy generation at the proposed site. The proposed Wind Energy Facility would be located in the Milford Valley, a long, narrow “wind-exchange corridor” between two very large and distinct desert basins in west-central Utah. The Milford Valley is one of only two valley wind corridors in the Southern Rocky Mountain Region, as identified by the DOE in its Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States (DOE 1986). The DOE describes the valley as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Class 3 annual average wind powers are found in the valley corridor in the vicinity of Milford, Utah. Strong southwesterly winds frequently occur over this area, especially during the spring when the wind resource averages class 4. Higher wind resources may exist in areas where the terrain causes even stronger channeling of the winds. Specific studies of the wind resource in the Milford Valley were initiated in November 2002. These studies have been expanded, and historical data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reporting station located at the Milford Municipal Airport have been analyzed. The Class 3 annual average wind power that exists in the Milford Valley is suitable for most wind turbine applications, and the proposed project area is judged to have a developable wind resource. The location of the proposed Wind Energy Facility has the following advantages over other sites considered in west-central Utah:
• Availability of developable wind resource • Large private landowner with interest in dual-income and compatible land use • Transmission can be sited within a designated BLM utility corridor • Few residential dwellings in the project vicinity • Mixed-use land with no major conflicting activities • Low risk of adverse environmental impacts • Flat, open terrain • Access to public highways and county roads.
MWC has applied for right-of-way grants (ROWs) from the BLM Cedar City Field Office (CCFO) and the Fillmore Field Office (FFO) for authorization to use BLM-administered lands for the construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of the proposed wind-generation project. It is the BLM’s general policy, consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to encourage development of wind energy in acceptable areas. Furthermore, for linear projects such as transmission lines, it is the BLM’s policy to direct their siting to existing or designated corridors. As stated in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), “Utilization of rights-of-way in common shall be required to the extent practical.” To this end, MWC proposes to locate the greater part of the Milford Wind Corridor Project transmission line parallel to the existing IPP transmission line, which is within a designated BLM utility corridor (BLM 1984, BLM 1987a, BLM 1987b).
1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to help fulfill the projected future need for power, particularly power from renewable energy sources. MWC proposes to meet this purpose by developing and operating the Milford Wind Corridor Project, including the proposed Wind Energy Facility and the associated transmission line. Agreements between MWC and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and various Utah electrical utilities to purchase Milford Wind Corridor Project power are either in place or pending. The federal action would be for the BLM to process the ROW applications and grant the necessary ROWs to develop the commercial Wind Energy Facility and the associated transmission line. The purpose of the federal action would be to allow the reasonable
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 development of wind energy resources consistent with the BLM Final Wind Energy Development Policy, Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-216 and to ensure that the BLM manages public lands in a manner that protects natural resources.
1.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans Four BLM land use plans establish the goals and objectives for the management of the BLM- administered lands that would be occupied by the proposed project: the Cedar/Beaver/ Garfield/Antimony Resource Area Resource Management Plan (CBGARMP) (BLM 1984), the Warm Springs Resource Area Resource Management Plan (WSRMP) (BLM 1987a), the House Range Resource Area Resource Management Plan (HRRMP) (1987b), and the Pinyon Management Framework Plan (PMFP) (BLM 1983). The Lands sections of the CBGARMP, the WSRMP, the HRRMP, and the PMFP state that the objectives of their lands programs are to provide more effective public land management and to improve land use, productivity, and utility. This includes accommodation of community expansion and economic development needs and authorization of legitimate uses of public lands by processing use authorizations (e.g., rights-of-way, leases, permits, and state land selections) in response to demonstrated public needs (BLM 1984, BLM 1987a, BLM 1987b, BLM 1983). The Proposed Action is in conformance with the goals and objectives of these RMPs. The CBGARMP, the WSRMP, and the HRRMP designate a number of existing major rights-of- way as corridors, including the “IPP to California 500-kV Transmission Line.” The plans state that new rights-of-way would be restricted to these corridors wherever feasible. Terms of the IPP transmission line corridor designation require that transmission line rights-of-way be adjacent to each other or as close as possible and that existing transmission line access roads be used. Under the Proposed Action, the transmission line would be constructed within the designated 1,500-foot IPP corridor to the extent feasible, it would be offset from the existing IPP transmission line by approximately 250 feet, and its construction would be consistent with the terms of the corridor designation. Where the proposed transmission line parallels the existing IPP transmission line (approximately 77 miles), the existing IPP transmission line road would be used to provide access to the proposed transmission line, with short spur roads to individual transmission line tower sites and work areas. New roads would be constructed only where necessary to connect the transmission route to the existing IPP transmission line road (approximately 6 miles) and in one area where a deviation is necessary to go around “non- participating” private lands (approximately 5 miles).
1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans The Proposed Action is consistent with federal guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), including NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA outlined in Part 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Department of the Interior and BLM policies and manuals (BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1, BLM Utah NEPA Guidebook March 2006, Utah Long Form EA Template).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 The Proposed Action is also consistent with other statutes, regulations, plans, programs, and policies of affiliated tribes, other federal agencies, and state and local governments to the extent practical, including but not limited to the following:
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) • Record of Decision (ROD) for Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments • Clean Water Act of 1977 • Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended • Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 • Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 and 43 CFR Part 10 • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 • Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice • Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended • Programmatic Section 7 Consultation, Conservation Measures from LUP-Level Consultations for T&E Species of Utah • Executive Order 13186 • Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended • A Blueprint for the Future of Migratory Birds: Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan 2004-2014 (USFWS 2004) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended • Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances • Utah BLM Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitat in Utah • USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 • Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy, Version 2.0 • Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy • BLM’s 6840 Manual, Special Status Species Management • Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) Utah Sensitive Species List • USFWS Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species, Utah Counties • BLM Utah Riparian Management Policy • Utah Noxious Weed Act (Rule R68-9) • BLM Noxious Weed Clearance, Fillmore Field Office • Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health • Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 • Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation • BLM Milford Flat Fire Rehabilitation, Stabilization and Restoration Effort, Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices Working with the Utah Partners for Conservation and Development.
This EA is tiered to the BLM’s Wind Energy PEIS (BLM 2005a). As required by the Record of Decision (ROD) for Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments (BLM 2005b), this project-specific analysis tiers to the Wind Energy PEIS to
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 focus on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. The ROD establishes policies and best management practices (BMPs) for wind energy development activities on BLM land and establishes minimum requirements for mitigation measures. The ROD’s recommended BMPs and mitigation measures (Attachment A of the ROD) have been incorporated into this EA. The EA complies with the BLM Final Wind Energy Development Policy, Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-216. The project would conform to all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, and enforceable plans. Table 1, Potential Authorizations, Permits, Reviews, and Approvals, lists the authorizations, permits, reviews, and approvals anticipated to be necessary for the proposed project. Acronym definitions can be found in Section 6.3, Acronyms and Abbreviations.
TABLE 1 Potential Authorizations, Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Action Requiring Permit, Permit/ Approval Agency Authority Statutory Reference Approval, or Review
Federal ROW for land under ROW grant U.S. Bureau of Land FLPMA 1976 (PL-579); federal management Management USC 1761-1771; 43 CFR 2800 NEPA compliance to EA (tiered to Wind Energy U.S. Bureau of Land 40 CFR Part 1500 grant ROW PEIS) Management (lead agency) Grant of ROW by BLM Endangered Species Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species compliance (Biological Act, Section 7 Assessment and if Consultation needed Biological Opinion) Salvage and collection Scientific Collecting USFWS Region 6 Migratory Bird Migratory Bird Treaty Act of migratory birds Permit or Miscellaneous Permit Office related to wildlife (Special Uses) Permit surveys/monitoring Grant of ROW by BLM National Historic Utah State Historical Society National Historic Preservation Act Preservation Act, Section compliance 106 Less than 0.5-acre Nationwide Permit 12— U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 67 CFR 2020 dated impact to wetlands Utility Line Activities January 15, 2002 Erection of turbines Notice of Proposed Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR 77 (2005) Construction or Alteration (FAA) (Form 7460.1) State of Utah Stormwater UPDES Stormwater Utah Department of CWA, Section 402; management Permit for Construction Environmental Quality 40 CFR Part 122; Utah Activities (Permit Water Quality Act (UC #UTR100000) Title 19); UAC Title R317
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 1 Potential Authorizations, Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Action Requiring Permit, Permit/ Approval Agency Authority Statutory Reference Approval, or Review Stormwater UPDES Stormwater Utah Department of CWA, Section 402; management Permit for Operational Environmental Quality 40 CFR Part 122; Utah Activities if construction Water Quality Act (UC includes a new substation Title 19); UAC Title (Permit UTR000000) R317, Group 2, Sector AD: Non-Classified Facilities Impacts to waters of the Stream Alteration Permit Utah Department of Natural UC Title 73; UAC Title United States (Clean Resources, Division of Water R655 Water Act), including Rights wetlands Onsite sewage disposal Onsite Sewage Disposal Utah Department of UAC Title 317 system and a projected Construction-Installation Environmental Quality, Division daily sewage flow of Permit of Water Quality R317-3-1 Construction less than 2,500 gallons permit for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system Water use greater than Water Right Permit or Utah Department of Natural UAC Title R-309 5,000 gallons per day Water Use Authorization Resources, Division of Water from a groundwater Rights UAC Title R-655-4 well Well drilling permit Qualifies as a public water system if 25 people or more are served daily UPDES permit to Water Quality Utah Department of CWA, Section 401 conduct an activity that Certification Environmental Quality, Division (33 USC § 1341) may result in a of Water Quality discharge to waters of May need for onsite UAC R-317 the state (Nationwide sewage disposal system permit) UPDES permit to UPDES General Permit Utah Department of Utah Water Quality Act, conduct an activity that UTG640000 applies if Environmental Quality, Division Title 19, Chapter 5 UAC may result in a the water from the of Water Quality discharge to waters of groundwater well is to be UAC R-317 the state (Nationwide treated. permit) from a Drinking Water Treatment Plant Discharge from ponds Utah Groundwater Utah Department of UAC R-317-6-6.2 at the on-site sewage Discharge Permit Environmental Quality, Division disposal system that of Water Quality could infiltrate into the (Covered under groundwater Groundwater Permit by Rule) Salvage and collection Certification of Utah Division of Wildlife UAC R657-3 of birds, bats, and other Registration (COR) for Resources state-protected wildlife banding, collection, related to wildlife depredation, salvage surveys/ monitoring
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 7 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 1 Potential Authorizations, Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Action Requiring Permit, Permit/ Approval Agency Authority Statutory Reference Approval, or Review Transmission line License Agreement; Utah Department of UAC R930-6 crossing a state road Regional ROW Transportation encroachment permit All utilities located within state highway ROW must enter into a license agreement with UDOT Transport materials on Port of Entry Permit Utah Department of UAC R-9112-6 state roads and Transportation highways Hauling oversized or Oversize Load Utah Department of UAC R-912-12 heavy loads on state Movement Permit/Load Transportation highways Registration UAC R-912-114 Beaver County Construction of wind Conditional Use Permit Beaver County Planning and Beaver County Code turbines and associated Zoning Department facilities Construction of wind Building Permit Beaver County Planning and Beaver County Code turbines and associated Zoning Department facilities Transmission line Encroachment Permit Beaver County Planning and Beaver County Code crossing county ROW Zoning Department Millard County Construction of wind Building Permit Millard County Planning and Millard County Code turbines and associated Zoning Department facilities Siting of the Wind Conditional Use Permit Millard County Planning Millard County Code Energy Facility on Department private property
1.7 Identification of Issues Issues were identified through consultation and coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, interest groups, and interested individuals, as described in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination. A series of public scoping meetings were held in September 2007 to solicit input and information on the proposed project and issues to be analyzed in the EA. As part of the BLM internal process to identify issues and concerns, CCFO and FFO resource specialists thoroughly reviewed MWC’s proposed project and scoping input and employed Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklists (ID Checklists) to identify issues and concerns related to certain critical elements of the human environment and other resources. The CCFO and FFO ID Checklists are provided in Appendix B, Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklists.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 8 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Development of the ID Checklists determined that the following critical elements and other resource issues identified in the ID Checklists are both present in the area and potentially affected by the Proposed Action. These resources are analyzed in this EA:
• Land Use − Rights-of-Way − Livestock Grazing • Soils • Paleontology • Water Resources − Surface Water − Groundwater • Air Quality • Vegetation − Vegetation Communities − Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines/Range Management − Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species • Wetlands and Riparian Zones • Wildlife • Sensitive Species − Federally Listed Species − Special Status Animal Species − Special Status Plant Species • Cultural Resources − Historic Properties − Native American Religious Concerns • Socioeconomics.
Development of the ID Checklists determined that the following critical elements and other resources are not present in the area potentially affected by the Proposed Action or they would not be affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required:
• Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns • Environmental Justice • Farmlands (Prime or Unique) • Fire Prevention/Education • Fuels/Fire Management • Geology • Roads/Access • Mineral Resources • Energy Resources • Recreation • Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Plant Species • Visual Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 • Wastes (hazardous or solid) • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Wild Horses and Burrows • Wilderness • Wilderness Characteristics • Woodlands/Forestry.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 10 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Introduction This EA analyzes the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would approve the proposal, and the project would be constructed and operated for a period estimated at approximately 30 years. Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not approve the proposal, and the project would not be constructed. Impacts associated with the project, both positive and negative, would not occur. Several criteria were considered in evaluating the range of alternatives. An alternative had to meet the purpose and need for the project (see Section 1.3, Need for the Proposed Action, and Section 1.4, Purpose of the Proposed Action) in that it must support the viable development of a wind energy facility and the necessary electrical transmission within a suitable area. An alternative had to be consistent with the applicable BLM resource management plans, including making use of existing corridors as defined in those plans (see Section 1.5, Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans). In addition, alternatives were considered on the basis of the likely impacts to known sensitive habitats and resources. Those alternatives with obvious potential to increase disturbance or adverse effects on identified sensitive habitats and resources were eliminated from consideration. Several alternatives to the Wind Energy Facility site and the transmission line location were considered during the scoping process, but none of them had fewer environmental impacts than the Proposed Action (see Section 2.3, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis). The BLM has determined through its consideration of the project, public scoping, and its resource management plans that there is no reasonable action alternative to the Proposed Action.
2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action is to develop a commercial wind generating facility, including up to 159 wind turbine generators, a 34.5-kV electrical collection system, an operations and maintenance (O&M) facility, an interconnecting road network, and an electrical transmission system. Transmission facilities would include a substation within the Wind Energy Facility and an approximately 88-mile-long, 345-kV, overhead transmission line from the Wind Energy Facility to the IPP substation north of Delta, Utah. MWC has developed a variety of environmental protection measures and BMPs that would be implemented to reduce, avoid, or minimize environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the project (see Appendix
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 11 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site- Specific Environmental Protection Measures). Numerous detailed plans associated with the Proposed Action, which are mentioned later in this EA, are contained in a Plan of Development (POD) prepared for the project. The POD is incorporated by reference into this document. The POD is available at the Cedar City and Fillmore BLM field offices and can be found on-line in association with this EA.
2.2.1 Construction Schedule MWC would construct the Wind Energy Facility in two phases (Phase I and Phase II), with Phase I constructed primarily in Beaver County and Phase II constructed primarily in Millard County. If the project is approved and receives all the necessary permits, construction of Phase I of the Wind Energy Facility and construction of the proposed transmission line is anticipated to begin in the fall of 2008. Construction of Phase II would follow construction of Phase I. Construction of the facility is expected to take 12 to 15 months in total. Table 2, Anticipated Project Construction Schedule, outlines a general construction schedule for the project. The current anticipated start date is October 2008.
TABLE 2 Anticipated Project Construction Schedule Task/Milestone Start Finish Obtain Approvals December 2006 October 2008 Road Construction Month 1 Month 9 Wind Turbine Foundation Construction Month 1 Month 12 Electrical Collection System Construction Month 1 Month 12 Substation and Transmission Line Construction Month 1 Month 7 Operations and Maintenance Facility Construction Month 2 Month 8 Wind Turbine Assembly and Erection Month 1 Month 13 Plant Energization and Commissioning Month 1 Month 13 Plant Substantial Completion Month 5 Month 12 Construction Punchlist Cleanup Month 6 Month 14
2.2.2 Wind Energy Facility 2.2.2.1 Wind Energy Facility Location The proposed Wind Energy Facility would be located in Beaver and Millard counties in west- central Utah near the town of Milford. The location of the Wind Energy Facility is illustrated in Figure 1, Project Overview.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 12 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 2.2.2.2 Wind Energy Facility Components The principal components of the Wind Energy Facility include:
• Up to 159 wind turbine generators • A 34.5-kV underground electrical collection system linking each turbine to the Wind Energy Facility substation • An electrical substation transforming 34.5-kV to 345-kV transmission voltage • A turbine connector and access road system • An operations and maintenance (O&M) facility • A Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and fiber optic communication system • Utilities, including 12.47-kV and 13.5-kV station service electrical supply lines • Up to 13 permanent meteorological towers • An information kiosk.
Several temporary meteorological towers have or will be erected at or near the Wind Energy Facility to support ongoing research into the wind resource of the Milford Valley. Installation of those temporary meteorological towers is not part of the proposed project and will take place under separate permitting and approval; therefore, installation of those towers is not addressed further in this EA.
Access Roads Access into the Wind Energy Facility is provided by two existing gravel roads off Utah State Route 257 (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout). Road 1034 (known locally as Geothermal Road) exits east off Utah State Route 257 approximately 4.5 miles north of Milford, branching to the northeast after about 2.5 miles through the southeast corner and north through the Wind Energy Facility near the east end of the wind turbine arrays (where it is identified as 21400 West Street). The other access road is 17300 South Street, which exits off Utah State Route 257 approximately 14 miles north of Milford, running due east through the northern end of the Wind Energy Facility and intersecting with 21400 West Street about 4.5 miles east of Utah State Route 257. As discussed in Section 2.2.2.4, Wind Energy Facility Construction, roads would be constructed along and between each turbine array to provide for construction access to each turbine site (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout). These turbine connector roads would be tangential to the permanent wind tower pads and would have a permanent travel width of 20 feet and a road base or gravel surface. Following construction, 10 feet on either side would be reseeded but retained for future use, as needed. A main north-south road would connect the turbine array roads to the electrical substation located within the Wind Energy Facility. Short permanent access roads would lead from the turbine connector roads to up to 13 meteorological tower sites. These roads would be single-lane, 10-foot-wide gravel roads that
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 13 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 would average about 100 feet in length. All meteorological tower access roads would be sited within the wind turbine arrays. Access for construction of the overhead 12.47-kV electrical distribution line from the Verizon fiber optic facility to the O&M facility (see Utilities, below) would be provided by the Geothermal Road and then by overland travel.
Wind Turbine Generators The Wind Energy Facility would include up to 159 wind turbine generators, each with a generating capacity of 1.5 to 2.5 MW, for a total installed capacity of up to approximately 300 MW. Depending on the final number of each type of wind turbine selected, fewer turbines (approximately 137) are likely to be installed, but the maximum of 159 turbines is analyzed in this EA. The wind turbines would be arranged in up to ten parallel arrays (turbine strings) running west-northwest to east-southeast; the turbine arrays would be spaced approximately 0.8 mile apart (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout). Spacing of the wind turbines along the arrays would be approximately 0.2 mile for the 1.5-MW turbines and 0.3 mile for the 2.5-MW turbines. Wind turbines consist of three primary components: a tubular steel tower, rotor blades, and a nacelle. The wind turbine towers would be up to 80 meters (approximately 262 feet) high at hub height, and the wind turbine rotors would be up to 99 meters (approximately 328 feet) in diameter, for a maximum total height from tower base to blade tip of up to 130 meters (approximately 426 feet). The nacelle houses equipment such as the gearbox and the electrical generators and supports the turbine blades and hub. A diagram of a typical wind turbine is provided in Figure 3, Typical Wind Turbine. The wind turbine towers would be approximately 24 feet in diameter, and they would be mounted on concrete foundations. Each turbine would occupy an approximately 40-foot- diameter graveled pad. The total amount of land that would be permanently occupied by the 159 wind turbines and pads and their associated crane pads would be approximately 20 acres. Due to high demand for wind generating equipment, there is currently a shortage of wind turbines. MWC is considering using wind turbines manufactured by Clipper Windpower, Inc. and GE Energy. Specifications of the wind turbine models being considered are listed in Table 3, Wind Turbine Specifications.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 14 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Blade Height (Highest) 398 to 426 feet
Rotor Blade Diameter 271 to 328 feet
Nacelle
Blade
Tower
Turbine Hub Height 262 feet
Blade Height Person (Lowest) Vehicle 98 to 127 feet House
20 feet
ES092006001CVO_MilfordCorridor
Figure 3 Milford Wind Corridor Project Typical Wind Turbine TABLE 3 Wind Turbine Specifications Maximum Rotor Capacity Hub Height Height from Manufacturer Model Diameter (MW) (feet) Tower Base to (feet) Blade Tip (feet) Clipper Windpower C99 2.5 328 262 426 GE Energy XLE 1.5 271 262 398
Depending on equipment availability, different combinations of these wind turbine types could be installed at the Wind Energy Facility. Each combination would result in a total Wind Energy Facility energy capacity very near 300 MW. Safety and emergency systems are incorporated into the design of the wind turbines to ensure safe and reliable operation, including: multiple braking systems; automatic shut-down system; automatic, manual, and remote turbine controls; tower-access safety systems; and lightning protection. Some turbines would include aviation warning lights, as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The number of turbines with lights and the lighting pattern of the turbines would be determined in consultation with the FAA.
Electrical Collection System A transformer at each wind turbine tower would transform the power generated at 575 to 690 volts (V) to 34.5 kV for delivery to the project substation. The steel transformer box housing the transformer circuitry would be mounted on a fiberglass or concrete pad or vault located at the base of each turbine tower. The transformer box would be approximately 7 feet by 8 feet, with the concrete pad or foundation approximately 6 to 10 inches thick. The transformers would be connected to the underground electrical collection system that terminates at the substation. Underground power cables (collector lines) would be installed between turbines to collect power generated by the individual wind turbines. The electrical collection system would consist primarily of medium-voltage, high-density, insulated underground cables connecting multiple turbines to the substation. Between the turbine arrays, the collector lines would generally follow the main north-south road to the substation.
Electrical Substation The electrical substation would be located within the Wind Energy Facility on BLM-managed land. The substation would step up the voltage of the power being delivered at 34.5 kV by the electrical collection system to 345 kV for delivery through the 345-kV project transmission line to the IPP substation. The substation site would occupy an approximately 15-acre graveled site. Transformers would be non-polychlorinated biphenyl (non-PCB), oil-filled types. Additional substation equipment would include circuit breakers, power transformer(s), bus and insulators, disconnect switches,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 15 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 relays, battery and charger, surge arrestors, alternating and direct current supplies, control house, metering equipment, SCADA equipment, grounding, and associated control wiring. Other proposed substation equipment includes back-up power supply equipment and fuel storage (see Utilities, below). The substation site would be surrounded by an 8-foot-high chain link fence topped with barb wire.
Operations and Maintenance Facility The O&M facility would be located on private property approximately 1 mile south of the Wind Energy Facility’s southern boundary. The O&M facility would include: a one- or two-story main building with offices, spare parts storage, restrooms, a vehicle maintenance area, and a shop area; outdoor parking and a turnaround area for large vehicles; outdoor lighting; and full perimeter fencing with a gated access. Limited maintenance or repair of turbine components would also be provided for in conjunction with parts and equipment storage. Ambient conditions within the O&M building would be maintained to meet equipment operating requirements and/or to support the presence of maintenance personnel. The permanent footprint of the O&M facility (including parking area) would be approximately 10 acres, and the O&M building would be 30,000 square feet or less in area. The building would be painted to blend with the surrounding landscape, and the O&M facility area would be landscaped with native grasses and shrubs. An additional storage building for parts and equipment may also be constructed, or these functions could be incorporated into the O&M building. Other proposed O&M facility equipment includes back-up power supply equipment and fuel storage (see Utilities, below).
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System and Fiber Optic Communications A SCADA system would be installed at the Wind Energy Facility to collect operating and performance data from each wind turbine and the Wind Energy Facility as a whole and to provide for remote operation of the wind turbines from the O&M facility. The wind turbines would be linked to a central computer in the O&M building by a fiber optic network. The fiber optic cables used for SCADA communication would be placed in the same trenches used for the electrical collection system. An underground fiber optic cable would connect the O&M building to the project substation, and, from there, the cable would be mounted near the top of the transmission line tower structures to connect the project substation to the interconnection point at the IPP substation.
Utilities Utilities would primarily be associated with the O&M facility and the substation and would include an electrical supply for station service and groundwater wells and septic tanks at both sites. The O&M water well would be located within or near the O&M facility; water from this well would be for sanitary and kitchen uses and for some industrial purposes such as truck washing and occasional road watering during project operation. Water use at the O&M facility is estimated at 5,000 gallons per day or less. The substation water well would be located near
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 16 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 the substation, and water would be used for sanitary purposes; water use at the substation is estimated at 500 gallons per day or less. Primary electrical service would be provided to both the O&M facility and the substation by separate 13.5-kV connections to the Wind Energy Facility electrical collection system. Service to the substation would come underground from a transformer on the nearest wind turbine array, and service to the O&M facility would come underground from a transformer on the southernmost wind turbine array along the same route as the fiber optic cable. Back-up power to operate the substation would be provided by backflow on the transmission line if the Wind Energy Facility is not operating. In addition, the substation would be equipped with a back-up generator to supply substation and turbine needs during emergency periods and during start-up and/or maintenance. It is anticipated that the substation generator would be a 150-kW Caterpillar or equivalent model powered by diesel fuel and that it could operate for up to 7 to 10 days per year. Diesel fuel storage for the generator at the substation would be approximately 134 gallons. The back-up generator would comply with all applicable State of Utah and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards for this type of unit and application. The back-up generator and fuel supply would be located within secondary containment, as necessary, to meet all Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) and EPA requirements for spill prevention and control. Secondary containment design requirements, as well as spill prevention control and countermeasures, are provided in the project’s Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan (see Section 2.2.2.3, General Preconstruction and Construction Activities). Back-up power would be provided to the O&M facility by a connection to the local electrical distribution system for temporary construction power and emergency power when needed. A new, approximately 3-mile-long, overhead 12.47-kV electrical distribution line would be constructed from the Verizon fiber optic facility near Utah State Route 257 for about 0.5 mile east along Geothermal Road and then north and east to the O&M facility for this purpose (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout). This distribution line is anticipated to be constructed with single pole wood structures approximately 45 to 55 feet tall and an average span distance of approximately 300 feet. In addition, the O&M facility would be equipped with a generator to provide back-up power service during emergency periods and during start-up and/or maintenance. It is anticipated that the generator would be a 150-kW Caterpillar or equivalent model powered by diesel fuel and that it would operate for up to 7 to 10 days per year. Diesel fuel storage for the generator at the O&M facility would be approximately 134 gallons. The O&M facility back-up generator would comply with all applicable Utah and EPA emissions standards and all UDEQ and EPA requirements for spill prevention and control, as described above for the substation.
Meteorological Towers Up to 13 permanent meteorological towers would be erected within the Wind Energy Facility to monitor and document wind conditions throughout the operations phase of the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Six permanent meteorological towers have been sited, and up to seven more
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 17 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 may be added depending on final turbine design and turbine manufacturer requirements. All permanent meteorological towers and their associated access roads would be sited within the wind turbine array corridors. Because these meteorological towers would be 80 meters high, they will need to be guyed for stability. Each meteorological tower would be supported by three guy wires anchored approximately 170 feet from the tower. Guy wires would be fitted with BLM-approved guy wire markers at sufficient spacing to ensure visibility, and appropriate fencing would be installed around guy wire anchors if determined necessary by the BLM. Each meteorological tower would occupy an approximately 10-foot by 10-foot area; the entire area occupied by each meteorological tower would be about 2.1 acres, including the entire 170- foot radius created by the guy wires and anchors.
Information Kiosk MWC would erect an information kiosk at the Wind Energy Facility to provide information about the Milford Wind Corridor Project and to increase public awareness of the benefits of wind energy development. The kiosk would be located on private land near the point where the county access road enters the Wind Energy Facility from the south (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout). The kiosk site would be graveled and would include a small parking area. The permanent footprint of the area devoted to the information kiosk would be approximately 0.05 acre.
2.2.2.3 General Preconstruction and Construction Activities An overview of construction activities related specifically to the development of wind energy projects is provided in the BLM’s Wind Energy PEIS (BLM 2005a). The following general preconstruction and construction activities are relevant to both the proposed Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line. Construction information specific to the Wind Energy Facility or the transmission line is presented in Section 2.2.2.4, Wind Energy Facility Construction, and Section 2.2.3.3, Transmission Line Construction, respectively.
Facility Micrositing and Survey MWC included flexibility in preliminary facility siting to accommodate adjustments in the location of individual structures based on site-specific conditions and constraints. Certain adjustments of infrastructure locations have been required based upon environmental and engineering constraints and private landowner participation. If necessary, any final adjustments to the exact location of facility structures to avoid important resources would be coordinated with the BLM. Setbacks of the wind turbine generators from county roads at distances greater than one tower height have been established to reduce the potential for accidents that could result from the construction and operation of the wind turbine generators. Sensitive environmental resources have been avoided where possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 18 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Wind Energy Facility site surveying would be completed to delineate the wind turbine array ROW boundaries, wind turbine tower locations and pad boundaries, substation and O&M facility boundaries, and access road and electrical collection cable centerlines. Transmission line surveying would delineate the transmission line ROW centerline and boundaries, transmission line tower structure locations, and access road centerlines. Temporary use areas, cultural resource sites, and environmentally sensitive areas within the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line corridor would be field delineated, where appropriate, to assist in avoiding such areas during project construction.
Geotechnical Investigations Previous geotechnical investigations have been completed within the project area. During construction, additional geotechnical site evaluations may be required to establish engineering data suitable for evaluation of potential turbine sites for finalizing the turbine layout and for use in designing turbine foundations. The following geotechnical exploration methods may be utilized on the Wind Energy Facility site:
• Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) • Dilatometer Testing (DMT) • Hollow-Stem Auger (HSA) Borings • Rock Coring/ ODEX Drilling • Test Pit Excavations.
Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) The CPT testing methodology would entail the use several technologies, all centered on the use of a 2-inch diameter cone which is driven into the ground. This method would allow retrieval of soil resistance information based movement of the cone through the soil. In addition, information is retrieved through the measurement of shear-wave and velocity wave generation by the cone. Pore pressure dissipation is a measurement of soil drainage characteristics. CPT testing would typically extend to a depth of 50 to 65 feet. CPT testing results in minimal refuse and tailings from the insertion and retrieval of the testing equipment. CPT testing requires a track mounted CPT rig, CPT support vehicle, and geotechnical contractor support vehicle. The track mounted CPT rig is 25 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 12.5 feet high. The CPT support vehicle is 8.5 feet wide, 22 feet long, and 8 feet high. The geotechnical contractor support vehicle is a either a standard pick-up or SUV. An approximately 30 foot by 30 foot parking and foot traffic area would be used near the CPT rig. Flat Plate Dilatometer Testing (DMT) DMT is a measurement of soil elasticity. DMT testing produces no drill cuttings or other investigation derived wastes. DMT testing is conducted with the CPT rig, but DMT testing requires an additional advancement of the CPT rods with the flat-blade dilatometer instead of the CPT cone. DMT testing would typically extend to a depth of 50 to 65 feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 19 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Hollow-Stem Auger (HSA) Borings The need for HSA borings is determined by the results of the CPT testing. If necessary, a hollow stem auger (approximately 3-1/4 inch diameter) would be used for soil sampling. For a 3-1/4 inch hole, 0.2 cubic yards of soil refuse per 60-feet of hole depth is estimated. This refuse soil would be backfilled into the hole, and any excess would be spread around the adjacent area. Each HSA boring would be extended to nominal depths ranging from 50 to 65 feet. HSA testing requires a truck mounted auger, auger rig support truck, and geotechnical contractor support vehicle. The auger would be mounted on a truck approximately 25 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, and 12.5 feet high. The auger rig support truck is 25 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, and 9 feet high. The support vehicle would be a standard pick-up or SUV. The anticipated parking and foot traffic area for HSA borings is 30 feet by 40 feet. The actual drill work area is an additional 10 feet by 10 feet. Rock Coring/ ODEX Drilling If HSA borings hit refusal and are unable to reach desired depth for sampling, rock core drilling may be required. Rock coring would generally extend to a depth of 30 feet, or until a 10-foot core run is achieved. Small quantities of finely ground rock cuttings would be generated and would be dispersed around the coring location. ODEX soil drilling techniques are similar to those described above for the HSA borings. Rock coring/ODEX drilling vehicles include a track mounted rotary rig, water truck, support trailer, rotary rig support truck, and geotechnical contractor support vehicle. The anticipated parking and foot traffic area for rock coring/ ODEX drilling is approximately 40 feet by 40 feet, with an additional 10-foot by 10-foot drill area. Test Pit Excavations Test pit excavations may be made with the use of a standard backhoe. This method would remove soil from the test area approximately 3 feet by 3 feet to an approximate depth of 5 feet (7 feet maximum anticipated depth). This excavation would allow a visual observation of subsurface conditions and extent of underground rock formations, as well as provide a means to obtain bulk soil samples for primarily electrical thermal resistivity measurements. Excavated soil would be returned to the pit. Excavation, sampling, and backfilling of test pits would likely be performed in one day. If it is necessary to leave a test pit open overnight, a substantial barrier would be erected around the excavation to prevent entry by wildlife or livestock. Equipment on-site for test pits includes a standard rubber-tired backhoe and geotechnical contractor support vehicle (standard pick-up or SUV). Test pit work areas are typically the test pit area (5 feet by 5 feet) and adjacent soil pile. The parking and foot traffic area is approximately 25 feet by 25 feet.
Construction Work Force Construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line is projected to occur over a period of approximately 12 to 15 months. During this time, direct monthly employment is anticipated to peak at 225 on-site jobs, approximately 155 at the Wind Energy Facility and 69 on
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 20 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 the transmission line. On-site employment would exceed 100 workers for 9 consecutive months. Aggregate employment over the duration of the construction period would be the equivalent of about 170 full-time jobs for 1 year. Various phases of construction would occur at different locations throughout the construction process and, in some cases, a construction phase could be carried out concurrently at a number of locations. Figure 4, Anticipated Construction Work Force, shows the composition of the work force and the number of workers over the course of the construction period. MWC would use local or non-local contractors/subcontractors according to the equipment and personnel needs of the project. MWC anticipates that a large percentage of the work force would be from Utah, although workers from various parts of the country may be required.
Construction Transportation Trucks transporting turbines, towers, and other construction materials would access the Wind Energy Facility site from Interstate 15, traveling either north or south to the site along state highways and then along local roads to material storage/staging/laydown areas. To access the Wind Energy Facility site from the north, trucks would exit Interstate 15 at Nephi onto Utah State Route 132, travel west to Lynndyl, then travel on U.S. Highway 6 southeast through Delta to Utah State Route 257, and then south to the site. This route from Interstate 15 is approximately 140 miles long and is generally straight and flat. There are two possible access routes to the Wind Energy Facility from the south. The main southern route involves trucks exiting Interstate 15 at Enoch (just north of Cedar City), traveling along Utah State Route 130 to Minersville, then following Utah State Route 21 through Milford to Utah State Route 257, and then north to the site. The route from Interstate 15 is approximately 50 miles long. A second route from the south would exit Interstate 15 at Beaver and follow Utah State Route 21 through Minersville north through Milford to Utah State Route 257, and then north to the site. This route involves longer travel along Utah State Route 21 and is, therefore, less desirable. Most construction deliveries to the Wind Energy Facility would be from the south via Geothermal Road (see Section 2.2.2.2, Wind Energy Facility Components, Access Roads). Access to the majority of the proposed transmission line route is provided from Utah State Route 257 by several county roads and other unimproved roads. Access to the northernmost sections of the proposed transmission line route is provided via Utah State Route 174 off U.S. Highway 6 north of Delta.
Stormwater Control MWC would obtain a Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permit for stormwater discharges associated with Wind Energy Facility and transmission line construction activities. As part of the permit, MWC would develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the site and would implement stormwater BMPs to ensure compliance with the UPDES General Stormwater Construction Permit (MWC 2008).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 21 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 250
200
150
100 Number On-Site Workers
50
0 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Month 13 Month 14 Month 15
Civil Engineer General Contractor Concrete Rebar Electrical Transmission Line
Figure 4 Milford Wind Corridor Project Anticipated Construction Work Force Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management Materials required for construction of the project that are classified as hazardous materials1 would be limited to fuels and lubricants. Hazardous and non-hazardous materials used or stored at the site would be managed properly, and precautions would be taken to prevent them from entering soils and water. MWC has developed a Hazardous Materials Management Plan to address transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials expected to be used on the project site during construction and operation (MWC 2008). Hazardous wastes generated during construction would be removed and disposed of in an appropriately permitted disposal facility. No hazardous materials would be generated by construction of the project.
Petroleum Materials and Petroleum Waste Management Petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, crankcase oil, lubricants, and cleaning solvents would be present within the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line corridor during construction. These products would be used to fuel, lubricate, and clean vehicles and equipment and would be transported in containerized trucks or in other approved containers. Petroleum materials would be properly stored to prevent leakage or accidents. MWC has developed an SPCC Plan for the project (MWC 2008). Vehicle and equipment refueling would be conducted at eight fueling stations located across the Wind Energy Facility. The fueling stations would service light-duty vehicles and would also be used to fill 100-gallon or smaller truck-mounted tanks for transporting fuel to heavy equipment to be refueled in place. Each fueling station would consist of an approximately 500-gallon petroleum fuel tank located within secondary containment. Each station would be equipped with a spill kit and would be located in areas that would be disturbed for other construction purposes. Enclosed containment would be provided for petroleum wastes, and petroleum- related construction waste would be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials.
Solid Waste and Human Waste Management “Waste” means all discarded matter, including but not limited to trash, garbage, refuse, filters, welding rods, equipment, or human waste. Approved enclosed refuse containers would be used throughout the project. Construction waste materials including refuse and trash would be removed from the project area and disposed of at a permitted landfill. Portable toilets would be provided for the construction crew, and sanitary waste would be periodically removed by a licensed hauler to an existing municipal sewage treatment facility.
1 Hazardous material means: (1) Any substance or material defined as hazardous, a pollutant, or a contaminant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) at 42 U.S.C. 9601(14) and (33); (2) Any regulated substance contained in or released from underground storage tanks, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at 42 U.S.C. 6991; (3) Oil, as defined by the Clean Water Act at 33 U.S.C. 1321(a) and the Oil Pollution Act at 33 U.S.C. 2701(23); or (4) Other substances applicable Federal, state, tribal, or local law define and regulate as ‘‘hazardous’’ (43 CFR Sec. 2801.5(b).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 22 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Site Reclamation The final phase of construction is cleanup and reclamation of areas disturbed by construction but not required for facility operations. Ungraded areas disturbed only by overland travel would be assessed in coordination with BLM to determine if reclamation is needed for recovery of the area. Reclamation work may consist of recontouring eroded areas, extending waterbars, creating berms, installing rock barriers, establishing vegetation, and applying mulch to provide additional erosion control. Disturbed areas would be revegetated as determined necessary by BLM. Temporary disturbance areas on BLM-administered lands would be revegetated using seed mixtures and techniques developed in consultation with the BLM. Noxious weed control would continue on site during the revegetation process according to the specifications stipulated in the project Noxious Weed Management Plan (MWC 2008). Reclamation on SITLA and private lands would occur according to landowner specifications. Specific requirements and additional details of site restoration have been developed in a Reclamation Plan for the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line and other site-specific environmental protection measures developed in the course of the analysis (see Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures).
2.2.2.4 Wind Energy Facility Construction The general construction contractor(s) would prepare each wind turbine generator site; complete site civil work, including construction of access roads and crane pads, installation and commissioning of wind turbine generators and O&M facilities; oversee construction; and complete final cleanup and restoration of temporary disturbance areas.
Material Storage/Staging/Laydown Areas During construction of the Wind Energy Facility, material storage/staging/laydown areas would be established to mobilize construction activities. There would be two 10-acre material storage/staging/laydown areas: one adjacent to the O&M facility and one adjacent to the substation (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout). These areas would be used for temporary office trailers, parking of construction vehicles, construction employees’ personal vehicles, and other construction equipment and temporary material staging and laydown. Both material storage/staging/laydown areas would consist of crushed-gravel surfaces that may be removed following construction, depending on landowner requirements.
Concrete Batch Plant The project would require the construction of concrete foundations for wind turbine towers, transformer pads, the substation equipment, and the O&M building. A portable concrete batch plant would be used to produce concrete for construction. An approximately 10-acre batch plant site would be located on private property within the Wind Energy Facility (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and Appendix A, Milford Wind
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 23 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout). The batch plant would use cement and aggregate delivered from private sources. The batch plant would be powered by an approximately 600-kW portable diesel generator. It is estimated that the batch plant would operate 6 days a week for about 6 months (approximately 1,872 hours) and would produce a total of approximately 58,000 cubic yards of concrete. Diesel fuel storage for the batch plant generator would be approximately 1,500 gallons. The diesel fuel storage tank would be above ground and would sit inside a spill containment area, and spill kits would be available. The concrete batch plant would use water from existing groundwater wells located on private property near northeast corner of the Wind Energy Facility (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout). Water would be trucked from the wells to the batch plant. Water consumption for the batch plant is anticipated to be approximately 35,000 gallons per day, with total consumption for concrete production estimated at approximately 44 acre-feet. Concrete washout operations would be centralized at the batch plant. A small depression would be created within the batch plant area and concrete chutes would be washed into the depression. At the end of concrete operations, residual concrete from washing operations would be broken up and removed for disposal at a landfill or buried in place, and the depression would be filled in.
Access Roads and Turbine Connector Roads New access roads would be constructed along and between the wind turbine arrays, with a main north-south road connecting the turbine array roads to the Wind Energy Facility substation. The location of planned access roads for the Wind Energy Facility are shown on Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and in Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout. The Wind Energy Facility access roads would be constructed to accommodate the width and turning radius of the large trucks delivering the turbine components, as determined by vendor specifications. Access roads would have total permanent width of approximately 40 feet (20 feet of roadbed plus up to 10 feet of graded shoulder on either side for turnouts and large equipment travel, mostly crane walking). In a few specific areas where terrain may require additional grading for equipment passage (sharp drops) and/or ditching and culverts for stormwater runoff and sediment and erosion control, total disturbance could be up to 50 feet All roads would be compacted to meet equipment load requirements, and permanent travel surfaces would have a road base and/or gravel surface. Following construction, maintenance of the road shoulders by grading or clearing would be discontinued, and the road shoulders would be reseeded but retained for crane movement. These roads would continue to be used as turbine connector roads during Wind Energy Facility operation. Approximately 52 miles of new roads would be constructed for construction and operation of the Wind Energy Facility. The footprints of existing County Roads 21400 West Street and 17300 South Street, which generally traverse the east and north sides of the Wind Energy Facility, respectively, would not be changed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 24 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 The large cranes used for assembly of the wind turbines would travel overland to the turbine connector roads along temporary “crane paths” connecting the west ends of the turbine arrays and some of the east ends of the turbine arrays (see Figure 2, Wind Energy Facility Layout, and Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Wind Energy Facility Layout). No clearing or grading would take place except as required by local topographic or soil conditions. Most areas would be traversed only once by the assembly crane. There would be a total of approximately 15 miles of temporary crane paths within the Wind Energy Facility.
Wind Turbine Tower Working Areas and Crane Pads Wind turbine tower construction would involve a 500-foot by 700-foot temporary work area at each wind turbine site for delivery, laydown, and assembly of turbine components. The wind turbine tower would occupy an approximately 40-foot-diameter permanent gravel pad within the temporary work area. In conjunction with access road construction, a 50-foot by 80-foot crane pad would be established at each wind turbine site. The purpose of the crane pad is to provide enough space for a large assembly crane to safely install the tower sections, nacelle, and blades. The crane pad would be leveled and would have a gravel surface. When construction is complete, the crane pad would be retained for O&M functions. Tower pads and crane pads would require clearing and leveling for permanent use. The remaining area within the temporary working area would generally not require clearing or grading except as required by local topographic or vegetation conditions.
Wind Turbine Towers Once the turbine connector road for a particular turbine array has been completed and the wind turbine tower working areas and crane pads have been prepared, turbine foundation construction would commence along that road section. Foundations for the turbine towers would be constructed of poured concrete and steel reinforcement bar (rebar) and would utilize a spread-footing design set in an approximately 14-foot-deep excavation. The foundation design would be tailored to suit the soil and subsurface conditions at the various turbine sites. A reinforced concrete pedestal would be mounted on the concrete footing to hold the tower. The concrete footing would be covered with approximately 6 to 8 feet of compacted backfill and 4 to 6 inches of topsoil, depending on soil conditions. Following construction of the wind turbine foundation, the wind turbine tower and the nacelle/rotor unit would be assembled and erected at each wind turbine site. The staging areas for assembly would be within the temporary work area. Towers are expected to arrive on site in sections and be welded/bolted together as the tower is erected. Towers would be assembled from four approximately 40-foot-long sections, followed by placement of the turbine nacelle and blades. Depending on the manufacturer, the nacelles could contain a preassembled drive train, or the nacelle and drive train could be lifted into place in sections. The rotor and blades would be installed individually after the nacelle has been installed on top of the tower.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 25 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Electrical Collection System Electrical collection system cables would be installed from turbine to turbine in underground trenches. Trenches are typically 1 foot wide by 3 to 4 feet deep. Installation of the electrical collection cables would involve temporary disturbance of 10-foot-wide strips along all turbine arrays and between some of the turbine arrays. The accumulated cables from the individual arrays would be spaced 10 feet apart on either side of the main north-south road in the “home runs” to the substation (see Figure 5, Conceptual Electrical Collection System Home Runs).
Electrical Substation The electrical substation would be located on an approximately 15-acre graveled site on BLM- administered land within the Wind Energy Facility. Construction activities would include: construction of concrete foundations for substation equipment; installation of substation components; and installation of transmission line conductors from the substation to the initial transmission line tower structure. The substation site would be surrounded by an 8-foot-high chain link fence topped with barb wire. The substation would be equipped with an outdoor downcast lighting system. Typical signage would include “Keep Out,” “Danger,” and “High Voltage.”
Operations and Maintenance Facility The O&M facility would permanently occupy approximately 10 acres. Construction of the approximately 30,000-square-foot O&M building would involve conventional construction techniques, with the erection of a 1- or 2-story building on a concrete foundation. There would be no disturbance of BLM-administered lands for the O&M facility.
Meteorological Towers Up to thirteen permanent meteorological towers would be installed at the Wind Energy Facility to measure ambient weather conditions and evaluate the performance of the wind turbines. MWC anticipates using guyed monopole towers.
Information Kiosk The information kiosk would consist of a small shelter built over an informational sign. The sign would be approximately 4 feet high by 8 feet long. The associated roof would extend approximately 3 feet from either side of the sign. The kiosk would be mounted on steel or wood poles at each end of the sign. A graveled parking area capable of accommodating approximately five cars would be located adjacent to and south of the kiosk.
2.2.2.5 Wind Energy Facility Approximate Limits of Disturbance Table 4, Approximate Limits of Temporary Disturbance - Proposed Wind Energy Facility, provides an estimate of temporary disturbance for the various components of the proposed Wind Energy Facility. The approximate disturbance area for each component is itemized by landowner type and total disturbance. Temporary disturbance for each component is considered to be the
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 26 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 to Substation 700 ft. x 500 ft. Work Space
Turbine Electrical Collection Other Line Turbines 34.5KV Other Turbines
Crane Pad ft.
Turbine Connector Road 40
Home Runs (10-foot spacing) from Other Turbine Arrays
Main North-South Access Road
Schematic Not to Scale
Figure 5 Milford Wind Corridor Project Conceptual Electrical Collection System Home Runs construction disturbance area less the permanently occupied area (permanent disturbance). Temporary disturbance related to construction of the Wind Energy Facility is estimated at approximately 1,468 acres. Table 5, Approximate Limits of Permanent Disturbance - Proposed Wind Energy Facility, provides an estimate of permanent disturbance for the various components of the proposed Wind Energy Facility. Permanent disturbance related to the Wind Energy Facility is estimated at approximately 308 acres. Approximately 255 acres of this total would be associated with Wind Energy Facility access roads. The wind turbine generators would together occupy only 20 acres for the permanent crane pads and turbine tower pads.
2.2.2.6 Wind Energy Facility Operation and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Work Force After construction, on-site personnel would operate and maintain the Wind Energy Facility. Operation of the Wind Energy Facility would require approximately 12 to 15 full-time employees. The operations work force would include an on-site facility manager, administrative support, SCADA instrument and wind turbine technicians, and other maintenance and operations personnel. The majority of the employees would be full-time over the calendar year and throughout the anticipated life of the Milford Wind Corridor Project.
Operations and Maintenance Activities Routine maintenance of the wind turbine generators would be necessary to optimize performance and to detect potential malfunctions. O&M procedures would be established that define specific routine wind turbine generator maintenance and inspection activities based on the wind turbine generator manufacturer’s recommendations. Substation maintenance activities would include routine, scheduled equipment maintenance, grounds keeping, and emergency maintenance in the event of equipment failure. Transformers, large step-up transformers, and pad-mounted transformers would be maintained as part of normal O&M activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 27 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008
TABLE 4 Approximate Limits of Temporary Disturbance – Proposed Wind Energy Facility* Component Dimensions Area Number or Number or Number or Total Area on BLM- Area on Area on Total Each Length on BLM- Length on Length on Number or Administered State Private Area (acres) Administered State Private Length Lands (acres) Lands Lands (acres) Lands Lands Lands (acres) (acres) Wind Turbine Work 500-foot by 700- 8.03 52 8 99 159 417.56 64.24 794.97 1276.77 Areas foot Wind Turbine -- Included in wind turbine work areas. 0 Crane Pads Electrical Collection 9 feet additional 1.09 acres 26.88 miles 2.4 miles 44.72 miles 74 miles 29.30 2.62 48.74 82.6 System width per mile Electrical Substation -- All disturbance considered permanent. No additional temporary disturbance. 0 Access Roads -- All disturbance accounted for as permanent. 0 Crane Path 40 feet wide 4.85 acres 3.13 miles 0.52 mile 6.02 miles 9.67 miles 15.18 2.52 29.20 46.90 per mile O& M Facility -- All disturbance considered permanent. No additional temporary disturbance. 0 12.47-kV Overhead 40 feet by 40 feet 0.04 0 0 53 53 0 0 2.12 2.12 Station Service Electrical Supply Construction Access 10 feet wide 1.21 acres 0 0 2.5 miles 2.5 miles 0 0 3.03 3.03 for 12.47-kV Overhead per mile Station Service Electrical Supply via Overland Travel 13.5-kV Underground 9 feet additional 1.09 acres 0 0 1.34 miles 0 0 0 1.46 1.46 Electrical Connection width per mile Fiber Optic Cable -- Installation coincident with 13.5-kV underground station service electrical connection. No additional temporary disturbance. 0 Information Kiosk -- All disturbance considered permanent. No additional temporary disturbance. 0 Meteorological Tower 340-foot-diameter 2.10 4 1 8 13 8.40 2.10 16.80 27.30 Work Areas circular occupied area Access Roads to -- All disturbance accounted for as permanent. 0 Meteorological Towers Material -- 10 1 0 1 2 10 0 10 Storage/Staging/ 20.00 Laydown Areas Concrete Batch Plant -- 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 10 10.00 Approximate Total Additional Temporary Disturbance 480 72 916 1,468 * Temporary disturbance in addition to areas permanently occupied by project features.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 28 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008
TABLE 5 Approximate Limits of Permanent Disturbance – Proposed Wind Energy Facility Component Dimensions Area Number or Number or Number or Total Area on BLM- Area on Area on Total Each Length on BLM- Length on Length on Number or Administered State Private Area (acres) Administered State Private Length Lands (acres) Lands Lands (acres) Lands Lands Lands (acres) (acres) Wind Turbine Tower 40-foot-diameter 0.029 52 8 99 159 1.51 0.23 2.87 4.61 Pads circular pad
Wind Turbine Crane 50-foot by 80-foot 0.092 52 8 99 159 4.78 0.74 9.11 14.63 Pads pad Electrical Collection 1 foot wide 0.12 acre 26.88 miles 2.4 miles 44.72 miles 74 miles 3.23 0.29 5.37 8.89 System per mile Electrical Substation -- 15 1 0 0 1 15.00 0 0 15.00 Access Roads 40 feet wide 4.85 acres 18.08 miles 1.76 miles 32.5 miles 52.34 miles 87.69 8.54 157.63 253.86 per mile Crane Path -- No permanent disturbance. 0 O& M Facility -- 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 10 10.00 12.47-kV Overhead 3-foot by 3-foot 0.0002 0 0 53 53 0 0 0.01 0.01 Station Service Electrical Supply (poles) Construction Access -- No permanent disturbance. 0 for 12.47-kV Overhead Station Service Electrical Supply via Overland Travel 13.5-kV Underground 1 foot wide 0.12 acre 0 0 1.34 miles 1.34 miles 0 0 0.16 0.16 Electrical Connection per mile Fiber Optic Cable -- Installation coincident with 13.5-kV underground station service electrical connection. No additional permanent disturbance. 0 Information Kiosk -- 0.05 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.05 0.05 Meteorological Towers -- 0.0029 4 1 8 13 0.0116 0.0029 .0232 0.04 Access Roads to 20 feet wide by 0.046 4 1 8 13 0.184 0.046 0.368 0.60 Meteorological Towers 100 feet long Material -- No permanent disturbance. 0 Storage/Staging/ Laydown Areas Concrete Batch Plant -- No permanent disturbance. 0 Approximate Total Permanent Disturbance 112 10 186 308 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 29 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Periodic inspection and/or maintenance of underground electrical collection lines may be required during the life of the project. Maintenance activities would be conducted pursuant to prudent utility practices.
Site Maintenance Once reclamation is complete and vegetation is stable following construction of the Wind Energy Facility, noxious weed surveys would continue as necessary. Routine maintenance of the Wind Energy Facility would include weed monitoring and treatment as outlined in the project Noxious Weed Management Plan (MWC 2008).
Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Management Potentially hazardous materials used for operations and maintenance of the wind turbine generators and associated facilities may include mineral oils (turbine lubricant and transformer coolant), synthetic oils (turbine lubricant and gear oil), general lubricants, general cleaners, ethylene glycol (anti-freeze), vehicle fuel, and herbicides for weed control. No hazardous materials would be generated by operation of the project. Hazardous materials would be stored at the O&M building. Hazardous materials usage, storage, and disposal would be in accordance with the project Hazardous Materials Management Plan and would comply with applicable local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations. Accidental releases of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel for vehicles or lubricating oil for turbines) would be prevented or minimized through proper containment of these substances during use and transportation to the site. Hazardous wastes would be removed and disposed of in an appropriately permitted disposal facility. Hazardous substances or hazardous wastes that are oils themselves or mixed with oils are subject to SPCC rule requirements and would be managed according to the project SPCC Plan for project operation and maintenance. Spill prevention and control measures for petroleum- related products, as well as for diesel storage areas at the O&M facility and the substation, are included in the SPCC Plan. Very little solid waste would be produced during normal operations.
2.2.2.7 Wind Energy Facility Decommissioning At such time as the BLM ROW expires and is not renewed, the Milford Wind Corridor Project would be decommissioned. Decommissioning is a step-by-step deconstruction process that would involve removing and disposing of the infrastructure and appurtenant facilities associated with the Wind Energy Facility. At the time of decommissioning, a decommissioning plan will be prepared to address the specific details of decommissioning. In general, decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility would involve disassembling the wind turbine generators and associated infrastructure and salvaging valuable equipment, such as wind turbines, towers, electric generators, substation components, and materials such as steel and copper. Unsalvageable materials would be disposed of at authorized locations. Appurtenant infrastructure, including conductors, cables, and roads, would be removed unless otherwise allowed to remain in place.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 30 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Following removal of project facilities, the Wind Energy Facility site would undergo final cleanup and reclamation. Turbine foundations would be partially or completely removed, and turbine and crane pads and site access roads would be removed, recontoured, and reseeded, as appropriate. Areas disturbed during removal of Wind Energy Facility features would be restored and rehabilitated as near as possible to their original condition and would be available for the same uses that existed prior to construction of the project.
2.2.3 Transmission Line 2.2.3.1 Transmission Line Route The proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project transmission line route would travel west from the Wind Energy Facility substation in T26S, R9W, S18 (Salt Lake Base Meridian) approximately 6 miles to the existing IPP transmission line. After this point, the proposed transmission line route would generally parallel the IPP transmission line north to the IPP substation in T15S, R7W, S24 near Delta, Utah. The proposed transmission line would be offset approximately 250 feet to the east of the centerline of the existing IPP transmission line. Figure 1, Project Overview, provides an overview of the proposed transmission line route; the maps provided in Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor, show the details of the proposed transmission line alignment.
2.2.3.2 Transmission Line Components The principal components of the proposed transmission line include:
• Approximately 88 miles of new, overhead 345-kV transmission line for interconnection with the IPP substation near Delta, Utah • Approximately 400 345-kV H-frame steel tower structures, turning-point structures, and dead-end structures • Communications (fiber optic and radio) and system protection facilities • An interconnection facility (i.e., switching station) at the IPP substation for connection between the project transmission line and the IPP substation • Access roads.
Transmission Line Structures The transmission line structures would be steel, two-pole, H-frame towers (see Figure 6, Typical H-Frame Transmission Line Tower Structure). Turning-point and dead-end structures would be 3- pole, steel structures. The tower structures would be Corten or equivalent steel that would weather to a brown color. Tower heights would vary from 80 to 135 feet above the ground surface, depending on terrain and type of structure; approximately two-thirds of the towers are in the 105- to 115-foot range. Spans between towers would range from approximately 650 feet to approximately 1,450 feet, with an average span distance of approximately 1,200 feet. The proposed transmission line would require approximately 400 towers.2
2 The exact number and placement of transmission line tower structures would depend on the final design of the transmission line, which would be influenced by factors such as terrain, environmental constraints within the ROW, and landowner participation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 31 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 ’ ’-
Figure 6 Typical Steel Pole H-Frame Transmission Line Tower Structure The transmission line would have a permanent ROW width of approximately 175 feet. Turning-point and dead-end structures would require guy wire anchors up to 110 feet from the structure, and these would be placed within the permanent ROW. The H-frame steel tower structures would each occupy approximately 18 square feet (3 feet by 3 feet for each of two poles). Angle and dead-end structures would each occupy approximately 27 square feet (3 feet by 3 feet for each of three poles) plus an additional 36 square feet and 90 square feet, respectively, for anchors. Design of the transmission line would be consistent with recommendations for reducing impacts of power lines on birds found in Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 by Edison Electric Institute and the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 2006). Non-reflective conductors would be used.
Communications and System Protection Systems MWC is proposing to use both fiber optics and a digital radio system for essential communication and system protection needs, as well as for voice and data communications information relay. A modular-unit-type fiber optic regeneration station would be constructed on BLM- administered land approximately midway along the transmission line (see Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor). The facility would be a small building approximately 8 feet wide by 10 feet long by 12 feet high with a small, graveled parking area. The building would be painted to blend with the surrounding landscape. The total disturbance area would be approximately 1.36 acres. The permanent footprint, including parking and access requirements, is approximately approximately 1.27 acres. Power would be provided to the regeneration facility from a Rocky Mountain Power distribution line located nearby. The overhead power supply line would be approximately 250 feet long and would cross County Road West 16500 South. The power supply line would be located within the permanent ROW for the project transmission line. Permanent disturbance for the power supply line is estimated to be 0.06 acre.
Interconnect Facility The proposed 345-kV transmission line would terminate at the existing IPP substation. A power interconnection bay is currently available at the IPP substation, and all interconnection construction activities would occur within the existing IPP substation.
Access Roads The existing access road along the IPP transmission line would be used to provide access to approximately 77 miles of the 88-mile-long transmission line. Access from the IPP road to the transmission line tower structure sites and to pulling and tensioning sites along this section would be by overland travel where possible. Where necessary, short spur roads would be created from the IPP transmission line access road to tower sites or pulling and tensioning sites (see Section 2.2.2.3, Transmission Line Construction, Access Road Construction). For purposes of analysis is this EA, it is assumed that all access points would require construction of spur roads. Spur roads would vary in length but would, in general, be on the order of 250 feet long.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 32 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 New access roads would also be constructed in the approximately 6-mile-long reach between the substation and the existing IPP transmission line access road. (see Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor, Maps 1, 2, and 3) and in another approximately 5-mile-long stretch where non-participating land ownership requires the proposed transmission line to diverge from the IPP transmission line and access road (see Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor, Maps 4 and 5). These new roads would pass immediately adjacent to the transmission line tower structure work areas, and no spur roads would be required in these sections. All new transmission line access roads would have a disturbance area of 24 feet, including a 20- foot travel width and 4 feet of berm or ditching along the sides. The total estimated length of new road construction is approximately 39 miles.
2.2.3.3 Transmission Line Construction Constructing a transmission line involves identifying and constructing access roads; surveying the centerline along rights-of-way; clearing and grading structure sites; excavation for transmission line tower structure installation; assembling and erecting tower structures; pulling (i.e., stringing transmission line conductors through hardware on the structures), tensioning, and splicing; installing ground wires, conductors, and ground rods; and cleanup and site reclamation. Construction would occur concurrently at various locations along the transmission line corridor. This would require several construction crews operating simultaneously throughout the construction process. In addition to standard construction vehicles and equipment, helicopters would be used to string conductor wire, deliver personnel and material to work areas, and/or erect tower structures.
Temporary Use Areas Construction of the transmission line would require several types of temporary use areas. These temporary use areas are defined by their function and location, as described below. Material Storage/Staging/Laydown Areas • Staging Site 1 – 16.25 acres on private land in the southern portion of the transmission line route • Staging Site 2 – 20.44 acres on state land near the middle of the transmission line route • Staging Site 3 – 35.66 acres on private land in the northern portion of the transmission line route Tower Structure Work Areas There would typically be a 175-foot by 175-foot temporary work area at each transmission line tower structure site for equipment access and tower construction (see Transmission Line Tower Structure Assembly and Erection, below). In steep or rough terrain, grading may be required to accommodate tower sites. Pulling and Tensioning Areas Approximately 100 pulling and tensioning areas would be spaced approximately 2.5 to 3 miles apart along the transmission line route (see Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor). These work areas would be used as part of conductor
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 33 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 installation (see Conductor Installation, below). Mid-span pulling and tensioning sites would vary in size but would typically be about 175 feet by 400 feet, and dead-end structure sites would be about 175 feet by 600 feet. Pulling and tensioning sites for the transmission line are shown in Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor.
Access Road Construction The existing IPP transmission line access road is generally adequate to support project transmission line construction activities with only minor grading and road repair to allow for safe vehicle travel. Spur roads to tower structure sites and pulling and tensioning sites would be constructed with 50-foot turning aprons connecting to the IPP transmission line road. The spur road aprons would be used as turnouts for vehicle passing on the IPP access road. Locations of spur roads are shown in Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor. To the extent possible, drainages would be crossed at grade. Where at-grade crossings are not feasible, culverts would be installed. Standard design techniques such as installing water bars and dips to control erosion may be used in sloped areas. Following construction, the width of the spur roads and the sections of new access road would be reduced from 24 feet wide to 12 feet wide to support O&M functions during project operation.
Transmission Line Tower Structure Assembly and Erection A vehicle-mounted power auger or backhoe would typically be used to excavate holes for placement of the tower structures within each tower structure work area. In extremely sandy areas, soils may be stabilized using water or a gelling agent prior to and during excavation. In rocky areas, the holes may need to be excavated by drilling or blasting. Towers may be installed by conventional assembly and erection methods or with the use of helicopters. The conventional method would typically be used to erect the transmission line tower structures, but the helicopter method may be used in some instances. In the conventional method of assembly and erection, transmission line components and associated hardware would be delivered to each tower site, tower sections would be fastened together to form a complete structure, and the structure would be hoisted into place by a large crane. In the helicopter method of erection, transmission line components and associated hardware would be delivered to a centralized area by truck, where the steel members would be assembled into complete structures. After a given number of structures have been completely assembled, a helicopter would be mobilized to the project site to set the structures in place. Following tower placement, the holes would be backfilled with structural fill material brought to the site for that purpose. Concrete and anchor bolt foundations would be used for the three transmission tower structures nearest the IPP substation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 34 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Conductor Installation After the transmission line tower structures are erected, they would be rigged with insulator strings and stringing sheaves at each ground wire, communications, and conductor position. A pilot line would be pulled (strung) from pole to pole by helicopter and threaded through the stringing sheaves at each structure. A larger diameter, stronger line (the pulling line) would then be attached to the pilot line and strung. This process is repeated until the ground wire, communications cable, and conductors are pulled through all sheaves. All cables would be strung using powered pulling equipment at one end and powered braking or tensioning equipment at the other end of each conductor stringing segment.
XECONEX implosive connecting devices3 would be used to connect the conductor segments at the end of each reel and at the end of every dead-end structure. The implosive connectors essentially use a contained explosion to melt and fuse the ends of the conductors, replacing conventional hydraulically compressed fittings. The devices would be used approximately every 11,245 feet for each mid-span connection and at every dead-end structure, with approximately 690 implosive connecting devices for the entire transmission line. Associated sound pressure would be at low levels and of very short duration. In order to minimize potential public concerns, MWC would notify nearby residents and/or put up signs along roads prior to using the implosive devices. For public protection during wire installation, guard structures would be erected over highways, railroads, power-lines, structures, and other features. Guard structures may not be required for small roads or other areas where suitable safety measures such as barriers, flagmen, or other traffic controls could be used.
2.2.3.4 Transmission Line Approximate Limits of Disturbance Table 6, Approximate Limits of Temporary Disturbance – Proposed Transmission Line, summarizes the approximate disturbance for the various components of the proposed transmission line. The approximate disturbance area for each component is itemized by landowner type and total disturbance. Temporary disturbance for each component is considered to be the construction disturbance area less the permanently occupied area (permanent disturbance). Temporary disturbance related to transmission line construction is estimated at approximately 580 acres. Table 7, Approximate Limits of Permanent Disturbance – Proposed Transmission Line, summarizes the approximate disturbance for the various components of the proposed transmission line. Permanent disturbance related to transmission line is estimated at approximately 53 acres, approximately 51 acres of which is associated with new transmission line access roads. The transmission line tower structures would together permanently occupy less than 0.25 acre.
3 Manufactured by Implo Technologies, Inc. (Markham, Ontario)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 35 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 6 Approximate Limits of Temporary Disturbance – Proposed Transmission Line* Component Dimensions Area Number or Number Number Total Area on BLM- Area on Area on Total Each Length on BLM- or Length or Length Number Administered State Private Area (acres) Administered on State on Private or Length Lands (acres) Lands Lands (acres) Lands Lands Lands (acres) (acres) H-Frame Tangent 175-foot by 175- 0.70 320 12 41 373 224 8.4 28.7 261.1 Transmission Line Tower foot Structure Work Areas Angle Structure Work 175-foot by 175- 0.70 6 1 0 7 4.2 0.7 0 4.9 Areas including Anchors foot Dead-end Structure Work 175-foot by 175- 0.70 15 3 2 20 10.5 2.1 1.4 14 Areas including Anchors foot Pulling and Tensioning 175-foot by 400- 1.6 82 11 9 102 131.2 17.60 14.40 163.2 Sites foot Regeneration Station -- 1.36 1 0 0 1 1.36 0 0 1.36 Interconnection Facility -- No temporary disturbance. 0 New Access Roads from 12 feet additional 1.46 acres 20.95 miles 1.57 miles 1.49 miles 24.01 miles 30.59 2.29 2.18 35.06 IPP Road to Tower Sites width per mile New Access Roads from 24 feet wide 2.91 acres 3.41 miles 0.26 mile 0.24 mile 3.91 miles 9.92 0.76 0.70 11.38 IPP Road to per mile Pulling/Tensioning Sites Other New Access Roads 12 feet additional 1.46 acres 8.06 miles 0.43 mile 2.7 miles 11.19 miles 11.77 0.63 3.94 16.34 width per mile Material Storage/Staging/ Various Various 0 1 2 3 0 20.44 51.91 72.35 Laydown Areas Approximate Total Temporary Disturbance 424 53 103 580 * Temporary disturbance in addition to areas permanently occupied by project features.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 36 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008
TABLE 7 Approximate Limits of Permanent Disturbance – Proposed Transmission Line Component Dimensions Area Number or Number Number Total Area on BLM- Area on Area on Total Each Length on BLM- or Length or Length Number Administered State Private Area (acres) Administered on State on Private or Length Lands (acres) Lands Lands (acres) Lands Lands Lands (acres) (acres) H-Frame Tangent (2) 3-foot by 3- 0.0004 320 12 41 373 0.13 0.005 0.017 0.1492 Transmission Line Tower foot areas Structures Angle Structures (3) 3-foot by 3- 0.0006 6 1 0 7 0.0036 0.0006 0 0.0042 (towers) foot areas Angle Structures (4) 3-foot by 3- 0.0008 6 1 0 7 0.0048 0.0008 0 0.0056 (anchors) foot areas Dead-end Structures (3) 3-foot by 3- 0.0006 15 3 2 20 0.009 0.0018 0.0012 0.012 (towers) foot areas Dead-end Structures (10) 3-foot by 3- 0.002 15 3 2 20 0.03 0.006 0.004 0.04 (anchors) foot areas Pulling and Tensioning -- No permanent disturbance. 0 Sites Regeneration Station -- 1.27 1 0 0 1 1.27 0 0 1.27 Interconnection Facility -- No permanent disturbance. 0 New Access Roads from 12 feet wide 1.46 20.95 miles 1.57 miles 1.49 miles 24.01 miles 30.59 2.29 2.18 35.06 IPP Road to Tower Sites acres per mile New Access Roads from -- No permanent disturbance. 0 IPP Road to Pulling/Tensioning Sites Other New Access Roads 12 feet wide 1.46 8.06 miles 0.43 mile 2.7 miles 11.19 miles 11.77 0.63 3.94 16.34 acres per mile Material Storage/Staging/ Various No permanent surface disturbance. 0 Laydown Areas Approximate Total Permanent Disturbance 44 3 6 53
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 37 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 2.2.3.5 Transmission Line Operation and Maintenance After construction, on-site personnel would operate and maintain the transmission line.
Permitted Uses After the transmission line has been energized, land uses that are compatible with safety regulations could be allowed within and adjacent to the permanent ROW. Incompatible land uses would include construction and maintenance of inhabited dwellings and any use requiring a change in surface elevation that would affect electrical clearances of existing or planned facilities.
Safety Safety is a primary concern in the design of the proposed transmission line and related facilities. The transmission line would be protected with power circuit breakers and related line relay protection equipment. Lightning protection would be provided by overhead ground wires (shield wires) along the line. Electrical equipment and fencing at the substation would be grounded. Existing fences, metal gates, and pipelines that cross or are within the transmission line ROW would be grounded to prevent electrical shock. Design and construction would be coordinated with utilities operating facilities along the project alignment to ensure that prudent safety requirements are met. Buried water and gas pipelines co-located with overhead electrical transmission lines are subject to the influence of electromagnetic fields that may result in safety concerns for people making contact with the pipeline and long-term corrosion damage to the pipeline. Site-specific analyses to determine proper mitigation requirements would be completed during final design and construction planning.
Maintenance The transmission line would be inspected on a regular basis by ground or aerial patrols, and maintenance would be performed as needed. Emergency maintenance would involve prompt movement of crews to repair or replace any damaged equipment. Specific training would be provided to all maintenance crews instructing them on plans, procedures, and policy requirements. When access is required for maintenance and repairs, the same precautions identified for original construction would be followed. Crews would be instructed, in accordance with specific maintenance plans and procedures, to protect crops, vegetation, wildlife, and other resources of significance. Restoration procedures following completion of repair work would be similar to those prescribed for original construction. Substation maintenance activities would include routine, scheduled equipment maintenance, grounds keeping, and emergency maintenance in the event of equipment failure.
2.2.3.6 Transmission Line Decommissioning The proposed transmission line would have a projected operational life of at least 30 years. At such time as the project is beyond its operational life and is no longer needed, the transmission line would be removed from service. At such time, transmission line tower structures, conductors, insulators, and hardware would be dismantled and removed from the ROW.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 38 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Areas disturbed during removal of the transmission line from the ROW would be restored and rehabilitated as near as possible to their original condition and would be available for the same uses that existed prior to construction of the project.
2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
2.3.1 Alternative Wind Energy Facility Site Lands to the south of the proposed project area were considered for development of the Wind Energy Facility. These other sites were eliminated because they are closer to residential areas in Milford, and locating wind turbines there might interfere with the flight path to the Milford Municipal Airport.
2.3.2 Alternative Transmission Line Interconnection Interconnection to local PacifiCorp 46-kV to 230-kV transmission lines was considered as an alternative to building a longer 345-kV transmission line and interconnecting to the IPP substation near Delta, Utah. These smaller, existing transmission lines were eliminated from further consideration because they would not provide sufficient capacity to optimize economies of scale necessary to achieve an investment-grade wind energy project.
2.3.3 Utah State Route 257 Corridor Alternative Transmission Line Route Serious consideration was given to an alternative transmission line route that would have in part utilized the BLM-designated Utah State Route 257 and Union Pacific Railway corridor. This transmission line alignment would have followed the same route as the proposed transmission line to the base of the Cricket Mountains. There it would have turned eastward toward Utah State Route 257, which it would have followed north-northeast approximately 35 miles, and then diverged east, north, and west around Delta, Utah, to the IPP substation. This alternative was presented during public scoping of the project in September and October of 2007. Many of the resource studies conducted for the proposed transmission line route were also conducted for this alternative route. The Utah State Route 257 alternative transmission line route was ultimately eliminated from further consideration in May 2008 because the route was unacceptable in Millard County due to incompatible land use designations and planned land uses in the portion of the county through which it would have passed. This alternative would also have crossed a large playa area near Clear Lake, where construction could have resulted in potential disturbance and impacts to wetland resources.
2.3.4 Other Alternative Transmission Line Routes A number of other alternative transmission line routes were considered. These alternative routes were eliminated because they would not have utilized BLM-designated corridors as fully as the proposed transmission line route analyzed in this EA. One alternative route extending north from the Wind Energy Facility was eliminated due to increased disturbance and impacts to sage grouse habitat.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 39 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 2.4 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would deny MWC’s ROW application, and MWC would not construct and operate the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Approximately 300 MW of renewable electrical capacity would fail to be generated at the site and would need to be produced at other locations and/or by other renewable or non-renewable energy sources in order to meet national and regional energy objectives. Under the No Action Alternative, MWC would likely seek to construct a similar wind energy facility elsewhere. Analysis of the No Action Alternative in this EA provides a baseline for analysis of potential impacts that could occur under the Proposed Action.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 40 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Introduction This section describes the current condition of elements of the human and natural environment that would or could be affected by the Proposed Action. This information serves as a baseline from which to identify and evaluate environmental and socioeconomic impacts likely to result from implementation of the Proposed Action. In compliance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines, this EA focuses on critical elements of the human environment and other resources potentially subject to impacts from the Proposed Action as determined through BLM’s internal review and public scoping. BLM ID Checklists identified issues or concerns related to the resource areas described in this section (see Section 1.7, Identification of Issues). Resources that would not be impacted or are not found in the project area are included in these checklists but are not discussed further in this EA. Several critical elements of the environment are not evaluated in this EA because it was determined that implementation of the Proposed Action would be unlikely to have any impacts on these resources. The ID Checklists are provided in Appendix B, Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklists. Within the individual resource areas, descriptions of the affected environment focus on those components that were identified as being potentially impacted. Thus, regional discussion of a particular resource is limited to establishing the context of the resource in the project area, and components of a particular resource area that do not occur in the project area or would not be affected by the project are not described.
3.2 General Setting The Milford Wind Corridor Project is located within the Great Basin in southwestern Utah. The Great Basin consists of north-trending, fault-block ranges and intervening flat-floored valleys (basin and range topography). The Great Basin is internally drained by ephemeral streams. The Milford Valley, in which the Milford Wind Energy Facility would be sited, and areas to the north that would be traversed by the proposed transmission line corridor, are typical of these land forms. Extensive flat, barren, salty playas and salt flats occur on valley floors, and these are ponded during wet intervals and eroded by wind when dry. Arid valleys, slopes, and alluvial fans are either shrub and/or grass-covered or barren, and scattered sand dunes may be present. Woodlands are found at higher elevations on mountain slopes (EPA 2008). The project area experiences a continental climate, with cold, dry winters and hot, dry summers. Mean minimum and maximum January temperatures are approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) and 44° F, respectively. Mean minimum and maximum July temperatures are approximately 46° F and 94° F, respectively. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 4 inches to 12 inches throughout the area (EPA 2008). The project area experiences snow during the winter
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 41 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 and occasional, often intense thunderstorms during the summer. Frequent windy conditions make the area a candidate for wind energy development.
The Milford Valley is primarily used for grazing and as wildlife habitat, and irrigated cropland, including alfalfa, barley, corn silage, pasture, and sugar beets, is found in the valley near water sources. Large livestock and poultry farms and dairy operations are found locally (EPA 2008).
3.3 Critical Elements of the Human Environment and Other Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis
3.3.1 Land Use 3.3.1.1 Rights-of-Way The BLM has designated several major rights-of-way in the project area as corridors (“BLM- designated corridors”). As required by Section 503 of FLPMA, “… utilization of rights-of-way in common shall be required to the extent practical ….” The utilization of existing corridors, whether designated or not, is standard procedure. New rights-of-way are restricted to these corridors wherever feasible, and transmission line rights-of-way are expected to be adjacent to one another or located as close together as possible (BLM 1987a, BLM 1987b). BLM-designated corridors in the project area as listed in Table 8, Designated Corridors in the Milford Wind Corridor Project Area.
TABLE 8 Designated Corridors in the Milford Wind Corridor Project Area Corridor Name Corridor Width (feet) Designated Uses
IPP to California 500-kV Transmission Line 1,500 All utility uses
IPP to Nevada Transmission Line 1,500 All utility uses
IPP to Mona, Utah, Transmission Line 1,500 All utility uses
Mona North and South Transmission Lines 1,500 All utility uses
Sigurd to Nevada Transmission Line 1,500 All utility uses
Interstate Highway 15 3,000 All uses
U.S. Highways 6 and 50 2,000 All uses
Utah State Route 257 and Union Pacific Railway 2,000 All uses Source: BLM 1987a, BLM 1987b For most of its distance, the proposed transmission line route would follow the designated corridor of the IPP to California Transmission Line (referred to as the IPP transmission line in this EA). The proposed transmission line route would cross other designated transmission line ROWs, including the IPP to Nevada Transmission Line corridor and the Sigurd to Nevada Transmission Line corridor. The project would also intersect several designated transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 42 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 ROW corridors, including the U.S. Highways 6 and 50 corridor and the Utah State Route 257 and Union Pacific Railway corridor. No designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Class II Visual Resource Management (VRM) areas, or other ROW avoidance areas are located in the project area (BLM 1987a, BLM 1987b).
3.3.1.2 Livestock Grazing Open rangeland is plentiful in the vicinity of the project and is the primary land use in the area. Although most of the public land in the area is available for grazing, portions of the area are not grazed by livestock due to limitations such as playa areas, localized steep topography, and scarcity of water sources. Some grazing areas that are unsuitable for livestock are used by wildlife. The project area includes several BLM grazing allotments. Allotments are areas where livestock operators may graze their livestock on public land for a fee, subject to stocking levels, seasons of use, and other stipulations of the grazing permit. In the project area, allotments are used to graze cattle or sheep. Grazing allotments that include parts of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site include the Black Rock Summer and Hanson allotments. Grazing allotments that include lands that would be crossed by the proposed transmission line include the Beaver Lake, Chalk Knolls, Crickett, Deseret, Hanson, Red Rock, Seely, Smelter Mountain, Smithson, Sugarville, and Twin Peaks allotments. The livestock season of use within CCFO allotments is from November 1 through May 15. Some allotments in the FFO are grazed during the winter and spring from November 1 through April 30, and others are grazed during the spring, summer, and fall from April 1 through October 31. The majority of the grazing allotments in the area have been managed with prescribed grazing systems, utilizing existing pasture fences, water developments, and some rangeland seedings (BLM 1987a). Grazing and fire have reduced native grass abundance and promoted the establishment of cheatgrass in the area (Woods et al. 2001). Areas burned in the 2007 Milford Flat Wildfire are being rehabilitated with native and non-native seed mixtures through 2007/2008 Emergency Stabilization efforts. Stock watering wells and reservoirs include Bowley’s Well, North Clay Knolls Reservoir, and West Marshall Tract Reservoir, which are located near transmission line towers 243, 263, and 282, respectively (see Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor). The proposed transmission line would also pass over pipelines related to stock watering.
3.3.2 Soils Information on soils for the Milford Wind Corridor Project area was obtained from Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) GIS data for Beaver County (NRCS 2007), the Soil Survey of Delta Area, Utah, Part of Millard County (SCS 1977), and coordination with the Utah State NRCS office (NRCS 2008). The Milford Wind Corridor Project area is situated within the arid Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins, Sagebrush Basins and Slopes, and Salt Deserts ecoregions (EPA 2008). The majority of
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 43 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 the project is within the Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins ecoregion, which contains high salt- and alkali-content soils that are dry for extended periods. Southern portions of the project area are within the Sagebrush Basins and Slopes ecoregion, which is characterized by coarse- textured soils that are also dry for extended periods. The Wind Energy Facility site occupies several soil associations. Primary soil associations from south to north within the facility site includes Drum-Tayolorsflat, Harding-Berent, Saltair- Playas, Uvada-Skumpah, and Robozo-Petaca associations (NRCS 2007). These associations comprise multiple soil types, several of which dominate the entire Wind Energy Facility site. Dominant soil types occurring within the Wind Energy Facility site are Hiko Peak-Crestline complex, Robozo silt loam, Dixie-Garbo complex, Uvada-Playas complex, and Thermosprings silt loam (NRCS 2008). These soils range from deep to shallow well drained and excessively drained loams, strongly saline and moderately alkali sands, very cobbly loams, sandy silt loams, and rock land (NRCS 2008). These soil types primarily occupy relatively flat sites (0 to 8 percent slopes) and are considered to have a moderate to low wind erodibility index (NRCS 2008). NRCS ecological sites (formerly known as range sites) for the Wind Energy Facility site generally include Semidesert Gravelly Loam, Desert Flats, and Alkali Flats. The transmission line corridor includes multiple soil associations and soil types. The southern end of the transmission line route from the Wind Energy Facility to about the middle of the Cricket Mountains is primarily dominated by the Uvada-Skumpah and Dera Sandy Loam associations (NRCS 2008). Dominant soil types include the Uvada Playas complex, Dera sandy clay loam, and Hiko Springs-Lynndyl complex soil types. These soils are well drained and relatively flat (1 to 5 percent slopes), with a low to moderate wind erodibility index, strongly saline to very strongly saline and moderately alkali to strongly alkali silt loams and gravelly silt loams (NRCS 2008). NRCS ecological sites include Desert Gravelly Sandy Loam, Desert Sandy Loam, and Semidesert Gravelly Loam. From the middle of the Cricket Mountains north, soils crossed by the proposed transmission line route include the Hiko Springs-Checkett-Rock land, Uvada-Playas-Goshute, Yuba-Uffens- Uvada, Abraham-Anco-Abbot, and Yenrab-Uvada soil associations (SCS 1977). Soils in the Hiko Springs-Checkett-Rock land association occur where the proposed transmission line route follows the eastern base of the Crickett Mountains. Soils are well-drained sandy loams, very cobbly loams, and rock land. Runoff is rapid due to the relatively steep (up to 40 percent) slopes, and the hazard of water erosion is severe (SCS 1977). NRCS ecological sites include Desert Gravelly Loam and Semidesert Stony Hills. North of the Cricket Mountains, soils in the Uvada-Playas-Goshute association are deep, well- drained, strongly saline to moderately alkali silt loams and gravelly silt loams. Playas are included in this association, and alluvial lands occur along river bottoms and floodplains. Soils in the Yuba-Uffens-Uvada association are deep, well-drained, strongly saline to moderately alkali silty clay loams, sandy clay loams, and silt loams. Near the northwestern extent of the transmission line route, this soils association includes soils of the Mazuma family complex, a soil type with a high wind erosion hazard (NRCS 2008). East toward the IPP substation, the transmission line route crosses the Abraham-Anco-Abbot association. Soils in the Abraham-Anco-Abbot association are deep, poorly drained, and saline to slightly alkali loams, silty clay loams, and silty clays. Near the IPP substation, the transmission line route crosses several miles of the Yenrab-Uvada soil association. Soils in this
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 44 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 association are deep, well drained and somewhat excessively drained, strongly saline to very strongly saline and moderately to strongly alkali sands and silt loams. Most of these soils in all of these associations occupy very level sites (predominantly 0 to 2 percent), so runoff is slow or very slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight (SCS 1977). NRCS ecological sites for the this section of the transmission line route are primarily Desert Alkali Flats, with some Desert Alkali Bench, Desert Flats, and Desert Salt Flats. Small areas of Yenrab fine sand (undulating) are included in the Yenrab-Uvada and Yuba- Uffens-Uvada soil associations. Sand dunes and hummocks are common in this soil type; sand dunes may range from a few inches to 25 feet high. Where encountered by the proposed transmission line route, these features range from small hummocks developing around shrubs to dunes up to approximately 5 feet high. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. The hazard of soil blowing is high or severe (SCS 1977).
3.3.3 Paleontological Resources The Milford Wind Corridor Project area is believed to have potential for containing paleontological resources. Consultation with the BLM Utah State Office Regional Paleontologist identified four geologic formations of interest in the project area, including three Cambrian- period outcrops (Trippe limestone, Wah Wah Summit formation, and Orr limestone) and Quaternary-period alluvium and lacustrine deposits. These formations are ranked according to the BLM’s “Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands” as PFYC 2, i.e., having a low probability of yielding scientifically important paleontological resources (BLM 2008c). Most of the project area occurs on lacustrine deposits of ancient Lake Bonneville and on Quaternary alluvium. Lake Bonneville occupied much of western Utah, including the project area, from about 32 to 14 thousand years ago. Three major shorelines were left by Lake Bonneville, each terrace representing an extended period during which the lake stood at that elevation (Utah Geological Survey 2008). Table 9, Approximate Ages and Elevations of Lake Bonneville Shorelines, indicates the approximate ages and elevations of these ancient shorelines.
TABLE 9 Approximate Ages and Elevations of Lake Bonneville Shorelines Shoreline Name Approximate Elevation Approximate Age (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) (Calendar Years Before Present)
Stansbury Shoreline 4,445 24,400 – 23,200
Bonneville Shoreline 5,220 18,000 – 16,800
Provo Shoreline 4,820 16,800 – 16,200
Utah Geological Survey 2008
The filling of Lake Bonneville submerged vast tracts of low-elevation habitat, and terrestrial vertebrates were largely restricted to habitats around its shoreline (Gillette 1996). Fossil remains of large mammals (the Pleistocene4 megafauna), including mammoth, mastodon, camel, horse, musk oxen, short-faced bear, and giant ground sloth, have been associated with
4 1.8 million to 10,000 years before present.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 45 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 the Lake Bonneville shorelines. The nearest such known fossil locality to the proposed project area is that of a mammoth/mastodon tusk found in 2004 in a sand and gravel pit on the Provo Shoreline west of Fillmore. Pleistocene megafauna of North America became extinct by about 11,000 years ago. The total confirmed records of Pleistocene vertebrate fossils from Utah number only several dozen (Gillette 1996). Plotting the contours of the three Lake Bonneville shoreline (approximate) elevations indicates that the Bonneville Shoreline likely passes through the southeast corner of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and is also crossed by the proposed transmission line alignment at several locations along the eastern base of the Cricket Mountains. The Provo Shoreline does not reach as far south as the Wind Energy Facility but is crossed by the proposed transmission line route at the northern end of the Cricket Mountains. The Stansbury Shoreline does not express itself in the project area, having been at an elevation equivalent to the bottom of Lake Sevier. Therefore, there is a potential for Pleistocene-age fossils, including those of invertebrates, rodents, birds, and fish, as well as the large extinct mammals, to occur in the project area (Hayden 2008). Cambrian-age geologic formations outcrop in the project area in the Cricket Mountains. These formations, which developed from sediments of shallow seas over 500 million years ago, could contain invertebrate fossils. Somewhat older Cambrian formations in the House Range to the northwest are well known for their trilobites (Fossil Museum 2008). The Cricket Mountain outcrops would be crossed a number of times by the proposed transmission line route. The Wind Energy Facility site is approximately 6 miles from the Cricket Mountains.
3.3.4 Water Resources 3.3.4.1 Surface Water The Milford Wind Corridor Project is located in southwestern Utah within the Lower Sevier River Watershed Management Unit, as designated by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Division of Water Quality. This watershed unit includes the Sevier River and its tributaries from Sevier Bridge Reservoir, well upstream of the project area, to the end of the river at Sevier Lake. The principal surface water resource in the project area is the Sevier River downstream of the town of Delta and DMAD and Gunnison Bend Reservoirs. The Sevier River terminates just to the west of the proposed transmission line at Sevier Lake, a large playa west of the project area. The proposed transmission line corridor would cross the Sevier River drainage north of Sevier Lake. Natural stream flow in the Sevier River has been affected by many diversions and dams; the Sevier River and Sevier Lake are usually dry due to irrigation withdrawals and evaporation. The Beaver River, a tributary of the lower Sevier River, enters the project area from the south just west of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and, from there, extends north to the Sevier River. Perennial flows in the Beaver River have been substantially reduced since the Rocky Ford Dam was constructed upstream of Minersville, Utah, in 1914. Recent observations suggest that the Beaver River has not flowed since 1983 (McMillan 2007). The proposed transmission line corridor would cross the relict floodplain of the Beaver River shortly after it leaves the Wind Energy Facility. The proposed Wind Energy Facility site is drained primarily by Cove Creek and Negro Mag Wash. Cove Creek enters the project area from the Mineral Mountains to the east and joins
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 46 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 several small drainages from Negro Mag Wash before joining the Beaver River. Cove Creek and Negro Mag Wash are ephemeral and are dry much of the year. The Sevier River and its tributaries within the project area are classified by the State of Utah for the following beneficial uses: contact recreation (Class 2B), non-game fish and other aquatic life (Class 3C), and agricultural use including irrigation and stock watering (Class 4) (State of Utah 2008a). The Sevier River in the project area is not on UDEQ’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Surface water consumption from the Lower Sevier River Watershed is vital to the regional economy. The Sevier River has been diverted at many locations within the lower watershed for stock watering and irrigation, and the river is recognized as the most intensively used river in the state (UDEQ 2004). Numerous irrigation canals and irrigation overflow ditches cross the northern project area. Surface waters within the Lower Sevier River Watershed are considered to be fully appropriated (Utah Division of Water Rights 2008). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) for the Lower Sevier River, there are no regulatory floodplains mapped within the project area (FEMA 1987). The Utah Division of Emergency Services has confirmed that there are no floodplains mapped within Beaver County or Millard County. Both counties are designated as “D-Zones,” which correspond to unstudied areas where flood hazards are undetermined but possible. The town of Delta was designated a No Significant Flood Hazard Area by FEMA in 1985 (Utah Division of Emergency Services 2008).
3.3.4.2 Groundwater Groundwater in the project area occurs in unconsolidated deposits in two sub-basins within the Lower Sevier River Watershed, the Sevier Desert sub-basin and the Escalante Valley–Milford Area sub-basin. Unconsolidated basin fill deposits within the project area are generally composed of unsorted clay and sand (USGS 1998). Recharge to the principal aquifer system is from infiltration of surface water, precipitation, and irrigation. The Sevier Desert sub-basin extends north from the town of Black Rock, which is located about 22 miles north of Milford, to the Desert Mountains. Groundwater in the sub-basin occurs in unconsolidated deposits under water table and artesian conditions. Between 2000 and 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recorded groundwater levels at 8 to 50 feet below ground surface (bgs) within a 10-mile-radius of Delta, indicating that shallow groundwater conditions may be present in the northern part of the project area. In one well completed in the shallow artesian aquifer near the existing IPP substation, groundwater levels were recorded at 8 to 10 feet bgs (USGS 2007). The Escalante Valley–Milford Area sub-basin extends from the southern boundary of Beaver County north to the town of Black Rock. Groundwater in the sub-basin is hosted in unconsolidated basin fill. The upper 200 to 300 feet of saturated basin fill within the project area is under both unconfined and semi-confined conditions (USGS 2007). Generally, shallow groundwater conditions (at approximately 30 feet bgs or less) are prevalent within 5,000 to 10,000 feet of the Beaver River, which includes the western portion of the Wind Energy Facility site and the southern end of the proposed transmission line route (AGRC 1993). Between 2000 and 2007, three USGS observation wells located near the northern boundary of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site recorded groundwater levels at approximately 17 to 61 feet bgs,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 47 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 indicating shallow groundwater conditions in that area; however, another USGS observation well in the southern portion of Wind Energy Facility site recorded much deeper groundwater levels at approximately 123 feet bgs (USGS 2008). Classifications and groundwater quality protection levels have not been established by the UDEQ Water Quality Division for project area aquifers. Physical properties and chemical analyses of groundwater in the Sevier Desert sub-basin indicate elevated dissolved solids concentrations that exceed the Utah drinking water standard maximum contaminant level; in addition, chloride, sulfate, and manganese concentrations exceed the secondary drinking water standard for the State of Utah. Groundwater quality data for the Escalante–Milford Area sub- basin indicate elevated dissolved solids concentrations that exceed the secondary drinking water standard for the State of Utah (USGS 2007). Primary beneficial uses of groundwater in these sub-basins are for irrigation and industry. Groundwater from the Sevier Desert and Escalante Valley–Milford Area sub-basins is the most important source of agricultural and domestic water in the Lower Sevier River Watershed. Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the Sevier Desert and the Escalante Valley– Milford Area sub-basins was about 20,000 and 45,000 acre-feet, respectively, in 2006 (USGS 2007). Groundwater rights in the Sevier Desert Water Policy District, which includes the existing IPP substation area, have been fully appropriated. However, groundwater rights in the Black Rock Water Policy District, which includes the proposed Wind Energy Facility site, have not been fully appropriated, and new appropriations are being approved (Utah Division of Water Rights 2008).
3.3.5 Air Quality The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) have set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS identify the following criteria pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb). NAAQS are indicated in Table 10, National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Beaver County and Millard County are in attainment for NAAQS and are not maintenance areas for any criteria pollutant. Attainment is achieved when the existing background concentrations for criteria air pollutants are less than the maximum allowable ambient concentrations defined in the NAAQS. The proposed Facility area is located in a rural setting with minimal industrial sources or vehicular traffic emission contributions to the air shed. The majority of emissions in Beaver County and Millard County are attributable to fugitive dust from agricultural and construction activities. Emissions from the IPP generating plant near Delta also contribute to emissions in Millard County. In addition, smoke from wildfires and prescribed burning can impact ambient air quality on a seasonal basis. The frequent windy conditions that make the area a candidate for wind energy development can contribute to episodes of reduced visibility. Smoke from the July 2007 Milford Flat Wildfire resulted in
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 48 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 40,000 μg/m3 8 hour 10,000 μg/m3 Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 μg/m3 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 100 μg/m3 Ozone 1 hour 0.12 ppm 8 hour 0.08 ppm 3 Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hour 150 μg/m 3 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hour 35 μg/m Annual 15 μg/m3 Sulfur Dioxide 3 hour 0.50 ppm 24 hour 0.14 ppm Annual 0.03 ppm Source: NAAQS, 40 CFR Part 50 diminished regional air quality conditions for nearly 2 weeks, and airborne soils and ash from the fire subsequently caused local transportation hazards. The Milford Flat Wildfire continues to impact air quality in the region during periods of high wind.
3.3.6 Vegetation 3.3.6.1 Vegetation Communities The proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project area is located within the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion. Valleys, slopes, and alluvial fans of this ecoregion are either shrub and grass- covered, shrub-covered, or barren. Woodland, mountain brush, and scattered open forests are found at higher elevations on mountain slopes. The Central Basin and Range Ecoregion is internally drained by ephemeral streams and is gently sloping to nearly flat (EPA 2008). Existing Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project (GAP) mapping and land cover descriptions, as well as field reconnaissance conducted during the summer of 2007, indicate that following four vegetation (or land cover) types predominate in the areas that would be occupied by the proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project:
• Intermountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (salt desert scrub) • Intermountain Basins Greasewood Flat (greasewood flats) • Intermountain Basins Semidesert Shrub Steppe (shrub-steppe) • Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland (big sagebrush shrubland) (GAP 2005).
These vegetation types each contribute from 13 to 37 percent of total cover in the project area. The following additional vegetation types each contribute from 1 to 4 percent of total cover:
• Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (pinyon-juniper woodland) • Intermountain Basins Semidesert Grassland (native perennial grassland) • Invasive Annual Grassland (annual weedy grasses)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 49 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 • Invasive Perennial Grassland (perennial weedy grasses) (GAP 2005). • Intermountain Basins Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland (xeric mixed sagebrush shrubland) • Intermountain Basins Playa (playa) (GAP 2005).
These vegetation communities are described below as to their ecological distribution, dominant species, and general understory characteristics. Details of understory composition are provided in Appendix E, GAP Land Cover Descriptions. Some of the vegetation communities may not be fully expressed at this time due to the partial involvement of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site by the Milford Flat Wildfire during early July 2007, as discussed below. Greasewood flats, salt desert scrub, shrub-steppe, and big sagebrush shrubland communities make up approximately 89 percent of the vegetation of the Wind Energy Facility. The proposed Wind Energy Facility site slopes gently from east to west toward the drainage of the Beaver River beyond its western border. The lowest-lying (western) approximately one- third of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site primarily supports greasewood flats. This vegetation type typically occurs near drainages on stream terraces and flats on sites that have saline soils and a shallow water table and experience intermittent flooding but remain dry for most of the growing season. Greasewood flats are dominated or co-dominated by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus)5. Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), or winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) may be present to co-dominant. The herbaceous layer, if present, is usually dominated by grasses. Upslope to the east, the proposed Wind Energy Facility site is primarily a mixture of salt desert scrub and shrub-steppe communities. The salt desert scrub community typically occupies saline basins, alluvial slopes, and plains on saline and calcareous alkaline soils. It is dominated by shadscale, four-wing saltbush, and/or desert saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa). Greasewood is generally absent but, if present, is not a co-dominant. The herbaceous layer is dominated by perennial grasses, and various forbs are present. The shrub-steppe community typically occurs on alluvial fans and flats with moderate to deep soils. Its general aspect is an open shrubland dominated by perennial grasses such as Indian ricegrass (Stipa [Oryzopsis] hymenoides), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), needle-and-thread (Stipa [Hesperostipi] comata), galleta (Hilaria jamesii), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda), and alkali saccaton (Sporobolus airoides). The woody layer is often a mixture of shrubs and dwarf shrubs. Farther upslope to the east, the proposed Wind Energy Facility site primarily supports big sagebrush shrubland. This vegetation type typically occurs on deep, well-drained, non-saline soils and is dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and/or Wyoming sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis). Scattered juniper (Juniperus spp.), greasewood, various saltbush species, and grasses may be present. A small stand of pinyon-juniper occurs in the southeastern corner of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. This woodland type may be dominated by pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) or Utah
5 Nomenclature follows Welsh et al. 2003.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 50 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) or both. The understory is variable and may be dominated by shrubs or grasses or be absent. A few very small areas of native perennial grassland occur on xeric sites scattered throughout the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. This community is dominated by drought-tolerant perennial bunch grasses, including Indian ricegrass, threeawn (Aristida spp.), blue grama, needle-and-thread, muhly (Muhlenbergia spp.), and/or galleta, and may also include scattered drought-tolerant shrubs and dwarf shrubs. Throughout the proposed Wind Energy Facility site, but more frequent along its east side, are areas dominated by less desirable annual and perennial grasses, the most prevalent of which is cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). The existence of such areas is attributable to prior disturbance, including past wildfires and historic livestock grazing. Through Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation efforts, perennial herbaceous species, including crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), intermediate wheatgrass (Elymus hispidus) and forage kochia (Bassia [Kochia] prostrata), have been introduced to stabilize soils, provide cover, and provide forage for wildlife and livestock throughout the area. During the summer of 2007, the Milford Flat Wildfire removed most of the vegetation of the east and south parts of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site, nearly one-third of its total area. The BLM has undertaken site restoration by seeding the burned areas. Seed mixtures consist of both native and non-native species, such as western wheatgrass (Elymus [Agropyron] smithii), Indian ricegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), and forage kochia (BLM 2008a). The success of this revegetation effort will determine the near-term composition and cover of the vegetation in these areas. Greasewood flats, salt desert scrub, and shrub-steppe communities make up approximately 89 percent of the vegetation of the proposed transmission line route. The proposed transmission line route extends west from the proposed Wind Energy Facility substation across mixed greasewood flats and salt desert scrub of the Milford Valley. At the Beaver River, it crosses an approximately 1-mile-wide relict floodplain (Beaver Bottoms) occupied by salt cedar (tamarisk) (Tamarix chinensis) and saltgrass (see Section 3.3.5, Wetlands and Riparian Zones, and Section 3.3.4.3, Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species). Where the proposed transmission line route turns north along the existing IPP transmission line, it travels through primarily shrub-steppe communities to the southern end of the Cricket Mountains. From the southern end of the Cricket Mountains, the proposed transmission line route follows the eastern toe of the Cricket Mountains, where it traverses areas of big sagebrush shrubland (described above) and xeric mixed sagebrush shrublands. The xeric mixed sagebrush shrubland type typically occupies dry flats and plains, alluvial fans, rolling hills, rocky slopes, saddles, and ridges. It occupies shallow, rocky, non-saline soils on dry sites that are often exposed to desiccating winds. In this area, this community is dominated by black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) and may be co-dominated by Wyoming sagebrush or viscid rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus). The herbaceous layer is generally sparse and composed of perennial bunch grasses. Farther north beyond the Cricket Mountains, the proposed transmission line route crosses a large area (approximately one-third the length of the proposed transmission line route) dominated by greasewood flats on either side of the Sevier River and the remaining length of the transmission line route to the IPP substation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 51 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 3.3.6.2 Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines The Utah BLM has developed Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and associated rules called Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management to achieve the fundamentals (BLM 1997) (see Appendix F, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines). The standards spell out conditions to be achieved on BLM-administered lands, and the Guidelines describe practices that will be applied to achieve the Standards). The Standards are described here, and the Guidelines are discussed under Environmental Impacts, Section 4.2.4.2, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines. The following standards apply to BLM-managed rangelands in the project area.
• Rangeland Health Standard 1 – Upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site productivity, considering the soil type, climate, and landform. • Rangeland Health Standard 2 – Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. Stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform. • Rangeland Health Standard 3 – Desired species, including native, threatened, endangered, and special-status species, are maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved. • Rangeland Health Standard 4 – BLM will apply and comply with water quality standards established by the State of Utah (R.317-2) and the federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. Activities on BLM lands will fully support the designated beneficial uses described in the Utah Water Quality Standards (R.317-2) for surface and groundwater.
Indicators associated with each standard demonstrate whether the conditions of the standard have been met. Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines are currently being met in the project area, although the presence of cheatgrass continues to be a concern.
3.3.6.3 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species Noxious weeds are exotic plant species having undesirable characteristics and are of economic and/or environmental significance. Noxious weeds are designated and regulated by various state and federal laws. The State of Utah lists 18 plant species as noxious weeds (State of Utah 2008b, Utah State Extension Service 2008). Millard County also lists buffalo bur (Solanum rostratum), and Beaver County lists bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) as noxious weeds (Utah Weed Control Association 2008). Of these, the following have been documented as occurring in Millard County: whitetop (Cardaria draba), squarrose knapweed (Centaurea virgata var. squarrosa), Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and bull thistle (BLM 2008b). Noxious weeds are not prevalent in the area (BLM 2008b). Mapping associated with Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation efforts indicates that Scotch thistle is the only noxious weed known to occur in the project area, and it occurs at low population levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 52 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Although they have not been documented within Millard County, a number of other species are of concern due to their presence in surrounding areas, including yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), both of which are state-listed noxious weeds, as well as black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), camelthorn (Alhagi pseudalhagi), and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum). Invasive species are exotic plants that have become naturalized in some locations at levels where total control is infeasible due to extensive establishment and/or treatment costs. Several invasive plant species have become established in areas that would be occupied by proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project features. Salt cedar, an invasive shrub that monopolizes most low-elevation riparian habitats in Utah, dominates an approximately 1-mile-wide relict floodplain (Beaver Bottoms) of the Beaver River that would be crossed by the proposed transmission line alignment (see Section 3.3.6.1, Vegetation Communities). Salt cedar also occupies the banks and floodplain of the Sevier River, as well as ephemeral washes and swales of its secondary channel meanders, where they are crossed by the proposed transmission line route. Cheatgrass, an invasive annual grass that has long been established in western grasslands and shrublands, is present throughout the project area and occurs on the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and in many areas along the proposed transmission line route.
3.3.7 Wetlands and Riparian Zones Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Three criteria are necessary to define wetlands: vegetation (hydrophytic), soils (hydric), and hydrology (frequency of flooding or soil saturation). Wetlands in the arid West generally include shrub complexes, salt marshes, playas, wet meadows, lake/pond/river fringe wetlands, and mudflats/salt flats. Riparian zones occur along the edges of water bodies or occasionally flooded areas but may or may not exhibit wetland characteristics.
The Milford Wind Corridor Project would be situated within the Sevier River and Beaver River watersheds. These drainages are described in relation to proposed project features in Section 3.3.4, Water Resources. Most surface water in these two river systems is currently diverted for agricultural use before it can reach the project area (Utah Division of Water Resources 2007). Storage and diversion of the Sevier River have virtually eliminated flows within the river channel southwest of Delta, and the Beaver River has not flowed in the project area since 1983 (McMillan 2007). Scarcity of available surface water in the area generally limits hydrophytic vegetation to stream banks, playas, irrigation ditch fringes, or areas close to springs or seeps. Surveys of surface water features that would be occupied or crossed by project facilities were conducted in October and November 2007. Conditions at the various stream crossings were recorded, and a total of 6 wetland and riparian features, including a fringe wetland along a ditch, were recorded (see Table 11, Wetland and Riparian Features).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 53 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 11 Wetland and Riparian Features Approximate Approximate Length within Size Within Wetlands Study Area Study Area Feature Name/Description Present (linear Feet) (acres)
Drainage 9/ Wetland-C Sevier River Wetland Yes 335 0.2
Drainage-5 Historic Sevier River No 585 0.7
Drainage-6 Historic Sevier River No 410 0.3
Drainage-7 Historic Sevier River No 440 0.2
Drainage-8 Historic Sevier River No 820 0.7
Ditch 4/ Wetland-B Agricultural ditch with fringe wetland Yes 400 0.1
Total 2,990 2.2
No wetlands occur on the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. Named drainages within the Wind Energy Facility boundary, such as Negro Mag Wash and Cove Creek, lack adequate hydrology to support wetlands. The proposed transmission line route would cross the Beaver River just west of the Wind Energy Facility site. This area, known as Beaver Bottoms, is a large sandy floodplain supporting a relict riparian zone dominated by salt cedar, a large invasive shrub that often outcompetes native riparian species (see Section 3.3.6.3, Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species). The Beaver River lacks a defined hydraulic channel in this area and appears to convey only overland flow. The Beaver River does not support any wetlands in this area. The proposed transmission line route would cross the main channel of the Sevier River about 10 miles upstream of Sevier Lake. The river channel is generally dry at this location but supports a relict riparian fringe due to occasional water flows and flooding in wet years. The areas which are occasionally flooded support riparian vegetation, which is mostly salt cedar and salt grass. Salt cedar dominates portions of the riparian zones in the area. The riparian zone extends along the main channel and between the existing channels and the old river channels and relict meander scars. These areas support riparian vegetation but lack wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Just north and south of the Sevier River, the proposed transmission line route would cross historic river channels that also occasionally contain flows and have associated riparian areas. An insect, the salt cedar leaf beetle, has been released (Diorhabda elongata), downstream from the proposed transmission line crossing of the Sevier River. This insect defoliates salt cedar, and it is thought that repeated defoliation will kill salt cedar (State of Utah 2008c). The beetle has spread upstream and downstream from the point of release and is expected to eventually reach the area where the transmission line crosses the Sevier River. If this happens, salt cedar may not quickly reestablish in the area but recolonization of native vegetation may be enhanced, at least in areas where remnant native plants exist and soil salinity and water tables permit. Salt cedar is expected to remain as an uncommon or common, but non-damaging, component of riparian plant communities (State of Utah 2008c).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 54 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 One meander scar of the Sevier River contains some hydrophytic plant species such as iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis) and pickleweed (Salicornia rubra). The hydrology at this site is most likely augmented by a high groundwater table associated with Rocky Knoll Spring, which lies about one-half mile to the northwest. This is the only wetland area observed within the main or historic Sevier River channels. The proposed transmission line route would cross an agricultural ditch supporting a narrow wetland fringe located approximately 6 miles west of the IPP substation. The ditch is lined with a 2-foot-wide fringe of wetland vegetation, including saltgrass and cosmopolitan bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus). Standing water in the ditch supports aquatic vegetation.
3.3.8 Wildlife Existing information and available data for wildlife habitats and species in the project area were obtained from UDWR, Utah Department of Natural Resources Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP), USFWS, and BLM. In addition, surveys were completed for a variety of wildlife species within the project area between the spring of 2006 and the spring of 2008. Wildlife species in the project area are typical of species found within mixed-shrub and grassland habitats of Utah. Mixed-shrub habitats include salt desert scrub, big sagebrush, xeric mixed sagebrush, and greasewood flats. Grassland habitats include shrub-steppe, native perennial grassland, annual weedy grassland, and perennial weedy grasses. Section 3.3.4.1, Vegetation Communities, describes the vegetation found in these habitat types, and other details are provided in Appendix E, GAP Land Cover Descriptions. A complete list of wildlife species observed within the project area is provided in Appendix G, Wildlife Species Observed within the Milford Wind Corridor Project Area.
Mammals During the wildlife surveys, 25 mammal species were observed within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and along the proposed transmission line route. Typical carnivores include coyote (Canis latrans), kit fox (Vulpes velox), and badger (Taxidea taxus). Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) are the primary ungulate species in the project area, which is designated as crucial year-round habitat by UDWR. Pronghorn are year-round residents within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and along the majority of the proposed transmission line route (UDWR 2008). UDWR has identified crucial winter habitat for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) to the east of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site in pinyon-juniper habitats of the Mineral Mountains, but no UDWR-designated mule deer habitat is found within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site or along the proposed transmission line route (UDWR 2008). Ten bat species were found within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site, with Brazilian free- tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) the primary species identified. Representative small mammals in the area include black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp.), and white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus).
Birds Sixty-six bird species were identified during wildlife surveys. The most common birds inhabiting the proposed Wind Energy Facility area include horned lark (Eremophila alpestris),
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 55 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 common raven (Corvus corax), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Other avian species found in the habitats of the project area include vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), chipping sparrow (Spizella atrogularis), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Raptors observed within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and along the proposed transmission line route include northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). No active raptor nests, other than burrowing owl, were found within one- half mile of the Wind Energy Facility during the 2007 and 2008 aerial raptor surveys. Five active red-tailed hawk nests were found within one-half mile of the proposed transmission line in 2008, and no red-tailed hawk nests were found within one-half mile of the route in 2007 (TetraTech 2008a).
Reptiles and Amphibians Twelve reptile species were identified during the wildlife surveys. The most frequently observed reptiles inhabiting the project area include the common sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), longnose leopard lizard (Gambelia wislizenii), gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana) and Great Plains toad (Bufo cognatus) are amphibian species with distributions that include the project area (UDWR 2008).
3.3.9 Sensitive Species The BLM manages Special Status Species and their habitats according to policies established in Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management. The BLM’s Special Status Species classification includes 1) species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act, 2) species proposed for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act, 3) USFWS candidate species, 4) state-listed species, and 5) BLM sensitive species. The Endangered Species Act defines an endangered species as any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a major portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Candidate species are those species that are actively being considered for listing as endangered or threatened. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects migratory birds and implements the United States’ commitment to international conventions for the protection of migratory birds. Bald eagles and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Other sensitive wildlife species include species listed by UDWR (UDWR 2007b), Utah Partners in Flight (Parrish et al. 2002), USFWS Birds of Management Concern (USFWS 2004), or Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a). The Utah BLM adopts the existing UDWR Utah Sensitive Species List (UDWR 2007b). Special status plants are species that are listed by the USFWS as threatened or endangered or as candidates for federal listing, as well as Utah BLM Sensitive Plant Species.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 56 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 3.3.9.1 Federally Listed, Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Wildlife species listed by the USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region for Beaver and Millard Counties are identified in Table 12, Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Wildlife Species in Beaver and Millard Counties (USFWS 2007a).
TABLE 12 Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Wildlife Species in Beaver and Millard Counties Common Name Scientific Name Status
California condor Gymnogyps californianus Federally Endangered
Utah prairie dog Cynomys parvidens Federally Threatened
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Federal Candidate
None of the federally listed wildlife species identified above are known to occur in the project area and none were recorded during any of the wildlife surveys. The following descriptions are provided for each threatened, endangered, and candidate wildlife species potentially occurring in Beaver and Millard Counties, Utah.
A plan to establish a nonessential experimental population of California condors in northern Arizona and southern Utah was finalized on October 16, 1996 (USFWS 1996). Interstate 15 in Iron and Beaver Counties forms the western boundary of the experimental population area, and Interstate 70 forms the north boundary. The majority of California condors that have been released inhabit the Colorado River drainage from Page, Arizona downstream to the upper end of Lake Mead. However, several condors venture into southern Utah regularly. Condors that occur east of Interstate 15 would be considered part of the nonessential population, while condors found west of Interstate 15 would be managed as an endangered species. Condors are capable of flying more than 100 miles a day in search of carrion. California condors may on occasion fly over the project area in search of carrion.
Utah prairie dogs are primarily herbivorous and prefer grassland-dominated habitats with a diversity of perennial grasses, forbs, and few shrubs. The majority of Utah prairie dogs are in Iron County, and the majority of these animals are found between Cedar City and Parowan (Day 2007). The project area is near predicted high-value Utah prairie dog habitat in Beaver County, but no predicted Utah prairie dog habitat is found in Millard County (UDWR 2005). UDWR mapped an historic Utah prairie dog colony along the proposed transmission line route in Millard County, and, for planning purposes, BLM places a one-half mile buffer around known or historical colony sites. The entire area is approximately 8,521 acres. No Utah prairie dog individuals or colonies were identified during the wildlife surveys within the project area. The Wind Energy Facility is approximately 23 miles outside of the UDWR Utah prairie dog habitat. The proposed transmission line route runs through UDWR identified Utah prairie dog habitat for approximately 2.93 miles, east of Borden in T21 R9W sections 33, 28, 21, and 16. Existing roads that may be used for project access also occur in the UDWR identified habitat for approximately 2.87 miles.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 57 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 In Utah, western yellow-billed cuckoos were formerly uncommon-to-rare summer (June through August) residents along river bottoms statewide, but their range has been reduced to a few scattered sites, mainly along the Green and Colorado Rivers. Yellow-billed cuckoos utilize large tracts of riparian habitat dominated by mature cottonwoods (Populus spp.) with a dense understory of willows (Salix spp). There are no known site records for yellow-billed cuckoo within Beaver County or Millard County. The project area lacks suitable habitat for this species. No plant species listed by the USFWS as threatened or endangered or as a candidate for federal listing are known to occur in Beaver County or Millard County (USFWS 2007a).
3.3.9.2 Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species The Utah BLM adopts the existing UDWR Utah Sensitive Species List (UDWR 2007b), which is available at http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/ViewReports/SSL121407.pdf (see Appendix H, Utah Sensitive Species). This means that the BLM uses the official UDWR Utah Sensitive Species List that is in place at the time of a given action. Utah Sensitive Species are species for which there is credible scientific evidence to substantiate a threat to continued population viability. It is anticipated that sensitive species designations will identify species for which conservation actions are needed and that timely and appropriate conservation actions would preclude the need to list these species under the federal Endangered Species Act (UDWR 2007b). Table 13, Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species with Known or Potential Occurrence in the Milford Wind Corridor Project Area, identifies Utah sensitive wildlife species with known or potential occurrence within the project area. Distribution information is based on UDWR habitat descriptions and distribution maps (maps available at http://dwrcdc.nr.utah. gov/ucdc/) (UDWR 2008). UNHP occurrence records identified bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) in the vicinity of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site (UDWR 2007a).
TABLE 13 Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species with Known or Potential Occurrence in the Proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project Area Common Name Scientific Name
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis
Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus
American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 58 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 13 Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species with Known or Potential Occurrence in the Proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project Area Common Name Scientific Name
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii
Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis
Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis
Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus
Kit fox Vulpes macrotis
Least chub Iotichthys phlegethontis Utah Sensitive Mammals The kit fox is a Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2007b). The kit fox was designated as a Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (UDWR 2005). Primary breeding habitat is high desert scrub. UNHP occurrence records identified kit fox along the proposed transmission line route and within the vicinity of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. Nocturnal surveys conducted for kit fox within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site in 2007 confirmed that this species occurs in the project area. Wildlife surveys completed in 2008 documented five active kit fox dens within the Wind Energy Facility site and one along the proposed transmission line corridor. The Utah Gap Analysis estimates that the project area has substantial-value and high-value habitat for kit fox. Western red bats (Lasiurus blossevillii) and big-free tailed bats (Nyctinomops macrotis) were identified during acoustic surveys on the proposed Wind Energy Facility site during the summer and fall of 2007. These two sensitive bat species contributed in a minor way to the total bat activity recorded during the 2007 survey period. Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii), the other sensitive bat species potentially occurring within the project area, were not identified during the acoustic surveys. The Utah Gap Analysis estimates that the project area has substantial-value habitat for the big free-tailed bats but only low-value habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bats.
The Utah Gap Analysis is a coarse, large-scale approach to evaluating potential habitat for species and is based on aerial photographs and satellite imagery. Although the Utah Gap Analysis estimates that the project area has critical-value habitat for the dark kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus) and high-value and critical-value habitat for the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), wildlife surveys indicate that no suitable habitat for pygmy rabbit or dark kangaroo mouse exists in the project area. Utah Sensitive Fish UNHP occurrence records identified least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) in the vicinity of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site (UDWR 2007a). No least chub habitat is found within the project area due to the lack of suitable streams and ponds (UDWR 2008).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 59 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Utah Sensitive Birds UNHP occurrence records identified bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) in the vicinity of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site (UDWR 2007a).
Utah-listed sensitive birds that have been recorded in the project area and for which potential suitable habitat is present in the project area include burrowing owl, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, and long-billed curlew.
The burrowing owl is a Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2007b) and a Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a). The burrowing owl was designated as a Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2005). Primary breeding habitat for this species is high desert scrub, and grasslands are used as secondary breeding habitat. Nesting may occur in sparsely vegetated sagebrush-steppe and desert scrub habitats. Abandoned wildlife burrows associated with Utah prairie dog, badger, or ground squirrels are an important component of the habitat. The Utah Gap Analysis estimates that the project area has substantial-value and high-value habitat for burrowing owls. Active burrowing owl nest sites were located during wildlife surveys conducted in April 2008. Ten active nest sites were found within one-quarter-mile of potential ground disturbance on the Wind Energy Facility, and one active nest was found within one-quarter-mile of potential ground disturbance on the transmission line.
The bald eagle was de-listed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 states in 2007 (USFWS 2007b). It is a Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2007b). Bald eagles would utilize areas within Beaver and Millard Counties primarily during winter hunting activities for carrion and small mammals such as rabbits. Habitat types that are used most often by wintering bald eagles for hunting are agricultural lands, sagebrush, salt desert scrub, grasslands, riparian woodland, and pinyon-juniper woodland. An unverified bald eagle nest site has been documented near DMAD Reservoir near Delta, Utah approximately 8 miles from the proposed transmission line route (TetraTech 2007). There are no winter night roosts documented within the project area. Bald eagles commonly use cottonwood trees and utility poles as daytime perch sites. Bald eagles are likely to be rare to common winter visitors to the project area and would primarily use the area for hunting.
The ferruginous hawk is a Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2007b), a Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species for Conservation Action (Parrish et al. 2002), and a Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a). The ferruginous hawk was designated as a Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2005). Primary breeding habitat is pinyon-juniper woodland, and secondary breeding habitat is shrub-steppe. Edges of pinyon-juniper woodlands, utility structures (transmission poles), cliffs, and isolated trees provide nesting as well as perching structures for ferruginous hawk. The Utah Gap Analysis estimates that the project area has high-value habitat for ferruginous hawks. One active ferruginous hawk nest was been observed within one-half mile of the proposed transmission line in 2008 and none were found in 2007 (TetraTech 2008a).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 60 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 The long-billed curlew is a Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2007b), a Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species for Conservation Action (Parrish et al. 2002), and a Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a). It is designated as a Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2005). Grasslands are the primary breeding habitat for this species, and agricultural lands are used as secondary breeding habitat. The long-billed curlew is a summer resident and migrant in Utah (UDWR 2008). The Utah Gap Analysis estimates that the project area has critical-value curlew habitat.
During long-billed curlew specific surveys within the Wind Energy Facility site, twenty- three individuals were observed, including a flock of twelve seen in April 2008. During other avian surveys of the Wind Energy Facility, five curlews were seen in the spring of 2006 and ten were observed in the spring of 2008. No curlews were found in the Wind Energy Facility in the fall of 2007 or summer of 2008. One nest was found during wildlife surveys, but the total number of nesting curlews in the Wind Energy Facility is not known. However, based on mean use and number of birds observed, potential breeding density within the Wind Energy Facility site is low compared to other breeding sites in the long- billed curlew range (TetraTech 2008d).
The American white pelican is classified as a Utah Sensitive Species, a Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species for Conservation Action (Parrish et al. 2002), and a Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2005). With a breeding range extending from northern Canada to Mexico, the species can be observed at many Utah reservoirs during migration. The only known breeding colonies in Utah are within the Utah Lake/Great Salt Lake ecological complex, which has extensive foraging areas in the associated shallow wetlands. White pelicans are known to migrate through the Mineral Mountains, and a flock was observed flying high (over 600 feet) above the ground just east of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. However, suitable habitat for pelicans is limited in the project area (UDWR 2008). The nearest body of standing water, Minersville Reservoir, which has been designated as critical-value habitat by the Utah Gap Analysis, is more than 5 miles from the project area and would primarily be used by non-breeding adults.
The greater sage-grouse is classified as a Utah Sensitive Species, a Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2005), a Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species for Conservation Action (Parrish et al. 2002), and a Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a). However, the USFWS is currently considering listing the greater sage-grouse for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The greater sage-grouse inhabits sagebrush plains, foothills, and mountain valleys. Sagebrush is an essential requirement for suitable sage-grouse habitat, and their principal winter food is sagebrush leaves. Sagebrush with grass and forb understories and nearby wet meadows are necessary for suitable breeding habitat. During summer, forage items include sagebrush fruiting heads, forb leaves and flowers, grasses, and insects. Greater sage-grouse breeding occurs on strutting grounds during March and April, and nesting begins in April.
Greater sage-grouse populations in Utah have declined substantially due to reduced habitat quantity and quality. The suitability of sagebrush habitats has been reduced by a number of factors including sagebrush eradication, overgrazing, and cropland conversion (UDWR 2008). Suitable greater sage-grouse habitat is currently limited within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. In 1999, UDWR identified crucial greater sage-grouse
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 61 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 brooding habitat in the southeastern portion of the proposed Wind Energy Facility site (UDWR 2008). All potentially suitable greater sage-grouse habitat in that area burned in the Milford Flat Wildfire of July 2007, but the area will still remain classified as sage grouse habitat. No greater sage-grouse habitat is found along the proposed transmission line route.
The short-eared owl is a Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2007b) and a Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a). In addition, the UDWR classifies the species as a Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2005). Typically occupying grasslands, shrublands, and other open habitats, the short-eared owl is a medium-sized owl that is frequently active during daylight, especially at dusk and dawn. The species is considered to be nomadic, often choosing a new breeding site each year depending on local rodent densities. Short-eared owls were not identified during avian surveys, although this species may be found within the project area in suitable grassland, shrubland, and other open habitats (UDWR 2008).
The northern goshawk is a Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2007b) and a Tier I Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2005). Although uncommon, the northern goshawk is a year-round resident throughout Utah. The northern goshawk prefers mature mountain forests and riparian zones, where nesting occurs in mature trees (UDWR 2008). The northern goshawk was neither observed nor expected to occur in the project area because no mature forests or forested riparian habitats are available. Birds of Conservation Concern and Priority Species for Conservation Action
The Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species for Conservation Action (Parrish et al. 2002) and the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a) that are also classified as Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2007b) are described above. Additional Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species for Conservation Action observed in the project area include Brewer’s sparrow and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli). Additional Birds of Conservation Concern observed in the project area include Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), northern harrier, golden eagle, loggerhead shrike, and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). The complete lists can be found in Appendix I, Utah Partners in Flight Priority Avian Species and Appendix J, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Management Concern.
Brewer’s sparrow typically arrives in Utah in mid-April and departs in mid-October. Breeding occurs in shrub-steppe and greasewood habitats and in large sagebrush openings in pinyon-juniper and coniferous forests. Nesting and foraging areas are usually in shrub patches with a greater percentage of live shrub growth and greater canopy cover than surrounding patches. While Brewer’s sparrow populations are declining rangewide, the Utah population appears to be stable and possibly increasing. Brewer’s sparrows are one of the most common shrub-steppe species in the state and are likely viable at the current population level. Utah’s extensive shrub-steppe communities have the potential to provide large amounts of suitable Brewer’s sparrow habitat and to act as a refugium for other western populations (Parrish et al. 2002). Brewer’s sparrows were commonly observed within the project area.
The sage sparrow is closely associated with big sagebrush, whether in pure stands or interspersed with bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), shadscale,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 62 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), or greasewood. Sage sparrows rarely use mixed sagebrush-juniper habitats except along ecotones. Breeding sage sparrows prefer semi- open habitats with evenly spaced tall shrubs but also use bunchgrass and occasionally the ground under a shrub. In Utah, nests have been observed in a variety of shrub species including rabbitbrush, hopsage (Grayia spp.), saltbush, and big sagebrush. Sage sparrows were commonly observed within the project area.
The Swainson's hawk forages in open farmland, sagebrush desert, or prairies and nests in wooded riparian areas, windbreaks, or other treed or shrubby areas near open habitats. During the breeding season, diets consist largely of small mammals including ground squirrels. During migration, diets are exclusively insectivorous, with grasshoppers and dragonflies as major components. Swainson’s hawks have been observed in the project area, but no active nests were found in 2007 or 2008 within one-half mile of the proposed transmission line route (TetraTech 2008a).
The prairie falcon shifts habitats throughout the year and may migrate long distances. During the breeding season, the species inhabits dry, open shrub-steppe habitats with cliffs nearby for nesting. In late fall and winter, prairie falcons return to shrub-steppe habitats and agricultural areas to hunt wintering birds. Habitat loss has limited both nesting and foraging habitat throughout the prairie falcon’s range. Prairie falcons and their nests have been observed in the project area, but no active nests were found within one-quarter-mile of the proposed transmission line route (TetraTech 2008a).
The northern harrier typically inhabits open areas, including grassland, wetland, agricultural, and steppe habitats. Diet varies with prey availability but consists mostly of small mammals and occasionally birds. Northern harriers have been observed in the project area, but no active nests were found within one-half mile of the proposed transmission line route (TetraTech 2008a).
The golden eagle inhabits open areas including alpine parklands and clearcuts, shrub- steppe, and open forests. Golden eagles typically nest in open areas with large cliffs or trees and defend large territories. Prey species consist mostly of medium-sized mammals such as marmots, rabbits, and ground squirrels. Golden eagles also prey on birds and will scavenge deer and elk carrion, especially during winter. Golden eagles were the most commonly observed raptor within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. Three active golden eagle nests were found within one-half mile of the proposed transmission line route; two in 2008 and one in 2007 (TetraTech 2008a).
The loggerhead shrike breeds in open habitats including grasslands and shrub-steppe and tends to nest in dense shrubs and ravines. Loggerhead shrikes require large territories and occur in low densities. The loggerhead shrike is predominantly insectivorous and feeds mainly on grasshoppers during the summer. It also occasionally eats small lizards, rodents, and small birds. Loggerhead shrikes were observed within the project area.
The mourning dove inhabits a variety of open habitats and forests ecotones. Mourning doves are classified as a migratory game bird and are commonly hunted throughout much of the United States. Mourning doves were commonly observed within and near the project area.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 63 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 3.3.9.3 Utah BLM Sensitive Plant Species The State of Utah does not designate or provide legal protection for sensitive plant species. However, it does serve as the repository for information on the known distributions and status of various categories of “rare” plants through the UDWR. These include plant species on the Utah BLM State Director’s Sensitive Plant Species List (BLM Sensitive Plant Species). The BLM CCFO and FFO have conducted consultation with the UDWR regarding the potential for any BLM Sensitive Plant Species to occur at the proposed Wind Energy Facility site or along the proposed transmission line route. The UDWR provided information indicating that four BLM Sensitive Plant Species, Jones’ globemallow (Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. caespitosa)6, Neese narrowleaf penstemon (Penstemon angustifolius var. dulcis), small spring parsley (Cymopterus acaulis var. parvus), and giant four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens var. gigantea), have known distributions that could place them in the vicinity of areas that would be occupied by project features (UDWR 2007a). No BLM Sensitive Plant Species are known to occur on the Wind Energy Facility site. Review of the botanical literature indicates that each of the four BLM Sensitive Plant Species that could be affected by the project is endemic to a specific geologic formation and/or soil type (Franklin 1996, RMER 2005, RMER 2006, UDWR 1998, UNPS 2003-2007, Welsh et al. 2003). Analysis of available geological and soils mapping and inspection of the Wind Energy Facility site indicate that potentially suitable habitats for these species are lacking there. Therefore, none of these sensitive plant species is expected to occur at the Wind Energy Facility site. UDWR occurrence records and site-specific BLM plant maps suggest that the four BLM Sensitive Plant Species denoted above could occur along the proposed transmission line route. Jones’ globemallow was recorded from one location approximately 2 miles west of the proposed transmission line route in Millard County in 1935 (Franklin 1996). The main distribution of this species lies farther west in Beaver and Millard Counties in the Halfway Summit/Tunnel Spring Mountains area and along the west side of the Wah Wah Mountains (Franklin 1996, UDWR 1998). In these locations, it is endemic to soils derived from middle and upper Cambrian, Silurian, and Devonian dolomites, limestones, and shales. Inspection of geological mapping for the project area indicates that similar geologic outcrops occur near or within the proposed transmission line corridor along the eastern base of the Cricket Mountains, suggesting that potentially suitable habitat for Jones’ globemallow could occur in that area. Based on the recorded location of Jones’ globemallow in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line route and on the presence of similar geologic outcrops along the Cricket Mountains, a reconnaissance-level field survey of potentially suitable habitats in that portion of the proposed transmission line route was conducted in September 2007, and an intensive field survey was conducted during the species’ flowering period in June 2008. No individuals or populations of Jones’ globemallow were observed during either survey, and it is concluded that the species does not occur in that area. Neese narrowleaf penstemon, small spring parsley, and giant four-wing saltbush are endemic to aeolian sands and/or sand dunes in northern Millard County, as well as to the north in Juab County (sweet penstemon and giant four-wing saltbush) and Tooele County (small spring parsley) (RMER 2005, RMER 2006, UDWR 1998, UNPS 2003-2007, Welsh et al. 2003). All are
6 Nomenclature follows Welsh et al. 2003.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 64 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 known to occur in the vicinity of the IPP generating plant near the terminus of the proposed transmission line at the IPP substation. Based on soils mapping and field reconnaissance in May 2008, potentially suitable habitat for Neese narrowleaf penstemon, small spring parsley, and giant four-wing saltbush was identified near the IPP generating plant. An intensive field survey of potentially suitable habitats in this area was conducted in June 2008. No individuals or populations of small spring parsley or giant four-wing saltbush were observed during the survey. However, Neese narrowleaf penstemon was discovered in small areas of loose sandy soils7 that occur intermittently for a distance of approximately 1 mile along the proposed transmission line route just west of the IPP generating plant. These plants are likely the westernmost extension of the large population of Neese narrowleaf penstemon (estimated at greater than 500,000 individuals) that occurs along State Route 174 east of the IPP generating plant (UDWR 1998).
3.3.10 Cultural Resources 3.3.10.1 Historic Properties Cultural resources include historic and prehistoric sites of interest and may include structures, archaeological sites, or religious sites of importance to Native American cultures. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 40 et seq.), requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The National Park Service (NPS) defines archaeological and historic resources as "the physical evidences of past human activity, including evidences of the effects of that activity on the environment. What makes a cultural resource significant is its identity, age, location, and context in conjunction with its capacity to reveal information through the investigatory research designs, methods, and techniques used by archeologists." Ethnographic resources are defined as any "site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature assigned traditional legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural system of a group traditionally associated with it" (NPS 1998). A cultural resource considered eligible for listing on the NRHP is referred to as a historic property. BLM has created a Programmatic Agreement (PA) signed by BLM CCFO, SITLA, Utah SHPO, and MWC. The ACHP has decided not to be a signatory to the agreement. The PA serves to guide the identification and evaluation of cultural resources and the determination of effects on cultural resources of the Proposed Action. BLM, as the lead agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate cultural resource studies, including Class I literature reviews and Class III intensive pedestrian inventories, have been conducted. According to the PA, these cultural resource studies would need to be completed before construction begins. To this end, appropriate literature reviews and pedestrian inventories have been completed, cultural resource sites have been recorded, and reports for both the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line have been submitted to BLM. Consultation with the SHPO regarding Determinations of Eligibility and
7 Yenrab fine sand (undulating) within the mapped Yenrab-Uffens complex of the Yenrab-Uvada soil association (SCS 1977); see Section 3.3.2, Soils.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 65 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Finding of Effect (DOE/FOE) for cultural resources located within the project area is currently being conducted and would be completed prior to construction.
Cultural Resources of the Proposed Wind Energy Facility Site The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for cultural resources associated with the Wind Energy Facility site was broadly defined through BLM and Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) consultations to encompass a block area within which the Wind Energy Facility would be constructed plus a 15-mile buffer around the Wind Energy Facility site. The large APE was designed to address direct impacts to sites within the Wind Energy Facility, as well as visual impacts to sites outside it. Intensive pedestrian surveys of 3,393 acres within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site were conducted between December 2007 and March 2008 (Sagebrush 2008). The surveys covered a 500-foot-wide corridor for each of ten wind turbine arrays and a 100- to 200-foot-wide corridor for all proposed access roads. All surveys were conducted utilizing parallel transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart, which is considered 100 percent survey coverage. Proposed ancillary facilities such as the O&M facility, substation, and batch plant sites were also inventoried using block surveys. The cultural resource surveys documented 58 new cultural resource sites within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and revisited one previously recorded cultural resource. Forty of these sites are prehistoric lithic scatters, 17 are historic sites, and 2 contain evidence of both prehistoric and historic occupations. Most of the prehistoric sites are temporary campsites utilized while procuring locally available resources, most likely obsidian. The relatively dense concentration of prehistoric sites mainly used in procuring obsidian creates a “lithic landscape” cultural environment. Lithic landscape is a term describing the abundance of naturally occurring toolstone material (in this case obsidian) and chipped stone flakes found over a large area. Often, as is the case in this area, there are concentrations of flakes that represent individual sites occupied for the purpose of quarrying obsidian. Quarrying activities may include testing cobbles of obsidian for quality, reducing cores of obsidian for transportation, and early-stage tool manufacturing. Several of the sites contain fire-cracked rocks from prehistoric hearths, and a few sites contain ceramic sherds. The number of prehistoric cultural resources in the project area is directly related to the abundance of high-quality obsidian available in and flowing from the Mineral Mountains. The surveys of the Wind Energy Facility encompassed 3,393 acres and located a total of 42 prehistoric sites (one site per 80.8 acres). Densities of prehistoric sites are related to a number of factors, including the availability of resources for food or raw materials, as well as to several environmental factors such as the availability of water, shelter, topography, vegetation, soil conditions, and, possibly, to cultural or religious factors important to the occupants but not reflected in the archaeological record. Areas with abundant natural resources and reliable water sources often show greater densities of prehistoric sites and may include more complex sites such as pithouses or villages. Historic sites reflect a period of early homesteading and ranching in the area. Several historic homesteads with signs of buildings, corrals, and irrigation structures are located within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. Other historic sites include trash scatters or dumps and earthen dams.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 66 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 For the 59 sites documented within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site, 32 sites are eligible for listing on the NRHP and 27 sites as not eligible for listing.
Cultural Resources of the Proposed Transmission Line Route The APE for cultural resources along the proposed transmission line route was broadly defined through BLM and SHPO consultations to encompass a 10-mile-wide corridor extending 5 miles from either side of the proposed transmission line. The large APE was designed to address direct impacts to sites within the transmission line ROW and access roads, as well as visual impacts to sites outside the proposed transmission line corridor. Intensive pedestrian surveys of the proposed transmission line route, including the spur access roads, were conducted between January and March 2008 (SWCA 2008). Generally, the centerline of the proposed transmission line route is 250 feet to the east of the existing IPP transmission line, and the cultural resource surveys covered a 500-foot-wide corridor centered on the proposed transmission line centerline. The cultural resource surveys documented 75 cultural resource sites along the proposed transmission line corridor. Documented sites include 55 prehistoric sites, seven historic sites, and thirteen sites with both prehistoric and historic components. Thirty-six of the prehistoric sites are characterized as lithic scatters; the remaining nineteen also contained ceramic sherds. The relative abundance of cultural resources on a linear corridor such as this is entirely dependant upon the environmental zones, topography, and potentially unknown cultural or religious elements crossed by the corridor. Densities of prehistoric sites result from the factors describe for the Wind Energy Facility, as well a number of factors including availability of resources for food or raw materials, and several environmental factors such as availability of water, shelter, topography, vegetation, soil conditions, and possibly cultural or religious factors important to the occupants that are not reflected in the archaeological record. Areas with abundant natural resources and reliable water sources often times show even greater densities of prehistoric sites and may include even more complex sites, such as pithouses or villages. BLM’s determination of eligibility for the 75 sites documented along the proposed transmission line route recommend 50 sites as eligible for listing on the NRHP and 25 as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. One of the 50 NRHP eligible sites is a historical highway and has lost integrity where it crosses the project area and therefore does not contribute to the characteristics that make the site NRHP eligible.
Cultural Resources Visual Setting The APE for the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line were broadly defined to address visual impacts to cultural resource sites from the proposed project. A GIS model was created to define the area within the APE from which the Wind Energy Facility or the transmission line could actually be seen. Thus, areas within the APE with intervening topography (mountains, ridges, etc.) were eliminated from analysis. The analysis examined previously recorded and documented sites from records maintained by the Utah Division of State History and the BLM Fillmore Field Office. Within the APE, a total of 370 sites recommended as eligible for nomination to the NRHP were evaluated to identify which sites would be impacted by changes to their visual setting due to the presence of the Wind Energy Facility or the transmission line. Although a total of 370 NRHP eligible sites are located within
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 67 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 the APE and within the modeled viewshed, and analysis of site types with potential viewshed effects came up with a subset of 39 potential viewshed effects.
3.3.10.2 Native American Religious Concerns BLM has initiated Native American consultation on a government-to-government basis. Early discussions with the Paiute Tribe of Utah began in April 2007, and BLM CCFO cultural resource specialists conducted a site visit for the tribe on June 13, 2007. At that time, the Paiute Tribe of Utah expressed some concern about potential impacts to a large, high-density obsidian scatter located near the southern end of the Wind Energy Facility and indicated its desire to continue consultation, including review of the results of the cultural resource surveys conducted for the project. On December 11, 2007, BLM FFO sent a letter to Native American tribes inviting them to comment on the project and to provide assistance in identifying properties of traditional, religious, or cultural importance that may be impacted by the project. The letter was sent to the Paiute Tribe of Utah, Kanosh Band of the Paiute Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Skull Valley Goshute Tribe, and Uintah Ouray Ute Tribe. A letter requesting the results of the cultural inventories was received from the Confederated Tribe of the Goshute Reservation. No other responses to the initial consultation letter have been received. Native American consultation is ongoing with the Paiute Tribe of Utah. The tribe will be given an opportunity to review the cultural resource survey reports and comment on any concerns related to the sites located within the Wind Energy Facility and along the proposed transmission line route. If other tribes express an interest in or concern about the project, they will also be given the opportunity to provide comments to the BLM.
3.3.11 Visual Resources Visual or aesthetic resources are the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Visual resource or aesthetic impacts are generally defined in terms of a facility’s physical characteristics and potential visibility and the extent to which the facility’s presence would change the perceived visual character and quality of the environment in which it would be located. To provide a basis for assessing the proposed Facility’s potential effects on the visual resources of the Facility site and area around it, this section documents the existing visual conditions on the site and in the surrounding area.
Landscape Setting and Existing Conditions The proposed Wind Energy Facility and the southern portion of the transmission line would be located in the broad valley along the Beaver River that is framed by the Mineral Mountains on the east and the San Francisco and Cricket Mountains on the west. Farther north, the transmission line route travels along the base of the Cricket Mountains and then through the flat valley-floor lands of the Sevier Desert. The overall landscape character of this area is that of a broad, open desert valley ringed by mountains. The existing conditions in this landscape reflect the fact that this region has been developed for human use and habitation. Major settlements in this area include the community of Milford, which has a population of approximately 1,200, Hinckley, with a population of approximately 700, and Delta with a population of 3,200. The appearance of large areas of the valley floor around both Milford and
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 68 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Delta has been transformed through conversion to irrigated agriculture. In much of the rest of the valley area, the grass and shrub lands are used for grazing. The main Salt Lake to Los Angeles route of the Union Pacific Railroad extends south to north through the valley between Milford and Delta, and the rail line is paralleled by Utah State Route 257. A major east-west highway designated as U.S. Highways 6 and 50 extends west across the flat desert floor from Delta. Other major infrastructure that is part of the existing landscape in this area includes the IPP generating plant north of Delta, the 500-kV IPP transmission line that starts at the IPP generating plant and extends south through the entire valley as it heads toward Los Angeles, the Brush Wellman beryllium refining plant located in the vicinity of the IPP generating plant, the Graymont Cricket Mountain limestone and dolomite quarry and nearby Cricket Mountain processing plant located between Delta and Milford, and the AT&T Cricket Mountain telecommunications tower. The Wind Energy Facility site is located on the toe of an alluvial fan at the base of the Mineral Mountains. The site is generally flat, but slopes gently upward toward the east. Currently, the site is used for grazing and is covered by shrubby grassland that has a grazed appearance. The site does not include any features that would be considered to be scenic, and the BLM has assigned the BLM lands at the Wind Energy Facility site a Visual Resource Management classification of IV, which designates lands on which major modification of the existing character of the landscape is permissible. For most of its length, the proposed transmission line route follows the existing IPP transmission line. This double-circuit transmission line is carried on steel-lattice structures with a grey metallic surface. The existing line is paralleled by an access road that would also provide access to the proposed transmission line. Most of the land across which the proposed transmission line would travel is administered by the BLM and has been assigned a Visual Resource Management classification of IV.
Views from Key Observation Points To provide a basis for conducting an analysis of the Project’s impacts in terms of the BLM’s Visual Resource Management System, three key observation points (KOPs) were established. These three viewpoints were selected to provide views toward the Wind Energy Facility site and the transmission line route that are representative of views toward these areas that would be seen by large numbers of viewers and/or by viewers who might be particularly sensitive to alterations of the view. The viewpoints selected are: KOP 1 – Milford Trap Club, KOP 2 – Utah State Route 257, and KOP 3 – Topaz Japanese-American WWII Internment Camp. A BLM Visual Contrast Rating Worksheet (BLM Form 8400-4, September 1985) was prepared for each of the representative KOPs (BLM 1985). The completed forms, photographs of a representative view from each KOP, and a map showing the location and direction of view of each KOP photograph are provided in Appendix K, Visual Contrast Rating Worksheets and Photographs of Key Observation Points.
Key Observation Point 1 – Milford Trap Club The Milford Trap Club was selected as a representative KOP for the Wind Energy Facility. The Milford Trap Club is located on the northwest edge of the town of Milford, on a low hill overlooking the Milford Valley north of town. The photograph of KOP 1 in Appendix K, Visual Contrast Rating Worksheets and Photographs of Key Observation Points, provides a representative
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 69 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 image of what Milford Trap Club members would see while recreating at the trap club. The photograph was taken looking northeast toward the Wind Energy Facility site. The valley floor is in the foreground and middleground, and the Mineral Mountains and their alluvial fans are in the background. The observation would be of medium duration, with the viewer tending to focus on recreational activities. KOP 1 is a view of a flat to gently eroded river valley rimmed by low mountains and associated alluvial fans. The view overlooks a rural setting, including a residence, the local airport, and open land. The line of the view is generally horizontal with a peaked skyline. The land has a patchy, gravelly texture and is a tan color in the foreground. Although not visible in the photograph, the land in the middleground and throughout the valley also has a patchy, gravelly texture and is tan in color. The color and texture of the land associated with the mountains in the background cannot be distinguished from this KOP. No water is visible in the representative view. The typical vegetation in the view is predominantly scattered, low, rounded shrubs interspersed with clumps of native grass. The vegetation has a generally weak horizontal line, and colors range from tan to a dusky sage green, with occasional yellow flowers. The vegetation exhibits an overall bristly texture in the foreground to middleground. The vegetation on the mountains in the background cannot be distinguished from this KOP. The structures in the foreground include evenly spaced, off-white concrete slabs and an isolated red building with a flat, gray roof. On the valley floor, the airport and the structures associated with the airstrip are distributed unevenly and are surrounded by open, undeveloped land. The structures in the middleground include rectangular gray and white buildings with pointed blue-gray roofs.
Key Observation Point 2 – Utah State Route 257 – Cricket Mountains Utah State Route 257 looking toward the Cricket Mountains was selected as a representative KOP for the southern part of the proposed transmission line. KOP 2 is located approximately 40 miles north of the town of Milford along Utah State Route 257. The photograph of KOP 2 in Appendix K, Visual Contrast Rating Worksheets and Photographs of Key Observation Points, provides a representative image of what a traveler driving on Utah State Route 257 would see when looking west toward the Cricket Mountains. The photograph was taken looking across the Milford Valley to the Cricket Mountains approximately 4 miles to the west. The observation would be of short duration as a result of the speed at which the vehicle would be traveling. KOP 2 is a view from the flat valley floor toward the well-rounded and weathered Cricket Mountains. The view overlooks horizontal, open, undeveloped land with a rounded skyline. Structures barely visible in the view include the existing IPP transmission line at the base of the Cricket Mountains, including two transmission line towers on their crest. The land has a granular texture and is light brown in the foreground, is not visible due to intervening vegetation in the middleground, and is a smooth darker brown along the mountains. No water is visible in the representative view. The typical vegetation in the view is predominantly dense native grass with scattered, low, rounded shrubs. The vegetation has a generally weak horizontal line and colors ranging from tan to a dusky, dark sage green. The vegetation has an overall bristly texture.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 70 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 The lattice steel towers of the IPP transmission line are triangular in shape, medium to dark gray in color, and prickly in texture. The approximately 130-foot-high towers are not easily distinguished from this distance.
Key Observation Point 3 – Topaz Japanese-American WWII Internment Camp The Topaz Japanese-American WWII Internment Camp monument site was selected as a representative KOP for the proposed transmission line. KOP 3 is located east and south of the northern portion of the proposed transmission line route. The photograph of KOP 3 in Appendix K, Visual Contrast Rating Worksheets and Photographs of Key Observation Points, is a representative image of what a visitor to the monument would see when looking northwest. The observation would be of medium to long duration, the viewer visiting the site for historical, recreational, or contemplative purposes. KOP 3 is a view from the flat valley floor toward the Topaz Mountains, Fumarole Butte, and the Keg Mountains, which are located northwest of the proposed transmission line route and the internment camp. The view overlooks horizontal, open, undeveloped land ending with a jagged skyline. A typical barbwire fence, a parking area, and rural dirt road are visible in the foreground, and towers of the existing IPP transmission line are barely visible near the base of the mountains in the background. The land has a granular texture and is light tan in the foreground, covered by vegetation in the middleground, and cannot be distinguished in the background. No water is visible in the representative view. The typical vegetation in the view is predominantly densely spaced, low, rounded shrubs, with scattered native grass in the near to middleground. The vegetation has a generally weak horizontal line, is primarily tan in color, and has an overall prickly texture. The barbwire fence is constructed of wooden and rusted metal fence posts and barb wire. The road and gravel parking area for the monument are dark tan with a gravelly texture and a strong horizontal line. The vertical lattice transmission line towers in the background are evenly distributed, triangular, and dark gray.
3.3.12 Socioeconomics Current conditions for socioeconomic resources are described for the area most likely to experience impacts associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Milford Wind Corridor Project. This area of potential impact is referred to as the region of influence (ROI) and comprises Beaver, Iron, and Millard Counties in southwestern Utah.8
Economic Activity Employment As of 2005, the farming sector contributed 17 percent and 16 percent to total employment in Beaver County and Millard County, respectively, and 3 percent to employment in Iron County (BEA 2008). Employment in the public sector is high in all three counties. Government and
8 Cities and towns mentioned in this section include Cedar City, Enoch, Paragonah, Parowan, and Kanarraville in Iron County; Fillmore, Kanosh, Leamington, Hinkley, Lynndyl, and Delta in Millard County; and Beaver, Milford, and Minersville in Beaver County.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 71 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 government enterprises (federal, state, and local) contributed 22 percent in Beaver County, 18.5 percent in Iron County, and 17.5 percent in Millard County; in Beaver and Millard Counties, local government accounted for a large proportion of this employment, while, in Iron County, it was almost evenly split between state and local government. Other sectors making major contributions to the local economies are services and retail trade. Iron County has a greater array of major employers than the smaller local economies of Beaver and Millard Counties (EDC 2008). Excluding the public sector, there are single large employers in both Beaver County (Circle Four Farms) and Millard County (Intermountain Power Service). Southern Utah University is by far the largest employer in Iron County.
Unemployment Since 2000, unemployment rates have generally followed trends for the nation and the State of Utah (BLS 2008). In 2005, the unemployment rate was about 4 percent for each of the three counties in the ROI.
Income and Earnings Total personal income in 2005 was greatest in Iron County (almost $800 million) followed distantly by Millard County ($283 million) and Beaver County ($176 million) (BEA 2008). In Beaver County, farming contributes 46 percent of total earnings, whereas this sector contributes only 7 percent in Iron County and 19 percent in Millard County. Manufacturing contributes 12 percent in Iron County, and transportation/warehousing contributes 11 percent of total earnings in Beaver County. Government comprises 28 percent of total earnings in Iron County, 22 percent in Millard County, and 18 percent in Beaver County; local government alone comprises 15 percent of total earnings in Millard County, 14 percent in Beaver County, and 11 percent in Iron County. Transfer receipts to individuals from government agencies (retirement and disability insurance benefits, medical benefits, income maintenance benefits, unemployment insurance compensation, veterans benefits, and federal education and training assistance) comprise 17 percent of total personal income in Iron County, 16 percent in Millard County, and 15 percent in Beaver County. Taxes Counties and communities rely on revenues from property taxes, sales and use taxes, and other miscellaneous taxes to fund essential services.
Property Taxes Property taxes levied at the county level include taxes on residential, commercial, and industrial property, agricultural land and buildings, mobile homes, motor vehicles, and other personal property (Utah State Tax Commission 2008). A statewide tax is levied to finance schools through the Uniform School Fund. Property assessed by the state includes utilities (airlines, other transportation, power, telephone, and pipeline and gas utilities) and natural resources (oil and gas extraction, metal mines, coal mines, sand and gravel, and non-metal mines). The largest state-assessed companies are Kern River Transmission Company in Beaver and Iron Counties and Intermountain Power Agency in Millard County. A large share of the tax revenues for Iron County is derived from real property, with very little from utilities and natural resources. In Millard County, almost 70 percent of tax revenues are derived from
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 72 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 utilities (Intermountain Power Agency), with just over 20 percent coming from real property. In Beaver County, 57 percent of tax revenues are from real property and 26 percent from utilities. Sales, Use, and Other Taxes The Utah sales tax applies to retail sales of meals, admissions to places of amusement, intrastate communication and passenger services, gas and heat utility services, commercial electric, hotel and motel accommodations, and certain other services. The Utah use tax is imposed on taxable transactions involving tangible personal property purchased outside Utah that the purchaser stores, uses, or consumes within the state. Beaver and Iron Counties impose an option sales and use tax and a restaurant tax on all prepared foods and beverages sold for immediate consumption. Beaver County imposes a rural hospital tax to support public hospitals and clinics. In addition to the sales tax charged on accommodations in hotels, motels, inns, and campgrounds, each of the three counties imposes a transient room tax, as does the City of Milford.
Population As of July 2006, the total populations of the three counties were 6,294 in Beaver County, 12,390 in Millard County, and 40,544 in Iron County (DEA 2008, U.S. Census Bureau 2008b). Between 2000 and 2006, population increased by 19 percent in Iron County and 14 percent in Beaver County, while Millard County experienced a slight decline. The proportion of minority population in each of the three counties is lower than that of the State of Utah as a whole. Fillmore and Lynndyl in Millard County have minority populations above the state level (U.S. Census Bureau 2008a). The proportion of the population below the poverty level (low income) is higher in Iron and Millard Counties than in the State of Utah as a whole. The highest proportions occur in Cedar City, Paragonah, and Parowan in Iron County; Fillmore, Kanosh, Leamington, Hinkley, and Delta in Millard County; and Milford in Beaver County (U.S. Census Bureau 2008a).
Housing Permanent Housing A large majority of occupied housing in the ROI is owned: 75 percent in Beaver County, 78 percent in Iron County, and 85 percent in Millard County (U.S. Census Bureau 2008a). The proportion of rental housing is highest in Iron County (34 percent) and in Cedar City (45 percent) and Delta (30 percent). In 2000, vacant housing represented over 25 percent of all housing units in Beaver County, 22 percent in Iron County, and 15 percent in Millard County. Minersville, Enoch, Cedar City, and Delta have relatively low vacancy rates ranging from 6.6 to 9.0 percent. The proportion of vacant housing intended for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use is about 66 percent in Iron County, 59 percent in Beaver County, and 32 percent in Millard County.
Residential Construction Trends From 2000 through 2006, a total of almost 4,700 residential units were authorized for construction within the ROI (SOCDS 2008). At the end of 2006, construction activity in Iron
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 73 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 County dominated that of the other counties with over 90 percent of total housing construction; Beaver County and Millard County contributed approximately 5 percent each.
Temporary Housing Where the local area is unable to provide adequate numbers of workers with the requisite skills for construction projects, it is common practice for workers from other locations to temporarily relocate to communities close to the project site. This is especially the case for construction projects of relatively short duration, e.g., less than a year, and in rural areas with relatively small labor pools. These relocating workers typically seek temporary housing such as hotels, motels, recreational vehicle (RV) sites, campgrounds, and, to a lesser extent, rental housing units such as apartments and single family homes. The construction schedule for the Milford Wind Corridor Project is relatively short, and it is anticipated that the majority of non-local workers associated with the project would choose to reside in temporary accommodations such as hotels and motels and RV parks. There are over 3,250 hotel and motel rooms within 100 miles of the project site (STR 2008). About 480 are in Beaver County, with most located approximately 33 miles away in the vicinity of the town of Beaver and adjacent to Interstate 15. There are over 280 units in Millard County and over 1,350 in Iron County, with the large majority located in and around Cedar City. Facilities within daily commuting distance are also available in neighboring Juab and Sevier Counties. There are also numerous RV parks within the ROI, including facilities in Beaver, Minersville, Cedar City, Parowan, Kanarraville, Delta, and Fillmore (Utah Travel Industry 2008).
Community Facilities and Services Law Enforcement Law enforcement in Beaver and Millard Counties is mainly the responsibility of the respective County Sheriff’s Office. Full-time law enforcement officers (LEOs) per 1,000 residents are 2.4 for Beaver County and 1.4 for Millard County (Utah Department of Public Safety 2008). With a larger population to serve, the Iron County Sheriff’s Office has more LEOs, and there also are a number of community police departments. LEOs per 1,000 residents for Iron County is 2.0; however, service levels are considerably higher for the Sheriff’s Office at 4.2 LEOs per 1,000 residents.
Hospitals and Emergency Medical Services A number of small rural hospitals serve the acute care needs of the residents of the ROI. There are two hospitals each in Beaver and Millard Counties and one facility in Cedar City in Iron County (Utah Department of Health 2008a). Intermediate-level emergency medical service is available in the ROI from a number of providers. Paramedic service is available only in Iron County (Utah Department of Health 2008b).
Public Schools Each of the counties in the ROI supports a public school district. There are a total of 35 schools in the three public school districts, with a combined student enrollment of almost 11,800 (NCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 74 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 2008). The student/teacher ratio is similar among the school districts at about 20:1. There are also a number of small private schools in the ROI.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 75 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Proposed Action
4.2.1 Land Use 4.2.1.1 Rights-of-Way Construction Construction of the Milford Wind Corridor Project under the Proposed Action would maximize the use of existing BLM-designated ROW corridors. The proposed transmission line would be constructed primarily within the existing IPP to California Transmission Line corridor. Consistent with the terms of the IPP transmission line corridor designation, the proposed transmission line would be placed “adjacent to . . . or as close as possible” to the IPP transmission line (BLM 1984, BLM 1987a, BLM 1987b). The proposed offset of the Milford Wind Corridor Project transmission line at approximately 250 feet east of the centerline of the existing IPP transmission line would preserve future opportunities for the BLM to authorize additional transmission lines or other utilities within the designated corridor. Also consistent with the terms of the IPP transmission line corridor designation, the existing IPP transmission line access road would be used to the extent feasible; new roads would be constructed within the corridor primarily to provide access to the new transmission line tower sites. The BLM ROW grants for this project would be subject to conditions and regulations of valid shared ROWs, as appropriate, as well as to stipulations of other BLM-authorized uses. On state-managed public land, an easement would be required from SITLA, and, on private lands, surface easements would be acquired to locate, construct, operate, and maintain project features. These easements and agreements may contain conditions for site reclamation and/or repair of property, as necessary. Implementation of environmental protection measures during construction, including using existing roads as much as possible, consolidating infrastructure as much as possible, and coordinating with ROW holders and non-federal landowners, would minimize impacts to BLM- designated corridors and shared ROWs. Environmental protection measures for the Milford Wind Corridor Project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures. Operation The proposed transmission line ROW would be maintained as necessary during operation of the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Routine maintenance of the transmission line is not likely to require frequent ground disturbance or activities that would conflict with other ROWs, and no impacts to BLM-designated corridors would result from operation of the project under the Proposed Action.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 76 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Decommissioning Decommissioning of the project under the Proposed Action would result in termination of all BLM ROW grants associated with this project. Transmission line features would be removed from the ROW, and occupied sites would be restored to pre-project conditions to the extent feasible. The IPP transmission line access road would remain in place to continue serving the IPP transmission line. The designated IPP transmission line corridor would continue to be available for siting other BLM-authorized transmission lines or other utilities.
4.2.1.2 Livestock Grazing Construction Construction under the Proposed Action could have temporary minor impacts on livestock grazing within affected BLM grazing allotments. Livestock may be disturbed by construction traffic, equipment activity, and noise. Such disturbance may cause poor livestock distribution within allotments, which could lead to negative impacts to vegetation and soils related to localized overgrazing and trampling (see also Section 4.2.6.2, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines). The operation of construction equipment and vehicles during project construction could also increase the potential for accidental wildfire, especially in light of the abundance of cheatgrass throughout the area. Soils would be impacted directly by overland travel, project construction, increased livestock activity, and removal of native vegetation, and such areas may be susceptible to noxious weed invasions (see also Section 4.2.6.3, Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species). These impacts could reduce the value of BLM allotments for grazing. Estimates of construction disturbance on each BLM grazing allotment under the Proposed Action are presented in Table 14, Estimated Acreage of Each Grazing Allotment Potentially Impacted by Construction. These estimates have been derived from BLM GIS allotment mapping and the geographical distribution of major project features contributing to temporary and permanent disturbance at the Wind Energy Facility site and along the proposed transmission line route.
TABLE 14 Estimated Acreage of Each Grazing Allotment Potentially Impacted by Construction Grazing Allotment Wind Energy Wind Energy Proposed Proposed Facility Facility Transmission Transmission Temporary Permanent Line Temporary Line Permanent Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Beaver Lake 26 3
Black Rock Summer 149 41
Chalk Knolls 51 3
Crickett 139 10
Deseret 94 6
Hanson 1,314 264 20 4
Red Rock 18 5
Seely 49 4
Smelter Mountain 78 6
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 77 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 14 Estimated Acreage of Each Grazing Allotment Potentially Impacted by Construction Grazing Allotment Wind Energy Wind Energy Proposed Proposed Facility Facility Transmission Transmission Temporary Permanent Line Temporary Line Permanent Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Smithson 49 7
Sugarville 21 2
Twin Peaks 2 1
Total 1,463 305 547 51
(Not in Allotments) 5 3 33 2
Up to approximately 2,010 acres of land within these twelve BLM grazing allotments would be temporarily disturbed and up to approximately 356 acres of grazing allotments would be permanently occupied by project features as a result of construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line under the Proposed Action. Temporary disturbance would represent less than 0.2 percent of the total acreage (over 1 million acres) in these allotments, and permanent disturbance would represent less than 0.04 percent. Due to the relatively low disturbance to soils and vegetation, it is not expected that a reduction in livestock Animal Unit Months would be warranted within the CCFO; however, a reduction in AUMs may be needed within the FFO. Physical features supporting BLM grazing allotments, including stock watering reservoirs, water pipelines, and allotment and pasture fences, could also be affected by project construction. Most impacts to grazing would be minimal and short-term in nature if proposed environmental protection measures for vegetation and soil resources are implemented. Such potential impacts would not affect grazing resources in a manner that would cause the allotments to be out of compliance with Rangeland Health Standards or to not conform to the Guidelines for Grazing Management (see Sections 3.3.6.2 and 4.2.6.2, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines). Revegetation of disturbed areas would be designed on a site-specific basis in consultation with the BLM to maintain or enhance the value of grazing allotments (see Section 4.2.6.2, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines). Other environmental protection measures, including avoiding stock watering reservoirs, pipelines, installing cattle guards, repairing fences, and minimizing the potential for accidental wildfires, would further minimize impacts to grazing resources. Environmental protection measures for the Milford Wind Corridor Project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures. Operation Grazing allotments would continue to be used during operation of the Wind Energy Facility. Although there would continue to be routine project activity during the operations phase, it is
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 78 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 expected that livestock would become accustomed to intermittent vehicular travel and that livestock distribution within allotments would return to preconstruction levels. Grazing allotments occupied by the project would remain in compliance with the Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines if areas disturbed by construction are successfully reseeded and noxious weeds are controlled. Approximately 305 acres of land within current BLM grazing allotments within the Wind Energy Facility site and up to approximately 51 acres of grazing allotments along the proposed transmission line route would be occupied by project features throughout the operations period and would, thus, be unavailable for grazing. Decommissioning Decommissioning would result in similar impacts as those described for construction, and the same environmental protection measures would be implemented. Decommissioning and final site restoration and revegetation would restore approximately 356 acres to grazing uses.
4.2.2 Soils Construction Impacts to soils from construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line include soil erosion due to wind and to surface water runoff. During construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line, activities that could contribute to soil erosion include ground disturbance and heavy equipment traffic. Ground disturbance would occur during construction of access roads, wind turbine tower pads, laydown and staging areas, the electrical substation, and the O&M facility and during installation of underground cables and other on-site features. Heavy vehicles can disturb or destroy stable soil conditions and promote soil erosion by both wind and surface runoff. Grading, excavation, and other construction activities could alter surface runoff patterns by diverting natural drainage into new areas and locally increasing runoff volumes. Soil erosion impacts include soil nutrient loss and degradation of water quality in nearby surface waters (BLM 2005a). Approximately 1,468 acres of soil would be temporarily disturbed during construction of the Wind Energy Facility, and approximately 556 acres of soil would be temporarily disturbed during construction of the proposed transmission line. Approximately 308 acres of soil would be permanently occupied by Wind Energy Facility structures, and approximately 53 acres would be permanently disturbed for the proposed transmission line. Most soils in the project area are designated as having low or medium runoff potential (NCSS 2007). Three soil associations within the project area have high water erosion potential. Soils with high water erosion potential at the Wind Energy Facility site include Robozo silt loam soils in the central portion of the site and Saltair-Playas soils in the western portion of the site. The Saltair soil association is poorly drained, with negligible surface runoff if ponded; otherwise, there is potential for very high surface runoff (NCSS 2007). Along the proposed transmission line route, the Hiko Springs-Checkett-Rock land soil association has medium to rapid runoff potential (SCS 1977). Construction activities would involve approximately 89 acres of soils with high water potential within the Wind Energy Facility site and approximately 4 acres of soils with high water potential along the transmission line route. These areas would constitute less than 5 percent of the soils disturbed by construction activity. Impacts to these soils would be temporary.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 79 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Wind erosion is also a hazard for soils in the project area. A close correlation exists between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, the presence of rock fragments and organic matter, and a calcareous reaction (NRCS 2008). Wind erodibility for the majority of soils potentially affected by project construction varies from low to moderate (NRCS 2008). Three soil associations within the project area are designated as having a high or severe wind erodibility index. A very small area of Sheeprock-Cokel complex soils occurs in the southeastern corner of the Wind Energy Facility near base of the Mineral Mountains. This is a well-drained to excessively drained soil, and the hazard of wind erosion is considered severe (NRCS 2008). Soils in the Mazuma family complex occur in the northwestern portion of the proposed transmission line route west of Delta. The hazard of wind erosion is considered high for this soil (NRCS 2008). Soils of the Yenrab-Uvada and Yuba-Effens-Uvada associations, including sand dunes and hummocks of the Yenrab fine sands (undulating) soil type, occur west of the IPP substation. Soils in these associations are well drained and somewhat excessively drained, with a severe hazard of soil blowing (SCS 1977). Construction activities would involve less than 2 acres of soils with a high or severe wind erodibility index, and impacts to these soils would be temporary. These areas would constitute approximately 0.1 percent of the soils disturbed by construction activity. Implementation of the environmental protection measures described in Appendix D, Site- Specific Environmental Protection Measures, including minimizing disturbed areas to the extent practicable, using existing roads and travelling overland as much as possible to minimize the need for clearing and grading, constructing project facilities on nearly level to gentle slopes to reduce runoff velocity and erosion potential, implementing erosion control measures, and revegetating disturbed areas, would minimize impacts to soils from project construction. The impacts of blowing soil due to project construction (fugitive dust) are described in Section 4.2.5, Air Quality. The potential impacts of surface water runoff are described in Section 4.2.4, Water Resources. Operation Environmental impacts to soils during operation of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line would largely be associated with limited soil erosion induced by vehicle traffic on unpaved roads. Some continued soil erosion from these sources is expected but would be minor. Implementation of the environmental protection measures described in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, would minimize potential impacts to soils from project operation and maintenance.
Decommissioning Potential impacts to soils from decommissioning under the Proposed Action would be similar to those described for construction. Soil erosion and some compaction are the primary impacts that would be expected from removal of roads, turbines, and other project structures. Environmental protection measures would be the same as those described for construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 80 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 4.2.3 Paleontological Resources The BLM considers paleontological resources identified on public lands to constitute a fragile and non-renewable scientific record of the history of life on earth and, thus, to represent an important and critical component of America’s natural heritage. Once damaged, destroyed, or improperly collected, the scientific and educational value of paleontological resources may be reduced or lost forever. In addition to their scientific, educational, and recreational values, paleontological resources can be used to inform land managers about interrelationships between the biological and geological components of ecosystems over long periods of time.
Construction The potential for fossil occurrences exists in the project area, particularly in the ancient Lake Bonneville shorelines, which are known to yield Pleistocene-age fossils elsewhere in the state. Sections of the Bonneville Shoreline and the Provo Shoreline would be occupied by project features. It is estimated that approximately 3,700 acres of the Wind Energy Facility site could occupy areas upland of the ancient Bonneville Shoreline and 25 miles of the proposed transmission line route could cross areas upland of the Bonneville or Provo Shorelines. Project construction could unearth such fossils if they were to be encountered in the course of access road construction, wind turbine tower foundation excavation, transmission line tower installation, or other earth-moving construction activities. Such disturbance would be a relatively small but permanent impact on paleontological resources. Based on the fact that the project would have the potential to affect only geological units unlikely to contain important paleontological resources (i.e., PFYC 2, see Section 3.3.3, Paleontological Resources) and that no scientifically important localities are known to occur in the immediate project area, no additional paleontological assessment is required (BLM 2008c, BLM 2008d). No impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated, but minor adverse impacts could occur if fossils are encountered during construction. Although the potential for locating or disturbing important fossil resources for this project is low, new deposits located by this work could be important in contributing to the body of knowledge on Pleistocene fossil locations (BLM 2008c, BLM 2008d). Due to the low potential for locating or disturbing important fossil resources, the BLM Utah State Office Regional Paleontologist has stated that it is unlikely that work would need to be suspended but recommends that all new discoveries be recorded and reported to the BLM (BLM 2008c, BLM 2008d). MWC would report fossil discoveries to the BLM and provide BLM the opportunity to investigate the fossil resource (see Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures).
Operation No new earth-moving activities would be associated with the operation and maintenance of the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Therefore, there would be no impacts on paleontological resources due to operation of the project under the Proposed Action.
Decommissioning Activities associated with decommissioning the Milford Wind Corridor Project would be similar in nature to those associated with its construction. However, all earth-moving activities would occur in areas that would have been previously disturbed for project construction, and,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 81 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 therefore, there would be no new impacts to paleontological resources due to decommissioning the project under the Proposed Action.
4.2.4 Water Resources 4.2.4.1 Surface Water Construction Both wind turbines and transmission line tower structures would be placed so as to avoid active channels for all surface water drainages. Stream and wash crossings for all new access roads would be constructed in accordance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required under the UPDES General Stormwater Construction Permit and would employ a range of BMPs to minimize disturbance, stabilize soils, protect slopes, control stormwater flows into and through the area. Potential impacts associated with erosion and sediment runoff would be minimal because of the lack of perennial waters in the project area and the implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and environmental protection measures to reduce construction related erosion. Executive Order 11988 requires agencies to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. There are no floodplains within the Wind Energy Facility. Along the transmission route, there are no mapped 100-year floodplains and neither the Beaver River nor the Sevier River has perennial flow. Nonetheless, there is a potential for flooding in these reaches during a 100-year flood. Aerial photography was used to assess the floodplain area for both river reaches. There are no residential property developments at risk from flooding in these areas and both Millard and Beaver counties have issued Conditional Use Permits for the project. Approximately five transmission tower structures may be constructed within the relict floodplain area of the Beaver River and three within the floodplain area of the current Sevier River channel. Installation of transmission pole structures would not cause a meaningful reduction in floodway capacity or increase the risk of flooding in adjacent areas. Overland travel would be used during construction, wherever possible, which would minimize road construction within the floodplain area. Where roads are constructed, the access roads in this area would be mostly at grade and would not use elevated roadways or fill from outside the floodplain area. Consequently, there would be no effect on floodway capacity or increased flood potential. During construction, vegetation removal would be minimized. Eight acres is the estimated maximum area within the floodplain areas of the two rivers that could be affected by vegetation removal. With the proposed revegetation effort following construction and natural recolonization by tamarisk, this would not result in a meaningful impact to the function and value of the floodplains. Therefore, no floodplain impacts are anticipated under the Proposed Action.
Operation Outdoor maintenance activities such as vehicle and equipment washing that could potentially create surface water discharges would be conducted in designated areas designed to treat this discharge in conformance with applicable UDEQ requirements. Potentially hazardous materials would be stored indoors at the O&M building in a manner that would comply with all
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 82 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 applicable local, state, and federal regulations. No impacts to surface water are anticipated from routine project operation and maintenance activities.
Decommissioning Project decommissioning activities would have similar surface-disturbing impacts as described for project construction. Implementation of BMPs similar to those described for protecting surface waters during construction would minimize potential impacts to surface waters during decommissioning.
4.2.4.2 Groundwater Construction The potential for accidental release of hazardous materials used in the construction of the proposed facilities could potentially result in adverse impacts to groundwater resources. Implementation of standard construction BMPs, as required in the UPDES General Stormwater Construction Permit SWPPP, would minimize the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater resources. No impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated from use of hazardous materials during project construction. The western portion of the Wind Energy Facility is situated in a region of shallow groundwater conditions, generally 30 feet bgs or less. Wind turbine foundations are anticipated to be less than 10 feet in depth, and there is a potential for encountering groundwater during their installation. Preliminary geotechnical testing results from MWC indicate that groundwater is not anticipated to be intercepted during construction. If groundwater were encountered, excavations would be dewatered in accordance with the UPDES General Permit for Construction Dewatering/Hydrostatic Testing (UPDES General Permit No. UTR070000) and construction dewatering BMPs including containment basins and removal of residual wastes would be implemented. Groundwater would be used for dust suppression and at the portable concrete batch plant during project construction. This water would be supplied from nearby private groundwater wells that operate under existing water rights. Maximum water consumption for dust suppression for the entire Wind Energy Facility, operation of the concrete batch plant, and transmission line is estimated at approximately 118 acre-feet. This represents less than three- tenths of 1 percent of the current annual water withdrawals from the Escalante Valley–Milford Area sub-basin and would not cause impacts to regional groundwater availability.
Operation A new well at the O&M facility would provide up to 5,000 gallons of water per day for sanitary and kitchen uses and for some industrial purposes such as truck washing and occasional road watering during project operation. A new well at the substation would provide up to 500 gallons of water per day for sanitary purposes. Well operations would comply with all applicable county and state regulations. MWC estimates total water withdrawals to be approximately 6 to 7 acre-feet per year. MWC would obtain water rights for use of the water from the State of Utah. No impacts to groundwater availability would occur from this small level of use.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 83 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Decommissioning Project decommissioning would involve surface-disturbing activities similar to those described for project construction. These activities would be covered under the UPDES General Stormwater Construction Permit. Implementation of site controls and standard construction BMPs, as required in the UPDES General Stormwater Construction Permit SWPPP (see Section 4.2.4.1, Surface Water), would minimize potential adverse impacts to groundwater resources.
4.2.5 Air Quality Project sources of air emissions, pollutants emitted, and factors contributing to the magnitude of project emissions are provided in Table 15, Project Emission Profile.
TABLE 15 Project Emissions Profile Activity Pollutants Factors
Vehicular Traffic CO, NOx, VOCs, particulates, SO2, Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) air toxics
Vehicle Fugitive Dust from Paved Particulates VMT, road conditions (e.g., silt and Unpaved Roads loading, silt content, moisture content and vehicle weight)
Construction Fugitive Dust from Particulates Acres disturbed Earth-moving Activities
Construction Equipment Exhaust CO, NOx, VOCs, particulates, SO2, Volume of fuel used air toxics
Concrete Batch Plant Particulates Volume of cement used
Emergency Generators CO, NOx, VOCs, particulates, SO2, Volume of fuel used or hours of air toxics operation
Construction, operation, and decommissioning activities would be required to comply with the provisions of Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307-205-5, Emissions Standards - Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust. Construction Construction of access roads and preparation of turbine sites and transmission line structure sites would involve the use of earth-moving equipment, including loaders, various-sized bulldozers, shovels, and backhoes over approximately 12 to 15 months. Delivery of turbine components and transmission line components, as well as electrical cable and other ancillary equipment and supplies, would involve the use of delivery trucks, semi-tractors, and assembly cranes, over the same time frame. Emissions from these activities include fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions (CO, NOx, VOCs, particulates, SO2, and air toxics). Approximately 1,468 acres of soil would be disturbed for construction of the Wind Energy Facility, and approximately 580 acres of soil would be disturbed for construction of the proposed transmission line. Most soils in the project area have a low to moderate hazard for blowing soils (see Section, 4.4.2, Soils). Construction activities would involve less than 2 acres of soils with high or severe wind erodibility; these areas would constitute approximately 0.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 84 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 percent of the soils disturbed by construction activity. Fugitive dust from construction activities and travel on project roads would be controlled. In general, water from existing nearly groundwater wells would be used for dust suppression. In the event that additional dust control is necessary, other commercially available dust suppressants may be utilized, including chloride compounds, lignin compounds, or tree resin emulsion products. No major environmental impacts are expected from the potential use of additional dust suppression techniques.9 Lack of perennial waters, low rainfall, and permeable soils in the project area make the potential for runoff or effects on aquatic systems very low. Any use of the chemical compounds would be temporary, so buildup or long-term effects are not expected. Table 16, Dust Suppressants and Environmental Considerations, summarizes the dust suppressants that may be used during project construction and potential environmental concerns.
TABLE 16 Dust Suppressants and Environmental Considerations Dust Suppressant Environmental Considerations
Fresh Water No environmental hazards.
Calcium Chloride Repeated applications and long-term use may harm nearby vegetation. Magnesium Chloride
Lignin Derivatives Lignin products have a high biological oxygen demand in aquatic systems. Spills or runoff into surface water or groundwater may create low dissolved oxygen conditions resulting in impacts to fish and macroinvertebrates and/or increases in concentrations of iron, sulfur compounds, and pollutants.
Tree Resin Emulsions Produced from pine tree resins and act as a natural adhesive, binding soil particles together. Minimal environmental hazard.
Source: Sanders and Addo 1993.
Activities associated with foundation installation include grading, excavating, and concrete batch plant installation and operation. The concrete batch plant would not have electrical service, so an on-site diesel generator would supply power to the batch plant. This stage of construction is anticipated to last for approximately 6 months. Emissions from these activities include fugitive dust, tailpipe emissions, concrete batch plant emissions (particulates), and on- site diesel generator emissions. Emissions from the concrete batch plant are detailed in Table 17, Projected Concrete Batch Plant Emissions.
9 Research at Colorado State University found that, although concentrations of chloride and lignin products used for dust suppression can be found in runoff samples from treated test sections, total product mass going into the environment was small and would have negligible environmental impacts (Sanders and Addo 1993).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 85 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 17 Projected Concrete Batch Plant Emissions Pollutant Batch Plant 1 Generator Set 2 Total Batch Plant (tons) (tons) Emissions (tons)
Volatile Organic Compounds NA 0.60 0.60 (VOCs)
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) NA 11.02 11.02
Carbon Monoxide (CO) NA 4.66 4.66
3 Particulate Matter (PM10) 2.44 0.60 3.04
Particulate Matter (Total PM) 8.12 0.603 8.72
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NA 0.34 0.34
1 Batch plant output for project estimated at 58,000 cubic yards concrete. Emissions estimated utilizing US EPA’s AP-42, Volume I, 5th Edition, Chapter 11.12, Concrete Batching. Batch plant emissions calculated as Truck Mix Loading with no controls. 2 Batch plant generator emissions calculated from US EPA’s AP-42, Volume I, 5th Edition, Chapter 3.4, Large Stationary Diesel and All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines. MWC anticipates that a 600-kW diesel engine would supply power to the batch plant. Emissions calculated for 1,872 hours for a 905-bhp diesel engine. 3 Batch plant diesel generator Total PM assumed to be 100 percent PM10.
The concrete batch plant would require an air permit or Approval Order (AO) in compliance with UAC R307-401, Permit: Notice of Intent and Approval Order. The AO would provide enforceable air pollution mitigation measures to reduce air emission impacts from operation of the batch plant. Tailpipe emissions, the relatively small emission levels from the batch plant, and fugitive dust emissions would not cause a violation of ambient air quality standards or degradation of regional air quality. Implementation of environmental protection measures during construction, including the utilization of dust abatement techniques, posting and enforcing speed limits, and covering or watering batch plant storage piles, would minimize impacts on air quality due to fugitive dust. Environmental protection measures for the Milford Wind Corridor Project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures. Operations Daily operations activities that would contribute to air emissions include personnel access, occasional road maintenance activities, ongoing reclamation/revegetation activities, and infrequent turbine replacement activities. The proposed O&M facility and the substation would each be equipped with back-up emergency generators to provide back-up power in the event that electrical power is lost at the electrical substation or the O&M facility. MWC estimates that no more than 10 days per year of emergency generator operation would be required at each facility annually. Table 18, Projected Annual Emergency Generator Emissions, provides an air quality analysis of projected emissions from the operation of emergency generators at the substation and the O&M facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 86 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 18 Projected Annual Emergency Generator Emissions Pollutant O&M Facility Substation Total Emergency Emergency Generator1 Emergency Generator Annual (tons per year) Generator2 Emissions (tons per year) (tons)
Volatile Organic Compounds 0.07 0.07 0.14 (VOCs)
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 0.87 0.87 1.74
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.19 0.19 0.38
3 3 3 Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.06 0.06 0.12
Particulate Matter (Total PM) 0.063 0.063 0.123
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.06 0.06 0.12
1 Emergency generator emissions calculated from US EPA’s AP-42, Volume I, 5th Edition, Chapter 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. MWC anticipates that a 150-kW, 235-bhp generator set would be utilized to provide emergency back-up power. Engine emissions calculated for 240 total annual hours of operation.. 2 Emergency generator emissions calculated from US EPA’s AP-42, Volume I, 5th Edition, Chapter 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. MWC anticipates that a 150-kW, 235-bhp generator set would be utilized to provide emergency backup power. Engine emissions calculated for 240 total annual hours of operation. 3 O&M facility and substation diesel generator Total PM assumed to be 100 percent PM10.
The infrequent and short-term emissions from these sources would not cause a violation of ambient air quality standards or degradation of regional air quality. Decommissioning Decommissioning activities are anticipated to be similar to construction activities. The decommissioning effort may need to reestablish access roads adequate to haul out facility components. Additional decommissioning air quality impacts could be driven by site reclamation activities. Decommissioning air quality impacts are expected to be similar in nature to construction activities, but of a lesser magnitude. 4.2.6 Vegetation 4.2.6.1 Vegetation Communities Construction Direct impacts to vegetation at the Wind Energy Facility site would result from clearing and grading for new access roads, wind turbine pads and crane pads, and the Wind Energy Facility substation and O&M facilities. Removal of vegetation by these activities would be permanent because such areas would be permanently occupied by project features. Impacts to vegetation from installation of the electrical collection system between the wind generator turbines and the substation would mostly be temporary. Direct removal of vegetation for construction of the proposed transmission line would be limited primarily to the construction of up to approximately 36 miles of new permanent access roads. The width of these new transmission line access roads would be reduced following construction, so part of the impact of vegetation removal would be temporary. Up to approximately 4 miles of new access roads to transmission line conductor pulling and tensioning sites would also be constructed, and all disturbance associated with these roads would be temporary.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 87 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Many of the Wind Energy Facility and transmission line construction activities, e.g., work within wind turbine work areas, transmission line tower work areas, and transmission line conductor pulling and tensioning sites, would not require site clearing or grading or other earth-moving activities, and access to many of these sites may be accomplished by overland travel. These activities would result in direct impacts to vegetation by crushing and in indirect impacts from soil compaction and the potential introduction of invasive vegetation. These impacts are considered temporary. However, compacted soil, especially in salt desert scrub, may be affected for a longer period of time which may limit reclamation success. Estimates of construction disturbance to each vegetation community under the Proposed Action are presented in Table 19, Estimated Acreage of Each Vegetation Type Potentially Impacted by Construction. These estimates have been derived from GAP land cover mapping (GAP 2005) and the geographical distribution of major project features contributing to temporary and permanent disturbance at the Wind Energy Facility site and along the proposed transmission line route.
TABLE 19 Estimated Acreage of Each Vegetation Type Potentially Impacted by Construction Vegetation Community Wind Energy Wind Energy Proposed Proposed Facility Facility Transmission Transmission Temporary Permanent Line Temporary Line Permanent Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Intermountain Basins Mixed Salt 408 90 212 18 Desert Scrub
Intermountain Basins Greasewood 364 63 188 17 Flat
Intermountain Basins Semidesert 345 73 115 12 Shrub Steppe
Intermountain Basins Big 193 44 18 1 Sagebrush Shrubland
Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper 16 3 0 0 Woodland
Intermountain Basins Semidesert 56 9 3 0 Grassland
Invasive Annual Grassland 25 6 3 0
Invasive Perennial Grassland 46 10 3 1
Intermountain Basins Xeric Mixed 1 2 15 1 Sagebrush Shrubland
Intermountain Basins Playa 4 1 15 1
Other 10 7 8 2
Total 1,468 308 580 53 Based on the assumptions presented in Section 2.2, Proposed Action (see Table 4, Approximate Limits of Temporary Disturbance- Proposed Wind Energy Facility, and Table 5, Approximate Limits of Permanent Disturbance- Proposed Wind Energy Facility), up to approximately 1,468 acres of
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 88 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 vegetation would be temporarily disturbed and up to approximately 308 acres would be permanently removed as a result of construction of the Wind Energy Facility under the Proposed Action. Approximately 89 percent of the temporary and permanent disturbance at the Wind Energy Facility site would occur within the Intermountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, Intermountain Basins Greasewood Flat, Intermountain Basins Semidesert Shrub Steppe, and Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland vegetation communities. Likewise (see Table 6, Approximate Limits of Temporary Disturbance - Proposed Transmission Line, and Table 7, Approximate Limits of Permanent Disturbance -- Proposed Transmission Line), up to approximately 580 acres of vegetation would be temporarily disturbed and up to approximately 53 acres would be permanently removed as a result of construction of the proposed transmission line under the Proposed Action. Approximately 89 percent of the temporary and permanent disturbance along the transmission line route would occur within the Intermountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, Intermountain Basins Greasewood Flat, and Intermountain Basins Semidesert Shrub Steppe vegetation communities. To minimize long-term impacts to vegetation resources, temporarily disturbed areas on BLM- administered lands would be reseeded using one or more reclamation seed mixtures, as determined in consultation with the BLM. Reseeding on SITLA and private lands would be done in accordance with landowner requirements. Because the project area is arid and soils are generally fragile or nutrient poor, successful reclamation may be difficult. Consequently, areas that are temporarily disturbed may have persistent vegetation impacts for a few years until vegetation can be re-established. MWC would use BLM-approved reclamation seed mixtures and would consult with the BLM regarding the timing of reseeding, specific seed mixtures, and application rates to be used to improve the success of reseeding (See Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures). Seed mixtures would be designed to successfully reclaim disturbed areas should the proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project for any reason be abandoned. Vegetation communities that would be affected by project construction under the Proposed Action have a wide and common regional distribution. Additionally, fires and drought conditions have affected the quality of the vegetation communities in the project area. No decrease in any plant population or community below self-sustaining levels would occur as a result of construction under the Proposed Action. Application of the environmental protection measures described in Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, including minimizing disturbed areas to the greatest extent practicable and revegetating disturbed areas would minimize the duration and extent of impacts to vegetation. Operation Once areas temporarily disturbed by project construction activities have been successfully reclaimed through the implementation of appropriate soil stabilization and revegetation measures, further impacts to vegetation related to the operation and maintenance of the Wind Energy and the transmission line are unlikely because new ground-disturbing activities are not anticipated. Approximately 308 acres of currently vegetated areas within the Wind Energy Facility site and approximately 53 acres of currently vegetated areas along the proposed transmission line route would be occupied by project features throughout the operations period and would, thus, be unavailable for other uses, including wildlife habitat.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Decommissioning Activities related to decommissioning the Milford Wind Corridor Project would be similar in nature to those involved in its construction, but potential impacts to vegetation would be less than during construction and would be temporary. Existing access roads, wind turbine tower pads, and crane pads and the Wind Energy Facility substation and O&M facility sites would be used for removal of project features they served during the operations period, and access to other project features would generally be by overland travel. Earth-moving activities for removal of transmission line tower structures and the Wind Energy Facility electrical collection system would remove vegetation that would have become established at those sites since transmission line construction. Final site reclamation and revegetation activities would restore vegetation to the areas occupied by project features during the operations phase and to any areas newly disturbed by decommissioning activities. Reclamation of disturbed areas on BLM-administered lands would be designed in consultation with the BLM. Reclamation of SITLA and private lands would be done in accordance with landowner requirements. No permanent impacts of project decommissioning are anticipated.
4.2.6.2 Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines Construction Construction of the Milford Wind Corridor Project under the Proposed Action is not expected to impact rangeland resources to an extent that they would be out of compliance with Rangeland Health Standards or out of conformance with the Guidelines for Grazing Management. Except in limited areas occupied by project features, upland soils would continue to exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site productivity (Rangeland Health Standard 1), and riparian and wetland areas would continue to function properly (Rangeland Health Standard 2). In addition, native, threatened, endangered, and special status species would be maintained at appropriate levels (Rangeland Health Standard 3), and water quality standards and designated beneficial uses for surface and groundwater would be supported (Rangeland Health Standard 4) throughout the project. Implementation of the environmental protection measures for livestock grazing, soils, and vegetation, as discussed in Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, would minimize impacts on Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Management. Operation Operation and maintenance of the Milford Wind Corridor Project under the Proposed Action is not expected to have any impacts that would cause rangeland resources to be out of compliance with Rangeland Health Standards or to be out of conformance with the Guidelines for Grazing Management. Decommissioning Activities related to decommissioning the Milford Wind Corridor Project would be similar in nature to those involved in its construction. As with construction, decommissioning of the project is not expected to impact rangeland resources to an extent that they would be out of compliance with Rangeland Health Standards or out of conformance with the Guidelines for Grazing Management. Final site reclamation and revegetation activities would restore the rangeland value of all areas occupied by project features during the operations phase and to any
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 90 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 areas newly disturbed by decommissioning activities. Rangeland Health Standards would continue to be met in the project area, as discussed above.
4.2.6.3 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species Construction Cheatgrass, an invasive annual grass, is present throughout the project area and occurs on the proposed Wind Energy Facility site and in many areas along the proposed transmission line route. Although the area burned by the 2007 Milford Flat Wildfire is being revegetated through a substantial revegetation project, cheatgrass and possibly noxious weeds are present within the surrounding area and could invade disturbed areas during or following construction. There is also likely to be a substantial reservoir of weed seeds that have accumulated in project soils over time. These seeds can germinate when soils are disturbed by construction activities, particularly where available soil moisture is increased by application of water for dust suppression. Noxious weeds and other weeds could also be introduced by construction equipment brought to the project from infested areas or by the use of seed mixtures or mulching materials containing weed seeds. MWC has developed a Noxious Weed Management Plan for controlling noxious weeds and invasive species that could invade the project area as a result of new surface disturbance (MWC 2008). Implementation of the environmental protection measures described in Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, including avoiding or treating existing noxious weed infestations prior to disturbance, cleaning construction equipment prior to its entering the project area, using certified weed-free seed and mulching materials, and mapping and treating areas that become infested during construction, would minimize the potential for establishment of noxious weeds or other invasive species. With implementation of these measures, no long- term impacts associated with noxious weeds are anticipated. Operation There is a potential for noxious weeds or other invasive species to become established on site throughout the operations period. This may be particularly true along permanent access roads within the Wind Energy Facility. Noxious weed control would continue on site during the operations phase according to the specifications stipulated in the project Noxious Weed Management Plan (MWC 2008). Access roads and transmission line corridors would be monitored regularly for invasive species, and weed control measures would be initiated upon evidence of the introduction of invasive species. Noxious weeds are not anticipated to become established as a result of the Proposed Action, and no impacts are expected. Decommissioning Activities related to decommissioning the Milford Wind Corridor Project would be similar in nature to those involved in its construction, but potential new ground-disturbance would be less than during construction. No new access roads would be needed for project decommissioning, although some access roads serving the transmission line (not including the IPP transmission line road) would need to be rewidened to accommodate large equipment. Most earth-moving activity would likely be related to removal of project features such as wind turbine towers, transmission line tower structures, and the Wind Energy Facility electrical
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 collection system. This new disturbance would create new opportunities for the introduction of noxious weeds and invasive species. Final site reclamation and revegetation activities would restore vegetation to all areas occupied by project features during the operations phase and to any areas newly disturbed by decommissioning activities. The need for continued monitoring and treatment of noxious weeds and invasive species would be determined in consultation with the BLM for BLM- administered lands and in accordance with landowner requirements for SITLA and private lands.
4.2.7 Wetlands and Riparian Zones There are no wetlands or riparian areas within the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. Therefore, project activities related to the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility under the Proposed Action would have no impacts on wetland or riparian resources. Minimal impacts to riparian zones are anticipated from construction of the proposed transmission line. Construction The proposed transmission line route would cross one established wetland along the Sevier River and fringe wetlands within an agricultural ditch west of the IPP substation. All transmission line components, including transmission line towers and access roads, and temporary work areas would be constructed outside the existing wetland boundaries, and, therefore, no impacts to wetlands along the proposed transmission line route are anticipated under the Proposed Action. Minor temporary and permanent impacts to riparian areas along the Sevier River and the Beaver River are anticipated from construction of the proposed transmission line. A total of five transmission line tower structures would be placed within riparian zones associated with the Sevier River and adjacent historic river channels. Temporary disturbance at transmission line tower structure work areas would total approximately 3.5 acres, and approximately 0.002 acre of riparian areas would be permanently occupied by the transmission line tower structures. Several transmission line conductor pulling and tensioning sites would be placed within these riparian areas, resulting in approximately 1.6 acres of temporary disturbance. Construction of short spur roads to provide access from the existing IPP road to some transmission line tower structure work areas and pulling and tensioning sites could result in up to approximately 1.7 acres of temporary disturbance and approximately 0.3 acre of permanent disturbance. A new access road and the proposed transmission line would cross the Beaver River just west of Utah State Route 257 (Beaver Bottoms). The Beaver River currently conveys only stormwater flows and does not support any wetlands in this area (see Section 3.3.7, Wetlands and Riparian Zones). However, a relict riparian area measuring approximately 1 mile wide would be impacted by access road and transmission line tower construction. Five transmission line tower structures would be placed within the riparian zone, resulting in approximately 3.5 acres of temporary disturbance and 0.002 acre of permanent occupancy by transmission line tower structures in this area. Placement of transmission line conductor pulling and tensioning sites would result in an additional approximately 1.6 acres of temporary disturbance within the riparian zone. Construction of the new access road would result in approximately 1.4 acres of
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 temporary disturbance and permanent occupancy of another approximately 1.4 acres of the riparian zone; no spur roads to tower structures or pulling/tensioning sites are needed in this area. Total temporary disturbance within the riparian zones of the Sevier River and the Beaver River associated with construction of the proposed transmission line is estimated to be up to approximately 13.3 acres. Up to approximately 1.7 acres would be permanently occupied by project features. Based on the Utah Riparian Management Policy (BLM undated), new surface-disturbing activities are not permitted within 100 meters of existing riparian areas unless it can be shown 1) that there are no other practical alternatives, 2) that all long-term impacts can be fully mitigated, or 3) that the proposed activity would benefit and enhance the riparian area. Due to the location of the Beaver River and the Sevier River relative to the project, no practicable alternative exists to the proposed transmission line crossing these waterways. Salt cedar, an invasive species, and salt grass currently dominate the riparian zones of both rivers, require little water for survival, rapidly colonize, and can be expected to naturally recolonize temporarily disturbed areas without additional site restoration efforts. Based on the lack of a practicable alternative and on the invasive nature of the existing riparian vegetation, impacts to the riparian areas associated with the proposed transmission line are anticipated to be consistent with established URMP guidelines. Impacts to wetlands and riparian zones would be avoided where practicable, and the implementation of environmental protection measures during construction, including using existing roads as much as possible, and locating transmission line tower structures in upland areas, would minimize potential impacts to wetlands and riparian zones. Environmental protection measures for the project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures. Operation No impacts to wetlands or riparian zones related to the operation and maintenance of the proposed transmission line under the Proposed Action are expected because there would be no additional ground disturbance or vegetation removal in undisturbed areas. Approximately 1.6 acres of riparian areas occupied by transmission line features would be unavailable for other uses, including wildlife habitat, during the operations period. Decommissioning Minimal impacts to wetlands or riparian zones are anticipated from decommissioning the transmission line under the Proposed Action. The IPP access road would be used for project transmission line decommissioning activities, after which the road would be left in place to continue serving the IPP transmission line. Therefore, there would be no additional impacts to wetland or riparian resources along the IPP section of the proposed transmission line. The new spur roads to transmission line tower sites and the access road from the Wind Energy Facility to the IPP transmission line road would be removed during decommissioning unless otherwise allowed to remain in place. Salt cedar and saltgrass, which currently dominate the relict riparian zones along the Sevier River and the Beaver River, can be expected to rapidly recolonize the former access road beds in riparian areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 4.2.8 Wildlife The BLM’s Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement describes potential wildlife impacts associated with wind energy development in detail (BLM 2005a). Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat (Arnett et al. 2007a) and Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects (Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects 2007) also provides an overview of potential direct and indirect impacts to wildlife from wind energy facilities. The principal impacts to wildlife associated with construction and operation of the facilities would occur from 1) habitat losses 2) disturbance and disruption effects on wildlife behavior, and 3) potential injury and mortality of wildlife associated with collisions with turbines and other facilities.
Construction Construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line may affect wildlife through habitat reduction, alteration, or fragmentation; introduction of invasive vegetation; injury or mortality of wildlife; decrease in water quality from erosion and runoff; fugitive dust; noise; exposure to contaminants; and interference with behavioral activities. Construction location and timing may also affect migratory and other behavioral activities of some wildlife species (BLM 2005a). Monitoring would be used to confirm that restricted areas are appropriately marked and that prohibited activities do not take place in those areas.
Existing habitat within the construction footprints of turbines and support facilities, new access roads, and new utility corridors would be disturbed, and some habitat fragmentation would occur. Approximately 1,468 acres of wildlife habitat would be affected during construction of the Wind Energy Facility. This represents about 5.5 percent of the available habitat within the Wind Energy Facility project boundary (approximately 26,250 acres). Predominant habitats disturbed on both the Wind Energy Facility and proposed transmission line are mixed-shrubs and grasslands. Approximately 966 acres of mixed-shrub habitats and 472 acres of grassland habitats would be disturbed during construction on the Wind Energy Facility (see Section 4.2.6.1, Vegetation Communities). Approximately 580 acres of habitat would be affected during construction of the proposed transmission line, approximately 433 acres of mixed-shrub habitats and 124 acres of grassland habitats. Habitat loss and fragmentation would reduce the overall value of the available habitat within the project area. Reclamation and revegetation of the temporarily disturbed areas would reduce the extent of habitat losses but these effects would likely persist for 2 to 5 years after construction until revegetation is complete. The grassland and mixed-shrub habitats found within the Wind Energy Facility site and the proposed transmission line corridor are common in the area, and large, continuous tracts of similar habitats occur adjacent to the project area. The habitat alteration effects would likely cause temporary small-scale reduction or displacement of local wildlife but would not be expected to cause the population level impacts to any species. Direct impacts from mortality or injury to smaller, less-mobile species (e.g., reptiles, small mammals, ground-nesting birds) could occur during construction if those species are present. These impacts are expected to be low and of short duration. More mobile species (e.g., coyotes, pronghorn) would be temporarily displaced from occupied habitats. Potential noise sources during construction could include heavy truck and equipment operation. Noise and human presence during construction activities are likely to temporarily displace wildlife species that may be present within or near construction areas. The duration and distance an animal is
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 displaced are generally dependent on the individual species, and an individual’s response to disturbance may change with time. The construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line could affect local wildlife by disturbing normal behavioral activities such as foraging, mating, and nesting. Wildlife may avoid foraging, mating or nesting, or may vacate active nest sites in construction areas. Wildlife may permanently abandon construction area habitats and adjacent habitats. Erosion and sedimentation, contaminant exposure, fugitive dust, and introduction of noxious weeds from construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line would have minimal impacts on wildlife. Because there are no perennial waters in the project area, and water erosion and sedimentation would be avoided through the implementation of environmental protection measures, impacts to wildlife from a decrease in water quality would be minor (see Section 4.2.2, Soils, and Section 4.2.4, Water Resources). Fugitive dust (see Section 4.2.5, Air Quality) would be minimized through environmental protection measures and impacts to wildlife would be minor. Contaminants within the project area would be contained and any potential impacts to wildlife from contaminants would be short-term, localized, and minimized by implementation of environmental protection measures (see Section 4.2.4, Water Resources). Introduction of invasive vegetation (see Section 4.2.6.3, Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species) has the potential to reduce habitat quality and locally affect wildlife occurrence and abundance. These potential impacts would be minimized through noxious weed control and implementation of other environmental protection measures to manage noxious weeds. Habitat loss and disturbance to wildlife during construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line would not likely extend beyond one breeding season. Impacts to wildlife would be avoided where practicable, and the implementation of environmental protection measures during construction, including wildlife monitoring, dust suppression, contaminant control, weed suppression, and revegetation of temporary impact areas with native seed mixtures, would reduce and minimize potential disturbance or impacts to wildlife habitats and species. Protection measures for the project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures.
Operation Wind Energy Facility operations may affect wildlife through disturbance associated with operations and maintenance activities; noise; presence of or collision with turbines, meteorological towers, and transmission lines; electrocution from transmission lines; interference with migratory behavior; and increased fire potential. Collisions with facility structures represent the greatest potential wildlife hazards (BLM 2005a). Approximately 308 acres of wildlife habitat would be permanently occupied by Wind Energy Facility features during project operation, and approximately 53 acres would be permanently occupied by proposed transmission line features. The predominant habitat types affected by operation on the Wind Energy Facility and proposed transmission line are salt desert scrub, greasewood flat, and shrub steppe. These habitats are common in the area, and large, continuous tracts of similar habitats occur adjacent to the project area. The primary noise-generating activities associated with normal Wind Energy Facility operation include turbine noise, transmission line noise, and truck and maintenance equipment noise. Truck and maintenance equipment noise is expected to be minor and intermittent, while the
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 primary noise concern for wildlife is turbine operation and the noise generated by wind passing over turbine blades (BLM 2005a). Studies have shown that densities of bird populations in the vicinity of wind energy projects may be reduced near turbines, transmission lines, and other facility equipment if continuous noise levels are in the range of 40 decibels (dB) or higher (BLM 2005a). Birds hear best between about 1 and 5 kHz (Dooling 2002). Studies have also shown that blade noise from a normally operating turbine would simply add to the background noise and would be inaudible to birds at a distance of approximately 80 feet from the turbine when the blade and wind noise levels are within 1.5 dB of one other (BLM 2005a). Birds cannot hear the noise from wind turbine blades as well as humans, and most likely a human with normal hearing can hear a wind turbine twice as far away as can the average bird (Dooling 2002). Turbine blade defects that produce whistles may be more audible to birds and at the same time make no measureable contribution to overall noise level (Dooling 2002). Human activity, including vehicle use and site maintenance activities, may disturb and/or displace wildlife in the project area. Some wildlife species may temporarily move from the site, some species may move permanently, and some species may be drawn to the project due to human activities (e.g., coyotes and common ravens could be attracted to improperly managed garbage). New or improved access roads in the project area may increase access by recreational users, which may also disturb wildlife. Disturbance to wildlife from the Wind Energy Facility work force would be minor due to the small number of workers (12 to 15 full-time employees). Wildlife may also become habituated to the routine operation and maintenance activities and associated noise. In general, impacts to wildlife from project operation and site maintenance activities would be minor. Increased human activity in the project area from operation of the project could increase the potential for fires. Wildlife would be affected by fire through direct mortality, reduction of habitat, or reduction in habitat quality. The fire prevention plan contained in the POD would help to minimize these impacts. Wildlife could be affected by exposure to contaminants during operation of the Wind Energy Facility. However, limited quantities of hazardous materials would be present at the facility, exposures are not expected under normal facility operation, and spill plans would be in place to minimize the extent of spills (see Section 2.2.2.6 Wind Energy Facility Operation and Maintenance). In general, wildlife would not be affected by contaminant exposure during operation of the Wind Energy Facility. Operation of the project may affect migratory behavior of terrestrial wildlife if structures interfere with migratory movement patterns. However, studies of pronghorn at the Foote Creek Rim wind project in Wyoming indicate no substantial change in pronghorn abundance in the Wind Energy Facility area. Pronghorn were not displaced, and pronghorn use of the area did not decline from operation of the Wind Energy Facility (Johnson et al. 2000). No linear fences that could interfere with pronghorn movements would be installed as part of the Proposed Action. Fences would only be installed around individual structures, such as the electrical substation and O&M facility, to protect public health and safety and to protect the company’s assets. Behavioral patterns of avian species may also be affected by operation of the Wind Energy Facility. At Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, studies indicate that use by grassland bird species was substantially lower in plots containing turbines than in plots without turbines although bird
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 displacement was less than about 325 feet. There was a slight reduction in use of the wind resource area during spring and fall, but no reduction in use during the breeding season. At a study site on the Oregon/Washington border, bird use appeared to be substantially lower within approximately 160 feet of turbines than at greater distances. In Wisconsin, there seems to have been no displacement of birds from the general wind resource area as compared to a reference area. Several other sites show small-scale impacts but with some potential habituation occurring (Strickland 2004). Although one study suggests raptor displacement from wind facility sites, several other studies show similar numbers of raptor nests before and after wind facility construction. In Wyoming and Oregon, there is evidence of successful raptor nesting (red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, golden eagle, and Swainson’s hawk) within one-half mile of wind facilities (Strickland 2004). Thus, reduced use or displacement of some birds probably occurs in close proximity to wind turbines, and there may be relatively minor reduction in use of wind resource areas by song birds, primarily during spring and fall. However, these disturbances would not be expected to affect populations on a regional scale (Strickland 2004). Displacement and changes in wildlife behavioral patterns due to operation of the Wind Energy Facility are expected to be minimal.
Collisions with Facility Structures The majority of impacts to wildlife from operation of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line would result from collision with facility structures and electrocution due to contact with the transmission lines. Impacts to wildlife from colliding with Wind Energy Facility components would include bat and bird collision with turbines, transmission lines, and other facility structures. USFWS Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines (USFWS 2003) recommends siting wind projects in areas that could decrease impacts to wildlife. The Wind Energy Facility area is not within known ESA species habitat, is not within known bird or bat concentration areas, and does not provide landscape features (i.e., cliff/rim edges) known to attract raptors. The project area is located in a valley basin which contains large continuous tracts of similar habitat throughout the area, and surveys did not indicate the area is a migration corridor or concentration area for either bats or birds.
Bats. The causes of bat collisions with turbines are relatively unknown, and studies are ongoing (Kunz et al. 2007). No predictive method to quantify bat collision-related mortality from a wind energy project has been developed. Currently, mortality surveys are the only source of information on the number of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. The following analysis is based on previous bat mortality studies, but differences between the proposed project and previous study projects, including the number of turbines, geographic region, habitat, topography, bat populations, weather, and other unknown factors, may result in different levels of bat mortality at the project. It is estimated that the large majority of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities involve solitary, migratory, foliage- and tree-roosting species such as silver-haired, hoary, and red bats. Hoary bats account for nearly half of all bat fatalities at wind energy facilities (Arnett et al. 2007b, Kunz et al. 2007, Erickson et al. 2002, Johnson 2004, Johnson 2005). Although variable and periodic, bat fatalities consistently peak in late summer and fall, coinciding with migration (Arnett et al. 2007b). Approximately 90 percent of fatalities occur from mid-July through late September,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 with over 50 percent occurring in August (Erickson et al. 2002, Johnson 2004, Johnson 2005). Mortality during the breeding season is low. One study showed that, although there were relatively large breeding populations of bats near an operating wind facility, bat collision mortality was low to nonexistent (Johnson et al. 2004). Mortality during spring migration is also very low (Johnson 2005). Only a small fraction of bats that traverse wind energy facilities actually collide with turbines (Erickson et al. 2002, Johnson 2005). These data suggest that wind energy facilities do not currently affect resident breeding or foraging bat populations (Erickson et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2003, Johnson 2004, Johnson 2005). Studies indicate that bat mortality rates were the highest in forested environments, moderate in open areas close to forests, and lowest in open areas (Johnson 2005). Based on these studies and bat surveys at the project, the most likely species to travel within turbine rotor heights on the Wind Energy Facility include hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus), western red bats (Lasiurus blossevillii), and silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans). These species would be most susceptible during fall migration. Other species found in the project area with known turbine collision mortality include little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), and Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis). Comparisons between bat activity and mortality rates at operational wind energy facilities and recorded bat activity at the project suggest that mortality at the project may be similar that experienced at the Foote Creek Rim project in Wyoming. The Foote Creek Rim site contains habitat comparable to the project area, i.e., primarily mixed-grass prairie and sagebrush shrubland. Bat fatalities at Foote Creek Rim consisted of hoary bats (79.7 percent), little brown bats (7 specimens), silver-haired bats (6 specimens), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) (1 specimen). Estimated bat mortality at Foote Creek Rim is 1.34 bats per turbine per year (Young et al. 2003). In general, bat mortality at Foote Creek Rim has been low, and the same is expected for operation of the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Some level of bat mortality would likely occur due to operation of the Wind Energy Facility. Mortality rates of solitary, tree-dwelling species are expected to be highest during fall migration. Resident and foraging bat populations are at the lowest risk for rotor strikes. Although some bat mortality is anticipated, operation of the Wind Energy Facility is not expected to impact local bat population numbers, and, in general, bat mortality is expected to be low.
Birds. It is estimated that bird fatalities at wind energy facilities probably represent from 0.01 to 0.02 percent (i.e., 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000 avian fatalities) of the annual avian fatalities in the United States (Erickson et al. 2001). Bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a small fraction of the total anthropogenic bird mortality (Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects 2007). In 2003, it was estimated that turbine collisions killed 20,000 to 37,000 birds, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. In comparison, collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually and collisions with cars may kill 80 million birds per year (Erickson et al 2005). At most locations, wind energy facilities have been associated with avian fatalities caused by collisions with turbines and other wind facility structures (Erickson et al. 2000, Erickson et al. 2001, Johnson et al. 2002). In general, it is estimated wind turbines kill 33,000 birds annually (Erickson et al. 2001, USFWS 2002c). Data suggest an average of 2.19 avian fatalities per turbine per year in the United States for all species combined and 0.033 raptor fatalities per turbine per
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 year (Erickson et al. 2001). Studies show that avian mortality rates from wind energy facilities vary greatly by region and species, with higher concentrated impacts in northern California and Appalachia (GAO 2005). Excluding California, an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine per year and 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year may be expected (Erickson et al. 2001). Studies conducted to date indicate that, in the United States, passerines and raptors appear to be the most susceptible to turbine collisions (AWEA 1995). Passerines comprise a large proportion of the fatalities at wind facilities and involve both residents and migratory species (Erickson et al. 2002). Expected passerine mortality may be approximately 1.2 to 1.8 birds per turbine per year. However, this level of mortality may not have population-level consequences for individual species because of the expected low fatality rates for most species and the large population sizes of common species (e.g., horned lark and western meadowlark). It has been suggested that resident birds may have a higher probability of colliding with turbines than migrants because residents tend to fly lower and spend more time in the area (BLM 2005a). Although population effects may be possible for some species, no studies have thus far documented such effects (BLM 2005a). Raptor mortality has been absent to very low at all newer-generation wind energy facilities in the United States (Erickson et al. 2002, Young et al. 2003). It is estimated 933 raptors are killed annually by turbines in the United States, with approximately 80 percent of the mortality occurring at older projects in California (Erickson et al. 2005). Based on wind projects outside California, total United States mortality is expected to be 195 raptors per year (Erickson et al. 2005). Avian surveys at the Wind Energy Facility found that the greatest mean use of the project area was by horned larks and common ravens. Among bird groups, passerines and corvids were observed the most frequently in the Wind Energy Facility. The most frequently observed raptor across all surveys was the golden eagle, followed by northern harrier, and American kestrel (TetraTech 2008b). Only four species accounted for 90 percent and 97 percent of the bird use of the project area in the spring and summer of 2008, respectively: horned lark, Brewer’s sparrow, common raven, and western meadowlark. Another moderately common species was sage sparrow. Raptor use was low in the spring, and no raptors were observed during summer 2008 avian surveys (TetraTech 2008c, TetraTech 2008e). Frequency of occurrence and species composition measures indicated that avian species diversity in the Wind Energy Facility site was low. Per 20-minute survey, avian mean use in the Wind Energy Facility was 6.38 birds for spring data, 8.3 birds for winter data, and 7.36 birds for fall data. Compared to thirteen other wind projects, avian use was approximately 0.5 to 1 times higher than use observed at sites in Texas, Oregon, and Washington but was 1 to 50 times lower than mean avian use at ten other wind projects. Raptor use at the Wind Energy Facility was 3 to 40 times lower than that observed at all thirteen other sites (TetraTech 2008b). Risk index is the risk exposure to turbine collision for each bird species. A risk index value of zero for a species does not indicate that there would be no risk associated with operation of the Wind Energy Facility; any bird flying in the area would be at risk of turbine collision. The risk index simply identifies species that may be at more risk than other species based on observed flight height relative to proposed turbine rotor height. Species with high relative exposure indices may not be at high risk of turbine collisions; they are just at more risk than species with lower indices based on the risk formula. Most bird species using the Wind Energy Facility were
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 observed flying below the proposed turbine rotor-swept area (RSA). Due to abundance and flight height, species found to be a greater risk of turbine collision in all surveys were horned lark, common raven and golden eagle. Overall, common raven has the highest potential for collision based on the risk index from all surveys (TetraTech 2008b). A small percent (6 percent in spring, 3 percent in winter, and 0 percent in fall) of all horned larks were observed flying within the RSA. Even though horned lark is the most abundant avian species at the Wind Energy Facility, it typically flew in heights below the RSA (TetraTech 2008b). Golden eagles are at risk because they were the most frequently observed raptor in the Wind Energy Facility site. In spring 2008, ninety-eight percent of flying birds were observed at heights below the RSA; only five birds flew within the RSA including three common ravens, one northern harrier, and one horned lark. In the summer of 2008, no birds flew within the RSA; 100 percent of flying birds were observed flying below the RSA. (TetraTech 2008c, TetraTech 2008e). Because of their greater abundance compared to other bird groups, passerines have the highest risk of collision at the Wind Energy Facility. The potential for raptor fatalities from turbine collisions is likely low at the Wind Energy Facility because raptor use was low.
Estimating risk exposure is difficult because abundance and behavior influence the risk of exposure. The most common avian fatalities reported at wind energy facilities in the western and middle United States are relatively common species such as horned lark, vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). These species perform aerial courtship displays that frequently take them high enough to enter the RSA of turbines. Conversely, western meadowlark is a common avian species which is not often seen flying as high as turbine RSAs, yet is frequently reported in fatality records. Crows, ravens, and vultures are some of the most common species seen flying in the RSA of turbines, however, they are seldom found during carcass surveys (Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects 2007). For example, at Tehachapi Pass wind facility in California, common ravens were the most common large bird at risk, yet no common raven fatalities were documented during post-construction surveys (Johnson et al. 2000).
The Foote Creek Rim wind project in Carbon County, Wyoming is sited in one of the most similar ecological (i.e., geographic region, vegetation types, and elevation) areas compared to the Wind Energy Facility site. Passerine species with high mean use at both Foote Creek Rim and Wind Energy Facility included horned lark, vesper sparrow, and Brewer’s sparrow. Avian composition at the sites primarily differed by the greater number of species found at Foote Creek (TetraTech 2008b). General avian fatalities at Foote Creek have been found to be 1.5 birds per turbine per year, and 0.03 raptor fatalities per year (Young et al. 2003). Of the 122 avian fatalities found during the study period at Foote Creek, 90.2 percent were passerines and only 4.0 percent were raptors. In addition, while many of the fatalities were nocturnal migrant passerines, the largest number of carcasses detected at a turbine during one search was two, suggesting no large mortality events of nocturnal migrants have occurred at Foote Creek (Erickson et al. 2005). In post-construction studies at Foote Creek Rim, raptor mortality was 0.03 birds per turbine per year; at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, raptor mortality was 0.001 raptors per turbine per year, and no raptor mortalities were documented at Vansycle in Oregon (Erickson et al. 2001). In three consecutive years of monitoring of the successive phases of Foote Creek Rim only five raptors
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 100 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 (including three American kestrel, one northern harrier, and one short-eared owl) were documented (Young et al. 2003). Added to the fact that raptors have a greater likelihood of discovery by searchers, this is further evidence of low actual risk at modern facilities. Because raptor use of the Wind Energy Facility was lower than the facilities cited above, fewer raptor fatalities would be expected at the Wind Energy Facility than reported at these other facilities (TetraTech 2008b). Site topography and location of turbines may influence risk of collision particularly for raptors, which use thermals and uplifts in air currents around topographic features during flight. For example, at Foote Creek Rim, raptors using the rim edge flew within the RSA more frequently than those using other areas of the site (Johnson et al. 2000). Foote Creek Rim is located in an area with greater topographic relief compared to the Wind Energy Facility, which is relatively flat. Differences in terrain may account for less use of the Wind Energy Facility site by raptors and may decrease the potential for raptor turbine collisions at the Wind Energy Facility. At current levels of wind-energy development, there is no indication that fatalities caused by wind turbines would result in measureable demographic changes to bird populations in the United States (Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects 2007). Because bird use and species diversity at the Wind Energy Facility was relatively low, and most birds flew below the proposed turbine RSA, impacts to birds from turbine collisions is expected to be low.
Birds may also collide with transmission lines. The USFWS estimates that strikes at high- tension transmission and distribution lines conservatively kill tens of thousands of birds annually. Taking into account the millions of miles of bulk transmission and distribution lines in the United States and extrapolating from European studies, there may be as many as 174 million deaths from transmission line collisions annually (USFWS 2002c).
Some bird mortality would likely occur due to operation of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line. Passerines, such as horned lark, and raptors are at the greatest risk for wind turbine collisions. Comparisons between the project area and other study sites indicate that mortality at the Wind Energy Facility site would be low. Actual passerine and raptor mortalities at existing newer wind generation facilities have been low, even at facilities with greater avian use than the Wind Energy Facility. However, the avian use surveys do not account for flight behavior, nocturnal migrants, or the varying ability among species to detect turbines; therefore, the actual risk may be lower or higher than indicated by these studies (Johnson et al. 2000). Operation of the project under the Proposed Action is not expected to have effects on local bird population numbers.
Electrocution The electrical collector system within the Wind Energy Facility site would be underground (see Section 2.2.2, Wind Energy Facility), and, therefore, impacts to wildlife from this system would be negligible. The proposed project includes approximately 88 miles of new, overhead 345-kV transmission line from the Wind Energy Facility to the IPP substation (see Section 2.2.3, Transmission Line). Birds are electrocuted by power lines due to two primary factors: 1) birds are attracted to power lines for use as perches, nesting substrates, and other uses and 2) designs of power lines place conductors and ground wires close enough together that birds can touch them simultaneously with their wings or other body parts, thereby causing electrocution
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 101 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 (APLIC 2006). Eagles and hawks are typically at greatest risk of electrocution, especially in open habitats such as deserts and grasslands where few natural perches exist (APLIC 2005). Although raptors are most often considered when addressing electrocution risk, other birds, including crows, ravens, magpies, small flocking birds, and wading birds, can also be electrocuted (APLIC 2005). Vultures, falcons, owls, quail and grouse, and passerines are among the most frequently reported families of birds to experience electrocution (BLM 2005a). However, nesting success of raptors and common ravens using transmission towers has been reported to be similar to or higher than that of pairs nesting elsewhere (BLM 2005a). Accidental electrocution of birds due to operation of the project is not expected to adversely affect bird population levels in the area. Although less common, non-avian wildlife electrocutions have also been reported, including those of snakes, mice, squirrels, raccoons, bobcat, and black bear (BLM 2005a). Due to the relatively rare incidence of non-avian wildlife electrocutions, impacts are not expected to adversely impact wildlife populations near the proposed transmission line route. Disturbance to wildlife habitats and wildlife, including bats and birds, during project operation is expected to be localized and low-level. The implementation of environmental protection measures during operation, including using noise reducing turbines, employees carrying fire extinguishers to prevent the spread of wildfire, disposing of trash properly, restricting site maintenance activities to the minimum area necessary, designating travel corridors with reasonable speed limits, and suppressing weeds, would minimize potential disturbance or impacts to wildlife habitats and species. To minimize potential impacts to birds from electrocution, the proposed transmission line would be designed and constructed according to Avian Protection Plan Guidelines and recommendations in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 and other applicable reference documents (APLIC 2006, APLIC 2005). An adaptive wildlife management plan would be implemented to monitor impacts to wildlife species from operation of the project, especially bat and bird fatalities due to turbine collisions. The plan can be found in Appendix L, Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan. Environmental protection measures for the project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures. Decommissioning Impacts to wildlife from decommissioning the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line would be similar to impacts associated with their construction, but of reduced magnitude. Noise and visual disturbance to wildlife may temporarily increase during decommissioning and site restoration relative to conditions during project operation. New habitat loss would be negligible, and wildlife injury and mortality would be much lower than during construction. Removal of facilities components would eliminate the impacts associated with wildlife collisions with Wind Energy Facility structures. Wildlife and wildlife habitat in the area could return to pre-project conditions following site restoration (BLM 2005a). Wildlife habitat would be restored and rehabilitated after decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line. Disturbance to wildlife habitats and wildlife during decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line is expected to be localized, short-term and minor. Impacts to wildlife would be avoided where practicable, and the implementation of environmental protection measures during decommissioning, including wildlife monitoring,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 102 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 dust suppression, contaminant control, weed suppression, and revegetation of impact areas with native seed mixtures, would minimize potential disturbance or impacts to wildlife habitats and species. Protection measures for the project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures.
4.2.9 Sensitive Species 4.2.9.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Construction Construction of the project would have no effect on California condors due to the rarity of their occurrence in the project area. Construction of the project would have no effect on yellow-billed cuckoos due to the lack of suitable habitat within the project area. The Wind Energy Facility is outside UDWR-identified Utah prairie dog habitat in Millard County, and construction of the Wind Energy Facility would have no effect on Utah prairie dogs. Approximately 18 acres of UDWR-identified Utah prairie dog habitat would be temporarily disturbed due to construction of the transmission line (transmission line tower structure work areas and pulling and tensioning sites). The UDWR-identified habitat is an historic colony, and no animals exist on the site now; therefore, no Utah prairie dogs would be impacted by construction of the project. Because construction within the UDWR-identified Utah prairie dog habitat would be short-term and temporary, impacts to habitat would be minor. Operation Operation of the project would have no effect on California condors due to the rarity of their occurrence in the project area.
Operation of the project would have no effect on yellow-billed cuckoos due to the lack of suitable habitat within the project area. The Wind Energy Facility is outside UDWR-identified Utah prairie dog habitat in Millard County, and operation of the Wind Energy Facility would have no effect on Utah prairie dogs. Approximately 3 acres of UDWR-identified Utah prairie dog habitat would be permanently lost to transmission line tower sites and spur roads. The new transmission line may provide more perching opportunities for raptors near the Utah prairie dog habitat. However, the existing IPP line provides perches for raptors in the area, and the impact of additional raptor perches in Utah prairie dog habitat from construction of the new line would be negligible. The UDWR- identified habitat is an historic colony, and no animals exist on the site now, therefore, no Utah prairie dogs would be impacted by construction of the project. Impacts to Utah prairie dog habitat would be minor because only 3 acres of 8,521 total acres of UDWR-identified habitat in the area would be permanently lost due to operation of the project. Decommissioning Decommissioning of the project would have no effect on California condors due to the rarity of their occurrence in the project area.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 103 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Decommissioning of the project would have no effect on yellow-billed cuckoos due to the lack of suitable habitat within the project area. The Wind Energy Facility is outside UDWR-identified Utah prairie dog habitat in Millard County, and decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility would have no effect on Utah prairie dogs. The UDWR-identified habitat is an historic colony, and no animals exist on the site now; therefore, no Utah prairie dogs would be impacted by decommissioning of the project. The 3 acres of UDWR-identified Utah prairie dog habitat would be restored and rehabilitated after decommissioning of the transmission line; therefore impacts to habitat would be minor.
4.2.9.2 Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species
Activities related to the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility and associated transmission line could result in the disturbance of Utah Sensitive Species. Construction Utah Sensitive Mammals Surveys found six active kit fox burrows within one-quarter-mile of ground disturbing activities on the Wind Energy Facility (five active burrows) and transmission line (one active burrow). The entire project area contains potentially suitable habitat for kit fox. Approximately 2,016 acres of kit fox habitat would be temporarily disturbed during construction: 1,468 acres on the Wind Energy Facility and 580 acres on the transmission line route. Kit fox may be displaced from the area during construction but would likely return after construction is complete. Kit fox home ranges often overlap and there is no evidence of territoriality (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Although kit fox may be temporarily or permanently displaced from the project area during construction, they may move to similar large tracts of continuous habitat found in adjacent areas or they may return to the project area and become accustomed to human activity. Because kit fox are able to move out of the area, and may return after construction or may use other suitable habitat in the area, impacts to kit fox from construction of the project is expected to be minor. The impacts to Utah sensitive bat species from construction would be the same as impacts to other bat species. Section 4.2.8, Wildlife, describes impacts to bats from construction of the project.
The project area does not contain suitable habitat for pygmy rabbit or dark kangaroo mouse, therefore, there would be no impacts to these sensitive mammal species due to construction of the project.
Utah Sensitive Fish The least chub is not found within the project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to sensitive fish species due to construction of the project.
Utah Sensitive Birds Twelve active burrowing owl burrows were found within one-quarter mile of ground disturbing activities on the Wind Energy Facility (eleven active burrows) and transmission line (one active burrow). Approximately 1,468 acres of potential breeding habitat for burrowing
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 104 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 owls would be temporarily disturbed on the Wind Energy Facility, and approximately 580 acres of habitat would be temporarily disturbed along the transmission line route. Due to the minimal ground disturbance along the proposed transmission line, and because only one active burrowing owl burrow was found along the transmission line route, impacts to burrowing owls from construction would be minimal in this area. Burrowing owls may be displaced during construction in the 2009 breeding season, and it is possible that they may not return during operation of the Wind Energy Facility. Constructing outside the burrowing owl breeding season and implementing other environmental protection measures described in Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, would minimize disturbance to burrowing owls in the Wind Energy Facility during construction. A small number of curlews would be displaced from the site during construction and may not return during operation of the Wind Energy Facility. Impacts to long-billed curlews from construction of the project would be similar to impacts to other avian species, as described in Section 4.2.8, Wildlife.
Three active golden eagle nests and one active ferruginous hawk nest were identified within one-half mile of the proposed transmission line route. Construction of the proposed transmission line would take place outside the raptor breeding season to the extent possible. Construction would also avoid species-specific spatial buffers to the extent possible. Construction would begin prior to the 2009 breeding bird season, and raptors returning to the area would become habituated to human activity. Breeding raptors may not return to the area due to construction; however, similar habitat and alternative nest sites are available nearby. Nests identified in 2007 and 2008 may not be used in 2009, but the nests would be available in future years after construction is complete. Nest failure is unlikely to occur due to the displacement. Where construction occurs within the species-specific buffer, active raptor nests would be monitored during the breeding season to determine nest success during and after construction. Environmental protection measures as described in Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, would be implemented to avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting raptors in the project area during construction.
The closest known bald eagle nest to the project nest is approximately 8 miles away. Due to large distance from the nest to the project site, no impacts from construction to bald eagles are expected as a result of project construction.
Because the Milford Flat Wildfire burned approximately 5,584 acres identified as crucial greater sage-grouse brooding habitat on the Wind Energy Facility site and no greater sage-grouse habitat is found along the transmission line route there is minimal potential for greater sage- grouse and grouse habitat to be impacted by construction of the project.
Impacts to American white pelican, short-eared owl, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike, and mourning dove from construction would be similar to those described for other bird species in Section 4.2.8, Wildlife. Construction of the Wind Energy Facility and transmission line would have no effect on northern goshawks due to the lack of suitable habitat within the project area.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 105 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Operation Utah Sensitive Mammals Approximately 361 acres of kit fox habitat would be permanently lost as a result of operation of the project. Approximately 308 acres of habitat on the Wind Energy Facility site would be replaced by project features. This represents about 1 percent of the available habitat within the Wind Energy Facility site. In addition, approximately 53 acres on the transmission line route would be replaced by project features. Kit foxes appear to acclimate quickly to disturbances and exhibit a high degree of tolerance (Bjurlin 2003). Studies indicate that kit foxes frequently use areas near petroleum production facilities, highly developed oil fields, and urban environments. Despite noise, vibrations, odors, vehicular traffic, and human activity, kit foxes have been shown to successfully forage, locate mates, breed, rear young, and disperse (Bjurlin 2003). Because the amount of habitat disturbance is minor and kit foxes are known to adapt to human activity, it is expected that kit foxes would continue to use the Wind Energy Facility site and the area along transmission line route during operations. The impacts to Utah sensitive bat species from project operation would be the same as impacts to other bat species. Section 4.2.8, Wildlife, describes in detail the potential impacts to bats from operation of the project. The project area does not contain suitable habitat for pygmy rabbit or dark kangaroo mouse, therefore, there would be no impacts to these sensitive mammal species due to operation of the project.
Utah Sensitive Fish The least chub is not found within the project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to sensitive fish species due to operation of the project.
Utah Sensitive Birds Approximately 308 acres of burrowing owl habitat would be permanently disturbed on the Wind Energy Facility and approximately 53 acres of habitat would be permanently lost along the proposed transmission line. Impacts to burrowing owls from operation of the project would be similar to impacts to other avian species, as described in Section 4.2.8, Wildlife. Long-billed curlews have been identified within the Wind Energy Facility. Shorebirds generally have relatively low abundance at most wind energy facility sites (Erickson et al. 2002). Only two out of seven other wind energy facility sites had shorebird mortality, with one fatality at each site (Erickson et al. 2001). The majority of documented long-billed curlew behavior in the Wind Energy Facility was flying. During the 2008 long-billed curlew survey, 74 percent of observed curlews were flying; in the spring 2008 avian survey, 50 percent of curlews were seen flying; and in the spring 2006 avian survey, 60 percent of the curlews were seen flying. Of 38 total long-billed curlew observations in the Wind Energy Facility, only three were observed flying within the turbine RSA (TetraTech 2008d). Due to the low number of individual long- billed curlews observed and the even lower number of individuals observed within the RSA, long-billed curlew mortality related to turbine strikes at the Wind Energy Facility site is expected to be low. Impacts to sensitive avian species from operation of the project would be similar to impacts to other birds. Section 4.2.8, Wildlife, describes in detail the potential impacts to birds from
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 106 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 operation of the project under the Proposed Action. Operation of the Wind Energy Facility and transmission line would have no effect on northern goshawks due to the lack of suitable habitat within the project area. Decommissioning Utah Sensitive Mammals The impacts to kit fox species from decommissioning would be the same as impacts to other wildlife species. Section 4.2.8, Wildlife describes impacts to wildlife from decommissioning of the project.
The impacts to Utah sensitive bat species from decommissioning would be the same as impacts to other bat species. Section 4.2.8, Wildlife, describes impacts to bats from decommissioning of the project.
The project area does not contain suitable habitat for pygmy rabbit or dark kangaroo mouse. Therefore, there would be no impacts to these sensitive mammal species due to decommissioning of the project. Utah Sensitive Fish The least chub is not found within the project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to sensitive fish species due to decommissioning of the project.
Utah Sensitive Birds
Impacts to Utah sensitive birds from decommissioning the project would be similar to impacts to other wildlife species, as described in Section 4.2.8, Wildlife. Decommissioning of the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line would have no effect on northern goshawks due to the lack of suitable habitat within the project area. 4.2.9.3 BLM Sensitive Plant Species Construction There are no known BLM Sensitive Plant Species on the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. Furthermore, based on published information on the ecology, known distributions, and endemic status of the four BLM Sensitive Plant Species identified by UDWR as possibly occurring in the project area, analysis of available geological and soils mapping, and inspection of the site, potentially suitable habitat for these species is lacking at the proposed Wind Energy Facility site. Therefore, no BLM Sensitive Plant Species is expected to occur there, and there would be no impacts on BLM Sensitive Plant Species from construction of the Wind Energy Facility. A June 2008 field survey of potentially suitable habitats identified along the proposed transmission line route found no individuals or populations of Jones’ globemallow, small spring parsley, or giant four-wing saltbush within the proposed transmission line corridor. Therefore, there would be no direct disturbance to these species from transmission line construction. The survey did find individuals of Neese narrowleaf penstemon within the transmission line corridor near the IPP generating plant at the northern end of the proposed transmission line route. No plants were located within proposed transmission line tower
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 107 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 structure sites, tower structure work areas, pulling and tensioning sites, or potential access roads, and the closest individuals were approximately 40 feet outside the boundaries of these project features. Therefore, there would be no direct disturbance to this species from transmission line construction. One proposed tower site (transmission line tower structure 388, located near the IPP generating station) and its associated work area and access road would occupy potentially suitable habitat for Neese narrowleaf penstemon, as would small parts of one other tower structure work area and one pulling and tensioning site. Total temporary disturbance to suitable habitat for Neese narrowleaf penstemon is estimated at less than 1 acre. All proposed transmission line construction activities would avoid known locations of BLM Sensitive Plant Species, and no impacts to BLM Sensitive Plant Species are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. Implementation of the environmental protection measures described in Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, would minimize impacts to BLM Sensitive Plant Species that might be discovered during transmission line construction.
Operation No impacts to Jones’ globemallow, small spring parsley, or giant four-wing saltbush are anticipated due to operation of the transmission line because none of these species is known to occur along the transmission line corridor. No direct impacts to Neese narrowleaf penstemon that do occur along the transmission line corridor are anticipated unless plants were to colonize the immediate vicinity of tower structure sites or associated access roads during the operations period (see Decommissioning, below). Even if this were the case, directs impacts would be negligible due to the minor and intermittent nature of anticipated operations and maintenance activities at individual transmission line tower structure sites. Total permanent occupancy of suitable habitat for Neese narrowleaf penstemon during the operations period is estimated at less than 0.1 acre. Decommissioning No impacts to Jones’ globemallow, small spring parsley, or giant four-wing saltbush are anticipated due to decommissioning of the transmission line because none of these species is known to occur along the transmission line corridor. Impacts to Neese narrowleaf penstemon are not anticipated unless plants have colonized the immediate vicinity of tower structure sites or associated access roads by the time decommissioning occurs (projected at up to 50 years from project construction). This could be most likely at transmission line tower structure 388, which occupies suitable habitat for the species. It is also possible that, due to the aeolian nature of the soils to which Neese narrowleaf penstemon is endemic, there could be localized redistribution of suitable habitat through time to include other transmission line tower sites, and, consequently, Neese narrowleaf penstemon could also occur there.
4.2.10 Cultural Resources 4.2.10.1 Historic Properties The process of evaluating impacts to cultural resources begins with the identification and evaluation of cultural resources for NRHP eligibility, followed by an assessment of effect on
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 108 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 those eligible resources, and concludes after a consultation process. If an action (undertaking) could change in any way the characteristics that qualify the resource for inclusion on the NRHP, it is considered to have an effect. Regulations implementing Section 106 of NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800.8, encourage the coordination of Section 106 compliance with the NEPA process. Early coordination is specifically encouraged, as well as coordination of the process of soliciting public input. 36 CFR 800 also directs that the review of possible impacts to the environment under NEPA include an assessment of effects of the undertaking on cultural resources, as required under NHPA. It is BLM’s intention that this EA support compliance with both of these regulations. BLM will provide opportunities to comment on the effects the project may have on cultural resources to the Utah SHPO, Native American tribes, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Construction Due to the presence of NRHP-eligible cultural resource sites within the Wind Energy Facility and along the proposed transmission line route, some direct impacts to cultural resources are likely. Construction impacts pose the greatest risk to cultural resources through the ground- disturbing activities associated with construction. Impacts could result from clearing vegetation, grading, excavating, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities. Construction activities may also increase the potential for vandalism of sites, inadvertent vehicular travel through sites, or increased erosion as the result of ground disturbance. In addition, some visual impacts to the setting of cultural resource sites are likely. The PA presents a commitment by BLM and MWC to develop a Treatment Plan that would minimize and mitigate impacts to historic properties. BLM is currently reviewing a draft Treatment Plan and will consult with SHPO and Native American tribes on the Treatment Plan. The Treatment Plan defines site-specific data recovery, historical research, or other mitigation appropriate to the eligibility characteristics of each site, as well as the level of impact of the Proposed Action on each site. The field work portions of any mitigation would be completed prior to initiating any activities that may affect historic properties. Table 20, Summary of Cultural Resource Sites, presents a summary of the NRHP eligible cultural resource sites that are present and could be affected by construction of the project. Of the 104 cultural resource sites that could be affected by the project, 82 sites could be physically affected by construction. MWC has been able to reconfigure the project to avoid some sites and is continuing to make adjustments that should reduce the number of sites potentially affected. The Treatment Plan anticipates that a minimum of 53 of these sites can be avoided.
TABLE 20 Summary of Cultural Resource Sites Site Number Project Treatment Type Period Site Type Eligibility Component 42BE000080 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Historic Structure Unevaluated effects 42BE000619 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Prehistoric Rock Art Unevaluated effects 42BE001397 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Cemetery Unevaluated effects
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 109 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 20 Summary of Cultural Resource Sites Site Number Project Treatment Type Period Site Type Eligibility Component 42BE002018 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Railroad Section Station Eligible effects and Rail Yard 42BE002413 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Historic Kilns Eligible effects 42BE002414 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Historic Kilns Eligible effects 42BE002653 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Historic Mine Eligible effects 42BE002664 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Historic Mine Eligible effects 42BE002670 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Historic Mine Eligible effects 42BE002691 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Historic Mine Openings Eligible effects 42BE003147 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility recovery 42BE003150 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility monitor 42BE003151 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Historic Historic Debris Scatter Eligible Facility recovery and historical research 42BE003155 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility recovery 42BE003157 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Groundstone Eligible Facility monitor Scatter 42BE003160 Wind Energy Avoided: out of area, Prehistoric Campsite with Lithics Eligible Facility fence and monitor and FCR 42BE003161 Visual Analysis, Mitigate: visual Historic Farm Homestead Eligible Wind Energy effects; fence and Facility monitor (direct effects avoided) 42BE003165 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility recovery 42BE003167 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Historic Historic Water Control Eligible Facility recovery and Feature historical research 42BE003169 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Historic Farm Homestead Eligible Facility monitor 42BE003170 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility recovery 42BE003172 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Historic Historic Water Control Eligible Facility monitor Feature 42BE003177 Wind Energy Avoided: out of area, Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility fence and monitor 42BE003179 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Historic Historic Water Control Eligible Facility recovery and Feature historical research 42BE003184/ Wind Energy Mitigate: historical Historic Historic Road Eligible 42MD002898 Facility research 42BE003185/ Transmission Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter and Camp Eligible 42MD002899 Line, Wind recovery Energy Facility 42BE003187/ Transmission Avoided: fence and Multicompo Lithic Scatter/ Historic Eligible 42MD003069 Line monitor nent Debris Scatter 42BE003188/ Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible 42MD003070 Line monitor
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 110 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 20 Summary of Cultural Resource Sites Site Number Project Treatment Type Period Site Type Eligibility Component 42BE003189/ Transmission Avoided: fence and Multicompo Lithic Scatter/ Historic Eligible 42MD003071 Line monitor nent Debris Scatter 42BE003191/ Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible 42MD003073 Line monitor 42BE003194 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42BE003195 Transmission Avoided: fence and Multicompo Lithic Scatter/ Historic Eligible Line monitor nent Debris Scatter 42BE003196 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42BE003197 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42BE003198 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD000008 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Prehistoric Rock Art with Artifact Unevaluated effects Scatter 42MD000057 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD000380 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Multicompo Lithic Scatter/Historic Eligible effects nent Town Site 42MD000436 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Multicompo Lithic Scatter/Historic Eligible Facility recovery nent Debris Scatter 42MD000741 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD000742 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD000747 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD000768 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD000868 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Prehistoric Rock Art Unevaluated effects 42MD001205 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Prehistoric Rock Art Eligible effects 42MD001302 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Wagon Road Eligible effects 42MD001467 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Abandoned Railroad Eligible effects Spurs 42MD001507 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Railroad Section Station Eligible effects 42MD001508 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Historic Railroad Section Station Eligible effects 42MD001524 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Multicompo Lithic Scatter/Historic Eligible effects nent Railroad Section Station 42MD001609 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Prehistoric Rock Art Eligible effects 42MD001654 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Multicompo Lithic Scatter with Rock Eligible effects nent Art/Debris Scatter 42MD001697 Visual Analysis Mitigate: visual Prehistoric Rock Art Eligible effects 42MD001885 Transmission Avoided: segment in Historic Highway Eligible Line project area lacks integrity 42MD002132 Transmission Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line recovery Scatter
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 111 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 20 Summary of Cultural Resource Sites Site Number Project Treatment Type Period Site Type Eligibility Component 42MD002830 Visual Analysis, Mitigate: visual Historic Farm Homestead Eligible Wind Energy effects; fence, Facility monitor 42MD002831 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Facility monitor Scatter 42MD002832 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Facility recovery Scatter 42MD002833 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility recovery 42MD002835 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility recovery 42MD002836 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility monitor 42MD002839 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility monitor 42MD002840 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic and Groundstone Eligible Facility recovery Scatter 42MD002841 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility monitor 42MD002842 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Historic Farm Homestead Eligible Facility recovery and historical research 42MD002843 Wind Energy Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility monitor 42MD002844 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Multicompo Lithic Scatter/ Historic Eligible Facility recovery nent Artifact Scatter 42MD002845 Wind Energy Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Facility recovery 42MD002846 Wind Energy Avoided: out of area, Historic Farm Homestead Eligible Facility fence and monitor 42MD002897 Wind Energy Mitigate: historical Historic Historic Road Eligible Facility research 42MD003017 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003018 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003019 Transmission Avoided: fence and Multicompo Artifact Scatter/Historic Eligible Line monitor nent Debris Scatter 42MD003020 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003022 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003023 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003024 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor (fence with Scatter 42MD3025) 42MD003025 Transmission Avoided: fence and Multicompo Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor (fence with nent Scatter/ Historic Debris 42MD3024) 42MD003027 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD003028 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003029 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 112 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 20 Summary of Cultural Resource Sites Site Number Project Treatment Type Period Site Type Eligibility Component 42MD003030 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003031 Transmission Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line recovery 42MD003032 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD003033 Transmission Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line recovery 42MD003034 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD003035 Transmission Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line recovery 42MD003036 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD003037 Transmission Check: Restrict Prehistoric Ceramic Scatter Eligible Line access on AR, no improvements to AR; fence, avoid, monitor 42MD003039 Transmission Check: Restrict Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line access on AR, no Scatter improvements to AR; fence, monitor 42MD003040 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003042 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD003043 Transmission Mitigate: data Multicompo Lithic Scatter/ Historic Eligible Line recovery nent Debris Scatter 42MD003046 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD003048 Transmission Mitigate: data Multicompo Lithic Scatter/ Historic Eligible Line recovery nent Debris Scatter 42MD003051 Transmission Avoided: fence and Multicompo Historic Debris Scatter Eligible Line monitor nent and Lithic Tool 42MD003052 Transmission Mitigate: data Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line recovery 42MD003057 Transmission Avoided: out of area, Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line fence and monitor 42MD003058 Transmission Avoided: fence and Multicompo Lithic Scatter/Historic Eligible Line monitor nent Debris Scatter 42MD003061 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD003062 Transmission Avoided: fence and Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Eligible Line monitor Scatter 42MD003065 Transmission Avoided: fence and Historic Historic Debris Scatter Eligible Line monitor 42MD003066 Transmission Avoided: out of area, Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line fence and monitor 42MD003067 Transmission Avoided: out of area, Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible Line fence and monitor
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 113 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 In order to avoid or minimize impacts on historic properties, all historic properties with direct effects discussed in the Treatment Plan will be fenced to avoid or restrict access; they will also be monitored during construction. Monitoring would be used to confirm that restricted areas are appropriately marked and that activities are prohibited in those areas. Cultural resource monitoring would also be conducted during ground-disturbing activities to identify and address any unanticipated subsurface discoveries of cultural resources uncovered during construction. Direct impacts to 27 cultural resource sites would be mitigated on a site-by-site basis in the Treatment Plan. Because the information potential of these sites would be appropriately addressed or recovered through implementation of the Treatment Plan, these impacts are considered minor. Impacts to cultural resources may also occur where the viewshed is altered and the setting of the site is a component that contributes to the characteristics that make the site eligible for the NRHP. Of 39 potentially affected sites, construction of the project could affect the visual setting of 24 cultural resource sites (two of which could also be physically impacted by construction). However, the landscape of the project area is not pristine and already contains modern features (roads, existing power lines, geothermal plants, railroads, mines, etc.) and the distances between the sites and the proposed facilities are generally moderate (3 to 5 miles). Additionally, the visual setting is only one of seven aspects of site integrity; sites are not required to retain integrity in all seven aspects to be eligible for the NRHP. Moreover, none of the sites currently have significant heritage tourism associated with them and no member of the public has raised concerns about the setting of these sites. For these reasons, the addition of another power line in an existing corridor and the introduction of new industrial features constitutes a low to moderate, incremental change to the landscape but not a complete revision of the existing landscape. Consequently, visual impacts on cultural resource are considered minor. Visual impacts to cultural resource sites are also addressed in the Treatment Plan and will be mitigated. There is a potential for buried cultural resources in the project area. Buried cultural resources are generally discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of project components. Because intensive survey efforts have been carried out for the project, it is likely that any buried cultural resources would be similar in nature to those already located and recorded. The Treatment Plan includes procedures for unanticipated discoveries. Upon discovery of an isolated artifact or feature, construction activities will cease for a sufficient area around the discovery to allow the archaeological monitor to safely recover and document the find. Upon discovery of a large, complex site or feature, construction will cease for 30 m (approximately 100 feet) on all sides around the discovery to allow the archaeological monitor to safely document the discovery and implement the notification and consultation procedures. In summary, cultural resource impacts will be avoided where practicable, and environmental protection measures, including completion of Section 106 consultation, continuation of Native American Consultation, and implementation of a Treatment Plan prior to ground disturbance will minimize impacts to cultural resources. Environmental protection measures for the project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 114 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Operation No direct impacts to cultural resources are anticipated during the project operations phase because no new ground-disturbing activities would take place. Impacts to the viewsheds of cultural resource sites would be mitigated during the construction phase and no further impacts are anticipated. Decommissioning Impacts to cultural resources from decommissioning the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line would be relatively minor as long as decommissioning activities remain within the temporary work areas used during project construction and within other areas that would have already experienced ground-disturbing activities. If decommissioning activities take place outside such areas, impacts to cultural resources would be avoided or mitigated utilizing the same environmental protection measures described for construction, in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.
4.2.10.2 Native American Religious Concerns
The BLM CCFO and FFO have completed consultation with various Native American entitities with interests in this area regarding potential impacts that the Wind Energy Facility or the proposed transmission line may have on properties of traditional, religious, or cultural importance.
4.2.11 Visual Resources An analysis of the project’s potential visual impacts was conducted using the BLM Visual Resources Management (VRM) system. This analysis focused on the three representative KOPs discussed in Section 3.3.11, Visual Resources. BLM-managed lands are assigned to one of four classes based on BLM’s evaluation of the form, line, color, and texture of the existing landform/water, vegetation, and structures. The VRM class assigned to the area is compared to the proposed development to determine what, if any mitigation is required to meet the VRM class objectives (BLM 2005a). The VRM class for BLM-managed lands in the project area is Class IV. The objective for VRM Class IV is to “…provide for management activities that require major modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change may be high and may dominate the view and be the major focus of the viewers attention” (BLM 2005a). The Proposed Action would conform to all federal, state, and local land use plans regarding visual resources. Regional and local regulations that apply to the proposed project were considered during the analysis (Millard County 1998a, Millard County 1998b, Beaver County 1999, Beaver County 2006).
Construction On-site activities that would be required as a part of project construction are described in Section 2.2.2.4, Wind Energy Facility Construction, and Section 2.2.2.3, Transmission Line Construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 115 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Construction of the Wind Energy Facility is expected to take place over a period of approximately 12 to 15 months. During that time, large earth-moving equipment, trucks, cranes, and other heavy equipment would be highly evident features in views from nearby areas toward the project site. At some times, small, localized clouds of dust created by road- building and other grading activities may be visible at the site. Active dust suppression should minimize the frequency and extent of such dust events. Because of the construction-related grading activities, areas of exposed soil and fresh gravel that contrasts with the colors of the surrounding undisturbed landscape may be visible. In views from the closest segments of Utah State Route 257 and other nearby roads, the visual changes associated with construction activities would be moderately to highly visible and would have a moderate level of visual impact. The impacts on views from the KOPs are indicated below. Because the construction activities have a generally low level of impact and would be taking place over a limited period of 12 to 15 months, visual impacts are considered to be minor. The transmission line construction period is only expected to last 6 to 8 months, and visible changes related to construction of the transmission line would be of short duration. With a few exceptions, including the route’s crossing of Utah State Route 257 and U.S. Highways 6 and 50, transmission line construction activities would not be seen in close proximity by substantial numbers of viewers. Given these circumstances, visual impacts related to transmission line construction are considered to be minor. Implementation of environmental protection measures during project construction, including minimizing areas of surface disturbance, controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring temporarily exposed soils, would minimize short-term construction impacts to visual resources. The specifics of construction period impacts on views from the three KOPs are indicated below.
KOP 1 – Milford Trap Club Construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line would be visible in this view, and construction would result in short-term changes to the background of the existing environment of KOP 1. Construction of new access roads and preparation of wind turbine and transmission line tower structure sites would result in temporary generation of fugitive dust that could be visible from KOP 1 under certain conditions. Large equipment delivery trucks and construction equipment would be present during construction, and movement of such vehicles could be visible, particularly as they travel from Utah State Route 257 along Geothermal Road toward the Wind Energy Facility. Geothermal Road is approximately 4 miles from KOP 1 and is the nearest project-related point. Wind turbine towers would become increasingly evident as they are erected throughout the construction period. The approximately 425-foot-high wind turbines would range in distance from 7 to 14 miles from KOP 1. It is unlikely that the approximately 110-foot-high transmission line towers would be visible at 11 miles or more from KOP 1.
KOP 2 – Utah State Route 257 – Cricket Mountains Construction of the proposed transmission line would be visible in this view and would result in short-term changes to the background of the existing environment of KOP 2. Construction of
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 116 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 new access roads, widening of existing roads, and preparation of transmission line tower sites would result in temporary generation of fugitive dust that could be visible from KOP 2. Construction equipment would be present during the construction phase, and movement of such vehicles could be visible along the existing IPP transmission line access road , which would serve as the primary access road for the proposed transmission line. Transmission line tower structures would become increasingly evident as they are erected throughout the construction period. At their closest point, the proposed transmission line and access road would be approximately 3 miles from KOP 2.
KOP 3 – Topaz Japanese-American WWII Internment Camp Construction of the proposed transmission line would be barely visible in this view because of the six mile distance between this viewpoint and the proposed transmission line route. The changes to the view would not be particularly detectable and, in any case, would be of short duration.
Operation The major features of the Wind Energy Facility are described in detail in Section 2.2.2.2, Wind Energy Facility Components, and the features of the transmission line are described in Section 2.2.3.2, Transmission Line Components. The Wind Energy Facility’s most visible features would be the turbines. To respond to the FAA’s aircraft safety lighting requirements, the Project would be marked according to FAA guidelines for lighting wind turbines. At present, the FAA guidelines call for lights that flash white during the day (at 20,000 candela) and red (at 2,000 candela) at night. These lights are designed to concentrate the beam in the horizontal plane, thus minimizing light diffusion down toward the ground and up toward the sky. The exact number of turbines that would require lighting would be specified by the FAA after it has reviewed final project plans. Typically, FAA has required that warning lights be mounted on the first and last turbines of each string and every 1,000 to 1,400 feet on the turbines in between. Aside from any required aircraft warning lights, the turbines would not be illuminated at night. The FAA is now in the process of reviewing its safety lighting standards for wind energy facilities and may reduce the amount of lighting required. In views from the segments of Utah State Route 257 and other nearby roads within approximately four miles of the Wind Energy Facility site, the visual changes would be high in that the turbines would be highly visible and would tend to dominate the view. Impacts to viewers along Utah State Route 257 would be of a very short duration when passing the project at designated highway speeds. A visual simulation of the turbines from Utah State Route 257, approximately 2 miles from the northwest corner of the Wind Energy Facility, can be found in Appendix M, Visual Simulation. Farther from the Wind Energy Facility site, the visual dominance of the turbines and their impacts would decline. Milford, which has the greatest concentration of viewers near the project site is 7 miles distant from the closest turbines, and at this distance, studies of the relationship between distance and wind turbines turbine visual effects indicate that the turbines would have at most a moderate effect on the view. A visual simulation of the turbines from approximately 2 miles southeast of the Wind Energy Facility can be found in Appendix M, Visual Simulation. Overall, even though the turbines would be visible, the impact of the change to views in the surrounding area would be minor because there
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 117 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 are few residential viewers with close views of the Wind Energy Facility and because the landscape region affected has a working landscape that has already been substantially modified in a number of ways (e.g., Twin Mountain quarry, agricultural production areas, IPP transmission line) and has not been designated in either local or BLM plans as having landscape resources that are so distinctive as to require preservation. Visible changes related to the addition of the transmission line to the landscape would be relatively minor in that the transmission line would parallel a larger existing transmission line and would not represent the insertion of an entirely new facility into an undeveloped landscape. Impacts would be further minimized by the use of the existing IPP transmission line access road. With a few exceptions, including the route’s crossing of Utah State Route 257 and U.S. Highways 6 and 50, the transmission line would not be seen in close proximity by substantial numbers of viewers. Given these circumstances, the visual impacts related to the presence of the transmission line would be minor. The Proposed Action would not result in change to the form, line, color, or texture of the land, vegetation, and structures in the foreground or middleground of any of the three representative KOPs. Moderate change would occur to these attributes in the background of KOP 1, and weak change would occur to these attributes in the backgrounds of KOP 2 and KOP 3 (see Appendix K, Visual Contrast Rating Worksheets and Photographs of Key Observation Points). Impacts to visual resources have been reduced in the project design. Specifically, the Wind Energy Facility is sited in a valley and avoids ridgetops and elevated landscape features. Project facilities will be integrated with the surrounding landscape by painting buildings to blend with the landscape. The transmission poles will be a self weathering steel that will rust to an earthtone color. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential long-term visual impacts. Environmental protection measures for the Milford Wind Corridor Project can be found in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, and Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures. Activities and changes to the existing environment associated with the Proposed Action are consistent with VRM Class IV assigned to the BLM-managed lands in the project area. Furthermore, the Proposed Action is consistent with the Millard County General Plan and applicable zoning ordinances (Millard County 1998a, Millard County 1998b). No zoning ordinances related to visual resources are in place for lands zoned for multiple use in Beaver County, including the areas on which project facilities would be sited under the Proposed Action (Beaver County 1999, Beaver County 2006). Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in no adverse effect on visual resources. The specifics of the project’s impacts on views from the three KOPs throughout the operations phase are indicated below.
KOP 1 – Milford Trap Club Project operation would result in long-term changes to the background of the existing environment of KOP 1. Long-term visible changes would result from the addition of Wind Energy Facility features. The ten parallel arrays of off-white, vertical turbines would visibly interrupt the generally horizontal line of the background of KOP 1 and would contrast with the Mineral Mountains and the valley floor in the background. Transmission line structures would
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 118 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 likely not be visible from KOP 1. Areas permanently cleared of vegetation for access roads, wind turbines, and transmission line towers would also likely not be visible from KOP 1.
KOP 2 – Utah State Route 257 – Cricket Mountains Project operation would result in long-term changes to the background of the existing environment of KOP 2. Long-term visible changes would result from the addition of the transmission line tower structures paralleling the existing IPP transmission line along the base of the Cricket Mountains. The vertical H-frame transmission towers would generally blend in with the existing transmission line and would not be highly visible against the backdrop of the Cricket Mountains. Gravel access roads and other areas permanently cleared of vegetation would likely not be visible from KOP 2.
KOP 3 –Topaz Japanese-American WWII Internment Camp Project operation would result in long-term changes to the background of the existing environment of KOP 3 similar to those described for KOP 2. At nearly 6 miles away, changes to the background would likely be barely visible from KOP 3.
Decommissioning As viewed from the three KOPs, the impacts of project decommissioning would be similar to those described for project construction under the Proposed Action, including the generation of fugitive dust and the presence of work vehicles and heavy equipment. Measures to reduce airborne dust would minimize potential effects to the visual environment during project decommissioning, and measures to restore areas temporarily cleared of vegetation during decommissioning would minimize potentially longer-term effects to the visual environment from fugitive dust.
4.2.12 Socioeconomics From a socioeconomic perspective, consequences are attributable primarily to changes in the local economy related to the construction and operation of the proposed project. Economic activity attributable to implementation of the Proposed Action includes: increase in local employment; purchase of materials and services from local sources; and expenditures in the local economy by non-local workers for items such as accommodations, food, and recreation. Project-related effects associated with the construction of the project would be short-lived, while those associated with operations would have a longer duration. One of the most identifiable impacts could be to housing resources, especially temporary housing. To the degree that the local labor force cannot provide suitably skilled workers to fill the demand of the project, workers would enter the area from elsewhere. Since the duration of construction activities is relatively short, it is likely that most non-local workers would reside in hotels, motels, recreational vehicles, and campers within commuting distance of their worksites. It is assumed that these workers would not be accompanied by family members, and, thus, effects on community facilities and service providers would be minimal.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 119 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Construction
Economic Activity Direct Employment and Income. During the course of the 12- to 15-month construction period, direct on-site employment would exceed 100 workers for 9 consecutive months. Combined direct monthly employment would peak at about 225, and the monthly average over the construction period would be about 120. About 70 percent of employment would be associated with the Wind Energy Facility. Assuming a work day of 10 hours and 20 work days per month, aggregate employment over the duration of the construction period would be the equivalent of about 170 full-time jobs for 1 year, Many of the tasks require skilled workers with specialized expertise, and numerous of these skilled workers would not be available locally. Thus, a proportion of the workers (varying with skill level and function) would likely temporarily relocate from areas outside the ROI. Of the 170 annual full-time jobs generated by the proposed project, it is estimated that about 98 would be local hires, with the remaining 72 jobs filled by non-local workers. The 170 full-time construction jobs would constitute about 5 percent of 2005 construction-sector employment in the ROI. The potential demand for 98 local full-time construction workers from within the ROI would be about 3 percent of the local labor pool. It is estimated that the aggregate income of direct local workers would total $3,910,000, while that of non-local workers would total $2,880,000, for a grand total of $6,790,000. A substantial portion of these earnings would be spent in the local economy and would provide an economic stimulus.
Secondary Employment and Income. Employment in addition to that directly associated with construction activities can be anticipated in the region as a result of project implementation. This “secondary” employment is related to additional employment in local businesses providing 1) materials, goods, and services necessary for project implementation, 2) accommodations, meals, and recreation opportunities for temporary residents, and 3) other items for personal consumption by resident workers. It is estimated that approximately 17 percent of the cost of materials to construct the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line would be sourced within the ROI. Providing these additional materials, e.g., concrete and aggregate, could require local suppliers to add jobs during the construction period. Likewise, providing for food and lodging and other goods and services for temporary and permanent workers during the construction period could also increase employment in local businesses. Based on modeling of the regional economic impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project, secondary employment related to construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line would be approximately 265 jobs.10
10 A widely used approach to estimating the secondary effects of a project is through input-output (I-O) models. One such model is Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN), a computer software model that consists of procedures for estimating local I-O models and associated databases. IMPLAN was originally developed by the U.S. Forest Service in cooperation FEMA and the BLM to assist in land and resource management planning. An IMPLAN I-O model was built for the three ROI counties and used to evaluate the regional economic impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 120 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Over the period of construction activity, income associated with secondary employment would total approximately $6,260,000. Collectively, the stimulus attributable to project-related procurements and personal consumption expenditures by local and non-local construction workers would have a beneficial impact on the local economy. In the short term during construction, the economic stimulus could reduce unemployment, increase income and earnings, and increase revenues accruing to the state and local jurisdictions from sales, use, and other taxes. Total employment (direct and secondary) associated with construction of the proposed project could total 436 full-time jobs, which would represent over 1 percent of the total 2005 employment in the ROI of 31,592. A summary of employment and earnings impacts is presented in Table 21, Employment and Income Impacts of the Proposed Action.
TABLE 21 Employment and Income Impacts of the Proposed Action Employment (Full-Time Jobs) Construction Operation
Direct Employment
Local 98 16
Non-local 72 0
Total Direct 170 16
Secondary Employment
Indirect 201 1
Induced 65 6
Total Secondary 266 7
Total Employment 436 23
Income Construction Operation
Direct Income
Local $3,913,,000 $720,000
Non-local $2,853,000 0
Total Direct $6,766,000 $720,000
Secondary Income
Indirect $4,865,000 $24,200
Induced $1,139,000 $116,450
Total Secondary $6,004,000 $140,700
Total Income $12,770,000 $860,700
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 121 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Property, Sales, and Other Taxes Property Taxes. Property taxes are based on 100 percent of the fair market value (FMV) of the property and would, in most cases, be computed by the county assessor. However, the proposed facilities would occupy property in both Beaver and Millard counties, and the assessment is conducted at the state level. There are three general approaches for determining FMV: cost approach, sales comparison approach, and income approach. The proposed project is currently in the preliminary environmental review stage and, thus, an income approach is not possible. Additionally, the number of similar developments available for comparison purposes is very limited. It is most likely that the state would utilize the “cost approach,” which relies on cost projections available in advance of actual construction and operation of the facility. It is anticipated that the FMV would be less than the value of improvements made to the site since a fraction of the capital improvement costs would be offset by renewable energy tax credits (as outlined in the Utah Code, Section 59-10-1106). It is not possible at this time to forecast the estimated FMV of the facilities. However, the tax rate that would be applied in Beaver County is $0.010052 per dollar of estimated FMV. As an example, a facility with a FMV of $20 million would result in annual property tax revenues to Beaver County of $201,040. Construction and operation of the Wind Energy Facility component of the proposed project would add considerably to the tax base of both Beaver and Millard counties, but especially to that of Beaver County which contains few such capital-intensive developments.
Sales and Other Taxes. Sales tax is normally collected on all retail sales made within the state. Products purchased outside the state for final consumption within the state are subject to use taxes at rates equivalent to the sales tax in the jurisdiction where the product is consumed. There are a number of exemptions to this requirement, the most pertinent to this project being that related to machinery and equipment leased or purchased for or by a facility that is a renewable energy production facility [as outlined in Utah Code, Section 59-12-104 (57)]. This exemption applies to wind turbines, control and monitoring systems, power lines, substation equipment, lighting, fencing, pipes, and equipment used for locating power lines or poles. The exemption does not apply to machinery or equipment used in the construction of a renewable energy production facility. The majority of capital purchases associated with the construction of the proposed project would not be subject to sales or use taxes, but some purchases related to construction would generate sales tax revenue. Temporary resident workers would require local services such as accommodations, recreation, and entertainment and would purchase items such as meals and gasoline locally. Such services and commodities would generate sales tax revenues. It is not possible to forecast tax revenues likely to accrue to specific counties and municipalities since the exact location of projected temporary residents is not known. However, state sales tax receipts could exceed $110,000 during the construction phase, while local sales tax receipts (from local sales tax and county option tax combined) could exceed $30,000. Population and Housing Impacts to regional population and housing related to the Proposed Action could occur over the short term. Workers would temporarily relocate to the region to fill jobs not held by local workers. Because of the short duration of construction activity, it is unlikely that non-local workers would be accompanied by family members. The temporary relocation of about 100
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 122 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 workers during the peak activity month would comprise less than one-tenth of one percent of the 59,228 residents of the ROI in 2006. Non-local workers would temporarily reside in communities close to the project site. Assuming a one-way commute time of about 1 hour, there are a number of communities with hotels, motels, and campgrounds that could accommodate these non-local workers. At increasing distance from the proposed Wind Energy Facility site, these communities are Milford, Beaver, Delta, Cedar City, and Parowan. In order to assess potential impacts at the community level, non-local workers have been assigned to communities in direct proportion to the size of the community (expressed as the number of residents) and inversely to the distance between the community and the work site. During the peak construction month, over one-half of the non-local workers could acquire temporary accommodations in Cedar City, about 65 miles south of the Wind Energy Facility site. This level of demand would constitute about 5 percent of the current inventory of hotel and motel rooms in Cedar City. Potential demand in other communities would be less than 10 percent of their respective room inventories, with the exception of Milford, where the potential demand could constitute 20 percent of the room inventory. The estimate of demand for rooms should be considered conservative (high) because some transmission line workers would probably base themselves at the northern end of the alignment, double occupancy of rooms would probably occur in some cases, and some of the workers would choose to reside in recreational vehicles and campers. Thus, it is anticipated that adequate accommodations would exist to service the needs of the non-local workers throughout the construction phase of the proposed project. Community Facilities and Services In the absence of sizeable increases in the number of residents as a result of construction of the project, impacts to community facilities and services are not expected.
Operation Impacts associated with operations would be long-term and beneficial but quantitatively small. During the operations phase of the proposed project, approximately 16 full-time jobs would be associated with operation and maintenance of the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed transmission line. Secondary employment associated with local project-related procurements (1 indirect job) and personal consumption expenditures by direct employees (6 induced jobs) could total 7 jobs. Total employment (direct, indirect, and induced) associated with operation of the proposed project could total 23 workers. This would represent a small beneficial impact but would constitute a negligible share of total ROI employment. Impacts to employment, population, housing, and community facilities and services would be negligible during the operations phase. Annual income associated with direct operations employment would total approximately $720,000. Annual income associated with secondary employment would total approximately $140,700, bringing the total annual income associated with operation of the proposed project to $860,700.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 123 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Annual property tax revenues would continue to accrue to the counties in which the facilities would be located. These tax revenues would likely decline over time as the FMV of the facility declines through depreciation. Assuming that all materials and services (purchased locally or elsewhere) required for operation of the facility are not exempt from sales tax, it is estimated that sales tax receipts of over $20,000 annually would accrue to the state and about $5,000 to the local counties. In addition to the direct purchases associated with project operations, there would be additional tax receipts generated from purchases made by the new direct and secondary workers and their families. These tax receipts would be minor but beneficial.
Decommissioning Many of the activities associated with decommissioning would resemble those associated with construction, although activity levels would be less. Thus, impacts would be similar to those described for construction under the Proposed Action, but the magnitude of such impacts would be less relative to the conditions prevailing at the time of decommissioning.
4.2.13 Compliance and Monitoring Prior to initiating construction, MWC and its prime construction contractors would attend a preconstruction coordination meeting with the BLM to review the conditions and requirements that apply to construction. The prime construction contractors would provide training to workers and other subcontractors that would include education on sensitive species, exclusion areas and flagging, permit requirements, fire prevention, wildlife reporting, and other environmental issues. Construction site personnel would be required to attend the environmental training in conjunction with hazard and safety training prior to working on site. During construction, an on-site compliance program would be implemented by the BLM and MWC. Construction monitoring would be provided by an independent contractor, approved by BLM, to ensure that any conditions of the ROW grant are enforced, sensitive areas are marked and avoided, and environmental protection measures and plans are implemented and maintained, as well as to identify and respond to environmental issues during construction. Compliance monitors would be on site throughout the construction period, and inspectors would report directly to the BLM. Construction contractors would designate an on-site Field Construction Representative to oversee their compliance during construction and to respond to issues that may be identified by the compliance monitors. In addition to compliance inspection, archaeological and biological monitors would be provided, as needed, to monitor construction in sensitive areas (e.g., near cultural sites or within raptor nest buffers). The overall monitoring effort, including the construction monitoring and MWC monitoring commitments, would include noxious weeds, soil erosion and control, cultural resources, wildlife and sensitive species, paleontological resources, and post- construction avian and bat mortality.
4.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, MWC’s ROW application would be denied and the Milford Wind Corridor Project would not be built. Approximately 300 MW of renewable electrical
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 124 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 capacity would fail to be generated at the site and would need to be produced at other locations and/or by other renewable or non-renewable energy sources in order to meet energy objectives. Development of a wind energy project on non-federal lands could preclude NEPA environmental disclosure and analysis requirements if federal funding or permitting were not required for the project. Under the No Action Alternative, existing land uses in the project area would continue consistent with current or planned practices. Potential impacts of wind energy development would not occur at the site. Other locations would be likely to have the same type of resource issues and would likely have similar environmental impacts. While preliminary wind testing is taking place in surrounding areas, the BLM has not received any other applications requesting full wind energy development at this time. Replacement of 300 MW of electrical generating capacity with energy from non-renewable sources would likely result in less ground disturbance but could result in substantial increases in air pollutant emissions, including greenhouse gases.
4.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis Cumulative impacts are those impacts resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts would occur if incremental impacts of the Proposed Action, added to the environmental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in adverse impacts to regional resources. Cumulative impacts could only occur for those resources that are 1) affected by the Proposed Action and 2) affected by other actions whose impacts occur within the same timeframe.
4.4.1 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis To identify cumulative impact issues, the following factors were considered, in accordance with CEQ guidance [CEQ 1997]:
• The direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action • Which resources, ecosystems, and human communities are affected • Which impacts to these resources are important from a cumulative perspective.
In evaluating the cumulative impacts of other projects at and around the Wind Energy Facility site and the proposed transmission line route, the project team considered relevant historical events in the region and contacted local, state, and federal agencies to identify present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Because a majority of the affected land is under the jurisdiction of BLM, Beaver County, and Milford County, these agencies were a primary focus of scoping efforts for cumulative impacts analysis. The governmental agencies identified air quality (particularly emissions from exposed soils), wildlife, and rangeland as key resources to consider. Some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities affecting these resources are wildfires, road development, energy development and associated transmission lines, and mining. Tribal governments were also consulted to identify areas of interest to Native Americans. The latter did not offer any specific concerns. Public concerns raised during
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 125 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 scoping centered on potential impacts to avian and bat species from the wind turbine generators and potential impacts to military airspace from transmission line towers. The cumulative impacts analysis is organized by resource to provide better presentation of cumulative impacts for each resource. Potential direct and indirect impacts were analyzed in this EA for twelve resources. These resources were included for impact analysis because they were identified through the scoping process as resources that could be of concern under the Proposed Action. The environmental impacts analysis of the Milford Wind Corridor Project indicated that, although the impacts of the Proposed Action would not be great, minor impacts could occur to soils, air quality, wildlife, land use (grazing), wetlands and riparian areas, and visual resources. Because minor impacts could occur, a cumulative impacts assessment was conducted to determine if the minor impacts of the Proposed Action could, along with other actions in the region, contribute to important cumulative impacts. Cultural resources, sensitive plant species, vegetation, noxious weeds, and paleontological resources could also be affected, but impacts to these resources can be avoided or reduced to the point that impacts are negligible through implementation of the environmental protection measures outlined in Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, and treatment plans contained in the POD.
4.4.2 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Analysis The geographic scope of cumulative impacts analysis is generally based on the natural boundaries of the resources affected. For all of the resources analyzed, other potential actions or projects were reviewed on the basis of watershed boundaries. This approach provides a broad area for which potential cumulative actions can be analyzed and encompasses the range and distribution of the resources of potential concern.
4.4.3 Timeframe Potential impacts from the construction of the Proposed Action would be short-term, generally occurring over a 12 to 15 month period. Impacts to soils, air quality, vegetation, and noxious weeds may extend several months beyond the initial construction period until revegetation is accomplished. For the purposes of the cumulative impacts analysis, it is assumed that construction of the Proposed Action would begin in October 2008. Potential impacts associated with operation of the proposed Wind Energy Facility and transmission line would continue into the foreseeable future, approximately 30 years.
4.4.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions were identified through review of BLM projects and Beaver County and Millard County planning and zoning proposals and through interviews with officials and members of the public familiar with the development of the region. Field visits by environmental specialists supplemented the review of present conditions. Development within the region has included the development of the community of Milford (population approximately 1,450), agricultural use (primarily livestock grazing), power facilities, other wind energy testing and development activities, and a variety of linear developments for projects such as pipelines, transmission lines, and roadways. In consultation with the BLM and county officials, the following projects have been identified as having the
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 126 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 potential to contribute, along with the impacts of the Proposed Action, to cumulative environmental impacts. These projects are summarized in below.
• Grazing. Grazing occurs throughout the cumulative impact area, both on BLM and private lands. Grazing is expected to continue to occur, although some small grazing areas have been converted to other uses, such as power development. Grazing affects vegetative cover and can result in bare ground. Wind can carry dust from bare areas and create air emissions. Bare areas are also susceptible to the spread of noxious weeds. • Road Development. County roads have been developed throughout the project area. Many are unpaved, and none are heavily traveled. Average daily traffic along the state highways in the project area peaks at less than 5,000 vehicles per day. Unpaved county roads and other smaller trails are used by off-highway vehicles (OHVs). Vehicular travel on dirt roads can generate fugitive dust emissions and can also disrupt wildlife. There are no plans to expand any state highways, although repaving of several roadways is underway or planned. • Milford Flat Wildfire. The Milford Flat Wildfire, which occurred in the summer of 2007, was Utah’s largest wildfire, burning more than 360,000 acres. The fire has caused substantial soil erosion, regional air quality degradation during wind events, vegetation and habitat loss, and the potential for noxious weed establishment. Restoration is underway, and the impacts of the fire will be reduced over time as revegetation progresses. • UNEV Pipeline. The UNEV pipeline is a 400-mile-long pipeline originating in north Salt Lake City and extending to a terminal near Las Vegas, Nevada. The project is in the final planning stages. An EIS was initiated in late 2007 and could be approved by 2009. Construction would not occur until after the approval of the EIS, which could occur as early as mid-2009, and would take 1 to 2 years. Construction of the UNEV pipeline could create cumulative impacts if their construction activities overlapped construction of the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Although it is possible that these construction activities would overlap, however, the Proposed Action would likely be constructed ahead of the pipeline. Operation of the pipeline is not likely to result in impacts to resources of concern for this cumulative impact analysis. • Oil and Gas Development. An oil and gas lease is present on the western edge of the cumulative impact area. There are no large-scale activities occurring within the lease, and it is unknown if or when development might occur. This activity, therefore, is not considered in the cumulative impact analysis. • Other Wind Projects. Development of other wind projects could occur, and several companies have installed meteorological towers to determine the suitability of potential projects. Meteorological towers are found east of the project area in the Mineral Mountains, south of Minersville in the Black Mountains, and in several locations on private lands. Environmental impacts associated with wind site testing are negligible (BLM 2005a). At this time, no applications have been filed with BLM for full wind energy developments. Future wind energy projects are not included in the cumulative impact assessment because none are far enough along in the planning process to define the location, scale, and impacts of their potential development. • Kern River Pipeline. The Kern River pipeline corridor is generally located 15 miles or more to the east of the proposed transmission line route, but, at its closest point, it does come within a few miles of the Wind Energy Facility site. Unless modified, the pipeline
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 127 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 is not expected to create any cumulative impacts with either construction or operation of the Milford Wind Corridor Project transmission line or Wind Energy Facility. • Blundell Geothermal Plant and Transmission Line. PacifiCorp operates a geothermal power plant approximately 2 miles southeast of the Wind Energy Facility site in the Mineral Mountains. Operation of the geothermal plant has minimal environmental impacts. PacifiCorp plans to expand the facility from 23 MW to 34 MW; construction of this expansion is expected in the fall of 2008 and would overlap in time construction of the Wind Energy Facility. In addition to the site expansion, PacifiCorp plans to construct a transmission line from the geothermal plant site east to near Cove Fort. Construction activities would have the potential to affect the same resources as the Proposed Action. • Mineral Extraction and Development. Graymont Western, Inc. Cricket Mountain lime plant is located off Utah State Route 257 east of the proposed transmission line route and north of the Wind Energy Facility site. The quarry for the plant is located 6.5 miles west of the plant at the western edge of the cumulative assessment boundary. Air emissions from the quarry and plant operations could be cumulative with the construction of the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line. Twin Mountain is a quarry producing ballast rock located near Milford. Like the Graymont operation, this project has the potential to contribute to cumulative dust emissions during construction of the Milford Wind Corridor Project. • Proposed West-Wide Energy Corridor. The DOE and BLM propose to designate energy corridors on federal lands in the 11 western states. These corridors would consolidate oil and gas and hydrogen pipelines and electrical transmission and distribution facilities. These corridors would minimize environmental impacts from multiple energy development projects by concentrating impacts along disturbed corridors and avoiding disturbance of undeveloped areas. A portion of the proposed transmission line route follows one of these proposed corridors. It is probable that future energy projects would use this 3,500-foot-wide corridor, but no specific projects within the corridor other than the UNEV Pipeline described previously are sufficiently developed to analyze. Possible future development within the corridor has the potential to contribute cumulatively to visual resource impacts. • Telescope Array Project. The BLM previously analyzed and approved the installation and operation of more than 575 ground detectors, three fluorescence stations, and other small facilities as part of the Telescope Array Project. Each facility has a small footprint with limited infrastructure. Most of the project facilities have been constructed and the project is in operation, but additional facilities could be added as funding allows. Impacts from the operation of the project are negligible but include visual resources and air quality from fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions. • Copper Mining. The Milford Energy belt includes ten mines operated by the Copper King Mining Corporation. While there are no large expansion plans for any of these mines, they are all projected to continue to operate. Operation of open-pit copper mines may contribute cumulate impacts to soils, air quality and fugitive dust, wildlife, and visual resources. • Private Land Actions. Private lands could be modified or developed within the cumulative impact assessment area, but Beaver County and Millard County officials are not aware of any sizable developments on private lands other than those mentioned previously.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 128 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts Construction of the Milford Wind Corridor Project under the Proposed Action has the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts along with other construction projects that may occur within the cumulative impact area at the same time. Operation of the project has little potential to contribute to cumulative environmental impacts because the primary long-term impacts associated with operation of the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line – visual impacts and avian and bat collisions – are not the same type of impacts that are associated with the other reasonably foreseeable projects. Future wind development projects could contribute cumulative impacts to these resources but additional wind development projects have not been proposed and cannot be analyzed. As noted previously, impacts of the Proposed Action could include impacts to soils, air quality, wildlife, land use (grazing), wetlands and riparian areas, and visual resources. Soils and air quality are combined in the following air quality discussion because the primary impacts of soil disturbance in the area are fugitive dust emissions and their impacts on air quality. The potential for increased wildfires is also not analyzed in detail because, although there is a potential that fires could be started by vehicles or other human activity at the site, fire protection measures are being implemented to reduce the potential that wildfires would burn out of control. Other active construction sites would also monitor for fires, so the cumulative impact of multiple construction activities is mitigated by having people at the sites able to respond if a fire started. To protect on-site workers and infrastructure, as well as adjacent lands, special precautions are employed by all projects if the fire danger is high.
Air Quality Air quality in the cumulative impact area is generally good, and the area is not in violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Milford Flat Wildfire, however, burned a large extent of vegetation within the cumulative impact area (and beyond), exposing soils to wind erosion. During wind events, air quality has been adversely affected because of fugitive dust emissions. Simultaneous project construction activities could adversely affect regional air quality due to emissions from construction equipment and vehicular exhaust. These emissions would generally be localized and short in duration. Dust emissions and soil loss from travel on unpaved roads, from earth-moving activities, and from areas where vegetation has been removed could increase. Although these impacts would also be generally minor, the ongoing impacts of the Milford Flat Wildfire make the area susceptible to cumulative impacts, so even minor sources adding to the large fire source could have substantial impacts on air quality during wind events. Impacts from construction activities, however, would not be expected to be great because fugitive dust control is typically implemented as a BMP at most projects and is usually required by county or UDEQ permit conditions, and construction projects are subject to the standards of Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307-205-5, Emissions Standards - Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust.
Wildlife Cumulative impacts on wildlife from construction activities and development within the cumulative impact area include habitat disturbance and fragmentation, injury and mortality, and interference with migration or movement. Multiple construction projects have the potential
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 129 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 to disrupt wildlife habitat and behavior (nesting, breeding, migration) over a larger area. Because most of the construction within the cumulative impact area is small in footprint relative to the extent of surrounding habitats or would occur within corridors that are already disturbed, the cumulative impacts of these projects on wildlife habitat and behavior are expected to be minor.
Land Use Development within the cumulative impact area would make some lands unavailable for grazing. Generally, the Proposed Action and other actions are not incompatible with grazing, and most of the area would remain available for grazing. Projects crossing grazing allotments must be designed to avoid disruption to grazing, including avoiding permanent impacts to water facilities, fences, or other infrastructure. Several measures would be employed at the Milford Wind Corridor Project to avoid or minimize direct impacts to livestock grazing. The largest impact to lands, including lands for grazing, resulted from the Milford Flat Wildfire. As reclamation efforts for the fire continue to be successful in revegetating the area, grazing on the affected land will be more productive.
Wetlands and Riparian Areas The proposed transmission line and other energy projects along this corridor have the potential to affect vegetation along stream and river channels where these resources intersect the corridor. The region is a dry semi-desert with few wetlands and riparian resources, and individual project impacts may contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts. There are no perennial water crossings or wetland areas that would be affected by the Milford Wind Corridor Project, so there would be no cumulative impact to these resources. Riparian areas would be affected, but the impact is only about 1.7 acres, and the riparian habitat is not high quality. Rapid revegetation is anticipated, and there would be no meaningful change to riparian habitat or floodplain values. None of the other proposed construction activities within the cumulative impact area are expected to have major impacts on wetlands or riparian areas because these resources are not present or impacts to them can be mitigated effectively.
Visual Resources The cumulative impact area does not contain high quality visual resources. The wind turbine generators and transmission line towers would, however, introduce a new and visible man- made element into the environment. Visual mitigation would be incorporated into the project by avoiding ridgetop facilities, painting buildings to blend with the landscape, and the use of weathering steel transmission structures to reduce the visual impacts of the project. The proposed UNEV Pipeline and other potential linear projects (e.g., transmission lines, pipelines) that may be concentrated within the proposed Westwide Energy Corridor near the project could introduce visible industrial facilities and reduce the visual quality of the area. Existing mining operations along the mountain sides and operation of other industrial sites within the cumulative impact area also contribute to reduced visual resource values. The viewshed is not particularly unique and industrial uses are allowed in the area. None of the activities planned within the cumulative impact area are inconsistent with zoning, recreation uses, or other scenic needs.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 130 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 4.5 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts No mitigation measures beyond those included in the proposed action have been identified; consequently, all impacts are residual.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 131 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
5.1 Introduction In developing this EA, BLM consulted with a variety of parties with either interest in the Proposed Action or information that was relevant to the analysis of the Proposed Action (stakeholders). BLM also conducted a public scoping process that included internet postings, scoping letters, and scoping meetings. Opportunities to consult or comment were made available to federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribal governments, landowners, organizations, individuals, and the general public. During the process, these stakeholders were provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Proposed Action.
5.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted
TABLE 22 Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Consulted
Name Purpose and Authorities for Consultation or Coordination Findings & Conclusions
Utah School and No comments have been received An access permit from SITLA would be required for entry to Institutional from SITLA during the State lands. Trust Lands consultation process. (SITLA) LADWP requested that the Los Angles proposed transmission line be Department of built at a 1,500-foot offset from the Consultation with LADWP regarding transmission line Water and existing IPP line. However, setbacks from the existing IPP transmission line. Power through further consultation and (LADWP) evaluation, it was determined that a 250-foot setback is appropriate.
The tribe has requested that they Consultation as required by the American Indian Religious Paiute Indian be allowed to observe on-the- Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC 1531) and National Historic Tribe of Utah ground mitigation activities for Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 1531) cultural resources.
Consultation as required by the American Indian Religious The Hopi tribe is continuing to Hopi Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC 1531) and National Historic confer with the BLM regarding Tribe Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 1531) their interest in the project.
U.S. Fish & No impacts to federally listed species would occur. USFWS Wildlife has been consulted informally regarding potential impacts to Information has been incorporated Service (US sensitive wildlife species and avian and bat issues. into Chapters 3 and 4. FWS)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 132 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 22 Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Consulted
Name Purpose and Authorities for Consultation or Coordination Findings & Conclusions
Utah DivIsion of Wildlife Consultation with UDWR as the agency with expertise on Information has been incorporated Resources impacts on wildlife species. into Chapters 3 and 4. (UDWR)
Utah Natural Heritage Consultation with UNHP for data regarding sensitive plant and Information has been incorporated Program wildlife species into Chapters 3 and 4. (UNHP)
Utah State Information has been incorporated Historic Consultation for undertakings as required by NHPA (16 USC into Chapters 3 and 4, and Preservation 470) consultation is ongoing. Office (SHPO)
5.3 Summary of Public Participation The public was notified of the Proposed Action through BLM internet postings, scoping notices, public scoping meetings, EA notices, and EA public meetings. On July 12, 2007, the BLM posted notification of the EA process via the Environmental Notification Bulletin Board (ENBB). Scoping and public meeting letters were mailed to federal, state, county, and local agencies, Native American tribal governments, landowners, permittees, interested organizations and individuals, local school districts, and local newspapers. These letters, mailed to more than 200 stakeholders, provided a general project description and contact information for submitting comments. Public notices announcing the scoping process, scoping meetings, and the comment submission process were published in four local area newspapers, and meeting notice flyers were posted at local businesses. Three scoping meetings were held in 2007 to discuss the Proposed Action with the general public in the following cities: Cedar City, Utah, on September 25, Delta, Utah, on September 26, and Milford, Utah, on September 27. During these meetings, the public had opportunities to submit written and oral comments on the Proposed Action. Forms were also available for submitting comments at or subsequent to the meetings. A 30-day public comment period for scoping began on September 25 and ended on October 4, 2007. After completion of the preliminary EA, a public comment period was offered for 30 days beginning on September 5 and ending on October 6, 2008. The BLM posted notification of the availability of the preliminary EA, an unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact, a draft Plan of Development, and a schedule of public meetings on the EA via the ENBB. Letters announcing the availability of these documents and notice of the public meetings on the EA were also mailed to stakeholders, including those who had requested to be added to the mailing list during scoping. Two public meetings on the preliminary EA were held in 2008: one in Delta, Utah, on September 24 and one in Milford, Utah, on September 25. The public was able to
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 133 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 submit written comments on the EA during or subsequent to these meetings, and forms were also available for submitting comments. The BLM received 10 comments during the public comment period. These comments are analyzed below.
5.3.1 Comment Analysis Comments received from the public and the BLM response to these comments is contained in Section 5.3.3, below.
5.3.2 List of Commenters Commenters included Jim Kaufman of Kaufman and Sons Inc.; Robert and Ranae Davidson of Beaver Lawnscape, LLC; Paul and Mary Wignall of the Beaver County Journal; Darrell Hafen of Dixie Power; Tiffany Bartz of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; John Matthews with the University of Utah Physics Department; Larry Crist of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services; and Henry Gibson.
5.3.3 Response to Public Comment Comments Received During Scoping • There was a lack of public participation in scoping meetings.
Comments received during public scoping efforts that are pertinent to the impact analysis are addressed in this EA.
• Maps showing landownership need to be clearer.
Land ownership within the project area, including BLM-managed, SITLA, and private lands, has been clearly identified on several maps in the EA.
• There was concern about potential impacts to wildlife, including birds, bats, small mammals, and sensitive wildlife species, and potential impacts to sensitive plant species, the impact of habitat fragmentation related to the access route network to each turbine should trigger preparation of an EIS and compliance with the Eagle Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act/EO 13186.
Biological resources and potential impacts are described in Section 3, Affected Environment, and Section 4, Environmental Impacts, respectively. Potential impacts to wildlife, including birds, bats, small mammals, and sensitive wildlife species protected under federal regulations, are analyzed in Section 4, Environmental Impacts. Bat and bird turbine collision mortality potential is examined in detail in Section 4, Environmental Impacts. Impacts to sensitive plant species are also addressed in Section 4, Environmental Impacts.
• The proposed transmission line route would be in the airspace of the Utah Test and Training Range.
The proposed transmission line is within the Utah Test and Training Range Sevier B Military Operating Airspace. Proposed transmission line structures would vary in
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 134 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 height from 80 to 135 feet, with approximately two-thirds of the towers at 105 to 115 feet tall. However, the proposed transmission line would only be 250 feet east of the existing IPP transmission line, which has taller tower structures. It is not anticipated that installation of shorter transmission line tower structures nearby would further impact the Military Operating Airspace.
Comments on the Environmental Assessment and Unsigned FONSI During the public comment period, a total of ten comment letters or comment forms were received. All comments received during the 30-day comment period were reviewed and considered. The essential elements of the Proposed Action are described in Section 1, Purpose and Need. The scope of this EA includes the identification and analysis of the environmental consequences of BLM’s decision regarding the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives. Several public comments received during the EA public comment period are not within the scope of this EA because they address issues that are outside of BLM’s jurisdiction or are otherwise unrelated to the decision on this project. Such issues include a preference for other alternative energy sources (nuclear and solar), concerns regarding California’s power supply and the sale of the wind power generated in Utah, project employment opportunities, and project photos.
• Utah land and wind resources should not be used to the advantage of California power companies who have refused to keep their agreements to buy power from an expanded Intermountain Power Project (coal generation). California power companies and residents should be forced to admit that they do not have enough wind power in their state before they propose to get wind power from another state. Hydro power from the Columbia River and the Colorado River should be used by the states that contribute to the flow of these rivers.
It is beyond the BLM’s authority to address or control past or future electrical power sales, the terms of such sales, or the distribution of power within the electrical grid. Consideration of MWC’s power purchase agreement for electricity produced by the Milford Wind Corridor Project is outside the scope of this EA.
• Nuclear power is a preferable energy source based on lower greenhouse gas emissions, relative safety compared to radioactive emissions from other natural and human-caused environmental factors, potential for reducing radioactive wastes through advanced fuel reprocessing technologies, and economics.
The Proposed Action is the development of a wind energy project. Consideration of other generation technologies such as nuclear power is beyond the scope of this analysis; such technologies are not considered reasonable alternatives to this Proposed Action. BLM’s action on this proposed wind energy project does not preclude the development of other projects utilizing other energy technologies.
• Wind power is unreliable. The project should not be allowed until there is a system of natural gas engines built to carry the full advertised load of the project. The maximum, minimum, and projected (energy) yield of this project should have been published in the EA.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 135 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 MWC does not claim that the project will operate at full capacity at all times. Although it is not considered firm power, wind generation contributes to the generation mix entering the electrical grid. MWC has completed wind testing, has fulfilled BLM due diligence requirements for the project, and has entered into a power purchase agreement based on its estimates of how much power can be produced by the project. Beyond contributing to the demonstration that the project is feasible, considerations of reliability and yield are beyond the BLM’s authority and are outside the scope of this EA.
• Money spent for developing wind energy projects would be better spent on combined heat and power units for homes, businesses, and industries, which would save on carbon dioxide emissions and would function during power failures.
The Proposed Action is the development of a wind energy project. Consideration of other generation technologies such as combined heat and power units is beyond the scope of this analysis; such technologies are not considered reasonable alternatives to this Proposed Action. The BLM’s action on this proposed wind energy project does not preclude other future energy projects.
• New information on the economics of developing the commenter’s potential solar project in Utah mandates delaying the permitting of the Milford Wind Corridor Project until this information is confirmed.
The Proposed Action is the development of a wind energy project. Consideration of other generation technologies such as solar power is beyond the scope of this analysis; such technologies are not considered reasonable alternatives to this Proposed Action. The BLM’s action on this proposed wind energy project does not preclude other future energy projects. Interested project proponents may submit their own ROW applications, and such applications will be evaluated and analyzed on their own merits..
• Interest in potential employment by the project.
The commenter should contact MWC regarding employment opportunities for the project.
• Request for photos of the project from beginning to end.
The commenter should contact MWC regarding photo-documentation of the various phases of project development and operation.
• Wind power is unsafe for airplanes, especially those fighting fires.
The FAA issues its own determinations for air navigation, which are outside the scope of the BLM permitting process. Table 1, Potential Authorizations, Permits,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 136 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Reviews and Approvals, indicates that an FAA Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration may be required for each wind turbine tower to ensure compliance with FAA regulations (including lighting regulations) and to avoid potential safety issues associated with air navigation. Upon review, the FAA would issue a determinative notice assessing the hazard potential of the Wind Energy Facility. The FAA requires aircraft warning markings on all structures taller than 200 feet. As indicated in the EA at Section 2.2.2.2, Wind Energy Facility Components, some turbines would include aviation warning lights, as determined in consultation with the FAA. Aviation warnings for a wind energy project include medium-intensity red strobe warning lights placed on the nacelles of the turbines on each end of a turbine string, as well as on every third or fourth turbine. Once the project layout is finalized, a Project Lighting Plan would be developed using guidance from FAA Technical Note: Developing Obstruction Lighting Standards for Wind Turbine Farms, published by the FAA, November 2005. Several public comments received during the public comment period are within the scope of this EA because they address issues that are within the BLM’s jurisdiction and are relevant to the identification and analysis of the environmental consequences of BLM’s decision regarding the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives. Such issues include specific comments on the treatment of various issues in the EA and comments related to shared BLM ROWs and adjacent land uses, grazing, reclamation, water resources, air quality, wildlife, and visual resources.
• The BLM has separate responsibilities under Executive Order 13186 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and these should be shown separately in the list of statutes, regulations, plans, programs, and policies in Section 1.6, Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans, of the EA.
The list of statutes, regulations, plans, programs, and policies in Section 1.6, Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans, of the EA has been revised in response to this comment.
• The list of potential authorizations, permits, reviews, and approvals provided in Table 1 of the EA should include a Certification of Registration (COR) from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for the salvage and collection of birds, bats, and other state-protected wildlife and the appropriate Migratory Bird Treaty Act permit from the USFWS Migratory Bird Permit Office for the salvage and collection of migratory birds.
Table 1, Potential Authorizations, Permits, Reviews, and Approvals. has been revised in response to this comment.
• Future wind energy projects are not included in the cumulative impact assessment. However, the FFO website lists a Milford Wind Corridor site testing II, and cumulative effects analysis could be evaluated based on its full utilization and build out.
The reasons why potential, undefined future wind energy projects are not included in the cumulative impacts assessment are explained in the EA in Section 4.4.4, Past,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 137 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions. As stated there and as acknowledged by the commenter, future wind energy projects are not included in the cumulative impact assessment because none are far enough along in the planning process to define the location, scale, and impacts of their potential development. The site testing area cited by the commenter has been permitted by the BLM for a limited term of 3 years solely for the purpose of evaluating the meteorological suitability of the area for potential wind energy development. The BLM would only consider development of a wind energy project at this site to be a “reasonably foreseeable action” to be included in a cumulative impacts assessment if there is a basis for a substantive probability that a project would actually be developed, such as filing an application for commercial development and/or a supporting Plan of Development with the BLM. Should such an application be forthcoming in the future, the cumulative impacts assessment for that project would include the consideration of potential impacts of the construction and operation of the Milford Wind Corridor Project, as well as any other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable wind energy development projects.
• Detectors on the Telescope Array Project should not be trapped between the existing IPP line and the proposed transmission line, and safe distances for helicopter access should be maintained.
It is not expected that the Proposed Action would impact access to the Telescope Array Project. As indicated in the comment letter, all detectors are located at least 170 feet from the proposed transmission line centerline, and this has been determined to be a safe distance for helicopter access.
• The addition of new lights or electromagnetic interference with project component electronics or communications may interfere with the Telescope Array Project research.
There would be no strobe lights or other lighting on the proposed transmission line where the Telescope Array Project components are located. The precise effect of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) on electronics and communication equipment is dependent on the sensitivity and characteristics of that equipment, including signal strength and processing technology. EMF and corona effects are proportional to voltage and, consequently, the existing 500-kV line would have larger EMF and corona fields than the proposed project. There are no known conflicts with the existing 500-kV line, and, while there could be some differential effects related to distance, alternating current, and the installation of a second line, there is no indication from the available information that interference with the operability of the Telescope Array equipment is expected. As indicated by the commenter, the project proponent is currently working with the Telescope Array Program to avoid potential impacts to the Telescope Array Project. No conflicts have been determined to exist at this time, and the Telescope Array Project is encouraged to continue project coordination with the project proponent (MWC).
• Production of dust or other atmospheric aerosols in the course of project construction or operation would interfere with Telescope Array Project research.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 138 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Dust suppression will be employed as discussed in Section 4.2.5, Air Quality, which would reduce potential dust interference with research efforts. Production of atmospheric aerosols resulting from the operation of construction vehicles and equipment would be minor.
• Any requirement to relocate components of its research project would be a concern to the Telescope Array Project.
As indicated in Section 4.2.1.1, Rights-of-Way, the BLM ROW grants for this project would be subject to conditions and regulations of valid shared ROWs, as appropriate, as well as to stipulations of other BLM-authorized uses. Thus, there could be no BLM requirement to relocate components of the Telescope Array Project. As indicated by the commenter, the project proponent is currently working with the Telescope Array Program to avoid potential impacts to the Telescope Array Project. No conflicts have been determined to exist at this time, and the Telescope Array Project is encouraged to continue project coordination with the project proponent (MWC).
• Construction and maintenance activities for the proposed transmission line should not occur west of the existing IPP transmission line, and there should be no equipment access or other mechanical intrusions into Utah Wilderness Coalition proposed wilderness units.
None of the project components described for the Proposed Action would affect the Utah Wilderness Coalition proposed wilderness units. Some temporary pulling and tensioning sites on the proposed transmission line and short sections of the existing IPP access road extend west of the IPP transmission line centerline but are within the IPP ROW grant boundary and well within the 1,500-foot-wide IPP to California Transmission Line BLM-designated corridor. Furthermore, none of the pulling and tensioning sites that extend west of the IPP transmission line are located in the geographic areas (T23S R10W, T23S R9W, and T22S R9W) specified in the comment letter. See Appendix A, Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas, Proposed Transmission Line Corridor, Maps 6, 7, and 8.
• Grazing will be discontinued in areas after construction, which would affect a grazing permittee’s livestock operation and livelihood.
Section 4.2.1.2, Livestock Grazing, acknowledges that grazing may be affected by the Proposed Action and evaluates the intensity and magnitude of those effects. The acreages impacted for each grazing allotment are also presented. As indicated there, temporary disturbance (during the construction period and for some time thereafter until successful site reclamation) would represent less than 0.2 percent of the total acreage (over 1 million acres) of these allotments. Permanent disturbance (areas permanently occupied by project features) would represent less than 0.04 percent of the total acreage of these allotments. However, approximately two-thirds of the temporary and permanent disturbance associated with the Wind Energy Facility and the transmission line would take place within the Hanson Allotment, and permittees
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 139 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 on that allotment could be more highly affected. The magnitude of affect to individual permittees will largely be related to the positions of their grazing leases relative to project disturbance. The BLM expects that a reduction in livestock Animal Unit Months (AUMs) may be needed on allotments within the FFO. Once temporarily disturbed areas have been reclaimed/revegetated, any potential reduction in livestock AUMs would be reduced to that associated with allotment acreages permanently occupied by project features.
• Increased traffic may endanger open range livestock.
Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, states that a 15 mile per hour speed limit would be implemented within the BLM ROW during project construction. The speed limit is designed to limit fugitive dust and to protect wildlife and open range cattle. Measures are also included to protect water sources and fences, install cattle guards, and reduce wildfire potential.
• The rest period of 2 years (for site reclamation and during which grazing would not be allowed) may not be sufficient to reestablish vegetation.
Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, states that disturbance of soil and vegetation will be limited to the minimum area required for construction, and temporarily disturbed areas will be reclaimed, including establishing vegetation. As demonstrated by the ongoing efforts to reclaim areas affected by the 2007 Milford Flat Wildfire, revegetation of disturbed areas in the project area can be difficult due to the movement of bare or disturbed soils and prevailing climatic and soil moisture conditions. The BLM recognizes that successful reclamation may require repeated seeding efforts and the implementation of adaptive reclamation strategies over a number of years. The BLM understands from a number of discussions with the commenter, a local landowner and BLM grazing allotment permittee, that there have been adverse impacts to his livestock operation as a result of the Milford Flat Wildfire and that he is concerned that disturbance associated with construction of the Milford Wind Corridor Project could add to these impacts. In order to optimize the reclamation of disturbed areas, the Plan of Development for the Milford Wind Corridor Project includes a Construction Reclamation Plan that would be implemented following project construction. Reclamation activities would continue until successful revegetation has been achieved. The Construction Reclamation Plan includes vegetative success criteria to evaluate the recovery status of areas undergoing restoration, identify the need for additional reclamation, and make a final determination regarding reclamation success (see Appendix H7, Construction Reclamation Plan, Section 3.5.6, Reclamation Monitoring and Success Evaluation). Reclamation will be considered successful for a particular site when groundcover equals 70 percent of the adjacent undisturbed natural vegetation community, no noxious weeds are present on site, and erosion features are equal to
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 140 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 or less than on adjacent undisturbed areas. If an area is judged not to have been successfully reclaimed, further management activities will be implemented to establish vegetation. Grazing allotments are expected to continue to comply with Rangeland Health Standards and conform with Guidelines for Grazing Management once reclamation has been achieved (see Section 4.2.6.2, Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines).
• Loose soil may hinder revegetation, and a lack of vegetation could impact air quality.
The comment response immediately above acknowledges that revegetation of disturbed areas in the project area can be difficult due to the movement of bare or disturbed soils and prevailing climatic and soil moisture conditions and describes how reclamation efforts would continue until successful revegetation has been achieved. Impacts to air quality from construction and operation of the project are analyzed in this EA. Dust suppression will be employed during the period necessary for site reclamation (see Section 4.2.5, Air Quality).
• If excess soil excavated for installation of wind turbine tower foundations is to be stockpiled on site, additional revegetation and noxious weed control would be required; recommend that excavated soil be returned or moved off site.
As described in the Plan of Development for the project, excess excavated materials not used as backfill for the foundations, as well as excess materials excavated in the process of Wind Energy Facility access roads, would be used on site for road or crane pad construction consistent with the surrounding grade, or they would be distributed on site. Larger excavated rocks would be disposed of off site or crushed at the batch plant or permitted quarry for use as backfill or road material. There is no intention to stockpile excavated materials, except that topsoil materials suitable for later use in site reclamation would be removed in conjunction with site clearing and grading and reserved in stockpiles. Environmental protection measures for the project specify that at least 4 to 6 inches and up to 12 inches of topsoil are to be segregated and stockpiled for use during reclamation and that stockpiled topsoil is to be seeded to maintain soil integrity using the seed mixture specified or another suitable seed mixture specified by the BLM (see Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, of this EA). Noxious weed control would continue on site during the reclamation process according to the specifications stipulated in the project Noxious Weed Management Plan provided in Appendix H3, Noxious Weed Management Plan, of the Plan of Development.
• Water in the area is currently designated for agricultural use (regarding proposed use of groundwater for dust suppression and concrete production). The EA does not specify whether the project’s use of groundwater would represent a change in use of the water or in the point of diversion and whether such a change would require a permit from the State Engineer.
Water needs for the project have been analyzed in the EA, and the BLM is aware that a conversion of use of existing water rights from agricultural use to industrial use
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 141 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 may be necessary. The Utah Division of Water Rights (led by the State Engineer) administers water rights within Utah and would be responsible for regulating that change.
• Disturbance of the underground lava bed (bedrock) could shift the water table, and the water source could dry up.
Impacts to groundwater from the project’s water use are evaluated in Section 4.2.4.2, Groundwater. The commenter refers to the lava bedrock aquifer serving his household and livestock. This aquifer is part of the Sevier Desert groundwater sub-basin, which extends north from the town of Black Rock, about 22 miles north of Milford, to the Desert Mountains. Groundwater in the sub-basin occurs in unconsolidated deposits under water table and artesian conditions. The lava formation hosting this aquifer does not outcrop in the project area. The project is located within the Escalante Valley–Milford Area groundwater sub- basin, which extends from the southern boundary of Beaver County north to the town of Black Rock. Groundwater in this sub-basin is hosted in unconsolidated basin fill, with 200 to 300 feet of saturated basin fill within the project area (USGS 2007). Therefore, excavation for construction of wind turbine foundations to a depth of approximately 14 feet would not result in potential depletion of bedrock aquifers.
• Air quality could be impacted by dust from construction sites and heavy use of county roads to access construction sites and to monitor and maintain towers during the operations phase.
Impacts to air quality from construction and operation of the project are analyzed in this EA. Dust suppression will be employed during project construction and operations as appropriate to the respective levels of activity (see Section 4.2.5, Air Quality).
• Wind power is unsafe for some birds.
The site-specific impacts of the Milford Wind Corridor Project on birds are analyzed in this EA (see Section 4.2.8, Wildlife).
• The wind farm poses a threat to wildlife, including migratory waterfowl.
The commenter states that his ranch is vital part of the migratory bird flyway. Based on wildlife surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007, the project area does not appear to be a major migratory flyway. Very few waterfowl were seen in the project area. A single observation of 100 Canada geese (Branta canadensis) was made during the winter avian survey. Incidental observations of waterfowl in the project area include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and green-winged teal (Anas crecca).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 142 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Snow geese (Chen caerulescens) migrate south in March and April, and a snow goose festival is held in the town of Delta during late February/early March. The fall migration occurs from August through November, with the snow geese generally retracing the spring migration route. Winter avian surveys were conducted along the proposed transmission line and at the Wind Energy Facility site from early December 2006 to mid-March 2007. Fall avian surveys were conducted in September 2007. Although surveys were completed during the snow goose spring and fall migration, no snow goose observations were made. No snow geese were observed in the project area during avian or other wildlife surveys. Although all birds flying within the Wind Energy Facility site would be at risk to turbine rotor strikes (see Section 4.2.8, Wildlife), the Proposed Action is not expected to have any substantive impacts on migrating waterfowl. In addition, waterfowl mortality at existing wind energy facilities has been low. Waterbird (e.g., crane, heron, gull, pelican, egret) and waterfowl (e.g., mallard, coot) mortality has occurred at several wind projects in the U.S. but in very low numbers relative to use of those sites (Erickson et al. 2002). A comparison of observed avian turbine collision fatalities at U.S. wind facilities indicates that waterbirds/waterfowl comprise a minor portion of total avian fatalities. At nine wind sites throughout the U.S., waterbirds constituted 1.6 percent and waterfowl 2.5 percent of the avian fatalities (Erickson et al. 2001). In 2002, at the Klondike wind project in Oregon, no Canada goose mortality was recorded although several observations of Canada geese were made near the project area (Erickson et al. 2002). At wind facility sites in agricultural landscapes, waterbird/waterfowl use has been documented, but only eight mortalities have been observed. Very few waterbird/waterfowl fatalities have been documented at existing wind facilities in native landscapes, with one exception at San Gorgonio, California, where 10 out of 42 total avian fatalities were waterbird/waterfowl (Erickson et al. 2002). Therefore, because waterfowl use of the project area appears to be low and because documented waterfowl mortality at existing wind energy facilities has been low, any potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action on populations of migrating waterfowl are expected to minor.
• The EA states that MWC anticipates using guyed monopole meteorological towers, but the Appendix C of the EA (see Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices) states that guy wires on permanent meteorological towers shall be avoided.
Appendix C, BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices, contains BMPs required by the BLM’s Record of Decision (ROD) for Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments to be included in all NEPA analyses for wind energy developments on BLM-administered lands (BLM 2005b). These programmatic BMPs are supplemented by project-specific BMPs and environmental protection measures specified in Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 143 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 The text of the EA has been revised to explain that, because the permanent meteorological towers would be 80 meters high, they will need to be guyed for stability (see Section 2.2.2.2, Wind Energy Facility Components). Precautions have been taken to protect wildlife have been incorporated in the design of the meteorological towers. As specified in Appendix D, Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures, the towers will be equipped with BLM-approved guy wire markers at sufficient spacing to ensure visibility, and appropriate fencing will be installed around guy wire anchors if determined necessary by the BLM.
• BLM should consider mitigation for annual bird and bat mortality below the estimated regional mortality rate.
As stated in Appendix L, Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan, the plan will be adjusted as appropriate over time to minimize wildlife impacts in the project area. The mortality threshold for mitigation may be modified as appropriate for the project site. The threshold is designed to identify specific turbines that are causing mortality and addresses mortality of sensitive species. During operation, if regional bird and bat mortality rates are determined to be inappropriate for the project site, the mortality mitigation threshold would be adjusted accordingly. BLM will continue to work with USFWS, as outlined in the plan, to determine appropriate thresholds for bird and bat mortality at the Milford Wind Corridor Project.
• The BLM should not allow construction within 0.5 mile of the ferruginous hawk nest during and immediately prior to the breeding season even if active use cannot be confirmed. The BLM should enforce the recommended raptor protection buffers unless distance and topography dramatically reduced the amount of human disturbances near the nests.
Disturbance to nesting raptors within the project area would be avoided or minimized in accordance with Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances (USFWS 2002) and Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah (BLM 2006). As described in Appendix D, Site Specific Environmental Measures, construction will not occur within protection buffers around active nests until a site-specific evaluation by a BLM biologist has been completed prior to construction. BLM will coordinate with USFWS and UDWR to recommend activities that may be permitted within the buffer, and wildlife monitors will be on site during construction to observe raptors. Construction may occur within the buffers of inactive nests. These protection measures are consistent with both USFWS and BLM policy. Appendix D, Site Specific Environmental Measures, and Appendix L, Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan, describe protection measures that will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to raptors in the project area during construction and operation of the Milford Wind Corridor Project. As part of these measures, BLM will continue consultation with UDWR and USFWS regarding nesting raptors and inactive nests within the project area.
• Greater emphasis should be given to long-billed curlews by avoiding their nesting areas and providing alternative nesting sites through habitat improvement.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 144 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Section 4.2.9.2, Utah Sensitive Wildlife Species, Utah Sensitive Birds, describes potential operational impacts to long-billed curlews and outlines project-area long-billed curlew survey results. In total, during the long-billed curlew survey and other wildlife surveys, 38 curlews were recorded in the project area. During the 2008 long- billed curlew survey, 23 long-billed curlews were recorded, including one observation of a flock of twelve. During other wildlife surveys of the project area, five curlews were observed in the spring of 2006, and ten were observed in the spring of 2008. No curlews were observed in the fall of 2007 or the summer of 2008. Although frequently seen flying, no long-billed curlews were observed flying within the rotor-swept area (RSA) during the long-billed curlew survey or during the 2008 spring avian survey. The five curlews observed in the spring of 2006 were seen within the RSA (TetraTech 2008d). Although it is difficult to determine potential risk, all birds flying in the Wind Energy Facility area are at risk of turbine collision. Appendix L, Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan, accounts for these uncertainties by allowing adjustments to mortality thresholds and mitigation techniques. If long- billed curlew mortality is greater than expected, the plan will be modified to address appropriate mitigation techniques to ensure avoidance or minimization of impacts to long-billed curlews in the project area. BLM will also continue coordination with USFWS and UDWR regarding long-billed curlew and project impacts.
• The commenter’s ranch and home are surrounded by the proposed wind farm, which will affect their aesthetic surroundings.
The effects of the project on visual resources are analyzed in this EA (see Section 4.2.11, Visual Resources). The commentor’s ranch and home are located several miles north of the Wind Energy Facility, and the wind turbines would likely be barely visible from that distance (Appendix M, Visual Simulation, provides visual simulations of what the wind turbines would look like from distances of approximately 2 miles and approximately 7 miles). Nevertheless, the wind turbines could be visible in the course of day-to-day ranching activities on the commenter’s grazing allotments within the Wind Energy Facility, and there would be a change in the aesthetic surroundings in those areas.
• Wind power pollutes the visual environment.
The site-specific effects of the Milford Wind Corridor Project on visual resources are analyzed in this EA (see Section 4.2.11, Visual Resources).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 145 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 5.4 List of Preparers TABLE 23 List of Preparers BLM Preparers – Cedar City Field Office- Interdisciplinary Review Team Name Title Area of Responsibility
Lucas Lucero Washington Office Project Overall coordination and quality control Manager Randy Trujillo Assistant Field Office Manager Technical coordination and quality control Gina Ginouves Environmental Coordinator Overall NEPA coordinator and cumulative effects Ed Ginouves Geologist Geology; mineral resources; energy production; paleontology Rob Wilson Realty Specialist Chapters 1 and 2; environmental justice; socioeconomics M. Mendenhall Natural Resource Specialist Fuels; fire management Christine Pontarolo Wildlife Biologist Wildlife resources; threatened, endangered, candidate, and special status animal and plant species; migratory birds; vegetation; wetlands and riparian zones J. Bulloch Natural Resource Specialist Invasive and non-native species Dan Fletcher Rangeland Management Specialist Rangeland health standards and guidelines; vegetation; livestock grazing Noel Logan Archeologist Cultural resources; Native American considerations Craig Egerton Renewable Resources Team Soils; wetlands and riparian zones; floodplains; air quality; Leader water quality; farmlands (prime or unique) W. Judy Outdoor Recreation Planner Areas of critical environmental concern; wild and scenic rivers; wilderness; recreation; visual resources R. Tueller Public Affairs Officer Native American religious concerns R. Bonebrake Wildlife Biologist Threatened, endangered, candidate, and special status animal species R. Peterson Safety Warehouse Technician Hazardous and solid wastes Doug Page Forester Woodlands/forestry C. Hunter Wild Horse & Burro Specialist Wild horse and burrows
BLM Preparers - Fillmore Field Office- Interdisciplinary Review Team Name Title Area of Responsibility
Clara Stevens Team Leader, Reality Specialist Technical coordination and quality control; Chapters 1 and 2; land use and access Bill Thompson Rangeland Management Specialist Wetlands and riparian zones; rangeland management; livestock grazing; rangeland health standards and guidelines David Whitaker Rangeland Management Specialist Vegetation; threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive plant species Matt Rajala Natural Resource Specialist Soils; air quality; environmental justice; farmlands; floodplains; paleontology; socioeconomics; NEPA coordination Joelle McCarthy Archaeologist Cultural resources; Native American considerations R.B. Probert Biological Science Technician Invasive and non-native species S. Bonar Outdoor Recreation Specialist Areas of critical environmental concern; wild and scenic rivers; wilderness; recreation; visual resources Mark Pierce Wildlife Biologist Threatened, endangered or candidate plant species; fish and wildlife, including special status species B. Crosland Range Technician Hazardous or solid wastes;woodlands and forestry
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 146 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 TABLE 23 List of Preparers H. Gates Supervisory Rangeland Water quality; rangeland health standards and guidelines Management Specialist Paul Caso Rangeland Management Specialist Water quality Jerry Mansfield Geologist Geology; mineral resources; energy resources W. Wilding Prevention Mitigation Specialist Fire prevention and education Eric Reid Rangeland Management Specialist Wild horse and burros
Non-BLM Preparers – CH2M HILL, Inc. Name Title Responsible for the Following Section(s) of this Document Hal Copeland Team Leader Technical coordination and quality control Sandra White EA Coordinator Grazing, Paleontology, Vegetation, Rangeland Health Senior Scientist Standards, Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species, Sensitive Plant Species Brian Lee Natural Resource Specialist Rights-of-Way, Wetlands and Riparian Zones Bill Knapp Wetlands Specialist Wetland and Riparian Zones, Soils Monika Dinges Water Resources Specialist Water Resources Hal Lee Engineer Air Quality Katy Oakes Project Biologist Wildlife, Sensitive Wildlife Species Aaron Fergusson Cultural Resource Specialist Cultural Resources, Native American Religious Concerns Tom Priestly Senior Visual Resource Specialist Visual Resources Elizabeth Cutler Visual Resource Specialist Visual Resources Christopher Clayton Natural Resource Specialist Socioeconomics Mandy Whorton Environmental Planner Cumulative Impacts Scott Cutler GIS Analyst GIS data
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 147 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 6.0 REFERENCES, GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
6.1 References Cited AGRC (Automated Geographic Reference Center). 1993. SGID.U500.ShallowGroundWater. GIS data from Utah's State Geographic Information Database (SGID), digitized from Utah Geological Survey (UGS) maps. Salt Lake City, Utah. September 1. APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 2005. Avian Protection Plan Guidelines. A Joint Document Prepared by The Edison Electric Institute’s Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April. APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 2006. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute and the Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. Arnett, E.B., D.B. Inkley, D.H. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, S. Manes, A.M. Manville, J.R. Thresher. 2007a. Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Wildlife Society Technical Review 07-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O’Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, R.D. Tankersley. 2007b. Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1). AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). 1995. Avian Interactions With Wind Facilities: A Summary. Prepared by Colson & Associates for AWEA, Washington, D.C. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2008. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Regional Economic Information System. http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis, accessed January 2008. Beaver County. 1999. Beaver County General Plan, adopted April 1993, amended February 1999, Beaver County, Utah. Beaver County. 2006. Zoning Ordinances of Beaver County, adopted April 1993, updated 2006. Beaver County, Utah. Bettinger, R.L. and M.A. Baumhoff. 1982. The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3). Bjurlin, C.D. 2003. Effects of Roads on San Joaquin Kit Foxes: A Review and Synthesis of Existing Data. IN: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin C.L,. Garrett P., McDermott K.P. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 148 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1983. Pinyon Management Framework Plan. Beaver River Resource Area, Cedar City District. June 10. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1984. Cedar/Beaver/Garfield/ Antimony Resource Area Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Cedar City District. October. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1985. Visual Resource Management. Visual Contrast Rating Worksheet, Form 8400-4. http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/index.html, accessed February 2008 BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1987a. Warm Springs Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Richfield District. September. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1987b. House Range Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision, Rangeland Program Summary. Richfield District. October. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1997. Fundamentals of Rangeland Health, Standards for Rangeland Health, and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM in Utah (BLM-UT- GI-97-001-4000). U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2005a. FES 05-11; Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States and Record of Decision. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. June. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2005b. Record of Decision. Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/WindPEISROD.pdf, accessed February 2008. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2006. Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah. August. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008a. Milford Flat Fire Rehabilitation, Stabilization and Restoration Effort, Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices Working with the Utah Partners for Conservation and Development. http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/fire/ milford_flat_fire.html, accessed February 14, 2008. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008b. Noxious Weed Clearance Fillmore Field Office. R.B. Probert, Examiner. May 8. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008c. Personal Communication from Scott E. Foss, Ph.D., BLM Utah State Office Regional Paleontologist, to Matt Rajala, BLM Fillmore Field Office Natural Resource Specialist. E-mail January 18, 2008. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008d. Supplemental Paleo Guidance for Paleo Planning (file: UT-H-8270-5 Planning DRAFT.doc) provided via e-mail by Scott E. Foss, Ph.D., BLM Utah State Office Regional Paleontologist, to Matt Rajala, BLM Fillmore Field Office Natural Resource Specialist. January 18, 2008.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 149 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 BLM (Bureau of Land Management). Undated. Utah Bureau of Land Management Riparian Management Policy (supersedes UT 93-93). BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2008. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm, accessed January 2008. Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. National Research Council, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Sciences. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Copeland, J.M. and R.E. Fike. 1988. Fluted Projectile Points in Utah. Utah Archaeology, Volume 1. D’Azevedo, W.L. 1986. Introduction. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Day, K. 2007. Wildlife Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Personal Communication via e-mail, December 13, 2007. DEA (Department of Economic Analysis). 2008. State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis. http://governor.utah.gov/dea/UPEC/SubCoNote.html U.S., accessed January 2008. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030. Energy Information Administration. June. Dooling, R. 2002. Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-500-30844. EDC (Economic Development Corporation). 2008. Economic Development Corporation of Utah. http://www.edcutah.org, accessed January 2008. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Ecoregions Maps and GIS Resources. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iv.htm, accessed February 7, 2008. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, and D.P. Young. 2005. A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-191. www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1029- 1042.pdf. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, D.P. Young, Jr., M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, K.J. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Prepared by West, Inc. for Bonneville Power Administration. December. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Senka, and R.E. Good. 2001. Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Resource Document. August.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 150 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K. Kronner. 2000. Avian and bat mortality associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla County, Oregon: 1999 Study Year. Prepared by WEST, Inc. for Umatilla County Department of Resource Services and Development, Pendleton, Oregon. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1987. Reference pending. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, University Press of Colorado. Fossil Museum. 2008. House Range Fossils: Wheeler Shale, Marjum Formation, and Weeks Formation. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/House-Range.htm, accessed February 9, 2008. Franklin, “Ben” M.A. 1996. Field Survey for Sphaeralcea caespitosa M.E. Jones in the Beaver River and Warm Springs Resource Areas – Beaver and Millard Counties, Utah. Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City. January. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2005. Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife. GAO-05-906. September. GAP (USGS National Gap Analysis Program). 2005. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project—Land Cover Descriptions. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University. http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap, accessed February 5, 2008. Gillette, D. 1996. Utah’s Wildlife in the Ice Age. Utah Geological Survey, Survey Notes, Vol. 28, No. 3. May 1996. http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/dinofossil/iceage/ icewildlife.htm, accessed January 30, 2008. Hayden, M. 2008. Paleontology in Utah. Utah History Encyclopedia. http://www.media. utah.edu/UHE/p/PALEONTOLOGY.html, accessed February 9, 2008. Holmer, R. G. 1978. A Mathematical Typology for Archaic Projectile Points of the Eastern Great Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. IPA (Intermountain Power Agency). 2007. http://www.ipautah.com. Jennings, J. D. 1986. Prehistory: Introduction. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin., ed. Warren L. D’Azevedo. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Johnson, G.D. 2004. A Review of Bat Impacts at Wind Farms in the U.S. Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts, S.S. Schwartz, ed. Washington, D.C. May 18-19, 2004. Johnson, G.D. 2005. A Review of Bat Mortality at Wind-energy Developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46(2). Summer Johnson, G.D., D.P. Young, Jr., W.P. Erickson, C.E. Derby, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good. 2000. Final Report, Wildlife Monitoring Studies, SeaWest Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, 1995-1999. Prepared for SeaWest Energy Corporation and Bureau of Land Management. August 9.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 151 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Johnson, G.D., M.K. Perlik, W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland. 2004. Bat Activity, Composition, and Collision Mortality at a Large Wind Plant In Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4). Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, D.A. Shepherd, S.A. Sarappo. 2002. Collision Mortality of Local and Migrant Birds at a Large-Scale Wind-Power Development on Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(3). Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, D.A. Shepherd, and S.A. Sarappo. 2003. Mortality of Bats at a Large-Scale Wind Power Development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. The American Midland Naturalist 150(2). October. Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, M. D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Questions, Research, Needs, and Hypotheses. Front Ecol Environ 5(6). Madsen, D.B. and S.R. Simms. 1998. The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 12(33). McMillan, J. 2007. Personal Communication between James McMillan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Utah Regulatory Office, and Hal Copeland, CH2M HILL. October 4. Millard County (Millard County, Utah). 1998a. County Code. Prepared for Planning and Zoning. Updated February 9, 2004. http://www.millardcounty.org:709/Default.asp?WCI=CityDocument&DOCUMENT=c ities/millardcountyut/docs/uploadedpages/planning.htm, accessed February 14, 2008. Millard County (Millard County, Utah). 1998b. General Plan. Prepared for Planning and Zoning. http://www.millardcounty.org:709/Default.asp?WCI=CityDocument&DOCUMENT=c ities/millardcountyut/docs/uploadedpages/planning.htm, accessed February 14, 2008. MWC (Milford Wind Corridor, LLC). 2008. Plan of Development for the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices. June. NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics). 2008. National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd, accessed January 2008. NCSS (National Cooperative Soil Survey). 2007. Saltair Series Description. http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/S/SALTAIR.html , accessed February 25, 2008. NPS (National Park Service). 1998. Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. NPS Office of Policy, NPS-28. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2007. Beaver County, Utah, West Part Provisional, Survey Area Version Date 08/27/2007. GIS data from Kent Sutcliffe, Assistant State Soil Scientist, Utah NRCS State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2008. Reference pending.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 152 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, R. E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0. UDWR Publication Number 02-27. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. RMER (Rocky Mountain Environmental Research). 2005. Final Conservation Strategy for the Giant Four-Wing Saltbush, Atriplex canescens var. gigantea. Prepared by Rocky Mountain Environmental Research, Monroe, Utah. RMER (Rocky Mountain Environmental Research). 2006. Final Conservation Strategy for Neese Narrowleaf Penstemon Penstemon angustifolius dulcis. Prepared by Rocky Mountain Environmental Research, Monroe, Utah. Sagebrush (Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants). 2008. A Cultural Resource Inventory for the UPC Wind (FirstWind) Project in Millard and Beaver Counties, Utah. Sagebrush Cultural Resources Report No. 1610. Report on file at the Utah Division of State History, Antiquities Section. Sanders, T.G. and Addo, J.Q. 1993. Effectiveness and Environmental Impacts of Road Dust Suppressants. Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. December. SCS (Soil Conservation Service). 1977. Soil Survey of Delta Area, Utah, Part of Millard County. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management in Cooperation with Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. May. SOCDS (State of the Cities Data System). 2008. HUD User, Policy Development and Information Research Service, SOCDS Permits. http://socds.huduser.org/permits, accessed January 2008. State of Utah. 2008a. Utah Administrative Code, Rule R317-2, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State. January 1. State of Utah. 2008b. Utah Noxious Weed Act (Rule R68-9). http://www.rules.utah.gov/ publicat/code/r068/r068-009.htm, accessed February 9, 2008. State of Utah. 2008c. State of Utah Salt Cedar Strategic Management Plan. http://www.utahweed.org/pdf_quilter.pdf, accessed August 26, 2008. STR (Smith Travel Research). 2008. Smith Travel Research. http://www.smithtravelresearch.com, accessed January 2008. Strickland, D. 2004. Non-fatality and habitat impacts on birds from wind energy development. Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts, Washington, D.C., May 18-19, 2004. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. SWCA (SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants). 2008. 2008 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Milford Wind Transmission Line Corridor in Beaver and Millard Counties, Utah. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 2008-129. Report on file at the Utah Division of State History, Antiquities Section.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 153 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Tetra Tech. 2007. Winter Avian Surveys Areas 1-7 and Two Transmission Line Routes. Milford, Utah Wind Project. June 22. TetraTech. 2008a. 2008 Aerial Raptor Nest Survey of the Proposed IPP Transmission Line Corridor. Milford Wind Corridor Project. July 21. TetraTech. 2008b. Comprehensive Report on Baseline Avian Surveys, 2006- 2007. Milford Wind Corridor Project. Part 1, July 21. TetraTech. 2008c. Spring 2008 Avian Survey. Milford Wind Corridor Project. July 22. TetraTech. 2008d. DRAFT 2008 Long-billed Curlew Survey. Milford Wind Corridor Project. July 23. TetraTech. 2008e. DRAFT Summer 2008 Avian Survey. Milford Wind Corridor Project. July 23. U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder. http://factfinder.census.gov, accessed January 2008. U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. U.S. Census Bureau, Subcounty Population Datasets. http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006-states.html, accessed January 2008. UDEQ (Utah Department of Environmental Quality). 2004. TMDL Water Quality Study of the Middle and Lower Sevier River Watersheds. August. UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). 1998. Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah. Endemic and Rare Plants of Utah: an Overview of their Distribution and Status. Prepared by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission and the U.S. Department of the Interior. June. UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). 2005. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Publication Number 05-19. http://wildlife.utah.gov/ cwcs/utah_cwcs_strategy.pdf, accessed June 30, 2008. UDWR (Utah Division of Widlife Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program). 2007a. Species of Concern near the Milford Wind Energy Project. Letter to Christine Pontarolo, BLM Biologist, from Sarah Lindsey, Information Manager, Utah Natural Heritage Program. August 20. UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). 2007b. Utah Sensitive Species List. December 14. At http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). 2008. Utah Conservation Data Center. http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp, accessed February 1, February 4, and June 30. UNPS (Utah Native Plant Society). 2003-2007. Utah Rare Plant Guide. Salt Lake City, Utah. http://www.utahrareplants.org.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 154 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002b. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City. January. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002c. Migratory Bird Mortality, Many Human- Caused Threats Afflict our Bird Populations. January. http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf, accessed March 2008. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Service Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. A Blueprint for the Future of Migratory Birds: Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan 2004-2014. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mbstratplan/MBStratPlanTOC.htm, accessed March 2008. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species, Utah Counties. November. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/endspp/CountyLists/Utah.pdf, accessed February 9, 2008. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of California Condors in Northern Arizona; Final Rule. Federal Register 61(201): 54043-54060. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Proposed Information. Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130. July 9.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species, Utah Counties. November 2007. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/CountyLists/Utah.pdf, accessed February 9, 2008. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1998. Reference pending. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2007. Ground-Water Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2007 Cooperative Investigations Report No. 48. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) Ground-Water Database. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw, accessed March 2008. Utah Department of Health. 2008a. Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. http://health.utah.gov/ems, accessed January 2008. Utah Department of Health. 2008b. Reference pending.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 155 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Utah Department of Public Safety. 2008. 2006 Crime in Utah Annual Report. Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Identification. http://bci.utah.gov/Stats/2006.pdf, accessed January 2008. Utah Division of Emergency Services. 2008. Personal Communication between Judy Watanabe, Utah Division of Emergency Services, and Brian Lee, CH2M HILL. February 2. Utah Division of Water Resources. 2007. http://www.water.utah.gov/WaterConditions/BasinDroughtReports/CedarBeaver/de fault.asp, accessed March 2008. Utah Division of Water Rights. 2008. Water Policy Information for Escalante Valley–Area 71 Policy and Sevier Desert–Area 86 Policy. Updated July 27, 2004. http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/policy/wrareas/default.asp, accessed March 2008. Utah Geological Survey. 2008. Lake Bonneville. http://geology.utah.gov/online/PI- 39/pi39pg01.htm, accessed January 14, 2008. Utah State Extension Service. 2008. Utah State’s Noxious Weeds. http://extension.usu.edu/weedweb/nweeds/Utah.htm, accessed February 9, 2008. Utah State Tax Commission. 2008. Utah Property Tax Annual Statistical Report, 2006. Property Tax Division, Utah State Tax Commission. http://propertytax.utah.gov/finalannualstats/finalannuals.html, accessed January 2008. Utah Travel Industry. 2008. Utah Travel Industry. http://www.utah.com/database/campgrounds, accessed January 2008. Utah Weed Control Association. 2008. Utah’s Noxious Weed List. http://www.utahweed.org/weeds.htm, accessed February 9, 2008. WECC (Western Electricity Coordinating Council). 2006. 10-Year Coordinated Plan Summary 2006-2015. July. Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, L.C. Higgins. 2003. A Utah Flora, Third Edition, revised. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Woods, A.J., D.A Lammers, S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, R.L. Denton, M. Domeier, J.A. Comstock. 2001. Ecoregions of Utah (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,175,000). Young, D.P., W.P. Erickson, R.E. Good, M.D. Strickland, G.D. Johnson. 2003. Final Report: Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with the Initial Phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming. January 10.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 156 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 6.2 Glossary Acre-foot: A measurement of the volume of water equivalent to 1 acre in area by 1 foot deep. Aerodynamic diameter: The diameter of a sphere of unit density (1g/cc) that has the same gravitational settling velocity as the particle in question.
Alkali: A basic, ionic salt of an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal element; characteristic of soil with a pH value higher than 7.3.
Alluvium: Soil, sand, gravel, or clay deposited by running water.
Ambient: Refers to the surrounding or outdoor air, specifically air outside and surrounding an air pollution source location.
Aquifer: An underground geologic formation of rock, soil or sediment that is naturally saturated with groundwater.
Artesian: An aquifer in which the water is under sufficient hydrostatic pressure to cause it to rise above the bottom of the overlying confining bed to the surface.
AUM (Animal Unit Month): The amount of forage required by a mature (1,000-pound) cow or the equivalent (based on an average consumption rate of 26 pounds of forage dry matter per day) for one month.
BMP (Best Management Practice): Methods that have been determined to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing harmful environmental impacts.
Brooding habitat: Habitat used for protection and rearing of young.
Calcareous (calcareous alkaline soils): A sediment, sedimentary rock, or soil type which formed from or contains a high proportion of calcium carbonate in the form of calcite or aragonite.
Cambrian: A major division of the geologic timescale that begins about 542 ± 1.0 million years ago at the end of the Proterozoic eon and ended about 488.3 ± 1.7 million years ago with the beginning of the Ordovician period.
Cheatgrass: An invasive annual grass that has long been established in western grasslands and shrublands.
Corten steel (weathering steel): Trade name for a corrosion-resistant steel alloy that, when exposed to the environment, forms a dense adherent oxide coating that serves as a decorative finish while protecting from further corrosion.
Desiccating: The process of extreme drying or removal of moisture.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 157 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Devonian: A geologic period of the Paleozoic era spanning from 416± 2.8 to 359.2± 2.5 million years ago.
Dissolved solids: A water quality measurement of inorganic and organic substances within a water sample that are small enough to be filtered through a sieve of two micrometers.
Dolomites: Sedimentary carbonate rock and mineral deposits, composed of calcium magnesium carbonate found in crystals.
Electrical collection system: Collects and transforms electrical power generated by wind turbines through a network of underground and overhead cables which all terminate at a substation.
Endemic: Exclusively native to an area or biota.
Ephemeral: Temporary or intermittent stream flow.
Free Use Permits: Permits granted under the jurisdiction of the BLM to governmental units and nonprofit organizations to permit free use of certain mineral material from federally owned lands.
GAP (Gap Analysis): A comparison of the distribution of elements of biodiversity to identify elements with inadequate representation.
Hazardous materials: (1) Any substance or material defined as hazardous, a pollutant, or a contaminant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) at 42 U.S.C. 9601(14) and (33); (2) Any regulated substance contained in or released from underground storage tanks, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at 42 U.S.C. 6991; (3) Oil, as defined by the Clean Water Act at 33 U.S.C. 1321(a) and the Oil Pollution Act at 33 U.S.C. 2701(23); or (4) Other substances applicable Federal, state, tribal, or local law define and regulate as ‘‘hazardous’’ (43 CFR Sec. 2801.5(b).
Homerun: The portion of the electrical collection system cables that leave each of the turbine arrays and terminate at the substation.
Hydrophytic Vegetation: Plants that have adapted to living in aquatic environments, occurring where at least the root zone of the plant is seasonally or continually found in saturated or submerged soil.
Internment: The imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial.
Lacustrine: A lake or lake-like environment.
Laydown/Staging Area/TUA (Temporary Use Area): A designated work area generally used for storage, preparation, assembly, and/or operation of vehicles, project materials or machinery used for construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 158 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008
Loam: Soil composed of a mixture of sand, clay, silt, and organic matter.
Locatable Mineral Notice: A notice of location of a mining claim filed on federally owned lands for extraction and development of locatable minerals. Locatable minerals include both metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, etc.) and nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, asbestos, mica, gemstones, etc.).
Nacelle: The housing equipment for the gear box, generator, and other components of a wind turbine. The nacelle also supports the turbine blades and hub.
Ohm (Ω): A measure of electrical impedance or resistance.
O&M Facility (Operations and Maintenance): Building housing equipment and staff necessary for the daily operation and maintenance of the Wind Energy Facility.
Ordovician: A period, about 443.7 ± 1.5 million years ago, to the beginning of the Devonian period, about 416.0 ± 2.8 million years ago.
Perennial: Constant or year-round stream flow.
Playa: A shallow depression with no outlet capable of periodically filling with water to form a temporary lake; also known as an alkali flat.
Pleistocene: The period from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years before present on the geologic timescale, intended to cover the world's recent period of repeated glaciations.
Relict: The surviving remnants of natural phenomena.
Riparian: The interface between land and a flowing surface water body.
Riparian obligate: A species that places >90% of their nests in riparian vegetation or for which >90% of their abundance occurs in riparian vegetation during the breeding season.
Rotor: The blades and hub of the wind turbine.
ROW (right-of-way): The right or privilege, acquired through accepted usage or by contract, to pass over a designated portion of the property of another.
SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition): A computer system for gathering and analyzing real-time monitoring and performance data for wind energy equipment.
Shadscale: A common, often dominant, shrub in the lowest and driest areas of the Great Basin. It prefers sandy, well-drained soils and it is tolerant of moderately saline conditions.
Shale: Fine-grained sedimentary rock whose original constituents were clay minerals or muds.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 159 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 Silage (corn silage): Feed for livestock prepared by storing and fermenting green forage plants in a silo.
Silurian: A major division of the geologic timescale that extends from the end of the
Substation: A high-voltage electric system facility.
Swales: Shallow trough-like depressions that carry water mainly during rainstorms or snow melts.
Tertiary: The geological time interval approximately 65 million to 1.8 million years ago, covering roughly the time span between the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs and beginning of the most recent Ice Age.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS): A water quality measurement of dry weight of the particulates present within a water sample; typically expressed in milligrams per liter or mg/l.
Trilobites: Extinct arthropods that form the class Trilobita commonly found in the fossil record.
Turbine string: A parallel row or array of turbines.
Ungulate: A hoofed animal.
West-Wide Energy Corridor: System of energy corridors on federal land across 11 Western States mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Xeric: Relating to an extremely dry habitat.
6.3 Acronyms and Abbreviations ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation APE Area of Potential Effect AUM Animal unit month bgs Below ground surface BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CBGARMP Cedar/Beaver/Garfield/ Antimony Resource Area Resource Management Plan CCFO Cedar City Field Office (BLM) CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 160 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO Carbon monoxide CPT Cone penetration testing CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibels DMAD Delta, Melville, Abraham, and Deseret (Reservoir) DMT Dilatometer testing DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOE/FOE Determination of Eligibility/Finding of Effect DR Decision Record EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ENBB (BLM) Environmental Bulletin Board EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ° F Degrees Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFO Fillmore Field Office (BLM) FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FMV Fair market value FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GAP Gap Analysis Project HAS Hollow stem auger HRRMP House Range Resource Area Resource Management Plan IPP Intermountain Power Project KOP Key observation point kV Kilovolt kWh Kilowatt-hours
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 161 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 LEO Law enforcement officer MOA Military Operating Airspace MW Megawatt MWC Milford Wind Corridor, LLC NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places O&M Operations and maintenance
O3 Ozone OHV Off highway vehicle PA Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources Pb Lead PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification
PM10 Particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter
PM2.5 Particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter PMFP Pinyon Management Framework Plan POD Plan of Development RMP Resource Management Plan ROD Record of Decision ROI Region of influence ROW Right-of-way RSA Rotor-swept area RV Recreational vehicle
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 162 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (System) SHPO (Utah) State Historic Preservation Office SIC Standard Industrial Classification SITLA (Utah) School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
SO2 Sulfur dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan UAC Utah Administrative Code UC Utah Code UDAQ Utah Division of Air Quality UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality UDOT Utah Department of Transportation UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UNHP Utah Department of Natural Resources Utah Natural Heritage Program UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System USC U.S. Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey V Volts VRM Visual Resource Management WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council WSRMP Warm Springs Resource Area Resource Management Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 163 MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 APPENDICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MILFORD WIND CORRIDOR PROJECT OCTOBER 2008 APPENDIX A Milford Wind Corridor Project Map Atlas
Wind Energy Facility Layout 13
Idaho Wyo
¨¦§80 20 21 22 23 24
15 Nevada ¨¦§ Utah
10-13 (! 10-12 (! (! 10-11 10-10(! 10-9 (!
29 28 17300 South 27 T25S 26 25 R10W 10-8 (!
32 33 34 9-8 35 (! 8-19 (! 8-18 (! 36
8-17 (! (! 8-15 (! 8-16 (! 8-13 8-14 (! 8-12 (! 8-11 (! 8-10 (!
8-9 (! 8-8 (! 5 4 3 2 *#7-26 1 (! MILLARD (! MILLARD 7-25 7-24 (! (! 7-22 COUNTYCOUNTY 7-23 (! 7-21 (! ! ( 7-19 (! 7-20 (! 7-18 7-17 (! 7-16 ! ( 7-15 BEAVER (! BEAVER T26S R10W *# 7-14 (! 6-20 (! COUNTY (! 7-1 COUNTY (! 6-18 6-19 (! *# 6-17 ! ( (! 8 9 6-15 Proposed 6-16 (! 6-14 (! 11 10 6-13 Substation (! 6-12 !( 12 Proposed (! 6-10 6-11 (! 6-9 (! Transmission 6-8! ( 6-7 (! 6-6 Land Ownership Line Route (!
BLM 5-18 (! Private (! 5-16 17 16 (! 15 14 State 5-17 (! 13 5-15 (! 5-13 (! Legend Milford Wind Corridor Project (! Turbine Locations Electrical and Telephone Lines Wind Energy Facility Wind Energy Facility Layout *# Meteorological Towers Proposed Access Road Temporary Workspace MAP 1 ^` Information Kiosk Temporary Crane Path Material Storage/Staging/ Laydown Areas .! Well Locations Electrical Connection and Fiber Optic Line Buildings Proposed Transmission Line Route 34.5-kV Collection Cable Township/Range County Access Roads Turbine Array Corridor Section ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\BLM_MWC_PROJECT\EA_FIGURES\EA_FIGURE_2_11X17MAPBOOK.MXD 10/6/2008 12:09:50 Idaho Wyo
¨¦§80 23 24 19 20 21
15 Nevada ¨¦§ Utah
Construction Water Supply Well Field T25S 26 R10W 25 30 T25S 29 28
10-8 R9W (! 10-7 (! 10-6 (! .! .!.! .! .! 10-5 (! 10-4 (! 10-3 (! .! 10-2 (! 10-1 (!
35 36 9-8 (! 9-7 31 (! 32 9-6 33 (! 9-5 (! 9-4 (! 9-3 (! 9-2 (! 9-1 (!
8-10 (!
8-9 West 21400 (! 8-8 (! 8-7 (! 8-6 (! 8-5 2 (! 1 6 5 8-4 4 (! 8-3 (! 8-2 MILLARD T26S (! MILLARD 8-1 R10W (! COUNTYCOUNTY 7-17 (! 7-16 (! 7-15 (! *# 7-14 (! (! 7-13 T26S BEAVERBEAVER (! 7-11 (! 7-12 (! 7-9 R9W COUNTYCOUNTY (! Proposed 7-10 7-8 (! 11 (! Substation 12 7-7 7-6 7 (! 8 (! 9 7-5 7-4 ! ( 7-3 (! 7-2 (! 6-8(! 7-1 6-7 (! ! ( 6-6 (! Land Ownership
BLM 14 Private 13 18 17 16 State 6-5(! 6-4 (! 6-3 (! Legend Milford Wind Corridor Project (! Turbine Locations Electrical and Telephone Lines Wind Energy Facility Wind Energy Facility Layout *# Meteorological Towers Proposed Access Road Temporary Workspace MAP 2 ^` Information Kiosk Temporary Crane Path Material Storage/Staging/ Laydown Areas .! Well Locations Electrical Connection and Fiber Optic Line Buildings Proposed Transmission Line Route 34.5-kV Collection Cable Township/Range County Access Roads Turbine Array Corridor Section ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\BLM_MWC_PROJECT\EA_FIGURES\EA_FIGURE_2_11X17MAPBOOK.MXD 10/6/2008 12:09:50 (! *# 6-17 (! (! Proposed 6-16 6-15 (! 6-14 (! Substation (! 8 Idaho 10 6-12 Wyo9 6-13 (! 11 (! Proposed 6-11 6-10 12 ¨¦§80 (! 6-9 (! Transmission 6-8! ( 6-7 ! ( 6-6 Line Route (! 15 Nevada ¨¦§ Utah !( 5-17 5-18 (! (! 5-15 (! 5-16 (! 5-13 5-14 (! 5-12 (! *# 5-11 17 (! 16 15 5-10 (! 14 13
Proposed Batch Plant
4-10 257 (! (! UV 4-9 21 *# 4-8 22 (! 23 (! 24 20 4-6 4-7 (! 4-5 T26S (! BEAVER 4-4 3-20 BEAVER (! (! 3-19 R10W (! 3-18 (! COUNTYCOUNTY (! 3-16 3-17 (! 3-15 (! 3-14 (!
3-13 (! 29 (! 3-11 28 3-12 (! 3-10 27 26 (! 25
2-6 (! 2-5 (! 2-4 (! 2-3(! 2-2 (! 2-1 (!
1-19 (! (! 32 1-18 33 (! 1-16 34 (! 35 36 1-17 (! 1-14 1-15 (! 1-13 (! 1-12 (! *# 1-11 (! 1-10 (! (! 1-8 (! 1-9 1-7 ^` (! 1-6 (! 1-5 (! Land Ownership 5 4 3 T27S BLM 2 1 Private R10W State
Legend Milford Wind Corridor Project (! Turbine Locations Electrical and Telephone Lines Wind Energy Facility Wind Energy Facility Layout *# Meteorological Towers Proposed Access Road Temporary Workspace MAP 3 ^` Information Kiosk Temporary Crane Path Material Storage/Staging/ Laydown Areas .! Well Locations Electrical Connection and Fiber Optic Line Buildings Proposed Transmission Line Route 34.5-kV Collection Cable Township/Range County Access Roads Turbine Array Corridor Section ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\BLM_MWC_PROJECT\EA_FIGURES\EA_FIGURE_2_11X17MAPBOOK.MXD 10/6/2008 12:09:50 11 12 7 8 9
Idaho Wyo 6-5 (! 6-4 (! ¨¦§80 6-3 (! 6-2 (! 6-1 14 13 (! 15 Nevada ¨¦§ Utah 18 17 16 BEAVERBEAVER COUNTYCOUNTY
Proposed 5-9 (! 5-8 (! 5-7 Batch Plant (! 5-6 (! 5-5 (! 5-4 ! ( 5-3 # (! 5-2 * ! 4-8 ( (! 23 4-7 (! 24 (! 5-1 (! 19 20 4-6 4-5 21 (! R 4-4 R ! ( 4-3 (! 4-2 YY (! 4-1 T26S (! T26S R10W R9W
3-13 (! (! 3-11 3-12 (! 3-10 ! ( 3-9 30 26 25 (! 29 28 3-8(!
3-7(! 3-6 (! 3-5(! 3-4 (! 3-3 (! 3-2 (! 3-1 (! 2-2 (! 2-1 (!
35 36 31 32 33
1-9 (! 1-8 (! 1-7 ^` (! 1-6 (! 1-5 (! 1-4 ! ( 1-3 (! 1-2 (! 1-1 (! 2 T27S 1 6 T27S R9W 5 4 R10W
Land Ownership
BLM Private State Wind Energy Facility 11 12 7 8 9
Legend Milford Wind Corridor Project (! Turbine Locations Electrical and Telephone Lines Wind Energy Facility Wind Energy Facility Layout *# Meteorological Towers Proposed Access Road Temporary Workspace MAP 4 ^` Information Kiosk Temporary Crane Path Material Storage/Staging/ Laydown Areas .! Well Locations Electrical Connection and Fiber Optic Line Buildings Proposed Transmission Line Route 34.5-kV Collection Cable Township/Range County Access Roads Turbine Array Corridor Section ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\BLM_MWC_PROJECT\EA_FIGURES\EA_FIGURE_2_11X17MAPBOOK.MXD 10/6/2008 12:09:50 17 16 15 14 13
Idaho Wyo Proposed ¨¦§80 Batch Plant
4-10 15 (! (! Nevada § UV257 ¨¦ Utah 21 4-9 *# 4-8 22 (! 23 (! 24 20 4-6 4-7 (! 4-5 (! BEAVER 4-4 3-20 BEAVER (! (! 3-19 (! 3-18 (! COUNTYCOUNTY (! 3-16 3-17 (! 3-15 (! 3-14 (!
T26S 3-13 (! 29 (! 3-11 28 R10W 3-12 (! 3-10 27 26 (! 25
2-6 (! 2-5 (! 2-4 (! 2-3(! 2-2 (! 2-1 (!
1-19 (! (! 32 1-18 33 (! 1-16 34 (! 35 36 1-17 (! 1-14 1-15 (! 1-13 (! 1-12 (!
*# 1-11 (! 1-10 (! (! 1-8 (! 1-9 1-7 ^` (! 1-6 (! 1-5 (!
5 4 3 2 1 Proposed Operations and Maintenance Facility T27S R10W
8 9 10 11 12 Land Ownership
BLM Private State 17 16 15 Legend Milford Wind Corridor Project (! Turbine Locations Electrical and Telephone Lines Wind Energy Facility Wind Energy Facility Layout *# Meteorological Towers Proposed Access Road Temporary Workspace MAP 5 ^` Information Kiosk Temporary Crane Path Material Storage/Staging/ Laydown Areas .! Well Locations Electrical Connection and Fiber Optic Line Buildings Proposed Transmission Line Route 34.5-kV Collection Cable Township/Range County Access Roads Turbine Array Corridor Section ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\BLM_MWC_PROJECT\EA_FIGURES\EA_FIGURE_2_11X17MAPBOOK.MXD 10/6/2008 12:09:50
Proposed Transmission Line Corridor T25S T25S 33 R9W 34 R10W 35 36 31
4 3 2 1 6
MILLARD COUNTY
10
! 9
! 8
! 7 BEAVER ! 6 COUNTY ! 5 COUNTY
! 4 12 9 10 ! 3 11 ! 2 7 ! 1A 1 Substation ! !
T26S R10W T26S R9W
16 15 14 13 18
Batch Plant
21 22 23 24 19
28 27 26 25 30
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 1 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 18 17 16 15
24 19 20 21 22
T25S R11W
25 30 29 T25S R10W 28 27
36 31 32 33 34
1 6 5 4 3
MILLARD COUNTY
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 ! 15 14 13 ! ! ! 12 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! T26S ! ! ! 11 T26S ! 10 R11W R10W ! 9 BEAVER ! 8 COUNTY !
12 7 8 9 10
13 18 17 16 15
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 2 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 44
!
43
! 21 22 23 24
42
!
41
!
40
!
39
! 28 27 26 T25S 25 R11W 38 ! 30
37
!
36
!
35
! T25 R10
33 34 34 35 ! 36
33
!
32 31
!
31
!
30
! 4 3 2 1 29 6
!
MILLARD 28 COUNTY !
27 26A 26 25 24
! ! ! ! ! T26S R11W BEAVER COUNTY T26 R10W 9 10 11 12 7
16 15 14 13 18
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 3 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 69
!
68
!
67 27 26 25 30 ! 29
66
!
65 T24S ! T24S R11W R10W
64
!
63
34 ! 35 36 31 32
62
!
61
!
60
!
59
!
3 2 58 1 6 ! 5
57
!
56
! 55A
! 55
! 54
! 53
! 10 52 11 12 ! 7 8 51 T25S ! T25S R11W R10W 50
!
49
!
48
!
15 14 47 13 ! 18 17
46
!
45
!
22 23 44 24 19 20 !
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 4 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 25 30 29
34 35 T23S T23S 36 R11W 31 R10W 32
3 2 1 6 5
! 8 83
! 10 11 12 7 82
!
81
!
80
!
T24S 79 R11W !
18 78 T24S! 77 R10W 15 14 13 ! 17 76
!
75
!
74
!
73
!
72
22 ! 23 24 19 20 71
!
70
!
69
! 27 26 25 30 29
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tower Workspace Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 5 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 17 16 15 14
1
!
109
!
108
!
107
! 20 21 22 23 106
!
105
!
104
!
103
T23S !
R10W 102
!
101 29 ! 28 27 100 26
!
99
! 98 97 !
!
96
!
95 35 ! 94 32 33 ! 34 93
!
92
!
91
!
90
!
89
!
88 5 ! 4 3 2 87
! T24S 86 R10W !
85
!
8 84
!
83 9 10 11
!
12 82
!
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tower Workspace Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 6 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 133
!
26 25 30 132 29 28
!
130 T22S ! T22S R10W R9W
129
! 35 36 31 32 128 33
!
127
!
126
!
125
!
124 2 1 6 ! 5 4
123
!
122
!
121
!
120
!
119
!
11 7 12 118 8 9 !
117 T23S ! T23S R10W 116
! R9W
115
!
114
!
113
!
14 18 112 13 17 16
!
111
!
110
!
109
!
108
!
23 24 19 20 21
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 7 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 !
36 T21S 31 32 33 34 T21S R9W 155
R10W !
154
!
153
! 1 6 5 4 152 3
!
151
!
150
!
149
T22S ! R10W
12 148 7 8 ! 9 10
147
!
146
!
145
!
144
!
143 13 T22S 18 17 ! R9W 16 15
142
!
141
!
140
!
139
!
24 138 19 20 ! 21 22
137
!
136
!
135
!
134
!
133 25 30 ! 29 28 27
132
!
36 31
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 8 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 ! 3 2
176
!
175
! 8 9 10 11 174
!
173
!
172
!
171
!
17 16 170 15 14 !
169
!
168
!
167
!
166
! 20 21 T21S 22 R9W 23 165
!
164
!
163
!
162
!
29 28 161 27 26 !
160
!
159
!
158
!
157 32 33! 34 35
156
!
155
!
154 T22S 5 ! 4 R9W 3 2
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 9 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 !
199
!
198 17 16 14 ! 15 13
197
!
196
!
195
!
194
! 20 21 22 23 24 193
!
192
!
T20S 191 R9W !
190
!
29 189 28 27 26 ! 25
188
!
187
!
186
!
185
! 184
! 32 33 34 35 36 183
!
182
!
181
!
180
!
5 4 3 2 1 179 !
178 T21S ! R9W
177
!
176 8 9 ! 10 11 12
175
!
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 10 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 9 223
!
222
! 20 21 22 23 221
!
220
!
219
!
218
!
217 29 28 ! 27 26 T19S 216 R9W !
215
!
214
!
213
!
32 33 212 34 35 !
211
!
210
!
209
!
208
!
5 4 207 3 2 !
206
!
205
!
204
! T20S Regen Station R9W 203
! 8 9 10 11 202
!
201
!
200
!
17 16 199 15 14
!
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 11 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 244
! 25 27 30 29 28 243A
!
243
! T18S T18S R10W 242 ! R9W
241 36 31 ! 32 33 34
240
!
239
!
238
!
237
!
1 6 5 236 4 3 !
235
!
234
!
233
!
232
!
12 7 231 8 9 10 ! T19S R10W 230 T19S ! R9W
229
!
228
!
227 13 18 ! 17 16 15
226
!
225
!
224
!
223 24 19 20 ! 21 22
222
!
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 12 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 266
! T17S T17S 35 R10W 36 31 32 33 265 R9W
!
264
!
263
!
2 1 6 262 5 4
!
261
!
260
!
259
!
258
11 12 7 ! 8 9
257
!
256
!
255
!
T18S 254 R10W ! T18S 14 13 R9W 18 17 16 253
!
252
!
251
!
250
!
249
23 24 19 ! 20 21
248
!
247
!
246
!
245 26 25 30 ! 29 28
244
!
243A
!
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 13 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 287 2 1 6 5 4 !
286
!
285
!
11 12 7 8 284 9
!
283
!
282
!
281
!
14 280 13 18 ! 17 16
279
!
278
!
277
! T17S 276
R10W ! T17S R9W 23 24 19 275 20 21
!
274
!
273
!
272
!
271 26 25 30 ! 29 28
270
!
269
!
268
!
267
! 35 36 31 32 33 266
!
265
!
T18S T18S 2 1 6 5 R10W R9W 4 Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 14 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 7 310 8 9
!
309
!
14 308
! 13 18 17 16 307
!
306
!
305
!
304
23 !
303
!
24 19 20 21 302
!
301
! T16S R10W 300 T16S ! R9W
299
!
298
! 25 30 29 28 297
!
296
!
295
!
294
!
36 31 293 32 33 !
292
!
291
!
290
!
289
! 1 6 5 4 T17S 288 T17S R10W ! R9W
287
!
286 7 ! 12 8 9
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 15 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 15S 0W 24 19 20 21 22
30 29 28 27 T15S 3 R9W ! 330
! 329
! 328
! 327
! 326
! 325
!
31 32 324 33 34 !
323
!
322
!
321
!
320
!
319
! 6 5 4 3 318
!
317 2 !
316
!
315 T16S
! R9W
314
!
313 7 8 ! 9 10 312 11 !
311
!
310
!
18 309 17 16 15 ! 14
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 16 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 3 2 1 6 5
10 11 12 7 8
15 14 13 18 17
T15S T15S R9W R8W
22 23 24 340 341 342 343 344 19 345 346 ! ! ! ! 20 ! ! ! 339
! 338
! 337
! 336
! 335
! 334
! 333
! 332 27 ! 26 25 30 331 29
! 330
! 329
!
34 35 36 31 32
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 17 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 6 5 4 3 2
7 8 9 10 11
18 17 16 15 14
T15S R8W
346 347 348 349 350 351 352 19 20 353 354 355 356 357 ! ! 358 359 360 ! ! ! 21 22 361 3 ! ! ! 23 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
30 29 28 27 26
31 32 33 34 35
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 18 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 2 1 6 5
11 12 7 8
14 13 18 17
T15S T15S R8W R7W
361 363 23 364 365 366 367 368 24 369 370 371 372 373 ! ! 362 19 374 375 ! ! ! 376 37 ! ! ! 20 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
21
26 25 30 29 28
35 36 31 32 33
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 19 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 5 4 3 2 1
8 9 10 11 12
17 16 15 14 13
T15S R7W
375 20 376 377 378 379 21 380 381 382 383 384 385 ! 22 386 387 ! ! ! 23 ! ! ! 24 ! ! ! ! ! ! 388 ! 389 ! 390 ! 391
!
29 28 27 26 25
32 33 34 35 36
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 20 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 2 1 6 5 4
11 12 7 8 9
14
13 18 17 16 T15S R7W T15S R6W
IPP Substation
398 23 24 397! 19 20 21 ! 396 ! 390 395 ! 391 ! ! 392 394 ! 393 ! !
26 25 30 29 28
35 36 31 32 33
Legend Proposed Transmission Milford Wind Corridor Project ! Proposed Transmission Line Structures County Boundary Pulling/Tensioning Site Line Proposed Transmission Proposed Transmission Line Proposed Wind Energy Facility Regen Station Line Corridor Existing IPP Transmission Line Turbine Array Corridor Tow er Work spa ce Proposed Transmission Line Corridor Buildings BLM-Administered Land MAP 21 Material Storage/Staging/ Private Property Laydown Areas State Land
Miles ¯ Wind Energy Facility 00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\ATLAS\EA_ATLAS_AERIAL_11X17.MXD 8/28/2008 13:07:57 APPENDIX B Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklists
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ANALYSIS RECORD CHECKLIST
Project Title: Milford Wind Corridor Project Phase 1
NEPA Log Number: UT-040-07-20
File/Serial Number: UTU-82972, UTU-82973
Project Leader: Lucas Lucero
An updated project description was submitted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. Staff will review this document and provide updated comments. Comments for 12/11/07 document due on January 11, 2008.
Please be advised, the staff’s determinations on impacts may change upon review of complete POD (2/29/08)
DETERMINATION OF STAFF: (Choose one of the following abbreviated options for the left column)
NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present with potential for significant impact analyzed in detail in the EA; or identified in a DNA as requiring further analysis NC = (DNAs only) actions and impacts not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA documents cited in Section C of the DNA form.
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
CRITICAL ELEMENTS Comments apply to wind energy facility: Air quality in the area is good, as is typical of non-urban areas in the western US. The operational phase of the proposal is not expected to affect air quality. Dust caused during construction could become substantial depending on the amount of disturbance of existing vegetation and soils, especially during dry periods and periods of high winds. 02/28/07 PI Air Quality Best Management Practices (BMP’s) or mitigating C. Egerton Revised measures should be developed to minimize fugitive dust 12/12/07 for both the construction and operational stages (as applicable) and identified as part of a POD, EA, dust abatement plan (or other appropriate document) developed during the planning stage. It is suggested that BMPs / mitigation include minimizing new access roads, permanent roads being at least gravelled and constructed
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
perpendicular to prevailing winds to the maximum extent possible. All temporary disturbances and non-running surfaces of permanent roads should be reseeded with an appropriate seedmix for the site(s). There are no ACEC’s in the field office management area Areas of Critical NP within Beaver County boundary. W. Judy 01/14/08 Environmental Concern
There is an expected high potential for cultural resources 04/25/07 in the proposed project area. A 100%, intensive cultural PI Cultural Resources N. Logan Revised resource survey will be required in order to determine the 01/14/08 potential impact to cultural resources. No minority populations are identified in the project area. Utilizing EPA’s Enviromapper, there are no affected R. Wilson 02/09/07 NP Environmental Justice groups, or minority or low income populations Revised disproportionately affected within the Cedar City Field E. Larsen 01/14/08 Office. Comments that apply only to the wind energy production facility: There is no published soil survey for the energy generating portion of the project area. There are certain soils series within the project area which would likely be 02/28/07 mapped by NRCS as prime farmlands if the lands were Revised supplied with irrigation water. However, no lands in the NP Farmlands (Prime or Unique) C. Egerton 12/12/07 project area are supplied with irrigation water, therefore Revised no prime farmlands exist. No unique farmlands are 02/25/08 known to exist on either public or private lands in the project area. The impact to any potentially prime farmland soils coincident with the project would be very minor. 02/28/07 Comments that apply only to the wind energy facility: Revised There are no floodplains present in the energy generating NP Floodplains C. Egerton 12/12/07 portion of the project area based upon a review of project Revised maps and knowledge of the area. 02/25/08 No weeds currently known to exist within the phase 1 project boundary. NI - if Stipulation for Applicant would be responsible for any noxious weeds within the ROW, weeds must be managed according to BLM policy (see PI Invasive, Non-native Species specialist for more information). If any noxious weeds are J. Bulloch 2/05/07 present during construction phase, treating &/or avoiding is necessary to avoid spreading. Use of clean equipment in the project area to prevent any possible carrying or transferring of noxious weed seed. Native American Religious PI Probable impacts pending findings in cultural report R. Tueller 12/06/07 Concerns 2/5/07; Threatened, Endangered or Currently, there are no federally listed threatened, NP C. Pontarolo No Change Candidate Plant Species endangered, or candidate plant species within the CCFO. 1/14/08 I suggest that they cover bald eagles in the analysis 31 Jan 2007 because they are winter visitors and they migrate through R. Bonebrake Threatened, Endangered or PI the area. Current surveys have not been conducted at Candidate Animal Species No Change correct times to pick up bald eagle use. Discussions of C. Pontarolo 1-14-08 condors should change status from experimental to
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
endangered. The species’ status west of I15 is endangered. Condors, on rare occasion, have flown through the Milford area. Transmission corridors, especially in Millard Co., need UPD surveys. Need to be provided with data sheets & GIS locations for the burrowing owl locations. All SSS data needs to be provided to BLM. Need to verify prairie dog town mentioned in report with a qualified UPD biologist approved by the BLM.
The project as proposed should not impact with any significant waste solid or hazardous. Should anything occur, it would require remediation according to all NI Wastes (hazardous or solid) Federal and State laws. R. Peterson 01/07/08
Must have complete POD to complete review
Comments that apply to the wind energy facility: Nothing in the project proposal would seem to affect either surface or subsurface water quality and once that is established through a more developed POD, we can likely change this to an NI. There is still a question of where the water is coming from for the batch plants, dust abatement, 02/28/07 PI Water Quality operation of O & M facility, etc. Once this question is C. Egerton Revised NI (drinking/ground) answered, can probably change PI to an NI for the energy 12/12/07 generating portion of the project. I don’t know about impacts the transmission line may have on the Millard County side.
Changed to NI following meeting of 07/15/08. CE There are no known wetlands/riparian zones on BLM lands within the wind farm. A few livestock ponds exist on private lands.
For the transmission line: “A wetland delineation and habitat assessment should be conducted along the length of any final proposed alternatives to identify, describe, 2/5/07 C. Pontarolo NI Wetlands/Riparian Zones and assess regulatory requirements for these sensitive Revised
environments. Only the USACOE has the jurisdiction to 1/8/08 determine if a wetland is isolated or should be regulated under the Clean Water Act.” Milford Corridor Wind Energy Transmission Line Preliminary Alignment Field Assessment - Playa Area South of Delta Millard County, Delta, Utah. July 31, 2007
There are no WSR’s in the field office management area, NP Wild and Scenic Rivers Beaver County boundary. W. Judy 01/14/08
No designated wilderness or WSA’s are on or adjacent to NP Wilderness W. Judy 01/14/08 project as proposed within Beaver County.
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
OTHER RESOURCES / CONCERNS**
The Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines are currently being met within the affected allotments; however, cheatgrass is prevalent throughout the project area. Aggressive seed mixes would be developed to re- vegetate disturbed areas on a site specific basis to alleviate cheatgrass concerns. Livestock may be negatively impacted from noise, disturbance, etc... during construction activities. Increased road traffic following construction would also be a concern. Livestock 02/06/07 Rangeland Health Standards disturbance may cause poor livestock distribution within PI D. Fletcher No Change and Guidelines the allotments, which may lead to negative impacts to 01/14/08 vegetation and soils. This may negatively impact the Standards and Guidelines. A significant amount of the allotment has been previously burned by wildfire. Although rehabilitation efforts have been successful there is a significant amount of cheatgrass throughout the area. Due to the amount of cheatgrass there is a possibility of an accidental wildfire caused by vehicles within the area. Mitigation measures including carrying fire extinguishers, shovels, etc… should be incorporated. Refer to Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines Section. The livestock season of use within the affected allotments is from November 1st – May 15th. Livestock may be negatively impacted from noise, disturbance, etc… during construction activities. Increased road traffic following construction would also be a concern. Livestock disturbance may cause poor livestock 02/06/07 PI Livestock Grazing distribution within the allotments, which may lead to D. Fletcher No Change negative impacts to vegetation and soils. In addition, 01/14/08 assess roads (existing and non-existing) may be susceptible to noxious weed invasion (refer to invasive, non-native species section). The affected livestock permittees should be notified prior to and during construction activities. Recommend a ¼ mile buffer from water sources within the allotments. No to limited woodland resources (only pinyon and juniper) exist on the proposed tower sites and ROW corridors. There are no unique nor exceptionally old trees nor any unusual tree species. Some limited but 4/25/07 NI Woodland / Forestry Doug Page minimal impact will occur to the woodland 12/11/07 resources where they exist on ROW corridors due construction and clearing, however, this will have negligible effects on the larger ecosystem in the area. There are no known records of Special Status Plant Vegetation including Special Species within the project area; however, a survey needs 2/5/07 Status Plant Species other than to be completed during the appropriate time of year when PI C. Pontarolo No Change FWS candidate or listed special status plants can be found and positively 1-14-08 species identified by qualified personnel (botany background). Personnel responsible for all surveys should contact the
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
BLM prior to start- to determine the level of survey requirements (methods) and qualifications. The likelihood of Special Status Plants is low; however, the habitat disturbance associated with the project is high. BLM will require that all data collected during the surveys be provided to the field office.
The impacts of vegetation control methods (mechanical, chemical, biological, manual or chemical) will need to be analyzed for impacts to wildlife. UDWR has updated their maps of crucial big game habitat since the analysis was conducted. The project area does overlap with crucial winter range. Need to update reports. Sage grouse report generally ok but BLM does have observation data closer to project area than what is mentioned. How come they always do surveys without talking to us first? Need to address BLM’s wind energy BMPs, specifically: Operators shall evaluate avian and bat use of the project area and design the project to minimize or mitigate the potential for bird and bat strikes. Scientifically rigorous avian and bat use surveys shall be conducted; the amount and extent of ecological baseline data required shall be determined on a project basis. Local BLM should be involved in surveys and design. 31 Jan 2007 Habitat restoration should be developed and coordinated R. Bonebrake locally.
Utah BLM Special Status Species should be identified in
the Fed Status column of Table 2-2 of CIA.
Fish and Wildlife Including The CIA states that UPC should develop wildlife survey Special Status Species other protocols and provide them to the BLM for review and PI than FWS candidate or listed approval. The BLM did not review any survey protocols species prior to avian and sage grouse surveys being completed. e.g. Migratory birds.
Was the protocol followed consistent with other
protocols for avian monitoring (check with UDWR 2/5/07 protocol for point count surveys)? Please provide BLM C. Pontarolo Revised with a copy of shapefiles for point count locations. In the 1/14/08 avian report, there are discrepancies between how long the survey was (20 minutes vs. 30 minutes)- please clarify. BLM requests that all data collected during the avian surveys be supplied to the CCFO Wildlife Biologists. The data sheets did not incorporate a habitat section- Habitat characteristics of each survey site would provide valuable information regarding avian use within the Phase I boundary and help in the determination of habitat loss/disturbance associated with the project.
Please provide a reference to or the list of the 12 UDWR wildlife species of concern that have been documented in Beaver County. What about UDWR species of concern within Millard County? The Utah State Listed Species by
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
County (UDWR) has been updated (October 20, 2006). Reports should be updated to reflect these changes.
There is no reference as to whether a bat survey will be completed. The potential of occurrence within the project for bats is low-moderate. BLM requests that a bat survey be completed.
The lek surveys were good for identifying breeding activity that may occur within the Phase I project area; however, it does not necessarily establish use of the area as brood-rearing habitat. Who determined that lek surveys would be most suitable to survey sage grouse status within the project area? These surveys would not have been completed during brood-rearing (May-July) are lek surveys adequate to determine use of the area by brood-rearing sage grouse? The conclusion in the sage grouse survey report states that sagebrush habitat was determined to be poor to fair for brood-rearing sage grouse- what was the basis for this determination?
The company has been working with the lead biologist assigned to this project. Wildlife specific surveys and protocols have been underway.
Comments that apply to energy facility: A considerable amount of soil disturbance will occur. Currently, roads are rutted to test towers. Need to define total amount of surface disturbance and whether any particularly sensitive soils (high erosion hazard) are being disturbed. 02/28/07 Need to identify all BMP’s / mitigating measures PI Soils C. Egerton Revised proposed to reduce soil erosion to wind and water. Dust 12/12/07 abatement plan, if developed, should answer many of these questions. Identify if any soil sterilents are proposed to be used for fire prevention / noxious weed abatement. Discuss suitability of soils for towers, roads, O & M plant and other uses. Within Beaver County, other than a minor amount of dispersed recreation, the affect upon existing recreation NI Recreation W. Judy 01/14/08 resources which would be inconsequential as a result of this proposal. Project as proposed within Beaver County is consistent with existing VRM classifications (class IV). Class IV VRM objectives note the importance of minimizing impacts through location and design by repeating form, NI Visual Resources W. Judy 01/14/08 color, and texture. Further noted is the provision for management activities which require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. Geology / Mineral The project area covers lands that are prospectively NI Ed Ginouves 1/29/08 Resources/Energy Production valuable for geothermal and oil and gas resources. There
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
has been no known locatable mineral production from the project lands and only minor production of mineral materials.
The project will not substantially affect any existing or proposed mineral resource exploration or development projects within the project area. There are no current leases, mining claims or materials permits located within the project area; although active geothermal leases and development, part of the Roosevelt Known Geothermal Resource Area, does abut the project area on the southeastern corner. The current lessees, well field operator and power plant operators associated with the Blundell Powerplant should be contacted regarding the project and given a chance to comment on it.
The project implementation will likely require additional sources of raw and processed sand and gravel of which there are adequate available resources in the general project area both on BLM and privately held lands. The project area coincides with the eastern shore line of the Pleistocene–aged Lake Bonneville, a known locality for Ice-age megafauna including mammoths, mastodons, horses, bison, giant ground sloths, and camels. The nearest known fossil locality was a mammoth/mastodon tusk found in 2004 in a sand and gravel pit on the PI Paleontology E. Ginouves 12/5/07 shoreline west of Fillmore.
I would recommend that the BLM Utah SO paleontologist or the State of Utah paleontologist be consulted as to possible mitigation measures to be applied to the project work. The project as proposed would not likely affect RsOW in the Beaver County area. As described, the proposed action would not affect access to public land. Existing roads and trails should be used for travel unless otherwise authorized. During wet road conditions, any ruts deeper than four inches remaining on the roads from the project E. Robinson 01/30/07 would be repaired at the Authorized Officer’s NI Lands / Access Revised discretion.Road plans and specifications will be reviewed E. Larsen 01/14/08 and approved by the BLM engineer prior to construction. Generated trash/debris should be removed from public land and discarded at an authorized facility. Proposed project would be subject to valid prior existing ROWs. Coordinate proposed project with ROW holders and adjacent non-federal landowners. There would be no impact to fuels or fire management as a result of the proposed action. Precautions should be NI Fuels / Fire Management M. Mendenhall 4/25/07 taken to prevent any fire ignition with construction or vehicles. PI Could provide for short term and some long term jobs to Robert Wilson 2/09/07 Socio-economics (Positive) area. Could affect Milford positively with income to No change
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
community. E. Larsen 01/14/08 Needs to be discussed and analyzed in the EIS or EA The project area is not adjacent to or within a wild horse NP Wild Horses and Burros C Hunter 1/30/07 Herd Management Areas (HMAs). The project as proposed within Beaver County does not include any areas currently included in proposed wilderness legislation or areas that possess or are likely to possess wilderness characteristics. A viewshed analysis determined that the project lies in excess of 10 miles from NI Wilderness characteristics W. Judy 01/14/08 the closest area which is determined to have wilderness character. And, this same wilderness character area has in its Viewshed the town of Milford, along with a railroad track system. The Viewshed affect was determined as inconsequential. Must have complete Transportation plan to complete Transportation 06/17/2008 review
FINAL REVIEW:
Reviewer Title Signature Date Comments
NEPA / Environmental Coordinator
Authorized Officer
Follow the italicized instructions below and then delete the asterisks“*” in the checklist, this sentence, and the instructions.
*Rationale for Determination is required for all “NIs” and “NPs.” Write issue statements for “PIs” ** Varies by specific location and BLM Field Office
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ANALYSIS RECORD CHECKLIST
Project Title: Milford Wind Corridor LLC, Phase I
NEPA Log Number: UT-040-07-20
File/Serial Number: UTU-82973 – Transmission Line UTU-82972 – Wind Farm
Project Leader: Lucas Lucero, National Project Lead
DETERMINATION OF STAFF: (Choose one of the following abbreviated options for the left column)
NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present with potential for significant impact analyzed in detail in the EA; or identified in a DNA as requiring further analysis NC = (DNAs only) actions and impacts not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA documents cited in Section C of the DNA form.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Please see the Project Proposal. Two separate ID Checklists will be completed for this project, one by the FFO and one by the CCFO. The FFO comments should focus on the impacts from the transmission line which is predominantly within the FFO boundaries. CCFO will focus their comments on the impacts from the wind farm which is approximately two-thirds within the CCFO boundaries and one-third within the FFO boundaries.
An updated project description was submitted on December 11, 2007. FFO staff will review this document and provide updated comments.
On May 5, 2008, Matt Craddock, BLM Utah State Office, informed Lucas Lucero that the BLM should drop the Hwy 257 alternative. As of that date, the Hwy 257 alternative was no longer considered feasible due to Millard County's refusal to issue County Use Permits in that corridor. Please update the ID Checklist comments to address the current proposed route for the transmission line, the IPP utility corridor.
MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF PROPOSAL:
Field Office Manager Date Comments Reviewed
STAFF REVIEW OF PROPOSAL:
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
CRITICAL ELEMENTS Fugitive dust from the construction of the power line is 3/27/2007 NI Air Quality the only anticipated impact and is not expected to be /s/ Matt Rajala Rev. 1/14/08 significant. There are six ACECs within the Fillmore Field Office 3/7/2007 Areas of Critical according to the current Warm Springs Resource Area and NP /s/SBonar Rev. Environmental Concern House Range Resource Area RMPs, however none of 12/12/07 these are within the project area. Through consultation with the USHPO, cultural inventories must be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. An intensive survey will occur for the transmission line corridor. Visual affects to historic properties will be considered within 5 miles either side of centerline.
4/4/07 Several inventories have been conducted along the IPP Rev. PI Cultural Resources corridor. Considerations along thisrroute include several /s/ Joelle McCarthy 12/12/07 National Register eligible sites, one site listed on the Rev. 7/22/08 National Register and one designated National Historic Landmark.
CCFO sent letters to interested parties requesting information regarding historic properties within the proposed project area. Responses were sent to and on file at the CCFO. Utilizing EPA’s Enviromapper, there are no affected 3/28/07 groups, or minority or low income populations NP Environmental Justice /s/ MRajala Rev. 1/14/08 disproportionately affected within the Fillmore Field
Office. The nature of the proposed project would not 3/28/07 NP Farmlands (Prime or Unique) permanently remove any affected lands from agricultural /s/ MRajala Rev. 1/14/08 use. Access roads to the transmission lines present a potential impact to the intersected floodplains. Appropritate PI Floodplains /s/ MRajala 2/22/2008 mitigation will be developed in coordination with the Fillmore Field Office. There are no known noxious weeds within the wind farm transmission line route based on reviews of maps of 3/13/07 PI Invasive, Non-native Species known weed infestation areas and the specialist’s /s/ R.B. Probert Rev. 1/18/08 knowledge of the area. See attached Noxious Weed Rev. 7/22/08 Clearance for mitigation. On December 11, 2007 letters were sent to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Kanosh Band of the Paiute Tribe, 4/4/07 Native American Religious PI Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Nation, Skull Valley /s/ Joelle McCarthy Rev. Concerns Goshute Tribe and the Uinta Ourray Ute Tribe. Responses 12/12/07 are due on January 22, 2008. 2/26/07 Threatened, Endangered or There are no known federally-listed plant species within Rev. 1/11/08 NP /s/ David Whitaker Candidate Plant Species the area of the proposed Milford Wind transmission line. Rev. 7/22/08
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
Surveys should be completed for migratory birds, raptors (including burrowing owls), kit fox, pygmy rabbits, and Threatened, Endangered or 3/23/07 PI Utah prairie dogs to determine absence or presence, and if /s/ Mark Pierce Candidate Animal Species Rev. 1/11/08 present current population numbers and distribution. See CCFO ID Checklist for updates on this section. The POD incorporates BMPs for hazardous and solid 4/23/07 NP Wastes (hazardous or solid) /s/B Crosland waste management. Rev. 1/14/08 The line would cross existing water pipelines and associated troughs or ponds as identified on field office 4/13/07 Water Quality allotment and project maps. See also comments under /s/HGates Rev. NI (drinking/ground) Rangeland Management below. . /s/Paul Caso 12/12/07 Nothing in the project proposal would seem to affect Rev. 7/22/08 either surface or subsurface water quality. There are riparian areas near the Sevier River and the old river bed. These areas are in sections 5, 6 & 8 of T. 19 S., R. 2/23/07 & 9 W. and in sections 31 & 32 of T. 18 S., R. 9 W. Project 6/8/07 PI Wetlands/Riparian Zones must adhere to the current BLM Utah Riparian Policy. /s/ Bill Thompson Rev. This policy requires that disturbance not be within 100 12/18/07 meters of riparian vegetation unless there are no Rev. 7.21.08 alternatives and the disturbance can be mitigated. . The National Wild and Scenic River inventory does not 3/7/07 NP Wild and Scenic Rivers identify any Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Fillmore /s/ Steve Bonar Rev. Field Office Area. 12/12/07 There are no wilderness/WSAs within the two NP Wilderness/WSA /s/SBonar 3-07-07 alternatives currently proposed for this project.
OTHER RESOURCES / CONCERNS**
The proposal would not affect the rangeland resources to the point that the land through which the transmission 3/13/2007 Rangeland Health Standards /s/HGates NI line would pass, would not continue to be in compliance Rev. and Guidelines /s/ Bill Thompson with the Rangeland Heath Standards and Guidelines as 12/18/07 long as disturbed areas are successfully reseeded. The proposed transmission lines cross over water pipelines and through allotment and pasture fences. There are several grazing allotments involved. Roads or trails through fences that will be permanent may require cattle guards. Structures shall not be located on pipelines 4/13/2007 /s/HGates or other water facilities and must be at least fifty feet from Rev. PI Rangeland Management /s/ Bill Thompson them. There are several stock watering reservoirs along 12/18/07
the proposed routes. The project should be designed to Rev. 7/21/08 avoid disruption of the flow of water to these reservoirs and to avoid disturbance to them that would prevent them from functioning properly. All sites that are disturbed must be recontoured and seeded. 4/23/07 NP Woodland / Forestry No major forest products in project area. /s/B Crosland Rev. 1/14/08 Informal consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service and Vegetation including Special 2/26/07 the state DWR has been done and site-specific BLM plant Status Plant Species other than Rev. PI maps have been referenced to identify potential habitat /s/ David Whitaker FWS candidate or listed 11/15/08 for all special status plant species within the project area. species Rev. 7/22/08 There are known occurrences of two sensitive plant
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
species near the proposed transmission line. Astragalus uncialis (currant milkvetch) occurs on desert pavement substrates in salt desert shrub communities, particularly on terraces of ancient Pleistocene lakes. The currant milkvetch occurrences in question are west of Delta near the IPP Corridor Route. Sphaeralcea caespitosa (Jones globemallow) has been found in salt desert shrub communities east of the Cricket Mountains near the proposed route. In addition to the two species above, there are three other plant species that occur on sandy soils, semi-stabilized dunes, or active sand dunes that need to be addressed. Although there are no known occurrences of these three plants on the proposed transmission line route, there are areas with potential habitat for these species: Penstemon angustifolius var. dulcis (Neese narrowleaf penstemon), Cymopterus acaulis var. parvus (small spring parsley), and Atriplex canescens var. gigantea (giant fourwing saltbush). Plant surveys will need to be completed during the appropriate time of year when the particular plants in question can be found and positively identified by a qualified Botanist that has been approved by the BLM in advance. Both the project proponent and the BLM-approved Botanist should coordinate with the BLM prior to starting plant surveys in order to clearly define survey methods, plant survey protocols, and the required products of the plant surveys (i.e. maps, reports, survey forms, etc.). The completion of the project could adversely affect the Fish and Wildlife Including movement of mule deer and elk. The project could also Special Status Species other adversely sage grouse use of the project area. Surveys 3/23/2007 PI than FWS candidate or listed should be completed to document the presence or absence /s/ Mark Pierce Rev. 1/11/08 species of big game, small game and other wildlife species such as e.g. Migratory birds. bats and other avian species. See CCFO ID Checklist for updates on this section. 4/2/07 All of the appropriate mitigation measures have been NI Soils /s/ Matt Rajala Rev. 1/14/08 incorporated into the proposed action as design criteria Rev 7/23/08 Based upon impacts from other existing/similar projects, 3/3/07 NI Recreation impacts to casual recreation may result in increased OHV /s/SBonar Rev. use on the new established access roads. 12/12/07 Project as proposed is existing Class IV as identified in the 3/7/07 House Range and Warm Spring RMPs. Class IV VRM Rev. NI Visual Resources objectives note the importance of minimizing impacts /s/SBonar 12/12/07 through location and design by repeating form, color, and Rev. 7/22/08 texture. The BLM Wind Energy Development Program Policies and Best Management Practices require that wind energy 4/10/07 projects shall be developed in a manner that will not Geology / Mineral Rev. NI prevent mineral extraction. The attached Specialist Report /s/ J Mansfield Resources/Energy Production 12/12/07 identifies mining claims, and mineral activities in the area. Rev. 7/22/08 A list of contacts is also included for contact purposes. There should be no cumulative impacts to geology and
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
mineral resources for the same reason.
Based on conversations with the State Paleontologist, Scott Foss, and a basic literature search I have found that: Flagstaff fm – PFYC 3 – Scientifically significant fossils reported elsewhere, because of the lack of reported work in the Fillmore area the overall potential is largely unknown. Orr Ls. – PFYC 2 – occasional Ordovician invertebrate fossils Trippe Ls – PFYC 2 – Middle Cambrian lateral equivalent to the Weeks Fm, fossils could be of interest. WahWah Summit Fm. – PFYC 2 - Middle Cambrian lateral equivalent to the Weeks Fm, fossils could be of interest. Quaternary Alluvium – PFYC 2 – Low potential, but isolated occurrences of Quarternary fauna (ammoth, bison, rodents, etc. is usually of interest when it is found.
The potential to disturb significant fossil resources for this project is low. However, new deposits located by this work could be significant. Due to this the following stipulation is recommended: • The operator shall immediately notify the BLM 3/28/07 PI Paleontology authorized officer of any paleontological /s/ MRajala Rev. 1/18/08 resources discovered as a result of operations Rev 7/23/08 under this authorization. The operator shall suspend all activities in the vicinity of such discovery until notified to proceed by the authorized officer, and shall protect the site from damage or looting. The authorized officer will evaluate, or will have evaluated, such discoveries as soon as possible but not later than 5 working days after being notified. Appropriate measures to mitigate adverse effects to significant paleontological resources will be determined by the authorized officer after consulting with the operator. The operator is responsible for the cost of any investigation necessary for the evaluation and for any mitigation measures. The operator may not be required to suspend operations if activities can avoid further impacts to a discovered site or be continued elsewhere, however, the discovery shall be brought to the attention of the authorized officer as soon as possible and protected from damage or looting. As described, the proposed action would not affect access to public land. Existing roads and trails should be used 2/26/07 NI Lands / Access for travel unless otherwise authorized. During wet road /s/ CStevens Rev 1/14./08 conditions, any ruts deeper than four inches remaining on Rev 7/22/08 the roads from the project would be repaired at the
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
Authorized Officer’s discretion. Road plans and specifications will be reviewed and approved by the BLM engineer prior to construction. Generated trash/debris should be removed from public land and discarded at an authorized facility. Proposed project would be subject to valid prior existing ROWs. Coordinate proposed project with ROW holders and adjacent non-federal landowners. A list of existing ROW holders will be provided to the proponent. The Plan of Development for the project has been updated and includes additional language and BMPs that address all of the requirements above. There would be no impact to fuels or fire management as 2/27/2007 a result of the proposed action. Precautions should be NI Fuels / Fire Management /s/Justin Johnson Rev. taken to prevent any fire ignition with construction or 1/14/08 vehicles. This action will not have a direct or indirect adverse impact on energy development, production, supply and/or distribution. The lands are prospectively valuable 4/10/07 for oil and gas and the BLM wind energy require that Rev. NI Energy Resources wind projects be developed as to not prevent mineral /s/ JMansfield 12/12/07 extraction. The attached staff report outlines oil and gas Rev. 7/22/08 leases in the region and these lessees will need to be coordinated with. . There should be no cumulative impacts to energy resources for the same reason. The construction of the transmission line may bring some 3/28/07 short-term employment opportunities to the area along NI Socio-economics /s/ Matt Rajala Rev. 1/14/08 with associated logistical business. These impacts are not Rev 7/23/08 expected to be substantial within the Fillmore Field Office. The project area is not adjacent to or within any 3/5/07 NP Wild Horses and Burros designated wild horse Herd Management Areas (HMAs) /s/Eric Reid Rev. managed by the Fillmore Field Office. 12/12/07 3/7/07 The BLM wilderness characteristics inventory process did NP Wilderness characteristics /s/SBonar Rev. not identified any wilderness characteristics for this area. 12/12/07 The project would only have impact if during construction, high fire danger were involved. Follow the fire guidelines below during construction. The Holder or its contractors will notify the BLM of any fires and comply with all rules and regulations administered by the BLM concerning the use, prevention and suppression of fires on federal lands, including any fire prevention orders that may be in effect at the time of 3/19/07 NP Prevention/Education (Fire) /s/ WWilding the permitted activity. The Holder or its contractors may Rev. 1/8/08 be held liable for the cost of fire suppression, stabilization and rehabilitation. In the event of a fire, personal safety will be the first priority of the Holder or its contractors. The Holder or its contractors will: a. Operate all internal and external combustion engines on federally managed lands per 36 CFR 261.52, which requires all such engines to be
Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date nation
equipped with a qualified spark arrester that is maintained and not modified. b. Initiate fire suppression actions in the work area to prevent fire spread to or on federally administered lands. c. Carry shovels, water, and fire extinguishers that are rated at a minimum as ABC - 5 pound on all equipment and vehicles. If a fire spreads beyond the suppression capability of workers with these tools, all will cease fire suppression action and leave the area immediately via pre-identified escape routes. d. Notify the Richfield Interagency Fire Center (435) 896-8404 (or 911) immediately of the location and status of any escaped fire. Construction personnel will be trained in basic fire control procedures. Actions have been proposed to Congress through a coalition group to establish the Red Rock Wilderness. NI Other BLM has not identified any wilderness characteristics in /s/ SBonar 12/12/07 this area. This proposal may or may not happen before or after the construction of the proposed transmission line. The proposed route for the transmission line is within a utility corridor identified in the House Range and Warm Springs Resource Area Resource Management Plans. A portion of this corridor is under the airspace of the Utah Test and Training Range. The IPP 500 kV transmission line is already in this utility corridor. The towers on the NI Other /s/ CStevens Rev. 7/22/08 existing IPP transmission line average 125 - 135 feet in height. The towers on this proposed project average 105- 115 feet in height. With one transmission line already extending into the UTTR airspace, a second shorter transmission line that parallels the existing line (250 ft. separation) should be within acceptable limits.
FINAL REVIEW:
Reviewer Title Signature Date Comments
NEPA / Environmental /s/ Matthew Rajala 7/22/2008 Coordinator
Authorized Officer /s/ Nancy J. Allen 7/22/2008
APPENDIX C BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices
BLM WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM POLICIES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)1
A.2 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
The BMPs will be adopted as required elements of project-specific PODs and/or as ROW authorization stipulations. They are categorized by development activity: site monitoring and testing, development of the POD, construction, operation, and decommissioning. The BMPs for development of the POD identify required elements of the POD needed to address potential impacts associated with subsequent phases of development.
A.2.1 Site Monitoring and Testing
• The area disturbed by installation of meteorological towers (i.e., footprint) shall be kept to a minimum.
• Existing roads shall be used to the maximum extent feasible. If new roads are necessary, they shall be designed and constructed to the appropriate standard.
• Meteorological towers shall not be located in sensitive habitats or in areas where ecological resources known to be sensitive to human activities (e.g., prairie grouse) are present. Installation of towers shall be scheduled to avoid disruption of wildlife reproductive activities or other important behaviors.
• Meteorological towers installed for site monitoring and testing shall be inspected periodically for structural integrity.
1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005b. Record of Decision (ROD) for Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments, Attachment A. U.S. Department of the Interior. December 2005.
A.2.2 Plan of Development Preparation
General
• The BLM and operators shall contact appropriate agencies, property owners, and other stakeholders early in the planning process to identify potentially sensitive land uses and issues, rules that govern wind energy development locally, and land use concerns specific to the region.
• Available information describing the environmental and sociocultural conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project shall be collected and reviewed as needed to predict potential impacts of the project.
• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-required notice of proposed construction shall be made as early as possible to identify any air safety measures that would be required.
• To plan for efficient use of the land, necessary infrastructure requirements shall be consolidated wherever possible, and current transmission and market access shall be evaluated carefully.
• The project shall be planned to utilize existing roads and utility corridors to the maximum extent feasible, and to minimize the number and length/size of new roads, lay-down areas, and borrow areas.
• A monitoring program shall be developed to ensure that environmental conditions are monitored during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases. The monitoring program requirements, including adaptive management strategies, shall be established at the project level to ensure that potential adverse impacts of wind energy development are mitigated. The monitoring program shall identify the monitoring requirements for each environmental resource present at the site, establish metrics against which monitoring observations can be measured, identify potential mitigation measures, and establish protocols for incorporating monitoring observations and additional mitigation measures into standard operating procedures and BMPs.
• “Good housekeeping” procedures shall be developed to ensure that during operation the site will be kept clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash or waste, and graffiti; to prohibit scrap heaps and dumps; and to minimize storage yards.
Wildlife and Other Ecological Resources
• Operators shall review existing information on species and habitats in the vicinity of the project area to identify potential concerns.
• Operators shall conduct surveys for federal and/or state-protected species and other species of concern (including special status plant and animal species) within the project area and design the project to avoid (if possible), minimize, or mitigate impacts to these resources.
• Operators shall identify important, sensitive, or unique habitats in the vicinity of the project and design the project to avoid (if possible), minimize, or mitigate impacts to these habitats (e.g., locate the turbines, roads, and ancillary facilities in the least environmentally sensitive areas; i.e., away from riparian habitats, streams, wetlands, drainages, or critical wildlife habitats).
• The BLM will prohibit the disturbance of any population of federal listed plant species.
• Operators shall evaluate avian and bat use of the project area and design the project to minimize or mitigate the potential for bird and bat strikes (e.g., development shall not occur in riparian habitats and wetlands). Scientifically rigorous avian and bat use surveys shall be conducted; the amount and extent of ecological baseline data required shall be determined on a project basis.
• Turbines shall be configured to avoid landscape features known to attract raptors, if site studies show that placing turbines there would pose a significant risk to raptors.
• Operators shall determine the presence of bat colonies and avoid placing turbines near known bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies; in known migration corridors; or in known flight paths between colonies and feeding areas.
• Operators shall determine the presence of active raptor nests (i.e., raptor nests used during the breeding season). Measures to reduce raptor use at a project site (e.g., minimize road cuts, maintain either no vegetation or nonattractive plant species around the turbines) shall be considered.
• A habitat restoration plan shall be developed to avoid (if possible), minimize, or mitigate negative impacts on vulnerable wildlife while maintaining or enhancing habitat values for other species. The plan shall identify revegetation, soil stabilization, and erosion reduction measures that shall be implemented to ensure that all temporary use areas are restored. The plan shall require that restoration occur as soon as possible after completion of activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats.
• Procedures shall be developed to mitigate potential impacts to special status species. Such measures could include avoidance, relocation of project facilities or lay-down areas, and/or relocation of biota.
• Facilities shall be designed to discourage their use as perching or nesting substrates by birds. For example, power lines and poles shall be configured to minimize raptor electrocutions and discourage raptor and raven nesting and perching.
Visual Resources
• The public shall be involved and informed about the visual site design elements of the proposed wind energy facilities. Possible approaches include conducting public forums for disseminating information, offering organized tours of operating wind developments, and using computer simulation and visualization techniques in public presentations.
• Turbine arrays and turbine design shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Design elements to be addressed include visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, nonreflective paints, and prohibition of commercial messages on turbines.
• Other site design elements shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Elements to address include minimizing the profile of the ancillary structures, burial of cables, prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting. Regarding lighting, efforts shall be made to minimize the need for and amount of lighting on ancillary structures.
Roads
• An access road siting and management plan shall be prepared incorporating existing BLM standards regarding road design, construction, and maintenance such as those described in the BLM 9113 Manual (BLM 1985) and the Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (RMRCC 1989) (i.e., the Gold Book).
Ground Transportation
• A transportation plan shall be developed, particularly for the transport of turbine components, main assembly cranes, and other large pieces of equipment. The plan shall consider specific object sizes, weights, origin, destination, and unique handling requirements and shall evaluate alternative transportation approaches. In addition, the process to be used to comply with unique state requirements and to obtain all necessary permits shall be clearly identified.
• A traffic management plan shall be prepared for the site access roads to ensure that no hazards would result from the increased truck traffic and that traffic flow would not be adversely impacted. This plan shall incorporate measures such as informational signs, flaggers when equipment may result in blocked throughways, and traffic cones to identify any necessary changes in temporary lane configuration.
Noise
• Proponents of a wind energy development project shall take measurements to assess the existing background noise levels at a given site and compare them with the anticipated noise levels associated with the proposed project.
Noxious Weeds and Pesticides
• Operators shall develop a plan for control of noxious weeds and invasive species, which could occur as a result of new surface disturbance activities at the site. The plan shall address monitoring, education of personnel on weed identification, the manner in which weeds spread, and methods for treating infestations. The use of certified weed-free mulching shall be required. If trucks and construction equipment are arriving from locations with known invasive vegetation problems, a controlled inspection and cleaning area shall be established to visually inspect construction equipment arriving at the project area and to remove and collect seeds that may be adhering to tires and other equipment surfaces.
• If pesticides are used on the site, an integrated pest management plan shall be developed to ensure that applications would be conducted within the framework of BLM and DOI policies and entail only the use of EPA-registered pesticides. Pesticide use shall be limited to nonpersistent, immobile pesticides and shall only be applied in accordance with label and application permit directions and stipulations for terrestrial and aquatic applications.
Cultural/Historic Resources
• The BLM will consult with Indian Tribal governments early in the planning process to identify issues regarding the proposed wind energy development, including issues related to the presence of cultural properties, access rights, disruption to traditional cultural practices, and impacts to visual resources important to the Tribe(s).
• The presence of archaeological sites and historic properties in the area of potential effect shall be determined on the basis of a records search of recorded sites and properties in the area and/or, depending on the extent and reliability of existing information, an archaeological survey. Archaeological sites and historic properties present in the area of potential effect shall be reviewed to determine whether they meet the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
• When any rights-of-way application includes remnants of a National Historic Trail, is located within the viewshed of a National Historic Trail’s designated centerline, or includes or is within the viewshed of a trail eligible for listing on the NRHP, the operator shall evaluate the potential visual impacts to the trail associated with the proposed project and identify appropriate mitigation measures for inclusion as stipulations in the POD.
• If cultural resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain cultural material have been identified, a cultural resources management plan (CRMP) shall be developed. This plan shall address mitigation activities to be taken for cultural resources found at the site. Avoidance of the area is always the preferred mitigation option. Other mitigation options include archaeological survey and excavation (as warranted) and monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential, but no artifacts were observed during an archaeological survey, monitoring by a qualified archaeologist could be required during all excavation and earthmoving in the high- potential area. A report shall be prepared documenting these activities. The CRMP also shall (1) establish a monitoring program, (2) identify measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3) address the education of workers and the public to make them aware of the consequences of unauthorized collection of artifacts and destruction of property on public land.
Paleontological Resources
• Operators shall determine whether paleontological resources exist in a project area on the basis of the sedimentary context of the area, a records search for past paleontological finds in the area, and/or, depending on the extent of existing information, a paleontological survey.
• If paleontological resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain paleontological material have been identified, a paleontological resources management plan shall be developed. This plan shall include a mitigation plan for collection of the fossils; mitigation could include avoidance, removal of fossils, or monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential but no fossils were observed during survey, monitoring by a qualified paleontologist could be required during all excavation and earthmoving in the sensitive area. A report shall be prepared documenting these activities. The paleontological resources management plan also shall (1) establish a monitoring program, (2) identify measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3) address the education of workers and the public to make them aware of the consequences of unauthorized collection of fossils on public land.
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
• Operators shall develop a hazardous materials management plan addressing storage, use, transportation, and disposal of each hazardous material anticipated to be used at the site. The plan shall identify all hazardous materials that would be used, stored, or transported at the site. It shall establish inspection procedures, storage requirements, storage quantity limits, inventory control, nonhazardous product substitutes, and disposition of excess materials. The plan shall also identify requirements for notices to federal and local emergency response authorities and include emergency response plans.
• Operators shall develop a waste management plan identifying the waste streams that are expected to be generated at the site and addressing hazardous waste determination procedures, waste storage locations, waste-specific management and disposal requirements, inspection procedures, and waste minimization procedures. This plan shall address all solid and liquid wastes that may be generated at the site.
• Operators shall develop a spill prevention and response plan identifying where hazardous materials and wastes are stored on site, spill prevention measures to be implemented, training requirements, appropriate spill response actions for each material or waste, the locations of spill response kits on site, a procedure for ensuring that the spill response kits are adequately stocked at all times, and procedures for making timely notifications to authorities.
Storm Water
• Operators shall develop a storm water management plan for the site to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and prevent off-site migration of contaminated storm water or increased soil erosion.
Human Health and Safety
• A safety assessment shall be conducted to describe potential safety issues and the means that would be taken to mitigate them, including issues such as site access, construction, safe work practices, security, heavy equipment transportation, traffic management, emergency procedures, and fire control.
• A health and safety program shall be developed to protect both workers and the general public during construction, operation, and decommissioning of a wind energy project. Regarding occupational health and safety, the program shall identify all applicable federal and state occupational safety standards; establish safe work practices for each task (e.g., requirements for personal protective equipment and safety harnesses; Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] standard practices for safe use of explosives and blasting agents; and measures for reducing occupational electric and magnetic fields [EMF] exposures); establish fire safety evacuation procedures; and define safety performance standards (e.g., electrical system standards and lightning protection standards). The program shall include a training program to identify hazard training requirements for workers for each task and establish procedures for providing required training to all workers. Documentation of training and a mechanism for reporting serious accidents to appropriate agencies shall be established.
• Regarding public health and safety, the health and safety program shall establish a safety zone or setback for wind turbine generators from residences and occupied buildings, roads, rights-of-ways, and other public access areas that is sufficient to prevent accidents resulting from the operation of wind turbine generators. It shall identify requirements for temporary fencing around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations during construction or decommissioning activities. It shall also identify measures to be taken during the operation phase to limit public access to hazardous facilities (e.g., permanent fencing would be installed only around electrical substations, and turbine tower access doors would be locked).
• Operators shall consult with local planning authorities regarding increased traffic during the construction phase, including an assessment of the number of vehicles per day, their size, and type. Specific issues of concern (e.g., location of school bus routes and stops) shall be identified and addressed in the traffic management plan.
• If operation of the wind turbines is expected to cause significant adverse impacts to nearby residences and occupied buildings from shadow flicker, low-frequency sound, or EMF, site-specific recommendations for addressing these concerns shall be incorporated into the project design (e.g., establishing a sufficient setback from turbines).
• The project shall be planned to minimize electromagnetic interference (EMI) (e.g., impacts to radar, microwave, television, and radio transmissions) and comply with Federal Communications Commission [FCC] regulations. Signal strength studies shall be conducted when proposed locations have the potential to impact transmissions. Potential interference with public safety communication systems (e.g., radio traffic related to emergency activities) shall be avoided.
• The project shall be planned to comply with FAA regulations, including lighting regulations, and to avoid potential safety issues associated with proximity to airports, military bases or training areas, or landing strips.
• Operators shall develop a fire management strategy to implement measures to minimize the potential for a human-caused fire.
A.2.3 Construction
General
• All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the resource-specific management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and implemented throughout the construction phase, as appropriate.
• The area disturbed by construction and operation of a wind energy development project (i.e., footprint) shall be kept to a minimum.
• The number and size/length of roads, temporary fences, lay-down areas, and borrow areas shall be minimized.
• Topsoil from all excavations and construction activities shall be salvaged and reapplied during reclamation.
• All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Reclamation activities shall be undertaken as early as possible on disturbed areas.
• All electrical collector lines shall be buried in a manner that minimizes additional surface disturbance (e.g., along roads or other paths of surface disturbance). Overhead lines may be used in cases where burial of lines would result in further habitat disturbance.
• Operators shall identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce slope instability (such as groundwater conditions, precipitation, earthquake activities, slope angles, and the dip angles of geologic strata). Operators also shall avoid creating excessive slopes during excavation and blasting operations. Special construction techniques shall be used where applicable in areas of steep slopes, erodible soil, and stream channel crossings.
• Erosion controls that comply with county, state, and federal standards shall be applied. Practices such as jute netting, silt fences, and check dams shall be applied near disturbed areas.
Wildlife
• Guy wires on permanent meteorological towers shall be avoided, however, may be necessary on temporary meteorological towers installed during site monitoring and testing.
• In accordance with the habitat restoration plan, restoration shall be undertaken as soon as possible after completion of construction activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats.
• All construction employees shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition, pets shall not be permitted on site during construction.
Visual Resources
• Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by minimizing areas of surface disturbance, controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation.
Roads
• Existing roads shall be used, but only if in safe and environmentally sound locations. If new roads are necessary, they shall be designed and constructed to the appropriate standard and be no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended functions (e.g., traffic volume and weight of vehicles). Excessive grades on roads, road embankments, ditches, and drainages shall be avoided, especially in areas with erodible soils. Special construction techniques shall be used, where applicable. Abandoned roads and roads that are no longer needed shall be recontoured and revegetated.
• Access roads and on-site roads shall be surfaced with aggregate materials, wherever appropriate.
• Access roads shall be located to follow natural contours and minimize side hill cuts.
• Roads shall be located away from drainage bottoms and avoid wetlands, if practicable.
• Roads shall be designed so that changes to surface water runoff are avoided and erosion is not initiated.
• Access roads shall be located to minimize stream crossings. All structures crossing streams shall be located and constructed so that they do not decrease channel stability or increase water velocity. Operators shall obtain all applicable federal and state permits.
• Existing drainage systems shall not be altered, especially in sensitive areas such as erodible soils or steep slopes. Potential soil erosion shall be controlled at culvert outlets with appropriate structures. Catch basins, roadway ditches, and culverts shall be cleaned and maintained regularly.
Ground Transportation
• Project personnel and contractors shall be instructed and required to adhere to speed limits commensurate with road types, traffic volumes, vehicle types, and site-specific conditions, to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow and to reduce wildlife collisions and disturbance and airborne dust.
• Traffic shall be restricted to the roads developed for the project. Use of other unimproved roads shall be restricted to emergency situations.
• Signs shall be placed along construction roads to identify speed limits, travel restrictions, and other standard traffic control information. To minimize impacts on local commuters, consideration shall be given to limiting construction vehicles traveling on public roadways during the morning and late afternoon commute time.
Air Emissions
• Dust abatement techniques shall be used on unpaved, unvegetated surfaces to minimize airborne dust.
• Speed limits (e.g., 25 mph [40 km/h]) shall be posted and enforced to reduce airborne fugitive dust.
• Construction materials and stockpiled soils shall be covered if they are a source of fugitive dust.
• Dust abatement techniques shall be used before and during surface clearing, excavation, or blasting activities.
Excavation and Blasting Activities
• Operators shall gain a clear understanding of the local hydrogeology. Areas of groundwater discharge and recharge and their potential relationships with surface water bodies shall be identified.
• Operators shall avoid creating hydrologic conduits between two aquifers during foundation excavation and other activities.
• Foundations and trenches shall be backfilled with originally excavated material as much as possible. Excess excavation materials shall be disposed of only in approved areas or, if suitable, stockpiled for use in reclamation activities.
• Borrow material shall be obtained only from authorized and permitted sites. Existing sites shall be used in preference to new sites.
• Explosives shall be used only within specified times and at specified distances from sensitive wildlife or streams and lakes, as established by the BLM or other federal and state agencies.
Noise
• Noisy construction activities (including blasting) shall be limited to the least noise- sensitive times of day (i.e., daytime only between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) and weekdays.
• All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. All construction equipment used shall be adequately muffled and maintained.
• All stationary construction equipment (i.e., compressors and generators) shall be located as far as practicable from nearby residences.
• If blasting or other noisy activities are required during the construction period, nearby residents shall be notified in advance.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
• Unexpected discovery of cultural or paleontological resources during construction shall be brought to the attention of the responsible BLM authorized officer immediately. Work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find to avoid further disturbance to the resources while they are being evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures are being developed.
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
• Secondary containment shall be provided for all on-site hazardous materials and waste storage, including fuel. In particular, fuel storage (for construction vehicles and equipment) shall be a temporary activity occurring only for as long as is needed to support construction activities.
• Wastes shall be properly containerized and removed periodically for disposal at appropriate off-site permitted disposal facilities.
• In the event of an accidental release to the environment, the operator shall document the event, including a root cause analysis, appropriate corrective actions taken, and a characterization of the resulting environmental or health and safety impacts. Documentation of the event shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer and other federal and state agencies, as required.
• Any wastewater generated in association with temporary, portable sanitary facilities shall be periodically removed by a licensed hauler and introduced into an existing municipal sewage treatment facility. Temporary, portable sanitary facilities provided for construction crews shall be adequate to support expected on-site personnel and shall be removed at completion of construction activities.
Public Health and Safety
• Temporary fencing shall be installed around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations during construction to limit public access.
A.2.4 Operation
General
• All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the resource-specific management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and implemented throughout the operational phase, as appropriate. These control and mitigation measures shall be reviewed and revised, as needed, to address changing conditions or requirements at the site, throughout the operational phase. This adaptive management approach would help ensure that impacts from operations are kept to a minimum.
• Inoperative turbines shall be repaired, replaced, or removed in a timely manner. Requirements to do so shall be incorporated into the due diligence provisions of the rights-of-way authorization. Operators will be required to demonstrate due diligence in the repair, replacement, or removal of turbines; failure to do so could result in termination of the rights-of-way authorization.
Wildlife
• Employees, contractors, and site visitors shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition, any pets shall be controlled to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife.
• Observations of potential wildlife problems, including wildlife mortality, shall be reported to the BLM authorized officer immediately.
Ground Transportation
• Ongoing ground transportation planning shall be conducted to evaluate road use, minimize traffic volume, and ensure that roads are maintained adequately to minimize associated impacts.
Monitoring Program
• Site monitoring protocols defined in the POD shall be implemented. These will incorporate monitoring program observations and additional mitigation measures into standard operating procedures and BMPs to minimize future environmental impacts.
• Results of monitoring program efforts shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer.
Public Health and Safety
• Permanent fencing shall be installed and maintained around electrical substations, and turbine tower access doors shall be locked to limit public access.
• In the event an installed wind energy development project results in EMI, the operator shall work with the owner of the impacted communications system to resolve the problem. Additional warning information may also need to be conveyed to aircraft with onboard radar systems so that echoes from wind turbines can be quickly recognized.
A.2.5 Decommissioning
General
• Prior to the termination of the rights-of-way authorization, a decommissioning plan shall be developed and approved by the BLM. The decommissioning plan shall include a site reclamation plan and monitoring program.
• All management plans, BMPs, and stipulations developed for the construction phase shall be applied to similar activities during the decommissioning phase.
• All turbines and ancillary structures shall be removed from the site.
• Topsoil from all decommissioning activities shall be salvaged and reapplied during final reclamation.
• All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native shrubs, grasses, and forbs.
• The vegetation cover, composition, and diversity shall be restored to values commensurate with the ecological setting.
APPENDIX D Site-Specific Environmental Protection Measures
General
• MWC will conduct activities associated with the project in a manner that will avoid or minimize degradation of land, water quality, or landscape. In the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the project, MWC will perform its activities in accordance and compliance with applicable air and water quality standards, related facility siting standards, and related permits associated with implementation, including but not limited to: NEPA; the Clean Air Act; Endangered Species Act (ESA); state and federal historic preservation acts; Clean Water Act; and other established federal, state, and local regulations as required by law.
• MWC will schedule and conduct a construction kick-off meeting prior to commencing construction and surface-disturbing activities at the Wind Energy Facility site and on the transmission line corridor. The contractor or agents involved with construction or surface-disturbing activities associated with the project will also attend this conference to review the construction stipulations, including the Plan of Development (POD).
• Prior to construction, supervisory construction personnel will be instructed on the protection of cultural, paleontological and ecological resources. Training materials and briefings shall include, but not be limited to, discussion of the federal ESA, the consequences of noncompliance with this act, identification and values of wildlife and natural plant communities, general behavior and sensitivity to human activities, penalties for violation of state and federal laws (including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), hazardous substance spill prevention and containment measures, review of all required and recommended conservation measures, and reporting requirements.
• The construction contractor will maintain a copy of the authorization and POD, along with BMPS, site-specific mitigation measures and grant terms and conditions on the construction site at all times.
• MWC will survey and clearly mark the centerline and/or exterior limits of the right-of- way, at 200-foot intervals or as determined by the authorized officer. No surface disturbance or construction activity will be allowed within buffer areas, which will be clearly marked as specified by the authorized officer. Any deviation from this requirement will have the prior written approval of the authorized officer. MWC will set center line stakes to identify the location of the proposed road as directed by the authorized officer. Markers will be used to limit access within work and travel areas to restrict construction access from unnecessarily impacting important cultural and environmentally sensitive areas.
• If disturbance must occur outside of the flagged areas, a BLM-approved biologist must survey the area to be impacted prior to disturbance. If sensitive wildlife is found within the area to be disturbed, the BLM Authorized Officer must be notified immediately and prior to disturbance an appropriate course of action will be taken to ensure proper protection.
• MWC will provide notification and will obtain right–of-way permission, as necessary, from operators of pipelines, transmission lines, railroads, and/or State or county roads to be crossed or paralleled by the transmission line route prior to crossing said utilities. Determining the names and contacts for these operators will be the responsibility of MWC. If requested by the BLM, MWC will certify that these contacts have been made and that the required right-of-way information has been provided. Prior to commencing construction, the contractor will notify utility companies with existing utility lines in the vicinity of the project (via the One-Call system or similar utility notification system) for field marking.
• Clearing, grading, and other disturbance of soil and vegetation will be limited to the minimum area required for construction. In most areas, clearing or grading of the transmission line corridor will be significantly less than the proposed temporary work area limits to reduce potential impacts to existing resources. In addition, efforts will be made to overlap right-of-way (ROW) disturbance with previous disturbance areas.
• The holder shall construct, operate, and maintain the facilities, improvements, and structures within the right-of-way in strict conformity with the plan of development. Any relocation, additional construction, or use that is not in accord with the approved plan of development, shall not be initiated without the prior written approval of the authorized officer. Noncompliance with the above will be grounds for an immediate temporary suspension of activities if it constitutes a threat to public health and safety or the environment. The company will be notified of the necessary correction immediately and will be allowed to commence operations as soon as the problem is corrected.
• An independent Compliance Inspection Contractor (CIC), approved by BLM, will be hired to monitor and oversee compliance with the stipulations of this project. The CIC will ensure that the POD, associated plans within the POD, and terms and conditions set forth in the grant are implemented in a consistent and through manner. All questions or concerns regarding compliance shall be directed to the BLM as the lead agency through this third-party compliance contractor. The contractor will also be on-call to construction crews if an unexpected situation develops or any sensitive resources are encountered. Monitors will be hired and trained prior to construction and will be responsible for flagging exclusion zones, on-site monitoring, documentation of compliance violations, coordination with contract compliance inspectors, and preparation of daily project monitoring forms.
• Following facility construction, areas that have been temporarily disturbed by grading or other earth-moving activities will be restored to the original contours of the land and consistent with future operating needs. Reclamation work may consist of recontouring eroded areas, extending waterbars, creating berms, installing rock barriers, establishing vegetation, and applying mulch to provide additional erosion control.
• Seed mixes and seeding methods will be determined by the BLM authorized officer. While additional seed mixes will be identified, a representative seed mix could include the following:
2
Species Native/Non-Native Application Rate (pounds per acre)
Crested wheatgrass non-native 3.00
Smooth brome non-native 2.00
Russian wildrye non-native 1.50
Indian ricegrass native 1.00
Western wheatgrass native 1.00
Palmer penstemon native 0.10
Small burnet non-native 1.00
Four-wing saltbush native 0.10
Lewis flax native 0.50
Forage kochia non-native 1.00
Total 11.2
• Trees, brush, other woody material, and rocks will be placed in designated areas for later use in reclamation. It is MWC’s intention to pull these materials back over disturbed areas following construction to aid in erosion control, create wildlife habitat, and discourage off-road vehicular use of the Wind Energy Facility site and the transmission line corridor. These materials should not be left in large piles, as this will provide habitat for small mammals, which could attract raptors to the WEF.
• Structures and/or ground wire will be marked with highly visible devices where required by governmental agencies (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration).
• All design, material, construction, operation, maintenance, and termination practices will be in accordance with safe and proven engineering practices.
• Work will be done in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Project personnel will be instructed in health and safety procedures and participate in regular safety meetings during construction. Adaptive management will be used to continuously monitor the safety of workers and the public during construction of the project with a goal of zero injuries or accidents.
• MWC will minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements and will promptly repair damaged improvements to their original state or better.
3
• The general contractor will be responsible for implementing the Emergency Response Plan.
• Adaptive management will be used to respond to local recreational, OHV travel, hunting, and other public uses of BLM-administered lands to assure that multiple uses are continued without hazard to the health or safety of either the public using the recreational site or the project operators and workers employed at the site.
• The holder shall designate a representative who shall have the authority to act upon and to implement instructions from the authorized officer. The holder's representative shall be available for communication with the authorized officer when construction or other surface disturbing activities are underway.
• The BLM will require financial bonds for all wind energy development projects on BLM- administered public lands to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the rights-of-way authorization and the requirements of applicable regulatory requirements, including reclamation costs. The amount of the required bond will be determined during the rights-of-way authorization process on the basis of site-specific and project- specific factors.
• Winter Construction
o Snow will be removed from the right-of-way where necessary to provide access to roads, work sites and to expose soils for backfilling and grading. Snow will typically be bladed or pushed off the roads and construction area (but within the right-of-way) with a motor grader, snowplow or dozer. Care will be taken when removing snow to minimize mixing of soil with snow. Tracked equipment used for snow removal operations shall be equipped with shoes to keep the blade two (2) inches off the ground. The holder shall take special precautions where the surface of the ground is uneven and at drainage crossing to ensure that equipment blades do not destroy vegetation.
o In areas where snow fills trenches or holes, the holder will be responsible for removing it to allow visual inspection of the trench or holes prior to installing project facilities and backfilling.
o The holder will backfill trenches with unfrozen soils to the extent practicable to minimize the potential for ditchline settlement resulting from voids between frozen chunks of backfill.
o As directed by the Authorized Officer, all roads shall be winterized by providing a well-drained roadway. This may be achieved by water barring, maintaining drainage, and any additional measures necessary to minimize erosion and other damage to the roadway or the surrounding public lands.
4
Air Quality
• MWC will meet Federal, State, and local emission standards for air quality.
• Concrete batch plant storage piles will be covered or watered to minimize fugitive dust.
• The batch plant will operate under an air permit or Approval Order in compliance with UAC R307-401, which will provide enforceable air pollution mitigation measures to reduce potential air emission impacts.
• The substation back-up generator will comply with applicable Utah and EPA emission standards and Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) and EPA requirements for spill prevention and control.
• Dust control and suppression will be provided throughout the construction period to protect surface soils from wind erosion and minimize fugitive dust from construction activities. Dust control will be accomplished by watering or by the application of a dust suppressant approved by BLM.
• A maximum speed limit of 15 mph during construction will be established within the ROW to reduce the generation of fugitive dust and protect wildlife. On all county roads, county road speed limits will be followed.
• Open bodied trucks transporting materials likely to become airborne, when in motion, will be covered and other stockpiles enclosed.
• Earthen and other materials, which may become airborne, will be promptly removed from paved roads.
• No burning of debris resulting from construction clearing will be allowed at the construction site.
Cultural Resources
• Impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources sites will be avoided or minimized through project design and layout. MWC will adjust work space boundaries to achieve this goal.
• Where eligible sites cannot be avoided, sites will be mitigated in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement for cultural resources and following the treatment plan developed to implement the programmatic agreement.
• Where required by BLM, ground-disturbing activities will be monitored by a qualified, professional archaeologist. If any archaeological evidence is discovered during construction activities, the archaeological monitor will report the discovery to the CIC.
5
• All NRHP-eligible sites will be protected with a 100-foot buffer. The buffer area will be staked and flagged by a qualified archaeologist.
• Any cultural resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered by the holder, or any person working on his behalf, shall be immediately reported to the authorized officer. The holder shall suspend all operations within 300 feet of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the authorized officer. After initial investigation by an archeologist, the buffer may be reduced to 100 feet. Discoveries will be handled as agreed upon in the programmatic agreement.
• All parties will be required to adhere to the Programmatic Agreement among the BLM, SITLA, SHPO, and Milford Wind Corridor LLC, regarding the Milford Wind Corridor Project.
Fire Management
• MWC will implement a Fire Safety Plan which includes measures for prevention and suppression of fire in the project area. Project personnel will be instructed as to individual responsibility in implementation of the plan.
• The appropriate Interagency Fire Center will be notified immediately of the location and status of any escaped fire or 911 will be called. The BLM will be notified of the incident. For Millard County, notify the Central Utah Interagency Fire Center at 435-896-8404. For Beaver and Iron counties, notify the Color Country Interagency Fire Center at 435- 865-4600.
• Operation of internal and external combustion engines on federally managed lands will follow 36 CFR 261.52, which requires such engines to be equipped with a qualified spark arrester that is maintained and not modified.
• When welding, grinding, cutting or conducting other similar, spark-producing work, an area will be chosen that is large enough to contain the sparks and is naturally free of flammable vegetation, or the flammable vegetation will be removed in a manner compliant with the permitted activity. If adequate clearance cannot be made, and area will be wet that was large enough to contain all sparks prior to the activity and periodically throughout the activity to reduce the risk of wildfire ignition. Regardless of clearance, readiness to respond to an ignition at all times will be maintained. In addition, a shovel will be kept per person and at least one fire extinguisher will be on hand during this activity.
• Construction equipment and vehicles will be equipped with approved exhaust mufflers or spark arrestors to prevent accidental wildfires. Construction crews will carry at least one fire extinguisher and shovel to minimize the potential for the spread of wildfires
6
and will comply with the conditions of the applicable Wildland Fire Prevention/Mitigation Clearance for prevention and suppression of fires.
• Fire suppression actions will be initiated in the work area to prevent fire spread to or on federally administered lands. If a fire spreads beyond the capability of workers with the stipulated tools, all will cease fire suppression action and leave the area immediately via pre-identified escape routes.
Hazardous and Solid Wastes
• A Hazardous Materials Management Plan will be implemented to address transportation storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials expected to be used on the project site during construction and operation.
• Hazardous materials usage, storage, and disposal will comply with applicable local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations.
• Hazardous materials will be stored in a manner that provides secondary containment. Where space allows, transfer of hazardous materials will also occur within secondary containment. Personnel will be trained in the proper handling, use, storage, and cleanup of hazardous chemicals used on site.
• Hazardous materials spill mitigation, clean-up, and disposal procedures will be in place, including EPA spill notification quantities and contact information.
• Maintenance of vehicles (oil changes, etc.) will not be conducted on BLM-administered lands. Site maintenance activities will be restricted to authorized locations. • It will be necessary and practical for heavy equipment left on the ROW during construction to be refueled in place. The contractor will implement standard refueling procedures, including spill prevention practices. Each fueling station will be equipped with a spill kit and will be operated consistent with SPCC requirements.
• Fuel trucks will be equipped with automatic shut-off valves and will carry spill kits, and spill protection measures will be in place.
• No personal or light-duty vehicles will be refueled on the transmission line ROW.
• Vehicle drip pans for overnight parking areas will be used.
Land Use
• Structures damaged by MWC, such as terraces, levees, underground drainage systems, irrigation pipelines, canals, culverts, and ditches, will be restored to pre-construction conditions.
7
• Gates on established roads on public lands will be left as found or as designated by the BLM authorized officer. Free and unrestricted public access to and upon the project area will be permitted; however, specific areas designated as "restricted" by the MWC or BLM authorized officer will be closed, and may be locked, for the protection of the public, wildlife, cultural sites, livestock, or facilities under construction within the ROW. The CIC will have a key to all locked areas, should access be required by BLM personnel.
Livestock Grazing
• Wind turbines will not be placed within one-quarter mile of open water sources, such as wildlife guzzlers or stock-watering ponds, unless authorized by BLM. If a water source is impacted, an additional water source may be constructed outside the one-quarter-mile buffer, in consultation with the landowner and livestock permittee.
• The BLM will be notified 15 days prior to construction on an allotment so affected livestock permittees can be contacted.
• All gates within the Cedar City Field Office portion of the project will remain closed during all phases of the project from November 1 – May 15.
• Cattleguards shall be installed when crossing a fence line on all high use access roads within the project area. Cattleguards will meet BLM specifications.
• Cuts or breaks in fences or natural barriers used for livestock control will be temporarily fenced to prevent passage of livestock during construction activities. After construction is completed in that area, the original fence or natural barrier will be reestablished to pre-construction condition.
• Any cut or damaged fences or pipelines to stock watering features will be repaired immediately.
• Revegetation of disturbed areas will be designed on a site-specific basis in consultation with the BLM to maintain or enhance the value of grazing allotments.
• The project will be designed to avoid disruption of the flow of water to stock watering reservoirs and to avoid disturbance that will prevent them from functioning properly.
Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species
• A Noxious Weed Management Plan will be implemented during construction to control, manage, and/or prevent the presence and introduction of noxious weeds and invasive species in disturbed areas on the project site.
8
• State-designated noxious weeds or others listed by the county that are found prior to or during construction will be avoided and/or treated prior to disturbance.
• Any vehicles working off-road in an area of known noxious weed infestation will be washed before leaving the area.
• From March through October, all vehicles which have been used off-road or on other projects will be washed away from public lands before entering the project area. Vehicles which are only traveling to and from the work site and have not entered an area with a known noxious weed infestation will not be required to be washed on a daily basis.
• The ROW will be monitored for invasive species as outlined in the Noxious Weed Management Plan, and weed control measures will be initiated according to BLM policies and procedures upon evidence of invasive species introduction.
• Gravel, sand and other materials brought in for road construction should be weed free to the greatest extent possible.
• Weed control will consist of manual, mechanical, biological, or chemical methods. If herbicides are used on the site, their application will be conducted in consultation with BLM.
• After construction, areas with soil disturbance within the ROW will be surveyed for the presence of noxious weeds. Areas that are infested will be inventoried, mapped (using Global Positioning System [GPS]), and treated. Chemical treatment will be completed during the first growing season following completion of construction to ensure that weed populations are controlled. Noxious weed control will continue on site during the revegetation process and operation phase of the project according to the specifications stipulated in the Noxious Weed Management Plan.
Paleontology
• The operator shall immediately notify the BLM authorized officer of any paleontological resources discovered as a result of operations under this authorization, protect the discovery from damage or looting, and suspend all activities in the vicinity of such discovery until notified to proceed by the authorized officer. The operator is not required to suspend operations if activities can avoid further impacts to a discovered locality or be continued elsewhere.
• The authorized officer will evaluate, or will have evaluated, such discoveries as soon as possible but not later than 10 working days after being notified. Appropriate measures to mitigate adverse effects to important paleontological resources will be determined by
9
the authorized officer after consulting with the operator. Approval for the project to proceed will be granted when recovery of the fossil material and field data is completed.
• The operator is responsible for the cost of any investigation necessary for the evaluation and mitigation of paleontological resources. The operator is not responsible for the cost of recovery outside of the approved area of disturbance, even if the paleontological locality continues outside that area.
Rights-of-way Use
• The project will be subject to valid prior existing ROWs, and its construction and operation will be coordinated with other ROW holders and adjacent non-federal landowners.
• Protection of Survey Monuments: The holder shall protect all survey monuments found within the right-of-way. Survey monuments include, but are not limited to, General Land Office and Bureau of Land Management Cadastral Survey Corners, reference corners, witness points, U.S. Coastal and Geodetic benchmarks and triangulation stations, military control monuments, and recognizable civil (both public and private) survey monuments. In the event of obliteration or disturbance of any of the above, the holder shall immediately report the incident, in writing, to the authorized officer and the respective installing authority if known. Where General Land Office or Bureau of Land Management right-of-way monuments or references are obliterated during operations, the holder shall secure the services of a registered Land surveyor or a Bureau cadastral surveyor to restore the disturbed monuments and references using surveying procedures found in the Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States, latest edition. The holder shall record such survey in the appropriate county and send a copy to the authorized officer. If the Bureau cadastral surveyors or other Federal surveyors are used to restore the disturbed survey monument, the holder shall be responsible for the survey cost.
Soils
• A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared for the Utah stormwater construction permit and erosion control measures will be implemented in areas where surface disturbance and/or slope leave the soil open to wind and water erosion. Erosion control methods may include construction of water diversion structures and site-specific applications of mulch or other water flow dissipation materials as needed to control surface water runoff across disturbed areas.
• Damage to soils, including compaction, rutting, and soil displacement, will be repaired at the BLM Authorized Officer’s discretion.
• During construction, the first 4-6 inches of topsoil will be stockpiled for use during reclamation. If deep soils are available, the holder shall segregate 6-12 inches of topsoil
10
and stockpile accordingly. Stockpiled topsoil shall be seeded to maintain soil integrity using the seedmix contained in this Appendix, unless changed by the Authorized Officer.
• After construction is complete, MWC will implement a reclamation plan to reclaim and revegetate areas temporarily disturbed during construction.
• Soils disturbed by construction activities will be restored in accordance with the reclamation plan and BLM, state, and local requirements. Final site restoration, including reseeding, will occur during the spring or fall following construction to further minimize the potential for erosion.
• Inspections will be conducted, to monitor the success and maintenance of erosion control measures. The monitoring program will identify problem areas and corrective measures to ensure vegetation cover and erosion control.
Transportation and Access
• Roads, including main access roads and roads connecting the turbines, will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the BLM standards found in the 9113 Manual prescribed for a collector-type road, unless otherwise approved by BLM.
• During wet road conditions, the BLM authorized officer will be notified if project activities create any ruts deeper than 4 inches on existing roads. Such ruts will be repaired at the BLM authorized officer’s discretion.
• Water bars will be constructed on permanent access roads to divert runoff to natural drainages. Roadside drainage ditches will be constructed on access roads as needed to reduce water flow and velocity.
• MWC will plan for safe and accessible conditions at roadway crossings and access points during construction and restoration.
• For public safety, appropriate road signs such as "Caution Heavy Truck Traffic" or "Be Prepared to Stop" will be used during construction.
• Flagmen will be used when required by existing law.
• Equipment and material hauling will be performed in such a manner as to prevent damage to areas outside the project and to minimize interference with normal uses of lands crossed.
• Hinged gates will be installed by the company along new access roads wherever a fence line is crossed. Cattleguards may be required if determined necessary to protect human health and safety and livestock.
11
• The company shall not transport equipment over cattleguards beyond manufacturer specifications. Cattleguard requirements will meet specifications identified by the authorized officer.
• Permanent roads and parking areas will be constructed to provide drainage and minimize erosion. Culverts shall be installed if necessary to maintain drainage. Areas to be used for permanent roads and parking will be surfaced with gravel.
• Existing roads will be used to minimize vehicular traffic through undisturbed areas, unless approved by the BLM authorized officer.
• MWC intends to minimize grading and road construction and will use overland paths rather than road construction to access transmission tower locations. Overland travel routes will not be cleared or graded, except as may be required by specific topographic or site constraints.
Vegetation Communities
• Areas temporarily disturbed by construction on BLM-administered lands will be re- vegetated in accordance with the Reclamation Plan. Seeding mixtures and techniques will be developed in consultation with the BLM. Re-vegetation on private lands will occur according to landowner specifications. When broadcast seeding is used, it will be followed by raking and/or harrowing to cover the seed.
• Clearing or grading crane paths and other overland access routes will be limited to the extent necessary to allow for safe and effective vehicle passage.
Vegetation - BLM Sensitive Plant Species
• MWC will avoid or minimize direct impacts to potentially affected special status plant populations in consultation with the BLM.
• If any sensitive plant species that could be affected or disturbed by the project is discovered during the course of construction, ground-disturbing activities that may affect the resource will cease, and the FFO Threatened and Endangered Species Plants Specialist will be notified.
Water Resources
• Construction practices will comply with the Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permit(s) required for the project. The project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure compliance with the UPDES permit.
12
• A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes BMPs to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and to prevent off-site migration of contaminated stormwater or increased soil erosion will be implemented. The construction or maintenance crew foreman will ensure compliance with SWPPP guidelines for spill prevention and response.
• A Spill Prevention and Control Plan (SPCP) will be implemented to ensure protection of surface and ground water resources, such as specific measures for restricting vehicle refueling or maintenance areas to 100 feet from any streambank or wetland, canals, or other drainage features.
• Project facilities will avoid perennial or intermittent streams and wetlands unless approved by the BLM authorized officer.
• Perennial rivers and streams will be crossed at existing roads or bridges unless otherwise authorized. Culverts or bridges will be installed at any points where new permanent access roads cross live streams. Where streams are crossed by temporary roads, dirt fill or culverts will be placed and removed upon completion of construction. Stream channels and washes will be returned to their natural state.
• The transmission line will span surface-water features (springs, rivers, and perennial streams). Construction and maintenance activities will be conducted in a manner that will minimize disturbance to drainage channels, and intermittent or perennial streambanks.
• Concrete trucks will not be washed out on public lands. Concrete will not be disposed of in drains, inlets, stormwater drainages, or watercourses.
Wetlands and Riparian Zones
• Wetlands and riparian zones, beyond those identified in the POD, will be avoided by construction activities unless approved by the BLM authorized officer. The authorized officer must be informed 3-5 days before construction in the wetland or riparian zone so appropriate mitigation measures may be implemented.
• Fuels, pesticides and hazardous materials will be stored away from wetlands and riparian zones.
• Vehicles will not be refueled in or near wetlands and riparian zones.
• All instruction on the labels of herbicides will be followed and only herbicides approved for water or for near water will be used near wetlands and riparian zones.
13
Wildlife
• To conserve wildlife habitat, clearing will be limited to the minimum necessary.
• Appropriate seasonal and spatial buffers shall be placed on all known raptor nests in accordance with Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land use Disturbances (USFWS 2002) and Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah (BLM 2006). All construction related activities will not occur within these buffers if pre-construction monitoring indicates the nests are active, unless a site specific evaluation for active nests is completed prior to construction and if a BLM wildlife biologist, in consultation with USFWS and UDWR, recommends that activities may be permitted within the buffer. The BLM will coordinate with the USFWS and UDWR and have a recommendation within 3-5 business days of notification. Any construction activities authorized within a protective (spatial and seasonal) buffer for raptors will require an on-site monitor. Any indication that activities are adversely affecting the raptor and/or its’ young the on-site monitor will suspend activities and contact the BLM Authorized Officer immediately. Construction may occur within the buffers of inactive nests. Construction activities may commence once monitoring of the active nest site determines that fledglings have left the nest and are no longer dependent on the nest site.
• Wildlife habitat disturbance, loss, and fragmentation will be minimized by locating the transmission line adjacent to the existing IPP transmission line corridor and by using existing access roads unless approved by the BLM authorized officer.
• No nests (active or inactive) will be removed from the WEF or transmission line unless authorized by the BLM, who will consult with USFWS and UDWR. Inactive nests (as determined by BLM) may be removed if the nest is interfering with operation of the WEF or transmission line and will be done in compliance with USFWS and APLIC Avian Protection Plan Guidelines, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land use Disturbances, and Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah.
• Guy wires on meteorological towers must be fitted with BLM-approved guy wire markers at sufficient spacing to ensure visibility, and appropriate fencing will be installed around guy wire anchors if determined necessary by the authorized officer.
• The ROW will be configured to avoid high quality habitats and minimize habitat fragmentation.
• Access roads will be designated to minimize habitat disturbance; vehicles will be kept on access roads and vehicle traffic through undisturbed areas will be minimized.
• Night-time travel will be minimized so as to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions with wildlife, especially kit fox, which is a nocturnal species.
14
• To avoid the potential for mortality and harassment of wildlife, firearms or pets will be prohibited at work areas. Firearms carried by authorized security and law enforcement personnel are exempt from this term and condition.
• A litter control program will be implemented to reduce the attractiveness of project sites to opportunistic predators such as common ravens, coyotes, and kit fox. All domestic trash will be promptly placed in covered containers which will be removed from the work site on a regular basis for disposal at an authorized facility. A Waste Management Plan for non-hazardous wastes resulting from construction and operation will be implemented.
• Use of pesticides shall comply with applicable Federal and state laws. Pesticides shall be used only in accordance with their registered uses and within limitations imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. Prior to the use of pesticides, MWC shall obtain from the authorized officer written approval of a plan showing the type and quantity of material to be used, pest(s) to be controlled, method of application location of storage and disposal of containers and any other information deemed necessary by the authorized officer. Pesticides shall not be permanently stored on public lands.
• MWC will minimize ground-disturbing construction activities during the bird nesting season (March to September). If ground-disturbing activities occur during the breeding season, the area will be surveyed for nests and destruction of nests avoided if nests are found. If nests are found, and cannot be avoided, consultation will occur between MWC, BLM, UDWR and USFWS to determine species specific measures to mitigate the disturbance to the nesting species.
• To protect birds and bats, an Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan will be used to collect and evaluate information from post-construction bird and bat fatality monitoring. MWC will provide the monitoring results to BLM and consult with BLM regarding potential management decisions regarding unanticipated impacts to wildlife. This plan is contained in Appendix L.
• All pipes (greater than 4 inches in diameter), culverts, etc. shall be capped or checked prior to removal for kit fox. All excavated holes and trenches over 2 feet deep shall be covered nightly with secured plywood or similar material or, fenced or, escape ramps shall be installed using earthen fill or, sides should be graded so that wildlife can escape without becoming entrapped.
• Over the term of the authorization for the Milford Wind Corridor WEF and associated transmission line, it is possible that information regarding a plant or animal species may change. If an occurrence of a currently listed species changes or a species (plant or animal) be proposed for listing, officially listed as threatened or endangered, or becomes a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the BLM would notify the holder if such information could impact the operational, maintenance, and decommissioning activities. Should it be determined by the BLM that the operation, maintenance, and
15
decommissioning activities could adversely affect a federally listed ESA species, consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be initiated.
• Fences shall be constructed according to BLM standards, including sufficient clearance to allow passage of pronghorn. Wire fences will be four wires with the bottom wire smooth and the others barbed. Wire spacing, from the ground up, will be 16, 6, 6, and 12 inches, respectively, not to exceed 40 inches in height. Metal fence posts with white tips will be used for visibility and to minimize perch locations for raptors. In areas of high wildlife migration, new fence wires will be flagged during construction to be conspicuous. Post spacing, number or stays, etc. will be determined based on site conditions
Special Status Wildlife Species
• If direct impact to active burrows or dens of a special status species is necessary, it will occur outside critical breeding periods according to species biology, unless approved by the BLM authorized officer.
• Physical destruction of known kit fox or burrowing owl burrows that were active as a reproductive burrow in 2008 will be avoided wherever possible. No other burrows, regardless of activity classification, will be destroyed unnecessarily.
• Burrowing owl burrows previously identified as active within one-quarter-mile of ground disturbing activities will be avoided unless approved by the BLM authorized officer. If during the breeding season an active burrowing owl burrow is discovered within one-quarter-mile of ground disturbance activities, a qualified biologist will monitor behavior of the birds to determine their response to the construction activities.
• Onsite monitors, approved by the BLM will be used to determine the presence and activity of special status species during construction. MWC will provide a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities and MWC will attempt to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts through scheduling of construction activities in consultation with BLM. Prior to the commencement of any ground (vegetation/soil) disturbing activities all sensitive wildlife resource information identified during 2006-2008 pre-construction surveys will be identified and presented to the monitors. This information will be used strictly for the location and identification of areas that were identified as having sensitive biological resources to ensure proper protection is implemented. On-site Biological Resource Monitors will be present during all phases of construction, especially where sensitive wildlife resources have been identified and will notify the BLM Authorized Officer immediately upon location of the presence of a sensitive wildlife species within the construction area. The BLM will consult with the USFWS and UDWR regarding appropriate actions to be taken.
16
APPENDIX E GAP Land Cover Descriptions
GAP Land Cover Descriptions
Land Ecological Ecology Dominant Plant Species Cover System/ Class Land Cover Type Grassland/ Intermountain Lowland and upland areas. Dominant perennial bunch grasses Herbaceous Basins Semi- May occupy swales, playas, and shrubs all very drought- Desert mesatops, plateau parks, resistant. Dominated or codominated Grassland alluvial flats, and plains, by Achnatherum hymenoides, (S090)* but sites are typically xeric. Aristida spp., Bouteloua gracilis, Substrates often well- Hesperostipa comata, Muhlenbergia drained sandy or loamy- sp., or Pleuraphis jamesii. May textured soils derived from include scattered shrubs and dwarf sedimentary parent shrubs of Artemisia, Atriplex, materials but may include Coleogyne, Ephedra, Gutierrezia, or fine-textured soils derived Krascheninnikovia lanata. from igneous and metamorphic rocks. Intermountain Typically at lower Typically dominated by grasses (>25 Basins Semi- elevations on alluvial fans percent cover), with an open shrub Desert Shrub- and flats with moderate to layer. Characteristic grasses include Steppe deep soils. General aspect Achnatherum hymenoides, (S079)* may be either open Bouteloua gracilis, Distichlis spicata, shrubland with patchy Hesperostipa comata, Pleuraphis grasses or patchy open jamesii, Poa secunda, and herbaceous layer. Sporobolus airoides. Woody layer Disturbance may be often a mixture of shrubs and dwarf important in maintaining shrubs, including Atriplex canescens, the woody component. Artemisia tridentata, Microphytic crust is very Chrysothamnus greenei, important in some stands. Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus, Ephedra spp., Ericameria nauseosa, Gutierrezia sarothrae, and Krascheninnikovia lanata. Artemisia tridentata may be present but does not dominate. Scrub/ Intermountain Open-canopied Typically open to moderately dense Shrub Basins Mixed shrublands of typically shrubland composed of Atriplex Salt Desert saline basins, alluvial confertifolia, Atriplex canescens, Scrub slopes, and plains. Atriplex polycarpa, and/or Atriplex (S065)* Substrates often saline spinifera. Other shrubs present to and calcareous, medium- codominant may include Artemisia to fine-textured, alkaline tridentata ssp. wyomingensis, soils, but include some Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus, coarser-textured soils. Ericameria nauseosa, Ephedra nevadensis, Grayia spinosa, Krascheninnikovia lanata, Lycium Land Ecological Ecology Dominant Plant Species Cover System/ Class Land Cover Type spp., Picrothamnus desertorum, or Tetradymia spp. Sarcobatus vermiculatus generally absent; if present, not codominant. Herbaceous layer sparse to moderately dense and dominated by perennial grasses such as Achnatherum hymenoides, Bouteloua gracilis, Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus, Pascopyrum smithii, Pleuraphis jamesii, Pleuraphis rigida, Poa secunda, or Sporobolus airoides. Various forbs also present. Intermountain Soils typically deep, well- Dominated by Artemisia tridentata Basins Big drained, and non-saline. ssp. tridentata and/or Artemisia Sagebrush tridentata ssp. wyomingensis. Shrubland Scattered (S054)* Juniperus spp., Sarcobatus vermiculatus, and Atriplex spp. may be present. Ericameria nauseosa, Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus, Purshia tridentata, or Symphoricarpos oreophilus may codominate disturbed stands. Perennial herbaceous components typically contribute <25 percent of vegetative cover. Common grasses include Achnatherum hymenoides, Bouteloua gracilis, Elymus lanceolatus, Festuca idahoensis, Hesperostipa comata, Leymus cinereus, Pleuraphis jamesii, Pascopyrum smithii, Poa secunda, or Pseudoroegneria spicata. Intermountain Dry flats and plains, Dominated by Artemisia nova (mid Basins Xeric alluvial fans, rolling hills, and low elevations) or Artemisia Mixed rocky hillslopes, saddles, arbuscula (higher elevation) and Sagebrush and ridges. Sites dry, may be codominated by Artemisia Shrubland often exposed to tridentata ssp. wyomingensis or (S055)* desiccating winds, with Chrysothamnus typically shallow, rocky, viscidiflorus. Other shrubs may non-saline soils. include Atriplex confertifolia, Ephedra spp., Ericameria spp., Grayia spinosa, Lycium shockleyi, Picrothamnus desertorum, Sarcobatus vermiculatus, and Land Ecological Ecology Dominant Plant Species Cover System/ Class Land Cover Type Tetradymia spp. Herbaceous layer likely sparse and composed of perennial bunch grasses such as Achnatherum hymenoides, Achnatherum speciosum, Achnatherum thurberianum, Elymus elymoides, or Poa secunda. Woody Intermountain Typically occurs near Usually occurs as a mosaic of Wetland Basins drainages on stream multiple communities, with open to Greasewood terraces and flats or may moderately dense shrublands Flat form rings around more dominated or codominated by (S096)* sparsely vegetated playas. Sarcobatus vermiculatus. Atriplex Sites typically have saline canescens, Atriplex confertifolia, or soils, a shallow water Krascheninnikovia lanata may be table, and flood present to codominant. Community intermittently but remain often surrounded by mixed salt dry for most desert scrub. Herbaceous layer, if growing seasons. The present, usually dominated by water table remains high grasses, including Sporobolus enough to maintain airoides, Distichlis spicata (where vegetation, despite salt water remains ponded the longest), accumulations. or Eleocharis palustris. Evergreen Colorado Dry mountains and Pinus edulis and/or Juniperus Forest Plateau foothills on warm, dry osteosperma dominate tree canopy. Pinyon- sites on mountain slopes, Juniperus scopulorum may Juniper mesas, plateaus, and codominate or replace Juniperus Woodland ridges. Severe climatic osteosperma at higher elevations. (S039)* events , such as frosts and Understory layers variable and may drought, during the be dominated by shrubs or grasses or growing seasonare may be absent. Associated species include limit pinyon-juniper Arctostaphylos patula, Artemisia woodlands to relatively tridentata, Cercocarpus intricatus, narrow altitudinal belts Cercocarpus montanus, Coleogyne on mountainsides. Soils ramosissima, Purshia stansburiana, vary from stony, cobbly, Purshia tridentata, Quercus gravelly sandy loams to gambelii, Bouteloua gracilis, clay loam or clay. Pleuraphis jamesii, or Poa fendleriana. Barren Intermountain Barren, intermittently Characteristic species may include Lands Basins Playa flooded areas with sparse Allenrolfea occidentalis, Sarcobatus (S015)* vegetation (generally <10 vermiculatus, Grayia spinosa, percent plant cover). Puccinellia lemmonii, Leymus Water is prevented from cinereus, Distichlis spicata, and/or percolating through the Atriplex spp. soil by an impermeable soil subhorizon and left to evaporate. Salt crusts Land Ecological Ecology Dominant Plant Species Cover System/ Class Land Cover Type common throughout, with small saltgrass beds in depressions and sparse shrubs around margins. Soil salinity varies greatly with soil moisture and greatly affects species composition. Altered or Invasive Areas dominated by Avena spp., Bromus spp., and/or Disturbed Annual introduced annual Schismus spp Grassland grasses. (D08)* Invasive Areas dominated by Agropyron cristatum, Bromus Perennial introduced perennial inermis, Eragrostis lehmannianna, Grassland grasses. Pennisetum spp., Poa bulbosa, P. (D06)* pratensis, and/or Thinopyrum intermedium. Source: USGS National Gap Analysis Program. 2005. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project— Land Cover Descriptions. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University.
APPENDIX F Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines
APPENDIX G Wildlife Species Observed within the Milford Wind Corridor Project Area
Wildlife Species Observed Within the Proposed Milford Wind Corridor Project Area
Scientific Name Common Name Class Status BIRDS Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Aves Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated Swift Aves Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Aves Amphispiza belli Sage Sparrow Aves PIF Amphispiza bilineata Black-throated Sparrow Aves Anas crecca Green-winged Teal Aves Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Aves BMC Anthus rubescens American Pipit Aves Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Aves BMC Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Aves Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl Aves SC, BMC Branta canadensis Canada Goose Aves Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Aves Buteo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk Aves Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk Aves SC, PIF, BMC Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk Aves BMC Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Aves Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Aves Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Willet Aves Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Aves Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow Aves Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Aves Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Aves BMC Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Aves Corvus corax Common Raven Aves Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler Aves Eremphila alpestris Horned Lark Aves Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird Aves Falco columbarius Merlin Aves Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon Aves BMC Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Aves SC, BMC Falco sparverius American Kestrel Aves Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Aves Icterus bullockii Bullock's Oriole Aves Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Aves BMC Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Aves Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Aves Myadestes townsendi Townsend's Solitaire Aves Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew Aves SC, PIF, BMC Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivary's Warbler Aves Oreoscoptes montanus Sage Thrasher Aves Scientific Name Common Name Class Status Pandion haliaetus Osprey Aves Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow Aves Passerina caerulea Blue Grosbeak Aves Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American White Pelican Aves SC, PIF Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow Aves Pica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie Aves Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed Towhee Aves Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis Aves Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow Aves Recurvirostra americana American Avocet Aves Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren Aves Sayornis saya Say's Phoebe Aves Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed Hummingbird Aves PIF Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird Aves Spizella atrogularis Black-chinned Sparrow Aves Spizella breweri Brewer's Sparrow Aves PIF, BMC Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow Aves Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow Aves Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Aves Sturnus vulgaris European Starling Aves Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Aves Turdus migratorius American Robin Aves Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird Aves Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Aves BMC Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow Aves MAMMALS Ammospermophilus leucurus White-tailed antelope squirrel Mammalia Antilocapra americana Pronghorn Mammalia Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat Mammalia Canis latrans Coyote Mammalia Dipodomys sp. Kangaroo rat Mammalia Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat Mammalia Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat Mammalia Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat Mammalia SC Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit Mammalia Myotis ciliolabrum Western small-footed myotis Mammalia Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis Mammalia Myotis lucifugus Little brown myotis Mammalia Neotoma sp. Packrat Mammalia Nyctinomops macrotis Big free-tailed bat Mammalia SC Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer Mammalia Parastrellus hesperus Western pipistrelle Mammalia Peromyscus sp. Deer mouse Mammalia Spermophilus lateralis Golden-mantled ground squirrel Mammalia Spermophilus mollis Piute ground squirrel Mammalia Sylvilagus sp. Cottontail Mammalia Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian free-tailed bat Mammalia Tamias (Neotamias) sp. Chipmunk Mammalia Scientific Name Common Name Class Status Taxidea taxus Badger Mammalia Thomomys sp. Pocket gopher Mammalia Vulpes macrotis Kit fox Mammalia SC REPTILES Cnemidophorus tigris Western whiptail Reptilia Crotalus oreganus lutosus Great Basin rattlesnake Reptilia Crotaphytus bicinctores Great Basin collared lizard Reptilia Eumeces skiltonianus Western skink Reptilia Gambelia wislizenii Long-nosed leopard lizard Reptilia Masticophis taeniatus Striped whipsnake Reptilia Phrynosoma hernandesi Greater short-horned lizard Reptilia Phrynosoma platyrhinos Desert horned lizard Reptilia Pituophis catenifer Gophersnake (Bullsnake) Reptilia Sceloporus graciosus Common sagebrush lizard Reptilia Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard Reptilia Uta stansburiana Common sideblotched lizard Reptilia INVERTEBRATES Danaus plexippus Monarch Insecta Elateridae (Family) Click beetle Insecta Hadrurus arizonensis Giant desert hairy scorpion Insecta Papilio zelicaon Anise swallowtail Insecta Pontia beckerii Becker's white Insecta Pontia occidentalis Western white Insecta Popillia japonica Japanese beetle Insecta Vanessa atalanta Red admiral Insecta Vanessa cardui Painted lady Insecta Latrodectus hesperus Black widow Arachnida
SC Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Wildlife Species of Concern PIF Utah Partners in Flight priority species BMC USFWS Bird of Management Concern
APPENDIX H Utah Sensitive Species
State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources
Utah Sensitive Species List
December 14, 2007
This list has been prepared pursuant to Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Administrative Rule R657-48. By rule, wildlife species that are federally listed, candidates for federal listing, or for which a conservation agreement is in place automatically qualify for the Utah Sensitive Species List. The additional species on the Utah Sensitive Species List, “wildlife species of concern,” are those species for which there is credible scientific evidence to substantiate a threat to continued population viability. It is anticipated that wildlife species of concern designations will identify species for which conservation actions are needed, and that timely and appropriate conservation actions implemented on their behalf will preclude the need to list these species under the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act. Please see Appendix A for the rationale behind each wildlife species of concern designation.
Utah Sensitive Species List – December 14, 2007 2 of 7
Utah Sensitive Species List
Fishes
Federal Candidate Species (None)
Federally Threatened Species Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (introduced) Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi
Federally Endangered Species Humpback Chub Gila cypha Bonytail Gila elegans Virgin Chub Gila seminuda Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus June Sucker Chasmistes liorus Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus
Conservation Agreement Species Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii utah Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus Virgin spinedace Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis Least Chub Iotichthys phlegethontis Roundtail Chub Gila robusta Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis
Wildlife Species of Concern Northern Leatherside Chub Lepidomeda copei Southern Leatherside Chub Lepidomeda aliciae Desert Sucker Catostomus clarkii Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri Bear Lake Whitefish Prosopium abyssicola Bonneville Cisco Prosopium gemmifer Bonneville Whitefish Prosopium spilonotus Bear Lake Sculpin Cottus extensus
See Appendix A for the rationale behind each wildlife species of concern designation. Utah Sensitive Species List – December 14, 2007 3 of 7
Utah Sensitive Species List
Amphibians
Federal Candidate Species Relict Leopard Frog (extirpated) Rana onca
Federally Threatened Species (None)
Federally Endangered Species (None)
Conservation Agreement Species Columbia Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris
Wildlife Species of Concern Western Toad Bufo boreas Arizona Toad Bufo microscaphus Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus
See Appendix A for the rationale behind each wildlife species of concern designation. Utah Sensitive Species List – December 14, 2007 4 of 7
Utah Sensitive Species List
Reptiles
Federal Candidate Species (None)
Federally Threatened Species Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii
Federally Endangered Species (None)
Conservation Agreement Species (None)
Wildlife Species of Concern Zebra-tailed Lizard Callisaurus draconoides Western Banded Gecko Coleonyx variegatus Desert Iguana Dipsosaurus dorsalis Gila Monster Heloderma suspectum Common Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater Desert Night Lizard Xantusia vigilis Sidewinder Crotalus cerastes Speckled Rattlesnake Crotalus mitchellii Mojave Rattlesnake Crotalus scutulatus Cornsnake Elaphe guttata Smooth Greensnake Opheodrys vernalis Western Threadsnake Leptotyphlops humilis
See Appendix A for the rationale behind each wildlife species of concern designation. Utah Sensitive Species List – December 14, 2007 5 of 7
Utah Sensitive Species List
Birds
Federal Candidate Species Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Federally Threatened Species Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida
Federally Endangered Species California Condor (experimental) Gymnogyps californianus Whooping Crane (extirpated) Grus americana Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus
Conservation Agreement Species Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles Gunnison Sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus
Wildlife Species of Concern Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Black Swift Cypseloides niger Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus
See Appendix A for the rationale behind each wildlife species of concern designation. Utah Sensitive Species List – December 14, 2007 6 of 7
Utah Sensitive Species List
Mammals
Federal Candidate Species (None)
Federally Threatened Species Utah Prairie-dog Cynomys parvidens Brown/Grizzly Bear (extirpated) Ursus arctos Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis
Federally Endangered Species Black-footed Ferret (experimental, non-essential Mustela nigripes in Duchesne and Uintah counties) Gray Wolf (extirpated) Canis lupus
Conservation Agreement Species (None)
Wildlife Species of Concern Preble’s Shrew Sorex preblei Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum Allen’s Big-eared Bat Idionycteris phyllotis Western Red Bat Lasiurus blossevillii Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes Big Free-tailed Bat Nyctinomops macrotis Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Gunnison’s Prairie-dog Cynomys gunnisoni White-tailed Prairie-dog Cynomys leucurus Silky Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavus Dark kangaroo Mouse Microdipodops megacephalus Mexican Vole Microtus mexicanus Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis
See Appendix A for the rationale behind each wildlife species of concern designation. Utah Sensitive Species List – December 14, 2007 7 of 7
Utah Sensitive Species List
Mollusks
Federal Candidate Species Ogden rocky Mountainsnail Oreohelix peripherica wasatchensis
Fat-whorled Pondsnail Stagnicola bonnevillensis
Federally Threatened Species (None)
Federally Endangered Species Kanab Ambersnail Oxyloma kanabense Desert Valvata (extirpated) Valvata utahensis
Conservation Agreement Species (None)
Wildlife Species of Concern Southern Tightcoil Ogaridiscus subrupicola Eureka Mountainsnail Oreohelix eurekensis Lyrate Mountainsnail Oreohelix haydeni Brian Head Mountainsnail Oreohelix parawanensis Deseret Mountainsnail Oreohelix peripherica Yavapai Mountainsnail Oreohelix yavapai Cloaked Physa Physa megalochlamys Utah Physa Physella utahensis Wet-rock Physa Physella zionis Longitudinal Gland Pyrg Pyrgulopsis anguina Smooth Glenwood Pyrg Pyrgulopsis chamberlini Desert Springsnail Pyrgulopsis deserta Otter Creek Pyrg Pyrgulopsis fusca Hamlin Valley Pyrg Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis carinate Glenwood Pyrg Pyrgulopsis inopinata Ninemile Pyrg Pyrgulopsis nonaria Bifid Duct Pyrg Pyrgulopsis peculiaris Bear Lake Springsnail Pyrgulopsis pilsbryana Black Canyon Pyrg Pyrgulopsis plicata Sub-globose Snake Pyrg Pyrgulopsis saxatilis Southern Bonneville Pyrg Pyrgulopsis transversa Northwest Bonneville Pyrg Pyrgulopsis variegata California Floater Anodonta californiensis Western Pearlshell Margaritifera falcata
See Appendix A for the rationale behind each wildlife species of concern designation. APPENDIX I Utah Partners in Flight Priority Avian Species
Utah Partners in Flight Priority Avian Species
Common Name Scientific Name
Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
Abert’s towhee Pipilo aberti
American avocet Recurvirostra americana
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus
Lucy’s warbler Vermivora luciae
Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus
American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Virginia’s warbler Vermivora viginiae
Gray vireo Vireo vicinior
Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii
Black rosy-finch Leucosticte atrata
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus
Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus
Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri
Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens
Black swift Cypseloides niger
Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus
Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus
Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli
Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii
Source: Parrish et al. 2002
APPENDIX J U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Management Concern
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Management Concern
USFWS Birds of Management Concern Common Name Genus Species Subspecies Qualifiera Statusb Designationc Albatross Black-footed Phoebastria nigripes BMC BCC/N Albatross Laysan Phoebastria immutabilis BCR 67 & 68 pops only BMC BCC/BCR Albatross Short-tailed Phoebastria albatrus E BMC T/E Anhinga Anhinga Anhinga C C Ani Groove-billed Crotophaga sulcirostris C C Ani Smooth-billed Crotophaga ani Region 4(a) BMC BCC/R Auklet Cassin's Ptychoramphus aleuticus BCR 32 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Auklet Cassin's Ptychoramphus aleuticus except BCR 32 pop C C Auklet Crested Aethia cristatella C C Auklet Least Aethia pusilla C C Auklet Parakeet Aethia psittacula C C Auklet Rhinoceros Cerorhinca monocerata C C Auklet Whiskered Aethia pygmaea BMC BCC/N Avocet American Recurvirostra americana BCR 9 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Avocet American Recurvirostra americana except BCR 9 pop C C Beardless-Tyrannulet Northern Camptostoma imberbe Region 2 BMC BCC/R Becard Rose-throated Pachyramphus aglaiae gravis Region 2 BMC BCC/R Bittern American Botaurus lentiginosus Region 3 pop only BMC BCC/R Bittern American Botaurus lentiginosus except Region 3 pop C C Bittern Least Ixobrychus exilis C C Blackbird Brewer's Euphagus cyanocephalus C C/N Blackbird Red-winged Agelaius phoeniceus C C/N Blackbird Rusty Euphagus carolinus Region 3 pop only BMC BCC/R Blackbird Rusty Euphagus carolinus except Region3 pops C C/N Blackbird Tricolored Agelaius tricolor BMC BCC/N Blackbird Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus C C/N Blackbird Yellow-shouldered Agelaius xanthomus E BMC T/E Black-Hawk Common Buteogallus anthracinus Region 2 BMC BCC/R Bluebird Eastern Sialia sialis C C Bluebird Mountain Sialia currucoides C C Bluebird Western Sialia mexicana C C Bobolink Dolichonyz oryzivorus Regions 3 & 6 only BMC BCC/R Booby Blue-footed Sula nebouxii C C Booby Brown Sula leucogaster Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Booby Brown Sula leucogaster except Region 4(b) pop C C Booby Masked Sula dactylatra dactylatra Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Booby Masked Sula dactylatra except Region 4(b) pop C C Booby Red-footed Sula sula sula Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Booby Red-footed Sula sula except Region 4(b) pop C C Brambling Fringilla montifringilla C C Brant (Atlantic) Branta bernicla hrota Western Atlantic pop BMC GBBDC Brant (Black) Branta bernicla nigricans Eastern Pacific pop BMC GBBDC Brant (Gray-bellied) Branta bernicla hrota & nigricans Canadian High Arctic pop BMC GBBDC Bufflehead Bucephala albeola BMC GBADC Bullfinch Puerto Rican Loxigilla portoricensis C C Bunting Indigo Passerina cyanea C C Bunting Lark Calamospiza melanocorys Region 2 pop only BMC BCC/R Bunting Lark Calamospiza melanocorys except Region 2 pop C C Bunting Lazuli Passerina amoena C C Bunting McKay's Plectrophenax hyperboreus BMC BCC/N Bunting Painted Passerina ciris BMC BCC/N Bunting Snow Plectrophenax nivalis C C Bunting Varied Passerina versicolor Region 2 BMC BCC/R Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus C C Canvasback Aythya valisineria BMC GBBDC Caracara Crested (Audubon's) Caracara plancus audubonii T BMC T/E Cardinal Northern Cardinalis cardinalis C C Carib Green-throated Eulampis holosericeus C C Catbird Gray Dumetella carolinensis C C Chat Yellow-breasted Icteria virens C C BCR 28 (Southern Chickadee Black-capped Poecile atricapilla practicus Blueridge) pop only BMC BCC/BCR except BCR 28 (Southern Chickadee Black-capped Poecile atricapillus Blueridge) pop C C Chickadee Boreal Poecile hudsonicus C C Chickadee Carolina Poecile carolinensis C C Chickadee Chestnut-backed Poecile rufescens C C Chickadee Gray-headed Poecile cinctus C C Chickadee Mexican Poecile sclateri C C Chickadee Mountain Poecile gambeli C C Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis BMC BCC/N Condor California Gymnogyps californianus E BMC T/E Coot American Fulica americana BMC GBADC Coot Caribbean Fulica caribaea Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Coot Hawaiian Fulica alai E BMC T/E Cormorant Brandt's Phalacrocorax penicillatus C C Cormorant Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus auritus Interior pop OA OA Cormorant Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus auritus NE Atlantic pop OA OA Cormorant Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus floridanus Florida pop OA OA Cormorant Double-crested Phalacrocorax auritus C C Cormorant Great Phalacrocorax carbo C C Cormorant Neotropic Phalacrocorax brasilianus C C Cormorant Pelagic Phalacrocorax pelagicus C C Cormorant Red-faced Phalacrocorax urile BCRs 1 & 2 BMC BCC/BCR Cormorant Red-faced Phalacrocorax urile C C Cowbird Bronzed Molothrus aeneus C C/N Cowbird Brown-headed Molothrus ater C C/N Cowbird Shiny Molothrus bonariensis C C/N Crake Yellow-breasted Porzana flaviventer Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R canadensis, Crane Sandhill Grus canadensis rowani, & tabida Mid-Continent pop BMC GBADC Crane Sandhill Grus canadensis tabida Rocky Mountain pop BMC GBADC except pulla ssp & hunted Crane Sandhill Grus canadensis pops C C Crane Sandhill (Mississippi) Grus canadensis pulla E BMC T/E Crane Whooping Grus americana E BMC T/E Creeper Brown Certhia americana C C BCR 28 (Southern Crossbill Red Loxia curvirostra bendirei Appalachians) pop only BMC BCC/BCR Crossbill Red Loxia curvirostra C C Crossbill White-winged Loxia leucoptera C C Crow American Corvus brachyrhynchos C C Crow Fish Corvus ossifragus C C Crow Hawaiian Corvus hawaiiensis E BMC T/E Crow Northwestern Corvus caurinus C C Crow Tamaulipas Corvus imparatus C C Crow White-necked Corvus leucognaphalus E BMC T/E Cuckoo Black-billed Coccyzus erythropthalmus BMC BCC/N Cuckoo Mangrove Coccyzus minor Region 4(a) BMC BCC/R Region 1 & 2 (Western) Cuckoo Yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus pops only BMC BCC/R except Region 1 & 2 Cuckoo Yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus (Western) pops C C Curlew Bristle-thighed Numenius tahitiensis BMC BCC/N Curlew Eskimo Numenius borealis E BMC T/E Curlew Long-billed Numenius americanus BMC BCC/N Dickcissel Spiza americana BMC BCC/N Dipper American Cinclus mexicanus C C Dove Inca Columbina inca C C Dove Mourning Zenaida macroura Western pop BMC GBBDC Dove Mourning Zenaida macroura Central pop BMC GBADC Dove Mourning Zenaida macroura Eastern pop BMC GBADC Dove White-tipped Leptotila verreauxi BMC GBADC Dove White-winged Zenaida asiatica BMC GBADC Dove Zenaida Zenaida aurita BMC GBADC Dovekie Alle alle C C Dowitcher Long-billed Limnodromus scolopaceus C C Dowitcher Short-billed Limnodromus griseus BMC BCC/N Duck American Black Anas rupripes Atlantic Flyway pop BMC GBBDC Duck American Black Anas rupripes Mississippi Flyway pop BMC GBBDC Duck Harlequin Histrionicus histronicus histronicus (Eastern pop) BMC GBBDC Duck Harlequin Histrionicus histronicus pacificus (Western pop) BMC GBBDC Duck Hawaiian Anas wyvilliana E BMC T/E Duck Laysan Anas laysanensis E BMC T/E Duck Long-tailed Clangula hyemalis BMC GBADC Duck Masked Nomonyx dominicus Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Duck Mottled Anas fulvigula BMC GBBDC Duck Ring-necked Aythya collaris BMC GBBDC Duck Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis Puerto Rican pop only BMC BCC/R Duck Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis except Puerto Rican pop BMC GBADC Duck Wood Aix sponsa Eastern pop BMC GBBDC Duck Wood Aix sponsa Interior pop BMC GBBDC Duck Wood Aix sponsa Western pop BMC GBBDC Dunlin Calidris alpina arcticola Region 7 BMC BCC/R Dunlin Calidris alpina except arcticola ssp C C Eagle Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus T (Lower 48 pops only) BMC T/E Eagle Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus Alaska pops only C C Eagle Golden Aquila chrysaetos Region 6 pop only BMC BCC/R Eagle Golden Aquila chrysaetos except Region 6 pop C C Egret Cattle Bubulcus ibis C C Egret Great Ardea alba C C Egret Reddish Egretta rufescens BMC BCC/N Egret Snowy Egretta thula C C Eider Common Somateria mollissima BMC GBBDC Eider Common Somateria mollissima dresseri Atlantic pop BMC GBADC Eider Common Somateria mollissima v-nigra Pacific pop BMC GBADC Eider King Somateria spectabilis BMC GBADC Eider Spectacled Somateria fischeri T BMC T/E Eider Steller's Polysticta stelleri T BMC T/E Elaenia Caribbean Elaenia martinica C C Emerald Puerto Rican Chlorostilbon maugaeus C C Euphonia Antillean Euphonia musica C C Falcon Aplomado (Northern) Falco femoralis septentrionalis E BMC T/E Falcon Peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum BMC BCC/N Falcon Peregrine Falco peregrinus pealei BMC BCC/BCR Falcon Peregrine Falco peregrinus except anatum ssp C C Falcon Peregrine Falco tundrius excluding Alaska C C Falcon Prairie Falco mexicanus BMC BCC/N Finch Cassin's Carpodacus cassinii C C Finch House Carpodacus mexicanus CA pops only C C/N Finch House Carpodacus mexicanus except California pops C C Finch Purple Carpodacus purpureus C C Flicker Gilded Colaptes chrysoides Region 2 pop only BMC BCC/R Flicker Gilded Colaptes chrysoides except Region 2 pop C C Flicker Northern Colaptes auratus C C Flycatcher Acadian Empidonax virescens Region 3 pop only BMC BCC/R Flycatcher Acadian Empidonax virescens except Region 3 pop C C Flycatcher Alder Empidonax alnorum C C Flycatcher Ash-throated Myiarchus cinerascens C C Flycatcher Buff-breasted Empidonax fulvifrons Region 2 BMC BCC/R Flycatcher Cordilleran Empidonax occidentalis C C Flycatcher Dusky Empidonax oberholseri C C Flycatcher Dusky-capped Myiarchus tuberculifer C C Flycatcher Fork-tailed Tyrannus savana C C Flycatcher Gray Empidonax wrightii C C Flycatcher Great Crested Myiarchus crinitus C C Flycatcher Hammond's Empidonax hammondii C C Flycatcher Least Empidonax minimus C C Flycatcher Olive-sided Contopus cooperi BMC BCC/N Flycatcher Pacific-slope Empidonax difficilis C C Flycatcher Puerto Rican Myiarchus antillarum Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Flycatcher Scissor-tailed Tyrannus forficatus BMC BCC/N Flycatcher Sulphur-bellied Myiodynastes luteiventris C C Flycatcher Vermilion Pyrocephalus rubinus C C Flycatcher Willow Empidonax traillii except extimus ssp C C Willow Flycatcher (Southwestern) Empidonax traillii extimus E BMC T/E Flycatcher Yellow-bellied Empidonax flaviventris C C Frigatebird Great Fregata minor C C Frigatebird Lesser Fregata ariel BCR 68 BMC BCC/BCR Frigatebird Magnificent Fregata magnificens Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Frigatebird Magnificent Fregata magnificens except Region 4(b) C C Fulmar Northern Fulmarus glacialis C C Gadwall Anas strepera strepera North American pop BMC GBADC Gallinule Purple Porphyrio martinica BMC GBADC Gallinule Purple Porphyrula martinica Louisiana pop only C C/N Gannet Northern Morus bassanus C C Gnatcatcher Black-capped Polioptila nigriceps C C Gnatcatcher Black-tailed Polioptila melanura C C Gnatcatcher Blue-gray Polioptila caerulea C C Gnatcatcher California (Coastal) Polioptila californica T BMC T/E Godwit Bar-tailed Limosa lapponica BMC BCC/N Godwit Black-tailed Limosa limosa C C Godwit Hudsonian Limosa haemastica BMC BCC/N Godwit Marbled Limosa fedoa BMC BCC/N Goldeneye Barrow's Bucephala islandica Atlantic pop BMC GBADC Goldeneye Barrow's Bucephala islandica Pacific pop BMC GBADC Goldeneye Common Bucephala clangula BMC GBADC Golden-Plover American Pluvialis dominica BMC BCC/N Golden-Plover Pacific Pluvialis fulva BMC BCC/N Goldfinch American Carduelis tristis C C Goldfinch Lawrence's Carduelis lawrencei BMC BCC/N Goldfinch Lesser Carduelis psaltria C C Goose Canada Branta canadensis leucopareia Aleutian pop BMC GBADC Goose Canada Branta canadensis canadensis & Atlantic pop BMC GBADC interior
Goose Canada Branta canadensis minima Cackling pop BMC GBADC Goose Canada Branta canadensis interior Eastern Prairie pop BMC GBADC hutchinsii & Eastern Tall Grass Prairie Goose Canada Branta canadensis parvipes pop BMC GBADC Goose Canada Branta canadensis moffitti Hi-Line pop BMC GBADC Goose Canada Branta canadensis interior Mississippi Valley pop BMC GBADC canadensis & Goose Canada Branta canadensis interior North Atlantic pop BMC GBADC Goose Canada Branta canadensis moffiti Rocky Mountains pop BMC GBADC taverneri Goose Canada Branta canadensis &parvipes Taverner pop BMC GBADC Western Prairie & Great Goose Canada Branta canadensis moffitti & maxima Plains pops BMC GBADC hutchinsii & Western Tall Grass Prairie Goose Canada Branta canadensis parvipes pop BMC GBADC Goose Canada Branta canadensis Mississippi Flyway resident OA OA Goose Canada Branta canadensis Atlantic Flyway resident OA OA Goose Canada (Cackling) Branta canadensis minima BMC GBBDC Goose Canada (Dusky) Branta canadensis occidentalis BMC GBBDC Canada (Southern Goose James Bay) Branta canadensis interior Southern James Bay pop BMC GBBDC Goose Emperor Chen canagicus BMC GBBDC Greater White- Goose fronted (Pacific) Anser albifrons frontalis Pacific Flyway pop (part) BMC GBBDC Greater White- Goose fronted (Pacific) Anser albifrons gambelli Pacific Flyway pop (part) BMC GBBDC Goose Hawaiian Branta sandvicensis E BMC T/E Western Central Flyway Goose Ross's Chen rossii pop BMC GBADC Goose Ross's Chen rossii Mid-Continent pop OA OA Goose Snow (Greater) Chen caerulescens atlantica BMC GBADC Western Central Flyway Goose Snow (Lesser) Chen caerulescens caerulescens pop BMC GBADC Western Arctic/Wrangell Goose Snow (Lesser) Chen caerulescens caerulescens Island pop BMC GBADC Goose Snow (Lesser) Chen caerulescens caerulescens Mid-Continent pop OA OA Snow (Wrangell Goose Island) Chen caerulescens caerulescens Wrangell Island pop BMC GBBDC Goose White-fronted Anser albifrons frontalis & gambelli Pacific pop BMC GBADC Goose White-fronted Anser albifrons Mid-Continent pop BMC GBADC Goose White-fronted (Tule) Anser albifrons elgasi BMC GBBDC Goshawk Northern Accipiter gentilis atricapillus BCR 34 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Goshawk Northern Accipiter gentilis laingi BCRs 5 & 34 BMC BCC/BCR Goshawk Northern Accipiter gentilis C C Grackle Boat-tailed Quiscalus major C C/N Grackle Common Quiscalus quiscula C C/N Grackle Greater Antillean Quiscalus niger C C Grackle Great-tailed Quiscalus mexicanus C C/N Grassquit Black-faced Tiaris bicolor C C Grassquit Yellow-faced Tiaris olivacea C C Grebe Clark's Aechmorphus clarkii C C Grebe Eared Podiceps nigricollis C C Grebe Horned Podiceps auritus C C Grebe Least Tachybaptus dominicus C C Grebe Pied-billed Podilymbus podiceps C C Grebe Red-necked Podiceps grisegena C C Grebe Western Aechmorphus occidentalis C C Greenshank Common Tringa nebularia C C Grosbeak Black-headed Pheucticus melanocephalus C C Grosbeak Blue Guiraca caerulea C C Grosbeak Evening Coccothraustes vespertinus C C Grosbeak Pine Pinicola enucleator C C Grosbeak Rose-breasted Pheucticus ludovicianus C C Ground-Dove Common Columbina passerina exigua BCR 27 & 31 pops only BMC BCC/BCR Ground-Dove Common Columbina passerina C C Ground-Dove Ruddy Columbina talpacoti C C Guillemot Black Cepphus grylle C C Guillemot Pigeon Cepphus columba C C Gull Black-headed Larus ridibundus C C Gull Bonaparte's Larus philadelphia C C Gull California Larus californicus C C Gull Franklin's Larus pipixcan C C Gull Glaucous Larus hyperboreus C C Gull Glaucous-winged Larus glaucescens C C Gull Great Black-backed Larus marinus C C Gull Heerman's Larus heermanni C C Gull Herring Larus argentatus C C Gull Iceland Larus glaucoides C C Gull Ivory Pagophila eburnea C C Gull Laughing Larus atricilla C C Gull Lesser Black-backed Larus fuscus C C Gull Little Larus minutus C C Gull Mew Larus canus C C Gull Ring-billed Larus delawarensis C C Gull Ross's Rhodostethia rosea C C Gull Sabine's Xema sabini C C Gull Slaty-backed Larus schistisagus C C Gull Thayer's Larus thayeri C C Gull Western Larus occidentalis C C Gull Yellow-footed Larus livens C C Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus C C Harrier Northern Circus cyaneus BMC BCC/N Hawk Broad-winged Buteo platypterus except brunnescens ssp C C Broad-winged Hawk (Puerto Rican) Buteo platypterus brunnescens E BMC T/E Hawk Cooper's Accipiter cooperii C C Hawk Ferruginous Buteo regalis BMC BCC/N Hawk Gray Asturina nitida Region 2 BMC BCC/R Hawk Harris's Parabuteo unicinctus BCR 36 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Hawk Harris's Parabuteo unicinctus C C Hawk Hawaiian Buteo solitarius E BMC T/E Hawk Red-shouldered Buteo lineatus C C Hawk Red-tailed Buteo jamaicensis C C Hawk Rough-legged Buteo lagopus C C Hawk Sharp-shinned Accipiter striatus except venator ssp C C Sharp-shinned Hawk (Puerto Rican) Accipiter striatus venator E BMC T/E Hawk Short-tailed Buteo brachyurus Region 4(a) BMC BCC/R Hawk Swainson's Buteo swainsoni BMC BCC/N Hawk White-tailed Buteo albicaudatus Region 2 BMC BCC/R Hawk Zone-tailed Buteo albonotatus C C Heron Great Blue Ardea herodias C C Heron Green Butorides virescens C C Heron Little Blue Egretta caerulea BMC BCC/N Heron Tricolored Egretta tricolor C C Selasphorus Hummingbird Allen's platycercus sasin C C Hummingbird Anna's Calypte anna C C Hummingbird Antillean Crested Orthorhyncus cristatus C C Hummingbird Berylline Amazilia beryllina C C Hummingbird Black-chinned Archilochus alexandri C C Hummingbird Blue-throated Lampornis clemenciae C C Hummingbird Broad-billed Cynanthus latirostris Region 2 BMC BCC/R Hummingbird Broad-tailed Selasphorus platycercus C C Hummingbird Buff-bellied Amazilia yucatanensis Region 2 BMC BCC/R Hummingbird Calliope Stellula calliope C C Hummingbird Costa's Calypte costae BCR 34 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Hummingbird Costa's Calypte costae C C Hummingbird Lucifer Calothorax lucifer Region 2 BMC BCC/R Hummingbird Magnificent Eugenes fulgens C C Hummingbird Ruby-throated Archilochus colubris C C Hummingbird Rufous Selasphorus rufus BMC BCC/N Hummingbird Violet-crowned Amazilia violiceps C C Hummingbird White-eared Hylocharis leucotis C C Ibis Glossy Plegadis falcinellus C C Ibis White Eudocimus albus BCR 31 & 37 pops only BMC BCC/BCR Ibis White Eudocimus albus C C Ibis White-faced Plegadis chihi C C Jabiru Jabiru mycteria C C Jacana Northern Jacana spinosa C C Jaeger Long-tailed Stercorarius longicaudus C C Jaeger Parasitic Stercorarius parasiticus C C Jaeger Pomarine Stercorarius pomarinus C C Jay Blue Cyanocitta cristata C C Jay Brown Cyanocorax morio C C Jay Gray Perisoreus canadensis C C Jay Green Cyanocorax yncas C C Jay Mexican Aphelocoma ultramarina C C Jay Pinyon Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus BCR 16 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Jay Pinyon Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus C C Jay Steller's Cyanocitta stelleri OR & WA pops only C C/N Jay Steller's Cyanocitta stelleri except OR & WA pops C C Junco Dark-eyed Junco hyemalis C C Junco Yellow-eyed Junco phaeonotus C C Kestrel American Falco sparverius paulus BCRs 25, 27, & 37 BMC BCC/BCR Kestrel American Falco sparverius C C Killdeer Charadrius vociferus C C Kingbird Cassin's Tyrannus vociferans C C Kingbird Couch's Tyrannus couchii C C Kingbird Eastern Tyrannus tyrannus C C Kingbird Gray Tyrannus dominicensis C C Kingbird Tropical Tyrannus melancholicus C C Kingbird Western Tyrannus verticalis C C Kingfisher Belted Ceryle alcyon C C Kingfisher Green Chloroceryle americana C C Kingfisher Ringed Ceryle torquata C C Kinglet Golden-crowned Regulus satrapa C C Kinglet Ruby-crowned Regulus calendula C C Kiskadee Great Pitangus sulphuratus C C Kite Hook-billed Chondrohierax uncinatus C C Kite Mississippi Ictinia mississippiensis BCR 19 & 26 pops BMC BCC/BCR Kite Mississippi Ictinia mississippiensis C C Kite Snail (Everglades) Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus E BMC T/E Kite Swallow-tailed Elanoides forficatus BMC BCC/N Kite White-tailed Elanus leucurus C C Kittiwake Black-legged Rissa tridactyla C C Kittiwake Red-legged Rissa brevirostris BMC BCC/N Knot Red Calidris canutus BMC BCC/N Lark Horned Eremophila alpestris strigata BMC BCC/BCR CA pops only (except Lark Horned Eremophila alpestris strigata ssp) C C/N except CA pops & strigata Lark Horned Eremophila alpestris ssp C C Limpkin Aramus guarauna BMC BCC/N Lizard-Cuckoo Puerto Rican Saurothera vieilloti C C Longspur Chestnut-collared Calcarius ornatus BMC BCC/N Longspur Lapland Calcarius lapponicus C C Longspur McCown's Calcarius mccownii BMC BCC/N Longspur Smith's Calcarius pictus BMC BCC/N Loon Arctic Gavia arctica C C Loon Common Gavia immer C C Loon Pacific Gavia pacifica C C Loon Red-throated Gavia stellata BCR 2 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Loon Red-throated Gavia stellata C C Loon Yellow-billed Gavia adamsii BMC BCC/N Magpie Black-billed Pica hudsonia C C Magpie Yellow-billed Pica nuttallii C C Mallard Anas platyrhynchos BMC GBBDC Mango Antillean Anthracothorax dominicus C C Mango Green Anthracothorax viridis C C Martin Caribbean Progne dominicensis C C Martin Purple Progne subis C C Meadowlark Eastern Sturnella magna C C Meadowlark Western Sturnella neglecta C C Merganser Common Mergus merganser BMC GBADC Merganser Hooded Lophodytes cucullatus BMC GBADC Merganser Red-breasted Mergus serrator BMC GBADC Merlin Falco columbarius C C Millerbird Nihoa Acrocephalus familiaris kingi E BMC T/E Mockingbird Northern Mimus polyglottos C C Moorhen Common Gallinula chloropus BMC GBADC Moorhen Common (Hawaiian) Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis E BMC T/E Murre Common Uria aalge C C Murre Thick-billed Uria lomvia C C Murrelet Ancient Synthliboramphus antiquus BCR 1 & 2 pops BMC BCC/BCR Murrelet Ancient Synthliboramphus antiquus C C Murrelet Craveri's Synthliboramphus craveri C C Murrelet Kittlitz's Brachyramphus brevirostris BMC BCC/N Murrelet Marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus T (Lower 48 pops only) BMC T/E Murrelet Marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus (AK pops only) BMC BCC/N Murrelet Xantus's Synthliboramphus hypoleucus BMC BCC/N Nighthawk Antillean Chordeiles gundlachii C C Nighthawk Common Chordeiles minor C C Nighthawk Lesser Chordeiles acutipennis C C Night-Heron Black-crowned Nycticorax nycticorax C C Night-Heron Yellow-crowned Nyctanassa violacea C C Nightjar Buff-collared Caprimulgus ridgwayi C C Nightjar Puerto Rican Caprimulgus noctitherus E BMC T/E Noddy Black Anous minutus C C Noddy Blue-gray Procelsterna cerulea Region 1(b&c) BMC BCC/R Noddy Brown Anous stolidus C C Noddy Lesser Anous tenuirostris C C Nutcracker Clark's Nucifraga columbiana C C Nuthatch Brown-headed Sitta pusilla BMC BCC/N Nuthatch Pygmy Sitta pygmaea C C Nuthatch Red-breasted Sitta canadensis C C Nuthatch White-breasted Sitta carolinensis C C Omao Myadestes obscurus BMC BCC/N Oriole Altamira Icterus gularis Region 2 BMC BCC/R Oriole Audubon's Icterus graduacauda Region 2 BMC BCC/R Oriole Baltimore Icterus galbula BCR 30 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Oriole Baltimore Icterus galbula C C Oriole Bullock's Icterus bullockii C C Oriole Greater Antillean Icterus dominicensis Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Oriole Hooded Icterus cucullatus cucullatus Region 2 BMC BCC/R Oriole Hooded Icterus cucullatus sennetti Region 2 BMC BCC/R BCR 20, 22, 25, 26, & 27 Oriole Orchard Icterus spurius pops only BMC BCC/BCR Oriole Orchard Icterus spurius C C Oriole Scott's Icterus parisorum C C Osprey Pandion haliaetus C C Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus C C Owl Barn Tyto alba C C Owl Barred Strix varia C C Owl Boreal Aegolius funereus C C Owl Burrowing Athene cunicularia BMC BCC/N Owl Elf Micrathen whitneyi Region 2 BMC BCC/R Owl Flammulated Otus flammeolus BMC BCC/N Owl Great Gray Strix nebulosa C C Owl Great Horned Bubo virginianus C C Owl Long-eared Asio otus wilsonianus BCR 23 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Owl Long-eared Asio otus C C Owl Northern Hawk Surnia ulula C C BCR 28 (breeding) pop Owl Northern Saw-whet Aegolius acadicus only BMC BCC/BCR Owl Northern Saw-whet Aegolius acadicus C C Owl Short-eared Asio flammeus flammeus BMC BCC/N Owl Short-eared Asio flammeus except flammeus ssp C C Owl Snowy Nyctea scandiaca C C Owl Spotted Strix occidentalis occidentalis BCRs 15 & 32 BMC BCC/BCR Owl Spotted Strix occidentalis occidentalis ssp only C C Owl Spotted (Mexican) Strix occidentalis lucida T BMC T/E Owl Spotted (Northern) Strix occidentalis caurina T BMC T/E Oystercatcher American Haematopus palliatus BMC BCC/N Oystercatcher Black Haematopus bachmani BMC BCC/N Palm-Swift Antillean Tachornis phoenicobia C C Parula Northern Parula americana BCR 26 & 27 pops only BMC BCC/BCR Parula Northern Parula americana C C Parula Tropical Parula pitiayumi Region 2 BMC BCC/R Pauraque Common Nyctidromus albicollis C C Pelican American White Pelecanus erythrorhynchos BCR 26 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Pelican American White Pelecanus erythrorhynchos C C E (except Atlantic Coast, Pelican Brown Pelecanus occidentalis FL, & AL pops) BMC T/E Atlantic Coast, FL, & AL Pelican Brown Pelecanus occidentalis pops only C C Petrel Black-capped Pterodroma hasitata BMC BCC/N Petrel Bonin Pterodroma hypoleuca C C Petrel Bulwer's Bulweria bulwerii C C Petrel Cook's Pterodroma cookii C C Dark-rumped Petrel (=Hawaiian) Pterodroma sandwichensis E BMC T/E Petrel Herald Pterodroma arminjoniana BCR 68 BMC BCC/BCR Pewee Greater Contopus pertinax Region 2 BMC BCC/R Pewee Lesser Antillean Contopus latirostris Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens C C Phalarope Red Phalaropus fulicaria C C Phalarope Red-necked Phalaropus lobatus C C Phalarope Wilson's Phalaropus tricolor BMC BCC/N Phoebe Black Sayornis nigricans C C Phoebe Eastern Sayornis phoebe C C Phoebe Say's Sayornis saya C C Pigeon Band-tailed Columba fasciata BMC GBBDC Pigeon Plain (Puerto Rican) Columba inornata wetmorei E BMC T/E Pigeon Red-billed Columba flavirostris Region 2 BMC BCC/R Pigeon Scaly-naped Columba squamosa BMC GBADC Pigeon White-crowned Columba leucocephala Region 4(a&b) BMC BCC/R Pigeon White-crowned Columba leucocephala BMC GBADC Pintail Northern Anas acuta BMC GBBDC Pintail White-cheeked Anas bahamensis Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Pipit American Anthus rubescens C C Pipit Red-throated Anthus cervinus C C Pipit Sprague's Anthus spragueii BMC BCC/N Plover Black-bellied Pluvialis squatarola C C Plover Mongolian Charadrius mongolus C C Plover Mountain Charadrius montanus BMC BCC/N E (Great Lakes watershed pops of IL, IN, MI, MN, NY, Plover Piping Charadrius melodus OH, PA, & OH) BMC T/E Plover Piping Charadrius melodus T (all other pops) BMC T/E Plover Semipalmated Charadrius semipalmatus C C (except nivosus Plover Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus ssp) BMC BCC/N Plover Snowy (Western) Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T BMC T/E Plover Wilson's Charadrius wilsonia BMC BCC/N Poorwill Common Phalaenoptilus nuttallii C C Puffin Atlantic Fratercula arctica C C Puffin Horned Fratercula corniculata C C Puffin Tufted Fratercula cirrhata C C Pygmy-Owl Ferruginous Glaucidium brasilianum ridgwayi Region 2 BMC BCC/R Pygmy-Owl Ferruginous (Cactus) Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum E BMC T/E Pygmy-Owl Northern Glaucidium gnoma C C Pyrrhuloxia Cardinalis sinuatus fulvescens BCR 36 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Pyrrhuloxia Cardinalis sinuatus C C Quail-Dove Bridled Geotrygon mystacea Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Quail-Dove Key West Geotrygon chrysia Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Quail-Dove Ruddy Geotrygon montana C C Quetzal Eared Euptilotis neoxenus C C Rail Black Laterallus jamaicensis BMC BCC/N (except lepipes,obsoletus, Rail Clapper Rallus longirostris and yumanensis) BMC GBADC Rail Clapper (California) Rallus longirostris obsoletus E BMC T/E Clapper (Light- Rail footed) Rallus longirostris levipes E BMC T/E Rail Clapper (Yuma) Rallus longirostris yumanensis E BMC T/E Rail King Rallus elegans BMC GBBDC Rail Virginia Rallus limicola BMC GBADC Rail Yellow Coturnicops noveboracensis BMC BCC/N Raven Chihuahuan Corvus cryptoleucus C C Raven Common Corvus corax C C Razorbill Alca torda BMC BCC/N Redhead Aythya americana BMC GBBDC Redpoll Common Carduelis flammea C C Redpoll Hoary Carduelis hornemanni C C Redstart American Setophaga ruticilla C C Redstart Painted Myioborus pictus C C Roadrunner Greater Geococcyx californianus C C Robin American Turdus migratorius C C Rosy-Finch Black Leucosticte atrata C C Rosy-Finch Brown-capped Leucosticte australis C C Rosy-Finch Gray-crowned Leucosticte tephrocotis C C Ruff Philomachus pugnax C C BCR 9, 10, 11, & 17 pops Sanderling Calidris alba only BMC BCC/BCR Sanderling Calidris alba C C Sandpiper Baird's Calidris bairdii C C Sandpiper Buff-breasted Tryngites subruficollis BMC BCC/N Sandpiper Curlew Calidris ferruginea C C Sandpiper Least Calidris minutilla C C Sandpiper Pectoral Calidris melanotos C C Sandpiper Purple Calidris maritima Region 5 BMC BCC/R Sandpiper Rock Calidris ptilocnemis BMC BCC/N Sandpiper Semipalmated Calidris pusilla Puerto Rican pop only BMC BCC/R Sandpiper Semipalmated Calidris pusilla except Puerto Rican pop C C Sandpiper Sharp-tailed Calidris acuminata C C Sandpiper Solitary Tringa solitaria BMC BCC/N Sandpiper Spotted Actitis macularia C C Sandpiper Stilt Calidris himantopus BMC BCC/N Sandpiper Upland Bartramia longicauda BMC BCC/N Sandpiper Western Calidris mauri C C Sandpiper White-rumped Calidris fuscicollis BCR 11 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Sandpiper White-rumped Calidris fuscicollis C C Sandpiper Wood Tringa glareola C C Sapsucker Red-breasted Sphyrapicus ruber C C Sapsucker Red-naped Sphyrapicus nuchalis BMC BCC/N Sapsucker Williamson's Sphyrapicus thyroideus BMC BCC/N BCR 28 (breeding) pop Sapsucker Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius only BMC BCC/BCR Sapsucker Yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius C C Scaup Greater Aythya marila BMC GBBDC Scaup Lesser Aythya affinis BMC GBBDC Scoter Black Melanitta nigra americana Atlantic pop BMC GBADC Scoter Black Melanitta nigra americana Pacific pop BMC GBADC Scoter Surf Melanitta perspicillata BMC GBADC Scoter White-winged Melanitta fusca BMC GBADC Screech-Owl Eastern Otus asio C C Screech-Owl Puerto Rican Otus nudipes C C Screech-Owl Western Otus kennicottii C C Screech-Owl Whiskered Otus trichopsis Region 2 BMC BCC/R Scrub-Jay Florida Aphelocoma coerulescens T BMC T/E Scrub-Jay Island Aphelocoma insularis BMC BCC/N Scrub-Jay Western Aphelocoma californica OR & WA pops only C C/N Scrub-Jay Western Aphelocoma californica except OR & WA pops C C Shearwater Audubon's Puffinus lherminieri Region 4(a&b) BMC BCC/R Shearwater Black-vented Puffinus opisthomelas C C Shearwater Buller's Puffinus bulleri C C Shearwater Christmas Puffinus nativitatis BCRs 67 & 68 BMC BCC/BCR Shearwater Christmas Puffinus nativitatis C C Shearwater Cory's Calonectris diomedea C C Shearwater Flesh-footed Puffinus carneipes C C Shearwater Greater Puffinus gravis C C Shearwater Manx Puffinus puffinus C C Shearwater Pink-footed Puffinus creatopus C C Shearwater Short-tailed Puffinus tenuirostris C C Shearwater Sooty Puffinus griseus C C Townsend's Shearwater (Newell's) Puffinus auricularis newelli T BMC T/E Shearwater Wedge-tailed Puffinus pacificus C C Shoveler Northern Anas clypeata BMC GBADC Shrike Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus BMC BCC/N Loggerhead (San Shrike Clemente) Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi E BMC T/E Shrike Northern Lanius excubitor C C Siskin Pine Carduelis pinus C C Skimmer Black Rynchops niger BMC BCC/N Snipe Wilson's Gallinago delicata BMC GBADC Solitaire Townsend's Myadestes townsendi C C Sora Porzana carolina BMC GBADC Sparrow American Tree Spizella arborea C C Sparrow Bachman's Aimophila aestivalis BMC BCC/N Sparrow Baird's Ammodramus bairdii BMC BCC/N Sparrow Black-chinned Spizella atrogularis evura BMC BCC/N Sparrow Black-chinned Spizella atrogularis except evura ssp C C Sparrow Black-throated Amphispiza bilineata C C Sparrow Botteri's Aimophila botterii arizonae Region 2 BMC BCC/R Sparrow Botteri's Aimophila botterii texana Region 2 BMC BCC/R Sparrow Brewer's Spizella breweri BMC BCC/N Sparrow Cassin's Aimophila cassinii BMC BCC/N Sparrow Chipping Spizella passerina C C Sparrow Clay-colored Spizella pallida C C BCR 20, 21, & 22 pops Sparrow Field Spizella pusilla arenacea only BMC BCC/BCR Sparrow Field Spizella pusilla C C Sparrow Five-striped Aimophila quinquestriata C C Sparrow Fox Passerella iliacus C C Sparrow Golden-crowned Zonotrichia atricapilla CA pops only C C/N Sparrow Golden-crowned Zonotrichia atricapilla except CA pops C C Sparrow Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum BMC BCC/N Grasshopper Sparrow (Florida) Ammodramus savannarum floridanus E BMC T/E Sparrow Harris's Zonotrichia querula BMC BCC/N Sparrow Henslow's Ammodramus henslowii BMC BCC/N Sparrow Lark Chondestes grammacus C C Sparrow Le Conte's Ammodramus leconteii BMC BCC/N Sparrow Lincoln's Melospiza lincolnii C C Sparrow Nelson's Sharp-tailed Ammodramus nelsoni BMC BCC/N Sparrow Olive Arremonops rufivirgatus C C Sparrow Rufous-crowned Aimophila ruficeps eremoeca BCR 20 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Sparrow Rufous-crowned Aimophila ruficeps C C Sparrow Rufous-winged Aimophila carpalis BMC BCC/N Sparrow Sage Amphispiza belli nevadensis Region 2 pop only BMC BCC/R except clementeae ssp & Sparrow Sage Amphispiza belli nevada ssp (Region 2 only) C C Sparrow Sage (San Clemente) Amphispiza belli clementeae T BMC T/E Saltmarsh Sharp- Sparrow tailed Ammodramus caudacutus BMC BCC/N Sparrow Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis C C Sparrow Seaside Ammodramus maritimus BMC BCC/N Seaside (Cape Sparrow Sable) Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis E BMC T/E Sparrow Song Melospiza melodia graminea BCR 32 BMC BCC/BCR Sparrow Song Melospiza melodia maxillaris BCR 32 BMC BCC/BCR Sparrow Song Melospiza melodia pusillula BCR 32 BMC BCC/BCR Sparrow Song Melospiza melodia samuelis BCR 32 BMC BCC/BCR Sparrow Song Melospiza melodia C C Sparrow Swamp Melospiza georgiana C C Sparrow Vesper Pooecetes gramineus affinis BCR 5 BMC BCC/BCR Sparrow Vesper Pooecetes gramineus C C Sparrow White-crowned Zonotrichia leucophrys CA pops only C C/N Sparrow White-crowned Zonotrichia leucophrys except CA pops C C Sparrow White-throated Zonotrichia albicollis C C Spindalis Puerto Rican Spindalis portoricensis C C Spoonbill Roseate Ajaia ajaja C C Stilt Black-necked Himantopus mexicanus knudseni E BMC T/E Stilt Black-necked Himantopus mexicanus except knudseni ssp C C Stint Red-necked Calidris ruficollis C C Stork Wood Mycteria americana E BMC T/E Storm-Petrel Ashy Oceanodroma homochroa BMC BCC/N Storm-Petrel Band-rumped Oceanodroma castro BMC BCC/N Storm-Petrel Black Oceanodroma melania C C Storm-Petrel Fork-tailed Oceanodroma furcata C C Storm-Petrel Leach's Oceanodroma leucorhoa C C Storm-Petrel Least Oceanodroma microsoma C C Storm-Petrel Tristram's Oceanodroma tristrami Region 1(b) BMC BCC/R Storm-Petrel Wedge-rumped Oceanodroma tethys C C Storm-Petrel Wilson's Oceanites oceanicus C C Surfbird Aphriza virgata BMC BCC/N Swallow Bahama Tachycineta cyaneoviridis C C Swallow Bank Riparia riparia C C Swallow Barn Hirundo rustica C C Swallow Cave Petrochelidon fulva C C Swallow Cliff Petrochelidon pyrrhonota C C Northern Rough- Swallow winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis C C Swallow Tree Tachycineta bicolor C C Swallow Violet-green Tachycineta thalassina C C Swan Mute Cygnus olor OA OA Swan Trumpeter Cygnus buccinator Rocky Mountain pop BMC GBBDC Swan Trumpeter Cygnus buccinator Interior pop BMC GBBDC Swan Tundra Cygnus columbianus Eastern pop BMC GBADC Swan Tundra Cygnus columbianus Western pop BMC GBADC Swan Whooper Cygnus cygnus C C Swift Black Cypseloides niger BMC BCC/N Swift Chimney Chaetura pelagica C C Swift Common Apus apus C C Swift Fork-tailed Apus pacificus C C Swift Vaux's Chaetura vauxi C C Swift White-throated Aeronautes saxatalis C C Tanager Hepatic Piranga flava C C Tanager Puerto Rican Nesospingus speculiferus C C Tanager Scarlet Piranga olivacea C C Tanager Summer Piranga rubra C C Tanager Western Piranga ludoviciana C C Tattler Wandering Heteroscelus incanus C C Teal Cinnamon Anas cyanoptera BMC GBADC Teal Green-winged Anas carolinensis carolinensis BMC GBADC Teal Blue-winged Anas discors BMC GBADC Tern Aleutian Sterna aleutica BMC BCC/N Tern Arctic Sterna paradisaea Region 7 BMC BCC/R Tern Arctic Sterna paradisaea except Region 7 C C Tern Black Chlidonias niger Region 3 pop only BMC BCC/R Tern Black Chlidonias niger except Region 3 C C Tern Bridled Sterna anaethetus C C Tern Caspian Sterna caspia BCR 5 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Tern Caspian Sterna caspia except Great Lakes pop C C Tern Common Sterna hirundo Great Lakes pop only BMC BCC/N Tern Common Sterna hirundo C C Tern Elegant Sterna elegans Region 1(a) BMC BCC/R Tern Forster's Sterna forsteri C C Tern Gray-backed Sterna lunata C C Tern Gull-billed Sterna nilotica arenea BMC BCC/N Tern Gull-billed Sterna nilotica except arenea ssp C C Tern Least Sterna antillarum antillarum BMC BCC/N Tern Least Sterna antillarum antillarum ssp only C C Tern Least (California) Sterna antillarum browni E BMC T/E Tern Least (Interior) Sterna antillarum athalassos E BMC T/E E (Atlantic Coast south to Tern Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii NC) BMC T/E Tern Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii T (FL, PR, & VI pops) BMC T/E Tern Royal Sterna maxima C C Tern Sandwich Sterna sandvicensis C C Tern Sooty Sterna fuscata C C Tern White Gygis alba C C Thrasher Bendire's Toxostoma bendirei BMC BCC/N Thrasher Brown Toxostoma rufum C C Thrasher California Toxostoma redivivum C C Thrasher Crissal Toxostoma crissale BMC BCC/N Thrasher Curve-billed Toxostoma curvirostre oberholseri BCR 36 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Thrasher Curve-billed Toxostoma curvirostre C C Thrasher Le Conte's Toxostoma lecontei BMC BCC/N Thrasher Long-billed Toxostoma longirostre C C Thrasher Pearly-eyed Margarops fuscatus C C Thrasher Sage Oreoscoptes montanus C C Thrush Bicknell's Catharus bicknelli BMC BCC/N Thrush Gray-cheeked Catharus minimus C C Thrush Hermit Catharus guttatus C C Large Kauai Thrush (=Kamao) Myadestes myadestinus E BMC T/E Thrush Molokai (=Olomao) Myadestes lanaiensis rutha E BMC T/E Thrush Red-legged Turdus plumbeus C C Small Kauai Thrush (=Puaiohi) Myadestes palmeri E BMC T/E Thrush Swainson's Catharus ustulatus C C Thrush Varied Ixoreus naevius C C Thrush Wood Hylocichla mustelina BMC BCC/N Titmouse Bridled Baeolophus wollweberi C C Titmouse Juniper Baeolophus griseus C C Titmouse Oak Baeolophus inornatus C C Titmouse Tufted Baeolophus bicolor C C Towhee Abert's Pipilo aberti C C Towhee California Pipilo crissalis except eremophilus ssp C C Towhee California (Inyo) Pipilo crissalis eremophilus T BMC T/E Towhee Canyon Pipilo fuscus C C Towhee Eastern Pipilo erythrophthalmus C C Towhee Green-tailed Pipilo chlorurus C C Towhee Spotted Pipilo maculatus clementae BCR 32 BMC BCC/BCR Towhee Spotted Pipilo maculatus C C Trogon Elegant Trogon elegans Region 2 BMC BCC/R Tropicbird Red-billed Phaethon aethereus Puerto Rican pop only BMC BCC/R Tropicbird Red-billed Phaethon aethereus except Puerto Rican pop C C Tropicbird Red-tailed Phaethon rubricauda C C Tropicbird White-tailed Phaethon lepturus catesbyi Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Tropicbird White-tailed Phaethon lepturus except Region 4(b) pop C C Turnstone Black Arenaria melanocephala BMC BCC/N Turnstone Ruddy Arenaria interpres C C Veery Catharus fuscescens C C Verdin Auriparus flaviceps ornatus BCR 36 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Verdin Auriparus flaviceps C C Vireo Bell's Vireo belli BMC BCC/N Vireo Bell's (Least) Vireo belli pusillus E BMC T/E Vireo Black-capped Vireo atricapillus E BMC T/E Vireo Black-whiskered Vireo altiloquus barbatulus Region 4(a) BMC BCC/R Vireo Blue-headed Vireo solitarius C C Vireo Cassin's Vireo cassinii C C Vireo Gray Vireo vicinior BMC BCC/N Vireo Hutton's Vireo huttoni C C Vireo Philadelphia Vireo philadelphicus C C Vireo Plumbeus Vireo plumbeus C C Vireo Puerto Rican Vireo latimeri Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Vireo Red-eyed Vireo olivaceus C C Vireo Warbling Vireo gilvus C C Vireo White-eyed Vireo griseus C C Vireo Yellow-green Vireo flavoviridis C C Vireo Yellow-throated Vireo flavifrons C C Vulture Black Coragyps atratus C C Vulture Turkey Cathartes aura C C Wagtail White Motacilla alba C C Wagtail Yellow Motacilla flava C C Warbler Adelaide's Dendroica adelaidae Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Warbler Arctic Phylloscopus borealis Region 7 BMC BCC/R Warbler Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii E BMC T/E Warbler Bay-breasted Dendroica castanea Region 5 pop only BMC BCC/R Warbler Black-and-white Mniotilta varia C C Warbler Blackburnian Dendroica fusca C C Warbler Blackpoll Dendroica striata Region 7 pop only BMC BCC/R Warbler Blackpoll Dendroica striata except Region 7 pop C C Region 3 & Puerto Rican Warbler Black-throated Blue Dendroica caerulescens cairnsi pops only BMC BCC/R except Region 3 and Warbler Black-throated Blue Dendroica caerulescens Puerto Rican pops C C Warbler Black-throated Gray Dendroica nigrescens halseii Region 2 BMC BCC/R Warbler Black-throated Gray Dendroica nigrescens except Region 2 pop C C Warbler Black-throated Green Dendroica virens BCR 27 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Warbler Black-throated Green Dendroica virens C C Warbler Blue-winged Vermivora pinus Region 3 pop only BMC BCC/R Warbler Blue-winged Vermivora pinus except Region 3 pop C C Warbler Canada Wilsonia canadensis BMC BCC/N Warbler Cape May Dendroica trigrina Region 3 pop only BMC BCC/R Warbler Cape May Dendroica trigrina except Region 3 pop C C Warbler Cerulean Dendroica cerulea BMC BCC/N Warbler Chestnut-sided Dendroica pensylvanica BCR 14 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Warbler Chestnut-sided Dendroica pensylvanica C C Warbler Colima Vermivora crissalis Region 2 BMC BCC/R Warbler Connecticut Oporornis agilis Region 3 pop only BMC BCC/R Warbler Elfin-woods Dendroica angelai BMC BCC/N Warbler Golden-cheeked Dendroica chrysoparia E BMC T/E Warbler Golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera BMC BCC/N Warbler Grace's Dendroica graciae BMC BCC/N Warbler Hermit Dendroica occidentalis C C Warbler Hooded Wilsonia citrina C C Warbler Kentucky Oporornis formosus BMC BCC/N Warbler Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii E BMC T/E Warbler Lucy's Vermivora luciae C C Warbler MacGillivray's Oporornis tolmiei C C Warbler Magnolia Dendroica magnolia C C Warbler Mourning Oporornis philadelphia C C Warbler Nashville Vermivora ruficapilla C C Warbler Olive Peucedramus taeniatus Region 2 BMC BCC/R Warbler Orange-crowned Vermivora celata C C Warbler Palm Dendroica palmarum C C Warbler Pine Dendroica pinus C C Warbler Prairie Dendroica discolor BMC BCC/N Warbler Prothonotary Protonotaria citrea BMC BCC/N Warbler Red-faced Cardellina rubrifrons Region 2 BMC BCC/R Warbler Swainson's Limnothlypis swainsonii BMC BCC/N Warbler Tennessee Vermivora peregrina C C Warbler Townsend's Dendroica townsendi C C Warbler Virginia's Vermivora virginiae Region 6 pop only BMC BCC/R Warbler Virginia's Vermivora virginiae except Region 6 pop C C Warbler Wilson's Wilsonia pusilla C C Warbler Worm-eating Helmitheros vermivorus BMC BCC/N Warbler Yellow Dendroica petechia cruciana BMC BCC/BCR Warbler Yellow Dendroica petechia gundlachi BMC BCC/BCR Warbler Yellow Dendroica petechia sonorana BMC BCC/BCR Warbler Yellow Dendroica petechia C C Warbler Yellow-rumped Dendroica coronata C C Warbler Yellow-throated Dendroica dominica albilora & dominica BCR 31 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Warbler Yellow-throated Dendroica dominica C C Waterthrush Louisiana Seiurus motacilla BMC BCC/N Waterthrush Northern Seiurus noveboracensis Puerto Rican pop only BMC BCC/R Waterthrush Northern Seiurus noveboracensis except Puerto Rican pop C C Waxwing Bohemian Bombycilla garrulus C C Waxwing Cedar Bombycilla cedrorum C C Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BMC BCC/N Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus vociferus BMC BCC/N Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus except vociferus ssp C C Whistling-Duck Black-bellied Dendrocygna autumnalis BMC GBADC Whistling-Duck Fulvous Dendrocygna bicolor BMC GBADC Whistling-Duck West Indian Dendrocygna arborea Region 4(b) BMC BCC/R Wigeon American Anas americana BMC GBBDC Wigeon American Anas americana BMC GBADC Wigeon Eurasian Anas penelope C C Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus inornatus BCR 11 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus C C Woodcock American Scolopax minor Eastern pop BMC GBBDC Woodcock American Scolopax minor Central pop BMC GBBDC Woodpecker Arizona Picoides arizonae Region 2 BMC BCC/R Woodpecker Arizona Picoides arizonae C C Woodpecker Black-backed Picoides arcticus C C Woodpecker Downy Picoides pubescens C C Woodpecker Gila Melanerpes uropygialis BCR 33 BMC BCC/BCR Woodpecker Gila Melanerpes uropygialis C C Woodpecker Golden-fronted Melanerpes aurifrons C C Woodpecker Hairy Picoides villosus C C Woodpecker Ivory-billed Campephilus principalis E BMC T/E Woodpecker Ladder-backed Picoides scalaris BCR 20 pop only BMC BCC/BCR Woodpecker Ladder-backed Picoides scalaris C C Woodpecker Lewis's Melanerpes lewis BMC BCC/N Woodpecker Nuttall's Picoides nuttallii C C Woodpecker Pileated Dryocopus pileatus C C Woodpecker Puerto Rican Melanerpes portoricensis C C Woodpecker Red-bellied Melanerpes carolinus C C Woodpecker Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E BMC T/E Woodpecker Red-headed Melanerpes erythrocephalus BMC BCC/N Woodpecker Strickland's Picoides stricklandi C C Woodpecker Three-toed Picoides tridactylus C C Woodpecker White-headed Picoides albolarvatus BMC BCC/N Wood-Pewee Eastern Contopus virens C C Wood-Pewee Western Contopus sordidulus C C Wren Bewick's Thryomanes bewicki except bewicki ssp C C Wren Bewick's Thryomanes bewickii bewickii BMC BCC/N Wren Cactus Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus BCR 32 & 36 pops only BMC BCC/BCR Wren Cactus Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus C C Wren Canyon Catherpes mexicanus C C Wren Carolina Thryothorus ludovicianus C C Wren House Troglodytes aedon C C Wren Marsh Cistothorus palustris palustris BCR 30 BMC BCC/BCR Wren Marsh Cistothorus palustris C C Wren Rock Salpinctes obsoletus C C Wren Sedge Cistothorus platensis BMC BCC/N Wren Winter Troglodytes troglodytes C C Yellowlegs Greater Tringa melanoleuca BCR 22 & 32 pops only BMC BCC/BCR Yellowlegs Greater Tringa melanoleuca C C Yellowlegs Lesser Tringa flavipes C C Yellowthroat Common Geothlypis trichas sinuosa BCR 32 BMC BCC/BCR Yellowthroat Common Geothlypis trichas C C a Codes: BCR = Bird Conservation Region; E = species protected by the Endangered Species Act; Region = FWS administration region b Codes: BMC = Birds of Management Concern, C = Common, OA = Over Abundant c Codes: BCC/N = Birds of Conservation Concern/National; BCC/R = Birds of Conservation Concern/Regional; BCC/BCR = Birds of Conservation Concern/BCR; GBBDC = Gamebirds Below Desired Condition; GBADC = Game Birds Above Desired Condition; C = Common; C/N = Common, subject to depredation order; OA = Over Abundant; T/E = Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act
APPENDIX K Visual Contrast Rating Worksheets and Photographs of Key Observation Points
Idaho Wyoming
¨¦§80 JUAB COUNTY
UV132 ado
r T15S UV272 T15S T15S R11W T15S T15S T15S T15S R10W R9W R8W Leamington 15 R7W R6W R5W
Nevada ¨¦§ Utah Colo UV174 Lynndyl Proposed Interconnection (IPP Substation) ¤£6
T16S T16S T16S T16S T16S T16S R11W R10W R9W *# R8W T16S R7W R6W R5W Arizona KOP 3 UV125
Oak Delta City T17S T17S T17S T17S T17S T17S R11W R10W R9W R7W T17S R8W R6W R5W Hinckley ¤£50 UV257
T18S T18S T18S T18S T18S T18S T18S R11W R10W R9W R8W R7W R6W R5W ¤£6
¤£50 ¤£50 r e r Riv ie T19S T19S v T19S e T19S R11W R10W S T19S T19S R9W R8W T19S R6W R5W R7W
UV64 T20S T20S T20S T20S T20S T20S T20S R11W R10W R9W R8W R7W R6W R5W
UV100
T21S T21S T21S Sevier Lake T21S T21S R10W R9W R8W T21S T21S R11W R7W R6W R5W Proposed Transmission UV99 Line Route *# Fillmore KOP 2 T22S T22S T22S R11W T22S T22S R10W R9W T22S T22S R8W R7W
r R6W
UV257 R5W
e v
i
R Meadow r e v
a
e
B
T23S T23S T23S UV133 R11W T23S T23S R10W R9W T23S R8W R7W R6W T23S R5W §15 ¨¦ Kanosh
T24S T24S T24S T24S T24S R11W R10W T24S T24S R9W R8W T24S R4.5W R7W R6W R5W
UV257
T25S T25S T25S T25S MILLARD R11W R10W T25S T25S R9W R8W T25S SEVIER UV118 COUNTY R7W R6W COUNTY R5W COUNTY UV161
Cove Fort ¨¦§70 T26S R8W T26S R7W T26S T26S T26S R10W R9W BEAVER Wind Energy Facility R6W COUNTY
¤£89 T27S R10W T27S R9W T27S R8W T27S R7W T27S R6W UV21 PIUTE Marysvale Land Ownership *# COUNTY KOP 1 BLM
Private Milford State UV129 UV257
Legend Figure 1 *# Key Observation Point (KOP) Proposed Access Road Milford Wind Corridor Project Key Observation Point Location Map Direction of View County Roads Proposed Transmission Line Route Wind Energy Facility
02.5 5 10 15 20 ¯ DRAFT - All facility details and locations are approximate. Miles
\\COBRA\GIS\PROJECTS\UPC_WIND_MWC_356212\MAPFILES\BLM_MWC_PROJECT\EA_FIGURES\APPX_K_FIGURE_1_11X17.MXD 8/8/2008 11:21:45 KOP 1. View from the Milford Trap Club overlooking the Milford Valley, looking northeast toward the Mineral Mountains. Milford Wind Corridor Project, Utah SCO356212.02.04.EA Milford_01.ai 2/08 Oct 1, 2007
Cedar City Field Office
Energy generation/transmission
Milford Wind Corridor Project 27.0 S The Wind Energy Facility site and the proposed and 10.0 W KOP 1: The Milford Trap Club alternative transmission line routes are visible from this (Proposed Action/Alternative Action) 31 location (see Figure 1). The information on this worksheet pertains to the Wind Energy Facility and the proposed and alternative transmission lines. VRM Class IV
Foreground and Middleground: Flat to Gently Eroded Foreground: Uniform Concrete Slabs, Isolated Blocky Foreground and Middleground: Low Rounded Shrubs River Valley | Background: Low Mineral Mountains and Building | Middleground: Airport Corrugated Metal and Scattered Native Grass | Background: Vegetation Alluvial Fans - Visible; Lines of Existing Access Rd. Blocky Structures | Background: Existing Access Rd. Indistinguishable and UP Railroad - Not Visible | No Water Visible and UP Railroad - Not Visible Foreground and Middleground: Generally Horizontal Foreground: Generally Weak Horizontal to Undulating Foreground: Horizontal Slabs and Rectangular Valley | Background: Peaked Skyline - Visible; Lines of line for Scattered Shrubs | Middleground: Generally Buildings | Middleground: Rectangular and Horizontal Existing Access Rd. and UP Railroad - Not Visible | No Weak Horizontal Uniform Shrubs | Background: Buildings and Airport Structures | Background: Existing Water Visible Vegetation Indistinguishable Access Rd. and UP Railroad - Not Visible Foreground: Tan | Middleground: Tan, Covered by Foreground and Middleground: Tan to Dusky Sage Foreground: Off-white Concrete Slabs, Red Building Vegetation | Background: Color of Land Shrubs and Native Grasses with Occasional Spots of with a Gray Roof | Middleground: Gray/White Buildings Indistinguishable; Color of Existing Access Rd. and UP Yellow Flowers | Background: Vegetation with Blue/Gray Roofs | Background: Existing Access Railroad - Not Visible | No Water Visible Indistinguishable Rd. and UP Railroad - Not Visible Foreground: Patchy/Gravelly| Middleground: Patchy/ Foreground: Generally Flat Slabs and Flat Roofed Foreground and Middleground: Randomly Spaced and Gravelly, Mostly Covered by Vegetation| Background: Building | Middleground: Generally Pointy Roof Tops Bristly Native Grass and Shrubs Texture of Land Indistinguishable; Lines of Existing Background: Existing Access Rd. and UP Railroad - Background: Vegetation Indistinguishable Access Rd. & UP Railroad-Not Visible|No Water Visible Not Visible
Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Foreground and Middleground: No Change Background: No Visible Change, Proposed Access Background: No Visible Change, Minor clearing for Background: Addition of Blocky Facility Buildings, Tall Roads, T/L backfill, and Turbine Pads Not Visible from Access Roads, turbines, T/L,and underground utilities Turbines and T/L Structures - Visible; Flat Access this Location | No Water Added Not Visible from this Location Roads and underground utiltiies - Not Visible Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Foreground and Middleground: No Change | Background: No Visible Change, Proposed Access Background: No Visible Change, Minor Clearing for Background: New Rectangular Buildings, Vertical T/L Roads, pads, T/L backfill, and underground utility Access Roads, turbines, T/L and underground utilities, Structures and Turbines in linear alginment - Visible; alignments Not Visible from KOP | No Water Added Not Visible from this Location Access Rd. and underground utiltiies - Not Visible Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Fore and Middleground: No Change | Background: Background: No Visible Change, Access Roads, T/L Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for Access New Light Colored Buildings, Corten or equivalent back fill, pads, underground Utility alignments Not Roads, T/L backfill, pads, and underground utility Steel (weather to brown) T/L Poles, Off-white Turbines Visible from this Location | No Water Added alignments Not Visible from this Location - Visible; Tan Rds/underground utilities - Not Visible Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Fore and Middleground: No Change | Background - Background: No Visible Change, Access Roads, pads, Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for Access Addition of Pointy H-Frame Trans. Towers, Pointy T/L backfill and underground utility alignments Not Roads, pads, T/L backfill, and underground utility Turbines, and Generally Flat Buildings - Visible; Access Visible from this Location | No Water Added alignments Not Visible from this Location Roads and underground utlities - Not Visible
Oct 1, 2007
Liz Cutler/CH2M HILL, Inc. Colleen Bredensteiner/CH2M HILL, Inc. BLM's Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class IV "provides for managing activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the lands characteristic can be high. Activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these actives through consideration of location, minimization measures, and by repeating the character of landscape elements" (BLM, 2005).
The potential effects of Wind Energy Projects located on BLM-managed lands were analyzed in the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005). The Milford Wind Corridor Project analysis tiers off the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005). To comply with the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005) measures required by the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005) Record of Decision (ROD) because the BLM considers them applicable to all wind development projects would be implemented as part of the project to avoid and minimize potential effects to visual resources. The applicable measures that will be implemented to avoid and minimize effects to visual resources were considered during analysis and include:
• The public shall be involved and informed about the visual site design elements of the proposed wind energy facilities. Possible approaches include conducting public forums for disseminating information, offering organized tours of operating wind developments, and using computer simulation and visualization techniques in public presentations. • Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by minimizing areas of surface disturbance, controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation. • Turbine arrays and turbine design shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Design elements to be addressed include visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, nonreflective paints, and prohibition of commercial messages on turbines. • Other site design elements shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Elements to address include minimizing the profile of the ancillary structures, burial of cables, prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting. Regarding lighting, efforts shall be made to minimize the need for and amount of lighting on ancillary structures. • Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by minimizing areas of surface disturbance, controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation.
Additional measure to avoid and minimize effects of implementing the proposed project: • Place towers such that "skylining" is minimized to the extent possible. • Prepare Decommissioning Plan that includes restoration of the project site (e.g., wind farm, T/L, and access roads), including revegetation.
The Proposed Action would result in weak to no change to the existing environment; consistent with the VRM Class IV assignment. Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning would result in no adverse effect and no mitigation is required.
BLM. 2005. Record of Decision. Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. December. http://windeis.anl.gov/ documents/docs/ WindPEISROD.pdf.
Construction and operation of the Proposed Action would be consistent with the BLM land management objectives of VRM Class IV and would result in no adverse effect; therefore no mitigation is required. KOP 2. View from Highway 257 looking west toward the Cricket Mountains. Milford Wind Corridor Project, Utah
SCO356212.02.04.EA Milford_02.ai 2/08 Oct 1, 2007
Fillmore Field Office
Energy generation/transmission
Milford Wind Corridor Project 22.0 W
09.0 W KOP 2: Highway 257-Cricket Both the proposed and alternative transmission line routes Mountains (Proposed Action) 01 are visible from this location (see Figure 1). The information on this worksheet pertains to the proposed transmission line.
VRM Class IV
Foreground and Middleground: Generally Flat Eroded Foreground and Middleground: Densely Distributed Fore and Middleground: No Structures Visible River Valley | Background: Low Weathered Mountains - Native Grass with Scattered Low Rounded Shrubs Background: IPP Trans. Lattice Towers, Barely visible Visible; Existing T/L Access Roads at Base of and Background: Vegetation Indistinguishable from this in location at base of Mountains, excepting two towers Crossing Mountains - Not Visible | No Water Visible Location skylined in view; Existing Access Roads - Not Visible Foreground and Middleground: Generally Horizontal Foreground and Middleground: No Structures Visible Foreground and Middleground: Generally Weak Valley Floor | Background: Sinuous Skyline - Visible; Background: Triangular, Vertical Towers, Barely Horizontal Vegetation | Background: Vegetation Lines of Existing Access Roads - Not Visible | No distinguishable from Background, excepting two towers Indistinguishable from this Location Water Visible skylined in view; Existing Access Roads - Not Visible Foreground: Light Tan | Middleground: Covered by Foreground and Middleground: Tan to Sage Green Foreground and Middleground: No Structures Visible | Vegetation, Indistinguishable | Background: Brown - to Native Grass and Shrubs Background: Medium to Dark Gray Towers, Barely Dark Brown - Visible; Color of Existing Access Roads - Background: Vegetation Indistinguishable from this distinguishable from Background; Existing Access Not Visible | No Water Visible Location Roads - Not Visible Foreground: Granular Textured Land | Middleground: Foreground and Middleground: Generally Bristly Foreground and Middleground: No Structures Visible | Texture of Land Indistinguishable, Cover by Vegetation Vegetation Background: Prickly Towers, Barely Indistinguishable Background: Smooth/Rounded Mountains-Visible; Background: Vegetation Indistinguishable from this from Background, two towers skylined in view; Existing Existing Access Rds-Not Visible | No Water Visible Location Access Roads - Not Visible
Foreground and Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Fore and Middleground: No Change | Background: Background:No Visible Change, Addition of New Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for New Evenly Spaced H-Frame Towers at base of mountains Access and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Access Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing - Barely Visible; Addition of New Access and Spur Rds, Rds Not Visible from this Location | No Water Added Access Rds Not Visible from this Location Widening of Existing Access Rds - Not Visible Foreground and Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Fore and Middleground: No Change | Background: Background: No Visible Change, Addition of New Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for New Vertical H-Frame Towers at base of mountains - Barely Access and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Access Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Visible; Addition of New Access and Spur Rds, Rds Not Visible from this Location | No Water Added Access Rds Not Visible from this Location Widening of Existing Access Rds -Not Visible Foreground and Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Fore and Middleground: No Change Background: Background: No Visible Change, Addition of New Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for New Corten or equivalent Steel Towers at base of mtns - Access and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Access Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Barely Visible; Addition of New Access and Spur Rds, Rds Not Visible from this Location | No Water Added Access Rds Not Visible from this Location Widening of Existing Access Rds - Not Visible Foreground and Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Foreground and Middleground: No Change Background: No Visible Change, Addition of New Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for New Background - Pointy H-Frame Trans. Towers - Barely Access and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Access Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Visible; Addition of New Access Rds and Spur Rds, Rds Not Visible from this Location | No Water Added Access Rds Not Visible from this Location Widening of Existing Access Rds - Not Visible
Oct 1, 2007
Liz Cutler/CH2M HILL, Inc. Colleen Bredensteiner/CH2M HILL, Inc. BLM's Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class IV "provides for managing activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the lands characteristic can be high. Activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these actives through consideration of location, minimization measures, and by repeating the character of landscape elements" (BLM, 2005).
The potential effects of Wind Energy Projects located on BLM-managed lands were analyzed in the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005). The Milford Wind Corridor Project analysis tiers off the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005). To comply with the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005) measures required by the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005) Record of Decision (ROD) because the BLM considers them applicable to all wind development projects would be implemented as part of the project to avoid and minimize potential effects to visual resources. The applicable measures that will be implemented to avoid and minimize effects to visual resources were considered during analysis and include:
• The public shall be involved and informed about the visual site design elements of the proposed wind energy facilities. Possible approaches include conducting public forums for disseminating information, offering organized tours of operating wind developments, and using computer simulation and visualization techniques in public presentations. • Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by minimizing areas of surface disturbance, controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation. • Turbine arrays and turbine design shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Design elements to be addressed include visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, nonreflective paints, and prohibition of commercial messages on turbines. • Other site design elements shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Elements to address include minimizing the profile of the ancillary structures, burial of cables, prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting. Regarding lighting, efforts shall be made to minimize the need for and amount of lighting on ancillary structures. • Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by minimizing areas of surface disturbance, controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation.
Additional measure to avoid and minimize effects of implementing the proposed project: • Place towers such that "skylining" is minimized to the extent possible. • Prepare Decommissioning Plan that includes restoration of the project site (e.g., wind farm, T/L, and access roads), including revegetation.
The Proposed Action would result in weak to no change to the existing environment; consistent with the VRM Class IV assignment. Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning would result in no adverse effect and no mitigation is required.
BLM. 2005. Record of Decision. Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. December. http://windeis.anl.gov/ documents/docs/ WindPEISROD.pdf.
Construction and operation of the Proposed Action would be consistent with the BLM land management objectives of VRM Class IV and would result in no adverse effect; therefore, no mitigation is required. KOP 3. View from the Topaz Japanese-American WWII Internment Camp looking northwest from the valley floor toward the Topaz Mountains. Milford Wind Corridor Project, Utah
SCO356212.02.04.EA Milford_03.ai 2/08 Oct 1, 2007
Fillmore Field Office
Energy generation/transmission
Milford Wind Corridor Project 16.0 S
08.0 W KOP 3: Topaz Japanese-American The proposed transmission line route is visible from this Internment Camp (Proposed Action) 20 location (see Figure 1). The information on this worksheet pertains to the proposed transmission line.
VRM Class IV
Foreground Very Flat Valley Floor | Middleground: Foreground: Scattered Low Shrubs and Native Foreground - Dirt Road, Parking Area, Road Sign | Generally Flat Valley Floor with low hills| Background: Grasses | Middleground: Dense Low Rounded Shrubs Fore and Middleground - Barbwire Fencing | Mountainous - Visible; Existing T/L Access Roads - Not and Native Grass | Background: Vegetation Background - Lattice Trans. Towers - Barely Visible; Visible | No Water Visible Indistinguishable Existing T/L Access Rds-Not Visible Foreground: Horizontal Valley Floor | Middleground: Foreground: Horizontal Dirt Road, Parking Area, Foreground: Generally Weak Horizontal | Slightly Irregular Horizontal Valley Floor | Background: Vertical Road Sign, fence posts | Middleground: Middleground: Generally Weak Horizontal | Jagged Skyline - Visible; Lines of Existing T/L Access Vertical Fence Posts | Background: Vertical Towers - Background: Vegetation Indistinguishable Roads - Not Visible | No Water Visible Barely Visible; Existing T/L Access Rds - Not Visible Foreground: Lt Brown Valley Floor | Middleground and Foreground: Lt Brown Parking Area,Dirt Road. Yellow, Foreground and Middleground: Tan Low Shrubs and Background: Color of Land Indistinguishable, Covered White, Black Road Sign | Middleground - Faded Brown Native Grasses | Background: Vegetation by Vegetation | Background: Color of Existing T/L Fence Posts | Background - Dark Gray Towers-Barely Indistinguishable Access Roads - Not Visible | No Water Visible Visible; Existing T/L Access Rds-Not Visible Foreground: Granular Valley Floor | Middleground and Foreground: Randomly Spaces Soft to Bristly Low Foreground: Gravelly Parking Area and Dirt Rd, Pointy Background: Texture of Land Indistinguishable, Shrubs and Native Grasses | Middleground: Dense, Road Sign | Middleground: Pointy Fence Posts Covered by Vegetation | Background: Existing T/L Bristly Low Shrubs and Native Grasses | Background: Background: Pointy Trans. Towers-Barely Visible; Access Rds - Not Visible | No Water Visible Vegetation Indistinguishable Existing Access Rds - Not Visible
Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Foreground and Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change | Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for New Background: Evenly Spaced H-Frame Towers - Barely Background: No Change | No Water Added Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Visible; Addition of New Access Rds and Spur Rds, Access Rds Not Visible from this Location Widening of Existing Access Rds - Not Visible Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Foreground and Middleground: No Change | Background: No Visible Change, Addition of New Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for New Background: Vertical H-Frame Towers - Barely Visible; Access Rds & Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Access Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Addition of New Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening Rds Not Visible from this Location | No Water Added Access Rds Not Visible from this Location of Existing Access Rds -Not Visible Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Foreground and Middleground: No Change Background: No Visible Change, Addition of New Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for New Background: Corten or equivalent Steel Towers - Access Rds & Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Access Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Barely Visible; Addition of New Access Rds and Spur Rds Not Visible from this Location | No Water Added Access Rds Not Visible from this Location Rds, Widening of Existing Access Rds - Not Visible Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change | Foreground: No Change | Middleground: No Change Foreground and Middleground: No Change Background: No Visible Change, Addition of New Background: No Visible Change, Clearing for New Background - Pointy H-Frame Trans. Towers - Barely Access Rds & Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Access Access Rds and Spur Rds, Widening of Existing Visible; Addition of New Access Rds and Spur Rds, Rds Not Visible from this Location | No Water Added Access Rds Not Visible from this Location Widening of Existing Access Rds - Not Visible
Oct 1, 2007
Liz Cutler/CH2M HILL, Inc. Colleen Bredensteiner/CH2M HILL, Inc. BLM's Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class IV "provides for managing activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the lands characteristic can be high. Activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these actives through consideration of location, minimization measures, and by repeating the character of landscape elements" (BLM, 2005).
The potential effects of Wind Energy Projects located on BLM-managed lands were analyzed in the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005). The Milford Wind Corridor Project analysis tiers off the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005). To comply with the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005) measures required by the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 2005) Record of Decision (ROD) because the BLM considers them applicable to all wind development projects would be implemented as part of the project to avoid and minimize potential effects to visual resources. The applicable measures that will be implemented to avoid and minimize effects to visual resources were considered during analysis and include:
• The public shall be involved and informed about the visual site design elements of the proposed wind energy facilities. Possible approaches include conducting public forums for disseminating information, offering organized tours of operating wind developments, and using computer simulation and visualization techniques in public presentations. • Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by minimizing areas of surface disturbance, controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation. • Turbine arrays and turbine design shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Design elements to be addressed include visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, nonreflective paints, and prohibition of commercial messages on turbines. • Other site design elements shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Elements to address include minimizing the profile of the ancillary structures, burial of cables, prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting. Regarding lighting, efforts shall be made to minimize the need for and amount of lighting on ancillary structures. • Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by minimizing areas of surface disturbance, controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring exposed soils as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation.
Additional measure to avoid and minimize effects of implementing the proposed project: • Place towers such that "skylining" is minimized to the extent possible. • Prepare Decommissioning Plan that includes restoration of the project site (e.g., wind farm, T/L, and access roads), including revegetation.
The Proposed Action would result in weak to no change to the existing environment; consistent with the VRM Class IV assignment. Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning would result in no adverse effect and no mitigation is required.
BLM. 2005. Record of Decision. Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. December. http://windeis.anl.gov/ documents/docs/ WindPEISROD.pdf.
Construction and operation of the Proposed Action would be consistent with the BLM land management objectives of VRM Class IV and would result in no adverse effect; therefore no mitigation is required. APPENDIX L Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan
Milford Wind Corridor Project
Adaptive Wildlife Management Plan
1.0 Introduction
For Wind Energy Facilities (WEF) in the arid southwest, little information is currently available which discloses actual effects to wildlife and the relationship of these effects to implemented mitigation measures. Hence, as new information (e.g. scientific investigations, agency guidelines, emerging mitigation measures, site specific findings) becomes available throughout the life of the project, such information will be considered and implemented when deemed potentially effective. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments states “Operators shall evaluate avian and bat use of the project area and design the project to minimize or mitigate the potential for bird and bat strikes. Scientifically rigorous avian and bat use surveys shall be conducted; the amount and extent of ecological baseline data required shall be determined on a project basis.”
Pre-construction use surveys of the MWC project area have already been conducted. These took place in various forms between 2006 and 2008 with the most comprehensive assessments occurring from the fall of 2007 to the summer of 2008. Based on the results of the surveys it is anticipated that the project is located in an area of relatively low collision risk to birds and bats -. Specifically, the results of the pre-construction surveys indicate that: • there appears to be low concentration of avian species during the nesting or migration seasons, • there little for nesting raptors to reside within the footprint of the WEF due to a lack of nesting substrate, except for burrowing owls and northern harriers. Additionally, some raptor nesting activity, including ferruginous hawks and golden eagles, were documented in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line, • bat activity appears to be low and indicative of the fact that there is limited roosting and foraging habitats to attract or concentrate bats, and • there are relative few rare or sensitive species occurring within the project area and those that are present generally occur in low numbers and with a sparse distribution within the project.
Post-construction wildlife monitoring identified in this plan is intended to document the actual effects of the project and build upon the knowledge gained during pre-construction monitoring. Overall, the post-construction monitoring effort will focus primarily on documenting the direct impact of the project on birds and bats via a post-construction fatality survey that uses proven techniques developed specifically for wind energy development. A secondary focus of the monitoring will be to investigate less obvious, indirect effects of the project to local wildlife. This will be accomplished through the repetition of some of the baseline pre-construction wildlife use surveys that were conducted from 2006 to 2008 at the project. The post-construction fatality and use data collected at MWC will become the information on which a strategy of adaptive management efforts will be based. The adaptive management plan, which is outlined in detail below, is a set of diverse assessment and mitigation measures intended to investigate and offset detrimental effects of the project on local and transient wildlife communities. The adaptive management plan has been developed collaboratively between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and MWC and will integrate on-site monitoring results, best known practices and methods for assessing and mitigating observed impacts, emerging data on wildlife impacts at other wind energy projects (particularly in the western states), and new technologies and methods that are developed to assess or offset wildlife impacts at wind energy projects.
Because the adaptive management plan incorporates such a diverse range of information and techniques that will be applied to the site-specific monitoring results, it should be considered to be a ‘living document’ that will be responsive to the impacts of the project that are documented and determined to exceed certain acceptable effects levels. As such, not all measures described in this plan will necessarily be implemented because the actions taken in the future to investigate or offset any given impact will be based specifically on that impact. Rather, this document represents the best, currently available assessment and mitigation actions that will be considered and implemented, as necessary, in response to site-specific effects of the project.
2.0 Background Information
2.1 Federal Laws
There are three primary federal regulatory laws for protecting wildlife from impacts from wind power projects, which include: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In addition, each federal agency that takes actions that have or are likely to have negative impacts on migratory bird populations are directed by Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.
Federal Wildlife Protection Laws Law Protections Permits Penalties Migratory Bird Treaty Act Prohibits the taking, killing, Authorizes permits for Only criminal penalties are possession, transportation, some activities, including possible, with violators and importation of over but not limited to, scientific subject to fine and/or 860 migratory birds, their collecting, depredation, imprisonment eggs, parts, and nests, propagation, and falconry except when specifically No permit provisions for authorized by FWS “incidental take”
Bald and Golden Eagle Prohibits the taking and Authorizes permits for Civil and criminal penalties Protection Act sale of bald and golden scientific or exhibition are possible, with violators eagles and their eggs, purposes, or religious subject to civil penalties, parts, and nests, except purposes by Indian tribes; fines, and/or imprisonment when specifically and for other purposes authorized by FWS No permit provisions for “incidental take”
Endangered Species Act Protects about 1,265 Authorizes permits for the Civil and criminal penalties species that have been “taking” of protected are possible, with violators determined to be at risk for species if the permitted subject to civil penalties, extinction, referred to as activity is for scientific fines, and/or imprisonment threatened or endangered purposes, is to establish species; prohibits the experimental populations, taking of protected animal or is incidental to an species, including actions otherwise legal activity, that “harm” or “harass”; such as construction of federal actions may not wind turbines jeopardize listed species or adversely modify habitat designated as critical
2.2 Pre-construction Wildlife Use Surveys
A number of pre-construction wildlife habitat and use surveys have been conducted at MWC. The results of those surveys are summarized in a number of documents but can primarily be found in Tetra Tech (2008a-f). In general, the MWC project area occurs in habitat supporting wildlife typical of local grassland, salt desert scrub, sagebrush shrublands and barren playa vegetation communities. Concentrated wildlife use (such as migratory stop-over areas) of the MWC project area doesn’t occur, as the habitats that are present typically do not provide critical functions to most migratory wildlife in the region. However, the wildlife communities that have been documented in the area are typical of the high-desert habitats that are present and generally include rather low density populations of most species due to low resource availability relative to other types of habitat (e.g. wetlands, riparian systems, forests). However, certain species, such as the horned lark, do occur in large numbers due to their regional abundance and their preference for the habitats in the area. Following is a summary of the wildlife surveys that have been completed at the project.
Mammals
Mammals that were observed during various wildlife surveys include: white-tailed antelope squirrel, pronghorn, pallid bat, coyote, kangaroo rat, silver-haired bat, western red bat, hoary bat, black-tailed jackrabbit, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, little brown myotis, packrat, big free-tailed bat, mule deer, western pipistrelle, deer mouse, golden-mantled ground squirrel, Paiute ground squirrel, cottontail, Brazilian free-tailed bat, chipmunk, badger, pocket gopher, and kit fox (Table 1). Three of these species are of conservation concern.
Table 1. Mammal species documented during pre-construction assessment surveys at MWC.
Utah/BLM Sensitive Species (Species of Comprehensive Wildlife Mammal Species Concern) Conservation Strategy badger big free‐tailed bat X Tier II black‐tailed jackrabbit Brazilian free‐tailed bat chipmunk cottontail coyote deer mouse golden‐mantled ground squirrel hoary bat kangaroo rat kit fox X Tier II little brown myotis long‐eared myotis mule deer packrat Paiute ground squirrel pallid bat pocket gopher pronghorn silver‐haired bat western pipistrelle western red bat X Tier II western small‐ footed myotis white‐tailed antelope squirrel
Eighteen species of bats have been documented within the State of Utah (Oliver 2000). Of these species, ten were identified within the MWC WEF (Table 2) during fall 2007 acoustic surveys and two of these are protected as Utah/BLM sensitive species. One additional species, Townsend’s big-eared bat, has been documented within the WEF and adjacent habitats but was not documented during the acoustical monitoring. The Townsend’s big-eared bat is also listed as a Utah/BLM Sensitive Species. BLM Sensitive Species are those species that are designated as sensitive by the BLM state office. The goal for these species, as described in BLM Manual 6840.06 C, is to “ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed”.
Table 2. Bat species documented during acoustic monitoring during fall 2007, Status, and Utah Residential Status (Oliver 2000) Common Name Scientific Name Status Utah Residential Status Family: Vespertilionidae Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus None Very abundant in low elevations; rare to absent in high elevations; winter hibernation in caves with minor winter activity in southwestern Utah Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris None Summer resident noctivagans throughout most of Utah; migrates during winter Western Red Bat Lasiurus blossevillii Utah Summer resident through Sensitive central and southwestern Species Utah; winter habits unknown Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus None Assumed summer resident throughout various habitats in Utah; presumed to migrate out of Utah for the winter, although possible overwintering in southwestern Utah has been reported Western Small-footed Myotis ciliolabrum None Assumed summer resident Myotis through most of Utah; winter hibernation in mines and caves in Utah Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis None Assumed summer resident throughout Utah; winter habits unknown Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus None Assumed summer resident in higher elevations; winter habits unknown Western Pipistrelle Parastrellus hesperus None Summer resident throughout most Utah primarily in low elevation habitats; winter hibernation in Utah with intermittent winter activity in the southwest Family: Molossidae Brazilian Free-tailed Tadarida brasiliensis None Summer resident Bat throughout Utah except for higher mountain ranges; some migrate out of Utah for the winter, while others overwinter Big Free-tailed Bat Nyctinomops macrotis Utah Summer resident in Sensitive southern half of Utah; Species presumed to migrate out of Utah for the winter
Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs throughout Utah. Caves and mines serve as winter hibernacula for this species. This species appears to be relatively common in Utah; however is listed as a BLM/Utah sensitive species. Habitats utilized by Townsend’s big-eared bat in Utah include: desert shrub, piñon–juniper, piñon–juniper–sagebrush, mountain brush, mixed forest, and ponderosa pine forest. Mines and caves are used by this species in Utah as day and night roosts. Buildings, caves, and mines in Utah are used as day roosts and maternity roosts.
Reptiles Reptiles documented in the MWC WEF during pre-construction wildlife surveys included: western whiptail, Great Basin rattlesnake, Great Basin collared lizard, western skink, long-nosed leopard lizard, striped whipsnake, greater short-horned lizard, desert horned lizard, gopher snake (Bullsnake), common sagebrush lizard, western fence lizard, and common side-blotched lizard.
Birds
Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and Executive Order 13186. Executive Order 13186 requires federal agencies to consider impacts to migratory birds resulting from any action they authorize, fund, or carry out. The State of Utah classifies all birds as protected (UAC 567-3) that are addressed under the MBTA and listed in 50 C.F.R. § 10.13. Exception is made for migratory game birds described in UAC 567-9, where the MBTA is carried out cooperatively with the USFWS through the setting and enforcement of legal harvest laws and regulations. Avian species that were identified within the project area during pre-construction use surveys are identified in Table 3.
Table 3. Bird species documented during pre-construction assessment surveys at MWC.
Utah/BLM Birds of Conservation Comprehensive Sensitive Concern ‐ Bird Utah Partner's in Wildlife Species (Species Conservation Region 9 Flight‐ Priority Conservation Avian Species of Concern) (Great Basin) Species Strategy American avocet X Tier III American kestrel American pipit American robin American white pelican X X Tier II bald eagle X Tier I barn swallow black‐billed magpie black‐chinned sparrow black‐throated sparrow blue grosbeak Brewer's blackbird Brewer’s sparrow X X Tier III broad‐tailed hummingbird X Tier III brown‐headed cowbird Bullock's oriole burrowing owl X X Tier II Canada goose chipping sparrow cliff swallow common nighthawk common raven Cooper's hawk European starling ferruginous hawk X X X Tier II golden eagle X great blue heron green‐tailed towhee green‐winged teal horned lark house finch killdeer lark sparrow loggerhead shrike X long‐billed curlew X X X Tier II MacGillivray's warbler mallard Merlin mountain bluebird mourning dove northern flicker northern harrier northern rough‐winged swallow osprey Tier III prairie falcon X red‐tailed hawk red‐winged black bird rock wren rough‐legged hawk sage sparrow X X Tier III sage thrasher Tier III savannah sparrow Say's phoebe song sparrow Swainson's hawk X Townsend's solitaire tree swallow turkey vulture vesper sparrow western kingbird western meadowlark white‐crowned sparrow white‐faced ibis white‐throated swift willet yellow‐rumped warbler * The species identified in the table included observations of the entire project area including the transmission line.
2.3 Project Siting and Impact Minimization Strategies
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has developed guidance for wind power development (USFWS 2003). In general, this guidance identifies potential pre-construction surveys to consider on a site-by-site basis and site development and operation recommendations to avoid impacts to wildlife. Those recommendations are also largely incorporated into the BLM’s Best Management Practices for wind power developments that are included in the Programmatic EIS. The USFWS also provided a ranking system for identifying the relative risk that a project might pose to wildlife.
Relative to this guidance, MWC would be ranked as low risk. As described above, the pre- construction surveys at MWC identified a rather low density wildlife community in the vicinity of the project and few species of conservation concern. Additionally, the area is not considered to be a well-known movement corridor for most migratory species and the habitats within the WEF do not represent important stopover habitat for migratory birds. Finally, there is a lack of suitable nesting substrate in the WEF itself for most of the raptors that breed in the region, except for ground nesting species like the burrowing owl and northern harrier. However, suitable nesting habitat for other raptors occurs in Mineral Mountains, Cricket Mountains, and other mountain ranges located near the WEF and proposed transmission line.
Further, there are a number of project design elements that conform to the recommendations provided by USFWS. These include but may not be limited to: • minimization of permanent and temporary roads, • underground 34.5 kV power collection system, • adoption of the minimum-required FAA lighting of wind turbines, • minimization of facility lighting through the use of motion-activated lights over turbine tower doors, installation of downward facing area lights at the project operations and maintenance facility and substation, and avoidance of sodium-vapor area lights that have been implicated as a contributing factor to recent bat fatalities at a wind project in the central Appalachian states, • litter control and fatality removal programs during construction and operation to reduce the attractiveness of the project area to certain carrion-eating species. These elements of the MWC project are proactive measures to reduce potential impacts of the project to local wildlife. The following sections of this report provide details on the reactive measures that comprise the adaptive management plan for the project.
3.0 Post-construction Wildlife Monitoring Program
Post-construction wildlife monitoring at MWC will provide the foundation on which the adaptive management plan will be based. Essentially, this information will determine if any mitigation actions are necessary. The tools identified within the adaptive management plan will then be used to assess the potential cause of the impact and the most appropriate measures to mitigate them.
The monitoring will focus primarily on documenting the direct impact of the project in the form of collision-related mortality, which is the primary concern at most proposed wind power developments. A secondary focus will include the assessment of the indirect effects of the project on the local wildlife communities by repeating some of the pre-construction use surveys once the construction of the project is completed.
The key elements of the post-construction wildlife monitoring program are as follows: • a minimum of three years of standardized bird and bat fatality surveys that incorporate searcher efficiency and carcass removal rates by scavengers with the third year of survey to be conducted during years 3 to 5, based on the results of the first two years of survey, through consultation with BLM , • a quarterly and annual reporting program of fatalities found incidentally by on-site personnel, and • wildlife use surveys (seasonal point counts, raptor nesting survey, bat acoustic detector surveys, and reconnaissance-level investigations) conducted during years 1 and 3 after construction.
The results of these surveys will be summarized in quarterly reports and discussed during annual reviews that will be part of the adaptive management plan for the project. Details of each of these surveys are provided below.
3.1 Post-Construction Fatality Survey The goal of the post-construction fatality survey is to document fatalities of the project in a manner that provides estimates of the seasonal and annual fatality rate at the project. The methods are based on a number of available fatality surveys that have been conducted at other wind energy developments across the nation (Arnett et al. 2005, Erickson et al. 2000, 2003, Fiedler 2004; Fieldler et al 2007; Johnson et al. 2000, 2003; Kerns et al. 2005; Kerns and Kerlinger 2004; Young et al. 2003), various state and industry protocols and guidance documents (NYDEC 2007; Hodgman and Jones 2006; Anderson et al. 1999), available scientific literature (Arnett et al. 2008; Kunz et al. 2007), and post-construction monitoring experience at existing facilities owned and operation by First Wind (Woodlot 2006; Stantec 2008). The primary components of the fatality survey include:
• standardized searches during each season of bird activity (spring migration, summer, fall migration, and winter) and the late summer – early fall migration bat migration season, • searcher efficiency trials to estimate the percentage of fatalities found by searchers, and • scavenging rate, or carcass removal, trials to estimate the length of time that carcasses remain in the project area and available for discovery by searchers.
Standardized fatality surveys will be targeted for the first two years after construction of the project. A third year will be conducted but, based on the results of the first two years of mortality and use monitoring, may be conducted at some point within years 3 through 5. The timing of this third year of surveys will be determined in collaboration with BLM as part of the adaptive management plan for the project.
3.1.1 Standardized Fatality Searches Survey Personnel All surveys will be conducted by staff trained in wildlife collision fatality search methods. Included in the training will be the actual search method (transect surveys per plot), proper handling and reporting of carcasses, and identification procedures of likely species to be found. Survey Periods Standardized fatality searches will consist of regular searches at a subset of turbines and other project features during four sampling events. These sampling events will coincide with the peak activity periods for birds during the spring migration, summer breeding period, fall migration, and winter seasons. The summer survey is also anticipated to coincide with the summer bat activity season. All survey periods will be four weeks long with the exception of the fall migration survey period. The fall migration survey period will be 6 weeks long to include the early part of the season, when bird migration activity may still be relatively light but the activity of migratory bat species will be near its peak. The four seasons in which the four or six-week sampling events will be located are as follows:
• Spring Migration: March 16 – May 15 • Summer: May 16 – August 15 • Fall Migration: August 16 – October 31 • Winter: November 1 – March 15
The final timing of each of the four-week sampling events (in spring, summer, and winter) and the single six-week sampling event (fall migration) will be determined in consultation with BLM. Information that should be considered in making this final determination includes the on- site data collected during pre-construction surveys, timing of fatalities documented at other facilities in the region, and local knowledge of species’ activity time periods. Findings during these four sampling events will be extrapolated to the full season that they represent. The estimates for each season would then be appropriately weighted for any annual estimates, to account for the different length of time each season represents within the year. To account for any unforeseen fatality events, additional fatality searches will be conducted during the time periods (which amount to eighteen weeks) when the standardized surveys are not occurring. A total of eight of these additional searches will be conducted; generally on an average of one per month. However, the exact timing of these searches will be determined in collaboration with BLM and will, when possible, target weather events that may warrant more concern for potential collisions. Combined, the searches will be conducted during a total of 26 weeks of the year. Areas Searched and Search Frequency Fatality searches will be conducted on a subset of the proposed turbines and met towers. In all, approximately 25% (+/- 40) of the constructed turbines and a similar proportion of met towers, and up to 5 reference sites are proposed for the standardized searches. The features to be searched will be randomly selected and used for the duration of the post-construction survey. Reference sites will be selected near but outside the turbine development area to ensure that any fatalities found are representative of natural mortality and not attributable to collisions with wind turbines. The reference sites selected will be representative of the different habitats in which the turbines are located. Each year, a new set of turbines will be selected for searches and those turbines already searched will be removed from the pool of turbines to randomly choose from. Upon selection, the pool of randomly selected turbines will be reviewed with BLM to ensure that the selection is appropriate. Ideally, the randomly selected set of turbines will be representative of the entire wind energy facility. For example, the selected pool of turbines should include a similar ratio of lighted and unlighted turbines and proportion of end row turbines as the entire facility exhibits. Additionally, the stratification of selected turbines within each habitat in the project area should be generally similar to habitat availability within the facility. If these criteria are not met, then a new random selection of turbines will be conducted or, if only a few changes are necessary, several individual turbines will be dropped and replacements will be selected. All features will be searched once per week for each targeted four-week survey period (six weeks during the fall migration period) and non-peak search. The individual order at which each feature will be searched for each seasonal survey period will be randomly selected and maintained throughout that survey period. Search Plot Size Birds and bats that strike wind turbines have the potential to fall at great distances from the wind turbines they have struck, sometimes equal to more than the height of the turbine (Erickson et al. 2004, 2003, 2000; Johnson et al. 2000a, 2000b). Considering the height of modern wind turbines, this can be over 100 m (328 feet) from the turbine base. Recent research, however, has found that the vast majority of fatalities are found within 30 m (99 feet) and one study found greater than 80% of all bat fatalities were found within 40 m (131 feet) of turbines (Arnett et al. 2005; Kerns et al. 2005; Kerns and Kerlinger 2004). Considering this, search plots at the Milford Wind Corridor Project will be square plots centered on the selected wind turbines and met towers and will be 120 m (394 feet) on a side. This will ensure a plot size that is efficient to search (thus allowing for more turbines to be searched) yet still large enough to include the vast majority of fatalities that occur at the turbine. Search Method and Data Recording Search plots at turbines, met towers, and reference sites will be marked prior to the initiation of searches. Transects 6-8 m (20-26 feet) apart will be established (Figure 1), depending on vegetation cover within the plot. Searchers will walk each transect at a pace of approximately 45-60 m per minute (148-200 fpm), searching on both sides out to approximately 3-4 m (10-13 feet) for carcasses. Depending on whether or not any carcasses are found, it should take approximately one hour to complete a survey at each search plot.
120 m
120 m
Figure 1. Example search plot layout including central structure (turbine or met tower) and transects. All carcasses found during searches will be documented on standardized field forms. Included in the recorded information will be: carcass ID number; date; time; plot number; searcher; weather; species, when possible; bearing to turbine (true north), met tower, or reference plot center; distance to turbine, met tower, or reference plot center using a laser range finder; disposition of carcass (intact, scavenged, or feather spot); and any other information that may be unique to a specific carcass. In addition, the locations of carcasses found may be recorded with a hand-held GPS.1 All carcasses found will also be collected, frozen in individually marked bags, and retained in a freezer at the Operations and Maintenance building at the project, with the exception of any federally-listed Endangered or Threatened species (ESA-listed species will be handed over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with that agency’s specified protocol). Retained carcasses will be used during searcher efficiency and carcass removal trials, described below. 3.1.2 Searcher Efficiency (SEEF) Trials Searcher efficiency trials will be conducted to test the efficiency of each searcher conducting the surveys. These will be blind trials, i.e., the searchers will not know that trials are underway. Twenty-five carcasses will be placed in search plots the evening before searches are to take place. Each carcass placed will be marked in a discreet manner, such as a thin band of electrical
1 Locating carcasses relative to the distance and true north bearing to turbines is proposed as it is more accurate than the accuracy of most hand-held GPS devices. tape around a leg. Data for each carcass placed will be recorded simply as found or not found. All carcasses placed but not found will be collected following that day’s searches. To the extent practicable, native species will be used for these trials. Presumably, the fatality searches will eventually produce enough carcasses for this purpose. If however, native species are not available surrogate species will be used. For example, female mallards or pheasants can be used for the large bird size class, rock doves can be used for the medium bird size class, and house sparrow or starlings can be used for the small bird size class. Mice or other small mammals may be used as surrogates for bats.
3.1.3 Carcass Removal Trials Carcasses of birds and bats that collide with wind turbines may be removed from the site by avian and mammalian scavengers. This removal of carcasses can affect the results of fatality monitoring surveys if not accounted for. Consequently, carcass removal trials will be conducted to document the average length of time that bird and bat carcasses remain in the project before they are removed. Similar to the searcher efficiency trials, at least 25 discreetly marked carcasses of native species will be placed in the project area. If a suitable number of native species is not available then the surrogate species will be used. Carcasses will be placed at turbines and met towers that are not included in the standardized searches to ensure that the activity of searches does not affect (either increase due to disturbance to scavengers or decrease due to scavenger attraction) the length of time they would naturally remain in the area. Carcasses in this trial will be checked 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 14, 18, 24, and 28 days after they are placed. Tracking sheets for each trial period (one set per seasonal survey) will be used to document the length of time it takes for each carcass to begin to be scavenged and disappear altogether, from the project area. At day 28, all carcasses will be removed from the field.
3.1.4 Calculations of Estimated Seasonal and Annual Survival Upon completion of all annual field surveys the data will be analyzed to provide estimates of the mortality that occurred at the project. Depending on the actual results of the surveys, a number of estimates may be made. The results of the searcher efficiency trials will provide estimates of the percentage of carcasses the trained searchers are capable of finding. The removal rates will also be used to refine the estimate of the number of fatalities. Fatality estimates for each of the four seasonal survey periods will then be expanded for the full season that the four or six-week survey period represents. Finally, these seasonal estimates can be appropriately weighted to provide an annual estimate of mortality at the project, which is typically expressed as fatalities/turbine/year. This last estimate, however, will be adjusted for any natural fatality estimates that are found at the non-turbine reference search plots, and may also be adjusted to account for different rate of mortality among seasons. Additionally, the final analyzed results will be transformed to other reporting metrics, including fatalities/MW/year and fatalities/unit of rotor swept area/year. The primary calculations are as follows. The estimate of the total mortality (ĉ) at the project will be calculated based on the number of carcasses found during the survey (C), the proportion of turbines searched (Ps), the percent of carcasses not removed by scavengers after the average number of days between potential impact and discovery for each search interval (Sc), and the percent of carcasses found by the surveyor (Se).
The variance will be calculated as described by Jain et al. (2007), as follows:
The standard deviation will then be calculated based on the square root of the variance divided by the square root of the number of searched turbines, multiplied by the 95 percent confidence interval (α=0.05). Finally, by conducting the survey during the first two years after construction, it is likely that the annual estimates will be a worst-case estimate as it is anticipated that resident individuals will eventually habituate or ‘get used to’ the presence of the turbines and the risk of collisions will diminish somewhat over time. Additionally, the timing of the search periods at the peak activity of each season of the year will provide a conservative (i.e., worst-case) estimate of fatality.
3.1.5 Staffing, QA/QC, and Reporting The post-construction fatality survey will be overseen by a senior level biologist or ecologist with experience in conducting scientific investigations, particularly wind and wildlife interaction studies. Similarly, a field manager with experience in post-construction fatality surveys will coordinate field investigations, including the training of search personnel, timing of the surveys, and placement of SEEF and removal trial carcasses. The senior biologist and field manager will work closely with BLM during the selection of survey plots and design of the final field protocol. The field manager will review all project data sheets following each seasonal survey period and will perform inspections of the field surveys periodically throughout the survey. A quarterly summary of survey results will be prepared following each of the four seasonal search periods. These reports will also include the results from the less frequent searches conducted between the four seasonal search periods. An annual report will be prepared for each year of monitoring. The report will provide detail on the total number of animals found during standardized searches as well as estimates of the overall number and rate of fatalities at the project. The annual report will be a compilation of the information presented in the quarterly reports and will be filed with the BLM within three months of the end of each year of survey.
3.2 Incidental Fatality Reporting Operations and Maintenance (O&M) staff will be at the Milford Wind Corridor Project daily for the life of the project, and thus provide an opportunity to document fatalities at the project on an incidental, or opportunistic basis. O&M staff will be provided data sheets and training on documenting the time, location and condition of any fatalities they may find during the course of their normal daily activities. They will also be given appropriate equipment for collection of carcasses2 and a camera to document the general disposition of the carcass and provide for identification. Fatality reporting sheets will be submitted to First Wind Environmental Department staff monthly. However, O&M staff will be trained and directed to contact Environmental Department staff if any noteworthy observations, such as a suspected ESA-listed species fatality or an unexpectedly large number of casualties are found. This incidental reporting process represents a long-term (20-year +) monitoring program at the project. This is particularly true for large birds and raptors. Results from a large number of fatality surveys across the country have demonstrated that the larger carcasses of raptors and other large birds are more consistently found by observers and remain in a project area (i.e., not scavenged) for much longer periods of time than smaller carcasses. Consequently, this incidental fatality reporting process provides a source of long-term raptor impact data for use in the Project’s Adaptive Management Plan.
3.3 Post-construction Wildlife Use Surveys Wildlife use surveys will be conducted in Year 1 and Year 3 following construction. These surveys will include: seasonal point count surveys during spring, summer, fall, and winter; long- billed curlew surveys; acoustic bat detector surveys; and a raptor nesting survey. The methods for these surveys will be based on those conducted during the pre-construction surveys and reported by Tetra Tech (2008a-f). The final methodology for each survey will be discussed with BLM prior to initiation. A report for each of the surveys will be prepared following completion of each year of data collection.
4.0 Adaptive Management Plan
The 2006 Programmatic FEIS (BLM 2006) addressed many potential impacts to wildlife species as a result of the proposed action and recommended several mitigation measures to minimize
2 O&M staff will be informed of where and when the standardized turbine searches and carcass removal trials are being held. During these time periods, O&M staff will not remove any carcasses they may happen to find during their daily activities, as this would affect the overall results of the standardized surveys. these impacts. The BLM Wind Energy Development Program Best Management Practices identified in the Record of Decision for the 2006 Programmatic FEIS were incorporated into the Plan of Development for the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Many of the Best Management Practices for resources other than wildlife will provide de facto mitigations/minimizations for wildlife as well. In addition to these, additional Best Management Practices and mitigations were proposed within the Plan of Development to minimize potential environmental impacts to resources.
Despite the implementation of those avoidance and minimization strategies, some impacts to wildlife at MWC are expected to occur. The pre-construction wildlife surveys conducted at the project indicate that those impacts are likely to be low and are not anticipated to affect local wildlife populations. However, a series of impact assessment and mitigation measures have been developed in advance of any demonstrated need to offset the impacts documented during the post-construction wildlife monitoring surveys. These measures represent the tools that will be utilized under the adaptive management plan for the project. The need for implementing any of these measures and the exact measures to be implemented will be determined in collaboration with BLM and other interested parties.
4.1 Mitigation Triggering Mechanism
The primary mechanism for triggering mitigation actions is the documentation of an unacceptable, or higher-than average, level of collision-related fatalities at the project. The threshold (i.e., value) of acceptable and unacceptable fatalities is difficult to define. A fundamental constraint is the lack of recent, publicly-available fatality data from wind projects in the region that have more similarly sized turbines. Currently available research, indicates an average fatality rate of 2 bird or bat fatalities/turbine/year. This is recommended as the baseline threshold value for mitigation requirements. The rate was primarily based on fatality data from projects located in Wyoming and Minnesota, which were determined to best represent the type of landscape in which MWC is located. Additionally, this value is also the average of five projects located in the west and northwest, including Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington. This value will be re-evaluated and modified, as appropriate, as monitoring results from MWC and other operating facilities becomes available. Because of the large number of projects that have recently come on line and are undergoing monitoring, it is anticipated that relevant results will actually become available before the first year of fatality surveys is completed at MWC. The re-evaluation and modification of the threshold value of unacceptable impact will be conducted in collaboration with BLM.
Finally, special consideration will also be given to large-scale mortality events that occur at the MWC. Documentation of such an event can also trigger mitigation measures or specific actions under the adaptive management plan. A large-scale mortality event is defined as the documentation of a cumulative total of ten times the threshold value (presently set at 2 fatalities/turbine/year but subject to change once more information is available) at less than one- quarter of the turbines searched during any one survey period.
If a large-scale mortality event occurs, the project BLM will be notified within one week of the observation. Following a determination between BLM (in coordination with USFWS and UDWR) and MWC that the mortality event warrants further investigation, MWC will contract an independent third-party with the credentials to evaluate the possible cause of the mortality and provide a report to the BLM. The BLM will distribute the report to other agencies as necessary. MWC will provide all required data to the third-party contractor so that a complete report can be generated summarizing the environmental and meteorological conditions that may have led to the mortality event.
4.2 Impact Assessment and Mitigation
The Programmatic FEIS (BLM 2006) states that an Adaptive Management strategy could be employed based upon new research and technology, if mortality of bats and birds are detected during monitoring efforts. Adaptive management can be considered to have four primary phases. These include monitoring for unacceptable levels of impact, assessment of why observed impacts are occurring to determine appropriate mitigation action, implementation of mitigation actions, and monitoring of effectiveness of mitigation actions and development of further remedial measures as necessary.
Therefore, additional assessment and mitigation measures have been drafted for bats and birds in the instance that unacceptable impacts are detected during the operation-phase monitoring detailed in Section 3, above. Under adaptive management, documented impacts will be evaluated in consultation with BLM relative to the biological significance they represent to wildlife communities and individual species. Ideally, mitigation measures will then be applied at increasing levels to ensure that impacts to these species are reduced below levels of significance.
It is possible that in some cases, additional assessment of the cause of collisions may be necessary. For example, turbine-specific visual activity surveys, targeted species searches, or vertical radar data of flight heights may be desirable information to determine the cause of some types of collisions prior to determining the most appropriate impact minimization strategy. It is anticipated that the need for and scope of these types of assessment surveys will be determined through consultation with BLM.
Following are more detailed description of potential mitigation measures that may be considered if monitoring documents unacceptable levels of impacts at MWC. It is important to note that not all of the measures included will necessarily be implemented if impacts occur. Rather, the most appropriate action for the type and level of impacts actually documented will be implemented, followed by an evaluation of the success of that action the following year.
4.2.1 General Mitigation Strategy
In general, impacts will be measured against a pre-determined threshold after each year of monitoring. This threshold, described in Section 4.1 above, is an estimated regional mortality rate for an individual turbine based on data collected at other projects. After every year of mortality surveys, each wind turbine generator (WTG) will be assessed individually so that mitigation measures will concentrate on problem turbines and not be applied to WTGs that are not impacting the species. Mortality monitoring will also identify impacts to BLM/UDWR Sensitive Species and Wildlife Species of Concern (USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, Partners in Flight Priority Species, etc.)- mortality rates for these species will be analyzed based on local, state, and regional populations and if impacts are expected to contribute towards the potential for listing under ESA further mitigations will be developed.
If a single, nonrecurring large-scale event as described above is documented at the WEF, MWC will work with BLM and other relevant agencies to determine the necessary monitoring and/or mitigation measures to better understand and reduce future impacts from an event of this nature. Because these events are addressed separately, they will not be considered in yearly mortality totals for determining impacts mitigation requirements.
Omitting these unique mortality events, if mortality rates are below the estimated regional mortality rate, no mitigation will be required3. However, if an impact to either one of these two groups exceeds the thresholds discussed above, First Wind will consult with BLM, USFWS and UDWR to determine whether mitigation is warranted. This determination will consider the status and sensitivity of the species documented, and the potential biological relevance of the project to affect the species. If deemed appropriate, the lowest mitigation level not yet implemented will be applied for that species during the following season. For some of the mitigation levels, several mitigation options have been identified and one or more of the measures from that level must be implemented as agreed to by MWC, BLM, USFWS, and UDWR. Not all of the mitigation options in a mitigation level must be implemented.
Mitigation measures presented in this document are based on current methods and emerging research on potential impact reduction measures. Some of these measures have been proven to be effective while others have not or are conceptual ideas. While some of the mitigation measures have been utilized at other WEFs and are known to be effective, it is unclear if some of the measures will be effective, particularly within the MWC Project. Upon implementation of the chosen mitigation measures, effectiveness will be measured the following year by determining if mortality at the problem WTG or at the WEF as a whole has decreased. If a mitigation measure is determined to be ineffective, it may be swapped for one of the other alternatives within that mitigation level. However, once a mitigation level has been initiated and found effective, this mitigation level shall be required every subsequent year that the WEF is in operation, as it is assumed biological conditions will be fairly similar from one year to the next. It is possible that other mitigation measures, not listed here, may become available, be proven acceptable, or be recommended by or for other WEFs in the western U.S. Such mitigation may be utilized in place of the impacts mitigation measures listed below if it is approved by the BLM prior to implementation.
After each successive year of operation-phase monitoring, impacts will be analyzed and the necessity for additional mitigation level implementation will be evaluated. Three years of operation-phase fatality monitoring will be conducted to document the impact of the project and effectiveness of mitigation. Additional wildlife use surveys, beyond the two years identified in
3 Non-protected, introduced species, such as rock dove, European starling, and house sparrow will not be included in fatality estimates. Section 3.3, may be necessary on site-specific basis, depending on the nature of impacts observed and mitigation that is implemented. If impacts are above the acceptable threshold following all three potential seasons of operation-phase monitoring, all three mitigation levels must be implemented. Additionally, consultation with BLM will occur to determine if additional mitigation measures are required and if an Adaptive Management Plan is necessary.
4.2.2 Bat Impact Mitigation Measures
After each year of mortality surveys, calculations will be made to estimate the number of bat fatalities per turbine per year to compare the results from MWC to the mitigation triggering threshold of 2.0 bats/turbine/year (or future threshold value based on new research data). This will be conducted for the entire facility (WEF) as well as for individual turbines (WTG). Additionally, the results will be reviewed relative to individual species to determine if a species- specific mitigation is necessary.
Table 4 provides a decision matrix analysis to be used in determining the need for mitigation measures and the focus of those measures. In general, if mortality rates are below the threshold value, no mitigation will be required. However, after each successive year that a WTG exceeds the specified threshold, additional mitigation will be necessary. New mitigation actions could be incorporated as they are developed and would require review by the BLM in consultation with USFWS and UDWR prior to implementation.
Table 4. Matrix for bat mortality mitigation determination.
WEF Mortality Above 2 WEF Mortality Below 2
bats/turbine/year bats/turbine/year
If the WEF is below 2 If the WEF and the prospective WTG bats/turbine/year, but the WTG are above 2 bats/turbine/year, Mortality prospective WTG is above 4 mitigation is required for that Above 2 bats/turbine/year, mitigation is specific turbine. required for that specific turbine.
If the WEF is above 2 If both the WEF and the WTG bats/turbine/year, but the prospective WTG are below 2 Mortality prospective WTG is below 2 bats/turbine/year, no mitigation is Below 2 bats/turbine/year, no mitigation is required for that specific turbine. required for that specific turbine
Level 1 Mitigation
If mitigation is required after a year of mortality surveys, and no actions have yet been implemented, the following measures will be assessed for effectiveness and at least one will be implemented.
• If habitat features (vegetation, ephemeral washes, livestock watering facilities, topographical features, etc.) within the WEF or at the WTG are determined to be attracting bats measures to remove, alter, or replace those features will be developed. Examples include the construction of an off-site guzzler or removal of tall shrub communities around a particular WTG.
• The use of high-intensity ultrasound deterrent devices is currently being field-tested (unpublished report from Szewczak & Arnett). The effectiveness of these devices, incorporating the most recent field-testing results, will be investigated. If deemed potentially effective, these devices could be installed around the WEF or at individual WTGs (either permanently or as part of additional field trials).
Level 2 Mitigation
If mitigation is required after a year of mortality surveys, and a level one mitigation has already been initiated, additional Level 1 measures will be considered. If necessary, the following Level 2 mitigation measures will also be evaluated and initiated, as appropriate.
• If the majority of bats being killed are resident species, more extensive surveys (possibly including radar, acoustic monitoring, mist netting, etc.) will be performed and all potential roost sites within 1.0 miles (805 m) of WTGs would be checked for signs of roosting bats. If determined appropriate roost sites would be sealed to eliminate the potential for bats to be attracted to the area.
• A more detailed analysis of bat fatalities and weather conditions can be initiated to determine if there are certain conditions that trigger unacceptable-level impacts to bats. This assessment would entail an analysis utilizing fatality data and archived weather data for the WEF as a whole and at individual WTGs. This level of analysis far exceeds the analysis necessary for annual reporting and the assessment of mitigation requirements. This analysis could provide insight into the potential effectiveness and cost-benefit of alternative mitigation options in the future, such a turbine operation adjustments.
Level 3 Mitigation
If mitigation is required after a year of mortality surveys, and level one and two mitigations have already been initiated, additional measures must be considered. Based upon the speculative nature of both the future impacts of the project and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures that may be implemented these additional measures will need to be developed and evaluated once they are necessary. These mitigation strategies will be reevaluated and a modified Post- Construction Operational Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan will be drafted for bats. However, this does not mean that mitigation measures that have already been initiated and found to be effective will end. All newly recommended mitigation measures will be in addition to those implemented and effective as part of this plan.
Measures that may be developed under this scenario may include off-site mitigation such as the grating of nearby known hibernacula or roosts in jeopardy of disturbance or financial sponsorship of research on bat ecology region and collision impact mechanisms.
4.2.3 Bird Impact Mitigation Measures
After each year of mortality surveys, calculations will be made to estimate the number of bird fatalities per turbine per year to compare the results from MWC to the mitigation triggering threshold of 2 birds/turbine/year (or future threshold value based on new research data). This will be conducted for the entire facility (WEF) as well as for individual turbines (WTG). Additionally, the results will be reviewed relative to individual species to determine if a species- specific mitigation is necessary.
Table 5 provides a decision matrix analysis to be used in determining the need for mitigation measures and the focus of those measures. In general, if mortality rates are below the threshold value, no mitigation will be required. However, after each successive year that a WTG exceeds the specified threshold, additional mitigation will be necessary. New mitigation actions could be incorporated as they are developed and would require review by the BLM in consultation with USFWS and UDWR prior to implementation.
Table 5. Matrix for bird mortality mitigation determination.
WEF Mortality Above 2 WEF Mortality Below 2
birds/turbine/year birds/turbine/year
If the WEF is below 2 If the WEF and the prospective WTG birds/turbine/year, but the WTG are above 2 Mortality prospective WTG is above 4 birds/turbine/year, mitigation is Above 2 birds/turbine/year, mitigation is required for that specific turbine. required for that specific turbine. If the WEF is above 2 If both the WEF and the WTG birds/turbine/year, but the prospective WTG are below Mortality prospective WTG is below 2 2birds/turbine/year, no mitigation is Below 2 birds/turbine/year, no mitigation is required for that specific turbine. required for that specific turbine
Level 1 Mitigation If mitigation is required after a year of mortality surveys and no impacts mitigations has yet been implemented, at least one of the following measures must be implemented.
• Flight-diverting poles may be installed at the end of turbine strings and at the edge of turbine clusters that contain WTGs with notably higher mortality rates than the WEF average. Flight-diverting poles are installed to divert diurnally migrating or resident birds around these turbines as they approach the WEF. Flight-diverting poles shall be benign structures erected for the sole purpose of diverting avian species away from WTGs and shall not require the decommissioning of existing WTGs.
• If mitigation is required for a specific WTG near the Substation or Operations and Maintenance facilities, lights at these facilities may be turned off for short durations during critical time periods (such as certain suitable ‘big night’ migration weather events).
Level 2 Mitigation
If mitigation is required after a year of mortality surveys, and a level one mitigation has already been initiated, at least one of the following measures must be implemented. Additionally, uninitiated mitigation measures from previous levels may be initiated.
• If an impact to an individual species is determined to be unacceptable then species- specific measures, such as passive relocation, hazing, etc. will be assessed and implemented.
• Off-site mitigation in the form of habitat conservation or enhancement will be evaluated and implemented. The benefit of any implemented measures should be based on site- and species-specific concerns derived from the post-construction fatality surveys.
• If the majority of birds being killed are nocturnal migratory species nocturnal radar studies will be performed to determine the time period when nocturnal avian use of the WEF is highest and, more specifically, the seasonal weather conditions that trigger the largest flights. Following the collection of this data, the costs and benefits of modifying operation of a specific WTG that exhibits a mortality rate notably higher than average will be assessed.
Level 3 Mitigation
If mitigation is required after a year of mortality surveys and level one and two mitigations have already been initiated, at least one of the following measures must be implemented. Additionally, uninitiated mitigation measures from previous levels may be initiated.
• If mitigation is required for the WEF after three years of operation-phase monitoring and on-site mitigation has not successfully reduced impacts to avian species, the project proponent could fund (not to exceed $50,000) to aid in monitoring.
• If mitigation is required for the WEF after three years of operation-phase monitoring and on-site mitigation has not successfully reduced impacts to avian species, the project proponent could fund (not to exceed $50,000) enhancement efforts of quality bird habitat in southern Utah.
If after three years of post-construction mortality monitoring, the rate of mortality for the WEF is below the estimated regional mortality rate, no more surveys will be required. However, if mortality rates are above the estimated regional rate after the third year of monitoring, mitigation strategies will be re-evaluated and a modified Post-Construction Operational Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan for birds will be drafted. As was stated for bats, this does not mean that mitigation measures that have already been initiated will be stopped. All newly recommended mitigation measures will be in addition to those implemented and found effective as part of this plan.
5.0 Conclusion
This document was written to provide guidance and recommendations for all required wildlife mitigation and monitoring during and after construction of the Milford Wind Corridor Wind Energy Facility. It also provides the framework of the Adaptive Management Plan for the project. The measures described in this document are intended to help protect and reduce impacts to wildlife, as well as monitor potential impacts to wildlife following construction of the WEF. It is anticipated that this plan will adaptively manage the WEF based on findings following construction.
LITERATURE AND REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Gregory M. 2007. Bringing Green Power to the Public Lands: The Bureau of Land Management’s Authority and Discretion to Regulate Wind-Energy Developments. J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 21, 445] Anderson, R., M. Morrison, K. Sinclair, and D. Strickland. 1999. Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document. Report prepared for the Avian Subcommittee and the National Wind Coordinating Committee. December 1999. 86 pp. Arnett, E. B., technical editor. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.F. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O’Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, and R.D. Tankersley. 2008. Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):61-78. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Twin Falls District, Burley Field Office. 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project and Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment, Burley, Cassia County, ID. CH2MHill. 2008. Final Bat Survey Report. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management’s Cedar City and Fillmore Field Office. July, 2008. 12 pp. Connelly, JW, K Reese, MA Schroeder. Monitoring of Greater Sage-grouse Habitats and Populations. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Station Bulletin 80, October 2003. Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines for management of sage grouse populations and habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 967-985. Environment Canada (EC). 2005. Wind Turbines and Birds. A Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment. Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service. Interim Draft. July 2005. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, and K. Kronner. 2000. Avian and bat mortality associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla County, Oregon: 1999 study year. Technical Report prepared by WEST, Inc. for Umatilla County Department of Resource Services and Development, Pendleton, Oregon. 21pp. Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality information from proposed and existing wind developments. Technical report prepared by West, Inc., for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.
Erickson, W.P., B. Gritski, and K. Kronner, 2003. Nine Canyon Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Annual Report. Technical report submitted to Energy Northwest and the Nine Canyon Technical Advisory Committee. Erickson, W.P., J. Kerns, E. Arnett and M. Tuttle. 2004. Bat fatality monitoring methods, fall 2004, Mountaineer and Meyersdale. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Onshore Wildlife Interactions with Wind Developments: Research Meeting V, November 3-4, 2004, Landsdowne, Erickson, W., D. Young, G. Johnson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, R. Good, and H. Sawyer. 2003. Wildlife Baseline Study for the Wild Horse Wind Project, Summary of Results from 2002- 2003 Wildlife Surveys. Prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, Portland, OR. 75 p. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, D. P. Young, K. J. Sernka, and R. E. Good.2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordination Committee Publication. http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/default.htm Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2007. Advisory Circular. Obstruction Marking and Lighting. U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC. AC 70-7460-1 K. Effective 2/1/07. Fiedler, J.K. 2004. Assessment of Bat Mortality and Activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern Tennessee. M.S. Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 166 pp. Fiedler, J.K., T. H. Henry, R. D. Tankersley, and C. P. Nicholson. 2007. Results of Bat and Bird Mortality Monitoring at the Expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority. 38 pp. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife. Report to Congressional Requestors. September. GAO-05-906. Gorrell, J.V., M.E. Andersen, K.D.Bunnell, M.F. Canning, A.G. Clark, D. E. Dolsen, and F.P.Howe. 2005. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO). 2003. Nevada Bird Count. A Habitat-based Monitoring Program for Breeding Birds of Nevada. Available on the internet at http://www.gbbo.org/pdf/Instructions.2003.doc Hodgman, T. and J. Jones, Eds. Unpublished draft manuscript. Methodologies for evaluating bird and bat interactions with wind turbines in Maine. Maine Wind Power Advisory Group, January 11, 2006 Draft. Hoffman, S.W., and J.P. Smith. 2003. Population trends of migratory raptors in western North America, 1977-2001. Condor 105: 397-419. Horn, J.W., E.B. Arnett, and T.H. Kunz. 2008. Behavioral Responses of Bats to Operating Wind Turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): 123-132. Johnson, G.D. 2004. A review of bat impacts at wind farms in the U.S. Pp. 46-50, in Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts, Washington, D.C., May 18-19, 2004 (S.S. Schwartz, ed.). RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. Johnson, G.D. 2005. A Review of Bat Mortality at Wind-energy Developments in the United States. Bat Research News. Volume 46: No. 2. Summer 2005. Johnson, G. D., W. P Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, and D. A. Shepherd. 2000a.Avian monitoring studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota: Results of a 4-year study. Technical report prepared for Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN. Johnson, G.D., D.P. Young, Jr., W.P. Erickson, C.E. Derby, M.D. Strickland, and R.E. Good.2000b. Final Report, Wildlife Monitoring Studies, SeaWest Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, 1995-1999. Prepared for SeaWest Energy Corporation and Bureau of Land Management. Report Dated August 9, 2000. 195 pp. Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, K.J. Sernka, K. Kronner, and B. Gritske 2003. Analysis Potential Avian/Wind Plant Interactions in Klickitat County, Washington. Supplement to the Klickitat County Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Resource Development Department Klickitat County. Report Dated May 2003. Kerlinger, P., L. Culp, and R. Curry. 2005. Post-construction avian monitoring study for the High Winds Wind Power Project, Solano County, California. Prepared by Curry & Kerlinger LLC for High Winds, LLC, FPL Energy. 70 p. Kerns, J., W. P. Erickson and E. B. Arnett. 2005. Bat and bird fatality at wind energy facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Pages 24-95 in E. B. Arnett, technical editor, Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the MWEC Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: annual report for 2003. Technical report prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC for FPL Energy and MWEC Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research, needs, and hypotheses. Front Ecol Environ. 5(6): 315-324. Leddy, K. L., K. F. Higgins, and D. E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in CRP grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104. Milford Wind Corridor, LLC. 2008. Draft Plan of Development for the Milford Wind Corridor Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices. National Wind Coordinating Collaborative website http://www.nationalwind.org/news/mitigation_toolbox.pdf NYDEC. 2007. Draft Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects. Prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, New York. December 2007. 19 pp. O’Farrell, M.J. 2007. Final Report 2007, Baseline Acoustic Monitoring of Bat Populations within the Milford Wind Corridor Project Site, Millard and Beaver Counties, Utah. O’Farrell Biological Consulting. Oliver, G.V. 2000. The Bats of Utah, a Literature Review. Publication Number 00-14, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program. April 28. Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas, 1989-1991. Final report prepared by Biosystems Analysis, Inc. for Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties and the California Energy Commission. Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, R. E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) Publication Number 02-27. i–xiv + 302 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and C. G. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird fatalities in the Altamont Wind Resource Area. Final Report by BioResource Consultants to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research-Environmental Area, under contract no. 500-01-019 Stantec Consulting. 2008. 2007 Spring, Summer, and Fall Post-construction Bird and Bat Mortality Study at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine. Unpublished report prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC, Portland, Maine. 31 pp. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 2006a. Spring Avian Use Surveys at the Milford Wind Resource Area, Beaver and Millard Counties, Utah. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC. Report Dated August 2006. 11 pp. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 2006b. Spring Sage-Grouse Surveys at the Milford Wind Resource Area, Beaver and Millard Counties, Utah. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC. Report Dated August 2006. 8 pp. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2007a. Winter Avian Surveys, Areas 1-7 and Two Transmission Line Routes. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC. Report Dated August 29, 2007. 13 pp. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2007b. June Raptor, Sage Grouse, and Burrowing Owl Surveys. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC. Report Dated November 2007. 11 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2008. Fall Avian Surveys Report. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC. Report Dated February 7, 2008. 17 pp. Tetra Tech. 2008a. Comprehensive Report on Baseline Avian Surveys, 2006-2007. Milford Wind Corridor Project. Part 1. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Salt Lake City. July 21, 2008. 51 pp. Tetra Tech. 2008b. Spring 2008 Aerial Raptor Nest Survey of the Proposed IPP Transmission Line Corridor. Milford Wind Corridor Project. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Salt Lake City. July 21, 2008. 9 pp.
Tetra Tech. 2008c. Spring 2008 Avian Survey. Milford Wind Corridor Project. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Salt Lake City. July 22, 2008. 14 pp. Tetra Tech. 2008d. Summer 2008 Avian Survey. Milford Wind Corridor Project. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Salt Lake City. August 12, 2008. 11 pp. Tetra Tech. 2008e. 2008 Long-billed Curlew Survey. Milford Wind Corridor Project. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Salt Lake City. August 25, 2008. 14 pp. Tetra Tech. 2008f. Comprehensive Report on 2007-2008 Avian Baseline Surveys at the Proposed Milford Wind Corridor, Beaver and Millard Counties, Utah. Part 2. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City and Fillmore Field Offices. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Salt Lake City. In prep. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines. U.S. Department of the Interior. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069. Interim Offisite Compensatory Mitigation for Oil, Gas, Geothermal, and Energy Rights-of-Way Authorizations. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-050. Migratory Bird Treaty Act- Interim Management Guidance. United States Department of the Interior, BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2005a. FES 05- 11; Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States and Record of Decision. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. June. United States Department of the Interior, BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2005b. Record of Decision. Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/WindPEISROD.pdf. Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2006. Wildlife Casualty Monitoring Protocol. Mars Hill Wind Farm. Prepared for Evergreen Windpower, LLC. 7 pp. Young, D. P., W. P. Erickson, R E. Good, M. Dale Strickland, and G. D. Johnson. 2003. Avian and bat mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming. Prepared for Pacificorp, Inc., SeaWest Windpower Inc., &Bureau of Land Management. 35 pp.
APPENDIX M Visual Simulation
Photo 1 (KOP 1). View from the Milford Trap Club overlooking the Milford Valley, looking northeast toward the Mineral Mountains.
Photo 1- Visual Simulation (KOP 1). View from the Milford Trap Club overlooking the Milford Valley, looking northeast toward the Mineral Mountains with visual simulation of turbines. Wind Energy Facility is approximately 7 miles from this location.
Photo 2. View from Highway 257 looking east toward the Mineral Mountains.
Photo 2- Visual Simulation. View from Highway 257 looking east toward the Mineral Mountains with visual simulation of turbines. Wind Energy Facility is approximately 2 miles from this location.