APPENDIX G: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS

Page Left Intentionally Blank

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Table G-1. Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 01.AS-1 I just wanted to say that what happens here in this county and in this small town with Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be this wind farm has an effect on Quay County in Tucumcari, New Mexico, specifically included in the administrative record for this EIS. Mesa Lands Community College. I teach wind technicians how to maintain turbines. And when there's a proposed wind farm, I generally get an influx of students from the surrounding high schools in my program. So it's a wonderful boon to our dying little town. There's a lot of dying little towns in New Mexico, and these projects really do boost our economy. And it's not just felt here locally around the local wind farm. It's felt in other places. I just wanted to make that known and that I really appreciate the consideration of the wind farm going in here. 01.MK-1 Generators, light towers, and other equipment powered by diesel, gasoline, or natural gas The construction contractor would ensure that all engines may require registration or an air quality permit if the emissions of any criteria generators, light towers and other equipment powered by air pollutant will exceed 10 pounds per hour and 10 tons per year. If the proposed project diesel, gasoline or natural gas engines would acquire the includes this type of equipment, please contact the NMED Air Quality Bureau Permitting appropriate air quality permits from NMED Air Quality Section to determine if a permit is required. For more information on air quality Bureau Permitting Section. permitting and modeling requirements, please refer to 20.2.72 NMAC. 01.MK-2 The project as proposed should have no significant negative impacts on ambient air Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be quality. included in the administrative record for this EIS. The BLM considered potential impacts to air quality in the EIS; refer to Table 3-1. 01.MK-3 Implementation of the project may involve the use of heavy equipment leading to a Comment acknowledged. The BLM appreciates the possibility of contaminant releases associated with equipment malfunctions (e.g., fuel, information provided. The BLWP POD includes a Health and hydraulic fluid, etc.). The GWQB advises all parties involved in the project to be aware of Safety Plan which includes Waste and Hazardous Material notification requirements for accidental discharges as specified at 20.6.2.1203 NMAC. A Management (Appendix C of the EIS). copy of the Ground and Surface Water Protection Regulations, 20.6.2 NMAC, is available at http://164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title20/20.006.0002.pdf. 01.MK-4 There is one 'no further action' release site in the project area (see below). There are no Comment acknowledged. The BLM appreciates the active facilities within the proposed area. GoNM - OpenEnviroMap information provided. https://gis.web.env.nm.gov/oem/?map=gonm. This release site has a current status of “no further action”. Facilities for which PSTB records show there are no longer petroleum storage tanks that we regulate and there has not been a release are not included in these comments. There are a number of reasons that there could be tanks present or a release, but the Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau does not have a record of it in our database. For further information, please consult our online resources. Many of

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-1 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID the records requested from the Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau are available online, and you can access them quickly yourself by following the directions below. 01.MK-5 If you’d like a further response from this bureau, please reply with the information you Comment acknowledged. The BLM appreciates the find (say no information if none; say whether you found info on leaks or not; and if information provided. possible, say whether there are tanks and whether they are underground or aboveground). In addition, please use any FID’s (facility identification numbers) or RID’s (release identification numbers) you’ve found in these searches for the facilities or releases you are seeking information on, and please state specifically which records you’re looking for. If you want to see all records for a facility, you’re welcome to arrange a time with us to come look at the files. If you need any help using the online resources, please let me know. 01.MK-6 Please review the lists on the webpage, https://www.env.nm.gov/ust/lists.html. Click on Comment acknowledged. The BLM appreciates the the Active Leaking and NFA Sites link. The first document lists NFA sites (sites for which information provided. no further action is currently required) by county and city. The third document lists active sites alphabetically by priority (the second and fourth documents are pdfs). Click on the document you need, then click Download for the option you choose in the window that opens. You can search the Active Leaking or NFA Sites spreadsheets (or any other spreadsheet) by holding down the ctrl key on your keyboard and then hitting the F key, or by going to Find & Select (all the way to the right) on the Home tab of the spreadsheet, selecting Find, and entering an address or part of an address, a name, or any information you’d like to search on and then clicking on Find Next repeatedly to find all records that fit your search. You can download the No Further Action letter for many of these records by clicking the link in the last column of the NFA spreadsheet. If the No Further Action letter is not online and you need it or any other information, let us know.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-2 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 01.MK-7 If you are looking for information about the presence of underground or aboveground Comment acknowledged. The BLM appreciates the storage tanks at an address, please download the All Storage Tank list, also at information provided. https://www.env.nm.gov/ust/lists.html. This lists all storage tanks in the state that fall or fell under our regulations and have been registered with us, whether they are still present or not. This spreadsheet can be searched the same way as the above ones. If you only need to know about tanks that are currently in use or temporarily out of use, download the Active Storage Tank list.The GoNM map link also enables you to locate quite a bit of information that will facilitate your search, including NFA letters. Not all information about each site has been uploaded there, but recently many site documents have been added. Instructions for Go NM: Go to https://www.env.nm.gov/ust/lists.html. Click on the GoNM link at the bottom left of the page. Documents may download more easily if you use Internet Explorer. When you are in the GoNM Mapper, you can use the zoom slider at the upper left of the map to zoom in. Colored and white shapes represent facilities that have or had tanks and/or have been involved in a release. To find out more about a facility, click on the white i inside the blue circle at top of the screen and then click on the shape that represents that facility. When the dialog box pops up, you can click on either the Report or any link under Documents If it is a leaking site, there will usually be a link under Documents. Many No Further Action letters and other documents are accessible and downloadable this way. If you click on the icon under Report at the left of the dialogue box, there is also quite a bit of information there. If there is a triangle (like a “play” symbol on a media player) at the top right of the dialog box, click on it, and a second page of information will open. If you have questions or need further information, please call the Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau at 505-476- 4397.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-3 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 01.MK-8 NPDES Construction General Permit Comment acknowledged. The BLM appreciates the The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administers the National Pollutant information provided. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in the State of New Mexico. Any “construction activity” that will disturb, or that is part of a common plan of development or sale that will disturb, one or more acres of land and discharges stormwater to waters of the U.S. must obtain NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) coverage. The CGP was re-issued January 11, 2017 effective February 16, 2017 and includes requirements for endangered species and historic properties, and additional state and tribal requirements in Part 9 of the permit. Among other things, the CGP requires that a SWPPP be prepared for the site and that appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) be installed and maintained both during and after construction to prevent, to the extent practicable, pollutants (primarily sediment, oil & grease and construction materials from construction sites) in storm water runoff from entering waters of the U.S. This permit also requires that permanent stabilization measures, and permanent storm water management measures be implemented post construction to minimize, in the long term, pollutants in storm water runoff from entering these waters. In addition, permittees must ensure that there is no increase in sediment yield and flow velocity from the construction site (both during and after construction) compared to pre-construction, undisturbed conditions. More information on the CGP as well as links to the eReporting tool (NeT-CGP) to apply for coverage or waivers is available at: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/2017-construction- general-permit-cgp 01.MK-9 USACE Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permits and NMED 401 Certifications Comment acknowledged. The BLM appreciates the The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill information provided. material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The USACE issues or authorizes Standard Individual Permits (IPs), Nationwide Permits (NWPs), and the Emergency Regional General Permit (RGP) for activities such as earth-moving work within wetlands, lakes, and streams (including ephemeral streams or arroyos) that are waters of the United States. If you have questions about activities within watercourses or wetlands that may require coverage under a CWA Section 404 permit, then more information is available on-line from the USACE, Albuquerque District, Regulatory Division at http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/.A water quality certification is required under Section 401 of the Federal CWA for activities regulated under Section 404. More information on the permitting and certification requirements is available on-line from NMED at https://www.env.nm.gov/surface-water- quality/dredgeandfillactivities/. If you have questions related to dredge and fill activities,

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-4 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID then contact Abe Franklin, Program Manager, Watershed Protection Section, NMED Surface Water Quality Bureau at 505-827-2793. 01.MK-10 Thank you for providing NMED with the opportunity to review and comment on this The BLM has noted your request and any future public proposed project. Going forward, please email me request for review at the below email notification regarding the project will be emailed to you at address. your request. 02.EM-1 In review of the Draft EIS, we note that there is a small area of emergent wetlands within Comment acknowledged. There is a small area of emergent the proposed project rights-of-way. Although their jurisdictional status is unclear, it is herbaceous wetlands mapped in the western portion of the not clear whether-or-not project activities will introduce fill into these areas. Should any Proposed Action area along Cow Springs Draw that would activities planned necessitate the introduction of fill into waters of the United States, the not be impacted during construction, O&M, or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will need to be coordinated with as required by Section decommissioning. The BLM appreciates the information 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). IF a Section 404 permit is required, EPA will review provided. No change has been made to the EIS. the project for compliance with the Federal Guidelines for Specification of Disposal sites for Dredged or Fill Materials (40 CFR 230), promulgated pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. Subsequent requirement of Section 404(b)(1) of CWA compliance should also be discussed. 02.LB-1 Please explain why we in this area should experience all the drawbacks/degradation of The electricity that would be generated by the proposed visual, auditory and other aspects while no one here will benefit. I am willing to bet that BLWP would be used by TEP for distribution to the electrical the number of people hired locally will be minor, as will any other commercial benefit in transmission grid, which includes the Socorro Electrical construction or maintenance. None of the power generated will be used locally. The only Cooperative. A sales tax would be paid to Catron County beneficiary will be the company. during construction would be a benefit to the County and local residents in addition to the annual payment by Borderlands Wind, LLC would be made over 30 years as part of the Industrial Revenue Bond structure (refer to EIS Section 3.3.2). No change has been made to the EIS. 02.LB-2 I have a question concerning erosion. During construction there will be a tremendous The BLM appreciates your comment. Dust control and amount of dust blown away and there will be huge ruts in any muddy ground even if the erosion prevention measures would be put in place if the roads go in early. Both dust and ruts will contribute to erosion. Plus the 40 plus miles of BLPW is approved by the BLM. Refer to Appendix D. roads and the huge bases for the towers (10 times the size of the tower base according Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Appendix O. Dust to (NextEra) will greatly reduce the amount of land surface which can absorb rain/snow. Control and Air Quality Plan in the POD for specific That runoff will also lead to erosion and loss of water for local plant use. measures. The POD is included in Appendix C of the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-5 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 03.EI-1 As mentioned in our scoping letter dated December 3, 2018, we have concerns regarding Tower 40 has been relocated to be approximately 720 feet the location of Tower 40. Per the BLM GIS tower layer, Tower 40 is within 400 feet of the from the Gila National Forest boundary. If the tower were to forest boundary, which is the closest tower to the National Forest Boundary. The Forest fail, it would not reach Forest lands and no impacts to the is concerned of potential encroachment and possible impacts to forest resources National Forest would occur. depending on the layout, land configuration, and size of the construction disturbance areas (table 2-2 DEIS) or if the tower falls during construction or implementation. All three tower heights are more than 400 feet (table 2-1 DEIS) and therefore have the potential to reach forest lands. We continue to recommend for easier management and maintenance as well as avoiding the need for additional surveys and permitting processes, to set Tower 40 back well beyond tower height from the forest boundary or be designed to reduce the risk of direct impacts on forest lands. 03.EI-2 Page 2-7 describes the aviation lighting of the MET and turbine towers being medium- Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be intensity, red strobe warning lights or Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS). The included in the administrative record for this EIS. The BLM effects of lighting is addressed in chapter 3, but we are providing the following considered potential impacts to visual resources and information of National Forest resources that have the potential to be altered or potential impacts to dark skies in the EIS; refer to Section impacted by this project's lighting alternatives for the towers. The Gila National Forest 3.9 and Appendix F of the EIS. has concerns related to visuals and especially the night-time visuals associated with lighting of the turbines and MET. Recreational opportunities including dispersed recreation is an important value on the forest, especially with being able to experience solitude outside of designated wilderness areas while partaking in various activities. The Final Assessment Report of Ecological / Social/ Economic Sustainability Conditions and Trends; Gila National Forest, 2017 [https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprdS44951.pdt] describes public concern as: The public are concerned about the quality of their environment, including aesthetic values of the landscape, particularly scenery and spiritual values (USDA FS 1995b) . ... It is important to manage scenic resources to provide natural appearing landscapes that ensure quality sightseeing and other recreation opportunities/or the public, as well as maintaining natural landscapes/or communities adjacent to the Forest. Natural appearing scenery provides the basis for high quality recreation experiences on the Forest. In other words, scenery is an integral component of all Forest settings, and contributes to the quality of visitors' recreation experience. Scenic resources or natural settings are recognized as a central component of the recreation niche of the Forest. Another concern is the Gila National Forest offers many visitors the chance to view and admire the natural night sky and boasts some of the darkest nights in the Southwest (Final Assessment Report of Ecological/ Social/ Economic Sustainability Conditions and Trends, Gila National Forest, 2017 pages 550- 551 ). With trends of more and more people residing in expanding urban and suburban

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-6 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID areas, the experience of viewing the natural night sky is becoming rarer and more unique This opportunity to view the natural night sky is relevant not only to astronomers, but also stargazing recreationists .... Currently there are limited islands of areas that have these qualities across the region and they will be increasingly rare as more development occurs (Figure 171, page 551 of Assessment Report displays a map of dark sky areas). Based on the Gila National Forest's recreation niche, solitude, and dark sky opportunities, we feel that these forest values may be negatively impacted. If a build alternative is selected, these impacts would be less provided the ADLS system is implemented which would greatly reduce illumination time.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-7 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 03.EI-3 Groundwater Withdrawals The project proposes the need for approximately 26 million As noted on page 2-7 of the DEIS, the well that would be gallons of water for construction and that this water would be pumped from an existing used for construction water would be an existing well on private well, plus an additional well to withdraw approximately 140,800 gallons per year private land, and the water would be conveyed through for operation and maintenance. Page 3-9 of the DEIS states that the amount of aboveground piping to the project area. Further information groundwater use would be "negligible to minor, specifically over the long tenn.'' We do regarding the permitting of wells indicates that the New not find any assessment of what the short-tenn impacts would be of withdrawing 26 Mexico Office of the State Engineer issues permits for water million gallons over a five to six months construction period. We see that the 2015 USGS use in New Mexico. Through the permitting process, the data for Catron County (page 3-9 DEIS) water use was used in the assessment and State will determines if the well is hydrologically feasible; question whether the values estimated in the assessment are appropriate for that the well will not impair existing water rights or state's considering the withdrawal impacts from the existing private welt and project use. interstate obligations; that the well will not be detrimental to Catron County overlaps 3 different underground water basins and this project is located public welfare of the state; and that the well will not cause within the Gallup Underground Basin (Office of State Engineers underground water harm to users of land and water within the area of basins map at https://www.ose.state.nm.us/Maps/PDF/underground_water.pdf). hydrological concern. The BLM does not have the authority Concern is whether there are differences in underground water basins as well as to approve or deny the well. The New Mexico Office of the distribution of public water use across Catron County and associated underground State Engineer has approved the private well which the basins. The Gila National Forest has concerns with the drawdown of 26 million gallons Borderlands Wind, LLC proposes to use (See WR File (nearly 80 acre feet of water) in a short period of time (five to six months). There are 7 Number ‘G-03218’ on the New Mexico Water Rights wells within 10 miles of the forest/project boundary that provide water to allotments for Reporting System). Since the publication of the DEIS, the both livestock and wildlife benefits that are managed by the Quemado Ranger District. BLM NMSO has conducted analyses to determine the Three are in Arizona and others in New Mexico ( 1 on private, 3 on forest property). impact of the new well, and its associated use for the Currently one of the wells, the Mangitas Well, located within 2.4 miles of the forest construction of BLWP, on the aquifer it would draw water boundary has recently stopped producing water, impacting the supply of water to 13 from. According to the BLM's analyses, if, during troughs. This one well is the major water supplier for the allotment. The Forest has great construction, the BLWP were to use 26 million gallons of concern over the potential impact of additional pressure on water resources in the area water in a five-month period (the maximum impact and to associated wildlife and permitted livestock operations.Additionally, the aquifer scenario), at a distance of one mile from the well, the associated with the existing and proposed wells could pose devastating effects to estimated aquifer drawdown is less than 0.001-feet. There groundwater-dependent resources, in particular riparian and aquatic systems located on are two populated places adjacent to the permitted wells, National Forest System lands. Water removed from aquifers at depth may easily impact Manuelito Place (2.6 miles away), and Red Hill (5.9 miles shallower water table aquifers, drying perennial streams and wetlands. Significant land away). The results of these calculations indicate that there subsidence is also a possible concern if extensive groundwater pumpage from an would be a negligible impact on the aquifer in the vicinity of unconsolidated aquifer-aquitard system is permitted. Groundwater withdraw of these populated places, or any other location over one-mile magnitude proposed in the short time period has the potential to negatively affect from the well. Refer to Table 3-1 in the EIS. surface water, groundwater, and senior water right holders, both on and off National Forest System lands.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-8 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 03.EI-4 The forest has reviewed the effects outlined in the DEIS, and provide the following as The general wildlife and associated habitat that are present continued concerns from scoping regarding potential direct and indirect impacts to the within the BLWP area are relatively common within the forest from project implementation: region. The estimated long-term loss of habitat is • For wildlife, concern regarding disruption or fragmentation of travel corridors through approximately 140 acres for the Proposed Action and 137 the project area disrupting access to or from the forest either through the air or on the acres for Alternatives 1 and 2, both of which represent less ground. Want to ensure that wildlife species diversity and viability are maintained on than 0.01 percent of similar habitat within the NM region National Forest lands. (within 30 miles from the BLWP area within NM and would include a small portion of the Gila National Forest). There are no known wildlife movement or migration corridors present in the BLWP area that would be impacted by the proposed project. While some smaller or less mobile species or individuals may be displaced by the BLWP, the majority of the wildlife that would be impacted by construction, O&M, and decommissioning of the BLWP would continue to use the area. Wildlife travel corridors on National Forest lands would not be disrupted or fragmented. The BLWP is not anticipated to contribute to loss of wildlife species diversity and/or viability. No change has been made to the EIS. 03.EI-5 • With new ground disturbing activities and equipment being brought in from other Comment acknowledged. Refer to Table 3-1. Determination locations, there is a concern with the potential establishment and spread of noxious or and Rationale for Detailed Analysis by Resource/Use in the invasive plants into the area and then spreading onto the forest by vehicles, wildlife, EIS and as well, refer to the Appendix E of the POD that wind, or other vectors. Concern for impacts to vegetation and species habitat from would be implemented to control noxious weeds and establishment and spread of invasive species. We continue the emphasis on design invasive species in the project area. features to ensure vehicles and equipment be cleaned, especially the undercarriage, prior to starting work and monitoring in disturbed areas the establishment of noxious or invasive plants. 03.EI-6 Page 3-4 describes that BLM wildland fire management would not be impacted by the The BLM would request that Borderlands Wind, LLC build alternatives. For the Gila National Forest, this is the first-time wind turbines may coordinate with the Gila National Forest on developing need to be considered during project development and all fire management activities. common procedures and contacts for the fire management So, the Forest has questions or concerns mostly regarding prescribed fires and wildland program. This information would be included in the Fire fire management, including smoke management, related to the proposed Protection and Prevention Plan in the POD. No change has infrastructures. For example, the Gila National Forest coordinates with Tucson Electric been made to the EIS. Power and El Paso Electric when there are planned prescribed fires and wildland fire activities, mostly related to smoke in and around the powerlines. Prior to prescribed burn activities, the forest contacts the company to plan and integrate features into the burn plan to protect powerlines, associated infrastructure, and timing of power interruption in

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-9 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID the line. Should a build alternative be selected, the Forest Service would like to coordinate with Borderlands Wind, LLC, to develop common procedures and contacts for the fire management program and other forest projects that may have influence on the function and workings of the wind turbines as was developed with the other power companies.

03.EI-7 We would like to stay informed as the project progresses. Should there be a need Comment acknowledged. The BLM appreciates the identified requiring a change to the project boundary or need to access National Forest information provided. System Lands for project design, construction or maintenance, please contact and coordinate with Emily Irwin, District Ranger, at the Quemado Ranger District office located at Quemado, NM at 575-773-4678 or emilv.irwinfaJusda.gov or Lisa Mizuno, Environmental Coordinator at the Supervisor's Office at 575-388-8267 or [email protected]. 03.SH-1 I personally think they grossly underestimated the damage they're going to do to the Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be land and how long it's not going to heal, and I can prove that by what Ridgeway did when included in the administrative record for this EIS. The EIS they were trying to do their CO2 thing. If anybody wants to come out, I'll be glad to give provides detail analysis to the resources and uses of the them a tour. So I think that's a big hole there that needs to be looked at better for the BLWP project area; refer to Chapter 3 of the EIS. livestock, animals, the land itself. I don't understand why we can't keep some of our land like God made it in a pristine -- the way it was made, pristine. 03.SH-2 As far as the tax deal, I don't know. I'd like to learn more about the 90-some-odd- The funds and amount of the sales tax that will be paid thousand dollars or whatever it was they were going to give the county as opposed to during construction and the Industrial Revenue Bond are what the taxes would be after X number of years. between Catron County and Borderlands Wind, LLC, not the BLM. No change has been made to the EIS. 03.SH-3 And there is also a question in my mind about the length of this project from the time The length of construction is estimated to be up to 12 they get it completed until they shut it off. How many years is it going to run? months. As noted in Section 2.2.3 of the EIS, subject to the BLM’s approval of the ROW application (with or without modification), the wind energy facility would operate year- round for up to 35 years. No change has been made to the EIS. 03.SH-4 And then another big thing is water. I've also heard tonight that they're proposing to drill Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3. a well right up the canyon from my ranch on the neighbors to the south, Houston's place. The well drilling permit locations are on private land on the And I have springs and ponds and irrigation ditches that been there since we've owned east side of the BLWP area, located outside of the canyon the ranch and well before that. We bought it in 1976. That concerns me about my water and approximately 8 miles from the springs and ditches rights and what it's going to do to my water in my wells, because water is pretty iffy out

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-10 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID there. And those springs are very unique for the area, also. So, anyway, that's just a few mentioned in the comment. No change has been made to of the things. I could stand up here and talk forever. I just think there's lots of stuff that the EIS. needs to be thought about more thoroughly and more answers given to the people before this thing moves on. Thanks for your time.

04.SM-1 Many here are retired and hope to pass on what we've built here to the next generation. Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be A lot of us have grown up in the area and chose to stay and invest their lives here. We included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to have all chosen to live in what is deemed a frontier area. We like it that way. Only a Section 3.3 for a discussion of the potential impacts to the handful of permanent jobs will be created. Generally, the construction is done by local economy and the rural character of the land. specialized crews. The restaurants and motel may have some temporary benefit and that's about it. The power generated is for Tucson Electric. Theoretically, the local electric company could buy it back from its destination. 04.SM-2 The community as a whole have negative impacts. Highway 60 will be even busier with As stated in the EIS in Section 3.2.2, “Development of a wind large trucks moving heav equipment for the two-year phase. According to the previously farm would not prohibit other permitted uses such as provided documents, they had two years to build it. During ·this time, no access for the grazing, use of existing ROWs, and dispersed recreation.” public is allowed at the site. The majority of the site is "public land.? An automatic Additionally, “the oversized loads and slow-moving additional two years with no access to the public can be granted, according to the equipment on public roads and highways could result in previously provided documents. This could be four years of the traffic destroying the temporary delays for local users “, and “The addition of already well-used road. When last November I inquired about this, I was told no provision approximately 40 miles of new access roads would provide to repair the road would have been made. We were told something different tonight. The access for dispersed recreation, hunting, and grazing and county maintains the road with money from the federal government as a U.S. highway. livestock management because motorized (and non- Will the feds pony up more money to fix the damage from its increased use? motorized) vehicle access would be allowed on new roads established in the Proposed Action area, except those within restricted facility areas.” To address the question on road repair, Borderlands Wind, LLC would assess the quality of roads before construction (videotaping routes, photos etc.). Following construction, Borderlands Wind, LLC would restore roads to the equivalent, or better condition that what they were prior to construction. No change has been made to the EIS. 04.SM-3 The proposed wind farm will wreak havoc to the property values in the entire county Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be because of the sparse population of little turnover in homes. Comparisons and values included in the administrative record for this EIS. The ·throughout the county are used in appraisals. Values of the homes and the distribution of the funds from the sales tax and the development will plummet, adversely affecting all various valuations countywide. The Industrial Revenue Bond would be determined by Catron schools are funded from a percentage of our property taxes which would go down as County, not the BLM. The potential impacts to property values is discussed in Section 3.3.1.2 of the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-11 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID land values decrease, which means less money for the schools. Will the funds from the project make up for the shortfall in tax revenues? I don't know. 04.SM-4 Many of the turbines are 500, 600 feet at the top of the blades or close to it. The new- Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be towered python is 42 feet tall. Some of these will be half again as high. The dark sky included in the administrative record for this EIS. The height ordinance could be mitigated with the radar system only if this is approved. Please put of the turbines including the blade could range up to 630 your wind farm by Tucson. Put it where the folks who will benefit by it will live. We know feet. A discussion of the potential impact to night skies is why you think you can put it here. There are very few of us here in Catron County, less provided in Section 3.9.2 of the EIS. people to impact. This is outrageous. This country was built by frontier people who moved away from other countries and other parts of this country. If we are indeed a frontier area of the United States, please stop trying to ruin it with this proposed project. 05.RB-1 ... wind turbines do cause electromagnet interference that affect TV, radio reception and Borderlands Wind, LLC conducted both a federal beam path cell phone interference, can be caused by the defraction, reflection and scattering, so it study and a non-federal beam path study to address the might affect your TV signal and your cell phone and all that. I happen to be right between issue of turbines interfering with communications type satellite and the wind turbines, so I'm going to have a big problem, probably. equipment including cell phones, TV, radio etc. The federal beam path study informs several government agencies (i.e., DoD, DOE, NSF, NOAA, etc.) of the intent to build the project so that they can highlight any concerns they have. Since most of the federal beam paths are confidential, any adjustments would be made during the final site design, if needed, based on the agencies' responses. The non-federal beam path study scans all publicly licensed beam paths with the FCC. The data from the registered beam paths would then be used to avoid placing turbines in locations that would interfere with non-federal telecommunication mediums. 05.RB-2 Also, we've been having to drill our wells every so often to keep our water out there. Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3. They're probably going to run it dry out there when they go out there. And I'd like to know where are the Fish and Wildlife survey results? And as far as -- since I'm going to lose a lot of my property value probably, is the county going to reduce our taxes accordingly? I doubt it. Is Tucson Electric Power people here? How about the people from NextEra, the ones that are going to make all the money, are they here? The ones that are going to make all the money are here, I guess. 05.RB-3 So we have a nice community out there, Red Hill. I have a great view and it's going to be Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be full of windmills spinning around, and I'm not happy about it. So sorry if I seem a little included in the administrative record for this EIS. The BLM angry, but that's the way I see it. So that's basically the points I want to bring up. considered potential impacts to visual resources and potential impacts to dark skies in the EIS; refer to Section

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-12 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 3.9 and Appendix F of the EIS. The BLM has a multiple use “mandate” through FLPMA, which states that the resources and uses on public land must be utilized in a balanced combination that will best meet the needs of the people (current and future needs for current and future generations). 06.SD-1 Without water, we have nothing. We have to drill wells. We have to drill deeper wells, and Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3. sometimes that don't work. We·just drilled a new well for the community. It was 700 feet deep. There's wells that are on top of the hill are probably close to 800. They're enough to supply a house. So a drop in water from the south -- my understanding the water runs from the south to the north. And if they're pumping it out down in the south, what are we going to do up north? We've got nothing. And nobody has done a study on water. They don't know how water runs. We do. And that's definitely going to be a big problem. 06.SD-2 Another thing is what about all this dust that's going to be taken on the road? I know in a Comment acknowledged. Dust control and erosion lot of construction sites, they have to have water trailers there to maintain the dirt levels. prevention measures would be put in place if the BLWP is You go to Arizona, there's a water truck on every job. Are they going to let that happen approved by the BLM. Refer to Appendix D. Stormwater here? There's more water that's got to be consumed. Most of the source of the water I Pollution Prevention Plan and Appendix O. Dust Control and know of is probably Springerville. It's 30 miles away. Are they going to truck it in? Great. Air Quality Plan in the POD for specific measures. More trucks on the road again. And of course, if you don't keep the road dust down, you've got air quality issues. Most of us are elderly out there. Some of us have a little trouble breathing anyway. So who's going to take care of that? 06.SD-3 Another thought was the caliche. Nobody I've talked to so far understands what caliche As noted in Table 3-1 of the EIS: “The Final Wind Energy PEIS is. They know it's just something you dig up and put it back in place and things start to (BLM 2005:p. 6-3) states that impacts to soils from wind grow. Well, they don't start to grow. You dig it back up, you've got three to six inches of facilities would be minimal to negligible because BMPs and topsoil. That's it. When that topsoil is gone, you've got this white caliche rock. If it stays other design features would be followed to prevent or on the surface, then nothing grows. It don't support any vegetation or very, very little or address potential increases in soil erosion. Implementation next to none. So they're going to dig it up and put it right back in and they're going to of the BMPs and other design features for the build have topsoil. They say, well, we'll put topsoil back on it. Where is all this excess caliche alternatives would reduce potential impacts to soils, going to go? Who are they going to dump it on? So it's going to go somewhere, and including around playas to minimize erosion and they're going to take it and dump it in somebody else's lot. Even if you plant it with good sedimentation (refer to Appendix B).” The complete list of topsoil, you've got to have water. It won't come up on its own. This grass has been here design features and BMPs is provided in Appendix B of the for several hundred years and it's developed three to six inches of topsoil. That's it. And EIS, including measures to minimize effects to soils. we're going to destroyit all for a windmill.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-13 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 06.SD-4 I've not heard anything tonight of how it's going to affect the people that have to look at Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be those. Nobody has said anything about how it's going to impact us. I brought up included in the administrative record for this EIS. camouflage. Let's camouflage the damn things like they do hunting equipment so we The BLM considered potential impacts to visual resources don't have to look at it. But we don't know if they can do that. I don't know if they've got and potential impacts to dark skies in the EIS; refer to the paint. That's a cop-out. They got the paint. They can do anything they want if they Section 3.9 and Appendix F of the EIS. want to do it. So I think they need to take a whole nother look at this and leave us alone out here. That's the reason we're here. Thank you. 07.LS-1 These alternatives all include New Mexico State lands. They call it SLO, State Land Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Office. I contacted the State Land Office to see what the public process would be for included in the administrative record for this EIS. Catron this, presuming that they had a public involvement process just like federal agencies do. County and the NMSLO are both cooperating agencies on The State Land Office commissioner contacted me back and said that Borderlands does the EIS. Their input has been considered in the preparation not apply to the State Land Office for this land. So I would like to know what will happen of the EIS. to this project if the State Land Office does not go along with it. Catron County has prided itself on its rural environment, the natural beauty, the rural custom and culture. We don't mind traffic lights. We have one blinking light on U.S. 60 in Datil, few paved roads. Cattle go where they will, as does wildlife. Incredible scenic views. Our county's comprehensive plan expresses the desire of our citizens to preserve our way of life and our natural resources and beauty. This project is indirect contradiction to our citizens' desires. 08.RB-1 Will the County reduce our property taxes by half due to the loss of value of our homes. Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be included in the administrative record for this EIS. Property taxes are determined by Catron County, not the BLM. No change has been made to the EIS. 08.RB-2 Wind turbines cause electromagnetic interference & affect TV & radio reception. Please refer to this US National Library of Medicine, National Electromagnetic interference can be caused by near field affects, diffraction or reflection Institute of Health study and scattering. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943383/) which indicates that “there is nothing unique to wind farms with respect to EMF exposure; in fact, magnetic field levels in the vicinity of wind turbines were lower than those produced by many common household electrical devices and were well below any existing regulatory guidelines with respect to human health.” For information on Electromagnetic Field (EMF) produced by common household electrical devices, please refer to https://www.wapa.gov/regions/DSW/Environment/Docume nts/EMFbook.pdf. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-14 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 08.RB-3 Where is the Fish & Wildlife study results found. A US Fish and Wildlife Service study will not be conducting a study independent of the Biological Assessment prepared by the BLM. The US Fish and Wildlife Service will review and render their opinion on the Biological Assessment (BA) for the proposed wind project. The BA will be provided on the project ePlanning website (https://go.usa.gov/xyFmh). 09.WM-1 I had a few questions related to size and capacities which will aid me in my calculations The BLM provided an email response to the commenter on to determine water requirements, total cubic yards of cement required, safety concerns, October 30, 2019. The comment has been noted and will be potential impact on local private wells, public roads, environment, air quality, our quality included in the administrative record for the EIS. Here are of life, etc., What will be the dimensions of the bases to support the wind turbines, i.e., the responses to the questions asked: Based on the shape and size in feet-inches, including depth of cement bases. information currently available from Borderlands Wind, LLC, What will be the cement composition of the bases including ratio of water per cubic please see the responses to your questions: yard. Will the cement be produced and mixed on site or will it be trucked in and how,

including volumes of dry components and gallons of water. Will wells be drilled to 1. What will be the dimensions of the bases to support the wind provide water for cement bases, cleaning, washing, and how will the dust be suppressed turbines, i.e., shape and size in feet-inches ,including depth of on the many miles of dirt roads that will be required to access the sites? cement bases? The foundations would be octagonal in shape; the What is the construction schedule when and if approval is granted? Noise levels during 32 turbine foundations would be approximately 58 feet in diameter construction and upon completion, the noise levels of the operating turbines, ( presently, and 6 feet thick and the remaining 4 foundations would be I can hear vehicle and traffic noises on Route 60 and County Road 005 from several approximately 52.5 feet in diameter and 5.5 feet thick. miles away). Will construction crews, management, and security live in trailers and buildings on site during construction and will these areas be fenced in during the 2. What will be the cement composition of the bases including construction to prevent cattle, horses and wildlife from entering these potentially ratio of water per cubic yard? The cement mix design would be dangerous areas. What type of barriers, fences, gates, etc., will be employed during and finalized just prior to construction; this information is not currently after project completion including height of fences. What will the setback areas be for available from Borderlands Wind, LLC. fencing surrounding these giant machines should one fail, fall, catch fire and/or disintegrate. 3. Will the cement be produced and mixed on site or will it be trucked in and how, including volumes of dry components and gallons of water? An onsite batch plant would be utilized for the concrete. Approximately 30 gallons of water would be used per cubic year of concrete used in construction.

4. Will wells be drilled to provide water for cement bases, cleaning, washing, and how will the dust be suppressed on the many miles of dirt roads that will be required to access the sites? Dust suppressant for the access roads would be leased from a private landowner who owns an existing, onsite well.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-15 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID Approximately 26,000,000 gallons of water would be used during construction.

5. What is the construction schedule when and if approval is granted? Construction would take approximately up to 11 months to complete.

6. Noise levels during construction and upon completion, the noise levels of the operating turbines, (presently, I can hear vehicle and traffic noises on Route 60 and County Road 005 from several miles away). Answer: The exact level of construction noise is difficult to simulate based on the site and atmospheric conditions as well as the duration of use and type of construction equipment. The nearest residence is approximately 2.6 miles away and noise levels would be short-term, intermittent, and localized at this distance. Current research documents that operating wind turbines are inaudible at a distance of 2.6 miles

7. Will construction crews, management, and security live in trailers and buildings on site during construction and will these areas be fenced in during the construction to prevent cattle, horses and wildlife from entering these potentially dangerous areas? No, all workers would stay offsite and travel to and from the jobsite daily. Construction trailers would be within the laydown yard that would be fenced and guarded for protection of materials and equipment.

8. What type of barriers, fences, gates, etc., will be employed during and after project completion including height of fences? The substation/switchyard and the operation and maintenance (O&M) facility are the only areas that would be permanently fenced. The substation/switchyard fence would consist of an 8- foot-tall chain-link structure with 1 foot of three-strand barbed wire on top, resulting in a total height of 9 feet. The O&M facility would be fenced with a 6 foot-tall chain-link fence with 1 foot of three-strand barbed wire on top, for a total height of 7 feet. Facility fence gates would be locked when the facility is unattended.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-16 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID

9. What will the setback areas be for fencing surrounding these giant machines should one fail, fall, catch fire and/or disintegrate? There would be no fencing around the turbine structures.

10.DM-1 With thousands of BLM acres available, this farm could be located further away from Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be residential areas so as not to negatively affect local residents. Yes, that might cost the included in the administrative record for this EIS. developer a little more money because of the distance off the highway, etc., but that is just the cost of doing business in the free enterprise system in our great nation. 10.DM-2 Your EIS itself, states that 12% of the market value of the property is generally lost when Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be a wind farm is built within 9 miles of residential properties. It goes on to state that this included in the administrative record for this EIS. The lose "would be specific to the individual property at the time of the sale". In this, potential impacts to property values is discussed in Section however, you are terribly mistaken. Ask any appraiser that has worked in this county and 3.3.1.2 of the EIS. you will discover that there are so few real-estate comparisons available that when one property drops in value it negatively effects the whole county's property values. By allowing this project to proceed at this close proximity to Red Hill, you are not only saying that this deep-pocketed developer is more important than the 50 residents in the Cimarron Ranch Subdivision, you are saying NextEra Energy's profit is more important than all of the residents in Catron County. I do not understand why you would approve this project at it's intended location. If you were a Catron County land owner, you would not allow this project to continue so close to a residential area when there are so many other places where it could function. 10.DM-3 Furthermore, by accepting NextEra's voluntary proposal of the Aircraft Detection The approval from the FAA for the ADLS system will not be Lighting System, rather than putting it as a necessary stipulation in the contract, you are known before the publishing of the FEIS and, as such, the giving them the potential to back out of that option which would then disrupt our effects of turbine lighting without the ADLS system (i.e., county's dark sky ordinance. nighttime red flashing, strobe, or pulsed wind turbine obstruction lighting) have been analyzed in the EIS; refer to Section 3.9 Visual Resources. The terms and conditions for the ROW grant will be determined if the ROW is granted."

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-17 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-1 In the same vein, the conclusion that Project-related mortality would constitute localized While the USFWS was not able to quantify the level of and regional, short- and long-term, major impacts on bald eagle populations has no potential take for bald eagles based on the lack of sufficient basis. There is no justification for this determination in the document, and in fact, the data (i.e., observations) in the BLWP area, the USFWS has DEIS admits the lack of available information on page 3-75: " The USFWS does not have identified that there is the potential for take of bald eagles sufficient data in the form of onsite bald eagle observations for the Proposed Action as a result of the build alternative. The potential take of bald area, and as a result, it is currently not possible to generate a fatality estimate for bald eagles is considered here to be a major impact due to the eagles". Because the species would occur infrequently and sporadically in the population-level effect that may result if the take to bald Borderlands Wind Project area and because of a lack of suitable foraging and nesting eagles is not offset by compensatory mitigation. Without an conditions, it is more reasonable to conclude that impacts to bald eagles would be eagle take permit in place, there is no mechanism by which negligible. the BLM or USFWS can require compensatory mitigation if the take of one or more bald eagles were to occur during operation of the proposed wind facility. No change has been made to the EIS. 11.JF-2 Section 3.2 - Land Use. Please clarify the issues analyzed in detail in this section vs. The identification of the special management designations those dismissed in Table 3-1. Section 3.2 discusses Areas of Critical Environmental in Section 3.2.1.3 of the EIS provides a description of the Concern (ACECs) and other special management areas, grazing, and recreation impacts land uses within the BLWP area as well as the region to in detail. However, those issues are dismissed in Section 3.1 and in Table 3-1. provide context. The ACECs and other special management designations are not analyzed in the detail because there would be no direct impacts to the management or use of these areas with the exceptions noted in Table 3-1 of the EIS for cultural and visual resources by the alternatives. No change has been made to the EIS. 11.JF-3 Also, the conclusion that mortality of golden eagles resulting from the Project would The Proposed Action is considered a Category 2 project constitute localized and regional, short- and long-term, major impacts on golden eagle under the USFWS’s Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, populations is also without factual support. As detailed in Exhibit A, the expected impact indicating that there is a high or moderate risk to eagles with on the local area population of 0.78 percent is a minor impact, not a major impact. This the opportunity to avoid or mitigate impacts. This is due to: conclusion is supported by the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 1) the presence of important eagle use areas, and 2) an Eagle Rule Revision, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December 2016 ("Eagle Rule PEIS"), annual fatality estimates between 0.03 percent and 5 in which USFWS analyzed the effects of authorizing take of up to 5% of the local-area percent of the estimated local area population size. The take population (LAP), determining that it is compatible with the preservation of eagles. The of golden eagles is considered here to be a major impact Project's fatality estimate of 0.307 is well below the 1 % (6 eagles per year) and local due to the population-level effect that may result if the take area population benchmark and is very close to the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance to golden eagles is not entirely offset by the proposed Category 3 (minimal risk to eagles; <0.03) threshold. In short, the appropriate impact voluntary compensatory mitigation. Without an eagle take categorization under NEPA should be a minor impact on golden eagles. permit in place, there is no mechanism by which BLM or USFWS can require additional compensatory mitigation if the take of more than 0.307 eagles per year were to occur

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-18 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID during operation of the proposed wind facility. No change has been made to the EIS.

11.JF-4 Section 3.3 - Social and Economic Conditions. Page 3-31: Regarding the suggestion the The rationale for a 'major' impact was determined because presence of wind turbines would have a long-term major impact on nonmarket values, the presence of the wind turbines would severely alter the the conclusion that these impacts would be "major" seems overstated. Why would the existing character of the landscape, lower the scenic quality, impacts not be minor to moderate because relatively few people use the area? and create strong visual contrast in the setting over a large area. No change has been made to the EIS. 11.JF-5 Section 3.4 - Transportation and Travel Management. Page 3-36: Based on the available The potential impacts as stated in the EIS identified that the research on wind-big game interactions, the statement that "the presence of wind presence of the wind turbines and associated increase in turbines would negatively impact the public's opportunity for watching wildlife and sustained human activity over the life of the project would harvesting game species" is not supported by the literature. Please provide a citation or negatively impact the public’s opportunity for watching the science to support this conclusion. wildlife and harvesting game species. According to the BLM's Wind Energy PEIS, Section 5.9.3 Site Operations page 5-49, it states that ..."During operation, adverse ecological effects could occur from (1) disturbance of wildlife by turbine noise and human activity..." Also, on page 5-54 of the PEIS in Table 5.9.3-2, it states that the potential effect and likely wildlife affected is "disturbance of nearby wildlife and bird and mammal behavior; habitat avoidance" from workforce presence. These potential adverse impacts on wildlife and their behavior would therefore have an effect on the public's opportunity for watching wildlife and hunting if the animals are not present or if they avoid the area. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-19 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-6 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. Page 3-57: In the last paragraph, The BLM's approach is to disclose impacts to wildlife in reference to prairie dogs, we suggest that context regarding prairie dogs in the region species regardless as to whether one might consider a be provided (they are not unique to the project area). particular species "unique" to a project area, and in this case the Gunnison’s prairie dog is a BLM-designated sensitive species with special management considerations under the Socorro RMP consistent with BLM Manual 6840. It is also identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Immediate Priority species) in the New Mexico State Wildlife Action Plan, where it is described as a keystone species that is vulnerable and declining. The intent of Chapter 3 is to adequately describe the affected environment in an unbiased manner such that impacts can be disclosed. No change has been made to the EIS. 11.JF-7 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species.• Page 3-58: In reference to The BLM appreciates the suggested editorial changes playas "vegetated with the same species as the surrounding areas," we suggest "that are regarding the presentation of information in the DEIS. Where devoid of vegetation or vegetated ... " the BLM agrees with the suggestions, your comments have been incorporated. 11.JF-8 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species.• Page 3-58: "A Gunnison's prairie This statement was provided to provide a general dog colony may contain 15-26 family groups." Is this the maximum? on average? We characterization of Gunnison's prairie dog colonies. The observed smaller groups (1-3 individuals) in some of the colonies; please clarify the referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now reads: source of these data. A Gunnison's prairie dog colony may contain several hundred individuals comprised of many family groups, though colonies with as few as 1-3 individuals were documented within the BLWP area during onsite surveys. 11.JF-9 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species.• Page 3-61: "Special status bat The referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now species that are known to occur in the BLWP area based on this monitoring are noted in reads: Special status bat species that are known to occur in the Table E-1." The list provided is not based on the monitoring completed by SWCA; it is BLWP area based on this monitoring or could potentially occur based on species range requirements. Spotted bat, for example, would not have been based on the species’ known ranges and habitat requirements detected by the bat acoustic monitoring equipment. Please update the citation and are noted in Table E-1 in Appendix E. referenced information. Appropriate updates have also been made for each species in Appendix E. 11.JF-10 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. • Page 3-61: "Avian surveys were The referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now conducted to characterize bird populations .... " The surveys do not provide population reads: Avian surveys were conducted to characterize species assessments. Suggest replacing "bird populations" with "species composition." composition and patterns of use in the BLWP area in

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-20 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID accordance with the USFWS’s Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012).

11.JF-11 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. • Page 3-61: In reference to the The referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now avian surveys, the document states, "The resulting information has been used to inform reads: The resulting information, along with findings from other siting decisions such as ultimate placement of wind turbines and other infrastructure." surveys and studies including the locations of a possible golden The avian use surveys did not inform project design. Identification of a possible eagle eagle nest, a ferruginous hawk nest, prairie dog colonies, and nest, ferruginous hawk nests, prairie dog colonies, and playas informed design. playas, have been used to inform siting decisions such as the ultimate placement of wind turbines and other infrastructure. 11.JF-12 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species.• Page 3-61: "108 nests." This is a The referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now bit misleading in that the language above it states that SWCA conducted eagle-focused reads: A total of 108 nests associated with non-eagle species nest surveys within 10 miles and raptor nest surveys within 1 mile. The 108 nests were (e.g., common raven, great horned owl, red-tailed hawk) were non-eagle nests within 10 miles; our surveys only found 16 nests within 1 mile. recorded within 10 miles of the BLWP area during aerial nest surveys and ground-based surveys (point counts) in 2017 and 2018; 16 of those nests were located within 1 mile of the BLWP area. 11.JF-13 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. • Page 3-66: In the first This specific section of the EIS is the environmental paragraph in the discussion of prairie dogs, we suggest providing context regarding consequences of the project itself not other non-project existing hunting activity and noting that they are considered a nuisance species for related activities. No change has been made to the EIS. ranching activities. 11.JF-14 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. • Page 3-66: There is a statement The referenced text of the EIS has been updated and now that the four Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (SERI) species would reads: There is suitable habitat for the four SERI identified in not be expected to occupy the Proposed Action area for a long period of time due to lack the New Mexico Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool for this area of cover. There is plenty of cover for elk and mountain lion; we observed elk repeatedly (i.e., black bear, cougar, elk, and mule deer). Elk have been during the pre-construction surveys and suspected a mountain lion (observed with 2 observed at various times during site resource investigations, cubs) denned in the project area. and a cougar was also suspected to be denning in the BLWP area. Mule deer and black bears may also incidentally occur in the BLWP area. Habitat use in the BLWP area may be variable for each of these species depending on their life history and seasonal habitat needs. 11.JF-15 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. • Page 3-67: Regarding the Even with implementation of the prairie dog BMPs, impacts conclusion that the Proposed Action would result in localized short-and long-term, are still expected to be detectable during construction, moderate impacts on prairie dogs, the impacts would actually be minor because of which could result in mortality or injury and/or habitat implementation of BMPs. loss/fragmentation. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-21 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-16 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. Refer to response to Comment 11.JF-6. An additional • Page 3-67: Concern is raised regarding fragmentation of prairie dog habitats during statement was added to the discussion of impacts on construction. Some background should be provided regarding whether this is a species Gunnison's prairie dog in Section 3.7 of the EIS: of habitat fragmentation concern. Fragmentation of prairie dog populations is listed as a primary threat to the species in the Draft Conservation Plan for Gunnison’s Prairie Dog in New Mexico (NM Department of Game and Fish 2008). 11.JF-17 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. • Page 3-68: It is inaccurate to The referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now state, "Larger soaring birds, such as ferruginous hawks and other raptors, are more reads: Passerines (small birds) are most commonly reported as prone to being hit in the rotor-swept area than smaller birds that fly closer to the collision fatalities, followed by diurnal raptors; although fatality ground." Research indicates that passerines constitute the majority (57%) of collision rates for raptors may be lower compared to passerines, raptors fatalities. Diurnal raptors may be particularly vulnerable to collision (8% of reported are especially vulnerable to collisions due to their flight fatalities is more than expected, given their population size), or they may simply be behaviors (USFWS 2020). easier to detect. 11.JF-18 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. • Page 3-68: Regarding the Special status species are generally species with smaller conclusion that the project would have a long-term, minor to moderate impact on populations and/or species exposed to threats. Just special-status birds and bats based on the collision threat, an impact characterization of because these species are "rarely" discovered/documented "negligible to minor" is more appropriate, given that special-status species fatalities, during post construction fatality surveys, it does not mean including the species listed for the project, are rarely discovered. Population-level that impacts are not occurring. It could mean that species impacts would not be expected, given the low rate of occurrence and non-unique with lower population numbers are rare to begin with and habitats in the project area. when such impacts occur, the probability of detection is also reduced. The range presented is reasonable due to the uncertainty that exists. Impacts to birds and bats associated with wind farms largely occur to migratory populations, not necessarily residents. Consequently, impacts to special status birds and bats are not centered on the project location and/or whether or not the habitats in the project are unique or not. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-22 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-19 Section 3.7 - Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. • Pages 3-61 and 3-72: When The referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now describing the prairie dog survey effort, the document states that the surveys were only reads: In July 2018, targeted surveys were conducted to locate conducted near areas that would be disturbed by project infrastructure, so the total and delineate Gunnison's prairie dog colonies 1) in the vicinity number of mapped colonies does not account for the total number of colonies present of incidental observations collected over two years of site within the project area. That is misleading and does not follow the methods that we resource investigations and 2) within 0.5 mile of project employed, including mapping all colonies based on incidental observations that were facilities (i.e., wind turbines, access roads, collection lines, and recorded throughout the project area over the course of 2 years. See Figure 8-3 of the substation). Thirty-one distinct, occupied prairie dog colonies report. containing up to 192 individuals in each colony were documented within the Proposed Action area (Figure 3-10). The total acreage of mapped prairie dog colonies at the time of the survey was 2,284 acres (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2018b); however, a 100 percent survey of the BLWP area was not conducted, so this total does not account for the total number of colonies that may be present within the Proposed Action or Alternatives 1 and 2 areas.It is still appropriate to acknowledge that additional prairie dog colonies may exist in the BLWP area because a 100 percent survey of the BLWP area has not been conducted. 11.JF-20 Section 3.8 - Bald and Golden Eagles. • Please clarify in this section how the existing The referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now conditions vs. the project have had or could have an impact on bald and golden eagles. reads: The Luna Tank nest has not been observed to be active • The possible eagle nest (page 3-72) is characterized in the text as "one potential golden or confirmed as being used by golden eagles during project eagle breeding area (i.e. Luna Tank) and its associated nest are located .... " Please note surveys (i.e., no eggs or young were observed in the nest); that this nest has not been determined to have been used by eagles. however, a golden eagle was observed in the vicinity of the nest in March 2017.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-23 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-21 Section 3.8 - Bald and Golden Eagles. • The "Luna Tank breeding area" referenced on The referenced text in the EIS has been updated and now page 3-73 should be characterized as "Luna Tank potential breeding area." reads: The disturbance footprint and location of various • Also of note: infrastructure (e.g., wind turbines, access roads, and collection o The nest is far from project construction activities and proposed turbines. lines) have been sited to minimize impacts on eagle use areas o The prairie dogs within the project area are not unique to the surrounding landscape. including the Luna Tank potential breeding area and within a The level of impacts described are not consistent with the survey findings (see Eagle 0.25 mile buffer around active Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies Management Plan), project conditions, and qualitative analysis provided in the that are hunting grounds for golden eagles. document. As is currently noted in Section 3.8.2.1 of the EIS, "Disturbance from human activities and noise during construction could alter the patterns of eagle use across the site, including the areas used for foraging, roosting, and nesting. The primary access road (Bill Knight Gap Road) would be located approximately 3,500 feet from the Luna Tank nest. While this is greater than the 0.5-mile buffer distance that is typically recommended by the USFWS, disturbance to nesting golden eagles during construction activities or vehicle/equipment access along Bill Knight Gap Road could potentially occur."

Also refer to the responses to Comments 11.JF-6, 11.JF-16, and 11.JF-20.

11.JF-22 Section 3.8- Bald and Golden Eages. Although the Draft EIS text states that "Take is The definition of take under the Bald and Golden Eagle likely," in fact "take" is not at all likely during the construction and decommission phases Protection Act includes "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, of the project as characterized on page 3-73. wound, kill capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb" (16 USC 668c; 50 CFR 22.2). Disturb means to "agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior" (50 CFR 22.3). No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-24 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-23 Construction (pages 3-73 and 3-74) Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Page 3-73: Language to the effect that the Eagle Management Plan is not the same as included in the administrative record for this EIS. an Eagle Conservation Plan is a bit misleading to the reader. An Eagle Conservation Plan outlines the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) approved compensatory mitigation and 5-year evaluation procedure. However, the Eagle Management Plan identifies the same tiered decision-making approach, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, informed by survey findings, that would be found in an Eagle Conservation Plan in support of a "take" permit. 11.JF-24 • Page 3-73: There is a statement regarding the lack of roosting habitats for bald eagles. Potential foraging habitats for bald eagles in the BLWP area This characterization should also state that the project area and surrounding area also are described in Section 3.8.1.2 of the EIS. According to the lack aquatic foraging areas (see the description of roosting habitats in the Birds of North USFWS's published National Bald Eagle Management America species account). Guidelines, the definition of a foraging area is "An area where eagles feed, typically near open water such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and bays where fish and waterfowl are abundant, or in areas with little or no water (i.e., rangelands, barren land, tundra, suburban areas, etc.) where other prey species (e.g., rabbit, rodents) or carrion (such as at landfills) are abundant." No change has been made to the EIS. 11.JF-25 Regarding the conclusion (Construction, page 3-74) that "given the number of prairie Refer to responses to Comments 11.JF-6 and 11.JF-15. dog colonies in the Proposed Action area and surrounding area ... there would be a moderate direct impact on golden eagles from construction-related disturbance," because the prairie dog colonies are not unique relative to the surrounding landscape and region, these impacts should be characterized as "minor to moderate." 11.JF-26 • Eagle use is relatively low on-site. Eagles that are present within the project area during Refer to response to Comment 11.JF-1. construction would not be precluded from using foraging resources outside the disturbance area. The "minor to moderate" impact conclusion for bald eagles should be "negligible" due to the lack of bald eagle habitats, and anticipated rare occurrence of the species, in the project area and vicinity. 11.JF-27 • Regarding the conclusion that any reduction in golden eagle nest success resulting Refer to response to Comments 11.JF-3, 11.JF-20, and from the Proposed Action would be a localized and regional, short- and long-term, major 11.JF-21. impact on golden eagle populations, this is a mischaracterization. As noted above, the Luna Tank nest has not been identified as a known eagle nest. If it did become active during the construction phase of the project, disturbance is very unlikely due to the distance from construction noise and sheltered viewshed (the nest is down in a crater). If in the unlikely scenario that the nest was "disturbed" as defined by the Bald and

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-25 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID Golden Eagle Protection Act, the loss would be considered a minor to moderate impact to golden eagle populations, given the local area population of 396 golden eagles. 11.JF-28 Operations and Maintenance; Construction (pages 3-74 and 3-75) • Regarding the Refer to response to Comment 11.JF-3. It is not appropriate conclusion that mortality of golden eagles resulting from the Proposed Action would for BLM to analyze impact thresholds referenced here from constitute localized and regional, short- and long-term, major impacts on golden eagle the Programmatic EIS for the Eagle Rule Revisions, which is populations, the Draft EIS cites an annual eagle fatality rate for the project of 0.307 a USFWS permitting process. Such impacts would be eagles per year. This fatality estimate is equivalent to 0.78% of the estimated local area addressed through USFWS’s permit process and appropriate population of 396 golden eagles. We agree that the impacts associated with operations environmental analysis associated with that if Borderlands and maintenance of the project is fairly characterized as "localized and regional, short- Wind, LLC were to pursue an eagle take permit. No change and long-term;" however, "major impacts" to populations is not accurate. A 0.78% impact has been made to the EIS. to a population constitutes a minor impact to golden eagle populations, as defined by the impact thresholds on page 3-1 of the document. Please refer to the Programmatic EIS for the Eagle Rule Revision. 1 USFWS analyzed the effects of authorizing take of up to 5% of the local-area population (LAP), determining that up to 5% is compatible with the preservation of eagles. While take of 1 % of annual eagle production is considered a relatively benign harvest rate, the USFWS has identified take rates between 1 %and 5% of the LAP as significant. The Borderlands Wind fatality estimate of 0.307 is well below the 1 % (6 eagles per year) and 5% (31 eagle per year) LAP benchmarks and is very close to the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance Category 3 (minimal risk to eagles; <0.03) threshold. Please reconsider and revise the impacts discussion to be consistent with the results for the Programmatic EIS for the Eagle Rule Revision in terms of impact thresholds. 11.JF-29 • Regarding the conclusion that the mortality of bald eagles that may result from the Refer to response to Comment 11.JF-1. Proposed Action would constitute localized and regional, short- and long-term, major impacts on bald eagle populations, there is no clear justification for this determination in the document. Rather, because the species would occur infrequently and sporadically in the Borderlands Wind Project Area because of a lack of foraging and nesting conditions, impacts would be negligible. 11.JF-30 Decommissioning (page 3- 75). The same conclusion is provided for both eagle species The conclusion that is provided at the end of the discussion with no justification. Impacts associated with decommissioning (noise, visual on decommissioning is intended as a summary statement disturbance) would be negligible due to the distance from possible nesting individuals. indicating that, even with the application of BMPs and other design features, there would still be impacts to bald and golden eagles from construction, O&M, and decommissioning (as opposed to this statement only applying to the decommissioning phase of the project).

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-26 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID Refer to responses to Comments 11.JF-1 and 11.JF-3. No change has been made to the EIS. 11.JF-31 Section 3.9 - Visual Resources. See the following recommended revisions to provide The BLM appreciates the suggested editorial changes clarity to the reade: 3.9.1 1st paragraph, replace 'tableland' with 'plateaus' ; Add '/cliffs' regarding the presentation of the information in the EIS. after 'sidewalls' ; Replace 'relief' with 'topography' Where the BLM agrees with the suggestions, your comments have been incorporated. 11.JF-32 Section 3.9 - Visual Resources. Page 3-78 Recommend moving the first 5 paragraphs to The BLM appreciates the suggested editorial changes the Visual Appendix due to the background/supporting nature of text. regarding the presentation of the information in the EIS. Where the BLM agrees with the suggestions, your comments have been incorporated. 11.JF-33 3.9.2.1 2nd paragraph, first sentence: 'depending on the viewing distance.' Identified The BLM appreciates the suggested editorial changes KOPs already have an established viewing distance. Suggest clarifying this by adding regarding the presentation of the information in the EIS. 'depending on the viewing distance of a specific component (i.e., turbines) of the [insert Where the BLM agrees with the suggestions, your comments alternative].' have been incorporated. 11.JF-34 Page 3-87 2nd full paragraph, penultimate sentence: 'not currently available to the The BLM appreciates the suggested editorial changes public'; change to 'not currently accessible by the public via motorized use.' As is, the regarding the presentation of the information in the EIS. text suggests that the public land is closed to public. It is not; if it is private land, state Where the BLM agrees with the suggestions, your comments that. have been incorporated. 11.JF-35 Section 3.11 - Land Use Plan Amendment. Can you clarify why the Bureau of Land The Land Use Plan Amendment would be needed if the Management is not proposing to change Visual Resources Management (VRM) Ill to Borderlands Wind, LLC application is approved. The VRM IV areas for Alternatives 1 and 2 along Bill Knight Gap Road and Hooper Ranch proposed improvements to Bill Knight Gap Road, Hooper Road, as is proposed for the Proposed Action for the Land Use Plan Amendment Ranch Road and US 60 would meet VRM III objectives. There (Figures 3-18 and 3-19)? Borderlands Wind would have more flexibility in these areas if is no justification to change the objective to VRM IV based the amendment applied to all the action alternatives. on the Borderlands Wind, LLC's application. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-27 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-36 Borderlands Wind's primary concerns with the EIS pertain to how the BLM discusses the Refer to responses to Comments 11.JF-1, 11.JF-3, 11.JF-6, severity of potential impacts, particularly in the discussions concerning prairie dogs, 11.JF-15, 11-JF-16, 11.JF-17, 11.JF-18, 11.JF-20, 11.JF-21, migratory birds and eagle resources. In evaluating potential impacts to these resources, 11.JF-22, and 11.JF-24. it is unclear in the BLM's definition of impacts whether the "resource" being evaluated is the population of a species or individuals within a particular species. Based on the conclusions drawn for impacts to prairie dogs, migratory birds, and eagles, the DEIS appears to be basing its conclusions on impacts to individuals rather than evaluating population level impacts of these particular species. There is simply no basis under NEPA, or even under the analysis in the DEIS, to find individual-level impacts to be "major." Indeed, BLM's own definitions of impact levels in the DEIS (seep. 3-1) argues against any such conclusion: • Negligible: changes would not be detectable and/or measurable. The resource/use would be essentially unchanged or unaltered. • Minor: changes would be detectable and/or measurable and would have a slight change or alteration to the resource/use • Moderate: changes would be clearly detectable, measurable and/or have an appreciable effect on the resource/use. The resource/use would be notably changed or altered and the effect is apparent. Project activities could change the indicator over a small area or to a lesser degree. • Major: changes would be readily detectable, and/or have a severe effect on the resource. The resource/use would be substantially changed or altered over a large area or to a large degree. Given the definitions set forth by the BLM in the DEIS, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that moderate or major impacts are likely to occur to populations of prairie dogs, bats, birds, or eagles as a result of the proposed action. We believe that the conclusions reached in the EIS should be re-evaluated in light of the available scientific data. For example, as discussed in Exhibit A, the conclusion that the Project would result in localized short- and long-term, moderate impacts on prairie dogs is without basis, given that the prairie dog colonies are not unique relative to the surrounding landscape and region, and because any impacts would be minimized because of implementation of best management practices ("BMPs"). In short, it would be more accurate to characterize these impacts as "minor". Similarly, the conclusion that the Project would have a long-term, minor to moderate effect on special status birds and bats based on the threat of collision is without factual support given the low rate of occurrence and non-unique habitats in the project area, and the fact that special-status species fatalities, including the species listed for the project, are rarely discovered at other wind

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-28 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID energy facilities in the region. Thus, population-level impacts will be "negligible to minor'' at most.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-29 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-37 Under the Decommissioning section, the same conclusion that short- and long-term, The conclusion that is provided at the end of the section on direct and indirect, major local and regional impacts are made with the justification that decommissioning is intended as a summary statement the extent of noise and visual disturbance during decommissioning would be similar to indicating that, even with the application of BMPs and other the construction phase. The Construction section suggests this 'major' impact level design features, there would still be impacts to bald and based on the potential for any reduction in golden eagle nest success. Due to the golden eagles from construction, O&M, and distance from decommissioning (noise, visual disturbance) activities from the potential decommissioning (as opposed to this statement only Luna Tank eagle nest, it is more likely that impacts would be negligible. This conclusion applying to the decommissioning phase of the project). The is supported by the Final EIS for Eagle Take for the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Phase 1 analysis in this section is not just referring to potential Project, which established western states precedent for a ½-mile buffer when examining impacts at a nest site; it is accounting for eagle use (i.e. disturbance impacts to both eagle species' nests. The potential Luna Tank eagle nest is impacts to foraging, roosting, and nesting). Foraging and greater than ½-mile from planned construction and decommission activities. roosting occurs at much greater distances from an associated nest site; therefore, applying a 1/2 mile buffer to these other activities that are considered in this discussion to something that is primarily to protect impacts to breeding/nesting locations specifically is not appropriate. Refer to responses to Comments 11.JF-1, 11.JF-3, 11.JF.20, and 11.JF.21. 11.JF-38 It is important to note that while wind facilities can result in injuries and mortalities to Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be individuals of various bird species, we are aware of no evidence of such impacts included in the administrative record for this EIS. resulting in population-level impacts to those species at the local or regional level. As evidenced in a recently published report in the Ecological Society of America's Fall, 2019 Issues in Ecology report provides an overview of impacts to wildlife from wind energy siting and operation in the United States (Allison et al., 2019), wind facilities across the US result in approximately 234,000 individual avian fatalities per year. This number is orders of magnitude lower than impacts to birds by other anthropogenic sources of mortality. "Predation by the domestic cat is estimated to be the largest direct source of bird mortality by far, causing between 1.4 and 4.0 billion fatalities in the U.S. each year". The report also cites other anthropogenic sources of bird mortality, including buildings (599 million/year), vehicles (200 million/yr). and agricultural chemicals (2.7 million/year). With the exception of domestic cats, none of these impacts - and most notably wind projects - are known to have resulted in significant population level declines to bird species. 11.JF-39 In light of the comments above, and the expert technical comments provided by SWCA Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be in Exhibit A, We respectfully suggest that the DEIS be revised to contain a more detailed included in the administrative record for this EIS. discussion focused on population-level impacts discussing impacts to eagles, migratory birds, bats prairie dogs, and other species.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-30 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 11.JF-40 Table 3-1 (pages 3-2-3-9). Please include references to the compliance plans, not just The BLM appreciates the suggested editorial changes Appendix B, to clarify for the reader the project documents where best management regarding the presentation of the information in the EIS. practices (BMPs) and design features were developed. Where the BLM agrees with the suggestions, your comments have been incorporated. 11.JF-41 Table 3-1 (pages 3-2-3-9). • Noise: Please clarify that the short-term noise levels would As noted in Table 3-1 in the DEIS, the nearest sensitive be below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency thresholds for the nearby sensitive receptor (seasonal recreation use) would be approximately receptor. 0.8 mile away from the nearest turbine in the BLWP area. At this distance, noise impacts generated from construction and decommissioning (e.g., heavy equipment use), would be negligible to minor and short-term depending on the activities. Noise impacts during O&M would be below the noise thresholds recommended in the U.S. EPA guidelines and below the level of the background noise because of the distance to the nearest receptor. No change has been made to the EIS. 13.DL-1 I am a resident of New York State and also own property in the eastern part of Catron Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be County. What drew me to purchase land in New Mexico was the grandeur, raw beauty included in the administrative record for this EIS. and open vistas of the area. 13.DL-2 I oppose the wind turbine project proposed by Borderlands Winds LLC of Florida Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be because it is not in the best interest of New Mexico. The project is too big- it will be too included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to disturbing and will hold zero benefit for residents. Section 3.3 of the EIS for a discussion of the potential beneficial and adverse impacts. 13.DL-3 I certainly would never have bought land in this area had I known about the project, but Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be residents will lose so much more. It will scar the landscape for miles and miles, generate included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to noise 24 hours a day and alter wildlife patterns. The character of the land and the quality Chapter 3 of the EIS for a discussion on the potential of life will be permanently impacted. impacts to the landscape, visual impacts to the character of the lands, and wildlife. 13.DL-4 More horrifying, is that all these impacts will come without any benefit to New Mexico. Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be The state will not even see any improvement in electricity! This seems essentially un- included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to American- all burden placed on residents/all financial and energy shipped outside the Section 3.3 for the social and economic impacts to the state. project area and local community. 13.DL-5 Please call it what it is- ceding 43,528 acres of New Mexican land to Borderland Winds, Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be its shareholders and customers. included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to Section 3.3 for the social and economic impacts to the project area and local community.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-31 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 13.DL-6 The BLM must see that the price of this turbine project proposed by Borderlands Winds Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be is too high. It is a lose/lose for Catron County, its residents and the entire State of New included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to Mexico. Section 3.3 for the social and economic impacts to the project area and local community. 13.DL-7 For these reasons I urge the BLM not to approve this project. Thank you for your Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be consideration included in the administrative record for this EIS. 14.DM-1 Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Bureau of Land Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Management (“BLM”) notice of availability (“NOA”) titled “Draft Environmental Impact included in the administrative record for this EIS. Statement and Land USe Plan Amendment for Borderlands Wind Project in Catron County, New Mexico” to detail my opinions on the project. I am a 2L at the University of Missouri School of Law. I am an active member of the University of Missouri chapters of the American Constitution Society and Phi Alpha Delta. I will be spending the summer of 2020 working with Earthjustice in their Oceans Program. I am addressing this issue due to my concerns over climate, wildlife conservation, and the protection of culture. 14.DM-2 The project will decrease dependency on fossil fuels. Climate Change: We are currently in Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be the middle of a climate crisis. At the moment, and in the coming decades, we face included in the administrative record for this EIS. shifting weather patterns, catastrophic flooding, threatened food supplies, and many other catastrophic consequences of climate change(1) In time the consequences will become more dire as we see rising sea levels decimate populated areas, and changes to ecosystems cause mass migrations from equatorial areas(2) Science has shown that the rising global temperatures causing these shifts are caused by human activity(3) Modern human society causes the emission of massive amounts of greenhouse gasses which trap heat, causing global temperatures to rise(4) Many of those greenhouse gasses come from the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal(5) While we are past the point of stopping climate change, we still have the opportunity to avoid the most disastrous effects(6) One of the most effective ways to do this is to increase investment in renewable energy(7) This will help us reach zero CO2 emissions within the next 15 years, which scientists say will give us the best chance of avoiding catastrophe(8). Wind energy is a viable alternative to fossil fuel generated electricity. The proposed facility would generate 100 Megawatts of energy(9) Comparable wind farms produce enough electricity for 28,000 average sized residential homes(10) This may be slightly different due to the increased air conditioning needs of the southwest compared to the northeast, but the installation of this wind farm could drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuel needed to generate electricity for the surrounding area. This would mean a reduction in the carbon footprint of the energy grid. While this would mean only a dent in the problem, it is still a step in the right direction. As people see the

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-32 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID benefits of renewable energy, hopefully it will increase their demand for alternative sources of electricity and further reduce our carbon output. Investment in the future is the key to progress. We know, from the majority of the scientific community that climate change is real and that the effects are catastrophic. We stand at a fork in the road. One path is the status quo, and while it may seem like the easier path to trek it will inevitably lead to our demise. The other path may be more difficult to traverse at the beginning, but will lead us to a brighter future. The building of this and other wind farms is a step down the path leading toward that bright future. The Bureau of Land Management’s mission statement states that they work to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”(11) The catastrophic consequences of climate change will undoubtedly affect the “health, diversity, and productivity” of lands across the globe including the public lands here in the United States. Therefore, the approval of this project is directly within the purview of the Bureau of Land Management's mission.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-33 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 14.DM-3 Economic Issues. While climate change is a grave threat to the continuation of society as Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be we know it, economic progress is also a pressing issue on the minds of many. The included in the administrative record for this EIS. dependence on fossil fuels for the generation of electricity is not a sustainable model for the economy of the future. The future of energy production is going to be renewable. In this economic shift the United States can either be a leader or a follower. The building of wind farms would show the United States’ intention to be a leader in this field and would give a boost to our current and future economic outlooks. One reason the change to renewable energy is a good economic move is the dying of the coal industry. New Mexico, where the wind farm is set to be built, gets the plurality of its electricity from coal fired power plants(12) There are six active coal mines in New Mexico, operated by four separate companies(13) Much of the coal is done using a process called strip mining(14) This is a significantly dangerous form of mining which present risks to the ecosystem, the miners, and those living in surrounding areas(15) The reality for these mines though is that coal is dying(16) Production and demand are decreasing(17) This means that inevitably these mines will be shut down and those working and depending on them will be negatively affected. Beginning the switch to renewable energy now will allow the process of changing the economies of these areas less jarring. It would also allow for the cost of energy to not be affected in a drastic fashion by the end of the coal industry. While the coal industry is dying, the green energy industry is growing. More jobs in green energy generation are created every year(18) Renewable energy accounted for 4.2% of all new jobs created in 2018(19) The building and the maintaining of the wind farm will create both temporary and permanent jobs for New Mexico. Based off the job creation estimates for other wind farm projects, this project would create more than a thousand temporary jobs, and close to 100 permanent operations jobs(20) This would add millions of dollars into the economy of New Mexico every year. With the coal industry dying and the renewable energy industry booming, it only seems rationale for BLM to take steps to allow New Mexico to take advantage(21)

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-34 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 14.DM-4 The project’s impact on local wildlife. Whenever a large construction project takes place Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be it is likely to displace and disrupt local wildlife. Several species may be present near the included in the administrative record for this EIS. wind farm, including 41 different species designated as “species of great conservation need”(22) These species are considered indicative of the health of their ecosystem. There are also 14 different endangered species located near this proposed project(23) There has been a lot made of the effect that wind turbines may have on bird and bat populations in the areas they are placed. Developments in the understanding of these affects though has allowed for the, already minimal, impact on the avian community to be greatly reduced(24) The effect on ground animals, including the all important mexican wolf, will likely be minimal as these animals can simply traverse around the turbines. Sound may present an issue for certain animal populations, but there is no evidence that there is an effect, let alone a detrimental effect(25) As stated earlier, any construction project is going to affect the ecosystems where it is located. Another reality is that society is not going to stop using electricity any time soon. While the wind farm may cause some inconvenience to local wildlife, that inconvenience pales in comparison to the consequences of climate change, which will be exasperated by the burning of fossil fuels, like coal, to generate the electricity we use. Therefore, the best option for the wildlife in New Mexico, in the long term, is to build the wind farm and generate clean electricity. 14.DM-5 The project’s impact on cultural sites. When building a large scale project, the Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be developers should be conscientious of the effects that it may have on local culture, included in the administrative record for this EIS. including the people and any important landmarks. It is important during construction activities to be prepared for how to complete the project and maintain the integrity of the culture near it. The Borderlands Wind project does just that. One way of maintaining the integrity of the local cultures is to allow them to collaborate on the project. This wind farm project does just that(26) This will allow planners to better understand the needs and concerns for the cultural groups in the area and address them in such a way to make sure everyone is satisfied. Sometimes the locals may not be aware of the exact location of cultural artifacts or sites, and the construction may inadvertently discover them. The Borderlands project is putting a plan in place to deal with just this situation(27) Assuming this plan respects the cultural integrity of the area, Borderlands should have no problems in this area. While there are always risks to any construction project, we can mitigate many of them. The Borderlands Wind Farm project poses minimal risk to the cultural and natural ecosystem of the surrounding area due to the well laid out plans by the developer. Additionally, any risks still inherent in the project are outweighed by the benefits, both economic and environmental, which will come from

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-35 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID this project. It is for these reasons that I urge BLM to approve this project and move forward with the promotion of clean energy.

15.LS-1 This is a request for extension of the 90 day comment period for the DEIS and RMP The BLM considered the request for extension of the 90-day Amendment, which now ends on 07 November, 2019. The reason for my request is that comment period on the DEIS. The decision was made not the DEIS and support documents are huge, totaling well over two thousand pages extend the DEIS comment period because the comment (estimated, based on the documents I was able to download -- I could not download all period was for 3 months, there were no issues identified with of them). While BLM and other federal and state agency employees are paid to spend the notification of the availability of the DEIS, and the days and weeks creating and examining the many documents that are the DEIS, the relative low number of comments received did not suggest RMP Amendment, and the support documents, it is absolutely unfair to expect the public additional time being needed for public comment. to be able to do the same. We who live in the Red Hill area will be most directly impacted by the proposed project and so it is imperative that we comment. However, unlike those who are paid to be familiar with the DEIS, we have jobs, ranches, volunteer work, and other obligations which are our primary focus, and which limit the amount of time we can spend studying and commenting on the thousands of pages of DEIS and associated documents. We do not all have access to fast or unlimited broadband; BLM has only provided documents in PDF form which require huge bandwidth-consumptive downloads. Additionally, navigation of the BLM project website is confusing to many. Documents are not labeled in plain English, nor are they summarized, so in order to even know if documents need to be downloaded… they must be downloaded. These issues alone make it difficult for the public to assess the DEIS within the time period currently allotted. 15.LS-2 I’m sure that although Borderlands LLC and its parent, NextEra, would love to rush this Refer to responses to Comments 08.RB-2 and 22.RJF-7. project through with minimal (or no) public input, Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations exist to ensure that the public is given the opportunity to participate in The public have been provided the opportunity to voice their decisions that impact their lives. Government agencies are required to consider more concerns both during public scoping period (November 9, than the non-human environmental impacts. Impacts of proposed actions on public 2018 to December 3, 2018) and during the public comment period on the DEIS (August 9, 2019 to November 7, 2019).

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-36 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID health and welfare must be seriously and fairly considered as a basis for making informed decisions.

15.LS-3 How can the public participate meaningfully to provide the information needed by BLM Refer to response to Comment 15.LS-1. to assess the impacts of the proposed actions when there is simply not enough time for the public to read and understand the DEIS documents? While Section 1503 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations requires that the BLM provide opportunity for public comment on the DEIS, those regulations do not establish a maximum time period. A Citizen’s Guide to NEPA [1], found on BLM’s own website, states that “…the draft EIS that an agency prepares may be extremely long. In such cases, an agency may grant, requests to extend the comment period to ensure enough time for the public and other agencies to review and comment [sic].”This letter is a formal request that BLM grant a significant extension of the public comment period for the Borderland LCC in order to allow for robust and meaningful public engagement as per the National Environmental Policy Act.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-37 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 16.LS-1 Issue: The DEIS does not meet the Plain Writing Act of 2010[1] requirements or Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Executive Orders E.O. 12866 and E.O. 12988. Recommendation: The DEIS should be included in the administrative record for this EIS. The EIS rewritten in plain English, streamlined for readability, and resubmitted for public input. covers a technical topic of a proposed wind generating Discussion: Educated adults who are considered good readers usually read at about 200 facility and its potential impacts on the environment. The to 400 wpm[2]. The biggest obstacle is the reader’s ability to recognize words and to document complies with Secretarial Order 3355 for process how the words combine to make meaningful sentences. Readers cannot streamlining and page length. The document was written reasonably expect to understand text if they do not know what the words mean. concisely - words were deliberately and precisely chosen. Unfamiliar words and concepts result in slower reading if the reader is to understand The EIS itself is only 146 pages, including maps, tables, and what is being read. The first four pages of text of the DEIS is composed of 2149 words. graphs and excluding cover, Table of Contents, references, Analysis of the text using seven different formulas for text readability[3] reveals that the and appendices. The entire EIS document including cover, text ranges from “difficult to read” to “college graduate level reading and above”. It is Table of Contents, references, and appendices is 944 pages. reasonable to assume that educated adults who are not familiar with DEIS documents The document organization has easy to follow headings and might read at the lower 200 wpm rate or slower. While I have not counted the total subheadings. Footnotes are included in the text to explain number of pages of the DEIS and the associated documents, and I have not counted the terms not commonly used. total number of pages of text vs non-text, it is reasonable to assume that since pages of maps, tables, and graphs must be used as references, at least the same amount of time Hard and electronic copies of the document were offered at would be spent on non-text pages as text pages. This means that at over 2000 the public comment meeting in addition to the EIS being document pages, it would take an educated reader who is not familiar with the material listed on the BLM website to allow for the public to review in the DEIS a minimum of 66 hours to read it all. Most readers not in the employ of BLM the draft document at their convenience. The comment would necessarily take much longer, as reading time would be interrupted by all the period was 90-days. other obligations of daily life. The very first bullet on the Plain Language website[4] is “Less is more!”. Obviously BLM has not attempted to comply. In fact, one must wonder if the idea is to overwhelm the public in order to minimize response to the DEIS. The Plain Language website bullet points go on to list organization of documents, which BLM has failed to do in this DEIS. There is no index to help the reader by providing search words, and that, along with the table of contents referring to sections rather than page numbers, makes finding information in the DEIS an unnecessary time-consuming challenge. As an example, at the public meeting held in Quemado on 18 September 2019 I asked a BLM employee to help me find information in the print copy of the DEIS that was on display. She was unable to find the proper appendix in the 1 ½” thick document, much less find the specific information I was seeking to ask a question about. How can a non-employee reader find anything if a BLM employee, presumably familiar with the DEIS, can’t? An additional Plain Language website bullet point is “Don’t assume your readers have knowledge of the subject or have read related pages on your site. Clearly explain things so each page can stand on its own.” The DEIS does not comply with this point. The question I asked of the BLM employee was to help me find pertinent laws and regulations that would apply to decommissioning, since no reference was made to such

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-38 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID in DEIS section 2.2.7. Decommissioning (p 24). A “Decommissioning Plan in the BLWP POD” was referred to, but where was I to find that? As it turns out, there is no decommissioning plan, which is supposed to be in an Appendix L. Furthermore, the BLM employee told me that the relevant decommissioning laws and regulations could be found on the Fish and Wildlife Service, which may or may not be at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/wind/guidance.html -- I don’t have the time to look for it much less to read even more. I do not believe BLM has made any attempt in the DEIS to use plain language, to properly organize the document, to include all information necessary to understand the issues fully, or to clearly explain anything. I believe this has been done is on purpose to discourage public participation and/or disguise information that the public would oppose.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-39 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 17.LS-1 Issue: Because BLM has strayed from its mandate, the DEIS’s stated purpose and need, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directs the which is supposed to be used to formulate a reasonable range of alternatives, results in BLM to “study, develop, and describe appropriate essentially three alternatives that vary in detail but that have the same alternatives to recommended courses of action in any impacts.Recommendation: The No Action Alternative is the only reasonable decision. proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources” (NEPA § 102(2)(E)). As explained in BLM Instruction Memorandum 2011-59, “the BLM must explore alternative means of meeting the purpose and need for the action. For a renewable energy right-of-way application, alternatives will include denying the application (the No Action Alternative) and granting the application as submitted by the applicant following the pre-application process (the Proposed Action). The BLM must consider other reasonable alternatives through the NEPA process, including modifications to the right-of-way application as submitted, that meet the purpose and need for the action and provide a clear basis for choice among options (40 CFR 1502.14).” A discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive. What is required is information sufficient to permit the BLM to make a “reasoned choice” among alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned (40 CFR 1502.14; see also, BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 § 6.6), BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 § 6.6.1, and BLM Instruction Memorandum 2011-59). The three alternatives analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 do not have the same impacts (refer to Table 2.2 Comparison of Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2). As noted in Section 2.5 of the EIS, Alternative 2 would consist of 34 constructed turbines and would ultimately have less impacts when constructed as compared to the Proposed Action and Alternative 1. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-40 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 17.LS-2 Discussion: In the comments to the NOI submitted by me online and copied via email to The BLM acknowledges your comment and would like to Mr. Jim Stobaugh, National Project Manager, Bureau of Land Management on 09 make note that FLPMA directs the BLM to "manage lands for December, 2018 (Submission ID BLWP-1-338039) I discussed the inappropriateness of opportunities for commercial, and recreational, and an industrial complex on BLM managed lands in Catron County, as well as that the conservation activities," which includes renewable proposed project will not create economic benefit to Catron County, and will degrade the resources. No decision on the application for the natural and human environment, and noted that there is no pressing need for the project development of the Borderlands wind energy facility has in this location. The DEIS claims in Section 1.1 (pg 11) that “The BLM's purpose and been made. The public, including those residents of Red Hill, need for the proposed BLWP is established by regulatory obligations and directives and have been provided the opportunity to voice their concerns current energy development trends.” This claim notwithstanding, it is not BLM’s purpose both during public scoping period (November 9, 2018 to to aid corporations in their quest to make a profit for stockholders or to help public December 3, 2018) and during the public comment period on utilities to meet their own goals, but rather to meet the long-range goals of the American the DEIS (August 9, 2019 to November 7, 2019). Each public for lands managed by BLM. It is disturbing to find that BLM has apparently comment on the DEIS is being individually addressed. No decided that the obligations, directives, and trends stated on page 11 supersede BLM’s change has been made to the EIS. primary purpose as a management agency of public property. The actual mission, as found on the BLM website, is "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations." BLM was established on July 16, 1946 to “…manage public lands to maximize opportunities for commercial, recreational, and conservation activities. This promotes healthy and productive public lands that create jobs in local communities while supporting traditional land uses such as responsible energy development, timber harvesting, grazing, and recreation, including hunting and fishing.”[1] BLM’s website further states that the agency manages public lands “for the benefit of current and future generations, supporting conservation through partnerships and respect for communities” and yet it is evident from the wording of the DEIS that respect for the community of Red Hill, which will be most impacted by the project, is nil. This project has been rubber stamped as approved from the moment it was dreamed up[2], and no respect for the community near the project or for conservation of environment that the project will ruin, is evident. There is absolutely no way that an industrial complex that encompasses nearly 30 square miles is appropriate use of BLM lands in a traditionally rural agricultural county. It has apparently become some kind of BLM policy to equate managing public lands with making money at the expense of the environment and the human community and the other values stated in its mission statement and elsewhere.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-41 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 17.LS-3 Let me say this in another way: The BLM’s purpose in managing public lands is not The BLM acknowledges your comment and agrees as you simply to make money off the land. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act have stated that FLPMA instructs the BLM to manage (FLPMA), which governs the way in which the public lands administered by the Bureau multiple uses of Federal lands under its administration. The of Land Management are managed, establishes a multiple use mandate for BLM points to the portion of your comment that states that management of Federal lands. BLM is not supposed to sacrifice one objective at the the agency is supposed to "manage lands for opportunities expense of all other values but rather to manage lands for opportunities for commercial, for commercial, and recreational, and conservation and recreational, and conservation activities. Multiple Use as defined by FLPMA Sec. activities". FLPMA, as you also noted, directs the BLM to 103. [43 U.S.C. 1702][3] (c) The term “multiple use” means the management of the public manage a "combination of balance and diverse resource lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources" judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas with other values not limited to "recreation, range, timber, large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a scientific and historical values". These "values" such as combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long- public access, grazing, and recreation would continue with term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, any of the alternatives and the potential impacts to these but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and "values" have been disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. The 30- natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated square-mile project area associated with Alternatives 1 and management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity 2 would not be fenced off, and the lands administered by the of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the BLM within the project area would continue to be managed relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will for multiple uses currently taking place now and for other give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.” [my emphasis] “(1) The uses in the future. No change has been made to the EIS. term “principal or major uses” includes, and is limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of- way, outdoor recreation, and timber production. This, of course, means that energy production from wind is not a principal or major use. It also means that giving over 30 square miles of BLM land in Catron County for this proposed industrial complex cannot be considered multiple use – or best practices -- just because the DEIS dismisses any objections to the complex as unimportant or irrelevant. 17.LS-4 The DEIS reflects an apparent assumption that a renewable energy project that satisfies The BLM acknowledges your comment. The DEIS does not the increasingly craving for energy in another state is more important than the direct hit state that the proposed renewable energy project is more to the custom and tradition of Catron County residents and to the values of the small important than other values. This NEPA document does community of the Red Hill area, and is so important that the destruction of the disclose the potential impacts to the social, physical, environment and the ruining of a viewscape into perpetuity doesn’t even matter. DEIS natural, and cultural elements of the environment from the Section 1.4 Land Use Planning (p 12) mentions the 2007 Catron County three build alternatives. The 2007 Catron County CIP/Comprehensive Plan, which I took part in writing and am therefore quite familiar CIP/Comprehensive Plan also does not prohibit the with. “The general land use goals identified in Catron County’s … plan include 1) development of a wind generating facility within the County. encouraging local and sustainable growth in the County; 2) protecting existing land No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-42 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID uses, natural resources, and related economic activities; and 3) protecting the County’s natural beauty.” There is nothing in those words or anywhere in the County’s Plan that encourage the development of a 30 square mile industrial complex.

17.LS-5 The No Action Alternative for this DEIS is the only reasonable decision for BLM. Note Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be that DEIS Section 1.7 provides a summary of issues that were raised most frequently included in the administrative record for this EIS. There were during the public scoping period. All were negative. The public comments at the last two comments that were in support of the proposed wind community meeting held in Quemado were also all negative. It is troublesome that BLM generating facility. did not even mention the No Action Alternative during that meeting. 18.LB-1 When I worked for the Federal Government we received strict guidelines for writing in Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be plain English. The requirements included active voice verbs rather than passive, included in the administrative record for this EIS. avoidance of jargon, avoidance or minimal use of acronyms, and vocabulary and sentence structure that didn't require a college degree to comprehend, among other points. This draft document fails to meet those guidelines. I understand the tendency for specialists to write for other specialists. However, a document that the public is supposed read and comment on should be a document that the general public can read and understand. Of particular concern, at least to me, is the use of passive voice when discussing required or at least expected actions with no statement of who will actually be responsible for taking those actions. That evasion or wishy-washy-ness is the prime problem with passive voice and makes it difficult to hold accountable those who fail to take required or promised actions. 18.LB-2 Recommendation: BLM should re-write and re-issue this document with a new 90-day Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be comment period. included in the administrative record for this EIS.

19.CR-1 First, there appears to be a lot of disruption in the area slated for Borderlands wind farm, The electricity that would be generated by the proposed for an energy source that has been proven to be ineffective. The community surrounding BLWP would be used by Tucson Electric Power for this area; homeowners and ranchers, not only have to put up with the inconvenience of distribution to the electrical transmission grid, which the construction, but also will not reap any of the benefits from this company, as the includes the Socorro Electrical Cooperative. The distribution electricity that would be generated is going out of state. Most of these wind companies of the sales tax that would be paid to Catron County during like to dangle a carrot in front of small rural communities that thet will contribute monies construction would be determined by the County and not by to schools, the community, etc., only later to renege on their promises. They may even the BLM. The annual payment by Borderlands Wind, LLC renege on paying BLM, in the long run. would be made over 30 years as part of the Industrial Revenue Bond structure and its distribution is also at the

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-43 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID discretion of the County and not the BLM (refer to EIS Section 3.3.2).

19.CR-2 Let's look at what will actually go on regarding the land and community: Since ranchers The allotment fees will not be changed, as the loss of forage are losing usable land that they have been paying a lease on, will that lease amount be acres is negligible. No change has been made to the EIS. lowered to compensate for less land for their cattle to graze on? 19.CR-3 It's stated in the BLM proposal that water from an existing private well will be used for Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3 and POD Section construction, and later a well for the O&M building would be drilled. I'm sure that the 2.15.2 Water Usage, Amounts, Sources in the EIS. construction of the wind turbine farm, roads, bulidings, etc., will use copious amounts of water. This is water that private well owners covet for their homes and livestock. Saying that the groundwater aquifer will be replenished by rainfall is fairytale thinking, since this area has been in a drought for a number of years. 19.CR-4 We have abundant wildlife in this area. If this wind farm is allowed to build in this area, Refer to Table 3-1, which discusses potential impacts to we are looking at loss of elk, antelope, deer, ground burrowing animals, and birds. "general wildlife", and Section 3.7, which identifies the anticipated impacts on a variety of special status species. No change has been made to the EIS. 19.CR-5 People who use this area for hunting or making their livelihood through guiding hunters, Comment acknowledged. There is currently no data would be hurt immensely. Many people travel to this area for camping in the Gila Forest. available to support that the BLWP is an area that supports I can't imagine wanting to set up camp in sight of a wind turbine. Loss of travelers and substantial hunter days. Within the Game Management vacationeers would hurt the businesses in the communities of Quemado, NM and Units (GMUs) 12 and 15, a substantial number of hunters’ Springerville, AZ days are associated with hunts on the Gila National Forest. Hunting on public lands would not be restricted except during construction and decommissioning activities. No change has been made to the EIS. 19.CR-6 These wind turbines have been known to catch on fire. If this fire spreads to private land, The determination of responsibility for compensation for who would be responsible for compensation to the private land owner? BLM or property damage in case of fire would be on a case-by-case Borderland? basis. No change has been made to the EIS. 19.CR-7 In looking over BLM's proposal for the ROW for Borderland's wind farm, there didn't seem Refer to Section 3.2.1.9 and Section 3.2.2 of the EIS for a to be much mention of Air Force flights over the area: just that they fly under 10,000'. We discussion on the aviation use in the BLWP area. The U.S. have seen on many occasion, jet fighters and C130s, flying well below Cimarron Mesa, Air Force is a cooperating agency and has been in close which is 7705'. If it's approximatelty 500' from the base of the mesa to the top, wouldn't coordination with the BLM on the potential impacts from the these planes be flying at the height of these turbines? BLWP. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-44 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 19.CR-8 We insist that BLM, NOT give Borderlands the ROW for this project, and to rethink and Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be look more clearly at the repercussions of this project, by removing the dollar signs out of included in the administrative record for this EIS. your eyes. 20.LB-1 Even if we had started the first day the document was posted online the comment period Refer to response to Comment 15.LS-1. wouldn't have been long enough. BLM took a year to write a huge document using paid specialists (none of whom are affected whatsoever by the project) and government data resources. They didn't start from scratch but followed a well-developed formula so that much of it was simply filling in the blanks. It was, for them, not a difficult task. We -- who are not specialists and who are affected by the project -- got 90 days to examine a huge document that many wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of (see my comment BLWP-1-500049989 on that issue), research it using documents we have to Google to obtain because we don't have easy access to all that government data, and to write our comments in our own "spare" time. It is absolutely unfair to the public to limit the comment period to 90 days, especially as BLM does have the authority to extend it as much as it wants. They are pushing hard to get this through for NextEra's benefit, not the public's. Recommendation: BLM should extend the comment period by at least six months 21.LS-1 Issue: There is no valid justification for a Resource Management Plan amendment Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be change.Recommendation: The No Action Alternative is the only reasonable included in the administrative record for this EIS. decision.Discussion: Public land is land owned by the public. Land management agencies manage, but do not own, the land or the resources on and under it. Resource Management Plans (RMPs) are described in FLPMA and apply to BLM. Among other things, RMPs identify which lands will be available for development and in what manner, and which lands will be managed to emphasize resource protection, as well as the management requirements needed to balance the agency’s multiple use and sustained yield mandates across the federal landscape, and more. 21.LS-2 Section 3-11 Land Use Plan Amendment (page 3-99, real world page 129). The DEIS Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be clearly states that “…the construction and operation of the BLWP wind turbines over the included in the administrative record for this EIS. 35-year life of the proposed project would create strong visual contrast in terms of scale, line, form, color, and texture in the characteristic landscape.” The citizens of Catron County have always vigorously defended a traditional rural and agricultural way of life. In its nearly 7000 square miles there is one (1) traffic light (a blinking light, not a stop light). No public building in any town and few, if any, private buildings are more than two stories tall, i.e. less than or around the average height of surrounding trees. We have no huge industrial complexes, nor do the few semi-industrial sites that we do have take up more than a few acres of land. They are not visible from any distance over about a

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-45 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID quarter mile or so. The only man-made structures that stand out are the high power transmission lines that run basically north/south through the western part of the county, and which provide the only source of visual pollution in the whole county.

21.LS-3 Many of the comments protesting this project have specifically been about the negative Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be impact of an industrial complex on the enjoyment of the incredibly beautiful landscape, included in the administrative record for this EIS. The which includes Fox Mountain and rolling hills and grasslands, as well as the edge of the potential impacts to property values is discussed in Section Gila National Forest. Real estate agents emphasized the untouched beauty of the public 3.3.1.2 of the EIS. lands surrounding the deeded land they offered for sale. Many local residents purchased the land intending to live there for the rest of their lives; others purchased it so they could escape the cities they live in and vacation in beautiful surroundings. Not only would property values be lowered, but the personal values (aesthetic, spiritual values; and emotional and physical health benefits of living in and near open rural lands) of the residents of the area in the vicinity of the wind turbine industrial complex would be destroyed. 21.LS-4 The New Mexico border on US Highway 60 is often the first view tourists have of the Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be “Land of Enchantment”. How is it a benefit to New Mexico tourism to have an industrial included in the administrative record for this EIS. The BLM complex be practically the first thing they see? considered potential impacts to visual resources and specifically to views from US 60 in the EIS; refer to Section 3.9 and Appendix F of the EIS 21.LS-5 The DEIS justifies changing the VRM class to allow for the construction of the proposed The changes to VRM classes were made with consideration wind turbine project by stating that “the change is being considered because of the lack of the Visual Resource Inventory conducted as part of the of any rationale supporting the original allocation”, as if somehow the VRM class analysis for the BLWP EIS. The Socorro RMP 2010 did not assignments were magically put into the RMP by other than human hands, and as if the address the 37-mile VRM Class II designated corridor RMP decision had not in fact been valid at the time it was made, and unchallenged specifically and with any definition. The Socorro RMP Land since. Use Amendment aligns the VRM Class III Highway 60 corridor with the surrounding area visual resource management objectives. No change has been made to the EIS." 21.LS-6 Any argument claiming lack of supporting rationale for the original allocation should be Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be dismissed as irrelevant in the face of the public support of the existing classes. If BLM is included in the administrative record for this EIS. The BLM intent on enabling the construction of an ugly industrial complex on the public land that

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-46 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID the agency manages, then BLM should find a location with a VRM class somewhere else considered potential impacts to visual resources in the EIS; that already would accommodate it. A wind turbine industrial complex in Catron County refer to Section 3.9 and Appendix F of the EIS is totally inappropriate use of public lands.

22.RJF-1 We are opposed to the proposed action and alternatives 1 and 2 and feel that the no Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be action alternative is the preferred alternative based on BLM’s failure to provide oversight included in the administrative record for this EIS. of Borderlands in the development of the DEIS. Borderlands disregarded or minimized negative effects while intentionally inflating perceived positive effects. The BLM has not demonstrated the purpose for amending the RMP or the review of data provided by Borderlands, who has a vested interest in biasing the data for their own personal financial gain. 22.RJF-2 Borderlands has taken liberties with inserting themselves into the responsibilities Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be reserved for the action agency thru the NEPA process and made decisions that are not included in the administrative record for this EIS. within their rights as an applicant. 22.RJF-3 The agency has been pre-decisional in disregarding the no action alternative and has Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be failed to demonstrate that alternative locations that are appropriate to conduct these included in the administrative record for this EIS. activities without an amendment to the RMP have even been considered. They have failed to consider locations that would minimize the impacts to resources and the personal and financial wellbeing of the local residents. The BLM and Borderlands have chosen to place an extreme economic burden on the residents of Northern Catron County and disregarded many subdivisions located in the effects area. The BLM has disregarded its own data regarding the economics of the region to justify their desired outcome as indicated in our comments below. By willfully disregarding and minimizing the financial burden placed on local residents to justify this proposed decision, it is grounds for selecting the no action alternative. 22.RJF-4 The structure of the two public meetings established by the BLM discouraged input and Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be feedback from affected parties and created the appearance that the decision had included in the administrative record for this EIS. already been made and objections by affected parties was futile. Outreach for meeting notices was limited and short notification timeframes discouraged attendance. The meetings were also designed to be a one-way flow of information with the BLM and Borderlands taking the opportunity to defend their position while discouraging opposing comments. The BLM and Borderlands were allotted ample time to convey their objectives, but public commenters were allotted 3 minutes each at the second meeting with no follow-up response or discussion of any kind. The BLM did not create the opportunity to have discussions on alternatives that could reduce or minimize impacts on affected parties. Every credible disagreement was challenged by BLM or Borderlands and comments were not recorded during these discussions for further review or

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-47 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID clarification. Many participants in the meeting felt this way and left confused and discouraged.

22.RJF-5 This project is in conflict with the Multiple Use Act as the project has only one benefit Refer to response to Comment 17.LS-3. No change has been and that is the profit of Borderlands with disregard to the significant irreversible and made to the EIS. irretrievable affects to all other uses and local residents. 22.RJF-6 There were no efforts made to interact or have meaningful, collaborative discussions Thank you for your comment. The BLM contacted Catron with local subdivisions or their elected board members. County for information regarding Cimarron Ranch Subdivision and that information is included in Section 3.3 of the EIS. No comments have been provided to the BLM from the Cimarron Ranch Board during the public scoping or comment periods on the BLWP. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-7 This analysis disregards health effects due to prolonged exposure to wind turbines on Refer to response to Comment 08.RB-2. Potential health local residents. concerns for those living adjacent to wind turbines include audible sound (noise we hear), shadow flicker (a moving shadow casted by the blades of a wind turbine from the sun), and infrasound (sound we do not hear). The closest residence to a potential wind turbine location would be approximately 2.3 miles to the west of the project, and the closest residence in Red Hill would be approximately 4.2 miles to the north of the BLWP area. At these distances wind turbine sound would not be audible. There are no residences within the reachable distance of a shadow flicker from a potential wind turbine location. In addition, there are no health issues with regard to infrasound even at distances much closer to residences than is the case for this proposed project. The evidence provided in over 80 peer-reviewed scientific publications indicate that there would not be any health impacts to local residents over the life of the BLWP. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-48 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-8 Our comments throughout this document apply to all action alternatives unless Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be otherwise stated. included in the administrative record for this EIS. 22.RJF-9 Chapter 1: Introduction. -The statement regarding the BLM’s obligations to promoting Comment acknowledged. The BLM must consider other energy development are not pre-decisional and do not supersede the NEPA process.- reasonable alternatives through the NEPA process, including There is also a statement that refers to two project areas that were evaluated. This is modifications to the right-of-way application as submitted, not a sufficient number of alternative locations to defend the proposed current project that meet the purpose and need for the action and provide a location and support a change to the RMP. No alternative sites in the Visual Resource clear basis for choice among options (40 CFR 1502.14).” A Management (VRM) class IV were considered within the Socorro District according to discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive. What is the DEIS. The BLM and Borderlands have not considered other alternative locations that required is information sufficient to permit the BLM to make could have less affects while still meeting the energy demands that Borderlands is a “reasoned choice” among alternatives so far as requesting. The BLM and Borderlands are transferring the economic burden of this environmental aspects are concerned (40 CFR 1502.14; see project away from Borderlands and onto the local residents. also, BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 § 6.6), BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 § 6.6.1, and BLM Instruction Memorandum 2011-59). No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-10 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives: 2.2.6. -The statement that “Occasional Cleaning of blades using high pressure sprayers with water blade cleaning may be necessary if debris reduces the turbine’s aerodynamic is not common Borderlands Wind, LLC practice. The gains in performance. Water would be used to spray wash the blades using a high-pressure aerodynamic performance are small and not worth the risk sprayer.” Is this included in the 80 acre feet proposed in table 2-2? It has not been of seriously damaging the blade with this practice. If the disclosed what the water demands will be for construction vs. maintenance and blade has a small crack (which is very common) you could operation. How much water are we talking about for this action? actually do more harm by saturating the balsa core of the blade.

Table 2-2 in the EIS describes both construction and O&M water use. Also as stated in the text, “Construction activities would require approximately 26 million gallons of water and would be pumped from an existing private well and conveyed through aboveground piping. Water rights would remain with the private well owner.” No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-11 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives: 2.2.7. -What is the bond requirement for The bond requirement will be commensurate with the decommissioning? Is there a bond requirement or is Borderlands given a free pass to estimated cost of decommissioning the proposed project. abandon the project at any time without rehabbing and decommissioning? There is a Borderlands Wind, LLC must supply a plan and a cost, and considerable amount of information not provided in the DEIS regarding the BLM will bond accordingly. No change has been made to decommissioning. the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-49 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-12 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives: 2.7. -Regarding the statement “The Comment Acknowledged. The BLM makes final decision; following alternatives were considered by Borderlands LLC but not analyzed in detail in refer to Section 1.3 Decisions to be Made in the EIS. this EIS.” Analysis of alternatives is the responsibility of the action agency, in this case, BLM. Borderlands has no role in determining alternatives for consideration. They can provide input, but should not be the decision makers regarding what should and should not be considered. This privilege is not granted by BLM in other cases such as a grazing analysis or other special use permits. This raises the question of who is making the final decision, Borderlands or the BLM? 22.RJF-13 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. 3.1. Table 3-1. -The The analysis area is dependent on the resource/use being analysis, determination and rationale is limited to the project area and disregards effects evaluated. For example, the area of potential effect for visual for the analysis area. The effects to the surrounding areas are significant and resources extends out 30 miles. The social and economic throughout the document boundaries have been created along sociopolitical lines for condition analysis includes the entire Catron County and as the purposes of effects analysis, disregarding that effects are felt across these lines, to well the communities of Springerville and Eagar in Arizona. include the New Mexico/Arizona state line and Forest Service/BLM boundaries. The No change has been made to the EIS. effect analysis weakens as these boundaries are crossed. 22.RJF-14 Environmental justice: -Age was disregarded in the demographics of the region. Thank you for your comment. Per Executive Order 12898, According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, persons 65 years and over constitute 41.5% Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in of the population of Catron County. Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994) and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H1601-1), Environmental Justice takes into account minority and low- income populations, not elderly or any other age-related statistic. That being said, the 2010 age distribution of the Catron and Apache Counties, Quemado and Escudilla-Bonita CDPs, and the respective census tracts and block groups associated with Springerville and Eagar have been added to the EIS in Section 3.2 Social and Economic Conditions, Table 3-7. The 2010 Census data indicate a 27.9% elderly (age 65 and over) population for Catron County. 22.RJF-15 Recreation: - Effects were disregarded outside the project area to include wilderness Refer to response to Comment 22.RJF-13. areas, national scenic trails, Forest Service and BLM lands and private property. 22.RJF-16 The DEIS disregards The potential impacts of unauthorized off-road travel encouraged Refer to Section 3.4 Transportation and Travel Management by The creation of new roads on BLM, Forest Service and private lands. The demands for a discussion of unauthorized off-road travel. No change that this will place on The limited BLM, Forest Service and local law enforcement to has been made to the EIS. address these issues will be significant. these issues are not likely to be addressed and would lead to excessive resource damage.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-50 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-17 Vegetation: Companies such as Borderlands have sought out similar ecological systems Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be (shortgrass prairie, midgrass prairies and other grass lands) across the United States for included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to the construction of wind farms. No analysis has been completed to determine the Table 3-1 in the EIS for a discussion of potential impacts to impacts or cumulative impacts of repeated use of these systems across the United vegetation. States for the development of wind energy and what it means to their associated species status nationally in regards to habitat fragmentation and recovery of species. 22.RJF-18 Water Quality (Surface/Ground): The rationale presented disregards and minimizes the Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3. impacts of the removal of 26 million gallons of water from local aquafers and the impacts to public and private users. This water demand is significant. The BLM attempts to quantify this as .09% of the water use by the county, however fails to identify the aquafer that will be used, the capacity, recharge and/or demand on that individual aquafer. Therefore, the BLM is unable to make a determination of significance without a detailed ground water analysis. The proposed 26 million gallons is equivalent to 80 acre feet of water to be withdrawn from a single source (aquafer) over the period of six months. The state of New Mexico typically issues private domestic water rights no greater than 1 acre foot per year and users typically do not exceed these demands. The BLM has failed to recognize the significance of this amount of water and its impacts on others needing this resource to survive. Secondly, the BLM has failed to disclose a clear description of how and when demands on the local water supply will occur. For example, it is confusing throughout the DEIS as to whether different statements of need for water are included in the number of 26 million and if they will be a single use or continuous use. The BLM is legally responsible to conduct this analysis regardless of where the water right will occur as it is part of a connected action and the demand would not be placed on the resource if the BLM was not participating. Application for water rights with the State Engineer does not constitute a ground water analysis as the Office of the State Engineer does not conduct a ground water analysis when issuing water rights for ground water. Statements made referring to “negligible” and “minor” are incorrect. The short term demand of 26 million gallons disregards the question of what type of aquafer is being utilized. For example, a closed aquafer has no recharge capability and has a finite capacity. The BLM does not know the status of the aquafer, capacity of the aquafer, recharge rate or demand. It can take millions of years for some aquafers to recover, therefore, the statements of insignificance on the part of the BLM is negligent as they have no way of knowing whether these effects are irreversible and irretrievable without a ground water analysis. - The BLM statements of “negligible impacts” and “no additional analysis for surface water or ground water is warranted in this EIS” is incorrect and could have catastrophic effects on local water users as water is a necessity of life. -

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-51 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID Many wells in this area have recently failed and are not producing water. - We are unable to comment on water quality as data has not been completed regarding this concern.

22.RJF-19 Wetlands/Riparian Zones: -The statement regarding playas being generally vegetated Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be with the same species as the surrounding area fails to recognize that the region has included in the administrative record for this EIS. been in a long term drought and local precipitation over the past several years has not supported the function of these playas and the impacts of the drought on playa vegetation. These wetlands are important components of the ecosystem that do have unique ecological characteristics. Activities such as roads and stock tanks have jeopardized these systems across the analysis area and region making them a critical consideration for their ecological importance. 22.RJF-20 3.2.1. Table 3.2.1. - The BLM has avoided affected parties throughout this process and The U.S. Census Bureau designated one census tract (9674) utilized personal communication with County officials regarding the population of that encompasses the entire Catron County and identified Cimarron Ranch subdivision and disregarded property owners as affected individuals. Quemado and Escudilla Bonita as Census Designated This information can be obtained by contacting a Cimarron Ranch Board member to Places (CDPs) (refer to Figure 3- 7 in the EIS). There is no collect appropriate numbers for the analysis. County officials have a vested interest in demographic data available for the Cimarron Ranch area minimizing impacts to property owners based on potential payments from Borderlands. from the County (refer to Section 3.3.1.1 of the EIS). The The estimation of 50 individuals living in Cimarron Ranch is incorrect and the number of communities mentioned in the comment are not CDPs, and property owners affected is disregarded. - Communities disregarded in this analysis there is no data available. The BLM did not receive any include Antelope Run, Spring Canyon, Starfire subdivision, Omega and Indian Springs. comments from a Cimarron Ranch Board either during the

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-52 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID public scoping period or during the public comment period on the DEIS. No change has been made to the EIS.

22.RJF-21 3.2.1. - A statement regarding the Gila National Forest indicates that “it is considered There are no viewshed restrictions placed by the Forest one of the more remote and least developed national forests.” Why is the BLM proposing Service from the Escudilla Wilderness Area or the three activities that disregard this significant characteristic? - The Wilderness Study Area wilderness study areas (referred to as the northeast, located next to Escudilla Wilderness Area, as identified in the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest southeast, and west additions) that are currently under Plan, is disregarded in this analysis. The Wilderness character of Escudilla Wilderness evaluation by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Alpine and its associated Wilderness Study Area have been disregarded in this analysis and Ranger District that would be added to the Escudilla this project will have significant impacts. Statements made at the first public meeting by Wilderness Area. The minimum criteria for the designation of BLM employees regarding the impacts to the visual characteristics of the Wilderness wilderness according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 are size, Area were that they do not matter based on the fact that the activities are outside of the natural condition, and opportunities for solitude or primitive Wilderness. This is incorrect because if applied in reverse, these areas would not have recreation. These are criteria placed on the landscape under been considered as wilderness because their wilderness character would have been consideration for designation; they do not include criteria for reduced by the presence of wind turbines. Federal land management agencies have an what can be seen (views) from the wilderness area or obligation to protect wilderness and wilderness character. wilderness study area. The closest turbine in any alternative would be approximately 14 miles away and would not attract attention of the casual observer. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-22 3.2.1.2. - There is no mention of helispots or helicopter traffic. Helispots and helicopter Flight hazard maps are available to all aviation groups and traffic in this region are important because it is a significant mode of emergency updated bi-annually. This information can be retrieved medical transportation for all of Catron County due to the travel distance to local online. Emergency medical, fire, and police operations would hospitals. There has been no consideration for how the project will impact response not be affected by the presence of wind turbines. Besides times in medical emergencies due to the inability to access the area by emergency landing and takeoff, the flight elevations above ground are aircraft or the delays caused as aircraft may no longer take a direct route to incidents higher than the turbines. Flight operations are briefed to and medical facilities. local hazards and would not restrict operations from occurring. Information regarding emergency helicopter flights have been added to the EIS in Sections 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.2.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-53 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-23 There is no consideration for fire aviation needs. While The fire risk within The project Refer to Response to Comment 22.RJF-22. area may be minimal, this project area does not consider The direct proximity to The Gila National Forest and The needs of fire management aviation activities in direct relation to The project. With this project, private properties in or near The project area would be placed at greater risk as aviation resources may not be able to access them in emergency situations, for both medical and wildland fire fighting needs. 22.RJF-24 3.2.1.3. Table 3-3. - Continental Divide NST: this trail system is National in scope and The spur route is not part of the designated route of the incudes all land designations throughout the nation. The trail is not exclusive to the Continental Divide NST. A visibility analysis was done from BLM. One spur route, often utilized by recreationalists in the area, is the road to the top designated trails and any impacts have been discussed in of Mangas Mountain. Users of the Continental Divide NST choose to do this because of the EIS. No change has been made to the EIS. the ability to view the surrounding undeveloped landscapes. Due to the fact that this mountain is a dominant landform, with the ability to view the surrounding landscapes, the Forest Service has placed a fire lookout. Does the BLM not have a legal obligation to protect the scenic values of the trail system outside of its management as well? This is an example of the BLM disregarding effects along sociopolitical boundaries. 22.RJF-25 3.2.1.3. Table 3-3. This table fails to recognize the Wilderness Study Area located next to The BLM appreciates your comment. There are four Escudilla Wilderness in the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest plan. potential Wilderness Areas within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Alpine Ranger District. The four study areas have been added to Table 3-3 in the EIS. 22.RJF-26 3.2.1.6 -Socorro Field Office Resource Mgmt. Plan: This document provides no Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be justification for amending this plan. Misleading statements were made regarding the included in the administrative record for this EIS. The RMP right-of-way amendments during the initial public meeting held in Quemado to lead justification for amending the RMP is provided in Section individuals to believe that the only purpose for amendment was to widen U.S. 60 so 3.11 of the EIS. trucks hauling materials could access the project area. The VRM classification was put in place to protect the economic drivers of Catron County as stated within the BLM’s funded research on The Economy of the Gila Region (The Economy of the Gila Region, July 2008, Headwaters Economics, R. Rasker, M. Haggerty, J. Haggerty and J. van den Noort). These VRM classifications were likely established to protect the visual landscapes associated with adjoining National Forests and nearby Wilderness Areas as well.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-54 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-27 3.2.2.1. -The statement that ”…with the issuance of the ROW grant, the Proposed Action Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be would be in compliance with FLPMA and would not conflict with the 2007 Catron County included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to CIP/Comprehensive Plan” is false. On page 1-4, the statement regarding the general land Section 3.2 of the EIS for a discussion on the compatibility goals identified in Catron County’s (County) plan include, “1) encouraging local and with existing local land use plans. sustainable growth in the County, 2) protecting existing land uses, natural resources, and related economic activities, and 3) protecting the County’s natural beauty.” This project is in direct disregard to all of these goals: Goal 1 for encouraging local and sustainable growth in the County - The project disregards this goal as indicated in The Economy of the Gila Region (R. Rasker, et al, 2008). According to the information found in The Economy of the Gila Region, this project is in direct conflict with Catron County’s goal of encouraging local and sustainable growth as it disregards the importance of non-labor income sources and the importance of protected landscapes on the economic growth of Catron County. This document also indicates that industry development such as the proposed action are a deterrent to economic growth in this region. Goal 2 for protecting existing land uses, natural resources, and related economic activities – This project again disregards the importance of protected landscapes on Catron County’s economy. Goal 3 for protecting the County’s natural beauty – This proposal is in direct disregard of this goal. 22.RJF-28 Construction: Regarding grazing allotments, the DEIS fails to recognize the effects of a Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be depleted water system on grazing activities both within and outside the project area. In included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to the absence of water, grazing cannot occur. Section 3.2 for a discussion on potential grazing allotment impacts. 22.RJF-29 Operations and Maintenance: Statements were made regarding improved forage Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be resources for livestock grazing under the revegetation plan. How does Borderlands included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to intend to accomplish this management objective? Revegetation practices generally take Section 3.2 for a discussion on potential grazing allotment several years to revegetate with local native vegetation. A Borderlands representative impacts. indicated that restoration objectives would be achieved within one year. This statement is unrealistic and impossible.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-55 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-30 3.3 -The BLM has failed to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of this project. The Growth in non-labor income, in The Economy of the Gila information provided in the DEIS is biased towards the project. For example, inferences Region, was found to be due to an aging population and their are made without support towards the benefits of this project, yet public comment is associated income derived from retirement and investments, disregarded when inferences are supported with logic. The BLM failed to incorporate not the relationship to public lands. The degree of their own study on The Economy of the Gila Region. This document was created for the “protected” lands refers to their management status (e.g., BLM to inform the socioeconomic analysis in their RMP. This document strongly National Parks, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas), not contradicts the arguments presented by Borderlands in regards to the economic the amount to which development is reduced on public land impacts of this project. The arguments presented by affected parties that this project or “protected” from development in general. The study will discourage growth and reduce private property values has been disregarded by the specifically notes that the "Variables negatively correlated BLM and Borderlands, however, The Economy of the Gila Region indicates that non-labor with growth in personal income are: driving distance to large income (i.e., retirement and investment income) are almost half of the total personal cities, the degree of economic specialization, dependence on income of the Gila region. This study also found that the largest source of personal agriculture, mining, wood products and other income from Catron County is from non-labor sources at 59% in 2005. This study also “transformative” industries, and the relative lack of found that the growth in non-labor sources was based on a strong positive relationship newcomers in the community." Part of the economic between the degree of protection of public lands and landscapes and that “the more development by the Catron County Board of Commissioners protected the lands, the stronger their positive impact on growth.” Additionally, this proposed that "research and generation of biofuels, biomass study found that industry (mining, oil, gas, timber, etc.) has negative impacts to growth or renewable energy" would be supported, which is also of total personal income. stated in The Economy of the Gila Region. There is no analysis, discussion, or conclusion regarding property values in the Economy of the Gila Region to support any claims regarding the topic. Refer to Section 3.3 Social and Economic Conditions in the EIS. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-56 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-31 The study sites the median age of Catron County residents in 2000 as 47.8 years of age. Refer to the response to Comment 22.RJF-30. Catron County Recent demographics reported by www.newmexico-demographics.com/catron-county- has already seen population decline (approximately 3% demographics, identifies the median age of Catron County residents in 2017 as 60.2 between 2010 and 2017). Page B5 of The Economy of the years of age. This demonstrates the growing dependence of Catron County on non-labor Gila Region states, “Catron and Sierra counties have income sources. This project will discourage growth and encourage outsourcing of experienced negative natural change in the population; i.e., Catron County’s largest source of economic growth while contributing minimally to deaths exceed births…In other words, few people are moving positive growth itself. The development of wind turbines and destruction of natural to these counties, and those who are, are more likely to be scenic beauty will have catastrophic impacts on Catron County and discourage retirees old.” For Catron County specifically, the document noted from immigrating to this area. As this document found, unimpeded landscapes are the that “Opportunities might include retirement if the county primary driver of this growth. can boost health care services, affordable housing, and other social services”, indicating that the County would need to provide more services to attract further retiree migration. The biggest hindrance to growth for Catron County as noted in The Economy of the Gila Region report, is its isolation. As stated on pages i and 7, “the potential is there for residents in rural areas to consider public lands amenities as an asset worth promoting. In spite of this relationship, the same study found that rural isolate places – even those surrounded by protected lands – grew least and had the lowest wages. This means more is needed – an educated workforce, for example – and that despite the presence of environmental assets, the biggest challenge for these counties is the lack of ready access to markets.” Additionally, on page 30 it states, “Ideally, communities that are surrounded by Forest Service and BLM lands, by wilderness and national monuments, should be able to consider public land an economic asset; promoting quality of life stimulates the economy, which in turn increases the standard of living. In practice, this can be difficult. While amenities are a necessary condition for economic growth in today’s economy, by themselves they are not enough. An educated workforce, a diverse economy and, above all, ready access to larger population centers via road and air travel also play key roles in enabling areas to maximize the benefits of public lands. For the Gila region, the degree of isolation is perhaps its biggest economic development challenge.” This indicates that the presence of public land

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-57 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID alone is not enough for Catron County, and to take full advantage of the amenities the public lands could provide would require much more than simply being located near such lands, including a more diverse economy and greater access to population centers via road and air travel. The total reduction of public lands in Catron County by BLWP would be approximately 0.003 percent (133 to 140 acres of permanent disturbance, depending on the alternative), a negligible amount for which there is no analysis to support that this project alone would be an impediment to retiree migration to the County. Further, the BLM is has a multiple- use mandate under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 which states that the resources and uses on public land must be utilized in a balanced combination that will best meet the needs of the people (current and future needs for current and future generations). Multiple uses under BLM management include renewable energy development, and as such, except in areas specifically set aside for conservation purposes, the BLM has a legal responsibility to consider projects like the BLWP. No change to the EIS has been made.

22.RJF-32 The DEIS fails to incorporate The importance of The Lightening Field art installation to Thank you for your comment. According to The Lightening this community, drawing visitors worldwide for The opportunity to experience these vast Field website the exact location is a secret. The BLM cannot analyze potential impacts from the build alternatives without

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-58 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID unimpeded landscapes. The value of these landscapes is evident through The visitation the location of the installation. No change has been made to and wait list for individuals desiring to experience this site. the EIS.

22.RJF-33 The DEIS fails to incorporate the Very Large Array’s comments into the analysis. The The NRAO VLA was included as part of the internal scoping VLA is a globally significant national radio astronomy observatory that is critical to for cooperating agencies and were included on the DEIS Catron County’s economy. Yet the BLM and Borderlands choose to disregard the NOA mailing list. The BLM did not receive comments on the significance of this site and its contributions to astronomy, the solar system and other DEIS from the NRAO VLA, and this is the only comment scientific research. It is globally recognized for its selection as a backdrop in many which relates to the NRAO VLA that was received. Currently, movies and draws visitation for both its scientific and cultural significance. The the BLM does not have any active proposals for NRAO VLA indication was made that the VLA has been working towards developing additional sites facilities near the BLWP project area and, as such, the to include one in direct proximity to the proposed Borderlands project area project would not impair their activities. The BLM will https://ngvla.nrao.edu/page/refdesign. This project should in no way impede their coordinate further with the NRAO VLA during development ability to perform at the optimal level or discourage development opportunities within of the FEIS to determine if they have any concerns regarding the region. the project. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-34 3.3.1 -The DEIS fails to recognize impacted subdivisions including Antelope Run, Spring Thank you for your comment. These subdivisions are Canyon, Starfire subdivision, Omega and Indian Springs. included collectively in the US Census Bureau data used in the analysis of the social and economic conditions of the BLWP area. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-35 3.3.3.1 -The BLM has failed to reach out to Cimarron Ranch Board members or Cadden Thank you for your comment. The BLM contacted Catron Community Management for accurate demographic information on the Cimarron Ranch County for information regarding Cimarron Ranch Subdivision. It also failed to recognize age demographics and the importance of non- Subdivision and that information is included in Section 3.3 labor income to the county and local communities. It fails to recognize the significance of the EIS. No comments have been provided to the BLM of reduced property values. The economic burden will be placed on Catron County while from the Cimarron Ranch Board or the Cadden Community the benefit will be to Arizona as revenue created by jobs will likely be outsourced to Management during the public scoping or comment periods Arizona due to the project’s proximity to Springerville and Eager, Arizona. on the BLWP. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-36 It fails to recognize the significance of reduced property values. Thank you for your comment. Refer to Section 3.3.2 of the EIS for a discussion on the potential impacts to property values. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-37 The economic burden will be placed on Catron County while the benefit will be to Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Arizona as revenue created by jobs will likely be outsourced to Arizona due to the included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to project’s proximity to Springerville and Eager, Arizona. Section 3.3 of the EIS for a discussion on the potential impacts to the local economy.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-59 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-38 3.3.1.2 -The DEIS indicates that 40.8% of housing units within Catron County were Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be described as vacant due to seasonal recreational and other use. This document fails to included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to recognize the significance of visually unimpeded landscapes on these units. The Section 3.3 of the EIS for a discussion on the potential statement was made that “No housing units, occupancy data, or median house values impacts to the local economy including recreation. are available for the Red Hill/Cimarron Ranch subdivision.” This is due to the failure of Borderlands and the BLM to do their due diligence in reaching out to the appropriate contacts of the affected subdivision and the intentional disregard by not allowing elected representatives of Cimarron Ranch and other organized subdivisions to participate as representatives of the whole. 22.RJF-39 3.3.1.4 -The DEIS inflates the economic benefits of the BLWP to the communities while Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be disregarding the impacts to the major drivers of the local economy. The project harms included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to property values and population growth as the major driver of growth is the scenic values Section 3.3 of the EIS for a discussion on the potential of this rural landscape as identified in The Economy of the Gila Region. When combined impacts to the local economy and property values. with the remoteness of Catron County, the significance of these scenic landscapes is amplified as individuals have chosen to live in these areas with minimal amenities due to the fact that a greater value is placed on the unimpeded landscapes. This can be observed by viewing properties throughout the region, as the majority of homes are oriented to facilitate views of the predominate natural landforms. - The information provided in this section is biased and utilizes research from outside locations in direct proximity to resources and amenities that change the dynamics of their economic drivers. As indicated in The Economy of the Gila Region, the values of open space, rural viewscapes, associated lifestyles, scenic quality, landscape character, visual appreciation and wildlife are all significant drivers of the economy and growth within the region and have direct implications on market values within the region. These market drivers cannot be disregarded for the personal financial gain of Borderlands. - The BLM and Borderlands have failed to reach out to local real estate agents and appraisers to determine effects on the local real estate market and have made assumptions based on studies conducted in areas with vast amenities and resources to offset the negative economic impacts of wind turbines. 22.RJF-40 3.3.2.1 -The DEIS fails to recognize or consider the sociological impacts of inserting 50- Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be 70 workers into an area with limited resources and extremely limited law enforcement. included in the administrative record for this EIS. For example, violent crime was experienced by small rural communities overrun by the oil boom in North Dakota: “But there is a dark side to the multibillion-dollar boom in the oil fields, which stretch across western North Dakota into Montana and part of Canada. The arrival of highly paid oil workers living in sprawling “man camps” with limited spending opportunities has led to a crime wave -- including murders, aggravated

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-60 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID assaults, rapes, human trafficking and robberies -- fueled by a huge market for illegal drugs, primarily heroin and methamphetamine.” (Dark side of the boom, The Washington Post, Sari Harowitz, Sept. 28, 2014). This is extremely concerning to local residents as state and county law enforcement resources are extremely limited and widely dispersed leading to longer response times (up to an hour or more depending on the location of the nearest officer).

22.RJF-41 The assumption is made by the BLM that New Mexico resident hunters all live in direct Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be proximity to the project area and do not provide an economic benefit to the local included in the administrative record for this EIS. In Section community as they do not travel to hunt. This assumption is false and is not supported. 3.3.2.1 of the EIS, the BLM states that the major economic drivers in the BLWP area are primarily related to recreation/hunting and ranching and the livestock industry. Based on the number of elk and deer licenses issued for the BLWP area during the 2017– 2018 season, the number of affected hunters is expected to be limited to less than 200, primarily during the project construction phase according to the NM Department of Game and Fish. Since approximately two-thirds of the hunters in NM are local residents rather than non-residents, there would be negligible, if any, reduction in related expenditures, such as for lodging from non-resident hunters in the BLWP area, under any of the alternatives. 22.RJF-42 Assumptions cannot be made that increases in tax revenue will have any benefit to local The distribution of revenue is the responsibility of Catron residents. County discussions regarding this revenue have focused around removing the County and not the BLM. No change has been made to the revenue from the affected portions of the county and put to use elsewhere in Catron EIS. County.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-61 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-43 The BLWP will impact adjacent property values. The research selected by Borderlands or Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be the BLM to demonstrate the impacts on private property values is not comparable as all included in the administrative record for this EIS. The research has occurred in areas with a significant difference in population density. For potential impacts to property values is discussed in Section example, research done in London, as noted in the DEIS, has absolutely no correlation 3.3.1.2 of the EIS. with property values in Catron County. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the population of Catron County was 3,729 people with a population density of .5 people per square mile. The population of the United Kingdom is 67,650,743 with a population density of 723 people per square mile, as of November 2, 2019, according to www.worldometers.info. The use of these studies disregards the other economic drivers occurring within communities that encourage versus discourage growth and surrounding property values in relation to local economic drivers. This section also disregards the BLM’s local data regarding the economy of the region (The Economy of the Gila Region). The primary market for residential properties within Catron County are for retirement homes and recreation properties. The scenic values associated with these properties have a significant impact on property values. The analysis provided in the DEIS fails to solicit information from local real estate agents and appraisers and fails to recognize that property values throughout Catron County are interconnected and that fluctuations to an already strained real estate market could have significant impacts, especially on potential purchasers utilizing VA and FHA loans due to the additional appraisal constraints for purchasing properties thru these programs. 22.RJF-44 This section demonstrates how the BLM and Borderlands has chosen to minimize Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be negative impacts with statements of uncertainty while touting benefits of the project included in the administrative record for this EIS. without support. For example, the assumption is made that the approximately five jobs created would only live within Catron County, disregarding the projects proximity to larger communities such as Springerville, Eager and Show Low in Arizona. Does Borderlands intend to require that their employees live in no other location than Catron County to support this assumption? If not, this assumption is completely false. They have applied an economic value assuming five permanent jobs will be hired while at the same time there is uncertainty in the references used of “up to five jobs” and “approximately five jobs” throughout the DEIS which could have a far less economic impact than is presented. This also disregards the non-labor income that is likely to be displaced in the county due to the BLWP. This displacement is very likely to surpass any economic benefit that 5 positions would have. Many affected residents have already expressed their desire to leave the area if the project is approved.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-62 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-45 The touting of the revenue bond structure is evidence of the bias of associated parties In Section 3.3.2 of the EIS the potential economic impacts of as only proponents of the project stand to profit financially from the project while the BLWP project are discussed. Borderlands Wind, LLC disenfranchising local residents. If the negative economic impacts of the project are so estimates that they would pay approximately $1.1 million of insignificant, why doesn’t Borderlands and the BLM mitigate this by requiring the sales tax to the State and $115,000 to Catron County during compensation of any future loss of value or investment? just the construction phase of the project. This does not include the contribution of an estimated $750,000 to the local economy during construction for meals, food, and lodging. Unless a specific parcel or property has been brought forth to evaluate the effects, there is no data to provide an accurate estimate of the loss of value or investment. There is no BLM policy or statutory requirement allowing compensation for private property. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-46 3.3.2.2 - Is the water that will be utilized for dust mitigations identified within the original The water that would be utilized for dust control is included estimation of water use? Please clarify. in the construction water use estimate. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-47 During the initial public meetings, interactive maps were utilized to quantify visual Thank you for your comment. The detailed visual resource impacts to local residents before the alternatives were developed. These maps were not impact analysis is provided in Appendix F of the EIS and available at the second public meeting and the opportunity was not available to see the quantifies the visual impacts from the landscape character, Alternatives displayed in the same way. The DEIS states that “some of the residents in scenic quality, and from the views from the various sensitive the Red Hill/Cimarron Ranch subdivision would have unobstructed views of all of the viewing platforms. No change has been made to the EIS. BLWP turbines.” This fails to quantify the impacts on local residents and attempts to minimize effects. 22.RJF-48 The analysis fails to recognize the gravity of economic impacts to the county by Thank you for your comment. The potential environmental discouraging growth and driving residents out of their homes. How are the local consequences of the alternatives on the social and economies able to sustain? economic conditions of the BLWP area are provided in Section 3.3.2 of the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-63 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-49 3.4.2.2 -What mitigations would be utilized to minimize traffic delays during commuting As stated in the EIS in Section 3.2.2, “Existing roads would hours? Many commuters travelling to and from the surrounding communities already be upgraded and new roads would be constructed, which have an extended commute. Excessive delays could lead to exhausted motorists, could temporarily affect local transportation and public interrupted work schedules and reduction in time with families. access. The main access point for the Proposed Action would be at the intersection of U.S. 60 and Bill Knight Gap Road. Improvements at the intersection would include permanent deceleration and acceleration lanes for both directions at the intersection to accommodate turning radius needs for turbine delivery.” The contractor building the project will use signage to alert oncoming traffic to the construction area. Additionally, during heavy traffic periods, flaggers may be present to help direct traffic to minimize backups. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-50 3.6.2.1 -PACs are protected activity centers that are only a portion of Mexican Spotted Potential impacts to federally listed species and critical Owl critical habitat. Critical habitat, whether occupied or not, must be considered as the habitats were identified through coordination and importance of these habitats is for the opportunity for these species to expand. The consultation with the USFWS. Refer to Section 3.6.2 of the wildlife section fails to recognize the proximity of the project area and individual wind EIS, the BLWP Biological Assessment, and subsequent turbines to critical habitat and associated impacts as well as the mobility of these concurrence from the USFWS. No change has been made to species in regards to the impacts. the EIS. 22.RJF-51 3.6.1.2 - The analysis fails to recognize the effects of wolves displaced from the project Potential impacts to federally listed species and critical area, primarily during construction, that would create greater competition for resources habitats were identified through coordination and and concentration of animals, leading to potential mortality. This is also likely to consultation with the USFWS. Refer to Section 3.6.2 of the increase depredations on livestock as wolves are concentrated in areas away from the EIS, the BLWP Biological Assessment, and subsequent project. concurrence from the USFWS. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-52 3.7.1.2 - Please demonstrate the BLM’s involvement in field review of data collected for The BLM reviewed Borderlands Wind, LLC's survey plans and all determinations regarding wildlife impacts. It is in the interest of Borderlands to bias protocols prior to their implementation. Appropriate all data collected as they are the primary benefactors of this multimillion dollar project. - seasonal/spatial buffers were considered based on How does a half mile buffer of nest sites and prey base mitigate effects to raptors that guidance provided in the Socorro RMP and in consideration are highly mobile and have a foraging range much greater than 0.5 miles? Also an of buffers typically used for raptors and other species of increased buffer should be considered as the DEIS has indicated an increased turbine concern. No change has been made to the EIS. mortality risk to young raptors.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-64 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-53 The DEIS focuses on occupied habitat and disregards critical habitat and suitable Potential impacts to federally listed species and critical habitat. The project area abuts National Forest and vegetation transitions occur quickly habitats were identified through coordination and once you leave The project area. both Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer Forests occur consultation with the USFWS. Refer to Section 3.6.2 of the within two miles of The project boundaries in addition to Pinyon Juniper Woodlands and EIS, the BLWP Biological Assessment, and subsequent short grass prairie. The diversity of these plant communities within a small area concurrence from the USFWS. No change has been made to encourages species diversity. Many bird and bat species utilize these transitions as the EIS. There is desirable timber for roosting and open spaces for foraging. 22.RJF-54 3.9.1 -The viewing platforms identified are biased towards sociopolitical boundaries. No The rationale for the selection of the viewing platforms are viewing platforms were considered for key observation points on the Gila National provided in Table 3-20 in the EIS. Any designated viewing Forest or Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (i.e., Fox Mountain, Canovas Rim and platforms (designated trails, campgrounds, vista points, etc.) Escudilla Wilderness Area). in the 30-mile distance of the proposed turbines would either have no views of the proposed wind turbines or the turbines would not be discernible within the landscape. Visibility was modeled as if the landscape had no vegetation, which would be the most conservative approach. The potential viewing platforms evaluated included Armijo, Head of the Ditch, Jewett Gap, Quemado Lake, Alpine Divide, Diamond Rock, Elderberry Spring, Greer Lakes, Luna Lake, and South Fork Upper Blue campgrounds in addition to NMDO, ADOT, Forest Service, and BLM scenic byways, ACECs, WSAs, Wilderness Areas, SRMAs and designated trails. Visibility was evaluated from the Continental National Scenic and Escudilla National Recreation Trails. Refer to Appendix F in the EIS for the detail visual resource analysis report. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-55 3.9.2.1 -The effects of turbines without ADLS must be analyzed as it is not known if the Refer to response to Comment 10.DM-3. ADLS will be approved by the FAA. 22.RJF-56 3.10 -The BLM has no way of determining impacts of the project on the demands placed Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3. on the local aquifer, in regards to current demands, as no ground water analysis has been conducted. It is likely that the initial draw on the ground water resource will lower the water table well below the depth of existing wells accessing this aquifer, forcing local residents and livestock producers to pay to have their wells re-drilled. This could also cause affected parties to go without water for an extended time (greater than one year) as well drillers within the region are limited and are already in high demand.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-65 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 22.RJF-57 3.10.3 -The cumulative effects analysis disregards the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan The Schedule of Potential Actions of the Gila and Apache- and Gila National Forest Plan Revision. This also disregards the Escudilla EIS, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests were used to determine the list Sitgreaves National Forest. of reasonably foreseeable future actions in the cumulative impact analysis. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-58 3.10.4.5 -The cumulative impacts to visual resources would be increased as the A visibility analysis was performed using ArcView Spatial Escudilla, 4FRI and Luna EIS’s are all restoration projects with timber and fuel Analyst to identify all areas that would have visibility of the reductions for the purposes of restoration of these systems. Removal of timber would BLWP within the analysis area. The analysis identified where alter the locations from which the turbines would be visible, increasing the locations the BLWP components would be visible if there were no from which the project area can be seen. vegetation or structures to screen the project components. This analysis based on “bare earth” visibility reflects the worst-case scenario in determining the potential visual impacts. Existing vegetation may help to minimize the impacts by screening views to and from the BLWP. However, since vegetation is subject to fire and disease, it cannot be considered as a permanent measure to reduce impacts. Refer to Appendix F of the EIS from the visual resource analysis documentation. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-59 3.11 -The proposed plan amendment disregards the obligation to protect wilderness The Socorro Field Office RMP does not required to the BLM character, the values placed on adjacent National Forest Lands and the economic to address potential impacts to wilderness character of importance of these landscapes to the local economy. areas that are not affected. No change has been made to the EIS. 22.RJF-60 3.11.1 -The statement “This is beyond the scope for what is immediately necessary for Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be the project but is being considered because of the lack of any rational supporting the included in the administrative record for this EIS. The original allocation” as a justification for changes to the VRM classifications in the RMP Economy of the Gila Region mentions BLM-administered lacks evidence. The omission of documentation supporting the RMP such as The lands but does not specifically mention the RMP or VRM Economy of the Gila Region leads the reader to question the amount of effort placed on classification. No change has been made to the EIS. reviewing the RMP. The Economy of the Gila Region supports the original RMP’s designation as it protects these landscapes and the economy’s they support. The BLM has failed to support their justification of this amendment or consider other locations with a VRM classification of IV that could support these activities without an amendment to the existing plan and minimizes impacts to local residents, wildlife and visual resources. 22.RJF-61 Table 3-28. Consultation did not occur with the Arizona State Historical Preservation Currently there is no requirement to consult with the Arizona office. The State of Arizona places a greater value on culturally significant landscapes. SHPO as no project components are proposed within the Arizona SHPO jurisdiction. Consultation will continue with

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-66 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID This project will directly affect these landscapes, yet continues to utilize sociopolitical the New Mexico SHPO to address impacts to cultural lines to minimize responsibility and effects. resources and development of Historic Properties Treatment Plan.

22.RJF-62 3.13. The BLM has repeatedly disregarded the significance of ground water in the Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3. A private landowner effects analysis. There is no ground water analysis to support the BLM’s assumptions has been issued a drilling permit for commercial use by the within this DEIS. The implications of this disregard would be catastrophic to surrounding New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. No change has residents. The New Mexico State Engineer does not conduct an analysis when issuing been made to the EIS. water rights, this typically occurs when users have already experienced the effects of overdraw on a system and then the system is adjudicated. It is negligent of the BLM to proceed without a ground water analysis. All water rights used in this process must be commercial water rights. It is a violation of New Mexico water law for Borderlands to use domestic or livestock water rights for the purposes of this project. It is also inappropriate for Borderlands to hold a water right on BLM as this privilege is not afforded to other users equally. 22.RJF-63 Conclusion: The State of New Mexico is known as the Land of Enchantment because of Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be the awe inspiring landscapes found throughout the state. At current rates, future included in the administrative record for this EIS. Potential generations will have no concept of a Western landscape without the presence of wind impacts to avian and bat species are addressed in Section turbines. This is an example of the Tragedy of the Commons, a race to devour local 3.7 of the EIS. resources at any cost without regard to the cost of future generations. Research demonstrates that the impacts of wind turbines on birds and flying mammals is not understood, with mortality rates greatly exceeding reproduction rates, yet these projects continue to press on as if in a race to outrun the true understanding of their effects. 22.RJF-64 We reserve our right to comment in the objection process on any materials not provided Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be with the DEIS. included in the administrative record for this EIS.

23.LB-1 First, this is not a “wind farm”. There is nothing nurturing or agricultural about it. It is, Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be plain and simple, an industrial complex which is proposed for the midst of a very rural included in the administrative record for this EIS. and agricultural area. This is not a wilderness area but it is primarily undisturbed rangeland, not suitable for an industrial complex. The DEIS does not use the term wind farm but many people in casual usage do, including those in BLM who will presumably be involved in making decisions in this case. 23.LB-2 Second, when discussing impacts of various options, please remember that “minor” Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be means something that happens to someone else. If the impact is not something that included in the administrative record for this EIS. you personally are willing to live with every day, it is not minor. And related to that point, none of the people involved in this project and the decision-making, whether in BLM or

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-67 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID Borderlands, will have to live in and with the effects of this turbine complex. Those of us who do and will should have more say in the decision.

23.LB-3 Water use. Borderlands says it expects to use 140,800 gallons of water per year during Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Operations and Maintenance and states that this is less than a 4-person household (pg included in the administrative record for this EIS. The EIS 3-9). According to the EPA, the average US household uses 109,500, which is provides an analysis of the potential impact on ground water significantly less than what Borderlands expects to use. I don’t question Borderlands’ in Table 3-1 and Appendix H. estimate of their use, just their reliability. And this is in addition to the estimated 26 million gallons used during the construction phase. We just don’t have that kind of water to spare! In addition, the amount of ground surface made partly or wholly impenetrable to water – roads, concrete bases, roofs, etc – reduces the recharge of the water table and increases runoff and erosion. Recommendation: BLM should approve the No Action Alternative 24.LB-1 Construction time requirement. Construction phase is estimated to last five to six Borderlands Wind, LLC has been in contact with an months, as is stated numerous times throughout the DEIS. As anyone who has every engineering contractor who would manage the build of this built anything out here knows, that is unreasonably optimistic. At one point (pg 3-52), project. The construction is estimated to take up to 12 construction is given as “less than one year”, which is probably still optimistic. So months. No change has been made to the EIS. everything that is given as an impact from construction activities must be extended – probably twice as long, perhaps more. Recommendation: BLM should re-evaluate the adverse affects of the construction phase and make a new determination based on that. 25.LB-1 Environmental justice. DEIS states “There are no minority or low-income populations Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be identified within or adjacent to the BLWP area. Consequently, there are no included in the administrative record for this EIS. There are disproportionate impacts to environmental justice populations.” (pg 3-3) In Catron no known statistics to support that the community of Red County, 21.5% of the population is below the federal poverty line; in Quemado, 25 miles Hill has minority or low-income populations. Quemado is away and the nearest “town”, the figure is 31.4%. The community of Red Hill, less than not considered an adjacent community since it is over 25 five miles from the proposed turbine complex site, does not have official published data miles away. Regardless, the BLWP would not result in any on its residents’ income but it is composed primarily of retirees on fixed incomes. The disproportionate impacts to any minority or low-income EPA states, “Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of populations within the County. These populations were all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income… [and] equal access to the provided the same opportunity to provide input during the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and NEPA process as any other member of the community. No work.” The money and power of a large corporation, such as NextEra/Borderlands, has change to the EIS has been made. apparently gained it greater influence in the decision-making in this project than the people who will have to live with the results of that decision-making. Recommendation: BLM should re-evaluate the above-quoted statement and give greater weight to public input in the decision-making process.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-68 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 26.LB-1 Purpose and need. “The BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed BLWP is established Refer to response to Comment 17.LS-3. No change has been by regulatory obligations and direction and current energy development trends. The made to the EIS. BLM’s purpose is to respond to a ROW application submitted by Borderlands Wind, LLC. ... The need for the BLM’s proposed action arises from […] which established a multiple use mandate for management of Federal lands…” (pg 1-3) BLM has a responsibility to manage the public lands it controls in the public interest. It has no responsibility to enrich the commercial corporations that wish to make money from those lands by despoiling them. And to ask the people of Catron County, and particularly of the Red Hill area, to put up with the numerous adverse effects of a wind turbine complex that won’t even provide any electricity or other benefit to them (see below) is not the best use of this land. (In addition, Tucson Electric Power does not need this wind turbine complex. It already has plenty, including in New Mexico, and can make its required 15% of renewable energy without this one.) Recommendation: BLM should approve the No Action Alternative 27.LB-1 Note: for purposes of my points, there is little difference in effect among the Proposed Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Thus for simplicity’s sake I will use the term included in the administrative record for this EIS. Refer to “project” in my comments and also insert it into quotes from the DEIS. Social and Section 3.3 of the EIS for a discussion on the potential economic. “If major utility-, energy-, or transportation-related projects were to be impacts to the local economy constructed in the U.S. 60 ROW avoidance area, Catron County and surrounding communities could experience job creation and tax revenues during construction ... because new populations would temporarily relocate for work." (3-104). There will be little economic benefit to local residents/economy, despite protestations to the contrary. Alternative 1, the BLM’s preferred option, uses no private land so there will be no lease payment. There may well be local residents hired during the construction phase, although I expect Borderlands will bring in many of its own people, but that is a temporary phase (though not as short as projected in the DEIS). In addition, Catron County has no sales tax or lodging tax, the only ones likely to be paid by temporary residents. Realistically, the 3 – 5 permanent jobs during the Operations and Maintenance phase will not only be hired from away but will also most likely live outside Catron County. Springerville/Eagar, after all, has supermarkets, movies, fast food, and other attractions not to be found anywhere in Catron County. Hunters provide a, if not the, major source of cash income for many local ranching households as well as income to lodging, restaurant, and other businesses. It may be true that 2/3 of the state’s hunting licenses are issued to New Mexico residents, but a resident of New Mexico is not necessarily a resident of Catron County. Someone who comes from as close as Albuquerque is as much a visitor using guide service, lodging, food, etc, as one who comes from the East Coast. Any degradation of the environment and subsequent

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-69 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID decrease in population of elk and other game animals will result in a significant loss of local income. Borderlands has indicated that it will make an annual payment to the Catron County School District for 30 years (expected life of the wind turbine complex is 35 years – why cut the payments short?) but there is no reason to believe that that payment will compensate for the other losses of income and quality of life due to the turbine complex. "Short-term minor to negligible impacts to quality of life, particularly during the construction and decommissioning phases, may result from impact related to frequency and quantity of vehicular traffic in the area, noise, air quality, water quality, scenic quality, and recreation. Long-term minor to major impacts to scenic values would be created by the [project]." (3-109) Let me repeat that “minor” is what happens to someone else. There is no reason to ask local residents to have to experience adverse effects to their quality of life for someone else’s benefit. Recommendation: BLM should approve the No Action Alternative

28.LB-1 Note: for purposes of my points, there is little difference in effect among the Proposed Consideration of the potential impacts to prairie dogs has Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Thus for simplicity’s sake I will use the term resulted in the development of project-specific Best “project” in my comments and also insert it into quotes from the DEIS. Wildlife/ Prairie Management Practices and Design Features for the dogs. National Park Service cites prairie dogs as a "keystone species" protection of prairie dogs and their habitat during (https://www.nps.gov)because their colonies create islands of habitat that benefit construction, O&M, and decommissioning of the BLWP. approximately 150 other species. They are also a food source for many animals. Prairie Refer to Section 3.7 and Appendix B of the EIS. No change dogs help aerate and fertilize the soil, allowing a greater diversity of plants to thrive. has been made to the EIS. Gunnison’s prairie dog, which has colonies in the project area, is a Special Status animal. Construction will devastate several of those colonies since the access to the project will require that the main access road pass right through those colonies. But even during Operations and Maintenance phase, the prairie dogs will be adversely affected by the noise and vibration of the turbines and the increased vehicle traffic and human presence in the project area: *BLM acknowledges "[project] could result in a downward trend and/or contribute to the loss of viability of the local Gunnison's prairie dog population." (3-67) *"Even with the implementation of BMPs and species specific mitigation measures/design features, the [project] would result in localized short- and long-term moderate impacts on prairie dogs." (Impact means "ongoing injury or mortality of prairie dogs and fragmentation of prairie dog colonies; increased access could also lead to an increase in recreational shooting of prairie dogs.") (3-110)

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-70 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 28.LB-2 Birds and bats. Golden eagles, and to a lesser extent bald eagles, would also be The siting of wind turbines away from the nest associated adversely affected by the project. Bats may be even more adversely affected. with the Luna Tank potential breeding area was "Impacts on special status bird and bat species, including fatalities resulting from the implemented according to the siting process described in operation of wind turbine, would be not avoidable under the [project]." (3-68) the USFWS's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Under that US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates 2 golden eagles killed at the project over five-year process, nest surveys are conducted within a 10 mile radius period, which amounts to "localized and regional, short- and long-term, major impacts on of a proposed wind facility and, based on the survey results golden … eagle populations."(3-74, 3-75). "Any reduction in golden eagle nest success a "1/2 Mean Inter-Nest Distance" is identified for golden resulting from the [project] would be a localized and regional, short- and long-term, major eagles nesting in the project vicinity. Based on the 1/2 Mean impact on golden eagle populations." (3-74) In connection with that, I am confused by Inter-Nest Distance that was calculated for the Project, a 3.9 the apparent contradiction between "The primary access road (Bill Knight Gap Road) mile buffer was identified for placement of wind turbines. It would be located approx 3500 feet from the Luna Tank nest." But two paragraphs later: was determined to not be desirable or feasible to re-locate "Wind turbines have been sited outside of a 3.9-mile buffer around the Luna Tank nest to primary access along Bill Knight Gap Road, so it was simply minimize impact on nesting golden eagles." (3-74) Since the road runs through the area, acknowledged that the nest is located approximately 3,500 I found this hard to understand. Bald eagles are less likely to be adversely affected by feet from the existing roadway. This is greater than the 0.5 the project, since they are less in evidence in the area. One means to ensure they are not mile buffer distance that is typically recommended by the encouraged to frequent the area would be "ongoing removal of large animal carcasses USFWS, but there could still be potential disturbance to (eg, dead cattle) and roadkills within the [project] area to avoid attracting eagles". (3-73) nesting eagles during construction activities or Do we have any confidence that this will be done on a timely and consistent basis? "Bat vehicle/equipment access. Refer to the Best Management fatalities associated with wind turbines can be higher than the bird fatalities" (3-68), and Practices and Design Features in Appendix B of the EIS for the bird fatalities (not just eagles) would be expected to be 3 to 6 bird deaths, and up to the various project requirements that would be enforced by 15, annually per turbine-generated MW. That comes to 300 to 1500 bird deaths per year the BLM during construction, O&M, and decommissioning of for up to the 35 years of the project. "Raising cut-in speeds (ie, the lowest wind speeds the BLWP. at which turbine rotors begin rotating) at night can be an effective way of minimizing bat mortality." (3-68) Do we have any confidence that this would be done, if it were found to, for example, decrease the efficiency and therefore profitability of the wind turbine? Borderlands is in business to make money, not to save wildlife. 28.LB-3 The long-term and major adverse effects – ie, death – to wildlife in the area are Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be unavoidable if the project is approved. And entirely unnecessary, as it is not BLM’s included in the administrative record for this EIS. responsibility to increase the profits of either NextEra/Borderlands or Tuscon Electric at the cost of our environment. Recommendation: BLM should approve the No Action Alternative.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-71 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 29.LB-1 Note: for purposes of my points, there is little difference in effect among the Proposed Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Thus for simplicity’s sake I will use the term included in the administrative record for this EIS. If the “project” in my comments and also insert it into quotes from the DEIS. Visual project is approved, an amendment would be needed to resources/VRM amendment/ROW avoidance area. Downgrading the protection of our allow for construction of the project. views would have a deleterious effect on the scenic beauty of this area. Catron County glories in its natural beauty and relies on that for the tourism and recreation which is a major part of the local economy. Any adverse effect on that beauty could be a real hardship. And there is no doubt that if this project is approved, that adverse effect will indeed occur: "The magnitude of change in landscape character associated with the [project] would be major due to the dominant scale and form of the wind turbines in comparison to the undulating and sloping landforms, low stature vegetation, and minimal built features found in the existing landscape. ... Therefore, there would be long- term, major impacts on the existing scenic quality and landscape character resulting from operation and maintenance activities." (3-87). “Long-term minor to major impacts to scenic values would be created by the [project]." … Long-term minor to major impacts to nonmarket scenic values would be created by the [project]." (3-109). "The [project] would attract attention, create a severe change in the landscape character, and result in a strong visual contrast within the foreground area of the U.S. 60, Cimarron Ranch Subdivision, and the Bill Knight Gap Road KOPs. Therefore the [project] would not be in conformance with the VRM Class III management objectives." (3-91). The VRM classification of the project area is reason enough to disapprove the project. An industrial complex simply does not belong in this natural setting, which presumably was part of the reason for the original classification. Amending that classification to allow the project is not in the best interest of the area in any way. It benefits only an outside corporation which desires to make more money at our expense, to no benefit here since that money would accrue almost entirely to corporate headquarters. 29.LB-2 Modifying the ROW avoidance area to expand the intersection of US 60 and Bill Knight Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Gap Road would not in itself damage the scenic beauty of the area, but it could included in the administrative record for this EIS. Any future encourage other actions which would: “As noted in the RMP EIS, on page 4-32, removal actions within the ROW avoidance area would have to go of the ROW avoidance area could open the area to exploration and development. These through the NEPA process and disclose any potential types of activities would remove vegetation, modify landforms, and may add structural impacts. No change has been made to the EIS. elements to the landscape. And ground-disturbing activities associated with construction and operation of facilities would generate fugitive dust, increase traffic on access roads, and potentially use nighttime flying." (3-103) This is neither necessary or desirable.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-72 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 29.LB-3 As another matter, Catron County is justifiably proud of its “dark skies” status. The lights Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be on the turbines and whatever “security” lights that would be set up on the buildings and included in the administrative record for this EIS. A yards within the project would degrade that. The turbine lights would be visible for more discussion of the potential impact to night skies is provided than 20 miles, in addition to the greater lights that would be temporarily activated by any in Section 3.9.2 of the EIS. The lights on any buildings would nearby aircraft. How far the ground lights would be visible would depend on several be similar to lighting around residential/farm buildings. factors, but they would not be invisible. Recommendation: BLM should approve the No Action Alternative. 30.MB-1 We support responsible, well-planned and sited renewable energy development, Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be including on appropriate public lands, as part of a strategy for addressing climate included in the administrative record for this EIS. change. This strategy also includes aggressive efforts to increase energy efficiency, build distributed generation such as rooftop solar, and reduce demand with demand-side management. We also recognize other important benefits of renewable energy development, including helping to maintain clean air and water and providing economic development that benefits local communities. We believe that areas with important and sensitive resources and values are inappropriate for development of any kind, and disturbed and degraded lands, including both public and private lands, will best serve as areas for focusing renewable energy development. All energy development should follow the mitigation hierarchy of avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts through compensatory, off-site mitigation. We support the guided development approach established in the BLM Solar and Wind Energy Rule, including the focus on development in appropriate areas within Designated Leasing Areas (DLAs). The BLM has demonstrated the value of this approach for reducing impacts and increasing permitting efficiency; at the Dry Lake solar DLA in southern Nevada, the zone-based approach resulted in low- conflict development, projects permitted in half the average time, and commitments to offset unavoidable impacts through compensatory off-site mitigation. BLM should continue to focus its efforts on designation of new DLAs in appropriate areas and advancing development in DLAs, as directed by the Solar and Wind Energy Rule. As interest in wind energy development on public lands in New Mexico increases, BLM should prioritize designation of wind DLAs in appropriate areas and protection of areas of high conservation value through land use planning in the state. 30.MB-2 I. NEPA Framework. a. Impact Analysis. As detailed in our scoping comments, the EIS Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be for the proposed Project must analyze all direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental included in the administrative record for this EIS. impacts, and include a discussion of the means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14 and 1502.16. The DEIS does include analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. However, the arbitrary page limits for EISs under BLM’s current guidance limits the depth of the analysis. BLM should provide additional

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-73 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID details in the FEIS, including in the sections addressed in more detail later in these comments. In addition, as detailed below, the discussion of means to mitigate adverse impacts is inadequate, and BLM must improve it in the FEIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-74 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 30.MB-3 b. Range of Alternatives and mitigation hierarchy. As detailed in our scoping comments, The analysis for 34 versus 40 turbines is not a feasible at BLM must develop a robust range of alternatives in this EIS. NEPA generally requires the this time because of the uncertainty of the locations of the lead agency for a given project to conduct an alternatives analysis for “any proposal turbines that would actually be constructed. The differences which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” between the three alternatives when it comes to impacts on See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E). The regulations further specify that the agency must specific resources such as wildlife would depend to some “rigorously explore and objectively evaluation all reasonable alternatives” including degree on the specific permitted locations where turbines those “reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency,” so as to would actually be constructed. Some of the turbines that are “provid[e] a clear basis for choice among options...” See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. FLPMA permitted (six under the Proposed Action, four under also requires BLM to manage for multiple use and sustained yield, and to avoid Alternative 1, and 10 under Alternative 2) would ultimately unnecessary or undue degradation of resources and values. See 43 C.F.R. §§ 1701, not be constructed. The final turbine array layout would not 1732(b). NEPA and associated Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations be determined until final design and potentially during require BLM to analyze potential impacts and consider ways to avoid, minimize and construction, which means the associated components mitigate impacts – in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8, such as the alignment of the collection system would also 1502.14, 1502.16. The mitigation hierarchy aims to minimize environmental harms not be decided until final design. It is therefore not possible associated with agency actions, and BLM must apply the mitigation hierarchy to the to state the specific differences in potential impacts evaluation of the proposed Project. We appreciate that BLM analyzed two action between the alternatives in more detail than is currently alternatives in addition to the Proposed Action and the no action alternative, and that provided in the EIS. No change has been made to the EIS. this analysis included alternatives with fewer numbers of turbines and a smaller footprint to reduce environmental impacts, as recommended by our scoping comments. These alternatives would avoid and minimize at least some impacts. Alternative 1 is different from the Proposed Action in that it “would slightly shift the locations of some of the project infrastructure (turbines, roads, collection lines) as compared to the Proposed Action to minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources where feasible.” Alternative 1 “would reduce the total project boundary acreage by 24,621 acres, including 14,501 acres of BLM-administered public lands, 4,525 acres of NMSLO- managed lands, and 5,595 acres of privately owned lands” although the “number and type of turbines” is the same as the Proposed Action. See Draft EIS p. 2-14. Alternative 1 is BLM’s preferred alternative. See Draft EIS 2-15. Alternative 2 is different from the Proposed Action in that it includes fewer turbines (34 vs 40) of higher MW (Proposed Action/Alternative 1: 36 GE 2.5MW & 4 GE 2.3 MW vs Alternative 2: 30 GE 3.0 MW & 4 GE 2.5 MW). Like Alternative 1, it reduces the total project boundary acreage by 24,621 acres. See Draft EIS p. 2-14. There are several other small differences between Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2, although it is unclear what the significance of those differences is. We recommend that BLM select the alternative that results in the least environmental and other impacts. One clear benefit of Alternatives 1 and 2 vs. the Proposed Action is that the ROW footprint is shrunk down to only include the area where infrastructure will be developed. Although changing the ROW footprint doesn’t change

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-75 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID the on the ground impacts, we recommend that BLM select an alternative with the minimum feasible ROW footprint to avoid encumbering land outside of the project area unnecessarily. Based on the analysis provided in the DEIS, Alternative 2 appears to have less on-the ground impact given its reduced size and number of turbines. However, we recognize that although Alternative 2 uses fewer turbines, they are larger capacity, which could result in tradeoffs regarding impacts – i.e., though the on the ground footprint of the development would be smaller, the larger turbines would be taller and have larger rotor-swept areas, so visual impacts would be different. Impacts to avian and bat species could also be different. We note that the DEIS states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimates that golden eagle fatality is predicted to occur at an annual rate of 0.307 golden eagles per year for the Proposed Action and Alternative 1, and at a slightly higher rate of 0.315 golden eagles per year for Alternative 2. See Draft EIS 3-105. We do not have enough information to say whether Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would have lower impacts overall; again, we recommend that BLM select the alternative that results in the least impacts. Section 3.4.2 provides tables that display environmental consequences according to the 45 potential turbine locations, but the analysis does not reflect the actual constructed turbines and their respective MW. See Draft EIS 3-37. This gap in the analysis may be reasonable, since the final subset of potential locations of the turbines will not be determined until fieldwork has begun. However, we recommend that BLM complete an analysis for the FEIS that reflects the potential effect that 34 turbines vs. 40 with different MW capacities may have on specific resources.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-76 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 30.MB-4 In addition, we recommend that BLM carry forward the Visual Resource Management IV Comment acknowledged. The BLM must consider other Turbine Array Layout Alternative for full analysis in the FEIS. The DEIS states that this reasonable alternatives through the NEPA process, including alternative would locate all turbines in the allocated Visual Resource Management Class modifications to the right-of-way application as submitted, IV area in the southern end of the project area, which would be in compliance with the that meet the purpose and need for the action and provide a RMP’s visual resource management requirements. See Draft EIS 2-14. It would also clear basis for choice among options (40 CFR 1502.14).” A minimize potential impacts to an eagle nest in the northwest corner of the project area. discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive. What is The DEIS states that this alternative, “would not provide the standard amount of land required is information sufficient to permit the BLM to make and spacing required for commercial energy projects of this size. Fewer wind turbines a “reasoned choice” among alternatives so far as would be used for the project and the project would not be able to meet the 100 MW environmental aspects are concerned (40 CFR 1502.14; see required to satisfy the Power Purchase Agreement between TEP and NextEra Energy also, BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 § 6.6), BLM NEPA Resources, LLC. This alternative was eliminated from further analysis in the EIS because Handbook H-1790-1 § 6.6.1, and BLM Instruction it would be economically infeasible.” See Draft EIS 2-14. We disagree that BLM can only Memorandum 2011-59). The BLM NEPA Handbook on page analyze project alternatives that meet pre-determined megawatt capacity goals set by 51 states that "Reasonable alternatives include those that the project proponent. BLM must analyze a robust range of alternatives, including are practical or feasible from the technical and economic alternatives that may include a smaller megawatt capacity to ensure that environmental standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply and other impacts remain within acceptable and appropriate levels. In fact, BLM’s own desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.” According to NEPA guidance instructs the agency to analyze the range of alternatives that meet the CEQ, the "agency's preferred alternative" is the alternative purpose and the need for action. See BLM NEPA HANDBOOK Language, pages 50-51. which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission Sec 6.6.1. Reasonable Alternatives. There is nothing in the Purpose and Need section and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, that prohibits BLM from further analyzing the “Visual Resource Management IV Turbine environmental, technical and other factors (see Question 6a, Array Layout Alternative.” Furthermore the guidance states that “[I]n determining the CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather than on Regulations, March 23, 1981). There is no requirement for whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of implementing an the agency to select the alternative that causes the lowest alternative.” See BLM NEPA HANDBOOK Language, pages 50-51. Sec 6.6.1. Reasonable impacts overall. If that were true, the No Action Alternative Alternatives. In this case, the applicant may not like the alternative that reduces the would be the most likely be the selected alternative in any installed capacity of the project because its Power Purchase Agreement with Tucson situation where ground disturbing activities/project are Electric Power (TEP) could be impacted but the BLM should analyze the alternative being proposed. The discussion of the Visual Resource because the alternative meets the purpose and need for action. Furthermore, the Management IV Turbine Array Layout Alternative would not conclusion that the alternative is economically unfeasible without full analysis is be practical from the technical and economic standpoint - premature and arbitrary. The alternative with a reduced capacity could very well be not meeting the 100 MW requirement- and was therefore economically feasible for a different developer. Summary of recommendations on range eliminated from further evaluation. No change has been of alternatives: BLM should select the alternative that causes the lowest impacts made to the EIS. overall. BLM should complete an analysis for the FEIS that reflects the potential effect that 34 turbines vs. 40 with different MW capacities may have on specific resources. BLM should carry forward the Visual Resource Management IV Turbine Array Layout Alternative for full analysis in the FEIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-77 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 30.MB-5 c. BLM must add appropriate requirements for compensatory mitigation to offset Compensatory mitigation cannot be required unless by law environmental impacts to the FEIS. As detailed in our scoping comments, despite recent or unless the proponent voluntarily offers it. The BLM will guidance from BLM in Instruction Memorandum 2019-018 instructing agency staff not follow Instruction Memorandum 2019-18. to require compensatory mitigation to offset impacts from development on public lands, there is a strong legal framework supporting the authority of BLM to require mitigation and in some cases compelling it to do so. FLPMA provides for the administration of the public lands by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM. See 43 U.S.C. § I 702(e). BLM has broad authority and obligations under FLPMA to require mitigation when exercising its authority to engage in land use planning, approve site-specific projects, or engage in other management activities. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20. In accordance with FLPMA, the Administrative Procedure Act, other laws and case-law, BLM’s decisions regarding mitigation must not be arbitrary or capricious. The DEIS does not include any BLM-required compensatory mitigation measures to offset environmental impacts from the Project. BLM should include appropriate requirements for compensatory mitigation in the FEIS. 30.MB-6 II. The Borderlands Wind Project developer should commit to voluntary measures to Compensatory mitigation cannot be required unless by law avoid, minimize and offset impacts through compensatory mitigation. To ensure that all or unless the proponent voluntarily offers it. The BLM will impacts to important resources and values are addressed appropriately, the Project follow Instruction Memorandum 2019-18. developer should commit to voluntary measures to avoid and minimize impacts and to offset unavoidable impacts through compensatory mitigation. Such voluntary commitments are an important way that the Project developer can demonstrate their commitment to responsible use of our public lands. The DEIS includes a commitment from Borderlands Wind, LLC for voluntary compensatory mitigation for eagle impacts: “Borderlands Wind, LLC has included a commitment in their draft Eagle Management Plan to provide voluntary compensatory mitigation to offset the anticipated impacts on eagles. The voluntary compensatory mitigation that is currently proposed by Borderlands Wind, LLC would take the form of $165,000 in funding that would be contributed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Eagle Mitigation Account or to a mitigation banking or in-lieu fee credit program.” See Draft EIS 3-76. We appreciate and strongly support this commitment. BLM should work with the USFWS to ensure that this commitment is adequate to fully offset anticipated impacts on eagles. The applicant should also make appropriate voluntary commitments to offset other unavoidable impacts from the project.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-78 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 30.MB-7 III. BLM should improve its inventory process for future inventory of lands with Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be wilderness characteristics. Lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC) are areas on our included in the administrative record for this EIS. public lands that provide backcountry recreation opportunities and safeguard important wildlife habitat. As detailed in our scoping comments, LWC are one of the resources of the public lands that must be inventoried under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). See 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a); see also Ore. Natural Desert Ass’n v. BLM, 625 F.3d 1092, 1122 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “wilderness characteristics are among the ‘resource and other values’ of the public lands to be inventoried under § 1711”). BLM’s guidance for implementing this requirement of FLPMA is currently set forth in BLM Manual 6310. BLM must ensure that all LWC inventories are conducted compliant with this manual, including the documentation of the inventory findings. Manual 6310 reiterates that, “[r]egardless of past inventory, the BLM must maintain and update as necessary, its inventory of wilderness resources on public lands.” See BLM Manual 6310 at .06(A). We appreciate that BLM conducted an LWC inventory for the DEIS. Based on the inventory, BLM found that LWC are not present in the Project area; we do not dispute this finding. Based on this finding, we are not including further discussion in these comments regarding the need to avoid, minimize or offset impacts to LWC. However, we recommend that BLM improve its inventory process for future LWC inventories to ensure that the agency is following its guidance for LWC inventory. We will reach out to BLM separately for further discussion on this important issue.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-79 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 30.MB-8 IV. Avian and Bat Species. The DEIS acknowledges that wind energy facilities have It is the intent of the BLM to follow the requirements impacts on avian and bat species, including through direct mortality from collisions. outlined in Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2017-040 during Compensatory mitigation for impacts to eagles is addressed in Sections I and II of these consideration of Borderlands Wind, LLC's ROW application comments. We note that the DEIS states that, “The BLWP would not be permitted for the and during subsequent administration of any ROW grant. take of eagles under an incidental take permit, so the process for ongoing re-evaluation Per IM 2017-040, the BLM requested for surveys to be of eagle take and adjustment of the compensatory mitigation that is needed to achieve conducted to generate data related to eagle presence in, or no net loss of eagles would not be available to the BLM. It is therefore uncertain whether use of the BLWP area, and for Borderlands Wind, LLC to the amount of funding that is provided for voluntary compensatory mitigation by submit an eagle risk assessment to determine the potential Borderlands Wind, LLC would be sufficient to result in no net loss of eagles.” See Draft effects to eagles from the proposed project, including any EIS 3-76. Instruction Memorandum No. 20917-040 of January 19, 2017 states that, “take avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures. of an eagle by a BLM ROW grant holder without a take permit is, however, a violation of Since the USFWS has determined that take of eagles is likely the Eagle Act and a violation of the terms and conditions of the BLM ROW grant. The for the BLWP, the BLM would include stipulations in the definition of “take” includes lethal take as well as “disturbance” as defined in 50 CFR ROW grant, requiring Borderlands Wind, LLC to monitor the 22.3. The FWS has enforcement authority under the Eagle Act. The BLM has the project for eagle fatalities using USFWS-approved standards authority to determine, on the basis of its review, and consistent with its multiple use throughout the life of the grant. Monitoring requirements and sustained yield mandate, whether to approve, approve with modifications, or deny a and other Best Management Practices and Design Features ROW application. The BLM also has the authority to administer ROW grants for approved that were developed for this project are included in Appendix projects. For example, under 43 CFR 2807.16 through 2807.20, the BLM may amend, B of the EIS. No change has been made to the EIS. suspend, or terminate ROW grants for violations of applicable terms and conditions, such as the requirement to comply with all applicable laws (43 CFR 2805.12), including the Eagle Act.” Since the applicant has chosen not to apply for an Eagle permit under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act nor to prepare an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) as part of that application, BLM must incorporate the terms and language from this IM in the FEIS and ROD and state that, “under 43 CFR 2807.16 through 2807.20, the BLM may amend, suspend, or terminate ROW grants for violations of applicable terms and conditions, such as the requirement to comply with all applicable laws (43 CFR 2805.12), including the Eagle Act,” and that, “The authority to enforce the terms and conditions of the ROW grant exists separate and apart from whether FWS pursues an enforcement action against a project operator for any violations of law, such as taking eagles.” The applicant and the public should be fully informed of the consequences of take of an Eagle without a permit at a wind project on public lands. We recommend that the applicant consider pursuing an eagle take permit given BLM can shut the project down should the facility take an eagle without a permit.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-80 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 30.MB-9 Additionally, within the Plan of Development, there is mention of development of a Bird The Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy was in review at the and Bat Conservation Strategy (See Appendix C), but the referenced Appendix M of the time the DEIS was published - it is now included in the POD POD is currently blank. Appendix M states that the BBCS will be submitted with the final that is part of the FEIS. As described in Section 2.2 of the POD, however, the absence of both the BBCS and the Eagle Management Plan in the EIS, the collector lines that carry electricity from the turbines Draft EIS makes it impossible for the public to understand and provide comments on to the BLWP substation would be installed underground. these details at the appropriate stage in the EIS process, during the comment period on Approximately 1.8 miles of above-ground distribution line the Draft EIS. These plans are valuable information for the public to inform thorough would be required to connect to an existing regional analyses and comments. BLM should work with the proponent to finalize the plans as transmission line to deliver BLWP power to TEP. It is noted soon as possible and provide them for public review and comment before the in Appendix B in the EIS that the use of self-supported MET publication of the FEIS so that any issues identified can be addressed in the FEIS. With towers is preferred, if feasible. The structures would be regards to addressing some impacts from transmission lines from the project, the DEIS painted so that they stand out from the surrounding states that, “Distribution lines and other project facilities would be designed to environment to provide optimum visibility for birds and, if discourage their use as perching or nesting substrates by birds, and to minimize guy wires are necessary, bird flight diverters would be used collisions and electrocutions (e.g., by constructing power lines to Avian Power Line following the BLM protocols that are also identified in Interaction Committee standards). Two permanent MET towers would be needed during Appendix B. operations. The MET towers would be no more than 361 feet high with side guy wires extending from each tower on two sides. Bird flight diverters or high visibility marking devices would be used to reduce the potential for collision with the guy wires, though they would not entirely eliminate the potential impacts on birds. Impacts on special status bird and bat species, including fatalities resulting from the operation of wind turbines, would not be avoidable under the Proposed Action.” See Draft EIS 3-53. The FEIS should explore the environmentally superior alternative of siting distribution and collection lines underground to insure protection from wildfire, terrorism, and with radically reduced impact on birds. Additionally, the FEIS should analyze the environmentally superior alternative of using LIDAR or unguyed met towers rather than bird flight diverters if feasible. 30.MB-10 V. Big game and habitat fragmentation. As detailed in our scoping comments, the A specific evaluation of Species of Economic and proposed Project would contribute to habitat fragmentation in the region, through Recreational (SERI) in New Mexico was provided in Section placement of long-term infrastructure that impedes the movement of wildlife across the 3.7.2.1 of the EIS to give context for potential impacts to landscape and through upgrading and construction of roads. Additionally, transmission representative big game species identified in the New line development associated with the proposed Project would further exacerbate habitat Mexico Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool for this area (i.e., fragmentation. BLM must analyze the proposed Project’s direct and cumulative impacts black bear, cougar, elk, and mule deer). Potential impacts on habitat fragmentation, including conducting spatial analysis. BLM must consider including disturbance and habitat fragmentation are alternatives to minimize and mitigate impacts to wildlife, including elk, caused by habitat discussed in Section 3.7.2.1 of the EIS, which also fragmentation. After outlining the impacts on big game and wildlife, the DEIS states that, references the more detailed discussion in the Wind Energy “Therefore, the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in short- and long- PEIS. Refer to Appendix B in the EIS for the various Best term, minor impacts to general wildlife. No additional analysis in this EIS is warranted.” Management Practices and Design Features that would be

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-81 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID See Draft EIS 3-5. The analysis of impacts to big game in the DEIS is inadequate and implemented to reduce the potential impacts of the project should be strengthened in the FEIS. BLM should include appropriate requirements to on wildlife, including big game species. No change has been avoid, minimize and offset impacts to big game in the FEIS. made to the EIS.

30.MB-11 VI. Recreation. As detailed in our scoping comments, outdoor recreation is a resource to Comment acknowledged. There is no data from the BLM to be managed under FLPMA. See 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a). BLM must analyze impacts to support that there is an abundance of recreation within the various recreation experiences from having industrial wind energy development on the project area. Recreation activities in the project area would landscape and look for ways to avoid and minimize impacts. The EIS must analyze be impacted during construction and decommissioning but impacts to primitive recreation experiences in LWC as well as other recreation uses in impacts are negligible and temporary. Refer to Table 3-1 the area. BLM must further analyze where current recreation uses would be displaced to Determination and Rational for detailed Analysis by and how BLM would ensure those areas endure for that use. The DEIS states that “There Resource/Use in the EIS. No change has been made to the are no designated recreation facilities, such as trails, known to occur on the BLWP area. EIS. However, there are opportunities for dispersed recreation activities, such as motorized and nonmotorized activities, wildlife viewing, hunting, camping, hiking, and OHV use. During construction and decommissioning, construction activities and traffic may reduce the appeal for dispersed recreational activities, resulting in a direct and indirect, short-term, negligible effect.” See Draft EIS 3-7. 30.MB-12 As stated in our scoping comments, BLM should conduct outreach to the non- Comment acknowledges. There is no data from the BLM to motorized, mechanized and motorized recreation communities to find out how the support that there is an abundance of recreation within the proposed Project would impact their user experiences. BLM should include this analysis project area. No recreation groups commented on the DEIS and appropriate requirements to avoid, minimize and offset impacts in the FEIS. or provided comments during public scoping. No change has been made to the EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-82 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 30.MB-13 VII. Natural Soundscapes. As detailed in our scoping comments, soundscape is a public As noted, the PEIS already provides a detailed analysis of land resource affected by agency-authorized uses such as energy development, with potential noise impact associated with the construction, corresponding impacts on other resources including wildlife, wilderness, and recreation. operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. The closest Noise can affect the physiology, behavior, and spatial distribution of wildlife. sensitive receptor is seasonal recreation use that would be Anthropogenic noise also has significant impacts on recreationists who visit natural approximately 0.8 miles away from the nearest turbine. For areas like the proposed Project area and vicinity to escape non-natural noises and attain reasons provide in Table 3-1. Determination and Rationale a sense of solitude and tranquility. Studies have found that anthropogenic noise for Detailed Analysis by Resource/Use for additional interferes with the quality of the visitor experience and even impacts the perceived information. Your comments have been noted and will be visual and aesthetic qualities of the landscape. E.g., Mace 1999. Non-natural noise included in the administrative record for this EIS. degrades wilderness characteristics, including apparent naturalness and opportunities for solitude. See 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c). BLM must take a hard look at these and other reasonably foreseeable noise impacts of the proposed Project, which may be primarily caused by increased motorized traffic associated with the Project but may also be caused by wind turbines themselves. BLM Manual 7300.06D requires the agency to consider noise and its potential impacts on public lands during planning and project authorizations. The DEIS does not include a project-specific analysis of the impacts of sound from the Project and continues to defer to analysis from the 2005 BLM Wind PEIS: “The Final Wind Energy PEIS (BLM 2005:pp. 5-20 through 5-27) provides a detailed analysis of potential noise impacts associated with the construction, O&M, and decommissioning of a wind facility.” See Draft EIS 3-7. The DEIS states that, “Because noise levels would be below U.S. EPA guidelines and there is no potential for new or modified impacts that have not been disclosed in prior environmental documentation; noise is not further discussed in this EIS.” See Draft EIS 3-7. In the FEIS, BLM should include a project-specific analysis of sound impacts as well as including appropriate requirements for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse impacts to natural soundscapes. 30.MB-14 VIII. Conformance with provisions of BLM’s Wind Programmatic EIS. The Wind PEIS Appendix B of the EIS provides the list of appropriate BMPs included Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be required components of a and Design Elements, which were compiled from the Wind wind project proposal and application process. Wind PEIS Attachment A pp. A1-A20. If Programmatic EIS as well as other BLM wind EISs BLM decides to proceed with environmental review and permitting of the proposed considered to minimize adverse impacts. The environmental Project, the agency should include the Wind PEIS BMPs in the NEPA analysis explain consequences in Chapter 3 of the EIS is based on the how the proposed Project would conform each. Our scoping comments included assumption that those BMPs and Design Elements have examples of BMPs that would likely be most relevant for the proposed Project. Our been implemented. No change has been made to the EIS. scoping comments recommended that BLM should include the Wind PEIS BMPs in the EIS analysis and explain how the proposed Project would conform each. While the Wind PEIS BMPs are mentioned in several locations in the DEIS, the DEIS generally does not

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-83 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID explain how the proposed Project conforms to key BMPs. BLM should include these details in the FEIS.

30.MB-15 IX. Landscape-scale planning for wind energy development. Landscape-scale planning Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be for energy development offers benefits such as increased permitting efficiency and included in the administrative record for this EIS. predictability and decreased impacts to natural, cultural and other resources and values on public lands. BLM’s Solar and Wind Energy Rule, finalized in 2016, established a process for designation of DLAs for wind energy. In general, we strongly support the designation of wind DLAs in appropriate locations, and we recommend that going forward BLM should focus wind development on public lands across the west in appropriate DLAs. To date, there has not been much interest in renewable energy development on public lands in New Mexico. However, increasing demand for renewable energy in New Mexico and other western states will likely drive increased interest. Transmission capacity has been the biggest deterrent for developers in New Mexico, but as transmission capacity is added, there will be an increased demand in renewable energy development on New Mexico’s public lands, where there are strong wind and solar resources. We recommend that in ongoing and future RMP revisions and amendments, BLM should designate new wind and solar DLAs and refine of the solar variance lands and wind open and avoidance areas. When designating new DLAs, BLM should follow an approach like the four-step process in the Western Solar Plan and ensure consistency with guidance in the Solar and Wind Energy Rule. 32.LS-1 Issue 1: The DEIS is fatally flawed by its superficiality and its presentation is deceptive. Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Recommendation: The No Action Alternative should be the final decision chosen for this included in the administrative record for this EIS. project. Barring that, the BLM should rewrite the DEIS with full disclosure of actual on- the-ground impacts to the human and natural environment, and provide realistic analysis of those impacts. Discussion: An EIS is meant to disclose and analyze the impacts on the environment (including the human environment) as per the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Unfortunately, the Borderlands Wind Project DEIS so fundamentally biased in favor of the Preferred Alternative that it amounts to an infomercial. The document is written as if the EIS were merely a formality and the Preferred Alternative is the only alternative. The DEIS refers to various BLM directives

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-84 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID that lead to the impression that any wind generation is good wind generation. The fatal flaw with this approach, however, is that in doing so BLM has negated the whole point of an EIS and has not complied with the spirit of NEPA. The environmental data provided is not specific to the site or even to the realities of northeastern Catron County. The negative impacts are minimized and are unsupported by on-the-ground truths. Problems are either masked by data that has been gleaned from decades-old documents and that may not be pertinent today or are simply ignored. There is no interest in realistic alternatives even when problems are documented. The DEIS gives the impression that the project has no environmental impact when the very fact that an EIS is required means that the impact is significant. The burden of proof is on the BLM and Borderlands LLC to clearly demonstrate that the proposed project’s environmental impact is low compared to the social and economic benefits to be gained, however such proof means that full and honest disclosure of all data, and all short-, long-, and cumulative impacts must be fully and clearly presented within the DEIS. It is not enough to make simple statements about low impact and reassurances that after decommissioning all will be just like it was in the human environment as well as natural environment. Since the data is inadequate and have no relationship to the realities of the actual impacts of this project, then the public presumption of significant environmental impact has not been disproven but rather has been shown to be more than enough to make the No Action Alternative the only possible alternative. 32.LS-2 Issue 2: The DEIS failed to provide a cost-benefit analysis for this project Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be Recommendation: The No Action Alternative should be the final decision chosen for this included in the administrative record for this EIS. project. Barring that, the BLM should rewrite the DEIS and include cost-benefit analysis. Discussion: There is no cost-benefit analysis in the DEIS and therefore no way for the public to know whether costs outweigh the supposed benefits. Presidential Executive Order 12866 states that “each agency shall … propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.”(1) References to benefits are scattered throughout the DEIS, however BLM does not directly address the bottom-line question: “Are the social and environmental benefits of the project greater than the costs?” We do not know the answer to this because there is no clear-cut cost-benefit analysis. The most likely situation is that while the project benefits the developer (Borderlands LLC and NextEra) through subsidies for each kWh produced, federal Investment Tax Credits, depreciation allowances, and a possible federal and state Production Tax Credits, the source is US Taxpayers rather than from any genuine profit. The economic costs exceed the economic benefits to the public, and this does not even include the aesthetic or environmental costs.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-85 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID

Issue: The DEIS is fatally flawed due to omissions of fact and failure to base analysis on actual local environmental conditions., resulting in a fatally flawed cost-benefit analysis of both economic and environmental nature. Recommendation: The No Action Alternative should be the decision.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-86 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 32.LS-3 Issue 3: the DEIS fails to realistically, truthfully, and/or fully disclose actual negative Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be impacts on the human and natural environment; and the DEIS fails to realistically, included in the administrative record for this EIS. truthfully, and/or fully disclose the permanent damage to the human and natural environment that will exist because of the construction, maintenance, and decommissioning of the project.Recommendation: The No Action Alternative should be the final decision chosen for this project. Barring that, the BLM should rewrite the DEIS and fully disclose the actual negative impacts and permanent damage to the human and natural environment.Discussion: If we are to accept that there is a global problem that exists for all living beings i.e. climate change, and if we agree that – regardless of the cause -- it is up to humans to mitigate the impacts of this problem, then logically the solutions that are applied must not worsen the situation but rather contribute to mitigating the problem. Furthermore, because climate change is a serious and potentially life-threatening global issue, any solutions that are implemented must rise above political and economic pressures. Anything less simply makes the problem worse, or, to quote Eldridge Cleaver: “If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.” Energy generated by the wind through industrial complexes that use fossil fuel derived components, installed by fossil fuel powered construction, and which at the end of a useful life (which is, in spite of NextEra’s claim, less than 35 years) is no solution to any climate change problem. BLM should not encourage the development of wind power on public lands because everything about it is toxic to the environment. Cement is not kind to the environment, either in its manufacture, its impacts on topsoil. Cement manufacture is the third largest industrial source of pollution, emitting more than 500,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide, according to the EPA(2). The blades, which are resin and fiberglass, are non-organic material and will not decompose in our lifetimes. The blades are made for strength and durability, so recycling and options for reuse/recycling are severely limited. Researchers estimate that in the United States alone more than 720,000 tons of blade material will need to be disposed of over the next 20 years(3). This does not include new installations. Given that the life span of wind power is short, discovering new technologies for recycling of the parts is imperative. However, it appears that Borderlands LLC plans to simply refurbish (replace or upgrade outdated or worn facility components to keep the project operational) (Appendix C, Borderlands’ Plan of Development, section 4.0 Project Decommissioning), which would be a fine thing if it wasn’t for the fact that no one wants the project in the first place. This also means the project would need to be recapitalized 2 to 3 times compared to power from conventional generation technologies, an economic burden to taxpayers, no doubt, if not simply passed on to consumers – or both. And, of course, the parts that would be

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-87 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID replaced would still have to be disposed of. Not to mention that much of the underground installation would remain in place to pollute the soil and the planet for eternity. Aside from the generally terrible idea of wind turbine industrial complexes as a clean source of “green” energy, BLM has failed to adequately, fairly, and accurately discuss the negative impacts on the specific site proposed. There is no local data to support the idea that ground disturbances can be minimized (that the land will “heal”) in spite of ample evidence that ground disturbance is visible for literally decades because of the thin topsoil and low rainfall. The overlaying problem is that wind energy is not a good solution for energy production when there is no attempt at energy conservation. There is absolutely no compelling reason to cover the planet with energy production complexes – regardless of what kind of generation it is – if this simply encourages people to use more. Borderlands LLC is one of over 400 subsidiaries of NextEra. The proposed project cannot be considered in isolation. Killing our planet in tiny increments is still killing our planet, because all those increments add up. There is no reason to expect that Borderlands LLC will not apply for an additional project, since the original ROW application was for more than just the 30 square miles of the current project. Therefore, the best response to this proposal is to stop it now before it metastasizes.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-88 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 32.LS-4 Issue 4: It is not clear in the DEIS that appropriate state and federal oversight and Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be permitting has taken place included in the administrative record for this EIS. The Discussion: I have been in communication with the New Mexico State Land Office (SLO) NMSLO is a cooperating agency on the EIS and has a signed to request information on their rules and regulations regarding public participation in the Memorandum of Agreement with the BLM. As such the proposed project. I was told that the SLO was not aware of the project, which is odd NMSLO has had opportunities to comment on the since SLO is listed on the cover page as a Cooperating Agency. In that the DEIS seems document. The BLM has not received any communication to to take it for granted that the SLO will bless this proposal with lease of state trust lands, date from the NMSLO that they have any concerns regarding this appears to be another indication that Borderlands LLC/NextEra gets what it wants the implementation of the BLWP. No change to the EIS has no matter what the public thinks, and that the DEIS is a sham process. been made. 32.LS-5 Issue 5: The DEIS failed to address the issues of concern expressed in the scoping Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be comments Recommendation: The No Action Alternative should be the final decision included in the administrative record for this EIS. chosen for this project. Barring that, the BLM should rewrite the DEIS and actually address the issues brought up by the public.Discussion: Although the DEIS disclosed that public comments received, and summarized them in section 1.7 Issues to Address in the EIS, many of the issues were not addressed, were inadequately addressed, or were handled as if the issues were of no significance. 32.LS-6 Environmental justice. On page 3.3 (page 33 of the document) DEIS states “There are no Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be minority or low-income populations identified within or adjacent to the BLWP area. included in the administrative record for this EIS. There are Consequently, there are no disproportionate impacts to environmental justice no known statistics to support that the community of Red populations.” Apparently the BLM is not aware that environmental justice actually Hill has minority or low-income populations. Regardless, the means “… the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, BLWP would not result in any disproportionate impacts to color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and any minority or low-income populations within the County. enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies”(4). Given that there is no No change to the EIS has been made. way that BLM could know the racial, skin color, national origin, or income of the property owners of the Red Hill area, as there is no such published data available, there is no possible way to have arrived at any conclusion regarding disproportionate impacts. In fact, a significant percentage of Catron County residents are below the federal population line, and many of the residents of the Red Hill area are retirees on fixed incomes. Environmental justice, as per the DEIS, is only concerned with disproportionate impacts on a segment of the population, and the Red Hill area residents and property owners qualify for that segment. We are already disproportionately impacted. We can see that work is already going on: Tucson Electric Power employees and contractors are upgrading the transmission lines and are constructing substations on their right of way. How much more disproportionately impacted can a segment of the population be when whatever they have to say about a DEIS makes no difference?

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-89 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 32.LS-7 Water. Construction activities are stated as requiring an appalling 26 million gallons of Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3. A private landowner water, to be pumped from an existing nearby well. On page 39 of the DEIS it is stated has been issued a drilling permit for commercial use by the that “Based on 2015 Catron County water use data, the amount of water anticipated for New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. No change has use during construction represents 0.09 percent of the water the County uses in a year been made to the EIS. (USGS 2015).” This is a meaningless point of data. Catron County is nearly 7000 square miles in size, approximately the size of the state of Connecticut. Underground water is found in vastly different depths and volume across the county, and there is even less water available in the northern part of the county. In other words, the project area has less water than much of the whole county. Therefore, consumption of 0.09% would have a much greater impact on underground water of the project area and likely would have a tremendous negative impact on local wells. How would Borderlands “make right” any groundwater depletion that impacts senior well rights? The DEIS does not state, by the way, whether Borderlands has secured a permit for the 26 million gallons, nor has there been any evidence of advertisement or hearing held on the use of the water for construction. NM Statute § 72-12-7 A: The owner of a water right may change the location of his well or change the use of the water, but only upon application to the state engineer and upon showing that the change will not impair existing rights and will not be contrary to the conservation of water within the state and will not be detrimental to the public welfare of the state. The application may be granted only after such advertisement and hearing as are prescribed in the case of original applications. The DEIS states that a “new 5- to 6-gallon per minute well would be drilled for O&M water use”. Successful drilling of water in this part of Catron County is not a given, and water is a precious and highly contested resource in the state of New Mexico (the Augustin Plains Ranch pipeline project, for example). Therefore, it cannot be assumed that any water right will be automatically available for the project. What would happen if Borderlands LLC was unable to dig a well, or did not dig a well that produced “5- to 6- gallon per minute”, a volume of water that is fairly rare for a well to produce in the area? How would a well producing that much water impact nearby wells? Where is the information in the DEIS that discloses required the cumulative impacts of a proposed well with that capacity and analyzes the impacts of such a well on existing and reasonably foreseeable future development nearby, including natural water sources for wildlife? How does New Mexico law apply to any appropriation of a well by BLM (and does that mean simply take it over?) and to what beneficial use would BLM put the NM domestic well permit to after decommissioning? Perhaps such information exists in the DEIS but, quite frankly, I am tired of having to use the word search function of my computer to go through the document, page by page, to find out.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-90 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 32.LS-8 Wildlife. Thirty five years, with the possibility of extending the project, is half the lifetime Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be of many human beings. For most animals, that length of time represents generations. included in the administrative record for this EIS. The EIS The DEIS takes a very casual approach to wildlife death, as if one or two eagles, or a few provides an analysis of impacts to wildlife, refer to Sections badgers, or a dozen bats, or a colony of prairie dogs killed by wind turbines or the 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8. construction/decommission on the site would hardly make a difference. In 1962, the U.S. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act outlawed harming these birds, their eggs, and their nests. “Most recorded deaths are from collisions with vehicles, wind turbines [my emphasis], and other structures …. Urbanization, agricultural development, and changes in wildfire regimes have compromised nesting and hunting grounds in southern California and in the sagebrush steppes of the inner West.”(5) While bald and golden eagles may not be endangered, neither are their populations so huge that they can sustain a consistent, cumulative loss of an eagle here and there at one wind turbine complex X hundreds of complexes. Eagles, hawks, and other species of birds, as well as bats, should not be counted as a form of acceptable collateral damage in the insatiable human quest for energy. Wind turbines are death machines, not “free” or “green” energy makers. While the DEIS acknowledges that “…eagles, prairie dogs, wolves, and other sensitive species…contribute to the non-market perceptions of the area by both local and non-local users”, the DEIS fails to mention that some of these species will be run over, chopped up, or buried alive by construction. This is certainly a form of animal abuse, and should President Trump sign the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT Act) it would be possible that the BLM, and/or Borderlands LLC, and/or employees or contractors of either, could face federal felony charges, fines and up to seven years in prison for killing animals that live underground. Although such taking of life would not be a case of malicious abuse, it would, nevertheless, be an act of knowing cruelty. 32.LS-9 Noise. In the Plan of Development (no telling what page reference to provide – it is either Refer to Response to Comment 30.MB-13 and Comment page 61 of the POD or 285 of the document) the DEIS declares that the residents of Red 11.JF-41 Hill “are not expected” to hear noise from the project. As far as I am aware, no attempt was made by BLM to ask the people who live and work in the area about what they would hear. My property, for instance, lies in a valley created by two mesas that act like megaphones when wind and atmospheric conditions are right, and when that happens I can hear traffic on US 60. I would, in fact, expect to hear and be constantly irritated by construction and/or decommissioning noise, and even the noise of the turbines themselves, given that I have been irritated by that noise when I have been near other wind turbine complexes (e.g. staying in a motel within sight of wind turbines). As the National Institute of Health says, “Obtaining a satisfactory consensus from local residents before installing wind power facilities is important as for more amenable their

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-91 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID attitudes towards such facilities.” Any non-natural noise in quiet rural environments can be very loud noise, regardless of what decibels that noise might be. The DEIS states that operational noise would be up to 85 decibels (I may have read this incorrectly, but then the DEIS is hard to figure out). Unfortunately in quiet environments even half that level would be intrusive and loud. Wind turbine noise data of the DEIS appears to only refer to average decibels, and excludes infrasound and low frequency noise. The DEIS does not address the issue of human response or animal response to the audible noise over time, but simply “expects” it to not be an issue. This is a major quality of life concern for the people who live near the proposed site. “Environmental noise is a threat to public health, having negative impacts on human health and well-being.”(6) Ample medical research literature is available about brain, lung, and heart pathology caused by long-term exposure to noise at frequencies too low to be heard. The pulsating nature of sound as vanes pass over the shaft can be particularly irritating. 32.LS-10 Visual impact. I have commented on the Resource Management Plan Amendment in a Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be separately submitted comment, however I wish to add here a few points on the included in the administrative record for this EIS. The EIS destruction of beauty, and what it means to the human species to cavalierly destroy provides a detail visual analysis in Appendix F as well as a what is natural and beautiful in the name of economic gain. In my Issue 3 comments I summary discussion of potential impacts to landscape stated that solutions that are applied to the problems of climate change must not character, scenic quality, night skies, and views from key worsen the situation but rather contribute to mitigating the problem. I wish to add here observation points in Section 3.9. that the rural nature of Catron County, the dark skies, and the vast views are all part and parcel of the solution to global climate change, not disposables that get in the way of making money. The visual desecration of open space caused by wind energy projects has been a subject of lawsuits in the recent past brought by American Indian tribes because of concern about adverse impact on landscape views, and rightly so. American Indian people are not the only ones who have spiritual connection with the land. Because of their intangible nature, visual impact concerns seem to be particularly vulnerable to being ignored or considered unimportant by BLM and other government entities. We who value open spaces and wild beauty can never be compensated for the irrevocable loss brought about by wind energy projects, especially knowing that others enjoy the benefits without having to give up anything. I have been photographing my corner of Catron County for twenty-five years. I share my photos with hundreds of people online. My love for the land is well documented, and I believe my work fully conveys the spiritual beauty of where I live. This project will destroy all that. A 2015 Stanford University study suggested that “accessible natural areas may be vital for mental health in our rapidly urbanizing world,”(7) Disconnection from nature has grown dramatically, as have mental disorders such as depression. Perhaps there is a connection between disconnection from nature and mass shootings, global warfare, and climate change

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-92 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID itself. The natural world not only provides us with food and resources to make human lives comfortable, but it also keeps us sane. Can we really afford to cover the planet with the heavy footprint of wind turbines?

32.LS-11 Conclusion . The project is located in a military training flight zone, and is close to a fire Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be station with a helipad. At the September public meeting in Quemado a BLM employee included in the administrative record for this EIS. explained that a system could be set up so that at night lights would only come on when triggered by aircraft. So not only would Red Hill area residents have to hear bombers flying overhead and jets screaming through the sky, but we would have to see lights that would suddenly go on when planes are in the vicinity. Too bad for anyone taking long exposure night photographs. 32.LS-12 The fundamental problem with the DEIS is the casual disregard of the value of that Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be which is wild, the complicity in the erosion of open spaces by projects for human gain, included in the administrative record for this EIS. the willing sacrifice of wildlife, plants, rivers, mesas and mountains to the false gods of human need. This inexorable crushing of the natural by mankind is exactly what has gotten us where we are today. This DEIS seems to be about promotion of a project that has already been decided on. This is clearly a rubber-stamped deal sweetened by NextEra’s bribery of the Catron County Commission. My urgent recommendation is for BLM to change its path, to get on board with mitigating climate change and to manage public land for the public, not for huge energy conglomerates with big lobby dollars, that is, to decide for the No Action Alternative.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-93 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 33.RB-1 Previously I have stated my opposition to Nextera building a wind farm in this scenic Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be locale of Catron County decimating the beauty of our mountain region and in this case included in the administrative record for this EIS. majestic wild lands. Greed is a cancer that will never stop and Borderlands, another spin off of Nextera and its affiliates will never cease to expand and place their obtrusive monolithic wind farms every place they can cram it down the objections of the public and their protests. Let us hear no more of scientific solutions for climate change and biodiversity while making excuses for clean energy via wind farms inhibits the biological life forms that live at the surface of our planet from natural uninhibited sunlight and noise and mechanical interference while under the canopies of permanent 500’ tall turbine generators that are rapidly expanding to cover every conceivable place of public owned lands that such corporations wish to file a petition. It has been said that the current BLM administrator has made the statement that all BLM lands should be sold? Sold to whom the rich and wealthy. How generous of this person whom is supposed to manage the public’s land by permanently dispensing with it? So this is what we see happening now. I suppose people who own thousands of acres of private land that pose no threat to small ranches or residential areas who wish to lease their land to such companies have a right to do so even if I disagree with it but the BLM may call it leasing but they may as well sell it out right when colossal cement bunkers need to be poured for each wind turbine. How does this fit in with long term land conservation and usage when it’s nothing but a total destruction of that land, the public land. No one is listening to us. 33.RB-2 I would like to bring up the fact that the BLM did not properly notify all the landowners The BLM notified those individuals who attended the public via USPS mail notification for which in my opinion they have a duty to do. I have ran into scoping meeting, those who provided scoping comments, countless people in grocery stores and other public places who live in our portion of the sent out press releases (an article on the project was printed county who have known nothing about the proposed wind farm or were under the in the Catron Courier); flyers were posted in the Datil Post impression it was being erected in a another vicinity. In fact I only learned of it through Office, Datil Public Billboard (next to the Post Office), Pie word of mouth myself and the BLM knows that all residents were not individually Town Post Office, Quemado Ranger District Office, Quemado notified by mail. Newspapers are a thing of the past for most people so that would be Post Office, Rito Quemado Convenience Store, The County ineffective besides there is no newspaper I know of in our area. I don’t have much faith in Store in Quemado, Cimmaron Ranch Convenience Station the Fish & Wildlife agencies anymore they are all too young and to political to serve the Billboard in Red Hill, Red Hill Mailboxes, Springerville Post real interests of that which that are supposed to serve; the fauna and wildlife itself Office, and the Escudilla Bonita Subdivision; included on the which has no voice. They have become the rubber stamp army of their salary masters. BLM's ePlanning's website for the project; and also published in the Federal Register. No change has been made to the EIS. 33.RB-3 Vacationers who travel from or to New Mexico either for summer camp trips in our Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be mountainous area where the farm is planned will not be getting the experience they included in the administrative record for this EIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-94 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID hoped for traveling through such an eyesore that extends for miles, even if their final destination is an hour away: ‘ Welcome to New Mexico – Land of Enchantment’.

33.RB-4 Yes I’m writing this letter the last day available for submission because I have a very Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be busy life. I have a 92 year old mother that needs attention on on top of work. I have not included in the administrative record for this EIS. had time to read anywhere near the entirety of the planning or amendments to the wind farm proposal. I will not repeat all the objections and reasons here I made clear in July’s submission to the BLM. I have little time now to write this but such greedy corporations should not be allowed to place their horrific visual atrocities anywhere for the sake of another dollar. This farm may in fact go in here, but if it does then that means they will go in everywhere and anywhere and when BLM runs out there’s always the national parks. 34.MAW-1 Thank you for the opportunity to express my comments/concerns for the wind tubine The BLM considered the request for extension of the 90-day project proposed by NextEra. The DEIS is a daunting document - and I have been comment period on the DEIS. The decision was made not dedicating as much time as possible to grasping its full implications. I would like to have extend the DEIS comment period because the comment more time time allocated by BLM to fully understand it to more accurately provide period was for 3 months, there were no issues identified with comments, but that is to your discretion. We met at the September Meeting this year the notification of the availability of the DEIS, and the and you were very amicable and helpful. I hope that the attached comments will be of relative low number of comments received did not suggest some use in cementing this proposal. Thanks very much for your consideration, feel free additional time being needed for public comment. to contact me for any questions regarding the attachment, either by phone or email. 34.MAW-2 After scrutizing the content of the DEIS to the best of my ability, I realize that there are Refer to response to Comment 34.MAW-1 many subtopics that require a longer evaluation period, and I request that this be done in mine and the public interest. It seems imperative for all participants that additional time is required to fully understand the entirety of the document in order to submit valid and poignant comments. I am trying to grasp the totality of material in the DEIS, but it is challenging for a layman. I appreciate your consideration to extend the comment period. I submit the following suggestions, based on what I have tried to gleen, in order that the proposed project may continue with all possible obstacles considered and mitigated. 34.MAW-3 1. Approximate water usage at batch plant is estimated at 26 million gallons (US - Refer to response to Comment 03.EI-3. Liquid) ~ 80 Acre feet. This is to be be obtained from a private well. There is a great concern by Cimarron Ranch residents that this water will be extracted from the same aquifer they use. Please substantiate this and provide reaonable affirmation that there will be no adverse affect from this water withdrawal in order to alleviate their concerns that they will be restricted or without water. Presumeably the private well to be used is on public record and can be provided to the community. NextEra has not asserted that contruction water usage may be a problem to local residents – at least within the DEIS. Please affirm that the aquifer can accomodate this. There is mention of a new O&M well

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-95 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID to provide 141KGal/Year – for kitchen and restroom use adding an additonal 300K gallons if the construction phase is around two years – again adding to the public concern of excessive initial water usage.

34.MAW-4 2. It is my personal opinion that the Alternative 2 proposition be adopted with fewer Comment acknowledged. Table 2.2 Comparison of Proposed turbines to reduce their footprint – though admittedly more visual exposure because of Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 provides a detailed their height. Please provide a more detailed comparison of the pros and cons between comparison among the alternatives. A more detailed the two alternatives as relevant to residents, the environment, and the contractors analysis for 34 versus 40 turbines, i.e., Alternative 1 versus obligation to both plus their investors. Alternative 2 is not a feasible at this time because the locations of the turbines that would actually be constructed, for any alternative, would not be determined until construction begins due to site specific conditions. No change has been made to the EIS. 34.MAW-5 3. There is mention of a No Action Alternative and Visual Resource Management IV Under the Power Purchase Agreement between NextEra and Turbine Array Layout Alternative. While having been addressed in the DEIS, the former TEP, NextEra is obligated to provide 100MW of power to has been deemed void and in the interest of NextEras concerns the latter would impact TEP. Based on this contractual obligation, NextEra has profitability and feasibillity. The latter alternative was apparently dismissed since once determined that the proposed project footprints and wind in place, additional facilities would be required to satisfy the energy agreement with TEP turbine machines disclosed in the DEIS are able to provide and the cost become prohibitive – thus the current alternative. As the apparent this 100MW of power to TEP and satisfy the terms of the mandatory output to TEP is 100MW (per annum?) – according to NextEra, the average Power Purchase Agreement. The plant nameplate capacity output will be considerably less than that due to local wind variations. If that is the case, is 100MW (power). Those 100MW of Wind Turbines will have please provide any possible action/acquisition by the contractor to satisfy the TEP the ability to generate ~250,000 MWh per year (energy).At requirements to include additional BLM properties in this immediate vicinity for further no point in time will more than 100MW flow to the Point of wind turbine development. There was an initial proposal to include property north of Delivery. Energy is looked at on an annual basis and plant HWY 60. Please verify that the current land offering/acquisition will satisfy the energy capacity (nameplate) is looked at as a fixed number that requirements of NextEras most important consumers – the residents of Tucson, cannot increase without installing more WTGs. In order to Arizona. install more WTG, NextEra would need to procure more land, obtain new permits, file for new Transmission Capacity and follow the entire development and permitting process from start to finish. This project has 2 agreements with TEP - one for the number of MWh we can push to the grid and the second is the Transmission agreement that secures the same MWhs of grid capacity. Neither agreement allows us

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-96 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID to increase nameplate or energy production without securing new agreements for the increases. No change has been made to the EIS.

34.MAW-6 4. Presumeably, there is some responsibility for the contractor to post bond for possible Comment acknowledged. There would be no bond irreversible liabilities, e.g. the depletion of water resources and the average stability of requirement for the contractor, as the BLM has no control property vaules before vs after project construction for the residents of adjoining areas, over the contractor. The contractor would have to abide by especially those low-income residents. Please provide what, if any, liability the their applicable permits and contracts and would have their contractor and/or the BLM might assume under these circumstances. own liability insurance. 34.MAW-7 5. While the current disposition of Gunnison Prairie Dog colonies is delineated as of the Consideration of the potential impacts to prairie dogs has survey period, it should be noted that they are a migrating species and the asserted AOI resulted in the development of project-specific Best (after construction) will determine their final disposition in adjoining site areas. The Management Practices and Design Features for the contractor understands that the proposed environment is fragile – please offer a protection of prairie dogs and their habitat during mitigation plan in more detail than that stated in the DEIS. construction, O&M, and decommissioning of the BLWP. Refer to Appendix B of the EIS. No change has been made to the EIS. 34.MAW-8 6. Turbine concrete bases and collection lines, road, and fencing excavations will Refer to response to Comment 06.SD-3. considerably increase the amount of surface caliche. Caliche is a lime-based subsurface strata that when escavated renders the exposed surface depleted of nutrients even for the hardiest of natural plantlife. Please detail how the surface Caliche waste deposit visual/soil health impact will be mitigated. Photographs of both subteraneum and surface deposits are presented (Figs 1 and 2).

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-97 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 34.MAW-9 7. As a volunteer firefighter, I am also concerned about traffic control on HWY 60 during The Contractor building the project would place signage construction hours to avoid accidents affecting Catron County resources. Please return along U.S. 60 and Bill Knight Gap Road, alerting vehicles to a comment regarding this. the construction. Additionally, during periods of large equipment deliveries, there will likely be escorts or flagging personnel directing traffic to prevent traffic backups. 34.MAW-10 8. Total turbine rotor diameter ~ (465 ft x 0.5)^2 x pi x 32 = 5.8 million sq ft – not Refer to Section 3.7.2.1 of the EIS. The potential mortality including the wash area). The mortality rate in the close vicinity of the AOI is not clear in rate is provided in the statement, "For birds, the adjusted the DEIS, please provide bird kill statistics (all applicable species) per sq ft of total rotor fatality rates from most studies range from three to six birds coverage from international resources to the affected locale. This may already be per turbine-generated MW per year for all species combined, available – and would be an important statistic both to the contractor and any and no publicly available data has reported more than 15 participating government agencies. bird fatalities per turbine-generated MW per year (American Wind Wildlife Institute [AWWA] 2018)." No change has been made to the EIS. 34.MAW-11 9. Viewing platforms in Cimarron Ranch Subdivision at September 2019 Meeting only Thank you for your comment. The Cimarron Ranch include those views located in the lower, southern quadrants. A fair evaluation would Subdivision sensitive viewing platform was selected due to include simulated views from the upper northeast residents perspective also. Though the potential views from residences in the Subdivision and is farther from the proposed project, a larger visual impact occurs. This is the concern of located approximately 4.5 miles north of the nearest visible residents facing possible reduced property values - as mentioned, most of whom are turbine. All of the proposed turbines, in varying degrees considered low income. In fairness, we urge NextEra to also evaluate the visual impact (views of some turbines may be only the blades) would be afforded to residents living higher in the subdivision with an extended view of the visible from this platform location. Therefore, the results of proposed site. Please contact me if I can be of service. the analysis of the visual impacts would be the same or potentially less from any other location in the Subdivision. Refer to Section 3.9.2 and Appendix F of the EIS for the potential visual impacts. 34.MAW-12 10. Noise pollution: While the asserted estimate of a 10 dB addition (40 vs 30 dB) to Refer to Response to Comment 30.MB-13 and Comment ambient noise levels is not discernible outside of rural environments, the 10db increase 11.JF-41 within a rural environment is. There must be some impact on both residents and indigenous wildlife by this 12% increase in noise level – please add extended clarification to the current statement in the DEIS.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-98 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID 34.MAW-13 11. There is mention of a sum/settlement to be awarded Catron County in lieu of taxing Refer to Section 3.3.2.1 of the EIS for a description of the – it sounds like it may be to the benifit of Catron County residents – please explain what sales tax and Industrial Revenue Bond dollars that would be this means. I will contact the County to further clarify the implication of this extra paid to Catron County by Borderlands Winds, LLC. The income. distribution of those dollars would be the responsibility of the County. No change has been made to the EIS. Please see this source for a description of Industrial Revenue Bonds. https://www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/RSTP%20072111%20Ite m%200%20IRB%20SUMMARY%207-20-11.pdf

34.MAW-14 To document my concern about water quality and land value depreciation, I will have a Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be water anaysis done just prior to construction and after. Likewise, I'll do a photographic included in the administrative record for this EIS. compilation to compare with the artists visual concepts presented by NextEra at the September 2019 Meeting (please refer to my comment regarding no photo perspective from the NE portion of the community being considered to date by NextEra). I've lived here for a number of years and really value the pristine environment and labor I've put into being a resident. I realize that this project is in the name of progress but still want to the best of my ability to understand all ramifications and provide the most salient input to its conpletion. 35.KA-1 Failing to ever locate a public comment form for this project via the Borderlands Project Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be web addresses/links, I went by the Socorro Field office earlier today, 11/7/19, at 4:47 included in the administrative record for this EIS. pm, to pick up a form. At that point, I realized the office closes at 4:30 pm weekdays. So now, I will attempt to comment on the DEIS for the wind energy generation in western Socorro County, New Mexico, [having completed my day's work for 11/7/19]. I believe BLM should approve and proceed with permitting the largest generation station feasible at the present proposed location. The most effectively powerful turbines should be employed and the largest proposed number of them installed. I trust the Bureau to site the standards in the most environmentally sound configuration possible, considering the birds and bats which need to move safely through the area. I say please go ahead with focus on this hoped-for project! 36.SP-1 I'm writing to tell you that there are many people in Catron County who very much Thank you for your comment. It has been noted and will be support the Borderlands Wind Farm Project. included in the administrative record for this EIS. As it should be ovbious, the people who show up at public meetings regrding such projects are much more likely to be opposed to it than supportive of it. In my role as a public servant in North Catron County, I hear from a much wider group of

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-99 Comment Comment on the Draft EIS Response to Comment ID people, and I can tell you that there are far more supporters of wind-power farm project, and energy independence in general, than those who are opposed to it.

Borderlands Wind Project Final EIS and Proposed RMP Amendment March 2020 Appendix G: Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Page G-100