United States Department ofthe Interior BUREAU OF LA ND l\lANAGEl\IENT ;\lt'dford Di~tri ct Offi t'e :\().1() 13iclcllt• Road Medford. Ort•i!on !)7:i0-1 email ncldrcss: I3Ll\1 OR_:\TO ;\lai]ublm.~o,· l:S: REPL'i 1rnrnH TO. ~!~I/ 1 7 2016 1792(0R MOSO)

Dear Interested Public:

The Butte Fal Is Resource Area, Medford District Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completed the environmental analysis for the proposed Sams Valley Rei nforcement Project. This letter is to inform you that the Sams Valley Reinforcement Project Environmental Assessment (EA) is available for your review on the Pac ific Power's project website at: https://www.pacificpower.net/ed/tp/sams-valley.html and BLM's national register website at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front­ office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjcctSite&projectI d=53292&dctmld=Ob0003e88091174 I.

The EA analyzed the following activities proposed on ELM-administered lands located between Sams Valley, nonhwcst of the city of Medford, and Grants Pass, Oregon in the Grants Pass­ Rogue River, Evans Creek, and Gold Gill-Rogue River 5th field watersheds (sec attached map). The Sams Valley Reinforcement Project Arca is located on SLM-administered lands in T. 35S. R. 2 and 3W; T. 36S, R. 2, 3, and 4W; and T. 36N, R SW., Wi llamette Meridian; Jackson County, Oregon.

What is the Sam's Va lley Rein fo rcement Project?

Pacific Power proposes to construct, operate, and maintai n a new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line which will run from the existing Grants Pass Substation in Josephine County near Grants Pass, Oregon cast to a proposed new 500-kV substation in Jackson Count y, Oregon north or Medford (sec maps). The addi tional transmission line on BLM would be constructed as part of a double circuit with the existing 11 5 kV li ne. Thi s double circuit line will carry both the existing 115-kV line and the new 230 kV line on new poles and take advantage of' the existing right-of­ way to greatest extent possible.

Pacifi c Power applied fo r an amendment to a ri ght-of-way grant they currently hold to accom modate the addition of a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmi ssion line along an existing route that would cross lands managed by BLM. The power line runs between an existing substation near Grants Pass and a new proposed substation site on private lands in Sams Valley for a di stance of' approximately 18 mil es; 4.6 mi les crosses BLM-admini stered lands and the remai nder crosses private lands. The BLM is proposing to expand the right-of-way width along the 4.6 miles of existing power line ri ght-of-way from I 00 feet to 135 feet. /\n additional 4. 7 miles of line between the new substation and the ex isting Whetstone Substation would have conductors replaced; the right-of-way width would not be expanded along this section. The BLM's decision will on ly address the 4.6 miles that cross BLM land. The I3LM docs not have jurisdiction to authorize any actions on non-federal lands. The majority ofthe project (approximately 75%), including the new substation site, would be located on private land. For portions ofthe project that cross private land, additional right-of­ way easements would be negotiated with landowners. The new substation would be located on private land owned by Pacific Power.

The 30-day comment period for this EA will begin when the legal notice is published in the Medford Mail Tribune newspaper on November 21, 2016. Any comments you may have regarding this project must be received by December 21, 2016 to be considered in final decisions for this proposal.

Please send your comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Tony Kerwin, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504, or e-mail your comments to [email protected] (Attention: Tony Kerwin). You may also submit comments through the BLM's national register website by selecting "Comment on Document" in the Documents section ofthe webpage for this EA. Questions on the proposed project should be directed to Tony Kerwin at 541-618-2402.

Please note that all written submissions from private individuals in response to this notice, including your name, address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information may be made available for public inspection and disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, unless you specifically request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your personal identifying information from public review or disclosure, you must state this at the beginning ofyour written comment and provide justification for doing so. We will honor such requests to the extent allowed by law, but you should be aware that release ofthat information may be required under certain circumstances. All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials oforganization or business will be made available for public inspection and disclosure in their entirety.

Thank you for your continued interest in the Sams Valley Reinforcement Project. Your input plays an important role in our land management decisions.

Sincerely, _____.,) \ ~

fVv'reresa J. Tnilock Field Manager Butte Falls Resource Area

Enclosure

Environmental Assessment

Sams Valley Reinforcement Project DOI-BLM-ORWA-M050-2016-0002-EA

Jackson and Josephine Counties November 2016

Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Contents

1 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Summary of Proposed Project ...... 1-1 1.3 Background ...... 1-4 1.3.1 Proponent ...... 1-4 1.3.2 System Modeling ...... 1-4 1.4 Lead and Cooperating Agency ...... 1-4 1.5 Purpose and Need ...... 1-6 1.6 Decisions to be Made ...... 1-6 1.6.1 Bureau of Land Management ...... 1-6 1.6.2 Cooperating Agency ...... 1-6 1.7 Authorizations, Permits, Reviews, and Approvals ...... 1-6 1.8 Scoping and Public Involvement ...... 1-7 1.8.1 Issues and Concerns...... 1-8 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 2-1 2.3 Proposed Action Components ...... 2-10 2.3.1 Right-of-Way Acquisition ...... 2-10 2.3.2 Access ...... 2-11 2.3.3 Staging Areas ...... 2-13 2.3.4 Transmission Facilities ...... 2-13 2.3.5 Substations ...... 2-18 2.3.6 System Maintenance ...... 2-19 2.3.7 Vegetation Clearing and Management...... 2-19 2.3.8 Project Design Features ...... 2-21 2.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ...... 2-26 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 2-32 2.5.1 Transmission Route Alternatives ...... 2-32 2.5.2 Substation Siting Alternatives ...... 2-32 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation ...... 3-2 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-2 3.2.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-7 3.2.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-7 3.3 Geology and Soils ...... 3-10 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-10 3.3.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-11 3.3.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-12 3.4 Water Resources ...... 3-13 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-13 3.4.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-17

November 2016 | i Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

3.4.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-17 3.5 Botanical Resources ...... 3-18 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-18 3.5.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-24 3.5.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-24 3.6 Fish and Wildlife ...... 3-28 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-28 3.6.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-41 3.6.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-41 3.7 Visual Resources ...... 3-44 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-44 3.7.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-49 3.7.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-49 3.8 Socioeconomic Environment ...... 3-51 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-51 3.8.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-53 3.8.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-53 3.9 Cultural Resources ...... 3-55 3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-57 3.9.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-74 3.9.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-74 3.10 Fire and Fuels ...... 3-78 3.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-78 3.10.2 Environmental Effect—No Action ...... 3-78 3.10.3 Environmental Effect—Proposed Action ...... 3-79 3.11 Air Quality ...... 3-79 3.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-79 3.11.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-80 3.11.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-80 3.12 Noise, Public Health, and Safety ...... 3-80 3.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-80 3.12.2 Environmental Effects—No Action ...... 3-83 3.12.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action ...... 3-83 3.13 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-85 3.13.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 3-86 3.13.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 3-86 3.13.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-88 4 Applicable Laws and Executive Orders ...... 4-1 4.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as Amended) ...... 4-1 4.2 Land Use and Recreation...... 4-1 4.2.1 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (as Amended) ...... 4-1 4.2.2 BLM Resource Management Plan Conformance ...... 4-1 4.2.3 Farmland Protections Policy Act ...... 4-2 4.2.4 State and Local Land Use Planning Framework ...... 4-2 4.2.5 Transportation Permits ...... 4-2 4.3 Geology and Soils ...... 4-3 4.3.1 Omnibus Public Land Management Act—Paleontological Resources Preservation ...... 4-3 4.4 Botanical Resources, Fish and Wildlife ...... 4-3 4.4.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as Amended) ...... 4-3

ii | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

4.4.2 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ...... 4-3 4.4.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as Amended) ...... 4-3 4.4.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Federal Memorandum of Understanding ...... 4-3 4.4.5 Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) ...... 4-4 4.4.6 Federal Noxious Weed Control Act of 1974 (as Amended) ...... 4-4 4.5 Water Resources and Water Quality ...... 4-4 4.5.1 Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1982 (as Amended) ...... 4-4 4.6 Wetlands and Floodplain Protection ...... 4-5 4.6.1 Oregon’s Removal Fill Law ...... 4-5 4.6.2 Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) ...... 4-5 4.6.3 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) ...... 4-5 4.7 Air Quality ...... 4-5 4.7.1 Clean Air Act, as Amended in 1990 ...... 4-5 4.8 Socioeconomic Resources ...... 4-6 4.8.1 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) ...... 4-6 4.9 Cultural and Historical Resources ...... 4-6 4.9.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as Amended) ...... 4-6 4.10 Noise, Public Health and Safety ...... 4-7 4.10.1 Noise Control Act of 1972 ...... 4-7 4.10.2 Uniform Fire Code ...... 4-7 4.10.3 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ...... 4-7 4.10.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ...... 4-7 5 List of Preparers and Agencies/Tribes/ Persons Consulted ...... 5-1 5.1 BLM Reviewers ...... 5-1 5.2 Agencies and Tribes Consulted ...... 5-2 5.2.1 State and Federal Agencies Consulted ...... 5-2 5.2.2 Other Governing Organizations Consulted ...... 5-2 5.2.3 Tribes Consulted ...... 5-2 6 References ...... 6-1 7 Acronyms ...... 7-1

Tables

Table 1-1. Additional Permits and Approvals needed Outside of BLM’s Jurisdiction ...... 1-7 Table 1-2. Public Scoping Comment Issues ...... 1-8 Table 2-1. Proposed Project Activities ...... 2-8 Table 2-2. Right-of-Way Acquisition for the New Line ...... 2-11 Table 2-3. Access Roads ...... 2-12 Table 2-4. Vegetation Clearing ...... 2-20 Table 2-5. Work Activities that Produce High Ambient Levels ...... 2-25 Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ...... 2-27 Table 3-1. Project Features by Landowner ...... 3-2 Table 3-2. Land Uses Crossed by the Project ...... 3-2 Table 3-3. Landownership Impacts ...... 3-7 Table 3-4. Project Land Use Impacts ...... 3-8 Table 3-5. Steep Slope Areas within the Project Area ...... 3-11

November 2016 | iii Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-6. Area and Extent of Potential Soil Erosion in the Project Area ...... 3-11 Table 3-7. Mapped Streams in the Project Area ...... 3-13 Table 3-8. NWI Mapped Wetlands* ...... 3-15 Table 3-9. Delineated Wetland Features ...... 3-17 Table 3-10. Land Cover Types within the Project Area ...... 3-20 Table 3-11. BLM Special Status Species Surveyed in Project Area ...... 3-21 Table 3-12. ESA Listed Plant Species Known to Occur in Project Area Counties ...... 3-23 Table 3-13. Vegetation Clearing by Land Cover Type ...... 3-25 Table 3-14. Fish Use of Streams within the Project Area ...... 3-29 Table 3-15. ESA Listed Species Known to Occur in Project Area Counties ...... 3-37 Table 3-16. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the APE and Within 0.25 Mile of the APE ...... 3-67 Table 3-17. Potential Historic Resources Identified within the APE and within 0.25 Mile of the APE ..... 3-70 Table 3-18. Cultural Resources Identified within the APE During the 2015/2016 Field Survey ...... 3-73 Table 3-19. Potential Historic Properties within the APE and Avoidance Measures ...... 3-75 Table 3-20. Typical Noise Levels ...... 3-81 Table 3-21: Typical Magnetic Fields from Household Appliances* ...... 3-82 Table 3-22: Typical Magnetic Fields around Distribution and Transmission Lines ...... 3-82 Table 3-23. Typical Construction Equipment Noise (dBA) ...... 3-84 Table 5-1. BLM Medford District Staff Members ...... 5-1 Table 5-2. Pacific Power Team Members ...... 5-1 Table 5-3. HDR Team Members ...... 5-1 Table 5-4. WEST Team Members ...... 5-2

Figures

Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map ...... 1-3 Figure 1-2. Pacific Power Transmission System ...... 1-5 Figure 2-1. Project Area Map (5 Maps) ...... 2-3 Figure 2-2. Typical Double Circuit Structures ...... 2-15 Figure 3-1. Land Use and Recreation Areas ...... 3-4 Figure 3-2. Streams and Wetlands ...... 3-16 Figure 3-3. Visual Resources ...... 3-46 Figure 3-4. KOP 1, Facing Project Area from Frontage Road (Exit 43) ...... 3-47 Figure 3-5. KOP 2, Facing Existing 115 kV Transmission Line from Sardine Creek Road ...... 3-47 Figure 3-6. KOP 3, Facing Project Area from Lampman Road in Gold Hill, Oregon ...... 3-48 Figure 3-7. KOP 4, Facing Existing 115 kV Transmission Line and Proposed Substation Site from OR-234 ...... 3-48 Figure 3-8. KOP 5, Facing Project Area and Sams Valley from Lower Table Rock Lookout ...... 3-49

iv | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

1 Purpose of and Need for Action 1.1 Introduction The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for Pacific Power’s proposed Sams Valley Reinforcement Project (Project), located in Jackson and Josephine Counties in Oregon. In January 2015, Pacific Power, the Project proponent, applied to BLM for an amendment to a right-of-way grant they currently hold to accommodate the addition of a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line along an existing route that would cross lands managed by BLM. The BLM decision to approve or deny Pacific Power’s right-of-way grant application constitutes a Federal Action and requires analysis under NEPA through preparation of an EA. NEPA requires all federal agencies evaluate the environmental, social, and economic effects of proposed actions on public land. The BLM will use the EA to decide whether to grant, grant with conditions, or deny Pacific Power’s application to construct, operate, and maintain a new 230 kV transmission line across lands managed by the BLM. The following sections provide context for the EA by describing background information on the proposed Project, including the applicant’s objectives for the Project, the BLM’s purpose and need for the action, and a summary of public issues and concerns identified during scoping. This EA has been prepared to analyze and disclose potential Project-related impacts associated with implementing the applicant’s proposal across public lands, pursuant to the requirements of NEPA (USC [United States Code] 4321, et seq). The EA will provide the decision-maker, the Butte Falls Field Manager, with current information to aid in the decision-making process and determine if the Proposed Action is in conformance with the Medford District’s Resource Management Plan (RMP). 1.2 Summary of Proposed Project Pacific Power proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a new 230 kV transmission line, which would run from the existing Grants Pass Substation in Josephine County near Grants Pass, Oregon east to a proposed new 500/230 kV substation in Jackson County, Oregon north of Medford (Figure 1-1). The new transmission line would be approximately 18 miles long and would be constructed as a double circuit with the existing Grants Pass- Lone Pine 115 kV line. . This double circuit line would carry both the existing 115 kV line and the new 230 kV line on new structures and take advantage of the existing right-of- way to the greatest extent possible. As part of the Project, Pacific Power would also reconductored a portion (approximately 4.7 miles) of the existing 230 kV Grants Pass- Meridian line between the new substation and Whetstone Substation, as well as install new equipment within the Grants Pass Substation to accommodate the termination of the new transmission line. The new 500/230 kV substation would be located at the intersection of the new 230 kV line and existing Dixonville-Meridian 500 kV and 115 kV Grants Pass-Lone Pine transmission lines. In addition, the existing Grants Pass Substation would require new

November 2016 | 1-1 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

and upgraded equipment to accommodate the new transmission line, including a new 230 kV bay to connect the incoming transmission line with two breakers to terminate the line. The Project would be located on BLM-managed lands and private lands. Approximately 4.6 miles of the transmission line would be located on BLM land. In total, a width of approximately 135 feet of right-of-way would be needed for the new double circuit line to maintain electrical clearances and meet safety requirements. BLM previously granted Pacific Power use of approximately 100 feet of right-of-way for the existing 115 kV line. Pacific Power is now requesting approximately 35 feet (18.7 acres) of additional right-of- way on BLM-managed lands to accommodate the new double circuited line. The majority of the Project (approximately 75 percent), including the existing and new substation, would be located on private land. For portions of the Project that cross private land, additional right-of-way easements would be negotiated with landowners. The new substation would be located on private land owned by Pacific Power. The project area is within the management area of BLM’s Medford District Butte Falls and Grants Pass Field Offices and is located in the Grants Pass, Rogue River, Gold Hill, and Sams Valley 7.5' Topographic Quadrangles. As shown on Figure 1-1, the project area is within portions for the following Township and Ranges in the Willamette Meridian:  T36N, R5W  T36S, R4W  T36S, R3W  T35S, R3W  T35S, R2W  T36S, R2W

1-2 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map

November 2016 | 1-3 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

1.3 Background 1.3.1 Proponent Pacific Power provides electric service to almost 730,000 customers in Oregon, Washington, and northern California. Pacific Power, as a regulated utility, is required to provide safe and reliable service for all customers within its service territory. 1.3.2 System Modeling The Proposed Action would increase capacity and improve reliability to the Southern Oregon region as part of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standards and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) system operating standards (NERC 2009, WECC 2005). The additional line would help meet new power demands due to regional growth and act as a redundant path for power in the event another local transmission line is damaged or experiences disruption of service. It would improve and strengthen the power grid for the entire region, including the more than 88,000 Jackson County and 41,000 Josephine County customers of Pacific Power. System modeling indicates that a new 230 kV line between the existing Grants Pass Substation and a new 500/230 kV substation (to be located north of Medford), is necessary for reliability. Current modeling indicates that the current system (Figure 1-2) is at risk of unacceptable failure based on the following risks:  An outage of the 230 kV Grants Pass-Dixonville line will overload the 230 kV Meridian-Whetstone line.  A failure of the Meridian Substation breaker 1R49 will cause the loss of the 230 kV Meridian-Whetstone line and the loss of the 230 kV Meridian-Lone Pine No. 2 line, causing an overload of the 230 kV Meridian-Lone Pine No. 1 line.  An outage of both the 230 kV Meridian-Whetstone line and the 230 kV Meridian-Lone Pine No. 2 line will result in the loss of all Grants Pass and Crescent City loads.  An outage of 500 kV supply to the Meridian substation or loss of both Meridian 500- 230 kV transformer banks will cause low voltage on the 230 kV system and would require significant load shedding (i.e., the need to drop customers). A new substation is required to interconnect the new 230 kV double-circuit line and the existing Dixonville-Meridian 500 kV line. The substation must be located within reasonable proximity to where the existing Dixonville-Meridian 500 kV and 115kV Grants Pass-Lone Pine transmission line corridors intersect, or run parallel to each other. The proposed location is in Sams Valley, at the intersection of the new 230 kV line and the existing Dixonville-Meridian 500 kV and 115 kV Grants Pass-Lone Pine transmission lines. 1.4 Lead and Cooperating Agency The BLM is the lead federal agency for the NEPA review process for the Project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the cooperating agency, as the proposed new substation would impact wetlands and therefore requires a 401/404 wetland removal/fill permit.

1-4 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 1-2. Pacific Power Transmission System

November 2016 | 1-5 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

1.5 Purpose and Need The purpose of this Federal Action is to respond to Pacific Power’s request for a right-of-way grant amendment to construct, operate, and maintain a new transmission line across BLM-administered public lands through the Butte Falls and Grants Pass Field Offices. The need for this Federal Action is established by the BLM’s responsibility under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and 43 CFR 2800 regulations to allow access across public lands for right-of-way to provide electrical service (BLM 1995 p. 82). 1.6 Decisions to be Made

1.6.1 Bureau of Land Management Based on the analysis in this EA, the BLM will decide whether to grant, grant with conditions, or deny Pacific Power’s application to construct, operate, and maintain a new 230 kV transmission line across lands managed by the BLM. If granted, the BLM may include terms, conditions, and stipulations that the BLM determines to be in the public interest (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 2805.10).

1.6.2 Cooperating Agency The USACE will use the EA to decide whether to grant, grant with conditions, or deny Pacific Power’s application for a Clean Water Act Section 401/404 Wetland Removal/Fill Permit, which would be required for development of the proposed new 500/230 kV Sams Valley Substation. If granted, USACE may include terms, conditions, and stipulations that the USACE determines to be in the public interest. 1.7 Authorizations, Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Although the BLM is the lead federal agency for the NEPA review process for the Project, the BLM’s decision regarding land use authorization for the proposed transmission line constitutes only a small portion of the overall Project. The BLM’s decision will apply only to the portion of the Project located on public land. Various other federal, state, and local level permits and approvals would be required from other agencies or jurisdictions to implement one or more of the components of the proposed Project including, but not limited to, Jackson County land use approval for development of the new substation on private land. Additional right-of-way easements would also be required for the remaining portions of the Project that cross privately owned land. These other permits and approvals are outside of the BLM’s jurisdiction and are therefore outside the scope of this EA and will not be authorized or otherwise affected by BLM’s decision under NEPA. Table 1-1 lists the major federal, state, and local authorizations, permits, reviews, and approvals identified for the construction and operation of the proposed Project. Other authorizations, permits, reviews, or approvals for construction and operation may be

1-6 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

required. Pacific Power would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals required to implement the proposed Project.

Table 1-1. Additional Permits and Approvals needed Outside of BLM’s Jurisdiction Action Requiring Permit or Approval Permit/Approval Approving Agency

Federal Entire Project Endangered Species Act Section U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 7 Consultation 500/230 kV Sams Valley Clean Water Act Section USACE Substation Development 401/404 Wetland Removal/Fill Permit State Entire Project Section 402 NPDES Permit for Oregon Department of Stormwater Discharge Environmental Quality Entire Project National Historic Preservation State Historic Preservation Act Compliance Section 106 Office (SHPO) and affected Tribes 500/230 kV Sams Valley Clean Water Act Section Department of State Lands Substation Development 401/404 Wetland Removal/Fill Permit Local 500/230 kV Sams Valley Administrative Type II Land Use Jackson County Land Use and Substation Development Permit Planning Department Transmission Line Right-of- Private Right-of-way Easements Various private landowners way on Private Land Structures on Private Land Building Permit Josephine County Land Use and in Josephine County Planning Department Structures on Private Land Building Permit Jackson County Land Use and in Jackson County Planning Department

1.8 Scoping and Public Involvement The BLM conducted public scoping outreach for the Project through a public letter issued on October 5, 2015. The letter was sent to those affected by the proposed Project and those interested persons that have provided contact information to the BLM or Pacific Power, including adjacent landowners, public interest groups, local governments, tribes, and state and federal agencies. The letter explained the proposal, the environmental process, and how to participate. The public letter was posted on the project website at: https://www.pacificpower.net/ed/tp/sams-valley.html and on BLM’s NEPA register at: http://1.usa.gov/1R7FDwE. The public was given the opportunity to submit comment on the Proposed Action during the public comment period, which started on October 5, 2015, and closed on November 3, 2015. Prior to public scoping, the BLM initiated government-to-government consultation with the Klamath Tribes, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz. Interest responses or comments were received from 27 individuals and organizations. Comments were reviewed and are addressed in this EA as applicable.

November 2016 | 1-7 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

1.8.1 Issues and Concerns Under NEPA, issues generally refer to the relationship between actions (proposed, connected, cumulative, similar) and environmental (natural, cultural, and socioeconomic) effects. An issue is a point of disagreement or concern over the Proposed Action based on the environmental effects. The BLM considers a comment to be an issue if it addresses a cause and effect relationship. The following issues were identified based on comments made by the public and organizations during the scoping process. These issues were identified and reviewed by the interdisciplinary team of resource specialists established for this Project. These issues are listed in Table 1-2 and addressed in relevant sections of the EA, including the project background in Section 1.3, the discussion of alternatives eliminated in Section 2.5, the project design features listed in Section 2.3.8, and the corresponding resource-specific sections of Chapter 3.

Table 1-2. Public Scoping Comment Issues Purpose and Need Why is an additional 35 feet required beyond the existing right-of-way? Why can’t the transmission line be co-located with the existing 230 kV line that runs parallel to the existing 115 kV? There are already two lines in the Grants Pass area so why do we need a third line? Why can’t the existing tower structures be used for the new line? Land Use How will additional right-of-way easements be negotiated between Pacific Power and private landowners? Expansion of right-of-way will decrease the availability of building sites for impacted properties. How can the substation be allowed in the EFU zoning designation? How will development of the substation affect property values for surrounding residences? The substation is too close to Lower Table Rock, the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway, and residential properties. What other sites have been considered for the substation? Why can’t the substation be sited in a more remote or industrial area, such as the Kirtland industrial area?

Where access routes cross private land, what will the impacts be to private landowners and how will they be mitigated? Wildlife/Habitat How will the Project minimize adverse effects to wildlife? What surveys have been completed for the Project? Health and Safety Concerns Would residents living near the substation or transmission line have an increased likelihood for disease or illness (e.g., leukemia or other rare disorders)?

1-8 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Noise/Light The substation will cause a substantial increase in noise and light. The sound of the substation will be heard by hikers on Lower Table Rocks Visual Quality The substation will impact surrounding residences’ view of Table Rocks. Wood pole structures, as opposed to steel lattice structures, should be used to limit visual impacts. Structures that look similar to existing 115 kV structures are preferred. Geology How will Pacific Power prevent erosion and mudslides on access roads? How will the Project minimize adverse effects to soils? Fire What is the fire hazard of the proposed substation? The substation poses a fire hazard to Table Rocks. . Wetlands and Waters How will wetland removal and development of the substation impact water quality in Rock Creek? How will the Project minimize adverse effects to waters? Vegetation Adverse impacts to special habitats (rock outcrops, wetlands, meadows, etc.) should be avoided. How will the Project minimize adverse effects to vegetation? Right-of-way expansion will require the removal of large oak trees. Will access roads be restored to preconstruction conditions on private land? How will Pacific Power prevent or manage the spread of noxious weeds within the right-of-way, along access roads and onto private lands?

November 2016 | 1-9

Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative, and alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. This chapter also includes a summary of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative. 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative is required to be analyzed as set forth in CEQ and applicable BLM implementing regulations and 40 CFR 1502.14 (d). Under the No Action Alternative, Pacific Power would not construct a new transmission line and would continue to operate and maintain the existing regional system. The existing regional electric system would remain at risk of unacceptable failure in the event of unplanned outages. Pacific Power’s ability to provide reliable electric service to its customers and to meet industry standards would continue to be compromised from a lack of redundancy in the system.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The Proposed Action is to construct, operate, and maintain a new 230 kV transmission line in Oregon, running from the existing Grants Pass Substation in Josephine County near Grants Pass, Oregon east, terminating at a new 500/230 kV substation in Jackson County, Oregon north of Medford (Figure 2-1). The new transmission line would be approximately 18 miles long and would be constructed as a double circuit that would also carry the existing 115 kV line. The new double circuit line would replace the existing 115 kV transmission line. The new double circuit structures may be taller and larger than the existing structures to support additional weight and maintain height clearances, but would be located as close to the existing structure locations as possible. Span lengths are typically about 600 to 1,500 feet due to topography, structure type, engineering constraints, and other considerations. To accommodate the new 230 kV line, the existing Grants Pass-Lone Pine 115 kV transmission line right-of-way would be expanded from 100 feet to 135 feet on BLM-managed land. The new 500/230 kV substation would be located at the intersection of the new 230 kV line and existing Dixonville-Meridian 500 kV and 115 kV Grants Pass-Lone Pine transmission lines. The substation would occupy approximately 20 acres and consist of a fenced, secured, and graveled yard containing transformers and switches. The existing Grants Pass Substation would also require new and upgraded equipment to accommodate the new transmission line, including a new 230 kV bay with two breakers to terminate the line.

November 2016 | 2-1 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

As part of the Project, a portion of the existing 230 kV Grants Pass-Meridian line would be reconductored between the new substation and existing Whetstone Substation (see Figure 1-2). Under BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), the scope of an EA must include the BLM’s Proposed Action as well as other connected and cumulative actions. Connected actions are defined as closely related actions, or interdependent parts of a larger action, that cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(i, ii, iii)). Connected actions can be federal or nonfederal, and depending on the extent to which the connected action can be prevented by BLM decision making, their effects can be analyzed as direct or indirect effects of the BLM action. Generally, effects of nonfederal actions that could be prevented by a BLM decision are analyzed as indirect effects of the Proposed Action. For the purpose of this EA, effects associated with the proposed new 500/230 kV substation and proposed upgrades to the existing Grants Pass Substation are analyzed as indirect effects of the Proposed Action as those actions constitute nonfederal actions that can be modified or prevented by BLM’s decision to grant the right-of-way amendment. However, while portions of the new 230 kV transmission line that are proposed on private lands also do not constitute a federal action, they are included as part of the Proposed Action. Associated impacts are analyzed as direct effects of BLM’s action in an effort to avoid confusion and redundancy of information.

2-2 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 2-1. Project Area Map (5 Maps)

November 2016 | 2-3 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Cen ttal Pomt ..i

Medford°

Pag e 2 of 5

Project Area Map Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

1-)~

10/1 8/201 6 Projection: NAO 1983 UTM Zone 10N

Legend

D r~:c~:~~~ential Ground Disturbance)

1 -- - 1 Pro~ct Area l ___ (Hehcopter-spanned Area )

Project Access Roads Included = in Area of Potential Ground Disturbance Approximate Location of New --Proposed 230kV Line & Existing 115kV Line

• Existing Grants Pass Substation

CJ ~:~:~~~:u~li,:~ and [=a Proposed Sams Valley Substation C eounty Boundary CJ Township and Range Property Ownership L'BLM

C'Private

N A

D,t• SOufc:el HOR. BLM. P.e.liCorp, USGS. Ell'i W)rld TO!)O M,ip 5e!Yoee MilPintorm9uonw•<.OmPledll'omthebnl11Va1i.ble~ Now;,n.nty ismadefotits.ccuracy0tcomJ)letel'leSS

2-4 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project 1-)~

Centr~Pomt --'

Medford°

Page 3 of 5

Project Area Map Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

1-)~

10/18/2016 Projection: NAO 1983 UTM Zone lON

Legend

D r~:;:c!t;~~ential Ground Disturbance)

1 --- Proj~ct Area 1 l ___ (Hehcopter·spanned Area)

Project Access Roads Included = in Area of Potential Ground Disturbance Approximate Location of New --Proposed 230kV Line & Existing 115kV line

• Existing Grants P ass Substation CJ~;~::~~:~ Iii;~ and c::::IProposed Sams Valley Substa tion

C eounty Boundary D Township and Range Property Ownership c_,aLM c=JPrivate

N --==----·"· A

OauSoorces. HOR. SLM. Pacif""Corp, USGS. Es,i v.«ktTopo ~ Setvoce. Map tnfornw.tion- COfT1)il9d from the bell avail.Ible--· No~ilffl)' & made f<:rt ilsaeeurac~« eOff1)1,eteneu

November 2016 | 2-5 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

~i~·~~ ISam s Valley I Ctntrd1Pomt9 t ~ <. Medfo

1-)~

10/18/2016 Projection: NAO 1983 UTM Zone 10N

Legend

D ~~:c!~;:~ential Ground Disturbance)

1 -- - 1 Proj~cl Area l ___ (Hehcopter·spanned Area)

Project Access Roads Included = in Area of Potential Ground Disturbance Approximate loca tion of New --Proposed 230kV Line & Existing 115kV Line

• Existing Grants Pass Substation CJ ~:~~:~~:u~li:~ and

C Proposed Sams Valley Substation

C county Boundary LJ Township and Range Property Ownership L_, BLM

c:=J Private

N A

o.a ~ HDR. BLM. PaaliCorp. USGS. EMi 'Abrld Topa Map S.Vice Map infomlilltJon - ~led from the beM wailable SOIM'CU No-anl)' 1tmadeloritsacancyor~

2-6 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project 1-)~

Page 5 of 5

Project Area Map Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

1-)~

10'1S/20US Pro;&dion: NAO 1983 UTM Zone 10N

Legend

D rAr:c~~~~ential Ground Disturbance)

, -- - Pro~ctArea 1 1. ___ (Hellcopter-sp.inned Area)

Project Access Roads Included = in Area of Potential Ground Disturbance Approximate Location of New --Proposed 230kV Line & Existing 115kV Line

• E.idsting Grants Pass Substation

o ~:~:~ti~~=~~;~ and

c::JProposed Sams Valley Substation

Ceounty Boundary LJT ownship and Range Property Ownership C BLM [ Private

N ---====---.,.- ­ A

O...~ l

November 2016 | 2-7 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

The Proposed Action would involve the following activities:  Installation of a new, double circuit line that would carry both existing 115 kV and new 230 kV overhead transmission lines.  Removal of existing 115 kV structures where double circuiting will occur.  Installation of approximately 90 to 120 new structures.  Construction of a new, approximately 20-acre, 500/230 kV substation.  Installation of new and upgraded equipment at the Grants Pass Substation to accommodate the new transmission line, including a new 230 kV bay with two breakers to terminate the line.  Reconductoring of approximately 4.7 miles of existing transmission line and replacement of approximately 16 structures.  Use of a helicopter to string the new conductor through steep or sensitive areas. Helicopter-spanned areas encompass all areas outside the “Area of Potential Ground Disturbance” shown on Figure 2-1.  Improvement of approximately 23 miles of existing access roads.  Use of existing access roads by large equipment.  Acquisition of additional right-of-way easement rights on public and private land.  Establishment of temporary work areas, staging areas, stringing areas, and pulling and tensioning sites.  Permanent and/or temporary removal and/or modification of vegetation to facilitate safe construction and operation of the Project.  Revegetation of areas temporarily disturbed by construction activities. Table 2-1 provides more detailed information on the proposed activities listed above and the following discussion describes the Proposed Action in more detail. The project activities are based on preliminary engineering design and are subject to final design refinements. Final design refinements would be within the confines of the NEPA regulations and would not be expected to substantially change the impacts and conclusions reported in this EA. If final design exceeds impacts disclosed in the EA, additional NEPA analysis would be completed prior to project implementation.

Table 2-1. Proposed Project Activities

Proposed Activity Quantity*

Right-of-Way Right-of-way Width Existing on BLM Land (feet) 100 Existing on Private Land (feet) 40-100 Proposed Expanded on BLM Land (feet) 35 Proposed Expanded on Private Land (feet) 35-95 Additional Permanent Right-of-way Needed (acres) 82

2-8 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 2-1. Proposed Project Activities

Proposed Activity Quantity* BLM Land (acres) 18.7 Private Land (acres) 63.3 Additional Temporary Right-of-way Needed (acres) 38.0 BLM Land (acres) 8.4 Private Land (acres) 29.6 Access Road Work Total Length of Access Roads (miles) 23.0 Existing Access Road Improvements 23.0 BLM Land (miles) 5.3 BLM Land (acres) 11.5 Private Land (miles) 17.7 Private Land (acres) 48.3 Transmission Line Work New Structures Approximate Number of New Double-Circuit Structures Installed 90-120 Approximate Number of Single-Circuit Structures Replaced (reconductor 16 portion) Height (feet) 80-150 Foundation Size (feet in diameter) 4-8 New Transmission Line BLM Land (miles) 4.3 Private Land (miles) 13.6 Helicopter Stringing Areas (steep slopes; miles) 5.5 Non-helicopter Stringing Areas (miles) 12.3 Total Miles of New Transmission Line 17.9 Conductors per Structure (electrified conductors and shield wire/optical 8 ground wires) Transmission Line Operating Voltage (kV) 230 Reconductored Transmission Line BLM Land (miles) 0.3 Private Land (miles) 4.3 Public Land (Rogue River crossing) 0.1 Helicopter Stringing Areas (miles) 0.8 Non-Helicopter Stringing Areas (miles) 3.9 Total miles of Reconductored Transmission Line 4.7 Conductors per Structure (electrified conductors and shield wire/optical 4 ground wires) Transmission Line Operating Voltage (kV) 230

November 2016 | 2-9 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 2-1. Proposed Project Activities

Proposed Activity Quantity* Pulling and Tensioning Sites Approximate number of Pulling and Tensioning Sites 12 Approximate Area of Each Pulling and Tensioning Site (acres) 0.3 Substation Work New 500/230 kV Substation (acres) 20 Temporary Staging Areas Approximate Number of Staging Areas 6 Approximate Area of Each Staging Area (acres) 5-10 Potential Vegetation Clearing and Total Ground Disturbance (Excavation, Fill, Grading, Clearing, Access Road Widening) BLM Land (acres) 52.7 Permanent Vegetation Clearing (acres) 5.5 Temporary Vegetation Clearing (acres) 47.2 Private Land (acres) 213.3 Permanent Vegetation Clearing (acres) 33.3

Temporary Vegetation Clearing (acres) 180.0 *Actual numbers may vary slightly due to rounding. 2.3 Proposed Action Components

2.3.1 Right-of-Way Acquisition The existing 115 kV Grants Pass-Lone Pine right-of-way corridor ranges from 40 to 100 feet wide, is approximately 17.9 miles long, and crosses both privately owned and BLM-managed lands. The majority (77.2 percent) of the existing 115 kV right-of-way corridor is located on private land, and the remainder (22.8 percent) occurs on BLM land (Table 2-2). To accommodate the new line, the existing right-of-way would need to be widened; therefore, the Proposed Action would require additional easements from the 99 private parcels, as well as a right-of-way grant from BLM. On private land, the existing 115 kV right-of-way is 100 feet wide on a majority of the parcels (82) and 40 feet wide on 17 parcels (159.0 acres total). To accommodate the new line, the existing right-of-way corridor would need to be widened from 40 or 100 feet to 135 feet (Table 2-2). This is an additional 47.5 or 17.5 feet on either side of the existing corridor. In total, approximately 63.3 acres of additional right-of-way would be acquired on private land. On BLM-managed land, the existing 115 kV right-of-way is 100 feet wide (52.1 acres). To accommodate the new line, the existing right-of-way corridor would need to be widened from 100 feet to 135 feet (Table 2-2). This is an additional 17.5 feet on either side of the existing corridor. In total, approximately 18.7 acres of additional right-of-way would be acquired on BLM land.

2-10 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

The expanded right-of-way would retain the original 115 kV centerline to the extent possible; however, the centerline may shift in some areas (expanding more to one side of centerline than the other) to avoid encroachment into other existing easements or sensitive resources.

Table 2-2. Right-of-Way Acquisition for the New Line

Existing Right- Additional Right-of-Way of-way Width Right-of-Way Percent of Total Ownership (miles) (feet) Area (acres) Area BLM 4.3 100 18.7 22.8 Private Total 13.6 40-100 63.3 77.2 17 Parcels 0.8 40 8.9 14.0* 82 Parcels 12.8 100 54.4 86.0* Total 17.9 - 82.0 100.0 *percentage of total private parcels

Reconductoring activities would occur along the existing 230 kV Grants Pass-Meridian Line. The existing 230 kV right-of-way corridor is approximately 100 feet wide, 4.7 miles long, and crosses both privately owned and BLM-managed lands. The Majority (94 percent) of the right-of-way is located on private land and the remainder (6 percent) occurs on BLM land. Reconductoring activities would occur within the existing right-of- way corridor and would not require any right-of-way widening or additional easements.

2.3.2 Access During construction, vehicular access would be required to each structure. The transmission line corridor would be accessed from existing roads. Roads leading to the transmission line are generally multiuse roads (e.g., Pacific Power access, back country roads, and residential access) used by a variety of individuals for various purposes. Access roads range from paved to gravel or bare soil surface and are under the ownership of Jackson or Josephine Counties, private individuals, or BLM. Existing access roads within the right-of-way were generally created for use by Pacific Power and typically have an 8-foot wide travel way and either bare soil or gravel. There would be no new temporary or permanent access roads constructed for the Project. Construction equipment would access each structure site using existing access roads or the right-of-way. Staging areas would be located outside of the right-of-way, on privately owned, pre-disturbed sites. Two general categories of access road types are applicable for the transmission line portion of the Project: Existing Roads Requiring No Improvement:  Access may be used as is; however, obstructions in the road such as rocks and debris may be removed within the road prism/existing disturbance footprint.

November 2016 | 2-11 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Existing Roads Requiring Improvement:  Some level of improvement is needed to provide a safe travel way required for construction. Based on typical construction practices, such access roads would receive one of the following treatments: o The existing road will be sufficient and provide a safe travel way throughout construction. o The existing road will be sufficient and provide a safe travel way during a portion of the line construction period. Weather events and progressive damage due to use are example reasons that an existing road would need some level of improvement at one or more intermediate points during line construction. o The existing road at Project initiation needs more extensive improvement including blading (within and/or without the existing footprint, e.g. widen turns or travel way), prior to the start of construction. Up to 23 miles of existing access roads would be improved as needed prior to construction (Figure 2-1) to ensure access to the transmission line corridor for construction and ongoing operation and maintenance activities. Typical improvements include widening the access to allow for safe passage of heavy equipment such as a crane to set structures in place. For analysis purposes within this EA, it is assumed that the existing access will be widened to provide a 14-foot wide travel way. The extent of the disturbance area due to access road improvements varies between flat and steeper terrain. Access road improvements in steeper terrain would typically result in a larger disturbance footprint. As such, for analysis purposes of this EA, it is assumed that improvement to existing access roads would, on average, result in a 25-foot-wide disturbance area for construction, which includes widening access roads from their existing width (8-foot travel way on average) to a 14-foot travel way with additional area for drainage, side cast, and maneuverability. Improvements would include widening, removal of overgrown vegetation, blading to shape existing road surfaces and turnouts, placement of surfacing aggregate (i.e., gravel) to maintain or restore existing road surfacing where needed, and installing water bars and drain dips as needed to manage stormwater runoff. Assuming existing access road improvements would result in an average 25-foot-wide disturbance area yields a conservative estimate of access road-related temporary disturbance of approximately 59.8 acres of vegetation during construction (refer to Table 2-3). If gravel is needed, the construction contractor would obtain gravel from weed-free quarries. Following construction, improved access roads would be seeded and allowed to revegetate within the expanded roadway margins.

Table 2-3. Access Roads

Temporary Access Road Impacts Percentage of Total Ownership Miles of Access Road (acres)1 Miles BLM 5.3 11.5 23.0 Private 17.7 48.3 77.0 Total 23.0 59.8 100.0

1Acreage of temporary impacts does not include existing road widths (8 feet); only includes expanded road widths (17 feet).

2-12 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Existing bridges and fords would be used for construction vehicles and equipment to cross streams. Road improvement work would not occur within the ordinary high water of perennial, ephemeral, or intermittent stream channels. Culvert replacement may occur if necessary, during access road improvement. Use of access roads during construction and ongoing operation and maintenance could also result in compaction or erosion of soils and creation of dust. To prevent construction runoff/ stormwater from entering waterways, best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to minimize construction-related erosion and the potential for introducing construction-related materials (e.g., oil, hazardous materials) into waterways (see Section 2.3.8).

2.3.3 Staging Areas Up to six temporary staging areas (each up to approximately 5 to 10 acres in size) may be used during project construction to store and stockpile new and removed materials and construction equipment, and to provide helicopter landing areas. Staging areas would be located within the right-of-way or on previously disturbed private lands near the right-of-way. Structures would be staged in these areas prior to construction. Temporary access road improvements (e.g., blading, placement of gravel) may be necessary around staging areas. The construction contractor would identify potential staging areas as part of a preconstruction plan. Following construction, these areas would revert to their previous use.

2.3.4 Transmission Facilities The following sections describe proposed transmission facilities for both the new double- circuit 230 kV line, and the reconductored portion of the existing 230 kV Grants Pass- Meridian line. These two project components are similar in terms of site preparation, structure installation, and conductoring methods; however, minor differences in structure types, temporary work areas, etc., are noted, where applicable.

Structures Different types of structures would be used, depending on the location. For dead-ends, used at line angles and sometimes large canyon spans, a larger, stronger, self- supporting two-pole structure may be used to support the structure laterally. Typical double circuit structures are shown in Figure 2-2. Structures would either be set on concrete foundations or directly embedded into the soil. Tangent structures, which are in line with each other, could have foundations that are up to 4 feet in diameter (12.5 square feet). Dead-end structures would likely have larger foundations that could be up to 8 feet in diameter (50 square feet). However, the permanent footprint of each structure foundation would be approximately 6 feet in diameter (25 square feet) on average. Additional grading or a rock landing may be needed at the base of structures where soils are unstable or slopes make it difficult for construction vehicles to access the structure and to allow for safe construction of the structures. Between 90 and 120 new double circuit structures would be installed within the right-of-way. Structures would be installed as close to the existing 115 kV Grants Pass-Lone Pine line structures as possible; however, some structures would be installed in between existing structure locations to break up long spans, facilitate easier pulling and tensioning, or to avoid sensitive resources.

November 2016 | 2-13 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

In addition, up to 16 structures would be replaced along the reconductored portion of the existing 230 kV Grants Pass-Meridian line. The exact number of structure replacements will be identified during detailed engineering. Some structures would be replaced because the new conductor would be heavier than the existing conductor, and many of the existing structures would lack the structural capacity (e.g., structures are already old and damaged) to support the additional loading. Replacement structures would be nearly identical to existing H-frame structures, with the exception of slightly larger sized members (e.g., larger diameter conductor and higher grade poles or cross arms). The structures would be installed in the same location (typically within 10 feet) as the existing structures they are replacing. Replacement structures would most likely be directly embedded into the soil, and therefore would not require concrete foundations. Depending on engineering requirements, structures would be made of wood, self- weathering steel, or galvanized steel. Where required, corten self-weathering steel may be used for aesthetic appearance. Corten is a special high-carbon steel that rusts brown and would help the structures blend into the surrounding landscape without compromising their strength or durability. Structure heights at particular locations would depend on terrain, the length of the span, and other factors.

Site Preparation and Structure Installation Construction would occur in accordance with Pacific Power’s standard construction techniques and best practices. Minor grading would occur within the new right-of-way and around each structure as needed. Individual structure sites would be cleared as necessary to provide a safe temporary work area to install the transmission line support structures and facilitate access for future transmission line and structure maintenance. Clearing individual structure sites would typically involve grading/blading the required area. Within the temporary work area, vegetation would be cleared or mowed on an as-needed basis and would be crushed rather than cut, where feasible.

2-14 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 2-2. Typical Double Circuit Structures

November 2016 | 2-15 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

At each new structure location, a temporary work area approximately 135 feet by 200 (0.6 acre per structure) feet would be needed for construction laydown, structure assembly, and structure installation. At dead-end structure sites, the temporary work area may extend beyond the right-of-way at 90 degree angles, requiring up to 0.3 acres of additional workspace. Replacement structures along the reconductored portion would require smaller work areas, approximately 100 feet by 200 feet (0.5 acre per structure) and would not expand outside the existing right-of-way except at dead-end structure sites. Temporary work areas would provide a safe working space for placing equipment, vehicles, and materials. Where a structure is located on steep side slopes, a flat work area for structure installation and maintenance would require cutting into the side slope and using the cut material as fill to form part of the flat work area, or making a full bench cut and side casting the spoil below the pad. The actual dimensions of the flat work area disturbance may vary depending on factors such as terrain and vegetation. Total disturbance, including cuts and fills or spoils, would be larger than the flat work area and varies by side slope and soil type. For structures that are directly embedded:  Structure holes would be dug in advance of setting.  Structure would be embedded to 10 percent of pole height plus 5 additional feet with the potential for deeper setting depth due to heavy structure loading.  Structure pole diameters along the new 230 kV double circuit line would typically range from 36 to 60 inches.  Structure pole diameters along the reconductored line would typically range from 18 to 30 inches.  Holes would be dug 1 to 2 feet wider than the pole butt diameter and somewhat deeper than the final installation depth to allow maneuvering room for installation.  Structures would be installed onsite in predrilled holes and backfilled. For structures that are set on foundations:  Structure holes for foundation would be approximately 8 feet in diameter.  Depths would vary depending on loading and soil conditions.  Foundation installation includes reinforcing steel rebar cage set in hole, setting the anchor bolt cage, and pouring concrete.  Diameters of the foundations are dependent on the base diameter of the pole and site and loading conditions.  The finished grade of the concrete foundation is typically 1 foot above the ground elevation. Structures would either be assembled at the structure site and lifted into place using a large crane, or assembled at a staging area and set in place by a large sky crane helicopter.

2-16 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Conductors, Ground Wire, and Counterpoise Structures along the new 230 kV line would be double circuit, meaning they each have six conductors (three conductors for each circuit) and two shield wires (one for each circuit). Replacement structures along the reconductored portion of the existing 230 kV line would be single circuit, meaning each structure would only have three conductors and one shield wire. Conductors would have an approximate diameter of 1.34 inches, would be made of aluminum and steel, and would be attached using polymer stand-off insulators to prevent electricity in the conductors from moving to other conductors, the structures, or the ground. One of the shield wires on the double circuit line would be a fiber optic wire, which would facilitate communications for relaying, system control, and monitoring. The conductor would be installed by setting up a pulling and tensioning site at the beginning and end of each identified pulling section. Typically, pulling sections are lengths along the right-of-way that are no more than 25 structures long. Conductor pulling and tensioning sites would be needed approximately every 2 to 4 miles, depending on the length of each span and the terrain. Approximately twelve, 0.3-acre pulling sites (nine along the new line and three along the reconductored line) would be required (approximately 3.6 acre total). After the equipment (puller and tensioner) is set up, a sock line (usually a rope) would be strung through all the structures. This stringing would be done using a helicopter or by workers on the ground using a pickup truck or all-terrain vehicle. The sock line would be connected to a hard line (typically a small stranded steel wire), which would be connected to the new conductor and pulled through the structures. Once in place, the new conductor would be tensioned and sagged in place and securely clipped into all of the structures. The entire line length (22.6 miles) may be strung by helicopter; however, at a minimum areas identified as steep slope (e.g., deep valleys and cliffs) or sensitive areas (e.g., Rogue River) totaling 6.3 miles, would be strung by helicopter as the terrain would make it too difficult to string from the ground. The area of ground disturbance, which excludes the areas that will be strung by helicopter (steep slope, sensitive areas totaling 6.3 miles), is shown in Figure 2-1. At the same time that the conductors are installed, overhead ground wire and counterpoise would be installed. Overhead ground wire provides protection of the energized conductors from lightning strikes, while counterpoise is installed in the ground to provide grounding protection to the structure. Counterpoise wires would be buried at the base of the structure, approximately 6 to 18 inches to the outside of the structures where they would connect to a ground rod. Ground rods typically measure 10 feet in length and would be placed entirely underground in a vertical orientation. Generally, only one wire would be buried per structure. The wires would be buried approximately 30 inches below the ground surface. In areas where bedrock is at or near the surface, the wires would be laid on the surface and buried with loose aggregate. Reconductoring work would require the existing 230 kV Grants-Pass-Meridian line to be de-energized; however, this would be done at times when other lines could handle the additional loading, therefore service interruptions would not occur.

November 2016 | 2-17 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Helicopter-Assisted Construction Access roads leading to each tower site are required for construction and for operation and maintenance activities. Helicopters may be used to support these activities. Project construction activities potentially facilitated by helicopters may include delivery of construction laborers, equipment, and materials (including structures) to structure sites; structure placement; hardware installation; and wire stringing operations. Vehicle access to each structure site is required regardless of the construction method employed. To allow the construction contractor flexibility in which construction methods can be used, the construction specification will be written to allow the contractor the option of using ground-based or helicopter construction methods, or a combination thereof. Use of a helicopter for structure erection may be driven by various factors, including access to the structure locations, construction schedule, and/or construction economics.

Existing 115 kV Line Decommissioning and Rebuild Process The construction sequence would allow for the safe construction of the new lines. Prior to construction of the new 230 kV line, the existing 115 kV line would be taken out of service and demolished by section from dead-end to dead-end. The de-energized line and old structures and conductor would be removed and taken to an off-site location and disposed. Old concrete foundations would be removed to approximately 2 to 3 feet below grade and the area filled with soil or gravel. Following decommissioning of the existing 115 kV line, the new double circuit line would be constructed within the expanded right-of-way. The expanded right-of-way would retain the original 115 kV centerline to the extent possible; however, the centerline may shift in some areas (expanding more to one side of centerline than the other) to avoid encroachment into other existing clearances or sensitive resources.

2.3.5 Substations

Grants Pass Substation Upgrades The new 230 kV transmission line would begin at Pacific Power’s existing Grants Pass Substation (Figure 2-1), located on private land near Grants Pass, Oregon. The substation would require new and upgraded equipment to accommodate the new transmission line, including a new 230 kV bay with two breakers to terminate the line. New equipment would be installed within the existing substation fence.

New Sams Valley Substation The new 230 kV transmission line would terminate at a new 500/230 kV substation on private land in Sams Valley, an unincorporated community in Jackson County, Oregon. The substation would be built in 2018. The substation would occupy approximately 20 acres and consist of a fenced and secured graveled yard containing transformers and switches. Existing vegetation on-site would be cleared and the site would be filled, graded, and insulating rock would be installed. Access would occur via existing access roads from Oregon Route 234. Improvement to the existing access roads off of Oregon Route 234, would involve widening to 14 feet, removing vegetation, blading to shape existing road surface, and placing surfacing aggregate (i.e., gravel) to maintain or restore

2-18 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

existing road surfacing. Culvert replacement may occur if necessary during access road improvement. Approximately 3.5 acres of wetlands would be filled for substation site development. Impacts to these wetlands would be mitigated, through the purchase of credits from a mitigation bank, to satisfy Department of State Lands (DSL) and USACE permitting requirements.

2.3.6 System Maintenance As allowed in the existing right-of-way grant, Pacific Power would maintain the proposed system through line maintenance and vegetation management activities. Ongoing maintenance activities would be similar to those used for the existing 115 kV and 230 kV transmission lines and in accordance with Pacific Power’s Overview of Operation & Maintenance Activities for Electric Transmission and Distribution Power Lines (2012). Vegetation management within and along the right-of-way and access roads would occur periodically to keep vegetation a safe distance from the conductor, maintain access to structures, and to help control noxious weeds. Vegetation management is guided by Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015). Vegetation management methods include manual methods (e.g., chainsaws, handsaws, pruning shears), mechanical methods (e.g., slashbuster), and/or chemical methods (e.g., herbicide use). Herbicide use on BLM lands would be restricted to BLM-approved herbicides and application methods. Trees located on or off the right-of-way that are identified as a danger1 or hazard would be removed on an as-needed basis as part of the Proposed Action and through the life of the Project. Danger and hazard trees would be felled with a chainsaw, feller buncher, or other mechanical means and branches would be lopped and either scattered or chipped. If chipped, the chips would be broadcast. How trees are felled and disposed of generally depends on the location of the trees and agreements with landowners. Because danger and hazard trees are the property of landowners, they are free to utilize them as they wish. Pacific Power would discuss tree removal activities with landowners and federal land managers prior to removal. Areas disturbed by construction activities, except permanent road surfaces, would be reseeded with a site-specific native seed mix approved by BLM or a seed mix agreed on with private landowners.

2.3.7 Vegetation Clearing and Management Temporary vegetation clearing would be needed to accommodate right-of-way widening, temporary work areas, staging areas, pulling and tensioning sites, and access road improvements. Where shrubs or herbaceous vegetation need to be temporarily cleared, to the extent feasible, the vegetation would be crushed, cut, or mowed, leaving the root ball in place so plants could revegetate. All areas temporarily cleared during construction would be allowed to revegetate following construction.

1 Danger trees are trees on or off the right-of-way that may contact electric facilities either through growth or by falling.

November 2016 | 2-19 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Permanent vegetation clearing would include vegetation that could potentially affect the transmission line, mainly tall growing trees that would exceed transmission line clearance requirements, which vary relative to the location of the structures and projected line sag. Tree removal would generally only be needed within the additional corridor added to either side of the right-of-way, but could be necessary within the existing right-of-way if incompatible species exist. Trees would either be removed or pruned, depending on the tree species, growth rate, and conditions of the tree (i.e., dead or dying). Hazard trees2 located outside of the right-of-way with the potential to fall and impact facilities may also require removal. The majority of trees would be downed and debris would be lopped and scattered within the right-of-way. Existing snags within the right-of-way would be retained, provided they are not a safety hazard (i.e., have the potential to fall onto the line or encroach on minimum clearance standards). Permanent vegetation clearing would also be needed for installation of up to 120 new structure foundations (between 4 and 8 feet in diameter each) along the new 230 kV line. Up to 0.1 acre of existing vegetation at new structure sites would be permanently replaced by the foundations. In addition, approximately 20 acres of existing vegetation would be permanently replaced for development of the new substation. The substation site would be cleared, graded, and rocked. Clearing activities outside of the right-of-way would only be required for access road improvements (i.e., improving existing roads), pulling and tensioning sites, hazard tree removal, and development of the new substation. In total, approximately 193.1 acres within the right-of-way and 34.1 acres outside of the right-of-way would be temporarily cleared of vegetation during site preparation (Table 2-4). Approximately 15.1 acres within the right-of-way and 23.8 acres outside of the right-of-way would be permanently cleared of vegetation.

Table 2-4. Vegetation Clearing Area Permanently Cleared (acres) Areas Temporarily Cleared (acres)

Ownership Within Right-of- Outside Right-of- Within Right-of- Outside Right- way way way of-way BLM 3.9 1.6 40.4 6.8 Private 11.1 22.2 152.7 27.3 Total 15.1* 23.8 193.1 34.1

* Approximately 0.1 acre of permanent vegetation clearing was added to the total to account for installation of up to 120 new structure foundations. Structure locations are not known at this time; therefore, impacts to land ownership resulting from new structure foundations cannot be calculated at this time. Following construction, vegetation within the right-of-way would be maintained as specified in Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015) using a variety of integrated vegetation management control methods, including manual, mechanical, chemical, biological, and

2 Hazard trees are dead, dying, diseased, deformed, or unstable trees that have a high probability of falling and contacting a substation, distribution or transmission conductors, structure, guys, or other electric facility.

2-20 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

cultural options. Vegetation types and heights allowed within the corridor vary within the wire zone-border zone3 and conductor to ground clearance height.

2.3.8 Project Design Features A number of project design features are included in the Proposed Action in an effort to avoid and minimize potential impacts during construction and operation of the proposed Project. The proposed project design features include:

General  A Construction/Environmental Inspector would be procured by and report to Pacific Power. The Construction/Environmental Inspector would be responsible for preconstruction identification of sensitive resources, including flagging and staking such resources as applicable, and would be responsible for ensuring compliance with environmental protection measures. The Construction/Environmental Inspector would have the authority to temporarily stop work that is in violation of these measures until the construction manager can be contacted and a mutually satisfactory solution to the violation can be identified. The Construction/Environmental Inspector would be available during ground disturbing construction activities, including clearing, access road work, transmission line and distribution line construction, and cleanup and restoration activities.  Clearing limits established for this Project would be flagged on the ground, and would be monitored by the Construction/Environmental Inspector during construction.  Blasting methods may be used in rocky areas or area where soils do not permit typical excavation or use of a vehicle-mounted power auger. All safeguards associated with using explosives (e.g., blasting mats) would be employed. Blasting activities would be coordinated with the appropriate agencies, particularly for purposes of safety and protection of sensitive areas and biological resources. If blasting activities are needed, the contractor would comply with applicable regulations and standards established by the regulatory agencies, codes, and professional societies, including the rules and regulations for storage, transportation, delivery, and use of explosives. Whenever blasting operations are in progress, explosives would be stored, handled, and used as provided by law, including safety and health regulations for construction.  Trash and food items generated by construction and maintenance activities would be promptly stored or removed from the project site.  Unused materials and equipment would be removed from the area on completion of work.  Stakes, flagging, and fencing used to identify and delineate sensitive and other locations in the construction area would be removed after restoration measures are complete.

3 On flat terrain, the wire zone is the right-of-way portion directly under the wires and roughly 10 feet to the field side of the outside phases. The border zone ranges from 10 feet outside the outer phases to the right-of-way edge.

November 2016 | 2-21 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Air Quality  Dust control measures would be implemented whenever dust plumes from construction, road access, or road maintenance exceed 60 feet in height more than 100 feet from the centerline of the work area. Dust control would be achieved by use of water or water-based biodegradable polymers or other compounds approved for dust control in Oregon.  Construction vehicles would travel at low speeds (15 to 25 mph) on unpaved roads and at construction sites to minimize dust.  Vehicle engines would be in good operating condition to minimize exhaust emissions.

Soils  An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) would be developed and implemented to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Measures outlined in the ESCP may include use of silt fences, mulch, native grass seed, or other erosion and sediment control measures to minimize and mitigate short-term erosion and sedimentation hazards where road construction, heavy travel, grading, or ground disturbance would occur.  Transmission structures would be located on the lowest slope gradients to the extent feasible within the overall design of the Project. Placement of structures within fragile soils would be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.  Spoils from structure excavations (native excavated material not used as backfill) would be spread around structures within the right-of-way and graded to match surrounding contours. During spreading of soils, existing vegetation would be avoided to the extent possible.  Construction areas would be monitored to determine the need to modify any BMPs during construction.  Protective measures would be applied to all areas of disturbed, erosion-prone, unprotected ground in accordance with the ESCP or SWPPP. Protective measures may include water bars, water dips, grass seeding, planting deep rooted vegetation, and/or mulching.  Construction operations will avoid, to the extent feasible, the disturbance of soil during the wet season to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and soil compaction.  Surface disturbing activities in fragile granitic soils would be avoided to the extent possible. If necessary, activities within fragile soils would occur during dry soil conditions and be rehabbed before wet (saturated soil) conditions occur. If surface runoff is occurring, construction activities would be suspended.

Water Resources  An ESCP would be developed and implemented to minimize erosion and sedimentation to water bodies.

2-22 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

 A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan would be implemented during construction to reduce the potential for chemical spills and transport to nearby streams.  Vehicles would be fueled at least 200 feet from any wetland or water body to avoid potential impacts to water quality.  During vegetation removal activities, stream protection measures would be implemented in accordance with Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015).

Vegetation  Vegetation removal would be conducted in accordance with Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015).  Slash piles would be lopped and scattered in accordance with Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015).  Blading of native plant communities would be minimized during construction, consistent with safe construction practices.  Access road improvements would be limited to the minimum width necessary to safely move equipment, materials, and personnel into and out of the construction area. Following construction, improved access roads would be allowed to revegetate within the expanded roadway margins.  Pacific Power would prepare a revegetation plan in consultation with BLM and private landowners. The plan would specify disturbance types and their appropriate revegetation techniques to be applied for proposed project work areas and access roads. Techniques used on BLM land would be preapproved and would include reseeding with certified weed-free native or other acceptable species.

Noxious Weeds  Prior to construction, the right-of-way located on BLM-administered land would be surveyed for noxious weed infestations. If found, infestations would be reported to the ODA and the BLM.  Weed pre-treatment (mowing, removal of seedheads/weeds, or herbicide use, where appropriate) may be employed prior to disturbance in areas where weeds are heavily concentrated.  All disturbed areas would be stabilized and reseeded following the disturbance to further inhibit weeds from becoming established. Straw, mulch, and seeds used in revegetation efforts would be weed free.  Equipment would be cleaned of attached soils and plant material prior to mobilizing equipment into the project area.

November 2016 | 2-23 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

 Clean gravel or a concrete mix may be used to backfill the structures pole holes where native material is unsuitable for providing necessary stability. Gravel or fill would be obtained from an approved weed-free commercial source.  Vegetation management, in accordance with Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015), would occur within and along the right-of-way and access roads periodically to help control noxious weeds.  On BLM land, bare ground left after road widening or installation or removal of poles would be seeded with site-specific native seed approved by the BLM. As part of the reclamation plan, periodic inspections of disturbed areas, where infestations or populations of noxious weed have been identified, would take place up to 3 years after construction. Disturbed areas that have been reseeded (e.g., improved access roads) would be checked and reseeded, as necessary.

Wildlife  Clearing of forest and shrub-steppe vegetation would be minimized by limiting activity to those areas that are directly impacted by construction activities and trees that pose a hazard to the proposed transmission line. Existing snags within the right-of- way would be retained, provided they are not a safety hazard (i.e., have the potential to fall onto the line, encroach on minimum clearance standards, or hinder operations and maintenance).  Existing downed woody material would be left in place, to the extent possible, or lopped and scattered.  Riparian vegetation removal would take place in accordance with Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015). A Pacific Power forester would coordinate with the agencies prior to vegetation work and discuss any known avian issues or other concerns the agencies may have and plan the work accordingly.  Trees that are found to contain active nests of protected bird species (i.e., migratory bird species, threatened or endangered bird species, and bald or golden eagles) would not be removed until after the young have fledged. Active nests may be disturbed (i.e., vegetation management may take place in the vicinity of the nest) in rare cases if there is an immediate risk (e.g., fire, electrical safety risk, or there is a hazard or danger tree).  Construction activities would not occur within 0.25 to 1.0 mile, depending upon species, of an active raptor nest during the nesting season, typically between January 1 and August 15, until consultation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and BLM (if located on BLM land) occurs to determine the appropriate nest management action, or until the young fledge. Where helicopters may be used, a flight plan would be developed for transit between the established laydown areas and construction sites to avoid direct overflight of known, active eagle nests or winter roosts that are located in the general vicinity of the project area. Additionally, helicopter routes would avoid direct overflight of Lower Table Rock, where historic nesting sites and golden eagle cliff habitat occur.

2-24 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

 Work activities that produce loud noises above ambient levels would not occur within specified distances (see Table 2-5 below) of any documented northern spotted owl sites during the critical early nesting period, March 1-June 30, or until two weeks after the fledging period. This seasonal restriction may be waived if protocol surveys have determined the activity center is not occupied, owls are non-nesting, or owls failed in their nesting attempt. The distances listed in Table 2-5 may be shortened if significant topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) would muffle sound between the work location and nest sites. The restricted area is calculated as a radius from a documented site or 200 additional meters from a documented or historical northern spotted owl site.

Table 2-5. Work Activities that Produce High Ambient Levels

Zone of Restricted Activity Operation Heavy equipment (including non-blasting quarry operations) 105 feet Chain saws 195 feet Impact pile driver, jackhammer, rock drill 195 feet Small helicopter or plane 360 feet* Type 1 or Type 2 helicopter 0.25 miles* Blasting; 2 pounds of explosive or less 360 feet Blasting; more than 2 pounds of explosives 1 mile

* If less than 1,500 feet above ground level.

 The transmission line would be designed and constructed in accordance with Pacific Power’s Avian Protection Plan and avian safe design standards, which meet and/or exceed Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 2006) avian safe design/construction guidance.  Construction vehicles will follow a 25 miles per hour (mph) speed limit on unposted project access roads to reduce the potential for wildlife collision.

Visual Resources  Where required, structures would be composed of corten steel to minimize visual impacts. Corten steel is weatherized/oxidized steel and generates a protective brown rust coating. These structures may increase visual compatibility with the surrounding landscape in some instances.  Non-lustrous insulators (e.g., non-ceramic insulators) and non-specular conductors would be used.

Cultural Resources  If ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, work would be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Pacific Power’s designated Professional Archaeologist, and BLM (if located on BLM land) would be contacted.

November 2016 | 2-25 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

 In the event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, work would be immediately halted within 100 feet of the discovery, the discovery covered and secured against further disturbance, and law enforcement personnel, SHPO, BLM, and authorized representatives of the concerned American Indian tribes would be contacted.

Economic and Social Environment  Easements would be negotiated with private landowners and landowners would be compensated for required transmission easements and property purchases.

Noise  Construction would comply with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s Noise Control Regulations (OAR [Oregon Administrative Rules] 340-035), which establishes permissible noise levels based on land use and proximity to sensitive receptors.

Health and Safety  Prior to starting construction, the contractor would prepare and maintain a health and safety plan.  During construction the contractor would hold crew safety meetings at the beginning of each work day to review potential safety issues and concerns.  At the end of each work day the contractor would secure the site, as much as possible, to protect equipment and the general public.  To minimize the risk of fire in less-accessible forested areas, Pacific Power would establish and maintain safe clearances between the tops of trees and the proposed transmission line. Hazard trees within or adjacent to the right-of-way that could cause electricity to arc from the transmission line or pose a hazard if they fall and come in contact with the line would be felled or topped to create snags.  Contract crews would be required to carry fire suppression equipment on board equipment and vehicles and crews would be trained in proper use of the equipment. In addition, Contractor personnel would be trained in whom to contact in case of emergencies.  If work takes place during a fire warning, contract crews would obtain an Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) permit, have water available, remove brush, and limit work hours. 2.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Table 2-6 presents a summary of the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives evaluated in this EA. Impacts on specific resources were characterized as high, moderate, low, or no impact based on consideration of the impacts intensity and duration. A more detailed explanation of how impact levels (high, moderate, or low) were assigned is provided in Section 3.1.

2-26 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Environmental Proposed Action No Action Resource Land Use, Approximately 102.0 acres of land would be permanently impacted as a Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission Transportation, result of the Project. However, there would be no change in line would have low impacts to land use, transportation, and and Recreation landownership. This conversion of existing land uses to right-of-way recreation resulting from temporary and localized disturbance and would be minor relative to the amount of each land use type available in disruption of activities, noise and dust, and minor traffic delays. the surrounding area. Additionally, the expanded right-of-way would not affect adjacent land uses and would not preclude the use of the right- of-way by compatible land uses (e.g., agriculture and grazing). Therefore, land use impacts are expected to be low. Construction impacts on transportation from increased construction traffic and lane closures would be short-term and are expected to be low as construction-related traffic would represent a low increase in daily traffic compared to the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for roads in the project area. Construction traffic, noise, and fugitive dust impacts to recreation areas would be minimal and short-term and would not inhibit their continued use; therefore, recreation impacts are expected to be low. Geology and Soils Direct impacts on soils could result from clearing of vegetation, grading, Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission and compaction of soils by heavy equipment during construction. The line would have low impacts on soils resulting from incidental use of Project would involve approximately 266 acres of soil disturbance, most access roads and routine vegetation-hazard management. of which (227.2 acres) would be temporary and revegetated following construction. Implementation of erosion control BMP’s and avoidance of many steep slope areas would reduce construction-related soil impacts; therefore, impacts to geology and soils are expected to be low to moderate. Low impacts would be associated with short-term soil disturbances that do not increase erosion rates, whereas moderate impacts would be associated with soil disturbances in sensitive areas (e.g., areas of steep slopes, wet soils, or erodible soils) that result in above normal rates of erosion or soil compaction.

November 2016 | 2-27 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Environmental Proposed Action No Action Resource Water Resources Perennial streams and wetlands along the transmission line corridors Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission would either be avoided entirely (e.g., vehicles routed around) or line would have low impacts on water resources resulting from crossed by existing bridges. Ground disturbance from construction incidental use of access roads and routine vegetation-hazard activities could cause erosion and temporary increases in management. sedimentation to nearby surface waters or wetlands. While temporary impacts to water quality could occur, the impact on overall wetland or water functioning would be minor and long term impacts are not anticipated; therefore, the overall impact to surface waters and wetlands would be low. Development of the proposed new substation would result in approximately 3.5 acres of permanent impacts to three jurisdictional wetlands at the proposed substation site near Table Rocks. However, compensatory mitigation would reduce the substation’s impact on these wetlands to low. Botanical Temporary (227.2 acres) and permanent (38.9 acres) vegetation Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission Resources removal would result in the conversion of some habitat types from line would have low impacts on vegetative communities resulting from covered/forested habitat to more open/shrub scrub or herbaceous incidental use of access roads, minor road improvements, and routine habitat. In addition, the movement of construction equipment and other vegetation-hazard management. vehicles along access roads would increase the potential for the spread of noxious weeds. Rare plants were not detected within the project area during field surveys. If rare plants are discovered during construction, operation, or maintenance activities, actions would be taken to avoid and protect those areas. With implementation of the project design features during construction and operation, impacts to native plant communities would be minimized. The majority of vegetation clearing (227.2 acres) would be temporary and would impact shrub scrub or herbaceous vegetation types, which can re-establish to preconstruction conditions within 5 years or less; therefore, project-related impacts on botanical resources would be low.

2-28 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Environmental Proposed Action No Action Resource Fish and Wildlife During construction, wildlife species within close proximity to the project Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission area could be affected by increased noise and human activity, causing line would have low impacts on aquatic and terrestrial habitats them to avoid construction areas or surrounding areas. Most special resulting from occasional use of access roads, as-needed road status species are unlikely to occur within the project area due to lack improvements, and routine vegetation-hazard management. of suitable habitat. The conversion of some covered/forested habitats to more open/shrub scrub or herbaceous habitats could result in a loss of habitat for some species and a habitat improvement for other species. Most impacts would be temporary and would not result in mortality or injury to species. Permanent loss of potential habitat would be minor due to collocation with an existing transmission line and relative to the amount of habitat available in the surrounding area, and would not preclude wildlife use of the project area. Most vegetation clearing (227.2 acres) would be temporary and would impact shrub scrub or herbaceous habitat types, which are common in the surrounding area and can re-establish to preconstruction conditions within 5 years or less. Therefore, wildlife impacts are expected to be low. Fish bearing streams that are crossed by the Project would either be avoided entirely or protected from disturbance through the use of existing bridges and culverts. With the implementation of erosion and sediment control measures, temporary impacts on fish habitat from increased sedimentation are expected to be low. Visual Resources Permanent visual modifications would result from the installation of new Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission project components, including approximately 90 to 120 new double line would have low impacts on visual resources resulting from circuit structures and one new substation. The addition of new incidental use of access roads, minor road improvements, and routine structures would be consistent with the existing character of the vegetation-hazard management. landscape and visual impacts resulting from new structures are expected to be unnoticeable to most viewer groups. While the visual impact of the proposed Sams Valley Substation would be substantial for adjacent residents, impacts to travelling motorists on OR-234 would be brief and intermittent as they approached and passed the substation. All other project-related visual impacts would be largely unnoticeable; therefore, visual impacts resulting from the Project as a whole are expected to be moderate.

November 2016 | 2-29 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Environmental Proposed Action No Action Resource Socioeconomic Some short-term property impacts to property owners would occur Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission Environment during project construction activities. Construction employment and line would have low impacts on socioeconomic resources. expenditures would temporarily benefit the local economy. Most Maintenance and repairs could result in temporary impacts to construction workers would commute and available housing would individuals and households similar to the impacts described under the accommodate those that temporarily move to the area. The overall Proposed Action; however, there would be no impact to population, impact of construction-related activities on the project area economy, housing, the economy, or property values. Potential outages of the while positive, is expected to be temporary and low. Approximately existing 115 kV line would remain a concern due to a lack of system 21 acres of agricultural land would be permanently impacted by the reliability and redundancy. In the event of an outage, business and new substation and expansion of the right-of-way corridor; however, school disruptions would have a negative economic impact on the agricultural uses that are compatible with the transmission line right-of- region affected. way would be allowed to return following construction. To further minimize permanent agricultural impacts, Pacific Power would compensate landowners for the value of commercial crops damaged or destroyed by construction activities. The Project would have limited long-term economic impacts in the local area. However, the transmission line may contribute to regional stability and economic growth by reliably meeting power demands. Because the amount of land permanently impacted is low, the long-term economic impact of the Project would be low. The substation’s impact on surrounding property values could range from negligible to moderate depending on future land use development and real estate market trends. The minority and low-income populations in the census tracts crossed by the Project are less than that of the state and surrounding counties. While minority and low-income individuals may experience construction-related impacts in the same manner as other individuals, temporary construction impacts are considered to be low to environmental justice populations and all individuals and households potentially affected by the Project. Cultural Resources Given the avoidance and monitoring measures proposed and the fact Because no construction activities or right-of-way acquisition would that the project area includes a number of existing transmission take place under the No Build Alternative, impacts to archaeological facilities such as Pacific Power’s 115 kV and 230 kV lines and or historic resources are anticipated to be low. associated substations, as well as BPA transmission facilities, impacts to cultural resources are expected to be low.

2-30 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Environmental Proposed Action No Action Resource Fire and Fuels During operation and maintenance of the Project, vegetation that is The fire risk associated with continued operation of the existing overgrown and poses a hazard to the transmission line would be transmission line would remain low. cleared on an as-needed basis. The substation will be designed and constructed in accordance with all fire and safety land use regulations and guidelines. The substation site would be covered with non flammable rock. Therefore, the Proposed Action is expected to pose a low fire risk. Air Quality An increase in dust and particulate matter during soil-disturbing Maintenance activities would continue to result in low impacts to air activities and travel on unpaved surfaces would be the main air quality quality from emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicular traffic and concern. Increased vehicle emission during construction would be equipment, mainly from the generation of dust and particulates in localized, temporary, and relatively small compared to current work areas. emissions in surrounding areas. Project design features would be implemented to reduce construction air quality impacts. Additionally, the project area is not located within a designated nonattainment area and impacts on air quality are not expected to result in the exceedances of NAAQS based on typical emissions for construction equipment. Therefore, impacts to air quality are expected to be low. Noise, Public During operation of the Project, the transmission line would produce No construction noise would be generated under the No Action Health, and Safety corona-generated noise similar to noise levels associated with the alternative. The existing transmission line would continue to generate existing 115 kV transmission line. Construction activities would also low levels of corona noise and low EMF levels. Potential outages of result in temporary, intermittent, and transient noise as construction the existing 115 kV line would remain a concern due to a lack of activities progress along the right-of-way. Operational noise levels system reliability and redundancy. In the event of a prolonged outage, would remain below the state of Oregon’s noise impact thresholds for medical services and emergency response capabilities could be residential areas. Therefore, noise impacts resulting from the compromised, potentially impacting public health and safety. transmission line would be low. Although electric and magnetic field (EMF) levels would increase under the Proposed Action, they would remain well below the 833-9,000 milligauss (mG) limit for magnetic field exposure and the 28 kilovolts per meter (kV/m) lower range of perceptibility. Therefore, public health and safety impacts resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be low.

November 2016 | 2-31 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Prior to selection of the location of facilities included in the Proposed Action, Pacific Power identified and evaluated three preliminary transmission route alternatives and eight substation site alternatives. The following sections summarize these alternatives and explain why alternatives were eliminated.

2.5.1 Transmission Route Alternatives In addition to the proposed transmission line route, two additional potential routes for the transmission line were evaluated:  Alternative 2: Location of a new 125-foot right-of-way corridor adjacent to the existing 100-foot corridor. Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed transmission line route in terms of location, jurisdictional boundaries, land use, and land ownership. However, Alternative 2 would require additional adjacent right-of-way compared to the proposed transmission line route, thereby increasing environmental and landowner impacts.  Alternative 3: Location of a new 125-foot corridor south of the Proposed Alternative, adjacent to the Rogue River. Alternative 3 would cross four local jurisdictions (Josephine and Jackson Counties and the cities of Rogue River and Gold Hill), requiring more approvals in comparison to the proposed transmission line route. This alternative would include a new transmission line routed through the cities of Rogue River and Gold Hill, which have many more residences located along the corridor in comparison to the proposed transmission line route. This could result in greater potential residential concerns regarding safety, visual, and property value impacts. Gold Hill is also known to have a concentration of sensitive cultural resources. Additionally, Alternative 3 would be near the Rogue River and would cross state park land, resulting in potential recreational and visual impacts, as well as needed approval from Oregon State Parks. The alternative routes were evaluated and compared in terms of potential development constraints related to public services and infrastructure, land use and ownership, and hydrologic, biological, and cultural and archeological resources within the project area. Both alternatives would require a new 125-foot corridor, resulting in greater impacts. The proposed transmission line route would have the lowest potential for residential, property value, recreational, biological, cultural, and visual impacts when compared to the alternatives. Therefore, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.

2.5.2 Substation Siting Alternatives A substation alternatives analysis was completed for the Project to identify potential substation sites and determine the most reasonable alternative, in terms of cost, logistics, and environmental impacts. In addition, because development of the proposed substation site will result in wetland impacts, the substation alternatives analysis was also completed to fulfill USACE and DSL permit requirements for a Department of the Army Standard Individual Permit. The original Alternatives Analysis was completed in

2-32 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

April 2016 and a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis was completed in September 2016 to address public comments received on the DSL wetland permit (Application Number APP0059031). The original Alternatives Analysis is included as an attachment to the removal-fill permit application, which can be viewed on DSL’s website: http://docs.dsl.state.or.us/PublicReview/docview.aspx?id=2817047&dbid=0. A total of nineteen substation siting alternatives, including the proposed substation site, were evaluated during preliminary design phases of the Project. These sites were chosen based on their ability to meet the following design and siting criteria:  Design: The new substation must be 500 kV/230 kV to provide a means of interconnection for a new 230 kV line and the existing Dixonville-Meridian 500 kV line. In addition, the substation footprint (size, shape, and configuration) is predetermined by required clearances and terminations, and cannot be modified to fit into smaller or narrower, oddly-shaped parcels. The proposed substation has been designed to fit into the smallest footprint possible and there are no additional design changes that would result in a smaller substation footprint.  Security: A new substation that interconnects a new 230 kV line and the existing Dixonville-Meridian 500 kV line is necessary to meet security and redundancy requirements of NERC and WECC. System modeling indicates that concentration and/or expansion of existing substations is not feasible. Co-locating the new 500/230 kV substation with the existing Meridian or Whetstone Substations (i.e., immediately adjacent and connected to the existing substation) would result in greater security risks when compared to a separate facility and is not recommended. Therefore, co-location of the substation with existing substations was not considered an option when selecting potential sites.  Location: Reasonable alternatives were only considered within close proximity (<1 mile) to the existing 500 kV and 115kV transmission line corridors, which run parallel to each other between the proposed Sams Valley site and Agate Road, just west of White City, Oregon, where the transmission lines diverge.. Unless the substation is located directly underneath the existing corridor, extra tap line connections would be required between the substation and 500 kV and proposed230 kV lines. These connecting tap lines would require an additional 250-foot-wide right-of-way for the 500 kV line and 125-foot-wide right-of-way for the 230 kV line, resulting in substantially higher construction costs, and increased right- of-way acquisitions and residential displacements. In addition, tap lines would require additional permits, approvals, and easements that would introduce further logistical constraints and challenges to the Project. For these reasons, sites located far away (more than 1 mile) from the existing 500 kV corridor were considered unreasonable per the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) requirements for ensuring reasonable costs to the rate payers and were excluded from consideration in this analysis. In addition, sites that are located on currently developed properties (e.g., residential or industrial structures present), or within the designated 100-year floodplain, were excluded from consideration. All nineteen of the substation alternatives were evaluated and compared in terms of costs (for construction, land acquisition, right-of-way easements, and residential displacements), logistics (number of right-of-way easements, permits/approvals), aquatic

November 2016 | 2-33 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

impacts (wetlands and waters), and environmental impacts (land use, residential displacements, floodplains, fish and wildlife habitat, and threatened and endangered species). When compared to the proposed substation site, all other alternatives would result in greater land use and right-of-way impacts, substantially higher costs, and logistical constraints. Seventeen of the alternatives would require construction of at least one tap line. Within the tap line right-of-way, existing residences would be displaced and land uses that are incompatible with the tap line would be permanently converted from their existing use to a transmission line right-of-way. In addition, sites located beyond the proposed substation location in Sams Valley would require the proposed 230 kV double- circuit line to be extended from the proposed Sams Valley location to the alternative site location. As a result, every alternative to the proposed substation site resulted in increased costs, increased impacts to land use and residences, and increased logistical constraints and uncertainties associated with right-of-way easements and residential displacements. When compared to the proposed substation site, seventeen of the alternatives required more land to be purchased/leased for the substation site (29 to 80 acres, compared to 20 acres for proposed site) and tap line right-of-way easements (6 to 59 acres compared to 0 acres for proposed site). Eight of the alternatives resulted in a greater potential for residential displacements (1 to 4 displacements compared to 0 displacements for proposed site). Ten of the substation alternatives were estimated to result in greater wetland impacts (approximately 6 to 20 acres at each site based on aerial wetland mapping) when compared to the proposed substation site, and two alternatives were estimated to have greater impacts to streams, floodplains, and/or fish habitat. Seventeen of the substation alternatives had unreasonably high costs associated with tap line construction, residential displacements, and right-of-way easements; the cost for these alternatives ranged from a 7 percent to 39 percent increase above the proposed substation site cost. Additionally, the same seventeen alternatives had substantial logistical constraints associated with right-of-way easements and residential displacements that would introduce uncertainty into the Project. Therefore, none of the alternatives to the proposed substation site would qualify as a less environmentally damaging alternative to the proposed substation site, when considering residential, land use, and/or aquatic impacts at each alternative site. All but one alternative had unreasonably high costs and logistical constraints. The one alternative that did not have unreasonably high costs and logistical constraints was not chosen due to greater wetland, stream, land use, and right-of way impacts when compared to the proposed substation site.

2-34 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects 3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing physical, biological, social, and economic environment of the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Table 2-6 of Chapter 2. The effects discussed take into account BMPs and environmental commitments outlined in Section 2.3. The specific resources discussed in this chapter include:  Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation  Geology and Soils  Water Resources  Botanical Resources  Fish and Wildlife  Visual Resources  Socioeconomic Environment  Cultural Resources  Fire and Fuels  Air Quality  Noise, Public Health, and Safety Each resource-specific section includes a description of the analysis area and potentially affected environment, an analysis of the impacts on that resource, and where applicable, the incorporated project design features that would reduce impacts. Based on the analysis in this EA, impacts on specific resources were characterized as high, moderate, low, or no impact. Impacts were evaluated after accounting for the implementation of project design features. In general, impact levels (high, moderate, or low) were assigned based on the resource’s quality, sensitivity, and rarity as well as the duration, intensity, and extent (e.g., acreage) of the impact. Applicable regulatory thresholds, or impact thresholds, identified under BLM’s Resource Management Plan (RMP) were also considered, when appropriate. Impact levels are generally defined as follows: High: Project creates a substantial adverse change or stress (e.g., permanent and high intensity or large area impacted) to a high quality, highly sensitive, or rare resource. Also includes failure to comply with applicable regulations, plans, or policies. Moderate: Project creates some change or stress (ranging from substantial to insubstantial) to a moderate quality, moderately sensitive, or rare resource.

November 2016 | 3-1 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Low: Project creates a minor change (temporary and low intensity or small area impacted) or stress to a low quality or common resource with low sensitivity. 3.2 Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation

3.2.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for land use, transportation, and recreation includes the project area (right-of-way corridor and access roads) and surrounding land uses, transportation routes, and recreation sites within 0.25 mile of the project area. This distance represents a reasonable maximum distance within which construction-related noise, air quality, and traffic impacts could cause disturbance to land uses, transportation systems, or recreational users.

Land Ownership Landowners whose property is crossed by the existing transmission line and access roads, as well as any proposed project facilities (structures, transmission line, access roads, and substation) include private individuals and BLM (Medford District) (Figure 2-1). As shown in Table 3-1, approximately 4.5 miles of the transmission line and 5.3 miles of access roads would be located on BLM land. The remaining 18.0 miles of transmission line, 17.7 miles of access roads, and the proposed new substation would be located on private land.

Table 3-1. Project Features by Landowner Miles of Transmission Landowner Line/Right-of-Way Miles of Access Road BLM 4.6 5.3 Private 17.9 17.7 Total 22.5 23.0

Land Use Figure 3-1 and Table 3-2 show land uses crossed by the Project. Land uses along the project corridor primarily include shrub/grassland (approximately 66 percent of total project area), followed by agriculture (16 percent), forest (8 percent), open space (5 percent), developed land (3 percent) and wetlands or open water (2 percent) (Figure 3-1). The eastern half of the project area is located in a relatively remote setting composed of agricultural land, forest, and open space. The western half of the project area passes through the cities of Rogue River and Grants Pass and contains a more diverse mixture of land uses, including agricultural land, forest, parks/open space, residential, and industrial.

Table 3-2. Land Uses Crossed by the Project Land Use Acres in Project Area Percent of Project Area BLM Shrub/Grassland 74.7 16.2 Forest 13.9 3.0

3-2 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-2. Land Uses Crossed by the Project Land Use Acres in Project Area Percent of Project Area Agriculture 3.6 0.8 Open Space 2.5 0.5 Developed Land 0.3 0.1 Private Shrub/Grassland 228.9 49.6 Forest 22.8 5.0 Agriculture 70.6 15.3 Open Space 23.2 5.0 Developed Land 12.2 2.6 Wetlands/Open Water 8.3 1.8 Total* 461.2 100.0 Source: National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2011 *Errors may occur due to rounding

November 2016 | 3-3 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 3-1. Land Use and Recreation Areas

3-4 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Resource Management Plan BLM land is managed for uses based on RMPs. The Project crosses BLM land managed by the Medford District RMP (BLM 1995, 2016). BLM lands in the Medford District are managed for several land uses, including BLM riparian reserves, late-successional reserves, adaptive management areas, harvest land base (which includes general forest management areas and connectivity/diversity blocks), and a variety of special purpose management areas such as recreation sites, wild and scenic rivers, and visual resource management (VRM) areas. The original, 1995 RMP (page 82) also allows for right-of-way grants for utility corridors. The right-of-way objective is to “continue to make BLM-administered lands available for needed rights-of-way where consistent with local comprehensive plans, Oregon statewide planning goals and rules, and the exclusion and avoidance areas identified in this RMP.” No exclusion areas occur within the project area. However, avoidance areas do occur within the project area, including known wetlands. Wetlands that are crossed by the Project are shown on Figure 3-2 in Section 3.4. BLM’s Medford District RMP states that right-of-way may be granted in avoidance areas when no feasible alternate route or designated right-of-way corridor is available (BLM 1995). Those seeking right-of-way are encouraged to locate new facilities within existing corridors to the extent possible (BLM 1995, p. 82). The 1995 RMP established right-of- way corridors that generally followed the path of the existing Pacific Power 115 kV Grants Pass-Lone Pine transmission line (shown on map No. 12 in the RMP). The Proposed Action transmission line would utilize this corridor. The BLM recently revised the RMPs (eff. August 5, 2016) for all districts throughout western Oregon, including Medford district, which are crossed by the Project. Under the revised RMP, management objectives are similar to those under the previous RMP (1995), including sustained yield timber production, recovery and enhancement of economic value of timber, and maintaining and promoting the development of habitat for the northern spotted owl. Right-of-way uses are still allowed on BLM-administered lands provided they are consistent with the management goals and objectives of the applicable land use allocations.

Transportation The project area is located north of Interstate-5 (I-5) and the Rogue River Highway (Hwy) 99 and is crossed by OR-234 and East Evans Creek Road (Figure 1-1). Between the cities of Grants Pass and Gold Hill, l-5 and Hwy 99 travel east-west along the Rogue River, serving tourists, local residents, and commercial trucking. OR-234 originates near the city of Gold Hill and travels northeast-southwest through Sams Valley. The Project crosses the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway (OR-234) near Lower Table Rock and runs parallel (approximately 0.25 mile away) to the highway for about 2 miles. East of Lower Table Rock, the Project runs parallel to Table Rock Road for approximately 1.3 miles before crossing the Rogue River. The Project terminates at the existing Whetstone Substation off of Kirtland Road.

November 2016 | 3-5 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

I-5, Hwy 99, OR-234, Table Rock Road and Kirtland Road would be used to transport most of the equipment and materials for project construction. Most of the access roads originate from I-5 and OR-234. Between the East Grants Pass Interchange (US-199) and the city of Gold Hill, the annual average daily traffic (ADT) on I-5 is 32,320 vehicles (ODOT 2014). Between the Rogue River Highway-Rock Point Interchange and the end of the project area near Sams Valley Road, the annual ADT volume on OR-234 is approximately 2,786 vehicles (ODOT 2014).

Recreation Several recreation areas exist in the project vicinity, including parks, day use areas, hiking trails, campgrounds, greenways, and the Rogue River. Recreational sites that occur within close proximity (0.25 mile) to the project area include Lower Table Rock, the Gold Nugget day-use area, the Rogue Umpqua Scenic Byway (Hwy 234) and portions of the Rogue River (see Figure 3-1). The eastern boundary of the project area, beginning at the proposed new substation site, wraps around the eastern slope of Lower Table Rock. The Table Rocks are two unique remnant volcanic ‘islands’ (known as Lower Table Rock and Upper Table Rock) that stand alone in the center of the Rogue Valley. They are recognized as a highly scenic resource that supports sensitive habitats and species. Both Upper and Lower Table Rocks are a popular destination for hiking and wildlife viewing. The peak season for visitors is spring when wild flowers, migratory birds, and vernal pools are most active and visible; many guided hikes are offered during this time. The Table Rocks Management Area is a 4,864-acre nature preserve that is cooperatively managed by BLM and The Nature Conservancy for ecological preservation, research, environmental education, and recreation. BLM has designated 1,240 acres of Table Rocks as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern, including 1,003 acres on Upper Table Rock and 240 acres on Lower Table Rock. Lands designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern require special management attention to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect life and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA, Sec. 103). BLM recently expanded the Table Rocks ACEC boundary to include an additional 261 acres on Lower Table Rocks and 783 acres on Upper Table Rocks (BLM 2016). The expanded area includes a combination of BLM- and The Nature Conservancy (TNC)-administered lands, as well as lands managed under an Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) conservation easement. A portion of the existing 230 kV Grants Pass-Meridian transmission line (to be reconductored under the proposed project) crosses through the expanded ACEC boundary. However, this will not negatively affect the values for which the ACEC was originally designated. The Gold Nugget day-use area borders the north shore of the Rogue River and is located off of the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway (OR-234) approximately 0.25 mile south of the project area. The site is used for swimming, boating, easy hiking, and picnics. The Rogue River offers numerous recreational opportunities in the general project vicinity such as fishing, swimming, whitewater rafting, boating, and wildlife viewing. Various day-use areas, parks, and RV camp sites are located along the river between the existing Whetstone Substation and Grants Pass.

3-6 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

3.2.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, Pacific Power would continue to operate and maintain the existing transmission line. Maintenance and repairs could result in temporary impacts to land use, transportation, and recreation, including localized disturbance and disruption of activities, noise and dust, and minor traffic delays similar to the impacts described under the Proposed Action.

3.2.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action

Land Ownership Table 3-3 includes landownership impacts as a result of the right-of-way expansion, temporary tensioning and pulling sites, and existing access road improvements. Temporary impacts would result from tensioning and pulling sites and existing access road improvements outside the right-of-way corridor. Permanent impacts would result from the permanent expansion of the right of-way corridor and development of up to 120 new structure foundations and the substation site. The majority (110.7 acres) of these impacts would occur on privately owned land and only 25.5 acres of these impacts would occur on BLM-administered land. Table 3-3. Landownership Impacts

Impact (acres)

Landowner Temporary Permanent BLM 6.8 18.7 Private 27.4 83.3 Total 34.2 102.0*

* Approximately 0.1 acre of permanent vegetation clearing was added to the total to account for installation of up to 120 new structure foundations. Structure locations are not known at this time; therefore, impacts to land ownership resulting from new structure foundations cannot be calculated at this time.

Pacific Power owns the proposed substation site. Pacific Power would obtain an amended right-of-way grant from BLM and right-of-way easements would be negotiated with landowners for the corridor expansion; however, there would be no change in landownership and therefore, the impacts to landownership would be low.

Land Use Construction activities would result in temporary disruptions to land uses outside of the right-of-way, including noise, dust, and traffic. Within the project area, approximately 34.2 acres of land would be temporarily disturbed during construction activities related to tensioning and pulling sites and existing access road improvements. These temporary land use disruptions would impact 27.4 acres of privately owned land and only 6.8 acres of BLM-administered land. Following construction, temporarily disturbed areas would be allowed to revegetate and return to their existing uses. Approximately 106.0 acres of land would be permanently impacted as a result of the right-of-way corridor expansion, installation of up to 120 new structure foundations, and development of the substation. Permanent land use impacts would occur on 85.5 acres of private land and 20.4 acres of BLM-administered land. However, within these permanently impacted areas, existing

November 2016 | 3-7 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

land uses that are compatible with the transmission line right-of-way (e.g., agriculture and grazing) would be allowed to return to their existing uses following construction. Table 3-4 provides an estimate of the temporary and permanent land use impacts.

Table 3-4. Project Land Use Impacts Impacts (acres) Land Use Temporary Permanent BLM Shrub/Grassland 5.7 15.5 Forest 0 4.4 Agriculture 0.8 0.0 Open Space 0.3 0.4 Private Shrub/Grassland 16.6 45.3 Forest 0 8.5 Agriculture 7.2 19.2 Developed Land 3.1 8.4 Wetlands 0.5 1.11 Total 34.2 102.82

Source: NLCD 2011 1 Although the substation does not contain mapped NLCD wetlands, 3.5 acres of wetlands have been delineated at the site, and are documented in the Wetland and Waters Delineation Report for the Project (HDR 2015). These wetlands would be permanent impacts from development of the substation. 2 Approximately 0.1 acre of permanent vegetation clearing was added to the total to account for installation of up to 120 new structure foundations. Structure locations are not known at this time; therefore, impacts to individual land uses cannot be calculated at this time.

Approximately 22.3 acres of shrub/grassland (16.6 acres private and 5.7 acres BLM) would be temporarily impacted by vegetation clearing activities during access road widening and establishment of pulling and tensioning sites. Following construction these areas would be allowed to revegetate and return to their existing uses. Approximately 60.8 acres of shrub/grassland would be permanently impacted for expansion of the right- of-way corridor; however, shrub/grassland uses that are compatible with the transmission line right-of-way would be allowed to return following construction. Approximately 12.9 acres of forest land (8.5 acres private and 4.4 acres BLM) would be cleared during construction to accommodate right-of-way widening, access road widening, establishment of pulling and tensioning sites. Vegetation in these areas would take longer to revegetate, and within the 135-foot right-of-way, any tall growing vegetation that would exceed transmission line clearance requirements would be permanently excluded. Therefore, 12.9 acres of forested areas would be permanently converted as a result of right-of-way corridor expansion, access roads, and establishment of pulling and tensioning sites. Activities near agricultural land would result in temporary land impacts (approximately 8.0 acres total; 7.2 acres private and 0.8 acres BLM) and inconveniences to farmers and harvest operations, including displaced crops and soils during the growing season. This displacement would be minor and temporary and all temporarily disturbed cropland would be allowed to revegetate and return to their existing cropland use. Approximately

3-8 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

13.5 acres of agricultural land would be permanently impacted for development of the new substation. An additional 5.7 acre of agricultural land would be permanently impacted from expansion of the right-of-way corridor; however, agricultural uses that are compatible with the transmission line right-of-way would be allowed to return following construction. There would be approximately 3.4 acres (3.1 acres private and 0.3 acres BLM) of temporary land impacts to developed areas (i.e., residential, commercial, lawns, etc.) primarily near the city of Rogue River. Activities near residential areas would result in temporary traffic nuisances from construction vehicles and equipment along local roads and lane closures or detours. In addition, an increase in localized noise and fugitive dust levels could be noticeable to nearby residents. Construction disturbance to residents would be limited in duration (from several hours to a few days, depending on the specific site) and the overall number of residents affected at one time would be small. Approximately 8.8 acres of developed land would be permanently converted for the expansion of the right-of-way corridor; however this amount of land would be minor relative to the amount of developed land available in the surrounding area. In addition, developed uses that are compatible with the transmission line right-of-way (e.g., meets clearance and safety requirements) would be allowed to return following construction. Approximately 1.6 acres of wetlands, all of which occur on private land, are mapped by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as occurring within the temporary and permanent impact areas for the Project; however, these wetlands would be avoided during construction through the use of existing bridges or by routing construction vehicles around them. In addition, the substation site contains 4.8 acres of wetlands that are not reflected in the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) dataset, but have been delineated at the site. A portion of these wetlands (approximately 3.5 acres) would be permanently impacted by development of the substation. The conversion of existing land uses to right-of-way and substation use would be minor relative to the amount of each land use type available in the surrounding area. Additionally, the Project would not preclude existing land uses on adjacent and surrounding properties, nor would it preclude compatible land uses (e.g., agriculture and grazing) within the expanded transmission line right-of-way. Therefore, land use impacts are expected to be low. Transportation The Proposed Action has the potential to result in short-term impacts on transportation from increased traffic generated by construction vehicles and disruptions to traffic from single lane closures. For each transmission structure, approximately 4 to 6 crews, each operating between 3 and 5 large construction vehicles (i.e., pickup trucks, 2-ton trucks, tractor/trailer, fork lift, or crane) would access the project area via existing access roads and county, state, or private roads. I-5, Hwy 99, OR-234, Table Rock Road, and Kirkland Road would be used to transport construction materials and equipment into the project area from labor and material source locations. The temporary increase in construction- related traffic would represent a low increase in daily traffic compared to the ADT volumes for roads in the project area and therefore are expected to be low.

November 2016 | 3-9 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Recreation Lower Table Rock, Rogue Umpqua Scenic Byway (Hwy 234), Gold Nugget day use area, and Rogue River are within 0.25 mile of the project area and access roads. Public use of Lower Table Rock is restricted to a designated hiking trail along the eastern ridge and slope; park users are instructed to stay on the existing trail to avoid trespassing onto private property and to prevent disturbance to ground-nesting birds, vernal pools, and other sensitive species or habitats. Localized increases in noise and dust levels during construction are unlikely to affect recreational users on the Lower Table Rock trail as it is located approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the project area. The Gold Nugget day-use area and Rogue River border OR-234 and I-5, respectively, which would be used frequently to transport construction vehicles and equipment. Short- term increases in noise and fugitive dust during construction could detract from the enjoyment of some recreation users at the Gold Nugget day use area and along the scenic byway. Additionally, short-term traffic nuisances resulting from construction vehicles and equipment along local roads could temporarily delay access to the area. Use of major roads and highways by construction vehicles may be noticeable along the scenic byway (OR-234), which could temporarily detract from its scenic character. In addition, development of the proposed substation would permanently and substantially change views for traveling motorists along the Rogue Umpqua Scenic Byway (Hwy 234) in the substation vicinity; however, this visual impact would be limited to the short duration it takes motorists to approach and pass the substation. Additional consideration of visual impacts is included in Section 3.7. Permanent recreational impacts would not result from the Project. Construction traffic, noise, and fugitive dust impacts to recreation areas would be minimal and short-term but would not inhibit the normal use of recreational areas during construction; therefore, recreation impacts are expected to be low. 3.3 Geology and Soils 3.3.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for geology and soils includes all areas subject to direct ground disturbance within the project area. This encompasses all of the project impact area, except areas spanned by helicopter. Helicopter-spanned areas encompass all areas outside the “Area of Potential Ground Disturbance” shown on Figure 2-1. The project area is located within the Klamath Mountains geologic province of Oregon. This province consists of four north-south-trending belts of metamorphic and igneous rocks that formed in an oceanic setting and subsequently collided with the North American continent about 150 million years ago (Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries [DOGAMI] 2015). This area is characterized by moderate relief and complex folded and faulted rocks bounded by belts of sparsely vegetated bands of serpentinite. The project area crosses 36 different soil map units (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2015a). Approximately 240 acres, or about half of the project area, occurs in soil map units classified as farmland of statewide importance or prime farmland.

3-10 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Slopes within the project area range from 0 to 113 percent, with an average slope of 16.2 percent (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2010). Steep slopes are generally defined as land with a slope gradient greater than 30 percent. Approximately one-third (150.0 acres) of the project area contains steep slopes. Table 3-5 shows acreage of steep slope areas within the project area by landowner.

Table 3-5. Steep Slope Areas within the Project Area Acreage of Steep Slopes within Landowner the Project Area Extent of Project Area1 (percent) BLM 57.5 12 Private 92.5 20 Total 150.0 33 Source: USGS National Elevation Dataset, Digital Elevation Model (2010) 1Total project area is 461.2 acres Table 3-6 summarizes the area and extent of erosion hazards throughout the project area. The NRCS erosion hazard ratings shown indicate the hazard of soil loss caused by sheet or rill erosion where 50 to 75 percent of the surface has been exposed by some kind of disturbance. The ratings are based on soil erosion factors, including slope, soil type, and presence of rock fragments. A large percentage of the project area (39 percent) has a soil erosion hazard rating of “very severe,” which indicates that significant erosion is expected, that roads or trails require frequent maintenance, and that erosion-control measures are needed. In addition, fragile granitic soils, which are sensitive to surface-disturbing activities are documented as occurring within a small area of BLM-administered land that is crossed by the Project; the area is located at the western end of the project corridor, in between existing tower structures 3/1 and 4/1 (where Sections 14 and 15 of Township 36S, Range 5W meet).

Table 3-6. Area and Extent of Potential Soil Erosion in the Project Area

Extent of Project Area Soil Erosion Potential Area (acres) (percent) Slight 135.2 29 Moderate 124.4 27 Severe 13.2 3 Very Severe 181.6 39 Null or Not Rated 6.8 1 Total 461.2 100 Source: NRCS 2015b

3.3.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, construction-related impacts to geology and soils would not occur. Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission line would have low impacts on soils resulting from incidental use of access roads and routine vegetation-hazard management. Systematic access road upgrades for the whole alignment are not planned; however, minor road improvements may be needed to

November 2016 | 3-11 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

access parts of the line for repairs and maintenance. Road improvements would have similar impacts to soils as those discussed under the Proposed Action.

3.3.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action Direct impacts on soils could result from clearing of vegetation, blading, grading, and compaction of soils by heavy equipment during construction. Grading removes both vegetation and the uppermost biologically active portion of the soil. Areas that lack vegetation or other man-made forms of soil stabilization have an increased risk of erosion and soil loss, which in turn can retard vegetation growth. Compaction from heavy equipment degrades soil structure, reducing pore space needed to retain moisture and promote gas exchange. Depending on the severity of the compaction, reduced soil productivity may also result. The threat of soil compaction is highest during wet weather. The majority of clearing (removal of vegetation), blading and grading activities would be temporary (227.2 acres), and would be needed to accommodate access road improvements, right-of-way widening, temporary work areas, staging areas, and pulling and tensioning sites. Permanent vegetation clearing (38.9 acres) would only occur on an as-needed basis to meet clearance requirements in the expanded portion of the right-of- way corridor, and to allow for substation development and installation of new structures. Intact vegetation would be maintained wherever possible and clearing and grading in areas with steep slopes or fragile soils would be avoided to the extent possible. Following construction, areas temporarily cleared (including roadway margins of access roads, right-of-way, and pulling and tensioning sites) would be allowed to revegetate (vegetation compatible with the operation of the transmission line would be maintained in the right-of-way). Where shrubs or herbaceous vegetation need to be temporarily cleared within the right-of-way, the vegetation would be crushed, cut, or mowed, to the extent practicable, leaving the root ball in place to prevent erosion, conserve topsoil, and allow for quicker revegetation. Potential indirect impacts on soils would be associated with soil erosion and stormwater runoff, either during or after construction, before vegetation is able to reestablish. Based on NRCS soil survey data, the risk of erosion would be moderate to severe for most of the project area. Many steep slopes would be avoided through helicopter spanning. Any slopes that are subject to ground disturbance would be protected through the implementation of erosion control measures, during construction, and revegetated following construction. An ESCP would be developed and implemented to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Measures outlined in the ESCP may include use of silt fences, mulch, native grass seed, or other erosion and sediment control measures to minimize and mitigate short-term erosion and sedimentation hazards where road construction, heavy travel, grading, or ground disturbance would occur. The extent of impacts at any one site would depend on the quality of the soils, amount of moisture in the soils, steepness of slopes in the area, and the amount of time bare soils are left unvegetated. Implementation of erosion control BMP’s and avoidance of many steep slope areas would reduce construction-related soil impacts; therefore, impacts to geology and soils are expected to be low to moderate. Low impacts would be associated with short-term soil disturbances that do not increase erosion rates, whereas moderate

3-12 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

impacts would be associated with soil disturbances in sensitive areas (e.g., areas of steep slopes, wet soils, or erodible soils) that result in above normal rates of erosion or soil compaction. 3.4 Water Resources

3.4.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for water resources includes all surface waters, wetlands, and aquifers crossed by the project area (transmission line right-of-way and access roads). In addition, activities within 300 feet of surface waters or wetlands were considered to have the potential to temporarily affect water quality during construction.

Surface Water The project area falls within the Middle Rogue Subbasin (HUC 17100308) of the Rogue River Basin. Watersheds (5th field) that are crossed by the Project include the Grants Pass-Rogue River watershed, Evans Creek watershed, and Gold Hill Rogue River watershed. Table 3-7 identifies the number of mapped streams in the project area by watershed and subwatershed. There are 165 mapped stream crossings of the project right-of-way and access roads, including 37 intermittent crossings, 115 ephemeral crossings, and 12 perennial crossings (National Hydrography Dataset). In addition, one canal/ditch is crossed by the project area. Some streams are crossed by the project area at more than one location.

Table 3-7. Mapped Streams in the Project Area

Number of Stream Watershed (5th Field) Subwatershed (6th Field) Crossings Grants Pass-Rogue River Savage Creek-Rogue River 47 Evans Creek Lower Evans Creek 11 Ward Creek-Rogue River 27 Sardine Creek-Rogue Rover 24 Gold Hill Rogue River Sams Creek Rogue River 42 Snider Creek 11 Whetstone Creek-Rogue River 3 Project Area Total 165 Source: National Hydrography Dataset Perennial streams that are crossed by the project area include East Fork Jones Creek, Bloody Run Creek, Evans Creek, Sams Creek, Sardine Creek (crossed by the Project twice), Ward Creek, Snider Creek, the Rogue River and two unnamed streams (one of which is crossed by the Project twice) (see Figure 3-2). Evans Creek and the Rogue River are the only 303(d) listed water bodies crossed by the Project. Evans Creek is 303(d) listed as water quality impaired due to coliform bacteria year-round from river mile 0 to river mile 19.1. The Rogue River is also water quality impaired due to coliform bacteria year-round river mile 0 to river mile 27.2. Both waters are included in the Rogue

November 2016 | 3-13 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

River Basin total maximum daily load (Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ] 2008). Anadromous fish species are known to occur within five perennial water bodies that are crossed by the Project (Rogue River and Evans, Sams, Sardine, and Ward Creeks). All five water bodies have fish use designations for salmon and trout spawning and rearing, and Evans Creek and the Rogue River also have fish use designations for migration. Salmon and steelhead spawning use designations are from October 15 through May 15 (DEQ 2008). Table 3-14 in Section 3.6, Fish and Wildlife, summarizes fish use of project area streams in greater detail.

Groundwater Aquifers in the project area consist of pre-Miocene, consolidated sedimentary rocks, and unconsolidated-deposits formed from alluvial deposits in the Rogue River Valley. With the exception of the City of Rogue River, who use water from groundwater, all other cities that surround the project area use surface water as their water source. Although many rural residents in the Rogue Valley use domestic water supply wells, there are only eight groundwater wells used for irrigation purposes that occur within 0.25 mile of the project area. The main groundwater quality concerns affecting wells in the rural areas of both Jackson and Josephine Counties include elevated nitrate, arsenic, and vanadium concentrations (DEQ 2013).

Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is a national wetland mapping program operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). NWI maps provide reconnaissance level information on the location, type, and size of wetlands through analysis of high altitude aerial imagery. According to NWI data (2014), there are twelve mapped wetlands that intersect the project area (Table 3-8). All twelve wetlands were digitized using aerial imagery from the 1970s. Five of the wetlands are classified as riverine and are associated with perennial streams including Evans Creek, Evans Creek Lateral, Sardine Creek, Sams Creek and the Rogue River. Four of the wetlands are classified as freshwater forested/shrub and the remaining three wetlands are classified as freshwater emergent, freshwater pond, and lake type wetlands, respectively. One of the wetlands (Wetland 12) is located at a water treatment pond south of the Rogue River. Field investigations during the spring of 2015 confirmed wetlands along Evans Creek and Sardine Creek to be present. Figure 3-2 shows the locations of mapped wetlands that are crossed by the project area. Only one mapped wetland occurs on BLM land (Wetland 5), and the remaining wetlands occur on private land.

3-14 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-8. NWI Mapped Wetlands*

Wetland ID1 Wetland Type2 Name 1 Riverine Evans Creek 2 Riverine Evans Creek Lateral 3 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Ward Creek 4 Riverine Sardine Creek 5 Riverine Sams Creek 6 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Unnamed Wetland 7 Freshwater Emergent Wetland Unnamed Wetland 8 Freshwater Pond Unnamed Pond 9 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Unnamed Wetland 10 Riverine Rogue River 11 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Unnamed Wetland 12 Lake Stormwater Treatment Pond

Source: NWI 2014 1Wetland numbers in this table correspond with wetland numbers shown on Figure 3-2 2Wetland types are defined by Cowardin et al. 1979 *Although the substation does not contain mapped NWI wetlands, an additional 4.8 acres of emergent herbaceous wetlands have been delineated within the parcels located at the substation site (see Table 3-9), and are documented in the Wetland and Waters Delineation Report for the Project (HDR 2015). Only a portion of these wetlands (approximately 3.5 acres) would be permanently impacted by development of the substation site.

November 2016 | 3-15 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 3-2. Streams and Wetlands

3-16 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Wetland delineations were performed at the proposed substation site during the summers of 2014 and 2015. The wetland delineation report is included as an attachment to the project’s removal fill permit application (Application Number APP0059031), which can be viewed on DSL’s website at: http://docs.dsl.state.or.us/PublicReview/docview.aspx?id=2817047&dbid=0. Three unmapped wetlands were identified and delineated at the proposed substation site. The wetlands drain to an unnamed tributary of Rock Creek. Table 3-9 includes a summary of delineated wetland features within the project area.

Table 3-9. Delineated Wetland Features

Size Within Project Wetland Area (acres) Cowardin Class1 HGM Class2 Wetland A 0.01 PEM Depression Wetland B 3.4 PEM Depression/slope Wetland C 0.09 PEM Depression/slope

1 Cowardin et al. 1979 2 Adamus et. al. 2010

3.4.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, construction-related impacts to water resources would not occur. Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission line would have low impacts on water resources resulting from incidental use of access roads and routine vegetation-hazard management. Systematic access road upgrades for the whole alignment are not planned; however, minor road improvements may be needed to access parts of the line for repairs and maintenance. Road improvements would have similar impacts to water resources as those discussed under the proposed alternative. 3.4.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action Surface Water Most streams crossed by the Project are ephemeral or intermittent and would be crossed by construction vehicles using existing ford stream crossings. During the summer months, many of these streams are likely to be dry, thereby limiting the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Perennial streams crossed by the Project would either be avoided entirely, or protected from disturbance through the use of existing bridges. An existing bridge would be used to cross Sardine Creek and Sams Creek. Construction vehicles would be routed around the remaining eight stream crossings and a helicopter or line gun would be used to string the new transmission line across. Helicopter-spanned areas encompass all areas outside the “Area of Potential Ground Disturbance” shown on Figure 2-1. Ground disturbance from construction activities could cause erosion and temporary increases in sedimentation to nearby surface waters. An ESCP and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan would be developed and implemented during construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation to water bodies and to reduce the potential for chemical spills and transport to nearby streams. In addition, vehicles would

November 2016 | 3-17 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

be fueled at least 200 feet from any wetland or waterbody to avoid potential impacts to water quality. Construction activities may cause minor releases of sediment to nearby water bodies resulting in short-term, localized water quality impacts. However, long-term impacts to water quality are not anticipated; therefore, the overall impact to surface water would be low.

Groundwater The Project would not contribute to groundwater contamination or altered hydrologic regimes throughout the project area. Existing groundwater concerns in the rural areas of Jackson and Josephine Counties are primarily caused by agricultural practices. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan would be implemented during construction to reduce the potential for chemicals to be introduced into the hydrologic system. Therefore, impacts to groundwater would not occur, or would be low.

Wetlands The Proposed Action would indirectly result in up to 3.5 acres of permanent impacts to three jurisdictional wetlands located at the proposed substation site. The delineated wetlands would be permanently filled to enable development of the substation. Construction of the new substation is the only project activity resulting in impacts to wetlands. These impacts would be mitigated through the purchase of credits (1:1 ratio) from a mitigation bank. With the exception of the substation site wetlands, all other wetlands in the project area would be avoided entirely or protected from disturbance, using methods similar to stream crossings. Riverine wetlands along Sams Creek are currently crossed by access roads with existing bridges. Vehicular travel would avoid the portions of the right-of-way corridor that cross wetlands associated with perennial streams including Evans Creek, Sardine Creek, Ward Creek, the Rogue River, and other unnamed streams, lakes, or ponds. A helicopter or line gun may be used in stringing the transmission line over these wetlands (such as the Rogue River) to avoid direct ground disturbance if required. Construction-related erosion or runoff could temporarily affect water quality of nearby wetlands. Staging areas and tensioning sites would be sited at least 200 feet from wetlands. Implementation of erosion control BMPs and other project design features would further reduce the potential for erosion and runoff into wetlands. These impacts to adjacent wetlands would be temporary and would have minor impacts on wetland functioning; therefore, wetland impacts would be low. 3.5 Botanical Resources 3.5.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for botanical resources includes all areas subject to direct ground disturbance within the project area. This encompasses all of the project area except areas spanned by helicopter. Helicopter-spanned areas encompass all areas outside the “Area of Potential Ground Disturbance” shown on Figure 2-1. Vegetative Communities The project area occurs within the Inland Siskiyous ecoregion (region 78e) of the Klamath Mountains in southwestern Oregon (Oregon Natural Heritage Program 1995).

3-18 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

This ecoregion lies east of the Coastal Mountain Range and is characterized by steep terrain, high stream density, high winter precipitation, historically frequent fires (fire suppression has since reduced the frequency) and coniferous forests (OWEB 2001). Based on land cover data from the NLCD (NLCD 2011), the project area crosses 13 different vegetation types; however, two types (shrub/scrub and herbaceous) make up the majority (65.8 percent) of the vegetation in the project area. Descriptions of each vegetation type are presented in Table 3-10. Hay/pasture accounts for approximately 15 percent of the project area and evergreen forests, mixed forests, and developed open space each account for approximately 4 to 6 percent of the project area. Each of the remaining land cover classifications each account for only 2 percent or less of the project area. As discussed in Section 3.4, the project area crosses many streams, ten of which are perennial streams (i.e., year-round stream flow). Although the NLCD database does not distinguish riparian habitat as a unique land cover type, it is assumed that some of the land cover types listed in Table 3-10 include localized areas of riparian habitat along project area streams. Riparian areas are broadly defined as areas adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contain elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, which mutually influence each other (Knuston and Naef 1997). Although riparian areas are small and narrow, they are known for being highly productive and distinct systems, providing valuable habitat and migration routes for a variety of wildlife species (NRCS 1996). Rare Plants Rare plants include federally-listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et seq.) as well as those listed by the state of Oregon, and plant species managed by the BLM as special status species (SSS) or Survey and Manage species. Rare plants that are likely to occur within or near the project area are described in the following sections.

BLM Special Status Species and Survey and Manage Species The BLM Medford office identified 19 special status plants species that may occur on BLM lands in the project area (Table 3-11). Of these, only two plant species are also designated by the BLM as Survey and Manage species (Table 3-11). All BLM lands within the project area (including right-of-way corridor and access roads) were surveyed during the summer of 2015 or 2016 by trained botanists for the species listed in Table 3-11; BLM lands within the proposed 230 kV corridor for the new line were surveyed in the summer of 2015, whereas BLM lands within the existing 230 kV Grants Pass-Meridian corridor were surveyed in the summer of 2016. None of the BLM SSS or Survey and Manage species were detected in the project area during the field surveys. The project area was not surveyed for fungi or lichen species included on the Survey and Manage list since habitat was determined unsuitable for these species. Survey and Manage species are closely associated with late-successional and old growth forests (180 years old or older). No forested stands on BLM land along the right-of-way meet the age criteria except two units that are south-facing dry stands dominated by madrone, which are unlikely to support Survey and Manage fungi or lichen.

November 2016 | 3-19 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-10. Land Cover Types within the Project Area Acres in Project Percent of Land Cover Description Area* Project Area* Open Water Areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation or soil. 2.4 0.5 Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and Cultivated also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20% Crops of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled. 5.7 1.2 Emergent Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for greater than 80% of vegetative cover and the soil Herbaceous or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. Wetlands 1.2 0.2 Developed, Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50% to 79% of Medium the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Intensity 2.8 0.6 Developed, Highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment High complexes, row houses and commercial/industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80% to 100% of the total Intensity cover. 2.3 0.5 Woody Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of vegetative cover and the soil or Wetlands substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. 4.8 1.0 Developed, Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20% to 49% Low percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Intensity 7.4 1.6 Mixed Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. Forest Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75% of total tree cover. 16.6 3.6 Evergreen Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. Forest More than 75% of the tree species maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. 20.1 4.4 Areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Developed, Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot Open Space single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. 25.7 5.6 Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed Hay/Pasture or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total vegetation. 68.6 14.9 Areas dominated by gramanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. Herbaceous These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. 99.2 21.5 Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total Shrub/Scrub vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage, or trees stunted from environmental conditions. 204.4 44.3 Total 461.2 100.0 Source: NLCD 2011 *Actual numbers may vary slightly due to rounding.

3-20 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-11. BLM Special Status Species Surveyed in Project Area

Detected in Species Habitat Project Area? Long-stemmed androsace Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland No (Androsace elongate acuta)

Winged-water-starwort Wetland-riparian No (Callitriche marginata) One--leaved mariposa-lily Foothill Woodland, Yellow Pine Forest No (Calochortus monophyllus) Howell’s camas Forest/Woodland, Grassland/herbaceous, No (Camassia howellii) Savanna, Woodland - Conifer Slender-flowered evening-primrose Several habitat types, often on clay soils No (Camissonia graciliflora) Coastal lipfern Rocky slopes and ledges No (Cheilanthes intertexta) Clustered lady’s-slipper* Moist to dry coniferous forests and thickets No (Cypripedium fasciculatum) Red larkspur (Dephinium nudiacule) Moist talus, cliff faces No Wayside aster* (Eucephalus vialis) Dry open oak or coniferous woods No Gentner’s Fritillary Dry, open woodlands of fir or oak No (Fritillaria gentneri) Bellinger’s meadow-foam Vernal pool edges in shallow soil of rocky No (Limnanthes floccosa spp. meadows bellingeriana) Slender nemacladus Cushion plant communities along ridges No (Nemacladus capillaris) and low hills, in areas devoid of grasses American pillwort (Pilularia Shallow water of ponds and temporary No americana) pools Austin’s plagiobothry’s Moist and wet areas No (Plagiobothrys austiniae) Coral-seeded allocarya Sparsely-vegetated shale slopes and No (Plagiobothrys figuratus spp. ridges corallicarpus) Greene’s popcorn flower Wet sites, grassland to woodland No (Plagiobothrys greenei) Southern Oregon buttercup Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna; No (Ranunculus austrooreganus) temporary pools; Open oak savannahs and grasslands and along the margins of rocky vernal pools at low elevations on a valley floor and margins. Drooping bulrush (Scirpus pendulus) Sub-irrigated alluvial soils along streams, No floodplains, wet meadows Liverwort (Porella bolanderi) Variety of rock types (siliceous, calcareous, No and metamorphic) and trunks of Quercus, Umbellularia, and Acer macrophyllum.

Source: Sams Valley Reinforcement Project Biological Report (WEST 2015, 2016) *Also listed as Survey and Manage species

November 2016 | 3-21 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Species According to the USFWS, there are eight federally listed plant species that are known to occur within Jackson and Josephine Counties (USFWS 2015). Of these species, three are also listed by the state of Oregon ([Oregon Department of Agriculture] ODA 2015, ODFW 2014). Table 3-12 includes a description of the eight identified plant species and the likelihood of each species occurrence in the project area based on species-specific habitat requirements and known habitat types within the project area. While critical habitat has been designated for some of the species included in Table 3-12, there is no critical habitat within the project area. Additional species occurrence data was obtained from the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) to determine if any of the identified federal or state listed species had been historically or recently documented within the project area (ORBIC 2014). Only one listed plant species, Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri; federally endangered), has been documented as occurring within the project area. Field surveys for Gentner’s fritillary were performed during the spring of 2015 and 2016, to coincide with the peak flowering period for the species. The proposed corridor for the new 230 kV line were surveyed in the spring of 2015, whereas the proposed Sams Valley Substation site and the existing 230 kV Grants Pass-Meridian corridor were surveyed in the spring of 2016. The survey area included accessible portions of the right-of-way corridor and access roads that are located on BLM land. In total, approximately 80 percent of the right-of-way corridor was surveyed and the remainder was not surveyed due to access and safety constraints (i.e., steep slopes and valleys). Gentner’s fritillary was not detected during 2015 or 2016 field surveys.

3-22 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-12. ESA Listed Plant Species Known to Occur in Project Area Counties Known/Documented Occurrences2,3 Does Suitable Within Habitat Occur Common Name Jackson Josephine Project within Project (Scientific name) Status1 County2 County2 Area3 Suitable Habitat Area? Siskiyou Mariposa lily OC x Narrow endemic that is restricted to three disjunct ridge No (Calochortus persistens) tops in the Klamath-Siskiyou Range near the California-Oregon border Gentner’s Fritillary E; OE x x x Dry, open woodlands of fir or oak at elevations below Yes (Fritillaria gentneri) approximately 1,360 meters. The species is highly localized within a 48-kilometer (30-mile) radius of Jacksonville Cemetery. McDonald’s rock-cress E; OE x Species is restricted to serpentine soils (high levels of No (Arabis macdonaldiana) heavy metals and low in nutrients) in dry, open woods or brushy slopes. Occurs at elevations less than 1500 meters in the Siskiyou Mountains. . Large-flowered woolly E x Not likely Meadowfoam (Limnanthes pumila ssp. grandiflora) Vernal pools and wet meadows Cook’s lomatium E; OE x x Vernal pool-mounded prairie habitat and seasonal Not likely (Lomatium Oregon) wetland habitats Whitebark pine C; OC x x Alpine/subalpine environments No (Pinus albicaulis)

1 C=Federal Candidate; T=Federally Threatened; E=Federally Endangered; OE=Oregon endangered; OC=Oregon Candidate 2 USFWS 2015, 2016; Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (OFWO) 2016 3 ORBIC 2014

November 2016 | 3-23 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

3.5.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, construction-related impacts to botanical resources would not occur. Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission line would have low impacts on vegetative communities resulting from incidental use of access roads, minor road improvements, and routine vegetation-hazard management. More specifically, access roads may be cleared during the next vegetation clearing cycle, areas around structures may be cleared for access if needed and tall growing trees may be cut if deemed a safety hazard to the transmission line.

3.5.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action Project-related impacts on botanical resources are generally discussed in this analysis, with special attention provided to rare plant species that have been documented within the project area (see Table 3-12). Vegetation would be directly affected by the Project through temporary or permanent clearing during construction. Permanent vegetation clearing would be needed to accommodate development of the new substation and installation of up to 120 new structure foundations (between 4 and 8 feet in diameter each). In addition, access road improvements, right-of-way widening, and establishment of pulling and tensioning would require some large trees to be permanently removed. Any vegetation that could potentially affect the transmission line, mainly tall growing vegetation that would exceed transmission line clearance requirements and hazard or danger trees, would require permanent removal and conversion to a compatible vegetated state. Permanent tree removal would primarily affect forested areas. The exact number and location of trees that need to be removed is not known at this time; preconstruction surveys would be performed to identify trees to be removed. Where conductor to ground clearance is 100 feet or more (e.g., a canyon or ravine crossing), tall-growing trees may be left in place as long as the conductor clearance to the vegetation tops is 50 feet or more. Trees with less than 50 feet of clearance may be selectively removed. Following construction, tall growing trees would be prohibited from growing within the expanded right-of-way, while shrub/scrub and herbaceous vegetation would be allowed to revegetate. Temporary vegetation clearing would be needed to accommodate access road improvements, right-of-way widening, temporary work areas, staging areas, and pulling and tensioning sites. All areas temporarily cleared during construction would be allowed to revegetate following construction. Temporary clearing activities would occur in the following areas:  Within the existing 40- to 100-foot right-of-way corridor, vegetation is currently maintained to meet transmission line clearance requirements and is primarily composed of low-growing shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Some of this low growing vegetation may need to be cleared to accommodate the transport and staging of construction equipment. Temporary work areas would be required around each new structure to accommodate construction vehicles and equipment used during on-site assembly and installation of new pole structures. Temporary work

3-24 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

areas would be approximately 135 feet wide by 200 feet long for new double-circuit structures along the new line, and approximately 100 feet wide by 200 feet long for replacement structures along the reconductored portion of the existing line. Following construction, these areas would be allowed to revegetate and would continue to be maintained.  The expanded portion of the right-of-way corridor would require some temporary clearing of vegetation to accommodate the transport and staging of construction equipment. Temporary clearing would primarily affect nonforested (i.e., shrub/scrub and herbaceous) habitat types. Following construction, vegetation within the expanded portion of the right-of-way corridor would be allowed to revegetate, with types and heights maintained according to Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015), in the same manner as the existing right-of-way corridor.  Improved access roads would be widened, which would require temporary vegetation clearing along the roadway margins. Following construction, expanded roadway margins would be allowed to revegetate. Access road improvements would be limited to the minimum width necessary to safely move equipment, materials, and personnel into and out of the construction area. Because access roads occur both inside and outside of the right-of-way corridor, temporary vegetation clearing associated with access road widening would also occur both inside and outside of the right-of-way corridor.  Outside of the right-of-way corridor, temporary vegetation clearing would be limited to access road widening, pulling and tensioning sites, and potential hazard tree removal. Following construction, these areas would be allowed to revegetate; however, hazard trees would continue to be removed as part of ongoing vegetation management activities along the transmission line corridor. In total, approximately 266.1 acres of vegetation would be cleared within the project area. The majority of clearing activities (227.2 acres) would be temporary and would affect shrub/scrub and herbaceous vegetation types (Table 3-13). Permanent vegetation clearing (38.9 acres) would primarily affect hay/pasture vegetation at the proposed new substation site, and mixed or evergreen forest within the expanded portion of the right-of- way. Riparian corridors would be spanned to the extent possible, retaining any existing riparian vegetation for use as wildlife travel corridors.

Table 3-13. Vegetation Clearing by Land Cover Type Area Temporarily Area Permanently Total Area Land Cover Cleared (acres) Cleared (acres) Cleared (acres) Cultivated Crops 0.61 0.0 0.61 Developed, Low Intensity 3.12 0.0 3.12 Developed, Medium Intensity 0.9 0.0 0.9 Developed, High Intensity 1.8 0.0 1.8 Developed, Open Space 11.4 2.3 13.7 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.9 0.0 0.9 Evergreen Forest 0.0 11.5 11.5 Hay/Pasture 17.92 16.2 34.12

November 2016 | 3-25 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-13. Vegetation Clearing by Land Cover Type Area Temporarily Area Permanently Total Area Land Cover Cleared (acres) Cleared (acres) Cleared (acres) Herbaceous 68.3 1.5 69.8 Mixed Forest 0.0 7.3 7.3 Open Water 0.8 0.0 0.8 Shrub/Scrub 120.28 0.0 120.28 Woody Wetlands 1.2 0.01 1.2 Total 227.2 38.92 266.10 Source: NLCD 2011 1 Although the substation does not contain mapped NLCD wetlands, 4.8 acres of wetlands have been delineated within the parcels at the substation site, and are documented in the Wetland and Waters Delineation Report for the Project (HDR 2015). Only a portion (approximately 3.5 acres) of these wetlands would be permanently cleared for development of the substation. 2 Approximately 0.1 acre of permanent vegetation clearing was added to the total to account for installation of up to 120 new structure foundations. Structure locations are not known at this time; therefore, impacts to individual land cover types cannot be calculated at this time. Temporary vegetation clearing for access road improvements, staging areas, and pulling and tensioning sites could result in the temporary conversion of habitats, from shrub scrub to herbaceous. Intact vegetation would be maintained wherever possible and following construction, areas temporarily cleared would be allowed to revegetate and return to their existing uses. Where shrubs or herbaceous vegetation need to be temporarily cleared within the right-of-way, the vegetation would be crushed, cut, or mowed, to the extent practicable, leaving the root ball in place so plants could revegetate. Pacific Power would prepare a revegetation plan in consultation with BLM and private landowners. The plan would specify disturbance types and their appropriate revegetation techniques to be applied for proposed project work areas. Techniques used on BLM land would be preapproved and would include reseeding with certified weed-free native or other acceptable species. Ongoing vegetation management would be guided by Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015). Right-of-way widening in forested areas would require permanent removal of tall growing trees that exceed or may exceed clearance requirements, resulting in changes to the stand structure and composition. Forested vegetation types that are cleared during construction could take longer to revegetate compared to shrub/scrub or herbaceous communities. Over time, as the expanded right-of-way revegetates and vegetation maintenance activities are periodically implemented, these areas are expected to transition to shrub-scrub community types that are more compatible with the transmission facilities. Ground disturbance and vegetation removal can indirectly increase the potential for the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive weeds (Olson 1999, Levine et al. 2003). Nonnative plant invasions have the potential to change the composition and diversity of native plants through competition, altering the natural fire regime, and by changing ecosystem processes (e.g., nitrogen cycling). The movement of construction equipment and other vehicles along access roads would increase the potential for the spread of noxious weeds in the affected areas (Sheley et al. 1999, Gelbard and Belnap 2003). Various measures would be implemented to prevent the spread of noxious

3-26 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

weeds, including equipment cleaning during construction, using clean fill and gravel, and revegetating disturbed areas with certified weed-free materials. Vegetation management, in accordance with Pacific Power’s Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual (2015), would occur within and along the right-of-way and access roads periodically to help control noxious weeds. With implementation of the project design features described above during construction and operation, impacts to native plant communities would be minimized. The majority of vegetation clearing (227.2 acres) would be temporary and would impact shrub scrub or herbaceous vegetation types, which can re-establish to preconstruction conditions within 5 years or less; therefore, project-related impacts on botanical resources would be low.

Rare Plants ESA and BLM SSS or Survey and Manage listed species were not detected within the project area during field surveys. The majority of ESA-listed species known to occur in Josephine and Jackson Counties are not likely to occur within the project area due to lack of suitable habitat. Wetlands, vernal pools, wet meadows, and alpine/subalpine environments are not known to occur within the project area; therefore, species associated with these types of habitats (i.e., large-flowered woolly Meadowfoam, Cook’s lomatium, and Whitebark pine) are not likely to occur within the project area. Likewise, the serpentine soils preferred by McDonalds rock-cress and the narrow range of the Siskiyou Mariposa lily also do not occur within the project area; therefore, these species are not likely to occur in the project area. If rare plants are discovered within the right-of-way or work areas during construction, a protective buffer zone would be established and the appropriate agencies (BLM, if found on BLM land, and USFWS, if found on private land) would be contacted immediately. Possible responses to rare plant discoveries may include establishment of avoidance areas around identified plants or transplanting plants to suitable locations outside of work areas if avoidance is not possible. Therefore, project-related impacts to rare plants would either not occur, or would be low.

Gentner’s Fritillary Gentner’s fritillary is a perennial herb in the lily family that is both federally- and state- listed as endangered. The species occurs in meadows and oak woodlands ranging from northern California north to Josephine County, with the largest number of populations occurring near Jacksonville in Jackson County (ODA 2015). One site exists within the project area where individuals of this species have been documented as recently as 2013. Due to the presence of suitable habitat, it is possible this species could occur within the project area, although rare plant surveys conducted along the right-of-way did not detected Gentner’s fritillary. If Gentner’s fritillary is discovered during construction, operation, or maintenance activities within the right-of-way or work areas, a protective buffer zone would be established and the ODA would be contacted immediately. Potential responses to Gentner’s fritillary discoveries would include establishment of avoidance areas. If avoidance is not possible, the Project would initiate formal consultation with USFWS. Therefore, project-related impacts to Gentner’s Fritillary would either not occur, or would be low.

November 2016 | 3-27 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

The Project would be covered under the BLM Medford District’s Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) for Gentner’s fritillary (BLM 2013b). Project types addressed under the Programmatic BA include utility site maintenance and right-of-way permitting for roads and other uses. In accordance with the mandatory project design criteria listed in the BA, one year of surveys were completed along the proposed corridor during the flowering season for Gentner’s fritillary and no specimens or leaf-like structures were observed. 3.6 Fish and Wildlife 3.6.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for wildlife includes animal species and their associated habitats within 1 mile of the project area. The affected environment for fish includes surface waters crossed by the project area. In addition, activities within 300 feet of surface waters were considered to have the potential to affect fish species and aquatic habitat.

Wildlife The shrub/scrub, herbaceous, and forested vegetative communities crossed by the project area support a diversity of wildlife species. Shrub/scrub and herbaceous habitats provide an open habitat structure that attracts many bird species including the Acorn Woodpecker, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Oregon Vesper Sparrow, Peregrine Falcon, Western Bluebird, Willow Flycatcher, and White-breasted Nuthatch. They also provide sandy soils that attract many burrowing animals including lizards, squirrels and snakes. In the mixed/evergreen forests, birds and small mammals such as squirrels make their homes in the canopies of different types of trees. Fallen trees or standing dead timber, referred to as snags, create natural shelter for varying Hares, raccoons, and striped skunks while an understory of evergreen shrubs, ferns, and forbs may shelter species as large as deer and as small as microscopic organisms.

Fish The project area crosses six fish-bearing streams: Sams Creek, Evans Creek, Ward Creek, Snider Creek, Sardine Creek, and the Rogue River. One additional fish bearing stream, Rock Creek, occurs within 300 feet of the project area (transmission line right-of- way and access roads). Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are known to occur in all seven creeks (ODFW 2013b). Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) also occur in some of the creeks (Table 3-14). Table 3-14 provides additional information on fish use of project area streams, including the type and timing of fish use, and the federal and state status of each fish species. The project area is within the Middle Rogue Subbasin (HUC 17100308), which is designated as Essential Fish Habitat for Pacific Coast Chinook and coho salmon (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2015). Critical habitat has not been designated for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast evolutionarily significant unit of coho salmon. There is no critical habitat that occurs within the project area or within 300 feet of the project area (USFWS 2015).

3-28 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-14. Fish Use of Streams within the Project Area Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) or Species Stream Name Documented Fish Species Management Unit (SMU) Run Status1 Use Type Timing of Use Sams Creek Coho salmon Southern Oregon/Northern N/A FT/SV Spawning and Spawning: October- (Oncorhynchus kisutch) California Coasts ESU Rearing March Migration: September-December4 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Summer SC/SV Spawning and Spawning: December- (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing March2 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Winter NL Spawning and Spawning: March-June2 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing Pacific lamprey Coastal SMU Unknown SOC/SV Spawning and (Entosphenus tridentatus) Rearing Sardine Creek Coho salmon Southern Oregon/Northern N/A FT/SV Spawning and Spawning: October- (Oncorhynchus kisutch) California Coasts ESU Rearing March Migration: September-December4 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Summer SC/SV Spawning and Spawning: December- (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing March2 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Winter NL Spawning and Spawning: March-June2 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing Evans Creek Coho salmon Southern Oregon/Northern N/A FT/SV Rearing and Spawning: October- (Oncorhynchus kisutch) California Coasts ESU Migration March Migration: September- December4 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Summer SC/SV Rearing and Spawning: December- (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Migration March2 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Winter NL Spawning and Spawning: March-June2 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing Chinook salmon Southern Oregon/Northern Fall SV Spawning and Spawning: October- (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) California Coast ESU Rearing March3 Pacific lamprey Coastal SMU Unknown SOC/SV Spawning and (Entosphenus tridentatus) Rearing Rock Creek Steelhead Klamath Mountains Summer SC/SV Spawning and Spawning: December- (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing March2 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Winter NL Spawning and Spawning: March-June2 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing

November 2016 | 3-29 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-14. Fish Use of Streams within the Project Area Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) or Species Stream Name Documented Fish Species Management Unit (SMU) Run Status1 Use Type Timing of Use Ward Creek Steelhead Klamath Mountains Summer SC/SV Spawning and Spawning: December- (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing March2 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Winter NL Spawning and Spawning: March-June2 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing Pacific lamprey Coastal SMU Unknown SOC/SV Spawning and (Entosphenus tridentatus) Rearing

Rogue River Steelhead Klamath Mountains Summer SC/SV Rearing and Migration: (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Migration Steelhead Klamath Mountains Winter NL Spawning and Spawning: March-June2 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing Pacific lamprey Coastal SMU Unknown SOC/SV Spawning and (Entosphenus tridentatus) Rearing Coho salmon Southern Oregon/Northern N/A FT/SV Migration only Migration: September- (Oncorhynchus kisutch) California Coasts ESU December4 Chinook salmon Southern Oregon/Northern Spring SV Migration only Migration: (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) California Coast ESU Chinook salmon Southern Oregon/Northern Fall SV Spawning and Spawning: October- (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) California Coast ESU Rearing March3 Snider Creek Steelhead Klamath Mountains Summer SC/SV Spawning and Spawning: December- (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing March2 Steelhead Klamath Mountains Winter NL Spawning and Spawning: March-June2 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Province ESU Rearing Source: ODFW 2013b, StreamNet mapper FT=federally threatened, SOC=federal species of concern SV= state sensitive/vulnerable, SC=state sensitive/critical, NL=not listed. NOAA 2014, Lestelle 2007

3-30 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Special Status Species Habitat within the project area may support several species with special protection status including 1) species listed under the ESA, 2) species listed under by the state of Oregon, 3) bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and 4) BLM SSS.

Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species The ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) as amended in 1988, establishes a national program for the conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the preservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA is administered by the USFWS for wildlife and freshwater species and by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and anadromous species. Section 7(a) of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that the actions they authorize, fund, and carry out do not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. According to USFWS and NMFS, there are ten animal species federally listed as endangered, threatened, candidate or proposed that are known to occur within Jackson and Josephine Counties (USFWS 2015). These species are listed in

November 2016 | 3-31 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-15. Additional species occurrence data was obtained from the ORBIC to determine if any of the identified listed species had been historically or recently documented within 1 mile of the project area (ORBIC 2014). ORBIC data results are included in

3-32 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-15 below. Only three ESA-listed animal species have documented occurrences within 1 mile of the project area: Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and coho salmon. Critical habitat has been designated for some of the species listed in

November 2016 | 3-33 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-15; however, there is no critical habitat that occurs within the project area. Critical habitat for northern spotted owl and vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs within 1 mile of the project area.

3-34 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-15 lists the likelihood of each species’ occurrence in the project area based on species-specific habitat requirements and known habitat types within the project area.

State Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species Five animal species are listed under the state of Oregon’s ESA that are known to occur within Jackson and Josephine Counties (ODFW 2014). The known distribution and habitat needs of these species are summarized in

November 2016 | 3-35 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-15. Suitable habitat for most of the ESA listed species does not occur, or is not likely to occur, within the project area.

3-36 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-15. ESA Listed Species Known to Occur in Project Area Counties Known/Documented Occurrences

Common Name Jackson Josephine Within 1 mile of Group (Scientific Name) Status1 County2 County2 Project Area3 Suitable Habitat Amphibians Oregon spotted frog T x x Large, perennial bodies of water including emergent (Rana pretiosa) wetland habitats in forested landscapes; ponds and perennial streams Birds Marbled murrelet T, OT x Mature old growth forests near marine environments (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Birds Northern spotted owl T, OT x x x Mature, structurally complex forests with moderate (Strix occidentalis canopy cover caurina) Crustaceans Shasta crayfish E x Cool, clear, spring-fed headwaters that are characterized (Pacifastacus fortis) by clean volcanic cobbles and boulders on top of gravel or sand. Crustaceans Vernal pool fairy shrimp T x x Vernal pools (Branchinecta lynchi) Fishes Lost River sucker E, OE x x Predominantly dwells in lakes and spawns in springs or (Deltistes luxatus) tributary streams upstream of home lake Fishes Coho salmon T x x x Streams and small freshwater tributaries as well as (Oncorhynchus kisutch) estuarine an marine waters of the Pacific Fishes Shortnose Sucker E, OE x x Predominantly dwells in lakes and spawns in springs or (Chasmistes brevirostris) tributary streams upstream of home lake Mammals Gray wolf E, OE x x Temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, and (Canis lupus) grasslands Mammals Fisher PT x x Low- to mid-elevation environments of mesic (moderately (Martes Oregon) moist), coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood forests with abundant physical structure near the ground 1 Key: T-Federal Threatened; E-Federal Endangered; PT-Federal Proposed Threatened; OT-Oregon State Threatened; OE-Oregon State Endangered 2 USFWS 2015, NOAA 2015 3 ORBIC 2014

November 2016 | 3-37 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

A pack of gray wolves (Canis lupus), known as the Rogue Pack, occurs in the southern Cascade Mountains of eastern Jackson County; this is the closest area of known gray wolf activity to the project area. The pack is closely monitored by ODFW and has not been detected within approximately 20 miles of the Project. Therefore, gray wolves are unlikely to occur in the project area. Fishers (Martes Oregon) inhabit large tracts of mid-elevation (4,000-9,000 feet) conifer forests with structural characteristics of mature or old growth forests such as dense canopies, structural complexity, large trees, and large woody debris. While some forested habitats occur within the project area, land use development has, over time, resulted in habitat fragmentation and ongoing timber harvesting has eliminated much of the mature or old growth habitat in the area. Additionally, elevations in the project area do not exceed 2,600 feet; therefore, fishers are unlikely to occur in the project area.

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL Northern spotted owl critical habitat does not occur within the project area. The nearest critical habitat unit to the project area is Unit 10: Klamath East (Subunit: KLE 3), which is represented by a checkerboard pattern of square mile sections federal lands included in the critical habitat, alternating with square mile portions of non-federal land (which are not included). Portions of this critical habitat unit occur within 0.5 to 1 miles of the project area. The existing right-of-way has already been disturbed and primarily consists of unsuitable, low-quality habitat for the northern spotted owl; however, portions of the project area contain “capable” northern spotted owl habitat, which is defined as habitat that is not currently used by the northern spotted owl, but has the potential to become higher-quality northern spotted owl habitat in the future (BLM 2016). In addition, there are a few small areas along the project corridor that contain northern spotted owl dispersal habitat or nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF) habitat4 (BLM 2016). When considered at the landscape level, only a small percentage of the area within 1.25 miles of the project area contains high quality habitat for the northern spotted owl (BLM 2016). Based on ORBIC data (2014), northern spotted owl observations (1 to 2 owls) were recorded at two locations within 1 mile of the project area. The most recent observation dates back to 1996.

4 Capable habitat for the northern spotted owl is forestland that is currently not habitat but can become NRF or dispersal in the future, as trees mature and the canopy closes. Dispersal Habitat at a minimum consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy cover to provide protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities. Dispersal habitat is generally forest stands with canopy cover of 40 percent or greater and an average diameter at breast height of 11 inches or greater. It provides temporary shelter for owls moving through the area between NRF habitats and some opportunity for owls to find prey; but it does not provide all of the requirements to support an owl throughout its life. NRF habitat for the northern spotted owl consists of habitat used by owls for nesting, roosting, and foraging. . Generally, this habitat is multistoried, 80 years old or older (depending on stand type and structural condition), has high canopy cover, and has sufficient snags and down wood to provide opportunities for nesting, roosting, and foraging.

3-38 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

COHO SALMON The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast evolutionarily significant unit of coho salmon is federally listed as threatened under the ESA and is known to use project area streams, including Evans Creek, Sardine Creek, the Rogue River and Sams Creek for spawning, rearing, and/or migration. Coho distribution and use of project area streams is summarized in

November 2016 | 3-39 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-15.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act/Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703–712) implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and other countries, including Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union, for the protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds, or their eggs or nests, is unlawful. The Act classifies most species of birds as migratory, except for upland and nonnative birds such as pheasant, chukar, gray partridge, house sparrow, European starling, and rock dove. The Project is located within the Pacific Flyway, one of four major migratory bird routes in North America, extending from Alaska to Patagonia. Many bird species migrate along the Pacific Flyway which, in part, crosses western Oregon, including the project area. Migratory bird species could potentially fly over, stop over, or nest within or near the project area. Using the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation system, thirty migratory bird species were identified as likely to occur within Jackson and Josephine Counties. Of these, three species have documented occurrences within 1 mile of the project area: Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) and Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) (ORBIC 2014). All three species were documented as occurring at Lower Table Rock, approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the project area. Known occurrence boundaries are based on historic observations and may be subject to change based on the current population trends and the tendencies and needs of individual birds. Given the close proximity of documented occurrences, it is possible nesting sites could also could occur within or near the project area. A field survey was performed by a qualified biologist in June 2015 to determine whether suitable golden eagle habitat occurred within the project area. The results of this assessment indicated that suitable habitat is not present within the project area. The nearest suitable habitat/nesting site is located approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the project area, on Lower Table Rock.

BLM Special Status Species and Survey and Manage Species Each BLM district maintains its own list of SSS, which include: 1) species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA, and 2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA, which are designated as Bureau sensitive by the State Director(s) (BLM 2008b). A list of BLM special status plant species suspected to occur within the project area was obtained from the BLM Medford District (see Table 3-11, Section 3.5). Impacts are expected to some individual Special Status Species; however the Project is not expected to impact the persistence of any of the Special Status Species. BLM Survey and Manage wildlife species are not expected to be affected by the Project due to a lack of suitable habitat in the project area. Survey and Manage species are closely associated with late-successional and old growth forests (stands 180 years old or older). No forested stands on BLM land along the right-of-way meet the age criteria except two units that are south-facing dry stands dominated by madrone, which are unlikely to support Survey and Manage wildlife species.

3-40 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

3.6.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, construction-related impacts on aquatic or terrestrial habitats and species would not occur. Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission line would have low impacts on aquatic and terrestrial habitats resulting from occasional use of access roads, as-needed road improvements, and routine vegetation-hazard management. 3.6.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action Wildlife During construction, wildlife species within close proximity to the project area could be affected by increased noise and human activity, causing them to avoid construction areas or surrounding areas. Species may be temporarily displaced into adjacent habitats. However, these areas would provide equally suitable or more suitable habitats (e.g., critical habitat for northern spotted owl occurs within 0.5 mile of project area) for displaced species. In addition, these impacts would be temporary and would not result in mortality or injury to species. Species and habitats further removed from the project area (greater than 0.25 mile away), such as the rock outcroppings of Lower Table Rock, would not be exposed to noise or human activity during construction. Therefore, temporary impacts on wildlife from construction noise and human activity are expected to be low. Vegetation removal required for construction and operation could result in a loss of habitat for some species. Most vegetation removal would be temporary (227.2 acres) and would primarily affect shrub/scrub and herbaceous vegetation types. Approximately 38.9 acres of vegetation would be permanently cleared during construction, of which 18.8 acres would occur in mixed/evergreen forested habitat, 16.2 acres would occur in hay/pasture habitat, 2.3 acres would occur in developed/open space habitat, and 1.5 acres would occur in herbaceous habitat (NLCD 2011). The amount of forest and shrub- scrub vegetation cleared would be minimized by limiting clearing to those areas that are directly impacted by construction activities and trees that pose a hazard to the proposed transmission line. Impacts of tree removal activities on protected bird species would be minimized through timing restrictions and/or preconstruction surveys for large stick nests. Additionally, existing snags and large woody debris within the right-of-way would be retained, provided they are not a safety hazard (i.e., have the potential to fall onto the line or encroach on minimum clearance standards) to minimize the loss of potential wildlife habitat. In addition, riparian corridors would be spanned to the extent possible, thus retaining any existing riparian/drainage vegetation for use as wildlife travel corridors. This loss of potential habitat would be minor relative to the amount of habitat available in the surrounding area, and would not preclude wildlife use of the project area. Most vegetation clearing (227.2 acres) would be temporary and would impact shrub scrub or herbaceous habitat types, which are common in the surrounding area and can re- establish to preconstruction conditions within 5 years or less. Therefore, wildlife impacts resulting from vegetation removal are expected to be low.

November 2016 | 3-41 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Fish Construction of the Project would not involve any in-water work in any perennial or fish-bearing streams. All fish bearing streams crossed by the Project would either be avoided entirely, or protected from disturbance through the use of existing bridges. An existing bridge would be used to cross Sardine Creek and Sams Creek. Construction vehicles would be routed around the remaining six stream crossings and a helicopter or line gun would be used to string the new transmission line. Helicopter-spanned areas encompass all areas outside the “Area of Potential Ground Disturbance” shown on Figure 2-1. Sediments created by project-related erosion could ultimately reach nearby streams, thereby impacting water quality and fish habitat. However, as discussed in Section 3.4, impacts associated with soil disturbance would be short-term and temporary and the potential significance of these impacts would be eliminated or reduced through the implementation of erosion control measures identified in Section 2.3.8, including timing restrictions for construction activities within riparian areas. No adverse modifications to Essential Fish Habitat within the Middle Rogue subbasin would result from the Project and temporary impacts on fish habitat from increased sedimentation are expected to be low.

Special Status Species

Federal and State Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species Suitable habitat for most of the ESA listed species (

3-42 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-15) does not occur, or is not likely to occur, within the project area. As discussed in section 3.4, perennial streams and riverine wetlands would be avoided entirely during construction and vernal pools are not known to occur within the project area. Therefore, ESA listed species associated with aquatic environments (Oregon spotted frog, Shasta crayfish, shortnose sucker, lost river sucker, vernal pool fairy shrimp, coho salmon) would not be affected by the Project. The only exception would be at the new substation site where approximately 3.5 acres of wetlands would be permanently converted. The Oregon spotted frog is the only wetland associated ESA species found in project area counties. The wetlands at the substation site would not provide suitable habitat for the Oregon spotted frog as they are too small, have been impacted by agricultural activities, and lack a connection to year-round water. Potentially suitable habitat for northern spotted owl, including capable, dispersal and NRF habitat, is known to occur within the project corridor and surrounding areas, and as a result, potential impacts to the northern spotted owl could result from construction or operation of the Project. Vegetation removal associated with access road improvements and right-of-way widening would occur within northern spotted owl capable, dispersal, and NRF habitat types. In total, 14 acres of northern spotted owl habitat would be affected, including 1 acre of NRF and 13 acres of dispersal habitat. However, the Project would not impact any designated critical habitat, documented spotted owl sites (including known nesting sites) or known owl activity centers. In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the BLM initiated formal consultation with USFWS for potential impacts to the northern spotted owl and their designated habitat. A BA was prepared for the Project and submitted to USFWS in June 2016. USFWS issued a Biological Opinion on August 15, 2016, which concluded that the project is anticipated to adversely affect (with no incidental take), but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of the northern spotted owl. The Project would have no effect on northern spotted owl critical habitat since critical habitat does not occur within the project area. Although unlikely, in the event that northern spotted owl individuals occur within or near the project area, individuals could be disturbed by increased noise and human activity during construction, causing them to temporarily avoid the project area. This effect would be temporary and would not result in in mortality or injury to individuals. Work activities that produce loud noises above ambient levels would not occur within specified distances (Table 2-5) of active spotted owl nest sites during the critical early nesting period, March 1 and June 30, or until two weeks after the fledging period. Therefore, project- related impacts on northern spotted owl habitat and individuals are not expected to occur. Given the unlikelihood that northern spotted owl individuals do occur within or near the project area, temporary impacts during construction would be low.

COHO SALMON Although the project area crosses coho habitat, all perennial stream crossings would be avoided entirely or crossed using existing bridges and culverts. Therefore, direct impacts on coho salmon and their habitat would not occur as a result of the Project. Indirect impacts on coho salmon and their habitat could result from construction-related erosion and sedimentation into project area streams. However, erosion control and spill prevention measures would be implemented during construction to avoid potential water

November 2016 | 3-43 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

quality impacts. Therefore, impacts on coho salmon and their habitat are expected to be low.

Migratory Bird Protection Act/Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The project design features for wildlife provide protection to any large stick nest found during construction and also specify that disturbance to breeding eagles should be avoided. Trees that are found to contain active nests would not be removed during the nesting season, typically January 1 through July 15 or until after the young have fledged. Active nests may be disturbed (i.e., vegetation management may take place in the vicinity of the nest) in rare cases if there is an immediate risk (e.g., fire, electrical safety risk, or there is a hazard or danger tree). However, if an active raptor nest is found in a tree or existing structure during initial construction operations, activities would not occur within 0.25 to 1.0 mile of the nest, depending on species, until consultation with ODFW occurs to determine the appropriate nest management action, or until the young have fledged. If the nest was found on BLM land, the BLM would also be notified in such an event, and consulted on appropriate nest management action. In addition, helicopter flight paths would be designed to avoid any known nest sites as well as the Lower Table Rock area where migratory bird species are historically documented as occurring. To reduce potential avian electrocution and collision concerns, the Project would be designed and built according to Pacific Power’s avian safe construction standards and Avian Protection Plan, which meet and/or exceed the suggested practices identified by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 2006). In particular, the APLIC industry guidelines include a minimum separation of 60 inches horizontal and 40 inches vertical between conductors that is intended to allow sufficient clearance for the large wing span and height of eagles and other raptors. Separation distances associated with 230 kV transmission line design exceed these minimum separation guidelines. During construction, individual birds may experience temporary disruptions from noise and increased human presence, causing them to avoid the immediate area of construction; however, the Project is not expected to increase the likelihood of direct injury and/or mortality to migratory bird species. With the implementation of project design features, project-related impacts on migratory bird species are expected to be low. 3.7 Visual Resources 3.7.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for visual resources includes the project area as well as surrounding views to and from the project area (see Figure 3-3). The visual setting of the Project is of forest and woodland habitat, rural agricultural grassland and shrubland, urban environments, and transportation corridors. The visual character of the project area is influenced by both natural and built landscape features, including mountains, forests, shrubland, rivers and streams, farms, highways, existing 115 kV, 230 kV, and 500 kV transmission lines, and residential and commercial buildings. Viewer groups primarily include motorists on nearby roads and local residents adjacent to the project area. Five key observation points (KOPs) representing critical viewpoints, typical views, and special landscape features were identified within the project area to

3-44 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

facilitate the visual analysis (Figure 3-3 through Figure 3-8). The five viewpoints were chosen through a modeling process that estimated project visibility in surrounding areas based on heights of structures (e.g., transmission line structures and substation) and elevation of terrain. Each viewpoint was visited in the field to assess existing conditions and potential project-related impacts. Photographs were taken at each KOP to determine if the project area or existing facilities were visible from these points. Only two of the five viewpoints (KOPs 2 and 4) had clear views of the project area or existing facilities, including the transmission line and structures. In general the line is only visible from motorists and residences in close proximity (approximately 0.25 miles to the transmission line as view of the line is often blocked by local topography and vegetation or blends in with the land. However, some of the flatter, less mountainous areas in the eastern portion of the project area are more visible from greater distances. The project area is not visible from any nearby recreational areas, including Lower Table Rock, Gold Nugget Day Use area, and Rogue River, due to the local topography and vegetation. The project area, especially the proposed substation, is visible from the Rogue Umpqua Scenic Byway (Hwy 234). Representative views of existing facilities from KOPs 2 and 4 are shown in Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-7. The visual setting of the proposed substation site and surrounding area is of an open agricultural landscape with scattered houses, barns, and fences. Lower Table Rock provides a mountainous backdrop that contrasts with the flat, open valley. The site is bordered by paved roads (OR-234 and Tresham Lane) and is crossed by existing transmission lines which slightly detract from the rural, open landscape character. However, the smooth, gray finishes of roadway pavement and transmission structures are muted and do not strongly contrast with the colors or textures of the natural environment (light green, brown and tan). In addition, transmission structures are thin, light-colored, and spaced out such that views of the surrounding, open landscape are not fully blocked. Figure 3-7 shows an existing view from residences near the proposed substation site, at KOP 4.

November 2016 | 3-45 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 3-3. Visual Resources

3-46 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 3-4. KOP 1, Facing Project Area from Frontage Road (Exit 43)

Figure 3-5. KOP 2, Facing Existing 115 kV Transmission Line from Sardine Creek Road

November 2016 | 3-47 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 3-6. KOP 3, Facing Project Area from Lampman Road in Gold Hill, Oregon

Figure 3-7. KOP 4, Facing Existing 115 kV Transmission Line and Proposed Substation Site from OR-234

3-48 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Figure 3-8. KOP 5, Facing Project Area and Sams Valley from Lower Table Rock Lookout BLM administered lands crossed by the Project are classified as VRM Class III resources (see Figure 3-3), which are managed to “partially retain the existing character of landscapes” per the BLM’s RMP (BLM 1995).

3.7.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, no temporary or visual impacts would occur. Continued operation and maintenance of the existing transmission line would have low impacts on visual resources resulting from incidental use of access roads, minor road improvements, and routine vegetation-hazard management.

3.7.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action As shown in Figure 3-4, Figure 3-6, and Figure 3-8, the project area is not visible from KOPs 1, 3, and 5 due to the presence of vegetation and/or topography; therefore, there would be no temporary or permanent visual impacts at these three KOPs. KOPs 2 and 4 would experience temporary and permanent visual impacts. During construction, some motorists and local residents in the project area would experience temporary visual modifications resulting from ground disturbance, vegetation removal, construction vehicles and equipment, and lighting. Views of construction activities would be localized and short term in duration. Construction activities near residential areas and local roads could temporarily modify the visual landscape for residents and motorists with direct views of the transmission line. In addition, use of major roads and highways by construction vehicles may be noticeable from surrounding areas, including recreational areas along the I-5 or OR-234, which could temporarily detract from the scenic character in these areas.

November 2016 | 3-49 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Permanent visual modifications would result from the installation of new project components, including approximately 90 to 120 new structures along the new line and 1 new substation. The new transmission line would run parallel to the existing 230 kV and 115 kV transmission lines, which have been a prominent element of the landscape for more than 30 years. Compared to the existing structures, the new structures would be taller (up to 50 feet taller). Depending on engineering requirements, structures would be made of wood, self-weathering steel, or galvanized steel. Pole heights at particular locations would depend on terrain, the length of the span, and other factors; however, no structures would exceed a height of 150 feet. Where required, corten self-weathering steel would be used for its aesthetic appearance. Corten is a special high-carbon steel that rusts brown and would help the structures blend into the surrounding landscape without compromising their strength or durability. Differences between proposed structures and existing structures are minor in the overall landscape. Further, the addition of new structures would be consistent with the existing character of the landscape and visual impacts resulting from new structures are expected to be unnoticeable to most viewer groups. Replacement structures would also be installed along the reconductored portion of the existing 230 kV line; however these structures would be nearly identical to the existing structures, with the exception of larger diameter conductor and higher grade poles or cross arms. In addition, the structures would be installed in the same location (or typically within 10 feet) as the existing structures they are replacing and there would be no right- of-way widening or tree clearing activities. Therefore, permanent visual impacts would not result from the installation of replacement structures along the reconductored line. Indirect impacts on visual resources would result from development of the proposed substation. The new 500/230 kV substation in Sams Valley would substantially change views for adjacent residences and travelling motorists along Sams Valley Highway , also known as the Rogue Umpqua Scenic Byway (Hwy 234). The substation would occupy approximately 20 acres, would be up to 110 feet in height, and would be fenced and graveled. Compared to the existing condition of the proposed substation site, the substation would be larger than most of the surrounding structures, creating a visual obstruction for nearby residents. The materials used to construct the substation, including steel, barbed wire, and fencing, would create a visual distraction that could detract from the open, rural character of the immediate area. However, the muted color of the substation (gray) would be consistent with the surrounding landscape (e.g., gray pavement, golden hay fields) and individual substation components (transformers and switches) would be broken up and separated by flat, open yard space, creating a lighter, less intrusive appearance. Pacific Power would incorporate screening measures (e.g., strategic planting of vegetation that is compatible with substation and transmission line operations), to address potential visual impacts. In addition, in order to minimize nighttime glare, lighting fixtures at the substation would be rated and approved by the International Dark Skies Association and would adhere to their best practices guidelines for lighting design. While the visual impact of the proposed substation would be substantial for adjacent residents; impacts to travelling motorists on OR-234 would be brief and intermittent as they approached and passed the substation. All other project-related visual impacts would be largely unnoticeable; therefore, visual impacts resulting from the Project as a whole are expected to be moderate.

3-50 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

3.8 Socioeconomic Environment

3.8.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for socioeconomics includes Jackson and Josephine Counties, the counties in which the Proposed Action would occur. In addition, census tracts crossed by the Project were used to evaluate potential impacts to minority and low- income populations.

Population and Housing The Project is located in Jackson and Josephine Counties, in the southwestern portion of Oregon. Jackson County is the larger of the two counties and includes 11 cities, the largest of which are Medford and Ashland. Josephine County includes two cities, Grants Pass and Cave Junction, with Grants Pass being the larger of the two. In 2015, Jackson County had a population of 212,567 and Josephine County had a population of 84,745. Both counties have a combined 2015 population of 297,312, which is about 7.4 percent of the state’s population of 4,028,977 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). From 2010 to 2014, the growth rate of Jackson County was similar (3.5 percent) to the growth rate of Oregon (3.6 percent) and the growth rate of Josephine County was much less (1.1 percent). The 2010 population density of Jackson and Josephine Counties was 73 persons per square mile and 50.4 persons per square mile, respectively. However, the transmission line corridor is located in rural areas with low population densities. In 2014, there were a total of 91,308 housing units identified in Jackson County, with a vacancy rate of approximately 9.1 percent. A total of 38,015 housing units were identified in Josephine County, with a vacancy rate of approximately 10.1 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). Vacancy rates in Jackson County were lower than the 2014 statewide average of 9.7 percent, whereas vacancy rates in Josephine County were higher.

Property Taxes and Values State and local property taxes help support the activities of local taxing districts, such as schools and local government services, and are paid by private property owners unless in a tax-exempt status. All federal, state, and local government real property is exempt from paying property taxes. When Pacific Power acquires an easement across private property, the landowner continues to pay property taxes, but often at a lesser value, based on any limitation of use created by the encumbrance. If Pacific Power acquires new easements on private land, landowners are offered fair market value for the land as established through the appraisal process. The appraisal accounts for all factors affecting property value, including the impact the transmission line easement would have on the remaining portion of the property. Each property is appraised individually using neighborhood-specific data to determine fair market value. Where existing easements accommodate new transmission facilities and/or existing access roads are used to access the project corridor, and no new acquisition would be made, and no additional compensation is paid.

November 2016 | 3-51 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Economic Characteristics As of 2012, the leading industries within Jackson County were healthcare, agriculture, tourism, manufacturing/retail, and timber (Jackson County 2012). Government is the third largest employment group, which reflects the fact that the federal government owns 47 percent of the land within the County’s boundaries (Jackson County 2015). Leading industries within Josephine County include retail/manufacturing, accommodations and food services, and transportation/warehousing (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). In 2014, the median household income for Jackson County ($44,086) and Josephine County ($37,447) was less than the statewide average of $50,521. In addition, the average unemployment rate of Jackson County (12.4 percent) and Josephine County (13.7 percent) was greater than the statewide average of 10.5 percent during this same time period.

Environmental Justice Environmental justice, as described under Executive Order 12898 of 1994, directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations within the state, counties, and census tracts that the project area crosses are discussed in the following sections.

Minority Populations The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Justice has defined the term “minority” for environmental justice purposes to include Hispanics, Asian- Americans and Pacific Islanders, African-Americans and American Indians and Alaskan natives. Guidelines provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1997) and EPA (1998) indicate that a minority population may be defined where either 1) the minority population comprises more than 50 percent of the total population, or 2) the minority population of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population of an appropriate benchmark region used for comparison. In 2014, the minority population for Jackson and Josephine Counties was 17.2 percent and 11.9 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). This is less than the 2014 statewide average of 22.4 percent. In addition, the Project crosses four Census Tracts (3604, 28, 29 and 11) each of which had minority populations between 8 and 14 percent in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Therefore, the minority population of the project area is not meaningfully greater than that represented in the state or surrounding counties.

Low-Income Populations Low-income populations are identified using annual statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Reports in Income and Poverty (CEQ 1997, EPA 1998). In 2014, the number of individuals living below poverty level in Jackson County (17.8 percent) and Josephine County (19.7 percent) was higher than the statewide average (16.7 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). However, Census Tracts crossed by the Project (3604, 28, 29, and 11) have a smaller percentage living below

3-52 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

poverty level (10-14 percent) compared to the surrounding county and statewide estimates (U.S. Census Bureau 2008-2012).

3.8.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, Pacific Power would continue to operate and maintain the existing transmission lines. Maintenance and repairs could result in temporary impacts to individuals and households similar to the impacts described under the Proposed Action; however, there would be no impact to population, housing, the economy, or property values. Potential outages would remain a concern due to a lack of system reliability and redundancy. In the event of an outage, business and school disruptions would have a negative economic impact on the region affected.

3.8.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action

Population and Housing During construction, crews would work along various segments of the corridor. It is anticipated that a local contractor would be used and construction workers would commute to the worksite from areas approximately 25 to 75 miles away, depending on where the contractor is based. If construction workers are from out of the area, they would require temporary lodging during construction. The limited number of employees coming from outside the area would be temporary (approximately 10 months during construction) and distributed between Jackson and Josephine Counties. Because most construction workers would commute and there is available housing for those that would temporarily move to the area, the temporary impact on local populations and housing would be low.

Property Values Some short-term property impacts to property owners would occur during project construction activities. To minimize property impacts, Pacific Power would compensate landowners for the value of commercial crops damaged or destroyed by construction activities and revegetate disturbed areas following construction, with the exception of those areas required to remain clear of vegetation to ensure the safety of the transmission line and access to the structures. Because disturbance from construction activities would be temporary in nature, limited in duration, and limited in area, temporary construction impacts would be low. Due to the presence of existing transmission lines along the corridor, local properties would not be subject to the presence of a new transmission line corridor; however some landowners would be affected by development of the new Sams Valley substation as the substation site is currently undeveloped and vacant. A number of studies have been performed to evaluate the potential effect of transmission lines on property values. These studies generally indicate that the presence of transmission line easements or structures located near residential or rural properties generally has little effect on resale prices (Jackson and Pitts 2010). In some cases, resale values may be slightly reduced (by 2 to 9 percent, on average) due to impacts

November 2016 | 3-53 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

such as extensive tree clearing which may impact a property’s timber value, or if a new transmission line interferes with agricultural operations. These types of effects are not expected to result from the proposed 230 kV line since the line would be located within an existing transmission line corridor and only a limited amount of tree clearing would occur on an as-needed basis, to meet transmission line clearance and safety standards. In terms of the substation, Pacific Power is the property owner and has long owned property in the area in anticipation of future need. While the development of the new substation may reduce property values slightly and will alter the aesthetic character of the area, past and present development of the open agricultural areas surrounding the substation site have had a similar impact (see Section 3.13.3). Estimating the substation’s impact on surrounding property values is difficult and highly speculative, and could range from negligible to moderate depending on future trends in local land use development and the real estate market. Pacific Power will incorporate design features such as screening and equipment choice where possible to minimize potential impacts on property values.

Economic Characteristics Project construction would employ construction workers during the construction period (approximately 10 months). This would have a minimal impact on the number of available jobs and unemployment rate in area. In 2013, there was an average of approximately 3,849 workers employed by the construction sector in Jackson and Josephine Counties combined (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). The average unemployment rate in the in the area ranged from 12.4 percent in Jackson County to 13.7 percent in Josephine County (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). Project costs include environmental review, design and engineering, and construction costs. Project construction costs include local purchases of fuel, vehicle parts, and other goods and services. The Proposed Action would stimulate the Oregon economy during preconstruction environmental review, design, and engineering and the area’s economy during construction through payroll, material purchases in the area, and related indirect and induced spending, or “multiplier effects.” Construction of the Project would result in direct employment for construction workers. Indirect and induced employment would create additional jobs in the area. Purchases of local goods and materials and other spending by construction workers would result in economic benefits. Non-local workers spend an estimated 40 percent of their net pay locally (Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] 2003). Both salary and material purchases would have additional multiplier effects that would create added short-term indirect and induced income. Construction employment and expenditures would benefit the local economy. The economic benefit, is small relative to the amount of economic activity in the five counties, and would occur for a limited time during construction. Therefore, the overall impact of construction-related activities on the project area economy, while positive, is expected to be temporary and low. As discussed in Section 3.2, project construction would result in some disturbance to agricultural land and temporary interference on agricultural operations. During construction, approximately 1.2 acres of agricultural land would be temporarily disturbed.

3-54 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

This disturbance is not expected to hinder employment in that industry. Further, Pacific Power would implement project design features, including revegetating disturbed areas after the conclusion of construction, with the exception of those areas required to remain clear of vegetation to ensure the safety of the transmission line and access to the structures. Following construction, approximately 20.8 acres of agricultural land would be permanently impacted for development of the new substation and expansion of the right- of-way corridor; however, agricultural uses that are compatible with the transmission line right-of-way would be allowed to return following construction. To further minimize permanent agricultural impacts, Pacific Power would compensate landowners for the value of commercial crops damaged or destroyed by construction activities. Because the construction disruptions would be temporary, and the amount of land permanently impacted is low, the economic impact would be low. After construction, the Project would have limited economic impacts in the local area. Existing Pacific Power staff would be responsible for operation and maintenance of the transmission line and associated facilities. No existing employees would be required to relocate to the project area. Local expenditures on project-related goods and services would be none to low. However, the transmission line may contribute to regional stability and economic growth by reliably meeting power demands. Decreasing the likelihood of power outages would protect the serviced area from the negative economic impacts associated with power outages including business and school interruptions and damages to municipal infrastructure.

Environmental Justice The minority and low-income populations in the census tracts crossed by the Project are less than that of the state and surrounding counties. Additionally, there are already existing transmission lines through the corridor. Therefore, the Project would not have a disproportionately high and adverse affect on minority or low-income or minority individuals or households or have a high impact on any individual or population. Additionally, the project design features would minimize impacts. While minority and low- income individuals may experience construction-related impacts in the same manner as other individuals, temporary construction impacts are considered to be low to environmental justice populations and all individuals and households potentially affected by the Project. 3.9 Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires federal agencies to take into account potential effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are cultural resources (objects, structures, traditional places, landscapes/districts, or archeological sites) listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 800.16(l)). As provided in 36 CFR 800.16(y), a federal undertaking is defined as “a Project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval.” In this case, as the proposed transmission line reinforcement Project is partially located on lands managed by the BLM, it will require federal permits and approvals and is thus considered a federal undertaking. As such, the Project must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA and its

November 2016 | 3-55 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 800, including affording the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the SHPO, and interested Tribal governments an opportunity to comment on the findings of Section 106 implementation, as appropriate. Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA involves identifying whether or not historic properties may be affected by the proposed Project, and if so, resolving any adverse effects to historic properties, in consultation with participating parties (Native American tribes, SHPO, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the BLM), prior to Project implementation. A cultural resources inventory report meeting the requirements of the BLM’s 8100 manual series and the Oregon SHPO guidelines was prepared for the Project in partial fulfillment of Section 106 requirements. This report will be submitted to the BLM, interested Native American tribes, and the Oregon SHPO (Risse et al. 2016). All comments received will be considered and Oregon SHPO concurrence on report findings will be sought. The report documents the results of a cultural resources inventory conducted by HDR, on Pacific Power’s behalf. The objective of this inventory was to identify cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects) within the area of potential effects (APE), evaluate their eligibility to the NRHP if possible, identify project-related effects on any identified or potential historic properties, and provide recommended management measures for addressing and/or avoiding adverse effects to historic properties. The report is confidential because it contains protected information. The sections that follow provide a summary of the information included in the report. As defined in the applicable regulations found at 36 CFR 800.16(d), the APE is “...the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” For the purposes of this document, the APE is the same as the direct impact area that is depicted in Figure 2-1. The APE does not include any indirect impact areas as it is anticipated that there will be no indirect impacts to historic properties resulting from the proposed Project. Potential indirect impacts to the viewscape of the area surrounding the proposed Sam’s Valley Substation, the only project component where entirely new construction is proposed rather than an upgrade/replacement of existing facilities, has been identified by local tribes. The Sam’s Valley area holds significance with local tribes, and the viewscape of the Table Rocks is important to this significance. As such, in order to avoid indirect impacts to this viewscape, Pacific Power, in consultation with some of the local tribes, has incorporated the following design elements into the plans for the proposed Sam’s Valley Substation: 1) cutting into the natural slope at the south end of the substation parcel so that the proposed facilities are set into the slope to lessen the overall height and to obscure the visibility of the facilities; and 2) strategic planting of vegetation, such as trees that are compatible with substation and transmission line operations, sporadically along the east, west, and northwest margins of the substation parcel (i.e., where clearance around existing transmission lines is not required) to obscure the visibility of the substation, especially when looking toward Lower Table Rock. Implementation of these design elements will ensure that there are no indirect impacts to potential historic properties or to the viewscape of the traditional cultural landscape around Table Rocks. If the project footprint changes and ground disturbance

3-56 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

is planned in areas outside of the APE, the APE would be expanded and additional survey would occur prior to construction of the proposed Project.

3.9.1 Affected Environment The identification efforts for determining the affected environment for cultural resources consisted of a cultural resources inventory, as described above. The implementation of the cultural resources inventory included conducting two levels of investigation: 1) a desktop records search of previously identified cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources investigations; and 2) a field survey, which included both a pedestrian survey and limited shovel probing, and subsequent analysis of field results. The records search, along with additional archival research, was used in the development of the cultural context that describes the history of the project area. The context provides the basis against which cultural resources are evaluated for the NRHP, as a resource’s association with a particular context or history must be understood in order to determine its significance in history or its potential for bettering our understanding of history. A brief cultural context for the project is provided below and followed by a summary of the results of the records search and field survey.

Cultural Context Prehistory The earliest defined period of human occupation in North America is known as the Clovis period (13,000-10,500 years ago), although there is little archaeological evidence of this cultural period in the project area. Fluted projectile points, which mark this early occupation, have been found in the Umpqua River area near Roseburg and at Butte Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River (Aikens 1993:227). Occupation of the Rogue River Valley, dating to as early as 10,000 B.P., has been indicated by excavations conducted in Applegate Valley (Brauner and Lebow 1983). During the Holocene, human occupation of North America became more widespread and regionally distinct. Regional patterns for the area have been proposed by Connolly (1986) and Aikens (1993), based on several large archaeological investigations, including one at Gold Hill, to the south of the transmission line corridor. Culture change in southwestern Oregon has been difficult to define archaeologically, based on temporally diagnostic artifacts. Although projectile points are frequently recovered, archaeologically sites usually lack well-stratified contexts due to the large amount of alluvial deposition and other taphonomic processes (Tveskov et al. 2006:25). Melvin Aikens has defined four cultural phases for the Southwest Oregon region (Aikens 1993). These include the Applegate phase (10,500-8500 years ago), Marial phase (8500-4500 years ago), Coquille phase (4500-2200 years ago), and the Rogue River phase (2200-150 years ago; Aikens 1993). The first three phases are primarily marked by technological changes in projectile point morphology from large atlatl points to small arrow points, which is a reflection of evolving hunting practices. Adaptive and chronological changes in other aspects of the cultural material record have not been defined; however, terrestrial floral resources, such as camas bulbs, berries, seeds, nuts, and roots are important throughout all cultural phases as shown by the continuing use of groundstone technology (Aikens 1993).

November 2016 | 3-57 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Early archaeological excavations in the region defined assemblages by early and late periods. The Gold Hill Site was excavated in 1930 by Luther Cressman (1933a, 1933b) and consisted of a large mound located on the southern banks of the Rogue River with several distinct habitation and activity areas, as well as 39 burials. Large red and black obsidian blades were included among the artifacts associated with the burials (Connolly 1986:52). Obsidian is found archaeologically throughout the Rogue River Basin, and has been geochemically sourced to areas found east of the Cascade Mountains and south to the Medicine Lake Highlands in northern California (White et al. 1998:11-12). Other recovered items from the Gold Hill Site include Olivella shell beads, Glycemeris and pine nut beads, and Haliotis pendants. Small foliate projectile points were the prevalent form, which have also been found across southwestern Oregon and represent a regional type. Several hopper mortars were part of the Gold Hill assemblage, although manos and metates were not recovered (Connolly 1986:52-54). The burials contain items dating to within the last 1,000 years, while the occupation areas of the mound likely have an antiquity of 2,000 to 4,000 years in age, suggesting that the burials were intrusive into the older deposits (Connolly 1986:54-55). Gunther Barbed and small foliate projectile points and hopper and bowl mortars were also found at several sites in the vicinity of Lost Creek Dam in the 1960s and 1970s (Connolly 1986:56). At the Ritsch Site, also in the Rogue River basin, two components with radiocarbon dates of 460 B.P. (Component I) and 1400 to 1470 B.P. (Component II) were identified. Gunther Barbed projectile points were prevalent in both components. On the basis of artifact assemblages found at sites throughout the region, Connolly established three broad cultural patterns. The Glade Pattern is the oldest, temporally representative of prehistoric occupation of the region from approximately 9,000- 2,000 B.P. The archaeological record of the Glade Pattern is seen through foliate projectile points, fluted unifaces, edge-faceted cobbles, hammerstones, and large blade- like flakes (Connolly 1986:111-112). The next chronological phase is the Siskiyou Pattern, dating to approximately 2,000-1,500 B.P. This pattern is represented archaeologically by semi-subterranean dwellings, barbed and side-notched projectile points, hopper mortars, and limited pottery (Connolly 1986:113). Gunther Pattern sites are mostly represented in coastal areas. This cultural expression dates to circa 1,000 B.P. and is represented archaeologically by influences from the cultural groups of the northwest coast including antler and bone harpoon points, net weights, woodworking implements, flanged pestles, steatite vessels, and incised stone ornaments (Connolly 1986:115-116). Both the Gunther and Siskiyou Patterns observed archaeologically in southwestern Oregon have been hypothesized to represent the immigration of Athapaskan and Algic groups into the region approximately 2,000 years ago. Ethnographically observed cultural traits become more evident at this time, including a new proliferation of trade goods, barbed projectile points, obsidian blades, and the mass storage and redistribution of salmon (Tveskov et al. 2006:27). An analysis of archaeological site types also shows that sites falling within the Glade Tradition almost entirely (90 percent) represent seasonal camps, while Gunther/Siskiyou Pattern sites include a more significant amount of village sites (37 percent). However, the number of sites associated with households or small social groups remains significant across all periods, which corresponds with the

3-58 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

ethnographic importance of the family as a social and political unit (Tveskov et al. 2006:27-28). History

NATIVE HISTORY The project is located in the traditional territory historically occupied by the Takelma Indians. The Takelma, a Penutian-speaking group, includes the Upland Takelma (Latgawa, meaning “those living in the uplands”), the Lowland Takelma (Dagelma, meaning “those dwelling along the river”), and the Northern Takelma (Hodge 1910:673; Atwood 1994/1995:518). The Upland Takelma occupied the upper Rogue River Basin in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains, east of Table Rock, while the Lowland Takelma occupied the middle Rogue River to the west of Table Rock (Ruby and Brown 1986). The Northern Takelma were referred to as “Ha-ne-sakh” in ethnographic accounts. The term “Ha-ne-sakh” apparently referred both to a people and a place, which was likely located just west of the upper Rogue River, upstream of Little Butte Creek, in the vicinity of Chimney Rock Butte (Gray 1987:24). However, our understanding of these territorial boundaries is limited by the nature of ethnographic accounts, which were based on a small number of informants and information filtered through the understanding of the Euro-American chroniclers who wrote down the accounts (Tveskov et al. 2006:10-11). Additionally, native groups utilized a wide area for resource procurement, and the boundaries of these wide use areas likely overlapped between neighboring groups (Gray 1987:16). For instance, nearby Athapaskan language-speaking groups inhabited the drainages of the Applegate River and Galice Creek just to the west of the project area (Gray 1987:25-26). These Athapaskan speakers certainly used the project area and overlapped with the traditional territory of the Takelma. The ethnohistory included herein focuses on the Takelma, but acknowledges that other groups utilized the project vicinity. The settlement pattern of the Takelma was similar to those of other native groups found throughout the northwest regions. Permanent villages, which were inhabited in the winter months, were located along major waterways, including the Rogue River and its tributaries. Communal houses were comprised of split-plank pine boards arranged in a rectangular structure with a gable roof over a rectangular depression approximately 2 feet deep (LaLande 1990:106; Sapir 1907:262). One ethnohistorical account notes that there was a village on the north side of the Rogue River in the vicinity of Gold Hill that contained six large houses (LaLande 1990:106). The rest of the year the Takelma would leave these residences to camp and hunt seasonally at various sites in the mountains and lowland valleys where food, medicines, and materials could be accumulated and where social contact with people from other villages could be made. More temporary shelters used during these seasonal hunting and gathering trips were made of brush (Sapir 1907:262). Social groups were based around individual families or small villages, with wider social networks being formed through trade and marriage (Tveskov et al. 2006:1). The Takelma utilized a wide range of natural resources for survival, a necessity due to being located on margins of multiple physiographic provinces. A diverse range of plant and animal resources figured significantly in the Takelma diet. Acorns were an essential resource, with those gathered from the California black oak being preferred to the more abundant Oregon white oak species. Multiple varieties of camas, a bulb which was

November 2016 | 3-59 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

collected using a sharpened digging stick, were also extensively utilized. Both pine nuts and the inner layer of cambium, harvested by peeling off the outer bark, were harvested from sugar or white pine trees. Multiple species of berries, seeds, wild plums, and parsnips were gathered from a variety of locales ranging from the hills to the lowlands around the Rogue River (Gray 1987:30). Salmon was also a primary resource for the Takelma and other native groups, and were collected during seasonal runs (Gray 1987:32). Other aquatic resources included trout, mussels, and eels. Fish were caught through a variety of methods, utilizing a hook and line, nets, and spears. Large and small terrestrial mammals were eaten, including deer, elk, and rabbits. Upper and Lower Table Rock were significant as a place to gather plant resources, and also figured in Takelma religious beliefs and mythology. The prominent outcrops were called “Titanakh” by the Upland Takelma (Atwood1994/1995: 521). The Table Rocks are a highly visible landscape feature that generally marked the boundaries between the Upland, Lowland, and Northern Takelma, and also served as a reference point to other significant features of the Takelma world view (Atwood 1994/1995:519-521). Features of the natural world, such as mountains, plants, and animals were associated with spirits that were connected to the lives of the Takelma. Although Takelma religious beliefs were not well-documented ethnographically, the myths of the “the Rainmaker” and “Rainmaker and Beaver” tell of the formation of Lower Table Rock (Atwood1994/1995:520-521). Although the lands of the Takelma were not along the Oregon coast, which was first visited by European explorers in the 16th Century, the impact of this first contact was widespread. Native populations throughout the area were devastated by the new diseases brought by these foreigners, resulting in inland groups like the Takelma being affected long before actual contact was made with these outsiders. Archaeological evidence shows that numerous native villages throughout southwestern Oregon and northern California were abandoned and burned in the proto-historic period, likely the result of these disease epidemics. Euro-American exploration and eventual settlement within Takelma lands was initiated by fur trading explorations to the region in the 1820s. When the first explorers journeyed through the region, they observed several large villages, including one at Table Rock on the banks of the Rogue, near the eastern extent of the project area. (Ruby and Brown 1986). The impacts of Euro-American arrival to the area were quick and devastating, as multiple disease epidemics again swept the region in the 19th Century (Tveskov et al. 2006:28). When Ogden traveled through the Rogue River Valley in the 1820s, he described the people he encountered as “starving Indians”, which may be an indication of suffering caused by environmental circumstances and a lack of resources, or may be a reference to the after-effects of a recent epidemic (LaLande 1990:113). The number of travelers to the Rogue River area steadily increased after 1820, consisting primarily of fur trading expeditions until the 1840s (Atwood 1994/1995). In 1841 a U.S. Exploring Expedition party led by Lt. George F. Emmons headed south through the valley toward the Siskiyou Mountains. And in 1846 the Southern Emigrant Road of the Oregon Trail was laid out providing even more access to the area. The 1848 discovery of gold in California brought a flood of travelers through the area on their way to the gold fields in California. Finally, the discovery of gold in southern Oregon in 1850 brought settlers to the Rogue River area who intended to stay. “Hostility exploded as the

3-60 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

gold seekers destroyed Native fishing and hunting grounds and harassed the Takelma people” (Atwood 1994/1995:523). The Rogue River Indian Wars refer to the numerous violent confrontations between early settlers and miners, and the native Indian population that occurred from 1855-56. The name Rogue River Indians actually refers to many different bands resident in the Rogue Valley along the Siskiyou and California-Oregon Trails, including the Takelma. Prior to the Rogue River Wars, conflicts occurred between the influx of settlers and miners and the native population, who were being displaced, and several attacks occurred on both sides. In September 1853, the Council of Table Rock was formed to negotiate peace between government representatives and tribes inhabiting the Rogue River Valley. The council participants included Joel Palmer, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs and Samuel Culver, the Indian Agent for the Rogue Valley, as well as eight tribal representatives, including Takelma Chief Apserkahar (Budy 2001:10; Atwood 1994/1995). Through the resulting Treaty of Table Rock, some of the tribes were temporarily relocated to the Table Rock Reservation, located between Upper Table Rock and Evans Creek (BLM 2016; LaLande 2016a). However, about half of the Rogue River tribes did not accept the conditions of the treaty, and managed to evade the forced relocation by staying in hiding in the upland valleys (Budy 2001:10). Fort Lane was established by the military about a mile south of the reservation in order to enforce the peace and also to prevent incursions onto the reservation by white settlers (LaLande 2016a; Budy 2001:10). However, conditions were difficult both on and off the reservation. The combination of a harsh winter and lack of resources, as traditional gathering areas had been taken over by the influx of settlers, led to many deaths due to disease and starvation. In addition, attacks by militia groups continued on native villages (Budy 2001:10-11). In 1855, a militia comprised of white settlers from Jacksonville attacked a group of Takelma camping at Butte Creek near Table Rock Reservation. Retaliatory attacks occurred to travelers along the Oregon-California Trail, as well as to a settlement at Galice. Additional conflicts ensued, including the Battle of Hungry Hill, which was a defeat for the U.S. Army and militia forces. Militia groups continued to pursue the Indian groups encamped along the Rogue River, with additional skirmishes occurring. The “last battle” took place at Big Meadows on May 27, 1856, after which a number of Rogue River Indian bands were relocated to reservations established in northwestern Oregon, far from their traditional lands (Budy 2001:14-17). Many tribal groups from Southern Oregon and Northern California, including many of those who had been living at the Table Rock Reservation, were forcibly relocated to these far removed reservations in northwest Oregon. The relocation included a walk hundreds of miles long, taking more than a month, which caused many casualties (LaLande 2016a; Ruby and Brown 1986; BLM 2016). Pleas were made by the Rogue River Indian bands that were relocated to be returned to their traditional lands, as they had never ceded the land comprising the Table Rock Reservation, but the requests were not answered (Budy 2001:17-18). Sapir (1907:256) notes that there were only 27 Takelma living on one reservation in northwest Oregon in 1884, of which only a few spoke their native language, evidencing the great toll taken on the group from both the Rogue River Wars and the subsequent relocation from their Native lands. However, not all tribal peoples affected by the Rogue River Wars were removed to reservations. Some tribal peoples were able to evade capture and live in remote areas of their ancestral homeland.

November 2016 | 3-61 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Today’s descendants of the Rogue River Indians are included in the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians.

Non-Native History This section focuses on the Euro-American experience in the project area and touches on early exploration, emigrant trails, mining, transportation, agriculture, settlement, and the military.

EARLY EXPLORATION Preceding widespread Euro-American settlement of the region, the earliest Euro- Americans arriving in southwestern Oregon were fur trappers and explorers associated with the British Hudson Bay Company (HBC). HBC expeditions to southwest Oregon, conducted primarily for the collection of beaver pelts, were led by Peter Skene Odgen in 1827 and Alexander McLeod in 1829. In the 1820s, the land that is currently Oregon was contested between England and the United States, but American settlement of the Pacific Northwest had already begun. The Ogden and McLeod expeditions were largely unsuccessful, and the contacts established with the native populations inhabiting the Rogue River Valley were mostly negative, at times escalating to violent confrontations. The Oregon Treaty of 1846 ceded lands, including all of present-day Oregon, to the United States, and the HBC soon abandoned its fur trading efforts in the area.

EMIGRANT TRAILS Migration of Euro-American settlers from the east increased in 1842 as wagon trains began bringing people to Oregon Territory. The population of Oregon had already grown to approximately 6,000 by 1845 (Kramer 1999:6). Following the Oregon Treaty of 1846, the Oregon Territory was officially opened to further American settlement (Commager 1927:18-19). Emigrants traveled overland to Oregon via the Oregon Trail, which began in Missouri and went west through Nebraska, Wyoming, and Idaho, before trending northwest from Ft. Hall to Oregon and ending in the Willamette Valley. Alternate routes through Oregon, as well as into Utah and California were made from the main Oregon Trail (Lang 2016). The Applegate Trail, also known as the Southern Emigrant Road, The Southern Road, or Applegate’s Cut-off, was located in the project vicinity. The trail was forged in 1846 by a group of settlers from the Willamette Valley, including brothers Jesse and Lindsay Applegate, as an alternative to the more well- known Oregon Trail (LaLande 2016b). The Applegate trail diverged from the Oregon Trial near Fort Hall, Idaho, where it followed the California Trail along the Humboldt River before branching off to the northwest, passing through the Rogue River Valley near Ashland, and ending in the Willamette Valley. The trail was primarily used from 1846- 1860. Once the Applegate Trail was forged, farmers and ranchers began to settle in the Rogue River Valley, attracted by the fertile valleys along the Rogue River (LaLande 2016b; Kramer 1999:4). Jackson County was established on January 12, 1852, while Oregon officially became a state in 1859 (Eisenhard et al. 1993:3).

3-62 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

MINING Miners arrived shortly after this period of initial settlement in search of gold following the excitement of the California Gold Rush. Many miners traveled through the Rogue River Valley on their way south to California. Some travelers stopped to prospect in the valley, such as Lindsay Applegate in 1848 (Sargent 1921:3). By 1850, southern Oregon was full of prospectors looking for riches. Early placer mining began with the discovery of gold in Josephine Creek. In 1852, J. Cluggage and J. R. Poole found large placer deposits in Jackson Creek at Rich Gulch, which attracted many more miners to the region. These early miners would move their families to the area after meeting with success, which led to a population boom in the Rogue River Valley and establishment of towns such as Jacksonville and Ashland (Sargent 1921:4). The ensuing rush made Jackson County the most populated in the state and also established Jacksonville as a major city (Libbey 1963:94). Lode deposits were discovered at Gold Hill in 1860, with other small pockets of gold found dispersed throughout the area. The mining boom slowed in the 1870s, but increased again in the 1880s and 1890s with the discovery of additional lode deposits and a move to hard-rock mining, as more capital and technology were accessible with the coming of the railroad and growth of other industries (Budy 2001:1; Kramer 1999:45-48).

TRANSPORTATION In an attempt to boost settlement of the west, Congress passed a law providing land to whichever railroad company would construct a railroad from Portland to the Siskiyou Mountains. The provisions of the law stated that the state would grant 12,800 acres of land to the railroad company for every mile of track laid. Two companies, both named the Oregon Central Railroad, started construction on either side of the Willamette River. The companies merged together in 1869 as the Oregon and California Railroad Company. Construction increased and the railway reached Roseburg in 1872. Construction stalled for 9 years, as the company faced financial difficulties and was unable to sell most of their land holdings (Beckham n.d.:6-7). Construction continued under new ownership in 1881, extending the railway south over the Umpqua Mountains and into the Rogue River Valley. The railroad reached the town of Grants Pass in 1883, and also spurred development of Medford (Beckham n.d:9; Budy 2001:9). In spite of the success of the Oregon and California Railroad Company, the company went bankrupt, after which the Southern Pacific Railroad leased the line, completing the line to California (Beckham n.d.:9). Local transportation routes also developed, connecting the towns that had sprung up throughout southwest Oregon. Reliable transportation routes and communication lines benefited local, state, and interstate commerce, allowing for the easier shipment of goods and people to and from the area. Manufacturing, building, and the mining industry, in particular, benefitted from the technological advances and income accessible due to the railroad. Southern Oregon became less isolated and more able to engage in interstate commerce, particularly with California. The towns located along the railroad corridor benefitted the most, with Grants Pass and Medford growing in size and prominence, while mining towns like Jacksonville and Kerby faced a decline (Kramer 1999:4-5).

November 2016 | 3-63 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

AGRICULTURE Agriculture formed a significant part of the economy of the Rogue River Valley, with farming offering a more sustainable profession for many of those originally attracted to the area by mining. With the California Gold Rush, Oregon became a major supplier of agricultural products to the growing population of California, shipping fruits, vegetables, and grains by ship from Northern Oregon and by wagon from Southern Oregon, including from the Rogue River Valley (Speulda 1989:9). Beginning in 1847, horticultural production of a variety of fruit trees took place. Orchards were plentiful in the Rogue River Valley, with apples being a major crop. Wheat was another major product, yielding 30 to 50 bushels an acre (Sargent 1921:8). The first flour mill was built in Ashland in 1854, and at least seven more were constructed in the Rogue River Valley in the next several years. Flour was used locally and also shipped south to California on wagons and pack animals (Sargent 1921:4, 8). The fruit industry declined by 1860, as California underwent its own agricultural development by this period and stopped importing Oregon’s crops (Speulda 1989:10). In the 1860s through 1880s, dairying became an important industry in the regions around Oregon’s coastal plains, while the dryer eastern plains of the state became used for large amounts of cattle and sheep grazing (Speulda 1989:11). Today the project vicinity is still home to a number of farms and ranches. Pears, field crops, and grapes are grown in the area, and cattle and sheep ranches are still present.

SETTLEMENT The main population centers within the project area are small cities and towns located along the Interstate 5 corridor and Oregon Route 234. Beginning in the west with Grants Pass, the project area passes through Rogue River, Gold Hill, and Sams Valley. The first Euro-American settler in the City of Rogue River was Davis Evans in 1850. Rogue River was established to service the traffic of immigrants traveling to and from the gold fields in California and further up the Rogue River (Marschner 2008:130; Query 2008:25-26). Gold Hill was established in 1860, after gold was discovered near the farm of Thomas Chavner. Several mines were established in the area, and with the advent of the railroad constructed through the area, Gold Hill became more prominent and populated than other towns in the surrounding area. The town was incorporated in 1895. Its significance declined by the early twentieth century when the gold deposits were depleted, and declined further when the town was bypassed by Interstate 5 in the later half of the twentieth century. Sams Valley, located east of Gold Hill on Oregon Route 234, is the name of both the community and the valley it is located in. The community was first named “Moonville,” after Andrew Moon who settled in the valley in the late 1850s and established a general store (Powers 2013). The valley and community were later renamed, after Chief Sam (also called Toquahear) of the Takelma Indians who occupied the Rogue River Valley, including Sams Valley (Atwood 1994/1995). Sams Valley produced grains, livestock, dairy products, vegetables, and other products that were wagoned to Gold Hill and outlying areas. A post office was located in Sams Valley and ran from the 1870s to 1953 (Southern Oregon Historical Society 2016). Today Sams Valley is an unincorporated agriculturally based community.

3-64 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

MILITARY As discussed above, there has been a military presence in the Rogue River Valley since 1853, when Fort Lane was established following the signing of the Table Rock Treaty. Fort Lane was located on the south side of the Rogue River, approximately 1 mile south of Lower Table Rock, where the Table Rock Reservation was located (Budy 2001:10). Both Fort Lane and the Table Rock Reservation are depicted on the 1855 T36S R2W GLO plat. In 1856, after the native removal program was implemented by the federal government and many of the local Native American groups in the area were relocated to off-site reservations, Fort Lane was abandoned (Tveskov 2016). The next appearance of a military presence in the area occurred some 80 years after Fort Lane. Camp White was established in 1941 and was in operation as a War Department training camp from 1942-1946. The location chosen for the camp was 7 miles east of Medford, in the Agate Desert of Oregon. The camp covered 77 square miles and consisted of a 1-mile rectangular area with administrative buildings and housing, and two training ranges, the Antelope Range and the Beale Range. Training also occurred in the foothills, in the vicinity of Table Rocks, and into the Cascade Mountains. The camp became inactive following the end of the war, and most of the land and buildings were sold to the city of Medford, local ranchers and residents, and the University of Oregon, where many of the buildings were moved. The former location of the camp and the surrounding community was named White City in 1960.

Records Search A cultural resources records search was conducted to identify cultural resources and previous cultural investigations within the APE. The area researched included the APE and a 0.25-mile buffer around the APE to ensure adequate coverage and to better understand what types of cultural resources might be encountered in the APE. The initial records search was performed in 2014 during an initial feasibility study conducted for the Project and rechecked and augmented in May 2015 and March 2016. The records search included a search of Oregon SHPO’s online databases for archaeological resources and historic built environment resources, including a search of properties listed on the NRHP. In addition to checking records available through the Oregon SHPO, historic maps were also investigated for potential historic features that may be present within the APE or nearby. The results of the records search is provided below and is organized into three parts: 1) previous cultural resources investigations; 2) previously identified cultural resources; and 3) potential historic resources identified from historic maps. Previous Investigations The record search identified 25 previous cultural resource investigations within 0.25 mile of the APE, of which 15 were located within the APE. The investigations occurred between the 1970s and 2014. A small portion (roughly 10 to 20 percent) of the APE was surveyed as a result of these previous investigations. Though several of these previous investigations were rather large and covered large portions of the APE, the methods used in these investigations to identify cultural resources did not include complete coverage pedestrian surveys. These

November 2016 | 3-65 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

previous investigations utilized sampling methods that resulted in only small portions of their project areas actually being surveyed for cultural resources. Previously Recorded Resources The records search identified 40 cultural resources previously documented within 0.25 mile of the APE, of which 14 are within the APE or immediately adjacent to it (Table 3-16). Of the 40 cultural resources within 0.25 mile of the APE, 15 are categorized as isolated finds, 6 are built environment resources, 18 are archaeological sites, (10 are historical archaeological sites, 7 are prehistoric archaeological sites, and 1 is composed of a potential historic feature), and one is unidentified. Table 3-16 includes a brief description of the 40 resources identified within 0.25 mile of the APE. The online database for historical built environment resources provides the NRHP evaluation status of each built resource. Based on this online information, of the six built environment resources previously recorded within 0.25 mile of the APE, four are eligible for the NRHP and two remain unevaluated for the NRHP. Of the remaining 34 cultural resources previously identified within 0.25 mile of the APE, two have been previously evaluated as ineligible for the NHRP and the rest (32 sites) appear to remain unevaluated with regard to their eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP. However, isolated finds are generally found to not qualify for consideration under the NRHP and are assumed to be ineligible. The potential historic feature was identified in the Oregon SHPO’s online archaeological database as a “MINE.” No site record was available for this resource and no other information was provided in the database. As such, it is assumed that this resource is a potential historical mine feature of some sort that has not been formally identified or recorded. The unidentified resource appears in the Oregon SHPO’s online archaeological database as well, but has no identifiers or associated documentation.

3-66 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-16. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the APE and Within 0.25 Mile of the APE

Trinomial Temp No. or Description NRHP Within or Agency No. Evaluation1 APE? Resource (Yes/No) Name — 0511050266SI/ Historic Site. . Mining complex consisting of five separate I Yes OR110-1929 loci that include 15 features comprised of 14 hard rock mineral extraction features and one artifact scatter with structural remains. — 06/1304-3 Isolate. Possible prehistoric cryptocrystalline silicate UE No (CCS) flake. — 07/1545-5 Isolate. . One CCS flake. UE No

— Prehistoric Site. . Projectile points, mortars, and 35AR11-720 UE No pestles (in private collection) — Prehistoric Site. . Lithic scatter, projectile point, 35AR11-754 UE No mortar and pestle. — 35HS11-102 Historic Site. This site consists of structure pad where a UE No one room cabin once stood, that has since been burned down. Also associated with the site is some limited refuse, mostly tin cans and some wire from a mattress, and a foot trail. This site may date to the 1930s-1940s, based on oral history that notes a fugitive was hiding in these hills. — 35HS11-110 Historic Site. This site consists of a mining ditch and UE No tailings located above Sardine Creek. Age unknown. Historic Site. This site is a lode mine in current use with several features including shafts, adits, a cabin, dump area, rails and railcar and other items. This mine has 35HS11- variously been called the Smuggler Mine Claim, Kelli — UE No 118/144 Mine, and Gobbler Mine, and was likely originally recorded as 35HS11-118, but at 35HS11-144 during this update (original record not located). Nothing on the site during this update appears to be 50 years old. Historic Site. Mining complex comprised of placer cuts and associated tailings, small test holes, a ditch line, and — 35HS11-143 UE No scattered debris. Site was determined to be less than 50 years old. — 93-10 Isolate. . Three CCS flakes. UE No

— 93-11 Isolate. One CCS flake. UE No — 93-12 Isolate. Five CCS flakes. UE No — 93-13 Isolate. Four CCS flakes, one obsidian flake, a CCS core, UE Yes and a CCS side-notched Projectile point. The Projectile point was collected. — 93-14 Isolate. Five CCS flakes, one basalt flake, and a CCS UE Yes core. The core was collected. — 93-15 Isolate. One CCS flake. UE Yes — 93-16 Isolate. One CCS flake. UE No — 93-9 Isolate. . One utilized CCS flake and four CCS flakes. UE No

November 2016 | 3-67 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-16. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the APE and Within 0.25 Mile of the APE

Trinomial Temp No. or Description NRHP Within or Agency No. Evaluation1 APE? Resource (Yes/No) Name — NSR-PAC-01 Isolate. Meta-volcanic core tool. UE No

— NSR-PAC-02 Isolate. . One CCS flake. UE No

— NSR-PAC-03 Isolate. . One CCS flake. UE No

— NSR-PAC-04 Isolate. . One CCS flake with edge modification. UE Yes

— OR110-1180 Isolate. Glass medicine bottle. UE No IF — Primary No. Historic Site. Historic ditch segment. Age unknown. This UE No 701/ ditch was probably used for irrigation in the Evans Creek OR110-1178 valley to the east. — Primary No. Historic Site. Historic ditch segment. Age unknown. This UE No 702/ ditch was probably used for irrigation in the Evans Creek OR110-1179 valley to the east. “Mine” — Historic. Oregon State Historic Preservation Office’s UE Yes online archaeological database shows the location of a “Mine” but does not have a site record on file for this resource. 35JA200 — Prehistoric Site. . Rock shelter with basalt cobble chopper. UE Yes 35JA201 SOULA 11.02 Prehistoric Site. . Lithic scatter of CCS debitage UE No 35JA274 93-3 Prehistoric Site. . Lithic scatter of CCS debitage. UE Yes 35JA275 93-4 Prehistoric Site. . Lithic scatter of CCS debitage. UE Yes 35JA391 35AR11-581 Prehistoric Site. This site consists of a sparse lithic scatter UE No of 15-20 chert flakes. This location was previously recorded as an isolate, but is re-categorized as a site. 35JA551 Primary No. Historic Site. Trash scatter consisting of 25 milk cans, one UE No 699/ OR110- lard pail, and car parts. The debris dates between the 1175 1910s and 1930s. 35JA847 Primary No. Historic Site. This site consists of an historic mine known UE Yes 1275/ by different names: Powerline Mine, Thielsen, Pomeroy, ORR110-1681 Burgess, the Garfield Iron Mine, and the Tolman Iron Mine. It may have been worked as early as the 1860s. This recordation only recorded a small portion of the mine consisting of two adits (one is collapsed) and one trench. Colvig, — Building. Residential, vernacular style farm house built in E Yes Volney c. 1880. House Douden — Building. Residential, vernacular farm house built in c. UE No House 1871-1872. Associated features include a barn and stone fences. Emig — Building. Residential, bungalow style farm house built in c. E No House 1908.

3-68 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-16. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the APE and Within 0.25 Mile of the APE

Trinomial Temp No. or Description NRHP Within or Agency No. Evaluation1 APE? Resource (Yes/No) Name Moore — Building. Farm complex comprised of two buildings, a UE Yes Water wood frame water tower and a gambrel roof, wood frame Tower and barn. Both buildings were constructed in c. 1900. Barn Shaeffer — Building. Vernacular style log cabin built in c. 1920. E No Log Cabin Tresham — Building. Ranch-farm complex including a two story farm E No House house, the Tresham House. Construction of the house may have begun in the 1880s and continued in various stages until the present. Whetstone — Historic Site. . This site does not appear on the SHPO’s I Yes Aggregate online databases of previously recorded resources. . It Mine Site was recorded in 2009 as a site containing eight related drainage ditches in an old agricultural field. — — Unknown. . One additional possible site or isolate is UE Yes included on the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office’s online archaeological database in the location of the NW ¼ Sec 4, T36S R2W. . The database offers no information on this resource. 1 NRHP eligibility status is based on that provided by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office’s online database; E = Eligible; I=Ineligible; UE = Unevaluated.

Potential Historic Resources Identified on Historic Maps Historic-period USGS topographic quadrangles and General Land Office (GLO) plats were reviewed during the records search to identify locations of potential historic-era sites and features within the APE and within 0.25 mile of the APE (Table 3-17). This resulted in the identification of 30-40 locations where unrecorded historic period sites or features may be present within the APE. These sites and features include potential roads and trails, Highway 234, mines, a prospect, a transmission line, and a substation. In addition to actual historic features that are depicted, early historic plats identify portions of the APE and vicinity as part of the Table Rock Indian Reservation and one plat for T36S, R3W shows two mining claims within the APE, though no actual mining features are shown on the map.

November 2016 | 3-69 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-17. Potential Historic Resources Identified within the APE and within 0.25 Mile of the APE

Map Historic Features within the APE and Historic Features Year Title of Map within 0.25 mile of the APE within the APE1 1853 GLO plat for T36S No features No features R2W 1854 GLO plat for T35S No features, one parcel shown labeled No features R3W with “James Leslie DC 1389/ 160[acres]” 1855 GLO plat for T35S Table Rock Indian Reservation Table Rock Indian R2W Reservation 1855 GLO plat for T36S Table Rock Indian Reservation, four Table Rock Indian R2W roads Reservation, two roads 1855 GLO plat for T36S Three roads/trails (one is Sams Valley Two roads/trails R3W Road) 1855 GLO plat for T36S No features No features R4W 1855 GLO plat for T36S Road to Umpqua Valley No features R5W 1857 GLO plat for T36S No features, but parcel divisions shown No features R5W 1859 GLO plat for T36S No features, but parcel divisions shown, No features R4W one of which is labeled with the owner “Robb S. Jewett” 1863 GLO plat for T36S No features, but parcel divisions shown No features R4W 1883 GLO plat for T36S One improved road, lots/parcel lines No features R4W shown 1891 Ashland, OR, One historic improved road No features USGS topo 1: 250,000 1891 GLO plat for T36S Three separate mining claims entitled Two separate mining R3W “H. Thielsen Claim 41”, “Extension No 1, claims entitled Claim 42”, and “H. Thielsen Extension “Extension No 1, Claim No 2, Claim 43” 42”, and “H. Thielsen Extension No 2, Claim 43” 1892 GLO plat for T36S Two improved roads, one trail One improved road, one R5W trail 1893 Ashland, OR, One historic improved road No features USGS topo 1: 250,000 1908 Grants Pass, OR, 28 structures, Southern Pacific R/R (San Five improved roads, USGS topo Francisco and Portland Line), Golden five unimproved roads, 1: 125,000 Drift Mine (quarry/open-pit), six improved two trails roads, 12 unimproved roads, five trails, two mine tunnels or cave entrances 1938 Medford, OR, Highway 234, 15 structures, one One improved road, USGS topo improved road, four unimproved roads Highway 234, two 1: 125,000 structures, two unimproved roads

3-70 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-17. Potential Historic Resources Identified within the APE and within 0.25 Mile of the APE

Map Historic Features within the APE and Historic Features Year Title of Map within 0.25 mile of the APE within the APE1 1954 Gold Hill, OR, “Rogue River” city and associated Two quarry/open-pit USGS topo buildings (70+ buildings in the city and mines, one prospect pit, 1: 62,500 along the highway), improved roads Highway 234, seven (~three) and unimproved roads (four); unimproved roads, Southern Pacific Railroad, Hwy 99, Sardine Creek Road Pacific Highway, nine unimproved roads and one other improved outside of Rogue River city, Highway road in Rogue River city 234, 25+ structures located outside of Rogue River city, two quarry/open-pit mines, two prospect pits 1954 Grants Pass, OR, 29 structures, two improved roads, Transmission line, USGS topo Transmission line, transmission line transmission line 1: 62,500 substation substation, one improved road 1954 Medford, OR, Highway 234, the Southern Pacific One improved road, two USGS topo Railroad, landing strip, five unimproved structures 1: 62,500 roads, 20 structures, Ramsey Can Road, Tresham Lane, and one other improved road 1958 Medford, OR, Highway 234, California and Oregon Three roads and USGS topo Coast Railroad, three roads Highway 234 1: 250,000 1958 GLO supplemental No features, but parcels/subdivisions of No features plat for Section 11 lots indicated. of T36S R3W 1963 GLO supplemental Sams Valley Road and two other small No features plat for Section 11 portions of unimproved road of T36S R3W

Please note that many of the maps identify the same features, such as Highway 234, which is identified on at least three of the maps.

2015/2016 Survey Findings A cultural resources field survey of the APE was conducted in August 2015 and July 2016 by HDR. The field survey included both a pedestrian surface survey of the APE and excavation of 159 shovel probes (all 30 centimeters in diameter) excavated to a maximum depth of 70 centimeters below surface. The shovel probes were all excavated within the proposed Sam’s Valley Substation parcel in an effort to identify subsurface cultural resources that may be present within this area, which is known to be sensitive for Native American cultural resources. Of the 159 shovel probes excavated, 22 were positive for subsurface cultural materials. The APE is moderately to heavily vegetated, crossing open valley floors and steep, heavily wooded mountain ridges and slopes. Approximately 15 to 20 percent of lands within the APE could not be surveyed due to steep, unsafe slopes and/or dense vegetation that could not be penetrated. One area that crossed a residential development where permission to enter was not granted by private land owners also was not surveyed. This residential area is in the vicinity of Evans Creek, a prominent tributary

November 2016 | 3-71 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

of the Rogue River, and retains significant potential for subsurface cultural deposits. The eastern end of the APE where the new substation is proposed to be constructed within a currently undeveloped parcel, also maintains a moderate potential for subsurface cultural deposits. In total, 19 cultural resources, comprising both archaeological sites (one of these sites includes a standing historic barn) and one built environment resource were identified within the APE during the field survey. Of these 19 resources, 6 were previously recorded and 13 were newly recorded. Additionally, eight isolated cultural resources finds were identified and documented (all prehistoric flakes, except for one isolate comprised of a historic car door; one isolate comprised of a broken fragment of a white, improved earthenware plate; and another isolate comprised of the rusted, fragmented body of car). Of the 19 cultural resources identified within the APE (not including the isolated finds), 13 are historic archaeological sites, 3 are prehistoric archaeological sites, 2 are multicomponent archaeological sites, and 1 is a historic built environment resource. The built environment resource is an in-service substation, originally constructed in the 1950s, that has been modified by Pacific Power over the years to maintain sufficient and reliable service to its customers. As described in the Record Search section above, 14 previously recorded cultural resources had been identified within or adjacent to the APE, however, only 6 of these previously recorded sites were identified within the APE during the present survey (one of these was actually documented by the BLM for the Project). Six previously recorded sites were found to be located outside of the APE, and two isolates (isolates 93-15 and NSR-PAC-04) appear to have been recorded within the APE, but could not be relocated. Additionally, as stated in the Record Search section above, there are 30+ historic features depicted on historic maps of the area that may be within the APE. However, during the field survey it was found that the majority of these features occur outside the APE and/or have been destroyed. Conversely, 8 (HDR-SV-01, HDR-SV-02, HDR-SV-03, HDR-SV-04, HDR-SV-07, HDR-SV-09, HDR-SV-10 and Grants Pass Substation) of the 14 newly recorded cultural resources identified during the field survey do correspond to the general location of historic features that were identified on historic maps of the area. Table 3-18 provides a brief description of the 19 resources identified during the inventory (not including the isolated finds), including the NRHP eligibility recommendation for each resource, and the subsequently recommended management measures for each resource to address potential project effects.

3-72 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-18. Cultural Resources Identified within the APE During the 2015/2016 Field Survey

Management NRHP Measures to Trinomial or Resource Recommend- Address Potential Temp Site No. Type Site Description ation Project Effects HDR-SV-01 Historic Mining complex Non- None Archaeological contributing Site element of a potentially eligible site HDR-SV-02 Historic Mining complex Potentially Avoid and monitor Archaeological Eligible Site HDR-SV-03 Historic Road Non- None Archaeological contributing Site element of a potentially eligible site HDR-SV-04 Historic Mining complex Potentially Avoid and monitor Archaeological Eligible Site HDR-SV-05 Historic Ditch Non- None Archaeological contributing Site element of a potentially eligible site HDR-SV-06 Historic Refuse scatter Potentially Avoid and monitor Archaeological Eligible Site HDR-SV-07 Historic Ditch Non- None Archaeological contributing Site element of a potentially eligible site HDR-SV-08 Historic Refuse scatter Ineligible None Archaeological Site HDR-SV-09 Historic Homestead site Potentially Avoid and monitor Archaeological Eligible Site HDR-SV-10/14 Multi- Historic barn, Ineligible None component associated features, Archaeological and lithic scatter site HDR-SV-11 Historic Mining complex Potentially Avoid and monitor Archaeological Eligible Site HDR-SV-12 Historic Refuse scatter Ineligible None Archaeological Site

November 2016 | 3-73 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-18. Cultural Resources Identified within the APE During the 2015/2016 Field Survey

Management NRHP Measures to Trinomial or Resource Recommend- Address Potential Temp Site No. Type Site Description ation Project Effects HDR-SV-13 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Avoid and monitor Archaeological Eligible Site HDR-SV-15 Historic Ditches Ineligible None Archaeological (previously Site evaluated) 35JA200 Prehistoric Rock shelter Potentially Avoid and monitor Archaeological Eligible Site 35JA274 Multi- Lithic scatter and Potentially Avoid and monitor component refuse scatter Eligible Archaeological site 35JA275 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Avoid and monitor Archaeological Eligible Site 0511050266SI/ Historic Mining complex Ineligible None OR110-1929 Archaeological (evaluated by Site the BLM) Grants Pass Built Substation Ineligible None Substation Environment Resource

3.9.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, Pacific Power would not construct a new transmission line, reconductor another existing transmission line, or build a new substation and would continue to operate and maintain the transmission line and existing right-of-way. Pole replacements may occur if required to maintain the line, but disturbance areas would be limited to those previously disturbed. Because no construction activities or right-of-way acquisition would take place under the No Action alternative, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated under this alternative.

3.9.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action This section summarizes the effects of the proposed Project on historic properties and presents cultural resources management recommendations, including recommendations to address inadvertent finds of previously unidentified cultural resources or human remains should such discoveries be made during project implementation. To comply with Section 106 regulations, an assessment of adverse effects on historic properties resulting from a federal undertaking must be completed, as required under 36 CFR § 800.5. An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the

3-74 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative (36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1)). No adverse effects are anticipated as a result of the Project. Eight isolated finds, ten archaeological sites, and one built environment resource that have been identified within the APE have been recommended or evaluated5 as ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP or as non-contributing elements of potentially eligible resources. Therefore, these resources and/or elements of resources are recommended not to be historic properties and no further cultural resources management consideration is recommended for these resources. Of the remaining nine archaeological sites identified in the APE, all are unevaluated for the NRHP and are potentially eligible for the NRHP. All nine of these archaeological sites would be managed as historic properties, as if they are all eligible for the NRHP, through avoidance. The Project has been designed in such a manner as to avoid adversely affecting all of these nine resources. Each resource and how the proposed Project would avoid adversely affecting each resource is provided in detail in Table 3-19.

Table 3-19. Potential Historic Properties within the APE and Avoidance Measures

Temp Site NRHP Management Measures to Avoid No. Site Description Recommendation Potential Project Effects HDR-SV-02 Historic Site. Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Project activities Mining complex. would be restricted to existing disturbance in this location, which includes a number of roads and disturbance around existing transmission line structures. An archaeological monitor would be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries. HDR-SV-04 Historic Site. Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Project activities Refuse scatter. would be restricted to existing disturbance in this location, which includes a number of roads and disturbance around existing transmission line structures. An archaeological monitor would be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries.

5 One of these resources was previously evaluated as ineligible and one has been evaluated by the BLM as ineligible during the project; the remaining resources are recommended ineligible.

November 2016 | 3-75 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-19. Potential Historic Properties within the APE and Avoidance Measures

Temp Site NRHP Management Measures to Avoid No. Site Description Recommendation Potential Project Effects HDR-SV-06 Historic Site. Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Project activities Homestead site. would be restricted to existing disturbance in this location, which includes a number of roads and disturbance around existing transmission line structures. An archaeological monitor would be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries. HDR-SV-09 Historic Site. Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Project activities Mining complex. would be restricted to existing disturbance in this location, which includes a number of roads and disturbance around existing transmission line structures. An archaeological monitor would be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries. HDR-SV-11 Prehistoric Site. Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Project activities Rock shelter. would be restricted to existing disturbance in this location, which includes a number of roads and disturbance around existing transmission line structures. An archaeological monitor would be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries. HDR-SV-13 Prehistoric lithic Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Structure 3/16 will be scatter accessed from the south, and no vehicles or other machinery will drive across the site during project implementation. Additionally, if this structure needs replacement, it can simply be cut off at the surface or limited digging around the two poles comprising the structure would be done (no more than 1 to 2 feet around the pole and up to 4 feet deep; this is essentially the footprint for the hole excavated during the original construction of the transmission line) to pull the pole out of the ground. Final methods for removal of the structure, if it is determined by the engineers to require replacement, will be dependent on negotiations with the private land owner where the structure is located. An archaeological monitor will be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries. And any new poles needed will be installed away from the site.

3-76 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-19. Potential Historic Properties within the APE and Avoidance Measures

Temp Site NRHP Management Measures to Avoid No. Site Description Recommendation Potential Project Effects 35JA200 Multi-component Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Project activities Site. Lithic would be restricted to existing disturbance scatter and and will be limited to driving on and refuse scatter. maintaining the existing road already in this location. An archaeological monitor would be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries. 35JA274 Prehistoric Site. Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Project activities Lithic scatter. would be restricted to existing disturbance and will be limited to driving on and maintaining the existing road already in this location. An archaeological monitor would be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries. 35JA275 Historic Site. Potentially Eligible Avoid and monitor. Project activities Mining complex. would be restricted to existing disturbance and will be limited to driving on and maintaining the existing road already in this location. An archaeological monitor would be on site during project construction-related activities undertaken within 30 meters of the identified site boundaries.

In addition to avoiding these eight potential historic properties, Pacific Power will consult with tribes and BLM, prior to construction, once the pole replacement locations are identified for the reconductoring portion of the Project. Finally, the field survey identified two areas where subsurface potential for cultural deposits exists: the proposed location for the new substation and the residential development area in the vicinity of Evans Creek. Ground disturbance in both of these areas would be monitored by an archaeological monitor to ensure unidentified cultural resources that could be historic properties are also not adversely affected. In summary, adverse effects to historic properties can be successfully avoided through management measures, including avoidance and monitoring during implementation of the proposed transmission line reinforcement Project. Thus, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5(b), the Project meets the requirements for a finding of no adverse effect to historic properties. However, there is always the possibility that unanticipated cultural resources would be encountered during project implementation. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during project implementation, work that physically affects a discovery site must stop immediately until a professional archaeologist can determine the nature of the resources discovered and the BLM can be notified and consulted with regarding the discovery and the appropriate steps needed to move forward with the Project.

November 2016 | 3-77 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

As appropriate, the archaeologist would assist construction personnel in avoiding any newly discovered resource and/or in implementing management measures to evaluate the significance and potential eligibility of the resources for listing on the NRHP. SHPO would be consulted should any determination of eligibility be made and interested Native American tribes would be consulted regarding the management of any prehistoric resources. In addition, should any human remains, suspected human remains, or any items suspected to be related to a human burial (i.e., funerary items, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony) be encountered during project construction, work would be immediately halted within 100 feet of the discovery. The area around the discovery would be secured and the appropriate parties would be contacted immediately. Oregon state law [ORS 97.745 (4)] requires that any discovered human remains on private, public, or state-owned land suspected to be Native American shall be reported to:  The State Police  SHPO  The Legislative Commission on Indian Services, who would provide a list of appropriate Native American Tribes  All appropriate Native American tribes provided by the Legislative Commission on Indian Services If human remains or items suspected to be related to a human burial are encountered on federally administered lands, the land managing agency, in this case the BLM, would be contacted immediately and would be responsible for implementing the protocols of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and any other necessary procedures. 3.10 Fire and Fuels

3.10.1 Affected Environment Fire is part of the natural landscape of southwest Oregon. Due to fire suppression efforts, fuel concentrations have increased dramatically in the last 50 years in many forested areas, raising the probability of higher fire intensity and higher rates of tree mortality and soil damage (BLM 2008a, Jackson County 2006). In addition, the BLM Medford District has experienced severe drought conditions since the beginning of 2013, which further contributes to the high fire danger in the region (BLM 2014). The ODF is the agency responsible for wildfire protection on private, county, state, and BLM administered lands in Jackson County. According to fire statistics provided by the ODF from 2005 to 2014, an average of 138 fires burned approximately 3,310 acres per year in Jackson County and an average of 94 fires burned approximately 4,828 acres in Josephine County (ODF 2014).

3.10.2 Environmental Effect—No Action Under the No Action alternative, ongoing maintenance and operation of the existing transmission line would involve hazard tree removal and vegetation clearing within the

3-78 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

right-of-way on an as-needed basis. The fire risk associated with operation of the transmission line would remain low.

3.10.3 Environmental Effect—Proposed Action For fire safety, all facilities (including the substation) would be designed per recommendations of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE) Guide for Substation Fire Protection (979-2012) and the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) for Fire Protection Engineering for Facilities (UFC 3-600-01). Large trees adjacent to the existing transmission line right-of-way pose a threat if the conductor blows close enough to arc to trees, causing them to catch fire or ignite surrounding vegetation. Vegetation, if allowed to become overgrown, may grow into the clearance area of the conductors. This poses an additional risk of fire due to arcing or direct contact, and may also cause power outages. During construction, trees that pose a hazard to the proposed transmission line and exceed transmission line clearance requirements would be cleared from the right-of- way. During operation and maintenance of the Project, vegetation that is overgrown and poses a hazard to the transmission line would be cleared on an as-needed basis. Additionally, precautionary measures would be taken during construction to reduce fire risk. Construction equipment would be monitored where activities may present safety issues and fire suppression equipment would be carried on all vehicles and equipment. The substation will be designed per IEEE Substation Fire Protection guidelines (979- 2012) and constructed in accordance with all fire and safety land use regulations. The site would be covered by non-flammable rock and surrounded by an access road constructed of non-flammable rock. Therefore, the Proposed Action is expected to pose a low fire risk. 3.11 Air Quality

3.11.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for air quality includes the airsheds of Josephine and Jackson Counties which are crossed by the Project. Oregon DEQ and the EPA regulate air quality in these counties. The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to limit the concentrations and exposure duration of pollutants known to be harmful to public health. Potentially harmful pollutants (aka, criteria air pollutants) include carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter, lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. DEQ, which is responsible for maintaining compliance with the NAAQS in Oregon, has established the State Ambient Air Quality Standards that are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. Geographic areas in which the ambient concentrations of a criteria pollutant exceed the NAAQS are classified as nonattainment areas and are required to implement measures that would bring them back into compliance with NAAQS. Nonattainment areas that return to compliance are called maintenance areas. Nonattainment areas do not exist in Josephine or Jackson Counties; however, maintenance areas occur in the cities of Grants Pass and Medford. The city of Grants Pass has a carbon monoxide maintenance area in its central business district (downtown), which is located approximately 2.5 miles west of the project area. In addition, the Grants Pass urban growth boundary, located approximately 1 mile west of the existing Grants Pass substation, is subject to limited maintenance plans for both

November 2016 | 3-79 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

carbon monoxide and particulate matter 10 microns and smaller (PM10). The Medford urban growth boundary, approximately 7 miles south of the project area, is a maintenance area for carbon monoxide and the Medford-Ashland area is a maintenance

area for PM10.

3.11.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, operation and maintenance activities would continue and be similar to existing conditions. Maintenance activities would continue to result in low impacts to air quality from emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicular traffic and equipment, mainly from the generation of dust and particulates in work areas.

3.11.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action Local emissions of criteria air pollutants could increase as a result of project construction equipment and activities. Soil-disturbing activities and travel on unpaved surfaces would result in an increase in dust and particulate matter. However, any increases in dust and particulate matter would be localized, temporary, and would be further reduced by implementing appropriate best management practices such as speed limits and spraying water on road surfaces during dry periods. The operation of heavy equipment during construction could result in temporary increases in additional pollutants, including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic hydrocarbons. Increased vehicle emission during construction would be localized, temporary, and relatively small compared to current emissions in surrounding areas. Additionally, the project area is not located within a designated nonattainment area and impacts on air quality are not expected to result in the exceedances of NAAQS based on typical emissions for construction equipment. Therefore, impacts to air quality would be low. 3.12 Noise, Public Health, and Safety

3.12.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for noise, public health, and safety includes the project area and surrounding areas within 0.25 mile of the Project. This distance was chosen as it represents a reasonable maximum distance within which noise impacts could occur during construction or operation.

Noise Sound is typically described using the decibel (dB) scale, a logarithmic rating system that accounts for large differences in audible sound intensities. This scale accounts for the human perception of a doubling of loudness as an increase of 10 A-weighted decibels (dBA). A 70-dBA sound level, for example, sounds twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound level. Noise levels expressed in dBA for various common sources are presented in Table 3-20. Factors affecting potential noise impacts include distance from the source, frequency of the sound, absorbency of the ground, the presence of obstructions, and the duration of the sound.

3-80 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 3-20. Typical Noise Levels

Noise Source or Effect Sound Level (dBA) Threshold of pain 140 Jet taking off (200 feet away) 130 Night Club (with music) 110 Construction site 100 Freight train (100 feet away) 80 Classroom chatter 70 Conversation (3 feet away) 60 Urban residence 50 Soft whisper (5 feet away) 40 Silent study room 20 Hearing threshold 0

Source: OSHA 2013

Noise sensitive land uses include residences within 0.25 mile of right-of-way and other areas where noise can affect how outdoor areas are used or enjoyed. Many residences are within 0.25 mile of the project area; most are clustered near the cities of Rogue River, Gold Hill, Grants Pass, and Central Point. Traffic is the primary source of human noise generated in parts of the project area where there are existing roads. Light automobile traffic at 100 feet has a typical sound level of 50 dBA. A heavy truck at 50 feet has a typical sound level of 80 dBA. Average sound levels due to line sources such as traffic decrease with distance from the road at a rate of 3 to 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the road. Ambient noise levels along the portions of the proposed transmission corridor located away from roads largely depend on wind and rain and are influenced by the existing 115 kV and 230 kV transmission lines (e.g., hissing and crackling sounds) that would run parallel to the proposed line. Audible noise levels for the existing transmission lines are likely to be very low, around 25 dBA at the edge of right-of-way (BLM 2008a, California Public Utilities Commission 1999).

Public Health and Safety Electromagnetic fields, or EMFs, are created by electrical charges that emanate from electrical devices and equipment such as home appliances or transmission lines. The term electromagnetic field refers to an electric field, or the magnetic field or both fields. Given the widespread use of electricity, EMFs are present everywhere in our daily lives. Common sources of electric and magnetic fields in the home are appliances, televisions, computers, and standard electrical wiring. When a device is turned on, electrical current flows and EMFs are created. The electric fields near outdoor transmission lines are typically stronger than those found in homes because they have a higher voltage than residential sources or appliances/devices. On the other hand, the magnetic fields around electrical appliances in homes can be as high as or higher than the magnetic fields near outdoor power lines.

November 2016 | 3-81 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Because electromagnetic fields decrease significantly with distance from the source, EMF exposure from power lines is reduced significantly by the distance from the wires – including the height of the towers or poles that carry overhead transmission and distribution lines. Transmission line electric fields, but not magnetic fields, are also shielded by trees and homes, so that they are further reduced inside homes and buildings. Electric field strength is measured in volts or kV/m. The electric field strength from wiring and appliances located within homes is typically less than 0.01 kV/m. Typical electrical field levels for a 115 kV transmission line are 0.5 kV/m at 50 feet, decreasing to 0.07 and 0.01 kV/m at 100 feet and 200 feet, respectively (NIEHS 2002). Magnetic fields are measured in units of gauss (G). A typical home has a background magnetic field level (at least 3 feet away from electrical appliances, home wiring, etc.) that ranges from 0.5 milligauss (mG) to 4 mG, with an average value of 0.9 mG (NIEHS 2002). This value increases substantially as you get closer (within 1 foot) to the source of electricity. Table 3-21 below illustrates how magnetic field exposure lessens with an increase in distance from typical electric sources at home. Typical magnetic field levels for a 115 kV transmission line are around 6.5 mG at 50 feet, decreasing to 1.7 and 0.4 mG at 100 feet and 200 feet, respectively (NIEHS 2002). Typical magnetic field values around distribution and transmission lines are provided in Table 3-22. Transformers and substations are usually not important sources of magnetic fields in a community (beyond the substation boundary). EMFs produced by substation equipment (e.g., transformers, reactors, etc.) are typically indistinguishable from background levels beyond the substation fence. However, because substations represent a point of convergence for power lines, residences near substations have a greater chance of being near power lines, and therefore, have a greater chance of exposure to higher magnetic-field levels from the power lines (NIEHS 2002).

Table 3-21: Typical Magnetic Fields from Household Appliances* 1.2” away 12” away 36” away Microwave oven 750 to 2,000 40 to 80 3 to 8 Clothes washer 8 to 400 2 to 30 0.1 to 2 Electric range 60 to 2,000 4 to 40 0.1 to 1 Compact fluorescent 0 to 32.8 0 to 0.1 0 bulb Hair dryer 60 to 20,000 1 to 70 0.1 to 3 LCD/plasma TV 1.1 to 73.6 0 to 2.5 0 to 2.2 *Units are in milligauss Source: Adapted from Gauger 1985 & EPRI Appliance Measurements Study 2010

Table 3-22: Typical Magnetic Fields around Distribution and Transmission Lines Line Type Typical Magnetic Field Distribution lines 1 to 80 mG under the line Transmission lines 1 to 300 mG at the edge of right-of-way

3-82 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Extensive research on EMF exposure and safety has been conducted by international and national scientists. The results from this research have been evaluated by reputable international and national scientific and public health organizations and agencies. Over 30 years of extensive data have been evaluated by international and national organizations including the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Reports published from these organizations indicate that scientific evidence supporting a linkage between EMF exposure and long-term health effects (e.g., cancer, depression, reproductive dysfunction) is weak and is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern or to justify costly precautionary measures (NIEHS 2002, WHO 2007, National Academy of Sciences 1997). Although the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal, the level of uncertainty is sufficiently strong to remain a concern and warrant continued research. Research on EMF exposure from transmission lines has resulted in the adoption of some standards by international organizations to regulate magnetic field exposure including the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES 2002), and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP [ICNIRP 1994]). Recommended magnetic field exposure limits for public safety range from 833 mG to 9,000 mG. No applicable laws exist for the regulation of magnetic fields in Oregon.

3.12.2 Environmental Effects—No Action Under the No Action alternative, noise impacts related to construction of the Project would not occur. Operation and maintenance activities would continue and would be similar to existing conditions. The existing transmission lines would continue to generate low levels of corona noise and EMF.

3.12.3 Environmental Effects—Proposed Action

Noise Oregon’s noise regulations (OAR 340-035) are used as criteria to assess the effects of the Proposed Action on noise. Construction activities would result in temporary, intermittent, and transient noise as construction activities progress along the right-of-way. Use of conventional equipment during construction is estimated to produce a maximum noise level of 98 dBA at 50 feet. Table 3-23 presents some typical construction equipment noise levels at 50 feet. Construction noise levels at noise-sensitive properties in the vicinity of the Project would vary over time and would be dependent on the number and type of equipment being used at any one location. Other factors that would affect construction noise levels include topography, vegetation, humidity, temperature, and wind direction. Noise from construction vehicles and increased work trips would temporarily contribute to existing traffic noise on local roads and on regional highways such as I-5 and OR-234, but is not predicted to result in substantial increases in average traffic noise levels. Construction noise would also include helicopter use for some activities, such as replacing conductors or to work in steep areas. The use of helicopters in any one area would be temporary

November 2016 | 3-83 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

and intermittent. Helicopter-spanned areas encompass all areas outside the “Area of Potential Ground Disturbance” shown on Figure 2-1.

Table 3-23. Typical Construction Equipment Noise (dBA)

Approximate Noise Levels at Types of Activities Types of Equipment 50 Feet Materials Handling Concrete mixers 75-87 Concrete pumps 81-83 Cranes (movable) 76-87 Cranes (derrick) 86-88 Stationary Equipment Pumps 69-71 Generators 71-82 Compressors 74-87 Impact Equipment Pneumatic wrenches 83-88 Rock drills 81-98 Land Clearing Bulldozer 77-96 Dump truck 82-94 Grading Scraper 80-93 Bulldozer 77-96 Dump truck 82-94

Source: EPA 1971

Construction would be limited to daylight hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Noise-sensitive properties close to construction zones could be exposed to noise levels above ambient levels and some residents could be exposed to higher noise levels from helicopter use; however, most residences are at least 50 feet from the project area. Construction noise would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise for some sensitive receptors. The impact would be considered low primarily because most residences would experience only minor increases in noise during construction and the noise increases would be temporary and intermittent. During operation of the Project, the transmission line would produce corona-generated noise similar to noise levels associated with the existing transmission lines. For lines rated at 230 kV and lower, corona noise is typically very low (for example, 25 dBA at the right-of-way edge) and is usually not noticeable (California Public Utilities Commission 1999). Based on typical noise levels for similar voltage transmission lines, noise levels at the edge of the right-of-way are estimated to be approximately 20 dBA during fair- weather and 45 dBA during foul weather (BPA 2010), which is below the state of Oregon’s 55 dBA residential daytime noise impact threshold, and 50 dBA residential nighttime noise impact threshold. Therefore, noise impacts resulting from the proposed transmission line would be low.

Public Health and Safety Project impacts to public health and safety are primarily related to increased EMF levels. Adding a new 230 kV transmission line would increase EMF levels along the right-of-way

3-84 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

corridor by adding on to existing EMF levels produced by the existing transmission lines. This impact would be most noticeable in the immediate (50 feet) area and would diminish quickly as distance from the right-of-way edge increases. The new 230 kV transmission line is estimated to produce the following EMF levels:  Typical electrical field levels for a 230 kV transmission line are 0.5 kV/m at 50 feet, decreasing to 0.07 and 0.01 kV/m at 100 feet and 200 feet, respectively (NIEHS 2002).  Typical magnetic field levels for a 230 kV transmission line are around 19.5 mG at 50 feet, decreasing to 7.1 and 1.8 mG at 100 feet and 200 feet, respectively (NIEHS 2002). No applicable laws exist for the regulation of magnetic fields in Oregon. However, all of the proposed transmission facilities would follow the rules, regulations, and standards for electromagnetic field exposure set by international organizations including the ICES and ICNIRP (ICES 2002, ICNIRP 1994). Although EMF levels would increase under the Proposed Action, they would remain well below the 833 mG to 9,000 mG limit for magnetic field exposure and the 28 kV/m lower range of perceptibility. Therefore, public health and safety impacts resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be low. More information about EMFs and Pacific Power’s commitment to public safety can be found on Pacific Power’s website at: https://www.pacificpower.net/ed/esi/EMF.html. 3.13 Cumulative Effects This section describes the potential cumulative effects associated with the Project. Cumulative effects result from the incremental effects of actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). The Project, in combination with identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, could potentially result in cumulative effects to the natural, physical, and human resources described in Sections 3.2 through 3.12 of this EA. The following subsections provide a general overview of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered and the cumulative effects analysis for each resource. The determination of what past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions to consider in the impact analysis was based on the resources being affected by the Project and generally included actions that could potentially influence resources in the project area, but that are distanced from the Project either geographically and/or temporally. This approach to cumulative effects analysis is consistent with current case law and guidance developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 2005), which is incorporated here by reference. This guidance states that “the analysis of environmental effects must focus on the aggregate effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are truly meaningful.” (CEQ 2005). More specifically, agencies are allowed to aggregate the effects of past actions without “delving into the historical details of individual past actions.”

November 2016 | 3-85 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

3.13.1 Past and Present Actions The project area lies within the Middle-Rogue subbasin of Jackson and Josephine Counties in southern Oregon. The first white settlers arrived in the mid 1800s, as trappers, fur traders, and gold miners. This initial flood of settlers left their mark on the landscape through the introduction of mining, timber harvests, wildlife hunting, and displacement of native communities. Eventually, mining opportunities dwindled and farming became popular in the area due to the mild climate and long growing season. Today, the area is best known for its farming and forestry land uses, natural attractions, including the Rogue River and Table Rocks, and recreational opportunities, which include fishing, hiking, and water sports. Prior to European settlement, the area was dominated by Douglas-fir forests, oak woodlands, and ponderosa pine woodlands. These habitats contain many fire-tolerant species that are adapted to frequent, low-intensity fires creating a mosaic of old growth forests and open woodlands, with late-successional conditions typical over a large portion of the landscape. Over the last 150 years, these vegetation types have declined by 55 to 60 percent due to logging, fire suppression, and rural residential development. Native grasslands have also been severely depleted (Oregon Biodiversity Project 1998). These declining vegetation types have been replaced by agricultural croplands and pasturelands in many areas, including portions of the project area.

3.13.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Reasonably foreseeable projects are defined for the purposes of this analysis as future actions that are planned within or in the immediate vicinity of the project area, if a plan or permit has been filed with county (for private lands) or if they are identified as proposed or in progress by a land management agency (for public lands). Reasonably foreseeable future actions were identified by contacting the Jackson County and Josephine County planning departments and the BLM Medford District. In addition, regional transportation and utility planning documents were reviewed for any long-term facility improvement projects planned within the project vicinity. Very few reasonably foreseeable future actions were identified within the project area, most likely because most of the land has either already been developed for agricultural, rural residential, or urban uses, or is forested habitat managed for timber harvests and silvicultural uses. No state-funded transportation projects are planned for future construction within 1 mile of the project area. A number of transportation projects are planned near the cities of Medford, Central Point, Phoenix, White City, Shady Grove and Ashland, all of which are located 5 to 25 miles away from the project area (ODOT 2015a, b). In addition, ColumbiaGrid, a group of public and private utility providers throughout the Pacific Northwest, has a 10-year plan that includes a list of projects that planning participants are committed to building to address known transmission deficiencies. None of the future projects identified in the 10-year plan would occur within the project vicinity (ColumbiaGrid 2015).

3-86 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Jackson and Josephine Counties No large commercial or residential developments are planned in Jackson or Josephine Counties in the foreseeable future. On May 10, 2012, Governor Kitzhaber signed Executive Order 12-07 entitled “A Pilot Program for Regional Farm and Forest Land Conservation.” The purpose of this executive order is to direct certain state agencies to work with Josephine, Jackson, and Douglas Counties, if those counties elect to participate, in developing a pilot program that allows appropriate additional regional variation in what lands must be planned and managed as farm and forest lands. The three counties have contracted with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments to be the financial administrator and host a regional website for the Project. Jackson County is currently in the phase of preparing a petition for rulemaking and developing a detailed project summary report.

BLM Medford District

Table Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern: Proposed Boundary Change and Supplementary Rules The BLM Medford District recently expanded the Table Rocks ACEC boundary in their amended RMP (BLM 2016). The Table Rocks ACEC was originally designated in 1986 by an amendment to the Medford District Management Framework Plan. The area, which includes 1,003 acres on Upper Table Rock and 240 acres on Lower Table Rock, was designated an ACEC to recognize and protect botanical and geological features, threatened and endangered and special status species, and natural systems. Since the ACEC was originally created, TNC and BLM have acquired additional lands adjacent to the existing ACEC, which meet the criteria for an ACEC and require special management. The recently amended RMP (2016) enlarged the ACEC boundary to encompass contiguous BLM- and TNC-administered parcels on Upper and Lower Table Rocks, totaling approximately 4,864 acres. Lands within the expanded ACEC boundary will be managed to protect native plant and wildlife habitat, historic or cultural resources, and provide recreational and educational opportunities for the public. Supplementary rules will be established within the ACEC to restrict visitor activities that threaten the natural and historic values of Table Rocks, including use of firearms, motorized vehicles, paintballs, digging, and metal detectors. New trails may be added in the future but details on their location are not known at this time. Application of BLM management on the enlarged ACEC will be limited to BLM-administered lands only.

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project The Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project is a proposed 232-mile, 36-inch high- pressure natural gas transmission pipeline from an existing interstate gas transmission pipeline at Malin, Oregon, to a proposed natural gas liquefaction plant and export terminal at Jordon Cove in Coos Bay, Oregon. From its terminal in Coos Bay, the natural gas will be liquefied for transport to international markets. The Project will cross federal lands managed by the BLM, Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, as well as private lands. A portion of the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project crosses through Jackson County, approximately 15 miles northeast of the project area.

November 2016 | 3-87 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

A final EIS was released in September 2015. On March 11, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied Pacific Connector’s request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate the pipeline and LNG terminal. In response, the applicants requested a rehearing from FERC in April, 2016. FERC issued a tolling order in May, 2016, to allow itself more time to consider the merits of their request for rehearing. Whether or not the Project will ever get permitted and developed remains to be seen at this time.

Ongoing Land Management Activities BLM lands that are crossed by the Project would continue to be managed for timber and forest commodities as well as wildlife habitat and ecological functions; therefore, ongoing activities are likely to include timber harvest and other silvicultural activities, and surveys for species and habitats. Ongoing management of BLM lands would occur in accordance with established policies and procedures as outlined in the 2016 RMP, which was signed on August 5, 2016..

3.13.3 Cumulative Effects The following sections describe the cumulative effects that the Proposed Action, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would have on the various environmental resources discussed in this EA. Overall, the Proposed Action in combination with past, present, and reasonable future foreseeable future actions would result in low cumulative impacts to all assessed resources.

Land Use, Transportation, and Recreation Land use in the project vicinity has incrementally changed due to past and present disturbance from grazing, agriculture, vegetation maintenance, infrastructure placement (including roadways/highways, transmission lines, and pipelines), and residential development. The transportation system surrounding the project area has developed in response to these land uses, with most of the well-maintained roads being clustered near cities and towns and many unnamed dirt roads serving the more remote forested areas. This trend would continue, although current land use is not expected to change much in the near future. No large commercial or residential developments are planned in Jackson or Josephine Counties in the foreseeable future. In addition, no major transportation projects are planned within 1 mile of the project area in the foreseeable future. BLM’s expansion of the Table Rocks ACEC boundary is expected to provide increased recreational opportunities as the population of the Rogue Valley continues to grow. In the unlikely event that both the proposed Project and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project were being constructed at the same time, it is possible that some of the regional highways and major roads could experience elevated traffic levels due to an increase in the number of construction workers and the transport of construction materials and equipment. However, many of the roads used for the proposed Project are not likely to be used for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project (e.g., Table Rock Road and the portions of OR-234 and I-5 that are west of Medford/Gold Hill). Therefore, the cumulative impact of both projects to the regional transportation network is not expected to result in noticeably adverse roadway conditions.

3-88 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

The Proposed Action would result in the conversion of some farm and forest land into utility right-of-way. However, the conversion of existing land uses to right-of-way would be minor relative to the amount of each land use type available in the surrounding area. Additionally, the Project would not preclude existing land uses to continue on adjacent and surrounding properties, nor would it preclude compatible land uses (e.g., agriculture and grazing) to continue to use the expanded transmission right-of-way. Further, the future implementation of the Southern Oregon Regional Pilot Program could result in changes to Jackson and Josephine County zoning ordinances, and other local policies affecting farm and forest land use, which would likely reduce the amount of forest and farm land being converted to other uses in the future. The Proposed Action would not impact, or be impacted, by the BLM’s RMP Amendment and Table Rocks ACEC boundary expansion as the project is not visible from the Table Rocks trail network, would have no effect on the Table Rocks rare plant and wildlife communities, and other potential recreational distractions like noise, traffic, or dust would not result from operation of the Project. Therefore, the contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative land use, transportation, and recreational impacts would be low.

Geology and Soils The principal past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that affect soils in the vicinity of the Proposed Action are related to farming and grazing. Implementation of erosion control BMP’s and avoidance of many steep slope areas would ensure that the Proposed Action would not contribute significantly to cumulative soil impacts. As such, the contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative impacts would be considered low.

Water Resources

Surface Waters Ongoing timber harvests, agriculture, and grazing are responsible for most of the impacts on water resources and water quality. Vegetation control along roads and utility corridors also affects water resources. Vegetation control routinely occurs along highways, county roads, residential roads, and utility corridors. Vegetation control activities typically include herbicide applications to control vegetation and noxious weeds and mechanical vegetation removal. The Proposed Action could result in temporary impacts to water quality during construction. However, compared to the combined cumulative impacts of past, present, and future actions, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative impacts on water resources is considered low.

Wetlands Past and present development in the project vicinity has cumulatively affected wetlands through destruction and degradation of wetlands. This is consistent with the statewide trend, where approximately 38 percent of wetlands are estimated to have been converted to other uses (DSL 2004). Wetland hydrology has been altered from its natural condition in many areas, affecting wetland functions and values.

November 2016 | 3-89 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

The Proposed Action would result in approximately 3.5 acres of permanent impacts to wetlands; however, those impacts would be mitigated to result in no net loss of wetland function at the watershed scale. Compared to the cumulative impacts of past and present actions, the contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative impacts on wetlands would be considered low.

Botanical Resources The development of road and utility corridors and commercial and residential uses has contributed to the cumulative impact to native vegetation communities in the vicinity of the Project. If substantial additional development occurs on private lands in the area, a more extensive shift away from native vegetation communities could occur but is not likely in the foreseeable future due to the remoteness of the corridor. BLM’s proposal to expand the Table Rocks ACEC Boundary is intended to increase protection for rare plant communities at the Table Rocks. Past and present activities, such as ranching, agriculture, and road construction, have also resulted in the substantial introduction and spread of noxious weeds in the project corridor and general vicinity. The spread of noxious weeds will continue as a result of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. The Proposed Action would be expected to have a minimal contribution to cumulative impacts on vegetation, compared to the combined impacts of past, present, and future vegetation-altering activities. The amount of vegetation that would be affected by the Proposed Action is small compared to the area affected by existing land uses in the area. The Proposed Action would not impact rare plant communities within the Table Rocks ACEC. Accordingly, due to the linear nature of the Project and the pre-existing condition of the vegetation, in combination with vegetation protection measures and actions, the Project would have a low impact in regard to loss of vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action could contribute to cumulative noxious weed impacts as corridors can act as a path for the movement of weed species and controlling many weed species is difficult. The potential contribution of the Project, however, would be minimized by project design features, which would minimize the spread of new noxious weed infestations and colonization in the project area. The contribution of the Proposed Action to the spread of noxious weeds thus would be considered a low to moderate cumulative impact.

Fish and Wildlife Past and present development and other activities have had a cumulative adverse impact on wildlife species and their habitat in the project vicinity. The clearing and conversion of land for home sites, communities, utility infrastructure, and other uses since the 19th century has resulted in the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat. Agricultural operations have resulted in the conversion of native woodland habitats into disturbed grasslands and croplands. In addition, ongoing timber harvests, agriculture, and grazing have resulted in impacts to water quality and fish habitat. Existing roads in the project vicinity have led to increased disturbance from human activity, increased landscape fragmentation, and the presence of wildlife travel barriers, lost habitat, and spread of

3-90 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

noxious weeds. This habitat modification and loss has resulted in the displacement of wildlife species. Wildlife species also have been directly affected by hunting and trapping activities, as well as incidental harm and killing from other human activities in the area. BLM’s proposal to expand the Table Rocks ACEC boundary is intended to increase protection for wildlife communities that depend on the Table Rocks. The Proposed Action would contribute, although in only a minor way, to these cumulative impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat, through temporary disturbance during construction and permanent removal of very small areas of wildlife habitat. Because the Project would not add any new roads and would run parallel to an existing right-of-way corridor, the cumulative impacts related to habitat fragmentation are considered low. Additionally, transmission corridors can act as a path for the movement of difficult to control weed species and thereby degrade wildlife habitat through the spread of weed species, especially with regard to grazing and browsing species like deer and elk. Following construction, the continued use of access roads for maintenance vehicles could aid in the spread of noxious weeds, but would not increase above existing levels, making the associated cumulative impacts low. The Proposed Action would not impact wildlife communities within the Table Rocks ACEC as wildlife disturbances such as noise, dust, or increased human presence would not occur during operation of the Project. The Proposed Action could result in temporary impacts to water quality and fish habitat during construction. However, compared to the combined cumulative impacts of past, present, and future actions, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative impacts on fish and fish habitat is considered low.

Visual Resources Visual resources in the project vicinity have incrementally changed due to past and present development, although current views are not expected to change much in the foreseeable future. The existing visual character of the project area is already heavily influenced by existing transmission lines and structures. Most visual impacts from the Proposed Action would be minor and localized, except for changes to views near the proposed substation site, which would be more substantial. The Proposed Action is not expected to impact views for the BLM’s proposed Table Rocks ACEC expansion as the Project is not visible from the existing Table Rocks trail network and new trails have not been proposed at this time. However, if additional trails were developed in the future, the substation may be visible depending on the location of the trail. The substation is not visible from existing trails that are concentrated in the southern half of Lower Table Rock; however, trails added to the northern slope of Lower Table Rock would be more likely to have views of the substation. If new trails were developed where the substation was visible, the visual impact of the substation would depend on the viewer’s proximity to the substation. For viewers in close proximity, the substation would represent a visual obstruction that could interfere with views of the surrounding open fields and rural agricultural areas. However, from a distanced the substation would blend in with the rural transitional character of Sams Valley, which already includes a mixture of built (roadways, transmission lines and tower structures, houses and sheds) and natural features (reservoirs, open fields and cropland, mountains and streams).

November 2016 | 3-91 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Because of the temporary nature of construction activities, the existing utility corridor and structures, the limited visibility of the project area from surrounding areas, and limited use of the right-of-way corridor, the contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative impacts on visual resources would be low to moderate.

Socioeconomic Environment Past and present population growth, housing development, agricultural and timber operations, and public service operations have occurred in the project vicinity. Growth and development trends are expected to continue, but would not change much in the near future. The areas that the transmission line traverses are mostly rural in nature, which is likely to remain the same. The Proposed Action would result in temporary impacts, including an increase in temporary housing/lodging demand, economic benefits, timber/agricultural production impacts, and property impacts, which would result in a cumulative socioeconomic impact. However, because of the temporary and localized nature of these activities and low impact to existing socioeconomic resources and public services, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Action, along with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would have a low cumulative impact on socioeconomic resources and public services. Additionally, the Proposed Action would provide more reliable electrical power, which would have a cumulative socioeconomic benefit in the region.

Cultural Resources Cultural resources have likely been cumulatively affected by past and current development activities. Most impacts have likely occurred as a result of inadvertent disturbance or destruction during ground-disturbing activities such as fire and floods, agricultural development, timber harvest, road construction, residential and commercial construction, and construction of the existing transmission lines. The extent of looting of and vandalism to cultural resources in the project vicinity is unknown. These cumulative impacts include disturbance of cultural sites, reduction of the cultural integrity of certain sites, and removal of cultural artifacts. BLM’s proposal to expand the Table Rocks ACEC boundary is intended to increase protection for cultural and historic resources that exist on the Table Rocks. Implementation of the project design features would minimize impacts and would reduce the potential for the Proposed Action to contribute incrementally cumulative impacts on cultural resources within the APE. The Proposed Action would not impact cultural resources within the Table Rocks ACEC. Cumulative impacts to cultural and historic resources are not expected given the protection measures in place on public and private lands and the lack of proposed projects that meet the criteria for cumulative effects, based on available information at the time this EA document was prepared.

Air Quality Ongoing vehicular traffic, logging activities, residential wood burning, and road and transmission line maintenance are all sources of air pollutants that will continue to emit pollutants. Current activities in the project area do not currently violate NAAQS. While construction of the Proposed Action would cumulatively contribute a small amount to

3-92 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

overall air pollutant levels, it is unlikely that cumulative concentrations would result in new violations of the NAAQS, or exacerbate existing violations of the NAAQS. Therefore, the cumulative impact to air quality would be low.

Noise, Public Health, and Safety

Noise Noise levels in the project vicinity are cumulatively affected by the existing transmission lines, existing traffic, recreational activities, existing residential uses, timber harvest, and agricultural and silvicultural activities. Depending on the timing and proximity of these other activities, the Proposed Action, in combination with any nearby and concurrent activities, could result in cumulatively increased noise levels in the short term during project construction. However, because construction noise impacts would be temporary, they would not contribute to long-term cumulative noise impacts in the project vicinity. Additionally, during operation of the Proposed Action, minor increases in corona-related noise levels from the transmission line are not expected to be noticeable from the edge of the right-of-way. Therefore, the cumulative impact on noise is expected to be low.

Public Health and Safety The existing transmission lines represent an existing source of EMF in the immediate project area. The Proposed Action would slightly increase the overall level of EMF exposure along the corridor. However, the increase would be minor and localized. Therefore, the cumulative impact to public health and safety would be low.

November 2016 | 3-93

Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

4 Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

This chapter addresses statutes, implementing regulations, and executive orders potentially applicable to the Proposed Action. 4.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as Amended) The CEQ implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 establishes the basic process for conducting and documenting environmental analyses, including public participation. NEPA requires that the site-specific impacts of the Project be evaluated prior to the decision to issue a right-of-way grant for BLM lands that would be crossed by the Proposed Action. 4.2 Land Use and Recreation

4.2.1 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (as Amended) The FLPMA (as amended), also known as the BLM Organic Act, consolidated and identified BLM’s management responsibilities, and established multiple use, sustained yield, and environmental protection as the guiding principles for public land management. The act also requires that land use plans be developed, maintained, and, when appropriate, revised. FLPMA also includes the authority for BLM to grant, issue, and renew rights-of-way across BLM lands, provided all approved management actions conform to the goals and management direction contained in the applicable land use plan (43 CFR 1610.5-3).

4.2.2 BLM Resource Management Plan Conformance The BLM Medford District RMP (BLM 2016) is the approved land use plan applicable to BLM lands within the proposed project area. Federal regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-3(a)) state: “All future resource management authorizations and actions, as well as budget or other action proposals to higher levels in the Bureau of Land Management and Department, and subsequent more detailed or specific planning, will conform to the approved plan.” The RMP contains specific goals and objectives to provide authorizations, including right-of-way, for public and private uses while maintaining and improving resource values and public land administration; the Proposed Action is in compliance with this plan. In general, the 2016 RMP allows for a variety of land uses, including right-of-way grants. The right-of-way objective is to “provide needed rights-of-way, permits, leases, and easements over BLM-administered lands in a manner that is consistent with Federal and State laws” (BLM 2016, p. 93). Applicants are encouraged to locate new facilities within existing corridors to the extent possible (BLM 2016, p. 95). The proposed transmission line would utilize the existing

November 2016 | 4-1 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

115 kV Grants Pass-Lone Pine transmission line corridor and is therefore consistent with this RMP directive.

4.2.3 Farmland Protections Policy Act The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 USC 4201 et seq.) requires that federal agencies avoid the unnecessary and irreversible conversion (directly or indirectly) of farmland to nonagricultural uses by ensuring that their proposed actions are consistent with federal, state, and local programs and policies designed to protect farmland. The Act’s purpose is to minimize the number of federal programs that contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses.

4.2.4 State and Local Land Use Planning Framework Oregon has a statewide planning program, which is supported by 19 statewide planning goals. The goals express the state’s policies on land use and related topics. The goals are adopted as administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660, Division 015) and are achieved through local comprehensive planning. State law requires counties to have a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, consistent with the statewide planning goals, to implement the statewide planning goals. The following describes the county plans and ordinances that guide land use in the area affected by the Proposed Action.

Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Ordinance In Jackson County, the transmission line would cross land zoned as Exclusive Farm Use, Forest Resource, Open Space Reserve, Residential, and Woodland Resource. The substation site would be located on land zoned Exclusive Farm Us. Project facilities would be permitted, subject to compliance with applicable zoning and comprehensive plan criteria and development standards. Therefore, the Proposed Action would be consistent with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan (2004) and Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (2005).

Josephine County Comprehensive Plan and Rural Land Development Code In Josephine County, the transmission line would cross land zoned Residential and Forest. Project facilities would be permitted, subject to compliance with applicable zoning and comprehensive plan criteria and development standards. Therefore, the Proposed Action would be consistent with The Comprehensive Plan for Josephine County (2005a) and Josephine County Rural Land Development Code (2005b).

4.2.5 Transportation Permits According to the ORS Chapter 818 (Vehicle Limits), oversize or overweight vehicles need transportation permits to travel on highways and local public roads in the state.

4-2 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

4.3 Geology and Soils

4.3.1 Omnibus Public Land Management Act—Paleontological Resources Preservation The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Public Law 111-011, Title VI, Subtitle D on Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (123 Stat. 1172; 16 USC 470aaa) requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land. 4.4 Botanical Resources, Fish and Wildlife

4.4.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as Amended) The ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) as amended in 1988, establishes a national program for the conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the preservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA is administered by the USFWS for wildlife and freshwater species and by NMFS for marine and anadromous species. The ESA defines procedures for listing species, designating critical habitat for listed species, and preparing recovery plans. It also specifies prohibited actions and exceptions. Section 7 of the ESA requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS on federal projects that may affect listed species.

4.4.2 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 2901 et seq.) encourages federal agencies to conserve and promote conservation of nongame fish and wildlife and their habitats. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.) requires federal agencies with projects affecting water resources to consult with USFWS and the state agency responsible for fish and wildlife resources.

4.4.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as Amended) The Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668–668d) prohibits the taking or possessing of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with limited exceptions.

4.4.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Federal Memorandum of Understanding The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703–712) implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and other countries, including Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union, for the protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds, or their eggs or nests, is unlawful. The Act classifies most species of birds as migratory, except for upland and nonnative birds such as pheasant, chukar, gray partridge, house sparrow, European starling, and rock dove.

November 2016 | 4-3 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Executive Order 13186 requires the “environmental analysis of federal actions, required by NEPA or other established environmental review processes, evaluates the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with particular emphasis on species of concern.” Federal agencies whose actions may negatively affect migratory bird populations are directed to work with USFWS to develop and agreement to conserve migratory birds.

4.4.5 Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) This 1999 order requires federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of invasive species to identify those actions and within budgetary limits “(i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species…; (iii) monitor invasive species populations…; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded...;(vi) promote public education on invasive species…; and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction of spread of invasive species…unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency had determined and made public… that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.”

4.4.6 Federal Noxious Weed Control Act of 1974 (as Amended) The Federal Noxious Weed Act (7 USC 2801 et seq.; 88 Stat. 2148), enacted January 3, 1975, established a federal program to control the spread of noxious weeds. The Act requires that each federal agency: develop a management program to control undesirable plants on federal lands under the agency’s jurisdiction; establish and adequately fund the program; implement cooperative agreements with state agencies to coordinate management of undesirable plants on federal lands; and establish integrated management systems to control undesirable plants targeted under cooperative agreements. If an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required under the National Environmental Policy Act to implement plant control agreements, federal agencies must complete those assessments or statements within one year after the requirement is known. 4.5 Water Resources and Water Quality

4.5.1 Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1982 (as Amended) The Clean Water Act (33 USC 1341, 1342, 1344) regulates discharges into waters of the United States.

Section 401 A federal permit to conduct an activity that causes discharges into navigable waters is issued only after the affected state certifies that existing water quality standards would not be violated if the permit were issued.

4-4 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Section 402 This section authorizes stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. EPA Region 10 has a general permit for federal facilities for discharges from construction activities.

Section 404 Authorization from the USACE is required in accordance with the provisions of Section 404 when dredged or fill material is discharged into waters of the United States, including wetlands. 4.6 Wetlands and Floodplain Protection

4.6.1 Oregon’s Removal Fill Law Oregon’s Removal Fill Law (ORS 196.795-990), administered by DSL, requires a permit for removal of material or placement of fill in waters of the state, which include waterways and wetlands. Some activities are exempt from this requirement.

4.6.2 Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) Executive Order 11990 was released in May 1977, directing federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.

4.6.3 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. 4.7 Air Quality

4.7.1 Clean Air Act, as Amended in 1990 The purposes of this act are “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare of the productive capacity of its population; to initiate and accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution; to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments in connection with the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs; and to encourage and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs.”

November 2016 | 4-5 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources

4.8.1 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) In February 1994, Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, was released to federal agencies. This order states that federal agencies must identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. 4.9 Cultural and Historical Resources Several laws and regulations are in place to govern management of cultural resources. A cultural resource is an object, structure, building, site, or district that provides irreplaceable evidence of natural or human history of national, state, or local significance, such as national landmarks, archeological sites, and properties listed (or eligible for listing) on the NRHP. Cultural resources related laws and regulations include:  Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431–433)  Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461–467)  Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.), as amended  Archaeological Data Preservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469 a–c)  Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470 et seq.), as amended  Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001 et seq.)  Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites  American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC 1996, 1996a)  Oregon state law (ORS 97.740–97.760, 358.905–358.955, and 390.235) defines state regulation of archaeological and historic sites  ORS 390.235 contains information on permits and conditions for excavation or removal of archaeological or historic materials  ORS 97.740–97.760 prohibits disturbance of Indian burials

4.9.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as Amended) This act requires federal agencies to consult with American Indian tribes, state, and local groups before nonrenewable heritage resources, such as archaeological and historic structures, are damaged or destroyed. Section 106 of this act requires federal agencies to consider the effects project proposals may have on cultural resources in the analysis area.

4-6 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

4.10 Noise, Public Health and Safety 4.10.1 Noise Control Act of 1972 The federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4901 et seq.) requires that federal entities comply with state and local noise requirements. Environmental noise limits relevant to the Proposed Action are regulated by the state of Oregon, which establish limits on levels and duration of noise. Temporary construction is exempted from state regulations and there are no applicable noise ordinances in Josephine or Jackson Counties. 4.10.2 Uniform Fire Code The development of a Hazardous Materials Management Plan may be required by local fire districts in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. 4.10.3 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 (a-y)) registers and regulates pesticides. When a federal agency uses herbicides, the date, dose, and chemical used are recorded and reported to state government officials. Herbicide containers are disposed of according to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act standards discussed in Section 4.10.4, below. 4.10.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC 6901 et seq.), as amended, is designed to provide a program for managing and controlling hazardous waste by imposing requirements on generators and transporters of this waste, and on owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Each facility owner or operator is required to have a permit issued by EPA or the state.

November 2016 | 4-7

Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

5 List of Preparers and Agencies/Tribes/ Persons Consulted 5.1 BLM Reviewers

Table 5-1. BLM Medford District Staff Members

Name Responsibility Rik Amdt Realty Specialist Jeff Brown Engineer Cheryl Foster-Curley Archaeologist Tony Kerwin District Planning and Environmental Coordinator Trish Lindaman Recreation Amy Meredith Soil Scientist Lisa Rice Archaeologist David Roelofs Wildlife Biologist Shawn Simpson Hydrologist Leslie Voelkel Realty Specialist Cindy Wedekind Engineer Stephanie Kelleher NEPA Planner Marcia Wineteer Botanist

Table 5-2. Pacific Power Team Members

Name Responsibility John Aniello Senior Project Manager Andy Waltz Project Controls Specialist Jordan Messinger, PE, SE Project Manager Brian King T & D Environmental Manager

Table 5-3. HDR Team Members

Name Responsibility Robert Almanza Transmission Lead Corrinne Atkinson, AICP Project Manager Brian Bauman Biology Lead Stephanie Borders Public Involvement Lead Molly Brown Quality Control Lori Buffington Technical Editor Paul Capell, PE Project Principal Sandy Flint Cultural Resources Lead

November 2016 | 5-1 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Table 5-3. HDR Team Members

Name Responsibility Katherine Hill Right-of-way Lead Mathew Hutchinson ESA & Section 7 Consultation, Water Resources, Botanical Resources, Fish and Wildlife Grant Miller-Francisco GIS Donette Miranda NEPA Document Lead Danielle Risse Cultural Resources Brittany Sahatjian NEPA Document Contributing Author

Table 5-4. WEST Team Members

Name Responsibility Clayton Derby Biology Survey Troy Rintz Biology Survey Joel Thompson Biology Survey

5.2 Agencies and Tribes Consulted This section identifies the agencies and persons that were consulted as part of the environmental assessment prepared for the Sams Valley Reinforcement Project. 5.2.1 State and Federal Agencies Consulted  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife  Oregon Department of State Lands  Oregon State Historic Preservation Office  U.S. Army Corp of Engineers  U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management  U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 5.2.2 Other Governing Organizations Consulted  City of Rogue River Planning  Jackson County Planning Department  Josephine County Planning Office 5.2.3 Tribes Consulted  Klamath Tribes  Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians  Grand Ronde Community of Oregon  Confederated Tribes of Siletz

5-2 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

6 References

Adamus, Paul, Morland, Janet, and Kathy Verble 2010 Manual for the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol (ORWAP). Version 2.0.2. Oregon Dept. of State Lands, Salem, OR. Aikens, C. Melvin 1993 Archaeology of Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

Aikens, C. Melvin 1993 Archaeology of Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

Atwood, Kay 1994/1995 Oregon Places: “As Long as the World Goes on”: The Table Rocks and the Takelma. Oregon Historical Quarterly, Aspects of Southern Oregon History 95(4): 516-533

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 2006 Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 2003 Raymond-Cosmopolis Transmission Line Rebuild Project Final Environmental Assessment. August 2003. Available online at: http://efw.bpa.gov/environmental_services/Document_Library/Raymond_Cosmopolis/FE A1425web.pdf 2010 North Steens Transmission Line Project, Appendix C: Electrical Effects. February 2010. Brauner, David R. and Clayton G. Lebow 1983 A Re-evaluation of Cultural Resources within the Proposed Elk Creek Lake Project Area, Jackson County, Oregon. Phase II: Site Evaluation. Report of the Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

Budy, Elizabeth B. 2001 Lands North of the Wild Rogue: A Historical Overview of People and Events North of the Wild Rogue River. Prepared by Native-X Archaeological Services, Klamath Falls, Oregon. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Medford, Oregon.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1995 Record of Decision for the Medford District Resource Management Plan (RMP). BLM Medford District. June 1995. 2008a Entiat Valley 115 kV Transmission Program Environmental Assessment. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Spokane District Office, Wenatchee Field Office. June 2008. 2008b BLM Manual 6840-Special Status Species Management. Release 6-125. December 12, 2008. 2013 Programmatic Botany Biological Assessment (BA), Medford District. September 30, 2013.

November 2016 | 6-1 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report. BLM Medford District Office. 2014. 2015 ePlanning NEPA and Land use Planning Register. NEPA Project: Medford District RMP Amendment: Table Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern Boundary Change and Supplementary Rules. NEPA Number DOI-BLM-ORWA-M050-2016-0004-EA. Accessed online at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do 2016a Southwestern Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. August 2016. 2016b Biological Assesment for the Bieber Salt, Cold Elk, and Lost Creek Foirest Management Projects and the Pacific Power Reinforcement Project: An assessment of Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl and Marbeled Murrelelt. Medford District Bureau of Land Management, June 2016 (FY 16 June LAA BA)

California Public Utilities Commission 1999 Tri Valley Project PEA, Chapter 17-Corona and Induced Current Effects. November 1999.

ColumbiaGrid 2015 2015 System Assessment. ColumbiaGrid. Portland, OR. July 2015. Commager, Henry 1927 England and Oregon Treaty of 1846. Oregon Historical Quarterly 28(1):18-38.

Commager, Henry 1927 England and Oregon Treaty of 1846. Oregon Historical Quarterly 28(1):18-38.

Connolly, Thomas James 1986 Cultural Stability and Change in the Prehistory of Southwest Oregon and Northern California. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Oregon.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1997 Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Accessed online at: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf 2005 Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Council on Environmental Quality. June 24, 2005. Cressman, Luther S. 1933a Aboriginal Burials in Southwestern Oregon. American Anthropologist 35(1):116-130. 1933b Contributions to the Archaeology of Oregon: Final Report on the Gold Hill Burial Site. University of Oregon Publications in Anthropology 1.

Cowardin, Lewis M., Carter, Virginia. Golet, Francis, and Edward T. LaRoe 1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31.Washington, D.C.

Cressman, Luther S. 1933a Aboriginal Burials in Southwestern Oregon. American Anthropologist 35(1):116-130. 1933b Contributions to the Archaeology of Oregon: Final Report on the Gold Hill Burial Site. University of Oregon Publications in Anthropology 1.

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 2008 Rogue River Basin TMDL. December 2008. Accessed online at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/rogue.htm#rb

6-2 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

2013 2011 Rogue Basin Groundwater Investigation. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Medford OR. April 2013. Accessed online at: http://www.oregon.gov/deq/WQ/Documents/Groundwater/2013RogueGWReport.pdf

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) 2015 Klamath Mountains. Accessed online at: http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/learnmore/KlamathMountains.HTM

Department of State Lands (DSL) 2004 Just the Facts About Wetland Functions and Assessment. Oregon Department of State Lands Wetland Program. November 2004. Accessed online at: http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/WETLAND/docs/fact5.pdf Eisenhard, Jim, Jim Maize, Kay Atwood, L. Scott Clay, and Sue Waldron 1993 Medford, Oregon: Historic Context 1846-1946. Prepared by Medford Planning Department, Medford, Oregon.

Eisenhard, Jim, Jim Maize, Kay Atwood, L. Scott Clay, and Sue Waldron 1993 Medford, Oregon: Historic Context 1846-1946. Prepared by Medford Planning Department, Medford, Oregon.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1971 Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. December, 1971. 1998 Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses. April 1998. Accessed online at: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/ policy/ej_guidance_nepa_epa0498.pdf

Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap 2003 Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2): 420-432. Gray, Dennis J. 1987 The Takelma and Their Athapaskan Neighbors: A New Ethnographic Synthesis for the Upper Rogue River Area of Southwestern Oregon. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 37.

Hodge, Frederick W., ed. 1910 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnography Bulletin 30, Pt. 2. Washington, D.C.

HDR 2015 Wetlands and Waters Delineation Report for the PacfiCorp Table Rock Substation Project. April 20, 2015.

International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICES) 2002 C95.6 IEEE Standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields, 0-3 kHz. IEEE.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 1994 Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic fields. Health Physics 66:100-106.

Jackson County 2004 Jackson County Comprehensive Plan

November 2016 | 6-3 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

2005 Land Development Ordinance. February 2005 2006 Jackson County Integrated Fire Plan DRAFT. May 2006. 2012 Jackson County, Oregon Information Sheet. March 7, 2012. 2015 About Jackson County, Oregon. Accessed online at: http://www.co.jackson.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=62

Jackson, Thomas O. and Jennifer Pitts. 2010. The Effects of Electric Transmission Lines on Property Values: A Literature Review. Journal of Real Estate Literature Volume 18 (2), pp 239-259.

Josephine County 2005a Comprehensive Plan for Josephine County. October 2005. 2005b Rural Land Development Code. May 2005.

Kramer, George with a contribution by Jill A. Hough 1999 Mining in Southwest Oregon: A Historic Context Statement. Prepared by Heritage Research Associates, Inc., Eugene, Oregon. Prepared for Medford Bureau of Land Management, Rogue River National Forest.

Knuston, K., and V. Naef 1997 Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats: Riparian. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181pp. LaLande, Jeff 1990 The Indians of Southwest Oregon: An Ethnohistorical Review. In Living With the Land: The Indians of Southwest Oregon, ed. Nan Hannon and Richard K. Olmo. The Proceedings of the 1989 Symposium on the Prehistory of Southwest Oregon. 2016a “Council of Table Rock”. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Accessed online at: http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/council_of_table_rock/#.VrmO0Oaz7JU. [Accessed February 02, 2016]. 2016b “Applegate Trail” The Oregon Encyclopedia. Accessed online at: http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/applegate_trail/#.VrmXQOaz7JU. [Accessed February 02, 2016].

LaLande, Jeff 1990 The Indians of Southwest Oregon: An Ethnohistorical Review. In Living With the Land: The Indians of Southwest Oregon, ed. Nan Hannon and Richard K. Olmo. The Proceedings of the 1989 Symposium on the Prehistory of Southwest Oregon. 2016a “Council of Table Rock”. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Accessed online at: http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/council_of_table_rock/#.VrmO0Oaz7JU. [Accessed February 02, 2016]. 2016b “Applegate Trail” The Oregon Encyclopedia. Accessed online at: http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/applegate_trail/#.VrmXQOaz7JU. [Accessed February 02, 2016].

Lang, William M. 2016 “Oregon Trail”. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Accessed online at: http://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/oregon_trail/#.VsOs7-az7JU. [Accessed February 08, 2016].

Lestelle, Lawrence C. 2007 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Life History Patterns in the Pacific Northwest and California. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Area Office. March 2007.

6-4 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Levine, J.M., Montserrat, V., Antonio, C.M.D., Dukes, J., Grigulis, K., and S. Lavorel 2003 Mechanisms Underlying the Impacts of Exotic Plant invasions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 270: 775-781. Libbey, F. W. 1963 “Lest we Forget”. The Ore Bin 25(6):93-109. State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

Libbey, F. W. 1963 “Lest we Forget”. The Ore Bin 25(6):93-109. State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

Marschner, Janice 2008 Oregon 1859: A Snapshot in Time. Timber Press: Portland, Oregon.

National Academy of Sciences. 1997 Possible Health Effects of Exposure to residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. National Academy Press. Washington D.C. 1997.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 2002 EMF: Electrical and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electrical Power. June 2002.

National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2011 NLCD 2011 Land Cover (shapefile). Accessed online at: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_data.php

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2015 Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Accessed online at: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/

National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) 2004 Documents of the NRPB. Advice on limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (0-300 GHz). Volume 15(2). Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0RQ.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 1996 Riparian Areas Environmental Uniqueness, Functions, and Values. RCA Issue Brief #11, August 1996. Accessed online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/?cid=nrcs143_014199 2015a STATSGO (geodatabase). U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservations Service. March 9, 2015. 2015b Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [June 24, 2015].National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 2014 National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) 2009 Reliability Standards for the Bulk Electric Systems of North America, May 2009.

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)/Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) 2005 NERC/WECC Planning Standards

November 2016 | 6-5 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 2013 OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section III Chapter 5: Noise. Updated August 15, 2013. Accessed online at: https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/index.html

Olson, B.E. 1999 Impacts of Noxious Weeds on Ecologic and Economic Systems. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR. Oregon State University Press: 4-18.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) 2014 Biotics, Element Occurrence Record Digital Data Set. April 2014. Oregon Biodiversity Project 1998 Oregon’s Living Landscape: Strategies and Opportunities to Conserve Biodiversity. Oregon Biodiversity Project. A Defenders of Wildlife Publication. 1998

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) 2015 Oregon Listed Plants by County (interactive map). Accessed online at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/PlantConservation/Pages/ListedPlants.aspx

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2013a Oregon Fish Habitat Distribution Datasets. Accessed online at: http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishdistdata 2013b StreamNet Mapper: Fish Data for the Northwest. Accessed online at: http://psmfc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3be91b0a32a9488a90 1c3885bbfc2b0b 2014 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Fish and Wildlife Species in Oregon. Revised October 2014.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) 2014 Wildland Fire Statistics, Fire Causes Reports. Accessed online at: http://www.odf.state.or.us/DIVISIONS/protection/fire_protection/fires/SeasonFireStats.as p

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 2014 2013 Transportation Volume Tables. September 2014. 2015a Region 3 home page: Southern Oregon and South Coast (Douglas, Curry, Coos, Josephine, and Jackson Counties). Accessed online at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION3/pages/index.aspx 2015b 2015-2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Amended as of Tuesday, September 29, 2015.

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (OFWO) 2016 Oregon’s Endangered Species. Accessed online at: http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/promo.cfm?id=177175701

Oregon Natural Heritage Program 1995 http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/CIO/GEO/pages/alphalist.aspx

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) 2001 Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. Draft. May, 2001.

6-6 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

Pacific Power 2012 Overview of Operation & Maintenance Activities for Electric Transmission and Distribution Power Lines. February 2012. 2015 Transmission & Distribution Vegetation Management Program Specification Manual 2015 Powers, Dennis 2013 “Sams Valley.” Past & Present: What You Might Not Know (But Want To) About Southern Oregon History. CD Released November 2013.

Powers, Dennis 2013 “Sams Valley.” Past & Present: What You Might Not Know (But Want To) About Southern Oregon History. CD Released November 2013.

Query, Charles F. 2008 A History of Oregon Ferries Since 1826.

Risse, Danielle, Rooke, Lara, Tippett, Koren, and Sandra Flint. 2016 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Sam Valley Transmission Line Reinforcement Project, Josephine and Jackson Counties, Oregon. October 2015.

Ruby, R.H. and J.A. Brown 1986 A Guide to Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Sapir, Edward. 1907 Notes on the Takelma Indians of Southwestern Oregon. American Anthropologist 9(2): 251-275.

Sargent, Alice Applegate 1921 A Sketch of the Rogue River Valley and Southern Oregon History. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society 22(1):1-11.

Sheley, Roger L. and Janet K. Petroff 1999 Preventing Noxious Weed Invasion. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR. Oregon State University Press: 69-72. Southern Oregon Historical Society 2016 “Sams Valley Post Office”. Accessed online at: http://www.sohs.org/content/sams-valley- post-office. [Accessed April 16, 2016].

Speulda, Lou Ann 1989 Oregon’s Agricultural Development: A Historic Context 1811-1940. Prepared for State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

Tveskov, Mark, Amie Cohan, Guido Bigoni, Joanne M. Mack, Nicole Norris, Craig E. Skinner, Amy Sobiech, Christian Solfisburg, Eirik Thorsgard, and Brian Wilson 2006 The Archaeology of the Western Cascades. Southern Oregon University, Laboratory of Anthropology: Ashland, Oregon.

U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 2013 American Community Survey (ACS) 2014 American Community Survey (ACS)

November 2016 | 6-7 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

2015 American Community Survey (ACS)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2015 IpaC Trust Resource Report. Generated August 31, 2015. 2016 Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Species by County Reports: Jackson and Josephine Counties, Oregon. Generated February 22, 2016.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2010 National Elevation Dataset, Digital Elevation Model (raster dataset).

Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) 2015 Sams Valley Reinforcement Project, Biological Survey Report. July 13, 2015. 2016 Sams Valley Reinforcement Project, Biological Survey Report. July 10, 2016.

White, Laura L., Brian L. O’Neill, and Thomas J. Connolly with contributions by Eric P. Gustafson, Garry O. Stephenson, and George Kramer 1998 Cultural Resource Inventory of PP&L’s Eugene-Medford 500 kV Transmission Line; Lane, Douglas, and Jackson Counties, Oregon. Prepared by State Museum of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Prepared for Pacific Power and Light Company, Portland, Oregon.

World Health Organization (WHO) 2007 Extremely Low Frequency Fields Environmental Health Criteria Monograph No. 238. Aailable online at: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/elf_ehc/en/

6-8 | November 2016 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

7 Acronyms

ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ACS American Community Survey ADT average daily traffic APE area of potential effects APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee BA Biological Assessment BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practices CCS cryptocrystalline silicate CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations dB decibel dBA adjusted decibel DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DOGAMI Department of Geology and Mineral Industries DSL Department of State Lands EA Environmental Analysis EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMF electric and magnetic field EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 G gauss GLO General Land Office Hwy Highway I-5 Interstate 5 ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection KOP Key Observation Point kV kilovolt kV/m kilovolts per meter mG milligauss mph miles per hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

November 2016 | 7-1 Environmental Assessment Sams Valley Reinforcement Project

NLCD National Land Cover Database NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRF nesting, roosting, and foraging NRHP National Registry of Historic Places NRPB National Radiological Protection Board NWI National Wetlands Inventory OAR Oregon Administrative Rules ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture ODF Oregon Department of Forestry ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ORBIC Oregon Biodiversity Information Center OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

PM10 particles of 10 microns or less Project Sams Valley Reinforcement Project RMP Resource Management Plan ROD Record of Decision SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SSS special status species TNC The Nature Conservancy USC United States Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VRM visual resource management WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

7-2 | November 2016