U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment Revised Avian and Bat Protection Plan for Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility

DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2017-0022-EA May 2018

PREPARING OFFICE

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Ely District Office, Nevada

i Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-3 1.2 Identifying Information ...... 1-3 1.2.1 Title, Environment Assessment Number and Type of Project ...... 1-3 1.2.2 Location of Proposed Action ...... 1-3 1.2.3 Name and Location of Preparing Office ...... 1-3 1.2.4 BLM Case File Number ...... 1-3 1.2.5 Applicant Name ...... 1-3 1.3 Background Information ...... 1-4 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1-5 1.5 Decision to be Made ...... 1-5 1.6 Conformance, Permits, and Approvals ...... 1-5 1.6.1 Conformance with the BLM Ely District Resource Management Plan ..... 1-5 1.6.2 Relationship to Statues, Regulations or Other Plans ...... 1-5 1.6.3 Permits and Approvals ...... 1-6 1.7 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues ...... 1-6 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-3 2.2 Description of the Proposed Action ...... 2-3 2.2.1 Mortality Metric Change ...... 2-4 2.2.2 Avian and Bat Mortality Thresholds ...... 2-4 2.2.3 Targeted Curtailment Strategy ...... 2-5 2.2.4 Mitigation Phases ...... 2-6 Phase I/Default ...... 2-7 Phase II Mitigation ...... 2-7 Phase III Mitigation ...... 2-7 2.3 No Action Alternative ...... 2-8 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 2-8 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-3 3.2 General Setting ...... 3-10 3.3 Special Status Species - Bats ...... 3-10 Baseline Data from 2010 FEA ...... 3-10 Bat Activity ...... 3-10 Rose Guano Cave Use ...... 3-14 Post-Construction Surveys Results ...... 3-14 Bat Activity ...... 3-14 Rose Guano Cave Use ...... 3-15 3.4 Environmental Effects ...... 3-18 3.4.1 General Bat Fatality Patterns at Wind Farms ...... 3-19 3.4.2 Turbine Curtailment Studies ...... 3-19 3.4.3 Modeling Predictions of High Fatality Nights ...... 3-20 3.4.4 Bat Fatalities at SVWEF and Effectiveness of the Targeted Curtailment Program ...... 3-20 3.4.5 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 3-22 Direct Effects ...... 3-22 Thresholds ...... 3-22 Targeted Curtailment Strategy ...... 3-23

Table of Contents May 2018 Environmental Assessment ii

Indirect Effects ...... 3-23 3.4.6 Alternative B – No Action ...... 3-23 Direct Effects ...... 3-23 Indirect Effects ...... 3-24 Chapter 4 Cumulative Effects ...... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-3 4.2 Special Status Species - Bats ...... 4-3 4.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 4-3 4.2.2 Alternative B – No Action ...... 4-3 Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination ...... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ...... 5-3 Chapter 6 List of Preparers ...... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...... 6-3 Chapter 7 References ...... 7-1 7.1 References ...... 7-3 7.2 Laws, Acts, and Regulations ...... 7-6

May 2018 Table of Contents iii Environmental Assessment

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Original ABPP mitigation phases...... 2-3 Table 2-2. Summary of bat mitigation phases for exceedance of overall bat fatality thresholds as revised...... 2-6 Table 3-1. Resources analysis determination...... 3-4 Table 3-2. Bat Species identified from acoustic surveys, 2007–2008...... 3-10 Table 3-3. Peak bat activity detected during surveys...... 3-15 Table 6-1. List of BLM Preparers ...... 6-3 Table 6-2. List of WEST Preparers...... 6-3

List of Figures

Figure 3-1. Nightly activity patterns of all bat species, 2007–2008...... 3-11 Figure 3-2. Nightly activity patterns of western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, little brown myotis, and Mexican free-tailed bat, 2007–2008...... 3-12 Figure 3-3. Seasonal activity patterns for all bat species, 2007–2008...... 3-13 Figure 3-4. Seasonal patterns for migratory versus non-migratory bat species, 2007–2008...... 3-13 Figure 3-5. Beam breaks per year May 1 through October 31...... 3-17 Figure 3-6. Annual beam break data at Rose Guano Cave, 2014-2017...... 3-18

List of Appendices

Appendix A Revised Spring Valley Avian and Bat Protection Plan

Appendix B Proposed Revisions

Table of Contents May 2018 Environmental Assessment iv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

§ Section 2005 PEIS 2005 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development 2010 FEA 2010 Final Environmental Assessment for the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility ABBP Avian and Bat Protection Plan ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern AGL above ground level BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DR Decision Record EA Environmental Assessment ESA Endangered Species Act ETP Eagle Take Permit FEA Final Environmental Assessment FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact ft foot ft2 square foot km kilometer m meter m2 square meter MW megawatt NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Action RMP Resource Management Plan ROD Record of Decision ROW Right-of-Way RSA rotor-swept area sec second SSS Special Status Species SVW Spring Valley Wind, LLC SVWEF Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants TAC Technical Advisory Committee TCP Traditional Cultural Property U.S. United States USCA United States Code Annotated USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WEST Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. WTG wind turbine generator

May 2018 Table of Contents 1-1 Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 1-2

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2018 Chapter 1 1-3 Environmental Assessment

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate Spring Valley Wind, LLC’s (SVW’s) proposal to revise the Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP) for the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility (SVWEF). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) determined that an EA is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code Annotated [USCA] Sections [§§] 4321 to 4370e, January 1, 1970). This EA will only analyze those resources that are anticipated to be affected by revisions to the ABPP.

This EA incorporates by reference the 2010 Final Environmental Assessment for the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility (“2010 FEA”; DOI-BLM-NV-L020-2010-0007-EA), which analyzed the potential impacts to environmental resources associated with the construction and operation of the SVWEF. Subsequently, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI; Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2010) and Decision Record (BLM 2010) was issued for the 2010 FEA, and these findings are still relevant to all other resources that are not analyzed in this EA. As identified in the 2010 FEA, the original ABPP (SWCA Environmental Consultants [SWCA] 2010) was prepared as a resource conservation measure to help avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor impacts to avian and bat resources during operation of the SVWEF. 1.2 Identifying Information

1.2.1 Title, Environment Assessment Number and Type of Project

Revised Avian and Bat Protection Plan for Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2017-0022-EA

1.2.2 Location of Proposed Action

The SVWEF is located in Spring Valley, approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers [km]) southeast of Ely, Nevada, and on lands administered by the BLM Ely District, Bristlecone Field Office.

1.2.3 Name and Location of Preparing Office

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management – Ely District 702 North Industrial Way Ely, NV 89301-2104

1.2.4 BLM Case File Number

N-84148

1.2.5 Applicant Name

Spring Valley Wind LLC Pier 1, Bay 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn.: Amy Smolen

Chapter 1 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 1-4

1.3 Background Information

The SVWEF consists of 66 Siemens 2.3-megawatt (MW) wind turbines with a total generating capacity of 151.8 MW. The turbines are arranged in rows oriented east to west. The SVWEF lies in the middle of Spring Valley, which is bordered on the west by the Schell Creek Range and on the east by the Snake Range, with roughly three miles (five km) of valley bottom separating the SVWEF from each of the mountain ranges.

In 2010, the BLM completed the 2010 FEA for the construction and operation of the SVWEF, and developed an ABPP to help avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor impacts to avian and bat resources during the operation of the SVWEF. The ABPP defined three distinct phases for addressing potential impacts to bird and bat species: 1) initial mitigation, 2) post-construction monitoring, and 3) adaptive management. The initial mitigation measures were developed to address impacts identified as likely to occur in the 2010 FEA, and these measures included operational curtailment, power line/pole retrofits, research, habitat enhancement, and other measures. Pre- and post-construction monitoring was designed to evaluate the impacts due to operation of the SVWEF on birds and bats in terms of annual mortality. An adaptive management strategy was established to address impacts to avian and bat species due to operation of the SVWEF that were not anticipated in the 2010 FEA.

The adaptive management strategy included a series of annual avian and bat mortality thresholds that trigger additional phases of mitigation, in excess of initial mitigation measures, to reduce mortality rates below the thresholds. Subsequent mitigation phases are triggered if mortality exceedances continue and each phase includes increasing turbine curtailment and direct mitigation measures relative to the previous phase. Mortality thresholds were developed by SVW for birds and bats in coordination with the BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), and other wildlife experts using a regional average of fatality data from 11 other wind energy facilities that occur in similar habitat. Each threshold and corresponding mitigation phase was analyzed and promulgated in the 2010 FEA.

A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), consisting of single resource specialists from BLM and USFWS, and two resource specialists from NDOW, was appointed to review post-construction monitoring data to ensure bird and bat mortality rates due to routine operations of the SVWEF do not exceed acceptable levels defined in the 2010 FEA. The TAC also had the option to recommend revisions to the mortality thresholds and monitoring requirements for the SVWEF based on new and relevant data collected during post-construction fatality monitoring. Should the TAC conclude that operation of the SVWEF results in unacceptable numbers of bird or bat fatalities, the TAC is responsible for providing advice and recommendations to the BLM Authorized Officer for mitigation measures to reduce bird and bat mortality rates related to operations of the SVWEF. The BLM Authorized Officer evaluates these recommendations in coordination with SVW and makes a decision on what mitigation measures to require for implementation.

In October 2010, SVW finalized a Plan of Development for the SVWEF and the BLM subsequently issued a Decision Record (DR) for the 2010 FEA granting Right-of-Way (ROW) for SVW to proceed with construction of the SVWEF. However, in January 2011 a lawsuit was filed against the BLM, which was resolved through a Settlement Agreement that required additional monitoring and mitigation requirements for the SVWEF.

May 2018 Chapter 1 1-5 Environmental Assessment

Since the SVWEF became operational in August 2012, SVW has been collecting post- construction monitoring data consistent with the schedule laid out in the ABPP, 2010 FEA, and the Settlement Agreement.

Under the original ABPP, SVW did exceed the overall bat threshold during the first two years of operation. As a result, SVW and the TAC have been working to refine the mortality thresholds and mitigation strategies promulgated in the original ABPP. SVW developed and proposed revisions to the ABPP between the summer of 2014 and July 2016, with input from the TAC. In September 2016, the TAC recommended approval of the ABPP revisions to the BLM Authorized Officer. These revisions are the main subject of this EA.

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to respond to SVW’s application for a ROW amendment to incorporate SVW-proposed and TAC agreed-upon revisions to the ABPP. The BLM is required to process SVW’s application for a ROW amendment pursuant to 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section (§) 2804.25 (October 1, 2009) and to decide whether to approve the application. The proposed revisions to the ABPP are necessary to provide the most efficient means of generating renewable energy at the SVWEF while implementing more efficient and effective methods of monitoring, minimizing, and mitigating bird and bat fatalities. The ROW amendment will also address a clerical error in the original ROW agreement that incorrectly represents the legal land description of the ROW grant. 1.5 Decision to be Made

The decision to be made based on this analysis is whether the BLM will authorize an amendment to the existing ROW granted to SVW that will incorporate modifications to the ABPP and address clerical legal description inconsistencies. If the Proposed Action is approved, the BLM would amend the existing 30-year ROW (ROW Grant N-84148, October, 2010) that permitted the construction and operation of the SVWEF on BLM land.

Should the results of this EA demonstrate that no significant impacts are anticipated to result from the Proposed Action the BLM would issue a FONSI and a DR that documents the selected alternative and any additional proposed mitigation measures. 1.6 Conformance, Permits, and Approvals

1.6.1 Conformance with the BLM Ely District Resource Management Plan

The SVWEF is located on BLM administered lands that are managed according to the Ely District Resource Management Plan (RMP), as amended (BLM 2008). The 2010 FEA was written and approved in accordance with the Ely District RMP (BLM 2008). As the Ely District RMP is the current applicable plan, this EA will also be prepared in accordance with the Ely District RMP (BLM 2008). Pursuant to 40 CFR §1508.28 (November 28, 1978) and § 1502.21 (November 28, 1978), this EA tiers to the Ely District RMP and incorporates by reference the information and analysis contained in the 2010 FEA.

1.6.2 Relationship to Statues, Regulations or Other Plans

This EA meets BLM standards and was prepared in accordance with NEPA 1969, as amended (42 USCA §§ 4321 to 4370e; January 1, 1970) and in compliance with all applicable regulations

Chapter 1 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 1-6 and laws passed subsequently, including Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; November 28 and 29, 1978], U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) requirements (Department Manual 516, Environmental Quality [USDI 1980]), BLM guidelines (Handbook H-1790-1 [BLM 1980]), Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts (BLM 1994), and Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997).

This EA incorporates by reference the Relationships to Statues, Regulations and Other Plans identified in the 2010 FEA and complies with those as defined therein.

1.6.3 Permits and Approvals

The Proposed Action would not require any additional agency permits or approvals within or outside the BLM. 1.7 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501; November 28, 1978) require that the BLM use a scoping process to identify potential significant issues in preparation for impact analysis. The BLM consulted with the TAC through internal scoping. The result of this consultation was the issuance of recommendations that were incorporated in the modified ABPP (Appendix A; BLM 2016). The BLM will release the Draft EA for public review and comment in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.6 (November 29, 1978).

May 2018 Chapter 1 2-1 Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Chapter 2 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 2-2

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2018 Chapter 2 2-3 Environmental Assessment

2.1 Introduction

BLM proposes to analyze a ROW amendment for the SVWEF. The ROW amendment includes a clerical revision of an incorrect legal land description within the existing ROW grant and modifications to the existing ABPP. 2.2 Description of the Proposed Action

The original ABPP included initial mitigation requirements, post-construction monitoring requirements, and an adaptive management strategy. The adaptive management strategy included calculated thresholds for bird and bat fatalities that if exceeded would trigger a tiered approach to mitigation. The different levels of mitigation are to be based on the findings of post- construction monitoring (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1. Original ABPP mitigation phases. Mitigation Turbine Curtailment Direct Mitigation* Phase Relocate nests if it is shown that specific Up to 744 hours of cut-in speed resident bird species are being impacted; Phase I curtailment Retrofit up to 10 power poles; other direct mitigation as recommended by the TAC. Install avian flight-diverting poles in front of Up to 900 hours of cut-in speed primary flight paths as shown by radar and curtailment; wind turbine generator Phase II fatality data; Retrofit up to 10 power poles; (WTG) shutdowns for up to the other direct mitigation as recommended by equivalent of 15,000 turbine hours the TAC. Paint one turbine blade black in each group Up to 1,080 hours of cut-in speed in accordance with the color scheme Phase III curtailment; WTG shutdowns for up to suggested by Hodos (2003); Retrofit up to the equivalent of 22,500 turbine hours 10 power poles; other direct mitigation as recommended by the TAC. Up to 1,080 hours of cut-in speed Retrofit up to 10 power poles; other direct Phase IV curtailment*; WTG shutdowns for up to mitigation as recommended by the TAC. the equivalent of 30,000 turbine hours Up to 1,080 hours of cut-in speed Retrofit up to 10 power poles; other direct Phase V curtailment; WTG shutdowns for up to mitigation as recommended by the TAC. the equivalent of 37,500 turbine hours *Additional cut-in speed curtailment hours may be utilized for an equivalent reduction (i.e., power generation loss is equivalent or less) in shutdown hours.

The Proposed Action is to amend the ROW including the SVW proposed modifications to the ABPP. SVW proposes to revise the ABPP by changing bat mortality thresholds, adding additional species-specific thresholds, incorporating a targeted curtailment strategy as Phase I mitigation, and subsequently adjusting the mitigation phases in the tiered approach. The revisions are the product of a collaborative effort between SVW and the TAC to re-evaluate the mortality thresholds and mitigation and turbine curtailment strategy. The revisions were based on data collected as part of monitoring efforts required by the original ABPP and the Settlement Agreement, during operation of the SVWEF. Available fatality monitoring data from wind energy facilities across the western United States (U.S.) were utilized to develop the original ABPP. The revised ABPP (Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. [WEST] 2016a) was updated with a larger suite of wind energy facilities that provides additional data that have become publicly available since

Chapter 2 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 2-4 development of the original ABPP. The following paragraphs discuss each of the ABPP revisions included in the Proposed Action.

2.2.1 Mortality Metric Change

The mortality metric used in the original ABPP was expressed as the number of fatalities per wind turbine generator (WTG) per year. This metric makes it difficult to compare wind energy facilities consisting of larger turbines to facilities consisting of smaller turbines. Turbines at the SVWEF are Siemens 2.3-MW turbines with a 101-meter (m; 313-foot [ft]) rotor diameter, whereas the largest turbine among those used for determining the thresholds was a 1.8-MW turbine with an 80-m (262-ft) rotor diameter and the smallest turbine was a 0.60-MW turbine with a 42-m (138-ft) rotor diameter. The difference in rotor-swept area (RSA) is pronounced, with the smallest turbine in the data set used for determining the thresholds having a RSA of just 1,385 square m (m2; 14,908 ft2) compared to the largest turbine with 5,027 m2 (54,110 ft2). This is in comparison to the turbines at the SVWEF, which have an RSA of 8,012 m2 (86,240 ft2). Since risk to birds and bats and fatality rates depends on turbine size, a metric that accounts for differences in turbine size between projects would be better suited for determining a threshold. Two possible metrics are per MW fatality rates and per units of RSA fatality rates (Strickland et al. 2011). A per MW threshold has been used for other ABPP’s (e.g., SWCA 2011, Ocotillo Express LLC 2012). These metrics better allow for projects to be compared as fatality rates and risk are based on an equal area or energy production basis. Furthermore, since the original thresholds were finalized in the October 2010 ABPP, data from more studies conducted in the western U.S. have been made available that could be applicable and comparable to the SVWEF. Per MW fatality metrics appear to be the industry norm and are typically presented in publications and reports (Johnson and Erickson 2010, Johnson and Stephens 2011, Smallwood 2013).

Expressing mortality rates as the number of fatalities per MW per year allows for a more direct comparison of SVWEF mortality rates to other wind energy facilities, regardless of turbine size (WEST 2014). Therefore, the ABPP was revised to report all mortality metrics in fatalities/MW/year moving forward.

2.2.2 Avian and Bat Mortality Thresholds

Mortality thresholds were re-evaluated based on available data from other wind energy facilities in the region and new data related to the population of Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) at the Rose Guano Cave, which serves as a migratory stopover for an estimated one to three million Mexican free-tailed bats during migration (Sherwin 2009). The single mortality threshold used in the original ABPP for all bat species combined (i.e., 2.56 bats/turbine/year, or 169 bats per year) made it difficult to manage for a highly abundant species with a relatively high amount of population level information (Mexican free-tailed bat) and other species that may be impacted by the SVWEF that are less abundant and/or have less available population level data (e.g., hoary bat [Lasiurus cinereus], big brown bat [Eptesicus fuscus], silver-haired bat [Lasionycteris noctivagans]). Thus, the total bat mortality threshold was split into two separate thresholds, one unique to Mexican free-tailed bat and another to cover all other bat species (non- Mexican free-tailed bat). The split in the mortality threshold was proposed because of the high prevalence of Mexican free-tailed bat in both post-construction fatality data and site-specific acoustic data collected at the SVWEF during the first three years of operations. The Mexican free- tailed bat thresholds were based on Mexican free-tailed bat population dynamics data from Rose Guano Cave and the estimated impact that different levels of take would have on the Rose Guano Cave population of Mexican free-tailed bats. The revised thresholds for birds and non-Mexican free-tailed bats were based on data collected during 49 post-construction monitoring surveys in

May 2018 Chapter 2 2-5 Environmental Assessment the western U.S., where data are publicly available (WEST and SVW 2014). Changes in the overall bird and non-Mexican free tailed bat mortality thresholds resulted from the change in mortality metric (from per turbine to per MW) combined with the larger suite of studies; however, consistent with the original ABPP, calculation of the bird and non-Mexican free-tailed bat mortality thresholds utilized the average mortality rates from the new set of studies (WEST and SVW 2014).

The following revised thresholds were incorporated into the revised ABPP:

 Mexican free-tailed bat mortality rate, due to operation of the SVWEF, threshold of 3.29 Mexican free-tailed bats/MW/year;  Non-Mexican free-tailed bat mortality rate, due to operation of the SVWEF, threshold of 1.12 non-Mexican free-tailed bats/MW/year; and  Bird mortality rate, due to operation of the SVWEF, threshold of 2.67 birds/MW/year.

If the above thresholds are exceeded, the revised ABPP identifies the TAC will determine the appropriate mitigation measure for recommendation to the BLM Authorized Officer.

In addition, at the request of the TAC, additional individual species were added to the species- specific threshold list in the revised ABPP. The additions include 11 BLM special status bat species; hoary bat, silver-haired bat, big brown bat, western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), California myotis (Myotis californicus), western small-footed myotis (M. ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis (M. evotis), little brown myotis (M. lucifugus), long-legged myotis (M. volans), Yuma myotis (M. yumanensis), and canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus, previously known as western pipistrelle [Pipistrellus hesperus]). The seven BLM sensitive1 and state protected2 bat species addressed in the original ABPP including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), Allen’s big-eared bat (Idionycteris phyllotis), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), and fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), were retained in the revised ABPP along with their species-specific thresholds (Appendix A).

2.2.3 Targeted Curtailment Strategy

Under normal operations, turbine blades are often pitched at 30 degrees when winds are below the normal cut-in wind speed (i.e., the wind speed at which the turbines starts to generate electricity). The default cut-in speed for the Siemen’s 2.3-MW turbines at SVWEF is approximately 3.0 m/second (m/sec [9.8 ft/sec]). The turbine curtailment strategy for reducing bat mortality at the SVWEF is to increase the cut-in speed above the default cut-in speed. The initial operational curtailment strategy was implemented during what was understood to be the highest use period between August 1 through September 30, from sunset to four hours after sunset (approximately 248 hours). Under the original ABPP, if the mortality threshold (i.e., 2.56 bats/turbine/year or 169 bats) was exceeded Phase I Mitigation defined as “Up to 744 hours of cut-in speed curtailment” was required.

1 The BLM 6840 Manual describes sensitive species as species requiring special management consideration to promote their conversation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA 1973). 2 The Nevada Natural Heritage Program maintains the State of Nevada protected species list. These species are protected under Nevada Revised Statutes 501 and Nevada Administrative Code 503.093, which states that a person shall not hunt or take any wildlife that is classified as protected, or possess any part thereof, without first obtaining the appropriate license, permit, or written authorization from the NDOW.

Chapter 2 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 2-6

The initial turbine curtailment strategy was revised based on data gathered at the SVWEF during the first 14 months of operations, including two curtailment studies that investigated the effectiveness of different changes in cut-in speeds. In 2014, SVW proposed a targeted curtailment strategy that allowed SVW to implement curtailment measures on a nightly basis, as opposed to a continuous basis for the entire bat activity period. However, SVW did not fully implement the strategy until 2017 due to required adjustments in equipment and operations as well as a decision by SVW to take a conservative approach to maximize the likelihood that thresholds were not exceeded in light of relatively few nights of added operations. The targeted curtailment strategy was based on a predictive model that uses beam break data gathered by sensors installed at the mouth of Rose Guano Cave, which was a measure of bat abundance at the cave, to predict nights where risk to bats is high. On nights when risk to bats is predicted to be high, a cut-in speed of 5.0 m/sec (16.4 ft/sec) would be implemented. The targeted curtailment would not be limited to August through September, but would be implemented whenever the beam break data indicates a need. SVW proposed to implement the proposed targeted curtailment program as a default operating scenario during the Mexican free-tailed bat migration periods throughout the life of the project. Based on the results of the targeted curtailment strategy the ABPP was revised to incorporate this curtailment strategy and was approved by the TAC (BLM 2016).

2.2.4 Mitigation Phases

SVW’s adaptive management strategy utilizes a tiered approach for mitigation as defined in the original ABPP. As stated in the original ABPP, if bat thresholds are exceeded one or multiple phases of mitigation may be applied (Table 2-1). Phases are to be implemented chronologically as bat thresholds are repeatedly exceeded, until thresholds are no longer exceeded. With the results of studies conducted at the SVWEF and acceptance of the targeted curtailment strategy as the Phase I/Default by the TAC (BLM 2016), the mitigation phases in response to exceeding the bat threshold were re-defined (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2. Summary of bat mitigation phases for exceedance of overall bat fatality thresholds as revised. Mitigation Mitigation Phase Cut-in speed curtailment of 5.0 m/sec all night for the entire bat activity period, starting when beam break data indicates the initial level of “high-risk” as determined by predictive model and approved by TAC. Under this revised ABPP, this will be the default mitigation for Phase I operations unless thresholds are triggered and additional phases are implemented. SVW /Default reserves the right to work with the TAC to implement this strategy on a targeted/nightly basis and document its effectiveness in keeping mortality rates low and below thresholds. If targeted curtailment is implemented and fails to keep mortality below thresholds, SVW will revert to cut-in speed curtailment for the entire bat activity period. If a threshold is exceeded while implementing the Phase I/Default curtailment for the full bat activity period, SVW will continue to implement cut-in speed curtailment at 5.0 m/sec all night for all turbines for the duration of the bat activity period (i.e., every night of peak bat activity period once initially triggered by beam break data), AND will increase the cut-in speed to 5.5 Phase II m/sec (18.0 ft/sec) on the nights with highest risk. The bat activity thresholds used to trigger 5.5 m/sec will be the same identified herein for triggering the default Phase I curtailment, or some modified trigger that may be developed in consultation with the TAC. The TAC may make recommendations for additional modifications to the cut-in speed curtailment program.

May 2018 Chapter 2 2-7 Environmental Assessment

Mitigation Mitigation Phase If a threshold is exceeded after implementing Phase II, an additional phase or phases of mitigation will be required. This may include additional measures to reduce mortality or compensatory mitigation. The TAC will meet and make recommendations for mitigation measures, such as:  further refinement of the cut-in speed curtailment program (e.g., changes to cut-in Phase III speed or triggers that may lengthen the curtailment period);  cave/mine gating;  cave/mine protection;  additional research on bats; and  other forms of mitigation that the TAC concludes would be beneficial for the affected bat species.

Phase I/Default SVW will implement cut-in speed curtailment of 5.0 m/sec all night for the entire bat activity period, beginning when beam break data suggests curtailment is warranted, unless SVW, in coordination with the TAC, can successfully implement this 5.0 m/sec strategy on a nightly basis and documents that it can successfully keep bat mortality below thresholds. The threshold used to initiate the curtailment period will be provided to the TAC in each annual study plan and may change as more data becomes available and models used to predict bat fatality rates are refined. A curtailment measure must be in place long enough to determine its effectiveness before an additional phased mitigation is implemented. The TAC may recommend using a portion of the mitigation measures available in a given phase to address a mortality event, and if thresholds are still exceeded in that year, they may increase the mitigation to the maximum within the same phase.

Phase II Mitigation SVW will implement 5.0 m/sec cut-in speed curtailment at all turbines as described in Phase I above, for the duration (i.e., every night) of the bat activity period, as defined by the beam break data. SVW will implement 5.5 m/sec (18.0 ft/sec) curtailment on nights when risk is predicted to be highest, with the triggers used to initiate the 5.5 m/sec cut-in speed being the identified in Section 3.4.3, or otherwise determined in consultation with the TAC. Triggers should remain flexible in response to improvements in predictive statistical models as more data are gathered and models are potentially refined. If thresholds are exceeded after implementing a new mitigation measure in a single year, the TAC will meet and discuss other appropriate mitigation measures. The TAC may recommend using a portion of the mitigation measures available in a given phase to address a mortality event and if thresholds are still exceeded in that year, they may increase the mitigation to the maximum within the phase. A curtailment measure must be in place long enough to determine its effectiveness before an additional mitigation measure is implemented. For example, if a measure is implemented near the end of the bat activity period, it should be implemented during the next monitoring period to assess its effectiveness.

Phase III Mitigation In the event that bat mortality thresholds are exceeded after implementing Phase II mitigation, the TAC will meet and recommend appropriate measures for a third mitigation phase. Should thresholds be exceeded again, the TAC will again meet, consider appropriate mitigation, and make their recommendations for additional mitigation measures; however, no more than three mitigation measures will be implemented in a single year. The TAC may recommend using a portion of the mitigation measures available in a given phase to address a mortality event and if thresholds are still exceeded in that year, they may increase the mitigation to the maximum within

Chapter 2 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 2-8 the same phase. A curtailment measure must be in place long enough to determine its effectiveness before an additional mitigation measure is implemented.

In formulating its recommendations for mitigation phases, the TAC may consider measures to reduce or compensate for bat mortality, including:  further refinement of the cut-in speed curtailment program, which could include changes to the beam break triggers or increases to the cut-in speed;  cave/mine gating;  cave/mine protection;  additional research on bats; and  other forms of mitigation that the TAC concludes would be beneficial for the affected bat species. 2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ROW would not be amended. The mortality metric and mortality thresholds identified in the original ABPP would remain in place; however Phase 1/Default mitigation would be implemented under the No Action Alternative. The legal land description within the current ROW grant would remain incorrect. 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

As the SVWEF is an operational electric generation facility, including turbines, buildings, and transmission line, no other alternatives were applicable to monitor, minimize, and mitigate bird and bat fatalities associated with SVWEF. Furthermore, no other alternatives would correct the legal land description presented in the ROW grant. Therefore, no additional alternatives were considered for analysis.

May 2018 Chapter 2 3-1 Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-2

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-3 Environmental Assessment

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the affected environment and the potential impact to those resources from the implementation of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The importance of describing the affected environment (i.e., physical, biological, socio-economic) is to define the context in which impacts will occur. In describing the affected resources, the BLM considered the potential impacts associated with the proposed action, namely the potential change in mortality threshold for bat species and implementation of the revised ABPP.

The BLM prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for wind development (2005 PEIS) and the 2010 FEA has been prepared for the construction, operation and maintenance of the SVWEF (BLM 2005, 2010). Therefore, impacts to resources from the alternatives that are beyond those described in the 2005 PEIS or the 2010 FEA would require detailed analysis in this EA. With regard to implementation of the alternatives considered, bat resources have the potential to experience the most pronounced impact (Table 3-1) beyond what was considered in the either the 2005 PEIS or the FEA.

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-4

Table 3-1. Resources analysis determination. Present Present Not Resources and and Not Rationale/Comments Present Affected Affected Impacts to air quality from a typical wind energy facility are discussed in Section 5.4 of the 2005 PEIS released by the BLM in June 2005. Furthermore as described in the 2010 FEA, “the affected area is not within an area of non-attainment or areas where total suspended particulates or other criteria pollutants exceed Nevada air quality standards”. The BMPs Air Quality X identified in the 2005 PEIS are incorporated by reference and are adequate for controlling particulates and criteria pollutants. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative will not substantially change those impacts already disclosed within the 2005 PEIS and 2010 FEA. Special Impacts to ACECs as a result of the operation and maintenance of the SVWEF are Designation discussed in Section 4.11.2.2 of the 2010 FEA and are incorporated by reference. The Management: 2010 FEA concluded the operation and maintenance of the SVWEF would not result in X Areas of Critical “conflict with the special management prescriptions,” for the two local ACECs: Rose Guano Environmental Cave and Swamp Creek. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Concern (ACEC) Alternative would not substantially change those impacts. Impacts to cultural resources as a result of the operation and maintenance of the SVWEF are discussed in Section 4.6.2.2 of the 2010 FEA and are incorporated by reference. The Cultural X 2010 FEA concluded the operation and maintenance of the SVWEF would not likely Resources increase the risk of damage to cultural resources. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change those impacts. As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, no minority or Environmental low-income groups would be disproportionately affected by the SVWEF. Implementation of X Justice either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change the conclusion of the 2010 FEA. As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, soil resources Soil Resources: and prime/unique farmlands would not be impacted as a result of the SVWEF. Prime and Unique X Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not Farmlands substantially change the conclusion of the 2010 FEA. As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, there are no Floodplains X floodplains in the project area. Forests/Woodland Products and Rangelands As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, there are no X (Healthy Forest forest or woodland products of concern within the project area. Restoration Act Only)

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-5 Environmental Assessment

As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, the SVWEF would not negatively affect human health. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change the conclusion of the 2010 FEA.

Human Health and X Safety

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-6

Present Present Not Resources and and Not Rationale/Comments Present Affected Affected Impacts to migratory birds as a result of the operation of the SVWEF are discussed in Sections 4.2.2.4, and 4.2.2.5 of the 2010 FEA. The 2010 FEA concluded that the SVWEF would pose a minor increase of electrocution to migratory birds and would likely only minimally impact nesting and foraging opportunities. The operation and maintenance of the Project is anticipated to have minor increases in predations and decreases in available habitat. Table 4.2-3 of the 2010 FEA provides risk indices for migratory birds observed at the Project. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change those impacts.

Impacts to birds of prey and vultures as a result of the operation of the SVWEF are discussed in Sections 4.2.2.6 of the 2010 FEA. The 2010 FEA concluded construction of the SVWEF would pose an increased risk to birds of prey and vultures; however, activities were scheduled outside of the nesting season to reduce risk to birds of prey and vultures. Operation and maintenance of the Project would also increase the risk of birds of prey and vultures to collide with powerlines and wind turbines, and electrocutions (BLM 2010). The SVWEF instituted Conservation Measures identified in Section 2.1.4 of the 2010 FEA to reduce risk to birds of prey and vultures during Project operation and maintenance. Table 4.2-4 of the 2010 FEA provides risk indices for birds of prey and vultures observed at the Migratory Birds X Project.

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-7 Environmental Assessment

Present Present Not Resources and and Not Rationale/Comments Present Affected Affected The Project, even after instituting Conservation Measures (Section 2.4.1 of the 2010 FEA), would continue to pose a risk to golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the area (Table 4.2- 4 of the 2010 FEA). In order to operate the SVWEF in good legal standing, SVW is seeking an Eagle Take Permit (ETP) under the authority of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (50 CFR § 22.26, September 11, 2009) and as issued by the USFWS. In a separate NEPA analysis, the USFWS will analyze the impacts of the potential issuance of an ETP to SVW under separate cover. It will be assumed for this EA, that an ETP will be issued by Eagle Act X the USFWS for the Project and the USFWS will complete a full NEPA review for the issuance of the ETP. Furthermore, for the purposes of this EA, it is assumed that all required eagle impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation will be addressed within either the ETP or the NEPA review for the ETP. If an ETP is not granted, the mitigation measures currently contained in the ABPP specific to eagles would remain in place. Under these assumptions, implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative evaluated in this EA would not substantially change the impacts to eagles as described within the 2010 FEA or the pending ETP and associated NEPA review documents. Impacts to Native American Religious Concerns as a result of the operation and maintenance of the SVWEF are discussed in Section 4.7.2.2 of the 2010 FEA and are Native American incorporated by reference. The 2010 FEA concluded that through tribal consultation, WTGs Religious X were located to reduce impacts to Native American Religious Concerns. Implementation of Concerns either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change those impacts. A Weed Risk Assessment was completed by the BLM for the SVWEF in July 2010 (BLM 2010). As identified in the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, the BLM determined the SVWEF had a high risk to introduce and increase invasive and noxious weeds to the Non-Native general area. The BLM developed a Restoration and Weed Management Plan and Best Invasive and X Management Practices (BMP) (Section 2.1.4 of the 2010 FEA). The BLM concluded in the Noxious Species 2010 FEA that implementation of the preventative measures would result in negligible impacts, and therefore detailed analysis was not warranted. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change the conclusion of the 2010 FEA.

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-8

Present Present Not Resources and and Not Rationale/Comments Present Affected Affected As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, no ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat occur in the Project area.

The 2010 FEA addresses SVWEF operation and maintenance-related impacts to state and BLM special status species, including: pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis), willet (Tringa semipalmata), greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), song birds, and birds of prey in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.2. Impacts to these special status species as identified in the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, were generally characterized as “frequency Special Status X of impacts would be lower,” but “would have an increase intensity,” as compared to other Species relatively similar wildlife resources in the project area. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change the conclusion of the 2010 FEA.

Impacts to sensitive bat species, as identified in the 2010 FEA (pallid bat, Townsend’s big- eared bat, western red bat, and Mexican free-tailed bat), will require detailed analysis within this EA. Recommended changes to take thresholds for bat species (BLM 2016), as included in the Proposed Action may have impacts beyond that identified in the 2010 FEA and require detailed analysis. Impacts from hazardous wastes associated with a typical wind energy facility are discussed in Sections 5.6, 5.9.2.1.3, 5.9.2.2.7, 5.9.2.3.4, 5.9.3.1, and 5.9.3.2.5 of the 2005 PEIS. No Wastes, hazardous or solid wastes are known to occur in the project area. The BMPs from Section Hazardous or X 2.2.3.2 of the 2005 PEIS are incorporated by reference and are adequate; therefore, Solid detailed analysis is not required. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change the conclusion of the 2010 FEA.

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-9 Environmental Assessment

Present Present Not Resources and and Not Rationale/Comments Present Affected Affected Impacts to water quality from a typical wind energy facility are discussed in Section 5.3 of the 2005 PEIS, and the BMPs from Section 2.2.3.2 of the 2005 PEIS are incorporated by reference.

Impacts to surface and ground water as result of the operation and maintenance of the SWVEF are discussed in Sections 4.5.2.1.2 and 4.5.2.2.2 of the 2010 FEA. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change the Water Quality: conclusion of the 2010 FEA. The BLM concluded there would not be measurable change Surface and X in surface water quality resulting from the operation and maintenance of SVWEF. Ground Furthermore, the BLM stated that mitigation measures identified in Table 6.2-1 of the 2010 FEA and implementation of required stormwater pollution prevention and spill prevention requirement plans would further minimize impacts to surface water. In addition, the BLM concluded in the 2010 FEA that no impacts to ground water would be anticipated as a result of the operation and maintenance of the SVWEF. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change the conclusion of the 2010 FEA. Impacts to wetlands and riparian zones as a result of the operation and maintenance of the SVWEF are discussed in Section 4.5.2.1.2 of the 2010 FEA and are incorporated by Wetlands and reference; however the BMPs identified and in Table 6.2-1 and mitigation measures X Riparian Zones identified in Section 6.2 of the 2010 FEA, are adequate measures to minimize impacts to area wetlands and riparian zones. Implementation of either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not substantially change the conclusion of the 2010 FEA. Wild and Scenic As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, there are no X Rivers wild and scenic rivers present in the project area. As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the 2010 FEA and incorporated by reference, there are no Wilderness X “wilderness characteristics,” present in the project area.

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-10

3.2 General Setting

The SVWEF is located on 3,105 hectares (7,673 acres) of land managed by the BLM in Spring Valley, approximately 20 miles southeast of Ely, Nevada. Topography within the SVWEF generally slopes from west to east, with no abrupt topographical variation. Land cover generally consists of a mix of grassland and shrub cover types. Rose Guano Cave, a significant stopover site for large numbers of migrating Mexican free-tailed bats, lies approximately 6.4 km (4.0 miles) northeast of the SVWEF. 3.3 Special Status Species - Bats

3.3.1 Baseline Data from 2010 FEA

Bat use in the project area prior to construction was characterized in the 2010 FEA through comprehensive bat acoustic surveys (SWCA 2009) and a study to evaluate the use of the Rose Guano Cave by Mexican free-tailed bats (Sherwin 2009). The pre-construction baseline bat activity from the 2010 FEA is summarized below.

Bat Activity All Bat Species Acoustic studies were initiated in July 2007 and continued through December 2008 and identified 12 of the 23 bat species known to occur in Nevada (Table 3-2). Many of the pre-construction studies were conducted in the initial project area, located immediately adjacent and to the north of the final project area. The bats documented were all BLM sensitive species and included four state protected species. No species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA 1973) were detected or known to occur within the project area. A majority of the acoustic data were from four bat species: western small-footed mytois, long-eared mytois, little brown bat, and Mexican free-tailed bat. The Mexican free-tailed bat is also referred to as the Brazilian free-tailed bat in other documents related to the SVWEF. In the 2010 FEA, the BLM concluded that the high activity levels associated with these four species indicated that they were relatively common within the project area, at least seasonally.

Table 3-2. Bat Species identified from acoustic surveys, 2007–2008. Common Name Scientific Name 6-Letter Species Code State Status Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus ANTPAL Protected Protected, Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii CORTOW Sensitive Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus EPTFUS Silver haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans LASNOC Protected, Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii LASBLO Sensitive Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus LASCIN Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum MYOCIL Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis MYOEVO Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus MYOLUC Long-legged myotis Myotis volans MYOVOL Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis MYOYUM Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis TADBRA Protected

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-11 Environmental Assessment

The acoustic studies detected a statistically significant variation in bat activity levels between monitoring stations, suggesting environmental site characteristics strongly influence bat activity (SWCA 2009). Concentrations of bats were observed near water sources and near Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum). However, bats were detected throughout the project area every night. The study also indicated that bat activity in the project area fluctuated seasonally, with the total activity peaking in summer months. Nightly activity trends were apparent, although these patterns differed between species. Four distinct patterns were demonstrated and included unimodal and bimodal distributions, in which dramatic peaks in activity were followed by equally dramatic drops in activity. These patterns contrasted with other patterns, the first of which exhibited an initial peak in activity that slowly declined throughout the night, and another that had no noticeable peaks, but sustained low levels of activity throughout the night. Figure 3-1 provides a look at nightly activity for all bat species, while Figure 3-2 provides nightly activity for the four dominant species.

All bat species

6000 TADBRA MYOYUM 5000 MYOVOL MYOLUC 4000 MYOEVO MYOCIL 3000 LASNOC LASCIN 2000 Number Number of calls LASBLO EPTFUS 1000 CORTOW 0 ANTPAL -1.5 -0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 Time from sunset

Figure 3-1. Nightly activity patterns of all bat species, 2007–2008.

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-12

Figure 3-2. Nightly activity patterns of western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, little brown myotis, and Mexican free-tailed bat, 2007–2008.

In addition to nightly trends in activity, seasonal trends in activity were also observed (Figure 3-3) using the acoustic data. Acoustic methods cannot be used to estimate populations, since an individual bat may be responsible for multiple detected calls; however the data can be used to generate an index of activity (IA) value. The observed seasonal trends followed patterns already documented by previous research, which has shown that migratory species tend to have spring and fall peaks in activity, with a more dramatic peak in the fall (Arnett et al. 2008). Interestingly, the silver-haired bat exhibited this pattern, but peaked earlier in the spring and later in the fall than the other migratory species. This was likely a result of this species’ preference for northern latitudes, higher elevations, and general tolerance of colder conditions (Bradley et al. 2006). In contrast, activity levels in the non-migratory species all followed a pattern of a gradual buildup in late spring, followed by a peak in mid-summer and a gradual decline in the fall (Figure 3-4).

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-13 Environmental Assessment

All bat species

18000 TADBRA 16000 MYOYUM MYOVOL 14000 MYOLUC 12000 MYOEVO 10000 MYOCIL 8000 LASNOC

IA IA Level 6000 LASCIN LASBLO 4000 EPTFUS 2000 CORTOW 0 ANTPAL Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Figure 3-3. Seasonal activity patterns for all bat species, 2007–2008.

Patterns in seasonal activity

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 Migratory Species 2000 Non-migratory

IA IA Level 1500 Species 1000 500 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Month

Figure 3-4. Seasonal patterns for migratory versus non-migratory bat species, 2007–2008.

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-14

Seasonal trends in activity are useful for the same reasons as nightly trends. These can be used to assess when the potential for impacts to bats is greatest based on seasonality in order to craft effective mitigation measures. For example, mitigations for migratory species may only need to be enacted during the spring, summer, and fall, when the activity of these species was greatest.

Rose Guano Cave Use A study was conducted in conjunction with the BLM and NDOW that evaluated the use of Rose Guano Cave by Mexican free-tailed bats (Sherwin 2009). It was determined that the Rose Guano Cave serves as a migratory stopover for over one million Mexican free-tailed bats during fall migration and that the bats may only remain at the cave for an average of four days before leaving the area (Sherwin 2009). The preliminary radar data from the study showed that bats exit Rose Guano Cave from 1900 to 2130 hours, with the bulk of the exit occurring between 2000 to 2130 hours. Upon exiting Rose Guano Cave, the plume of bats gained altitude to reach approximately 366 m (1,200 ft) above the valley floor before turning south through the valley (Sherwin 2009). While some portion of the plume dropped to forage in the valley, data indicate that the majority of bats are traveling to agricultural fields south of the project area for foraging (Sherwin 2009).

Post-Construction Surveys Results SVW conducted several post-construction surveys in accordance with the original ABPP to monitor bat activity. The results of those studies are summarized below.

Bat Activity In accordance with the 2010 FEA and the associated ABPP, SVW conducted acoustic surveys from 2012 through 2015 to collect data on seasonal patterns of bat activity within the project area and evaluate correlations between bat activity levels and bat fatality.

Acoustic bat activity was monitored with an array of three sampling stations placed at different heights AGL (10, 30, and 60 m [33, 98, and 197 ft]) on the permanent meteorological tower located along the western edge of the SVWEF. The pre-construction surveys monitored bat activity outside of the final project area and near bat features (such as ponds), while these sampling stations were strategically located to monitor bat activity within the constructed wind energy facility. The differences in sampling locations help to explain the different patterns that were detected between the pre-construction and post-construction acoustic bat activity surveys.

Surveys were conducted August through November in 2012, and from March through October in 2013, 2014, and 2015, to capture general bat activity at the project area as well as migration activity. In all years, low-frequency bat species (i.e., pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, silver haired bat, hoary bat, and Mexican free-tailed bat) accounted for more than 89% of the recorded bat passes and the greatest amount of bat activity recorded occurred at the 30-m height. It was assumed that AnaBat units (Titley Scientific™, Columbia, Missouri) sample an area out to about 30 m, therefore the 30-m microphone height had the capacity to sample more airspace (from near ground level to 60 m AGL) than the lower unit at 10 m, which would have only been able to sample from near ground level to roughly 40 m (131 ft) AGL. This may have resulted in the 30-m microphone recording virtually all the bats within the range of the lower unit, as well as bats at higher altitudes, up through roughly the height of the 60-m microphone.

Based on acoustic data collected post-construction, bat activity generally peaked in June and July, with a secondary peak in activity that occurred in late August and September. Relative to the peak activity periods, bat activity was low from March through early June, and from mid- October through the end of the survey period. Activity rates followed the same pattern at all three sampling heights. The greatest number of low-frequency and total bat passes per detector-night

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-15 Environmental Assessment was recorded during the week of June 16-22, 2015 (Table 3-3). This was about two to three weeks earlier than the peak in 2014 (July 3-9), and about two weeks earlier than in 2013 (June 28 - July 4).

Table 3-3. Peak bat activity detected during surveys. End Date of Peak Bat Passes Per Species Group Start Date of Peak Activity Activity Detector-Night Study Period August 2 to November 4, 2012 HF* Bats September 2 September 8 4.8 LF* Bats August 18 August 24 47.1 All Bats August 18 August 24 48.7 Study Period March 12 to October 31, 2013 HF Bats June 28 July 4 64.3 LF Bats June 28 July 4 304.9 All Bats June 28 July 4 369.1 Study Period March 11 to November 4, 2014 HF Bats June 17 June 23 3.9 LF Bats July 3 July 9 66.2 All Bats July 3 July 9 66.9 Study Period March 24 to October 31, 2015 HF Bats August 17 August 23 18.3 LF Bats June 16 June 22 190.1 All Bats June 16 June 22 204.8 *HF = High Frequency, LF = Low Frequency

During the first three years of post-construction surveys, 14 bat species were identified from acoustic data analyzed with the call analysis program Kaleidoscope Pro 10.0 (Wildlife Acoustics, Concord, Massachusetts): Townsend’s big-eared bat, big brown bat, spotted bat, hoary bat, silver-haired bat, California myotis, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, little brown myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, canyon bat, big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), and Mexican free-tailed bat. The species composition was consistent across the years, in that calls by Mexican free-tailed and hoary bats were the most prevalent, followed by big brown bats and silver-haired bats.

It should be noted that the classification of some bat calls, such as fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, and western long-eared myotis, are similar to those calls of silver-haired bats, and they may have been misclassified by the Kaleidoscope program. Additionally, it was noted that some calls classified as canyon bat were classified as “noise” when reviewed by WEST personnel. As such, some caution should be taken in the interpretation of species-specific call data.

Rose Guano Cave Use SVW installed a beam break system at Rose Guano Cave in 2011 to monitor bat activity (DeTect 2012). The data identified when the first bat movements of the night occurred. The beak-break data identified a distinct pattern of emergence from the cave around sunset, followed by a lull in activity that was followed by a second round of activity, which was assumed to be bats returning to the cave (WEST 2013a, 2015, 2016b).

The first year of data collection showed bat activity at the cave from September 23-30, 2011, averaged 23,386 beam breaks by bats departing the cave every evening, with a mean count of 318 beam breaks per minute. The bat activity levels started dropping off during the first two weeks

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-16 of October, with an average of 8,683 beam breaks per night by bats leaving the cave each night during the first week, and only 4,768 beam breaks per night by bats during the second week. Peak counts during these weeks averaged 184 beam breaks per minute and 91 beam breaks per minute for each week, respectively. The bat activity dropped off substantially during the remainder of the month. The beam break counts out of the cave during the third week of October were less than 1,000 beam breaks per night with peak counts of 40 beam breaks per minute. In the final week of October, the counts out of the cave were less than 100 beam breaks per night, with peak counts per minute in the single digits. The first emergence of bats from the cave varied in relation to sunset, but the peak of activity always occurred after sunset. First emergence ranged from 19 minutes before sunset to 30 minutes after sunset. The peak activity ranged from eight minutes after sunset to three hours and 48 minutes after sunset.

While bat activity at the cave was highly variable and subject to change on a daily and seasonal basis due to environmental factors (Sherwin 2009), there was a clear trend in use of the cave based on the beam-break data (Figure 3.5). There appeared to be two peaks of activity at the cave. One peak generally occurred in late spring/early summer, and the second peak in late summer/early fall. Another trend observed in the beam break data was that the activity level at the cave generally picked up in May and dropped dramatically in early October. Cumulative beam break counts from June 1 through September 30 were consistent from 2014 through 2017 (Figure 3.6).

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-17 Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-5. Beam breaks per year May 1 through October 31.

May 2018 Chapter 3 Error! Unknown document property name. Environmental Assessment 3-18

Figure 3-6. Annual beam break data at Rose Guano Cave, 2014-2017.

3.4 Environmental Effects

This section analyzes the potential effects to bat species anticipated for the Proposed Action and the No Action. We summarize the anticipated general impacts first and then evaluate impacts for each alternative.

The revision of the legal description of the Project and the fatality rates being reported as fatalities/MW/year would result in no net impacts, either direct or indirect, to bat or bird species, and therefore will not be discussed further in the context of Proposed Action-related impacts.

Post-construction monitoring, identified in the original ABPP, provided additional information on bat mortality and impacts associated with the SVWEF. The original ABPP developed for the SVWEF included post-construction monitoring requirements to identify the effects of the Project on bat populations and as effects were understood, management and mitigation would be adjusted accordingly. Under the plan, the TAC would monitor SVWEF activities, including bat fatality data, to determine the need for project mitigation or other adaptive management strategies. As a result of the post construction monitoring, the revision of mortality thresholds and adaptive management (e.g., turbine curtailment) were developed and are the remaining components of the Proposed Action. The change of mortality thresholds and turbine curtailment components of the Proposed Action may result in direct impacts to bats; however, indirect impacts to bats are unlikely to differ substantially from those indirect impacts described in the 2010 FEA. Post-construction monitoring and completed studies that informed the changes in Proposed Action are discussed below.

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-19 Environmental Assessment

3.4.1 General Bat Fatality Patterns at Wind Farms

The 2010 FEA identified that injury or fatalities to individual bats would likely result from the operation of SVWEF through collision with turbines blades. Available data from 11 wind projects, located in similar habitats or environmental settings, were analyzed to develop the SVWEF bat mortality threshold that was presented in the original ABPP. The threshold was identified as 2.56 bats/turbine/year or 169 bats/year at the SVWEF, which was the average mortality per turbine reported for the 11 wind projects. If bat mortality at the SVWEF are at or below this threshold, the impact would be considered consistent with other wind projects and the PEIS analysis.

3.4.2 Turbine Curtailment Studies

In accordance with the original ABPP, a curtailment study was completed during the first year to determine both the effectiveness of cut-in speed curtailment and an effective cut-in speed for implementation at the SVWEF (WEST 2013b). The curtailment study implemented methods consistent with those developed by Arnett et al. (2009). The original ABPP stipulated that the lowest of the cut-in speeds that demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in bat fatality was to be selected as the default cut-in speed during the Mexican free-tailed bat peak activity period throughout the duration of the operating life of the SVWEF. If none of the tested cut-in speed treatments had a statistically significant impact, the default cut-in speed for the turbines in the SVWEF was to be set at 3.0 m/sec or a cut-in speed recommended by the TAC based on current science specific to the project area.

During the 2012 curtailment study, turbine cut-in speeds were altered for a 61-day period during the highest Mexican free-tailed bat use period of August 1 through September 30. The effectiveness of 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 m/sec (13.1, 16.4, and 19.7 ft/sec) cut-in speeds implemented from sunset to four hours after sunset, and for 5.0 m/sec from sunset to sunrise was compared with the default turbine cut-in speed of 3.0 m/sec, using 40 randomly selected turbines. Treatments were randomly assigned to each of the 40 turbines for each night; however, the randomization was limited so that each treatment type was applied to 10 of the 40 turbines. All remaining turbines were set at 5.0 m/sec during that period to mitigate for potential impacts during peak Mexican free-tailed bat activity.

Ultimately, the 2012 curtailment study provided evidence of a reduction in bat fatalities at the increased cut-in speeds (i.e., 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 m/sec), but the differences were not statistically significant. Because the initial curtailment experiment lacked the power to detect a significant reduction in mortality among cut-in speeds, in part due to relatively low numbers of bat fatalities (i.e., low sample sizes), an additional cut-in speed curtailment experiment was conducted in the fall of 2013, per direction from the TAC. The 2013 curtailment study (WEST 2014) design was similar to that used in fall 2012 (WEST 2013b), except that a different set of cut-in speeds were tested, which included treatments of 5.5 and 6.5 m/sec for the first four hours after sunset, and 5.5 and 6.5 m/sec for all night (sunset to sunrise).

The 2013 curtailment study documented statistically significant reductions in bat fatalities at two cut-in speed treatments (both 5.5 and 6.5 m/sec for the entire night). Although statistically different from the default of 3.0 m/sec, these two treatments were not statistically different from each other. The 5.5 m/sec and 6.5 m/sec all night treatments resulted in approximately 66% and 72% reductions of bat fatalities, respectively.

In addition to the results of the 2012 and 2013 cut-in speed studies, SVW implemented a 5.0 m/sec all-night cut-in speed at all turbines in the SVWEF on July 24, 2013, which was earlier than

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-20 what was required in the ABPP because bat activity increased earlier in the year than expected. The 5.0 m/sec cut-in speed was used based on data gathered during the 2012 cut-in speed study, which suggested, although not with statistical significance, that this cut-in speed would reduce bat fatalities by roughly 32-35%. Although the effect of implementing the 5.0 m/sec cut-in speed cannot be tested statistically, it appeared to have a substantial effect on bat mortality (WEST 2014).

The data collected on the effects of increasing cut-in speed on bat mortality during the first two years of operations, including the observed reduction in mortality with 5.0 m/sec cut-in speed curtailment in 2012, the statistically significant reductions at 5.5 m/sec in 2013 study, and observed reduction following implementation of 5.0 m/sec cut-in speed in July 2013, suggested that implementation of a minimum 5.0 m/sec cut-in speed for the entire night during periods of higher bat activity should substantially reduce bat fatalities at the SVWEF. These findings are similar to other studies that evaluated the effectiveness cut-in speed adjustments on reducing bat mortality (Hein et al. 2013; Good et al. 2011, 2012). These data were used to develop a targeted curtailment strategy (described in Section 2.2.3) to reduce the overall impact of the SVWEF on bats. This strategy was presented to the TAC and BLM and approved by the BLM Authorized Officer (Paul Podborny) in a letter to SVW on June 16, 2014.

3.4.3 Modeling Predictions of High Fatality Nights

Beam break data were used to develop a model to predict when bat fatalities would be high, based on activity at Rose Guano Cave. The predictive model is the basis of the targeted curtailment strategy, and is based on three measures of beam break data gathered from sensors at Rose Guano Cave. When any of the three conditions (i.e., curtailment triggers) is met, SVW will implement a 5.0 m/sec all-night cut-in speed. The conditions include:

1. Running total of inbound plus outbound beam breaks over the previous five nights exceeds 88,000, 2. Outbound beam breaks the previous three evenings exceeds 21,000, and 3. Inbound beam breaks the previous morning exceeds14,000 beam breaks.

3.4.4 Bat Fatalities at SVWEF and Effectiveness of the Targeted Curtailment Program

Post-construction monitoring for bats was a critical component of the original ABPP and continues to be an important component of the revised ABPP. The observations made during post- construction monitoring would be reported to the TAC, which would respond with appropriate management decisions should mortalities exceed the thresholds outlined in the revised ABPP. Fatality surveys for bats were completed at the SVWEF for the first five years (2013-2017) following construction). Additional fatality surveys for bats will be conducted in the seventh and tenth years of operation, and then every five years thereafter. Bat fatality monitoring survey methods were described in the 2010 FEA and original ABPP, as well as subsequent reports submitted to the TAC and BLM. In general, surveys were completed every other week at one- third of the operating turbines and followed an annual study plan that was reviewed and approved by the TAC prior to implementation. Search turbines were originally chosen using a systematic sample with a random start. For comparability, the same sample of turbines was searched during the initial five years of monitoring and, unless otherwise recommended by the TAC, the same sample of turbines will continue to be searched in the future to maintain comparability.

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-21 Environmental Assessment

Additionally, daily searches of the year-long search turbines were conducted for a 7-day period each season for the first three years of study. During the fall of the Year 1 study (2013), daily searches of 40 turbines occurred throughout August and September as part of the second curtailment study; therefore the week of daily searches at the year-long search turbines were not completed as in the other three seasons. In Year 2 and Year 3 (2014 and 2015), daily searches were conducted at the year-long search turbines for a 7-day period in the fall, as in the other three seasons. Daily searches were not conducted during fatality monitoring studies conducted in Year 4 or thereafter.

Searcher efficiency and scavenger rate studies were used to develop correction factors that were applied to fatality findings for each surveyed turbine to adjust for carcasses that may have been missed by searchers or removed by scavengers or other means. The adjusted fatality estimates were used to evaluate the mortality thresholds.

Fatality monitoring at the SVWEF has been a key component of assessing the overall impacts of the SVWEF on bats during the first five years. Under the original ABPP, SVW did exceed the overall bat threshold during the initial two years of operation. As a result, SVW worked with the TAC and BLM to develop and implement a mitigation strategy that met the Phase I mitigation requirement of the original ABPP’s adaptive management strategy. The proposed Phase I mitigation was originally designed to include a targeted curtailment strategy that would be implemented during peak bat activity periods, as defined by entry/exit counts recorded via the beam-break system at Rose Guano Cave. Based on the data that had been gathered during the first 14 months of operations (including two curtailment studies), SVW submitted a bat mitigation strategy to the TAC in March 2014. The TAC followed with a recommendation to implement the mitigation strategy, as proposed, to the BLM Authorized Officer who approved the strategy in June 2014. The targeted curtailment program was fully implemented during three consecutive bat seasons (Years 3, 4, and 5) and resulted in reduced levels of bat fatalities compared to Year 1 and Year 2.

In Year 3 (2015) the estimated number of bat fatalities were below the threshold in the original ABPP. Upon arrival of the first pulse of Mexican free-tailed bats at Rose Guano Cave in early June, SVW implemented a 5.0 m/sec cut-in speed for all turbines, which continued for the remainder of the bat activity period (June – September). As a result of the cut-in speed adjustments, the estimated bat fatality rate in Year 3 was only 0.63 bats/MW/year (1.45 bats/turbine/year), which was well below the threshold of 2.56 bats/turbine/year identified in the original ABPP and was 83% less than the 3.73 bats/MW/year fatality rate estimated during Year 1 studies.

In Year 4 (2016), the primary objective of the bat fatality surveys was to estimate bat mortality during the period of peak fall migration and compare those rates to the bat fatality observed in prior years. While bat mortality during the peak migration period of Year 4 was somewhat elevated compared to Year 3 (15 fatalities found in Year 4 compared to nine in Year 3), the adjusted fatality rate estimate (139 total bats) for the Year 4 study period was still below the threshold identified in the original ABPP (169 bats per year). Although the Year 4 fatality estimate of 139 bats only covered a 10-week-long study period (July 26 – September 30), there is no way to accurately extrapolate the data to a yearlong fatality estimate due to variability in the timing of fatalities across seasons and years. It is worth noting that data on the temporal distribution of bat fatalities in Year 3 indicated that bat mortality peaked during the fall, which largely coincided with the Year 4 monitoring period.

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-22

In Year 5 (2017), the estimated number of bat fatalities was again well below the threshold in the original ABPP. Year 5 mortality monitoring occurred from January – December 2017. In 2017, the first cut-in speed adjustment was made on the night of June 17-18 and the last night that curtailment was implemented in 2017 was the night of October 7-8. The estimated bat fatality rate in Year 5 was only 0.60 bats/MW/year (1.37 bats/turbine/year), which was well below the threshold of 2.56 bats/turbine/year identified in the ABPP, consistent with Year 3 estimates (0.63 bats/MW/year), and 84% less than the 3.73 bats/MW/year fatality rate estimated during Year 1 studies.

The reduced bat mortality during Year 3 and Year 4 appear to be the result of cut-in speed changes which were implemented by SVW during the peak bat activity period each year. During this peak activity period, turbine cut-in speeds were increased from 3.0 m/sec to 5.0 m/sec from sunset to sunrise. In 2016, beam break data indicated that bat activity at Rose Guano Cave began exceeding levels that which triggered curtailment on June 16/17, and curtailment continued on a nightly basis through September 26, at which point SVW began implementing curtailment on a nightly basis based on the beam break data (i.e., turbines were not curtailed when bat activity was below all three triggers). Curtailment continued on nights when triggers were exceeded through October 13, which was the last time a nightly curtailment trigger was exceeded in 2016.

3.4.5 Alternative A – Proposed Action

Direct Effects Thresholds A structured population model was utilized (WEST and SWV 2014: Appendix B) to examine the effects of SVWEF-related fatalities on Mexican free-tailed bat population sizes. It was assumed that effects on the transitory population that use the cave were a reasonable, yet conservative, surrogate to evaluate effects on the larger populations of Mexican free-tailed bat from which the Rose Guano Cave population is drawn. Basic assumptions of the model included that all bats passing through the cave were resident in the area for three days, and all bats passing through the cave had the same daily survival rate during that period. These assumptions likely resulted in underestimates of variability and are thus conservative.

The structured population model examined the effect of SVWEF-related take on the population, and considered zero (for a background), 169 (to represent the current threshold), and 500, 1,000, or 1,500 bats per year. In all cases examined, take of up to 1,500 bats per year from a population of one million and three million bats was not statistically detectable and the resulting population size was within the range of variability of a reference population (i.e., a population experiencing no additional take). This means that the impacts of take up to 1,500 bats from the Mexican free- tailed bat population estimated to be one to three million bats would likely be minor and statistically undetectable (Appendix B).

It appears that, given increased knowledge of bat use of Rose Guano Cave, the population of the Mexican free-tailed bats is large enough to sustain higher mortality than the thresholds identified in the original ABPP. The thresholds proposed for Mexican free-tailed bats were calculated based on population modeling analyses and discussions with the TAC (Appendix B). The data collected and the modeling analyses indicated that the proposed threshold represents 0.1 to 0.03% of the Rose Guano Cave population that is estimated to be between one and three million bats. This level of mortality would be well below any generally accepted level of significance.

While information has been collected relative to the Mexican free-tailed bat, the population sizes and species-specific demographic parameters are not available for most other bat species.

May 2018 Chapter 3 3-23 Environmental Assessment

Therefore, the common approach for calculating thresholds is to consider data from comparable projects. As previously stated, the number of wind energy facilities in western North America with publicly available data has increased dramatically since 2010 (49 projects versus 11 projects). With this information, the threshold proposed for non-Mexican free-tailed bats at the SVWEF represents the average of the estimated take of bats reported in those studies, which is consistent with the calculation of thresholds for the original ABPP, which were also based on the average among comparable projects.

Targeted Curtailment Strategy The targeted curtailment strategy has been implemented to some degree for three consecutive years and has resulted in a reduction in overall bat fatalities. This strategy exceeds the Phase I mitigation of the original ABPP as it extends curtailment to cover the entire bat period, which varies annually based on beam break data and would be applied all night when triggered rather than from sunset to four hours after sunset. The targeted curtailment would not only exceed the Phase I mitigation of the original ABPP, but would be equivalent to the curtailment described for Phase II (i.e., the targeted approach would be approximately 924 hours proposed versus the maximum of 900 hours identified in the original ABPP).

The increased curtailment hours compared to the original ABPP would result in reducing the potential for bat fatalities due to the potential for increased cut-in speeds being applied for a longer period of time. Additionally, the beam break data used to trigger curtailment is a reliable predictor of increased bat activity and potential mortality at the SVWEF. Accurately predicting the bat activity and responding with increased cut-in speeds has been shown to reduce bat mortality at the SVWEF. The original ABPP relied on predicting bat activity based on pre-construction survey data that reflected trends, and was largely collected at sites outside of the final project area. However, there are many variables that influence bat activity (Sherwin 2009), and changes in the trend may result in the curtailment being applied too early or too late to be most effective.

Indirect Effects Indirect effects can result from one resource affecting another (e.g., soil erosion and sedimentation affecting water quality) or can occur later in time or removed in location but can be reasonably expected to occur. Indirect impacts of the construction and operation of the SVWEF including maintenance activities and facility lighting were analyzed in the 2010 FEA. The revision of thresholds and the implementation of the targeted curtailment strategy would not revise any of these activities and would not change the indirect impacts to bats or any other resource as described in the 2010 FEA.

3.4.6 Alternative B – No Action

Direct Effects The No Action Alternative would not change the threshold levels. Reaching the threshold levels for the Proposed Action or the No Action would likely result in similar, non-detectable impacts to the Mexican free-tailed bats based on the results of the structured population model. With lower thresholds, the No Action Alternative may result in increased mitigation well beyond the conservation gain and have substantial impacts on the project. For example, exceeding a threshold in one year by a bat (or even a few bats) leads to potentially onerous mitigation for the remainder of the project, when the exceedance by a very small margin could easily have been a one-time event given the annual variability in mortality.

Chapter 3 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 3-24

Indirect Effects Implementation of No Action Alternative would not substantially change the indirect impacts to bats as described in the 2010 FEA.

May 2018 Chapter 3 4-1 Environmental Assessment

Chapter 4 Cumulative Effects

Chapter 4 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 4-2

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2018 Chapter 4 4-3 Environmental Assessment

4.1 Introduction

Cumulative impacts are the “incremental impacts of a the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA) regardless of which agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR §1508.7).

This EA incorporates by reference the cumulative impacts analysis in the 2010 FEA for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the SVWEF and the original ABPP (SWCA 2010; pages 148 to 159). Section 5.2 of the 2010 FEA addresses the cumulative impact to special status species, including bats. This analysis covers the actions that would contribute to the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA. The BLM reviewed the list of current and planned projects disclosed in Table 5.0-1 of the 2010 FEA (BLM 2010; pages 150- 151), to determine if any new projects are applicable to this EA. No new projects or RFFAs were identified.

Section 5.2 of the 2010 FEA analyzed the potential impact of the construction and operation of the SVWEF and up to an additional 995 turbines for other wind energy projects, including the potential for injury and mortality to bats resulting from collisions with turbines. The analysis concluded that the SVWEF would contribute a small percent increase in cumulative bat mortality. In preparing this EA, the BLM noted that three potential wind projects (identified as NextEra Wind Energy Development, Ely Wind, and Wilson Creek Wind in the 2010 FEA list of RFFAs) are no longer anticipated for future development. Thus the analysis for 995 turbines in the 2010 FEA greatly exceeded what was actually constructed (i.e., 66 turbines at the SWVEF). 4.2 Special Status Species - Bats

4.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action

The SVWEF was the only wind energy facility developed in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis as analyzed in the 2010 FEA. Therefore, the cumulative impact resulting from collisions with turbines would be the same as what was discussed under the Proposed Action. Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.4.5, the Proposed Action would not result in a discernable effect on Mexican free-tailed bats. Since the Proposed Action would not likely result in more than negligible adverse direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects to bats.

4.2.2 Alternative B – No Action

There would be no cumulative effects from the No Action Alternative beyond those analyzed in the 2010 FEA.

Chapter 4 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 4-4

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2018 Chapter 4 5-1 Environmental Assessment

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

Chapter 5 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 5-2

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 5 May 2018 5-3 Environmental Assessment

5.1 Introduction

The Technical Advisory Committee working in relation with the original ABPP was provided the Preliminary Draft EA to provide comments on the analysis presented. No other agencies, individuals, organizations, or tribes were consulted as part of the EA development. The BLM publically posted the Draft EA on the Ely District Office ePlanning website May 2018.

Chapter 5 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 5-4

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 5 May 2018 6-1 Environmental Assessment

Chapter 6 List of Preparers

Chapter 6 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 6-2

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 6 May 2018 6-3 Environmental Assessment

6.1 Introduction

In coordination with the BLM, SVW prepared this EA with assistance of its consultant (WEST). SVW, WEST, and the BLM coordinated throughout the preparation process. The BLM reviewed the EA, and SVW and WEST revised the document as needed prior to public distribution in response to the BLM’s comments. The BLM has made its own evaluation of the environmental issues pertaining to the Proposed Action and takes responsibility for the scope and content of this EA. Table 6-1 identifies the BLM preparers of this EA and Table 6-2 recognizes the WEST preparers.

Table 6-1. List of BLM Preparers Responsible for the Following Name Title Section(s) of this Document Nathan Chilcott Realty Specialist All Sections Mindy Seal Field Manager All Sections Concetta Brown Natural Resource Specialist All Sections Nancy Herms Wildlife Biologist All Sections

Table 6-2. List of WEST Preparers Responsible for the Following Name Title Section(s) of this Document Gretchen Norman Project Manager, WEST EA Preparation Joel Thompson Sr. Project Manager, WEST Advisor David Taylor Biologist, WEST Chapters 1 and 2

Chapter 6 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 6-4

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 6 May 2018 7-1 Environmental Assessment

Chapter 7 References

Chapter 7 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 7-2

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 7 May 2018 7-3 Environmental Assessment

7.1 References

Arnett, E. B., K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. Fiedler, B. L. Hamilton, T. H. Henry, A. Jain, G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. Koford, C. P. Nicholson, T. O’Connell, M. Piorkowski, and R. Tankersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): 61-78. Arnett, E. B., M. R. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009. Effectiveness of Changing Wind Turbine Cut-in Speed to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Facilities: 2008 Annual Report. Prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Bat Conservation International (BCI), Austin, Texas. April 2009. Available online: http://www.batsandwind.org/pdf/Curtailment_2008_ Final_Report.pdf Bradley, P. V., M. J. O’Farrell, J. A. Williams, and J. E. Newmark, eds. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group, Reno, Nevada. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2011. Finding of No significant Impact for the Sping Valley Wind Energy Facility. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2011. Decision Record for the Sping Valley Wind Energy Facility. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. Handbook H-1790-1. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Program, Washington, D. C. January 1980. Available online: BLM National Environmental Policy Act Program Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1994. Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts. April 1994. Available online: https://www.ntc.blm.gov/ krc/uploads/194/5%20-%20BLM%20Cumulative%20impact%20Guide%201994.pdf Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM Administered Land in the Western United States. US Department of the Interior (USDOI), BLM, Washington, D.C. Available online: Final Progammatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM- Administered Land in the Western US. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. BLM/NV/EL/PL-GI08/25+1793. BLM Ely District Office, Ely, Nevada. August 2008. Available online: Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009. Weed Risk Assessment: Risk Assessment for Noxious and Invasive Weeds. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. Final Environmental Assessment - Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility, Spring Valley, White Pine County, Nevada. DOI-BLM-NV-L020-2010- 0007-EA. BLM Schell Field Office, US Department of the Interior (USDI). October 2010. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2016. Recommendation to Approve the Revised Avian and Bat Protection Plan. To Jill Moore, Field Manager, Bristlecone Field Office. From Nancy M. Herms, TAC Lead. September 2016. US Department of the Interior (USDI) BLM, Ely, Nevada. 2 pp.

Chapter 7 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 7-4

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQ, Executive Office of the President. January 1997. Available online: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/ RedDont/G-CEQ-ConsidCumulEffects.pdf DeTect, Inc. (DeTect). 2012. MERLIN TM Beam Break Survey at the Rose Guano Cave for the Spring Valley Wind Project. Report for the Fall 2011 Season. Prepared for Pattern Energy Group LP, Houston, Texas. Prepared by DeTect, Panama City, Florida. Good, R. E., W. P. Erickson, A. Merrill, S. Simon, K. Murray, K. Bay, and C. Fritchman. 2011. Bat Monitoring Studies at the Fowler Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Benton County, Indiana: April 13 - October 15, 2010. Prepared for Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. January 28, 2011. Good, R. E., A. Merrill, S. Simon, K. Murray, and K. Bay. 2012. Bat Monitoring Studies at the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, Benton County, Indiana: April 1 - October 31, 2011. Prepared for the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Bloomington, Indiana. January 31, 2012. Hein, C. D., A. Prichard, T. Mabee, and M. R. Schirmacher. 2013. Effectiveness of an Operational Mitigation Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalities at the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County, West Virginia, 2012. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, and ABR, Inc., Forest Grove, Oregon. April 2013. Hodos, W. 2003. Minimization of Motion Smear: Reducing Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines. Period of Performance: July 12, 1999 - August 31, 2002. NREL/SR-500-33249. Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, Colorado. August 2003. Available online: Minimization of Motion Smear: Reducing Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines Johnson, G. D. and W. P. Erickson. 2010. Avian, Bat and Habitat Cumulative Impacts Associated with Wind Energy Development in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion of Eastern Washington and Oregon. Report prepared for Klickitat County Planning Department, Goldendale, Washington. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. February 2010. Johnson, G. D. and S. E. Stephens. 2011. Wind Power and Bio Fuels: A Green Dilemma for Wildlife Conservation. Chapter 8. Pp. 131-155. In: D. E. Naugle, ed. Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America. Island Press, Washington, D.C. McCracken, G. F. 1996. Bats Aloft: A Study of High-Altitude Feeding. BATS (Bat Conservation International). 14(3): 7-10. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1969. 42 United States Code Annotated (USCA) 4321-4370e. [Public Law 91-190, § 2, January 1, 1970, 83 Statute 852.]. Available online: National Environmental Policy Act NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [Web Application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. US. Accessed: October 2017. Information online: NatureServe Explorer. O’Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon. 1999. Qualitative Identification of Free-Flying Bats Using the Anabat Detector. Journal of Mammalogy 80: 11-23. Ocotillo Express LLC. 2012. Avian and Bat Protection Plan for the Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility. Prepared by Ocotillo Express LLC, Houston, Texas. Available online: Avian and Bat Protection Plan for the Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility

May 2018 Chapter 7 7-5 Environmental Assessment

Sherwin, R. E. 2009. A Study on the Use of Rose Guano Cave, Nevada by Brazilian Free-Tailed Bats (Tadarida brasiliensis). Christopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing Bird and Bat Fatality-Rate Estimates among North American Wind-Energy Projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(1): 19-33. Spring Valley Wind, LLC (SVW),. 2010. Spring Valley Wind Facility Plan of Development. Prepared by SVW, Houston, Texas. October 2010. 226 pp. Strickland, M. D., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, D. H. Johnson, G. D. Johnson, M. L. Morrison, J. A. Shaffer, and W. Warren-Hicks. 2011. Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife Interactions. Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC), Washington, D.C., USA. June 2011. Available online: Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife Interactions SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2009. Spring Valley Wind Power Generating Facility Final Preconstruction Survey Results Report. Prepared for Spring Valley Wind, LLC, Dallas, Texas and U.S. Bureau of Land Management Schell Field Office, Ely, Nevada. Prepared by SWCA, Las Vegas, Nevada. SWCA Project No. 13090. August 2009. 168 pp. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2010. Avian and Bat Protection Plan for the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility. Prepared for Spring Valley Wind LLC, Houston, Texas. Prepared by SWCA, Las Vegas, Nevada. October 2010. Available online: Avian and Bat Protection Plan for the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2011. Avian and Bat Protection Plan for the Proposed Perrin Ranch Wind Facility. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants. April 2011. US Department of the Interior (USDI). 1980. Department Manual 516, Environmental Quality. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. March 23, 2012. 82 pp. Available online: http://www.fws.gov/cno/pdf/Energy/2012_ Wind_Energy_Guidelines_final.pdf Western EcoSystems Technologies, Inc. (WEST). 2013a. Annual Report for 2012 Wildlife Monitoring at the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility White Pine County, Nevada. Final Report: August – December 2012. Prepared for Pattern Energy. Prepared by WEST, Corvallis, Oregon. Western EcoSystems Technologies, Inc. (WEST). 2013b. Turbine Curtailment Experiment at the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility, White Pine County, Nevada. August – September 2012. Revised Final Report. Prepared for Pattern Energy. Prepared by WEST, Cheyenne, Wyoming. March 14, 2013. Western EcoSystems Technologies, Inc. (WEST). 2014. Second Annual Report of Post- Construction Wildlife Studies at the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility White Pine County, Nevada. Final Report: August 1, 2012 – October 5, 2013. Prepared for Spring Valley Wind LLC. Prepared by WEST, Cheyenne, Wyoming. March 25, 2014. 183 pp. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2015. Year 2 of Post-Construction Wildlife Studies at the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility, White Pine County, Nevada. Final Report: August 2013 – October 2014. Prepared for Pattern Energy. Prepared by WEST, Corvallis, Oregon.

Chapter 7 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 7-6

Western EcoSystems Technologies, Inc. (WEST). 2016a. Revised Avian and Bat Protection Plan for the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility. Prepared for Spring Valley Wind LLC, Houston, Texas. Original version prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Las Vegas, Nevada. Revised version prepared by WEST, Cheyenne, Wyoming. July 2016. 65 pp. Western EcoSystems Technologies, Inc. (WEST). 2016b. Year 3 of Post-Construction Wildlife Studies at the Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility White Pine County, Nevada. Final Report: October 2014 - September 2015. Prepared for Spring Valley Wind LLC, Houston, Texas. Prepared by WEST, Corvallis, Oregon. November 7, 2016. 115 pp. Western EcoSystems Technologies, Inc. (WEST) and Spring Valley Wind. 2014. Memorandum: Proposed Revisions to Thresholds at Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility. From WEST and SWV to Spring Valley Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), August 15, 2014. 27 pp. Western EcoSystems Technologies, Inc. (WEST) and Spring Valley Wind (SVW). 2014. Memorandum: Proposed Revisions to Thresholds at Spring Valley Wind Energy Facility. From WEST and SVW to Spring Valley Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), August 15, 2014. 27 pp.

7.2 Laws, Acts, and Regulations

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1502.21. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1502 - Environmental Impact Statement; Section (§) 1502.21 - Incorporation by Reference. 40 CFR 1508.21. [43 Federal Register (FR) 56000, November 29, 1978; 44 FR 874, January 3, 1979.]. Available online: Section (§) 1502.21 - Incorporation by Reference. 40 CFR 1508.21 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1508.28. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1508 - Terminology and Index; Section (§) 1508.28 - Effects. 40 CFR 1508.28. [43 Federal Register (FR) 56000, November 29, 1978; 44 FR 874, January 3, 1979.]. Available online: Part 1508 - Terminology and Index; Section (§) 1508.28 - Effects. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1500. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1500 - Purpose, Policy, and Mandate. 40 CFR 1500. [43 Federal Register (FR) 55990, November 28, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1500 - Purpose, Policy, and Mandate 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1501. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1501 - NEPA and Agency Planning. 40 CFR 1501. [43 Federal Register (FR) 55990, November 28, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1501 - NEPA and Agency Planning 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1502. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1502 - Environmental Impact Statement. 40 CFR 1502. [43 Federal Register (FR) 55990, November 28, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1502 - Environmental Impact Statement 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1503. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1503 - Commenting. 40 CFR 1503. [43 Federal Register (FR) 55990, November 28, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1503 - Commenting

May 2018 Chapter 7 7-7 Environmental Assessment

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1504. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1504 - Predecision Referrals to the Council of Proposed Federal Actions Determined to Be Environmentally Unsatisfactory. 40 CFR 1504. [43 Federal Register (FR) 55990, November 28, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1504 - Predecision Referrals to the Council of Proposed Federal Actions Determined to Be Environmentally Unsatisfactory and Part 1504 - Predecision Referrals to the Council of Proposed Federal Actions Determined to Be Environmentally Unsatisfactory 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1505. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1505 - NEPA and Agency Decisionmaking. 40 CFR 1505. [43 Federal Register (FR) 55990, November 28, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1505 - NEPA and Agency Decisionmaking 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1506. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1506 - Other Requirements of NEPA. 40 CFR 1506. [43 Federal Register (FR) 56000, November 29, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1506 - Other Requirements of NEPA. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1507. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1507 - Agency Compliance. 40 CFR 1507. [43 Federal Register (FR) 56002, November 29, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1507 - Agency Compliance 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1508. 1978. Title 40 - Protection of Environment; Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality; Part 1508 - Terminology and Index. 40 CFR 1508. [43 Federal Register (FR) 56003, November 29, 1978.]. Available online: Part 1508 - Terminology and Index and Part 1508 - Terminology and Index 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §2804.25. 2009. Title 43 - Public Lands; Interior; Subtitle B - Regulations Relating to Public Lands; Chapter II - Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior; Subchapter B - Land Resource Management (2000); Part 2800 - Rights-of-Way under the Federal Land Policy Management Act; Subpart 2804 - Applying for FLPMA Grants; Section (§) 2804.25 - How Will BLM Process My Application? 43 CFR 2804.25. October 1, 2009. Available online: Subpart 2804 - Applying for FLPMA Grants; Section (§) 2804.25 - How Will BLM Process My Application? 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 22.26. 2009. Title 50 - Wildlife and Fisheries; Chapter I - United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; Subchapter B - Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants; Part 22 - Eagle Permits; Subpart C - Eagle Permits; Section (§) 22.26 - Permits for Eagle Take That Is Associated with, but Not the Purpose of, an Activity. 50 CFR 22.26. [74 Federal Register (FR) 46877, September 11, 2009, as amended at 79 FR 73725, December 9, 2013]. Endangered Species Act (ESA). 1973. 16 United States Code (USC) §§ 1531-1544, Public Law (PL) 93-205, December 28, 1973, as amended, PL 100-478 [16 USC 1531 et seq.]; 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 402. Nevada Administrative Code 503.093. Appropriate License, Permit or Authorization Required to Hunt, Take or Possess Protected Wildlife; Exceptions; Limitation on Possession of Desert Tortoises. Available online: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC- 503.html#NAC503Sec093

Chapter 7 May 2018 Environmental Assessment 7-8

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 501. Title 45 - Wildlife; Chapter 501 - Administration and Enforcement. As amended. Available online: Title 45 - Wildlife; Chapter 501 - Administration and Enforcement

May 2018 Chapter 7 Environmental Assessment

Appendix A Revised Spring Valley Avian and Bat Protection Plan

May 2018 Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2018