Exhibit U Public Services

Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1221 West Idaho Street Boise, Idaho 83702

Todd Adams, Project Leader Zach Funkhouser, Permitting (208) 388-2740 (208) 388-5375 [email protected] [email protected]

Preliminary Application for Site Certificate

February 2013

Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... U-1 2.0 APPLICABLE RULES AND STANDARDS ...... U-1 3.0 ANALYSIS ...... U-2 3.1 Analysis Area ...... U-2 3.2 Methods ...... U-2 3.3 Information Required by OAR 345-001-0010 (1)(u) ...... U-3 3.3.1 Assumptions Used to Evaluate Potential Impacts ...... U-3 3.3.2 Affected Public and Private Services ...... U-5 3.3.3 Potential Impacts on Public and Private Providers ...... U-12 3.3.4 Mitigation ...... U-19 3.3.5 Monitoring ...... U-19 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... U-20 5.0 SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL COMPLIANCE MATRICES ...... U-20 6.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC ...... U-21 7.0 REFERENCES ...... U-22

LIST OF TABLES Table U-1. Construction Spread and Affected Counties ...... U-3 Table U-2. Projected Workers and Population Change during Peak Construction ...... U-4 Table U-3. Landfills ...... U-6 Table U-4. Housing Data ...... U-6 Table U-5. Hotels and Motels...... U-6 Table U-6. Recreational Vehicle Parks ...... U-7 Table U-7. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...... U-7 Table U-8. Law Enforcement ...... U-9 Table U-9. Fire Departments...... U-10 Table U-10. School Districts ...... U-11 Table U-11. Preliminary Project Haul Routes ...... U-15 Table U-12. Submittal Requirements Matrix...... U-20 Table U-13. Approval Standard ...... U-21 Table U-14. Reviewing Agency and Public Comments ...... U-21

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment U-1. Communications with Public Service Providers Attachment U-2. Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Attachment U-3. Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-i Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

This page intentionally left blank.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-ii Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Note: Not all acronyms and abbreviations listed will appear in this Exhibit. °C degrees Celsius 4WD 4-wheel-drive A ampere A/ph amperes/phase AC alternating current ACDP Air Contaminant Discharge Permit ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ACSR aluminum conductor steel reinforced AIMP Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan AMS Analysis of the Management Situation aMW average megawatt ANSI American National Standards Institute APE Area of Potential Effect APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act ASC Application for Site Certificate ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASP Archaeological Survey Plan AST aboveground storage tank ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials ATC available transmission capacity ATV all-terrain vehicle AUM animal unit month B2H Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project BCCP Baker County Comprehensive Plan BCZSO Baker County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice BPA Bonneville Power Administration BOR Bureau of Reclamation C and D construction and demolition CAA Clean Air Act CadnaA Computer-Aided Noise Abatement CAFE Corona and Field Effects CAP Community Advisory Process CBM capacity benefit margin CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH critical habitat CIP critical infrastructure protection CL centerline cm centimeter cmil circular mil COA Conservation Opportunity Area CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-iii Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

COM Plan Construction, Operations, and Maintenance Plan CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity cps cycle per second CRP Conservation Reserve Program CRT cathode-ray tube CRUP Cultural Resource Use Permit CSZ Cascadia Subduction Zone CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation CWA Clean Water Act of 1972 CWR Critical Winter Range dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DC direct current DoD Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries DPS Distinct Population Segment DSL Oregon Department of State Lands EA environmental assessment EDRR Early Detection and Rapid Response EIS Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS for Draft and FEIS for Final) EFSC or Council Energy Facility Siting Council EFU Exclusive Farm Use EHS extra high strength EMF electric and magnetic fields EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPC Engineer, Procure, Construct EPM environmental protection measure EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ERO Electric Reliability Organization ERU Exclusive Range Use ESA Endangered Species Act ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit EU European Union FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCC Federal Communication Commission FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FFT find, fix, track, and report FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act Forest Plan Land and Resource Management Plan FPA Forest Practices Act FSA Farm Services Agency FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service G gauss

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-iv Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

GeoBOB Geographic Biotic Observation GF Grazing Farm Zone GHG greenhouse gas GHz gigahertz GIL gas insulated transmission line GIS geographic information system GPS Global Positioning System GRMW Grande Ronde Model Watershed GRP Grassland Reserve Program HAC Historic Archaeological Cultural HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HPFF high pressure fluid-filled HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan HUC Hydrologic Unit Code Hz hertz I-84 Interstate 84 ICC International Code Council ICES International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection IDAPA Idaho Administrative Procedures Act IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources ILS intensive-level survey IM Instructional Memorandum INHP Idaho Natural Heritage Program INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan IPC Idaho Power Company IPUC Idaho Public Utilities Commission IRP integrated resource plan IRPAC IRP Advisory Council ISDA Idaho State Department of Agriculture JPA Joint Permit Application KCM thousand circular mils kHz kilohertz km kilometer KOP Key Observation Point kV kilovolt kV/m kilovolt per meter kWh kilowatt-hour Ldn day-night sound level Leq equivalent sound level lb pound LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission LDMA Lost Dutchman’s Mining Association LiDAR light detection and ranging LIT Local Implementation Team

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-v Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

LMP land management plan LOLE Loss of Load Expectation LRMP land and resource management plan LUBA Land Use Board of Appeals LWD large woody debris m meter mA milliampere MA Management Area MAIFI Momentary Average Interruption Frequency Index MCC Malheur County Code MCCP Morrow County Comprehensive Plan MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake MCZO Morrow County Zoning Ordinance mG milligauss MHz megahertz mm millimeter MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MP milepost MPE maximum probable earthquake MRI magnetic resonance imaging MVAR megavolt ampere reactive Mw mean magnitude MW megawatt µV/m microvolt per meter N2O nitrous oxide NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program NED National Elevation Dataset NEMS National Energy Modeling System NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NESC National Electrical Safety Code NF National Forest NFPA National Fire Protection Association NFS National Forest System NGDC National Geophysical Data Center NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHOTIC National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center NHT National Historic Trail NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Division NOI Notice of Intent to File an Application for Site Certificate NOV Notice of Violation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-vi Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSR noise sensitive receptor NTTG Northern Tier Transmission Group NWGAP Northwest Regional Gap Analysis Landcover Data NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWPP Northwest Power Pool NWR National Wildlife Refuge NWSRS National Wild and Scenic Rivers System NWSTF Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility O3 ozone O&M operation and maintenance OAIN Oregon Agricultural Information Network OAR Oregon Administrative Rules OATT Open Access Transmission Tariff ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODF Oregon Department of Forestry ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODOE Oregon Department of Energy ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OHGW overhead ground wire OHV off-highway vehicle OPGW optical ground wire OPRD Oregon Parks and Recreation Department OPS U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety OPUC Public Utility Commission of Oregon OR Oregon (State) Highway ORBIC Oregon Biodiversity Information Center ORS Oregon Revised Statutes ORWAP Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol OS Open Space OSDAM Oregon Streamflow Duration Assessment Methodology OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSSC Oregon Structural Specialty Code OSWB Oregon State Weed Board OWC Oregon Wetland Cover P Preservation PA Programmatic Agreement pASC Preliminary Application for Site Certificate PAT Project Advisory Team PCE Primary Constituent Element PEM palustrine emergent PFO palustrine forested PGA peak ground acceleration PGE Portland General Electric PGH Preliminary General Habitats Pike Pike Energy Solutions

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-vii Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

PNSN Pacific Northwest Seismic Network POD Plan of Development POMU Permit to Operate, Maintain and Use a State Highway Approach PPH Preliminary Priority Habitats Project Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSS palustrine scrub-shrub R Retention R-F removal-fill RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ReGAP Regional Gap Analysis Project RFP request for proposal RLS reconnaissance-level survey RMP resource management plan ROD Record of Decision ROE right of entry RNA research natural area ROW right-of-way SAIDI System Average Interruption Duration Index SAIFI System Average Interruption Frequency Index SC Sensitive Critical SEORMP Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan SF6 sulfur hexafluoride Shaw Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SLIDO Statewide Landslide Inventory Database for Oregon SMS Scenery Management System SMU Species Management Unit SPCC Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures SRMA Special Recreation Management Area SRSAM Salmon Resources and Sensitive Area Mapping SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database SUP special-use permit SV Sensitive Vulnerable SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T/A/Y tons/acre/year TDG Total Dissolved Gas TES threatened, endangered, and sensitive (species) TG Timber Grazing TMIP Transmission Maintenance and Inspection Plan TNC The Nature Conservancy tpy tons per year TSD treatment, storage, and disposal TV television TVES Terrestrial Visual Encounter Surveys

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-viii Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

TVMP Transmission Vegetation Management Program UBAR Umatilla Basin Aquifer Restoration UBWC Umatilla Basin Water Commission UCDC Umatilla County Development Code UCZPSO Union County Zoning, Partition and Subdivision Ordinance UDP Unanticipated Discovery Plan U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UWIN Utah Wildlife in Need V/C volume to capacity V volt VAHP Visual Assessment of Historic Properties VMS Visual Management System VQO Visual Quality Objective VRM Visual Resource Management WAGS Washington ground squirrel WCU Wilderness Characteristic Unit WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council WHO World Health Organization WMA Wildlife Management Area WOS waters of the state WOUS waters of the United States WPCF Water Pollution Control Facility WR winter range WRCC Western Regional Climate Center WRD (Oregon) Water Resources Division WRP Wetland Reserve Program WWE West-wide Energy XLPE cross-linked polyethylene

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-ix Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Exhibit U 2 Public Services

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION

4 Exhibit U provides an analysis of public services for the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission 5 Line Project (Project). Exhibit U demonstrates that the Project will comply with the approval 6 standard for public services in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 345-022- 7 0022, based on the information provided pursuant to OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u), paragraphs (A) 8 through (E).

9 Exhibit U demonstrates that the construction and operation of the Project, taking into account 10 mitigation, are not likely to result in significant adverse impact to the availability of public 11 services listed in OAR 345-022-0110.

12 2.0 APPLICABLE RULES AND STANDARDS 13 The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC or Council) public services standard is set 14 forth in OAR 345-022-0010. Under OAR 345-022-0110, the Council must find through 15 appropriate study that:

16 [t]he construction and operation of the facility, taking into account mitigation, are not 17 likely to result in significant adverse impact to the ability of public and private providers 18 within the analysis area described in the project order to provide: sewers and sewage 19 treatment, water, storm water drainage, solid waste management, housing, traffic safety, 20 police and fire protection, health care and schools.

21 To demonstrate compliance with this standard, and in accordance with OAR 345-021- 22 0010(1)(u), Exhibit U must include information about significant potential adverse impacts of 23 construction and operation of the proposed facility on the ability of public and private providers 24 in the analysis area to provide the services listed in the standard. Specifically, Exhibit U must 25 include:

26 (A) The important assumptions the applicant used to evaluate potential impacts; 27 (B) Identification of the public and private providers in the analysis area that would likely 28 be affected; 29 (C) A description of any likely adverse impact to the ability of the providers identified in 30 (B) to provide the services listed in OAR 345-022-0110; 31 (D) Evidence that adverse impacts described in (C) are not likely to be significant, taking 32 into account any measures the applicant proposes to avoid, reduce or otherwise 33 mitigate the impacts; and 34 (E) The applicant's proposed monitoring program, if any, for impacts to the ability of the 35 providers identified in (B) to provide the services listed in OAR 345-022-0110; 36 Additionally, the Project Order requires Exhibit U to include the following specific information:

37 The application should include an analysis of the impact of the proposed transmission 38 line on all public and private services listed in OAR 345-022-0110, within the analysis 39 area, including estimated facility-related traffic during construction and operation and the 40 potential impact on traffic safety. Description of traffic impacts should include proposed 41 transportation routes for the transport of heavy equipment and shipments of facility 42 components during construction, including proposed ground and air transportation 43 routes within the analysis area. The application must demonstrate that the proposed

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE U-1 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 facility will not result in significant adverse impact to the ability of public and private 2 providers within the analysis area to provide those services.

3 As documented in Table U-12 (Submittal Requirements Matrix), IPC has drafted Exhibit U to 4 respond to each paragraph of OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u) described above, as well as the 5 additional requirements set forth in the Project Order.

6 3.0 ANALYSIS

7 3.1 Analysis Area 8 Pursuant to the Project Order, the analysis area for Exhibit U is the area within the Site 9 Boundary and 10 miles from the Site Boundary, which is defined in OAR 345-001-0010(55) as 10 “the perimeter of the site of a proposed energy facility, its related or supporting facilities, all 11 temporary laydown and staging areas, and all corridors and micrositing corridors proposed by 12 the applicant.” The Site Boundary for the Project includes the following related and supporting 13 facilities in Oregon:

14 • Proposed Corridor: 277.2 miles of 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line corridor, 5.0 miles 15 of double-circuit 138/69-kV transmission line corridor, and 0.3 mile of 138-kV 16 transmission line corridor. 17 • Alternate Corridor Segments: Seven alternate corridor segments consisting of 18 approximately 134.1 miles that could replace certain segments of the Proposed Corridor. 19 IPC has proposed these alternate corridor segments in order to allow flexibility for IPC 20 and EFSC, as well as federal agencies, to reconcile competing resource constraints in 21 several key locations. 22 • One proposed substation expansion of 3 acres; two alternate substation sites (one 3- 23 acre substation expansion and one new 20-acre substation). IPC ultimately needs to 24 construct and operate only one substation expansion or substation in the Boardman 25 area. 26 • Eight communication station sites of less than one acre each in size; four alternate 27 communication station sites along alternate corridor segments. 28 • Temporary and permanent access roads. 29 • Temporary multi-use areas, pulling and tensioning sites, and fly yards.

30 The features of the Project are fully described in Exhibit B, and the Site Boundary for each 31 Project feature is described in Exhibit C, Table C-21. The location of the Project (Site Boundary) 32 is outlined in Exhibit C.

33 3.2 Methods 34 The following analysis is primarily based on secondary data compiled from federal, state, and 35 local government agencies. State and local governments were contacted for data on potentially 36 affected public services, including sewers and sewage treatment, water, stormwater drainage, 37 solid waste management, police and fire protection, health care, and schools.

38 The potential effects of the Project are evaluated with respect to the ability of public and private 39 providers within the analysis area to provide sewers and sewage treatment, water, stormwater 40 drainage, solid waste management, housing, traffic safety, police and fire protection, health 41 care, and schools. Key Project-related variables used in this analysis include projected 42 construction and operations employment, traffic volumes, and waste generation.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-2 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 3.3 Information Required by OAR 345-001-0010 (1)(u) 2 3.3.1 Assumptions Used to Evaluate Potential Impacts 3 OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u)(A) – Assumptions Used in the Evaluation of Impacts 4 The important assumptions by the applicant used to evaluate potential impacts.

5 3.3.1.1 Construction 6 This analysis assumes that the Proposed Corridor (or alternate corridor segments) selected for 7 development will be constructed in two, approximately 150-mile-long spreads built concurrently 8 (Construction Spread 1 from mileposts 0 to 150 and Construction Spread 2 from mileposts150 9 to 299). Moreover, the analysis assumes the maximum number of workers and potential effects 10 that could occur at a given time.

11 Affected counties are identified for the Proposed Corridor by construction spread in Table U-1. 12 The analysis area (10 miles from the Site Boundary) includes portions of 11 counties, 6 of which 13 are in Oregon: Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Baker, Malheur and Gilliam. (In addition, the analysis 14 area includes two counties in Washington and three in Idaho.) Unless otherwise noted, the 15 following discussions focus on the portions of the analysis area located in Oregon and do not 16 address the portions of the analysis area located in Idaho or Washington. IPC has concluded 17 that services in Gilliam County would not be impacted by the Project, and therefore Gilliam 18 County is not addressed in the analysis.1 19 Table U-1. Construction Spread and Affected Counties Construction Spread Proposed Corridor (Miles) Counties1 1 150 Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Baker 2 150 Baker, Malheur, Owyhee 1 Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Baker, and Malheur counties are located in Oregon; Owyhee County is in Idaho.

20 This analysis assumes that approximately 25 percent of the projected workforce will be hired 21 locally (i.e., normally reside within commuting distance of the job sites), and will likely commute 22 to and from their homes to work each day. The remaining 75 percent of the workforce will either 23 temporarily relocate to the counties or commute in from their permanent residences and stay in 24 overnight lodging. Positions most likely to be filled by local workers include clearing and road 25 building crews, material haulers, restoration, and security.

26 Less than 10 percent of the workers temporarily relocating would be expected to be 27 accompanied by their families. Some workers, like the construction foremen and inspectors, will 28 stay the length of the Project, but many workers will be employed for 4 to 6 months. In addition,

1 The total population of Gilliam County is less than 2,000 people, compared with almost 130,000 in the remainder of the analysis area (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Of the six Oregon counties in the analysis area, less than 3 percent of the analysis area is within Gilliam County. Within Gilliam County, the city nearest to the Site Boundary is Arlington, which is outside of the analysis area and approximately 11.7 miles from the Alternate Horn Butte Substation. Workers in that general area are more likely to lodge in nearby Boardman or Hermiston than in Arlington. The nearest schools in Gilliam County are Arlington Elementary School and Arlington High School, located outside of the analysis area and approximately 11.6 miles from the Alternate Horn Butte Substation. At this distance, the Project activities would not impact these schools. The nearest medical facility in Gilliam County is the Arlington Medical Center, outside the analysis area and approximately 11.8 miles from the Alternate Horn Butte Substation. Again, Project workers needing medical attention are likely to use Saint Anthony Hospital in Pendleton. Emergency responders likely would be dispatched from Hermiston or Pendleton and not from Gilliam County.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-3 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 workers employed on linear Projects tend to relocate along the line as necessary, staying in 2 each location for a fairly short period. For these reasons, workers on these types of Projects do 3 not typically bring children, but may bring their significant others if they do not have dependents.

4 Although it is considered unlikely, for the purposes of this analysis, 10 percent of relocating 5 workers are assumed to be accompanied by their families, including school-aged children. 6 Based on data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (2009) as part of the 2008 American 7 Community Survey, the average relocating family is assumed to consist of two adults and one 8 school-aged child. Projected employment and potential population change are presented for the 9 peak construction period by construction spread in Table U-2. Data for Construction Spread 2 10 are only for the portion of that spread—approximately 121 miles—that will be located in Oregon. 11 Projected totals in Table U-2 do not include the labor force that will be employed to construct the 12 Idaho portion of the Project. 13 Table U-2. Projected Workers and Population Change during Peak Construction Construction Spread1,2 Workers 1 2 Commute to Job Site Daily 3 61 44 Move to the Project Area alone 4 164 120 Move to the Project Area with family 4 18 13 Total 243 178 Population 2010 Population (Analysis Area)5 128,944 47,447 Number of People Temporarily Relocating6 219 160 As a Percent of 2010 Population 0.2 0.3 1 Estimates for Construction Spread 1 assume that the labor demands for this portion of the transmission line and the proposed Grassland Substation will peak at the same time. The transmission line labor force is estimated to peak at 183 workers; the substation labor force is expected to peak at 60 workers. 2 Estimates for Construction Spread 2 are for the portion of that spread—approximately 121 miles—that will be located in Oregon. These estimated totals do not include the labor force that will be employed to construct the Idaho portion of the Project. 3 25 percent of the average and peak workforce is expected to commute to and from the job site each day. 4 75 percent of the average and peak workforce is expected to temporarily relocate to the Project area. 10 percent of workers temporarily relocating are assumed to be accompanied by their families for the purposes of analysis. 5 Population data are from the 2010 Census. Total population for Construction Spread 1 is for Morrow, Umatilla, Union, and Baker counties. Total population for Construction Spread 2 is for Baker and Malheur counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). To be conservative, the total population of Baker County is included in both Construction Spreads 1 and 2. 6 The number of people temporarily relocating assumes that 75 percent of the projected peak construction workforce will temporarily relocate to the Project area, with 10 percent of that total accompanied by their families (assuming an average family size of two adults and one child) (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

14 Very few, if any, of the non-local workers employed during the construction phase of the Project 15 would be expected to permanently relocate to the area. Employment associated with the Project 16 will be temporary and the availability of similar employment opportunities in the area in the 17 future is uncertain.

18 Information regarding the amount of water needed during construction and operations is 19 included in Exhibit O, Section 3.3.2. Information regarding estimated quantities of solid waste 20 and wastewater is included in Exhibit V, Section 3.3.1. No permanent sewage facilities will be 21 required for the Project. IPC will contract with sanitary service providers to supply and service 22 portable temporary toilets needed during construction. Vehicle trip generation estimates are 23 included in Section 3.1.1 of Attachment U-2.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-4 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 3.3.1.2 Operations and Maintenance 2 Current IPC staff will be primarily responsible for operations and maintenance of the new 3 transmission line and associated facilities. One additional part-time position may be filled locally. 4 No current employees will be required to relocate to the area. 5 3.3.2 Affected Public and Private Services 6 OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u)(B) – Public and Private Providers Potentially Affected 7 Identification of the public and private providers in the analysis area that would likely be affected.

8 This section identifies the public and private service providers in the five counties within the 9 analysis area. The following subsections address the categories of service providers identified 10 in OAR 345-022-0110 in turn. In addition to identifying these providers, these subsections also 11 summarize the current level of demand for and capacities of these service providers, as 12 appropriate. This baseline information is subsequently used in Section 3.3.3, which assesses 13 the potential impacts of the project on these service providers. Sources of information are cited 14 in the text. In cases where information was provided via personal communication, individual 15 Records of Conversation are included in Attachment U-1.

16 3.3.2.1 Sewer and Water Services 17 In the rural areas in the analysis area, sewers and sewage treatment and municipal water 18 services are typically provided by incorporated communities. State and local agencies, including 19 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), the county planning departments for 20 the five counties in the analysis area, and the public works departments for towns located near 21 the Project, were contacted to identify sewers and sewage treatment and water services that 22 could be potentially affected by the Project. The ODEQ, the county planning departments for 23 Morrow and Malheur counties, and city public works departments of Boardman, Pendleton, La 24 Grande, and Baker City indicated that the Project will not cross any areas served by sewer and 25 water service providers (Beyeler 2011; Draper 2011; Gedder 2011; Hartelly 2011; Johnson 26 2011; McLane 2011; Owen 2011; Paullus 2012; Williams 2011) (see Attachment U-1A). Exhibit 27 O provides a description of the sources of water that have been identified for the Project.

28 3.3.2.2 Stormwater Drainage 29 Stormwater drainage services in the rural areas in the analysis area are typically provided by 30 incorporated communities. Contact with the ODEQ and the county planning and city public 31 works departments identified above indicated that the Project will not cross areas served by 32 stormwater drainage providers.

33 3.3.2.3 Solid Waste Management 34 Solid waste generated during construction will be disposed of at landfills located near the 35 Project. Landfills located near the Project include those in Morrow, Baker, and Malheur counties 36 in Oregon. In addition, a fourth landfill, Clay Peak Landfill, is located in Idaho, about 5 miles east 37 of Ontario, Oregon. The Oregon landfills are listed in Table U-3, which also identifies the current 38 volume of waste each landfill currently receives (tons per day), as well as the amount of waste 39 each landfill is permitted to receive (tons per day), where this information is available.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-5 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Table U-3. Landfills Current Volume of Current Volume of Waste Received Waste Permitted to Facility Name County (Tons/Day) Receive (Tons/Day) Finley Buttes Landfill Morrow, OR 1,923 tons No permitting restriction Baker Sanitary Landfill Baker, OR 50 to 60 tons No permitting restriction Lytle Boulevard Landfill Malheur, OR 15,500 tons 20,000 tons Sources: Freese 2011; Geedes 2011; Large 2011; Schmidt 2011

2 3.3.2.4 Housing 3 Housing estimates are presented in Table U-4 for the five Oregon counties within the analysis area. 4 Table U-4. Housing Data Percent Change in Estimated Estimated Housing Units Number of Units Number of Units Available Geographic Area 2010 2000 to 2010 Rental Units1 for Rent2 Baker County 8,826 5 2,340 218 Malheur County 11,692 4 4,048 395 Morrow County 4,442 4 1,248 123 Umatilla County 29,693 7 10,467 1,024 Union County 11,489 8 3,899 335 1 Numbers of rental housing units are estimated using total housing units from 2010 and the ratio of renter- to owner- occupied units identified for each area by the Census in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey. 2 Housing units available for rent were estimated using rental vacancy rates for each area from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2011 5 The availability of temporary housing varies seasonally and geographically within the counties in 6 the analysis area. Demand for temporary housing is generally greatest during the tourism 7 season in the summer. Statewide in Oregon, the average hotel and motel occupancy rate in 8 2009 was 63.2 percent in June compared to 38.3 percent in December, with an annual average 9 rate of 53.9 percent (Travel Oregon 2009a, 2009b). Hotel and motel occupancy rates also vary 10 by region, with occupancy rates in Oregon generally higher in the Portland Metro area. 11 Data on hotels and motels are presented in Table U-5. These data, compiled by Smith Travel 12 Research (Smith Travel) for hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast inns with 15 or more rooms, 13 suggest there is limited temporary accommodation available in Baker, Morrow, and Union 14 counties. Smith Travel identified 16 hotels with a combined total of 1,153 rooms in Umatilla 15 County, mainly in Pendleton and Hermiston. In Malheur County, Smith Travel identified a total of 16 8 hotels, with a combined total of 578 rooms. 17 Table U-5. Hotels and Motels Number of Number of Estimated Number of Geographic Area Hotels1 Rooms1 Available Rooms2 Baker County 3 161 59 Malheur County 8 578 213 Morrow County 2 100 37 Umatilla County 16 1,153 424 Union County 3 131 48 1 Data were compiled by Smith Travel Research and include hotels, motels, and B&Bs with 15 or more rooms. 2 Average number of rooms are estimated based on the average hotel occupancy rate in Oregon in June 2009. Sources: Smith Travel Research 2009, 2011; Travel Oregon 2009a

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-6 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Temporary accommodation is also available in the form of recreational vehicle (RV) and other 2 types of campsites in the Project vicinity. Comprehensive data are not available on these types 3 of resources, but a review of information from TravelOregon.com identified approximately 800 4 RV spaces located in RV parks in or near Oregon communities located within 25 miles of the 5 Project (Table U-6). These data are for participating businesses only and do not necessarily 6 represent all the RV spaces within 25 miles of the proposed transmission line or the number of 7 spaces that could be available for use during Project construction. 8 Table U-6. Recreational Vehicle Parks Name City County Total Spaces Mt. View Holiday Trav-L-Park Baker City Baker 87 Oregon Trails West RV Park Baker City Baker 50 Lake Owyhee State Park Adrian Malheur 64 Country Campground Ontario Malheur 15 Boardman Marina & RV Park Boardman Morrow 63 Driftwood RV Resort & Park, LLC Boardman Morrow 103 Rolling Hills Mobile Terrace & RV Park Fairview Multnomah 101 Hat Rock Campground Good Sam Park Hermiston Umatilla 60 Umatilla County Fair Grounds Hermiston Umatilla 30 Lookout RV Park Pendleton Umatilla 34 Eagle’s Hot Lake RV Resort La Grande Union 100 Rendezvous RV Resort La Grande Union 99 9 Source: TravelOregon 2011

10 3.3.2.5 Traffic Volume 11 Traffic volume data from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for federal and state 12 highways at locations near the Project are summarized in Table U-7. These are the greatest 13 traffic volumes that IPC expects the Project will encounter. Traffic levels on minor highways and 14 smaller roads near the Project are generally much lower than those identified in Table U-7. 15 Table U-7. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes Highway/Route Highway/ 2009 2004 Location1 Number Route MP ODOT Location Description AADT AADT Near milepost 0.30 mile west of Tower Road (MP) 1 in I-84 159 10,900 10,800 Interchange Morrow County 0.30 mile east of Hermiston Near MP 37 183.16 11,200 10,300 Highway (OR 207) in Morrow I-84 0.30 miles east of Lexington- County 193.83 14,500 14,700 Echo Highway Near MP 73 0.05 mile south of Stewart in Umatilla US 395 12.98 2,900 3,100 Creek County Near MP 107 in 0.60 mile east of Ukiah-Hilgard I-84 253.43 9,700 10,600 Umatilla Highway (OR244) County 16

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-7 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Table U-7. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes (continued) Highway/Route Highway/ 2009 2004 Location1 Number Route MP ODOT Location Description AADT AADT North La Grande Automatic Near MP Traffic Recorder, Sta. 31-007, 112 in Union I-84 260.27 1.05 miles east of La Grande- 8,500 8,900 County Baker Highway No. 66 (US 30), North La Grande Interchange Medical Springs Automatic Near MP Traffic Recorder, 151 in Baker OR 203 36.86 Sta. 01-007, 2.08 miles east of 210 230 County Old Oregon Trail Highway No. 6 (I-84) Near MP 0.40 mile south of Durkee 189 in Baker I-84 327.83 8,200 7,900 Interchange County Near MP 243 in 0.5 mile east of Pole Creek US 20 200.96 1,200 1,300 Malheur Road County Near MP 0.02 mile south of Wasco- 243 in I-5 38.09 Heppner Highway (OR 206), 1,600 1,500 Malheur Walnut Street County Near MP 198 in 0.06 mile south of Owyhee OR 201 8.02 1,200 1,300 Malheur Avenue County 2 1 MP refers to transmission-line mileposts (from the April 1, 2011 geographic information system route layer). 3 AADT – average annual daily trips; MO – milepost 4 Source: ODOT 2009 5

6 3.3.2.6 Police and Fire Protection 7 Police 8 Five county sheriff’s departments are within the Oregon portion of the analysis area. The 9 Oregon portion of the analysis area also includes U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 10 (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed lands, which are subject to federal 11 law enforcement. Table U-8 presents staffing levels and projected response times for the 12 sheriff’s departments that responded to requests for information. Information is also provided for 13 the BLM law enforcement office with jurisdiction over BLM-managed lands within the analysis 14 area. Response times from local sheriff’s stations and USFS/BLM law enforcement offices to 15 the Site Boundary will vary depending on the time of day, the priority and location of the 16 emergency, and whether law enforcement personnel were already patrolling the area.

17 Estimated response times range from 5 minutes to 1 hour for the Baker and Malheur County 18 Sheriff Departments (Bentz 2011; Southwick 2011). The Umatilla County Sheriff’s Department 19 indicated that response times for non-emergency calls during the day could take several hours, 20 and that non-emergency calls at night likely are not responded to until the next day. Response 21 times for emergency calls (i.e., life-threatening situations) by the Umatilla County Sheriff’s 22 Department range from approximately 20 minutes to 1 hour (Diehl 2011).

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-8 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Table U-8. Law Enforcement Number of Law Enforcement Response time to Department Personnel Site Boundary Morrow County Sheriff Not provided1 Not provided1 Umatilla County Sheriff 7 deputies (3 within the project area) 20 min to next day Union County Sheriff Not provided1 Not provided1 Baker County Sheriff 8 deputies 5 min – 1 hr Malheur County Sheriff 18 deputies 1 hr BLM Law Enforcement Office 2 rangers Not provided 1 The Morrow County and Union County Sheriff’s offices did not respond to several requests for information. Sources: Bentz 2011; Diehl 2011; Southwick 2011; Straub 2012

2 Fire 3 Federal agencies are responsible for fire suppression efforts on federal lands in the analysis 4 area, including BLM-managed and National Forest (NF) lands. The State of Oregon is 5 responsible for fire suppression on state lands. Municipal fire departments and rural fire districts 6 are the primary responders for incidents on private land.

7 The majority of the land within the Site Boundary, approximately 67 percent, is privately owned. 8 The BLM manages about 31 percent of the land in the Site Boundary, with the remaining 2 9 percent managed by other federal (USFS and Bureau of Reclamation) or State agencies. The 10 BLM has jurisdiction over fire suppression on BLM-managed lands; the USFS has jurisdiction 11 over fire suppression on NF lands.

12 For private lands within the Site Boundary, fire protection and response falls to one of the 11 13 organizations listed in Table U-9. Table U-9 summarizes staffing levels, equipment, and 14 response times for those departments that responded to requests for information. Contact with 15 the Oregon State Fire Marshal’s office confirmed that this is a complete list of the fire 16 departments with jurisdiction over lands within the Site Boundary (Warner 2011).

17 Not all lands in the Site Boundary fall within a designated fire district. In those cases the closest 18 or best situated fire district responds to fires (Enright 2011; Martin 2011; Wooldridge 2011). 19 Mutual aid agreements have been established between local fire districts and adjacent counties 20 to pool resources, ensure cooperation between these entities, and prevent fires on a county and 21 state level instead of isolating efforts to local districts (Martin 2011; Payton 2011; Webb 2011). 22 As a result of these mutual aid agreements, the fire district that responds to a fire may not be 23 the district that the fire occurs in, or even the closest district, but the district that is best situated 24 and suited to respond. In addition, fire protection agencies in Idaho may be the best positioned 25 to respond to a fire along portions of the Project in Malheur County, Oregon.

26 Response times to the Site Boundary vary depending on the time of day, the priority of the 27 emergency/call and the location of the emergency and the type of available access. Most of the 28 fire districts crossed by the Site Boundary comprise volunteers, and in some cases it takes 29 considerable time to collect and mobilize an entire fire crew. In addition, much of the analysis 30 area includes open remote lands where access is limited. A fire in one of these areas may not 31 be immediately identified. However, once a fire has been identified, the fire districts responding 32 to requests for information have indicated that average response times range from about 8 to 40 33 minutes, depending on the location (Table U-9).

34

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-9 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Table U-9. Fire Departments Number of Fire- Department County Fighters Equipment Response Time (3) type 1 interface engines (off-road); Boardman Rural 0.5 hr south-route; 7 paid; 17 (2) type 1 engines; Fire Protection Morrow 10 min north- volunteers (1) type 1 tender with a 3,000 gallon tank; District route. (1) type 6 engine (2) pumper engines (2,000 and 1,000 Ione Rural Fire 14 to 15 gallon tanks); 1 Morrow Not provided Protection District volunteers (3) brush trucks; (1) tender with a 3,000 gallon tank 20-25 min near (5) brush rigs; Echo Rural Fire 20 to 21 Pilot Rock; Umatilla (3) tankers; Department volunteers 40 min in other (4) pumpers areas Pilot Rock Rural Not 1 1 Fire Protection Umatilla 1 Unknown Not provided provided District (1) type 6 brush rig North Powder 16 (1) 2,500 gallon tender Union 12-15 min Fire Department volunteers (1) 1,800 gallon tender (1) 1,500 gallon tender (3) type 1 engines; La Grande Rural 1 paid; 20 (1) brush truck; Fire Protection Union 10 min volunteers (1) 3,000-gallon water tender; District (2) rescue vehicles. (2) ambulances; Union Emergency (1) rescue rig; 15 Services-Fire Union (4) fire engines; 11-12 min volunteers Department (2) tankers; (1) brush truck. (2) structure engines; Keating Rural 15 Baker (1) tender; 25 min Fire District volunteers (4) wildland engines. Diamond Rural Not 1 1 Fire Protection Baker 1 Unknown Not provided provided District (3) structure trucks; Baker Rural Fire 18 Baker (2) 4,200 gallon tenders; 8-14 min Protection District volunteers (4) brush trucks. (1) 1,000 gallon pumper engine; Adrian Rural Fire 14 (1) 3,000 gallon tender truck; Malheur 20-25 min Protection District volunteers (1) heavy truck with an 800 gallon tank; (1) light truck with a 300 gallon tank. N/A –Not Applicable 1 The Ione, Diamond, and Pilot Rock Rural Fire Protection Districts did not respond to several requests for information. Sources: Carter 2011, Enright 2011, Harper 2011, Johnson 2011, Martin 2011, Morgan 2011, Payton 2011, Rogelstad 2011, Skerjanec 2011, Webb 2011, Wooldridge 2011 2 3.3.2.7 Health Care 3 A number of medical facilities serve the communities in the analysis area. Minor injuries are 4 treated at local medical facilities or emergency rooms. Three major hospitals capable of treating 5 serious injuries are located within the five counties in the Oregon portion of the analysis area: 6 Saint Anthony Hospital in Pendleton, Grande Ronde Hospital in La Grande, and Saint 7 Alphonsus Medical Center in Ontario.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-10 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 • Saint Anthony Hospital is a Level III hospital licensed for 49 beds, 5 of which are intensive 2 care beds. The hospital employs2 about 80 nurses, and 30 physicians have staffing privileges. 3 Medical transportation is provided by Life Flight. A Life Flight helicopter is stationed at the 4 hospital and the hospital also has access to a fixed-wing craft. Flight times between the 5 hospital and the Project area are about 15 minutes for the portions of the Project located near 6 Pilot Rock, and 40 minutes for areas located further east. According to hospital staff, patients 7 suffering major injuries, such as severed limbs or electrical burns, are stabilized at Saint 8 Anthony Hospital and then transported to a regional hospital for treatment (Blanc 2011). 9 • Grande Ronde Hospital is a Level IV hospital licensed for 25 beds, 6 of which are intensive 10 care beds. The hospital employs about 175 nurses, and 45 physicians have staffing 11 privileges. Medical transportation is provided by Airlink. An Airlink fixed-wing craft is 12 stationed at the local airport, and flight times between the airport and the Project area are 13 about 20 to 90 minutes. Patients suffering major injuries, such as severed limbs or electrical 14 burns, are stabilized at Grande Ronde Hospital and then transported to a regional hospital 15 for treatment (McCowan 2011). 16 • Saint Alphonsus Medical Center is a Level II hospital that is licensed for 49 beds, 8 of 17 which are intensive care beds. The hospital employs about 100 nurses, and 80 to 90 18 physicians have staffing privileges. Medical transportation is provided by Life Flight. A Life 19 Flight helicopter is stationed at the medical center, and flight times between the hospital and 20 the Project area are about 20 to 30 minutes (Vachek 2011). 21 3.3.2.8 Schools 22 The analysis area includes multiple school districts. The school districts likely to be impacted are 23 identified by county in Table U-10, which also identifies current student enrollment and student/teacher 24 ratios, as well as enrollment trends for the eight school districts that responded to requests for 25 information. All eight of these districts indicated that enrollment has been either flat or declining in 26 recent years with current trends expected to continue into the future (Table U-10). Student/teacher 27 ratios for the 2010-2011 school year ranged from 7.2 students per teacher in the Huntington School 28 District 16J to 21 students per teacher in the La Grande School District 001 (Table U-10). 29 Table U-10. School Districts Student Student/ Enrollment in Teacher Ratio Enrollment School District County 2010-2011 2010-2011 Trends Morrow School District 001 Morrow 2,200 16.8 flat Pilot Rock School District 002 Umatilla 352 14.6 declining La Grande School District 001 Union 2,204 21.0 declining Union School District 005 Union 370 16.1 declining Baker School District Baker 2,000 19.6 flat to declining Huntington School District 16J Baker 71 7.2 declining Vale School District 084 Malheur 878 16.9 declining Nyssa School District 026 Malheur Not provided1 Not provided1 Not provided1 Adrian School District 061 Malheur 242 13.8 flat 1 The Nyssa School District 026 did not respond to several requests for information. Sources: Allison 2011; Burrows 2011; Hogg 2011; Lowry 2011; Milburn 2011; Nunn 2011; Panike 2011; Stalk 2011; Wegener 2011; Wood 2011

2 The levels identified in the above descriptions are the applicable trauma hospital designations. Trauma facilities in Oregon are designated as Level I, II, III, or IV. Level I and II centers offer the highest level of care. Level III trauma centers provide initial evaluation and stabilization, including surgical intervention, of severely injured patients. Level IV trauma centers provide resuscitation and stabilization of severely injured patients prior to transferring the patient to a higher level trauma system hospital (Oregon Health Authority 2012).

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-11 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 3.3.3 Potential Impacts on Public and Private Providers 2 OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u)(C) – Potential Impacts on Public and Private Providers 3 A description of any likely adverse impact to the ability of the providers identified in (B) to provide the 4 services listed in OAR 345-022-0110.

5 3.3.3.1 Sewer and Water Services 6 As described in detail in Exhibit V, the Project will contract with wastewater service providers to 7 dispose of sanitary waste from portable toilets, as well as small quantities of excess slurry, at an 8 off-site sewage/wastewater treatment facility. Exhibit V provides details on the type and volume 9 of wastewater that will be generated by the Project and describes how the Project will comply 10 with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to wastewater. The Project once 11 constructed will not require any sewer or water services during its operation.

12 The Boardman wastewater treatment facility, which is located less than 2 miles west of the 13 proposed Longhorn Substation, will not be adversely affected by the Project. If small quantities 14 of Project wastewater from portable toilets and excess slurry are disposed of at the Boardman 15 wastewater treatment facility, the quantities will be insufficient to result in facility impacts (see 16 Exhibit V for details on Project wastewater management).

17 Construction of the Project will require approximately 12-16 million gallons of water. Water will 18 be required for dust control, foundation construction, substation construction, and 19 communication site construction. Water will be obtained from contracted municipal sources and 20 trucked to the construction sites. Representatives for each of the identified municipal water 21 suppliers have stated that they have adequate supplies to meet project needs. Additional detail 22 on project water use and suppliers is presented in Exhibit O.

23 3.3.3.2 Stormwater Drainage 24 The Project is not expected to affect the ability of public and private service providers to provide 25 stormwater drainage services. Construction and operation of the Project will not require 26 construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities.

27 Exhibit V describes how the Project will comply with all federal, state, and local statues and 28 regulations related to stormwater management. Construction stormwater will be managed in 29 accordance with the terms of the Project Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) as 30 described in Exhibit I, Attachment I-3. Permanent stormwater structures will minimize Project 31 operation-related erosion and sedimentation using stormwater best management practices 32 (BMPs).

33 3.3.3.3 Solid Waste Management 34 Exhibit V – Solid Waste and Wastewater provides detailed information on the type and amount 35 of solid waste that will be generated by the Project. Solid waste generated will include broken 36 insulators, scrap conductor, other metallic scraps, empty wooden spools, as well as general 37 construction waste such as crates, pallets, and paper wrappings used to protect equipment 38 during shipping. Approximately 80% of solid waste is expected to be recycled. The Project is 39 expected to generate about 15,334 cubic yards of waste during construction (or about 117 cubic 40 yards of waste per week). This waste will likely be disposed of at various landfills located along 41 the Project’s length and, therefore, no single landfill will be expected to accommodate the entire 42 waste-load generated by Project construction. Operations of the Project are expected to 43 generate no or minimal amounts of solid waste. See Exhibit V for more detailed information on

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-12 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 the type and volume of solid waste that will be generated and the amount recycled by the 2 Project.

3 Construction and operation of the Project is not expected to have an adverse impact on solid 4 waste management. Landfills were identified near the project in Morrow, Baker, and Malheur 5 counties, Oregon. Representatives from two of these landfills (Finley Buttes, Baker Sanitary) 6 each indicated that their facility has adequate capacity to receive all of the waste generated by 7 the Project (Freese 2011; Large 2011) (see Attachment U-1B). These landfills are distributed 8 along the Proposed Corridor, located at the north end, about 12 miles south of Boardman, 9 Oregon (Finley Buttes), midway along the corridor in Baker County, Oregon (Baker Sanitary), 10 and near the south end in Malheur County, Oregon(Lytle Boulevard Landfill).

11 A representative from the third landfill, Lytle Boulevard Landfill, located southeast of Vale, 12 Oregon, indicated that the facility is close to its permitted daily capacity and will be able to only 13 accept limited waste from the Project (Geedes 2011). Therefore, only limited waste from the 14 Project will likely be sent to the Lytle Boulevard Landfill, with the remaining waste sent to other 15 facilities.

16 As described in Exhibit V, IPC contacted these landfills to verify that they have adequate 17 capacity to receive Project solid waste. Follow-up letters were sent to the landfill operators to 18 request written confirmation that the facilities are available to receive Project solid waste. 19 Copies of these letters are presented in Exhibit V, Attachment V-1.

20 3.3.3.4 Housing 21 No adverse impacts to housing are anticipated as a result of the Project. An estimated 25 22 percent of the projected construction workforce is expected to be hired locally and will likely 23 commute to and from their homes to work each day. The remaining 75 percent of the workforce 24 will temporarily relocate to the Project construction area, with 10 percent assumed to be 25 accompanied by their families. These data are summarized by construction spread for the 26 Oregon portion of the Project in Table U-2. Workers temporarily relocating will generally be 27 expected to reside in or near larger communities where more housing options and services are 28 available.

29 Temporary housing resources are discussed in Section 3.3.2.4 and summarized in Tables U-4 30 and U-5. Review of the rental housing units and hotel and motel rooms that will normally be 31 vacant and available for rent, suggests that there will be sufficient housing resources available 32 for rent in the two groups of counties that will be crossed by the proposed construction spreads, 33 with additional resources available in other neighboring and nearby counties.

34 Additional projects are anticipated near the Project as population growth continues across 35 Oregon. Associated road and commercial development are likely to occur in the foreseeable 36 future, as well as maintenance and upgrading of the existing infrastructure. Gradual habitat and 37 water quality improvements may also occur within the Project area over time, as federal, state, 38 and private conservation and habitat enhancement efforts are implemented.

39 A few specific projects that may overlap construction of the B2H Project include the Cascade 40 Crossing Transmission Project (another electric transmission line), the Carty Lateral Project 41 (proposed natural gas pipeline lateral), the Carty Generating Station (proposed natural gas- 42 fueled combined cycle combustion turbine facility), and the Boardman Plant retrofits (possible 43 retrofit from coal to bio-fuels). Counties within the Project analysis area have adopted 44 Transportation System Plans, which identify transportation system deficiencies and needed 45 improvements over a 20-year time horizon. The county Transportation System Plans identify 46 general road, rail, bicycle, or pedestrian transportation system improvements in the vicinity of 47 the Project.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-13 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Project construction activities will span a broad geographic area and involve crews working in 2 multiple locations. Construction activities will not persist in any one area for a long period of 3 time. As a result, competition for local housing is not anticipated to be substantial between this 4 Project and other projects with overlapping construction activities.

5 Rental housing resources in the counties crossed by Construction Spread 1 (Morrow, Umatilla, 6 Union, and Baker counties) include at least 17,954 rental units with about 1,700 of these units 7 currently vacant. Hotel and motel resources in these counties include at least 1,545 rooms; and 8 569 of these rooms are on average vacant and available for rent. Assuming construction 9 workers are willing to travel an hour or more to work each way, additional resources are 10 available in the Tri-Cities of Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco, Washington, which are located 11 within commuting distance of at least some parts of Construction Spread 1. Comparison of the 12 projected housing needs to available housing (rental units, hotel/motels) suggests that available 13 housing is more than adequate to meet the projected housing needs during construction of 14 Construction Spread 1.

15 Rental housing resources in the Oregon counties crossed by Construction Spread 2 (Baker, and 16 Malheur counties) include at least 6,388 rental units with about 613 of these units currently 17 vacant. Hotel and motel resources in these counties include at least 739 rooms; and 272 of 18 these rooms are on average vacant and available for rent (see Tables U-4 and U-5). Additional 19 resources are available in the cities of Boise and Nampa, located about an hour’s drive east of 20 the portion of the Proposed Corridor in Malheur County, Oregon. Comparison of the projected 21 housing needs to available housing (rental units, hotel/motels) suggests that available housing 22 is more than adequate to meet the projected housing needs during construction of Construction 23 Spread 2.

24 There will be no new demand for housing during the operation phase of the Project. The 25 existing IPC staff who will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the new 26 transmission line and associated facilities already reside in the area. One additional part-time 27 position may be filled locally.

28 3.3.3.5 Traffic Safety 29 Potential project impacts to traffic safety could result from increased traffic from construction 30 workers commuting to and from work sites, equipment and material deliveries, and fill and water 31 hauling. The transportation of equipment and materials to the site and haul of waste material 32 from the site during construction will cause short-term increase in the use of local roadways 33 during the construction period. This increased use could impact transportation and access by 34 disrupting local traffic due to over-sized, slow-moving vehicles on smaller roadways and 35 increased vehicular traffic from construction personnel. IPC will coordinate with private road 36 owners prior to construction. Project design features will require implementation of a traffic 37 management plan that will serve to reduce potential traffic delays as a result of the Project. 38 Preliminary haul routes are identified in Table U-11. These routes were identified based on 39 anticipated multi-use areas. A detailed draft Transportation and Traffic Plan has been prepared 40 for the Project and is included in Attachment U-2. Vehicle trip generation estimates are included 41 in Section 3.1.1 of Attachment U-2. Traffic safety is addressed in Section 4.2 of Attachment U-2.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-14 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Table U-11. Preliminary Project Haul Routes Preliminary Haul Routes Multiuse Nearby Major Route Name Area1 County Community Routes Local Routes Tower Road (exit 159), MO-1 Morrow Boardman I-84 Unnamed local roads Hermiston, I-84, OR MO-2 Morrow OR 207, Doherty Road Boardman 207 UM-1 Umatilla Hermiston I-84, I-82 Lamb Road (exit 10) OR 207 (exit 182), Big Hermiston, Pilot I-84, U.S. UM-2 Umatilla Butter Creek Road, OR Rock 395 74 Stewart Creek I-84, U.S. th UM-3 Umatilla Pendleton, Pilot Rock Road/Porter Road, NE 4 395 Street North Powder, Baker OR 237 (exit 285), UN-1 Union/Baker I-84 City, La Grande Coughanour Lane La Grande, Baker BA-1 Baker I-84 OR 203 (exit 298) Proposed City Vandecar Road (exit 327), Lang Road, BA-2 Baker Baker City, Durkee I-84 Hindman Road, Old U.S. 30 I-84, OR Malheur Reservation MA-1 Malheur Brogan, Vale 201, U.S. Road 20 and 26 I-84, U.S. MA-2 Malheur Ontario, Vale Unnamed local road 20,U.S 26 OR 201, OR 452/ID 18, Ontario, Nyssa I-84, U.S. MA-3 Malheur Owyhee Ave, Owyhee Wilder (Idaho) 20, U.S. 95 Lake Road Ontario, Nyssa, I-84, U.S. MA-4 Malheur OR 201, OR 452/ID 18 Wilder (Idaho) 20, U.S. 95 Tower Road (exit 159), MO-1 Morrow Boardman I-84 Unnamed local roads Horn Butte Hermiston, I-84, OR MO-2 Morrow OR 207, Doherty Road Boardman 207

Hermiston, I-84, OR MO-2 Morrow OR 207, Doherty Road Boardman 207

I-84, US Boardman Canal Road, MO-3 Morrow/Umatilla Boardman Longhorn 730 Unnamed local road County Road MO-4 Morrow/Umatilla Boardman I-84 930/Paterson Ferry Road (exit 171), Poleline Road UM-1 Umatilla Hermiston I-84, I-82 Lamb Road (exit 10) La Grande, Baker Flagstaff BA-1 Baker I-84 OR 203 (exit 298) City 2

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-15 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Table U-11. Preliminary Project Haul Routes (continued) Preliminary Haul Routes Multi-use Nearby Major Route Name Area1 County Community Routes Local Routes Baker City, U.S. 30 (exit 353), BA-3 Baker/Malheur I-84 Huntington Unnamed local road Willow Creek I-84, OR MA-5 Baker/Malheur Brogan, Vale 201, US 20 South Road L and 26 I-84, US MA-2 Malheur Ontario, Vale Unnamed local road 20, US 26 OR 201/ID 19, Succor Malheur S I-84, US Creek Road, Succor MA-6 Malheur Caldwell, Homedale 95, US 20, Creek Cutoff, Upper US 26 Tunnel Road, Unnamed local roads 1 Multiuse areas are numbered as shown in Exhibit C, Attachment C-2. Where the same multi-use areas will be used for multiple routes, the table lists the same numbers for each route. The Glass Hill and Double Mountain alternate corridor segments would not require separate multi-use areas.

2 As discussed in Attachment U-2, Project construction activities will be dispersed along the 3 Proposed Corridor and impacts to any one location are expected to be short-term.

4 The operations phase will have little impact on local and regional traffic. Trips will be limited to 5 occasional ground inspections of the transmission line, and infrequent maintenance of the 6 transmission line and substations. Most inspections will be conducted aerially. If major 7 maintenance and repair work requires lane restrictions and/or roadway closures, IPC will 8 coordinate with landowners to allow emergency access to private property.

9 3.3.3.6 Police and Fire Protection 10 Police 11 The Project is not expected to have significant adverse impacts on police service. The 12 potentially affected sheriff’s departments that responded to requests for information indicated 13 that, while Project construction sites could be a target for crimes (primarily theft of materials or 14 equipment) and a temporary influx of construction workers could result in short-term increases 15 in traffic incidents and other disturbances, the Project is unlikely to require additional law 16 enforcement resources or facilities (Bentz 2011; Diehl 2011; Hoagland 2011; Southwick 2011) 17 (see Attachment U-1C).

18 During Project operation, new access roads and the transmission line and associated facilities 19 could place increased demands on local law enforcement but these impacts are not expected to 20 be significant. Private access roads will be gated when requested by property owners, which will 21 reduce the potential for trespass offenses (Attachment U-2). On BLM-managed and NF lands, 22 some access roads may be gated, but not all. New access roads on BLM-managed and NF 23 lands will not result in increased demands on federal law enforcement services.

24 Transmission lines, substations, and associated facilities could be targets of intentional 25 destructive acts, such as sabotage, terrorism, vandalism, and theft. Such acts include firing at 26 insulators, powerlines, transmission towers, or substation equipment; vandalism; and theft of 27 equipment, supplies, tools, or materials. Of these acts, vandalism and thefts are most common. 28 Transmission support structures will be constructed in such a way that displacement would be 29 extremely difficult. Physical deterrents such as fencing, cameras, and signs at substations will 30 be employed to prevent theft, vandalism, and unauthorized access. In the event of intentional

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-16 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 destructive acts, operational protocols will be implemented with detailed procedures in 2 accordance with the Proponents’ emergency response procedures. Use of these deterrents 3 during Project operation will minimize any demands on local law enforcement services. 4 Fire 5 The Project, taking into account IPC’s Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Attachment U-3), 6 is not expected to have significant adverse impacts on fire protection services. Construction of 7 the new transmission line will take place yearround, when weather and construction restrictions 8 permit. The majority of activities will occur during summer when the weather is hot and dry. 9 Much of the proposed construction will occur in grassland and shrub-dominated landscapes 10 where the potential for naturally occurring fire is high. Project construction-related activities, 11 including the use of vehicles, chainsaws, and other motorized equipment, will likely increase this 12 potential risk in some areas within the Site Boundary. Fire hazards can also be related to 13 workers smoking, refueling, and operating vehicles and other equipment off roadways. Welding 14 on broken construction equipment could also potentially result in the combustion of native 15 materials near the welding site.

16 To reduce the potential for construction-related fires, IPC has developed a draft Fire Prevention 17 and Suppression Plan to ensure that fire prevention and suppression measures are carried out 18 in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations (Attachment U-3). By implementing 19 these measures, the Project will not increase fire ignitions, and therefore will not impact 20 sagebrush steppe and native grasslands. The final plan will incorporate input from the 21 construction contractor to ensure coordination with local firefighters and emergency responders 22 for effective emergency response.

23 Transmission line structures used to support overhead transmission lines must meet the 24 requirements of the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC) Construction Standards and 25 the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Fire hazards causing wildfire ignitions are more 26 prevalent for distribution and lower-voltage transmission lines than for higher-voltage 27 transmission lines, such as those being employed for the Project. The steel towers proposed for 28 the Project will not burn and are designed to dissipate lightning strikes. Under the Plan for 29 Operations, Maintenance, and Emergency Response, the integrity of the grounding and other 30 hardware will be tested on a regular basis during scheduled maintenance, thereby minimizing 31 the potential for fire ignitions.

32 Right-of-way maintenance in forested areas will reduce the risk that combustible materials 33 would come into contact with the conductors and ignite a fire. Transmission line protection and 34 control systems will be incorporated into the system and are designed to detect faults (such as 35 arcing from debris contacting the line) and will rapidly shut off power flow (in 1/60th to 3/60th of 36 a second) if arcing is detected.

37 Local fire protection agencies were contacted in order to solicit their input regarding the potential 38 impact of the Project on their ability to serve their communities (Carter 2011; Enright 2011; 39 Harper 2011; Johnson 2011; Martin 2011; Morgan 2011; Payton 2011; Rogelstad 2011; 40 Skerjanec 2011; Webb 2011; Wooldridge 2011) (see Attachment U-1D). Most of these agencies 41 indicated that the Project will not adversely impact their districts. For example, the Deputy Fire 42 Management Officer for the BLM (which will be responsible for fire suppression on 43 approximately 24 percent of the lands within the Site Boundary) indicated that the Project will 44 not impact their ability to suppress fires or require additional fire suppression resources. 45 However, conversations with local fire protection agencies indicated that three of these 46 agencies have concerns about potential impacts of the Project on their districts.

47 The Keating Rural Fire District Fire Chief expressed concern regarding the risk of fighting fires 48 near energized transmission lines, because electricity could arc through the smoke and strike

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-17 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 firefighters (Harper 2011). This issue is typically addressed by waiting for an electric 2 transmission line to be de-energized before attempting to suppress fires in the immediate 3 vicinity. This issue will be addressed through IPC coordination with local fire and emergency 4 response agencies.

5 A representative of the Union Emergency Services-Fire Department expressed concern about 6 the potential for ongoing and new construction in Union County (including recent and proposed 7 wind farm developments) to have adverse impacts on their resources and ability to serve the 8 community (Johnson 2011). However, recent construction has not affected the Union 9 Emergency Services-Fire Department to date, and they are currently well-equipped; therefore, 10 the representative was uncertain whether this Project will impact their department (Johnson 11 2011).

12 The Fire Chief for the North Powder Fire Department indicated that an increased risk of fire 13 during the summer could impact his department and their equipment could need to be upgraded 14 to address this potential increase in fire risk.

15 Wildfires are a concern in the general Site Boundary area. IPC believes that during facility 16 construction and operation the abilities of the rural fire districts and the BLM and USFS to 17 provide fire protection services within the Site Boundary will be enhanced for the following 18 reasons:

19 • Establishment of Project roads that will reduce response time, serve as potential fuel- 20 breaks and point of attack for firefighting personnel; 21 • Presence of earthmoving equipment within the Site Boundary during construction; and 22 • Presence of water trucks within the Site Boundary during construction. 23 The concerns of these local fire protection agencies include traffic, access, and safety issues, 24 and mitigation for each are included in Section 4.2.1 of Attachment U-2.

25 Attachment U-3 establishes standards and practices for the Project to minimize risk of human- 26 caused fire ignition and, in case of fire, provide for immediate suppression. Construction and 27 operations crews will implement the Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan, so that the Project 28 will not increase the risk of fire. Construction workers and maintenance personnel are not 29 trained firefighters and are not expected to fight fires. However, qualified equipment operators, 30 at the direction of Incident Command, may use construction equipment to assist local firefighting 31 efforts when safe to do so. Because the Project will not increase the risk of fire, the 32 development of an “Interagency Fire Center” is not necessary to protect the electric 33 transmission line.

34 During operations, the Project will comply with federal safety standards, including minimizing fire 35 risk by implementing periodic vegetative clearing. Vegetative management will address fuel 36 loading near the Project per applicable safety codes. Vegetation management is discussed in 37 detail in Exhibit P, Attachment P-5.

38 The Project may limit accessibility to helicopters or other aerial fire response equipment, but this 39 impact will be localized. The improvement of existing access roads and the addition of new 40 access roads for the Project will improve access for emergency responders (including fire 41 fighters) near the Project. Improved access may lead to shorter emergency response times.

42 Based on the measures taken to minimize the risk of project-related fires, as well as planned 43 coordination between IPC and local fire agencies aimed at ensuring no adverse impacts to 44 these agencies resources or ability to serve the communities occur, the Project is not expected 45 to have an adverse impact to fire protection services.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-18 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 3.3.3.7 Health Care 2 Construction and operation of the Project is not expected to have an adverse impact on health 3 care providers. Workers suffering minor injuries will be treated at local medical facilities or 4 emergency rooms. Workers suffering more serious injuries, were they to occur, will be taken to 5 one of the major hospitals in the project vicinity. Conversations with staff from these hospitals— 6 Saint Anthony Hospital, Grande Ronde Hospital, and Saint Alphonsus Medical Center—indicate 7 that these hospitals have adequate capacity and the Project should not adversely impact these 8 medical facilities or their ability to serve local communities (Blanc 2011; McCowan 2011; 9 Vacheck 2011) (see Attachment U-1E).

10 3.3.3.8 Schools 11 Project construction is assumed for the purposes of analysis to involve two construction spreads 12 that will be built concurrently (Table U-1). Assuming that 10 percent of the non-local workers 13 would relocate with their families, up to 18 children may need to be enrolled in local schools 14 along Construction Spread 1 and up to 13 children along Construction Spread 2 (Table U-2). 15 The likelihood that construction workers will temporarily relocate their families to the area is low 16 and the school districts that responded to enquiries all indicated that they will be able to 17 accommodate additional students (see Attachment U-1F). Therefore, the Project is not expected 18 to have an impact on schools.

19 Existing IPC staff will be primarily responsible for operation and maintenance of the new 20 transmission line and associated facilities. One additional part-time position may be filled locally. 21 No existing employees will be required to relocate to the Site Boundary and there will be no 22 impact on school enrollment. 23 3.3.4 Mitigation 24 OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u)(D) – Measures the Applicant Proposes to Avoid, Reduce or Otherwise 25 Mitigate the Impacts 26 Evidence that adverse impacts described in (C) are not likely to be significant, taking into account any 27 measures the applicant proposes to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate the impacts.

28 Mitigation measures designed to address traffic safety are included in Section 4.2.1 of 29 Attachment U-2.

30 IPC has also prepared a detailed Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (see Attachment U-3) 31 that lists the mitigation measures that will be employed to reduce the potential risk of fire within 32 the Site Boundary. In addition, IPC will work with local fire protection and emergency response 33 service providers to address the need for any additional resources during the construction and 34 operations phases of the Project. 35 3.3.5 Monitoring 36 OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u)(E) – Proposed Monitoring 37 The applicant's proposed monitoring program, if any, for impacts to the ability of the providers 38 identified in (B) to provide the services listed in OAR 345-022-0110.

39 No significant impacts to the ability of public and private service providers to provide public 40 services are anticipated and, therefore, no monitoring program is planned.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-19 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 4.0 CONCLUSIONS

2 IPC has provided evidence required by OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u). Based on evidence provided, 3 IPC will not impact public services. Because of the dispersed nature of the construction phase, 4 the low number of workers needed during the operations phase, and the absence of densely 5 populated areas in much of the analysis area, the construction and operations of the Project are 6 not likely to result in any significant adverse impact to the ability of public or private service 7 providers to provide the services listed in OAR 345-022-0110. Accordingly, IPC complies with 8 the Public Services approval standard.

9 5.0 SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL COMPLIANCE MATRICES

10 Tables U-12 and U-13 provide cross references between Exhibit submittal requirements of OAR 11 345-021-0010 and the Council’s Approval standards of OAR 345-022-0000 and where 12 discussion can be found in the Exhibit. 13 Table U-12. Submittal Requirements Matrix Requirement Location OAR 345-021-0010(1)(u) (u) Exhibit U. Information about significant potential adverse impacts of construction and operation of the proposed facility on the ability of public and private providers in the analysis area to provide the services listed in OAR 345-022-0110, providing evidence to support a finding by the Council as required by OAR 345-022-0110. The applicant shall include: (A) The important assumptions by the applicant used to evaluate potential Section 3.3.1 impacts (B) Identification of the public and private providers in the analysis area Section 3.3.2 that would likely be affected (C) A description of any likely adverse impact to the ability of the providers Section 3.3.3 identified in (B) to provide the services listed in OAR 345-022-0110 (D) Evidence that adverse impacts described in (C) are not likely to be Section 3.3.4 significant, taking into account any measures the applicant proposes to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate the impacts (E) The applicant's proposed monitoring program, if any, for impacts to the Section 3.3.5 ability of the providers identified in (B) to provide the services listed in OAR 345-022-0110 Project Order Section V Comments The application should include an analysis of the impact of the proposed Section 3.3.3; transmission line on all public and private services listed in OAR 345-022- Attachment U-2 0110, within the analysis area, including estimated facility-related traffic during construction and operation and the potential impact on traffic safety, Description of traffic impacts should include proposed transportation routes for the transport of heavy equipment and shipments of facility components during construction. The application must demonstrate that the proposed facility will not result in significant adverse impact to the ability of public and private providers within the analysis area to provide those services. 14

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-20 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Table U-13. Approval Standard Requirement Location OAR 345-022-0110 Public Services (1) Except for facilities described in sections (2) and (3), to issue a site Section 3.3 certificate, the Council must find that the construction and operation of the facility, taking into account mitigation, are not likely to result in significant adverse impact to the ability of public and private providers within the analysis area described in the project order to provide: sewers and sewage treatment, water, storm water drainage, solid waste management, housing, traffic safety, police and fire protection, health care and schools. (2) The Council may issue a site certificate for a facility that would produce Not Applicable power from wind, solar or geothermal energy without making the findings because the Project described in section (1). However, the Council may apply the requirements will not produce of section (1) to impose conditions on a site certificate issued for such a power from wind, facility. solar or geothermal energy. (3) The Council may issue a site certificate for a special criteria facility Not Applicable under OAR 345-015-0310 without making the findings described in section because the Project (1). However, the Council may apply the requirements of section (1) to is not a special impose conditions on a site certificate issued for such a facility. criteria facility.

2 6.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES AND 3 THE PUBLIC

4 Table U-14 provides cross references between comments cited in the Project Order from 5 reviewing agencies and the public and where discussion, if applicable, can be found in the 6 Exhibit. 7 Table U-14. Reviewing Agency and Public Comments Reviewing Agency and Public Comments Location Project should evaluate crossings of existing utility ROWs, including gas Attachment C-2 of and oil pipelines, communication lines, and existing electrical Exhibit C shows transmission lines. locations where the Project crosses these features. Project would impact ability to respond to wild fires by limiting aerial Section 3.3.3.6 accessibility, in an area susceptible to wild fires. Fire services are currently unequipped to respond to a fire associated Section 3.3.3.6 with the Project in remote areas or forest land. Project should address security and terrorist attack threats to the Section 3.3.3.6 transmission line, as local emergency service providers are currently unequipped to respond to such a threat. The Fire Defense Board requests mitigation by funding an “Interagency Section 3.3.3.6 Fire Center” to be located at the Baker City Airport and the necessary equipment to share to cost of protecting the transmission line. Consider the potential for increased risk of human-caused fire during Section 3.3.3.6; construction and maintenance of the transmission line and the potential See Exhibit P impacts to sagebrush steppe and native grasslands. Consider the fact that when forest vegetation is cleared for powerlines it Section 3.3.3.6; often results in a hazardous fuel condition with dense fire fuel close to See Exhibit P the ground and readily available for combustion.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-21 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 7.0 REFERENCES

2 Allison, S. 2011. Adrian School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 3 Tech) and Stephanie Allison (Administrative Assistant); April 26, 2011.

4 Bentz, A. 2011. Malheur County Sheriff’s Department. Personal Communication between John 5 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Sheriff Andrew P. Bentz; April 26, 2011.

6 Beyeler, B. 2011. City of Boardman Public Works. Personal Communication between John 7 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Barry Beyeler (Community Development Director); August 15, 8 2011.

9 Blanc, L. 2011. Saint Anthony Hospital. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 10 Tech) and Larry Blanc (Director of Communication); April 25, 2011.

11 Burrows, M. 2011. Morrow School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston 12 (Tetra Tech) and Mark Burrows (Superintendent); April 26, 2011.

13 Carter, B. 2011. Marsing Rural Fire Protection District. Personal Communication between John 14 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Bob Carter (Secretary of Treasury); April 26, 2011.

15 Diehl, G. 2011. Umatilla County Sheriff’s Department. Personal Communication between John 16 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Lieutenant Glen Diehl (Criminal Division Commander); May 5, 17 2011.

18 Enright, J. 2011. Echo Rural Fire Department. Personal Communication between John Crookston 19 (Tetra Tech) and Janie Enright (Assistant Fire Chief); April 26, 2011.

20 Freese, B. 2011. Baker Sanitary Landfill. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 21 Tech) and Brent Freese (General Manager); May 3, 2011.

22 Gedder, C. 2011. Malheur County. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra Tech) 23 and Craig Gedder (Environmental Health Director); August 15, 2011.

24 Geedes, C. 2011. Lytle Boulevard Landfill. Personal Communication between John Crookston 25 (Tetra Tech) and Craig Geedes (Environmental Health Director); April 26, 2011.

26 Harper, B. 2011. Keating Rural Fire District. Personal Communication between John Crookston 27 (Tetra Tech) and Chief Buzz Harper; April 19, 2011.

28 Hoagland. 2011. Owyhee County Sheriff’s Department. Personal Communication between John 29 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Chief Deputy Hoagland; April 18, 2011.

30 Hogg, N. 2011. Melba Joint School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston 31 (Tetra Tech) and Norman Hogg (Business Director); May 5, 2011.

32 Johnson, D. 2011. Union Emergency Services-Fire Department. Personal Communication between 33 John Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Daniel Johnson (Fire Fighter - EMT); April 26, 2011.

34 Large, D. 2011. Finley Buttes Landfill. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 35 Tech) and Dean Large of the Finley Buttes Landfill; April 26, 2011.

36 Lowry, M. 2011. Marsing Joint School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston 37 (Tetra Tech) and Miren Lowry (District Secretary); April 14, 2011.

38 Martin, S. 2011. North Powder Rural Fire Department. Personal Communication between John 39 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Sam Martin (Fire Chief); May 25, 2011.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-22 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 McCowan, K. 2011. Grande Ronde Hospital. Personal Communication between John Crookston 2 (Tetra Tech) and Kerri McCowan (Medical Staff Coordinator); April 21, 2011.

3 McLane, C. 2011. Morrow County Planning Department. Personal Communication between John 4 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Carla McLane (Planning Director); August 15, 2011.

5 Milburn, E. 2011. Huntington School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston 6 (Tetra Tech) and Eric Milburn (Superintendent); April 14, 2011.

7 Morgan, V. 2011. Ione Rural Fire Protection District. Personal Communication between John 8 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Virgil Morgan (Fire Chief); April 26, 2011.

9 Nunn, K. 2011. Vale School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 10 Tech) and Karen Nunn (Business Director); April 14, 2011.

11 ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2011. Transportation Volumes listed by Highway 12 Number and Mile Post. Available online at: 13 http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/tsm/tvt.shtml

14 Opp, D. 2011. Southwest District Health; Owyhee County. Personal Communication between John 15 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Darvis Opp (Environmental Specialist 2); August 25, 2011.

16 Oregon Health Authority. 2012. Oregon Trauma Hospital Designations. Available online at: 17 http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EMSTraumaSystems/TraumaSys 18 tems/Pages/desiglvl.aspx

19 Owen, M. 2011. Baker City Public Works. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 20 Tech) and Michelle Owen (Public Works Director); August 15, 2011.

21 Panike, C. 2011. La Grande School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston 22 (Tetra Tech) and Chris Panike (Business Director); April 14, 2011.

23 Paullus, N. 2011. La Grande Public Works. Personal Communication between John Crookston 24 (Tetra Tech) and Norman Paullus (Public Works Director); August 15, 2011.

25 Payton, V. 2011. Baker Rural Fire Protection District. Personal Communication between John 26 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Captain Vince Payton; April 19, 2011.

27 Rogelstad, M. 2011. Boardman Rural Fire Protection District. Personal Communication between 28 John Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Chief Mark Rogelstad; April 26, 2011.

29 Skerjanec, T. 2011. BLM Fire Management Office. Personal Communication between John 30 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Tracy Skerjanec (Deputy Fire Management Officer); April 27, 31 2011.

32 Smith Travel Research. 2009. Hotel and Motel Data for Idaho and Oregon.

33 Smith Travel Research. 2011. Hotel and Motel Data for Oregon.

34 Southwick, M. 2011. Baker County Sheriffs Department. Personal Communication between John 35 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Sheriff Mitch Southwick; May 5, 2011.

36 Stalk, C. 2011. Pilot Rock School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 37 Tech) and Cathy Stalk (District Secretary); April 18, 2011.

38 Straub, R. 2012. BLM. Assistant Field Manager, Malheur Field Office, Vale District. Email 39 communication between Renee Straub (BLM) and John Crookston (Tetra Tech); March 30, 40 2012.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-23 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

1 Travel Oregon. 2009a. Oregon Travel and Hospitality Indicators Report. Issue 5 – Summer 2009. 2 Available online at: http://industry.traveloregon.com/

3 Travel Oregon. 2009b. Oregon Travel and Hospitality Indicators Report. Issue 7 – Winter 2009. 4 Available online at: http://industry.traveloregon.com/

5 U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. H1. Housing Units, H3. Occupancy Status, H4. Tenure, H5. Vacancy 6 Status. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Available online at: 7 www.census.gov.

8 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. B09005 Household Type for Children under 18 Years in Households 9 and B11011 Household Type. 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 10 Available online at: www.census.gov.

11 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 2005-2009 American Community Survey. Tables B25002: Occupancy 12 Status; B25003: Tenure; B25004: Vacancy. Available online at: www.census.gov.

13 Vachek, P. 2011. Saint Alphonsus Medical Center. Personal Communication between John 14 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Paul Vachek (Chief Financial Officer); April 20, 2011.

15 Warner, S. 2011. Oregon Fire Marshal. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 16 Tech) and Stacy Warner (Assistant Chief Deputy); May 3, 2011.

17 Webb, R. 2011. Adrian Rural Fire Protection District. Personal Communication between John 18 Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Chief Robert Webb; April 20, 2011.

19 Wegener, W. 2011. Baker School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 20 Tech) and Walt Wegener (Superintendent); April 14, 2011.

21 Williams, H. 2011. Oregon DEQ. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra Tech) 22 and Heidi Williams (Plan Review Engineer); August 15, 2011.

23 Wood, M. 2011. Union School District. Personal Communication between John Crookston (Tetra 24 Tech) and Mike Wood (Superintendent); April 18, 2011.

25 Wooldridge, L. 2011. La Grande Rural Fire Protection District. Personal Communication between 26 John Crookston (Tetra Tech) and Larry Wooldridge (Fire Chief); April 27, 2011.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-24 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

ATTACHMENT U-1 COMMUNICATIONS WITH PUBLIC SERVICE PROVIDERS

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

TABLE OF CONTENTS U-1A CONTACTS WITH SEWER AND WASTEWATER...... U-1-1 U-1B CONTACTS WITH SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ...... U-1-11 U-1C CONTACTS WITH POLICE DEPARTMENTS ...... U-1-15 U-1D CONTACTS WITH FIRE DEPARTMENTS ...... U-1-19 U-1E CONTACTS WITH MEDICAL FACILITIES ...... U-1-35 U-1F CONTACTS WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS ...... U-1-39

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-i Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

U-1A Contacts with Sewer and Wastewater

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Barry Beyeler Date: 8/15/2011 Association: City of Boardman Public Works Title: Community Development Director Phone #: (541) 481-9252

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Barry Beyeler (Community Development Director for Public Works) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project. He said that he was unaware of any sewer or wastewater treatment facilities located near the project, with the exception of the Boardman Wastewater Treatment Facility, which is located near the Boardman Substation. As the project would be connecting to the Boardman Substation, the magnitude of impact that it might have on the Boardman Wastewater Treatment Facility would depend on how and where (i.e., what route they take) the project connects to this substation. The major impact in his opinion would be dead birds from line-strikes failing into the lagoons at the treatment facility.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-1 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Steve Draper Date: 8/18/2011 Association: Pilot Rock Public Works Title: Public Works Director Phone #: (541) 379-2568

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Steve Draper (Public Works Director for the city of Pilot Rock) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project. He said that their sewers and facilities extent to about 1.5 miles north of town, and that the project is located farther north than this. Therefore, there are no Pilot Rock sewer facilities located in areas that could be affected by the Project.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-2 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Craig Gedder Date: 8/15/2011 Association: Malheur County Title: Environmental Health Director Phone #: (541) 473-5186

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Craig Gedder (Environmental Health Director for Malheur County) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project. He said that the County would not be aware of any sewer or wastewater facilities, and that the DEQ might be a better point of contact.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-3 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Scott Hartelly Date: 8/22/2011 Association: Union County Planning Dept. Title: Associate Planner Phone #: (541) 963-1014

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Scott Hartelly (Associate Planner for the Union County Planning Department) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project. He said that the project is not located near any sewer or wastewater treatment facilities. The closest treatment lagoon in Union County is located near the intersection of Highway I-84 and 203 (near the southeast side La Grande), several miles from the project. The nearest trunk line is probably located about 1.5 miles from the project.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-4 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Carl Johnson Date: 8/18/2011 Association: Umatilla County Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner Phone #: (541) 278-6252

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Carl Johnson (Senior Planner for the Umatilla County Planning Dept.) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project. I told her that I had already contacted the Public Works Dept. for Pendleton and Pilot Rock. She said that these were the two towns in Umatilla County that should be contacted, and that there would not be any additional sewer facilities or wastewater treatment facilities near the project in Umatilla County.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-5 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Carla McLane Date: 8/15/2011 Association: Morrow County Planning Dept. Title: Planning Director Phone #: (541) 922-4624

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Carla McLane (Planning Director for the Morrow County Planning Dept.) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project. She said that if the southern route was selected, then no facilities would be encountered in Morrow County. If the northern route was selected, then the Boardman Wastewater Treatment Facility could be impacted. I told her that I had spoken with the Community Development Director for the Boardman Public Works (Barry Beyeler) and he said that the potential impact to this facility would be related to dead birds from line-strikes failing into the lagoons at the treatment facility. She agreed with this assessment.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-6 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Michelle Owen Date: 8/15/2011 Association: Baker City Public Works Title: Public Works Director Phone #: (541) 962-1325

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Michelle Owen (Public Works Director for Baker City Public Works) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project. She said that there are no sewer systems near the project in the vicinity of Baker City. The closest wastewater treatment facility (near Baker City) is located at the intersection of Highway 30 and Imnaha Road (located about 1 mile north of Baker City limits, and about 4.75 miles west of the project).

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-7 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Norman Paullus Date: 8/15/2011 Association: La Grande Public Works Title: Public Works Director Phone #: (541) 962-1325

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Norman Paullus (Public Works Director of La Grande Public Works) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project. He said that the project would cross a water transmission line that travels from the south side of La Grande to the La Grande Reservoir, but that it would not cross any sewers or wastewater treatment facilities.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-8 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Heidi Williams Date: 8/15/2011 Association: Oregon DEQ Title: Plan Review Engineer Phone #: (541) 541-276-4063

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Sewer and Wastewater treatment facilities along the B2H Project.

I spoke with Heidi Williams (Plan Review Engineer for the Oregon DEQ) about the possibility of sewer and wastewater treatment facilities being located near the B2H Project (specifically those located along Malheur County, as this county was not sure of the facilities in this area). She said that she could not find any records of sewers or wastewater treatment facilities near the project in Malheur County; the facilities in this county are located in Vale and Nyssa (east of the project). I told her about the two wastewater facilities we knew about at this time along the project as a whole (i.e., in Boardman and Baker City) and asked her if she knew of any others along the project’s length (in total). She said that she could not find any other records of sewers or wastewater treatment facilities along the rest of the project either.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-9 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

U-1B Contacts with Solid Waste Facilities

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Brent Freese Date: 5/3/11 Association: Baker Sanitary Landfill Title: General Manager Phone #: (541) 403-2494

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Baker Sanitary Landfill

I spoke with Brent Freese about the capacities of the Baker Sanitary Landfill in Baker, County OR (located in Baker City).

He said that they would be able to accommodate any waste generated by the project. He said that he would call me back with the details of their facility.

He called me back on 5/9/11 and said that they accept 50 to 60 tons of waste a day, and have no permitted limit on the amount of waste they can accept a day. He said that the facility has an indefinite storage life, and noted that they do not accept hazardous waste.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-11 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Craig Geedes Date: 4/26/11 Association: Lytle Boulevard Landfill Title: Environmental Health Director Phone #: (541) 473-5186

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Lytle Boulevard Landfill

I spoke with Craig Geedes about the capacities of the Lytle Boulevard Landfill in Malheur, County ID (located in Vale).

He said that they are permitted to accept 20,000 tons of waste a day, and currently receive about 15,000 to 16,000 tons a day (did not know the total capacity of the facility). Therefore, they would not likely be able to accept much waste from the project. He said that the Clay Peak Landfill in Idaho would likely be able to accept the waste.

They are open on Tuesday to Thursday from 1 to 5, and on Saturday from 9 to 5.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-12 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Dean Large Date: 4/26/11 Association: Finley Buttes Landfill Phone #: (503) 288-7844 ext.318

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Finley Buttes Landfill

I spoke with Dean Large about the capacities of the Finley Buttes Landfill in Morrow County OR (located in Boardman).

He said that they have two hundred million yards of storage, and have only used 8 million yards to date. They receive about 700,000 tons of waste a year. There is not a permit limitation on the amount of waste they can take. They would be able to accept the waste generated by the project, and it would have no impact on their facility’s operation.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-13 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Tracy Schmidt Date: 4/26/11 Association: Clay Peak Landfill Title: Office Manager Phone #: (208) 642 6036

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Clay Peak Landfill

I spoke with Tracy Schmidt about the capacities of the Clay Peak Landfill in Payette, County ID (located in Payette).

She said that they do not have a permitted maximum amount of waste that they can accept per day. They currently accept about 500 to 700 tons a day (during the week, with somewhat less on the weekend). She said that they charge 30 dollars a ton for waste, unless it is hazardous (they accept asbestos) which is charged at 100 dollars a ton.

She referenced me to their website regarding the capacity of the landfill (http://www.payettecounty.org/landfill/WhoWeAre.htm). According to the website, they have a 2.4 million cubic yard capacity currently (in cell 1), but have plans to expand this in the future (5.3 in cell 2 and 19.9 in cell 3).

She said that they would be able to accept the waste generated by the project, and it would have no impact on their facility’s operation.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-14 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

U-1C Contacts with Police Departments

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Sheriff Andrew P. Bentz Date: 4/26/11 Association: Malheur County Sheriff Title: Sheriff Phone #: (541) 473-5125

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Malheur County Sheriff department

I spoke with Sheriff Andrew P. Bentz about the capacities of the Malheur County Sheriff department.

I told him that the project would likely have an average work force of 124 (93 non-locals) during construction, with a peak force of 211 (158 non-locals), with construction beginning sometime in 2013 at a speed of about 1.5 miles per week. He said that the project would not have an adverse impact on his department’s ability to serve the community.

He said that they have 18 criminal/patrol deputies, and they have jurisdiction over about 10,000 square miles. He said that they could reach any point along the project within about an hour.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-15 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Lieutenant Glen Diehl Date: 5/2/11 Association: Umatilla County Sheriff Title: Criminal Division Commander Phone #: (541) 966-3600

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Umatilla County Sheriff department

I spoke with Lieutenant Glen Diehl about the capacities of the Umatilla County Sheriff department.

I told him that the project would likely have an average work force of 124 (93 non-locals) during construction, with a peak force of 211 (158 non-locals), with construction beginning sometime in 2013 at a speed of about 1.5 miles per week. He said that the project would not likely result in a need for additional resources, as long as the project does not close roads or the developers leave valuables at job sites. However, he said that the project would have a significant effect on his department if these events happened, or if a man-camp is developed instead of workers living in hotels and communities, as these camps typically result in problems for the department. In addition, he expressed concern about thefts occurring at the project, and asked how the company intended to provide private security at construction sites. I told him that I did not know.

He also said that the national average for sheriff departments is 1.5 to 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents; however, in Umatilla County, the ratio is 0.34 officers to 1,000 residents. I asked him if this meant that the project would impact them and result in a need for additional deputies. He said that his department did not have money to hire additional deputies, and that the project would not impact them as long as the above criteria was met.

He said that they have 7 patrol deputies, but only 3 would cover the project area. He said that response times would vary. It could take several hours during the day, and that they would not respond to theft calls at night, so response time would be the next day in these instances. For life threatening calls, their response time would range from 20 minutes to 1 hour.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-16 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Sheriff Mitch Southwick Date: 4/25/11 Association: Baker County Sheriff Title: Sheriff Phone #: (541) 523-6415

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Baker County Sheriff

I spoke with Sheriff Mitch Southwick about the capacities of the Baker County Sheriff Department.

I told him that the project would likely have an average work force of 124 (93 non-locals) during construction, with a peak force of 211 (158 non-locals), with construction beginning sometime in 2013 at a speed of about 1.5 miles per week.

He said that the project could have a relatively large short-term impact on his department during construction (resulting from additional workers in the area), and a long-term small impact due to the increased access roads and project facilities. He said that he would not characterize it as a significant impact, but it would still be an impact. He said that he may need to hire some additional temporary workers (for the duration of the project’s construction) or have the existing deputies charge additional overtime.

He said that they have 8 deputies. He said that the response time to the project area would vary depending on where the incident occurred and if a deputy was nearby. Incidents located near Baker City could be responded to in about 5 minutes, while those that occur near the County’s border could take about an hour.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-17 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Email Communication

From: Straub, Renee L. [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 8:29 AM To: Crookston, John Cc: Georgeson, Keith; English, Aaron Subject: B2H Project BLM and USFS Law Enforcement Questions

John, I hope this answers your questions.

The current staffing level of the Boise District Office is 4 Rangers. The staffing level of the Vale District Office is 2 Rangers.

Estimated response time to the project area. It depends on which part of the power line and where we are responding from – in other words, there is not an answer to this question.

Impacts on resources. The major impact would be the road that is constructed along the power line route. Recreationist and hunters will use the road to gain access to more areas. Also, from a Homeland Security viewpoint, there will be another critical infrastructure on BLM land. If there was a terrorist threat, it may require additional manpower for protection.

Renee Straub B2H – Vale District Project Coordinator Assistant Field Manager Malheur Field Office, Vale District 100 Oregon St. Vale, Oregon 97918 541-473-6289 - Office 541-473-6213 - FAX

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-18 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

U-1D Contacts with Fire Departments

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Bob Carter Date: 4/26/11 Association: Marsing Rural Fire Department Title: Secretary of Treasury Phone #: (208) 896-5701

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Marsing Rural Fire Department

I spoke with Bob Carter about the capacities of the Marsing Rural Fire Department.

He said that they have 1 station. They are an all-volunteer department, with 32 current volunteers. They have two engines (he did not know what type), two brush trucks, and four tenders. Response time to the project area would be about 15 minutes.

He said that the project would not likely have an adverse impact on the Marsing Rural Fire Department.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-19 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Janie Enright Date: 4/26/11 Association: Echo Rural Fire Department Title: Assistant Fire Chief Phone #: (541) 376 8536

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Echo Rural Fire Department

I spoke with Janie Enright (Assistant Fire Chief) about the capacities of the Echo Rural Fire Department.

She said that they have 3 stations, and about 20 to 21 volunteer fire fighters. They have five brush rigs, three tankers, and four pumpers (she was not sure about the details of these rigs).

She said that the project would only be located in a small portion of their jurisdiction and that the response times to the project area would be about 20 to 25 minutes near Pilot Rock, and about 30 to 40 minutes in the other areas. She said that a large portion of Umatilla County, and likely much of the project’s route through this county, is in a sense a “no-mans-land” which is not covered by a fire district. In these areas, it is likely that the closest district would fight fires that may occur in these uncovered areas. In addition, she said that they have a mutual aid agreement with adjacent districts.

She said that it is unlikely that the project would have an impact on their department.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-20 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: John Call Date: 5/2/11 Association: Oregon Fire Marshal Title: Phone #: (503) 378 3473

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Oregon Fire Marshal and the Boardman to Hemingway Project

I spoke with John Call of the Oregon Fire Marshal office about the project, and asked him if he could identify the fire departments that would be crossed by the project.

He said that he did not know this information but that Assistant Chief Deputy Stacy Warner might ([email protected]; 503-934-8252).

He told me that the Marshal’s office does not have jurisdiction over the fire departments, instead, once local fire departments are certified and recognized by the state, they are assigned a number by the Marshal’s office. The Marshal’s office and the departments use this number to track fires that occur in the state.

------

Assistant Chief Deputy Stacy Warner of the Oregon Fire Marshal’s Office (503-934-8252) called me back on 5/3/11. He said that they are aware of the Project, that most of the fire departments will likely tell us that they do not expect an impact, and that he has sent a map of the Project and our initial list of “impacted districts” to his crew chiefs to see if we have missed any districts in the area. He said that he would get back to us with any information he finds.

------

ONE OF THE CREW CHIEFS RESPONDED WITH THE FOLLOWING EMAIL (SENT FROM [email protected]):

Stacy,

The only others I can think of are the Durkee RFPA and the Diamond RFPA. These folks arn't fire departments providing structural protection, however, they do provide wildland suppression in their districts and it looks like this project goes through both of their districts.

Richard Smith Deputy

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-21 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Original Email Enquiry

>>> "Crookston, John" 05/02/11 4:21 PM >>>

Sir

We are assessing the potential impacts that the construction and operation of a proposed 500kV transmission line would have on local fire departments as part of the NEPA and Oregon State EFCES process. The project is called the Boardman to Hemingway Project and extends from Boardman in Morrow County, OR to Hemingway in Owyhee County, ID. I have attached a map of the project to this email for your reference.

In an attempt to determine the potential impact that this project could have on local fire departments, we have attempted to determine the departments whose jurisdiction the project would cross or come close to (within 10 miles), and then contact each of these department. So far, we have identified the following departments:

1) Boardman Rural Fire Protection District in Morrow County, OR 2) Ione Rural Fire Protection District in Morrow County, OR 3) Echo Rural Fire Department in Umatilla County, OR 4) Pilot Rock Rural Fire Protection District in Umatilla County, OR 5) La Grande Rural Fire Protection District in Union County, OR 6) Union Emergency Services-Fire Department in Union County, OR 7) Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Fire Management Office on the Wallowa-Whitman NF 8) Keating Rural Fire District in Baker County, OR 9) Baker Rural Fire Protection District in Baker County, OR 10) Adrian Rural Fire Protection District in Malheur County, OR 11) Homedale Fire Department in Owyhee County, ID 12) Marsing Rural Fire Department in Owyhee County, ID 13) BLM-administered lands under the BLM's Fire Management Officer We are contacting you in order to determine if there are any additional departments that you may be aware of that we might have missed, as well as to find out if there are any un-official or non- designated fire departments within this area.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-22 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Chief Buzz Harper Date: 4/19/11 Association: Keating Rural Fire District Title: Chief Phone #: (541) 519-8675

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Keating Rural Fire District

I spoke with Chief Buzz Harper about the capacities of the Keating Rural Fire District.

He said that they have one station that serves about 132 square miles. The project would cross through their jurisdiction along the border of the Baker Rural Fire Protection District’s jurisdiction east of I-84 near Baker City. They are an all-volunteer department, with 15 volunteers currently. The have 2 structure engines, a tender, and 4 wildland engines (three 1,000 gallon trucks and one Type 6). The response time to the project area would be about 25 minutes.

He said that the project would have an adverse impact on his department. Non-department related issues he raised included visual impacts and adverse effects to wildlife and hunting. He said that construction of the project may not impact them, but that operation of the project would have an adverse impact on his department. He is concerned that wildfires located near the project could produce smoke that would enclose the wires. The electricity could then arc through the smoke and hit fire fighters. As a result, they would be reluctant to fight fires located near the project. He did not express a concern regarding fiscal impacts on his department or need for additional equipment.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-23 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Daniel Johnson Date: 4/26/11 Association: Union County Emergency Title: Fire Fighter - EMT Services-Fire Department Phone #: (541) 562 5758

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Union County Emergency Services-Fire Department

I spoke with Daniel Johnson (Fire Fighter – EMT) about the capacities of the Union County Emergency Services-Fire Department.

He said that they have 15 total volunteer fire fighters, 3 of which are EMT. They have two ambulances, one rescue rig, four fire engines (he did not known what type), two tankers, and one brush truck. He said that response times to the project area would be about 11 to 12 minutes.

He said that they would have jurisdiction over the portion of the line south of the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest (NF) in Union County, and noted that the Island City Fire Department would likely have jurisdiction north of the NF

I asked him if construction and operation of the project could have an impact on their resources. He was uncertain if the project would have an impact on their department. He said that they are a small department, but they are well equipped. They have been having meetings about this very question, as wind farms have been being constructed in their county, and the developers of these facilities have been asking them the same questions. They did not know what to tell the wind farms, and as such, they did not know what to tell us. He said that, as they are an all-volunteer department, they cannot go out and hire additional crew whenever needed (they have to wait until people sign-up); therefore, even if they needed additional crew, there is little they could do about it.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-24 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Sam Martin Date: 5/25/11 Association: North Powder Rural Fire Title: Fire Chief Department Phone #: (541) 898-2520

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the North Powder Rural Fire Department

I spoke with Chief Sam Martin about the capacities of the North Powder Rural Fire Department.

He said that they have 1 station. They have 16 volunteers. They have one type 1 brush truck and three tenders (one 2,500 gallon; one 1,800 gallon; and one 1,500 gallon).

He said that they would likely experience some minor B2H project-related impacts during summer while construction happens, but did not anticipate any impacts during operation. He was uncertain of the level of impact. I asked him if he anticipated that the impact might require them to hire additional staff or equipment. He said that it might, as the equipment is very old.

Response times to the project area would be about 12 to 15 minutes.

I told him that the project would progress at about 1.5 miles a week. He said that the project would likely be in his district for about 30 weeks then.

He said that they have a mutual aid agreement with adjacent counties, fire districts, and federal/state agencies; therefore, someone would fight fires in the “no-man’s-land”.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-25 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Email Communication

From: Kelly Martin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:22 PM To: Crookston, John Subject: Re: Capacities of the North Powder Fire Department

John once again I want to apoligize for taking so long to get back to you. I have some of the info that you need and some that I am still working on. I am working on getting you a map of our district, as far as the average number of fires we go on in a year that would be about 22 fires. We have about 18 volunteers at this time, that can change at any point. We have 1 type 6 brush truck, it is more of a rescue type truck as it has a utility style type bed. We still have the three tenders that you already know about and have added a type 3 engine with a 600 gallon tank. As far as the additional crew and the additional apparataus I am still working on that also. I am not taking this lightly and want to give you correct info. on what additional things that we will need. Thank you for being patient with us and I will get you the rest of the information as soon as I can. This is from Sam Martin Fire Chief of the North Powder Rural Fire Department.

From: "Crookston, John" To: "[email protected]" Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:27 PM Subject: Capacities of the North Powder Fire Department

Sam

I spoke with you a while back about the potential impacts that the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project might have to the North Powder Fire Department. We were hoping to get a bit more information about your district. Can you forward us a map of the area that your district covers? Also, can you let us know about how many fires a year your district has to deal with?

Also, it has been a while since our last contact, so I was also hoping to see if anything has changed. You had told me back in 5/25/11, that your district employs about 16 volunteers, and that you have one type 1 brush truck and three tenders (one 2,500 gallon; one 1,800 gallon; and one 1,500 gallon). Is this still correct? Also, you said that if the project was constructed, you would need to hire additional crew, and maybe purchase additional equipment. Do you have an estimate for how many new fire-fighters or what new equipment you would need? Just a reminder: the project would be built at a rate of about 1.5 miles a week, and you said that based on this, it would be in your district for about 30 weeks. Again, thank you for your time and assistance with this effort.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-26 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Email Communication

From: Kelly Martin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 6:27 AM To: Crookston, John Subject: Fw: North Powder RFPD Map

Here is the map that I had ODF make for me on our fire district. If this is not a good enough map for Idaho Power please let me know because now that it is on their computer we can add some things like, topo., and color. We marked your existing line so that you could see where it goes thru us. I would also like to meet with whom ever I need to, to discuss what it is that they are expecting from us and what we need from them to protect any fires that may start from their line. Thank you for your patience and let me know who I will be talking to.

From,

Sam Martin, North Powder Rural Fire Department

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: KNIGHT Jamie To: "[email protected]" Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 4:25 PM Subject: North Powder RFPD Map

Sam,

Take a look at this and see if it meets your needs. I didn’t put any topography on it because I thought it busied it up too much. I can if you want to, so let me know if you want to make any changes. I should be in most of the day Monday!

Jamie Knight National Fire Plan Oregon Department of Forestry La Grande Unit (541)963-3168

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-27 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Milly Miller Date: 8/24/11 Association: Oregon Department of Forestry Title: District Business Manager Phone #: (541) 963-3168

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Extent of the Oregon Department of Forestry’s jurisdiction

I spoke with Milly Miller about the extent of the Oregon Department of Forestry’s jurisdiction. She said that they fight fires on forest and grazing lands; however, they only deal with private lands that fall within their district. The only portion of the Project that falls within their District would be the area between La Grande and the National Forest (i.e., only a few miles). In this area, they work with the National Forest to treat fires. She said that it does not appear the project would fall within areas where they would have much of a jurisdictional authority over fires.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-28 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Virgil Morgan Date: 4/26/11 Association: Ione Rural Fire Protection District Title: Fire Chief Phone #: (541) 422-7504

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Ione Rural Fire Protection District

I spoke with Virgil Morgan (Fire Chief) about the capacities of the Ione Rural Fire Protection District.

He said that they have 14 to 15 volunteer fire fighters, and 1 station. They have two pumper engines (one with a 1,000 gallon tank and one with a 2,000 gallon tank), three brush trucks, and 1 tender with a 3,000 gallon tank. They have a mutual aid agreement with the cities of Hepner, Lexington, and Boardman. They also have a Bi-County Mutual Aid agreement with Umatilla County.

Response times to the project area are unknown, as he did not know where the project is located. I emailed him a map, and he said that he would get back to me.

He said that the project is unlikely to impact his department.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-29 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Captain Vince Payton Date: 4/19/11 Association: Baker Rural Fire Protection Title: Captain District Phone #: (541) 523-4088

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Baker Rural Fire Protection District

I spoke with Captain Vince Payton about the capacities of the Baker Rural Fire Protection District.

He said that they have 3 stations, one that is located along i-84. They are an all volunteer department, with 18 current volunteers. The have 3 structure trucks, 2 4,200 gallon tenders, and 4 brush trucks. The response time to the project area would vary, as they are a volunteer department. Response times to the area can range from 5 to 20 minutes, but would likely be on average 8 to 14 minutes.

He said that the project would only be located within their district for a small length (likely about 10 miles). Other districts would include the Keating Rural Fire district (contact Buzz Harper 541-519-8675). He also said that Baker County has a cooperating agreement between the various fire districts, called the County Fire Defense Agreement.

He said that the project would not likely have an adverse impact on the Baker Rural Fire Protection District.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-30 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Chief Mark Rogelstad Date: 4/26/11 Association: Boardman Rural Fire Protection Title: Chief District Phone #: (541) 481-3473

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Boardman Rural Fire Protection District

I spoke with Chief Mark Rogelstad about the capacities of the Boardman Rural Fire Protection District.

He said that they have 4 stations. They have 7 paid fire-fighters and 17 volunteers. They have three type 1 interface engines (which are off-road capable), two type 1 engines (that are not off- road capable), one type 1 water tender with a 3,000 gallon tank, and one type 6 engine.

He said that the project would not result in a need for their department to hire additional staff or equipment. The project’s impacts would be similar to any transmission line project, in that they would need to provide safety services if someone tried to climb the structures, as well as suppressing fires that may occur adjacent to the line.

Response time to the project would depend on which alternative was selected. Response times to the southern alternative would be about a half an hour, while response times to the northern alternative would be about 10 minutes.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-31 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Tracy Skerjanec Date: 4/27/11 Association: BLM Fire Management Office Title: Deputy Fire Management Officer Phone #: (541) 473-3144

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the BLM’s Fire Management Office

I spoke with Tracy Skerjanec (Deputy Fire Management Officer) about the capacities of the BLM’s Fire Management Office.

He said that the project would not impact the BLM’s ability to suppress fires in the area.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-32 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Chief Robert Webb Date: 4/20/11 Association: Adrian Rural Fire Protection Title: Chief District Phone #: (541) 372 2464

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Adrian Rural Fire Protection District

I spoke with Chief Robert Webb about the capacities of the Adrian Rural Fire Protection District.

He said that they have 1 station. They have a 1,000 gallon pumper engine, a 3,000 tender, a heavy brush truck with an 800 gallon tank, and a light brush truck with a 300 gallon tank. They are an all-volunteer department, with 14 volunteers currently. They also have 4 EMTs and 8 to 10 first responders. They house this medical team, but the medical team is funded through the county ambulance service. He said that their response time to the project area is hard to predict as he is uncertain exactly where the project would be, but it would likely be around 20 to 25 minutes.

He said that they do not respond to fires on BLM lands unless requested by the BLM. The BLM have their own fire teams, but they do not respond to vehicle fires.

He said that they have a cooperation agreement with adjacent fire districts, which ensures a collaborative response to emergency needs. This agreement is called the “Snake River Valley Mutual Aid Association” and includes all of the fire districts in Malheur County, and parts of Owyhee and Baker County.

He does not expect an adverse impact to their department, in that he does not expect that the project would result in a need for additional staff or equipment.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-33 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Larry Wooldridge Date: 4/27/11 Association: La Grande Rural Fire Protection Title: Fire Chief District Phone #: (541) 963 6895

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the La Grande Rural Fire Protection District

I spoke with Chief Larry Wooldridge about the capacities of the La Grande Rural Fire Protection District.

He said that they have 1 station. They have 1 paid fire-fighter and 20 volunteers. They have three type 1 engines, one brush truck, one 3,000-gallon water tender, and two rescue vehicles. Response times to the project area would be about 10 minutes.

Very little of the district would be crossed by the project.

HE did not anticipate an impact to his department resulting from the project.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-34 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

U-1E Contacts with Medical Facilities

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Larry Blanc Date: 4/25/11 Association: St. Anthony Hospital Title: Director of Communication Phone #: (541) 966-0528

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of St. Anthony Hospital

I spoke with Larry Blanc (Director of Communication) about the capacities of the St. Anthony Hospital in Pendleton, Oregon.

I told him that we were assuming that any major injuries that occur along the project east of Baker City would be treated at Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, injuries between Baker City and Pendleton would be treated at Grande Ronde Hospital, and injuries that occur between Pendleton and Boardman would be treated at St. Anthony Hospital. He said that this was accurate for the most part, but the separation would not be exactly at Pendleton, and injuries in this area could be treated by multiple hospitals.

He said that Life Flight helicopters are stationed at St. Anthony Hospital, and the hospital also has access to fixed wing planes. Injured workers could be transported to the hospital between 15 minutes (if near Pilot Rock) to 40 minutes (if near Cecil).

He said that St. Anthony Hospital is a level III hospital. It is licensed for 49 beds, 5 of which are intensive care beds. They have about 80 nurses and staffing privileges with 30 physicians.

He said that any patients suffering from major injuries (e.g., electrical burns or severed limbs) would be stabilized at St. Anthony Hospital, and then transported to adjacent hospitals for treatment. Adjacent hospitals would include Kadlec in Tri-Cites, Washington.

He said that the project would not impact their ability to serve the community.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-35 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Kerri McCowan Date: 4/21/11 Association: Grande Ronde Hospital Title: Medical Staff Coordinator Phone #: (541) 963-1466

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Grande Ronde Hospital

I spoke with Kerri McCowan (Medical Staff Coordinator) about the capacities of the Grande Ronde Hospital in La Grande, Oregon.

I told her that we were assuming that any major injuries that occur along the project east of Baker City would be treated at Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, while injuries west of Baker City would be treated at Grande Ronde Hospital in La Grande, Oregon. She said that this was entirely not accurate, and that they (Grande Ronde) would likely only deal with injuries that occur between Baker City and Pendleton. Saint Anthony’s would treat injuries that occurred between Pendleton and Boardman.

She said that they utilize Airlink to transport patients. Airlink has an airplane stationed at the local airport, and response times to the project area would range from 20 to 90 minutes.

She said that they are a Critical Assess Hospital (which is a federal designation for rural hospitals). They are a level IV hospital, and are licensed for 25 beds (6 of which are critical care beds). They employ 175 nurses, and have staffing privileges with 45 physicians.

She said that any patients suffering from major injuries (e.g., electrical burns or severed limbs) would be stabilized at Grande Ronde Hospital, and then transported to adjacent hospitals for treatment. Adjacent hospitals would include the burn center, OHSU, or Legacy in Portland, and Saint Al’s in Boise.

She does not anticipate that construction and operation of the project would impact the Grande Ronde Hospital, and they would be able to deal with any emergencies that arise from the project. She also noted that they have disaster protocols in place to deal with any unexpected influx of injuries to the hospital.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-36 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Paul Vachek Date: 4/20/11 Association: Saint Alphonsus Medical Center Title: Chief Financial Officer Phone #: (541) 881 7011

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Saint Alphonsus Medical Center

I spoke with Paul Vachek (Chief Financial Officer) about the capacities of the Saint Alphonsus Medical Center in Ontario, Idaho.

I told him that we were assuming that any major injuries that occur along the project east of Baker City would be treated at Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, while injuries west of Baker City would be treated at Grande Ronde Hospital in La Grande, Oregon. He said that this was likely accurate. He said that Life Flight helicopters are stationed at Saint Alphonsus Medical Center in Ontario, Idaho, and flight times from the hospital to the project area (east of Baker City) would be on average 20 to 30 minutes.

He said that Saint Alphonsus Medical Center is a level II hospital. It is licensed for 49 beds, 8 of which are intensive care beds. They have on average 23 patients in the hospital, with 2 to 3 in the intensive care beds. He said that Saint Alphonsus Medical Center is the designated trauma center for Idaho, and would be able to treat any injuries that occur during construction and operation of the project. In addition, they are a Center for Emergency Preparedness, which means that they conduct disaster drills which prepare staff for emergencies.

The have about 100 nurses and staffing privileges with 80 to 90 physicians.

He said that the project would not impact their ability to serve the community. He also noted that they are currently expanding their services, and are hiring new staff and recruiting new

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-37 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

U-1F Contacts with School Districts

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Stephanie Allison Date: 4/26/11 Association: Adrian School District Title: Administrative Assistant Phone #: (541) 372-2335

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Adrian School District

I spoke with Stephanie Allison (Administrative Assistant) about the capacities of the Adrian School District.

She said that the school district’s enrollment has been flat for the last few years (they gain and lose about 20 students every so often) I told her that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. She said that they would be able to accommodate these new students.

I told her that, based on the NCES website, they had 242 students in the 2008-2009 school year, with a student/teacher ratio of 13.8. She said that this was accurate. She said that this ratio and number of students could also be applied to the 2009-2010 and the 2010-2011 school years.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-39 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Mark Burrows Date: 4/26/11 Association: Morrow School District Title: Superintendent Phone #: (541) 989-8202

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Morrow School District

I spoke with Mark Burrows (Superintendent) about the capacities of the Morrow School District.

He said that the school’s student enrollment was growing until 05-06, after which it became flat. I told him that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. He said that they would be able to accommodate new students.

I told him that, based on the NCES website, they had 2,237 students in the 2008-2009 school year with a student/teacher ratio of 16.8; he said that this was accurate.

He said that they had about 2,200 students in the 2009-2010 and the 2010-2011 school years, and that the student teacher ratios were likely the same as the 2008-2009 year.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-40 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Norman Hogg Date: 5/3/11 Association: Melba Joint School District Title: Business Manager Phone #: (208) 495-1141

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Melba Joint School District

I spoke with Norman Hogg (Business Manager) about the capacities of the Melba Joint School District.

He said that the school’s student enrollment had been growing, but has been flat recently. I told him that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. He said that they would be able to accommodate these new students, except for the elementary schools, which are close to capacity. He said that it would not likely be an issue as any students associated with the project would be spread out along the line (not all in their district) so it is very unlikely that their elementary schools would be impacted by the project except in the unlikely event that all new students ended up in their elementary schools.

I told him that, based on the NCES website, they had 750 students in the 2008-2009 school year with a student/teacher ratio of 17.3. He said that this ratio could be applied to the following school years as well, but that due to budget cuts they may be laying teachers off in the future. He said that student numbers in 2009-2010 were 735, and 2010-2011 were 740.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-41 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Miren Lowry Date: 4/26/11 Association: Marsing Joint School District Title: District Secretary Phone #: (208) 896-4111

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Marsing Joint School District

I spoke with Miren Lowry (District Secretary) about the capacities of the Marsing Joint School District.

She said that the District’s student enrollment has been flat last few years. I told her that, based on the NCES website, they had 865 students in the 2008-2009 school year with a student/teacher ratio of 18.2. She said that the teacher level (i.e., number of teachers) has not changed since 2008-2009. There are 850 students enrolled in the 2010-2011 school year. She said that they could accommodate new students and noted that this would be easiest in the high schools, as some of the grades in the grade school level are close to capacity.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-42 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Eric Milburn Date: 4/14/11 Association: Huntington School District 16J Title: Superintendent of the Huntington School District 16J Phone #: (541) 869-2204

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Huntington School District

I spoke with Eric Milburn (Superintendent of the Huntington School District) about the capacities of the Huntington School District.

He said that the school’s student enrollment has been declining for the last few years. I told him that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. He said that they would be able to accommodate new students.

I told him that, based on the NCES website, they had 86 students in the 2008-2009 school year with a student/teacher ratio of 8.8, and he said that this was accurate. He said that this ratio could be applied to the 2009-2010 school year, but that they had 71 students enrolled in the 2010-2011 school year with a 7.2 student teacher ratio.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-43 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Karen Nunn Date: 4/14/11 Association: Vale School District 084 Title: Business Director Phone #: (541) 473-0201

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Vale School District

I spoke with Karen Nunn (Business Director) about the capacities of the Vale School District.

She said that the school’s student enrollment will likely decline over the next few year. I told her that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. She said that they would be able to accommodate new students (they expected to lose about 16 enrolments by 2013), and the project would not likely adversely impact them.

I told her that, based on the NCES website, they had 911 students in the 2008-2009 school year with a student/teacher ratio of 17.6; she said that this was accurate.

She said that they had about 878 students in the 2009-2010 and the 2010-2011 school years, and that they have the same number of teachers as they had during the 2008-2009 school year.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-44 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Chris Panike Date: 4/19/11 Association: La Grande School District Title: Business Director Phone #: (541) 663-3202

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the La Grand School District

I spoke with Chris Panike (Business Director) about the capacities of the La Grande School District.

He said that the school’s student enrollment has been declining slightly for the last few years. I told him that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. He said that they would be able to accommodate new students.

He sent me an email which contained a PowerPoint presentation he had prepared, which contained relevant student enrollment as well as economic values for his district.

Text from email from Chris Panike to John Crookston (April 19, 2011):

John,

The attached Powerpoint provides much of the information you requested in your prior voice message, along with financial data for the La Grande School District. This data, along with a whole lot more about finances, was presented to all staff and interested community members in February and March of this year. (I deleted a number of slides that wouldn't make sense without a long explanation) Please call me at the number listed below if you still have question after looking over this data.

Chris Panike Director of Business & Operations La Grande School District 541-663-3206 [email protected]

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-45 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Cathy Stalk Date: 4/18/11 Association: Pilot Rock School District 002 Title: District Secretary Phone #: (541) 443-8291

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Pilot Rock School District

I spoke with Cathy Stalk (District Secretary) about the capacities of the Pilot Rock School District.

She said that the school’s student enrollment has been declining slightly for the last 10 years. Student enrolment has been declining as a result of a loss of employment opportunities within the area; a major local employer in the area (a wood pulp mill owned by Industrial Paper) recently closed down.

She said that they had 365 students in the 2009-2001 school year, with a student teacher ratio (STR) of 14.03. They had 352 students in 2010-2011, with a STR of 14.6

I told her that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. She said that they would be able to accommodate new students, and looked forward to new people coming to the area.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-46 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Walt Wegener Date: 4/14/11 Association: Baker School District Title: Superintendent of the Baker School District Phone #: (541) 524-2260

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Baker School District

I spoke with Walt Wegener (Superintendent of the Baker School District) about the capacities of the Baker School District.

He said that the school’s student enrolment has been declining slightly for the last few years, but has hit a plateau this last year. They were losing around 40 to 60 students a year. They do not know exactly why enrolment had been declining, but said that it was likely because employment in a local gold mine and the logging industry has declined and people are leaving the area.

I told him that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. He said that they would be able to accommodate new students, and looked forward to new people coming to the area.

He said that they had about 2,000 students enrolled in the 2010-2011 school year. I told him that, based on the NCES website, they had 1,901 students in the 2008-2009 school year with a student/teacher ratio of 19.6, and he said that this was accurate. He said that this ratio could be applied to the more recent school years as well, and that the enrollment in 2009-2001 was also about 2,000 students.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-47 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

Tetra Tech Telephone Conversation Record

Call To: Mike Wood Date: 4/18/11 Association: Union School District 005 Title: Superintendent of the Union School District Phone #: (541) 562-6115

Message Taken By: John Crookston Subject: Capacities of the Union School District

I spoke with Mike Wood (Superintendent) about the capacities of the Union School District.

He said that the school’s student enrollment has been declining slightly for the last few years as a result of the bad economy in Union County.

He said that they had 370 students in the 2010-2011 school year, with a student teacher ratio (STR) of 16.1. He did not know the exact number of students and STR for the 2009-2010 school year, but said that is was likely midway between the 2010-2011 and 2008-2009 years.

I told him that the project could create around 16 new students (resulting from workers moving to the area) but said that this was likely an overestimate. He said that they would be able to accommodate new students.

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE Page U-1-48 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

ATTACHMENT U-2 DRAFT TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC PLAN

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE

DRAFT

Transportation and Traffic Plan

Prepared by Idaho Power Company 1221 W Idaho Street Boise, ID 83702

February 2013

Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Regulatory Framework ...... 1 1.1.1 Federal ...... 2 1.1.2 State ...... 5 1.1.3 County and Other Agencies ...... 6 2.0 AFFECTED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND TRAFFIC LEVELS ...... 7 2.1.1 Existing Roads, Bridges, and Railroads ...... 8 2.1.2 Baseline Traffic Volumes ...... 9 2.1.3 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ...... 10 3.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND TRAFFIC ...... 11 3.1 Construction ...... 11 3.1.1 Trip Generation Estimates ...... 12 3.1.2 Construction Equipment and Traffic ...... 18 3.1.3 Traffic Related to Timber Removal ...... 18 3.1.4 Impacts to V/C Ratios...... 18 3.1.5 Impacts to Local Services ...... 27 3.1.6 Access Roads ...... 27 3.1.7 Potential Damage to Existing Infrastructure ...... 30 3.2 Operation ...... 30 4.0 MITIGATION ...... 30 4.1 Physical Improvements ...... 30 4.1.1 Construction Permits and Property Agreements ...... 30 4.1.2 Road Standards and Maintenance ...... 31 4.1.3 BMPs for Erosion Control and Stormwater Drainage ...... 31 4.2 Operational Procedures During Construction ...... 31 4.2.1 Traffic Control, Access, and Safety Measures ...... 31 4.2.2 Fugitive Dust Mitigation ...... 33 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 33

February 2013 i Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Traffic Volumes Near the Project ...... 9 Table 2. ODOT Maximum Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Peak Hour Operating Conditions ...... 10 Table 3. Pre-Project Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ...... 11 Table 4. Personal Vehicle Trips per Day ...... 13 Table 6. Construction Vehicle Trips per Day ...... 16 Table 7. Preliminary Routes for Hauling Water to Multiuse Areas ...... 16 Table 8. Evaluation of Project Impacts on Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Roads Potentially Used during Project Construction ...... 21

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Naval Weapons System Training Facility Approach Zone ...... 4 Figure 2. Example Aerial Lift Crane to be Used During Construction (Roadable Length 52 Feet; Width 8 Feet 6 Inches) ...... 28 Figure 3. Typical Road Sections ...... 29

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Boardman to Hemingway - Preliminary Haul Routes Appendix B. Boardman to Hemingway – Estimate of Construction Traffic Memo

February 2013 ii Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AADT average annual daily trips AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ASC Application for Site Certificate ATV all-terrain vehicle BLM U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations EFSC Energy Facility Siting Council EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FPA Forest Practices Act IPC Idaho Power Company kV kilovolt LOS level of service LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan NESC National Electrical Safety Code NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OAR Oregon Administrative Rule ODF Oregon Department of Forestry ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODOE Oregon Department of Energy ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OPGW optical ground wire ORS Oregon Revised Statutes POD Plan of Development Plan Transportation and Traffic Plan Project Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Project RMP Resource Management Plan ROW right of way SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan UNF Umatilla National Forest USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service V/C volume-to-capacity

February 2013 iii Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

2 This Transportation and Traffic Plan (Plan) provides preliminary transportation information 3 related to the Oregon portion of the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Project (B2H or 4 Project). Information provided includes existing traffic conditions, the potential impacts of the 5 Project, and Idaho Power Company’s (IPC’s) proposed measures to mitigate these potential 6 impacts.

7 This Plan outlines the measures that IPC and contractor(s) will implement during Project 8 construction. Contractors will be required to submit detailed traffic and transportation plans to 9 IPC that are consistent with the provisions in this Plan. This Plan will be submitted to and 10 approved by the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies with authority to regulate use of 11 public roads, and approved, prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed with construction. The 12 construction contractor’s plan will describe the following:

13 • Materials and equipment; 14 • Final material/equipment transportation routes; 15 • Total number of trips associated with delivery of materials and equipment; 16 • Total number of construction workers and their distribution throughout the construction 17 schedule; 18 • Likely commuting routes and total number of trips for construction workers; 19 • Specific road improvements needed to allow use of transportation routes; and 20 • Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be required. 21 The timber contractor’s plans will describe the transportation routes for logs and logging 22 slash/biomass (if slash removal is required). Final mitigation measures will be developed in 23 consultation with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies.

24 This Plan has been prepared as an attachment to Application for Site Certificate (ASC) Exhibit 25 U, and is intended to provide information to meet ASC submittal requirements. This Plan also 26 addresses Project Order comments from the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE 2012) by:

27 • estimating facility-related traffic during construction and operation and potential impacts 28 on traffic safety 29 • describing proposed transportation routes for the transport of heavy equipment and 30 shipments of Project components during construction, including proposed ground and air 31 transportation routes 32 • evaluating Project impacts to the ability of public and private providers to provide those 33 services

34 1.1 Regulatory Framework 35 The Project will comply with applicable federal, state, and local transportation regulations. IPC 36 will impose on its construction contractor(s) the responsibility to meet all applicable legal 37 requirements.

38 Regulations related to roads, railroads, and airports are described in this section. Additional 39 resource-related regulations including vehicle air emissions, stream crossing standards to 40 protect fish, and PACFISH and INFISH directions (i.e., interim strategies for managing 41 anadromous fish-producing watersheds in Oregon and other states, and inland native fish

February 2013 1 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 strategy for the Pacific Northwest and other U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2 [USFS] regions) are addressed in Exhibits E, P, and Q.

3 IPC and/or the construction contractor(s) will be required to obtain encroachment permits or 4 similar legal agreements from the public agencies responsible for affected roadways and other 5 applicable rights-of-way (ROWs). The contractor will be responsible for all oversize and 6 overweight permits required for the delivery of construction materials and subcontractor 7 components. 8 1.1.1 Federal 9 1.1.1.1 Federal Aviation Administration 10 Helicopter flight operations will operate under the control of the Federal Aviation Administration 11 (FAA).

12 As described under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, the FAA is also 13 concerned with the following:

14 • Any construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level or 15 • Any construction or alteration: 16 - Within 20,000 feet (3.79 miles) of a public-use or military airport that exceeds a 100:1 17 sloping surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least 1 runway 18 more than 3,200 feet 19 - Within 10,000 feet (1.89 miles) of a public-use or military airport that exceeds a 50:1 20 sloping surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway 21 no more than 3,200 feet 22 - Within 5,000 feet of a public-use heliport that exceeds a 25:1 sloping surface 23 These regulations do not apply to private landing strips. Project construction cranes will exceed 24 200 feet in height and therefore, IPC must obtain a Notice of Proposed Construction or 25 Alteration from the FAA. Information regarding the Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration 26 needed for the Project is contained in Section 3.3 of Exhibit E. None of the other conditions are 27 anticipated to apply to this Project.

28 1.1.1.2 National Electrical Safety Code 29 Railroad/overhead utility crossing will conform to the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) :

30 • The height of rail car should be assumed to be 23 feet. 31 • Structures supporting power must be 50 feet out from the centerline of main running 32 tracks, centralized traffic-control sidings, and heavy tonnage spurs. Locations adjacent 33 to industry tracks must provide at least 30 feet of clearance from the centerline of tracks 34 when measured at right angles. If located adjacent to curved tracks, the clearance must 35 be increased at the rate of 1.5 inches per degree of curved track. 36 • Regardless of the voltage, unguyed poles must be located a minimum distance from the 37 centerline of any track equal to the height of the pole above the groundline plus 10 feet. 38 If guying is required, the guys must be placed in such a manner as to keep the pole from 39 leaning/falling in the direction of the tracks. 40 • Structures for 34.5 kV and higher must be located off the railroad ROW.

February 2013 2 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 • Crossings will not be installed within 500 feet of the end of railroad bridges or 300 feet 2 from the centerline of culverts or switch areas. 3 1.1.1.3 United States Department of the Navy 4 Low-level approach routes at the Naval Weapons System Training Facility (NWSTF) located in 5 Boardman, OR, establish a height restricted approach zone to the west of the facility. Structures 6 are prohibited from intruding more than 100 feet above ground level into the restricted zone. 7 The Longhorn Alternate, which crosses the approach zone, will include structures at or below 8 the 100-foot requirement; other Project facilities avoid the approach zone (Figure 1).

9 1.1.1.4 Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 10 Service 11 On federal lands, agency roads meet the minimum standards of width, alignment, grade, 12 surface, etc. found in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual Section 9113 (BLM 1985) 13 and/or USFS Handbooks 7709.56—Road Preconstruction Handbook (USFS 1986), 7709.57— 14 Road Construction Handbook (USFS 1992), and 7709.58—Transportation System Maintenance 15 Handbook (USFS 2009). These requirements are not anticipated to apply to Project two-track 16 roads or to routes for all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) or utility terrain vehicles.

17 On January 12, 2001, the USFS issued the final National Forest System Road Management 18 Rule. This rule revises regulations concerning the management, use, and maintenance of the 19 National Forest Transportation System. The final rule is intended to help ensure additions to the 20 National Forest System road network are needed for resource management and use; that 21 construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads minimize adverse environmental 22 impacts; and that unneeded roads are identified and decommissioned. The 2005 Travel 23 Management Rule revised regulations at 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 to require 24 designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on all national forests.

25 To comply with the road and travel management rules, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 26 prepared a Travel Management Plan. The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was 27 released for public review in June 2009, and the record of decision and final EIS were released 28 in February 2012 (USFS 2012). The decision amends the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National 29 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

30 BLM resource management plans and USFS land and resource management plans provide 31 direction on road management along with other resources that govern roads on federal lands. 32 Both the USFS and BLM have access and travel management plans that designate areas for 33 motorized use, prohibit some uses to protect resources, or limit road use to certain times of the 34 year for resource protection. Off-highway vehicle use is further discussed in ASC Exhibit T.

35 IPC and its contractor(s) will comply with applicable standards and guidelines described in this 36 section, except where IPC requests Project-specific amendments to those standards. New 37 roads that do not become BLM or USFS roads and remain under IPC’s or private landowner 38 jurisdiction may not be constructed to all BLM and USFS standards.

February 2013 3 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 2 Figure 1. Naval Weapons System Training Facility Approach Zone

February 2013 4 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 1.1.2 State 2 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-055 requires an encroachment permit from the State of 3 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Highway Division to construct pole lines, which 4 include poles, wires, guys, anchors, and related fixtures. The rule applies to and governs the 5 location, installation, construction, maintenance, and use of pole lines and other operations on 6 the state highway ROW and properties under the jurisdiction of the ODOT. The ODOT District 7 Manager reviews permit applications for the following:

8 • Accommodation of utility facilities with no adverse effect on traffic safety, operation, 9 maintenance, and aesthetic quality of the highway system; 10 • Incorporation of the appropriate industry code standards and American Association of 11 State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publications; 12 • Placement of utility installations in reasonable locations for construction and 13 maintenance; 14 • Safe and unimpaired use of the highway; and 15 Motor carriers transporting oversize or overweight loads in Oregon must obtain an over- 16 dimension variance permit when a truck and/or truck-trailer combination exceeds vehicle limits 17 under ORS 818. Continuous Trip Permits include Heavy Haul Permits, issued annually for 18 nondivisible loads 98,000 pounds or less when operating over legal axle limits, and Extended 19 Weight Permits, issued annually for divisible loads from 80,001 to 105,500 pounds. Single Trip 20 Permits are issued for nondivisible loads when axle weights exceed legal limits. In summary, a 21 permit is needed for a single, nondivisible load when any of the following applies:

22 • Width of the load or hauling equipment exceeds 8 feet, 6 inches; 23 • Height of vehicle or combination of vehicle and load exceeds 14 feet; 24 • Any single axle exceeds 20,000 pounds; 25 • Any tandem axle exceeds 34,000 pounds; 26 • Gross combination weight exceeds 80,000 pounds; 27 • Front overhang exceeds 4 feet beyond the front bumper; 28 • Load greater than 40 feet, exceeding 5 feet beyond the end of the semi-trailer, or load 29 less than or equal to 40 feet, exceeding one-third of the wheelbase of the combination, 30 whichever is less; 31 • Gross weight of a group of axles exceeds those in the ODOT legal weight tables; 32 • Vehicle combination length exceeds that authorized by ODOT. 33 Unless operating with a front and rear pilot vehicle, warning lights as described in OAR 734- 34 082-0036 are required when width exceeds 10 feet on two-lane highways or 12 feet on four-lane 35 highways. Loads exceeding 12 feet on two-lane highways must use a front pilot vehicle. For any 36 loads exceeding the following dimensions a Super Load permit is required:

37 • Over 16 feet wide on the Interstate; 38 • Over 14 feet wide on any state two-lane highway; 39 • Over 17 feet high on any highway; 40 • Mobile with a box width over 14 feet wide and/or overall width greater than 15 feet; 41 • Overall length greater than 150 feet.

February 2013 5 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 In Oregon, activities on non-federal forest lands must also comply with the Oregon Forest 2 Practices Act (FPA) rules, Oregon Revised Statute 527, and its attendant rules, OAR chapter 3 629, divisions 605 through 665. These rules will apply to portions of the Project that cross forest 4 lands. Under the Oregon FPA, strict regulations govern the location, construction, maintenance, 5 and repair of roads on non-federal forest lands. Roads must avoid marshes, meadows, drainage 6 channels, riparian areas and, when possible, steep terrain. The FPA also restricts some road 7 construction methods and use of heavily rutted or mud-covered roads to prevent sediment 8 runoff on non-federal forest lands during periods of wet weather (OAR 629-625-0040 and - 9 0700). For construction, including temporary roads and additional temporary workspace, 10 activities on non-federal forest lands are also subject to weather restrictions in accordance with 11 the FPA. Operating in inclement weather in mountainous forest terrain is subject to shut down, 12 as is the repetitive use of heavy trucks and equipment on existing unpaved forest roads during 13 wet weather.

14 Where a road must cross a fish-bearing stream, culverts and bridges must be engineered to 15 comply with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) Fish Passage Program to 16 allow fish passage and to pass flood flows without damage. Since August 2001, the owner or 17 operator of an artificial obstruction located in waters in which native migratory fish are currently 18 or were historically present must address fish passage requirements prior to certain trigger 19 events. Laws regarding fish passage are found in ORS 509.580 through 910 and in OAR 635, 20 Division 412. Roads, adjacent ditches, and culverts must be maintained regularly to prevent 21 landslides and avoid erosion and runoff that might enter streams. The project Transportation 22 and Traffic Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) (required for the Oregon 23 portion) will include road maintenance measures to prevent and avoid erosion and runoff

24 IPC and its contractor(s) will comply with applicable state regulations described in this section. 25 1.1.3 County and Other Agencies 26 The Project would build access roads or stage materials in five Oregon counties. IPC reviewed 27 applicable transportation system plans for information on existing road conditions and traffic and 28 congestion levels. These include:

29 • Morrow County 2005 Transportation System Plan (Morrow County, 2005) 30 • Umatilla County Transportation System Plan (Umatilla County, 2002) 31 • Union County Transportation System Plan (Union County, 1999) 32 • Baker County Transportation System Plan (Baker County, 2005) 33 • Malheur County Transportation System Plan (Malheur County, 1998) 34 The Morrow County Planning Department Zoning Ordinance requires a Traffic Impact Analysis 35 for projects generating more than 400 passenger car equivalent trips per day (Section 3.010).

36 The Umatilla County Development Code requires a Traffic Impact Analysis under several 37 conditions, including when a Project increases site traffic volume generation by 250 or more 38 Average Daily Trips (ADT) or when the use of adjacent streets by vehicles exceeding 20,000- 39 pound gross vehicle weights increases by 10 or more vehicles per day.

40 The Union County Land Use Plan states that traffic analysis and mitigation must be undertaken 41 if a proposed project may impose an undue burden on the public transportation system. Projects 42 generating up to 100 vehicle trips per day are reviewed locally by ODOT, Region 5. Proposals 43 generating between 100 and 400 vehicle trips per day are reviewed by an ODOT Traffic

February 2013 6 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Engineer. Proposals generating over 400 vehicle trips per day are required to submit a traffic 2 impact study.

3 The Baker County Transportation System Plan requires a Traffic Impact Study under various 4 conditions, including when a development generates 25 or more peak-hour trips or 250 or more 5 daily trips.

6 The Malheur County Development Code indicates that developments likely to generate more 7 than 400 ADTs, the applicant may be requested to provide a traffic impact study or traffic counts 8 to demonstrate the level of impact to the surrounding street system.

9 The number of trips that the Project is estimated to generate is described in Section 3 of this 10 Plan. Exhibit K evaluates potential traffic impacts from the Project relative to requirements in 11 Morrow and Umatilla counties.

12 Counties and other public agencies typically require that the placement of any structures on, 13 over, or under roads require an encroachment permit, road-use permits, or other appropriate 14 license for ROW occupancy.

15 In addition, an encroachment permit or similar authorization will be required from the applicable 16 jurisdictional agency at locations where construction activities will occur within or above the 17 public-road ROW. The specific requirements of the encroachment permit from the applicable 18 transportation agencies are determined on a project-by-project basis. The encroachment permit 19 issued by state and local jurisdictions may include the following requirements:

20 • Identify all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g., directional 21 drilling or night construction) will be used to minimize impacts to traffic flow. 22 • Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. This 23 may include the use of signing and flagging to guide vehicles through and/or around the 24 construction zone. 25 • Schedule truck trips outside of peak morning and evening commute hours. 26 • Limit lane closures during peak hours to the extent possible. 27 • Include detours for areas potentially affected by project construction. 28 • Install temporary traffic-control devices as specified in the Manual of Uniform Traffic 29 Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA 2009 with 2012 amendments). 30 • Store construction materials only in designated areas. 31 If a construction method requires the closure of a state- or county-maintained road, a traffic 32 control plan will be developed to accommodate traffic as required by a county or state permit. 33 Encroachment permit requirements will be specified by the agency having jurisdiction. 34 Enforcement of the terms of an encroachment permit will reduce impacts associated with short 35 term road closures.

36 2.0 AFFECTED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND TRAFFIC LEVELS

37 This section provides an overview of the transportation facilities likely to be affected by the 38 Project, including descriptions of existing conditions and available traffic volumes on major 39 highways.

February 2013 7 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 2.1.1 Existing Roads, Bridges, and Railroads 2 The study area includes roads ranging from Interstate highways to two-track dirt roads, and 3 bridges with a similar range of size and structural design. Appendix A contains a set of maps 4 that shows major roads in relation to the Project.

5 The Project would cross the following federal and state highways, all of which would be used as 6 transportation routes for Project materials and labor:

7 • I-84 8 • U.S. 395 9 • Oregon 244 10 • Oregon 237 11 • Oregon 203 12 • Oregon 86 13 • U.S. 20 14 • U.S. 26 15 • Oregon 207 16 • Oregon 201 17 • U.S. 95 18 Roads that form part of the State Highway Freight System near the Project include I-84, U.S. 19 395, U.S. 20, and U.S. 95 (ODOT 2006). ODOT requires these roads to maintain less 20 congestion than similar roads not designated as part of the State Highway Freight System 21 (ODOT 1999). Portions of the Blue Mountain Scenic Highway (OR 74), the Elkhorn Scenic 22 Byway (U.S. 30), the Grande Tour Route (Oregon 237), the Hells Canyon Scenic Highway 23 (Oregon 86), and the Snake River-Mormon Basin Back Country Byway (U.S. 30) cross the 24 Project (Exhibit C, Attachment C-2).

25 In Oregon, from Boardman to the southeastern extent of Baker County, the proposed and 26 alternative routes roughly parallel Interstate 84 (I-84). U.S. highways 20, 26, and 395 (U.S. 20, 27 U.S. 26, and U.S. 395) cross the Project in Oregon, between Little Valley and Hope, near 28 Brogan, and near Pilot Rock, respectively.

29 According to Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2010), no inventoried road bridges occur 30 within the Site Boundary. Outside of the Site Boundary, inventoried bridges are located on 31 public roads and include Interstate highways, U.S. highways, state and county roads, as well as 32 publicly accessible bridges on federal lands. Given the proximity of some bridges to Project 33 facilities, these structures may be used as part of the Project for transport of workers and 34 materials. No weight or other limitations have been identified on existing bridge crossings 35 needed for Project construction because deliveries will follow legal weight limits and it is 36 assumed that Interstate highways, U.S. highways, and state and county roads will meet 37 applicable required standards.

38 Main rail lines operating in the region include Union Pacific and Oregon Eastern Railroad.

February 2013 8 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 2.1.2 Baseline Traffic Volumes 2 Traffic volumes vary widely throughout the study area. Annual average daily traffic counts in 3 2009 for I-84 ranged from 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles between Boardman and Pendleton to 4 5,000 to 10,000 from Pendleton through the rest of the Project. Traffic counts on U.S. 20, U.S. 5 26, and U.S. 395 in the Site Boundary ranged from 0 to 2,500 vehicles (ODOT 2009). Traffic 6 levels on smaller local roads in the Site Boundary are lower than levels on these highways. 7 Table 1 lists available average annual daily trips (AADT) from ODOT for federal and state 8 highways at locations near the Project.

9 Table 1. Traffic Volumes Near the Project Highway/ Highway/ Route Route 2009 2004 Location1 Number Milepost Location Description AADT AADT Near milepost (MP) 1 in 0.30 mile west of Tower Morrow County I-84 159 Road Interchange 10,900 10,800 0.30 miles east of Hermiston 183.16 Highway (Oregon 207) 11,200 10,300 Near MP 37 in 0.30 mile east of Lexington- Morrow County I-84 193.83 Echo Highway 14,500 14,700 Near MP 73 in 0.05 mile south of Umatilla County U.S. 395 12.98 Stewart Creek 2,900 3,100 Near MP 107 in 0.60 mile east of Ukiah-Hilgard Umatilla County I-84 253.43 Highway (Oregon 244) 9,700 10,600 North La Grande Automatic Traffic Recorder, Sta. 31-007, 1.05 miles east of La Grande– Baker Highway No. 66 Near MP 112 in (U.S. 30), North La Union County I-84 260.27 Grande Interchange 8,500 8,900 Medical Springs Automatic Traffic Recorder, Sta. 01-007, Near MP 151 in 2.08 miles east of Old Oregon Baker County Oregon 203 36.86 Trail Highway No. 6 (I-84) 210 230 Near MP 189 in 0.40 miles south of Durkee Baker County I-84 327.83 Interchange 8,200 7,900 Near MP 243 in 0.5 miles east of Pole Creek Malheur County U.S. 20 200.96 Road 1,200 1,300 0.02 mile south of Wasco- Near MP 243 in Heppner Highway (OR206), Malheur County I-5 38.09 Walnut Street 1600 1500 Near MP 198 in 0.06 miles south of Owyhee Malheur County Oregon 201 8.02 Avenue 1,200 1,300 10 1 MP refers to transmission-line mileposts (from the April 1, 2011 geographic information system route layer). 11 AADT – average annual daily trips 12 Source: ODOT 2009

February 2013 9 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 2.1.3 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios 2 According to ODOT Transportation System Guidelines (ODOT, 2008), roadway and road facility 3 congestion and performance standards may be expressed as level of service (LOS) standards 4 or as volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. LOS characterizes the performance of roads, 5 intersections, interchanges, and other transportation facilities. LOS ratings range from “A” (ideal 6 conditions, with free-flowing traffic) to “F” (complete failure or gridlock). V/C ratios are defined as 7 the peak traffic volume (vehicles/hour) on a highway section divided by the maximum volume 8 that the highway section can handle. The closer the V/C ratio is to 1.0, the more congested 9 traffic is.

10 The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan and later amendments (ODOT, 1999) guide state highway 11 development and management for a 20-year planning horizon. In this plan, ODOT identified the 12 performance standards for state highways. The Plan’s highway mobility policy adopted V/C ratio 13 rather than LOS to measure highway performance because V/C ratio is a more precise and 14 consistent measure. Table 2 lists applicable maximum V/C ratio for peak hour operating 15 conditions from the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (table last amended in August 2005). These 16 categories will apply to roads near Project multiuse areas.

17 Table 2. ODOT Maximum Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Peak Hour Operating 18 Conditions Inside Urban Growth Rural Highway Category Boundary1 Unincorporated Communities Lands Interstate Highways 0.70 to 0.85 0.70 0.70 Freight Route on a State 0.70 to 0.90 0.70 0.70 Highway2 Statewide (Not a Freight Route) 0.75 to 0.95 0.75 0.70 Regional or District Highway 0.75 to 0.95 0.75 0.70 District/Local Interest Roads 0.80 to 1.00 0.80 0.75 Source: ODOT, 1999. 1 An Urban Growth Boundary is defined as the area surrounding an incorporated city in which the city may legally expand its city limits. The Project passes near the Urban Growth Boundaries for Boardman, Pilot Rock, La Grande, North Powder, Baker City, Huntington. 2 Near the Project, these include I-84, U.S. 395, U.S. 20, and U.S. 95 (ODOT 2006).

19 Existing V/C ratios for interstate, state, regional, and district highways, and local roads are 20 summarized in Table 3 based on information in local transportation system plans. The majority 21 of Project roads and intersections operate well below maximum acceptable V/C ratios 22 (maximums summarized in Table 2). Furthermore, based on local planning projections, road 23 congestion is not anticipated near the Project. The only roads that are projected to reach 24 maximum V/C ratios in the future are U.S. 20/26 from Vale westward to the Union Pacific 25 Railroad crossing (in Nyssa, Idaho) and on OR 201 from the Malheur River south to Cairo 26 Junction. Predicted volume increases could cause the LOS to decline temporarily on portions of 27 these highways. 28

February 2013 10 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Table 3. Pre-Project Volume-to-Capacity Ratios Year Year Evaluated Evaluated for for Existing Future V/C Area V/C Ratio Existing V/C Ratio Ratio Projected Future V/C Ratio Morrow County 2005 0.01 to 0.40 2024 0.02 to 0.66 Umatilla County 1996 0.01 to 0.69 2018 0.01 to 0.69 Union County 1998 0.01 to 0.40 2018 0.01 to 0.59 Baker County 2005 0.01 to 0.791 2025 0.01 to 1.482 0.01 to 0.83 0.01 to 0.97 Malheur County 1996 2017 (LOS A to D)3 (LOS A to E)4 Sources: Morrow County, 2005; Umatilla County, 2002; Union County,1999; Baker County, 2005; Malheur County, 1998. 1 Greatest projected V/C ratio outside of I-84/Hughes Lane is 0.17. 2 Greatest projected V/C ratio outside of I-84/Hughes Lane is 0.39. 3 Greatest projected LOS outside of U.S. 20 and U.S. 26 is A. 4 Greatest projected LOS outside of U.S. 20 and U.S. 26 is A. Note: LOS conversions to V/C ratio based on Umatilla County (2002) Table 4-3 Level of Service Criteria for Two-lane Highways.

2 3.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND 3 TRAFFIC

4 This section describes the potential impacts of the Project to the transportation system and 5 traffic levels. Pike Energy Solutions (Pike) estimated traffic based on a series of assumptions 6 including: crew sizes, crew productivity, lag time between work phases, material delivery 7 strategies, and the spacing of multiuse areas (Pike 2012, Appendix B). The line contractor may 8 approach the Project in a different manner than assumed, which could increase or decrease the 9 number of trips in Pike’s estimate. The assumptions included are Pike’s best reasonable 10 estimate based on their experiences as an engineering firm working on transmission projects 11 and their history as a transmission construction company.

12 3.1 Construction 13 During construction of the Project, the primary impact to the transportation system will be the 14 generation of additional traffic. Multiuse areas will generally be the location of the heaviest 15 construction-related traffic because they will be centralized hubs of activity within each 16 construction segment. Construction equipment and materials will be transported from their 17 sources to multiuse areas located approximately every 25 miles along the Project and then to 18 approximately 1,300 individual tower construction sites, as well as the construction sites for the 19 substations and communication sites. Construction equipment and materials for the existing 20 substations will be staged at the substations. The Project will generate traffic related to 21 construction workers commuting to the job sites. The Project also will require transport of 22 logging equipment, logs, and logging slash from Project construction in forested areas.

23 The potential for impacts to traffic is greatest where construction will involve regular use of 24 public roads between local communities and multiuse areas, such as I-84, US-20, Oregon State 25 highways, and well-used local roads. Much of the heavy construction equipment, such as large 26 excavators, cranes, feller bunchers, and track-rig equipment, generally will operate on the 27 Project ROW or private access roads, except when heavy equipment is moved from one 28 isolated section of line to another on public roads. These instances are limited and incidental to 29 the overall traffic flow created by the Project. The larger potential impact to traffic levels is

February 2013 11 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 associated with daily trips in and out of multiuse areas by construction workers personal 2 vehicles, material delivery vehicles, concrete trucks, and construction vehicles moving from 3 work area to work area within the section. 4 3.1.1 Trip Generation Estimates 5 3.1.1.1 Anticipated Personal Vehicle Trips 6 Construction of the new transmission line is anticipated to last 36 months, with multiple 7 construction crews working simultaneously See Exhibit B, Section 3.6 for a detailed construction 8 schedule for the Project. Work is projected to begin simultaneously in more than one section 9 with material marshaling, ROW clearing, and road and site work starting first, then foundation 10 installation, tower erection, and wire stringing. The Grassland and/or Horn Butte or Longhorn 11 substation construction and the communication station work will begin on a schedule that will 12 allow for completion at approximately the same timeframe as the transmission line. All 13 construction activity is expected to be completed for an in-service date that is expected to be no 14 sooner than 2018. No work on the site as defined in 32 OAR 345-001-0010 will take place 15 before EFSC issues a Site Certificate.

16 In early 2011 Pike developed a preliminary construction schedule, separating the overall Project 17 into construction spread 1 (approximately milepost 0 to 150) and 2 (approximately milepost 150 18 to 299), with construction on each spread occurring simultaneously. Pike further segmented the 19 two spreads into smaller sections based on anticipated seasonal weather limitations and 20 construction difficulty. Construction tasks were scheduled within each smaller segment based 21 on the length of the section and assumed crew productivity rates. The first of the sections, 22 Section 1.1, is 76 miles and from the Grassland Substation to Umatilla County. Within each 23 construction spread, the smaller sections are assumed to be sufficiently separate 24 (geographically) so that the use of local access routes will not overlap between smaller sections. 25 In other words, the traffic impacts will not be additive between adjacent sections.

26 Work crews will include those involved in construction activities, as well as workers providing 27 vehicle and equipment maintenance and repairs, refueling, dust control, construction inspection, 28 construction materials testing, and environmental compliance and surveying. Combining all 29 crews working on the Project for each month, the construction workforce would peak in Section 30 1.1 during months 3 to 5. At that point, tree clearing and access road construction crews are 31 expected to be active, while tower lacing, tower setting, and wire stringing crews also work 32 within the same section.

33 For each crew type, Pike estimated the quantity of personal vehicles, construction pickups, and 34 other construction equipment, as well as the number of one-way trips per day. Two workers are 35 assumed to carpool in each personal vehicle, making two one-way trips daily—from lodging to 36 the multiuse area each morning and from the multiuse area to lodging each evening. Table 4 37 provides the numbers of vehicles, one-way trips on public roads per day, and total trips per day 38 associated with personal vehicle use. Table 5 lists nearby communities where workers may 39 lodge and local routes between those communities and each multiuse area.

40

February 2013 12 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1

2 Table 4. Personal Vehicle Trips per Day Personal Vehicles Number of One-way Number of Personal Trips on Public Total One-way Vehicles Roads Trips Construction Crew Type (per day) (per day) (per day) Material Delivery 0 0 0 ROW Clearing 4 2 8 Road/Pad Grading 4 2 8 Blasting 2 2 4 Foundations 5 2 10 Tower Lacing 24 2 48 Tower Setting 12 2 24 Stringing 13 2 26 Mechanic 1 2 2 Refueling 2 2 4 Dust Control 2 2 4 Construction Inspection 2 2 4 Construction Materials Testing 2 2 4 Environmental Compliance 4 2 8 Surveyors 2 2 4 Total 158 3

4

February 2013 13 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Table 5. Preliminary Commuting Routes for Workers Lodging in Nearby 2 Communities Multi-use Nearby Major Route Name Area1 County Community Routes Local Routes Tower Road (exit 159), MO-1 Morrow Boardman I-84 Unnamed local roads Hermiston, I-84, OR MO-2 Morrow OR 207, Doherty Road Boardman 207 UM-1 Umatilla Hermiston I-84, I-82 Lamb Road (exit 10) OR 207 (exit 182), Big Hermiston, Pilot I-84, U.S. UM-2 Umatilla Butter Creek Road, OR Rock 395 74 Stewart Creek Pendleton, Pilot I-84, U.S. UM-5 Umatilla Road/Porter Road, NE Rock 395 th 4 Street North Powder, OR 237 (exit 285), UN-1 Union/Baker Baker City, La I-84 Coughanour Lane Grande La Grande, Baker BA-1 Baker I-84 OR 203 (exit 298) City Proposed Vandecar Road (exit 327), Lang Road, BA-2 Baker Baker City, Durkee I-84 Hindman Road, Old U.S. 30 I-84, OR 201, U.S. Malheur Reservation MA-1 Malheur Brogan, Vale 20, U.S. Road 26 I-84, U.S. MA-2 Malheur Ontario, Vale 20, U.S. Unnamed local road 26 I-84, U.S. OR 201, OR 452/ID Ontario, Nyssa, MA-3 Malheur 20, U.S. 18, Owyhee Ave, Wilder (Idaho) 95 Owyhee Lake Road I-84, U.S. Ontario, Nyssa, MA-4 Malheur 20, U.S. OR 201 Wilder (Idaho) 95 Tower Road (exit 159), MO-1 Morrow Boardman I-84 Unnamed local roads Horn Butte Hermiston, I-84, OR MO-2 Morrow OR 207, Doherty Road Boardman 207 Hermiston, I-84, OR MO-2 Morrow OR 207, Doherty Road Boardman 207 Boardman Canal I-84, U.S. MO-3 Morrow/Umatilla Boardman Road, Unnamed local 730 road Longhorn County Road 930/Paterson Ferry MO-4 Morrow/Umatilla Boardman I-84 Road (exit 171), Poleline Road UM-1 Umatilla Hermiston I-84, I-82 Lamb Road (exit 10) La Grande, Baker Flagstaff BA-1 Baker I-84 OR 203 (exit 298) City 3

February 2013 14 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Table 5. Preliminary Commuting Routes for Workers Lodging in Nearby 2 Communities (continued) Multi-use Nearby Major Route Name Area1 County Community Routes Local Routes Baker City, U.S. 30 (exit 353), BA-3 Baker/Malheur I-84 Huntington Unnamed local road I-84, OR Willow Creek 201, U.S. MA-5 Baker/Malheur Brogan, Vale South Road L 20, U.S. 26 I-84, U.S. MA-2 Malheur Ontario, Vale 20, U.S. Unnamed local road 26 OR 201/ID 19, Succor Malheur S I-84, U.S. Creek Road, Succor Caldwell, 95, U.S. MA-6 Malheur Creek Cutoff, Upper Homedale 20, U.S. Tunnel Road, 26 Unnamed local roads 1 Multi-use areas are numbered as shown in Figures 1 through 7 in Appendix A, and multi-use areas for alternate routes are labeled. Where the same multiuse areas will be used for multiple routes, the table lists the same numbers for each route. The Glass Hill and Double Mountain alternatives would not require separate multipurpose areas.

3 Construction will generally occur between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 4 Additional hours may be necessary to make up schedule deficiencies or to complete critical 5 construction activities. Given the early start times and late finish times, construction commuting 6 traffic likely will overlap with only a portion of local community peak traffic hours.

7 3.1.1.2 Anticipated Construction Vehicle Trips 8 IPC’s construction contractors and suppliers will transport major Project components from their 9 sources to the Project multiuse areas or directly to individual construction sites. Lattice tower 10 components may be sourced from overseas, and would most likely be transported from 11 Portland, Oregon, via truck or rail to multiuse areas and the existing substations. Other major 12 project components such as conductors, optical ground wire, insulators and hardware will be 13 sourced from domestic suppliers in various locations throughout the United States and would 14 most likely utilize the National Interstate System to reach the vicinity of the Project. Locally 15 sourced materials including concrete, reinforcing steel for foundations, rock and other 16 incidentals will utilize State, County and local roads (The complete list of Project materials can 17 be found in the Exhibit B). Preliminary haul routes for Project components are shown on the 18 figures in Appendix A, which also indicate substation locations and multi-use areas.

19 Table 6 provides the numbers of vehicles, one-way trips on public roads per day, and total trips 20 per day associated with construction vehicle use. Table 7 lists nearby communities where water 21 could be obtained and local routes between those communities and each multi-use area.

22

February 2013 15 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Table 6. Construction Vehicle Trips per Day Construction Vehicles Number of Number of Total Number of One-way One-way One- Pickups/ Trips on Trips on way Mechanic Public Total One- Number Public Trips Construction Trucks Roads way Trips of Other Roads (per Crew Type (per day) (per day) (per day) Vehicles (per day) day) Material Delivery 9 8 72 4 6 24 ROW Clearing 2 2 4 2 4 8 Road/Pad Grading 2 4 8 2 4 8 Blasting 2 2 4 0 0 0 Foundations 4 2 8 8 3 24 Tower Lacing 12 2 24 0 0 0 Tower Setting 12 2 24 0 0 0 Stringing 6 4 24 4 4 16 Mechanic 1 6 6 0 0 0 Refueling 2 6 12 0 0 0 Dust Control 0 0 0 2 4 8 Construction Inspection 2 8 16 0 0 0 Construction Materials Testing 2 4 8 0 0 0 ENV Compliance 4 8 32 0 0 0 Surveyors 2 6 12 0 0 0 Totals 254 88 2

3 Table 7. Preliminary Routes for Hauling Water to Multiuse Areas Multiuse Anticipated Route Name Area1 County Water Source Major Routes Local Routes Tower Road (exit MO-1 Morrow Boardman I-84 159), Unnamed local roads OR 207, Doherty MO-2 Morrow Boardman I-84, OR 207 Road UM-1 Umatilla Boardman I-84, I-82 Lamb Road (exit 10) OR 207 (exit 182), Proposed UM-2 Umatilla Boardman I-84, U.S. 395 Big Butter Creek Road, OR 74 Stewart Creek UM-3 Umatilla Pendleton I-84, U.S. 395 Road/Porter Road, NE 4th Street OR 237 (exit 285), UN-1 Union/Baker La Grande I-84 Coughanour Lane 4

February 2013 16 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Table 7. Preliminary Routes for Hauling Water to Multiuse Areas (continued) Multi-use Anticipated Route Name Area1 County Water Source Major Routes Local Routes BA-1 Baker Baker City I-84 OR203 (exit 298) Vandecar Road (exit 327), Lang Road, BA-2 Baker Baker City I-84 Hindman Road, Old U.S. 30 I-84, OR 201, Malheur Reservation MA-1 Malheur Ontario U.S. 20, U.S. Proposed Road (cont.) 26 I-84, U.S. 20, MA-2 Malheur Ontario Unnamed local road U.S. 26 OR 201, Owyhee I-84, U.S. 20, MA-3 Malheur Nampa Ave, Owyhee Lake U.S. 95 Road I-84, U.S. 20, MA-4 Malheur Nampa OR 201 U.S. 95 Tower Road (exit MO-1 Morrow Boardman I-84 159), Unnamed local Horn Butte roads OR 207, Doherty MO-2 Morrow Boardman I-84, OR 207 Road OR 207, Doherty MO-2 Morrow Boardman I-84, OR 207 Road Boardman Canal Morrow/ MO-3 Boardman I-84, U.S. 730 Road, Unnamed local Umatilla Longhorn road County Road Morrow/ 930/Paterson Ferry MO-4 Boardman I-84 Umatilla Road (exit 171), Poleline Road UM-1 Umatilla Boardman I-84, I-82 Lamb Road (exit 10) Flagstaff BA-1 Baker Baker City I-84 OR203 (exit 298) U.S. 30 (exit 353), BA-2 Baker/Malheur Ontario I-84 Unnamed local road Willow Creek I-84, OR 201, MA-5 Baker/Malheur Ontario U.S. 20, U.S. South Road L 26 I-84, U.S. 20, MA-2 Malheur Ontario Unnamed local road U.S. 26 OR 201/ID-19, Succor Malheur S I-84, U.S. 95, Creek Road, Succor MA-6 Malheur Nampa U.S. 20, U.S. Creek Cutoff, Upper 26 Tunnel Road, Unnamed local roads 1 Multi-use areas are numbered as shown in Figures 1 through 7 in Appendix A, and multi-use areas for alternate routes are labeled. Where the same multiuse areas will be used for multiple routes, the table lists the same numbers for each route. The Glass Hill and Double Mountain alternatives would not require separate multi-use areas.

February 2013 17 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 3.1.2 Construction Equipment and Traffic 2 Construction access will occur at multiuse areas and individual construction sites along the 3 Proposed Corridor, resulting in dispersed construction traffic. Truck deliveries will normally 4 occur on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., avoiding peak hours as practicable. 5 The following is a summary of anticipated equipment to be used for each transmission-line 6 construction activity. 7 • Survey work: pickup trucks or ATVs. 8 • Timber removal: pickup trucks, feller bunchers, dump trucks, wood chippers. 9 • Road construction: pickup trucks, bulldozers, motor graders, and water trucks. 10 • Hole digging, installation of directly embedded structures, or foundation installation: 11 pickup trucks, 2-ton trucks, digger derrick trucks, hole diggers, bulldozers, concrete 12 trucks, water trucks, cranes, hydro cranes, wagon rock drills, dump trucks, and front-end 13 loaders. 14 • Hauling lattice steel members, tubular poles, braces, and hardware to the structure sites: 15 steel haul trucks, carry alls, cranes, and forklifts. 16 • Assembly and erection of structures: pickup trucks, 2-ton trucks, carry alls, cranes, and a 17 heavy lift helicopter. 18 • Wire installation: pickups, wire reel trailers, diesel tractors, cranes, 5-ton boom trucks, 19 splicing trucks, three drum pullers, single drum pullers, tensioner, sagging dozers, carry- 20 alls, static wire reel trailers, bucket trucks, and a light duty helicopter. 21 • Final cleanup, reclamation, and restoration: pickup trucks, 2-ton trucks, bulldozers, 22 motor graders, dump trucks, front-end loaders, hydro-seed truck, and water trucks. 23 The highest level of traffic will be when the wire stringing operations begin while several other 24 operations are occurring at the same time which will likely include ROW clearing, installing 25 foundations, hauling steel, assembling and erecting structures. For the substation work, the highest 26 level of traffic will be during site grading and foundation installation. For the communication sites, the 27 highest level of traffic will be during grading and site preparation.

28 Detailed estimates of trips generated by transporting Project construction equipment will be provided 29 by the construction contractor prior to construction. 30 3.1.3 Traffic Related to Timber Removal 31 In forested areas, the Project will require removal of timber from the Project ROW within the wire 32 zone and for construction and improvement of access roads. Specific timber harvest plans have not 33 been finalized. Logs from timber clearing may be transported to nearby sawmills. Decisions 34 regarding transportation routes for harvested timber will be made following completion of a timber 35 harvest plan. The number of log truck tips cannot be estimated at this time as stand data on the 36 volume of timber that would be removed has not been determined. Logging slash will remain onsite 37 if possible. 38 3.1.4 Impacts to V/C Ratios 39 Based on the estimated trip generation numbers in Tables 4 and 6, a maximum of approximately 40 500 daily one-way vehicle trips are expected within any one construction “section”. (To facilitate 41 traffic and other analyses, the two construction spreads are divided into smaller sections based on 42 similar construction windows and seasonal weather restrictions.) Not all construction sections will 43 have the same number of concurrent construction activities, depending on how the construction

February 2013 18 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 contractor sequences and executes the Project. Some sections will have fewer than 500 daily 2 vehicle trips. Pike estimates an average of three multiuse areas per section, with approximately 3 equal levels of activity. The 500daily one-way trips divided over three multiuse areas results in 167 4 daily one-way vehicle trips per multiuse area. Pike estimates that 50 percent of the construction 5 vehicle trips (Table 6) will begin and end at work areas other than multiuse areas. This assumption 6 reduces the number of one-way trips at each multiuse area to 110 per day. Of these, 95 vehicles 7 are anticipated to be less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight and 15 vehicles are anticipated 8 to be greater than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.

9 These estimates were incorporated into a planning-level analysis of worst-case potential Project 10 impacts on V/C ratios (Table 8). Existing peak traffic volumes and V/C ratios were identified or 11 calculated for the routes most likely to be used by trucks hauling construction materials or logs, and 12 by construction workers commuting to Project sites. Calculations were based on conservative 13 assumptions detailed in the footnotes to Table 8. Existing V/C ratios on these routes range from 14 0.01 to 0.48. The numbers of daily vehicle trips related to Project construction were estimated and 15 added to existing peak traffic volumes for each potential hauling or commuting route. Minor traffic 16 from other Project sources, such as solid waste removal, is expected to be too minimal to affect 17 traffic levels and was therefore not included in this analysis. Additional truck trips related to the 18 delivery and removal of construction equipment during mobilization and demobilization are not 19 expected to impact peak traffic levels, given that they will occur gradually over several weeks before 20 and after the peak construction periods. Prior to 500 kV construction in the Weatherby area, the new 21 138/69 kV double-circuit section will be constructed and energized and a section of the existing 138 22 kV line will be removed to make room for the 500 kV line. These activities will generate much less 23 traffic than 500 kV construction activities and are not concurrent with 500 kV construction. Traffic 24 impacts of the double-circuit re-build section therefore are not additive to maximum traffic counts in 25 that area of the Project.

26 The resulting “with Project” traffic volumes were divided by road capacities for each route to arrive at 27 the worst-case V/C ratios that could be expected, by route, during Project construction. These peak- 28 hour, “with Project” V/C ratios range from 0.04 to 0.59, resulting from increases of 0.01 to 0.37.

29 Each “with Project” V/C ratio was compared to ODOT’s maximum V/C ratio for that type of road 30 (based on ODOT, 1999; V/C ratios last amended in August 2005). Factoring in traffic levels 31 generated from construction activities, none of the potential Project hauling or commuting routes 32 exceeds a maximum V/C ratio. Given the low V/C ratios on existing roads used by the Project and 33 the relatively dispersed distribution of truck traffic and workers near any specific location at any 34 given time, the additional Project traffic generated during construction is not anticipated to cause 35 notable congestion or otherwise impact local communities.

February 2013 19 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 This page intentionally left blank.

February 2013 20 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Table 8. Evaluation of Project Impacts on Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Roads Potentially Used during Project Construction V/C Ratio With Exceeds Existing Estimated Daily Project With Increase in V/C ODOT Peak Existing Personal and Peak Project Ratio From ODOT Maximum Potential Hauling or Commuting Traffic Road V/C Construction Traffic V/C Project Maximum with Multipurpose Areas Route Road Classification1 Volume2 Capacity2 Ratio2 Vehicles3 Voume4 Ratio5 Construction6 V/C Ratio7 Project? Interstate Highway, Unincorporated I-84 Communities 2,205 5,513 0.40 110 2,315 0.42 0.02 0.70 No Interstate Highway, Unincorporated I-82 Communities 2,640 5,500 0.48 110 2,750 0.50 0.02 0.70 No Statewide (Not a Freight Route), Rural U.S. 730 Lands 990 2,475 0.40 110 1,100 0.44 0.04 0.70 No Regional or District Highway, Rural OR 207 Lands 56 1,110 0.05 110 166 0.15 0.10 0.70 No Regional or District Highway, Rural 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.80 to 1.00 No OR 74 Lands District/Local Interest Roads, Inside 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.80 to 1.00 No Tower Rd Urban Growth Boundary District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Unnamed local roads Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No MO-1, MO-2, UM-1, UM-2, MO-3, MO-4 District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Doherty Rd Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Lamb Rd Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural th NE 4 St Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Creek Rd Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Boardman Canal Rd Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural CR 930/Paterson Ferry Road Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Poleline Rd Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No Interstate Highway, Unincorporated I-84 Communities 2,205 5,513 0.40 110 2,315 0.42 0.02 0.70 No Freight Route on a State Highway, U.S. 395 Rural Lands 465 969 0.48 110 575 0.59 0.11 0.70 No Regional or District Highway, Rural OR 237 Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.70 No UM-3, UN-1 Regional or District Highway, Rural OR 203 (Medical Springs Highway) Lands 35 288 0.12 110 145 0. 50 0. 38 0.70 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Stewart Creek Road/Porter Road Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Coughanour Lane Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No

February 2013 21 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Table 8. Evaluation of Project Impacts on Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Roads Potentially Used during Project Construction (continued)

V/C Ratio Existing Estimated Daily With With Increase in V/C Exceeds Peak Road Existing Personal and Project Project Ratio From ODOT ODOT Potential Hauling or Commuting Traffic Capacity V/C Construction Peak Traffic V/C Project Maximum Maximum Multipurpose Areas Route Road Classification1 Volume2 2 Ratio2 Vehicles3 Voume4 Ratio5 Construction6 V/C Ratio7 with Project? Interstate Highway, Unincorporated I-84 Communities 2,205 5,513 0.40 110 2,315 0.42 0.02 0.70 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural CR 203 Lands 700 14,000 0.05 110 810 0.06 0.01 0.75 No District/Local Interest Roads, Rural Old U.S. 30 Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No BA-1, BA-2 District/Local Interest Road, Rural Vandecar Rd Lands 909 7,575 0.12 110 1,019 0.13 0.01 0.75 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Lang Rd Lands 873 7,275 0.12 110 983 0.13 0.01 0.75 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Hindman Rd Lands 531 4,425 0.12 110 641 0.14 0.02 0.75 No Interstate Highway, Unincorporated I-84 Communities 2,205 5,513 0.40 110 2,315 0.42 0.02 0.70 No Freight Route on a State Highway, U.S. 20 Rural Lands 195 1,625 0.12 110 305 0.19 0.07 0.70 No Statewide (Not a Freight Route), Rural U.S. 26 Lands 120 6,000 0.02 110 230 0.04 0.02 0.70 No Statewide (Not a Freight Route), Rural U.S. 30 Lands 120 923 0.13 110 230 0. 25 0. 12 0.70 No MA-1, MA-2, BA-3, MA-5 Regional or District Highway, Rural OR 201 Lands 195 1,625 0.12 110 305 0.19 0.07 0.70 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Malheur Reservation Rd Lands 769 6,408 0.12 110 879 0.14 0.02 0.75 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural South Rd L Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Unnamed local roads Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No

February 2013 23 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

1 Table 8. Evaluation of Project Impacts on Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Roads Potentially Used during Project Construction (continued)

V/C Ratio Exceeds Existing Estimated Daily With With Increase in V/C ODOT Peak Road Existing Personal and Project Project Ratio From ODOT Maximum Potential Hauling or Commuting Traffic Capacity V/C Construction Peak Traffic V/C Project Maximum with Multipurpose Areas Route Road Classification1 Volume2 2 Ratio2 Vehicles3 Voume4 Ratio5 Construction6 V/C Ratio7 Project? Interstate Highway, Unincorporated I-84 Communities 2,205 5,513 0.40 110 2,315 0.42 0.02 0.70 No Freight Route on a State Highway, U.S. 95 Rural Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.70 No Regional or District Highway, Rural OR 201/ID 19 Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.70 No Regional or District Highway, Rural OR 452/ID 18 Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.70 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Succor Creek Road Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No MA-3, MA-4, MA-6 District/Local Interest Road, Rural Succor Creek Cutoff Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Upper Tunnel Road Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Owyhee Ave Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Owyhee Lake Rd Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No District/Local Interest Road, Rural Unnamed local roads Lands 120 1,000 0.12 110 230 0.23 0.11 0.75 No 2 1 Road classifications were selected conservatively based on the most rural segment of each route (the segment with the smallest capacity). 3 2 Existing peak traffic volumes, capacities, and V/C ratios (representing peak a.m. and p.m. conditions) were estimated using conservative assumptions with the methods described in ODOT's Highway Design Manual (ODOT 2003) or taken directly based on the exact road 4 or roads with similar characteristics from local transportation plans. Where peak traffic volumes are unavailable, peak volumes are assumed to be 15 percent of average daily trips, based on the local transportation plans. 5 3 Numbers provided by Pike, as described in the text. 6 4 “With Project” peak traffic volume is calculated by adding existing peak traffic volume plus the number of Project truck and car trips assumed to occur during the same timeframes. 7 5 “With Project” V/C ratio is calculated by dividing the “with Project” peak traffic volume by the road capacity. 8 6 The increase in V/C ratio from the Project is calculated by subtracting the existing V/C ratio from the “with Project” V/C ratio. 9 7 From ODOT 1999.

February 2013 25 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

3.1.5 Impacts to Local Services Potential impacts to local services and disruptions to public road ROWs are anticipated to be minimal. To the degree practicable, Project-related activities will be coordinated to avoid interfering with school buses, mail delivery vehicles, ambulances, paramedics, fire engines, or police vehicles. The Project does not overlap with public transportation systems, such as public bus routes. Impacts to railroads or pipelines are not anticipated because construction activities will not be performed on railroad ROWs or near pipelines. Furthermore, as described in Section 3.1.4, Project-related traffic levels are not anticipated to result in congestion and Project activities will not delay response times for emergency services. Delivery of large equipment and materials via truck could require temporary closures to selected local roads. However, multiuse areas and both tower and substation construction sites are located away from high-use public roads, so any closures during construction are anticipated to have minimal impact on local communities. Two-lane roads would be most impacted by temporary closures because they provide only one lane of travel per direction. IPC’s construction contractors will be required to coordinate the timing and locations of road closures in advance with local school districts, post offices, and emergency responders. In the event that emergency services are needed at a location where access is temporarily blocked by the construction zone, IPC’s construction contractors will reopen access as quickly as possible. Most construction activities will take place outside of roadway ROWs with the exception of access road entry points and wire stringing. During wire stringing, temporary structures will be erected across highways and public roads to prevent conductors, socklines, or pulling wires from lying on roadways and disrupting traffic. Roads will not be closed during wire stringing. These potential impacts from temporary road closures and construction activities are not anticipated to affect local communities because most Project activities involving short-term road closures will occur in remote areas, away from housing and other developments. 3.1.6 Access Roads As described previously, construction of the Project will require vehicle, truck, and crane access to all construction areas. Most construction areas will be accessed using low-standard roads including those owned by private parties, counties, and state and federal agencies. Access to construction sites will require improvements to existing unpaved roads and construction of new access roads. IPC assumes that existing paved roads and bridges were designed to meet ODOT and other applicable standards and will therefore not require improvements prior to Project construction. Exhibit C, Section 3.2 provides details on the miles of access roads needed for the Project. Tables C-2 through C-6 of Exhibit C provide details on the miles of new roads and existing roads that will need to be improved by county for the Proposed Corridor. Tables C-7 through C-13 provide the miles of new roads and existing roads needed for each of the alternate corridor segments. IPC has identified the minimum access-road requirements for transmission line and substation construction and operation. A 14-foot-wide road surface (i.e., travel way) and 16- to 20-foot-wide road surface for turns were determined by the largest piece of equipment involved in construction (See Section 3.3.2 of Exhibit B). The critical vehicle for tower construction is an aerial lift crane. A typical unit is shown in Figure 2. Barriers to the movement of this specialized vehicle include roads that are too narrow or steep, have intersections with inadequate turning radii, or have inadequate surfaces. Other barriers would include existing narrow bridges or other existing road structures (such as culverts) with inadequate cover. Where barriers are encountered, IPC’s construction contractors will improve roads or construct new roads to allow passage.

February 2013 27 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

Figure 2. Example Aerial Lift Crane to be Used During Construction (Roadable Length 52 Feet; Width 8 Feet 6 Inches)

Typical minimum road-construction requirements for improvements to existing roads and for new roads are shown in Figure 3. To the maximum extent possible, IPC will use and improve existing roads, as necessary, to accommodate construction equipment. The construction of new access roads will be limited to reduce the overall impact of road construction. .

February 2013 28 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

Figure 3. Typical Road Sections

February 2013 29 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

3.1.7 Potential Damage to Existing Infrastructure Construction of the Project is not expected to result in damage to existing roads, bridges, or overhead power distribution lines, as IPC’s construction contractors will be required to comply with all conditions and requirements in road use permits or similar documents from local jurisdictions and power distribution utilities. For example, by complying with ODOT regulations for load limits, heavy loads will avoid impacts to existing roads that were designed to code.

3.2 Operation Following Project construction, existing and new permanent access roads will be used by maintenance crews and vehicles for inspection and maintenance of the new facilities. The operations phase will have little to no effect to local and regional traffic. Trips would be limited to regular inspection and maintenance of the transmission line and regular hauling of materials would not occur. IPC will staff Project operations and maintenance with existing staff and will not affect community peak hour traffic. One additional part-time position may be filled locally. Project operations will not cause emergency access restrictions or impacts to area public transit services, nor will they increase roadway hazards or cause damage to existing roads or bridges. Any road- or railroad-overhead utility crossings would conform to the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), which would prevent impacts during operations. Project operations would not interfere with railway operations. Air-traffic patterns will not be affected by the placement of new structures or conductors because the Project will not violate vertical obstruction prohibitions. Temporary construction roads not required for future maintenance access will be restored as described in Exhibit P, Attachment P-4.

4.0 MITIGATION

This section describes potential mitigation strategies to address the impacts summarized in Section 3. IPC’s construction contractor will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and Project mitigation requirements. IPC’s construction contractor will prepare site-specific traffic and transportation plans which will be submitted to and approved by the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies with authority to regulate use of public roads. IPC will ensure that plans are approved prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed with construction. The following strategies, physical improvements and operational procedures, will be applied to reduce transportation impacts of the Project depending on site-specific conditions.

4.1 Physical Improvements As discussed in Section 3.1, IPC’s construction contractor will need to improve some local roads to accommodate oversize truck deliveries. This work will involve improvements to road segments, intersections, and bridges, as needed. Any responsibility for IPC or IPC’s construction contractors to rehabilitate or reconstruct roadways and structures during and after use will be stipulated in road-use permits or similar documents. 4.1.1 Construction Permits and Property Agreements The construction contractor will obtain encroachment permits or similar legal agreements from the public agencies responsible for affected roadways and other applicable ROWs. IPC will require its construction contractor(s) to ensure that all suppliers of Project equipment and

February 2013 30 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

materials obtain applicable oversize and overweight permits and comply with all permit requirements. 4.1.2 Road Standards and Maintenance For new access roads, the design of higher-standard roads will conform to the most current edition of AASHTO’s Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads, for Access Roads with an Anticipated Average Daily Traffic of Less than 400 Vehicles. Roads will meet USFS and BLM standards for roads that will be added to federal jurisdiction. Existing USFS and BLM roads which cannot be used in their existing condition will be brought up to these standards. For roads on state forest land, IPC will work with ODOT, Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and other agencies to ensure compliance with applicable road standards and to obtain any necessary special approvals. Roads that remain in IPC’s jurisdiction may not be designed to all federal standards. Project Environmental Protection Measures (EPMs) include: • All temporary culverts and associated fill material will be removed from stream crossings after construction, and banks will be re-contoured and restored. • Roads negatively affected by construction and as identified by the agencies will be returned to preconstruction condition. • Roads developed specifically for this project that are identified by the IPC as no longer necessary will be reclaimed as specified in the Reclamation and Revegetation, Plan (Exhibit P, Attachment P-4). 4.1.3 BMPs for Erosion Control and Stormwater Drainage In Oregon, a completed ESCP is one of the required components of IPC’s application for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit (1200-C; Exhibit I, Attachment I-2). Erosion control and sedimentation measures, such as silt fences, water bars, culverts, sediment basins, and perimeter control will be installed to minimize erosion during and subsequent to construction of the Project, as specified in the ESCP. IPC’s construction contractors will be required to comply fully with the Project ESCP, including implementing approved BMPs during all road-related activities, including construction industry standard practices and BMPs for spill prevention and containment. In addition, roads will be constructed so that proper drainage is not impaired and soil erosion is minimized. IPC’s construction contractor will limit the use of access roads by trucks and other heavy equipment during wet weather. Existing culverts will be upgraded if they are damaged by the project or cannot support construction traffic.

4.2 Operational Procedures During Construction Safe operation of Project-related traffic depends not only on the condition and characteristics of affected roads, but also on procedures governing the time and frequency of deliveries of Project components and materials. To maximize safety and compatibility with background traffic flows, the following operational procedures will be implemented during Project construction. 4.2.1 Traffic Control, Access, and Safety Measures Final haul routes will be selected prior to construction with consideration for potential impacts to localized traffic flow and emergency services. IPC will work with local firefighters, police departments, ambulance services, and other emergency responders to coordinate activities for

February 2013 31 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project effective emergency response. IPC will require the construction contractor to develop and implement an emergency response plan. Construction vehicle traffic on public roadways will be limited to off-peak commuting times as practicable to minimize impacts on local commuters. To minimize conflicts between Project traffic and background traffic, movements of heavy trucks will be minimized to the extent practicable during these peak times. To reduce traffic congestion and roadside parking hazards, multiuse areas will provide for parking for construction employee personal vehicles. Movements of oversize trucks will be prohibited during peak times, to the extent practicable. If possible and in consideration of worker safety, such oversize deliveries will occur during other parts of the day, when background traffic tends to be lower, such as early morning and late afternoon. IPC will work with local law enforcement as appropriate to assist with Project deliveries. In addition, IPC’s construction contractor will implement the following mitigation measures: • Coordinating the timing and locations of road closures in advance with emergency services such as fire, paramedics, and essential services such as mail delivery and school buses. • Maintaining emergency vehicle access to private property. • Developing plans as required by county or state permits to accommodate traffic where construction would require closures of state or county-maintained roads for longer periods. • Posting caution signs on county and state-maintained roads, where appropriate, to alert motorists of construction and warn them of slow traffic. • Using traffic control measures such as traffic control flaggers, warning signs, lights, and barriers during construction to ensure safety and to minimize localized traffic congestion. These measures will be required at locations and during times when trucks will be entering or exiting highways frequently. • Using chase vehicles as required (or police vehicles, if required by ODOT) to give drivers additional warning. • Notifying landowners prior to the start of construction near residences. • Fencing construction areas near residences at the end of the construction day, and restoring residential roads damaged by construction activities as soon as possible. • Installing gates on private access roads to reduce unauthorized access when requested by property owners. All Project personnel will be required to obey local speed limits and traffic restrictions to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow. Construction vehicles on un-posted project roads will travel at speeds that are reasonable and prudent for the conditions. In the interest of enhancing safety, IPC will work with ODOT and affected counties to establish reduced construction speed limits on impacted roads. These temporary reductions will improve safety throughout the work zones. IPC assumes that local and state law enforcement will enforce traffic regulations on public roads.

February 2013 32 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

4.2.2 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Construction of the transmission lines and related facilities may generate a temporary increase in fugitive dust. IPC will require its construction contractor to apply dust suppression techniques, such as watering construction areas or removing dirt tracked onto a paved road as necessary to prevent safety hazards or nuisances on access roads and in construction zones near residential and commercial areas and along major highways and interstates.

5.0 REFERENCES

Baker County. 2005. Baker County Transportation System Plan. Prepared by H. Lee & Associates. June 30, 2005. Accessed at: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/4025 BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1985. 9100—Facilities Planning, Design, Construction and Maintenance (Public) Bureau of Land Management. Section 9113. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/po licy/blm_manual.Par.80761.File.dat/9100.pdf Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. National Transportation Atlas Database. Accessed at: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2010/. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. 2009 Edition. US Department of Transportation. Malheur County. 1998. Malheur County Transportation System Plan. Prepared by W & H Pacific. 1998. Accessed at: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/4155. Morrow County. 2005. Morrow County 2005 Transportation System Plan. Prepared by KCM, Inc., CTS Engineers and The Mitchell Nelson Group, and the Morrow County Planning Department. July 23. Accessed at: http://morrowcountyoregon.com/planning/transportation/tsp-2005.pdf. ODOE (Oregon Department of Energy). 2012. Project Order for the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Project. March 2. ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 1999. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Including Amendments November 1999 through January 2006. Accessed at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/orhwyplan.shtml. ODOT. 2003. Highway Design Manual, 2003 English, with revisions in 2004, 2005,and 2006. Accessed at: http://egov.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ENGSERVICES/hwy_manuals.shtml#2003_English _Manual. ODOT. 2006. State Highway Freight System. Updated March. Accessed at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/gis/docs/statemaps/FreightSystem.pdf. ODOT. 2008. Traffic Flow Map 2008, Oregon State Highway System. Accessed at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/tsm/docs/Web_Flow_Map_GIS_2008.pdf. Last accessed August 29, 2010. Pike (Pike Energy Solutions). 2012. Memorandum: Boardman to Hemingway – Estimate of Construction Traffic. From Aaron Storo (Pike) to Aaron English (Tetra Tech). December 6, 2012.

February 2013 33 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

Umatilla County. Umatilla County Transportation System Plan. Prepared by: David Evans and Associates, Inc. and Umatilla County Staff in cooperation with ODOT. April 2002. Accessed at: http://www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/pdf/Umatilla_County_TSP_June_02.pdf Union County. 1999. Final Union County Transportation System Plan. Prepared by Union County Planning Department. August 1999. Accessed at: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/4132Black & Veatch. 2011. Cascade Crossing Const Craft Planning – 2014 Start three seasons.xlsx. July 27 and Substation Labor Schedule 10282011.xlsx. USFS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1986. Forest Service Handbook 7709.56—Road Preconstruction Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture. USFS. 1990. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Accessed at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa- whitman/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5259879. USFS. 1992. USDA Forest Service Handbook 7709.57—Road Construction Handbook. USFS. 2009. Forest Service Handbook 7709.58—Transportation System Maintenance Handbook. USFS. 2012. Record of Decision, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Travel Management Plan. February. Accessed at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5357079.pdf.

February 2013 34 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

Appendix A. Boardman to Hemingway – Preliminary Haul Routes

February 2013 !( !(

!(

d d

d

d

n

i

Radar Rd R bi R Purdy Rd um a L l W Bensel Rd

h h Co t Co 1268 Rd 207

4 a a UV a n i d L d b !( l

o CHARLESTOWN R m n

G o O Co 1262 Rd

u i d

l d t g

s

i

o v i l t

S R

MU MO-3 a l Ptl Ln d

v

S C r

o o B i E 9 H e C D W 8th Rd C C o

6 n E Walls Rd 2 2 w i S !( 2 hoop N Ott Rd 8 h 125 y - 1 8 Rd n Alpine Dr I s Ln Ln

L Depot Ln n p RdTabor l COLD

u

Joy Ln u

Kik Rd S d Co 1254 Rd Port Rd Ca C e r e WASHINGTON gil S Main Ave d SPRINGS l Dallas Rd

C d s ountry R t R L k R n n N W r

730 n S e L n e a li ari £ Ln 1 N E Theatre Ln h c ¤ e M s B l KLICKITAT Utili I- 82 t t a ty R P G W NE ip s r p l n D R 1 L e BOARDMAN Ln d Baxter Rd e E Elm Ave n chulz L 14 !( l a N S n UV m Leather COUNTY Boar d CLARKE e r Hwy xit Root Rd !( E n u l L a Can s L E Main a i !( t St p Rd 4 Wilson Ln n HERMISTON t E Loo 8 E I- S t d Powerline Rd Wi L lso E Hwy I-84 W 84 n S w S o o Co 1238 Rd Q h

S

t S Kosmos Rd

R h b Frontege Rd e S

5 t u t Rd S W u d W E Highland Exd § Hwy I-84 W Paterson Ferry Rd 0

¨¦ R L S Wilson Ln SE h

Agnew Rd o i E

R 1 n S

I- 84 t c

H h k y Kunz S

e d Kunze t

w L 9 a Kunze Ln S k 9 W L y t Guthery n SW Rd SE W r y 3 po MU UM-1 9 ir d Ln Gettman Rd 5 A

Canal Rd d d n o

Walker Rd w

a a

y y

Can l L Frontage Rd n L l a n e h o d t e a l a

S S l n M L t h w i i R d

G g 7 e u s l n D d

R

l e d n H S Ott Rd A 0 EdwardsS Rd v C S n R i S e p lub Ln W 2 l

LONGHORN Gun Club Rd Lamb M o

t t K B

r Rd 5 U o e n

2 L Despa

d d in d

s Co 1000 Rd e

d 3 e ALTERNATE l R d N R

e r l k N R

1 p t Gulch R R e M d

HINKLE n R s o t M i

D o a i

d s !( o e

H

C a Tower Rd s M G o i re C n h o 134 I-84 E Rd o Sim-Tag Ln 4 S h Rd u r r t s se BUCKS CORNERS H d

Rd in e n !( k A R L l p R e l Noble Rd d o e

N N I- 84 Stanfield M Co 1201 Rd z e !( o H a

C

e e d a M l d STANFIELD i E Coe Ave Co 1186 Rd R

o a S M Co 1 n n 334 Rd ws i Rd n

e e o S d y e County Line Rd

r t rwin n I

h R

a

T t C Rd Poleline Rd 33 S 3 1 Emert Rd

S Ash Rd S

n n MU MO-4 C i T

y o

T n MU MO-1 a o h h a w Homestead Ln d i r L d C R e a M l R d e s

s s o 1339 3 e 1 e Meyers Rd m e

r n 4 r B Andrew s 7 i a le g Feedlot Rd R

g Stat d e H R !( ld wy 320 d a ECHO O T

Bombing Range Rd

ile R n a M m o Rosenberg Rd x x y o i s n Hwy 207 S a Coppinger Ln C L n o 1356 C Rd Oregon Trail Hwy

d R n n R o ie s i t hR d

a a Saylor Rd Snow Rd d MORROW M di son M

n n COUNTY a r h c d !( o R C Co HORN BUTTE Co Co 1343 Rd Seeger Rd n n Creek R H d 1352 Rd e 1348 Rd e Lindsay d r d ALTERNATE p p F a R C

n eedlot Ln e o

G t e E t 1 g 362 r u w in B am F r R i GILLIAM H h n p a d e e Cunni g w S n i g c

r i

y v R ll v R e d i Imm d r

e ig d rant R Ln ELLA e

COUNTY W a w !( W gon Vey Rd

n S

n L r Alpine Ln T 207 PROPOSED L e UV CECIL r d t a a s !( u i M

l R

C d CORRIDOR

R R MU MO-2

d UMATILLA

a n d d y Co 135 R o 3

Whitehouse Rd

n o

Baker Ln o ton-Ec R ing ho Hwy COUNTY W-

d x b e

d L B

e R

i u r t y y t Wells Springs Rd t 74 r e G

rC

UV e h r Little Juniper Ln Grieb L e o n

e D k Lindstrom L N

n Melville Rd R

a d

d t R l B R Fore Morgan Rd s

Ione-Boardman Rd a 7 o t e e r l a PINE 2 ad 7 D Pi !( 68 e a R k 07 8 ve l d M 2 R l m o a n E N a y S d g r r m r a w CITY p

o a t Campbell Rd

a i H a s d M n u t e e tR Stat n o er R d R d F Dave Reitmann Rd

Strawberry Ln H

n n

d Strawberry East Rd o

!( o d

y l Barclay Ln

R l k k

d B o

n

a n n

r i

R i a

w g MORGAN Rietmann Ln a t Kemp Rd r

C B a a a

l R

r r B l

S M u t C

n d t d

e t e e L E r r

p L

u R C f n n i r

a m i o t ee

d d n t k n y R l Ln y u Beach Ln e n i

Ely d Ca o J Eubanks R l B L uttercreek d Lindsay Rd n R Ln Kilkenny Rd C Myers L d o

d J 14 R ohnson Grad Baseline Ln 0 r r e Ln 0

e e

e l R i p B d p m ase Line Ln

r

U

u

d d

o d Zinter

n F

n n d R n Mc a Nabb Ln H a l o R w Hwy t r d y Heppne d t MU UM-2 Big 7 a B e e u t r g p t 4 !( R u ter A A o e S e S r g C J d n IONE h i L r a n d e w w r x o e a

W k o R l e

d G r o R l

t tsfor d L u t p R G h Nichols Rd C S P Canyon Zinter Rd i Ln Smi th W et tys \GIS_B2H\Spatial\MXD\2011_ResourceReports_Exhibits\ExhibitU\Exhibit U Trans Mapbook.mxd WASHINGTON Legend ATTACHMENT U-2 APPENDIX A 1 Multiuse Area Road Indian Reservation 2 Preliminary Haul Routes 3 ° Site Boundary State Boundary Private Morrow County 4 Preliminary Haul Route County Boundary State 0 1 2 3 Boardman to Hemingway OREGON 5 IDAHO Interstate Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Transmission Line Project 6 Miles Highway Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Forest Service Oregon-Idaho 7 1 in = 3 miles Major Road Department of Defense February 2013 !(

d d n n

5

R

e o o R

Mum d m 3

I-84 E z 9 o o Deining Rd Co 1124 Rd C Redford Ln 7 7 d 9 C d 3 320 n Andrews Rd C R 4 R 9 r r o C

ECHO UV R e ee R Ln o A 3 s e b r o y y e e !( 5 1 C l

o

3 g n w 7 L L C Co 974 Rd 6

7 n o 7 5 H Wamishta Rd i n 1 Betts 5

e e 0 2 R p l l L Co 1 0 114 Rd r 0 e Rd 37 l R t

d p o i C

a R o d d d Co 989 Rd UV

a m o R R

o R l l H d y o t 661 l Co 1096 Rd s w M d C d

H R s il o o S Fulton Rd S ll Rd Bell Co 1093 Rd a R e r h s R t B Rosenberg Rd T d a n L M e g !( Co 784

o o n e Mann Rd Curl Rd g R d Co 857 Rd re d G R Hansell Rd O s R u FULTON Co 975 Rd Rd lc m h R da 11 d d A UV

R E Northgate l

7 7 g Hagen Rd R in Rd Co 1133 Rd Snyde 2 r R 0 d 1 Temple Rd d 0 1 Daniel 5 Co 788 Rd 9

1 d

d 7 C m m o

i

R Homly Rd C R o o o Rd Snow Rd Co 1101 Rd o

R Co 979 Rd J C d

NE Hwy 11 C i Campbell Rd

Yoakum Rd Duff Rd e Rd 1 R th ort rp 1 PENDAIR 5 GIBBON Rd Co 1108 Rd i R 0 2 m Rd !( 0 8 d a A ingh

NOLIN Rothrock Rd d HEIGHTS R I-84 E N o B

I- 84 Johns Ln !( !( C E N Cayuse Rd y

S Co Co 1343 Rd d Seeger Rd 8 e d d t l R t n

Vey Vey Rd h h R 1348 R R k d KIRKPATRICK o e k k 9 9 RIVERSIDE !( J e e r N 0 SE P CAYUSE

C PENDLETONM !( e o e !( C 1 r a o C a!( S n 1 d Court Pl d Mis MISSION i sio t R n l n C 136 02 H e !( er R F o o 3 d 2 1 S t v a Co 900 Rd i m w o Co R o m t n Rd d C d a d 37 y p a R r

h a c l d h n R UV SE R i

908 Rd r d L P D Cun g R !( e u

nin 0 ra n c

0 W e T il L A C a ve u e e L o S Nye e

W ei h 3 Av Rd F Cayuse o

R t y C e y r k Rd k o n o le o a RIETH ai 8 a v

s 1 R

o L T

e e k H M n a SW 9 L I R w

Rd y 84 1 w d H l 3 k c

or o d

9 331 K l n d n d d t

L ve R r

Perkin A 1 e u c c UV a s k § R ¨¦ i r u R 1 o o B

a 1 N n

B

C

!( 3

M i

r y GLENDALE e n g

r b e

C a d

7 7 b

b

0 Goad Rd

o R d o 3

d m R R C H Billy Rd

U o R

i 1 d 1 o

Whitehouse Rd 934 R 3 d g 0 C d Wilson 1 R d R e d GREEN n d T R

o UMATILLA R !( h d

P r o C m MEADOWS D C

o !( o p W W e TUTUILLA s

k 1 o S

1 0 COUNTY

a 7 3 n 5R Lloyd Rd

P L

p p

1 d o R Hwy 331

l e

e 1

d n d v

R e

d

D R Best Rd

l F

e

5 5 d t t 2 e

s t

8

e o n r

i o n F d d t F a s - I-84 E I- 84 o o S J h O N

l l n a

t R p rl t o e l T F

a Conner r d n

a Tias n N d h e L S R o n

g e o r n t re r R d k Rd Rd o O n S d r p R d rg L s r e on R D a y i e

n re Can e y D

o a vert v

n n

y S y L F o e n n l P E o ta d v

a H Holmes Rd E R

y R t

C n i N e o R a n w i i L at t l n d

t t y R d a a F R 0 d e o R r k w C Motanic Rd C N 1 o at D l 2 d 0 e 7 d h i d Co 1377 Rd MarketS Rd 0 g F e

c n Beilke Rd o 0 0 A R r 28 Rd r v e ll Rd

Shaw Rd n

y y o e Red

t 0 D

d

C a r DUNCAN o 1 m 136 e

l e C

e R 1

v B 0 ig m Hawk Rd !( v s G B n o o u B t g P tt u Sprin d L a 9 C er H Fl R ree N k Creek e 1 L Hoeft Rd o 1 n Rd h a g g t n s R i e n Fo d d s u r r e R Ho D h g e c i d B v Winget Rd S PROPOSED R le R g 9 a 04 d E Mill Rd 1

MU UM-2 CORRIDOR 0

Big B White o 5 R utt Co 1394 Rd d er C C Rd 0

r Schoolhouse Rd eek 9 8 N

R 13 a

d t

Webb R o o F

d

C o 0 r Stock Dr Stock Dr RR M 9 D Circle C 0 e e o v 1 !( a k 05 Rd 6 R Ross Rd S Ln n Rd 0 04 d MEACHAM i 1 t Wei Rd Co n !( d C en Ow Boise R o Roumagoux Rd Warner Rd 14 Drive Rd MCKAY 00 k E t R N S Stewart M rdan R c r Porter Rd Jo a d o e d m S t d c R !(l Creek R ircle p A d K C er Ln pp ek Rd a i Cre h PILOT y Little M ay C c K C ROCK r e e MORROW NYE US k !( R Hw Co 1069 Rd 95 e d 4 y 3 1 il 7 0 C 395 nm y y £ 7 o ve k I COUNTY ¤ - w 7 e e S re 8 H d C 4 ev te R E D ta d R 2 S 5 r 0 R d MU UM-3 o 1 0 F 3 3 3 4 t t 0 1 a d d 4 o N R d 1 C 3 1 R 0 y o d

0 74 - l l C R UV w r 0 i r H 4

H e 5

- y y v N

s k a e

e w r D

g 0 a u H D a t N H P r 6 F r r o or a n n 0 D e F e t R t O R n h d d a v l F p o R o R d d o c N R !( p J r D - 1 k e 1 y d O e H n 4 N r 4 0 v 1 D 3 e 0 o r e a 5 t R o O g L o id 0 l C C R F v t d e ge S o i l o Na t t F t C d c E n d 1 o e l 1375 o a D m

e 4 R N t n d 0 R n 3 r F i T d 0 a c ig B d e o 1 7 5 d r r Rd D R r a a 8 R r F P

u N n 1 P R d k r i 8 C n t l e R t d e t d f t H r 3 t l k Nat D g I- 84 e t e s v u i F 2 R C e o e w e H

r 0 o v G e e c k k y r r a a

Rd r o k

C i c k E R n s u C 0 D a B d o R H n

r r 0 e e d R

l r R L y i d 15 3 i J 8 k d r r

e a C e c e v o ll

r d 5 e

e

r r 0 e n h R e o C at For k e

R a w C N D a L d B 1 0 k o n

d l 4 n Rd 0 ev l

e 0 o 5 t R v

e

9 s e la r 0 F

d Y D a r 5 R R t Fo 3

a 1 d d e 2 N Rd P \GIS_B2H\Spatial\MXD\2011_ResourceReports_Exhibits\ExhibitU\Exhibit U Trans Mapbook.mxd WASHINGTON Legend ATTACHMENT U-2 APPENDIX A 1 Multiuse Area Road Indian Reservation 2 Preliminary Haul Routes 3 ° Site Boundary State Boundary Private Umatilla County 4 Preliminary Haul Route County Boundary State 0 1 2 3 Boardman to Hemingway OREGON 5 IDAHO Interstate Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Transmission Line Project 6 Miles Highway Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Forest Service Oregon-Idaho 7 1 in = 3 miles Major Road Department of Defense February 2013

!( G N e

a n

r i l R t d Berry a 3 y

d R y 1 c

0 F k Woodell Ln s 0 o S Ln

- r 3 M

0 C 1 D - 4 it Rd r

5 1 e

m Na e d McKennon Ln o t d

v N m 2 v R e r

u m R D 0 S R n a F n

d o ev t r m D e r r 6 F N o t r o or a a 0 D 130 p Monroe Ln Imbler Rd F e t R h b t t O R d m a

r d UMATILLA a d F v g N R l o a d a a d in N

d

N R r r l t

D h d O K

e R c C F N 4 v r

D 3 r 00 o

r a e d O

COUNTY e 5 o R

O g r 0 l Alicel Ln F v t d S o Na Hays Rd F t R M

c E n D

e s D

y y l u R o n m k o e

d

d 03 r !( u r i a i ig N

T ALICEL c

a c R 5 d r r 1 Webster Rd n o v a M t D R r a 8 o F n 1 a k Ha ri L p R k r i 8 m r s n t l

e I d

t t t H t E g Hwy 82

a t N t g F Sandridge Rd m

F v u C S Starr Ln ald a o w S o Ln U R o D n 6

k a y n o

r H d

o or Rd n d

R u McD R n w e o R 0 D R e L R 2 o

o e d H r v R Case Ln 0 y b n

i y d v o d ck 15 3 L i R 5 v ll R

g o i d Canyo n d L

y n c n

b 0 e e Fo R n at r k e Rd F M Market Ln e o

R N D a o o Hunter Rd

l 0 L d r d r t t s w 0 es 1 l Rd ev e G c 0 H d r 5 t i e i 0 g B h la 30 i t m R r K r E F l F e 0 N 8 a n n n

i s k a H l o d o e Rd Halley Rd C n n o e R u Cr s L R

x l t o p

o

o d H 82 l Na I- 84 t v F UV a t o v i M e Fi e oint R r P l ma il F l W

Booth Ln d o C milt R H De r R d a o H n d C a r v on Cree

t D r a N F R F ta k o N e HILGARD ge r 1 d 9 R een t

r a v !( Owsley Canyon Rd r e 21 t g 0 d F r D or 7 d r

e R D R !( Rd Leffel 3

e d v d 0 v ISLAND A

e R 0 E v PERRY L 4 y I-84 CITY n 8 t 5 w 2nd R S !(

H Peach Ln H

N N

d a h

r t 0 d a r St e l is 4 2 D C n 2 50 M A o 4 a ve l Hwy 237 1 r i Emi y a l Fir St N 9 d n i r d 1 g St Spruce N Nat For D R l l y F Dr i on R t R e v H C d S 237 6E a r !( d UV

1st St

Island Ave Conley Rd e 19

n e M 1 p 6

y R

R a

p on R LA GRANDE r

4th St

6th St

a v e

d 1 n

v i Cove Hwy P

e W n Hwy 30

Anson Rd Nat or D N D k B Ave 237 Fletche a I- 84 r

F i

ev r o n

s s UV t 5

R Rd McAlister o S Ln o d y d 2 d R R

Gekeler Ln h F F 4 0 R Hulick

d 4 1

t t P

1 19 R 2

7 o a 0 r d Ln aefer d t U H Ln D N g Bond Ln n Love Rd d d or Old Oregon Trail Hwy ion Cove e a M n hS F !( R d o

L R LnWright at v ke t H N a o wy uth

F R t R M h Peach Rd COVE o c i d ll n

r I L n 3

t GLASS HILL R Airport Ln M 9 D y n i re d ll e 0 L C k Ln v Rd Wilkin reeM R ALTERNATE l son d l c

N

2 e Ln

1 n Hwy 203

2 e

i 21 0 h l d 0 s R 5 l v v u

e B R D C Hagger d Baseline Ln o ty

244 Godley Rd 2 r B

0 e UV n L r G o a L om 1 C o Woodruff Ln F r b d d eek op s

R l t r D CAMP a PROPOSED a o e Hawkins Rd

F W

N t v s 0 UNION v a !( e N 4 s D d h

R 1 ELKANAH Hwy 244

d HOT

r r

i H CORRIDOR !( s i Hutchinson

R W o M k F d e LAKE C COUNTY Turnbull N y

a l e t R o Ln y l

e u a a

m R L e e Ln n k N C t C d n p e g STARKEY r a u v ta r !( S t r

e r d E F t i o isR Miller Ln r De t

4 R e

m

S N R v

4 d k

t t

d N

r i a

4 l s a y e 2 R W 1

t R B d d d Bryan St R Na 5 ates L F t 1 61 B n o C v v 10 0 UNION r t t u e R F ot !( D d H S N r d S e d r a L n D o

h h t

a S v D tF R k Rd n t i

0 R nio L s

0 n

R o e e -U

S S

d r v i -D

5 n 1

v 0 3rdS St R s s

N r r o 5 a

2 N e io 1 t Whi a d 1 F te c b a

a t D

t t M

2 H R e p t o rse E b er

a d F

R S o a o

d

N r r F st D r R

s v R s 0

f y d N e o d 84 d D w r 2 i U D d 0

k D R 9 iah-Hi H 0 lg d e e 1 § a ¨¦

0 v

N d d r r e e 203

R v 7 R o 0 UV N

f 0 F

h h 4

9 s 6 6

g g d a

d t

0 r k u d R i F

t t d R e v v o e e R e a r D o R D R N C r R r ne o r d D r O y a r 2 T y l at F m fs 90 y l N o N 5 n n F F e N e F o v i l 0 N

t t T 3 a 2

r v 0 t a a 4 a F

N e 0 3 6 M R t Fo D 0 d d r 2 l

a

L di R F e R o r H M ca o t l d D e

2 e F w p gs H

F o v w r L S r n w t t d i

2 L R d v l n y r o a y R

V R d y e a y D 0 le a u

l o N d 2 d o p D 3 5 e Rd d 7 N v r 8 v v at F a R o 7

e N or t 4 C -R

0 De 85 d F 7 D o F d 4 v 1 a v 9 e 3 Rd or D vR t e 3 d

r r d N n

6 0 0 7 a G 1 20 3 2 R a o 0 y - D 1 0 1 y R t rr N F d 5 o

e r t t R F o

5 n Na F 7 a d o o t 8

d d n N M 7 N R y r - 7

R v o d e D R v e r n 237 D t

a e h UV

r r N

Na C a

D t Fo o v Ca t

8 P r r o R F th

r ev D 3 Ln Fo D o F R a or d d e

d t N t F e 8 rine ek r 5 w t t a v 1 1 d C r e D

N 1 a 4 e N d a 55 Rd 0 L v

0 er f 3 1 D s N y 0 r ev N 5 n d 2 3 o R w TELOCASET F r R a L R 4 0 d 0 d t R !( D 5 5

H y t For ev t 9 6

1 1 Mc a d a 2 8 F r a N d N

3 4 o L ev R

5 Olsen Rd e D

5 k Hill-Lay 0 Cans n r e L l l

8 a r

l l D i

B

1 o e at

541 e - Rd H N F 0 18 v e 0 F w d 1 N t d Rd

v v g

N a or D R

e e a F n Hwy 203 a o D v a t B Gr n

t I- 84 e Nat r 0 F a m Fo r r at o R l n r N r Go er d D

5 D v d D R evR o e d W 0 Rd h R d F v lc Rd e 5 o Gu T 7 p p 1 4 7 e d e in v Na 25 3 lf ta 19321 t t l n 3 C e R L R a R reek n o u h d c

F N 0 T as o S d F u et M or R ck L 5 l e a e n s E E D v I dian ne d r Ree ve 1 5 n a M i t 31 R

5 d

9 178

1 \GIS_B2H\Spatial\MXD\2011_ResourceReports_Exhibits\ExhibitU\Exhibit U Trans Mapbook.mxd WASHINGTON Legend ATTACHMENT U-2 APPENDIX A 1 Multiuse Area Road Indian Reservation 2 Preliminary Haul Routes 3 ° Site Boundary State Boundary Private Union County 4 Preliminary Haul Route County Boundary State 0 1 2 3 Boardman to Hemingway OREGON 5 IDAHO Interstate Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Transmission Line Project 6 Miles Highway Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Forest Service Oregon-Idaho 7 1 in = 3 miles Major Road Department of Defense February 2013 F J C i r L m r N o e a a e m n m t k y M t 237 R d a R d a T p UV n Nat Fo i d i r R n e g a R u k In i n F De d d F a c e v 0 o k i t 2 l n 5 a e n 0 3

R r r MU UN-1 u 7 d

t R o 6 R R d d D d M N Ree s H a e v e t 5 w F d 5 0 e R a E

ud r g v c

Sp in d y 7 3 o M i o

d 3 a 7 Rd 4 g d

R r

N D d a R

d v l R e Hwy 237 2 e a o

d e D 0 d

o R

y 3 D

v

C R F or

r r C R D o Coughanour Ln r 2 o T R F 5

l F 1 O R E d G O N

A 3 f d u e d D R N e N 2

o n e lo F n n E S R 0 H 7 t i

t t y t h c 3 e N T a

a k i d S y s 1 R R !( e e igh a t l a R H Moun t N l t R o d 671 d d Ln 0 0 R d

NORTHB POWDER a MEDICAL D V NF i UNION SPRINGS dwell Rd !( F R D e

iv N r e e k r r C r L Th Th R ig e n e o B l 2 d Va i ie PONDOSA l ll f f 5 d i e !( 0 a R R y V d COUNTY r d Ellis Ellis Rd R al ir R R !( M d ley o D Res v er ek d e d r a L d Anthony a C o d k R

e e R NF R s H l D D

wy g 0

M a Road N e y y y E FD F 5 0 l

n 7

w N 0 4 R g c R o 5 o a H C d 355 a

h R C

A t N E e e FD P d

y d

n d k o e n a llinsL a E

A

84 w R a t L r

e Rd t H n k FD 73 l y o § NF LITTLE N R ¨¦ R HUTCHINSON B D7 oa

p d

Talley-Dobbins Ln s 0 !( r R d d e R oa i R R ALPS g

d o d D d d7

!( n F l l i N

R N l r a F 7

i g d

e p DR 3

h R Wirt d I- 84 h 0 t

on S o 7 ny 0 o Ca a

n n 3 R o

i d d

l l d d

a

n n a

er Flat Ln F Welch Rd 5 lg t nsfield o a a

u Maxwell e 7 R d N B M n

Hwy 30 Dump Rd Chas Gr e c R F d i u 0 R a Ln d R 7

Ln d D N s s k

Blue Mo 7 d 4 F

0 0 7

g o R d a 7 Lo e e enin R 2 e 0 R D

R D

n Ridge 0 P R F 2 i N d 7

M d 0

a R C e d Haines i R

H N p o Mag N FD R F R a emetery L 7 d d Muddy Cr Ln n D B 0 oa ig 2 170 R d !( Muddy d

Co 5 yote Peak Rd 203 R

Cr n UV L o

R N a N

F F d d N Neil D D

d

7

ROCK H 0

d

FD PROPOSED 1 d Peck C R R R Ln o o o 301 !( R 7 f s 0 1 R CREEK a

d ck f t u R e i d o d

R o h !( Conro Rd Rd o 0 t HAINES P n a

R Ro 4 y g lli 0 ck CORRIDOR o d a D D e Ln i h C R F t d 7 k k S Coffey p t S S Creek Rd Rd Culley g o 7

N e J R a u 3

e l f M n d d d i S Rock R Cr Ln f r

r 5 Ln Ln C l R R a d l d C e y i

l

r

u k k R t

R d e M e

r US Hwy 30 e d Schoolhouse Rd Q n d

R e

e

u o o r Sky k s d h i L R SchetkyR lk Rd i C n S S r 0 g d L Ranch Ln O 2 e r l M G 5 r e o iles B eS e l h l C 5 d

u r g t k n g g id o inn L d e e a

d d M r O h R a E

R r n

o i R e w t E l a in l d r e R KEATING K g g E ence r d d F e e R !(

o T w Po nge Pole Line Ln Lo Gra Rd k h D D r n parta Ln w e S !( h l c

F it s d

d r g e a R E N e R d n d tin r H fe a

M i

Chandler Ln R g a C n

Ke f g SPARTA l L e f d K

B p

Cut o R n

Hunt Mountain Ln a i e o Payton Ln e s h C

n H o r

s s o p k L a

e Butle t t a r o

op R

a Rg C o o a c r Pin e r eek R t L n d D g d D e L s r k G e o n e d i m Lee Ln t K a er Seis R t

d d x i r

Ben-Dier a R F Ln E R Rd G o L WINGVILLE t l ye ngville L d i l n P i n R o

e P c k ine !( Prowell t Midd e at L u d o t W N

s s B

o i e B d P L

R Cr ine o r rg L R n h Ln

c MU BA-1 p k e C T p M in reek Ln a BAKER h e h h

Ln Rd Trail Old Cr orn e 6 c

o e h Rd irport d wy S Goodric r H 8

!( b p R C

i n A e

r s s

d t H BOURNE Goo d Cor a

t r g D e F u a a r

O R o n o

d l

u n r t

R W e COUNTY t

i

s n a

k r t e S o k k M Sunnyslope Rd z

c c a Lindley Rd v

Brown Rd e

i a e o n Ln u e R

a e 86 Rd Imn h K a d

l r UV r d l R l l

d B d Creek n Ln e C a

a R o G

R

d u

N N s y d n d k o WingvilleOld Rd F d o d G R R B er y r N m u i -C w R R al e r v d o rf d H a S H l p e i el r R p d d o r Eag e e d d d C R t m

c d i a d e

d a s l r i e t R R y O d R D C e 5 5 o e

h R R S d F l e Min r 7 d B e e b d d C d N R C 0 g g a ar d !( o a o n R R R R R R n t o n d M d ue K d T d D D i D R o o s F R h r r R D 0 F R t

F 0 F l 5 c o u N 6 St H St l t

N 3 Rd N 8 l Sunset e

0 c n

1 1 u kl a

e y

y

d 0 w

p

t W d

G

1 9 r A s a d o D Ln R i R S D

R 5 ee l C 6 t 9th 9th St 8 6 W a BAKER l r B y P m a

ar o i e d t 11th St 11th w k e e H n

d n a R L u e FD k d

c R 17th St m

D D N i 8 o F CITY s n t e 6 i t t !( W N d h e H g M W i u w

t i a a

D n

NF in W ll e F c Hall y

o d e i n Rd

h 1 h d S r R R a s u a s o FLAGSTAFF C d

o irtu t t t D

a V r J

R R w W 5 e iV S

d r d R r

d R 0 0 R a e y R 0R r D D i e i d 2 n la

F ALTERNATE 7 g k L c

D D FD d ove R R 1 e N 0 se n N R

d e am rvoi G F i R r R 5 ill s d d Law i ulch Rd d d W re 550 N 2 d n S 6 N R l c Rd F al S r e !( D Gr i UV7 W p Cr

65 d iff n ee

en d 30 R k G d d l R N G R R o FD ul ch d t d L r C n Hwy 30 oi R d e r R iv S ha 05 ea um 0 R P vi Sar r n pt I- 84 d e Fla e e n ine d t H r d L C w w re o R r e P y C p k

k k

V R e M

all y o

e lk i

C E

o d e n

L r

r n

7 e

o UV r t C S

r h t H h u s Ln C aff

c R n u

c r e S d A n R N r r e

kl d d ubu r

eb a l v F e k r

D r C r MCEWEN a r P y L O r

!(S e R o r L C d i o u D t F C R o m Fr B d r c d p e R y

C r Ir

y y

d p G n o

R t r d n d e e c h

y ul h W r e

l r w c Sumpter Stage Hwy a B R k k H r r e R R Stag h C O e d M e e d l o d 1 D a k e F R L tn r N R d v n !( a R 0 W d H 0 k 3 d

e o r wy w 9 e C 0 r t 8 2 e r 0 t C 0 16 7 2 Rd v re

C e a C u l l e ENCINA d r

l n

W re

d r S R

B c C e e L R R R ak k n H e r d b e udspeth Ln H r a o o k ly d n C se R F E ix a L n d H D n W PLEASANT VALLEY !( \GIS_B2H\Spatial\MXD\2011_ResourceReports_Exhibits\ExhibitU\Exhibit U Trans Mapbook.mxd WASHINGTON Legend ATTACHMENT U-2 APPENDIX A 1 Multiuse Area Road Indian Reservation 2 Preliminary Haul Routes 3 ° Site Boundary State Boundary Private Baker County (North) 4 Preliminary Haul Route County Boundary State 0 1 2 3 Boardman to Hemingway OREGON 5 IDAHO Interstate Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Transmission Line Project 6 Miles Highway Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Forest Service Oregon-Idaho 7 1 in = 3 miles Major Road Department of Defense February 2013 !(

r r S O e H v w A l u e

d a e

u y d 1 t e B t A 3 k b r d

0 R

u B e t s S R l rn a o d u k t v n n n D e L k

e C e r !( o r x e d I i o r r - r

C 8 H C F R

R 4 D r r C

C r

W W C y PLEASANT

r r

d u R u

S mp r MU BA-2 t t d C R er S o C

N ta l g d VALLEY l r F e Sutt on Cr f e f R

D H d b wy H Lp Rd d R 7 d E R UV 2 w n 84 tn 4 y R M d o 5 n t d 1 d k t Hil § C ¨¦ o y y R l d e

R O r 1 u I R r r k

4 e d l S k k R

5 r D d d e e H C e R w e R C l r

e c d ir y C r k

e y

C r e 3 H l y y 0

C i a

n S n n l D H il d PROPOSED t

S e a m

t ky D e a li n CORRIDOR

ne d tton d

H u R R R R S d w e ar

R re k d c v v y d 7 C 0 e e D 1

Nat For d d D 5 2 F

1 1 1 n R 1 v 4 N a R d R De 1 1 V

d r 5 Fo 2 M d d L t 0 h 0 o a 14 u o

N 1 c R L o d s R l n

R t

d d u a k

R a

h n i O D D

d o o D n

O G R E W c G O N r y g

F Gul G u s s u t N l R F N ch R

e D d R d c i o F

D

t 05 S

1 N 13 0 d t !( S a D R 0 u

R m eer C DURKEE d d r n p

d

d eek a

R R n R S m h 1 S n L t a 11 d o is h x x w 5 y c L

d p n

O

n a E n n R

N 0 C t

N D r a o F o F R r MINERAL i R C

D k

y n e !( o d r N

a n gs iv n

R N a

D d

R n

F C Pl d a R

D e s n e d g Do o

t R

n R r

N D r I- 84 n

0 l R R

u i l d r 6

d a B t d 0 o C r t u e C

R F a k a i v D C ve H 1 d a i k k R 1 11 C C re R e 1 8 Rd e

R d N n G

e N r k e F d y e old r ek k R o R F d n d a

C a D N d D o Rd d R n F R 0 C S 0 av k d 2 D re

R e C

C F

w 4 d e e R e r

o R 0 R 0 o

r o e

C R 0 0 k C a o e x

7 d a y 2 d k d e

d d 0 l H 5 245 R a F s

UV re i i 0 n o c a b d h rd n b

R C S o

R ree

k J ar D D G k R d d

F e d Cr

a e k N

teR r R C d 5 idgepo CHINA d 24 Br r t Ln Hwy d !( TOWN R d !( CLARKSVILLE R !( k Mt WEATHERBY man n Pioneer L ee o t n l Cr D R u PROPOSED !( i d o a k t t o

BRIDGEPORT Cla r o R i REBUILD r L k h

e S s

s

e C RYE r r v IDAHO M e o e VALLEY a V n

i !( a r l k le L h R n e e tin

d

u R WASHINGTON r d y Ln alle e V y COUNTY d R R n si Rye V a a o B Gu l orm n s s lc le R M r h ELDORADO y d

e R d

t !(

r o d

P

R BAKER y e

k k l

e g e n Cr t t a s COUNTY LIME L n M ir !( L F a

M l h u n

i ss e s

i u

R a d O r

d R

B r

C e

i

g illow C t f W r y e n e f o k R o o n R t d m T d r u r o C a M il B

M l c v C d D o u y

nc R Dur a d MALHEUR nR bin Cr d e to e HUNTINGTON WILLOW CREEK H ting n Rd k !( COUNTY un Malheu r Line Ln R d ALTERNATE n n d 84 o R h t d § l h ¨¦ O c R l o I- 84 d n H M a h d w !( c R

IRONSIDE R l W y u k

e G Fe 3 a e r d 26 o 0 r

v n n £ C

R ¤ J t a

oh e i a k k n R g

Day r d d e H n

e w n y I R o e d r en s C B

H L u o MU BA-3 e e n t a a c O H i N O n s t k r w o i e l g e g d d t y t R n t o o R n o R T n d r B l \GIS_B2H\Spatial\MXD\2011_ResourceReports_Exhibits\ExhibitU\Exhibit U Trans Mapbook.mxd

WASHINGTON Legend ATTACHMENT U-2 APPENDIX!( A 1 Multiuse Area Road Indian Reservation 2 Preliminary Haul Routes 3 ° Site Boundary State Boundary Private Baker County (South) 4 Preliminary Haul Route County Boundary State 0 1 2 3 Boardman to Hemingway OREGON 5 IDAHO Interstate Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Transmission Line Project 6 Miles Highway Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Forest Service Oregon-Idaho 7 1 in = 3 miles Major Road Department of Defense February 2013 WILLOW CREEK ALTERNATE

!(

H W I O n w e d Frontage Rd l W y d a i I- 84 R v a 3 d d e n il 0 r R lo R d G w

k k u e l C c BAKER COUNTY MU BA-3 WASHINGTON e r r h e N

e C L k 30 e e MU MA-1 o £ R ¤ s c COUNTY

k

o d

e R 26 t

£ Joh t ¤ n Day R Hwy d EATON !( Military Rd L o JONATHAN lheu c !( Ma r Tho k m e rvo n a t e ir a s t s Rd

g C e d e R ll d o R Hwy 201

r R R o e

BONITA L d e !( k P 5th o d R !( R le n n Ave BROGAN t d IDAHO !( metary S M A e Ripple th ve C p M r r 8 Rd r u e i !( d n Rd p R Bit Rd d i y g 84

te r n s d e R ANNEX

u ¨¦§ R 201

m d Lo P J UV eac e ve h C r R i Rd S S o WILLOW CREEK e ser v Oleander Rd d ALTERNATE R o o a Low k e a d r N

R Hill Rd M Noble Rd a a M R MU MA-5 u t dS d

i a

S p L n a r Me o i s g n quite B !( g Moo R JAMIESON s res H R d ollo d R w Rd

N d

D

r

y

O

C l

d

r e

S RdS K D O A

e 12th Ave E r l r

k y k

e a G g l L o i S RdS J u

o I- 84 l n G o c

11th Ave 1 h T u

p 1th l r c

W Ave E R l h d R Grove d Rd Power Rd li a Rd Hyline Rd

N Rd G 10th Ave W N HRd Belkn pp Rd John Day Hwy lk a S Evergreen Rd 10th Ave E A

R d WILLOWCREEK I

!( ats Rd n MALHEUR 9th ali F l

d d k Douglas

F l L B A

R Ave E C u m Rd

c N lu k COUNTY o P

tt

b o r n S RdS H Evans w u o Rd d s DENNIS R h o Bailey obs n Gulch d !( Ja c e R RdS G Rd d M tn

N Rd D

Oak Oak Rd L RdS F oo Stanton Blvd k H i

o l u r

lR e

t k

R d !(

a

d d ONTARIO HEIGHTS R

N Rd CN Rd B

S RdS E 5th Ave Ontario Heights Rd

S RdS D d E R 5th Ave W terson ir e o P d v BlvdHeinz R R r d Canyo e n d ul R

e B ly C

ir s e

d S hree R

B en Cre th 4th T d e R k R 4 Malheur Dr d A e W Ave E r S v ll D 201 cott R Creek Rd thi UV d y oo C ll F u PROPOSED NW 4th Ave l 3rd Ave E !( o B H Sugar Ave i

v l t

l

e D S

CORRIDOR e r Ha s i Hillcrest Dr s d

l W C h n

r e e t

r R e e L S r 0 e d

F

e Butte Dr 3 k

Vale View Rd Dr Sunset

Alder Rd SW 18th Ave B R o d

n Lincoln Dr

t

C h

B

ita S r E s r Railroad Ave

e D F

O n u !(

A

p p W n CAIRO

l S e d

l S 1 d !( l m

5 u

d m t

o

R h R

t i th h

k r R

a l S H d y RdBirch ontie R r e S el tal

R N t m m t WESTFALL d

g t

l t t 12th St d L a Siphon Dr n nL

T

LeeRd E Graham Blvd S Lagoon Dr e H !( Halliday Rd Onion Ave R k

o d r d S Rd n

a

t t

d d R l

p VALE

S a r

C e e e g

e g r D

a n r o t L n

Vista Dr Vista R S H D

M

Rd a a I

I C r p

p n CedarW Rd p p o y e a o

n n L u r d L C n d y a

d

R o - L n Morgan Ave W a a

R w e t W e L r

e l n H V l l y L n Arabi

s h ogue r y t V

a D m o n

d o Greenfield Rd f

R D o a a BlvdClark

o Loop Rd n k g McLay l e l R e e l P r d A r Mecham Rd

R d Rd O R Gregory C g l n d a Rd Airport i r n d t 201Hwy

R o m n

g g Grove School Ln e t

m e n i C Imperial Ave i 3 l

L o r 20 l

d d r w d y h

£ d p ¤

v c u d t R

l S S F l

G R e E B

B

r S o a B P v

o l w

r h

i v e tR o l a t Recla l v d l Gem Ave !( k 4 c d l Dr o d u S Blvd 2nd H B S Sand \GIS_B2H\Spatial\MXD\2011_ResourceReports_Exhibits\ExhibitU\Exhibit U TransARCADIA Mapbook.mxd WASHINGTON Legend ATTACHMENT U-2 APPENDIX A 1 Multiuse Area Road Indian Reservation 2 Preliminary Haul Routes 3 ° Site Boundary State Boundary Private Malheur County (North) 4 Preliminary Haul Route County Boundary State 0 1 2 3 Boardman to Hemingway OREGON 5 IDAHO Interstate Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Transmission Line Project 6 Miles Highway Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Forest Service Oregon-Idaho 7 1 in = 3 miles Major Road Department of Defense February 2013 d !( H

d R Recla Dr ARCADIA a wrence R l Gem Ave W La r y Sand e p o w Bi d t o y

e H sh R P R op Hollow Wa r n Rd S Blvd 2nd

- o o Gambl W g e

g c

O n e e i k V d ld r ic Eureka Ave t R s t R O ori u t C o d e M l n f ail R m a a a t d r Blvd Arcadia v im t n NYSSA l n s 95 l w e y A S e ¤£ R C o !(

d e n HEIGHTS h L Clark Blvd Rd C Fro g y S arazin n ta t Rd l Grey Blvd y e Rd k k alle Rd PAYETTE c

i V d e B Alberta Ave N

l St N 3rd m R t l t v o

i d 5th N St A Park Ave L h Park Ave !(

c 3 t

r s NYSSA COUNTY S d t E d t 1 d Kimberly Rd Ho d rne R R t S

R S !( n HARPER a R d lem Cloverdale Ave Stringe r R o d

Shelley C MU MA-2 20 C ¤£

V Enterprise Ave

B h

i

u

s d a

t e l a APPLE

R k n d d n 20 B a VALLEY

a £ u ¤ R l d !(

t Cow H Grand Ave

e 0 o t ol e lo p 2 o w R s o y d D Dr Fairview

g R n C w o

i H o d

r H S S Ad

p a l Sl S U U m l 0 Ivanhoe Ave u 2 s B l d Janeta Ave y y Dr Jefferson O Heritage Dr w R

PROPOSED d

H DOUBLE S Klamath

c Klamath Ave Ave E MOUNTAIN h CORRIDOR w R d eiz d e R OWYHEE Kygar ALTERNATE r T !(

w P Lin e e t Rd

i D

t Owyhee Ave l

i

r

g

u

h 1 PARMA ROOKSTOOL B t !(

0 tral O l l Chapin 2 Wynn

C n r CORNER

e e e

R

g h Rd y Rd !(

o o c MU MA-3

it w Toombs Rd n c M H

k er View Dr y Riv H w Overstreet Rd Rd Beaumont S

t t

w w z z s

p t

e

o

u d r r d in l Bergman

v

g

l

c u

i R R

A

o

K Rd

n

W

L

n n

Cay

a n ROSWELL

o a Mendiola Rd L !( n L

Rd tis t

d d O

r

S !(3 ADRIAN Rd Roswell Rd

ulch Rd IDAHO G l y e iv Sn 201 Rd Cassia

UV Miller Rd H a R y C o s t a ck a Cree k n MU MA-4 y y R y c e d o n R d k n e MALHEUR d R CANYON e R o K c n s s k Tu ne g R l Rd Syringa H n d COUNTY i COUNTY r ler p i ll Rockef e l pto R a n

S N WILDER d ALLENDALE

Rd !( !( d r R n n d ve d i R i

R wy l R w h e el O n nR !( n to T e n p e u Na d 19 n T d UV u Hawk MALHEUR S R T

W Rd y

R e d r o

ke l e

La ALTERNATE o l t u ou U p p d

d e b G d z ridge Rd R e R l d d F r e il o H R o y d R i w e Rd Side N v n l e 95 r o w ote s £ t y ¤ t Co m o Maybon R

d a

o r d n Ridgeview Rd Ridgeview

R i l C L C Gulch l Ln i

State Hwy 19 W W !( Id

F m awn o a R h a D il HOMEDALE d n o Ave r OWYHEE r o L e Rd A a!( u v d

s e In P d CENTRAL l d d D e O R us HEIGHTS p r t r Rd

r t um COVE y D i

a

G !(

MU MA-6 l C

l Pioneer Rd r e

e S

n e u

k c

C R c

u F d

is d

o d t

h R

e e R

o W Market Rd Market Rd s

s s

e u e e

f r

p

l

e

n n

f C

p

i

i

i

B

S S

l r L

r k m e h

e t

S

P a

e t S

a Rd Sage n k

Rd R Sage Homestead Dines d Ln !(

N Jump Creek Rd Creek Jump N CLAYTONIA

Hogg Rd Hogg Walker Ln Walker Nelson Ln Nelson

OREGON Neilsen Rd Johnstone tle p Ket U am S C Rd Ln W Thompson Rd H ek Dav w Rd Edison N y y Cre y a i s d 9 m w d R 5 hu R Cemetery Rd B S f r !( tof ig u L g C n s Percifield OWYHEE Rd E

Gem Rd Gem Pershall Rd S Jump CreekJump Rd S \GIS_B2H\Spatial\MXD\2011_ResourceReports_Exhibits\ExhibitU\ExhibitCOUNTY U Trans Mapbook.mxdHwy O N I WASHINGTON Legend ATTACHMENT U-2 APPENDIX A 1 Multiuse Area Road Indian Reservation 2 Preliminary Haul Routes 3 ° Site Boundary State Boundary Private Malheur County (South) 4 Preliminary Haul Route County Boundary State 0 1 2 3 Boardman to Hemingway OREGON 5 IDAHO Interstate Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Transmission Line Project 6 Miles Highway Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Forest Service Oregon-Idaho 7 1 in = 3 miles Major Road Department of Defense February 2013 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

Appendix B. Boardman to Hemingway – Estimate of Construction Traffic Memo

February 2013 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

February 2013 B-1 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

February 2013 B-2 Draft Transportation and Traffic Plan Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project

February 2013 B-3 Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project Exhibit U

ATTACHMENT U-3 DRAFT FIRE PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION PLAN

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR SITE CERTIFICATE

Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

Prepared by Idaho Power Company 1221 W Idaho Street Boise, ID 83702

February 2013

Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Oregon's Wildfire Protection System ...... 1 1.3 Responsibilities and Coordination ...... 2 2.0 FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES ...... 2 2.1 Preconstruction and Construction ...... 2 2.1.1 Training ...... 2 2.1.2 Smoking ...... 3 2.1.3 Spark Arresters ...... 3 2.1.4 Parking, Vehicle Operation, and Storage Areas...... 3 2.1.5 Equipment ...... 3 2.1.6 Road Closures...... 3 2.1.7 Refueling ...... 4 2.1.8 Burning ...... 4 2.1.9 Flammable Liquids and Explosives ...... 4 2.1.10 Communications ...... 4 2.1.11 Welding ...... 4 2.1.12 Fire Suppression ...... 4 2.2 Restricted Operations ...... 4 2.3 Monitoring ...... 5 3.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 5 3.1 Operation ...... 5 3.2 Maintenance ...... 5 4.0 NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES ...... 5 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Fire Suppression Responsibilities in Oregon ...... 2

February 2013 i Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

2 Idaho Power Company (IPC) is proposing to construct and operate approximately 304 miles of 3 new transmission line known as the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project 4 (Project), primarily a single-circuit 500-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line, with 301 miles of 5 single-circuit 500- kV electric transmission line, a 5-mile rebuild of existing 138-kV and 69-kV 6 transmission lines onto double-circuit structures, and relocation of 0.3 mile of a 138-kV 7 transmission line. The Project includes ground-disturbing activities associated with construction 8 of aboveground, single- and double-circuit transmission lines involving towers, access roads, 9 staging areas, fly yards, and pulling sites as well as an associated substation, communication 10 sites, and electrical supply distribution lines. The Project crosses private land and public lands 11 administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the 12 states of Idaho and Oregon. 13 This preliminary Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Plan) describes the framework for 14 measures to be taken by IPC and its contractors (Contractor) to ensure fire prevention and 15 suppression measures are carried out in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. 16 Measures identified in this Plan apply to work within the project area defined as the right-of-way 17 (ROW); access roads; all work and storage areas, whether temporary or permanent; and other 18 areas used during construction and operation of the Project.

19 1.1 Purpose 20 The risk of fire danger during transmission line construction is related to smoking, refueling 21 activities, operating vehicles and other equipment off roadways, welding activities, and the use 22 of explosive materials and flammable liquids. During operation, the risk of fire is primarily from 23 vehicles and maintenance activities that require welding. Additionally, weather events that affect 24 the transmission line could result in the transmission line igniting a fire. 25 This Plan establishes standards and practices to minimize risk of fire ignition and, in case of fire, 26 provide for immediate suppression.

27 1.2 Oregon's Wildfire Protection System 28 The prevention and suppression of wildfires in eastern Oregon is carried out by the BLM, USFS, 29 and local fire districts and agencies (Table 1-1). The agencies’ activities are closely coordinated, 30 primarily through the Pacific Northwest Wildfire Coordinating Group. Coordination of firefighting 31 resources also occurs under Oregon's Emergency Conflagration Act that allows the state fire 32 marshal to mobilize and dispatch structural firefighting personnel and equipment when a 33 significant number of structures are threatened by fire and local structural fire-suppression 34 capability is exhausted (ODEQ 2003).

February 2013 1 Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

1 Table 1-1. Fire Suppression Responsibilities in Oregon Miles of Who Where Proposed Route BLM National System of Public Lands 65.6 USFS National Forest (NF) and National Grasslands 5.9 City fire departments and rural Structures in Oregon's wildland interface areas 209.4 fire protection districts in covered by mutual-aid agreements. Rangeland mutual aid with Oregon fire protection associations on rangeland areas of Department of Forestry eastern Oregon outside of both a forest protection district and a rural fire district. Source: ODEQ 2003; GIS Ownership_Analysis_20110804.xlsx.

2 1.3 Responsibilities and Coordination 3 This Plan will be implemented by IPC and the Contractor on the Project. IPC and the Contractor 4 are responsible for providing all necessary fire-fighting equipment on the project site to their 5 respective employees and operating under the requirements of this Plan. Prior to construction, 6 the Contractor and IPC will contact the appropriate fire-control authorities to establish 7 communications (including radio frequencies), obtain any required permits (such as burning or 8 fire waiver permits prior to conducting any heavy equipment or burning activities), and/or fulfill 9 other obligations as directed by fire-control authorities. The Contractor and IPC will also do the 10 following: 11 • Ensure prevention, detection, pre-suppression, and suppression activities are in 12 accordance with this Plan and federal, state, and county laws; ordinances; 13 and regulations pertaining to fire. 14 • Accompany agency representatives on fire tool and equipment inspections and take 15 corrective action upon notification of any fire-protection requirements not in 16 compliance. 17 • Restrict operations on federal lands during conditions of high fire danger as 18 described in Section 2.2, Restricted Operations. 19 As per OAR 345-022-0110, construction and operation of the Project and related mitigation are 20 not likely to result in significant adverse impact to the ability of public and private providers to 21 provide fire protection. Fire risk is anticipated to be low during Project operations, and therefore 22 the fire prevention and suppression measures described in this Plan will be in effect from 23 pre-construction to the end of restoration. These restrictions may change by advance written 24 notice by fire-control authorities. However, required tools and equipment will be kept in 25 serviceable condition and will be immediately available at all times.

26 2.0 FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES

27 2.1 Preconstruction and Construction 28 Methods and procedures to be implemented prior to and during construction, operation, 29 maintenance, and termination of the Project to minimize the risk of fire are described in the 30 following sections. 31 2.1.1 Training 32 The Contractor and IPC will train all personnel on the measures to take in the event of a fire. 33 The Contractor and IPC will also inform crew member of fire dangers, locations of extinguishers

February 2013 2 Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

1 and equipment, and individual responsibilities for fire prevention and suppression during regular 2 safety briefings. Smoking and fire rules also will be discussed with all field personnel during the 3 Project’s environmental training. 4 2.1.2 Smoking 5 Smoking is prohibited except in areas a minimum of 10 feet in diameter that have been cleared 6 and graded to bare soil. All burning tobacco and matches will be extinguished before discarding. 7 Smoking is also prohibited while operating equipment or vehicles, except in enclosed cabs or 8 vehicles. 9 Smoking is never permitted in any area designated by DANGER or NO SMOKING signs. 10 Smoking is not permitted in these areas regardless of any other factor. Smoking is not permitted 11 on the transmission line ROW. Smoking is only permitted on access roads, within vehicles, 12 and in approved smoking areas as described previously. 13 2.1.3 Spark Arresters 14 During construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the ROW, all equipment 15 operating with an internal combustion engine will be equipped with federally-approved spark 16 arresters. Spark arresters are not required on trucks, buses, and passenger vehicles 17 (excluding motorcycles) equipped with an unaltered muffler or on diesel engines equipped with 18 a turbocharger. Agency fire-inspection officers will have full authority to inspect spark arresters 19 on Project equipment prior to its use on the Project on federal lands and periodically 20 during construction. 21 2.1.4 Parking, Vehicle Operation, and Storage Areas 22 In no case will motorized equipment, including worker transportation vehicles, be driven or 23 parked outside the designated and approved work limits. Equipment parking areas, the ROW, 24 staging areas, designated vehicle-parking areas, and small stationary engine sites— 25 where permitted—will be cleared of all flammable material. Clearing will extend a minimum of 26 2 feet beyond the edge of the area to be occupied but not beyond the boundaries of the 27 approved ROW, extra workspace, or ancillary site. Glass containers will not be used to store 28 gasoline or other flammables. 29 2.1.5 Equipment 30 All motor vehicles and equipment will carry at least 1 long-handled (48-inch minimum), 31 round-point shovel; a double-bit ax or Pulaski (3.5 pounds or larger); one 16–20 pound dry 32 chemical fire extinguisher (with an Underwriters Laboratories [UL] rating of at least 5B or C); 33 and 20–50 gallons of water with a mechanism to effectively spray the water. Individuals using 34 power saws and grinders will have a shovel as described above, and an 8-pound capacity fire 35 extinguisher immediately available. All equipment will be kept in a serviceable condition and 36 readily available. 37 The Contractor and IPC shall maintain a list, to be provided to local fire-protection agencies, of 38 all equipment that is either specifically designed for, or capable of, being adapted to fighting 39 fires. The Contractor and IPC shall provide basic fire-fighting equipment on-site during 40 construction, including fire extinguishers, shovels, axes, and other tools in sufficient numbers so 41 each employee on-site can assist in the event of a fire-fighting operation. 42 2.1.6 Road Closures 43 The Contractor and IPC will notify the appropriate fire-suppression agency of the scheduled 44 closures prior to the open-cut crossing of a road. If required, the Contractor and IPC will 45 construct a bypass prior to the open-cut installation of a road crossing, unless a convenient 46 detour can be established on existing project-approved roads or within project-approved work

February 2013 3 Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

1 limits. All bypasses will be clearly marked by the Contractor and IPC. During road closures, the 2 Contractor and IPC will designate one person who knows the bypass to direct traffic. The 3 Contractor and IPC will minimize, to the extent possible, the duration of road closures. 4 2.1.7 Refueling 5 Fuel trucks will have a large fire extinguisher charged with the appropriate chemical to control 6 electrical and gas fires. The extinguisher will be a minimum size 35-pound capacity with a 7 minimum 30 BC rating. Power-saw refueling will be done in an area that has first been cleared 8 of material that could catch fire. 9 2.1.8 Burning 10 Contractor and IPC personnel are prohibited from burning slash, brush, stumps, trash, 11 explosives storage boxes, or other Project debris unless specifically contracted to do so. 12 No cooking or warming fires or barbecue grills will be allowed. 13 2.1.9 Flammable Liquids and Explosives 14 The handling and use of explosives shall be conducted in strict conformance with all local, state, 15 and federal regulations as detailed in IPC’s Construction Specification on Blasting. 16 2.1.10 Communications 17 The Contractor and IPC will be responsible for maintaining contact with fire-control agencies 18 and will be equipped with a radio or cellular telephone so immediate contact with local fire- 19 control agencies can be made. If cellular telephone coverage is not available, the Contractor 20 and IPC will use the radio to contact their base, who will telephone emergency dispatch. 21 2.1.11 Welding 22 One 5-gallon back-up pump will be required with each welding unit in addition to the standard 23 fire equipment required in all vehicles. All equipment will be kept in a serviceable condition and 24 readily available. 25 2.1.12 Fire Suppression 26 The Contractor and IPC will take the following actions should a fire occur within the Project area 27 during construction: 28 • Site personnel will aid in extinguishing a fire ignition before it gets out of control and 29 take action that a prudent person would take to control the fire while still accounting 30 for their own and others safety. 31 • Immediately notify the nearest fire-suppression agency of the fire location, action 32 taken, and status (see Section 4.0). 33 • Immediately notify the Contractor and IPC of the fire location and action taken. 34 • Relinquish fire-suppression activities to agency fire-management officers upon 35 their arrival. 36 If a reported fire is controlled, the Contractor and IPC will note the location and monitor the 37 progress in extinguishing the fire. A Contractor’s or IPC’s employee will remain at the fire scene 38 until it is fully extinguished. The extinguished fire will be monitored in accordance with 39 procedures described in Section 2.3 of this document.

40 2.2 Restricted Operations 41 The Contractor and IPC will restrict or cease operations in specified locations during periods of 42 high fire danger at the direction of the land-management agency’s closure order. Restrictions

February 2013 4 Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

1 may vary from stopping certain operations at a given time to stopping all operations. IPC may 2 obtain approval to continue some or all operations if acceptable precautions are implemented. 3 A written waiver must be issued to the Contractor and IPC. 4 During periods of high fire danger, the Contractor and IPC will monitor daily for local restrictions. 5 It is the Contractor’s and IPC’s responsibility to ensure personnel are aware of and following 6 area fire orders.

7 2.3 Monitoring 8 The contractor will be responsible for compliance with all provisions of this Plan. In addition, 9 federal, state, and local fire-control agencies may perform inspections in areas under their 10 jurisdiction at their discretion.

11 3.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

12 3.1 Operation 13 During transmission line operation, the risk of fire danger is minimal. The primary causes of fire 14 on the ROW result from unauthorized entry by individuals for recreational purposes and from 15 fires started outside the ROW. In the latter case, authorities can use the ROW as a potential 16 firebreak. During transmission line operation, access to the ROW will be restricted in 17 accordance with jurisdictional agency or landowner requirements to minimize recreational use of 18 the ROW.

19 3.2 Maintenance 20 During maintenance operations, IPC or its Contractor will equip personnel with basic fire-fighting 21 equipment, including fire extinguishers and shovels as described in Section 2.1.5, Equipment. 22 Maintenance crews will also carry emergency response/fire control phone numbers. 23 IPC and/or a Contractor will implement the following measures during maintenance activities: 24 • Conduct inspections of the vehicle undercarriage before entering or exiting the project 25 area to clear vegetation that may have accumulated near the vehicle’s exhaust system. 26 • During BLM's Stage II Fire Restrictions, obtain an appropriate waiver and take 27 appropriate precautions when conducting routine maintenance activities that involve an 28 internal combustion engine, involve generating a flame, involve driving over or parking 29 on dry grass, involve the possibility of dropping a line to the ground, or involve 30 explosives. Precautions include a Fire Prevention Watch Person who will remain in the 31 area for one hour following the cessation of that activity.

32 4.0 NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES

33 Construction crew members will report all fires, whether extinguished or controlled. If the fire is 34 uncontrolled, the Contractor will call the nearest fire-suppression agency (911) and the IPC 35 inspector. Information regarding the location of the fire, property ownership, and closest access 36 roads should be reported to 911 and IPC. 37 If a reported fire is controlled but not extinguished, the Contractor or IPC inspector will call to 38 notify the nearest police/fire authorities using the non-emergency telephone line to alert them of 39 the situation.

February 2013 5 Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

1 IPC will maintain and provide the Contractor with an up-to-date list of landowner and land 2 management agency contacts along the transmission line ROW.

3 5.0 LITERATURE CITED

4 ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2003. Oregon Natural Hazards 5 Mitigation Plan. Revised August 19. Available online at: 6 http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/burning/wildfires/neap/appendixD.pdf.

February 2013 6