4.1 Introduction Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility 4.1 Introduction This chapter assesses environmental consequences or impacts that would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action or the alternatives described in Chapter 2. These analyses consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives, including both short-term impacts during construction and decommissioning, and long-term impacts during operations. This chapter also identifies mitigation measures to address adverse impacts and summarizes the residual and unavoidable adverse impacts on an issue-by-issue basis. The scope of the impact analyses presented in this chapter is commensurate with the level of detail for the alternatives provided in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives, and the availability and/or quality of data necessary to assess impacts. Baseline conditions for assessing the potential environmental impacts are described in Chapter 3. The methodology for this assessment conforms with the guidance found in the following sections of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA: 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 1502.24, Methodology and Scientific Accuracy; 40 CFR Section 1508.7, Cumulative Impact; and 40 CFR Section 1508.8, Effects. The CEQ regulations require agencies to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate” the impacts of the alternatives. The methodologies used in the impact assessment also conform to the requirements of the CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), including the Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA, Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq. 4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions The following impacts analysis was conducted with the following assumptions: The laws, regulations, and policies applicable to the BLM authorizing ROW grants for renewable energy development facilities would be applied consistently for all action alternatives. The proposed facility would be constructed, operated, maintained, and decommissioned as described in each action alternative. Short-term impacts are those expected to occur during the construction phase, the first five years of the operation and maintenance phase, and during project decommissioning. Long-term impacts are those that would occur after the first five years of operation. 4.1.2 Types of Effects The potential impacts from those actions that would have direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were considered for each resource. The terms “effect” and “impact” as used in this document are synonymous and could be beneficial or detrimental. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place as the action; indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or further in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative impacts are those effects resulting from the incremental impacts of an action when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (regardless of which agency or person undertakes such actions) (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts could result from individually insignificant but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Short-term impacts occur only for a short time after implementation of a management action; for example, construction noise impacts from construction activities would be considered short term in nature. By Draft EIS/EIR 4.1-1 June 2011 4.1 Introduction Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility contrast, long-term effects occur for an extended period after implementation of a management action; for example, operational noise during facility operations would be a long-term impact, as it would last for as long as the facility is in operation. Section 1502.16 of the CEQ regulations forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons of alternatives. This chapter consolidates the discussions of those elements required by sections 102(2)(C)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v) of NEPA which are within the scope of this EIS/EIR, and as much of Section 102(2)(C)(iii) as is necessary to support the comparisons. The discussion includes the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives, including any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. 4.1.3 Resources and Resource Uses Not Affected or Present in the Action Area Resources, BLM program areas, or other aspects of the human environment that are not affected or present in the OWEF area include: wild and scenic rivers; national scenic or historic trails, monuments, and national recreation areas; cooperative management and protection areas; outstanding natural areas; forest reserves; back country byways; wetlands; livestock grazing; and wild horses and burros. 4.1.4 Mitigation Measures Included in the Analysis Under NEPA, significance is defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (Section §1508.27) as a measure of the intensity and context of the effects of a major federal action on the human environment. The BLM NEPA Handbook reiterates this directive, stating that the document should “focus the discussion of effects on the context, intensity, and duration.” Intensity refers to the severity or level of magnitude of impacts. Public health and safety, proximity to sensitive areas, level of controversy, unique risks, or potentially precedent-setting effects may all be considered in determining intensity of effect. Context means that the effects of an action must be analyzed within a framework or within physical or conceptual limits. Whenever possible, this document differentiates between short-term and long-term impacts. Unlike NEPA, CEQA requires that a significance determination be made for each adverse impact identified in an EIR. Significance criteria, the basis for which is set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist (Appendix G), are identified for each environmental resource area. The significance criteria serve as a benchmark for determining if a project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts when evaluated against the baseline or existing environmental conditions. Impacts are assessed relative to each impact criterion to determine whether the project would have no impact, a less-than-significant impact, less than significant with mitigation, or a significant impact. Impacts are quantified to the extent possible. In addition, the determination of an impact’s significance is derived from standards set by regulatory agencies on the federal, State, and local levels; knowledge of the effects of similar past projects; professional judgment; and plans and policies adopted by governmental agencies. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be identified to reduce or avoid significant impacts. June 2011 4.1-2 Draft EIS/EIR 4.1 Introduction Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility Both Section 1508.20 of the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA and the State CEQA Guidelines §15370 define mitigation as: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. If impacts remain significant after all feasible mitigation is considered, i.e., continue to exceed the threshold of significance identified in the impact criteria, the analysis concludes that the impact is significant and unavoidable. For impacts identified in the following resource sections, mitigation measures have been developed that would be implemented during all appropriate phases of the project from initial ground breaking to operations, and through closure and decommissioning. The mitigation measures include a combination of the following: Measures that have been proposed by the Applicant; Regulatory requirements of other federal, state, and local agencies; and Additional BLM-proposed mitigation measures, standard ROW grant terms and conditions, and best management practices (BMPs). These requirements are generically referred to as “mitigation measures” throughout this Draft PA & Draft EIS/EIR. Because these mitigation measures are derived from a variety of sources, they also are required, and their implementation regulated, by the various agencies. Many of the mitigation measures are required by agencies other than the BLM, and their implementation will be enforced by those other agencies against the Applicant. For instance, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 mitigation measures of the USFWS will be included in the Record of Decision (ROD), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 mitigation measures will include a number of processes that also will be included in the ROD. The Applicant will be required by the ROD and the ROW grant to comply with the requirements of those other agencies (see, e.g., 43 CFR 2805.12(a) (Federal and state laws and regulations), (i)(6) (more stringent state standards for public health and safety, environmental protection and siting, constructing, operating,