Draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Cotterel wind power project and draft resource management plan amendment

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR THE PROPOSED COTTEREL WIND
POWER PROJECT

AND DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

DES 05-23

May 2005

U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Twin Falls District
Burley Field Office
Cassia County, Idaho

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE

PROPOSED COTTEREL WIND POWER PROJECT AND

DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

Prepared for

U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Twin Falls District
Burley Field Office
Cassia County
15 East, 200 South
Burley, Idaho 83318

Serial Number IDI-33676

DES 05-23

On behalf of

Windland, Inc
Suite 804A

10480 Garverdale Court
Boise, ID 83704

and

Shell WindEnergy, Inc.
Suite 1042
910 Louisiana
Houston, TX 77002

May 2005

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Burley Field Office
15 East 200 South

Burley, Idaho 83318
(208) 677-6641

http://www.id.blm.gov/offices/burley

Take Pride*
erica

Reply to: 2800, IDI-33676 (ID220) June, 2005

Dear Interested Reader:

Enclosed for your review and comment is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project and Draft Resource Management Plan
Amendment (DEIS). The Applicant, Windland, Inc., in partnership with Shell Wind
Energy, Inc. (a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group), has submitted a right-of-way
application to the Bureau of Land Management, Twin Falls District, Burley Field Office
(BLM), requesting to build a 190-240 megawatt, wind-powered electrical generation
facility on the ridgeline of Cotterel Mountain, roughly 15 miles east of the city of Burley,
and situated between the towns of Albion and Malta, located in Cassia County, Idaho.

A Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment is included in this DEIS. The proposed
project and action alternatives are not in conformance with the BLM Cassia Resource
Management Plan, 1985 (Cassia RMP), which does not allow the granting of rights-of-
way in the proposed project area. Therefore, the Cassia RMP must be amended if an
action alternative is selected.

Based on the analysis of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action, the
reader is being informed that the agency preferred alternative at this time is
Alternative C, Modified Proposed Action. A complete description of Alternative C
and all other alternatives can be found in this DEIS.

This DEIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 1969
(NEPA) and with applicable laws and regulations passed subsequent to NEPA. It is
intended to provide the public and agency decision makers with a complete and objective
evaluation of impacts, beneficial and adverse, resulting from the Proposed Action and all
reasonable alternatives.

1

Letter to Readers

Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Cotterel Wind Power Project

To ensure a complete analysis, we are asking you to help by reviewing this DEIS and
providing comments. The comment period for this document will close 90 days
following the publication of the Notice of Availability by the Environmental Protection
Agency in the Federal Register. Three public meetings will be scheduled, one in Boise,
one in Burley, and one in Albion, Idaho during the comment period to discuss the
findings disclosed in this DEIS. The dates, times and exact location of the public
meetings will be announced through one or more sources (project newsletter, local news
papers, or via website at www.id.blm.gov/planning/cotterel ). A copy of the DEIS will be
posted to this website.

Please send your written comments to: via mail Scott Barker, Project Manager

Bureau of Land Management
15 East, 200 South
Burley, Idaho 83318

via fax: (208) 677-6699

via email: id_cotterelwind@blm.gov
hyperlink: id cotterelwind@blm.gov

The BLM will review and analyze the comments received and will then publish a Final
ElS/Proposed Plan Amendment and Record of Decision in 2006. Those who do not
comment on the DEIS, or otherwise participate in this EIS process, may have limited
options to appeal or protest the final decision. Federal court decisions have ruled that
environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if
not raised until after completion of a Final EIS. This is to ensure substantive comments
and objections are made available to the BLM when they can be meaningfully considered
and responded to in the Final EIS.

Comments received on the DEIS, along with comments received during scoping or at
other stages of this process, will be placed into the Administrative Record, where they
will be available for public review. Please be aware that information, such as
addresses and phone numbers, may be viewed and copied by anyone with access to
these public files in this open process.

To be most helpful, comments on the DEIS should be specific, mentioning particular
pages or chapters where appropriate. Comments may address the adequacy of the DEIS,
the merits of the alternatives, or the procedures followed in the preparation of this
document as called for under NEPA and its implementing regulations.

2

Letter to Readers

Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Cotterel Wind Power Project

For a comment to be considered to have substance, it should:

• Provide new information pertaining to the proposed action or an alternative;

• Identify a new issue or expand upon an existing issue;

• Identify a different way to meet the underlying need;

• Provide an opinion regarding an alternative, including the basis or rationale for the
opinion;

• Point out a specific flaw in the analysis; or

• Identify a different source of credible research which, if used in the analysis, could
result in different effects.

For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact Scott Barker at (208)
677-6678; fax (208) 677-6699; or email scott barker@blm.gov .

Thank you for your interest and participation in this analysis.

Sincerely,

1 _ v _

Field Office Manager

3

ABSTRACT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED COTTEREL WIND POWER PROJECT AND
DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
BURLEY, CASSIA COUNTY, IDAHO

Lead Agency:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Twin Falls District

Burley Field Office, Burley, Idaho

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Bonneville Power Administration

Idaho Department of Lands

Bureau of Reclamation

Cassia County Commissioners

Participating Agency:

Idaho Department of Fish & Game

Tribal Governments:

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Responsible Official:

Assistant Director

Bureau of Land Management

Washington, D.C.

Further Information:

Wendy Reynolds, Field Office Manager or

Scott Barker, Project Manager

BLM Burley Field Office

15 East, 200 South

Burley, Idaho 83318
(208) 677-6641

e-mail: wendv revnolds(2);bIm.gov
scott barker(ablm.gov

ABSTRACT: Windland, Inc., a Boise-based, private wind energy development company has
submitted a right-of-way application to construct, operate and maintain a wind energy facility
along the Cotterel Mountains near the towns of Albion, Malta, and Burley, in Cassia County,
Idaho. Windland, Inc. is in partnership with Shell WindEnergy, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Royal Dutch/Shell Group. The proposed wind energy facility would occupy approximately
16 miles of ridgeline along Cotterel Mountain, consist of a single linear north-south string of
turbines situated primarily on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management,
Burley Field Office, Burley, Idaho. There is a small amount of Idaho State land and
privately-owned land associated with the proposed project.

Mery 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

Cofterel Wind Power Project

Abstract

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been completed which analyzes four
alternatives in detail: A ltemative A (No Action); Altem ative B (Proponent^ Proposed
Action); Alternative C (Modified Proposed Ac tion);and Alternative D (Minimum turbine
string action). Other agencies may tier to this analysis for any decisions they may make
associated with this proposed project.

At this time, Alternative C has been identified as the preferred alternative after having
considered the environmental impacts to public lands and the opportunities for use of those
lands, which would benefit the most people over the longest term.

This Draft EIS also contains a proposed amendment to the Cassia Resource Management
Plan, 1985, that could amend this plan to allow for the granting of a right-of-way for the
development of a wind energy facility. Both the analysis disclosed in the DEIS and the
proposed plan amendment are available for comment.

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER

National Environmental Policy Act Disclosure Statement
Bureau of Land Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Cotterel Mountain Wind Power Project

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1506.5© require
that consultants preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) execute a disclosure specifying
they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. The term “Financial interest or
other interest in the outcome of the project” for the purposes of this disclosure is defined in the March
23, 1981, guidance “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy
Act Regulations,” 46 FR 18026-18038 at Questions 17a and b.

“Financial or other interest in the outcome of the project” includes “any financial benefits such as
promise of future construction or design work in the project, as well as indirect benefits the contractor
is aware of (e.g., if the project would aid proposals sponsored by the firm’s other clients).” 46 FR
18026-18038 at 18031.

In accordance with the above-referenced regulatory requirements, URS Group, Incorporated has
prepared this Draft EIS on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management and declares no financial or
other interest in the outcome of the proposed project.

Certified by:

Glenn Roberts, Vice President

Date

URS Group, Incorporated
1750 Front Street, Suite 100
Boise, Idaho 83702

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEAR READER LETTER

ABSTRACT

DISCLAIMER

TABLE OF CONTENTS.i

ACRONYMS.xi

ENGLISH/METRIC AND METRIC/ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS.xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.ES-1

INTRODUCTION.ES-1

SCOPING .ES-1

LEAD, COOPERATING AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES.ES-2

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION.ES-3

INTERAGENCY WIND ENERGY TASK TEAM (IWETT).ES-3

THE APPLICANT.ES-3

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION.ES-3

CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.ES-4

DECISIONS TO BE MADE.ES-4

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.ES-5

AMENDING THE EXISTING CASSIA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.ES-13

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/EXISTING CONDITION.ES-14

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.ES-16

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.ES-29

CHAPTER 1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED.1-1

1.1 THE APPLICANT.1-5

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.1-5

1.2.1 The Purpose of the Proposed Action.1 -5

1.2.2 The Need for the Proposed Action.1 -6

1.3 LEAD, COOPERATING AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES.1-9

1.4 GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION.1 -9

1.5 INTERAGENCY WIND ENERGY TASK TEAM (IWETT).1-10

1.6 CONFORMANACE WITH EXISTING LAND USE PLAN.1-10

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement i

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

1.7 SCOPING.Ml

1.7.1 Significant Issues Identified and Used to Develop Alternatives.1-11

1.7.2 Other Issues and Concerns Addressed.1-12

1.7.3 Issues Deemed Outside the Scope of the Draft EIS.1-12

1.8 FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES AND ACTIONS.1-13

1.9 DECISIONS TO BE MADE.1-14

1.9.1 Bureau of Land Management.1-14

1.9.2 Bonneville Power Administration.1-15

1.9.3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.1-15

1.9.4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.1-15

1.9.5 Idaho Department of Lands.1-15

CHAPTER 2

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION AND RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.2-1

2.1.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Study.2-1

2.2 ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION).2-2

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION

ALTERNATIVES.2-2

2.3.1 General Features of the Wind Power Project.2-3

2.3.2 Construction.2-8

2.3.3 Public Access and Safety.2-20

2.3.4 Operations and Maintenance (O&M).2-21

2.3.5 Reclamation.2-22

2.3.6 Decommissioning.2-22

2.3.7 Project Design and Best Management Practices (BMP).2-23

2.4 ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ACTION.2-23

2.4.1 General Features of the Wind Power Project Under Alternative B.2-26

2.5 ALTERNATIVE C - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.2-27

2.5.1 General Features of the Wind Power Project Under Alternative C.2-31

2.5.2 Public Access.2-33

2.5.3 Operations and Maintenance (O&M).2-33

2.5.4 Required On-Site Monitoring, Effectiveness Monitoring,

Adaptive Management and Compensatory (Off-Site) Mitigation.2-33

2.6 ALTERNATIVE D.2-36

2.6.1 General Features of the Wind Power Project Under Alternative D..... .2-37

2.6.2 Public Access and Safety.2-40

2.6.3 Required On-Site Monitoring, Effectiveness Monitoring, Adaptive

Management and Compensatory (Off-Site) Mitigation.2-40

2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL.2-40

2.7.1 Alternative E.2-40

2.7.2 Alternative F.2-43

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement a

Cotferel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

2.8 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.2-43

2.9 AMENDING THE EXISTING CASSIA RMP.2-59

2.9.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Existing Cassia RMP.2-59

2.9.2 Planning Process.2-60

2.9.3 Planning Issues and Criteria.2-61

2.9.4 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Existing Cassia RMP.2-61

CHAPTER 3

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.3-1

3.0.1 Critical Elements Not Affected or Present Within the Proposed Project Area.3-1

3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES.3-2

3.1.1 Climate and Air Quality.3-2

3.1.2 Geology.3-4

3.1.3 Soils.3-6

3.1.4 Water Resources.3-9

3.1.5 Noise.3-11

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.3-13

3.2.1 Vegetation.3-13

3.2.2 Wildlife.3-21

3.2.3 Special Status Species, Including Endangered, Threatened, Candidate

Sensitive and Watch List Species.3-40

3.3 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.3-53

3.3.1 Natural and Cultural Setting.3-53

3.4 AMERICAN INDIAN CONCERNS.3-63

3.4.1 Treaty Rights.3-63

3.4.2 Trust Responsibility.3-64

3.4.3 Traditional Cultural Places and Use Areas.3-64

3.4.4 Sacred Sites.3-64

3.5 SOCIOECONOMICS.3-64

3.5.1 Existing Conditions.3-64

3.5.2 Regional Economy and Community.3-65

3.5.3 Population, Housing and Property Values.3-71

3.5.4 Housing and Property Values.3-74

3.5.5 Public Finance and Fiscal Conditions.3-77

3.5.6 Environmental Justice.3-79

3.6 LANDS AND REALTY.3-82

3.6.1 Land Status.3-85

3.6.2 Existing Land Use.3-85

3.6.3 Planned Land Use.3-86

3.6.4 Rights-of-Ways.3-87

Hi

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Co tferel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

3.7 RECREATION .3-87

3.7.1 Recreation Opportunities.3-88

3.7.2 Hunting.3-88

3.7.3 Camping.3-89

3.7.4 Off-highway Vehicle Use.3-89

3.8 LIVESTOCK GRAZING.3-89

3.8.1 Livestock use of Grazing Allotments.3-89

3.8.2 Rangeland Conditions.3-91

3.8.3 Rangeland Improvements.3-92

3.8.4 Wildhorses.3-93

3.9 VISUAL RESOURCES.3-93

3.9.1 Visual Resource Management System.3-93

3.9.2 Visual Resource Inventory.3-93

3.9.3 Management Class Rating for the Cotterel Mountain Area.3-95

3.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.3-97

3.11 FIRE MANAGEMENT.3-97

CHAPTER 4

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.4-1

4.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS.4-1

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.4-2

4.3 PAST/PRESENT ACTIONS.4-2

4.4 FUTURE FORSEEABLE ACTIONS.4-2

4.5 PHYSICAL RESOURCES.4-3

4.5.1 Climate and Air Quality.4-3

4.5.2 Geology.4-4

4.5.3 Soils .4-5

4.5.4 Water Resources.4-6

4.5.5 Noise .4-8

4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.4-10

4.6.1 Vegetation.4-10

4.6.2 Wildlife.4-14

4.6.3 Amphibians and Reptiles.4-18

4.6.4 Bat and Bird Fatalities from the Operations of the

Proposed Wind Project.4-19

4.6.5 Special Status Wildlife Species.4-31

4.7 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.4-40

4.7.1 Alternative A (No Action).4-40

4.7.2 Alternative B.4-40

4.7.3 Alternative C.4-42

4.7.4 Alternative D.4-42

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement jy

Cotferel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

4.8 AMERICAN INDIAN CONCERNS.4-42

4.8.1 Alternative A (No Action).4-42

4.8.2 Alternative B.4-42

4.8.3 Alternative C.4-42

4.8.4 Alternative D.4-43

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS.4-43

4.9.1 Alternative A (No Action).4-43

4.9.2 Alternative B.4-43

4.9.3 Alternative C.4-50

4.9.4 Alternative D.4-50

4.10 LANDS AND REALTY.4-51

4.10.1 Land Status and Ownership.4-51

4.10.2 Land Use.4-51

4.10.3 Alternative A (No Action).4-52

4.10.4 Alternative B.4-52

4.10.5 Alternative C.4-52

4.10.6 Alternative D.4-52

4.11 RECREATION.4-52

4.11.1 Alternative A (No Action).4-52

4.11.2 Alternative B.4-52

4.11.3 Alternative C.4-53

4.11.4 Alternative D.4-54

4.12 LIVESTOCK GRAZING.4-54

4.12.1 Alternative A (No Action).4-54

4.12.2 Alternative B.4-55

4.12.3 Alternative C.4-55

4.12.4 Alternative D.4-55

4.13 VISUAL RESOURCES.4-56

4.13.1 Visual Resource Contrast Rating Method.4-56

4.13.2 Alternative A (No Action).4-59

4.13.3 Alternative B.4-59

4.13.4 Alternative C.4-61

4.13.5 Alternative D.4-62

4.13.6 Lighting and Dark-Sky Impacts.4-63

4.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.4-64

4.14.1 Alternative A (No Action).4-64

4.14.2 Alternative B.4-64

4.14.3 Alternative C.4-64

4.14.4 Alternative D. 4-65

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement v

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

4.15 FIRE MANAGEMENT.4-65

4.15.1 Alternative A (No Action).4-65

4.15.2 Alternative B.4-65

4.15.3 Alternative C.4-66

4.15.4 Alternative D.4-67

4.16 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (IMPACTS).4-67

4.16.1 Physical Resources.4-67

4.16.2 Biological Resources.4-68

4.16.3 Historical and Cultural Resources.4-72

4.16.4 American Indian Concerns.4-72

4.16.5 Socioeconomics.4-72

4.16.6 Lands and Realty.4-72

4.16.7 Recreation.4-73

4.16.8 Livestock Grazing.4-73

4.16.9 Visual Resources.4-74

4.16.10 Hazardous Materials.4-74

4.16.11 Fire Management.4-74

4.17 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS.4-75

4.18 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT

OF RESOURCES.4-75

CHAPTER 5

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.5-1

5.1 SPECIFIC CONSULTATION ACTIONS.5-1

5.1.1 Formal and Informal Government to Government

Consultation with Tribes.5-1

5.1.2 Intergovernmental (State and Local) and Interest Group Coordination.5-2

5.1.3 Resource Advisory Council (RAC).5-3

5.1.4 Cassia County Public Lands Committee.5-3

5.1.5 Congressional Staffs.5-3

5.1.6 Consultation with Federal Agencies.5-4

5.1.7 Interagency Wind Energy Task Team (IWETT).5-5

5.1.8 Initial Public Scoping-Mailing List.5-6

5.1.9 Public Scoping Meetings.5-7

5.2 LIST OF PREPARERS.5-9

CHAPTER 6

6.0 REFERENCES.6-1

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement vi

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A
Appendix B

Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E

Appendix F
Appendix G

NOI Published In Federal Register

Instruction Memorandum 2003-20 from the Interim Wind Energy Development
Policy

BLM Best Management Practices

BLM Management Practices Specific to Wildlife

BLM Interim Offsite Compensatory Mitigation for Oil, Gas, Geothermal and Energy
Rights-of-Way Authorizations

Applicant Commitment Letter for Cooperative Agreement
Visual Simulations

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

VII

Cofferel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.8-1 Federal and State Authorities and Actions for Proposed Project.1-13

Table 2.3-1 Estimated Vehicle Trips for Construction of the Proposed Project.2-18

Table 2.3-2 Estimated Workforce for the Proposed Project.2-19

Table 2.4-1 Alternative B - Proposed Action Project Features.2-26

Table 2.4-2 Miles of Transmission Interconnect Line by Ownership for Alternative C.2-26

Table 2.5-1 Alternative C Project Features.2-28

Table 2.5-2 Miles of Transmission Interconnect Line by Ownership for Alternative C.2-32

Table 2.6-1 Alternative D Project Features.2-37

Table 2.8-1 Comparison of Project Features of the Action Alternatives.2-45

Table 2.8-2 Acreage of Land That Would Be Affected by Development of the

Proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project.2-46

Table 2.8-3 Summary Comparison of Resource Impacts for All Alternatives.2-47

Table 3.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.3-3

Table 3.1-2 Impaired (303d designation) Waters Near the Proposed

Project Area (IDEQ 2003).3-11

Table 3.1-3 Representative Noise Sources and Corresponding Noise Levels.3-12

Table 3.2-1 Vegetative Components Within Each Community Type.3-15

Table 3.2-2 Acreage of Each Community Type Within Vegetation Survey Area.3-16

Table 3.2-3 Acres of Each Community Type Within the Proposed Project Area.3-16

Table 3.2-4 Idaho Department of Fish and Game Unit 55 Mule Deer

Harvest Statistics 1998 to 2003.3-24

Table 3.2-5 Avian Abundance During Yearlong Point Counts in the

Cotterel Study Area.3-33

Table 3.2-6 Avian Use, Percent Composition and Percent Frequency of

Occurrence by Groups with Species in the Cotterel Study Area

During Avian Point Count Surveys.3-36

Table 3.2-7 Special Status Wildlife Species of Known or Potential Occurrence

in the Proposed Project Area.3-41

Table 3.3-1 Chronological Subdivisions of Upper Snake River Prehistory.3-54

Table 3.3-2 NHRP Eligibility For Sites Within the Proposed Project Area.3-62

Table 3.5-1 Labor Force and Employment for Cassia County, Minidoka County and

the State of Idaho.3-66

Table 3.5-2 Industry Share of Employment, 2002 for Cassia County, Minidoka County

and the State of Idaho.3-68

Table 3.5-3 Projected Job Growth by Industry 2000-2010, South Central Idaho for Cassia

County, Minidoka County and the State of Idaho.3-69

Table 3.5-4 Annual Covered Wages and Percentage of Total Wages, 2002 ($ 1,000s) for

Cassia County, Minidoka County and the State of Idaho.3-71

VIII

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

Table 3.5-5 Cassia County Population Trends for Cassia County, Minidoka County and

the State of Idaho.3-72

Table 3.5-6 Population Distribution in Cassia County .3-74

Table 3.5-7 Population Distribution in Minidoka County.3-74

Table 3.5-8 Housing Types and Characteristics, 2000 in Cassia County, Minidoka County

and the State of Idaho..3-75

Table 3.5-9 Median Housing Values in Cassia County, Minidoka County and the

State of Idaho.3-75

Table 3.5-10 Temporary Lodging Near the Proposed Project Area.3-77

Table 3.5-11 Cassia County Distribution of Property Tax Revenue,

2002-2003 Adopted Budget.3-78

Table 3.5-12 Property Tax Rates in Tax Code Areas 16 and 17.3-79

Table 3.5-13 Minority Populations in the South Central Region of Idaho.3-81

Table 3.5-14 Populations Living Below Poverty Level, 1999 in the South Central Region

of Idaho.3-82

Table 3.8-1 Current Grazing Permits in the Proposed Project Area.3-90

Table 3.8-2 Grazing Allotment Distribution in the Proposed Project Area.3-90

Table 3.9-1 Existing VRM Inventory Ratings for the Proposed Project Area.3-94

Table 3.11-1 Albion FMU Fire Management Priority Ranking.3-97

Table 4.5-1 Acres of Soil Disturbance Under Each Alternative.4-6

Table 4.6-1 Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Vegetation (in acres) from the

Proposed Project.4-12

Table 4.6-2 Potential Mapped Big Game Habitat Loss from the

Proposed Project.4-15

Table 4.6-3 Vertical Risk Indices by Avian Group and Turbine Type Based on

Year-Long Point Counts.4-23

Table 4.6-4 Vertical Risk Indices by Avian Group and Turbine Type Based on

Fall Migration Surveys.4-24

Table 4.6-5 Raptor Nesting Density Comparisons.4-25

Table 4.6-6 Estimated Annual Fatality Ranges, by Alternative, for Birds and Bats

at the Proposed Project.4-30

Table 4.6-7 Potential Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Loss from the Proposed Project.4-39

Table 4.9-1 Constructions Cost ($ 1,000s) of the Proposed Project.4-43

Table 4.9-2 Construction Workforce for the Proposed Project.4-44

Table 4.9-3 Annual Cost of Operation and Maintenance ($ 1,000s) of the Proposed Project.4-46

Table 4.13-1 Visual Resource Contrast Criteria.4-58

Table 4.13-2 Visual Contrast Rating for the Proposed Project.4-59

Table 5.1-1 Consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe.5-2

Table 5.1-2 Consultation with State, County, and City Government.5-4

Table 5.1-3 Consultation with Federal Agencies.5-5

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ix

Cotferel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

Table 5.1-4 Interagency Wind Energy Task Team Consultation.5-6

Table 5.1-5 Agencies, Groups, and Individuals Who Responded During the Scoping Process .. 5-7

Table 5.2-1 Personnel Contacted or Consulted for the Cotterel Wind Power Project.5-8

Table 5.2-2 List of Preparers and Participants for the Cotterel Wind Power Project.5-10

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

x

Co tie re I Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.0-1 Overview of Project Area.1-2

Figure 1.0-2 Estimated Wind Speed for Cotterel Mountain Area.1-3

Figure 1.2-1 Southern Idaho Utility Districts.1-6

Figure 1.2-2 Electrical Transmission Grid of Southern Idaho.1 -7

Figure 1.2-3 Comparison of Predictable Fuel Availability of Wind and

Hydro Electrical Generation.1-8

Figure 2.3-1 Diagram of a Typical Wind Turbine.2-4

Figure 2.3-2 Project Overview.2-6

Figure 2.3-3 Typical Wooden H-Frame Transmission Interconnect Line Support Structure.2-8

Figure 2.3-4 Typical Cross Section for Project Access Roads.2-10

Figure 2.3-5 Typical Cross Section for Project Turbine String Roads.2-11

Figure 2.3-6 Typical Turbine Pad Lay-Down and Construction Area.2-13

Figure 2.3-7 Detonation Sequence for Tower Foundation Blasting.2-14

Figure 2.3-8 Excavation of Tower Foundation Hole Following Blasting.2-14

Figure 2.3-9 Two Steel Conduit Foundation Forms.2-15

Figure 2.3-10 Bolt Structure for Tower Foundation.2-15

Figure 2.3-11 Foundation Bolts Ready for Concrete Pour.2-15

Figure 2.4-1 Alternative B, 130 70m Rotor Diameter Turbines.2-25

Figure 2.5-1 Alternative C, 81 100m Rotor Diameter Turbines.2-29

Figure 2.5-2 Alternative C, 98 77m Rotor Diameter Turbines.2-30

Figure 2.5-3 Public Access Plan for Alternative C.2-34

Figure 2.6-1 Alternative D, 66 100m Rotor Diameter Turbines.2-38

Figure 2.6-2 Alternative D, 82 77m Rotor Diameter Turbines.2-39

Figure 2.7-1 Alternative E, 49 100m Rotor Diameter Turbines.2-41

Figure 2.7-2 Alternative F, 20 100m Rotor Diameter Turbines.2-44

Figure 3.1-1 Soil Groups in Project Area.3-7

Figure 3.1-2 Springs in the Project Area and Vicinity.:.3-10

Figure 3.2-1 Vegetation Communities.3-14

Figure 3.2-2 Big Game Habitat.3-23

Figure 3.2-3 Avian Survey Plot Locations.3-31

Figure 3.2-4 Avian Use by Point Count Station.3-32

Figure 3.2-5 Fall Migration Survey Plot Locations.3-35

Figure 3.2-6 Mean Daily Raptor Use During Fall Migration.3-37

Figure 3.2-7 Active Raptor Nests.3-39

Figure 3.2-8 Sage Grouse Leks.3-48

Figure 3.3-1 Historic Trails.3-59

Figure 3.5-1 Labor Force and Employment Trends for Cassia County,

Minidoka County and the State of Idaho.3-67

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement xi

Cotierel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

Figure 3.5-2 Annual Average Rates of Population Growth for Cassia County,

Minidoka County and the State of Idaho.3-72

Figure 3.6-1 Existing Land Ownership.3-83

Figure 3.6-2 Management Area 11 of the Cassia RMP.3-84

Figure 3.9-1 Existing Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes.3-96

Figure 4-13.1 Key Observation Points.4-57

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement x//

Cofferel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS

A. D.

APE

AUM

BA

B. C.

BFO

BLM

BMP

BPA

BOR

CDC

CERCLA

CEQ

CFR

CH 4

CO

co 2

Commission

Council

dB

dBA

DOE

EA

EIS

EPA

ESA

°F

FAA

FCRTS

FERC

FHWA

FM

FMU

FONSI

FRCC

FS

GIBA

HETO

1-84

1-86

1-90

May 2005

After Death

Area of Potential Effects
Animal unit months
Biological Assessment
Before Christ
Burley Field Office
Bureau of Land Management
Best Management Practices
Bonneville Power Administration
Bureau of Reclamation
Conservation Data Center

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
Council on Environmental Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
Methane

Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide

Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission

Tribal Business Council

Decibels

A-weighted decibels

Department of Energy

Environmental Assessment

Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Protection Agency

Endangered Species Act

Degrees Fahrenheit

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Columbia River Transmission System

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Highway Administration

Fuel model

Fire Management Unit
Finding of No Significant Impact
Fire Regime Condition Class
Forest Service

Globally Important Bird Area
Heritage Tribal Office
Interstate 84
Interstate 86
Interstate 90

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xiii

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS

IDAPA

IDEQ

IDFG

IDL

IDT

IDOL

IDWR

IPC

1PUC

IWETT

ISRH

ITC

KOP

kV

kW

LLC

Mg/m3

mi 2

MW

N 2 0

NAAQS

NASS

NEPA

NEPDG

NOA

NOAA

NOI

no 2

NO x

NP

NRCS

NRHP

NTP

NWCC

NWPCC

0 3

O&M

OHV

Pb

PM.o

Proposed Project

Idaho Administrative Rules

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Idaho Department of Lands

Interdisciplinary Team

Idaho Department of Labor

Idaho Department of Water Resources

Idaho Power, an IdaCorp Company

Idaho Public Utilities Commission

Interagency Wind Energy Task Team

Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health

Idaho State Tax Commission

Key observation point

Kilovolt

Kilowatt

Limited Liability Corporation

Milligrams per cubic meter

Square miles

Megawatts

Nitrous Oxide

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Agricultural Statistics Service

National Environmental Policy Act

National Energy Policy Development Group

Notice of Availability

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Notice of Intent

Nitrogen dioxide

Oxides of nitrogen

Not Present

Natural Resource Conservation Service

National Register of Historic Places

Notice to Proceed

National Wind Coordinating Committee

Northwest Power and Conservation Council

Ozone

Operations and maintenance

Off-highway vehicle

Lead

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns
Proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

XIV

Cofterel Wind Power Project Table of Contents

ACRONYMS

PSD

RAC

RFP

RMP

ROS

ROW

RQD

RSA

SCI

SCS

SH

SIEDO

SL&I

so 2

SO x

SQRU

SRMA

SWEI

TES

Mg/m 3

URS

U.S.

USDA

USDI

USDOT

USFWS

USGS

VOC

VRM

Windland

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Resource Advisory Council

Request for Proposal

Resource Management Plan

Recreational Opportunities Spectrum

Rights-of-Way

Rock Quality Designation

Rotor-swept area

South Central Idaho

Soil Conservation Service

State Highway

Southern Idaho Economic Development Organization

Salt Lake & Idaho Railroad Company Grade

Sulfur Dioxide

Oxides of sulfur

Scenic Quality Rating Units

Special Resource Management Areas

Shell WindEnergy, Inc.

Threatened, endangered and sensitive

Micrograms per cubic meter

URS Group, Inc.

United States

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Department of Interior

United States Department of Transportation

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

United States Geological Survey
volatile organic compound

Visual Resource Management

Windland, Incorporated

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement xv

Co tferel Wind Power Project

Table of Contents

ENGLISH/METRIC AND METRIC/ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS

The following table lists the appropriate equivalents for English and metric units.

MULTIPLY

BY

TO OBTAIN

English/Metric Equivalents

Acres

0.4047

Hectares (ha)

Cubic feet (ft 3 )

0.02832

Cubic meters (m )

Cubic yards (yd 3 )

0.7646

Cubic meters (m 3 )

Degrees Fahrenheit (°F) -32

0.5555

Degrees Celsius (°C)

Feet (ft)

0.3048

Meters (m)

Gallons (gal)

3.785

Liters (L)

Gallons (gal)

0.003785

Cubic meters (m 3 )

Inches (in.)

2.540

Centimeters (cm)

Miles (mi)

1.609

Kilometers (km)

Pounds (lb)

0.4536

Kilograms (kg)

Short tons (tons)

907.2

Metric tons (t)

Square feet (ft 2 )

0.09290

Square meters (m )

Square yards (yd 2 )

0.8361

Square meters (m )

*2

Square miles (mi )

2.590

Square kilometers (km )

Yards (yd)

0.9144

Meters (m)

Metric/English Equivalents

Centimeters (cm)

0.3937

Inches (in.)

Cubic meters (m 3 )

35.31

Cubic feet (ft 3 )

Cubic meters (m 3 )

1.308

Cubic yards (yd 3 )

Cubic meters (m 3 )

264.2

Gallons (gal)

Degrees Celsius (°C)

1.8

Degrees Fahrenheit (°F) -32

Hectares (ha)

2.471

Acres

Kilograms (kg)

2.205

Pounds (lb)

Kilograms (kg)

0.001102

Short tons (tons)

Kilometers (km)

0.6214

Miles (mi)

Liters (L)

0.2642

Gallons (gal)

Meters (m)

3.281

Feet (ft)

Meters (m)

1.094

Yards (yd)

Metric tons (t)

1.102

Short tons (tons)

Square kilometers (km )

0.3861

Square miles (mi 2 )

Square meters (m )

10.76

Square feet (ft 2 )

Square meters (m )

1.196

Square yards (yd 2 )

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

XVI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF THE DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
PROPOSED COTTEREL WIND POWER PROJECT
AND DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

BURLEY, CASSIA COUNTY, IDAHO

This Executive Summary is intended to be a synopsis of the Cotterel Wind Power Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment for the
reader. The detailed analysis of the Proposed Action, alternatives to the Proposed Action, and
the disclosure of impacts is displayed in detail in the DEIS, available both on CD and in hard
copy formats. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is also available to the reader
on the internet at www.id.blm.gov/planning/cotterel .

INTRODUCTION

In March, 2001, the Bureau of Land Management, Burley Field Office, Burley, Idaho (BLM)
received an application from Windland, Inc. (the Applicant) for a right-of-way (ROW) to construct,
operate and maintain a wind-driven electric power generation facility on Cotterel Mountain. The
BLM accepted this application and initiated a Notice of Intent to Prepare an E1S and Amend the
Cassia Resource Management Plan, 1985 (Cassia RMP) in the Federal Register on December 19,
2002. This triggered an initial public scoping period that ran for 60 days and concluded on February
21, 2003. The process for analyzing the proposal and alternatives began with the publication of the
Notice of Intent and was consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,
1969 (NEPA).

SCOPING

Significant Issues Identified through Scoping and Used to Develop Alternatives

Public, govemment-to-govemment, and interagency scoping for issues was accomplished early in the
analysis process through public meetings, scoping documents, interagency meetings, and internal
BLM interdisciplinary discussions and continues today. Issues that emerged during the analysis
process were also considered in formulating the scope of work and the alternatives. The issues
considered to be significant and addressed in detail include:

• Sage-grouse conservation

• Maintaining and protecting tribal treaty rights or heritage links to public lands

• Migratory birds including raptor migration

• Threatened and Endangered Species Protection

• Maintain public access

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-1

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

• Visual resources protection

• Consistency with the Cassia RMP

Other Issues and Concerns Addressed:

• Air quality (dust in communities during construction)

• Ridgeline and cultural significance to tribes

• Historical migration routes of tribes

• Water resources, including surface, groundwater and springs

• Noise/vibration/harmonics

• Vegetation restoration

• Noxious weeds control

• Wildlife conservation

• Wind turbine effects on birds and bats

• Direct and indirect wildlife habitat loss

• Mule deer winter range Interruption

• Increase human activity on Cotterel Mountain and effects on wildlife

• Cultural and historic resources protection

• Community economic stability

• Land use changes

• Changing private land values

• Increased traffic on local roads during construction

• Livestock grazing interruption

• Recreation opportunity changes

Issues Deemed Outside the Scope of the DEIS:

• Future Bighorn Sheep relocation

• Loss of sage-steppe habitat due to overgrazing

• Other sources of energy opportunities

• Manufacture of wind turbines outside the United States (U.S.)

LEAD, COOPERATING AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

The BLM is the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the preparation of the draft and final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the associated analysis. The responsible official will be
the Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection, BLM, Washington D.C.

Cooperating agencies are federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law (40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Section 1501.6) and may or will make a decision relative to the Cotterel Wind
Power Project (Proposed Project) based on the analysis disclosed in this EIS. Cooperating agencies
may also have special expertise or have information that will assist in development of the analysis. In

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-2

Co fferel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

this analysis, the cooperating agencies include the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR), and Cassia County Commissioners, representing the local government.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is a participating agency and is providing input
relevant to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION

The U.S. has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set for in the Constitution
of the U.S., treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. Since the formation of the Union,
the U.S. has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations under its protection. The Federal
Government has enacted numerous statutes and promulgated numerous regulations that establish and
define a trust relationship with Indian Tribes.

In this analysis, the BLM has formally initiated consultation with the sovereign nations of the
Shoshone-Bannock and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. This consultation has been initiated with these
Tribal Governments in the manner as requested by them and is ongoing throughout the analysis.

INTERAGENCY WIND ENERGY TASK TEAM (IWETT)

The IWETT is a core group of wildlife biologists from the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and the IDFG that was developed under charter in 2004 by the BLM. This team is a
cooperative interagency effort, specifically formed to assist in the development of alternatives and
mitigation recommendations for wildlife and wildlife habitat. This team will continue to work
together in the development of effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management processes.

THE APPLICANT

Windland, Inc, a Boise-based private wind energy development company, in partnership with Shell
Wind Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, is proposing to build a wind energy
facility along the Cotterel Mountain, a linear north-south, 16-mile ridgeline located in southeast Idaho
between the towns of Albion on the west, and Malta on the east. The Proposed Project would be
located in Cassia County, Idaho and situated primarily on public lands managed by the BLM. There is
a small amount of Idaho State Land and privately-owned land associated with the Proposed Project.

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to develop an economically-feasible, wind-powered electric
generation facility on Cotterel Mountain that will provide an alternative renewable energy source to
help supplement existing and future energy demands.

The need for the Proposed Action is demonstrated by growing demand for electricity in the northwest
and the need to provide an electricity source alternative to traditional energy generation sources such
as coal and gas-fired power plants, and hydro-power facilities. This proposal also meets the national

A/1 ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-3

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

need to reduce reliance on foreign energy markets. The Applicant is responding to the BPA and Idaho
Power’s Requests for Proposals to include wind energy resources as a percentage of their energy
portfolios.

The Department of the Interior, more specifically the BLM, in implementing the President’s National
Energy Policy, is seeking opportunities to develop renewable resources including wind energy. The
Cotterel Mountain location contains the prerequisite conditions to fulfill the Proposed Action. These
criteria include the presence of an adequate wind energy resource, adequate construction access, and
adequate transmission capability to carry the power produced to consumer markets. The Cotterel
Mountain site meets these criteria and is therefore being analyzed in detail in this DEIS.

CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The BLM existing Cassia RMP does not address wind energy development. At the time of
preparation of the Cassia RMP, wind was not considered as a potential energy source in Idaho, hence
Cotterel Mountain was not considered as a wind energy site and the Proposed Action is not consistent
with the Cassia RMP. The Proposed Project would require an amendment to the plan should the
decision be made to grant a ROW for wind energy development on Cotterel Mountain. The draft plan
amendment to the Cassia RMP is displayed in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives, and is
available to the reader for comment. The Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with the
Cassia RMP in meeting all other land management objectives.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE
Bureau of Land Management (Lead Agency)

The BLM will make a decision whether or not to grant a ROW to allow for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of a wind energy project on federal lands. The BLM will also make a
decision whether or not to amend its existing Cassia RMP which will allow for the granting of the
ROW if so decided. Both decisions will be outlined in a Record of Decision, based on the outcome of
the EIS.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Cooperating Agency)

The USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion based on a Biological Assessment (BA) of impacts to
threatened and endangered species. The BA will address potential impacts of the project to bald
eagles and gray wolves. The findings of the Biological Opinion will be included in the BLM Record
of Decision.

Bonneville Power Administration (Cooperating Agency)

The BPA will make a decision whether or not to offer contract terms for the interconnection of the
Proposed Project to the Federal Columbia River Transmission System (FCRTS). BPA has adopted an
Open Access Transmission Tariff for the FCRTS, consistent with the Federal Energy Regulatory

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-4

Cotferel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

Commission’s pro forma open access tariff. Under BPA’s tariff, BPA offers transmission
interconnection to the FCRTS to all eligible customers on a first-come, first-served basis.

Idaho Department of Lands (Cooperating Agency)

Idaho Department of Lands will make a decision whether or not to grant a ROW for a portion of a
transmission line that would cross state land.

Bureau of Reclamation (Cooperating Agency)

The BOR is deferring the ROW decision to the BLM for a small portion of the transmission
interconnection line that will potentially cross lands managed by the BOR.

Cassia County Commissioners (Cooperating Agency)

The Cassia County Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Committee will approve a conditional
use permit for certain components of the project.

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This section identifies and describes the Proposed Action, the no action alternative and the action
alternatives associated with the Proposed Project. The DEIS analyzed four alternatives in detail:

• Alternative A:

• Alternative B:

• Alternative C:

• Alternative D:

The No Action Alternative
Applicant’s Proposed Action

Modified Proposed Action with fewer but larger output wind turbines,
alternative access, alternative transmission line locations and
alternative turbine types

Modification of Alternative C with a reduced number of wind turbines

A brief description of these alternatives and project features common to all action alternatives is
provided below. If selected, Alternative B, C and D would require amending the Cassia RMP.
Alternative A would not require an amendment to the Cassia RMP. In addition, Alternatives E and F
that were not carried forward are discussed.

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A, No Action, is the baseline against which the action alternatives can be compared. This
baseline also allows for the disclosure of the effects of not developing the proposed wind power
project and its associated infrastructure. Under Alternative A, the ROW grant for the construction,
operation and maintenance of a wind-powered electrical generation facility would not be granted and
the RMP would not be amended by the BLM. This alternative would maintain current management
practices for resources and allow for the continuation of resources uses at levels identified in the
Cassia RMP.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-5

Cotierel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

Alternative B (Applicant’s Proposed Action)

This alternative is presented as proposed in the ROW application made by the Applicant to the BLM.
The Applicant has attempted to reduce potential project impacts through project design, application of
BLM Best Management Practices (BMP) and consideration of input from its own public scoping
efforts in developing its Proposed Action.

Under Alternative B, the Applicant is proposing to construct a wind-powered electric generation
facility along the approximately 16-mile ridgeline of Cotterel Mountain. As proposed, the Project
would consist of approximately 130, 1.5 megawatts (MW) wind turbines that would be sited along
the west, central, and east ridges of Cotterel Mountain. The west string would be 0.8-miles in length
and located along the short side-ridge west of the main Cotterel Mountain ridgeline. The center string
of wind turbines would be about 10.9 miles in length and placed along the spine of the central
ridgeline of the mountain. The east string of wind turbines would be 4.1 miles in length and located
along the east ridgeline that extends south of the Cotterel Mountain summit. In addition to the 130
wind turbines, two 138 kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission interconnect lines would connect the
project to the transmission grid emanating from two separate substations. The exact location of
proposed wind turbines, roads, power lines, or other facility-related construction would be sited based
on environmental, engineering, meteorological, and permit requirements.

Each turbine would be 210 feet in height to the center of the hub. Each of the three blades would be
115 feet in length, with an over-all diameter of 230 feet. Maximum blade height would be 325 feet
above the surrounding landscape. There would be two substations. The substations would be located
at the north and central portions of the middle turbine string. The substations would connect to the
existing BPA and Raft River 138 kV transmission lines via two newly constructed transmission
interconnect lines. The transmission interconnect line ROW would cross lands managed by BLM,
Idaho State, as well as those under private ownership.

Approximately 25 miles of all-weather gravel roads would be needed to access and maintain the
Proposed Project. This would require about 4.5 miles of road reconstruction, and about 22 miles of
new road construction. Total estimated cut volume for road construction would be approximately
2,660,000 cubic yards. The estimated fill volume would be approximately 2,500,000 cubic yards. The
total construction impact area for all project features would be about 365 acres. Following the
reclamation of construction impact areas, the final Proposed Project would occupy an area of about
203 acres. Other physical components of the wind plant are described in Comparison of Project
Features of Alternatives B, C and D.

Alternative C (Agency’s Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C is a modified alternative to the Proposed Action (Alternative B) with fewer but larger
output wind turbines, alternative access, and alternative transmission line locations. AT THIS
TIME, ALTERNATIVE C IS THE AGENCY’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. Under
Alternative C, the IWETT has identified additional BMPs that are included to specifically address

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-6

Cofterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

wildlife issues and concerns related to sage-grouse, raptors, bats and requirements under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Alternative C also
incorporates a compensatory/off-site mitigation fund that provides the opportunity for effectiveness
monitoring and adaptive management, the extent of which would be determined by a technical
steering committee.

Under Alternative C, the Applicant would construct a wind-powered electric generation facility along
14.5 miles of ridgeline of the Cotterel Mountain. If built as proposed, the project would consist of a
linear alignment of approximately 81-98 wind turbines, based on the size of turbine selected, sited
along the central and east ridges of Cotterel Mountain. The central ridge would have approximately
64 wind turbines and the east ridge would have approximately 17 turbines. In addition to the wind
turbines, one 138 kV overhead transmission interconnect line would connect the project to the
transmission grid from a single substation. The exact location of proposed wind turbines, roads,
transmission interconnect lines, or other facility-related construction would be sited based on detailed
engineering to address site specific environmental, meteorological, or permit conditions including
BMPs.

Under Alternative C, two sizes of wind turbines would be considered. The smaller of the two would
have a 77-meter (230 foot) rotor diameter and would have a generation capacity of 1.5 MW. It would
sit on a 65-meter (210 foot) tower and the rotor would consist of three blades, 115 feet in length.
Maximum blade height would be 325 feet above the ground. The larger turbine would have a 100-
meter (328 foot) rotor diameter and would have a generation capacity of between two and three MW.
It would sit on an 80-meter (262 foot) tower and the rotor would consist of three blades, 164 feet in
length. Maximum blade height would be 426 feet above the ground.

A single substation would be located approximately midway along the central turbine string.
Alternative C would have a single overhead 138 kV transmission interconnect line. The transmission
interconnect line would extend northeast from the substation down to the Raft River Valley where it
would cross over, but not connect to the existing Raft River transmission line. From here the
transmission interconnect line would extend to the north approximately 19.7 miles in a new ROW
adjacent to the existing ROW for the Raft River transmission line. It would cross over the Snake
River west of the Minidoka Dam. The line would then travel in a northeast direction where it would
connect the project to the existing Idaho Power transmission lines located north of the Minidoka
Dam. The transmission interconnect line ROW would cross lands managed by BLM, BOR, Idaho
State, USFWS as well as those under private ownership.

The Proposed Project would require the reconstruction of about 3.2 miles of road and the construction
of about 19.5 miles of new roads. Total estimated cut volume for road construction would be
approximately 2,200,000 cubic yards. The estimated fill volume would be approximately 2,425,000
cubic yards. Under Alternative C, the total construction impact area for all project features would be
about 352 acres. Following the reclamation of construction impact areas, the final Proposed Project
would occupy an area of about 203 acres.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-7

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

Public access on the ridgeline would consist of a combination of new project roads and existing and
newly constructed primitive roads. Although public use of project roads along the ridgeline would be
restricted through a series of gates, signage and natural rock barriers, there would not be a loss of
public access to existing use areas. Public access would be maintained by linking the existing
primitive road system through construction of new primitive roads to allow existing uses of the area,
including hunting, to continue.

Effectiveness Monitoring, Adaptive Management, Compensatory (Off-Site) Mitigation, and
Technical Steering Committee Common to Alternatives C and D

Effectiveness Monitoring

Under Alternatives C and D, effectiveness monitoring is included and is intended to determine the
effectiveness of the project design, construction and BMPs in protecting wildlife beyond the
requirements of Alternative B. This monitoring would be funded by the Applicant through a
compensatory mitigation fund (described below). It includes, but is not limited to, continuing the
collection of pre-construction baseline data for use in comparative analysis, off-site sage-grouse lek
studies, continuing sage-grouse telemetry studies, sage-grouse nesting studies, sage-grouse winter use
studies, and raptor nest surveys.

Wind power projects have effects on wildlife, particularly avian species and bats, depending upon the
location, geography, and natural setting of the project. Effectiveness monitoring of the project (5
years or greater) is key in understanding the relationship between the project design, siting of the
towers, operation of the facility and effects on wildlife. These effects can occur in a variety of ways
but, based on data collected at other operating wind projects, are chiefly associated with bird
collisions with the large blades that drive each of the wind turbines (referred to as the rotor swept area
of each turbine). Additional long-term monitoring may also be necessary to determine how the
characteristics of the project and its turbines affect the behavior and migration of birds and bats and to
determine if there are certain turbines along the string that are contributing to bird and bat mortality
that would trigger the need to implement management actions to reduce these effects.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is based upon a concept of science that understands ecosystems are complex
and inherently unpredictable over time. It approaches the uncertainties of ecosystem responses with
attempts to structure management actions using a systematic method from which over time learning is
a critical tool. Learning and adapting is based on a process of long term monitoring of impacts to
wildlife from this project. The Applicant and the BLM recognize that the findings of long-term
effectiveness monitoring could indicate the need for modification of operations and adaptive
management. The BLM and the Applicant will work cooperatively with the USFWS and the 1DFG to
develop appropriate actions or mitigation measures designed to address issues or concerns identified
as a result of monitoring. Adaptive management tools that are available to the Applicant and BLM
include, but are not limited to: Timing stipulations during construction, operational changes of

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-8

Cofferel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

turbines, siting considerations, lighting scenarios, and color schemes. These are, for the most part,
addressed in Appendix D.

Off-site Mitigation

BLM Washington Office Policy Guidance Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 states that off-site
mitigation can be funded by voluntary contributions from the Applicant into a compensatory
mitigation fund held by the BLM (Appendix E). This would be done by cooperative agreement
between the Applicant and the BLM. This cooperative agreement would prescribe the level of
contribution and the management and use of the fund. Accordingly, the Applicant has volunteered to
contribute to a compensatory mitigation fund pursuant to the above-mentioned guidance. The
Applicant has executed a letter of commitment to enter into a cooperative agreement in accordance
with the foregoing (Appendix F). The Applicant intends the annual contribution to be in an amount
equal to approximately one-half of one percent of the gross revenues received from the Cotterel Wind
Power Project electricity sales. For a 200 MW project name plate, that contribution is expected to
average approximately $150,000 per year at today’s forecasted production and electricity rates.

An extensive framework of off-site mitigation practices was also recommended by the IWETT to
address impacts to wildlife, should they occur as a result of the Proposed Project. These practices
would also be funded by the compensatory mitigation fund (described above). The kinds of off-site
mitigation practices recommended include, but are not limited to: purchase of key habitats;
acquisition of conservation easements on key habitats; or, restoration, treatment or conversion of
existing federally managed off-site habitats. Any off-site activities proposed by the steering
committee would have impacts associated, which would be separate from the impacts identified for
this Proposed Project and analyzed in this document. They would be analyzed in separate NEPA
documents on a case-by-case basis as needed.

Technical Steering Committee

It was further recommended by the IWETT that a technical steering committee be formed to advise
on the design of mitigation measures and monitoring covered by the compensatory mitigation fund.
This committee would be responsible for recommending actions that would be funded by the
compensatory mitigation fund (i.e. implementation of monitoring (over and above that which is
required), recommending commensurate off-site mitigation, and recommending adaptive
management strategies). The intent is to ensure interagency involvement in mitigation and monitoring
activities with particular emphasis on addressing the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and sage-grouse conservation. The committee will also
examine ongoing research and scientific studies attempting to understand the behavior and
relationship between wildlife and wind energy developments. The technical steering committee
would be an expansion of the IWETT and would consist of interagency wildlife and other resource
professionals and the Applicant, with final decision authority resting with the BLM Field Office
Manager. This committee would be formed and chartered prior to any construction of the Proposed
Project.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-9

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

Alternative D

Alternative D is a modification of Alternative C with a reduced number of wind turbines. The IWETT
has identified additional BMPs that are included in this alternative to specifically address wildlife
issues and concerns related to sage-grouse, raptors, bats and requirements under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Alternative D also incorporates a
compensatory/off-site mitigation fund that provides opportunities for effectiveness monitoring and
adaptive management the extent of which would be determined by a technical steering committee.

The premise of Alternative D is elimination of turbines from a portion of the sage-grouse habitat
(leking, nesting, brood rearing, and winter range) while still maintaining an economically viable
project. Because of the infrastructure costs involved with the project (i.e. turbines, roads, powerlines,
substation), the Applicant has determined that 66 turbines in the 1.5 + MW size range would be
necessary for an economically viable project. Concentrating the turbines along the center ridge of
Cotterel Mountain would be the best way to obtain this number of turbines while affecting the fewest
resources. In addition, it would concentrate the project features on the central ridge, leaving the east
ridge undeveloped.

Alternative D would use the same size range and types of wind turbines as those proposed under
Alternative C. Under Alternative D, a range of 66-82 turbines would range in generation capacity
from 1.5 to 3.0 MW. Tower height for the turbines would range from 210 feet to 262 feet, with
maximum blade height ranging from 325 to 426 feet above the ground. Rotor diameters would range
from 230 feet to 328 feet (77-100 meters).

Wind turbines, substations, and transmission interconnect lines would be the same for Alternative D
as described under Alternative C.

Under Alternative D, the Proposed Project would require the reconstruction of about 2.9 miles of road
and the construction of about 14.5 miles of new roads. Total estimated cut volume for road
construction would be approximately 2,080,000 cubic yards. The estimated fill volume would be
approximately 2,275,000 cubic yards. The total construction impact area would be about 282 acres.
Following the reclamation of construction impact areas, the final Proposed Project would occupy an
area of about 160 acres.

Public access under Alternative D would be similar to Alternative C along the central ridgeline and
turbine string. However, under Alternative D there would be no road construction or turbines sited
along Cotterel Mountain’s east ridge. The lower portion of the existing Cotterel Mountain summit
road would have minor modifications made to improve safety. The existing Cotterel Mountain
summit access road and primitive jeep trails along the east ridgeline would remain unchanged and
would continue to be open to the public.

Required on-site monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, adaptive management and compensatory (off¬
site) mitigation would be the same for Alternative D as described under Alternative C.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-10

Cotferel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed In Detail

Alternative E

Alternative E was developed by the identification of issues through public scoping, agency scoping,
the IWETT, government-to-govemment consultation, and interdisciplinary resource
recommendations and is basically a modification of Alternative D. It was proposed as a possible
method of further minimizing potential impacts to sage-grouse habitat and habitat use while
maintaining an economically viable wind energy development. Alternative E, while avoiding the
most direct suspected impacts to sage-grouse lek use and associated nesting at several key locations
on the mountain, would effectively reduce the length of the turbine string to approximately 8.4 miles
and reduce the number of turbines that could be constructed to a range of 40-49. This is substantially
less than the minimum number of wind turbines disclosed by the Applicant as being economically
viable to construct (66 turbines), operate and maintain at the Cotterel Mountain site.

The Applicant’s analysis and disclosure of a minimum size project is based on the cost of
infrastructure (i.e. roads, substation, power transmission, underground cabling, etc.), the cost of
construction on a remote, isolated mountaintop, the cost of monitoring and mitigation, and the cost
and time required for permitting on public land. It is further based on the time required to amortize
the capital investment of a project. Alternative E would have essentially the same infrastructure costs
as Alternative D with approximately 60 percent of the production potential. Accordingly, the
Applicant states that it is not possible to recoup costs in a reasonable amount of time or achieve the
rate of return necessary for such a large investment, nor would it be possible to obtain financing.
While Alternative E is technically feasible and could be constructed, it does not meet the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) test of a reasonable alternative since it is not economically viable.
Therefore, Alternative E does not meet the purpose and need stated in this document. For these
reasons, Alternative E is not carried forward or analyzed in detail. It should be noted that in CEQ’s
definition of “reasonable,” technical and economic are linked. If a proposed project does not meet one
or the other, it is not feasible to construct and therefore, not a reasonable alternative.

The casual observer may notice a number of small wind projects cropping up around southern Idaho.
This begs the question, why are 40 turbines not economically feasible on Cotterel Mountain while
one, three or seven turbines seem to be a viable project in other areas? As stated above, the answer is
closely tied to infrastructure costs, construction costs, monitoring and mitigation costs, the high costs
and lengthy time requirements of siting on public land vs. the low cost and short time frames involved
with siting on private land, and the capital investment amortization time and costs. It should be noted
that, with the exception of time to amortize the capital investments, these smaller projects located on
private land do not experience these other costs.

Alternative F

Alternative F was developed by the identification of issues through public scoping, agency scoping,
the IWETT, govemment-to-govemment consultation, and interdisciplinary resource
recommendations. This alternative further distances the wind energy facilities from sage-grouse use

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-11

Co tferel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

areas. The premise of Alternative F is to site the wind turbines based on the best available science,
combined with professional judgment, for the protection of sage-grouse and their habitat. Studies
regarding the lifecycle of sage-grouse have shown that nesting and brood rearing generally take place
within a 1.8-mile radius of active leks. There is also some scientific information on lesser prairie
chickens to suggest that they may avoid tall structures. Therefore, it has been suggested by some that
placement of a wind power project within that 1.8 mile radius of leks may have an adverse affect on
the lifecycle activities of sage-grouse.

Application of a 1.8-mile no development zone around known, active sage-grouse leks would limit
the siting of the wind generation facility to the 3.6-mile section of the central Cotterel Mountain
ridgeline and reduce the number of constructible turbines to approximately 20. This requirement
would render Alternative F not economically feasible, as a commercial wind generation facility and
not in accordance with the purpose and need stated in this document. Therefore, Alternative F has
been considered but is not being analyzed in detail.

Project Features Common to All Action Alternatives

Major components of the Proposed Project and common to the other action alternatives identified
include:

• Multiple wind turbines and turbine foundations

• Multiple pad mounted transformers

• Buried power collection lines and communication cables

• Several miles of project access roads including existing, reconstructed, and newly
constructed road beds

• Meteorological towers on foundations

• One to two substations

• Newly constructed 138 kV overhead power transmission interconnect lines

• Operations and maintenance building (O&M Building); and

• Portable on-site cement batch plant and rock cmsher

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-12

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

The table below provides a comparison of the alternatives by Proposed Project features.

Comparison of Project Features of Alternatives B, C and D.

Project Features

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Project nameplate (in MW)

195

147-243

123-198

Number of turbines

130

81-98

66-82

Turbine Nameplate (in MW)

1.5 MW

1.5-3 MW

1.5-3 MW

Turbine hub height (meters)

64

80

80

Turbine diameter (in meters)

70

77-100

77-100

Total length of turbine string (in miles)

15.8

14.5

11.6

Project roads total (in miles)

26.6

24.4

19.3

Existing (To be used without modification)

0

1.7

1.7

Reconstructed

4.5

3.2

2.9

New

22.1

19.5

14.7

Electrical trenching (outside of roads, in miles)

5

3-4

2.8

New transmission Interconnect lines (in miles)

9

19.7

19.7

Substations

2

1

1

Meteorological towers

3

3

3

Maintenance and operation building

1

1

1

Temporary ground disturbance (in acres)

365

350

280

Permanent ground disturbance (in acres)

203

203

158

Construction features

Earth work Cut (in cubic yards)

2,663,496

- 2,203,176

2,079,286

Fill

2,506,995

2,423,935

2,275,735

Difference

+156,501

-220,759

-196,449

Truck trips to build project roads (road base only)

12,625

10,885

8,500

Truck trips to build project (turbines, substations,
other)

2,050

1,850

1,250

Total truck trips

14,675

12,735

9,750

Number of batch plants

1

1

1

Mitigation

Wildlife fatality monitoring

X

X

X

BLM BMPs

X

X

X

Compensatory/off-site mitigation

X

X

Public access available

X

X

AMENDING THE EXISTING CASSIA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Proposed Action and the action alternatives are not consistent with the existing Cassia RMP.
When the Cassia RMP was completed, the development of wind energy was not considered as a
potential use on Cotterel Mountain and the Cassia RMP contained no provisions for the granting of a

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-13

Co fferel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

ROW for wind energy development. Therefore, if an action alternative is selected, an amendment to
the Cassia RMP must be made as per regulations found at 43 CFR 1601.

Included in this DEIS is a draft plan amendment. The BLM published its intent to amend the Cassia
RMP in the Federal Register in December 2002. The draft plan amendment is presented in Chapter 2,
Proposed Action and Alternatives.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/EXISTING CONDITION

The purpose of this section is to describe the existing environment/existing condition of the Cotterel
Mountain area including conditions and trends that could be affected by the alternatives described
above.

The Cotterel Mountain range is an area that experiences a range of precipitation of 12 to 25 inches of
rain per year depending upon elevation. The wind blows from west to east and winter snowfall is
blown clear of certain areas of the mountain while forming deep snowdrifts in other areas.

The geology of the Cotterel Mountain is described as a long, low ridge with a relatively steep face or
escarpment on the east side and a long, gentle slope on the west side. The Proposed Project area
generally consists of Pliocene and Upper Miocene volcanic rocks, rhyolite flows, tuffs, and
ignimbrites.

Soils in the Proposed Project area are located at high elevation, have low water-carrying capacity,
have the potential for wind and water erosion, and have minimal to moderate productivity capabilities
as rangeland.

The Cotterel Mountain ridgeline divides the Raft River watershed on the east from the Lake Walcott
watershed on the west. There are no designated major streams within the Proposed Project area. There
are 14 springs, three spring developments, and one well within the Proposed Project boundary.

The relatively remote Proposed Project area is generally quiet and has no industrial noise sources.
Existing noise in the Proposed Project area vicinity is attributable to: recreational users such as off-
highway vehicles (OHV) and snowmobile riders; occasional low flying aircraft; agricultural
equipment; and traffic on area roads.

Big game species include mule deer and mountain lions. Bighorn sheep occur approximately 15 miles
south on nearby Jim Sage Mountain and have occasionally wandered on to Cotterel Mountain. The
IDFG maps both mule deer and bighorn sheep winter range within the Proposed Project area.

Cotterel Mountain supports numerous species of small mammals. Five species of amphibians and
reptiles have been documented in the Proposed Project area or its vicinity. Bats likely use Cotterel
Mountain on a year-round basis. Three species of bats have been documented in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project area.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-14

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

Large expanses of big and low sagebrush, juniper, grasslands and mountain mahogany are found
within the Proposed Project area. These vegetation types provide potential habitat for a number of
bird species, including sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike,
pinyon jay, plumbeus vireo, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher. In addition, the abundance of open
cliffs, strong updrafts, and the close proximity of agricultural lands make this area prime habitat for
raptor species including ferruginous hawks, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, golden eagle and
Swainson’s hawk. Avian species surveys within the Proposed Project area documented 84 species of
birds. Of these, 12 species of falcons, hawks, or eagles were observed. Three species of upland game
bird were observed including the greater sage-grouse. In addition to the wide diversity of bird species
found during the surveys, there are specialized topographical features that provide breeding, nesting
and wintering habitats for many avian species that are not widely available in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project area.

There is one known threatened and endangered species (Bald eagle) and potential habitat for another
(gray wolf). Approximately 40 BLM Sensitive plant and animal species are known to occur or are
suspected to occur within the project area and its vicinity.

The Proposed Project area is located adjacent to the Raft River Valley, which lies immediately east of
Cotterel Mountain and is situated near a historically important crossroads of the Oregon Trail. The
“Parting of the Ways” or “Separation of the Trails,” located on the west bank of the Raft River, was
the junction where travelers had to decide whether to head south toward California or proceed west
along the Snake River toward the Oregon Country.

The cultural resources inventory and evaluation activities resulted in the identification of 21
archaeological sites and 61 isolated finds, in addition to five previously recorded sites. The BLM has
formally initiated consultation with the sovereign nations of the Shoshone-Piaute and the Shoshone-
Bannock in the manner as requested by them. Consulted parties expressed knowledge of past use of
the Cotterel Mountain area describing general use of the ridge as a transportation corridor.

The Proposed Project would be located in Cassia County, Idaho. Cassia County is closely linked
economically with Minidoka County to the north. The two-county area is called the Mini-Cassia area.
The Mini-Cassia economy was built around agricultural industries, such as livestock (beef and dairy
cattle, sheep) and crop production (sugar beets, grains, potatoes, alfalfa, and beans). Today, the Mini-
Cassia area economy continues to be centered on agricultural industries such as food processing. Both
counties have higher average unemployment rates compared to other southern Idaho counties, in part
due to seasonal layoffs typical of the food processing industry. The area has experienced business
closures and layoffs in recent years.

Major land uses include livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, utility distribution, and
communication facilities locations. Management goals for the Proposed Project area include
expanding dispersed recreation opportunities, providing for livestock grazing, and transferring certain
lands from federal ownership. Prominent land uses around the Proposed Project area include: rural

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-15

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

community commercial use that is zoned for the cities of Malta and Albion; commercial recreational
use at the Pomerelle Mountain Resort; and agricultural uses such as farming, grazing, and confined
animal operations.

A primitive road extends along the Cotterel Mountain ridge top providing access to the entire
mountain. Public access to the top of the mountain is available from the north, southwest and
southeast. Several feeder roads and trails provide additional access down lateral ridges and drainages,
but large areas of Cotterel Mountain remain roadless.

The Pomerell Ski Area is located about nine miles west of the Proposed Project area and provides
winter recreation in the form of skiing and snowmobiling. The City of Rocks National Reserve, a
popular camping, hiking, rock climbing, and historical area is located about 24 miles southwest of the
Proposed Project area. The recreational uses of Cotterel Mountain include hunting, OHV use,
picnicking, hiking, and some dispersed camping. The public lands associated with Cotterel Mountain
are mandated by the Cassia RMP to provide for multiple uses, including a diverse choice of recreation
opportunities.

There are two grazing allotments located within the Proposed Project area, North Cotterel and South
Cotterel. The North and South Cotterel allotments have an average stocking rate of between six to
seven acres per Animal Unit Month (AUM). Within the Proposed Project area boundary, there are
approximately 1,700 AUMs.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and alternatives to the Proposed Action are
summarized and compared in the table below. A complete description and disclosure of the impacts
are found in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-16

o

Q>

O

Q_

v_

CD

£

O

Q_

~o

c

CD

(D

t

o

U

to

+->

(j

a

Cu

o>

cd

u

3

o

CO

PC

4-

O

a

o

CO

u

3

Cu

e

o

u

L.

3

E

E

3

CO

03

<D

CD

1-

3

O

a>

a>

3

CO

CO

J

<

V

So

><

ffi

Pk

>v

+-»

c3

3

CT d>

u. X>

3
>
4 —>

cd

u.

<L>

S-H

, <L)

3 >

"3 5
c >

3 O

"3

<D • ~

.-2 <->
n -x3

G
3

cq

CO
3
>

CO

+•* _

3 —*
3 <C

a.7"

S ,o

o

co

3

"3

3

CO

O

-G

>-. 53
X 6

'G 3

S GS

co

c3

O

4 —»

co

a

c2

<t!

3

3

-a

G

3

4 —*

CO

3

_a>

4D

-G

0)

X

^2 Q

III

Cu >

3 .2 G

» 2 3
2 CT <1

>4

4 —>

13

=3

cr

S-H

c3
»-* '
O
<D

4—>

Cd

O

o

C/3

. ~ C/3

m o

^ ctQ

c &

g 2

3S O

< I

<D 3
X3

G £
G S

co

CO

3

3

3

3)

CO

CO

_3

4 > 1

o

3 _

CU £
G 0

.5 £

"3
3

•O £

3

3

3
>
<U

£
o

"3 J3

O

CO

3

-G

bD -
U3 G
co O

<D ’-*-•

3 5

3 £

> §
> o

bo

_G

’Q

3

■3 ”3
O 2

J 6

3 <d

3

3

CO

O

CU

o

3

G

2 % 3

3

3 4) >>
O co 3
CU 3
3 O
•r* -C
G
3

a>

U w>

4>

cc}

1—

O

CU

£

S

o

c
o
-*—>
o

2

co .X

c o
0

O CL,

o

03

cu

E

o

z

>4

3

a

• S ,0

CD £
C/3 ^3

o 2
to .2
.2 «
to *3
<3 S

5 c2

1 O

2 .G

"3 ~p

XI b

c>o 2

oc

CO

CU

3

G

■2 "3

O 4)

2 -S

IS 3

C c/>

t3

o3

O

Wi

-3

c

-3

o3
O
j— t

t-

c2

c

c3

C/3

u,

O

c^J

m

o

W)

a

C/3

cd

X)

£

JD

"c3

x:

co

co CNl

S o

<3

"3

3

c3

<D

G

CU

3

G

O

O

2

CO

C

o

CD

"O

<D

-O

"3

G

bO

G

co

o3

3

£

JD

3

_G

co

"3

3

O

1 —

c—•
<2

X)

C

3

co

G

O

4 -*

3

T3

C

3

c2

CD

C

3

I,

3

CO

a>

s—

O

3

rO

O

(N|

CU

3

G

O

"3

CD

X)

CO

G

O

CD

CD

3

CU

6

c ^
c sn
a> o

•° o

3

3

3

o

* £

2 2
3 ccj
J3 —

H 2

CD

■ —I CO

C>0 t3
0 2
O N
3 3

O X

3

3

•3

3

o

£ "3
«> 2
2 -S

P 5

3

3

CU

E

o

2

o

3

cu

E

• pH

o

Z

3

3

cu

o

Z

3

3

o,

E

o

Z

3

3

bb

o

G

o

co

3 3

CL, oC

3

-D

3

O

£

co

3

L,

3

3

O ^3

<N *3

r- .

—H <U

rsi 2^

- E

2 "3

2 3

cu -2

cu 3

D .£

D 2

>4

cd

T 3

G

• *—»

3

3

X

X

|3

53

3

3

0

0

£

C /5

CO

3

<D

u.

u.

O

3

cd

cd

° "3

bO

o b

4 _> _J
- 4 —»

CU co

X 3

t"' T3
3 - 3

^ E

2 3
CU *3

D 2

3

3

CU

E

G

3

G

3

3

CU

U-i

o

CO

3

CO

3 4
3 -

ro 00

S 2

3

-o

53

3

o

^ 3

co _g

2 "g

3 G

3 [/j

00 3

'■O 7

ro _>c

2 3
cu 3
D .£

"3

3

£

3

3

3

>_

3

Xi

G

O

co

3

l_

3

3

<0

VO

3

3

CU

£

c

3

G

3

i

3

Cl

U-H

o

co

3

3 2
3 --

m co

% 2

3

3

CL

£

o

G

3

X3

53

G

O

3

co

"o

CO

•3

3

3 cd
LG *TJ

H 2

O

CO

co

3

3

L.

3

O

co

3

PC

U

3

-w

£

03

C/D

aJ

a>

CO

QO

C/J

aj

a>

E

c3

CO

a>

2 ^

3 3

2 Ǥ

> 4-i

3 4
-C G

co

"3 4 ^
"b o

§ ^

3 2
3__

'o' G

i—* ) ‘

CL C

3 2

£ 0

f— cu

co

4 —*

o c/)
3 4>

& ^
§ §
o 00
c

3

3

-3 2
■3 5
3 >

o o
s

J> aS

3 ^3
»-C .

H 2

3

3

3

3

.3

4,

l_

3

CO

CQ

L0

3

3

£

3

CO

CQ

<0

3

3

3

CO

"3

3

CO

O

CU

o

2 Cl,
73 3

§ £

OD

6X)

_g -S CC3

£ cL 2

.boo

tS > w
2 S „

CQ Cu

C/)

4-3

o C /3
GJ

CU

§ s

O “5

2 3

G u,

3

-O

53 ^

3 >

o O

3 5

L- 4—t

3 c3

-c *3
H 2

3

4-3

a

TD

C

3

O

i_

a

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 7

D

E

E

r>

oo

(D

>

-4^

r>

u

<D

X

LU

CD

o

1—

CL

L.

CD

£

o

CL

~o

c

§

(D

L

(D

t=

O

U

cd

a

a,

E

1-4

o>

cd

u

3

o

3

0>

DC

a

o

3

*2

cs

CL

O

U

>>

j-

3

E

E

3

(/)

u

oa

a>

o

s-

3

O

3

<K

DC

<u

3

3

3

o>

3

- —*

o

£

3

O

3

3

3

-a

JD

17

o

X

co

QQ

CO

3

CD

E

3

GO

C_>

t3 3
3 o
o 2

^ 3

co X
*-> 3
O CD
3 3? co

a o Si
pr p, cd
3 ^ co

.3 3 3

—. <_i_, .—i

3 o 3
3 3

-2 3 .2

3 " 3

» « £

^ S g

O 25

CQ

CO

ctf

a>

s

Ctf

CO

S'«

2 .52

2 °

S’ c

60
3

*G

3
TD
co

<D 2

g

ID

E

o

O _Q

X 2 o

3
O
£

a>

30

3

g

O
r c—»
6-h

a>

3

CL

g

O

3

a)

t_>

3

CO

CL
<D
O O

a> cd

3
O
.—,
o
3

3

3

O

3

>—

a)

>

52 £ a>

o X"
o L>

’o

Z

*-» TD

53 <D

3 o
<d a>
GO cl|

o *

4-> <1>

o

.0>

$4-4

<4-4

<1>

o

z

a>

>

jd

cd aJ
co 3

s g

3 *->
_. 3

2 °

O g*

60 g

x 2

3

n 3

cd

60 3
3 ^

’33 a>
co _p

X 2

m .S

CD

oo

’5

3

T3

CD

CO

T3 3
3 .-3
3

co 3
(D -3

^2

3 co CD • —
<l> •—* -t-j r~~i
u. a> .p t3
o > co r3
3 <L) CD >

-}

<

U

hH

U

O

2

o

HH

03

s

44

C3

0)

00

a>

>

H-4

o

o

4—>

ID

x .

s

’o'

o

2

Dh

04

3 ’g

4—> (D

75

6-1

o

x5

a>

g

<I> tt

?? CD
<D X

g

5

4—»

CJ

a>

> 2

p

O

6-i ^

o

o

a>

O >i

4—»

u.

g

3 33

CD

oo

<L>

CD O

3

a>

u, id

c

O 4

O I—,
* 2

4—»

3

3

o

<4-*

O

§ x

O

r-

C/J

° 3

2 K

(D 3

'nT

d>

V-4

o 2

4-4

o

O

G3

CL O

D ^

* X 4—*

O 3

•-4 |J_)

CL 6 L

Oh

D

CO

0

CNj

s ^

o x
3 y

4—» <D

60 2

CD C3

> ^
ti_i 3

°

CO 4—»

4> O

O

3

C4

OO

rj

"O
<D
X)

T3

3

CL O

D ^

0

ctf

Oh

___

-O

g

a>

3

• —H

4—*

<4-4

O

—H

3

3

ID

O

O

0

<D

3

3

4—>

V-.

S

O

s

co

CD

(h

<D

U 4

ID

CL •

4—4

3

3

3

3

O

o3

6- 1 S
0 .2

O

CD

CO

nrt

a> S

O

64

04

1 *

t .

4—»

CD

CD

CD

ID

O

4—4

3 011

ID

'o'

L4

CL

'o'

Lh

CL

Oh

D

OO >

2 0

r—1 ,*_»

5 ^

O X)

S "S
&8-
L-c 3 ^

° Z> ’

CO

(D

O

o'

l-l

Cl

3

o

a>

CD

X

o
3

OO
X
ro

o 2

" 3
CL O

D £

3
O

4—»

o

5

co

C

O (L>
o

cz»

<D

u.

4—*

co CL

» S

3 ^ ^

ii-i

X 33 OO

CD 3 ^
X O <D

>i X

O <D —*
— X 3
ID c
60 S T3
3 -2 (D

3

O « '"
60
CD

O

Z

> X

3

CD

"O

6-i

° 3

3 .2

3

>

O

E »

CD

c2

60

CD

>

T3

CD

E

3

73

CD

Lh

CO

ID

l_

O

3

X

X

CL

D

o

3

CL

g

3

ID

3

3

a

u

Cl

6-i

O

co

CD

l_

o

3

m

o

C4

3

_o

s

73

60|

ID

>

CQ

CO

3

CD

E

3

GO

CQ

co

3

CD

3

GO

O "g
O 3

3

.2 3

3 p
~*rt •—*
ID r-

g>|

£ ^

° 37

CD <D

S jj

3 X

"S O

3 w

“■S

n i>

x

o

X

c n

a>

a>

£

CO • —
3 X
O

<D

co

3

CD

i—

O

3

X

o

3
6-4
O

"2

3 .—,
CD 3

g °

LO

a>

o

u*

23 s

° ci

a> a>

*—*

T3 id"

ID <D -p

• - o ^

Qh L-.

1/2 77
«-T w

ID T3

| o

- «
c7 >

c2

3

O

3

O

12

3

O

o

3 "2
ID 3

■ 2 ccs
o ^

s.§

1/3 o

CD 3
co 3
<D 3

S <D
- X

3

O

2 E
•S 5

• ^ a>
»-

^ (D

u.

c/T C
a> "O

<2

<4-1

O

a>

cd

a>

03

a> a> ^

S X CD

E 3 X CO

O c X <D
O w > >

O

CD

u>

75

3

3

(D

£

60

3

3

>» ^ ‘
X . 3 co

3 ° 2

.5 -4-4 >

3 X id

3 3 4->

°2.S

CO Oh

60 > fO

3 » K

2 « ^

X s
CD

CO

CO

3

u

X
0> 3
X O CD
w >i X
O <D w
w X 3
ID e
60 5 3
3 -2 a>

2 3^

O D

o
Z

3
a>

> 2

60

4 >

3

T3

CD

CD

3

3

O

"x

o

Z

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-18

o
E
E
c r>

(D

>

u

(D

><

LU

CD

3

Cu

E

l-H

a>

cd

i-

S

o

CA

a>

04

c

o

CA

’u

m

a.

E

o

U

>»

s-

3

E

E

3

(/5

u

CQ

a>

cj

i-

3

O

ca

a>

04

a>

3

V)

ca

C«-H

CL

3

TO

3

3

-*->

3

CD

JO

2

3

o

£ '

CD

(30

3

3

£

G

-*—*

CX

O

2

<1>

3

(D

"O

JO

x:

<D

M

D

C

G

D

U

TO

O

£

D

»

tUQ

3

c

15

3

4-1

*—*

Cm

O

G

O

co

a>

CA

a>

G

D

u.

l_

0

c

O

G

G

Uh

3

(N

a>

CD

O, co

-—'

3

& 3

3 m

3 2

o s

,. . *-G
a> 1?
o is a->

•« g-s

! 3
3 E

<D . .

bX) 2* ^

G in

<d a>

<. c *-

2 § 3

C

O O
CL, —>

3

O

£

ID

3

3

C

5

CX

D

D

jo

CA

E

o

JO

_oo

3

Cm

o

CA

D

(->

CD

3

Tf

On

3

TO JO
3 3
3 JO

D
CA
M
D
>

TO
3

O
3

D
JO

2
3
O

£

O 3
(-, 3
D

JO

H

cl

2

D

3

D D

I c

S. 3

CA

a

o

3

3

»

3

3

O

£

*■* D
ca JO

3 TO
3 >-5
CL p
3 O

CA

3

D

E

cti

co

d CQ

D

>

3

£

D

£ <

2

3

1 CQ

s s

5 s

■I I

1 <

O 52

£

*-< (D

2 E

D D

£ X3
CL *->

£ «

i—i JO

2

D

JO

2

3

o

U

3

O

-m

CD

£

co
G
co O

a o

.2 >*
— 1 JO

£ "P

2 o

3 3

O ^

, U . CO

S -3

a>

>

o

CO

>> £

D 3

r£ 3

n 2

2 m

o «

* S'
2 ^
x> 2

c/f D
3 -3
- _> 3

JO 3

> -iO

m 2
O 3
3 JO -

3

O

>£ tt-c
D °

£ g

CA l_

,—» 3

3 Tt
2, D

O o

CL to
s_ D
D

Cm

O

CA

3

D

>1

3 ca
CA

CA

CA

D

D

CD

CD

3

3

3 CA
! - 1 D
s-,

00

TO

3 v - <
3 TO

£ 2
3 £

D CL,

£ TO
D D
D >
3 O
CO L- 1
CL, CL,

2 S

TO .3

i_

3

O

o

o

D

2 3

§ 8

B 2

3 CCS

£ £

3 CA

D

O ™

2 c

D, o

CO +->

Q x>

CQ

CO

<D

£

c3

OO

£

O

CD

3 ^

CO r~<

3

.SP 3
jo .2

2 CD

3
D

£

D
CD

3 CD

a, w

CA o'

CA

3

O

CD

3

O

3

D

Q D, o

o ^

3 'C
CL, .3

£ O

•— 3

2 c

D 3
£ 6
o 2

O JO
2 T3
D, D
CO co
22 cd
a>

__, Ut

2.1

§ g

0 2

a* 2

D

0

co

CO

u.

J-.

a>

D

>

>

TO

TO

G

a

0

0

3

3

a>

D

JO

JO

TO

TO

3

3

0

O

^ co

^ C/3

^ M>

D 3

D 3

L-, 3

u. 3

D Q,

CD CX

2 P

JJ 3

H .£

H .£

,a>

4X

a £

c «
d E J,

P D to

3 2 L-,

oo 2

.£? S*2

CQ "3 3

Cc-t

o

CA

D

L_

a

3

00

WT

Cm

o ^

ca 3
ca

2 -£>

3

3

D T2

3 2

3 m
£ D

*-4 -*->

a> o

C3 G,

£ ^
I °

> 3
D g

N ^

Cm

O

CA

3

D

H

3 ca
CA o

2 w
D 2

'o’ ^

L-* D
CL >-h

M 3
D

M

3 3

E CA
M

TO

3 .2

3 "M

— 2

3 3

D CLj

£ to

D D

a >
3 o

2, D.

2

TO .3

CQ

CA

3

D

E

3

00

TO

3

3

2* CD Tt
D (+C i_
> t M D
— 3 M

3 M
bO T-J
D

D

3

D

JO

2

3

O

CD

2

CA

3

D

>_

CD

.3

X)

TO

D

*

o

2

2

3

o

U

3

o

D

CD

3

D

CA

S 3 ’

^3

§ s

I °
M S

3

!-,

D

3

D

3

2

3

a 2

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMA4ARY ES-1 9

b

D

E

E

oo

D

>

15

o

a>

x

LU

O

o

V.

CL.

i—

0)

Bi

o

CL

~o

c

CD

L.

-SB

o

U

p

03

CL

b

l—«

<L>

P

!—

3

O

c/5

p

05

e

o

C/5

"C

3

CL

£

©

U

>»

!—

03

s

£

3

CO

CQ

3

4—*

u.

O

£

X
vO

I

o
II 11

" co
co T 3

is

CL _

3 .—>

04 <

D

P

u

3

o

C/>

0>

05

CO

<D

d
-*—*
u,
O

£

oo

VO

Os

■

o

3

P

3

t;

o

£

ov

VO

I

o

II

(A

3

CQ

CL

CD

£

3

Ut

o

o

eel

u.

O

£

00

CA

ID

03

tc

O

£

oo

00

I

o

CA

x>

CA

D

03

i-.

O

OO

X

oo

■

o

.3 II

CL __,

03 .—<

o4 <

d

m

CO

<L>

d

CO

a>

d

4 —►
Ui

O

£

o

£ ^
m
m on
VO *

CO

<D

d

4—>

O

£

o

vO

V 11

" CO

co T3

VO

i

o
II
co

CU —-* d

04 < CQ

cl;

CVS

D

CA

l_

D

>

X

cc3

O

c

D

X

2

3

o

^ CA

d p

>-, cc3
D CL

fS E

V

bX)

dj

co
a>

£

3 g

CA D

CQ

3

5

D

£

<t! 3 c^

ca

D

Ui

d

4—»

a,

a>

£

CO

O
•*—>
O

a>

bX)

dj

CO

a>

£

3

CO

CO

<

CQ

CQ

CO

(D

p

D

J—4

>

4—*

>

4—*

d

d

d

d

d

oo

d"

u

0 )

c

<D

4-i

O

CQ

<

<

CO

CO

CO

CO

co

o

d

d

d

p

p

p

p

£

£

£

a>

J-4

d

d

d

C/3

C/3

C/0

Q

2

p x °

d

3X3

T3

<D

d

’>

d

-O ^ P

c ^

4—*

d

£

"d

d

3 X .00

x B .22 x

*-d

d

X 0 — G

CO

PJ

d

d

G c O '>
3 G O >

CO

*■4

<D

£

CQ

D

>

+->

d

d

U.

<D
■*—»

<

CO

d

<D

£

3

00

CQ

D

>

4-»

d

d

V-.

(D

<

CO

d

a>

£

3

CO

X
D
.—»

CA

D

X

2

3

O

£

CA

D

C

3

t-c

3

4—*

X

C

D

X

£ c/5

2 »

3 D

D C

r© jd
£ 2 >
_ 03
D

2 C
5 D

x 2
*■’ o

D “>

3 P

3 p

- D
u.
00

C

o

CA

CVS

D

CA

00
G
-*—>

CO

<L> co

d a>

oo c

.£ .£
" H .

3 —
X 3

^ CA

00 D
G >->

'3 -a

CA ;

cvS 3

G

D

G

O

T3

G

ccj

CQ

O X)
O C3

CA

D

>,.s

CVS -p
£ 3

CO _

L-, 1>

o jd

3 L_

2 o
00 ^
•S c

p
>
D
-G

2
‘o
>
3

C

3

X

-i—»

c

D

2

CA

D

D

CA

3

C

O >i
•3 D

y Cl

J 3

ca CD
3 P
8 3

O P

ca 3

O CA
—. p

2 '

3 3

3 O

35 £

D

3

l_

p

>

T3

3

O

C

P

X

2

3

o

^ CA

D 3
t-. 3
D CL

H -

£

CL

3

k*

00

G

3

P

3

D

t->

P

3

3"

rn

L-i

o

3

3

o

3

P

1—

o

3

OO

X

4-i

o

3

3

o

X

oo

in

o

CL

3

G

P

£

D

O

3

3l

3

X

r~

in

o

-4—>

CL

3

£

4—»

d

a>

£

a>

o

d

§* 2

b 8

m

vc"

O
»

cu
d

£

o

^-4
4-*

d

a>

£

p

D
3

CL $
<2 2

Q 8

x

D

o

D

CL

X

D

C

O

3

B

oo a>

£ 3
X C
.22 X
X G

m o

CD

I ^

D «>

^.5

3

4-i

O

3

3

o

X

p

3 P
00
c

3

3

O

u.

00

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-20

D

E

E

r>

to

Q)

>

o

(D

X

LU

U

a>

o

v_

Cl.

L.

QJ

£

O

CL.

~D

C

£

u

cs

a.

£

<u

(j

j_

3

O

m

QJ

&

C

o

in

"C.

C3

Cl

£

o

O

>>

u

a

£

£

3

CO

U

ffl

a>

cj

u

3

O

C/3

a>

a:

a>

3

c/s

t/3

C/3

D

O

G

«o

to

D

'—

O

G

oo

r-i

</i

1/3

O

o

D

D

O

G

m

ro

1/3

t/3

o

o

d

i_

nj-

ON

co

o

Oh

3

3

<D

£

5

o

3

Oh

os

O
ON
OO

nE
o

Oh
3

£

o

,u,

M-t

c
d

£
d
o
G

Oh

If ^

Q g

o

o

NO

lO

o

o,

3

£

o

,ii

M-*

3

ID

£

s

o

G

Oh

1/3

Q Q

~a

d

o

d

Oh

X

ID

C

O

15

3

4—*

C/3

CO «
c • =3
.£
(73 ‘-fa

;* g

W o

OX)

i .£

II

o Q->

co _

CO £3 ♦ t—.

8 O -O

0/ I— G

J M3

c3

C/3

a>

u.

O

a

CnJ

«r^

O

CO

CO

O

O

<D

Q

«o

«o

<N

ro

o

Oh

3

C

<D

£

(D

O

G

"Hh

in

O

« -3 - w

2 8 g

- ^ g

O ^ CL

(D T3
—■ <D

. G 2 2

C/3 <" ^

2 _g Erg

g f— 2 cj

CO

a>

o

ctf

r-

r-

4-»

o

CO

CO

O

o

<L>

co
rn
O

Oh

fa

£

<2

M-l

G
<D

£

ID
O
G

CL g

"2 i-H

Q g

C/3

<D

i—

O

G

oo

c/3

t/3

o

o

u

«/n

On

rn

m

o

o.

3

£
o
. *—•

-*—>

c

a>

£

<D

O

G

Oh

in

s

•O

a>

o

<D

Oh

X

<D

c

o

"£

3

i5

OO 2

c 3
'3 .£

CO

x §

W a

L-h

o

(D <D

£ M •
(D
O

t/3

a>

c/3

3

2

— »i aj

GO 35
CL ID P
.22 M 5
D 3 ,2

l—J t/3 L-l

GO

c

T3 ^

3 3
o
£

CO

0) _
to£^

G cd

cd

£

~ x>

«> GO

.£ c

CO

o S

s 1
2l

3 u-

<D O

P -

33 op

O 3
« ^ .2
a u o
IF <D ID
.3 <_ Q_
t3 -O IF

t/3

DD

ID
>
H—»

cc3

c

u.

D

H—*

<

CO

a

v

£

a

co

£

£ _

G

G

CO

JD

00

o

_C

iS

GO

(L)

_ep

>

-o

<D

GO

G

ao CP
CL'C
T) 33

§ GO
<D -£

.2 15

O G
Z -D

- 60

cti

L-.

O

C CL

5 .2

£ -o

a> t3

11

c3

JD

~ tin

W) c

c .fa
_ >

cd

E

(D

-O

15

C/3

o

o

00

C t/3

^5 .2

ID O
D <D
t-. C.

33 IF*

T3

D

O

D

Oh

X

D

G
O
-«—*
cc3

3

C/3

GO «
C ^

-fa c

co ’-fa

x §

W o

t|_,

o
-*—»
c

D

£

D

O

G

C/3

D

m

C

£ -3

O ctf

. - * £
& "2 _g

Q j| 15

CO

a>

0>

D

a.

C/1

T3
a J
u
0>
&e
c

03

T5

C

W

-a

e

c3

T3

a>

G

a>

+j

C3

a>

o

x;

H

CQ

D

>

■*—>

03

E

D

<

t/3

o3

D

£

G

OO

CQ

D

>

15

E

D

<

C/3

k3

D

£

c5

co

o c
d h
.3 o

3 ti3

•3 3

^ -2
c/i n
C 3
O fc-

S 3

—

LL

55

O 52
o .£

3

D O
O >>

Oh -3

33 G

G n

S P
co 5

G

_o

3

D

o

G

O

to

C/3

P

3 3 «

O C P
a> g J3
d 5 3

D

C/3

Lh

D

>

-a

G

o

c

D

3

12

3

O

<D

t-H

D

JZ

H

o

G

Oh

P

JD

CO

G

W

12

G

CQ

<

D
>
+-*
cc3

E

D
■*—>

<

CO

cci

a>

£

c3

GO

<

D

>

G

E

D
-*—*

<

CO

a>

£

GO

<

a>

>

cS

E

D

<

C/3

G

D

£

G

CO

G C

£ 'g

G C
S 3
•P O

oS

D

Li Jr?
G ^

D O

> U

o c

£ °
. 1-4

>N 3
G o

rn °
O O

O
G
D
3

12

3

o
£
d 2

L. O
D G
-C OJ

n g

D —'
£ “
s!

o

£

£

U.

a

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-2 1

o

E

E

o

<x

Q)

>

~S

U

d>

x

LU

CD

L_

0)

o

U

e>

g

cl

£

I—

a>

o

s~

3

O

m

03

at

c

o

Cft

*G

3

CL

£

o

U

u

a

£

£

3

(/)

u

CQ

2 03

Q -°
*2

> §

c3 £

6 \n
03 03

<| 03

^ CO

2 5
o 3
G -*-*

a, ^

6

o>

X

H

a>

o

s-

3

O

eft

a>

PS

a>

3

tft

tft

33

G

O G

~ CQ

03 03
■*-* :>
o .p

03 "3

ex S

x £
<u <5

(D 3

s <

2 fc

4-i

o

t/i

3

(D

s.

3

u. 3
03 I-,

~ O w
3 CX o

E £ .2,

tft 03 O
- w L-
X* -q Cl.

Z § £

&*> *_, o
— a 2
<« S

co

4—*

o

_ __

i— 3

X

G

G

3

4—»

G

O

2 3

>

E

03

P 03

u.

04

C/D

.5 4)

tft O

o

03

ex

d)

o -P
o “>

33

0

X

G

G

03

2

O ”tft

?

V-4

3

o

G

03

ex

03 -

O ==

G

G

E

0

C^)

(U

o

<D

03

ex 2
x

03 5^

a>

O 4

2

C/D

O

04

C/D

<u •r*

C/D ”*2

4 -h

O

G

Ox

C^

o g

C/D

p

3

x E

G

G
.2
O
2

5 "eft
9r c
E o

■ 3 O

U

03

>

3

E

03

4—>

<

4-i

O

(ft

s ~

3 ->-> O
Q, 'ft ^

£ "E 3

.S s.1

[— 1 t/> ^

(D

03

—> 3

< t-

m 2
o> —;
33 3

G E

3 tft

eft

»—•

<D

£

,03

c

H

t—i 3

o x.

Cl. eft

P G

5 s

-*-» tL>

Cft

C

o

•4—»

3 •

2

3

o

£

3 Q_)

o

CL

_ 3 Cd

CX, 33 03

~ _ (ft
33 a>
, 2 33

-X o H

G a>

G ^ H

E

_ G

Q- a>

x

O -a

<4—t

<4-1 G

JG O

u £

33

03

C

o

33

G

3 tft

X -~
cd c
t— O

o x

33 2
03 2
-a 3

• —> to
O C
> O
3 o

03 03

X O
C

-X O
03 w
X 3
33 X

to

H 2

> 3

03 O

03 ^

O tft

G X«J

3 C

-£ 3
3 E

to .*

ex
-a

o

33 t4_
G 43
3 33
03 ^

03 03

CL .£

E O

o 03

O 33

eft

4 —»

G

4 —»

IS

3

-G

>%

ex

3

o

o

o

03

O .-3

33 *3
03 ,3

•*-> 4-i
03 W
CX rS

X S

W 3
03 03

-O C

_>%

03

eft

l_

03

(3) "O
G 3

"3 a>

03 -O
p -rt

tS E

2 -c
efa --P

. 3
c o
o u
G
33

c to
3 3
GO W 33
C

C/D

<D

JdJZ

c =>

to

c

o

° -^ -E

O 0) °

3 0 0

3 C

c

-a 3

33 03 —

4—i tft —.

-L t-. t+_, O —t
Z GO 3 33 CX ^

to

03

3 3 tft

s

G .S
2 -G

OX)'.
G

33

O

4—»

o

o

ex

X

03

G

o

4—*

3

3

GO 23

.£ 1

C/D 'G

;s §

UJ o

03

>

(ft

c

o

& o
2

o

o

ex

CQ GO

2

CQ

C/)

CO

G

G

03

03

£

E

G

G

GO

GO

CQ

2

CO

CO

G

G

a>

<D

p_

E

G

G

C/3

GO

cn

W

U

Ctf

D

O

cn

W

OS

-]

D

H

-1

D

U

o

2

<

o

Z

o

2

3

O

c

o

X)

2

3

o

£

03

L-.

O

X

H

o

lC

O

X

03

CX 2

G
a>
a>
jo

a>

>
a
jG

C/D

£

O 33
o o
G 30

o
o

G

O

33

O

2

2

3

o

G

o

X

2

3

o

£

03

l_

03

X

H

Cft

C

t-

03

O

c

G O

S U

'S §

E E

< c

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-22

6

D

E

E

p

co

<L>

>

-G

p

u

<1)

X

LU

O

Q>

O

u_

Q_

v_

d)

£

O

CL.

~o

c

§

0

v_

0

o

U

u

a

Q.

s

o

0

!—

3

O

c«

0>

OS

3

O

to

*n

3

O.

a

o

U

>>

l.

a

£

£

3

CO

CQ

o>

u

S-,

3

O

CO

0

0!

0

3

CO

CO

0

Uf

3

Q

0

> u.

3 2

E
0

0

JC

a

T3 S M
U g<N
co P i
O .3 CO
CL
O

0

o

3

ft

P

c i. t2 > e
C -p •- 3

<

.3

Cl,

0

o

K!

E u
,o >
d-» o .3

u. J2

03 P

co

o

ft'g .2

s|<

§ s

0 CJ
> -
03 —■
3 £ D

« 2 w

J1 3 J,

§ * O

'igis

0 .2..P

o o M

x o

0 Cl, P

CO

I

C3

c

U.

<D

cj <

e Q

1:3 0

oo .£
3

E

a>

CO z$
a> -*-*

£ 3

,0 O

P>

3

c3

I

CO

I

® 3

£ .y

J3

co

0

O

o

2 co 3

3 ' P O

_, O CO

U < Z 2 £

0

>

0 3

SE|

<D ■*“*

<U < G
. ^ u. w

2 2 §

E p '

0 o
PS 3
Cl

o

p

0

>

3 _,

J3 ,g

2

3

O

£

CO

I

CL

0

o

0

js>

2

3

o

£

0

co

CO

2

H

< p* X
U, P 0
,° 0
^ 2 -S

8 2 -B

& 6 *

2 '3 03

0 cj
2\£ u

Cl, co <l>

>

^3 O

a> ^

CO -w

o O

CL 03
n CL

£ E

CL, .3

a

i—,

2 o

<C 3

CO

O 4
c 2
0 CJ
> ,
3 «o
_C i
—■ CO

3

o

£

CQ

U

CO

0

0

CO

0

-3

P

O

JS

0

3

0

0 co

> O

2 -*
F °

2 S.

< .1

CM

04

l

GO

I

2

u

o

ci

CO On

cj <
- cj

VO O

ft

o

3

0

u.

3

0

JP

-4—*

ft

O

0

-o

3

O

*3
0
-4—»

3

0

O

0

-D

3

O

£

T3

3

3

co

0

2

0

3 "O
0

0

JZ

co

0

3

% »

>>

3

3

CO

CO

d>

o

p

3

0

P

60

0

o

o

G

ft

3

P

3

3

60

3

a>

g:
-*—>

C4_i

o

c3

•o

c

£

O

4H

0

P

0

rr+

o

co 0

3

0

O

CL

O

>

3

•—■ co
— 0
3 ZZ
0 co

'O' r -,

CP ^
_. tJ>
T3 c
0 .3
co c
O *33
CL ^

O S
rP

CL,

3

"3

T3

0

O

. co
>-, 0
0 c
> 2

a

o

0

60

3

3

0 3

> co

S| S

O

co

2

CO

0 -a
.P -o

co 3

co

3

3

3

O

c/T

T3

c3

O

C^3 CO

CL O
6 2
J3 2

,£P 0

- 60
O 0

2

0 0
3 JZ
CL ~
P 3
.3 O

0
-*—*

•co
w <D
G
O

T3
G

a>

<D

o .Sf

P co

0

2

CQ

3

O

3

0

JO

2

3

O

£

0

i_

0

JZ

f—

— co
3 0

2 E

3
O

CO

a>

3C 2

CO

u

S

o

z

o

u

w

o

u

o

C/5

CL

s

0

H

co'

o

p

G

o

22

3

0

60

3

4-(

o

E

o

o

CO

P

+—*

G

<U

c

a>

CO

o

u.

CL

o

>4

3

CO

3

"a>

p

O

•4—*

&

G

c3

w

o

CTj

s

c3

<L>

25

p

p

X

. 3

E

o

O

o

o

o

G

o

u.

CL

CO

3

CJ

CL

c3

x

3
-*—>

CO u.

a> (D
2 3

CO g

O G

3 2
CP
3

0

P

co CQ
co

2 >

2 2

3 E
0 0 0
> p:

£ <

3

o

co

0

JO

PJ

3 CQ

O 0

i5 3
0 3

03 Jr:
cl 2
P

<

o £
a>

u, O

t!s

g g?

a £ |

^ f> 3

o

G

a>

CL

co

O ^

3 -a

0 -a

2 C

P3 O

0 0
3 co

CL x5

E G

3
3

0

E
o
o

3 G
3 • —>

o

JZ

3

c-", 03

S c

rj .2

60

co 3
O 3
0 —,
C ^

5 O
2 o
p

■o

a

3

uf

o S"
•p 0

’« 2 u

O 3 o
^ O ^

P

T3

0
602
3 jg

0

2

co .2

G ZZ

u £

S 0

0
0
V-H

2

o 2

u. 24
■ —• T3
_5P o

E

2 E
S 3
2 8

0

JO

2

3

O

a

_o

~3

2

CL

o

CL

0
CO
3

0 :

Jp 13
3 E

>—< CO

2 3
0 0
ccj O
CL~*

E S

O 3
3 3
0 .2

0

JZ

H

CO

C

O

2

3

o

o

0

J6

2

3 O

o w

> co
0

0 60
JP G

2 3

£ - c
H 0

eo -2

2

3

i -

CO

c3 cd

£ 3
3 O
-*—» »
0 0
0 3

‘o'cS

t- ^

ft O
”2 2
S i

CL P
O c
•r °

ft 0

p

3

0
i_

3
3 ft
■ 2 O
~3 2

0 2

0 3
0 *3

2 c

^ 8

CO __

>- p

0 —I

ft 3

co O

P £

CO

2

a>

G

2

.Si

CO

3

-4—*

o

»

CO

-4— >

O

a>

0

p

* G
G

ctf

u

<D

O

£
*4—»

’o 1

i—

’>

o

u.

O

t

C

G

a>

G

-4—1

d

a>

CL

° 0
60 JZ

E H

N

3 -X
1_ 0
60 O
r2 co
3 ^

o -~

co

cd

(U O
co

a> co

s

W 3

O

3

2

3

o

£

3

0

l»

3

0
jb p

0

3

3 •

0

>

0

1-4

X

3

0

4-4

3

0

O

co

CO

3

0

-O

p

c

3

>' E

E 3

g
g

_ o

c£ ft CJ

2 §
60 O
0 0

Moy 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-23

b

o

E

E

<x

0 )

_>

rj

o

<D

X

LU

U

(D_

O

g

Q_

G

CD

£

O

Q_

~o

C

g

CD

G

a>

o

O

o

3

a

E

■—

a>

u

3

O

m

CJ

X

c

o

in

’2

3

a,

E

o

U

>*

1 m

3

E

£

3

C /3

CQ

a>

u

u

3

O

m

X

a i
3
m
m

D

XI

3

o

^ c

4-4 dj

1/3 e
O 5
o g

c £

O (L>
'3 Dh
3

*—♦ r—•

D £

a ,.2

o 32

13

3
G

6
< e /0

m

3 -
G g

- -s

d

S CO
CO

o ®>
o ' cn
G o w
X D

c/f x 2

■§33

O c

G ^ D
CJO^

£ .S <

Jj T3 »-.

2 c «

o D 3

G CL 2
■ G co 3

D

>

»

X-»

3

G

D

3 G
3 3

G -g
G G
3 .5

c ^
o c/T <
a u _

3 3 S
*j G 2
O D X

|S 8

g ~ D
■ G X —•

— G 3

'a

13 to d

U d Cl
2 Cl

s 2 ; •

CQ d,.S PQ

G

D

G D
3 3

G G

G D
g, D

<4-i g

O *

_ 3

cl 2

G 3
G i/i

G

3

XI
-*—>

CO

CO

a> •

3 D
X >

D

3

G •-

a> *

.2 «*
*4-1 c 3
D D

g 2

m .£

a C

>4 C

G 32

3 <

Vi Ua

rG <d

6 Ӥ
• —' 3
in 3

in

D

0

G

D

’>

X

G

D

C /3

G

3

D

C

X

3

X

3

C /3

C /1

CL

G

D

O

«—•

<G

D

X

X

G

3

G
O
-*—»
3

3

a,

o

a.

o 2

aj G .— :

0-6 3

£ «j p

p-h TD

TD

G

6

<D

<-> .—.
£ <

m

D

C/3

C/3

D

c

c n
3
X

13

o

jd

G

o

4-4

o

t D

54-4

< 4-4

D

O

2

3

o

-4—•

G

O

• 4-4

o

3

CL

g

o

2

4-1

o

X

3

CO

C

D

£

o
o

CD

< 4-1 O

O O
D

G >,

D X/
> «
2 13

r 3

3

in g
JD G

© <

*0

eo

G

D

■3

G

3

c"

O

D

G

G 2

ur

co TD
ctf C
<D

J 2

C 4 -. =5

o x
*-» cD
a -*-»
c^3 co
Cl, D rv

£ 13 S

—4 00 3

x

o

D „
O O-

■S-S

G g
S D

G E

E g

D 2

Oh .2

o

m

O

o

G

O

cd

G

O

D
O

•3 M-4 CT

CL O g*

• 2 r a

■° > < 4 M

«T o 0
o 3 > O

4—* —— *-4-4

3 2 3
O G H
O C
3

D —.

G.-G

o £

D

4— C/3

o -o

2 C/3

X)

3 G

cl r

G O

t° o

^ 4-4 O

•3 ^3
3 3

G o

D ^
■G 00

■g s

a> Q->

U. CO

0 )

D
C
a>

>

d>

L-t

X
o 3

•M

>> o
C

S..I3

O -3

G

CL Q

i-£
2 0
O c/)

*2 D
■3 XI
■3

o

<

2 g

30 O
D O

*3

C ^ _

D
3
G

>4 C 2
g 3

£

g

_ o
(2 W L)

c

o

o

CQ

D

>

3

£

D

<

m

3

D

g

3

C/3

CQ

CQ

D

D

>

>

G

■*—*
cd
G

C

<D

C

<D

4 —*

<

<

CO

CO

<u

a>

£

£

a

G

co

CO

D

G

3
C/3
D
_3

3

>

>v
G
D
CL

o

G

CL

2 h

<3 D
O -X

3 ;

Cl

£ O

G 2 C

o

<£

aO

3

o

c

D

X

2

3

o

£

D

G

D

X

H

C/3

D

_3

3

>

£*

G

D

CL

o

CQ

D

>

3

£

D

<

C/3

3

D

£

3

C/3

D

c_>

in

3

3

4—*

G
D

£
c
o

U-

*r co

r> -*-»

g s

O g 1

2 .£

o

2

x!

3

O

C

D

X

2

3

o

£

D

G

D

X

H

3

c

D

£

c

o

G

">

G

w

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-24

D

£

£

oo

CD

.>

2

u

CD

X

LU

u

,QJ_

O

v_

Q_

i—

CD

$

O

Q_

~o

C

CD

V-

0

O

U

(j

a

cx

E

>—i

a»

x>

u

3

O

CM

a>

ps

4-,

o

3

O

CM

*n

a.

E

o

U

>4

x.

a

£

E

3

CO

«

a>

x>

u

3

O

CM

to

P$

a>

3

CM

CM

w

co

P

Q

P

u

to

>

c3

6

d>

co

cd

d>

E

3

GO

to

§ £ ®
—'tog
ID ^ o
W) '3
T3 ^ 3

G

to

X3

4-i

s „
p s

o

to
ccS
to

£
o

d>

3

X 5

OX) .p

o

O

CM

G .tS

w C
co

* a.

a> ^

£

CO

.2

l-l

to

CO

T 3

cd

o

* c

d>

CO

'£

3

X)

cd

X 3

o

CM

CM

o

G 33
O to

3 to

a 2

CM to
CM •*-»

8 2

a to

G XS O

O -o x>
3 2 o

G °

CX £ CQ

33

3

O

CM

G
O

*-* G>

g >>

g*!*

D-C «
£ X 2

S § 2

o

8 «>

2 o

I- I—

CX X3
4-,

O 33

.. to
to -*—*
CM O

=» ‘C

.to W
33 a>
X >-1

3 to
CX X)

3
H

3

3

C _

33 O
G C

CM

cd
to
i-i

cd

to
CM

” 3
3 „*
f-H cd

• 5 c
w o

3 3
ft "O
2 «»

a>

d> * CO

xs g

33

3

O

•—

to

>

4-.

o

G

O

3

3

o

£

cx

>-.

to

>

to

E °
•c 5

cu ts

bO C
G

1/2 5

cm a
<d -g
o ^
o

3 33
to

O

to

to

>

3

CO

d>

2 £
to
to
to

3

3 9 <_>

bD £ 3

B
3

• —• 4—*

S -|

cx £

<u „

bO c
G

CM
33
3
O
X! ^
bJ3 to
3 >
O -X!

M

G

to

4 —>

CO

CO

cx

£

a>

G

to

3

CM

-o

S 33

to

to

w « X
33 1/1
2 O 33

«->

2

to

bX) to

E 'o’

to

c 3
O cm 1

to

3

U

-*->

CM

G

33

G

3

"cd

X)

to

>

33

to

tx

o

l_

cx

c

2

•—

G

T5

cx

to

X

O

to

o

to

33

2

p

CU

E

P

o

£

CO

T3

cd

to

-G

3

O

D.

d)

O

s>

4 — »

O

CO

d)

CO

to

'2
i— ,

o

4 — >

CO

a>

X

to

G

4-i

O

p

T3

G

2

cd

a>

d>

G

O

O

&

cx

bX)

CO

d>

o

2

3

O

CM

d>

O

- 4 — »

CO

cd

4—4

o

d>

xT

a>

- 4 — »

o

4—4

o

s

4 -»

3

CX

>>

c

o

O

cd

o

O

£

CM

to

‘g

2

4 —*

CO

G

-o

G

cd

Pi

Oh

p

4 — »

CO

a>

p

CO

C

O

o

• to

4—,

3

CM

2

CX

IS

G

D-

33

C

3

^d-

r4

O

O

d)

P

to

2

3

O

G

to

X

2

3

O

£

to

t*

to

x

H

CM

CM

to

to

to

<

to

3

3

CX,

M a y 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-25

D

E

E

r>

cr>

0

>

o

0

X

UJ

U

0

Q_

0

£

O

Cl.

~D

c

0

u_

0

tr

O

U

co

1-<

l>

a

CL

Li

Li

1—

3

O

CO

o>

06

L-

©

c

o

CO

'E

a

CL

B

©

U

?►»

v-

3

B

3

in

co

Li

Li

l*

3

O

co

Li

06

Li

3

c f)
co

<D

X

cd

3

CU

£

c

o

1—4

cd

3

■—.

co

G

o

U

3 S

CD

- 4 —>

G O

ogR

<D

x —

o

‘S.
C- ^

D

D CD

3 O

O *-•
'■V co

^ 1-4

*-> o
O 3
_(U CU
O* £

O

>

E

0

Uh

Oh

CQ

Vi

CO

D

OD

O

O

Uh

JD

<D

O

G

3

G

^3

&

T 3 ”

cd .

D

42

H

O

X)

ID

^G

g

CO

a>

Uh

g

P

ctf

U-i

---

• S *

3

CO

3 !

_G

G

X

O

- 4 -*

a>

Uh

d)

- 4 ~>

3

CD

-4—»

a>

>

CO

3

1-4

s

f a>

4 -i

* CO

O

a>

Uh

g

(D

X)

X

<D

d>

-4—4

a>

,d>

X

-4—4

2

G

0

4-4

0

(D

n

Vi

3

"3

0

0

<D

X

0

CO

CD

D

X!

O

3

0

3

2

3

• *-H

G

CD

'a.

42

3

Cu

0

E

X4

3

p

1—»

3

CD

CD

Uh

c

0

CQ

CO

a

CO

a>

G

D

Vi

u

X

>*

3

- 4 —»

X

O

CD

P

O

d>

Uh

X)

O

Uh

G

1 ,

s

3

u-*

3

CJ

CO

Uh

- 4 —*

CO

G

O

u

G

GO

a>

X
-*—*

33

G

5

c

X

1—4

£

D

X!

1-4

U-4

O

O

- 4 —>

CO

>

GJO

c

Vi

(D

*3

G

3

G

3

3

-*-»

O

w

CO

CO

a>

3

X

3

CD

CQ

<d

>

.2 3

2 E
& 22
cl—:
o <

co

3

33

CD

co

‘o

G

L-1

O

CD

a>

CD

_c
■*—*

U-4

O

g

_o

o

2 W
CO Uh

G CU

8 ■?
&Q co

G 2

•r a.

3 2

Q £

—i CO

33 i>
C ■—

3

i >

a -a
ft o

3 cc3

8 I

£ |

• S* -C

d 22

- 3

igl

2 1

a>

-*—>
o
G

b ^

x g

o

(D «

*5 S

D 2

b0 —

C 1?

03 P

r- ™
O o3

2 2
3 03
O D

£ ■£

3

C

O

-4—»

G

d>

Uh

O

d>

i—

4-.

O

CO

CO

o

G

•3 o

CD r R

3 <->
o d
o x

* 1-4

a> t 4—i

x o

33

u-4

o

(D

b0

c

3

X

o

"3 —
*3 3
— 1 C

i ■-§

&

3

f a>

O

>

0

ai

>

VO

-*—>

CO

f"

co

CO

2

-4—*

5

<L>

G

X

U-.

1-4

3

O

X

O

C

_o

3

-—

t-4

0

cu

3

3 )

G

3

G

-E

CU

X

d)

d>

cu

0

S

• — Uh

£ CJ

3

C/)

0)

G
O
o
-*—»
o

<D

QJ

O

G

*Ih

a>

cu

X

a>

a>

CO

G

o

<D

a>

o -S3
cu >

co

=* O

§ £

"3 §

2 2
o G
a> o

o|

CC3 Vi
<D <u
bO ~
G c 3

S2 **

O c

f <2

O ?

E -g
2 o

t) o G

S.E '3

CO <D C
co > 3
CD -3 O

S S

<D

G . G

2 D.

° a a u

o

o

-0

(D <D
C bJ)
33 C

2 -2

o a

ft o

.2 G

•3 ^
o

03 06

CD

_D

Vi 2

O 3
co O
CD •£

3 CD
G co
3 3

ID

JG
-*—>

G

O

3>

CD

CO

03

CQ

2

co

co

03

u

<D

3

o n G
Bi.2 -
Cu CU. G
O “

T3

O 2 G
b S 2
•“..I -a

3 3 G

2 S G

s s

“33

^ O
P

03

<D

o

a>

>4

33

Uh

O

U -4

<D

c

O

-*—*
G

p

a>

CU

d)

u^

CD

D

3 D

*x

G

D

c

0

3 J

G

CO

o

42

c

o

- 4 —»

G

(U

Ui

O

a>

a> a>

V— r-»

G •£
co a>
G O

o a

s ■§

Ii a>

■5 2

GD
<D

ID

3

.2 p3

E

2

(D
u-,
a

o

E

D

co m

2 cu

£ x

H a>

_ o

CD ID

8 ,'S 4

m Cl.

CO

ccj

D

O

Cu

o

CD
CD 3-
v_ CU.

G

O

"c3

0)

Vi

CD

ID

06

CQ

CQ

CO

CO

G

3

d>

D

s

E

G

3

OO

CO

CQ

CQ

CO

CO

G

3

d>

ID

£

P

G

3

GO

CO

~c .B\
J2 x;

CO

a> “
o

4-*

bo 2

r- h'

co

X

<D

O

1—4

o

42

d

O

Z

o

.0.

IE

CO

Vi

to

C

£

O

CD

42

K$

O

G

<D

JO

3

O

£

(D

Vi

a>

3

H

CO

3

3

1 —'

CO

33

G

3

-J

O

<D

'o’

CD Vi

JD CL,

3 31
O cu
co
O
CU

o

Vi

Pi

ID

iG

C

3

3

o

co

CD

G

O

>-*

D

3

_G

1—»

C

o

CD

O x)
°6 33

2 ^
3 0
3 ,D

3 £

Uh o3

s

1-1

CQ

Qi

-G

° I

3 -O
> D

2 .£

CU 3

< O

CO

D

CO

CO

3D

CD

O

D

-C

33

G

3

O

O

OO

3 02
" Uu

3 U
> rn
^ 3

8 .5
3 -o

"2 8
O 33
0 t3
a 3
3 o

0 3
o *-*

e

c «

S E

£ c

>. CD

3 G

£ g

C

<

c+G

O

CD

X>

>4

3

E

G

3

-G —

CUD 1

o2 o

3* X

CQ X

D

CO

3

3)

C

3

ID

X3

33

<0

Vi

3,

cr

CD

O

42

C!

3

o

G

CD

X

3

3

o

ID

Vi

CD

3

H

co

>v

3

c+U

O

-G

to

5

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-26

D

E

E

o

oo

Q)

>

2

u

(L>

X

LU

U

Q>

O

i_

CL.

L.

(D

£

O

Cl

~o

c

§

CD

1_

( 1 )

*0

o

U

o

a

a.

B

0/

o

l.

3

o

in

<L»

PC

a

o

in

'u

a

cl

B

o

U

>->

s~

C3

£

£

3

!Z>

U

oa

o>
c j
u
3
O
m
a>

0$

a>

3

c/3

C/3

C/3

<1>

1-4

o

3

r-

o C

_ o
S- '3
P 3
3 -3
r> d
° OB
in aj
in >

-2-5

§

G TZ

i—, <1>

O bO
CL g
C 3
3 fc,

(U 4_

H O

3

»/"> O
MD •-

'— 1 3

o "3>
" 00
CL <L>
3 >

'n ^
° C
in 3

2 00
c

C g

0:3 r

1 - 4-i

O O

& 1 m

§ S

a> a
b- 1 3

s

2

g

c/a

CO

G

G

O

a>

co fl->
1) *T} W)

O ^ v_<
O c°
£

3

ro

O

(H

O .x

J*S

c £

o o

o

3

CL

S

-4—»

3

G

G

ID

3

3

g

CD

00

3

3

Uh

a>

4-4

CL

o

CO

a>

Ui

2

O

cd

3

O

m

£

o

CnJ

3

o

_o

CO

G

O

CD

oo

CL

£

CD

>

~a

-4—»

3

G

G

a>

G

c3

£

<L>

bX)

G

G

u.

u.

a>

4-4

CL

O

C/3

a3 a>

d .2
oo —
d 4-4
> o

-o 1/1

in

O

3

1/3

1)

-X

o

o

c /1

d

>

4-4

o

in

in

O

d

oo

3

3
in
D ,o
I-. 4-4

3

O

CD

3

CO

4—4

3

D

Ph

X)

2

3

O

CD

£

o

O

a>

'5*

I—

O

2

■3

O

S

D

<

C/3

O

-3

4—4

D

2

2

G

£

oo

£

O

C/3

C/3

3

4>

CL

4—4

3

g

o

c/T
<u
^ ,

1-4

O

2

C/3

CO

CO

G

r \

3

’n

T3

3

£

ID

£

3

D

o

G

in

3

3

O

U

D

3

1-4

oo

O

>%

ID

3

ID

1-4

4—4

ID

>

O

-O

2

bJO

a

O

4—4

C/3

3

-3

3

o
—-»

C/3

CD

JO

~o

CD

3

_o

3

1-4

CL

E

3

o

CO

*X

a>

•5

3

O

O

D

g

S3

>

T3

D

2

oo

O

<D

D

a>

D

o

3

3

x:

o

CD

CL

X

CD

0/

00

(D

>

00

3

3

1-4

1—<
D
-3

H

^-H

o

00

3

3

1—

1-4

CL

£

3

D

-o

34

S g 1

n 3
D £3
.> 2
2 O

in
3 >

in O

^ d
O 3

3

3

3

£ «
CL c/3

'C 2

— 3

— CL
a>

_ 3

© £ .2

3
O D
in o

3 D

1 S

CO

D

>

t 10

4-4

O

CO

G

in

O

-3

-4—■»

G

G

D

2

O

O

D

3

G

2

-3

4-4

G

T3

CX

C

a>

4—*

CA

CU

a>

2

£

3

o

D

1-4

3

O

£

CO

G

1-4

3

s

in

D

G

CO

• r—4

3

cr

D

1-4

o

D

-3

1

D

-4—*

CO

a>

4-4

O

1-4

1

u.

D

—

3

d>

2

00

3

4—»

1

00

o

D

-O

o

O

3

L_

3

£

in

D

i-4

G

O

3

O

D

3

GO

G

T3

2

X

3

o V-

3

3

O

co

<D

*G

<4-H

*—•

<D

3

o

-4—*

>

D T3
3 D
o
3
3

D

„ P

c/3 °

o ■g

^ in • —
CL cd x>

£ ^ 5

— 1 c/3 ^

g

S_

<L> >-.

v 0)

00 3 -2

g § £

1—3 c/3

C/1

a>

c

"5 3

(D Q

3

C

C O
4> <D

£ 'o'

.& n,

a> * —
>, ^

> T3

g 2

x: _3

T3 O
3 O

3 1/5

C/3

a> 3
"a o

•J5 £

« 3

> -b

3

C/3

3

C/3

<L)

1-4

"O ^2
3 o
o

O CL
a P
3 .3
O -

^ C £
■S ®> a>

u

o

5

m i_
3 O

o x:

O c/3

4-1 »-

O CO

^ C
^ 3

-3 ^
& 3

3 ' c <

3 -o

11

u cx

D
-3

H

> .

CB 5"

•o

3

3

O

fc

3

C/3

o

1-4

CL

3

3

£

E

o

o

T3

3

3

C/3

"O

S' <L)
£ -3
• S in

O

it!

3

O

3

4)

-O

3

3

o

£

a>

1-4

<D

-3

H

C/3

CD

O

Ci

£

3 O

• i£ g

> c2

g 3

3 m

C/3 ,4-4

r 3

> <L>

/■“\ •

2 fci) <D

C/3 0> . —

O ^

3 "O
CL —

£ O

3 ^

£ 00 —
2 ^ -3
^ o

3

3

g

u.

<U

Oh

O ^

S 3

2 3

CQ

OJ

>

cS

£

d>

(/)

a3

a>

£

3

C/0

OQ

a>

>

3

£

<D

co

aJ

£

3

co

4-i

O

3

O

. £ *-•

1— <L>

3 3S

Q <

D

JO

2 .

O

-o

——

CO

3

O

G

C/3

3

CL,

s

(o'

O

T3

1-4

3

N

DQ

’a,

CO

3

CQ

rs

-3

D

>

*o

>

4-i

O

4—•

G

00

G

G

O

-4—»

_g

4-4

T3
<U
c/a
^ 33

CO

a>
o
c

~2
CO

=* -§

C/1

o

4-4

3

O

3

<D

-O

3

3

o

£

a>

V-4

(D

-3

H

in

3 on

4 1—4

3 <D

N 3!
3

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMA4ARY ES-27

D

E

E

cn>

Q)

>

E)

O

CD

X

LU

L>

o

i_

CL.

l_

CD

£

o

a_

~D

C

(D

l.

a>

o

O

(j

a

cu

s

a>
o
s-
3
©
to
a j

Pi

3

©

tO

*C

05

a.

£

o

U

>>

C3

£

£

3

go

CO

a»

(j

u

3

O

m

a»

OS

a>

3

m

H

Z

W

s

w

O

z

2

s

w

C*

fa

CQ

T3 O

o

-*-»

fa.

G

§§.H
3 -o l

£

C til °

3 > . 2>
P 3 O

CO

<U

^ o fa

33

£ g.

2

-C t3 j_
'LJ j U

3

° o =

O

^ I c

.52 „ £

CO

L- g ^

-*—>

o

G

4> £ GS

-G •2 3

Cl,

£
>— i

i-i •£ tu

Lm

2 °
3 <L>

o CJO

£ 2
Li

C/3 .

bf>

a>

■*-»

3

Li

3

a>

c

o

to t3
C 2

o •■

_c

-L->

c

3

o

„;|s

£ o g
ax> 2
a. ~
3 O ©
CO G CJ

CQ

a>

>

G

e

<D

-4—1

<

to

3

<L>

s

3

co

"O

0) a>

in m
3 3

3 a>
o

Z o
C c
3 -G

£ 3
3
33
Cli
O

<D

3>

2

o c *- 4

* °
03

to o

a> a
5b &

<u
-*—*
G

G

O

£

CO

CO

G

O

<D *G

. r~j g
H .SP

<u
cx

to a>
G -S
2 >.
£

<L> T3

Cl. -*-»
D, •£
3 £

CO

3

O

O

03

03

T3

2

c

3

3

-a

c

3

co

03

G

O

3

3

£ 2

2 °

3 Li

O CU

£ ^
U S
"O ®
•3 to

£ -X
. 3

2

Li

o

_c

to to

_. a>
^3 C
C .«
3 -3

to a>
w to

a

o

Di

to

3 3

^ r,
^ £

a>

'•L*

fa

CO

JD

>

"O

o a>

G fa.

a, G

o

Li

CX

G

G

o

G

g CO

£

fa

O

—* G

bD

<L>

Li

2

03 o

2 U
o>

CO O

o3
<D

fa. . —

O >
G \G

•j: o

T3 G

•—. fa.

G 15

O

£
co

fa.

<D

O bfl

H cc

3 '3

2 H

(U

G* co -rj

G 1/5 o O

^■r n 2>c2 W>
^ SP.S ‘ts G
■Sc 03 '5

2 -c o 2
5 .5? c 35
P — >L —
3 C_,

g>-3 E £ °

G

c -S

3 J 3

-4—> CO

C § g

1 «

2 2

o "

>, P

G ^
£ G

to

c

o

-*-»

£

bfl

a>

Li

CP

a>

JC

a>

-o

c

D

(D

G

G 4>

fcX)

2

3 bO

G

G

2

't' 3

G

o

2 33

2 £ a>

g °

x-o 2

3

<D

3 4>
CP 33

1 S G

Li

<D i-i

~ G -G

3

,H O

o <u
a> .3

o' Cl,

Li

■S M-S

to £l ^

c — 45 n .
a> > <u Di -o

£ t a "

a> to aj

<

2 «

a c2

Cu u,
3 3

CO CO

T3

a>

CO

o

<L>

CO

G

U.

<L>

a,

Q

L-»

G

G

<

fa

a>

w
r - '

CL,

JO

fa

33

CO

a>

G

U-»

TD

G

G

a>

fa.

E

May 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-28

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The CEQ regulations for implementing the NEPA require assessment of cumulative effects in the
decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal)
or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects are considered for
each resource and disclosed in detail in the DEIS.

Cumulative effects in this analysis were determined by combining the effects of each alternative with
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was necessary to identify other
past, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in this area and in the surrounding landscape.
All resource impacts would be added to these actions to portray the cumulative picture or incremental
contribution this Proposed Project would have on the environment. The following is a brief summary
of cumulative effects:

Past and Historical Actions

Examples of past or historical actions that have contributed impacts to wildlife and other resources
within the Cassia-Raft River Creeks and Marsh Creek sub-basins include:

• Construction of Interstate Highways 84 and 86

• Livestock grazing

• Drought and severe winters

• Expansion of residential development around small towns

• Agricultural development that removed shrub steppe habitat

• Wildfire and prescribed burning

• Construction of power lines

• Livestock water developments

• Mining

• Water channel alterations and removal of riparian vegetation

• Hunting

Existing Actions

Examples of existing and foreseeable actions within the Cassia-Raft River and Marsh Creek sub¬
basins that are either causing impacts to wildlife and other resources or could potentially cause such
impacts include:

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-29

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

• Public access

• Livestock grazing

• Continued alteration of streams for human purposes

• Mining

• Rural development

• Wildfire and prescribed burning

• Alteration of shrub steppe habitats

• Water development

• Conversion of native vegetation to agricultural

• Fencing on private or public lands

• Construction of powerlines

• Drought and severe winters

• Disease

• Loss of shrub steppe habitats on private lands

• Hunting, poaching, and predation

• Herbicides

• Land exchanges

• Development of energy sources

Foreseeable Actions

Some examples of foreseeable actions that may contribute cumulatively to impacts of the Proposed
Project include:

The Idaho Transportation Department is proposing to reconstruct and improve a portion of the City of
Rocks Back County Byway between Elba and Almo, Idaho. This 17-mile stretch of road would be
built in phases with completion of the Proposed Project occurring in 2007 or 2008. Completion of this
road improvement project could likely result in an increase in the number of visitors to the City of
Rocks area and an increase in motor vehicle speeds along this section of road.

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation is presently constructing a full-service RV
campground on public land near the City of Rocks National Reserve located 20 miles south of the
Proposed Project.

Other wind power projects are being proposed, recently constructed, or poised for construction in
southern Idaho. A 10 MW project was completed early in 2005 at Fossil Gulch near Hagerman, Idaho
located approximately 65 miles west of the Proposed Project. Ridgeline/Airtricity is developing three
projects totaling 600 MW near Idaho Falls, Idaho and two projects totaling 400 MW near American
Falls, Idaho located 125 miles northeast and 45 east of the proposed project respectively. Windland
Inc. is developing a 200 MW project south of American Falls, Idaho approximately 45 miles east of
the Proposed Project. RES has proposed a 200 MW project southwest of Twin Falls, Idaho located
approximately 70 miles southwest of the Proposed Project. These wind projects, once constructed,

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ESSO

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to wildlife and other resources when combined with
the proposed Cotterel project and historical, present, and ongoing actions. These actions could result
in cumulative impacts to wildlife and other resources.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-31

Cotferel Wind Power Project

Executive Summary

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ES-32

CHAPTER 1

:

;

PURPOSE AND NEED

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

Cotterel Mountain is a linear north-south ridgeline about 16 miles in length that lies in south central
Idaho, between the towns of Albion, on the west and Malta on the east, within Cassia County, Idaho.
It is predominately federally managed public land within the Idaho Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) Twin Falls District, Burley Field Office (Figure 1.0-1).

The potential for developing wind energy on Cotterel Mountain as a resource to generate electricity
has been investigated for two decades. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funded wind
data collection activities throughout the Pacific Northwest during the 1980s. BPA is a federal agency
that owns and operates the majority of the high-voltage electric transmission systems in the Pacific
Northwest. Utilizing this BPA funding opportunity, the Oregon State University Energy Resources
Research Laboratory collected and recorded wind data at Cotterel Mountain from 1984 through 1988.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) meteorological data was also used to
produce estimates of the level of available wind energy at various locations in several western states,
including Idaho. These estimates were produced by computer simulations that analyzed decades of
daily weather readings in relation to the topography of the area. The results showed that
approximately two percent of Idaho landmass is in the highest wind resource categories: Class 5
(excellent), Class 6 (outstanding), and Class 7 (superb). The Cotterel Mountain ridgeline is within
these three categories (Figure 1.0-2). In a United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) study of
the potential for renewable resources on public lands, the Cotterel Mountain area is classified as one
of 25 BLM planning units with the largest total land area with a Class 5 or greater wind resource
(USDI, BLM/DOE 2003).

In late 2000, in response to the electric energy-pricing crisis in California and the Northwest, BPA
issued a “Request for Proposals” (RFP) for additional electrical power generated from potential wind
energy projects and Windland, Inc. (Windland), a Boise, Idaho company, began to investigate
opportunities to responding to BPA’s RFP.

In February 2001, Windland submitted an application to the BLM Burley Field Office for a right-of-
way (ROW) grant to conduct its own wind testing on Cotterel Mountain. This application was
accepted by the BLM (serial number IDI-33675).

In March 2001, Windland followed their first application with a second ROW application to
construct, operate and maintain a wind-driven electric power generation facility on Cotterel
Mountain. This application was filed by Windland in advance of the proposed meteorological data
collection in order to be “first in” consideration for such a project. This second application was
accepted by the BLM. Based on the size and scope of the proposed action, the BLM determined that
the construction, operation and maintenance of a wind power project on Cotterel Mountain had the
potential to result in significant environmental impacts, thereby triggering the need to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives
in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-1

Cofferel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

In April 2001, Windland responded to the BPA RFP based on the studies showing potential for
development of a wind-powered electrical generation project on Cotterel Mountain (Figure 1.0-2).

In July of 2001, the BLM issued a ROW grant authorizing Windland to install multiple wind speed
and direction recording devices (anemometers) at various locations on Cotterel Mountain. Potential
impacts of the wind testing proposal were analyzed in an Environmental Assessment (EA) number
ID-077-EA-01-0063, and Finding of No Significant Impact was signed by the Burley Field Office
Manager on July 13, 2001.

On December 19, 2002, the BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the full
project proposal in the Federal Register (Appendix A). The NOI identified the proposed Cotterel
Wind Power Project (Proposed Project) area and location as well as BLM’s intention to hold agency
and public scoping meetings. The initial scoping period ran for 60 days and concluded on February
21,2003.

The Proposed Project, if approved, would be developed on Cotterel Mountain. The Proposed Project
ROW application area is approximately 4,545 acres, extending approximately 16 miles from north to
south along the Cotterel Mountain ridgeline. Major components of the Proposed Project and project
alternatives include:

• Multiple wind turbines and turbine foundations;

• Multiple pad-mounted transformers;

• Buried power collection and communication cables;

• Several miles of project access roads;

• Meteorological towers on foundations;

• One to two substations;

• 138 kilovolt (kV) overhead power transmission line;

• Operations and maintenance building; and

• Portable on-site cement batch plant and rock crusher.

During construction, there would also be several on-site temporary equipment storage and
construction staging areas. A detailed description of the Proposed Project and construction methods
are more fully described in Chapter 2.

The BLM is currently preparing a National Programmatic Wind Energy EIS to address the future
development of wind energy resources on all BLM-administered public lands across the western
states. The National Programmatic Wind Energy EIS is presently scheduled for public release in
August of 2005. It will provide valuable information about wind energy development, including
recommended best management practices. It amends BLM land use plans that were silent on wind
energy development but that had no restrictions precluding it. It is not site-specific and makes no
decisions regarding the Proposed Project.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-4

Cofferel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.1 THE APPLICANT

Windland, Inc. (Windland) is a privately owned wind energy development company located in Boise,
Idaho. The company has a long history of developing and operating wind power plants. Windland
currently manages wind farms in California and has additional projects under and/or proposed for
development in Idaho, Oregon and California. Windland is considered a pioneer in the American
wind energy industry, having owned and operated a wind farm near Tehachapi, California since 1982.
This wind farm is one of only a handful in the nation operated continuously by the same organization
for over two decades.

Windland is currently the sole ROW Applicant for the Proposed Project. However, Windland is
pursuing the development of Proposed Project as part of a 50-50 joint venture between Windland and
Shell WindEnergy, Inc. (SWEI). Shell Oil Corporation and part of the Royal Dutch/Shell group of
companies wholly own SWEI. SWEI currently has over 1,000 megawatts (MW) of wind projects
under various stages of development in the U.S. and European Union and is the second largest owner
of wind farms in the U.S.

It is the intent of Windland and SWEI that prior to any construction of the Proposed Project, they
would jointly form a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), or other corporate entity and Windland
would then apply to the BLM for an assignment of the ROW application, IDI-33676 to the LLC or
other corporate entity. The new LLC or other corporate entity would be used for financing the
construction of the Proposed Project.

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.2.1 The Purpose of the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to develop an economically feasible wind-powered electric
generation facility on Cotterel Mountain, creating an alternative renewable energy source for the
nation’s existing and future energy demands.

The President’s National Energy Policy encourages the development of renewable and alternative
energy resources, including wind energy, as part of an overall strategy to develop a diverse portfolio
of domestic energy supplies (NEPDG 2001). National Policy also encourages the development of
clean energy. The U.S. Congress and Executive Branch recently re-instituted a 1.8-cent per kilowatt-
hour production tax credit to encourage the development of clean wind energy. This Federal tax credit
equals approximately 25 percent of the productive value of a project.

The Department of the Interior (USDI) and, more specifically, the BLM is seeking opportunities to
develop renewable resources including wind energy. To accomplish this, the BLM developed the
Interim Wind Energy Development Policy, released on October 16, 2002, in Instruction
Memorandum 2003-20 (Appendix B). This policy provides the common direction and policy for
permitting wind facilities on public land. The presence of an adequate wind energy resource is a
necessary precondition for an area to be a candidate for development of a wind energy project. The

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-5

Cotterel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

site must also have adequate construction and transmission access. There must be adequate access
from the proposed wind project site to existing transmission lines that would carry the power
produced by the wind farm to consumers. The proposed Cotterel Mountain site meets these
conditions.

1.2.2 The Need for the Proposed Action

The 2003 energy forecast estimates demand for electricity growing in the northwestern U.S. by an
annual average of 214 MW (NWPCC 2003). Similarly, the Idaho Power Company (IPC), the largest
electric utility in southern Idaho (Figure 1.2-1), recently predicted a 1.9 percent per year system load
growth in the region it serves near the Proposed Project area (IPC 2002). The Proposed Project would
provide an alternative renewable energy source in an area that has a demonstrated increasing demand.
Both IPC and PacifiCorp recently issued a RFP for wind energy in their service districts, actively
seeking renewable energy alternatives to traditional energy development. The IPC RFP is for 200
MW and the PacifiCorp RFP is for 500 MW of wind power.

Southern Idaho Utility Districts

Utility District Key

Idaho Power
Utah Power & Light
Cooperative

Figure 1.2-1. Southern Idaho Utility Districts.

Meeting the need for additional demand for electricity in southern Idaho is complicated by limitations
to the capacity of the existing electric transmission resources in that area. In southern Idaho, the

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-6

Cotterel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

transmission of electricity is constrained by certain components in the transmission grid. The term
“transmission constraint” refers to a limit in the electrical transmission system that could prevent the
delivery of electricity to a portion of the grid. Two transmission constraints in southern Idaho are
located near American Falls in southeastern Idaho and near the Brownlee Dam in west-central Idaho
(Figure 1.2-2). The Proposed Project lies “inside” these transmission constraints.

Southern Idaho Transmission

Power Constraint Key

Figure 1.2-2. Electrical Transmission Grid of Southern Idaho.

Idaho Power Company typically generates 55 percent of its electricity at hydroelectric dams on the
Snake River. The amount of hydro-generated electricity varies yearly because of the inter-annual
variability of precipitation. Due to a third year of poor hydro conditions in 2002, only 45 percent of
its electric generation came from hydro, forcing IPC to increase its reliance on the coal and gas fired
plants that it owns and operates at Jim Bridger, Wyoming; Boardman, Oregon; Valmy, Nevada; and
Mountain Home, Idaho and on power purchases on the wholesale market (IPUC 2003). Because the
inter-annual variability of wind energy is lower than the inter-annual variability of precipitation
powering hydro-generated electricity, cost effective wind generated electricity can effectively
supplement the current supply of electrical generation in southern Idaho (Figure 1.2-3). Other utilities
in the northwestern U.S. (including PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, and Puget Sound) have
identified renewable energy resources (such as wind power) as appropriate resources to meet the
growing demand for electricity in their service territories.

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

1-7

Cotterel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

Predictable Fuel Availability

Wind (Annual Wind Speed Pocatello Airport - power adjusted)
Hydro (Annual Snake River Flow At Weiser)

Southern Idaho Hydro Power
| USBR Hydro Facility
| Major Dam

250 %

200%

150 %

100 %

50 %

Wind is less variable than hydro year to year

9 BLACK CANYON

9 LUCKY PEAK

9 ANDERSON RANCH

9 SWAN FALLS
9 9

CJ STRIKE

PALISADES 9

AMERICAN

9 FALLS

0 %

'04 '00 '00 '90 '92 '94 '90 '90 '00 '02

Figure 1.2-3. Comparison of Predictable Fuel Availability of Wind and Hydro Electrical
Generation.

The Proposed Project would contribute to meeting the economic needs of Cassia County and the
surrounding communities. Recently, Cassia County and the surrounding area experienced business
closures and work force layoffs. The downturn in employment is primarily the result of a decline in
the local food processing industry, which includes the closing of the large Simplot Plant in Heybum,
Idaho, who was a primary employer in the local community.

The Proposed Project would create both temporary and permanent long-term jobs. Construction
activity would result in favorable trends for employment and economic benefits within Cassia
County. Employment effects would include (1) indirect employment resulting from the purchase of
goods and services by firms involved with construction, and (2) induced employment resulting from
construction workers spending their income in the local area. Similarly, indirect and induced income
and spending effects would also occur as “ripple” effects or economic multiplier effects as
construction dollars come into the local economy. Beneficial impacts to local businesses and the
economy would include:

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-8

Cotterel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

• Spending by “temporary” construction workers for food, gas, and lodging;

• Spending by construction contractors for supplies and standard materials needed for
construction (these would include but not be limited to road construction fill and
surfacing, concrete materials and water); and

• Additional permanent jobs and related income adding to the local economy.

1.3 LEAD, COOPERATING AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

The BLM is the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the preparation of the draft and final
EIS and the associated analysis. The Proposed Project area is located entirely within the Burley BLM
Field Office administrative boundary. The Proposed Project is predominantly sited on public land but
would also affect small amounts of state and private land as well.

Cooperating agencies are federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law (40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Section 1501.6) and will make a decision relative to the project based on the
analysis disclosed in this EIS. Cooperating agencies may also have special expertise or have
information that will assist in development of the analysis. In this analysis, the cooperating agencies
include the BPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Idaho Department of Lands (IDL),
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Cassia County Commissioners, representing the local
government.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is a participating agency and is providing input
relevant to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

1.4 GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION

The U.S. has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set for in the Constitution
of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. The Federal
Government has enacted numerous statutes and promulgated numerous regulations that establish and
define a trust relationship with Indian Tribes.

The Federal Government, under the law of the U.S., in accordance with treaties, statutes, Executive
Orders, and judicial decisions, has recognized the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As
sovereign nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent powers over their members and territory. The U.S.
continues to work with Indian tribes on a govemment-to-govemment basis to address issues
concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other
rights.

In this analysis, the BLM has formally initiated consultation with the sovereign nations of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. This consultation has been initiated with
these Tribal Governments in the manner as requested by them.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-9

Cofferel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.5 INTERAGENCY WIND ENERGY TASK TEAM (IWETT)

The IWETT is a core group of representatives from USFWS, BLM, and IDFG that was formed in
2004 under a charter written to assist in the development of alternatives and mitigation
recommendations for wildlife and wildlife habitat. Its guiding charter is displayed below:

IWETT Charter

“This charter sets the goals of the Interagency Wind Energy Task Team in
relationship to the Cotterel Wind Energy Proposal, presently being analyzed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Burley, Idaho. This team consists of
representatives from the BLM, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Idaho
Department of Fish & Game. Technical guidance relevant to the construction,
operation and maintenance of a wind energy development will be provided by the
applicant, Windland, Inc. in partnership with Shell WindEnergy, Inc. The goals
are as follows:

• Review baseline technical reports and data;

• Assist and contribute to the development of mitigation measures;

• Assist and contribute to development of adaptive management strategies;

• Assist with development and/or further enhancement of alternatives; and

• Identify additional data needs, if appropriate.

All goals are intended to be achieved in a timely manner.

This interagency effort is intended to contribute collective agency experience and
scientific expertise to the development of the Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statement being prepared by the BLM. It shall be considered part of the
analysis process and does not constitute any decision action on the part of any of
the participating parties.”

This team has contributed significantly to the analysis process. Its recommendations have been taken
into consideration and used in the impact analysis and in the development and enhancement of
alternatives, mitigation and monitoring strategies for the Proposed Project.

1.6 CONFORM AN ACE WITH EXISTING LAND USE PLAN

The BLM existing Cassia Resource Management Plan, 1985 (Cassia RMP) does not address wind
energy development. At the time of preparation of the Cassia RMP, Cotterel Mountain was not
considered as a wind energy site. In addition, the proposed action is not consistent with the Cassia
RMP. The Cassia RMP states that BLM will not approve any additional ROW authorizations in
Management Unit 11. An amendment to the Cassia RMP is being proposed and evaluated in this
Draft EIS. The NOI also states the BLM’s intention to amend the Cassia RMP. The proposed

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-10

Co tferel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

amendment would revise the existing restrictions that limit ROW development in the Cotterel
Mountain Management Area. The amendment would allow for the granting of a ROW for the
development of the Proposed Project. This proposed action and alternatives are consistent with the
Cassia RMP in meeting all other land management objectives.

1.7 SCOPING

In December 2002, a scoping statement was mailed to government agencies, municipalities, Native
American Tribes, grazing permittees, lease operators, industry representatives, environmental
organizations, and individuals having a potential interest in the Proposed Project. Local and regional
media also received the scoping statement and a press release. The scoping statement explained the
Proposed Project and requested comments regarding issues and concerns that should be addressed in
the Draft EIS. Three public scoping meetings were held in the towns of Albion on January 7, 2003;
Burley on January 8, 2003; and Boise, Idaho on January 9, 2003, with 135 total attendees. Initial
scoping comment letters were encouraged through February 21, 2003 to help the BLM identify issues
that would guide the formulation of alternatives to the proposed action. Written comments were
received from 47 individuals, three Federal and state agencies, and five interest groups. A list of all
respondents is presented in Chapter 5.

1.7.1 Significant Issues Identified and Used to Develop Alternatives

NEPA requires Federal agencies to identify and analyze significant issues related to a proposed action
and its alternatives. Significant issues primarily serve as the basis for developing and comparing
alternatives. While the focus of the analysis is on significant issues identified, all issues brought
forward through the scoping process are considered. The following is a list of significant issues
identified by the public, Shoshone Bannock tribes, the Shoshone Paiute tribes, BLM, and other
governmental organizations that were used to develop alternatives and assess impacts of the Proposed
Project. The significant issues addressed in this Draft EIS include:

• Sage-grouse - Commentors were concerned that the Proposed Project would result in the
loss of sage-grouse habitat, loss of nesting habitat and disturbance to leks. Grouse could
also be killed by colliding with wind turbines.

• Tribal treaty rights or heritage links to public lands - The Tribes expressed a desire that
these be maintained and protected.

• Migratory birds including raptor migration - Commentors expressed concern over
migratory birds being killed by colliding with wind turbines.

• Public access - Commentors expressed the need to continue to allow and protect public
access to the Cotterel Mountain.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-11

Cotferel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

• Visual resources - Commentors expressed concern about the visual impact to the town of
Albion and other communities, as the Proposed Project would be in close proximity to
towns, ranches, and homes.

• Conformance with the Cassia RMP - Internal review disclosed the proposed action was
not in conformance with the Cassia RMP and an amendment would be required.

1.7.2 Other Issues and Concerns Addressed

Other issues and concerns were identified by the public, BLM, Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Shoshone
Paiute Tribes, and other governmental organizations regarding the Proposed Project and its
alternatives. They are listed below and described in more detail in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIS.

• Air Quality

• Ridgeline and cultural significance to tribes

• Historical migrations routes of tribes

• Geology

• Soils

• Water Resources (including surface, groundwater, and springs)

• Noise/vibration/harmonics

• Vegetation

• Noxious weeds

• Wildlife

• Wind turbine effects on birds and bats

• Direct and indirect wildlife habitat loss

• Mule deer winter range

• Increased human activity on Cotterel Mountain and its effects on wildlife

• Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species and their habitats

• Cultural and historical resources

• Socioeconomics

• Land use

• Private land values

• Increased traffic on local roads during construction

• Livestock grazing

• Recreation

1.7.3 Issues Deemed Outside the Scope of the Draft EIS

Some issues were found to be outside of the scope of the Draft EIS. These included management
direction or habitat suitability assessments for the reintroduction of big horn sheep into the Cotterel
Mountain. The potential impacts of the Proposed Project to the suitability of the Cotterel Mountain
for reintroduction of big horn sheep will not be addressed in the Draft EIS. The loss of sage-steppe

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-12

Cotterel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

habitat for sage-grouse will be assessed as it relates to the Proposed Project. However, it is outside the
scope of this Draft EIS to assess the loss of sage-steppe habitat from a range management standpoint
in regard to grazing. The issue of whether or not the wind turbines would be manufactured in the U.S.
was deemed outside the scope of the Draft EIS because the source and manufacturer of the turbines
will have no effect on the development or analysis of the alternatives. Other issues of concern
included the need for development of all forms of renewable energy. The Draft EIS will address
creating power with wind energy, but will not address the need for other sources of energy or other
locations for the Proposed Project.

The Applicant’s proposal identified the Proposed Project area for development. The wind resource in
southern Idaho has been studied since the 1980s. The results showed that less than two percent of the
Idaho landmass is in the top three wind resource categories: Class 5 (excellent), Class 6 (outstanding),
and Class 7 (superb). The majority of the Cotterel Mountain ridgeline is within one of these three
categories. Based on the above-mentioned studies and wind data collection that the Applicant
completed, the Proposed Project site has a proven wind resource suitable for producing electricity at
competitive prices. Other possible project site locations could jeopardize project feasibility because of
a lack of sufficient wind resource or remoteness from nearby power transmission lines or barriers to
access by construction equipment.

1.8 FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES AND ACTIONS

Table 1.8-1 lists all authorizing actions required for project compliance with all relevant Federal and
state laws. The development of energy resources is part of the BLM management program under the
authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The development of energy-
generation facilities is an integral part of the President’s National Energy Policy, which encourages
the development of renewable energy resources, including wind energy, as part of an overall strategy
to develop a diverse portfolio of domestic energy supplies for the nation’s future and decrease
reliance on external suppliers.

Table 1.8-1. Federal and State Authorities and Actions for the Proposed Project.

Agency

Action

Authority

U.S. Bureau of Land
Management

Draft EIS, Final EIS, Cassia

RMP Amendment, and Record
of Decision preparation

NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508;

Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (as amended), Public Law
94-579.

ROW grant

U.S. Department of the Interior,

Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (as amended) Public Law
94-579; 43 CFR 2800

Notice to Proceed

BLM Manual H-2801-1 ROW Plan of
Developments

Bonneville Power
Administration

Cooperating agency - support
renewable energy sources

Public Law 96-501

Interconnection approval

BPA Open Access Tariff

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-13

Cotterel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

Table 1.8-1. Federal and State Authorities and Actions for the Proposed Project.

Agency

Action

Authority

U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation

Granting of ROW

U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency

Permit for treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous wastes

Air Quality

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act

Clean Air Act as amended 1990

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

Cooperating agency. Review
impact on federally listed or
proposed TES species of fish,
wildlife, plants, and migratory
birds

Preparation of Biological

Opinion of potential project
impacts on Threatened and
Endangered species

Provides input on
recommended mitigation
measures

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
1934, as amended 1946, 1977 (16

U.S.C. 661-667e); Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sections 1531
et seq.y, Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et
seq.)\ Eagle Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d).

Idaho Department of
Fish and Game

Review impact, wildlife, and
wildlife habitat and assist in
developing mitigation measures

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
1934, as amended 1946, 1958, 1977
(U.S.C. 661-667e).

Idaho Department of
Lands

Granting of ROW

State of Idaho Administrative Rule
20.03.08 Easements on State Owned
Land

Idaho Department of
Environmental

Quality

Permit for Concrete Batch Plant

Permit for Mobile Rock

Crusher

Administrative Rule 5801200 and

Permit by Rule requirements 5801795

Idaho State Historic
Preservation Office

Consult with BLM on-site
eligibility and the effects of the
Proposed Project on eligible
sites

Provide determination of
eligibility

National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470).

1.9 DECISIONS TO BE MADE
1.9.1 Bureau of Land Management

The BLM will make a decision whether or not to grant a ROW to allow for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project on federal lands. The BLM will also make a
decision whether or not to amend its existing Cassia RMP, which will allow for the granting of the

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-14

Cotterel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

ROW if so decided. Both decisions will be outlined in a Record of Decision, based on the outcome of
the EIS.

1.9.2 Bonneville Power Administration

The BPA will make a decision whether or not to offer contract terms for the interconnection of the
Windland project to the Federal Columbia River Transmission System (FCRTS). BPA has adopted an
Open Access Transmission Tariff for the FCRTS, consistent with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s (FERC) pro forma open access tariff*. Under BPA’s tariff, BPA offers transmission
interconnection to the FCRTS to all eligible customers on a first-come, first-served basis.

* Although BPA is not subject to FERC’s jurisdiction, BPA follows the open
access tariff as a matter of national policy. This course of action demonstrates
BPA’s commitment to non-discriminatory access to its transmission system and
ensures that BPA will receive non-discriminatory access to the transmission
systems of utilities that are subject to FERC jurisdiction.

1.9.3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

The BOR will make a decision on whether or not to grant a ROW for a portion of any transmission
line that would cross lands managed by the BOR.

1.9.4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion based on the Biological Assessment of impacts to
threatened and endangered species.

1.9.5 Idaho Department of Lands

The IDL will make a decision whether or not to grant a ROW for a portion of any transmission line,
any wind turbines, or any access roads that would cross state land.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-15

Cofferel Wind Power Project

1.0 Purpose and Need

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1-16

CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe the alternatives (potential actions) associated
with the proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project (Proposed Project) including the Proposed Action and
No Action Alternatives. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), agencies must:

“rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and for
alternatives which are eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons
for their having been eliminated [(40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
1502.14(a))].”

Section 1502.14 requires the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to examine all reasonable
alternatives to the proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is
on what is “reasonable” rather than whether the Applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a
particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are technically and economically
practical, are feasible, and use common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the
Applicant (Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) 4646 FR 18026 [March 23, 1981] as amended).

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION AND RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES

This Draft EIS considers four alternatives:

• Alternative A: The No Action Alternative

• Alternative B: Applicant’s Proposed Action

• Alternative C: Modified Proposed Action with fewer but larger output wind turbines,
alternative access, alternative transmission line locations and alternative turbine types

• Alternative D: Modification of Alternative C with a reduced number of wind turbines

These alternatives have been developed in accordance with CEQ regulations to provide decision¬
makers and the public with a clear basis for choice (40 CFR 1502.14). A detailed description of these
alternatives is provided below. If selected, Alternative B, C and D would require amending the Cassia
Resource Management Plan (RMP). Alternative A would not require an amendment to the RMP.

2.1.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Study

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) considered two alternatives (Alternatives E and F) that
were not carried forward or analyzed in detail. One alternative was proposed as a modification of
Alternative D, which attempted to achieve a greater balance between reducing the potential for
impacts to sage-grouse habitat and habitat use while maintaining an economically viable wind energy
development. The alternative attempted to avoid the most direct suspected impacts to sage-grouse lek
use and associated nesting at several key locations on the mountain by eliminating turbines from
those areas. This substantially reduced the number of turbines allowed. The other alternative focused
on the complete protection of sage-grouse and minimizing possible impacts by severely reducing the

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

2-1

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

numbers of turbines allowed. A description of these alternatives and brief rationale for why they are
not analyzed in detail is disclosed in Section 2.7 below.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Background: As required by NEPA, this Draft EIS includes Alternative A, a No Action Alternative
as the baseline against which the action alternatives can be compared. This baseline also allows for
the disclosure of the effects of not developing the proposed wind power project and its associated
infrastructure. For purposes of this analysis, Alternative A assumes that no actions associated with the
Proposed Project would occur, and existing management of the area would continue to be
implemented under the Cassia RMP; therefore, an amendment to the Cassia RMP would not be
required for this alternative.

Description of Alternative A: Under Alternative A, the Rights-of-Way (ROW) grant for the
construction, O&M of a wind-powered electrical generation facility would not be granted and the
RMP would not be amended by the BLM. This alternative would maintain current management
practices for resources and allow for the continuation of resources uses at levels identified in the
Cassia RMP. This alternative would also incorporate any management decisions that have been made
subsequently to the Cassia RMP. This alternative generally satisfies most commodity demands of
public lands, while mitigating impacts to sensitive resources. It includes moderate levels of resource
protection and development including: wildlife habitat protection; range improvements; vegetation
treatments; soil erosion controls; and fire management. In addition, livestock use, recreation activities
(including off-highway vehicle use), timber harvest, and land development (energy and
communication) would continue at present levels. However, these levels would be subject to
adjustments when monitoring studies indicate changing resource conditions or trend has occurred.
ROW would also continue to be limited to those allowed under the current RMP.

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Project action alternatives would consist of access roads, wind turbines interconnected
by a network of utility-grade facilities consisting of transformers at the base of each turbine,
underground electric collection lines, substation(s), and transmission interconnect lines for connection
to the existing utility grid. There would also be several wind speed measuring meteorological towers
and an operations and maintenance (O&M) facility sited within the Proposed Project area. All of the
wind turbine control systems would be connected by a communications system for computerized
automated monitoring of the entire project. A temporary cement batch plant, rock crusher, and
construction operation trailer pad would also be located on-site.

The Proposed Project involves one to three linear strings of wind turbine towers that would be sited
on three distinct ridgelines on Cotterel Mountain. The towers within each string would be sited
approximately one-quarter mile apart. The proposed Cassia RMP amendment is specific to the
Cotterel Wind Power Project. No other wind energy projects will be permitted on Cotterel Mountain.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-2

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Understanding how a wind power generating facility function helps better understand the potential
effects to resources and other public use of the area and aids in developing responsive management
strategies to avoid, reduce and mitigate these effects wherever possible along the turbine string.

The Proposed Project is projected to operate at 0.35 (35%) capacity factor under optimum wind
conditions. This means that the project generates 0.35 (35%) of its total nameplate capacity because
the wind does not always blow at a speed high enough to turn the blades of the turbines and generate
electricity; and at times it blows so fast, i.e., during storms, that the blades are feathered or braked
(stopped).

This is not to say that all of the turbines in a project are running 35 percent of the time or that they all
are not running 65 percent of the time. Each turbine functions independently of each other. The
turbine blades begin to turn when the wind reaches speeds of approximately eight to nine miles per
hour or greater. When wind speeds exceed approximately 55 miles per hour, the blades are feathered
and turned out of the wind.

Naturally, wind speeds are variable along the length of a mountain ridge. As you move along a 12 to
14 mile turbine string, as is proposed on Cotterel Mountain, each turbine turns independently of the
others according to the wind speed at its location. The observer will normally see that some turbines
are turning and others are not turning at any given time. Rarely would all the turbines be either
turning or not turning at the same time. Each turbine operates as a single entity; some may generate
45 percent of the time and others only 25 percent of the time because of their location on the
mountain (it is only the overall project average that is 35%). In summary, it is difficult to predict at
what time and how long any one turbine would be turning.

2.3.1 General Features of the Wind Power Project

The Wind Turbines

Wind turbines consist of three main physical components that are assembled and erected during
construction: the tower; the nacelle; and the rotor blades. The modem wind turbines under
consideration for the Proposed Project have tower heights that range from 210 to 262 feet and rotor
diameters that range from 230 to 328 feet (Figure 2.3-1). The number of turbines proposed would
range from 66 to 130 depending on the alternative.

Tower: The tower is a tubular freestanding, painted steel, conical (tubular)-type structure that is
manufactured in multiple sections depending on the required height. Towers are delivered to the site
and erected in two or three sections each. Each section is bolted together via an internal flange. An
access door is located at the base of each tower. An internal ladder runs to the top of the tower just
below the nacelle. The tower is equipped with interior lighting.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-3

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

-V

/

/

J.

/

\

\

\

\

Rotor Blade
Diameter
230 ’- 328 ’

\

Blade Ht.
(Highest)
325 ’ - 426 ’

Turbine
Hub Ht.
210 ’- 262 ’

Blade Ht.
(Lowest)
95 ’ - 98 ’

Person

Vehicle

House

Figure 2.3-1. Diagram of a Typical Wind Turbine.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-4

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Nacelle: The gearbox, generator, and various control equipment are enclosed within the nacelle,
which is the housing of the unit that protects the turbine mechanics and electronics from
environmental exposure. A yaw system is mounted between the nacelle and the top of the tower on
which the nacelle resides. The yaw system, which is comprised of a bearing surface for directional
rotation of the turbine and a drive system consisting of a drive motor(s) to keep the turbine pointed
into the wind to maximize energy capture. A wind vane and anemometer are mounted at the rear of
the nacelle to signal the controller with wind speed and direction information.

Rotor Blades: Wind turbines are powered by three composite or fiberglass blades connected to a
central rotor hub. Wind creates lift on the blades, causing the rotor hub to spin. This rotation is
transferred to a gearbox where the speed of rotation is increased to the speed required for the attached
electric generator that is housed in the nacelle. The rotor blades turn slowly, typically less than 20
revolutions per minute. The rotor blades are typically made from a glass-reinforced polyester
composite. The blades are non-metallic, but are equipped with a sophisticated lightning suppression
system.

Roads

Proposed access roads would be located to minimize disturbance, avoid sensitive resources (e.g.,
raptor nests, cultural resource sites), and maximize transportation efficiency. Each turbine
manufacturer has slightly different equipment transport and crane requirements. These requirements
dictate road width and road turn radius. The type and brand of turbines would be limited by
manufacturer production capacity within the timeframe of the Proposed Project schedule. To allow
safe passage of the large transport equipment used in construction, all-weather gravel roads would be
built with adequate drainage and compaction to handle 15-ton per axle loads. Road widths would
range between 16 and 35 feet. Passing turnouts would be located approximately every four miles
along access roads where needed.

Access to the area would be via Interstate 84 (1-84), State Highway (SH)-81 from the north, or SH-77
from the southwest (Figure 2.3-2). Access to the Proposed Project facilities would be provided by
newly constructed extensions of existing access roads, and reconstructed existing access roads that
begin from SH-81 and SH-77. New roads would link the individual turbines, substations, and other
project facilities.

From the north end of Cotterel Mountain the existing road from SH-81 would be upgraded to an all-
weather gravel road and would be the primary access route for all larger turbine components. New
all-weather turbine string roads would be constructed to link the turbines. The turbine string roads
would be designed to enable the transport of large cranes between each individual turbine. New short
spur roads would be constructed along the turbine strings to access each individual turbine. All roads
would be constructed for the specific purpose of the Proposed Project. The BLM would require that
all roads be designed, built, surfaced, maintained to minimize disturbance, and to provide safe
operation conditions at all times.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-5

-nsnv

North Access Road

Potential Turbine
String Road

Transm ssioni

Potential Turbine
String Road

Potential Turbine
String Road

South Access Road

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 2.3-2. Project Overview

Legend

O & M Facility ;

Potential Turbine String Roads Transmission Lines

Interstate

Access Roads

Project Area

State Roads

Other Roads

Alt. B Interconnect ROW

Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW

2 Miles

Co tferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Electrical System

Each wind turbine generates electricity at approximately 600 volts. The low-voltage from each
turbine generator would be increased via a transformer located at each turbine to the 34.5 kilovolt
(kV) level required for the medium voltage collector system. The power collection system would
consist of medium voltage, high-density insulated underground cables that connect each separate
turbine to a substation. These underground cables would be buried in parallel trenches. These
trenches would be primarily located within the roadbed of the turbine connector roads. In some cases
underground cable trenches would need to be located outside of the roadbed. At the substation,
voltage would be further increased to 138 kV. The stepped-up power would then be delivered through
the transmission interconnect lines to the transmission grid.

Communications System

Each wind turbine generator contains electronic devices to constantly monitor turbine performance.
Data from these monitoring devices can be read at each turbine. The data would also be distributed
via a network of communication cables, and possibly radio links, to the O&M building. Underground
communication cables would be buried in the same trenches as the medium voltage electrical system.

Substations

The main function of the substation is to step-up the voltage from the collection lines (34.5 kV) to the
transmission level (138 kV) and to provide fault protection. The basic elements of the step-up
substation facilities are a control house, a bank of one or two main transformers, outdoor breakers,
capacitor banks, relaying equipment, high voltage bus work, steel support structures, an underground
grounding grid and overhead lightning suppression conductors. All of the main outdoor electrical
equipment and control house would be installed on a concrete foundation. The exact footprint of the
substations would depend largely on the utility requirements, the number of turbines used and the
resulting nameplate capacity, which would affect the number of 34.5 kV feeder breakers. Each
substation would consist of a graveled footprint area of approximately one acre, a 12-foot chain-link
perimeter fence, and an outdoor lighting system. Depending on the alternative, there would either be
one or two substations for the entire project.

Transmission Interconnect Lines

The substation(s) would connect the project to existing transmission grid via 138 kV transmission
interconnect line. The transmission interconnect line would be hung from two-pole, wooden H-frame
structures approximately 60 to 65 feet tall (Figure 2.3-3). Overhead wires would consist of three wires
attached to nonspecular (low reflectivity) conductors and two continuous ground wires.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-7

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

c

HiiSiiSiiMiMilj

iiengiigiigiiiaiiglli

liiMTSillMilMMi

id i

=

HD

i

H-FRAME

i

HI 60 - - KT POIC HI

Figure 2.3-3. Typical Wooden H-Frame Transmission Interconnect Line Support Structure.

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Facility

The O&M facility would be sited at the south access road east of SH-77 near the Conner Creek
Summit. The O&M facility would include a main building with offices, spare parts storage,
restrooms, a shop area, outdoor parking facilities, a turn-around area for larger vehicles, outdoor
lighting and a gated access with partial or full perimeter fencing. The O&M building would have a
foundation footprint of about 50 by 100 feet. The projected permanent footprint of the O&M facility
(including parking area) would be about two acres. The building would be painted to match the
surrounding landscape color and would be landscaped with native species of grasses and shrubs
matching those found on-site prior to construction.

2.3.2 Construction

The Proposed Project would use standard construction and operation procedures used for other wind
power projects in the western U.S. These procedures, with minor modification to allow for site-
specific circumstances and differences between turbine manufacturers, are summarized below.
Additionally, project construction and operations will follow BLM Best Management Practices
(BMP) as described in Appendix C. The construction of the project is projected to take approximately
eight months.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-8

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Staging/Equipment Lav-Down Areas

To facilitate the construction of the Proposed Project, project staging areas would be needed. It is
anticipated that a single project staging area would be located off-site near 1-84 northeast of Cotterel
Mountain. This staging area would be sited on private land that would be leased by the Applicant for
the duration of the project construction. The staging area would be approximately five acres in size
and would be used for the temporary storage of turbine components, construction equipment, and
other supplies.

Five equipment lay-down areas would be required for construction of the Proposed Project. The lay-
down areas would be used during construction for storage of equipment and facility construction
materials, equipment parking and refueling sites, crane assembly and disassembly, a batch plant,
waste disposal and collection receptacles, sanitary facilities, and temporary modular office space. The
lay-down areas would range from two to five acres in size. The total area of ground disturbance for
the five lay-down areas would be approximately 15 acres.

Road Construction

To obtain preliminary roadway footprints, profiles and sections were developed for the Proposed
Project roads. From these preliminary profiles and sections, estimates of cut-and-fill required to
construct the roads were calculated using InRoads® model. Five-foot contour data were used to
develop a digital terrain model that represents the existing ground in the InRoads® model. A
horizontal alignment was created and overlaid on the digital terrain model. This alignment met the
requirements for the type and size of trucks that would be delivering and constructing the Proposed
Project. The roadway alignment requires the following design features:

• The road is to be gravel, 16 feet wide, less than two percent crown or inslope with ditch
and culverts as required on uphill side.

• Maximum grade is ten percent.

• Maximum allowable dip is six inches in 50 feet. Maximum allowable bump is six inches
in 50 feet.

• On turns, the minimum inside radius is 82 feet. The minimum outside radius is 115 feet
(so at the apex of a 180 degree turn the road is 33 feet wide).

A profile was then developed from the digital terrain model along the horizontal alignment, and a
vertical alignment was developed along the profile that met the requirements. A typical section was
developed, that met the requirements, and was placed every 20 feet along the horizontal and vertical
alignment. Cut-and-fill lines were developed on the digital terrain model at the 20-foot interval and
interpolated between the 20-foot placements.

The numbers generated for area, along with cut-and-fill volumes for the Proposed Project roadways
are based on general assumptions and approximate locations of the Proposed Project features. These
numbers are for analysis purposes only. Final location of the road and the cut-and-fill volumes would

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-9

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

be based on topography and sound engineering principles. Figure 2.3-4 shows a diagram ot the
typical cross section of the 16-foot wide project access roads. Figure 2.3-5 shows a diagram of the
typical cross section of the 35-foot wide turbine string roads.

The minimum full-surfaced width for project access roads would be 16 feet. The roadway along the
ridgelines to access the turbine string would be 35 feet in width. There would be no shoulders. Cut-
and-fill slopes would be at a ratio of 2:1. Equipment clearance would require a minimum inside radius
of 82 feet on all turns, and would be graded to within no more than 6 inches of rise or drop in any 50-
foot length. Turnouts to allow for safe passing of construction vehicles would be 64 feet wide and 450
feet in length.

Figure 2.3-4. Typical Cross Section for Project Access Roads.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-10

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Figure 2.3-5. Typical Cross Section for Project Turbine String Roads.

No material quarries will be located on BLM or other federal lands. Any needed fill or road base
material in excess of that generated from road cut activities would be obtained from a licensed off-site
private source.

Topsoil removed during road construction would be stockpiled at project staging areas. The
stockpiled topsoil would be respread on cut-and-fill slopes, and then re-vegetated as soon possible
following road construction.

Construction traffic would be restricted to the roads developed for the project. Use of existing
unimproved roads would be for emergency situations only. Flaggers with two-way radios would be
used to control construction traffic and reduce the potential for accidents along all roads. Speed limits
would be set commensurate with road type, traffic volume, vehicle type, and site-specific conditions
as necessary to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow.

To avoid unnecessary impacts to vegetation, construction equipment would be limited to construction
corridors and to designated staging/equipment lay-down area footprints. Where possible, the BLM
Sensitive plant species Pedio cactus would be transplanted from road ROW and tower pad sites to
areas outside of the project impact area, as approved by the BLM.

All construction equipment would be thoroughly washed off-site prior to delivery to the project site.
To prevent the spread of weeds and noxious weeds within the Proposed Project area, construction
equipment used for road construction at lower elevations on Cotterel Mountain would be washed

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-11

Cofterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

thoroughly at an intermediate wash station prior to proceeding with work activities at higher
elevations on the ridge.

To help limit the spread and establishment of an invasive species community within disturbed areas,
prompt establishment of the desired vegetation would be required. Seeding would occur as soon as
possible during the optimal period after construction using certified “weed-free” seed and using
native species to the extent possible, in a mix prescribed by the BLM (Appendix C), on all areas to be
seeded.

Turbine Pads and Foundations

At each turbine pad, a 185-foot by 180-foot lay down area would be required for off-loading and
storage of the three tower sections, nacelle, rotor hub, and blades. In level or near level terrain, this
lay down area would not need to be graded or cleared of vegetation. Construction access to this area
would be limited to wheeled vehicles. Some crushing of vegetation and soil compaction would be
expected to occur. Within this lay down area, a 90-foot diameter area would be cleared of vegetation
and graded to facilitate construction of the turbine foundation (Figure 2.3-6).

To allow a large track-mounted crane to access the turbine foundations, a crane pad would be
constructed adjacent to the turbine access road. The crane pad would be 40-feet in width and 120 feet
in length. It would be constructed using standard cut-and-fill road construction procedures. To allow
the crane to safely lift the large and extremely heavy turbine components, the crane pad must be
nearly flat. Following construction, the majority of the crane pad would be recontoured and seeded.
An eight-foot wide, 120-foot long gravel-surface turbine spur road would be left to allow
maintenance vehicles access to the turbine.

The Proposed Project area has rhyolite or basalt rock formations within a few inches, but no more
than two feet from the surface where the turbine foundations would be constructed. These rock
formations are covered by a few inches to two feet of mineral soil. The quality of the rhyolite or
basalt formations is sufficient to allow for the use of a rock socket type foundation (GeoEngineers
2004).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-12

Cofferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

1801

Figure 2.3-6. Typical Turbine Pad Lay-Down and Construction Area.

Rock socket foundations for turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0 megawatts (MW) range involve making a
roughly circular excavation approximately 16 feet in diameter and 25 to 30 feet deep. Boreholes
about three inches in diameter are drilled to a depth of two feet below the foundation depth (i.e., 27 to
32 feet deep). Packets of explosives about the size of soda cans (each containing about 2 pounds of
explosive) are lowered into the boreholes (one packet per each foot of depth) and the remaining space
is filled with sand. Rock within the excavation area is first fractured by delayed detonation blasting in
interior and perimeter bore holes (Figure 2.3-7). The majority of the energy released by the detonation
is consumed in fracturing rock within a conical zone a maximum of twice the depth of the foundation
(i.e., 48 to 56 feet). The remaining energy is transferred away from the blast in ring waves as elastic
vibration in the rock (no permanent deformation of the rock) and air vibration. Rock vibrations should
dissipate within less than 200 feet from the foundation site. The fractured rock is subsequently
removed from the excavation area (Figure 2.3-8). Blasting would not occur within 200 feet of the two
concrete-block structures that house electronic communication equipment located at the summit of
Cotterel Mountain. These structures would be evaluated by an engineer pre-blasting and post-blasting
to determine if any impact to these structures occurred. If impacts from blasting occur, these
structures would be repaired or replaced by the Applicant.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-13

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Two sections of concentric steel conduit forms are lowered into the excavation (Figure 2.3-9).
Concrete slurry is pumped between the outside of the larger diameter conduit and the perimeter of the
excavation. Spoils from the excavation are used to fill the inside of the smaller diameter conduit. A
bolt structure is lowered into the area between the two conduits (Figure 2.3-10) and concreted into
place (Figure 2.3-11). The wind turbine tower is connected to the protruding bolts.

To adequately ground the turbines to prevent damage from electrical storms, three-inch diameter 30-
foot deep holes may be required for placement of turbine grounding rods as needed. These holes
would be located adjacent to the turbine foundations within the 90-foot diameter area that is cleared
for foundation construction. Following placement of the grounding rods, the holes would be
backfilled and capped with concrete.

Three phase detonation sequence.
Timed to crack center then fragment
materials from perimeter to center.
Produces a strong foundation socket.

• 1st Charge - Initial center charge

Loosens area for 2nd charge

9 2nd Charge • Fracture center

Creates an area of fractured rock in
foundation center. Allows fragmented
material to move to center of
foundation socket.

# 3rd Charge - Perimeter cut

A ring of20-30 perimeter charges cuts
evenly. Energy forces inward. The outer
rock structure is intact. Voids in fractured
rock produce mound in center.

Figure 2.3-8. Excavation of Tower
Foundation Hole Following Blasting.

Figure 2.3-7. Detonation Sequence for
Tower Foundation Blasting.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-14

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Figure 2.3-10. Bolt Structure
for Tower Foundation.

Figure 2.3-11. Foundation Bolts Ready for Concrete Pour.

Tower Erection

Tower erection requires the use of one large track-mounted crane and two small cranes. The large
crane would first raise the bottom conical steel tower section vertically, and then lower it over the
threaded foundation bolts. The large crane would then raise each additional tower section to be bolted
through the attached flanges to the lower tower section. The crane would then raise the nacelle, rotor,
and blades to be installed atop the towers. Two smaller wheeled cranes would be used to off-load
turbine components from trucks, and to assist in the precise alignment of tower sections.

Underground Communication and Electrical Cables

Trenching equipment would be used to excavate trenches in or near the access road bed to bury the
insulated underground cables that would connect each turbine to one of the two project substations.
Large conductor cables would be packed in sand within the trenches and covered to protect the cables
from damage or possible contact. Optical fiber communication links would be placed in the same
trenches as the conductor cables. The depth and number of trenches would be determined by the size
of the cable required and the thermal conductivity of the soil or rock surrounding the trench.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-15

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Transmission Interconnect Line Construction

Transmission interconnect line construction would use standard industry procedures including:
surveying; ROW preparation; materials hauling; structure assembly and erection; ground wire;
conductor stringing; cleanup; and restoration. All transmission lines and structures would be designed
to prevent the perching of raptors and other birds as outlined in “ Suggested Practices for Raptor
Protection on Power Lines-The state of the Art in 1996 ” (Olendorff et al. 1996). Construction
procedures described below would be the same for both transmission line routes.

The overhead 138 kV transmission interconnect lines would be constructed on wooden H-frame
structures. The wooden H-frame structure holes would be approximately three feet in diameter and
ten feet deep. They would be auger drilled unless consolidated rock is encountered, then, structure
holes would be advanced using dynamite. All blasting would be conducted by a permitted contractor,
and would be in compliance with state and federal regulations. Structures would be assembled on¬
site. Aboveground pole height would range from 60 to 65 feet. The disturbed surface area at each
structure location would average 50 by 100 feet. Structure erection and conductor stringing would
occur sequentially along the ROW.

Existing public and private roads would be used to transport materials and equipment from staging
areas to ingress points along the transmission interconnect line ROW using the shortest distance
possible. The ROW would be used to access transmission interconnect line construction sites. The
interconnect line would require the installation of a temporary construction trail. The construction
trail would be a 12-foot wide area, which is cleared of large boulders to allow high clearance vehicles
to pass. The trail would be installed to allow access to support the construction of the interconnect
lines. Clearing of vegetation and minor grading may be necessary at some of the transmission
interconnect line structures to facilitate their construction. Once construction is complete, the trail
would be used approximately twice a year for inspection and maintenance. Native vegetation would
be allowed to re-establish over the trails to the extent that 4-wheel-drive vehicle travel remains
practical. Barriers would be placed where the ROW intersects roads to prevent unauthorized traffic
onto the transmission line ROW.

Batch Plant

The Proposed Project would require over 9,000 cubic yards of concrete for construction of the wind
tower foundations and substations. Depending upon weather conditions, concrete typically needs to
be poured within 90 minutes of its mixing with water. Delivery time to pour locations would likely
exceed 90 minutes from existing concrete suppliers in the vicinity of the Proposed Project area or
from potential off-site staging areas. Therefore, a temporary concrete batch plant would be
constructed within the Proposed Project area to facilitate the sub-90 minute delivery time needed.

The concrete batch plant would be located on-site at a central location within an area approximately
five acres in size. The batch plant would not be located with '/ 4 mile of any golden eagle nest,
consistent with BMP for wildlife (Appendix D). Vegetation would be cleared and the ground leveled
and a one-foot high earth berm or other appropriate erosion control devices, such as silt fences and

A/1 ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-16

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

straw bales, would be installed around the area to contain water runoff. Diversion ditches would be
installed as necessary to prevent storm water from running onto the site from surrounding areas. The
batch plant would operate during project construction hours for approximately four to five months of
the eight month construction period. The batch plant would require a stand-alone generator
approximately 250-kilowatt (kW) in size. The generator would draw fuel from an approximately 500-
gallon aboveground storage tank with secondary storage for spill prevention. It is estimated that the
batch plant would consume from 2,000 to 4,000 gallons of water per day. There would be a 4,000-
gallon water tank on-site that would be replenished as needed. The batch plant operation would be
permitted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

Stockpiles of sand and aggregate would be located at the batch plant in a manner that would minimize
exposure to wind. Cement would be discharged via screw conveyor directly into an elevated storage
silo without outdoor storage. Construction managers and crew would use BMP along with good
housekeeping practices to keep the plant, storage, and stockpiles clean, and to minimize the buildup
of fine materials. Cement trucks would be cleaned and washed at the batch plant. Cement residue
would be washed from the cement delivery trucks into an aboveground settling pond. Cement residue
would be collected from the settling pond and trucked off-site for disposal, as needed.

Following completion of construction activities, the Applicant’s contractor would rehabilitate the
batch plant area. The area would be re-contoured, stockpiled topsoil would be replaced, and the area
would be re-seeded with a designated mixture of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs as determined by
the BLM.

Portable Rock Crusher

To construct the Proposed Project’s roads, a rock crusher would be required to provide appropriately
sized aggregate for fill and road base. The rock crusher would have an average capacity of
approximately 20,000 tons per day. The crusher would operate during project construction hours for
approximately four to five months of the eight-month construction period. In accordance with BMP,
the rock crushing area would be sprayed by a water truck to suppress dust. The crusher contains
several dust-suppression features including screens and water-spray. Dust-control measures would be
operating at all emission points during operation, including start-up and shut-down periods, as
required by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality permit.

During construction, water would be needed for dust control and for making concrete. No wells
would be drilled or springs developed for the Proposed Project. All needed water would be hauled
from an off-site municipal or private source.

Trailer Pad

Contractors constructing the Proposed Project would require on-site mobile trailers to provide for
management of and communication to the work force. The mobile trailers would also house a first aid
station, emergency shelter, restrooms, and hand-tool storage area for the construction workforce. The

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-17

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

trailer pad would be located at the southern end of the center turbine string. Vegetation would be
cleared and the ground leveled over an area of about 200 by 500 feet. The ground surface would be
graveled to limit dust and mud within the area.

Traffic

Construction of the Proposed Projects roads, facilities, and electrical/communication lines would
occur at about the same time, using individual vehicles for multiple tasks. During the construction
period, there would be approximately 60 daily round trips by vehicles transporting construction
persomiel to the site. Over the entire construction period, there would be 2,205 trips of large trucks
delivering the turbine components and related equipment to the project. In addition, there would be
over 12,000 truck trips by dump trucks, concrete trucks, water trucks, cranes, and other construction
and trade vehicles (Table 2.3-1). Once constructed, O&M of the Proposed Project would require three
round trips per day using pickups or other light-duty trucks.

A traffic management plan would be prepared for the construction of the project to ensure that no
hazards would result from the increased truck traffic and so traffic flow would not be affected on
local roads and highways. This plan would incorporate measures such as informational signs, flagmen
when equipment may result in blocked throughways, traffic cones and flashing lights to identify any
necessary changes in temporary land configuration.

Table 2.3-1. Estimated Vehicle Trips for Construction of the Proposed Project.

Turbine Component Ttypes

Number of
Components
Required per
Turbine

Number of
Components per
Truck Load

Number of Truck
Loads per Turbine

Tower sections

3.0

1.0

3.0

Blades

3.0

2.0

1.5

Nacelle

1.0

1.0

1.0

Rotor hub

1.0

2.0

0.5

Foundation components

2.5

1.0

2.5

Foundation concrete (cubic
yards)

70.0

10.0

7.0

Total truck loads/turbine

15.5

Purpose for truck load

Number of Truck Loads

Deliver turbine components (assume 130 turbines)

2,205.0

Road and turbine foundation construction

12,625.0

Crane delivery and removal

40.0

Deliver substation and other electrical components

50.0

Deliver O&M building materials

20.0

Total large truck loads

14,940.0

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-18

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Project Construction Clean Up

Final cleanup and restoration of the Proposed Project area would occur immediately following
construction. Waste materials would be removed from the area and recycled or disposed of at
approved facilities. All construction-related waste would be properly handled in accordance with state
and federal regulations and permit requirements. The waste would be removed to a permitted disposal
facility. This waste may include trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products, and
other potentially hazardous materials.

Excess material (soil, rocks, vegetation) developed during the construction of the project would be
disposed of at an off-site location. The off-site disposal area would be a private facility licensed to
accept such material.

Construction Work Force

Approximately 107 to 132 workers per day would be required for construction of the Proposed
Project. The beginning and end of the construction period would involve a slightly lower number of
workers when compared to the middle months. The breakdown of the constmction workforce by type
is shown in Table 2.3-2. Construction of the Proposed Project would be completed in one season
over an approximate 8-month period.

Table 2.3-2. Estimated Workforce for the Proposed Project.

Type of Worker

Average Number Required
Throughout the Construction Period

Carpenter/form setter

7

Cement finisher

3

Cement, rebar

4

Electrician helper

17

Electrician, industrial

11

Electrician, master

2

Laborer

43

Structural steel worker

9

Backhoe operator

5

Cherry picker operator

7

Cable crane operator

5

Dozer operator

2

Power shovel operator

3

Road roller operator

2

Estimated daily total

120

Twelve employees would work at the Proposed Project on a permanent basis, including one office
administrator, one foreman, and ten windsmiths/electricians. Employees would work eight-hour

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-19

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

shifts, five days per week, with the exception of five of the windsmiths, who would rotate shifts to
cover nights and weekends. The Applicant anticipates that all permanent positions, with the exception
of the foreman position, would be filled from the local labor force. Windsmith training would be
provided to those who have a basic understanding of electrical work.

The Applicant would contract with a county or state-approved local sanitation company to provide
and maintain appropriate sanitation facilities. The sanitation facilities would be located at each of the
crane assembly areas, the batch plan, the substations, and the trailer pad area, and when necessary
additional facilities would be placed at specific construction locations.

2.33 Public Access and Safety

Public access to the federal and state lands would not be restricted. However, during construction of
specific project features (blasting, tower erection, transmission interconnect line stringing) certain
portions of the Proposed Project area would be restricted to the public for safety purposes. Authorized
users such as grazing permittees and communication site personnel would continue to have access
during the construction period. Following project construction, public access to federal and state lands
would be allowed to resume. The two substations would be fenced with 12-foot high chain-link fence
to prevent public and wildlife access to high voltage equipment. Safety signs would be posted in
conformance with applicable state and federal regulations around all towers (where necessary), the
two transformers, and other high voltage facilities and along roads. Any existing livestock control
fences that would need to be replaced or repaired would conform to BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-
1 for the passage of wildlife.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations require lighting on structures over 200 feet in
height. The turbines proposed under all the action alternatives would be over 210 feet in height and
therefore would require appropriate obstruction lighting. However, the FAA may determine that the
absence of marking and/or lighting does not threaten aviation. Recommendations on marking and
lighting structures vary depending on: terrain; local weather patterns; geographic location, and, in the
case of wind farms, the cumulative number of towers and overall site layout. The FAA would review
the Proposed Project prior to construction and might recommend that tower markings or aviation
safety lighting be installed on all or only a portion of the turbine towers.

Although coordination with the FAA has not been initiated, based on the lighting and marking
requirements of similar projects and the FAA Obstruction Marking and Lighting Advisory Circular
(AC70/7460-1K), a likely adequate lighting setup for the Proposed Project can be determined. It is
anticipated that the probable lighting setup would consist of two medium-intensity, flashing white
lights operating during the day and twilight, and two flashing red beacons operating during the night.
The intensity of the lights would be based on a level of ambient light, with illumination below two
foot-candles being normal for the night and illumination of above five foot-candles being the standard
for the day. It is anticipated the lights would not be mounted on every turbine. Most likely they would

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-20

Cofferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

be located on several strategically selected turbines to adequately mark the extent of the facility. The
minimum number of required lights would be used in order to minimize attractants for birds during
night migrations.

2.3.4 Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

Routine maintenance of the turbines would be necessary to maximize performance and detect
potential difficulties. Routine activities would consist primarily of daily travel by windsmiths that
would test and maintain the wind facilities. O&M staff would travel in pickup or other light-duty
trucks. Most servicing and repair would be performed within the nacelle, without using a crane to
remove the turbine from the tower. Occasionally, the use of a crane or equipment transport vehicles
may be necessary for cleaning, repairing, adjusting, or replacing the rotors or other components of the
turbine. Cranes used for maintenance activities are not as large as the large track-mounted cranes
needed to erect the turbine towers.

Monitoring the operations of the Proposed Project would be conducted from computers located in the
base of each turbine tower and from the O&M building using telecommunication links and computer-
based monitoring.

Over time, it would be necessary to clean or repaint the blades and towers, and periodically exchange
lubricants and hydraulic fluids in the mechanisms of the turbines. All lubricants and hydraulic fluids
would be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Any
necessary repainting would be performed by licensed contractors in compliance with applicable laws
and regulations.

Hazardous Materials

Hazardous materials are those chemicals listed in the Environmental Protection Agency Consolidated
List of Chemicals Subject to Reporting under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Re¬
authorization Act of 1986. No extremely hazardous materials (as defined by 40 CFR; Section 335) are
anticipated to be produced, used, stored, transported, or disposed of as a result of this project. All
production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the Proposed
Project would be in strict accordance with federal, state, and local government regulations and
guidelines. All potentially hazardous materials used in the O&M of the wind plant would be stored in
the O&M building in approved aboveground containers with appropriate spill containment features.

Turbine lubricants used in the turbine gearbox are potentially hazardous. The gearbox would be
sealed to prevent lubricant leakage. The gearbox lubricant would be sampled periodically and tested
to confirm that it retains adequate lubricating properties. When the lubricants have degraded to the
point where they no longer contain the needed lubricating properties, the gearbox would be drained
and new lubricant would be added.

Transformers contain oil for heat dissipation. The transformers are sealed and contain no moving
parts. The transformer oil would not be subject to periodic inspection and does not need replacement.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-21

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Construction equipment and O&M vehicles would be properly maintained at all times to minimize
leaks of motor oils, hydraulic fluids, and fuels. During construction, refueling and maintaining
vehicles that are authorized for highway travel would be performed off-site at an appropriate facility.
Construction vehicles that are not highway-authorized would be serviced on the project site by a
maintenance crew using a specially designed vehicle maintenance truck. During operation, O&M
vehicles would be serviced and fueled at the O&M building or at an off-site location. A Spill
Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure Plan would be prepared for the Proposed Project and
would contain information regarding training, equipment inspection and maintenance, and refueling
for construction vehicles, with an emphasis on preventing spills.

The Hazardous Materials Management Plan for the Proposed Project would contain specific
information regarding the types and quantities of hazardous materials, as well as their production, use,
storage, transport, and disposal. This plan would be included as a requirement of the ROW grant for
the Proposed Project.

2.3.5 Reclamation

Reclamation refers to the restoration of lands used temporarily during a construction activity (such as
staging areas) to their approximate condition prior to construction. After construction is complete,
temporary work areas, trenches, and tower pads would be graded to the approximate original contour,
and the area would be re-vegetated with a BLM-approved mixture of native grass, forbs, and shrub
species. Reclamation would include implementation of all applicable BLM BMP (Appendix C).

2.3.6 Decommissioning

Decommissioning refers to the dismantling of the project elements and re-vegetating of the site upon
completion of the operating life of the facility. While the ROW grant would have a 30-year term, it
could be renewed indefinitely. Thus, the anticipated life of the wind plant would be greater than 30
years. Upgrading and replacing equipment can extend the operating life indefinitely, assuming that
there would be future demand (after the 30-year term) for the electricity generated by the Proposed
Project. Therefore, the estimated life of the project depends primarily on the demand for power,
which would be expected to increase for the foreseeable future.

At the end of the useful life of the project, the Applicant would obtain any necessary authorization
from the BLM and other appropriate regulatory agencies to decommission the project facilities.
Decommissioning would involve removing the turbines, support towers, transformers, substations,
and the upper portion of foundations. Generally, wind turbines, electrical components, and towers are
either refurbished and resold, or recycled for scrap. All unsalvageable materials would be disposed of
at authorized sites in accordance with laws and regulations.

Site reclamation after decommissioning would be based on site-specific requirements and techniques
commonly employed at the time the area would be reclaimed. Techniques could include re-grading,
spot replacement of topsoil, and revegetation of all disturbed areas with an approved native seed mix.
Turbine towers and sub-station foundations would be removed to a depth of six inches below grade.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-22

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Assuming that the transmission line would not be used for other potential developments, all
structures, conductors, and cables would be removed. Abandoned roads would be reclaimed or left in
place based on the preference of the BLM at the time of decommissioning. The ROW would then
revert to BLM control.

2.3.7 Project Design and Best Management Practices (BMP)

All action alternatives would be subject to BMP (Appendix C). In addition, fatality monitoring, and a
Va mile golden eagle nest buffer zone would be required (Appendix D). The BMP in Appendix C
represent standards from the BLM ROW Handbook (H2801-1). These BMP are designed to guide
construction activities and development of facilities to minimize environmental and operational
impacts. These include, but are not limited to, standards associated with overall project management,
surface disturbance, facilities design, erosion control and revegetation, hazardous materials, project
monitoring and responsibilities for environmental inspection.

An example of these BMP would be standards related to noxious weed control. Based on these
standards, the Applicant would be responsible for the control of noxious weeds caused by the
activities authorized by the ROW (Appendix C). The Applicant would be required to meet BLM
standards in the application of weed control. The Applicant would use integrated noxious weed
control management techniques to control the establishment of weeds. Methods of control would
include herbicidal, manual, mechanical and biological methods. The actual control method would be
based on access, time of year, type of weed species, growth stage of the weed species, wind velocity,
affected acreage, etc. All applicable personal protective equipment and clothing would be used in
noxious weed control work. All weed control work would be completed in consultation with the
Burley BLM noxious weed control specialist and the Cassia County Weed Supervisor.

All noxious weed control efforts would be in accordance with annual NEPA compliance documents,
which document sensitive species and map their locations, provides site-specific herbicidal usage
rates, and includes plant and animal clearances. These NEPA documents would identify newly
established noxious weed species and provide control practices from year to year. It is estimated that
actual weed control efforts would not exceed 50 acres per year, although weed control inventory and
monitoring may include several thousand acres annually.

2.4 ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ACTION

This alternative is presented as proposed in the ROW application made by the Applicant to the BLM.
The Applicant has attempted to reduce potential project impacts through project design, application of
BMP (Appendix C), and consideration of input from its own public scoping efforts in developing its
proposed action. The BLM has not modified this alternative; it is the Applicant’s proposed action.

Background: On March 23, 2001, Windland, Inc. filed a ROW application with the BLM pursuant
to Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761, as
amended). The Applicant has petitioned the BLM to grant a ROW for the construction, operation,
maintenance and removal of a wind-powered electric generation facility on Cotterel Mountain in

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-23

Cofferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Cassia County, Idaho. The application specified the proposed construction of between 210 and 226
Vestas (V-47) 660-kW wind turbines with a nameplate rating for the whole project of between 139
and 150 MW. These turbines require a 165-foot high tower and have a rotor diameter of 154 feet,
with a total height to the tip of the blade at its highest point being 242 feet.

When the application was filed, the V-47 was considered a very reliable industry standard and the
Applicant was confident that this would be their machine of choice. However, wind turbine
technology has changed, with several manufactures building larger machines with nameplate ratings
of between 1.3 and 1.8 MW. The V-47 has been replaced by much larger, more efficient turbines;
hence, the nature of the original application has changed. Because of the rapid rise in technology, the
Applicant now includes an alternate proposal of constructing between 120 and 130 of the larger
turbines, thereby, giving the Proposed Action a total generated output or nameplate rating of between
156 and 234 MW. These turbines would require towers between 212 and 262 feet in height and have
blade diameters of between 213 and 231 feet, with a total height to the tip of the blade at their highest
point being between 319 and 395 feet. Since these machines are so much larger, the spacing
requirement between them is much greater, which reduces the number of wind towers.

Today, a commonly used machine in wind power projects is a 1.5 MW turbine. The Applicant’s
proposed action was modified to construct 130, 1.5 MW turbines with 210-foot tall towers, 230-foot
diameter blades, and a total height to the tip of the blades at their highest point of 325 feet. This
would be analyzed as Alternative B in this Draft EIS. The Applicant’s proposal to use the Vestas V-
47 is outdated and is mentioned here purely for informational purposes.

Description of Alternative B: Under Alternative B, the Applicant is proposing to construct a wind-
powered electric generation facility along the approximately 16-mile ridgeline of Cotterel Mountain.
As proposed, the project would consist of approximately 130, 1.5 MW wind turbines that would be
sited along the west, central, and east ridges of Cotterel Mountain (Figure 2.4-1). The west string
would be 0.8-miles in length and located along the short side-ridge west of the main Cotterel
Mountain ridgeline. The center string of wind turbines would be about 10.9 miles in length and
placed along the spine of the central ridgeline of the mountain. The east string of wind turbines would
be 4.1 miles in length and located along the east ridgeline that extends south of the Cotterel Mountain
summit. In addition to the 130 wind turbines, two 138 kV overhead transmission interconnect lines
would connect the project to the transmission grid emanating from two separate substations. The
exact location of proposed wind turbines, roads, power lines, or other facility-related construction
would be sited based on environmental, engineering, meteorological, or permit requirements. Other
physical components of the wind plant are described in Table 2.4-1.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-24

North Access
Road

Crane Assembly Areas

Raft River
Transmission

Substation

Crane Assembly Areas

IO*H0

^ t

Y

\ _ ~~

/ \

BPA

Transmission

Substation

Batch Plant

Trailer Pad

West

*tr J

South Access
Road

Operations and
Maint. Building

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 2.4-1. Alternative B, 130
70m Rotor Diameter Turbines.

Legend

Proposed Access Road Interstate

• Turbine Location "■■■■ Major Roads

Existing Transmission Lines Other Roads

Proposed Transmission Interconnect
1 ! Project Area Boundary

2 Miles

H

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.4-1. Alternative B - Proposed Action Project Features.

Project production capacity (in MW)

195

Number of turbines

130

Turbine nameplate (each)

1.5 MW

Total length of turbine strings

15.8 miles

Project roads

26.6 miles (total)

Existing (to be used without modification)

0 miles

Reconstructed

4.5 miles

New

22.1 miles

Buried electrical distribution lines total

23 miles

Buried electrical distribution lines outside of
roadbeds

5 miles

Number meteorological stations

3

Number of substations

2

Number of O&M facilities

1

Overhead transmission interconnect lines

9 miles

2.4.1 General Features of the Wind Power Project Under Alternative B

Wind Turbines

Under Alternative B, each turbine would be 210 feet in height to the center of the hub. Each of the
three blades would be 115 feet in length, with an over-all diameter of 230 feet. Maximum blade
height would be 325 feet above the surrounding landscape (Figure 2.3-1).

Substations

Under Alternative B, there would be two substations. The substations would be located at the north
and central portions of the middle turbine string (Figure 2.4-1),

Transmission Interconnect Lines

The substations would connect to the existing Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Raft
River 138 kV transmission lines via two newly constructed transmission interconnect lines. The two
overhead 138 kV transmission interconnect lines would both be constructed on wooden H-frame
structures (Figure 2.3-3). The transmission interconnect line ROW would cross lands managed by
BLM, the State of Idaho, as well as those under private ownership (Table 2.4-2).

Table 2.4-2. Miles of Transmission Interconnect Line by
_ Ownership for Alternative C. _

Management or Ownership

Miles of Transmission
Interconnect Line

Alternative B

BLM

5.7

State of Idaho

2.2

Private

1.1

Total

9

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-26

Cofferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

The 138 kV transmission interconnect line that connects to the existing BPA line would be 5.7 miles
in length. The transmission interconnect line that connects to the existing Raft River Line would be
3.3 miles in length. The transmission interconnect lines would be supported by wooden H-frame
structures placed at approximately 800-ft intervals along the ROW. The transmission interconnect
line connecting to the BPA line would require about 38 structures; the transmission line connecting to
the Raft River line would require about 22 structures.

Roads

Under Alternative B, about 25 miles of all-weather gravel roads would be needed to access and
maintain the Proposed Project. The existing Cotterel Mountain north and south access roads would be
upgraded and improved for construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The existing road
from SH-77 would require an upgrade and partial relocation to reduce maximum grade to ten percent
or less, and to increase the inside radius of any turns on the road. This road would be used as primary
access for construction crews and smaller materials. From the north end of Cotterel Mountain the
existing road from SH-81 would be upgraded to an all-weather gravel road and would be the primary
access route for all larger turbine components delivered to the Proposed Project area.

Under Alternative B, the Proposed Project would require about 4.5 miles of road reconstruction, and
about 22 miles of new road construction. To allow safe passage of the large transport equipment used
in construction, all-weather gravel roads would be built with adequate drainage and compaction to
handle 15-ton per axle loads. Passing turnouts would be located every four miles along access roads.

Total estimated cut volume for road construction would be approximately 2,660,000 cubic yards. The
estimated fill volume would be approximately 2,500,000 cubic yards. Under Alternative B, the total
construction impact area for all project features would be about 365 acres. Following the reclamation
of construction impact areas, the final Proposed Project would occupy an area of about 203 acres.

2.5 ALTERNATIVE C-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Background: Alternative C is an alternative to the Proposed Action (Alternative B), that allows for
wind energy development and has been developed through the identification of issues raised during
public scoping, agency scoping, consultation with the Applicant, govemment-to-govemment
consultation, from meetings with the Interagency Wind Energy Task Team (IWETT), and from
interdisciplinary resource specialist recommendations. In addition to the BMP identified in Appendix
C, management practices that would further help to facilitate the sustainability of the existing
environment are included in this alternative. The IWETT has identified additional BMP that are
included in this alternative to specifically address wildlife issues and concerns related to sage-grouse,
raptors, bats and requirements under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (Appendix D). Alternative C also incorporates compensatory/off-site mitigation,
effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management plans defined below in Section 2.5.4.

Other changes in Alternative C include not constructing the seven turbines originally proposed for the
west turbine string to help reduce the impacts to visual resources (Figures 2.5-1 and 2.5-2). Under

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-27

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative B, the west turbine string and the North Access Road to the north end of the east string
would be the most visible aspects of the Proposed Project from both the Pomerelle Mountain Resort
access road and the City of Rocks Back Country Byway (SH-77). In addition, the northern-most four
turbines of the east string would not be developed to avoid construction of a highly-visible road cut
across the west facing slope below the existing telecommunications facilities.

Additionally, the five southern-most turbines of the middle string would not be developed due to
limited wind resource in this area based on the results of wind monitoring on Cotterel Mountain. To
make up for loss of project output capacity, additional turbines would be added at the north end of the
middle string.

Description of Alternative C: Under Alternative C, the Applicant would construct a wind-powered
electric generation facility along 14.5 miles of ridgeline of Cotterel Mountain. If built as proposed,
the project would consist of approximately 81 to 98 wind turbines, based on the size of turbine
selected, sited along the central and east ridges of Cotterel Mountain (Figures 2.5-1 and 2.5-2). The
central ridge would have approximately 64 wind turbines and the east ridge would have
approximately 17 turbines. In addition to the wind turbines, one 138 kV overhead transmission
interconnect line would connect the project to the transmission grid from a single substation. The
exact location of proposed wind turbines, roads, and transmission interconnect lines, or other facility-
related construction would be sited based on detailed engineering to address site specific
environmental, meteorological, or permit conditions including BMP. Other physical components of
the wind plant are described in Table 2.5-1.

Under Alternative C, the final selection of the exact make and model of wind turbine to be used
depends on a number of factors, including equipment availability at the time of construction. The
number of turbines and the resulting capacity of the project would depend on the type of technology
used. Therefore, to capture a “reasonable range” of potential project impacts, Alternative C defines
and evaluates a range of turbine sizes and associated facilities, and their potential impact on the
environment.

Table 2.5-1. Alternative C Project Features.

Number of turbines

81 to 98

Turbine nameplate

1.5 to 3.0 MW

Project nameplate

147 to 243

Total length of turbine strings

14.5 miles

Project roads

24.4 miles (total)

Existing (to be used without modification)

1.7 miles

Reconstructed

3.2 miles

New

19.5 miles

Buried electrical distribution lines

18 miles

Electrical trenching (outside of road bed)

3 to 4 miles

Number of substations

1

Number of O&M building

1

New transmission interconnect line

19.7 miles

Meteorological towers

3

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-28

Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

Proposed Transmission Interconnect
t ! Project Area Boundary

2 Miles

4

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.5.1 General Features of the Wind Power Project Under Alternative C

Wind Turbines

Under Alternative C, the Applicant could use a range of turbine sizes from 77-meter (253 feet) rotor
diameter up to 100-meter (328 feet) rotor diameter. For analysis purposes, a 77-meter rotor diameter
and 100-meter rotor diameter were used.

Under Alternative C, two sizes of wind turbines would be considered. The smaller of the two would
have a 77-meter (230 foot) rotor diameter and would have a generation capacity of 1.5 MW. It would
sit on a 65-meter (210 foot) tower and the rotor would consist of three blades, 115 feet in length.
Maximum blade height would be 325 feet above the ground. The larger turbine would have a 100-
meter (328 foot) rotor diameter and would have a generation capacity of between two and three MW.
It would sit on an 80-meter (262 foot) tower and the rotor would consist of three blades, 164 feet in
length. Maximum blade height would be 426 feet above the ground.

Regardless of which size of turbine is finally selected for the project, the turbines would generally be
installed as indicated on Figures 2.5-1 and 2.5-2. Final adjustments to specific turbine locations
would be made to maintain adequate spacing between turbines for optimized energy efficiency and to
compensate for local topographic or geologic conditions. The Applicant has indicated that the size
and type of turbine used for the project would largely depend on such factors as quality, price,
performance and reliability history, power characteristics, guarantees and warranties, and availability
of a particular type of wind turbine at the time of construction.

Substations

Under Alternative C there would be only a single substation that would be located approximately
midway along the central turbine string.

Transmission Interconnect Lines

Alternative C would have a single overhead 138 kV transmission interconnect line. The transmission
interconnect line would extend northeast from the substation down to the Raft River Valley where it
would cross over, but not connect to the existing Raft River transmission line. From here the
transmission interconnect line would extend to the north approximately 19.7 miles in a new ROW
adjacent to the existing ROW for the Raft River transmission line. It would cross over the Snake
River west of the Minidoka Dam. The line would then travel in a northeast direction where it would
connect the project to the existing Idaho Power transmission lines located north of the Minidoka
Dam. The transmission interconnect line ROW would cross lands managed by BLM, Bureau of
Reclamation, the State of Idaho, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as well as
those under private ownership (Table 2.5-2).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-31

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.5-2. Miles of Transmission Interconnect Line by
_ Ownership for Alternative C. _

Management or Ownership

Miles of Transmission
Interconnect Line

Alternative C

BLM

5.6

Bureau of Reclamation

0.7

State of Idaho

5.5

USFWS

0.2

Private

7.7

Total

19.7

The overhead transmission interconnect line from the Proposed Project substation to the Raft River
Valley would be supported by 30 wooden H-frame, single circuit structures placed at approximately
800-foot intervals. From the Raft River transmission line to the north, approximately 105 structures
would be placed at approximately 800-foot intervals parallel to the existing ROW of the Raft River
transmission line. Under Alternative C, the transmission interconnect line would be designed to
prevent the perching of raptors and other large birds.

Roads

Under Alternative C, only the existing north Cotterel Mountain access road would be reconstructed
and relocated. The south access road would have only minor modifications made to improve safety
including, ditch shaping, comer softening, improved sight distance. Under Alternative C, the
Proposed Project would require the reconstruction of about 3.2 miles of road and the construction of
about 19.5 miles of new roads. Total estimated cut volume for road construction would be
approximately 2,200,000 cubic yards. The estimated fill volume would be approximately 2,425,000
cubic yards. Under Alternative C, the total construction impact area for all project features would be
about 352 acres. Following the reclamation of construction impact areas, the final Proposed Project
would occupy an area of about 205 acres.

Project Access

Under Alternative C, only the north access road off of SH-81 would be reconstructed. The south
access road would have minor upgrades made to improve safety but would be mostly unchanged from
existing conditions. Turbine components would only be delivered to the Proposed Project area from
SH-81 along the north access road. The southern access would be available for ingress and egress
from the Proposed Project area for all other construction vehicles.

Since turbine delivery under Alternative C would only occur from the north, tmcks delivering turbine
components would be required to turn around to travel back out the north access road. Truck turn¬
around areas would be 210 feet in diameter and would be centered on the access road. Truck turn
around areas would be located every four miles along the access road and would be interspersed with
pullouts. Therefore, there would be either a truck tum-around or a pullout every two miles along the
project roads.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-32

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Trailer Pads

Under Alternative C the trailer pad would be located at the north end of Cotterel Mountain. The south
access road would not be used for construction vehicles entering the site. Therefore, the trailer pad
would be located adjacent to the north access road to facilitate management and communication with
construction vehicles and the construction work force entering and exiting the Proposed Project area.

2.5.2 Public Access

Under Alternative C, public access on the ridgeline would consist of a combination of new project
roads and existing and newly constructed primitive roads (Figure 2.5-3). Although public use of
project roads along the ridgeline would be restricted through a series of gates, signage and natural
rock barriers, there would not be a loss of public access to existing use areas. Public access would be
maintained by linking the existing primitive road system through construction of new primitive roads
to allow existing uses of the area, including hunting, to continue.

2.5.3 Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

Under Alternative C, access restrictions to the Proposed Project area by O&M personnel may be
required to protect leking sage-grouse on a seasonal basis. During the leking season from March 1
through May 1, O&M personnel may be restricted from active sage-grouse lek sites areas from 4 a.m.
to 11 a.m. Otherwise, O&M activities for Alternative C would be the same as described under
Proposed Project Features Common to All Action Alternatives.

2.5.4 Required On-Site Monitoring, Effectiveness Monitoring, Adaptive Management and
Compensatory (Off-Site) Mitigation

The Applicant would be required to complete on-site monitoring as a condition of the ROW grant the
same as described under Alternative B. This monitoring would include on-site fatality monitoring
associated with the operation of the turbines and on-site sage-grouse lek studies as described in
Appendix D.

For the purposes of this analysis, on-site is defined as the “footprint” of the Proposed Project, or the
area granted in the ROW. Off-site is anything outside of that area.

Under Alternative C, additional effectiveness monitoring is included and is intended to determine the
effectiveness of the project design, construction and BMP in protecting wildlife. Effectiveness
monitoring would include the required on-site monitoring described above and additional monitoring
that was recommended by the IWETT. This additional monitoring would be funded by the Applicant
through a compensatory mitigation fund (described below). It includes, but is not limited to,
continuing the collection of pre-construction baseline data for use in comparative analysis, off-site
sage-grouse lek studies, continuing sage-grouse telemetry studies, sage-grouse nesting studies, sage-
grouse winter use studies, and raptor nest surveys.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-33

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 2.5-3. Public Access Plan for
Alternative C.

Legend

Restricted Access Roads
X Project Roads (No Access)
Publicly Accessible Roads

Project Roads

- Existing Primitive Road

^ Gates

Project Area

| m Alt. B Interconnect ROW
i^ m Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW
Transmission Lines
Interstate
State Roads
- Other Roads

2 Miles

-I I I

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Wind power projects have effects on wildlife, particularly avian species and bats, depending upon the
location, geography, and natural setting of the project. Effectiveness monitoring of the project (5
years or greater) is key in understanding the relationship between the project design, siting of the
towers, operation of the facility and effects on wildlife. These effects can occur in a variety of ways
but based on data collected at other wind farms, are chiefly associated with bird collisions with the
large blades that drive each of the wind turbines (referred to as the rotor swept area of each turbine).
Additional long-term monitoring may also be necessary to determine how the characteristics of the
project and its turbines affect the behavior and migration of birds and bats and to determine if there
are certain turbines along the string that are contributing to bird and bat mortality that would trigger
the need to implement management actions to reduce these effects.

Adaptive management is based upon a concept of science that understands ecosystems are complex
and inherently unpredictable over time. It approaches the uncertainties of ecosystem responses with
attempts to structure management actions using a systematic method from which over time learning is
a critical tool. Learning and adapting is based on a process of long-term monitoring of impacts to
wildlife from this project. The Applicant and the BLM recognize that the findings of long-term
effectiveness monitoring could indicate the need for modification of operations and adaptive
management. The BLM and the Applicant will work cooperatively with the USFWS and the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game to develop appropriate actions or mitigation measures designed to
address issues or concerns identified as a result of monitoring. Adaptive management tools that are
available to the Applicant and BLM include, but are not limited to: timing stipulations during
construction, operational changes of turbines, siting considerations, lighting scenarios, and color
schemes. These are, for the most part, addressed in Appendix D.

BLM Washington Office Policy Guidance Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 states that off-site
mitigation can be funded by voluntary contributions from the Applicant into a compensatory
mitigation fund held by the BLM (Appendix E). This would be done by cooperative agreement
between the Applicant and the BLM. This cooperative agreement would prescribe the level of
contribution and the management and use of the fund. Accordingly, the Applicant has volunteered to
contribute to a compensatory mitigation fund pursuant to the above-mentioned guidance. The
Applicant has executed a letter of commitment to enter into a cooperative agreement (Appendix F).
The Applicant intends the annual contribution to be in an amount equal to approximately one-half of
one percent of the gross revenues received from Cotterel Wind Power Project electricity sales. For a
200 megawatt project on Cotterel Mountain, that contribution is expected to average approximately
$150,000 per year at today’s forecasted production and electricity rates.

An extensive framework of off-site mitigation practices was also recommended by the IWETT to
address impacts to wildlife, should they occur as a result of the Proposed Project. These practices
would also be funded by the compensatory mitigation fund. The kinds of off-site mitigation practices
recommended include, but are not limited to: purchase of key habitats; acquisition of conservation
easements on key habitats; or, restoration, treatment or conversion of existing federally managed off¬
site habitats. Any off-site activities proposed by the steering committee would have impacts

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-35

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

associated, which would be separate from the impacts identified for this Proposed Project and
analyzed in this document. They would be analyzed in separate NEPA documents on a case-by-case
basis as needed.

It was further recommended by the IWETT that a technical steering committee would be formed to
advise on the design of mitigation measures and monitoring covered by the compensatory mitigation
fund. This committee would be responsible for recommending actions that would be funded by the
compensatory mitigation fund (i.e. implementation of monitoring over and above that which is
required, recommending commensurate off-site mitigation, and recommending adaptive management
strategies). The intent is to ensure interagency involvement in mitigation and monitoring activities
with particular emphasis on addressing the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act and sage-grouse conservation. The committee will also examine
ongoing research and scientific studies attempting to understand the behavior and relationship
between wildlife and wind energy developments. The technical steering committee would be an
expansion of the IWETT and would consist of interagency wildlife and other resource professionals
and the Applicant, with final decision authority resting with the BLM Field Office Manager. This
committee would be formed and chartered prior to any construction of the Proposed Project.

2.6 ALTERNATIVE D

Background: Alternative D is an alternative to the Proposed Action (Alternative B), that allows for
wind energy development and has been developed through the identification of issues raised during
public scoping, agency scoping, consultation with the Applicant, the IWETT process, govemment-to-
govemment consultation, and from interdisciplinary resource specialist recommendations. In addition
to the BMP identified in Appendix C, management practices that would further help to facilitate the
sustainability of the existing environment are included under Alternative D. The IWETT has
identified additional BMP that are included in this alternative to specifically address wildlife issues
and concerns related to sage-grouse, raptors, bats and requirements under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Appendix D). Alternative D also incorporates
compensatory/off-site mitigation, effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management plans defined
above in Section 2.5.4.

The premise of Alternative D is elimination of turbines from a portion of the sage-grouse habitat
(leking, nesting, brood rearing, and winter range) while still maintaining an economically viable
project. Because of the infrastructure costs involved with the project (i.e. turbines, roads, power lines,
substation), the Applicant has determined that 66 turbines in the 1.5 MW or larger size range would
be necessary for an economically viable project. Concentrating the turbines along the center ridge of
Cotterel Mountain would be the best way to obtain this number of turbines while affecting the fewest
resources. In addition, it would concentrate the project features on the central ridge, leaving the east
ridge undeveloped.

Description of Alternative D: Alternative D would use the same size range and types of wind
turbines as those proposed under Alternative C. Under Alternative D, a range of 66 to 82 turbines

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-36

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

would range in generation capacity from 1.5 to 3.0 MW (Figure 2.6-1 and Figure 2.6-2). Tower
height for the turbines would range from 210 feet to 262 feet, with maximum blade height ranging
from 325 to 426 feet above the surrounding landscape. Rotor diameters would range from 230 feet to
328 feet (77 to 100 meters; Table 2.6-1).

In Alternative D, as under Alternative C, the final selection of the exact make and model of wind
turbine to be used depends on a number of factors, including equipment availability at the time of
construction. The number of turbines and the resulting capacity of the project would depend on the
type of technology used. Therefore, to capture a “reasonable range” of potential project impacts,
Alternative D defines and evaluates a range of turbine sizes and associated facilities, and their
potential impact on the environment.

Table 2.6-1. Alternative D Project Features.

Number of turbines

66 to 82

Turbine nameplate

1.5 to 3.0 MW

Project nameplate

123 to 198

Total length of turbine strings

11.6 miles

Project roads

19.3 miles (total)

Existing (to be used without modification)

1.7 miles

Reconstructed

2.9 miles

New

14.7 miles

Buried electrical distribution lines

14 miles

Electrical trenching (outside of road bed)

3 miles

Number of substations

1

Number of O&M buildings

1

New transmission line

19.7 miles

Meteorological towers

3

2.6.1 General Features of the Wind Power Project Under Alternative D

Wind Turbines

Wind turbines would be the same for Alternative D as described under Alternative C.

Substations

Substations would be the same for Alternative D as described under Alternative C.

Transmission Interconnect Lines

The transmission interconnect lines would be the same for Alternative D as described under
Alternative C.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-37

cequia

Jackson

Idahome

Albion

IDAHO

r—^

* ^

Trailer Pad ^

dalta

Full Extent of Project Area Including
Transmission Interconnect Route

North Access Road

Crane Assembly,

Area

Substation

Albion

Batch Plant

Operations and
Maint. Building

Raft River
Transmission

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 2.6-1. Alternative D, 66
100m Rotor Diameter Turbines.

Legend

° Turbine Location

Proposed Access Road

• * * Existing Transmission Lines

Interstate
Major Road
Other Road

Proposed Transmission Interconnect
r i Project Area Boundary

-Cejoi^r

—

cequia
dackson

i/lalta

Full Extent of Project Area Including
Transmission Interconnect Route

Albion

North

Access

Trailer Pad

Crane Assembly,

Road

Area

Batch Plant i

Operations and
Maint. Building

1

VV-1

*

f f

S j Substation

i

Raft River
Transmission

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 2.6-2. Alternative D, 82
77m Rotor Diameter Turbines.

Legend

° Turbine Location
1 Proposed Access Road
”*• “ Existing Transmission Lines
“• ■ Proposed Transmission Interconnect
n Project Area Boundary

Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

2 Miles

H

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Roads

Under Alternative D only the existing north Cotterel Mountain Access road would be reconstructed
and relocated. The south access road would have only minor modifications to improve safety,
including: ditch shaping, corner softening, improved sight distance. Under this Alternative, the
Proposed Project would require the reconstruction of about 2.9 miles of road and the construction of
about 14.5 miles of new roads. Total estimated cut volume for road construction would be
approximately 2,080,000 cubic yards. The estimated fill volume would be approximately 2,275,000
cubic yards. The total construction impact area would be about 282 acres. Following the reclamation
of construction impact areas, the final Proposed Project would occupy an area of about 160 acres.

Access

Access for construction of the Proposed Project would be the same for Alternative D as described
under Alternative C.

Trailer Pads

Trailer pads would be the same for Alternative D as described for Alternative C.

2.6.2 Public Access and Safety

Public access under Alternative D would be similar to Alternative C along the central ridgeline and
turbine string. However, under Alternative D there would be no road construction or turbines sited
along Cotterel Mountain’s east ridge. The lower portion of the existing Cotterel Mountain summit
road would have minor modifications made to improve safety. The existing Cotterel Mountain
summit access road and primitive jeep trails along the east ridgeline would remain unchanged and
would continue to be open to the public.

2.6.3 Required On-Site Monitoring, Effectiveness Monitoring, Adaptive Management and
Compensatory (Off-Site) Mitigation

Required on-site monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, adaptive management and compensatory (off¬
site) mitigation would be the same for Alternative D as described under Alternative C.

2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL
2.7.1 Alternative E

Alternative E was developed by the identification of issues through public scoping, agency scoping,
the IWETT, govemment-to-govemment consultation, and interdisciplinary resource
recommendations and is basically a modification of Alternative D (Figure 2.7-1). It was proposed as a
possible method of further minimizing potential impacts to sage-grouse habitat and habitat use while
maintaining an economically viable wind energy development. Alternative E, while avoiding the
most direct suspected impacts to sage-grouse lek use and associated nesting at several key locations
on the mountain, would effectively reduce the length of the turbine string to approximately 8.4 miles
and reduce the number of turbines that could be constructed to a range of 40 to 49. This is

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-40

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

substantially less than the minimum number of wind turbines disclosed by the Applicant as being
economically viable to construct (66 turbines), operate and maintain at the Cotterel Mountain site.

CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14 requires an EIS to analyze all reasonable alternatives to the
proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is
“reasonable” rather than whether the Applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular
alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and
economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the
Applicant (CEQ 40 Most Asked Questions 1981).

The Applicant’s analysis and disclosure of a minimum size project is based on the cost of
infrastructure (i.e. roads, substation, power transmission, underground cabling, etc.), the cost of
construction on a remote, isolated mountaintop, the cost of monitoring and mitigation, and the cost
and time required for permitting on public land. It is further based on the time required to amortize
the capital investment of a project. Alternative E would have essentially the same infrastructure costs
as Alternative D with approximately 60 percent of the production potential. Accordingly, the
Applicant states that it is not possible to recoup costs in a reasonable amount of time or achieve the
rate of return necessary for such a large investment, nor would it be possible to obtain financing.
While Alternative E is technically feasible and could be constructed, it does not meet the CEQ test of
a reasonable alternative since it is not economically viable. Therefore, Alternative E does not meet the
purpose and need stated in this document. For these reasons. Alternative E is not carried forward or
analyzed in detail. It should be noted that in CEQ’s definition of “reasonable,” technical and
economic are linked. If a Proposed Action does not meet one or the other, it is not feasible to
construct and therefore is not a reasonable alternative.

The casual observer may notice a number of small wind farms cropping up around southern Idaho.
This begs the question, why are 40 turbines not economically feasible on Cotterel Mountain while
one, three or seven turbines seem to be a viable project in other areas? As stated above, the answer is
closely tied to: infrastructure costs; construction costs; monitoring and mitigation costs; the high costs
and lengthy time requirements of siting on public land versus the low cost and short time frames
involved with siting on private land; and the capital investment amortization time and costs. It should
be noted that, with the exception of time to amortize the capital investments, these smaller projects
located on private land do not experience these other costs.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-42

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2 . 7.2 Alternative F

Alternative F was developed by the identification of issues through public scoping, agency scoping,
the IWETT, govemment-to-govemment consultation, and interdisciplinary resource
recommendations. This alternative further distances the wind energy facilities from sage-grouse use
areas. Under Alternative F, the Applicant would construct a wind-powered electric generation facility
along approximately 3.6 miles of ridgeline on Cotterel Mountain. If built as proposed under
Alternative F, the project would consist of approximately 20 wind turbines, sited along the central
ridge of Cotterel Mountain. Power transmission and substation involvement would be the same as for
Alternatives C, D, and E (Figure 2.7-2).

The premise of Alternative F is to site the wind turbines based on the best available science,
combined with professional judgment, for the protection of sage-grouse and their habitat. Studies
regarding the lifecycle of sage-grouse have shown that nesting and brood rearing generally take place
within a 1.8-mile radius of active leks (Connelly et al. 2000). There is also some scientific
information on lesser prairie chickens to suggest that they may avoid tall structures (Robel et al.
2004). Therefore, it has been suggested by some that placement of a wind power project within that

1.8 mile radius of leks may have an adverse affect on the lifecycle activities of sage-grouse

Application of a 1.8-mile no development zone around known, active sage-grouse leks would limit
the siting of the wind generation facility to the 3.6-mile section of the central Cotterel Mountain
ridgeline and reduce the number of constructible turbines to approximately 20. This requirement
would render Alternative F not economically feasible, for the same reasons as described above under
Alternative E, as a commercial wind generation facility and not in accordance with the purpose and
need stated in this document. Therefore, Alternative F has been considered but is not being analyzed
in detail.

2.8 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2.8-1 provides a comparison of the alternatives by Proposed Project features. Table 2.8-2
provides a summary of acres of permanent and temporary impacts by project feature. Table 2.8-3
provides a summary of potential resource impacts for Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative C, and
Alternative D. These numbers are for analysis purposes only.

A/I ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-43

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.8-1. Comparison of Project Features ol

the Action A

ternatives.

Project Features

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Project nameplate (in MW)

195

147 to 243

123 to 198

Number of turbines

130

81 to 98

66 to 82

Turbine nameplate (in MW)

1.5 MW

1.5 to 3
MW

1.5 to 3

MW

Turbine hub height (meters)

64

80

80

Turbine diameter (in meters)

70

77 to 100

77 to 100

Total length of turbine string (in miles)

15.8

14.5

11.6

Project roads total (in miles)

26.6

24.4

19.3

Existing (to be used without modification)

0

1.7

1.7

Reconstructed

4.5

3.2

2.9

New

22.1

19.5

14.7

Electrical trenching (outside of roads, in miles)

5

3 to 4

2.8

New transmission Interconnect lines (in miles)

9

19.7

19.7

Substations

2

1

1

Meteorological towers

3

3

3

Maintenance and operation building

1

1

1

Temporary ground disturbance (in acres)

365

350

280

Permanent ground disturbance (in acres)

203

203

158

Construction features

Earth work Cut (in cubic yards)

2,663,496

2,203,176

2,079,286

Fill

2,506,995

2,423,935

2,275,735

Difference

+156,501

-220,759

-196,449

Truck trips to build project roads (road base
only)

12,625

10,885

8,500

Truck trips to build project (turbines,
substations, other)

2,050

1,850

1,250

Total truck trips

14,675

12,735

9,750

Number of batch plants

1

1

1

Mitigation

Wildlife fatality monitoring

X

X

X

BLM BMP

X

X

Compensatory/off-site mitigation

X

X

Public Access Available

X

X

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-45

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.8-2. Acreage of Land That Would Be Affected by Development of the Proposed
Cotterel Wind Power Project.

Tempo

( a l

rary Construction
Disturbance
pprox. acres)*

Permanent Construction
Disturbance
(approx, acres)

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Turbine pads

95

59 to 72

48 to 60

0.8

0.6

0.5

New project roads

50

48

40

200

202

157

O & M facility

0

0

0

2

2

2

Temporary equipment
storage and construction
staging**

10

8

4

0

0

0

Power line ROW

7

14

14

0

0

0

Substation

0

0

0

0.5

0.3

0.3

Batch plant

5

5

5

0

0

0

Meteorological towers

0

0

0

0.014

0.014

0.014

Total

167

134 to
147

111 to
123

202

205

159

^Temporary construction impacts are in addition to permanent impacts.
**Includes temporary office trailers and crane assembly areas.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-46

“O

C

D

C

.o

t3

<C

~o

<D

to

O

cl

O

a.

o

cn

a>

i—

CD

O

U

CO

©

‘■C

co

c

X.

©

i-

.©

©

a

E

©

©

s-

s

O

<o

o

c

o

to

'C

93

a

E

©

u

>-»

5-

93

E

E

3

GA

rn

i

oc

ri

©

2

«

H

Ki
©
>•
r

93

3

k.

©

CC

©

©

u ©
3 3
o CO
co «£

Gj N*

SI

-

C

u

>■*

y.

3

3

cr 1 (jj

.b *°

C3 T3

©

TD

3

3

Ix
©
>
©

£
O

-a J - 1

£ U

5 -g

<D ^

"G rQ

X 8

©

TD

c

b 3

« tS
o £

+-* <D

2 OJ

© JD

,© 53
Qx ©

3 JD
T3

-♦—• 03 r~! »*t

^ .p

ix «

2 E

3 ©

s ^

</5 ^

2 3 u

o g >

O

03

Cu

E

< s

O-

i

_ r«

© -3 E

■*-* -3 ©

u 23

•3 cr <!

3

CO

3

cr

©
-3 jo
eo O

ix *2

1 2

CO *2

E J

=3 !

o 1/3

X- o

c« X>

•*—*

O TD
S3 *-3

CP 5

5 I

. rv r Sj

00 o
© 2
•©!

1 &

<D l_

~ o

t: e

<d ©

td

3 ©

3 4
- ' *->

•a . -
©

‘C

o

CO
©

TD 33

CO

CO

©

©

3

-a

CO

CO

©

3 :

00

co

«

-O

td

3

o

£

3

O

o

2

+x

co

3

O

o

00

3 TD

•r- (U
*-> CO

3

TD

TD

3

co

3

O

£

2 co

3 <U
co 2

x CO

3 00

3 ©

O CO

©. 3

CO 2

■c 3

©

o

O.

O

3
©

•C 2
U 00

TD
~ £

£ Jj

© xx

C<x

1 =
X' O

‘S 3
5 2

a w

E «

<u

o

<u

0 )C

O Px

o

CO

Cl.

£

O

Z

-4—*

p

a

•a .

•S £

•*-* ^2
<u 5

2 3
00 .2
.E «

11

,2 e

3 3
j=! b
cn c

00

Cl.

3

3

•2 -d

o 4J
2 -2
« 5

3 52

8 *3

•a S

C0 lx

o 2
u co

T3

co

o

T3

.E o

% ^
« c

C/3 S3

o 2

XX 3

00 .2
.£ to
3 "2

co 2

5 I

J 2 .2

to

b

cm c

CO

a>

lx

o

C0

ro

o

CN

Cl.

3

3

O

I’S
2 -£
3 -2
o -b

O T3

T3

CO

o

T3

3

2 .

<u 2

C/3 S3

o 52

00 .2
• E to
to -a

e 0 2

S !

-2 .2
”E p
jp b
cm S

CO

<u

Ix

o

CO

m

o

CN

©.

3

3

O

tl ^3

2 <D

S b

3

o -22
o td

o

CO

eu

E

i

c 00
<u o

Jo

TD <D

3 00

<D S

<u to

£ <D
rx

o

• XX CO

00 -a
J2 b

O N

m 3
O X

o

3

a,

E

o

Z

o

3

D-

E

o

Z

o

3

D.

E

o

Z

o

3

C-

E

o

Z

3

CD

’5)

o

CO

o

p

U

3
O

._ CM

3 2

Cx eb

3

o

<u

©

2

3

o

CO

a>

x

a

3

O

r-

CN

Ox

D

TD

H>

X)

lx

3

CO

•3

>>

to
-*—*

E

m

-o

3

O

£

co

<D

Ix

O

3

CN

TD

XX D

^ E

O -3

-«—* C3

Ox

P

o

3

O,

E

3

<D

3

3

U

Ox

Cix

O

CO

a>

b z

3 - 5

00 CO

£ o

to

• H

• rH

.s

v

.0

3

3

o

co

<D

o

o

3

5? TD

^ xO

2 3

O. CO

P 3

<D

xO

2

3

o

£

co

a>

lx

o

3

r~~ -a

Tf (D

2 3
o- 3
P 2

o

3

Ox

E

3

<1D

3

3

<U

Ox

Cx

O

CO

a>

3 -3
m co

8 3

<D

2

3

o

CO

<L>

-

a

3

TD

V

x>

Ix

3

CO

TD

(U

E

3

3

<D

Ix

<U

3

2

3

o

£

o

3

O.

E

3

CD

3

3

CD

Ox

Cxx

O

CO

vo 5:

(U

<D

m >x

Uh

^ c/i

0

0 pp

2 |

03

3 - s

+—j

CP •

P .E

X

S 2

CD

3

O.

E

o

3

CD

O CO

2

3

O

O

o

co

TD

CD

<D CO

£ <u
l -1 u

O

cm

(#!

©

©

©

©

CO

©

Pi

u

©

3

*

03

CO

3

©

E

3

cm

03

CO

3

©

E

3

cm

©

£ to
2 £
3 ©

s*

03
TD

P

C/3

■*—*
O

O 2

^ 3

3 2 .

© " to

‘S’ -2 |

Ox C 3

© 2 o
_c n 50
H o. 2

«/D

-*—*

O

03 <D

& a

■i §

o 1/3
u ©

3

©

xO

TD

©

-4—*

03

£

3

o o
*

TD
©

© to

£ 3

M ix

<L>

<L>

03

£

©

o

2

lx

3

cm

03

CO

3

©

3

cm

ffl

CO

3

©

E

3

cm

TD

©

co

O

O.

o

3 Oh

3 ©

1 ■

o 3
3 .2

TD co
3 M

2 • r" b

b ©

co Cx ix

m” s

3

CO

3

Cxx XX

O CD
> 2
_ 5 S

CQ Oh

o C/3
03

a

.§ §

Q ^

y a->

G U

(D U

X) <L>

TD "E
3 ^

o o

^ p

© OD
*-• -*—>
<D 03

©

XX

3

TD

3

3

O

lx

a

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-47

V)

Q)

>

44

o

E

2

<

~o

c

o

c

o

’-££

u

<

~o

co

O

a

8

a.

o

CN

U

a;

8

a.

P-

(D

£

o

a.

"o

c

§

CD

u.

CD

t

O

U

CM

a>

>

r

S3

a

u

a>

s-

<S

<*>

-m

u

Cd

a

£

HN

O

CD

i-

3

O

V)

o

£

«m

O

a

o

cm

‘C

Cd

a

E

o

U

>>

s-

cd

E

E

3

c n

co

i

oo

ri

CD

s

3

H

CM

CD

>

T5

as

a

s-

O)

05

O

CD

S« CD

3 3
o C/3

PC

4>

CM

•M

o

2 ,

3

O

*4->

a

Wh

3

.s

<5

C

o

43

CM

I

PQ

CM

cd

CD

£

cd

c/)

CM

cd

(D

6

cd

DO

60 cd

1 &

■S I

<d

a ^

2 03

<D

3

DD

O

J-H

^ 'vi'

cd

1 1 4

3 -5

£

2 c

o

M O

2

£ S

u

CM

to 2

‘o

3 GO
8 2.

CD

CO

‘o

3

E

o

2

o

3

CD

t-H

cd

c-> "3
ca

3. ^
£ CD

CD

>

cd

O .3 X!

cd 3 -g
^ <D «

a ^

O 2d

CD

,<D

2

CD

O

2

CD

CM

'o

3

03

(D

CM

cd

CD

M

O

3

C/5

CD

>

D

CD

CD

C/5

3

o

.£

3

■*-*

03

3

3

O

CD

2

o

03

V-H

M)

■■ — <

3

44

O

CD

<33

x>

03

<D

GO

Ph

3

03

■4—*

CD

C/5

44

X

W

3
• ^

•4—*

T3

C3

3

-4—*

03

2

C/5

03

D

44

U-» f 1

C 3 2

co CD ■—|

H2 "o

co 33
<D >

CD

>

CD

$

u

O

O

O

1—4

05

<D

OX

D

£ >•*

.2 -o

td

-4-» <D

<u ft

Cm
O

CO M
CD O
l-H CD
CD H
cd 2
03

2 «
CN - 0

o 2

~ 3

a, o

P $

cd

Cm

O

3

O

**" > M

o

s

C/5

<D

fi

O cu
CD Cm

o o

CD CD

‘o’ ‘o’

M 1-H

3 . 3 ,

ID ■—

O

D

'o’

M

3 ,

2

a, o
P £

O cd
3.2

!£

S"S

CD o
60 2
p 2

Cm 3
° >>2

o

<D

'o’

M

3.

CM

CD

M

O

cd

oo

VO

co

o

D

■ 3

03

O

43

3

O

-4—*

CD

o 2
~ 3
3, O

D &

CM

<d

2

cd

CM

3

O (D
O Cc_

Cm

O

1 I

cd

>

O

£

D

2

3

O

M

cd

M

<D

60

D

>

03

D

cd

2

CD

CO

CD

M

CD

cd

CO

(N

3 ,

P

03

CD

O

cd

£

uu

CD

,<u

Cm

O

J2

P-<

<D

>

Cm

Cm

cd

3

O

73

d)

a

03

O

>>

-4__>

Ph

CM

M

o

C/5

(D

CD

o

p

<D

M

CD

u

P

CP

CD

cd

• *4
03

C/5

a

O

03

p-i

o

O

CD

X)

o

r-

C/5

1/3

co

o

4—*

175

<D

H

3

(U

Ph

o

03

l" 4

o

<D

o

o

03

3.

P

3
O

*M

cd

M

CD

co Cuo

o

(N

03

<D

cd

o

D

CM

CD

o

cd

CO)

VO

3 ,

P

o

cd

£

-4—*

3

<D

3

cd

<D

3.

Cm

O

CM

CD

M

CD

cd

m

o

(N

3

_o

•M

cd

-*—>

D

00

D

>

CO

CM

cd

O

£

cd

C/3

PO

CM

cd

o

£

cd

co

o 'O
O 3

3 ^
.2 3

2 3
D £

Cm cd

® to
D D

3 ^
cd 2

!|
.52 5
Q 2

CM

<D

O

M

3

O

co

CD

03

D

44

O

2

CO

03
D

^ D >_
co 2 .£
3 3-

.2 3 g

g S3 ^
§ S2 §

Cm CD .2

O .5 •£

£ § I

& ^ o

o

M*

D

D

2 33
3. h

** -s

D *0

1 o

„ D
cm" ^

3

D

■C

M

3

3

cd

3

3

O

-t—»

cd

M

D

60

<D

>

03

2 "3

3 ^
O °
<D _ 44

CM "2 .CD

2 § -3

&ia

Si § |

<D cd ,

*JS °

>»

CD

D

• S3
03
3

3

£ ■£
60 3
3 O

Cd CD

E

2

O

M

D

<M

03

D

CM

cd

CD

M

CD

.3 ^

2 5

*2 «
Cu

2 .£

CM Ph

CM

03

CD

O

CM

3

O

‘x

o

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-48

Cofferel Wind Power Project 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Vi

4>

>

V

S3

c

u

o>

u

.©

u

S3

a

£

l»H

D

u

s-

13

O

c«

<y

£

C

o

IX)

*E

S3

a

E

o

U

u

S3

s

E

3

C/5

rp

i

00

fN

O

3

3

H

IX)

o

>

•-C

S3

a

u

<u

4)

O

i- <D

3 3

o

X ««

HH

£

4-

|!
3 IS

3

o -9

cx

d

D

-3

4^

X>

<D

Ih

c/)

2

cd

c

D

D

2

3

O

• G

a

• *—H

*3

2

o

-3

CJ)

2

2

r*H

• *—<
Xi

(D
OS)
G
cd

■ *

3

a

Cm

O

Cm

O

CO

J-H

D

co

D

Wh

3

D

M

o

cd

H-*

(U

cd

M

o

cd

.3

g

cd

CN

IS

5>

D

CN

VO

cd

CX VO

a>

CO

M

O

>

-a

cd

o

3

d

X

2

3

o

£

ID

M

D

X

H

o

cd

cx

B

bfl 2

2 .5

Cm

o

w *
r „ 1) D

I £ C

I/)

3

_o

co

cd

3 <d

' B

cd

DO

3

3

O

<d GQ
.■So

2 <u .>

& 2 6
S

3

O .

£ m

to O
3 >

2 ~

33 cd

s £

cd «J

3 5
3 ^
o </>

Cd

^ <1)

2 |

C/3 $

-4-*

O <D
Cd

3 (D
M X

o

M

Oh

V-.

(D

>

a

CX

cd

(U

b G

O

o

3

• 1 -H

<D

r-;

H-*

C/5

cfcl

3

X

C/3

’S

(D

D

a

O

cd

X

g

D

G

o

2

Vh

a

T3

D

M

cd

3

M

D

D

•3

o

X

bO

X

2

2

o

2

2

2

cd

.<u

H—*

3

bfl

bO

O tS 3
o 3 O .

C/3 O

3 O

.2 >v

-3

3 *3

2 g

G cd
o &

o co

2 2

O
<D

* 2*

2 ^

X O

</T o

<u -3

• m cd

II

■§*§

cd X '

3

O

^ Cm

« 2
.2 g

C/5

-<-> cd

8 -g

o’ o

v-i 3
CX t3

t-i p

4-i

O

op

cd

ID

H

cd co
co

d

o

o

cd

o

cd -3
3 3)
t-i O

M

00

C/3
Vi

2

"3

§

3 f

O CX

6 *o

o >
cd o

CX 3 ,

•52 cf

T3 .3

M

3

o

o

o

CO

2

2

<D

3

O

O ^

£ fe

3 cd

s £

3 c«
o ^
2 3
3 . o

C/5 -4-*

5 x

C/3

cd

a>

a

cd

GO

*3

3

-M TV

2 2

S 1
a §

ID O
O

cd o
— D

3
O

a .sc,!

C/5 <D

Q 1 ^ V-« Oh

Oh O

C 0

o ^
cd 3
CX .3

e O

cd

3 C
D 2

a £
§ a

O 33
2 -O
CX V

C/3 C/3

:ri g

Tj

__, Wh

cd O

'O .S

G -

2 £

o o

Oh 2

D

CO

!h

D

>

TD

cd

O

3

D

-D

2

2

o

D

D

G3

H

o

cd

CX

a

3 co

D ^

d

D •

a

O

.SP.M ^

CQ 3 «

D co
O
cd

a tM
I °

> cd

<D r. vu

2 a -

D

CO

cd

D

cd

co

CO

D

to -^3

o u

2 o

D -j

'o’ ^

4 D
CX 4
tH 3

O --i
1 —; -*-»
cd -3

3 S

CO i_

o

T3
3
3
HH -9

g OI

a T 3

D D
O >

cd o
CX p,

.52 g

33 .a

PQ

CO

cd

D

a

cd

GO

T3

3

cd

2 “ o

> '■£

. -H Cd

■3 tH

cd h-

(5X) ^h

2 D

3

D $
Xi

D

T3 2

2 •£

o >,

O JD

•tx D
•—« *

T2 O

33 c9

^^2

D

tH

D

V

o

u

3

O

D

O

3

D

to

D •
2 C
2; a

3 g
| O

D

co

4

D

>

T3

cd

O

3

D

Xi

2

2

o

£

D

l-H

D

-3

H

o

cd

CX

a

r 10

Cm

cd m

in 10

D M*

^ 2

D

r H 3

O -3

May 2005 Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-49

l/>

<D

.>

D

C

i^

£

<C

~a

c

D

C

.o

u

<C

~o

CD

10

O

a

2

CL

O

CN

U

.<D_

'o

l.

CL

L_

CD

£

O

CL

~D

C

2

o

U

V)

©

>

••c

03

a

i—

©

>-

o

©

©

a.

E

HH

©

©

s-

9

©

VI

©

©-

©

a

©

V

X

01

a

E

©

u

s-

01

E

a

C/>

r5

I

oc

r4

©

3

01

H

VI

©

>

•■c

03

a

L

©

«

V)

©

CO

©

co

•a « .2

• ' .*_* -4-*

-g g 3

Ssc

g oo 2
„ « c

^ ON

^65;

° H ^

II co r

o) 'O ^

O •* II
cd f—i cd

cu

ffl

02

<D

02

.8 1 S

.a tc \c
13 2 a
t: 6 «

2 00 o

S oo 2

oo

oo

I O T 3‘
° II °?

II « s

co -o

O -S II

cd *—h cd

Pi < CQ

©

CO

l-l

©

>

T3

©

o

a

©

X

2

2

o

^ CO

^ -I—*

© <2
cd

© CL

fl

CL

©

£

co

O

i-i

©

£?

cd

02

<u

E

So ed
co ©

< 13

02

<D

td

6

£ g
© «

.£* ©
2 2
£ o

o 4-»

£ s

T3 °
C ^3

<D <D
. 02
Vh rrt

S.- 2

CL ©

D S3

«T T3

a £
o ^

© OX)

c -S

•g ts

CL ©

6 &
o *.
c£q <*

CO

•l .a
© -g
x «

E ^

E o

c E

CL o
g cd

£ £*
co cO

i- O

2 g>

2 -S

cO

T3 *
« ©
~ X
CL
CL
co

CO

li

©

CL

O

©

cO

T3
©

©

- X
co *2
-*-* ©
© <
a> I

or> CO
O ©
bo i-i
CL ©

C

©

o

l-l

©

CL

m

m

Lh

o

l-l

O 03

3 2

© 3
•£ ©
© ' D
•3 2

• - 3

* i

OX)

c

co

©

o

I s

* H

©

t . ©

>% b
q3 ^

od ©
2 £
4D 02

cd

<D

Ih

cd

4—*

Oh

£

02

Lh

o

■4—*

O

<L>

6D

Wh

cd

02

(D

E

©

02

02

<

2

cd

02

CL) 02

td

s ©
•a E
02 3
<D c

•t5 cd

■ ‘ • r-4

>
©

©

^—*

13

c

o

E

©
t:
o

E

03

C rt

•° o

© 03
CL

S 52

P ©

X)

©

©

©

o

©

• S
o

CL

o

cE

1" <

OX)

cd

-4—*

• E

T3

O

©

1-1

02

©

-4-*

<L)

©

G

©

CL

■4—*

G

6

cd

O

0

02

©

©

oT

C

02

cd

^2

X

- 4 —»

0

©

Q<

<D

2

<D

'o’

u.

X

■*->

tn

r<2

4-t

"cd

6

OX)

c

3

0

£

CL

cd

O

-4-*

02

•

>>

©

T3

£

<D

Vh

u.

O

a>

a

©

1-1

cd

- 4 -*
r \

02

CO

©

r: &ci2

ox) © ”

• S ^ -
-4-* 02 •*-<

2 9

v-» cd

2 2 CL

CL o ©

O i_ O

H -ts
.

03 —

.2 ©

g* ©

o

■C

©

c

CL

© ©

02

02

Uh

O

O

I

02

-4-*

02

0 >

©

X

cd

cs

m

<D

02

CZ2

<u

td

E

E

©

c

4 -*

"cd

T3

G

cd

cd

43

-4—*

4-h

O

Ih

'cd

E

4—*

-4—*

Id

ts

-4—*

-4—*

02

<D

c

©

t:

0

of

-4— »

O

O

O

02

(U

cd

t:

0

0

E

Id

t:

0

-4—*

>

cd

E

oT

<u

'o’

I-

cd

<D

Lh

cd

.cd
4 —1

02

3

H

2

©■

c

"cd

"cd

CL

•*—>

.dd

ro

NO

1

ro

1

O

G

r-

v O

t:

0

2

-4—*

O

■4—*

cd

G

G

O

O

T3

_C

CL

<D

0

cd

CL

cd

3

©

• ^H

O

II

II

02

VO

1

T3

©

0

"O

-4—*

• S

OX)

02

l-i

O

0

W)

3.

CL

©

CO

T3

On

©

<D

0

.2

4 —»

.3

! .

Raptor

.©

X)

5

Bats =

l-l

©

CL

CL

D

02

cd

O)

0

t-<

cd

CL

E

0

cfa

©

1-

©

CL

O

O

l-i

"cd

4 —*

O

4 —*

cd

Ih

a>

CL

O

©
©
©
l—1
©
CL

©

co

•C ^ ©

ts « o
^ a, £

■s I %

03

©

©

£>

JS ^ 13

CO *5
© *1
£.S2

© rg ©
.. co .*3 o
© co s ^
CL © > >

O

'C

©

c

©

©

CO

0

4 —*

Ih

©

<D

X

O

©

G

4—*

C 0

La

a>

cd

TD

3

Ih

<u

a

0

P

&

T3

©

>

cd

4 — >

C

V

©

&

&

HH

4—*

cd

s

4—*

"cd

G

+-> • t-H

cd -5
X g
Td 0

O

to

0

a— *

T3

C

02

3

G C!

3

w

cd

cd G

©

>

CO

©

.s

Vh

(D

O

CL

CQ

©

>
• w*
-4—*

cd

E

a>
■*—*

<

02

cd

a>

E

©

00

PQ

©

>

©

E

a>

-4—*

<

02

cd

(L>

E

©

00

co

©

^ c
^ ' ©
© -P

6 5

2 <D

o

-4—* -4—*

O-. C4-H

© o

OX)

■S -2

■©

© ©
© -r
©1 >
©

c ^
©

03 03

■ — • •—1

co o
u >
& ©

C

o

©

co

©

X)

©

1-1

CL

O

2 03
02 ^
c a

o ^

o "

o 1 -

co 3
O co
—1 (U
>-

B T3

• ' 4

X) ©
© O

ffi ^

©

co

l-

©

>

03

©

O

©

©

X

2

3

o

£

©

1-1

©

X

H

©

©

CL

E

co

1-1

o

-4—>

Cl

cd

v-.

W)

g

• 4 —*

02

<D

A^la/ 2005 Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-50

Io
<D

>

-C

o

c

V-

£

<C

~o

c

o

c

.0

-p

u

~o

Q)

l/>

o

CL

2

CL.

O

CN

£

(D

o

U

co

©

"23

53

a

!_

©

U

.©

u

S3

a

E

HH

©

©

P

©

©

£

a

©

CO

*E

53

a

E

©

u

L.

53

E

E

s

co

i

oo

ri

©

S

53

H

tO

©

>

"C

03

a

S-

©

pa

©

©

u ©
S ©
O

g^ PH

a*

i/i

©

i~

o

53

d"

co

CO

M

o

o

©

.b

Q

CO

©

I-

©

53

OO

d -

Im

O

CO

CO

O

©

©

.b

Q

CO

©

u.

©

53

OO

V©

©H

o

</>

co

O

©

©

H

<n

OO

in

d -

o

+j

cl

©

a

o

<b

3

©

a

©

©

53

E S3
.2 b
P °

Q 53

VO

>n

o

CL

©

a

o

eta

3

©

a

<L>

o

cd

C/D

§* E

Q £

in

cn

d^

SO

o

<1-1

CL

©

a

o

<b

2

©

a

©

©

53

E

CO

©

T3

©

-t-*

©

©

CL

X

©

c

o

2

2

oo 22

•s !

C/D p-;

x o

W ©

© £
00 c

53 P
co ^
Im
O

CO

CO

O

P

©

CO ©

3 00

2 c
K 53

00 l-H

co

©

i->

©

53

>n

4h

O

co

CO

O

©

©

.b

Q

d-

Os

CO

O

-4—»

CL

3

a

o

ib

2

©

a

©

©

53

p 1/1

CL <n

.“2 Lh
Q 53

CO

©

l_

o

53

OO

(N

i+-i

O

co

CO

O

©

©

O

os

oo

d"

o

-*->

CL

3

a

o

ib

2

©

a

©

©

53

CO

CL m

.52 >-<

P °

Q 53

CO

©

Ih

©

53

CO

co

L->

o

co

CO

O

©

©

•b

Q

m

o

P

in

o

CL

3

a

o

<b

3

©

a

©

©

53

E

CO

©

T3

©

©

©

CL

X

©

3

o

■t—•

53

2

•

C/D

oo 22
c 3
• b c

+-> . 3
co

X o

w ©

00

c

©
go to
8 22
Im

o

53

©
CO

P 00 P

CO

©

>-.

©

53

CN

m

lw

O

co

CO

O

©

.§

Q

in

in

CN

rn

O

-t->

CL

3

a

o
ib
-*—»
3
©

a

©

©

53

CO

CL <u
• 22 •-
53

CO

©

u

©

53

r~

4i

O

co

CO

O

©

©

•b

Q

m

tT

CO^

co

o

CL

3

a

o

ib

-4-»

3

©

a

©

©

53

E,

CO

©

CO

©

©

53

Tf

OO

to

CO

o

©

©

.b

Q

m

Os

rn

m

o

CL

3

a

o

ib

3

©

a

©

©

53

E

to

"O

©

©

©

CL

x

©

3

_o

53

2

oo 22

3 3
•b G
-3

to *-•

• *-> G
X O
W ©

It—(

lM

C/D

o

o

©

-4—>

-4—>

•Th

3

<D

3

C/D

©

<D

C/D

-4-*

©

3

a

3

C/D

a

O

©

O

©

a

o

Wh

<U

o

o

cd

cd

00

cd

2

E

CL

©

g

CL

<D

C/D

00

o

C/D

■4—1

p

5

cd

C/D

ib

5

P

p

00

Jj

E b

n “

O (u

o'

l-i

CL

eg

I-* boZ"

8 -S E

2 ©

. P o

© co ^
C3 © -O
G ,— ' ©

a p a

1/2 -3 -§

^ & a
h a

03

Cl

00

■B .a

a
©
p
2

o
o

Ih
it —i

o

3

©

a

©

©

3 -73

00

a

53

CL © °

co © ©

• 1-H J—I O .

'd p co 1

m

©

>

<a

a

<D

<

«/3

cd

<D

a

cd

CO

a

o

ib

3

_o

co

CO

3

©

Lh

©

CL

"O

3

53

©

to

'o

d3

3

G co

- J2
M73

.a £

oo o

op >

■d ©

. oo
oo Jo
3 ^3

p It-H

•E °

'b 3

h J ©

3 6

•3 <D
CO ^
53 O

p a

53

P

00

• s I

to S

o a

o ©

*- p

© "3

© p

53 Lh

E ®

-2 oo .

•d 3 to

•d 'd •-

d? © ©

o in cl

u P 5v

~o

©

©

©

CL

X

u

3

O

• »—H

cd

2

g? 3

p .3

C/D +2

‘X §
W o

co

# ©

*©

©

o|

C/5

-o

©

©

Ofl

c

-a

c

W

-a

a

53

-a

©

G

©

53

©

-C

H

ffl

©

>
• rH

td

e

<D

-4-*

<

C/D

cd

(D

a

53

cn

CQ
©
>
■4—»

cd

a

©

CO

53

©

a

53

OO

©

.3

p

g a s

2 cS •§

P C bS
rG E ©

.2 3-
« b o

© 0-3

PL -4—*

O >1 3
CL P d

J7- o

G a l

2 c 2

a 2 22

oo 3 ©

Ih

o

co"

©

3

3

O

co

co

3 co

w 42
3 ^
ca ^

©

CO

l-l

©

>

T3

53

O

3

©

P

*d

3

u

-t-t

O

C/D

+->

E

3

O

©" •

t-l

.o

©

O

Uh

ib

cd

p

©

©

P

H

Ph

a

cd

j-.

a

O

o

o

Ih

P ’

W

42

E

53

w

2

E

CQ

©

>

• fH

cd

a

<L>

-4-*
>■ 4

<

C/D

cd

d>

a

53

OO

©

>

-4—*

cd

a

(D

-4—*

<

(/D

cd

d)

a

53

oo

©

>

2

a

<D

cd

<D

a

cd

c/)

cd

O

£

cd

Uh

o

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-51

to

<D

>

’-3

O

E

<

~0

C

o

c

o

3

<

~o

CL)

to

O

a

2

CL.

o

CN

U

Q)_

2

Q_

u.

CD

£

o

a_

~o

c

§

Cl)

t_

CD

3=

o

U

CO

a>

>

‘V

«

a

u

<D

La

<2

Vi

-L->

cu

cd

a

a

hH

0)

CU

u

3

O

v

cu

a

o

<o

*C

03

a

E

o

U

>>

L.

03

E

E

3

c/3

r5

i

oo

r4

a>

3

03

H

CO

cu

>

‘•C

03

3

l.

a>

«

cu

cu

U 0)

3 3

O

co

Pi

2 !U

Q ^

^ X
<U X

> p

3 i

e s

ID <u

<r <u

^ &
^ C/D

2 a
g 2

CL <"

X

3

O 3

•4-*

X ®

d id
-*-> >
o x

Vi

3

(D

La

3

La

ID

<D

CL

3

x E

id S

ID

Vi

2 fc

o 3

- 7 ♦—I

Cd o3

&
03
W-.

_ O

03 P-i

I g-

J5x

3 g

.spS
^ §
X 3
.X 3

CL

6

o

c2

c/D

c

o

•4—*

O

s

£ i.

H &

CO CO

3

o

o

o

U cl

o

2 CO
& c
g O
• 3 o

CO

3

O

3
■ ■ <

3

CL

O

CL

3

E

CL

3

a

H- 1

tt-i

V

12

3

o

£

g? 8

ID

L.

C3

D

CO

D

'd

3

-a

X _
<D r>
-•-* X

o H

• ID

c£a 3
3 O
ID
X

X

X

V

3

o

X

3

3 co
X

3 c

L- O

o X

X 2
ID P
X

co

3

>

ID

O

3

O

£

o

>

3

to

3

O

o

o

2

X -» >.

CO

3

O

o

ID ID
X O
3
O

ID *_,

X p

X X

g ^

-E 3

3 E
M .g*
x -2

X £
3 S3
3 X

ID u
■*—* «.
ID ID

3- .3

E 3

o I)
o x

CO

4->

3

A—»

X

3

X

X

3

o

o

o

<D

U >,

o x

■*—* <

X o
D ,3

a ^

ID <U

Cl X

x a
u S3

ID ID

X 3

>, 3

3 .2

C/D -*-*
J-H O

^ 2
MX ts
.3^3

X ID
ID X

D —
VL X

3

O

3

O
o

S*.

3 •?
O ^

° 3

to o
x -2 -£*

g ^ §

D —i

Ofl X
c 3 P
•3 ID X
to 2 8
2 o Jtt

Z, cj) cd

3

2 >p

* 3

o >

^2 co

3 3

+- o

p CO

X X

D 3

o o
3 —. .

3 3 co

x x 2
E c .3
2 a x

91 n L

• f-H C«J i-4

X CL 2

X

ID

-*->

o

D

X

X

ID

3

O

3

a

Vi

g» p
x .3

CO *;

’ 3

X O
W o

ID

>

co

3

ID

& d

2 3

X <D

X Cl

m m

CQ

03

m

C/3

o3

cd

<D

C2

<L)

fl

C

cd

C

03

CO

CO

in

W

u

03

03

C^l

c/i

03

o3

ID

ID

3

3

03

03

CO

CO

o

£

<

o

z

o

£
t4—(

3

O

3

ID

X

X

3

O

£

ID

La

ID

X

H

•2 co
C ID
O P

+-> U.

C/)

3

O

C/D

_ (D

x (2

3

<D

<D

X

ID

>

3

X

CO

2 .
ID X
O ID

3 X
O -2

° 3
O <D

£ 3

o

3

O

3

ID

X

X

3

o

ID

La

ID

X

H

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-52

Cotterel Wind Power Project 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

c/5

©

‘■0

a

i-

La

.©

U

St

a

S

x

©

©

u

3

©

%

©

Pi

a

©

</>

*C

St

a

£

©

u

>>

u

«

s

£

3

C/3

rD

i

oo

c4

©

2

C3

H

<x>

©

►

•-C

a

u

©

©

©

I- ©

3 3

© 05

<» <£

x

Pi

©

3

Q

©

>
• ^4
4-4

cd

i

<u

>

3

£

X

4->

8

ri

Q

4 -*

©

CO

(N

©

1*

O

• rH

GO

*

•

• x4

cd

lx

o

©

a3

Da

O

M

O

3

1

2

CO

03

g

4—*

C^

(D

Vh

B

4h

4->

o

cd

5

• rH
£

Oa

©

3

©

>

3

X

u

(N

1

2

u

(D

4 -*

2

£

©

3

0

X

f-4

Q<

u

3

2

GO

X

3

Q

X

M

♦H

cd

o

4—>

Lh

©

_>

3

X

M

3

O

• H

3

0

£

4 —*

2

u

c /)

3

00

■

©

>

td

©

>

3

X

Id

0

*C

O

cd

a

4—*

Da

O

<D

<L>

4 -*

GO

e

2

4 -*

m

’S

©

4-*

©

©

'o'

• x

C/5

S

<u

4 -*

3

0

2

Vh

•

C/5

X

©

l-H

PU

O

4—*

U

£

0

4 —*

©

o

Va

3

o

CO

©

©

>
• *H
4—»

© 2

S3 S

©

©

X

U ^
© <1

£

©

3

©a

E

cd

a©

O

3

©

>

cd

-3

lx

a—*

3

2

3

O

O

£

UD

CZ>

4—*

0

• ^4

4-*

Da

4X

O

2

cd

©

<D

0

o<

©

X

•3

<D

g

©

M

4 —»

• IX

• ^4

©

Da

«Z)

O

44

3

X

©

O

4-4

lx

cd

X

4 —•

CO

O

4-4

0

‘i

• »x
$

Da

O

cd

&

©

a©

2

3

.s £

<d

c/5

c/5

3

H

©

>

PQ Pa

X

©

'o

>

cd

i

GO
O *m
3 2

© U °

J *2 cj

T3 ^ C/3

isg

C/)

<U

<D <+h
c/5 O

£

pq

©

>

♦ T-H

c3

E

<U

C/5

o

4-4

4-4

O

cd

a

o

(N

I

00

I

2

u

V©

©

X

a—*

Cm

O

X

o

cd

©

©

o

.3

(Z)

On

Cn|

NO

<

U

o

cd

©

Va

cd

©

X

©

X

3

O

X

©

a—*

cd

©

O

©

JO

X

3

o

£

X

3

3

O

,©

$M

Cm

©

3 -o
x ©

3 X

£ o

2 >

Da 3

©

3 >,
o §

4—* ^

c/5 O

4-* 4-*

3 'g

& § -g

5 8-3

.Ji. 0) <u

O’ __. l-a

£ ^ >

©.aw

s 3 X

a S co

O H ©

Vh r p
Oh lx CO

CxO

c/5

CO

a>

o

o

cd cd

■5 x

3 g
o

>a ©

J? 3

3 C

tzi 0

3 'S

3 .22

o c

bC

3

• »“4

X
o D

o m

3 Qa

3 ^
3 X

P m

cd

<D CL

§> §

3 ^

^ a3

? 3

I °

4 —*

‘G

&o

©

3

• m4

Cm

O

X

X

3

CO

3

3

X S
3 &

P 6

©

m © 3

o *-* ©

P 3 a3
G-i 3 a->

O ° c-i—i
© X O

2 3 8

© 3
2 X 3

a © «
2 x a

c _ bX)
G O ■ *” 1

O v c/5

o

3

Cm

3

O

3

©

X

X

3

o

£

©
l-a
©
X
f— 1

___ CO

3 ©

© O

■c £

2 o
• 22 <5

ffi Pi!

U

o

£

o

u

w

o

X

u

o

C/5

CZ5

X

o

X

g

3

<L>

bi>

3

• x

Cm

O

C/5

X

4X

©

cd

3

C/5

©

©

<D

0

.3

Vh

u

3

Da

©

X

C/5

3

6 *

cd

• JO
&

X

3

3

O

M

lx

O

cd

©

a

&

3

a

C/5

B

0

0

3

<D

0

©

0

H

d>

C/5

.a u

3

o

o

o

©
a—•

3

X

o

l-a

Da

Da

X

3

M

CO l-a

© ©

3 2

GO S

<M 1:3

O 3
x 2
3 X .
Cm c/D PQ

•S s <u

© -M

a § 3

v 3 6

© © ©

a ^

3

o

O

M

M

3

CO

©

X

X

3 PQ
©
>

o

£

M 3
© 3

Da 4}
J3 M

(D

.H O
_Tj * ’—■
T3

..a

©

2 “ M

p « .3

a

©

© x

3 TO

X

3

©

Da

CO

O

X

3

§ 3

CNl .2

bo

0 a^
M X

co 3
O 3
©

3

O

X

3

3

co~

.2 e

M ©

'g 2 *M

a o |

Cm &0 m

Vh

O

©

X

H

2

TD

C

C/5

.4-4

cd

• X

C/5

C/5

CO

M

©

3

&

~c3

0

0

CO

3

_o

3

0

£

3

CO

cd

cd

<u

lx

©

X

• X
>

*2

!

cd

u

1

‘G

3

lx

a—*

3

3

cd

0

0

G

Vh

O

O

Id

X

3

©

Vh

3

3

O

G

O

Va

Da

Da

Da

O

2

3

0!

O

O

O

M

©

M

©

4—*

cd

O

bfl

©

X

©

X

• IX

t50

©

.©

3

-a

<D

lx

©

3

3

• X

H

2

<u

Vx

g

o 1

Va

X

0

<u

3

N

cd

2

3

1

0

4-*

C/5

(U

O

3

O

©

Pa

X

©

CO

0

-M

©

3

lx

<D

C/5

3

0

©

lx

6D

Id

0

0

M

CO

©

©

Va

©

X

&0

C

cd

©

O

©

O

O

Da

O

Vh

3

• H

3

O

lx

(D

Ph

C/5

2

3

0

G

O

C/5

cd

<D

>

• X

lx

O

H

0

CO

Ph

©

^3

>

C/5

<4X

©

X

3

O

£

3

O

M

3

3

Da

O

Da

3

X

3

O

cd

3 -1 3 a^

0

• G
(L>

| »

©

<lT

2 d © 2

4-4 0 1

G

co

O

©

G

G

cd _3

cd

CO

G

c/5 .y <d —h

50

(U 00

3

X

O

O

§a a S

O

O

0

a

HX

3

3

3

u a 2 2

O

cd

g B

M C/5

X

© X M

X 5 o
M O ©

« > 'o

CJ M Wa

3 3 Da

© X aa

• j-, ^ ©

© tzi X

©23
g x x

2 S §

3 3 •-

P ^ O

^ g S

§ s«

(D O _

Pi w u

Moy 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-53

<0

<D

-3

D

E

Q)

~D

C

D

C

o

-G

u

<

~o

<D

to

O

a

o

t_

Cl.

O

CN

(D

4.

(D

O

O

C/i

o

>

'V

03

s

U

a j

u

£

<*>

*->

CJ

03

a

E

cu

U

i_

3

O

(/)

a>

ft!

4 .

o

a

o

v.

*E

03

a

E

o

U

?►>

i-

03

E

E

3

C/3

r^i

i

oo

ri

o

s

03

H

PQ

S PQ

3

<u

3 u
3 3

3 3
C «
d >

& E

° 3

4 -2

g CO
3-2

g C/D

13 .9

£ £
4-1 3
D <U

C 4

53 o

PQ .3

G

cd

xj

4—*

C/D

CZ)

4 m

3 <D
^ >
U t3

S§

•§3

cd i_
33 JD

.§*§
So 3

T3

3

cd

3

O

CO

d

o

o

3 33
-3

3

a

o

3

a,

3 b
, o

O 4-i

"T* "3
o g

03 2

& 6

9 «

I—H “

D

T3

3

3

3

cd

33

1 PQ

JO D
D • «

^ ts

2 E

§ *

£ ^

c/d

d)

C/D

C/D

<D

a

•

GO

G

X>

13

o

o

I «

g

o

•4—*

o

£

D

o

E

CO

•C
3
O
-*—*

3

O

-4

o

3

3

E

o

£

4-,

O

X

3

33

.9

D

E

-4—»
I

U

3

O

4-i

O

o

o

o

4-1 o
O O
d tn
p oe

g *

d

4

d

3

X
4 ■ cd
o -•-*
cd c/i

3. D

E ‘

X
o

4

3
cd 3
co cd

"3

3

cd

3

D

E

D

O

J2 4-i

3 o

■ 22 j=

-O 3

.2 o

J3 3

3 S 4
3 3E

0 4 0

3,0 O
4_ 3 o

D

3

3

U

>

d

u.

X

cd

-4-*

&

U

of

o

o

"3

TD

3

o

3

V-I

3

3

4

_o

W)

_o

3

G

o

3

3

-4—»

cd

3

(D

1

O

•4—*

T3

CO

D

O

3

13

a

cd

-4—4

G

<D

T3

ID

O

-4—*

4

o

C/D

X)

O

G

4

3

1 1

'E

”3

T3

Z

2

C/D

O

o

<D

u.

<u

<

O

o

-3

o

co

U

-3

CU

CD

4 <U
3 3
O co

s ^

ft!

PQ

a>

>

•

-4-*

cd

E

<D

•4-*

<

C/D

cd

(D

E

cd

00

PQ

o

>

■4—*

cd

E

<D

C/D

cd

<D

E

cd

co

a>

4

3
co
<D

3
Id
>

&

CD

3
O

4

3

2 >4

% 13

o -X

3 13

& 4

E 2

HH G

o

43

3

O

3

(U

-3

2

3
o
£
<u

4
CD

-3

H

CO

ID

J3

Id

>

&

<D

3
O

4

3

PQ

ID

_>

3

E

<D

C/D

cd

<D

E

3

00

PQ

ID

>

-4—*

cd

E

<D

C/D

cd

<D

E

cd

c/3

<L>

O

-4—*

C/D

£ .S

o

3

O

3

ID

X)

2

3

o

£

ID

4
ID

-3

H

O id

.h .2

> 4

3 2

rrl . 3

May 2005 Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-54

to

<L>

-d

D

C

w_

0

~o

c

D

c

o

■4^

u

<

~o

0

to

O

a

o

a.

o

cn

u

0^

'o

Q-

v_

CD

£

O

CL.

~D

C

§

CD

L_

0

fc

o

U

o

'•C

Cd

3

La

a>

La

<2

(*>

u

cd

a.

S

HH

CU

U

La

3

o

CM

0

OP

L-

O

3

O

'C

cd

a

S

o

U

La

Cd

a

a

3

cn

r^)

i

00

CN

cu

3

Cd

H

CO

CU

>

•-C

S3

3

La

0

pa

<u

u

La <U

3 3

o to
to ««

OP

w

(Z>

u

Q

u

u

>

03

e

<d
-♦—>

<

C/D

cd

<D

6

cd

co

D

>

« 2 *3

.s E °

•-ai U 5

u i; o
‘3

-O ^ ca

'C S -S

<U o -g
■5 tb S

G T3 °

O P

O

cd

G

c/5 U
co
(D

O „

O ID O

« g

o T3 £

lo 3 o

G O ~
da £ PP

(U

CO) 3

3 .3

•3 G

C/D w

*5 ’G
s o,

1 ~

G O

•3 2

G co
O 3
>- O
•*-> o

8 >a

a*^

& s

£ TJ
CU G
P G

T3 G
3 da 3
O O co

co

1/5

u

'C

co

T3

cd

O

U

fc

"2 <D G
g co ^

*-< eg y

•*—> _rl o

8 w> 2

kJ3 |

CH ^ B

o 3 Cd

U 3
u a->
co o ”G
3 -C 3
SS

(1i c/D

o iu <d

*31 4-»

^5 (D cd
CU X) bD

<4-1

O

C/D

C/D

O

C/D

Cd

CD

cd

CD
CZD

g *

•S 3

3 2
3 3

“5 3

o

o

c

co

co

U

o

o

cd

<u

a-»

cd

T3 u

<U O
co
O

u

X)

U

O •

o

o <u -

~ aD

co ■*-*
co c
<U .3
O ,G
° .3

* $ ~
0^0
G3 to U

•§■§ 2

da JS da

ta

2

4—*

o

M «

3 o’

C tn
G Pa

T3 u

■4—*

a ■*-»

« La «

a ° S

S 3 O

" .9 &

-0-^3

3 2 CL

.2 b ^
S g <u
8 o 'tS

la O CO

u

r. a—*

C 3
O to

o

3 ^

2 3

CO

3

O <U
O t3
a—* .<U

O L- 1
u o
o 1

ka CO

Da 1/3

&0 O

c 2

• J-a G

I £

da Da

T3

U

>

2 fc •
a o co

2 ^ 3

u o

U G La
^a -O
T3 O <U

CO

U

CO

td »n
3 rN

co

D

O

O

u

o

cb

cb

G

O

P

<u

aD

3

3

o

£

<u

l-a

U

aD

H

CO

CO

<u

o

O

<

o

• r—

3

3

da

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-55

(/)

0)

>

D

C

l.

-2

<

~o

c

D

c

o

t3

<

~o

©

co

O

a

2

Cl.

O

CN

<1)

I

o

U

>

•c

«

a

s-

a>

im

.©

u

C3

a

a

0)

U

u

p

o

&

<d

p*

o

c

o

c/3

'C

«

a

a

©

u

A

V.

S3

a

a

©

C/5

f5

i

00

r4

©

3

S3

H

CM

©

>

*-C

S3

C

I—

©

ffl

<D

A

2

3

o

£

o

P

I

dp

CD

m

P

O

o

o

o 3

O O

CD

x

a m

.2 S3

o CD

2 6

-P cd

2 w
o 2

u 3

- cl

✓

o ,. u

a r| 2

*S! 8

« ~ u

o 2

.3

t: x

p P

-I

.s

£

Cm

o

«3 3
3 -S

P o
o *5

^ 1/3

m

m o
o cd
CD CL

o' £

1 - -P •
a-r. 8
l- u <d
u O 52
CP p 3
JS *0 "P

gup

S3 £ §

^ P -P

cd

cd
<d

<U p VL

> 03 O

A <D <d

W M M

(D

X

3

3

o

£

o

cd

CL

6 .

CQ

p

.2 P

o <D

2 a

+3 cd
52 00

o 2
u 3

dp m
iU <D

Id 3

o 0

.2 o

<u
X
dp

2 <d Jr;

3 .2 ^

<0

03

- o

—H • *-H

—' P

gf-a.

£ ^ d

03 5X 2

2 ~ 3
.3 p u

«~i o <u

3 3 0
2^0

dp -S 2

p PS X

£ *3

Cm

O

<D

bO

P

cd

o 8

3 g
PS -c
3 ^
S &

a-> X
m aj

1 s

S I

M • "P
O 2

<d o

•jr> ."P
P 03
Ch -m

Oh >

dp

3 G

o .2

£ 3

2 8

2 b

- 3 <d
« C2
.2 —

3 g
8 t

o p
a> o

o 2

M ps
CL> oj

bO ps
P cd
cd

3 o

U p

^ M

S) 3

D _

03 "P
O <U
__i N

2 -c
2 2

8 2

^ ^ 1
-b.2 3

3 2 S

I a 8

o 'p <u
Cl P P
CL O O

O 3U

.2

cd

<D (U

cd 3

P o
O P
cd

s-g

Cm «

-3 o
0 ^
2 (U

•M

(U CJ
03 (O

<u

cd

<u

cd

6

2 o
O <U

S.'S’

“ PL.

O ^
u a>

03

O

<D

-P

Cl

X

E — 1 <u

8

o P
a) ^

Lh Ph

CQ

PQ

C/3

C/3

cd

cd

<D

<D

fl

C

cd

P

cd

C/3

C/3

PQ

PQ

C/3

C/3

cd

cd

(U

c

<D

C2

p

cd

P

cd

C/3

C/3

o

3

cm

cd

O

P

<D

X

3

3

o

£

CD

Lh

(D

X

H

o

p

p

o

£

cd

Cm

O

03

M

X

bfl

'C

ID

M

5

p

Ph

(D

X

dp

CD

03

o

CL

o

CD

X

-4—*

>%

X3

T3
ID

M

o

cd -53
<D L-
P3 Ph

CD

P

P

•

P

o

o

dp

X

CQ

CD

P3

o

<D

§ 6

cd Tp
> CD

2 .2

CL cd

2-3

< o

« p
D i_,
03 D
03 -m

CD 3

0 r£l
O ^

1 -. <M

Cl o

D 4>

X dp

55

> m
^ -P-
<D d

o .2
p 3

cd ^3

dp 2
o 3

0 2
P o

§ ,
sJs

ID

3

dp

p

p

o

o

00

<N

03

P
O
■*—»
cd

o

o

X

dp

p

p

X

cd

0 _j
3 CD

° "p

+-• Pj

m cr

P ID

OJ Lh

2 «

d3

g ^
I S

10 P
^cd

1EL

5

p 3
p^ 3

^ CD
H 03

' 3
8 "§
si

o

p

o

p

CD

JP

3

3

o

£

CD

u

D

-P

H

©

u

L. CD

P P

O <*>
<» ««
QJ

p

0

*4-*

cd

(D

u,

O

<D

C/3

2

p

3

dp

p

p

x

03

p

rP

_b0

2

A/lay 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-56

Cotterel Wind Power Project 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

v

a>

>

’■C

S3

fl

i-

<U

i-

.©

u

53

a

S

a>

u

u

3

O

vi

<u

a

a

©

Vi

*C

C3

a

E

o

U

>>

i—

!3

E

E

3

c n

i

00

r4

s

53

H

o

'-C

53

a

x.

<u

CQ

o

©

X <K

3 3

O v
Vi «

—

C/3

4)

—

o

C3

t--

2 s

cx -2
^ «
‘S «

° OX)
Vi <u
co >

•2 4

53 ’T5
I-. 4>

O OX)

cx g
E 2

r <u X-,

H o

G

>n

O

X

* — 1

53

0

-*—*
4)

■*-*

00

a

4>

p

>

( 4-1

~o

0

G

03

53

1/3

o

2 OX)

& g

l-i 4 -h

O O

& 03

2 g
« o
H cd

P-H O u.

C/5

o

53

4>

00

53

fO

o

(N

O c°

n § 8
O • 7-*
’*-»'*—* C/5

03 « P

t> « •£

cd M ;- 1

cx 3^

c > °

03

O

T3
«-> G

g _«

4>

g

53

» G

oo —

G +Z
P S g

« P §3

Ph O u.

c -a

° s «

■3 00 o
(L> C <u
£ cd CX
,5 -C X
CQ o <u

o ^

03 ’S
4> N

> 2

■J O

C/3

W

u

4> 73

X) <u

o 3

53 <u
T3 ^

-g <u

3 X

o •‘- ,

£ s

00

4)

03

53

J3

C/5

CO

G

-♦—*
0
cd

Ph

13 4)
4) C

03 -t-i
53 ^3

T3

CX

g

X !=!

13

G

03 -3

4»

O

03 t|_

-o

•*-»

H

2 0

4>

4)

G

03

O

2

<D

-4-*

a>

03

PJO

2 2

CX

G

p

00 G

•E

0

0

0

X ^

03 G

o

£

03

O

c

4)

X

2

3

o

£

4>

x

4)

X

H

CO

<u

o

__ 1-1
53 3

3 O

.1 s

> c*

05

<D

>

td

2

a>

</5

cd

<D

2

53

(73

m

4)

>

cd

2

4J

<5

CO

53

U

2

53

GO

3 T3

O

eg

x

cd

o

a

4)

X

2

2

o

£

<D

x

4)

X

H

01

3 03

•§«
1- E
53 4)

N "3
53 J2

x 2

A/lay 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-57

Cofferel Wind Power Project 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

<*>

3

'>

*■+3

od

a

u

o

■-

a

&

+*

u

vi

O.

E

o»

O

U

3

O

co

V

Pi

3

O

*£

S3

a

E

o

U

s-

ei

E

E

3

C/D

ri

•

oo

c4

<u

a

S3

H

co

o

•-C

05

3

S-

3

as

a>

u

•_ o
3 3
o <*>

sa

H

z

w

S

w

O

m ^
o 13

~ So

cd 3
X o

E 3

•S 2

<L> §

3 o

i -

!» -c

si
& -
6 3
X X

X X -2r o

03

03 N

-§ ’a

P 03

s ■©*

O i_

2 ^
3 2
O X

z |

52 ™
.2 13

ti »-«
3 ^
CJ)

3

• H

3

2 o

3 13

o CJ)

co w
.2 tS
00 g

(D V

3 e

H ° 3
3
O

«. a S

co x t;

03 03

u u .H
CXX C3
o, „_, 3
3 0.0
00 c O

co x

3 u
O

PQ

03

>

C3

E

<U

c/5

cd

(D

E

3

00

03
X>

•O -3

T3

03 03

co co
3 cd
cd 03
O >-'

z; o

% -S

E 2

x
0-1
o

cd

03

•C

3

O

£

1 O

03

CO o
.2 3
00 2

2 8

S a §

to 03 X
X

O

03

I' I

03

"3

03

X

co

c

CO

3

O

2 c
H .£P

3

•2 ^

8 x

03 X

o. 2

CU -3
3 3
C/D X

~o

3

3

co

03

e co
X 03

"£ x

S cd

o

o

cd

3

9 03

£ x

co >

2 o

cd i-
O CU
£ X

03 3

X

£ J2

„ cd
X <0

03

t

O

X

co co
03

3 6
cd - 4 —>
cz> (D
ft <*>

<D rH

O
O
cd

<L>

«-i

<D
3
03 O

■5 u

03 'X
c/5 O
cd
<D
h
O

C

I C/J

13

3
03

-4-*

O 13 ,,

X

CO

03

X

cd i: -*

3 co -g

>4 X CJ)

3 &o 3 g

^ ,s -a Cd

o

cd

^x

O 03
^ b
JX X

3.

CO

-O P

03 *-'

> X)
2 §
3 2

Si &

3

O

£

CJ)
co 3

<5 'S

^ X
o CJ)

H x

•3 X

3 CJ)
co .C ? 1
ti 03 «
cd 3

3 X

X

03

co

3

cd

o

CJ)

_3

'S

X

CJ)

3

3

3

O

2

03

co

3

03

>,x

3 <Ut_i

E °

co

o ^
° X

3

_o

4—»

• »-H

3 ^
E 3

3

op

03

H

X

< O

03

>

3 X
F 3

03 co

< 3

(U g

•s g

1- CJ)
03 3

X 3
3 3

D E

03

CJ)

3

3

3

E D
•o ~

§ .s

2 x

^5 *

^-h C/5

’> 13

CO

3 X
c 3
TD 3

2 >'

o y

^ 03

S O*

3

03

03

03

O

rx cS

Cu ut
3 3

C/5 C/5

O (D
(U ^

'o 1 Mh
u-

Ph t3

"o 2

03 O

X ,13

2

8 * «
U- 03
Cb X

X

03

CJ)

3

3

X

O

03

X

o

c <
■3 ^
X 13

5 >

O ■ *“•
^ Cd

>, E

X 3

co X

c <

>%

X

3

4-*

3

3

3

X

X

3

3

3

KAn\/ 9DD^l Drnff Fnvirnnmpninl Imnnri O JtQ

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.9 AMENDING THE EXISTING CASSIA RMP

Public land management actions, including the granting of ROW under Title V of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976, are guided by decisions recorded in the Cassia RMP approved
on January 24, 1985. The RMP currently restricts ROW to existing facilities/localities within
Management Area 11 (Cotterel Mountain) and thus, the proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project
development project is not consistent with the RMP.

When the RMP was completed, development of wind energy was not considered as a potential use on
Cotterel Mountain. Since that time, advances in technology and demand for energy, particularly a
diversified energy portfolio including renewable sources, have made wind energy development both
cost effective and desirable. Wind resource studies, both existing and ongoing as part of this analysis,
have shown that Cotterel Mountain is a very good renewable wind resource and potential energy
production site.

2.9.1 Purpose and Need to Amend the Existing Cassia RMP

Since the Proposed Project is not consistent with the current direction in the Cassia RMP, there is a
legal requirement to amend the land use plan if any of the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C and
D) in this analysis are selected. Alternative A would not require an amendment. The planning
regulations at 43 CFR 1601 provide for plan amendments for actions that are not presently in
conformance with the plan.

The Cassia RMP Management direction for Management Area 11 (which encompasses the Cotterel
Mountain range) and generally for the whole area, emphasize the following:

• Expand dispersed recreation opportunities on approximately 18,000 acres south of the
communication facility;

• Limit rights-of-way to existing facilities/localities;

• Manage the area to maintain scenic quality and open space;

• Improve 31,212 acres of poor and fair condition rangeland to good;

• Provide 5,278 animal unit months of forage for livestock;

• Provide forage for and following mule deer by season of use: 403 spring; 403 summer;
403 fall; 563 winter;

• Provide yearlong forage for 127 antelope;

• Maintain or improve 6,414 acres of crucial deer winter range and 703 acres of sage-
grouse brood-rearing habitat;

• Protect nesting ferruginous hawks from human disturbance;

• Control surface disturbing activities on 5,677 acres having soils with high erosion
potential;

• Transfer 440 acres out of federal ownership (this action has already been completed);

• Protect any known and potential ferruginous hawk nesting sites (isolated juniper trees);

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-59

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

• Restrict activity within 2,300 - 3,000 feet of known ferruginous hawk nest sites from
March 1 to July 15;

• No surface occupancy within !4 mile of active ferruginous hawk nest sites;

• Maintain cover in deer migration routes;

• Protect meadow seeps and springs to provide for needed production of water, forbs and
insects within upland game ranges; and

• Improve raptor habitat by modifying selected sections of power lines where a problem
has been identified.

These management objectives were developed in 1985 and are guidelines to help achieve what was
then the desired future condition of the management area. While some of the objectives have been
achieved, the BLM continues to work toward those objectives that are still desired.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the ROW restriction in Management Area 11
(containing the Cotterel Mountain range) such that granting of a ROW for and construction of a wind
energy development would be consistent with the land use plan.

2.9.2 Planning Process

The planning action is to amend the Cassia RMP as a part of this Draft EIS. This action is being done
using the BLM 1600 manual guidance, Idaho State BLM instruction memoranda, and the planning
regulations published as 43 CFR, part 1600.

To initiate the plan amendment process, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a land use plan
amendment was published in the Federal Register and local newspapers in December of 2002. The
notice invited the public, state and local governments and other federal agencies to participate in the
planning process by attending any or all of three public scoping meetings held in Albion, Burley and
Boise in January of 2003 and submitting comments in person or by mail. In addition to the
publication, the scoping statement was sent out to a mailing list of approximately 150 interested
parties. A large paid advertisement was also placed in the local newspapers by the Applicant
announcing the public meetings. Briefing sessions were held in February, March and April of 2003
for County Commissioners, City Councils and other interested groups around the Mini-Cassia area.
Through public meetings, letters, briefings and other notices, the public has been given the
opportunity to comment on and provide additional information on this proposal. In addition,
govemment-to-govemment consultation was conducted with both the Shoshone-Bannock and the
Shoshone-Paiute Native American Tribes and BLM coordinated closely with other state and federal
agencies with an interest in the Proposed Project. All comments were considered in preparation of
this analysis. These considerations brought to light additional issues and prompted additional and
more comprehensive wildlife and wildlife habitat studies for preparation of the analysis.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-60

Cotferel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.9.3 Planning Issues and Criteria

The NOI listed the planning issues BLM anticipated and invited the public, other federal agencies,
and state and local governments to identify additional concerns or issues during scoping meetings and
the 60-day comment period that followed.

Planning Issues

The issues identified and through public scoping and used to develop alternatives are as follows:

• Migratory birds

• Sage-grouse

• Maintaining and protecting tribal treaty rights or heritage links to public lands

• Public access

• Visual resources

• Raptor migration

• Consistency with the RMP

Planning Criteria

The following general planning criteria are being considered in the development of the proposed plan
amendment:

• NEPA

• Existing laws, regulations, and BLM policies

• Plans, programs and policies of other federal, state and local governments, and Indian
tribes

• Public input

• Future needs and demands for existing or potential resource commodities and values

• Past and present use of public and adjacent lands

• Environmental impacts

• Social and economic values

• Public welfare and safety

• President’s National Energy Policy

2.9.4 Proposed Plan Amendment to the Existing Cassia RMP

Alternatives B, C, or D if selected, would require a plan amendment to the Cassia RMP. This
proposed amendment would allow the granting of a ROW on Cotterel Mountain for a wind energy
development project. There is currently a restriction in the Cassia RMP that limits ROW to existing
facilities and locations. This restriction would be rewritten to allow the development of one wind
energy project. The amended restriction would read, “limit rights-of-way to existing
facilities/localities, with the exception of one wind energy project.”

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-61

Cotterel Wind Power Project

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

The proposed amendment would also involve changing the language in item B from the Resource
Management Objectives on page 39 of the Cassia RMP which currently reads: “Manage the area to
maintain scenic quality and open space.” The new language would read: “Manage the area to
maintain scenic quality and open space consistent with the Visual Resource Management (VRM)
classes for management area 11 and with the exception of the development of one wind energy
project.” The area is classified VRM Class IV, in which, projects such as the proposed action are
acceptable. In addition, the existing Resource Management Objective G, also on page 39 of the RMP
currently reads: “Maintain or improve 6,414 acres of crucial deer winter range and 703 acres of sage-
grouse brood-rearing habitat.” It would be revised to read as follows: “Maintain or improve 6,414
acres of crucial deer winter range” (Alternatives B, C, and D); “Maintain or improve 600 acres of
sage-grouse brood rearing habitat” (Alternatives B and C); or “Maintain or improve 703 acres of
sage-grouse brood rearing habitat” (AJtemative D).

Additional ROW proposals would not be considered under the proposed amendment. If additional
ROW are proposed in this management area, which appear to have merit, they would require
additional amendments to the RMP and be subject to full and complete analysis in accordance with
NEPA.

A/lay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2-62

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing or affected environment, including conditions
and trends that could be affected by the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Information about the
landscape, cultural, natural, and human environment is provided to describe more fully the statement
of needs explained in Chapter 1. The affected environment also sets the foundation for understanding
and evaluating the alternatives discussed in Chapters 2 and the environmental consequences discussed
in Chapter 4.

This chapter focuses on those portions of the environment that are directly related to the conditions
and resource categories being addressed by the alternatives. The description is not meant to be a
complete portrait of the study area, but is intended to portray the conditions and trends of most
concern to the public and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Indicators for the impact
assessment have been established by resource to better assess the consequences of each alternative.

3.0.1 Critical Elements Not Affected or Present Within the Proposed Project Area

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

There are no Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within or adjacent to the Proposed Project
area.

Wetlands

Under Alternative C and Alternative D, the proposed transmission interconnect line would cross the
air space over the Snake River. No impacts to wetlands would occur from this action.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no wild and scenic rivers within or adjacent to the Proposed Project area.

Wilderness

There are no wilderness areas within or adjacent to the Proposed Project area.

Floodplains

Under Alternative C and Alternative D, the proposed transmission interconnect line would cross the
air space over the Snake River. No impacts to the floodplain of the Snake River would occur from
this action.

Farm Lands

No impacts to farm lands would occur under any of the Proposed Project alternatives.

A/lay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-1

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

3.1.1 Climate and Air Quality

Climate

The nearest climate recording station from the Proposed Project area is at the town of Malta, located
approximately five miles to the east of the Proposed Project area at the base of Cotterel Mountain.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS, formerly Soil Conservation Service) does not believe that the Malta station is entirely
representative of the weather patterns throughout the area. The Malta weather station is located in the
rain shadow of several mountains in the area, including Cotterel Mountain, Jim Sage Mountain,
Mount Harrison, and Mount Independence. The average annual precipitation ranges from 12 to 16
inches throughout these mountains at elevations below about 6,000 feet. Above 6,000 feet,
precipitation can range from 14 to more than 25 inches per year. Approximately 60 percent of the
precipitation in the area falls in April through September. Average seasonal snowfall at the Malta
station is about 18 inches (USDA, NRCS 1986). On the higher mountains more than 50 percent of the
precipitation may fall as snow.

At the Malta station, the winter average temperature is 29 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), the average daily
minimum temperature is 10°F, and the extreme historical low was -27°F. In summer, the average
temperature is 60°F and the average daily maximum temperature is 85°F with an extreme historical
high of 104°F (USDA, NRCS 1986).

Wind on Cotterel Mountain typically blows from west to east with minor seasonal variations. Winter
snowfall blows clear on some portions of the mountain while forming deep drifts on others. During
winter there are periods when low clouds settle over the mountain. When temperatures are low
enough, these clouds can create freezing fog that forms rime ice on the west face of trees, shrubs,
fences, and other structures. In the summer, afternoon thunderstorms can form resulting in heavy
rainfall events with lightening and strong winds.

Air Quality

The Proposed Project would be located entirely in Cassia County, Idaho, in United States (U.S.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Quality Control Region 63. The area is classified as
attainment or unclassifiable for all of the following federal and state criteria air pollutants:

• Carbon monoxide (CO);

• Nitrogen dioxide (N0 2 );

• Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM )0 );

• Oxides of sulfur (SO x );

• Ozone (O3); and

• Lead (Pb).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-2

Cofterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants are shown in Table 3.1-
1. These match the Idaho Ambient Air Quality Standards listed in the Idaho Administrative Rules
(IDAPA) 58.01.01.577.

Table 3.1-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Pollutant

Averaging Period

NAAQS 3

CO

1 -hour

8 -hour

40 mg/m 3

10 mg/m 3

no 2

Annual

100 pg/m 3

PM 10

24-hour

Annual

150 pg/m 3

50 pg/m 3

SOx

(measured as S0 2 )

3-hour

24-hour

Annual

1,300 pg/m 3

365 pg/m 3

80 pg/m 3

0 3

1 -hour

235 pg/m 3

Pb

Quarterly

1.5 pg/m 3

a mg/m 3 = milligrams per cu

?ic meter

pg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter
CO = Carbon monoxide
N0 2 = Nitrogen dioxide

PM io = Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns
SO x = Oxides of sulfur
0 3 - Ozone
Pb = Lead

All areas throughout the country are assigned to one of three different classes of air quality protection.
These are called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Classes I, II, and III. Essentially, they
help to ensure that the air quality in clean air areas remains clean, and does not deteriorate to the level
of the NAAQS. The mechanism created by Congress to meet this goal is the establishment of “PSD
increments.” These increments define the maximum allowable increases over baseline concentrations
that are allowed in a clean air area for a particular pollutant. These increments are promulgated in the
EPA PSD regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52.21(c). Idaho has adopted these
increments as state regulation in IDAPA 58.01.01.577.

In the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress designated all international parks, national
wilderness areas, and national memorial parks, which exceed 5,000 acres in size, and all national
parks, which exceed 6,000 acres in size as mandatory PSD Class I areas. Class I areas are to receive
special protection from degradation of air quality, and the most stringent PSD increments apply in
these areas. The Class I areas closest to the Proposed Project area are: the Craters of the Moon
National Monument, located 60 miles north of the proposed area, and the Jarbidge Wilderness area in
Nevada, located 75 miles southwest of the proposed area. All of Cassia County and the remainder of
Idaho are designated as PSD Class II areas. PSD Class II areas are those that need reasonably or
moderately good air quality protection. Most proposed development projects can be accommodated
within the increments set for PSD Class II areas. There are no Class III areas in Idaho.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-3

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

The two pollutants of concern in Idaho are PM 10 and CO; PMi 0 is currently the most problematic
pollutant in Idaho. PM t o sources include windblown dust, re-entrained road dust, smoke (residential,
agricultural, and forest fires), industrial emissions, and motor vehicle emissions (EDEQ 2001). There
are five areas in Idaho designated as PM i0 nonattainment. The PM ]0 nonattainment area nearest to the
proposed area is located approximately 70 miles northeast at Fort Hall, Idaho.

PM 10 was monitored at the Rupert active ambient air monitoring station by EDEQ from 1995 to 1998.
Rupert is located approximately 14 miles northwest of the proposed area in Minidoka County. Data
collected from 1995 to 1998 indicate that the PMi 0 NAAQS were not exceeded at this station during
this time. From 1995 to 1998, the mean annual PMi 0 concentration was 23 pg/m3 and the maximum
mean annual PM ]0 concentration was 24.5 pg/m3. From 1995 to 1998, the maximum 24-hour PM ]0
concentration was 145 pg/m3.

The primary source of CO is incomplete fossil fuel combustion. CO concentrations have the potential
to be high in urbanized areas where automobile traffic is heavy and cars frequently idle at stoplights.
The Boise area is the only CO nonattainment area in the state. No violations of the 1-hour CO
NAAQS have occurred in Idaho since 1987. The 8 -hour CO NAAQS in Boise was exceeded once in
1991 on January 11. There have been no exceedances since that date (EDEQ 2001).

3.1.2 Geology

Cotterel Mountain is a long, low ridge with a relatively steep face or escarpment on the east side and
a long, gentle slope on the west side. Cotterel Mountain comprises part of the Malta Range, which
flanks the west side of the Raft River Valley. The Raft River Valley is a north-trending intermontane
tectonic basin approximately 37 miles long and approximately 15 miles wide with an average valley
floor elevation of about 4,600 feet. The valley opens northward toward the broad Snake River Plain.
The Raft River basin lies in the northeast part of the Basin and Range province and is within an area
of relatively high heat flow known as the Cordilleran thermotectonic anomaly (Williams et al. 1982).

The eastern side of Cotterel Mountain is flanked by the Raft River detachment fault, which is an east¬
dipping low-angle normal fault. North-striking normal faults are numerous and conspicuous in the
Cotterel Mountain vicinity, implying that the area is block faulted. This is common for late Cenozoic
tectonic activity in the Basin and Range province, which has been recognized as a region dominated
by extensional tectonics (Williams et al. 1982).

The Proposed Project area generally consists of Pliocene and Upper Miocene volcanic rocks, rhyolite
flows, tuffs, and ignimbrites (Link 2002). Specifically, the northern end of Cotterel Mountain is
composed of lower and upper successions of rhyolite flows, and a middle unit of varied lithology with
a total maximum thickness of approximately 3,900 feet. The lower and upper rhyolite flows are very
similar and consist of mainly dark gray to black, glassy porphyritic rhyolite that weathers to dark
reddish brown. The rhyolite rock is commonly flow banded, and has well-developed columnar
jointing that is square in cross section. The southern part of Cotterel Mountain is volcanic explosion
breccia that was produced by rhyolite flowing into a body of water. The breccia is overlain by two

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-4

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

thin, vitric, rhyolite ash-flow tuffs that were erupted from sources to the east. The tuffs are overlain
by approximately ten feet of white to gray tuffaceous sandstone to siltstone (Williams et al. 1982).

The basalt of the northern end of Cotterel Mountain is the oldest basalt in the Raft River region and
consists of two flows. The basalt rock is gray to light gray with a reddish oxidation tint. It contains
olivine and plagioclase clasts in a dense groundmass of fine-grained plagioclase, olivine, pyroxene,
opaque minerals, and glass (Williams et al. 1982).

GeoEngineers (2004) performed a limited subsurface geotechnical investigation as a basis for
developing preliminary recommendations for foundation design of the wind turbine towers. Their
investigation included drilling eight air-track holes and four rock core holes. The rock core holes were
drilled to a depth of about 40 feet; three holes were drilled in rhyolite, and one hole was drilled in
basalt. GeoEngineers described the core, which included assigning a rock quality designation (RQD).
RQD is a modified core recovery index defined as the total length of unfractured core greater than
100 millimeters in length, divided by the total length of the core run. The resulting value is presented
in the form of a percentage (Deere and Deere 1988). A high RQD value generally means that the rock
has few natural discontinuities (fractures, faults, etc). The RQD percentage is typically translated into
the following descriptors of rock quality (Deere and Deere 1988):

0- 25% RQD =
25- 50% RQD =
50- 75% RQD =
75 - 90% RQD =
90- 100% RQD =

Very Poor rock quality;
Poor rock quality;

Fair rock quality;

Good rock quality; and
Excellent rock quality.

The basalt exhibits good rock quality. The rhyolite exhibits very poor to poor rock quality.

Mineral Resources

The Cotterel Mountain area has known mineral resources (Griggs 2004). There is a platy rhyolite
locally referred to as “desert antique” in the southern reaches of the Proposed Project area. Due to the
difficulty of access, there has been little or no interest in mineral sales. The Nibbs Creek Community
Pit is within one mile of the Proposed Project, and there has been one mineral material sale from that
site since April 2003 (Griggs 2004). Within the Proposed Project area, there are:

• No known oil and gas discoveries;

• No active coal leases;

• No coal bed methane producing resources;

• No locatable minerals are known to exist in sufficient quantities for economical recovery.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-5

Co tterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Geologic Hazards

The potential for seismic activity within the Proposed Project area is moderate, according to the
Uniform Building Code Seismic Code Map (Idaho Geologic Survey 2003). There are landslides
within the proposed ROW boundary, located on the east side of the escarpment (Griggs 2004).

3.1.3 Soils

Soils in the Proposed Project area were differentiated and mapped by the NRCS into 17 soil types
(USDA, NRCS 1986). These 17 soil types all have the following general characteristics. They are
located at high elevation, have low water-carrying capacity, have a potential for erosion by wind and
water, and have minimal to moderate productivity capabilities as rangeland. For the Proposed Project
area, we separated the 17 soil types into six soil groups; based on characteristics such as slope, soil
depth, depth to bedrock or hardpan, and susceptibility to erosion. Each soil group contains from one
to five soil types. Figure 3.1-1 shows the locations of these six major soil groups. The following
descriptions for the soil groups are compilations of the individual soil types described by the NRCS
(USDA, NRCS 1986).

Group 1 consists of deep silt-loam soils on slopes of less than 12 percent. These soils occur
predominantly on hillsides, in alluvial fans and on fan terraces. Bedrock occurs at a depth of greater
than 60 inches. Water capacities of these soils are higher relative to other soils in the Proposed Project
area. This may result in complications for construction due to severe frost action. Erosion potential
from water runoff is moderate to very severe within this group, while the potential for wind-caused
erosion is only moderate. Soils in Group 1 represent approximately 22 percent of the total soils in the
Proposed Project area and about eight percent of the soils that may be affected by construction. Soil
units in Group 1 include:

Rexburg Silt-Loam;

Watercanyon Silt-Loam;

Hades Gravelly Loam;

Heglar Silt-Loam; and
Kancan Gravelly Silt-Loam.

Group 2 consists of moderately deep loam to silt-loam soils on slopes less than eight percent. These
soils are typically found on fan terraces or hillsides. Bedrock occurs at a depth of greater than 60
inches. A hardpan generally exists at a depth of 20 inches to 40 inches in Group 2 soils. This hardpan
may impact any proposed construction activities in these soils. Erosion potential due to water run-off
is only slight to moderate within this group, but erosion potential due to wind is moderate to severe.
Soils in Group 2 represent about one percent of the total soils in the Proposed Project area and about
one percent of the soils that may be affected by construction. Soil units in Group 2 include:

Raftriver loam; and
Taunton Silt Loam.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-6

Figure 3.1-1. Soil Groups in Project Area.

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Legend

Soil Group

Group 1
f! j-:-. 1 Group 2
Group 3

[_• . Group 4
| | Group 5

ff- -'J Group 6

£"3 Project Area “

■ ■■ «

m | Alt. B Interconnect ROW ■

^ _l Att C and D Interconnect ROW
*“• • Transmission Lines

Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Group 3 contains a deep silt-loam soil located on top of basalt bedrock at a depth of 40 inches. This
soil group can be found on basalt plains and fan terraces in the area. Erosion potential due to water
and wind are only slight to moderate within this group. Because of the low erosion potential and
gentle slopes, this soil group would be suitable for the proposed construction activities. Group 3 soils
represent three percent of the soils in the Proposed Project area and less than one percent of the soils
that may be affected by construction. The soil unit in Group 3 includes:

McClendon Silt-Loam.

Group 4 contains silt-loam soils interspersed with large stones or rock outcrops. These occur on
gentle slopes of less than 12 percent. The soils are very shallow because of a short depth to bedrock
or hardpan. This factor also results in moderate to severe erosion potential from water and wind.
Proposed construction may be difficult due to the shallow depth to bedrock or hardpan. Group 4 soils
represent approximately ten percent of the total soils in the Proposed Project area and approximately
11 percent of soils that may be affected by construction. The soil units in Group 4 include:

Trevino Rock Outcrop Complex; and

Harroun Stony Silt-Loam.

Group 5 contains gravelly loam soils on moderate slopes of four percent to 35 percent. Soils are
shallow to moderately deep because the bedrock occurs at depths of ten to 20 inches. These soils are
typically found on the slopes of cuestas, hillsides, and mountainsides. Erosion potential is moderate to
severe for water and wind. Depth to bedrock, erosion potential, and steeper slopes may result in
difficult construction conditions. This soil group represents 16 percent of the soils in the Proposed
Project area, and 69 percent of soils that may be affected by construction. The soil units in Group 5
include:

Hutchley Gravelly Loam; and
Hutchley Vipoint Complex.

Group 6 is characterized by large stones with very deep soils between them. These soils are typically
found on sides of canyons and mountainsides on slopes between 30 percent and 70 percent. Erosion
potential due to water is very severe, while wind erosion potential is only slight to moderate. Steep
slopes, large stones, and the potential for water erosion may result in extremely difficult construction.
This soil group represents 48 percent of the total soils in the Proposed Project area, and 11 percent of
soils that may be affected by construction. The soil units in Group 6 include:

Rubble Land - Jimsage Complex;

Vitale - Jimsage Association

Watercanyon - Jimsage - Rexburg Association;

Jimsage - Doodlelink Complex; and
Jimsage — Vitale Association.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-8

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

GeoTek (2004) evaluated the soil at ten test pits along the proposed 4.5 mile-long Cotterel Mountain
north access road. GeoTek visually assessed and described the soil encountered in the test pits. In
general, the upper zero to one foot of soil consists of silt, silt with sand, and clay. From one to about
12 feet below the surface, the soil in the test pits consists primarily of silt, sand, and gravel; some of
the gravel is cemented with calcium carbonate, forming a hardpan layer located at depths ranging
from two to six feet beneath the surface.

GeoEngineers (2004) performed a limited subsurface geotechnical investigation as a basis for
developing preliminary recommendations for foundation design of the wind turbine towers.
GeoEngineers indicated that where the towers are to be located, the soil cover over the rock typically
varies from one to two feet thick, and in many places, the soil is non-existent.

3.1.4 Water Resources

The Cotterel Mountain ridgeline divides the Raft River watershed on the east from the Lake Walcott
watershed on the west. There are no major streams within the Proposed Project area. Intermittent
streams fed by snowmelt contribute directly and indirectly to perennial streams in the Proposed
Project vicinity, such as Cassia Creek on the southern end of Cotterel Mountain. Cassia Creek is a
tributary to the Raft River located east of Cotterel Mountain. The Raft River drains into the Snake
River. Marsh Creek near the north end of Cotterel Mountain is also fed by intermittent streams, and is
also a tributary to the Snake River. The Snake River is the dominant hydrologic feature in southern
Idaho, with a drainage basin of approximately 72,000 square miles (IDWR 1999).

There are 14 springs, three spring developments, and one well within the Proposed Project area
(Figure 3.1-2). There are additional springs and stream developments outside the Proposed Project
area. Some of the springs and stream developments along the eastern and southern slopes feed
intermittent streams such as Coe Creek, Nibbs Creek, and Rice Creek, which feed the perennial
streams such as Cassia Creek. Along the western slopes of Cotterel Mountain, a few spring and
stream developments feed Cow Creek and Howell Creek, both of which are direct tributaries to
Marsh Creek.

Many of these springs have been developed for use by livestock. Spring development can be as
simple as driving a section of pipe horizontally into the location where the spring appears on the
slope. Of the remaining springs, several have not been developed because they occur on steep slopes
along the east flank of Cotterel Mountain, or because flows are probably too low for development.

The occurrence of springs is closely related to the geology of an area. If an impervious layer of rock,
such as a clay deposit, underlies a layer of water-saturated soil or rock, then a line of springs will tend
to appear on a slope where the clay layer outcrops. Igneous rocks are also impervious to water, yet
they are often extensively fractured, and springs commonly appear where water-saturated fractures
come to the surface, or where the fractures intersect underlying impervious rock. Springs are also

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-9

Legend

Springs

Stream Development
# Well

Project Area

“ Transmission Lines
Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

I __ .1 Alt. B Interconnect ROW
i * Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW

Figure 3.1-2. Springs in the Project
Area and Vicinity.

1.8 Miles

-H

v / v - '•'--1

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

common along faults, because the fault plane may act as a conduit for groundwater to reach the
surface, or the fault plane may be impervious, and force the water to reach the surface.

Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and tribes are required to develop lists
of impaired waters that do not meet water quality standards. Cassia Creek, Marsh Creek, and the Raft
River are listed by the State of Idaho as impaired or threatened waters under the 303d designation
(IDEQ 2003). Table 3.1-2 summarizes the status of the 303d designation for each stream segment.

Table 3.1-2. Impaired (303d designation) Waters Near the Proposed Project Area
(IDEQ 2003).

Cassia Creek
(Headwaters to Connor
Creek)

De-listed from 303(d) list in 1998.

Cassia Creek (Connor
Creek to Raft River)

Listed in 1996 for concerns over habitat alteration and sediment.

Raft River (Malta to

Snake River)

Listed in 1996 for concerns over pathogens (replaced by “bacteria” in
the 1998 list), dissolved oxygen, channel flow alteration, ammonia,
nutrient loading, and sediment.

Marsh Creek

Listed in 1998 for reasons not stated.

The State of Idaho has designated beneficial uses for Cassia Creek, Marsh Creek and the Raft River.
Each of these perennial streams should provide water quality appropriate for aesthetics, irrigation and
livestock, industrial water supply, and wildlife habitat. In addition, the Raft River should also provide
water quality suitable for primary contact recreation (i.e. swimming), the protection and maintenance
of populations of cold-water species, and habitat for the active self-propagation of salmonid fish
species.

Groundwater within the Proposed Project vicinity occurs at depths ranging from 800 to 2,500 feet
below ground surface within the unconfined Raft River Valley aquifer. Regional groundwater flows
to the northwest towards the Snake River. The western slopes of Cotterel Mountain are within a
Critical Groundwater Management Area designated by the Idaho State Department of Water
Resources (IDWR). This designation indicates that all or part of the groundwater basin does not have
sufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for irrigation or other uses at the current or
projected rates of withdrawal (IDAPA 1993; IDWR 1999). There are no public drinking water wells
within the Proposed Project area boundary (Risley 2003).

3.1.5 Noise

Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air. Noise is
defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of
oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy
content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor
used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. Sound pressure level is measured in

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-11

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140
dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of pain.

Human response to noise is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that can
influence individual response include: intensity, frequency, and time pattern of the noise; the amount
of background noise present prior to the intruding noise; and the nature of work or human activity that
is exposed to the noise. The adverse effects of noise include interference with concentration,
communication, and sleep. At the highest levels, noise can induce hearing damage.

There are several methods of characterizing sound. Environmental noise is usually measured in A-
weighted decibels (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the
human ear is most sensitive for typical environmentally occurring sounds. Some representative noise
sources and their corresponding noise levels (in dBA) are shown in Table 3.1-3 (USDOT-FHWA
1998). The noise levels presented in Table 3.1-3 are representative of measured noise at a given
instant in time; however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time.

Table 3.1-3. Representative Noise Sources and Corresponding Noise Levels.

Noise Level (dBA)

Common Indoor Noise Levels

Common Outdoor Noise Levels

100-110

Above 100 dBA - rock band

Jet flyover at 1,000 feet.

90-100

Inside subway train (New York)

Gas lawn mower at 3 feet.

80-90

Food blender at 3 feet, garbage
disposal at 3 feet.

Diesel truck at 50 feet, noisy urban
daytime

70-80

Shouting at 3 feet, vacuum cleaner
at 10 feet.

Gas lawn mower at 100 feet

60-70

Commercial area, heavy traffic at
300 feet.

50-60

Large business office

Quiet urban daytime setting

40-50

Small theater

Quiet urban nighttime setting

30-40

Conference room (background),
library

Quiet suburban nighttime setting

20-30

Concert hall (background)

Quiet rural nighttime setting

10-20

Broadcast and recording studio

0-10

Threshold of hearing

Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state
agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while
regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies. Local regulation of noise involves
implementation of general plan policies and noise ordinance standards.

At the federal and state level, there are no regulations that would apply to noise from commercial
wind turbine generator operation. In a Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Frequently Asked Question
report (USDI, BLM 2004), the BLM stated that much of the wind turbine noise is masked by the
sound of the wind itself, and that turbines only operate when the wind is blowing. Noise from wind
turbines has diminished as the technology of turbines has improved. Newer turbine blade design

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-12

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

results in wind energy being converted into greater rotational torque with less acoustic noise versus
early-model turbines. Under most conditions, modem wind turbines are quiet (USDI, BLM 2004b).

The relatively remote Proposed Project area has no industrial noise sources. Existing background
noise in the Proposed Project area is expected to be similar to the EPA “farm in valley” noise
category, which is about 32 to 39 dBA. Existing noise in the Proposed Project area vicinity is
attributable to: recreational users such as off-highway vehicles (OHV) and snowmobile riders;
occasional low flying aircraft; agricultural equipment; and traffic on area roads such as State
Highway (SH)-77, SH-81, and Interstate 84 (1-84).

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

As a federal land manager, the BLM is responsible for conserving wildlife, plant populations, and
their habitats in the Proposed Project area. Within the Proposed Project area, the potential impact on
biological resources required studies of vegetation and wildlife. Biological resources may not be
found in the same place from year to year. Therefore, inventories needed to be completed prior to the
construction of the Proposed Project. To provide an adequate inventory, some of the resource studies
extended beyond the Proposed Project area boundary to better assess potential project impacts to wide
ranging species like ferruginous hawk, sage-grouse, and mule deer.

3.2.1 Vegetation

The Proposed Project area is located within the southeast portion of the Interior Columbia Basin. The
area is characterized primarily as semi-desert shrub-steppe with sagebrush and woodland sites as the
major potential vegetation groups (USDA, FS 1994; USDA, NRCS 1994; USGS 2003).

Vegetation types within the Proposed Project area were delineated from digital color
orthophotography with an approximate ground resolution of one foot (0.3 meter). A buffer of 2.5
miles around the Proposed Project area was mapped using digital color orthophotography with a
ground resolution of approximately two feet (0.6 meter). The buffer area delineation is approximately
67,600 acres. Additional resources used in the vegetation delineation and verification process
included district soil maps (USDA, NRCS 1994), sagebrush assessment data (USGS 2003), and
ground surveys. Six major and six minor community types were delineated within the Proposed
Project area (Figure 3.2-1). Overlapping polygons in Figure 3.2-1 are transition sites where
characteristics from multiple community types are represented.

Community Types

Twelve general community types were located within the Proposed Project area and the associated
buffer (Figure 3.2-1). Within the Proposed Project area nine community types were identified
including: low sagebrush, mountain mahogany, juniper, juniper/mountain mahogany mix, mountain
sagebrush, low/mountain sagebrush mix, grasslands, big sagebrush, aspen, rock outcrops, and riparian
communities (Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-2 and 3.2-3). Because of the complexity and distribution of the

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-13

Cottcrel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.2-1. Vegetation Communities.

Legend

t ~ | Project Area -Interstate

Alt. B Interconnect ROW ™Major Roads

t. . J Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW Other Roads

”*• • Transmission Lines

Juniper Community
Big Sagebrush Community
Grassland Community
Low Sagebrush Community
Mtn. Mahogany Community
Mtn. Sagebrush Community

a *

Agriculture
Open Water
Riparian
Rock Outcrop

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

overlapping community type ranges of low/mountain sagebrush mix and juniper/mountain mahogany
mix, they were not able to be visually displayed on the vegetation map for the Proposed Project area.

Table 3.2-1. Vegetative Components within Each Community Type.

Community

Type

Tall Woody
Shrubs

Low Woody
Shrubs

Forbs

Grasses and

Grass Like Species

Low

sagebrush

Not Present (NP)

low sage, and
rabbitbrush

phlox, onions,
buckwheat, agoseris,
death camas
(Zygaenus
venenosos),
and cactus

Sandberg’s bluegrass,
bluebunch wheatgrass, and
squirreltail

Big sagebrush

NP

Great Basin and
Wyoming big
sagebrush, and
rabbitbrush

arrowleaf balsamroot,
yarrow, buckwheat,
stone seed, agoseris,
lupine, phlox, mullein
(Verbuscum thapsus),
common dandelion
(Taraxacum
officinale)

bluebunch wheatgrass,
Sandberg’s bluegrass,
bulbous bluegrass, needle
and thread grass, great basin
rye, and crested wheatgrass,
cheatgrass, and indian rye
grass

Mountain

sagebrush

NP

mountain
sagebrush, and
rabbit brush

arrowleaf balsamroot,
phlox, buckwheats,
lupines, penstemon,
agoseris, depinium
yarrow, mertensia

bluebunch wheatgrass,
Sandberg’s bluegrass,
bulbous bluegrass, great
basin wild rye, needle and
thread, and squirrel tail

Juniper

juniper

Wyoming Big
sagebrush,
mountain big
sagebrush, bitter
brush and
rabbitbrush

buckwheat, and
cactus

Sandberg’s bluegrass and
bluebunch wheatgrass

Mountain

mahogany

mountain mahogany

mountain
sagebrush, rabbit
brush, bitter brush,
and snowberry

buckwheat, yarrow,
and cactus

bluebunch wheatgrass and
Sandberg’s bluegrass

Grasslands

rabbitbrush, big
and mountain
sagebrush

phlox, onions,
agoseris, penstemon,
buckwheat, stone
seed, death camas,
and cactus

Intermediate and desert
wheatgrass, bulbous
bluegrass, cheatgrass,
Sandberg’s bluegrass,
bluebunch wheatgrass,
Russian wild rye, Great

Basin wild rye, annual
fescue, and indian rice grass

Aspen

service berry,

Rocky Mountain
Juniper,
chokecherry,
snowberry,
currant (Ribes spp.)

mountain big

sagebrush,

rabbitbrush

yarrow, arrowleaf
balsamroot, lupine,
stone seed, lily, videt,
waterleaf

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-15

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3.2-2. Acreage of Each Community Type Within Vegetation Survey Area.

Vegetative Community

Total Acres

Percent of Total Area

Low sagebrush

2,376

3.1%

Big sagebrush

17,582

22.6%

Mountain sagebrush

2,079

2.7%

Low/mountain sage mix

356

0.5%

Juniper

11,449

14.7%

Mountain mahogany

265

0.3%

Juniper/Mahogany mix

1,805

2.3%

Grasslands

25,521

32.8%

Aspen

42

0.1%

Agricultural land

14,998

19.3%

Rock outcrop

469

0.6%

Riparian

333

0.4%

Open water

50

0.1%

Existing roads*

395

0.5%

Total Area:

77,720 acres

100%

Total area calculation is +/- 2%.
*Not included as a community type.

Table 3.2-3. Acres of Each Community Type Within The Proposed Project Area.

Vegetative Community

Acres within
Proposed Project Area

Percent of

Proposed Project Area

Low sagebrush

1,435

12.8%

Big sagebrush

1,522

13.6%

Mountain sagebrush

1,527

13.7%

Low/Mountain sage mix

84

0.8%

Juniper

1,267

11.3%

Mountain mahogany

255

2.3%

Juniper/Mahogany mix

1,127

10.1%

Grasslands

3,465

31.0%

Aspen

41

0.4%

Agricultural land

0

0.0%

Rock outcrop

268

2.4%

Riparian

20

0.2%

Open water

0

0.0%

Existing roads*

158

1.4%

Total Area:

**11,169 acres

100%

*Not included as a community type.

**Total area calculation is +/- 1%. Actual Proposed Project area is approximately 11,500 acres.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-16

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Low Sage

The low sage community type is principally shrub land with a dominant low shrub layer. It occupies
approximately 2,376 acres (3.1%) of the total area and 1,435 acres (12.8%) of the Proposed Project
area. This community type normally occurs on hilltops and ridges and consists of well-drained
shallow soils that are severely susceptible to water and wind erosion.

The low sage community is comprised primarily of woody shrubs, with some forbs, grasses, moss,
and lichens. The vegetation component of this community makes up approximately 55 percent of the
ground cover (Tharp 2004), with the rest consisting of litter, cryptogrammic soils, rock and bare
ground. The total vegetation cover of this community type can vary significantly depending on the
amount of rock and soil depth. It consists of: low, woody shrubs consisting of low sage ( Artemisia
arbuscula ), and rabbitbrush ( Chrysothamnus spp .); grasses, including Sandberg bluegrass ( Poa
secunda), bluebunch wheatgrass ( Agropyron spicatum ), and squirreltail ( Sitanion hystrix ); forbs,
including hoods phlox (. Phlox hoodii ), onion ( Allium spp.), buckwheat ( Eriogonum spp.), Mariposa
lily ( Calochortus spp.), and cactus ( Opuntia spp. and Pediocactus simpsonii ); and moss and lichens.

Wyoming/Great Basin Big Sage

The big sagebrush community type is normally found in the lowest elevation of the Proposed Project
area and is principally shrubland with a dominant layer of low shrubs and a significant graminoid/
herb understory. This community type occupies approximately 17,582 acres (22.6%) of the total area
and 1,522 acres (13.6%) of the Proposed Project area. It consists of well-drained, very deep soils that
are severely susceptible to water erosion and only moderately susceptible to wind erosion.

The Wyoming/Great Basin big sage complex includes low shrubs, forbs, grasses, moss, and lichens.
Great Basin big sage generally occupies drainage bottoms and deeper soils within the Wyoming
sagebrush zone. The vegetation component comprises approximately 55 to 60 percent (Tharp 2004)
of the total ground cover, with litter, bare ground, and rocks comprising the remainder. The
vegetation cover of this community type consists of: low shrubs such as Great Basin ( Artemisia
tridentata spp. tridentata) and Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. Wyomingensis) and
rabbitbrush; grasses, including Bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, bulbous bluegrass, needle
and thread grass (Stipa thurberiana), Indian rice grass ( Oryzopsis hymenoides), Great Basin wild rye
(Elymus scinereus), cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum)', forbs consisting of
arrowleaf balsamroot, yarrow, buckwheat, lupine, and phlox; and moss, and lichens.

Mountain Big Sage

The mountain big sagebrush community type is principally shrub land with a dominant layer of low
shrubs and a significant graminoid understory. It is normally found at elevations above Wyoming and
Great Basin sagebrush habitat and occupies approximately 2,079 acres (2.7%) of the total area and
1,527 acres (13.7%) of the Proposed Project area. It consists of well-drained, deep soils that are
severely susceptible to water erosion, but only slightly susceptible to wind erosion due to increased
vegetative cover.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-17

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

The mountain big sage community includes woody shrubs, forbs, grasses, moss and lichens. The
vegetation component of the community comprises approximately 60 to 70 percent of the ground
cover (Tharp 2004), with the remainder consisting of litter, open-faced rock, and bare ground. The
total vegetation cover of this community type consists of: short, woody shrubs including mountain
sagebrush, bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush; grasses consisting of bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg
bluegrass, bulbous bluegrass ( Poa bulbosa). Great Basin wild rye, and squirrel tail; forbs such as
phlox, buckwheat, onions, lupine ( Lupinus spp.), and arrowleaf balsamroot ( Balsamorhiza hookeri );
and moss and lichens are present as well.

Low Sagebrush/Mountain Sagebrush Mix

The low sagebrush/mountain sagebrush mix community occupies approximately 356 acres (0.5%) of
the total area and 84 acres (0.8%) of the Proposed Project area. This type is characterized by an
irregular mix of low sagebrush and mountain community types.

Juniper

The juniper ( Juniperous Osteosperma) community type is generally a low precipitation woodland
with varying amounts of understory. It occupies approximately 11,449 acres (14.7%) of the total area
and 1,267 acres (11.3%) of the Proposed Project area. It consists of well-drained, deep soils that are
severely susceptible to water erosion, but only slightly susceptible to wind erosion.

The juniper community includes tall and short woody shrubs, forbs, grasses, moss, and lichens,
comprises approximately 65 percent of the ground cover, with the rest consisting primarily of bare
ground and some open-face rock. The total vegetation cover of this community type consists of:
juniper and mountain mahogany; low shrubs including big sagebrush, mountain sagebrush,
bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush; grasses that consist of Sandberg bluegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass;
forbs such as buckwheat and cactus; and moss and lichens are present as well.

Mountain Mahogany

The mountain mahogany community type is low-precipitation woodland generally found in
environments similar to Utah Juniper (USGS 2003; USDA, FS 1994). It occupies approximately 265
acres (0.3%) of the total area and 255 acres (2.3%) of the Proposed Project area. It typically occurs on
hilltops and east-facing slopes with shallow soils with little understory.

The mountain mahogany community includes woody shrubs, forbs, grasses, moss and lichens. It
comprises approximately 50 to 65 percent of the ground cover (Tharp 2004), with the rest consisting
of litter, bare ground, and some open-faced rock. The total vegetation cover of this community type
consists of: mountain mahogany ( Cercocarpus ledifolius)\ low, woody shrubs, including mountain
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. Vaseyana), rabbitbrush, and bitterbrush; grasses consisting of
Bluebunch wheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass; forbs such as buckwheat, yarrow (Achillea
millefolium ), and cactus; and moss, and lichens.

A/lay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-18

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Juniper/Mountain Mahogany Mix

The juniper/mountain mahogany mix community type occupies approximately 1,805 acres (2.3%) of
the total area and 1,127 acres (10.1%) of the Proposed Project area.

Grasslands

The grassland community type is composed primarily of native and seeded communities that were
historically big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and juniper communities that burned primarily due to
wildfire. This type contains some of the most disturbed, and support primarily localized concentration
of annual exotics. It occupies approximately 25,521 acres (32.8%) of the total area and 3,465 acres
(31.0%) of the Proposed Project area. It consists of soil types ranging from well-drained, very deep
soils that are only moderately susceptible to water and wind erosion to well-drained, shallow soils
that are very susceptible to water and wind erosion (USDA, NRCS 1994).

The grassland community includes tall and short woody shrubs, forbs, grasses, moss, and lichens that
comprise approximately 30 to 60 percent of the ground cover, with the rest consisting of litter, bare
ground and rock. The vegetation cover of this community type consists primarily of grasses including
Intermediate ( Agropyron intermidia ) and desert wheatgrass, bulbous bluegrass, cheatgrass ( Bromus
tectorum ), Sandberg bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Russian wild rye ( Elymus junceus), Great
Basin wild rye, six weeks fescue ( Vulpia bromoides ), Indian rice grass, bulbous bluegrass, needle and
thread grass, crested wheatgrass, and Junegrass {Koeleria cristata). Scattered among the grass species
are sparse patches of low, woody shrubs such as rabbitbrush, big sage, and mountain sagebrush, as
well as forbs such as phlox, onion, agosoris ( Agosoris spp.), penstemon ( Penstemon spp.), buckwheat,
stone seed ( Lithospermum ruderale ), western wheatgrass, and cactus, moss and lichens.

Aspen

The aspen community type is generally found at mid elevations on east-facing slopes. It is principally
occupied by a dominant layer of tall to medium deciduous shrubs and a significant graminoid/herb
understory. This community type occupies approximately 42 acres (0.1%) of the total area, and 41
acres (0.4%) of the Proposed Project area. It typically occurs in snow catch pockets or near springs
with very deep, highly erodable soils (USGS 2003; USDA, FS 1994).

The aspen community includes tall trees, woody shrubs, forbs, and some moss and lichens, which
comprises approximately 85 percent of the ground cover. The rest of the community consists of litter,
bare ground, and some open-faced rock. The total vegetation cover of this community type consists
of: aspen trees and service berry ( Amelanchier alnifolia); Rocky Mountain Juniper ( Juniperus
scopulorum); chokecherry ( Prunis virginiana ); snowberry ( Symphoricarpos albu ); currant ( Ribes
spp.); low, woody shrubs, including mountain big sagebrush and rabbitbrush; and forbs such as
yarrow, arrowleaf balsamroot, lupine, stone seed, lily, videt, and waterleaf.

A4ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-19

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Minor Community Types

There are a variety of other community types that make up a very small portion of the Proposed
Project area but are key functional components including: barren rock outcrops make up 469 acres
(0.6%) of the total area and 268 acres (2.4%) of the Proposed Project area; open waters make up 50
acres (0.1%) of the total area and zero acres of the Proposed Project area; riparian zones make up 333
acres (0.4%) of the total area and 20 acres (0.2%) of the Proposed Project area; and agricultural lands
make up 14,998 acres (19.3%) of the total area and zero acres of the Proposed Project area (Tables
3.2-2 and 3.2-3). These minor community types make up approximately 15,850 (20.4%) of the total
area and 288 acres (2.6%) of the Proposed Project area. They occur throughout the area and are key
process and structural components of the Cotterel Mountain area ecosystem, as well as habitat and
forage sites for wildlife, birds, cattle, and big game. However, based on the limited size and low
probability of impact from the Proposed Project, these community types have not been described in
detail. Non-vegetated community influences include: rock outcrop, disturbed sites, and open water.

Threatened or Endangered Plant Species

The only federally listed plant species in the area is Christ’s paintbrush ( Castilleja christii; federal
candidate). This species is known only from the type location at Mount Harrison, approximately 12
miles west of the Proposed Project area, at the northern end of the Albion Mountains in Cassia
County, Idaho. It occurs primarily on gentle, northerly-facing slopes between 8,600 and 9,200 feet,
and is inversely related to the density of sagebrush. It generally occurs only in openings in the
sagebrush and within the nearly shrubless swales of the patterned ground (CDC 2000). According to
personal communications with James Tharp of BLM, Christ’s paintbrush has not been found, and is
not expected to be found, within the Proposed Project area due to a lack of appropriate habitat.

Special Status Plant Species

There is only one special status species that has been identified by the Idaho Conservation Data
Center (CDC), or the BLM, that is within the Proposed Project area, the Simpson’s hedgehog cactus
(Pediocactus simpsonii ). Cotterel Mountain supports a large population of Simpson’s hedgehog
cactus. This species occurs sporadically on almost every portion of the Mountain.

Noxious Weeds

There are six known noxious weed species that are currently identified by the BLM within or near the
Proposed Project area (within five to ten miles). These include, leafy spurge (. Euphorbia esula),
Russian knapweed ( Centaurea repens ), diffuse knapweed ( Centaurea diffusa ), Scotch thistle
(Onopordum acanthium ), rush skeleton weed, and black henbane ( Hyoscyamus niger). Only two,
scotch thistle and black henbane, of these noxious weed species have been found within the Proposed
Project area. Scotch thistle is primarily found only on the northern end of Cotterel Mountain, where
black henbane is found scattered along roadways within the Proposed Project area.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-20

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Several species identified as “invasive species” do occur within the Proposed Project area. These
species include: cheatgrass, bulbous bluegrass, curlycup gumweed ( Grindillia squarrosa), annual
sunflower ( Helianthus annuus ), field bindweed ( Convolvulus arvensis), tumble mustard ( Sisymbrium
altissimum), and Russian thistle ( Salsola iberica). These invasive species typically occur on disturbed
areas including: the current roadway corridors, communication facility platforms, OHV and livestock
trails, burned areas, and rodent dig spots. These species can be monitored and controlled with
appropriate mitigation with the exception of cheatgrass and bulbous bluegrass. These two species
have spread throughout a majority of southern Idaho and can only be controlled on a site-specific
basis with intensive management actions.

3.2.2 Wildlife

This section is a summary of wildlife resources in the vicinity of the Proposed Project area. The
sources of information include published literature, unpublished Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG) data on big game and game birds, BLM sensitive species lists from the Burley Field Office
(BFO), BLM Wildlife Data Base, and interviews with BLM and IDFG biologists familiar with the
area. In addition, a year-long baseline field study was conducted starting in the fall of 2002, and
included surveys of nesting raptors, breeding sage-grouse, bird use, diurnal fall raptor migration, and
a radar study of nocturnal fall migrating birds and bat species. The detailed methods and results of the
baseline study are provided in the Technical Baseline Reports for Biological Resources (TBR 2004)
The Technical Baseline Reports for Biological Resources is a compilation of nine reports
documenting the results of field surveys, data searches, and historical BLM data summaries. These
reports were prepared by numerous authors (ABR 2004; Sharp 2004; TREC 2004a; TREC 2004b;
TREC 2004c; URS 2004; USDI BLM 2004) and constitute the best available knowledge of the
existing biological resources within the Proposed Project area.

Typically, wildlife species are evaluated across their range by using ranking systems. These ranking
systems evaluate each species population status and provide a general idea about the overall trend of
the species. IDFG, Idaho BLM and CDC all use different ranking systems, which are discussed
below. Species are classified by several different ranking systems including BLM sensitive species 1
to 5; Idaho State Status 1 to 5; Global Status 1 to 5, and federally protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (1973) including: Endangered, Threatened and Candidate
species. Federally protected species will be evaluated in greater detail in Biological Assessments
(BA) presented to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and available for public
review.

IDFG ranks nongame species based on a ranking protocol of 1 to 5. State ranked species are
summarized in the following ranks: (1) critically imperiled because of extreme rarity or because of
some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction (typically five or fewer
occurrences); (2) imperiled because of rarity or because of other factors demonstrably making it
vulnerable to extinction (typically six to 20 occurrences); (3) vulnerable (typically 21 to 100
occurrences; (4) not rare, and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern; and (5)
demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-21

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

The Nature Conservancy is a worldwide conservation organization that ranks a species not just within
one state, but also on a worldwide (global) level. The Nature Conservancy uses the same definitions
for their ranking system 1 to 5 as CDC. The state status and the global status ranks of the same
species provide a description of the status of this species within Idaho and worldwide.

BLM sensitive ranking includes Type 1 to 5. Species listed by the USFWS as threatened or
endangered or are proposed or candidates for listing under the ESA are Type 1. Species experiencing
significant declines throughout their range with a high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable
future due to their rarity and/or significant endangerment factors are Type 2. Species that are
experiencing significant declines in population or habitat, or are in danger of regional or local
extinctions in Idaho in the foreseeable future, are listed as Type 3. Species that are generally rare in
Idaho with the majority of their breeding range located largely outside of the state, are listed as Type
4. Watch list species are not considered BLM sensitive species and are listed as Type 5. Watch list
species include species that may be added to the sensitive species list depending on new information
concerning threats, species biologist evaluations, or statewide trends.

Big Game

Four big game mammal species occur within or near the Cotterel Mountain area: mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), mountain lion (Felis concolor ), California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis
californiana), and American pronghorn ( Antelocapra americana).

Mule Deer

Mule deer are the most abundant big game species in the Proposed Project area. Populations in Idaho
have been decreasing since 1996, primarily due to habitat reduction, specifically critical winter
habitat. Winter/year-round range is defined as that range of which a portion is used yearlong, but
which during winter has a substantial influx of animals from other seasonal ranges. The Proposed
Project area is located within year-round mule deer habitat. Approximately 5,475 acres (48%) of the
Proposed Project area lies within winter habitat range for mule deer (IDFG 2003a; Figure 3.2-2).

Mule deer occupy nearly all habitats in Idaho from dry, open country to dense forests. They prefer
rocky, brushy areas, open meadows, open pine forests, and bums (Brown 1992). Mule deer can also
be found in coniferous forests, shrub steppe, chaparral, and grasslands with shmbs. Mule deer are
often associated with early succession vegetation or vegetation resulting from disturbance, especially
near agricultural lands.

Cotterel Mountain is within mule deer hunting management unit #55. This unit is restricted to archery
between November 25 and December 19th, and any-weapon controlled hunts between August 15 and
September 24th and October 5 and October 31. All other hunting means are prohibited in this unit.
Mule deer harvest statistics for 1999-2003 are shown in Table 3.2-4. Table 3.2-4 shows a decline in
the number of permits issued, but an increase in the number of deer harvested. For the 2003 hunting
season, the number of permits being issued for the any-weapon October hunt were reduced to 350,
due to the decreasing populations within the area (IDFG 2003b).

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

3-22

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.2-2. Big Game Habitat.

Legend

Interstate

m ^ m Major Roads
Other Roads

l — — 1 Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW
”• “ Transmission Lines

1\\1 Bighorn Winter Range
\//\ Mule Deer Winter Range

[_J. Project Area

I. J Alt. B Interconnect ROW

2 Miles

c

a>

E

c

2

5

c

LU

~o

0)

u

I

o

CO

2

o

U

<T>

©

©

Cn|

o

00

©

Os

ZJ

CS

-w

C/3

■u»

!/5

1>

>

u

cs

X

u

a>

zj

Q

ZJ

IT)

ir>

c

X
a j

£

«

a

■a

a

o

CS

"O

-T

I

<s

ro

4»

2

eg

H

Pet.

4-pts.

Xi

Q

Z

30

37

QN

50

28

27

rn

32

r-~

77

44

70

r-

45

58

©

©

I

Pet.

Success

CN

74

44

so

58

53

ND

ND

ND

ND

00

67

52

oc

82

54

r—

©

©

1

Total

Days

Hunted

308

80

1669

2057

433

123

1800

2356

ND

ND

ND

ND

380

86

2068

2534

1132

104

2074

3310

763

©

©

763

Harvest

Total

r-~

3*

201

222

rn

3"

232

259

rn

ON

232

264

©

3"

232

256

oo

238

273

r-

©

©

r—

Antlerless

o

©

o

o

©

©

©

©

—

©

©

-

<N

©

©

CN

o

©

r~

©

©

sr.

Antlered

t—

3"

201

222

rn

3"

232

259

<N

ON

232

263

00

■3-

232

254

<N

00

238

268

rn

©

©

rn

No.

Hunters

59

On

461

539

80

24

436

540

ND

ND

ND

ND

rn

(N

447

599

220

22

440

682

229

©

©

229

Permits

Issued

NA

23

492

515

NA

24

460

484

NA

24

469

493

NA

<N

468

489

NA

23

459

482

1

1

1

l

Permits

Authorized

eg

<

Z

25

500

525

NA

25

500

525

NA

25

500

525

NA

25

500

525

NA

25

500

525

l

1

■

1

Season-Type

General Archery

Any-Weapon Early-Antlered

Any-Weapon Antlered - Oct.

Total

General Archery

Any-Weapon Early-Antlered

Any-Weapon Antlered - Oct.

Total

General Archery

Any-Weapon Early-Antlered

Any-Weapon Antlered - Oct.

Total

General Archery

Any-Weapon Early-Antlered

Any-Weapon Antlered - Oct.

Total

General Archery

Any-Weapon Early-Antlered

Any-Weapon Antlered - Oct.

Total

General Archery

Any-Weapon Early-Antlered

Any-Weapon Antlered - Oct.

Total

Year

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

—

JO

C3

u

c_ a

3* a
< Q
o o
Z Z

< Q
Z Z

?3 Sj

<D

a>

•a

x

<L>

C /5

C

o

I

3

O

>>

£

j—

<D

Q-

i

©

o

m

v
j=
-«—•

c

C /5

D

£

3

(L>

"3

J3

O

c

o

c

c/5

U

o

"3

rn

O

o

o

ON

On

ON

<o

3

3

Q

C/5

”3

u

3

3

t:

o

a-

3

3

3)

C

3

c/5

3

C

O

C.

3

E

o

-3

3

>

3

■3

C/5

3

C/5

3

3

—

3

3

3

”3

C/5

3

£ *

es

X

c

3

JS

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-24

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Mountain Lion

Mountain lions generally prefer mountainous country with cliffs and rimrock, and semi-wooded
canyon habitat with slopes of mixed open areas and forest. They range over vast areas and thus can
move through a diversity of habitat types (Holmes 2000). Mountain lions are active day or night
throughout the year and in all kinds of weather. In the absence of human disturbance, peak activity
occurs within two hours of sunset and sunrise; near human presence, activity peaks after sunset. With
the exception of females with kittens, mountain lions are primarily solitary. Population densities are
usually not more than 3 to 4 animals per 40 square miles. Mountain lion home range size varies
greatly in different areas. In Idaho, home ranges of males were from 20 to 90 square miles, while
females had home ranges of 5.5 to 57 square miles (Holmes 2000).

Mountain lions are hunted annually on Cotterel Mountain. Mountain lion hunting season in hunting
management unit #55 is from August 30 to March 31 or until the female quota is reached, whichever
comes first. Harvest statistics are not known for the specific unit but are tallied for the entire Magic
Valley region, which includes statistics for units 43-49, 52, and 52a-57. Since 1996, there have been
190 (80 females, 110 males) mountain lions killed, primarily using hounds (76 to 80%). Of those
killed, 11 to 15 percent were killed by hunters who were not hunting specifically for mountain lions
(LDFG 2003b).

Mountain lions could occur on any portion of Cotterel Mountain. While conducting surveys for other
resources in 2003, four Mountain lions were observed on Cotterel Mountain. One observation was of
a female with two kittens. During 2004, two observations of Mountain lions were observed on
Cotterel Mountain (USDI, BLM 2005). The average mountain lion population on Cotterel Mountain
is estimated to range between 4-5 adult individuals.

Bighorn Sheep

California bighorn sheep (BLM sensitive Type 3; G4 and S4) inhabit high mountain grass meadows
in the summer, using open slopes where the land is rough, rocky, sparsely vegetated, and
characterized by steep slopes and canyons. In winter, they occupy high, windswept ridges, or migrate
to the lower elevation sagebrush-steppe habitat as low as 4,800 feet to escape deep winter snows and
find more nutritious forage (Lauer and Peek 1976). Typically, this species relies heavily upon
grassland forage and forbs.

California bighorn sheep are currently not known to occur on Cotterel Mountain. Bighorn sheep do
occur in the Jim Sage Mountains located about eight miles south of Cotterel Mountain, and may be
rare visitors to Cotterel Mountain. In February of 2000 and 2001 the IDFG, BLM, and The
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep reintroduced 45 California bighorn sheep into the Jim
Sage Mountains. By September 2001, 17 of the originally released sheep had died. During the 2000
California bighorn sheep release, one ewe and her lamb initially used the southern portion of Cotterel
Mountain, but were predated by cougars (Fowles 2002). The majority of these mortalities were the
result of kills by mountain lions (Fowles 2001). The reintroduced herd has since increased to about 75

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-25

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

individuals. Prior to the initial bighorn sheep release, Cotterel Mountain was evaluated as potential
bighorn sheep range (ID-024-EA-99-023).

American Pronghorn

Pronghorn groups have not been observed on Cotterel Mountain. They have been recorded to the
north and east of the Proposed Project area. Pronghorn groups are considered to be unlikely to occur
in the Proposed Project area.

Furbearers

Bobcat

Bobcats (Game species; S4; G5) are generally trapped for their fur on Cotterel Mountain. Populations
in southern Idaho are up to one bobcat per 3.9 square kilometers (Knick 1990). Bobcats are solitary,
except during breeding and typically forage on rabbits. When rabbit numbers decline, then bobcat
populations follow. During 2003, two photographs of bobcats were obtained and cataloged (USDI,
BLM 2005). The estimated bobcat population on Cotterel Mountain is unknown, but Cotterel
Mountain offers suitable habitats for home ranges including rocks, crevices and a surrounding
productive rabbit population.

Bats

Bats probably use Cotterel Mountain on a year-round basis. Bats forage and roost from lower
elevations on Cotterel Mountain to the highest elevations of the mountain (EDFG 2002). Bats utilize
water resources on the mountain as foraging habitat for some species, and as a water source for most,
if not all species. Two types of bat groupings occur on Cotterel Mountain including resident bats that
remain on site year round or during the spring through fall breeding and rearing season and migrating
bats or those that fly over the site in the spring or the fall. Bat migration typically follows the moth
migrations. In southern Idaho, moth migrations generally peak about the first two weeks in October.
Moth migration times vary at different elevations and depending upon the species, moths generally
migrate through a higher elevation site later in the season.

One bat (unknown type) was recorded during all of the surveys for this Proposed Project; however,
many bat species are known to, or suspected to occur in the study area (CDC 2002; EDFG 2002;
USDI, BLM 2003). Species known to occur in the area include the western small-footed myotis
(Myotis ciliolabrum ), long-eared myotis ( Myotis evotis), and pallid bat {Antrozous pallidus ). Species
suspected to occur in the Proposed Project area include the big brown bat ( Eptesicus fuscus),
Townsend’s big-eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendii ), Yuma myotis {Myotis yumanensis), long-
legged myotis {Myotis volans), and western pipistrelle {Pipistrellus hesperus). Migratory species such
as the hoary bat {Lasionycteris noctivagans ) and silver-haired bat {Lasiurus borealis) may also pass
through the area during the fall, following the moth migrations of southern Idaho.

The western small-footed myotis (BLM sensitive Type 5; G5; S4) is primarily found in arid sites with
cliffs and talus slopes. It may be more abundant in southern Idaho in lava-tube caves where it

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-26

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

hibernates in cracks and crevices. During summer months, the western small-footed myotis roosts in
rock crevices, under boulders, beneath loose bark, or in buildings. It leaves its daytime roost shortly
after sunset. The western small-footed myotis generally forage along cliffs and rocky slopes for small
insects including moths, flies, true bugs, and ants. It hibernates in caves and abandoned mines in
winter (one of the last bats to begin hibernation).

The long-eared myotis (BLM sensitive Type 5; G5; S3) is found in a wide range of habitats. In shrub
communities, it may be found in crevices in cliffs, crevices in rocks on the ground, lava-tube caves,
and abandoned mines. An Idaho study found roosts were normally associated with areas adjacent to
reservoirs or streams containing slow-moving water. Their diet consists primarily of moths and
beetles, along with lacewings, true bugs, wasps, and bees. This species may glean insects from the
surface of a variety of desert shrubs but it also occurs and feeds in coniferous forests. In northern
Idaho, long-eared myotis appear to feed near the back of mines, especially at the portal. They do not
seem to use these mines for night roosting or winter hibernation. The long-eared myotis is known to
forage with long-legged myotis, big brown bat, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat, but an Idaho study
found species foraged earlier in evening than several other bat species (Keller et al. 1993; Keller
2000 ).

The pallid bat (No BLM ranking; G5; SI) is generally found in arid or semi-arid shrub
steppe/grasslands, and to a lesser extent in higher elevation coniferous forests, where rocky river
canyons or cliffs are near water. They roost in rock crevices, mines, hollow cavities in trees, and
buildings. Their prey can be captured in the air, but is predominantly captured on the ground. The
pallid bat is a gregarious species that fly at low levels and have a much more acute sense of sight than
the Myotis genus. They seldom hibernate, are active year round, and only migrate short distances.
Breeding occurs in late fall, but sperm is stored until ovulation in early spring (IDFG 2002; Keller
2000 ).

The big brown bat (No BLM ranking; G5; S4) is a common species throughout North America; it can
even be found in urban areas. In forested areas, they generally roost in hollow spaces in snags or
living trees. The big brown bat is a common species near the entrances of caves and mines but usually
does not cluster with other individuals in these colder locations. Foraging occurs primarily near the
permanent roost, but temporary roosts may also be utilized. They may hibernate for a shorter period
of time than members of the genus Myotis. Breeding occurs in late fall and sometimes in winter
(IDFG 2002; Keller 2000).

The Townsend’s big-eared bat (BLM sensitive Type 3, G4, S2) roosts colonially in caves, buildings,
and mine adits. This species may use Cotterel Mountain for both roosting and foraging needs (EDFG
2002). In addition, there is a known hibernation site on the east side of the Proposed Project area
(IDFG 2002). The Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs at a wide range of elevations in a variety of
habitats from desert shrub to deciduous and coniferous forests. In Idaho, some individuals likely
migrate to hibernal sites to overwinter and disperse to forested areas during summer when the sexes
separate. Their diet consists mostly of moths, beetles, flies, and lesser amounts of other insects. The

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-27

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Townsend’s big-eared bat may eat insects near or over still or slow moving water (Vullo et al. 1999).
During winter months they hibernate. If multiple hibernation sites are close together, some bats may
move from one to the other (Vullo et al 1999). Populations in southern Idaho are strongly loyal to
roost sites during winter hibernation (Humphrey and Kunz 1976; Wackenhut 1990), and weakly loyal
to roost sites during summer months due to shifting prey populations (Keller et al. 1993).

The Yuma myotis (BLM sensitive Type 5; G5; S3) occurs in a wide variety of upland and lowland
habitats, including riparian settings, desert scrub, and moist woodlands. Summer roosts include
crevices in cliffs, old buildings, underground mines, caves, bridges, and abandoned cliff swallow
nests. They eat a variety of soft-bodied small insects, especially moths and emergent aquatic insects,
including stoneflies and mayflies found near and over water. No large winter concentrations of this
species have been studied in Idaho (Keller et al. 1993; Keller 2000).

The long-legged myotis (BLM sensitive Type 5; G5; S3) occurs in a variety of habitats from desert to
mountainous coniferous forests, where it may be the most common bat species, especially if open
water occurs in the area. They eat a variety of small insects found in forests including moths,
leafhoppers, lacewings, termites, flies, and small beetles. The food taken may vary with insect
availability. Summer roosts include cliff crevices, cracks in the ground, hollows in snags, hollow
areas under exfoliating bark and in living trees, and old buildings. Winter hibernal sites include caves
and mine tunnels. No large winter concentrations of this species have been found in mines in Idaho
(Keller et al. 1993; Keller 2000).

The western pipistrelle (BLM sensitive Type 4; G5; SI) is found in deserts and lowlands, desert
mountain ranges, desert scrub flats, and rocky canyons. In Idaho, it prefers cliffs and canyon walls
close to water. The western pipistrelle roosts in crevices, mine tunnels, and buildings. They emerge in
the early evening, especially in canyon areas, where they are often seen feeding over slack water. An
important predator on small swarming insects, pipistrelles feed on flying ants, mosquitoes,
leafhoppers, and fruit flies, but often select only one kind of insect that is abundant when feeding
(Keller et al. 1993; Keller 2000).

Small Mammals

Cliff chipmunks (Neotamias dorsalis) and an unidentified fox were observed during 2003 field
surveys (TBR 2004). Several other small mammal species observed at Cotterel Mountain were Uinta
chipmunk ( Tamias umbrinus), snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus ), coyote ( Canis latrans), bushy
tailed woodrat ( Neotoma cinerea ) (USDI, BLM Wildlife Database 2005). A variety of other mammal
species occur on Cotterel Mountain, including shrews, voles, mice, pack rats, ground squirrels, pocket
gophers, weasels, coyotes, cottontails, and jackrabbits (IDFG 2003a).

Amphibians and Reptiles

No amphibians or reptiles were recorded during the 2003 field surveys. BFO has conducted
amphibian and reptile surveys within the Proposed Project area from 1997 through 2004 and have
found the following species around the Proposed Project area: Great Basin spadefoot toad

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-28

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

(,Scaphiopus intermontanus ) and eggs in McClendon Spring pond; western toad {Bufo boreas) in Coe
Creek; striped whipsnake ( Masticophis taeniatus ) along Nibbs Creek; and Common racer ( Coluber
constrictor) in mountain mahogany on rocky outcrops. Other common species that were found in the
past within the general area include Pacific treefrog {Hyla regilla) and western skink (USDI, BLM
2005).

The majority of amphibian and reptile species found in southern Idaho could potentially be found in
suitable habitats on Cotterel Mountain including: longnose lizard ( Gambelia wislizenii ); short homed
lizard ( Phrynosoma dougalassii ); desert homed lizard {Phrynosoma platyrhinos)’, sagebrush lizard
(Sceleporus graciosis); western fence lizard ( Sceloporus occidentalis); western skink ( Eumeces
skiltoninus ); gopher snake ( Pituophis catenifer ); western garter snake ( Thamnophis elegans)',
common garter snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis); and night snake ( Hypsiglena torquata).

Three of these species will be discussed in further detail due to their BLM sensitive species status
including the common garter snake, night snake and western toad. The common garter snake (BLM
sensitive Type 3; State 5; GS 5) is noctumal/diumal and usually found in habitats associated with
water, such as streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and marshes. They can also be found in open meadows
and coniferous forests. They hibernate underground, or under surface cover at times with other snake
species. Active from about March or April through October in northern range and at higher
elevations, active season is longer in southern range, to year-round in Florida (Nussbaum et al. 1983;
Cossell 1997).

The night snake (BLM sensitive Type 5; State Status 5; Global Status 3) is nocturnal. This snake
inhabits desert lowlands, grassland, chaparral, sagebrush flats, woodlands, and moist mountain
meadows that generally have a rocky component. They can also be found in areas lacking rocks,
provided there are rodent burrows (Diller and Wallace 1986; Cossell 1997).

The western toad (BLM sensitive Type 3; G4; S4) is found in mountain meadows to bmshy desert
flats and typically near a water source. Its distribution is throughout Idaho, but populations appear to
be declining in parts of the U.S. due to water channeling and re-direction, thus leading to a loss of
habitat (Bartels and Peterson 1994).

Birds

Large expanses of big and low sagebrush, juniper, grasslands and mountain mahogany are found
within the Proposed Project area. These vegetation covers are potential habitat for a number of BLM
sensitive species, including sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike,
pinyon jay, plumbeus vireo, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher. In addition, the abundance of open
cliffs, strong updrafts, and the close proximity of agricultural lands make this area prime habitat for
BLM sensitive raptor species including ferruginous hawks, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, golden
eagle and Swainson’s hawk. In addition to the wide diversity of bird species found during the
surveys, there are specialized topographical features that provide breeding, nesting and wintering

A/I ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-29

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

habitats for many avian species that are not widely available in the Raft River Valley-Cassia Creek
and Marsh Creek sub-basin habitats.

Avian Survey Efforts

To assess the abundance and location of birds using specific habitats in the area, the following studies
were conducted: (1) a yearlong avian point count survey; (2) a fall migration point survey; (3) a raptor
nest survey; (4) a nocturnal bird migration survey using radar; (5) two sage-grouse lek surveys; and
(6) a sage-grouse radio telemetry study (TBR 2004). The field methods chosen for use in the Cotterel
Mountain study were derived from a review of guidelines for studying wind energy and bird
interactions published by the National Wind Coordinating Committee (Anderson et al. 1999) and of
the methods used in a number of other recent avian baseline studies at proposed wind plants in the
western U.S. The baseline studies included Johnson et al. (1997); Johnson et al. (2000b); Erickson et
al. (2001a); Sharp et al. (2001a), West Inc. (2002) and Young et al. (2002). During the point count
surveys, in-transit observations were made of large birds and sensitive species while the observers
were in transit between observations points. In-transit observations were entered into a separate
database and analyzed separately. After analysis, these data were deemed not comparable to the point
count data. Therefore, the in-transit observation data were only used in a general way to augment the
species composition and richness information for the avian study areas.

Yearlong Avian Point Count Survey

For the yearlong avian point count survey, 11 circular plots, each with a radius of 1,970 feet (600
meters), were established on Cotterel Mountain, and each plot was surveyed for 20 minutes at weekly
intervals between November 26, 2002 and November 23, 2003 (Figure 3.2-3; TBR 2004).
Approximately 17.3 hours of observations were made at each circular point count station through the
four seasons for an entire year. All birds, including raptors, passerines, corvids, upland gamebirds and
other species were recorded and when possible, ocular estimates of flight height of these birds were
also recorded. In addition, flight paths of large birds were mapped. Data were recorded on data sheets,
entered into a database, and analyzed. Flight paths were digitized into a Geographical Information
System coverage layer.

Observational data was compiled for each point count location. For the yearlong avian point count
survey, 84 species of birds were identified. Species observed are listed in the Technical Baseline
Reports for Biological Resources report prepared by the Applicant’s consultant for the Proposed
Project (TBR 2004). Table 3.2-5 lists the avian groups and their subtotals. The averages of bird use
varied geographically among the yearlong point count survey plots. Near the north end of Cotterel
Mountain, plots 7, 8, and 9, had the highest average use, while near the south end of the mountain,
plots 2, 11, and 12 had the lowest average use (Figure 3.2-4). By season, the number of species
observed, along with percent of total birds observed for each season were:

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-30

Figure 3.2-3. Avian Survey Plot Locations.

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Legend

_| Avian Survey Plot Locations Interstate

’*'• ■* Transmission Lines “■■■ Major Roads

L_j.Project Area Other Roads

|._ J Alt. B Interconnect ROW

Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

• Winter, with 21 species and 22 percent of total birds observed;

• Spring, with 62 species and 30 percent of total birds observed;

• Summer, with 66 species and 23 percent of total birds observed; and

• Fall, with 49 species and 25 percent of total birds observed.

During the yearlong avian point count survey, the most abundant avian groups identified during all
seasons were as percentages of total number of birds:

• Passerines, 68 percent (31 percent were finches);

• Raptors, 15 percent (observations of: 131 turkey vultures, 123 red-tailed hawks, and 119
northern harriers);

• Corvids, ten percent (mostly common ravens);

• Upland gamebirds, about two percent (about one percent sage-grouse); and

• A variety of other groups for the remaining five percent.

25

i

>

0 )

3

1/5

T3

i—

'a

Q>

</>

15

20

Point Count Station

Figure 3.2-4. Avian Use by Point Count Station.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-32

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3.2-5. Avian Abundance During Yearlong Point Counts in the Cotterel Study Area.

Group Name
Common Name

Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall

Total

# ind

# obs

# ind

# obs

#ind

# obs

# ind

# obs

# ind

# obs

Corvids

48

41

118

86

92

41

264

80

522

248

Doves

0

0

13

8

48

33

3

3

64

44

Gulls

0

0

52

5

0

0

15

1

67

6

Other

2

2

38

31

51

42

20

18

113

93

Passerines

1028

79

1009

321

676

460

711

177

3424

1037

Raptors

American Kestrel

0

0

9

9

37

35

18

17

64

61

Bald Eagle

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

Cooper's Hawk

0

0

1

1

0

0

11

11

12

12

Ferruginous Hawk

0

0

2

2

1

1

0

0

3

3

Golden Eagle

8

7

9

9

10

7

5

5

32

28

Merlin

0

0

2

2

0

0

2

2

4

Northern Goshawk

0

0

2

2

0

0

3

3

5

5

Northern Harrier

4

4

72

65

33

31

21

19

130

119

Prairie Falcon

0

0

5

4

9

8

1

1

15

13

Red-tailed Hawk

1

1

38

29

57

50

47

43

143

123

Sharp-shinned Hawk

0

0

2

2

2

1

13

13

17

16

Swainson's Hawk

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

Turkey Vulture

0

0

80

40

138

81

13

10

231

131

Unknown Buteo

0

0

3

3

2

2

69

2

74

7

Unknown Raptor

1

1

0

0

2

2

5

4

8

7

Raptor subtotal

14

13

225

168

291

218

210

132

740

531

Upland Gamebirds

Chukar

6

1

17

16

17

10

12

12

52

39

Gray Partridge

0

0

1

1

0

0

3

1

4

2

Sage-Grouse

0

0

19

4

1

1

12

3

32

8

Upland Gamebird

6

1

37

21

18

11

27

16

88

49

subtotal

Total All Birds

1098

136

1492

640

1176

805

1250

427

5018

2008

Passerines were consistently the most abundant group observed during all four seasons, with winter
use being significantly higher than the other seasons. One half of the passerines (52 to 55%) that were
observed during the point count surveys were estimated to fly at a height within the rotor-swept area
of the three proposed turbine types (TBR 2004). It should be noted that while avian surveys on
Cotterel Mountain indicate that approximately one half of the birds are flying within the rotor swept
area of the turbine blades, not all of these birds would be expected to be killed as they would be able
to fly through the rotor swept area without being hit (See Section 4.6.4).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-33

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Raptor sightings were similar during the spring, summer, and fall surveys (ranged from 1.49 to 1.89
birds per plot), but declined during the winter (to 0.18 birds per plot). Turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk
and northern harrier were the three species with highest use of the area during spring and summer.
Sixty-two to seventy-eight percent of raptors were estimated to fly at a height within the rotor-swept
area of three proposed turbine types (TBR 2004).

Of the corvids, the common raven was consistently one of the top two species with highest use of the
plot areas during all seasons. High percentages (65 to 76%) of Corvids were estimated to fly at a
height equal to the rotor-swept area of three different turbine types (TBR 2004).

Three groups of upland game birds were observed during the yearlong avian point count survey: the
chukar (52 observed), the gray partridge (four observed), and the sage-grouse (32 observed). The
greater sage-grouse is the only native species of the three. Low to moderate percentages (six to 56%)
of upland game birds were estimated to fly at a height within the rotor-swept area of three different
turbine types (TBR 2004).

Other avian groups observed included: two small flocks of migrating California gulls and two small
flocks of ring-billed gulls, both flocks observed during the spring; and a single flock of 15 American
white pelicans observed during the fall.

Of the small birds observed during the yearlong avian point count survey, gray-crowned rosy finches
and Townsend’s solitaire had the highest plot area use during fall and winter, while the rock wren,
mountain bluebird, western meadowlark, American robin, spotted towhee, vesper sparrow, violet-
green swallow, chipping sparrow, dark-eyed junco, and Brewer’s sparrow had the highest plot area
use during spring and summer. The species with the highest plot area use generally had the highest
frequency of occurrence during the yearlong avian point count surveys (except for the gray-crowned
rosy finch).

Fall Migration Survey

For the fall migration plot survey, 18 plots, each with a radius of 3,280 feet (one kilometer), were
established on Cotterel Mountain, and each plot was surveyed for 30 minutes, six days a week, from
mid-August to mid-October 2003 (TBR 2004; Figure 3.2-5). The data were similar to the yearlong
avian point count survey, but only raptors, large birds of interest, and threatened or endangered or
sensitive (TES) species were recorded.

For the fall migration plot survey, 49 species of birds were identified. Species observed are listed in
the Technical Baseline Reports for Biological Resources report prepared by the Applicant’s
consultant (TBR 2004). Table 3.2-6 lists the avian groups and their subtotals. Use by plot area varied
from 5.5 birds per survey at plot 15, to 22.4 birds per survey at plot 11. Plots 8, 9, 11, and 13 had the
highest plot area use, while plots 4, 6, 12, and 13 had the lowest plot area use.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-34

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.2-5. Fall Migration Survey
Plot Locations.

Legend

Fall Migration Survey Areas • Transmission Lines

Fall Migration Survey Points Interstate

_ Major Roads

^Project Area Other Roads

(_ J Alt. B Interconnect ROW

^ J 1 Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW

c

<D

E

c

8

>

c

UJ

~o

Q)

U

<

o

00

8

t

o

U

Q.

3

O

u.

3}

■S 5

; c/3

X .2^

—i O

3 <L>

O S*

„* u.

-M-l

~ 3

L- O

I s.

t: co
o l-
cl o
o —

& co

d, ^

o> "O

.c ’>

4 -* . JL

c/3 "O
— C
C •-
o 0>
\c c
•55 °
o to
2“ «
E J>
o

O C3

4 > .3

E •§

u'-o
> «
£ >>
3 1)

Z £

° g

Cl , (/3

& o

On CL,
"O cr

> «
c <«-
1 > o

-O C

o .2

a. t:

3 O
O C.
tr n O

3 ) i—
_ O.
O w

C/3

rt

.2i

3

C/3

L>

CL

C/3

O

—

c

3

3

<y

O

L>

tS

<i2

CO

4-N

CL

C

1>

co

O

o

u,

<L>

CL

C/3

CO

3

“O

CL

3

O

tlli

-3

u.

c

o

L—

o

C/3

S-,

o

s

<D

-O

o-

E

C/3

u.

3

3

C

3

0>

o

3)

3

’£

—

3

<U

>

CL

3

3

<L>

>%

-3

X)

C/3

•3

3

<D

C/3

“O

*c

CL

C/3

C/3

E

P

•_

o

CL

<D

X

-o

D

0)

C/3

g

0>

1)

C/3

C/3

D

X

o

C

<U

u

c/5

c/5

3

ND

00

i

00

e

<D

E

c

8

>

c

UJ

o

L_

Q

»o

o

o

CN

X

O

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

The most abundant avian groups as percentages of total number of raptors, large birds of interest, and
TES species identified during the fall migration period were:

• Corvids, 46%;

• Raptors, 29%;

• Passerines, 17%;

• Doves, 6%; and

• Upland game birds, 2%.

The common raven was the most frequently observed species, accounting for 54 percent of
observations during the fall migration plot survey. Other species observed in more than five percent
of the surveys included the northern harrier (30%), American kestrel (22%), turkey vulture (19%),
sharp-skinned hawk (15%), and Cooper’s hawk (15%).

Daily mean raptor use ranged from 0.6 to 8.3 raptors per 20-minute survey, with day-to-day
variations in numbers (Figure 3.2-6). This pattern is typical of fall raptor migration.

Figure 3.2-6. Mean Daily Raptor Use During Fall Migration

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-37

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

High percentages (66 to 70%) of corvids were estimated to fly at a height equal to the rotor-swept
area of three different turbine types.

Moderate to high percentages (54 to 62%) of raptors were estimated to fly at a height equal to the
rotor-swept area of three different turbine types.

Moderate to high percentages (60 to 62%) of passerines were estimated to fly at a height equal to the
rotor-swept area of three different turbine types.

Moderate to high percentages (43 to 87%) of doves were estimated to fly at a height equal to the
rotor-swept area of three different turbine types.

No upland game birds were estimated to fly at a height equal to the rotor-swept area of three different
turbine types.

Raptor Nest Survey

A raptor nest survey was conducted during May and June 2003 to evaluate the numbers and
distribution of nesting raptors that may be potentially influenced by the Proposed Project (TBR
2004). Two helicopter aerial surveys, along with ground surveys were used to locate active raptor
nests within a raptor nesting area defined by a two-mile buffer surrounding the outermost edge of the
proposed turbine strings.

A total of 21 active and 20 inactive raptor nests were identified in the raptor nesting area surveyed.
Nine nesting species were identified: golden eagle, turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk,
ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, prairie falcon, short-eared owl, and great homed owl. Figure 3.2-7
is a map of raptor nests active during the 2003 raptor nest survey. Based on observations made during
the 2003 aerial and ground surveys, the sharp-shinned hawk, American kestrel, and bam owl probably
also nested in the study area. The cliffs on the east side of Cotterel Mountain provide nesting habitat
for golden eagles, prairie falcons, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, and bam owls. The
ferruginous and Swainson’s hawk nests were generally at lower elevations to the east and mostly two
miles or farther from Cotterel Mountain.

Nocturnal Bird Migration Survey

A radar study of bird migration was conducted during August and October 2003 (ABR 2004). Radar
observations were collected for about 6 hours per night on 30 nights within the 45-day study period.
The baseline information collected included flight direction, migration passage rates, and flight
altitude of nocturnal passerine migrants.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-38

a

/

i

4\

ion

ft

yT~rH-

l_y p I A—j

td

Ih

%

X

/ i

7 r- ^

V

-1

j

\

h

VTY

n_

/

Species:

IT

«

Northern Harrier

•

Sharp-Shin Hawk

▲

Ferriginous Hawk

■

Golden Eagle

•

Red-tailed Hawk

•

Swanson's Hawk

#

Common Raven

#

Turkey Vulture

o

Owl Species

*

Prarie Falcon

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.2-7. Active Raptor Nests.

T~N

Legend

*'• “ Transmission Lines =

Nest survey area """"

[_I*| Project Area

(_. Alt. B Interconnect ROW

„ | Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW

Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

/

/

4

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

The results of the radar study showed:

• A south, southeast average flight direction;

• A variable migration passage rate ranging from two to 210 targets per 0.62 mile (one
kilometer) per hour, with an average rate of 32 targets per 0.62 mile (one kilometer) per
hour;

• An overall average nocturnal flight altitude of 1,854 feet (565 meters) above ground
level; and

• On low ceiling cloud nights, avian flight altitude decreased with statistical significance in
relationship to the cloud height.

About 700 to 3,700 nocturnal migrating birds were estimated to pass through the rotor-swept zone of
the proposed turbines during the 45-day study period.

3.2.3 Special Status Species, Including Endangered, Threatened, Candidate Sensitive and
Watch List Species

The ESA protects listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their critical
habitats. To ensure compliance with the ESA, a BA analyzing the effects of the Proposed Project on
Federally Listed and candidate species is being prepared and will be available for public review.
USFWS was contacted to initiate informal consultation and to obtain a list of Federally Listed species
potentially present within and adjacent to the Proposed Project area. The USFWS response indicated
that the bald eagle and gray wolf are the only TES species that may occur in or adjacent to the
Proposed Project area (USFWS 2003). USFWS routinely requests that BFO provide ecosystem level
management and consider the following species and their habitats in project planning and review:
pygmy rabbit, spotted bat, Townsend’s big eared bat, California bighorn sheep, cliff chipmunk,
western pipistrelle, little pocket mouse, kit fox, American white pelican, northern goshawk, prairie
falcon, ferruginous hawk, Greater sage-grouse, loggerhead shrike, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow,
grasshopper sparrow, western toad and common garter snake (Moroz 2004). In addition, observation
records obtained from the CDC provided a list of state sensitive species that occur on or adjacent to
the Proposed Project area. A list of BLM sensitive species that could potentially occur within or
adjacent to the Proposed Project area was also provided. Table 3.2-7 presents information on special
status species known or suspected to occur within the Proposed Project area.

The federal Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 CFR 668-668c) prohibits the taking possession, purchase,
sale, barter, transport, export, or import of any bald or golden eagle or any part, nest, or egg of a bald
or golden eagle, except for certain scientific, exhibition, and religious purposes. Eagle permit
regulations are found in 50 CFR 22.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-40

c

0)

E

c

2

5

c

Uj

~o

a>

u

<

00

u

o

CL.

L.

<u

£

o

Q-

~o

c

§

0

0

fc

o

u

03

0

U

<

•+H

u

0

’©*

u

Ph

■O

<o

o

a

o

u

Ph

0

-B

<u

(J

a

0

u

Ln

9

(J

(J

o

B

o

o

PH

s-

o

a

£

o

co

*3

a

C/3

.0

VI

3

UH

C3

H*

C/3

."S

*S

0

a

C/3

•

t"-

fs

fS

0

3

C3

H

0

0

B

0

s—

u

3

0

0

o

■a

o

o

JB

a

0

a

0

*3

o -

0

a

01

SB

V)

3

•HH

C3

•M

C/3

0

E

03

B

0

C

•c

s

# 0

*0

C/3

B

O

E

E

o

U

CO

"3

CS

o

3

3

o

O

.2

o5

00

03

o

~a

0

TP

'—

o

o

0

t-i
-*—»
o

£

09

0

* 8

1 3
3 0

b 8

0

>

03

< 4-1

O 0
1 - X>
0 ^

3

C

0

tp

J3

7j

3

co

t-

3

0

CU

0 ,

3

3

O

X 3
03 X>

g -c

X .2

.2 73
r~! • **

> p
0 3 +J

W)S c
c 2 0

5 tfH 3

0

0 -2
6 -3

£4 r*,

0

bo

t-

03

03

0

.3

3

CT

0

a, 0
03 tp

t- , _ „

&o (u
O

Cl, £

51

0

t-

,0

0

2 3 a

03 —

^ 3 c

- - 0 0

3 -4-> 03 CC3

U BJ M •-

0 0 0 3

'3333
0 pG O O

(JLh H 3 3

03

3

3,

5f

3

CJ

< 4-1

o

£

aJ

Uh

a

0

in

0

c

3

UP

0

<2 o

o -S
§ *
3- 3

<U

> <b
O O

X) 03

3 3

03 O

s *5

<u _2

i-. ^

<2 a

co 2

3 &

o 0

I- -3

,0 X>

<4-1 3

O

o

03

t:

o

3

3

3

co

O tD
3

o

o «3
3

3 .2

3 -3

E 5
•c 0

Ph 73

3

O

3

<4-4

O

co

3

0

Ih

3

32

00

3

O

0

03

in

0

3,

03

3

O

*

03

3

O

O

o

3

O

* «’
>4 .tJ

J=-§

H 32

"O

■>. 0
X' 3
"3 0

Ih 3
0 0
-3 b
0 32
Ph H

03

3

<4}

a

<3

O

03

0

I

£

3 ,

0

0

TP

0

3.

3,

0

4-4

CO

X

C/0

rs

<N

0

H

**■* r

bo -52

i S
•t §
5 1

oq ^2

x

x

03

E

bO

34

0 .§
0 1—1

W > 0

3 ^ 32
0 3^

0 8 §
S--S S

IS J2 §

0 ffl ^

2 «i g

.•3 e «

3 ^ n

1/3^0

o u

^ 7 * a>

.2 2

3 ^
0 -O

h 3C

<4H

o

o 0
.0 03

3

O

03
O T3

3- d

3 P 0

§£-§
0 S 2
c

cb .ti .3
0

0

5 b}

3

00

CO

3

O

>.

3

3

O

03

3

3

44

3

3

O

6

T3

•C

3

t:

0

03

0

-a

0

co

m

0

&

H

•2

03

3

-2 Q
^ R
2 - Q
a F

^ <2
•5 •3'.

O 3

0

0

.2 -S

6 g
cO g
X -B
73 2p
U x

O B
fe 8

3 Ph

0 73
§ 8
o o

>4 34

3 O

co

0

bO

3

-o

3

0

3

V3

bO

• S

T3

1 ■■ *

• ^

3

X

oT

0

>

3

o

3 44
■52 3

.2 ^

I 8

o

0 >

S3 ^

03

o >
c2 o

m

0

H

03 "2
%* s.
“ cu
03

c

O

3

3

S;

T3

•G

3

c/T

bo

c

3

X

,co

>4-4

O

3

co

0 03

0 0
•h* 03

> b
0 3
0 o
0 0

J2

0

cd

u<

<U 03

C/5 QJ

8 S
” 3
0 -0

•O 09*“

g 3
3 O

03 .3;
0 "O
> 3

3

U

■3"

0

ft

H

Si

03

3
£

.-4 £

P 4 ^

^0

E "0
0 h
t? .2

0 D.

^ s.

3

0

3

0

0

TP

0

03

o

Cl.

o

u

Pu

3

"3

0

4-4

3

0

E

3

0

o

Q

03

0

3

'5.

< 4-1

o

to

0

bo

T3

0

Ih

0

T3

3

3

to

0

3.

O

0

O 4

0

3

'S-

3

O

>.

3

Ph

3"

0

ft

•52

a

o

03

a

3

3

£

o.

x

o

JM

<4H

u

3

0

03

0

Ih

34

4-4

3

4-4

X

3

-3

0

•2 «

■S P

'3 3

v: h-4

• *^r>
cd O

• •—< H

3 ft-
0 *t3

O

eu

0

to

3 34

0 Mh
O 3

S i

0

to

»

3

14 P

r>.

— .£
73 cp

£ *o

S 3 0

22 0

"3

0

k>

0

>

o

0

co

3

0

to

oT

2

O

ad

O

TD

C

03

rS

T3

03 ^

c/5 X)

• ^ (D

8 9^

3- 03 (U

o O o.
0

CO

TP

3

3

to

>4

0

3

3

w •§

.. 2 3
0 X 03
—“0 0
3 aa £

> 3 - b
03 3-

Tf

0

ft

H

r

03 r~*

-I ^

S <43

§>.|
E So
^ S

Qh -2

0

xc

o

o

°* 0
0 03

.3 O

hJ £

3

0

C/5

<u

h

CX

-*-H

03
■*—»

• hH

X
3
—2
^0
3

3

• *H

D

C/5

03 O

• IH U

3 0-

0 Tp

-_ 1 —

3

0

3

3

O

PU

0
CO

O

. 3.

3 3

8 0 -

O 3

-22
S 0

0

3 ,

3 ,

0

TP

3

3

"3

3

,2

03

03

3

u

o

[N

3-

0

H

8

- 4 *

<43

CO

<43

X

a

c

0

03

0

X

3

J2

0

•g 3
2 0

3

b>

^5 o

• »—< Uh

3 ft-

^ -8
CO

O
3.

3 2

° Ph
0 ^

O 3

S

O

Ph

CO

3

0

Ih

3

"O

■C

3

co

bo

a

3

x

0

c

3

a

of

0

>

3

u

tr>

0

ft

H

03

3

<u

K

<3

S

S

■52

-3

O

o

>4

E

3

£

3

>-

0 8

^ Yi

+—• <D
'P »-

.£ cu

o
• ^

>

3

0
o
3
0

fc

Is

O >4
3 .2

0 -3
£ 0

-3 ^

UU Oh

3

3

-3

0

a

Ph

Q

H PU

0 ^3

8 8
O o

^ 2-
3 c

3

0

c

3

0

0

'o

Ih

Ph

TP

0

03

O

Q.

cT

u.

PU

3

IE

£ £

CO

bO

3

3

X

TP

3

3

O

—

3

to

3

0

3

03
0
>
T3 3
0 O

CO >v

0 —

<2 S
^•i

3 3
a
o
o

-

(S

0

ft

H

o

<43

.<<1

■»*Hk

o

TP

0

Ih

3

03

(30 '-g
3 3

3 b

►J £

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 1

c

CD

E

c

o

v_

>

c

LU

~o

_<D

u

tg

<c

o

00

u

cd_

o

Cl.

CD

£

O

Q_

~o

c

I

CD

i—

CD

X

O

U

03

41

j-

<

u
4>

o

u

Cm

TJ

01

C/5

o

Q.

O

s-

Ch

o

-C

a>

o

a

o

L

L

41

a

o

73

"lj

C

ci

•L*

O

PH

X*

o

c

£

o

c/i

.41

'3

4i

a

C/3

.4)

c/i

03

■H-

C/3

."S

"3

41

a

C/3

■

n

CO

41

3

S3

H

41

a

01

L

!m

3

o

o

c

4-

O

-o

©

©

JS

vs

©

X

CIS

a

.0

”-C

.2

*3

©

C/3

C/5

C/D

+■*

C

a>

E

41

u

‘3

a-

©

C*

—

03

—

3

03

32

C/I

3

■L*

03

C/3

41

E

03

fl

o

C

•-C

3

.4)

*3

C/3

0

E

41

a

E

c

a

0

a

u

o

£

3

c

<u

co

(U

•r« ©

> x

0C3

on

(U

(50

X

jl)

X

O

O

l

c

• —H

C/3

(U

o

• hh
>
(U
Ll
O

1/3

-*—►
©
X
o
o
cx

©

6

C/3

czf

CO

.3

2

3

PP

wo

cu

&

H

03

c

©

—

O

L

o

is

X

<U

CO

CO

(U

T 2

CO ~

© P
o p

2 6

4-1 X
O 3
<u

>o K

-i-> <u

3 s.

O y
>

■S •§

X

CU

I

<u

o

©

CU

6

©

o

o

o

I

C

(U

6

2

w

0

(x,

B

©

o

o

o

©

s

3

09

>% ©

©3 cu

.2 S3

c tj
2 ©

° 'O’
CL l,

X *
o X
cu (U

'd? 03
2 °
£ s*

^ o
-a

<u CL

o c
9-3

O +3
Oh £

-2

©

- ©
03 ©

© 2

b 1
Wh ^

2 X

2 ©

0 .2

x 0
© 0
cd 00

. , 03

U

GO j>%

2 T3

c« <U
CU C
CO «

xi O

<U

C/3

<U

O

’>

<U

l

o

£
o
o

L

X

a d u

^4-C

d

cd

o

(Z3

o

s 2

o

o

C/3

Ih

<U

'cd

m

<D

&

H

« 5

s a

2

^3

s

CJ

Q

cd

-O

T3

(U

C

o

cx

C/3

C*_i Hi

n ©
w cu

^ 8

;a &.

o *-*
•>.-§

•S •§

rd

o (u

5 3
§.5
B S

0 2 S
© .2 ^
2 « -

6 S g

- o

w 2 2
O h ^

rT o x)

W X) <U

lJ • C/3

H 2 o

L £ O-
© ^ O

0^2
H u PL

o g ©

&&!
2 £ '5

cu

C

It

O

C/3

CO

c

©

X>

J2

O

o

v_

.3

03

<U

O

'>

(U

l-

o

cu

03

cd

CU

Ui

cd

xl

<U 03

> P

cd

U &

<u

£

H

a

<u

•S

©

L,

■—1 03

cd •

IS.

E ^

<U XI

t« 0

CU o

C/3

TJ

L

s

X)

CU

03

O

cx

o

l_

CL

©

a

©

o

o

o

x)

<U

-i->

©

cu

3

©

o

o

'T©

03

CU

•

0

cu

CX

03

cd

X

O

X

cd

cu

u,

cd

-*-*

0

CU

CU

i ©

O 1-1

c/3 Cl

03

2

o

(U

CX

03

CU

X

C

©

<

CU

i_

cd

cd

X

o

£:<

2 &

T-i cd cd

x feb 2
o a h
2 2-0
u 2
•2 PQ

o

s-

cx

<u

2

2

CO

©

o

©

-»-*

cd

CO

>%

cd

X

o

JJ

Id

cu
2
cd
2
-*—»
cd

00 cd

cu <u

Z, S3

x

o

,0

2

03

U

O

©

©

-!->

03

•

X

CO

c

o

03

cU

03

<u

cd

cu

CO

H

2

c

'3

o

O

l> a
2 2
SS .SP
£ 3

<N

<U

&

H

to

O

-c

©

s;

03

§ 2

©

^ b

a, 35

(U

X

c

©

03

©

CU

!-.

©

CO

cu

-*-»

.3

>>

•E

©

cu

©

o

o

o

03

©

cu

3

©

o

o

Q

03

CO

c

1

• 4 -*

C/3

0

C

©

Li

<U

>

o

c

o

2

cd

o

f

,0

■ 4-1

a/

"cd

^3

03

IX

c

o

03

<u

CO .

© 03

Li tC
O ©

C*H ■” J
- JD

SS 2
£
2 *S

2 ^
> -c
2 5

X

-P C
X

© -I—*

L ©
(U <U
X b
iu >-©
Ll H

03

a

03 a

v cx

g} o
.Q o
©
a
©

2

’&b

©

<U

X

"©

PQ

<u

■s

x

CO

©

o

cu

©

Li

CO

>3

©

X

o

o

"©

cu

©

2

-*-»

©

03

to Cd

(U <u

Z S3

03

CU

X

03

S3

c/D

<L>

cd

C/D

<D

a

o

o

o

IU

03

o

o

03

cu

z

CN

<D

ft

H

L

©

.Co

03

a

*

K

* H

5

2

(U

4 —*

X

o

2

5

•S

X

CU

4-> #

3 d
5a U

♦-H

cd

4 -»

.2 8

© ’o’

CU Li

o ^

**8
lJ c/d

© o

o CX

o o
0 2
o ^

-♦-» c
X ■©
(U X

-I-* —■

©

<u

3
©

o

o

Q

©

cu

03

CU

~?z

CU

n

cu

&

H

03

a

©

L

©

a

03

a

o

bo

©

o

1 1 1
©
(U

L

O

PP

X

<u

03

o

CX

o

Li

Cl

©

2

I

o

o

o

4 —*

cd

4 ->

• *“H

X

©

X

cu

I

4 -*

• ^

©

1/5 ©
>3 (U

•-H -*-»

X 0

C cu
cu -X,
X o

O Li

CL CL

03

©

■i->

X

©

X

(U

.3

2*

"©

x

©

©

cu

CX

CX

IU

C/l

IN

co

41

&

H

L

©

£

£

~C3

©

.N

* Kk
&

03

-u £
g O

| fc
P ©
2 cx
PP 03

X

<U

03

o

CX

o

©

41

03

<u

Li
CX
-*—»

©

■!->

• rX

X

©

X

41

I

4 -*

• H

d

w ©•
>N 41

•i-H -I—*

X ©

© <U

cu -X,

X O

O L,

Cl Cl

03

o

• rH

cd

C/D

O

6

G

cd

«/D

cd

C/D

<D

Wh

2

c

©

00

41

©

’S’

a

©

a

a

i~-i

©

GO

X

2

X

(50

P c
o'|

a g
© ©

U x

©

4-»

• —H

•s

X

2

x

©

• H
©

M ©
41

=3 *3

•-H -4—*

X ©
© m
<u •©,
X o

O L
CL CL

.3

C/D

G

<U

H

0

C/D

>N

"cd

•g

J-H

(U

4-»

2

X

• G

X

T3 G

©

©

CJ

C/D

©

0

• 1“H
4—»

G

0

L

CUD

GO

G

X

c

0

0

• #>

0

4 —*

C/D

03

P

V-H

x"

,0

c

«4-H

2

C/D

G

O

V-H

X

0

0

4h

£

03

cu

41

X

©

o

03

c
.0
X—»
©

o

o

cx

o

a 3 <u

o

© .
CXp

So -C
2 cu ©
O x cx

IN

wo

CU

&

H

l>3

a

©

-S •

g .5

« ^

r 3 «

O ©

x

o

©

03

03

©

o

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-42

c

<D

E

c

2

>

c

LU

~D

0)

U

tS

<

o

00

<D

a

03

X

0

U

03

©

u

<

■*-

©

«

*5*

L.

Pm

■o

©

cd

O

a

o

u

Pm

V

X

©

©

a

©

s-

s-

3

©

u

o

.*2

■w

e

©

-MJ

©

Pm

L*

©

a

£

©

cd

.©

'3

©

a

cc

.©

CD

3

03

■*M

C/3

."S

‘3

©

a

C/3

1

rs

fO

©

X

C3

H

©

©

c

©

3

©

©

O

•—

©

~o

©

©

j=

CD

a

# ©

T3

ja

‘3

©

CD

CD

<

C/D

fi

a>

2

©

”3

CT|

©

CS

X

cs

ffi

CD

3

■+*

03

-M

C/3

©

s

as

3

©

s

’-C

3

_©

"3

C/3

s

©

S

£

o

V

T3

©

CD

O

x

o

a

X

©

!£

c

©

09

U

©
• >X

a3

3

cd

M ©•

>-. ©

'p c
S X

cd

<D

a

a

X

^ S3

g

© ©

(x

cd

-o

©

• 11 1-1

a L>

P Q}

© -3a

P "9

3 °

0 &

0

<D

•

CD

0

X

■p 0

0 0

O

O

O a

ir »-m

u-

a

X X

Q x

Qh

X

"T3

g

cd

*00

C/D

cd

H

bD

J2

<D

CO

<D

Cu

C/D

CN

m

<D

&

H

to

S ^ ft

■■a a 2
a K
3 cd a

§ §1

III

r?S "« O

h 13 , u

T3

©

CD

O

x

o

l-H

CL,

X

o

©

T3

©

o

-a

©

X

X >,

■4-*

C •© ^

©

©

©

©

t

©

©

©

O

x-*

c

©

E

©

bO

©

• H

CD

©

©

w

a

CL,

Q

x-*

‘2
• ^M

©

>

-a

©

©

T3

S

T3

a

cd

C/D

C/D

cd

t-M

bD

Um

<L>

>

O

C/D

<D

bD

cd

Uh

£

T3

C

©

o

l_

bfl

cS

X

CD a
© ©
© X

h -s

© _c
o

©

2 CL

CD Q.
© ©
Z CD

©

&

H

- "O

5 <u

© —-1

x ’©

© V ©

I & ©

° jc £

CJ co bD

«3

bO

a

SL.

o

a

-*X

3S

DQ

©

©

C

©

CD

©

©
a

£

©

X

_©

3
2
G

C/D

°

4v a>

.2 2

© ^
« *o

o ©
CL| o
. • CL
© 2

8 ^

o c

© .ti

2 I

bO

C

on

d

T3

cd

C

X- *

G

O

3

c2

0

3

CO

X-*

CO

©

X

<D

u

O

G

X-*

«xb

CO

ix

c2

O

2

•a

CO

0

©

bD

a

3

©

a

cd

X

CO

0

u

0

43

cd

CO

G

p

CO

u

G

X)

x-»

<D

CO

C

<D

Uh

H

O

f O

CO

I-.

©

4 —*

CD

©

C

>

©

U

CD

©

CL

O

)->

©

CL

CL

©

©

C

©

4 —*

c

o

2

X! *2

^ C/D
^ (U

© to)

•S ^

CL C

<D

&

H

CO

3

o

©

©

o

o

T3

©

©

©

2

©

o

o

Q

©

-4—*

• r-M

X
©

XI

c

©

CL

O

L-

©

>

o

CD

©

bO

©

Lh

«r

©

©

<£2

x

73

©

o

CD

4—*

CD

©

W o
T3 -2 m

To 2 o
PQ CL, <

CD

o

§

-s;

o

a

s

CS’

'bh

©

W

c

©

'o

a

’O

©

CD

o

CL

o

©

5

c

3

co

©

©

■©

o

a

o

*o

©

©

©

2

©

©

L.

©

4—*

o

©

©

o
o

Q PL

©

CL

CL

<u

T3

G

cd

'■a

a

3

CO

co

cd

u

o

m

<D

&

H

Co

a

5

5

o

a

L.

a

a

K

a

>

a

09

©

CL

CL

O

X

CD

CD

©

Ih

o

o

fc

©

CL

CD

©
©
H
©
• 4-"

© ©
© ©

o

©

"O

©

CD

O

T3

©

CD

O

CL

O

CL C
O

©
o
©
©

fc
©
o
©

o

©

©

Lh

CL,

• S

©

©

o

T3

©

»

©

©

2

© _

0 Cl
o S

w

O

*o

T3

C

©

CD

©

l-i

b0

J2

©

CD

©

>4

-2

CL

CD

m

©

&

H

CD Oj

a s
p a
a q

© J2
o bs
a -a

a &

£

O a

©

b0

©

CD

Wm

© ©
CD
©
o

t-c

bO

©

©

l,

o

T3

©

CD

O

CL

O

Li

CL

©

■5

c

3

CD

©

c

S3

©

©

o

-o

©

+-*

c
©

2

©

©

o -

Q Ph

■5 b

'> CL

^ .2,
e

© O
CL

CD g

CL

c
©
CL
O

CD

Li

©

CD
©

8 rt

© ^
8 Z

i o

CO

<D

Wm

,2

To

o

>c •

'I &

co co

33 «

CD O "©

> s
© ©

©

M’S

(U o

cd J3 O
ffi J3 ^

cn

©

&

H

<D

a

a

a

a

o

©

T3

^©

©

V ©
C ©
© X

© ^
o

O

td

©

CD

o

CL

O

©
X
1—»

c

3

CD

©

c

T3

©

©

o

©

o

T3 ©
© J?

-*-> <U

g %

2 ©

© ©

o 'p 1

Q £

C/D

cd

+->

X

©

X

©

CL

CL

©

C/3

m

©

&

H

tD

a

a

a

§ I

1 "§

T3

©

©

X

a

© ©

bfl

b0

9 ^

X CD

©

©

a ’
CL ^

©

CL

CL

©

T3

C

©

T3

C

-2

CD

©

a

o

IN

©

&

H

I

»3

a

a

a

.a

a

a

T3

©

bD ©

^ uJ

2 3

X o

©

©

>>*;

m Cl

CD

©

a

O

X

©

a

5

cd

2

m

<D

&

H

.CD

M«4
’ *«•»

a

a

bo

a

a

.in

!§,

a

a

P x
© ^
X ©

t3 -p

o

bO

O

Z

Mo/ 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-43

c

<D

E

c

2

>

c

UJ

~o

-2

u

eg

<

00

u

<D_

o

CL_

i_

CD

£

O

CL.

~o

C

§

CD

I

O

U

cd

o

L.

<

(J

<u

"o

u

■o

a>

e/>

O

a.

o

s-

k

<D

JS

a>

u

a

a>

u

u

ss

u

a

o

a

CD

©

PH

u

©

a

£

o

c*>

# a>

*c

p

a

C/5

.O

CM

3

■H-

03

C/5

73

‘C

cu

a

C/5

fO

<d

03

H

o

-a

o

o

JB

"3

CM

a

.©

*-£-

• 2
'G
o

CM

CM

CM

a

a>

cr

o

■w

03

•*->

03

DC

CM

P

03

■4-t

C/5

cu

E

03

C

cu

Ip

•p

p

_cu

’G

C/5

P

© ©

£ £
£ «
© s

U

a

<D

c/5

<u

Wh

CU

+-»

Cd

•4—*

03

43

jD

3

cd

-4->

• rH

P

CM

2

S3

CD

4—»

O

Oh

H

P

O

o

o

>o

P

a

CD

S

- £

w ••§

y o

MU •.-<

P

P

o

D

'2

% k

O ^
5 P

CM

o’ O

u- cu

CU O

T3 Ph
p _

CM P

O •«
CU CD
O O

Cu

P

a

ID

i

3 3

P o

£ o

CM

_p

3

p

p

o

£

03

C

P

a

-4—>

O

c 2

CM

~o

p

P

T3

o

o

£

p

p

cu

o

s-

o

CM

P

Wc

o

k

"u 1/3

g g

•§ 1

p cr

p a
•s O

£ "
CM

CM P
■*-* •

1/3 -P
p 5

* 3

bi) <u
p p

3b -3

2 "3

o t-.

« B

P cd

2 C

* P

C/5 ^

C/5

<D

a>

Uh

W)

^ C/5

<D

cd

C/5

o £

Id Jp bO
§ w, '

P P

5 ^ -2

p « §
3 T3 cm

6 O W5

2 g p

<-b ^ cm

P

&

H

o

p

bo

s

"13

* »~H

P

3

3

o

p

p

ti

o

z

o

>.

E

b 0

CU

P

'M

IM
H

P

O

O

o

•4—*

cd

+->

1

P

2

I ^

S .2
£ >
S 8

cu o

Vh

P cu

o ^

8 8
° o

^4 CU
cd O

cd

4-*

IS

cd

-P

P

P

CU

o

u-

<u

>

o

CM

P

b 0

cd

Ui

c 2

tS

«

O

P

o

CM

-4->

CM

P

p

&

H

Co

3

3

c

bo

2 J

cu

^ 5

O 3

r « K
k, q

p

o

JU

!3

U-H

p

p

•2

bO

P

t-4

P

CU

cd

•9|1

p « u

'S. 2 •£
!r ° cu
B?x> -
p 2 op

P O (U
3 CM

or p cm

P -P CD

ci3 CM P
li Uh

cm 3 ^

CM o 1_

p o o
, O

d3

p

^ *3

T3

O P

o o

^ SS

i_ p

CD CM

• £U 6 J)

I - s

3 ’CJ

-C 3 p
p p

II

• P o

cu p

CM

x>

CM

p

z

£

CM

2 ^

■p O.

p .tr

bp p
cd -3

cm .P,

P

H

S

§ «
S Cl,

u u
o o
c

5 «

cd

■ ’—i

P

O

>4

P

CM

CM Xi p

P rB 'C

> cu
i 2 'C

T3
P
cd

%
o

£

P >S
P m

cd _o
cd" 2

P 1/3

> cd
2 ©
P "p

• S P
CU P
. ^ cd

' ^3
P
cd

CM

p

jd

O
O
£

cd o
O

•> c

p .2
CU C
•p aj

!•&

•S §

cu <2

C/5

H3

a>

(D

Vh

4^

Id

C

o ^2
• <— <
CM --3
cd

p -p
p g

O «S

cm" O
P *-
P 4-.

^ g

C3 P
cd in

4-4 ■ --j

U< CM

B £

P b>

P Uh

9 t o

CM 4-i

>n

p

k

05

3

-c>

o

CU

V.

s

o

p

.2

>

CM

P

P

2

p

CM

4—4

cd

4—»

•

P

d3

P3

P

P

CU

o

Uh

p

>

o

CM

P

bO

cd

U4

,0

^2

4U

• HH

'p

p

o

CM

4-*

CM

p

m

p

&

k

3
K
3
U
* »->*

O

tS

p

o

r3

4-4

p

;§

cd

P

■s

o

T3

P

cd

P

P

CU

CM

cd

CM

p

T3

P

CN

P

&

k

05
3
• ••>•»

Cl .'b

u 3
k

-s: u

rk S
CO C

8. k

2 p
V C3
13 8 ,

p

’M

■4—»

• ^

C/5

H

O

o

o

+-»

cd

■4—*

• hH

P

P

-P

P

-4—*

• ^

2

Z* cd

^ a>

■2 {3

-4—* CU

P ts

s •£>

cu o

H CU
3 -a

p

0

o

o

>4

p

CM

o

cu

o

p

4-4

JE>

p

-p

p

cu

cu

p

40

CO

p

&

k

<u

-Ci

.M

Cu

k

o

t

p

cu

CM

P

bO

P

40

P

P

CM

P

P

4—4

• rH

•s

-p

p

? p

s p

• *—<

^3 cd

C/5 -4-4

<D
* JT>

.2 2

p

p

__ 4 X

o

cu

p

CM

3 O

H

0 CU
o ^

O P
P ti

S 'E

p

p

C/5

P ,0

P

40

P

£

k

<>5

I §

0

cm

O

O

K

C3

K

O

P

-P

CM

P

P

bO

p

C/5

P

P

CM

P

P

4-4

• rH

•8

-p

p

? p
cd go

• - b

^3 Cd

C/5 4->

>^7 » cu

^2 '2 1
p k
T3
O P
« 1/3
cu o

U k
p 2
8 k
O P

w .-p

S I

p

cu

p

p

¥

o

>4

.£

cu

CM

p

cu

o

B o

5 §

■2 o

P c

-§ E

O

p

M

o

>4

-P

£ S

^ 2

■8 «
o — :

- p

fc

p

cu

_ p

Td -P

o o

if

8 5

2 CM
P

dd

o

o

CM

Td

^ 8
CM O

•0 2
P c
P o

CM

P

CM

P
P
T3

CM ^

P -P
O .p

£ ^

‘P 1/3

P P

o cu
o o

^ £
irt o
p o
p 2

p r

o

o

00

.5 40

C/5

E 2

p p
.p

+“* rlJ
Cd

C ^

3 ^

p o

§1

2P P
p p

^ X)
O

I

P

O
P
o o

C/5 O

c 2 .p

‘2

o

o

o

p

p

k rj
P CM
P p cP
M U ^
O UD O
-P b) O
p bO o

E 2 On"

40

P

k

3

s:

&

2

o

>

5^

C^

1 is

•&?
• P P

> ^

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-44

c

CD

E

c

2

5

c

Uj

~o

0)

u

4

o

oo

u

2.

2

Q_

U.

CD

£

o

o_

~0

C

CD

L.

CD

t

0

U

S3

0>

u

<

H-<

u

’©*

D.

0-

T3

<y

cm

©

D.

O

i-

ft.

4 1
JS

o

o

s

<u

D-

-

3

cj

(j

o

is

GH

a

CD

H->

o

Ph

i-

o

3

£

o

in

*3

4>

a

C/3

.4>

CM

3

+•<

C/3

©

a

C/3

C4

fO

©

S3

H

©

©

a

CD

i-

D.

3

©

o

o

0-

o

■a

o

o

js

«

<a
©
i_i

aj
-*—»

G <d
4> • rr>
c/5 O
ID l-i

G Qh

3 £

£ B.

s o

1-1 Dh

U ^ Ph

O

.©

'o’

l-H

Oh

T3

CD

C/3

O

CD

o

•S £

3 •S

?o

- £
c a

<u ”

S E s

.S

<D

O

G

(D

fc

G

o

o

o

Oh ©
. X3

§1
o c

O G
«J *s

s £

G

(D

B

v

* *

w H
p -a

Q -g

>—i >

©

’5

oi

©

—

-*H

S3

•G

S3

CM

3

v

S3

G

C/3

©

E

S3

3

©

53

r

3

.s

"3

C/3

3

©

E

E

©

U

CD

CD

CD

CD

T3

G

«

T3

G

-S

c/5

cd

G

a

rs

>05

ID

a

•

D.

Q

—H

s

CJ

•

K

a

CJ

<u

sc

-ST

£

o

GJ3

r- C

11

Cfl H

© u

£ i

Q

0

o

>>

I

4-»

o

£

<D

CZ)

r/T O

» f—i ^

^3 T3

CZ)

03

03 O

o a

<©

&

H

§*

c .»a

£ a
a -2

S *E3

u

o

O

2

G

CD

4—*

o

Oh

O

E oo

03

03

CZ)

v-/ C.VJ

c/i

fN

(U

&

H

a

K

^ a
c^o o
>i a

Ci, C5 h

> o

D

0*

CO

G

CM
*—*
-G
ao

w>

c

Ih

,o

D

W

T3

U

Ih

ca

ra

JS

-*—i

03

_D

G

O

CD

C/5

03

V

>~

U

2

u

D

CD

03

V

S3

-5

§

o

"O

c

3

XS

4>

03

o

G.

O

TJ

O

C3

Ih

o

~o

Q

U-

u

JS

<

00

w

V

H-H

U

"O

c

3

•o

D

o>

ao

c

'53

-O

«l-l

O

T3

O

o

-G

13

Gd

JS

bC

la

a

JS

<u

W)

c

CO

Ih

0>

JS

HH

3

O

_C

bO

3

O

Ih

-C

03

ti

a

§ =3

"O

O

03

o

CD

o

Ih

CD

<f

C/3

W

u

4a

4-*

<5

T3

C

33

T3

O

o

0>

T3

O

qu

1

(50

_c

'G

G

CD

•c

D

CD .

>< e

o

u

CD

_ CD
CO ,c0

HH Dh

to *s

r" C
•±3 CD
W5 P
CD C
'o u
D M
D_ S
c7T ^2

TJ
CZ) f=H

^ s

3 a

O 03
.£ £

I 11

CD c/2

<d r:

CD te

C c

s«

I *

51

CD G

a .is

•- ID

r= JS
03 +-»

I 2

•— D
> G

^ a
d a

Of cS

c Tt

CO CD

JS
CO
<U
V
c/5

H <hd

ts

D

V

■S

c

o

1

T3

C

.2

c

4-4

X

<D

15

o

o

03

a

.2

’5b

<L>

v-<

<D

W)

C

cd

T3

(D

cd

'TD

C

cd

4-4

cd

4-*

1

JS

a

_o

4—*

03

33

Oh

O

CD

C/3

<D

C

13

<D

'O

4-4

c

cd

o

s

*£

bO

bo

c

o

g

'g

Ph

X

<D

<D

c5

"cd

mC

.2

o

<D

Ph

C/3

C/3

(D

"O

O

c

C/3

.2

‘5

<D

P-

C/3

4—*

c

(D

6

•c

D

CD

a

D

4-4

cd

4—*

C/3

^ <D
C0 G

£ ^
•2 <3
of

<D D

X)
.. cd

m w
* <d

<D C/3

£6
H ^H

(D

4-4

cd

4-4

C/3

<D

<D

-T3

P

O

<D

bD

c

cd

u

bD

C

• H

T3

<D

<D

<D

hP

•C

o

cd^

£

<D

-P

O

T3

<D

cd

S-H

cd

u

(D

P

<D

bD

(D

J-

cd

03

^P

C/3

.2

’5

<D

P-

<D

T3

O

P

O

hP

cd

-a

C/3

.2

a

©

Ph

C/3

Id

u

<D

p:

p-

*C

(D

cu

<D

H

C/3

3

cd

d>

>

«Z)

P

<D

03

4-4

p

i

cd

C/3

.2

o

©

Ph

cd

p:

C/3

©

bD

bD

P

C/3

P

*4-4

03

«S

td

4-4

I

JS

03

a

_o

CO

3

CD

O

CD

a

u

t

3

CD

4-4

3

X)

C/5

.a

3

u

CD

03

CD

>

03

a

u

CO

o

X!

ra

2

•o

p

<

©

T3

09

C

o

©

o

p

©

H

cd

4-4

cd

P

4-4

C/3

.2

©

©

Ph

03

C/3

©

XJ

^2

13

p

CZ)

.2

‘©

©

p-

p

©

03

^ a
3

« 2
& «
H •£

<N

O

o

CN

r-"

(N

Uh

©

P

£

©

4—*

Ph

©

CO

©

cd

X

P

o

-tH

+J

3

CM

C

o

o

D

CD

D

00

,<D

"3

C

CO

XI

03

E

CO

D

<D

O

u

3

O

OO

(N

o

o

C4

S)

P

<

©

cd

X

c/T

©

©

o

2

[©

£

X3

P

03

c^

4-4

©

'£

I °

.2

’©

©

Ph

GO

15

£

CZ)

3

2

<55

’©

©

Ph

GO

CQ

o

p

cd

XJ

©

©

G

3

O

OO

oo

ID

G

3

"O

OO

x>

X)

oo

VO

VO

«»

COS

U

oo

D

VO

"5

<

c

o

HH

o

o

o

Ih

cu

2

00

CO

W

2

3

CQ

A^lo/ 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-45

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

No specific surveys were conducted for special status species. However, special status species
observations were recorded during point count, in-transit, and raptor fall migration studies.
Information review indicates that as many as 45 Special Status species may be present in or near the
Proposed Project area (Table 3.2-7). Of the 45 TES species reported in Table 3.2-7, six are known
from recent or historical records or observations, fourteen were observed during the 2003 baseline
surveys for this Proposed Project, including nine species that were suspected to occur but had not
previously been documented in the Proposed Project area. The only federally listed species observed
was the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Threatened).

Birds

Bald eagle (Threatened) home ranges are generally associated with large montane rivers, lakes,
impoundments, and coniferous and cottonwood forests. They generally occupy riparian or lakeside
habitat during the breeding season, but occasionally exploit upland areas for food and roost sites.
However, nesting sites in the BFO are located at least 25 miles from the Snake River (USDI, BLM
Wildlife Database 2005). Some breeding birds remain near nesting territories throughout the winter
months. Wintering bald eagles are usually associated with areas that have a high number of daytime
perch sites near open slow-moving water (Gough et al. 1998; USFWS 1986).

The bald eagle was observed only twice during the avian surveys. All observations occurred during
the fall months. No nests for this species were observed. There are four bald eagle nesting sites
located within the Cassia Creek-Raft River Valley area. One nesting site is located approximately
eight miles south of the Proposed Project area. A second is located approximately ten miles from the
Proposed Project area; a third and fourth nest are located approximately 15 miles from the Proposed
Project area. An annual winter bald eagle survey route has been conducted for the past 20 years
within the Cassia Creek-Raft River area. Up to 12 bald eagles are observed during the route every
year with an average of five bald eagles observed per survey year. Bald eagles do winter along
Cassia Creek located about three miles south of the Proposed Project area. They also are known to
winter and forage for waterfowl at the man-made pond located on Marsh Creek northwest of the
Proposed Project area. In addition, bald eagles have been observed perching on utility poles in the
Raft River Valley located to the east of the Proposed Project area (USDI, BLM 2005). Bald eagles
may search Cotterel Mountain for winter kill carrion for foraging.

The golden eagle (protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act 1978) is found on prairies, tundra,
open wooded country, and barren areas, especially in hilly or mountainous regions where they
generally build stick nests on cliffs, or in trees. In Idaho they prefer open and semi-open areas in both
deserts and mountains. They commonly forage in early morning and early evening and feed on small
mammals, but may also eat insects, snakes, birds, juvenile ungulates, and carrion. Jackrabbits are
their principal prey in southern Idaho, and there is a positive correlation between golden eagle
breeding success and jackrabbit numbers reported in Idaho, Colorado, and Utah (Gough et al. 1998;
Karl 2000). Golden eagles were observed 141 times during all avian surveys. In 2003 there were three
active golden eagle nests on Cotterel Mountain. These nests were located on east and southeast facing
cliffs. The nest success rate for Golden Eagles was estimated at 100 percent and the fledging success

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-46

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

rate at 75 percent (TBR 2004). During 2004 golden eagles nested on a southeast facing slope and
fledged two young (USDI BLM 2005).

The greater sage-grouse is a popular upland game bird that was once abundant throughout sagebrush
habitats in the west. Its original range encompassed the western to northwestern U.S. and three
provinces of southwestern Canada. Currently, the greater sage-grouse range has measurably
decreased within eleven states and two Canadian provinces. Since the 1950s, the greater sage-grouse
population has declined by an estimated 45 to 80 percent (Braun 1998), with about 150,000 to
200,000 breeding greater sage-grouse remaining throughout the range (Connelly and Braun 1997).
Greater sage-grouse are no longer present in some western states. Core populations of greater sage-
grouse have survived in several states, including Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, but even
these populations have significantly declined. In Idaho, recent population trends show an estimated
statewide decline of 40 percent from the long-term average (IDFG 1997). The average number of
chicks produced per hen has declined by 40 to 50 percent in many areas (Connelly et al. 2004).

The success of the sage-grouse is directly dependent on, and correlates to, the health of the sagebrush
shrub-steppe community. The decline of the sage-grouse is thought to be a result of: habitat loss or
fragmentation from invasive species; agriculture; degradation due to fire; overgrazing; urbanization;
hunting and poaching; predation; disease; weather; accidents; herbicides; and physical disturbance
(Connelly et al. 2004).

All populations of sage-grouse have been reviewed for listing under the ESA, but the USFWS
recently determined that listing was not warranted (USFWS 2005). USFWS cited that 92 percent of
the known active leks (traditional sites where males and females congregate for courtship) occur in
ten core populations across eight western states, and that five of these populations are large and
expansive. In addition, approximately 160 million acres of sagebrush, a necessary habitat for sage-
grouse, currently exists across the western landscape. In Canada, sage-grouse have been listed
provincially as endangered or threatened (Aldridge 2000).

In 2003 and 2004, sage-grouse lek surveys and lek counts were conducted on Cotterel Mountain.
Prior to 2003, there were four known leks on Cotterel Mountain (IDFG 2003c). Lek surveys in 2003
confirmed the existence of two additional active leks, and three potential new lek sites on Cotterel
Mountain. In 2004, at least four sage-grouse leks were active on Cotterel Mountain (Figure 3.2-8).
This is one less than in 2003. The sum of the maximum number of male sage-grouse observed at all
leks in 2004 was 24, almost 50 percent less than the 45 observed in 2003. At this time, it is unknown
if this is a biological meaningful population decrease, or the result of sampling variability and/or
weather patterns.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-47

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.2-8: Sage Grouse Leks

Legend

Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

Sage Grouse Leks

• Transmission Lines
Project Area

. J Alt. B Feeder Line ROW

Alt. C and D Feeder Line ROW

2 Miles

10 A HO

\

k

»

* m ■■■ ■ ■

! _ _ . ■

•

(

|

k

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

In an effort to better understand the year round use of Cotterel Mountain by sage-grouse, a radio
telemetry study was initiated in March of 2004 (TREC 2005). The objective of this study was to
monitor the annual movements and to identify areas used for nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering of
the grouse population on Cotterel Mountain to provide pre-construction data to serve as a baseline
against which to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Project if approved, on sage-grouse. This study
is proposed to continue for several years. A total of 37 sage-grouse were trapped and fitted with
radio-collars. All marked sage-grouse were located on a weekly basis between March 8 and
December 31 2004. The first year results of the study documented the following results:

• Overall nesting effort was high and the nest success rate was above the range-wide
average.

• Some male sage-grouse left Cotterel Mountain in spring following the leking season.

• In 2004, hunters harvested 21 percent of the collared grouse, which is higher than harvest
rates reported for other areas in southwest Idaho.

As data are collected in subsequent years of the study, additional information on these issues will
become available.

The brewer’s sparrow (BLM sensitive Type 3; G5, S5 protected nongame species) is usually found in
association with sagebrush and alpine habitats. During migration and in winter, it is also found in
desert scrub and creosote bush. An Idaho study found Brewer's Sparrows prefer large, living
sagebrush for nesting (Gough et al. 1998; Karl 2000). Brewer’s sparrows were observed a total 121
times during all avian surveys. Most observations of Brewer’s sparrow occurred during spring and
summer (TBR 2004). Brewer’s sparrows could potentially nest on Cotterel Mountain.

The Cassin’s finch (BLM sensitive Type 5; S5; G5) is generally found in open, montane coniferous
forests at higher elevations. During migration and in winter, it’s also found in deciduous woodlands,
second growth, scrub, brushy areas, partially open sites with scattered trees, and occasionally in
suburbs near mountains. Cassin’s finch was observed a total 49 times during all avian surveys. All
observations of Cassin’s finch occurred during spring and fall and were evenly distributed between
the two seasons (TBR 2004). Cassin’s finch could potentially nest on the Cotterel Mountain.

The prairie falcon (BLM sensitive Type 3; G4; S5) is found in open situations in mountainous shrub
steppe, or grasslands areas. In Idaho, it breeds in shrub steppe and dry mountainous habitat, and
winters at lower elevations (Gough et al. 1998; Karl 2000). The prairie falcon was observed a total 42
times during all avian surveys. All observations of prairie falcon occurred during spring and summer
with the majority occurring during the summer months (TBR 2004). In 2003 there were two active
prairie falcon nests. Both nests were located on east facing cliffs. One nest contained two eggs and the
other had two downy chicks. The success of these nesting and fledging attempts are unknown (TBR
2004).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-49

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

The pinyon jay (BLM sensitive Type 5; G5; S2) is generally found in pinyon/juniper woodland, less
frequently pine; in nonbreeding season, also occurs in scrub oak and sagebrush. They normally nest in
juniper or pine trees, sometimes oak. They form complex social organizations and forage on ground
or in foliage for pinion seeds (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Karl 2000). Cotterel Mountain is located at the very
northern edge of the recorded pinyon jay range. The pinyon jay was observed 28 times during all
avian surveys (TBR 2004). All observations occurred during the fall months. Pinyon jay could
potentially nest in juniper or taller shrubs on Cotterel Mountain.

The sage thrasher (BLM sensitive Type 5; G5; S5) is found in sagebrush plains, primarily in arid or
semi-arid communities. During migration and in winter, they can also be found in scrub, brush, and
thickets (rarely around towns). In the northern Great Basin, it breeds and forages in tall
sagebrush/bunchgrass, juniper/sagebrush/bunchgrass, aspen/sagebrush/bunchgrass and mountain
mahogany/shrub communities. An Idaho study found that big sagebrush used for nesting was taller
than average, had greater foliage density, and most often faced easterly (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Karl
2000). The sage thrasher was observed 17 times during the avian surveys (TBR 2004). All
observation occurred during the fall months. Sage thrashers could potentially nest in big sagebrush on
Cotterel Mountain.

The northern goshawk (BLM sensitive Type 3; G5; S4) is generally found in deciduous and
coniferous forests, along forest edges, and in open woodlands. In Idaho they usually summer and
nests in coniferous and aspen forests and winter in riparian and agricultural areas. Northern Goshawks
have been studied extensively in the South Hills of Twin Falls County, Sawtooth Forest. They
migrate mostly along ridges and coastlines and forage in cultivated regions (Gough et al. 1998; Karl
2000). The northern goshawk was observed 12 times during the avian surveys (TBR 2004). All
observations occurred during the spring and fall months. Northern goshawks could potentially nest on
Cotterel Mountain, most likely in an aspen stand.

The ferruginous hawk (BLM sensitive Type 3; G4; S3) is a grassland, pinyon/juniper or desert shrub-
steppe nester and prey primarily on jackrabbits and rodents. Of the large raptors, it is second only to
the red-tail hawk in habitat versatility. They generally avoid agricultural and cultivated lands
(McAnnis 1990).

The Raft River Valley-Curlew National Grassland was nominated and accepted as a Globally
Important Birding Area by the American Bird Conservancy. It is estimated that one percent of the
global ferruginous hawk productivity occurs in this area. In addition, ferruginous hawk nesting
densities in the Jim Sage-Cotterel Mountain area are one of the highest in Idaho. The BFO, United
States Geological Survey (USGS), and Boise State University have conducted nesting, banding or
productivity surveys annually on ferruginous hawks in the Raft River Valley for 23 of the past 27
years (USDI, BLM Wildlife Database 2005). Approximately 305 nests occur within the BFO and of
those about 20 percent produce young each year. Unlike northern Utah and some other states, since
1977, the Globally Important Birding Area ferruginous hawk population has remained stable. In

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

3-50

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

recent years nesting productivity within the Jim Sage and Cotterel Mountains have been influenced
by severe spring weather, human disturbance to nesting and other factors (TBR 2004).

The ferruginous hawk was observed ten times during the avian surveys (TBR 2004). All observations
occurred during the spring and summer months. Ferruginous hawks have been observed most
frequently during the late summer or early fall along the Cotterel Mountain eastern most ridgeline
(USDI, BLM Wildlife Database 2005). In 2003, aerial nest surveys located three active nests of this
species within two miles of the Proposed Project area (TBR 2004). All were in solitary junipers on
relatively flat ground on the east slope of Cotterel Mountain. Only one of the three active nests was
considered successful.

The loggerhead shrike (BLM sensitive Type 3, G5; S3) is generally found in open country with
scattered trees and shrubs, in savannas, desert scrub and, occasionally, in open juniper woodlands.
Often found on poles, wires or fence posts. It constructs bulky, cup-shaped nest in shrubs. A study in
southeastern Idaho located nests in sagebrush, bitterbrush, and greasewood (Gough et al. 1998; Karl
2000). The loggerhead shrike was observed eight times during the avian surveys (Sharp 2004). All
observations occurred during the spring months. Loggerhead shrike could potentially nest on Cotterel
Mountain.

The peregrine falcon (BLM sensitive Type 3; G5; SI) is found in various open situations from tundra,
moorland, steppes, and seacoasts (especially where there are suitable nesting cliffs), to mountains,
open forested regions, and populated areas. In Idaho, former and current nest sites are located in both
mountain and desert regions, and are generally associated with bodies of water (Gough et al. 1998;
Karl 2000). The peregrine falcon was observed only twice during the avian surveys. All observation
occurred during the fall months. No nests for this species were observed. Suitable peregrine falcon
nesting habitat (high cliff faces) does occur within and adjacent to the Proposed Project area (Sharp
2004).

The Green-tailed towhee (BLM sensitive Type 5; G5; S5) is usually found in low shrubs, sometimes
interspersed with trees, and avoids typical forest, other than open pinyon/juniper woodlands. It was
observed 12 times during fixed-point count observations (Sharp 2004). Green-tailed towhee could
potentially nest on Cotterel Mountain.

The plumbeus, or solitary, vireo (BLM sensitive Type 5) is found in northern hardwood-coniferous
forests, mixed woodlands, humid montane forests, pine savannas, oak forests, aspen forests, foothill
riparian forests, Gambel oak shrublands with scattered tall trees, and pinyon/juniper communities.
During migration and in winter, it can also be found in a variety of forests, woodlands, scrub, and
thicket habitats, but prefers forest edges and semi-open areas. It occasionally breeds in lowland
riparian forests adjacent to foothills (Karl 2000; Robbins et al. 1966). The plumbeus vireo was
observed only once during the avian surveys (Sharp 2004). The single observation of this species
occurred during the summer months. The plumbeus vireo could potentially nest on Cotterel
Mountain.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-51

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Sensitive Species Not Present During Surveys

The BLM has previously documented occurrences of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
(Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) in the vicinity of Cotterel Mountain. Similarly, the IDFG
has identified the Long-billed curlew ( Numenius americanus-Type 5), Northern pygmy-owl
(Glaucidium gnoma- Type 5), and Western burrowing owl ( Speotyto cunicularia-Type 5) in the
Cotterel Mountain vicinity, but no observations of individuals or nest sites were recorded during
fixed-point counts, fall migration surveys, or intransit observations for any of these species. These
species have potentially suitable habitat adjacent to the Proposed Project area, but are not likely to
occur in the Proposed Project footprint area due to unsuitable available habitats and rocky soils.

There is also potential habitat within the Proposed Project area for the: Flammulated owl ( Otus
flammeolus-Type 3); Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii- Type 3); Sage sparrow ( Amphispiza belli-
Type 3), Grasshopper sparrow ( Ammodramus savannarum-Type 3); Red-naped sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus nuchalis- Type 5); Virginia’s warbler ( Vermovora virginae- Type 5); and Calliope
hummingbird ( Stellula calliope) Type 5. These species have not previously been recorded within the
Proposed Project area, and there were no observations of individuals or nest sites recorded during
fixed-point counts, fall migration surveys, or intransit observations. Habitat is present for these
species, although they have not been documented within the Proposed Project area.

There is no suitable habitat present within the Proposed Project area for the American white pelican
(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos; BLM sensitive Type 2; G3; SI) or Black tern ( Chlodonias niger, BLM
sensitive Type 3; G4; S2). It is possible that these species may migrate or use the air space above the
Proposed Project area.

Mammals

The gray wolf (Federally listed Endangered/Experimental Non-Essential Population) was historically
found in most of North America. In the west, they now occur only in Alaska, Canada, Idaho,
Wyoming, Montana and Washington State. This species was re-introduced to Idaho in 1997 and is
estimated at a current population of 500 individuals within Idaho. Suitable habitat for these wide-
ranging mammals includes (1) secluded denning and rendezvous sites to raise pups; (2) a sufficient,
year-round prey base of ungulates and beaver; and (3) sufficient land area that is not subject to
disturbance from humans. Wolves generally prefer habitat with no roads or very low road density.
Gray wolf territories are large, encompassing up to 100 to 260 square miles.

In 1994, final rules in the Federal Register made a distinction between Idaho wolves that occur north
of Interstate 90 (1-90) and wolves that occur south of 1-90. Gray wolves occurring north of 1-90 are
listed as endangered species and receive full protection in accordance with provisions of the ESA.
Gray wolves occurring south of 1-90 are listed as part of an experimental population, with special
regulations defining their protection and management.

No gray wolves (ESA, Experimental Population) were observed during any of the surveys conducted
for the Proposed Project. However, Cotterel Mountain does provide suitable habitat for the gray wolf.

A/lay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-52

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Foraging opportunities include mule deer and beaver along Marsh Creek to the west and Cassia Creek
to the south.

The pygmy rabbit (BLM sensitive Type 2; G4; S3) is currently petitioned for listing by the USFWS.
This species typically prefers areas of tall, dense sagebrush cover with high percent woody cover,
growing in deep, loose sediment (Gabler 1997). The IDFG has a historic documented occurrence in
the vicinity of Cotterel Mountain along SH-77. Surveys of this historic location found no evidence of
occurrence or use by pygmy rabbits. Additional historically occupied sites are located north of Albion
at lower elevations. Soils over most of the Proposed Project area are shallow and rocky and therefore
unsuitable for pygmy rabbits. Therefore, no further analysis on pygmy rabbits will be conducted in
this Draft EIS.

The cliff chipmunk (BLM sensitive species Type 4; G5; SI) is usually found in rocky pinyon/juniper
woodlands and lower elevations of pine forests. Also found in higher-elevation Douglas-fir and
Mexican pine. In Idaho, it generally occurs only in pinyon/juniper stands in south-central part of state
and primarily inhabits cliffs and rocky areas where it consumes a wide variety of seeds, acorns, and
fruits (Streubel 2000). The cliff chipmunk was observed numerous times during surveys conducted
for the Proposed Project. This species has been observed and live-trapped in selected habitats from
Rock Creek, Idaho east to Weston Canyon, Idaho (USDI, BLM Wildlife Database 2005).

3.3 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

Historic and cultural resources are defined as nonrenewable remains of past human activity including
buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural,
archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Historic and cultural resources are protected under
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
1979. The archaeological record of the Proposed Project area has been partially examined through
surveys ethnographic materials regarding Native American populations, and historic documents
pertaining to the settlement and use of the area by Euro-Americans.

3.3.1 Natural and Cultural Setting

The Proposed Project area is located within the Snake River Plain of the Great Basin. Cotterel
Mountain is bordered by the Raft River Valley to the east, the Albion Mountains to the west, and the
Jim Sage Mountains to the south. The Cotterel and Jim Sage Mountains are formed from Miocene
rhyolite lava flows and ash-flow tuffs and as a result contain abundant sources of obsidian (Link and
Phoenix 1994). The Silent City of Rocks, found in the Albion Range south of Cotterel Mountain, is
an Oligocene granite pluton, weathering of which results in rounded monoliths (Link and Phoenix
1994) and an area of unique geology that has been of cultural importance throughout prehistory and
history (Heritage Research Associates 1996).

Low rainfall and extreme seasonal temperatures characterize the climate in the Snake River Plain.
Native vegetation in the area reflects the relatively arid climate and is characterized by the Artemisia
tridentata/Agropyron spicatum vegetation zone (Franklin and Dymess 1988). The principal large

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-53

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

mammal species of the sagebrush communities of the Snake River Plain include pronghorn antelope
(Antilocapra americana ) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus ), though mountain sheep and bear are
also present (Walker 1978). Smaller faunal resources found in desert areas include burrowing rodents,
small birds, and occasional predators such as fox, coyote, and hawk. Along the edge of the desert in
sagebrush areas kangaroo rats, chipmunks, woodrats, ground squirrels, jackrabbits, cottontails, and
sagehens are typical faunal resources (Harper 1986). Many of these natural resources were of great
economic importance to the Native American inhabitants of the Snake River Plain. The diverse plant
and animal resources provided food, materials for shelter and clothing, and minerals for making tools
and weapons.

Prehistory

A general cultural sequence has been proposed for the Snake and Salmon River areas, defined by
three broad periods and sub-periods which are discussed in detail below (Butler 1986; Butler 1978)
(Table 3.3-1). Results of archaeological excavations indicate the prehistory of the Upper Snake River
region extends back to possibly 12,500 B.C. and document a unique region within the intermontane
area that is connected to both the northwestern Plains and Great Basin culture areas (Butler 1986).

Table 3.3-1. Chronological Subdivisions of Upper Snake River Prehistory.

Cultural Period

Temporal Range

Key Sites

Key Sites:

Early Big Game Hunting

Period

Clovis Subperiod

Folsom Subperiod

Plano Subperiod

12,500-5800 B.C.

10,000-9000 B.C.

9000 - 8600 B.C.

8600-5800 B.C.

Jaguar Cave; Simon Site

Owl Cave; Jaguar Cave

Owl Cave; Veratic Cave

Archaic Period

5800 B.C.-A.D. 500

Veratic Cave; Owl Cave;

Weston Canyon Rockshelter

Late Period

A.D. 500- 1805

Clover Creek; Givens Hot
Springs; Wilson Butte Cave

The Early Big Game Hunting Period (12500 to 5800 B.C.) represents the earliest human occupation
of the Upper Snake and Salmon River area and reflects the hunting of big-game animals including
several species that reached extinction during the terminal phase of the Late Pleistocene or in the
Early Holocene. The Early Big Game Hunting period is divided into three subperiods: Clovis,
Folsom, and Plano, and several sites throughout Idaho are attributed to this period, though dated
contexts are rare (Yohe and Woods 2002). Clovis culture in Idaho is not well known, but these groups
are presumed to have been hunters that pursued now-extinct forms of elephant and camel, and to have
lived in caves or temporary shelters. Folsom subperiod sites are better documented in the southern
Idaho region, and have been documented both as isolate finds (Swanson 1961; Moe 1982; Titmus
1985) and from in situ deposits (Miller 1978). In general, Folsom people appear to have hunted herds
of large animals, particularly bison, and lived in temporary shelters while following these herds. The

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-54

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Plano subperiod is the best represented of the Early Big Game Hunting Period and is characterized by
a more diverse artifact assemblage and increased occupation of rockshelters and caves (Plew 1986).
Significant climatic and environmental changes coincided with the end of the Early Big Game
Hunting Period and the gradual transition to the Archaic Period (5800 B.C. to A.D. 500), which is
defined primarily by a change in tool technology. In the archaeological record, the transition between
the two periods primarily involves the introduction of the atlatl and dart weapon system (Butler 1978;
Butler 1986). The bulk of the tool kit remained unchanged, however, suggesting that the Archaic
Period does not represent a major break with the preceding Early Big Game Hunting Period.
Although the horse, camel, and elephant had become extinct by this time, modem forms of bison and
mountain sheep had emerged and replaced the older forms in the region. In western Idaho, another
feature of the Archaic Period is the Western Idaho Burial Complex, a distinctive burial pattern best
known from the Braden site near Weiser, Idaho. Increased sedentism is suggested by early pit houses
found at Givens Hot Springs on the Snake River, though large semi-permanent villages are not
characteristic of this period (Butler 1986).

In the northern Great Basin, the Late Period (A.D. 500 to 1805) is manifested by at least two
distinctive sets of cultural remains, the Northern Fremont and the Shoshonean. The Northern Fremont
is a Formative Stage culture best known from Utah, while the Shoshonean culture is a continuation of
the Archaic stage (Butler 1986). Though most evidence for Fremont culture is found near the Great
Salt Lake, occasional deposits have been identified in the Snake River Plain. Sites that have been
recognized as Fremont are often marked by Great Salt Lake gray ware pottery in association with
semisubterranean housepits, manos and pestles, and small, comer-notched Rose Spring or Rosegate
projectile points and are dated between A.D. 500 and 1350. Most Late Period structures in western
Idaho, however, are small wikiup-sized structures, with the exception of a large semisubterranean
house identified at Givens Hot Springs (Butler 1986). In general, it appears that the Fremont cultural
complex was short-lived and is not clearly identified in Idaho. The pattern of hunting and gathering
established throughout the Archaic Period persisted through the Late Prehistoric and into the
ethnographic past, as manifested by the Shoshonean cultural complex found along the Snake River
Plain.

Ethnography

At the time of historic contact, southern Idaho was the homeland of the Northern Shoshone and
Bannock Indians. Sometime prior to Euro-American contact, the Northern Shoshone, who
traditionally occupied southeastern Idaho, were joined by an intrusive group, the Bannock, who spoke
a dialect of the Northern Paiute language. Similar social institutions developed between the two
groups, so that they became known as the Shoshone-Bannock for purposes of general description
(Murphy and Murphy 1986; Walker 1978).

The Northern Shoshone and Bannock occupied an area generally along the Snake River plains and the
mountains to the north, though many neighboring Eastern Shoshone and Northern Paiute groups also
used resources of this region (Murphy and Murphy 1986). Local groups within the Shoshone region
were often identified by other Indian groups and by early settlers based on foods that were commonly

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-55

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

eaten, such as “Agaideka” for “salmon eaters” living along the Snake River, “Tukudeka” for
“sheepeaters” found in the Sawtooth mountains, and “Kammedeka” for “jackrabbit eaters” living
along Bannock Creek and the Raft River. However, this nomenclature does not refer to political
divisions and resulted in confusing designations given the high mobility and seasonal exploitation of
resources by all of these groups (Murphy and Murphy 1986). Northern Shoshone populations focused
near the Proposed Project area are more commonly referred to as the upper Snake River or Fort Hall
Shoshone, a mounted group that lived in close association with the Bannock.

The Shoshone-Bannock were generally atypical of other Great Basin cultures because of their
proximity to the Great Plains, their adoption of Great Plains cultural attributes, and their location
along the upper Snake River, which allowed for a more productive resource base (Walker 1978).
Wealth accumulated in horses, organization into larger communities, and composite band political
groupings further differentiate the Shoshone-Bannock from traditional Great Basin cultures (Walker
1978).

The Shoshone-Bannock relied heavily upon small game, birds, insects, seeds, and nuts, much like the
Northern Paiute (Walker 1978), though use of the horse and the nomadic lifestyle of some Northern
Shoshone groups increased access to bison on the eastern Plain. This equestrian lifestyle provided
mobility for hunting large game such as bison and digging camas roots in distant areas (Walker
1978). Ecological determinants prevented adoption of an equestrian lifestyle by many native
inhabitants, particularly in western Idaho, and as a result there were both mounted and unmounted
Shoshone groups that occupied the Snake River Plain.

The availability of anadromous fish, together with hunting and gathering activities, dictated seasonal
population shifts and village locations. While buffalo hunting was a major attribute of Northern
Shoshone economy, salmon fishing constituted a principal source of subsistence for the lower Snake
River Shoshone living below Shoshone Falls and in western Idaho. The Shoshone recognized several
runs by the agai, or salmon, the first of which would occur in March or April (Steward 1938). Large
numbers of people would temporarily gather during these runs, and the abundance of fish allowed the
resource to be dried and cached for winter (Steward 1938). In eastern Idaho, the upper Snake River
Shoshone and Bannock would form into a large composite group each fall to hunt buffalo toward the
east, returning together to the Snake River bottomlands to pasture their horses for the winter (Steward
1938) In the spring, smaller groups would travel along the Snake River to below Shoshone Falls for
salmon fishing, and south toward Bear River for hunting and collecting berries (Steward 1938).
Annual trips were also made to Camas Prairie, near modem Fairfield, Idaho, to dig camas bulbs,
while seeds and berries were gathered in the hills between the Prairie and the Snake River (Daugherty
and Welch 1985; Murphy and Murphy 1986). The Northern Shoshone of the Snake River also
collected pine nuts from northwestern Utah (Murphy and Murphy 1986). Seasonal cycles dictated
resource use; typically, large game hunting and fishing occurred in spring until mid-summer when
large groups traveled to the hunt bison. Large intertribal gatherings would also take place in summer.
Women collected berries roots, nuts, seeds, and insects throughout the year until winter, which was a
time of limited hunting and gathering (Walker 1978). This hunting and gathering subsistence pattern

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-56

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

of the Shoshone-Bannock, which was based on seasonal exploitation of resources and migration,
appears to have persisted from prehistoric times throughout the ethnographic period.

History

First Euro-American contact is generally attributed to the Corps of Discovery, sent by President
Thomas Jefferson in 1805 to discover an overland route to the Pacific Ocean. Less than a decade
following the expedition, British and American fur trading posts were established throughout the
Pacific Northwest. Early explorers of the Snake River Plain included Wilson Price Hunt and partner
Donald McKenzie who traveled the Upper Snake River in 1811; much of their route would be
explored by other expeditions and traders throughout the 1820s and would later become the Oregon
Trail (Brown 1932). Various Snake River Plain expeditions were conducted between 1824-1831,
headed successively by Alexander Ross, Peter Skene Ogden, and John Work of the Hudson’s Bay
Company, who provided primary sources on the Northern Shoshone and Bannock in their journals
(Murphy and Murphy 1986).

Competition between British and American interests manifested itself in the fur trade, but by 1821,
the Hudson’s Bay Company dominated the fur enterprise throughout the Pacific Northwest (Galbraith
1957). One response of the Hudson’s Bay Company to the increased American competition was to
create a “fur desert” by annihilating as many beaver as possible in the Snake River country so as to
establish a buffer between the Pacific Northwest and the Americans to the east. In spite of attempts by
the Hudson’s Bay Company to reduce the American presence, trappers Kelley, Wyeth, and
Bonneville each led expeditions that crossed through Snake River country in the 1830s. Wyeth later
returned to the area in 1834 and established Fort Hall near present-day Pocatello (Brown 1932). The
fort functioned as a center of trade, where Indians could barter skins and buffalo meat for Euro-
American goods such as knifes and tobacco (Franzen 1981). Fort Hall was located at a strategic
position, an area still rich in beaver and at the intersection of old Indian trails from all directions that
would later become emigrant routes (Brown 1932). In response to construction of Fort Hall, the
Hudson’s Bay Company constructed Fort Boise; competition later forced the sale of Fort Hall to the
Hudson’s Bay Company in 1837 (Ghent 1929). A rapid decimation of the buffalo and beaver
populations led the trappers to gradually leave the Snake River country once the area no longer
produced significant quantities of fur (Beal and Wells 1959[ 1 ]); by the early 1840s, the fur-trapping
era drew to a close and the stage was set for the great overland migration along the Oregon Trail
(Dicken and Dicken 1979). Fort Hall became an important stop along the travelers’ route, as it was
located approximately two-thirds of the way from Independence, Missouri to Oregon City. Hudson’s
Bay Company men aided the emigrants passing along the Oregon Trail and raised cattle for trade with
Indians and the emigrants (Beal and Wells 1959).

The Proposed Project area is located adjacent to the Raft River Valley, which lies immediately east of
Cotterel Mountain and is situated near a historically important crossroads of the Oregon Trail. The
“Parting of the Ways” or “Separation of the Trails,” located on the west bank of the Raft River, was
the junction where travelers had to decide whether to head south toward California or proceed west
along the Snake River toward the Oregon Country (Figure 3.3-1). The California Trail route,

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-57

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

originally traveled in 1841 by the Bidwell party, became better traveled by the mid-1840s, and use of
the name “California Trail” became commonplace after 1843. The year 1849 was a turning point, as
for the first time more emigrants traveled to California than to Oregon. The gold rush to California in
1849 also resulted in the opening of Hudspeth’s Cutoff from the Oregon Trail (Hope 1990). The
California Trail and Hudspeth’s Cutoff junctioned at Cassia Creek just north of the City of Rocks,
which became an important landmark for travelers along the trail (Heritage Research Associates
1996). The effects of the Oregon Trail usage on Native Americans in the region was considerable in
terms of use of natural resources, primarily forage and firewood fuel, by the emigrants. An estimated
240,000 emigrants with 1.5 million animals traveled through the territory of the Fort Hall Indians
during the great migration (Madsen 1980). Subsequently, hostilities between Native Americans and
new emigrants increased. A number of massacres and ambushes, led by both Native Americans and
military cavalry, occurred near the Raft River Valley throughout the 1800s (Sudweeks 1941).

The Idaho area remained largely unsettled by Euro-Americans, however, until the discovery of gold.
By the early 1860s, a number of gold discoveries had occurred in the areas of the Salmon and Boise
rivers, sparking a mining boom that lasted for several decades. Mineral mining in southeastern Idaho
did not take hold until the 1870s, when mining areas were developed at Cariboo Mountain, at
Bonanza Bar at the mouth of the Raft River, and at Black Pine (Franzen 1981).

Concomitant to the 1860s gold rush was the establishment of farming and ranching, including along
the Raft River Valley, as demand by miners for cattle increased. The earliest settlements in
southeastern Idaho were established by Mormon pioneers traveling north from Salt Lake City and
were based on agriculture and ranching rather than mining (Franzen 1981). By the early 1860s, the
mail and stage lines were established between Brigham City, Utah, and Boise, and preceded Mormon
pioneer settlement of the Raft River Valley (Franzen 1981). The “Boise-Kelton Road” was the
primary transportation corridor connecting the new settlements with Utah. Later known as the
“Albion to Conner’s Comer Road”, this transportation corridor went through the community of
Sweetzer and south of Cotterel Mountain along current SH-77.

The increased Euro-American settlement and subsequent disruption of traditional Native American
lifeways resulted in periodic skirmishes in southern Idaho that culminated in the Bannock War of
1878 and the Sheepeater War of 1878-1879 (Murphy and Murphy 1986). The process of placing the
Native Americans onto reservations in this region began in the 1860s and the Fort Hall Reservation
was set aside in 1867. Encroachment by white settlers resulted in a series of cessions throughout the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that reduced the original size of the reservation considerably
(Murphy and Murphy 1986; Ruby and Brown 1992).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-58

Legend

Historic Trails
California Trail

■ ■ California Trail, Estimated (Not Visble)
■■■•California Trail, Visible

■ ■ Hudspeth Cut-Off. Estimated (Not Visible)

Hudspeth Cut-Off. Visible

Oregon Trail

■■ l Oregon Trail. Trail Estimated (Not Visible)
■■■■Oregon Trail, Trail Visible

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.3-1. Historic Trails

Legend

I Project Area
,1 Alt. B Interconnect ROW
* Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW
■ Transmission Lines

Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

2 Miles

IDAHO

IDAHO

(

1

_ 1

t

<

/

'

4

«.

' j T'

■

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Several small towns near Cotterel Mountain, including Albion, Oakley, Elba, and Malta, were first
permanently settled in the 1870s and led to the creation of Cassia County in 1879, which had a
population of 2,500 by 1885 (Bancroft 1890). By 1890, Cassia County produced wheat, oats, barley,
and potatoes and grazed large herds. Improvements in transportation and irrigation systems
precipitated an agriculturally based economy. The Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, later
absorbed by the Union Pacific Railroad, began construction in 1881-1884 through southern Idaho.
Spur branches were built throughout southern Idaho, including the Minidoka and Southwestern
Railroad in 1904, which headed west toward Burley from Minidoka, and a spur line between Burley
and Oakley (Beal 1962). Many towns sprung up along the railroad, including Burley, which was not
settled until 1905 but succeeded Albion as the county seat of Cassia County by 1918. The Northern
Utah Railroad attempted construction of a railroad grade that would have connected the Burley
vicinity with Kelton, Utah in the early 1900s. Also referred to as the “Salt Lake and Idaho Railroad
(SL&I),” this line was never completed and the project was abandoned near Idahome; portions of the
grade are present along the northern Proposed Project area.

Improvements in irrigation via canal construction and the Minidoka Dam construction, which began
in the early 1900s as a Reclamation Act project, allowed further economic development and
settlement. Native vegetation was replaced by irrigated croplands for grains, sugar beets, potatoes,
and alfalfa, and resulted in a disruption of the natural hydrologic system (Franzen 1981). By the
twentieth century, public land was set aside as a response to the environmental disturbances caused
by overgrazing and deforestation, and resulted in land management by federal agencies such as the
BLM and Forest Service (Franzen 1981). To date. Cassia County retains its agricultural economy;
sugar beet plants, potato processing plants, dairy fanns, and wood product processing plants continue
to contribute to regional development.

Literature Review and Records Search

The archaeological record has been partially examined through field survey, background research,
and consultation with Native American groups. A literature review and record search was completed
for the Proposed Project area at the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office in Boise, and at the BLM
field office in Burley, and indicates that the Cotterel Mountain area has been subjected to few cultural
resource surveys. No large-scale inventories had been undertaken within the Proposed Project
corridor along higher elevations of the ridgeline, though several small-scale cultural resource surveys
were conducted by the BLM along scattered portions of the mountain. Other surveys were linear in
nature and were conducted for pipeline, fiber optic cable line, and transportation projects, but these
inventories were limited to lower elevations along the valley floor. The previous surveys identified a
total of five sites in or adjacent to the Proposed Project area of potential effects (APE), including:
10CA298, a lithic scatter; 10CA862, the Oregon National Historic Trail; 10CA864, the SL&I
Railroad Grade; 10CA629, an unnamed historic trail remnant; and 10CA961, the Conner’s Comer to
Albion Stage Road.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-6 0

Cofterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Survey Findings

Archaeological survey of the Proposed Project APE is required to assist in implementing Sections
106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, procedures of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800), and BLM policy requiring inventory and evaluation of cultural
resources within potential impact areas. Section 106 requires that, prior to any action, federal agencies
identify cultural resources potentially affected by the action, which may qualify as eligible to the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If eligible resources are identified, federal agencies
must take prudent and feasible measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts and provide the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on these measures. Under NRHP
criteria, archaeological sites are generally recognized as eligible based on research potential.

The cultural resources inventory and evaluation activities resulted in the identification of 21
archaeological sites and 61 isolated finds in or adjacent to the Proposed Project APE, in addition to
the five previously recorded sites. To date, a total of 26 sites are identified in the Proposed Project
corridor and are subject to consideration of construction impacts. Both prehistoric and historic themes
are represented by the cultural materials. Twenty sites are defined by prehistoric lithic scatters, two by
historic can scatters, and four as linear historic transportation corridors. Table 3.3-2 provides a
summary of archaeological sites within the Proposed Project APE and their recommended eligibility
status for the NRHP.

The inventory focused on an approximately 14-mile long, 400-foot wide (ca. 680 acre) linear corridor
along the highest elevations of the ridgeline where the wind turbines and secondary access roads
would be constructed, where the majority of the Proposed Project impacts would occur. The current
inventory does not address one of the two proposed transmission interconnect lines because the exact
location of this facility has not been determined. The corridors will be inventoried and evaluated prior
to completion of the Final EIS. However, information from the completed ridgeline inventory and the
record search provides estimates for the density and type of cultural resources that can be expected
along the currently non-surveyed portions of the Proposed Project APE.

The sites and isolates identified during survey reflect multiple periods of use of the Cotterel Mountain
ridge throughout prehistory, and more limited use in the historic past. Based on survey, the quantity
and type of isolates and sites are indicative of transitory use for hunting, migration, and/or spiritual
quests. Of the 61 newly recorded isolates, six are historic and 55 are prehistoric artifacts consisting of
lithic debitage, bifacially-worked stone tools, or cores. A single cairn was encountered. Prehistoric
site types range from very small lithic scatters exhibiting limited complexity to larger scatters
containing considerable variation in material and tool types. No evidence was found for extensive
habitation but this was not expected given the scarcity of permanent water sources as well as the
mountainous terrain. Resource-rich regions along the Raft River and Snake River would have been
conducive to more permanent occupation, and prehistoric use of the ridge would likely have been
seasonal due to the high elevation and annual snowfall. Based on diagnostic tools noted during
survey, the recorded sites and isolates address the theme of prehistoric use from at least the Mid-

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-61

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Archaic through the Late Prehistoric periods; while it is likely that the area has a considerably older
human history, no older sites were identified.

Table 3.3-2. NHRP Eligibility For Sites Within the Proposed Project Area.

Site Number

Site Type

NRHP Eligibility
Recommendation

10CA298

Lithic Scatter

Potentially Eligible

10CA629

Historic Trail

Ineligible

10CA862

Oregon Trail

Listed

10CA864

SL&I Railroad Grade

Potentially Eligible

10CA961

Albion Stage Road

Potentially Eligible

CM-S-1

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-2

Lithic Scatter

Potentially Eligible

CM-S-3

Lithic Scatter

Potentially Eligible

CM-S-4

Lithic Scatter

Potentially Eligible

CM-S-5

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-6/8

Lithic Scatter

Potentially Eligible

CM-S-7

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-9

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-10

Lithic Scatter

Potentially Eligible

CM-S-11

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-12

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-13

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-14

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-15

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-16

Tin Can Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-17

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-18

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-19

Tin Can Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-20

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

CM-S-21

Lithic Scatter

Potentially Eligible

CM-S-22

Lithic Scatter

Ineligible

Evidence for historic use of the area is more limited but includes six archaeological resources and six
isolated finds. Historic sites include transportation corridors located along the valley floor: 10CA864,
the “SL&I Railroad Grade,” and site 10CA862, the Oregon National Historic Trail, both located
along the valley floor at the northern end of the Proposed Project area where the extant gravel road
accesses SH-81; site 10CA629, an historic trail segment located on the valley floor within
approximately 0.25 miles of the proposed northern transmission line connection; and site 10CA961,
the “Conners Comer to Albion Stage Road”, located where the extant gravel road accesses the
southern portion of Cotterel Mountain from SH-77. Historic sites CM-S-16 and CM-S-19 are both
small historic tin can scatters that were identified during survey of higher elevations along the
ridgeline. The isolates recorded include assorted tin cans, an enamelware pail, and a horseshoe. The
recorded historic sites and isolates likely represent the themes of transitory ranching or hunting
activity dating from the late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-6 2

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Based on apparent integrity of the recorded resources and identified research potential, NRHP
eligibility was assessed for sites within the Proposed Project area. Of the previously and newly
recorded sites, only one, 10CA862, the Oregon National Historic Trail, is listed on the NRHP. Four
prehistoric sites defined by lithic scatters, CM-S-2, CM-S-3, CM-S-6/8, and CM-S-21, and the
historic Conner’s Comer to Albion Stage Road (10CA961), are recommended as eligible for the
NRHP. Thirteen prehistoric sites (CM-S-1, -5, -7, -9, -11, -12, -13, -14, -15, -17, -18, -20, and -22)
and three historic sites (10CA629, CM-S-16, and CM-S-19) are recommended as ineligible for
nomination to the NRHP based on lack of integrity and/or information potential. Three prehistoric
sites (10CA298, CM-S-4 and CM-S-10) and one historic site, the SL&I Railroad Grade (10CA961),
remain unevaluated due to insufficient data.

3.4 AMERICAN INDIAN CONCERNS
3.4.1 Treaty Rights

American Indian concerns are identified through consultation as directed by the Fort Bridger Treaty
of 1868, the Ruby Valley Treaty, Executive Order 13007 (Sacred Sites Act) and Executive Order
13175 (Govemment-to-Govemment Consultation).

Shoshone-Bannock treaty rights are those rights reserved or retained by the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes as stated in the 1868 Ft. Bridger Treaty. Specifically, “they shall have the right to hunt on the
unoccupied lands of the U.S. so long as game may be found thereon, and so long as peace subsists
among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts.” Later interpretations of these
rights include any right not specifically extinguished by the treaty, such as gathering, fishing,
collecting plants, and collecting materials important to both the secular and sacred well being of tribal
members.

Shoshone-Paiute: Although the Duck Valley Reservation of the Shoshone-Paiute was established by
Executive Order in 1877, the Shoshone-Paiute understand that they retain the aboriginal rights as a
consequence of the Ruby Valley Treaty and the failure of the U. S. Government to ratify either the
Boise Treaty, Bruneau Treaty, or the Long Tom Treaty. The Ruby Valley Treaty neither ceded land
nor extinguished rights held by the Shoshone-Paiute.

During scoping consultation, the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute expressed concern about
how the Proposed Project would affect their rights on Cotterel Mountain. Both tribes stated that
Cotterel Mountain is still important to them and had some specific concerns about access, wildlife,
and the preservation of their rights. Specifically, the Shoshone-Bannock mentioned traditional rabbit
hunting grounds to the east of Cotterel Mountain in the Raft River Valley. Specific resources in the
Proposed Project area were not addressed.

Govemment-to-Govemment consultation will continue and conclude when the terms of Executive
Order 13175 are fulfilled.

Mo/ 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-63

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

3.4.2 Trust Responsibility

The BLM has a trust responsibility to the Tribes to acknowledge and preserve the Tribes treaty rights
for present and future generations and should address concerns identified by the Tribes regarding the
environment, natural and other resource identified as treaty rights on land which BLM manages.

3.4.3 Traditional Cultural Places and Use Areas

Information concerning Traditional Cultural Places and Use Areas is considered highly sensitive by
Tribal members. Locations and uses are carefully guarded by Tribal members and would be similarly
treated within the confines of government to government consultation.

The BLM has initiated Native American consultation. The BLM and tribal representatives from the
Fort Hall Reservation participated in a visit to the Proposed Project area. Consulted parties expressed
some knowledge of past use of the Cotterel Mountain area, with the exception of general use of the
ridge as a transportation corridor. No specific concerns about culturally sensitive areas in the
Proposed Project area were presented during initial consultation. Consultation will be on going during
the course of the Proposed Project.

3.4.4 Sacred Sites

No specific sacred sites were identified during initial consultations. It was noted that ridges and
mountaintops had a special interest to the Tribes to identify special places, significant events, and
group identities. Any such sites would require the application of Executive Order 13007.

3.5 SOCIOECONOMICS

This report describes the existing social and economic conditions in the Proposed Project area, and
analyzes the socioeconomic impacts that would be attributable to construction and operation of the
Proposed Project under each alternative. Socioeconomic issues analyzed here include: labor force,
employment, and income; population and housing, including property values; taxes; social values;
and environmental justice issues. The study area for this analysis is Cassia County and Minidoka
County combined. The Proposed Project would be located entirely within Cassia County. Local
purchases and tax benefits attributable to the construction contract, and the permanent increase in
property values attributable to the Proposed Project would result in economic benefits to both Cassia
County and Minidoka County.

3.5.1 Existing Conditions

Sources of information for the existing conditions include the Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL);
local cities, counties, school districts, public services agencies, real estate professionals, newspapers,
and economic development associations; the U.S. Census Bureau; private research findings (for travel
impact data and property value information); the Idaho Department of Commerce; the Idaho State
Tax Commission; the Census of Agriculture; and the U.S. Department of Labor. Estimated and
projected economic data were collected for past, current and future conditions. For all economic

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

3-64

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

variables, data are presented for the most current year for which that type of data was available.
Existing conditions are the same for all build alternatives.

3.5.2 Regional Economy and Community

Background

The Proposed Project would be located in Cassia County, beginning south of where 1-84 meets
Interstate 86 (1-86) and extending south (Figure 1.0-1). Cassia County is a rural county surrounded by
Twin Falls, Jerome, Minidoka, Blaine, Power and Oneida counties in Idaho; Elko County in Nevada;
and Box Elder County in Utah. Cassia County is most closely linked economically with Minidoka
County to the north. The two-county area is called the Mini-Cassia area.

The Mini-Cassia economy was built around agricultural industries, such as livestock (beef and dairy
cattle, sheep) and crop production (sugar beets, grains, potatoes, alfalfa, and beans) (Cassia County
History 2003). In 2002, Cassia County ranked first among all counties in the state for value of
agricultural products sold, second for value of livestock and poultry, and third for value of crops. The
same year, Minidoka County ranked second for value of crops, eighth for value of agricultural
products sold, and twelfth for value of livestock and poultry (Minidoka County Information 2004).
For value of sales in 2002, Cassia County dropped to second (from first rank in 1997) for cattle and
calves. In 2002 it ranked third in the grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas category; and the other
crops and hay category. In 2002, Minidoka County ranked first for sheep and goats, and second for
the category of vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes (NASS 2003, 1997).

Today, the Mini-Cassia area economy continues to be centered on agricultural industries such as food
processing. Both counties have higher average unemployment rates compared to other southern Idaho
counties, in part due to seasonal layoffs typical of the food processing industry. The area has
experienced business closures and layoffs in recent years, including: the closure of the original J.R.
Simplot potato plant in Heybum, which resulted in over 600 lost jobs in 2004 (Idaho Statesman
2003); the closure of a Kmart in Burley; and layoffs at other potato plants (Anderson 2003; Idaho
Statesman 2003). The retail job losses at Kmart may be countered by an expansion of 200 jobs at the
Burley Wal-Mart by mid-2004 (Anderson 2003). On Cotterel Mountain, there are two grazing
allotments with 12 permittees within the Proposed Project area (Idaho Watersheds Project 1999).

Labor Force and Employment

In 2003, the Mini-Cassia area labor force of 19,644 workers was 2.8 percent of the State of Idaho
labor force. During the period 1980 to 2003, employment in the Mini-Cassia area generally grew
slower than total Idaho employment, except for Cassia County employment between 2000 and 2003,
which grew at a rate similar to the state rate (Table 3.5-1).

Employment in Minidoka County grew slower than Cassia County’s employment from 1980 to 2003.
The relatively slower rates are typical of the rural south-central Idaho counties (IDOL 2003c).

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

3-65

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Between 1995 and 2003, the annual average unemployment rate for Cassia County was highest in
1995, 1997 and 1998 at 7.1 percent, while the same measure for Minidoka County was highest in
1995 and 1997 at 8.5 percent (IDOL 2003c).

In 2003, unemployment was 6.6 percent in Cassia County and 8.3 percent in Minidoka County. The
Mini-Cassia area had more unemployed residents compared to the State of Idaho as a whole, which
had 5.4 percent unemployed residents in 2003. The J.R. Simplot plant closure is reflected in the July
2004 unemployment rate in Minidoka County of 9.3 percent (Rogers 2004). The U.S. government has
designated both Cassia County and Minidoka counties as Federal Labor Surplus Areas 1 (Rogers
2004).

Table 3.5-1. Labor Force and Employment for Cassia County, Minidoka County and the
State of Idaho.

Labor Force

Employment

Unemployment Rate

Cassia County 1980

7,744

7,267

6.2

Cassia County 1990

8,423

7,775

7.7

Cassia County 2000

9,430

8,840

6.3

Cassia County 2003

9,935

9,276

6.6

AARG, 1980-1990

0.8%

0.7%

-

AARG, 1990-2000

1.1%

1.3%

-

AARG, 2000-2003

1.8%

1.6%

-

Minidoka County 1980

8,981

8,401

6.5

Minidoka County 1990

8,914

8,240

7.5

Minidoka County 2000

9,596

8,899

7.3

Minidoka County 2003

9,709

8,907

8.3

AARG, 1980-1990

-0.1%

-0.2%

-

AARG, 1990-2000

0.7%

0.8%

-

AARG, 2000-2003

0.4%

0.0%

-

State of Idaho 1980

429,010

394,993

7.9

State of Idaho 1990

492,613

463,472

5.9

State of Idaho 2000

656,778

624,806

4.9

State of Idaho 2003

692,552

655,104

5.4

AARG, 1980-1990

1.4%

1.6%

-

AARG, 1990-2000

2.9%

3.0%

-

AARG, 2000-2003

1.8%

1.6%

-

Notes: AARG = Average Annual

^ate of Growth.

Source: IDOL 2003c.

Employment level trends closely follow labor force trends in both Cassia County and in the State of
Idaho (IDOL 2003c). However, for Minidoka County, the labor force trend shows an increase in
recent years when compared to the employment level trend (Figure 3.5-1). This indicates an increase
in the unemployment rate in recent years for Minidoka County.

1 A county designated a federal Labor Surplus Area has an average unemployment rate of at least 20 percent
above the average unemployment rate for all states during the previous two calendar years (USDOL 2003).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-66

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Figure 3.5-1. Labor Force and Employment Trends for Cassia County, Minidoka County, and
the State of Idaho.

Cassia County Labor Force and

Unemployment Minidoka County Labor Force and

Employment

12,000
10,000 -
8,000
6,000 -
4,000
2,000 -
0 -

1980 1990 2000 2003

-Labor Force.. Employment

10,000 -

9.500
9,000

8.500

8,000

7.500 -

1980 1990 2000 2003

-Labor Force.Employment

State of Idaho Labor Force and Employment

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1980 1990 2000 2003

Source: IDOL 2003c.

Labor Force. Employment

Industry

Important industries in the Mini-Cassia area include food processing (Ore-Ida and McCain, both
potato processors), manufacturing (Boise Cascade Corporation, a manufacturer of cardboard boxes),
machinery manufacturing, milk processors, feed mills, commercial livestock feed lots, and gravel and
cement processors (Cassia County History 2003).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-67

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Most jobs in Cassia County are in retail trade (25%); manufacturing (19%); and agriculture, forestry,
fishing and hunting (19%). Most Minidoka County jobs are in manufacturing (30%) and agriculture,
forestry, fishing and hunting (22%). In comparison, jobs in the State of Idaho as a whole are in
general more balanced among different industries, with the most jobs in retail trade (16%) and
manufacturing (14%) (Table 3.5-2; IDOL 2003b).

Table 3.5-2. Industry Share of Employment, 2002 for Cassia County, Minidoka County and
the State of Idaho.

State of Idaho

Cassia County

Minidoka County

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

4%

19%

22%

Mining

0%

2%

0%

Utilities

0%

1%

1%

Construction

8%

7%

4%

Manufacturing

14%

19%

30%

Wholesale trade

5%

7%

13%

Retail trade

16%

25%

8%

Transportation and warehousing

3%

7%

5%

Information

2%

2%

3%

Finance and insurance

4%

4%

1%

Real estate and rental and leasing

1%

1%

0%

Professional and technical services

6%

3%

2%

Management of companies and
enterprises

2%

0%

0%

Administrative and waste services

7%

0%

0%

Educational services

1%

0%

0%

Health care and social assistance

11%

0%

0%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

2%

0%

0%

Accommodation and food services

10%

0%

8%

Other services, except public
administration

3%

3%

3%

Unclassified

0%

0%

0%

TOTAL

100%

100%

100%

Notes:

ND = Data not disclosed.
N/A = Data not available.
Source: IDOL 2003b.

2 Employment in Table 3.5-2 represents jobs within Cassia County or Minidoka County as opposed to residents
of Cassia County or Minidoka County who are employed. Table 3.5-1 represents Cassia County and Minidoka
County residents who are employed. The difference between these estimates is the number of residents who
commute in or out of the respective counties for work.

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

3-68

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3.5-3 shows the projected growth by industry for the period 2000 to 2010 in South Central
Idaho. The highest rates of projected growth are expected to be in: agriculture, forestry and fishing
(7.3%); construction (3.4%); and services (3.1%). Within the construction category, the expected
annual growth rates by subcategory are: 3.2 percent for general building contractors, 0.7 percent for
heavy construction, and 4.0 percent for special trade contractors. These rates are similar to rates for
the State of Idaho as a whole. The growth rate of the electric, gas, and sanitary services industry is
expected to grow 0.1 percent faster than in the state as a whole (IDOL 2003d).

Table 3.5-3. Projected Job Growth by Industry 2000-2010 for South Central Idaho Compared to
the State of Idaho.

Industry

Estimated

Employment

2000

Projected

Employment

2010

Annual
Average
Rate of
Projected
Growth

Annual
Average Rate
of Projected
Growth, Idaho

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing, Total

1,712

2,970

7.3%

3.1%

Mining, Total

156

180

1.5%

-2.5%

Construction, Total

4,723

6,315

3.4%

3.3%

General building contractors

1,450

1,907

3.2%

3.2%

Heavy construction, except building

536

576

0.7%

0.8%

Special trade contractors

2,737

3,832

4.0%

4.0%

Manufacturing, Total

8,595

9,163

0.7%

1.7%

Transportation and Public Utilities

4,250

5,059

1.9%

1.6%

Transportation, Total

3,089

3,744

2.1%

1.7%

Communications

476

565

1.9%

1.8%

Electric, gas, and sanitary services

685

750

0.9%

0.8%

Communications and Utilities, Total

1,161

1,315

1.3%

1.4%

Wholesale and Retail Trade, Total

17,952

22,462

2.5%

2.5%

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, Total

2,242

2,775

2.4%

2.6%

Services, Total

18,405

24,155

3.1%

2.9%

TOTAL

58,035

73,079

2.6%

2.6%

Source: IDOL 2003d.

Tourism and Recreation

Most jobs in the tourism and recreation industry are in retail trade, services, or local government,
three industries with notable representation in the Mini-Cassia Area. Tourism and recreation
resources in the county include public land for hunting, fishing, hiking, climbing, camping, horseback
riding, bicycling, and scenic viewing. The Snake River is located north of the Proposed Project area,
dividing Cassia County and Minidoka County, and provides boating, boat racing, water skiing, and
fishing opportunities. Pomerelle Mountain Resort on Mt. Harrison, west of the Proposed Project area,
provides snow skiing and snowmobiling areas. It is located to the southwest of the Proposed Project
area and serves all of southeast Idaho. The City of Rocks National Reserve, Cache Peak, and

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-6 9

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Independence Peak are hiking and climbing areas located southwest of the Proposed Project area. A
section of the Sawtooth National Forest including Mt. Harrison and Lake Cleveland is located in
Cassia County (Cassia County History 2003).

The City of Burley has a golf course, and parks with softball, swimming, tennis, soccer and boating
facilities. Private facilities in Burley also include a golf course, bowling, health club, and racquetball
facilities. Other towns in Cassia County also have parks and softball facilities. Other tourist
attractions in Burley include the Cassia County Museum and the Cassia County Fair and Rodeo.

Recreational activities that take place at Cotterel Mountain and near the Proposed Project area include
dispersed hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, OHV riding, and hang-gliding. Public access to Cotterel
Mountain is limited, especially on upper roads. No designated or maintained hiking trails exist in the
Proposed Project area. Picnic areas accessible in dry weather include a small picnic area west of the
radio tower at Coe Creek, and McClendon Springs, which is an improved picnic site with wildlife and
plant viewing opportunities. McClendon Springs is located on the east side of Cotterel Mountain near
Malta, and is maintained by BLM. This area has riparian habitat for migratory songbirds because
livestock are fenced out of this location, which increases opportunities for wildlife watching (Idaho
Watersheds Project 1999).

In 1997, travel and tourism spending in south central Idaho 3 was approximately $135 million and was
associated with 2,122 jobs (Dean Runyan Associates 2003). The Mini-Cassia portion of this
economic impact was $36.4 million in spending and 550 jobs. These travel and tourism jobs
represented three percent of the total jobs in the Mini-Cassia area that year.

Income

Median household income in Cassia County was $33,322 in 1999, representing 88 percent of the
State of Idaho median household income, and 94 percent of the median household income of South
Central Idaho as a whole. The median household income of Minidoka County of $32,021 in 1999
represented 85 percent of the State of Idaho and 90 percent of South Central Idaho median household
income for the same year (Census 2000d). Per capita personal income in Cassia County was $22,121
and $17,823 in Minidoka County in 2001 (IDOL 2003a), compared to $24,506 in the State of Idaho
as a whole. The relatively lower income levels can be typical of a rural area that has not had recent
strong economic growth.

Table 3.5-4 shows annual covered wages and percentage of total wages by industry in 2000 for Cassia
County, Minidoka County, and the State of Idaho. The industries with percentages of total wages over
15 percent in Cassia County were manufacturing (23%), retail trade (20%) and agriculture, forestry,
fishing and hunting (16%). In Minidoka County, the manufacturing industry represents 42 percent of
wages, and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting represents 17 percent of wages. Manufacturing

3 Dean Runyan Associates (Dean Runyan Associates 2003) included Cassia, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln,
Minidoka, and Twin Falls counties in “south central Idaho” for the purpose of their estimates.

A4ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-70

Cotierel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

wages are relatively higher than retail trade wages as shown by comparing the industry share to
wages by industry.

Table 3.5-4. Annual Covered Wages and Percentage of Total Wages, 2002 ($l,000s) for
Cassia County, Minidoka County and the State of Idaho.

State of
Idaho

%of

Total

Cassia

County

%of

Total

Minidoka

County

%of

Total

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

438,450

3%

21,317

16%

23,384

17%

Mining

70,349

1%

3,195

2%

—

0%

Utilities

131,452

1%

1,701

1%

2,186

2%

Construction

1,132,450

9%

12,621

9%

5,828

4%

Manufacturing

2,478,592

19%

30,144

23%

57,787

42%

Wholesale trade

861,499

7%

9,186

7%

17,856

13%

Retail trade

1,488,232

12%

26,287

20%

9,040

7%

Transportation and warehousing

421,525

3%

11,347

8%

5,919

4%

Information

305,019

2%

3,604

3%

3,416

2%

Finance and insurance

653,383

5%

6,695

5%

1,783

1%

Real Estate and rental and leasing

139,113

1%

620

0%

431

0%

Professional and technical services

1,210,010

9%

3,585

3%

2,039

1%

Management of companies and
enterprises

480,620

4%

(ND)

0%

(ND)

0%

Administrative and waste services

590,804

5%

(ND)

0%

(ND)

0%

Educational services

106,860

1%

(ND)

0%

(ND)

0%

Health care and social assistance

1,515,284

12%

(ND)

0%

(ND)

0%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

135,843

1%

(ND)

0%

207

0%

Accommodation and food services

474,066

4%

(ND)

0%

4,449

3%

Other services, except public
administration

287,383

2%

3,228

2%

2,300

2%

Unclassified

8,816

0%

N/A

0%

25

0%

Total

12,929,750

100%

133,530

100%

136,650

100%

ND = Not disclosed by BLS.
N/A = Data not available.
Source: IDOL 2003b.

3.5.3 Population, Housing and Property Values

Population

Table 3.5-5 and Figure 3.5-2 show the population trends in Cassia County, Minidoka County and the
State of Idaho. In 2002, Cassia County had a population of 21,720 and Minidoka County had a
population of 19,465; together representing three percent of the State of Idaho population (IDOL
2003a). In recent years, the population of the Mini-Cassia area has grown more slowly than the
population of the state. From 1980 to 2001, the population of Cassia County grew between 0.1 and
1.5 percent per year, while the total population of the state grew between 0.6 and 3.2 percent per year
(IDOL 2003a; Cassia County 2003a). From 1980 to 2001, the population of Minidoka County has
been decreasing, except during the early 1990s (IDOL 2003a; Table 3.5-5). Population decreases in
the Mini-Cassia area may be caused by the high unemployment rate and relatively slow economic
growth.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-71

Cofterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Figure

4.0% -|

3.0%

2 . 0 %

1 . 0 %

0 . 0 %

- 1 . 0 %

- 2 . 0 % -

-3.0% -

-4.0% J

3.5-2. Annual Average Rates of Population Growth in Cassia County, Minidoka County
and the State of Idaho

— —Cassia County

- - - Minidoka County
-State of Idaho

Table 3.5-5. Population Trends in Cassia County, Minidoka County and the
State of Idaho.

Cassia

County

Minidoka

County

Idaho

Mini-Cassia
Percent of State
Population

Population

1980

19,427

19,718

943,935

4%

1990

19,532

19,361

1,006,734

4%

1995

20,996

20,759

1,177,322

4%

2000

21,416

20,174

1,293,953

3%

2001

21,595

19,569

1,320,585

3%

2002

21,720

19,465

1,341,131

3%

Annual Average Rates of Population Growth

AARG, 1980-1990

0.1%

-0.2%

0.6%

N/A

AARG, 1990-1995

1.5%

1.4%

3.2%

N/A

AARG, 1995-2000

0.4%

-0.6%

1.9%

N/A

AARG, 2000-2001

0.8%

-3.0%

2.1%

N/A

AARG, 2000-2002

0.7%

-1.8%

1.8%

N/A

AARG, 2001-2002

0.6%

-0.5%

1.6%

N/A

AARG = Annual average rate of growth
N/A = Data not available.

Source: IDOL 2003a

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-72

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Forecasts of county-level population in the State of Idaho were not available at the time this report
was written. However, the U.S. Census predicted in 2000 that the State of Idaho would grow by
approximately two percent per year (on average) between 2000 and 2015, and by approximately one
percent per year between 2015 and 2025 (Census 2000e). These rates are consistent with and slightly
lower than recent rates as shown in Table 3.5-5.

Cities closest to the Proposed Project area with populations over 20,000 are Twin Falls (61 miles to
the west), home to 34,469 residents, and Pocatello (82 miles to the northeast), home to 51,466
residents (Census 2000c). Other large cities in the region include American Falls (57 miles to the
northeast), and Boise (178 miles to the northwest). Smaller cities and their distances from the
Proposed Project area are: Oakley, 20 miles; Heybum, 16 miles; Burley, 15 miles; Rupert, 14 miles;
Declo, 8 miles; Albion, 5 miles; and Malta, 4 miles. Unincorporated communities and their distances
from the Proposed Project area are: Marion, 22 miles; Basin, 17 miles; Springdale, 13 miles; and
Elba, 6 miles.

The cities closest to the Proposed Project area are Malta, located 4 miles east of the ridgeline along
SH-81 and Albion, located 5 miles west of the ridgeline along SH-77. Albion (population 262) has
approximately one block of commercial development that includes: a gas station/general store, a
saloon, a restaurant/cafe, a bank, a bed and breakfast, an inn, and public facilities such as city offices,
a fire department, a grange hall, and an elementary school. A few residential streets are located south
and east of the commercial block. Other homes are located in unincorporated Cassia County, on roads
leading away from Albion. Albion also has some historic structures. Malta (population 177) consists
of approximately ten square blocks of residential uses, along with two motels, two restaurants, a high
school, an elementary school, a junior high school, a post office, a fuel depot and store, a gift shop, a
gas station, and a grocery store. Similar to Albion, homes are located along roads leading away from
Malta, outside of the city limits.

The largest city within 50 miles of the Proposed Project area is Burley, with 9,074 residents (Idaho
Department of Commerce 2003a). It is located 15 miles northwest of the Proposed Project area.
Burley is the county seat, the largest city in Cassia County, and the home of 42 percent of the county
population. The unincorporated Cassia County area is home to over half the county population (Table
3.5-6; Idaho Department of Commerce 2003a). Cities in Cassia County had near-zero percent
population growth between 1980 and 2000. Only the unincorporated area and the City of Declo had
annual average growth rates in population greater than zero, for both 5-year periods 1990 to 1995,
and 1995 to 2000.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-73

Cofterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3.5-6. Population Distribution in Cassia County.

Albion

Burley

Declo

Malta

Oakley

Unincorporated

Area

1980

286

8525

276

196

663

9,481

1990

305

8420

279

171

635

9,722

2000

262

9316

338

177

668

10,655

2002

264

9375

339

178

669

10,895

% of County in 2002

1.2%

43.2%

1.6%

0.8%

3.1%

50.2%

Source: Idaho Department of Commerce 2003a.

Cities in Minidoka County include Acequia, Heybum, Minidoka, Paul and Rupert. The largest cities
are Rupert, with 5,402 residents, and Heybum, with 2,805 residents. Over half the residents of
Minidoka County live in the unincorporated area (Table 3.5-7).

Table 3.5-7. Population Distribution in Minidoka County.

Acequia

Heyburn

Minidoka

Paul

Rupert

Unincorporated

Area

1980

100

2,889

101

940

5,476

10,212

1990

106

2,714

67

901

5,455

10,118

2000

144

2,899

129

998

5,645

10,359

2002

139

2,805

123

971

5,402

10,025

% of County in 2002

0.7%

14.4%

0.6%

5.0%

27.8%

51.5%

Source: Idaho Department of Commerce 2003a.

No known residences are located within 2 miles of the Proposed Project area. The closest house to the
Proposed Project area is approximately 2.5 miles from the proposed west string. Approximately 80
homes exist along SH-77 or SH-81, outside of the towns of Albion and Malta, but within view of the
Proposed Project.

3.5.4 Housing and Property Values

Units, Vacancy and Types of Housing

The Mini-Cassia area had approximately 15,360 housing units in 2000, representing three percent of
total housing units in the State of Idaho. Mini-Cassia area housing units were seven to ten percent
vacant that year, compared to 11 percent for the State of Idaho as a whole, indicating a slightly tighter
real estate market when compared to the state average. Although the Mini-Cassia area is generally
healthier (in terms of fewer vacant units) than other areas in the State of Idaho, the vacancy rate in the
area is on par with the national average of nine percent. In 2000, 68 percent of the total housing units
in the Mini-Cassia area were owner-occupied, and 90 percent of housing units were built prior to
1988. New development has not been common in recent years in the Mini-Cassia area.

The breakdown of housing units by type in 2000 (Table 3.5-8) indicates that 72 percent of the units in
Cassia County were single-family, and approximately 17 percent were mobile homes, boats, RVs or

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-74

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

other types of housing units. In Minidoka County, 78 percent of units were single-family and 12
percent were mobile homes, boats, RVs or other types of housing units. Compared to the State of
Idaho, the Mini-Cassia area has more mobile homes and single family homes relative to multi-family
homes. However, more mobile homes are vacant in the Mini-Cassia area when compared to the state.

Table 3.5-8. Housing Types and Characteristics, 2000 in Cassia County, Minidoka County and the
State of Idaho.

Total

Units

%of

Total

Vacant

Units

%of

Total

Owner
Occ’d. Units

%of

Total

Renter
Occ’d. Units

%of

Total

Cassia County

7,862

—

802

—

5,125

—

1,935

—

Single family

5,690

72%

438

55%

4,195

82%

1,057

55%

Multi-family

837

11%

143

18%

107

2%

587

30%

Mobile homes

1,275

16%

199

25%

785

15%

291

15%

Other (RVs, boats, etc.)

60

1%

22

3%

38

1%

0

0%

Minidoka County

7,498

—

525

—

5,360

—

1,613

—

Single family

5,861

78%

278

53%

4,666

87%

917

57%

Multi-family

693

9%

141

27%

49

1%

503

31%

Mobile homes

934

12%

106

20%

642

12%

186

12%

Other (RVs, boats, etc.)

10

0%

0

0%

3

0%

7

0%

State of Idaho

527,824

—

58,179

—

339,913

—

129,732

—

Single family

369,924

70%

35,493

61%

285,977

84%

48,454

37%

Multi-family

91,004

17%

12,328

21%

10,838

3%

67,838

52%

Mobile homes

64,163

12%

8,852

15%

42,081

12%

13,230

10%

Other (RVs, boats, etc.)

2,733

1%

1,506

3%

1,017

0%

210

0%

Source: Census 2000f.

Housing Values and Rents

The median value of housing in Minidoka County was $74,600 (Census 2000f) in 2000; this is 30
percent lower than the median value of housing for Idaho as a whole. The median value of housing in
Cassia County was $53,100 (Census 2000f) in 2000; this is 22 percent lower than the median value of
housing for Idaho as a whole (Table 3.5-9).

Table 3.5-9. Median Housing Values in Cassia County, Minidoka County
and the State of Idaho in 2000.

Area

Median
Housing Value,
1990

Median

Housing Value,
2000

Percentage

Increase,

1990 to 2000

Minidoka County

$41,500

$74,600

79.8%

Cassia County

$46,000

$83,100

80.7%

State of Idaho

$58,000

$106,300

83.3%

Source: Census 2000f.

Median rent in Cassia County doubled to $403 per month between 1990 and 2000. Minidoka County
median rent also doubled to $394 in 2000. The median rent was $413 in 2000 throughout the State of

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-75

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Idaho (Census 2000d). The lower housing values and rents in the Mini-Cassia area suggest a relaxed
housing market in contrast to the relatively low vacancy rate.

On Friday June 6, 2003, eight single-family homes, one manufactured home, and parcels for
manufactured homes were listed for sale in the South Idaho Press. Four of the eight single family
homes were listed with prices that ranged from $51,000 to $75,000. 4 Locations for three of the single¬
family homes were listed as one in Burley and two in Heybum. The paper also listed over twelve
apartments for rent ranging from $250 to $425 per month. Over 17 homes were listed for rent in
Rupert, Heybum, Burley, Paul, and Declo from $325 to $650. Prices and locations were not included
in all listings (South Idaho Press 2003).

According to local real estate agents, new construction in the Mini-Cassia area included homes priced
from $160,000 to $185,000 for 1,500 to 1,800 square feet for single-family homes, and custom-built
single-family homes priced up to $500,000 (McCall 2003; Anderson 2003). Custom-built homes are
typically under construction outside of Burley, while lower-priced new homes ranging in price from
$85,000 to $100,000 are under construction within Burley city limits. The housing market in the
Mini-Cassia area is generally stable and steady, with few highs and lows, and has been this way for
several decades. In the future, local agents expect the market to remain steady, and for more homes in
the $75,000 to $85,000 range to enter the market (McCall 2003; Anderson 2003). In 2000, 90 percent
of existing housing units in the Mini-Cassia area were built prior to 1988.

Temporary Lodging

At least 972 lodging rooms in hotels or motels exist within 60 miles of the Proposed Project area
(Table 3.5-10). Assuming a summer vacancy rate of 15 percent on average (weekends and weekdays),
approximately 150 rooms would be available at one time.

Campgrounds and RV parks near the Proposed Project area include:

• Heybum Riverside RV Park in Heybum;

• Willow Bay Recreation Area, and Indian Springs Swimming and RV in American Falls;

• KOA Campground in Jerome;

• Budget RV Park in Pocatello; and

• Central Idaho 4-H Camp, Oregon Trails Campgrounds Center, Curry Trailer Park, and
Nat Soo Pah Hot Springs and RV in Twin Falls (Idaho Lodging 2003).

4 The other four listings did not include price.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-76

Cofterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3.5-10. Temporary Lodging Near the Proposed Project Area.

Name and Location

City/Town

Miles from Albion, Idaho

No. of

Rooms

Marsh Creek Inn

Albion

5

12

Best Western Burley Inn & Convention Ctr.

Burley

18

126

Budget Motel of Burley

Burley

18

139

East Park Motel

Burley

18

12

Lampliter Motel

Burley

18

16

Evergreen Motel

Burley

18

13

Parish Motel

Burley

18

15

Powers Motel

Burley

18

23

Starlite Motel & Taxi

Burley

18

9

Super 8

Heybum

20

68

Tops Motel

Heybum

20

16

Flamingo Lodge Motel

Rupert

18

15

Hillview

American Falls

57

33

Amber Inn Motel

Eden

44

25

AmeriTel Inn

Twin Falls

57

118

Best Western Apollo Motor Inn

Twin Falls

57

50

Capri Motel

Twin Falls

57

23

Comfort Inn

Twin Falls

57

52

El Rancho Motel

Twin Falls

57

14

Holiday Motel

Twin Falls

57

18

Holiday Inn Express

Twin Falls

57

59

Monterey Motor Inn

Twin Falls

57

28

Motel 6

Twin Falls

57

132

Red Lion Canyon Springs

Twin Falls

57

112

Shilo Inn - Twin Falls

Twin Falls

57

128

Super 7 Motel

Twin Falls

57

40

Super 8 Motel Twin Falls

Twin Falls

57

93

Twin Falls Motel

Twin Falls

57

8

Weston Inn

Twin Falls

57

97

Estimated Number of Rooms Within 60 miles

972

Source: URS 2003.

3.5.5 Public Finance and Fiscal Conditions

The State of Idaho collects property tax, sales tax, and personal and corporate income tax from its
residents. The Idaho State Tax Commission collects the income and sales taxes, and counties collect
property taxes. The taxing of property within Cassia County funds county operations. Taxes that
would apply directly to Proposed Project construction and operation include property and sales taxes.

Property Tax

Cassia County would benefit from tax revenue attributable to the Proposed Project because the
Proposed Project site is within the County. Tax impacts are discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental
Consequences.

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

2-11

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

The 2002-2003 budget for Cassia County was $11.4 million (Cassia County 2003a). Of this amount,
$2.9 million (25%) was from annual property tax revenue. Almost half of property tax revenue was
allocated to the Justice Fund (i.e., law enforcement needs), while approximately one-fifth was
allocated to the Current Expense Fund (Table 3.5-11). Other funds each received less than ten percent
of tax revenue.

The 2003 average property tax rates for the State of Idaho were 1.67 percent for urban areas, and 1.17
percent for rural areas. For Cassia County, the urban area average rate was 1.56 percent, slightly
lower than the state urban average rate, while the Cassia County rural rate average was 1.17 percent,
which was the same as the state rural average rate (Holland 2003).

Table 3.5-11. Cassia County Distribution of Property Tax Revenue from

the 2002-2003 Adopted Budget.

Fund

Amount

Percent of Total

Justice Fund

$1,407,350

48.9%

Current Expense Fund

$614,580

21.4%

Jail Bond

$250,000

8.7%

Indigent Fund

$186,760

6.5%

Junior College Fund

$129,560

4.5%

Weed and Pest Fund

$82,000

2.8%

Re Evaluation

$66,250

2.3%

Ambulance Services Fund

$58,000

2.0%

Fair Exhibits

$57,000

2.0%

Co. Roads (Unorg.) Fund

$16,480

0.6%

Historical Society

$10,400

0.4%

Total

$2,878,380

100.0%

Source: Cassia County 2003a.

Table 3.5-12 shows the Cassia County taxable assessed value in 2001 was $210.8 million (Cassia
County 2003b). The Proposed Project is located within Tax Code Areas 16 and 17 (ITC 2003a),
which are taxed at 1.2 percent.

Over half of the tax revenue collected from Tax Code Areas 16 and 17 funds Cassia Joint School
District No. 151, which serves most of Cassia County and portions of Oneida and Twin Falls counties
(Table 3.5-12). Cassia Joint School District includes 16 schools and over 5,000 students (Cassia Joint
School District 2003). The property tax revenues represent 21 percent of total funding for school
operations. Remaining funding is provided by state tax revenues (65%) and federal funds (14%)
(Cassia Joint School District 2003).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-78

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3.5-12. Property Tax Rates in Tax Code Areas 16 and 17.

Taxing District

Tax Code Area 16 Rate

Tax Code Area 17 Rate

School Dist. 151

0.644%

0.644%

County

0.315%

0.315%

Raft River Hwy

0.194%

0.194%

Flood District 15

0.043%

0.043%

Raft River Fire

0.014%

0.014%

Valley Vu Cemetery

0.007%

0.000%

TOTAL

1.218%

1.211%

Source: Cassia County 2003b.

Retail Sales Tax

Retail sales in Cassia County in 1997 accounted for $193 million (Cassia County 2003b). This
represented 1.7 percent of total retail sales in the State of Idaho, and resulted in a ranking of 15 out of
44 counties in the State of Idaho (Census 1997). From 1993 to 2002, retail sales in Cassia County
grew at rates ranging from four to 11 percent per year, and represented one percent of the total retail
sales in the State of Idaho (Idaho Department of Commerce 2003b).

Sales taxes apply to the sale, rental, or lease of tangible personal property, and some services. The
Idaho sales tax rate was increased from five to six percent on May 1, 2003 (Poplar 2003). Based on
$193 million in retail sales in 1997 in Cassia County (Cassia County 2003b), sales tax revenue
collected that year would have been approximately $9.7 million.

Social Values

Rural communities tend to be characterized by social and lifestyle patterns that are distinct from their
metropolitan counterparts. Smaller rural communities are often characterized by a high level of what
social scientists call social cohesiveness. Cohesiveness refers to the forces or attractions that hold
members of a community together, and is based on the quality of social life within the community,
and an important emphasis on a sense of place and togetherness. An impact that may decrease the
attractiveness of the community itself, or the desirability of associating with, or identifying with the
community may have a detrimental effect on the level of cohesion and the corresponding sense of
community (Finsterbusch 1980). Social values in the Mini-Cassia area are likely rooted in a strong
social cohesiveness, along with a high regard for agriculture and its related industries. In addition, the
Mini-Cassia area contains vast open spaces with remote, mountainous terrain. Residents also likely
value these natural settings and the recreational opportunities afforded by them.

3.5.6 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (1998) requires that federal agencies address high and disproportionate
environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations (“environmental justice” impacts)
attributable to projects proposed on federal land. Enviromnental justice impacts would result if
potentially high and adverse environmental impacts attributable to the Proposed Project would fall

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-79

Cofterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

disproportionately on minority or low-income populations. The first step of an enviromnental justice
analysis involves screening the Proposed Project area to determine if environmental justice
populations exist in the area. The second step (addressed in Chapter 4) is to determine whether
Proposed Project impacts would be high, and if they would disproportionately affect any
environmental justice populations.

Minority Populations

The U.S. Census classifies 21 percent of the population of Cassia County and 28 percent of the
population in Minidoka County as a racial minority, compared to 17 percent in the South Central
Idaho region 5,6 (Census 2000a). The State of Idaho as a whole was 12 percent minority in 2000. The
Mini-Cassia area population was 24 percent minority on average and more racially diverse than South
Central Idaho and the state as a whole (Table 3.5-13).

Census blocks are the smallest geographic units used in compiling the decennial U.S. Census. The
decennial census has always reported population by state and county, and in the latter half of the
twentieth century added the concepts of the census tract, the block group, and the census block to its
spatial subdivision of the nation. The census block, normally used only in urbanized areas, is an
actual physical block or other spatial unit within the census tract. The census block group combines,
on average, about four census blocks to comprise approximately 1,500 persons and normally
represents a residential subdivision or other reasonable geographic entity. The populations of these
spatial units can vary widely, and may even have a population of zero (Census 1994).

The Proposed Project area is located within five designated census blocks within Census Tract 9501
(Table 3.5-13). Two of the five census blocks have no population. The remaining three census blocks
contain a combined population of 48, of which 4 residents are listed as minority residents (Census
2000a). These four minority residents live within census block 2000, which covers the northern end
of the proposed turbine strings.

5 Minority populations include Hispanic, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native,
Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, & other non-white races.

6 This report uses the definition for the South Central Region of Idaho used by the IDOL. The South Central
Region of Idaho includes the counties of Cassia, Minidoka, Blaine, Camas, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, and
Twin Falls.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-80

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3.5-13. Minority Populations in the South Central Region of Idaho.

Geographic Area

Population

Minority Population (a)

Percentage of Total

Census Tract 9501 and
Census Block 2000

20

4

20%

Census Tract 9501 and
Census Block 2014

0

0

N/A

Census Tract 9501 and
Census Block 2015

2

0

0%

Census Tract 9501 and
Census Block 2245

0

0

N/A

Census Tract 9501 and
Census Block 2246

26

0

0%

Cassia County

21,416

4434

21%

Minidoka County

20,174

5,622

28%

Mini-Cassia area

41,590

10,056

24%

Blaine County

18,991

2,460

13%

Camas County

991

81

8%

Gooding County

14,155

2,782

20%

Jerome County

18,342

3,551

19%

Lincoln County

4,044

669

17%

Twin Falls County

64,284

7,894

12%

South Central Idaho (b)

162,397

27,493

17%

State of Idaho

1,293,953

154,662

12%

Note:

(a) Minority populations include Hispanic, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian,
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and other non-white races.

(b) This report uses the definition for the South Central Region of Idaho used by the IDOL. The South Central
Region of Idaho includes the counties of Cassia, Minidoka, Blaine, Camas, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, and
Twin Falls.

Source: Census 2000a.

Low Income Populations

Fourteen percent of Cassia County residents and 15 percent of Minidoka County residents lived
below the poverty level in 1999 (Table 3.5-14). In comparison, 13 percent of residents in South
Central Idaho lived below the poverty level, and 12 percent of Idaho residents lived below the poverty
level in 1999 (Census 2000b). That year, the Mini-Cassia area had slightly more residents living in
poverty (14%, on average) when compared to South Central Idaho and the State of Idaho.

In census block group 2 within census tract 9501 (which surrounds the Proposed Project), relatively
fewer residents live below the poverty level (10%, Table 3.5-14).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-81

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Table 3.5-14. Populations Living Below Poverty Level, 1999 in the South Central Region
of Idaho.

Geographic Area

Population for Whom
Poverty Status Is
Determined

Population Living
Below Poverty Level

Percentage of
Total

CT 9501 CBG 2

1,280

134

10%

Cassia County

21,109

2,875

14%

Minidoka County

19,992

2,960

15%

Mini-Cassia area

41,101

5,835

14%

Blaine County

18,868

1,469

8%

Camas County

985

82

8%

Gooding County

13,916

1,922

14%

Jerome County

18,235

2,526

14%

Lincoln County

3,995

522

13%

Twin Falls County

63,123

8,038

13%

South Central

Idaho (a)

160,223

20,394

13%

State of Idaho

1,263,205

148,732

12%

Notes:

(a) This report uses the definition for the South Central Region of Idaho used by the IDOL. The South Central
Region of Idaho includes the counties of Cassia, Minidoka, Blaine, Camas, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, and
Twin Falls.

Source: Census 2000b.

3.6 LANDS AND REALTY

The Proposed Project area is within public lands managed by the BLM BFO. These lands are
managed in accordance with the Cassia Resource Management Plan (Cassia RMP) (USDI, BLM
1985a; Figure 3.6-1). They are part of Management Area 11, Cotterel Mountain, within the Cassia
RMP (Figure 3.6-2). Major land uses include livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, utility
distribution, and communication facilities locations.

Management goals for the Proposed Project area include expanding dispersed recreation
opportunities, providing for livestock grazing, and transferring certain lands from federal ownership
(USDI, BLM 1985a). Prominent land uses around the Proposed Project area include: rural community
commercial use that is zoned for the cities of Malta and Albion; commercial recreational use at the
Pomerelle Mountain Resort; and agricultural uses such as fanning, grazing, and confined animal
operations.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-82

LMHLu.

/ • v -
I /

\

)

(

- .. . 1

/

X/

L

C

-r

m

>

.j

)ion

i

□

0

\

1 1

\

J

r~ r*

3

v

L J)

n r

A L

I

CL

J"

!

77

J

t

r

f V

/

j

— -!

_

3

-j-

.A

—L

A

i

A

.. i

■

J

~N

r _.J

r

1 »— i

■ ,■

• - ...... _ _ . ?_

P" ■ ;-*'<■/•

h

7i-A.: 7

;■ ' ’’!

i

i

*

j

1 —»

■

-

j

J

ay

u_

V

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.6-1. Existing Land Ownership.

Legend

Transmission Lines

Ownership

Interstate

1 1 B.L.M.

"■■■ Major Roads

| Forest Service

Other Roads

1 1 Private

Project Area

FI State of Idaho

I. _ J Alt. B Interconnect ROW

t m Jt Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW

JJ

2 Miles

«—• T

tlbion

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.6-2. Management Area 11 of
the Cassia RMP

Legend

^3 Management Area 11
Transmission Lines
1 i Project Area
I. _■ Alt. B Feeder Line ROW
£ 2 Alt. C and D Feeder Line ROW

Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Currently there are approximately 320 existing rights-of-way (ROW) within the Cassia RMP area.
These include: highways and access roads; electric power transmission and distribution lines; fiber
optic cables; telephone lines; water, natural gas, and liquid petroleum pipelines; ditches and canals;
communications facilities; and various types of project area ROW. Within the Proposed Project area,
there are approximately 15 ROW and special uses.

3.6.1 Land Status

The lands within the Proposed Project area are predominantly public lands managed by the BLM, in
addition to a small percentage of state land. Public, state, and private lands surround the Proposed
Project area. The City of Albion is located about five miles to the west of Cotterel Mountain, and the
City of Malta is located about four miles to the east.

3.6.2 Existing Land Use

A primitive road extends along the Cotterel Mountain ridge top providing access to the entire
mountain. Public access to the top of the mountain is available from the north, southwest and
southeast. Several feeder roads and trails provide additional access down lateral ridges and drainages,
but large areas of Cotterel Mountain remain roadless. Hunting, sightseeing, OHV use, and winter
recreation pursuits are common in the area. The area is a Special Resource Management Area. There
are two grazing allotments (North Cotterel #5001 and South Cotterel #5002) located within the
Proposed Project area. These areas are discussed below and detailed in Section 3.8 Livestock
Grazing. Although the Proposed Project area is open to mineral entry, no mineral or mining claims
exist.

Agriculture/Rangelands

The Proposed Project area is located within two grazing allotments: North Cotterel (#5001) and South
Cotterel (#5002). The North Cotterel allotment consists of approximately 9,981 acres of public land;
1,280 acres of state land, and 320 acres of private land. Permitted use on the North Cotterel allotment
is 1,428 animal unit months (AUM). An AUM, as defined by the Cassia RMP, is the amount of
forage needed by 1-cow, 1-horse, 5-sheep, 5.3-deer, or 9.4-antelope for one month (approximately
800 lbs. dry weight). Of the 1,428 AUMs, 37 are designated for horse use and 1,389 AUMs are for
livestock. Livestock grazing begins May 1 and ends December 27. The number of livestock and
timing of grazing in the North Cotterel allotment can fluctuate; however, livestock use has generally
occurred from June 1 to July 31 during the past several years (Shaw 2004). The Cassia RMP
identified the opportunity to increase the permitted use in the North Cotterel allotment by 275 AUMs
pending the completion of proposed land treatments.

The South Cotterel allotment consists of 30,007 acres of public land, 640 acres of state land, and 120
acres of private land. Permitted use on the Cotterel South allotment is 3,242 AUMs, which are all
designated for cattle use. Livestock use in the allotment begins on May 1 and ends November 30.
More than 100 range improvements are located in both the North and South Cotterel allotments.
These improvements include water development, fences, cattle guards, and vegetation treatments.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-85

Cofferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Utility Distribution and Commercial Use

The area is open to energy resource exploration, mining, and ROW under the current restriction
prescribed by the Cassia RMP.

Rights-of-Wav and Special Use Permits

The following are current existing ROW and special use permit holders (permit number in
parentheses).

• State of Idaho Communications Site (IDI-016817)

• Bonneville Power Administration Communications Site (EDI-016828)

• Bureau of Reclamation Communications Site (IDI-16460)

• Fisher Broadcasting Company Communications Site (IDI-012066)

• Raft River Electric/ATC Communications Site and Access Road (IDI-29847)

• Federal Aviation Administration Communications Site and Access Road (IDI-013642)

• Moo View Cow Palace Communications Site and Access Road (IDI-32796)

• ATC Communications Buried Telephone Cable (IDI-5128)

• Raft River Electric Company Buried Power Distribution Line (IDI-4446)

• Windland, Inc. Meteorological Data Collection (IDI-33675)

• Chevron Pipeline Company Buried Liquid Petroleum Pipeline (IDI-0602)

• Raft River Electric Company Overhead Power Transmission Line (IDI-014294)

• State Land Easement to the U.S. for a Buried Stockwater Pipeline and Storage Facility
(IDI-29653)

• Private Land Easement to the U.S. for an Access Road (IDI-31422)

• Numerous range improvements including a water station and water storage facility on the
north end of the Proposed Proj ect area

Tribal Land Use

No tribal deeded or reservation lands are present in the Proposed Project area. However, the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes continue to maintain historical hunting and gathering rights within the
Proposed Project area in accordance with the Fort Bridger Treaty Act of 1868.

3.6.3 Planned Land Use

Management direction is outlined in the Cassia RMP. It includes continuation of fire management,
livestock grazing, use of motorized vehicles with restrictions, recreation, and wildlife habitat
management. Activity Plans that have been initiated or planned for implementation include:
Allotment Management Plans; a Recreation Area Management Plan; a Limited Suppression Fire Plan;
a Watershed Management Plan; and a Habitat Management Plan.

Presently the Cassia RMP limits ROW to existing facilities and localities (Page 40 Section D). It also
recommends managing the area to maintain scenic quality and open space. The BLM evaluated the

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-86

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Proposed Project in relation to the current restrictions in the Cassia RMP and determined that it is not
consistent with the plan. Because of several factors including, but not limited to, the fact that wind
energy development was not considered in 1985 when the Cassia RMP was completed, the
relationship of the Proposed Project to the President’s Energy Policy, and the growing demand for
electric power in the region, BLM has proposed to amend the plan to allow ROW for wind energy
developments in the Cotterel Mountain Management Area. Land Use Plans such as the Cassia RMP
can be amended in accordance with BLM regulations (43 CFR 1600), and the National
Environmental Policy Act process, as detailed in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations,
which guide the preparation of plan amendments (40 CFR 1500). The plan amendment process is
tailored to the anticipated level of public controversy and potential for significant impacts. For this
proposal, an assessment for consistency with the existing Cassia RMP was completed by the BLM as
stated above. The proposed plan amendment will be assessed by alternative in Chapters 2 and 4 of
this document to determine the impact on existing resource objectives. A summary of the proposed
amendment based on this assessment is provided below.

3.6.4 Rights-of-Way

Current Plan Objective:

Limit ROW to existing facilities and localities.

Proposed Amendment:

The proposed amendment would lift the ROW restriction on Management Area 11 of the Cassia RMP
to the extent that wind energy development would be permitted. It would also change the Cassia RMP
objective of managing the area to maintain scenic quality and open space. No other developments
would be allowed.

These aspects of the Cassia RMP would be amended through the interdisciplinary and public
participatory National Environmental Policy Act process in conjunction with BLM resource program-
specific guidance.

3.7 RECREATION

The region of south-central Idaho is typically rural in nature. Sparse populations and open space
characterize the landscape, with large areas under agricultural production. Desert mountain ranges,
caves, rugged lava flows, forested terrain, and large expanses of valley land and rolling mountains
make it a unique area in Idaho providing opportunities for a variety of recreational uses. Much of the
area is federal land that helps to satisfy the growing public demand for outdoor recreation. The
Pomerelle Mountain Resort is located about nine miles west of the Proposed Project area and
provides winter recreation in the form of skiing and snowmobiling. The City of Rocks National
Reserve, a popular camping, hiking, rock climbing, and historical area is located about 24 miles
southwest of the Proposed Project area. The recreational uses of Cotterel Mountain include hunting,
OHV use, picnicking, hiking, and some dispersed camping. The public lands associated with Cotterel

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-87

Cofterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Mountain are mandated by the Cassia RMP to provide for multiple uses, including a diverse choice of
recreation opportunities.

3.7.1 Recreation Opportunities

The physical environment often determines where, when, and what types of recreational activities
occur. Landscape attributes that enhance opportunities for recreation and attract visitors to public land
include desert badlands, mountains, canyons, lava features, grasslands, and wooded environments.
The Proposed Project area provides opportunities for a number of recreational activities including:
sightseeing, wildlife viewing, hiking, picnicking, horseback riding, upland game bird and big game
hunting, OHV riding, mountain biking, and camping. Visitor use numbers (dispersed) for the Cotterel
Mountain area have been approximately 7,500 individuals for each fiscal year since 2000 (Thompson
2004). Wheeled vehicle use has been limited to existing roads and trails. There are currently no plans
to construct any new trails for the area.

The Proposed Project area is designated a Special Resource Management Area. These areas are
described in the BLM Land Use Manual-Section 1601 as administrative units established to direct
recreation program priorities, including the allocation of funding and personnel, to those areas where
a commitment has been made to provide specific recreation activity and experience opportunities on a
sustained yield basis (USDI BLM 2000).

The Recreational Opportunities Spectrum (ROS) for the Proposed Project area is semiprimitive
motorized. The ROS provides a management tool for inventory, planning, and administration of
outdoor recreation resources on public land. The BLM often uses the ROS as a framework for
defining the environment present for outdoor recreation opportunities. The ROS recognizes that
people differ in their needs and the experience they desire and that the resource base is not uniform.
The ROS allows managers to characterize all possible combinations of recreational opportunities and
resources and arrange combinations of activities, setting, and experience along a continuum. The
ROS establishes management objectives for recreational activities into six classes, ranging from
essentially natural low-use areas (resource-dependent recreational opportunities) to highly developed,
intensive use areas (facility/vehicle-dependent recreation opportunities). The six classes are identified
as primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban.
Once these opportunities have been defined, managers are able to determine which opportunities
should be provided and are able to assess the impacts of other resource actions on the recreation
resource.

3.7.2 Hunting

Hunting in the area (Management Unit #55) consists mainly of upland game birds, deer, and
mountain lion. The IDFG manages hunts within the Proposed Project area. IDFG hunting data from
1990 to 2003 indicates that the area receives moderate use (IDFG 2003b).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-88

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

3.7.3 Camping

Two developed recreation sites are located on Cotterel Mountain. The Coe Creek picnic site is located
at the head of Coe Creek within the Proposed Project area. McClendon Spring Campground is located
on the lower east side of Cotterel Mountain, outside of the Proposed Project area. These recreational
sites have been upgraded and are considered developed, but use is minimal. Total yearly visits to
these sites are estimated to be 700 individuals for Coe Creek, and 1,500 individuals for McClendon
Springs.

3.7.4 Off-highway Vehicle Use

OHV use occurs throughout BLM lands in Southern Idaho and can be characterized as either a
method of transportation or as recreation use. In the transportation category, OHVs are used to
transport people to remote areas for activities such as hunting. In the recreation category, OHVs are
often used for touring, sightseeing, family outings, hill climbing, and various competitive events.

OHV use on BLM land has increased substantially in recent years. Current regulation and policy
require that BLM manage public land for OHV use by designating areas as open, limited, or closed.
The Cassia RMP states that the Proposed Project area is open to snowmobiles, but wheeled vehicle
use is limited to existing roads and trails.

3.8 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The grazing history of the Proposed Project area is similar to that of much of the northwest U.S. prior
to the mid-twentieth century. Ranchers throughout southern Idaho and northern Utah have used
intermixed private, state, and public lands to support cattle, sheep, and horses. The communities
surrounding Cotterel Mountain have a rich history of sheep grazing, but due to changing markets,
changes in vegetation, irrigation, and loss of area to development, there is a greater emphasis now on
cattle.

In the Proposed Project area, the federal grazing program was initiated with the implementation of the
Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, administered by the Grazing Service and the Division of Grazing. The
program has since been administered by the BLM and is currently managed by the BFO under the
Cassia RMP. The guidelines specific to rangeland management are summarized below:

• Provide allocation of available forage among domestic livestock, and wildlife;

• Reserve sufficient vegetation for maintaining plant health, soil stabilization, wildlife
cover, and other non-consumptive uses; and

• Range improvements, grazing systems, and other range management practices would be
considered in conjunction with livestock management on allotments.

3.8.1 Livestock use of Grazing Allotments

The Proposed Project area, approximately 11,500 acres, lies within two BLM-administered
allotments: North Cotterel and South Cotterel (Table 3.8-1 and Table 3.8-2). Thirty-nine percent

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-89

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

(4,400 acres) of the Proposed Project area is within the North Cotterel allotment. Areas in the
allotment are not suitable for livestock grazing due largely to steep slopes and water availability.
Currently, the majority of the livestock use is within and adjacent to the Proposed Project area, with
the northern portion of the allotment receiving a larger portion of the use due to water availability.
The average stocking rate for the North Cotterel allotment is seven acres per AUM; therefore, about
629 AUMs are located within the Proposed Project area boundaries.

Table 3.8-1. Current Grazing Permits in the Proposed Project Area.

Name

Number of
livestock/type

Dates of
grazing

Percent

public

land

AUMs

North Cotterel Allotment #5001

Jeff and Tamara Chatbum

243 cattle

5/20-7/19

80

389

9 horses

5/20-9/24

100

38

Six S Ranch

377 cattle

5/20-7/31

100

904

9 cattle

5/20-12/27

100

65

Brigham Young University

5 cattle

4/16-10/15

100

30

South Cotterel Allotment #5002

Helen Anderson

70 cattle

5/01-6/08

100

90

44 cattle

5/01-9/13

100

197

Blackjack Ranch

5 cattle

5/01-10/12

100

27

Albert Cottle

7 cattle

3/25-4/30

100

9

8 cattle

2/01-2/28

100

7

Grant Clark

27 cattle

5/01-9/15

100

122

D & K Cattle Co.

41 cattle

5/01-11/30

100

288

Larry and Darlene Kincade

50 cattle

5/01-11/06

100

312

Hank Higley

164 cattle

5/01-9/15

93

692

Ramona Sears

37 cattle

5/01-6/15

100

56

17 cattle

5/01-9/15

100

77

1 cattle

5/01-5/31

100

1

Wallace Sears Jr.

8 cattle

5/01-9/30

100

40

Ward Livestock Inc

350 cattle

5/01-5/31

100

357

130 cattle

5/01-9/30

100

654

67 cattle

10/1-11/14

100

99

224 cattle

11/15-12/14

100

221

Table 3.8-2. Grazing Allotment Distribution in the Proposed
Project Area.

Total Acres

Total AUMs

North Cotterel

12163

1680

South Cotterel

30767

3802

Ninety-one percent of the permitted use (AUMs) on the North Cotterel Allotment is from cattle, and
occurs from May 20 to July 31. Horse use (3% of the permitted use) occurs from May 20 to

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

3 -90

Cotferel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

September 24. The remaining use is from cattle (ten head) that are authorized to graze from May 20
to December 27. During recent years approximately 68 percent of the permitted use has not been
activated. The remaining 32 percent (both horses and cattle) has been used form mid-May to mid-
July.

On the North Cotterel allotment, there are three developed springs, two catchments, and a pipeline
system that are fed by a well, which supplies livestock drinking water within the allotment area are
found within the Proposed Project. Due to limited water availability, a rotational grazing system is not
feasible. However, when adequate water is available, the livestock permittees rotate grazing between
the north and south portions of the allotment.

Three ranching operations are permitted to graze livestock on the North Cotterel allotment; however,
only two of the three permittees have livestock near or in the Proposed Project area. The third
permittee uses the portion of the allotment located on the flats east of Cotterel Mountain. Table 3.8-1
lists the grazing permittees authorized to use the North Cotterel allotment.

Ten ranching operations are permitted to graze livestock on the South Cotterel allotment. Of these
ten, nine are authorized for livestock use within the Proposed Project area. The remaining operator
uses only the lower elevation pastures in the South Cotterel allotment.

Twenty-one percent (6,490 acres) of the South Cotterel allotment lies within the Proposed Project
area. The allotment is divided into eleven pastures. Three of these pastures are located on Cotterel
Mountain (mountain pastures) and the remaining eight are on the flats east of Cotterel Mountain (east
flats pastures). The Proposed Project area lies within the mountain pasture, specifically the summit
pasture. The average stocking rate in the mountain pasture is six acres per AUM; therefore, about
1,082 AUMs are located within the Proposed Project area boundary. Incorporated into the Proposed
Project area is the proposed Raft River power line route, which passes through the Coe Creek
mountain pasture and the allotment #8 pasture.

A rest-rotation grazing system is implemented on both the upper and lower pastures. Cattle are
scheduled to move into the mountain pastures from June 1 to 15 and remain there until about
September 30. Annually, livestock grazes two of the mountain pastures and the third is rested.
Livestock are in each of the grazed pastures for approximately forty-six days. The lower eight
pastures are also managed using a rest-rotation grazing system with two pastures rested annually.

Livestock water in the Summit, Coe Creek, and Allotment #8 pastures are supplied by numerous
developed and undeveloped springs found throughout the Proposed Project area (Figure 3.1-2). Coe
Creek provides another source of water for livestock in the Coe Creek pasture. Pasture and allotment
division fences run across, or are adjacent to, the Proposed Project area.

3.8.2 Rangeland Conditions

Monitoring data is important in evaluating the effects of livestock grazing to identify sites of
concentrated use and impact. In addition, key forage species including: bluebunch wheatgrass;

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-91

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Sandberg’s bluegrass; crested and intermediate wheatgrass; as well as invasive species (cheatgrass,
juniper, etc.) are monitored to examine short-term and long-term effects on range condition and trend.
These range conditions are evaluated based on their departure from Ecological Reference Areas, as
stated in the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health-43 1480, in order to assess if the ecological
processes are functioning within a normal range of variability. Range conditions on Cotterel
Mountain have not recently been assessed and are not current. Historic range conditions show a slight
to moderate dissimilarity with the Ecological Reference Areas. The primary factors affecting
ecosystem functionality are decreased amounts of litter, increased bare-ground, and the introduction
of invasive species.

3.8.3 Rangeland Improvements

Under the guidance of the Cassia RMP, these allotments, located in Management area 11, are to be
managed according to specific objectives created to improve rangelands and provide sustained forage
for livestock and wildlife (USDI, BLM 1985). Objectives specific to the North and South Cotterel
allotments include:

• Expand dispersed recreation opportunities on approximately 18,000 acres south of the
communication facility.

• Manage the area to maintain scenic quality and open spaces.

• Improve 31,212 acres of poor and fair condition rangeland to good.

• Provide 5,278 acres of forage for livestock.

• Provide forage for the following mule deer by season of use: 403 spring; 403 summer;
403 fall; 563 winter.

• Provide yearlong forage for 127 antelope.

• Maintain or improve 6,414 acres of critical deer winter range and 703 acres of sage-
grouse brood-rearing habitat.

• Protect nesting ferruginous hawks from human disturbance.

• Control surface disturbing activities on 5,677 acres having soils with high erosion
potential.

• Transfer 440 acres out of federal ownership: 280 acres via private exchange and 160
acres via sale or other disposal method.

Boundary fences and water developments were constructed by permittees and the BLM in the
Proposed Project area from 1950 to present. Under the Cassia RMP, permittees are responsible for
maintenance of these improvements as assigned.

A rangeland health assessment/evaluation was completed for the South Cotterel allotment in 2004.
Vegetation in the Proposed Project area consisted primarily of native plant communities with some
exotic species present. In general, the assessment described the range as being healthy, with less than
four percent of the range marginally healthy. The assessment described the majority of the range as
exhibiting good plant diversity, plant production, and seedling recruitment. Encroaching juniper and

A/lay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-92

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

decadent sagebrush are contributing factors in those areas showing marginal rangeland health. A
determination as to compliance with the Idaho Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health is
pending. A rangeland health assessment was also completed for the North Cotterel allotment in 2004,
but the written evaluation and determination are pending.

3.8.4 Wildhorses

No wildhorses or burros are found in or managed for in the Proposed Project area.

3.9 VISUAL RESOURCES

3.9.1 Visual Resource Management System

In order for the BLM to meet its responsibility to maintain the scenic values of the public lands, they
use a Visual Resource Management (VRM) system. This system defines the levels of scenic value,
and provides a way to describe and evaluate landscapes (USDI, BLM 1986a; USDI, BLM 1986b).
Different levels of scenic values require different levels of management. For example, management of
an area with high scenic value might be focused on preserving the existing character of the landscape.
In contrast, management of an area with little scenic value might allow for major modifications to the
landscape. Determining how an area should be managed first requires an assessment of the scenic
value of the area.

Assessing scenic values and determining visual impacts can be a subjective process. To increase
objectivity and consistency, the VRM system describes and evaluates landscapes by using the basic
design elements of form, line, color, and texture. This same system can also be used to describe
proposed actions. Projects that repeat these design elements are usually in harmony with their
surroundings, and those that do not create contrast. By adjusting project designs so that the elements
are repeated, visual impacts can be minimized. The VRM system provides a way to identify and
evaluate scenic values. It also provides a way to analyze potential visual impacts and apply visual
design techniques to ensure that surface-disturbing activities are in harmony with their surroundings.
Basically, the VRM system consists of two stages: inventory classification and management
classification (USDI, BLM 1986b). The VRM Inventory stage is summarized below, followed by the
management classification for the Cotterel Mountain area. The analysis is presented in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences.

3.9.2 Visual Resource Inventory

The Visual Resource Management Inventory involves identifying the visual resources of an area and
assigning them to one of four classes using the BLM visual resource inventory process (USDI, BLM
1986a). The process involves rating the visual appeal of a tract of land, measuring public concern for
scenic quality, and determining whether the tract of land is visible from travel routes or observation
points. The VRM Inventory Class for an area is determined by using a classification matrix that ranks
scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zones (Table 3.9-1). Inventory classes provide a basis
for considering visual values in the RMP process, but they do not establish management direction and
shouldn’t be used as a basis for constraining surface disturbing activities. Visual values are

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

3-93

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

considered throughout the RMP process, and the visual resources are then assigned to VRM classes
with the following established objectives.

Table 3.9.1. Existing VRM Inventory Ratings for the Proposed Project Area.

Scenic
Quality
Rating Unit

Scenic Quality
(raw score)

Visual

Sensitivity

Distance Zone

Classification

Unit 202

C - Low (5)

Low-

Moderate

Foreground/

middleground

Class IV

Unit 220

B = Moderate (12)

High

Foreground/

middleground

Class II

Unit 243

B = Moderate (12)

Moderate

Background

Class IV

Unit 244

B = Moderate (15)

Moderate

Background

Class IV

Unit 245

C = Low (9)

Low

Foreground/

middleground

Class IV

VRM Class I Objective : To preserve the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to
the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.

VRM Class II Objective : To retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the
characteristic landscape should be low.

VRM Class III Objective : To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of
change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate.

VRM Class IV Objective : To provide for management activities which require major modification of
the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be
high.

Scenic Quality is a measure of the visual appeal of a tract of land. In the visual resource inventory
process, public lands are give an A, B, or C rating based on the apparent scenic quality that is
determined using seven key factors: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity,
and cultural modifications. During the rating process, each key factor is ranked on a comparative
basis with similar features within the area. As an example, within the key factor of landform,
prominent cliffs with high, vertical relief would receive a score of 5, while a flat valley bottom would
receive a score of 1. Within the defined sensitivity level-rating unit, the rankings of each factor are
summed. A, B, or C ratings for scenic quality are assigned as follows:

A = 19 or more;

B = 12-18; and
C = 11 or less.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-94

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Visual Sensitivity is a measure of public concern for scenic quality. Public lands are assigned high,
medium, or low sensitivity levels for each Scenic Quality Rating Units (SQRU; described below) by
analyzing various indicators of public concern, such as: type of users, amount of use, public interest,
adjacent land uses, and special areas such as wilderness.

Scenic Quality Rating Units . A planning area is subdivided into map area units called SQRU for
visual resource rating purposes. SQRU are delineated on a basis of: like physiographic characteristics;
similar visual patterns, texture, color, variety, etc.; and areas which have similar impacts from man¬
made modifications. The size of SQRU may vary from several thousand acres to 100 or less acres,
depending on the homogeneity of the landscape features, and the detail desired in the inventory.
Normally, more detailed attention would be given to highly scenic areas or areas of known high
sensitivity. Within a planning area, each SQRU is assigned a unique map number.

Distance Zone . Landscapes are subdivided into three distance zones based on relative visibility from
travel routes or observation points. The three zones are: foreground-middleground, background, and
seldom seen. The foreground-middleground zone includes areas seen from highways, rivers, or other
viewing locations that are less than three to five miles away. The background zone is beyond the
foreground-middleground zone, but usually less than 15 miles away. The seldom-seen zone includes
areas not seen as foreground-middleground or background (i.e., hidden from view).

3.9.3 Management Class Rating for the Cotterel Mountain Area

Management Classes differ from inventory classes in that management classes are assigned through
the RMP. Although visual values must be considered throughout the RMP process, the assignment of
visual management classes is ultimately based on the management decisions made in the Cassia
RMP. For example, an area deemed highly scenic that warrants special management attention may be
designated as a scenic Area of Critical Environmental Concern and classified as VRM Class I. Figure
3.9-1 shows the Existing VRM Classes for the Proposed Project area.

All of the Proposed Project area (including access roads) is within the Cassia RMP Management Area
11, which includes VRM Class II, III, and IV. The objective for visual resources within Management
11 is to “manage the area to maintain scenic quality and open space” (USDI, BLM 1986a; USDI,
BLM 1986b). All of the proposed turbine strings would fall within VRM Class IV. About one mile of
existing access road from the south would pass through VRM Class III. Less than one-tenth of a mile
of existing access road from the south would pass through VRM Class II. About 1.5 miles of
proposed access road from the north would pass through VRM Class III (Figure 3.9-1). Table 3.9-1
lists the VRM ratings as identified in the Cassia RMP for the proposed turbine string areas, the
existing access road, and the proposed access road.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-95

jXXXK

!\x x x tT\* * • ^
rxxxxflKX.

. xxxx%<V • •
L.,:xxxxix\ # #
xlxxxx^x\
x nxxxxxmxA •
X^WXXXXljiXXv

XXX>|<XXXWXA

xxxxlxxxxxii.xx

xxx>|xxxxx^i(x

XXX>JXXXX>|XX«

xxxilxxxxfxxl,
x x :r^x x x* x x x x
xxf xxx/xxxxx
xx SxxAxxxxx
xxXxxxxxx

L • <*X X X X X X X X

S<xp<xxxxxxx
Txxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxyxxxxxxxx
xxxfxxxxxxxxx
XX)IXXXXXXXXX
CKXXXXXXXXX
>f*XXXXXXXXXX
>»< X X X X X X X X X X

ixx xxxx xxxxx

1_ X xxxxxxxxx

X xj< X X X X X X X X X
X xi< X X X X X X X X X

x>#<xxxxxxxxx

X>rX XXXXXXXXX

x>|>(xxxxxxxxx

XXXXXXXXXXXX

X>fXXXXXXXXXX

x>fxxxxxxxxxx

x>fxxxxxxxxxx

X>fXXXXXJ<.XXXX

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

Ixxxx

"XXXXX

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

X

XXX

xxxxx
xxxxx
<xxxxxxxxxxx
<xxxxxxxxxxx
<xxxxxxxxxxx

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

XXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

xx

XX

XX

XX

>

X

xxxx

Xxx

xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxx>n<x
xx>0c

XX

xxxxxxx

xxxxXXX

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

X X X X XX X

xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xx*x
x>^x

XX XX

_ txxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
<*:xxxxx
:xxxxx
:xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxx

X
X

XXX
XX
X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

:xxxx:

:xxxx:

:xxxx;

:xxxx:

:xxxx:
xxxx:
xxxx:
xxxx:
:xxxxxxx>s<xx
: x x x x x x x x£< x x>
:xxxxxxx>«xxx
:xxxxxxxxjxxx
:xxxxxxx^xxx
:xxxxxxxxjxxx
ixxxxxxxxxxx
:xxxxxxx>fxxx
ixxxxxxxxxxx*
:xxxxxxx*xxx t

IXXXXXXXXXXX 1

IXXXXXXXXXXX,

xxxxxxx^xxx

XXX

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
^xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

IXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

^xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

/xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

IXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

^xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
'(XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
.(XXXXXXXXXX X^-T*

kxxxxxxxxxxx

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 3.9-1. Existing Visual Resource
Management (VRM) Classes.

Legend

|jJ Proiect Area VRM Classification

|. _ J Alt. B Interconnect ROW CZ23 VRM-2: Class II

I m JH Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW p ' j VRM-2: Class III

“ Transmission Lines P<Xj VRM-2: Class IV

"* ~ Interstate I • 1 VRM-4: Scenic Corridors

mmm Major Roads VRM-5: Isolated Parcels

Other Roads

2 Miles

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

3.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

A hazardous wastes and materials evaluation was conducted to help identify potential issues located
within a one-mile vicinity of the Proposed Project area. Information was gathered from federal and
state environmental databases through Environmental FirstSearch Technology Corporation. This
information was reviewed to evaluate whether activities within or adjacent to the proposed study area
have the potential to impact environmental conditions within the Proposed Project area (FirstSearch
2003). There are eight sites located within a one-mile radius of the proposed study area: six
underground storage tanks; one leaking underground storage tank; and one Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Information System No Further
Remedial Action Planned, Archived Site. The archive designation indicates that, to the best of EPA
knowledge, assessment at the site has been completed, and that EPA has determined no further steps
will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List. Each of the eight sites is designated as
closed, site cleanup completed, or No Further Remedial Action Planned. A site review of the
Proposed Project area was found to be free of obvious environmental degradation within the scope of
the hazardous substances and petroleum products identified in the CERCLA.

3.11 FIRE MANAGEMENT

The Proposed Project area is located within the Albion Fire Management Unit (FMU) in the BLM
Twin Falls District. The terrain of the Proposed Project area is mountainous with mostly contiguous
parcels of BLM managed lands along the ridge tops. Table 3.11-1 illustrates the Fire Management
Priority Rankings for the Albion FMU. Communities considered at risk from wildfire that are near the
Proposed Project area include Albion, Conner, and Elba. Due to the proximity of the wildland urban
interface and key wildlife habitat in the Proposed Project area, all fire management priorities are
ranked as high. Wildland fire use is considered not appropriate anywhere within the Albion FMU.

Table 3.11-1. Albion FMU Fire Management Priority Ranking

Suppression

High

Fuels Treatments

High

ESR

High

Community Assistance/

Protection

High

Fires are an intricate component of the development and maintenance of natural plant communities in
the western U.S. (Brown 2000). Fire exclusion activities, grazing, and agriculture on public lands
from the early 1900s to the present have caused fine fuels to accumulated to higher levels than would
have been present with more frequent fires, resulting in more severe fires that bum hotter, and have
greater impacts on: soil stability and structure; hydrological function; biotic integrity; and overall
community dynamics and functionality (Keeley et al. 1999).

This movement away from natural fire regimes has created a need for increased fire management.
The National Wildland Fire Plan defines and designates agencies nationally to work together using a
cohesive strategy for establishing past conditions, identifying current departure, and recommending

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-97

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

future strategies for achieving desired outcomes. Information from the Cassia RMP and Southern
Idaho Fire Management Plan have been used to formulate and define alternatives directly related to
the Proposed Project area.

Fire History

Fire plays an essential ecological role in the regeneration and maintenance of a diverse mosaic of
healthy cover types across ecosystems. Historically (prior to 1900), the area landscape would have
been dominated by vegetation characteristic of Fire Regime Condition Class 1 (FRCC 1; USDI
2004b).

From 1984 to 2003, 290 fires burned 145,233 acres of BLM managed land in the Albion FMU. The
Proposed Project area is located in the southern part of the FMU where an increased number of fires
are human caused; however, these fires are generally small due to suppression response. Fires caused
from lightning strikes are also common. Average fire size on BLM lands within the FMU is 501
acres. A tendency for large, repeated wildland fires is increasing in the FMU.

Fire Ecology

A mosaic of three vegetation cover types dominates the Proposed Project area; mountain shrub, mid¬
elevation shrub steppe, and juniper, pinyon/juniper mix. Each vegetation type has a corresponding
fuel model (FM) that can be used to predict fire behavior. Fuel models in the Proposed Project area
are predominantly FM 2, FM 5, and FM 6. Wildfires in the Proposed Project would be carried by one
or more of these FMs. Juniper and mid-elevation shrub covertypes typically fall under Historic Fire
Regime II (up to 35 years, stand replacement) while the mountain shrub covertype falls under
Historic Fire Regime III (35 to 100 years, mixed severity).

Fuel Model 2 - Timber (Grass and Understory):

Fire spread is primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels, either curing or dead. These are surface
fires where the herbaceous material, in addition to litter and dead-down stemwood from the open
shrub or timber overstory, contribute to the fire intensity. Open shrub lands and pine stands or scrub
oak stands that cover one-third to two-thirds of the area may generally fit this model; such stands may
include clumps of fuel that generate higher intensities and that may produce firebrands. Some
pinyon/juniper may be in this model.

Fuel Model 5 - Brush (2 feet):

Fire is generally carried in the surface fuels that are made up of litter cast by the shrubs and the
grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires are generally not very intense because surface fuel loads
are light, the shrubs are young with little dead material, and the foliage contains little volatile
material. Usually shrubs are short and almost totally cover the area.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-98

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

Fuel Model 6 - Dormant Brush, Hardwood Slash:

Fire carries through the shrub layer where the foliage is more flammable than FM 5, but this requires
moderate winds, greater than eight miles per hour at mid-flame height. Fire can drop to the ground at
low wind speeds or at openings in the stand. The shrubs are older, but not as tall as the shrubs types
of FM 4, nor do they contain as much fuel as FM 4. This model covers a broad range of shrub
conditions. Fuel situations to be considered include intermediate stands of chamise, chaparral, oak
brush, low pocosin, Alaskan spruce taiga, and shrub tundra. Even hardwood slash that has cured can
be considered. Pinyon/juniper shrublands may be represented but may over-predict rate of spread
except at high winds, like 20 miles per hour at the 20-foot level.

Fire Regime Condition Class 3 (FRCC3) dominates the Proposed Project area with small pockets of
FRCC2 interspersed.

Fire Regime Condition Class 2 ( FRCC2):

Fire regimes on these lands have been moderately altered from their historical range by either
increased or decreased fire frequency. A moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components has been
identified in these lands. To restore their historical fire regimes, these lands may require some level of
restoration as through prescribed fire, mechanical or chemical treatments, and the subsequent
reintroduction of native plants.

Fire Regime Condition Class 3 (FRCC3):

These lands have been significantly altered from their historical range. Because fire regimes have
been extensively altered, the risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high.
Consequently, these lands verge on the greatest risk of ecological collapse. To restore their historical
fire regimes before prescribed fire can be utilized to manage fuel or obtain other desired benefits
these lands may require multiple mechanical or chemical restoration treatments, or reseeding.

Fire Management

The Cassia RMP states that maximum suppression efforts on 18,000 acres south of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) communication site are needed to protect resource values and
recreational facilities and opportunities. Limited suppression efforts and prescribed bums would be
allowed on the 22,967 acres north of the FAA communications tower, in coordination with Clean Air
Act regulations.

Wildfires will be aggressively suppressed in the Albion FMU and the full range of Appropriate
Management Response is allowed. Fires in the Proposed Project area will be suppressed at less than
500 acres per ignition 90 percent of the time. No more than 80,000 acres of the entire FMU would be
allowed to bum (prescribed fire and unplanned wildfire) over a ten-year period, of which 30,000 acres
are projected wildland fire acres. Fire would be suppressed using the least amount of surface
disturbance necessary. Public lands and resources affected by fire would be rehabilitated in
accordance with multiple uses identified in the affected area, subject to available funding. Goals and
objectives associated with fire management include allowing fire to resume a more natural ecological

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-99

Cotterel Wind Power Project

3.0 Affected Environment

role on BLM lands, reducing fire suppression costs, reducing the number of acres damaged by severe
wildfires, and increasing public safety from wildfires. Short-term goals are to reduce hazardous fuels
through various treatment methods (mechanical, chemical and prescribed fire) and to re-introduce fire
into the ecosystem.

Fire Mitigation Considerations: Emphasis should be focused on prevention, detection, and rapid
suppression response and techniques that would reduce unwanted ignitions and threats to life,
property, and natural and cultural resources.

Fire Suppression Considerations: Virtually all wildland fires would be actively suppressed except
where Wildland Fire Use is determined to achieve resource objectives and where such an activity
would not decrease public safety.

Fuel Treatment Considerations: Non-fire treatments are employed. Prescribed fire is allowed
everywhere except where specifically excluded in the Cassia RMP. Pile burning of mechanically
removed vegetation is acceptable.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3-100

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

‘ * ■ s '■ « f .. . ' .('■■■, . • ' • j- * \ .. • ..• & j ' ■ <. . 1 j., •-« y J .-v. '

- i ' ■ '' ■

\ •• ' : . c . ■ ,7 . . •

* • •. ■> , ■ ■

/. - > 'v .■>:

• • : i- • 1 s ' *: ■ : • v~ ’ - ; • • •• • V’ . . - • „ ;

*'

1 ... ' ■ . - ■ ' . ■ . if .4 • ‘ .. ■ -

1 .. ' ■•■ ■■: : , • - ■ •,' ' ■ v •• • . ;•

' - ■ ■ ■ - i -> ’

.

•,« ■ • u ■ > •• '

■ ■ ■ i-jty »> ■ ■ -

•» • - . •• ' . • . • • • * , ' .. - . . - ■ •. - • . ‘

■

.

-

■

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter describes the environmental consequences, or potential impacts, on the natural, cultural
and human environment on Cotterel Mountain from implementation of the alternatives considered in
this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The topics discussed are by resource, in the same
order as those described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment.

For each topic, the impact analysis follows the same general approach. Impact indicators for intensity
of impacts were developed based on individual resources. A study area, or area of impact analysis,
was also specified for each topic and impact duration definitions (short-term, long-term) were
assessed where applicable. Impacts were then identified and assessed based on these definitions and
indicators; a review of relevant scientific literature, previously prepared environmental documents
(Cassia Resource Management Plan (RMP)), and the best professional judgment of Interdisciplinary
Team (IDT) resource specialists.

Much of the information on the affected environment and potential environmental consequences is
derived from detailed technical reports prepared by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) specialists,
the URS Group, Inc. (URS), and subcontractors to the prime consultant. These reports are available
for review as part of the Analysis File maintained for the Cotterel Wind Power Project (Proposed
Project) at the Burley Field Office (BFO).

Knowledge is, and always will be, incomplete regarding many aspects of the terrestrial species,
vegetative communities, the economy, and communities and their interrelationships. The ecology,
inventory, and management of ecosystems are a complex and evolving discipline. However, basic
ecological relationships are well established, and a substantial amount of credible information about
ecosystems in the Proposed Project area is known. The alternatives were evaluated using the best
available information about these ecosystems. While additional information may add precision to
estimates or better specify relationships, new information would be unlikely to appreciably change
the understanding of the relationships that form the basis for the evaluation of effects.

The numbers generated and used for comparison of impacts are for analysis purposes only. The exact
location and size of the Proposed Project features cannot be determined until a final document is
completed. Therefore, the exact areas of impact to specific resources are estimates based on the best
available information at the time of this writing.

4.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Effects are described in general terms and are qualified as short-term and long-term, as appropriate.
Impacts may also be described as direct or indirect. Direct impacts are caused by an action and occur
at the same time and place as the action. Indirect impacts are caused by an action and occur later in
time or farther removed from the area, but are reasonably foreseeable.

A/1 ay 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

4-1

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires assessment of cumulative effects in the decision-making
process for federal projects. Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes
such other actions” (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.7). Cumulative effects are
considered for each resource.

Cumulative effects were determined by combining the effects of the alternative with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was necessary to identify other past,
ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in this area and in the surrounding landscape. All
resource impacts would be added to these actions to present the cumulative picture or incremental
contribution this Proposed Project would have on the resources.

4.3 PAST/PRESENT ACTIONS

Past use of the Proposed Project area has included: livestock and wildlife grazing; recreation
including hunting, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, sightseeing, camping, mountain biking, horseback
riding, and wildlife sightseeing; and siting of communication facilities (microwave and cell phone
transmitters). These uses continue through the present and are anticipated to continue into the
reasonably near future.

4.4 FUTURE FORSEEABLE ACTIONS

On Cotterel Mountain, future foreseeable actions, other than the Proposed Project, would be limited
to general recreation, OHV use, hunting, and grazing.

The Idaho Transportation Department is proposing to reconstruct a portion of the City of Rocks Back
County Byway between Elba and Almo, Idaho. This 17-mile stretch of road would be built in phases
with completion of the project occurring in 2007 or 2008.

At this time, there are no other wind projects planned for the Cotterel Mountain area. However, other
wind plant sites or other energy developments on public lands in Idaho may be considered in support
of the President’s National Energy Policy, which encourages the development of renewable energy
resources, including wind energy. Other potential future actions associated with energy development
would include:

• The firm U.S. Geothermal is conducting exploratory geophysical exploration on private and
BLM managed lands south of Jim Sage Mountain, which is south of the Proposed Project
area. It is the goal of U.S. Geothermal to develop a commercially viable geothermal electrical
generation facility on private land in this area. Their proposed development would be
approximately 25 miles south of the Proposed Project.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-2

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

• Currently there are three other wind energy rights-of-way (ROW) applications on BLM
managed lands in Idaho. These sites are located at Danskin Mountain, north of Mountain
Home, north of Glenns Ferry, and at Brown’s Bench southwest of Twin Falls. These projects
are in various phases of wind speed monitoring. There is no guarantee that these projects will
result in the construction of wind energy facilities at these sites.

• On private lands in Idaho, there are currently two operating wind power projects. One project
located between Boise and Mountain Home consists of three operational wind turbines. The
other project, located near Hagerman and South of the Snake River has seven operational
wind turbines. Currently, there are other proposed wind power projects on private land that
have received county approval for construction: a trio of 200 megawatts (MW) projects near
Idaho Falls, by Ridgeline/Airtricity; a pair of 200 MW projects near American Falls, by
Ridgeline/Airtricity; a 200 MW project near American Falls, by Windland, Inc. (Windland);
and four 10 MW projects near Hagerman.

• There are currently over 30 wind-monitoring towers collecting data on wind speed scattered
across eastern, southcentral, southern and western Idaho. These towers are located on private,
state, Tribal, and federal lands. Whether these sites would be developed into commercially
viable wind power projects is unknown at this time.

4.5 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

4.5.1 Climate and Air Quality

This section describes air quality impacts that could result from construction and operation of the
Proposed Project. Wind power projects do not involve the combustion of fuels to generate electricity,
so there are no air quality impacts from the generation of power. Any air quality impacts would be
related to emissions from vehicles and from fugitive dust associated with construction and operations
and maintenance (O&M) activities. The Proposed Project would not result in any impacts to the
climate.

Alternative A

Under Alternative A there would be no new sources of emissions or fugitive dust. Existing
recreational use would continue resulting in minor amounts of emissions from the exhaust of OHV.
Small amounts of fugitive dust would be generated from OHV use and cattle trailing. Fugitive dust
from wind erosion of the existing native surface roads would continue to occur. Smoke from possible
wildland fires could result in a temporary reduction of air quality standards.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-3

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B

Construction

Temporary and localized increases in criteria pollutant concentrations would occur during the
construction phase of the Proposed Project. Expected emissions would consist of tailpipe emissions
from the exhaust of construction equipment, particulate matter emissions from the concrete batch
plants, combustion emissions from the diesel-fueled generators associated with the concrete batch
plants, fugitive dust missions from vehicular traffic, and fugitive dust emissions from soil and rock
disturbances. Since construction-related air pollution effects would be temporary and localized no
impact on air quality or ambient values in the study area would occur. These temporary and localized
potential emissions increases are not expected to have an appreciable impact on air quality.

Operation

The operation of the Proposed Project would not impact air quality.

Alternative C

Impacts to air quality for Alternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative B;
however, the temporary affects would be slightly less due to smaller area disturbed by construction.

Alternative D

Impacts to air quality for Alternative D would be similar those described under Alternative B.
Alternative D would result in the least amount of ground disturbance and would likely have a shorter
construction period. Therefore, the temporary affects to air quality would be the least of all the action
alternatives.

4.5.2 Geology

The primary impacts on geology associated with the Proposed Project are tied to the area of bedrock
disturbance identified for each alternative. The type of bedrock disturbance would be different for
each turbine location and roadway. The impacts would also be dependent on the number of acres of
associated geologic disturbance, as well as the number and distribution of turbines and roadways
proposed under each of the alternatives.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, no impacts related to geology would occur.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the proposed construction would have a permanent footprint of approximately
203 acres due to blasting to set foundations for wind turbine pads and road construction. Because best
management practices (BMP) would be used during construction (Appendix C), impacts regarding
landslides and erosion potential would be minimized.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-4

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Earthquake induced landslide areas are apparent at the northeastern side of the study area. However,
no literature could be located that documents these events (Griggs 2004). The potential for movement
along faults and new landslides in the Proposed Project vicinity is considered low. The Proposed
Project would be designed and constructed with appropriate seismic design codes, including
foundations for the wind turbines placed directly on competent rock.

Alternative C

The proposed construction would have a permanent footprint of approximately 203 acres due to
blasting to set foundations for wind turbine pads and road construction. Construction activities from
Alternative C would less than those discussed under Alternative B because there would be less
blasting and construction due to the placement of fewer turbines.

Alternative D

The proposed construction would have a permanent footprint of approximately 158 acres due to
blasting to set foundations for wind turbine pads and road construction. Construction activities from
Alternative D would less than those discussed under Alternative B or Alternative C because there
would be less blasting and construction due to the placing of fewer turbines and roads. Impacts to
geology from building the Proposed Project would be the least under Alternative D.

4.5.3 Soils

The primary impacts on soils associated with the Proposed Project are tied to the area of surface
disturbance identified for each alternative. Although the type of surface disturbance would be similar
for each turbine location and roadway, the impacts would be dependent on the number of acres of
associated soil disturbance, as well as the number and distribution of turbines and roadways proposed
under each of the alternatives. Impacts to soils would be minimized during construction using the
BMP described in Appendix C.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, no impacts to soils from the Proposed Project would occur.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, impacts to soils would be directly related to acres of surface disturbance. Soils
would be disturbed, mixed structurally, compacted, and exposed to erosion during construction,
possibly resulting in a temporary increase in erosion and windblown dust on up to approximately 368
acres (3%) until construction is completed (Table 4.5-1). Following construction, approximately 165
acres would be reclaimed. Post construction permanent impacts would affect about 203 acres (2%) of
soils in the Proposed Project area. The construction of roads and turbines would impact soils by
mechanically breaking down the soil structure, which would increase the erosion potential. Impacts to
soils would indirectly impact vegetation and the ability to re-vegetate after construction.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-5

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Table 4.5-1 Acres of Soil Disturbance Under Each Alternative.

Soil Group

Alternative B

Alternal

tive C

Alternative D

Erosion

Potential

Hazard

Size of turbine
(meters)

70

77

100

77

100

Group 1

19

17

17

15

15

Moderate to

severe

Group 2

1

1

1

1

1

Slight to
moderate

Group 3

0

0

0

0

0

Slight to
moderate

Group 4

23

72

72

73

73

High

Group 5

137

105

105

69

69

Moderate to

severe

Group 6

22

8

8

0.4

0.4

Severe

Total temporary

164

144

131

121

109

Total permanent

201

203

203

158

158

Alternative C

The size of the temporarily disturbed areas varies only slightly based on type of turbines selected.
Alternative C would initially impact between approximately 337 to 350 acres (3%) of soils in the
Proposed Project area. Following construction, between approximately 134 to 147 acres would be
reclaimed, resulting in about 203 acres (2%) of permanent impacts to soils within the Proposed
Project area. Overall impacts to soils under Alternative C would be similar to those described under
Alternative B.

Alternative D

Impacts to soils from construction and operation of the Proposed Project would be the least under
Alternative D. The size of the temporarily disturbed areas varies only slightly based on type of
turbines selected. Alternative D would initially impact approximately 269 to 270 acres (2%)
depending upon which turbine is selected. Permanently disturbed acres would be about the same for
both turbine sizes of about 158 acres (<1.5%) and would have similar impacts as described under
Alternative B.

4.5.4 Water Resources

Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, no additional impacts to water resources would occur.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-6

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B

Impacts to surface and groundwater quality and quantity would be low under Alternative B. There are
14 springs, three spring developments, and one well located within the Proposed Project area
boundary. There are also springs, livestock water wells, pipelines, and storage facilities in close
proximity to the Proposed Project area. Potential impacts to water resources would be minimized
using BMP during construction. Impacts due to accidental spills of hazardous materials (Section 4.14)
would be low due to BMP used during construction and project O&M. Water used during
construction would come from a source outside the Proposed Project area.

Some of the road building, and all of the tower foundations would require the blasting of bedrock in a
controlled fashion to break the rock just sufficiently to allow for easier excavation. Impacts to springs
in the Proposed Project area from blasting are not anticipated. This is due to the type of ground water
flow system that produces the springs. Two factors are considered as being favorable for maintaining
spring flow: (1) blasting is not anticipated to affect rock at any great distance from the tower
locations, and (2) any rock disturbance that might occur would most likely produce additional vertical
fracturing in the bedrock without affecting the lateral flow of ground water as it moves down gradient
off the mountain crest. This increase in secondary porosity would actually mimic the existing flow
system, whereby precipitation and snow melt provide recharge water via vertical columnar jointing in
the volcanic flow that forms the surface rock over most of the Proposed Project area. Thus, the overall
mechanism of ground water flow would not be affected by blasting operations (see Chapter 3 for
description of ground water flow).

Potential impacts from construction of the Proposed Project to 303d listed streams would be limited
to potential delivery of sediment to these water bodies. However, because there is no surface flow
within the Proposed Project area where construction activities would occur, it would be unlikely that
sediment would reach the 303d listed streams. Furthermore, construction activities would be required
to follow BMP including erosion control and soils management techniques. These BMP would be
employed during construction, O&M, and decommissioning, and are expected to prevent fine
sediments from being introduced into drainages above existing levels. Therefore, the Proposed
Project is not expected to impact the 303d listed streams that are located near the Proposed Project
area.

Alternative C

Construction activities from Alternative C would approximate those for Alternative B, and would be
expected to have a low impact to water resources in the Proposed Project area.

Alternative D

Construction activities from Alternative D would approximate those for Alternative B and Alternative
C, and would be expected to have a low impact to water resources in the Proposed Project area.

A/1 ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-7

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.5.5 Noise

Construction Impacts

The Proposed Project area is relatively remote and unpopulated. The nearest residence is located
approximately two miles west of the proposed turbine string. There are a number of residences along
State Highway (SH)-77 and SH-81 in the towns of Declo, Albion, Connor and Malta.

Construction would create the greatest project related noise impacts. The frequency and duration
would vary with the amount of construction in each action alternative. In all of the action alternatives,
noise would occur from construction equipment and other vehicles associated with road and turbine
string construction. During the eight-month construction period, there would be approximately 2,205
trips of large trucks delivering the turbine components and related equipment, and approximately
12,735 trips including dump trucks, concrete trucks, cranes, and other construction and trade vehicles.
Power tools such as pneumatic wrenches, vibrators, and saws would add temporarily to the overall
noise level. Using typical construction site noise levels (United States (U.S.) Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) 1974), noise levels during construction would be expected to range from 68
A-weighted decibels (dBA) to infrequent peaks of up to 95 dBA at 50 feet from the operating
equipment. Construction noise caused by the Proposed Project may temporarily impact people and
wildlife. However, the nearest resident is located approximately two miles west of the Proposed
Project construction area.

Blasting activity for the proposed construction would occur as needed in all action alternatives. The
noise from blasts can extend for a few miles when geographical and atmospheric conditions are
conducive. However, such noise would be infrequent and of short duration. Blasting would only be
conducted during daylight hours. The vibration levels, which result from blasting, would not be
anticipated to be of sufficient magnitude to adversely impact structures, because most of the blasting
would occur along the Cotterel Mountain ridgeline well away from any structures or residences.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that blasting would impact any residences or communities near the
Proposed Project area.

Visitors to the Proposed Project area during construction periods could be impacted by noise, based
upon the proximity and type of construction activity. Within some portions of the Proposed Project
area, topographic features would function to restrict most of the construction noise to the immediate
vicinity of the construction activities. With rare exceptions, construction-related noise impacts would
be limited to daytime hours. Impacts to nesting wildlife would be minimized by restricting
construction activities during certain nesting periods (Appendix C and Appendix D).

Operational Impacts

Sound travel outdoors, especially over distances greater than 200 to 300 feet from a sound source, and
is highly dependent on weather conditions. The atmospheric conditions that affect sound travel the
most are temperature variations, wind currents, and humidity. Sound tends to travel farther than
expected when it is traveling with the wind.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-8

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

As noise spreads out from a source, the sound intensity would drop at a rate of three decibels (dB) per
doubling of distance for a line source such as a road and at six dB per doubling of distance for a point
source such as truck or piece of heavy equipment. The type of ground (hard or soft, vegetated or
unvegetated) can affect this rate of drop in the sound level as well as natural barriers.

Modem wind turbines are designed with large rotor diameters that have very low rotational speeds.
Efficient power generation is achieved at these low rotational speeds, thereby reducing noise impacts
that would result from higher rotational speeds. The rotor blades make a slight swishing sound when
rotating. Because of these technological advances and the distance of the blades from the ground
(minimum of 95 feet), even when standing immediately underneath a turbine, this noise is anticipated
to be minimal. Furthermore, as wind speeds increase, the sound made from the wind passing over the
human ear is typically louder than and drowns out the swishing sound of the rotating turbine blades.

Vibration-reducing features are incorporated into the design of the turbines. On large modem wind
turbines, the chassis frame of the nacelle is designed to ensure the frame would not vibrate as a result
of movement of the other turbine components. As discussed in Chapter 2, regular maintenance is
scheduled for the structures. Routine maintenance would also reduce the likelihood of excessive noise
and vibration from worn parts or lack of lubricating oils. Therefore, minimal noise and vibration is
anticipated to result from the operation of the wind turbines.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, existing background noise levels on Cotterel Mountain and its vicinity would
continue without influence of the Proposed Project. Existing sources of noise that would continue to
occur under Alternative A include: recreational users such as OHVs; snowmobile riders; occasional
low flying aircraft; agricultural equipment; and traffic on area roads and highways such as SH-77,
SH-81, and Interstate 84 (1-84).

Alternative B

Noise impacts due to construction are expected to be low during the construction period. The
transportation noise from large trucks during the initial construction period would be temporary (eight
months). Operational impacts from noise would not be expected to occur. Noise generated by the
operating wind turbines would most likely dissipate prior to reaching residences that are located over
two miles from the Proposed Project. Recreational users of Cotterel Mountain when standing near or
under the operating wind turbines would hear the swishing sound of the rotor blades. Whether this
swishing sound is bothersome would likely depend upon the individual.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, impacts from noise as a result of construction and operational activities would
be the same as Alternative B.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-9

Cofferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, impacts from noise as a result of construction and operational activities would
be similar to Alternative B and Alternative C. However, Alternative D would have fewer turbines and
therefore would have less potential to affect recreational users of the mountain as a result of
operational noise.

4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.6.1 Vegetation

This section discusses the potential impacts to vegetation resulting from implementation of the
alternatives. This analysis describes how the proposed activity could directly, indirectly, and
cumulatively affect community composition and dynamics. The analysis takes into account existing
and future vegetation population and distribution patterns.

The primary impacts on vegetation associated with the Proposed Project are tied to the vegetation
community affected and the area of surface disturbance identified for each alternative. Although the
type of surface disturbance would be similar for each turbine location and roadway, the impacts
would be dependent on the number of acres of associated vegetation, as well as the number and
distribution of turbines and roadways proposed under each of the alternatives. For this analysis, acres
were used for each vegetation type affected for the entire Proposed Project rather than a site-by-site
basis.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and indirect impacts to vegetation in the area would be associated with activities currently
outlined in the Cassia RMP including: wildlife use, continued livestock grazing, vegetation
treatments, range improvement projects, recreation, and some minor modifications and alterations to
the existing communication facilities. These uses and potential modifications are not expected to alter
the existing vegetation beyond the levels identified in the Cassia RMP.

Alternative B

Construction impacts associated with Alternative B would initially affect approximately 368 acres
(3%) of the Proposed Project area. Post-construction reclamation would restore vegetation to
approximately 165 acres (45%) of this affected area. It could take 20 to 40 years or more for
reclaimed areas to return to their pre-disturbance community types. It should be noted that
approximately ten percent to 20 percent of the temporarily disturbed sites could have shallow soils
that would have a low probability of successful restoration. The result would be a permanent impact
to approximately 203 acres (2%) of the Proposed Project area.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-10

Cctferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation community types that would be directly affected from construction activities include:
juniper; mountain mahogany; big, low, and mountain sagebrush; grasslands; and some riparian sites
(Table 4.6-1). Approximately one-tenth acre (less than 1% of the Proposed Project area) of riparian
habitat along Marsh Creek would be affected as a result of culvert replacement and road improvement
of the south access road. Agricultural land, aspen communities, and open water sites would not be
affected by this alternative.

The construction of roadways and turbines throughout the Proposed Project area would directly
impact vegetation and special status plant species by reducing established native communities and
habitat. It could also indirectly impact vegetation and special status species habitat by mechanically
impacting soils, increasing the potential for establishment and spread of invasive and noxious weed
species, and potentially alter the fire regime within the system.

Construction activities such as trampling, surface disturbance, accidental spills, or burning would
directly impact established native communities, including non-vascular and special status species
populations. These impacts would decrease the number of individuals available for fertilization and
seed production, reducing the potential number of seeds for reestablishment and genetic variability of
subsequent generations; therefore, short-term and long-term direct impacts to vegetation would limit
the capacity of these communities to reestablish.

Mechanical effects to soil from construction activities, such as surface disturbance or soil compaction,
would indirectly affect vegetation and special status species by impacting soil structure and function.
Surface disturbances from excavation and blasting could lead to increased erosion potential and the
loss of topsoil. The loss of this soil layer could result in: diminished structural support for, and
exposure of, root systems; a reduction of available nutrients for established plants; and a diminished
seed bank. Soil compaction on the other hand, could reduce water infiltration, restricted root depth,
and limited seed germination. Individually, or a compilation of these two impacts, could indirectly
lead to further reductions in native plant communities and potential for reestablishment.

Surface disturbances from construction activities could also indirectly impact vegetation and special
status species by creating habitat for invasive species, or increasing the susceptibility of the system to
new invasive species and noxious weeds from external sources. The establishment and spread of these
species would lead to increased direct competition for limited resources (nutrients, water, space, etc.)
with native and desired plant species. Indirectly, invasive and noxious weed species could augment
the amount and continuity of fuels, which could lead to decreased fire return intervals (Peters and
Bunting 1994; Whisenant 1990). The compilation of decreased fire return intervals and competition
for resources could appreciably alter community dynamics (fire frequency and severity, soil stability,
nutrient cycling, etc.); therefore, surface disturbances would likely have short-term and potentially
long-term impacts on vegetation and special status species. Maintenance activities may also redisturb
native and/or restored vegetation communities and continue to provide sites for invasive vegetation.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-11

Table 4.6-1. Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Vegetation (in acres) from the Proposed Project.

Vi

<U

U

c

CD

cr

0

V)

C

U

42

c

0)

E

c

2

>

c

Uj

q

Alternative D 77m to 100m

TOTAL

o

r—H

»—H

O

o

20 to 21

19 to 20

(N

Os

17 to 18

20 to 21

145 to

153

o

26 to 27

o

o

<N

269 to

282

Temporary

Construction

Impacts

o

4 to 5

8 to 9

8 to 9

-

7 to 8

Os

O

+->

oo

60 to 67

o

11 to 12

o

o

-

111 to

123

Permanent

Impact

o

Uo

<N

* <

-

o

<N

85

o

in

o

o

-

158

Alternative C 77m to 100m

TOTAL

o

15 to 16

22

22

22

25 to 26

53 to 55

143 to

148

o

30 to 31

o

o

m

337 to

350

Temporary

Construction

Impacts

o

6 to 7

Os

Os

-

OS

V <

O

■i—'

o

21 to 23

57 to 62

o

12 to 13

o

o

-

134 to

147

Permanent

Impact

o

Os

m

i—H

m

<N

cn

IT)

32

86

o

oo

o

o

CN

203

Alternative B

TOTAL

o

m

24

25

22

47

27

72

69

o

47

o

0.2

N"

368

Temporary

Construction

Impacts

o

tj-

-

-

o

T—H

CN

CN

32

ro

o

1— -H

(N

o

VO

<N

165

Permanent

Impact

o

r-

XT

T H

(N

r—H

26

in

40

38

o

26

o

VO

(N

203

Vegetation

Community

Aspen

Juniper

Juniper/mountain

mahogany

Mountain

mahogany

Big sagebrush

Mountain

sagebrush

Mountain
sage/low sage

Low sagebrush

Grassland

Agricultural

Disturbed/existing

roads

Open water

Riparian

Rock outcrop

Total

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-12

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C

Construction impacts associated with Alternative C would initially affect approximately 337 to 350
acres (3%) of the Proposed Project area. Post-construction reclamation would restore approximately
134 to 147 acres (40% to 42%) of this affected area. However, it should be noted that approximately
ten percent to 20 percent of the temporarily disturbed sites could have shallow soils that would have a
low probability of successful restoration. The result would be a permanent impact to approximately
203 acres (2%) of the Proposed Project area.

Vegetation community types that would be directly affected from construction activities include:
juniper; mountain mahogany; big, low, and mountain sagebrush; grasslands; and some riparian sites
(Table 4.6-1). Agricultural land, aspen communities, and open water sites would not be affected by
this alternative.

Impacts to vegetation and special status plants species from construction activities would be similar to
Alternative B. The number of acres permanently affected would be the same as Alternative B.
However, under Alternative C, the total acres of vegetation affected by both temporary and
permanent impacts would be less (Table 4.6-1). By affecting fewer acres, the number of individual
plants lost would be reduced; therefore, the direct impacts to reproduction and reestablishment would
be decreased. Similarly, a reduction in the number of acres directly affected would decrease the
potential for indirect impacts associated with invasive species, mechanical impact to soils, and
alteration of community dynamics.

Alternative D

Construction impacts associated with Alternative D would initially affect approximately 269 to 282
acres (3%) of vegetation within the Proposed Project area. Post-construction reclamation would
restore approximately 111 to 123 acres (41% to 44%) of this affected area. However, it should be
noted that approximately ten percent to 20 percent of the temporarily disturbed sites could have
shallow soils that would have a low probability of success restoration. The result would be a
permanent impact to approximately 158 acres (1%) of the Proposed Project area.

Vegetation community types that would be directly affected from construction activities include:
juniper; mountain mahogany; big, low, and mountain sagebrush; grasslands; and some riparian sites
(Table 4.6-1). Agricultural land, aspen communities, and open water sites would not be affected by
this alternative.

Under Alternative D, potential impacts to vegetation and special status plants species from
construction activities would be less than those expected for Alternative B and Alternative C. Also,
Alternative D would affect fewer total acres of vegetation when considering both temporary and
permanent impacts (Table 4.6-1). By affecting fewer acres, the number of individual plants lost would
be reduced; therefore, the direct impacts to reproduction and reestablishment would be decreased.
Similarly, a reduction in the number of acres directly affected would decrease the potential for

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-13

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

indirect impacts associated with invasive species, mechanical impact to soils, and alteration of
community dynamics.

4.6.2 Wildlife

A detailed report on probable impacts of this Proposed Project is provided in the Proposed Project
technical report for biological resource impacts (Sharp et al. 2005). There are no similar operating
wind projects located on the common landforms (long, narrow ridge with cliffs), region (southeast
Idaho), or within specific habitats (sagebrush and mountain mahogany) that exist on Cotterel
Mountain. As a consequence, there is no specific case history available to use in predicting the
impacts of this Proposed Project on wildlife. Thus, this impact analysis relies on the experience and
data from other western wind plants and in some cases, midwestem wind plants. It should be noted
that there are several wind power projects on private land that have recently received permits in Idaho
and which could be under construction during the next few years. These may provide some insight
into wildlife impacts but none are in habitat similar to that on Cotterel Mountain. Therefore, they will
not be a factor in the analysis of potential wildlife impacts from this Proposed Project.

Ranking systems provide insight into species-specific population status (e.g. potential decline,
population fragility, or potential for impacts) and will be used in this section to assist in describing the
context and intensity of impacts to specific species from this Proposed Project. For example,
suspected impacts to a BLM Type II Special Status Species would be more closely scrutinized than
would those of a BLM Type V watch species because it is likely that the population of a watch
species would be more stable.

Potential impacts to wildlife will be analyzed in terms of: (1) local populations, (2) surrounding area
populations, and (3) landscape populations. Local impacts are those that are anticipated to result from
the Proposed Project on-site. Surrounding area impacts are those that may affect connected or
adjacent populations, migrations, habitat use, or “ripples” from the local effects. The surrounding area
would be considered the Raft River-Cassia Creek and Marsh Creek watersheds. Landscape level
effects are generally thought of as impacts to populations such as migratory birds, bats, or other
migratory species. A landscape effect could include analysis of impacts to wildlife populations in
other states.

Wildlife impacts for ranked species in the local, surrounding area and landscape, both direct and
indirect as well as cumulative impacts will generally be discussed within the framework of the
following effects: direct mortality, habitat loss, habitat avoidance (i.e. displacement), and habitat
degradation.

Big Game

Big game species are an important natural resource in Idaho, and hunting is one of Idaho’s primary
outdoor recreational activities. High quality, relatively undisturbed big game winter range is an
important resource, especially those areas where human disturbance is low. The quantity and quality
of winter range usually limits big game populations, so a reduction in the carrying capacity of winter

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-14

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

range could result in permanently lowered populations. The quality of winter range is affected by the
amount of human disturbance, which is in turn related to how easily people can access winter range
habitat. Big game using the parts of Cotterel Mountain outside the vicinity of the access road to the
radio tower site is typically accustomed to seclusion and low levels of human intrusion.

Alternative A CNo Action)

The No Action Alternative would not adversely affect big game winter range on Cotterel Mountain.
Alternative B

Big game species potentially occurring on Cotterel Mountain (mule deer, bighorn sheep, and
mountain lion) would experience direct habitat loss, and the indirect impacts of displacement from the
vicinity of the site during both construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The acreages of
impact to big game habitat presented below are for the amount of habitat actually disturbed by the
Proposed Project; additional habitat adjacent to the actual disturbance may not be used by big game
due to the presence of humans, equipment, and noise during construction and O&M activities.

Approximately 105 acres of mapped mule deer winter range, comprising two percent of the total
mapped winter range within the Proposed Project area, would be permanently eliminated under
Alternative B (Table 4.6-2). The loss of two percent of the total mule deer winter range within the
Proposed Project area is not expected to affect the number of deer that can be supported during winter
on Cotterel Mountain; therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project on mule deer winter range are
expected to be low. Some habitat avoidance and habitat degradation would also be expected to occur.

Table 4.6-2. Potential Mapped Big Game Habitat Loss From the Proposed Project.

Alternative

Big Game Species Habitat Type

Mule Deer Winter
Range
(acres)

Bighorn Sheep
Winter Range
(acres)

Mountain Lion
(acres)

Alternative B

Permanent impact

105

194

203

Percent of total

habitat

2%

2%

2%

Alternative C

Permanent impact

62

162

203

Percent of total

habitat

1%

1.5%

2%

Alternative D

Permanent impact

58

115

158

Percent of total
habitat

1%

1%

1.5%

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-15

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

The overall response of mule deer to the operating wind power project is difficult to predict. Radio
telemetry studies have shown that mule deer avoided oil and gas exploration sites for distances of up
to one mile in Wyoming (NWCC 2004). It is possible that some portion of the mule deer that use
Cotterel Mountain would habituate to the presence of the operating project as well as to the increased
traffic associated with maintenance of the Proposed Project. Some mule deer may not habituate to the
presence of the Proposed Project and its associated activities and therefore would avoid the Proposed
Project area. It would be anticipated that mule deer would use other winter range within the Raft
River Valley drainage system. In addition, mule deer may avoid the Proposed Project area year round,
thus losing not only winter range use, but potentially other seasonal use of the area. It is unknown if
this displacement would adversely affect the behavior and fitness of these deer.

The Proposed Project, under Alternative B, has the potential to increase the number of visitors to
Cotterel Mountain. Increased human activity would be expected to result in additional displacement
of mule deer further from their Cotterel Mountain winter range. Improved road access available to
hunters could result in increased harvest or poaching of deer. However, if human use increases
following completion of the Proposed Project, then some displacement of mule deer from the area
would be expected.

Alternative B would permanently eliminate a total of 115 acres of mapped bighorn sheep winter
range, which is less than one percent of the total area of winter range within the Proposed Project area
(10,877 acres). Although most of Cotterel Mountain is designated as bighorn sheep winter range
(Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2003b), it is currently not used and therefore adverse
impacts are not expected from Alternative B. However, it could be expected that bighorn sheep
habitat on Cotterel Mountain would become unsuitable with the development of the Proposed Project
and increased human use of the area, thus the potential for bighorn sheep use on Cotterel Mountain in
the future would be lost.

The use of fencing within the Proposed Project area would be very limited. Chain link fences would
be used to prevent big game, livestock, and people from entering the Proposed Project substations.
Since individual wind towers would not be fenced, it is anticipated that big game movement through
the Proposed Project area would not be curtailed or hindered.

Disturbance during and after construction would also have adverse impacts on mountain lions.
Mountain lions, would likely initially avoid the area during project construction. Following
construction mountain lions may habituate to the operating project to some degree depending on the
level of public use of the area, and to any changes that may occur to mule deer distribution.
Construction and O&M may change the patterns of mountain lion use and decrease prey availability
on Cotterel Mountain.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-16

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C

The impacts of Alternative C to big game would be similar to those expected to occur under
Alternative B, with slightly smaller areas of temporary impacts (Table 4.6-2).

Alternative D

The impacts to mapped mule deer winter range from Alternative D would be slightly less than
Alternative B but would be about the same as Alternative C. Under Alternative D, no turbines would
be constructed along the east ridgeline of Cotterel Mountain. Overall, there would be a reduced
potential for disturbance to mule deer from construction activities and there would be no O&M
activities along the east ridge area.

Impacts to mapped bighorn sheep winter range from Alternative D would be slightly less than
Alternative B and Alternative C (Table 4.6-2). Under Alternative D, no turbines would be constructed
along the east ridgeline of Cotterel Mountain. Overall, there would be reduced potential for
disturbance to mapped bighorn sheep from construction activities and there would be no O&M
activities along the east ridge area.

Impacts to mountain lions from Alternative D would be the similar to Alternative B. Under
Alternative D, no turbines would be constructed along the east ridgeline of Cotterel Mountain.
Overall, there would be reduced potential for disturbance to mountain lions from construction
activities and there would be no O&M activities along the east ride area.

General Wildlife Habitat for Birds and Non-Game Mammals

Alternative A (No Action)

The No Action Alternative would not adversely affect wildlife habitat on Cotterel Mountain.
Alternative B

Non-game mammals and small birds would be affected by increased traffic and human presence on
Cotterel Mountain, but primary effects would occur in direct proportion to the amount of potential
habitat removed by Proposed Project construction. Alternative B would permanently eliminate about
200 acres, or two percent of the 11,500-acre Proposed Project area, and temporarily alter an
additional 164 acres (1.4%), which would be restored once construction is complete. It should be
noted that restoration of shrub-steppe vegetation to a condition where it is again providing suitable
habitat could take many years. Due to the added complication of soil compaction during construction
of the Proposed Project, it could take up to 20 years or longer to restore temporarily altered habitat on
Cotterel Mountain.

Under Alternative B, there would be loss of a portion of seasonal (winter and nesting) habitat for
many different species such as small birds, small mammals and raptors. Based on the vegetation
analysis, there is not expected to be a total loss of any single vegetation cover type or habitat found on

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-17

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Cotterel Mountain. During construction, some areas would likely be avoided by those resident birds
and mammals that are sensitive to human disturbance. Once construction is complete and disturbance
levels decline, many of those species would be expected to reoccupy habitats near the facility. During
operation, nesting passerines may avoid the area within a few hundred meters of the turbines (Leddy
et al. 1999), but no species are expected to permanently disappear from Cotterel Mountain.

It has been shown that small birds may avoid the area surrounding the wind turbines, transmission
interconnect lines, and roads of wind projects by up to 590 feet (NWCC 2004). Using this 590-feet
potential avoidance zone from the Proposed Project features, the area of avoidance for passerines
under Alternative B would be approximately 4,485 acres.

Alternative C

The impacts under Alternative C would be similar to, but slightly less than those of Alternative B in
terms of the permanent and temporary disturbance footprints. The 180-meter avoidance zone under
this alternative would affect approximately 3,700 acres.

Alternative D

The impacts under Alternative D would be similar to, but less than those of Alternative C, and much
less than those of Alternative B, in terms of a 180-meter avoidance zone which would be
approximately 3,120 acres. The temporary and permanent construction footprints of this alternative
would also affect the fewest number of acres of the three action alternatives.

4.6.3 Amphibians and Reptiles

Alternative A fNo Action)

Alternative A would not have an impact on amphibians and reptiles at Cotterel Mountain.

Alternative B

Impacts to local amphibian habitats would be expected to be low because the Proposed Project road
construction generally would occur outside of the riparian habitat where amphibians would occur.
Less than one percent of the riparian habitat would be impacted from road construction. Impacts to
reptilian habitat would be expected to be moderate because the Proposed Project would generally
occur within rocky areas, including blasting which could alter thermal attributes snake hibernation
sites and potentially make them unusable or it could create additional snake hibernation sites. In
addition, local mortality impacts are expected to be high because many reptiles are attracted to warm
roads during the summer and thus are expected to experience higher fatality rates from vehicles.

Alternative C

Expected impacts to amphibians and reptiles would be similar to those of Alternative B.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-18

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D

Impacts to amphibians and reptiles would be similar to those of Alternative B and Alternative C,
although the area of ground disturbance would be lowest under this alternative and it would likely
have the least impact of the action alternatives on amphibians and reptiles.

4.6.4 Bat and Bird Fatalities from the Operations of the Proposed Wind Project

Wind power projects may have effects on wildlife, particularly avian species and bats, depending
upon the location, geography, and natural setting of the Proposed Project. Long-term effectiveness
monitoring of the Proposed Project (five years or greater) is key in understanding the relationships
between the Proposed Project design, siting of the towers, and operation of the facility and effects on
wildlife. These effects can occur in a variety of ways but based on data collected from other wind
farms, are chiefly associated with occasional bird collisions with the large propellers that drive each
of the wind turbines (referred to as the rotor swept area of each turbine).

Long-term monitoring is also necessary to determine how the characteristics of the Proposed Project
and its turbines affect the behavior and migration of birds and bats and to determine if there are
certain turbines along the string that are contributing to bird and bat mortality that would trigger the
need to implement management actions to reduce these effects. The Applicant and BLM recognize
that effectiveness monitoring results may require operational changes or adaptive management
actions and will work cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and EDFG to
develop adaptive management actions that will address wildlife mortality if it occurs. Adaptive
management tools that are available to the Applicant and BLM include, but are not limited to: timing
stipulations during construction, operational changes of turbines, siting considerations, lighting
scenarios, and color schemes. These adaptive management tools are addressed in Appendix D.

Many existing wind power projects that have multiple strings of wind turbines stacked one behind
another create a “gauntlet” for birds and bats. Mortality factors increase in these maze-like wind farm
layouts where there can be multiple risks to birds and bats that attempt to navigate through them.
Recent data at other wind energy sites across the country that have these layouts (including Altamont
and Stateline) have identified “problem turbines” that often cause the majority of bird and bat
mortalities.

The Proposed Project involves only one linear string of towers with the towers being approximately
one-quarter mile apart. In addition, the proposed Cassia RMP amendment is specific to the Proposed
Project only, and no other wind energy projects will be permitted on Cotterel Mountain. This will
eliminate the possibility of the “gauntlet” effect on birds and bats in the future.

Understanding how a wind power generating facility function helps better understand the potential
effects to resources and other public use of the area and aids in developing responsive management
strategies to avoid, reduce and mitigate these effects wherever possible along the turbine string.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-19

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

The Proposed Project is projected to operate at 0.35 (35%) capacity factor under optimum wind
conditions. This means that the Proposed Project generates 0.35 (35%) of its total nameplate capacity
over time because the wind does not always blow at a speed high enough to turn the blades of the
turbines and generate electricity; and at times it blows so fast, i.e., during storms, that the blades are
feathered or braked (stopped).

This is not to say that all of the turbines in a project are running 35 percent of the time or that they all
are not running 65 percent of the time. Each turbine functions independently of each other. The
turbine blades begin to turn when the wind reaches speeds of approximately eight to nine miles per
hour or greater. When wind speeds exceed approximately 55 miles per hour, the blades are feathered
and turned out of the wind.

Naturally, wind speeds are variable along the length of a mountain ridge. As you move along a 12 to
14 mile turbine string, as is proposed on Cotterel Mountain, each turbine turns independently of the
others according to the wind speed at its location. The observer will normally see that some turbines
are turning and others are not turning at any given time. Rarely would all the turbines be either
turning or not turning at the same time. Each turbine operates as a single entity; some may generate
45 percent of the time and others only 25 percent of the time because of their location on the
mountain (it is only the overall Proposed Project average that is 35%). In summary, it is difficult to
predict at what time and how long any one turbine would be turning. There is, however a general
difference between diurnal and nocturnal wind patterns.

Migratory Bats

Most studies have shown that the majority of bat mortalities at wind plants are long-distance
migratory tree and foliage roosting species, such as the hoary bat, little brown myotis, and silver-
haired bat. Of these species, the hoary bat has a higher wind turbine impact mortality rate than all
other species in the west (Erickson et al. 2002; Gruver 2002). The data also show that mortality is
almost nonexistent during the breeding season and generally occurs during migration and dispersal in
late summer between July and September (Johnson et al. 2002; Gruver 2002). The same studies also
showed that mortality rates were higher during fall migration than spring. This was attributed to a
lower migration concentration because females leave earlier than males in the spring, but not in the
fall (Gruver 2002). Studies also indicate that bats follow large migrations of moths during the fall
months. Further, it is well documented that these same species have a history of impact mortality with
transmission interconnect lines, television and communication towers, and even lighthouses (Erickson
et al. 2002).

The evidence also shows that resident bats, which are foraging or commuting between roosts, do not
make up the bulk of collision mortality (Crawford and Baker 1981; Johnson et al. 2000b). This is
based on impact distribution data among turbines and observed forage habitat characteristics. Since
resident bats would have a defined flight corridor between roosts, they should exhibit higher densities
of fatalities in these corridors, but in a majority of the cases that were studied, there are no patterns;
rather, there are no areas of appreciably higher densities in the distribution of fatalities (Erickson et
al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2000a).

A/1 ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-20

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

In addition to flight corridor data, evidence from foraging behavior demonstrates that it is unlikely
that fatalities would occur in resident bat populations rather than migrating ones (Erickson et al.
2000). Normally, bats do not forage at heights associated with turbine activity or in areas associated
with wind-turbine projects, since these areas generally are very flat and windy and have reduced
insect populations. Rather, they are normally associated with less wind and more water (Johnson et
al. 2002).

Migratory bat species may be more likely to be involved with collision mortality events because they
fly higher in the air and in denser clusters when migrating (Harvey et al. 1999). This not only puts the
bats at a height associated with the turbine impact zone, but because they migrate in groups, their
ability to use echolocation is affected (Griffin 1970). Evidence also shows that fatality events during
migration may be dependent on the surrounding habitat. Studies done at Foote Creek Rim (Wyoming)
and Buffalo Ridge (Minnesota) wind plants have shown an inverse relationship between the number
of turbine mortalities and the distance to the nearest woodland habitat (Erickson et al. 2002; Johnson
et al. 2000b). There are woodlands (juniper and mountain mahogany) in the immediate vicinity of
some of the proposed turbines. The same studies also showed that turbines with lights mounted on or
near the turbines did not cause appreciably higher numbers of fatalities.

Based on the available information, larger, less maneuverable, migrating species are primarily
associated with wind turbine mortality events. In addition, those species, most notably hoary and
silver haired bats in the western U.S., migrating in large colonies in late fall, make up the majority of
fatalities observed and recorded (Erickson et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2000a). Although there have
been limited quantifiable data about wind turbine/bat collision effects on bat populations, qualitative
and circumstantial data suggest that turbine mortalities do not appreciably contribute to population
declines (Erickson et al. 2002), at least in the west.

Resident Bats

Cotterel Mountain has three known bat species (western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, and
pallid bat) that may be affected by disturbances from construction or impact caused mortality from
turbines. Other bat species may occur, but have not yet been identified. If bat hibemacula or nursery
colonies are present in the cliffs and rock outcrops along Cotterel Mountain, blasting and/or drilling
during construction could disturb bats and cause temporary or permanent abandonment of these areas
during the hibernating or nursery season.

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would not adversely affect resident bats on Cotterel Mountain.

Alternative B

The construction of turbine foundations and roads would directly affect only about one acre of rock
outcrop within the Proposed Project area. However, noise and percussion from blasting, drilling,

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-21

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

digging, and movement of large vehicles could affect roosting, breeding, or hibernating bat species.
Once construction is complete and disturbance levels decline, displaced bat species would be
expected to reoccupy roosting habitats near the facility. Therefore, the primary potential impact to bat
species from the Proposed Project would be to those species attempting to rear young and hibernate
within rock outcrops near the construction sites both from potential displacement and potential impact
mortality due to turbine proximity to cliff areas.

Of the three species of bat known to occur on Cotterel Mountain, the western small-footed myotis is
the only species that hibernates winter-long (one of the last species to start) and uses rock outcrops
and caves as primary roosting, breeding, and hibernating habitat. Construction activity from late May
or June through early July could displace hibernating or breeding western small-footed myotis and
lead to increased offspring mortality.

The long-eared myotis is normally found near open water and roosts/hibemates in trees (IDFG 2002).
Pallid bats are also found near open water, and generally do not hibernate. Both of these species are
less likely to be affected adversely by Proposed Project construction.

No turbine impact caused mortality has been recorded for western small-footed myotis, long eared
myotis, and pallid bat at any other wind plant. Therefore, impacts from operation of the Proposed
Project should be low to these species.

Alternative C

Impacts would be similar to that of Alternative B, but to a lesser extent.

Alternative D

Impacts would be similar to that of Alternative B and Alternative C, but would be the smallest of the
three action alternatives.

Birds

Passerines are the most frequent fatality recorded at wind plants and often comprise more than 80
percent of the fatalities recorded in modem wind plants in the west (Erickson et al. 2001b). The
degree of collision risk to birds at wind plants appears to be species-specific, based on the results of
fatality monitoring at other wind plants throughout the west. For example, fatalities of ravens, turkey
vultures, and ferruginous hawks are rare, while fatalities of American kestrels, red-tailed hawks, and
homed larks are more common. The siting of a wind power project in specific types of habitat and the
behavior of an individual species plays a large role in its risk of collision.

Flight heights recorded in the field during point counts and diurnal fall migration surveys were
analyzed to produce risk indices for each species and combined to produce overall indices for each
group, although it must be recognized that there is variability within each group. Avian risk indices
were calculated by turbine type for the avian and fall migration studies. Risk was calculated by

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-22

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

multiplying use, expressed as the average number of birds of that group observed per plot survey, by
the proportion of those birds that were observed flying, by the proportion of those flying birds that
flew within the rotor swept area of that turbine. The risk indices for each group are therefore the
average number of flying birds observed, per plot survey that flew within the rotor swept area of that
turbine type.

Vertical risk indices were calculated from point count and diurnal fall migration data by multiplying
percentages flying within the vertical rotor-swept area (RSA) by use. These risk indices varied among
species, and were fairly similar among turbine types (Sharp et al. 2005). The vertical risk estimates
for individual species varied from zero for sage-grouse, chukar, and pinyon jay to higher levels in the
0.2 to 0.8 range for the red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, northern harrier, and a high of 0.6 to 3.8 for
the common raven during point counts and diurnal fall migration, respectively. The American kestrel
risk was in the lower range around 0.05 during the year long point counts and in the higher 0.1 to 0.2
range during the fall migration surveys, presumably because migrating birds flew higher than
resident, hunting birds. The common raven, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, northern harrier, and
American kestrel were the five species with the highest risk indices based on data from both the
yearlong point counts and the fall migration surveys. Among passerines, swallows, unknown
passerines, pine siskins, mountain bluebirds, and gray-crowned rosy finches had the highest risk
indices. Tables 4.6-3 and 4.6-4 provide summaries of the risk indices by group, from the yearlong
point counts and fall migration surveys, respectively. Risk indices by species are presented in the
Proposed Project technical report for biological resource impacts (Sharp et al. 2005).

Table 4.6-3. Vertical Risk Indices by Avian Group and Turbine Type Based on

Year-long Point Counts.

Avian Group

Vertical Risk Indices by Turbine

Diameter Type and Group

Overall

Use

70-meter

77-meter

80-meter

92-meter

100-meter

Corvids

0.51

0.48

0.60

0.55

0.60

0.830

Doves

0.05

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.103

Gulls

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.101

Others

0.04

0.02

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.145

Passerines

2.654

1.86

2.70

2.56

2.70

5.857

Raptors

0.82

0.92

1.02

0.97

1.02

1.347

Upland game birds

0.04

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.04

0.105

These risk calculations, however, do not account for the obvious fact that the majority of birds must
see turbines and avoid them, since birds are always present at wind plants in varying numbers, and the
number of fatalities recorded is small, estimated to range between zero and four birds per turbine per
year in the west. For example, a comparison of spring radar data and nighttime fatality estimates at
the Stateline (Washington/Oregon), Buffalo Ridge (Minnesota), and Nine Canyon (Washington) wind
plants indicated that between less than 0.01 percent to 0.08 percent of the targets passing through the
area resulted in fatalities (NWCC 2004).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-23

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Table 4.6-4. Vertical Risk Indices by Avian Group and Turbine Type Based on Fall
Migration Surveys.

Avian Group

Vertical Risk Indices by Turbine

Diameter Type and Group

Overall

Use

70-meter

77-meter

80-meter

92-meter

100-meter

Corvids

3.49

3.35

3.86

3.71

3.86

5.345

Doves

0.57

0.27

0.57

0.27

0.57

0.685

Others

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.025

Passerines

1.20

1.01

1.23

1.11

1.23

2.020

Raptors

1.81

1.82

2.27

2.07

2.29

3.398

Upland game birds

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.123

Avian Risk Indices were calculated by turbine for all birds observed flying in the avian and fall migration studies. The overall use in these tables is the
average number of birds of that group observed per plot survey. Vertical Risk was found using the formula:

Vertical Risk = Use * Proportion of Birds Flying * Proportion of Birds Flying in the RSA

Flight direction patterns mapped on Cotterel Mountain showed that large birds moved predominantly
southward during the fall, based on point count and fall migration survey data (TBR 2004). Flight
directions during the spring, and of small birds, however, did not show such strong trends. The point
count flight path maps showed that a fairly large proportion of raptor flight paths were parallel to and
offset from the ridgetop where the turbines are proposed. The fall migration data showed some
species-specific tendencies in terms of flight paths. Sharp-shinned hawks and Cooper’s hawks tended
to be to one side or the other of the ridgetop, and American kestrel flight paths were often to the west
of the ridgetop. The flight paths of other species appeared to be somewhat uniformly distributed over
the Proposed Project area.

The aerial raptor nest surveys documented an average of 0.32 active large raptor nests per square mile
(mi ) in the 68-square-mile raptor nesting survey area (excluding ravens and ground nesters such as
northern harrier). The raptor nesting density in the raptor nesting survey area at Cotterel Mountain is
slightly higher than raptor nesting densities recorded for other wind projects located in Colorado,
Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. These other wind projects reported nest densities ranging from
0.03 to 0.30 nests per mi , with a median density of 0.16 nests per mi (n = 28) (Erickson et al.
2001b). This higher nesting density for raptors at Cotterel Mountain is attributed to the differences in
habitat and topographic features between Cotterel Mountain and these other wind projects. Cotterel
Mountain habitat is comprised of forested juniper and mountain mahogany with an abundance of
cliffs. Habitat within the other projects was predominantly dry, open grassland and active, dry
agriculture where the scarcity of trees and cliffs present raptors with few suitable nesting
opportunities. Table 4.6-5 lists the comparative raptor nesting survey data. Potential raptor fatalities
are of concern at the Projected Project area, because both the nesting density of 0.32 active nests per
mi 2 and rates of use (1.3 raptors per 20-minute survey) are relatively high, compared to that at other
western wind plant sites (Sharp et al. 2005).

A/lay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-24

CO

<D

U

C

CD

O

Cr

CD

co

C

o

U

c

CD

£

c

2

>

c

Uj

u

o

o

l_

a_

v_

0)

£

o

Q_

"O

c

0)

L_

CD

o

U

co

fl

O

to

*C

9t

a

S

o

U

co

a

<u

Q

OX)

a

•-c

z

J-

o

+->

a

a

IT)

i

VO

a/

3

H

a

a>

a

a

o

U

a

O <i

g .g *1

fl 0,^2

Q a i

^ o fl

U w

VI

D

-LH

33

'T*

V)

0>

L.

03

O

-O

03

a

<L»

-Hi

c/5

-hi

o

4>

"©

S-

Ph

o

o

•—

o

i-

Ph

C /3

-i->

CO

O

a

o

>
• rH
+-»
O
03

00

oo c

.a ^

3

.a

C /3

O

Cl

yd

§

O

>> &

42

03

JO

O

Li

CL

yd

d

03

O

>

• rH
-*—»
O
03

T3

d

03

co

d

CD

>

03

Li

00

d

• rH

X)

^d

x

(D

yd

d

03

co"

Li

<D

03

43

co

03

43

O

d

CO

CO

D

• rH

O

CD

Oh

co

(D

*

2

(N

m

<N

(N

m

o

o

(N

CD

>

• rH
4->

cd

d

yd

d

03

a

-s

00

03

C/2

co
„ ID
>-» CD

d

«* So&

o -c

D rr;

•

a £ d
.2, d g.

•> 'd co

C/D Cu rrl

u -y ”

CO d D

5 g S

6 s s

a

13

D

■4—>
4— 1

o

U

a

13

l-c

D

■i—>
-t—>

O

O

CO

D

• rH

O

D

cl

co

T3

O

kb

O

£

co

§

£

Vh

T3

d

03

co

Li

O

i->

CL

03

P^

yf

o

02

o

o

o

CN

CO

D

• rH

o

D

CL,

co

yd

d

d

o

kb

o

^d,

CO

Li

o

H-»

CL

03

P4

ro

O

m

o

o

o

<N

03

co

CO

03

£ ”
yd d

>' £
■c £

03 d

S -c

• C &

Pi o3

CO

yd

d • - i-

.2 o 2

co d ^

•4—> 03

-a ^
_ fl d

T3 03 cc3
d -d -r

d & eS

•' Cl
g <D -F

CL <D

ko’

Cl }y D
D d Li

-- Li
O 03
C/D C/D *

tvj , U-i

J-H «4-H

C/D

■—i C 3

03 iq a

a c *

co 03 j

^ co .a
C *Td -g

> iS Td

-4—* • rH

!> (U co

^ fi

a

o

d"

o

nd

d

o

U

P^

o

d"

o

yd

d

o

O

CO

D

i <

GO

03

D

c/T

o

03

a

o

m

VO

yf

o\

OS

CO

CO

D

2 ^

<D

co ^

r s

yd S
fl g

13 d "

GO CL
d CL
03 D

P^ "So

GO

d

• rH

CL

CL

O

Li

o
1 —>

d

o

■*—*

13

co
03

- O
2 %

yd

d £

6 =3

t3 £

-g d

2 d

d 12

.2 d

S

CL 2
•C o

D

CLJ

03

O

co

yd

d

03

13

yd

V)

m

<N

O

LTl

in

o

o

(N

D

CL

CL

D

co

i

4G

co

y3

d

r2

CO

03

Li

a

CO

D

D

3 = D

d 2 cl

| S-g

!si

® CJ d

03 ■— 1

'S ^

d 03
o3 D

yd w

GO

Jd

.a

i->

o

d

co

D

d

+-> ^^
di co

a .a

g D

.fl CL
+-» co

d 'g

>> a

•a o

o kb

VO

o

oo

m

o

o

(N

co

D

d

Li

o

CL

M

VO

o

r-

(N

r-

<dv

Ov

co

D

D

CLj

wv

O

O

VO

oo

02

02

D

•G

’3

Li

CL

d «

o yd
1-1 ’fl
jn ^d

O ^

yd

d

■3 U

§* &

d Li

d <D
O d
Pi w

a Ci

.a «

d d

cr w

d ^

a .a

o

u

A/1 ay 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-25

«/)

( 1 )

u

c

( 1 )

o

Cr

CL)

to

C

CJ

5

c

( 1 )

E

c

2

>

c

UJ

O

nr

2

0)

4=

0

U

C/3

a

o

v>

*C

CS

a

E

o

U

c

a>

Q

ox

a

••c

</3

a/

z

La

O

a

03

IT)

i

NO

4/

2

Cd

H

a

E

E

o

U

a _

O ra

g -g ’I

a g.~

q S S

M o a

c«

'M

a>

La

«

o>

><

'M

4-*

s

C3

ffl

o»

L->

o

o

*©

La

P-

u

a>

’©

La

On

C/3
4—>
C/3

<u

P

Lh

o

4->

Pa
2
<u
>
'♦—>
O

<

in

VO

in

in

ON

On

<N

(N

O

m

oo

c-~

ON

ON

OO

o

OO

On

ON

OO

O

l>

ON

ON

On

<U

Pa

03

O

C/3

nO

c

03

2

03

Z

B

pi

aid

<U

<u

1-1

O

<u

4—*

o

o

[ia

VO

O

r-

oo

«n

ON

ON

t"-

©

VO

ON

f"

ON

ON

OO

r-

ON

OO

ON

ON

t"-

m

On

On

On

ON

<D

OX

nO

5

P

O

C/3

Pa

00

t"-

o

o

nT

in

ON

On

r--

o

o’

r-

m

c-

ON

On

On

O

On

nT

oo

On

ON

ON

O

OO

nT

ON

On

On

C/3

C/3

03

Pa

P

o

t:

<D

O

P

53

La

.<U

la-a

<D

Pi

on

£

O

T3

P

cd

C/3

aid

£

03

aP

C/3

w

p

<u

_>

H

o

<

o

©

m

<N

O

o

a-*

O

(N

OO

oo

r—H

O

4-H

NO

m

ON

ON

O

o

o

C4

(U ft

c/3

-T T3

Pa

o T3

Pa 3 &
<D -P

H C /3 Trt

^ Pa §
aP ^ aP

O 'O j£
P <D ^
nO nO
<L> <u

■8 8 |

N Cl -h

g 2 3

o u 3

C/3

<0

O

H

P

O

1/3

<L>

Pi

no

P

03

O

£ <5

nT

o

o

o

o

(N

<U

P

co

1h

O

a->

Pa

03

La

P

£

o

C/3

a^

£

03

aP

co

<U

P

<L>

a^2

<1 o

NT)

o

m

in

ON

On

03

<U

*

<D

O

P

<U

La

,U

4h

<U

Pi

O

_P

'O
a—>
03
a-»
00

<D

aP

H

- ^

's'^a
£ o

C/3

'I

o

a

o

o

I <

<-hH

r-

c/3

O

U

a—>

P

aP

C/3

<U

P

<D

>

O

<

nT

<N

o

o

<n

o

o

(N

no
P
cd

a->

03
<U

aP

no ^ ex
o p

. > »N

ed U -J5
CX P 03

3 fex

i

P

o

£

p

o

<D

S) O

cd O

P

O

cx

(L>

p La P

o « w
ex ^ P

2 £ Pa

O ^ aS

^ -o T3
U p >

Pa £ U

H > Q

May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-26

Table 4.6-5. Raptor Nesting Density Comparisons.

to

<d

u

c

<1>

3

Cr

0)

to

C

U

c

<D

E

c

2

>

c

LU

cm

-M

c

©

E

S

o

U

a _

O

£ -c 1

a a*
© e

Q E ©
w © a

U w

CM

©

C*3

CM

©

Z

s-

03

©

CM

03

+-

s

03

K

©

-M

©

©

©

im

o-

©

.©

‘o'

s-

0H

P

©

B

O

x:

OX)

©

£
O

fc
©

©0-0
fcb w jm

.r c/3 ”

<D

4-1 p
03 3

to

© .

©

£

- © °
© P
^ O- ©
© m t|

cfl T) U

o 3 •

© 3 IP

^ o o

Q'm

3

4^

M 2 »
tH C tl

o „ ©

E^’E f

<3 £ 03 £

PS O 43 O

ro

(N

o

On

O

O

<N

©

a

03

O

to

P

S3

03

03

t-H

3

•4—•

3

©

u

03

P4

O

©

3

3

3

oo

o

NO

o

o

ro

o

o

(N

©

a

03

©

to

P

3

03

03

C-i

3

-(—>

3

©

'6

03

P^

o

©"

44

P

3

O

3

oo

tr>

O

o

(N

©

a

03

©

to

33

3

03

03

i-(

3

>

3

©

■&

03

3

O

>,

3

3

u

3 <

ro

ro

p

o

o

o

<N

©

Cu

03

©

CM

33

3

03

s

3

-t—*

3

©

■&

03

3

O

>o

3

03

o

3

N ^

ro

to

3

£

O

CM

3.

O

tH

©

3

u

3

3

©

<

c/d

CJ

•

03

fcb

cm"

3

03

©

O

CM

6

o

©

(-H C/D

o 3
•33 ©

03 p

g |

CM 3

3

O

u

o

Ph
©
t

O ©

>. CM

33 P^

P

3

03

P

3

_ 3

3 £
S o

CM

^ o

CM O

-a k
3 ^

3 <3

CM

CM CM
03 03

©

03

&

03

g

+->

3

©

■&

_03

- «
42 OJ

3 ^

s ^

o3 to
p p
© 3

5S 3

©

OX)

3

2

o

3

3 z

m S

03

O

O

<N

^ £

o -

J2 ^

o “

•c 3

w §

w o

fcb

©

CM

3
O
3
©

>% &

^ §
©
3

CM

©

©

O CM

a jy

© p

* 3

CM ©

03 X

CM W

~ I*

3 O

©

CM

CM P
© 03

A/1 ay 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4-27

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Nesting Raptors

Alternative A fNo Action)

Alternative A would not result in any impacts on raptor populations.

Alternative B

The impact of Alternative B on nesting raptors would depend on a number of factors including the
construction methods used, the proximity of the construction to the nest, the noise level, and whether
the construction activity is visible to the birds in the nest. Blasting during the nesting season would
have the highest likelihood of causing abandonment of raptor nests. Resident hunting raptors may
avoid the vicinity of the turbines and in combination with the habitat lost to construction have a
slightly smaller prey base available within their territories. This reduction could affect the
productivity or survival of individual pairs of birds. Golden eagles and prairie falcons nest among the
cliffs very near the Proposed Project. Construction and Proposed Project operations would be
precluded within a one-quarter mile circle around a known golden eagle nest location.

Alternative C

The impacts of Alternative C would be similar to that of Alternative B.

Alternative D

The impacts of Alternative D would be very similar to that of Alternative B and Alternative C. Under
Alternative D, there would be fewer turbines constructed. There would be no turbines constructed
along the east ridge of Cotterel Mountain. This would result in reduced potential impacts to nesting
raptors along the east ridgeline area. The two golden eagle nests located at the north and south end of
the east Cotterel Mountain ridgeline would be avoided. Overall, there would be a reduced potential
for disturbance to nesting raptors from construction activities and there would be no O&M activities
in this area.

Waterfowl, Shorebirds, and Waders

This group of species is not expected to be measurably affected by any of the Proposed Project
alternatives, because no suitable habitat is present at Cotterel Mountain for birds in this group, and
only a very few migrants were observed during on-site avian surveys (TBR 2004). There would be
the potential for migrating individuals from this group to occasionally pass through the Proposed
Project area. However, this would be expected to be rare and would not be expected to result in a
measurable affect on any local or regional population of this group of species.

Passerines and Other Small Birds

Radar Data

The radar study conducted during the fall of 2003 (ABR 2004; TBR 2004) indicates that fall
nocturnal migration passage rates at Cotterel Mountain are similar to two other locations studied (i.e.,

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-28

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

at the Stateline and Vansycle wind-energy sites in eastern Oregon; Mabee and Cooper 2002). Flight
altitudes were also similar between these sites. Overall, only 3.3 percent of nocturnal targets flew at
or below 125 meters above ground level during the fall radar study. Risk of fatality in nocturnal
migrants is predicted to be similar to the mortality rates at Stateline and Vansycle, although a direct
comparison cannot be made, as the data from Stateline and Vansycle were collected at a different
time and included spring migrants. Further, turbine heights at the Stateline and Vansycle projects are
lower than the proposed turbines at the Proposed Project. The passage rates and elevations indicate
that the fatality rates for nocturnal migrants would be expected to be similar to rates from eastern
Oregon and Washington.

There are no existing wind projects on the same type of landform, region, and habitat at Cotterel
Mountain. As a consequence, there is no case history available to use in predicting the impacts of this
Proposed Project on wildlife. Some new wind plants in other regions of the U.S. have experienced
higher fatality rates of raptors and bats than those in Minnesota, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington.
Considering this new information, the fatality rates for bats and/or birds at this Proposed Project may
be higher than predicted rates based solely on the Minnesota, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington
rates.

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would not adversely affect birds or bats on Cotterel Mountain.

Alternative B

Table 4.6-6 provides a summary of the estimated ranges of annual fatalities for birds and bats at the
Proposed Project, based on the fatality searches conducted in Minnesota, Wyoming, Oregon, and
Washington wind plants. The estimated annual fatality range calculations were made three ways: per
turbine, per 3000 square meters of RSA, and per MW. These three ranges were used based on the
findings of the wildlife working group of the NWCC. This group is comprised of professional
biologists conducting post-construction monitoring studies of wind plants. These professionals agree
that it was prudent to use three estimates, given the large variation in turbine sizes currently in
operation. Relatively few rigorous, standardized carcass searches, which also account for birds missed
by the surveyors or removed by scavengers have been conducted, and therefore the range of estimated
fatalities that result from these studies is large. This is typical of studies that attempt to obtain a
sufficiently large sample of rare events.

Considering data from other projects, it is estimated that annual raptor mortality for Alternative B
may range from zero to 63 birds. The estimated number of all bird fatalities may range from zero to
934 per year. The estimated number of bat fatalities may range from zero to 667 per year (Table 4.6-
6). In all three cases, the range differs according to the basis of the prediction (number per turbine per
year, number per 3000 square meters of RSA, or number per MW).

Additional fatalities may also occur from collisions with overhead electric transmission interconnect
lines, although such collisions are expected to be rare. Alternative B is likely to have the lowest

A/1 ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-29

Cofferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

mortality from transmission interconnect lines since it includes only nine miles of new transmission
interconnect line. Fatalities would be most likely to occur during conditions of low visibility, or if
transmission interconnect lines were located in areas where birds regularly flew between destinations,
such as between foraging and nesting areas, or between attractive patches of habitat (bird movement
patterns).

Table 4.6-6. Estimated Annual Fatality Ranges, by Alternative, for Birds and Bats at the Proposed
Project.

Group and Basis for
Estimate

Annual Fatality
Range Used for
Estimate*

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Low

High

70 meter

77 meter

100 meter

77 meter

100 meter

Raptors

Per turbine

0

0.036

0 to 5

0 to 4

0 to 3

0 to 3

0 to 2

Per 3000 sq meters of
RSA

0

0.38

0 to 63

0 to 58

0 to 81

0 to 48

0 to 66

Per MW

0

0.265

0 to 52

0 to 39

0 to 64

0 to 33

0 to 52

All birds including raptors

Per turbine

0

2.8

0 to 364

0 to 274

0 to 227

0 to 230

Oto 185

Per 3000 sq meters of
RSA

1.1

5.6

183 to 934

167 to 852

233 to
1188

140 to 713

190 to 968

Per MW

0.9

2.8

176 to 546

132 to 412

219 to 680

111 to 344

178 to 554

Bats

Per turbine

0

3.2

0 to 416

0 to 314

0 to 259

0 to 262

Oto 211

Per 3000 sq meters of
RSA

1

4

167 to 667

152 to 608

212 to 848

127 to 509

173 to 691

Per MW

0.8

3.3

156 to 644

118 to 485

194 to 802

98 to 406

158 to 653

Features of the alternatives

Number of turbines

130

98

81

82

66

Rotor diameter (meters)

70

77

100

77

100

Total RSA (sq meters)

500,300

456,350

636,174

381,844

518,364

MW per turbine

1.5

1.5

3

1.5

3

Total MW

195

147

243

123

198

Based on data from Erickson et al. (2001b).

Alternative C

The impacts of the 147 MW variation of Alternative C would be slightly less than but similar to those
of Alternative B. The impacts of the 243 MW variation of Alternative C would be higher (Table 4.6-
6). It is estimated that annual raptor mortality at the Proposed Project may range from zero to 58 birds
for the 147 MW variation of Alternative C, or zero to 81 birds for the 243 MW variation, based on
fatality and use rates from other western wind power projects (Table 4.6-6). The estimated number of
bird fatalities for the 147 MW variation of Alternative C is from zero to 852 per year, depending on
whether the basis of the prediction was number per turbine per year, number per 3000 square meters
of RSA, or number per MW. Bat fatalities are estimated to range from zero to 608 for the 147 MW

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-30

Cofferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

variation of this alternative, and 57 to 848 per year for the 243 MW variation. The estimated number
of fatalities varies, depending on the basis of the prediction: number per turbine per year; number per
3000 square meters of RSA; or number per MW (Table 4.6-6). Fatalities resulting from collisions
with overhead electric transmission interconnect lines may be higher than under Alternative B, due to
the 19.7 miles of new transmission interconnect line, although this would also be related to the
location of the transmission interconnect line in relation to bird movement patterns.

Alternative D

The 123 MW variation of Alternative D would probably cause the lowest number of fatalities of
raptors, all birds, and bats, since it has the lowest number of turbines, RSA, and MW. This version of
Alternative D is estimated to cause zero to 39 raptor fatalities, zero to 574 all bird fatalities, and zero
to 410 bat fatalities per year. Conversely, the 198 MW version of Alternative D is estimated to cause
fatality rates very similar to that of the 243 MW version of Alternative C (Table 4.6-6). Fatalities
from collisions with transmission interconnect lines would be the same as those under Alternative C
because there would also be 19.7 miles of new transmission interconnect line.

4.6.5 Special Status Wildlife Species
Threatened and Endangered Species

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would not impact either of the listed species, gray wolf or bald eagle. This alternative
would also not have an impact on sensitive species.

Alternative B

The gray wolf (Threatened, nonessential population) and bald eagle (Threatened) are the only two
listed species with potential to occur on Cotterel Mountain and which could be affected by the
Proposed Project. Only two bald eagles were observed during the baseline study in the fall of 2003.
Wolves or their signs were not observed during the baseline study, and there are no records of wolves
on Cotterel Mountain or south of the Snake River. A complete analysis of Proposed Project impacts
to bald eagle and gray wolf will be detailed in a biological assessment which is currently under
preparation.

Bald eagles appear to be rare migrants through the Cotterel Mountain area, based on the limited
observations made during the baseline study. The habitat is not optimal for eagles due to the lack of
large trees needed for perching, nesting and roosting. Mortality or injury is the primary potential
impact to bald eagles from the Proposed Project. Mortality could occur from both electrocution and
collisions with transmission interconnect lines and turbines blades. Bald eagle mortality from
electrocution is not expected to occur because overhead transmission interconnect lines would be
designed to discourage raptor perching and the distance between wires would be great enough to
prevent eagles from touching two wires at once. In addition, electrical facilities at the two substations
would be designed in such a way as to decrease the possibility of bird electrocution.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-31

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

The potential for bald eagles to be killed by the Proposed Project is unlikely, however, the potential
does exist and cannot be discounted. Therefore, the potential for a “take” of a bald eagle(s) must be
considered a possibility if the ROW for the Proposed Project is granted. As a result, the Proposed
Project would require formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended. A result of that consultation would be a Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS.
Take can be authorized in the Incidental Take Statement of the Biological Opinion after the
anticipated extent and amount of take has been described, and the effects of the take are analyzed
with respect to jeopardizing the species or adversely modifying critical habitat. The Biological
Opinion would also specify reasonable and prudent measures and conservation recommendations to
minimize impacts on the bald eagle.

According to available information from the BLM and the IDFG, gray wolves are not known to occur
on Cotterel Mountain. Since the reintroduction of the gray wolf to central Idaho in 1996, this species
has increased its range and population substantially. During the life of the Proposed Project, it is
possible that this species could return to Cassia County and inhabit Cotterel Mountain. If wolves did
return, they would be anticipated to avoid human activity and would not likely be affected by the
operation of the Proposed Project.

Alternative C

The effects of Alternative C would be similar to those of Alternative B, and are not likely to adversely
affect either bald eagles or gray wolves.

Alternative D

The effects of Alternative D would be similar to those of Alternative B and Alternative C, and are not
likely to adversely affect either bald eagles or gray wolves.

Special Status Species
Small Mammals

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would not have an impact on any sensitive species.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the overall impacts to cliff chipmunk populations would likely be low due to the
scattered distribution and extent of potential disturbance. During construction, some areas would
likely be avoided or abandoned, but once construction is complete and disturbance levels decline,
cliff chipmunks would be expected to reoccupy habitats near the facility. The potential absence of
predators due to Proposed Project construction may benefit cliff chipmunk populations.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-32

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C

The impacts of Alternative C to special status species would be similar to those expected to occur
under Alternative B, with slightly smaller areas of permanent and temporary impacts from Proposed
Project construction and fewer turbines.

Alternative D

The impacts of Alternative D to special status species would be similar to those expected to occur
under Alternative B and Alternative C, with slightly smaller areas of permanent and temporary
impacts from Proposed Project construction.

Birds

Alternative A fNo Action)

Alternative A would not have an impact on any sensitive species.

Alternative B

The impact from Alternative B on special status bird species would be dependent on the species and
their associated habitat. Cassin’s finch, golden eagle, Brewer’s sparrow, prairie falcon, pinyon jay,
sage thrasher, northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, peregrine falcon, plumbeous
vireo and green-tailed towhee were all observed within the Proposed Project area during the avian
surveys; therefore they are likely to occur within the Proposed Project area during construction and
operation.

Nesting and non-breeding golden eagles could be adversely affected not only by construction
disturbance, but also from collisions with turbines. Golden eagle fatalities have been recorded at other
western wind plants, including the Altamont Pass and Montezuma Hills areas of California. The
Altamont Pass eagle population has been studied for many years (Hunt 2002), and it is not clear
whether the 40 to 60 golden eagles killed there per year is having an adverse effect on local eagle
populations. The eagles killed at Altamont were non-breeding adults and subadults termed “floaters.”
These are birds that are look for territories to occupy and nest in. The nesting population of eagles
within 30 kilometers of Altamont has not declined, but the floater population may have declined and
floaters are not being produced within this population; therefore, the only source of floaters would be
from immigration from other areas (Hunt 2002).

Based on the point count and fall migration survey data, 53 to 70 percent of golden eagles observed
flying were within the RSA, depending on turbine type. This indicates that golden eagles could be at
relatively high risk of being killed by turbines. Golden eagle use at Cotterel Mountain is
approximately four times lower than at the High Winds project. Golden eagle use at Cotterel
Mountain is 0.068 birds per 20-minute survey, while it is 0.287 birds at the High Winds project site in
the Montezuma Hills in California (Kerlinger et al. 2001). One golden eagle fatality was recorded
during the first year of monitoring at the High Winds project (Kerlinger et al. 2005), which consists

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-33

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

of 90, 1.8-MW wind turbines with 80-meter rotor diameters. The High Winds project is used for this
comparison because the type and number of turbines at the High Winds project are representative of
what would be constructed for the Proposed Project and those at Altamont Pass are not. The
approximate rate of expected golden eagle fatalities at the Proposed Project area could be one bird
every four years.

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, long-billed curlew, northern pygmy-owl, and western burrowing owl
have historically been observed within the Proposed Project area, but were not observed during the
avian survey; therefore, they are not considered likely to occur within the Proposed Project area
during the construction phase. Based on the rarity of occurrence of these species and the limited
amount of disturbance that would occur within their possible habitat types, it is unlikely that Proposed
Project construction would affect these species.

Although there is potential habitat within the Proposed Project area for the flammulated owl, sage
sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, red-naped sapsucker, Virginia’s warbler, and calliope hummingbird,
there are no recorded observations of individuals or nest sites within the Proposed Project area. It is
unlikely that Proposed Project construction would affect these species.

There is no suitable habitat present within the Proposed Project area for American white pelican or
black tern. Based on the low number of historic observations and lack of habitat, these species are not
likely to occur within the Proposed Project area, and would not be impacted by Proposed Project
construction. However, both species nest on the Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge and may use the
flight space over Cotterel Mountain during feeding or migration flights.

Alternative C

The impacts of Alternative C to special status species would be similar to those expected to occur
under Alternative B, with slightly smaller areas of permanent and temporary impacts from Proposed
Project construction and fewer turbines. The fatality risk from the turbines, however, may not be less
if the total RSA is as high as Alternative B.

Alternative D

The impacts of Alternative D to special status species would be similar to those expected to occur
under Alternative B and Alternative C, with slightly smaller areas of permanent and temporary
impacts. The fatality risk from the turbines would likely be less because the total RSA would be
lower than Alternative B and Alternative C.

Greater Sage-Grouse

There is incomplete and unavailable information regarding the affects of the Proposed Project on
sage-grouse. Because there are currently no wind power facilities in operation close to occupied sage-
grouse leks, nesting, rearing, or wintering habitat, there is no case history on which to base impact
predictions. As a consequence, this impact assessment is based on case histories of the impacts of

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-34

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

new roads and transmission interconnect lines, as well as similar elements (e.g. other types of tall
structures). This assessment is conservative because the opinions of experts and the results of research
and anecdotal information on the effects of energy developments to sage-grouse are wide ranging and
sometimes conflicting. The effects of the Proposed Project are unknown and could range from the
extremes of temporary avoidance to extirpation of the local population and loss of use of winter
habitat during severe winters by sage-grouse from other areas.

Impacts of energy development in general, and wind-power generation developments in particular, on
sage-grouse are not well known (Braun et al. 2002; Manes et al. 2003; Connelly 2003). Although
scientists, conservationists, engineers, and developers speculate on the impacts, rigorous scientific
study, which quantifies and demonstrates cause-effect relationships is mostly lacking. For example,
the analysis of cause-effect relationships between land uses and population responses was the third
highest among the eight key research needs identified for sage-grouse in Oregon (Rowland and
Wisdom 2002).

The primary reason for the nationwide decline in sage-grouse is habitat related, including, habitat
loss, habitat fragmentation, and habitat degradation (Connelly et al. 2004). It is reasonable to assume
any similar changes to sage-grouse habitat on Cotterel Mountain resulting from the development of
Proposed Project would, on a smaller scale, also affect sage-grouse using the surrounding area such as
Conner Ridge and Jim Sage Mountain. Whether such effects are measurable is unknown.

Perhaps the single most unknown factor is how sage-grouse, which are accustomed to a relatively low
vegetation canopy, would respond to numerous wind turbines hundreds of meters taller than the
surrounding landscape. Some scientists speculate such a skyline may displace sage-grouse hundreds
of meters or even miles from their normal range (Manes et al. 2002; Flake 2003; Connelly 2003;
NWCC 2004). If birds are displaced, it is unknown whether, in time, local populations may become
acclimated to elevated structures and return to the area.

A second unknown is how sage-grouse would respond to increased human activity. Certain
construction activities would be disruptive, and birds are likely to avoid the immediate vicinity during
construction. How post-construction activities associated with O&M would affect grouse is also
unknown. It is possible birds would become accustomed to routine activities and may return to the
area. Historically small numbers of sage-grouse have used the irrigated lawns at the Central Facilities
Area on the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, even though Central
Facilities Area has over 50 buildings, 2,000 personnel, and vehicle traffic (Connelly et al. 2003).

The sage-grouse inhabiting Cotterel Mountain are using the local habitat that already includes a
gravel access road with intermittent traffic, and a cluster of tall communication towers on the
mountain summit. The lek closest to this cluster of towers is 0.62 mile away, and the towers are
visible from that lek. One observation made by TREC, Inc. staff during the spring of 2004 indicates
that at least some of the sage-grouse are somewhat accustomed to being much closer to some tall
structures. Several males were observed displaying directly beneath a meteorological tower located

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-35

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

within several hundred meters of an active lek. These meteorological and communication towers,
however, are very different from a wind turbine, which would be much larger and have parts in
motion.

The direct loss and fragmentation of habitat associated with noise disturbances from vehicle traffic
and construction have been shown to reduce attendance at sage-grouse lek sites and lower female nest
initiation in proximity to these sites. According to one study that specifically addressed noise impacts
on sage-grouse leking sites, noise disturbances within 660 feet of a lek site generally resulted in a loss
of attendance. As the distance increased from the source of noise, the number of leks with reduced
attendance decreased (Braun et al. 2002). Similarly, female sage-grouse were found to move greater
distances from leks near noise disturbances, and had lower rates of nest initiation in areas disturbed
by vehicle traffic (Lyon and Anderson 2003). Therefore, sage-grouse leks located within 660 feet of
wind turbines and Proposed Project roads could experience reduced attendance as a result of noise
generated from the Proposed Project features. Likewise, suitable nesting habitat located within 660
feet of the Proposed Project roads and turbines could be made unavailable to sage-grouse due to
avoidance as a result of Proposed Project generated noise.

Following is a summary of some of the existing research results relevant to potential impacts of the
Proposed Project. A more complete summary and critique of a wider spectrum of sage-grouse
research through 2001 can be found in Rowland and Wisdom (2002).

Energy Development:

• Sage-grouse were displaced or otherwise disturbed by oil development and coal mining
activities (Braun 1987; Braun 1998; Aldridge 1998; Lyon and Anderson 2003).

• There is some evidence that once the activities ceased numbers returned to pre¬
disturbance levels (Braun 1987; Remington and Braun 1991).

• Other studies showed a continued disruption of the nesting behavior (Lyon 2000).

• Braun (1998) noted that populations did not attain pre-disturbance levels.

• Removal of vegetation for well sites, access roads, and associated facilities can fragment
and reduce the availability of suitable habitat (Aldridge 1998).

• There were fewer males on leks within 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of wells versus counts
of males on less disturbed sites (Braun et al. 2002).

Fences and Transmission Interconnect Lines:

• Sage-grouse in some areas avoid fences, possibly because they are used as perches by
avian predators (Braun 1998).

• Fences and transmission interconnect lines pose hazards because they provide additional
perch sites for raptor predators (Ellis 1987; Call and Maser 1985; Braun 1998).

• Sage-grouse could be injured or killed by flying into fences and transmission interconnect
lines (Call and Maser 1985; Braun 1998).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-36

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

• Woven-wire fences are more dangerous to sage-grouse than one-to-three wire-strand
fences (Braun 1998).

• Moving away from the transmission interconnect line, numbers of sage-grouse increase
for up to 600 meters (0.37 mile) and then level off (Braun 1998).

Habitat Fragmentation:

• Construction of roads, fences, reservoirs, ranches, farms, and housing developments
resulted in habitat loss and fragmentation (Braun 1998).

• Man-made structures such as fences, roads, and transmission interconnect lines fragment
habitats; sage-grouse avoid these sorts of disturbed areas (Rowland and Wisdom 2002).

Roads/Highways/V ehicles:

• Roads and vehicles result in loss of habitat and direct mortality, and may result in
reduction of sage-grouse use of leks within one kilometer (0.8 mile) because of noise
(Braun 1998).

• Sage-grouse have been documented to be impacted by vehicles during all seasons (Braun
1998).

• In Wyoming, successful hens in a natural gas field nested farther from roads than did
unsuccessful hens (Lyon 2000).

• Light traffic disturbance (one to 12 vehicles/day) near leks during the breeding season
might reduce nest-initiation rates and increase distances moved from leks during nest-site
selection (Lyon and Anderson 2003).

• More heavily used roads and highways result in direct mortalities of sage-grouse, and
contribute to habitat fragmentation (Patterson 1952).

• Sage-grouse have also been known to form leks on well-used roads (Patterson 1952).

• Roads and associated human disturbances can have adverse impacts, especially to lek and
winter habitat areas (Wisdom et al. 2000).

• Road density in the interior Columbia Basin was higher in range from which Sage-grouse
were extirpated, and lower in occupied range (Wisdom et al. 2002).

Wind Turbines:

• The effects of construction and operation of the Foote Creek Rim wind power project in
Wyoming on sage-grouse could not be documented because no active leks were present
on the project site before or during construction (Johnson 2000b).

• Avian mortality monitoring over three years at the Foote Creek Rim wind power project
in southern Wyoming found no sage-grouse fatalities (Young et al. 2003).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-37

Cofferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Disturbed/Cleared Areas:

• Sage-grouse used disturbed areas (two gravel pits and one recent bum) as leks (Connelly
et ah 1981).

Impact Assessment

A slight increase in sage-grouse mortality could result from collisions with wind turbines,
transmission interconnect lines, and vehicles due to fatal collisions. Sage-grouse using Cotterel
Mountain may collide with the transmission interconnect lines and with the lower reaches of the
moving rotors. However, given the relative infrequency of sage-grouse flights (i.e., usually limited to
escape reactions, movements to foraging areas, short elevational migrations), it is unlikely that these
collisions would be numerous or result in an impact to populations on or in the vicinity of Cotterel
Mountain. None of the sage-grouse observed flying were within the RSA of any of the turbine classes
during the point counts or fall migration surveys. Collisions with vehicles are more likely, especially
if the public is given access to the area; it is assumed that Projected Project maintenance personnel
would be trained to be sensitive to the presence of sage-grouse and drive slowly to prevent collisions.

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would not have any impacts on sage-grouse.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, approximately 261 acres of potential sage-grouse habitat would be directly
affected by the Proposed Project. Turbines and roads would be sited within one-quarter mile of all six
known sage-grouse leks on Cotterel Mountain. In Wyoming, it was determined that there was no
decrease in sage-grouse lek attendance due to the construction or operation of a large wind turbine in
the vicinity of active leks (Yeo et al. 1984). However, mining activities at a surface coal mine
contributed to a drop in male sage-grouse attendance at leks closest to the mining activity and, over
time, altered the distribution of breeding grouse (Remington and Braun 1991). A relative of the sage-
grouse, the lesser prairie chicken that also uses leks for breeding activities, abandoned 83 percent of
their leks and nesting sites when associated with anthropogenic features such as gas and oil rigs.
Since the Proposed Project would result in the siting of roads and turbines within one-quarter mile of
active sage-grouse leks, it is likely that their presence would result in some level of impact to sage-
grouse on Cotterel Mountain. Leks located adjacent to existing or newly constructed Proposed Project
roads could experience additional disturbance from increased traffic due to operation activity and
increased public access.

Based on the best available science for the protection of sage-grouse and their habitat it has been
recommended that energy facilities should not be developed within a 1.8 mile radius of sage-grouse
leks (Connelly et ah 2000). Therefore, it could be assumed that sage-grouse use of habitat within 1.8
miles of the Proposed Project area could affect 26,644 acres of potential habitat under Alternative B
(Table 4.6-7). While potential habitat would remain mostly undisturbed, sage-grouse may be
displaced due to disturbance from the Proposed Project construction and operation. This does not take

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-38

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

into consideration topographical or micro-habitat features of the area that may protect or reduce
potential disturbance from the Proposed Project.

Table 4.6-7. Potential Sage-grouse Habitat Loss from the Proposed Project.

Alternative and Impact

Sage-grouse habitat types

Breeding

(Leks)

Nesting

Brood-

Rearing

Wintering

Total

Alternative B

Permanent impacts from Proposed

Project footprint (acres).

84

33

76

68

261

Potential displacement impacts within

1.8 miles of the Proposed Project
(acres).

3,395

5,605

11,209

6,435

26,644

Alternative C

Permanent impacts from Proposed

Project footprint (acres).

77

28

28

48

181

Potential displacement impacts within

1.8 miles of the Proposed Project
(acres)

3,345

4,980

9,936

5,716

23,977

Alternative D

Permanent impacts from Proposed

Project footprint (acres)

52

15

13

34

114

Potential displacement impacts within

1.8 mile of the Proposed Project (acres).

3,255

3,194

8,734

4,585

19,768

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, approximately 181 acres of sage-grouse habitat would be directly affected by
the Proposed Project (Table 4.6-7). This alternative would affect 30 percent less acres of sage-grouse
habitat than Alternative B. However, turbines and roads would still be sited within one-quarter mile
of all known sage-grouse leks on Cotterel Mountain. Therefore, impacts to sage-grouse would likely
still occur under Alternative C.

Within 1.8 miles of the Proposed Project, sage-grouse could be displaced from 23,977 acres of
potential habitat under Alternative C. This alternative would affect ten percent fewer acres of
potential sage-grouse habitat that Alternative B. Whether the reduced level of affected potential
habitat from that estimated for Alternative B would result in lower levels of impact to sage-grouse is
unknown, as it would depend on the nature of the reaction of the grouse to the Proposed Project
features.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, approximately 114 acres of sage-grouse habitat would be directly affected by
the Proposed Project (Table 4.6-7). This alternative would affect 57 percent fewer acres of sage-

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-39

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

grouse habitat than Alternative B and 38 percent less than Alternative C. Turbines and roads would be
sited within one-quarter mile of four of the six known sage-grouse leks and no turbines or roads
would be sited along the east ridgeline of Cotterel Mountain. This would avoid potential impacts to
two sage-grouse lekking areas. Overall, there would be a reduced potential for disturbance to sage-
grouse from construction activities and there would be no O&M activities along the east ridge area.

Within 1.8 miles of the Proposed Project, sage-grouse could be displaced from 19,768 acres of
potential habitat under Alternative D. This would affect 36 percent fewer acres of potential sage-
grouse habitat than Alternative B and 18 percent fewer acres than Alternative C. Whether the reduced
level of affected potential habitat from that estimated for Alternative B and Alternative C would result
in lower levels of impact to sage-grouse is unknown, as it would depend on the nature of the reaction
of the grouse to the Proposed Project features.

4.7 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

There are three possible effects, which can occur to cultural resource sites as defined by 36 CFR 800:

No Affect : If a site, which is eligible for or on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is
avoided, with a suitable buffer zone, which would assure that no disruption or visual intrusion would
occur to the site. Sites which are ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP would usually have No Effect
determinations although additional information from the site may be needed after the initial
evaluation, such as sample collections or detailed mapping, as determined by the BLM guidelines.

No Adverse Affect : A site which is on or eligible for the NRHP may have possible adverse effects
mitigated through actions as stipulated in a mitigation plan that is reviewed by the BLM and State
Historic Preservation Office.

Adverse Affect: A site which is on or eligible for the NRHP, that has unmitigatable effects taking
place, requires that a “Section 106 Compliance Case Report” completed that details the impacts. This
Case Report is reviewed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic
Preservation Office, which results in a Memorandum of Agreement. A case report must be completed
on each site so affected.

4.7.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Implementation of Alternative A would have no effects on cultural resources.

4.7.2 Alternative B

Prior to the initiation of any activity, all sites which are currently evaluated as “Potentially Eligible,”
will have sufficient data collection conducted so that they may be reevaluated as either eligible or
ineligible. Any site which is evaluated to be eligible will have a formal Eligibility Determination
completed.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-40

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B would result in the Proposed Project having a range of impacts on sites within the area
of potential effects (APE), ranging from no effect (avoidance) to high impact (adverse effect or loss
of integrity). Specific impacts to each site would be addressed on an individual basis after proximity
of the site to the disturbance was defined more specifically (i.e., practicability of complete avoidance
was addressed). Only complete avoidance of all sites would result in the Proposed Project having no
effect. While it is likely that at least some sites located within the APE would be avoided, it is more
likely that not all would be avoided. As necessary, additional site evaluation would be completed and
an assessment of effect would be determined per 36 CFR 800. Mitigation, also determined on an
individual site basis, would be required for any unavoidable NRHP listed or eligible site in order to
reduce impacts that the Proposed Project would have.

Alternative B would have no impact to sites CM-S-5, CM-S-16, CM-S-20, CM-S-22, or 10CA629
since each of these is located outside of the APE and would be avoided. Proposed Project impacts to
the remaining 21 sites, and to any sites discovered during additional survey of the transmission
interconnect lines and access roads, would range from no impact to adverse affect depending on if the
site is eligible not.

At least four sites, recommended as NRHP eligible, would be subject to adverse effects if they were
not avoided during Proposed Project construction. These properties include prehistoric sites CM-S-2,
CM-S-3, CM-S-6/8, and CM-S-21, defined by lithic scatters.

Though the Oregon National Historic Trail (10CA862) is listed on the NRHP, and the historic
Conner’s Comer to Albion Stage Road site (10CA961) is eligible for nomination to the NRHP, the
Proposed Project would have no direct impact to these sites because physical evidence of the linear
trails/roads is not present in the APE. The Oregon Trail would have bisected the northernmost portion
of the APE, however this area has been subjected to historical and modem disturbances such that
surviving trail remnants are not visible. Therefore, construction of the transmission interconnect line
and expansion of the extant access road near SH-81 would have no direct impact to the integrity of
this resource. Indirect visual impacts to intact segments of this resource that are located outside of the
APE are addressed in Section 4.13.

Likewise, the integrity of NRHP-eligible site 10CA961, the Conner’s Comer to Albion Stage Road,
would not be directly affected by the Proposed Project. Though the historic stage road would have
bisected the southernmost portion of the APE, the area has been subjected to historical and modem
disturbances such that surviving trail remnants are not visible. Because Proposed Project impacts
would be confined to the existing access road that heads north from the SH-77 junction for the first
one-quarter mile, there would be no impact to this resource.

Four sites located in the APE that are currently unevaluated for NRHP eligibility include lithic
scatters at sites CM-S-4, CM-S-10, and 10CA298, and the historic railroad grade, 10CA864. The
unevaluated sites would require additional testing and evaluation prior to determination of impact or
Proposed Project effect if they were not avoided during Proposed Project construction.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-41

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

The remaining sites and isolates determined to be ineligible for nomination to the NRHP would be
subject to impacts ranging from no impact to high impact. Regardless of Proposed Project impacts,
per 36 CFR 800, no further management would be required for these sites.

4.7.3 Alternative C

Prior to the initiation of any activity, all sites which are currently evaluated as “Potentially Eligible,”
will have sufficient data collection conducted so that they may be reevaluated as either eligible or
ineligible. Any site, which is evaluated to be eligible, will have a formal Eligibility Determination
completed.

Impacts for Alternative C are similar to impacts for Alternative B with the exception that the
Proposed Project would have no impact to site CM-S-17 in Alternative C because this site would be
avoided.

4.7.4 Alternative D

Prior to the initiation of any activity, all sites which are currently evaluated as “Potentially Eligible,”
will have sufficient data collection conducted so that they may be reevaluated as either eligible or
ineligible. Any site, which is evaluated to be eligible, will have a formal Eligibility Determination
completed.

Impacts for Alternative D are similar to impacts for Alternative C with the exception that the
Proposed Project would have no impact to sites CM-S-21, CM-S-22, CM-S-18, and CM-S-1 in
Alternative D because these sites would be avoided. Alternative D would have the fewest impacts to
historical and cultural resources.

4.8 AMERICAN INDIAN CONCERNS

Impacts to American Indian concerns would be identified during govemment-to-govemment
consultation. These consultations would be sensitive to the Tribes and would be resolved with the
Tribes.

4.8.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no impacts on cultural resources.

4.8.2 Alternative B

As of the publication of the Draft EIS, no sites of concern have been identified.

4.8.3 Alternative C

As of the publication of the Draft EIS, no sites of concern have been identified.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-42

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.8.4 Alternative D

As of the publication of the Draft EIS, no sites of concern have been identified.

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would result in no impacts or changes to regional or local socioeconomic conditions
because the Proposed Project would not be constructed. The Proposed Project area would continue to
function as a dispersed recreation area and would continue to provide seasonal grazing opportunities
for livestock. The Mini-Cassia area would not experience the tax revenue benefits that would be
associated with the Proposed Project.

4.9.2 Alternative B
Community and Regional Economy

Construction

Construction of the Proposed Project would last approximately eight months, from April through
November of 2006. The cost of construction would be approximately $200 million, the majority of
which would be the cost of the towers and turbines. Table 4.9-1 presents an approximate breakdown
of the Proposed Project construction cost.

Table 4.9-1. Construction Costs ($1000s) of the Proposed Project.

Type of cost

Cost

Labor (107 to 132 construction workers)

$3,000

Non-labor costs

$197,000

130 foundations at $60,000 each, and concrete batch plant

$8,000

Wind turbines and towers

$160,000

Other materials and non-labor costs

$10,000

Roads, O&M building, site preparation

$3,000

Electrical and communications

$16,000

Total construction cost

$200,000

The aggregate for the concrete batch plant would be purchased within the Mini-Cassia area, along
with other standard and available materials and supplies that would be needed for construction. 1
Approximately five workers would constitute the road crew for the road building. The larger crew for
the eight-month general construction period would average between 107 and 132 workers. Since the
construction process would be an “assembly line” type of operation, the beginning and end of the

1 The IMPLAN model assumes 20 percent of non-labor costs of construction (excluding cost of wind turbines
and towers) would be spent within Cassia County or Minidoka County.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-43

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

construction period would involve a slightly lower number of workers when compared to the middle
months. The breakdown of the construction workforce by type is shown in Table 4.9-2.

Table 4.9-2. Construction Workforce for the Proposed
Project.

Type of Worker

Average Number
Required Throughout
the Construction Period

Carpenter/form setter

7

Cement finisher

3

Cement, rebar

4

Electrician helper

17

Electrician, industrial

11

Electrician, master

2

Laborer

43

Structural steel worker

9

Backhoe operator

5

Cherry picker operator

7

Cable crane operator

5

Dozer operator

2

Power shovel operator

3

Road roller operator

2

Estimated daily total

107 to 132

Laborer positions and other construction worker positions that do not require specialized skills would
likely be filled from the local Mini-Cassia area labor force. 2 The maximum 132-person workforce
would represent one-fifth of construction employment in the Mini-Cassia area. Non-local workers
could originate from other counties in south central Idaho, or also from further distances. The few
construction workers who are predicted to commute on a weekly basis would stay in local lodging
and would likely have less than an hour drive each way to the job site.

Assuming ten percent of the construction workforce would commute on a weekly basis, a maximum
of 14 workers would need lodging during the week. Local lodging facilities would have sufficient
availability to accommodate these workers during the week.

Construction activity would result in secondary economic impacts (both indirect and induced) within
the Mini-Cassia area. Secondary employment effects would include (1) indirect employment resulting
from the purchase of goods and services by firms involved with construction, and (2) induced
employment resulting from construction workers spending their income in the local area. Similarly,
indirect and induced income and spending effects would also occur as “ripple” effects from
construction. Indirect and induced impacts were estimated using IMPLAN economic modeling
software, an input/output model specific for the economic study area of Cassia County and Minidoka

2 The IMPLAN model assumes 60 percent of the construction workforce would originate from Cassia County or
Minidoka County.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-44

Co tterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

County (IMPLAN 2003). Estimated indirect and induced effects of construction that would occur
within Mini-Cassia may add 50 jobs, approximately $1 million in labor income, and approximately
$3.3 million in total output. Similar to direct economic impacts from construction, these secondary
economic impacts would occur one time. The secondary impacts would likely lag behind direct
impacts by six to 12 months.

In summary, approximately 40 percent of construction workers (53 workers) could originate from
outside the Mini-Cassia area, and approximately ten percent (14 workers) would commute weekly.
This would result in a temporary additional daily population in the area surrounding the Proposed
Project from Monday through Friday, during the construction period. The change would be noticeable
because the population near the Proposed Project area is small (e.g., 48 residents in the five census
blocks near where the Proposed Project is located, 177 residents in Malta, and 262 residents in
Albion). However, the population increase would be temporary and would only occur during the
week (the majority of the increase would occur during daytime hours only, not overnight). The impact
of additional population would be low because population near the Proposed Project area would not
grow substantially or permanently. The increase in demand for services would be small and
temporary, and no businesses or residences would be displaced by the Proposed Project construction.
Communities and businesses would retain their physical arrangement and function. Workers would
not likely relocate to cities or unincorporated areas near the Proposed Project area because the
construction period would be relatively short.

Beneficial impacts to local businesses and the economy would include: additional spending by
workers for food, gas, and lodging; spending by the construction contractor for supplies and standard
materials needed for construction; and additional jobs and related income. These impacts are expected
to be low to moderate.

Changes in tourism use and spending would likely represent no impact to a low impact due to
construction because (1) the construction period would be relatively short, and (2) construction
activities would be occurring in an area that is not widely used. Additionally, the “assembly line”
construction sequencing allows construction to be completed in one area before construction is begun
in the next. Therefore, construction would only occupy one section of the Proposed Project area at
one time, freeing other areas for recreational activities.

Construction of the Proposed Project, and in particular, the road system, would require materials to be
transported by truck. Approximately 14,940 truck trips would be required under Alternative B. Of
these total truck trips, 12,735 truck trips would be for the purpose of road building. These truck trips
would result in impacts on local communities similar to impacts from truck trips transporting
agricultural goods during harvest season. Types of impacts would include noise, dust, and additional
traffic on roads.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-45

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Fiscal Impacts

Sales and/or use tax revenue on the construction contract would accrue to Cassia County because
Cassia County is the location of the Proposed Project construction. The contractor would need to
apply for a use tax account with the Idaho State Tax Commission (ITC 2004). Sales tax revenue on
the construction contract would be approximately $12 million. This one-time beneficial fiscal impact
would more than double retail sales tax revenue accruing to Cassia County that year.

Minidoka County would benefit from sales tax revenue to the extent that construction or operation
employees purchase goods or services in Minidoka County.

Operation

Community and Regional Economy

The Proposed Project operation would be expected to begin in late 2006 or early 2007, and would
involve operation of the wind turbines 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Operating the
Proposed Project would cost approximately $4.5 million annually (Table 4.9-3).

Table 4.9-3. Annual Cost of Operation and Maintenance ($1000s) of the Proposed
Project.

Type of cost

Cost

Labor

$600

Non-labor costs

$3,900

Portion of non-labor costs occurring locally (does not include lubricants)

$1,000

Total annual operation cost

$4,500

Notes: The labor cost of $600,000 would include salaries, benefits, and other labor-related costs.

Twelve employees would work at the Proposed Project on a permanent basis, including one office
administrator, one foreman, and ten windsmiths/electricians. Employees would work eight-hour
shifts, five days per week, with the exception of five of the windsmiths, who would likely rotate shifts
to cover nights and weekends. It is anticipated that all permanent positions with the exception of the
foreman position would be filled from the local labor force (within the Mini-Cassia area). Some
windsmith training would be provided to those who have a basic understanding of electrical work.

In addition to labor costs, the cost of operation also includes maintenance and other non-labor costs
associated with operating the turbines and transmitting power. Maintenance costs could increase
slightly in the future, after the five-year warranty on the turbine expires. The Applicant would employ
on-call staff to address potential turbine breakdowns.

Similar to construction, operation of the Proposed Project would result in secondary (indirect and
induced) economic impacts that would occur within the Mini-Cassia area. 3 Indirect and induced

3 The IMPLAN model assumes that 25 percent of non-labor operation and maintenance costs would be spent
within Cassia County or Minidoka County.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-46

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

impacts were estimated using IMPLAN (IMPLAN 2003). Unlike indirect and induced impacts from
construction, indirect and induced impacts from operation would represent permanent increases in
area economic variables. These impacts would lag behind direct economic impacts by approximately
six to 12 months. Estimated indirect and induced impacts of Proposed Project operation that would
occur within the Mini-Cassia area on an annual basis would be an additional seven permanent jobs,
$145,000 in labor income, and approximately $472,000 in output. 4

In summary, it is expected that one operation employee, at most, would originate from outside the
area. This would not represent an increase in population, concentration of population, or increase in
demand for public services. Operation of the Proposed Project would not disrupt or displace
businesses or residences, and would not divide a community.

Low but beneficial economic impacts to the local community and economy would include 12 new
permanent jobs and related income, and additional spending at local establishments by workers (gas
and food) and by the Applicant (supplies and standard materials for operational and maintenance
functions).

Use of the area by tourists and spending by tourists would not likely decrease substantially in the long
run. Visual impacts to recreationists traveling in the area would likely occur. However, since Cotterel
Mountain is not a destination recreation location, construction of the Proposed Project should not alter
the decision of tourists to travel through the area. Therefore, tourism would not likely be affected by
views of the Proposed Project. Users that chose to recreate on Cotterel Mountain in proximity to the
Proposed Project would experience change in views compared to current conditions.

Fiscal Impacts

Property Tax

After construction, the Proposed Project property would remain public land. ITC would set the
estimated value of improvements because the property would be newly classified as “operating
property.” According to the ITC, the estimated value of improvements would be $194 million of the
$197 million non-labor cost of the Proposed Project, because $3 million would be the cost of roads
and transmission interconnect lines. The transmission interconnect lines would be turned over to
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) or to Raft River Rural Electric. Accordingly, the ITC
estimates that the Proposed Project would add approximately $197 million in value of improvements
in Cassia County (ITC 2003b).

Sales Tax

Sales tax revenue accruing to Cassia County would increase due to increased retail sales (i.e., supplies
purchased) attributable to Proposed Project construction. Assuming approximately $7.5 million (20%

4 The IMPLAN model assumes that seven of the 12 operation employees would originate from the Mini-Cassia
area.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-47

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

of non-labor construction costs excluding the cost of the wind turbines and towers) is spent locally,
the one-time increase in sales tax revenue would be approximately $500,000.

Similarly, assuming an annual $1 million is spent each year in the Mini-Cassia area for Proposed
Project operation, the permanent increase to annual sales tax revenue would be $60,000. This estimate
would increase to the extent construction and operation employees spend money locally on gas, food,
and lodging throughout the area. According to the ITC, the amount of sales tax revenue that is
returned to each county depends on population and assessed value (Poplar 2003). Therefore, because
the Proposed Project would result in an increase in property value in Cassia County, the portion of
sales tax revenue returned to the county should also rise. This would represent a moderate impact.

Cassia Joint School District No. 151

According to the distribution of property taxes, Cassia Joint School District No. 151 would receive an
additional $1.3 million per year due to the Proposed Project. 5 As a result of this increase in tax
revenue, the state would act in two ways: it would remove financial support that is currently provided
to the School District, and it would replace those funds through the state property tax replacement
system. The net effect of these actions would be an increase in revenues of only $123; therefore, the
School District would experience a property tax benefit associated with the Proposed Project. These
increases would benefit school districts in the State of Idaho, including Cassia County School District
(Times News 2004).

Road Maintenance

The scoping process for this Draft EIS indicated that local citizens are concerned about increased
demand for road maintenance by local agencies. The increased demand would result from increased
use of existing roads throughout the Proposed Project area, and construction of new roads, for the
purpose of Proposed Project construction and operation. Local taxes such as property taxes, sales
taxes, and use taxes are meant to cover these additional costs associated with any type of
development.

Property Values

Construction

The proposed construction period would be approximately eight months. Because construction
(workers, heavy equipment, staging areas, etc.) on the Proposed Project would be temporary and
because the Proposed Project is located over two miles from the nearest residence, adverse property
value impacts (decreases in property value due to views to construction) attributable to Proposed
Project construction are not expected to occur.

5 The estimate of $1.3 million in additional property tax revenue accruing to Cassia Joint School District No.
151 is supported by a study completed in March 2003 by the ITC, “Proposed Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm
Project - Likely Effect on Cassia County Property Taxes” (ITC 2003).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-48

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Operation

ECONorthwest prepared a study that analyzed the economic effects of a wind power project on
private land in Kittitas County, Washington (ECONorthwest 2002). The study included an assessment
of property value impacts due to wind power projects. ECONorthwest (1) conducted a phone survey
of tax assessors for counties that recently had wind turbines installed in their areas; (2) reviewed
current literature to find statistical studies that quantified the impacts of wind turbines on property
values, and (3) reviewed literature on the impacts that transmission interconnect lines have on
property values. Assessors were chosen for interviews if the projects within their counties were ten
years old or less, were viewed from residential properties, and had multiple turbines. ECONorthwest
found that “views of wind turbines would not impact property values.” ECONorthwest did not find
evidence supporting the claim that views of wind farms decrease property values (ECONorthwest
2002). Applying the ECONorthwest research, even if a visual impact were to occur as a result of this
Proposed Project, resulting decreases in property values would not necessarily occur.

Social Values

The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with social values in the area. Grazing,
hunting, and other activities that currently take place at Cotterel Mountain would continue to occur.
Due to the increased public access provided by the new and improved roads that would be built as
part of the Proposed Project, activities such as hunting could increase. Income that currently accrues
to the Mini-Cassia area due to tourism is not likely to decrease because the activities would remain
available, and the quality of the recreational experience would remain similar.

Many people who submitted comments during the scoping period wrote in support of the Proposed
Project. However, there were those, including some living near the Proposed Project area, who had
concerns about property issues (value changes and maintaining boundaries when public access
increases), recreation issues (increases in use due to greater public access and possible decrease in
desirability due to perception of views), and fiscal impacts (tax impacts and increased need for road
maintenance). There are also those, particularly in and surrounding the community, who are strongly
opposed to the Proposed Project. This has contributed to a negative change (although minor) in the
cohesiveness of the community and may continue to do so.

Environmental Justice

The Mini-Cassia area has more minority and low-income residents when compared to the south
central region of Idaho and the State of Idaho. The five census blocks within which the Proposed
Project would be constructed are, as a whole, eight percent minority, which is a lower percentage than
the same measure for the Mini-Cassia area, South Central Idaho, and the State of Idaho. Similarly, the
block group within which the Proposed Project would be constructed is ten percent minority, which is
a lower percentage than the same measure for the Mini-Cassia area, South Central Idaho, and the
State of Idaho. The residents closest to the Proposed Project, who would experience much of the
temporary impacts of construction, should not be identified as a minority or low-income population.

A/1 ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-49

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Therefore, minority and low-income populations would not experience disproportionate impacts as a
result of the Proposed Project.

4.9.3 Alternative C

Under Alternative C, construction and annual operation cost would be similar to Alternative B;
therefore, the impacts would be similar. Under Alternative C, slightly fewer truck trips would be
required than under Alternative B, and impacts due to the truck trips would be similar.

4.9.4 Alternative D

Alternative D would have 40 to 50 percent fewer turbines than Alternative B. Socioeconomic benefits
such as tax revenue increases due to the Proposed Project would therefore be less in magnitude, and
adverse impacts such as disturbances due to construction of the Proposed Project would likely be
shorter in duration and less in magnitude. The type of impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

Construction

Community and Regional Economy

The cost of construction would be approximately $125 million, based on the smaller number of
turbines. The breakdown of costs would be proportionally the same as shown in Table 4.9-1. The type
and amount of employment and the origin of workers would be similar to Alternative B. Secondary
impacts would be similar in type to Alternative B, but smaller in magnitude. Impacts would be low to
local businesses and the economy such as additional spending by workers for food, gas, and lodging;
spending by the construction contractor for supplies and standard materials needed for construction;
and additional jobs and related income. Impacts to tourism and related spending would be similar to
Alternative B. Under Alternative D, fewer truck trips would be required, approximately one-third less
than under Alternative B. Similar to other types of impacts under Alternative D, impacts from truck
trips would be the same in type, but less in magnitude and duration when compared to Alternative B.

Fiscal Impacts

Sales or use tax revenue impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except smaller because the
construction contract amount would be smaller.

Operation

Community and Regional Economy

Operating the Proposed Project under Alternative D would cost approximately $2.9 million annually,
based on the smaller number of turbines. The number of employees and related income associated
with operation would be less than under Alternative B. The breakdown of operation costs would be
proportionately the same as shown in Alternative B. Secondary impacts would be the same in type as
Alternative B, but smaller in magnitude due to the smaller number of turbines.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-50

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Fiscal Impacts

The effect on property tax revenue under Alternative C would be less than Alternative B because the
estimated value of the improvements to the land would be less. The additional revenue from the
construction of the Proposed Project would likely be distributed in the same manner as Alternative B
(Table 3.5-11).

Accrued sales tax revenue for Cassia County would also be less in comparison to Alternative B;
therefore, fewer funds would be available for the School District under Alternative C, because the
value of the improvements to the land would be less.

Issues related to road maintenance would be the same as under Alternative B.

Property Values

The type of impacts due to construction would be the same as under Alternative B. Similar to under
Alternative B, impacts (decreases) to property values due to changed views would not likely occur
due to operation.

Social Values

Issues related to social values would be the same as under Alternative B.

Environmental Justice

Similar to Alternative B, minority and low-income populations would not experience disproportionate
Proposed Project impacts.

4.10 LANDS AND REALTY

This section discusses the potential effects to land ownership, land uses, and land management plans
in the Proposed Project area.

4.10.1 Land Status and Ownership

Surface or mineral ownership would not change by implementing any of the alternatives. No direct or
indirect effects to existing surface land ownership or mineral ownership would occur by
implementing any of the alternatives.

The proposed wind turbines, roads, and ancillary facilities would be located on federal lands under
the jurisdiction of the BLM. ROW approvals would be obtained from the BLM in accordance with
the processes outlined in 43 Code of Regulations 2800 and the BLM ROW Handbook (H-2800-1).

4.10.2 Land Use

The primary impacts to land use associated with the Proposed Project are tied to change in landscape
character, aesthetic quality and prior land use. Current predominant land use in the Proposed Project
area consists of wildlife habitat, livestock grazing and recreation.

A/lay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-51

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.10.3 Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A would result in no change to landscape character, aesthetic quality or existing land uses
within the Proposed Project area or its vicinity.

4.10.4 Alternative B

Moderate impacts would occur from an overall change in landscape character from a remote to an
industrial character and a decline in the aesthetic quality of the land for recreational uses. No
permanent changes to land use are expected within the Proposed Project area. All surface equipment
would be removed from the area at the end of the economic life of the Proposed Project, and
reclamation would restore disturbed sites to near prior conditions. All actions would be in
conformance with county, state, and federal land use plans.

Livestock grazing, recreation and wildlife use would continue within the Proposed Project area during
construction and operation. Impacts to these resources are discussed in the individual resource
sections. Prior land uses would be re-established after decommissioning of the Proposed Project, and
final reclamation of turbine pads and roads.

4.10.5 Alternative C

For Alternative C, impacts to land use would be the similar to Alternative B. Under Alternative C,
fewer miles of access road would be constructed, providing less access to the area than Alternative B.

4.10.6 Alternative D

Alternative D would have the fewest impacts to land use due to a smaller area of construction (fewer
turbines) and fewer miles of access road.

4.11 RECREATION

Primary impacts to recreation are based on how the Proposed Project could change the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification within the Proposed Project area and takes into account:
existing recreation opportunities for activities such as camping, hunting, OHV use and sightseeing;
visitor use; and potential for improvement of recreation facilities. Changes in visitor type or
experience and degree of lost opportunities were used as indicators in the evaluation process.

4.11.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Based on the activities outlined in the Cassia RMP, no change to recreation opportunities or degree of
use would be anticipated in the area, beyond some minor modifications to recreation facilities and
trails. These modifications are expected to enhance the recreation spectrum in the Proposed Project
area.

4.11.2 AlternativeB

Under Alternative B, impacts to recreation resources are expected to be moderate. Public access to
federal and state lands within the Proposed Project area would not be restricted, except during

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-52

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

construction of the Proposed Project for safety purposes. Following Proposed Project construction,
public access to federal and state lands would be improved with about 25 miles of new or
reconstructed roads. During construction of the Proposed Project, noise, dust, traffic, equipment use,
and associated human activities would change the character of the area and result in a temporary loss
of recreational opportunities.

The Proposed Project would alter the aesthetic sense of Cotterel Mountain as a rural, undeveloped
recreational area. The improved road system would likely result in an increased number of visitors to
the area, and the daily presence of O&M personnel may discourage visitors seeking solitude.
Increased access would enhance opportunities for legal hunting and wildlife sightseeing for some
recreational users. However, this could lead to occurrences of poaching and other disturbances to big
game and other wildlife.

The Proposed Project may attract tourists to the area. The types of visitors could shift from
predominately local visitors to visitors from outside the area that would be interested or curious about
the wind turbines and energy generation. The novelty of the wind turbines and change from the
relatively undeveloped prairie and sagebrush landscape along 1-84 would likely cause some travelers
to view the Proposed Project with interest. Drivers passing by may be intrigued by the wind towers
and stop to investigate or photograph them. Interpretive panels may be erected at the rest area along I-
84 east of the Proposed Project area or at other locations along highways to inform drivers of the
Proposed Project.

Under Alternative B, a wind turbine would be located within about 760 feet of the Coe Creek picnic
site. Visitors to the picnic site may be able to hear the wind turbines at times of turbine operation. In
addition, several turbines would be visible from the picnic site. The auditory and visual presence of
the wind turbines may deter some visitors from using the picnic site. Other visitors may be attracted
to the picnic site by its unique location within an operational wind power generation facility.

All surface equipment and structures would be removed during final reclamation. All turbine
locations, selected roads, and other disturbed sites would be reclaimed to reestablish grazing lands,
wildlife habitat, and recreational use. Some roads may be retained upon Proposed Project completion
allowing increased recreational use of the area.

The potential impacts to recreation could result in a change of visitor/use or experience. These
potential changes to recreation use would not alter the current ROS category (semiprimitive
motorized) for Cotterel Mountain and would not be in conflict with the Cassia RMP.

4.11.3 Alternative C

Under Alternative C, the Proposed Project would require the reconstruction of about three miles of
road and the construction of about 19.5 miles of new roads (about 23 miles total). Public use of
Proposed Project roads would be restricted through a series of gates and natural rock barriers but
would not result in a loss of access to traditional use areas. Primitive access would be maintained

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-53

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

wherever possible by linking the existing primitive road system through construction of new
primitive roads. Similar to Alternative B, impacts to recreation resources are expected to be moderate.

Under Alternative C, the closest wind turbine would be located within about one-quarter mile (1,400
feet) of the Coe Creek picnic site. Visitors would likely be able to hear the turbines during times of
turbine operation but less so than under Alternative B. Turbines would still be visible from the Coe
Creek picnic site.

The potential impacts to recreation under Alternative C could result in a change of visitor/use or
experience. These potential changes to recreation use would not alter the current ROS category
(semiprimitive motorized) for Cotterel Mountain and would not be in conflict with the Cassia RMP.

4.11.4 Alternative D

Under Alternative D, the Proposed Project would require the reconstruction of about three miles of
road and the construction of about 15 miles of new roads (about 18 miles total). Public use of
Proposed Project roads would be restricted through a series of gates and natural rock barriers but
would not result in a loss of access to traditional use areas. Primitive access would be maintained
wherever possible by linking the existing primitive road system through construction of new
primitive roads. Similar to Alternative B and Alternative C, impacts to recreation resources are
expected to be moderate.

Impacts to users of the Coe Creek picnic site would be the same as those described under Alternative
C.

The potential impacts to recreation under Alternative D could result in a change of visitor/use or
experience. These potential changes to recreation use would not alter the current ROS category
(semiprimitive motorized) for Cotterel Mountain and would not be in conflict with the Cassia RMP.

4.12 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Primary impacts to livestock grazing are based on how the Proposed Project could affect forage
availability for livestock grazing, grazing management, and Animal Unit Months (AUMs). The
information on current grazing permits in the Proposed Project area (Table 3.8-1) was used for
calculating impacts. The following indicators were used in assessing potential impacts to grazing:

• Acres of forage disposed from grazing for livestock and wildlife; and

• Changes in range conditions and alteration of current range improvements.

4.12.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Based on the activities outlined in the Cassia RMP no changes to grazing would be expected in the
area beyond some vegetation treatments or minor range improvement projects to facilitate livestock
grazing. Under Alternative A, these modifications are not expected to impact livestock grazing.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-54

Cofferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.12.2 Alternative B

A temporary loss of rangelands, associated with construction activities, would reduce forage
availability on approximately 368 acres (3%) from the North and South Cotterel Allotments. This
estimate is based on 100 percent of the affected area being available as forage, even though a
percentage of these areas is of no forage value, i.e. rock outcrops, roads, bare ground, etc. It is
assumed that impacts on range resources from construction activity would be evenly distributed
throughout both grazing allotments. Following construction of the Proposed Project, reclamation and
revegetation efforts would restore range improvement projects and forage availability on
approximately 165 acres (45% of the impacted area). Restoration of disturbed vegetation to pre¬
construction conditions is expected to take approximately three to five years. Permanent impacts to
rangeland vegetation would result in a loss of forage on approximately 203 acres (2%) of the
Proposed Project area.

The overall response of livestock to a fully operational wind power project is difficult to assess. It is
likely that most of the livestock would habituate to the presence of the operating wind power project
as well as to the increased traffic associated with maintenance of the Proposed Project. Some
livestock may not habituate to the presence of the Proposed Project and its associated activities. These
animals would likely stay some distance from the turbine strings and access roads; it is unknown if
this displacement would adversely effect the range resource or the behavior and fitness of livestock.

Clearing existing vegetation from construction sites may provide a corridor for the spread of invasive
and noxious weeds, which could reduce available forage, and in some instances, be harmful to the
health of livestock. Based on the amount and distribution of area impacted by Alternative B, impacts
to grazing operations would not be appreciable during construction and throughout the period of
operation of the Proposed Project.

4.12.3 Alternative C

Impacts to livestock grazing from Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B, but the total
number of acres initially affected would be slightly less. The amount of available forage for livestock
use would be greater under Alternative B. Alternative C would initially impact approximately 337 to
350 acres (3%) of rangeland currently available for grazing within the Proposed Project area.
Following construction of the Proposed Project, reclamation and revegetation efforts would restore
range improvement projects and forage availability on approximately 134 to 147 acres (40% to 42%
of the impacted area). Restoration of disturbed vegetation to pre-construction conditions is expected
to take approximately three to five years. Permanent impacts to rangeland vegetation would result in a
loss of forage on approximately 203 acres (2%) of the Proposed Project area.

4.12.4 Alternative D

Impacts to livestock grazing from Alternative D would be similar to Alternative B and Alternative C,
but the total number of initial and permanent acres affected would be less. The amount of available
forage for livestock use would be greatest under Alternative D. Alternative D would have the least
amount of impact to livestock grazing compared to Alternative B and Alternative C. Alternative D,

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-55

Cofferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

would initially impact approximately 269 to 282 acres (3%) of rangeland currently available for
grazing within the Proposed Project area. Following construction of the Proposed Project, reclamation
and revegetation efforts would restore range improvement projects and forage availability on
approximately 111 to 123 acres (41% to 44% of the impacted area). Restoration of disturbed
vegetation to pre-construction conditions is expected to take approximately three to five years.
Permanent impacts to rangeland vegetation would result in a loss of forage on approximately 159
acres (1%) of the Proposed Project area.

4.13 VISUAL RESOURCES

Visual Resource Contrast Rating involves determining whether the potential visual impacts from
proposed surface-disturbing activities or developments would meet the management objectives
established for the Cotterel Mountain area or whether design adjustments would be required for the
Proposed Project. The Visual Resource Contrast Rating method is summarized below, followed by
the Visual Resource Contrast Rating for the Proposed Project

4.13.1 Visual Resource Contrast Rating Method

The Visual Resource Contrast Rating method is a systematic process used by the BLM to analyze
potential visual impacts of a proposed action. The degree to which a proposed action affects the visual
quality of a landscape depends on the visual contrast created between a proposed action and the
existing landscape. The contrast can be measured by comparing the proposed action features with the
existing major landscape features. The basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture are used
to make this comparison, and to describe the visual contrast created by the proposed action. This
process provides a means for determining visual impacts and for identifying measures to mitigate
these impacts.

To assess the visual impact from the Proposed Project, contrast ratings were completed from the most
critical viewpoints, called key observation points (KOP). Initially, the BLM selected 12 KOP along
commonly traveled routes, or at other likely observation points, such as the Pomerelle Mountain
Resort. Specialists from the BLM evaluated these 12 points and chose four KOP as representing the
best scenic value for the Proposed Project (Figure 4.13-1). The visual observation team visited,
photographed, and rated the viewshed of the Proposed Project area from each of the four KOP.
Photographs of the Proposed Project area were incorporated into a computer-generated visual
simulation of the completed Proposed Project. From each KOP, the computer-generated simulation
portrayed the proposed turbines in their proper locations and at the correct scale (Appendix G). Using
these simulations, the specialists each completed the BLM visual contrast rating worksheets. A fifth
site, in the town of Albion, was also photographed and computer-generated simulation created.
However, this site was not selected as a KOP. Appendix G includes the visual simulations used for
the visual contrast rating.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-56

[Albion

IDAHO

-

_

n—

Oregon Trail crossing
of Rainbow Ranch Road

• •

BLM Operation
Yard Driveway

Additional simulation from
Marsh Creek Event Center
in Albion (not a key obs. point)

*1

?

\V^

•

•

t

•

•

j r

• '

\

•

n

Overlook on Road
to Pomerelle

!

la It a

California Trail south
of McClendon Spring

Cotterel Wind Power Project

Figure 4.13-1. Key Observation Points.

x ; i

Legend

Key Observation Point
Project Area

I.I.I Alt B Interconnect ROW
l m 2 Alt. C and D Interconnect ROW
* Transmission Lines

Interstate
Major Roads
Other Roads

2 Miles

H

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

The team assessed the visual contrasts between the viewshed of the Proposed Project area and the
existing viewshed. The team identified the basic features (landform, vegetation, and structures) and
the basic elements (form, line, color, and texture) that cause contrast. The proposed development
would primarily consist of landform features (e.g., roads and pads) and structural features (e.g.,
turbines, transmission interconnect lines). Each member of the team then rated the degree of contrast
(none, weak, moderate, or strong) for each basic element within each basic feature using the visual
resource contrast rating criteria (Table 4.13-1).

Table 4.13-1. Visual Resource Contrast Rating Criteria.

Degree of Contrast

Criteria

None

The contrast is not visible or perceived.

Weak

The contrast can be seen but does not attract attention.

Moderate

The contrast begins to attract attention and begins to dominate the
characteristic landscape.

Strong

The contrast demands attention, will not be overlooked, and is dominant
in the landscape.

Visual Resource Contrast Rating Results

The individual contrast ratings produced by each member of the visual assessment team were
averaged. Table 4.13-2 lists the average visual contrast rating for the four KOP (Figure 4.13-1).

The contrast ratings were then compared to the approved Visual Resource Management (VRM)
Inventory classes. For comparative purposes, the four levels of contrast (none, weak, moderate, and
strong) roughly correspond with VRM Inventory classes I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Therefore, a
"strong" contrast rating may be acceptable in a VRM Inventory Class IV area. All of the proposed
turbine strings fall within VRM Inventory Class IV.

The team also assessed the cumulative effect of all the contrast ratings, because a combination of
ratings may suggest that there is a stronger overall contrast than the individual ratings show. For
example, several "moderate" ratings, when viewed in combination, may warrant an overall "strong"
visual contrast rating for the view of the Proposed Project from a particular KOP. Using this
guidance, the Proposed Project would cause: an overall “moderate to strong” visual contrast when
viewed from the Pomerelle KOP; overall “weak to moderate” visual contrasts when viewed from the
Oregon Trail KOP and California Trail KOP; and an overall “weak” visual contrast when viewed
from the BLM Office KOP.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-58

Co tterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Table 4.13-2. Visual Contrast Rating for the Proposed Project.

LAND

VEGETATION STRUCTURES

KOP 1: California Trial

H

w

s

w

a on

FORM

None

None

Moderate

LINE

Moderate

None

Moderate

COLOR

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

TEXTURE

Weak

Weak

Moderate

KOP 2: Oregon Trial

ELEMENT

S

FORM

Weak

None

Moderate

LINE

Moderate

None

Moderate

COLOR

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

TEXTURE

Moderate

Weak

Moderate

KOP 3: Howell Canyon Road

ELEMENT

S

FORM

Weak

Weak

Moderate

LINE

Strong

Weak

Moderate

COLOR

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

TEXTURE

Moderate

Weak

Moderate

KOP 4: BLM Office

ELEMENT

S

FORM

Weak

Weak

Weak

LINE

Weak

None

Weak

COLOR

Weak

Weak

Weak

TEXTURE

Weak

None

Weak

4.13.2 Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, no impact to visual resources would occur from the Proposed Project.

4.13.3 Alternative B

Construction Phase

Visual resources could be impacted over the short-term during the construction phase due to the
amount of vehicle and heavy equipment traffic associated with the Proposed Project. The number of
truck trips necessary to complete the Proposed Project would be greatest under this alternative.

Impacts from dust plumes may be associated with construction of the proposed North and South
Access Roads. Construction of these roads would involve a cut-and-fill process, using earth-moving
equipment. The proposed North Access Road passes through the scenic corridor associated with SH-
81. The proposed South Access Road would be visible from a Class II designated area associated with
SH-77, (part of the City of Rocks Backcountry Byway). Both these areas have increased sensitivity to
visual impacts due the public visibility associated with nearby highways and 1-84. Impacts from
traffic and dust created by constructing both the access roads would be short-term.

Cranes used to raise the towers could be visible from sensitive areas. Although the cranes would be
operating within a Class IV area, they could be visible from the Class II designated area to the

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-59

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

southwest. This would represent an impact to visual resources. Crane activity would be the greatest
under this alternative.

Construction of the two transmission interconnect lines would be visible from the north and east side
of the Proposed Project area. The north transmission interconnect line would pass over SH-81 and its
associated scenic corridor. Construction crews and equipment would be visible to the public in this
area and may result in visual impacts. The eastern transmission interconnect line would pass through
a Class IV designation. Construction crews and equipment would be visible from the scenic corridor
associated with SH-81, resulting in a visual impact.

Operational Phase

Under Alternative B, the west string would be about 0.8 mile in length and located along a short side-
ridge, west of the main Cotterel Mountain ridgeline. This ridgeline resides within a Class IV
designated area, but would be visible in the foreground-middleground zone from the Class II
designated areas to the west, resulting in a direct impact to visual resources over the long-term.

The center string of wind turbines would be about 10.9 miles in length and placed along the spine of
the main ridgeline of the mountain. This string would reside within a Class IV designated area but
would be visible in the middle-ground zone from a Class II designated area to the west that coincides
with Albion Valley and a scenic corridor associated with SH-77. When viewed from these aspects,
the center string would be visible and change the character of the landscape. It would contrast with
the surrounding landscape by matching neither color, form, line, or texture. Compounding this
difference in landscape contrast is the increased sensitivity of the viewsheds due to relatively high
public visibility from the residents of Albion and Malta, and motorists on both SH-77 and SH-81,
resulting in a visual impact over the long-term.

The northern half of the center string would be visible from SH-81 and 1-84. These roadways lie
within scenic corridors with an increased sensitivity level due to the large number of people who
would see the Proposed Project, and may result in an impact.

The east string could also be visible from the east along SH-81 and the community of Malta, Idaho.
The community of Malta and SH-81 reside in a scenic corridor with increased levels of sensitivity
due to the visibility from the roadway and the community residents. From this aspect, the towers
would represent a direct impact over the long-term.

Under Alternative B, the west string and the South Access Road would be the most visible aspects of
the Proposed Project from both the Howell Canyon road (Pomerelle Mountain Resort Access road)
and SH-77 City of Rocks Backcountry Byway. This visibility would impact the background view
from these areas, resulting in a visual impact over the long-term.

Alternative B calls for the expansion of the O&M building at the junction of SH-77 and the proposed
South Access Road. There could be an impact to visual resources associated with this proposed

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-60

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

expansion to the extent that the facility becomes larger and more visible from the Class II area
associated with SH-77.

Improvements to the North Access Road could have impacts by making the road more visible from
the scenic corridor associated with SH-81 and 1-84. Approximately one-half mile of the road
improvement would take place within the scenic corridor, which is sensitive to visual impacts due to
the large number of people who may see the improved road.

Transmission interconnect lines would be visible from the north and east side of the Proposed Project
area. The majority of the eastern transmission interconnect line would be parallel to the existing Raft
River Transmission Line and match it, in both height and form. The north transmission interconnect
line would be visible from 1-84, pass over SH-81 and through its associated scenic corridor. The
northern transmission interconnect line would be visible to motorists in this area, resulting in long¬
term visual impacts. The eastern transmission interconnect line would pass through a Class IV
designated area. The eastern transmission interconnect line would be visible from the scenic corridor
associated with SH-81, resulting in a long-term visual impact.

4.13.4 Alternative C

Construction Phase

Under Alternative C, short-term impacts to visual resources due to construction of the Proposed
Project may occur due to the amount of vehicle and heavy equipment traffic associated with the
Proposed Project. The number of truck trips necessary to complete the Proposed Project under this
alternative would be 13 percent fewer than under Alternative B.

Impacts associated with construction of the North Access Road would be the same as described under
Alternative B. Impacts from traffic and dust created by constructing the access road would be short¬
term.

Impacts associated with the visibility of cranes during construction would be similar to those
described under Alternative B. Impacts under this alternative would be less than those described
under Alternative B with fewer towers to be constructed, and the west string of towers closest to SH-
77 would be eliminated.

Impacts from the construction of a transmission interconnect line would be similar to those described
under Alternative B. Under this alternative there would be a single transmission interconnect line that
would be 19.7 miles in length. There is over twice as many miles of new transmission interconnect
lines proposed under this alternative compared with Alternative B. However, the majority
(approximately 15 miles) of the interconnect line would parallel the existing Raft River Transmission
line where the Proposed Project interconnect line parallels the Raft River line. There would be no new
element added to the visual landscape.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-61

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Operational Phase

Under this alternative, facilities would be similar to those described under Alternative B. In
comparison, there would be: 40 percent to 50 percent fewer towers, slightly fewer miles of new road,
nearly twice as many miles of new transmission interconnect line, the turbine hubs would be 20
percent higher, and the turbine diameter would be nine percent to 30 percent larger. Under this
alternative, the seven turbines proposed for the west turbine string under Alternative B would not be
constructed but the center string would be about 1.5 miles longer. Under this alternative, the
combined length of both turbine strings would be 14.5 miles with more space between each tower.

Impacts to visual resources from operation of the center string would be similar to those described
under Alternative B. Under this alternative, the center string would be more visible from all
directions, except the south where the string would be trimmed by 1.5 miles, due to the increased
height of the towers and larger diameter of the turbines. Visual impacts to Albion Valley, SH-77, and
SH-81 would be the same as described under Alternative B.

When viewed from the north, the Proposed Project would result in similar impacts to those described
under Alternative B. By comparison, the Proposed Project would be more visible to motorists on SH-
81 and 1-84 due to a 1.5-mile extension to the north of the center string. Impacts to visual resources
resulting from operation of the east string would be the same as those described under Alternative B.
Under this alternative, the east string would be 1.25 miles shorter in length but the towers would be
taller and the turbines would be larger. Impacts from the aspect of Howell Canyon Road and SH-77
City of Rocks Backcountry Byway would be less than those described under Alternative B due to the
elimination of the west string. Compared to Alternative B, visual impacts would be further lessened
due to the elimination of the hill cut below the telecommunication towers on the summit of Cotterel
Mountain. Expansion of the O&M building and improvements to the North Access Road would have
the same impacts as described under Alternative B.

Under this alternative, the northern transmission interconnect line would be eliminated. Impacts from
the eastern transmission interconnect line would be similar to those described under Alternative B. By
comparison, impacts from the eastern transmission interconnect line would be greater due to its
increased length and proximity to 1-84.

4.13.5 Alternative D

Construction Phase

Construction of the Proposed Project under this alternative would result in similar impacts to those
described under Alternative B. Short-term impacts could result due to the amount of traffic associated
with the Proposed Project. The number of truck trips necessary to complete the Proposed Project
would be 33 percent less than under Alternative B.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-62

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Impacts associated with construction of the North and South Access Roads would be the same as
described under Alternative B. Moderate impacts from traffic and dust created by constructing both
the access roads would be short-term.

Impacts associated with the visibility of cranes during construction would be similar to those
described under Alternative B. Impacts under this alternative would be less than those described
under Alternative B since there are fewer towers to be constructed, and both the east and west strings
of towers would be eliminated.

Impacts from the construction of a transmission interconnect line would be the same as those
described under Alternative C.

Operational Phase

Under this alternative, facilities would be similar to those described under Alternative B. In
comparison, there would be: 40 percent to 50 percent fewer towers, 27 percent fewer miles of
Proposed Project roads, nearly twice as many miles of new transmission interconnect line, the turbine
hubs would be 20 percent higher, and the turbine diameter would be nine percent to 30 percent larger.
Under this alternative, there would be a single string of turbines 11.6 miles long.

Impacts to visual resources from operation of the center string and when viewed from the north would
be the same as those described under Alternative C. Impacts associated with Howell Canyon Road
and SH-77 City of Rocks Backcountry Byway would be less than those described under C. The center
string of turbines would still be visible resulting in impacts, however the east string would not be
visible due to its elimination under this alternative. When viewed from the California Trail KOP,
impacts to visual resources would be less than those described under Alternative C. The center string
of turbines would be visible and create a contrast in landscape form, however the east string would
not be visible due to its elimination under this alternative. Expansion of the O&M building and
improvements to the North Access Road would have the same impacts as described under Alternative
B. Operation of the transmission interconnect line would be the same as those described under
Alternative C.

4.13.6 Lighting and Dark-Sky Impacts

Sky glow refers to the cumulative impact from illumination coming from towns, cities, and other
developed areas. It is the yellowish glow visible in the night sky when looking toward a nearby town
or city. Sky glow can impact and degrade the visual quality of an area. It can also affect dark-sky
activities such as recreational and scientific space observation.

As discussed in Chapter 2, it is anticipated that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required
lighting would consist of medium-intensity white lights flashing during daylight and twilight hours
and red beacons flashing during all other hours. The use of such lights is common for structures
exceeding 200 feet in height. During daylight, these lights are not expected to distract drivers or
attract any more attention than the turbines themselves. During non-daylight hours and non-twilight

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-63

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

hours, the lights would be apparent from the surrounding areas and would detract from the aesthetics
of the night sky for those areas. The lighting of the turbines is not expected to create an abnormal
distraction to drivers or produce other safety concerns.

At present, the Proposed Project area and immediately surrounding area are primarily dark at night.
Existing light is generated from the lights of the residences and business in the towns of Albion and
Malta, traffic safety lighting along 1-84 north and east of the Proposed Project area, and lighting on
cell phone and radio towers that are sited northeast of the of the Proposed Project. The flashing red
lights associated with the turbines of the Proposed Project would be operated during nighttime hours
and would introduce a new element into the nighttime environment of the Cotterel Mountain area.
These lights would be limited in number, red and directional with little potential to create sky glow.

At the O&M facility and substation(s), outdoor night lighting would be required for safety and
security. This lighting would be restricted to the minimum levels required to meet safety and security
needs. All lights would be hooded and directed to minimize backscatter 6 and illumination of areas
outside of the O&M and substation(s) sites. The O&M facility and substation(s) would create sources
of light in areas where there are currently no light sources. Substation(s) lighting may not be visible
from the communities in the vicinity of the Proposed Project due to shielding from vegetation and
geologic features. Nighttime users of Cotterel Mountain would experience scattered views of the
substation(s) lighting. The lighting of the O&M facility would potentially be visible to drivers along
SH-77 as they approached Conner Summit while traveling both in a northerly or southerly direction.
Because all lighting of the substation(s) and O&M facility would be hooded and directional, the
potential of lighting to create sky glow is minimal.

4.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Information obtained during site observations, along with a review of regulatory agency data
indicates that there are no hazardous substances within the Proposed Project area.

4.14.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, no impacts related to hazardous materials would occur from the Proposed
Project.

4.14.2 Alternative B

During construction of Alternative B, BMP would be used to avoid spills, leaks, or dumping of
hazardous substances. The potential to cause unmitigated hazardous materials impacts that could
result from Alternative B is considered to be low.

4.14.3 Alternative C

The impacts under Alternative C would be the same as discussed under Alternative B.

Backscatter refers to the reflection of light back toward the ground by moisture or dust in the atmosphere.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-64

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.14.4 Alternative D

The impacts under Alternative D would be the same as discussed under Alternative B and Alternative

C.

4.15 FIRE MANAGEMENT

Impacts to fire and fuels could occur during the construction and operation phases of the Proposed
Project. For purposes of this assessment fire management includes: suppression, wildfire use, and
fuels management. The analysis takes into account guidance provided in the Cassia RMP and the
Fire, Fuels, and Related Vegetation Management Direction Plan Amendment and Draft EIS (U.S.
Department of the Interior (USDI), BLM 2004a).

4.15.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, the ability of fire management to suppress wildfire and manage surface fuels
within the Proposed Project area would not be affected. Fire frequency and intensity would not be
changed by Alternative A.

4.15.2 Alternative B

Construction Impacts

The risk of human caused ignitions in the Proposed Project area would increase slightly over the
short-term as a result of road construction and improvement projects. Operation of heavy machinery
and work crews in the Proposed Project area would increase the possible sources of ignition during
road construction. The miles of new roads constructed and number of truck trips necessary to build
Proposed Project roads would be highest under this alternative.

Construction projects associated with towers, substations, and other structures would also slightly
increase the risks of human caused ignitions in the Proposed Project area. Welding, or other
fabrication activities that produce sparks would pose the highest risks. Operation of heavy machinery
in the Proposed Project area could also increase ignition potential. The number of substations would
be highest under this alternative. The number of truck trips necessary to construct turbines,
substations, and other facilities would also be the highest under this alternative.

In the event of an ignition in the Proposed Project area, the presence of construction crews and
equipment could pose a moderate hazard to fire suppression crews. Limited access to the Proposed
Project area may cause traffic congestion (vehicle and radio) that could increase safety hazards and
response times as construction crews evacuate the area, and suppression crews enter. Traffic
congestion could lead to more acres burned from wildfire. Additional hazards to suppression crews
include any machinery or vehicles left behind by construction crews, overhead hazards (i.e., towers,
transmission interconnect lines, substations, etc.), and hazardous materials.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-65

Cofferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Operational Impacts

Operation of constructed and improved roads could have impacts to fire management. New and
improved roads would provide increased access to the area. The public may be more likely to visit the
Proposed Project area as a result of the increased access, increasing the probability for human caused
ignitions; however, in the event of an ignition, suppression crew response times in the Proposed
Project area could decrease with better roads, resulting in fewer burned acres. Impacts could result
from the fuel breaks created by new and improved roads in the Proposed Project area. Roads provide
a fuel break that may stop or slow the spread of fire, resulting in smaller fires over the long-term.

The presence of towers, turbines, substations and transmission interconnect lines may limit the
suppression strategies in the event of a wildfire. Engine and hand crews would experience impacts
from increased overhead hazards while air attack crews would experience flight hazards. The
presence of towers along the ridgeline could decrease the availability of potential helicopter landing
sites. These limitations would likely cause suppression forces to use indirect tactics, resulting in more
acres being burned.

The towers would effectively increase the lightning-attractive area on Cotterel Mountain. The
probability of lightning striking an object is found by multiplying the lightning-attractive area of the
object by the local ground-flash density (lightning strikes to ground per unit area, Hasbrouck 2004).
This may have an influence on the number of lightning caused fire starts in the area.

Electrical trenching could impact fire suppression crews by hampering their ability to contain a
wildfire fire by creating a fire line. Fire line created by earth moving equipment such as bulldozers
may not be appropriate where electrical trenching exists. This could limit suppression actions,
resulting in more acres burned. Impacts from electrical trenching could be realized during fire
rehabilitation operations. Rangeland drills, or other heavy equipment that is sometimes used during
the emergency stabilization and rehabilitation process may not be appropriate in the vicinity of an
electrical trench. The most miles of electrical trenching are proposed under this alternative.

The presence of towers, wind turbines, and substations along the ridgeline could have an impact on
communications to the extent that they could scatter radio signals used by fire line personnel to
communicate during fire management activities.

4.15.3 Alternative C

Construction Impacts

Compared to Alternative B, the potential for ignitions during road construction and improvement
would be less due to fewer miles of roads constructed and fewer truck trips necessary to complete
Proposed Project roads. The presence of construction crews and equipment during suppression
activities would have the same impacts described under Alternative B.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-66

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Operational Impacts

Operation of constructed and improved roads would have impacts to fire management associated with
new and improved roads acting as potential fuel breaks. By comparison, fewer miles of roads would
be constructed resulting in fewer impacts than under Alternative B.

Under this alternative, there would be fewer towers, turbines, and substations resulting in less
widespread impacts, and slight reduction of the lightning-attractive area within the Proposed Project
boundary. Also, fewer miles of trenching are proposed under this alternative, so the impacts would
not be as widespread as Alternative B. Fewer structures would be constructed under this alternative,
resulting in fewer impacts to communications during fire management activities.

4.15.4 Alternative D

Construction Impacts

The potential for ignitions during road construction and improvement would be less under Alternative
D than either Alternative B or Alternative C, due to fewer miles of roads constructed and fewer truck
trips necessary to complete Proposed Project roads. Also, one fewer substation would be constructed
and the number of truck trips necessary to complete the Proposed Project would be fewer, resulting in
less of an impact than either Alternative B or Alternative C. The presence of construction crews and
equipment during suppression activities would have the same impacts described under Alternative B.

Operational Impacts

Operation of constructed and improved roads acting as potential fuel breaks would have fewer
impacts to fire management than Alternative B or Alternative C, due to fewer miles of roads. Impacts
associated with possible increased ignitions from visitors and impacts associated with increased
access for fire suppression crews would be slight. Under this alternative, there would be fewer towers,
turbines, and substations resulting in less widespread impacts and a slight reduction in probability of
ignitions due to lightning strikes.

4.16 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (IMPACTS)

4.16.1 Physical Resources

Air Quality

Current resource uses, such as grazing and recreation, would continue to be the primary foreseeable
uses for the area. In the past, these as well as other uses in the area including: highway construction
projects, agriculture, changes in fuel loads and altered fire regimes; prescribed burns to treat
vegetation; and wildfire have affected air quality, resulting in the current status. Based on current
state and federal air quality regulations associated with these types of impacts, this action is not likely
to affect air quality appreciably in the future.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-67

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Geology

Current resource uses, such as grazing and recreation, would continue to be the primary foreseeable
uses for the area. In the past, structures and roads built for access, may have affected the geology of
the area, resulting in the current status. There are no other projects in the foreseeable future that
would require drilling or blasting; therefore, geologic resources are not likely to be affected
appreciably in the future. However, future ROW could be granted that require drilling or blasting. It is
expected that geologic hazards would be avoided by all development projects wherever feasible.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to or from geologic hazards would be negligible for the Proposed
Project.

Soils

Current resource uses, such as grazing and recreation, would continue to be the primary foreseeable
uses for the area. On Cotterel Mountain the existing roads, the communication site at the summit, and
stock pond developments have all resulted in past and ongoing ground-disturbance. Other uses in the
area including agriculture, changes in vegetation composition and the spread of invasive weed species
have also affected soils. In the future, additional ROW that include ground-disturbing activities could
be granted. Overall, the estimated cumulative impacts to soil resources would be expected to be
negligible.

Water Resources

Past projects including road development, the communication site development, and other ground-
disturbing activities may have impacted water resources in the area. The Proposed Project would use
BMP to avoid impacts to 303(d) listed streams and other water resources. If future ROWs are granted
that allow ground-disturbing projects, BMP will also be applied. Therefore, cumulative impacts to
water resources are not expected.

Noise

Past projects including road development, the communication site development, and other projects
using heaving machinery may have impacted noise levels. No other reasonably foreseeable projects in
the vicinity of Cotterel Mountain have been identified that would result in noise impacts to residence
or recreational users. The Proposed Project is not expected to impact noise levels, therefore, no
cumulative noise impacts are anticipated.

4.16.2 Biological Resources

Vegetation

Historical impacts to vegetation that have occurred within the Cassia-Raft River Creeks and Marsh
Creek sub-basin include: construction of 1-84; livestock grazing; vegetation treatments; rural
development; agricultural development that removed shrub steppe habitat; wildfire and prescribed
burning; construction of transmission lines; livestock water developments; and removal of riparian
vegetation. Cumulative impacts on vegetation resources could occur through increased loss and

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-68

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

alteration of habitat, as well as long-term affects from changes in grazing and fire regimes.
Cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project include, reduced habitat and forage for livestock and
wildlife, and possible increased populations of invasive species and noxious weeds.

Big Game

Historical cumulative impacts to big game that have occurred within the Cassia-Raft River Creeks
and Marsh Creek sub-basins include: construction of 1-84; livestock grazing; rural development;
agricultural development that removed shrub steppe habitat; wildfire and prescribed burning;
construction of transmission lines; livestock water developments; mining; water channel alterations
and removal of riparian vegetation; and hunting.

Existing and foreseeable impacts to wildlife occurring within the Cassia-Raft River and Marsh Creek
sub-basins include: public access, livestock grazing; continued alteration of streams for human
purposes; mining; rural development; wildfire and prescribed burning; and alteration of shrub steppe
habitats.

Disturbance within big game habitat on and in the vicinity of Cotterel Mountain is anticipated.
Livestock use on Cotterel Mountain is anticipated to be minimally affected by the proposed actions.
Mule deer use on Cotterel Mountain could be altered due to increased human access. The Idaho
Transportation Department is proposing to reconstruct a portion of the City of Rocks Back County
Byway between Elba and Almo, Idaho. This 17-mile stretch of road would be built in phases with
completion of the Proposed Project occurring in 2007 or 2008 (Jones 2004). Completion of this road
reconstruction project could likely result in an increase in the number of visitors to the City of Rocks
area and an increase in motor vehicle speeds along this section of road. This could result in an
increase in mortality to big game as a result of an increase in wildlife vehicle collisions. Indirect
impacts to big game such as those related to noise and human disturbance (i.e. displacement), are
difficult to quantify, but probably would increase the overall level of cumulative impacts to big game
habitat, over the long-term.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Regional cumulative impact to amphibian and reptile habitats and individuals include roads (e.g.,
federal and state highways, primary and secondary roads), future ROW authorizations, wildfire and
vegetation management treatments. These disturbances would be expected to be scattered throughout
the region, and probably would result in negligible impacts to amphibian and reptile populations. By
implementing prompt revegetation and appropriate habitat protection measures following
construction, cumulative impacts to amphibian and reptile populations within the region would be
expected to be negligible. However, increased vehicle speeds and traffic in the Proposed Project area
may increase roadway mortality of reptiles.

Small Mammals

Regional cumulative impact to small mammal habitats and individuals include roads (e.g., federal and
state highways, primary and secondary roads), future ROW authorizations, and vegetation

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-69

Cotferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

management treatments. It would be expected that these disturbances would be scattered throughout
the region, and probably presents a negligible impact to small mammal populations. By implementing
prompt revegetation and appropriate habitat protection measures following construction, cumulative
impacts to small mammal populations within the region would be expected to be negligible.
However, potential increased vehicle speeds and traffic in the Proposed Project area may increase
roadway mortality of small mammals.

Birds and Bats

Lack of data quantifying the status of local passerine and bat populations in the area make the
assessment of cumulative impacts to birds and bats difficult. In the U.S., domestic cats, collisions
with vehicles, buildings and windows, and communication towers each kill over one million birds
every year, while all of the operating wind projects in 2001 were estimated to kill 10,000 to 40,000
birds per year (Erickson et al. 2001b), roughly 80 percent of which are passerines.

The level and sources of bat fatalities from human-induced causes are less well known, but bats are
known to have collided with buildings and other tall structures, but less frequently than birds. Recent
evidence indicates that wind turbines can kill bats, especially those species which migrate south for
the winter. Bats are long-lived and produce few (usually one) young per year, which means that their
populations could not recover as quickly from losses as could many birds that can produce many
young per breeding cycle. Little is known about bat migration routes, corridors, or populations.
However, the number of operating wind projects is expected to increase in the future.

Raptors

It is generally assumed that regional populations of common raptors are widely distributed and stable
(Olendorff 1973; Newton 1979). During spring, Raft River Valley-Curlew National Grassland
Globally Important Bird Area (GIBA) located to the east and south of the Proposed Project area
contains the highest breeding population of ferruginous hawks in Idaho. Other than impacts from
natural events, this population has been relatively unaffected for the past 30 years. Past and current
levels of disturbance and actions have not appeared to impact productivity to a large degree within the
GIB A. Raptors displaced by the Proposed Project could move to other territories if suitable unused
habitat is available. Given the anticipated collision rates, local or regional cumulative impacts are not
expected from the Proposed Project.

Threatened or Endangered Species

No past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of Cotterel Mountain have been
identified that would potentially affect bald eagle or gray wolf. There are several other wind power
projects proposed in southern Idaho. These projects, if constructed within suitable habitat for either
bald eagle or gray wolf could have the potential to impact these species. However, bald eagle
fatalities at existing wind plants are rare to nonexistent. Gray wolf populations in Idaho continue to
increase even with authorized and unauthorized removal of individuals due to predation. No
cumulative impacts to gray wolf would be expected to occur.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-70

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Greater Sage-grouse

It is generally assumed that regional populations of sage-grouse have been declining as a result of:
habitat loss or fragmentation from invasive species; agriculture; degradation due to fire; grazing;
urbanization; hunting and poaching; predation; disease; weather; accidents; herbicides; and physical
disturbance (Connelly et al. 2004).

Historical impacts to sage-grouse that have occurred in the Proposed Project area and its vicinity
include: conversion of native vegetation to agricultural; wildfire; prescribed bums; constmction of I-
84 and Interstate 86 (1-86); constmction of other roads; livestock grazing, water development, and
fencing on private or public lands; rural development; constmction of transmission lines; mining;
water channel alterations; drought; hunting; and disease.

Future projects and anticipated natural events that could affect sage-grouse in the Proposed Project
area and its vicinity include: continued livestock grazing, water development, and fencing on private
or public lands; continued mral development; loss of shrub steppe habitat on private lands; potential
wildfire; drought and severe winters; hunting; and disease.

In Idaho, recent population trends show an estimated statewide decline of 40 percent from the long¬
term average (IDFG 1998). The average number of chicks produced per hen has declined by 40 to 50
percent in many areas (Connelly et al. 2004). At least six sage-grouse leks are currently active or
occasionally active on Cotterel Mountain. In 2003, the estimated population of sage-grouse on
Cotterel Mountain was approximately 70 birds (TBR 2004). Within the Proposed Project area and its
vicinity lek attendance trends over the last ten years have been flat. For the ten years prior to this
period, there were declining lek attendance trends.

Statewide it is estimated that there are 772 active leks and 5,684,900 acres of key sage-grouse habitat.
If the Proposed Project results in the abandonment of all six known sage-grouse leks on Cotterel
Mountain this would represent less than a one percent (0.008%) loss to the total number of leks state¬
wide. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), which would result in the largest project footprint, it
is estimated that sage-grouse could potential be displaced from about 26,644 acres of suitable habitat
on Cotterel Mountain. This displacement from potential suitable habitat would represent less than
one-half percent (0.005%) loss to the total estimated acres of suitable sage-grouse habitat state-wide.

In the Proposed Project area and its vicinity, it is estimated that there are 20 active leks and 142,927
acres of key sage-grouse habitat. If the Proposed Project results in the abandonment of the six known
sage-grouse leks on Cotterel Mountain, this implies an approximate 30 percent loss to the total
number of leks in the area. Under Alternative B, displacement from potential suitable habitat would
represent approximately a 19 percent loss to the total estimated acres of potential suitable sage-grouse
habitat from the Proposed Project area and its vicinity.

Cumulative impacts on sage-grouse could occur through: increased loss or alteration of habitat;
increased access; agriculture; urbanization; hunting and poaching; predation; disease; herbicides; land

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-71

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

exchanges, as well as the development of energy resources. Past and present uses of the Proposed
Project site and surrounding areas have altered vegetative composition and community dynamics (fire
frequency and severity, soil structure and function, nutrient cycling, etc.), or converted sagebrush
communities to agriculture or development purposes, resulting in loss of habitat.

The construction of the Proposed Project, in conjunction with the development of other energy or
land conversion projects within potential sage-grouse habitat, could have additive impacts by
decreasing region-wide habitat. The continuing loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat has
reduced the number of potential sites were sage-grouse are found; therefore, impacts to the remaining
sage-grouse populations are multiplied when occupied habitat is affected. Future actions that continue
this trend would result in a reduced population of sage-grouse.

4.16.3 Historical and Cultural Resources

The Proposed Project, in conjunction with other past projects or planned projects in the area, would
result in ground disturbance that could potentially impact identified and unidentified prehistoric or
historic sites, as well as cause impacts on traditional cultural properties. If surveys were conducted
prior to construction of these unknown future projects, the location of these resources would be
identified so impacts could be avoided to the extent possible. Implementation of mitigation programs
in each individual project should help to limit project-specific impacts, therefore reducing overall
cumulative impacts on cultural resources.

Cumulative effects on cultural resources can also occur through natural erosion and weathering of
lands containing archaeological sites. Cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project may include the
disturbance and loss of unidentified cultural resources that could increase knowledge about past use
of the area or an increase in visitation that may result in vandalism to the archaeological resources.
Cumulative impacts may also result from gain in scientific discovery of new sites identified by
construction and maintenance crews and the general public due to an expected increase in visitation to
the area.

4.16.4 American Indian Concerns

As of the publication of the Draft EIS, no sites of concern have been identified.

4.16.5 Socioeconomics

Currently there are no other future foreseeable projects within the Cassia-Minidoka socioeconomic
analysis area that when added to past actions and the Proposed Project would result any measurable
cumulative affects.

4.16.6 Lands and Realty

Cumulative effects to land use issues are not expected from the Proposed Project, past actions, or
future foreseeable actions.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-72

Co tferel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.16.7 Recreation

Past BLM management, road and trail building activities, and the development of other recreation
amenities have contributed to increase recreation opportunities and accessibility in the vicinity of
Cotterel Mountain. In addition, the Idaho Transportation Department is proposing to reconstruct and
pave a portion of the City of Rocks Back County Byway between Elba and Almo, Idaho. Completion
of this road reconstruction project could likely result in an increase in the number of visitors to the
City of Rocks area. Increased visitation to the City of Rocks could result in a rise of visitor use of
Cotterel Mountain. At periods of high use, the campgrounds at the City of Rocks are often full.
Visitors that do not obtain a campsite may search for appropriate dispersed camping sites in the
vicinity of the City of Rocks, which could include Cotterel Mountain. An increase in dispersed
camping could result in localized disturbances to wildlife, vegetation and soils.

Nationwide the popularity of OHV use has been increasing (Motorcycle Industry Council 2003). A
representative increase in off-highway motorcycles and ATV use would also be expected at the local
level. The potential for the Proposed Project in combination with past projects and future foreseeable
projects would not likely have cumulative impacts to the current ROS designation of semiprimitive
motorized.

4.16.8 Livestock Grazing

Cumulative impacts could include increased concentration of livestock use, rangeland deterioration,
and altered fire regimes. Construction on Cotterel Mountain would disturb vegetation and soil and
create an environment that is susceptible to noxious weeds and invasive species establishment. If
these species increase and become more dominant, they can alter the spatial distribution of livestock
grazing. As key forage species (bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue) are replaced by invasive
species that are less palatable (cheatgrass and bulbous bluegrass), livestock would begin to use those
sites less and concentrate in areas with better forage (Bailey 1995). Concentrated livestock grazing
can increase the mechanical effects on the soil, including hoof sheer and soil compaction, which
could lead to further spread of invasive species, and decrease native reestablishment and the overall
foragability of the site (Bailey et al. 1996).

In addition, the spread of invasive species and the construction of the road systems could alter fire
patterns. Based on the historic species composition and distribution on Cotterel Mountain, fire
occurrences have primarily been low frequency, fire return intervals between 40 to 60 years (Marquez
2004), low intensity mosaic bums. As invasive species populations increase, fuel loads within the
system are augmented, which increases the probability and intensity of fire within the area.
Constructed roads also affect the distribution of fire by acting as firebreaks. In doing so, natural fire
patterns could be altered to produce more frequent, high intensity homogeneous bums. This could
have positive affects by altering sagebmsh or juniper/mountain mahogany to grasslands, but it would
also cause the suspension of use on AUMs associated with fire rehabilitation projects.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-73

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.16.9 Visual Resources

Past and current projects have created the existing visual conditions in the Cotterel Mountain area.
The Proposed Project would have a cumulative impact on the visual resource. Each of the action
alternatives would have varying degrees of impacts to visual resources beyond the Proposed Project
area by failing to maintain the existing character of the landscape.

No other planned projects are expected to occur in the immediate area surrounding the Proposed
Project, except for improvement projects for range and wildlife. Such improvement projects would
not contribute to the cumulative impact on the visual resource.

Several other wind power projects are proposed for southern Idaho along the Snake River Plain. If
these projects are constructed, wind turbines would become a more common sight in southern Idaho.
Residents and frequent visitors to the region could view the turbines of one or more wind power
projects in a single day. Over time, they would likely experience repetitive views of wind turbines
through their local travels over a period of time. Consequently, some local residents and those
traveling through the area might perceive a change to the overall character of the Snake River Plain
landscape.

4.16.10 Hazardous Materials

The Proposed Project and future foreseeable projects in the area would be required to use BMP to
avoid impacts to the environment from hazardous materials. When combined with past actions, there
would not be any cumulative impacts due to hazardous materials.

4.16.11 Fire Management

The Proposed Project would have cumulative impacts by reducing the tools available to resource
managers to treat surface fuels on district efforts to meet fuel reduction targets set by the National
Fire Plan. This impact could extend beyond the boundary of the Proposed Project area by increasing
the risk of large fires that may spread beyond the Proposed Project area boundary. Prescribed fire use
may no longer be an acceptable method to achieve resource objectives in and adjacent to the
Proposed Project area. The presence of the Proposed Project could increase the complexity of
developing a prescription to the point where it would not be feasible.

Cumulative suppression impacts could occur due to the hazards associated with wind farm
infrastructure. Aerial suppression resources would not be appropriate due to turbine towers. Engine
and hand crews would experience increased overhead hazards in the Proposed Project area.
Construction of the Proposed Project would likely limit suppression within and adjacent to the
Proposed Project area to indirect tactics in the event of a wildfire, resulting in larger fires in the
Cotterel Mountain area. Larger fires may be either beneficial or harmful depending on the fuel type
burned.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-74

Cotterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

4.17 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

The Proposed Project design features, BMP, and compensatory off-site/mitigation would avoid or
minimize many of the potential adverse effects. However, not all adverse effects can be avoided, nor
would mitigation 100 percent effective in remediating all impacts. There would be at least a minimal
amount of unavoidable adverse impact on all resources present in the Proposed Project area for at
least a short time, due to the presence of equipment and humans in the area and the time necessary for
restoration to be effective. Unavoidable impacts associated with the Proposed Project would include:

• Soil compaction for road construction.

• Loss of vegetation.

• Loss of mule deer winter range.

• Potential impacts to birds and bats.

• Potential impacts to sage-grouse and their habitat.

• Loss of livestock forage.

• Changes to the viewshed of the Cotterel Mountain ridgeline from siting wind turbines
and construction of roads.

• Visual alternation of the nighttime environment due to turbine lighting.

• Potential loss of aerial fire fighting options along the Cotterel Mountain ridgeline.

4.18 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

An irreversible and irretrievable impact is defined as a permanent reduction or loss of a resource that
once lost cannot be regained. Most energy development projects, such as gas, oil, or coal fire plants,
result in an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the power-generating resources (fuel). Wind
is a renewable resource that would not be depleted or altered by the Proposed Project and could offset
the need to consume fossil fuels.

The loss of productivity (i.e., forage wildlife habitat) from lands used for the siting of the Proposed
Project features (i.e., turbines roads, substations) would be an irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of habitat resources for wildlife species, such as sage-grouse, dependent upon mature
shrub-steppe plant communities. These vegetation communities may take 20 to 40 years or more to
recover following decommissioning of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the majority of the land
disturbed by the Proposed Project would not be returned to useful production for up to 50 to 70 years,
if the Proposed Project does not go beyond 30 years.

There would be an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the energy used during manufacture
of the turbine and other Proposed Project components as well as during construction, drilling,
production, and restoration associated with the Proposed Project. Foundations or other facilities
greater than six inches below ground surface would be permanent and abandoned in place. They
cannot be recovered due to practical or economic considerations and they would be irreversibly and
irretrievably committed.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-75

Cofterel Wind Power Project

4.0 Environmental Consequences

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4-76

CHAPTER 5

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Cotterel Mountain Wind Power Project is being proposed on public lands primarily managed by
the Burley Field Office of the Idaho Bureau of Land Management (BLM). However, a variety of
other organizations, agencies and people maintain an interest in the area or use the area for specific
purposes. These include, but are not limited to: Idaho Department of Fish and Game (EDFG); U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Idaho Department of Lands (DDL); Cassia County; the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes; communications site rights-of-way holders;
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); Idaho Power; and certain grazing permittees. BLM
established a coordinated effort for participation in the analysis process by:

• Inviting USFWS, IDFG, and BPA to cooperate in the preparation of this document;

• Through organizing an the Interagency Wind Energy Task Team (IWETT);

• Through formal consultation with the Tribes;

• Through contacting, meeting with and providing information to various groups and local
governments; and

• By seeking the active participation of the public and existing permittees in the scoping
process and throughout the analysis process.

This chapter addresses the consultation and coordination that has taken place, in both an informal and
formal setting, with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, federal, state and
local government, interest groups and the general public.

5.1 SPECIFIC CONSULTATION ACTIONS

5.1.1 Formal and Informal Government-to-Government Consultation with Tribes

During the initial public scoping period, a meeting was held on January 16, 2003 with the Shoshone-
Bannock Land Use Policy Commission (Commission) to provide information on the Proposed
Project, answer questions, and solicit Tribal input. During that meeting, it was suggested by the
Commission that the Proposed Project be presented to the Tribal Business Council (Council). A
meeting was subsequently scheduled and held with the Council on March 12, 2003. Prior to the start
of the public scoping period, Mike Heckler of Windland, Inc. (Windland) met with Delbert Farmer, a
former Council member, as well as Diane Yupe and LaRea Buckskin of the Heritage Tribal Office
(HETO) to provide information on the Proposed Project. Members of the Tribal Environmental Staff
attended a field tour of the Proposed Project area on September 22, 2003 and comments on the
Proposed Project were received by the BLM in a letter dated October 17, 2003. Table 5.1-1 lists
chronologically meetings and consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Subsequent to the
formation of the BLM, Twin Falls District on October 1, 2004, formal consultation was initiated with
the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes through the Wings and Roots process on October 29, 2004. Since that
date, the Burley Field Office Staff along with the Twin Falls District Manager have also participated
in consultation through the Wings and Roots process on December 2, 2004, January 20, 2005 and
February 23, 2005.

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

5-1

Cofterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

Table 5.1-1. Consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe.

Date

Type of Contact

July 8, 2002

Informational meeting between Windland; Delbert Farmer, former

Council member; and Diane Yupe and LaRea Buckskin of HETO

January 16, 2003

Meeting between the BLM and the Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy
Commission

March 12, 2003

Meeting between the BLM and the Tribal Business Council

September 22, 2003

Field tour of the Proposed Project area

October 17, 2003

Letter from the Shosone-Bannock Tribes commenting on the Proposed
Project.

February 3, 2004
March 9, 2004

April 6, 2004

May 11,2004

Meetings with Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Commission

April 15,2004

Formal Consultation with Fort Hall Tribal Business Council

June 8, 2004

Meeting with Tribal Environmental Staff

5.1.2 Intergovernmental (State and Local) and Interest Group Coordination

Members of state, county, and city governments and interest groups were contacted about the
Proposed Project and invited to comment. In response, the IDL and IDFG submitted comment letters
to the BLM identifying their preliminary concerns through the public scoping process. In addition,
comment letters were received from the Western Watersheds Project, Advocates for the West, Land
and Water Fund of the Rockies, Idaho Conservation League, Prairie Falcon Audubon Society and the
Sierra Club, Sawtooth Group. Table 5.1-2 documents chronologically consultation with state, county,
and city governments and other interest groups.

Initial public scoping was conducted to help identify issues to be addressed in developing a full range
of alternatives. Prior to the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register, BLM
agency representatives, at the request of local interest groups, provided preliminary information on
the Proposed Project, and answered questions. These groups included: IDFG; the Albion Joint
Management Association; the Cassia County Public Lands Committee; the Mini-Cassia Chamber of
Commerce; the Burley Lions Club; the Cassia County Commissioners; and the Upper Snake River
District Resource Advisory Council (RAC). This pre-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
planning process facilitated a free-flow exchange of ideas, and a chance to educate interested and
involved parties on wind as an energy resource and the trade-offs in terms of consequences to the
environment as opposed to benefits from power generation. Consultation and project updates
continued with these groups and others subsequent to the publication of the NOI and the beginning of
the NEPA process. Additional groups and governments involved in the process were: the Cities of
Albion, Malta, Declo and Burley; the Rotary Club; the Cassia Soil and Water Conservation Group;
the C-Plan Committee; the North and South Cotterel Grazing Associations; and the Twin Falls
District RAC.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-2

Cotterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5.1.3 Resource Advisory Council (RAC)

Resource Advisory Councils are advisory boards established by the Governor of Idaho to coordinate
with the BLM and provide input on important issues. A RAC consists of members of the public, each
representing one or more of the many resources the BLM manages. Early on in this analysis process,
the Upper Snake River District RAC was presented with the Proposed Project and invited to
participate in the analysis. They were first introduced to the project at a RAC meeting on November
19, 2002 where they were given a presentation on the proposal and information was shared. They
were given project updates periodically until the Burley Field Office became part of the new Twin
Falls District on October 1, 2004, at which time the new Twin Falls District RAC became involved.
They in turn were presented with the Proposed Project and invited to participate at a RAC meeting on
November 9, 2004. They have been periodically updated and are scheduled for an on-site tour in May
of 2005.

5.1.4 Cassia County Public Lands Committee

The Cassia County Public Lands Committee is a local working group that expressed an interest in the
Proposed Project. The committee is somewhat unique being one of only two such committees in the
State of Idaho. It is comprised of citizens and local county officials that have varying interests in
Federal actions and public lands. They meet regularly with the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to
discuss and provide input on the important issues that affect public lands within Cassia County. This
group has also been presented with project updates throughout the analysis process.

5.1.5 Congressional Staffs

Local Congressional Staffs were briefed on the Proposed Project by Field Office Manager, Theresa
Hanley at a meeting in Twin Falls in December of 2002. Members of the Burley Field Office Staff
also briefed the BLM Acting State Director, along with several members of his staff on the project in
October of 2002, and obtained their concurrence for the necessity for the preparation of a Resource
Management Plan amendment and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Project.
Wendy Reynolds, the current Field Office Manager for the Burley Field Office, conducted a briefing
and on-site tour of the proposed Cotterel Mountain Proposed Project area with congressional
representatives, Heather Teal, Linda Culver and Mike Matthews on August 23, 2004.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-3

Cotterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

Table 5.1-2. Consultation with State, County, and City Government.

Date

Type of Contact

June 25, 2002

BLM and Windland give a presentation on the Proposed Project to the
Mini-Cassia Chamber of Commerce

August 20,2002

Sensitive species information request to the IDFG Conservation Data

Center

August 22, 2002

URS Group, Inc. (URS) and Windland hold meeting with the IDFG Magic
Valley Region Staff to disclose the features of the Proposed Project.

September 27, 2002

BLM and Windland give a presentation to the Burley Lion’s Club

November 19, 2002

Upper Snake River District RAC Mtg. (presentation on Proposed Project)

December of 2002

Local Congressional Staffs were briefed by BLM Field Office Manager,
Theresa Hanley

January 7, 2002

Scoping comments from Idaho Department of Lands

February 3, 2003

IDFG attendance at agency scooping meeting

February 10, 2003

BLM gives a project briefing to the South Cotterel Grazing Assoc.

February 11, 2003

BLM contacts Mayors and/or City Councils of Malta, Declo and Burley to
consult on the Proposed Project

February 19, 2003

BLM gives a project briefing to the North Cotterel Grazing Assoc.

February 21, 2003

Scoping comment letter from EDFG

February 25, 2003

BLM and Windland give a presentation to the Albion City Council

February 27, 2003

Resource Advisory Council Meeting (project update)

April 11,2003

BLM updates IDFG on the Proposed Project

May 1, 2003

IDFG participates in a field tour with BLM and USFWS

August 20, 2003

IDFG attendance at Interdisciplinary team Proposed Project area field trip

November 24, 2003

Resource Advisory Council Meeting (project update)

January 12, 2004

BLM updates IDFG on Proposed Project

January 13, 2004

BLM briefs C-Plan Committee on Proposed Project

January 27, 2004

IDL and Cassia County Commissioners invited to be cooperating agencies,
IDFG invited to be a participating agency

February 25, 2004

Resource Advisory Council Meeting (project update)

March 22, 2004

Cassia County Commissioners Meeting (project update)

April 26, 2004

Cassia County Commissioners Meeting (project update)

May 20, 2004

Resource Advisory Council Meeting (project update)

July 16, 2004

BLM conducts field tour for Cassia County Public Lands Committee

October 25, 2004

Cassia County Commissioners Meeting (project update)

October 26, 2004

BLM gives a presentation to the Burley Rotary Club

November 9, 2004

Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council Meeting (presentation on
Proposed Project)

5.1.6 Consultation with Federal Agencies

The USFWS supplied a comment letter during the public scoping process. A scoping meeting specific
to wildlife issues was held with the USFWS, with IDFG present, at the BLM Burley Field office on
February 3, 2003. Representatives from the USFWS also attended an interdisciplinary resource team
field trip to the Proposed Project area on August 20, 2003. Table 5.1-3 lists chronologically the
consultation completed with Federal Agencies.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-4

Cotterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

The BLM and USFWS operate under an interagency agreement in a cooperative approach to fish and
wildlife management. The BLM enters into consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended. The consultation process includes both “informar’ and
“formal” consultation. A biological evaluation process is used by these agencies to identify which
listed or proposed species could be affected by the proposed action, to evaluate the possible effects,
and to determine if formal consultation is required. Because of the presence of bald eagle known to
use the Proposed Project area, formal consultation is being conducted with the USFWS and a
Biological Assessment is being prepared relative to the bald eagle. A Biological Opinion based on the
findings in the Biological Assessment will be issued by the USFWS and made a party of the Record
of Decision of this analysis.

Table 5.1-3. Consultation with Federal Agencies.

Date

Type of Contact

August 20, 2002

URS requests project specific species list from USFWS

September 20, 2002

URS and Windland held meeting with USFWS Eastern Idaho Field
Office, Chubbuck, Idaho to disclose the features of the Proposed

Project.

September 27, 2002

BLM received project specific species list from USFWS

November 11, 2002

BLM requested revised project species list from USFWS

December 5, 2002

BLM received revised project specific species list from USFWS

December 16, 2002

BLM sends letter to USFWS to initiate consultation on the Proposed
Project.

January 2, 2003

BLM receipt of letter from USFWS providing clarification on the
necessity for a biological assessment.

February 3, 2003

USFWS attendance at agency scooping meeting

May 1,2003

USFWS participates in a field tour of the Proposed Project area with

BLM and IDFG

August 20, 2003

USFWS attendance at interdisciplinary team Proposed Project area field
trip

November 12, 2003

BLM and Windland consult with BPA regarding power transmission
interconnection issues

January 27, 2004

USFWS and BPA invited to be cooperating agencies

May 19, 2004

USFWS attends coordination meeting with BLM

July 14, 2004

BLM gives tour of Proposed Project area to Jeff Foss, USFWS

September 10, 2004

USFWS participates in an interagency coordination meeting with BLM,
IDFG and representatives of Windland and Shell WindEnergy, Inc.

November 18, 2004

BLM and Windland meet with Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to consult
on possible power transmission line routing across BOR lands

5.1.7 Interagency Wind Energy Task Team (IWETT)

Following an interagency coordination meeting with BLM, IDFG, USFWS and representatives from
Windland, Inc. and Shell WindEnergy, Inc., the IWETT was formed consisting of members from
BLM, IDFG, USFWS and URS Group, Inc. The IWETT was chartered to assist in the Proposed
Project analysis process as described below:

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-5

Cotterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

• Review baseline technical wildlife reports and data and identify additional data needs, if
appropriate;

• Assist and contribute to the development of mitigation measures;

• Assist and contribute to the development of adaptive management strategies;

• Assist with development and/or further enhancement of a range of alternatives;

• Provide technical input for the environment consequences (impacts) section of the Draft
EIS; and

• Define what constitutes an adequate project-monitoring program.

The IWETT met eight times over the course of several months to address these issues and
assignments. Table 5.1-4 lists a chronology of IWETT coordination and consultation.

Table 5.1-4. Interagency Wind Energy Task Team Consultation.

Date

Event

October 15, 2004

IWETT Meeting #1

October 20, 2004

IWETT Meeting #2

October 28, 2004

IWETT Meeting #3

November 22, 2004

IWETT Meeting #4

December 2, 2004

IWETT Meeting #5

December 14, 2004

IWETT Meeting #6

December 21, 2004

IWETT Meeting #7

March 29, 2005

IWETT Meeting #8

5.1.8 Initial Public Scoping-Mailing List

At the beginning of the project a mailing list was developed to send out project publications to
individuals, organizations, and agencies. The mailing list included names and addresses from the lead
agency, BLM existing mailing lists, potentially affected federal, state and local agencies,
organizations, Tribes, and other interested private parties. This mailing list had approximately 115
interested parties. During the course of the project analysis, the mailing list has grown to include
approximately 250 interested parties and is expected to continue to expand.

The initial mailing list was used to include interested parties during the course of the project through
newsletters. A Public Scoping Notice Newsletter was prepared and mailed on December 19, 2002.
The Notice invited the public to participate in the scoping process and to comment on the planning
criteria. A BLM mailing address and email address were provided in the scoping newsletter with a
pre-addressed comment form, for the public to send into the BLM with comments on the Proposed
Project. This first Newsletter served to inform the recipients of the public scoping process for the
preparation of the Draft EIS and Land Use Plan Amendment and the scheduled scoping meetings for
the Proposed Project. It also included background information on the Proposed Project, the purpose
and need for the proposed action, and preliminary resource issues.

A second newsletter was published and mailed in July of 2003. This newsletter provided an update on
the progress of the EIS process, studies that had been completed, and an updated schedule.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-6

Cofterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5.1.9 Public Scoping Meetings

Public scoping meetings were held in Albion, Idaho on January 7, in Burley, Idaho on January 8, and
in Boise, Idaho on January 9, of 2003. A total of 135 individuals attended the three meetings.

The scoping meetings were held in an “Open House” format and featured informal, one-on-one
question and answer interactions by BLM and URS interdisciplinary resource team members.
Representatives of Windland were also on hand to answer technical questions about the Proposed
Project. Attendees signed a registration sheet as they entered the room. The interdisciplinary resource
team members then escorted attendees to stations set up around the room. At each station were
display boards with information about the Proposed Project. Information presented on the display
boards included; resource issues; planning criteria; Proposed Project design; visual simulations;
equipment diagrams; and an initial proposed schedule for completing the planning process. Attendees
were encouraged to provide written comments and questions on the Proposed Project on provided
forms and leave them at the meeting or mail them to the BLM. Table 5.1-5 lists the agencies, groups
and individuals who responded during the scoping process.

Table 5.1-5. Agencies, Groups and Individuals Who Responded During the Scoping Process.

Agencies

Federal

State of Idaho

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Idaho Department of Lands

Idaho Department of Fish and Wildlife

Citizens Groups

Advocates for the West

Idaho Conservation League

Renewable Northwest Project

Western Watersheds Project

NW Energy Coalition

Prairie Falcon Audubon Society

Land and Water Fund of the Rockies

Sierra Club, Sawtooth Group

Individuals

Bennie Smyer

Kent Klosterman

Bill Eastlake

Kevin A. Larson

Bob Bean

Len F. Marrs

Bob Bronson

Leo Bell

C.H. Nellis

LeRoy Jarolimek

Candiodo Pena

Mark Grigg

Charles R. Ward

Mark Iverson

Curtis E. Canned

Mark Ohrenschall

Curtis Richins

Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Bristol

David Westfall

Nick Rokich

Dean Richins

Norman Anderson

Dean Sullivan

Norman Dayley

Donald Dean

Philip Wheeler

Fran Allans

Robert Blurton

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-7

Cotterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

Table 5.1-5. Agencies, Groups and Individuals Who Responded During the Scoping Process.

Gale R. Ward

Ryan Hawther

Harry R. Badger

Tammy Lien

Jack Enterkine

The Chatbum Family

Janet Powers

Thomas Bacon

Jay L. Black

Thomas C. Ward

Jim Powers

Tom Geary

Jon Fillmore

Victoria Francis

Jon P. Fillmore

Julie Kreiensiecu

Karl Simonson

Keith Amende

Kelly Adams

5.2 LIST OF PREPARERS

Personnel contacted or consulted during preparation of this Draft EIS are listed in Table 5.2-1. The
list of preparers and participants is given in Table 5.2-2.

Table 5.2-1. Personnel Contacted or Consulted for the Cotterel Wind Power Project.

Agency or Organization

Name

Position

Bureau of Land Management

Burley Field Office

Wendy Reynolds

Burley Field Office Manager
(July, 2003 -Present)

Bemie Jansen

Acting Burley Field Office
Manager

(March 2003-July 2003)

Theresa Hanley

Burley Field Office Manager
(Nov 1999-March 2003)

Scott D. Barker

Project Manager

Kenneth Knowles

Environmental Protection
Specialist

Peggy Bartels

Wildlife Biologist

John C. Lytle

Archeologist

Felicia Burkhardt

GIS Coordinator

Elena Shaw

Rangeland Management
Specialist/Lead

Nancy Ady

Rangeland Management
Specialist

Dennis Thompson

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Jim Tharp

Natural Resource Specialist

Bill Rice

Civil Engineer

Steve Davis

Hydrologist

Forrest Griggs

Geologist

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-8

Cotterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

Table 5.2-1. Personnel Contacted or Consulted for the Cotterel Wind Power Project.

Agency or Organization

Name

Position

Upper Snake River District (now
known as the Idaho Falls District)

Joe Kraayenbrink

Upper Snake River District
Manager

David Howell

Public Affairs Specialist

Kathe Rhodes

Environmental Coordinator

Twin Falls District

Howard Hedrick

Twin Falls District Manager

Paul Oakes

Planning and Environmental
Coordinator

Sky Buffat

Public Affairs

Idaho State Office

Kurt Kotter

Associate State Director

Susan Giannettino

Deputy State Director

Resource Services Division

John Augsburger

Wildlife Biologist

Signe Sather-Blair

Wildlife Biologist

John Martin

Economist

Jack Peterson

Resource Management

Specialist

Gary Wyke

Planning Coordinator

Washington Office 350

Tom Hurshman

National Project Manager

Ray Brady

National Program Lead

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Sandi Arena

Wildlife Biologist

Deb Mignogno

Supervisor

Eastern Idaho Field Office

Mark Robertson

Boise Office

Jeff Foss

Boise Office

Dr. Benjamin Tuggle

Washington Office

Steve Bouffard

Refuge Manager

Minidoka Refuge

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Mike McDonald

Environmental Staff Biologist
Magic Valley Region

David Parrish

Magic Valley Regional
Supervisor

Bruce Haak

Non-Game Biologist

Southwest Region

Randy Smith

Biologist Magic Valley

Region

Greg Servheen

Biologist Boise Office

Tracy Trent

Supervisor Boise Office

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-9

Cotterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

Table 5.2-2. List of Preparers and Participants for the Cotterel Wind Power Project.

Name

Education/Experience

Draft EIS Responsibility

BLM Interdisciplinary Team

Scott D. Barker

BS Forest Management

30 Years Experience

Project Management

Team Leader

Visual Resources

Wendy Reynolds

15 Years Experience

Burley Field Office Manager
(July, 2003 -Present)

Theresa Hanley

BA/MA Anthropology

15 Years Experience

Burley Office Field Manager
(Nov 1999-March 2003)

Bemie Jansen

BS Range Science, Jun 1967

30+ Years Experience

Acting Burley Field Office
Manager

(March 2003 - July 2003)

Paul Oakes

BA Biology

33 Years Experience

Planning/NEPA Coordination

Kathe Rhodes

NEPA Coordination

Peggy Bartels

BS/MS Wildlife Biology

9 Years Experience

Wildlife Biology

John C. Lytle

BA/MA Anthropology

28 Years Experience

Cultural Resources

Kenneth Knowles

BS Conservation/Biology

MS Range Management

30 Years Experience

Hazardous Materials and
Noxious Weeds

Felicia Burkhardt

GIS

Elena Shaw

BS Range Science

22 Years Experience

Rangeland Resources

Nancy Ady

BS Range & Animal Science

BS Horticulture

10 Years Experience

Rangeland Resources

Dennis Thompson

Recreation, Visual Resources

John Augsburger

BS Wildlife Management

MS Wildlife Science

31 Years Experience

Wildlife Biology

Bill Rice

Engineering

Steve Davis

BS Zoology (Fisheries &
Wildlife) 20 Years Exper.

Hydrology

Forrest Griggs

BS Geology

3 Years Experience

Geology

John Martin

MS Agricultural and Natural
Resources Economics

30 Years Experience

Socio-Economics

Jim Tharp

BS Wildlife Management

17 Years Experience

Natural Resource Specialist/
Ecologist

David Howell

Public Affairs

Sky Buffat

Public Affairs

URS Corporation

Aaron English

BS Wildlife Biology

13 Years Experience

Project Manager

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-10

Cotferel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

Table 5.2-2. List of Preparers and Participants for the Cotterel Wind Power Project.

Name

Education/Experience

Draft EIS Responsibility

Suzy Cavanagh

MS Geology

6 Years Experience

Geology, Soils, Hydrology

Brandt Elwell

MS Forestry/BS Geography

11 Years Experience

GIS Analyst, Vegetation,

Visual Resources

Dautis Pearson

BA General Biology

22 Years Experience.

Land Use, Recreation,

Visual Resources,

Mike Kelly

BA/MA Anthropology

24 Years Experience

Cultural Resources

Sarah McDaniels

BA International Studies

MA Anthropology

5 Years Experience

Cultural Resources

Bridget Canty

BS Biology

9 Years Experience

Avian Resources

Katie Carroz

MA Economics

6 Years Experience

Socioeconomics

Lisa Kuchera

BS Geographic Information
Management

8 Years Experience

Hazardous Materials

Kavi Koleini

BS Environmental Science

6 Years Experience

Visual Resources

Fire Management

Sandra Steele

BBA Management

17 Years Experience

Document Production,
Coordination,

Quality Assurance

Dave Schwarz

PhD. Geology

14 Years Experience

Quality Assurance,

Technical Editing, Visual
Resources

Charles Baun

MS Natural Resource
Management

BS Biology/Chemistry

6 Years Experience

Avian database management,
vegetation, wildlife resources

T.R.E.C Inc.

Tim Reynolds

Ph.D. Zoology

30 Year Experience

Avian Surveys

Kent Fothergill

BS Biology

20 Years Experience

Avian Surveys

Visual Genesis

Jason Pfaff

BS Landscape Architecture

11 Years Experience

Visual Resources

Ted Bierman

BS Cartography

4 Years Experience

Visual Resources

ABR Inc

Brian Cooper

MS Biology

20 Years Experience

Radar Surveys

Maul Foster Alongi

Lynn Sharp

BA Biology

MS Zoology

30 Years Experience

Avian and Wildlife Resources

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-11

Cotterel Wind Power Project

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5-12

CHAPTER 6

REFERENCES

' ,* ■ V

4 - . ' 1 : ■ . • ?y. ••

• : ' ...

■t ■ ' -

‘ fl

6.0 REFERENCES

6.1 REFERENCES

ABR. 2004. A radar study of nocturnal bird migration at the proposed Cotterel Mountain wind-energy
facility, Idaho, Fall 2003 Prepared for Windland, Inc.

Aldridge, C.L. 2000. Reproduction and habitat use by sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in a
northern fringe population. Thesis, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan.

Aldridge, C.L. 1998. Status of the Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) in
Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta
Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 13, Edmonton AB.

Anderson, R., M. Morrison, and K. Sinclair, et al. 1999. Studying wind energy/bird interactions: a

guidance document. Metrics and methods for determining or monitoring potential impacts on
birds at existing and proposed wind energy sites. Prepared for Avian Subcommittee and
National Wind Coordinating Committee, p. 87.

Anderson, Sheri. 2003. Personal communication, Katie Carroz, of URS Group, Inc. (URS), with
Sheri Anderson, Keystone Realty Group, Burley, Idaho, June 17, 2003.

Bailey, D.W. 1995. “Dailey selection of feeding areas by cattle in homogeneous and heterogeneous
environments.” Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 45:183-199.

Bailey, D.W., J. E. Gross, E. A. Laca, et al. 1996. “Mechanisms that result in large herbivore
graxon-f distribution patterns.” Journal of Range Management, 49:386-400.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe. 1890. History of Washington, Idaho, and Montana 1845-1889. Volume 31,
The History Company, San Francisco.

Bartels, P.E. and C. R. Peterson. 1994. Riparian habitat utilization by western toads (Bufo boreas)
and spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa). Final report to the USDA Forest Service Inter. Res. Sta.,
Boise, p. 30.

Beal, Merrill D. 1962. Intermountain Railroads, Standard and Narrow Gauge. The Caxton Printers,
Inc., Caldwell, Idaho.

Beal, Merrill D. and Merle W. Wells. 1959. History of Idaho. Volume 1, Lewis Historical
Publishing Company, Inc., New York.

Braun, C.E., O. Oedekooven and C.L. Aldridge. 2002. “Oil and gas development in western North
America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on Sage Grouse.”
Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 67:337-349.

Braun, C.E. 1998. “Sage Grouse declines in western North America: What are the problems?”

Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 78:139-156.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-1

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

_. 1987. “Current issues in Sage Grouse Management.” Proceedings of the 67th Annual

Conference of the Western Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 67:134-144.

Brown, C. G. 1992. “Movement and migration patterns of mule deer in southeastern Idaho.”
Journal of Wildlife Management, 56:246-253.

Brown, J. K. 2000. Ecological principle, shifting fire regimes and management considerations. In:
Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. J.K. Brown and J.K. Smith (eds.),
General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Roclcy Mountain Research Station, pp. 185-203.

Brown, Jennie Broughton. 1932. Fort Hall on the Oregon Trail. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell,
Idaho.

Butler, B. Robert. 1986. “Prehistory of the Snake and Salmon River Area.” Great Basin , Vol. 11 of
the Handbook of North American Indians , Warren L. D'Azevedo (ed.), Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.

_. 1978. A Guide to Understanding Idaho Archaeology: The Upper Snake and Salmon

River Country, Idaho State Preservation Office, Boise, Idaho.

Call, M. W. and C. Maser. 1985. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands-the Great Basin of

southeastern Oregon: Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). General Technical Report
PNW-187. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Portland, Oregon, p. 30.

Cassia County. 2003a. Welcome to Cassia County. People Quick Facts. Available at
http://www.cassiacountv.org/general/information.htm (accessed June 2003).

_. 2003b. “Cassia County Statement of 2001 Tax Rolls (Full Market Value), amount of

property tax collected, and Cassia County 2002-2003 Adopted Budget, June 2003.”
Telephone and fax communication between Martell Holland, Cassia County Assessor, Cassia
County Auditor’s Office and Katie Carroz, URS. June 17 and 18, 2003.

Cassia County History. 2003. Welcome to Cassia County, Cassia County History. Available at
http://www.cassiacountv.org/general/historv.htm (accessed June 2003).

Cassia Joint School District. 2003. Cassia Joint School District No. 151 web page, available at
http://www.sdl 51 .kl 2.id.us/district.htm (accessed June 2003).

CDC (Conservation Data Center). 2002. Results of Species Occurrences Data Request for the

Proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-2

Cofterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Census. 2000a. U.S. Census 2000. Summary File 1 100-Percent Data, Table QT-P4, available at
OT-P4. Race. Combinations of Two Races, and Not Hispanic or Latino: 2000 .

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_ts=71592685869 (accessed June 2003).

_. 2000b. U.S. Census 2000. Summary File 3 Sample Data, Tables QT-P34 and P87, QT-

P34. Poverty Status in 1999 of Individuals: 2000. Available at

http://factfmder.census.gov/servlet/OTTable?_ts= : 71602611992 (accessed June 2003), P87.
Poverty Status in 1999 by Age [17] - Universe: Population for whom poverty status is
determined, available at http://factfmder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable? ts=71603196963
(accessed June 2003).

_. 2000c. U.S. Census 2000. Summary File 1 100-Percent Data, Table DP-1: Profile of

General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, available at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable? ts=71780614214 (accessed June 2003).

__. 2000d. U.S. Census 2000. Summary File 3 - Sample Data, P. 53, Median Household

Income in 1999 (Dollars) [1] - Universe: Household, QT-H14: (Housing) Value, Mortgage
Status and Selected Conditions, H60: Median Rent Asked, available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ts=71172150277 (accessed June 2003),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable? ts=71172334452 (accessed June 2003),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ts=71416370126 (accessed June 2003).

_. 2000e. U.S. Census 2000. Projections of the Total Population of States: 1995 to 2025,

available at http://www.census.gov/population/proiections/state/stpipop.txt (accessed June
2003).

_. 2000f. U.S. Census 2000. QT-H14, Value, Mortgage Status, and Selected Conditions:

2000, Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data, available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_ts=72901113599 (accessed June 2003), and
H061A. Median Value - Universe: Specified owner-occupied housing unitsl990 Summary
Tape File 3 (STF 3) - Sample data, available at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ts=72964426415. SF 3 Tables H30, H31, and
H32: housing types and characteristics, available at http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed
June 2003).

__. 1997. Table 2: 1997 Economic Census: Ranking by Retail Sales -Idaho. Available at

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/RANK97ID.HTM (accessed June 2003).

_. 1994. Geographic Areas Reference Manual. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.,

available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/GARMcont.pdf (accessed June 2003).

CEQ (Counsel on Environmental Quality). 1981. NEPA 40 Most Asked Questions.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-3

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, and M.S. Schroeder, et al. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater
Sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Connelly, J.W. 2003. In Litt. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. E-mail message from J. W.
Connelly to Tim Reynolds, TREC, Inc. December 8, 2003.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, et al. 2000. “Guidelines to manage sage grouse
populations and their habitats.” Wildlife Society Bulletin , 28(4): 967-985.

Connelly, J.W., Jr. and C. E. Braun. 1997. “Long-term changes in sage grouse Centrocercus
urophasianus populations in western North America.” Wildlife Biology 3:123-128.

Connelly, J. W., J. W. Arthur, and O. D. Markham. 1981. “Sage Grouse leks on recently disturbed
sites.” Journal of Range Management 34:153-154.

Cossell, John Jr. 1998. Digital Atlas of Idaho: Reptiles (Colubridae). Available at
http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/reptile/main/repfram.htm

Crawford, R. L. and W. W. Baker. 1981. “Bats killed at a north Florida television tower: a 25 year
record.” Journal of Mammalogy 62:651-652

Daugherty, Richard D. and Jeanne M. Welch. 1985. Testing and Evaluation of Selected Portions of
1 OGGI 76 at Hagerman National Fish Hatchery, Gooding County, Idaho. Submitted to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office Cultural Resource Team, Portland, Oregon.

Dean Runyan Associates. 2003. Travel Spending and Related Impacts by Region, 1997, South
Central Region, Travel Spending by County, 1997, Travel Generated Employment by
County, 1997, Idaho. Available at http://www.deanrunvan.com/impactsID.html (accessed
June 2003).

Deere, D. U. and D. W Deere. 1988. “The Rock Quality Index in Practice. Rock Classification
Systems for Engineering Purposes.” American Society for Testing and Materials Special
Technical Publication 984, pp. 91-101.

Dicken, S. N. and E. F. Dicken. 1979. The Making of Oregon: A Study in Historical Geography.
Portland: Oregon Historical Society.

Diller, L.V. and R.L. Wallace. 1986. Aspects of the life history and ecology of the desert night snake,
Hypsiglena torquata deserticola: Colubridae, in southwestern Idaho. Southwestern Naturalist.
31:55-64.

ECONorthwest. 2002. Economic Impacts of Wind Power in Kittitas County, Final Report. A Report
for the Phoenix Economic Development Group, October 2002.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-4

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Ehrlich, P. R., Dobkin, D. S. and Wheye, D. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the
natural history of north American birds. Simon & Schuster Inc., New York, New York.

Ellis, K. L. 1987. “Effects of new transmission line on breeding male sage grouse at a lek in

northwestern Utah.” J. Chairman Roberson (ed). 15th Sage Grouse Workshop Transactions
of the Western States Sage Grouse Committee’, Western Association of Fish and Game
Agencies, Midway, UT, 28-30 July, 1987.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (55/9-74-
004).

Erickson, W., G. Johnson, and D. Young, et al. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian
and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind
Developments. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. for Bonneville Power
Administration, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Erickson, W., E. Lack, M. Bourassa, et al. 2001a. Wildlife baseline study for the Nine Canyon Wind
Project. Progress report May 24-December 31, 2000. Attachment A to Nine Canyon Wind
Project SEPA Checklist, prepared by WEST, Inc. and Northwest Wildlife Consultants for
Energy Northwest, Richland, WA p. 71.

Erickson, W., G. D. Johnson, and M. D. Strickland, et al. 2001b. Avian Collisions with Wind
Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian
Collision Mortality in the United States. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology Inc.
for National Wind Coordinating Committee, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, and M. D. Strickland, et al. 2000. Avian and bat mortality

associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla County, Oregon: 1999 study year.
Technical Report prepared by West, Inc. for Umatilla County Department of Resource
Services and Development, Pendleton, Oregon.

Finsterbusch, Kurt. 1980. Understanding Social Impacts. Assessing the Effects of Public Projects,
Beverly Hills-London: Sage Publications.

FirstSearch Technology Corporation. 2003. Environmental FirstSearch Report, Albion, ID, April 3,
2003.

Flake, L. 2003. Personal Communication, with Tim Reynolds of TREC, Inc. and L. Flake,

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science, South Dakota State University. December 9,
2003.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-5

Co tie re I Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Fowles, Gretchen. 2002. “Jim Sage Bighorn Sheep Release.” Telephone Conversation, Peggy

Bartels, Wildlife Biologist, BLM Burley District, with Gretchen Fowles, Graduate Student,
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, March 3, 2002.

_. 2001. Jim Sage Mountains bighorn sheep reintroduction project. Progress report

December 2000 - September 2001. Idaho State University.

Franklin, Jerry F. and C. T. Dymess. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8, Reprinted, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.

Franzen, John G. 1981. Southeastern Idaho Cultural Resources Overview, Burley and Idaho Falls
Districts. Prepared by Commonwealth Associates, Inc., for the USDI Bureau of Land
Management.

Gabler, K. I. 1997. Distribution and Habitat requirements of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus

idahoensis) on the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. M.S. Thesis,
Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho.

Galbraith, John S. 1957. The Hudson’s Bay Company as an Imperial Factor, 1821-1869. University
of California Press, Berkeley.

GeoEngineers. 2004. Report, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services, Cotterel Mountain

Wind Energy Project, Albion, Idaho. Unpublished report submitted to Windland, Inc., July 7,
2004.

GeoTek. 2004. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for the approximately 4.5 mile Cotterel

Mountain North Access Road Located south of Highway 81 along the Cotterel Mountain
Range: Cassia County, Idaho. Unpublished report submitted to URS, 9 pages.

Ghent, W. J. 1929. The Road to Oregon: A Chronicle of the Great Emigrant Trail. Longmans,

Green, and Company, New York.

Gough, G. A., J. R. Sauer, M. Iliff. 1998. Patuxent Bird Identification Infocenter. Version 97.1.
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at http://www.mbr-
pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/infocenter.html .

Griffin, D. R. 1970. “Migrations of homing bats.” Biology of bats. Volume 1, Academic Press, New
York.

Griggs, Forrest. 2004. Personal communication, Suzy Cavanagh, of URS, with Forrest Griggs,
Geologist, Bureau of Land Management, Burley Field Office. February 19, 2004.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-6

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Gruver, J. C. 2002. Assessment of bat community structure and roosting habitat preferences of the
hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) near Foot Creek Rim, Wyoming. Masters Thesis, Department
of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming.

Harper, Kimball T. 1986. “Historical Environments,” Great Basin, Vol. 11 of the Handbook of

North American Indians, Warren L. D'Azevedo (ed.), Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.

Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission.

Hasbrouk, R.T. 2004. Determining the Probability of Lightning Striking a Facility. National
Lightning Safety Institute. Available at

http://www.lightningsafetv.com/nlsi lhm/prbshort.html (accessed March 7, 2005), p. 1.

Heritage Research Associates. 1996. Historic Resources Study: City of Rocks National Reserve,
South-Central Idaho. Prepared for the National Park Service, Seattle.

Holland, Martell. 2003. Telephone and fax communications, Katie Carroz, of URS, with Martell
Holland, Cassia County Assessor, June 17 and 18, 2003.

Holmes, B. R. 2000. The mountain lion in southeastern Idaho: population characteristics and a test
of optimal foraging theory. Masters Thesis, Idaho State University.

Hope, Arthur C. 1990. Hudspeth Cutoff: Idaho’s Legacy of Wheels. Bookshelf Bindary and Press,
Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Humphrey, S. R. and T. H. Kunz. 1976. “Ecology of the pliestocecne relic, the western big eared bat
(Plecotus townsendii) in the southern great plains.” J. Mammal, 57:470-494.

Hunt, Grainger. 2002. Golden Eagles in a Perilous Landscape: Predicting the Effects of Mitigation
for Wind Turbine Blade-strike Mortality. California Energy Commission Consultant Report
P500-02-043F, p. 62.

IDAPA (Idaho Administrative Rules). 1993. “Well Construction Standards and Rules.” Idaho
Administrative Code, Section 37.03.09.025, July 1993.

Idaho Department of Commerce. 2003a. County Profiles of Idaho. Cassia County, available at
http://www.idoc.state.id.us/idcomm/profiles/pdfs/Cassia.pdf (accessed May 2003).

_. 2003b. Idaho Economy, Retail Sales - Calendar 1993-2001 Years. Available at

http://www.idoc.state.id.us/data/CYRetail.xls (accessed June 2003).

Idaho Geologic Survey. 2003. Uniform Building Code Seismic Code Map of Idaho. Available at
http://www.idahogeology.org (accessed April 2003).

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-7

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Idaho Lodging. 2003. A Comprehensive Directory of Accommodations and Lodging in Idaho State:
Hotels, Motels, Vacation Rentals, Bed & Breakfasts, Hostels, RV Parks and Campgrounds.
Available at http://www.idaho-lodging.com (accessed June 2003).

Idaho Statesman. 2003. Idaho Statesman Newspaper. June 19,2003.

Idaho Watersheds Project. 1999. Seeps, Springs and Riparian Zones of Selected Public Land

Regions, Post Season Report of 1999 Conditions: Cassia, Oneida, Power, and Twin Falls
Counties, Idaho. Prepared by Miriam L. Austin of Red Willow Research for Idaho
Watersheds Project, Idaho Watersheds Project Archives, Reports. Available at
http://www.srv.net/~idwp/archives/reports/publands_2000/chapter5/chapter5.html (accessed
April 2003).

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2003. Streams for Idaho (303(d) Impaired -
1998). Vector Geospatial Digital Data, Filename reference: strm303d98_id_ideq, February
2002.

_. 2001. 1998 Air Quality Monitoring Report. State Air Quality Program Office, Air

Quality Management Unit, March 2001.

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2003a. Idaho state bat species list. Available at

http://www2.state.id.us/fishgame/info/nongame/mammals.htm#bat (accessed June 2004).

_. 2003b. State-wide harvest statistics for big game in Idaho. Available at

http://www2.state.id.us/fishgame/hunt/programsinfo/hprograms.htm (accessed June 2003).

_. 2003c. Greater Sage Grouse Lek Database. Boise, Idaho.

_. 2002. An inventory of southeast Idaho bat sites: hibemacula, maternity, and transient use

of nature and anthropogenic roosts. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, non-game grants
program, Boise, Idaho.

_. 1998. Sage-Grouse, A Part of Idaho’s High Desert Heritage. Idaho Department of Fish

and Game Upland Game Program, Boise, Idaho.

IDOL (Idaho Department of Labor). 2003a. Idaho Dept of Labor, Labor Market Information.
Available at

http://www.iobservice.ws/cgi/dataanalvsis/PeriodSelection.asp?menuchoice=populatn

(accessed May 2003) and http://www.labor.state.id.us/lmi/es202/250anwage00.htm (accessed
May 2003).

__. 2003b. Idaho Dept of Labor, Labor Market Information, Annual Average 2000

Employment In Idaho, Annual Employment by Industry and County Covered by the Idaho
Employment Security Law. Available at

http://www.labor.state.id.us/lmi/es202/250anemp00.htm (accessed June 2003). U.S.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-8

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages. Available at http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurvevOutputServlet (accessed June 2003).

_. 2003c. Idaho Department of Labor, Labor Market Information, Labor Force:

Employment, unemployment, and civilian labor force data. Available at
http://www.iobservice.ws/cgi/dataanalvsis/labForceReport.asp?menuchoice=LABFORCE

(accessed June 2003) and

http://www.iobservice.ws/cgi/dataanalysis/labForceReport.asp?menuchoice=LABFORCE

(accessed June 2003).

_. 2003d. Idaho Department of Labor, Labor Market Information, Industry Projections:

Projected job growth by industry. Available at

http://www.iobservice.ws/cgi/dataanalvsis/indPriReport.asp?menuchoice=indpri (accessed
June 2003).

IDWR (Idaho Department of Water Resources). 1999. Critical Ground Water Areas, Vector
Geospatial Digital Data, December 1999.

IMPLAN. 2003. Cassia County Unadjusted Model Using SAM Multipliers and 2000 Regional
Input/Output Data. IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0, copyright Minnesota IMPLAN
Group, 1997.

EPC (Idaho Power, an IdaCorp Company). 2002. Sales and Load Forecast for the 2002 Integrated
Resource Plan.

IPUC (Idaho Public Utilities Commission). 2003. Idaho Public Utilities Commission 2003 Annual
Report, Section II: Electric Information.

ISRH-43, 4180: Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Livestock and
Managment-43 CFR 4180.

ITC (Idaho State Tax Commission). 2004. Telephone communication with Renee at the ITC Sales
Tax Information Desk and Katie Carroz, URS. July 8, 2004.

_. 2003a. 2002 Idaho State Tax Commission - Property Taxes. Values by Major Category

- Excludes the Homeowner's Exemption Contains 2002 Real & Personal Roll and 2001 Sub
Roll Values. Available at

http://www2.state.id.us/tax/propertvtax/PTpdfs/NetValuebvMaiorCategorv.pdf (accessed
June 2003).

_. 2003b. Letter to Mr. Michael Heckler, Director, Marketing and Development, Windland,

Inc., “Potential Property Tax Assessment of Cotterel Mountain. Wind Farm,” March 7, 2003.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-9

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, and D. A. Shepard, et al. 2002. Bat interactions with wind turbines
at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota wind resource area: 2001 field season. Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.

Johnson, G. D., D. P. Young, and W. P. Erickson, et al. 2000a. Wildlife monitoring studies:

Sea West wind power project, Carbon County, Wyoming: 1995-1999. Technical Report
prepared by West, Inc. for SeaWest Energy Corporation, San Diego, CA and Bureau of Land
Management, Rawlins, WY, p 195.

Johnson, G.D., D. P. Young, and W. P. Erickson, et al. 2000b. Avian and bat mortality associated
with initial phase of the Foot Creek Rim Wind Power Project, Carbon County, Wyoming:
November 3, 1998 - October 31, 1999. Technical report prepared for SeaWest Energy
Corporation and Bureau of Land Management.

Johnson, G., W. Erickson, and D. Strickland, et al. 1997. Final Report, 1996 Avian Monitoring
Studies, Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area. Prepared by WEST, Inc. for
Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN, p. 158.

Jones, Connie. 2004. Personal communication, Connie Jones, Environmental Coordinator, Idaho
Transportation Department District 3, with Aaron English, URS

Karl, Jason. 2000. Digital atlas of Idaho: birds. Available at
http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/birds/birds.htm.

Karl, Michael, G. Sherm, and Stephen G. Leonard. 1996. (Draft) Western Juniper in the Interior

Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basin: Science Assessment. Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Science Integration Team. Terrestrial Staff.
Range Task Group p. 1, (44 pages).

Keeley, J. E., C. J. Fotheringham and M. Morais. 1999. “Reexamining fire suppression impacts on
brushland fire regimes.” Science. 284:1829-1832.

Keller, B. L., W. R. Bosworth and R. W. Doering. 1993. Final technical report: bat habitat

research. U.S. Department of Energy, grant ID DE-AC07-92ID13142, National Technical
Information Service, p. 20.

Keller, Barry, 2000. Digital Atlas of Idaho: Mammals (Chiroptera). Available at

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/mammal/Bats/wepi/wepifrm.htm (accessed August 15,
2003).

Kerlinger, P., R. Curry and L. Culp. 2005. Year One Report. Post-construction avian monitoring
study for the High Winds Wind Power Project, Solano County, California. Report prepared
for High Winds, LLC FPL Energy, p. 70.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-10

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

_. 2001. “Avian monitoring study and risk assessment for the high winds wind power

project, Solano County, California, supplement to Appendix D.” Prepared for FPL Energy.
Appendix D in: Draft Solano County high winds power project environmental impact report ,
June 6, 2002, prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management by
Environmental Science Associates.

Knick, S.T. 1990. “Ecology of bobcats relative to exploitation and a prey decline in southeastern
Idaho.” Wildl. Monog. 108:1-42.

Lauer, J. L. and J. M. Peek. 1976. Big game livestock relationships on big horn sheep winter range
East Fork of the Salmon River, Idaho. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Exp.
Station Bulletin, 12:14.

Leddy, K. L., K. F. Higgins and D.E. Naugle. 1999. “Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting
birds in Conservation Reserve Program grasslands.” Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104.

Link, Paul K. 2002. Digital Atlas of Idaho: Geology. Idaho State University Website. Available at
http://imnh.isu.edu/digitaltlas (accessed April 2003).

Link, Paul K. and E. Chilton Phoenix. 1994. Rocks, Rails, and Trails. Idaho Museum of Natural
History, Pocatello, Idaho.

Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on sage grouse near Pinedale,
Wyoming. Masters Thesis, University of Wyoming, p. 120.

Lyon, A. G. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. “Potential gas development impacts on Sage Grouse nest

initiation and movement.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.

m

Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2002. Nocturnal bird migration at the Stateline and Vansycle wind
energy projects, 2000-2001. Final report prepared for CH2MHILL and FPL Energy
Vansycle, LLC, by ABR Inc., Forest Grove, OR.

Madsen, Brigham D. 1980. The Northern Shoshoni. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.

Manes, R.S. Harmon, B. Obermeyer, R. Applegate, et al. 2003. “Windswept Prairies.” Grouse
Partnership News, 4:16-19.

Manes, R. S., S. Harmon, and B. Obermeyer, et al. 2002. Wind, Energy, and Wildlife: An attempt at
pragmatism. Available at www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/pages/windpower.html

Marquez, Ranee. 2004. Telephone communication with Ranee Marquez, Burley Field Office of
Bureau of Land Management, and Charles Baun, URS, March 26, 2004.

McAnnis, D. 1990. Home range, activity budgets, and habitat use ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis)
breeding in southwest Idaho. Masters Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, p. 81.

6-11

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

Cofterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

McCall, Gary. 2003. “Housing Demands and Construction.” Telephone communication with Gary
McCall, Carey & Adams, and Katie Carroz, URS, June 17, 2003.

Minidoka County Information. 2004. Available at

http://www.minidoka.id.us/general/information.htm

_. 1978. “Early Man at Owl Cave; Current Investigations at the Wasden Site, Eastern Snake

River Plain, Idaho,” Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, Alan Lyle
Bryan(ed.), Edmonton.

Moe, Jeanne M. 1982. “A Folsom Point from the Owyhee Mountains of Southwestern Idaho,” Idaho
Archaeologist 6(1 -2):45-46.

Moroz, Paul. 2004. “90-Day Species List Update”. Interagency letter, September 1, 2004

Motorcycle Industry Council. 2003. Motorcycle Industry Council estimates of motorcycle sales for
2003. Available at http://www.motorcvcles.org/PR/2003_PR_l 1 vr_Increase.htm (accessed
February 2004).

Moseley, R. K. 1993. The status and distribution of Christ's Indian paintbrush ( Castilleja christii ) and
Davis' wavewing ( Cymopterus davisii ) in the Albion Mountains, Sawtooth National Forest
and City of Rocks National Reserve. Cooperative Challenge Cost Share Project, Sawtooth
National Forest and Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 18 pp.
plus appendices.

Murphy, Robert F. and Yolanda Murphy. 1986. “Northern Shoshone and Bannock,” Great Basin ,
Vol. 11 of the Handbook of North American Indians, Warren L. D'Azevedo (ed.),

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2002. 2002 Census of Agriculture County Profde,

U. W. Department of Agriculture, Idaho Agricultural Statistics Service. Cassia County, Idaho.
Minidoka County, Idaho.

_. 1997. 1997 Census of Agriculture County Profde, U.W. Department of Agriculture,

Idaho Agricultural Statistics Service, Cassia County, Idaho.

NEPDG (National Energy Policy Development Group). 2001. Reliable, Affordable, and

Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future, ISBN 0-16-050814-2. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy (accessed March 2003).

Newton, I. 1979. Population Ecology of Raptors. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota, p. 399.

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific
northwest. The University Press of Idaho. Moscow, ID. 168 pp.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-12

Cotferel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

NWCC (National Wind Coordinating Committee). 2004. Research Results Meeting V. Lansdown,
VA, November 3-4, 2004.

NWPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2003. Revised Draft, Forecast of Electricity
Demand for the 5 th Pacific Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. Council
document 2003-6.

Olendorff, R. R., A. D. Miller and R. N. Lehman. 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection
on Power Lines - The State of the Art in 1996. Raptor Research Report No. 4, Raptor
Research Foundation, Inc., Hastings, Minnesota.

Olendorff, R.R. 1973. The ecology of the nesting birds ofprey of northeastern Colorado. U.S. IBP
Grassland Biome Technical Report 211, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, p. 223.

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse of Wyoming. Sage Books, Inc., Denver, p. 341.

Peters, E. F. and S. C. Bunting. 1994. “Fire conditions pre- and post-occurrence of annual grasses on
the Snake River Plain.” In Proceedings - Ecology, Management, and Restoration of
Intermountain Rangelands Symposium. USDA Forest Service INT-GTR- 313, Ogden, Utah,
Pp 31-36.

Plew, Mark G. 1986. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Southern Idaho. Boise State University,
Boise, Idaho.

Poplar, Mark. 2003. Telephone communication with Mark Poplar, Idaho State Tax Commission, and
Katie Carroz, URS. July 1, 2003.

Public Rangeland Improvement Act 1978. 43 USC 1901 et. seq.

Remington, T. E. and C. E. Braun. 1991. “How surface coal mining affects Sage Grouse, North
Park, Colorado.” In: Proceedings, Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted
Western Wildlife, R. D. Comer, P. R. Davis, S. Q. Foster, C. V. Grant, S. Rush, O. Thome, II,
and J. Todd (eds.), No. 5, Thome Ecological Institute, pp. 128-132, 223.

Risley, David. 2003. Personal communication, Brandt Elwell of URS, with David Risley, Idaho
Source Water Assessment Program Manager, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality,
from public information request, April 23, 2003.

Robbins, C. S., B. Brunn and H. S. Zim. 1966. Birds of the north America. Golden Press, New York,
New York.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-13

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Robel, Robert J., John A. Harrington, Jr., and Christian A. Hagen, et al. 2004. Transactions of the
69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Session Three: Effects of
Energy Development and Human Activity on the Use of Sand Sagebrush Habitat by Lesser
Prairie Chickens in Southwestern Kansas. 251-266.

Rogers, Greg. 2004. Telephone communication, Greg Rogers, Idaho Department of Labor, Regional
Market Specialist for South Central Idaho, with Katie Carroz, URS. July 6, 2004.

Rowland, M. M. and M. J. Wisdom. 2002. Research problem analysis for Greater Sage-grouse in
Oregon. Final report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office; and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, p. 75.

Ruby, Robert H. and John A. Brown. 1992. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Sharp, L., A. Burt, and C. Baun, et al. 2005. Technical report for biological resource impacts for the
proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project.

Sharp, L., W. Erickson, and K. Kronner. 2001a. Final Report, Avian Baseline Study for the Stateline
Project, Vansycle Ridge, Oregon and Washington. Technical Appendix to Exhibits P and Q
for EFSC Site Certification Application for the Stateline Wind Project. Prepared for FPL
Energy Vansycle LLC.

Shaw, Elena. 2004. “Comments and edits to Draft EIS.” Personal communication, Charles Baun of
URS with Elena Shaw, BLM Resource Manager, Twin Falls District, October 19, 2004.

South Idaho Press. 2003. Real Estate Listings. Available at

http://www.southidahopress.com/classifieds (accessed June 6, 2003).

Steward, Julian H. 1938. “Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Socio-Political Groups.” Smithsonian Institution
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120.

Streubel, Donald. 2000. Digital Atlas of Idaho: Mammals (Rodentia). Available at
http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/mammal/mamfram.htm

Sudweeks, Leslie L. 1941. “The Raft River in Idaho History,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly , Volume
32(1 ):289-305.

_. 1961. “Folsom Man in Idaho,” Idaho Yesterdays 5(1 ):26-30.

TBR. 2004. Technical Baseline Reports for Biological Resources for the Proposed Cotterel Wind

Power Project. Compilation of technical reports prepared by several authors including: ABR
2004; Sharp 2004;TREC 2004a; TREC 2004b; TREC 2004c; USDI BLM, 2004; and URS
2004.

May 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-14

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Tharp, James. 2004. “Comments on Chapters 3 and 4 of DEIS and Noxious Weeds and Special

Status Species.” Personal Communication, Charles Baun, Biologist, URS, with James Tharp,
Botanist, Burley Field Office, BLM, February 6, 2004 and April 26, 2004.

Thompson, D. 2004. “Recreation numbers associated with Cotterel Mountain.” Personal

communication, Charles Baun, biologist, URS with D. Thompson, Recreation Planner,
Burley Field Office, BLM, March 3, 2004.

Times-News. 2004. “Wind farm could spell relief for school taxpayers.” August 20, 2004.

Titmus, Gene L. 1985. “The Timmerman Hill Folsom.” Idaho Archaeologist 8(2)-37-38.

TREC. 2005. “Movements, productivity and survival of greater sage grouse in the Cotterel

Mountains of southcentral Idaho.” 2004 Annual Report. TREC, Inc., Rigby, Idaho, p. 39
plus appendices.

TREC. 2004a. A survey of nesting raptors for the Cotterel Mountain Wind Project. Prepared for
URS, Boise, Idaho, July 30, 2004, 10pp.

TREC. 2004b. 2003 Sage Grouse lek surveys in the Cotterel Mountains. Prepared for URS Boise,
Idaho, October 2, 2004 5pp

TREC. 2004c. 2004 Sage Grouse lek surveys in the Cotterel Mountains. Prepared for URS Boise,
Idaho, October 2, 2004 7pp

URS. 2004. Technical Baseline Reports for Vegetation and Big Game Resources for the Proposed
Cotterel Wind Power Project. Boise, Idaho

USDA, FS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1994. Final Environmental
Impact Statement: Black Pine Expansion, Cassia County, Idaho , Sawtooth National Forest,
Burley Ranger District.

USDA, NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service).
1994. Soil Survey of Cassia County, Idaho, Eastern Part , Compiled 1994.

_. 1986. Soil Survey of Cassia County, Idaho, Eastern Part, Compiled 1986.

USDI, BLM (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2005. Burley Field
Office Wildlife Database. Burley, Idaho.

_. 2004a. Wind Energy Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Available at: http://windeis.anl.gov/ (accessed November 2004).

_. 2004b. Fire, Fuels, and Related Vegetation Management Direction Plan Amendment and

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft). Upper Snake River District, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

A/lay 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

6-15

Cotterel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

_. 2003. Burley Field Office Wildlife Database. Burley, Idaho.

_. 2000. Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1.

_. 1986a. Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual H-8410-1, Release 8-28, Washington,

D.C.

_. 1986b. Visual Resource Contrast Rating , BLM Manual H-8431-1, Release 8-30,

Washington, D.C.

_. 1985. Cassia Resource Management Plan. Burley District, Burley, Idaho.

USDI, BLM/DOE (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management/Department of

Energy). 2003. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. DOE/GO-
102003-1704.

USDI, BOR (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation). 2001. Engineering Geology
Field Manual. Second Edition, Volume II, p. 485.

USDOL (United States Department of Labor). 2003. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration , Labor Surplus Area List, available at
http://www.uses.doleta.gov/lsa.asp (accessed June 2003).

USDOT-FHWA (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration) 1998. FHWA
Traffic Noise Model User’s Guide. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-PD-96-009. Washington D.C.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-
month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-grouse as threatened or endangered;
proposed rule. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.

. 2003. Listed Species Potential Occurring Within The Proposed Cotterel Wind Power
Project Area Interagency letter, 3 January

_. 1986 Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, Oregon.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2003. Sagebrush assessment project. Available at
http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/sagebrush_assessment.htm (accessed September 20, 2003).

Vullo, C., L. Lewis, and C. R. Wenger, et al. 1999. 1997/1998 Idaho bat status survey report. Idaho
Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Wackenhut, M.C. 1990. Bat species overwintering in lava-tube caves in Lincoln, Gooding, Blaine,
Bingham, and Butte counties, Idaho with special reference to the annual return of banded
Plecotus townsendii. Masters Thesis, Idaho State University, Pocatello, p. 64.

A/1 ay 2005

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6-16

Cofferel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

Walker, Deward E. Jr. 1978. Indians of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

WEST, Inc. 2002. Baseline Avian Studies for the Proposed Maiden Wind Farm, Yakima and Benton
Counties, Washington. April 2001 - April 2002. Final Report, November 20, 2002.

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: ecological and
management implications. E. D. McArthur, E. M. Romney, S. D. Smith and P. T. Tueller
(eds.), Proceedings of a Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and Other
Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management, U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report
INT-276. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, pp. 4-10.

Williams, P. L., H. R. Covington, and K. L. Pierce. 1982. “Cenozoic stratigraphy and tectonic
evolution of the Raft River Basin, Idaho.” Cenozoic Geology of Idaho: Idaho Bureau of
Mines and Geology Bulletin 26, Bill Bonnichsen and Roy M. Breckenridge (eds.), pp. 491-
504.

Wisdom, M. J., B. C. Wales, and M. M. Rowland, et al. 2002. “Performance of greater sage-grouse
models for conservation assessment in the interior Columbia Basin, USA.” Conservation
Biology 16:in press.

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, and B. C. Wales, et al. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial

vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and management
implications. General Technical Report INT-GTR-58. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Yeo, J., A. F. Reeve, and P. MacLaren, et al. 1984. Medicine Bow Wind Energy Project Wildlife
Studies: Final Report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming and
University of Wyoming, p. 151.

Yohe, Robert M. II and James C. Woods. 2002. The First Idahoans: A Paleoindian Context for
Idaho. Published by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Idaho State Historic
Society, Boise.

Young, D., W. Erickson, and J. Jeffrey, et al. 2002. “Appendix E to Conditional Use Application.”
Avian and Sensitive Species Baseline Study Plan & Interim Report, TPC Combine Hills
Turbine Ranch, Umatilla County, OR. Prepared by WEST, Inc. for Tomen Power
Corporation USA, San Diego, CA & Aeropower Services, Inc., Portland, OR, p. 57.

Young, David P. Jr., Wallace P. Erickson, and Rhett E. Good, et al. 2003. Avian and bat mortality
associated with the initial phase of the Foote creek rim windpower project, Carbon county
Wyoming. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

6-17

Cotferel Wind Power Project

6.0 REFERENCES

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

May 2005

Draff Environmental Impact Statement

6-18

APPENDIX A

NOI PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER

Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 244/Thursday, December 19, 2002/Notices

77801

COMMENT DUE DATE: Your comments are
best assured of having their full effect if
received on or before February 18, 2003.

Dated: December 12, 2002.

Charles W. Grim,

Assistant Surgeon General, Interim Director.
[FR Doc. 02-31912 Filed 12-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-1S-M

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4739-N-49]

Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: Comment Request;
Applications for Housing Assistance
Payments

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
action: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed information
collection requirement described below
will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The Department is
soliciting public comments on the
subject proposal.

DATES: Comments Due Date: February
18, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to
the proposal by name and/or OMB
Control Number and should be sent to:
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management
Officer, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street,
SW„ L’Enfant Plaza Building, Room
8003, Washington, DC 20410.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of
Housing Assistance and Grant
Administration, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone
(202) 708-3000 (tins is not a tollfree
number) for copies of the proposed
forms and other available information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department is submitting the proposed
information collection to OMB for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed
collection of information to: (1) Evaluate
whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have

practical utility; (2) Evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (3) Enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) Minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond; including
the use of appropriate automated
collection techniques of other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following
information:

Title of Proposal: Applications for
Housing Assistance Payments.

OMB Control Number, if applicable:
2502-0182.

Description of the need for the
information and proposed use:

Vouchers are submitted by owners/
agents to HUD or their Contract
Administrators (CA)/Performance Based
Contract Administrators (PBCA) each
month to receive assistance payments
for the difference between the gross rent
and the total tenant payment for all
assisted tenants. In the instance of
special claims, vouchers are submitted
hy owners/agents to HUD or their CA/
PBCA to receive an amount of offset
unpaid rents, tenant damages,
vacancies, and/or debt service losses.

Agency form numbers, if applicable:
HUD-52670; HUD-52670A, Part 1;
HUD—52670A, Part 2; HUD-52671A/B/
C/D.

Estimation of the total numbers of
hours needed to prepare the information
collection including number of
respondents, frequency of response, and
hours of response: The estimated total
number of horns needed to prepare the
information collection is 178,585; the
number of respondents is 43,064
generating approximately 394,821
annual responses; the frequency of
response is on occasion and monthly;
and the estimated time needed to
prepare the response varies from 20 to
30 minutes.

Status of the proposed information
collection: Revision of a currently
approved collection.

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

r

Dated: November 22, 2002
John C. Weicher,

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal
Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 02-31908 Filed 12-18-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-27-M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID-077-03-1430-ER-D025; IDI-33676]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement/Land
Use Plan Amendment

AGENCY: Burley Field Office, Upper
Snake River District, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Cassia County,
Idaho.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and to Amend the Cassia Resource
Management Plan (RMP).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the BLM is proposing to prepare a land
use plan amendment and environmental
impact statement (EIS) to consider the
proposed Cotterel Mountain Wind
Energy Project (Project), located
southeast of the town of Albion in
Cassia County, Idaho. Windland, Inc.
(Windland) of Boise, Idaho proposes to
construct and operate the 200-megawatt
(MW) wind-driven power generation
facility. The EIS will analyze the
potential environmental impacts of the
construction and operation of the wind
project itself, as well as related
transmission facilities and roads. This
planning activity would amend the
Cassia RMP and deals with the 40,967
acres of public land in the Cotterel
Mountain Management Area of the RMP
and more specifically with
approximately 4,600 acres running
north and south along the ridge line of
the mountain that would be directly
affected by the proposed project. The
planning process will comply with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). The BLM will work closely
with interested parties to identify the
management decisions that are best
suited to the needs of the public. This
collaborative process will take into
account local, regional, and national
needs and concerns. This notice
initiates the public scoping process to
identify specific issues and develop
planning criteria. The scoping process
will include an evaluation of the needs
and interests of the public.

DATES: The scoping comment period
will commence with the publication of
this notice. Formal scoping will end 60
days after publication of this notice.
Comments regarding issues and
planning criteria should be received on
or before the end of the scoping period
at the address listed below. Public
meetings or open houses will be held.

In order to ensure local community

77802

Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 244/Thursday, December 19, 2002/Notices

participation and input, public meetings
will most likely be held in Albion,

Burley and Boise, Idaho. Specific dates
and locations for public participation
will be published in local newspapers
and broadcast on local community
calendars. Meetings and open houses
will provide opportunity for the public
to work collaboratively with the BLM to
identify issues to be addressed in the
planning process.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding the
proposed development of a wind-driven
power generation facility should be sent
to: Project Manager, Cotterel Mountain
Wind Project, Bureau of Land
Management, Burley Field Office, 15
East 200 South, Burley, Idaho 83318.
Comments, including names and street
addresses of respondents, will be
available for public review at the above
address during regular business hours,
7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays, and may be
published as part of the EIS. Individual
respondents may request
confidentiality. If you wish to withhold
your name or street address from public
review or from disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act, you must
state this prominently at the beginning
of your written comment. Such requests
will be honored to the extent allowed by
law. All submissions from organizations
or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public inspection in
their entirety.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Windland,
Inc., a Boise based company, is
proposing to install approximately 130
wind turbines, each having a generating
capacity between 1.3 and 1.8 megawatts,
on a site covering approximately 7
square miles on the Cotterel Mountains
southeast of Burley, Idaho. The
proposed project area is within the
Burley Field Office, Upper Snake River
District of the BLM. The 130 turbines
situated on towers approximately 250
feet in height would produce a
maximum of 200 megawatts of power,
enough to provide electricity for 40,000
homes. Power from the project would be
collected by an underground cable
system and then fed into one of two
proposed substations to be located on
the project site. The fenced substation
sites would occupy approximately two
to four acres each. From the substation
sites, power from the project would then
be transported to one of two existing
138-kilovolt (kV) power transmission
lines that Eire in the vicinity of the
proposed project area, via new overhead
transmission facilities. Other facilities

required as part of the proposed project
are small pad mounted transformers
located at the base of each wind turbine
tower, access roads and one operation
and maintenance building. The area
permanently occupied by the project
after final reclamation of disturbed areas
would total approximately 68 acres. The
project is scheduled to begin
construction as early as June 2004,
followed by commercial operation as
early as November 2005 and would
operate year-round for at least 30 years.

The purpose and need for the
proposed project are to (1) provide
wind-generated electricity from a site in
Idaho to meet existing and future
demands for electricity; and (2) to
develop energy generation facilities that
are consistent with the President’s
National Energy Policy which
encourages the development of
renewable energy resources, including
wind energy, as part of an overall
strategy to develop a diverse portfolio of
domestic energy supplies for the
nation’s future.

Public Participation: Potential issues
that have been identified to date
include, but are not limited to the
following general categories: Wildlife
(including birds); vegetation (including
weeds and invasive plant species);
threatened, endangered and sensitive
species; public access; visual concerns;
cultural resources; Tribal concerns;
rangeland resources; geology and soils;
hydrology; recreation resources;
hazardous materials; air quality; noise;
and socio-economics. The BLM has
established a 60-day scoping period
during which, affected tribes,
landowners, concerned citizens, special
interest groups, local governments, and
any other interested parties are invited
to comment on the scope of the EIS.
Scoping will help the BLM identify the
full range of issues that should be
addressed in the EIS. The Draft EIS/
Draft plan amendment, which is
scheduled for completion in the fall of
2003, will be circulated for public
review and comment. The BLM will
consider and respond in the Final EIS/
proposed planned amendment to
comments received on the draft. The
Final EIS and proposed plan
amendment are expected to be
published early in 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Barker, Project Manager, Burley
Field Office, 15 East 200 South, Burley,
Idaho 83318, telephone (208) 677-6678.

Dated: October 28, 2002.

Theresa Hanley,

Burley Field Office Manager.

[FR Doc. 02-32060 Filed 12-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 4310-GG-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Agency Information Collection
Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of data collection
submission.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.), the Bureau of
Reclamation (we, our, or us) has
forwarded a request for renewal (with
revisions) of an existing approved
information collection to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB): Crop
Acreage and Yields and Water
Distribution (Water User Crop Census
Report [Form 7-332], and Crop and
Water Data [Form 7—2045]), OMB
Control Number: 1006-0001. We request
your comments on the revised Crop
Acreage and Yields and Water
Distribution Forms and specific aspects
of the information collection.

DATES: Your written comments must be
received on or before January 21, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
the information collection to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. A
copy of your comments should also be
sent to Ms. Diana Trujillo, Bureau of
Reclamation, Water Resources Office,

D—5300, PO Box 25007, Denver, CO
80225.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information or for a copy of the
forms contact Diana Trujillo, Bureau of
Reclamation, (303) 445-2914.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is
notice that a request for review,
comment, and approval of a revised
currently approved collection has been
forwarded to OMB. A Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on this collection
of information was published on July
17, 2002 (67 FR 46998). No public
comments were received by
Reclamation.

We have revised the currently
approved collection to reflect industry
standards concerning units used to
measure yields for certain crops (i.e.,
using pounds instead of bales for cotton
lint and using pounds instead of tons for
hops). Other changes include:

• In Section B-e on both forms,
“Acres irrigated by”, we are adding the
option to choose “Flood” along with the

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM 2003-20 FROM THE INTERIM WIND

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT POLICY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

October 16, 2002

In Reply Refer To:
2800 (WO 350) P
Ref. IB No. 2001-138,
IM No. 2002-011, IM No. 2002-189
and IM No. 2002-196

EMS TRANSMISSION 10/17/2002
Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-020
Expires: 09/30/2004

To: All Field Officials

From: Director

Subject: Interim Wind Energy Development Policy

Program Area: Right-of-Way Management, Wind Energy

Issue: This Instruction Memorandum (IM) provides interim guidance on processing right-of-way
applications for wind energy site testing and monitoring facilities, as well as applications for
wind energy development projects on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).

Background: The President’s National Energy Policy encourages the development of renewable
energy resources, including wind energy, as part of an overall strategy to develop a diverse
portfolio of domestic energy supplies for our future. The BLM prepared a National Energy
Policy Implementation Plan that included a variety of tasks related to the development of energy
resources on the public lands, including renewable energy resources. The Implementation Plan
and specific tasks were previously distributed by Information Bulletin No. 2001-138, dated
August 15, 2001, and IM No. 2002-011, dated October 12, 2001. While the current contribution
of renewable energy resources to our energy supply is relatively small, wind energy and other
renewable energy generating sectors of our economy are the fastest growing in the United States.
Continued growth in wind energy development will be extremely important in delivering larger
supplies of clean, domestic power for America’s growing economy.

The United States has significant potential for wind energy development, especially on Federal
lands in the west. The recent extension of the Federal wind energy production tax credit and a
variety of State-level tax credits and other incentives, including renewable energy portfolio
standards in several States, has generated a renewed interest in commercial wind energy projects

on Federal lands. The BLM currently administers some 25 wind energy right-of-way
authorizations on public lands in California and Wyoming that encompass a total of
approximately 5,000 acres and generate a total of about 500 megawatts of electrical power. The
interest in wind energy development has recently increased and new project proposals on public
land have been identified in several States. These existing project proposals and future proposals
will create a significant workload that will demand a commitment of resources and a priority to
the timely and consistent processing of right-of-way applications for the use of public lands for
wind energy site testing and monitoring activities and for commercial wind energy development.

Policy/Action:

Inventory and Planning: It is BLM’s general policy to encourage the development of
wind energy in acceptable areas. Wind energy site testing and monitoring activities are usually in
conformance with and can be accommodated by existing land use plans without a need for a land
use plan amendment. These existing land use plans identify wilderness and wilderness study
areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), visual resource management areas,
national scenic or historic trails, National Landscape Conservation System units, critical habitat
areas, and other special management areas where land use restrictions apply to a variety of uses,
including wind energy site testing and monitoring. However, commercial wind energy
development activities in some cases may not be in conformance with existing land use plans and
it may be appropriate to amend the land use plan as a concurrent action with the same analysis
for the wind energy development proposal. In both cases, however, right-of-way applications for
wind energy site testing and monitoring or wind energy development projects will be processed
in a timely manner.

Wind energy development provides many environmental advantages over other types of energy
resource development, however, wind energy development also results in some adverse impacts,
including visual resource impacts and wildlife and wildlife habitat disturbance. Wind energy
projects also require some infrastructure such as access roads, transmission lines, and other
support facilities. Although land use plans combined with appropriate levels of environmental
analysis will be used to assess individual wind energy project proposals, the BLM’s overall wind
energy policy is to minimize negative impacts to the natural, cultural, and visual resources on the
public lands. Negative impacts can be minimized by avoiding special management areas with
land use restrictions, avoiding major avian (bird) migration routes and areas of critical habitat for
species of concern, establishing siting criteria to minimize soil disturbance and erosion on steep
slopes, utilizing visual resource management guidelines to assist in proper siting of facilities,
avoiding significant historic and cultural resource sites, and mitigating conflicts with other uses
of the public lands.

In areas where land use plans are being revised there may be benefits to specifically address wind
resource potential, public concerns, and opportunities for wind energy development within the
land use planning area. Supplemental planning guidance regarding wind energy and rights-of-
way is provided by IM No. 2002-196, dated June 25, 2002. Field Offices are encouraged to

2

incorporate wind energy resource development potential in these planning efforts to facilitate the
processing of future wind energy applications. The land use plan revision process would address
the environmental and local community issues associated with commercial wind energy.

This would provide an opportunity to potentially reduce the amount of additional environmental
review and documentation required to process a specific application in the future. A
programmatic amendment to one or more land use plans could also potentially be used to address
wind energy resources on a larger scale.

The BLM and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have
established a partnership to conduct an assessment of wind energy and other renewable energy
resources on public lands in the western U.S. The objective of this collaborative effort is to
assist in the inventory of high-potential wind energy resources to support BLM land use planning
efforts. This GIS-based assessment and analysis information is available through the BLM
National Science and Technology Center (NSTC) or available from the Department of Energy
internet site ( www.eren.doe.gov/windpoweringamerica/where is wind.html). Information on
renewable energy resources, including wind energy, is also available at www.energyatlas.org.
Field Offices are encouraged to use this information as the inventory base for addressing wind
energy resource development opportunities and to assess the affects of other resource uses on
wind energy resources. The National Wind Coordinating Committee also has information
available on an internet site (www.nationalwind.org/pubs/permit/permitting20Q2 ) that can assist
in the permitting and environmental review process associated with wind energy right-of-way
applications on the public lands.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently developing guidelines to assist the wind industry
in avoiding or minimizing impacts on wildlife by wind energy development. These guidelines
contain a procedure for pre-development evaluation of potential wind resource areas based on
their impact on wildlife, and recommendations for siting, designing, constructing, and operating
wind turbines within areas with wind energy resource potential. A draft of the guidelines will be
available in the fall of 2002. The pre-development evaluation procedure was developed by a
team of Federal, state, university and industry biologists to rank potential wind development sites
in Montana, and is already in use in that area. That process is being modified for use nationwide
by the Fish and Wildlife Service. BLM Field Offices will be provided a copy of the guidelines
and are encouraged to use this tool when it becomes available for evaluating areas for potential
wind energy development.

Applications: All wind energy and wind energy related facilities will be applied for
under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and Title 43, Section
2802 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Wind energy site testing and monitoring will
not be authorized by a land use permit under the 43 CFR 2920 regulations. Existing 2920
permits that may have previously been issued will, however, be recognized for the term of the
existing permit.

3

Applications for a right-of-way grant may be submitted for one of the following three (3) types of
wind energy projects:

1) a site-specific wind energy site testing and monitoring right-of-way grant for individual
meteorological towers and instrumentation facilities with a term that is limited to 3 years;

2) a wind energy site testing and monitoring right-of-way grant for a larger site testing
and monitoring project area, with a term of 3 years that may be renewed consistent with 43 CFR
2803.6-5 and the provisions of this IM beyond the initial 3-year term; and

3) a long-term commercial wind energy development right-of-way grant with a term that
is not limited by the regulations, but usually in the range of 30 to 35 years.

Applications for any of the above projects will be submitted using Form SF-299, Application for
Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Land, consistent with the
requirements of 43 CFR 2802.3. The BLM authorized officer should encourage wind energy
applicants to schedule preapplication meetings (43 CFR 2802.1) with BLM to assist in the
preparation and processing of applications, identify potential issues and conflict areas, identify
any environmental or cultural resource studies that may be needed, assess public interest and
concerns, identify other authorized uses, identify other general recreation and public uses in the
area, discuss potential alternative site locations, and discuss potential financial obligations that
the applicant must be willing to assume. Early public notification and involvement of local
communities and other interests is also important in increasing public acceptance and avoiding
potential conflicts, especially in areas where other uses exist on the public lands.

All wind energy right-of-way applications and authorizations are subject to appropriate cost
recovery and rental fees as required by 43 CFR 2808.1 and 43 CFR 2803.1-2. The policy
guidance on rental fees contained in this IM is based on comparable payment practices for
existing wind energy right-of-way authorizations on Federal and non-Federal lands and was
developed in consultation with BLM staff and others with appraisal expertise.

Right-of-way applications for wind energy site testing and monitoring or for wind energy
development projects will be identified as a high priority Field Office workload and will be
processed in a timely manner. This priority is consistent with the President’s National Energy
Policy and adequate resources should be provided to review and process the application. The
processing time frames for right-of-way applications as required by BLM Manual 2801.35 will
be followed for all wind energy applications. Site testing and monitoring right-of-way
applications will usually be minor cost recovery category actions and should be processed within
a 30-day time frame, consistent with the requirements of the Manual. The Manual requires that
the authorized officer notify the right-of-way applicant in writing if processing will take longer,
the reasons for the delay, and an estimate of the time frame for processing the application. The
BLM Washington Office (WO-350) will also assign a right-of-way Project Manager, if requested
by the State Director, to coordinate the processing of any major wind energy development right-
of-way application.

4

Authorizations:

1) Right-of-Way Grants for Site Specific Wind Energy Testing and Monitoring
Facilities: A site-specific right-of-way grant (Form 2800-14) will be used to authorize small
individual site-specific meteorological towers and instrumentation facilities. The term of a site-
specific right-of-way grant will be limited to 3 years and will not be extended or renewed.
Numerous site-specific right-of-way grants for wind energy site testing and monitoring may be
issued to various right-of-way holders in the same area and do not establish any exclusive or
preferential rights regarding future wind energy development. In addition, the BLM retains the
right to authorize other compatible uses of the public lands in the area (43 CFR 2801.1-1 (a)(2)).

Rental: The annual rental fee for a site-specific right-of-way grant for wind energy site
testing and monitoring will be a minimum of $50 per year for each meteorological tower or
instrumentation facility location and include no additional rental fee for the acreage of each site
location. The area authorized for these facilities shall be the minimum necessary for construction
and maintenance of the temporary facility. Some BLM Field Offices have existing site-location
rental fees for temporary facilities on the public lands that can be used for wind energy site
testing and monitoring facilities. In some cases these fees will exceed the minimum $50 per year
fee. The rental fee for a site testing and monitoring right-of-way grant is paid annually, in
advance, on a calendar year basis consistent with the regulations (43 CFR 2803.1-2(a)).

2) Right-of-Way Grants for Wind Energy Site Testing and Monitoring Facilities
that Encompass a Site Testing and Monitoring Project Area: A right-of-way grant (Form
2800-14) that includes provisions for renewal beyond the 3-year term (43 CFR 2803.6-5) will be
used to authorize wind energy site testing and monitoring facilities that encompass a site testing
and monitoring project area. The holder of the site testing and monitoring right-of-way grant
retains an interest in the site testing and monitoring project area, but will be required to submit an
amended right-of-way application (43 CFR 2803.6-1) and Plan of Development (POD) to BLM
for review, analysis, and separate approval for any future wind energy development. The interest
retained by the holder of the grant is only an interest to preclude other wind energy right-of-way
applications during the 3-year term of the grant. The lands within the grant area will not be
available for other wind energy right-of-way applications. The holder of the site testing and
monitoring right-of-way grant has established no right to development and is required to submit a
separate application to BLM for analysis, review, and decision. The BLM retains the right to
authorize other compatible uses of the public lands. The lands involved in the site testing and
monitoring right-of-way grant will be defined by aliquot land descriptions and be configured to
involve a reasonable amount of land that may support a possible right-of-way application for a
wind energy development project in the future.

The site testing and monitoring right-of-way grant for the site testing and monitoring project area
will be issued for an initial term of 3 years. This term will be extended or renewed (43 CFR
2803.6-5) only if an amended right-of-way application and POD is submitted for a wind energy
development project prior to the end of the 3-year term of the initial grant. The requirement for

5

submittal of a POD with the amended right-of-way application is consistent with the provisions
of 43 CFR 2802.4(h). The holder of the site testing and monitoring right-of-way grant is required
to submit, prior to the end of the 3-year term of the grant, an amended right-of-way application
for development to retain the interest in the site testing and monitoring project area. (See the
Due Diligence section of this IM regarding additional provisions for a site testing and monitoring
right-of-way grant.)

Rental : The annual rental fee for a site testing and monitoring right-of-way grant for a site
testing and monitoring project area will be based on the total public land acreage of the project
area included in the right-of-way grant. The rental fee for the total public land acreage of the
grant will be $ 1,000 per year or $ 1 per acre per year, whichever is the greater. There is no
additional fee for the installation of each meteorological tower or instrumentation facility located
within the site testing and monitoring project area. This rental fee is based on the value for the
use of the area for site testing and monitoring and the value of the option held by the holder that
precludes other wind energy right-of-way applications during the 3-year term of the grant,
comparable to similar option payments on private lands. The rental fee for a site testing and
monitoring right-of-way grant is paid annually, in advance, on a calendar year basis consistent
with the regulations (43 CFR 2803.1-2(a)).

Each type of site testing and monitoring authorization will contain appropriate stipulations,
including but not limited to road construction and maintenance, vegetation removal, and number
and location of wind monitoring sites. Biological and cultu