Download PDF Document (37759k) PDF

TitlePDF Document (37759k)
LanguageEnglish
File Size36.9 MB
Total Pages370
Table of Contents
                            Appendix B
	B-1 Sage-grouse Walking Transect Survey Report
		1.0 Introduction
			1.1 Project Location
			1.2 Survey Need
		2.0 Species Ecology
			2.1 Previous Surveys
		3.0 Methodology
		4.0 Results
		5.0 Habitat Connectivity Impact Analysis
		6.0 Literature Cited
	B-2 Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment
		1.0 Introduction
		2.0 Methods
		3.0 Results and Discussion
			3.1 Route Segment NNR-1
			3.2 Route Segment NNR-2
			3.3 Route Segment NNR-3
			3.4 Route Segment NNR-4
			3.5 Route Segment NNR-5
			3.6 Route Segment NNR-6
			3.7 Route Segment NNR-7
			3.8 Route Segment NNR-8
			3.9 Route Segment MR-1
		4.0 Literature Cited
	B-3 Special Status Plants Report
	B-4 Noxious Weed Report
	B-5 Sage-grouse Analysis and Mitigation Report
		1.0 Introduction
		2.0 Brief Project Description
		3.0 Regulatory Overview
			3.1 Federal Regulations and Policies
			3.2 State Regulations and Policies
			3.3 JBLM YTC Regulations and Policies
		4.0 Sage-grouse Species Ecology
			4.1 Introduction
			4.2 Life History and Habitat Requirements
				4.2.1 Species Description
				4.2.2 Seasonal Habitats
		5.0 Current Conditions and Trends, Regional  Overview
			5.1 Regional and Washington Populations
			5.2 Habitat Connectivity
		6.0 Affected Environment
			6.1 Project Area Description
			6.2 Habitat
			6.3 Existing Infrastructure and Disturbances
			6.4 Sage-Grouse Population Range Estimates and Leks
			6.5 Route Segment Considerations
				6.5.1 Route Segment NNR-1
				6.5.2 Route Segment NNR-2
				6.5.3 Route Segment NNR-3
				6.5.4 Route Segment NNR-4o/NNR-4u (Overhead and Underground)
				6.5.5 Route Segment NNR-5
				6.5.6 Route Segment NNR-6o/NNR-6u (Overhead and Underground)
				6.5.7 Route Segment NNR-7
				6.5.8 Route Segment NNR-8
				6.5.9 Route Segment MR-1
		7.0 Impact Analysis (including construction,  operation and maintenance activities)
			7.1 Analysis Methods
				7.1.1 Impact Criteria
				7.1.2 Impact Types (Direct and Indirect)
				7.1.3 Impact Levels
			7.2 Impact Assessment
				7.2.1 Project Design Features
				7.2.2 Design Options
				7.2.3 Impacts Common to all Route Segments
				7.2.4 By Route Segment
		8.0 Comparison of Impacts by alternative
		9.0 Consistency with Regulatory Environment
		10.0 Proposed Measures to Offset Project impacts
			10.1 Framework for Implementing Mitigation for the Proposed Project
			10.2 Residual Impacts
		11.0 references
	B-6 Draft Framework for Development of a Sage-grouse Habitat Mitigation Plan
		I. Introduction
			Background
			Purpose and Objectives
		II. Compensatory Mitigation Principles and  Technical  Elements
		III. Impact Assessment
		IV. Identification and Description of Mitigation  Actions and service areas
		V. Calculation of the Amount of Required Mitigation
		VI. Implementation, Management, and Monitoring
Appendix C Visual Resources Supporting Data
	C-1 Sensitive Viewpoints: Definitions, Criteria, and Viewpoint Summary Table
	C-2 Scenic Quality and Development Character Photos
	C-3 Key Observation Point Photos
	C-4 Visual Simulations
	C-5 Contrast Rating Forms
Appendix 
D SEPA Crosswalk
	Table of Contents
	Environmental Checklist
Appendix 
E Draft Programmatic Agreement
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

Vantage to Pomona Heights Appendix B-1
230 kV Transmission Line Project SDEIS Sage-Grouse Walking Transect Survey Report

APPENDIX B-1

APPENDIX B-1
SAGE-GROUSE WALKING TRANSECT SURVEY REPORT

Page 2

Vantage to Pomona Heights Appendix B-1
230 kV Transmission Line Project SDEIS Sage-Grouse Walking Transect Survey Report

APPENDIX B-1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Page 185

Vantage to Pomona Heights Appendix B-5
230 kV Transmission Line Project SDEIS Sage-Grouse Analysis and Mitigation Report

B-5-58

documented lower sage-grouse nest success (22%) when ravens were detected within 550 meters of
the nest compared with success at nests with no ravens detected nearby (41%).

Long-term monitoring of raven nests at JBLM YTC began in 1994. In 1994, 28 raven nests were
located on JBLM YTC; seven (25%) of them were located on anthropogenic structures, including one
on a power line structure (Paulus and Malkin 1995). In 2013, 47 raven nests were located on JBLM
YTC, a 68% increase relative to 1994. Only two of the 47 nests were located within one mile of all
the proposed NNR route segments. Both were located near Route Segment NNR-6, including one in a
tree along Foster creek, and one on a building one mile south of NNR-6 and one mile east of NNR-5.
Although an attempt is made to locate all raven nests on JBLM YTC each year, search efforts have
not been spatially and temporally consistent (JBLM YTC personal communication 2014).

A correlation between raven abundance and transmission lines has been established elsewhere (Howe
et al. 2014); at JBLM YTC the distribution of raven nests does not appear to be spatially correlated
with the locations of transmission lines. None of the active raven nests identified in 2013 were located
on the existing Pomona-Wanapum 230 kV transmission line structures that the proposed NNR
alternative closely parallels. It is unclear if the apparent nesting patterns of ravens are real or just an
artifact of spatial variation in search effort.

The Terrace Heights Landfill is located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of NNR-1 and NNR-2, and
is likely to provide an abundant source of food for ravens (Paulus and Malkin 1995). Transmission
line structures may be more likely to be used by ravens in areas near this abundant food supply, but.
raven use may have less impact on grouse within NNR-1 and NNR-2, where urban influence and lack
of suitable habitat may already limit potential for sage-grouse use.

Because raptor and corvid populations are not likely to be limited by availability of nesting and
perching substrates in areas where those resources currently exist, it is reasonable to expect the effect
of new transmission structures to be greatest where other tall structures, including transmission lines,
do not currently exist. The NNR closely parallels an existing 230 kV transmission line (Pacific Power
Pomona-Wanapum) that primarily uses H-frame poles similar to the ones proposed for the NNR
Alternative. As part of the NNR alternative design, whenever feasible, new structures will match the
spans of the existing Pacific Power Pomona-Wanapum transmission line; such that most new
structures will be located within approximately 200 feet of an existing structure. Given the territorial
nature of raptor and corvid species and density limitations imposed by food availability, it seems
unlikely that adding a structure 200 feet from a similar existing one would have much, if any, effect
on the density of corvids or raptors. The new structures would offer new perching opportunities that
would increase the amount of sage-grouse habitat that is within view of a perch and effectively widen
the corridor of increased predation risk, typically by about 200 feet.

To assess impacts to sage-grouse from the presence of additional perching sites, the total number of
structures per route segment was estimated and, using a conservative approach, an assumption of one
perch per structure was made. In general, the number of perching opportunities for a given route
segment is directly related to its length. Table 7 presents the number of transmission structures for the
proposed NNR alternative by route segment and identifies if they are located greater than 0.25 mile
from an existing transmission line. As discussed in the previous paragraph, new structures in new
areas are likely to have a higher impact than new structures in close proximity (<0.25 mile) to
existing structures because they may encourage predators to occupy previously unoccupied areas. The
proposed NNR alternative would not result in any new structures further than 0.25 mile from existing
structures for Route Segments NNR-4, NNR-6, NNR-7, or NNR-8. Route Segment MR-1 would
require considerably more new structures farther than 0.25 mile of an existing line compared with all
other route segments combined (85 compared with 50).

Page 186

Vantage to Pomona Heights Appendix B-5
230 kV Transmission Line Project SDEIS Sage-Grouse Analysis and Mitigation Report

B-5-59



TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF THE LENGTH AND NUMBER OF NEW TRANSMISSION

STRUCTURES THAT WOULD NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF
AN EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE

ROUTE
SEGMENT

LENGTH OF
ROUTE

SEGMENT
(MILES)

LENGTH AND PERCENT
OF ROUTE SEGMENT
LOCATED >0.25 MILE
FROM AN EXISTING

TRANSMISSION LINE

TOTAL ESTIMATED
NUMBER OF NEW

STRUCTURES

TOTAL ESTIMATED
NUMBER OF NEW

STRUCTURES
LOCATED >0.25 MILE
FROM AN EXISTING

TRANSMISSION LINE
NNR-1 2.4 1.1 (44%) 31 14
NNR-2 5.0 2.1 (42%) 48 21
NNR-3 9.3 0.6 (7%) 69 5

NNR-4o* 4.5 0 35 0
NNR-4u* 4.5 0 4 0
NNR-5 1.8 1.2 (67%) 16 10

NNR-6o* 6.4 0 48 0
NNR-6u* 6.4 0 2 0
NNR-7 8.2 0 61 0
NNR-8 2.7 0 20 0
MR-1 11.9 11.2 (94%) 90 85

Source: Number of structures and types is based on preliminary engineering and design. *o = overhead design option; u = underground
design option. The number of structures for undergrounding took into account transitions stations. For this table, transition stations were
considered as a structure.


Sage-grouse predators that may nest on power line structures include golden eagle, red-tailed hawk,
and common raven (Schroeder et al. 1999). Average foraging distances from nests is 0.4 mile for
ravens (Boarman and Heinrich 1999) and 2.2 miles for golden eagles (Marzluff et al. 1997). An
average radius of territories is: 1.0 mile for ravens (Boarman and Heinrich 1999), 1.8 miles for golden
eagles (Kochert et al. 2002), and 0.5 mile for red-tailed hawks (Janes 1984). Non-breeding corvids
and raptors often have larger home ranges than breeding individuals. Territories of non-breeding
eagles average 2.8 miles in radius (Kochert et al. 2002). Average foraging distances for non-breeding
ravens averaged 4.3 miles in southwestern Idaho (Engel and Young 1992). Non non-breeding ravens
are also more likely to congregate in flocks than are territorial breeders. However, Bui et al. (2010)
suggested that resident territorial ravens, rather than non-breeding transient ravens, were most likely
responsible for the majority of sage-grouse nest predation because sage-grouse nest survival at their
Wyoming site was correlated with raven occupancy, not density.

To minimize the potential for increased predation rates the following PDFs will be implemented: the
line will closely parallel an existing 230 kV transmission line, typically staying within 200 feet;
whenever possible, locations of the new structures will match the spans of adjacent transmission
lines; to avoid providing food subsidies to ravens or other predators, food waste will be kept in
covered receptacles and removed daily; and perch deterrents will be used within four miles of active
leks.

Behavioral Avoidance of Infrastructure
Behavioral avoidance of infrastructure may be an indirect cause of habitat loss if the proposed NNR
Alternative results in sage-grouse avoiding existing suitable habitat. It may be difficult to differentiate
between behavioral avoidance and other effects that may decrease abundance of sage-grouse near
project infrastructure such as increased predation, collisions, habitat degradation, or avoidance of

Page 369

VPH 230kV Transmission Line ROW DRAFT_PA APPENDIX C

examination, mapping or inspection, as is appropriate to the resource.


c. The nature of deposition/exposure. This may require interviews with construction
personnel and with other persons having knowledge about the resource or the
expansion of existing disturbance to establish the characteristics of the deposits.


5. The cultural resource specialist will complete the appropriate inventory form for the land

managing agency. BLM will distribute inventory forms to appropriate parties for review and
comment.


6. Resources will be considered a "site" should they meet the criteria established by the SHPO

and BLM, JBLM YTC, or other agency that has jurisdiction over the land.

7. The site will be evaluated in terms of the criteria of eligibility for the National Register

established under 36 CFR Part 60.4. The BLM shall consult with the appropriate land
managing agency, SHPO and Tribes prior to making the eligibility determination. If the site
is eligible for listing, BLM shall consult with the appropriate land managing agency, SHPO,
Tribes, and other Consulting Parties to determine mitigation efforts necessary to lessen or
remove further impacts. If necessary, Pacific Power shall prepare a site-specific treatment
plan following the guidance provided in the HPTP, as defined in Stipulation V of the PA. For
state managed lands in Washington, the SHPO will prepare the site-specific HPTP.


8. Any items found on federal land meeting the definition provided for in NAGPRA of human

remains or cultural items encountered in a discovery situation will be handled according to
the provisions of NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA and Washington State laws provided for within
Stipulations II.B and VIII of the PA.


9. If the site is determined to be damaged, according to Stipulation VII, a site damage

assessment will be conducted by an approved cultural resources specialist. A report will be
written and sent to the appropriate land managing agency and the SHPO for review and
comments, following Stipulation III.F.


10. Pacific Power will consult with the BLM, and the BLM will consult with the appropriate

federal land managing agency, SHPO, Tribes, the appropriate state land managing agency, or,
when private land is involved, the property owner, to determine if and when construction
activities in the location of the discovery may resume.


11. A technical report will be written at the end of the project by Pacific Power describing any

discoveries made or, if appropriate, the lack of discoveries, and will be distributed in
accordance with the protocol defined under Stipulation III.F.

Page 370

VPH 230kV Transmission Line ROW DRAFT_PA APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D


TO THE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT REGARDING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PACIFIC POWER VANTAGE TO POMONA HEIGHTS

230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT


AMENDMENT FORM




AMENDMENT #:
DATE:






1. NEED FOR AMENDMENT:









2. AMENDMENT:

Similer Documents