DOI-BLM-NV-CC-ES-11-10-1793
NEPA Document Collection for: DOI-BLM-NV-CC-ES-11-10-1793
EIS at Salt Wells Geothermal Area for Geothermal/Power Plant
Salt Wells Geothermal Energy Projects EIS for Geothermal/Power Plant Development Drilling
Proposed Action
Two Salt Wells geothermal energy projects and a proposed right-of way for A transmission line. Ormat Technologies, Inc. and Vulcan Power Company are the proponents of the geothermal plants and Sierra Pacific Power Company is the application for the ROW. Combined, the three proposals could result in up to five 30- to 60-megawatt geothermal power plants with up to 71 associated wells (39 for the proposed actions and the remainder previously authorized), pipelines and associated facilities, and a 22-mile, up to 125-foot-wide right-of-way for a new transmission line, with substations and switching stations.
Data Completion Notes
Once "Health and Safety" category is added, marked "Present/Potentially Affected" and paste in all the measures from Appendix E. Also need formatting work on all of the pasted content in the measures boxes. After this, data entry will be complete.
Documents
EA/EIS Report:- FEIS Dear Reader signed.pdf
- 01 COVER ABSTRACT TOC.pdf
- 02 Exec Summ.pdf
- 03 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.pdf
- 04 CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ANDALTERNATIVES.pdf
- 05 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT REDUCED.pdf
- 05 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.pdf
- 06 CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.pdf
- 07 CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES.pdf
- 09 CHAPTER 8 GLOSSARY.pdf
- 10 APPENDIX A.pdf
- 11 APPENDIX B.pdf
- 12 APPENDIX C.pdf
- 13 APPENDIX D.pdf
- 14 APPENDIX E.pdf
- 15 APPENDIX F.pdf
- 16 APPENDIX G.pdf
- 17 APPENDIX H.pdf
- 18 APPENDIX J.pdf
- 19 APPENDIX K.pdf
- Salt Wells Geothermal Energy Projects Environmental Impact Statement
Resource Analysis
| Resource | Not Present |
Present, Not Affected |
Present, Potentially Affected |
Not Indicated |
Comment | Applicant Proposed Mitigation |
Agency Imposed Mitigation |
|---|
| Air Quality |
|
Close
Subcontractors would be informed of their responsibilities to control fugitive dust.
accordance with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Pollution Control’s SAD Permit. At a minimum, the Dust Control Plan would discuss:
Emissions Mitigation Plan for managing diesel exhaust, An Equipment Emissions Mitigation Plan would identify actions to reduce diesel particulate, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides associated with construction and drilling activities. The Equipment Emissions Mitigation Plan would require that all drilling/construction-related engines are maintained and operated as follows:
|
Close For SPPC:
For Ormat and Gradient:
The following measures would be implemented to prevent air quality-related health and safety impacts:
|
| Areas of Critical Environmental Concern |
|
| Cultural Resources |
Applicant-Proposed Measures include Paleontology |
Close1. A Class III cultural resource inventory would be conducted prior to construction. Unevaluated cultural sites would be tested to determine their eligibility status. Wherever possible, the proponent would avoid cultural sites identified as eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Where avoidance is not possible, a treatment plan would be developed through consultation between the BLM, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and applicable tribes.
2. Prior to construction, the proponent and/or its contractors would train workers and individuals involved with the project regarding the potential to encounter historic or prehistoric sites and objects, proper procedures in the event that cultural items or human remains are encountered, prohibitions on artifact collection, and respect for Native American religious concerns. As part of this training, all construction personnel would be instructed to inspect for paleontological and cultural objects when excavating or conducting other ground-disturbing activities. 3. If potential resources are found, work would be halted immediately within a minimum distance of 300 feet from the discovery, and a professional archaeologist (holding a valid Cultural Resources Permit from Nevada BLM) would be mobilized to the site to evaluate the find. Any potential resources would not be handled or moved. The professional archaeologist would then determine whether the find needs to be evaluated by a paleontologist or Native American representative. The appropriate specialist(s) would then make a recommendation of the significance of the find and the steps to be followed before proceeding with the activity. Any cultural and/or paleontological resource discovered during construction on public or federal land would be reported immediately to the BLM. Work would not continue until the BLM issues a notice to proceed. The BLM would notify and consult with SHPO and appropriate tribes on eligibility and suitable treatment options. If significant resources are discovered, they would be recovered, transported, and stored at an approved curation facility that meets the standards specified in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 79. 4. If human remains are encountered during project construction, all work within 300 feet of the remains would cease, and the remains would be protected. If the remains are on land managed by the BLM, BLM representatives would be immediately notified. If the remains are Native American, the BLM would follow the procedures set forth in 43 CFR Part 10, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations. If the remains are located on state or private lands, the Nevada SHPO and the BLM would be notified immediately. Native American human remains discovered on state or private lands would be treated under the provisions of the Protection of Indian Burial Sites section of the Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 383. The Nevada SHPO would consult with the Nevada Indian Commission and notify the appropriate Native American tribe. Procedures for inadvertent discovery are listed under Nevada Revised Statutes 383.170. |
Close Mitigation and monitoring strategies are detailed in the Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, Reclamation, and SHPO and SPPC, Ormat, and Vulcan (See Appendix D). If the Proposed Actions are approved, the Programmatic Agreement would guide all activities concerning cultural resources and historic properties within the Proposed Action from its origin date, October 5, 2010, until the undertaking is completed or until it is terminated by one or more of the signatories. The document includes sections on:
Recommended treatment measures for architectural historic properties are also outlined in treatment plans that help mitigate adverse effects on resources eligible to the NRHP under criteria A, B, and C. These types of treatment measures might include the following:
Ormat Project Area
|
| Environmental Justice |
|
| Prime or Unique Farmlands |
|
CloseThe proposed transmission line corridor would be located generally at the margins of existing property boundaries; adjacent to roadways or canals. SPPC would work directly with landowners along the transmission line route to determine the specifications for post-construction reclamation of compaction or rutting that may occur, in order to return farmland to productivity. Mitigation measures for compaction or rutting may include regrading or chiseling 18 inches deep. SPPC would also work directly with landowners to identify if landowners’ communication circuits are disrupted by the project, and would seek to eliminate such disruption. After construction is complete, SPPC would remove all material that is not an integral part of the installed project, including litter. The footprint of towers would be the only location where SPPC occupancy would not allow agricultural use, and the areas between the towers would be available for continued farming. |
| Fisheries Resources |
|
| Floodplains |
|
| Invasive, Nonnative Species |
|
Close1. Prior to preconstruction activities, project personnel would identify all noxious weeds present on the land to be included in the ROW grant and provide this information to the BLM. BLM would then determine any noxious weeds that require flagging for treatment. The proponent would
treat the noxious weeds as identified under the Weed Management Plan component of the POD, as required by the BLM. 2. All gravel and/or fill material would be certified as weed-free. 3. All off-road equipment would be cleaned (power or high-pressure cleaning) of all mud, dirt, and plant parts prior to initially moving equipment onto public land. Equipment would be cleaned again prior to reentry if it leaves the project site. |
| Migratory Birds |
|
| Native American Concerns |
|
CloseIn order to maintain access to and use of traditional use sites, the proponents would coordinate with local tribes and plan construction activities around traditional use periods during the construction phase of the project to eliminate any impacts.
Ongoing consultation may result in identification of Native American Religious Concerns which would be reviewed, and, as appropriate and necessary, additional monitoring and mitigation measures would be developed. |
| Threatened and Endangered Species |
|
| Wastes Hazardous or Solid |
|
| Water Quality Surface and Ground |
|
Close1. In coordination with State regulatory agencies the operator would comply with all State and Federal surface and ground water rules and regulations for all phases of development and reclamation.
2. All construction vehicle and equipment staging or storage would be located at least 100 feet away from any streams, wetlands, and other water features. 3. Freshwater-bearing and other usable water aquifers would be protected from contamination by assuring all well casing (excluding the liner) is required to be cemented from the casing shoe (below the lowest groundwater aquifer) to the surface. 4. Site drainage, including the plant finish grade, ditches, swales, and other drainage features, would be designed to meet local weather conditions and the mean average rainfall. The drainage would be designed to ensure that there would be no stormwater runoff that would adversely affect nearby surface waters (e.g., wetlands, canals). The design would also incorporate containment for oil-filled equipment where required. This would allow runoff from the oil-filled equipment to be inspected to avoid contaminated discharge to a pond or local drainage. 5. Appropriate oil separation and disposal measures would be taken as required prior to release of runoff to the surface drainage. 6. Operators would develop a storm water management plan as part of the POU to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and prevent off-site migration of contaminated storm water or increased soil erosion. 7. Stormwater from the well pad would be directed to the reserve pit and contained on site. 8. The geothermal wells would be drilled using non-toxic drilling mud to prevent the loss of drilling fluids into the rock and the risk of contamination to any aquifers from the drilling fluid. 9. Reserve pits would be constructed at each Ormat well site for the containment and temporary storage of drilling mud, drill cuttings, geothermal fluid and storm water runoff from each constructed well pad. Because non-toxic drilling mud would be used, the reserve pits would not be lined. Additionally, the bentonite drilling muds discharged into the reserve pits would act as a liner, in the same way they prevent the loss of drilling fluids in the well bore into the rock. Therefore, contamination of the local ground water aquifers as a result of the temporary discharges into the reserve pits would be unlikely. 10. Culverts would be strategically placed to allow for the natural drainage in any disturbed areas in the project area to be maintained. 11. The well pads would be set back at least 100 feet from the boundary of the Carson Lake and Pasture and would have berms that would prevent spills from draining west to the wildlife refuge. 12. Operators would avoid creating hydrologic conduits between discrete aquifers during foundation excavation and other activities. |
Close SPPC As described in Chapter 2, Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, and Appendix E, Environmental Protection Measures and Best Management Practices, SPPC would implement plans for the protection of streams, wetlands, springs, and canals. These plans include BMPs that minimize potential for soil erosion, including a SWPPP. The SWPPP would include measures to prevent erosion of disturbed soil. All areas subject to temporary disturbance would be recontoured, decompacted, and seeded, or left in-place as directed by the BLM or private landowner. During construction of facilities, designated personnel would visually monitor disturbed areas for evidence of soil erosion and associated impacts on surface water. Appropriate actions would be taken to correct any identified problems such as excessive erosion or accidental spills. Ormat Project Area Implementation of a Spill Prevention Contingency and Countermeasure Plan would reduce or eliminate effects of petroleum or chemical releases to the environment. Implementation of a SWPPP would prevent erosion and sedimentation due to storm water effects on disturbed areas. Blow-out prevention equipment would be used to protect the environment during all drilling work. Mitigation of potential impacts on groundwater, springs, and other surface water features can be addressed by development of monitoring plans for these water resources. The plans would provide for the collection and evaluation of data necessary to document baseline conditions and impacts on the resources (i.e., water quantity, quality, and temperature). Monitoring wells can be installed in different aquifers for measuring water levels and quality characteristics, as necessary or required. Frequency of monitoring would be sufficient to document potential seasonal changes in the resources. Contingencies can be developed (e.g., modification of geothermal pumping rates) to address any potential impacts that may be documented during the monitoring program. Reserve pits would be monitored during operations to assure that no leakage is occurring to groundwater or surface water resources. The pits would also be properly closed to prevent release of any contaminants to the environment over time. Due to the importance of ephemeral channels for draining water from the area during snow melt and heavy rain storms, the following mitigation measures will be implemented, to the extent practicable:
Vulcan Project Area Implementation of a Spill Prevention Contingency and Countermeasure Plan would reduce or eliminate effects of petroleum or chemical releases to the environment. Blow-out prevention equipment would be used to protect the environment during all drilling work. Implementation of a SWPPP would prevent erosion and sedimentation due to storm water effects on disturbed areas. Berms would be constructed around all drill pads to prevent runoff from leaving the site. Mitigation of potential impacts on groundwater, springs, and other surface water features can be addressed by development of monitoring plans for these water resources. The plans would provide for the collection and evaluation of data necessary to document baseline conditions and impacts on the resources (i.e., water quantity, quality, and temperature). Monitoring wells can be installed in different aquifers for measuring water levels and quality characteristics, as necessary or required. Frequency of monitoring would be sufficient to document potential seasonal changes in the resources. Contingencies can be developed (e.g., modification of geothermal pumping rates) to address any potential impacts that may be documented during the monitoring program. Reserve pits would be monitored during operations to be sure that no leakage is occurring to groundwater or surface water resources. The pits would also be properly closed to prevent release of any contaminants to the environment over time. Due to the importance of ephemeral channels to drain water from the area during snow melt and heavy rain storms, the following mitigation measures will be implemented, to the extent practicable:
|
| Wetlands and Riparian Zones |
Mitigation measures include those for floodplains |
Close SPPC Project Area Implementation of the POD and associated protection plans as well as Environmental Protection Measures for facilities within the floodplain would reduce impacts on wetlands, riparian zones, and floodplains (Appendix E). Additional mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce impacts:
Ormat Project Area The mitigation measures described for the SPPC Project would be adapted and implemented for the Ormat Project to reduce impacts on wetlands, riparian zones, and floodplains. In addition, water monitoring plans would be implemented. Vulcan Project Area Except for the wetland delineation requirement and water monitoring plan, mitigation measures described for the SPPC Project would be adapted and implemented for the Vulcan Project to reduce impacts on wetlands, riparian zones, and floodplains. Since the wetlands within the Vulcan Project Area are considered isolated and not Waters of the US, a wetland delineation and permit from the USACE would not be required for this project. |
| Wild and Scenic Rivers |
|
Close SPPC Project Area The aridity of the desert lowers the resilience of many land areas when disturbed, thus reducing revegetation success and potentially allowing for weed invasion and causing permanent loss of ecological function. As such, regular vegetation monitoring and adaptive management measures would be included as part of the revegetation plan. In addition, while the boundary of wetland vegetation associated with Newlands canals was determined, a formal wetland delineation has not been conducted. As such, a wetland delineation of wet meadows associated with the Newlands canals would be conducted to determine the boundaries, acreage, and types of wetlands that could be affected by the proposed project. The SPPC Project would comply with any mitigation measures determined by the USACE to ensure no net loss of wetlands. No additional mitigation would be necessary, since revegetation, invasive, nonnative species management, and dust control plans would be implemented as part of the POD. Ormat Project Area To address the difficulty of revegetation in the desert, regular vegetation monitoring and adaptive management measures would be included as part of the revegetation plan. Mitigation for impacts on vegetation would be the same as those described previously for the SPPC Project. Vulcan Project Area To address the difficulty of revegetation in the desert, regular vegetation monitoring and adaptive management measures would be included as part of the revegetation plan. No additional mitigation would be necessary, since revegetation, invasive, nonnative species management, and dust control plans would be implemented as part of the POU. Since the wetlands within the Vulcan Project Area are isolated and are not Waters of the US, a wetland delineation and permit from the USACE are not required. |
| Wilderness |
|
| Lands and Realty |
Including airspace |
Close
|
| Range Resources |
|
Close1. The operator would coordinate with livestock operators during the life of the project to minimize impacts to livestock operations. |
Close All Project Areas BLM rangeland management specialist and Proponent would coordinate with the permittees to locate range improvements within the Proposed Action and Alternatives areas of disturbance. Proponent would ensure that all temporary road or fence removal creating openings would have barriers across them to prevent the movement of livestock off range. Proponent would repair all damaged or removed range improvements after completion of construction activities. |
| Geology and Minerals |
|
| Recreation |
Including National Scenic and Historic Trails |
Close SPPC Project Area Potential safety hazards for the VORRA race route would be mitigated by working with the race coordinators and locating power poles a safe distance from the race route where feasible. Use or construction conflicts with the race would be mitigated by timing the transmission line construction to avoid the annual VORRA race. Revegetation measures would be outlined in the POD and would be implemented to reclaim temporary roads (see Section 4.9). Ormat Project Area Construction of the wells and pipelines on the eastern boundary of the Carson Lake and Pasture resulting in access restrictions for the public would be timed to avoid the peak hunting and wildlife viewing seasons, as outlined in the POU, to minimize impacts on hunting and wildlife viewing activities in that area. Revegetation measures would be outlined in the POU and implemented to reclaim temporary roads (see Section 4.9). VulcanProject Area Construction of the wells and pipelines on the eastern boundary of the Carson Lake and Pasture resulting in access restrictions for the public would be timed to avoid the peak hours for hunting during the hunting season. Potential use conflicts and safety hazards for the VORRA race route would be mitigated by coordinating with BLM to locate project facilities a safe distance from the race route where feasible. If necessary the VORRA route may be modified to avoid project facilities as was done to address safety concerns for the ENEL Geothermal Power Plant. In other areas, use or construction conflicts with the race would be mitigated by timing the transmission line construction to avoid the annual VORRA race. Revegetation measures would be outlined in the POU/POD and implemented to reclaim temporary roads (see Section 4.9). To mitigate for the potential impacts on visitor satisfaction, the proposed project would not be constructed during the timeframe when the Pony Express National Historic Trail re-ride occurs. This usually occurs over a two week period in June, although project proponents would coordinate with the organizers of the event to determine the exact dates and to completely avoid impacting this event. Mitigation and monitoring measures described in Section 4.17, Visual Resources, would be implemented to reduce indirect visual impacts on the Pony Express National Historic Trail. |
| Noise |
|
Close1. Noise mufflers would be used on all drill rig and air compressor engines. Each well pad may have one rock muffler. Rock mufflers are approximately 30 feet tall with a diameter of about 10 feet and are used to separate and attenuate steam venting noise during well testing.
2. Ormat employs proprietary turbine designs having rotation speeds matching generator output rotations per minute. This process eliminates the need for gear reduction units and the resulting associated noise. As a result the facilities operate at approximately 65dbA at 200 feet. Ormat would also employ the best available noise control technology on cooling tower fans. |
Close SPPC Project Area Since the exact location of the Greenwave Substation within the land parcel is not yet known, only general mitigation measures are proposed at the time of this writing. SPPC would do the following to reduce noise impacts:
Additional measures to reduce noise may be considered by SPPC through the Churchill County permit application process, and may include:
Ormat Project Area The BLM would require the project proponent to ensure that mufflers are present on all diesel engines and any other components that can be muffled such that noise emissions are reduced by at least 15 dBA from the original, nonmuffled noise level for the equipment. The BLM would include that well pad construction activities for well C-i be limited to the 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. timeframe. |
| Paleontological Resources |
|
Close Applies to All Proponents Pleistocene and early Holocene surficial deposits, such as alluvium, colluvium, talus, and playa deposits, have a low paleontological sensitivity ranking. Monitoring during construction would not be required, but spot-checking may be conducted in certain areas at the discretion of the BLM Staff Paleontologist. In the case of the Quaternary deposits, this would ensure that any older underlying fossiliferous sediments were not being affected. If paleontological localities are identified in the SPPC Project Area, the following mitigation and monitoring measures would be implemented:
The potential for impacts on paleontological resources as a result of construction or maintenance activities is lower because ground disturbance associated with these activities is typically confined to existing ROWs and immediately adjacent areas, which have already undergone some level of disturbance associated with installation and maintenance of existing infrastructure. To ensure that further ground disturbance does not result in additional damage to paleontological resources, SPPC would also implement the following measure for all activities except emergency repairs; note that this measure would also ensure against impacts as a result of any new minor construction not subject to site-specific geotechnical investigation.
If emergency repairs are needed, Vulcan would conduct repairs as rapidly as possible to ensure continuity of service and to protect public safety. As a result, it is typically infeasible to implement a stop work order, such as that required under Mitigation Measure 2, during emergency repairs. By their nature, emergency repairs affect existing infrastructure and thus would take place in ROWs and immediately adjacent areas that have already undergone some level of disturbance associated with installation and maintenance of existing utilities infrastructure. Consequently, the potential for impacts as a result of emergency repairs is considered low, but some potential nonetheless remains. Implementation of the following measure would reduce impacts on the extent feasible.
|
| Fire Resources |
|
| Economic Values |
|
| Soils |
|
Close Soil Disturbance:
Elimination System General Construction Stormwater Permit. At a minimum, it would identify the existing drainage patterns of the construction work sites and ROW, nearby drainages and washes, potential pollutant sources other than sediment, and the BMPs that that would be implemented to minimize off-site erosion and sedimentation. The SWPPP would include maps of the project area with potential locations for appropriate BMPs. The SWPPP would be kept on site throughout the duration of construction. Measures identified in the SWPPP would be inspected on the ground at least once per week, as well as before and after rain events of 0.5-inch or more in a 24-hour period.
Blasting (if required and approved)
|
| Lands with Wilderness Characteristics |
|
| Vegetation |
|
Close1. Wherever possible, vegetation would be left in place. Where vegetation must be removed, it would be cut at ground level to preserve the root structure and allow for potential resprouting.
2. All temporary construction areas that have been disturbed, including stringing sites and transmission structure work areas, would be recontoured and restored as required by the landowner or land-management agency. The method of restoration typically would consist of seeding or revegetating with native plants (if required), installing cross drains for erosion control, and placing water bars in the road or centerline travel route. Seed used for revegetation would be certified as weed-free. |
| Visual Resources |
|
Close1. The operator would incorporate visual design considerations into the planning and design of the project to minimize potential visual impacts of the proposal and to meet the Visual Resource Management objectives of the area and the agency.
2. Structures would be constructed with low profiles whenever possible to reduce structure visibility. 3. Materials and surface treatments would be selected and designed to repeat or blend with landscape elements. 4. Placement of facilities on ridgelines, summits, or other locations would be avoided in order to prevent the buildings from being silhouetted against the sky from important viewing locations; 5. Facilities would be collocated to the extent possible to use existing and shared rights-of-way, existing and shared access and maintenance roads, and other infrastructure in order to reduce visual impacts. Facilities would not bisect ridge tops or run down the center of valley bottoms. 6. Site linear features (aboveground pipelines, rights-of-way, and roads) would follow natural land contours rather than straight lines (particularly up slopes) when possible. Fall-line cuts should be avoided. 7. Site facilities, especially linear facilities, would take advantage of natural topographic breaks (i.e., pronounced changes in slope) to avoid siting facilities on steep side slopes. 8. Where available, site linear features such as rights-of-way and roads would follow the edges of clearings (where they would be less conspicuous) rather than passing through the centers of clearings. 9. Site facilities would take advantage of existing clearings to reduce vegetation clearing and ground disturbance, where possible. 10. Site linear features (e.g., trails, roads, rivers) would cross other linear features at right angles whenever possible to minimize viewing area and duration. 11. Site and design structures and roads would minimize and balance cuts and fills and to preserve existing rocks, vegetation, and drainage patterns to the maximum extent possible. 12. All buildings, insulation jacketing, and visible structures would be painted according to the BLM “Standard Environmental Colors Chart” designationsfor facilities on BLM lands in order to minimize the visual impacts in the area. 13. Non-reflective or low-reflectivity materials, coatings, or paints would be used whenever possible. 14. Grouped structures would be painted the same color to reduce visual complexity and color contrast. 15. Efficient facility lighting would be designed and installed so that the minimum amount of lighting required for safety and security is provided but not exceeded and so that upward light scattering (light pollution) is minimized. This may include, for example, installing shrouds to minimize light from straying off-site, properly directing light to only illuminate necessary areas, and installing motion sensors to only illuminate areas when necessary. 16. Construction staging areas and laydown areas would be sited outside of the viewsheds of publically accessible vantage points and visually sensitive areas where possible, including siting in swales, around bends, and behind ridges and vegetative screens. 17. Visual impact mitigation objectives and activities would be discussed with equipment operators prior to commencement of construction activities. 18. Slash from vegetation removal would be mulched or scattered and spread to cover fresh soil disturbances, or, if not possible, buried or composted. 19. If slash piles are necessary, piles would be staged out of sight of sensitive viewing areas. 20. Installing gravel and pavement would be avoided where possible to reduce color and texture contrasts with existing landscape. 21. Excess fill would be used to fill uphill-side swales resulting from road construction in order to reduce unnatural-appearing slope interruption and to reduce fill piles. 22. Downslope wasting of excess fill material would be avoided. 23. Road-cut slopes would be rounded and cut and fill pitch would be varied to reduce contrasts in form and line. Slopes would be varied to preserve specimen trees and nonhazardous rock outcroppings. 24. Planting pockets would be left on slopes where feasible. 25. Where required, areas would be revegetated with native vegetation establishing a composition consistent with the form, line, color, and texture of the surrounding undisturbed landscape. 26. Benches would be provided in rock cuts to accent natural strata. 27. Split-face rock blasting would be used to minimize unnatural form and texture resulting from blasting. 28. Topsoil would be segregated from cut and fill activities and spread on freshly disturbed areas to reduce color contrast and to aid rapid revegetation. 29. Signage would be minimized and reverse sides of signs and mounts painted or coated to reduce color contrast with existing landscape. 30. Trash burning would be prohibited; trash would be stored in containers to be hauled off-site for disposal. 31. Interim restoration would be undertaken as soon as possible after disturbances during the operating life of the project. During road maintenance activities, blading would avoid existing forbs and grasses in ditches and along roads. 32. Cut slopes would be randomly scarified to reduce texture contrast with existing landscape and to aid in revegetation. 33. Disturbed areas would be covered with stockpiled topsoil or mulch, and revegetated with a mix of native species selected for visual compatibility with existing vegetation. 34. Rocks, brush, and natural debris would be restored whenever possible to approximate preexisting visual conditions. |
Close SPPC Project Area Transmission line poles and cross arms similar in color to surrounding landscapes would be used whenever possible. The H-frame structures and steel single-pole structures would be aesthetically and structurally similar to existing poles. Substation and switching station design would use low profile components. Screening berms or landscaping would surround the substation whenever feasible to make it less visible from Sheckler Road and Highway 95. The fencing materials and structures associated with the substation would be nonreflective when possible. Also, equipment would be painted a BLM-approved color to blend in with predominant vegetation and soil whenever feasible. Existing vegetation on the substation site would be preserved to the extent possible and disturbed areas would be revegetated wherever possible. Ormat and Vulcan Project Areas
|
| Wild Horse and Burro Management |
|
| Wildlife Resources |
|
Close1. If land-clearing activities are conducted during the avian breeding season (March 15 to July 15), nesting bird surveys would be conducted to identify nests and evidence of breeding birds.
2. Excavations left open overnight would be covered or fenced securely to prevent wildlife from falling into open excavations. 3. Structures would be constructed to conform to those practices described in the Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines (APLIC 2006). 4. Any toxic or hazardous material or any other items that present a risk to wildlife would be fenced, netted or include some other measure to exclude wildlife. |
| BLM Sensitive Species |
|
Close Ormat Project Area A pre-construction survey for pallid wood nymph is recommended within the Project Area during the general flight time for butterfly species. If the pallid wood nymph is observed, measures would be implemented to avoid impacts on any populations. Measures could include the installation of fencing around host plants to protect against vehicle and human impacts, or redesigning project features. Vulcan Project Area To prevent impacts on BLM-designated sensitive plant species, a preconstruction survey is recommended. If present, measures would be implemented to avoid impacts on any populations. Measures could include the installation of fencing to protect against vehicle and human impacts, or redesigning project features. |
| Access and Transportation |
Change resource category to "health and safety" once it is added to OpenEI |
CloseSee extensive list of 53 measures in Appendix E. Too large to paste here. |