UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BURNS DISTRICT OFFICE CAT E GORICAL EXCLUSION ENVfRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL A. Background
Categorical Exclusion (CX) Number: DOI-BLM-OR-B050-20 15-000 1-CX
Subject Function Code: 2800
Preparertritle: Tara McLain, Realty Specialist
Title of Proposed Action: Wagontire Wind Project Testing Area
Date: February 19,2015
Serial Number: OR-68296
Applicant: Enerfin Energy Company
The Wagon~re ~ountain ~a has ~een seen as highly viable for wind energy since approximately 2009 when Burns District received
the.first a~ph~at10n for~ Wtnd Testi~g Project Area Right-of-Way (ROW) for Wagontire Mountain. The original company withdrew
therr appltcano~ before It was authonzed and subsequently another company applied for a Wind Testing Project Area ROW identical
to the. one prevtOusly cleared. !he. seyond ROW holder held that ROW for three years, at which point they applied for renewal and
subrrutted ~ dev~lopment apph~ati~n for the same area. Those applications were both subsequently renewed. Enerfin Energy Company
beg~ ta~g wtth the Burn~ D1stnctBureau ofLand Management (BLM) in late summer of2014. They filed a subsequent Wind
Testmg ProJect Area ROW m January of2015 for an area nearly identical to the ROW previously authorized. The two main
differences are the new application has slightly less acreage than the ROW previously authorized and one meteorological (MET)
tower is in a new location.
Description of Proposed Action and Project Design Elements (if applicable):
The proposed action is for BLM to authorize a wind testing and project area right-of-way (ROW) to Enerfin Energy Company, Inc. in
the Wagontire area (see Exhibit A, Map) this year under the authority ofTitle V, Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
and the regulations at 43 CFR 2800. The ROW, OR-68296, would authorize an initial 3-year tenn. According to lnstruction
Memorandum (lM) W0-2009-043, a wind testing and project area would only be renewed for an additiona13-year term ifthe
applicant comes forward with a separate wind development application prior to the end ofthe original 3-year term. No commercial
wind energy production (wind farm) development would be authorized under this ROW since additional National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documentation would need to be prepared.
Under the proposed ROW, Enerfm would be authorized to install two MET towers to monitor wind conditions leading to a
determination of feasibility for a wind energy production (wind farm) development project in the area. Each tower would be 6- to 8­
inch diameter hollow steel tubes, 60 meters tall (197 feet), guyed on four sides, with a steel base plate pinned into the ground with
rebar stakes. Each tower would sit on a flat base, approximately 4 feet by 4 feet. The guy-wires would extend 100 to 170 feet out from
the tower and be anchored with rebar stakes. Wind speed and direction would be monitored at up to four different levels by sensors
mounted on supports extending horizontally from the tower. Bird flight diverters would be installed on the guy-wires and fencing
would be installed around guy-wire anchor points to prevent wildlife and livestock collisions and entanglement. The tower would not
be lighted, reducing possible bird collision risk, but would be painted alternating orange and white to ensure visibility to low-flying
aircraft. Access to sites would be via existing roads and two tracks with 4-wheel drive pickup. Cross-country travel from the nearest
existing road with 4-wheel drive or ATV would be required to reach each of the sites. The two MET towers would have the data
remotely collected. Towers would be visited approximately every three months to conduct safety and maintenance in spections. Upon
termination ofthe monitoring activity, the towers, bases, and guy-wires would be removed within 90 days of authorization expiration
to return the land to its original condition. Due to the low impact ofthe proposed action, no active rehabilitation such as seeding or re­
contouring would be anticipated. The grant would be subject to BLM's appljcable best management practices (BMP), attachment I of
1M 2009-043Wind Energy Development Policy, for wind energy development and other terms and conditions necessary to protect
resources and public health and safety.
Installation ofthe two MET towers would occur over 5-10 days, as soon as the ROW is authorized. The installation crew would
consist of a crew oftwo to five people and an off-road utility truck. The truck would be equipped with a small electric winch to install
the MET towers. No crane or heavy machinery would be needed at the site. Installation would include the setting of rebar stakes and a
small base plate (4-foot by 4-foot steel) in the ground. For stability, the base plate could be set in a hole dug in the ground with a
maximum depth of 5 feet, depending on soil conditions at the site. The MET tower would be attached to the base plate and then
hoisted up into the air using the small electric winch on the work truck. The MET tower would then be secured to the ground using
guy-wires attached to the rebar stakes. The guy-wires would be equipped with bird deflectors.
The issue of impacts to potential wilderness characteristics was raised by the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) for the
project area. An intensive inventory evaluating the presence or absence of wilderness character on the BLM-administered lands in the
project area was documented in April of 1979 and November of 1980. The final intensive inventory decision found that wilderness
character was not present on these lands. ln 2008, an interdisciplinary team (JDT) analyzed both information provided by ONDA and
by BLM on the current conditions, along with on-site verification (where necessary), to update its wilderness inventory for the project
area. No changes to conditions were identir i that would modify the findings ·ofthe 1980 i
;tory and BLM determined that its
original inventory finding that wi lderness \wtacter is not present on ELM-administered la~ the project area remains valid. Both
the BLM's findings and the information submitted by ONDA are available upon request.
The ROW area is within the Three Rivers Resource Area (RA). Part ofthe project area is within the East Wagontire grazing allotment.
There are valid and existing rights encumbering the lands within the ROW area for telephone and road access; however, they do not
conflict with the amended use in the ROW. There is a withdrawal on a portion of the lands requested, Executive Order 5344. This
executive order withdraws the public lands from sale and reserves the lands for public use as a power reserve. There are no conflicts
with this withdrawal. There are no mining claims, or rights ofthird parties, or other title factors that would prohibit the grant ofthis
ROW.
The existing location ofthe wind energy site testing and monitoring facility is described on the attached map, Exhibit A.
Legal Descri ption (attach location map):
B. Conformance with Land U$e Plan (LUP) Name and Date Approved:
The proposed action is in conformance with the Three Rivers Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Record of Decision (ROD),
dated September 1992, even though it is not specifically provided for, because it is clearly consistent with the following LUP
decision(s):
Leasable Resources (LR) 2, page 2- I 82: Meet public needs for use authorizations such as rights-of-way, leases and penn.its. LR 2.62­
182: Applications for rights-of-way, permits, leases, and other realty related actions will be processed in a timely manner, on a case­
by-case basis, utilizing the NEPA process.
C. Compliance. with the National Envi r onmental Policy Act (of 1969) (NEPA)
Department of the Interior (DOl) CX Reference (516 DM 2, Appendix 1): 1.6 Nondestructive data collection, inventory (including
field, aerial, and satellite surveying and mapping), study, resear-ch, and monitoring activities.
Screeni ng for Exceptions: The following extraordinary circumstances (516 DM 2, Appendix 2) may apply to individual actions
within the categorical exceptions. The indicated specialist recommends the proposed action does not:
2.2 Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park,
recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole .o r principal drinking water
aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); flood plains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments;
mi rato birds; and other ecolo icall si nificant or critical areas.
Migratory Birds
Specialist: Nick Miller, Wildlife Biologist
11J . l
W'­
Si nature and Date:
/
Rationale: There could be negligible disturbance effects to migratory birds during MET tower constructi~n activities. !"figratory
bird species would most likely flee the area ofdisturbance during times of disturbance. However, these dtsturbances' tmpacts
would be short-lived, and cease once work is completed.
Historic and Culturctl Resources
Specialist: Scott T homas, Di trict Archaeologist
Si nature and Date:
Rationale: No cultural or historic resources were found in the proposed project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not
affect these resources.
Areas ofCritical Environmental Concern (ACECVRescarch Natural Areas (RN A)
Specialist: Caryn Burri, Natural esource Specialist (NRS) - Botanist
Si nature and Date:
1
2
-
Rationale: There are no ACECs/RNAs w ·
'1
the proposed project area.
'1otwJ·
Water Resources/Flood Plains Specialist: Breanna O'Connor, NRS- Riparian Specialist Signature and Date: Rationale: Water resources and floodplains are not present within the proposed area. Soils Biolo!!ical Soil Crust (BSC}.. Prime Farmlands Specialist: Caryn Burri, N~anist Signature and Date:
:.,.....-,_
5-1~ · /t:; Rationale: Soils would be(d(sfurbed and BSCs would be lost in a 4 foot by 4 foot section; however, the overall disturbance and Joss would be less than I percent ofthe total project area and would not have measurable impacts to soils and BSCs across the project area. There are no prime farmlands within the proposed project area. Recreation/Visual Resources Specialist: Eric Haakenson, Outdoor Recreation Planner Signature and Date: ~· ~~~O A ~
og-J.<:- J ·'
Rationale: There woufd be no effects to recreation because the requested ROW is on an existing route. The proposed project is within a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class IV. The wind test towers would not be seen from any key observation point off of Highway 395 due to their size; therefore, there would be no affect to visual resources. Wilderness/Wild and Scenic River Resources Specialist: Tom Wilcox, Wilderness Speci~
5- /~- 2c>/S Signature and Date:
~ Rationale: There are no wilderness study areas (WSA), wilderness, wild and scenic rivers (WSR), or lands with wilderness characteristics in the project area. 2.3 Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
resources (NEPA Section 102(2) (E)).
Specialist: Holly Orr, Planning and ; :vironmental Coordinator
S/;
~
c-/
h.s
Signature and Date:
J
Rationale: There are no known highly cont~rstal environmental effects or unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of avai lable resources. The ROW is temporary (less than three years), any ground disturbance would be unnoticeable within one growing season after removal, and it would be for testing only (not wind development). 2.4 Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.
Specialist: Holly Orr, Planning and Environmental Coordinator
.sfg/rs
-rv-- ,
~~.~~
Signature and Date:
Rationale: There are no known uncertain or potentially significant environmental effects or unique or unknown environmental risks.
The ROW is temporary (less than three years), any ground disturbance would be unnoticeable within one growing season after
removal, and it would be for testing only (not wind development).
2.5 Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant
environmental effects.
Specialist: Holly Orr, Planning and Env2.nmental Coordinator
C'L
j___,_
-o_,__
5
1!' Its
7
Signature and Date:
-v/ >
Rationale: Implementation of the proposal woul a not set precedence for future actions or represent a decision in principle about
future actions with potentially significant environmental effects. The ROW is temporary (less than three years), any ground
disturbance would be unnoticeable within one growing season after removal, and it would be for testing only (not wind
development).
2.6 Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects.
Specialist: Holly Orr, Planning and Environmental Coordinator
Signature and Date:
...
-!::J!"~~
..._,
$/~
3
/15
Rationale: There are no known individu~··· insignificant but cumulatively significant em
mental effects. The ROW is
temporary (less than three years), any g~ disturbance would be unnoticeable within o~rowing season after removal , and it
would be for testing only (not wind development).
2.7 Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Histori c Places as determined
by either the bureau or office.
Specialist: Scott Thomas, District Archaeologist
Si nature and Date:
Rationale: No Nationa Register eligible or listed properties were found in the proposed project area. Therefore, the proposed
project would not affect these properties.
2.8 Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have
si ificant im acts on desi nated Critical Habitat for theses ccies.
Endangered or Threatened Species - Fauna
Specialist: Nick Miller, Wildlife Biologist
Si nature and Date:
Rationale: There are no federally listed Threatened or Endangered fauna species occurring in the area. Sage-grouse, a species
proposed for listing, are found in the general vicinity of the ROW, but there have been no known observations of sage-grouse in the
footprint of the ROW in the last 10 years. The entire footprint is listed as Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) for sage-grouse but
sage-grouse use in the area is unlikely due to juniper encroachment. The nearest known active lek is located more than 5 rniJes from
the ROW footprint and over 7.5 miles away from the nearest proposed MET tower site.
Endangered or Threatened Species - Aquatic
Specialist: Breanna O ' Connor, NRS -Riparian S
Si nature and Date:
Rationale: There are no
uatic species or designated critical habitat within the proposed area.
Endangered or Threatened Species - Flora
Specialist: Caryn Burri , NRS - Bo y
Si nature and Date:
Rationale: There are no cumented Federally listed Threatened and Endangered (T & E) or BLM listed Special Status plant
species, nor designated critical habitat, within the proposed project area.
2.9 Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection ofthe environment.
Specialist: Holly Orr, Planning and Environmental Coordinator
Si nature and Date:
tcction ofthe environment would be violated. The ROW is temporary (less than
Rationale: No known laws or requirements for
three years), any ground disturbance would be unnoticeable within one growing season after removal, and it would be for testing
only (not wind development).
o ulations (Executive Order 12898 .
Specialist; Holly Orr, Planning and Environmental Coordinator
Si nature and Date:
Rationale: Implementation of the proposal would t result in a disproportionately adverse effect on minority or economically
disadvantaged populations as such populations do not occur in or near the Project Area.
2. t t Limit access to and ceremonial use ofIndian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly
adverse! affect the h sica! inte rit of such sacred sites Executive Order 13007 .
Si nature and Date:
Rationale: No Indian s-acre sites are known to occur within the proposed project boundary. The project is located within the area of
interest of two Indian tribes, the Confederated Tribes ofthe Klamath Reservation and the Bums Paiute Tribe. Because ofthe
temporary nature of the meteorological tower installation and the extremely light to negligible effects of installation and take-down,
it is thought that the proposed project will not affect the integrity or access to sacred areas ifthey exist in the vicinity ofthe project.
4
.
2.12 Contri bute to the introduction, con·· •ed existence, or spread of noxious weeds orr
ative invasive species known to occur
in the area or actions that may promote ~troduction, growth, or expansion ofthe rang"t1ttl// such species (Federal Noxious Weed
Control Act and Executive Order 13 t t 2).
Specialist Lesley Richm•n, District WP .Coo,din•to'
Si~nature and Date: iJ2cJ L~
Let"-~~
b-/+ (aols
Rationale: Noxious weeds are~~~ to be present in or in close proximity to this area. Treatments are on-going. The weeds are not
present in sufficient quantity to be considered a significant impact at this location.
D. Signatures Additional review (As determi ned by the Authorized Officer): nate :
- -4.'5.­~/J~fi
)~15.~----­
/l
RMP conformance and CX review confirmation:
Date:
_S-~----=
bI
5-L.-__ _
sJ.__,_,_,.
i
I
Management Determination: Based upon review ofthis proposal, J have determined the proposed action is in confonnance with the
LUP, qualifies as a categorical exclusion, and does not require further NEP A analysis.
Au
Date:
_.....::S~---~~-'J~~-/.....::j:. ­
. __ __ __
E. Contact Person
For additional i nfonnation concerning this CX review, contact the Planning and Environmental Coordinator, BLM, Burns District
Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738, (54 t) 541-4400.
Note: The signed conclusion on this worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM's internal decision process and does not
constitute an appealable decision. Ho wever, the lease, pennit, or other authorization based on this categorical excl usion is subject to
protest or appeal under 43 CFR 4 and the program-specific regulations.
18
17
19
20
30
29
16
28
31
07
18
17
15
14
19
29
31
32
06
07
18
17
13
13
OREGON
OR-68296 , Exhibit A
Wagontire Wind Testing Site ROW, Enerfin Energy Company, Inc
0475
01>5
I
US OEPAATMEHT OF THE INTERIOR
8ur••u of LAnd Manegement
au-Oiall1d,Onogon
18 .......
I
Note. No wan anty ia ma<M by fol e ew. .u of land MantQtmenl
11 to lhe aCQ.Itec:y, Tel.._., or c~te•N.. of.,_H dlltl
Zl OR-68296
- Highways
Proposed MET Location = Non -Paved Improved Road
== Natural/Unknown Road Surface
- Access Route
Bureau of Land Management . ... r
State
JJF
Private/Unknown
*•
,.,, lndNidual or ~·.-• un 'tllfth
ditca ~~~~ • • • •
c:on'(>led tom vlriot.la .ourcu. TNt intormdon m.t not mMt
'If
NabonaiMIIP Accuruy StanCS.rd•
TtH ptoct.lct ._,
de~d
" rOUQh ~~~ m...rw end may b-e upo.• d wtnout n~
'f!IIOfkMeantmc:•'n/OR.et2M.mwd. CM/30i20t !
BURNS BLM ROUTING
INT.
DATE
OM
I•
ASDM
ADM.
OPS.
3RS.
AND.
MAY 2 9 2015
FIRE
PEC.
PRO.
OTHER
IN REPLY REFER TO:
2800 (ORB050)
OR-68296
~
~/~ft.<,
CERTIFIED MAIL - 7011-1570-0001-7969-9322
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DECISION
Enerfin Energy Company Inc.
100 Marcus Blvd, Suite 1
Hauppauge, New York 11788
Right-of-Way Grant OR-68296 Amendment
Personal Bond Amount: $4,000.00
Right-of-Way Grant OR-68296 Amended Rental Determined Monitoring Fee Determined Bond Accepted Dear Mr. Gonzales:
Enclosed is a copy of your Right-of-Way (ROW) grant, serial number OR-68296, which
authorizes the Wagontire Mountain Wind Energy Site Testing and Monitoring Project Area. It
was approved by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on May 15,2015.
The advance rental for the ROW is determined to be $7,552.00 for the period from May 15,
2015, to December 31 , 2015. The BLM has received your advance rental for this period. All
subsequent rental billings will be due at the beginning of the calendar year starting January 1,
2016. Future billing will be based on the rent schedule in effect at that time.
The monitoring fee for this ROW is determined to be a Category 2, which is $424.00. The BLM
has received your monitoring fee.
Your bond filed in our office has been found satisfactory and is hereby accepted. The purpose of
the bond is to cover any potential noncompliance with the ROW grant. This bond will continue
to be held by this office. Termination of liability under the bond will be permitted only after this
office is satisfied that there is no outstanding liability on the bond, or satisfactory replacement
bond coverage is furnished.
.. 2
This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), Office of the
Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4 and the enclosed Form
1842-1. If an appeal is taken, your notice of appeal must be filed in this office (at the above
address) within 30 days from receipt of this decision. The appellant has the burden of showing
that the decision appealed from is in error.
Ifyou wish to file a petition (request) pursuant to regulation 43 CFR 2801.10 or 43 CFR 2881.10
for a stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of this decision during the time that your appeal is
being reviewed by the IBLA, the petition for a stay must accompany your notice of appeal. A
petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed below.
Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also be submitted to each party named
in this decision and to the IBLA and to the appropriate Office of the Solicitor (see 43 CFR 4.413)
at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have
the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted.
Standards for Obtaining a Stay
Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay of a
decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:
(1) The relative harm to the parties ifthe stay is granted or denied,
(2) The likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits,
(3) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and
...
(4) Whether or not the public interest favors granting the stay.
If you have any questions, p lease contact Tara McLain, Realty Specialist, at (541) 573-4462.
Richard Roy
Three Rivers Resource Area Field Manager
Enclosures
cc: Brent Fenty, Executive Director, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Bend, Oregon
Peter M. Lacy, Senior Attorney, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Portland, Oregon
TMCLAIN:ak 05/2112015:LANDS3RS