Final License Application
Exhibit E: Environmental Report
White Pine Pumped Storage Project
FERC Project No. 14851
White Pine Waterpower, LLC
February 2023
Appendices
Appendix A: Consultation Record
Appendix B: Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Report
Appendix C: Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report
Appendix D: Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Report
Appendix E: 2021 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study Report
Appendix F: Recreation Resources Study Report
Appendix G: Cultural Resources Study Report – Filed as Privileged
Appendix H: Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report
Appendix I: Socioeconomic Study Report
Appendix J: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) Consultation
Appendix K: Draft Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) – Filed as Privileged
Appendix L: Response to Comments on the DLA
Appendix M: NNR Visitor Use Assessment Survey
Final License Application – Exhibit E
White Pine Pumped Storage Project
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
AIS Aquatic Invasive Species
APE Area of Potential Effect
APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
BESS Battery Energy Storage Systems
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practices
BP Before Present
CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage
CAISO California Independent System Operator
CCCT Combined-cycle combustion turbine
CCS Conservation Credit System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
DLA Draft License Application
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FLA Final License Application
FPA Federal Power Act
GHMA General Habitat Management Area
GIS Geographic Information System
GLO General Land Office
GRSG Greater Sage-grouse
HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.
HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan
IPaC Information, Planning, and Conservation (USFWS)
IPP Intermountain Power Project
KOA Kampgrounds of America
KOP Key Observation Point
MCA Medieval Climatic Anomaly
MIV Main inlet valves
mm Millimeter
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MRE Most recent event
NAC Nevada Administrative Code
February 2023
Final License Application – Exhibit E
White Pine Pumped Storage Project
NBMG Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology
NDCNR Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife
NDSP Nevada Division of State Parks
NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program
NNR Nevada Northern Railway
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NPS National Park Service
NRAF Nevada Rock Art Foundation
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NRS Nevada Revised Statutes
NSHPO Nevada State Historic Preservation Office
NVCRIS Nevada Cultural Resources Information System
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O&M Operations and maintenance
OHMA Other Habitat Management Area
OHV Off-highway vehicle
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
PA Programmatic Agreement
PAD Pre-Application Document
PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area
PM&E Protection, mitigation, and enhancement
POR Period of record Project White Pine Pumped Storage Project
PV Photovoltaic
RMP Resource Management Plan
RTE Rare, threatened, and endangered
SCCT Simple-cycle combustion turbine
SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
SETT Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team
SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority
SRD Snake Range Decollement
SVTST Steptoe Valley Trap, Skeet, and Target (Range)
SVWMA Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TCLs Tribal cultural landscapes
February 2023 |
TCPs Traditional Cultural Places or Properties
TLP Traditional Licensing Process
U.S.C. U.S. Code
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCB U.S. Census Bureau
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VRM Visual Resource Management
WMAs Wildlife Management Areas
WOUS Waters of the United States
WPW White Pine Waterpower, LLC
WQC Water Quality Certification
Final License Application – Exhibit E
White Pine Pumped Storage Project
Units of Measurement
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µS/cm micro-siemens per centimeter
AF acre-feet
cfs cubic feet per second
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibel
ft2/day foot squared per day
gpm gallons per minute
ka kilo annum, or thousand years
kV kilovolt
Ma million years ago
mg/L milligrams per liter
mm millimeter
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
1.0 Introduction
This Environmental Report provides an analysis of the environment in the vicinity of the proposed White Pine Pumped Storage Project (Project), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Project No. 14851, as well an analysis of the effects of the Project on that environment. White Pine Waterpower, LLC (WPW) is proposing the licensing, construction, and operation of the Project, which will be located in White Pine County, Nevada, approximately 8 miles northeast of the City of Ely. The Project will entail the construction of a new 1,000 megawatt (MW), closed-loop, pumped storage facility comprised of two new reservoirs joined by conduits along with a powerhouse and associated generation, pumping, and transmission equipment.
WPW has initiated a licensing process for the Project with FERC, the federal agency with jurisdiction over non-federal hydropower projects in the United States. WPW filed an application for a Preliminary Permit for the Project with FERC on July 12, 2017. FERC issued a Preliminary Permit to WPW on October 25, 2017. WPW filed with FERC a PreApplication Document (PAD), a Notice of Intent (NOI) to File a License Application, and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) on May 15, 2020. On July 13, 2020, FERC granted WPW authorization to use the TLP to license the Project. WPW held a Joint Agency Public Meeting and Site Visit with interested stakeholders on September 1, 2020. FERC extended the term of the Preliminary Permit by order dated September 25, 2020 The consultation record is attached as Appendix A.
WPW filed its Draft License Application (DLA) with FERC on February 17, 2022, which afforded agencies and other stakeholders, including the public, the opportunity to review the proposed Project and provide comments. Comments on the DLA were received from U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), City of Ely, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff, McGill Ruth Sewer-Water District, Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Nevada Northern Railway (NNR), National Park Service (NPS), Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), White Pine County, and several individuals. Responses to comments on the DLA are attached as Appendix L.
During this process, WPW engaged stakeholders and implemented a suite of resource studies that will inform FERC’s environmental and developmental analyses and decision regarding license issuance. In coordination with the interested stakeholders and resource agencies, the following studies were performed in support of licensing the Project:
The reports of these studies are attached as Appendices B through I, respectively. WPW’s studies surveyed lands that were included in the Project Footprint (which incorporates the Project Boundary in addition to all areas that would be disturbed during construction) based on Project design at the time of survey. Additional study efforts are planned by WPW to complete these surveys, including cultural and terrestrial resource studies as well as supplemental study efforts regarding recreation, visual and aesthetic resources, and socioeconomics resulting from stakeholder input on the DLA. Results of these studies will be provided to FERC as they are completed. This Environmental Report presents existing information and information obtained through WPW’s studies to characterize the affected environment of the following resource areas: geologic and soil resources; water resources; fish and aquatic resources; terrestrial resources; rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) resources; recreation resources; land use; cultural resources; aesthetic resources; and socioeconomic resources. Potential environmental effects as well as proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures are also presented for each resource area, as applicable.
1.1 Purpose of Action and Need for Power
1.1.1 Purpose of Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to construct a 1,000 MW, closed-loop, pumped storage facility, generating renewable electricity and adding power to the existing electricity grid. This will require the Commission to determine whether to grant an application for the construction and operation of hydroelectric and related facilities in compliance with the Federal Power Act (FPA) requirements and other applicable laws (Section 1.2, Statutory and Regulatory Requirements). An original license will allow WPW to construct and operate the proposed Project.
In deciding whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (e.g., flood control, irrigation, and water supply), the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation, or damage to and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat); the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
1.1.2 Need for Pumped Storage Hydropower
Pumped storage hydropower is a commercially proven, grid-scale, energy storage and grid-reliability and stabilization technology, which is increasingly needed in the western U.S. as new renewable energy sources are developed and older coal and nuclear-powered baseload generation facilities are retired. Renewable energy sources often generate power during periods of low demand. The Project will use this off-peak or excess available energy to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir and will be able to store up to 8,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity (in an 8-hour operating cycle) during periods of low demand and return the stored energy to the grid during periods of peak
demand. In addition to providing an economical supply of peaking power, the Project will provide other electric system ancillary services, such as operating reserves and voltage and frequency support, that are critically important for a stable transmission grid, thus facilitating the continued integration of renewable energy in the region.
If the license application is denied and the Project is not constructed as a result, consequences would include the following:
• The region will be more restricted in its choice of tools for integrating and firming renewable resources, placing more reliance on a technology (batteries) that is more expensive over the long-term than the proposed Project and which entails risks for ratepayers and the environment.
• Transmission build-out planned for the area could see less effective utilization from technical and economic standpoints. The proposed Project and its point of interconnection are located at an emerging strategic crossroads of transmission development (including NV Energy’s Greenlink Project and potentially the northern extension of the SWIP North Transmission Line and the proposed Cross-Tie Transmission Line) that is intended to facilitate the movement and delivery of low-carbon energy resources both within and through the State of Nevada. License denial and consequent non-construction of the Project would eliminate the potential for a major management tool for numerous regional entities responsible for the procurement and delivery of power.
• White Pine County will lose property tax revenues in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the Project, along with thousands of employment job-years in construction and operation and associated indirect income and spending. The State of Nevada would also lose significant property tax income that is specifically dedicated to the advancement of renewable energy development in the State.
• White Pine County will lose an opportunity to put to beneficial use the industrial water rights that it was originally granted for energy project development.
1.2 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
This section briefly describes the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements that must be addressed as part of the licensing process. An original license for the Project is subject to numerous requirements under the FPA and other statutes. Major regulatory and statutory requirements are summarized in Table 1.2-1 and some are described below.
Section 4(e) of the FPA BLM WPW will continue to consult with BLM throughout the licensing process.
Requirement
Agency Status
Section 10(j) of the FPA NDOW, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Right-of-Way Grant Authorization pursuant to Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and Record of Decision
Clean Water Act (CWA) –Section 401 Water Quality Certification
WPW will continue to consult with the NDOW and USFWS throughout the licensing process.
BLM WPW will continue to consult with BLM throughout the licensing process.
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)
Endangered Species Act USFWS
National Historic Preservation Act
Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (NSHPO)
WPW will continue to consult with the NDEP throughout the licensing process.
FERC has designated WPW as the Commission’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal Section 7 consultation.
FERC has designated WPW as the Commission’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal Section 106 consultation.
Air Emission Permits NDEP WPW or contractors will obtain permits necessary for emissions associated with construction.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Large Construction Permit, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Road Encroachment Permit, Utility Crossing Permit
State of Nevada Conservation Credit System (CCS)
NDEP WPW or contractors will obtain permits necessary for construction.
White Pine County Road Department WPW will obtain permits necessary for construction and operation
State of Nevada WPW will enroll the Project to determine the debit obligation for impacts to Greater Sagegrouse habitat.
Requirement
Permit to Change the Public Waters of the State of Nevada
Heretofore Appropriated
Agency Status
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, State Engineer
The State Engineer issued White Pine County a diversion permit for its water rights from the Nevada Division of Water Resources (Permit Nos. 91444 and 91445 issued on September 22, 2022) WPW will lease water from White Pine County through the County’s established water rights and will apply for the necessary change permits allowing for diversion from the new wellfield from the Nevada Division of Water Resources following the results of the hydrogeological studies.
Additional regulatory and statutory requirements that are typically applicable to hydropower projects are not applicable to the proposed Project. Section 18 fishway prescriptions are not applicable because the proposed Project is a closed-loop, pumped storage facility, not connected to any existing surface water source that may cause a barrier to fish movement. The Project is also located outside of the coastal zone, and consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act is, therefore, not applicable. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is also not applicable to the proposed action because no portion of the Project Footprint 1 will be located on or adjacent to an area designated as part of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers system The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is also not applicable to the proposed Project because there is no Essential Fish Habitat in the vicinity and the Project will not be connected to any surface water sources.
1.2.1 Federal Power Act
1.2.1.1 Section 4(e) Conditions
Section 4(e) of the FPA provides that any license issued by the Commission for a project within a federal reservation shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the responsible federal land management agency deems necessary for the adequate protection and use of the reservation.
1 WPW initially drew a Conceptual Project Boundary for the Pre-Application Document in 2020. It was revised as Project design advanced for the resource studies conducted in 2021. WPW has continued to refine the Project Boundary and in this FLA presents the revised Project Boundary (incorporating all lands required for Project operations and maintenance) as well as the Project Footprint (incorporating the Project Boundary in addition to all areas that would be disturbed during construction)
WPW will continue to consult with BLM throughout the licensing process. To date, no federal management agency has filed Section 4(e) conditions.
1.2.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations
Under Section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the PM&E measures of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these conditions unless it determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency.
WPW will continue to consult with NDOW and USFWS throughout the licensing process. To date, no resource agencies have filed Section 10(j) recommendations. WPW does not anticipate that fisheries-related conditions will be recommended, because the Project is not connected to any existing surface water source that may cause a barrier to fish movement or otherwise impact fisheries.
1.2.2 Federal Land Policy and Management Act
The BLM Bristlecone Field Office in Ely will determine whether to grant a permit for use of BLM-managed lands for the Project. Rights-of-way and other land uses are recognized as major uses of the public lands and are authorized pursuant to Sections 302 and 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. BLM will evaluate potential Project impacts on environmental resources associated with its actions in conjunction with FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. WPW understands that BLM will likely participate in the FERC NEPA process as a Cooperating Agency. BLM will evaluate the Project to determine if it is in conformance with the Goals and Objectives of the Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM 2008a, the Ely District RMP), as amended. The Goals and Objectives of the RMP include managing public lands in a manner that:
• “meets public, local, state, and federal agency needs for use authorizations such as rights-of-way, permits, leases, and easements while avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to other resource values;”
• “respond[s] to public, local, state, and federal agency needs for land for community development, utility and other associated rights-of-way, communication sites, and other allowed uses of BLM-administered lands;”
• “provide[s] opportunities for development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative energy sources while minimizing adverse impacts to other resources;” and
• Is “responsive to applications for renewable energy sites and associated rightsof-way, as encouraged by current BLM policy.”
BLM is also guided by the 2015 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) (BLM 2015).
WPW has engaged and coordinated with BLM to obtain an appropriate right-of-way easement for the Project as well as to achieve adequate accommodation for construction and operation of the Project under the Ely District RMP and the 2015 ARMPA. WPW will continue to consult with BLM throughout the licensing process.
1.2.3 Clean Water Act
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant for an activity that may result in a discharge into navigable waters must obtain certification from the appropriate state water quality agency verifying compliance with the CWA. The requirement can also be waived.
As a closed-loop facility, the Project will not involve a discharge into navigable waters. It is, therefore, expected that a WQC will not be required for the Project.
1.2.4 Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species.
By FERC letter order dated July 13, 2020, WPW has been designated as the Commission’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. As detailed in Appendix E, the Project is not expected to have any adverse impact on ESA-listed species.
A list of ESA-listed species potentially occurring within the Project Area 2 was prepared using the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) website in September 2022. The USFWS IPaC System identified Pahrump poolfish (Empetrichthys latos) as endangered listed species having the potential to occur within the Project Footprint However, the Project Footprint does not contain habitat for the listed fish species. Additionally, no designated critical habitat for an ESA-listed aquatic species occurs within the Project Footprint. Finally, the Project will be a closed-loop facility that is not connected to any existing surface waters and whose initial reservoir fill will come from groundwater sources, and therefore no impacts are anticipated on aquatic species in the Project Area. The IPaC also listed the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) as a candidate species having the potential to occur within the Project Area. This consultation is included in Appendix J
1.2.5 National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires the Commission to consider the effect of licensing a hydropower project on historic properties, and to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed action. "Historic properties" are defined as any district, site,
2 Project Area is defined as the Project Footprint plus a 5-mile buffer.
building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NRHP).
By FERC letterorder dated July 13, 2020, WPW has been designated as the Commission’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. WPW will continue to consult with the NSHPO throughout the licensing process.
1.3 Consultation
The Commission's regulations (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], section 4.38) require that applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, and other entities before filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first step in complying with the federal statutes discussed above.
WPW is committed to a thorough consultation process and has met with interested resource agencies and stakeholders throughout the licensing process. WPW has coordinated with BLM, NDOW, NSHPO, and White Pine County, among other stakeholders, regarding the plans for the resource studies listed in Section 1.0 Introduction. The study reports are provided as appendices to this document. WPW also consulted with BLM, NDOW, and the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team (SETT) regarding potential impacts on the Greater Sage-grouse and other sensitive resources and worked with these stakeholders during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for WPW’s geotechnical study (BLM 2021a). A website was developed to aid in consultation and is available at https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/. WPW has utilized the TLP process, as approved by the Commission by letter dated July 13, 2020, which provides a summary of key Project dates and milestones. The consultation log for Project meetings and correspondence is included in Appendix A, as well as copies of Project correspondence to date.
Key consultation dates and Project milestones are provided in Table 1.3-1
The NOI and PAD for the Project were filed with the FERC on May 15, 2020. Comments were received from local agencies (e.g., White Pine County), state and federal agencies, the Ely Shoshone Tribe, the Nevada Northern Railway Foundation, and individuals. WPW held a joint public-agency meeting and site tour on September 1, 2020, and has continued consultation with stakeholders since that time. WPW distributed its proposed resource study plans for the Project on March 10, 2021; responses to stakeholder comments as well as WPW’s Record of Consultation are provided in Appendix A.
WPW filed the DLA with FERC on February 17, 2022, which afforded agencies and other stakeholders the opportunity to review the proposed Project and provide comments. Comments on the DLA were received from BLM, City of Ely, FERC staff, McGill Ruth Sewer-Water District, NDOW, NNR, NPS, SHPO, White Pine County, and several individuals Responses to comments on the DLA are provided in Appendix L.
On May 17, 2022, NPS filed comments on the DLA and a request for dispute resolution. In its comments, NPS requested additional research and reporting to revise or append three study reports filed with the DLA: Visual and Aesthetic Resources, Recreation
Resources, and Socioeconomic Study Reports. Key NPS comments on the DLA are summarized below for each applicable study report and are included in Appendix L Additional records of consultation with the NPS and NNR are included in Appendix A.
Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report
• A request for additional data on visual impacts from key observation points (KOP) along the HiLine railroad that are closer to or within the Project Boundary than those presented in the 2021 study report, and data on visual impacts to passengers on the Mainline due to its proposed reopening.
Recreation Resources Study Report
• A request that WPW conduct the NNR visitor use assessment survey (survey) and provide the NPS and other stakeholders the results for review.
• A request that WPW conduct a NNR Visitor Use and Experience Study, with study objectives: (1) determine the current number and demographic characteristics of NNR visitors; (2) characterize NNR visitor experiences on the section of railway that would be affected by the Project; (3) estimate magnitude and duration of both short-term and long-term impacts on NNR visitor use and experiences; and (4) identify methods to avoid or mitigate potential impacts. The NPS also commented that the study should account for new developments, such as the NNR’s plan to reopen the northern Mainline between Ely and McGill and WPW’s changing the upper reservoir access route.
Socioeconomic Report
• The NPS states that in its comments on the PAD dated October 30, 2020, NPS submitted a request for a NNR Socioeconomic Study to determine the Project’s economic impact on the local economy due to impacts on the operation and nature of NNR train rides. The NPS commented that the applicant did not complete the study.
After reviewing NPS comments on the DLA and appended study reports, WPW consulted with NPS via email and telephone, and conducted an in-person meeting on August 2, 2022 to discuss NPS comments. After the August 2022 meeting, WPW continued consultation with NPS to identify potential additional KOPs, collect photographs to support the planned research and reporting, revise and expand the NNR visitor use survey questionnaire, and clarify and expand WPW’s request for business and economic data from NNR. WPW conducted virtual meetings with NNR and NPS representatives on December 20, 2022 and January 20, 2023 to further discuss WPW’s response to comments on the DLA and an agreeable path forward for finalizing a study approach for supplementing the 2021 Recreation Resources Study Report, Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report, and Socioeconomic Report.
The 2021 Recreation Resources Study Plan described developing and executing an NNR visitor use assessment survey. However, the survey was not conducted due to lack of
consensus with the NPS and NNR during consultation in 2020 WPW has subsequently revised the survey based on NPS comments on the DLA received in 2022.
As a result of the consultation with NPS and NNR, WPW and the NPS have reached consensus on the following portions of the supplement to the 2021 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report
• Six current condition and photosimulation pairs depicting views from Key Observation Points (KOPs) on the NNR HiLine and Mainline have been agreed upon The locations and angles of the photosimulations are detailed below and are represented in Figure 1.3-1.
o KOP 4 represents views in an easterly direction of the Project’s upper reservoir access road, between compass direction 60° and 180° (120° panorama) WPW proposed to include KOP 4 as a panorama between 60° and 150° as it provides views of the access road form the closest vantage point. NPS agreed to include KOP 4 but requested the panorama between 60° and 180°, to which WPW agreed.
o KOP 5 represents views in a northerly direction of the Project’s wellfield, upper reservoir access road, transmission facilities, and lower reservoir, between 260° and 100° (200° panorama) WPW proposed to include KOP 5 as a panorama between 270° and 90° as it is the location of the NNR rail night-skies viewing platform and the access rother and other Project features will be included to the north. NPS agreed to include KOP 5 but requested the panorama between 260° and 100°, to which WPW agreed.
o KOP 15 represents views in a southeasterly direction of the Project powerhouse access portal, upper reservoir access road, and transmission facilities, between 60° and 240° (180° panorama) WPW proposed KOP 15 with a panorama between 90° and 180° as it includes an eastern view of the proposed tunnel opening and electrical switch station facilities NPS agreed to include KOP 15 but requested the panorama between 60° and 240°, to which WPW agreed.
o KOP 16 represents views in a westerly direction of the Project’s lower reservoir and transmission facilities, between 200° and 360° (160° panorama) WPW proposed KOP 16 as a panorama between 180° and 0° because it is the closest proximity to the Project’s lower reservoir. NPS agreed to include KOP 16 but requested the panorama between 200° and 360°, to which WPW agreed.
o KOP 17-1 represents views in a northwesterly direction of the Project’s lower reservoir and transmission facilities, between 260° and 360° (100° panorama). NPS requested this as an additional panorama, WPW agreed.
o KOP 17-2 represents views in an easterly direction of the Project’s switchyard and upper reservoir, between 20° and 120° (100° panorama) NPS requested this as an additional panorama, WPW agreed.
• Daytime photos collected by WPW in August and September 2022 will be used for the creation of the photosimulations since evening photos will not allow the view to distinguish Project features.
• Photos taken with a 50-millimeter (mm) camera focal length will be used to develop the photosimulations.
• WPW and the NPS have agreed to include two additional single-shot photosimulations and associated visual effects analysis. The two agreed upon locations and angles for these photosimulations are:
o KOP 13 represents close-proximity views of the Project’s lower reservoir from the NNR Mainline with view centered at 159o WPW initially proposed KOP 12 with view centered at 210o. The NPS requested to change the photosimulation to KOP 13 with view centered at 159o, to which WPW agreed.
o KOP 18 represents views of the proposed Project lower reservoir, transmission facilities, and powerhouse access portal from the NNR Mainline with view centered at 40o. WPW initially proposed KOP 18 with view centered at 30o. NPS agreed on including KOP 18 but requested a view centered at 40o, to which WPW agreed.
Two components of the survey remain under dispute with the NPS: (1) the time period for which the survey should be administered, and (2) how and when to administer the second portion of the survey
As described above, the NPS has reviewed and commented on the first portion of the survey presented in the 2021 Recreation Resource Study Plan, and WPW has adopted the NPS edits and comments. Thus, the parties are in agreement on the first portion of the survey, which is designed to collect information on visitors’ demographic characteristics (e.g., zip code, group size, age) and to elicit information on visitors’ characteristics, and their perceptions, attitudes, and preferences about the NNR HiLine excursions and is presented in Appendix M. WPW proposes to expand the survey to include a series of questions based on the current condition photographs and proposed Project feature photosimulations described above. The goal of the survey is to assess potential impacts of the Project by surveying HiLine riders to determine whether and how the Project would affect the respondent’s interest to return or recommend the NNR HiLine excursion trains to others. Pairing demographic data with respondent’s assessments of Project effects will ensure a broad range of representation and allow for data to be categorized based on similar user groups.
WPW initially proposed to conduct the visitor use assessment survey from May 15 to June 26, 2023, since that time period would sufficiently capture both peak and off-peak periods with a target of completing 400 to 500 surveys. In response, the NPS commented via email on December 6, 2022:
“The NPS does not believe that conducting the visitor survey for six weeks would represent the train ridership that occurs throughout the year. While the portion of the survey incorporating the photosimulations showing the affected area before and after project construction could be conducted over a shorter time-period (although we are not sure if six weeks is sufficient for that survey), the visitor information survey aimed at gathering data on visitor characteristics, attitudes, and preferences for the train rides should be conducted year long as the train is operated year long.
Different seasons likely attract different types of visitors, and trains during the ‘off season’ are often booked in well-in advance (e.g., Haunted Ghost Train, Santa’s Reindeer Flyer, Fire and Ice Fireworks Train, etc.). For these reasons, the NPS requested that the visitor information survey be conducted year-long in our original study request filed with FERC on November 2, 2020. In addition, NPS’s comments/edits on WPW’s draft report to FERC regarding the August 2, 2022 Joint Meeting that I emailed to you on August 17, 2022, includes the statement that the ‘seasonal nature of train rides was also discussed at the Joint Meeting, reflecting the necessity of administering surveys throughout the year.’ ”
In response to NPS’s comments, WPW agreed to extend the proposed survey period to be from May 15 to September 18, 2023, to cover three seasons and capture potential seasonal variability among ridership. This was communicated to the NPS and NNR in early 2023.
However, in subsequent communications via email and teleconference the NPS continue to request that the survey be conducted over a year-long period. On February 6, 2023 the NPS stated again via email that “the visitor survey should be conducted year-long to capture the variations in the train ridership properly.” The record of consultation to-date is included in Appendix A.
WPW proposes to conduct visitor use assessment surveys for the HiLine train excursions as part of the supplemental Recreation Study in 2023. Based on publicly available information, WPW understands that the HiLine train excursions operate three days a week and only during the mid-May to mid-September period. Additionally, there are at least two specialty train excursions that utilize the HiLine during this period. The NNR also has other non HiLine train excursions that operate annually. These train excursions depart from the same Depot but travel in an alternate direction, do not utilize the HiLine, and do not intersect the Project.
WPW proposes to survey HiLine excursion riders on the HiLine train and at the Depot. WPW expects that some visitors to the Depot who are not HiLine excursion riders will also be intercepted for the survey. The survey is intended to elicit information on potential Project effects, which are related to HiLine ridership, not to riders on NNR excursions conducted on other tracks in locations other than the Project vicinity. Responses will reveal whether respondents have taken a HiLine excursion or not. Responses will be grouped accordingly and analyzed to report any differences among respondent-types. Although the NNR expects future excursion rides on the northern Mainline and asserts that the Project has the potential to affect this planned future ridership, the timing and scope of these potential future northern Mainline excursion rides has not been finalized by the NNR. The northern Mainline is currently inactive, unusable, and in a general state of disrepair (and has been for several decades) and will require substantial and protracted repair and upgrade efforts to potentially return it to service. Therefore, a survey of projected and potential future northern Mainline riders and how it might affect their planned future northern Mainline ridership would be premature, not directly relevant, speculative, and impossible to analyze and/or deduce any appropriate conclusions. Nonetheless, for this analysis, WPW will consider HiLine riders as surrogates for these potential future northern Mainline riders.
WPW proposes a survey period of sixteen (16) survey days to be accomplished over an eighteen (18) week period. This survey period should be accomplished between May 15 and September 15, 2023, during operational times of the HiLine trains. Four survey events are planned during this period with a goal of completing 400-500 surveys. WPW proposes targeting 400 to 500 completed surveys to provide sufficient variability in results to produce statistically viable sample incidences. For an assumed annual ridership of 10,000 or more, 370 to 384 completed surveys will achieve a margin of error of ± 5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Targeting 400 to 500 completed surveys will help assure an adequate return. Accepted data analysis methods will be used to understand and categorize respondents on several demographic and behavioral indicators. WPW expects the survey results to form a robust basis for understanding riders’ attitudes about scenery and riders’ intention to return under future Project conditions. The results of the survey will be used to
supplement the 2021 Recreation Resources Study and inform the supplemental Socioeconomic analysis.
WPW does not support the use of an annual survey. A survey period that extends beyond the mid-May to mid-September period (i.e. an annual survey) would be inappropriate for the following reasons: (i) the HiLine trains are seasonal, (ii) riders of non HiLine trains that are surveyed outside the HiLine’s operational period would not be as relevant to the survey results, (iii) WPW believes that sufficient surveys will be achieved within the mid-May to mid-September period to attain the 95% confidence level for the survey results, and (iv) this proposal is a reasonable accommodation based on sound survey methodology for the supplemental study.
More information about WPW proposed supplemental studies can be found in Section 3.8, 3.10 and 3.11.
Table 1.3-1. Key Project Dates and Milestones
File NOI/PAD, Request for TLP, and Newspaper Notice
Stakeholders provide comments on Request for TLP
FERC Issues Notice of Commencement and Approves Use of TLP
25, 2017
15, 2020
June 14, 2020
July 13, 2020
21, 2020 Hold Joint Meeting and Site Visit
Provide Stakeholders with Notification of Joint Meeting Location and Timing
1, 2020
25, 2020 Comments on PAD / Study Requests
FERC extends term of Preliminary Permit
Distribute DLA to Stakeholders
Comments on DLA (90 days after DLA is distributed)
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2.1 No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, an original license is not granted for the Project, and the Project would not be constructed or operated. The proposed economical supply of peaking power generated by the Project in balance with renewable generation sources on the grid, and other electric system ancillary services, such as operating reserves and voltage and frequency support, would not be available to the grid. Under the no action alternative, the
specific environmental effects discussed in this application arising from the Project would not occur. To the extent that the grid reliability and energy integration functions provided by the Project are instead procured by alternative means, which likely entails other projects, the environmental effects of those alternative projects would occur instead of the environmental effects of this Project.
2.2 Applicant’s Proposal
The Project will consist of a closed-loop, pumped storage facility with approximately 2,250 feet of maximum gross head. Proposed Project features comprise two reservoirs interconnected by underground waterways that pass through an underground powerhouse complex including a generator step-up transformer cavern. Other features will include a new 25-mile-long 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from a new surface switchyard, access roads, a water supply and conveyance system, a transmission cable tunnel, and other appurtenant facilities. Equipment is tentatively proposed to consist of three 333-MW, variable-speed, reversible pump-turbines totaling 1,000 MW of generating capacity with the Project having an overall energy storage capacity of 8,000 MWh. Total annual gross energy production is projected at approximately 2,400 gigawatt-hours (assuming operation for 8 hours per day, 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year).
Water for the Project will come from groundwater wells appurtenant to existing permitted water rights. The water will be diverted from a proposed new wellfield in the Steptoe Valley Basin, south of the proposed lower reservoir. Water from the wellfield will be used for construction, for initial fill of the reservoir system, and for annual make-up water as required for losses from seepage, leakage, and evaporation. WPW will lease water from White Pine County through the County’s established water rights and will apply for the necessary change permits allowing for diversion from the new wellfield from the Nevada Division of Water Resources.
As described in Section 1.2 of this exhibit, the Project will be located approximately 8 miles northeast of the City of Ely in White Pine County, Nevada, largely on public land administered by BLM. A Right-of-Way grant for Project facilities as well as for construction of proposed Project components on public lands administered by BLM will be acquired prior to the commencement of Project construction activities.
2.2.1 Project Facilities
Major Project facilities are discussed below. Project facilities including pump-turbines, generator-motors, and appurtenant equipment are described in greater detail in Exhibit A of this Final License Application (FLA)
2.2.1.1 Upper Reservoir
The upper reservoir will be constructed near the edge of the escarpment of the Duck Creek range and arranged as a ring dam within a small topographic depression. The dam is proposed to be an approximately 167-foot maximum height, lined rockfill structure with a 25-foot-wide crest to provide vehicle access around the rim of the reservoir.
WPW selected the location to reduce the length of high-pressure headrace tunnels, maximize the operating head, and minimize earthworks. The upper reservoir will be formed using material recovered from the excavation to form a surrounding compacted rockfill embankment dam and balanced to achieve the required reservoir storage volume of 4,082 acre-feet (AF), sufficient for 8 hours of operation at 1,000-MW generation output.
The upper reservoir has a normal maximum water surface area of 46.8 acres and normal maximum water surface elevation of 8,605.0 feet (mean sea level), with a gross storage capacity of 4,258 AF.
At normal maximum water level, 7.5 feet of freeboard is proposed to accommodate wave run-up during normal operation and to prevent overtopping from a combined over-pumping and probable maximum precipitation event. Because there is no surface water inflow to the upper reservoir from external sources, preliminary design indicates that a spillway is not required Since there is no inflow to the upper reservoir from external sources there is no flood flow into the upper reservoir.
Both the upper reservoir and the upper reservoir dam are designed with an impermeable liner to reduce water losses from seepage. Access for inspection and maintenance is provided around the perimeter at the toe of the embankment and along the dam crest, together with access down into the reservoir and inlet/outlet. A 10-foot-tall game fence will be installed around the outside edge of the upper reservoir perimeter road for security and to prevent wildlife from entering the reservoir. Additional characteristics of the upper reservoir and upper reservoir dam are provided in Table 2.2-1.
Table 2.2-1. Preliminary Upper Reservoir Characteristics
2.2.1.2 Lower Reservoir
The lower reservoir will be formed using material recovered from the lower reservoir excavation to form a compacted earthfill embankment dam and balanced to achieve the required reservoir storage volume sufficient for 8 hours of operation at 1,000 MW generation output. The lower reservoir dam will be a 145-foot maximum height earth embankment with a 25-foot-wide crest that will provide vehicle access around the rim of the reservoir. The lower reservoir dam has been designed for 6 feet of freeboard at normal maximum water level, which is sufficient to contain wave run-up during normal operation.
The lower reservoir will be sized to contain the volume required for the initial fill of the Project, including waterways, plus adequate freeboard to contain a probable maximum precipitation event. There is no drainage into the lower reservoir from external sources A small spillway will be provided to pass the unlikely combination of a full reservoir plus overpumping from the wellfield, as described in Exhibit A, Section 2.4.2. The unlikely discharge from the spillway and low-level outlet will pass through an energy dissipation structure and flow into an open conveyance channel that will convey water down to existing drainage swales along the west side of US93 A 20-inch-diameter, low-level outlet will be provided for emergency drawdown of the lower reservoir. The low-level outlet will empty onto the spillway chute.
Both the lower reservoir and the lower reservoir dam will be lined with an impermeable liner to reduce water losses from seepage. A 10-foot-tall game fence will be installed around the outside edge of the lower reservoir perimeter road. Additional characteristics of the lower reservoir and lower reservoir dam are provided in Table 2.2-2.
Table 2.2-2. Preliminary Lower Reservoir Characteristics
2.2.1.3 Upper Reservoir Inlet/Outlet Structure
The Project will have an ungated, vertical inlet/outlet bellmouth-type structure located at the bottom of the upper reservoir with a 65-foot-deep conical transition to provide efficient hydraulic flow into the 20-foot-diameter vertical headrace shaft. The shaft-capping structure incorporates a roof designed as a vortex suppression device to enable efficient radial flow distribution during both pumping and generation modes of operation. The roof will include a 10-foot-diameter central access hole with a removable, conical-shaped, steel plug to facilitate future inspection and maintenance operations.
Eight equal 16-foot x 16-foot clear openings between the bellmouth and hood will be fitted with trash racks that can be accessed and removed from the top of the hood.
2.2.1.4 Lower Reservoir Inlet/Outlet Structure
The lower reservoir inlet/outlet structure extends more than 100 feet from the tailrace tunnel and is approximately 92 feet and 6 inches wide. It is designed as a horizontal, fanshaped diffusor to be hydraulically efficient during both pumping and generation
operations The structure subdivides the flow between four rectangular openings, each with dimensions of 26 feet x 20 feet and fitted with trash racks. To isolate the reservoir from the tailrace tunnel, the structure will incorporate a pair of stoplogs with dimensions of 10 feet and 6 inches x 25 feet, installed in formed slots extending down from the inlet/outlet tower structure. When not in use, the stoplogs will be stored on dogging devices in the tower for ease of access
During operation, access to the structure will be by a bridge extending from the eastern rim of the reservoir.
2.2.1.5 Water Supply and Conveyance
Water needed for construction, the initial fill water, and the annual make-up water for losses from seepage, leakage, and evaporation will be supplied by pumping groundwater from a new wellfield near the lower reservoir.
WPW proposes four new groundwater wells in the Steptoe Valley, located to the south of the lower reservoir. The water will be delivered to the lower reservoir via a new conveyance system network composed of well pumps, buried piping, valves, and associated instrumentation. The wells will be installed to a depth of about 800 feet with 14-inch casing. A total depth of 800 feet has been selected to ensure penetration of a suitable thickness of the alluvial aquifer. This is important to minimize the effect of vertical variation in hydraulic conductivity (vertical anisotropy) and ensure a productive and efficient well. Producing groundwater efficiently will minimize drawdown to local domestic or agricultural water users while supplying ample water to the Project.
Each well will contain a submersible pump capable of continuously producing approximately 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm), resulting in 3,000 gpm for the system with a 1,000-gpm redundant reserve. Each well connects to the approximately 4-mile-long buried wellfield conveyance pipeline, shown in Figure 1.0-1 in Exhibit A, that increases in diameter toward the lower reservoir from 8 inches to 16 inches as the wells progressively connect to it. The wellfield conveyance pipeline passes through the dam structure in a buried concrete trench close to the crest of the lower reservoir dam.
A similar 500-gpm-capacity well with associated piping and valve components will be located near the upper reservoir for provision of water to support construction activities, hydrogeologic evaluation, groundwater monitoring, and for the initial filli of the headrace shaft The well is located just east of the Duck Creek Range crest and the upper reservoir with a planned total depth of up to 2,600 ft. Production from this well will be intermittent and short-term while supplying water for reservoir construction, shaft sinking and headrace filling.
At each well, a small shed will be established to house and secure the well headgear.
2.2.1.6 Underground Waterways
The underground waterways from the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir include the headrace shaft, tunnel and manifold, penstocks, draft tubes, and tailrace tunnel.
The 20-foot-diameter, 2,260-foot-high vertical shaft is reinforced-concrete-lined and transitions to the 20-foot-diameter, 240-foot-long horizontal high-pressure, steel-lined headrace tunnel. The headrace tunnel feeds three steel-lined, 11-foot-diameter penstocks with a turbine main inlet valve just upstream of each pump-turbine.
Each pump-turbine draft tube will connect to three 13-foot-diameter, steel-lined, draft tube tunnels that transition to reinforced-concrete-lined just downstream of the transformer cavern The draft tubes then converge into a 22-foot-diameter, 7,610-foot-long, concretelined tailrace tunnel that terminates at the lower reservoir inlet/outlet structure.
2.2.1.7 Powerhouse and Transformer Caverns
The underground cavern is 83 feet wide, 367 feet long, and 191 feet high. The powerhouse has been sized to accommodate installation, operation, and maintenance of the generating and pumping mechanical equipment and appurtenant plant infrastructure described in the following sections The powerhouse cavern also houses the draft tube gates that can be used to completely isolate the pump-turbines from the lower reservoir and the main inlet valves (MIV) The three-unit transformers will be located in an adjacent underground transformer cavern that is 62 feet wide, 300 feet long, and 93 feet high. The caverns are connected by three-unit busbar tunnels that house all the electrical bus cables, switch gear, etc., and an access tunnel.
Both the powerhouse and transformer caverns will be lined with fiber-reinforced shotcrete Provision will be made for capturing and redirecting any groundwater seepages to the drainage gallery. Floor slabs will be supported by a series of reinforced-concrete columns. The powerhouse cavern crane beams will be supported against the sidewalls of the cavern using a grouted anchor system
2.2.1.8 Powerhouse and Transformer Cavern Plant and Equipment Pump-Turbines
The three 333-MW (rated output power at rated power factor), variable-speed, reversible Francis-type pump-turbines are tentatively proposed to provide a total of 1,000 MW of generating power and pumping load. The rated head for each unit (in generating mode) is approximately 2,034 feet, resulting in approximately 2,143 cubic feet per second (cfs) flow at full generating power and 1,593 cfs at full pumping power. The pump-turbine centerline will be set at elevation 6,043 feet, which is 312 feet below the minimum operating level of the lower reservoir. The maximum spiral case width is 32 feet 6 inches and the runner diameter is 13 feet 6 inches
Generator-Motors
The Project includes three 350-megavolt-ampere (333 MW @ 0.95 pf), 18-kV, variablespeed generator-motors, each connected to one of three pump-turbines Doubly fed induction machines are proposed for the generator-motors, which allow load following and frequency control in both the turbine and pump modes of operation. The equipment will provide overall cycle efficiency for pumping and generating of approximately 77 percent.
The estimated annual energy generation, assuming operation 8 hours per day, 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year is 2,400 gigawatt-hours The regulating band in generating mode is estimated to be 170 MW to 340 MW, and 199 MW to 340 MW while in pumping mode. The inertia of each unit is 1,100 metric ton-meters2, and the short-circuit ratio is 0.7.
Transformers
Unitized three-phase, main-generator step-up transformers have been selected for the Project, and these will be located in the underground transformer cavern.
Gates and Valves
Each pump-turbine unit will be equipped with a spherical MIV at the end of the highpressure penstocks. The opening and closing of the MIVs will be by way of double-acting hydraulic servomotors. The MIVs will close safely and reliably under all normal and emergency conditions, including closure against maximum discharge.
Isolation of each pump turbine from the lower reservoir will consist of the combination of closing the draft tube vertical sliding gate and opening a horizontal maintenance isolation sliding gate. Both gates, the vertical and the horizontal, will be installed and integrated in the draft tubes of each unit and will consist of a gate body, housings with covers, and double-acting hydraulic cylinders for each of the horizontal and vertical gates.
Balance of Plant
The powerhouse complex will have several electrical balance-of-plant systems, including 18-kV power equipment (e.g., isolated phase busduct, generator circuit breaker, phase reversal switches, and accessories such as current transformers and voltage transformers), station services AC distribution system, DC battery and distribution system, and plant grounding system. Other electrical balance-of-plant systems include the control system along with protection, communications, security, small power and lighting, and fire detection systems.
The mechanical balance of plant systems will include turbine governors; a cooling water system; a turbine dewatering (blowdown) system; drainage and dewatering systems; a service air system; a bridge crane; a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system; and a fire protection system.
2.2.1.9 Switchyard
The new 345-kV switchyard for pump-turbine/motor-generator operation/collection will use a single bus configuration (a standard power plant bus lineup) and is located as close as possible to the cable tunnel portal to minimize the underground transmission cable route from the portal to the switchyard. The switchyard footprint is approximately 400 feet wide by 370 feet long and it will be secured by fencing. Three 345-kV underground transmission cables will tap into three 345-kV circuit breaker positions and corresponding double-end break isolating switches, each rated at 1,200 amperes, in the switchyard. The collector circuit breakers will tap into one 345-kV circuit breaker position and corresponding doubleend break isolation switch rated at 2,000 amperes via aluminum bus and then transition
into one overhead transmission line position using a 345-kV dead-end H-frame structure that will route to and tap into the Robinson Summit Substation interconnection location.
2.2.1.10 Transmission Lines Underground cables
Nine high-voltage (345-kV) generator-motor conductor cables, three medium voltage underground power cables, and one underground fiber-optic cable will be conveyed from the unit transformers in the transformer cavern through to the cable tunnel portal where the cables will then be buried in a duct bank between the portal and the outdoor switchyard where they then terminate. The cables will be conveyed in purposely designed cable trays supported along the walls of the transformer cavern and cable tunnel.
At the new outdoor switchyard, the three underground circuits will be combined into a single 345-kV transmission line to connect the new outdoor switchyard to the Robinson Summit Substation.
High Voltage Transmission Line
Approximately 25 miles of 345-kV transmission line will be constructed to connect the Project switchyard to NV Energy’s Robinson Summit Substation located 17 miles northwest of Ely, Nevada. The transmission line will parallel the existing NV Energy Transmission Line. The new transmission line will be located adjacent to an existing transmission line within an existing permitted energy corridor designated for new development. The line will be constructed within a right-of-way (width between 160 feet and 250 feet). The transmission line right-of-way will cross both public and private lands. This includes one parcel of BLM land and 13 parcels of private land.
The transmission line will include 114 new transmission structures that are up to 150 feet tall and located approximately 1,000 feet apart along the length of the transmission line. The line will have up to two optical ground wire (OPGW) conductors to provide high-speed communications paths from the proposed White Pine Generation Station to the Robinson Summit Substation. An additional high-speed communications path, if required, will be provided by OPGW on a separate line, all-dielectric self-supporting cable conductor installed as under-build, or a separate underground fiber-optic cable, or a combination of these to create the path.
Low-Voltage Distribution Line
In order to provide back up control power to the switchyard and the powerhouse, a 24.9-kV distribution line will be constructed from the switching station to the nearest acceptable existing distribution line. Upgrades to the existing distribution line may be required if it is inadequate for the additional loads. A direct source of power may be available by distribution line from the Gonder substation.
A transformer will be installed at the switching station to transform the power from local distribution standard levels to 35 kV for the powerhouse requirement Power will be
delivered from the switching station to the powerhouse by an underground power distribution line.
2.2.1.11 Access and Cable Tunnels
The primary access to the powerhouse and transformer caverns will be from the main access portal via the 4,290-foot-long, shotcrete-lined main access tunnel, which will also serve as the primary route to transport the largest pieces of equipment (transformers) down into the transformer cavern. Access during construction and operation can also be gained via the 4,950-foot-long, shotcrete-lined cable tunnel. Both tunnels work together to provide fresh air ventilation, smoke extraction, and dedicated enclosed emergency egress for the underground facility.
To support construction of the underground facilities, several construction access tunnels are required. These construction access tunnels also provide future operational access and emergency egress to various levels of the powerhouse and transformer caverns. Construction access tunnels that support the construction of the headrace shaft and tunnel and tailrace tunnel will be plugged, and no operational access will be provided.
2.2.1.12 Access Roads
The Project will require new permanent and temporary construction access roads. Some temporary access roads will be converted to permanent Project access roads for maintenance, operation, and inspection activities Other temporary access roads will be decommissioned following construction completion
This FLA presents the current proposed access road design and arrangement. As the Project design advances, the proposed locations and uses of access roads may be revised. WPW continues to consider and evaluate alternative access routes to reduce and eliminate potential impacts to land, resources, and habitat.
Western Access Road
Construction and operational access to the main access portal will be provided from US Highway 93, via a 1.7-mile-long permanent paved dual-lane western access road. The western access road also provides access to the various construction laydowns and staging areas, the wellfield conveyance access road, the lower reservoir perimeter and crest roads, and the 0.1-mile switchyard access road. The western access road crosses both tracks of the Nevada Northern Railway, namely the lower Mainline track and the upper HiLine track.
Upper Reservoir Access Road
Access to the upper reservoir perimeter and crest roads, the upper reservoir laydown and staging areas, and the upper reservoir well will be by a 7-mile-long, permanent, paved, dual lane upper reservoir access road that traverses up the Steptoe Valley from a tie-in along the western access road at Station 16+00, about 0.3 miles from US 93.
An alternative access to the upper reservoir from the Duck Creek side, referred to as the Upper Reservoir Optional Access Road, is also under consideration by WPW. This 3.5-mile-long, permanent, paved dual lane upper reservoir access road traverses up the Duck Creek range from a tie-in along the White Pine County Road 29 (NV-486)
Wellfield Conveyance Access Road
The 3.2-mile-long wellfield conveyance access road will provide permanent access to the groundwater wells. The road is unpaved due to the limited use during operation and will require dust suppression during construction.
Reservoir Roads
Permanent, paved, single-lane access roads are provided around the perimeters of the reservoir dams and along the reservoir dam crests. Access down into the reservoir for maintenance and access is provided by concrete-paved roads.
Other Access Roads
Access to various sections along the high-voltage transmission line right-of-way will be established through a combination of using existing access roads and tracks and new access along the right-of-way to facilitate construction. An access plan will be developed with contractors and in consultation with affected landowners.
Access to secured temporary explosives storage facilities will be along existing unpaved access tracks to the east of the main access tunnel portal.
WPW will make provisions to maintain recreational access across the Project site once construction is complete.
2.2.1.13 Other Features
Spoil Disposal
Most of the Project surface facilities, including the lower reservoir, staging and laydown areas, upper reservoir, switchyard, and roads, are being designed to optimize the cut/fill balance and limit the amount of surplus material to be spoiled. As such, it is expected that there will be limited spoil arising from the upper reservoir area.
A permanent spoil disposal site will allow the storage of approximately 1,005,000 cubic yards of spoil arising from the lower reservoir and underground excavations that cannot be reused as fill material. Additional areas adjacent to the spoil disposal location have been identified, should the spoil area requirements grow through the development of the design. The location of the spoil area was selected to limit environmental disturbance and visual impacts on sensitive habitats.
Area Lighting
Operating exterior lighting will be minimal following construction. The majority of the Project’s electromechanical equipment is proposed to be contained underground within
the powerhouse and transformer caverns. Area lighting for the Project’s surface facilities will consist of safety lighting around the switchyard and main tunnel access portal, and is proposed to incorporate both the International Dark Sky Association criteria and Occupational Safety and Health Administration outdoor workplace safety requirements.
In addition, lighting may be provided to facilitate inspections of the reservoir dams in the unlikely event of an emergency. Lighting there will be used only during such occasions and will be controlled by switch.
Fencing and Security
During construction, WPW will erect temporary security fencing around the various laydown and staging areas as well as key work fronts as they are developed. Signage and barriers along existing unpaved access routes will be established to prevent unauthorized access into the construction work zones.
Upon completion of the lower and upper reservoirs, 10-foot-tall game fencing and other safety and security features as required for safe and secure operation of the facility will be established around the outside edge of the perimeter roads. WPW will establish similar fencing and safety features around the switchyard and main access portal. Safety and security design features will address worker and public safety, as well as avoid or minimize potential Project effects on wildlife.
2.2.2 Project Safety
As part of the licensing process, FERC will review the adequacy of the proposed Project facilities. FERC staff will inspect the licensed Project both during and after construction. Inspection during construction will concentrate on adherence to FERC-approved plans and specifications. The Project will be constructed and operated using industry standard means, methods, and materials in accordance with FERC’s Dam Safety Program
2.2.3 Project Operation
The Project will operate as an off-stream, closed-loop, pumped storage energy storage project. Approximately 4,082 AF of water will be pumped from the lower reservoir through the water conveyance system to the upper reservoir. To generate power, water will be released from the upper reservoir and passed through the underground powerhouse containing three 333-MW, variable-speed, reversible, pump-turbine units. The Project is designed to generate for 8 hours at peak energy demand at a nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. Generating and pumping dispatch schedules for the Project will be determined based on market demand and grid condition. Annual electrical energy production will be approximately 2,400 gigawatt-hours assuming the Project runs at full generation capacity for the maximum 8 hours each day, 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year.
2.2.4 Summary of Proposed Environmental Measures
WPW describes proposed PM&E measures in Section 3.3 through 3.13 of this Exhibit. Other environmental measures may be proposed based on continued consultation with
resource agencies, to protect and enhance resources, and mitigation potential of Project effects, as those effects are better understood through continued design, analysis, and consultation. PM&E measures proposed at this time are summarized in Table 2.2-3 In addition to these PM&E measures, WPW understands that an exception or variance of certain requirements in the BLM Ely District RMP will be required to facilitate construction of the Project.
Table 2.2-3. Environmental Measures Proposed by WPW
Number
Enhancement/Mitigation Measures
1. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will include:
• The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) recommended by the State of Nevada, to specify erosion control measures to help minimize potential adverse impacts.
• Specific actions to be implemented during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities and to control fugitive dust.
• Actions to address earthworks in soils that are highly erodible.
2. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the commencement of construction, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP is anticipated to help prevent erosion, scouring, and general water quality degradation during Project construction. The SWPPP will include:
• Description of potential storm water discharges from support activities related to Project construction such as equipment staging areas, material storage areas, and access roads.
• Discussion of other potential pollutions sources (e.g., vehicle fueling, equipment maintenance)
• Discussion of BMPs, including those related to erosion prevention, sediment control, temporary and permanent stabilization measures, construction site dewatering, good housekeeping, bulk storage of petroleum products, concrete waste, employee training, maintenance schedule, and inspection schedule.
Exhibit E
and Resource Area
Section 3.3 Geologic and Soil Resources
Section 3.4 Water Resources
Section 3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources
Section 3.6 Botanical Resources
Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources
Section 3.8 Recreation Resources
Section 3.3 Geologic and Soil Resources
Section 3.4 Water Resources
Section 3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources
3. Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan to address potential issues resulting from spills of hazardous substances or fuels during construction, operation, or maintenance. The Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan will:
• Specify materials handling procedures and storage requirements.
• Identify spill notification and cleanup procedures for areas in which spills may occur.
• Identify inventory, storage, and handling methods for hazardous materials.
• Develop employee training procedures to help minimize accidental pollutant releases which could contaminate surface or groundwater or stormwater runoff.
4. Landowner Coordination: WPW will coordinate, as required or necessary, with adjacent and downstream private landowners regarding potential Project effects. Specifically, WPW proposes to coordinate with landowners about:
• Affected grazing permittee(s) to determine the best way of avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating any impacts to their properties and grazing permits.
Section 3.3 Geologic and Soil Resources
Section 3.4 Water Resources
Section 3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources
Section 3.6 Botanical Resources
Section 3.4 Water Resources
Section 3.9 Land Use
5. Traffic Management Plan: WPW will develop and implement a Traffic Management Plan prior to construction. The plan will include:
• Measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife, including Project speed limits to reduce wildlifevehicle collisions and methods of enforcement.
• Manage traffic by implementing a speed limit to reduce wildlife injury due to collisions.
• Use existing access roads wherever possible. Any temporary access roads built for Project construction will be decommissioned and revegetated after use.
6. Transmission Line Location: The Project transmission line will be located adjacent to an existing transmission line and primarily within an existing permitted energy corridor already designated for new development, thus reducing potential for impacts to resources.
Section 3.6 Botanical Resources
Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources
Section 3.6 Botanical Resources
Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources
7. Biological Resources Protection Training Program: WPW proposes to develop a biological resources protection training program. The program is intended to help inform construction workers and other Project staff of the sensitive biological (botanical and wildlife) resources in the area.
8. Noxious Weed Management Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Noxious Weed Management Plan for construction of the Project. This plan will be prepared in coordination with BLM and NDOW and submitted to BLM for approval prior to BLM’s issuance of a Right-of-Way Grant Authorization. The plan will include measures to reduce the spread or introduction of noxious weed and invasive plant species. The Noxious Weed Management Plan will incorporate restrictions and guidelines for application of pesticides including herbicides, including avoidance of known sensitive plant species. WPW will coordinate with BLM regarding herbicide use on BLM lands. Measures that will be included in the plan include:
• Prevent introduction and establishment by cleaning vehicles and equipment prior to movement to a new location in order to minimize the potential for transporting seeds.
• Work with land managers to develop and implement a plan to assess, treat, and monitor noxious weeds and invasive plants at the Project and in the adjacent landscape where they are present.
• Work with the local weed and pest district to implement long-term plans for successful restoration of disturbed sites.
Section 3.11 Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Section 3.6 Botanical Resources
Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources
Section 3.6 Botanical Resources
9. Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan: WPW will develop and implement a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan to identify measures that could be reasonably implemented for management, avoidance, and mitigation of potential habitat and associated vegetation losses during construction and operation of the Project. The Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan will:
Section 3.6 Botanical Resources
Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources
Number
Measures
• Identify specific measures to be taken to restore vegetation disturbed by Project-related construction activities.
• Describe revegetation efforts to prevent soil erosion and the spread of weeds, maintain or restore existing native plant communities and wildlife habitat, and integrate site features with the surrounding environment.
• Identify site specific restoration, reclamation, and enhancement measures should future temporary ground disturbance be needed.
• Identify methods to salvage cacti prior to ground disturbance in compliance with Nevada regulations.
10. Raptor-Safe Transmission Line Structures: WPW proposes to design raptor-safe transmission line structures (i.e., the transmission line design will comply with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines: Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art in 2006 [APLIC 2006] and Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 [APLIC 2012]) to protect avian species from collision or electrocution as a result of landing or perching on transmission lines. This design may include:
• Installing visibility enhancement devices to reduce the risk of collision on new or existing lines (e.g., marker balls, bird diverters).
• Regular maintenance of the transmission line and retrofitting the lines as applicable, which may include covering jumper wires, reframing, or replacing a structure.
• Installing perch guards between closely-spaced conductors above arms and conductors to keep raptors from contacting energized parts.
• Providing safe alternative locations for perching and nesting.
11. Noise: To minimize the effects of noise related to construction and operation of the Project, WPW proposes to perform noise modeling as Project design advances including finalizing the construction schedule, construction equipment, ventilation equipment, and transmission line design. Noise modeling results will inform the development of additional mitigation strategies, if needed, to reduce potential Project related noise effects at sage-grouse leks.
12. Pre-Construction Surveys: Prior to construction, WPW will complete wildlife surveys and habitat assessments. These surveys will be conducted by trained biologists in areas that will be disturbed by the Project. Specific pre-construction surveys include:
• Documenting raptors and nests that occur in the Project vicinity.
• Conduct surveys for nesting migratory birds.
Based on the findings of the surveys, WPW with consult with applicable regulating agencies to identify reasonable avoidance or mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts.
13. Biological Construction Monitors: WPW proposes to have biological construction monitors on site during construction to monitor sensitive biological resources, including conducting avian nesting surveys of areas near active construction during typical nesting season (March 1 to July 31). It should be noted that birds will sometimes nest outside of the typical nesting season and will still be protected under the MBTA if they do. The monitors will have the authority to temporarily halt construction equipment if any amphibian, reptile, or small mammal is unearthed, for the purpose to relocating the animal to outside of the construction area.
14. Raptor and Bat Protection Plan: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance at the start of formal construction activities, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a Raptor and Bat Protection Plan in consultation with USFWS and NDOW. The Raptor and Bat Protection Plan will include:
• Appropriate seasonal and spatial buffers of active raptor nests and bald eagle roost sites.
• Raptor-safe guidelines for all new electrical construction.
• Employee training to ensure plan compliance.
15. Outdoor Lighting Plan: WPW proposes to develop a Project outdoor lighting plan to incorporate lighting design features that help minimize disturbance to wildlife species during construction and operation of the Project. The outdoor lighting plan will include:
• Designing outdoor lighting to incorporate design and operational features to help to reduce impacts on foraging bats, migrating and nocturnal birds, and night skies.
• Using localized and portable lighting during construction where and when the work is occurring.
Measures
• Provisions to power lighting equipment by generators that will have switches to cut power when lighting is not required during construction.
• The use of minimal exterior lighting that will consist of safety lighting. For all safety lighting, WPW proposes to minimize lighting to the extent possible and use dark-sky compliant lighting fixtures.
16. Pygmy Rabbit Management: WPW proposes to avoid active pygmy rabbit habitat when feasible. If pygmy rabbit habitat cannot be avoided, WPW will contact BLM and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed in coordination with BLM.
17. Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan: Prior to the onset of ground-disturbance associated with the start of formal construction activities, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan developed in consultation with BLM and NDOW. WPW proposes to design a transmission line that minimizes adverse impacts to Greater Sage-grouse, including complying with applicable APLIC guidelines in “Best Management Practices for Electric Utilities in Sage-grouse Habitat” (APLIC 2015). The proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan may include:
• Installing anti-perch and/or anti-nesting devices to reduce use by predatory birds.
• Identifying methods to reduce collision risk for Greater Sage-grouse and migratory birds.
• Limiting construction disturbance and access during breeding season.
• Minimizing spacing between existing and proposed transmission lines.
• Minimizing the height and number of tall structures at the upper reservoir to reduce the Project facilities that are visible from the four active Greater Sage-grouse leks closest to the Project (Canyon Springs NE, Gilford Meadows, Mosier, and Berry Creek Turnoff).
18. Wildlife Seasonal Restrictions: WPW will work closely with BLM and NDOW to plan for Project construction windows that provide for both wildlife protection and feasible Project construction timelines. This will include developing manageable timing and scheduling restrictions that can accommodate the construction schedule. WPW will coordinate with BLM and NDOW for seasonal timing restriction exception or variance requests for construction activities occurring in Greater Sage-grouse seasonal habitats.
19. Reservoir Wildlife Exclusion: WPW proposes to fence and monitor both reservoirs to prevent cattle, wild ungulates, and other medium- to large-sized animals from accessing the area. Based on the current Project design, reservoir wildlife exclusion measures may include:
• Installing an 10-foot-tall game fence around the base of each reservoir.
• A gate, or set of gates, will be installed to have continued safe access and egress to the reservoirs while maintaining a minimum height of at least 10 feet.
• There will be a one-way exit gate, built during construction, to facilitate a safe exit in the event that wildlife were to enter the fenced-off area.
• WPW will provide regular maintenance and monitoring to ensure the fencing has not failed.
20. Big Game: WPW proposes to coordinate with BLM to secure appropriate exception or variances, as needed, for construction in big game crucial winter areas.
21. Greater Sage-GrouseCredits: WPW proposes to purchase credits through the State’s Conservation Credit System from credit developers in White Pine County, if possible, to offset potential impacts to Greater Sage-grouse. If credit developers are not available in White Pine County, then WPW will purchase credits as close as possible to White Pine County.
22. Public Access: WPW proposes to manage lands over which it has control in the Project Boundary for appropriate public access. WPW proposes to:
• Prohibit fishing and other recreation in and around the reservoirs.
• Fence both reservoirs for site security, public safety, and wildlife protection.
23. NNR Coordination: WPW proposes to coordinate with NNR throughout Project construction to minimize potential effects to NNR operations. This may include:
• Assisting NNR to provide educational information about the Project and the role of pumped storage projects in stability and resiliency of the electric grid for NNR passengers on the HiLine.
Measures
• Coordinate lighting for Project construction to avoid night time NNR excursion schedules.
24. Transmission Line Design: During final design, WPW will complete designs of transmission facilities (including locations of transmission towers and access roads) in a manner that minimizes surface disturbing activity in identified floodplains. If transmission structures cannot be located outside of floodplains, WPW will consult with BLM on steps to identify reasonable mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to water features.
25. Visual Resources: WPW proposes to:
• Use BLM environmental colors (Standard Environmental Colors, Color Chart CC-001) for surface coatings of fences, gates, and other above-ground facility features.
• Design the reservoirs and other above ground structures so that materials repeat and/or blend in with the existing form, line, color, and texture of the landscape to the extent feasible.
26. Temporary Housing: If temporary housing is not sufficient for the construction workforce, WPW anticipates that its construction contractor will construct worker housing as needed.
27. Draft Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP): WPW proposes to follow the enhancement/mitigation measures proposed in the Draft HPMP (Appendix K). As described in the draft HPMP, WPW proposes to conduct cultural resource monitoring, if necessary, during ground disturbance activity to prevent impacts to known or unknown cultural resources. The HPMP also includes the following cultural resource monitoring that may be used:
• During non-ground disturbing activities, field check previously recorded cultural resources to assess their current condition and identify any impacts (past or ongoing); and/or assess the usefulness of historic property avoidance and/or other treatment measures.
• Where no Project-related impacts have been identified but where the potential exists for adverse effects to occur over the term of the license, the site will be treated as a historic property; thus, monitoring of resources will occur at three-year or 10-year intervals. The
Measures
monitoring frequency is dependent on the sensitivity of the resources (e.g., resources in close proximity to locations where recreational activities occur or where the nature of the resource components are more susceptible to impacts having greater sensitivity).
2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
The current Project design was carefully considered through an analysis of location, geologic features, and existing transmission corridors. The current design was selected based on the following features:
• Proximity to the Section 368 3 designated energy corridor for building a transmission line to the only substation in the area large enough to accommodate the Project;
• Geologic features, including placement on transitional rock, which allows for tunneling of Project structures;
• Existing topography allowing for the highest head over the shortest distance;
• Steptoe Valley uniquely has a water resource of sufficient size to provide needed initial fill volume; and
• Proximity to Ely, Nevada, which provides the only services within a very wide geographic area.
Other alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further analysis are described in the following sections.
2.3.1 Alternative Types of Electric Generation and Energy Storage
2.3.1.1 Introduction
Carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector have dropped over 30 percent since 2005 because of a combination of a switch from coal to natural gas and an increase renewable generation (Carnegie Mellon University 2021, 2017). Relatedly, a significant amount of continued investment in megawatts of bulk storage will be needed to support integration of carbon-free energy resources. In many parts of the western U.S., there are times of day when demand for electricity is lower than the production of renewable power. This leads to curtailment of renewable generation and negative electricity pricing. Continued deployment of renewables will require that excess power be stored for later use. To serve the needs of the entire western U.S., many gigawatt-hours of storage capacity are required.
The Project represents an exceptional grid support opportunity for Nevada and the greater region. Alternatives for carbon-free dispatchable power are limited, including primarily large-scale energy storage. Pumped storage projects have exceptional value by virtue of
3 In accordance with Section 368(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the BLM designated 5,000 miles of energy corridors (commonly referred to as “Section 368 energy corridors” or “West-wide energy corridors”) for potential placement of future oil, natural gas and hydrogen pipelines, and electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure. As preferred locations for energy transport projects on BLM-administered public lands, these corridors are intended to facilitate long-distance movement of oil, gas or hydrogen via pipelines, and transmission and distribution of highvoltage electric power.
storage duration and lifespan. However, a relatively small number of new pumped storage sites have the unique characteristics of the Project, and no other sites in the critical market region have the combination of characteristics of the Project site.
The site for the proposed Project is 8 miles northeast of the City of Ely in White Pine County, Nevada. The site has a unique combination of favorable topography, access to Steptoe Valley as a water source, geologic features appropriate for tunneling to house Project facilities, and proximity to a Section 368-designated transmission corridor to an existing grid substation large enough to accommodate the Project.
Prior to selecting the proposed Project site, other electric energy alternatives were considered, including fossil-based generation, nuclear power, renewable resources (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric), other pumped storage facilities, and other energy storage technologies, as discussed below.
2.3.1.2 Market Context
The future electric energy supply in the Nevada and greater regional market will come largely from solar and wind resources, which are non-dispatchable, intermittent, and variable in nature. This is evidenced by the recently voter-approved Nevada constitutional requirement for 50 percent renewable energy sourcing by 2030 and a law requiring 100 percent carbon-free resources by 2050. NV Energy has affirmed its goal for a 100 percent renewable energy future.
2.3.1.3 Fossil-Based Generation
Coal-fired steam generation provides large-scale baseload energy, serving a very different function in an energy supply portfolio than pumped storage. As a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired generation in the market region for the Project is being phased out and there are no new plans for new coal-fired capacity additions. Therefore, coal is not a viable alternative to the Project.
Gas-fired power plants include simple-cycle combustion turbines (SCCT), combined-cycle combustion turbines (CCCT), and internal combustion reciprocating engines. Gas-fired generation has provided most of the peaking and intermediate capacity in the western market since the 1990s. CCCT plants are used for intermediate-to-baseload service. SCCTs, including frame turbines and aeroderivatives, are used for peaking power and are lower in cost than pumped storage. They, along with CCCT plants, are significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions and their inclusion in regional resource plans is being scaled back dramatically. Furthermore, while they can be used to follow variations in solar and wind output, they do not provide the energy storage function that will be critical for integrating large amounts of renewable resources. Therefore gas-fired generation is not a viable alternative to the Project.
2.3.1.4 Nuclear Power
Nuclear fission power plants have provided baseload in many regions of the U.S. since the 1970s, and several plants operate in California, Arizona, and Washington.
Nuclear power plants are a carbon-free source of generation. With the exiting technology available, they are large, have a long development timeline, and require significant capital investments. Disposal of nuclear waste is also a significant concern. There are no considerations or plans for new nuclear power in any regional resource plans for Nevada. A few small, modular reactors and natrium reactors (based on new nuclear technology) are currently proposed at sites in Idaho and Wyoming. Cost estimates for these pilot plants are high, and they will need to be operated at a close to baseload capacity factor to keep the cost of energy at a competitive level.
Nuclear generation is a baseload resource and does not provide the flexible energy storage services required to integrate large amounts of renewable energy. When combined with cost, ongoing concerns about waste disposal, and the experimental nature of new nuclear technology options, nuclear power is not a viable generation alternative to the Project.
2.3.1.5 Renewable Resources
Solar energy, particularly photovoltaic solar (PV solar), is emerging as a dominant new form of electric energy supply across the U.S., and particularly in the western U.S. and in Nevada. It is one of the lowest cost energy sources available today and does not generate greenhouse gas emissions. Solar output is relatively predictable, with only cloud cover interrupting normal patterns of generation. However, those normal patterns involve a midday output peak, which does not coincide with peak demand, and no generation at all during the night. The result is the well-established “duck curve,” with a steep ramp needed for generating capacity that aligns with increasing load in the early evening. Since PV solar is not a firm or dispatchable generation alternative, it is not a viable alternative to the Project. In fact, for the reasons given, PV solar is a major driver of the need for energy storage resources like the proposed Project.
Wind energy is the other leading source of carbon-free energy seeing widespread deployment today. Where the wind resource is of high quality, the cost of wind energy is very low. Wind energy viability is site specific, and Nevada in general is a relatively weak wind regime as compared to other western states. Therefore, Nevada is likely to import wind energy production from other states. Furthermore, like PV solar, wind energy is not dispatchable, and it has a much lower ability than solar to predictably match demand. Like solar, therefore, the use of wind energy is a major driver of the need for energy storage resources like the proposed Project.
Geothermal energy is well-established, and Nevada has a significant number of geothermal power plants. Geothermal is carbon-free and, unlike PV solar and wind, provides firm power that is relatively dispatchable. However, the economics of geothermal power require that it operates as a baseload facility. Geothermal resources are site specific and require significant lead times and development risk. More generally, the cost of geothermal is comparatively high, and is depressing its inclusion in most resource plans. For these reasons, and since geothermal generation is generally baseload in nature and not able to provide the energy storage services needed for integrating other renewable resources, geothermal is not a viable alternative to the Project.
Conventional hydroelectric power has provided relatively firm, carbon-free energy in parts of the western U.S., specifically the Pacific Northwest, California, and Colorado, for many decades. Nevada does not have the potential for new significant conventional hydroelectric capacity due to its arid climate. Where hydroelectric power is being utilized in the state for example, at the Hoover Dam that reliance may be endangered by water shortages from climate change and other effects on the Colorado River. Across a wider region, there is some potential for new, small hydropower additions to non-powered dams, but there are no plans for major hydropower projects akin to those developed in other parts of the west in earlier generations.
The lack of viable development opportunities for new major hydroelectric power sources in the western region, along with the other reasons given here, mean that conventional hydroelectric power is not a viable alternative to the Project.
2.3.1.6 Other Energy Storage Technologies
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are seeing increasing deployment, primarily in the form of lithium-ion batteries paired with PV solar. The cost of batteries has fallen significantly over the past several years, and costs are forecasted to continue to decline. Stand-alone battery projects are being constructed at the scale of hundreds of megawatts, and projects of 1 gigawatt have been proposed. These systems generally have storage durations of 2 to 4 hours.
Like pumped storage projects, BESS represent dispatchable capacity that helps to integrate carbon-free renewable resources and will thus see significant deployment across the market. NV Energy’s resource planning indicates planned deployments of thousands of megawatts of battery systems. Compared with pumped storage, BESS have the advantage of shorter development times, modularity, and flexibility of location. However, BESS have substantial disadvantages compared to pumped storage, such as:
• Higher cost at longer durations of storage (longer duration will be increasingly important as renewable energy penetration increases);
• Significantly shorter useful life (10-20 years, depending on cycling);
• Degradation of storage capacity and efficiency through use (resulting in a higher fixed operations and maintenance [O&M] cost for augmentation);
• Environmental impacts from mining of battery materials and the lack of methods for recycling spent battery cells; and
• Future supply risks associated with competition for materials (lithium and other materials) and political considerations (e.g., reliance on raw materials and manufacturing in China). Evidence of this risk is seen in recent industry studies showing a slowdown in battery price decline due to rising commodity prices and reduced production.
Using lithium-ion as a benchmark for comparison, an analysis (Estimated Value of Project Power) is provided in Exhibit D to illustrate how and why the Project represents a lower long-term cost for long-duration storage than utility-scale batteries when viewed through the energy or MWh lens.
Other energy storage technologies, such as new battery technologies, hydrogen-based systems, and mechanical systems like rail energy storage and systems that lift and lower concrete blocks, are generally only at the demonstration or research and development stage, and do not represent commercially available alternatives to the Project.
Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) is the only other long-duration energy storage technology with an established track record, but this technology requires very specific and rare salt dome geology. The CAES technology available today also requires some combustion of natural gas, a source of greenhouse gases. A CAES project in Utah is being developed for the only known “Gulf Coast” style domal-quality salt formation in the western United States. There are no known proposals for CAES projects in Nevada.
2.3.1.7 Other Pumped Storage Projects
The viability of pumped storage projects requires a relatively rare combination of factors to be present, including suitable topography and geology, land availability, a source of fill water, an acceptable level of environmental impact, correct sizing for the market, and interconnection options. No major projects have been constructed in the U.S. since 1995, and relatively few proposed pumped storage projects advance to development and receiving a FERC license. There are only three projects in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council region that have received a FERC license: Eagle Mountain in California, Swan Lake North in Oregon, and Gordon Butte in Montana Construction has not commenced at any of these projects.
In addition, several projects have been recently proposed in Nevada specifically, via preliminary permit applications filed with the FERC. Pumped storage projects at the preliminary permit stage are considered speculative and, as of the time of this writing, none of these concepts have advanced beyond this early phase.
No pumped storage projects are currently proposed in Nevada with an equivalent or superior level of viability as that represented by the Project, based on the factors listed above, and none have advanced in terms of fundamental milestones to the extent of the Project.
2.3.1.8 Summary
BESS are the most likely alternative to the Project in terms of addressing utility and market needs for a distributed storage solution in the emerging low-carbon market. However, the advantages of pumped storage, where it can be built, make the Project an exceptional opportunity for meeting the needs of Nevada and the greater regional energy market.
There are currently no proposed projects that could provide the same benefit to optimizing regional diversity of renewable energy siting and existing and new transmission in Nevada. Therefore, no other pumped storage projects in Nevada are considered viable alternatives to the Project
2.3.2 Project Location Alternatives
As discussed in Section 2.3.1, pumped storage project siting is unusual among utility resource technologies because the technical and economic viability of a given project is highly dependent on an uncommon combination of factors. The most significant of these factors are depicted in Figure 2.3-1 Site locations in White Pine County were explored based upon the County’s attributes of water supply, favorable geology and topography, access to construction power, short distance to an existing high voltage transmission interconnection, and local infrastructure to support multi-year construction duration. As detailed in this section, when screening for these factors, the Steptoe Valley area north of Ely became the area of focus for the Project.
Figure 2.3-1. Pumped Storage Site Selection Factors
Initial Geographic and Environmental Considerations
Topography, Water, Services, and Site Access Factors
The single greatest driver of pumped storage cost is the combination of available head (i.e., vertical drop) and horizontal water conveyance length in conjunction with suitable geology, and reservoir topography. Head can range from the low hundreds of feet to over 3,000 feet, but the optimal head for a pumped storage project with good economy of scale is 2,000 to 2,200 feet. This makes the most efficient use of water and land while minimizing the sizing of tunnels, rotating equipment, the powerhouse, and other structures. The horizontal length of the water conveyances (typically tunnels) to create the head available by the topography must typically be less than 10 to 12 times the total head for an economic project. And the geologic characteristics must be able to support economic tunneling methods and reduced underground risk. Lastly, the topography that will define the upper and lower reservoir configurations must be able to economically design and construct dams that provide enough water volume to support a minimum of 8 hours of storage at the desired capacity for generation and pumping.
Additional favorable factors present in the Steptoe Valley north of Ely include:
• A groundwater resource with a significant amount of water rights previously granted for economic development/industrial use, with a public water rights holder willing to lease and sale a portion use some of those water rights for the proposed Project.
• The largest town in the region, affording services needed to support Project development, construction, and operation.
• Good highway access into the Project site.
Environmental Factors
Environmental screening factors are key to site selection. These include biological and cultural factors, along with general land use policy.
Figure 2.3-2 shows the location of the proposed Project configuration. Most of the Project Footprint falls within one or more sensitive areas or habitat classifications (i.e., Greater Sage-grouse general habitat, Greater Sage-grouse priority habitat, and U.S. Forest Service [USFS] roadless areas). Each Project configuration alternative considered has the potential to impact (temporarily or permanently) habitat, wildlife, and botanical species during Project construction and operation.
As described in Section 2.2.4, a combination of PM&E measures support selection of pumped storage development in this location
2.3.3 Transmission Interconnection Alternatives
Beginning with location on the transmission system, and within the market, Figure 2.3-3 illustrates why the eastern Nevada region, namely in terms of transmission facilities around the Robinson Summit Substation, is a particularly important one for pumped storage development in general and the Project in particular. As noted in Section 2.3.1.2, Nevada has adopted a clean energy mandate of 50 percent sourcing by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. This means a high reliance on solar and potentially also wind resources, which are variable and intermittent in nature. Reliability and economic use of transmission requires energy storage, and pumped storage can be an exceptional value in energy storage, as previously discussed in Section 2.3.1.1. Within Nevada, eastern Nevada represents an important crossroads of existing, planned, and proposed transmission:
• One Nevada (ON Line) (Figure 2.3-3) is a 500-kV transmission line already in place.
• Greenlink North and West, both of which are 525-kV transmission lines, have been approved to facilitate transmission of renewable resources and effective service to the state.
• The SWIP North Line, a 500-kV transmission line that is almost fully permitted, would connect Robinson Summit Substation to the Pacific Northwest market and open a path to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) market, likely delivering resource diversity (in the form of wind energy) to the Nevada market, which further enhances the value of a pumped storage project in this area.
• The proposed Cross-Tie 500-kV Transmission Line would create a strong link between the Nevada and Utah systems.
• Finally, an existing Section 368-designated transmission corridor to Robinson Summit Substation that already serves two existing lines, one of which is a 345-kV transmission line of similar structure to that proposed for the Project.
Three potential grid interconnection points (Gonder, Intermountain Power Project [IPP], and Robinson Summit Substation) were evaluated as potential locations for interconnecting the Project to the grid, based on the routing of existing high voltage transmission lines in the vicinity of the proposed Project. These potential Project interconnections are described below, with identification of the preferred interconnection site at the Robinson Substation.
2.3.3.1 Interconnection at Gonder Substation
The Project is located adjacent to the Gonder Substation, which has a 230-kV and a 345kV transmission system interconnection. Gonder Substation is the point of interconnection
identified in the initial preliminary permits for the Project. In 2019, WPW engaged Power Engineers, Inc. to review the viability of interconnecting 1,000, 750, and 600 MW at Gonder Substation and at the nearby Robinson Summit Substation under N-1 conditions and utilizing the Western Electricity Coordinating Council’s 2029 Heavy Summer Base Case. The Gonder Substation interconnection alternative study indicated multiple thermal, voltage, and stability violations, even at the smallest conceptual capacity of 600 MW.
The Robinson Summit Substation interconnection was shown to be substantially better electrically from a power flow perspective and incurring significantly fewer interconnection issues. Based on the Project size, interconnection into the Gonder Substation was eliminated as a viable alternative.
2.3.3.2 Interconnection at IPP (Utah)
The Intermountain Power Project (IPP) is a thermal power station located in Millard County, Utah that has a 500-kV substation that is the origination point of the Southern Transmission System DC line, which delivers energy from the IPP to Southern California. This point of interconnection would presumably be strong enough to serve the Project. Presently, a 230-kV transmission line runs from the Gonder Substation, adjacent to the Project site, to the IPP. The capacity of this existing line is too small for a viable interconnection to IPP for the Project. Given that there is an existing corridor, an alternative generation interconnection line to the IPP following this path was considered. However, at least two factors make such an alternative non-viable:
1. Interconnection to the IPP would involve construction of a transmission line approximately 144 miles in length or six times greater than the distance of the proposed transmission interconnection line for the Project to Robinson Summit Substation as noted below. The greater distance would add at least $250 million to the cost of the Project, as well as incur greater transmission losses.
2. There is a large amount of generation already queued for interconnection at the IPP. WPW was able to secure an early queue position and subsequent interconnection agreement into Robinson Summit Substation that would not be possible to replicate at the IPP.
2.3.3.3 Preferred Interconnection Alternative
The Robinson Summit Substation is the only technically and economically viable point of interconnection for the Project. It is the northern terminus of an existing 500-kV transmission line leading to the Las Vegas area, and it will be a terminus for the new Greenlink North 525-kV Transmission Line that has been approved by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission. It would also be the southern terminus for the proposed 500-kV SWIP North Transmission Line. Additionally, WPW has a signed interconnection agreement with NV Energy for this location. Through Robinson Summit Substation, the Project will help integrate renewable energy and optimize transmission utilization on a statewide and regional basis. Robinson Summit Substation is also accessible from the Project via an existing Section 368-designated transmission corridor where two lines have already been constructed
For these reasons, Robinson Summit Substation is the preferred and proposed interconnection point for the Project. This determination has established the proposed transmission line route.
2.4 Project Siting Details
The above factors result in the selection of the Steptoe Valley north of Ely as the general location for the proposed Project.
2.4.1 Site Topography Alternatives
WPW examined in detail the topography of this general locale. The available head (difference in elevation) and horizontal distance between the specific location of the two reservoirs are critical factors. Figure 2.4-1 illustrates the topography alternatives analyzed.
As a result of a review of the above topographical information, seven alternative conveyance routes within the Steptoe Valley area of White Pine County were identified as shown in Figure 2.4-2, and their individual characteristics are summarized in Table 2.4-1
Table 2.4-1. Topographical Site Alternative Characteristics
* L = total length of conveyance; H = gross rated head available for energy production.
Alternative 5 was selected for advancement to the next phase of study based on having shortest tunnel length, the lowest length-to-head ratio, proximity to both construction power and the transmission interconnect, and the anticipated least cost upper reservoir arrangement. It was also recognized that the preferred upper reservoir site would result in less construction time, disturbance, and noise at the upper reservoir, which would result in fewer impacts (relative to the other alternatives) to wildlife habitat, such as Greater Sagegrouse and big game species.
2.4.2 Project Scale and Sizing Alternatives
The cost per MW and per MWh of pumped storage projects is crucial for successful project development. Generally, the larger the project, the better the economics. However, a variety of factors limit project scale and size. These include site features and constructability, environmental considerations, the availability of water, transmission capacity, and market need.
2.4.2.1 Reconnaissance and Pre-Feasibility Engineering
Based on the concept of the Project utilizing the Alternative 5 site, a variety of capacity sizes were considered. The initial (2010) preliminary permit application proposed a 300MW project. The successive preliminary permit application (2013) proposed a 750-MW project. The 2017 preliminary permit application included 250-MW and 500-MW alternatives.
After the site for the Project was selected, a reconnaissance-level engineering study was performed to assess the viability of three alternative Project configurations (HDR 2019):
1. Alternative 5.1, a 500-MW (2 x 250-MW variable speed units) pumped storage facility with an 8-hour maximum operating time.
2. Alternative 5.2, a 750-MW (3 x 250-MW variable speed units) pumped storage facility with an 8-hour maximum operating time.
3. Alternative 5.3, a 1,000-MW (4 x 250-MW variable speed units) pumped storage facility with a 6-hour maximum operating time.
Two different reservoir configurations were considered for these Project configurations: one for the 500-MW concept, and another for the 750-MW and 1,000-MW concepts. Both the upper and lower reservoirs were proposed to be earthen embankments for all three alternative Project configurations. The differences between the 750-MW and 1,000-MW concepts were primarily with the configuration and sizing of the conveyance system. Additionally, as part of the reconnaissance study, a review of the regional and site geology was performed to identify challenges to the Project’s development due to geologic conditions. No single geologic condition identified was significant enough to deem the proposed Project infeasible. Figure 2.4-3 shows the plan view of the reconnaissance study’s layout for the 750-MW and 1,000-MW concepts (HDR 2019).
During project assessments in 2019 and 2020, a capacity of 750 MW was determined to capture improved economy of scale as compared to the previously identified capacity alternatives in the prior FERC preliminary permits. However, subsequent market analyses and feedback indicated that the market is sufficiently robust for a 1,000-MW project, and the Alternative 5 site topography supported a project of that size. Engineering studies confirmed that increasing the Project size to 1,000 MW would offer greater efficiencies and improved economics. Subsequent water sourcing agreements and interconnection studies confirmed that it is feasible to develop a 1,000-MW project, which is the scale currently proposed.
Alternative 5.22 from the reconnaissance study was selected for further development during the pre-feasibility phase with the change of increasing the installed capacity to 1,000 MW and increasing the size of the units (three 333-MW variable-speed units). The Project design characteristics were further refined when initiating the formal licensing process with submittal of the PAD and NOI to FERC on May 15, 2020. The Project as outlined in the PAD was described as a 1,000-MW pumped storage facility with an 8-hour maximum operating time. A pre-feasibility study was ongoing when preparing the PAD and was completed shortly after submittal of the PAD.
As shown in Figure 2.4-4, the pre-feasibility study design also modified the geometry of the lower reservoir and relocated it to be farther upslope to minimize tunneling in alluvium, reducing Project head from the original configuration proposed in the reconnaissance study. This modification proposed a realignment of a 5-mile section of the NNR rail line
The pre-feasibility study assumed water supply for the Project to be a new wellfield located in the Steptoe Valley approximately 12 miles north of the Project.
2.4.2.2 Selected Alternative Site Refinements
After the pre-feasibility study was completed, WPW commenced a feasibility study for the Project, the first stage of which was a confidential Value Planning exercise that consisted of a facilitated expert panel study of the pre-feasibility study Project configuration
As an early step in the Value Planning exercise, the location of the lower reservoir conceived in the pre-feasibility study (Figure 2.4-4) was eliminated from further consideration. Two other lower reservoir locations were examined during the Value Planning exercise, both avoided placing the lower reservoir and its retaining dam over a known fault trace, increased head from the pre-feasibility study configuration, and avoided impact to rail line alignment (Figure 2.4-5). The more westerly of the two locations depicted in Figure 2.4-5 would necessitate utilizing two-stage pump-turbine technology, causing a significant cost increase, and therefore this alternative lower reservoir location was rejected.
The selected lower reservoir location shown in Figure 2.4-5 is the preferred Project alignment. Further description of the Project configuration and features is provided in Exhibit A Section 2.0.
Using the selected lower reservoir location, the planning process advanced several optimizations compared to the pre-feasibility configuration. The alternative optimizations considered various numbers of units, sizes of units, and fixed vs. variable speed technology.
While fixed speed units proved to be the least cost and shortest schedule option, the variable speed technology was identified as more capable of supporting potential market
conditions in a low carbon future. This is due to the ability of variable speed pump-turbines to provide load following and frequency regulation services during the pumping mode in times of excess renewable energy generation.
The following improvements to further enhance efficiency also emerged from the value planning study:
• The lower reservoir location was sited to optimize Project head and avoid the need to realign the Nevada Northern Railway rail line. The selected location also avoided placing the lower reservoir and its retaining dam over a known fault trace.
• The water conveyance system was resized and reconfigured with the powerhouse complex being moved closer to the upper reservoir. This moved the powerhouse complex away from a geologic boundary between rock formations.
• The upper reservoir dam was changed from an earthen, lined embankment dam to a lined rockfill dam to utilize excavated materials.
• As detailed further in Section 3.4.2.2 Groundwater, the water supply conduit and water supply source were relocated closer to the lower reservoir. The proposed supply of water is now a wellfield south of the Project with four wells producing 3,000 gpm (three wells producing 1,000 gpm and one well available as redundancy) to the lower reservoir.
The selected and refined Project configuration includes an upper and lower reservoir interconnected with a single water conveyance system along with an underground powerhouse and associated generation, pumping, and transmission equipment A description of the Project configuration and features is provided in Exhibit A Section 2.0
2.4.3 Initial Reservoir Fill and Make-up Water Sourcing and Delivery Alternatives
Another site refinement resulting from the Value Planning exercise was relocation of the proposed water supply source and its associated conduit to the lower reservoir from approximately 12 miles north of the lower reservoir to a proposed wellfield closer to the lower reservoir.
Groundwater rights held by White Pine County for industrial purposes were originally permitted for diversion and use 12 miles north of the proposed lower reservoir location. The original alternative for water sourcing and delivery for the Project was to construct additional wells in the previously designated locations and construct a pipeline and associated pumps to deliver water the Project site. This alternative would entail a significant cost and additional disturbance associated with the Project.
Following further review of the area hydrogeology, WPW determined that the preferred alternative would be to change the point of diversion for the water needed for the Project to a location closer to the lower reservoir site. This would afford significant cost savings and reduce the Project Footprint. WPW filed for a change application with the Nevada Division of Water Resources (i.e., State Engineer) to move the point(s) of diversion and place(s) of use for water right Permit Nos. 72729 and 72728. The State Engineer approved the change applications and issued new water Permit Nos. 91444 and 91445 on September 22, 2022. WPW will provide proofs of completion (i.e., evidence of completed construction) and proofs of beneficial use (i.e., evidence the water has been put to beneficial use) within the time frames allowed by the State Engineer. Following the results of the future hydrogeological studies, WPW anticipates moving forward with drilling the groundwater wells in furtherance of completing the water right permitting process.
3.0 Environmental Analysis
This section presents the context and substance for FERC’s analysis of the potential effects of the proposed action (i.e., issuing a license for the construction and operation of the Project). A regional geographic setting for the Project is provided first as the context in which the potential effects of the action to license the Project can be considered (Subsections 3.1 and 3.2). Subsections 3.3 through 3.12 then describe in specific detail the resources potentially affected by the proposed action; direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for each resource potentially affected; and proposed measures to protect the resources discussed, mitigate for identified impacts to the resources, and enhance resources potentially affected by the Project.
3.1 General Description of the River Basin
The proposed Project is located in the Great Basin of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The Great Basin includes most of the State of Nevada and is bounded by the Wasatch Mountains to the east, the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges to the west, and the Snake River basin to the north. The Basin and Range Physiographic Province is
characterized by generally north-south trending mountain ranges, separated by intervening valleys and basins, and encompasses portions of a number of states including Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Texas. This region has widely variable elevations; basins are typically about 4,000 to 5,000 feet in elevation and the mountain ranges are generally 3,000 to 5,000 feet above the basins. Mountain ranges and valleys are generally 5 to 15 miles wide and 40 to 80 miles long (Prudic et al. 1995). Mountain ranges are rugged and typically made up of volcanic and sedimentary rocks, while valleys are filled with eroded material from adjacent mountains. Valley floors include geomorphic features such as alluvial fans, playas, and sand dunes.
The proposed Project is located in the Steptoe Valley Basin (Basin) (Figure 3.1-1) in east-central Nevada. Major water sources within the Basin are Steptoe Creek and Duck Creek. Duck Creek, approximately 2 miles northeast of the Project, is the closest body of free-flowing surface water to the Project and is located in a semiarid climate and much of the creek flow originates as spring snowmelt in the Schell Creek Mountain Range. The Steptoe Valley Basin drains approximately 1,942 square miles (Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources [NDCNR] 1967). Elevations in the Schell Creek Mountain Range vary from approximately elevation 7,900 feet to elevation 11,883 feet.
Duck Creek is approximately 119 miles long with headwaters located in the upper elevations of the Schell Creek Mountain Range. The headwaters begin within the Humboldt National Forest. Duck Creek then flows north through White Pine County to Steptoe Slough and Bassett Lake, which are located approximately 5 miles northwest of McGill, Nevada. Approximately 47 miles to the north of the headwaters, Duck Creek spills into Goshute Lake, a normally dry lakebed on the border of White Pine and Elko counties
(NDCNR 1967)
3.1.1 Topography
The proposed Project is located in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The proposed lower reservoir is located in the Steptoe Valley, and the proposed upper reservoir is located in the Duck Creek Mountain Range, 5 miles west of the larger Schell Creek Mountain Range. The Steptoe Valley is bordered on the west by the Egan Mountain Range.
Elevations in the Project vicinity are widely variable (Figure 3.1-3). The approximate elevation of the proposed lower reservoir is 6,500 feet. The approximate elevation of the proposed upper reservoir is 8,500 feet. Terrain is rugged in the mountain ranges in the Project vicinity and relatively flat on the valley floor. Initial and secondary uplift of the region has created stream gradients such that the streams of the region have down cut into and dissected the existing landforms, creating dissected drainage patterns on the mountain slopes, which typically terminate in alluvial fans on the adjacent valley floors.
3.1.2 Tributary Rivers and Streams
There are no major tributaries that flow into Duck Creek. There are, however, a few minor tributaries. Upstream of the proposed Project, Gilford Creek and McDonald Creek merge with Duck Creek; and downstream multiple minor tributaries meet Duck Creek including Berry Creek, Timber Creek, Bird Creek, and North Creek. Duck Creek then passes through Steptoe Slough and Bassett Lake, and continues to where Schell Creek meets Duck Creek, approximately 22 miles south of Goshute Lake (Figure 3.1-2). All of these tributaries flow in from the east and originate in the higher elevations of the Schell Creek Mountain Range (NDCNR 1967).
Most of the streamflow in Nevada is the result of runoff from melting snow. Runoff patterns in Nevada vary greatly both seasonally and geographically and are mainly determined by precipitation patterns (location and timing) and other climate patterns, such as temperature. Other factors such as surface geology, vegetation, and land use affect the amount of runoff entering the rivers and streams. Streamflows are further affected by human-induced influences such as diversions and reservoir operations (NDCNR 1999). Most of the available surface water in Nevada has been appropriated for many years (Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau 2019). As is commonly understood, centuries of water management through diversions and dams have altered the flows of many streams and rivers in the arid west, including in the Project vicinity. For example, by 1911 the Steptoe Valley Smelting and Mining Company, predecessor to Kennecott Copper Corporation, completed a nine-mile wood and steel pipeline which conveyed Duck Creek water to McGill and a system of five reservoirs in the Duck Creek Valley to store water (Elliott 1956). Historic agricultural, mining, and other uses have disturbed natural hydrology through the majority of the streams within the Project vicinity.
3.1.3 Major Land and Water Uses
The Project will be located entirely within White Pine County, Nevada, largely on lands of the United States administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (USDOI) BLM. This area is known to be one of the most remote regions in the state (Town of McGill 2016).
3.1.3.1 Major Land Uses and Ownership
White Pine County is remotely populated with around 10,000 residents, most of whom live near the City of Ely, Nevada (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2007). Lands surrounding the Project are used primarily for livestock grazing, irrigation and hay cultivation, mining, and recreation.
The Project Footprint encompasses all lands potentially needed for Project construction, operation, and maintenance and is shown in Figure 2.3-2. The total acreage within the Project Footprint, which includes permanent and temporary disturbance areas, is 1,338 acres. Within the Project Footprint is the FERC Project Boundary (Project Boundary) which includes only those lands required for Project operation and maintenance, such as all Project facilities and access roads. The Project Boundary is presented in Exhibit G Maps G-01 to G-04 of this FLA.
BLM administers over 12 million acres of public land in White Pine, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, which are available for livestock grazing, mineral production, recreation, and wildlife habitat (BLM undated-a). The major economic use of land in White Pine County historically was mining, specifically copper mining; however, as this industry has declined there has been a loss of mining-related jobs. Tourism and recreation have now become the more prominent industries in the area (USGS 2007).
Lands within the Project Footprint are primarily federal lands administered by BLM (approximately 1,281 acres). Some small parcels are privately owned (approximately 57 acres) (Figure 3.1-4). Within the Project Footprint, the majority of land cover includes woodland, desert scrub, grasslands, and shrubland; and there is very little developed land (USGS 2017). Land use in the Project vicinity is discussed further in Section 3.9
3.1.3.2 Major Water Uses
The Steptoe Valley Basin (Groundwater Basin 179) is primarily located within White Pine County with a small portion in Elko County (NDWR 2021b). Perennial yield for the basin is 70,000 AF Groundwater from this basin is primarily permitted for use as irrigation, mining, municipal, and industrial usage. (NDWR 2021a). Section 3.4.1.6 provides more information on groundwater and its usage.
Surface water flows are important water sources for agriculture in valley areas. Most springs in White Pine County have been developed for uses such as irrigation and livestock, municipal and domestic water supply, and mining. Warm springs in Steptoe Valley have been developed into public spas. Surface waters in White Pine County are also used extensively for recreation such as fishing, hunting, boating, water skiing, and swimming (White Pine County 2018). More information on water resources is presented in Section 3.4
3.1.4 Major Dams and Diversions
Approximately 10 miles northwest of the Project Footprint is Bassett Lake, which was constructed as a settling pond for copper mill tailings constructed by Kennecott Copper Corporation. A small dam across a natural lowland area was constructed to impound Basset Lake, and some water from Duck Creek was re-routed through the lake to support the smelter at the mine. Outflow from the lake was discharged though a ditch used for irrigation (NDCNR 1967). The mine is no longer in operation; however, the lake is still used for recreation and irrigation.
3.1.5 Climate
White Pine County has a semi-arid, cold desert climate. Interior locations of White Pine County are generally dry due to the distance from surface waters and location on the lee side of the mountain ranges. The skies are also typically clear, and in combination with the topography and sparse vegetation, heat loss is high, leading to cold evenings. Higher elevations are typically cooler, especially during summer (White Pine County 2018).
The mean annual temperature for White Pine County for the period of record (POR) (1895–2021) is 45.2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The mean annual precipitation for White Pine County for the same POR is 12.86 inches (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2022). Average monthly temperature and precipitation for White Pine County are provided in Table 3.1-1
Drought is common and expected in White Pine County. High elevations receive higher accumulations of snowfall in winter which irrigate the nearby valleys in spring. However, critical water sources in White Pine County respond to drought and other climate conditions with approximately 4 years of lag time. The growing season is approximately 100 to 120 days in the county (White Pine County 2018).
3.2 Environmental Effects Analysis
According to the Council on Environmental Quality (2020), “[e]ffects or impacts means changes to the human environment from the proposed action or alternatives that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives, including those effects that occur at the same time and place as the proposed action or alternatives and may include effects that are later in time or farther removed in distance from the proposed action or alternatives”
3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts
In subsections 3.3 through 3.13, the direct and indirect effects are discussed for each resource potentially affected by the proposed Project. Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable.
3.2.2 Cumulative Effects
According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR §1508.7), a cumulative effect is an effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of the agency or party undertaking such other actions. 4 Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time.
The environment that would be affected by the Project reflects the natural processes, human influences, and other innumerable activities occurring over thousands of years. CEQ, in a memorandum regarding analysis of past actions issued on June 24, 2005, stated: “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” (CEQ 2005). In this analysis, the impacts of past projects are considered to have become part of the affected environment, which is described and evaluated in Sections 3.3 to 3.13.
3.2.2.1 Geographic and Temporal Scopes
The physical limits or boundaries of the proposed action’s effects on environmental resources define the geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis. Within each geographic scope, other projects’ effects, when combined with those of the Project, could result in a cumulative effect. Projects located outside a geographic scope for an individual resource were generally not evaluated because their potential to contribute to a cumulative effect diminishes with increasing distance from the Project.
Because the proposed action may affect each resource differently, the geographic scope for each resource area varies as listed in Table 3.2-1 The geographic scopes for resources range in size from the Project Footprint to White Pine County. Figure 3.2-1 depicts the six HUC-12 watersheds 5 that will be crossed by the Project HUC-12 watersheds are also referred to as subwatersheds. Figure 3.2-2 depicts the Project Footprint, the area encompassing 1 mile from the Project Footprint, and the area encompassing 5 miles from the Project Boundary.
Resource
Geographic Scope Justification
Geologic and Soil Resources Project Footprint*
Effects on soils and surficial geology generally will be localized and confined to the
4 On April 20, 2022, CEQ issued a final rule, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions (Final Rule, 87 FR 23453), which restores the previous regulatory definition of “cumulative effects” that was in effect before being modified in 2020. This recent final rule became effective as of May 20, 2022.
5 The USGS delineates watersheds based on hydrologic features using hydrologic unit codes (HUC) with 2 to 12 digits.
Resource Geographic Scope Justification area of direct disturbance associated with the Project.
Water Resources
HUC-12 watersheds in which the Project is located
Watersheds are natural, welldefined boundaries for surface water flow, and commonly contribute to the recharge of groundwater resources. Effects on water resources could extend throughout a HUC-12 watershed.
Fish and Aquatic Resources
HUC-12 watersheds in which the Project is located
Botanical Resources Project Footprint
Consideration of effects within a HUC-12 watershed sufficiently accounts for effects on fish and aquatic resources that could be directly affected by construction activities and for indirect effects such as changes in habitat availability and displacement of transient species.
Similar to soils, effects on vegetation (including special status species) generally will be confined to the area directly affected by construction activities. Exceptions are noted.
Wildlife Resources
HUC-12 watersheds in which the Project is located
Consideration of effects within a HUC-12 watershed sufficiently accounts for effects on wildlife (including special status species) that could be directly affected by construction activities and for indirect effects such as changes in habitat availability and displacement of transient species. Potential for exceptions based on cumulative effects are noted.
Recreation Within 1 mile of Project Footprint
Potential effects on public recreation will generally be restricted to the area within and up to 1 mile from the construction workspaces.
Land Use Within 1 mile of Project Footprint
Absent special circumstances, effects on general land uses could occur within and up to 1 mile from the construction workspaces.
Resource Geographic Scope Justification
Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effect (APE)**
Cultural resources could be affected by disturbance within the Project Footprint and Project O&M activities, and other project effects could cause changes in the character or use of historic properties in areas outside the Project Footprint (see Section 3.10.1.2).
Aesthetic Resources Area where the Project would be visible
Assessing the effect based on the viewshed allows for consideration of other features that could have an effect on visual resources.
Socioeconomic Resources White Pine County, NV
Most socioeconomic effects will occur in the county in which the Project will be located and where most workers are expected to reside during construction and operation of the Project (i.e., White Pine County) White Pine County will experience the greatest effects associated with employment, housing, public services, transportation, traffic, property values, economy, and taxes.
Environmental Justice
The area encompassed within a 5-mile buffer of the proposed Project Boundary***
FERC specified the 5-mile buffer of the proposed Project Boundary as the geographic scope of analysis for environmental justice in its comments on the DLA. The geographic scope of potential effects for environmental justice generally captures the potential effect areas for resources that are linked to environmental justice impacts such as noise, aesthetics, traffic, and water resources
* The Project Footprint encompasses the area needed for construction workspace and includes the footprint of the permanent facilities.
** The APE for the Project has not yet been determined; see section 3.10.1.2.
*** The Project Boundary is the permanent operational boundary, not including underground works.
The temporal scope of a cumulative effects analysis should be sufficient to cover relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on the affected resources. Because past and present actions are generally accounted for in the descriptions of affected environment for each resource, the cumulative effects will focus primarily on future actions that are reasonably foreseeable. Based on the term of an
Original License, the temporal scope extends 30-50 years into the future, and the analysis will include reasonably foreseeable actions that may occur during that time period. There will likely be few actions that are currently reasonably foreseeable and extend out 30-50 years.
3.2.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
“Reasonably foreseeable” projects include proposed projects or developments that have applied for a permit from a local, state, or federal authority or planned projects that have been publicly announced. Other foreseeable future actions may be identified by agencies or based on known trends, such as population changes Reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic scope of the Project are listed in Table 3.2-2 and described further below the table.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to the cumulative effects analysis include:
(1) potential solar and wind energy projects in the Steptoe Valley along the transmission line toward Robinson Summit substation; (2) expanded operations of the NNR; (3) additional transmission lines in the Section 368 energy corridors; (4) actions funded by the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) grants; (5) BLM actions; and
(6) Nevada Department of Transportation (NVDOT) projects. The analysis also considers population and development trends in White County. In many cases, specific projects have not yet been proposed, nor are specific locations known, and therefore the cumulative effects analysis for those future actions is largely qualitative.
“Present” projects are those currently ongoing (either being constructed or are in operation) and affecting the environment in such a manner that could contribute to a cumulative effect. The cumulative effects of past and present actions on resources in the Project Footprint are represented by the description of the existing affected environment for each resource.
Final License Application – Exhibit E White Pine Pumped Storage Project
Table 3.2-2. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Potential Solar and Wind Energy Projects
Steptoe Valley Unknown (not anticipated to overlap with Project Footprint)
A recent voter-approved Nevada constitutional requirement for 50 percent renewable energy sourcing by 2030 and a law requiring 100 percent carbon-free resources by 2050 will likely result in solar and wind energy development in Steptoe Valley along the transmission line toward Robinson Summit substation (Alonzo 2020)
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Expanded Operations of NNR
Steptoe Valley Overlaps with Project Footprint
White Pine County, in conjunction with the NNR Foundation, is planning to restore operation approximately 16 miles of railroad track from Ely to McGill, and make improvements to the depot and trails systems within the railroad right-of-way in White Pine County (White Pine County 2021).
Geologic and Soil Resources
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Botanical Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Section 368 Energy Corridor located within White Pine County
A Section 368-designated energy corridor exists within the Project Footprint and is designed to support connectivity to multiple energy generation sources*. Specific projects are described in the next two rows.
Geologic and Soil Resources
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Botanical Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Project or Action Location
Greenlink North Transmission Line (part of Section 368 Energy Corridor)
White Pine County Overlaps with Project Footprint at Robinson Summit Substation
A 525 kV transmission line approved to facilitate transmission of renewable resources. The line starts at the Robinson Summit substation and heads west to the Yerington substation (NV Energy 2022).
Geologic and Soil Resources
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Botanical Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Cross-Tie Transmission Project (part of Section 368 Energy Corridor)
White Pine County Overlaps with Project Footprint at Gonder Substation and parallels the Project
A proposed 500 kV transmission line that will connect the Gonder substation and the Clover substation in Utah, and strongly link the Nevada and Utah systems (BLM 2022b).
Geologic and Soil Resources
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Botanical Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Southwest Intertie
Project-North (SWIP-North) Line
(part of Section 368 Energy Corridor)
White Pine County, Elko County Overlaps with Project Footprint at RobinsonSummit Substation, and perpendicular to the Project
A 500 kV transmission line that is almost fully permitted, the SWIP-North Line will connect the Robinson Summit substation to the Pacific Northwest market (LS Power 2016).
Geologic and Soil Resources
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Botanical Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Project or Action Location
Actions Funded by SNPLMA Grants
Greater Las Vegas Valley Unknown
Final License Application – Exhibit E
White Pine Pumped Storage Project
Garnet Hill Recreation Area Management Plan (part of actions funded by SNPLMA Grants)
White Pine County South of transmission line (Egan Crest Trail System 0.1 mile; Garnet Hill Recreation Area 5 miles)
Smith Valley Mastication and Hand Thinning
Bristlecone BLM Field Office Perpendicular to Project transmission line, north and south (0 miles)
A total of 92 SNPLMA grants have been awarded in White Pine County since the act was passed in 1998. Grants are typically issued to enhance environmental values. Additional projects to restore habitat, reduce risk of wildfire, and conserve natural resources in White Pine County are expected to receive funding under SNPLMA over the next 30 to 50 years.
The BLM Bristlecone Field Office is proposing improvements to the Garnet Hill Recreation Area and the Egan Crest trail systems including upgrading roads, adding campgrounds, enlarging trailheads, and constructing trail systems. The improvements are funded as part of Round 18 of SNPLMA (BLM 2022e).
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
A proposal to remove stage I, II and III pinyon and Utah Juniper within the Smith Valley to make habitat more suitable for Greater Sage-grouse and mule deer (DOI 2022, BLM 2022f).
Geologic and Soil Resources
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Botanical Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Final License Application – Exhibit E
White Pine Pumped Storage Project
NVDOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program projects within White Pine County
White Pine County Unknown (not anticipated to overlap Project Footprint)
Nevada Department of Transportation has three projects within a 5-mile buffer of the Project: an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) project along the main street in McGill, drainage improvement in the city of Ely, and paving a stretch of multi-use track near the NNR museum in Ely (Nevada DOT 2021).
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Land Use
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
Recreation Trail Building School Grant
Increasing Population and Development
State of Nevada Approximately 6 miles south of Project Footprint
The U.S. Economic Development Administration is providing a $160,000 grant to the Great Basin Institute to build a professional trail building school, located in Ely, Nevada (Robertson 2021).
White Pine County Unknown
The population of White Pine County has mildly fluctuated at around 10,000 people, and declined slightly from 1990 to 2020. However, given the large population increase in the state overall, this cumulative effects analysis conservatively assumes that population and development will increase in White Pine County over the temporal scope of the analysis.
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Socioeconomic Resources
Geologic and Soil Resources
Water Resources
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Botanical Resources
Wildlife Resources
Recreation Resources
Land Use
Aesthetic Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Environmental Justice
*A programmatic EIS was prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of designating and developing energy corridors on federal lands pursuant to Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (US DOE and BLM 2008). Energy corridors have been located to avoid, where possible, conflicting land uses and important resources (BLM 2021b).
Note: Sources cited in the table are included in Section 6.0, Literature Cited
As discussed in Section 2.3.1, solar energy, particularly photovoltaic solar (PV solar), is emerging as a dominant new form of electric energy supply across the U.S., and particularly in the western U.S. and in Nevada. Wind energy is another leading source of carbon-free energy seeing widespread deployment today. The future electric energy supply in the Nevada and greater regional market will come largely from solar and wind resources, which are non-dispatchable, intermittent, and variable in nature. NV Energy has affirmed its goal for a 100 percent renewable energy future. Therefore, both wind and solar development projects within the Steptoe Valley are reasonably foreseeable future actions. However, no specific proposals were identified within the cumulative effects geographic scope.
The NNR Foundation received a SNPLMA grant in 2021 to restore the railroad’s Main Line from Ely through the proposed Project vicinity to McGill. The grant provides over $10,000,000 for restoring for operation 16 miles of railroad track from Ely to McGill, and making improvements to the McGill Depot, trails systems, and astrotourism opportunities within the railroad right-of-way in White Pine County, Nevada. The project includes building a railroad turntable, parking, lighted walking trail, and installing three restrooms at the McGill Depot. The NNR project will also grade 10,000 feet of a multi-use trail within the railroad right-of-way between Ely and McGill to join existing trails located on BLM land and will install directional signage for trail users along the trail system (BLM 2022c).
Section 368-designated energy corridors exist in the cumulative effects geographic scope and are designed to support connectivity to multiple energy generation sources The energy corridor to Robinson Summit Substation already serves two existing transmission lines. As described in Section 2.3.3, the SWIP North Line, a 500 kV transmission line that is almost fully permitted, will connect Robinson Summit to the Pacific Northwest market and open a path to the CAISO market, likely delivering resource diversity (in the form of wind energy) to the Nevada market, which further enhances the value of a pumped storage project in this area. The proposed Cross-Tie 500 kV Transmission Line will create a strong link between the Nevada and Utah systems. Construction of additional transmission lines, or pipelines, is reasonably foreseeable in the Section 368 designated energy corridors
A total of 92 SNPLMA grants have been awarded in White Pine County since the Act was passed in 1998. SNPLMA allows BLM to sell public land within a specific boundary around the Las Vegas Valley and use the revenue to fund conservation projects. In 2021, SNPLMA funds were granted for 12 projects in White Pine County in addition to the NNR project (BLM 2022c). In June 2022, the Ely Ranger District of the USFS completed a noxious and invasive weed inventory, treatment, restoration, monitoring, and education program on National Forest System lands in the Spring, Railroad, White River, Steptoe, Newark, and Snake Valleys in White Pine County, Nevada. This effort was conducted to maintain and restore resilient vegetation communities to improve and expand habitats for sage-grouse, mule deer and other wildlife, and to strengthen cooperative weed management actions across six watersheds on private and public lands (BLM 2022d). Additionally, BLM Bristlecone Field Office is proposing improvements to the Garnet Hill Recreation Area and the Egan Crest trail systems including upgrading roads, adding campgrounds, enlarging trailheads, and constructing trail systems (BLM 2022e). It is reasonably foreseeable that additional projects to restore habitat, reduce risk of wildfire,
and conserve natural resources in White Pine County will receive funding under SNPLMA over the next 30 to 50 years The BLM Bristlecone Field Office also has a proposal to remove stage I, II and III pinyon and Utah Juniper within the Smith Valley to make habitat more suitable for Greater Sage-grouse and mule deer
The Nevada Department of Transportation (NVDOT) currently has three projects within 5 miles of the Project Footprint that are funded through its Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. These include an ADA project along the main street in McGill, drainage improvement in the city of Ely, and paving a stretch of multi-use track near the NNR museum in Ely. Additional NVDOT actions, such as road maintenance and upgrades, within the cumulative effects geographic scope are reasonably foreseeable.
The U.S. Economic Development Administration is providing a $160,000 grant to the Great Basin Institute to build a professional trail-building school called the Recreation Trail Building School in Ely, Nevada. Similar projects within Ely are reasonably foreseeable over the cumulative effects temporal scope.
As shown in Table 3.2-3, Nevada has experienced increased population over the last 30 years The population in White Pine County has increased and decreased over this time period, and in 2020 was slightly lower than in 1990. The population of Ely dropped from 4,835 in 1990 to 3,957 in 2020. Considering the boom-and-bust pattern of development (see Section 3.12.1) and the variable population in the City of Ely and White Pine County, it is difficult to predict whether the population of White Pine County will increase over life of the Project. However, given the large population increase in Nevada overall, this cumulative effects analysis conservatively assumes that population and development will increase in White Pine County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2022a
3.2.2.3 Resource Analysis
For this assessment, other projects were identified from information publicly available from White Pine County, FERC, BLM, and other sources as listed in Table 3.2-2; WPW’s knowledge of other planned, pending, and ongoing projects; communications with federal, state, and local agencies; and comments received on the DLA. The extent of the cumulative effects analysis depends in part on the availability of information about other projects. The cumulative effects analysis used an approximation of project footprints as interpreted from publicly available project descriptions, maps, and aerial photography. When determining the significance of a cumulative effect, the analysis considered the
duration of the impact; the geographic, biological, and/or social context in which the impact would occur; and the magnitude and intensity of the impact.
The potential for cumulative effects associated with the Project would be greatest during the construction phase. In many cases, the potential effects can only be described qualitatively. This is particularly the case for projects in the planning state, which may be contingent on economic conditions, availability of financing, and/or the issuance of permits. Both positive cumulative effects (new jobs and tax revenues) and negative cumulative effects (wildlife habitat loss) were identified in the analysis.
The following sections address the potential cumulative effects on specific environmental resources from the Project and the other projects identified within the applicable geographic scope (Table 3.2-1) in addition to direct and indirect effects of the Project
3.3 Geologic and Soil Resources
3.3.1 Affected Geologic and Soil Environment
WPW conducted geologic field mapping between August 30, 2020, and September 2, 2020. The mapping effort consisted of documenting the appearance and character of geologic units, including assessing their geologic and geotechnical properties, documenting discontinuity properties and their orientations, and developing unit descriptions. Additional focus was given to identifying potential geohazards, such as faults, landslides, and karst features. The field observations, additional data, and a characterization of seismic hazards were summarized in a report (HDR 2020b)
3.3.1.1 Geological Setting and Formations
As described in Section 3.1 General Description of the River Basin, the proposed Project is located in the Great Basin of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. This region is characterized primarily by north-south-trending mountain ranges (i.e., horsts) and structural basin valleys (i.e., grabens) that are the result of ongoing, regional-scale eastwest extensional tectonics that initiated during Miocene time (approximately 23 to 5 million years ago [Ma]). Quaternary (2.6 Ma to present) and Neogene (5.3 Ma to 2.6 Ma) age alluvial, colluvial, and lacustrine sediments currently fill the structural basins.
During the earlier Eocene to early Miocene time (about 56 to 23 Ma), western and southeastern Nevada experienced volcanism resulting in the development of calderas, magmatic intrusions, and deposition of lava flows and volcanic ash (tuff).
More recently (since about 10 Ma) the east-west crustal extension has been accommodated primarily by roughly north-south-striking, steeply dipping, normal faults along the boundary between the mountain ranges and structural basins (i.e., range-front faults), while earlier extension (pre-10 Ma) was accommodated through low-angle detachment (decollement) faulting.
Prior to the current extensional tectonic regime, the region experienced two episodes of compressional tectonics: (1) the Antler orogeny (a mountain-building period) of Late
Devonian to Late Mississippian time (about 450 to 330 Ma), and (2) the Sevier orogeny of Jurassic to early Cenozoic time (about 200 to 65 Ma). Both orogenic episodes resulted in east-vergent, thin-skin sheets thrusting older units over younger units, and regional scale detachment/decollement faults. The rocks subjected to these orogenic events were late Precambrian to middle Paleozoic-aged (about 800 to 400 Ma) sedimentary rocks deposited in a marine environment along what was at the time a passive continental margin.
A generalized geologic map of Nevada showing the Project location is presented in Figure 3.3-1
The Project is located on the western flank of the Duck Creek Range, a structural block that includes Duck Creek Valley (a down-faulted graben) within the Schell Creek Range. The Schell Creek Range is comprised of a west-dipping sequence of late Precambrian through Permian (about 1,000 to 250 Ma) rocks, overlain by Tertiary (about 63 Ma to 5.3 Ma) volcanic rocks along the faulted western flank of the northern part of the range (Rowley et al. 2017). Within the Duck Creek Range, bedrocks consist of early to late Cambrian limestones, quartzite, and shales, namely the (oldest to youngest) Prospect Mountain Quartzite, Pioche Shale, and the Pole Canyon Limestone
Bedrock faults are mapped within the units comprising the Duck Creek Range. The most prominent is the Snake Range Decollement (SRD), a regional, low-angle detachment fault, locally exposed along the crests of the Duck Creek and Schell Creek ranges. The SRD transported middle Cambrian and younger rocks both westward and eastward over lower Cambrian and older rocks (Rowley et al. 2017) that are now part of the Snake Range metamorphic core complex (Norman 2013). The SRD follows the weak beds of the Pioche Shale (Rowley et al. 2017) and acts as the geologic contact between the Prospect Mountain Quartzite and the Pole Canyon Limestone (Figure 3.3-2).
Quaternary-aged normal faults bound the range fronts in the Project vicinity, including the Central Steptoe Valley fault (Figure 3.3-2). Workers identified the fault (Rowley et al. 2017, Dohrenwend et al. 1991) in proximity to the Project. Unlike much of Nevada, there is no evidence that Steptoe Valley contained a Pliocene-Pleistocene lake (Reheis 1999).
The geologic units of White Pine County are grouped into seven categories: (1) the valleyfill deposits, comprising mixtures of gravel, sand, silt, and clay that include the alluvial and playa deposits; (2) younger volcanic rocks, comprising ash-flow tuff and basalt; (3) older volcanic rocks, comprising dacite, latite, andesite, and tuffs; (4) Triassic sediments, comprising freshwater limestone, conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and tuff; (5) intrusive rocks, comprising granitic plutons; (6) upper Paleozoic carbonate rocks, comprising predominantly limestone and dolomite, but with inter-bedded shale and siltstone aquitards; and (7) lower Paleozoic and older rocks, comprising predominantly elastic rocks including shale and quartzite, but with some inter-bedded carbonate units (White Pine County 2019).
The stratigraphic units underlying the proposed Project vicinity consist of the Prospect Mountain Quartzite, Pioche Shale, and Pole Canyon Limestone. These units are described in detail below. Additionally, Quaternary alluvial deposits are located within the Steptoe Valley and are described in Surficial Geology (Section 3.3.1.5).
Notes:
1. Adapted from Rowley et al. 2017.
2 CpCs = Prospect Mountain Quartzite; Cm = Pioche Shale; Cu = Pole Canyon Limestone; QTa = Quaternary Alluvium.
3.3.1.2 Prospect Mountain Quartzite (CpCs)
The Prospect Mountain Quartzite is an early Cambrian-aged unit that conformably overlies the McCoy Group. In northern Nevada this unit ranges from approximately 3,000 to 8,000 feet thick (Tschanz and Pampeyan 1970). In the Project vicinity, the Prospect Mountain Quartzite comprises the upper third of the eastern side of the Duck Creek Range and encompasses the upper reservoir area.
Drewes (1967) describes the Prospect Mountain Quartzite as a light-gray to dark-purplishgray, thickly bedded, resistant quartzite with minor, weakly metamorphosed shale interbeds. Cross-bedding is also noted by Drewes (1967). The unit contains minor shale near the top section and a conglomeratic quartzite near its base. Beds range between 1 and 6 feet and are cross-bedded.
The quartz grains are subangular to subrounded, medium to coarse grained, with scattered granule and pebble-sized grains, and the unit weathers to a friable sandstone (Drewes 1967). Overall, the unit is considered to have low permeability and capacity to transmit water (Welch et al. 2007).
3.3.1.3 Pioche Shale (Cm)
The early- to mid-Cambrian age Pioche Shale conformably overlies the Prospect Mountain Quartzite, is poorly exposed, and where present consists of thin beds of brownish-gray to olive-black shale and siltstone, with limestone and quartzite beds in the upper portion of the unit (Drewes 1967). The limestones and shales are both laminated and micaceous, and up-section are locally interbedded with fine-grained, light greenish-gray, calcareous sandstone (Western Cordillera 2006, Drewes 1967). The unit is a regional transition between a thick quartzitic sequence to a thick carbonate sequence of rocks. It is characterized as low strength and has been associated with detachment faulting regionally, namely the SRD (Rowley et al. 2017). Samples from the northern Schell Creek Range often show signs of metamorphism where the Pioche Shale has been somewhat recrystallized to phyllite and/or schist (Western Cordillera 2006). Permeability and its capacity to transmit water are both considered to be low (Welch et al. 2007).
The thickness of the Pioche Shale is controlled primarily by shearing due to extensional movement associated with the SRD; the unit may be locally thinned to only several feet or may be missing entirely (Western Cordillera 2006). In White Pine County, the unit reportedly ranges from about 150 to 600 feet thick (Western Cordillera 2006).
3.3.1.4 Pole Canyon Limestone (Cu)
Overlying the Pioche Shale is the mid-Cambrian-age Pole Canyon Limestone, a fine- to medium-coarse grained, massive to thinly bedded limestone that ranges in color from medium dark gray to light gray and white. It contains local lenses of dolomite and lowgrade marble, with a few local quartzite beds near its base (Norman 2013, Drewes 1967). The Pole Canyon Limestone is reported to be 1,500 to 2,000 feet thick in the central Schell Creek range (Drewes 1967, Tschanz and Pampeyan 1970). The Pole Canyon Limestone is considered to have high permeability, largely the result of faulting and dissolution of the
limestone. Hydrologic studies have correlated high transmissivity of carbonate rocks in the region to areas of faulting (Welch et al. 2007). The nearby Lehman Caves in Great Basin National Park are formed in Pole Canyon Limestone (Prudic and Glancy 2009).
Karst is the result of the dissolution of carbonate rocks such as limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Dissolution is the result of infiltration of mild, naturally occurring carbonic acid solutions into rock fractures. Karst features are characterized by caves, sinkholes/cenotes, disappearing streams, springs, and other dissolution features
The Pole Canyon Limestone is prone to karst development. An area of caverns is developing in the Pole Canyon Limestone in Lehman Cave within Great Basin National Park, located in White Pine County approximately 40 miles southeast of the Project. Some evidence of karstic dissolution was observed in surface outcrops during the 2020 geologic mapping effort
3.3.1.5 Surficial Geology
According to Eakin et al. (1967), Steptoe Valley within the Project vicinity is dominated by younger and older valley fill of unconsolidated and partly consolidated deposits according to Eakin et al. (1967). The younger valley fill is principally recent unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel deposited along drainage channels and lacustrine clay silt, and sand; locally it includes dune deposits and the large tailings dump west of McGill. The older valley fill is an unconsolidated to partly consolidated silt, sand, and gravel subaerial and water-laid deposits. These deposits are undifferentiated but are generally alluvial fan detritus at or near the surface and extensive silt and clay at depth.
Just south of the Project within the Connors Pass quadrangle, Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks form a marine sequence almost 5 miles thick that consists predominantly of limestone and dolomite, but also contains considerable quartzite and shale. The lithology and thickness of the sequence is fairly uniform throughout much of western Utah and eastern Nevada. The continuity of sedimentation was broken, however, by disconformities in Middle and Late Pennsylvanian time. The surficial deposits in the valleys are largely a continuation of Tertiary sedimentation. They are poorly consolidated, are derived from nearby sources, and are interbedded with fine lacustrine sediments deposited in a pluvial lake (Drewes 1967).
3.3.1.6 Quaternary Alluvium (QTa2 and QTa1)
Quaternary gravel, sand, and silt underlie extensive areas of Spring Valley and Steptoe Valley, and very restricted areas along the larger valleys within the Schell Creek Range. They are divisible into lacustrine deposits and alluvial gravels. The gravels are further divisible into three units, the youngest of which differs only slightly in distribution and character from the most recent deposits along the drainages (Drewes 1967). Quaternary alluvial deposits typically consist of unconsolidated to moderately consolidated beds of sand, silt, and gravel (Rowley et al. 2017). Within Steptoe Valley, Quaternary alluvium consists of stream-laid sediments derived from the adjacent range, forming an apron of coalescing alluvial fans and contributing to the filling of the valley. Magnetic and gravity surveys conducted in the valley near McGill show that basin fill sediments are on the order
of 4,000 feet thick, thinning toward the valley margins (Rowley et al. 2017). The depth to bedrock underlying the alluvial fans near the range front is unknown but is expected to range from several hundreds of feet to as much as 2,000 feet
3.3.1.7 Soils
Soils in the Project vicinity include unconsolidated sedimentary materials such as alluvial fan deposits. In general, there are four distinct geomorphic classifications or features that contain distinct surficial deposits and soils within the Project vicinity: (1) basins, (2) alluvial fans/stream terraces, (3) fan piedmonts, and (4) mountains. On the basin floors, unconsolidated sediment and soils may be deep, are moderately coarse to fine-grained, and show little soil profile development (BLM 2008b). Soils within alluvial fans and on-stream terraces are typically coarser grained than the soils on the basin floors, but are similar in their lack of well-defined profile development. Soils on fan piedmonts are usually shallow to deep with a steep gradient and moderately coarse to gravelly material. Oftentimes, these deposits contain silica and/or lime cementation. Soils on the mountain slopes may be shallow or deep and contain gravel and coarse-grained material underlain by bedrock at shallow depths (BLM 2008b).
A summary of soil types, farmland classifications, and respective acreages and percentages mapped within the Project Footprint is presented in Table 3.3-1 (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2019). Descriptions of the dominant soil associations mapped within the Project Footprint are provided below the table.
Source: NRCS 2019, NRCS 2020, NRCS 2022
3.3.1.8 Palinor-Urmafot (53)
The Palinor soils are on fan remnants and ballenas. These soils formed in alluvium derived mainly from limestone and dolomite with slopes ranging from 2 to 50 percent. Elevation ranges from 4,901 to 7,601 feet. The climate is semiarid with cool, moist winters and warm, dry summers. The frost-free period is 100 to 120 days. The Urmafot soils are on fan remnants and partial ballenas. They typically occur on backslope and summit positions. These soils formed in alluvium derived from mixed rocks such as limestone, quartzite, and rhyolite with slopes ranging from 2 to 50 percent. Elevations range from 5,200 to 7,808 feet. The climate is semiarid with cool, moist winters and warm, dry summers, and the frost-free period is 100 to 120 days (NRCS 2020).
3.3.1.9 Hutchley-Tusel-Suak (226)
The Hutchley soils are on cuestas, hills, mountainsides, plateaus, and ridges with slopes ranging from 2 to 75 percent. Elevations range from 3,400 to 9,000 feet. The soils formed in alluvium, residuum, and colluvium derived from quartz latite, basalt, or related volcanic rocks and metasedimentary rocks with some loess influence. The frost-free season is 30 to 90 days (NRCS 2020).
Tusel soils are on plateaus, hills, and mountains. They typically occur on north-facing backslope and summit positions. Soil slippage and slumps are common in some areas. These soils formed in residuum and colluvium derived from quartzite, chert, and shale with surficial deposits of loess and volcanic ash with slopes ranging from 4 to 75 percent. Elevations range from 5,413 to 9,711 feet. The climate is dry-subhumid with cold, moist winters and cool, dry summers. The frost-free period is less than 70 days. The Suak soils are on mountain backslopes. These soils formed in colluvium and residuum of quartzite, shale, sandstone, and mixed volcanic rocks with slopes ranging from 8 to 75 percent. Elevations range from 6,233 to 9,842 feet. The climate is cool and semiarid with warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The frost-free period is 70 to 100 days (NRCS 2020).
3.3.1.10 Pookaloo-Cavehill-Rock Outcrop (100)
The Pookaloo series consists of shallow, well-drained soils that formed in residuum and colluvium derived from limestone, dolomite, and calcareous siltstone. Pookaloo soils are located on mountains and hills with slopes ranging from 8 to 75 percent and elevations from 5,396 to 8,809 feet. The Cavehill series consists of moderately deep, well-drained soils that formed in residuum and colluvium derived from limestone, calcareous sandstone, and dolomite with surficial deposits of loess. Cavehill soils are on hills, mountains, and rock pediments and typically occur on backslope positions. Slopes are 8 to 75 percent with elevations ranging from 5,400 to 9,799 feet. The climate is semiarid with cool, moist winters and warm, dry summers. The frost-free period is 60 to 100 days (NRCS 2020).
3.3.1.11 Mineral and Geothermal Resources
Nevada produces approximately $100 million worth of geothermally generated electric power annually, and geothermal resources also are used for agriculture, industrial applications, and space heating (Price 2020). The state also produces approximately $3 billion worth of mineral commodities each year and is the nation’s leading gold producer, accounting for approximately 75 percent of U.S. production and 10 percent of world production (Price 2020). Much of the gold comes from a northwest-trending belt of gold deposits in northeast Nevada known as the Carlin trend.
Nevada, also called the “Silver State,” is the nation’s leading producer of silver, barite, mercury, and lithium. Much of the silver is a co-product or by-product of gold production, and all the mercury currently produced is a by-product of precious metal recovery. Lithium is extracted from brine that occurs in Tertiary valley-filling sediments near Silver Peak in the southwestern corner of the state (Price 2020). Other commodities that are currently mined in Nevada include gypsum, limestone (for cement and lime), clays, salt, magnesite, diatomite, silica sand, dimension stone, and crushed rock, sand, and gravel for construction aggregate. Many of these commodities can be found in the Project vicinity.
Nevada produces some oil, although production is small relative to that in major oil states. In the counties surrounding the Project, oil has been discovered in Pine Valley (Eureka County) and Elko County. Peterson and Grow (1995) have estimated that the potential hydrocarbon resources near the Project could be around 98 million barrels of oil and almost 16 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
3.3.1.12 Abandoned and Active Mines
The closed, underground Ely Amalgamated Copper Company Mine, a part of the Duck Creek Mining District, is located approximately 3½ miles north of the Project. The mine is located within the Pole Canyon Limestone on the west slope of the Duck Creek Range. Lead was the primary commodity of the mine, followed by copper and gold.
The Steptoe Drill Road Copper and the Keno Drill Road and Workings Copper mines are located approximately 2½ to 3¼ miles south of the Project vicinity. Both mines are located within the Prospect Mountain Quartzite on the west slope of the Duck Creek Range and are inactive
The active Robinson Mine is a porphyry copper deposit located in Ruth, Nevada, in the Egan Range, approximately four 4 miles west of Ely. The mine includes three large pits: Ruth (currently active) and Tripp-Veteran and Liberty (areas without ongoing mining operations). The beginnings of the Robinson Mine can be traced back to 1867, and the first mining operations focused mainly on gold and silver. However, in 1872, significant deposits of copper ore were discovered in the area and a year later the exploitation of copper ore began. With some minor interruptions, copper, gold, and silver and recently molybdenum have been extracted from the Robinson Mine since that time (KGHM Polska Miedź undated).
Review of the USGS Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data website found no record that mining operations, above or below ground, have occurred within the Project vicinity (HDR
2020b). See Section 3.3.1.11 for additional information regarding mines in the Project vicinity
3.3.1.13 Proximity to Hazardous Waste Facilities
According to EJSCREEN, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (Version 2020), the Project Footprint does not cross Superfund or National Priority List sites, Risk Management Plan sites, or hazardous waste facilities (USEPA 2020).
3.3.1.14 Quaternary Faulting and Seismicity
Generally north-south trending normal faults, the result of extensional tectonics typical of the Basin and Range, border both sides of the mountain ranges in the Project vicinity. The Central Steptoe Valley fault is mapped (Rowley et al. 2017, Redsteer 2000) along the base of the western flank of Duck Creek range in the Project vicinity. The trace identified in Redsteer (2000) is based on original mapping by Dohrenwend et al. (1991), which identifies a topographic scarp in the alluvial fan deposits. Rowley et al. (2017) place the fault further upslope, at the base of the exposure of the Pole Canyon Limestone and is based on results from gravity and magnetic surveys (Carlson and Mabey 1963).
The proposed Project site is in an area of low to moderate seismic hazard (Figure 3.3-3). Historic seismicity in eastern Nevada is low to moderate, with the largest recent earthquake being the 2008 magnitude 6.0 Wells earthquake near Wells, Nevada (dePolo and dePolo 2012), approximately 124 miles to the north of the Project (Figure 3.3-3). The main seismic sources near the Project site include the Schell Creek Range fault, the Central Steptoe Valley fault, the Egan Range fault, and the White River fault. Additional unnamed faults bound Duck Creek Valley, but there is no available information on these faults. It is noted that the Central Steptoe Valley fault is not included in the National Seismic Hazard model (Petersen et al. 2019)
Final License Application – Exhibit E
White Pine Pumped Storage Project
The characteristics of each of the above-named faults are summarized in Table 3.3-2 below and discussed in the following subsections.
Table 3.3-2. Project Vicinity Fault Parameters
Source: HDR 2020b.
1 kilo annum, i.e., one thousand years.
2 No angle reported, only dip direction.
3 Reported near-surface dip by Schell 1981 on southern extent of fault. Dip appears to be anomalously low for a Basin and Range normal fault (Redsteer 2000).
3.3.1.15 Schell Creek Range Fault
The Schell Creek Range fault is a 61-mile-long, range-bounding normal fault located in Duck Creek Valley to the east of the Project site (Figure 3.3-3). The strike of the Schell Creek Range fault is N3°E and it dips to the east. Koehler and Wesnousky (2011) estimate vertical displacement for the Schell Creek Range fault as 6.2 feet and 12 feet for the most recent event (MRE) and the penultimate event, respectively, based on topographic profiles and fault trenching. The fault has an estimated recurrence interval of 17,000 to 35,000 years with the MRE occurring 6,500 years ago (6.5 thousand years ago [kilo annum or ka]). Koehler and Wesnousky (2011) report a paleoseismic slip rate of 0.12 millimeters per year (mm/yr) based on a 20,000-year estimate of vertical displacement for the Schell Creek Range fault, similar to the 0.13 reported by Pérouse and Wernicke (2017)
3.3.1.16 Central Steptoe Valley Fault
The Central Steptoe Valley fault is a 64-mile-long normal fault with a strike of N9°E and a dip of 10°W (Redsteer 2000). There is only one inferred displacement event based on the presence of a fault scarp that developed <130 ka (Redsteer 2000, Dohrenwend et al. 1991). The fault has an estimated slip rate of <0.2 mm/yr and greater than 0.005 mm/yr (Redsteer 2000, dePolo and Anderson 2000). The fault is not considered Holocene active due to a lack of surface rupturing events in the last 11,000 years; however, due to the long
recurrence interval and unknown date of the MRE, it should be considered conditionally active.
3.3.1.17 Egan Range Fault
The Egan Range fault, referred to as the Steptoe Valley fault in Redsteer et al. (2011) is a normal fault located across Steptoe Valley to the west of the Project site with a strike of N2°E and dips to the east (Figure 3.3-3). The fault is 91 miles long with a reported slip rate of 0.03 mm/yr for the last 80 ka and 0.08 mm/yr for the last 150 ka with an average recurrence interval of greater than 51 ka (Pérouse and Wernicke 2017). Average displacement on the fault is estimated at 2.8 m (Pérouse and Wernicke 2017). Koehler and Wesnousky (2011) suggest that the MRE occurred between 46 and 60 ka.
3.3.1.18 White River Valley Fault
The White River Valley fault, located south of the proposed Project site (Figure 3.3-3), was originally named the Egan fault by Schell (1981), but was later renamed by dePolo (1998). The fault is a normal fault that is 62 miles long with a reported slip rate of <0.2 to 0.07 mm/yr (dePolo 1998) and average displacement of 3 meters; however, this slip rate and displacement are based only on a single-event surface scarp (Sawyer and Redsteer 1998).
3.3.1.19 Volcanic Activity
The nearest volcanic field to the Project is the Lunar Crater volcanic field. The Lunar Crater volcanic field covers over 115 square miles at the southern end of the Pancake Range in the Great Basin Desert, Nevada. It contains numerous cinder cones and lava flows, fissures, and, most visibly, the 490-foot-deep Lunar Crater, a 3,400-foot-wide and nearly circular explosion crater believed to have formed about 15,000 years ago. Lunar Crater is one of Nevada's six National Natural Landmarks. The Lunar Crater volcanic field is in the central Great Basin, approximately 65 miles east-northeast of Tonopah, Nevada, and 87 miles southwest of Ely, Nevada (Volcano Discovery undated).
Based on historical data from the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (2021), the Project vicinity has never had a significant earthquake or volcanic eruption.
3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects - Geologic and Soil Resources
This section presents information about potential effects of the proposed Project on geologic and soil resources. Following NEPA regulations and guidelines, a project’s potential effects can be categorized as direct, indirect, and cumulative. Cumulative effects are presented separately, in a subsequent section.
3.3.2.1 Potential Hazards Assessment
This section discusses geologic hazards identified by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (NBMG) (2020) that are potentially present in the vicinity of the Project.
Slope Instability
In general, bedding within the Pioche Shale and Pole Canyon Limestone bedrock units that is exposed on the west-facing slope of the Duck Creek Range dips at an inclination of about 43 degrees to the west, which is steeper than the approximate 30-degree surrounding slope. As such, the bedding is essentially self-supporting and bedding plane slope instability is not likely. Both limestone and quartzite units were observed to form prominent cliffs throughout the Project vicinity, suggesting good stability overall. No major rock falls, basal talus cones, or Quaternary landslides were observed during the 2020 geologic mapping effort; however, the ridgeline of the Duck Creek Range exhibits “scalloping,” suggesting that landslide or rockfalls may have occurred in the past (HDR 2020b).
Subsidence
Subsidence is the sagging or collapse of the ground surface due to groundwater extraction or the collapse of underground mine workings or natural caverns. A review of aerial imagery and topographic data does not show evidence of features characteristic of underground karst caverns, so subsidence associated with natural caverns is not anticipated
3.3.2.2 Water Erosion and Windblown Dust
Erosion hazards not related to slope stability and mass movement processes described above may result from water erosion and windblown dust. The Project vicinity does not receive much rainfall, which generally minimizes erosion from water sources. According to NOAA (2022), the mean annual precipitation for White Pine County for the POR (18952022) is 12.85 inches. However, over long periods, these natural processes may potentially result in erosion. Hazards related to water include erosion of soils at the proposed upper and lower reservoirs, the switchyard, the transmission line, and Project access roads. Loosening of rock and soil in the hills above the lower reservoir has the potential to create conditions of gradual or catastrophic movement of rock and soil. Surface and near-surface flow can erode soils and weaken rock (such as during freeze/thaw cycles).
Windblown dust is caused by the introduction of dust into the air by increased soil erosion during Project construction and operation. Hazards related to windblown dust include reduced air quality, respiration of dust, and transport during construction of the Project.
3.3.2.3 Construction Spoil
WPW proposes to design the Project to make the best possible use of nearby construction materials and to limit the amount of material (e.g., soil and rock) that must be imported (borrow) or exported (waste). An earthwork balance is not only vital to control construction costs, but also to limit environmental impacts that would otherwise arise from borrow or waste areas. Most of the Project surface facilities, including the lower reservoir, staging and laydown areas, upper reservoir, switchyard, and roads, are being designed to optimize
the cut/fill balance and limit the amount of surplus material to be spoiled. As such, it is expected that there will be limited spoil arising from the upper reservoir area.
A permanent spoil disposal site will allow the storage of approximately 1,005,000 cubic yards of spoil arising from the lower reservoir and underground excavations that cannot be reused as fill material. Additional areas adjacent to the spoil disposal location have been identified, should the spoil area requirements grow through the development of the design. The location of the spoil area was selected to limit environmental disturbance and visual impacts on sensitive habitats.
3.3.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Geologic and Soil Resources
As noted in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for geologic and soil resources is the Project Footprint since effects on soils and surficial geology will generally be localized and confined to the area of direct ground disturbance associated with the Project. The geographic scope includes the aboveground limits of the Project and extends belowground to the depth of proposed construction for the proposed Project facilities. As listed in Table 3.2-2, there are seven actions that occur within the geographic scope for geologic and soil resources: (1) Expanded Operations of NNR, (2) Additional Transmission Lines or Pipelines in Section 368 Energy Corridors, (3) Greenlink North Transmission Line, (4) Cross-Tie Transmission Project, (5) SWIP-North, (6) Smith Valley Mastication and Hand Thinning; and (7) Increasing Population and Development
Potential cumulative effects on geological resources could result from ground-disturbing activities related to the construction phase of multiple projects in a localized area. Cumulative effects on soil resources could result from either: (1) new alterations to the natural environmental and land surface that could increase the rate of soil erosion by water or wind; or (2) the conversion of soils to other uses that could collectively result in limited loss of productivity within the geographic scope for analysis. The implementation of appropriate mitigation measures will minimize short-term impacts, such as erosion of surface soils
The primary Project activities that could contribute to cumulative effects on current geologic and soil conditions include excavation and installation of the underground powerhouse complex, reservoirs, impervious surfaces, and construction activities such as grading, blasting, and backfilling as described in Section 3.2.2 Water from new groundwater wells will be delivered to the lower reservoir via a new conveyance system network (wellfield) composed of well pumps, buried piping, valves, and associated instrumentation, as described in Section 2.2.1. Excavation, drilling, blasting, and boring activities could physically alter geologic materials along a very narrow or discrete subsurface path. Ground disturbance could exacerbate the potential for wind and water erosion of soils.
Three of the identified reasonably foreseeable future actions (Greenlink North Transmission Line, Cross-Tie Transmission Project, and the SWIP-North Transmission Line) would overlap with the Project Footprint at the Robinson Summit Substation, where surface geology and soils have already been disturbed. Two of the other identified
reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic scope for geologic and soil resources (Additional Transmission Lines or Pipelines in Section 368 Energy Corridors, and the Smith Valley Mastication and Hand Thinning) would overlap the Project Footprint within a Section 368 energy corridor. The energy corridors have been designated for activities similar to the transmission line proposed as part of the Project. Most effects would be incremental, but repeated effects would occur when project activities overlap in area but at different timeframes, such as the potential for overlapping construction of the Project and restoration of the NNR. Additive effects on soil can occur if projects are constructed concurrently or if previously restored areas are subsequently re-disturbed. With implementation of PM&E measures such as a SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, most Project related effects on soils are expected be temporary and short-term. The analysis did not identify any geologic resources in the Project Area that are rare or threatened or impacted in a manner where a material cumulative effect is likely when considered in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects. Other future actions would likely have similar mitigation measures in place to minimize effects on soil and geologic resources. As a result, the Project, when combined with other actions, is not expected to have a significant cumulative effect on geologic or soil resources.
3.3.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.3.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3. In addition, WPW conducted or received the following consultation specific to geologic and soils resources:
Geotechnical Study
WPW consulted with BLM regarding a land use application and permit to conduct exploratory and geotechnical sampling investigations on BLM lands to collect geologic and geotechnical information on subsurface conditions to support feasibility-level designs of the Project and to determine the suitability for construction of an underground powerhouse and water conduits. This geotechnical study was designed to include three borings, five test pits, and a temporary staging area and to use only existing roads.
BLM’s internal scoping was conducted in May 2021 with an Interdisciplinary Team made up of Bristlecone Field Office resource specialists and management who discussed the potential consequences of the proposed action. A public scoping period began on July 30, 2021, and ended on August 13, 2021. NDOW, the SETT, and White Pine County participated in the development of the Preliminary EA as Cooperating Agencies. BLM sent letters to the following federally recognized tribes in July 2021, inviting them to initiate consultation:
• Ely Shoshone Tribe
• Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
• Yomba Shoshone Tribe
• Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation
A preliminary EA analyzing these activities was published by BLM in July 2021 BLM received comments from the NDOW, the SETT, Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR), White Pine County, the NDEP, the NSHPO, and two interested individuals. Substantive comments were received, leading to changes to the EA (see Appendix H of the EA for a summary of public comments and BLM responses).
The final EA (BLM 2021a) was published on September 3, 2021, along with the Finding of No Significant Impact. The Record of Decision, which specified stipulations and seasonal restrictions, was signed on September 3, 2021, allowing the geotechnical investigation on BLM lands Approval of the Land Use Application was granted on October 18, 2021 A request for a seasonal exception or variance for work in Greater Sage-grouse winter habitat was not granted by NDOW and WPW stopped work on the geotechnical investigation by October 31, 2021. The geotechnical sampling investigations were conducted October 19 to October 31st of 2021 and again in September of 2022.
Seismic Study
On July 14, 2021, WPW submitted a Land Use Application to BLM to conduct a seismic study. Approval was granted on October 18, 2021. A request for a seasonal exception or variance for work in Greater Sage-grouse winter habitat was not granted by NDOW so the work could not be scheduled and completed in 2021. On November 5, 2021, WPW requested a permit extension to October 31, 2022. The seismic study commenced on September 6, 2022 and was completed on September 8, 2022.
3.3.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to geologic and soil resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction.
SWPPP: Prior to the commencement of construction, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP is anticipated to help prevent erosion, scouring, and general water quality degradation during Project construction.
Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan to address potential issues resulting from spills of hazardous substances or fuels during construction, operation, or maintenance.
3.4 Water Resources
3.4.1 Affected Water Resources Environment
The proposed Project is located in the Steptoe Valley of east-central Nevada, approximately 8 miles northeast of the City of Ely in White Pine County. The Project will be located entirely off-stream, meaning neither the upper nor lower reservoir will intercept
a perennial surface watercourse or be hydrologically connected to other surface waterbodies or wetlands. The Project’s primary water source for the initial fill, and later make-up water, will come from groundwater wells. WPW will drill these wells in a new wellfield in the Steptoe Valley Basin, south of the proposed lower reservoir. Water from the wellfield will be used for construction, for initial fill of the reservoir system, and for annual make-up water for losses from seepage, leakage, and evaporation. A smaller well with associated piping and valve components will be drilled near the upper reservoir to provide limited water for construction activities and for filling the headrace and covering the upper reservoir inlet plenum, if necessary. WPW is leasing water from White Pine County and the County’s permitted groundwater rights. The Nevada State Engineer has recently approved (September 22, 2022) the change permits moving the points of diversion and places of uses for two County owned water rights to the location of the proposed new wellfield. WPW will continue to work with the Nevada State Engineer to certificate (i.e., finalize) the change permits through the construction of new wells as discussed in Section 2.2.1.5.
WPW will not discharge water from the proposed Project during construction or routine operations, rather the water will be cycled between the upper and lower reservoir as a nonconsumptive beneficial use Project waters will, accordingly, not be used for irrigation, municipal, or livestock purposes, but will be used strictly for industrial power generation.
3.4.1.1 Water Resources Overview
Nevada is located within the Great Basin physiographic region of the Basin and Range Province, between the Sierra Nevada range of mountains to the west and Snake and Deep Creek Mountains to the east on the Utah border. The area is characterized by north/south trending mountains and intervening, broad, arid valleys creating tremendous elevational relief (Eaton 1982). Great Basin drainage flows into the valley floors containing ancient dry playas that are remnants of Pleistocene lakes. According to White Pine County (2018), water within the physiographic region of the Great Basin does not flow to the ocean. Instead, surface waters are deposited in underground aquifers.
The USGS, Nevada Division of Water Resources (“State Engineer or NDWR”), and Nevada Division of Conservation and Natural Resources (“NDCNR”) have divided the State of Nevada into 232 hydrographic basins within 14 major hydrographic regions (NDWR 2022). The proposed Project lies in the White Pine hydrographic basin within the Central Region (Hydrographic Region 10). The White Pine basin is a total of 46,783 square miles and is further divided into 15 sub-basins. Most of the proposed Project, excluding the westernmost section of the transmission line, is located in the Steptoe Valley Basin (Basin 179) in east-central Nevada as shown in Figure 3.1-2. The westernmost section of the transmission line will cross Jakes Valley Basin, which measures approximately 422 square miles (NDWR 2022). The Steptoe Valley Basin drains approximately 1,942 square miles (NDCNR 1967). Steptoe Valley extends northward from the southern end of White Pine County for approximately 110 miles into the southern part of Elko County. From Currie, the valley axis rises southward from an altitude of 5,800 feet to about 7,000 feet at the southern end. The Schell Creek Range bounds the east side of the valley and the Egan and Cherry Creek Ranges form the western boundary. Commonly, the crests of these
ranges are 3,000 to 4,000 feet above the valley axis. East of McGill, the crest of the Schell Creek Range is approximately 11,000 feet for several miles (NDCNR 1967).
Duck and Steptoe Creeks, which drain the higher parts of the Schell Creek Range, are the principal streams in Steptoe Valley. Other smaller creeks, such as Big Indian Creek, drains the Schell Creek Range north of Duck Creek. Murry and Gleason Creeks drain the Egan Range in the vicinity of Ely; Goshute and McDermitt Creeks drain parts of the Cherry Creek Mountains in the northern part of Steptoe Valley. Flow in most streams reaches the valleylowland only during periods of high runoff from snowmelt or high-intensity precipitation; however, Steptoe Creek is perennial to the floor of the valley (NDCNR 1967).
3.4.1.2 Aquatic Resources Delineation Study
In accordance with the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Study Plan, WPW performed an Aquatic Resources Delineation Study to assess the nature and degree of the Project’s potential impacts on areas subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the CWA 6 and that may also be subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada. The USACE regulates discharges of fill material into Waters of the United States (WOUS) under authority of Section 404 of the CWA, and the NDEP defers to USACE jurisdiction for the determination of waters of the state. The study objective was to prepare a baseline map of potential WOUS in the immediate Project vicinity (HDR 2022a). The methods and results of the study are presented in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Study report (HDR 2022a) (Appendix B), which may be submitted to the USACE with a request for an approved jurisdictional determination. The results of this study form the baseline and over-arching characterization of surface waterbodies and wetlands within the Project vicinity; as such, the study methods are summarized in this section, with the relevant results discussed in the subsections below.
The survey area consisted of all lands anticipated to be affected by Project construction (Project Footprint) and operation (Project Boundary) for which access permission was granted. These lands included the proposed Project reservoirs, access roads, water source, transmission line corridor, currently anticipated laydown yards and related disturbance areas, as well as an approximately 100-foot buffer surrounding these areas. Access was not granted for private parcels located in the Smith Valley portion of the survey area (HDR 2021a)
WPW performed a desktop assessment to collect information related to aquatic resources in the vicinity of the survey area prior to performing the field investigation. Wetland scientists then performed the aquatic resources delineation from June 28 through July 1, 2021 and May 17 through 20, 2022. The delineation followed Part IV, Section D, of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Corps Manual) (Environmental Laboratory 1987); the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region Version 2.0 (Supplement) (Environmental Laboratory 2008); and A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (OHWM Manual) (Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 2008).
A Trimble R1 Global Navigation Satellite System Handheld Receiver with submeter accuracy was used to field map most aquatic resources. Reference lines and data points for the OHWM of linear drainages, wetland boundaries, and other wetland data were subsequently exported to the ArcGIS software program, then overlaid on current aerial imagery and available topographic contours for the purpose of digitizing the extent of the features. Some portions of the survey area were inaccessible because of steep slopes, dense vegetation, or access was not granted; therefore, some aquatic resources were edited and digitized using ESRI ArcGIS software based on aerial photos and topographic contours. WPW also performed a binocular scan of private parcels in which access was not granted to gather information to inform digitizing the extent of features using ESRI ArcGIS software (HDR 2022a).
A combination of Level 1 (Onsite Inspection Unnecessary) and Level 2 (Onsite Inspection Necessary) of the Routine Determination Method was chosen for delineating perennial and ephemeral channels and for delineating wetlands (HDR 2022a).
Based on the results of the Aquatic Resources Delineation Study (Appendix B), several aquatic resources were identified in the survey area, including two perennial channels (Duck Creek and a tributary to Duck Creek), 31 ephemeral channels, two freshwater emergent wetlands, and one willow scrub-shrub wetland. Table 3.4-1 summarizes aquatic resource acreages identified in the Project vicinity by feature class (HDR 2022a).
Source: HDR 2022a.
3.4.1.3 Surface Waterbodies
The Project falls within the Long-Ruby Valleys and Spring-Steptoe Valleys sub-basins (USEPA Hydrologic Unit Codes 16060007 and 16060008). Project features will be located within the following sub-watersheds (Appendix B) (HDR 2022a):
• The westernmost section of the proposed transmission line (Summit Spring160600070203 and Jakes Valley-Illipah Creek - 160600070206).
• The western section of the proposed transmission line (Upper Gleason Creek watershed - 160600081201).
• The central portion of the proposed transmission line (Smith Valley watershed - 160600081401).
• The eastern portion of the proposed transmission line, substation, lower reservoir, inlet/outlet structure, and water conveyance (Steptoe Slough-Duck Creek watershed - 160600081402).
• The upper reservoir, inlet/outlet structure, and access roads (Gilford CreekDuck Creek watershed - 160600081302).
Although White Pine County has no major lakes or rivers, there are important surface water resources in many locations. Surface water flows are important sources of irrigation water in the agricultural areas in the major valleys of the county. Groundwater that discharges to the surface at springs is also an important surface water resource. Many springs in White Pine County have been developed for irrigation, livestock watering, municipal and domestic water supplies, and the mining industry. The surface water resources of White Pine County are also extensively used for recreational purposes. Warm springs, particularly those in Steptoe Valley, have been historically developed into public spas. Several have the potential for geothermal energy development (Hinz, et. al., 2015 as cited in White Pine County 2018). Known hot springs near the proposed Project include the Cherry Creek Hot Springs located approximately 40 miles north of the Project near Cherry Creek Station, and northwest of Steptoe Waterhole off of White Pine County Road 21 As part of the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment (HDR 2022b), the Project vicinity was assessed for springs for potential springsnail (Pyrgulopsis spp.) habitat; no springs were found to occur in the Section 404 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination study area.
Surface water features in the Steptoe Valley sub-basin include various streams, creeks, and lakes such as Cave Lake (320 acres), Comins Lake (410 acres), Bassett Lake (120 acres), and Goshute Lake. Goshute Lake is a “dry” lake (White Pine County 2018 and 2019). Many of the streams originate in the surrounding mountains and flow to the valley floor; however, the majority of the streams only reach the valley floor during times of heavy runoff generated from large storms. Only two streams flow perennially and reach the valley floor – Steptoe Creek and Duck Creek. Willow Creek, located near Ward Charcoal Ovens State Historic Park south of the Project, also reaches the Steptoe Valley floor as shown on the Ward Charcoal Ovens, Nevada USGS 7.5-minute topographical map in the USGS Topographic Maps on Google Earth.
Steptoe Creek (Hydrologic Benchmark Network Station 10244950) is located to the south of the proposed Project. Steptoe Creek originates in the Duck Creek Range and is spring fed. Steptoe Creek flows westward to the axis of Steptoe Valley and thence northward along the axis of the valley and typically terminates north of the Ely airport. However, during very wet seasons it has been known to reach Bassett Lake and in very wet periods flows into Duck Creek (BLM 2008b, USGS 1920). Steptoe Creek has an average stream gradient of approximately 370 feet/mile (Mast and Clow 2000). Steptoe Creek drains the western slope of the Schell Creek Range south of Duck Creek Valley. The mountain block
forming its watershed is characterized by faulted Paleozoic carbonate rocks and mountain peak altitudes greater than 10,000 feet (Frick 1985).
The USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2019) identifies 55 water features within the proposed Project Footprint. Many of these features were also identified in USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS 2019). WPW assessed all of the NHD and NWI mapped surface water features within the proposed Project Footprint during the June and July 2021 and May 2022 aquatic resources delineation (HDR 2022a, included as Appendix B) to determine if their characteristics and locations matched the datasets. As summarized above, several aquatic resources were identified in the survey area, including two perennial channels, 31 ephemeral channels, two freshwater emergent wetlands, and one willow scrub-shrub wetland (HDR 2022a). The extent of these features within the Project Footprint is shown in the mapbook included in the study report at Appendix B, and each feature class is described in more detail below. The aquatic resources identified in the Project Footprint are summarized in the study report Table 2 in Appendix B
Perennial Channels
Duck Creek is the principal stream near the proposed Project and it originates east of the Duck Creek Range in Duck Creek Valley. Duck Creek Valley has a northward trend and a length of about 20 miles and a width of about 4 miles at its widest part. Duck Creek derives nearly all of its water from tributaries, the headwaters of which are in the mountains to the east (USGS 1920). The headwater area for Duck Creek includes the highest peaks within Steptoe Valley's hydrographic basin, and rocks in this area are predominantly Precambrian and Cambrian elastics (Frick 1985). Tributaries of Duck Creek flow in from the east and include Berry Creek, Timber Creek, Bird Creek, East Creek, and North Creek. These tributaries originate in the upper elevations of the Schell Creek Mountain Range, within the Humboldt National Forest. Duck Creek flows north through Gallagher Gap and divides into several small channels before flowing into a large alluvial fan north of the Town of McGill. Duck Creek is used for irrigation and other purposes, and then flows into Tailings Creek and Bassett Lake. During periods of very high flows, Duck Creek has reached Bassett Lake, about 5 miles northwest of McGill. Duck Creek continues as outflow from Basset Lake, flowing north. Approximately 47 miles to the north of the headwaters, in extremely wet years with high snowpack, Duck Creek occasionally flows into Goshute Lake, a normally dry lakebed that sits on the border of White Pine and Elko Counties (NDCNR 1967 as cited in HDR 2022a)
A reach of Duck Creek within the Project Footprint (i.e., PC1f and PC1g), is a meandering or sinuous channel that flows from south to north through the easternmost portion of the Project vicinity. The average width of the OHWM of the channel within the Project Footprint is approximately 3 feet and Duck Creek flows over one dirt road crossing within the Project vicinity. The channel banks on the north side of the road crossing are deeply incised likely due to erosion from the road crossing. Surface water depth ranges from approximately 3 to 6 inches throughout the portions of Duck Creek in the Project Footprint (HDR 2022a).
Duck Creek’s active floodplain within the Project Footprint is distinguished by a change in plant community to either herbaceous vegetation consisting of mostly rush (Juncus) and
sedge (Carex) species or scrub-shrub stands of willow species (Salix sp.), which are up to 10 feet high in some areas (HDR 2022a)
PC2 is also a perennial channel segment within the Project Footprint and is a sinuous, low-gradient tributary to Duck Creek that flows from east to west where it converges with Duck Creek just south of the road crossing (Appendix B). The average width of the OHWM of PC2 is approximately 3 feet. Herbaceous vegetation dominates the active floodplain and the substrate is characterized as a silty texture. Surface water depth measured approximately 4 inches on June 30, 2021 (HDR 2022a).
Ephemeral Channels
EC0 through EC52 (Appendix B) are ephemeral channels that vary from low to moderate gradients with the average width of the OHWM varying from 1 to 6 feet. Channels in the western portion of the Project vicinity and the proposed upper reservoir area are generally moderate gradient channels, while channels in the valley portions of the Project vicinity are low gradient with some braided channels on valley floors, which are consistent with alluvial fan systems in arid west regions. No surface water was present in any of the ephemeral channels within the Project Footprint at the time of the survey (HDR 2022a).
Freshwater Emergent Wetlands
A freshwater emergent wetland (W2) is located on the eastern end of the Project Footprint, southwest of the McGill Spring area (Appendix B). Hydrophytic vegetation dominating this wetland consists of Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) and Douglas' sedge (Carex douglasii). The position of the hillslope north of this wetland provides evidence that there may be water seepage from overland flow as well as subsurface water from McGill Spring, located outside of the Project Footprint. Drainage patterns in this area include an ephemeral channel (EC45) that traverses the wetland from west to east (Appendix B) (HDR 2022a).
WPW identified fringe wetlands (W4i-W4r) along Duck Creek (PC1f and PC1g) and a tributary to Duck Creek (PC2) (Appendix B). These wetlands are dominated by Sierra rush (Juncus nevadensis) and Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), with an overstory of scrub-shrub species (predominantly willow) in some areas (HDR 2022a).
Willow Scrub Wetlands
One wetland identified within the Project vicinity (W5) adjacent to Duck Creek (PC1f and PC1g) and PC2 (Appendix B) qualifies as a willow scrub wetland, as surface water was present along with a high water table. Dominant hydrophytic species included coyote willow (Salix exigua) and Booth's willow (S. boothii) with an understory of rush species (HDR 2022a).
3.4.1.4 Water Quantity
Steptoe Valley has the most diversified water use of any basin in White Pine County according to the White Pine County Water Resources Plan (White Pine County 2019). In 2019 permitted water rights included industrial uses, irrigation, mining, wildlife, municipal uses, power, quasi-municipal uses, recreation, stock watering storage, commercial
activity, and domestic uses (White Pine County 2019) Groundwater pumpage as reported by NDWR is further described in Section 3.4.1.6 Groundwater and Table 3.4-4
The upper and lower reservoirs of the proposed Project will be part of a closed-loop pumped storage development. WPW anticipates drawing the water for initial reservoir fill and annual make-up water to replace losses from seepage, leakage, and evaporation from groundwater under permits held by White Pine County. The County's water rights under previously granted permits in this area exceed 20,000 AF per year, which substantially exceeds the one-time fill requirement for the proposed Project. Under White Pine County Resolution 2019-40 (August 14, 2019), the County initially approved making water available subject to future approval, which was granted under Resolution No. 2021-12 (February 24, 2021), wherein the Board of County Commissioners voted to enter into a Water Use and Option to Purchase Agreement with WPW to supply all fill and make-up water for the Project (WPW 2020).
3.4.1.5 Water Quality
Federally Approved Water Quality Standards
The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards designating beneficial uses of the state's waters and setting criteria designed to protect those uses. Nevada’s water quality standards, as contained in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A.11704 –445A.2234, define the water quality goals for a waterbody, or a portion of a waterbody, by designating beneficial uses of the water and setting criteria necessary to protect the beneficial uses. Beneficial uses include, but are not limited to, contact recreation, irrigation, aquatic life, watering of livestock, and drinking water supply (NDEP undated).
Nevada’s water quality standards contain both narrative and numeric criteria. Narrative standards that apply to all surface waters of the State are contained in NAC 445A.121 and are listed below. These standards require waters to be “free from” various pollutants in sufficient levels so as to not be unsightly; interfere with any beneficial uses; create a public nuisance; be toxic to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life; or have any other adverse effects (NDEP undated).
The following standards are applicable to all surface waters of the State:
1. Waters must be free from substances attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable sources that will settle to form sludge or bottom deposits in amounts sufficient to be unsightly, putrescent, or odorous or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water.
2. Waters must be free from floating debris, oil, grease, scum, and other floating materials attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable sources in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water.
3. Waters must be free from materials attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable sources in amounts sufficient to produce taste or odor in the water or detectable off-flavor in the flesh of fish or in amounts sufficient to change the existing color, turbidity, or other conditions in the receiving stream to such a degree
as to create a public nuisance or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water.
4. Waters must be free from high temperature, biocides, organisms pathogenic to human beings, toxic, corrosive, or other deleterious substances attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable sources at levels or combinations sufficient to be toxic to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water. Compliance with the provisions of this subsection may be determined in accordance with methods of testing prescribed by NDEP. If used as an indicator, survival of test organisms must not be significantly less in test water than in control water.
5. If toxic materials are known or suspected by NDEP to be present in a water, testing for toxicity may be required to determine compliance with the provisions of this section and effluent limitations. NDEP may specify the method of testing to be used. The failure to determine the presence of toxic materials by testing does not preclude a determination by NDEP, on the basis of other criteria or methods, that excessive levels of toxic materials are present.
6. Radioactive materials attributable to municipal, industrial, or other controllable sources must be the minimum concentrations that are physically and economically feasible to achieve. In no case must materials exceed the limits established in the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards (or later amendments) or 1/30th of the Maximum Permissible Concentration values given for continuous occupational exposure in the “National Bureau of Standards Handbook No. 69.” The concentrations in water must not result in accumulation of radioactivity in plants or animals that result in a hazard to humans or harm to aquatic life.
7. Wastes from municipal, industrial, or other controllable sources containing arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, fluoride, lead, selenium, silver, copper, and zinc that are reasonably amenable to treatment or control must not be discharged untreated or uncontrolled into the waters of Nevada. In addition, the limits for concentrations of the chemical constituents must provide water quality consistent with the mandatory requirements of the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
8. The specified standards are not considered violated when the natural conditions of the receiving water are outside the established limits, including periods of extreme high or low flow. Where effluents are discharged to such waters, the discharges are not considered a contributor to substandard conditions provided maximum treatment in compliance with permit requirements is maintained.
Duck Creek is the closest water source to the proposed Project and water quality standards for Duck Creek are presented in Table 3.4-2.
Parameter Standard1
Dissolved Oxygen (milligrams per liter [mg/L]) S.V. ≥6.0
Total Phosphorus (as P) (mg/L) S.V. ≤0.10
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) S.V. ≤500
E. coli (colony-forming unit/100 milliliter) G.M. ≤126 S.V. ≤410
Fecal Coliform (No./100 milliliter) S.V. ≤1,000
Source: NAC 445A.2052.
1 S.V. means single value. G.M. means geometric mean.
Existing Water Quality Data
Water quality information is not available for the ephemeral channels identified within the Project Footprint, as these waters are not gaged and the channels are typically dry. Additionally, water quality information is not available for the perennial channel (PC2), as this water is not gaged. As such, there is no water quality data available in the immediate Project vicinity. The closest perennial water source to the proposed Project is Duck Creek, which supports the following beneficial uses: (1) aquatic life, (2) irrigation, (3) municipal and domestic supply, (4) propagation of wildlife, (5) recreation with contact, (6) recreation with no contact, and (7) watering livestock (NDEP 2020). There are no USGS gages on Duck Creek that collect water quality data in the Project vicinity (WPW 2020).
The closest USGS gage with available water quality data is USGS gage 10244950 Steptoe Creek near Ely, Nevada. Water quality data from this gage was only available for February 21, 1968, through February 13, 1996. During this time period, all water quality recordings met the state standards, with the exception of two instances where pH was above the threshold on January 23, 1971 (9.1) and on March 6, 1973 (9.5) (USGS 2020b).
This dataset’s lowest recorded water temperature was 3.5°C and the highest recorded water temperature was 14°C. Specific conductance ranged from 218 micro-siemens per centimeter (µS/cm) to 403 µS/cm. Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from a low of 6.8 mg/L to a high of 12.1 mg/L. The pH levels during this time period ranged from a low of 7.4 to a high of 9.5, with two instances that were above state standards as discussed above. All available water quality data from USGS gage 10244950 is available in Appendix B of the PAD, which was filed with FERC on May 15, 2020.
Designated Use Attainment
NDEP's Water Quality Integrated Report (NDEP 2022) describes the status of surface water in Nevada in relation to state water quality standards. The report contains a 303(d)
list of Nevada's impaired surface waters requiring the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load and fulfills requirements of the Federal CWA
NDEP’s 2020-2022 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report indicated that a 13.2-mile stretch of Duck Creek (Waterbody Code NV10‐CE‐39‐A_00) from its origin to the pipeline intake, near the center of Sec 24, T18N, R64E, Mount Diablo base and meridian was listed as Category 1 because all beneficial uses were being fully supported (NDEP 2022).
3.4.1.6 Groundwater
Steptoe Valley is a long, narrow basin located within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province in the Great Basin. This name refers to the region covering much of the western United States and northwestern Mexico and refers to the landscape of alternating valleys and mountains. Within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, groundwater occurs in basin fill deposits and the rock that underlies these deposits (BLM 2008b). Steptoe Valley is in a region referred to as the carbonate-rock area, which is underlain by thick sequences of Paleozoic limestones and dolomites. Although the Great Basin is characterized by basins that exhibit internal drainage due to topographic closure, in the carbonate-rock area there are frequent instances of inter-basin groundwater flow and large regional flow systems (Frick 1985).
The basin fill deposits in this area consist of unconsolidated sediments that are produced by the erosion of the surrounding mountains and hills. The sediments are transported by streams and creeks and are deposited onto the valley floor. The groundwater within Steptoe Valley is stored primarily within these basin fill deposits. The fractured-rock aquifer in the carbonate rock beneath the basin fill deposits does not directly yield groundwater to local wells (BLM 2008b).
There is uncertainty regarding groundwater recharge in Steptoe Valley. It is believed the only known source is through precipitation; however, there have been suggestions that groundwater could flow into Steptoe Valley from neighboring Butte Valley (BLM 2008b). In response to concerns about water availability and limited hydrogeological information, a water-resources study was initiated in December 2004 and conducted by the USGS, Desert Research Institute, and State of Utah. The study area included 13 hydrographic areas that covers most of White Pine County including Steptoe Valley. In this study, groundwater recharge, discharge, and storage were estimated for the study area. Steptoe Valley was found to have the highest annual recharge (about 154,000 AF) and one of the highest annual discharges (about 101,000 AF). Groundwater storage in Steptoe Valley is approximately 224,000 AF (USGS 2007). The USGS monitors groundwater levels continuously in 27 wells and annually in 1,081 wells across Nevada (USGS 2013). Monthly average depth to water level data is available from USGS well 393310114475001 located approximately 15 miles north of the proposed Project site at latitude 39°33'10" N and longitude 114°47'50" W. The land surface altitude of the well is reported as 6,037 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and has a well and hole depth of 122 feet (USGS 2020b).
Monthly average depth to water levels (feet below land surface) were estimated based on a 38-year POR from August 10, 1983, to October 31, 2021. Monthly average depths
(Table 3.4-3) ranged from 8.4 feet below surface elevation to 10.3 feet below surface elevation. The shallowest depth recorded during the POR was 6.0 feet and the deepest depth recorded was 13.7 feet below surface elevation. The 38-year POR indicates stable groundwater elevations with approximately 1.88 feet of seasonal fluctuations each year (Table 3.4-3).
Source: USGS 2020b.
1 Depths are represented as monthly averages in feet.
The Steptoe Valley Basin (Groundwater Basin 179) is primarily located within White Pine County with a small portion being in Elko County (NDWR 2021b). A review of existing hydrogeologic data and available pumping test results for the Steptoe Valley indicates that transmissivities in the Quaternary alluvium range from 1,350 to 4,500 ft2 per day. This range of transmissivity is indicative of a well-sorted gravel that likely dominates the aquifer composition and can support substantial groundwater production rates (Piteau Associates 2021).
Groundwater occurs at various depths under White Pine County and is developed for municipal, agricultural, and mining supplies as well as for other purposes (White Pine County 2019). In recent years, the demand on the groundwater resources has grown significantly, in part reflecting the growth of the various economic sectors of the County, and in part reflecting the interest in exporting water from White Pine County through largescale, inter-basin transfers of water. Because most of the surface water resources of White
Pine County are already appropriated, the groundwater resources represent the only remaining source of water that is available to support the future increases in water use Basins in White Pine County in 2019 with the highest number of underground water rights were Steptoe, Spring, and Railroad Valley North. Over 65 percent of underground water rights in White Pine County in 2019 were held in these three basins (White Pine County 2019). As described in Section 3.4.1.4, Water Quantity, the White Pine County Board of County Commissioners voted to enter into a Water Use and Option to Purchase Agreement with WPW to supply all fill and make-up water for the Project in February 2021.
A review of State of Nevada groundwater level records (Welch et al., 2007 as cited in HDR 2020b) revealed no active wells in the vicinity of the upper and lower reservoirs, though other wells were identified in the region in a similar topographic setting. The depth to groundwater in these other wells was on the order of at least 100 feet below ground surface (HDR 2020b).
Table 3.4-4 illustrates estimated groundwater use (acre-feet) for Steptoe Valley Basin and manner of use as currently reported by NDWR post 2017. The top three current commitments of groundwater in the Steptoe Valley hydrographic area (No. 179) are: Mining and Milling (28.5 percent of commitments), Irrigation (37.8 percent), and Industrial (22.9 percent) (NDWR 2021b). We note that the industrial usage includes the 20,000 AF of commitments held by White Pine County, which are currently not being put to beneficial use. Therefore, the total volume of water being put to beneficial use is actually much lower that the volume of water that is committed (or permitted) for use.
Note: Total use includes underground and other groundwater. Source: NDWR 2021b.
There are 700 domestic water wells in White Pine County (White Pine County 2019) Groundwater wells registered with NDWR in 2017 (most recent available data) are presented in Figure 3.4-1
Source: NDWR 2021b.
Steptoe Valley contains a considerable number of springs, commonly grouped in two classes - thermal and nonthermal. The thermal springs are the most conspicuous and yield the largest quantities of water. Their temperature indicates that the water comes from considerable depths and is not a part of the groundwater body of the unconsolidated valley fill. The thermal springs, as a rule, are arranged in lines on either side of Steptoe Valley
nearly parallel to the mountain borders. This linear arrangement and parallelism strongly suggests that the springs occur along fault or fracture zones (USGS 1920).
There are over 700 springs in White Pine County (White Pine County 2019). The USGS conducted a survey of 100 springs in the county and reported a combined discharge rate of over 78,000 gpm, equivalent to more than 126,000 AF per year. White Pine County also has 16 warm or hot springs. Only one, the Monte Neva Hot Spring in Steptoe Valley, has been identified by the USGS as having enough potential for geothermal steam to warrant investment (White Pine County 2018).
Two springs are located just east of the proposed upper reservoir at elevations of approximately 7,959 (McGill Spring) and 8,018 (Canyon Spring) feet as shown on the East Ely, Nevada USGS 7.5-minute topographical map in the USGS Topographic Maps on Google Earth. McGill Spring has been impacted heavily by a vertical culvert, fencing, and intensive cattle grazing. No springs or other surface expressions of groundwater presence are reported within the vicinity of the proposed Project (HDR 2022a).
WPW has submitted an application to the BLM to conduct a proposed Hydrogeologic Study to obtain additional information about groundwater resources in the vicinity of the Project
3.4.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects - Water Resources
This section presents information about potential effects of the proposed Project on surface water and groundwater resources, including water quantity and quality. WPW’s objectives are to avoid or minimize all impacts from Project construction and operations to surface water and groundwater within and near the proposed Project. Following NEPA regulations and guidelines, a project’s potential effects can be categorized as direct, indirect, and cumulative. This section presents the direct or indirect effects on water resources. Cumulative effects are presented in the next section.
Prior to the start of commercial operations, the Project reservoirs and underground works must be filled with the water required for equipment commissioning and normal operations. Initial reservoir fill and make-up water to replace losses from seepage, leakage, and evaporation are anticipated to be drawn from groundwater under permits currently held by White Pine County. Long-term make-up water will be sourced from a portion of a groundwater right purchased from White Pine County but owned by WPW for the purpose of long-term water make-up. The County's water rights under previously granted permits in this area exceed 20,000 AF per year, which substantially exceeds the one-time fill requirement for the proposed Project. Use of water for the Project was formally approved in a Water Supply and Option Agreement by the White Pine Board of County Commissioners on February 24, 2021. Under this Water Supply and Option Agreement, the County is leasing sufficient water resources to allow for the initial fill of the Project and has optioned a portion of an existing water right for purchase by the Project to use for longterm make-up water.
The effect of using the White Pine County water rights for the initial fill was evaluated by NDWR as part of the change application process for Water Permit Nos. 72729 and 72728. A change to the point of diversion and place of use for both these water permits was filed
with the State Engineer, which formally approved the change on September 22, 2022. The newly changed water rights, Permit Nos. 91444 and 91445, are now permitted to allow for diversion from the location of the proposed new wellfield to the south of the lower reservoir. As part of the change application process, the State Engineer evaluated adverse impacts to other groundwater rights and/or resources. As the change applications were approved and no formal protests were filed, there is a presumption of no adverse effect to the groundwater resources. This assumption along with an evaluation of any effect related to the initial fill will be further studied in the planned hydrogeologic study Based on the range of analytical outcomes using publicly available transmissivity estimates for alluvial gravels in the Steptoe Basin, and scheduling flexibility for the pumping effort required to fill the Lower Reservoir, the Project is anticipated to cause little change to existing groundwater flows and uses.
The Project is not expected to cause any impacts to water quality in ephemeral or perennial streams within or adjacent to the Project. Project design of the lower reservoir includes a small spillway and a low-level outlet. These features are included out of an abundance of caution and would be activated only under highly improbable conditions, such as the combination of a full reservoir plus over-pumping from the Project’s groundwater source.
WPW will implement its Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to minimize potential impacts to surface waters due to ground disturbance during construction.
Evaporation from the proposed Project reservoirs may concentrate solutes present in source waters. However, these concentrated solutes will not impact surface waters, as the Project will not discharge to any surface waters.
Road improvements will not involve any in-water work. Construction of access roads for the upper reservoir will involve crossing mostly ephemeral stream channels and one perennial waterbody (Duck Creek), which currently has a culvert at the road crossing. Because the proposed transmission line for the Project will be sited primarily within an existing Section 368-designated transmission corridor designed to support connectivity to multiple energy generation sources, some surface waterbodies will be crossed, however, these streams have previously been impacted for various energy development projects. Table 3.4-5 lists surface waterbodies that will be crossed by the proposed transmission line for the Project.
Source: HDR 2022a.
1 Ephemeral channels located along the proposed transmission line in an east to west direction.
2 As calculated within the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Study area (HDR 2022a).
3 R6 = Riverine, ephemeral
3.4.2.1 Surface Waterbodies and Wetlands
During construction, soil disturbances associated with clearing, access road construction, construction of the reservoirs, and other activities can cause erosion and sedimentation, and potentially lead to impacts threatening aquatic life. WPW will include measures in the final design, construction, and maintenance of the proposed Project to minimize potential impacts and to avoid the addition of sediment or siltation to surface waters and wetlands.
As described above, the majority of the streams within the Project Footprint are ephemeral stream channels. Ephemeral streams contain flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year (USACE undated). Most of the identified ephemeral streams within the Project Footprint are episodic stream channels that appear to convey flows only during and immediately after precipitation events. Many of the ephemeral channels in the Project Footprint are typical of arid fluvial systems, including sparsely vegetated washes with sand or sand and gravel beds with varying densities of scattered stones of variable sizes. Historic agricultural activities within portions of the Project vicinity have disturbed natural hydrology through some ephemeral washes.
Impacts to surface water in the Steptoe Valley from the Project will be limited to alterations of surface water runoff patterns. Surface water runoff is an important source of water for creeks (e.g., Duck and Steptoe Creeks) in Steptoe Valley (NDCNR 1967). Project reservoirs could capture precipitation within their footprints and other overland flow will be routed around the reservoirs. As described above, the groundwater within Steptoe Valley occurs for the most part in the unconsolidated valley fill, where the water table reaches the surface, or nearly so, and then escapes into the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration (USGS 1920).
As previously described, wetlands within the Project Footprint were identified through secondary data source review and field investigations conducted by HDR from June 28 through July 1, 2021 and May 17 through 20, 2022. Based on the field investigations, a total of 12 wetland areas totaling only approximately 0.36 acres of wetland habitat were identified within the Project Footprint 7 (HDR 2022a). Most of the wetlands identified within the Project Footprint are classified as palustrine emergent with only 0.02 acres representing willow scrub-shrub wetland. The scrub-shrub wetlands are associated with Duck Creek, in the eastern section of the proposed Project.
WPW proposes to follow specific regulatory guidelines, as well as develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that incorporates BMPs designed to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation to surface waterbodies and wetlands in order to minimize potential adverse effects of constructing the Project on the aquatic environment within the Project Footprint
3.4.2.2 Groundwater
The Project will utilize groundwater for initial fill and annual make-up of losses of water from seepage, leakage, and evaporation. Water will be supplied to the Project from existing groundwater rights as governed by the Water Supply and Option Agreement that was formally approved by the White Pine Board of County Commissioners on February 24, 2021. WPW will source (i.e., divert) the water from a proposed new wellfield containing four new groundwater wells in the Steptoe Valley, located south of the lower reservoir, and one well at the upper reservoir, as described in Section 2.2.1.5.
There are two phases of pumping planned for the Project, the initial fill of the lower reservoir which involves groundwater production rates at 3,000 gpm for a limited time and secondly make-up water production at a substantially lower production rate occurring over the life of the Project.
The effect of drawdown due to pumping at peak rates to fill the Project’s lower reservoir is expected to be confined to the area local to the project wellfield. Analytical estimates indicate that drawdown from static for the system under continuous pumping at the design nominal rate of 3,000 gpm will be approximately 90 feet at the pumping center. This is considered a worst-case estimate at an active production well occurring over a limited period during lower reservoir filling, which is expected to take between 12 to 18 months. Make-up water production will involve pumping to address evaporation losses needed to maintain a level suitable for facility operation.
Based on the range of analytical outcomes using publicly available transmissivity estimates for alluvial gravels in the Steptoe Basin, drawdown at a limited number of nearby wells could exceed 10 feet. Figure 3.4-2 shows the location of nearby private wells based on data from the NDWR well database and the extent of 10 ft drawdown isopleths. The isopleths are based on a transmissivity of 1,350 ft2/day (red) reflecting the lower bound of expected transmissivity and 4,500 ft2/day (green) representing the upper bound of
expected transmissivity. Under the 1,350 ft2/day case the 10 ft isopleth includes five private water wells. One private well falls within the 10 ft isopleth of the 1,350 ft2/day transmissivity end member.
Public records indicate that in all but one case domestic and irrigation wells within the drawdown isopleths are located on lands administered by BLM. These wells include:
• One domestic well northwest of proposed location of PW-1 falls within the 1,350 ft2/day isopleth.
• One domestic well located on private land west and another domestic well located on BLM land southwest of the proposed location of PW-2 fall within the 1,350 ft2/day isopleth.
• Two wells located north and east of PW-3 fall within the 1,350 ft2/day isopleth. An irrigation well located north of PW-3 falls within the 1,350 ft2/day isopleth. The second domestic well to the east of PW-3 falls within the 4,500 ft2/day isopleth.
Although these wells fall within the 10 ft isopleth, effects from pumping are expected to be minimal and only during the initial reservoir fill phase of groundwater production. The effects will be of a limited duration and will be actively managed to mitigate for any identified potential adverse effects
WPW’s future hydrogeologic study will include field confirmation of the location for each domestic well falling within the 10 ft isopleth, test well drilling, hydrogeologic logging, and pumping tests to support aquifer characterization. This work will yield key data that can be used to make a more certain determination of transmissivity and therefore a more accurate characterization of the area potentially affected by groundwater production. If required, adjustments to the operational production rates and scheduling for the initial fill, as well as the specific location of any proposed production well, will be made to avoid conflict with local groundwater users. For instance, depending on the seasonal start of the initial fill, the wellfield production may be reduced during the local irrigation season to avoid potential conflict or impacts to local groundwater users. As a result, the lower reservoir filling is expected to take between 12 to 18 months.
WPW estimates that, on average, approximately 560 AF will be needed each year to make up for losses to seepage, leakage, and evaporation. This annual volume is significantly less than the water needed for initial fill over a 12- to 18-month period; therefore, groundwater pumping to provide approximately 560 AF annually will not impact neighboring wells or other water users nearby.
3.4.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Water Resources
As listed in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for water resources is the HUC-12 watersheds in which the Project is located Effects within a HUC-12 watershed sufficiently accounts for effects on surface water, wetlands, and groundwater resources that would be directly affected by construction activities and for indirect impacts such as increased sedimentation or turbidity due to erosion, or decreases in water quality due to spills
Figure 3.2-1 depicts the six HUC-12 watersheds that will be crossed by the Project (Gilford Creek-Duck Creek, Steptoe Slough-Duck Creek, Smith Valley, Upper Gleason Creek, Summit Spring, and Jakes Valley-Illipah Creek). All the actions listed in Table 3.2-2 except for the Recreation Trail Building School Grant could occur within the geographic scope for water resources.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect water resources include actions within the geographic scope that affect soils and subsequently water such as removing surface vegetation, disturbing soils, and creating the potential for soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation impacts to surrounding waterbodies. Cumulative effects on water resources can include impacts on groundwater, surface waters, and wetlands. Modification of wetlands and riparian areas can result in cumulative effects on the functional capacity of these vegetation communities to maintain water quality.
Construction of the Project and other projects listed in Table 3.2-2 may result in temporary effects on surface water resources such as increased sedimentation, turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen, impaired flow, release of nutrient pollutants, modification of habitat, and other threats to aquatic life. These impacts, such as increased turbidity, would individually result in temporary to short-term effects because they would return to baseline levels over a period of days to weeks following construction. The Project is a closed-loop system and will not be hydrologically connected to any existing surface water sources. Although the geographic scope for water resources are the HUC-12 watersheds crossed by the Project, any effects on surface waters would dissipate with distance from the Project. PM&E measures will be included in the final design, construction, and maintenance of the proposed Project to avoid or minimize potential effects such as introducing sediment to surface waters. The proposed Project’s Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan will minimize risks to surface water from an inadvertent leak or spill of hazardous material. Like the Project, other reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds would likely need to install and maintain BMPs as required by federal, state, and local permitting authorities to minimize impacts on waterbodies. Therefore, impacts on waterbodies would likely be of short duration. Additionally, the construction periods for most of the projects listed in Table 3.2-2 would likely occur at different times than the Project and would not overlap themselves. Therefore, construction of the Project and the other projects listed in Table 3.2-2 would likely result in minimal cumulative effects on surface water resources. Operationally, it is unlikely that the direct and indirect effects of the other identified reasonably foreseeable Projects would interact negatively with the direct and indirect effects of the Project, so as to result in a cumulative impact to surface water resources.
Construction of the Project will affect a total of approximately 0.43 acres of ephemeral waterbodies and 0.36 acre of wetlands, consisting of primarily palustrine emergent with 0.02 acre of willow scrub-shrub wetland associated with Duck Creek, as described in Section 3.4.2. Other reasonably foreseeable actions presented in Table 3.2-2 may affect additional waterbodies and wetlands within the same watershed as the Project. Construction-related impacts on surface waters including wetlands range from temporary to permanent, depending on the proposed action/facility and type of wetland impacted. For example, effects on palustrine emergent wetlands outside of permanent project footprints would be temporary because the wetlands would return to original emergent function and value shortly after construction. There would be permanent loss of some wetland habitat where aboveground facilities, reservoirs, and roads would be placed and operated. WPW and proponents of other projects in the watersheds of the Project likely would need to prepare and obtain permits including erosion control plans and wetland mitigation plans. Given the small number of streams and wetlands that may be affected by the Project, and the mitigation measures that all projects would likely implement, cumulative effects on wetlands are expected to be minor
Construction and operation of the Project would use groundwater resources. During the initial reservoir fill stage of construction, groundwater pumping will result in approximately 10 feet of drawdown at one domestic well east of PW-3 and may (depending on aquifer transmissivity) cause 10 feet of drawdown at four other wells used for domestic and irrigation purposes (see Section 3.4.2). Of the other actions listed in Table 3.2-2, only the reasonably foreseeable increase in population and development in White Pine County over the temporal scope of the analysis could also use groundwater resources. The effects of the Project, when combined with the anticipated growth and increased use of groundwater in the area, likely would have a minor cumulative effect on groundwater.
3.4.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.4.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3.
3.4.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to water resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction.
SWPPP: Prior to the commencement of construction, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP is anticipated to help prevent erosion, scouring, and general water quality degradation during Project construction.
Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan to address
potential issues resulting from spills of hazardous substances or fuels during construction, operation, or maintenance.
Landowner Coordination: WPW will coordinate, as required or necessary, with adjacent and downstream private landowners regarding potential Project effects.
3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources
This section describes fish and aquatic resources in the Project Footprint (within ephemeral and perennial waterbodies) and in Duck Creek, a perennial stream that is located along the eastern section of the Project Footprint. Potential impacts of the Project on fish and aquatic resources are also discussed in this section.
Initial reservoir fill and make-up water for operations is anticipated to be drawn from groundwater from the proposed wells as described in Section 2.2.1.5. The county's water rights under previously granted permits in this area exceed 20,000 AF per year, which substantially exceeds the one-time fill requirement for the proposed Project
Interactions between the Project and fish habitat are limited to the indirect effects associated with any land-disturbing activities in the watersheds of ephemeral and perennial waterbodies.
Limited information is available describing the fisheries and aquatic resources of Duck Creek, the closest water source to the Project. Therefore, regional information from adjacent areas is also referenced in this section to help describe these resources.
3.5.1 Affected Fish and Aquatic Environment
The Project is located within the Long-Ruby Valleys and Spring-Steptoe Valleys subbasins (Hydrologic Unit Codes 16060007 and 16060008). The upper reservoir, its associated access roads, and staging areas and the uppermost portion of the water conveyance structure are generally located on a watershed divide between Gilford CreekDuck Creek and Steptoe Slough-Duck Creek watersheds. The majority of these features are located at a high elevation in the watersheds, where the majority of streams are ephemeral and fish habitat does not occur. The only aquatic habitat within the Project vicinity is Duck Creek. Duck Creek is a meandering, perennial stream in the Duck Creek Valley, located between the Duck Creek and Schell Creek Mountain Ranges, and alongside White Pine County Rd 29.
Within the Ely District RMP area, which includes White Pine, Lincoln, and a portion of Nye counties, most of the water bodies are considered low-quality aquatic habitat due to the lack of persistent year-round stream flow, relatively high water temperatures, and limited riparian vegetation (BLM 2008b).
Stream segments on BLM-administered land generally have varying habitat conditions of low to moderate quality (BLM 2008b). Fish populations are not monitored consistently. Primary threats to fish and aquatic organism habitat include habitat alterations through changes in vegetation cover and species composition, the spread of noxious weeds, water
depletions, manipulations of stream channel form (e.g., channelization; wider, shallower channels; bank erosion), and grazing (BLM 2008b, USFS 2011).
White Pine County is a key fishing area in Nevada, with lakes and streams providing habitat for trout species such as Bonneville cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkia utah), cutbow (Oncorhynchus clarkii × mykiss), brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown (Salmo trutta), rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and tiger (Salmo trutta × Salvelinus fontinalis), as well as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Native species such as redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii), pahrump poolfish (Empetrichthys latos), relict dace (Relictus solitarius), White River desert sucker (Catostomus clarkii intermedius), White River speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.), Fish Creek Springs tui chub (Gila bicolor euchila), Newark Valley tui chub (Siphateles bicolor newarkensis), Preston White River springfish (Crenichthys baileyi albivallis), White River spinedace (Lepidomeda albivallis), and Utah chub (Gila atraria), are also found in the county (White Pine County 2018, NDOW 2022a).
The White River speckled dace is restricted to the White River drainage basin in White Pine and Nye counties, Nevada. According to NNHP (undated-a), speckled dace occupy an extraordinary array of habitats, springs and outflows, streams, pools, ponds, even intermittent streams. However, clear, well oxygenated water with abundant cover of woody debris or overhanging banks along with moving water or wave action in the form of wind appear to be essential for continued persistence. The species is endemic to the White River system therefore it is not expected that this species occurs in the Project vicinity. Additionally, no springs were found in the study area, and the waterbodies within the Project Footprint are not believed to provide habitat for this species.
The Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area (SVWMA) is located immediately south of Ely, Nevada, along U.S. Highway 93/50 in White Pine County. The property comprises 12,806 acres and includes Comins Lake. Steptoe Creek, Cave Creek, and Comins Lake are the primary water resources in the SVWMA.Since NDOW purchased the property associated with the SVWMA in 1999, Comins Lake has become a top fishery destination, not only in Nevada, but in the western United States as well (NDOW undated--a) In April of 2016, Comins Lake was stocked for the first time in nine years with 10,000 rainbow trout. Small numbers of largemouth bass and brown trout were released into the lake in the late spring and early summer of 2016 (NDOW undated-a).
Steptoe Creek is stocked annually with 1,000 rainbow trout that are distributed over 4 miles of the creek. The brown trout population in Steptoe Creek is naturally reproducing and brown trout within the creek are found in relatively low densities (NDOW undated-a)
Relict dace, a native fish classified as a sensitive species by NDOW, exists in a number of springs and channels located in Steptoe Valley. Relict dace have existed in Steptoe Valley since the Pleistocene Epoch and their persistence on the landscape speaks to the species’ hardiness and ability to change to different climactic conditions (NDOW undated-a).
Based on a review of the National Marine Fisheries Service online database, no essential fish habitat designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act or established by the National Marine Fisheries Service has been identified within or in the vicinity of the Project (NOAA undated).
No information is available regarding the historical fish and aquatic resources within the Project Footprint or in the Project vicinity. Existing fish and aquatic resources for Duck Creek and White Pine County are discussed broadly below and Project vicinity-specific information is provided where available.
3.5.1.1 Aquatic Habitat in the Project Vicinity
As described above in Section 3.4 Water Resources, WPW performed an Aquatic Resources Delineation Study to assess the nature and degree of the Project’s potential impacts on areas subject to the jurisdiction of USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. Based on the results of the study, several aquatic resources were identified within the Project vicinity, including two perennial channels (Duck Creek and a tributary to Duck Creek), 31 ephemeral channels, two freshwater emergent wetlands, and one willow scrubshrub wetland. The majority of the streams within the Project Footprint are ephemeral stream channels. According to USACE (undated), an ephemeral stream has flowing water only during and for a short duration after precipitation events in a typical year. The majority of the identified ephemeral streams within the Project Footprint are episodic stream channels that appear to convey flows only during and immediately after precipitation events. Many of the ephemeral channels in the Project Footprint are typical of arid fluvial systems including sparsely vegetated washes with sand or sand and gravel beds with varying densities of scattered stones of variable sizes (HDR 2022a). Historic agricultural activities within portions of the Project vicinity have disturbed natural hydrology through some ephemeral washes.
Based on the results of the Aquatic Resources Delineation Study (Appendix B), none of the aquatic resources identified in the study area are expected to be considered Waters of the U.S. under the December 2022 revised final definition of Waters of the U.S., as they are within closed hydrological basins with no outlets or tributary connections to Traditional Navigable Waters (33 CFR Part 328). Methods and results of this study are presented in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Study report (HDR 2022a) (included as Appendix B) and summarized above in Section 3.4.3.4.
3.5.1.2 Fisheries
Both coldwater and warmwater gamefish species are present in Duck Creek, including rainbow trout, brown trout, and brook trout, largemouth bass, and northern pike (Esox lucius) (BLM 2008b). According to NDOW (2022b), relict dace are the only native minnow species located within the Project vicinity
No obligate migrant fish species (catadromous or anadromous) are known to be present in Duck Creek; however, some fish species may exhibit localized spawning migrations or movements related to seasonal habitat fluctuations.
3.5.1.3 Amphibians
Amphibian species present in Duck Creek are not known. Four amphibian species are found in White Pine County, including the northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), Columbia Spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), and Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana). However, their distributions are not well understood (White Pine County 2018). The northern leopard frog is a BLM sensitive species and NDOW-protected amphibian and is discussed further below.
As noted in the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (Appendix E) conducted from 2020 through 2022, no amphibians were observed in the study area during fieldwork conducted as part of that study
3.5.1.4 Macroinvertebrates
No information is available describing freshwater mollusks, crayfish, or benthic macroinvertebrates in Duck Creek specifically.
WPW requested a review of NDOW records, which resulted in records of several benthic macroinvertebrate species as occurring within 5 miles of the Project Footprint. These species include: crestless column (Pupilla hebes), forest disc (Discus whitneyi), mitered vertigo (Vertigo concinnula), Rocky Mountain column (Pupilla blandi) Schell Creek mountainsnail (Oreohelix nevadensis), sily vallonia (Vallonia cyclophorella), spruce snail (Microphysula ingersolli), western glass snail (Vitrina pellucida), and Whitepine mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp.). None of these species have specific protections. This consultation is included in Appendix A.
Several gastropod species are native to White Pine County and are listed in Table 3.5-1.
Table 3.5-1. Gastropod Species Native to White Pine County
Scientific Name
Eremopyrgus eganensis
Oreohelix hemphilli
Oreohelix nevadensis
Pyrgulopsis anguina
Pyrgulopsis cruciglans
Pyrgulopsis landyei
Pyrgulopsis marcida
Pyrgulopsis neritella
Pyrgulopsis orbiculata
Pyrgulopsis pellita
Common Name
Steptoe hydrobe
White Pine moonsnail
Schell Creek mountain snail
Longitudinal gland pyrg
Transverse gland pyrg
Landyes pyrg
Hardy pyrg
Neritiform Steptoe Ranch pyrg
Sub-globose Steptoe Ranch pyrg
Bifid duct pyrg
Scientific Name
Pyrgulopsis planulata
Pyrgulopsis sathos
Pyrgulopsis serrata
Pyrgulopsis sulcata
Pyrgulopsis kolobensis
Source: White Pine County 2018.
Common Name
Flat-topped Steptoe pyrg
White River Valley pyrg
Northern Steptoe pyrg
Southern Steptoe pyrg
Toquerville springsnail
As part of the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (Appendix E), WPW assessed the study area for potential springsnail (Pyrgulopsis spp.) habitat during both the vegetation mapping portion of the study and during the wildlife habitat assessment portion of the study. No springs were observed; therefore, suitable habitat for springsnails does not occur in the study area (HDR 2022b).
3.5.1.5 Invasive Species
The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) (503.597) defines Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) as exotic or non-native species to the State of Nevada, which the Board of Wildlife Commissioners has determined to be detrimental to aquatic life, water resources, or infrastructure for providing water (NDOW 2017). The Nevada AIS Management Plan Working Group developed a list of AIS and associated categorization for management prioritization (Table 3.5-3).
Species present in the State of Nevada (Types 2, 3, or 4) with related rankings are provided in Table 3.5-2. Most aquatic invasive fish species present in Nevada have control options available (Type 3) but have a high probability of ecological or economic impact. The only fish species established in Nevada with no control options available is the common carp (Cyprinus carpio); however, this species is also designated with a “low” impact rank designation.
Type/Rank Description
Species Status Type
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
A species which has not been detected in Nevada with a possible risk potential for introduction and establishment.
A species which is limited in its geographic distribution in Nevada and control options may be available.
A species established in Nevada and control options may be available.
A species established in Nevada and no control options are available.
Type/Rank Description
Type 5
A species that poses an unknown risk potential for establishment in Nevada.
Species Rank Designations
Watch
High
Species that are not established, have high potential for introduction to Nevada either by natural range expansion or unauthorized introductions, and have a high probability of economic and/or ecological impact.
Established species or species for which there is high probability of economic and/or ecological impact.
Low Species that are widely established but with minimal impact.
Unknown Species that are not established, where there is limited information to make a determination of economic or ecological impact to Nevada.
Source: NDOW 2017.
Several mollusks and crustaceans are listed as AIS in the State of Nevada (Table 3.5-3) Only quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis) are listed as both a species established with no control options and as high impact.
Table 3.5-3. Aquatic Invasive Species Present in Nevada
Quagga mussel Dreissena bugensis Type 4 High
Crustaceans
Australian red claw crayfish Cherax quadricarinatus Type 2 High
Red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii Type 3 High
Signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus Type 2 High
Reptiles and Amphibians
American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus Type 2 Watch
Red-eared slider Trachemys scripta elegans Type 2 Watch
Spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifera Type 2 High
Aquatic and Riparian Plants
Curly-leaf pondweed Potamogeton crispus Type 3 High
Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Type 3 High
Fountain grass Pennisetum setaceum Type 2 Low
Giant reed Arundo donax Type 2 Low
Hoary cress Cardaria draba Type 3 Low
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Type 2 High
Tamarisk Tamarix spp Type 3 High
Whitetop Lepidium latifolium Type 3 High
Pathogens
Asian tapeworm Bothriocephalus acheilognathi Type 3 High
Whirling disease parasite Myxobolus cerebralis Type 4 Low
Source: NDOW 2017.
3.5.1.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Aquatic Species
WPW prepared a list of ESA-listed species potentially occurring within the Project Area 8 using the USFWS IPaC website (USFWS 2022). The USFWS IPaC System identified Pahrump Poolfish as listed species or candidates for listing having the potential to occur in the vicinity of the study area (USFWS 2022). However, the Project Footprint does not
contain habitat for the listed fish species. Additionally, no designated critical habitat for an ESA-listed aquatic species occurs within the Project Footprint
In addition to addressing the needs of ESA-listed species, WPW reviewed the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) database for the status and distribution of state-listed threatened and endangered aquatic species with the potential to occur in the Project Footprint. All of these species are also considered BLM sensitive species (NNHP 2020). State-listed species that are expected to occur in White Pine County are listed in Table 3.5-4. It is not expected that any of the aquatic species listed in the table occur within the Project Footprint
Table 3.5-4 State-Listed Aquatic Species Identified in White Pine County
Species Status
Pahrump poolfish Empetrichthys latos
Requirements
Endangered Shallow warm springs (23.325.3°C) such as alkaline mineral springs and outflow streams; larger individuals frequent more open, deeper waters, whereas young occupy shallower, more weedy areas; extirpated in wild, introduced into refuge populations (BLM 2017)
Not expected to occur. No springs were observed during the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study area; Duck Creek and the perennial tributary to Duck Creek are not believed to provide habitat for this species. Therefore, suitable habitat for Pahrump poolfish does not occur within the Project Footprint.
Bonytail chub Gila elegans
Endangered Prefer backwaters with rocky or muddy bottoms and flowing pools, although they have been reported in swiftly moving water; mostly restricted to rocky canyons today but were historically abundant in the wide downstream sections of rivers (BLM 2017).
White River spinedace Lepidomeda albivallis
Endangered Endemic to the White River Valley; downstream in Flower Flag Spring and Indian Spring (BLM 2017) White River spinedace occupy springs and spring outflow streams with clear, cool water. The substrates are primarily gravel and sand, with some mud interspersed. Emergent aquatic vegetation and algae is common and often dense.
Not expected to occur. Duck Creek and the perennial tributary to Duck Creek are not believed to provide habitat for this species. Therefore, suitable habitat for Bonytail chub does not occur within the Project Footprint
Not expected to occur. No springs were observed during the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study area; Duck Creek and the perennial tributary to Duck Creek are not believed to provide habitat
Moapa dace Moapa coriacea
The current in the spring outflows is swift to moderate (USFWS 2014).
Endangered Endemic to Muddy (Moapa) River and associated thermal spring systems within the Warm Springs area of Clark County, Nevada; occupy spring pools, tributaries (spring outflows), and the main stem of the Muddy River; prefer habitat within local headwaters where water temperatures are 2832°C and low turbidity; variable bottom types in pool habitats and may include deposited gravels or flocculent organic/silt; outflow streams may have sand, gravel, pebbles, cobbles, or mud substrate (BLM 2017)
for this species. Therefore, suitable habitat for White River spinedace does not occur within the Project Footprint
Not expected to occur. No springs were observed during the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study area; Duck Creek and the perennial tributary to Duck Creek are not believed to provide habitat for this species. Therefore, suitable habitat for Moapa dace does not occur within the Project Footprint.
As part of the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (Appendix E), WPW assessed habitat suitability for the northern leopard frog, a BLM sensitive species and NDOW-protected amphibian that ranges across much of Nevada but has declined and become extirpated from much of its former range in recent decades This species requires permanent, shallow (less than 2 feet deep), still, or slow-moving water with rooted aquatic vegetation for breeding and wet meadows and fields for postbreeding habitat (NDOW 2012). There is permanent shallow water with rooted aquatic vegetation in the study area (Duck Creek) (HDR 2022b). Field studies have not identified northern leopard frog in the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study area to date, but the species is well documented as occurring in Spring Valley on the opposite side of the Schell Creek Range, approximately 12 miles east of the Project (Southern Nevada Water Authority [SNWA] 2016).
3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects – Fish and Aquatic Resources
This section presents information about potential effects of the proposed Project on fish and aquatic resources. Following NEPA regulations and guidelines, a project’s potential effects can be categorized as direct, indirect, and cumulative. Cumulative effects are presented separately, in a subsequent section.
As described above, two perennial channels (Duck Creek and a tributary to Duck Creek) and 31 ephemeral channels are present in the Project vicinity. However, suitable fish and
aquatic habitat is limited within the Project Footprint As previously described, the majority of the identified ephemeral streams within the Project Footprint are episodic stream channels that appear to convey flows only during and immediately after precipitation events. Many of the ephemeral channels in the Project Footprint are typical of arid fluvial systems including sparsely vegetated washes with sand or sand and gravel beds with varying densities of scattered stones of variable sizes. During construction, soil disturbances associated with clearing, access road construction, construction of the reservoirs, and other activities can cause erosion and sedimentation and potentially lead to impacts threatening aquatic life. Precautions will be included in the final design, construction, and maintenance of the proposed Project to minimize potential impacts and to avoid the addition of sediment or siltation to surface waters.
WPW does not anticipate Project operational effects on fish and aquatic resources, as the Project is closed-loop and not connected to any existing surface water sources. Initial fill water will be provided by groundwater drawn under permits held by White Pine County in the Steptoe Valley.
The Project reservoirs may provide aquatic habitat for macroinvertebrates, amphibians, or fish species if they are introduced by birds or wildlife or through natural colonization. Any aquatic species that come to inhabit the reservoirs will be subject to large fluctuations in reservoir level and it is not expected that the reservoirs will sustain populations of fish. The reservoirs will be fenced, and fishing will not be permitted.
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Aquatic Species
No impacts are expected to RTE fish species since none are known to occur in surface waters potentially affected by Project construction or operations (Duck Creek, a tributary to Duck Creek, and 31 ephemeral channels within the Project Footprint). Similarly, no impacts are expected to the northern leopard frog, as the only suitable habitat for this species is restricted to Duck Creek, which will be protected during construction by sitespecific BMPs in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, in addition to WPW’s development and implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan
3.5.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Fish and Aquatic Resources
As listed in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for fish and aquatic resources is the HUC12 watersheds in which the Project is located. Using a HUC-12 watershed sufficiently accounts for impacts on fish and aquatic resources that would be directly affected by construction activities and for indirect impacts such as changes in habitat availability and displacement of transient species. Figure 3.2-1 depicts the six HUC-12 watersheds that will be crossed by the Project (Gilford Creek-Duck Creek, Steptoe Slough-Duck Creek, Smith Valley, Upper Gleason Creek, Summit Spring, and Jakes Valley-Illipah Creek). All the actions listed in Table 3.2-2 except for the Recreation Trail Building School Grant could occur within the geographic scope for fish and aquatic resources.
The Project reservoirs are a closed-loop system and will not be connected to any existing surface water sources. The Project reservoirs may provide aquatic habitat for macroinvertebrates, amphibians, or fish species introduced by birds or wildlife or through natural colonization. Any aquatic species that come to inhabit the reservoirs will be subject to large fluctuations in reservoir level and it is not expected that the reservoirs will sustain populations of fish. Construction of the Project transmission line, access roads, and other components may result in very minor impacts on water quality, loss of groundwater infiltration at impervious surfaces, surface waters (about 0.43 acres) and wetlands (about 0.36 acres), as described in Section 3.4.2.
The other actions identified in the geographic scope could have temporary impacts on surface water quality, as well as on organisms that inhabit surface waters. Ground disturbance from implementation of the Project and other reasonably foreseeable future actions is expected to result in localized short-term cumulative effects on fish and aquatic resources, through sediment loading, increased turbidity, and modification of habitats in the watershed. Short-term impacts of other actions could have similar effects if other actions incorporate BMPs to reduce erosion, similar to those proposed for the White Pine Pumped Storage Project, the impacts on surface waters would be reduced.
The same measures described above to protect water resources will also protect fish and aquatic resources. Therefore, any cumulative effects on fish and aquatic resources would be minor.
The Project’s use of groundwater during construction and operation is not anticipated to impact neighboring wells or other water users nearby (Piteau Associates 2021). Because most of the surface water resources of White Pine County have already been appropriated, the other actions identified in the groundwater scope may use groundwater for construction or other purposes, and the Project may contribute to cumulative effects on groundwater
The Project is not anticipated to have long-term effects on water quality or fish and aquatic resources, and therefore would not contribute to long-term cumulative effects on these resources. Implementation of design features of the Project and the proposed environmental measures listed in Section 2.2.4 would avoid or minimize the adverse impacts of the Project on aquatic habitats. The other actions identified in the geographic scope could result in long-term impacts to the extent that they remove or modify riparian and wetland habitats or permanently destabilize soils, leading to erosion. Because the Project reservoirs are a closed-loop system that will not be connected to any existing surface water sources, and because the other components of the Project would have minor impacts on surface water resources and wetlands, the Project is not expected to contribute to long-term cumulative effects on fish and aquatic resources.
3.5.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.5.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3.
3.5.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to fish and aquatic resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction.
SWPPP: Prior to the commencement of construction, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP is anticipated to help prevent erosion, scouring, and general water quality degradation during Project construction.
Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan to address potential issues resulting from spills of hazardous substances or fuels during construction, operation, or maintenance.
3.6 Botanical Resources
The subsections below describe botanical resources in the vicinity of the Project and consider the effects of constructing and operating the Project as proposed by WPW on these resources. Descriptions of the affected environment, direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects, and proposed PM&E measures were developed based on available data presented in the Applicant’s PAD, DLA, and the:
• Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Report (HDR 2023a);
• 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study Report (HDR 2022); and
• Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report (HDR 2023b).
WPW conducted field surveys during nine survey events from September 2020 extending into July 2022 to document and analyze vegetation types in the Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study area as well as specialstatus plant species, and noxious weeds in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study area. These two study areas can be considered the same and will be referred to as the botanical study area. The botanical study area included all lands projected to be affected by Project construction (Project Footprint) and operation (Project Boundary) Subsequent to these investigations, changes in the Project Footprint have been incorporated into the Project configuration and WPW has scheduled field studies in these areas. The results of these studies form the baseline characterization of botanical resources in the Project vicinity, with the relevant results discussed in the subsections below. WPW conducted associated database queries for botanical resources for the botanical study area and a surrounding buffer of 5 miles, or for all of White Pine County in the case of BLM sensitive plant species.
3.6.1 Affected Botanical Environment
The botanical study area occurs between elevation 6,140 and 8,650 feet in the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion of Nevada, which is primarily basin and range topography with numerous wide desert valleys separated by parallel mountain ranges generally oriented north to south, which range from 4,000 feet to over 10,000 feet (USGS 2012). The average annual rainfall for the POR (1895-2021) in White Pine County is 12.86 inches (NOAA 2021) which is partially comprised of an average annual snowfall of 53.70 inches. The average temperatures range from 39.3°F in January to 87.2°F in July (Western Regional Climate Center 2023). Broadly, the botanical study area is dominated by sagebrush scrub in areas below 6,800 feet and pinyon-juniper woodland above 6,500 feet, with seasonal cattle grazing occurring throughout the area. Chaparral habitat types also occur intermittently in the botanical study area. A riparian woodland associated with Duck Creek occurs at the east end of the botanical study area
3.6.1.1 Land Cover Types and Habitats
As described above, the botanical study area primarily consists of two habitats: (1) types of sagebrush scrub differentiated by dominant species, and (2) types of pinyon-juniper woodland differentiated by tree canopy cover.
These two habitats, along with less common habitats and other land covers, are described in greater detail below.
3.6.1.2 Botanical Resources
Field surveys identified 24 different habitats and land covers in the botanical study area, some of which have varying forms that differ from the primary type as defined in the Landfire vegetation modeling system (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior 2020). These are identified in Table 3.6-1 with a short description included below. The full descriptions of these habitats and land covers can be found in the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study Report (HDR 2022). A map depicting the location of these habitats and land covers is included in Appendix E Wildlife Study Report (Appendix B – Vegetation Types and Land Covers). Areas within the Project Footprint added to the Project design since the 2022 field study where additional surveys are planned are identified as either No Data or No Data Available in the habitat mapping in Appendix E. Additionally, a list of all plant species found during the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study, the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study, and from other licensing studies occurring in the study area, is included in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report (HDR 2023b).
Most of the upland habitats in the botanical study area have an herbaceous community with a low to moderate amount of cover, as well as a low to moderate cover of perennial grasses. The most commonly encountered herb species include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), widewing spring parsley (Cymopterus purpurascens), thorny skeletonweed (Pleiacanthus spinosus), James’ cryptantha (Cryptantha cinera var. abortiva), flat spine sheepbur (Lappula occidentalis), long spur lupine (Lupinus arbustus), northwestern Indian
paintbrush (Castilleja angustifolia var. dubia), and Simpson’s buckwheat (Eriogonum microthecum var. simpsonii). The most commonly encountered perennial grasses included streamside wild rye (Elymus lanceolatus), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Letterman’s rice grass (Achnatherum lettermanii), and indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) (HDR 2022, 2023b).
The Project Footprint includes two types of palustrine wetland habitat (palustrine emergent [PEM] and palustrine scrub-shrub [PSS]), and three types of riverine habitat (riverine upper perennial unconsolidated bottom cobble-gravel [R3UB1], riverine upper perennial unconsolidated bottom sand [R3UB2], and riverine ephemeral [R6]) as classified by Cowardin et al. (1979). These habitats occur in the Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland – Open, Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe, Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland - Big Sagebrush Shrubland, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland - Very Open, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland – Closed, and the Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Riparian System as described below.
3.6.1.3 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
This habitat occurs in three forms based on the density of the canopy. The closed canopy form generally occurs on slopes with minimal bare ground. Open and very open canopy forms have a high cover of shrub species with bare ground making up the remainder of the habitat, differing in density of tree cover of approximately 5 to 25 percent for the open canopy form, and less than 5 percent for the very open canopy form.
This vegetation type is dominated by a variable mixture of Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) and single leaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla), with the majority of areas having more cover of Utah juniper. A shrub community is present and total cover is generally inversely proportional to the cover of trees, with little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), matted wild buckwheat (Eriogonum caespitosum), and musk phlox (Phlox hoodii ssp. muscoides) being most commonly seen as well as some cover of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridenata ssp. vaseyana). The herbaceous community cover and perennial grasses are also generally inversely proportional to the cover of trees (HDR 2022).
3.6.1.4 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral
This habitat occurs in the vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir and Duck Creek access and is dominated by antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) in the shrub community, with lesser occurrences of perennial grasses, matted wild buckwheat, and broom snakeweed. Scattered trees of Utah juniper occur in this habitat, but at minimal cover. The herbaceous community has minimal cover, with a moderate to high amount of bare ground. This habitat
is similar to Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland described below but has low cover of sagebrush species (Artemisia spp.) (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.5 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland
This habitat type occurs throughout the study area and is dominated by little sagebrush and/or black sagebrush in the shrub community, with lesser occurrences of broom matchweed, rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), and matted wild buckwheat. Scattered isolated Utah juniper trees may occur in this habitat, but at no more than one percent cover. The herbaceous community has some cover of cheatgrass which is below 10 percent cover in most places This habitat is similar to Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral, but it is essentially devoid of antelope bitterbrush (HDR 2022)
This habitat has four forms in addition to the standard form described above.
A big sagebrush shrubland form of this habitat is present at various places along the proposed transmission corridor. This form differs from the standard form in having codominance with big sagebrush, but not at sufficient cover to define it as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland.
A disturbed form of this habitat is present at the proposed lower reservoir and transmission corridor and appears to be disturbed from adjacent rural development. This form differs from the standard form in having approximately half the vegetation cover of the standard form.
A juniper savannah form occurs at the proposed lower reservoir and differs from the standard form in having scattered clusters of Utah juniper but not at sufficient levels to define it as a juniper woodland, along with a higher cover of perennial grass species
A serviceberry shrubland form occurs along the middle portion of the proposed transmission corridor. This form differs from the standard form in that the dominant shrub species is alder leaf serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) with little sagebrush as a codominant (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.6 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland
This vegetation type occurs along the proposed transmission corridor. It is dominated in the shrub community by basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) with scattered occurrences of little sagebrush, black sagebrush, and rubber rabbitbrush. This vegetation type has minimal cover of grasses or herbs and has a disturbed form near SR490 and in Smith Valley with approximately 75 percent bare ground (HDR 2022).
3.6.1.7 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon
This habitat occurs in the proposed transmission corridor and is a small exposed rocky cliff face surrounded by Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland. Although scattered individuals from the plant species in those habitats do occur on the cliff, total vegetation cover is minimal (HDR 2022a)
3.6.1.8 Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland
This vegetation type occurs at the proposed upper reservoir, the Duck Creek access, and in the Smith Valley portion of the proposed transmission corridor and is dominated by curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in the tree community. Sagebrush is present in this vegetation type at a relatively low cover and Utah juniper is nearly absent. Other species in the shrub community include Utah snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus var. utahensis), broom snakeweed, and perennial grasses. The herb community has minimal to moderate cover of cheatgrass along with cover of other herb species noted above in Table 3.6-1
3.6.1.9 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat
This habitat occurs in the Smith Valley portion of the proposed transmission corridor. It is dominated by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) in the shrub community with scattered occurrences of shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) and rubber rabbitbrush (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.10 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Desert Scrub
This vegetation type occurs along the proposed transmission corridor and at the western end of the proposed lower reservoir. This vegetation type is dominated either by winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) and Indian ricegrass, or by green rabbitbrush in the shrub layer with some scattered and isolated cover of broom snakeweed and little sagebrush. The herb community has minimal cover and bare ground comprises approximately one quarter of the area. This vegetation type is similar to the formally described Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub; however, it differs by being devoid of saltbush (Atriplex spp.) (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.11 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Riparian System
This habitat occurs at the east end of the Project Footprint and in the Duck Creek access. This habitat is dominated by narrow leaf willow (Salix exigua) and barren ground willow (Salix boothii) in the tree community, with some lesser cover of ash leaf maple (Acer negundo) in a closed canopy. The shrub community has sparsely scattered occurrences of Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii) and golden current (Ribes aureum). Rubber rabbitbrush and big sagebrush occur above the banks of this habitat An herbaceous community is present along Duck Creek in the center of this vegetation type containing Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), Sierran rush (Juncus nevadensis), Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.12 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe
This habitat occurs in the vicinity of the proposed reservoirs and is similar to Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Scrub but differs in that perennial grass species range from sub-dominant to co-dominant with sagebrush species. The tree community is nearly
absent, and other shrub species such as winterfat at lower elevations and lava aster (Ionactis alpina) and stemless mock goldenweed (Stenotus acaulis var. acaulis) at higher elevations are present. An herbaceous community is present but has relatively low cover. Bare ground can make up approximately 25 percent to 75 percent of the landscape of this habitat (HDR 2022).
3.6.1.13 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland
This habitat occurs at the northern portion of the proposed lower reservoir and is dominated by perennial grasses, with some cover of broom snakeweed and little sagebrush. The herb community has minimal cover with patches of pinnate tansymustard (Descurainia sophia) and thick stem wild cabbage (Caulanthus crassicaulis) with bare ground comprising the rest of the habitat. (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.14
Invasive Annual Grassland
This habitat occurs along HWY-93 in the vicinity of the proposed lower reservoir and is dominated by cheatgrass with scattered occurrences of pinnate tansymustard, saltlover (Halogeton glomeratus), and crossflower (Chorispora tenella). There is also an occurrence along US-50 with a similar species composition (HDR 2022).
3.6.1.15 Saltlover Field
This vegetation type occurs at one location along the proposed transmission corridor and is dominated exclusively by saltlover (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.16
Agriculture
This land cover occurs along the proposed transmission corridor and consists of planted crops varying in species (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.17 Developed, Medium – High Intensity
This land cover occurs at the east end of the proposed transmission corridor consisting of the Gonder Substation and a private salvage yard (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.18
Disturbed, Non-Specific
This land cover occurs at scattered locations along the proposed transmission corridor, typically as a zone of transition from development to a natural habitat with minimal vegetation cover (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.19
Hardscape Road
This land cover comprises all paved roads in the botanical study area (HDR 2022)
3.6.1.20
Railroad
This land cover comprises all railroad lines in the botanical study area (HDR 2022).
3.6.1.21 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species
Noxious weeds are defined by the Nevada Department of Agriculture as any species of plant which is, or likely to be, detrimental or destructive and difficult to control or eradicate The Nevada Department of Agriculture maintains a Nevada Noxious Weed List which currently lists over 40 plant species; all noxious weeds are regulated by the Nevada Department of Agriculture (Nevada Department of Agriculture undated). Invasive species are defined by the BLM’s Ely Field Office as “alien (nonnative) species whose introduction into an environment where they did not evolve does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (BLM 2021a). Non-native invasive species and noxious weeds are typically prolific pioneering species that have the ability to quickly outcompete native vegetation. They grow rapidly, mature early, and effectively spread seeds that can survive for significant periods in the soil until site conditions are favorable for growth. Seven invasive species out of the 12 BLM known to occur (BLM 2021a) were found in the botanical study area during field surveys. These species are listed in (Table 3.6-2).
Table 3.6-2. BLM Invasive Plant Species in the Vicinity of the Project Footprint
Of these seven species, bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and fox tail barley (Hordeum jubatum) are restricted to the immediate banks above Duck Creek. Saltlover (Halogeton glomeratus) was found to be widespread in the vicinity of the invasive annual grassland habitat type. Horehound (Marrubium vulgare) was primarily found in the vicinity of the existing railroad tracks near the proposed lower reservoir and conveyance channel. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) was found to be widespread throughout the entire Project Footprint except for the Smith Valley and Steptoe Valley portions of the proposed transmission corridor. Redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) and curveseed butterwort (Ranunculus testiculatus) were found incidentally with no specific geography noted (HDR 2023b).
Two species of State of Nevada-designated noxious weeds occurring in the botanical study area were identified during field surveys: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Canada thistle was observed along Duck Creek and at one location along the Duck Creek Access. In the botanical study area, Canada thistle generally grows in moderately disturbed habitats either along a road or watercourse. The total estimated population for Canada thistle in the botanical study area is five individuals Musk thistle was observed at three locations along Duck Creek and at one location along the Duck Creek Access. In the botanical study area, musk thistle grows along the Duck Creek stream margins in areas with a relatively open canopy. The total observed population for musk thistle in the botanical study area is 10 individuals (HDR 2023b). These species are both State of Nevada Category C noxious weeds, which is defined as “weeds that are generally established and generally widespread in many counties of the State” (Nevada Department of Agriculture 2021). The locations of these species are depicted in Appendix C, 9 Botanical Study Report (Appendix D State of Nevada Noxious Weed Species Observed in the Study Area)
3.6.1.22 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species
A list of ESA-listed species potentially occurring within 5 miles of the botanical study area was prepared using the USFWS IPaC website (USFWS 2022). No ESA-listed plant species were reported from the IPaC website and as such, ESA-endangered or ESAthreatened plant species will not occur in the botanical study area. No designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed species occurs within 5 miles of the botanical study area (USFWS 2022). This consultation is included in Appendix J (IPaC).
In addition to addressing the needs of ESA-listed species, a list of BLM sensitive plants known to occur in White Pine County was reviewed (BLM 2017, NNHP 2019, 2021). Additionally, no plant species on the list of the State of Nevada Critically Endangered Plant species known or with potential to occur in White Pine County have the potential to occur in the study area. Eight BLM sensitive plant species, identified in the PAD (WPW 2020) from a search of the Nevada Division of Natural Heritages Records of Special Status Species and Occurrence Details for White Pine County (NNHP 2019) have the potential to occur in the study area (Table 3.6-3). Table 3.6-3 summarizes the BLM sensitive plant species with the potential to occur within the botanical study area and habitat
9 Note: only portions of the study area where noxious weeds were observed are shown in Appendix C
requirements. No special-status or BLM sensitive plant species were detected in the surveyed areas during the 2021 and 2022 field investigations.
Table 3.6-3. BLM Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Botanical Study Area
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Requirements
Eastwood’s milkweed Asclepias eastwoodiana
Open areas on a wide variety of basic (pH usually 8 or higher) soils, including calcareous clay knolls, sand, carbonate or basaltic gravels, or shale outcrops in areas that are generally barren and lacking competition and frequently in small washes or other moisture-accumulating microsites.
In shadscale, mixed-shrub, sagebrush, and lower pinyonjuniper habitats.
Elevation: 4,600– 6,785 feet.
Blooming period: late spring.
Basalt springparsley
Cymopterus basalticus
Waxflower Jamesia terapetala
Pennel beardtongue
Penstemon leiophyllus var. francisci-pennellii
Mount Moriah beardtongue
Penstemon moriahensis
Desert shrub communities, gravelly hills, and alluvial fans. Mostly on dolomite.
Elevation: 5,590–6,510 feet above mean sea level
Limestone cliffs, crevices, and talus.
Elevation: 7,001–11,286 feet.
Blooming period: June–August.
Moist to dry, open, or forested carbonate talus, scree, and rocky soils.
Mostly in or just above subalpine conifer and mountain sagebrush habitats.
Elevation: 7,001–10,600 feet.
Blooming period: July–August.
Open, gravelly, and/or silty carbonate soils in drainages and on gentle slopes and on road banks or other recovering disturbances with enhanced runoff.
In subalpine conifer, subalpine sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and upper pinyon-juniper habitats.
Elevation: 7,100–9,239 feet.
Blooming period: June–July.
Lahontan beardtongue
Penstemon palmeri var. macranthus
Along washes, roadsides, and canyon floors, particularly on carbonate-containing substrates, usually where subsurface moisture is available throughout most of the summer but unknown if restricted to calcareous substrates.
Pinyon-juniper and sagebrush-juniper woodlands.
Elevation: 3,428–7,067 feet.
Blooming period: May–August.
Common Name Scientific Name
Great Basin fishhook cactus
Sclerocactus pubispinus
Nachlinger catchfly Silene nachlingerae
Habitat Requirements
Light-colored soils of limestone or dolostone origin, sagebrush, and shadscale flats, pinyon-juniper woodlands. Elevation: 4,249–7,210 feet.
Blooming period: April–May.
Generally dry, exposed, or somewhat sheltered carbonate (rarely quartzite) crevices on ridgeline outcrops, talus, or very rocky soils on or at the bases of steep slopes or cliffs and on all aspects but predominantly on northwestward to northeastward exposures.
Mainly in subalpine conifer habitats with sparse Rocky Mountain rockmat (Petrophytum caespitosum), onestem fleabane (Erigeron simplex), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), intermountain bristlecone pine (P. longaeva), little sagebrush, birch leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), Watson’s heath goldenrod ( Ericameria watsonii), Utah snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophila), four petal cliffbush (Jamesia tetrapetala), and Nevada primrose (Primula cusickiana var. nevadensis).
Elevation: 7,159–10,732 feet.
Blooming period: August–September.
Sources: Flora of North America 2020, Intermountain Region Herbarium Network 2021, NNHP 2019, WPW 2020.
The State of Nevada protects all species of cactus under Title 47, Chapter 527, §060 through §120 of NRS, and BLM also protects all species of native cactus on BLM lands in Nevada WPW recognizes that cacti that cannot be avoided during construction must be salvaged in accordance with state regulations. Two protected cactus species were observed in the botanical study area. They are described in detail below and their locations in the botanical study area are depicted in Appendix C.
Plains Pricklypear
In the botanical study area, plains pricklypear (Opuntia polyacantha) occurs sporadically in the vicinity of the proposed upper and lower reservoirs and along the western half of the proposed transmission corridor, with high concentrations along the proposed transmission corridor near the Robinson Summit Substation as well as between US-50 and Gleason Creek Road at the west end of the study area. The total estimated population size for plains pricklypear in the study area is 238 individuals (HDR 2023b).
Mountain Ball Cactus
In the botanical study area, mountain ball cactus (Pediocactus simpsonii) occurs sporadically in the vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir and along the western half of the proposed transmission corridor, with high concentrations where the proposed transmission corridor turns from a westward direction to a southward direction. The total estimated population size for mountain ball cactus in the botanical study area is 363 individuals (HDR 2023b).
3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects – Botanical Resources
This section presents information about potential effects of the proposed Project on fish and aquatic resources. Following NEPA regulations and guidelines, a project’s potential effects can be categorized as direct, indirect, and cumulative. Cumulative effects are presented separately, in a subsequent section.
3.6.2.1 Project Effects on Terrestrial Habitats
Project construction activities are expected to have effects on botanical resources ranging from permanent conversion from a habitat to a non-vegetated land cover, to temporary impacts resulting from staging areas and disturbance buffers around permanent Project components. It is expected that construction of the reservoirs will create the greatest amount of permanent displacement of habitat.
Once the Project is constructed, Project O&M activities will likely continue to affect vegetation resources, but at a lower level of intensity than during construction. These activities will likely include periodic vegetation management along the proposed transmission corridor and access roads, as well as periodic access for maintenance and repair of the existing facilities in the surrounding vegetation.
Permanent vegetation impacts associated with the Project are not likely to have long-term effects on plant communities in the vicinity of the Project. All of the communities impacted by construction of the proposed Project are well-represented in Steptoe Valley, in the Duck Creek Range, or throughout the rest of the transmission line right-of-way. Additionally, it is WPW’s intent to mitigate for displacement and disturbance of vegetation through development of a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation and Enhancement Plan. Thus, the Project will not likely have major impacts on terrestrial habitats
However, the construction of the 64 acre and 90 acre proposed upper and lower reservoirs, respectively, will result in the permanent loss of approximately 154 acres of habitat. The vegetation communities that will be lost as habitat are listed in Table 3.6-4. Most of the permanent impacts from construction of the reservoirs will occur to Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe vegetation.
Temporary disturbance associated with construction activities could alter plant community structure by changing the composition of species present and introducing weeds. Disturbed areas will be stabilized and revegetated as soon as feasible after construction activities in a given portion of the Project vicinity are complete. The Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan to be developed for the Project will detail the specific measures to be taken to restore vegetation disturbed by Project-related construction activities.
3.6.2.2 Project Effects on Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species
Nonnative invasive plant species can impact human and other environmental resources. Areas where vegetation and soils have been disturbed are more susceptible to invasion by invasive weeds than undisturbed environments. Aggressive invasive weeds crowd out native vegetation and alter the natural environment and habitat for wildlife species, as well as affecting agricultural water-use efficiency and recreational land values. They can adversely affect native plant species, plant communities, and wildlife habitat through competition.
Noxious weed and invasive species observations occurred throughout the 2021 and 2022 field seasons. During the field studies, the occurrence and distribution of two State of Nevada noxious weeds and seven BLM invasive species were observed in and adjacent to the botanical study area. Three species (bull thistle, musk thistle, and fox tail barley) are restricted to the banks above Duck Creek in the eastern portion of the botanical study area and are not expected to be affected by the Project. One species, horehound, was primarily found in the vicinity of the existing railroad tracks near the proposed lower reservoir and conveyance channel and could be affected by the Project. The remaining five species are not as restricted in their distribution in the botanical study area
Additionally, as part of the noxious weed and invasive species observations that occurred in the botanical study area in 2022, Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) was observed. Cheatgrass is not rated as a noxious weed by the Nevada Department of Agriculture (Nevada Department of Agriculture 2021). Cheatgrass is widespread throughout the majority of the botanical study area and was only noticeably absent from the Smith Valley and Steptoe Valley portions of the proposed transmission corridor. Areas of relatively high concentration of cheatgrass were found in the northern half of the upper reservoir vicinity, the western half of the proposed lower reservoir vicinity, and a portion of the proposed transmission corridor approximately three miles from the Robinson Summit Substation.
Areas of very high concentration of cheatgrass, sufficient to make the vegetation type of the area be an invasive annual grassland, are found in the northwestern portion of the proposed lower reservoir vicinity. These areas of invasive annual grassland are mapped in the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study Report. The total estimated population of cheatgrass in the botanical study area is over 100,000 individuals (HDR 2023b)
The invasive plant species found in and adjacent to the botanical study area are known to occur throughout the western United States and are spread by various land uses. The combination of past and present land use activities in the Project vicinity has contributed to and likely will continue to facilitate the creation of disturbed and weedy habitats. It is well known that many types of land uses contribute to the invasion and spread of non-native invasive species including any and all ground-disturbing activities as well as any activities that promote the dispersal of weed seed. Roads, agriculture, farming/ranching, recreation, and residential and commercial developments all can contribute to the spread of invasive botanical species.
WPW intends to minimize and control the spread of invasive botanical species that could result from construction and operation of the Project through development of a Weed Management Plan. Given adequate and appropriate weed management and site restoration activities, the Project should have minimal negative effects on plant communities and could provide a net benefit by reducing weed infestations in the Project Footprint and vicinity. Thus, the Project is not expected to have significant impacts to the landscape from the spread of noxious weed species.
3.6.2.3 Project Effects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants
WPW consulted with the USFWS, NNHP, and BLM to identify RTE plant species in the Project vicinity. WPW also conducted specific studies and incidental field observations to identify these resources in conjunction with other field activities conducted in 2021 and 2022 in support of the Project licensing. The field surveys did not identify any ESA-listed, BLM sensitive, or state-listed threatened and endangered plant species.
The eight BLM sensitive species listed in Table 3.6-3 were targeted for field surveys in 2021 and 2022. Although suitable habitat for BLM sensitive species does occur, actual occurrences of these species were not observed during intensive field survey efforts and the lack of observations during field surveys suggest that the Project is not expected to affect the overall population of these species even if a stray occurrence is observed in subsequent years.
By definition, all species of cactus in Nevada are protected under Title 47, Chapter 527, §060 through §120 of NRS, and BLM also protects all species of native cactus on BLM lands in Nevada. Two protected species of cactus were found during field surveys (see Section 3.6.1.22 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species) WPW recognizes that cacti that cannot be avoided during construction must be salvaged in accordance with state regulations. Salvage of cacti will be a component of the Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan. The Project is not anticipated to affect mountain ball and plains prickly pear cacti because cactus will be salvaged prior to ground disturbance,
3.6.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Botanical Resources
As noted in Table 3.2-1, the principal geographic scope for cumulative effects on botanical resources is the Project Footprint. Similar to soils, effects on vegetation (including special status species) will be confined to the area directly affected by construction activities. As listed in Table 3.2-2, there are seven other reasonably foreseeable actions that could occur within the geographic scope for botanical resources: (1) Expanded Operations of NNR, (2) Additional Transmission Lines or Pipelines in Section 368 Energy Corridors, (3) Greenlink North Transmission Line, (4) Cross-Tie Transmission Project, (5) SWIP-North, (6) Smith Valley Mastication and Hand Thinning; and (7) Increasing Population and Development.
Three of the identified reasonably foreseeable future actions (Greenlink North Transmission Line, Cross-Tie Transmission Project, and the SWIP-North Transmission Line) currently proposed within the Project Footprint would overlap with the Project Footprint at the Robinson Summit Substation, where vegetation has already been disturbed. Two of the other identified reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic scope for botanic resources (Additional Transmission Lines or Pipelines in Section 368 Energy Corridors, and the Smith Valley Mastication and Hand Thinning) would overlap the Project Footprint within a Section 368 energy corridor. The energy corridors are designated for activities similar to the transmission line proposed as part of the Project.
Activities such as drilling, excavation, grading, and installation of impervious surfaces remove vegetation, alter wildlife habitat, and can result in other potential effects on botanical resources, such as the establishment or spread of invasive species. Cumulative effects could occur where other projects are constructed within the same areas as the Project, such as for the seven actions listed above and in Table 3.2-2. Construction that does not overlap temporally can have cumulative effects, as it takes time for vegetation/habitat to return to a preconstruction state. The Project will have permanent effects on botanical resources from converting habitat to non-vegetated land cover and construction of the reservoirs is expected to create the greatest amount of permanent removal of habitat. While the vegetation communities impacted by the Project are well represented in the Steptoe Valley, in the Duck Creek Range, and in the transmission line right-of-way, other construction projects may further reduce these communities. Most projects would likely restore areas temporarily disturbed by construction, thereby reducing some permanent impacts on botanical resources. Some projects, by design, would improve habitat, such as the Smith Valley Mastication and Hand Thinning project. However, the other actions in the geographic scope would include permanent land development or routine maintenance clearing, thereby contributing long-term or permanent cumulative effects. The overall magnitude of the effect on vegetation and wildlife habitat relative to the total amount of vegetated land within the geographic scope is minor.
WPW proposes to minimize impacts to protected cactus species to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, WPW intends to mitigate for displacement and disturbance of vegetation through development of a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation and Enhancement Plan. This plan could incorporate mitigation for the loss of plains pricklypear and mountain
ball cactus habitat and individuals. It is assumed that other projects would have similar mitigation methods for protected cactus species, thereby reducing the cumulative effects
The combined past, present, and future land use in the Project vicinity has contributed to and will likely facilitate further creation of disturbed and weedy habitats known to contribute to the invasion and spread of non-native invasive species. WPW will develop a projectspecific noxious weed management plan to minimize and control the spread of invasive species. Other projects would presumably have similar management plans.
It should also be noted that most BLM-managed lands in Nevada are and continue to be used for grazing. This activity increases erosion through soil disturbance and changes to vegetation community structure. Much of the BLM-administered rangelands in the region are grazed by livestock under a system of permits and leases in which ranchers pay grazing fees for the use of public land. BLM manages grazing on public lands through a system of grazing allotments. Grazing impacts depend on vegetation type and how that grazing allotment is managed. On BLM-managed lands, managers are required to monitor rangeland health and manage that grazing to meet established rangeland health standards and guidelines (BLM 2008a). WPW would comply with BMPs and reclamation guidelines to minimize impacts to botanical resources, rare and unique vegetation types, and important and special-status plant species. No special status species were identified that are anticipated to be impacted by the Project in a manner that will combine meaningfully with impacts from other reasonably foreseeable projects, to create a cumulative effect on these species.
Overall, the Project, combined with other actions, is expected to have a minor cumulative effect on botanical resources.
3.6.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.6.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3.
3.6.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to botanical resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction.
Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan to address potential issues resulting from spills of hazardous substances or fuels during construction, operation, or maintenance.
Traffic Management Plan: WPW will develop and implement a Traffic Management Plan prior to construction.
Transmission Line: The Project transmission line will be located adjacent to an existing transmission line and primarily within an existing permitted energy corridor already designated for new development, thus reducing potential for impacts to resources.
Biological Resources Protection Training Program: WPW proposes to develop a biological resources protection training program. The program is intended to help inform construction workers and other Project staff of the sensitive biological (botanical and wildlife) resources in the area.
Noxious Weed Management Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Noxious Weed Management Plan for construction of the Project. This plan will be prepared in coordination with BLM and NDOW and submitted to BLM for approval prior to BLM’s issuance of a Right-of-Way Grant Authorization. The plan will include measures to reduce the spread or introduction of noxious weed and invasive plant species. The Noxious Weed Management Plan will incorporate restrictions and guidelines for application of pesticides including herbicides, including avoidance of known sensitive plant species.
Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan: WPW will develop and implement a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan to identify measures that could be reasonably implemented for management, avoidance, and mitigation of potential habitat and associated vegetation losses during construction and operation of the Project.
3.7 Wildlife Resources
The subsections below describe wildlife resources in the vicinity of the Project and consider the effects of constructing and operating the Project as proposed by the Applicant on these resources. Descriptions of the affected environment, the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects, and the proposed PM&E measures were developed based on available data presented in the Applicant’s PAD, DLA, and the:
• 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022); and
• Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study (HDR 2023c).
The study area defined in the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study Plan consisted of all lands projected to be utilized by Project construction (Project Footprint) and operation (Project Boundary) for which access permission was granted. Access was not granted for private parcels located along the proposed transmission corridor in the Smith Valley portion of the study area. However, this area was assessed with binoculars and did not present a limitation to this study.
Initial survey work was conducted in September 2020 in support of the PAD for this Project. WPW subsequently collected wildlife and habitat on April 20 and 21, 2021 and on May 16 and 17, 2022 to cover additional areas not mapped during the 2020 survey work. Areas mapped in September 2020 primarily consisted of the portion of the study area east of HWY-93. For consistency, the same biologists conducted vegetation mapping in September 2020, April 2021, and May 2022. Additional surveys to support this study are
planned for 2023 for areas within the Project Footprint that have been added to the Project design since the 2022 field study.
3.7.1 Affected Wildlife Environment
The study area for wildlife resources is the same as the botanical study area described in Section 3.6 Section 3.6 also includes a detailed description of vegetation communities and land cover types found in the Project vicinity. For the purposes of wildlife resources and associated database queries, the “Project Area” is defined as the botanical study area and a surrounding buffer of 5 miles. It is inhabited by a variety of wildlife species and provides a range of habitats dominated by sagebrush scrub and pinyon-juniper woodland. The study area is dominated by sagebrush scrub in areas below 6,800 feet and pinyonjuniper woodland above 6,500 feet, with seasonal cattle grazing occurring throughout the area. Chaparral habitat types also occur intermittently and a riparian woodland, associated with Duck Creek, occurs at the east end of the study area. The habitat types and terrestrial species that occur, or are likely to occur, within the Project vicinity are discussed in the subsections below
3.7.1.1 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study
WPW conducted a Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022) within the botanical study area, including background literature reviews, desktop analyses, and field investigations. The results of this study form the baseline and over-arching characterization of terrestrial habitat and wildlife within the Project Area; as such, the study methods are summarized in this section with the relevant results discussed in the subsections below. The study methods and results are described in detail in the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment (HDR 2022) as Appendix E to this FLA.
Before starting field surveys in 2021 and 2022, WPW queried the USFWS IPaC tool for ESA-listed wildlife species within 5 miles of the botanical study area, information requests were made with NDOW using their Data Request Form for lands covering the entire Project Area, and WPW reviewed records of all BLM sensitive and other sensitive species in the Ely Ranger District and in White Pine County along with species accounts in the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. The White Pine County Public Lands Policy Plan was also reviewed for pertinent information (HDR 2022b).
WPW conducted field surveys from 2020 through 2022 to document natural communities, wildlife, Special-Status wildlife species, and wildlife habitat types in the botanical study area. Vegetation types were mapped in the field on GPS equipment loaded with aerial imagery. The information from this mapping was digitized in ArcMap and included on field maps for use during the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study (described in Section 3.6, Botanical Resources) and Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study (described below in Section 3.7.1.8 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species).
A list of RTE wildlife species was developed through database searches and information reviews of species with having potential to occur in the study area. Habitat characteristics were identified as suitable for these species. These characteristics were then further
refined into three parameters with specific elements that must be present for a habitat to be considered suitable to a species. Species were then sorted into groups based on these three parameters. Some species groups consist of multiple species that share three specific parameters, while other species groups only consist of a single species because the parameters for that species were not suited to any others. Some species identified from this analysis have habitat preferences so broad that they would have the potential to occur nearly anywhere across the Project and were, therefore, not included in a species group for habitat suitability analysis. The parameters were used to score distinct habitat provinces identified throughout the botanical study area during the habitat mapping effort as more suitable or less suitable to the species groups. WPW assessed in the field each of the mapped habitat provinces as to whether it included three, two, one, or none of the parameters considered suitable for each species group. Maps were then created to depict how many parameters each of the mapped habitat provinces across the study area included for each species group (i.e., habitat suitability index). WPW used this information to describe the potential for RTE wildlife to occur within the Project Area and to determine potential effects of the Project on RTE wildlife and their habitats (HDR 2022)
3.7.1.2 Habitat
As described above, the botanical study area is primarily dominated by sagebrush scrub and pinyon-juniper woodland (HDR 2022). Anthropogenic disturbances in the form of past and present uses of the area (e.g., abandoned mines, roadways, utilities, fences) are commonly located within and adjacent to the Project Area.
Most of the proposed Project, excluding the westernmost section of the proposed transmission line, is in the Steptoe Valley Basin in east-central Nevada. Steptoe Valley extends northward from the southern end of White Pine County for approximately 110 miles into southern Elko County. Schell Creek Range bounds the east side of the valley, and the Egan and Cherry Creek Ranges form the western boundary. Commonly, the crests of these ranges are 3,000 to 4,000 feet above the valley axis. East of McGill, the crest of the Schell Creek Range is approximately 11,000 feet for several miles. Duck and Steptoe Creeks, which drain the higher parts of the Schell Creek Range, are the principal streams in Steptoe Valley (NDCNR 1967).
The SVWMA is located immediately south of Ely, Nevada along U.S. Highway 93/50 in White Pine County. The habitats of the SVWMA support an abundance of wildlife resources that contribute significantly to the biological diversity of eastern Nevada. The fauna of the SVWMA is extremely diverse due to the mosaic of habitat types present and NDOW’s habitat developments (NDOW undated-a).
Recent population estimates for Greater Sage-grouse in White Pine County showed 100 active leks with a total sage-grouse population estimate of 5,800 to 6,800 birds. The BLM Ely District monitored 91 leks in 2003 and found 44 to be active with more than 400 male sage-grouse observed (Bi-State Sage Grouse Conservation Team 2004). As of 2021 there were 125 active or pending active leks within White Pine County population management units (NDOW 2022a).
Based on the results of the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022), a total of 24 land cover and vegetation types occur in the botanical study area. A full description of these land covers and vegetation types, as well as maps depicting the locations of these areas within the botanical study area, are included in Section 3.6 Botanical Resources. The three dominant vegetation types occurring in the botanical study area (described below), in decreasing order of dominance include: (1) Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland; (2) Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland – Closed; and (3) Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe (HDR 2022). Most of the upland vegetation types identified during the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment (HDR 2022) have an herbaceous community with low to moderate cover, as well as low to moderate cover of perennial grasses. Some of the most commonly encountered herbaceous species included cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), widewing spring parsley (Cymopterus purpurascens), thorny skeletonweed (Pleiacanthus spinosus), James’ cryptantha (Cryptantha cinera var. abortiva), flat spine sheepbur (Lappula occidentalis), long spur lupine (Lupinus arbustus), northwestern Indian paintbrush (Castilleja angustifolia var. dubia), and Simpson’s buckwheat (Eriogonum microthecum var. simpsonii). The most commonly encountered perennial grasses included streamside wild rye (Elymus lanceolatus), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Letterman’s rice grass (Achnatherum lettermanii) and Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) (HDR 2022).
3.7.1.3 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland
This vegetation type occurs throughout botanical study area and is dominated by little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) and/or black sagebrush (A. nova) in the shrub community, with lesser occurrences of broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), and matted wild buckwheat (Eriogonum caespitosum). Scattered isolated Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) trees may occur in this vegetation type, but at no more than one percent cover. The herb community contains some cover of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) which is below 10 percent cover in most places This vegetation type is similar to Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral, but it is essentially devoid of antelope bitterbrush. This vegetation type has four forms in addition to the standard form described above and these varying vegetation forms are fully described in Section 3.6 Botanical Resources.
3.7.1.4 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
This vegetation type occurs throughout the botanical study area and occurs in three forms based on the density of the canopy. The closed canopy form generally occurs on slopes with minimal bare ground. Open and very open canopy forms have a high cover of shrub species with bare ground making up the remainder of the habitat, differing in density of tree cover of approximately 5 to 25 percent for the open canopy form, and less than 5 percent for the very open canopy form (HDR 2022).
This vegetation type is dominated by a variable mixture of Utah juniper and single leaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla), with the majority of areas having more cover of Utah juniper. A shrub community is present and total cover is generally inversely proportional to the
cover of trees, with little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), black sagebrush, broom snakeweed, matted wild buckwheat, and musk phlox (Phlox hoodii ssp. muscoides) being most commonly observed as well as some cover of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridenata ssp. vaseyana). The herbaceous community cover and perennial grasses are also generally inversely proportional to the cover of trees (HDR 2022).
3.7.1.5 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe
This vegetation type occurs in the vicinity of the proposed reservoirs and is similar to Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Scrub but differs in that perennial grass species range from sub-dominant to co-dominant with sagebrush species. The tree community is nearly absent, and other shrub species such as winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) at lower elevations and lava aster (Ionactis alpina) and stemless mock goldenweed (Stenotus acaulis var. acaulis) at higher elevations are present. An herb community is present, but of relatively low cover. Bare ground can make up approximately 25 to 75 percent of the landscape of this vegetation type (HDR 2022).
3.7.1.6 Terrestrial Wildlife
The vegetative community types associated with the Project provide suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Although dominated by woodland and sagebrush habitats, the occurrence of wetland, riparian, and riverine systems increases the diversity of wildlife habitats available for indigenous and transient mammal species.
Of the non-avian terrestrial vertebrates reported for Nevada (American Society of Mammalogists 2021, NDOW 2022b), a total of 17 mammal species and eight reptile species were observed and/or their sign was observed within the botanical study area during the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022) (
Table 3.7-1). Additionally, the expansive amount of undeveloped land in White Pine County provides vast amounts of habitat for a wide variety of wildlife including big game species such as elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), as well as a variety of small mammal species and reptiles. White Pine County supports some of the largest big game herds in the State of Nevada, making it one of Nevada’s premier hunting and wildlife viewing destinations. Nineteen NDOW Game Management Units are located in White Pine County. Those that occur in the Project Area include units 104, 111, 121, and 131 (White Pine County 2018). Table 3.7-2 presents recent NDOW population estimates for mule deer, elk, and pronghorn for White Pine County.
One of the largest elk herds in Nevada inhabits Management Area 11 which includes the SVWMA and the nearby mountain ranges. The SVWMA provides spring, summer, and early-fall habitat, while the adjacent Schell Creek and Egan mountain ranges provide important wintering grounds for elk as well as seasonal habitats. Mule deer use the area throughout most of the year. Pronghorn populations have increased dramatically in the southern Steptoe Valley over the last several years (NDOW undated-a).
Table 3.7-1. Vertebrate Terrestrial Species or Sign Observed within the Botanical Study Area
Notes: BLM-S = BLM Sensitive; NDOW-GM = NDOW Game Mammal
Source: NDOW 2022c.
* NDOW Wildlife Management Units located within the Project boundary.
The State of Nevada owns or has long-term leases on more than 120,000 acres of land incorporated into Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) across the state that are managed by NDOW. The primary management emphasis on WMAs is the protection of wetlands and waterfowl, including the use of the areas as public hunting grounds. Hunting opportunities for sportsmen on WMAs include migratory game bird, upland game bird, furbearer, and big game hunting. The closest wildlife area is approximately 6 miles south of the Project and continues south to include part of the SVWMA (NDOW undated-b).
Commercially and/or recreationally important species in the Project Area include big game species such as elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. WPW observed elk in spring 2021 in the vicinity of Duck Creek and the proposed upper reservoir as well as in the vicinity of the central portion of the proposed transmission corridor. Mule deer were also observed in the botanical study area in 2022 and in the vicinity of the upper reservoir in the spring and summer of 2021. WPW observed pronghorn within the botanical study area in 2022, along the westernmost portion of the proposed transmission corridor in the spring of 2021, and in the vicinity of the proposed lower reservoir in the fall of 2020. Mapping of NDOW habitat designations for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn is provided in Figure 3.7-1, Figure 3.7-2, and Figure 3.7-3. Portions of the Project are located in crucial summer range for elk, crucial winter range for mule deer, and year-round range for pronghorn. Winter ranges generally lie lower in elevation and provide stands of sagebrush and bitterbrush that not only provide food, but also shelter from the weather (NDOW undated).
Other game, such as waterfowl, are also hunted in the Project vicinity. The Steptoe Valley is an important Great Basin stopover and resting area for waterfowl. Some waterfowl species occur in the Project Area and vicinity year-round and others migrate in and out depending on the season.
3.7.1.7 Birds
Bird species found within the Project Area include numerous migrant and resident species using the various vegetative communities. These species can generally be grouped as raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, and passerines and other birds. Grasslands and sagebrush are present at lower elevations for sagebrush-grassland dependent species, while juniper woodlands and riparian areas provide habitat for many other species.
Lakes, streams, and wetland areas of White Pine County provide habitat for a wide variety of birds including shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl species. As previously mentioned, Steptoe Valley is an important Great Basin stopover and resting area for waterfowl. Waterfowl species commonly found in Steptoe Valley include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), gadwall (Mareca strepera), American wigeon (Mareca americana), northern shoveler (Spatula clypeata), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), redhead (Aythya americana), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), and Canada goose (Branta canadensis).
WPW recorded eighty bird species in the botanical study area or immediate Project vicinity during the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022). Among these were raptors such as peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, and American kestrel. Greater Sage-grouse are known to occur in the Project Area; this species is discussed in detail below. Waterfowl species such as sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), ruddy duck, and Canada goose were also observed in the immediate Project vicinity. Numerous migratory, breeding, and year-round resident passerine bird species were also observed including black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi), pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), and mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli) among others (HDR 2022).
As mentioned above, raptors (birds of prey) found in the Project vicinity include eagles, falcons, hawks, harriers, and owls. Several raptor nests were documented near the proposed Project A golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) nest was discovered during the Spring 2022 field studies along the high cliffs of the Duck Creek Range approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed upper reservoir footprint. A pair of Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) were observed in the botanical study area during the field studies in Spring 2021 along the proposed transmission corridor in the Steptoe Valley, and an active Swainson’s hawk nest was observed in Spring 2022 in the same area (HDR 2022)
Table 3.7-3 provides a list of bird species observed during the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study in the botanical study area or immediate vicinity
Table 3.7-3. Bird Species Observed in the Botanical Study Area or Immediate Vicinity
Notes: BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; BLM-S = BLM Sensitive; NDOW-GB = NDOW Game Bird; NDOW-S = NDOW Sensitive; NSCP = Nevada State Conservation Priority; SE = State Endangered
3.7.1.8 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species
WPW prepared a list of ESA-listed species potentially occurring within the Project Area 10 using the USFWS IPaC website (USFWS 2022). No ESA-listed terrestrial wildlife species were reported from the IPaC report. One ESA Candidate terrestrial wildlife species, the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), was reported from the IPaC report; however,
Candidate species are not afforded protection by the ESA or other statutes. No designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed species occurs in the Project Area. This consultation is included in Appendix J
As part of the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study, WPW conducted a monarch butterfly habitat assessment within the botanical study area. As part of this assessment, all encountered plant species were either identified in the field or had photos and/or samples taken for later identification. No individuals of any species of milkweed (Asclepias spp.) were found to occur in the botanical study area, and no monarch butterfly individuals were seen during any studies conducted in 2021 and 2022. There is minimal larval host plant habitat present; however, there is suitable nectaring and breeding habitat throughout the botanical study area (HDR 2022).
Golden eagle was confirmed present within the Project Area during the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022). WPW observed golden eagles soaring over cliffs between the proposed upper and lower reservoir areas and over hills near the western end of the proposed transmission line corridor. A nest was discovered during the Spring 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study field activities along the high cliffs of the Duck Creek Range located approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed upper reservoir footprint. Bald eagles are known to occur in the Project vicinity; however, the botanical study area is not in the mapped breeding range of the species (NDOW 2012), and it is likely to occur in the Project Area only during migration and winter (HDR 2022) Additionally, the Project Area is outside the known nesting range of bald eagles (USFWS 2007)
WPW also reviewed the NNHP database for state-listed threatened and endangered terrestrial wildlife species known to occur or with the potential to occur in White Pine County (NNHP 2019, 2021). State-listed species that are expected to occur in White Pine County are the threatened spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) and the endangered peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Spotted bats are found in a wide variety of habitats from low elevation desert scrub to high elevation coniferous forests if suitable roosting habitat exists. This species primarily roosts in cracks and crevices associated with cliff faces, but there is some indication that mines and caves may be occasionally used, especially in winter. This species is a year-round resident that hibernates during the winter, but periodically rouses to forage and drink (NNHP 2019, Bradley et al. 2006). There are 11 special-status species of bats with the potential to occur in the botanical study area. While they all could occur foraging over almost any portion of the Project Area, their preferences regarding roosting sites differ and are the most important criteria by which to assess habitat suitability Some bat species roost almost exclusively in trees, while others roost almost exclusively in cliffs, caves, mines, and other rock or artificial surfaces (NDOW 2012) Suitable roosting habitat is present in the botanical study area for spotted bat based on the results of the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022).
Peregrine falcon is a state endangered and BLM sensitive bird species which, in the state of Nevada, mostly nests in the canyonlands in the southeastern part of the state, though increasingly in recent years the species has been found nesting in more parts of the state
including in White Pine County. They inhabit open canyons and open montane forests where they nest on protected rocky cliffs. They also often occupy urban areas with tall buildings or other large artificial structures that simulate their natural cliff and canyon environment. In nonbreeding season, they often dwell near open aquatic habitats with plentiful avian prey such as marshes, lakeshores, or river valleys (NDOW 2012). While a peregrine falcon was observed along the ridgeline of the Duck Creek Mountains during field studies in September 2020 as part of the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study, the botanical study area is not in the mapped breeding range of the species (NDOW 2012).
BLM maintains a list of sensitive terrestrial wildlife species for Nevada (BLM 2017). The NNHP database for White Pine County included records of BLM sensitive terrestrial wildlife species known to occur in White Pine County (NNHP 2019, 2021). WPW reviewed additional species considered special-status by the State based on NDOW records (NDOW 2019, 2021b), records of state special-status species in White Pine County (NNHP 2019, 2021), and species accounts in the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan (NDOW 2012). WPW also reviewed the White Pine County Public Lands Policy Plan for pertinent information (White Pine County 2018).
Per the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022), species were compiled from these reviews, analyzed for their potential to occur in the study area in one or more of the following references: the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan Species Accounts (NDOW 2012), the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Cypher and List 2014), and NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe 2020), and then grouped into a table if the species was determined to have the potential to occur in the botanical study area (Table 3.7-4). Nevada-designated furbearing and game species with the potential to occur in the Project vicinity are also included in this table. Some species have habitat preferences so broad that they would have potential to occur nearly anywhere across the botanical study area and were, therefore, excluded from specific mapping in the Wildlife Habitat Suitability Assessment. All species which were excluded from specific mapping are noted in Table 3.7-4, and rationale for their exclusion is included in the species accounts in Section 3.3 of the 2022 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (HDR 2022).
Table 3.7-4. Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Botanical Study Area
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Amphibians and Reptiles
Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens NDOW-P, BLM-S Ranges across much of Nevada but has declined and become extirpated from much of its former range in recent decades. This species requires permanent, shallow (less than 2 feet deep), still, or slow-moving water with rooted aquatic vegetation for breeding and wet meadows and fields for post-breeding habitat (NDOW 2012).
Great Basin collared lizard Crotaphytus bicinctores
BLM-S
Occurs mainly in xeric, sparsely vegetated (less than 40 percent cover) areas, alluvial fans, lava flows, boulder-strewn hillsides, and rocky plains in desert scrub, grassland, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush habitats (NDOW 2012).
Yes
Regal ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus regalis
BLM-S Occurs in forests, woodlands, grassland, chaparral, and riparian corridors in arid regions. Habitats are moist, at least seasonally. Individuals often are found near abandoned buildings and in junk piles in wooded areas. During daylight hours, this snake generally hides underground, in or under logs, or under rocks, stumps, or other surface cover (NDOW 2012).
Long-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii BLM-S Found in sandy and gravelly flats with scattered shrubs or other low plants (e.g., bunchgrass, alkali bush, sagebrush, creosote bush) especially areas with abundant rodent burrows (NDOW 2012).
Yes
Yes
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Utah Sonoran mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis pyromelana infralabialis
Northern desert horned lizard Phrynosoma platyrhinos platyrhinos
NDOW-P, BLM-S This species primarily occupy rocky montane environments often near streams or springs, but also occur in lower elevation mesic canyons (NDOW 2012).
BLM-S Typically found on sandy gravelly desert flats, along dry washes, on open hillsides with loose soil, alluvial fans, and at the edges of dunes with low brush. In the Great Basin, this species is associated with sagebrush, saltbush, and greasewood. An ant specialist, this species is often found in habitats where anthills are abundant (NDOW 2012)
Greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi BLM-S Occupies a variety of habitats, including sagebrush, and open pinyon-juniper, pinespruce and spruce-fir forests. Substrate may be stony, sandy, or firm but some fine loose soil is usually present (NDOW 2012).
Birds
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis NDOW-S, BLM-S Nests in mature and old-growth forests with more than 60 percent closed canopy. They often build their nests near breaks in the canopy such as a forest trail, jeep road, or opening created by a downed tree, and prefer sites with a creek, pond, or lake nearby. They hunt in forests, along riparian corridors, and sometimes in more open habitat such as sagebrush steppes (NDOW 2012).
BLM-S Breeds in open wetland habitats surrounded by shrubs or trees. Nest in marshes, bogs, wet meadows, prairies, burned over aspen stands, and other moist habitats, preferring those with standing water. Breeders gravitate toward the edges between wetland and upland habitats, while non-breeders may prefer open, grassy sites. Winter roosting on shallow lakes or rivers at night and spending the day in irrigated croplands, pastures, grasslands, or wetlands (NDOW 2012).
BGEPA, BLM-S Golden eagles are found throughout the state of Nevada in open country, especially in hilly or mountainous regions. They nest primarily on rocky cliff ledges but will sometimes nest in a very large tree. Golden eagles forage by circling high overhead and stooping on mostly mammalian prey in alpine grassland, shrubsteppe, and other mostly open habitats (NDOW 2012).
BLM-S Open areas with low vegetation, including prairie and grasslands, heathlands, meadows, shrub steppe, savanna, tundra, marshes, dunes, and agricultural areas. Breeding habitat includes broad expanses of open land with low vegetation for nesting and high rodent densities for foraging (NDOW 2012).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BLM-S Occupy open habitats with sparse vegetation such as prairie, pastures, desert or shrub steppe, and airports. In parts of their range, they are closely associated with prairie dogs and ground squirrels, whose burrows they use for nests. They breed throughout Nevada in salt desert scrub, Mojave shrub, and some sagebrush habitat, as well as in agricultural landscapes (NDOW 2012)
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BLM-S Prefers arid and semiarid grassland regions, open, level, or rolling prairies, foothills, or middle elevation plateaus largely devoid of trees, and cultivated shelterbelts or riparian corridors. Ferruginous hawks often forage in agricultural fields, frequently perching on the ground or on wheeled irrigation (NDOW 2012).
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni BLM-S Nest in riparian woodland, juniper woodland, and savanna, as well as solitary trees or rows of trees along roads or field edges. They require open habitats for foraging, such as alfalfa fields, pastures, grain crops, and row crops (HDR 2022b).
Yes
Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus
NDOW-GB, BLM-S Known to inhabit large, intact, and complex treeless landscapes with a diversity of sagebrush, native bunchgrasses, wildflowers, and wet meadows. Nesting, breeding, foraging, and brooding habitats can vary greatly. Additionally, the species is known to exhibit strong site fidelity to seasonal habitats, regardless if the area is no longer of value (USFWS 2010a).
Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus
NDOW-GB Primarily a solitary montane species, it inhabits coniferous forests, especially spruce and fir, mostly in open situations with a mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs. They spend the winter at higher elevations, foraging on the needles of coniferous trees, then move downslope to breed in montane meadow habitats (NDOW 2012).
No
Great Basin willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii adastus
BLM-S Montane riparian habitat, with some spillover into lowland riparian areas. Found in both lowland and montane riparian habitats, and occasionally in other inundated areas such as aspen stands or wet meadows (HDR 2022b).
No
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus SE, BLM-S Mostly nests in the canyonlands in the southeastern part of the state, though increasingly in recent years the species has been found nesting in more parts of the state including in White Pine County. They inhabit open canyons and open montane forests where they nest on protected rocky cliffs. They also often occupy urban areas with tall buildings or other large artificial structures that simulate their natural cliff and canyon environment. In nonbreeding season, they often dwell near open aquatic habitats with plentiful avian prey such as marshes, lakeshores, or river valleys (NDOW 2012).
BLM-S Tied to the pinyon-juniper vegetative communities where their roving flocks subsist on pine seeds, caching large numbers of seeds and, thus, spreading the community as they go. Pinyon jays appear to favor transitional areas where pinyon-juniper is interspersed with sagebrush, often observed within 0.5 mile, but almost never farther than 1.5 miles, from the edge of the woodland. They also seem to favor pinyon-juniper woodland with diverse canopy closure and age structure, avoiding large, contiguous stands of mature, dense woodland (NDOW 2012).
BGEPA, SE Mostly a winter resident, though it does nest at a few scattered locations in the state including Ruby Lake in northwesternmost White Pine County. Bald eagles nest in large trees near lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and marshes and winter near open wetland habitat with an abundance of their fish and waterfowl prey (NDOW 2012).
NDOW-S, BLM-S Occurs in open country with short vegetation and well-spaced shrubs or low trees, particularly those with spines or thorns upon which they impale their insect, bird, small mammal, or reptile prey. They also impale their prey on barbwire fences. Loggerhead shrikes also utilize agricultural fields, pastures, old orchards, riparian areas, desert scrublands, savannas, prairies, golf courses, and cemeteries. They are often seen along mowed roadsides with access to fence lines and utility poles or other high perches from which they can survey their surroundings for prey (NDOW 2012).
BLM-S
Nests in high, barren, rocky cliffs beyond the timberline in the highest elevation ranges of northeastern Nevada. They winter across much of the state in large roving flocks that forage for seeds in a wide variety of habitats, often coming to feeders in mountain towns. In winter, they also often seek shelter and roost in caves, abandoned buildings, and mine shafts (NDOW 2012).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BLM-S Open aspen, cottonwood, or pine woodlands with open canopy, brushy understory, and multiple dead trees and snags (NDOW 2012).
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BLM-S
Breeding habitat is mostly native dry grassland and sagebrush prairie. They may favor areas with some damp low spots nearby to provide better feeding areas for their young. They may nest in pastures that are not too heavily grazed, or rarely in agricultural fields. On mostly featureless terrain, they often choose sites close to a conspicuous rock, shrub, or other object (NDOW 2012)
Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus NDOW-S, BLM-S
Breed exclusively in shrub steppe habitats and require relatively dense ground cover for concealment, but also some bare ground for foraging and for getting around on their feet, which they often do in preference to flying. Sage thrashers use arid or semiarid open country with scattered bushes, grasslands, and open pinyonjuniper woodlands (NDOW 2012).
Flammulated owl Psiloscops flammeolus BLM-S
Montane forest with mature pines (preferably Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines), open canopy, brushy understory, and multiple cavities for nesting (NDOW 2012).
Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri NDOW-S, BLM-S They are strongly associated with sagebrush and areas with scattered shrubs and short grass. They can also be found to a lesser extent in mountain mahogany, rabbitbrush, bunchgrass grasslands, and large openings in pinyon-juniper. They are positively correlated with above-average vegetation height and horizontal habitat heterogeneity (patchiness).
Brewer’s sparrows nest in little sagebrush or other shrubs from a few centimeters to about 1 meter off the ground (NDOW 2012).
Mammals
Pronghorn Antilocapra americana NDOW-GM Prefers gentle rolling to flat, wide-open topography. Low sagebrush and northern desert shrubs are the preferred vegetation types. Areas such as these with short understory allow pronghorn to see great distances and permit the animals to move quickly to avoid predators (NDOW undated-d).
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus NDOW-P, BLM-S Occurs over a broad elevation range, from between 178 feet below sea level in Death Valley to 6,700 feet in the mountains of Nevada. Found in semi-arid habitats such as deserts, shrub-steppe, grasslands, and canyon lands, but also in ponderosa woodlands, mixed conifer forest, oak woodland, and riparian forest. Sources of water are usually present in their habitat (Gervais 2016).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis NDOW-GM, BLM-S Found primarily on big sagebrush dominated plains and alluvial fans where plants occur in tall, dense clumps. Dense stands of sage growing adjacent to permanent and intermittent streams, along fence rows, and ditches may be avenues of dispersal (NDOW 2012).
Elk Cervus elaphus NDOW-GM Ranges from roughly 6,000 feet on benches up to 11,200 feet in the mountains. During most seasons, the majority of elk are found between 6,500 feet and 10,000 feet. Typically located on gentle to steep topography on north-south trending mountain ranges (NDCNR 2009).
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii NDOW-S, BLM-S Found throughout Nevada, from low desert to high mountain habitats. Concentrated in areas offering caves or mines as roosting sites and preferring caves and mines where the temperature is 54°F or less, but usually above freezing. Believed to feed entirely on moths. Foraging occurs near vegetation and other surfaces and prey is probably gleaned from these surfaces (NDOW undated-e).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
BLM-S Found in virtually every American habitat ranging from timberline meadows to lowland deserts, though this species is most abundant in deciduous forest areas. It also is often abundant in suburban areas of mixed agricultural use. Traditionally, these bats form maternity colonies beneath loose bark and in small cavities of pine, oak, beech, bald cypress, and other trees. Common maternity roosts can also be found in buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses. Generalists in their foraging behavior and habitat selections, seemingly showing little preference for feeding over water vs. land, or in forests vs. clearings. Small beetles are their most frequent prey, yet big brown bats consume prodigious quantities of a wide variety of nightflying insects (Bat Conservation International 2021a).
ST, BLM-S Found in wetland, riparian, rock, cliff, desert, shrubland, grassland, or woodland habitats usually near a permanent water source. Roosts in caves and rock crevices mainly, but may also occasionally use mines, caves, and buildings as roost sites (NDOW undated-f).
BLM-S Forested areas of America most closely associated with coniferous, mixed coniferous, and deciduous forests, especially in old growth forests. Forms maternity colonies almost exclusively in tree cavities or small hollows. Silver-haired bats appear to hibernate mainly in forested areas. Even though they are highly dependent upon old-growth forest areas for roosts, silver-haired bats feed predominantly in disturbed areas, sometimes at treetop levels, often in small clearings and along roadways or water courses (Bat Conservation International 2021b).
BLM-S A migratory bat species; migrates to warm winter habitats. Summers are spent concealed in the foliage of mature deciduous and coniferous trees, typically near the edge of a clearing. After mating in autumn, females move to the northern, eastern, and central United States to give birth in mid-May to early July. Males remain in the mountainous areas of the western United States (Bat Conservation International 2021c).
BLM-S Inhabits stabilized dunes and other sandy or fine gravelly soils in valley bottoms and alluvial fans dominated by big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and horsebrush (Tetradymia spp.). This species typically occurs in sandy habitats below where pinyon-juniper occurs and above those habitats where greasewood and saltbush predominate (NDOW 2012).
Fringed
Common Name Scientific Name
BLM-S
Found in a variety of habitats ranging from arid desert and badland habitats, and riparian zones in badlands and grasslands, to higher elevation conifer and deciduous woodlands. As a saxicolous species, it is usually associated with rocky areas (e.g., bluffs, dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs, major rock outcroppings) within these habitats. Water sources surrounded by desert shrubs, over higher-elevation water sources surrounded by pinyon-juniper, and over streams lined with deciduous trees (Schmidt 2003).
BLM-S Although long-eared myotis are considered primarily a forest-associated species, in northern Nevada they are common in pinyonjuniper and above, they also occur in sagebrush and desert scrub habitats. This species roosts in trees (in cavities, crevices, and under exfoliating bark), crevices in rock outcrops, and sometimes in caves and mines (Bradley et al. 2006, NNHP 2020).
NDOW-P, BLM-S Found in a wide range of habitats from low desert scrub habitats to high elevation coniferous forest. Found from upper elevation creosote bush desert to pinyon-juniper and white fir (7,053 feet) in the White Pine Range (White Pine County). Current Nevada records indicate this species is distributed between 1,377 and 7,086 feet (mean = 5,216 feet ± 1,289 feet) (Bradley et al. 2006).
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans BLM-S Found in pinyon-juniper, Joshua tree woodland, and montane coniferous forest habitats. Occasionally found in Mojave and salt desert scrub, and blackbrush, mountain shrub, and sagebrush. Current Nevada records indicate this species is distributed between 3,051 and 11,220 feet (mean = 6,781 feet ± 1,377 feet) (Bradley et al. 2006).
Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus NDOW-GM Moves between various zones from the forest edges at higher elevations to the desert floor, depending on the season. Generally, summers at higher elevations and winters at lower elevations, following the snow line. Occupies almost all types of habitat within their range, yet seems to prefer arid, open areas, and rocky hillsides. Areas with bitterbrush and sagebrush provide common habitat. Mature bucks tend to prefer rocky ridges for bedding grounds, while does and fawns are more likely to bed down in the open (NDOW undated-g).
American water
BLM-S Found in the vicinity of streams or other bodies of water. Water shrews require sufficient shelter such as dense vegetative cover, logs, rocks, crevices, etc. They use both terrestrial and aquatic habitat to find food and escape predators. They are primarily dependent upon aquatic insects and also eat various other invertebrates. They may take small vertebrates (fish, amphibians) when available (NDOW 2012).
Brazilian
Common Name Scientific Name Status
brasiliensis NDOW-P, BLM-S Found in a wide variety of habitats. Although predominantly a lower elevation species, it has been found from 720 feet to >11,482 feet in the Sierra Nevada. Recent acoustic surveys reveal it is more widespread and common, at least in southern Nevada, than previously thought. Current Nevada records indicate this species is distributed between 688 and 8,366 feet (mean = 4,133 feet ± 1,843 feet) (Bradley et al. 2006).
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae BLM-S Associated with a wide range of vegetation types and a wide variety of soils from soft sands to friable loams and hard clays. They are residents of open habitats and meadows where soils are deep enough to maintain permanent burrow systems (NDOW 2012).
Kit fox Vulpes macrotis NDOW-P, FR Kit Foxes can be found in the southwestern United States and into central Mexico. In Nevada, they live in the Mojave Desert where there are flat, arid lands with abundant bushes and desert scrub. They primarily occupy cold desert shrubland habitats with vegetation that includes shadscale, greasewood, and sagebrush (NDOW 2023, NatureServe 2023).
Status: BLM Sensitive (BLM-S); Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA); NDOW Protected (NDOW-P); NDOW Game Bird (NDOW-GB); NDOW Sensitive (NDOW-S); NDOW Game Mammal (NDOW-GM); State Endangered (SE); State Threatened (ST); Furbearing Mammal (FR).
A summary of habitat suitability across all areas within the botanical study area for all 12 species groups used as part of the wildlife habitat suitability assessment conducted for the Project (HDR 2022) is provided below in Table 3.7-5. Habitat requirements and suitability of habitat within the botanical study area for additional groups of special-status species which were not part of the Wildlife Habitat Suitability Assessment are provided at the bottom of the table.
Table 3.7-5. Habitat Suitability for Special-Status Widlife Species within the Botanical Study Area
Species Habitat Parameters
Northern leopard frog, American water shrew (species group 1)
Regal ring-necked snake, Utah
Sonoran mountain kingsnake (species group 2)
permanent, shallow (less than 2 feet), still, or slow-moving water rooted aquatic vegetation wet field or meadow upland habitat with connectivity to aquatic habitat
rocky hillsides springs or streams rotting logs or dense leaf litter
Great Basin collared lizard (species group 3)
sparsely vegetated (less than 40 percent of cover) areas in desert scrub, grassland, pinyon-juniper, or sagebrush alluvial fans
boulder-strewn hillsides with rock cover over 50 percent
Long-nosed leopard lizard, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, long-billed curlew (species group 4)
flats with scattered shrubs (shrub density less than 25 percent) friable soils
bunchgrass component w/grasses at height no greater than 12 inches
Suitability within the Botanical Study Area
Parameters only identified along Duck Creek (vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir).
Only location with 2 parameters identified (stream and leaf litter) was along Duck Creek (vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir)
A single parameter (rocky hillsides) was identified at various locations across the study area.
A single parameter (sparsely vegetated areas) was identified at various locations across the study area. Locations with 2 or all 3 parameters occur especially in the vicinity of the proposed conveyance channel and along the proposed transmission corridor near Hercules Gap and the hills north of the substation at the far west end of the study area.
Locations with 2 or all 3 parameters occur especially in the vicinity of the proposed conveyance channel and proposed lower reservoir from the base of the Duck Creek Range to just west of HWY-93 and west along the proposed transmission corridor in the Steptoe and Smith Valleys.
Species Habitat Parameters
Greater Sagegrouse, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, pygmy rabbit (species group 5)
dense stands of big sagebrush (shrub canopy cover 25-40 percent) heterogenous shrublands with open patches interspersed throughout understory of perennial grasses and forbs
Ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk (species group 6)
open shrublands with scattered stands of trees
cultivated shelterbelts or riparian corridors grassland or agricultural fields
Suitability within the Botanical Study Area
Locations with 1 or 2 parameters for this group were identified across much of the study area except for areas with dense pinyon-juniper woodland.
Locations with all 3 parameters identified are restricted to 2 areas along the proposed transmission corridor with dense stands of big sagebrush: one in the Smith Valley and one just west of Gleason Creek.
Locations with 1 or 2 parameters for this group were identified across much of the study area except for areas with dense pinyon-juniper woodland.
Locations deemed most suitable for this group occur along Duck Creek (the vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir), the vicinity of the proposed lower reservoir, and along the proposed transmission corridor in the Steptoe and Smith Valleys.
Golden eagle (species group 7)
rocky cliffs shrub-steppe alpine grassland
A single parameter was identified across most of the study area except for areas with dense pinyon-juniper woodland. Locations with 2 or all 3 parameters occur especially in the proposed upper reservoir area, in the vicinity of the proposed conveyance channel on the slopes of the Duck Creek Range, and along the proposed transmission corridor near Hercules Gap and the hills north of the substation at the far west end of the study area.
Loggerhead shrike (species group 8)
open country with short, well-spaced shrubs or low trees
thorny vegetation or barbwire fences high perches (poles, wires, fence posts, etc.)
Locations with 1 or 2 parameters for this group were identified across much of the study area except for areas with dense pinyon-juniper woodland. Locations deemed most suitable for this group to occur are in the vicinity of the proposed lower reservoir, Gonder Substation, and along the proposed transmission corridor in the Steptoe and Smith Valleys.
Species Habitat Parameters
Pinyon jay (species group 9)
pinyon-juniper woodland transition from pinyon-juniper woodland to sagebrush diverse woodland canopy closure and age structure (not contiguous, dense woodland)
Suitability within the Botanical Study Area
Locations with some or all parameters for this group were identified across much of the study area except for the proposed lower reservoir and lower elevation areas of the proposed transmission corridor in the Steptoe and Smith Valleys that are devoid of pinyonjuniper woodland.
Dark kangaroo mouse (species group 10)
sagebrush scrub below pinyon-juniper dominated areas and above greasewood-saltbush dominated areas fine sandy or loose gravelly soil big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and/or horsebrush present
Locations with 2 or all 3 parameters occur especially in the vicinity of the proposed conveyance channel and proposed lower reservoir from the base of the Duck Creek Range to just west of HWY-93 and west along the proposed transmission corridor in the Steptoe and Smith Valleys.
Hoary bat, silverhaired bat (species group 11)
pinyon-juniper woodland riparian corridors trees at least 40 to 50 feet tall with cavities and/or exfoliating bark
Spotted bat, Townsend’s bigeared bat, black rosy-finch (species group 12)
high mountain crevices abandoned buildings with cavernous spaces abandoned mine shafts or caves
Locations with 1 or 2 parameters occur especially in the vicinity of the proposed conveyance channel at the base of the Duck Creek Range and in the hills along the proposed transmission corridor between Smith Valley and the west end of the study area.
Locations with 1 or 2 parameters occur especially in the uppermost portion of the proposed conveyance channel near the ridgelines of the Duck Creek Range, in the hills along the proposed transmission corridor between Smith Valley and the west end of the study area, and near Hercules Gap between the Steptoe and Smith Valleys.
The following special-status species have broad habitat requirements (i.e., could occur throughout the Project and surrounding area) or are not expected to occur based on their narrow habitat requirements
Northern desert horned lizard, greater shorthorned lizard, pallid bat, big brown bat, western smallfooted myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, Brazilian free-tailed bat, Botta’s pocket gopher, kit fox
Species in this row have broad habitat preferences that include many habitat types which are present within the botanical study area.
Suitable habitat occurs across much of the area within the botanical study area.
Species Habitat Parameters
Northern goshawk, sandhill crane, dusky grouse, flammulated owl, Lewis’s woodpecker
Bald eagle, Great Basin willow flycatcher, peregrine falcon
Pronghorn, elk, and mule deer
Species in this row have a narrow range of nesting habitat requirements such as large wetlands or water bodies, old growth broadleaf forests, spruce and fir forests, and cottonwood or aspen woodlands.
Species in this row have a narrow range of nesting habitat requirements such as large wetlands or water bodies, lowland and montane riparian habitats, open canyons and protected rocky cliffs
Species in this row have broad habitat preferences that include many habitat types which are present within the Project Area.
Suitability within the Botanical Study Area
Suitable nesting habitat is not present within the botanical study area, and while these species do have the potential to occur within the Project Area, they are most likely to occur in passing during migration.
The known mapped breeding range for these species is far outside the botanical study area and any individuals observed are most likely migrating species.
Broad suitability can be found in the habitat maps, based on BLM and NDOW range data, depicted in Figure 3.7-1, Figure 3.7-2, and Figure 3.7-3. During field studies, pronghorn were observed along the westernmost portion of the proposed transmission corridor in the spring of 2021 and the vicinity of the proposed lower reservoir in the fall of 2020. In March 2021, a herd of approximately 20 elk was observed in Duck Creek Valley near the access road that leads to the proposed upper reservoir, and another small group of elk was observed just north of the transmission line corridor near Gleason Creek. Mule deer were observed in the vicinity of the upper reservoir in the spring and summer of 2021
Springsnails (multiple species) Springs
Monarch butterfly Milkweed and flowering plants
No springs were identified, nor are any springs mapped within the botanical study area.
No individuals of any species of milkweed (Asclepias spp.) were found to occur in the botanical study area, and no monarch butterfly individuals were seen during any studies conducted in 2021 and 2022. Therefore, there is minimal larval host plant habitat present, however; there is suitable nectaring and breeding habitat throughout the botanical study area
Sources: HDR 2022, NDOW 2012.
3.7.1.9 Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study
The Greater Sage-grouse is found in sagebrush habitat throughout Nevada at elevations ranging from 4,000 to over 9,000 feet, including known lek locations in the Project vicinity Greater Sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush during all life stages for cover, food, and breeding areas (USFWS 2012). Leks, or breeding display sites, typically occur in open areas surrounded by sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2004). Depending on snow depth, elevation, weather, and region, male sage-grouse begin displaying at leks from the end of February to early April, until late May or early June (Connelly et al. 2004). Nesting occurs during the spring and early summer, and sage-grouse begin to change their diets from sagebrush to forbs as forbs become more available. Early brood-rearing habitat is defined as sagebrush habitat within the vicinity of the nest used by sage-grouse hens, and hens rear their broods for the first two to three weeks in the vicinity of their nest in forb-rich habitat (Connelly et al. 2004). Throughout the summer, sage-grouse use sagebrush habitats for late brood-rearing, and select habitat based on the availability of forbs; these habitats are generally used from July to early September (Connelly et al. 2004). Greater Sage-grouse are classified as a game bird in Nevada, with 2021 hunts designated in Elko, Eureka, Lander, Humboldt, and Nye counties. Hunting of Greater Sage-grouse has been closed in White Pine County since 2021, excepting near Ruby Lake Wildlife Refuge in the northwest portion of the County.
Sage-grouse habitat in Nevada was delineated by the USGS for BLM in the 2015 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Mapping (ARMPA Greater Sage-Grouse [GRSG] Habitat Mapping) (BLM 2015), and updated in 2019 and 2022 into habitat management categories to help apply management guidelines designed to protect and/or manage for Greater Sage-grouse habitat. These habitat management categories are referred to as Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA), General Habitat Management Area (GHMA), and Other Habitat Management Area (OHMA). In ARMPA GRSG Habitat Mapping, the management categories are defined as follows:
• PHMA – BLM-administered lands identified as having the highest value to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations. Areas of PHMA largely coincide with areas identified as priority areas for conservation in the USFWS’s Conservation Objectives Team report. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas and migration or connectivity corridors.
• GHMA – BLM-administered lands where some special management will apply to sustain sage-grouse populations; these are areas of occupied seasonal or yearround habitat outside of PHMA.
• OHMA – BLM-administered lands identified as having low to moderate suitability for Greater Sage-grouse in areas of estimated low space use and which are less frequently used by Greater Sage-grouse.
Construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project may have the potential to affect Greater Sage-grouse. WPW has, therefore, performed a Greater Sage-grouse study to assess the direct and indirect effects the Project may have on Greater Sage-grouse
habitat. The study area, and areas classified as PHMA, GHMA, OHMA and non-habitat, are depicted in Figure 3.7-4, and summarized in Table 3.7-6
Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Acres within Study Area
Total Construction Footprint: 1,338 acres Habitat
Area (BLM 2022a)
within Study Area
WPW conducted a fine-scale, outcome-based baseline assessment of Greater Sagegrouse habitat and lek status for the Project. The study included lek monitoring, a noise impact analysis, a lek proximity analysis, and a Conservation Credit System (CCS) and habitat suitability analysis. The noise impact analysis was performed to compare preProject noise levels to anticipated Project construction noise. The study methods and results are described in detail in White Pine’s Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study (HDR 2023c) included as Appendix D to this FLA.
WPW monitored eight Greater Sage-grouse lek locations in 2021 and 2022, and NDOW biologists monitored the Mosier lek separately (Table 3.7-7) Surveyors performed bird counts at the lek sites and searched lekking areas on foot for signs of Greater Sagegrouse. During the field data collection, vegetation data were also collected in the Project Area to determine the site-scale seasonal habitat suitability for breeding, late-brood rearing, and winter habitat. Table 3.7-6 summarizes acres of seasonal habitat within the Project Area. WPW completed a proximity analysis for four Greater Sage-grouse leks near the Project with a Geographic Information System (GIS) to model the line of sight from the nearest Greater Sage-grouse lek towards the Project (HDR 2023c).
Source:
Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Results
WPW observed Greater Sage-grouse at the three known leks in the Project vicinity at least once during monitoring (Table 3.7-7).
No sage-grouse were observed at the Bolo Spring, Central Smith Valley 1, Locket Spring, or McGill Junction leks. One female was observed flying near Heusser Mountain S in 2022, however no other activity or sign was observed. Old scat and cecal tar were observed near the Locket Spring lek, no other activity was observed. (HDR 2023c). The complete results of the Greater Sage-grouse lek monitoring conducted for the Project are presented below in Table 3.7-8
Source: HDR 2023c
Greater Sage-grouse were observed at three lek locations at least once during the lek monitoring, including at the two leks closest to the proposed reservoir facilities. Prior to 2021, the Canyon Springs NE lek and the Gilford Meadows lek were last surveyed in 2019 and were active. NDOW conducted lek counts at the Berry Creek Turnoff lek in 2021 and determined the lek to be active, and at Mosier lek in 2021 and 2022, and determined the lek to be active Additionally, direct observation of Greater Sage-grouse was made at the proposed upper reservoir on July 12, 2021 (HDR 2023c).
Noise Impact Analysis
WPW completed a noise impact study to compare pre-Project noise levels to anticipated noise levels during construction and operation of the Project. WPW consulted with NDOW regarding the protocol, monitoring locations, and instrumentation for the study and noise monitoring, and based on that consultation, the noise impact study was performed in
accordance with Appendix M: Noise Protocol of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (BLM 2015); Acoustic Impacts and Greater Sage-Grouse: A Review of Current Science, Sound Measurement Protocols, and Management Recommendations (NDOW 2018); and the Nevada Department of Wildlife Interim Sage-Grouse Noise Protocol Clarifications (NDOW 2020b). The ARMPA stipulates that noise as a result of the Project will not increase 10 decibels (dB) above ambient noise levels during lekking.
NDOW biologists requested that noise monitors be placed at five lek locations within the Duck Creek Basin: Paine Meadows lek, Timber Creek Turnoff lek, Berry Creek Turnoff lek, Gilford Meadows lek, and the Canyon Springs NE lek. The Paine Meadows lek and Timber Creek Turnoff lek are more than 3.1 miles away from the Project Area; however, NDOW requested noise measurements be collected at these leks to better model current and projected noise from traffic on State Route 486 in the Duck Creek Basin.
Noise monitoring systems were deployed on May 4, 2021 and collected on May 18, 2021. Monitoring locations are depicted in the Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study included as Appendix D. Monitoring locations were 0.25 mile away from lek sites and between the lek site and the nearest Project location (for Canyon Springs and Gilford Meadows), or 0.25 mile away from the lek site at the same distance to the nearest roadway as the lek site (Berry Creek Turnoff, Timber Creek Turnoff, and Paine Meadows). The ambient sound levels measured in 2021 at leks within 3.1 miles of the Project Footprint are listed in Table 3.7-9. Wind, insects, and anthropogenic sources such as aircraft, vehicles, and machinery accounted for most measured noise, as detailed in Appendix D.
WPW modeled Project-related noise levels, including anticipated construction noise at the upper and lower reservoir sites, and operational noise using the three-dimensional environmental noise analysis program Cadna-A. The model incorporates the effects of topography and typical weather conditions and attenuation due to atmospheric absorption and ground absorption. The results of the noise modeling are presented in Table 3.7-9 Noise levels that would exceed the time-period based limits in the ARMPA are denoted with an asterisk.
Source: HDR 2023c
Notes: dBA – A-weighted decibel; * - level in excess of at least one limit at this location; L50 – median sound level; L90 – sound level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time in a given period.
Lek Proximity Analysis
WPW conducted a proximity analysis for four Greater Sage-grouse leks closest to the Project (Canyon Springs NE, Gilford Meadows, Berry Creek Turnoff, and Mosier) using GIS to model the line of sight from the leks towards the Project Area. The proximity analysis modeled the line of sight from the ground at each lek and incorporated surrounding ground conditions within the study area.
Conservation Credit System (CCS)
The Project is located on public and private lands in Greater Sage-grouse habitat and is, therefore, required to enroll in the CCS established by the State of Nevada’s Sagebrush Ecosystem Council (State of Nevada 2019).
The CCS, administered by the SETT, is an innovative approach to Greater Sage-grouse habitat protection that ensures habitat impacts from man-made disturbances are fully compensated by long-term enhancement and protection of habitat that results in an overall benefit for the species, while allowing for appropriate anthropogenic disturbances that are vital to the Nevada economy and the Nevada way of life. Nevada's CCS creates new incentives: (1) to avoid and minimize impacts to important habitat for species; and (2) for private landowners and public land managers to preserve, enhance, and restore the
ecosystem and reduce the threat of wildfire to important habitat for species in the ecosystem (State of Nevada 2021).
The CCS is a performance-driven and market-based mechanism that consistently quantifies the direct and indirect impacts on Greater Sage-grouse habitat from human disturbances (debits) and the outcomes of habitat conservation efforts (credits). Credits are used to offset debits from habitat impacts through free market transactions as mitigation. The goal of the Nevada CCS is to generate a net benefit of Greater Sagegrouse habitat by ensuring the impacts to sage-grouse habitat in the State of Nevada and Federal lands from human disturbances (debits) are offset with commensurate habitat conservation actions (credits) (State of Nevada 2021).
WPW completed a Debit Project Analysis for the Project using the CCS HQT Version 1.6.21 following the CCS User’s Guide v1.6.21 (State of Nevada 2021). The desktop portion was completed and submitted to the SETT for review and concurrence prior to the habitat assessment. Biologists then conducted vegetation transects at 97 locations identified by the SETT from May 2 to May 8, 2021. Of the 97 transects where vegetation data was collected for the CCS, 68 transects were located in high-value spring habitat, 75 were in high-value, late-brood rearing habitat, and one was in high-value winter habitat (HDR 2023c).
3.7.1.10 BLM Seasonal Discretionary Activities Timing Restrictions
BLM has a number of timing restrictions for the protection of wildlife that would apply to the Project Footprint (Table 3.7-10) WPW anticipates working closely with BLM and NDOW to plan and provide data for Project construction windows that both provide for wildlife protection and allow for feasible Project construction timelines
Resource
Elk/mule deer/pronghorn crucial summer range
Elk/mule deer/pronghorn crucial winter range
Migratory bird nesting season (pre-construction surveys required)
Restriction
April 15 – June 30
November 1 – March 31
March 1 – July 31
Raptor nest sites within 0.5 mile (unless nest is inactive for previous 5 years) March 1 – July 31
Greater Sage-grouse breeding habitat within 4 miles of active/pending leks
Greater Sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat
Greater Sage-grouse winter habitat
March 1 – June 30
May 15 – September 15
November 1 – February 28
Resource Restriction
Greater Sage-grouse noise restriction: Limit noise from discretionary activities (during construction, operation, and maintenance) to not exceed 10 decibels above ambient sound levels at least 0.25 mile from active and pending leks, from 2 hours before to 2 hours after sunrise and sunset during the breeding season
Sources: BLM 2008a, 2015
March 1 – June 30
3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects - Wildlife Resources
This section presents information about potential effects of the proposed Project on wildlife resources, including habitat. As described below, WPW recognizes the need for preconstruction surveys of certain species and intends to conduct these surveys in coordination with NDOW on methods and timing of these studies prior to their initiation
3.7.2.1 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat
Project construction activities will have effects on terrestrial resources ranging from permanent conversion of habitats to non-vegetated land cover, to temporary effects resulting from staging areas and disturbance buffers around permanent Project components. Construction of the reservoirs will create the greatest amount of permanent displacement of habitat.
Wildlife that lives in temporarily disturbed habitats or uses them seasonally will potentially be impacted until construction is complete and disturbed areas have been effectively revegetated. Impacts to wetland and riparian habitat will be avoided through placement of Project features and temporary disturbance areas outside of these habitats to the greatest extent practicable.
In addition to temporary and permanent habitat displacement, construction activities can affect wildlife and their habitats in several ways. Displaced individuals can suffer direct or indirect mortality or decreased breeding success. Direct mortality can occur by destruction of occupied burrows, nests, roost sites, and dens during vegetation clearing, excavation, and grading, or by collision with vehicles on roads to and from the Project. Indirect mortality occurs when displaced individuals are killed elsewhere by predators, vehicles, competitors, lack of resources, or exposure. Inconspicuous burrowing and nocturnal species and species with limited mobility are particularly susceptible to displacement and mortality (e.g., amphibians, snakes, small mammals).
Noise from excavation, blasting, staging of materials and equipment, vehicles, and workers can disturb nearby wildlife during sensitive periods in their life histories (e.g., nesting and brood-rearing; calving; winter). Estimates for type, number, duration, and location of heavy equipment are unknown at this time. Construction activities that generate noise will likely occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, but will be in accordance with the proposed contractor’s schedule. It is common for a project of this magnitude to be constructed under a two-shift or three-shift schedule. Most of the noisegenerating Project construction will occur at the upper and lower reservoirs. Construction
equipment will include large excavators, scrapers, cranes, loaders, dump trucks, and miscellaneous material delivery by over-the-road semi-tractor trailers.
The Project will conduct explosive blasting for rock excavation for the new upper reservoir and the underground powerhouse and transformer caverns. It is also likely that concrete batch plants will be erected on site to produce concrete for the Project.
Increased numbers of vehicles and humans can also disrupt wildlife movement, nesting, and foraging behavior. Construction can increase dust locally and displace and disrupt habitat features such as nest and roost trees for birds and bats. Any of these effects can cause nest failure or abandonment during building, egg-laying, or incubation, decrease availability of maternal denning and roost sites for species such as bats, and disrupt fawning and calving areas for ungulates.
Soil disturbance for construction of Project components and vehicle travel may generate fugitive dust that could degrade habitat quality and disturb wildlife. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will address practices to be established during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities and to control fugitive dust.
New access roads could disrupt and disturb habitat and movement corridors, expose small wildlife to increased risk from terrestrial predators (e.g., coyotes, foxes, and avian predators), and cause vehicle-related injuries and mortalities.
Permanent surface features of the proposed Project (e.g., the reservoirs, transmission line, upgraded and new access roads) will cause some degree of habitat fragmentation for a variety of wildlife species, mostly terrestrial species with limited home ranges. Ultimately, however, the footprint of the Project is limited, and functionally identical habitats to those in the Project Area are abundant and well-distributed in the region, including large areas in the immediate vicinity. Given adequate implementation of appropriate PM&E measures, the Project is anticipated to have only minor, temporary effects on local general wildlife populations and their associated habitats. Effects on specific categories of wildlife are described below. PM&E measures proposed by WPW are detailed in Section 3.7.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.7.2.2 Common Wildlife Species Ungulates
Construction of the reservoirs has the potential to disturb and cause a loss of ungulate habitat and will entail construction-related disturbances within designated crucial winter range for mule deer and crucial summer range for elk. Construction activities in total are expected to last up to 7 years The aboveground portion of construction is anticipated to be completed within the first 4 years of the 7-year construction window. The 4 years will include construction of the reservoirs and associated access roads and 2 years for construction of the transmission line. Disturbed areas will be stabilized and revegetated as soon as feasible after construction activities in a given portion of the Project vicinity are complete. The Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan to be developed
for the Project will detail the specific measures to be taken to restore vegetation disturbed by Project-related construction activities. Project-related construction activities such as excavation, road construction and development, heavy equipment use, and associated noise have the potential to deter use and alter wildlife movement patterns. Subsequent operations activities, transmission and fence maintenance, surface features themselves, and associated road use could potentially disturb wintering ungulates during critical periods.
Based on NDOW habitat designations, the following big game use patterns could be temporarily disrupted by construction activities:
• Pronghorn in the vicinity of the proposed lower reservoir and the western end of the proposed transmission corridor.
• Elk in summer migration in the vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir and central portion of the proposed transmission corridor, as well as year-round range in other parts of the proposed transmission corridor and the proposed conveyance channel.
• Mule deer in winter migration in the vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir, the proposed conveyance channel, and the central portion of the proposed transmission corridor as well as year-round migration in the western portion of the proposed transmission corridor.h
Table 3.7-11 summarizes the acres of big game habitat within the Project Footprint.
Table 3.7-11. Big Game Habitat Within the Project Footprint
WPW will fence and monitor the reservoirs to prevent cattle, wild ungulates, and other medium- to large-sized animals from accessing them. Temporary access roads built for construction of the Project will be decommissioned after use and revegetated to natural conditions. However, some roads may be retained for permanent access to the Project.
WPW anticipates working closely with BLM and NDOW to plan and provide data for Project construction windows that both provide for wildlife protection and allow for feasible Project construction timelines. Revegetation and restoration efforts will restore temporarily affected ungulate habitat. Given adequate and appropriate protection, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, including potentially temporarily limiting construction access to crucial wintering areas for big game, the Project should have only limited, short-term effects on local ungulate populations and movement patterns.
Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals
The proposed Project will not significantly displace wetland or riparian habitat for amphibians or reptiles; therefore, no short- or long-term effects are anticipated on local amphibian and reptile populations. The proposed reservoirs will not mimic natural openwater aquatic habitats because the concrete reservoirs will be lined, and water levels will fluctuate rapidly and often. Therefore, it is unlikely that amphibians would be attracted to these features. Note that construction of the Project will permanently create approximately 155 acres of open water reservoirs. Therefore, the Project will cause a net gain of water features in the Project Area. However, the nature of the created features will be different than current conditions. Collisions of slow-moving individuals with vehicles or equipment, could occur during Project construction and operations. PM&E measures proposed by WPW are described below and are expected to limit these impacts.
Bats
Bats are prone to many of the same threats as avian species (described below), including collision-related injuries and mortalities. Bats are highly mobile nocturnal species that will likely not be present during daytime construction activities but may be displaced to adjacent habitats by lingering dust in the air on days when winds are calm and air quality is reduced into the evening. It is not likely that effects of construction will have any adverse impact on bat species and WPW’s proposals to minimize outdoor lighting are expected to minimize the potential for detrimental Project effects on bats. Additionally, construction of the Project reservoirs could have a positive effect on a variety of bat species. For example, pallid bats are typically recorded at moderately sized reservoirs that allow for approach and departure (Bachen et al. 2020).
Birds
Impacts due to Project construction and operations could include abandonment of the area and local nests due to habitat conversion or disturbance. Disturbance may displace birds into less suitable habitat and, thus, reduce survival rates and reproduction. Waterfowl that travel through the proposed Project Footprint may have collision risks from the new transmission line and fences around the reservoirs. Avian tolerance levels to disturbance can be species-specific and individual-specific. For example, red-tailed hawk could experience a reduction in terrestrial foraging habitat and noise disturbance during construction. The impact to bird species from disturbance or displacement from construction activities is likely to be short term. However, construction noise or activity during the nesting season could contribute to nest abandonment and failure for some species. During construction activities, raptors could be displaced from areas of disturbance, but will likely quickly reoccupy those areas for hunting and scavenging following completion of construction. There is a slight chance that vehicle collisions could cause an increase in raptor mortality, but with adherence to reasonable operating speeds, this risk will be minimal.
Soil disturbance for construction of Project components and vehicle travel can generate fugitive dust that can disturb nearby nesting birds and degrade habitat quality. Vehicle travel is unlikely to directly affect nesting or migrating birds, but dust may be an issue. The
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will address practices to be established during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities and to control fugitive dust. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions that could disturb nesting birds and affect habitat and forage quality.
Transmission lines can cause mortality of raptors, waterfowl, and migratory birds through direct collision or electrocution. Collision tends to affect birds that are migrating through the area and are unfamiliar with the location of wires. Electrocution tends to affect larger birds such as raptors, which, upon landing or taking flight, ground the live wires and connect the circuit. Electrocution or collision could cause injury or mortality to birds; for instance, red-tailed hawks are the most-reported hawk mortalities from collisions with powerlines (Manville 2002). Mortality as a result of collision with transmission structures or lines will be greatest where the movements of migrating birds are the most concentrated. Electrocution occurs when a bird is large enough to span the distance between an energized component and a ground or between two uninsulated conductors; however, the separation between wires on lines of higher capacity than 69 kV is generally sufficient to eliminate the risk of electrocution, even for larger birds such as eagles. The Project’s proposed 345-kV transmission line will exceed the minimum separation for eagles of 60 inches between components (APLIC 2006)
The Project transmission line will be located adjacent to an existing transmission line and primarily within an existing permitted energy corridor already designated for new development, thus reducing potential for impacts to birds Additionally, WPW will design transmission structures and wires in accordance with APLIC guidelines to minimize the threat to avian species. WPW proposes that the transmission line design complies with APLIC guidelines to protect avian species from electrocution as a result of landing or perching on transmission lines WPW also proposes to conduct pre-construction surveys to document any raptors and nests that occur in the Project vicinity. Also, appropriate temporal and spatial buffers will be implemented in consultation with relevant state and Federal agencies.
3.7.2.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Insects
Based on WPW’s botanical and wildlife habitat surveys within the botanical study area and the analysis in Appendix E (Section 3.3 Special-Status Plant Species), no individuals of any species of milkweed (Asclepias spp.) were found to occur in the study areas for these studies, and no monarch individuals were seen during any studies conducted in 2021 and 2022. Therefore, there is minimal larval host plant habitat present, however; there is suitable nectaring and breeding habitat throughout the study area (HDR 2022b).
Greater Sage-Grouse
Greater Sage-grouse were observed at four lek locations at least once during the lek monitoring, including at the three leks closest to the proposed reservoir facilities. In general, the site-scale habitat suitability parameters from transects collected in the study
area were within recommended parameters for suitable habitat for Greater Sage-grouse (HDR 2023c)
Greater Sage-grouse may be temporarily disturbed due to noise and increased human presence, noise during construction activities, and an increase of vehicle travel on access roads. Loss of habitat from Project construction and operation may disturb or displace Greater Sage-grouse. The presence of additional transmission lines and fences around the reservoirs will increase perching opportunities for avian predators which may in turn result in increased predation on Greater Sage-grouse.
Noise modeling results show that construction noise is expected to exceed the ARMPA limits at almost all leks within 3.1 miles of the Project, both with the upper and lower reservoir activities combined and individually. Construction noise or activity during the breeding season could disturb Greater Sage-grouse. Noise levels during operation of the Project are expected to be within the ARMPA limits at all leks (HDR 2023c)
Based on the proximity analysis, some Project facilities may be visible from the four active leks closest to the Project (Canyon Springs NE, Gilford Meadows, Mosier, and Berry Creek Turnoff). These facilities include the access road from State Route 486 to the upper reservoir, portions of the proposed upper reservoir area, portions of the lower reservoir, and the wellfield Topography and vegetation cover will reduce the view of Project facilities from the leks. In addition, WPW proposes to minimize the height and number of tall structures at the upper reservoir during design.
As required by the ARMPA and Nevada Mitigation Regulation 232.400-232.480, direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitat as a result of the proposed Project were analyzed using the CCS. The estimate of the total debits resulting from direct and indirect impacts of the Project is 827 debits, this estimate will be updated as the disturbance footprint for the Project is updated. WPW proposes to coordinate directly with a credit developer and the SETT to purchase available credits within White Pine County or as close as possible through a Phased Purchase Agreement equal to the debits calculated for the Project plus any debits required by a proximity factor. WPW also proposes to also develop a Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan in coordination with BLM, NDOW, and other stakeholders.
Other Birds
Federal and state-listed birds for which there is suitable habitat within the Project vicinity are identified above in Table 3.7-4 Bald eagle presence in the Project vicinity is known to occur at a few scattered locations in the state including Ruby Lake in northwesternmost White Pine County but field studies to date have not observed bald eagle in the botanical study area. Golden eagle presence throughout the botanical study area has been directly observed and a nest was discovered during the Spring 2022 field studies along the high cliffs of the Duck Creek Range approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed upper reservoir footprint (HDR 2022b). Construction noise or activity during the nesting season could contribute to nest abandonment and failure but it is unlikely considering the distance from the nest to the Project Area. Both breeding and wintering bald and golden eagles could be susceptible to injury or mortality from power line collision. Golden eagles exhibit lower tolerance to disturbance compared to bald eagles (USFWS 2007). The potential
impacts on the golden eagle are the removal of foraging habitat in the reservoirs, potential impact on nesting, and potentially forcing intra- and interspecific competition for territories and prey
Construction of the proposed Project may displace federal and state-listed birds. If construction activity starts after birds have begun nesting, nests may be abandoned or destroyed. Excavation, road improvements, and other vegetation-clearing activities can be timed to minimize disturbance to nesting birds. Protection and mitigation measures for birds are detailed in Section 3.7.4.2 Applicant Recommendations.
Mammals
The pygmy rabbit is a NDOW game mammal and a BLM sensitive species. There are records of pygmy rabbit in White Pine County and in Steptoe Valley in the vicinity of the Project (USFWS 2010b). Pygmy rabbits are a sagebrush obligate species up to 7,000 feet in Nevada (Green and Flinders 1980). They are found primarily on big sagebrush dominated plains and alluvial fans where plants occur in tall, dense clumps. Dense stands of sage growing adjacent to permanent and intermittent streams, along fence rows, and ditches may be avenues of dispersal (NDOW 2012). They are most likely to occur in areas where big sagebrush density exceeds 30 percent and where soils exceed 20 inches in depth (Ulmschneider et al. 2004). Pygmy rabbits preferentially construct burrows under the tallest sagebrush in the local landscape within sandy loam soils (Gabler et al. 2000, Ulmschneider et al. 2004). Conversion, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrushsteppe for agriculture, livestock, energy development, and urban expansion have generated concern for the long-term viability of the species. Predation is the primary cause of mortality in pygmy rabbits. Roads, fences, and power lines may increase the accessibility of pygmy rabbit habitat to predators such as ravens, hawks, and coyotes. There is big sagebrush shrubland and other sagebrush habitats with bunchgrass components in the Project Area. Field studies conducted within the Project Area have not identified pygmy rabbit to date, but the Project Area is in the known range of the species and suitable habitat is present (HDR 2022b). Direct mortality can occur by destruction of occupied burrows during vegetation clearing, excavation, and grading, or by collision with vehicles on roads to and from the Project. During construction of the Project, active pygmy rabbit habitat will be avoided when feasible. If pygmy rabbit habitat cannot be avoided, BLM will be contacted, and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed in coordination with BLM.
Dark kangaroo mouse is a BLM sensitive and NDOW protected mammal species which is patchily distributed across northern and south-central Nevada. They inhabit stabilized dunes and other sandy or fine gravelly soils in valley bottoms and alluvial fans dominated by big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and horsebrush (Tetradymia spp.). This species typically occurs in sandy habitats below where pinyon-juniper occurs and above those habitats where greasewood and saltbush predominate (NDOW 2012). There is big sagebrush shrubland and other sagebrush habitats with rabbitbrush components between pinyonjuniper and greasewood zones in the Project Area. Field studies have not identified dark kangaroo mouse in the Project Area to date, but the Project Area is in the known range of the species and suitable habitat is present (HDR 2022b). Collisions with vehicles or
equipment, could occur during Project construction and operations. Excavation could injure individuals in burrows. Construction noises may displace dark kangaroo mouse from their preferred habitat.
American water shrew is a BLM sensitive mammal species that is patchily distributed across northern and west-central Nevada. They are found in the vicinity of streams or other bodies of water. Water shrews require sufficient shelter such as dense vegetative cover, logs, rocks, crevices, etc. They use both terrestrial and aquatic habitat to find food and escape predators. They are primarily dependent upon aquatic insects and also eat various other invertebrates. They may take small vertebrates (fish, amphibians) when available (NDOW 2012). Field studies have not identified American water shrew in the Project Area to date, but the Project Area is in the known range of the species and suitable habitat is present in the Project Area (Duck Creek) (HDR 2022b). Excavation could injure individuals in tunnels or nests. Considering there is minimal aquatic habitat present in the Project Area that will be impacted as a result of the Project, no Project-related effects are anticipated on American water shrew populations in the Project vicinity.
Botta’s pocket gopher is a BLM sensitive mammal species that ranges nearly statewide in Nevada. They are associated with a wide range of vegetation types and a wide variety of soils from soft sands to friable loams and hard clays. They are residents of open habitats and meadows where soils are deep enough to maintain permanent burrow systems (NDOW 2012). Field studies have not identified Botta’s pocket gopher in the Project Area to date. However, due to their rather general habitat preferences, the species could be found nearly anywhere in the Project Area (HDR 2022b). Collisions with vehicles or equipment, could occur during Project construction and operations. Excavation could injure individuals in burrows. There is abundant habitat for Botta’s pocket gopher elsewhere in the Project vicinity. Given adequate protection and mitigation measures, no Project-related effects are anticipated on Botta’s pocket gopher populations in the Project vicinity.
Kit fox is a NDOW protected mammal species distributed throughout Nevada. In the Mojave Desert region, they prefer arid lands with abundant bushes and desert scrub. While in the Great Basin, they primarily occupy cold desert shrubland habitats with vegetation that includes shadscale, greasewood, and sagebrush. They utilize dens throughout the year for shelter and to raise young. They are nocturnal predators that feed on the most abundant species of rodent and lagomorph in the area. They may also feed opportunistically on birds, reptiles, and insects (NatureServe 2023). Field studies have not identified kit fox in the study area to date. However, due to their rather general habitat preferences, the species could be found nearly anywhere in the Project Area (HDR 2022) Collisions with vehicles or equipment, could occur during Project construction and operations. Excavation could injure individuals in dens or disturb potential denning habitat There is abundant habitat for kit fox elsewhere in the Project vicinity. Given adequate protection and mitigation measures, no Project-related effects are anticipated on kit fox populations in the Project vicinity
There are 11 special-status species of bats with the potential to occur in the Project Area (HDR 2022b). The majority of the bat species listed in Table 3.7-4 are either NDOW protected or sensitive species and/or BLM sensitive species. The only state-threatened
bat is the spotted bat. Bats are prone to many of the same threats as avian species, including collision-related injuries and mortalities. WPW’s proposals to minimize outdoor lighting are expected to limit Project effects on bats and minimize disruption of nocturnal activities.
Reptiles
Great Basin collared lizard, regal ring-necked snake, long-nosed leopard lizard, northern desert horned lizard, and greater short-horned lizard are BLM sensitive species. The Utah Sonoran mountain kingsnake is a NDOW protected reptile and a BLM sensitive species. Collisions of slow-moving individuals with vehicles or equipment, could occur during Project construction and operations. Excavation could injure snakes in burrows and crushing during construction activities could occur to both snakes and lizards. Construction noises may displace reptiles from their preferred habitat.
Amphibians
The northern leopard frog is a BLM sensitive species and a NDOW protected amphibian that ranges across much of Nevada but has declined and become extirpated from much of its former range in recent decades. This species requires permanent, shallow (less than 2 feet deep), still, or slow-moving water with rooted aquatic vegetation for breeding and wet meadows and fields for post-breeding habitat (NDOW 2012). There is permanent shallow water with rooted aquatic vegetation in the Project Area (Duck Creek) (HDR 2022b). Field studies have not identified northern leopard frog in the study area to date, but the species is well documented as occurring in Spring Valley on the opposite side of the Schell Creek Range, approximately 12 miles east of the Project Area (SNWA 2016). Northern leopard frog habitat is not expected to be directly affected by the proposed Project because of the abundance of their available habitat in the Project vicinity and in Nevada. However, collisions of slow-moving individuals with vehicles or equipment could occur during Project construction and operations.
3.7.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Wildlife Resources
As listed in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for wildlife resources is the HUC-12 watersheds in which the Project is located. Effects within a HUC-12 watershed sufficiently account for impacts on wildlife resources that would be directly affected by construction activities and for indirect impacts such as changes in habitat availability and displacement of transient species. Figure 3.2-1 depicts the six HUC-12 watersheds that will be crossed by the Project (Gilford Creek-Duck Creek, Steptoe Slough-Duck Creek, Smith Valley, Upper Gleason Creek, Summit Spring, and Jakes Valley-Illipah Creek). All the actions listed in Table 3.2-2 except for the Recreation Trail Building School Grant could occur within the geographic scope for wildlife resources.
Activities that can result in cumulative effects on wildlife include clearing, grading, and installation of impervious surfaces Wildlife species that could be affected by these activities are terrestrial wildlife including big game (elk, mule deer, and pronghorn), small mammals, and ground-nesting birds including Greater Sage-grouse These activities alter wildlife habitat, fragment habitat, displace wildlife, and result in other potential effects, such
as increased population stress. Environmental effects would be short-term (associated with construction) and long-term (associated with operation).
WPW’s PM&E measures will help to minimize the Project’s effects on wildlife. Cumulative effects would be the greatest where other projects are constructed within the same areas as the Project, such as the proposed expansion of NNR operations and the construction of the other transmission lines at Robinson Summit Substation; however cumulative effects are possible in the larger area of the HUC-12 watersheds within which the Project is located. Wildlife that lives in temporarily disturbed habitats or uses them seasonally will be potentially impacted by construction of the Project and the impact will be greater if other projects occur at the same time. Noise from excavation, blasting, staging of materials and equipment, vehicles, and workers can disturb nearby wildlife during sensitive periods in their life histories (e.g., calving, nesting, and brood-rearing). Increased numbers of vehicles and humans can also disrupt wildlife movement, nesting, and foraging behavior. The cumulative effect for these species is expected to be minor and short term since they can return to their habitat once construction is complete and impacted areas have been effectively revegetated.
Other projects, including BLM’s Smith Valley Mastication and Hand Thinning project, would be designed to improve conditions for some wildlife resources such as sage-grouse. Other projects funded by SNPLMA grants may also have beneficial impacts on wildlife.
Land administered by BLM in the Project vicinity is managed for multiple-resource use. Past, present, and future actions in the geographic scope include livestock grazing, recreational use (e.g., hunting, fishing, biking, hiking, camping), transmission lines, pipelines, and development of wind and solar energy. Past and present actions have contributed to incremental loss, alteration, and fragmentation of foraging, nesting, and breeding habitat and cover for wildlife species. Despite these incremental modifications of natural landscapes, however, wildlife habitat functionality is often maintained or enhanced on BLM-administered lands and private lands in the geographic scope through habitat restoration and improvement projects that promote ecosystem health, management of invasive species, and government incentive programs.
Permanent surface features of the proposed Project will cause some degree of habitat fragmentation for a variety of wildlife species with limited home ranges, and other projects listed in Table 3.2-2 may have similar effects. Construction and improvements of access roads to the Project site and access to other projects would cause loss of wildlife habitat. The footprint of the Project and other projects are relatively small, with the possible exception of potential solar and wind energy projects, and the geographic scope contains similar habitat areas. The Project’s transmission facilities are generally located within an existing Section 368 energy corridor, which contains existing transmission lines and would be expected to contain future transmission lines. While concentrating development and disturbance is typically preferred to minimize habitat fragmentation, it may also involve a degree of cumulative effects. The presence of multiple transmission lines could become a barrier to movement for some species or individuals or increase the intensity of indirect effects.
Permanent Project features would directly and indirectly reduce the availability of wildlife habitat for foraging, courtship and breeding, rearing young, and cover for many general wildlife species. Noise and human activity associated with operations would displace individuals throughout the year. Less mobile or burrowing non-game species would be susceptible to mortality from increased vehicular use on the site.
Overlapping construction and stabilization periods for projects within the geographic scope could result in temporal effects that could prolong displacement of wildlife from important habitats, displace wildlife from a larger geographic area, and extend the potential recovery time of wildlife from project direct and indirect effects.
Most of the cumulative effect on wildlife is expected to be minor and short term as animals can return to their habitat once construction is complete and affected areas have been effectively revegetated. Some minor, long-term adverse cumulative effects on wildlife would be associated with the presence of permanent facilities such as transmission lines and roads.
Big Game
Potential impacts to big game include disturbance, displacement and loss of ungulate habitat within designated crucial winter range for mule deer and crucial summer range for elk. The level of big game avoidance would depend on the scale of the human activity and the ability to address crucial seasonal use through avoidance measures and timing limitations. WPW will work closely with BLM and NDOW to plan and provide data for Project construction windows that provide for wildlife protection and allow for feasible Project construction timelines. WPW will also implement its Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan and other measures as described in Section 3.7.4 to minimize impacts on big game and other wildlife. Other reasonably foreseeable transmission lines would likely implement similar measures to reduce impacts. Solar and wind projects or other reasonably foreseeable developments may result in permanent loss of big game habitat.
Birds
Potential impacts to migratory birds and raptors include short-term and long-term habitat loss; abandonment of nests or young as a result of construction activities or an increase in human presence; mortality of birds from vehicle collisions or destruction of nests, eggs, and young; fragmentation of habitat; and an increase in invasive or noxious weeds that reduces habitat quality. The Project, and presumably other reasonably foreseeable actions, will comply with relevant BLM management actions and stipulations to minimize impacts. New transmission lines associated with the Project and with other reasonably foreseeable actions can pose an electrocution risk to perching birds, including raptors, and a collision risk to birds in flight. Raptors are known to occur along the entire length of the transmission line. Raptors are susceptible to electrocution from older power lines that were not designed with the protective measures which would be implemented as part of this Project. Post-construction monitoring conducted by WPW would be conducted to determine what level of raptor mortality is occurring from the transmission line, and whether mitigation measures would be required. Additionally, the Project, and presumably
other projects listed in Table 3.2-2, will comply with relevant APLIC standards for minimizing electrocution and collision risks to birds, resulting in a minor cumulative effect to birds.
Greater Sage-Grouse
In addition to the impacts to birds described above, new transmission lines or fences associated with the Project and with other reasonably foreseeable actions (such as the Additional Transmission Lines in Section 368 Energy Corridors, Greenlink North Transmission Line, Cross-Tie Transmission Project, the SWIP-North Line, and Increasing Population and Development) would also increase perching opportunities for avian predators which may in turn result in increased predation on Greater Sage-grouse. Greater Sage-grouse could also be affected by loss of habitat resulting from increasing population and development. Greater Sage-grouse could be displaced from their spring, summer, and winter habitats in the area during operation and maintenance activities for the Project or other actions. If other reasonably foreseeable actions adopt Greater Sage-grouse mitigation plans or take other measures to avoid or minimize impacts on Greater Sagegrouse, similar to those proposed for the Project, cumulative effects on Greater Sagegrouse would be reduced. The Project when combined with other reasonably foreseeable actions could result in cumulative adverse effects.
Other Special Status Species
Reasonably foreseeable habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation could impact other special-status species populations. Long-term effects to these species could occur if there is a slow recovery of habitat during revegetation of areas disturbed by development. However, the sponsors of other projects listed in Table 3.2-2 would be required to consult with the USFWS as applicable to address impacts to federally listed wildlife species. Sponsors of other projects on lands administered by BLM would be required to comply with BLM requirements to prevent impacts that would lead to ESA listing of BLM sensitive wildlife species. The Project, combined with PM&E measures, is expected to have minor, temporary cumulative effects on local wildlife and their associated habitats, and therefore does not have much potential for interacting with other reasonably foreseeable actions in a cumulatively significant manner.
3.7.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.7.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3. Additionally, WPW consulted with NDOW biologists regarding the protocol, monitoring locations, and instrumentation for the noise impact study and noise monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study (see report provided in Appendix D). NDOW has provided input on assessment of potential Project effects, design considerations, and BMPs and other potentially appropriate PM&E measures. WPW will continue to consult with NDOW, BLM, and others throughout the licensing process.
WPW filed the DLA with FERC on February 17, 2022, which afforded agencies and other stakeholders including the public the opportunity to review the proposed Project and provide comments. Comments on the DLA were received from BLM, City of Ely, FERC staff, McGill Ruth Sewer-Water District, NDOW, NNR, NPS, SHPO, White Pine County, and a number of individuals. Responses to comments on the DLA are provided in Appendix L.
3.7.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to wildlife resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction.
Traffic Management Plan: WPW will develop and implement a Traffic Management Plan prior to construction.
Transmission Line: The Project transmission line will be located adjacent to an existing transmission line and primarily within an existing permitted energy corridor already designated for new development, thus reducing potential for impacts to resources.
Biological Resources Protection Training Program: WPW proposes to develop a biological resources protection training program. The program is intended to help inform construction workers and other Project staff of the sensitive biological (botanical and wildlife) resources in the area.
Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan: WPW will develop and implement a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan to identify measures that could be reasonably implemented for management, avoidance, and mitigation of potential habitat and associated vegetation losses during construction and operation of the Project.
Raptor-Safe Transmission Line Structures: WPW proposes to design raptor-safe transmission line structures (i.e., the transmission line design will comply with APLIC guidelines: Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art in 2006 [APLIC 2006] and Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 [APLIC 2012]) to protect avian species from collision or electrocution as a result of landing or perching on transmission lines.
Noise: To minimize the effects of noise related to construction and operation of the Project, WPW proposes to perform noise modeling as Project design advances including finalizing the construction schedule, construction equipment, ventilation equipment, and transmission line design. Noise modeling results will inform the development of additional mitigation strategies, if needed, to reduce potential Project related noise effects at sagegrouse leks.
Pre-Construction Surveys: Prior to construction, WPW will complete wildlife surveys and habitat assessments.
Biological Construction Monitors: WPW proposes to have biological construction monitors on site during construction to monitor sensitive biological resources, including conducting avian nesting surveys of areas near active construction during typical nesting season (March 1 to July 31). The monitors will have the authority to temporarily halt construction equipment if any amphibian, reptile, or small mammal is unearthed, for the purpose to relocating the animal to outside of the construction area. It should be noted that birds will sometimes nest outside of the typical nesting season and will still be protected under the MBTA if they do.
Raptor and Bat Protection Plan: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance at the start of formal construction activities, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a Raptor and Bat Protection Plan in consultation with USFWS and NDOW.
Outdoor Lighting Plan: WPW proposes to develop a Project outdoor lighting plan to incorporate lighting design features that help minimize disturbance to wildlife species during construction and operation of the Project.
Pygmy Rabbit Management: WPW proposes to avoid active pygmy rabbit habitat when feasible. If pygmy rabbit habitat cannot be avoided, WPW will contact BLM and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed in coordination with BLM.
Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan: Prior to the onset of ground-disturbance associated with the start of formal construction activities, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan developed in consultation with BLM and NDOW. WPW proposes to design a transmission line that minimizes adverse impacts to Greater Sage-grouse, including complying with applicable APLIC guidelines in “Best Management Practices for Electric Utilities in Sage-Grouse Habitat” (APLIC 2015).
Wildlife Seasonal Restrictions: WPW will work closely with BLM and NDOW to plan for Project construction windows that provide for both wildlife protection and feasible Project construction timelines. This will include developing manageable timing and scheduling restrictions that can accommodate the construction schedule. WPW will coordinate with BLM and NDOW for seasonal timing restriction exception or variance requests for construction activities occurring in Greater Sage-grouse seasonal habitats.
Reservoir Wildlife Exclusion: WPW proposes to fence and monitor both reservoirs to prevent cattle, wild ungulates, and other medium- to large-sized animals from accessing the area.
Big Game: WPW proposes to coordinate with BLM to secure appropriate exception or variances, as needed, for construction in big game crucial winter areas
Greater Sage-Grouse Credits: WPW proposes to purchase credits through the State’s Conservation Credit System from credit developers in White Pine County, if possible, to offset potential impacts to Greater Sage-grouse. If credit developers are not available in
White Pine County, then WPW will purchase credits as close as possible to White Pine County.
3.8 Recreation
3.8.1 Affected Recreation Environment
Lands within the
Project
Boundary are primarily federal lands managed by BLM. In the Project vicinity, there is USFS land, state-managed land, municipal land, and private land (Figure 3.8-1). The BLM Ely Ranger District Office is located in Ely, Nevada, and administers approximately 4.51 million acres of public land within White Pine County (BLM 2008a). Land ownership is further described in Section 3.9 Land Use.
White Pine County offers many recreation and tourism opportunities Major recreational activities in White Pine County include hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, horseback riding, off-highway vehicle riding, and motorcycle riding. Additional recreation that is growing in popularity includes mountain biking, rock climbing, skiing, and snowmobiling. White Pine County has several recreational policies that support and encourage sustainable recreational use of both developed and dispersed areas (White Pine County 2018). The White Pine County Tourism and Recreation Board (2019) outlines several strategic priorities for the County. Included in these priorities is to grow overall awareness of what the area has to offer to both locals and visitors, in turn growing the tourism economy. Strategies to grow the economy through tourism include promotion of history, arts and culture, outdoor recreation, and events.
3.8.1.1 Recreation in the Project Boundary
There are currently no developed recreation facilities located within the Project Boundary but the area of the proposed lower reservoir is frequently used for a variety of dispersed recreation activities, including but not limited to hunting, hiking, and mountain bike riding (NDOW 2022a). The NNR operates train excursions on railroad tracks that pass through the Project Boundary in the vicinity of the lower reservoir (Figure 3.8-1). In addition, BLMmanaged lands within the Project Boundary are currently open to hunting and the area is known as a popular recreation area for primitive and dispersed recreation
3.8.1.2 Recreation in the Project Vicinity
There are several recreation areas and recreation facilities within approximately 10 miles of the proposed Project. These include campgrounds, picnic areas, and trails managed by both the USFS and BLM; County-managed recreation such as community parks, shooting ranges, fairgrounds, and a golf course; areas for hunting; and surface waters for fishing. The majority of outdoor recreation in the Project vicinity occurs on public lands. Information on hunting and game management is presented in Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources. Information on fishing and fisheries management is presented in Section 3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources.
The Project Boundary is within the BLM Ely Field Office planning area and recreation use in the vicinity of the Project includes off-highway vehicle use, hunting, fishing, camping, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, rock climbing, mountain biking, and cultural tourism. BLM’s recreation objective, as described in the Ely District Approved RMP, is to provide a wide variety of recreation opportunities to satisfy a growing demand by the public who seek open, undeveloped spaces that are characteristic of the area. Additionally, BLM’s objective is to provide visitor information to familiarize people with recreational opportunities throughout the planning area and encourage minimum impact ethics for activities (BLM 2008a).
Lands and recreation facilities in the Project vicinity are also managed by White Pine County, USFS, and Nevada Division of State Parks (NDSP) (Figure 3.8-1). It is the policy of White Pine County to provide citizens of the county access to public lands for recreational use and economic activity, as well as protect the environment and natural resources within the county for future generations (White Pine County 2018). White Pine County supports the concept of “Multiple Use Management”, which includes recreation along with a balanced and diverse use of natural resources for other purposes. White Pine County recreational policies include conservation and protection of recreational and open space resources, and the promotion of sustainable recreation use. The County also encourages the use of dispersed recreation and the additional development of recreation facilities on appropriate public lands.
NDSP manages Cave Lake State Park, located approximately 12 miles south of the proposed Project in Duck Creek Valley in Highway 486. Cave Lake State Park offers camping, fishing, hiking, and limited hunting opportunities. An entrance fee is charged.
USFS management of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is outlined in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986), as amended, and the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986), as amended (USFS 1986). USFS management goals for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest include providing a broad range of outdoor recreational opportunities to the public, such as developed and dispersed recreation, maintaining and improving recreational facilities, coordinating recreation programs with local, state, and federal agencies, and more.
The Project is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the City of Ely. Ely offers yearround outdoor recreation opportunities, including golfing, snowmobiling, and archery, as well as an annual half-marathon and multiple bike races (Ely Nevada undated). Ely is also
home to a variety of cultural and artistic events, including an 11-block “Art Walk” with over 22 murals and sculptures throughout the downtown area.
The Nevada Northern Railway National Historic Landmark is also located in Ely and is acclaimed as the best-preserved and most original example of an American railroad facility and offers passenger train rides pulled by century-old steam engines. The Nevada Northern Railway Museum holds hundreds of hands-on history events annually. The museum includes original railway locomotives, rolling stock, track, a passenger station, and buildings that served the historic copper mining region of Central Nevada for over a century. A number of rides depart from the depot throughout the year. There is a fee charged for train rides. Most trips head southwest, through two tunnels and up mountain grades through Robinson Canyon toward the Ruth Copper Mining District. From late May through mid-September, approximately three rides each week head north out of the Steptoe Valley on the HiLine Branch toward McGill and the proposed Project (NNR undated-b).
NNR operates special themed trains on the HiLine Branch: the Night Sky – Star Train and the Sunset Stars and Champagne rides. The Night-Sky Star Train is scheduled one night each week from late May to mid-September and these rides sell out well in advance (NNR undated-b). The train stops at the Star Platform, a designated location along the HiLine where passengers can look through telescopes and talk with NPS rangers from Great Basin National Park (NPS 2022). The Sunset Stars and Champagne ride is offered twice each week late May to mid-September, and often sells out well in advance (NNR undatedb). These rides on the HiLine travel to approximately 8 miles from the depot before stopping and reversing direction to return to Ely (NNR 2021) The turnaround point is in close proximity to the proposed Project. The telescope viewing location where the Night Sky – Star Train stops on the return to Ely for stargazing is approximately 3 miles south of the proposed Project location (Figure 3.8-2).
The Town of McGill is located approximately 4.5 miles north of the Project Boundary. There are three parks in McGill, which include a swimming pool and playgrounds (McGill Nevada 2016). The McGill Drugstore Museum is also located in downtown McGill and is described as “an old small-town drugstore frozen in time,” with private tours available upon request (McGill Drugstore Museum 2018).
White Pine County is also a popular fishing destination for the residents of Nevada, with stream and lake fishing for several trout species and largemouth bass (White Pine County 2018).
WPW performed a Recreation Resources Study that included a recreation facility inventory and use estimate in coordination with owners of existing recreation facilities in an approximate 10-mile radius of the proposed Project location in 2021 (Appendix F).
Table 3.8-1 provides a summary of the outdoor recreation facilities assessed in the study. Additional details on each facility can be found in Appendix F
Table 3.8-1. Outdoor Recreation Facilities within Approximately 10 miles of the Proposed Project Location
Recreation Facility Facility Summary
Berry Creek Campground Located on the North Fork Berry Creek in the High Schells Wilderness at approximately 8,200 feet elevation. This dispersed campground has no fee and provides minimal amenities, but provides access to opportunities for hiking, biking, horseback riding, fishing, and winter activities.
Timber Creek Campground and Picnic Site
Steptoe Valley WMA
Developed campground located in a forested setting of Engelmann spruce, aspen, and white fir trees providing partial shade throughout the campground and attractive fall foliage. Timber Creek, a perennial stream, flows through the facility and provides visitors with rainbow and brook trout fishing opportunities. In addition, the High Shells Wilderness, with several peaks over 11,000 feet in elevation, can be accessed approximately 0.5 mile from the campground. Access is also available to the Ranger off-highway vehicle (OHV) trail for horseback riding, OHV riding, mountain biking, hiking, and winter activities
Numerous surface water bodies, including Steptoe Creek, several small ponds, and Comins Lake are available for fishing in the WMA. There is an abundance of habitat types in the WMA, including wet meadows, riparian corridors, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper uplands, providing habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Common wildlife species in the WMA include mule deer, pronghorn, sage-grouse, ducks, and other non-game species. Elk tags are intensely sought after for the Steptoe Valley WMA. Visitors may hunt, boat, fish, hike, or view wildlife at this facility.
Bird Creek Campground Located in Duck Creek Basin, high in the Schell Creek Range at approximately 8,200 feet elevation. Bird Creek, a perennial stream, flows through the campground and the area is slightly forested with juniper, pinyon pine, and alder trees providing limited shade. Ranger Trail is accessible from the campground, providing opportunities for OHV use, mountain biking, and hiking. Visitors may also fish in Bird Creek.
East Creek Campground Dispersed campground located in the Schell Creek Range at approximately 6,750 feet elevation. The area is forested with alder, pinyon, and juniper. East Creek, a perennial stream, flows through the picnic area, providing habitat for birds during the spring and summer months. Most of the campsites are located along the creek. Available activities include mountain biking, camping, day hiking, backpacking, and OHV road/trail riding.
Cave Lake State Park There are two campgrounds located within the park: Elk Flat Campground and Lake View Campground. Each campground contains one day-use group site and one group camping site. There are also two picnic areas along the shore of Cave Lake with restrooms, tables, grills, and water. Cave Lake is popular for fishing all year round and is stocked with rainbow and brown trout. Four developed hiking trails are also located in the park. Activities available in the park include camping, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, mountain biking, fishing, swimming, boating, and winter activities.
Ward Mountain Campground and Picnic Site (Ward Mountain South)
Ward Mountain Recreation Area (Ward Mountain North)
Nevada Northern Railway Museum and Depot
Located near Ward Mountain below the summit, but high above the desert floor at approximately 7,400 feet elevation. The facility has access to 10 miles of USFS trails with the main trailhead for Ward Mountain (elevation 10,800-foot summit) located at the east side of the campground. Activities available at the campground and picnic site include mountain biking, road cycling, camping, day hiking, backpacking, OHV road/trail hiking, horseback riding, and winter activities.
Recreation area with BLM-administered trails including four trail loops of 10 total miles that meander through sagebrush and pinyon-juniper forests. There is also an 18-hole disc golf course located adjacent to Ward Mountain Recreation Area at 7,400 feet elevation There are no fees to use the Ward Mountain Recreation Area and it is open year-round. Accessible pit toilet restrooms are provided, as well as picnic tables, shade structures, and trash cans at the trailhead. However, no potable water is available
Working passenger railroad that offers train rides as well as a variety of themed train rides or other events. The trains are over 110 years old and provide visitors with mountain scenery and historical narration. Regular trains rides run several times per week for 90 minutes from April through October with special trains running other times of year. The NNR is open year-round and daily except for select holidays as posted on its website. Special themed trains for 2021 include the Night Sky – Star Train, Sunset Stars and Champagne tour, the Roarin’ 20’s tour, the Geology Train, Haunted Ghost Train, and Santa’s Reindeer Flyer tour. The Night Sky – Star Train and the Sunset Stars and Champagne tours operate on the NNR HiLine, which runs in close proximity to the Project.
Owner/Operator Estimated Usage
USFS (Ely Ranger District) Light
USFS (Ely Ranger District) Heavy
NDOW Considerable public usage
USFS (Ely Ranger District) Medium
USFS (Ely Ranger District) Medium
NDSP Approx. 60,000 camper nights per year; Day use max. capacity of 1,600 people exceeded on a regular basis
USFS (Ely Ranger District) Heavy
BLM Approx. 1,500 visitors per year
Nevada Game Management Units 111, 121, and 131
All three management units are managed for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn Primitive camping is allowed on public lands of NDOW Game Management Units. Unit 111 is popular for hunting elk and mule deer and terrain ranges from gently to extremely difficult to traverse. Unit 121 lies on BLM land with terrain ranging from gentle hills to steep canyons. Unit 131 contains large flat valleys and steep mountains and is most popular for mule deer hunting.
NNR During 2021, the NNR was open at 50 percent capacity due to the COVID19 pandemic; Special theme trains often sell out in advance.
NDOW 2020 season estimate: Unit 111 – 1,301 hunters; Unit 121 – 791 hunters; Unit 131 – 803 hunters
Recreation Facility Facility Summary
Bassett Lake Primarily used for fishing and boating, with no developed facilities and no camping allowed. Two unimproved boat launches are located on each side of the lake. Largemouth bass are popular game fish in Bassett Lake. Fishing is typically best during early spring to early summer. During summer, biting insects and a thick algal mat may render the lake unfishable. Additionally, shoreline fishing can be difficult so fishing via boat is recommended.
Ely Community Parks Community parks owned and maintained by White Pine County located in Ely include Camp Success, County Park/ Courthouse Park, Little League Field, Marich Field, and Steptoe Park. Camp Success is located in a remote setting and includes a lodge with restrooms and showers and a propane refrigerator as well as a grill, fire pit, RV parking, and tents. County Park/Courthouse Park contains a duck pond, park benches, picnic tables, shade trees, and a war memorial. The Little League Field and Marich Field each contain three baseball fields. Steptoe Park includes a walking trail, barbeque area, pavilion, picnic tables, playground, soccer field, restrooms, and shade trees.
Owner/Operator Estimated Usage
NDOW
White Pine County Camp Success appears to have received regular usage during the 2021 season; Approx. 20 youth teams use the Little League Field; other parks unknown
McGill Community Parks Community parks owned and maintained by White Pine County in McGill include the McGill Pool Park, McGill Baseball Field, and Avenue K Park. The pool is fed from a nearby warm spring and is surrounded by a sand beach. The park located next to the pool offers a barbeque area, picnic tables, volleyball court, concessions stand, shade trees, and restrooms. The McGill Baseball Field is an outdoor field typically used by youth leagues and is open year-round. Avenue K Park contains playground equipment, grassy fields, and walking paths and is open year-round.
Shooting Ranges
Three shooting ranges are located in White Pine County in the vicinity of the Project. The White Pine Long Distance Range is open to the public and provides a range of 100 – 1,000 yards for shooting and archery. The Steptoe Valley Trap, Skeet, and Target (SVTST) Range was opened to maintain a place to provide U.S. citizens who are legally allowed to possess a firearm with a place to learn and implement the safe and efficient use of firearms for home and personal protection, hunting, competitive shooting, and shooting recreation. The McGill Archery Barn is open to members and includes a 20-yard indoor archery range.
White Pine County Fairgrounds
White Pine Golf Course
Ely KOA Journey Campground
Garnet Hill Recreation Area
Egan Crest Trail System
The White Pine County Fairgrounds offers short-term and long-term animal boarding and pen rentals as well as rental opportunities for special events. There are several arenas, concession stands, bar areas, and barbeque pits available for special events. The annual County Fair is also held here, which includes horse racing, live music, barbeque, crafts, vendors, 4-H shows and exhibits, livestock auctions, rodeo, and more.
The White Pine Golf Course is a 6,843-yard course with a par of 72. The first nine holes of the course are along the NNR . The golf course contains restored red barns and scenic mountain views and offers a full-service pro shop, club house, and driving range. Events are also held here throughout the playing season. The golf course is open from March through November.
The Ely KOA Journey Campground provides RV, tent, cabin, and teepee camping sites Potable water, restrooms with showers, propane, trash services, and a ‘kamping kitchen’ are provided at the campground. The campground also features a basketball court, volleyball court, playground, horseshoe pits, movie cabin, two dog parks, and a horse corral. There is access to OHV trails directly from the campground.
The top elevation of Garnet Hill is 7,300 feet and was designated a public recreation area in 1970 for public enjoyment, rock hounding, and scientific study. Garnet Hill is famous for its dark-colored garnets found in flow-banded rhyolitic volcanic rock. Visitors may find ruby red, semi-precious gems in the rocky volcanic outcrops or just by searching the ground. A hiking and OHV trail provides access to the top of Garnet Hill and there is limited camping space at the top of the hill with picnic tables, barbeque area, and restrooms.
The Egan Crest Trail System provides recreationists with 24 miles of trails with a variety of terrain from rolling sagebrush flats to the higher elevations in pinyon and juniper forests. The trails consist of single-track and signed two-track roads and are open to hiking, mountain biking, equestrian, motorcycles, and ATVs. The trail system includes two trail loops and two connector trails. Other amenities include picnic tables and shade structures at the trailhead.
Source: Recreation Resources Study Report (Appendix F).
White Pine County McGill Pool Park receives approx. 90 swimmers per day; other parks unknown
White Pine Long Distance Range – White Pine County; SVTST Range – SVTST Club; McGill Archery Barn –owned by White Pine County and managed by the Bristlecone Bowman Club
White Pine Long Distance Range – 25-30 visitors per day; other ranges unknown
White Pine County Unknown
White Pine County Unknown
Kampgrounds of America (KOA) Unknown
BLM Approx. 3,200 visitors per year
BLM Unknown
WPW completed site visits to several of the recreation sites within 10 miles of the proposed Project in 2021 and concluded that the facilities visited were all in relatively good condition. The USFS recently renovated several campgrounds in the Project vicinity, including Bird Creek, East Creek, and Ward Mountain Campgrounds. According to information on each of the USFS campground websites, dispersed USFS campgrounds receive light usage while developed campgrounds receive medium to heavy usage (USFS undated-a through undated-d). In addition, Cave Lake State Park staff indicated that the park receives maximum capacity attendance on a regular basis (NDSP 2021).
3.8.1.3 Other Use and Needs
The Nevada Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) (2022-2026) is intended to serve as an integrated, research-based plan to assist in the improvement and expansion of outdoor recreation opportunities in Nevada. A multi-step process, including a document survey, community workshop, and public opinion survey was used to establish a broad outline of outdoor recreation in Nevada and identify priorities to focus on in future years. Recreation participation rates are higher in Nevada than the overall nationwide rate.
The 2022 SCORP identified three themes related to outdoor recreation in Nevada: (1) Sustainable Outdoor Recreation; (2) Community and Economic Vitality; and (3) Pathways to Health and Wellness.
The themes listed above are intended to serve as broad goals, with specific strategies and actions for accomplishing them coming from grant applications, outdoor advocates, and other citizens who recognize their stake in Nevada’s outdoor future (NDSP 2022).
3.8.1.4 Specially Designated Recreation Areas
Nationwide Rivers Inventory
No portion of the Project Boundary is located on or in the vicinity of rivers included within the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NPS undated).
America’s Scenic Byways
No portion of the Project Boundary is located in the vicinity of any of America’s Scenic Byways designated by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (U.S. Department of Transportation undated)
National Trails System and Wilderness Areas
No portion of the Project Boundary is located within the National Trails System or within any designated Wilderness Areas
The Project Boundary is located south of Schell Creek Station, which is located along the Pony Express National Historic Trail approximately 31 miles from the Project (NPS 2020).
Wild and Scenic Rivers
No portion of the Project Boundary is located in an area designated as part of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers system (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System undated).
3.8.1.5 Nationally Significant Recreation Areas
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
No portion of the Project Boundary is located in any National Forest. The HumboldtToiyabe National Forest is the largest national forest in the contiguous United States and spans over 6.3 million acres (USFS undated-e). The forest is comprised of numerous noncontiguous sections scattered across most of the State of Nevada and a portion of eastern California. A portion of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is located approximately one mile east of the proposed Project access road and encompasses the High Schells Wilderness. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest has multiple campgrounds and picnic areas, as described above and in the Recreation Study Report, including Berry Creek campground, located approximately 3.75 miles east of the Project access road.
Great Basin National Park
No portion of the Project Boundary is located in any National Park Great Basin National Park is located approximately 70 miles southeast of the Project Boundary and encompasses approximately 77,000 acres (White Pine County 2020) The park has no entrance fee and is home to Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak (NPS 2017). Great Basin National Park is designated an International Dark Sky Park, recognized for distinguished and significant opportunities to experience dark nights (NPS 2022) The park conducts an Astronomy Program, typically May through September on Saturday nights; the programs are free (NPS 2022). The park teams with NNR to offer the NNR’s Star Train rides; an NPS ranger is onboard the train to talk, give out prizes, and answer questions (NPS 2022). Great Basin National Park also offers hiking, fishing, camping, horseback riding, pine nut gathering, climbing, picnicking, and guided tours of Lehman Caves (NPS 2017, White Pine County 2020).
Additional information will be collected in 2023 as described in Section 3.8.4.
3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects - Recreation
This section presents information about potential effects of the proposed Project on recreation. Following NEPA regulations and guidelines, a project’s potential effects can be categorized as direct, indirect, and cumulative.
The majority of recreation facilities analyzed in this assessment are located several miles from the Project. The closest recreation facility to the Project is Berry Creek Campground, located approximately 4 miles from the Project Boundary. Federal lands managed by BLM in the vicinity of the Project are open to hunting. Lands in the vicinity of the Project are designated as priority and seasonal habitat for game species, including Greater Sagegrouse, mule deer, and pronghorn. The NNR HiLine traverses the Project Boundary. NNR
conducts train rides on the HiLine approximately three times each week from late May until mid-September.
Construction of the Project may temporarily impact recreation in the immediate vicinity. Construction of the Project is expected to last up to 7 years, with the most intense above-ground work likely to occur during years 1 and 2. Construction impacts include noise, lighting, dust, and additional traffic, which have the potential to negatively impact nearby recreation. Hunting and wildlife viewing may be temporarily impacted as access may be restricted to some areas during some phases of construction, and wildlife may be disturbed due to noise and human activity. Potential Project effects on wildlife, game species, and game management are discussed in Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources. Permanent fencing will not restrict access to surrounding public lands.
Potential effects of Project construction on NNR HiLine train rides include disruptions to the schedule due to Project construction that interferes with train travel on the HiLine. During Project construction, construction activities and related safety measures may limit public access and proximity to construction activities. This has the potential to prevent trains from traveling as far north as is customary on the HiLine. Currently, the HiLine trains travel approximately 8 miles from Ely on the HiLine, and the Project’s lower reservoir, tunnel portal and substation are proposed to be situated in this area (Figure 3.8-2).
Potential effects on the experiences of passengers on NNR HiLine train rides may occur due to construction and operation of the Project, including potential effects on dark skies from Project lighting. Project lighting and dark skies are discussed in Section 3.11 Aesthetic Resources The Project also has the potential to modify the landscape and scenery visible from the NNR train rides on the HiLine. Effects of potential modified scenery are discussed in Section 3.11 Aesthetic Resources
There are no scenic byways, National Trails, designated Wilderness Areas, designated National Wild and Scenic Rivers, or rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory within 10 miles of the Project.
Additional information will be collected in 2023 as described in Section 3.8.4.
3.8.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Recreation
As listed in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for recreation is 1 mile of the Project since impacts on public recreation areas would be restricted to construction workspaces and adjacent landscape. All the actions listed in Table 3.2-2 occur within the geographic scope for recreation
As described in Section 3.8.1.1, there are currently no developed recreation facilities located within the Project Footprint or within 1 mile of the Project Footprint (the geographic scope of analysis for recreation), but the area of the proposed lower reservoir is frequently used for a variety of dispersed recreation activities, including but not limited to hunting, hiking, and mountain bike riding (NDOW 2022a). The NNR operates train excursions on railroad tracks that pass through the Project Footprint in the vicinity of the lower reservoir (Figure 3.8-1). In addition, BLM-managed lands within the geographic scope are currently
open to hunting, and the area is known as a popular recreation area for primitive and dispersed recreation. Cumulative effects on recreation from the Project and other projects listed in Table 3.2-2 in the geographic scope could occur due to construction activities including increased noise, lighting, dust, and traffic. Hunting and wildlife viewing may also be impacted due to restricted access during construction and wildlife may be disturbed due to increased noise and human activities. The current NNR HiLine may experience schedule disruptions and route changes, which would potentially increase with the construction of other projects at the same time. Cumulative effects on recreation will generally be limited to the periods for construction of the Project and other projects listed in Table 3.2-2. Furthermore, the anticipated expansion of NNR operations would expand the recreation opportunities. Overall, cumulative effects on recreation would be short-term and minor.
3.8.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.8.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3.
3.8.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
Proposed Supplemental Study Steps
Although the Recreation Resources Study was adequate for FERC to conduct its NEPA review, WPW has agreed to conduct supplemental efforts related to recreation resources based on NPS comments on the DLA. Section 1.3 describes WPW’s consultation with NPS and NNR regarding proposed supplemental recreation resource study steps and remaining areas of disagreement with NPS.
The 2021 Recreation Resources Study Plan described developing and executing an NNR visitor use assessment survey. However, the survey was not conducted in 2021 due to lack of consensus with the NPS and NNR during consultation in 2020. Therefore, supplemental recreation data collection is warranted.
WPW proposes to conduct the survey from May 15 to September 18, 2023 and the results will be used to summarize NNR visitor demographics, perceptions, attitudes, and preferences, and to inform the socioeconomic analysis. WPW proposes to complete the following as part of the supplemental recreation resources study effort:
• Finalize the survey instrument to include a series of questions based on the current condition photographs and proposed Project feature photosimulations described above. The goal of the survey is to assess potential impacts of the Project by surveying HiLine riders to determine whether and how the Project would affect the respondent’s interest to return or recommend the NNR HiLine excursion trains to others. Pairing demographic data with respondent’s assessments of Project effects will ensure a broad range of representation and allow for data to be categorized based on similar user groups.
• WPW proposes to conduct visitor use assessment surveys for the HiLine train excursions as part of the supplemental Recreation Study in 2023. WPW proposes to survey HiLine excursion riders on the HiLine train and at the Depot. WPW expects that some visitors to the Depot who are not HiLine excursion riders will also be intercepted for the survey. The survey is intended to elicit information on potential Project effects, which are related to HiLine ridership, not to riders on NNR excursions conducted on other tracks in locations other than the Project vicinity. Responses will reveal whether respondents have taken a HiLine excursion or not. Responses will be grouped accordingly and analyzed to report any differences among respondent-types. Although the NNR expects future excursion rides on the northern Mainline and asserts that the Project has the potential to affect this planned future ridership, the timing and scope of these potential future northern Mainline excursion rides has not been finalized by the NNR. The northern Mainline is currently inactive, unusable, and in a general state of disrepair (and has been for several decades) and will require substantial and protracted repair and upgrade efforts to potentially return it to service. Therefore, a survey of projected and potential future northern Mainline riders and how it might affect their planned future northern Mainline ridership would be premature, not directly relevant, speculative, and impossible to analyze and/or deduce any appropriate conclusions. Nonetheless, for this analysis, WPW will consider HiLine riders as surrogates for these potential future northern Mainline riders.
• WPW proposes a survey period of sixteen (16) survey days to be accomplished over an eighteen (18) week period. This survey period should be accomplished between May 15 and September 15, 2023, during operational times of the HiLine trains. Four survey events are planned during this period with a goal of completing 400-500 surveys. WPW proposes targeting 400 to 500 completed surveys to provide sufficient variability in results to produce statistically viable sample incidences. For an assumed annual ridership of 10,000 or more, 370 to 384 completed surveys will achieve a margin of error of ± 5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Targeting 400 to 500 completed surveys will help assure an adequate return.
• Accepted data analysis methods will be used to understand and categorize respondents on several demographic and behavioral indicators. WPW expects the survey results to form a robust basis for understanding riders’ attitudes about scenery and riders’ intention to return under future Project conditions. The results of the survey will be used to supplement the 2021 Recreation Resources Study and inform the supplemental Socioeconomic analysis (See Section 3.12.4).
Measures Proposed for Original License Term
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to recreation resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction.
Noise: To minimize the effects of noise related to construction and operation of the Project, WPW proposes to perform noise modeling as Project design advances including finalizing the construction schedule, construction equipment, ventilation equipment, and transmission line design.
Public Access: WPW proposes to manage lands over which it has control in the Project Boundary for appropriate public access.
NNR Coordination: WPW proposes to coordinate with NNR throughout Project construction to minimize potential effects to NNR operations.
Although not detailed in Table 2.2-3, WPW also proposes to develop appropriate PM&Es as needed based on the results of the supplemental study steps described above.
3.9 Land Use
3.9.1 Affected Land Use Environment
Nevada is comprised of approximately 86.5 percent federally managed lands. The majority of federal lands in Nevada falls under administration of BLM, followed by the USFS, Department of Defense, NPS, USFWS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Reclamation. Lands in White Pine County follow a similar pattern as the State, with the majority of land being federally managed (95.6 percent) with little private control for economic development or community expansion (White Pine County 2018)
Land ownership within the Project Footprint is comprised of 1,281 acres of land administered by BLM and 57 acres of private land, for a total of 1,338 acres (Figure 3.1-4). The private parcels are generally located near the entrance of the upper reservoir access road and along the transmission line corridor. Land ownership in the Project vicinity is illustrated in Figure 3.1-4 in Section 3.1.2
Major Land and Water Uses
The Project Footprint also includes a portion of a Section 368-designated transmission corridor. As described in Section 0, the Section 368 energy corridors are designated as preferred locations for energy transport projects on BLM-administered public lands, such as transmission of high-voltage electric power. The proposed transmission line will be constructed primarily within a Section 368 energy corridor. The Department of Energy and BLM prepared a programmatic EIS to analyze the environmental impacts of designating and developing energy corridors on federal lands pursuant to Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (US DOE and BLM 2008). Where possible, the energy corridors were located to avoid conflicting land uses and important resources (BLM 2021b). Additionally, the transmission line will be constructed parallel to an existing electric transmission line within the corridor.
Section 102 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs BLM to prepare land use plans that serve as the basis for all activities that occur on BLM-administered lands.
The applicable land use plan in the vicinity of the Project is the Ely District Record of Decision and Approved RMP (BLM 2008a), as amended. The RMP provides direction for management of renewable and nonrenewable resources found on public lands within the Ely planning area and guides decision-making for future site-specific actions. The Approved RMP directs the Ely District Office in resource management activities including leasing minerals such as oil and gas; construction of electrical transmission lines, gas pipelines, and roads; grazing management; recreation and outfitting; preserving and restoring wildlife habitat; selling or exchanging lands for the benefit of local communities; military use of the planning area; and conducting other activities that require land use planning decisions. The Ely District RMP covers approximately 11.5 million acres of public land (BLM 2008a).
BLM also complies with the ARMPA GRSG Habitat Mapping (BLM 2015). The ARMPA GRSG Habitat Mapping maps habitat for Greater Sage-grouse as PHMA, GHMA, or OHMA, as described in Section 3.7.1.8 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species. The Project Footprint is within PHMA, GHMA, OHMA, and non-habitat.
The White Pine County Land Use Plan (2008) provides guidance in land use decisions and development for elected officials, appointed boards and officials, public land management agencies, private developers, and the public. The 2008 Plan focuses on the need to address development in outlying areas of the County. The 2008 Plan also identifies the need to balance private development, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, preservation of public lands, and the ability to provide services. Chapter 11 provides 19 land use goals and implementation strategies for the county. Land use goals include a discussion of recreational, industrial, and residential development.
The White Pine County Public Lands Policy Plan (2018) outlines the County’s policies related to land management. White Pine County supports the concept of multiple use management of public lands in a way that is sustainable and that conserves natural resources. For example, multiple use management refers to “balanced and diverse use of resources which takes into account the long-term needs of the residents of the County for renewable and non-renewable resources including but not limited to recreational areas, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific, and historic areas” (White Pine County 2018, County Code Section 288.100).
White Pine County has developed goals, objectives, and action plans as part of its Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies, published in July 2020 by the White Pine County Board of County Commissioners (White Pine County 2020). One of the County’s published objectives is development of the County’s renewable energy resources including solar, wind, and pumped storage. The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies document states that “in addition to wind energy, White Pine County is pursuing development of solar energy farms and pumped storage hydropower projects.” Spring Valley Wind, built in 2012 with a capacity of 152 MW, is Nevada’s first wind energy project and is located in White Pine County. The wind farm is located on 7,680 acres of federal lands administered by BLM. Approximately 45,000 homes are powered by this facility (White Pine County 2020).
White Pine County’s airport, also known as Yellan Field, encompasses 4,999 acres and is located approximately 3 miles north of Ely and 3.5 miles south of the Project area. The airport contains two runways: one that is 6,018 feet long and 150 feet wide, and another that is 4,825 feet long and 60 feet wide (White Pine County 2020).
Land uses in the Project Footprint, as classified by the White Pine County Assessor Office (White Pine County 2021) are summarized in Table 3.9-1 and shown in Figure 3.9-1. The land uses crossed by the Project are classified as
• Vacant – Vacant – Public Use Lands; Vacant Single Family Residential
• Industrial – General Industrial – Light Industry, Trucking and Warehousing, Service, Repair, etc.
• Farm – Agricultural Qualified per NRS 361A – Vacant; Agricultural Deferred with Residence
• Residential – Single Family Residential with Minor Improvements
• Special – Mixed Use with Special Purpose as Primary Use
• Utility – Operating Communication, Transportation, and Utility Property of an Interstate or Intercounty Nature; Mixed Use with Locally Assessed Utility as Primary Use
The upper and lower reservoir are located mostly within an industrial area. Small parcels classified as farm are located along the upper reservoir access road. The lands crossed by the transmission line corridor are mostly classified as vacant or designated for utility or residential use, and additionally are within a Section 368-designated transmission corridor as previously described.
In addition to reviewing White Pine County Assessor land use data, WPW conducted mapping of vegetation and habitat in the Project Area as part of the 2021 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study (Appendix E). This assessment mapped developed lands, disturbed lands, agriculture, roads, and railroads. The assessment found that medium to high intensity developed land is located at both ends of the proposed transmission corridor, consisting of an electrical substation at the west end and a private salvage yard on the east end. Disturbed lands occur at scattered locations along the proposed transmission line corridor, typically as a transition from development to a natural habitat with minimal vegetation cover. The disturbed lands were mapped at the upper reservoir around McGill Spring, which were heavily impacted by a vertical culvert, fencing, and intensive cattle grazing. Vegetation outside of the fencing around McGill Spring is heavily trampled and grazed to the point that the ground cover is mostly thatch. Agriculture also occurs along the proposed transmission line corridor and consists of numerous planted crops. The vegetation and habitat mapping study indicated that developed and disturbed lands, agriculture, and roads and railroads occupy approximately 30 acres within the study area. The remainder of the study area (1,668.5 acres) consists of open space and a variety of vegetation cover types (Appendix E).
3.9.1.1 Section 368-Designated Transmission Corridor
WPW has routed the proposed transmission line completely within the existing transmission right-of-way from the Project’s outdoor switchyard approximately 25 miles to the interconnection location. The route of the transmission line is also completely within the Section 368-designated transmission corridor
3.9.1.2 Floodplains and Wetlands
Based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Hazard Layer, portions of the Project Boundary are located in potential floodplains. Approximately 71.4 acres of the proposed transmission line corridor are located in a 100-year floodplain (one percent annual chance of flooding) and about 32.6 acres are located in a 500-year floodplain (0.2 percent annual chance of flooding). Floodplains are shown in Figure 3.9-2
Wetlands are discussed in Section 3.4 Water Resources
3.9.1.3 Grazing
BLM administers 668 livestock grazing authorizations on 797 grazing allotments in the State of Nevada These grazing allotments occupy about 43 million acres, the most of any state. Congress mandates that BLM manage grazing, and BLM livestock grazing policies are designed to protect the productivity of public lands in an efficient and effective manner Properly managed livestock grazing provides economic and social benefits to Nevada communities (BLM undated-b).
All of the BLM managed lands within the Project Boundary are managed under grazing allotments. As shown in Table 3.9-2, there are four grazing allotments in the vicinity of the proposed reservoirs and six grazing allotments along the transmission line corridor The Project Boundary will occupy a small percentage of each grazing allotment, as shown in Table 3.9-2
BLM also designates lands in the vicinity of the Project as areas “available and unavailable” for livestock grazing within BLM-administered, Greater Sage-grouse habitat management areas, as identified in the 2019 ARMPA. BLM amended its RMPs for Greater Sage-grouse habitat management in 2019 to provide additional consistency and alignment with the State of Nevada’s Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy. Table 3.9-2 shows whether each grazing allotment is affected by the 2019 ARMPA grazing allotment restrictions.
Table 3.9-2. Grazing Allotments in the Project Footprint
3.9.1.4 Agricultural Lands
Approximately 7,500 acres of land in the White Pine County Open Space Plan planning area are used for agricultural purposes (White Pine County 2005). Within the Project Boundary, approximately 66.8 acres are classified by the County Assessor as farm or agricultural lands. However, 2021 vegetation and habitat mapping (Appendix E) indicated that 14.2 acres within the transmission line corridor portion of the Project Boundary were being utilized for planted crops
3.9.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects – Land Use
This section presents information available about potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed Project on land use.
The construction and operation of the Project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to land use. During construction, land will be temporarily removed from its current use and converted to construction workspaces. Permanent impacts of the Project are described below for the reservoirs and conveyance facilities and for the new transmission line. Permanent impacts of Project facilities are provided in Table 3.9-3
3.9.2.1 Reservoir and Conveyance Areas
Permanent impacts of the Project on land use include the conversion of existing land cover to inundated lands at the upper and lower reservoir. WPW will fence the Project reservoirs for public safety and, therefore, public access to the reservoirs will be restricted. Water conveyance facilities will be located underground in very steep terrain, and potential uses of the land above these facilities is limited
As shown in Table 3.9-1, White Pine County classifies most of the land where the upper reservoir and the lower reservoir will be built as industrial, and this land use classification will not change The remaining lands will be converted to industrial land.
3.9.2.2 Transmission Line Corridor
WPW has sited the transmission line primarily within the previously permitted Section 368designated transmission corridor, and parallel to an existing electric transmission line, minimizing land use impact. The towers and spans of the existing electric are similar to those proposed for the Project
As shown in Table 3.9-1, White Pine County classifies the majority of the transmission line corridor as vacant, and a portion is already classified as utility. The Project will convert the lands within the transmission line corridor to a permanent utility easement
3.9.2.3 Floodplains
The transmission line corridor crosses 100-year and 500-year floodplains, primarily on the eastern end of the corridor, as shown in Figure 3.9-2 An existing transmission line also crosses these floodplains WPW anticipates that the locations of the transmission line foundations and structures will be adjusted during final design to avoid or minimize temporary and permanent impacts on floodplains.
3.9.2.4 Grazing
The Project will temporarily affect grazing during construction due to ground disturbance and clearing of vegetation, noise, increased traffic, and human presence
Operation of the Project will remove the land inundated by the reservoirs from grazing This will result in a permanent impact to holders of the affected grazing allotments However, as shown in Table 3.9-2, the amount of the allotment affected is a very small percentage of each grazing allotment Grazing opportunities in the vicinity of the Project will still be abundant
3.9.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Land Use
As listed in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for land use is 1 mile of the Project since impacts on land use will be restricted to construction workspaces and the adjacent landscape All the actions listed in Table 3.2-2 except for the Recreation Trail Building School Grant occur within the geographic scope for land use.
The construction and operation of the Project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would require the temporary and permanent use of land, which would result in temporary and permanent effects on or conversions of land use. Cumulative effects on land uses from the Project and other projects listed in Table 3.2-2 within 1 mile of the Project Footprint could occur from construction activities such as clearing, grading, and construction of buildings, structures, and/or impervious surfaces (e.g., access roads). The duration of effects on land use would depend on the type of land cover affected and the rate at which the land can be restored and conditions after construction.
The Project transmission line would be constructed within the Section 368-designated energy corridor, which currently includes existing transmission facilities. Other
transmission line or pipeline projects may be developed within this corridor in keeping with its designated purpose. BLM prepared a programmatic EIS to analyze the environmental impacts of designating and developing energy corridors on federal lands pursuant to Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (DOE and BLM 2008). Where possible, the energy corridors were located to avoid conflicting land uses and important resources (BLM 2021b). Other development within 1 mile of the Project Footprint includes the existing NNR. Reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as the development of solar and wind projects in Steptoe Valley, would also be considered industrial use and may not require conversions of land use, depending on their location, which is not known at this time. Because the Project transmission line would be constructed within a designated energy corridor, cumulative effects to land use would be negligible. The Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable actions, could result in a minor cumulative conversion of land use from open or undeveloped lands to developed or industrial lands.
3.9.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.9.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3.
3.9.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to land use:
Landowner Coordination: WPW will coordinate, as required or necessary, with adjacent and downstream private landowners regarding potential Project effects.
Transmission Line Design: During final design, WPW will complete designs of transmission facilities (including locations of transmission towers and access roads) in a manner that minimizes surface disturbing activity in identified floodplains. If transmission structures cannot be located outside of floodplains, WPW will consult with BLM on steps to identify reasonable mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to water features.
3.10 Cultural Resources
The Cultural Resources Study has been undertaken by WPW to investigate cultural resources in the Project vicinity. This study has substantially added to the existing information provided in the PAD. The study is complete, however related National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation is still underway and scheduled to be completed in 2023 This study supported the development of a draft Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) that has been prepared by WPW and attached to this FLA. The draft HPMP also needs to undergo NHPA Section 106 consultation, which is planned for 2023. As described further below, the HPMP will be used to manage potential Projectrelated effects on historic properties (i.e., cultural resources eligible for or included in the National Register of Historic Places [National Register or NRHP]).
3.10.1 Affected Cultural Resources Environment
This section describes existing cultural resources associated with the Project. It is presented by the following five areas: (1) regulatory context, (2) area of potential effects, (3) cultural history overview, (4) existing information, and (5) results of the Cultural Resources Study.
3.10.1.1 Regulatory Context
In considering an original license for the Project, FERC has the lead responsibility for compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and policies pertaining to historic properties, including the NHPA of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. §300101 et seq.). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) define the process for identifying historic properties, assessing effects, and seeking ways to resolve adverse effects on historic properties in consultation with the NSHPO, federally recognized Indian tribes, the public, and other appropriate parties.
As defined in 36 CFR §800.16(l)(1), historic property means “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria ”
3.10.1.2 Area of Potential Effects
As defined in the applicable regulations found at 36 CFR 800.16(d), the APE is “...the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historical properties, if any such properties exist.” As required under Section 106 (36 CFR 800.4[a][1]), maps depicting the proposed APE were submitted to NSHPO by HDR on behalf of WPW in a letter dated May 14, 2021, for formal review, comment, and concurrence, and to initiate informal Section 106 consultation. In response to the review of the proposed APE, NSHPO agreed that the area depicted should be adequate to account for direct physical effects resulting from the undertaking, however, NSHPO stated that area may not be sufficient to account for visual, atmospheric, audible, and cumulative effects of the undertaking. Thus, NSHPO was unable to conclude its review and comment on the APE. The NSHPO requested that WPW provide an adequately documented APE that accounts for all indirect visual, atmospheric, audible, and cumulative effects as well as the direct physical effects already discussed. The NSHPO also noted that the documentation of visual simulations along with photographs of current conditions in all areas of the proposed undertaking would serve as valuable tools to document the APE in a future submission to the NSHPO.
Since the May 2021 letter was sent to NSHPO with a proposed APE, the Project design has undergone several updates and is not yet final. Accordingly, while the general Project
Footprint is known, the specific area where potential effects may occur, including indirect visual, atmospheric, audible, and cumulative effects is unknown. Therefore, there is no proposed APE provided herein WPW plans to define the APE under the protocols of the HPMP after a license is issued by FERC
As described above, a Cultural Resources Study (HDR 2022) was conducted in support of the Project licensing. This study was intended to identify cultural resources that could be affected by the Project, formulate a plan to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, and identify Project-related effects on NRHP eligible and listed resources. The Cultural Resources Study focused on a study area that initially included the proposed Project Footprint prior to subsequent design changes. The results of the Cultural Resources Study are described below, but it is unknow which resources within the study area will fall within the APE once it is defined.
The study area is located between the City of Ely, Nevada and McGill, Nevada, straddling each side of the Duck Creek Range and stretching west for approximately 20 miles through Steptoe Valley and Smith Valley, over the Egan Range, and into Jakes Valley.
3.10.1.3 Cultural History Overview
This section provides an overview of the cultural setting of the study area and vicinity. The precontact context below discusses the environmental-temporal-cultural divisions of precontact occupation in the area. The ethnohistoric context below describes the indigenous people of the area through early contact eras including the Spanish period, the Mexican period, and the American period. The Euro-American context below provides details about non-Native American activities in the Project vicinity.
Archaeological Precontact Context
Archaeological research in the Great Basin has resulted in a broad outline of precontact developments. Much of this research has emphasized the relationship between human cultural adaptations and environmental systems with changes in settlement and subsistence patterns coinciding with the gradual stabilization of climatic conditions. Relevant aspects of the precontact-era within the Great Basin are outlined below.
Paleoenvironmental Change
Paleoclimatic reconstructions follow the four-stage framework proposed more than half a century ago for western North America (Antevs 1948). Conditions were cool and wet in the Late Pleistocene (21,000 to 12,000 years before present [BP]) near the end of the Wisconsinan glaciation. The Cordilleran ice sheet covered parts of Idaho, Montana, and Washington just above Nevada and Utah. Pleistocene pluvial events and glacial melting resulted in the development of an extensive series of pluvial lakes. The largest of these lakes were Lake Lahontan in northwestern Nevada and Lake Bonneville in northwestern Utah. Pyramid and Walker Lakes are remnants of Lake Lahontan and the Great Salt Lake is a remnant of Bonneville. Smaller pluvial lakes existed between Lahontan and Bonneville, as well as productive marshes and wetlands that inundated approximately 40 percent of the Great Basin. At least 42 mountain glaciers were once present in the region and now
only one small glacier remains on Mount Wheeler in eastern Nevada (Grayson 2011:93–106, Nevada Rock Art Foundation [NRAF] 2015). These environmental changes have important implications for reconstructing the adaptive strategies of human communities. The extinction of Pleistocene megafauna and the differential availability of natural resources affected the initial peopling of the region, as well as seasonal foraging cycles and patterns of occupation (Basgall 2008, Gardner 2006).
A progressive drying and warming trend began around 12,000 years Before Present (BP) and lasted through the Early (12,000–7,500 years BP) and Middle Holocene (7,500–4,500 years BP). However, conditions were generally cooler and wetter than the modern-day environment and were characterized by fluctuations in temperature and aridity, resulting in the alternating contraction and expansion of wetlands. For example, Ruby Marsh in northeastern Nevada alternated between being a 3-mile-wide wetland and a lake (Lake Franklin) with a depth of approximately 200 feet. These trends led to changes in local vegetation communities with sub-alpine forest moving downslope during wetter conditions and upslope during dryer conditions. After moving upslope, sub-alpine communities were replaced or intermixed with juniper and mountain mahogany communities. During the Middle Holocene, environmental conditions became hotter and drier than the preceding period with some wetlands and lakes, like Ruby Marsh, vanishing and sub-alpine communities moving even farther upslope. Piñon nuts became a dietary staple during this time and populations generally lived where they were in abundance (5,000–8,000 feet) (Grayson 2011:239–258, NRAF 2015).
A reversal of the warming trend characterizes the Late Holocene (4,500 years BP–present), with moderately cool and wet conditions punctuated by periods of drought. Grasslands replaced shrublands at lower elevations and, based on archaeological data, there was a significant increase in buffalo, elk, and deer in the northern and northeastern Great Basin (Grayson 2011:259–260, NRAF 2015). Studies focusing on the Late Holocene have provided a detailed picture of more recent changes in environmental conditions. From 500 to 1,200 years BP, a warming trend related to the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA) made conditions unfavorable in much of the region (Jones et al. 1999, Grayson 2011:262–264). Droughts were especially severe in the periods 900 to 1,100 years BP and 550 to 800 years BP. The warming of the MCA was followed by a climatic reversal during the Little Ice Age, which lasted between 250 and 600 years BP. Cooler temperatures and increased precipitation led to the gradual re-expansion of juniper woodland biotic communities in the Great Basin (Wigand and Rhode 2002, Grayson 2011:264, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016). Although the Little Ice Age had devastating effects on agricultural production in many regions worldwide, its impacts on the inhabitants within the study area are currently not well understood.
Chronological Framework
People first entered the North American continent between 18,500 and 15,500 years BP during the Pleistocene Epoch. The earliest populations were highly mobile with subsistence strategies that relied on the hunting of megafauna and broad-spectrum foraging. What has been designated as the Paleo-Indian or Pre-Archaic period lasted until the beginning of the Middle Holocene. Subsequent periods are characterized by human
adaptations to changing climatic conditions with variations in technologies and subsistence strategies. Temporal periods following the Paleo-Indian include: Early Archaic (8,000 to 6,000 years BP), Middle Archaic (6,000 to 1,500 years BP), Late Archaic (1,500 to 650 years BP), Formative (1,500 to 700 years BP), and Late or Terminal Precontact (700 to Contact).
Paleo-Indian Period (14,000 to 8,000 years BP)
The Paisley 5 Mile Point Caves (35LK3400) in southeastern Oregon represent the earliest traces of human occupation in the Great Basin and predate the Clovis tradition (13,390 to 12,810 years BP). At Paisley Cave 3, mastodon tusks and fragments were found with obsidian lithic materials (from non-local sources) around the periphery of a U-shaped living surface, and at Cave 5, camel, horse, bison, mountain sheep, fish, and waterfowl bones were recovered in conjunction with coprolites and tools providing radiocarbon dates from 16,190 to 13,030 years BP. Analysis of coprolites revealed that all of these animals were consumed in addition to sage-grouse, desert parsley, goosefoot, sunflower, cactus, and rose hips (Aikens et al. 2011:51–53, Grayson 2011:61, NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016). The Paisley Caves are also the earliest appearance of cordage with radiocarbon dates ranging from 12,700 to 10,200 years BP (NRAF 2015, Connolly et al. 2016:493).
However, the search for a pre-Clovis archaeological record elsewhere in the Great Basin is ongoing and potential sites thus far have been unable to meet the criteria for pre-Clovis temporal placement. According to Grayson (2011) and McGuire and Hildebrandt (2016), a pre-Clovis site must be able to confirm that the finding is truly archaeological, has been firmly dated through a reliable means, is free from disturbance, and is published with a level of detail that allows an independent analysis. Clovis projectile points are relatively common in the Great Basin after 12,000 years BP, and usually occur in isolated contexts, but can be found in larger concentrations like the Sunshine Locality in eastern Nevada. Other artifacts associated with this period are Folsom and Great Basin Stemmed Points, bifacial blanks, knives, scrapers, crescents, punches, gravers, and in rare cases milling slabs and hand stones. Period sites and isolates are typically found adjacent to wetland habitats, indicating that human populations likely adapted to lacustrine resources in addition to hunting. Cordage from the Bonneville Estates Rock-shelter in northeastern Nevada suggests that nets may have been used for fishing or hunting small game. Sites are more common during the latter part of the period and there are shifts in settlement patterns with people exploiting inland resources and occupying rock-shelters away from wetlands (NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Early Archaic Period (8,000 to 6,000 years BP)
The Early Archaic period corresponds to the Middle Holocene. It is referred to by some researchers, especially in the northwestern Great Basin, as the Post-Mazama period because the beginning of the period roughly coincides with the eruption of Mount Mazama, which spread an ash layer over much of the region. As lakes dried up during this period, populations became more mobile and used short-term seasonal camps that shifted locations depending on the availability of resources. Some of the driest areas of the central
Great Basin appear to have been abandoned completely. However, populations were not as mobile as they were during the Paleo-Indian period and “selective sedentism” was practiced in which camps moved only when necessary. People generally lived in small groups containing several nuclear families with hunting and foraging parties being sent out to acquire resources. Foraging occurred mainly in upland areas that were not adversely affected by the change in climatic conditions (NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Great Basin Stemmed Points disappear from the archaeological record and are replaced with Northern Side-notched, Pinto, and Humboldt projectile points, indicating a transition from spears to dart technologies used in conjunction with the atlatl (McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016). Elko Series points appear in the eastern Great Basin during this period, but do not appear in the western Great Basin until the Middle Archaic (Hockett 1995). Other artifacts present in Early Archaic assemblages include woven baskets and trays (sometimes stylized and/or of the coiled variety), nets, snares, hafted knives, bone awls and needles, and steep-edged scrapers, and there is an increase in the presence of groundstone implements like pestles and V-shaped bowls. The increase in groundstone suggests an increased reliance on seeds and piñon nuts. Important Early Archaic sites from this period include the Gatecliff Rock-shelter in central Nevada and the O’Malley Rock-shelter and Bonneville Estates shelter in eastern Nevada (NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016). Other areas of the Great Basin were affected differently by changing conditions, but generally peoples adapted by reverting to small, highly mobile groups using expedient technologies. These sites are often characterized by small hunting camps with shallow hearths and stone working areas (Aikens et al. 2011:79, Grayson 2011:302, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Middle Archaic Period (6,000 to 1,500 years BP)
The stabilization of temperatures with increased precipitation at the outset of the Late Holocene resulted in increased biotic productivity within some of the region’s lakes and marshes. This led to the formation of larger populations with increased sedentism and a shift in settlement and subsistence patterns, referred to by some researchers as the “transHolocene highpoint.” Around 4,500 years BP the increased population density resulted in a settlement hierarchy, with lowland residential bases containing house pits and upland root camps with collecting stations, and logistical hunting sites. Intensive fishing, hunting, seed collection, and processing activities created a surplus of food that was stored in largevolume storage pits (Aikens et al. 2011:80–108, NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Important period sites include the and Eastgate Cave in central Nevada; Gypsum cave in southern Nevada; South Fork Rock-Shelter, Gatecliff Rock-Shelter, and Pie Creek Rockshelter in northeastern Nevada near Elko; and Newark Cave in White Pine County. Several of these sites, like the South Fork and Newark rock shelters, have produced invalid artifact associations due to soil disturbances, which has led to difficulties with temporal placement. However, these sites also contain Archaic and Fremont components like points and pottery indicating continued occupation into later periods (NRAF 2015, Madsen and Berry 1975, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Artifact assemblages include Elko, Northern Side-notched, Gatecliff, Humboldt, Western Stemmed, and foliate projectile points; bifaces; obsidian cores, scrapers, drills, net weighs, bone/antler awls, flaking tools, and fishhooks; groundstone; marine shell (Haliotis sp. and Olivella sp.), stone, and bone beads; and pendants. Groundstone implements are common and include mortars, pestles, manos, and metates. The presence of spire-lopped Olivella sp. shell beads and Haliotis sp. shell ornaments from the Pacific Coast indicates increased levels of exchange. Technological changes include smaller dart points, the replacement of V-shaped bowls with U-shaped variants, and an emphasis on large bifaces from quarried sources. Additionally, populations were regularly targeting the same quarry locales repeatedly with the most notable being the Tosawihi (“White Knife”) quarry. The Tosawihi is the only quarry in the Great Basin with a definitive ethnohistoric reference to the Shoshone, and it contains a white, opalitic tool stone that stands out in assemblages. Faunal and botanical remains associated with period sites include seeds; waterfowl; and large mammal bones like mule deer, pronghorn, and elk (Aikens et al. 2011:80–108, NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Late Archaic Period (1,500 to 700 years BP)
The Late Archaic period coincides with a time during the Late Holocene when climatic temperatures fluctuated drastically. Profound cultural changes occurred during this period that appear to have disrupted settlement and subsistence patterns by having a consolidating effect on populations throughout the Great Basin. However, while some researchers argue that the shifting climate was the catalyst of cultural change, others argue that is may have also been the result of natural population increases, resource intensification, ethnic displacements (Numic or Fremont expansions), changes in technology, social conflict, or a combination of these (NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
The archaeological record reflects these changes in documentation of large increases in site sizes. Summer villages were established in the uplands and high alpine environments that were previously used as temporary hunting camps. The introduction of the bow-andarrow, which disseminated from the Columbia Plateau, is also a technological hallmark of the Late Archaic period. Projectile point sequences are marked by a series of small, corner-notched styles referred to as Rose Spring, Eastgate, or Rosegate, but there is generally continuity with Middle Archaic styles. Elko and Gatecliff points still appear prominently but are gradually phased out toward the end of the period. Intensification of standardized bifaces also continues from the previous period with use of localized quarries like Tosawihi. Local cherts and other cryptocrystalline silicates were the preferred tool stone while obsidian disappears from assemblages almost entirely. Concurrent with the introduction of the bow-and-arrow was the introduction of ceramic technology and a decrease in the complexity of basketry. Faunal assemblages reflect intensification as there are increases in several lower ranked foods like rabbits, hares, and ground squirrels (NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Formative Period (1,500 to 700 years BP)
Overlapping with the Late Archaic period in the eastern Great Basin is the Formative period, which is characterized by the introduction of the Fremont culture. Parowan Fremont peoples migrated into parts of eastern Nevada from Utah about 1,600 years BP and some researchers suggest this migration may be associated with the introduction of ceramic technologies. Fremont peoples were horticulturists that cultivated maize, beans, and squash (the three sisters), the ultimate expression of precontact resource intensification. Maize disseminated north from Mexico around 4,500 years BP, reached Puebloan peoples in the Four Corners region by 2,500 years BP, and reached Utah and eastern Nevada by the Late Archaic period. The Fremont lived in permanent or semi-permanent villages on defensible cliff faces. They used semi-subterranean pithouses, as well as stone and adobe storage structures. Their material culture included one-rod-and-bundle basketry, split-twig figurines, grayware pottery, triangular-bodied anthromorphs, moccasins, and “Utah” trough milling stones. Projectile point technologies included Rosegate like their neighbors to the west, but also Bull Creek, Parowan, Basal-notched, and Bear River Side-notched points. Typically, eastern Nevada manifestations of the Fremont culture are surface scatters at short-term camps or limited-activity areas. However, there are known village sites like the Baker Village site and several potential villages at the Franklin Marshes. The Fremont disappeared around 700 years BP, but the reason for the decline and ultimate disappearance is unclear (Grayson 2011:328–330, NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Late/Terminal Precontact Period (700 years BP to Contact)
The Late or Terminal Precontact period corresponds to the second drought period of the MCA and is typically characterized by the eastern and northern spread of Numic peoples from the western Great Basin. Numic peoples from the western basin maintained a mobile hunter-forager settlement-subsistence pattern that was more conducive to the drier conditions. Hallmark diagnostic artifacts of the period are Desert Series projectile points such as Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood, as well as brownware pottery. Except for a few larger sites, like those at Little Boulder Basin, settlement systems became more dispersed and were smaller, short-term occupations serving individual family units. Domestic and residential activities were generally confined to an apron surrounding a house structure or hearth. A good example of this site type is the Tule Valley Rock-shelter near Elko, which contains a single component Numic occupation. The artifact assemblage is small, but large enough to serve a single family-band with milling stones, flaked stone implements, pottery, bone beads, and very little debitage. Procurement of tool stone appears to have been opportunistic with groups exploiting any usable stone available. Other sites include Pottery lin and Ridge Village North in Grass Valley, which extend into the historic period. Unless sites of this period were used into the ethnohistoric period, they are typically very ephemeral and difficult to recognize in multicomponent contexts (Warren and Crabtree 1986, Wells et al. 2013, NRAF 2015, McGuire and Hildebrandt 2016).
Ethnohistoric Context
The proposed Project falls within the ancestral lands of the Newe peoples, or Western Shoshone. The Western Shoshone are part of the central Numic branch of the UtoAztecan language family with ancestral lands extending northeast from Death Valley in California to the southern boundary of Idaho. Their ancestral lands are bordered by the Goshute to the east; Numu or Northern Paiute, Owens Valley Paiute/Shoshone, and Tubatulabal to the west; the Kawaiisu, Nuwvi or Southern Paiute, and Panamint Shoshone to the south and southeast; the Northern Shoshone to the north; and the Eastern Shoshone to the northeast (NRAF 2015). Background information on the Western Shoshone is discussed below.
Newe, or Western Shoshone, People
Up until the mid-19th century, Newe peoples, like other groups within the Great Basin, were usually organized into band-sized, mobile hunter-gatherer groups with names and identities that reflected where they lived and/or what they ate. Newe, meaning “The People,” have been ascribed the name “Shoshone” by Euro-Americans during the 19th century. Some of the tribal and band names known through ethnographic sources (also ascribed by others) include the Goshute (Kusiutta), named for the frequent dust storms in their territory; the TɨPattɨkka, meaning eaters of pine nuts; and the Tosawihi (White Knife Shoshone), meaning white knife carriers. Outsiders also referred to Western Shoshone (Shoshoko) as Walkers, Root-Diggers, or Diggers. These latter names, which were also ascribed to other Indigenous groups, are generally considered derogatory. According to Newe Tribal histories, they have lived and hunted in their homelands in the Great Basin since time immemorial (Clemmer 1991, Green 2015:36, NRAF 2015, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018).
According to ethnographic studies conducted by Julian Steward (1941:211-212), there were a number of Newe localities in what is now Nevada. These localities were not bands or political groups, but independent villages. In northeastern Nevada, these localities referenced by their modern locations included Hamilton, Elko, Spring Valley, Ruby Valley, Egan, Battle Mountain, and Ely. Newe names of terrain features in the vicinity of Egan and Ely are documented on mid-to-late-19th century maps of the region: the Onkowean or Ungoweah mountains are now also known as the Duck Creek Range, and the Piowan mountains and valley are now also known as the southern part of the Egan Range and Jakes Valley, respectively (Bancroft and Knight 1864, Gibbes and Holt 1869).
Individual family households, which in many cases including extended family, were the principal socioeconomic units among the Newe. Kinship ties were fluid and expanded to other groups so an individual could leave one group and join another, but people generally stayed with the group they were born into or married into. Polygyny and polyandry were sometimes practiced and the Newe could have more than one wife or husband (NRAF 2015, Barker 2016). However, there was a great deal of variation in marital practices such as the degree of relationship for a spouse. Some groups put taboos on relationships up to the second or third degree, while others preferred cross-cousin marriages. Sororate and levirate relationships, where a widow or widower married the brother or sister of their
partner, were also practiced but with varying degrees of enforcement. There was also no true bride price and gifts provided to a bride’s family prior to marriage were reciprocated by the groom’s family. Some bands like the Tosawihi practiced temporary matrilocality but permanent residence generally depended upon available food supplies, the locations of other relatives, and individual preferences. Men could also obtain a wife by abducting her, married or unmarried, or fighting another man who claimed possession of the woman (Clemmer 1991, Steward 1941:252).
The sizes of households depended on seasonal movements; from spring through fall, groups remained smaller and mobile with households coming together during winter months to form villages. Familial units and villages were advised by leaders selected for their wisdom and success; Newe leaders or spokesmen were called teg’wani. Authority of leaders was commensurate on the type of political group and/or occasion. Some leaders controlled bands in their cooperative affairs like communal festivals and some were selected to take charge of smaller events like dances and rabbit drives. Leaders of larger villages within the Great Basin had little authority and mainly served as spokespersons to keep the community informed about important events. Succession of leaders was patrilineal but required the approval of the community (NRAF 2015, Barker 2016, Steward 1941:254).
Villages contained approximately 50 people, or up to 20 families, and were established in relatively warmer areas that reinforced locality-based group identities. However, it should be noted that component families frequently wintered in separate regions depending on where they ended up after procuring resources during the summer and fall (Steward 1941:254). Resources were pooled and stored in caches for use throughout the winter. Caches were sometimes robbed, but if a person was caught stealing winter stores they could be killed. Winter houses were conical huts (pole lodges) and were sometimes dug into the ground 2 to 3 feet, as were the semi-subterranean sweathouses used by the Newe for gatherings and/or ceremonies. Sweathouses at localities near Steptoe Valley were more recently adopted from the Ute to the east. Winter houses were designed to accommodate one family or six persons. The structures were framed with poles and covered with bark, grass, or woven mats with a tier of stone around the outer edge for support. There were smoke holes at the apex of the structures and an entrance that faced away from prevailing winds. Caves, rock shelters, or simple brush structures were used during the summer. House arrangement in winter villages was random and those in temporary camps were built in a circle around a central dance ground. Houses were abandoned after a tribal member passed away (NRAF 2015, Barker 2016, Steward 1941:232-234). Some villages kept eagle aeries in cages to be used for their feathers in making arrows, trade, and adornment. Capturing an eagle or nest was a dangerous endeavor reserved for those possessing special climbing power (Steward 1941:224).
The Newe had a gender-based division of labor in which men hunted for the group and women gathered seeds, pine nuts, geophytes, grasses, and other plant resources. Each person typically made their own objects or tools for use and owned those objects because they applied the effort to make it – a principle applied to all types of property. Men made equipment necessary for hunting, like arrows and stone tools, while women made items like baskets for food preparation and storage. The gender division was not entirely rigid,
with men and women working together at times to gather resources, work hides, make nets for fishing, and participate in communal rabbit drives. Generally, men’s tasks did not occupy a significant amount of time and they helped women with many duties such as pine-nut gathering where men used beaters to knock the nuts from the trees while women would catch them with woven baskets or trays (NRAF 2015, Barker 2016, Steward 1941:253-254). Berdaches or transvestites were not common but known to every group and were not regarded with distain but mild interest. These individuals would merely undertake the duties, dress, and mannerisms of the opposite sex. Generally, they did not marry but there are some accounts of them having children (Steward 1941:252).
As mentioned earlier, Newe subsistence relied on hunting and gathering, which was often difficult in the Great Basin. Large game animals often inhabited the mountainous areas and were scarce in the valleys. The most important game animals were the deer, antelope, and mountain sheep, which were usually hunted by stalking, trailing, and ambushing. Large game could also be hunted using pit traps or corrals concealed by brush wings. Hunters would drive the animals to the trap or corral where other hunters were waiting to make the kill. This could also be achieved through deer or antelope charming where a shaman would draw the animal to the hunters by singing. Rams could be attracted to hunters by thumping logs together in order to simulate a ram fight. Although traps, nets, and snares could be used for larger game, they were mainly used to capture small game animals and birds. These methods were most often employed in communal rabbit or waterfowl drives and sometimes fishing if a group was near a river like the Humboldt. Those who could not hunt normally had to subsist on rodents, reptiles, insects, and seeds. Every part of the animal was utilized in one way or another. Aside from seed gathering, horticulture was practiced around Steptoe Valley during the Late Period having been introduced from the south and the east. Small gardens were cultivated near water sources when available, but irrigation was also utilized. Crops included corn (maic), pumpkins, several varieties of squash (padaƞada), muskmelons (kamitu), sunflowers (a:kű), a variety of beans, and watermelons (pavonokutc) (Steward 1941:218-232)
The material culture of the Newe lacked tools like axes, wedges, and adzes utilized by neighboring tribes, but nonetheless, they did have a substantial tool kit at their disposal. Ethnographic and archaeological data indicate the use of spoons, dippers, knives, scrapers, awls, drills, mortars, metates, arrows, shaft straighteners, bows, pottery, and baskets among others. Bows were generally used for hunting rather than war, mainly because war was infrequent prior to contact with Euro-Americans. There were three types of willow or juniper bows utilized by the Newe: self, sinew-backed wood, and sinew-backed horn. Pottery was used by all Newe groups but was not as prevalent as basketry, which was more suitable to the nomadic lifestyle due to its light weight and versatility. Basketry was primarily made from willow and was either twined or coiled. Twilling was also used, but only for the manufacture of the bases for water ollas (otsa). Besides ollas, basketry was used for seed beaters (tsiƞgu or dziƞgu), winnowing or parching trays, conical seed baskets (wá:sa), cradles, burdens, and hats (sunadidoi) for protection from piñon sap and
the tumpline of burdens. 11 There are many stylistic variations in Newe basketry ollas; those made around the Ely locality contained a decorative band near the top and bottom, were approximately 12.5 inches tall, 11 inches in diameter tapering to 2 inches at the spout, and were made with diagonal twining (Steward 1941:238-244)
Other than communal hunts, different villages and household groups from different villages would gather at times for important events like dances and social gatherings (NRAF 2015, Barker 2016). One of these gatherings was the annual, six-day Gwini festival that was held in conjunction with harvests before the onset of winter. Gatherings like the Gwini were important for reestablishing or maintaining kinship ties, arranging marriages, trading, exchanging information, recounting histories, and reinforcing religious beliefs (Clemmer 1991, Barker 2016). Another important social aspect of these communal gatherings were games, which included the ball race (su:tako’in), shinney (naditoindua), the ring-and-pin game (totokoindui), the hand game/four-stick guessing game (naiyawina), four-stick dice (danzahni), and several others (Steward 1941:247-250). The Gwini was replaced with a July 4th pow-wow in 1915 and evolved into a “fandango” during the mid-20th century, which combined traditional practices like round dances and singing with other events like rodeos (Clemmer 1991, Barker 2016). The back-and-forth dance and exhibition dance, and the sun dance were also performed during these gatherings but were adopted from neighboring tribes and were short lived (Steward 1941:266).
Newe beliefs are centered on the people’s relationship with the natural world. Physical nature sustains life with power and spirits found in plants, animals, mountains, rocks, caves, springs, lakes, and phenomena such as lightning. If not controlled, these powers and spirits could be dangerous, but people could also seek their aid for good health, success, or a desired skill such as climbing power, luck in gambling, longevity, and invulnerability (Vander 1995, NRAF 2015, Steward 1941:264). For example, spirits or power could be attained from the bighorn sheep to help establish virility and hunting prowess (Whitley 1982). Following a spirit vision or dream, power could be obtained through song and dance, which facilitated its transfer from the spirit to the people (Vander 1995, Steward 1941:257). Shamans had the strongest connections with the physical and spiritual world. They could cause harm or cure illnesses and exact a degree of control over the natural world through spirits they obtained (NRAF 2015). Some special powers of shamans included curing rattlesnake bites, closing wounds, letting blood, using a fire drill for curing, aiding childbirth, altering the weather, and capturing animals. However, shamans were usually not requested unless a person was unresponsive to home remedies indicating that the cause of ailment was supernatural such as loss of the soul or witchcraft (Steward 1941:258-260). Death customs varied and a person could be buried, abandoned in their house if a camp was being moved, or cremated. Burial was the most common method and often people would be buried in a rockslide if in a mountainous area (Steward 1941:256).
The numerous myths, legends, and stories of the Newe help explain the relationship of the people with the world around them. One of the most important is the creation story in which
Coyote and Wolf were the most prominent beings and water was the most primal element of nature (Steward 1941:267). Coyote populated the earth with people by letting them out of a jug at different areas throughout the Great Basin during his travels. Coyote is also known as a trickster and was responsible for introducing death into the world and ending the age when animals were like people (Sutton 1993, NRAF 2015). Wolf (ija) was the brother of coyote and was considered to be a benevolent being sometimes referred to as Father (ap:ə). Some beliefs include Wolf as presiding over the afterlife, although this is not universal (Steward 1941:263).
Indigenous Context
First contact between the Newe and Euro-Americans occurred between 1827 and 1846, when many fur trappers and explorers traversed the Great Basin. However, few explorers, trappers, or miners penetrated the Great Basin prior to 1850 (Steward 1941:210). Thereafter, settlers streamed through the territory on their way to the goldfields of California (Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018). In 1851 Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act, establishing the formation of reservations, but at the time this was a concern only for settled areas like California. As travel through the Great Basin grew, so did the number of skirmishes between Native Americans and settlers along the trails. Each side began to view the other as a threat to its way of life that had to be dealt with, and in 1858 this culminated in the Pyramid Lake War. In 1859 Utah Territory’s Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Jacob Forney, negotiated a treaty with the Tosawihi Newe for travel rights in what is now eastern Nevada. The following year, Utah Territory’s chief agent from the Office of Indian Affairs, Frederick Dodge, created the Pyramid Lake and Walker River Reservations in what is now western Nevada, foreshadowing later events in the east (Green 2015:75–76, Barker 2016).
In 1859, while Forney was negotiating travel rights through the Great Basin, Colonel Edward Steptoe and his cavalry were dispatched to what would later become eastern Nevada to retaliate against Newe people for attacking the stage station at Egan Pass among other depredations. Colonel Steptoe tracked the Native Americans to Hercules Gap, to the north of what is now the City of Ely, and surrounded their position. Part of the cavalry went through Hercules Gap from the east and pushed the Native Americans out the west end where the remainder of Colonel Steptoe’s forces were waiting in ambush. Eighty-two Native Americans were killed in what was considered the “last Indian battle in eastern Nevada” and their bodies were left in place as a warning. Accounts tell of only two survivors: one Native American who took the name of Dave McQuiddy, proprietor of the Georgetown Ranch (later, part of the Ely townsite) where he later worked as a ranch hand; and “Potato John”, who lived in a small village near Cherry Creek (Tonopah Weekly Bonanza 1909, Reno Evening Gazette 1910).
In 1861 agent Warren Wasson was sent by Nevada Territory Governor James Nye to meet with the Newe leader, Tu-tu-wa, who presided over a band of more than 400 warriors in the Reese River Valley. Initially, an informal agreement was reached in which the Newe would cease attacking travelers and allow them to use their resources in exchange for no loss of land. However, this agreement would not suffice because the United States was working on plans for a transcontinental railroad through the region and had to ensure no
interference from the Native Americans. In 1863, Nye and federal Indian agents met with the Western Shoshone led by Te-Moak and signed the Treaty of Ruby Valley. The Shoshone agreed to cease hostilities against whites in exchange for annual payments of $5,000 in cash, cattle, or other merchandise as compensation for disruption of their food supply (Green 2015:75–76, Barker 2016, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018).
The Shoshone expected that any reservations created would allow them to stay in the valleys where they lived for thousands of years, but they were forced to relocate to the Ruby Valley Reservation with Northern Paiutes in modern-day Elko County (Green 2015:75–76, Barker 2016, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018). Additionally, annual payments established in the Treaty of Ruby Valley were not made to the Western Shoshone after the initial disbursement. As a result, two Shoshone bands did not submit to the treaty and were subsequently hunted down by federal troops at Duck Creek and the Cleveland Ranch in the Schell Creek Range (Reno Evening Gazette 1932). The army unit was led by Brigadier General Patrick Connor who ordered his troops to “give no quarter” resulting in the slaughter of the entire village. The atrocity was reported as reprisal for the robbing of the Pony Express and the scalps of the murdered Native Americans were nailed to the stage station as a warning. Connor was court martialed for these crimes but acquitted by senior officers (Hudgins 1906).
The 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley was the only Newe treaty to be ratified by Congress and it did not include any articles concerning the Newe ceding land. Therefore, it was understood by the Newe that they were granted ownership of what became eastern Nevada. However, as settlers began inhabiting the region, they claimed the most fertile areas for themselves, resulting in conflict (Barker 2016, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018). By 1875 the first reservation, Carlin Farms, was established exclusively for the Western Shoshone people. Carlin Farms closed in 1879, two years after the Duck Valley Reservation was established for the Western Shoshone and Northern Paiute (Barker 2016). Initially, the Duck Valley reservation was supposed to be exclusive to Western Shoshone, but less than one-third of the people were coerced to live there, so it was opened to Northern Paiutes (Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018). Those who did not live on the reservations lived on the outskirts of towns like Ely and were subjected to depredations by the settlers. In one instance, the Shoshone at Ely threatened revolt because whites were using Shoshone women for “base purposes” (Reno Evening Gazette 1888). Over the next four decades, numerous reservations were established throughout Nevada: Fort McDermitt (1892), Fallon (1906 and 1917), Reno-Sparks (1917), Bishop (1913), Fort Independence (1915), and Big Pine (1922) (Barker 2016).
Although many reservations were created prior to 1930, such as the Ibapah Reservation (now part of the Confederated Tribes of the Goshutes), only a relatively small number of Native Americans lived on them and were provided with a means to live. Some Native Americans also lived in colonies like the Elko Colony, Battle Mountain Colony, Wells Colony, and Ely Colony that provided housing for Native Americans near towns or cities, but these colonies did not provide resources to support economic activities (Rusco 1991, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018, Utah Division of Indian Affairs 2019). The initial size of the Ely Colony was only 10 acres on mostly steep terrain to the south of the town and only water services were provided (Reno Evening Gazette 1929). Generally, the
Western Shoshone found work at ranches for low pay, but they also developed skills that would eventually help them to establish their own ranches (Rusco 1991, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018, Utah Division of Indian Affairs 2019). The pay was not enough to make a living, so traditional methods of subsistence were used to compensate. Pinenuts, which appear in abundance approximately every three years, were gathered in the mountains surrounding Ely for consumption or sale, and hunting parties would come to the Steptoe Valley from as far as Utah for deer and sagehen. The latter activity was a point of contention that led to disagreements about whether or not Native Americans had to abide by Nevada hunting laws and in some instances, fines were unjustly levied for hunting out of season (Reno Evening Gazette 1937 and 1939) Other than hunting, fishing, and gathering, people would also conduct communal enka-cippah “red prairie dog” hunts while irrigating fields. Like traditional rabbit drives, one member of a group would flood the field to drive the prairie dogs from their holes while the rest of the group captured them (Clemmer 1991).
The impetus for change occurred in 1933 when John Collier was appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs and sought to protect Native Americans rather than force assimilation. The following year, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (also called the Wheeler-Howard Act or Indian New Deal) outlined provisions for the establishment of tribal governments on reservations to be formally recognized by the United States and provided appropriations for the creation of new reservations and additions to existing ones. Following the act, the Duckwater, South Fork, and Yomba Reservations were created in Western Shoshone territory, as well as the Ely Shoshone Tribal Reservation in White Pine County, Nevada. Then in 1938, United States vs. McGowan established that colonies were legally equivalent to reservations and established as trust territories eligible for aid and services (Rusco 1991, Ely Shoshone Tribe undated). The same year, the South Fork Reservation joined with the Elko, Battle Mountain, and Wells Colonies to adopt a constitution forming the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, which was recognized by the federal government (Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018). In 1977, after nearly 10 years of deliberations, a measure was passed which increased Ely Colony lands by 90 acres and provided funds for housing and economic development within the Ely Colony and Duckwater Reservation (Reno Evening Gazette 1969, 1972, and 1977). In 1994 the Ely Shoshone Tribe (undated) negotiated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Services to start self-governance as a sovereign nation.
Properties of Traditional Religious and Cultural Significance/Importance
The NHPA and the 36 CFR Part 800 regulations implementing it refer to “properties of traditional religious and cultural significance” and “properties of traditional religious and cultural importance.” These two terms are synonymous: geographic places prominent in a particular group’s cultural practices, beliefs, or values, when those practices, beliefs or values: (1) are widely shared within the group, (2) have been passed down through the generations, and (3) have served a recognized role in maintaining the group’s cultural identity for at least 50 years.
Traditional cultural places or properties (TCPs) can be traditional religious and culturally important resources that meet the NRHP criteria (U S C Title 16 Section 470w-5, 36 CFR §800.16(l)) and have significance to tribes.
TCPs and other cultural resources can be components of traditional or tribal cultural landscapes (TCLs). TCLs are any place in which a relationship, past or present, exists between a spatial area, resource, and an associated group of indigenous people whose cultural practices, beliefs, or identity connects them to that place. Therefore, TCLs may be inclusive of multiple cultural components, that together comprise a single landscape, such as archaeological artifacts, that may have significance to the Western Shoshone through a relationship with a TCP, and/or properties of traditional religious and cultural importance/significance (ACHP 2020, Ball et al. 2015).
It should be noted, however, that these resource types are not property types considered under the NHPA or NRHP regulations; rather, they represent a type of significance that can be applied to property types considered under NHPA or NRHP. Historic property types are limited to those specified in the NHPA and the NRHP regulations and include districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects. TCPs and other traditional religious and culturally important resources are most often identified as sites or districts. For Native American tribes, these types of significance are determined through government-to-government consultation and information regarding them is often confidential and only shared at the discretion of the individual tribe.
Euro-American Context
American settlement in what was to become White Pine County dates to 1860, when the Pony Express built Ruby Station along the Simpson-Egan Trail / Central Overland Trail. The Pony Express was short-lived; nevertheless, the way stops created along the mail routes became a framework for settlement. Between 1860 and 1865, the small settlement that began to form around Ruby Station was the only populated place in what was to become White Pine County. Then in 1865, the White Pine Mining District was formed, and the town of Hamilton grew at its center. During the 1860s, scattered mining camps and Pony Express stations dotted the landscape and stage, wagon, and freight trails crisscrossed the region, linking them together. The influx of settlers led to conflict with the Native peoples and a fort was established at Schellbourne (Elliott 1939:145–146, Green 2015:77, Hall 1994:118).
Hamilton and the White Pine Mining District grew rapidly because of the “White Pine Rush” and mining prospects around Treasure Hill. Like the California Gold Rush and the Comstock Lode, thousands of people flocked to Hamilton and made it one of the largest towns in the West by the late 1860s. The rapid population increase led to the demand for organized governance of the region and White Pine County was created on April 1, 1869, with Hamilton as the county seat. The county took its name from the mining district, which took its name from White Pine Mountain. The White Pine Rush ended in the 1870s, but new discoveries in the region at areas like Cherry Creek promoted new growth (Elliott 1939:145–147, Hall 1994:118).
Generally, early White Pine County was a collection of mining communities relying almost exclusively on silver production, but ores also contained copper, iron, lead, and antimony. Mining districts booming and busting following the White Pine District included the Ward District (1876–1880), the Cherry Creek District (1880–1885), the Taylor District (1885–1888), the Osceola District, and the Robinson District. The development of towns coincided with the rise and fall of these mining districts. For example, Hamilton was the largest town in the county from 1865 to approximately 1872. Production of the mines had already declined, and people were leaving in droves. A cigar store owner set fire to his store in 1873 for the insurance money and the fire engulfed the whole town. The town of Treasure City suffered the same fate and was never rebuilt. Hamilton was rebuilt but never fully recovered and was disincorporated in 1875. By 1885 debt and other disasters plagued the town, and in 1887 the county seat was transferred to Ely (Elliott 1939:150–167).
The decline of silver mining began during the mid-1880s and was mainly due to a decline in the price of silver after the past two decades of mining flooded the world market. Another local factor was a decline in the number of high-grade ores, which reduced profitability further. This would have been the end for most towns in White Pine County; however, agricultural and ranching possibilities were being realized in areas like the Robinson District. The agricultural, cattle, and sheep industries were able to maintain the economies of towns like Ely until the next big mining boom took hold after the turn of the 20th century. Between the years 1888 and 1907, wool was the county’s number one resource (Elliott 1939:158–60).
After 1907, copper mining surpassed stock raising and fueled growth within the county, especially after the development of the NNR. More than $1 billion worth of copper had been produced from White Pine County mines during the first half of the 20th century, but the industry eventually declined because of a combination of low copper prices, low-grade ore, and government regulations. The county also saw some activity in oil drilling during the mid-20th century, but production was generally low. Mining bounced back during the late 20th century with the advent of microscopic gold mining, and old silver and copper mines began producing more than 1 million ounces of gold per year, and to date 752 mines are recorded in the county. Today, White Pine County’s economy is still fueled by mining and ranching, as well as recreation. Every year tourists head to the region to explore the Lehman Caves, visit various ghost towns, or take a ride on the “ghost train” at East Ely’s Nevada Northern Railway Museum. White Pine County also contains Great Basin National Park one of the newest national parks in the United States (Elliott 1939:158–160, Hall 1994:118, Picard 2009, Western Mining History 2020).
Ely (Mineral City, Georgetown Ranch, Murray Creek Station)
Mineral City
Mining discoveries in the area around what would one day become Ely occurred as early as 1864 and was centered at Mineral City (Elliott 1966:174, Hall 1994:144–145). Mineral City began as a stage stop near Copper Flat in Robinson Canyon and was developed into a mining camp using materials from the town of Ward, which was in decline at the time (Garaghan 1906:11). In 1874, the population dropped due to declining ore values, but mining operations continued through the 1870s. The Watson Company even opened a
new mill and processed ore from mines like the Silver Star near Hercules Gap (Nevada State Journal 1874, Hall 1994:164).
Georgetown Ranch
While Mineral City was beginning to develop, George Morley brought a contingent of Mormon settlers to Steptoe Valley along Murray Creek between Hercules Gap and what would one day be East Ely (Ballandby 2008:66). The group settled on approximately 2,300 acres and named the area “George’s Town”, which later became Georgetown Ranch abutting the southeast portion of the study area. Some sources (Nevada State Journal 1950a) state that the town was named after Morley while others (Ballandby 2008:66) say it was named after George Cannon, the first president of the Church of Latter Day Saints. It was the first ranch in the area and played an important role in the development of Ely. During the early 20th century, it was considered one of the finest ranches in eastern Nevada where hogs and cattle were raised in conjunction with a large, cultivated area for growing alfalfa (The White Pine News 1921). The ranch also had water rights to Murray Creek, Steptoe Creek, and Warm Springs, as well as grazing rights for 1,485 animal units per month. Additional grazing rights were also purchased annually by the ranch for surrounding BLM lands (Nevada State Journal 1950b). The Ely Townsite Company purchased the Georgetown Ranch and leased it to numerous owners throughout the 20th century (The White Pine News 1907).
Murray Creek Station / Ely
Several miles to the east of Mineral City was a small stage stop known as Murray Creek Station, controlled by Harry Featherstone, with the water rights controlled by J.R. Withington. Murray Creek Station consisted of a few cabins and a post office when George Lamb platted it as a townsite in 1870 and took control of the water rights. In 1878 Murray Creek Station, with a population between 25 and 30, was also renamed Ely in honor of Smith Ely, the president of the Selby Mining Company (White Pine County undated, Elliott 1966:174, Hall 1994:144–145). Other accounts state that Ely was named after Congressman Alfred Ely of New York, who had a mining interest in the town (Garaghan 1906:11), or frontiersman John Ely, who loaned A.J. Underhill $5,000 to purchase the land where Ely was eventually built (Cook and Deane undated:8, Garaghan 1906:11, Elliott 1966:174, Hall 1994:144–145). During the 1880s, silver discoveries in the region bolstered Ely’s population, making it the next White Pine County boom town. After Ely was designated as the new county seat, the town grew at a steady pace and had a population of more than 300 by 1890 (Elliott 1939:160, Hall 1994:145).
Electric power was first introduced to Ely through the Chainman Mining and Electric Company, which was part of the Robinson Mining District. In 1892, the owners of the Chainman mine built a small mill with a Pelton wheel for a dynamo that was designed to run an electric tramway between the mines and the mill (The White Pine News 1892). The mine was then purchased by J.G. Marx in 1900 and incorporated as the Chainman Mining and Electric Company, which maintained an electric light plant (The White Pine News 1900 and 1906a).
Ely might have suffered the fate of other mining boom towns in the area if it did not have ranching to maintain it when silver production decreased. However, vast copper reserves uncovered during the late 19th century revitalized Ely’s mining industry and, after the turn of the 20th century, the copper boom transformed it into a regional center of commerce. After construction of the NNR in 1906, Ely really began to grow, and reports of the copper production attracted many people seeking either work in the mines or business prospects in town (Hall 1994:145).
Following the decline of the copper industry in the wake of World War I, the population of Ely diminished, but rose again after the mines reopened during the 1940s (Hall 1994:145). Following the closure of the Kennecott Copper Company in the 1960s, Ely’s population declined to 4,500, but was stabilized in the 1970s and 1980s by projects like the development of a power plant and the construction of rural subdivisions like Cross Timbers and Hercules Gate. During the late 1980s, construction began on the Ely State Prison with initial operations starting in 1989, which provided an additional economic boost (Reno Evening Gazette 1989).
McGill
McGill is best known as the smelting site during the 20th century copper boom, but it was initially a ranch. John Cowger founded the ranch in 1872 and began cultivating grain using the area’s relatively limited water resources. By 1880 the Cowger Ranch controlled all the water rights in the area, which would make the property extremely valuable in the coming decades. In 1886 William Neil McGill and William Lyons, who co-founded the town of Taylor, purchased the ranch from Cowger, and made it one of the most prosperous ranches in White Pine County (White Pine County undated, Hall 1994:161). William McGill was a surveyor and engineer who came to Nevada from Ohio during the Comstock boom and worked on the Sutro (drainage) Tunnel there. Later, he came to White Pine County and conducted survey work for the Ely and Copper Flat townsites, then worked for the Martin White Company as a civil engineer in 1873.
Although the McGill Ranch was important for the area’s economy, it did not do much to facilitate growth of a town. The driving force behind development of McGill (originally called Smelterville) as a town was the $10 million smelter that was built there between 1906 and 1908 for the Steptoe Valley Smelting and Milling Company, and the construction of the NNR’s McGill depot. A year after opening, the McGill smelter employed 2,200 workers and the Steptoe Valley Company built modern facilities for its employees, opened several businesses, and made it the company headquarters. The company even organized a newspaper, the Copper Ore, and within a short time, McGill had become a company town (Hall 1994:161–162, Bassett and Bassett 2011:49–50).
By 1920 the population of McGill reached 2,850 and peaked around 3,000 during the early 1930s. The Great Depression had a devastating effect on the town, and it was never able to fully recover because of a decline in the copper industry. In 1955 the Nevada Consolidated Copper Company, which now owned the company town, sold the town lots, and relinquished governance of the town to White Pine County in 1956. The cost of upgrades to comply with new environmental regulations forced closure of the mill in the
early 1970s. The mill was completely dismantled and by the end of the 20th century, the population of McGill decreased to approximately 250 people (Hall 1994:161–162).
The Robinson, Duck Creek, and San Francisco Mining Districts
Portions of the APE are located within or near the historic Robinson, Duck Creek, and San Francisco Mining Districts. All three districts were formed in the late 1860s and underwent various degrees of development throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries. It is important to note that mining activities also occurred outside of these district boundaries, and historically, the Robinson District’s boundaries were much larger and once included wellknown localities like Copper Flat. These districts are discussed below in order of historical importance and development.
The Robinson Mining District and the 20th Century Copper Boom at Ely
Ely is the center of the Robinson Mining District, which was named for Thomas Robinson, who staked the first claim there in 1867. The district is also known as the Ruth, Kimberly, or Ely District (Smith 1976:64-65). Early mining in the area was focused on locating gold and silver; however, production was sporadic and limited. The Robinson District contained vast amounts of copper ore, but mining, smelting, and transporting the ore was unprofitable at the time. In 1873 the Selby Copper Company of Ohio, under Joseph Long, attempted to mine and process ore in Robinson Canyon, but the effort ultimately failed. Miners continued to file claims in the Robinson District, and by 1888, they had inadvertently exposed a huge copper deposit (Elliott 1966:174–175).
Edwin Gray and David Bartley arrived in 1900 after accepting jobs at the local Chainman mine working for Sam Shepherd. Gray was to become the chief engineer of the mine and Bartley the foreman. After arriving in Ely, Gray and Bartley decided to investigate the area on their own and recognized copper outcroppings at existing mining claims. Two mines were staked in 1897 and enough work had been completed previously to expose several deposits. The claims were optioned for only 90 days, so Gray and Bartley wasted no time in digging shafts and tunnels. They tunneled into the mountain more than 650 feet and encountered ore at 145 feet depth. (Elliott 1966:177).
Gray and Bartley managed to prove to themselves and many local miners that the copper deposit had depth, but they still had to convince investors. In 1902 a man by the name of Williams visited the mine, spent some time with Gray and Bartley, and then went on his way. Williams was actually J.B. Stevens in the employ of Mark Requa, who controlled the Eureka and Palisade Railroad. Interested in the prospect, Requa returned to the GrayBartley mine with Stevens and offered to option their claims for $150,000. Gray and Bartley accepted, but instead opted to take their payment in stock. In 1903 Requa formed the White Pine Copper Company under the laws of California with an initial capital of $500,000. The company included a total of 15 claims, thereafter, known as the Ruth Group, with Edwin Gray as superintendent (Elliott 1966:178–179).
Concurrent with the development of Requa’s Ruth Group mines were Martin’s Copper Flat mines, which incorporated in 1902 as the New York and Nevada Copper Company under the laws of New Jersey with a capital of $5 million. The company also owned the 560-acre
Georgetown Ranch that was to be used as a processing location. After spending $400,000 in development and nearly completing a smelter, the company encountered financial difficulties. It was bought out by the Loring and Sons banking house of Boston and reformed as the Boston and Nevada Copper Company. In 1904 Requa and his New York financier, James Phillips, convinced the Loring brothers to merge with the White Pine Copper Company to form the Nevada Consolidated Copper Company. By 1905 the new company controlled much of the copper ore reserves in the region. Further financing of the Nevada Consolidated Copper Company was necessary to move forward, especially regarding the construction of a railroad. Requa received his much-needed financial backing from the Hayden, Stone and Company banking firm; however, continued support was dependent on the determinations of mining expert J. Parke Channing. Luckily Channing’s report determined that nearly $2 million in profit could be attained (Elliott 1966:183–184).
In 1914 the start of World War I caused the price of copper to skyrocket, and it seemed the mines could not produce enough ore fast enough. The copper boom ended at the conclusion of the war, leading to layoffs with the mines operating at half capacity through 1920. The following year all but 250 workers were laid off. In 1922 the demand for copper increased enough to necessitate the Nevada Consolidated to operate three steady shifts again, but after 2 months of operation a fire destroyed the mill at McGill. The mill was rebuilt in 69 days and operated at full capacity until the late 20th century. In 1933 the Alaskan copper company Kennecott (owned by the Guggenheims) acquired all assets of the Nevada Consolidated Copper Company and merged it into the Nevada Consolidated Copper Corporation. In 1943 the company was completely absorbed by Kennecott and became the Nevada Mines Division of the Kennecott Copper Corporation. New environmental regulations forced Kennecott to reduce production in 1978. The end finally came 5 years later, when a reduction in ore quality and higher wages forced closure on June 15, 1983. Consequently, the closure of the mill also signaled the end of the railroad (Hall 1994:145, Bassett and Bassett 2011:9–10).
Ely-Resurrection Copper Company and Hercules Group Mining areas
Robinson District mines closest to the APE were the Ely-Resurrection and the Hercules Group (Adams 1907:21). Copper ore was first discovered here in 1906 with approximately 16 percent copper value, considerably less than the 60 percent found in other parts of the district to the south (The White Pine News 1906b). The Ely-Resurrection mines consisted of 500 acres located in the Egan Range to the north of Ely and southwest of Hercules Gap. Within the first year of operation (1907), the mines produced nearly 500 tons of copper ore (Adams 1907:13). Principal metals recovered included copper, silver, and gold in order of abundance with the most profitable of the 32 claims being the Monte Cristo, Rattler, Black Horse, and Black Horse No. 3 (The White Pine News 1909a).
The Hercules Group mines were located to the north of the Ely-Resurrection property and southwest of Hercules Gap, bordering the San Francisco Mining District to the north (Adams 1907:21). The claims in this mine were initially filed by Henry Spear and Sam Ersted who incorporated their holdings under the Ely Majestic Company in 1909. The most well-known claims in Robinson District’s Hercules Group included the Ely Majestic No. 3
and No. 4, the Norseman, and the Sunday (The White Pine News 1909b). After 1910, Robinson District mines in the vicinity of Hercules Gap declined with ranching and agriculture taking precedence. Aside from several small farms and ranches, the area to the west of Hercules Gap was also used by the Adams-McGill Company and the Georgetown Ranch for cattle and sheep grazing (The White Pine News 1921)
Duck Creek Mining District
The eastern end of the study area is within the Duck Creek Mining District, a historic mining district organized in 1869. The northern part of the district was originally known as Enterprise and the southern part was known as McDougal. The southeastern portion of the district was later known as Success, while the southwestern part was called Peacock (Tingley 1998:77). The district is located within the Duck Creek Range, extending from Gallagher Gap in the north to Mosier Canyon in the south, near the headwaters of Duck Creek (Hill 1916:196–199, Hall 1994:138). Following the initial discovery of ore, ranching was the main industry of this area through the late 19th century (Hall 1994:138).
Mining activity in the district began to increase in 1905 after D.C. McDonald discovered the Success Mine, which produced lead, silver, and gold (Hall 1994:138). Other mined commodities within the district included copper, zinc, limestone, and fire clay, with lead being the most prominent and profitable (Tingley and Bentz 1982). One of the production areas within the district included the Ely Gibraltar claims, Lead King claims, and the Mayflower group. The Lead King claims are the closest to the study area and appear to be located just to the southeast, near the crest of the Duck Creek Range (Hill 1916:196–199, Hall 1994:138).
The peak operation of this district occurred in 1915 when 12 mines were active; however, later production at any single mine was intermittent (Smith 1976:51). Production in the district remained small and steady until 1960, after which there was very little activity. A population decrease followed the decline of the mines, and by the late 20th century there were only four ranches operating in the area (Hill 1916:196–199, Hall 1994:138). Mining activity remains low, but there are still active claims in the district such as Roy Allen’s (personal communication 2021) gold claims in the vicinity of the original Lead King mines.
San Francisco Mining District
The east-central portion of the study area is within the of the San Francisco Mining District, which was originally organized in 1869 as the Hercules or Hercules Gate District. It is located on an extension of the Egan Range, west of McGill, and south of Heusser Mountain. Mined commodities within the district included silver, copper, lead, tin, and zinc in order of abundance (Tingley and Bentz 1982, Tingley 1998:198). Although early mining records for this district are lacking, other sources indicate it was relatively active immediately after organization. The Silver Star was the first principal mine in the district and was worked successfully. Ores were taken southwest to Mineral City for processing via the Hercules Gate Road (Nevada State Journal 1874). Other claims in the district included the Mammoth, Confidence, Ida, Empire, Hercules, and Excelsior. According to the 1875 annual mining report, Hercules Gap separated the San Francisco District from the Robinson District during the late 19th century (Smith 1976:75). During the early 20th
century, the southern boundary of the district was expanded to the south to include the northern portion of the old Robinson District.
The mines in the San Francisco District were active through the 1870s and 1880s, but like other nearby districts, production declined until the 20th century copper boom. Activity in the district increased dramatically in 1907 when the Homestake Company, the Ely Jackpot Company, and the Standard Extension Company began sinking shafts to locate deeply buried high-grade copper ores like those in the Robinson District to the south (The White Pine News 1907). The best developed mining property in the district was the Mammoth claim located approximately a half mile to the northwest of Hercules Gap. It produced significant amounts of copper and lead with potential for silver ore. The decline of the district coincided with the end of the copper boom during the mid-20th century, but intermittent mining activity occurred throughout the late 20th century (Tingley and Bentz 1982).
Early Railroad Development
Small population booms characterized mid-19th century growth, but this would change to a steadier growth toward the latter part of the century with the building of railroads. In 1862 Congress passed the Pacific Railroad Bill authorizing the Central Pacific and Union Pacific to construct a transcontinental line. The first rails were spiked in 1863; however, construction of a rail line from San Francisco through the Sierra Nevada and Ruby Mountains was an astronomically difficult task and numerous problems were encountered. First, the government was slow to provide the promised financial support; and second, railroad employees would frequently desert the project for more lucrative prospects. Financial difficulties were compounded while building through the Great Basin because all the supplies had to be shipped from California. These problems were solved by the close of 1865 when the Central Pacific found that thousands of Chinese laborers, who were unemployed because of the decline of the Gold Rush, were willing to work the railroad for little pay without complaint. Within 4 years, Chinese rail workers would accomplish an extraordinary feat of engineering when they met the Union Pacific Railroad in Utah on May 10, 1869, connecting Nevada to the rest of the United States by rail (Hayes 2007, Starr 2007, Green 2015:100–101).
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, branch or feeder railroad lines like the Virginia & Truckee, Tonopah & Tidewater, and NNR connected Nevada’s interior to the Transcontinental Railroad. Nearly every feeder line was built as the result of a new mining boom. Additionally, stage and wagon companies were formed to transport passengers and freight to the closest railroad connections (Bassett 2013, Green 2015:103–105).
Following incorporation, the NNR hired Adolph Judell, a Southern Pacific engineer, to survey the route and E.E. Carpenter amended the route to finalize the plans (Bunse et al. 2007a). The route chosen by these surveyors began in eastern Ely, traveled north through the Copper Flat and Ruth mines, through Robinson Canyon, then Steptoe Valley to Omar where it connected with the Southern Pacific. Omar was later renamed Cobre (Spanish for copper) in honor of the discovery of the Ely copper lode. The entire mainline extended 140.99 miles and branch lines were extended to the Veteran and Ruth mines, as well as
the McGill Ranch, where the copper processing plant was located, for a total of more than 150 miles. Now that Requa had a route he had to apply to Edward Harriman, president of the Southern Pacific, for consent to a railroad connection. Permission was granted as soon as Harriman realized the Nevada Northern was a feeder line and not a competitor (Elliott 1966:191, Bunse et al. 2007a, Bassett and Bassett 2011:7).
On September 29, 1906, the NNR finally reached Ely, setting off a 2-day celebration. Using a spike forged from Ruth mine copper, Mark Requa drove the last spike in a ceremony mimicking the Golden Spike Ceremony of the Transcontinental Railroad. Regular passenger service between Ely and Cobre began on October 1 and freight service began on October 12. Most of the passengers on the first trains were Utah businessmen, indicating strong economic ties to Utah rather than western Nevada. At peak operation, 32 passenger trains traveled between Ely and Cobre every day and people were flocking to White Pine County (Elliott 1966:192, Bassett and Bassett 2011:8).
A month after completion of the line to Ely, the Guggenheim family outmaneuvered Requa and took over control of the Nevada Northern Railway Company. However, Requa was still a major shareholder so the Guggenheims appointed him as vice president of the railroad. The next steps were to build branch lines, freight warehouses, and a depot. The first branch line, constructed at the close of 1906, consisted of a 2.6-mile-long section of track connecting the mainline to the processing facilities at the McGill Ranch (Bunse et al. 2007a). The following year, two wood-frame freight buildings and a depot were constructed in eastern Ely, and the rail yards were expanded to include a concrete and brick engine house, machine shops, scales, and facilities for watering the engines (Golay 2000:71, Bassett and Bassett 2011:8). Work was also completed on a 10-mile-long extension of the mainline from Ely to the mines at Ruth, which required crews to tunnel through two mountains. In 1908 a branch line to the Veteran mines was completed, the 3-mile-long “Ore Line” branch around Ely, and the 8.6-mile-long “Hi-line” Branch to McGill with a 109foot-tall, double track trestle. These additional branch lines, known as the Smelter Branches, originally had 60-pound rails and were built to keep the industrial traffic out of Ely and increase transportation efficiency to the mill. At the time, the Hi-line trestle was reported to be the tallest in the world. Concurrent with the development of these branch lines, the Nevada Northern reduced fares for freight and passenger service to boost business and increase interest in the railway (The Sacramento Union 1908, Bunse et al. 2007a, Bassett and Bassett 2011:8).
On April 12, 1908, mill operations at McGill began processing ore and nearly 20 miles of narrow-gauge tracks were laid in the mining pits for Dinky steam locomotives to shuttle ore to branch line cars. Work in the mines was progressing so rapidly that by May 1909, 100,000 tons of raw ore was being shuttled to the mill every month (Bassett and Bassett 2011:8–9). The Nevada Northern also built 29.6 miles of siding tracks along the line including the Glenn Siding, Mustanger Siding, and Cherry Creek Station (Bunse et al. 2007a). By this time, several initiatives arose attempting to connect to other boom areas of Nevada such as Tonopah and Goldfield to Ely. In 1909 the owners of the Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad began the Goldfield-Ely Project, which was intended to provide a more direct route from Goldfield to Salt Lake City smelters. After the initial surveys were completed, the citizens and officials of Ely rejected a right-of-way request from the
proposed railroad to connect to the Nevada Northern via Clark Street. Ely suggested an alternate route, but the project was ultimately shelved (Elliott 1966:195–196).
The NNR was also a boon for cattle ranchers because they could now readily transport their stock without having to drive them long distances to Elko or Salt Lake City. A reduction in rates from 1910 to 1913 further aided the ranching industry and helped make Ely the regional center of the stock trade (Bunse et al. 2007a). By 1920 the Nevada Consolidated Copper Company began using its own engines for ore transport and the railroad became the principal means of transportation in White Pine County. There were dedicated shift trains for workers, school trains to take students from the hinterland to Ely, church trains, party trains, and even rabbit hunting trains. However, as the automobile continued to gain popularity during the 1920s and 1930s, passenger service declined. Shift trains ended in June 1938 and regular passenger service was discontinued 3 years later, but freight service was still viable and continued into the late 20th century (Bassett and Bassett 2011:9–10). Excursion passenger trains continued to operate between Cobre and East Ely until 1982 (Albrandt 2003).
In 1948 diesel-electric engines were introduced on the railroad. The powerful locomotives proved that they could haul more at less cost than their counterparts, and by 1950, all steam operations on the line were replaced. Over the next decade, rail operations in the mining pits ended because of cost and unstable pit walls and the rails were upgraded. While rails were still being upgraded from 60-pound to 90-pounds, a process that began in the 1920s, all existing 90-pound rails on the mainline were to be replaced with 110pound rails. Many of the original wooden culverts were replaced with corrugated steel pipes around the same time. New branch lines were also built as new mines opened, and by the end of the 1950s, the Nevada Northern controlled 193 miles of track. After the decline of the copper industry during the 1970s, the mines closed in 1983. Without the mines, there was little need for the railroad, and on June 20, 1983, the last ore train left Ely (Bunse et al. 2007a, Bassett and Bassett 2011:10, Sean Pitts, personal communication 2021).
The Lincoln Highway and Nevada Road Development
Prior to the 20th century, road systems consisted of poorly maintained trails and wagon routes with funds for maintenance being derived from right-of-way donations, local taxes, and statute labor. In sparsely populated rural areas these systems were not feasible as there were few residents to pay for road repairs or work on the roads in lieu of payment (Borger et al. 2020). Roads constructed of wood planks were used in areas throughout the western United States since the mid-19th century, but these were difficult and costly to maintain (Robinson 2005). In Nevada, some of the first local road systems were developed along the California Trial and Central Overland Routes with ancillary roads extending to towns and mining camps. During this time, Nevada was the least populated state in the nation, and therefore lacked the resources necessary to build new roads or maintain existing routes (Borger et al. 2020)
In 1912, Carl Fisher, creator of the Indianapolis Speedway and Prest-O-Lite lighting systems for autos, devised what he called the Coast-to-Coast Rock Highway, which would
be a graded gravel road costing approximately $10 million (Lincoln Highway Association 1935:9). Communities along the proposed route of the Coast-to-Coast Rock Highway would supply equipment in exchange for free materials and a place along the first transcontinental highway. Fisher wanted the highway completed in time for the PanamaPacific Exposition in 1915 and set to raising funds for the project through investments from the automobile industry and interested private citizens. He also began a letter writing campaign and invited automobile industrialists to invest and join the Rock Highway Association. He convinced Frank Seiberling of Goodyear and Henry Joy of the Packard Motor Company to invest, but he was unable to convince Henry Ford, who believed public taxes should pay for the road. Investments outside the automobile industry were on a subscription basis with annual dues. Henry Joy, who was a veteran roadway planner of several survey expeditions in the western United States, became the primary spokesman for the project. He suggested naming the highway after Abraham Lincoln and Fisher adopted the idea because it would give the highway patriotic appeal (Borger et al. 2020, Lincoln Highway Association 1935:9–45, Lin 1999).
On July 1, 1913, the Lincoln Highway Association was officially incorporated in Detroit, and it began working on a route. Fisher went on a promotional tour and visited with various state governors to garner support. Every governor wanted the route to go through their state and to various attractions that would promote commerce. However, this was costly and Henry Joy, president of the association, favored the most direct route. After many cross-county trips and much deliberation, it was decided that the route would pass through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and California, ending in Lincoln Park in San Francisco. From Geneva, Illinois, to Salt Lake City, Utah, the route would be built over the old Overland Trail, and from Salt Lake City it would follow sections of the Mormon Trail and the Central Overland Route (old Pony Express route) through Ely, Reno, Carson City, and Sacramento (Lincoln Highway Association 1935:45–54, Lin 1999, Weingroff 2017). The section of the Lincoln Highway between Salt Lake City and Reno became the first named transcontinental automobile route to form a continuous connection across northern Nevada. The route was not the most direct but was chosen because it avoided the salt flats in Utah and provided intermittent stops for water (Borger et al. 2020).
In Nevada, while Fisher and Joy were working to get the Lincoln Highway project off the ground, Governor Tasker Oddie attempted to make road improvements. In 1911, he pushed a bill through the state legislature authorizing the use of prison labor to build highways, and the following year, a plan was developed for a Nevada State Highway from the border east of Ely into California. In 1913, Oddie helped another bill pass that allowed counties to issue bonds for road construction, and the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 provided matching federal funds incentivizing projects if states established highway agencies staffed with engineers. However, none of these early measures were successful because Nevada lacked the tax base and revenue flow to match any federal funds. Nevada had 12,182 miles of roads with the vast majority still consisting of rutted or rough unimproved earth (Borger et al. 2020, Bunse et al. 2007b, Green 2015:211–212, Weingroff 2017). Tired of delays, private entities like the Reno Commercial Club began working on improving the Lincoln Highway section between Reno and Ely in 1916 (Reno Evening Gazette 1916).
By 1917, many of the Lincoln Highway sections in Nevada had been completed and the highway was widely used over the next few years. In the vicinity of Ely, the new road sections crosscut and/or replaced sections of old routes such as White Pine County Road 17, which once led to Bothwick (Botha Creek) 12 It also replaced a portion of the Gleason Creek Road in Robinson Canyon, which provided access to several ranches in the Egan Range. The Lincoln Highway not only improved travel for local residents but also bolstered tourism, commerce, and commercial enterprise with the development of travels stops, restaurants, hotels, and other services. Great efforts were made to mark the route with enameled red, white, and blue markers labeled with an “L”; oversized replicas of Lincoln head pennies embedded on bridge piers; and concrete culverts marked with “Lincoln” and “Highway” in openwork letters on either side of the road (Nevada State Journal 1955). Much of the marking in Nevada was completed by the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California (Borger et al. 2020).
In 1917, the Nevada Department of Highways was established to begin a building program for the Nevada State Highway System with number designations. The Lincoln Highway section between Reno and Ely was designated Route 2 and from Ely to the state line became part of Route 3 (Borger et al. 2020). The section between Ely and Salt Lake City, also known as the “Goodyear Cutoff,” was realigned to shorten the route by 50 miles. Nevada and Utah agreed to share costs on this project, but two years later, Utah backed out. Concurrently, the U.S. Army undertook its first transcontinental convoy on the Lincoln Highway departing Washington, D.C., on July 7, 1919, and arrived in San Francisco on September 5, 1919. The highly publicized trip was a success for the Lincoln Highway Association. It resulted in broken bridges and vehicles getting stuck in the mud along the way, which highlighted the need for continued Federal aid and influenced local municipalities to better maintain the highways. One of the most interesting facets of this convoy was that it included Lt. Colonel Dwight D. Eisenhower who would later implement one of the nation’s most ambitious highway projects in the 1950s after he became President. His experiences during the 1919 convoy likely helped influence his support of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 (Bunse et al. 2007b, Weingroff 2017).
In 1920, Tasker Oddie was elected to the U.S. Senate and championed the Federal Highway Act of 1921, helping Gail S. Hoag and B.L. Quayle (Nevada’s Lincoln Highway Consuls) continue work on Nevada’s highway sections. They waited on Utah to fulfill its contractual obligations, but Utah preferred the Wendover Route, which followed the Humboldt River through Nevada. Utah refused to move forward with the Goodyear Cutoff and officials in Ely were incensed at what they viewed as discrimination by Utah officials. An agreement was reached, but once again Utah reneged, and in 1922 they moved forward with the Wendover Route. Utah also improved the Arrowhead Trail to Los Angeles with aims on keeping motorists in Utah rather than using Nevada’s Midland Trail. The Arrowhead Trail roughly followed the route of modern-day Interstate 15 and the Midland Trail used the Goodyear Cutoff to Ely and then went southwest through Nevada to
12 Bothwick was a stage station during late 19th century, which developed into a small town after the turn of the 20th century. During the 1940s all of the residents moved from the area and the town ceased to exist (Hall 1994:125).
southern California (Elko Independent 1915, Lincoln Highway Association 1935:180–185, Lin 1999, Bunse et al. 2007b, Green 2015:214).
In 1923, Nevada Governor James Scrugham, a former mining engineer, picked up where Oddie left off and implemented a $0.02 per gallon gasoline tax to fund road building. By 1926 Nevada was spending approximately $10 million per year on road construction with most of the funds going to the Lincoln Highway (Green 2015:214). A year earlier, the American Association of State Highway Officials began planning a federal highway system and abandoned the idea of named roads. The Lincoln Highway was divided into five separate highway sections with the Nevada portion being designated U.S. Highway 50. The Wendover Route was also completed in 1925, and by this time was part of the transcontinental Victory Highway, a competitor of the Lincoln Highway and predecessor of Interstate Highway 80. Despite persistent lobbying and promoting by the Lincoln Highway Association, the federal government chose the Victory Highway as the federal road and Utah’s section of the Goodyear Cutoff was never finished. The Lincoln Highway Association eventually adopted the Wendover Road as part of its official route, ending any potential for a central Nevada transcontinental road (Lincoln Highway Association 1935, Lin 1999, Bunse et al. 2007b, Weingroff 2017).
The Lincoln Highway Association stopped promoting the route in 1927 but managed to have the highway officially dedicated to Abraham Lincoln on September 1, 1928. Sections of the highway remained unimproved by the time of the dedication, but within the next 10 years, nearly the entire route would be paved. In 1930, the Oddie-Colton Act was passed, requiring the federal government to pay for all interstate highways that crossed public lands and Nevada completed an 80-mile-long segment of highway connecting Wendover to the original Lincoln Highway route. However, motorists generally preferred the Victory Highway through the region because it had lower grades. Nevertheless, the Oddie-Colton Act gave Nevada triple the funding it had for roads during the previous decade and the state upgraded its roads by grading and oiling or paving. The sections of the Lincoln Highway around Ely and McGill (U.S. Highway 50/93) were either oiled or untreated gravel, and in 1935, the section from Ely to Wendover was paved (Lincoln Highway Association 1935, Lin 1999, Bunse et al. 2007b, Green 2015:214, Weingroff 2017).
In 1940, Nevada created a new parallel alignment for U.S. Highway 50/93 to the west of the original Lincoln Highway route in Steptoe Valley. The abandoned section of the Lincoln Highway became a county road and was never repaved. Highway 93, north of McGill, became a regularly maintained, two-lane, asphalt road along the original route (Lincoln Highway Association 1935, Lin 1999, Bunse et al. 2007b, Green 2015:214, Weingroff 2017). Concurrently, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camps in White Pine County began building truck trails for stockmen in Nevada grazing district No. 4. These new roads, some extending to or from the Lincoln Highway, were intended to improve range management and assist stockmen with reaching their sheep camps and range riders with supplies. Many of these truck trails, including the Jake’s Valley routes, were constructed by the Indian Springs CCC camp to help ranchers like John Uhalde at Gleason Creek maintain his 7,000 head of sheep (Reno Evening Gazette 1933, 1941).
At the onset of World War II, US 50 was formally designated an alternate and secondary route in the strategic network of highways in Nevada. Between 1944 and 1946, a new alignment with a 32-foot bituminous surface between shoulders, and flat fill and cut slopes was constructed between McGill and Magnusen’s Ranch to the north in White Pine County. However, post-war development along Highway 50/93 was limited, especially after the Federal Highway Act of 1956 led to funding for a new Interstate Highway System (Borger et al. 2020).
3.10.1.4 Existing Information
To gather existing, relevant, and reasonably available information regarding cultural resources, WPW completed a records search in October 2020 and June 2021. The area researched included the study area for the Cultural Resources Study and a 1.0-mile buffer around the study area. This records search included a review of records archived at the BLM Ely District Office and through the NSHPO’s online Nevada Cultural Resources Information System (NVCRIS). The records reviewed include records of previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources investigations. The records search also included review of historic maps of the area and the NRHP for NRHP-listed resources that are in the vicinity of the study area.
The records search was conducted prior to and concurrent with the fieldwork to identify previously recorded resources and/or potential historic features that may be located within the study area so they could be revisited/visited during the study, and to better understand the types of resources that might be found in the study area. The records search was also conducted to determine whether the study area, or portions of the study area, had already been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
The results of the records search are provided below and are organized into three parts: (1) previous cultural resources investigations, (2) previously identified cultural resources, and (3) potential historic resources identified from historic maps.
Previous Cultural Resources Investigations
The records search identified 61 previous cultural resources investigations within 1 mile of the study area, of which 29 were located within the study area (Table 3.10-1). The investigations occurred between 1967 and 2017 and were conducted prior to a variety of different undertakings including utility and communication transmission line construction, airport expansion, proposed land sales, seismic line investigations, roadway improvements, and material pit locations. Approximately 10 percent of the study area appears to have been previously investigated by cultural resources studies, though many of these studies were not completed to current (2020) professional standards.
Previously Recorded Resources
The records search identified 395 previously recorded cultural resources within 1 mile of the study area (Appendix D 13 of the draft Cultural Resources Study report appended to this FLA as Appendix G – filed as Privileged). An additional 25 resources were recorded during field survey for WPW’s separate geotechnical investigations (which are considered separate Section 106 undertakings from the licensing efforts and reported on separately) in support of the Project (Appendix D of the draft Cultural Resources Study report appended to this FLA as Appendix G – filed as Privileged). Altogether, these 420 resources are dominated by lithic tool and debitage scatters, with occasional pottery, fire-affected rock, faunal remains, milling, groundstone, and hearth features as at least 80 percent of previously recorded resources identified consist of precontact archaeological resources, represented by 12 precontact archaeological isolates, 289 precontact archaeological sites, and precontact archaeological components of 36 multicomponent archaeological sites. Historic archaeological sites and resources consist primarily of refuse scatters but also a few roads, mining sites, and a ditch, represented by six historic archaeological isolates, 70
13 The status of NSHPO concurrence on NRHP eligibility as provided in Appendix G is taken from the NVCRIS online database.
historic archaeological sites, and historic components of the same 36 multicomponent archaeological sites mentioned above. In addition, there are two utility lines categorized as built environment resources and one precontact isolate/ built environment resource consisting of a single biface and the Nevada Northern Railroad. Also included in the previously recorded cultural resources list are four resources identified in NVCRIS as “26WPbad no” or “Unknown” with no associated site form or identification, thus cultural/archaeological categorical information (precontact/historic/built environment) is unknown
Of the 420 resources previously documented within 1.0 miles of the study area, 48 fall within the APE. Of these 48 resources, 20 are precontact archaeological sites, 15 are historic archaeological sites, 2 are multi-component archaeological sites, one of the four resources identified as “26badno” is located within the study area, and one precontact isolate/ built environment resource consisting of a single biface and the Nevada Northern Railway, as well as four precontact isolated archaeological finds, and five historic isolated archaeological finds. Of these 48 resources, four have been determined eligible with NSHPO concurrence for listing in the NRHP, 35 have been determined not eligible with NSHPO concurrence, four are recommended eligible, four are recommended not eligible, and the evaluation status of one resource is unknown.
Potential Historic Resources Identified on Historic Maps and Imagery
Historic-period USGS topographic quadrangles and General Land Office (GLO) plats were reviewed during the records search to identify locations of potential historic-era sites and features within the study area and within 1 mile of the study area (Table 3.10-2). This resulted in the identification of over 50 locations where historic-period features may be present within or adjacent to the study area. These features include trails, roads, highways, transmission lines, telephone lines, prospects, mine shafts, corrals,
and structures.
6. 1923 GLO T18N R61E Resurvey
7. 1952 1:250,000 Ely, NV USGS topographic quadrangle
State Hwy to Ely, one telephone line, one unnamed road, multiple spur roads
One unnamed road, Worthington Canyon Road, McDonald Creek Road, Gilford Creek Road, two NNR lines, McGill Junction, four unnamed roads that parallel the RRs, spur road from the Copper Smelter, Hwy 50/93, two railroad sidings (Lavon, Adverse), two railroad siding road spurs (Lavon, Adverse), one building, one road between Keystone and McGill (Pole Line Road), Hercules Gap Road / Bothwick Road, six unnamed roads north of Ely and West of McGill
8. 1956 GLO T18N R60E Resurvey Hwy 50
9. 1956 1:250,000 Ely, NV USGS topographic map
10. 1957 GLO 17N, R64E Resurvey (only Sections 17,18,19, 30)
11. 1958 1:24,000 East Ely, NV USGS Quadrangle
12. 1958 1:62,500 McGill, NV USGS topographic map
13. 1958 1:24,000 Ruth, NV USGS Quadrangle
State Hwy to Ely, one telephone line, multiple spur roads
Two NNR lines, two unnamed roads, Hwy 50/93, one building, one road between Keystone and McGill (Pole Line Road), Hercules Gap Road/Bothwick Road, three unnamed roads north of Ely and West of McGill
One corral, three unnamed roads south of Hwy 50 None
Two NNR lines, Hwy 94 and 50, seven unnamed roads
Five unnamed roads (in Sections 8, 9, and 15), one unnamed road (parallels the eastern NNR line), Pole Line Road, five gravel pits, eight unnamed roads (in Sections 21, 28, 29, 7, and 18)
Bothwick Road, 10 unnamed roads North of Bothwick Road (in Sections 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10), 46 prospects, 10-15 unnamed roads south and east of Bothwick Road
Two trails (in Sections 6 and 8), one Jeep Trail, three mine shafts (in Sections 9 and 12)
Two Railroads (in Sections 4, 8, 9, 17, and 29), four unnamed roads
One unnamed road (parallels the eastern NNR line), two unnamed roads, one gravel pit, two unnamed roads to gravel pit (in Section 18)
Bothwick Road, six unnamed roads
Two trails (in Sections 6 and 8)
NV
17. 1963 GLO T17N R60E
18. 1973 GLO T17N, R64E Resurvey
One ranch near Road 486 (in Section 18)
One ranch near Road 486 (in Section 18)
One mineshaft (in Section 36), 13 unnamed roads, one Lower Thirtymile Road, Highway 50, Gleason Creek Road, one water tank
Highway 50, Gleason Creek Road, two unnamed roads
Two NNR lines, Hwy 94 and Alt 50, three powerlines, nine roads, one ditch, two telephone lines
3.10.1.5 Results of the Cultural Resources Study
Two NNR lines (in Sections 4, 8, 9, 17, and 29), roads (in Sections 8, 20, and 29), Highway 93 (in Section 8)
To assist FERC in identifying historic properties that may be affected by the Project, as required under Section 106 of the NHPA, WPW implemented the Cultural Resources Study. As part of the study, a comprehensive and intensive field survey of the study area was completed between June and July of 2021 in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Identification (USDOI 1983), the NSHPO and Nevada BLM guidelines for field surveys, and BLM’s Class III/intensive standards, per BLM’s 8100 manual series. In addition to the field survey, WPW conducted limited tribal outreach to identify any areas of interest to the tribes potentially affected by the Project. The NHPA and the 36 CFR 800 regulations implementing it refer to “properties of traditional religious and cultural significance” and “properties of traditional religious and cultural importance.” These two terms are synonymous: geographic places prominent in a particular group’s cultural practices, beliefs, or values, when those practices, beliefs or values: (1) are widely shared within the group, (2) have been passed down through the generations, and (3) have served a recognized role in maintaining the group’s cultural identity for at least 50 years. Traditional cultural places or properties (TCPs) can be traditional religious and culturally important resources that qualify as historic properties under the NHPA. For Native American Tribes, TCPs are identified through consultation and information regarding them is often confidential and only shared at the discretion of the individual tribe. Further information regarding tribal outreach related to the Project is
provided below. To date no potential TCPs have been identified by the tribes potentially affected by the Project.
Included below is a description of the study area and summaries of the archaeological and built environment resources that were identified as a result of the Cultural Resources Study. A draft Cultural Resources Study report presenting these results is appended to this FLA as Appendix G. The report is confidential and will be filed in FERC’s privileged files and made available as appropriate to Section 106 consulting parties (potentially affected tribes, BLM, NSHPO, and other interested parties) for review.
Study Area
The study area was initially defined in the Cultural Resources Study plan and has since been updated to reflect a refinement of the Project design (see study area maps in Appendix G). However, since the study area was redefined for this study, the Project design has been further refined. Accordingly, the study area does not currently match the Project Footprint and there are portions of the proposed Project that are outside the study area. Any areas in the Project Footprint not covered by the study area will be surveyed under the protocols of the HPMP for consideration of historic properties.
The study area covers the majority of the Project Footprint and includes the locations of most of the Project facilities, including the proposed Project reservoirs. The study area is located between the City of Ely, Nevada, and McGill, Nevada, straddling each side of the Duck Creek Range and stretching west for roughly 20 miles through Steptoe Valley and Smith Valley, over the Egan Range, and into Jakes Valley. The legal description of the study area is as follows:
• T17N, R65E – W1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 7, W1/2 of the NW1/4 of Section 18.
• T17N,R64E – W1/2 of Section 4, S1/2 of the SE1/4 of Section 8, S1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 8, W1/2 of Section 9, SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 11, S1/2 of Section 12, N1/2 of Section 13, N1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 13, all 1/4s of Section 14, all 1/4s of Section 15, all 1/4s of Section 16, all 1/4s of Section 17, N1/2 and SE1/4 of Section 18, S1/2 of the NW1/4 of Section 18, W1/2 of the NE1/4 of Section 20, E1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 20, and N1/2 of the NE1/4 of Section 22.
• T17N, R63E – SW1/2 of Section 6, NE1/4 of Section 7, S1/2 and NW1/2 of Section 8, S1/2 of Section 9, S1/2 of Section 10, S1/2 of Section 11, N1/2 of Section 13, and NE1/4 of Section 14.
• T17N, R62E – SE1/4 and NW1/4 of Section 1.
• T18N, R62E – S1/2 of Section 28, N1/2 of Section 29, N1/2 of Section 30, N1/2 of Section 34, and S1/2 of Section 35.
• T18N, R61E – all 1/4s of Section 19, S1/2 and NW1/4 of Section 20, S1/2 of Section 21, S1/2 of Section 22, S1/2 of Section 23, N1/2 of Section 25, NE1/4 of Section 26, W1/2 of Section 30, and W1/2 of Section 31.
• T17N, R60E – E1/2 and SW1/4 of Section 1 and NW1/4 of Section 12.
As described above, the study area was proposed as the APE for Section 106 purposes. However, due to the changes to the Project Footprint, the study area is no longer proposed as the APE. The footprint of the APE will be submitted to the NSHPO for review and concurrence under the protocols of the HPMP once implemented
Cultural Resources Identified
WPW conducted a field survey of the study area in June and July of 2021. Ground visibility was generally excellent, ranging between 80-100 percent, with occasional bunch grasses, sage brush, rabbit brush, and other vegetation obscuring the surface. Of the 1,924-acre study area, 1,781 acres are located on land administered by BLM and 143 acres consist of privately owned land. Of the 1,924 acres within the study area, WPW was unable to survey a total of 13 acres located on land administered by BLM and 73 acres of privately owned land. Portions of the study area could not be surveyed due to steep, unsafe slopes or due to private land ownership where landowners did not permit survey on their land. The survey coverage is summarized in the table below (Table 3.10-3) and depicted on maps in Attachment G. The study area is located on steep to moderately sloped hills and ridges covered with sagebrush chaparral, scattered pinyon/juniper, and some Mountain Mahogany and bunch grasses at the higher elevations.
Table 3.10-3. Summary of Survey Coverage
The Class III cultural resources inventory conducted for the Cultural Resources Study resulted in the identification of 80 isolated archaeological finds, 141 archaeological sites, and two historic built environment resources. Of note, the two historic built environment resources also constitute two of the archaeological sites. These two resources include both built environment and archaeological components, so they are identified as both types of resources. These two resources are the Lincoln Highway (26WP6229/D129/ S2798) and the Nevada Northern Railway (26WP5336).
Of the 223 cultural resources identified within the study area, 189 have been evaluated as not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, 9 have been evaluated as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, and 25 remain unevaluated regarding their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP (see Table 3.10-4). NSHPO concurrence is pending for most of these NRHP eligibility evaluations as further described in the sections below where additional details are provided for the isolated finds, archaeological sites, and built environment resources identified during the study. Appendix G includes the resource location maps depicting these resources.
Archaeological Finds
A total of 80 isolated archaeological finds were identified during the Cultural Resources Study (Table 3.10-5). Of these isolated finds, 41 are precontact and consist of modified flakes, projectile points, or shatter. There are 38 historic-era isolated finds, mostly represented by various metal and glass refuse, and several features comprised of cadastral survey markers. There is one additional isolated find comprised of a hunting blind with an unknown affiliation. All of these isolated finds are considered single and unassociated artifacts or features and have been evaluated as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Of these 80 isolated archaeological finds, 9 were previously recorded as part of the recent geotechnical investigation efforts conducted in support of the Project as described above
1. HDR-GGT-ISO-01
2. HDR-GGT-ISO-02
3. HDR-GGT-ISO-03
Historic: Four olive green glass bottle fragments from the same bottle within an 8-meter-diameter area.
Precontact: An Elko side-notched projectile point (could be an Elko eared point; missing an ear and the distal tip), basalt.
Historic: A cadastral survey marker placed by BLM in 1956 with an associated rock cairn. This marker is an impressed brass cap on a galvanized metal post 16 inches high.
4. ISO-HDR-Geotech-01
5. ISO-HDR-Geotech-02
6. ISO-HDR-Geotech-03
Precontact: Primary basalt flake located on a flat ridge top.
Precontact: Stage III basalt biface fragment located on a flat ridge top.
Historic: A rock cairn (possible cadastral survey marker). The rock cairn measures 2 feet in height, comprised of +/- 25 large rocks/boulders.
7. ISO-HDR-Geotech-05
Historic: Circular tobacco tin lid 1/8” thick, embossed with “US Tobacco Co. / US Tobacco Co. / 10 UNDIC / Sponsor / [ face of Lady Liberty] / Liberty/ 1886 – 1985”. Possibly modern Liberty tobacco lid found along E side of existing road
Count Temp Resource Number
8.
9.
ISO-HDR-Geotech-06
ISO-HDR-Geotech-07
Resource Description
Precontact: Basalt biface, complete. Stage II. On ridge slope.
Historic: 25+ fragments of a broken brown glass beer bottle. Includes one shoulder fragment with the embossed AnheuserBusch trademark emblem, one threaded bottle finish. Fragment with a partial shoulder embossed with "Don't Litter," one base fragment embossed with "23/[circle with vertical line] 27/HU/71."
10.
11.
12.
13.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-001
ISO-HDR-White Pine-002
ISO-HDR-White Pine-003
ISO-HDR-White Pine-004
Historic: Cadastral marker; brass cap on galvanized pipe/post; dates to 1956 and 2007.
Precontact: Basalt primary shatter.
Precontact: Basalt secondary flake.
Historic: Cadastral marker with a brass cap. US GLO survey marker. "U.S. GENERAL LAND OFFICE SURVEY/1918" "PENALTY $250 FOR REMOVAL".
14.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-005
Historic: Cadastral marker: brass cap on a galvanized pipe/post. Dates to 1955. Includes a rock pile to the immediate northwest, with about 20 rocks. There is also some remnant eroded wood lath and stakes that have fallen down and are likely modern and some modern flagging tape.
15.
16.
17.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-007
Historic: Ribbed metal barrel with some 22 bullet holes. 20 inch diameter by 28 inches tall. Both ends have been cut off.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-008 Precontact: Basalt Stage III Biface, complete.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-009
Historic: Chrome "Studebaker President" car emblem measuring 19 3/4 inches long by 3 1/4 inches wide. Located in a heavily disturbed area near a substation. Debris in surrounding area but appears modern.
18.
19.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-010
ISO-HDR-White Pine-011
Precontact: Mustard colored cryptocrystalline silicate shatter
Historic: Two fragments of one aqua bottle: one body fragment and one base fragment. Cylindrical, post bottom mold and embossed on base with "A.B.Co./18"
20.
21.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-012
ISO-HDR-White Pine-013
Historic: About 6 pieces of tinted flat glass of unknown age.
Unknown: Hunting blind made of local quartzite cobbles and boulders stacked against a rock outcrop. Height of stacked rock is 75 cm and rock is stacked approximately 6-7 rocks high. No artifacts observed. Could be precontact, historic, or modern in affiliation.
22.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-014
Precontact: Red colored cryptocrystalline silicate shatter.
Count Temp Resource Number
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Resource Description
ISO-HDR-White Pine-015 Precontact: Obsidian Stage III biface, located on the north side of a two-track dirt road. Appears to be a reworked tool that may once have been a projectile point (there is one notch on the biface).
ISO-HDR-White Pine-016 Precontact: Mustard colored cryptocrystalline silicate edge modified flake. Thick primary flake with micro flaking on one edge.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-017
ISO-HDR-White Pine-018
Historic: Two pieces of metal that appear to be part of a tin can, crushed, height 10-12 inches.
Precontact: Basalt secondary flake.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-019 Precontact: White colored cryptocrystalline silicate projectile point. The very tip and partial base where a corner notch would have been is missing.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-020 Precontact: Basalt edge-modified primary flake. Micro flaking on one long edge.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-022 Historic: Tobacco tin without lid, possibly "Prince Albert" brand.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-023 Precontact: Red colored cryptocrystalline silicate projectile point, broken off tip and broken shoulder.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-025
Precontact: Primary basalt flake
ISO-HDR-White Pine-027 Precontact: Secondary basalt flake.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-029 Precontact: White colored cryptocrystalline silicate complete projectile point, looks like a Cottonwood.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-031
Precontact: Red/orange colored cryptocrystalline silicate Stage II/III biface, tip missing, appears to have cortex on one side, appears to have two pot lid scars on one side suggesting heat treating.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-033 Precontact: Modified basalt flake made from a primary flake. Modified on all but one margin.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-035
Precontact: Primary basalt flake with cortex.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-037 Precontact: White colored cryptocrystalline silicate projectile point tip and partial base, tangs missing. May be heat-treated, colored cryptocrystalline silicate is glossy.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-039
ISO-HDR-White Pine-041
Precontact: Cream colored projectile point, tip missing, contracting stem.
Historic: Roll top tin can, missing top.
Count Temp Resource Number
40.
Resource Description
ISO-HDR-White Pine-043 Precontact: Tertiary obsidian flake
41. ISO-HDR-White Pine-045
Historic: Crushed metal bucket, galvanized, small makeshift medium gage wire (not original).
42. ISO-HDR-White Pine-047 Historic: Metal rim, possibly an old tire rim. It is no longer a circle and is broken. It has a riveted attachment where the circle would have been joined.
43. ISO-HDR-White Pine-049
Historic: Sanitary can, crimped ends, one church key, small church key puncture, likely an oil can. Has embossing on top end, but it is illegible.
44.
45.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-100
Historic: Hole-in-top can.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-101 Historic: Sanitary can with church key opening.
46. ISO-HDR-White Pine-102 Precontact: Secondary colored cryptocrystalline silicate flake.
47. ISO-HDR-White Pine-103 Historic: Key for key-wind tin.
48.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-104
49. ISO-HDR-White Pine-105
Precontact: Tertiary basalt flake
Precontact: Secondary utilized colored cryptocrystalline silicate flake.
50. ISO-HDR-White Pine-106 Precontact: Tertiary colored cryptocrystalline silicate flake.
51. ISO-HDR-White Pine-108 Historic: Crushed iron can
52. ISO-HDR-White Pine-109 Precontact: colored cryptocrystalline silicate biface, stage 2.
53. ISO-HDR-White Pine-110 Precontact: Basalt biface midsection
54. ISO-HDR-White Pine-111 Precontact: Basalt point fragment (missing tangs and stem).
55. ISO-HDR-White Pine-112 Precontact: colored cryptocrystalline silicate secondary flake, reddish brown
56. ISO-HDR-White Pine-114 Precontact: White colored cryptocrystalline silicate tertiary flake
57. ISO-HDR-White Pine-115 Historic: Circular tin can with lid.
58. ISO-HDR-White Pine-116 Historic: Cadastral with brass cap. "US CADASTRAL SURVEY/BLM/PENALTY $250 FOR REMOVAL/1956/[township and range and section]"
59. ISO-HDR-White Pine-117
Historic: Sanitary can lid.
60. ISO-HDR-White Pine-118 Historic: Church key opened can.
61. ISO-HDR-White Pine-119 Historic: Cream stoneware, salt glaze
Count Temp Resource Number
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
Resource Description
ISO-HDR-White Pine-120 Historic: coffee can lid. "regular grind" "Hillsboro" 3lbs.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-121 Precontact: Basalt tertiary flake
ISO-HDR-White Pine-122
Precontact: Basalt, notched projectile point base.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-123 Precontact: White colored cryptocrystalline silicate tertiary flake
ISO-HDR-White Pine-124
Historic: Fragmented glass bottle. Base: (23[diamond shape with capital "I" inside]/4AU/1596-E). (Duraglass) on textured body base. Owens Illinois maker’s mark on intact base.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-125
Precontact: Tertiary basalt flake
ISO-HDR-White Pine-127 Precontact: Aqua glass fragment (possible insulator)
ISO-HDR-White Pine-128 Historic: Crushed tobacco tin.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-129 Precontact: Honey-colored colored cryptocrystalline silicate shatter
ISO-HDR-White Pine-130 Historic: Double church key opened tin can.
ISO-HDR-White Pine-131
ISO-HDR-White Pine-132
ISO-HDR-White Pine-133
ISO-HDR-White Pine-134
ISO-HDR-White Pine-135
ISO-HDR-White Pine-136
ISO-HDR-White Pine-137
ISO-HDR-White Pine-138
80. ISO-HDR-White Pine-139
Archaeological Sites
Historic: Hole-in-top double knife punch tin can.
Historic: Amethyst bottle glass fragment
Precontact: Orange primary colored cryptocrystalline silicate flake
Precontact: Basalt, secondary flake, no cortex
Historic: Hole in cap knife-opened can and lid (separate).
Historic: Hole in cap knife-opened can.
Historic: Mile marker associated with Highway 93.
Historic: Mile marker associated with Highway 93.
Historic: Mile marker associated with Highway 93.
A total of 141 archaeological sites were identified within the study area (see Table 3.10-6): 70 are precontact archaeological sites represented by lithic scatters with lithic tools and debitage, and a possible rock shelter; 54 are historic-era archaeological sites representing short-term habitation, transportation (railroad and road segments), trash scatters and dumping (cans, other metal, glass), utility lines, and water control features; and 16 archaeological sites are multicomponent and have both precontact and historic
components. The one remaining archaeological site is of unknown type as this is a previously recorded site within the study area that could not be relocated and for which there is no previous record available to determine what kind of site it is. Thirty-nine of the 141 archaeological sites were previously recorded.
Of the 141 archaeological sites identified within the study area, 109 have been evaluated as not eligible, 25 remain unevaluated, and 7 have been evaluated as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The NSHPO has concurred with 18 of these site evaluations (16 not eligible evaluations and 2 eligible evaluations; see related NSHPO concurrence letters in Appendix G). The remaining evaluations listed in the table below are pending NSHPO concurrence.
Table 3.10-6. Archaeological Sites in the Study Area
1. 26WP01735 CrNV-46-4609 Precontact Lithic Scatter
2. 26WP03522 CrNV-04-7939 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Trash scatter
3. 26WP05138 CrNV-04-7747 Multicomponent P: Lithic Isolate
H: Trash Scatter/ Transportation
4. 26WP05289 N/A Precontact Lithic Scatter
The site was originally recorded in 1985 as a surface lithic scatter with an estimated 25-100 pieces of lithic debitage. Revisit identified a dense lithic scatter with 100+ debitage and four tools: a chopper and three bifaces. Material types consist of basalt and CCS. Age unknown.
This multicomponent site was originally recorded in 1999 as a historic road and a precontact lithic scatter. Revisit did not identify the historic road segment and observed two of the recorded precontact site artifacts and 10 flakes. Precontact components: age unknown. Historic components: 1870s-present (as of 1999 recording).
This multicomponent site was originally recorded in 1999 as a historic dirt road segment and an isolated precontact chert biface fragment. Revisit relocated the historic dirt road segment, but did not relocate the chert biface fragment. Historic component: ca. 1935-1945. Precontact component: age unknown.
This site was originally recorded in 1999 as a lithic scatter with over 500+ flakes and 22 artifacts, including: two Great Basin stemmed point fragments, two Humboldt series point types, and one Gatecliff point. Revisit surveyed a portion of the site and relocated a portion of the lithic scatter and five of the recorded artifacts: Stage III biface, scrapper, and three utilized flakes. Material types consist of basalt and CCS. Age dates to 11,000 to 1,000 Paleoindian to Middle-Late Archaic.
5. 26WP05292 CrNV-04-7906 Historic Transportation This site was originally recorded in 1999 as a bladed road segment. Age circa (ca.) 1870s.
6. 26WP05294 Cr-NV-04-7911 Historic Transportation This site was originally recorded in 1999 as a segment of a historic two-track road. Age ca. 1870s.
7. 26WP05309 CRNV-04-7926 Precontact Lithic Scatter This site was originally recorded in 1999 as a chert and basalt quarry area with a complex artifact scatter, including: 279 debitage, 146 bifaces, 58 projectile points, 28 flaked tools, 70 potsherds, 17 cores and modified chunks, 7 preforms, 7 percussion tools, and 7 groundstone. Revisit surveyed a portion of the site and observed 50 flakes, one core, 1 Rose Spring Corner Notched projectile point (1500-700 B.P.), one preform, one biface, and two modified flake tools. Age Middle Archaic to Late Archaic.
8. 26WP05310 HDR-WhitePine054/ CrNV-04-7927
Precontact Lithic Scatter
This site was originally recorded in 1999 as a complex artifact scatter consisting of flaked tools, percussion tools, bifaces, cores, pottery, groundstone, FCR, and diagnostic projectile points. Lithic material types include obsidian, quartz, basalt, and rhyolite. Previous data recovery efforts recovered thousands of artifacts. Revisit identified a moderate lithic scatter to the west, divided from the original boundary by a small drainage. Charcoal samples from data recovery efforts produced radiocarbon date of 2170 +/- 40 B.P.; Late Archaic.
Not Eligible No
9. 26WP05319 CrNV-04-7936
10. 26WP05336 TL-02/TL-05/ CRNV-04-546/ CRNV-04-8492
Historic Transportation This site was originally recorded in 1999 as a two-track road with at three glass bottles/shards and wood fragments. Revisit to this site could discern the road on the landscape and no artifacts could be located. Age ca. 1870s.
Historic Transportation
This site was originally recorded in 1976 as segments of the Nevada Northern Railway as part of site CRNV-04-546. In 2001, additional segments were recorded as part of site CRNV-04-8492. In both records, historic debris, consisting of bottle glass fragments (Amethyst, brown, aqua, and green), railroad spikes, a wooden pole and glass insulator, earthenware fragments, butchered bone, and metal culverts. Revisit records a segment of the Main Line (Segment F) and additional components to the HiLine (Segment C). This railroad is currently active. Age ca. 1906-1980s.
Eligible (D) No
Unevaluated N/A
Unevaluated N/A
Eligible (D) No
11. 26WP05433 CrNV-04-8590
Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Trash Scatter
This multicomponent site was originally recorded in 2001 as a sparse lithic scatter. In 2007, a revisit identified approximately 12 CCS and basalt. Revisit in 2021 relocated the site and observed an additional historic component to the site. One glass bottle base, 10+ glass shards, one horseshoe, and nine historic cans were observed. 70+ lithic debitage were noted. Material types consist of basalt and CCS. Age unknown for both prehistoric and historic components.
Eligible (D) No
Not Eligible No
Eligible (A, C, D) Yes (Segments A, B, C, D, and E)
Not Eligible No
12. 26WP05451 CrNV-46-0654 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter H: Trash Scatter
This multicomponent site was originally recorded in 1999 as a large linear prehistoric scatter extending 2 miles. Original recording notes primarily basalt cores and tools, and a pot drop, represented by a discrete pottery scatter. Revisit surveyed noted a large scatter of 200+ basalt flakes, 50+ CCS flakes, nine basalt bifaces, one obsidian biface, two basalt utilized flakes, three basalt cores, and one basalt drill. Additionally, three artifact concentrations were identified at the northwestern end. Historic component is one of these artifact concentrations and consists of a sparse metal can and pipe scatter along an abandoned dirt road segment. Age unknown for both prehistoric and historic components.
13. 26WP06229 HDR-GGT-01 Historic Transportation Lincoln Highway (district D129; S2798) (this resource is both an archaeological resource and a built environment resource) This site was originally recorded in 2020 as a dirt road segment of the Lincoln Highway. Additional segments of the road have been recorded as the following: D129, 26WP2910, 26WP5334, 26WP6229, and 26WP7454. Two features were recorded as part of this site: a culvert, and a back dirt pile with wire and sheet metal. Age ca. 1913 to present.
14. 26WP07537 - Precontact Lithic Scatter This site was originally recorded in 2005 as a lithic scatter with four concentrations containing 500+ lithic debitage and tw o tools: a chert Gatecliff projectile point and a biface fragment. Updated to increase site boundary to the south and to include two additional artifacts: CCS biface fragment and milling stone fragment. Late Archaic Period (1,500 to 700 years B.P.).
15. 26WP07577 - Precontact Lithic Scatter This site is a medium (50 x 40m) lithic scatter consisting of 144 basalt and CCS flakes, 3 basalt tested cobbles, 2 obsidian flakes (collected), a basalt biface fragment, and a CCS flake tool. Age unknown. Site was originally recorded in 2006 and updated in 2007. Update finds no change in constituents or condition. Age unknown.
16. 26WP07871 - Precontact Lithic Scatter
Originally recorded in 2017 as a lithic scatter located in a CCS and basalt opportunistic quarry area, distributed between 2 Concentrations (1 & 2). The lithic scatter consists of 75 flakes, 2 basalt cores, and 4 biface fragments. Lithic material types include basalt and CCS. Present survey relocated 1 basalt core fragment (Artifact 1) and observed approximately 100 CCS flakes and approximately 30 basalt flakes. Age unknown.
Eligible (D) No
Eligible (A, C) Yes
Unevaluated N/A
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
17. 26WP07969 - Precontact Lithic Scatter
Small lithic scatter originally recorded in 2007 and consisting of basalt, obsidian, and chert flakes. Lithic scatter consists of at least 150 basalt flakes and 2 CCS flakes. Tools originally recorded include seven bifaces, one basalt core, one basalt scraper, and one basalt flake tool. Present survey did not relocate previously identified tools, but scatter continued to the south of the original boundary. Boundary updated along the southern margin of the site. Early Archaic (8,000 to 6,000 years B.P.).
18. 26WP08931 - Precontact Lithic Scatter Originally recorded in 2008 as a lithic scatter consisting of approximately 50 pieces of debitage of basalt and CCS. Present survey observed 27 flakes and 4 flake stone tools, including 1 basalt biface, 1 CCS biface, 1 retouched flake, and 1 white CCS biface. Present survey has expanded the original site boundary to the north to include the four additional lithic tools. Age unknown.
19. 26WP09371 - Historic Transportation Jakes Wash Road. The road was previously recorded as 26WP9371, however, the previous site record describes a small historic scatter and does not mention a road. As of this study, no site records for the road are yet available in the NVCRIS database. Present survey did not relocate any artifacts. Age ca. 1940s.
20. 26WP13068 HDR-WhitePine013 Historic Transportation Segment of US Highway 93. Present survey records approximately 2,100 ft long segment of US Highway 93 that runs through the study area. Present survey also notes two historical culverts and refuse scatter consisting of 1 ceramic insulator, 230+/- glass fragments, and 50+/- metal cans, 100+/- miscellaneous metal fragments, and 1 metal horseshoe. US Highway 93 dates to early 1930s.
21. 26WP13744 - Precontact Lithic Scatter Originally recorded in 2019 as a lithic scatter consisting of an estimated 50 flakes and 2 biface fragments. Lithic material types include basalt and CCS. Revisit in 2021 by HDR did not encounter any portion of the site within the study area. Age unknown.
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Unevaluated N/A
Eligible (A) No
Unevaluated N/A
22. 26WP13745 - Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter H: Trash Scatter
The original site form is still processing and is not yet available. Present survey observed artifacts extending significantly north and south of the previously recorded boundary. Prehistoric component is a large lithic scatter composed primarily of 90% basalt and 10% CCS. Lithic tools include observed include 14 modified flakes, 5 bifaces, and 1 chopper. Historic component is a trash scatter with an estimated 200+ artifacts mostly consisting of cans, tobacco tins, and 30+ glass fragments. Presence of aluminum topped pull-tab cans and an Owens-Illinois glass maker’s mark with a date code of 1962, indicate the historic component likely dates to the 1960s. Present survey updated boundary.
23. 26WP14272 HDR-GGT-02 Historic Short-Term Habitation Short-term historic habitation site consisting of a refuse scatter and a small rock cluster that may have been a hearth feature. Refuse scatter includes 20 fragments of manganese glass, 2 metal cans, and 1 metal handle. Age ca. 1880- 1920. Not Eligible Yes
24. 26WP14273 HDR-GGT-03 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse scatter consisting of 5 cans, 10+ colorless glass bottle fragments, 1 porcelain doll figurine, and 1 metal ring, possibly a side strip from a key-wind can opening. Age ca. 20th century.
25. 26WP14274 HDR-GGT-04 Historic Transportation 2,500-ft long east-west trending segment of historic dirt road. Age undetermined.
26. 26WP14275 HDR-GGT-05 Historic Transportation 11,000-ft long historic dirt road segment. Age ca. 1950s.
27. 26WP14276 HDR-GGT-06 Historic Transportation Site consists of two historic north-south trending segments (A and B) of unpaved road and two associated historic refuse scatters. The historic refuse consists of: 120+ metal artifacts including cans, a metal drum, automobile fragments, sanitary tin cans, and a thermos; 170+ glass fragments including bottle glass, medicine bottle glass, Clorox bottle fragments, colorless window glass, and a baby bottle; at least 13 ceramic teacup fragments; 5 fragments of rubber from shoe heels and other unidentified items; and 1 fragment of unidentified faunal bone. Age ca. pre-1952.
Not Eligible Yes
Not Eligible Yes
Not Eligible Yes
Not Eligible Yes
28. 26WP14280 TL-14 Historic Transportation Site consists of 9,240-ft long segment of historic north-south trending unpaved road. Age ca. pre-1952. Not Eligible Yes
29. 26WP14281 TL-17 Historic Transportation Site consists of 2,995-ft long segment of historic east-west trending segment of an unpaved road and 2 fragments of automobile glass. Age ca. pre-1954.
30. 26WP14395 HDR-WhitePine069 Precontact Lithic Scatter Large lithic scatter consisting of approximately 300 flakes, 1 projectile point (Elko Corner Notched: 3,500 - 1,300 years B.P.), 5 edge-modified flakes, 5 hammerstones/cores/choppers, 8 biface fragments, 2 biface scrapers, 2 utilized flakes, and 1 complete biface. Material types include CCS and basalt. All artifacts are distributed among 3 oci (Loci 1-3). Age Late Archaic ca. 3,500 - 1,300 years B.P.
31. 26WP14397 HDR-WhitePine087
Historic Transportation Site consists of a historic dirt two-track road segment, a rusted vehicle body section, 3 barrel hoops, and 3 cans. Site dates to 1958 or earlier.
32. 26WP14475 HDR-Geotech-01 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 8 flakes, 1 modified flake,1 biface fragment, and 1 utilized flake. Lithic materials present include basalt and obsidian. Age unknown.
33. 26WP14476
HDR-Geotech-02 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 5 pieces of basalt debitage, 1 utilized basalt flake, and 1 possible basalt biface fragment. Age unknown.
34. 26WP14477 HDR-Geotech-03 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 1 piece of debitage and 2 modified flakes. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
35. 26WP14478
HDR-Geotech-04 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 200+/- pieces of debitage, 9 biface fragments, 2 complete bifaces, 2 projectile point fragments, 3 modified flakes, and 2 utilized flakes. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. A sample tally of 40 flakes was recorded in detail to describe various flake stages and material types. Age unknown.
Not Eligible Yes
Unevaluated N/A
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible Yes
Not Eligible Yes
Not Eligible Yes
Not Eligible Yes
36. 26WP14479 HDR-Geotech-05 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 13 pieces of debitage, which includes 2 modified flakes. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. Age unknown. Not Eligible Yes
37. 26WP14480 HDR-Geotech-06 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of three flakes. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown. Not Eligible Yes
38. 26WP14481 HDR-Geotech-07 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Historic Isolate
Site consists of a sparse lithic scatter and one isolated historic glass bottle. The lithic assemblage includes 50+/- flakes, 4 biface fragments, 2 utilized flakes, 1 core, and 1 complete biface. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. The historic component is a complete aqua glass bottle with a crown finish. Age unknown.
Not Eligible Yes
39. 26WP14482 HDR-Geotech-08 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 5 pieces of debitage. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown. Not Eligible Yes
40. 26WP14483 HDR-Geotech-09 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse dump consisting of 20+ tin cans, two shoe soles, 150+ amber brown bottle glass fragments, two colorless complete glass bottles, two small bundles of small gage wire, one tall rectangular can, two vent hole cans, one crushed coffee can, one amber brown glass bottle, one sanitary can, and one complete cylindrical amber brown glass bottle. Age ca. mid-20th century.
41. 26WP14702 HDR-WhitePine094 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 39 flakes, 4 bifaces, and 2 modified flakes. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. Age unknown.
42. 26WP14708; 26WP14712
43. 26WP14716
HDR-WhitePine096 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of over 20 pieces of debitage, 4 biface fragments, and 1 complete biface. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
HDR-WhitePine053 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of approximately 60 pieces of debitage diffusely scattered across the site. Material types include CCS, basalt, and obsidian; some CCS appeared heat-treated (glossy), and one piece exhibited pot lidding. No tools were observed. Age unknown.
44. 26WP14792 HDR-WhitePine018 Precontact Lithic Scatter This site includes a basalt lithic scatter with approximately 50 flakes, 2 bifaces, 1 flake tool, and one modern bullet casing. Age unknown.
45. 26WP14811 HDR-WhitePine001 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 4 basalt flakes. Age unknown.
46. 26WP14812 HDR-WhitePine002 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of approximately 20 flakes, 3 utilized flake tools, 3 biface fragments, and 2 hammerstone/chopper tools. Material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
Not Eligible Yes
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
47. 26WP14813 HDR-WhitePine003 Historic Trash Scatter Small historic trash scatter consisting of amber glass fragments from one bottle and one metal buckle. Age ca. 1940s. Not Eligible No
48. 26WP14814
HDR-WhitePine004 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Trash Scatter
This site consists of a precontact lithic scatter and a historic glass scatter. The lithic assemblage includes 77 flakes, 4 lithic tools, and 3 precontact undecorated brownware sherds. The 4 lithic tools include 3 reworked flakes and 1 biface fragment. The lithic material types include CCS and basalt. The historic artifacts consist of 6 sun-colored amethyst glass fragments. The artifact assemblage of this site is distributed among four different oci (Loci 1-4). Age unknown.
Unevaluated N/A
49. 26WP14815
50. 26WP14816
HDR-WhitePine005 Historic Trash Scatter This site is a small refuse scatter consisting of 20+ broken flat glass and a metal barrel. Age undetermined 20th century. Not Eligible No
HDR-WhitePine006 Precontact Lithic Scatter This site consists of a lithic scatter including approximately 41 flakes and one utilized flake tool. The lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
Unevaluated N/A
51. 26WP14817 HDR-WhitePine008 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Trash Scatter
52. 26WP14818 HDR-WhitePine009 Historic Trash Scatter
This site consists of a small lithic scatter and a small historic refuse dump. The lithic scatter includes approximately 13 flakes and 1 edge-modified blade flake. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. The historic refuse dump consists of less than 120 items and includes glass bottle and jar fragments, whiteware body sherds, and cans. The artifacts in this site are distributed between 2 oci. Precontact component age: unknown. Historic component dates to 1940s-1950s.
This site consists of a concentration of diffuse historic refuse scatter and a remnant dirt road trace. Artifacts include 500+/bottle glass fragments, 300+/- tin cans and tin can fragments, 150+/- fragments of milled lumber, 30+/- nails, 30+/- sheet metal fragments, 5+/- bundles of small and medium gauge wire, 300+/- miscellaneous metal items/fragments, and 100+/ceramic earthenware items/fragments. The artifacts are distributed between 2 loci. Site dates to ca. 1920s to 1960.
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
53. 26WP14819 HDR-WhitePine010 Multicomponent P: Short-Term Habitation
H: Short-term Habitation
This site consists of a lithic scatter, a possible precontact hearth feature, and a historic fire ring. The precontact component consists of approximately 300 artifacts including flakes and tools, and a possible hearth feature. Observed lithic tools include one biface and one retouched flake. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. The historic component includes several historic cans and one historic fire ring. Prehistoric component age unknown, historic component dates to the 20th century.
54. 26WP14820 HDR-WhitePine011 Historic Habitation Habitation site with two historic features, an earthen foundation with a well and a u-shaped depression. Artifact assemblage includes approximately 500 fragments of colorless glass and some amber glass fragments. Site dates to ca. 1920s to 1960s.
55. 26WP14821 HDR-WhitePine014 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic Scatter consisting of at least 200 artifacts including flakes, tools, and shatter. The observed lithic tools include 2 projectile points (one distal end and one Gypsum Stemmed projectile point ( 4,000 - 2,800 years B.P.), 1 biface, 7 utilized flake tools, and 2 edge-modified flake tools. Material types include CCS, basalt, and chert. The artifacts are mostly distributed between two artifact concentrations. Age Middle Archaic.
56. 26WP14822 HDR-WhitePine015 Historic Trash Scatter This site comprises a small refuse scatter consisting of one metal fuel can and a scatter of 300+/- colorless bottle glass fragments from no more than 3 vessels. Site dates from 1950s to modern.
57. 26WP14823 HDR-WhitePine016 Precontact Lithic Scatter This site consists of 2 basalt flakes. Age unknown.
58. 26WP14824 HDR-WhitePine017 Historic Trash Scatter This site consists of a discrete historic refuse scatter, appearing to be a single episode dump of at least 180 artifacts. Artifact types include: roughly 30 metal cans; roughly 150 green and colorless bottle, jar, and drinking glass fragments; 4 complete colorless glass jars; 3 intact colorless drinking glasses; 2 feet of copper wire; 1 cut faunal bone fragment; and 1 wooden paint brush handle. Age dates from circa 1930s to 1960s.
Unevaluated N/A
Unevaluated N/A
Unevaluated N/A
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
59. 26WP14825 HDR-WhitePine019 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic site consisting of at least 30+ basalt flakes, one basalt scraper, and two basalt biface fragments. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
60. 26WP14826 HDR-WhitePine020 Historic Trash Scatter
This site is a historic refuse scatter consisting of at least 15 artifacts. The historic artifacts present include 1 complete amber glass bottle, 1 small circular friction lid with imprint, 1 rectangular friction lid with imprint, 10+ fragments of colorless glass, 2 hole-in-top cans w/ ice pick opening, and 2 undiagnostic, crushed cans. Site dates to approximately the late 1950s.
Not Eligible No
61. 26WP14827 HDR-WhitePine022 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic site consisting of 47 pieces of debitage. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
62. 26WP14828 HDR-WhitePine023 Historic Transportation This site is a sparse historic refuse scatter consisting of 1 vent hole can, 3 lengths of small gage wire, 1 broken colorless glass bottle (possible modern), and 2 sanitary cans. Age ca. 20th century.
Not Eligible No
63. 26WP14829 HDR-WhitePine024 Historic Trash scatter
64. 26WP14830 HDR-WhitePine025 Historic Trash Scatter
This site consists of a sparse historic refuse scatter with 2 crushed cans, 1 crushed tin, 1 crushed "Acme Beer" can, and 1 hole-in-top can. 1 basalt flake is also in the site but has been recorded separately as an isolate (ISO-HDR-WhitePine104). Historic components dated to ca. 1940s.
This site is a diffuse and sparse historic refuse scatter consisting of 4 artifacts which include: 1 complete colorless glass bottle; 1 piece of small gage wire; 1 rotary opened can end; and 1 vent hole can. Age ca. 1917-1929.
65. 26WP14831 HDR-WhitePine026 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic site consisting of approximately 60 pieces of basalt debitage. Age unknown.
66. 26WP14832 HDR-WhitePine027 Historic Trash Scatter
67. 26WP14833 HDR-WhitePine028 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Trash scatter
This site is a sparse and diffuse historic refuse scatter, consisting of over 60 artifacts. The artifacts include 1 complete amber glass beer bottle, 1 rectangular key-wind top strip can, 1 tall steel beverage can, and approximately 60 fragments of amber glass from two broken bottles. Age circa 1944-1985.
The site consists of a precontact lithic scatter and a sparse historic refuse scatter. The lithic scatter consists of over 800 pieces of debitage, 3 bifaces, 1 modified flake, and 1 utilized flake. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. The historic refuse consists of a sparse scatter of cans and glass, with one diagnostic colorless glass bottle base. All artifacts are distributed within the site among four different loci (Loci 1-4). Prehistoric component age unknown. Historic component dates to ca. 1929-1960.
68. 26WP14834 HDR-WhitePine029 Historic Utilities This site is a historic utility line remnant with components including 4 guy wire anchors, 1 ceramic insulator, 5 glass insulators, copper wire, and 2 iron rods protruding from the ground. Age ca. 1930s to 1970s.
69. 26WP14835 HDR-WhitePine030 Historic Trash Scatter This site is a historic refuse scatter, including 10 metal cans, 2 metal meat tins, and 1 colorless/aqua pane glass. Age ca. 1950s.
70. 26WP14836 HDR-WhitePine031 Historic Trash Scatter Sparse historic refuse scatter consisting of 7 artifacts. The historic artifacts include 1 complete green glass Coca-Cola bottle, 5 cans, and 1 miscellaneous scrap metal item. Age ca. 1950s to present.
71. 26WP14837 HDR-WhitePine032 Historic Trash scatter Sparse historic refuse scatter consisting of six historic cans and one diagnostic can lid with "sanitary" imprint. Age ca. 1904 – 1950s.
72. 26WP14838 HDR-WhitePine033 Historic Trash Scatter Sparse historic e refuse scatter with one complete amber brown glass bottle, a corrugated metal sheet, 10+ tin can fragments, 30+ bottle glass fragments, 5+ flat glass, one all-steel beverage can, 2 church key-opened cans, and one vent hole can. Age ca. 1950s to 1970s.
73. 26WP14839 HDR-WhitePine034 Historic Trash scatter Sparse historic can scatter consisting of 11 cans and 2 diagnostic can lids; modern or recent computer parts observed in site boundary. Age ca. 1880s-mid 1900s.
74. 26WP14840 HDR-WhitePine035 Historic Trash Scatter Site consists of 3 artifacts: 1 fragment of amber brown glass, and 2 tall all-steel church key opened beverage can. Age ca. 20th century.
75. 26WP14841 HDR-WhitePine036 Historic Trash scatter Small historic can scatter comprising 4 cans: 2 hole-in-top cans, 1 sanitary can, and 1 small, condensed milk can. Age undetermined.
76. 26WP14842 HDR-WhitePine037 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse scatter consisting of 200+/- glass fragments, 1 complete amber glass bottle, 3 cans, and 1 metal barrel hoop. Age ca. 1950s – 1970s.
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
77. 26WP14843 HDR-WhitePine038 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of 2 CCS flakes. Age unknown.
78. 26WP14844 HDR-WhitePine039 Multicomponent P: Short-Term Habitation
This site consists of a rock shelter and a historic refuse scatter. The precontact components include possibly the rock shelter and one basalt flake. The historic components consist of 10 metal fragments, 25 +/- bottle and jar glass fragments, 1 wire nail, 1 beer can, and 1 steel basin. Prehistoric: age unknown; Historic: ca. 1910s-1950s.
N/A
79. 26WP14845 HDR-WhitePine040 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of 11 basalt flakes, 1 basalt biface midsection, and two basalt modified edge flakes. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
80. 26WP14846 HDR-WhitePine041 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of 1 CCS biface and 1 utilized basalt flake. Age unknown.
81. 26WP14847 HDR-WhitePine042 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of two basalt flakes. Age unknown.
82. 26WP14848 HDR-WhitePine043 Historic Trash Scatter Sparse historic refuse scatter consisting of 2 colorless glass headlight fragments, 10+/- crushed cans, and 2 possible meat tins. Age ca. 1940s-1970s.
Not
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not
Eligible No
No
N/A
87. 26WP14853 HDR-WhitePine050 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of 6 basalt flakes, 2 of which have been modified. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
88. 26WP14854 HDR-WhitePine051 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of 16 basalt flakes and 1 modified basalt flake tool. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
89. 26WP14855 HDR-WhitePine052 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of 1 CCS projectile point fragment and 2 CCS flakes. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
90. 26WP14856 HDR-WhitePine055 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of 9 flakes. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
91. 26WP14857 HDR-WhitePine057 Historic Water Control Historic site that consists of spring improvements, including 3 features. The features include: a fenced area surrounding a spring improvement; a water control system; and a circular depression. Artifacts present include remnants of a metal and wood flume, 1 possible flume cap made of metal, 1 colorless glass bottle, and sheet metal fragments with eroded lumber. Age ca. 1918-present.
Not Eligible No
92. 26WP14858 HDR-WhitePine058 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 30+/- flakes, 1 Gatecliff Split Stem projectile point (5,000 - 3,300 years B.P.), 4 biface fragments, 1 modified flake, and 1 utilized flake. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age Middle Archaic.
93. 26WP14859 HDR-WhitePine059 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 1 CCS biface fragment and 2 basalt flakes. Age unknown.
94. 26WP14860 HDR-WhitePine060 Multicomponent P: Lithic Isolate
H: Trash Scatter
95. 26WP14861 HDR-WhitePine061 Historic Trash Scatter
Site consists of 1 precontact lithic artifact and 4 historic artifacts. The precontact component is 1 CCS biface fragment. The historic components consist of 3 aqua glass bottle fragments and 1 sanitary can. Prehistoric component: Age unknown. Historic component age undetermined.
Historic refuse scatter and earthen rock pile occurring along an intermittent drainage. Historic artifacts include 1 stove pipe section, 1 cable, 1 motor head, 1 sanitary can, 1 aluminum bicycle part, and 5 miscellaneous metal fragments. Age ca. 1930s-present.
96. 26WP14862 HDR-WhitePine062 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse scatter consisting of 10 sanitary cans, 1 trash can, 2 paint cans, 1 bike seat, 5 miscellaneous metal parts, 1 glass jar, and 2 pull-tab soda cans. Age ca. 1965-1975.
97. 26WP14863 HDR-WhitePine064 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Trash Scatter/ Transportation
Site consists of a sparse precontact lithic scatter, two dirt road segments, and a small historic refuse scatter. The precontact component includes 1 utilized basalt flake and 1 large basalt chopper or core tool. The historic road consists of two intersecting segments. The historic artifacts include 12 glass fragments, 13 cans, 6 tins, and 1 can lid. Most of the artifacts are concentrated in Artifact Concentration 1, located where the two road segments intersect. Prehistoric component age unknown. Historic component ca. 1930s-1950s.
98. 26WP14865 HDR-WhitePine068 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 6 flakes, 1 piece of shatter, and 1 possibly utilized flake. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
99. 26WP14864 HDR-WhitePine066 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Historic Isolate
Lithic scatter with one isolated historic sanitary can. The lithic scatter includes 15 flakes and 2 basalt biface fragments. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Prehistoric component unknown. Historic component ca. 1900s to present.
Not
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
100. 26WP14866 HDR-WhitePine070 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 50+/- flakes, 1 core/possible chopper, 1 biface, 1 edge-modified flake, and 1 utilized flake. Material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
101. 26WP14867 HDR-WhitePine072 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 8 flakes, 1 core, and 1 utilized flake. Material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
102. 26WP14868 HDR-WhitePine074 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of over 100 flakes, 1 Great Basin-Silver Lake projectile point (11,000 - 9,000 years. B.P.), 3 bifaces, 1 utilized flake, 1 edge-modified flake, and one isolated historic beverage can. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. Age: Precontact – Pre-Archaic Period; Historic – ca. 1960s-1970s
Unevaluated N/A
103. 26WP14869 HDR-WhitePine076 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 2 flakes and 1 biface fragment. Material types include basalt and CCS. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
104. 26WP14870 HDR-WhitePine078 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 36 flakes, 1 piece of shatter, 1 core, and 1 biface midsection fragment. All artifacts are basalt. Age unknown.
Not Eligible No
081 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 5 pieces of CCS debitage. Age unknown.
106. 26WP14872 HDR-WhitePine083 Historic Transportation Site consists of a historic single-lane, two-track dirt road segment. Age ca. pre-1958.
107. 26WP14873 HDR-WhitePine085 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 18 pieces of debitage, 2 biface fragments, and 1 modified flake tool. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
108. 26WP14874 HDR-WhitePine088 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of more than 40 flakes, 12 biface fragments, 2 modified flakes, 1 projectile point, and 1 milling slab. Material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. Artifact 4 is an Elko Corner Notched projectile point that dates to approximately 3,500 B.P. – 1,300 B.P.
109. 26WP14875 HDR-WhitePine090 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 2 CCS flakes and 2 CCS unifacially worked tools. Age unknown.
110. 26WP14876 HDR-WhitePine092 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 11 flakes and 1 Elko Corner Notched projectile point base fragment (3,500 - 1,300 years B.P.). Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age Middle-Late Archaic.
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
111. 26WP14877 HDR-WhitePine098 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 7 flakes and 1 biface fragment. Lithic material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
112. 26WP14878 HDR-WhitePine099 Precontact Rock Shelter Possible rock shelter with two openings. No other artifacts or features were observed. Age unknown. Unevaluated N/A
113. 26WP14879 HDR-WhitePine100 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of at least 58 pieces of debitage, 6 biface fragments, 2 utilized flakes, 1 edge-modified flake, 1 complete biface, 1 core, and 1 isolated modern sanitary tin can. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. Approximately 50% of artifacts are within Artifact Concentration 1. Age unknown.
114. 26WP14880 HDR-WhitePine102 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 7 pieces of debitage, 1 Rose Springs Stemmed projectile point fragment, 1 uniface, 1 edgemodified core, 1 biface midsection, and 1 possible scraper. Lithic materials present include CCS and basalt. Late Archaic Period (1,500 to 700 years B.P.).
115. 26WP14881 HDR-WhitePine104 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 8 flakes. Material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
116. 26WP14882 HDR-WhitePine106 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of at least 35 pieces of debitage, 10 biface fragments, 4 utilized flakes, 1 edge- modified flake, 1 complete biface, and 1 complete Rose Springs Stemmed projectile point. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. Late Archaic Period (1,500 to 700 years B.P.).
117. 26WP14883 HDR-WhitePine108 Historic Transportation Site consists of a 1,200 ft-long historic dirt two-track road segment, two sanitary cans, and several small unidentifiable miscellaneous metal fragments. Age ca. 1950s.
118. 26WP14884 HDR-WhitePine200 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 17 flakes, 1 unifacially worked flake, 1 modified flake, and 1 biface. Material types include basalt and obsidian. Age unknown.
119. 26WP14885 HDR-WhitePine201 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 60+/- flakes, 2 biface fragments, and 1 edge-modified flake. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. Age unknown.
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Unevaluated N/A
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
120. 26WP14886 HDR-WhitePine202 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of over 50 flakes, 2 diagnostic projectile points (Artifacts 1 - Rose Springs Corner Notched [1,500 to 700 years B.P] & 3 - Gatecliff Stemmed [4,000 to 2,800 years B.P.]), and 3 biface fragments. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and obsidian. Age Middle-Late Archaic.
121. 26WP14887 HDR-WhitePine204 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of over 140 flakes, 3 biface fragments, 2 diagnostic projectile points (Artifacts 2 & 6 - Both are Elko Corner Notched, dating to 3,500 to 1,300 years B.P.), and 1 multidirectional core/hammer. Material types include basalt, CCS, and chalcedony. Age Middle -Late Period.
122. 26WP14888 HDR-WhitePine205 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter H: Trash Scatter
This site consists of a dense precontact lithic scatter and a small historic refuse scatter. The precontact components include over 1,110 flakes, 5 projectile point fragments, 4 milling slab fragments, and 2 biface fragments. Lithic material types include basalt, CCS, and chalcedony. The historic components include 7 cans and 1 steel wash basin. The artifacts are distributed among 4 separate loci (Loci 1-4). Prehistoric: Middle Archaic Period [6,000 to 1,500 years B.P.], Late Archaic Period [1,500 to 700 years B.P.] Historic: mid-20th century.
123. 26WP14889 HDR-WhitePine206 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consists of at least 135 flakes, 1 milling slab fragment, 1 edge-modified flake, and 1 biface. Material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
124. 26WP14890 HDR-WhitePine207 Precontact Lithic Scatter Large lithic assemblage consisting of over 1,000 pieces of basalt and CCS debitage, 2 scraper tools, 2 exhausted cores, 7 biface fragments, 1 complete projectile point (not typeable), 1 Elko Corner Notched projectile point (3,500, 1,300 years B.P), 1 Gatecliff Contracting Stem (5,000 - 3,000 years B.P.), 1 reworked possible Elko series (3,500 - 1,300 years B.P), and one projectile point tip (not typeable). Middle Archaic Period to the Late Archaic Period.
125. 26WP14891 HDR-WhitePine208 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse scatter consisting of 12 metal cans (one meat tin, one condensed milk, one tobacco tin, seven sanitary cans, and two hole-in-top cans) and one glass bottle. Age ca. 1960s to 1970s.
126. 26WP14892 HDR-WhitePine209 Historic Trash Scatter Historic domestic refuse scatter consisting of 7 pieces of unidentifiable ferrous metal scrap, 6 fragments of metal farming equipment, 1 can lid, 3 crushed cans, 2 earthenware fragments, 2 pieces of milled lumber, 5 nails, and 18 fragments of colored glass. ca. 1890s to 1950s.
127. 26WP14893 HDR-WhitePine210 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 40+/- flakes, 1 scraper fragment, 1 projectile point tip, 1 biface fragment, and 1 core fragment. Material types include CCS and basalt. Age unknown.
Unevaluated N/A
Unevaluated N/A
Unevaluated N/A
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
128. 26WP14894 HDR-WhitePine211 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 35+ basalt flakes and four basalt biface fragments. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
129. 26WP14895 HDR-WhitePine212 Precontact Lithic Scatter Lithic scatter consisting of 4 CCS flakes and 1 CCS biface fragment. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
130. 26WP14896 HDR-WhitePine213 Precontact Lithic Scatter Site consists of a sparse lithic scatter and two possible rock features. Lithics include 1 basalt Elko Side Notched projectile point (3,000 - 1,300 years B.P) and 1 piece of obsidian shatter. Features include 1 possible cairn and 1 possible hunting blind. Age Middle-Late Archaic.
Not Eligible No
131. 26WP14897 HDR-WhitePine214 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse scatter consisting of 50+ colorless glass fragments, 5 metal jar lids, and 1 crushed metal can. Age unknown. Not Eligible No
132. 26WP14898 HDR-WhitePine215 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse scatter consisting of 10+ ceramics sherds, 3 fragments of metal scrap, 3 milled lumber fragments, 1 ceramic insulator, 1 rusted metal grate, and 1 complete glass bottle. Age ca. 1920s to 1960s.
Not Eligible No
133. 26WP14899 HDR-WhitePine216 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse scatter consisting of 5 crushed cans. Age unknown. Not Eligible
134. 26WP14900 HDR-WhitePine217 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse scatter consisting of 1 complete colorless bottle, 1 complete milk glass jar, and 1 complete amber glass medicine bottle. Historic artifacts mixed with modern refuse dumped nearby. Age ca. 1930s to 1970s.
135. 26WP14901 HDR-WhitePine219 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse dump consisting of diffused glass fragments from one amber glass bottle and one amethyst glass bottle. Age ca. 1880s - 1920s.
136. 26WP14902 HDR-WhitePine220 Historic Utilities Historic refuse dump consisting of glass fragments, 3 church-key opened cans, 2 recorded glass artifacts, and a concrete pier slab. The recorded glass artifacts include 1 complete perfume bottle and 1 insulator fragment. Age ca. pre-1950s.
137. 26WP14903 HDR-WhitePine221 Historic Trash Scatter Historic refuse dump consisting of 8 complete amber glass bottles, 10+ amber glass bottle fragments, and 1 piece of metal wire. Age ca. 1940s - 1970s.
138. 26WPbadno - Unknown Other Previously recorded site, but no previous site record available. Portions of the site crossed into the study area, but a majority were on private land without access. Of the portion that crossed the survey area where land ownership was not a concern, the grade was 70%+ and was therefore inaccessible. Age ca. pre-1958.
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Not Eligible No
Unevaluated N/A
139. S3021 HDR-WhitePine218 Historic Transportation Site consists of a 720 ft-long segment of a road, a maintained and utilized two-lane, historic dirt road. Age ca 1950s. Not Eligible No
140. S3026
141. S3044
HDR-WhitePine056 Historic Transportation This site is a dirt two-track single lane road segment heading roughly north/south through the study area. Age ca. 1950s. Not Eligible No
HDR-WhitePine044 Multicomponent P: Lithic Scatter
H: Trash Scatter/ Transportation
Site consists of 2 historic single lane, two-track dirt road segments (Segments A and B), a historic refuse scatter, and 2 basalt flakes. The historic refuse consists of roughly 10 metal cans and a small amount of brown bottle glass. Prehistoric component age unknown. Historic age ca. 1950s.
Not Eligible No
Built Environment Resources
The Cultural Resources Study identified two built environment resources within the study area, which include segments of the Nevada Northern Railway (26WP5336) and portions of the Lincoln Highway (26WP6229/S2798/D129) (see Table 3.10-7) Both resources also include archaeological components and therefore are also discussed in the section above. Though not related to the Project licensing or the Cultural Resources Study, the SHPO has concurred that the segments of these resources running through the study area are eligible and contributing to the eligibility of these larger linear resources (see related NSHPO concurrence letters in Appendix G).
26WP5336/ CRNV-04-546/ CRNV-04-8492 (TL-02/TL-05)
Eligible
3.10.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects – Cultural Resources
Project construction, operation, and maintenance may have an effect on historic properties. Types of effects may include direct (i.e., the result of Project activities at the same time and place with no intervening cause), indirect (i.e., the result of Project activities later in time or further removed in distance but reasonably foreseeable), and/or cumulative (e.g., caused by a Project activity in combination with other non-Project past, present, and foreseeable future activities) (ACHP 2019). Section 106 of the NHPA requires lead federal agencies to consider direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In this case, the undertaking is FERC’s issuance of a license for the Project. 36 CFR §800.5(a)(1) states that:
An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.
The Cultural Resources Study identified 25 unevaluated cultural resources that could be historic properties and 9 cultural resources 14 that have been evaluated as eligible for the NRHP and are considered historic properties (pending NSHPO concurrence on the eligibility of five of these resources) The Project is likely to adversely affect some of these identified resources and several others that are not yet identified. As the Project design and APE are not yet firmly defined, Project-related effects on cultural resources, and in particular historic properties, is not yet fully understood. WPW anticipates that Projectrelated effects on historic properties will be identified and managed through the implementation of the HPMP.
3.10.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Cultural Resources
As noted in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for cultural resources is the proposed APE, since the impact area for direct effects (physical) includes areas subject to ground disturbance, while indirect effects (visual or audible) include Project elements that are visible from historic properties in which the setting contributes to their NRHP eligibility. However, because the APE has not yet been determined as described in Section 3.10.1.2, it is not possible at this time to determine how many reasonably foreseeable actions could occur within the geographic scope for cultural resources
Cultural resources surveys for the Project are ongoing and there is a potential for the Project to adversely affect historic properties. WPW is developing an HPMP in consultation with the Section 106 consulting parties to provide site-specific measures to resolve any potential adverse project-related effects and will implement the HPMP prior to construction. The HPMP will manage potential effects on historic properties throughout the term of any new FERC license. WPW will also develop Project-specific plans to address unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources and human remains during construction of the Project; similar plans will likely be prepared by the project proponents of the projects in Table 3.2-2 Cumulative effects to cultural resources will be evaluated as Project design continues in coordination with applicable resource agencies. Determinations of NRHP eligibility and Project effects are still under review with federal, state, and Tribal agencies. Given the state and federal laws and regulations that protect cultural resources, as well as the physical characteristics and location of the Project significant cumulative effects on historic properties within the Project APE are expected to be unlikely.
3.10.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3. Additionally, WPW conducted the following consultation specific to Cultural Resources.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to provide the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment. In addition, Federal agencies are required to consult on the Section 106 process with SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Indian Tribes (to include Alaska Natives)
14 Of these nine resources, two represent the archaeological components of the Nevada Northern Railway and the Lincoln Highway, while two represent the built environment components of these same two resources.
[Tribes] and Native Hawaiian Organizations, other cooperating agencies, and interested parties. As specified under 36 CFR §800.16(f): “Consultation means the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants and where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the section 106 process.” Consultation and coordination throughout the entire Section 106 process conducted for FERC licensing of the Project is a key objective of WPW.
3.10.4.1 Potentially Affected Tribes
As part of the license application process, WPW requested and was granted designation as FERC’s non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to Section 106 15 As such, WPW conducted informal consultation with Section 106 consulting parties throughout study implementation, including with the Confederated Tribes of Goshute Reservation, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada, TeMoak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians, BLM, the NSHPO, the City of Ely, White Pine County, and the NNR 16 As part of its responsibilities under NHPA, FERC emailed letters on August 11, 2020, to each of the potentially interested tribes listed above, providing a brief description of the Project and an invitation to meet with FERC staff to discuss issues of concern.
An early coordination meeting between WPW’s contractor HDR and the Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada was arranged and held at the tribal office on October 24, 2020. Representatives of HDR met with a representative of the Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada to discuss the overall Project. During this meeting, the Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada representative identified concerns to include the possibility of native plant gathering areas within the Project vicinity, the tribe’s desire for field monitors onsite for upcoming fieldwork activities, and a wildlife study completed for the Project to specifically include study of elk. As follow-up to the early coordination meeting, HDR provided a map of the Project vicinity and the Project location, copies of the Project NOI and PAD, and an overview of FERC licensing processes.
Letters of informal consultation were sent via standard mail and email by HDR on behalf of WPW on May 19, 2021, to the Confederated Tribes of Goshute Reservation, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada, and Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians. These letters provided a brief summary of the Project, a map of the Project Footprint and an initially proposed APE. These letters also requested comments or concerns, and/or information relevant to the Project, and welcomed any recommendations regarding appropriate management or treatment of cultural resources that may occur within the Project vicinity. The letters also provided notification of the upcoming field effort related to the Cultural Resources Study. The Chairwoman of the Ely Shoshone Tribe provided a response to this initial letter, dated June 4, 2021, indicating interest in
15 FERC document accession # 20200713-3032, filed 07/13/2020.
16 In the PAD, WPW identified 25 Indian tribes with potential cultural affiliation to the Project vicinity. However, following issuance of the PAD, WPW refined this list to include only those Indian tribes with traditional cultural territories that may overlap with the Project vicinity: Confederated Tribes of Goshute Reservation, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada, and Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians
consultation for this Project. The tribe expressed concern about the location of the Project, with specific concern for native plant gathering areas, hunting use, and the surrounding environment. The Chairwoman requested a site visit and designated a point of contact for the tribe. Subsequently, a site visit of the proposed upper and lower reservoir locations was held on September 10, 2021, with representatives from the Ely Shoshone Tribe, WPW, and HDR. No other responses to the letter dated May 19, 2021, have been received to date.
Additional informal consultation and coordination with participating tribes and agencies will continue by providing the Cultural Resources Study report to participating tribes and agencies for review. All written comments received will be considered and addressed as appropriate. Following tribal/agency review, and once concerns and comments are addressed, the report will be provided to the NSHPO for review and concurrence. Following the NSHPO’s review and concurrence, if there are no additional concerns to be addressed, this report will be filed with FERC in its privileged/confidential files.
In addition to coordination related to the study, WPW will consult with participating tribes and agencies, including NSHPO, on the draft HPMP. For the development of the draft HPMP, WPW followed the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects issued by FERC and ACHP in 2002 (FERC and ACHP 2002)
3.10.4.2 Nevada SHPO
In a letter dated May 14, 2021, HDR, on behalf of WPW, submitted maps depicting the proposed APE to the NSHPO for review, comment, and concurrence, and to initiate informal consultation. The letter package included a description of the proposed APE, Project location maps, the NOI and PAD, and copies of the consultation letters dated August 11, 2020, from FERC to potentially interested tribes. The NSHPO responded with a letter dated June 9, 2021, acknowledging that FERC remains responsible for all formal findings and determinations. In response to the review of the proposed APE, the NSHPO was unable to conclude its review and comment on the APE as further described in Section 3.10.1.2. Due to the modifications to the Project Footprint, discussed above in Section 3.10.1 Affected Cultural Resources Environment, the study area is no longer proposed as the APE. The footprint of the APE will be reassessed and will be submitted to the NSHPO for review and concurrence once it is defined as part of HPMP implementation. The study report will be provided to NSHPO for review and concurrence including concurrence on any NRHP eligibility evaluations.
3.10.4.3 Applicant Recommendations
WPW has developed a draft HPMP, which is included herein as Appendix K (filed as Privileged) and will be provided to Section 106 consulting parties for review and comment
The HPMP will be used to manage potential Project effects on historic properties throughout the term of any original license issued by FERC FERC typically completes Section 106 by entering into a Programmatic Agreement (PA) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the licensee, the ACHP, if they choose to participate, and the SHPO that requires the licensee to develop and implement an HPMP. Additionally, FERC
requires the licensee to consult with various federal, state, tribal, and non-government parties in the development of any HPMP.
The purpose of an HPMP is to outline actions and processes to manage historic properties within the APE under the FERC license. It would serve as a guide for the licensee’s construction and operating personnel when performing Project construction or O&M activities and identify resource treatments designed to address potential ongoing and future effects to historic properties. An HPMP would also describe a process of consultation with appropriate state and federal agencies, as well as with Native American tribes who may have interests in historic properties within the APE Following the Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects issued by FERC and ACHP in 2002 (FERC and ACHP 2002), an HPMP would include management measures; training for all construction and O&M staff; routine monitoring of known cultural resources, and periodic review and revision of the HPMP.
3.11 Aesthetic Resources
BLM is responsible for managing public lands for multiple use and ensuring scenic values of public lands are considered before authorizing uses that may have negative visual impacts. BLM uses the Visual Resource Management (VRM) system to inventory scenic values through different categories to establish management objectives. The VRM system is a tool for BLM to objectively measure the scenic value of the visual resources in an area (BLM undated-c).
BLM designates VRM classes for all areas of BLM-administered lands to manage public lands in a manner which will protect the quality of the scenic and visual value of the land. The VRM classes are based on an inventory of three key elements: (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) distance zones (BLM 1984). There are four objectives for VRM classes (Classes I through IV), with Class I being the most conservative of the visual resources (BLM 1986) as shown in Table 3.11-1
Table 3.11-1. BLM VRM Classes
Objective
Description
Class I Preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.
Class II Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low, with management activities seen but not attracted by the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
Objective Description
Class III
Provide for management activities which require major modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change should be moderate, management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view. Changes should repeat basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
Class IV
Source: BLM 1986
Provide for management activities which require major modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change can be high with management activities allowed to dominate the view and be the major focus. However, attempts should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.
The White Pine County Land Use Plan recognizes the importance of the natural landscapes, with Policy 2-2 which states:
Protect and preserve the quality of the environment, and economic, cultural, ecological, scenic, historical and archaeological values; protect and preserve wildlife habitat values compatible with economic opportunities needed to provide for long term benefits for the people of White Pine County now, and future generations. (White Pine County 2008)
3.11.1 Affected Aesthetic Environment
The proposed Project will be located in the Steptoe Valley Basin approximately 8 miles northeast of the City of Ely, in a setting that is characteristic of Nevada’s topography. The surrounding areas consist of flat valleys, rolling foothills, and pyramidal mountains allowing the user a wide and far range of views. The surrounding areas are generally undisturbed except for minor infrastructure such as power lines, paved and dirt roads, ranch land, and the City of Ely and the Town of Ruth (BLM 2016). However, the south end of the valley where the proposed Project will be located contains the most development (BLM 2008b).
The goal of the Ely District RMP is to manage public lands and activities in a manner consistent with the BLM Ely District Office VRM class objectives. The objective of the RMP is to implement multiple use activities within the planning area with mitigation measures consistent with the VRM classes.
Most lands within the Project Boundary are managed by BLM. Based on the Ely District RMP (BLM 2008b), the Project Boundary lies within Class II, Class III, and Class IV lands. BLM’s scenic inventory maps are included in Appendix H. The upper reservoir is in a Class II area. Both the lower reservoir and switchyard are in a Class III area. The transmission line crosses through Class II, Class III, and Class IV lands There are no VRM Class I lands within the Project Boundary (BLM undated-c) Lands potentially affected by Project construction, operation, and maintenance are largely undeveloped.
Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study
No formal studies documenting existing aesthetic or visual resource conditions are known to exist for the study area. WPW, therefore, performed a visual and aesthetic resources study in 2021 to document visual resource conditions relating to proposed Project facilities and identify consistency with relevant agency visual and aesthetic resource goals, standards, guidelines, recommendations, objectives, and desired conditions and with other relevant guidance as determined through consultation. The 2021 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study report is included in Appendix H.
The study area was defined as all lands anticipated to be affected by Project construction (Project Footprint) and operation (Project Boundary), and areas within a 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-mile buffer surrounding the Project Footprint as shown in Appendix H. The study used GIS and site topography to:
• Establish baseline conditions for visibility using binary (visible/not visible) technique;
• Qualify or disqualify potential KOPs; and
• Cross-validate two-dimensional photosimulations, three-dimensional models, or other deliverables that are by-product derivatives of the analysis.
Using the results of the viewshed analysis, WPW reviewed and selected KOPs where potential visual impacts may occur. WPW considered input from stakeholders and agencies in the selection of KOPs.
WPW identified 10 representative KOPs for critical viewing locations of the proposed Project facilities. Using these KOPs, WPW developed photosimulations of proposed Project facilities. The visual conditions and scenic integrity of the photosimulations were assessed in terms of form, line, color, and texture, as well as proximity, extent, duration, and aspect of viewing. WPW described the impacts to the existing visual quality by analyzing and explaining if changes to the visual resources of the natural environments are compatible or incompatible with existing visual resources by land type. On BLM land, WPW also analyzed if the existing visual condition is compatible with the Scenic Integrity Objectives (i.e., high, moderate, low, or very low) for the area. WPW has determined the degree of impact of Project facilities and whether the impact is adverse, beneficial, or neutral. On BLM lands, WPW has determined the scenic integrity level using the scenic integrity scale (i.e., very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and unacceptably low). WPW has also identified any potential modifications to the Project facilities to comply with existing visual setting and direction.
Additional information will be collected in 2023 as described in Section 3.11.4.
3.11.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects – Aesthetic Resources
This section presents information about potential effects of the proposed Project on aesthetic resources. Following NEPA regulations and guidelines, a project’s potential effects can be categorized as direct, indirect, and cumulative. Cumulative effects are presented separately, in a subsequent section.
3.11.2.1 Key Observation Points (KOPs)
As described above, WPW identified 10 KOPs to provide representative views of existing conditions and depict changes from the Project. Unless otherwise noted below, KOPs are located on BLM-administered lands. The 10 identified KOPs are shown in Figure 3.11-1 and described below. A photograph from each KOP is included in Appendix H.
3.11.2.2 KOP 1: Highway 93 & State Route 486
KOP 1 is located just east of the intersection of Highway 93 and State Route 486, near a directional kiosk for travelers along State Route 486. This KOP is approximately 9 miles north/northeast of the Project. Highway 93 is a state-designated scenic byway. From this valley position of low elevation, unobstructed background views of the Project vicinity, Schell Creek Range, and the surrounding desert landscape are present. The view represented by this KOP is typical of this desert region. Highway 93 and a barbed-wire fence-line are visible. KOP 1 is within a Class III VRM. Viewer groups include travelers, recreationists, and residents.
3.11.2.3 KOP 2: County Road 28
KOP 2 is located along County Road 28 and is approximately 5 miles northwest of the Project. This location is in the foothills of the Egan Range and was selected to be representative of views from the nearby BLM Bristlecone Wilderness. From this midelevation position across the Steptoe Valley, unobstructed middle-ground views of the Project vicinity, Schell Creek Range, and agricultural land within the valley are present. The view represented by this KOP is typical of this desert region. KOP 2 is within a Class III VRM. Viewer groups include recreationists, residents and workers, and travelers.
3.11.2.4 KOP 3: Highway 93 & 347th North
KOP 3 is located just west of the intersection of Highway 93 and 347th North and is approximately 0.5 mile north of the Project. Highway 93 is a state-designated scenic byway. From this valley position of low elevation, relatively unobstructed foreground views of the Project vicinity, Schell Creek Range, and the surrounding desert landscape are present. The view represented by this KOP is typical of this desert region, with Highway 93 and an existing transmission corridor as prominent foreground features. KOP 3 is within a Class III VRM. Viewer groups include travelers, residents, and workers.
3.11.2.5 KOP 4: Nevada Northern Railway
KOP 4 is located along the NNR HiLine tracks, approximately 1.3 miles south/southwest of the Project. From this valley position of relatively low elevation, partial foreground views of the Project vicinity and Schell Creek Range are present. There is a small hill blocking views of Highway 93 to the west. The view represented is typical of the visual experience traveling northeast from Ely along the NNR HiLine within this scrub-shrub desert landscape, with the railroad tracks being the only prominent introduced feature visible from this location. KOP 4 is within a Class III VRM. Viewer groups include passengers on the trains and workers of the NNR.
3.11.2.6 KOP 5: NNR Star Platform
KOP 5 is located along the NNR tracks, at the Star Platform for the Star Train, approximately 3.3 miles south/southwest of the Project. From this low elevation, unobstructed middle-ground views are present of the Project vicinity. Light from nearby developments, including the Town of McGill, can be seen in the middle-ground and background; however, nighttime sky views are of high quality in this location. KOP 5 is within a Class III VRM. Viewer groups include passengers on the trains and workers of the NNR. Based on recreational use and stakeholder comments received on the study plan, a nighttime view of this KOP is presented in Appendix H for review and analysis. Daytime views of the NNR train are represented through KOP 4 and KOP 6.
3.11.2.7 KOP 6: Train near NNR Museum
KOP 6 is along the NNR tracks, near the NNR Museum in the City of Ely, approximately 6.3 miles southwest of the Project. This view is representative of NNR trains traveling from Ely and was taken from the train after leaving the museum station. KOP 6 is located on the NNR rail line. From this valley position of low elevation, background views of the Project vicinity, Schell Creek Range, and foreground to middle-ground views of agricultural and recreational activities (golf course) are present. The view represented is typical of the visual experience in and around the City of Ely, with interior valley views which open to background mountain views. KOP 6 is within a Class III VRM. Viewer groups include passengers on the trains and workers of the NNR and representative views from the City of Ely.
3.11.2.8 KOP 7: Saxton Peak
KOP 7 is located near the top of Saxton Peak, along a publicly accessible road, approximately 9.2 miles southwest of the Project. Saxton Peak is less than 1.5 miles from the City of Ely in an area with off-road vehicle and mountain bike use but is little used as purely a viewpoint. From this high elevation, views of the Egan Range and City of Ely in the foreground to middle-ground dominate the view. Project vicinity views are in the background, at the foothills of the Schell Creek Range across the valley. This view is representative of nearby mountain peaks and provides a range from more urban city views to scenic valley and mountain views. KOP 7 is within a Class II VRM. Viewer groups include recreationists.
3.11.2.9 KOP 8: Rib Hill
KOP 8 is located at the top of Rib Hill, along a publicly accessible road, approximately 12.4 miles southwest of the Project. Rib Hill is about 5.5 miles west of the City of Ely and experiences recreational use from hikers, off-road vehicle users, and mountain bikers, but is little used as purely a viewpoint. From this high elevation, foreground views of the Robinson Mine and background views of the Project vicinity and Schell Creek Range are present. This view is typical of nearby mountain peaks and provides a high contrast in views from the heavily modified mine to more distant scenic mountain views. KOP 8 is within a Class II VRM. Viewer groups include recreationists.
3.11.2.10 KOP 9: Highway 50
KOP 9 is located along Highway 50, past mile marker 50 eastbound, and is 0.2 mile north of the proposed transmission line aerial crossing of the highway. Highway 50 is a statedesignated scenic byway (also known as “America’s Loneliest Highway”) and is one of only a few major routes through eastern Nevada (BLM 2011). From this relatively high elevation, foreground views of the Project transmission line and the existing transmission lines with H-frame poles are present, along with middle-ground vegetated mountain views. This view is typical of the visual experience traveling to Ely along Highway 50, with the roadway and other introduced features (transmission line infrastructure and fencing) contrasting with more scenic mountain views. Existing transmission poles (H-frames) and wires are visible, along with an aerial crossing of the highway. KOP 9 is within a Class III/Class IV VRM. Viewer groups include travelers and residents and workers.
3.11.2.11 KOP 10: State Route 486
KOP 10 is located off State Route 486/County Road 29 and is 2.5 miles east of the Project State Route 486 passes through valleys and canyons, is near both BLM- and USFSmanaged lands, and is a main travel route for sightseeing, outdoor recreation, hunting, and camping in the study area (BLM 2011). This KOP is located on a road that traverses private land. From this high elevation, foreground to middle-ground views of vegetated hills and the Project vicinity are visible, with more distant mountain peaks in the background. A dirt road which connects to State Route 486 (marked by overhead power lines) is also visible in the foreground. This view is typical of the visual experience traveling along State Route 486, with varying vegetation along rolling hills. KOP 10 is within a Class II VRM. Viewer groups include recreationists, residents, and travelers.
3.11.2.12 Construction and Operational Impacts
For the purposes of this analysis, WPW assessed the effects of Project construction and operation on visual and aesthetic resources in the study area based on a comparison of predicted change caused by the Project with the scenic quality inventory of the study area. The results are based on consideration of existing scenic quality rating/scores, existing landscape character, presence or absence of introduced features (roadways, transmission lines, fences, agriculture, etc.), and the potential effect of the Project as either a new or additional cultural modification.
Construction activities will create short-term visual and aesthetic impacts associated with activities, including the presence and visibility of construction equipment, materials, and personnel; construction staging and laydown areas; and vegetation clearing. Operations will create visual and aesthetic impacts from above-ground Project features, including the upper and lower reservoirs, switchyard, and transmission line.
Photosimulations of each KOP are presented in Appendix H Additional information is presented by KOP as follows.
3.11.2.13 KOP 1: Highway 93 & State Route 486
During construction, daytime Project activities will be imperceptible from KOP 1 due to the approximate 9-mile distance from the Project. Workers may result in temporary increases in traffic along Highway 93, but it is already a highly traveled route and as such, impacts will be negligible from a visual impact perspective. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is already present from the nearby town and developments along Highway 93.
Based on the photosimulation, the lower reservoir, switchyard, and transmission line are imperceptible from this distance for the viewer. The lower reservoir is designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape and be made of local materials and follows the line of the mountain foothills. The color of the lower reservoir is designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape and be made of local materials and to not create contrast. Texture is consistent with the surrounding desert landscape. The switchyard and transmission line crossing the valley are in the background and imperceptible to the viewer. As no contrast will occur from this KOP, VRM Class III management objectives will be met.
3.11.2.14 KOP 2: County Road 28
During construction, Project activities will be visible, but due to the approximately 5-mile distance, activities will appear as weak contrast and not attract attention. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is already present from the nearby town and developments within the valley.
As shown in the photosimulation of KOP 2, the lower reservoir is visible near the center of the figure and in this simulation appears as a horizontal line/low rectangular landform along the base of the foothills. Color blends in well with the surrounding area, appearing as slightly grey when compared to the tan desert; contrast is weak. Texture is consistent with the surrounding landscape. The switchyard is imperceptible due to its small size and
proximity to other existing development in the valley. The transmission structures are visible along a horizontal line but are within and parallel to an existing transmission line corridor with other H-frame structures. The transmission line does not draw more attention than the existing transmission line. As weak contrast will occur, VRM Class III management objectives will be met.
3.11.2.15 KOP 3: Highway 93 & 347th North
During construction, Project activities will be visible and create short-term impacts from the presence and visibility of construction equipment, materials, and personnel and construction staging and laydown areas. As most users from this location are travelers along Highway 93, a major travel route, and will have brief glances of the construction, a moderate contrast is anticipated. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is already present from other developments within the valley.
The lower reservoir is visible in the foreground of the KOP 3 photosimulation and appears as a strong horizontal landform along the base of the foothills, visible into the desert. The straight lines of the lower reservoir are bold when compared to the rolling foothills and valley floor in the surrounding landscape. The gray color of the lower reservoir is consistent with the exposed rock of the mountains but contrasts with the darker browns and greens of the area surrounding the reservoir. The texture is smooth, while the surrounding landscape is coarser. Although views from Highway 93 are of short duration, due to the proximity to the Project, a strong contrast will occur, which does not meet VRM Class III management objectives.
3.11.2.16 KOP 4: Nevada Northern Railway
During construction, Project activities will be visible, but due to the approximately 1.3-mile distance and topography that provides only partial views, will appear as a weak contrast and not attract attention. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is already present from other developments within the valley.
As shown in the photosimulation of KOP 4, the lower reservoir is imperceptible from this KOP. In this simulation, the color of the lower reservoir is designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape and be made of local materials and does not create contrast with the lighter colored foothills. Texture is consistent with the surrounding desert landscape. As no contrast will occur from this KOP, VRM Class III management objectives will be met.
3.11.2.17 KOP 5: NNR Star Platform
During construction, Project activities will be nearly imperceptible from KOP 5 due to the approximate 3.3-mile distance from the Project. No contrast to weak contrast may occur and will not attract attention. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is already present from other developments within the valley.
A daytime photosimulation of KOP 5 is depicted in Figure 17 in Appendix H for analysis purposes The lower reservoir, switchyard, and transmission line are hard to discern from this distance. In this simulation, the lower reservoir follows the line of the mountain foothills and blends in with the surrounding desert landscape. The transmission line follows an
existing transmission corridor that already contains large H-frame structures, and the proposed H-frame poles add little additional visual impacts beyond the existing modifications. As weak contrast will occur from this KOP, VRM Class III management objectives will be met. Exterior lighting at the Project is proposed to be minimal and will consist of safety lighting. Such lighting will be the minimum necessary for safety and operations during emergencies and will be designed per mitigation measures developed by WPW in consultation with affected and interested stakeholders. Due to presence of existing light pollution visible as shown in Figure 7 in Exhibit H, Project lighting will be minimal, and weak to moderate contrast will occur, meeting VRM Class III management objectives.
3.11.2.18 KOP 6: Train near NNR Museum
During construction, Project activities will be imperceptible from KOP 6 due to the approximate 6.3-mile distance from the Project. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is already present from other developments in the foreground-middle-ground and in the valley in the background.
A small portion of the upper reservoir is visible in the photosimulation of KOP 6 near the center of the figure, along the ridgeline, and the lower reservoir and transmission line are also visible but hard to discern from this distance from the surrounding area. The upper reservoir is tan compared with the green-blue ridgeline, but due to its small scale from this distance is not noticeable and does not attract attention. The lower reservoir appears as a lighter colored gray compared with the slightly darker foothills, but again at this distance it does not attract attention. The transmission corridor is within an existing transmission corridor and blends in with other power infrastructure visible. As no contrast to weak contrast will occur from this KOP, VRM Class III management objectives will be met.
3.11.2.19 KOP 7: Saxton Peak
During construction, Project activities will be imperceptible from KOP 7 due to the approximate 9.2-mile distance from the Project. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is already present from other developments in the foreground-middle-ground and in the valley in the background.
The upper reservoir is visible in the photosimulation of KOP 7 along the second-highest ridgeline, in the background Although on a vegetated ridgeline which appears green-gray, the upper reservoir’s light gray-tan color matches exposed rock faces along the ridgeline and, thus, blends in. At this distance, form and texture are hard to discern. The City of Ely and dramatic mountain ranges dominate the view, and the upper reservoir is imperceptible with the naked eye and does not draw any attention. As no contrast will occur from this KOP, VRM Class II management objectives will be met.
3.11.2.20 KOP 8: Rib Hill
During construction, Project activities will be imperceptible from KOP 8 due to the approximate 12.4-mile distance from the Project. Nighttime construction activities may
introduce temporary lighting, which is already present from other developments in the foreground-middle-ground and in the valley in the background.
As shown in the photosimulation of KOP 8, the lower reservoir and water surface of the upper reservoir are visible but hard to discern at this distance. The lower reservoir appears in this simulation as a small rectangular form at the base of the range, on the valley edge. The size of the reservoir is larger than other developments in the valley. Texture and color are consistent with the surrounding landscape. A small sliver of the upper reservoir’s water surface is visible in this simulation at the top of the second ridgeline, and contrasts with the surrounding green-gray range; however, from this distance it appears as no contrast to weak contrast and the water level will fluctuate during operation of the Project. Due to existing mining operations that dominate the view towards the Project, this viewpoint is already highly modified, and the Project facilities will not draw attention. The transmission line is imperceptible from this KOP. As no to weak contrast will occur from this KOP, VRM Class II management objectives will be met.
3.11.2.21 KOP 9: Highway 50
During construction, Project activities will be visible and create short-term impacts from the presence and visibility of transmission construction equipment, materials, and personnel
As most users from this location are travelers along Highway 50, a major travel route, and will have brief glances of the construction, a moderate contrast is anticipated. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is otherwise only present from vehicles (no visible developments producing light).
The transmission H-frame poles and wires are visible in the photosimulation of KOP 9 and parallel the existing aerial crossing of Highway 50. The transmission different-frame poles are the same pole type as existing poles, providing consistency in transmission features and keeping with the rural nature of the area. As views from Highway 50 are of short duration for travelers, and due to the presence of existing transmission lines parallel to the proposed transmission line, a low contrast will occur, meeting VRM Class III and IV management objectives.
3.11.2.22 KOP 10: State Route 486
During construction, Project activities will be visible and create short-term impacts from the presence and visibility of construction equipment, materials, and personnel; traffic increases along State Route 486; and construction staging and laydown areas. As most users from this location are travelers along State Route 486, and will have brief glances of the construction activities, a strong contrast is anticipated. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting, which is otherwise only present from vehicles (no visible developments producing light).
As shown in the photosimulation of KOP 10, the upper reservoir is visible along the ridgeline and appears as an unnatural straight line when compared with the rolling hills of the ridgeline. The tan color of the reservoir blends in with the surrounding unvegetated ridgeline. The texture is smooth, consistent with the surrounding unvegetated landscape; coarseness from existing vegetation is present and adds interest. Although views from
Highway 486 are typically of short duration, they have a high scenic value for travelers; therefore, a moderate contrast will occur, which does not meet VRM Class II management objectives. The access road to the upper reservoir is not designed at this time, but once the location is known, additional simulation may be needed if the access road is visible from this KOP.
Additional information will be collected in 2023 as described in Section 3.11.4.
3.11.3
Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Aesthetic Resources
As noted in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for aesthetic resources is the areas where the Project would be visible Assessing the effect based on the viewshed allows for consideration of other features that could have an effect on visual resources. As detailed in Table 3.2-2, all identified reasonably foreseeable actions occur within the geographic scope for aesthetic resources
The construction and operation of the Project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would require temporary and permanent uses of land, which would result in temporary and permanent visual and aesthetic impacts. The Project, and other projects as listed in Table 3.2-2, would create short-term visual and aesthetic impacts associated with construction activities such as the presence and visibility of construction equipment, materials, and personnel; construction staging and laydown areas; and vegetation clearing. Nighttime construction may introduce temporary lighting impacts, and the impact would increase if other projects occurred at the same time. Incremental impacts on landscapes and viewsheds would result from changes to the existing landform through earthwork including road construction, alteration of existing vegetation patterns due to vegetation management, and the introduction of man-made structures that typically would be incongruent or similar with existing features that define landscape character. A cumulative effect on scenery would result from the alteration of natural-appearing landscapes through the construction of multiple projects and the changes to the existing landscape’s characteristics, including landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modification. Cumulative effects would occur where viewers would perceive the alteration of the landscape components of landform, vegetation, and structure through the introduction of the Project in addition to present and future projects.
Operations of the Project and other projects as listed in Table 3.2-2 with permanent facilities will create visual and aesthetic impacts from aboveground features. The Project’s reservoirs, roads, and other above-ground facilities would add incrementally to the cumulative visual impacts. The Project, and four of the other actions listed above, will use an existing Section 368 energy corridor, resulting in fewer visual impacts than creating a new corridor. Two of the actions listed above overlap with the Project at the Robinson Summit Substation. The existing substation has already changed this area to an industrial land use and constructed industrial structures in the area. Cumulative visual impacts from the Project and other projects would dissipate the farther they occur from the Project. WPW, and presumably proponents of other projects, would follow PM&E measures to reduce aesthetic resource impacts. Overall, the Project in combination with other foreseeable future actions would result in a moderate cumulative effect on aesthetics.
Additional information will be collected in 2023 as described in Section 3.11.4.
3.11.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.11.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3.
3.11.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
Proposed Supplemental Study Steps
Although the Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study was adequate for FERC to conduct its NEPA review, WPW has agreed to conduct supplemental efforts related to visual and aesthetic resources based on NPS comments on the DLA Section 1.3 describes WPW’s consultation with NPS and NNR regarding proposed supplemental visual and aesthetic resource study steps and remaining areas of disagreement with NPS.
WPW proposes to conduct supplemental visual and aesthetic resources data collection because: (1) the upper reservoir access road as proposed by WPW and depicted in this FLA (see Exhibits F and G) was not included in the 2021 studies and will be visible from Steptoe Valley locations including the NNR HiLine and Mainline; and (2) proposed studies in 2021 were not completed as planned due to a lack of consensus with NNR to access the HiLine to collect photographs.
WPW proposes to complete the following as part of the supplemental visual and aesthetic resources study effort:
• The survey will include six current condition and photosimulation pairs depicting views from KOPs on the NNR HiLine and Mainline. The agreed upon locations and angles of the photosimulations are detailed in Section 1,3 and are represented in Figure 1.3-1
• For the supplement to the 2021 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report, WPW and the NPS have agreed to include two additional single-shot photosimulations and associated visual effects analysis. The two agreed-upon locations and angles for these photosimulations are detailed in Section 1.3
Measures Proposed for Original License Term
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to visual and aesthetic resources:
Transmission Line: The Project transmission line will be located adjacent to an existing transmission line and primarily within an existing permitted energy corridor already designated for new development, thus reducing potential for impacts to resources.
Outdoor Lighting Plan: WPW proposes to develop a Project outdoor lighting plan to incorporate lighting design features that help minimize disturbance to wildlife species during construction and operation of the Project.
Visual Resources: WPW proposes to:
• Use BLM environmental colors (Standard Environmental Colors, Color Chart CC-001) for surface coatings of fences, gates, and other above-ground facility features.
• Design the reservoirs and other aboveground structures so that materials repeat and/or blend in with the existing form, line, color, and texture of the landscape to the extent feasible.
Although not detailed in Table 2.2-3, WPW also proposes to develop appropriate PM&Es based on the results of the supplemental study steps described above.
3.12 Socioeconomic Resources
3.12.1 Affected Socioeconomic Environment
The proposed Project is located in White Pine County, Nevada, approximately 8 miles northeast of the City of Ely, which is the largest city in the county and the county seat. White Pine County has historically been one of the principal mining centers of the state, producing gold, silver, and copper. The county’s economy has also historically depended on agriculture, tourism, and recreation (BLM 2008). The economy of White Pine County has ebbed and flowed directly with mining operations in the community. The City of Ely was founded as a stagecoach station along the Pony Express and Central Overland Route. Today, the community focus is to promote recreational opportunities, renovate and reinstate the rail freight service, support energy development and metal fabrication, and increase the community’s ability to meet the needs for second and/or retirement homes (White Pine County 2012).
Common state-wide economic issues that are also experienced in White Pine County include a lack of population and economic growth, lack of workforce housing, lack of contractor availability, high construction costs, and lack of available workforce for new employment opportunities (White Pine County 2020). White Pine County’s broad goals for economic development include the following:
1. Countywide awareness and strategic thinking and planning to secure federal, state, and private funding for economic development projects that benefit the entire county;
2. Develop short-term strategies for housing to overcome hurdles in workforce development. Housing needed to attract business development and increase tax base; and
3. Promotion of new businesses and growing existing businesses (White Pine County 2020)
WPW conducted a Socioeconomic Study to categorize the economic and social impacts of the construction and operation of the Project at the local and state level (Appendix I). The analysis aims to highlight the ways in which the Project may impact the surrounding communities and people and to comment on the extent to which these communities may
be able to accommodate Project needs and take advantage of the opportunities that it would offer. This report is discussed throughout the following section.
Additional studies will be conducted in 2023 as described in Section 3.12.4.
3.12.1.1 Populations and Households
The 2020 population of White Pine County is estimated at 9,080. The area of the county is 8,887 square miles and the population density is approximately 1.0 persons per square mile. Comparatively, the State of Nevada has a population density of approximately 28.3 persons per square mile, which makes White Pine County one of the more sparsely populated counties in the state. White Pine County’s population accounts for 0.29 percent of the population of Nevada. The 2020 census reported the population of the City of Ely to be 3,924, which accounts for approximately 43 percent of the County’s population. Between 2010 and 2020, the population in White Pine County declined by 950 individuals, 9.5 percent in total, or 0.95 percent annually on average (U.S. Census Bureau 2023e).
The population of White Pine County is 42 percent female and 58 percent male, with 19 percent of people over the age of 65; 60.9 percent of people between 18 and 65; and 20.1 percent under the age of 18. White Pine County is generally consistent with the overall state average age but not gender percentages with a far greater percentage of males than the state average of 50.5 percent The disparity in gender percentages is likely caused by the presence of the Ely State Prison which houses approximately 1,125 male inmates, thereby skewing the gender statistics for White Pine County. The population in White Pine County, as a whole, is slightly above 70 percent White alone (not Hispanic or Latino), with Black or African American and American Indian making up 10 percent of the total population, and those of Hispanic or Latino descent making up approximately 17. percent of the population. Comparatively, the State of Nevada is also primarily White (76 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB] 2023). Racial diversity is comparatively low in White Pine County. Although the national average for an area this size is 3,754 racially diverse people, there are 2,702 in White Pine County (White Pine County 2020).
3.12.1.2 Housing
The total number of housing units in White Pine County was fairly stable between 2015 and 2019, with an average of 4,492 units (USCB, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). The 2020 Census indicated a decrease to approximately 4,151 housing units. Vacant housing in the County declined from a peak of 1,286 in 2016 to 1,008 in 2019, which represents a 25 percent decline (USCB, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). There are currently about 693 vacant housing units in the County, including 407 units in Ely, McGill, and Ruth (USCB, 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). In 2017, the owner vacancy rate amounted to 2.4 percent while the rental vacancy rate amounted to 12 percent, which can be considered high in typical market conditions (White Pine County 2020). The 2017-2021 American Community Survey estimated an owner vacancy rate of 1.4 percent and a rental vacancy rate of 5.1 percent. This is potentially sufficient to accommodate most of the non-resident workers during the construction phase of the Project; however, White Pine County has identified a lack of adequate housing. In March 2019, a group of local citizens held a
“Housing Summit,” and invited developers, contractors, realtors and property owners. to attend and participate in solving the problem. The group worked with University of NevadaReno and Nevada Rural Housing to prepare an assessment of housing needed to attract employment. To assist, the County made property available to a developer willing to build housing. The County signed a contract and the first of needed housing is in the process of being built. The County plans to continue to evaluate and pursue options to increase needed housing (White Pine County 2020).
WPW anticipates that non-resident workers will not typically bring family members to the area for the construction period. Considering that many of the construction trades will not be required on the Project for the entire duration, most non-resident workers are expected to prefer temporary housing. There are approximately 23 hotels and motels that provide temporary housing in the area (White Pine County 2020). Within a daily commuting distance (approximately 50 miles) of the Project, there are also ten RV parks/campgrounds that can provide temporary housing to workers. The two largest of these, Ely KOA Journey and Valley View RV Park, offer a total of 172 RV sites (Good Sam Club 2022)
3.12.1.3 Workforce, Industry, Education, and Income Employment
Employment in White Pine County amounted to 2,966 people per the 2020 Census. Over the years 2017-2021, the civilian labor force averaged 3,688 (USCB, 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). Jobs are expected to increase by approximately 288 jobs by 2025 (White Pine County 2020). In 2019, the unemployment rate for White Pine County was 3.0 percent, compared to 3.9 percent unemployment in Nevada (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics) and a national unemployment rate of 3.7 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019). Between 2015 and 2021, the unemployment rate in White Pine County was consistently lower than in the State of Nevada.
Industries
White Pine County has historically experienced a boom-and-bust pattern of development related to mineral extraction. Mining activities continue to-date although the local smelter was closed in the 1980s. Two major industries that support White Pine County are the Ely State Prison Facility and Liberty Pit in the Robinson Mining District. The state prison opened in 1989 and is a maximum-security prison that employs 406 positions managed by the Nevada Department of Corrections. It is considered a major employer in the region (State of Nevada Department of Corrections 2019). Liberty Pit is the largest open-pit copper mine in Nevada, providing economic benefits and jobs to the surrounding community. Copper is the primary ore mined in the county, followed by gold, silver, zinc, and tungsten (White Pine County 2020).
White Pine County is also characterized as a destination for recreation and tourism, as described in Section 3.8.1 Affected Recreation Environment. White Pine County is home to 28 hotels and 33 restaurants (White Pine County 2020).
Education
Table 3.12-1 shows employment by industry across the County in 2021. The table demonstrates that that mining provided the most jobs in White Pine County at 17.8 percent of total, followed by accommodation and food services (13.5 percent of total) and public administration (11.8 percent of total). Construction supported 6.0 percent of jobs while professional services supported 4.5 percent (USCB 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates).
Source: USCB 2022c.
Between 2017 and 2021, 23.9 percent of White Pine County’s population aged 25 years and over had some college education with no degree, 10.1 percent had an associate’s degree, and 13.4 percent had a bachelor’s degree or a graduate/professional degree as
Income
their highest educational attainment (USCB 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5Year Estimates).
Table 3.12-2 shows the income statistics for White Pine County for the 2015–2019 American Community Survey and for the 2017–2021 American Community Survey In 2019 and 2021, household incomes tended to be lower in White Pine County overall than in Nevada on average. Between 2019 and 2021, household incomes as well as per capita income in Nevada increased by over 9 percent. White Pine County and Ely experienced double-digit increases in household incomes and per capita incomes However, household incomes in the communities of McGill and Ruth decreased (USCB 2023a-d).
Table 3.12-2. Income Statistics for White Pine County
In the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, the poverty rate in White Pine County was 13.6 percent, slightly higher than the state-wide rate. However, poverty rates for McGill and Ruth in 2019 were well below the state average at 4.9 percent and 9.1 percent, respectively. Over the years 2017 to 2021, poverty rates declined in the geographies considered here except for Ruth, where the poverty rate increased by 11.3 percentage points to 20.4 percent (USCB 2023a-d).
3.12.1.4 Public Services
Healthcare and Emergency Services
There are six medical clinics in White Pine County and one hospital located in Ely. In 2019 there were 15 physicians per 10,000 capita in White Pine County, lower than the state average of 22 (Griswold, Packham, and Young 2019, 2020)
The White Pine County Emergency Medical Services coverage area encompasses the County and mutual agreement areas with neighboring counties in Nevada, Shoshone Tribal lands located in Duckwater, and Millard County in the State of Utah (Nevada Government 2021) White Pine County Fire EMS – Fire Station #1, on U S Highway 93 near the Ely airport, supplies 24-hour emergency services using paid and volunteer staff. Station #2, in McGill, provides 24-hour emergency response and is staffed by volunteers (White Pine County 2022). There are a total of four medical emergency stations throughout the County primarily run by volunteer crews. William Bee Ririe Hospital in Ely has an Emergency Department that offers 24-hour emergency care, The White Pine County Ambulance, located in Ely, provides emergency and non-emergency medical transport services for patients in Ely.
There are also 14 fire departments in White Pine County, serving an area of 8,873 square miles (CountyOffice.org undated). There is one fire department per 704 people, and one fire department per 633 square miles. In Nevada, White Pine County ranked 5th of 17 counties in Fire Departments per capita, and 10th of 17 counties in terms of Fire Departments per square mile. Most White Pine County Fire Departments are staffed by volunteers. They respond to calls for fire suppression as well as medical emergencies, incidents involving hazardous materials, rescue calls, and motor vehicle or other accidents.
Public Education Services
The White Pine County School District educates most students in White Pine County with schools in Ely, Baker, Lund, and McGill. It also offers an adult education program through an alternative high school and an adult high school located at Ely State Prison (White Pine County 2020). There are seven schools in operation with 1,230 students in prekindergarten through grade 12 classes (White Pine County School District 2021)
The teacher’s count in White Pine County School District has been slowly declining, from 75 teachers in the 2014-2015 school year to 66 teachers in the 2017-2018 school year (National Center for Education Statistics undated). To address the shortage of qualified teachers throughout the state, the Nevada State Board of Education allows for Alternative Route to Licensure for prospective teachers with college degrees in other majors to be
employed as teachers while they take college classes in their teaching content area (White Pine County 2020)
Additional studies will be conducted in 2023 as described in Section 3.12.4.
3.12.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects – Socioeconomic Resources
This section presents information about potential effects of the proposed Project on socioeconomic resources. Following NEPA regulations and guidelines, a project’s potential effects can be categorized as direct, indirect, and cumulative. Cumulative effects are presented separately, in a subsequent section.
The construction and operation of the Project will impact the socioeconomics of White Pine County and the State of Nevada. A summary of WPW’s economic and social impacts analyses is provided below and detailed further in Appendix I.
3.12.2.1 Economic Impacts Analysis
Table 3.12-3 shows the economic impact of Project construction in White Pine County. 17 The impacts shown capture the combined effects of all construction-related economic activities, including construction at the site, engineering work, accommodation and food services arrangements for non-resident workers, and their spending on consumption goods and services in White Pine County. Project construction is anticipated to last up to 7 years, over which the Project expenditures of $2.3 billion are estimated to generate a total of 3,760 job-years (including 2,981 direct job-years, 374 indirect job-years, and 405 induced job-years), $186.7 million labor income, $344.2 million value added, and $536.2 million of output. On an annual basis, the Project construction is expected to support an average of 537 jobs (direct, indirect, and induced combined) in the County with a total labor income of $26.7 million.
17 The impacts shown in this section represent impacts by residents, workers, and businesses. Table 3.12-3 presents impacts that will be experienced by White Pine County residents and businesses. The actual number of jobs in White Pine County due to the Project will be higher and include non-resident workforce working on the Project site and coming to White Pine County from other Nevada counties and from other states. This effect is partly reflected in the impacts for the entire State of Nevada in Table 3.12-4
Table 3.12-4 presents the economic impact across Nevada (including White Pine County). Overall, the proposed Project is estimated to generate across the state a total of 7,736 jobyears (including 4,963 direct job-years, 81,000 indirect job-years, and 1,773 induced jobyears), $449.1 million of labor income, $796 million value added, and nearly $1.3 billion output. On an annual basis, the Project construction is expected to support an average of 1,105 jobs (direct, indirect, and induced combined) in the state with a total labor income of $64.2 million.
Table 3.12-5 shows the estimated tax revenue impacts of the construction expenditures by level of government and geography. The table shows that across Nevada, construction expenditures related to the Project are expected to generate about $164.3 million in various tax revenues to local, state, and federal governments. Tax revenues generated in White Pine County are estimated at $66.4 million (to all levels of government) over the entire construction period. As shown in the main text of this report, federal tax revenues consist primarily of personal income taxes and social insurance taxes. State tax revenues consist primarily of sales taxes. Regarding county tax revenues, property taxes account for the largest share followed by sales taxes.
Table 3.12-6 shows the annual economic impact of operations of the Project in White Pine County. Operations of the proposed infrastructure are estimated to generate in White Pine County a total of 73 jobs (including 38 direct jobs, 27 indirect jobs, and 9 induced jobs), $8.7 million labor income, $24.3 million value added, and $45.4 million of output
The economic impacts of Project operations across Nevada are somewhat higher than in White Pine County (with additional 11 indirect jobs and 26 induced jobs due to supply chain and spillover effects). Table 3.12-7 shows the tax revenues due to Project operations. The incremental tax revenues are estimated at $13.4 million annually. County tax revenues account for about 75 percent of total tax revenues which consist almost entirely of property taxes.
N/A = Categories of taxes which are not applicable for the corresponding level of government
3.12.2.2 Social Impacts Analysis
The socio-economic profiles of White Pine County, Ely, McGill, and Ruth combined with the analysis of other related data and information led to the following key observations regarding potential socioeconomic impacts of the Project.
The Project will create labor demand in the construction-related and professional services industries for more than 1,000 workers during peak periods to work at the Project site. White Pine County will not be able to support all of this demand. However, the County may be able to provide many workers given its current size of related industries, including construction, mining, and professional services industries (2019 employment of 215, 640, and 173, respectively, based on USCB data).
Although the unemployment rate in White Pine County is low (approximately 3 percent), the labor force participation rate in the County is also low, at less than 50 percent. This may be indicative of existing pockets of working age individuals who would like to work but stopped working and looking for a job due to a lack of success. Local communities may thus gain significant employment-related benefits from the Project and increase the employment rate.
The Project is expected to bring to the county more than 900 non-resident, constructionrelated workers during the construction period. This will boost county population by more than 9 percent. Most non-resident workers are not anticipated to bring family members to the area for the construction period and non-local construction personnel will typically disperse from the area following completion of construction activities.
Based on housing statistics, White Pine County has a large stock of unoccupied housing, and temporary housing is available as described in Section 3.12.1.2. However, the County’s existing housing stock may not have the capacity to accommodate all nonresident workers migrating to the County during the construction period. White Pine County has identified a need for more housing and initiated efforts to build more housing in the area as described in Section 3.12.1.2. If temporary housing is not sufficient for the construction workforce, WPW anticipates that its construction contractor will construct worker housing if needed
Some public services in White Pine County such as health care and education are already facing limited resources. With more than 900 non-resident workers coming to the county, the Project may place additional stress on these services. However, most health care needs for the non-resident temporary construction workers will be met by the medical clinics and hospital in White Pine County. Most temporary workers would not enroll students in local schools The increased tax revenues resulting from the Project will have a beneficial economic impact on local schools. The effect of the Project on health care and education is anticipated to be minor.
The County’s emergency services (medical and fire protection) may be adequate to service Project requirements during construction and subsequent operation of the Project. WPW will include emergency services coordination and notification requirements in Project construction contracts and will continue consultation with the County as to the adequacy of existing systems and equipment to meet Project needs.
The Project Footprint and adjacent lands are sparsely populated. Few if any displacements of residences or businesses will likely have to take place to build and operate the Project.
Regarding hunting and wildlife viewing, lands in the vicinity of the Project are designated as priority and seasonal habitat for game species, including Greater Sage-grouse, mule deer, and pronghorn. The Project, a large infrastructure installation in the landscape, may have some impacts to species and habitat with implications on hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities.
Additional studies will be conducted in 2023 as described in Section 3.11.4.
3.12.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Socioeconomic Resources
As noted in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for socioeconomic resources is White Pine County since it is the only county anticipated to be affected by the Project and where most workers would be expected to reside during construction and operation of the Project. It is the county that would experience the greatest effects associated with employment, housing, public services, transportation, traffic, property values, economy, and taxes. All identified reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in Table 3.2-2 occur within the geographic scope for socioeconomic resources.
Construction activity would expand regional economic development through increased employment and income in the region. As construction workers spend money in the local area, revenues will increase for local businesses (e.g., hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and grocery stores), supporting jobs, and incomes for these businesses and their employees. In remote areas near the Project, it is likely that construction workers would live temporarily in nearby communities during construction. The potential for cumulative socioeconomic impacts on population, employment, and housing exist where there are multiple projects proposed in an area that have overlapping constructions schedules and/or project operations that could affect similar resources. Concurrent and similar projects could result in a demand for labor that cannot be met by the region’s labor pool, which could lead to an influx of nonlocal workers. Socioeconomic resources potentially
affected could include the availability of housing and accommodations as well as the availability of public and social services to accommodate the temporary workers.
Although the timing of many of the projects in Table 3.2-2 is unknown, impacts on population and employment, demand for housing and public services, transportation, and government revenue from sales and payroll taxes would generally be temporary and primarily limited to the period of construction. These impacts would increase if more than one project is built at the same time. Smaller projects would likely utilize the local workforce, which would not alter housing, transportation, and public service demands. Larger projects could cause an influx of construction workers that could temporarily strain housing and increase the demands on some public services, such as police, fire, and medical services. The increase in construction workforce would also spike employment levels (assuming some of the local population is used) and the local economy would experience a beneficial, short-term impact on employment, local goods and service providers. State and local governments would be beneficially impacted by increased sales tax revenues.
Construction of the projects in Table 3.2-2 could result in temporary impacts on road traffic in some areas and contribute to cumulative traffic impacts if other projects are scheduled to take place at the same time and in the same area. WPW plans to use existing roads in addition to constructing new permanent and temporary access roads. It is likely that other projects would use the existing roads and potentially the new permanent access roadways. Increased use of roadways from multiple projects could accelerate degradation of roadways and require early replacement of road surfaces. WPW and the other project sponsors in the geographic scope of influence would be required to adhere to local road permit requirements and road weight restrictions. The Project would not contribute longterm cumulative effects on the transportation infrastructure in White Pine County because only a small number of new permanent employees would be required to operate the Project.
3.12.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.12.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3.
3.12.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
Proposed Supplemental Study Steps
Although the Socioeconomic Report was adequate for FERC to conduct its NEPA review, WPW has agreed to conduct supplemental efforts related to socioeconomics based on NPS comments on the DLA. Section 1.3 describes WPW’s consultation with NPS and NNR regarding proposed supplemental socioeconomic study steps and remaining areas of disagreement with NPS.
WPW is proposing supplemental socioeconomic data collection and analysis due to the limited information WPW has received information from NNR on services and attractions
offered, annual revenues, employment, and other NNR data relevant to socioeconomic analysis; as explained in Section 1.3 and 3.8.4, the NNR visitor use assessment survey has not been completed
This supplemental study effort is focused primarily on potential effects of the Project on NNR ridership WPW proposes to complete the following as part of the supplemental socioeconomic resources study effort:
• Develop the baseline economic footprint of NNR;
• Analyze NNR offerings, volume of NNR visitors, and NNR revenues; and
• Incorporate the results of the NNR visitor survey on visitor experiences and valued visit attributes to be conducted in 2023 as described in Section 3.8.4.2
Measures Proposed for Original License Term
As described in Table 2.2-3, the following PM&E measures are applicable to socioeconomic resources:
Temporary Housing: If temporary housing is not sufficient for the construction workforce, WPW anticipates that its construction contractor will construct worker housing as needed
Although not detailed in Table 2.2-3, WPW also proposes to develop appropriate PM&Es based on the results of the supplemental study steps described above.
3.13 Environmental Justice
According to the USEPA, “environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, income, and educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic or a socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences municipal and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local and tribal programs and policies. In implementing its programs, USEPA has expanded the concept of fair treatment to include not only consideration of how burdens are distributed across all populations, but the distribution of benefits as well (USEPA 2022). Meaningful involvement means:
• Potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health;
• The public’s contributions can influence the regulatory agency’s decision;
• Community concerns will be considered in the decision-making process; and
• Decision makers will seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected (USEPA 2022).
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, directs federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their
actions on minority and low-income populations (i.e., environmental justice communities). Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, also directs agencies to develop “programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts.”
3.13.1 Affected Environmental Justice Environment
WPW used data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2016-2020 ACS 5-year Estimates to identify minority and low-income populations within the geographic scope of analysis, which was defined as areas within 5 miles of the Project Boundary. Using Table #B03002 for race and ethnicity data and Table #B17017 for low-income households, WPW prepared a table of racial, ethnic, and poverty statistics for each state, county, and census block group within the geographic scope of analysis (Table 3.13-1). There is one state (Nevada), one county (White Pine County) and nine census block groups wholly or partially within the geographic scope. Figure 3.13-1 shows the census blocks within the geographic scope of analysis. Six census blocks are highlighted as environmental justice communities, as described below.
Table 3.13-1. Minority Populations by Race and Ethnicity and Low-Income Populations in the Project Vicinity
Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020, File # B01017 and File # B03002. a “Minority” refers to people who reported their ethnicity and race as something other than non-Hispanic White. Low-income or minority populations exceeding the established thresholds are indicated in bold, red text. Due to rounding differences in the dataset, the totals may not reflect the sum of the addends.
3.13.1.1 Minority Populations
To identify environmental justice communities based on the presence of minority populations, WPW used the “50 percent” and the “meaningfully greater” analysis methods. To use the “50 percent” analysis method, WPW determined whether the total percent minority population of any block group in the affected area exceeds 50 percent. To use the “meaningfully greater” analysis, WPW determined whether any affected block group affected is 10 percent greater than the minority population percent in the county using the following process:
• Calculate the percent minority in the reference population (White Pine County)
• To the reference population’s percent minority, add 10 percent (i.e., multiply the percent minority in the reference population by 1.1)
• This new percentage is the threshold that a block group’s percent minority would need to exceed to qualify as an environmental justice community under the meaningfully greater analysis method.
Using the “50 percent” method, WPW identified no census block groups in which the minority population exceeded 50 percent. Using the “meaningfully greater” method of analysis, WPW multiplied the percent minority in the reference population of White Pine County (28.5 percent) by 1.1 to obtain a threshold of 31.35 percent Two of the nine census block groups exceeded that threshold (Census Tract 9702, Block Group 2, and Census Tract 9702, Block Group 4). Identified minority populations are shown in bold red text in Table 3.13-1, and are highlighted in Figure 3.13-1. In conclusion, two minority population block groups were identified within the geographic scope for environmental justice.
3.13.1.2 Low-Income Populations
To identify environmental justice communities based on the presence of low-income populations, WPW used the “low-income threshold criteria” method. To use the “lowincome threshold criteria,” the percent of the population below the poverty level in the identified block group must be equal to or greater than that of the reference population (White Pine County).
As shown in Table 3.13-1, five census block groups were identified as low-income populations because the percent of the population below the poverty level is greater than 12.6 percent. These low-income block groups are highlighted in Figure 3.13-1. As also shown in Figure 3.13-1 and Table 3.13-1, one block group (Census Tract 9702, Block Group 2) is identified as both a minority and low-income population.
3.13.1.3 Non-English Speaking Groups
WPW used the American Community Survey, 2016-2020, File # S1601, to identify nonEnglish speaking groups within the geographic scope of analysis. Data on languages spoken at home is available only to the county level for the state of Nevada.
As shown in Table 3.13-2, most residents of White Pine County, 96.7 percent, speak English very well Spanish is the language most commonly spoken by non-English
speakers There were no identified linguistically isolated populations within the geographic scope of the environmental justice analysis.
3.13.1.4 Sensitive Receptors
WPW reviewed available GIS databases and aerial photography to identify locations of sensitive receptors (e.g., child care centers, schools, and hospitals) within the geographic scope of analysis. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security database Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD), the closest sensitive receptors are over 3 miles away from the Project (HIFLD 2022). Sensitive receptor locations are shown in Figure 3.13-1 and listed in Table 3.13-3
Table 3.13-2. Non-English Speaking Groups in the Project Vicinity
Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020, File # S1601
Table 3.13-3. Sensitive Receptors in the Project Vicinity
Source: Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, 2022
3.13.2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects – Environmental Justice
3.13.2.1 Minority Populations
Two minority population block groups were identified within the geographic scope As shown in Figure 3.13-1, one of the block groups, Census Tract 9702, Block Group 2, is located on the western end of the geographic scope, in the area that will be crossed by a portion of the high-voltage transmission line that will extend to the Robinson Summit Substation This census block group is sparsely populated, as indicated by its geographic size.
Impacts associated with the new transmission line are expected to include short-term effects on soil, botanical, wildlife, aesthetic, and socioeconomic resources. These shortterm impacts may include erosion, windborne dust, clearing of vegetation for transmission structures and access roads, temporary displacement of wildlife from the vicinity, and increased noise and traffic during construction WPW plans to implement PM&E measures to reduce and mitigate potential Project related impacts, therefore these impacts will not be disproportionately adverse. Furthermore, these impacts are not concentrated in areas with Environmental Justice populations.
As described in Section 3.11.3, the high-voltage transmission line will also result in longterm impacts associated with Project operation. The proposed transmission line will be consistent with other transmission infrastructure present in the area and in keeping with the rural nature of the surrounding lands The proposed transmission line is within the Section 368 energy corridor that is designated for future oil, natural gas and hydrogen pipelines, and electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure.
Only a small portion of the second minority population, Census Tract 9702, Block Group 4, falls within the geographic scope This block group is south of the City of Ely Most of this block group is more than 5 miles from the Project Boundary. The population of Census Tract 9702, Block Group 4 is not anticipated to be adversely impacted by construction or operation of the Project, and likely will benefit from the positive socioeconomic impacts of the Project as described in Section 3.13.2, including new jobs, construction expenditures, and additional tax revenue.
In conclusion, potential Project impacts to minority populations will not be disproportionately adverse
3.13.2.2 Low-Income Populations
Five census block groups were identified as low-income populations, one of which is identified as both a minority and low-income population. The eastern portion of the geographic scope is largely identified as low-income, as shown in Figure 3.13-1, with the exception of the block group south of the proposed reservoirs, most of the City of Ely, and the block group containing the Town of McGill These predominantly rural populations will experience impacts on visual resources, increased traffic and noise during construction,
as well as the beneficial socioeconomic impacts, including increased jobs, construction expenditures, and increased tax revenues as a result of the Project.
3.13.2.3 Non-English-Speaking Populations
No non-English speaking or linguistically isolated populations were identified within the geographic scope, and there will be no impacts on non-English speaking populations.
3.13.2.4 Sensitive Receptors
The closest sensitive receptors are over 3 miles away from the Project. With implementation of the proposed PM&E measures, sensitive receptors will not experience adverse Project-related effects.
3.13.3 Cumulative Environmental Effects Related to Environmental Justice
As listed in Table 3.2-1, the geographic scope for environmental justice is the area within 5 miles of the Project Boundary, as specified by the FERC in its comments on the DLA All the actions listed in Table 3.2-2 occur within the geographic scope for environmental justice
Within the geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis for environmental justice, six census block groups within this area have environmental justice communities (see Section 3.13). Cumulative effects to environmental justice communities would depend upon the location of reasonably foreseeable developments in proximity to each other and to environmental justice communities. Based on the scope of this Project and our analysis of the Project’s impacts on the environment, it is anticipated that Project-related impacts on visual resources, socioeconomics, traffic, noise, and groundwater resources may affect the identified environmental justice communities (see Table 3.13-1). Therefore, cumulative effects on environmental justice communities could occur for these resources. Cumulative effects on environmental justice communities are not present for the other resource areas such as geology, wetlands and surface water, wildlife, fishing, or cultural resources due to the minimal overall impact the Project would have on these resources.
Due to a potential influx of workers, potential impacts to environmental justice communities include increased housing costs and living expenses, decreasing housing availability, and straining healthcare providers; and increases in industrial accidents and illness. These impacts could contribute to cumulative effects on these resources should more than one project be built at the same time; however, the impacts would generally be temporary and primarily limited to the period of construction. If all projects take place at the same time, county populations would temporarily increase from an increase in non-local workers. Project sponsors likely would be required to assess the capabilities of local public services and develop appropriate mitigation measures, thus making cumulative effects on environmental justice communities less than significant. The temporary increased demand for housing could increase the price for houses, which would impact affordable housing in
environmental justice communities. Due to the temporary nature of these impacts, impacts on environmental justice communities would be less than significant.
As described above under Socioeconomic Resources, the Project and other actions, such as the transmission line projects, would have beneficial socioeconomic impacts such as increased employment opportunities and tax revenues. These beneficial effects would serve to offset some of the potential adverse cumulative effects on environmental justice communities.
There would also be a temporary increase in use of area roads by heavy construction equipment and associated vehicles. Increased use of roads would result in a higher volume of traffic, increased commute times, and greater risk of vehicle accidents. Depending on the location of the other project faculties, this increased traffic could impact individuals from environmental justice communities. Traffic management measures would be implemented as part of the Project, and presumably the other projects listed in Table 3.2-2. Once construction is complete, the vehicle trips for the permanent workforce and large heavy trucks are not anticipated to significantly increase traffic. Therefore, it is not expected that the Project would contribute to cumulative effects on traffic during operation.
As described above, the Project, together with other reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in a moderate cumulative effect on visual resources and a minor cumulative effect on groundwater resources
The proposed Project would have a range of impacts on individuals living in the vicinity of the Project facilities, including environmental justice populations. The environmental justice communities in the study area would experience cumulative effects on visual resources, socioeconomics, traffic, and groundwater resources related to the Project and the additional projects. However, cumulative effects on environmental justice communities related to these resources are expected to be relatively minor.
3.13.4 Agency Consultation and Applicant Recommendations
3.13.4.1 Agency Consultation
Agency consultation is summarized in Section 1.3. Additionally, WPW conducted the following consultation specific to Environmental Justice:
WPW has conducted outreach to the environmental justice communities and to all residents of White Pine County throughout this process A notice of the filing of the NOI and PAD was published in the Ely Times newspaper on May 15, 2020. The joint publicagency meeting and site tour on September 1, 2020, were open to the public, including all residents of White Pine County Notices of the joint public-agency meeting and site tour were published in the Ely Times newspaper on August 21, 2020, and September 1, 2020. In addition, WPW hosted an open house in Ely on July 29, 2021, where WPW gave a presentation describing the Project. Notice of this open house was announced during the White Pine County Commissioner’s bi-weekly meetings starting a week prior to the open
house and announced on White Pine County public radio during its Calendar of Events time periods. Community members posted their own flyers of the event in storefronts in downtown Ely. A total of 62 attendees signed in at the open house
WPW will continue to conduct public outreach, including publishing a notice of the filing of this FLA in the Ely Times
3.13.4.2 Applicant Recommendations
As described in section 3.13.4.1, WPW has conducted outreach to residents of White Pine County and other stakeholders. Because there are no anticipated disproportionately adverse effects to environmental justice populations, WPW has not identified PM&E measures to incorporate into the design/preconstruction, construction, or operational phases of the Project to address environmental justice. WPW will continue to evaluate the need for PM&E measures and to consult with stakeholders.
4.0 Developmental Analysis
This section evaluates the Project’s use of environmental resources for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures would have on the Project’s cost and power generation. Following the Commission’s approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corp., 18 this section compares the current Project cost to an estimate of the cost of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using the likely alternative source of power for the region (cost of alternative power). In keeping with the policy as described in Mead Corp., the economic analysis is based on current elective power cost conditions and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the Project’s power benefits.
For each of the alternatives, the analysis includes an estimate of: (1) the cost of individual measures considered for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of environmental resources affected by the Project; (2) the cost of alternative power; (3) the total Project cost (i.e., for construction, operation, maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference between the cost of alternative power and total Project cost. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and total Project cost is positive, the Project produces power for less than the cost of alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative power and total Project cost is negative, the Project produces power for more than the cost of alternative power.
4.1 Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project
The Biden Administration has set a goal for the United States to achieve a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, with a related goal of 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035. Many states in the western US region have adopted similar goals, as well as mandates. This includes Nevada, location of the Project, where voters approved a requirement for 50% of their electric power to come from renewable sources by 2030. A key benefit of this Project is to facilitate the integration of zero-carbon, variable energy generation in line with these national and regional goals. The Project will provide flexibility to the operations of the grid of the future, enabling absorption of excess renewable energy when it is abundant, and storing that energy for release at a later time when transmission line capacity is available and/or when the grid is in need of dispatchable generation.
A closed loop pumped storage generating facility includes an upper reservoir, a lower reservoir, and a reversible pump-turbine unit in between the two reservoirs. In generating mode, water from the upper reservoir flows through the reversible unit to the lower reservoir. The water turns the turbine, which is attached to a generator, producing electricity that is transmitted to the electric grid. In pumping mode, power is drawn from the electric grid to “motor” the unit in reverse to act as a pump, pushing water from the lower reservoir back to the upper reservoir. There is a round trip efficiency loss; therefore, pumped storage facilities are net energy consumers. The value of the pumped storage facility is providing dispatchable generating capacity while bridging the temporal mismatches between generation and load.
There are a large number of solar generation facilities operating, planned, and proposed throughout Nevada due to the state’s abundant solar resource. In addition, proposed transmission projects will allow the state to access wind energy imports. The temporal mismatch between solar output and load and the variability of output of these wind resources can be problematic to the electric grid. Pumped storage facilities can work in concert with solar and wind farms to provide system stability. Pumped storage facilities are designed to be able to change modes rapidly and can fill gaps due to wind and solar power variability.
The ability of pumped storage facilities to be switched from pumping to generating and back again very quickly, as needed, provides unique benefits to the electric grid. Pumped storage facilities can provide a number of ancillary services to the grid and therefore generate additional revenues in the electric market. Among these services are spinning reserve, non-spinning reserve, frequency regulation, voltage support and regulation, load following capability, peak shaving, and black-start capability. The following discussion provides more detail of these various services.
• Spinning reserve is the extra generating capacity that is available by increasing the power output of generators that are already connected to the power system. Non-spinning reserve or supplemental reserve is the extra generating
capacity that is not currently connected to the system but can be brought online after a short delay.
• Grid frequency is a system-wide indicator of overall power imbalance. These imbalances are removed by requesting generators to operate in frequency control mode, altering their output continuously to keep the frequency near the required value.
• System voltage levels vary over the course of the day due to a variety of factors, including: (1) the location of the local distribution ling, (2) proximity to large electricity consumers, (3) proximity to utility voltage regulating equipment, (4) seasonal variations in overall system voltage levels, and (5) load factor on local transmission and distribution systems.
• Pumped storage facilities can operate as base load, load following, or peaking power facilities and change operating modes seasonally and daily. Most hydroelectric facilities have the ability to start within minutes, if not seconds, depending upon available water supply. When in load following mode, the output of the pumped storage facility can be adjusted as necessary to meet widely varying load requirements.
• Pumped storage facilities can be operated at a generating level that is much lower than a base load facility and can therefore avoid the need to run a base load unit at low efficiencies below the minimum loading rate of the base load unit.
• A pumped storage facility can generate electricity during peak periods when demand is high and available generating output is near its limits and then pump during off-peak periods when demand is low when available generating output is lower.
• Black start is the procedure to recover from a total or partial shutdown of the transmission system, which has caused an extensive loss of supplies. This entails isolated power stations being started individually and gradually being reconnected with each other in order to form an interconnected system again.
4.2 Comparison of Alternatives
4.2.1 No-action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the Project would not be constructed and would not provide any capacity resource or flexibility for operations of the grid in support of achieving the national goal of 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and the state mandate for 50 percent renewable energy by 2030
4.2.2 WPW’s Proposal
WPW proposes construction and operation of the Project as outlined in Section 2.2, including implementation of environmental measures as presented in Table 4.3-1. The Project would have an installed capacity of 1,000 MW and generate an average of approximately 2,400 gigawatt-hours annually (assuming operation for 8 hours per day, 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year)
4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures
Table 4.3-1 provides the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered in the analysis.
Table 4.3-1. Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Considered in Assessing the Environmental Effects of Continuing to Operate the WPW Project
1. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will include:
• The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) recommended by the State of Nevada, to specify erosion control measures to help minimize potential adverse impacts.
• Specific actions to be implemented during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities and to control fugitive dust.
• Actions to address earthworks in soils that are highly erodible.
2. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the commencement of construction, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP is anticipated to help prevent erosion, scouring, and general water quality degradation during Project construction. The SWPPP will include:
• Description of potential storm water discharges from support activities related to Project construction such as equipment staging areas, material storage areas, and access roads.
• Discussion of other potential pollutions sources (e.g., vehicle fueling, equipment maintenance).
• Discussion of BMPs, including those related to erosion prevention, sediment control, temporary and permanent stabilization measures, construction site dewatering, good housekeeping, bulk storage of petroleum products, concrete waste, employee training, maintenance schedule, and inspection schedule.
3. Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan to address potential issues resulting from spills of hazardous substances or fuels during construction, operation, or maintenance. The Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan will:
• Specify materials handling procedures and storage requirements.
• Identify spill notification and cleanup procedures for areas in which spills may occur.
• Identify inventory, storage, and handling methods for hazardous materials.
• Develop employee training procedures to help minimize accidental pollutant releases which could contaminate surface or groundwater or stormwater runoff.
4. Landowner Coordination: WPW will coordinate, as required or necessary, with adjacent and downstream private landowners regarding potential Project effects. Specifically, WPW proposes to coordinate with landowners about:
• Affected grazing permittee(s) to determine the best way of avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating any impacts to their properties and grazing permits.
5. Traffic Management Plan: WPW will develop and implement a Traffic Management Plan prior to construction. The plan will include:
• Measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife, including Project speed limits to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and methods of enforcement
• Manage traffic by implementing a speed limit to reduce wildlife injury due to collisions.
• Use existing access roads wherever possible. Any temporary access roads built for Project construction will be decommissioned and revegetated after use.
6. Transmission Line Location: The Project transmission line will be located adjacent to an existing transmission line and primarily within an existing permitted energy corridor already designated for new development, thus reducing potential for impacts to resources.
7. Biological Resources Protection Training Program: WPW proposes to develop a biological resources protection training program. The program is intended to help inform construction workers and other Project staff of the sensitive biological (botanical and wildlife) resources in the area.
8. Noxious Weed Management Plan: WPW proposes to develop and implement a Noxious Weed Management Plan for construction of the Project. This plan will be prepared in coordination with BLM and NDOW and submitted to BLM for approval prior to BLM’s issuance of a Rightof-Way Grant Authorization. The plan will include measures to reduce the spread or introduction of noxious weed and invasive plant species. The Noxious Weed Management Plan will incorporate restrictions and guidelines for application of pesticides including herbicides, including avoidance of known sensitive plant species. WPW will coordinate with BLM regarding herbicide use on BLM lands. Measures that will be included in the plan include:
• Prevent introduction and establishment by cleaning vehicles and equipment prior to movement to a new location in order to minimize the potential for transporting seeds.
• Work with land managers to develop and implement a plan to assess, treat, and monitor noxious weeds and invasive plants at the Project and in the adjacent landscape where they are present.
• Work with the local weed and pest district to implement longterm plans for successful restoration of disturbed sites.
9. Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan: WPW will develop and implement a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan to identify measures that could be reasonably implemented for management, avoidance, and mitigation of potential habitat and associated vegetation losses during construction and operation of the Project. The Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan will:
• Identify specific measures to be taken to restore vegetation disturbed by Project-related construction activities.
• Describe revegetation efforts to prevent soil erosion and the spread of weeds, maintain or restore existing native plant communities and wildlife habitat, and integrate site features with the surrounding environment.
• Identify site specific restoration, reclamation, and enhancement measures should future temporary ground disturbance be needed.
• Identify methods to salvage cacti prior to ground disturbance in compliance with Nevada regulations.
10. Raptor-Safe Transmission Line Structures: WPW proposes to design raptor-safe transmission line structures (i.e., the transmission line design will comply with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines: Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art in 2006 [APLIC 2006] and Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 [APLIC 2012]) to protect avian species from collision or electrocution as a result of landing or perching on transmission lines. This design may include:
• Installing visibility enhancement devices to reduce the risk of collision on new or existing lines (e.g., marker balls, bird diverters).
• Regular maintenance of the transmission line and retrofitting the lines as applicable, which may include covering jumper wires, reframing, or replacing a structure.
• Installing perch guards between closely-spaced conductors above arms and conductors to keep raptors from contacting energized parts.
• Providing safe alternative locations for perching and nesting.
11. Noise: To minimize the effects of noise related to construction and operation of the Project, WPW proposes to perform noise modeling as Project design advances including finalizing the construction schedule, construction equipment, ventilation equipment, and transmission line design. Noise modeling results will inform the development of additional mitigation strategies, if needed, to reduce potential Project related noise effects at sage-grouse leks.
12. Pre-Construction Surveys: Prior to construction, WPW will complete wildlife surveys and habitat assessments. These surveys will be conducted by trained biologists in areas that will be disturbed by the Project. Specific pre-construction surveys include:
• Documenting raptors and nests that occur in the Project vicinity.
• Conduct surveys for nesting migratory birds.
Based on the findings of the surveys, WPW with consult with applicable regulating agencies to identify reasonable avoidance or mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts.
13. Biological Construction Monitors: WPW proposes to have biological construction monitors on site during construction to monitor sensitive biological resources, including conducting avian nesting surveys of areas near active construction during typical nesting season (March 1 to July 31). It should be noted that birds will sometimes nest outside of the typical nesting season and will still be protected under the MBTA if they do. The monitors will have the authority to temporarily halt construction equipment if any amphibian, reptile, or small mammal is unearthed, for the purpose to relocating the animal to outside of the construction area.
14. Raptor and Bat Protection Plan: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance at the start of formal construction activities, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a Raptor and Bat Protection Plan in consultation with USFWS and NDOW. The Raptor and Bat Protection Plan will include:
• Appropriate seasonal and spatial buffers of active raptor nests and bald eagle roost sites.
• Raptor-safe guidelines for all new electrical construction.
• Employee training to ensure plan compliance.
15. Outdoor Lighting Plan: WPW proposes to develop a Project outdoor lighting plan to incorporate lighting design features that help minimize disturbance to wildlife species during construction and operation of the Project. The outdoor lighting plan will include:
• Designing outdoor lighting to incorporate design and operational features to help to reduce impacts on foraging bats, migrating and nocturnal birds, and night skies.
• Using localized and portable lighting during construction where and when the work is occurring.
• Provisions to power lighting equipment by generators that will have switches to cut power when lighting is not required during construction.
• The use of minimal exterior lighting that will consist of safety lighting. For all safety lighting, WPW proposes to minimize lighting to the extent possible and use dark-sky compliant lighting fixtures.
16. Pygmy Rabbit Management: WPW proposes to avoid active pygmy rabbit habitat when feasible. If pygmy rabbit habitat cannot be avoided, WPW will contact BLM and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed in coordination with BLM.
17. Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan: Prior to the onset of grounddisturbance associated with the start of formal construction activities, WPW proposes to prepare and implement a Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan developed in consultation with BLM and NDOW. WPW proposes to design a transmission line that minimizes adverse impacts to Greater Sage-grouse, including complying with applicable APLIC guidelines in “Best Management Practices for Electric Utilities in SageGrouse Habitat” (APLIC 2015). The proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan may include:
• Installing anti-perch and/or anti-nesting devices to reduce use by predatory birds.
• Identifying methods to reduce collision risk for Greater Sagegrouse and migratory birds.
• Limiting construction disturbance and access during breeding season.
• Minimizing spacing between existing and proposed transmission lines.
• Minimizing the height and number of tall structures at the upper reservoir to reduce the Project facilities that are visible from the four active Greater Sage-grouse leks closest to the Project (Canyon Springs NE, Gilford Meadows, Mosier, and Berry Creek Turnoff).
18. Wildlife Seasonal Restrictions: WPW will work closely with BLM and NDOW to plan for Project construction windows that provide for both wildlife protection and feasible Project construction timelines. This will include developing manageable timing and scheduling restrictions that can accommodate the construction schedule. WPW will coordinate with BLM and NDOW for seasonal timing restriction exception or variance requests for construction activities occurring in Greater Sagegrouse seasonal habitats.
19. Reservoir Wildlife Exclusion: WPW proposes to fence and monitor both reservoirs to prevent cattle, wild ungulates, and other medium- to large-sized animals from accessing the area. Based on the current Project design, reservoir wildlife exclusion measures may include:
• Installing an 10-foot-tall game fence around the base of each reservoir.
• A gate, or set of gates, will be installed to have continued safe access and egress to the reservoirs while maintaining a minimum height of at least 10 feet.
• There will be a one-way exit gate, built during construction, to facilitate a safe exit in the event that wildlife were to enter the fenced-off area.
• WPW will provide regular maintenance and monitoring to ensure the fencing has not failed.
20. Big Game: WPW proposes to coordinate with BLM to secure appropriate variances and exception or variances, as needed, for construction in big game crucial winter areas
21. Greater Sage-Grouse Credits: WPW proposes to purchase credits through the State’s Conservation Credit System from credit developers in White Pine County, if possible, to offset potential impacts to Greater Sage-grouse. If credit developers are not available in White Pine County, then WPW will purchase credits as close as possible to White Pine County.
22. Public Access: WPW proposes to manage lands over which it has control in the Project Boundary for appropriate public access. WPW proposes to:
• Prohibit fishing and other recreation in and around the reservoirs.
• Fence both reservoirs for site security, public safety, and wildlife protection.
23. NNRCoordination: WPW proposes to coordinate with NNR throughout Project construction to minimize potential effects to NNR operations. This may include:
• Assisting NNR to provide educational information about the Project and the role of pumped storage projects in stability and resiliency of the electric grid for NNR passengers on the HiLine.
• Coordinate lighting for Project construction to avoid nighttime NNR excursion schedules.
24. Transmission Line Design: During final design, WPW will complete designs of transmission facilities (including locations of transmission towers and access roads) in a manner that minimizes surface disturbing activity in identified floodplains. If transmission structures cannot be located outside of floodplains, WPW will consult with BLM on steps to identify reasonable mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to water features.
25. Visual Resources: WPW proposes to:
• Use BLM environmental colors (Standard Environmental Colors, Color Chart CC-001) for surface coatings of fences, gates, and other above-ground facility features.
• Design the reservoirs and other above ground structures so that materials repeat and/or blend in with the existing form, line, color, and texture of the landscape to the extent feasible.
26. Temporary Housing: If temporary housing is not sufficient for the construction workforce, WPW anticipates that its construction contractor will construct worker housing as needed.
27. Draft Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP): WPW proposes to follow the enhancement/mitigation measures proposed in the Draft HPMP (Appendix K). As described in the draft HPMP, WPW proposes to conduct cultural resource monitoring, if necessary, during ground disturbance activity to prevent impacts to known or unknown cultural resources. The HPMP also includes the following cultural resource monitoring that may be used:
• During non-ground disturbing activities, field check previously recorded cultural resources to assess their current condition and identify any impacts (past or ongoing); and/or assess the usefulness of historic property avoidance and/or other treatment measures.
• Where no Project-related impacts have been identified but where the potential exists for adverse effects to occur over the term of the license, the site will be treated as a historic property; thus, monitoring of resources will occur at three-year or 10-year intervals. The monitoring frequency is dependent on the sensitivity of the resources (e.g., resources in close proximity to locations where recreational activities occur or where the nature of the resource components are more susceptible to impacts having greater sensitivity).
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative
In deciding whether to issue a license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway (FPA Section 10(a)). In addition to the power and developmental purposes for which licenses are issued, the Commission must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation, or damage to and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat); the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality (FPA Section 4(e)).
WPW intends that the Project as described in this FLA represents the best use of power and non-power resources.
5.1.1 Agency- and Stakeholder-Proposed Measures
With the distribution of this FLA, WPW seeks agency and stakeholder input on appropriate resource measures to be included in the license issued by FERC.
5.1.2 Measures Proposed by the Applicant
PM&E measures and other environmental measures proposed by WPW to protect resources are summarized in Table 2.2-3
5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
The Project will provide storage for renewable energy, help achieve climate goals, and provide grid stabilization. The Project will also require the construction of two new reservoirs and the permanent loss of habitat, as follows:
• Construction of the proposed Project features will affect approximately 242 acres of vegetation. Construction of the upper and lower reservoirs will include permanent impacts to approximately 154 acres of land. Construction of the transmission line and substations will include permanent impacts to approximately 736 acres of land.
• Construction of the reservoirs will result in permanent habitat loss of 40 acres of PHMA and 132 acres of GHMA. Greater Sage-grouse may be temporarily disturbed due to noise and increased human presence, noise during construction activities, and an increase of vehicle travel on access roads.
5.3 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans
In accordance with 18 CFR §5.6(d)(4)(iii and iv), WPW has reviewed the August 2022 FERC List of Comprehensive Plans applicable to Nevada and adopted by FERC under Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §803(a)(2)(A). Of the 16 comprehensive plans relevant to Nevada, nine were determined applicable to the Project:
1. Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Egan Resource Area Management Plan. Department of the Interior, Ely, Nevada. February 3, 1987.
2. Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah. Washington, D.C. September 2015.
3. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2010. Nevada Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2010. Carson City, Nevada.
4. Forest Service. 1986. Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Department of Agriculture, Elko, Nevada. August 1986.
5. Forest Service. 1988. Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Department of Agriculture, Sparks, Nevada. February 12, 1988.
6. National Park Service. 1993. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1993.
7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. Denver, Colorado. February 2013.
8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986.
WPW is also considering four additional plans recommended by stakeholders:
1. Bureau of Land Management. 2019. Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. March 2019
2. White Pine County. 2018. White Pine County Public Lands Policy Plan. Prepared by the White Pine County Public Land Users Advisory Committee. October 2018.
3. White Pine County. 2019. Approval of Resolution 2020-051 Adopting White Pine County Water Resource Plan Element to the White Pine County Master Plan.
4. White Pine County. 2005. White Pine County Open Space Plan. September 2005. Ely, Nevada.
Based on a review of the nine comprehensive plans and four additional plans recommended by stakeholders, WPW concludes that the Project, as currently designed, is consistent with each of these plans, except for:
• Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah. Washington, D.C. September 2015; and
• Bureau of Land Management. 2019. Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. March
As discussed in Section 1.3 Consultation, WPW has begun consultation with BLM. As described in Section 1.2.3 of the Clean Water Act, BLM will evaluate the Project to determine if it is in conformance with the Goals and Objectives of the Ely District RMP (BLM 2008a) and the 2015 ARMPA (BLM 2015). WPW proposes to continue to coordinate with BLM to adopt measures to ensure compliance with these two plans.
6.0 Literature Cited
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 2019 Memorandum: Recent court decision regarding the meaning of “direct” in Sections 106 and 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act. [Online] URL: http://shpo.nv.gov/uploads/documents/OGC_%20memo _to_ACHP_staff_re_meaning_of_direct_6-7-19.pdf. (Accessed November 19, 2020).
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 2020. Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes. [Online] URL: https://www.achp.gov/indian-tribes-and-nativehawaiians/traditional-cultural-landscapes (Accessed December 20, 2020).
Adams, F.H. 1907 Ely & Her Mines. Published by the White Pine Historical and Archaeological Society. Ely, Nevada.
Aikens, M., T.J. Connolly, and D.L. Jenkins. 2011. Northern Great Basin. In: Oregon Archaeology. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Pp. 30–145.
Albrandt, K 2003 Nevada Northern & Railroads of White Pine County Timeline. [Online] URL: https://nnry.com/history/httpdocs/bkgd/tmelineTable.html (Accessed December 10, 2020).
Alonzo, Amy 2020. Question 6: Increasing Nevada’s reliance on renewable energy to 50 percent by 2030. Available online: https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2020/10/11/nevada-question-6would-increase-reliance-renewable-energy/5887968002/ (Accessed December 14, 2022).
American Society of Mammalogists. 2021. Mammal Species List Search for Nevada. [Online] URL: https://www.mammalsociety.org/mammals-list (Accessed October 18, 2021).
Amos, E. 2017. Microdipodops megacephalus. [Online] URL: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Microdipodops_megacephalus/ (Accessed October 18, 2021).
Antevs, E 1948 The Great Basin, with emphasis on glacial and postglacial times. III. Climatic changes and pre-white man. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Audubon. Undated. Guide to North American Birds – Pinyon Jay. [Online] URL: https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/pinyon-jay (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Washington D.C. and Sacramento, CA: Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission.
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Avian Protection Plan Guidelines. [Online] URL: https://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/2634/APPguidelines_final-draft_Aprl2005.pdf (Accessed October 25, 2021).
Bachen, D.A., A. McEwan, B. Burkholder, S. Blum, and B. Maxell. 2020. Accounts of Bat Species Found in Montana. Report to Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 58 p.
Ball, D., R. Clayburn, R. Cordero, B. Edwards, V. Grussing, J. Ledford, R. McConnell, R. Monette, R. Steelquist, E. Thorsgard, and J. Townsend 2015 A Guidance Document for Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, California. OCS Study BOEM 2015-047.
Ballandby, R. (McGill Town Council) 2008 McGill, Nevada, Over 100 Years of History. Edited by Evie Pinneo of the White Pine Chamber of Commerce and Anne Schroeder of the McGill Town Council. Printed by Silver State Industries. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Bancroft, H.H. and W.H. Knight 1864 Bancroft’s Map of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. H. H. Bancroft & Company, Booksellers & Stationers, San Francisco, CA. David Rumsey Map Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com/view/luna (Accessed July 28, 2021).
Barker, P. 2016. Ethnohistoric Background. In: Prehistory of Nevada’s Northern Tier: Archaeological Investigations Along the Ruby Pipeline. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Number 101, pp. 95–112.
Basgall, M.E. 2008. An Archaeological Assessment of Late-Holocene Environmental Change in the Southwestern Great Basin. In: From Avocados to Millingstones: Papers in Honor of Delbert L. True, edited by M. E. Basgall and G. Waugh, pp. 137–153. Monographs in California and Great Basin Anthropology No. 5. California State University, Sacramento.
Bassett, M. 2013. The Great Nevada Railroad Race. In: Railroad History. Published by Railway & Locomotive Historical Society. No. 209, Fall-Winter 2013, pp. 8–9.
Bassett, M. and J.J. Bassett 2011 Images of Rail: Nevada Northern Railway. Arcadia Publishing. Charleston, South Carolina.
Bat Conservation International. 2021a. Big Brown Bat. [Online] URL: https://www.batcon.org/bat/eptesicus-fuscus/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Bat Conservation International. 2021b. Silver-haired Bat. [Online] URL: https://www.batcon.org/bat/lasionycteris-noctivagans/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Bat Conservation International. 2021c. Hoary Bat. [Online] URL: https://www.batcon.org/article/hoary-bat/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Bates, C. 2006. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). In the Draft Desert Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of desert-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. [Online] URL: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/desert.html
Bi-State Sage Grouse Conservation Team. 2004. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for the Bi-State Area of Nevada and Eastern California. First Edition-June 30, 2004.
Borger, A., L. Boyer, C. Moffett, and T. Smith. 2020. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form for the Lincoln Highway in Nevada. Prepared by Mead & Hunt, Inc. On file with the Nevada Department of Transportation. [Online] URL: https://www.dot.nv.gov/home/showdocument?id=17839. (Accessed April 1, 2021).
Bradley, P.V., M.J. O’Farrell, J.A. Williams, and J.E. Newmark. Editors. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, Nevada. 216 pp.
Bunse, R., S.R. Meta, C. Brookshear, and S. Melvin 2007a Historic Resources Inventory Form for the Lincoln Highway-section in Steptoe Valley. Prepared by JRP Historical Consulting, LLC. Davis, California for the Bureau of Land Management. On file at the Nevada Historic Preservation Office.
Bunse, R., S.R. Meta, C. Brookshear, and S. Melvin. 2007b. Historic Resources Inventory Form for the Nevada Northern Railway-section in Steptoe Valley. Prepared by JRP Historical Consulting, LLC. Davis, California for the Bureau of Land Management. On file at the Nevada Historic Preservation Office.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Undated. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Online [URL]: https://www.bls.gov/lau/
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. [Online] URL: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/ (Accessed November 6, 2019).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1984. Manual H-8400 – Visual Resource Management. [Online] URL:
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual8400.pdf April. (Accessed March 17, 2020).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986. Manual 8410-1 – Visual Resource Inventory. [Online]
URL: Manual H-8410-1 Visual Resource Inventory (blm.gov) (Accessed March 17, 2020).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008a. Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. August.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the White Pine Energy Station Project. FES 08-38. Department of the Interior. Reno, NV.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2011. Visual Resource Inventory. [Online] URL: EplanningUi (blm.gov) Ely District Office, Nevada. April.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered Lands. [Online] URL:
https://blmwyomingvisual.anl.gov/docs/BLM_RenewableEnergyVisualBMPs_LowRes.pdf. Cheyenne, Wyoming. April.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. Nevada and Northeastern California Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. [Online] URL:
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/21152/63235/68484/NVCA_Approved_RMP_A mendment.pdf. (Accessed January 14, 2022).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2016. Final Environmental Assessment – Robinson Mine Expansion Project. [Online] URL: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/68666/94309/113835/Robinson_Final_EA_20161222_508.pdf
(Accessed March 17, 2020).
Final License Application – Exhibit E White Pine Pumped Storage Project February
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2017. Updated Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species List for Nevada. [Online] URL: https://www.blm.gov/policy/nv-im-2018-003. Reno, Nevada.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2021a. Environmental Assessment Geotechnical Study for the Proposed White Pine Pumped Storage Project. DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2021-0033-EA. Ely District Office, Nevada. September.
Bureau of Land Management. 2021b. West-wide Energy Corridor Guidebook. Available at https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2021-04/IB2021-022_att1.pdf (Accessed December 15, 2022).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2022a. BLM National Western US GRSG ROD Habitat Management Areas. August. Available at https://data.doi.gov/dataset/blm-natl-westernusgrsg-rod-habitat-mgmt-areas-august-2022#sec-dates
Bureau of Land Management. 2022b. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cross-Tie 500-kV Transmission Project, Beaver, Juab, and Millard Counties, Utah, and White Pine County, Nevada. Available online: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2018636/200519933/250065072/NOIFederal%20Register-2022-09397_20220502.pdf (Accessed December 6, 2022).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2022c Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. https://snplma.blm.gov/snplma/home.do (Accessed October 3, 2022).
Bureau of Land Management. 2022d. SNPLMA Project of the Month. https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/nevada/snplma (Accessed October 3, 2022).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2022e.Bristlecone Field Office. Smith Valley Mastication and Hand Thinning. Available online: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanningui/project/2018216/510White Pine County. Nevada Northern Railway Phase III Renovation of McGill Depot, Tracks and Trail. 2021. Available online:
https://www.whitepinecounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/8250/NNRY-Phase-III---Renovationof-McGill-Depot-Tracks-and-Trail FINAL-APPLIACATION?bidld= (Accessed December 7, 2022).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2022f. Bristlecone Field Office. Garnet Hill Recreation Area Management Plan. Available online: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanningui/project/2022486/510 (Accessed December 6, 2022).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Undated-a. Ely District Office. [Online] URL: https://www.blm.gov/office/ely-district-office
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Undated-b. [Online] URL: https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangeland-and-grazing/rangelandhealth/nevada)
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Undated-c. Visual Resource Management. [Online] URL: https://www.blm.gov/programs/recreation/recreation-programs/visual-resource-management (Accessed March 17, 2020).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2019. Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 368 Energy Corridor Review, Regions 2 and 3. August 2019. [Online] URL: http://corridoreis.anl.gov/documents/docs/Regions_23_Report.pdf. (Accessed: January 24, 2023)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System Life History Accounts and Range Maps. Available online: [Online] URL: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch; Sacramento, CA. (Accessed December 17, 2019).
CaliforniaHerps. 2021a. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California, Great Basin Collared Lizard – Crotaphytus bicinctores. [Online] URL: http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/c.bicinctores.html#description (Accessed October 19, 2021).
CaliforniaHerps. 2021b. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California, Regal Ring-necked Snake – Diadophis punctatus regalis. [Online] URL: http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/d.p.regalis.html (Accessed October 19, 2021).
CaliforniaHerps. 2021c. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California, Long-nosed Leopard Lizard – Gambelia wislizenii. [Online] URL: http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/g.wislizenii.html (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Carlson, J.E. and D.R. Mabey 1963. Gravity and Aeromagnetic Maps of the Ely Area, White Pine County, Nevada, Geophysical Investigations Map GP-392, U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:250,000.
Carnegie Mellon University, Scott Institute for Energy Innovation. 2017. Power Sector Carbon Index Dropped 24% from 2005-2016. [Online] URL: Power Sector Carbon Index dropped 24%… | CMU Power Sector Carbon Index (emissionsindex.org) (Accessed January 17, 2022).
Carnegie Mellon University, Scott Institute for Energy Innovation. 2021. Power Sector Carbon Index – 2021 Q2 Update. [Online] URL: Power Sector Carbon Index – 2021 Q2… | CMU Power Sector Carbon Index (emissionsindex.org) (Accessed January 17, 2022).
Clemmer, R.O. 1991. Seed-Eaters and Chert-Carriers: The Economic Basis for Continuity in Historic Western Shoshone Identities. In: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 3–14.
Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Spatially explicit modeling of annual and seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Nevada and Northeastern California An updated decision-support tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1080, 160 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161080.
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.
[Online] URL:
https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/Ordinary_High_Waterm ark_Manual_Aug_2008.pdf.
Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. June.
Connolly, T., P. Barker, C.S. Fowler, E.M. Hattori, D.L. Jenkins, and W.J. Cannon. 2016. Getting Beyond the Point: Textiles of the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene in the Northwestern Great Basin. In: American Antiquity, July 2016, Vol. 81(3): 490–514.
Cook, F.S. and J. Deane. Undated. How Ely Got Its Name. In: Historic Legends of White Pine and Lincoln Counties. Published by The Printery. Pahrump, Nevada.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Memorandum.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2021. National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations 40 CFR 1500-1508 (2021). [Online] URL: https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/lawsregulations/nepa-implementing-regulations-desk-reference-2021.pdf.
CountyOffice.org. Undated. Fire Departments in White Pine County, Nevada. Online [URL]: https://www.countyoffice.org/nv-white-pine-county-fire-departments/
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Cypher, B and List, R. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2014. Accessed May 13, 2021. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/41587/62259374
Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. xix + 431 pp.
dePolo, C.M. 1998. A Reconnaissance Technique for Estimating the Slip Rate of Normal-Slip Faults in the Great Basin, and Application to Faults in Nevada, U.S.A.: Reno, University of Nevada, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 199 p.
dePolo, C M. and J.G. Anderson. 2000. Estimating the Slip Rates of Normal Faults in the Great Basin, USA. Basin Research, 12, p. 227–240.
dePolo, D.M. and dePolo, C.M. 2012. Earthquakes in Nevada – 1840s to 2010: NBMG Map 179, scale 1:1,000,000.
Dohrenwend, J.C., B.A. Schell, and B.C. Moring. 1991. Reconnaissance Photogeologic Map of Young Faults in the Ely 1° by 2° Quadrangle, Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2181, 1 sheet, scale 1:250,000.
Final License Application – Exhibit E White Pine Pumped Storage Project
Drewes, H. 1967. Geology of the Connors Pass Quadrangle Schell Creek Range East-Central Nevada. Geological Survey Professional Paper 557. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Eakin, T. E., J.L. Hughes, and D.O. Moore. 1967. Water-Resources Appraisal of Steptoe Valley, White Pine and Elko Counties, Nevada. Water Resources Reconnaissance Series Report 42. Prepared cooperatively by the Geological Survey, U. S. Department of the Interior. Water Resources Reconnaissance Series Report 42, 64 p.
Eaton, G.P. 1982. The Basin and Range Province: Origin and Tectonic Significance: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 10, p. 409–440. [Online] URL: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1982AREPS..10..409E (Accessed October 11, 2021).
Elko Independent (Elko, Nevada). 1915. Article. Lincoln Highway or The Overland Trail. May 18, Page 1. www.newspapers.com. (Accessed December 7, 2020).
Elliott, R.R. 1939 The Early History of White Pine County, Nevada, 1865-1887. In: The Pacific Northwest Quarterly. Published by the University of Washington. Vol. 30, No. 2, April 1939, pp. 145-168.
Elliott, R.R. 1956. History of Nevada Mines Division, Kennecott Copper Corporation. University of Nevada. [Online] URL: Elliott_KCC-Nevada-History.pdf (utahrails.net) (Accessed January 18, 2022).
Elliott, R.R. 1966. Nevada’s Twentieth-Century Mining Boom, Tonopah, Goldfield, Ely. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.
Ely Nevada. Undated. Things to Do - Welcome to Ely. [Online] URL: http://elynevada.net/things-todo (Accessed January 14, 2020).
Ely Shoshone Tribe. Undated. A Little History. https://www.elyshoshonetribe.com/ (Accessed March 29, 2021.)
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. January 1987. [Online] URL: https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p266001coll1/id/4530 (Accessed October 11, 2021).
Environmental Laboratory. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0. [Online] URL: https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/7627a (Accessed October 11, 2021).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (FERC and ACHP). 2002. Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects. [Online] URL: Issuance of Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans (ferc.gov) (Accessed January 18, 2022).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. Highway History: The Lincoln Highway. [Online] URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/lincoln.cfm (Accessed March 31, 2020).
Final License Application – Exhibit E White Pine Pumped Storage Project
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. Highway History: U.S. 93 Reaching for the Border. [Online] URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/us93.cfm (Accessed March 31, 2020).
Fellows, S.D. and S.L. Jones. 2009. Status Assessment and Conservation Action Plan for the Longbilled Curlew (Numenius americanus). U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication, FWS/BTP-R6012-2009, Washington, D.C.
Flora of North America. 2020. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 2001. Flora of North America. [Online] URL: http://beta.floranorthamerica.org/Main_Page
Frick, E.A. 1985. Quantitative Analysis of Groundwater Flow in Valley-fill Deposits in Steptoe Valley, Nevada, Thesis (M.S.)-University of Nevada, Reno, Thesis paper number 2031. University of Nevada, Reno.
Gabler K., J. Laundre, and L. Heady. 2000. Predicting the Suitability of Habitat in Southeast Idaho for Pygmy Rabbits. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 64(3): 759-764.
Garaghan, M.B. 1906 Mr. Garaghan, Recluse Philosopher Talks in Reminiscent Mood. Interview in The White Pine News, December 25, Page 11. White Pine County Library, Community History Archive. [Online] URL: https://ely.advantage-preservation.com/ (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Gardner, J.K. 2006. The Potential Impact of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly on Human Populations in the Western Mojave Desert. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Gervais, J. 2016. Conservation Assessment for the Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon and Washington. Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program. USDA Forest Service Region 6, Oregon and Washington. Oregon Wildlife Institute. 45 pp.
Gibbes, C.D. and W. Holt 1869 Map of the States of California and Nevada. Published in San Francisco, CA. David Rumsey Map Collection. [Online] URL: https://www.davidrumsey.com/view/luna (Accessed July 28, 2021)
Golay, M 2000 Railroad Stations, Depots & Roundhouses. Published by Barnes and Noble Books and Saraband, Inc. New York.
Good Sam Club. 2022. RV Parks and Campgrounds within 50 miles of Ely, NV [Online] URL: https://www.goodsam.com/campgrounds-rvparks/search/default.aspx?city=Ely&zip=&state=NV&country=&name=&goodsam=0&sort=fe atured&radius=50&camping=0&rvparts=0&rvservice=0&rvsales=0&rvstorage=0&attractions= 0&bigrigs=0&internet=0&pets=0&swimming=0&openallyear=0&tent=0&rentals=0&age=0&rat ing1=0&rating2=0&rating3=0&rating2perfect=0 (Accessed January 3, 2022).
Government Land Office (GLO). 1872. Original Survey of T. 17N, R. 64 E of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada by E.S. Davis. [Online] URL: https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=364901&sid=0mqzyib3.qo0#su rveyDetailsTabIndex=1 (Accessed March 29, 2020).
Government Land Office (GLO). 1957. Dependent Resurvey of a Portion of the Subdivision Lines of T. 17N, R. 64 E of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada by Horace G. Parker. [Online] URL: https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dmid=364905&sid=j4z3trag.k1h#surve yDetailsTabIndex=1 (Accessed March 31, 2020).
Grayson, D.K. 2011 The Great Basin: A Natural Prehistory. University of California Press. Berkley, California.
Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980. Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammal. Species No. 125. 4pp.
Green, M.S. 2015 Nevada: A History of the Silver State. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.
Griswold, T., J. Packham, and V. Young. 2019. Health Workforce in Nevada: A Chartbook. August 2019.
Griswold, T., J. Packham, and V. Young. 2020. Health Workforce in Nevada: A Chartbook. August 2019.
Hall, S 1994 Romancing Nevada’s Past: Ghost Towns and Historic Sites of Eureka, Lander, and White Pine Counties. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada.
Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Second edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. xxvi + 484 pp.
Hansley, P.L. and G.P. Beauvais. 2004. Species Assessment for Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) in Wyoming. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 51 pp.
HawkWatch International. 2019. Ferruginous Hawk – Buteo regalis. [Online] URL: https://hawkwatch.org/learn/factsheets/item/638-ferruginous-hawk. HawkWatch International. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Hayes, D 2007 Historical Atlas of California, University of California Press, Berkeley.
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2019. White Pine Pumped Storage Project Reconnaissance Study. Prepared for White Pine Waterpower, LLC. June 6, 2019.
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2020a. White Pine Pumped Storage Project Pre-Feasibility Study Report. Prepared for White Pine Water Power, LLC, Boise, ID by HDR Engineering Inc.
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2020b. Preliminary Geologic Mapping and Seismic Characterization Update. Report prepared for White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Boise, ID by HDR Engineering Inc.
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2022a. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report. Report prepared for White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Boise, ID by HDR Engineering Inc.
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2022b. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study Report. Report prepared for White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Boise, ID by HDR Engineering Inc.
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2022c. Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report. Report prepared for White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Boise, ID by HDR Engineering Inc.
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2021d. Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Report. Report prepared for White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Boise, ID by HDR Engineering Inc.
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2022. Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report. Report prepared for White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Boise, ID by HDR Engineering Inc
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR). 2023 Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report. Report prepared for White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Boise, ID by HDR Engineering Inc.
Hill, J.M 1916 Notes on Some Mining Districts in Eastern Nevada. USGS Bulletin 648. Washington Government Printing Office.
Hinz, N.H., M.F. Coolbaugh, and J.E. Faulds. 2015. Geothermal Resource Potential Assessment, White Pine County, Nevada; Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Report 55.
Hockett, B.S 1995 Chronology of Elko Series and Split Stemmed Points from Northeastern Nevada. In: Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 41–53.
Hudgins, H 1906 Pen Sketch of Ely’s History Glorifies The Pioneer Band. In: The White Pine News, December 25, Page 1. White Pine County Library, Community History Archive. [Online] URL: https://ely.advantage-preservation.com/ (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Intermountain Region Herbarium Network (IRHN). 2021. Records accessed within the Project Vicinity. [Online] URL: http://www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/ December 17. Utah State University, Utah.
Jones, T., G.M. Brown, L.M. Raab, J.L. McVickar, W.G. Spaulding, D.J. Kennet, A. York, and P.L. Walker 1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crisis in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40(2):137–170.
KGHM Polska Miedź. Undated. Robinson Mine. [Online] URL: https://kghm.com/en/ourbusiness/mining-and-enrichment/robinson (Accessed December 2, 2021).
Koehler, R.D. and S.G. Wesnousky. 2011. Late Pleistocene Regional Extension Rate Derived from Earthquake Geology of Late Quaternary Faults Across the Great Basin, Nevada, between 38.5°N and 40°N latitude, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 123, no 3-4, p. 631-650.
Lin, J. 1999. Origins of the Lincoln Highway. The Lincoln Highway Association. [Online] URL: https://www.lincolnhighwayassoc.org/history/ (Accessed December 7, 2020).
Lincoln Highway Association 1935 The Story of a Crusade That Made Transportation History. Published by Dodd, Mead & Company, New York.
Luce, R.J., Dr. M.A. Bogan, M.J. O’Farrell, and D.A. Keinath. 2004. Species Assessment for Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) in Wyoming. Prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
LS Power. 2016. Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) North. Available online: https://www.caiso.com/Documents/GreatBasinSouthwestIntertieProject-NorthOverview.pdf (Accessed December 8, 2022).
Madsen, D. and M. Berry. 1975. A Reassessment of Northeastern Great Basin Prehistory. In: American Antiquity, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 391-405.
Manville, A.E. 2002. Bird Strikes and Electrocutions at Power Lines, Communication Towers, and Wind Turbines: State of the Art and State of the Science – Next Steps Toward Mitigation. Paper presented at the Third International Partners in Flight Conference, March 20-24, 2002, Asilomar Conference Grounds, California.
Mast, M.A., and Clow, D.W. 2000. Environmental Characteristics and Water-quality of Hydrologic Benchmark Network Stations in the Western United States, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1173-D, 115 p.
McGill Drugstore Museum. 2018. [Online] URL: http://www.mcgilldrugstoremuseum.org/ (Accessed January 14, 2020).
McGill Nevada. 2016. Recreational Paradise. [Online] URL: http://mcgillnevada.com/index.php/146recreational-paradise (Accessed January 14, 2020).
McGuire, K. and W. Hildebrandt. 2016. Precontact Background. In: Prehistory of Nevada’s Northern Tier: Archaeological Investigations Along the Ruby Pipeline. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Number 101, pp. 72–94.
National Center for Education Statistics. Undated. Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey Data. Online [URL]: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Undated. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. National Marine Fisheries Service. [Online] URL: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/index.html. (Accessed February 25, 2020).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2022. National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: County Time Series, published August 2021 [Online] URL: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ (Accessed December 21, 2022).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021 Natural Hazards Viewer [Online] URL:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/hazards/?layers=2&extent=-180,70,180,-70 (Accessed November 2021)
National Park Service (NPS). Undated. Nationwide Rivers Inventory. [Online] URL: https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=8adbe798-0d7e-40fb-bd48-225513d64977 (Accessed January 13, 2020).
National Park Service (NPS). 2017. Great Basin National Park Nevada: Things to Do. [Online] URL: https://www.nps.gov/grba/planyourvisit/things2do.htm (Accessed January 15, 2020).
National Park Service (NPS). 2020. Pony Express National Historic Trail. [Online] URL:
https://www.nps.gov/poex/index.htm (Accessed January 15, 2020).
National Park Service (NPS). 2022 Astronomy - Great Basin National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov) (Accessed January 9, 2022).
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Undated. Nevada. [Online] URL: https://www.rivers.gov/nevada.php (Accessed January 15, 2020).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey. [Online] URL: Web Soil Survey - Home (usda.gov) (Accessed October 28, 2021).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Undated. Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSDs). [Online] URL:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053587 (Accessed October 28, 2021).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Website for Official Soil Series Descriptions and Series Classification. [Online] URL:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey/ (Accessed March 17, 2020).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web Soil Survey. [Online] URL: Web Soil Survey - Home (usda.gov) (Accessed December 22, 2022).
NatureServe Explorer. 2023. Kit Fox - Vulpes macrotis. [Online] URL: https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102982/Vulpes_macrotis (Accessed January 13, 2023).
NatureServe Explorer. 2021a. Greater Short-horned Lizard. [Online] URL: https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106178/Phrynosoma_hernand esi (Accessed October 19, 2021).
NatureServe Explorer. 2021b. American Water Shrew - Sorex palustris. [Online] URL: https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.974660/Sorex_palustris (Accessed October 19, 2021).
NatureServe Explorer. 2020. http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species Accessed October 31, 2020.
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (NBMG). 2020. Geohazards, University of Nevada – Reno, [Online] URL: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/Geohazards/index.html.
Nevada Department of Agriculture. 2021. “Nevada Noxious Weed List.” Last updated February 2, 2021. [Online] URL: http://agri.nv.gov/Plant/Noxious_Weeds/Noxious_Weed_List/. Sparks, Nevada.
Nevada Department of Agriculture. 2021. What is a Noxious Weed? [Online] URL: https://agri.nv.gov/Plant/Noxious_Weeds/What_is_a_noxious_weed_/ (Accessed June 9, 2022).
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (NDCNR). 1967. Water Resources Report 42. [Online] URL:
http://images.water.nv.gov/images/publications/recon%20reports/rpt42-steptoe_valley.pdf
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (NDCNR). 1999. Nevada State Water Plan. [Online] URL: http://water.nv.gov/waterplandetail.aspx (Accessed December 7, 2021).
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (NDCNR). 2009. Nevada Hunter Information Sheet for Rocky Mountain Elk. [Online] URL:
http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/public_images/Hunt/Hunting_Informati on_Sheets/elk_111_112_113_114_115_221_222.pdf (Accessed October 18, 2021).
Nevada Department of Transportation (DOT). 2021 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP). Available online: https://estip.nevadadot.com/default?view_type=FED (Accessed December 6, 2022).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2023 Kit Fox. [Online] URL: https://www.ndow.org/species/kit-fox/# (Accessed January 13, 2023).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Species Accounts. [Online] URL:
http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Conservation/Nevada_Wildlife_Action_Plan/
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2017. Nevada Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. Reno, NV. [Online] URL:
http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Boat/Aquatic_Invasive_Species/Final_ USE_Electronic%20AIS%20Plan_ndow-managment-plan-digital.pdf (Accessed March 18, 2020).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2018. Acoustic Impacts and Greater Sage-grouse: A Review of Current Science, Sound Measurement Protocols, and Management Recommendations. February 2018.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2019. Letter – Re: White Pines. Response to records request for wildlife data in the Project Vicinity. December 19. Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2020a. 2020 Nevada Action Plan. Implementation of Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362: “Improving Habitat Quality in Western BigGame Winter Range and Migration Corridors”
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2020b. Interim Sage-Grouse Noise Protocol Clarifications. March 31, 2020.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2021a. Eastern Nevada Fish Stocking. [Online] URL: http://www.ndow.org/Fish/Stocking_Updates/Eastern_Nevada/ (Accessed September 22, 2021).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2021b. Letter – Re: White Pines. Response to records request for wildlife data in the Project Vicinity. March 1. Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2022a. Comments of Nevada Department of Wildlife on the White Pine Pumped Storage Project (FERC Project No. 14851) Draft Application for Original License, Unconstructed Project. May 17. Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2022b. Species information page for known amphibians and reptiles in Nevada. [Online] URL: https://www.ndow.org/species-information/ (Accessed January 19, 2022).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2022c. Nevada Department of Wildlife Draft 2021-2022 Big Game Status. [Online] URL: https://www.ndow.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/04/2021-22Big-Game-Status-Book-DRAFT-April-2022.pdf (Accessed June 21, 2022).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2022d. Letter – Re: White Pines. Response to records request for wildlife data in the Project Vicinity. November 30. Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Undated-a. Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area Brochure. [Online] URL:
http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Nevada_Wildlife/Steptoe%20WMA%20 %E2%80%93%20NV%20Brochure(1).pdf (Accessed October 18, 2021).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Undated-b. Wildlife Management Areas. [Online] URL: http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Wildlife_Management_Areas/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Undated-c. Winter Wildlife. [Online] URL: http://www.ndow.org/Nevada_Wildlife/Animals/Winter_Wildlife/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Undated-d. Pronghorn Antelope. [Online] URL: http://www.ndow.org/Species/Furbearer/Pronghorn_Antelope/ (Accessed October 25, 2021).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Undated-e. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat. [Online] URL: http://www.ndow.org/Species/Furbearer/Townsend%E2%80%99s_Big-eared_Bat/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Undated-f. Spotted Bat. [Online] URL: http://www.ndow.org/Species/Furbearer/Spotted_Bat/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Undated-g. Mule Deer. [Online] URL: http://www.ndow.org/Species/Furbearer/Mule_Deer/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). Undated-h. Valley Pocket Gopher. [Online] URL: http://www.ndow.org/Species/Furbearer/Valley_Pocket_Gopher/ (Accessed October 20, 2021).
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Undated. Water Quality Standards. [Online] URL: https://ndep.nv.gov/water/rivers-streams-lakes/water-quality-standards (Accessed October 13, 2021).
Final License Application – Exhibit E White Pine Pumped Storage Project February
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). 2022. Nevada 2020-2022 Water Quality Integrated Report After EPA Review – February 2022. [Online] URL: https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/water-wqm-docs/IR2022FINAL_Report.pdf (Accessed December 21, 2022).
Nevada Division of State Parks (NDSP). 2021. Personal communication with S. Gray, Cave Lake State Park Supervisor. August 2021.
Nevada Division of State Parks (NDSP). 2022. Nevada Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2022-2026. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 85 pp.
Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR). 2022. Hydrographic Regions and Basins. [Online] URL: http://water.nv.gov/hydrographicregions.aspx (Accessed December 21, 2022).
Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR). 2021a. Underground Active Basin Summaries, Commitments and Availability, Steptoe Valley Basin (179). [Online] URL: http://water.nv.gov/UndergroundActive.aspx (Accessed October 12, 2021).
Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR). 2021b. Statewide Groundwater Pumpage Inventory, Calendar Year 2017. Issued January 27, 2021. [Online] URL: http://water.nv.gov/documents/Nevada%20Groundwater%20Pumpage%202017.pdf (Accessed January 11, 2022).
Nevada Government. 2021. Community Health Services. Online [URL]: https://dpbh.nv.gov/Programs/ClinicalCN/Clinical_Community_Nursing_-_Home/.
Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Division. 2019. Water Policy and Issues in Nevada: An Overview. December 2019. [Online] URL: Water Law and Issues in Nevada: An Overview (state.nv.us) (Accessed January 18, 2022).
Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 2019. Records of Special Status Species and Occurrence Details for White Pine County. [Online] URL: http://heritage.nv.gov/species/. (Accessed December 17, 2019). Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 2020. Records of Special Status Species and Occurrence Details for White Pine County. [Online] URL: http://heritage.nv.gov/species/. March 16. Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). 2021. At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List. July. Carson City, Nevada. Accessed May 13, 2021. https://heritage.nv.gov/species_info. Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP). Undated. Species Information - Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Accessed February 2, 2023. https://http://species.heritage.nv.gov/. Reno, Nevada.
Nevada Northern Railway Museum. 2006. Press Release 9/28/2006: “Nevada Northern Railway East Ely Complex, Locomotives, and Rolling Stock Recognized as National Historic Landmark”. [Online] URL: https://archive.is/20120710184229/http://nevadanorthernrailway.net/Press/PressRelease%2 0NHL.htm#selection-125.0-125.113 (Accessed March 29, 2020).
Nevada Northern Railway (NNR). Undated-a. Nevada Northern Railway Event Calendar. Online [URL]: https://www.nnry.com/pages/calendarall.php. (Accessed February 17, 2023).
Nevada Northern Railway (NNR). Undated-b. Nevada Northern Railway National Historic Landmark: Ely, NV. [Online] URL: https://www.nnry.com/ (Accessed January 14, 2020).
Nevada Northern Railway (NNR). 2021. Personal communication with A. Stevens, NNR Roadmaster. May 2021.
Nevada Rock Art Foundation (NRAF) 2015 Exploring Great Basin Archaeology. Published by the Nevada Rock Art Foundation for the Great Basin Teachers’ Workshop presented by the Bureau of Land Management Ely District Office.
https://www.nvrockart.org/aan_pages/txt/Exploring_Great_Basin_Archaeology.pdf (Accessed December 7, 2020).
Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nevada). 1874. Article. Nevada State News – discussing the Watson Co. mill at Mineral City and stage to Hercules Gap. April 22, Page 1. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nevada) 1950a Article. Pioneer Nevadan Taken By Death –discussing the history of Georgetown Ranch. December 3, Page 24. www.newspapers.com (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nevada) 1950b Announcement. Notice Calling For Bids, Georgetown Ranch Sale – discussing details about the ranch. October 3, Page 10. www.newspapers.com (Accessed July 23, 2021)
Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nevada) 1955 Article. Remember the Lincoln Highway? It Wasn’t Very Long Ago That It Went Through Reno. April 24, page 9. www.newspapers.com (Accessed December 7, 2020).
Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (NSHPO). 2018. National Register of Historic Places –Nevada. [Online] URL: https://shpo.nv.gov/state-and-national-registers (Accessed March 31, 2020).
Norman, B.W. 2013. Structural Evolution of the Central Schell Creek Range, White Pine County, Nevada. Master’s Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. December 2013. [Online] URL:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae40/b69e15cd3e0f54de3d36329ae879e670d726.pdf?_ga= 2.73059475.1069768381.1584468867-248242647.1584468867
NV Energy. 2020. Greenlink Nevada. Online [URL]: https://lands.nv.gov/uploads/meeting_minutes/E2021-098.pdf
NV Energy. 2022. Greenlink North Transmission Project Preliminary Plan of Development. Available online:
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2017033/200503893/20066769/250072951/Plan% 20of%20Development.pdf (Accessed December 7, 2022).
Final License Application – Exhibit E White Pine Pumped Storage Project February 2023 |
Pérouse, E. and B.P. Wernicke. 2017. Spatiotemporal Evolution of Fault Slip Rates in Deforming Continents: The Case of the Great Basin Region, Northern Basin and Range province: Geosphere, v. 13, no. 1, p. 112–135.
Peterson, J.A. and J.A. Grow. 1995. Eastern Great Basin Province in Gautier, D.L., Dolton, G.L., Takahashi, K.I., and Varnes, K.L., eds., 1995 National assessment of United States oil and gas resources-Results, methodology, and supporting data: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 30.
Petersen, M.D., A.M. Shumway, P.M. Powers, C.S. Mueller, M.P. Moschetti, A.D. Frankel, S. Rezaeian, D.E. McNamara, N. Luco, O.S. Boyd, K.S. Rukstales, K.S. Jaiswal, E.M. Thompson, S.M. Hoover, B.S. Clayton, E.H. Field, and Y. Zeng 2019. 2018 Update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of Model and Implications, Earthquake Spectra.
Picard, D. 2009. Remembering First Oil in Nevada. In: Earth Sciences History. Published by History of Earth Sciences Society. Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 161–174.
Piteau Associates. 2021. Technical Memorandum: White Pine Pumped Storage Well Field Design December 2.
Pitts, S 2021 Personal Communication regarding the historic replacement of rails, culverts, and other features along the mainline between McGill and Ely, and the Hi Line/LaVon Siding. April 14, 2021.
Price, J.P. 2020. Geology of Nevada. University of Nevada, Reno. [Online] URL: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/GeneralGeology/NevadaGeology.html (Accessed March 17, 2020).
Prudic, D.E. and P.A. Glancy. 2009. Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5073, p. 28.
Prudic, D.E., J.R. Harrill, and T.J. Burbey. 1995. Conceptual Evaluation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Carbonate-Rock Province of the Great Basin, Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States. USGS Professional Paper 1409-D.
Redsteer, M.H., compiler. 2000. Fault Number 1238, Central Steptoe Fault Zone, in Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey [Online] URL: https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults
Redsteer, M.H., R.E. Anderson, and K.M. Haller, compilers. 2011. Fault Number 1272, Steptoe Valley Fault System, in Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey. [Online] URL: https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults.
Reheis, M. 1999. Extent of Pleistocene Lakes in the Western Great Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2323, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada). 1888. Article. Local Brevities – discussing Ely Indians dissatisfaction with treatment. August 30, Page 1. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com (Accessed July 20, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1910 Article. “Potato John” Dies In Camp Near Ely: Oldest Indian in United States Passes Away in Lonely Tepee From Pneumonia – interviewed before death. December 19, Page 7. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1916 Article. Lincoln Highway from Fallon East Given Complete Survey. July 29, page 2. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed December 7, 2020).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1929 Article. Will Pay Less For Ely Indians. February 19, Page 6. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1932 Article. Indians Seek Treaty Cash. April 16, Page 2. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada). 1933. Article. Shearers Busy Again At Ely – mentioning area sheep ranchers and size of their flocks. June 9, Page 2. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 20, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1937 Article. Pinenuts Cause Of Complaint By Ely Indian. October 16, Page 5. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada). 1939. Article. Indian Hunters Fined In White Pine. October 2, Page 11. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1941 Article. Camps Inspected In White Pine By Grazing Officials – discussing CCC caps building truck trails. April 1, Page 10. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 28, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1969 Article. Housing Set For Duckwater, Ely Indians. January 18, Page 2. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1972 Article. Ely Indian Colony to get land. January 31, Page 5. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada) 1977 Article. Ely colony grant OK’d. November 9, Page 17. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada). 1989. Article. Across Nevada, White Pine County –discussing completion of Ely State Prison. July 23, Page 2D. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 20, 2021).
Robertson, Colin. 2021. Nevada Receives $160,000 for Nation’s First-Ever Recreation Trail Building School. Available online: https://elynevada.net/nevada-receives-160000-for-nations-firstever-recreation-trail-building-school (Accessed December 14, 2022).
Robinson, J.W. 2005 Gateways to Southern California. Published by the Big Santa Anita Historical Society and Pace Lithographers, Inc., City of Industry, California.
Rowley, P.D., G.L. Dixon, E.A. Mankinen, K.T. Pari, D.K. McPhee, E.H. McKee, A.G. Burns, J.M. Watrus, E.B. Ekren, W.G. Patrick, and J.M. Brandt. 2017. Geology and Geophysics of White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada, and Adjacent Parts of Nevada and Utah: the Geologic Framework of Regional Groundwater Flow Systems: NBMG Report 56, scale 1:250,000, 4 plates, 146 p.
Rusco, E.R. 1991. The Indian Reorganization Act in Nevada: Creation of the Yomba Reservation. In: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 77–94.
Sawyer, T.L. and M.H. Redsteer, compilers. 1998. Fault Number 1398, White River Valley Fault Zone, in Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey. [Online] URL: https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults
Schell, B.A. 1981. Faults and Lineaments in the MX Siting Region, Nevada and Utah, Volume II: Technical report to U.S. Department of [Defense] the Air Force, Norton Air Force Base, California, under Contract FO4704-80-C-0006, November 6, 1981, 29 p., 11 pls., scale 1:250,000.
Schmidt, C.A. 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Small-Footed Myotis in the Black Hills National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 16 pp.
Smith, R.M. 1976. Bulletin 85, Geology and Mineral Resources of White Pine County, Nevada, Part II: Mineral Resources. United States Geological Survey and Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno.
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). 2016. A 2009-2015 Assessment of Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) Reproduction on Southern Nevada Water Authority Ranches in Spring Valley, Nevada. SNWA, Las Vegas, NV, July 2016.
Starr, K 2007 California: A History. Modern Library, New York.
State of Nevada Department of Corrections. 2019. [Online] URL: http://doc.nv.gov/Facilities/ESP_Facility/ (Accessed February 28, 2020).
State of Nevada. Sagebrush Ecosystem Program. 2017. Nevada Habitat Quantification Tool Scientific Methods Document v1.3. Prepared by Environmental Incentives, LLC and EcoMetrix Solutions Group, LLC, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
State of Nevada. Sagebrush Ecosystem Program. 2019. Approved Regulation of the Sagebrush Ecosystem Council. §§1-19, NRS 232.162. October 30, 2019.
State of Nevada. Sagebrush Ecosystem Program. 2021. Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team (SETT). Nevada Conservation Credit System User’s Guide v1.6.21. January. State of Nevada. 2021. State of Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Program, Nevada Conservation Credit System. [Online] URL: https://sagebrusheco.nv.gov/CCS/ConservationCreditSystem/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Steward, J.H. 1941 Culture Element Distributions: XIII – Nevada Shoshone. In: Anthropological Records, Vol. 4, No. 2. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angles, California, pp. 209-360.
Sutton, M.Q. 1993. The Numic Expansion in Great Basin Oral Tradition. In: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 111–128.
Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 2018 History and Culture. https://www.temoaktribe.com/history.shtml (Accessed December 7, 2020).
Tesky, J.L. 1994. Buteo swainsoni. In: Fire Effects Information System. [Online] URL:
https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/busw/all.html (Accessed October 19, 2021).
The Sacramento Union (Sacramento, California). 1908. Article. Railroad Fares Are Shaved in Nevada. March 5, page 8. California Digital Newspaper Collection. [Online] URL: https://cdnc.ucr.edu. (Accessed December 7, 2020).
The White Pine News (Ely, Nevada)
1892 Article. Robinson District: Gold Mines to the Front – Real Estate Advancing in Ely – Based on the Prospects of a Big Mining Sale – The Mines are Good. June 25, page 1. Nevada Library Cooperative. [Online] URL:
https://nvlibrarycoop.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/ (Accessed March 31, 2021).
The White Pine News (Ely, Nevada). 1900. Article. Chainman Mine. December 27, Vol. 34, No. 25, page 1. Nevada Library Cooperative. [Online] URL:
https://nvlibrarycoop.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/. (Accessed March 31, 2021).
The White Pine News (Ely, Nevada) 1906a Notice. Regarding the Nevada Consolidated Copper Company’s purchase of the Chainman Mining & Electric Company and light plant. April 17, page 2. Nevada Library Cooperative. [Online] URL: https://nvlibrarycoop.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/ (Accessed March 31, 2021).
The White Pine News (Ely, Nevada). 1906b. Article. Ely As Seen by Her Neighbors. December 25, Page 15. White Pine County Library, Community History Archive. [Online] URL: https://ely.advantage-preservation.com/. (Accessed July 31, 2021).
The White Pine News (Ely, Nevada). 1907. Article. Testimony is Concluded Before The Commission – discussing the early history of Georgetown Ranch for a legal dispute. November 23, Page 1. White Pine County Library, Community History Archive. [Online] URL: https://ely.advantage-preservation.com/ (Accessed July 23, 2021).
The White Pine News (Ely, Nevada). 1909a. Article. Griffiths Gives In Good Report On Ely Resurrection. November 20, Page 4. White Pine County Library, Community History Archive. [Online] URL: https://ely.advantage-preservation.com/. (Accessed July 30, 2021).
The White Pine News (Ely, Nevada). 1909b. Announcement regarding mining deeds filed near Hercules Gap. May 19, Page 3 White Pine County Library, Community History Archive. [Online] URL: https://ely.advantage-preservation.com/. (Accessed July 20, 2021).
The White Pine News (Ely, Nevada) 1921 Article. Georgetown Ranch Leased by McGills –discussing the disposition of the ranch. April 17, Page 1. White Pine County Library, Community History Archive. [Online] URL: https://ely.advantage-preservation.com/ (Accessed July 23, 2021).
Tingley, J.V. 1998 Mining Districts of Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Report 47 (second edition). MacKay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno.
Tingley, J.V. and J. Bentz. 1982. Mineral Resources of the Egan Resource Area. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 83-1. MacKay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno.
Tonopah Weekly Bonanza (Tonopah, Nevada) 1909 Article. Last Indian Battle In Eastern Nevada. August 14. [Online] URL: www.newspapers.com. (Accessed July 20, 2021).
Town of McGill. 2016. Town of McGill Nevada. [Online] URL: http://mcgillnevada.com/ (Accessed March 26, 2020).
Tschanz, C.M. and E.H. Pampeyan. 1970. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Lincoln County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bulletin No. 73, 188 p.
Ulmschneider, H., D. Hays, H. Roberts, J. Rachlow, T. Forbes, J. Himes, E. Sequin, M. Haworth, T. Katzner, A. Kozlowski, R. Rauscher, and P. Lauridson. 2004. Surveying for Pygmy Rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). 24 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Undated. Definition of Terms. [Online] URL: https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Definitions/#Eph%20Stream (Accessed October 11, 2021).
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. American Fact Finder 2010 Demographics Profile. [Online] URL: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml (Accessed November 6, 2019).
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2022a. 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year, Table B17017. Accessed June 2022.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2022b. 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year, Table B03002. Accessed June 2022.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2022c. 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year, Table S1601. Accessed June 2022.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2022c. 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year, Table S2403. Accessed December 2022
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2023a. 2015-2019 and 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5Year, Table B19013. Accessed February 2023
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2023b 2015-2019 and 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5Year, Table B24081. Accessed February 2023.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2023c 2015-2019 and 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5Year, Table S1701. Accessed February 2023
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2023d 2015-2019 and 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5Year, Table S1902. Accessed February 2023.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2023e. Quick Facts. Online] URL: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/whitepinecountynevada. Accessed February 2023.
U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) and United States Department of the Interior (DOI). 2020. LANDFIRE Landscape Fire and Resource Planning Tools - Vegetation. Accessed July 19, 2021. https://landfire.gov/vegetation.php
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2022. Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data for Hospitals, Public Schools, Private Schools, and Child Care Centers. [Online] URL: https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/. Accessed June 2022.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines in the Federal Register, September 29, 1983 (48FR44716) Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI). 2020. LANDFIRE Landscape Fire and Resource Planning Tools - Vegetation. [Online] URL: U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Undated. America’s Byways. [Online] URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/ (Accessed November 15, 2019).
U.S Department of Energy (DOE) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. West-wide Energy Corridor Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Available online: https://corridoreis.anl.gov/eis/documents/index.cfm (Accessed December 15, 2022).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Environmental Indicators. [Online] URL: https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/ (Accessed January 17, 2022).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Undated. Sagebrush Ecosystem – Sage Thrasher. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/sagebrush/wildlife/sage-thrasher/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Loggerhead Shrike Status Assessment. [Online]
URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/soc/birds/losh/loshsa_entire.pdf (Accessed October 19, 2021).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. [Online] URL:
https://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/documents/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf Washington D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. Beginner’s Guide to Greater Sage-Grouse – Notes from the Lek: Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Primer Series Primer #1. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/factsheets/Primer1-SGBeginnersGuide.pdf. Washington D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pygmy Rabbit as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register Volume 75: 60516- 60561.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Greater Sage-Grouse Biology and Status, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. Reno, Nevada. January.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. White River Spinedace (Lepidomeda albivallis). [Online] URL: White River Spinedace
(https://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species/fish/species/wr_spinedace.html (Accessed November 18, 2021).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Northern Leopard Frog. [Online] URL:
https://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/nleopard_frog.html (Accessed October 19, 2021).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Greater Sage-Grouse – Nevada. [Online] URL:
https://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/nevada.php (Accessed October 21, 2021).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. National Wetland Inventory. Wetlands Online Mapper. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html (Accessed January 13, 2020).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation. Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed September 15, 2022.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.
U.S. Forest Service. (USFS). Undated-a. Timber Creek Campground. [Online] URL: https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/htnf/recarea/?recid=65534
U.S. Forest Service. (USFS). Undated-b. Bird Creek Campground. [Online] URL: https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/htnf/recarea/?recid=65184
U.S Forest Service. (USFS). Undated-c. East Creek Campground. [Online] URL: https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/htnf/recarea/?recid=65228
U.S. Forest Service. (USFS). Undated-d Ward Mountain Campground. [Online URL: https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/htnf/recarea/?recid=65536
U.S. Forest Service. (USFS). Undated-e. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Visitor Guide. [Online URL: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd574131.pdf (Accessed January 15, 2020).
U.S. Forest Service. (USFS). 1986 Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. [Online] URL:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5143061.pdf.
U.S. Forest Service. (USFS). 2011. Ely Westside Rangeland Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger District. Ely, NV.
U.S. Forest Service. 2021. Personal communication with USFS in August 2021.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1920. Exploratory Drilling for Water and Use of Ground Water for Irrigation in Steptoe Valley, Nevada. Water-Supply Paper 467. [Online] URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/0467/report.pdf (Accessed October 13, 2021).
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1956. 1:125,000 Topographic Map for Ely, Nevada. [Online] URL: https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html (Accessed March 29, 2020).
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2007. Water Resources of the Basin and Range Carbonate-Rock Aquifer System, White Pine County, Nevada, and Adjacent Areas in Nevada and Utah. [Online] URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5261/index.html
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2011. Gap Analysis Program. 20160513. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. [Online] URL: https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2012. Central Basin and Range Ecoregion. [Online] URL: https://www.usgs.gov/science-explorer-results?es=ecoregions (Accessed June 28, 2021).
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2013. Schmidt, K., & Gipson, M. Streamflow, Groundwater, and Water-Quality Monitoring by USGS Nevada Water Science Center. [Online] URL: https//pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/fs20133004.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2017. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems, Land Cover, Nevada. [Online] URL: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-andsynthesis/gap/science/land-cover-data-download?qt-science_center_objects=0#qtscience_center_objects
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2019. National Hydrography Dataset (ver. USGS National Hydrography Dataset Best Resolution (NHD) for Hydrologic Unit (HU) 8 (published 20190819)). [Online] URL: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html (Accessed January 15, 2020).
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2020a. Current Water Data for the Nation. [Online] URL: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt. (Accessed March 2020).
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2020b. Water Quality Samples for Nevada. USGS 10244950 Steptoe Ck Nr Ely, NV. [Online] URL: https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/qwdata/?site_no=10244950&agency_cd=USGS (Accessed October 13, 2021).
Utah Division of Indian Affairs 2019 Confederated Tribes of the Goshutes. https://indian.utah.gov/confederated-tribes-of-the-goshutes/. (Accessed March 29, 2021).
Utah’s Hogle Zoo. 2021. Utah Mountain Kingsnake. [Online] URL: https://www.hoglezoo.org/meet_our_animals/animal_finder/utah_mountain_kingsnake/ (Accessed October 19, 2021).
Vander, J 1995 The Shoshone Ghost Dance and Numic Myth: Common Heritage, Common Themes. In: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 174–190.
Volcano Discovery. Undated. Volcanoes of or Around Nevada. [Online] URL: https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/nevada.html (Accessed October 5, 2021).
Warren, C.N. and R.H. Crabtree 1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Great Basin, edited by W. L. d’Azevedo, pp. 183–193. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11. W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Weingroff, R 2017 The Lincoln Highway. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. [Online] URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/lincoln.cfm. (Accessed December 7, 2020).
Welch, A.H., D.J. Bright, and L.A. Knochenmus, eds. 2007. Water Resources of the Basin and Range Carbonate-rock Aquifer System, White Pine County, Nevada, and Adjacent Areas in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5261, 96 p.
Wells, H., E. Fairman, and R. Ambro. 2013. The Grass Valley Archaeological Project: Looking Back and Looking Forward. In: Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 153–165.
Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D.L. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and Reptiles of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. xii + 262 pp.
Western Cordillera. 2006. An Integrated Petroleum Evaluation of Northeastern Nevada. [Online] URL: http://westerncordillera.com/index.htm (Accessed October 6, 2021).
Western Mining History 2020 White Pine County, Nevada Mines. [Online] URL: https://westernmininghistory.com/mine_county/nevada/white-pine/ (Accessed December 7, 2020).
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2023. Climate Summary for the Period of Record (1892–2016) in Ely, Nevada (Station 262631). [Online] URL: https://wrcc.dri.edu/summary/ (Accessed January 20, 2023).
White Pine County. Undated. City of Ely. [Online] URL: https://www.whitepinecounty.net/384/City-ofEly (Accessed December 5, 2020).
White Pine County. Undated. Emergency Medical Services – Stations. [Online] URL: https://www.whitepinecounty.net/453/Stations (Accessed January 3, 2022).
White Pine County. 2005. White Pine County Open Space Plan. September 2005. Ely, Nevada.
White Pine County. 2008. White Pine County Land Use Plan. December 2008.
White Pine County. 2012. Community and Economic Development Strategy. 2012. [Online] URL: https://www.whitepinecounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/158/2011-WPC-ComprehensiveEconomic-Development-Strategies-CEDS (Accessed February 28, 2020).
White Pine County. 2014. Housing Study Summary. 2014-2018 Rural Nevada Housing Study, A Comprehensive Resource for Community Planning in Nevada’s Mineral Belt Communities. September 2014.
Final License Application – Exhibit E White Pine Pumped Storage Project February
White Pine Pumped Storage Project
White Pine County. 2018. 2018 White Pine County Public Lands Policy Plan. [Online] URL:
https://www.whitepinecounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/3930/WPCPublicLandsPolicyPlan20 18 (Accessed October 13, 2021).
White Pine County. 2019. Approval of Resolution 2020-51 Adopting the 2019 White Pine County Water Resource Plan Element to the White Pine County Master Plan. [Online] URL:
https://www.whitepinecounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/6067/1d1 (Accessed October 12, 2021).
White Pine County. 2020. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies. White Pine County Board of County Commissioners. [Online] URL:
https://www.whitepinecounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/6656/CEDS-JULY-2020-FINALDOCUMENT?bidId=. July 2020.
White Pine County. 2021. Assessor’s Office Property Search Records. [Online] URL: at:
https://whitepinenv.devnetwedge.com/ (Accessed November 23, 2021).
White Pine County School District. 2021. About. Online [URL]:
https://www.whitepine.k12.nv.us/about
White Pine County Tourism and Recreation Board. 2019. 2019 Strategic Plan. February 2019.
White Pine Waterpower, LLC (WPW). 2020. Notice of Intent to File Application for Original License and Pre-Application Document (FERC No. 14851). White Pine Waterpower, LLC, Boise, ID. Submitted to FERC May 15, 2020.
Whitley, D.S. 1982 Notes on the Coso Petroglyphs, the Etiological Mythology of the Western Shoshone, and the Interpretation of Rock Art. In: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 262–272.
Wigand, P.E. and D. Rhode 2002 Great Basin Vegetation History and Aquatic Systems: The Last 150,000 Years. In Great Basin Aquatic Systems History, edited by R. Hershler, D. B. Madsen, and D. R. Currey, pp. 309–368. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences 33. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Appendix A: Consultation Record
Appendix B:
Appendix C: Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report
Appendix D: Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Report
Appendix E:
2021 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species Assessment Study Report