MOHAVE COUNTY WIND FARM PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Kingman Field Office 

Kingman, Arizona 

Prepared by: 

URS Corporation 

March 2010 

AZA 32315AA 

DOI-BLM-AZ-C010-2009-019 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................1-1

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED......................................................................................................1-3

1.4 CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE PLAN ...............................................1-3

2.0 SCOPING PROCESS ...................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING PROCESS................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Announcements ..................................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 Public Scoping Meetings ....................................................................................2-2

2.3 AGENCY COORDINATION ............................................................................................2-3

2.3.1 Cooperating Agencies.........................................................................................2-3

2.3.2 Agency Coordination and Consultation..............................................................2-3

2.3.3 Tribal Consultation .............................................................................................2-4

3.0 SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS ..................................................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................3-1

3.2 COMMENT ORGANIZATION.........................................................................................3-1

3.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ...........................................................................3-2

3.4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING......................................................................3-3

3.4.1 Actions and Alternatives.....................................................................................3-4

3.4.2 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................3-6

3.5 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE EIS ...............................................................3-12

4.0 SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE EIS PROCESS .......................................................4-1

4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ........................................................................................4-1

4.2 DATA COLLECTION AND DATA GAPS.......................................................................4-1

4.3 ASSESS IMPACTS AND PLAN MITIGATION ..............................................................4-2

4.4 DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC REVIEW ...............................................................................4-2

4.5 PREPARE FINAL EIS AND ISSUE RECORD OF DECISION.......................................4-2

4.6 AGENCY AUTHORITIES AND DECISIONS TO BE MADE ........................................4-3

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2-1 Public Scoping Meeting Attendance................................................................................2-2

Table 3-1 Summary of Total Issues Identified.................................................................................3-3

Table 4-1 Potential Agency Decisions and Actions.........................................................................4-3

LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS 

Map 1-1 Project Location...............................................................................................................1-2

Figure 4-1 EIS Process Flow Chart ...................................................................................................4-1 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 i Table of Contents 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS 
APPENDICES

A Announcements 

 Notice of Intent 

 Newsletter 

 Interested Parties Letter and Distribution List 

 Poster and Distribution List 

 Press Release and Distribution List 

B Public Scoping Meeting Materials 

 Sign-in sheet 

 Frequently Asked Questions 

 Comment form 

 Presentation 

 Boards 

C Agency Coordination and Consultation 

 Cooperating Agencies Letter and Distribution List 

 Interested Agencies Letter and Distribution List 

 Tribal Consultation Letter and Distribution List 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 ii Table of Contents 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS 
Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 iii Table of Contents 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS 

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department 

AZ Arizona 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dB decibel 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

GIS geographic information system 

Hz hertz 

kV kilovolt 

MW megawatt 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NOI Notice of Intent 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S.C. U.S. Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Western Western Area Power Administration 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Kingman Field Office is 

preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to identify the potential effects of the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the Mohave County Wind Farm Project, a proposed wind generating 

facility and ancillary facilities that would produce up to 500 megawatt (MW) in northern Mohave County, 

Arizona. An EIS is required because BP Wind Energy has applied for right-of-way on BLM-administered 

land; consideration of this application requires Federal action. Additionally, Western Area Power 

Administration (Western) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are two of the agencies 

participating as cooperating agencies during preparation of the EIS. BP Wind Energy has submitted an 

application for right-of-way on land managed by Reclamation and a request to interconnect with 

Western’s power transmission system. The EIS is being prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and associated regulations. 

This report is a summary of the scoping process and results for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project. 

Scoping is the first step and an integral part of the EIS process. It is “an early and open process for 

determining the issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed 

action” (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1501.7). During scoping, BLM actively seeks 

to engage potentially affected or interested Federal, State, and local agencies; American Indian tribes; and 

the public. Scoping for this EIS commenced on November 20, 2009, with publication of a notice of intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register, Volume74, Number 223 (Appendix A), and concluded 

on January 8, 2010. 

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

BP Wind Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of BP, a privately held, independent power company, has 

been collecting wind data on a site in Mohave County, Arizona, for more than four years and has 

determined that the resources are sufficient to develop a wind energy project. BP Wind Energy proposes 

to construct, in phases, a wind generating facility that would produce up to 500 MW. The facility would 

be located approximately 40 miles northwest of Kingman, Arizona (Map 1-1) in Mohave County, 

Arizona. 

The proposed site as described during scoping included 44,860 acres of public land administered by the 

BLM Kingman Field Office and 4,360 acres of private land. Based on further study and public scoping 

comments, the study area has been revised. Land previously identified as subsequent phases or Phase 2 of 

the project, including 13,522 acres of BLM-administered land and 4,360 acres private land, is no longer 

under consideration. The proposed project area now includes 41,577 acres—31,338 acres of BLMadministered land and 10,239 acres of Federal land administered by Reclamation, located to the west of 

the BLM-administered land. 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 1-1 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS
Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 1-2 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS

Map 1-1 

Project Location 
The primary components of the proposed project include: 

• Up to 333 wind turbines 

• 34.5 kilovolt (kV) underground electrical collection system between turbines 

• 345kV or 500kV substation 

• 345kV or 500kV transmission line to connect to existing transmission lines 

• 10 temporary and 2-3 permanent meteorological towers 

• Permanent and temporary access roads 

• Operations and maintenance building 

• Layout yard 

Exact locations of project facilities are subject to change and will be refined as project design is 

completed. It is estimated that construction activities would encompass approximately 675 acres of 

disturbance; of this, about 25 percent of the affected lands would be permanently disturbed and 75 percent 

would be temporarily disturbed and then treated to mitigate the effects of disturbance. The total area 

estimated to be used by the proposed project (all facilities and temporary disturbance) is approximately 

1.5 percent of the total right-of-way requested. The permanent footprint of the wind energy facility would 

constitute 0.4 percent of the right-of-way. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the action is to consider use of BLM-administered public lands and other Federal lands in 

the White Hills area of Mohave County, Arizona, to help meet the demand for energy, particularly from 

renewable wind energy sources. The need for the action is established by BLM’s responsibility under the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act to respond to a request for right-of-way on BLM administered 

public lands. 

The Mohave County Wind Farm Project would support (1) the National Energy Policy to increase 

renewable energy production on public lands by 10,000 MW by the year 2015; (2) BLM’s Wind Energy 

Development Policy and commitment to promote the use of public lands for renewable energy 

development; and (3) the demand for additional energy supply in the Southwest. 

1.4 CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE PLAN 

BLM reviewed the resource management plan (RMP) in May 2009 to determine if the proposed project 

would be in conformance with the resource area goals, management guidance, and decisions in the 

Kingman Field Office RMP. Although the RMP is silent on the development of wind energy, neither 

allowing nor disallowing the use specifically, it was determined that the proposed project would be in 

conformance with the RMP. The project would not result in conflicts with management guidance or 

resource goals and therefore would not require an amendment to the RMP. 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 1-3 Chapter 1 – Introduction 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS
2.0 SCOPING PROCESS 

This section provides a summary of the objectives of scoping and a description of the scoping process and 

agency coordination for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS.

2.1 OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of the scoping process include: 

• Coordinate with affected Federal, State, and local agencies, affected American Indian tribes, and 

other interested parties to: 

o Invite agencies to participate as cooperators in the EIS process 

o Establish a process to integrate and expedite environmental reviews 

o Establish the planning and decision-making schedule 

• Determine the scope of the project and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS, 

including the range of alternatives and impacts. 

• Identify: 

o Issues that have been covered by prior environmental review and can be eliminated from 

detailed study 

o Any public environmental assessments and other EISs that are being or will be prepared that 

are related to but are not part of the scope of the EIS under consideration 

o Other environmental review and consultation requirements (e.g., Endangered Species Act, 

Historic Preservation Act) so the required analyses and studies can be prepared and integrated 

with the EIS 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING PROCESS 

The following section describes methods used to involve the public, notify them of scoping meetings, and 

facilitate exchange of updated project information throughout the planning process. 

2.2.1 Announcements

2.2.1.1 Notice of Intent 

The public was notified of the project and upcoming scoping meetings through the NOI published in the 

Federal Register on November 20, 2009 (Appendix A). The notice announced the intent to prepare an 

EIS, and advised that specific dates, locations, and times of scoping meetings would be announced 

through the local media and on the BLM website. In addition, the notice provided project information 

including a description of proposed facilities and project location, information on how to submit 

comments and why they are important, and BLM contact information. 

2.2.1.2 Mailings and Poster 

The public and many agencies were notified of the scoping period and public scoping meetings through a 

newsletter distributed to approximately 1,900 people on November 25, 2009 (Appendix A). In addition to 

the newsletter, an “interested party” letter was sent directly to elected officials, public facilities, and 

special interest groups. The letter included a description of the project, copy of the NOI, and a project 

map (Appendix A). The newsletter mailing list included property owners within 3 miles of the project 

site, local elected or municipal officials, Federal and State agencies, potentially interested American 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 2-1 Chapter 2 – Scoping Process 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS
Indian tribes, and other interested parties, in addition to BLM right-of-way holders, mining claimants, and 

other permittees. Information to contact BLM or provide scoping comments was provided in the 

newsletter and “interested parties” letter. The mailing list will be supplemented throughout the project as 

people notify BLM of their interest in the project through direct requests to BLM, participation in public 

meetings, or submission of comments. 

A poster announcing the public meetings was distributed by mail to the Dolan Springs Community 

Center, White Hills Community Association, and Rosie’s Den in White Hills, Arizona. An electronic 

version of the poster was sent by e-mail to the Kingman Chamber of Commerce with a request to share 

the information with its members. The purpose of the poster was to increase public awareness of the 

scoping meetings in those areas where newspaper notice may not have been as visible or effective. Copies 

of the newsletter, “interested parties letter” and distribution list, and poster are included in Appendix A. 

2.2.1.3 Media Contacts 

The public also was notified of the scoping meetings through a press release distributed on November 23, 

2009, to newspapers and other news outlets in the project area and regionally. The press release also was 

provided to county officials, elected officials, and Arizona congressional members. Press releases were 

distributed to the media outlets identified in Appendix A. A copy of the press release also is included in 

this appendix. 

2.2.2 Public Scoping Meetings

Three public scoping meetings were held for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS. Each scoping 

meeting was held in an open house format, with a brief presentation on the proposed project and NEPA 

process. Attendees were asked to sign in and each person was given a handout of Frequently Asked 

Questions and a comment form. Display boards containing information on the project purpose and need, 

project description, planning process, purpose of the scoping process, and public comment opportunities 

were displayed. Before and after the presentation, an open house atmosphere was maintained during 

which attendees could browse the information on the boards and speak informally to representatives from 

the BLM, Western, BP Wind Energy, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), and URS 

Corporation (the contractor assisting with the EIS). 

Questions and comments were discussed during and after the presentation, and in small groups or 

individually during the open house. These comments were recorded by individual notetakers, and were 

discussed among the project team after each meeting. These verbal comments were reviewed in 

conjunction with written comments to ensure that all issues were identified in this report (as discussed in 

Section 3). As previously mentioned, comment forms were available at each meeting for attendees to 

provide written comments at the time of the meeting, or to return by mail. Locations, dates, and 

attendance of each public meeting are shown in Table 2-1. Copies of scoping meeting materials are 

provided in Appendix B. 

Table 2-1 

Public Scoping Meeting Attendance 

Location Date Attendance 

Dolan Springs, Arizona – Dolan Springs Community Center December 8, 2009 21 

Kingman, Arizona – Hampton Inn December 9, 2009 37 

White Hills, Arizona – White Hills Community Center December 10, 2009 52 

Total attendance at scoping meetings 110 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 2-2 Chapter 2 – Scoping Process 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS
2.3 AGENCY COORDINATION 

2.3.1 Cooperating Agencies

In November 2009, letters extending the offer of formal cooperation were sent to various agencies at the 

Federal, State, and county levels with potential interest in serving as cooperating agencies during the EIS 

preparation. The letter described the proposed project, including facilities, and the role of a cooperating 

agency. Tribes also were invited to be a cooperating agency through a letter distributed in September 

2009 (see Section 2.3.3; copies of the letters and recipients are included in Appendix C). AGFD, 

Reclamation, Western, National Park Service at Lake Mead Recreation Area, Mohave County, and the 

Hualapai Tribe are identified as cooperating agencies. 

2.3.2 Agency Coordination and Consultation

In addition to inviting agencies to participate as cooperators during preparation of the EIS, BLM 

distributed letters to other potentially interested agencies to notify them of the project and the scoping 

period (Appendix C). An agency scoping meeting was held in Kingman, Arizona, on December 9, 2009, 

to introduce the project to interested agencies, identify issues, and encourage participation as a 

cooperating agency during preparation of the EIS. The meeting was attended by project team and 

representatives of AGFD, Western, Arizona Department of Transportation, Mohave County, 

Reclamation, and the BLM Arizona State Office. 

During the EIS process, various consultation efforts will occur related to environmental and 

archaeological resources or historic properties potentially affected by the proposed project. Agency 

consultation is an ongoing effort throughout the EIS. As resources are identified, more agencies may be 

consulted to help characterize the sensitivity of resources to project activities as well as to help determine 

mitigation measures to ensure that effects on resources are minimized. The following sections discuss 

archaeological and biological resource consultation efforts. 

2.3.2.1 Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

Section 106 consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is required by the 

National Historic Preservation Act (Title 16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] Section [§] 470 et seq.) and will be 

formally initiated later in the process. Section 106 stipulates that Federal agencies responsible for 

planning and implementing undertakings consult with the appropriate SHPO and other interested parties 

to determine if the undertaking would affect historic properties, and consider measures to avoid, reduce, 

or mitigate any identified adverse effects. Historic properties are districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. BLM will continue to consult 

with the Arizona SHPO throughout the EIS process. Section 106 also requires that BLM involve the 

public when accounting for the effects of the proposed project on historic properties; this public 

involvement process is being coordinated with the EIS public involvement activities to satisfy the 

requirements of both laws. 

2.3.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required by the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.) and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 

et seq.) prior to initiation of a project that may affect any federally listed special status species or its 

habitat. The Mohave County Wind Farm Project is considered a major Federal action and, in accordance 

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, consultation will be initiated. If required, a biological 

assessment will be completed in coordination with USFWS prior to issuing the Final EIS. 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 2-3 Chapter 2 – Scoping Process 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS
Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 2-4 Chapter 2 – Scoping Process 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS

2.3.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is required to complete a jurisdictional 

delineation to formally define whether washes in the study area are jurisdictional waters of the United 

States, identify permit requirements under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and 

mitigate potential impacts as the design of the proposed project goes forward. Initial consultations 

regarding CWA requirements will occur, and will facilitate future coordination and permitting activities 

as the project moves forward. 

2.3.3 Tribal Consultation

In recognition of the relationship of American Indian tribes, BLM consults with tribal governments on a 

government-to-government basis. The BLM Kingman Field Office initiated tribal consultations by 

sending a letter in September 2009, announcing the proposed project and extending an invitation to the 

tribes to be a cooperating agency. The BLM sent a second letter in November 2009 to announce the 

scoping period and invite the tribes to the agency or public scoping meetings. Letters sent in December 

2009 and February 2010 regarded a tribal information meeting, which was held on March 16, 2010. The 

contacted tribes include the Chemehuevi Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, 

Havasupai Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, 

Pahrump Paiute Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Yavapai Apache Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott 

Indian Tribe. (Copies of the letters and the mailing list of recipients are included in Appendix C.) 

Consultations with tribes that have an interest in the project will continue throughout the EIS process. 

Consultations with the Arizona SHPO pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(see Section 2.3.2.1 above) will be coordinated with tribal consultations as appropriate. 
3.0 SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

This section provides a summary of the method used to organize and analyze comments; a quantification 

of how many comments were received; how many issues were identified within those comments; a 

summary of issues identified during scoping; BLM management concerns that were identified 

independent of public or agency scoping comments; and issues that will not be addressed in the EIS with 

justification as to why they will not be addressed. Although BLM will continue to consider comments 

throughout the EIS process, all of the scoping comments documented in this report were received or 

postmarked by January 8, 2010. 

Comments regarding the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action will be considered by 

BLM in refining the project description and alternatives that will serve as the basis for assessment of 

impacts. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA require a rigorous 

analysis of alternatives prior to selecting a preferred course of action. Some input on alternatives will be 

included in the analysis and text of the EIS. Chapter 2 of the EIS also will describe which alternatives 

were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis in the EIS.

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations require an analysis of the impacts of a proposed 

project on the environment. These impacts include effects on natural, human, and cultural resources. 

Discussions with affected public or agencies, such as those that have occurred through this scoping effort, 

help to define and evaluate effects of the different alternatives on the environment. Comments relating to 

environmental impacts will be considered by BLM in developing the scope of EIS technical studies. 

Chapters 3 (Affected Environment) and 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the EIS will address the 

issues incorporated into the study. Concerns about the EIS studies and decision-making processes will be 

considered in refining and modifying these processes throughout the remainder of the EIS preparation.

Some suggestions may be considered outside the scope of this EIS if the issue relates to facilities not 

included in this project, if the issue is not within the jurisdiction of BLM to resolve, if the issue cannot be 

reasonably addressed within the scope of this process or is being addressed through a separate NEPA 

process, or if the issue does not satisfy the project’s purpose and need. Those issues that will not be 

addressed are identified by issue or resource under Section 3.5. 

3.2 COMMENT ORGANIZATION 

The comment forms, electronic (e-) mail messages, and mailed letters received at each scoping meeting 

and through January 8, 2010, were reviewed, documented, and entered into a database to facilitate 

organization, sorting, analytical review, and management of the comments in several different ways. The 

database is structured to organize comments into separate issue categories, identify the type (e.g., letter, 

e-mail, comment form), and source (e.g., agency, special interest group, citizen) of submittal, and tally the 

number of comments using various combinations of identifiers. 

Using the experience and professional judgment of the study team, the comments were organized 

according to 15 major issue categories as they relate to the EIS. These 15 main issues are as follows. 

Actions and Alternatives: Includes comments about various aspects and components of the proposed 

project, as well as suggestions for and concerns about alternative facilities or decisions that people feel 

should be considered in the EIS. Comments also identified topics relative to the planning and EIS 

preparation process, including public review opportunities. Identified issues include the following: 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-1 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
• Project Description 

• Project Purpose and Need 

• Project Alternatives 

• EIS Process 

Environmental Impacts: Includes comments about the proposed project’s potential impacts on natural, 

human, and cultural resources, and about social and economic concerns that people feel should be 

addressed in the EIS. Topic categories include the following: 

• Air Quality 

• Biological Resources (Vegetation and Wildlife) 

• Cultural Resources 

• Cumulative Effects 

• Geology and Minerals 

• Hazardous Materials and Safety 

• Land Use, Recreation, and Transportation 

• Noise 

• Socioeconomics (including property values) 

• Visual Resources 

• Water Resources 

3.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 

A total of 71 comment submissions were entered into the project database. In addition, comments 

received during the “question and answer” session at the three public and one agency scoping meeting 

were entered into the comment database to ensure all issues were recorded and considered. The comments 

were classified into the 15 main categories of issues (discussed in Section 3.2 above), and 41 categories of 

sub-issues. For example, a comment regarding the effects to bat and avian species was listed under the 

main issue of biological resources, sub-issue of bat and avian species. Similarly, if a comment questioned 

impacts on property values, socioeconomics was the main issue with property values as the sub-issue. 

This organization allowed the project team to identify, quantify, and analyze public concern during 

preparation of this Scoping Report and the EIS. It also allowed team members to identify issues at a very 

detailed level while maintaining the context of each comment. If a comment mentioned multiple issues, it 

was categorized as belonging to each of those issues. These comments and issues are summarized in 

Section 3.4 along with a sample of representative quotations. 

Within the 75 comment submissions entered into the database (71 written submissions and four 

meetings), 398 issues were identified and categorized into the 15 main issue categories. Several 

submissions contained only requests for information or to be added to the project mailing list. A total of 

15 of these inquiries were received and although entered into the database, were not assigned to a 

particular issue category. If a single letter mentioned the same issue multiple times through various 

statements, each issue was coded; therefore, a single comment submission could contribute multiple 

issues to the same category. Table 3-1 summarizes the volume of comments received on each of the 

15 main issue categories. 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-2 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
Table 3-1 

Summary of Total Issues Identified 

Main Issue 

Total Issues Identified in 

Comment Submissions 

Percent Based on Total 

Issues Identified 

Project Description 74 18.6 

Project Need 13 3.3 

Project Alternatives 18 4.5 

NEPA Process 32 8 

Air Quality 13 3.3 

Biological Resources 96 24.1 

Cultural Resources 10 2.8 

Cumulative Effects 15 3.5 

Geology and Minerals 16 4 

Hazardous Materials and Safety 6 1.5 

Land Use, Recreation, and Transportation 25 6.3 

Noise 15 3.8 

Socioeconomics 34 8.5 

Visual Resources 17 4.3 

Water Resources 14 3.5 

Total Issues Identified in Comments 398 100 

As noted in the table above, biological resources was the most frequently mentioned main issue, 

appearing in 24.1 percent of total issues received. However, because each individual statement was coded, 

a single comment submission from a special interest group accounted for more than half (56 percent) of 

all issues within the biological resources category. The second most frequently mentioned issue was 

project description, which was commented on by numerous entities. 

Although quantifying comments and issues is helpful in summarizing comments for public review and 

helping to guide future EIS studies, it is important to note that the level of importance of comments to 

BLM or to the decision-making process is not influenced by the frequency of a specific issue. In some 

cases, for example, a person may have submitted more than one letter or mentioned the same issue several 

times in their letter; therefore, his or her issues may have been recorded several times. In contrast, if only 

one comment was made about a certain issue, it will have the same level of importance as any other 

comment.

3.4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus their analysis and documentation on the significant issues 

related to a proposed action. Significant issues serve as the basis for developing and comparing 

alternatives. The following section provides a summary of significant issues identified during scoping, 

including a sample of representative quotations, and of BLM issues and concerns that were identified 

independent of public or agency scoping comments based on a review of the Resource Management Plan 

and input from BLM resource specialists. Those representative statements not in quotations were verbal 

questions received via telephone or at the public or agency scoping meetings, rather than in written 

comments. These issues will be considered and analyzed in the EIS. Those issues that will not be 

addressed in the EIS are identified under Section 3.5. 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-3 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
3.4.1 Actions and Alternatives

3.4.1.1 Project Description 

Questions regarding project description were diverse. Many comments focused on the construction 

process and inquiries on various project components (access roads, security fencing, and water wells). 

Other questions or comments were received on project capacity and how many homes would be served, 

project lifespan, and what would happen to project facilities after decommission. Comments in this 

category also included inquiries from private property owners about what private parcels would be 

included in the subsequent phases of the project and how project phasing would be implemented. 

Representative Quotations 

• “What is the estimated total cost of construction and annual maintenance costs?” 

• “What is the expected life span of the system, or its major components?” 

• “Will the access roads be [constructed] to county specs? Who will maintain them? Where will 

their entrance roads be?” 

• “Since most of this project will be on BLM land, will they have to comply with county 

regulations?” 

• “What will happen to the 335 turbines? 80-foot wide concrete pads? Buildings? Lines?” [after 

decommissioning] 

• “Some turbines [in Palm Springs] built on private land have been abandoned by the builder, 

leaving landowners with nonfunctional wind towers they can't get rid of.” 

• [What is] “The expected capacity factor (%) for an entire year and individual seasons.” 

• Will implementation of the subsequent project phases depend on the success of Phase 1? 

• Is my private property included in the subsequent project phases planned after completion of 

Phase 1? What private land will be acquired? 

3.4.1.2 Project Purpose and Need 

With the exception of three general comments, all comments in this category related to the potential 

consumers of energy to be produced by the plant. Most comments in this category were from residents 

near the project area, inquiring if they would receive the power or benefit from lower energy costs. Other 

comments were received from agencies, in the context of how project need should be discussed in the 

Draft EIS. 

Representative Quotations 

• “We can assume this energy will go to Las Vegas, the closest market.” 

• “Who is going to benefit from the electricity produced?” 

• “Will the power generation stay in AZ [Arizona]? Or will AZ get first dibs on it?” 

• “Will White Hills residents experience lower costs from the energy produced by the project?” 

• “The purpose and need should discuss the proposed project in the context of the larger energy 

market that this project would serve.” 

• “The purpose and need should identify potential purchasers of the power produced.” 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-4 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
• “The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) should clearly identify the underlying 

purpose and need to which BLM is responding in proposing the alternatives.” 

• “The purpose and need should discuss how the project will assist the state in meeting its 

renewable energy portfolio standards and goals.” 

3.4.1.3 Project Alternatives 

Most of the comments received on project alternatives were regarding the evaluation of other sites 

(44 percent), including previously disturbed sites or sites that would avoid the use of public land. Other 

comments in this category included suggesting the consideration of other technologies and other ways to 

meet energy demands.

Representative Quotations 

• “The DEIS should discuss the feasibility of using residential and wholesale distributed 

generation, in conjunction with increased energy efficiency, as an alternative to the proposed 

project.” 

• “Alternatives analysis should include ... capacities, and generating technologies including 

different types of technologies, and describe the benefits associated with the proposed 

technology.” 

• “Renewable energy projects should be sited on previously disturbed lands. In the case of wind, 

these lands could be former mine sites ... BP should site its project on one of these areas, not on 

intact public land.” 

• “Please consider alternatives of siting in brownfields, marginal ag[ricultural] and other lands.” 

• “Whenever possible, we think it is most appropriate to seek disturbed sites for these types of 

projects.” 

3.4.1.4 EIS Process 

Many comments in this category were regarding the scoping process (40 percent), including statements 

that interested parties did not receive notice promptly and requests that the scoping period be extended 

due to the holidays. Other comments noted that project information was difficult to locate, or not enough 

information was available to provide adequate comment. Some comments, primarily received by agencies 

or special interest groups, provided recommendations for the level of study that should be completed for 

the EIS. 

Representative Quotations 

• “BLM appears to be purposefully deluging the public with a dozen or more of these projects 

during the holiday period.” 

• “BLM is doing a very poor job of providing maps, and other documents that give the public any 

information to even comment on.” 

• “The BLM did not give us much more than a week notice about these meetings.” 

• “If the notice was published on the BLM web site, we may have seen it. Not all interested parties 

read the Kingman newspaper. You exclude a lot of people when you only go to a local 

newspaper.” 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-5 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
• “By the time people learn about these projects there will not be enough time to research them. 

People who travel for Thanksgiving will have one week notice of public meetings. There is 

simply not enough time for the public to provide adequate scoping comments.” 

• “The proposed lifespan of the wind farms and solar farms now under consideration is 

20-30 years. Such drastic measures should NOT be hurried along without adequate study.” 

3.4.2 Environmental Impacts

3.4.2.1 Air Quality 

All comments in this category were received from agencies with permitting or review authority (i.e., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA) or special interest groups. Several comments related to how air 

quality and climate issues should be considered and addressed in the EIS.

Representative Quotations 

• “It will destroy lands that naturally sequester carbon, and are naturally combating global 

warming.” 

• “Consider how climate change could potentially influence the proposed project, specifically 

within sensitive areas, and assess how the projected impacts could be exacerbated by climate 

change.” 

• “This action, plan or activity may temporarily increase ambient particulate matter (dust) levels ... 

The following measures are recommended to reduce disturbance of particulate matter ... ” 

The BLM project team identified the following concerns to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Fugitive dust from construction and traffic and mitigation strategies 

• Cumulative effects of emissions on regional air quality 

• Construction-related traffic emissions 

• Suppression of concrete dust 

3.4.2.2 Biological Resources (Vegetation and Wildlife) 

Comments on biological resources mentioned general impacts to wildlife, habitat, and vegetation, as well 

as impacts to specific species. Bats and avian species received most comments in this category 

(38 percent); however, comments were also received on specific species including California condors and 

desert tortoise. Other comments were related to recommendations for surveys, monitoring, and mitigation, 

including reclamation after construction and project decommissioning. More than half of the issues in this 

category resulted from a single comment submission that contained very detailed comments on specific 

species, impacts, and studies that should be included in the EIS. Due to the length and technical nature of 

most comments in this category, only a general representation is included below.

Representative Quotations 

• “After approx 30 years the project will be decommissioned ... Will the vegetation be replaced?” 

• “There are suggestions that pigs are effected [sic] by low frequency noises. Even pregnant cows 

might be effected [sic] by low frequency noise. And turbines generate low frequency noises and 

vibrations.” 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-6 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-7 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments

• “We are greatly concerned about potential migratory bird, bat and other mortality in important 

ranges or migration areas.” 

• “Industrial turbines kill birds. Past projects have minimized this by manipulating their studies. 

Most birds migrate at night, and most scavengers eat at daybreak. A search for "bird kills" 

conducted on a January afternoon will yield a much lower count than one conducted at dawn 

early May. The BLM must require proper studies.” 

• “Habitat on the project site will be severely fragmented with many roads and power lines.” 

• “This project could have negative effects on threatened and sensitive species.” 

The BLM project team identified the following additional concerns related to wildlife, vegetation, and 

reclamation to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Wildlife movement corridors 

• Habitat in desert washes 

• Effects of invasive species including the spread of nonnative species and potential fire risk 

• Direct loss of wildlife from construction (particularly for burrowing species) and turbine 

operation (primarily birds and bats) 

• Wind turbine produced noise and vibration impacts on wildlife (including mitigation) 

• Increased road kill risk 

• Adequacy of soils and growth media to successfully meet reclamation objectives 

• Ability to scale back width of roads following construction and need to use roads during 

operations and maintenance or decommissioning phases 

3.4.2.3 Cultural Resources 

Of the 10 comments received in this category, all except two related to the need for agency or tribal 

consultation. Most of these were received from agencies (i.e., SHPO) or tribes requesting consultation or 

coordination on the project and offering to assist with the cultural resource studies. Archaeological 

resources and historic properties will be addressed through consultation with the Arizona SHPO under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The results of the consultation will be documented 

in the EIS. 

The BLM project team identified the following concerns to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Prehistoric cultural resources (previously recorded and newly recorded), particularly those sites 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

• Unanticipated discoveries, including human remains 

• Visual impacts to the settings of historic sites, including mining sites, mining towns, historic trails 

• Traditional Cultural Properties and other sites of concern to Native Americans 

• Effects on cultural and historic landmarks from road construction needed for tower installation 

• Historic trails and mining sites, including the historical mine sites identified in subsequent phases 

of the project 

• Monitoring plans during construction 
3.4.2.4 Cumulative Effects 

More than half of the comments received regarding cumulative effects referenced other proposed solar or 

renewable energy projects, both in the local area and on public land. Concerns were stated for cumulative 

effects to visual resources, loss of public land, open space, water supplies, and native species as a 

collective result of proposed renewable projects. 

Representative Quotations 

• “There are a plethora of solar projects underway. Demands on open space land, viewsheds, water 

supplies, and extirpation or extinction of native species is likely if they all proceed.” 

• “Kingman area is sacrificing enough with the solar plants. Why do we have to do more?” 

• “I am concerned about the cumulative impacts of all of the proposed solar and wind facilities on 

the desert. The EIS should consider the possibility that many of these projects will be built, and 

what effect this will have on the integrity of the ecology of the desert, as well as impacts to visual 

resources. Is the loss of tens of thousands of acres of public land in the public interest?” 

The BLM project team identified the following additional concerns for cumulative effects to be addressed 

in the EIS: 

• Regional cultural resource base 

• Human and environmental elements 

• Industrializing public and private land located in a rural environment 

• Forage reduction from surface disturbance 

• Interference with herd or flock movements within BLM allotments 

• Proposed master-planned development 

3.4.2.5 Geology and Minerals 

The comments on geology and minerals focused on potential effects to mineral exploration and effects to 

existing mineral rights holders. 

Representative Quotations 

• “The proposed Wind Farm would materially interfere with the valid, pre-existing rights of the 

claim holder to carry out prospecting, mining and processing operations.” 

• “Phase 2 [subsequent phases] of the proposed Wind Farm covers public land with indicated 

significant mineral potential and numerous mining claims.” 

• “The proposed Wind Farm would have a material effect on mineral exploration and development 

and would effectively remove the public land from mineral entry, mineral exploration and 

mining.” 

The BLM project team identified the following concerns to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Quantified disturbance by soil mapping unit 

• Accelerated sedimentation, erosion, and erosion potential 

• Long-term losses to soil productivity 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-8 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
• Best Management Practices and mitigation measures to minimize ground surface disturbance 

• Waste material disposal 

• Conflicts with locatable mineral resources 

• Affected environment should address rights of mining claimants 

3.4.2.6 Hazardous Materials and Safety 

Minimal comments were received on hazardous materials or public safety. 

Representative Quotations 

• “This action, plan or activity may temporarily increase ambient particulate matter (dust) levels. 

Particulate matter 10 microns in size and smaller can penetrate the lungs of human beings and 

animals ... ” 

• “Address potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of hazardous waste from construction 

and operation of the proposed project. The document should identify projected hazardous waste 

types and volumes, and expected storage, disposal, and management plans.” 

• “Safety should be a big factor, not only for the public but also vandalism by the public.” 

• “Who or what entity is liable for damages which might be incurred as a result of the project?” 

The BLM project team identified the following concerns to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Fencing requirements for safety or liability 

3.4.2.7 Land Use, Recreation, and Transportation 

Most of the comments received regarding land use focused on potential impacts to adjacent residences, 

private property (particularly for the subsequent phases), and to the adjacent communities of White Hills 

and Dolan Springs. Comments were also received questioning if access to the area would be closed or 

maintained, and how increased access to the area would impact wildlife and other resources. 

Representative Quotations 

• “I hike and birdwatch in the area, and visit Mt. Tipton Wilderness often, so this project would 

definitely impact my experience of the area.” 

• “Our most pressing concern is the impact which will be made upon current and future residents of 

the White Hills community.” 

• “It appears that Phase 2 [subsequent phases] of the Windfarm is right next to my property. And 

that my property will be totally "boxed-in" by this project.” 

• “Heard at meeting that after roads are put in for the project the public will have access to the 

area.” 

• “Will there be closed off sections?” 

• Wildcat dumping will increase with the increase in tourists. Access roads can create problems as 

they provide greater access to the remote areas. 

• “[Consider] proximity to areas such as National Parks and Wilderness Areas.” 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-9 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
The BLM project team identified the following concerns for land use, recreation, and traffic and 

transportation to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Federal Aviation Administration requirements regarding the lighting and color of turbines 

• Interference with Department of Defense operations and long-range radar operations 

• Interference with communications facilities (microwave paths) 

• Increase traffic (during construction) on nearby roads, the potential for road degradation due to 

oversize loads, and conflicts with other road users 

• Potential accidents and emergency response 

• Reclamation or reuse of construction access roads 

• Use of trains for equipment transport 

• Effects on master-planned community roads and post-construction use of access roads to support 

master planned communities 

• Dispersed recreation and managed recreation sites (including hunting, camping, sight-seeing, 

wildlife viewing, horseback riding, off-highway vehicle use, use of the Colorado River for 

boating/rafting, rock hounding, and geocaching) 

• Accommodation of recreational opportunities during and post construction 

• Outfitters for bighorn sheep hunts and off-highway vehicle tours 

• Special Recreation Permits 

• Use of an interpretive site (kiosk) as mitigation 

• Equipment or construction fencing that might affect recreational access 

• Effects on helicopter tour companies and flights between Las Vegas, Nevada, and the Grand 

Canyon 

3.4.2.8 Noise 

Comments regarding noise focused on noise produced by the turbines during operation and the potential 

effects to residences and adjacent recreation areas. 

Representative Quotations 

• “Noise is a big concern of those who live nearby; some mitigation should be included in case it is 

needed.” 

• “[Question regarding] the intensity (dB) and frequency (Hz) of the noise emitted by the turbines.” 

• “Outdoor recreation, particularly quiet recreation, is the major attraction for many public lands 

visitors. The noise of the turbines relative to the ambient noise levels should be addressed in 

NEPA process.” 

The BLM project team identified the following concerns to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Duration and timing of construction noise 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-10 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
3.4.2.9 Socioeconomics 

Most comments in this category (38 percent) related to the various economic benefits that would be 

offered by the project, including how much revenue the BLM would receive, tax revenue, and who would 

experience the benefits (local residents, county, etc.). Employment opportunities as well as the source and 

composition of the labor force were also frequently mentioned, accounting for 32 percent of comments in 

this category. Local residents also questioned the impacts to property values. 

Representative Quotations 

• “How much annual revenue would BLM receive from BPWE [BP Wind Energy]?” 

• “What is the benefit coming back to the public of the use of public land?” 

• “How much tax money will phase one generate?” 

• “How much of the revenue generated by the project would flow out of the country to BP, foreign 

manufacturers, foreign lenders, and foreign workers?” 

• “Area developers will profit ... Mohave County will profit and WHITE HILLS where they are 

located will NOT PROFIT.” 

• “If the Mohave County Wind Farm Project is going to generate county revenue, White Hills 

residents feel justified in requesting the county provide the same level of services [fire, police, 

medical] given to all other Mohave County residents.” 

• “How many local people will BP Winds employ? How long will their employment last? Will they 

use only local contractors?” 

• “Bottom line for the homeowners in the local area their land values will depreciate. Will they be 

compensated?” 

• “One of Arizona’s major assets is its stunning open spaces, which bring tourism and revenue to 

local communities. The BP proposal will severely harm this treasured landscape.” 

The BLM project team identified the following additional socioeconomic concerns to be addressed in the 

EIS: 

• Ongoing and proposed industrial and commercial development in the Kingman and Boulder City 

area 

• Temporary workforce effects on local housing conditions/resources, local labor market conditions 

(i.e., competition with other energy resource development) 

• Public infrastructure and service demands 

• Other users of the project area (i.e., grazing permittees, recreationists) 

• Effects to development of existing and proposed master planned communities 

3.4.2.10 Visual Resources 

Comments on visual resources focused primarily on potential effects to views and the visibility of project 

facilities from nearby residences. 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-11 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
Representative Quotations 

• “This project will impact the outstanding visual resources along US Highway 93 and adjacent to 

the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.” 

• “Will some or any White Hills residents' landscape views be obstructed by the turbines?” 

• “At what distance would the towers be visible (N, S, E, and W of the site)?” 

The BLM project team identified the following concerns to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Visual landscape, including private lands, trails, and recreational use areas 

• Identification of key observation points 

• Mitigation including use of natural terrain as visual barriers, colors and surface treatment of 

turbines 

• Turbine lighting, night pollution 

3.4.2.11 Water Resources 

Agencies with permitting or review authority (e.g., EPA) submitted the majority of the comments 

regarding water resources and included recommendations of water resource studies that should be 

included in the EIS. A few comments regarding water use were received from the public. 

Representative Quotations 

• “Water use (i.e.). to clean bugs off the blades should addressed.” 

• “Do they have to prove enough water to use in case a fire for their project?” 

The BLM project team identified the following concerns to be addressed in the EIS: 

• Sedimentation and increased salinity of tributaries to the Colorado River 

• Water quality, particular if there are accidental spills of petroleum products and other hazardous 

substances used during construction and operations or if there are reductions in either stream-flow 

or groundwater levels 

• Water use requirements and water sources (for dust suppression, cleaning concrete trucks, 

sanitation, etc.) 

• Wetlands and floodplains 

• Natural drainages, particularly if affected by construction of access roads, and mitigation of 

drainage configuration alterations 

• Use of, or effects on, established wells 

3.5 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE EIS 

Some suggestions may be considered outside of the scope of this EIS if the issue relates to facilities or a 

purpose and need that is not included in or defined for this project, is not within the jurisdiction of BLM 

to resolve, cannot be reasonably addressed within the scope of this process, or is being addressed through 

a separate NEPA process. Additionally, comments that offer opinions or position statements, such as 

wind turbines are ugly, are not based on anticipated environmental effects and therefore cannot be 

considered substantive and addressed in the EIS. The below issues identified in scoping comments for the 

project are considered outside the scope of the EIS and will not be addressed. 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-12 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments
Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 3-13 Chapter 3 – Summary of 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS Scoping Comments

Project Need – Although it is possible to identify potential markets for the power on a regional basis 

based on load forecasts and other industry data, discussion on specific entities that may purchase power 

from this plant would be speculative at this time. Therefore, it is beyond the scope of this effort to 

evaluate specific power purchase contracts. 

Project Alternatives – Comments suggesting that the proposal should be for solar rather than wind are 

outside of the scope of this EIS because the application submitted to BLM was for a wind farm. BLM 

must consider the applications that are received. 

Air Quality –While the issue of global warming will be assessed in the analysis, the analysis will be 

qualitative rather than quantitative and will include how renewable energy projects, such as the proposed 

wind farm, may off-set some of the emissions associated with fossil fuel power generation facilities. 
4.0 SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE EIS PROCESS 

The process for the EIS requires a team of interdisciplinary resource specialists to complete each step. An 

important part of the BLM planning process is engaging the public and relevant agencies from the earliest 

stages of and throughout the planning process to address issues, comments, and concerns. The steps of the 

planning process and agency authority and decisions to be made are described below; Figure 4-1 provides 

a summary of the EIS process and schedule. 

Figure 4-1 

EIS Process Flow Chart 

4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 

Issues were identified through the scoping process, which initiated the NEPA planning process. The 

scoping period and the issues identified are documented in this Scoping Report, which is also available on 

the BLM website (www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/wind/mohave.html) and from the BLM Kingman 

Field Office.

4.2 DATA COLLECTION AND DATA GAPS 

Much of the data and information, which form the baseline resource inventory, will be compiled and used 

from existing data on file at the BLM Kingman Field Office, BLM Arizona State Office, or through other 

local agencies and academic institutions. Other data and information will be obtained from current studies 

being conducted by BLM and through relevant sources to update and/or supplement BLM’s data. 

Particularly, data included in the Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLMAdministered Lands in the Western United States (BLM 2005) will be used during preparation of this EIS 

and in the analysis of resources and project facilities. Additionally, the public is encouraged to provide 

any data or data sources that may be relevant to or assist with the EIS analysis. 

Data include published and unpublished reports, maps, and digital format files used in a geographic 

information system (GIS). Data gaps identified during scoping regarded topics that were already expected 

to be addressed in the EIS analysis. To help complete the analysis, the project team also will conduct field 

surveys to verify local conditions and data collected from existing sources. Field review has been or will 

be conducted, in particular, for potential sources of hazardous materials on the site as well as biological, 

cultural, visual, and noise resources. 

Generally, the resources and resource uses to be addressed include the following: 

 Land use (including grazing) 

 Recreation and access 

 Special management areas ( including Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Special 

Recreation Management Areas, and Wilderness Study Areas) 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 4-1 Chapter 4 – Summary of Future Steps 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS in the EIS Process
 Ground- and surface-water resources 

 Climate and air quality 

 Biological resources (including vegetation, wildlife, special status species, wild horses and 

burros, and noxious weeds and invasive species) 

 Geology, soils, and minerals 

 Noise 

 Archaeological resources, historic properties, and paleontological resources 

 Visual resources 

 Social and economic conditions 

 Environmental justice 

 Public health and safety, hazardous materials and waste 

During the data- and information-collection step of the process, BLM will initiate specific coordination 

with agencies, including the USFWS for Section 7 consultation and SHPO for Section 106 consultation, 

to ensure these processes are completed in conjunction with the EIS process. In addition, a summary of all 

tribal coordination and consultation will be included in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, of the 

Draft EIS. 

4.3 ASSESS IMPACTS AND PLAN MITIGATION 

The impacts that could result from implementing the project or any of the alternatives will be analyzed 

and measures to mitigate those impacts will be identified. 

4.4 DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC REVIEW 

A summary of the scoping process, data collection efforts, and the findings of the impact assessment and 

mitigation planning will be documented in a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be made available for public 

review, which is expected to be in fall 2010. The availability of the Draft EIS will be announced in the 

Federal Register and advertised in local media. Public comments will be accepted for a minimum of 

45 days, during which time public meetings will be held to receive comments on the adequacy of the 

Draft EIS. 

4.5 PREPARE FINAL EIS AND ISSUE RECORD OF DECISION 

BLM will review comments received on the Draft EIS and consider them as they prepare the Final EIS. 

While the EIS may or may not be modified based on public comments, BLM will respond to all 

substantive comments in the Final EIS. 

The Final EIS also will be made available for the public to review for a period of 30 days, estimated for 

spring 2011. The availability of the Final EIS will be announced in the Federal Register and advertised in 

local media. Following the 30-day period, BLM will address any protests and/or issue a Record of 

Decision, likely in summer 2011. 

Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 4-2 Chapter 4 – Summary of Future Steps 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS in the EIS Process
Scoping Summary Report: March 2010 4-3 Chapter 4 – Summary of Future Steps 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project EIS in the EIS Process

4.6 AGENCY AUTHORITIES AND DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

Prior to and during the scoping process, BLM anticipated the actions that would need to be addressed in 

the EIS, and decisions related to those actions. Using the input from scoping, BLM will conduct the 

environmental analysis to address the identified issues and concerns. The analysis will then be used to 

make a decision whether to authorize a right-of-way for the proposed wind farm development. Decisions 

from other agencies at the Federal, State, and local level also will be required before construction of the 

proposed project could begin. Table 4-1 represents a preliminary list of likely decisions and actions 

required for each component of the proposed project. 

Table 4-1 

Potential Agency Decisions and Actions 

Agency Permit/Approval Required 

FEDERAL

BLM Issue a Record of Decision for the EIS, Right-of-way grant, and 

Notice To Proceed 

Western Issue a Record of Decision for EIS and interconnection 

agreement with integral construction contract 

Reclamation Issue a right-of-way grant 

USFWS Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation (potentially 

required); biological assessment/opinion (as necessary)

USACE Clean Water Act, Section 404/401 Permit for impacts to wetlands 

and water crossings (potentially required)

Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Construction or Alteration pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718; Determination of No Hazard 

National Resource Conservation Service Consultation related to protection of prime and unique farmlands 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act

Federal Highway Administration Encroachment Permit 

STATE

Arizona Corporation Commission Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for generating facility 

and transmission line 

Arizona Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit, Oversize Load Permit 

Arizona SHPO National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 consultation; 

Arizona Historic Preservation Act consultation on historic and 

archaeological resources 

AGFD Consultation related to State protected species 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for 

discharge related to construction site of over one acre (CWA 

Section 402) 

LOCAL

Mohave County General Plan Amendment / Conditional Use Permit (if any 

project facilities are located on private lands)
APPENDIX A 
 

ANNOUNCEMENTS 
 

Notice of Intent 

Newsletter 

Interested Parties Letter and Distribution List 

Poster and Distribution List 

Press Release and Distribution List 

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Notices 60289 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), as 

amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, requires us to develop a CCP for 

each national wildlife refuge. The 

purpose for developing a CCP is to 

provide refuge managers with a 15-year 

plan for achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 

consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management, conservation, 

legal mandates, and our policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. We will 

review and update the CCP at least 

every 15 years in accordance with the 

Administration Act. 

Comments 

Approximately 100 copies of the Draft 

CCP/EA were made available for a 30­

day public review period as announced 

in the Federal Register on June 8, 2009 

(74 FR 27174). Several comments were 

received from local citizens and the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. 

Selected Alternative 

After considering the comments we 

received, and based on the sound 

professional judgment of the planning 

team, we selected Alternative B to 

implement the CCP. The primary 

focuses of the CCP are to optimize 

Louisiana black bear and wetland 

habitats, monitor targeted flora and 

fauna representative of the lower 

Atchafalaya Basin, and provide quality 

public use programs and wildlifedependent recreational activities. Based 

on the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, the purposes for which 

Bayou Teche NWR was established, and 

the focus of the Lower Mississippi River 

Ecosystem priorities, we believe 

Alternative B best fits the goals of the 

refuge. 

Authority 

This notice is published under the 

authority of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, Public Law 105–57. 

Dated: August 24, 2009. 

Patrick Leonard, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–27888 Filed 11–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLAZC010.L51010000.ER0000. 

LVRWA09A2310.241A; AZA 32315] 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Initiate Public Scoping for the 

Proposed Mohave County Wind Farm 

Project, Mohave County, AZ 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 
 

Interior. 
 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 
 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1976, as amended, the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) Kingman 

Field Office, Kingman, Arizona, intends 

to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Proposed 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project and 

by this notice is announcing the 

beginning of the scoping process to 

solicit public comments and identify 

issues. 

DATES: This notice initiates the public 

scoping process for the EIS. Comments 

may be submitted in writing until 

January 4, 2010. The date(s) and 

location(s) of any scoping meetings will 

be announced at least 15 days in 

advance through local news media, 

newspapers, and the BLM–Arizona Web 

site at: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/ 

en.html. In order to be included in the 

Draft EIS, all comments must be 

received prior to the close of the scoping 

period or 15 days after the last public 

meeting, whichever is later. We will 

provide additional opportunities for 

public participation upon publication of 

the Draft EIS. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

related to the Proposed Mohave County 

Wind Farm Project, Mohave County, 

Arizona by any of the following 

methods: 

• Web site: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/ 

en.html. 

• E-mail: KFO_WindEnergy@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (928) 718–3761. 

• Mail: Ruben Sanchez, Field 

Manager, BLM, Kingman Field Office, 

2755 Mission Boulevard, Kingman, 

Arizona 86401. 

Documents pertinent to this proposal 

may be examined at the Bureau of Land 

Management Kingman Field Office, 

Kingman, Arizona. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information and/or to have your 

name added to our mailing list, contact 

Jerry Crockford, BLM-contracted Project 

Manager at (505) 360–0473 or e-mail 

KFO_WindEnergy@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 1, 2002, the BLM received a 

right-of-way (ROW) application from BP 

Wind Energy North America (BPWE) for 

meteorological testing and monitoring 

for a wind energy project area. The BLM 

issued BPWE a ROW grant (AZA 32315) 

for a wind energy testing and 

monitoring project area of 

approximately 41,900 acres. Having 

gathered wind data for more than four 

years, BPWE is now moving forward to 

develop the project area, including an 

additional 3,520 acres, with a proposal 

to construct, operate, maintain, and 

decommission facilities and 

improvements associated with wind 

energy generation on the site, including 

wind turbine generators (WTG), access 

roads, operations and maintenance 

buildings, power lines, substations and 

other ancillary facilities and 

improvements, and an interconnection 

with one of two transmission lines 

which transect the project area. BPWE 

also proposes installing WTGs on 

approximately 4,360 acres of private 

lands adjacent to the ROW over which 

BPWE holds or anticipates holding 

wind development leases or easements. 

Zoning approval for development on 

private lands will be sought from 

Mohave County. The project area ROW 

includes approximately 45,420 acres of 

public land under jurisdiction of the 

BLM Kingman Field Office and 

potentially 4,360 acres of private land in 

the White Hills area approximately 40 

miles northwest of Kingman, Arizona, 

approximately nine miles south of the 

Colorado River, and approximately 20 

miles southeast of Hoover Dam. The 

project area is generally located within 

Townships 27 through 29 North, Ranges 

18 and 19 West, and Townships 28 and 

29 North, Range 20 West. 

Total electric generation capacity of 

the project is anticipated to be up to 500 

megawatts (MW). The project will 

consist of up to 335 WTGs and consist 

of construction in multiple phases. 

Phase I is proposed to be located on 

the northwest portion of the BLM 

project area ROW, and may consist of 

up to 235 WTGs, access roads, and 

ancillary facilities. The WTGs are 

anticipated to range in size from 1.5 to 

3.0 MW each. To the extent possible, 

existing roads would be used for access 

to the project, supplemented with 

internal access/service roads to each 

WTG. Ancillary facilities may include 

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES

60290 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Notices 

pad-mounted transformers, an 

underground 34.5 kilovolt (kV) 

electrical collection system between the 

turbines, either a 345 or 500 kV 

electrical substation, and either a 345 or 

500 kV overhead transmission line from 

the substation to a new switchyard 

where the project would interconnect to 

one of the two major existing 

transmission lines in the area. Up to 10 

WTGs could be installed on adjacent 

private lands during Phase I. 

Subsequent phases are proposed to 

include comparable facilities with 

additional wind generation capacity of 

up to 150 MW on the balance of the area 

within the ROW and the private lands 

adjacent to the ROW area. A total of 50 

to 100 WTGs may be installed on public 

or adjacent private lands in the 

subsequent phases of the project. These 

turbines also are anticipated to range in 

size from 1.5 to 3.0 MW. 

A map of the proposed project area 

with the news release announcing the 

public meetings, is available on the 

BLM–Arizona Web site at: http:// 

www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html. 

The EIS will consider the impacts of 

the proposed action, alternatives, and a 

no action alternative. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments and resource information and 

identify issues or concerns to be 

considered in the Draft EIS. Public 

comments will aid the BLM in 

identifying alternatives and mitigating 

measures and will help assure all 

relevant issues are considered in the 

EIS. 

Preliminary issues that have been 

identified by the BLM for analysis 

include: access requirements; air quality 

during construction; cultural and 

historical resources; areas with high 

mineral potential; noise; sensitive soils 

and geology; recreation resources; 

socioeconomics; threatened and 

endangered species; visual resources; 

water resources; and wildlife habitats. 

The BLM will use and coordinate the 

NEPA commenting process to satisfy the 

public involvement process for Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as 

provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). 

Native American Tribal consultations 

will be conducted in accordance with 

policy and Tribal concerns and will be 

given due consideration, including 

impacts on Indian trust assets. Federal, 

State, and local agencies, as well as 

individuals, organizations, or tribes that 

may be interested or affected by the 

BLM’s decision on this project are 

invited to participate in the scoping 

process and, if eligible, may request or 

be requested by the BLM to participate 

as a cooperating agency. 

Before including your phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 43 CFR 2800. 

James G. Kenna, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–27867 Filed 11–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNVL0000 L51010000.ER0000 

LVRWF09F1640; N–82076; 09–08807; 

MO4500009275; TAS:14X5017] 

Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the One Nevada 

Transmission Line, NV 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 
 

Interior. 
 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 
 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) for the One Nevada 

Transmission Line and by this Notice is 

announcing the opening of the comment 

period. 

DATES: To ensure comments will be 

considered, the BLM must receive 

written comments on the Draft SEIS for 

the One Nevada Transmission Line 

within 60 days following the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes its Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register. The BLM will 

announce future meetings or hearings 

and any other public involvement 

activities at least 15 days in advance 

through public notices, media news 

releases, and/or mailings. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Web site: www.blm.gov/nv. 

• E-mail: michael_dwyer@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (775) 289–1910. 

• Mail: Michael Dwyer, BLM, HC 33 

Box 33500, Ely, NV 89301. 

Copies of the Draft SEIS for the One 

Nevada Transmission Line are available 

at the following locations in Nevada: 

—BLM Ely District Office, 702 North 

Industrial Way, Ely. 

—White Pine County Library, 950 

Campton Street, Ely. 

—BLM Nevada State Office, 1340 

Financial Blvd., Reno. 

—BLM Caliente Field Station, U.S. 

Highway 93, Caliente. 

—Caliente Branch Library, 100 Depot 

Avenue, Caliente. 

—BLM Southern Nevada District 

Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines, Las 

Vegas. 

—North Las Vegas Library, 2300 Civic 

Center Drive, North Las Vegas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Dwyer, (702) 821–7102; e-mail: 

michael_dwyer@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

30, 2009, the BLM received an amended 

right-of-way application and Plan of 

Development from NV Energy for the 

One Nevada Transmission Line Project 

(ON Line Project). The Draft SEIS 

analyzes the construction, operation, 

and abandonment of a 236-mile, 500 

kilovolt transmission line and 

telecommunication facilities running 

generally from Ely to Las Vegas, one 

new substation near Ely, and an 

expansion of one existing substation on 

private land near Battle Mountain, 

Nevada. The Notice of Intent to Prepare 

a Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed One Nevada 

Transmission Line, Nevada was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 29, 2009 (74 FR 37728). 

The components of the ON Line 

Project had been part of the original Ely 

Energy Center (EEC) proposal. In 

February 2009, during the public 

comment period for the EEC Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 

NV Energy made public their intention 

to postpone including the coal-fired 

power generation facilities associated 

with the EEC in their proposal until 

carbon capture technology becomes 

commercially feasible. 

Two north-south utility corridors 

exist in Nevada that could accommodate 

a transmission line linking the northern 

and southern grids: one on the eastern 

side of the state and the other on the 

Western side of the State. The westerly 

corridor was considered as a potential 

location for the ON Line Project, but 

was eliminated because it would not 

provide access to transmission 

infrastructure for renewable energy 

resource areas in Eastern Nevada. Two 

alternative alignments within the 

eastern corridor (except in a few 

locations) are assessed in the SEIS. The 

‘‘action’’ alternative generally follows 

the western boundary of the corridor 

and is the proponent’s preferred 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 2009 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

NEWSLETTER #1 

BLM

Introduction 

In November 2002, the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) received a right-of-way application from BP Wind 

Energy North America, Inc. (BPWE), for meteorological 

testing and monitoring for a potential wind energy project 

in the White Hills area of Arizona. BPWE has gathered wind 

data for more than four years, and is now moving forward 

with a proposal to construct, operate, maintain, and 

decommission facilities on approximately 44,860 acres of 

public land and potentially 4,360 acres of private land. 

The BLM will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the project. The proposed project site would 

be mostly on public land that is presently managed by 

the BLM; therefore, the project is considered a Federal 

action requiring review under and compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA). An EIS is a 

document prepared to comply 

with NEPA and discloses how a 

proposed project might impact 

the natural, cultural, and human 

environment and what actions 

may be required to minimize 

those impacts. The first step in 

the EIS process is public scoping 

to identify issues and concerns 

that should be addressed in 

the EIS. 

This newsletter is being provided to interested parties and 

nearby property owners to describe the proposed project, 

announce upcoming scoping meetings, and let you know 

how you can contribute to the EIS process by offering your 

comments on the project. 

Project Description 

The proposed project would be located in the White 

Hills area, approximately 40 miles northwest of Kingman, 

Arizona. Most of the land is administered by the BLM, 

but some private land is interspersed in a checkerboard 

pattern as illustrated on the project location map 

included in this newsletter. 

BPWE proposes to produce up to 500 megawatts (MW), 

which would supply approximately 110,000 homes per 

year with power. To generate this much power, the 

project will consist of up to 335 wind turbine generators, 

and construction would occur in multiple phases. Phase 1 

would be located on the northwest portion of the project 

area, and would consist of up to 235 wind turbines. Up 

to 10 of the turbines in Phase 1 could be installed on the 

private lands leased from the property owners within 

the project area boundary. Phase 2 would include the 

addition of between 50 and 100 wind turbines. While 

the specific type of turbine that may be used has not yet 

been determined, each turbine would be expected to 

generate between 1.5 and 3.0 MW. The turbines would be 

approximately 263 feet tall from the ground to the hub, 

with rotors extending up to an additional 157 feet. The 

total height of the wind turbines could be up to 420 feet. 

In addition to the wind turbines, the project would 

include access roads, transformers, operations and 

maintenance buildings, a switchyard, and a 345-kilovolt 

(kV) or 500 kV transmission line and substation. The 

project also would require an interconnection with 

one of the two existing transmission line facilities in 

the area, which are operated by Western Area Power 

Administration. Consequently, Western Area Power 

Administration will serve as a cooperating agency during 

preparation of the EIS so that the EIS also satisfies this 

agency’s requirements to comply with NEPA. The exact 

locations of each component will be determined as 

project design is completed and the EIS process proceeds. 

The EIS Process 

The NEPA compliance process for the proposed project is 

anticipated to occur within an 18- to 24-month timeframe 

and consist of several steps as depicted in the flow chart 

on the following page. At this early stage in the process, 

BLM (the lead Federal agency) will identify the range or 

scope of public and agency issues through comments 

received in meetings and discussions with relevant 

agencies, Tribes, and the public. 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 
Project 

Scoping 

Fall 2009 

Collect & 

Compile 

Resource 

Data 

Winter 2010 

Assess 

Impacts, Plan 

Mitigation, 

Prepare 

Draft EIS 

Spring – 

Summer 2010 

Draft EIS 

Available 

for Public 

Review 

Fall 2010 

Respond to 

Comments 

and Prepare 

Final EIS 

Winter – 

Spring 2011 

Record of 

Decision 

Summer 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once the BLM has an understanding of the issues, the 

study team will begin to develop an inventory of resource 

information by gathering data representing human, 

natural, and cultural resources within the study area. 

The types of resources considered include, but are not 

limited to air quality, water resources, soils, geology, 

minerals, land use, recreation, public health and 

safety, visual resources and scenic quality, social and 

economic conditions, wildlife, vegetation, protected 

species, and cultural resources (including historic and 

prehistoric sites as well as places of traditional cultural 

importance). Based on the description of the proposed 

Planning Process 

project and any alternatives to be evaluated, issues 

identified, and inventoried resource data, the EIS team 

will comprehensively assess potential impacts of the 

project and identify measures to mitigate or reduce 

those impacts. 

Once completed, the Draft EIS will be released to the 

public for a 45-day review period so you can read about 

the findings of the environmental studies. During 

that 45-day review period, BLM will conduct public 

meetings and you will be given an opportunity to 

comment on the draft document. 

Public Scoping 

It is important to BLM to involve the public, Tribes, and 

agencies in the NEPA process so that your concerns and 

comments are considered before making a decision 

on granting the right-of-way to allow BPWE to develop 

the wind farm. During public scoping, BLM encourages 

comments to identify issues and concerns that are 

important to the public in the region and that need to 

be addressed in the EIS. 

The first opportunity for you to participate in the 

process will be the upcoming public scoping meetings. 

These public meetings are planned for the City of 

Kingman, and the towns of Dolan Springs and White 

Hills, Arizona in December 2009 as noted on the back of 

this newsletter. These meetings also will be announced 

in local newspapers and on the BLM Arizona website, 

www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html. Comments may be 

submitted in writing at the public meetings, as well as 

by mail, fax or e-mail. 

The scoping meetings will be held in an open house 

format, with a brief presentation to provide an overview 

of the project and EIS process. Project team members 

will be available at display stations to answer questions 

about the project. 

Your thoughts, comments, and concerns are important 

to us throughout the process, but especially right 

now at this early stage! Please attend one of the 

three scoping meetings and/or send us your written 

comments before the 45-day scoping period ends on 

Friday, January 8, 2010 so that your comments can be 

considered in the preparation of the EIS. 

If you have questions, would like to be on the mailing 

list, or would like to speak to a project representative, 

please use the contact information below. 

Questions may be directed to: 

Jerry Crockford, contracted 

BLM Project Manager, at (505) 360-0473 

Written comments may be e-mailed to: 

KFO_WindEnergy@blm.gov 

Written comments may be faxed to: 

(928) 718-3761 Attn: Joyce Cook 

Written comments may be mailed to: 

Bureau of Land Management 

Kingman Field Office 

Joyce Cook, Realty Specialist 

2755 Mission Blvd. 

Kingman, AZ 86401 
(!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Kingman 37 Miles 

Antares Rd 

White Hills Rd 

Temple Bar Rd 

Stockton Hill Rd 

Pierce Ferry Rd 

T.26N T.27N T.28N T.29N T.30N 

R.21W. R.20W. R.19W. 

R.18W. 

R.17W. 

Lake 

Lake Mead Mead 

National 

Recreation Area 

Project Site 

Phase 1 

Phase 2 

White
 


Hills
 
 (!

£¤93

Red Lake 

(Dry) 

Dolan
 


Springs
 
 ¥¦ (!

Project Area 

Kingman 

!

¥¦40

¦¥10

Flagstaff !

¥¦17

! Phoenix 

¥¦40 LEGEND 

Mohave County 

Wind Project Site 

Road 

Surface Management 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Project Site 

Mohave County 

Wind Farm Project 

¥¦8

Tucson ! ¥¦10

Existing Transmission Line 

Lake 

National Park Service 

State Trust Land 

¥¦19  ̄

Township and Range Boundary Private 0 1 2 

Miles 

15 
Public Meeting Announcement 

The BLM invites you to attend a scoping meeting to help identify the range or scope of issues related to the proposed 

Mohave County Wind Project. The issues identified during the scoping process will be considered and addressed during 

preparation of the EIS. Please attend one of the following open house meetings: 

Dolan Springs 

Dolan Springs Community Center 

15195 Pierce Ferry Road
 


Dolan Springs, AZ 86441
 


Tuesday, December 8, 2009
 


6:00 pm – 8:00 pm 

presentation at 6:45 pm 

Kingman 

Hampton Inn
 


1791 Sycamore Avenue
 


Kingman, AZ 86409
 


Wednesday, December 9, 2009
 


6:00 pm – 8:00 pm 

presentation at 6:45 pm 

White Hills 

White Hills Community Center
 


8599 W. White Hills Blvd.
 


White Hills, AZ 86445
 


Thursday, December 10, 2009
 


6:00 pm – 8:00 pm 

presentation at 6:45 pm 

Participants will have the opportunity to submit written comments at all meetings. 

URS Corporation 

7720 N. 16th Street 

Suite 100 

Phoenix, AZ 85020 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERESTED PARTIES DISTRIBUTION LIST 
 

ELECTED 

US Senate 

Honorable Senator John McCain 

241 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

US Senate 

Honorable Senator Jon Kyle 

730 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

US House of Representatives 

Honorable Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords 

1728 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

US House of Representatives 

Honorable Congressman Raul Grijalva 

1440 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

US House of Representatives 

Honorable Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick 

1123 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

US House of Representatives 

Honorable Congressman Harry Mitchell 

1410 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

US House of Representatives 

Honorable Congressman Jeff Flack 

240 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

US House of Representatives 

Honorable Congressman Trent Franks 

2435 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

US House of Representatives, Office of Congressman 

Trent Franks 

Shari Farrington 

7121 West Bell Road, Suite 200 

Glendale, AZ 85308 

US House of Representatives 

Honorable Congressman Ed Pastor 

2465 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 85004 

US House of Representatives 

Honorable Congressman John Shadegg 

436 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Arizona State Senate 

Senator Ron Gould 

1700 West Washington, Room 303 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Arizona State House or Representatives 

Honorable Representative Doris Goodale 

1700 West Washington, Room 310 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Arizona State House or Representatives 

Honorable Representative Nancy McLain 

1700 West Washington, Room 344 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Office of the Governor 

BLM Resource Advisory Council 

Josh Avey 

Governor’s Representative 

5000 North Carefree Highway 

Phoenix, AZ 85086 

BLMRAC 

PUBLIC/FACILITIES 

Kingman Public Library 

3269 Burbank Street 

PO Box 7000 

Kingman, AZ 86402 

Dolan Springs Community Library 

15947 North Don Nell Road 

PO Box 427 

Dolan Springs, AZ 0 

US Postal Service 

1901 Johnson Avenue 

Kingman, AZ 8601 

US Postal Service 

1750 McCulloch Blvd. North 

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403 

US Postal Service 

1002 Nevada Highway 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

1 
 

 

 

 

US Postal Service 
 

990 US Highway 95 
 

Bullhead City, AZ 86442
 

Kingman Area Chamber of Commerce 
 

120 West Andy Devine 
 

Kingman, AZ 86401 
 

Dolan Springs Chamber of Commerce 
 

16154 N. Pierce Ferry Road
 

Dolan Springs, AZ 86441
 

Arizona State University 
 

School of Life Sciences 
 

PO Box 874501
 

Tempe, AZ 0 
 

University of Arizona 

Cooperative Extension Service 

Rob Grumbles 

101 East Beale, Suite A 

Kingman, AZ 0 

University of Arizona
 

Marshall Worden 
 

9070 South Rita Road, Suite 1750
 

Tucson, AZ 85747
 

Northern Arizona University 
 

South San Francisco Street 
 

Flagstaff, AZ 86011
 

Field Museum of Natural History 

Department of Geology 

Dr. John Flynn 

1200 South Lake Shore Dr 

Chicago, IL 0 

SPECIAL INTEREST 

The Sonoran Institute 
 

7650 East Broadway Blvd., Suite 203 
 

Tucson, AZ 85710
 

Audubon Arizona
 

4250 East Camelback Road, Suite 310 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85018
 

Northwest Watershed Council
 

Earl Engelhardt
 

6125 East Westwind Road
 

Kingman, AZ 86401 
 

Western Resource Advocates 
 

PO Box 1064
 

Scottsdale, AZ 85252
 

Center for Biological Diversity
 

1333 North Oracle Road 
 

Tucson, AZ 85702
 

Western Watersheds Projects
 

Greta Anderson 
 

PO Box 2264
 

Tucson, AZ 85702
 

The Grand Canyon Trust 
 

2601 N. Fort Valley Road
 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001
 

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
 

PO Box 1594
 

Flagstaff, AZ 86002
 

Friends of Grand Canyon
 

Dennis Brownridge 
 

HC63, Box 3040 
 

Mayer, AZ 86333 
 

Wild Earth Guardians
 

312 Montezuma Avenue 
 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 
 

Arizona Riparian Council
 

Kris Randall 
 

PO Box 873211
 

Tempe, AZ 0 
 

Arizona Sportsman 
 

PO Box 13116 
 

Phoenix, AZ 0
 

The Nature Conservancy
 

Arizona Field Office 
 

1510 East Ft. Lowell 
 

Tucson, AZ 85719
 

Arizona Audubon Society
 

4250 East Camelback Road, Suite K310 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85018
 

Mohave Sportsman’s Club
 

PO Box 687
 

Kingman, AZ 86402 
 

2 
 
 

 

 

Cerbat Ridge Runners 

P.O. Box 4492 

Kingman, AZ 86402 

http://crratvclub.tripod.com 

Walapai 4 Wheelers 

PO Box 4004 

Kingman, AZ 86402 

Bullhead 4 Wheelers, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2403 

Bullhead City, AZ 86430 

Desert Bighorn Council 

Arthur Fuller 

365 Greenway 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society 

PO Box 21705 

Mesa, AZ 85277 

Arizona Mule Deer Society 

Ulrich Flach 

416 Hightop Lane 

Henderson, NV 89002 

Arizona Antelope Association 

PO Box 12590 

Glendale, AZ 85318 

Arizona Wildlife Outfitters 

Don Martin 

2644 Broken Arrow Street 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Arizona Wildlife Federation 

651 South Sun Road 

Apache Junction, AZ 85219 

Arizona Chapter of the Wildlife Society 

Brian Dykstra 

PO Box 41377 

Phoenix, AZ 85080 

Defenders of Wildlife 

110 South Church Avenue 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

Sierra Club 

Grand Canyon Chapter 

Sandy Bahr 

202 E. McDowell Road, Suite 277 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Public Lands Advocacy 

Claire M. Moseley 

Executive Director 

10200 East Girard Avenue, Suite C-141 

Denver, CO 0 

Kalamazoo Materials 

6975 N. Oracle Road 

Tucson, AZ 85704 

CO River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

Jack Barnett 

Executive Director 

106 West 500 South, Suite 101 

Bountiful, UT 84010 

3 
44,860
www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html
#

!

M

HIDEOUT

ng

ON

SS

Temple 

ing Wash

Trail 

r 

S A N D Y P T

I A M 

Butte

1

arnet 

6

Nealy

Well

36

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S Q U A W 

P E A K 

G R E G G ' S 

H I D E

O

U

T 

W H I T E H I L L S R D 

T

E

M

P

L

E 

B A R 

Detrital Wash 

W H I T E 

H I L L S 

D E T R I T A L V A L L E Y 

Hualapai Wash 

White Elephant Wash 

Salt Spr 

Hu la apai 

Wash 

D 

POWERLINES 

B P P R O J E C T A R E A - W I N D 

R 20 W R 19 W R 18 W UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERI

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

OR 

KINGMAN FIELD OFFICE

L a k e M e a d N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a KINGMAN, ARIZONA 

MOHAVE COUNTY WIND FARM APLN 

APPLICATION AREA 

0 1 2 

Miles 

T

29

N 

Phase 1 

T

28

N Phase 2 

36 

06 

Carlos Elmer's

Joshua View
 

Squaw Peak 

# Golden Rul

3863

e Peak 

# 

01 06 

01 06 

01 06 01 06

#

Senator Mountain

5127 

36 31 

36 31 

Gold

Basin
 

G 

36 31 

36 31 

I} 

ARIZONA 

01 06 

01 06 01 06 

01 06 

Kingman

T

27

N 

Map for illustrative
 

purposes only.

Not intended for
 

navigation purposes.

All data subject to change
 

and must be verified with
 

appropriate public records.
 

!"e$

WHI

H 

TE

ILLS Table Mountain

3696 

# 

I} Phoenix 

 
 

POSTER DISTRIBUTION LIST 

June Rausch 

Dolan Springs Community Center 

PO Box 201 

Dolan Springs, AZ 86441 

Brad and Shiela Larson 

Rosie’s Den 

19949 N Us Highway 93 

White Hills, AZ, 86445 

Jan Henry 

White Hills Community Association 

8599 W. White Hills Blvd. 

White Hills, AZ 86445 

Kingman Chamber of Commerce 

kgmncofc@ctaz.com 
Image based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Public Meeting Announcement 

BLM

Public Meeting Announcement 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) invites you to attend a scoping meeting to help identify the range or scope of 

issues related to the proposed Mohave County Wind Farm Project. The issues identified during the scoping process will be 

considered and addressed during preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. Please attend one of the following 

open house meetings: 

Participants will have the 

opportunity to submit written 

comments at all meetings. 

For further information contact: BLM Project Manager Jerry Crockford, 505-360-0473 

or visit the BLM Arizona website: www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html 

Dolan Springs 

Dolan Springs Community Center 

15195 Pierce Ferry Road 

Dolan Springs, AZ 86441 

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 

6:00 pm – 8:00 pm 

presentation at 6:45 pm 

Kingman 

Hampton Inn 

1791 Sycamore Avenue 

Kingman, AZ 86409 

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 

6:00 pm – 8:00 pm 

presentation at 6:45 pm 

White Hills 

White Hills Community Center 

8599 W. White Hills Blvd. 

White Hills, AZ 86445 

Thursday, December 10, 2009 

6:00 pm – 8:00 pm 

presentation at 6:45 pm 
 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A 
 

MEDIA DISTRIBUTION LIST 
 

The following e-mail distribution list includes county officials, elected officials, Arizona congressionals, 

and public affairs counterparts with public agencies in Mohave County. The list also includes Associated 

Press, all radio and newspapers in Mohave County, southern Nevada, and other state-wide media who 

have requested to receive all Kingman media releases. 

E-Mail Media Distribution List for Mohave County 

awoguide@ctaz.com, 

mborgard@kingmandailyminer.com, 

news@thestandardnewspaper.net, 

sadams@kingmandailyminer.com, 

mvdnews@npgcable.com, 

jseckler@citlink.net, 

weekender@laughlinentertainer.com, 

jdodder@prescottaz.com, 

sdaravanis@prescottaz.com, 

hdfoster@prescottaz.com, 

jherrmann@prescottaz.com, 

ssialega@prescottaz.com, 

dengler@verdevalleynews.com, 

sayers@verdevalleynews.com, 

editor@larsonnewspapers.com, 

needlesdesertstar@citlink.net, 

editor@havasunews.com, 

smuller@azdailysun.com, 

editorial@williamsnews.com, 

pio@bullheadcity.com, 

gsheler@tv2klbc.com, 

duncan@cableone.net, 

3tvnews@azfamily.com, 

mcasey@kpnx.com, 

news@myradioplace.com, 

don@myradioplace.com, 

news@kgmn.net, 

news@cameronbroadcasting.com, 

bill@kppv.com, 

kyca@quest.net, 

therustsays@worldnet.att.net, 

epress@maddog.net, 

stanfred23@yahoo.com, 

jim@azbw.com, 

EVogel@reviewjournal.com, 

aplasvegas@ap.org, 

metroeditors@lasvegassun.com, 

bpeditor@lvpress.com, 

aparizona@ap.org, ZMocarski@azgfd.gov, 

Byron.Steward@co.mohave.az.us, 

pio@bullheadcity.com, 

nyoung@mohavedailynews.com, 

wagner@mohavedailynews.com, 

gbucci@mohavedailynews.com, 

hometowncrier@yahoo.com, 

news@havasunews.com, 

Sharon_Varga@kyl.senate.gov, 

Carlos_Sierra@mccain.senate.gov, 

shari.farrington@mail.house.gov, 

darryle.purcell@co.mohave.az.us, 

MBeggs@azdot.gov, 

Joshua@kingmanchamber.org, 

Beverly@kingmanchamber.org, 

Buster.Johnson@co.mohave.az.us, 

Tom.Sockwell@co.mohave.az.us, 

buzzybee3@bullheadcity-bee.com, 

Clint_Chandler@kyl.senate.gov, 

john.stanley@arizonarepublic.com, 

ffonseca@ap.org, 

Ryan@KingmanChamber.org, 

aznews@skyviewsat.com, 

Gary.Watson@co.mohave.az.us 
 

 

 

E-Mail Media Distribution List for Las Vegas/Southern Nevada 

5newsdesk@kvvu.com, 

abel.ortiz@nbcuni.com, 

ademeo@co.nye.nv.us, 

admin@mesquitelocalnews.com, 

aguilac@co.clark.nv.us, 

aplanas@reviewjournal.com, 

aplasvegas@ap.org, 

arivera@entravision.com, 

bajones@nyecounty.net, 

becky.bosshart@hbcpub.com, 

BHaynes@reviewjournal.com, 

castle@lnett.com, 

citydesk@reviewjournal.com, 

Carolyn@knpr.org, 

darren_emery@metronetworks.com, 

dbly@dvtnv.com, desk@ktnv.com, 

dkihara@reviewjournal.com, 

DHam@reviewjournal.com, 

editor@hbc.lvcoxmail.com, 

editor@jewishlasvegas.com, 

elawrence@klastv.com, 

eruttan@cox.net, etl@lvrj.com, 

EPAPPA@co.clark.nv.us, 

fely@precious-properties.com, 

fmccabe@reviewjournal.com, 

gschumacher@lasvegasmercury.com, 

hbceditors@hbcpub.com, 

info@lvchamber.com, 

info@nevadapublicradio.org, 

info@pvtimes.com, 

irussell@klastv.com, 

jcarrillo@viewnews.com, 

jhogan@viewnews.com, 

khennessey@ap.org, 

khoward@reviewjournal.com, 

knews970@aol.com, 

knye@knye.com, 

kpah@pahrumpradio.com, kritter@ap.org, 

krogers@reviewjournal.com, 

Keene@lvpress.com, 

lasvegas.news@metronetworks.com, 

lawichman@gmail.com, 

lmower@reviewjournal.com, 

lvsvrelease@yahoo.com, 

manning@lasvegassun.com, 

mcphaulradio@aol.com, 

metroeditors@lasvegassun.com, 

mfox@klvx.org, 

mwaite@pvtimes.com, 

MHynes@reviewjournal.com, 

MSquires@reviewjournal.com, 

news3@kvbc.com, 

news@dvtnv.com, 

news@kdwn.com, news@kpvm.tv, 

news@pahrumptv.org, 

newsdesk@klastv.com, 

nicole.lucht@lvsun.com, 

norm@mgci.com, 

nyeadmin@co.nye.nv.us, 

paul.themirror@gmail.com, 

power88@power88lv.com, 

progress@mvdsl.com, 

pvmirror@air-internet.com, 

PAO@lasvegasnevada.gov, 

raysdsl@embarqmail.com, 

rbruce@tv2klbc.com, 

rcarveranch@hughes.net, 

reception@knpr.org, 

R2128C@co.clark.nv.us, 

RLake@reviewjournal.com, 

sales@highwayradio.com, 

scgent@juno.com, 

scott@agclv.org, 

scotte@redcrosslasvegas.org, 

sheriff@co.nye.nv.us, 

stac@co.clark.nv.us, 

sys@co.clark.nv.us, 

S7701A@co.clark.nv.us, 

talkradioofpahrump@yahoo.com, 

WBates@reviewjournal.com, 

WilliamB@co.clark.nv.us, 

WRK@co.clark.nv.us, 
Date: November 23, 2009 

For More Information Contact: 

Mike Brown, (928) 718-3756 

WIND ENERGY PROJECT COMMENTS REQUESTED 

Kingman, Ariz. – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kingman Field Office is asking for 

public comment regarding the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to 

analyze the effects for a wind energy right-of-way application submitted by BP Wind Energy of 

North America for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project. The Western Area Power 

Administration is a cooperating agency for the project. 

Public open house meetings to discuss the project are scheduled for: 

Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm in Dolan Springs, Ariz. at the Dolan Springs 

Community Center, 15195 Pierce Ferry Road. Presentation at 6:45 pm. 

Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm in Kingman, Ariz. at the Hampton Inn, 1791 

Sycamore Avenue. Presentation at 6:45 pm. 

Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm in White Hills, Ariz. at the White Hills 

Community Center, 8599 W. White Hills Blvd. Presentation at 6:45 pm. 

BP Wind Energy has gathered wind data for more than four years, and is now proposing 

to construct, operate, and maintain facilities and improvements associated with wind energy 

generation including up to 335 wind turbine generators, roads, power lines, substations and other 

ancillary facilities and improvements. 

The project area for the proposed development includes approximately 44,860 acres of 

public land in the White Hills area approximately 40 miles northwest of Kingman and 

approximately 20 miles southeast of Hoover Dam. BP Wind Energy proposes to potentially site 

a range of 10 to 100 of the total 335 wind turbines on approximately 4,360 acres of private lands 

adjacent to the public lands. 

Preliminary issues that have been identified include: access requirements, air quality 

during construction; cultural and historical resources; high potential minerals; noise; sensitive 

soils and geology; recreation resources; socioeconomics; visual resources; water resources; and 

wildlife and habitats. 

While BLM invites the public to offer comments on the project throughout the process, in 

order to be analyzed in the EIS, comments and issues must be submitted during a 45-day 

comment period ending January 8, 2010. Comments may be mailed to Joyce Cook, Bureau of 

Land Management, Kingman Field Office, 2755 Mission Boulevard, Kingman, Ariz. 86401-

5308; or email KFO_WindEnergy@blm.gov. 
For more information, call Jerry Crockford, the BLM contracted Project Manager at 

(505) 360-0473. Information will also be posted on the BLM Arizona Web site: 

www.blm.gov/az. 

-blmThe BLM manages more land -- 253 million acres -- than any other Federal agency. This land, 

known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, 

including Alaska. The Bureau, with a budget of about $1 billion, also administers 700 million 

acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM's multiple-use mission is to 

sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 

future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor 

recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving 

natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands. 

# # # 
 

 

APPENDIX B 

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING MATERIALS 

Sign-in sheet 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Comment form 

Presentation 

Boards 
December 2009 

Scoping Meeting Mohave County Wind Farm Project Sign-In Form

Date: ____________________________ PLEASE SIGN IN 

Name Agency/Organization 

(please print clearly) (if applicable) Address City/State Zip Code E-mail 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona

BLM

All comments received by BLM become part of the public record associated with this proposed project. Accordingly, your comments (including name and address) will be available for review 

by any person who wishes to review the public record. At your request, we will withhold your name and address to the extent allowed by the Freedom of Information Act or any other law. 
 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

BLM

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
 
 Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Project Description 

What is proposed as part of the project? 

The project would consist of up to 335 wind turbine generators and produce up to 500 megawatts (MW) of power. The 

project would be built in multiple phases with the first phase expected to be up to 250 MW. The project would also include 

access roads, transformers, an operations and maintenance building(s), a switchyard, and a 345- or 500-kilovolt transmission line 

and substation. 

Who is BP Wind Energy? 

BP Wind Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP, one of the world’s leading energy companies. BP Wind Energy is a leading 

owner/operator of wind assets in the U.S. with over 1,000 MW in commercial operation and more than 1,000 MW in an advanced 

stage of development. 

When will the project be complete? 

An environmental impact statement (EIS) will take approximately 18-24 months to complete. Once the EIS has been completed 

and BLM has made its decision, it is expected that construction could start as early as 2011. Construction of the first phase of 

the development would take approximately one year. The project would have an estimated service life of 30 years, after which it 

would be decommissioned. 

How many homes can be powered by this project? 

According to the American Wind Energy Association, 1 MW of wind-generated power can supply electricity for up to 240 to 300 

households per year. This project would produce enough power for approximately 110,000 homes per year at the completion 

of subsequent phases of the project. 

Does Arizona need wind power and, if so, will the power generated be used in Arizona? 

The Arizona Corporation Commission established a renewable energy standard in 2007 requiring Arizona utilities to generate 15 

percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Energy generation, particularly renewable energy, is important to 

Arizona. As Arizona’s population grows, more energy will be needed to meet the power needs of these new citizens. Energy is sold 

like any commodity, and depending on the purchaser, power generated by the Mohave County Wind Farm Project may or may not 

be used in Arizona. 

Project Location 

Where would the project be located? 

The proposed project would be located in the White Hills area, approximately 40 miles northwest of Kingman, Arizona. The 

project area includes about 44,860 acres of public land and potentially 4,360 acres of private land, though only a relatively small 

proportion of this area would be occupied by project facilities. If private lands are needed for the project, it would only occur with 

the approval of the land owner. 

Why was the location selected? 

BP Wind Energy has been collecting wind data on the site for more than four years and has determined that the resources are 

sufficient to develop a wind energy project. The proposed project would meet federal and state directives to increase renewable 

energy production. There are 20 million acres of BLM-administered lands with “good wind,” where wind has an average annual speed 

of at least 13 miles per hour (mph). The National Energy Policy Act recommends that the Department of Interior work to increase 

renewable energy production. The BLM established a wind energy development program to respond to this and other directives. 
Project Technology and Construction 

How will the project work? 

The term “wind energy” describes the process by which the wind is used to generate mechanical power or electricity. The 

wind turbines are equipped with sensors that continuously monitor wind speed and direction. Once the wind reaches a predetermined speed, the wind turbine rotor and blades begin to turn and the generator produces electricity. As the wind changes 

direction, the turbines rotate to face the wind in order to maximize energy production. The turbines are connected by power 

collection systems linked to an electric substation so that power generated by these turbines can be fed into a utility grid and 

distributed to customers. 

What will the facilities look like? 

The turbines measure approximately 263 feet tall from 

the ground to the hub with rotors extending up to an 

additional 157 feet, for a total height of up to 420 feet. 

The rotor diameter would be approximately 328 feet. The 

turbines would be mounted on buried concrete foundations 

approximately 42 – 80 feet wide. The size of the facilities 

would depend on the type of turbine used. 

How frequently will the turbines generate power? 

The facility would be open for business 365 days a year 

during which time the turbines would continually be 

generating power at various stages of production depending 

on the velocity of the wind. Not all of the turbines would 

necessarily operate at once because of maintenance 

schedules and other factors. 

At what wind speed do the turbines start to produce power and at what wind speed can the turbines no 

longer functionally turn faster? 

The wind turbines are equipped with sensors that continuously monitor the wind speed and direction. Once the wind reaches 

a pre-determined speed of approximately 8 mph, the wind turbine rotor and blades would begin to turn and the generator 

would produce energy. The angle of the blades would adjust once maximum power output is reached at around 30 mph. At a 

predetermined maximum wind speed (approximately 50 mph), the wind turbines would shut down in order to limit the amount 

of stress on the turbine. 

Where will equipment parts be manufactured? 

The exact turbine model has not definitively been selected, but at this time the 2.5 MW Clipper Liberty Turbine has been 

identified. This equipment is currently being manufactured in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 

How will equipment be transported and will highway traffic be affected? 

The equipment would be transported via trucks or tractor/trailer rigs. Because some of the equipment is large and heavy, the 

transport vehicles may travel slower than posted speed limits. Highway transport would be coordinated with the state highway 

department and would adhere to rules and regulations (including obtaining over-weight, -width, -length permits). 

How long will it take to construct the towers? 

Full construction of the towers and generators would take approximately twelve to eighteen months. 

Will I still have recreational access to the site during construction and after construction? 

Temporary fences would be erected in areas where public safety risks could exist and where site personnel would not be 

available to control public access during construction. The project substation would be permanently fenced for safety. 

Otherwise, recreational access would be allowed. 

What does it take to decommission a project of this size? 

The major activities required for the decommissioning are wind turbine and meteorological tower removal, electrical system 

removal, structural foundation removal, road removal, re-grading, and re-vegetation. 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process 

What is an EIS? 

An EIS is a document that describes how a proposed project might impact the natural, cultural, and human environment, as well 

as actions that may be required to minimize impacts. An EIS is required because the project is located on federal land and involves 

a federal action in the form of BLM issuing a right-of-way grant. Both are considered federal actions requiring compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Are there other environmental laws that need to be considered? 

Yes, the project needs to comply with all environmental laws including the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species 

Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws and regulations. Compliance with these laws will be documented in the EIS. 

What is scoping? 

Scoping is the first step in the EIS process. Scoping allows agencies, Tribes, and the public the opportunity to identify issues and 

concerns that should be addressed in the EIS. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that BLM take into 

account the effects of the proposed project on historic properties before making a decision about issuing a right-of-way grant 

to BP Wind Energy for the wind farm. The National Historic Preservation Act also has public outreach requirements that are 

being coordinated with the NEPA requirements for this proposed project. You are therefore encouraged to provide input on your 

knowledge of historic properties in the proposed project study area or to offer comments on concerns you may have regarding 

effects on historic properties during the scoping meetings and throughout the NEPA process. 

What studies are involved? 

The “environment” considered in an EIS typically includes soils, geologic resources, water, air, plants, wildlife, land uses, visual 

resources, noise, recreational resources, cultural resources, and social and economic conditions. 

What is BLM’s role in the process? 

BLM manages public land on which the project is proposed, and will serve as lead federal agency during preparation of the EIS. 

BLM is responsible for approving the project. Should they do so, BLM would issue the right-of-way grant to authorize project 

development. 

Who else is involved in the project? 

A number of agencies and Tribes have been invited to participate as cooperating agencies. At this time, Western Area Power 

Administration, National Park Service, and Arizona Game and Fish Department have agreed to participate as cooperating agencies 

during preparation of the EIS. They will support BLM’s resource team and contribute information for those portions of the EIS 

where the agency has specific expertise. URS, as a third-party NEPA contractor, is assisting BLM with preparation of the EIS. 

Environmental Considerations and Impacts 

What impacts do these facilities have on the environment? 

Wind energy farms may result in impacts to wildlife habitat or to wildlife species themselves through bird and bat mortality, as 

well as impacts to the human environment such as noise produced by the rotor blades or visual impacts. However, most of these 

issues have been resolved or greatly reduced through technological development or by properly siting facilities. 

Approximately how many local jobs will be created during project construction, and how many local jobs 

will be created during the operations and maintenance phase? What are the subcontractor opportunities 

for local businesses? Who may be contacted for more information about job opportunities? 

Typically, a wind farm of this size would employ around 10-20 people for operations and maintenance. In addition, up to 100-200 

people could be involved during the construction phase. Depending on the skills required, skills available, and the nature of the 

construction and equipment contracts, BP Wind Energy and its contractors typically source workers locally whenever possible. 

Environmental clearance is needed before BLM can issue a right-of-way grant to ensure the viability of the project, but a BP Wind 

Energy contact person will be identified for job opportunities as the project progresses. 
Public Involvement 

How do I provide comments on the project? 

Submit written comments by email (KFO_WindEnergy@blm.gov) or fax them to 928-718-3761 (attn: Joyce Cook). You can also mail 

your comments to the BLM, Kingman Field Office, Joyce Cook, Realty Specialist, 2755 Mission Boulevard, Kingman, AZ 86401. 

For more information, visit the project website: www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html. Questions may be directed to Jerry Crockford at 

505-360-0473 or jandjcrockford@msn.com. 

Where can I learn more about wind energy? 

There are many web sites with information on wind energy. Visit http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/links/index.cfm for a list of web 

sites with wind energy information. 
 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

BLM

SCOPING COMMENT FORM
 Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

At this early stage in the National Environmental Policy Act process, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is holding 

scoping meetings to help identify the range or scope of issues related to the Mohave County Wind Farm Project. The 

issues identified by the public during scoping will be considered and addressed during preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below and return this sheet to the 

sign-in table or the address on the back of this form. Comments would be most helpful if received on or before the 

scoping period closing date of January 8, 2010. 

Please provide your current mailing address and/or any additional names and addresses you think should be 

included on our mailing list. 

Meeting Location: __________________________________________________________________________________ 

Your Name: ___________________________________ Name: ___________________________________________ 

Address: ______________________________________ Address: _________________________________________ 

City/State/Zip: ________________________________ City/State/Zip: ____________________________________ 

Please check all that apply: To make your comments most effective, please: 

__ Add my name to the mailing list for this project 

__ Withhold my name/address to extent allowed by law considered during the EIS process 

(only for persons not representing organizations)* 	n	Offer a specific idea of how to address a 

particular concern *

All comments received by BLM become part of the public record associated n	Provide specific information about how a with this proposed project. Accordingly, your comments (including name and particular element of the project would affect you address) will be available for review by any person who wishes to review the 

public record. At your request, we will withhold your name and address to the n	Speak to a project team member if you have any 

extent allowed by the Freedom of Information Act or any other law. However, questions on project information 

all submissions from organizations or businesses, and individuals identifying n	Write clearly and legibly so that we can accurately themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be record your commments made available for public inspection in their entirety. 

Remember: Every comment counts and any

1.	 Please describe any issues or concerns that should be comment can make a difference. 

addressed in the EIS. 

	n Identify specific information that should be
 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Please provide any other comments you may have on the 

overall project. Comments may be submitted in several ways. 

	n	Return comment form at this meeting 

	n	Submit written comments to: 

– 	 Fax: (928) 718-3761 Attn: Joyce Cook 

– 	 Email: KFO_WindEnergy@blm.gov 

– 	 Mail to:
 

BLM, Kingman Field Office
 

Joyce Cook, Realty Specialist
 

2755 Mission Blvd.
 

Kingman, AZ 86401
 

For more information, please contact:

	n	Visit the project website: 

www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html 

	n	BLM Project Manager Jerry Crockford, 

505-360-0473 

Fold, tape top of form, and mail your comments to the address below: 

Joyce Cook, Realty Specialist 

BLM Kingman Field Office 

2755 Mission Boulevard 

Kingman, Arizona 86401 

Place 

stamp

here 
December 2009 

Welcome and thank you for attending this scoping meeting for the Mohave County 

Wind Farm Project. An Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, is being prepared 

to assess the effects of the proposed project on the environment and our task 

tonight is to learn about the issues and concerns that you have so that we are sure 

to address those in the EIS. The project team is making a brief presentation to help 

you understand the project so that you can offer more meaningful comment. We 

also have a number of display boards and team members who can talk with you 

after this presentation. 

1 
Project Team
 

Proponent 

BP Wind Energy North America, Inc. (BPWE) 

Lead Agency 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Cooperating Agencies 

Western Area Power Administration 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

National Park Service (Lake Mead Recreation Area) 

NEPA Consultant 

URS Corporation 

Tonight we have members of BP Wind Energy with us. BP Wind Energy has 

proposed to construct and operate a wind farm called the Mohave County Wind 

Farm Project. The project is proposed to be mostly on public land administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. Therefore, BLM is serving as the lead 

federal agency in the preparation of the EIS. 

To date, three agencies have agreed to serve as cooperating agencies. These 

agencies will contribute their expertise and will be involved in the preparation of the 

EIS. The cooperating agencies include Western Area Power Administration. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the National Parks Service represented 

by Lake Mead Recreational Area. Other agencies have recently been invited to 

serve as cooperating agencies so we may have some additional agencies join the 

team. 

BLM has selected URS Corporation to serve as a third-party contractor to prepare 

the EIS. URS is now going to share some information about the National 

Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, with you. 

2 
Why is BLM Hosting Public 
 

Meetings?
 


• BP Wind Energy applied for a right-of-way to 

construct and operate a wind farm project on federal 

land administered by BLM (called “public land”) 

• Use of public land is a federal action that requires 

BLM to comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) by analyzing impacts of the 

proposed project 

• NEPA requires the public be involved in the process 

• Meetings are part of BLM’s efforts to conduct 

public “scoping” 

BLM is required to address applications for rights-of-way on the public lands 

administered by BLM. BP Wind Energy filed an application and BLM is processing 

that application. Part of that process involves ensuring that the project complies 

with all environmental laws and regulations, including the National Environmental 

Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Clean 

Water Act, and others. The National Environmental Policy Act, commonly referred 

to as NEPA, can be thought of as an umbrella because it covers the other 

environmental laws in the documentation being prepared to comply with NEPA. 

Public scoping is part of the NEPA process and allows the public to be part of the 

EIS process early in the project. To ensure you have an opportunity to be part of 

the EIS process, BLM is hosting three public scoping meetings and has also had 

separate meeting with interested agencies. 

3 
Purpose of Public Scoping
 

• To introduce and describe the proposed project 

• To provide the public, tribes, and other interested 

parties and agencies the opportunity to express 

comments and concerns 

• To identify issues that should be evaluated in the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

• To supplement the National Historic Preservation 

Act requirement to seek public input 

• To identify feasible alternatives that should be 

evaluated in the EIS 

The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to introduce the project, and at this very early 

stage of the EIS process, receive comments from you related to this project. 

Comments received during the scoping period and at these scoping meetings will 

help us understand the issues to be addressed and the studies that will need to be 

completed for the EIS. The results of these scoping meetings will be summarized in 

a scoping report that will be available on the BLM website after the close of the 

scoping period. We will accept comments throughout the EIS process, but it would 

be most helpful to receive your comments by January 8, 2010 to include them in 

the scoping report and help direct our next steps. 

Scoping is required by NEPA and is the first step in preparing an EIS. Note that the 

NHPA also requires that public input on historic resources be sought; to be efficient, 

the public input required for both NEPA and NHPA are being addressed through a 

coordinated effort. 

The scoping period for this project began on November 20, 2009 and will 

conclude on January 8, 2010. Comments will be most helpful if received by that 

date. There’s several ways to provide your comments and we’ll provide that 

information to you during this presentation. 

4 
NEPA 

• NEPA is our basic national charter for 
 

protection of the environment. 
 

• BLM will prepare an EIS to identify the 

project’s impacts and measures to mitigate 

those impacts. 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to consider the potential effects on the 

environment that could result from a proposed action, such as this wind project. As 

part of the NEPA process, the BLM will prepare an EIS to describe the purpose and 

need for the project, alternatives to the proposed action, impacts that could result 

from the project and mitigation that may be employed to reduce those impacts. 

5 
Natural Resources to be Analyzed 

• Vegetation 

• Wildlife and habitat 

• Bats and birds 

• Special status species 

• Water resources 

•	 Geology, minerals, and 

soils 

•	 Paleontological (fossil) 

resources 

• Air quality 

Following scoping, the project team will collect and analyze data on the natural, 

human, and cultural resources. This slide lists some of the natural resources that 

will be analyzed. Biological resources will evaluate vegetation and wildlife, including 

special status or threatened or endangered species, etc. This information is 

collected by coordinating with other agencies, reviewing existing information 

(reports and maps), and conducting reviews in the field. If you have a special 

concern about these resources or have information to share that would be useful for 

the EIS, be sure to provide us with a written comment. 

6 
Cultural Resources to be Analyzed 

• Prehistoric sites 

• Historic sites 

• Traditional cultural 

places, particularly of 

importance to Native 

Americans 

The cultural resource analysis will consider prehistoric sites, historic sites, and 

traditional cultural places, such as sacred sites or ceremonial gathering locations. 

We are in the process of identifying archaeological and historical sites in the 

proposed project area, and we would like the public to identify any concerns you 

have about these types of resources. 

Cultural resources include prehistoric sites, historic sites, and traditional cultural 

places. These may include many features including artifacts such a pottery shards 

or prehistoric tools; historical roads, trails, buildings, and districts; and places 

important to a culture such as ceremonial places or places and events that 

contribute to oral or written history. There are certain laws that specifically protect 

cultural resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 of 

this Act requires that BLM take into account the effects of the proposed project on 

historic properties before making a decision about issuing a right-of-way grant to BP 

Wind Energy for the wind farm. The National Historic Preservation Act also has 

public outreach requirements that are being coordinated with the NEPA 

requirements for this project. You are therefore encouraged to provide input on your 

knowledge of historic properties in the project study area or to offer comments on 

concerns you may have regarding effects on historic properties during the scoping 

meetings and throughout the NEPA process. 

7 
Human Environment Resources 
 

and Issues to be Analyzed
 

• Land uses 

• Recreation 

• Visual resources 

• Noise 

• Social and economic 

conditions 

• Environmental justice 

• Public health and safety 

The EIS will also examine the human environment, including how the project would 

affect current and proposed land uses, recreation, scenic quality and the views from 

various key observation points, the amount of noise in the area, and public health 

and safety. It will identify the potential to bring temporary as well as permanent jobs 

to the area or influence the economy through the purchase of goods and services. 

The EIS will also consider the potential for the project to disproportionately affect 

low income of minority populations, which is what is meant by environmental justice. 

8 
Studies Completed
 

• Site Characterization Study, 2007
 


• Biological Site Assessment, 2007 
 

• Bat Report, 2007-2009 
 

• Wetland Delineation Report, 2008 
 

• Special Status Plant Survey, Spring 2008
 


• Cultural Resources Met Tower Study, 2008
 


Several studies have already been conducted. Key information from these reports 

will be summarized in the EIS. 

9 
NEPA Process 

After we collect and compile data on the project area, BLM will review the project 

description and identify reasonable, feasible alternatives to the proposed action. 

The team will then analyze the potential types of impacts the proposed project and 

the alternatives could have on the environment and identify ways to mitigate, or 

reduce those impacts to minimize effects to the environment. The Draft EIS will 

document these studies and will be released for a 45-day public review and 

comment period. During this review period, agencies and the public will be asked to 

comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIS. A Final EIS will be prepared to respond 

to the comments received on the Draft EIS. The last step of this process is for the 

BLM to consider the analysis as well as the agency and public comments, and 

make a decision on whether or not to grant a right-of-way to construct and operate 

the facility. The Record of Decision is scheduled for summer 2011. The entire EIS 

process will take approximately 2 years. 

BP Wind Energy will now tell you about the project location, project features, and 

the construction process. 

10 
Project 

Location 

• 40 miles north 

of Kingman, 

Arizona 

• Nearest to 

White Hills, 

Arizona 

•Phase I would be located on the northwest portion of the BLM right-of-way, and is 

proposed to consist of up to 235 turbines, access roads, an interconnection 

substation, an Operations and Maintenance facility, permanent meteorological 

towers, and collector power lines to transmit approximately 350 MW of generated 

electricity to the substation. 

•Subsequent phases would generate up to 150 MW of power using between 50 

and 100 turbine generators located in the southeast portion of the BLM right-of-way. 

•Phase I is all public land under BLM jurisdiction, while subsequent phases would 

be a mix of BLM and private land. 

•BP would negotiate with private property owners for the use of any private lands 

•Arizona State land is not identified for occupation by any part of the Project. 

•The plan would be to interconnect with one of the two transmission lines crossing 

the southern part of the Project area. 

11 
Overview 

How Much 

Power? 

• Up to 500 

megawatts 

Wind power 

tied into 

electrical power 

grid 

Energy for 

approximately 

110,000 homes 

per year 

• 

• 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•This is a schematic of the proposed project to illustrate the flow from wind turbines 

generating electricity, through a collection system to the substation, and on to the 

National grid through a transmission line. 

•BP will sell the power to a utility company and the utility will then sell the power to 

consumers. BP Wind Energy will not have any control over where the power is 

used, but if there is demand in the local area, it is efficient for utility companies to 

use a more local source of power than to transmit the power over long distances. 

12 
Project Features 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

• Up to 335 wind turbines 

•The total height of the turbines from the ground to the upper reach of the rotor 

would be about 413 feet. 

•A football field is 300 feet long. So, the height of a turbine to the highest extent of 

the rotor is about one and one-third lengths of a football field. 

•The rotor diameter is about 300 feet. This is like a football field spinning on the top 

of each turbine tower. 

13 
Typical Turbine Location Footprint 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•This is a typical footprint of the active areas at a turbine site. 

•Most of the disturbance is in the vicinity of the turbine foundation. 

•The extremities of the work area would not be disturbed other than to store 

elements of the wind turbine. 

•The turbine footprint for this project would be similar to this diagram, but may not 

exactly mirror it. 

14 
   

     

Typical Turbine Spacing 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

Spacing between

rows

Spacing within the

rows

Turbine Spacing

The turbines need to be spaced so that there are approximately three rotor 

diameters between the turbines. The turbines would be placed in rows or corridors 

with about 1/3 to 1⁄2 mile between the corridors. 

15 
Overview of the 

Construction 

Process 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•We are going through a few slides to illustrate the construction process. 

•This slide gives a good idea of activity on the turbine site. 

•Visualize three sections of the turbine lying on the site with the other items. 

•Even though turbine sites appear large, a lot of material, equipment, and workers 

need to share the site in a safe and workable manner. 

•Typically, it requires about 11 loads of materials for each wind generating turbine. 

•Wind generating turbines are transported to each turbine site and are not staged or 

stored in a separate storage site. Usually only reels of power cables, materials for 

the transmission line, and other incidental equipment and materials are stored in a 

yard. 

16 
Pumping Base Concrete 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•Two types of foundations may be used, the type used depends on geotechnical 

drilling – both types require tons of rebar 

• One type is a mat foundation that could be approximately 50 feet square and 8 

feet thick, and requires approximately 750 cubic yards of concrete. 

•The other type is a vertical column of concrete approximately 15 feet in diameter 

with walls about three feet thick and hollow in the middle (the hollow center column 

is backfilled with soil and compacted). This type of foundation could extend 30 feet 

into the soil (or to bed rock), and requires approximately 160 cubic yard of concrete. 

•Both types of foundation would contain a dense network of rebar. 

•Consider the number of concrete loads. Consider the weight of loaded transit-mix 

trucks. Consider the amount of materials, water, and where the batch plant would 

be located. 

17 
Backfilling Foundation 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•Anchor bolts (illustrated in the slide) that anchor the tower to the foundation pass 

all the way through to the bottom of the foundation. 

•Backfilling and recontouring leaves only the turbine base part of the foundation 

exposed. 

•Note: the lattice type turbine towers in the background do not resemble the turbine 

towers proposed for this project. 

18 
 

Collection Trench and 

Access Road 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•This slide illustrated the buried collection cables that carry produced power from 

the turbines to the substation during the construction phase. These trenches are 

typically backfilled within a day or two of when they are dug. 

•In the Mohave County Wind Farm Project, the trenches would be located adjacent 

to the roads. 

•Wildlife escape ramps may be constructed in the trenches as they are excavated, 

and trenches would be inspected for wildlife immediately prior to backfilling. 

•A typical power collector cable (depending on size) would carry electricity produced 

by eight turbines. Therefore, for every eight turbines, another collector cable would 

be added to the “bundle” going to the substation. 

19 
Turbine Delivery 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•Nacelles typically weigh at least 22 metric tons or more than 48,000 pounds (one 

metric ton = 2204.6 pounds) 

•Nacelles are typically shipped in one piece and contain the wind generation “works” 

including the armature and control mechanisms for the turbine. 

•The bottom of the nacelle connects to the top of the turbine tower and the rotor hub 

and blades connect to the end of the nacelle (the left end in this photo). 

20 
Off-Loading Turbine Parts 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•Turbine towers are delivered by tractors and specially constructed trailers. Turbine 

towers are usually in three sections but may be in four. 

•At least two cranes are required to lift a section and care must be taken not to 

distort the cylinder. 

•Turbine sections may be 80 feet long and are tapered from the bottom to the top. 

21 
Setting 

Tower 

Sections 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•Assembling the complete wind turbine typically uses two sizes of cranes. 

•One crane sets the lower two sections on a turbine tower and moves on to the 

next. 

•The turbine sections are bolted to the foundation and to each other. 

22 
Typical Crane Size 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•Some of the equipment used to construct wind projects are massive, especially the 

cranes. 

•Larger cranes measure as much as 42 feet between the outside edges of the 

tracks. 

•Larger cranes have booms that reach almost 300 feet in the air to attain the height 

needed to set the nacelle and the rotor. 

•Cranes of this size are moved in pieces and assembled at the wind project area. 

•Large cranes cannot move great distances (in the project area) with the boom 

elevated. 

•This crane requires a solid and level work area. 

23 
Lifting 

Nacelle 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•The largest crane (300 tons of lift) and crew sets the top section, nacelle, and the 

rotor and blades. 

•The next crew installs the wiring and pad mounted transformer. 

24 
Typical Rotor Size 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•Rotor blades can be 120 feet long. 

•Tractors and trailers hauling rotor blades can be approximately 160 or 170 feet in 

length. 

•These loads require road curves and corners with a large turning radius. 

•Roads cannot have extreme vertical profiles. Long loads cannot negotiate roads 

crossing deep, steep walled drainages, or steep ridge tops with a short, sharp angle 

at the top. 

25 
Size Comparison - Rotor 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•The worker provides a scale for size of the rotor hub and blades. 

26 
Assembling Rotor 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•Turbine blades and the rotor hub need to be assembled at the turbine site. They 

are positioned for assembly with cranes. 

27 
Hanging the Rotor 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•The largest crane is used to lift the rotor assembly for attachment to the nacelle. 

•Wind is especially critical to this part of construction as it is not safe to lift these 

heavy loads in windy conditions. 

•The vehicles in the foreground provide a good scale to illustrate the size of the 

equipment in the background. 

28 
Completed Towers 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

No notes here 

29 
Associated Project Features
 

• Pad mounted 

transformers 

• Underground electrical 

collection system 

• Electrical substation 

and switchyard 

• Overhead transmission 

line to interconnect to 

existing transmission 

lines 

• Access roads 

Based on Preliminary Data; Subject to Change 

•In addition to the turbines and the equipment within the primary project area, there 

would be an electrical substation and switching yard and transmission line to 

interconnect to the electric power grid. 

•Another feature that is required will be access roads. The roads need to be fairly 

robust to support the weight being transported. 

•BLM will now tell you how you can comment on the project. 

30 
How You Can Participate 

• Complete a comment form with your name and 

address 

• Submit written comments to: 

–	 KFO_WindEnergy@blm.gov 

–	 Fax: (928) 718-3761 Attn: Joyce Cook 

–	 BLM, Kingman Field Office
 


Joyce Cook, Realty Specialist
 


2755 Mission Blvd.
 


Kingman, Arizona 86401
 


•	 Contact BLM Project Manager, Jerry Crockford at 

(505) 360-0473 

There are several ways to provide your comments during this scoping period and 

the EIS process. The 45-day scoping period concludes on January 8, 2010. You 

can return a comment form tonight or pick one up at the sign-in table and mail it to 

the BLM. The BLM also is accepting comments via email, fax, and regular mail. 

31 
How You Can Participate 

• Public meetings and 45-day review period on 

Draft EIS (Fall 2010) 

• Public comments will be accepted throughout 

the process 

• Mailing list and newsletter updates 
 

throughout the project
 


• Project Website at www.blm.gov/az 

We welcome comments or questions throughout the process, and there will be 

additional public meetings and comment opportunities when the Draft EIS is 

released for public review, which is anticipated to occur in Fall 2010. We’ll be 

maintaining a project mailing list to include people who attend these meetings or 

submit comments, and will provide newsletter updates to that mailing list throughout 

the project. In addition, project information such as project newsletters and the 

Scoping Report will be posted to the BLM website listed here. 

32 
How to Make Your Comments 

Most Effective 

•	 Identify specific information that should be 

considered during the EIS process 

•	 Offer a specific idea of how to address a particular 

concern 

•	 Provide specific information about how a particular 

element of the project would affect you 

One comment can make a difference. 

BLM summarized the bullet list on the slide. 

33 
No notes here 

34 
Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Welcome 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Scoping Meetings 

December 2009 

BLM
 

BLM

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Roles and 

Responsibilities 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

n Preparing the Environmental Impact

Statement to comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act (as the lead

federal agency) 

n Issuing the right-of-way grant authorizing the

project (if approved) 

BP Wind Energy 

 n Developing, constructing, operating, and

decommissioning the project (as the project

proponent) 

Cooperating Agencies and Tribes 

 n Providing information for environmental 

analyses based on special expertise or

jurisdiction by law 

URS 

 n Assisting BLM with preparation of the EIS (as 

the third-party NEPA contractor) 

Public 

 n Identifying issues, concerns, and input about 

the study area 
 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Project Features 

BLM

Phase 1: Up to 235 turbines

350 megawatts 

Subsequent Phases: 50 to 100

turbines up to 150 megawatts 

Underground 34.5 kilovolt (kV)

collection system between

turbines 

345kV or 500kV Substation 

345kV or 500kV transmission 

line to connect into the existing

transmission lines 

Access roads 

Operation and maintenance

building and layout yard 

(Showing construction phase) 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Photographs may not be representative of Mohave County Wind Farm Project features 
Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Project Location Map 

BLM
Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Photographs may not be representative of Mohave County Wind Farm Project features 

Typical Wind Turbine

Construction Process 

Pumping Base

Concrete 

Turbine Delivery 

Off-loading Turbine Parts 

Backfilling Foundation 

BLM
Construction Process 

 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Typical Wind Turbine

Setting Tower

Sections 

Lifting Nacelle 

Assembling Rotor 

Hanging the

Rotor 

Completed Tower 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona

BLM

Photographs may not be representative of Mohave County Wind Farm Project features 
 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

BLM

Project Purpose

and Need 

Purpose 

n Evaluate and respond to application for

right-of-way to construct and operate a wind

farm project on federal land 

n Provide use of federal lands to help create an

economically viable source of clean renewable 

electricity 

Need 

n Support the National Energy Policy to increase

renewable energy production by 10,000

megawatts by the year 2015 

n Support the need for additional energy supply 

n Support BLM’s commitment to promote the use of 

public lands for renewable energy development 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Based on preliminary data; subject to change 
 

n Scoping: a process that helps identify the

significant issues related to a proposed

project 

n The scoping period for the Mohave County

Wind Farm Project will be from 

November 20, 2009 through January 8, 2010 

n Public comments will be accepted

throughout the NEPA process 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

BLM

National Environmental 

Policy Act Process 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Timeframes based on preliminary data; subject to change 
 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

BLM

Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) Studies 

The EIS process includes analysis of potential impacts on

the environment and ways to mitigate, or reduce, these 

impacts. Topics to be addressed in the EIS include: 

Land Use 

Social and 

Economic Conditions/ 

Environmental 

Justice 

Visual 

Characteristics 

Noise 

Recreation 

Interference with 

Communication 

Signals 

Air Quality 

Geology/ 

Soils 

Water 

Vegetation 

Wildlife 

Bats and Birds 

Protected Species 

Prehistoric and 

Historic Sites and 

Traditional 

Cultural 

Resources 

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 
! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !! !!

!! !! !! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

!!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

Squaw Peak Rd

Colorado River 

Mohave Co nty, Ar zi on

C

a

lark County, evada

Antares Rd

Temp e l Bar Rd

White Hills Rd

Diamond Bar Rd

Pierce Ferry Rd

Stockton Hill Rd Pierce Ferry Rd

Old Spanish National Historic Trail

!

P:\ENVPLANNING\BP Wind AZ\23445692_BPMohave\GIS\plots\PublicParticipation\BP_Phase2_VP_Viewshed.pdf 

DRAFT

View Point and Viewshed 

of Turbines in Subsequent Phases

u

Lake Mead Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Legend Lake Mead Bonelli South ! National Grand Canyon Mohave County Wind Farm Project Area Landing ! Cove Recreation Area National Park !! View Point of Visual Rendering 

! Proposed Wind Turbine Layout 

20-Mile Buffer of Conceptual Turbines 

!

Area within Turbine Viewshed 

Hualapai Indian Reservation 

National Park or Recreation Area Boundary Meadview 

! !

R20W R19W 

!

Old Spanish National Historic Trail 

R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W 

General Features 

! Community River B

!! Road Lake

T29N Dry Lake ! ! Transmission Line

Hualapai Township and Range Boundary State Boundary Indian 

Reservation !

!!

£¤93 ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!!!!! ! ! !

!!! Ray

T28N !!

A ! ! !Place ! !

!! ! ! ! !! !

!! !!! !

! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !!!

¥¦15 !! White !!

Hills Project Area 

T27N !

¥¦40 

Kingman Flagstaff 

¥¦40 

¥¦17 

¥¦10 

Phoenix 

¥¦8

Red Tucson ¥¦10

T26N Lake ¥¦19

Disclaimer: 

Turbine locations are preliminary in nature and are subject to change. 

Source: Dolan 

Springs ! Viewshed: URS 2009 

View Point: BPWE North America, Inc 2009 

Project Area Boundary: BPWE North America, Inc 09/08/2009 

Turbines: BPWE North America, Inc 11/03/2009 

T25N Transmission Lines: Platts, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. -

POWERmap (Platts analytical database: 2009) 

Old Spanish National Historic Trail: National Park Service, 2005 

Base: ALRIS 1997-2008, ESRI 2008 

 ̄ Lake 048

Mohave T24N Miles 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project

Viewshed Analysis 

n 20-mile buffer extends to the seldom-seen views

n Viewshed analysis is based on planned turbine 

height and surrounding terrain elevation, which 

may block views of turbines 

n Green coverage shows areas in which some

portion of the proposed project would likely

be visible 

BLM

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Based on preliminary data; subject to change
Creation Date: May 28, 2009 

Looking northeast, from a viewpoint 

southwest of the proposed project. 

Point A Nearest turbine is about 0.9 miles away. 

Creation Date: May 28, 2009 

Looking east-southeast, from a viewpoint 

northwest of the proposed project. 

Point B Nearest turbine is about 3.5 miles away. 

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!!

!!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

Squaw Peak Rd

Colorado River 

Mohave Co nty, Ar zi on

C

a

lark County, evada

Old Spanish National Historic Trail

Temp e l Bar Rd

Pierce Ferry Rd

White Hills Rd

Diamond Bar Rd

Stockton Hill Rd

Antares Rd

Pierce Ferry Rd

P:\ENVPLANNING\BP Wind AZ\23445692_BPMohave\GIS\plots\PublicParticipation\BP_Phase1_VP_Viewshed.pdf

!

DRAFT

View Point and Viewshed 

of Phase 1 Turbines

u

Lake Mead Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Legend Lake Mead

! Bonelli National South Grand Canyon Mohave County Wind Farm Project Area Landing Recreation Area ! Cove National Park !! View Point of Visual Rendering 

! Proposed Wind Turbine Layout 

20-Mile Buffer of Proposed Turbines 

!

Area within Turbine Viewshed ! !

Hualapai Indian Reservation 

National Park or Recreation Area Boundary Meadview 

R19W 

!

Old Spanish National Historic Trail 

R18W R17W R16W R15W R14W 

General Features 

! Community River 

R20W

B

!! ! ! !!! Lake !!!!!!! ! Road T29N ! !! ! !

Dry Lake !! ! !

Transmission Line ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! !!!

Township and Range Boundary ! ! ! ! ! State Boundary !!! Hualapai !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!

Indian ! !! ! !!!

! !!!! Reservation !!!! !! !!! !!

! !! !!!!! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! £¤93 Ray 

Place 

¥¦15

A T28N !! !!!!!!!! !

White

Hills Project Area 

T27N !

¥¦40 

Kingman Flagstaff 

¥¦40 

¥¦17 

¥¦10 

Phoenix 

¥¦8

Red Tucson ¥¦10

T26N Lake ¥¦19

Disclaimer:

Turbine locations are preliminary in nature and are subject to change.

Source: Dolan 

Springs ! Viewshed: URS 2009

View Point: BPWE North America, Inc 2009 

Project Area Boundary: BPWE North America, Inc 09/08/2009 

Turbines: BPWE North America, Inc 09/01/2009 

T25N Transmission Lines: Platts, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. -

POWERmap (Platts analytical database: 2009) 

Old Spanish National Historic Trail: National Park Service, 2005 

Base: ALRIS 2007-2008, ESRI 2008 

 ̄ Lake

Mohave 048

T24N Miles 

Mohave County Wind Farm Project 

Viewshed Analysis 

Conceptual Visual Renderings

Note: Renderings represent views from points A and B shown on the map of the Phase 1 area. 

BLM

Kingman Field Office / Arizona 

Based on preliminary data; subject to change
APPENDIX C 
 

AGENCY COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 
 

Cooperating Agencies Letter and Distribution List 

Interested Agencies Letter and Distribution List 

Tribal Consultation Letter and Distribution List 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COOPERATING AGENCY LETTER DISTRIBUTION LIST 
 

FEDERAL 

US Department of Energy 

Western Area Power Administration, Desert 

Southwest Customer Service Region 

Derrick Moe 

Regional Manager 

Box 6457 

Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457 

US Department of Energy 

Western Area Power Administration 

Mark Wieringa 

PO Box 281213 

Lakewood, CO 80228-8213 

US Department of the Interior 

National Park Service, Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area 

William K. Dickinson 

Superintendent 

601 Nevada Highway 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

US Department of the Interior 

National Park Service, Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area 

Jim Holland 

601 Nevada Highway 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

jim_holland@nps.gov 

702-293-8986 

US Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Kingman 

Field Office 

Alan McBee 

101 East Beale Street, Suite C 

Kingman, AZ 86401-5827 

STATE 

Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Main Office 

Ginger Ritter 

5000 West Carefree Highway 

Phoenix, AZ 85086-5000 

Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Region III 

Trevor Buhr 

5325 Stockton Hill Road 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

COUNTY 

Mohave County Board of Supervisors 

700 West Beale Street 

PO Box 7000 

Kingman, AZ 86402-7000 

Mohave County 

Community and Economic Department 

Susie Parcel 

Director 

700 West Beale Street 

PO Box 7000 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Mohave County Development Services 

PO Box 7000 

Kingman, AZ 96401 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERESTED AGENCY DISTRIBUTION LIST 
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance 
 

Willie Taylor 
 

Director 
 

1849 C Street NW, MS 2342 
 

Washington, DC 20230
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance 
 

Vijai N. Rai 
 

1849 C Street, NW, Mailstop 2340-MIB
 

Washington, DC 20240
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Office of Enviro. Policy & Compliance, Oakland 
 

Region
 

Patricia Port 
 

Environmental Officer 
 

1111 Jackson Street, Suite 520
 

Oakland, CA 94607
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona State Office 
 

Jim Kenna 
 

State Director 
 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Colorado River District 
 

Becky Heick 
 

District Manager 
 

2610 Sweetwater Avenue 
 

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406-9071 
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Kingman Field Office 
 

Ruben Sanchez 
 

Field Manager
 

2755 Mission Blvd.
 

Kingman, AZ 86401-5308
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

National Science & Technology Center 
 

Bruce Durtsche (ST-131) 
 

Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 50 
 

P.O. Box 25047
 

Denver, CO 80225-0047
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

National Science & Technology Center 
 

Scott Archer (RS-133) 
 

Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 50 
 

P.O. Box 25047
 

Denver, CO 80225-0047
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona State Office 
 

Eddie Arreola 
 

One North Central Avenue 
 

Suite 800(RECO) 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona State Office (LLAZ930000) 
 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona State Office (LLAZ921000), Public Room
 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona State Office (LLAZ910000) 
 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona State Office (LLAZ912000) 
 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona State Office (LLAZ920000) 
 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona State Office (LLAZ934000) 
 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427 
 

Bureau of Land Management 

Denver Federal Center (2) Library 

Barbara Klassen 

Bldg. 50 Denver Federal Center 

P.O. Box 25047
 

Denver, CO 80225-0047
 

1 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Arizona Liaison 
 

1620 L Street, MS 1075
 

Washington, DC 20036
 

US Department of Defense 
 

Region IX, Navy Region Southwest, Environmental
 

Department (N45JRR) 
 

Michael Huber 
 

Commander
 

33000 Nixie Way, Bldg., 50, Suite 22
 

San Diego, CA 92147-5110 
 

US Government Printing Office 
 

Depository Receiving Section
 

Jackson Alley, Room A-150 
 

Washington, DC 20401
 

U.S. Department of the Interior 
 

Natural Resources Library 
 

1849 C Street, NW
 

Washington, DC 20240
 

Federal Highway Administration 
 

Arizona Division Office 
 

Steve Thomas
 

4000 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1500
 

Phoenix, AZ 85012
 

US Department of Defense 
 

ODUSD (I&E)
 

William Van Houten
 

1225 Jefferson Davis Highway 
 

Arlington, VA 22202 
 

US Department of Defense 
 

US Air Force, Office of Deputy A/S of USAF, 
 

Environment, Safety, Occupational Health
 

SAF/RQ Room 4C916 Pentagon
 

Washington, DC 20030-001
 

US Department of Defense 
 

US Air Force, Environmental Division, Chief 
 

HQ-USAF/LEEV 
 

Bolling AFB, Bldg 516 
 

Washington, DC 20330-5000 
 

US Department of Defense 
 

Air Force Region 9 Environmental Office 
 

Regional Environmental Officer 
 

333 Market St, Suite 625 
 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2196
 

US Department of the Interior
 

National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park
 

PO Box 129
 

Grand Canyon, AZ 86023-0129 
 

US Department of the Interior
 

National Park Service 
 

Jake Hoogland/Dale Morlock 
 

1849 C Street NW, NPS-2310, MS 2242
 

Washington, DC 20240
 

US Department of the Interior 

National Park Service, NEPA/Section 106 Specialist 

Greg Cody 

P.O. Box 25287
 

Denver, CO 80225-0287
 

US Department of the Interior 

National Park Service, Air Resources Division 

Don Codding 

P.O. Box 25287
 

Denver, CO 80225-2167
 

US Department of Agriculture
 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Arizona
 

State Office 
 

230 North 1st Avenue, Suite 509 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85003-1733 
 

US Federal Communication Commission 
 

445 12th Street, SW
 

Washington, DC 20554
 

US Federal Aviation Administration 
 

National Headquarters Office, Obstruction 
 

Evaluation Service 
 

Kevin Haggerty
 

Manager 
 

Room 400 East
 

800 Independence Ave, SW
 

Washington, DC 20591
 

US Federal Aviation Administration 
 

Western-Pacific Region 
 

15000 Aviation Blvd. 
 

Hawthorne, CA 90261 
 

US Federal Aviation Administration 
 

Western U.S. Operations 
 

Bruce Beard
 

Supervisor, Southwest Regional Office 
 

Obstruction Evaluation Service, AJR-322
 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 
 

Fort Worth, TX 76193 
 

2 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Department of Energy
 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 
 

(EH-23) 
 

1000 Independence Avenue SW
 

Washington, DC 20585
 

US Department of Energy
 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
 

Douglas Dahl/Robi Robichaud 
 

1617 Cole Blvd. 
 

Golden, CO 80401-3305 
 

US Department of Energy
 

Division of NEPA Affairs 
 

Director 
 

Mail Station E-201 GTN 
 

Washington, DC 20545
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Minerals Management Service, Environmental
 

Division
 

James F. Bennett 
 

Environmental Chief 
 

MS 4042
 

381 Elden Street
 

Herndon, VA 20170-4817
 

Library of Congress (15)
 

Exchange and Gift Division, Federal Documents 
 

Section 
 

Madison Building 
 

C Street SE 
 

Washington, DC 20540-0001 
 

US Environmental Protection Agency
 

Jeanne Geselbracht 
 

75 Hawthorne Street 
 

San Francisco, CA 94105
 

US Environmental Protection Agency
 

Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section, Ariel 
 

Rios Bldg., South Oval Lobby, Room 7241 
 

Mail Code 2252-A
 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
 

Washington, DC 20460-2403 
 

US Environmental Protection Agency
 

Region 9 – Environmental Review Office 
 

Nova Blazej 
 

Manager 
 

75 Hawthorne Street 
 

San Francisco, CA 94105
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Fish and Wildlife Service 
 

Brenda Smith
 

323 North Leroux Street, Suite 201 
 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Environmental
 

Quality 
 

Patricia Carter or Stephanie Nash
 

4401 North Fairfax Drive 
 

Arlington, VA 22203 
 

U.S. Department of the Interior 
 

Fish and Wildlife Service 
 

Chief, Division of Federal Projects 
 

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 400 
 

Arlington, VA 22203-1610
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Area Regional
 

Office, Environment Quality Services 
 

Amy Heuslein
 

400 North 5th Street, Suite 12-2 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85004
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 
 

Don Sutherland
 

2051 Mercator Drive, MS 228R
 

Reston, VA 20191
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Office of Surface Mining 
 

Vernell Davis 
 

1951 Constitution Avenue NW, MS 202
 

Washington, DC 20240-0001 
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Office of Surface Mining 
 

Sam Bae 
 

1951 Constitution Ave., NW, MS 10
 

Washington, DC 20240-0001 
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Reclamation 
 

Deputy Commissioner
 

External & Intergovernmental Affairs 
 

Mail Code 92-00000 
 

1849 C Street NW
 

Washington, DC 20240-0001 
 

3 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Resources 

Mike Gabaldon 

Director 

Denver Federal Center 

P.O. Box 25007
 

Denver, CO 80225-0007
 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional 

Office 

Lorri Gray 

Regional Director 

P.O. Box 61470
 

Boulder City, NV 89006-1470 
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Dams
 

Office 
 

Ken Rice 
 

Area Manager
 

PO Box 60400 
 

Boulder City, NV 89006-1470 
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Reclamation 
 

Judy Toast
 

1849 C Street NW, MS 7612 
 

Washington, DC 20240
 

US Department of the Interior
 

Bureau of Mines, Branch of Mineral Assessment
 

Division Head
 

MS-5050, Room 819 
 

Washington, DC 20240
 

US Corps of Army Engineers
 

Los Angeles District Office 
 

Colonel Thomas H. Magness IV 
 

District Commander 
 

915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 980 
 

Los Angeles, CA 90017
 

US Corps of Army Engineers
 

South Pacific Division, Los Angeles District, 
 

Arizona/Nevada Area Office 
 

3636 North Central Avenue, Suite 900
 

Phoenix, AZ 85012-1939 
 

U.S. Geological Survey
 

Lloyd Woosley
 

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 423
 

Reston, VA 20192
 

US Geological Survey 
 

2255 North Gemini Drive 
 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001
 

Arizona State Land Department
 

Maria Baier 
 

Land Commissioner 
 

1616 West Adams Street 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85007
 

Arizona State Capitol 
 

Office of the Governor 
 

Honorable Governor Jan Brewer 
 

1700 West Washington Street 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85007
 

State of Arizona 
 

Office of the Governor 
 

Michael E. Anable 
 

Natural Resource Policy Advisor 
 

1700 West Washington
 

Phoenix, AZ 85007
 

State of Arizona 
 

Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and
 

Budgeting
 

1700 West Washington Street, Suite 500
 

Phoenix, AZ 85007
 

Arizona Corporation Commission
 

Kristen K. Mayes 
 

Chairperson 
 

1200 West Washington Street 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85007
 

Arizona State Parks Department
 

1300 West Washington Street 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85007
 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
 

Northern Regional Office 
 

1801 West Route 66, Suite 117
 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001
 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
 

Steven Owens
 

Director 
 

1110 West Washington Street 
 

Phoenix, AZ 85007
 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
 

Air Quality Division, Northern Regional Office 
 

1801 West Route 66, Suite 117
 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001
 

4 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Quality Division, Phoenix Main Office 

1110 West Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Water Resources Division 

3550 North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Arizona Department of Revenue 

1600 West Monroe 

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2650 

Arizona State Geological Survey 

406 West Congress Street, Suite 100 

Tucson, AZ 85701-1381 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Michael Kondelis 

District Engineer 

3660 East Andy Devine 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

State Engineer’s Office 

206 South 17th Avenue 

Room 131 A, MD 102A 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Jim Garrison 

1300 West Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Mohave County Manager’s Office 

Ron Walker 

County Manager 

700 West Beale Street 

PO Box 7000 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Mohave County Arizona 

Development Services 

Nicholas S, Hont 

Director 

3675 East Andy Devine Avenue 

PO Box 7000 

Kingman, AZ 86402-7000 

Mohave County Economic Develop. Dept. 

Jonas Peterson 

Director 

PO Box 7000 

Kingman, AZ 86402 

City of Kingman 

Community Development 

Dennis Roberts 

Director 

310 North Fourth Street 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Kingman Arizona Airport Authority 

Brenda Chastain 

Director 

7000 Flightline Drive 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

City of Kingman 

John Salem 

Mayor 

310 North Fourth Street 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

City of Kingman 

Jack Kramer 

City Manager 

310 North Fourth Street 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Bullhead City 

Jack Hakim 

Mayor 

2355 Trane Road 

Bullhead City, AZ 884422 

Lake Havasu City 

Richard Kaffenberger 

City Manager 

2330 McCullough Blvd. North 

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403 

Boulder City 

Mayor 

401 California Avenue 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

Boulder City 

Tim Emster 

City Manager 

401 California Avenue 

Boulder City, NV 89005 

5 
44,860
 
www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html
 

SEPTEMBER 2009 
 

TRIBAL LETTER DISTRIBUTION LIST
 


Charles Wood, Chairman 

Chemehuevi Tribal Council 

PO Box 1976 

Havasu Lake, CA 92636 

Loretta Jackson-Kelly 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Hualapai Tribe 

PO Box 179 

Peach Springs, AZ 86434 

Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman 

Colorado Indian Tribal Council 

26600 Mohave Road 

Parker, AZ 85344 

Michael Tsosie, Director Museum 

Colorado Indian Tribal Council 

26600 Mohave Road 

Parker, AZ 85344 

Timothy Williams, Chair 

Fort Mojave Tribal Council 

500 Merriman Avenue 

Needles, CA 92363 

Ona Segundo, Chairwoman 

Kaibab Paiute Tribal Council 

HC 65, Box 2 

Fredonia, AZ 86022 



 

 

NOVEMBER 2009 

TRIBAL LETTER DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Mr. Wilfred Whatoname Sr., Chairperson 

Hualapai Tribe 

P. O. Box 179 

Peach Springs, AZ 86434 

Mr. Timothy Williams, Chair 

Fort Mojave Tribal Council 

500 Merriman Avenue 

Needles, CA 92363 

Ms. Mary Felter, Tribal Secretary 

Hopi Tribe 

123 Main Street 

Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039 

Mr. Daniel Eddy Jr., Chairman 

Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Route 1, Box 23-B 

Parker, AZ 85344 

Mr. Charles Wood, Chairman 

Chemehuevi Tribal Council 

P. O. Box 1976 

Havasu Lake, CA 92363 

Mr. Jamie Fullmer, Chairman 

Yavapai-Apache Nation 

2400 W. Datsi Street 

Camp Verde, AZ 86322 

Mr. Ernest Jones Sr., President 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 

530 E. Merritt Street 

Prescott, AZ 86301 

Ms. Alfreda L. Mitre, Chairperson 

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 

One Paiute Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89106 

Ms. Deanna Domingo 

Moapa Band of Paiute 

Chairwoman Cultural Committee 

1 Lincoln Street 

Moapa, NV 89025 

Ms. Loretta Jackson-Kelly 

Hualapai Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

P. O. Box 179 

Peach Springs, AZ 86434 

Ms. Linda Otero, Director 

Aha Makav Cultural Society 

10225 South Harbor Avenue, Unit 7 

Mohave Valley, AZ 86440 

Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma 

Director Cultural Preservation 

Hopi Tribe 

123 Main Street 

Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039 

Mr. Michael Tsosie, Museum Director 

Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Route 1, Box 23-B 

Parker, AZ 85344 

Ms. Cara McDonald 

Chemehuevi Cultural Resource Director 

P. O. Box 1976 

Havasu Lake, CA 92363 

Mr. Chris Coder, Tribal Archaeologist 

Yavapai-Apache Nation 

2400 W. Datsi Street 

Camp Verde, AZ 86322 

Mr. Gregory T. Glassco 

Director, Cultural Research 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 

530 E. Merritt Street 

Prescott, AZ 86301 

Mr. Kenny Anderson 

Cultural Resource Coordinator 

Las Vegas Paiute Indian Tribe 

One Paiute Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89106 

Mr. Richard Arnold 

Cultural Tribal Chairman 

Pahrump Paiute Tribe 

2300 W. Bonanza Road 

Las Vegas, NV 89041 
 

 

 

Mr. Don Watahomigie, Chairperson 

Havasupai Tribe 

P. O. Box 10 

Supai, AZ 86435 

Ms. Mary Lou Boone, President 

San Juan Southern Paiute 

P. O. Box 2710 

Tuba City, AZ 86045 

Mr. Ronald Manakaja 

Natural Resources Department 

Havasupai Tribe 

10 Main Street 

Supai, AZ 86434 

Ms. Ona Segundo, Chairwoman 

Kaibab Paiute Tribal Council 

HC 65, Box 2 

Fredonia, AZ 86022 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Reply Refer To: 

2800/8160 (LLAZC01000) 

AZA 32315AA 

November 20, 2009 

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NO. 

See Mailing List 

Dear: 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kingman Field Office is processing a right-of-way 

application filed by BP Wind Energy North America, LLC for approval to construct, maintain, 

operate, and decommission a wind farm in Mohave County Arizona. The BLM is lead federal 

agency in providing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze potential impacts of 

the proposed project. 

In our letter sent to you in September 2009, we extended an invitation to your Tribe to be a 

cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. In reference to our previous letter addressing 

the Mohave County Wind Farm Project, enclosed are a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a map of the 

project area which provide additional information. The proposed project area includes 

approximately 44,860 acres of public land in the White Hills area northwest of Kingman. Phase 

1 facilities would include up to 235 wind turbine generators and approximately 8 miles of new 

electric transmission line. Phase 2 would add up to 100 additional turbines. The transmission 

facilities would interconnect with the national electric grid through one of the two nearby 

transmission lines operated by the Western Area Power Administration. 

We invite you to comment on the proposed right-of-way, in accordance with provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, to ensure that any concerns you may have about the project are fully 

considered and incorporated into the environmental analysis. We request your assistance in 

identifying properties of traditional, religious, or cultural importance that may be affected by the 

proposed project. We would also like to consult, if possible, with traditional or religious leaders 

who may have information about places of cultural significance that should be considered in the 

analysis of environmental consequences. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

BLM will be holding an agency scoping meeting on December 9, 2009 from 1:00-3:00 p.m. at 

the Hampton Inn, 1791 Sycamore Avenue in Kingman, Arizona. Public open house meetings to 

discuss the project are scheduled for: 

Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm in Dolan Springs, Ariz. at the Dolan Springs 

Community Center, 15195 Pierce Ferry Road. Presentation at 6:45 pm. 

Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm in Kingman, Ariz. at the Hampton Inn, 1791 

Sycamore Avenue. Presentation at 6:45 pm. 

Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm in White Hills, Ariz. at the White Hills 

Community Center, 8599 W. White Hills Blvd. Presentation at 6:45 pm. 

The Scoping Notice and other pertinent project information will be accessible at: 

http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html 

Comments may be e-mailed to: KFO_WindEnergy@blmgov 

Written comments may be mailed to: 

Bureau of Land Management
 


Kingman Field Office
 


Attn: Joyce Cook
 


2755 Mission Blvd.
 


Kingman, AZ 86401
 


Your response is important and will be considered in the environmental analysis process. Please 

note comments submitted for this scoping review, including names, e-mail addresses, and street 

addresses of respondents, will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address 

during regular business hours (8:00 am to 4:00 pm), Monday through Friday, except for 

holidays. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 

themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Tribal representatives are welcome to attend any and all of the above meetings. After the 

holidays, BLM would like to schedule a government-to-government tribal consultation meeting 

on January 12, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. at the BLM Kingman Field Office at the above address. Please 

note: Use of Mapquest or any other mapping service will not provide accurate directions to the 

BLM Kingman Field Office. Enclosed is a map for your use. Please contact Jerry Crockford, 

contracted BLM Project Manager, at (505) 360-0473 to RSVP and if you have any technical 

questions regarding the project. If you are unable to attend this meeting, we would be happy to 

arrange a separate meeting at your request. 

Should you have questions regarding planned cultural resource studies for this project or wish to 

offer information, please contact: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

Craig J. Johnson Kingman Field Office (928) 718-3731 

Connie Stone Arizona Renewable Energy Office (602) 417-9429 

Thank you for your consideration. Again, we invite your comments relating to cultural and 

environmental resources, socioeconomic effects, or any other issues regarding this project 

proposal that may be of concern to your community. Whether or not your Tribe makes the 

decision to become a formal cooperating agency, we will continue to share information with you 

throughout the EIS process. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Ruben A. Sanchez 

Ruben A. Sánchez 

Field Manager 

Enclosures (3)