14

and physical environment. Although the No Action Alternative would have the least effect on
the environment, the No Action Alternative would not allow development of the Project and
would not meet the BLM and Reclamation’s purpose and need for Federal action, including
furthering renewable energy policies and directives. Of the action alternatives, the Selected
Alternative represents the environmentally preferred alternative because it meets the BLM’s and
Reclamation’s purpose and need for Federal action, assists in meeting Federal and state
renewable energy goals and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, includes measures to protect
golden eagles and other biological resources, effectively minimizes potential visual and noise
effects on the Lake Mead NRA by eliminating selected turbine corridors in the northwest and
northeast portions of the Project area, and requires a minimum 0.25-mile setback from private
land to reduce potential visual and noise effects, The phased approach to development and
curtailment zone will emphasize initial development in less environmentally sensitive areas and
minimize impacts to nesting golden eagles.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


31

9.0 ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY APPROVAL

Thereby approve these decisions. My approval of these decisions constitutes the final decision
of the DOI and, in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR §§ 4.5 and 4.410(a)(3), is not
subject to appeal under Departmental regulations at 43 CFR Part 4. Any challenge to these
decisions, including the BLM Authorized Officer’s issuance of the ROW grants and the
Reclamation Authorized Officer’s issuance of the ROU contract, as approved by my decision,
must be brought in the Federal District Court.

Approved by:

(/ 28} >
Tommy Beaudreat: Date ” .

Acting Assistant Secretary Land and Minerals Management
U.S. Department of the Interior

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


Additionally, turbines will be a light gray, comparable to RAL 7035 on the RAL standardized
color chart, to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) while
reducing visual contrast with the landscape compared with white turbines. BP Wind Energy will
determine the turbine type and the interconnection to the power grid based on power purchase
agreements (PPAs), availability of turbines at the time of construction, satisfying interconnection
agreements, and other similar factors.

Surveys conducted in 2012 identified an active golden eagle nest in the northwest portion of the
Wind farm site. BP Wind Energy, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), has prepared an Eagle Conservation Plan/Bird Conservation Strategy (ECP/BCS) (see
Attachment 2) in accordance with the USFWS Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance’? for the
development of ECPs, and BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2010-156, which provides
direction for complying with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. As a result of the
coordination with USFWS, BP Wind Energy has agreed to establish a 1.25-mile avoidance/no-
build area encompassing the nest and foraging area west of the active nest and to establish a
curtailed operation zone (see avoidance area on Maps 2-11 to 2-13).

? The Draft ECP was based on the USFWS’s draft guidance. USFWS released “Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance,
Module 1 Land-based Wind Energy Version 2” in April 2013, which is available at
http:/Avww.fws.gov/migratorybirds/PDFs/Eagle%20Conservation%20P1an%20Guidance-Module%201.pdf.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project ~~ June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


18

a third-party consultant. Third-party monitors will report directly to the BLM and Reclamation
designated authorized officers as determined by the ROW grants and ROU contract. Reporting
procedures will be determined prior to the onset of construction activities.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


USFWS US. Fish and Wildlife Service
Western Western Area Power Administration

iv

Mohave County Wind Farm Project
Record of Decision (ROD)

June 2013


29

8.0 FINAL AGENCY ACTION

8.1 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

It is my decision to approve, subject to the terms, conditions, stipulations, and environmental
protection measures developed by DOI, the BLM, and reflected in this ROD, the 30-year ROW
grants to BP Wind Energy North America Inc., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of BP P.L.C.
This approval is for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a wind-
powered electrical generation facility of up to a total of 500 MW-facility on Federal land, of
which 35,329 acres of BLM-managed land, including the access road, temporary water line and
distribution line outside of the wind farm site. It is also my decision to allow use of the Detrital
Wash Materials Pit and associated water wells, to mine mineral material through either a
negotiated sale or competitive bid process. It is also my decision to approve, subject to the
terms, conditions, stipulations, and environmental protection measures developed by DOI, the
BLM, reflected in this ROD, a 30-year ROW grant to Western Area Power Administration to the
construction and operation and maintenance of a switchyard to interconnect the wind-powered
electrical generation facility to the electrical power grid. This decision is effective on the date
this ROD is signed.

Approved By: :
Pro on h7 ¢ [es/iz
Neil Aornze Date

Principal Deputy Director
Bureau of Land Management

Mohave County Wind Farm Project Tune 2013,
Record of Decision (ROD)


15

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

NEPA requires Federal officials to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not
developed in detail (40 CFR § 1502,14(a)). Alternatives that the BLM and Reclamation
considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, include:

Use Land East of Current Wind Farm Site — The BLM eliminated the use of public
and private land to the east of the proposed Project location because of public concerns
raised during scoping about possible effects on property values, noise, and changes to the
visual setting, as well as potential conflicts with existing mining claims.

Use 36,000 Acres of BLM-managed and Reclamation-administered land — During
scoping in August 2010, the BLM presented to the public a project footprint consisting of
27,033 acres of BLM-managed land and 8,960 acres of land administered by
Reclamation. Although most of the land associated with the Project footprint is
considered in the action alternatives, the Project was expanded in the southern portion
after another ROW application was withdrawn. Consequently, the alternative presented
to the public in August 2010 is no longer being considered.

Alternative Locations that Failed to Satisfy the Siting Criteria — The public suggested
other alternative locations without specifying locations that can be mapped. The BLM
and Reclamation eliminated these as potential siting areas because these alternative
locations failed to meet the siting criteria articulated in Chapter 2.2 of the Final EIS, .
including proximity to designated special management areas, insufficient land area, and
insufficient wind resource.

Interconnection to Moenkopi-E] Dorado 500-kV Transmission Line —
Interconnection to the Moenkopi-E1 Dorado transmission line was considered, but was
eliminated from detailed analysis because the transmission line currently does not have
the capacity to accommodate an additional 425 to 500 MW of generated power.

Switchyard Locations Outside of the Wind Farm Site — Two alternative switchyard
locations east of the Mohave County Wind Farm Project were considered for an
interconnection to the Mead-Phoenix 500-kV transmission line during the preparation of
the electrical system studies. These two interconnection points were considered when a
solar-powered generation facility was proposed. Consideration was given to a shared
interconnection for the two proposed projects, but the solar project was cancelled,
eliminating the need for a shared interconnection.

Distributed Generation and Energy Conservation — The feasibility of using residential
and wholesale distributed generation, in conjunction with increased energy efficiency,
was considered as an alternative to building the Project. However, the Project location is
too sparsely developed to generate the amount of power that could be produced by the
proposed wind farm, and increasing energy efficiency would be beyond the ability of
either the BLM and Reclamation or BP Wind Energy to either enforce or monitor.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project : June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


21

Conservation Plan (ECP), as part of a Bird Conservation Strategy (BCS), in close coordination
with USFWS, AGED, the BLM, and Reclamation. On December 13, 2012, USFWS sent BP
Wind Energy a letter concluding that the ECP was consistent with USFWS Draft Guidance and
that it represented “a comprehensive, objective, state-of-the-art document conveying a strong
commitment to conservation of the golden eagle” and outlines measures to avoid and minimize
impacts to golden eagles. The Agencies’ Selected Alternative adopted measures identified in the
ECP to ensure the protection of golden eagles by including a no-build area and an area of
curtailed operations due to the identification of the active golden eagle nest in the Squaw Peak
breeding area. Additionally, BP Wind Energy has voluntarily agreed to apply to the USFWS for
an eagle take permit. Although an eagle take permit is not required, activities that result in a take
constitute a violation of the Eagle Act unless a permit authorizing that take has been obtained
prior to the action.

This ROD allows construction and operation of the Project to proceed before an eagle take
permit is issued, subject to this ROD’s requirements that the conservation practices described in
the ECP be implemented. This includes completing actions to offset the potential loss of one
eagle when Project operations begin (ECP at 8.8). The Agencies will require compliance with the
Eagle Act as a condition of the ROW grant and ROU Contract for BP Wind Energy. The FWS has
informed the BLM, Reclamation, and BP Wind Energy that it is not possible to absolve
individuals, companies or agencies from liability, should unpermitted take occur, Therefore, any
take of eagles caused by the Project, prior to the issuance of an eagle take permit, constitutes a
violation of the Eagle Act that the FWS intends to refer to the Department of Justice for
enforcement. (16 U.S.C. §§ 668a, 668b). Additionally, in the event of an unpermitted take of a
golden eagle, the ROW/ROU Holder will be required to implement limitations or restrictions of
operations, by season or time of day as appropriate, or other adaptive management measures that
are deemed necessary by the Agencies, in coordination with the FWS, and taking into
consideration the ROW/ROU holder’s Eagle Conservation Plan. To the extent practicable, the
authorized officer(s) and FWS will work with the ROW/ROU Holder in developing these
measures. The intent is to ensure that there is no further unauthorized take of golden eagles. In
the event ofa take, such limitations would apply until the take permit is issued, at which time the
terms and conditions of that permit would control. The ROW/ROU Holder has been advised that
the requirements of this ROD and any additional limitations or other measures deemed necessary
by the Agencies to protect eagles do not constitute an authorization to take eagles or a defense
against BGEPA enforcement.

The ECP/BCS is appended to the Plan of Development and is included as a stipulation of the
ROW/ROU.

5.1.5 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470f) requires
Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on historic properties eligible
for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) prior to approving
such action. On November 20, 2009, the BLM initiated government-to-government consultation
with potentially interested Indian Tribal governments. Likewise, on March 29, 2010, the BLM
formally initiated consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


17

4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

As required by the CEQ’s NEPA regulations, 40 CFR § 1505.2(c), the Agencies have identified
and adopted the practicable mitigation measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm from
the Selected Alternative. The Project will develop wind energy resources in compliance with the
Best Management Practices (BMPs) that were evaluated in the Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for Wind Energy Development on BLM-managed Lands in the
Western United States (Final Wind Energy PEIS [BLM 2005a]). Project construction and
operations will incorporate the BMPs as stated in Attachment A of the Record of Decision for the
Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan
Amendments (BLM 2005b); these BMPs are listed in Attachment 3, BMPs and Mitigation
Measures.

In addition to the BMPs designated in the Final Wind Energy PEIS, additional mitigation
measures for the Project are identified in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS as well as in the POD,
including:

Integrated Reclamation Plan

Health, Safety, Security, and Environment Plan
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan
Transportation and Traffic Plan

Dust and Emissions Control Plan

Blasting Plan (if required)

Mining Plan of Operations

Flagging Plan

Decommissioning Plan

Eagle Conservation Plan/Bird Conservation Strategy
Bat Conservation Strategy

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Environmental Construction Compliance and Monitoring Plan

The mitigation measures presented in the Final EIS and the supplemental plans have been
considered in the analysis and in the decision regarding the Selected Alternative. These
mitigation measures are adopted by, and incorporated by reference into, this ROD and will be
included as terms and conditions in the BLM ROW grant and the Reclamation ROU contract.

4.1 MITIGATION COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING

The ROW/ROU authorizations provide the legal authority to enforce compliance with all terms
and conditions of the ROW/ROUs, including mitigation measures. Attachment 3 lists the BMPs
and the mitigation measures identified and committed to in the Final EIS. Monitoring will occur
throughout the duration of the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the
Project and the electrical transmission facilities. All mitigation measures and plans discussed in
the Final EIS will be implemented by BP Wind Energy and monitored with agency oversight by

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


30

8.2 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

It is my decision to approve, subject to the terms, conditions, stipulations, and mitigation
measures developed by DOI, Reclamation, and reflected in this ROD, a 30-year ROU contract
with BP Wind Energy North America Inc., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of BP P.L.C., for
the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of Project features of a wind-
powered electrical generation facility of up to a total of 500 MW on Federal land, of which 2,781
acres of Reclamation-administered land. The Project, which includes turbines, aligned within
corridors, access roads, temporary and permanent met towers, and a collector line system, does
not adversely impact the authorized purposes of any Reclamation project. This decision is
effective on the date this ROD is signed.

Approved By:

Vij 25/18

Michael L. Connor Date
Commissioner
Bureau of Reclamation

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


12

The combined 1.25-mile no build buffer area and surrounding curtailment zone was identified in
coordination with the USFWS, the BLM, Reclamation, and Arizona Game and Fish Department
(AGED) to extend about 1.5 miles east and about 3.3 miles south and southwest of the active
nest and other nest locations forming the Squaw Peak breeding area (see Maps 2-11 to 2-13).
Within the first five years of operations (corresponding to the current duration of eagle take
permits available), the curtailment program will require modification to turbine operations
around Squaw Peak within the curtailment zone when specific criteria are met. Specifically,
curtailment within the established curtailment zone would start once the Squaw Peak breeding
area is occupied, as defined by meeting at least one of the five criteria described in

Section 8.9.1.1 of the ECP/BCS based on occupancy surveys. After occupancy of the Squaw
Peak breeding areas is determined, then curtailment of turbines within the existing curtailment
zone will occur, Curtailment of turbines would occur daily from: (1) 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
between December 1 and March 15, and (2) from four hours after sunrise until two hours before
sunset beginning March 16 and continuing until either the earlier of when the biological criteria
discussed below is met, or September 30. Curtailment will end before September 30 when one
of the biological criteria occurs as described in Section 8.9.1.4 of the ECP/BCS, including:

(1) there is no active nest by the end of April: (2) there was an active nest but it was determined
to have failed; or (3) two months post-fledging or less if fledglings have left the area sooner than
two months based on occupancy and eagle use surveys. If none of the biological criteria has
been met, curtailment will end no later than September 30. Adaptive management will occur
throughout the five-year period to evaluate the curtailment program within the established
curtailment zone based on the criteria described in Section 8.9.1 of the ECP/BCS. At least three
years of eagle use data will be collected prior to considering any relaxation of the spatial extent
or proposed timing of curtailment within the established curtailment zone. These curtailment
requirements and no-build areas are expected to avoid and minimize impacts to eagles by
reducing collision risk, as well as by reducing the potential disturbance to eagles actively nesting
in the Squaw Peak breeding area.

In addition to protecting golden eagles, prohibiting construction in the northwest corner of the
Wind farm site also will reduce the visual and noise impacts on Lake Mead NRA, particularly
for visitors accessing the recreation area from the Temple Bar entrance station and for persons
recreating on the NPS lands nearest to the Wind farm site.

The Lake Mead NRA may experience occasional operational noise levels exceeding 35 dBA Leq
depending on turbine installation and layout. These effects would be limited to Section 34 of
Township 30 North, Range 20 West, which adjoins the Wind farm site boundary, and are
projected to occur when winds from the south are at 12 m/s (about 27 mph) at the turbine hub
height. For installation of turbines with a rotor diameter of 77-82.5 meters, Project operation
noise would be in the range of 35 to 45 dBA Leq. The predicted aggregate turbine noise would
be expected to be comparable to the anticipated 42 dBA Leq sound level from the wind and
rustling vegetation at ground-level receiver locations, and the affected area would be limited to
about 50 acres or less. For installation of turbines with a rotor diameter of 90-101 meters, as
depicted in Map 2-12, the predicted aggregate turbine noise would be expected to be less than
the anticipated 42 dBA Leq sound level, and the affected area of Lake Mead NRA lands would
be limited to about 150 acres or less. For installation of turbines with a rotor diameter of 112-
118 meters, as depicted in Map 2-13, noise levels of approximately 35 dBA to 40 dBA Leg are

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


PEN PUNNINGBP inc AZZIAAISE2_BFUchaw GISplots PRESS Chapter Map 11 Prepon: Prciec.oct da

ait

Atoontog.

“The lands egfed ne We Fora ie Suto
re Access Rood, the Materats Source, We Teraparary
Fgeie, andthe abn ine caren Pi
proposed Frofect Aes

No warranly la made bythe Bureau of Land Management (GLA)
{hr the use of tls map tor purpacen not ended by BLM, CF to .
nratarscy, refsbaty or completeness ofthe Infoomster,

‘shown, Spatistinformaton may ct meet National Map Accuraey f a
lsndards, eaten may epi wo notte. Py l

— . att
eri
Wind Farm Site* «Mountain Summit Map 1-1
s—* Existing Transmission Line Surface Management Proposed Wind Farm Area
NaGoral Pak Service BueauofLand Mohave County Wind Farm Project
(bate Mead National Recreations Area Boundary Management .
National Park Serviog: Notional Park Service
EZ) Proposed Wikiemness Bureau of Reclamation a A 2
[1 Township and Range Boundary ‘State Trust Land
C1 take [1 Paivate Land mies
— Road ----y Bureau of Land Management
~te> Wash (0 wldemess Area
cient eaters ree ine “hbwerires re neve abe 200
Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013

Record of Decision (ROD)


27

7.1 BLM DECISIONS

The BLM, after careful and thorough consideration of the potential effects of the proposed
Project, has decided to authorize a 30-year ROW grant to BP Wind Energy for the construction,
operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a wind-powered electrical generation facility of
up to 500 MW in Mohave County, Arizona on 35,329 acres of BLM-managed land. This
decision also authorizes a 30-year ROW grant to Western to construct, operate, and maintain a
switchyard on BLM-managed land. The BLM approves these ROW grants to BP Wind Energy
and Western in accordance with the requirements of FLPMA and the BLM’s ROW regulations
(43 CFR Part 2800). This approval will include the Project features of turbines aligned within
corridors, access roads, an operations and maintenance building, a water well to support the
operations and maintenance building, two temporary laydown/staging areas (with temporary
batch plant operations), temporary and permanent meteorological (met) towers, two substations,
transmission line and interconnection, and a collector line system. The approval includes the
right to use the Detrital Wash Materials Pit to mine mineral materials through either a negotiated
sale or competitive bid process. This decision is subject to the mitigation measures and BMPs
identified in the Final EIS, along with the BLM’s standard ROW stipulations being incorporated
into the ROW grant.

The BLM-authorized office (AO) will authorize actual on-site construction or other surface
disturbing activities through the issuance of a phased series of written NIPs. These NTPs will
specify authorized activities, location of the authorized activities, and the timing of the
authorized activities. Should non-compliance issues, environmental issues, or other problems be
encountered during the authorized activities, the BLM AO may amend or rescind any NTP
previously issued. Prior to issuance of an NTP for the Project, BP Wind Energy shall prepare
and obtain the BLM’s approval of an Environmental and Construction Compliance Monitoring
Plan (ECCMP) and other plans based on micro-siting elements of the Project. Upon the BLM’s
approval, compliance with the ECCMP, final POD, the ECP/BCS, MOA and other plans will
become a condition of the Project’s ROW grant.

In accordance with BLM IM No. 2009-043 (Wind Energy Development Policy), the BLM will
require a performance and reclamation bond in connection with the Project’s ROW grant. ‘The
performance and reclamation bond is a single instrument to cover all potential liabilities.
Western, being a Federal agency, is not required to submit a performance bond. The BLM
required that BP Wind Energy submit decommissioning and site reclamation plans defining the
reclamation, revegetation, restoration, and soil stabilization requirements for the Project area as a
component of the POD (43 CFR § 2804.25(b)), which will be incorporated in the ROW. The
decommissioning and site reclamation plans, along with the POD, are used to estimate the cost
of decommissioning the Project and reclaiming the site, which is used to estimate the bond
amount.

7.2 RECLAMATION DECISIONS

Reclamation, after careful consideration of the potential effects of the proposed Project, has
decided to approve the issuance of a 30-year ROU contract to BP Wind Energy for the
construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning of those Project features on 2,791
acres of Reclamation-administered land. Reclamation approves ROU contracts in accordance

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD).


24

6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

6.1 PUBLIC SCOPING

The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2009 and the
scoping period was conducted from November 20, 2009 through January 8, 2010. Three public
meetings and an agency meeting were held during the 45-day scoping period in Kingman, Dolan
Springs, and White Hills, Arizona.

The BLM held a supplemental scoping period through publication of an NOI on July 26, 2010 in
the Federal Register. This scoping period was conducted because BP Wind Energy revised the
proposed Project to include land administered by Reclamation and to eliminate some public and
private land previously identified for subsequent phases of the proposed Project based on
additional studies, refinement of the preliminary Project description, and comments received
during initial scoping. In addition, a potential opportunity to interconnect with the Moenkopi-El
Dorado transmission line located about 6 miles south of the Wind farm site was identified, which
if considered, would require the construction of a new transmission line on public and private
lands.

The supplemental scoping period ended September 9, 2010, Four public scoping meetings were
held during the supplemental scoping period, with one at each of the three original scoping
mectings communities and an additional meeting in Peach Springs, Arizona. BLM considered
all input received after January 8, 2010, the official close of the first scoping period, through and
including the comments received during the supplemental scoping period. Both NOIs were used
to inform the public that the NEPA commenting process was also being used to help satisfy the
public involvement process for Section 106 of the NHPA and invited Tribal governments to
participate in the scoping process and as a cooperating agency.

The BLM and Reclamation identified significant issues to be covered during the scoping process
such as, but not limited to: project alternatives, purpose and need, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and minerals, land use, recreation, transportation, noise,
socioeconomics, visual resources, water, and cumulative effects.

In addition to the public meetings held during the scoping process, 104 interested agency and
interested party letters were distributed at the beginning of the scoping period to Indian tribes,
agencies, and stakeholder groups to introduce the Project and solicit participation in the scoping
process.

6.2 DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW

On April 27, 2012, the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Mohave County Wind Farm Draft
EIS was published in the Federal Register. The NOA announced the 45-day public review
period, which concluded on June 11, 2012.

The Draft EIS was available on the project Website
(www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/wind/mohave.html), and hard copies were available at the

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOD, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the Mohave County Wind
Farm Project (Project) approves the BLM’s right-of-way (ROW) grants and Reclamation’s right-
of-use (ROU) contract issuance on Federal lands to BP Wind Energy North America Inc. (BP
Wind Energy), a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of BP P.L.C., to construct, operate, maintain,
and decommission the Project, as analyzed in the Mohave County Wind Project Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The ROD approves the BLM issuance of a ROW grant
to Western Area Power Administration (Western) to construct, operate, maintain, and
decommission a switchyard to interconnect the wind-powered electrical generation facility to
Western’s currently existing electrical transmission line. The ROD also approves the right of BP
Wind Energy to use the Detrital Wash Materials Pit to mine mineral materials for the Project
through either a negotiated sale or competitive bid process.

This ROD selects Alternative E, the Agencies’ Preferred Alternative, from the Final EIS (BLM
2013), which was announced as publically available through a notice published in the Federal
Register on May 17, 2013. Alternative E meets the purpose and need (as defined in Section 1.3,
page 1-7, of the Final EIS) of the BLM and Reclamation, including fulfilling each Agency’s
statutory responsibilities and the DOI policies and commitments to achieve the renewable energy
authorization goals established in Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and the
President’s Climate Action Plan (June 2013). BP Wind Energy has applied to generate at least
425 MW, and up to 500 MW of power at the proposed Mohave County Wind Farm Project and
has filed interconnection agreements with Western that commit the firm to this generation
capacity if the Project is approved. The substitution of fossil fuels with the increasing use of
renewable energy sources is fundamental to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The
production of either 425 MW or 500 MW would represent a direct conservation potential
because the energy produced would not consume non-renewable resources.

As approved, the Project will consist of up to 243 wind turbines on approximately 35,329 acres
of BLM-managed land and approximately 2,781 acres of land administered by Reclamation, with
additional BLM-managed lands needed for a power distribution line and vehicular access to the
Project site (estimated at about 75 acres). The Project is located in the White Hills of Mohave
County about 40 miles northwest of Kingman, Arizona, and immediately south of Lake Mead
National Recreation Area (NRA) boundary (Map 1-1 of the Final EIS). The Project is described
in the Final EIS and is outlined in detail in the plan of development (POD) (Attachment 1).

1.1 BACKGROUND

BP Wind Energy applied to the BLM and Reclamation for a ROW grant and a ROU contract,
respectively, on Federal land to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a
wind-powered electrical generation facility in Mohave County, Arizona. In concert with the
application by BP Wind Energy, Western applied to the BLM for a ROW grant on public land to
develop a switchyard that would interconnect the power generated from the wind facility to the
electrical power grid. The BLM, in consultation with six cooperating agencies, prepared a Draft

“Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This document constitutes the Record of Decision (ROD) of the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DON), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) (Agencies) for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project (Project)
based on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

After extensive environmental analysis, consideration of public comments, and compliance with
the requirements of applicable Federal laws and policies, the DOI approves the development of
the Project on Federal lands managed by the BLM and Reclamation. This ROD approves the
issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant and a right-of-use (ROU) contract to BP Wind Energy
North America (BP Wind Energy) for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
decommissioning of the proposed wind facility , and a ROW grant to the Western Area Power
Administration (Western) for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of
the proposed switchyard proposed by. The ROD approves the right of BP Wind Energy to use
the Detrital Wash Materials Pit to mine mineral materials for the Project through either a
negotiated sale or competitive bid process. These decisions approve Alternative E, the
Agencies’ Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS, which was made available to the
public with notices published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2013. The Final EIS is
available online at: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/wind/mohave/reports/FEIS. html

In the Final EIS, the Agencies analyzed the environmental impacts of four action alternatives
with the Wind farm site footprint ranging in size from 30,178 to 38,099 acres of BLM-managed
land and from 2,781 to 8,960 acres of Reclamation-administered land. The number of turbines
that could be developed varies by size (rotor diameter) and type of turbine, as well as the amount
of land available with each alternative, but would be expected to range from 153 to 283 turbines.
In addition to the four action alternatives, the Agencies analyzed the no-action alternative, in
which the project would not be built. The Agencies eliminated other alternatives from detailed
consideration.

The Agencies have selected, and through this ROD the DOI approves, Alternative E. This
alternative includes the construction of 179 to 243 wind turbine generators with associated
infrastructure and a switchyard to interconnect the power generated from the wind facility to the
electrical grid system, all within a footprint consisting of approximately 35,329 acres of BLM-
managed land and approximately 2,781 acres of Reclamation-administered land. The Project
could produce 425 megawatts (MW) or 500 MW of power depending on whether it connects to
the Liberty-Mead 345-kilovolt (kV) or Mead-Phoenix 500-kV transmission line.

Public review and comments were extensive. There were a total of seven public scoping
meetings held in four different communities, four public meetings on the Draft EIS, and
numerous agency meetings. During scoping 113 comment submissions were received, in which
474 issues were identified and addressed in the Draft EIS. During the 45-day comment period
on the Draft EIS, 37 comment submissions were received, from which 322 substantive
comments were identified and addressed in the Final EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Crockford, BLM Project Manager,
Mohave County Wind Farm Final EIS, Telephone (505) 360-0473 or Jackie Neckels, BLM
Environmental Coordinator, Mohave County Wind Farm Final EIS, Telephone (602) 417-9262.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


13

projected. The affected area of the Lake Mead NRA lands (i.e., where Project operation noise
would be greater than 35 dBA Leq) would be limited to about 90 acres or less.

Noise effects on private property would be similar to Alternative A as described in Section
4.15.2 of the Final EIS if turbines were constructed in the southernmost corridor to meet the
required nameplate generation capacity. If construction of the southern corridor was not
required, the potentially affected area to the south of the Project would be similar to Alternative
B, as described in Section 4.15.3 of the Final EIS. With the use of the southern corridor that
adjoins the Wind farm site boundary, and depending on turbine size and layouts, the installation
of 77-82.5 meter or 90-101 meter rotor diameter turbines, as depicted in Maps 2-11 and 2-12,
portions of Section 13 of Township 28 North, Range 20 West, could experience Project
operation noise at turbine hub height in excess of 45 dBA Leq when winds from the north or
south are at speeds of 12 m/s (about 27 mph). At ground level, the predicted aggregate turbine
noise would be expected to be comparable to the 42 dBA Leq sound level from the wind and
rustling vegetation at ground-level receiver locations; the affected area would be limited to about
50 acres or less. For installation of turbines with a rotor diameter of 112-118 meters, as depicted
in Map 2-13, this private land would be not be expected to experience Project operation noise.

In addition, portions of the private land adjoining the Wind farm site boundary in Section 29 of
Township 29 North, Range 19 West would be expected to experience Project operation noise in
excess of 45 dBA Leq if turbines with a rotor diameter of 77-82.5 meters are constructed. The
noise at hub height would occur when wind speeds from the north or south are at or exceed 12
m/s (about 27 mph). The predicted aggregate turbine noise would be expected to be comparable
to the anticipated 42 dBA Leq sound level (see Table 4-28 in the Final EIS) from the wind and
rustling vegetation at ground-level receiver locations, and the affected area would be limited to
about 100 acres or less.

To further protect the scenic views from the Lake Mead NRA, Alternative E excludes
construction in Township 29 North, Range 19 West, Sections 17 and 18. The turbine corridors
in these sections that BP Wind Energy proposed in Alternative A were positioned along ridge
lines so the turbines would be prominent and visible from distant locations, including from an
area proposed as wilderness within the Lake Mead NRA. Alternative E would provide for a
minimum of 0.25 mile between private property and the nearest turbine corridor. While existing
residences on the developed private property would be more than one mile from the nearest
turbine corridor, the BLM and Reclamation recognize that some homes in the area will
experience constant exposure to the views of the nearest turbines, and could be exposed to more
noise during certain wind conditions. Accordingly, the BLM and Reclamation will authorize
turbines in Alternative E’s southernmost corridor only if BP Wind Energy cannot otherwise meet
the nameplate generation capacity in the interconnection agreement with Western.

2.5.2 Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Pursuant to NEPA, an agency must specify the environmentally preferred alternative in the ROD
(40 CER § 1505.2(b)). An environmentally preferred alternative is an alternative that causes the
least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and
enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. The BLM and Reclamation have determined
that the No Action Alternative and Alternative E, the Selected Alternative, represent the
environmentally preferred alternatives because they will cause the least damage to the biological

Mohave County Wind Farm Project Tune 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


the Project interconnects to the 345-kV Liberty-Mead transmission line and 500 MW if the
Project interconnects to the 500-kV Mead-Phoenix transmission line. BP Wind Energy has filed
applications with Western to interconnect the Project with one of these two transmission lines.

1.2 | PURPOSE AND NEED

As described in Chapter 1.3 of the Final EIS, the BLM’s and Reclamation’s purpose and need for
Federal action is to respond to BP Wind Energy’s and Western’s proposals to use Federal lands.
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to grant ROWs on public lands for systems of
generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy (43 U.S.C. § 1761(a)(4)). Pursuant to
Section 1702(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM must
manage public lands for multiple-use, Consistent with the BLM’s multiple-use mandate, the
purpose and need for the BLM’s action is to respond to a ROW application submitted by BP
Wind Energy to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a wind energy facility and
associated infrastructure in compliance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations (43 CFR Part
2800), and other applicable Federal laws and policies. Pursuant to the Act of Congress of June
17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388); the Act of Congress approved August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), Section
10; and 43 CFR Part 429, Reclamation is responding to a request for a ROU on Reclamation-
administered Federal lands.

Approval of the Project will respond to projected demand for renewable energy and assist the
State of Arizona in meeting established Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS). This
Project will also further the following renewable energy directives and policies:

¢ Section 211 of the EPAct of 2005 established a goal for the Secretary of the Interior to
approve at least 10,000 MW of electricity from non-hydropower renewable energy
projects located on public lands.

¢ Secretarial Order 3285A1 (March 11, 2009, as amended February 22, 2010) established
the development of environmentally responsible renewable energy as a priority for DOI.

¢ Arizona Corporation Commission rules expanded the state’s Renewable Energy Standard
to 15percent by 2025 (Arizona Administrative Code R14-2-1801 et seq.).

Mohave County Wind Farm Project : June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


19

5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

The decision to approve the BP Wind Energy and Western ROWs and Reclamation’s ROU
contract complies with statutory and regulatory requirements and national policy considerations,
as well as both applicants’ technical and financial capabilities to construct the Project for which
the ROWs and ROU contract were requested. The alternatives considered satisfy the BLM’s and
Reclamation’s purpose and need for the Federal action, which is to respond to the applications
for the authorized use of Federal land for a specific renewable energy technology and the Project
would allow for the development of utility-scale wind energy resources that responds to the
forecasted increase in energy demands. The decision is also based on input from the public,
industry, Tribal governments, and other Federal and state agencies.

Through this review process, all practical methods to reduce environmental harm have been
incorporated into the decision and no undue or unnecessary degradation will result from the
Project. The decision is consistent with the BLM’s multiple use mandate pursuant to FLPMA.
Reclamation has determined that the Project is in conformance with Reclamation Directives and
Standards for Land Use Authorizations (LND 08-01) and regulations found at Title 43 CFR Part
429,

5.1 RELATIONSHIP TO BLM AND OTHER AGENCY PLANS, PROGRAMS AND,
POLICIES

5.1.1 The BLM Land Use Plan and Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS

The BLM determined that the Project (including both the BP Wind Energy and Western
elements) contributes to meeting the goals and objectives in the Kingman Resource Management
Plan (RMP) (BLM 1993) approved by the ROD dated March 7, 1995 (BLM 1995), and is
consistent with the RMP. The Project is therefore in conformance with the RMP and no
amendment to the RMP is needed.

In addition, in January 2013, the BLM amended the Kingman RMP to implement the goals,
objectives, management actions, land use allocations, design features, and BMPs identified by
the ARDEP. The BLM initiated the ARDEP as a planning process for the development of
renewable energy resources on BLM-managed lands in Arizona. The Project continues to be in
conformance with the amended RMP.

The BLM prepared a Wind Energy PEIS to address the National Energy Policy
recommendations to increase renewable energy production capability, specifically regarding the
development of wind energy resources. The PEIS analyzed the potential impacts of wind energy
development to public lands and included BMPs (see Attachment 3). The BLM published this
PEIS in June 2005, and signed the ROD in December 2005. The ROD implements a
comprehensive wind energy development program for the development of wind energy resources
on BLM-managed lands in 11 western states, including Arizona.

The BMPs address the administration of wind energy development actions on BLM-managed
lands and identify the minimum requirements for mitigation measures. The Wind Energy PEIS

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


Record of Decision (ROD)
Mohave County Wind Farm Project

Decision to Grant Right-of-Way
Decision to Grant Right-of-Use Contract

Lead Agency:
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management

Preparing Offices:

U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Kingman Field Office
2755 Mission Boulevard
Kingman, Arizona 86401

U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Lower Colorado Regional Office
P.O. Box 61470
Boulder City, Nevada 89006

BLM Case File Serial Number
AZA-32315AA
Bureau of Reclamation ROD Number
LC-13-31
Bureau of Reclamation Contract Number
00-07-30-L0746

Applicants

BP Wind Energy of North America
700 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002

Western Area Power Administration
Desert Southwest Regional Office
P.O. Box 6457
Phoenix, Arizona 85005

June 2013


2.2 ALTERNATIVE B

Under Alternative B, the Wind farm site would encompass approximately 30,872 acres of BLM-
managed land and approximately 3,848 acres of Federal land administered by Reclamation.
Depending on the turbine type that is installed, Alternative B could support development of 153
to 208 turbines. Compared with Alternative A, several turbine corridors on Reclamation land
would be eliminated. Certain turbine corridors on BLM land also would be eliminated or
shortened, increasing the distance between the private lands and the nearest turbine. Temporary
ground disturbance with Alternative B is estimated at 1,234 acres, with about 261 acres of long-
term disturbance associated with access roads, foundations, and other features that would remain
during operations and maintenance.

2.3. ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C is also a reduced footprint alternative. The Wind farm site would encompass
approximately 30,178 acres of BLM-managed land and approximately 5,124 acres of Federal
land administered by Reclamation. The number of turbines constructed would vary depending
on the turbine type that is installed, but Alternative C could support development of 154 to 208
turbines. Alternative C differs from Alternative B in that there would be one additional turbine
corridor on Reclamation land, increasing the proximity of turbines to Lake Mead NRA, Also,
the corridors on the eastern side of the Wind farm site would be shorter than with the other action
alternatives and provide greater separation between the private lands and the nearest turbines.
With Alternative C, temporary ground disturbance is estimated at 1,264 acres and long-term
disturbance is estimated to be 269 acres.

2.4 ALTERNATIVE D-NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under Alternative D, no actions associated with the Project would occur, and no ROW/ROUs or
interconnections would be granted. The BLM and Reclamation lands would continue to be
managed in accordance with existing plans and policies and the land would remain available for
other uses. Capacity on Western’s transmission lines would remain available for other projects.

2.5 ALTERNATIVE E— AGENCIES’ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (BLM AND
RECLAMATION’S SELECTED ALTERNATIVE)

Under the Selected Alternative, also identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS,
BLM and Reclamation will grant ROW/ROUs to BP Wind Energy. The BLM will also grant a
ROW to Western for the switchyard. Following either a negotiated sale or competitive bid
process, the BLM will issue a contract to BP Wind Energy or its contractor for mineral materials
from the Detrital Wash Materials Pit. Alternative E was added between the Draft EIS and the
Final EIS to address new information regarding golden eagles while still addressing the concerns
raised by the National Park Service (NPS) and other commenters for potential visual and noise
impacts to the Lake Mead NRA and local residences. Alternative E provides a no-build area and
a curtailed operations area on the northwestern portion of the Project to protect the Squaw Peak
golden eagle breeding area, and requires that certain corridors in the curtailed operation area and
the southernmost corridor be used only if necessary to meet the nameplate generation capacity in

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND CARRIED FORWARD
FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

The Agencies considered five alternatives in the Final EIS: (1) Alternative A is the proposed
action identified by BP Wind Energy; (2) Alternative B reduces the Wind farm site footprint and
has fewer turbines than Alternative A to reduce visual and noise impacts primarily on Lake
Mead NRA and secondarily on private property; (3) Alternative C also reduces the Wind farm
site footprint and has fewer turbines than Alternative A to reduce visual and noise impacts
primarily on private property and secondarily on Lake Mead NRA; (4) Alternative D is the no-
action alternative in which the Project would not be built; and (5) Alternative E (Preferred
Alternative) is a combination of Alternatives A and B and responds to concerns of visual and
noise impacts on the Lake Mead NRA and existing residences. Alternative E also addresses
information about golden eagle breeding areas, which supports the need to establish a no-build
area and curtailment zone to reduce potential impacts on golden eagles within the Squaw Peak
breeding area in the northwest portion of the Wind farm site.

All action alternatives include an approximately three-mile long primary access road between the
Wind farm site and US 93 and the temporary use of the existing Detrital Wash Materials Pit as
source material for the base material of roads and for concrete needed for foundations, All
action alternatives also include Project features within the Wind farm site including turbines
aligned within corridors, roads, an operations and maintenance building, two temporary
laydown/staging areas (with temporary batch plant operations), two substations, a switchyard,
collector lines, up to 10 additional temporary met towers, and up to four permanent met towers
within the Project area. With all action alternatives, temporary construction-phase water for
batch plant operations and dust suppression would be provided by the existing water wells in the
immediate vicinity of the Detrital Wash materials source and/or a new well to be established as a
potable water source for the operations and maintenance building. The temporary pipeline for
transporting water to the southern laydown area and the distribution line supplying power for
batch plant operations and the operations and maintenance building is within the primary access
road ROW between US 93 and the Wind farm site.

2.1. ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, BP Wind Energy would construct, operate, maintain, and decommission
the Wind farm site which encompasses approximately 38,099 acres of BLM-managed land and
approximately 8,960 acres of Federal land administered by Reclamation. The number of
turbines constructed would vary depending on the turbine type that is installed, but as shown in
Table 2-6 in the Final EIS, Alternative A would support development of 203 to 283 turbines. \
The amount of temporary ground disturbance is estimated to be up to 1,537 acres and about 317

acres of long-term disturbance following construction and reclamation. The specific turbine

count and layout would be determined through micro-siting, which may include analysis of the

physical constraints of the landscape, the strength of the wind resource, and geotechnical testing

results, avoidance of waters of the U.S. and other sensitive resources, among other factors.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


26

7.0_ DECISION RATIONALE

DOI, as represented by the BLM and Reclamation, has carefully considered the potential effects
of the proposed Project in accordance with NEPA and other environmental laws. The Acting
Assistant Secretary, acting on behalf of the Secretary, has decided to authorize Alternative E as
the Selected Alternative.

The BLM and Reclamation added Alternative E between the Draft and Final EISs as a direct
response to potential impact concerns raised by other agencies and the public. However, the
BLM and Reclamation determined that the inclusion of Alternative E does not require
supplementation of the EIS, because Alternative E does not represent a substantial change in the
proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns as described in 40 CFR §
1502.9(c)(1)@), nor does the new information represent significant environmental impacts not
evaluated and considered in the Draft EIS as described in 40 CFR § 1502.9(c)(1)(i). Instead, the
BLM and Reclamation determined that Alternative E is a combination of Alternatives A and B,
and therefore, is within the spectrum of the alternatives already analyzed in Draft EIS. See 40
CFR § 1502.9(c)(1)(i)-(ii); see also BLM’s H-1790-1 “National Environmental Policy
Handbook” at page 29 (Jan. 2008); and Reclamation’s 2012 National Environmental Policy Act
Handbook page 7-23. The impacts associated with constructing, operating, maintaining, and
decommissioning 179 to 243 wind turbines within the corridors identified in this alternative are
fully disclosed and analyzed in the Final EIS in Chapter 4.

The BLM and Reclamation have selected Alternative E based on the analysis in the Final EIS,
consideration of public comments, golden eagle survey data, compliance with other required
laws, and the inclusion of mitigation measures. Alternative E, the Agencies’ Preferred
Alternative in the Final EIS, is the alternative that best fulfills each agency’s responsibilities to
meet the DOI policies and commitment to achieve the goals established in Section 211 of the
EPAct of 2005, considering economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. As described
in Section 2.5 of this ROD, development of Alternative E will be in phases so that less
environmentally-sensitive areas are developed first and turbine corridors nearest to existing
residences and in the golden eagle curtailed operations area are considered only if the nameplate
generation capacity in the interconnection agreement with Western cannot be achieved without
using the final development phases.

Issuing the ROW grant and ROU contract to BP Wind Energy and the ROW grant to Western as
described in the Selected Alternative meets the Agencies’ purpose and need, including assisting
the State of Arizona in meeting established RPS and meeting Federal renewable energy
directives and policies. The Selected Alternative has the least effect on biological resources,
minimizes the potential for noise and visual effects on the Lake Mead NRA, and requires a
minimum of a 0.25-mile setback from privately owned property. The BLM and Reclamation
considered all comments submitted during the 30-day availability period following the release of
the Final EIS.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


25

BLM Arizona State Office and KFO, as well as libraries in Boulder City, Dolan Springs,
Kingman, and Peach Springs. Hard copies and CDs containing an electronic copy of the Draft
EIS were sent to the Hualapai Tribe, 12 other Indian tribes, cooperating agencies, and the City of
Kingman, In addition, the CD containing an electronic copy of the Draft EIS was sent to 74
interested parties that requested a copy.

Public meetings on the Draft EIS were held in Kingman, Dolan Springs, Peach Springs, and
White Hills, Arizona, with a total of 83 individuals registering their attendance. The BLM
received a total of 322 individual substantive comments.

6.3 FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW

On May 17, 2013, the BLM published the NOA for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project
Final EIS in the Federal Register. The 30-day notice period initiated by the NOA concluded on
June 17, 2013.

The Final EIS, which addressed all substantive public comments received on the Draft EIS, was
made available on the BLM project Website
(www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/wind/mohave.html), and hard copies were available at the
BLM Arizona State Office, and the BLM KFO. In addition, a CD copy was sent to five local
libraries and to any party who provided comments on the Draft EIS. Any party who requested
they be added to the mailing list received notification via postcard or email that the Final EIS
was publically available.

The BLM received letters and emails, including a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and an email from the NPS. While none of these letters raised substantive comments
that require a response, the BLM and Reclamation considered these comments. Additionally,
Defenders of Wildlife provided recommendations to FWS regarding the ECP. The BLM,
Reclamation and FWS have discussed those proposed recommendations and considered them as
part of this decision.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


and Final EIS in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in response to
the ROW and ROU applications.

Project features will include, but not be limited to, turbines aligned within corridors, access
toads, an operations and maintenance building, a water well drilled to support the operations and
maintenance building, two temporary laydown/staging areas (with temporary concrete batch
plant ‘operations), temporary and permanent meteorological (met) towers, two substations, a
switchyard, and collector lines that carry the power from the turbines to the substations. While
typically buried underground, collector lines may be on aboveground structures to span sensitive
terrain and environmentally and culturally sensitive areas. Through a competitive bid or
negotiated sale, the existing Detrital Wash Materials Pit on BLM-managed lands will be used as
a materials source for aggregate used on access roads and in the concrete mix for facility
foundations. The facilities will require:

e up to 10 acres of BLM-managed lands within the Wind farm site to be used for
construction of the switchyard that will be operated by Western;

© an approximately 3-mile long access road between the Wind farm site and U.S. Highway
93 (US 93);

e the temporary use of the existing Detrital Wash Materials Pit as a materials source for the
base material of roads and for concrete needed for foundations. The existing water wells
in the immediate vicinity of this materials source will provide temporary construction-
phase water for batch plant operations and dust suppression;

© atemporary water pipeline that will extend within the primary access road ROW from the
materials source to the main laydown/staging area where batch plant operations will
occur;

¢ a distribution line that will tap into an existing power line south of the Project area,
parallel US 93 north to the access road, follow the access road to the main (southernmost)
laydown/staging area where batch plant operations will occur, and extend to the
operations and maintenance building; and

¢ replacement of an existing 345/230-kilovolt (kV) transformer and associated breakers and
switches within Western’s Mead Substation with two new 600 megavolt-ampere (MVA)
345/230-kV transformers and new breakers and switches if the 345-kV interconnection
option is selected. These replacements, which would be required to accommodate the
increased electrical loading related to generation from the proposed Project, would be
accomplished by Western at BP Wind Energy’s expense. The existing transformer is at
the terminus of the Liberty-Mead 345-kV line in Mead Substation; the substation is
located near Boulder City, Nevada.

The Project would generate and deliver electrical power to the regional electrical transmission
grid by interconnecting with an existing transmission line crossing through the southern portion
of the Wind Farm. The Project’s nameplate generating capacity will be 425 megawatts (MW) if

' Batch plants are facilities for mixing concrete needed in construction.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


16

* Brownfields and Previously Disturbed Areas — Siting the Project in designated
Brownfield areas, or other previously disturbed or marginal quality areas was considered.
However, the areas where large tracts of land and wind resources are sufficient to
generate utility-scale wind farms capable of generating up to 500 MW of power in
Arizona do not coincide with the Brownfields or previously disturbed or marginal lands
that satisfy the criteria outlined the Arizona Restoration Design Energy Project (ARDEP).

¢ Reduced Footprint with Reduction in Capacity — An alternative that would reduce the
Project’s footprint based on a generating capacity of 300 MW within the boundaries
described in Alternatives B and C was considered. However, this alternative was
eliminated because the technical design of such an alternative would be substantially
similar in both its design and effects to the reduced footprint analyzed in Alternatives B
and C. Alternatives B and C analyze an output range from 310 MW to 500 MW, and
thus the 300 MW minimum generation output design is within the scope of the action
alternatives considered.

¢ Underground Transmission Lines — While burying the high-voltage transmission lines
underground would reduce visual impacts and reduce the potential for impacts to avian
species and other wildlife, this alternative was eliminated because of the difficulty in
cooling the buried heat-generating high-voltage lines, the complex maintenance issues,
the increased amount of ground disturbance, and the associated prohibitive costs.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project ~ June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


22

BLM worked with the Arizona SHPO to develop a cultural resources overview and survey plan
for the proposed Project. Between March 2010 and April 2011, the BLM held site tours of the
proposed Project area for interested agencies and Indian Tribal governments. In January 2012,
the BLM provided copies of all the cultural resource reports prepared for the Project to the
Arizona SHPO, other agencies, and Tribal governments, and consulted about determinations of
National Register eligibility and the effect of the Project on National Register-cligible historic
properties, The Arizona SHPO concurred with the BLM’s determinations of National Register
eligibility for 10 prehistoric and historic sites within the area of potential effects and the finding
of adverse effect by letter dated March 1, 2012.

Pursuant to the Section 106 regulations, the BLM prepared a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) in consultation with the Arizona SHPO, Reclamation, Western, NPS, interested Tribal
governments, and BP Wind Energy. In April 2012, the BLM formally notified the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) that the BLM had made a determination of adverse
effect and invited the ACHP to participate in the MOA, but the ACHP declined to participate,
After the BLM provided the interested Tribal governments multiple opportunities to discuss and
comment on drafts of the MOA, the MOA was executed in December 2012 and included the
signature of the Hualapai Tribe. See Attachment 4, “Memorandum of Agreement Among the
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and Arizona State Historic Preservation
Officer and by Invitation BP Wind Energy North America Inc. and Hualapai Tribe.”

The MOA stipulates that a Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) be prepared and
implemented to address adverse impacts on properties eligible for the National Register. The
HPTP will be completed after the final design of the Project identifies which historic properties
cannot be avoided. The HPTP will include measures to address indirect visual impacts on
traditional Hualapai cultural resources. The HPTP would be the major component of a Cultural
Resource Management Plan (CRMP) that is being prepared in accordance with recommendations
in the BLM Wind Energy PEIS. The CRMP will include procedures for complying with laws
other than Section 106 of the NHPA, such as the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act, and likely include measures to mitigate impacts on other elements of the
cultural environment that ate not historic properties. The BLM will continue to consult with the
consulting parties in accordance with the MOA.

5.1.6 Tribal Consultation

The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian Tribal governments as set forth in
the Constitution of the United States, treaties, Federal laws, executive orders {EOs), and court
decisions. Consequently, the BLM has a responsibility to consider and consult on potential
effects to natural and cultural resources related to tribal treaty rights or cultural use. In
recognition of this relationship, the BLM consults with tribal governments on a government-to-
government basis pursuant to NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, EO 13175, and other laws and
policies. On November 20, 2009, the BLM initiated government-to-government consultation
with the following 12 Federally-recognized Indian Tribal governments and one Indian tribe that
is not Federally-recognized:

e Hualapai Tribe

“Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


ACHP
ADOT
AGFD
BLM
BMP
BP Wind Energy
CRMP
DoD
DOI
ECCMP
ECP/BCS
EIS

EO
EPA
EPAct
FAA
FLPMA
HPTP
IM
KFO
kv

met
MOA
MVA
MW
National Register
NEPA
NHPA
NOA
NOI
NPS
NRA
NTP
PEIS
POD
Project
RDEP
Reclamation
RMP
ROD
ROU
ROW
SHPO
US 93
USACE

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Arizona Department of Transportation
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Bureau of Land Management

Best Management Practice

BP Wind Energy North America Inc.
Cultural Resource Management Plan

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Department of the Interior
Environmental Construction Compliance and Monitoring Plan
Eagle Conservation Plan/Bird Conservation Strategy
Environmental Impact Statement
Executive Order

Environmental Protection Agency

Energy Policy Act

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Historic Properties Treatment Plan
Instruction Memorandum

Kingman Field Office

kilovolt

meteorological

Memorandum of Agreement
megavolt-ampere

megawatts

National Register of Historic Places
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act

Notice of Availability

Notice of Intent

National Park Service

National Recreation Area

Notice to Proceed

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Plan of Development

Mohave County Wind Farm Project
Restoration Design Energy Project
Bureau of Reclamation

Resource Management Plan

Record of Decision

Right of Use

right-of-way

State Historic Preservation Office

USS. Highway 93

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

iii

Mohave County Wind Farm Project
Record of Decision (ROD)

June 2013


©

|

eae

AEN WPLINNINGIB® Aine AT ZaNGE_ ENON vesSE clon PER Cicer 2826 Freferectlt Epo ic

|
i.
|

“Tne aia ruvad far ha Wed Faith Gta, he Baliga,
ha Mate

the hteene etc the Tatipety
Prpatna 20d fa Lion cera the
elspa Prtfct Aran

nd
Wind Farm S1te

CS miatenais source
<> Eagle Nest Avokiance Area.
Cicuttatiea operations Area
(J Tixtine Gomrktor
HE curtaties comtor
——~ Proposed Factily Access Corridor
— Frnity Aooess Cortor (Existing)

© Proposed Tusbine Location

4 Turbine with Curiatied Operation
ttepitad to Mast Gensration Capacity

Tunbine with Custevied

tn
Operation First Phase
Comtdor within Guitaiment Zone
HBB secona phase

Tubing Third Phase
# Twine Fourth Phase

© Turbine Fith Phase
= Turbine Sixt Phase

‘enya ft Basu caret neg (BO
fet unit hic ranor pute tt OS
te Ercan ste
"Tinea nay beta’ abe nate |

Map 2-11
Alternative E

MN i ntensnce Sugg Preferred Alternative
MMB Layoowrvstaging Area 77 - 82.5 Meter Rotor
Facitty Location Options Diameter Turbines:
RB suvstation Mohave Coumry Wind Farm Project
Hi owienyara mene Alternative A Boundary
s+ Transmission Ling EXicorcoenparson purposes)
‘Surface Managemant (RAPlanned Devetopment Community

‘Saveau of Land Management (Z_ANationa! Park Sendce Proposes Wiklemess =<

‘Nallonal Park Service (Township and Range Boundary

Bureau of Reclamation 'Secfon Boundary

‘Stale Trust Land Existing Transeission Line | H
Cp ivate tana —Raad Tales

owas '

4 Nauniata Summit

‘at Big BM 2006-2070 CAVE 20072008, 200, MI 0K Pre Are Roundy ad PacRNan BEVIE theca HT

‘Sue
Renaitalea Lins Pits, ADiinn a ta Gram Compan, ke =P

HVE sep tabs aryecl cosh ona:

Mohave County Wind Farm Project

Record of Decision (ROD)

June 2013


11

Cae

BSNS

BAGNEPLANNINGER (hind AZZANS692 BP Mohave! CiS'clote PFET Charter ZittS Precerecht Epetipay
= - ea ai

Nowaranty is ade by the Bureau od Land Managerent (BAD
“The lands eequred for the Vind Farm Gite, the Gakchyard, :
tte Access Fad, the Matedahs Source, te Temporary yet i Pre necurary, relly of completeness oe Kformaton
Piredne, and fe O(rtusion Line campers the : sown, Spatial Inermston ay not meet Nabanal lap Accuracy
proposed Project Ares. Slandards. This inhomston may be updated wiPout nctficaton.
Legend
find Farm Site" * Turbine Fifth Phase Map 2-13
[Materials Source © Turbine Sixth Phase Alternative E
<> Eagle Nest Avoidance Area ‘Operations and tive
eens sezaneke me ang Preferred Alterna’
JCurtailed Operation ere 112 - 118 Meter Rotor
[_dtutbine Corridor MB Laydowmistaging Diameter Turbi
WR Cuniailed Corridor Facility Location Options Mohave ce ramets ar Wl bl ines
——Prmpased Faeility Access Corridor MMB Substation ohave County’ ‘art Project
Facility Access Corridor (Existing) Ml Switehyard meg Mterralive A Boundary
* Proposed Turbine Location + Transmission Line for comparison purposes)

aan , Planned Development Community
® Turbine with Curtalad Operation Surface Management wa o ;
IfNeeded to Mest Generation Capacity Sureawof Land Management LZ_dNational Park Service Proposed Wikierness =»

Turbine with Curtaied National Park Senvice [_Frownsh’p and Range Boundary
Operation First Phase ‘Bureau of Reclamation (_.... /Seetion Boundary b 1
Corridor within Curtailment Zone State Trust Land ++ Existing Transmission Line o 3
HR Second Phase [lPrivate Land — Read rors
® Turbine Third Phase “nv Wash
Turbine Fowth Phase 4 Mountain Summit
Beings 1 280 00, LRG 008 EAL 20 HD BC, tcl Am aude and ach: BPE Moth ne
Tics res: ats, Opn Meas Compu, ne = PEWERap Pls aalaceraeahene 2008)
Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013

Record of Decision (ROD)


Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4

ATTACHMENTS

Plan of Development Project Description

Eagle Conservation Plan/Bird Conservation Strategy (ECP/BCS)
Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures
Memorandum of Agreement

ii

Mohave County Wind Farm Project
Record of Decision (ROD)

June 2013


32

10.0 REFERENCES

Bungart, Peter W. 2013. Report of a Hualapai Ethnohistoric Study for the Mohave County Wind Farm
Project in Northwestern Arizona. Draft. Department of Cultural Resources, Hualapai Tribe, Peach
Springs, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 2005a. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Wind
Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States, FES 05-11. June.

+ 2005b. Record of Decision for the Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and
Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. Washington, D.C., December 15.

- 2008. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1. January.

. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project. May.
. 1995. Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. Accessed on
July 5, 2010 from http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/info/nepa/environmental_library/

arizona_resource_management/kingman_prmp.html.

. 1993. Kingman Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental
Impact Statement. September.

Energy Policy Act (EPAct). 2005. Title I, Section 211. Available at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS- 1 09hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-1 09hr6enr.pdf.

Federal Register. 2009. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Initiate Public
Scoping for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project. Vol. 74, No. 223, pg. 60289. November 20.

Federal Register. 2012. Notice of Availability for the Mohave County Wind Farm Draft EIS. Vol. 77
No, 82, April 27.

Federal Register. 2013. Notice of Availability for the Mohave County Wind Farm Final EIS. Vol. 78
No. 96, May 17.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, et seq. January 1,
1970.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010. Secretarial Order 3285A1 -- Renewable Energy Development by
the Department of the Interior. February 22. Secretarial Order 3285A1 (March 11, 2009),

__: 201 1a. Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. January 2011, 106 pp. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/ECP_draft_guidance_2_10_final_clean_omb.pdf.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


20

authorized project-specific analysis to focus on the site-specific issues and concerns of individual
projects. The “Mohave County Wind Farm Final EIS” serves as the site-specific analysis of the
Project.

5.1.2. Renewable Energy Policies and Legislative Directives

The Agencies considered the potential for the Project to meet policy and legislative directives
regarding the development of renewable energy on Federal lands. The EPAct of 2005
encourages the development of renewable energy resources, including wind energy. Section 211
of the EPAct established a goal for the Secretary of the Interior to approve at least 10,000 MW of
non-hydropower renewable energy projects on public lands by 2015. Secretarial Order 3283,
“Enhancing Renewable Energy Development on the Public Lands,” dated January 16, 2009,
established renewable energy as a DOI policy and committed the DOI to achieve the goals
established in Section 211 of the EPAct of 2005, Secretarial Order 3285A-1 “Renewable Energy
Development by the Department of the Interior,” signed March 11, 2009, as amended on
February 22, 2010, established the development of renewable energy as a priority for the DOI
and created a Departmental Task Force on Energy and Climate Change. Additionally, IM 2009-
043, “Wind Energy Development Policy,” dated December 19, 2008, establishes BLM policy to
ensure timely and efficient processing of energy ROWs for wind energy on public lands.

Finally, the Arizona Corporation Commission established a RPS requiring that, by 2025, utilities
in Arizona generate 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources. This Project directly
relates to the policy and legislative goals established by Congress, DOI, the BLM, and the State
of Arizona.

5.1.3 Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to ensure that their
actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in
the destruction of their designated critical habitat. The ESA also requires consultation with the
USFWS in making that determination. In February, 2011, the BLM complied with these
requirements by initiating early, informal consultation with USFWS. On December 12, 2011,
the USFWS provided an evaluation of Federally-listed threatened or endangered species known
to occur in Mohave County and the potential to be affected by the Project. In this evaluation, the
USFWS agreed with the BLM’s initial determination that no Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species, and/or critical habitat would be affected by the Project with the rationale
that they currently do not occur in the area.

5.1.4 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) prohibits any form of possession or
taking of bald eagles or golden eagles. The BLM contacted the USFWS concerning the Project’s
potential impacts on the golden eagle in accordance with the Eagle Act and BLM Instruction
Memorandum 2010-156.

Beginning in 2008, BP Wind Energy coordinated with USFWS, AGED, the BLM, and
Reclamation regarding potential impacts to bald and golden eagles. Consistent with the 2011
Draft ECP Guidance from USFWS and BLM IM 2010-156, BP Wind Energy prepared an Eagle

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY u.s.ssssssssssssssssssssssssersscsnsssssssnsesssnscessusscsssusesasssccesssuesssesssssssecsssvecsssveassecsenenseesnecees Vv
1.0 INTRODUCTION......
11 BACKGROUNI
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED
ANALYSIS
21 ALTERNATIVE A
2.2 ALTERNATIVE B
2.3 ALTERNATIVE C
2.4 ALTERNATIVE D—NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
2.5 ALTERNATIVE E — AGENCIES’ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (BLM AND
RECLAMATION’S SELECTED ALTERNATIVE) . 6
2.5.1 Selected Alternative Project Description
2.5.2 Environmentally Preferred Alternative ...
3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ...... 15
40 MITIGATION MEASURES
4] MITIGATION COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING
5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 RELATIONSHIP TO BLM AND OTHER AGENCY PLANS, PROGRAMS AND,
POLICIES
5.1.1 The BLM Land Use Plan and Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS
5.1.2 | Renewable Energy Policies and Legislative Directives
5.1.3. Endangered Species Act...
5.1.4 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection ‘Act
5.1.5 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
5.1.6 Tribal Consultation
6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.
6.1 PUBLIC SCOPING 24
6.2 DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW. 24
6.3 FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW.
7.0 DECISION RATIONALE .
7A BLM DECISIONS
72 RECLAMATION DECISION:
8.0 FINAL AGENCY ACTION
8.1 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 9
8.2 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 30
9.0 ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY APPROVAL 1
10.0 REFERENCES
Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013

Record of Decision (ROD)


28

with the requirements of Reclamation’s regulations (43 CFR Part 429). This approval will
include the Project features of turbines aligned within corridors, access roads, temporary and
permanent met towers (as applicable), and a collector line system. The mitigation measures and
BMPs identified in the Final EIS will be incorporated into Reclamation’s ROU contract and
standard ROU stipulations.

The Reclamation-authorized officer will authorize actual on-site construction or other surface
disturbing activities through the issuance of a phased series of written NTPs.. These NTPs will
specify authorized activities, location of the authorized activities, and the timing of the
authorized activities. Should non-compliance issues, environmental issues, or other problems be
encountered during the authorized activities, the Reclamation-authorized officer may amend or
rescind any NTP previously issued. Prior to issuance of a NTP for the Project, the Applicant
shall prepare and obtain Reclamation’s approval of an ECCMP and a final Plan of Development
(POD). Upon Reclamation’s approval, compliance with the ECCMP the POD, which includes
the ECP/BCS will become a condition of the Project’s ROU contract, Reclamation will also
require a performance bond to cover all potential liabilities.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


23

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe
Colorado River Indian Tribes
Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
Moapa Band of Paiutes
Havasupai Tribe

Chemehuevi Tribe

Hopi Tribe

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe
Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians
San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe
Yavapai-Apache Nation

The letters described the proposed Project. The BLM also invited these Indian tribes to
participate as formal cooperating agencies for preparation of the EIS on September 14, 2009.
The BLM also invited the Pahrump Paiute Tribe, which is not Federally-recognized, to
participate as a consulting party.

The Hualapai Tribe participated as a cooperating agency, provided comments on the
ethnographic background, and shared information about traditional Hualapai perspectives on the
White Hills and Senator Mountain. The BLM also arranged for the Hualapai Tribe to conduct an
ethnohistoric study to further investigate traditional cultural use of the Project area and inventory
and evaluate traditional cultural resources (Bungart 2013). All the prehistoric sites documented
during the surveys, which the Hualapai and other Indian tribes regard as ancestral, were
determined to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion D for their informational
value and any direct impacts would be mitigated by recovery and preservation of artifacts and
information before the sites are disturbed. The BLM will continue to consult with tribes about
their concerns as the HPTP and CRMP are prepared and implemented during post-EIS
development of actions approved in this ROD. Over the course of the decision-making process,
the BLM held several consultation meetings and field tours and engaged the Indian tribes in
consultation about the resources potentially affected by the proposed Project. With respect to
Section 106 of the NHPA, the Hualapai Tribe signed the MOA on December 5, 2012. The BLM
will continue to consult with the identified Indian tribes in accordance with the terms of the
executed MOA.

Indian trust assets are legal interests in property held in trust by the United States for Indian
tribes or individuals. The Secretary of the Interior, acting as the trustee, holds many assets in
trust. Examples of trust assets are lands (including tribal trust, fee title, and allotted lands);
minerals; water rights; and hunting and fishing rights. Although most Indian trust assets are on
reservations, Indian trust assets may also be found off-reservations. The United States has a trust
responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved for or granted to Indian tribes or Indian
individuals by treaties, statutes, and executive orders. These are sometimes further interpreted
through court decisions and regulations. Consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
confirmed that there are no Indian trust assets in the Project area.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project June 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


the interconnection agreement. Alternative E represents a hybrid of Alternatives A and B and
does not go beyond the footprint considered in those Alternatives in the Draft EIS. The BLM
determined that the addition of Alternative E does not require a supplemental Draft EIS because
this Alternative is within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS.

2.5.1 Selected Alternative Project Description

Under the Selected Alternative, BP Wind Energy will construct, operate, maintain, and
decommission 179 to 243 turbines. The Wind farm site will encompass up to approximately
35,329 acres of BLM-managed land and approximately 2,781 acres of Federal land administered
by Reclamation. Temporary ground disturbance is estimated to be about 1,317 acres if all phases
of construction are necessary to meet the nameplate generation capacity in the interconnection
agreement. Ground disturbance would be less if some phases are not required. Long-term
disturbance is estimated to be 268 acres.

Under the Selected Alternative several of the turbine corridors in the northwest corner of the
Wind farm site will be excluded from the Project area in Township 29 North, Range 20 West
(see Maps 2-11 to 2-13 in the Final EIS), Also similar to Alternative B, turbine corridors will be
excluded from Sections 17 and 18 of Township 29 North, Range 19 West. The Selected
Alternative will allow use of the corridors in Township 29 North, Range 20 West, Sections 28
and 29 only if the generation capacity requirements cannot be satisfied by building in the
corridors that have no development restrictions. Consistent with Alternatives A and B, the
Selected Alternative will provide for a minimum of 0.25 miles between private property
boundaries and the nearest turbine. The southernmost turbine corridor in the Wind farm site
(Sections 31-34 of Township 28 North, Range 20 West) will be available, but only if these
turbines are necessary to meet the generation capacity requirements in the interconnection
agreement.

Under the Selected Alternative, construction will occur in up to six phases. In the first phase, BP
Wind Energy must make an effort to meet the generation capacity requirements using the
proposed turbine corridors (see corridors with red dots representing turbine locations on Maps 2-
11 to 2-13), but with consideration given to the: parameters of manufacturer requirements for
turbine placement; other setback requirements; agreements to mitigate environmental effects
through micro-siting to avoid sensitive resources within the corridors, as well as engineering,
construction, and safety constraints. Only if BP Wind Energy cannot achieve generation
capacity through development of these turbine corridors will BP Wind Energy be permitted to
construct turbines in Sections 28 and 29 of Township 29 North, Range 20 West (first and second
phase), which are within the eagle curtailment buffer area (blue corridors on Maps 2-11 to 2-13).
Finally, the BLM will authorize BP Wind Energy to develop the southernmost turbine corridor
only if BP Wind Energy has still not met the generation capacity requirements. If necessary, BP
Wind Energy’s development in the southernmost corridor would start with Township 28 North,
Range 20 West, Section 31, followed by Section 32, 34 and lastly Section 33 (third to sixth
phases, see Maps 2-11 to 2-13). BP Wind Energy must obtain a Notice to Proceed from the
BLM and Reclamation prior to initiating development of each phase.

Mohave County Wind Farm Project " Tune 2013
Record of Decision (ROD)


BEA INUINIED Mn 2 AACN Cnc me Se AEDS iowster 2:00 Srteracttt Cnet few

Peal ata isan Lie corona
Packie,

“i lana regu a Wind Fa i Be Gelb
wanecr lea Mata Bien Tung?

a:
Logena

(Chand Farm ster
F)Materlais Source

> Eagle Nest Avatdance Area
(Joursiea operations Area
(C_Jtutbine conttar

HE Cunalied Comidor

© Turine Fith Phase
© Tumbine Sixh Phase
rathons ard
MBB iisintenance Buliting
HM Layoownsetagng Area
Facility Location Options

— Proposed Faolity Access Contdar MBM Substation
—— Faclty Ancess Comidor{Exsing) ME Salichyora

© Turbine Third Phase
© Turbine Fourth Phase

+ Proposed Turbine Lacaton soon Transnifestan Une
* ‘Tubhewtin Cutated Operatn — Surtsce Management
ItHisatied fo Meet Generation Capacity _ Bureau of Land Management
Tutbine with Curtatet sNaonal Park Service
Operation First Phaee Bureau of Recismaton
‘Coniar winin Curaliment Zane ‘State Trust Land
GHB Second Phase (CT prvate Lana

Map 2-12
Alternative E
Preferred Alternative
90 - 104 Meter Rotor
Diameter Turbines
ehave County Wind Farm Project
Alernative A Bourkl:
[Liigtoc corpartton purpeees)
2] Pisnned Development Communty
CZ National Park Serea Propored Vardemess = S
1 wanetp and Range Boundary
|) Section Boundary
++ Easting Transmission Line Q 1
—— Road Miles
SER
& Mountain Summit

Bes ag mad 082010 Aes 207008 PSM 008 WD 2008 Panett any ntact BE th dares 74
‘anatanon nex: Para Bison ee AELGrnlN Cxrpavn, ie - OME enp(Plas aruda ate

10

Mohave County Wind Farm Project

Record of Decision (ROD)

June 2013,