Gateway West Transmission Line Final EIS

Appendix C

Mitigation Plans

 Appendix C-1 – Historic Properties Treatment Plan

 Appendix C-2 – Draft Framework for Compensatory Mitigation for and 

Monitoring of Unavoidable Impacts to Waters of the U.S.

 Appendix C-3 – Greater Sage-grouse Avoidance, Minimization, and 

Mitigation Measures
Gateway West Transmission Line Final EIS

Appendix C-1

Historic Properties Treatment Plan
DRAFT

HISTORIC PROPERTIES TREATMENT PLAN

for the

GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

Case File Numbers:

IDI-35849, Idaho

WYW-174598, Wyoming

Prepared by:

PacifiCorp

1407 W. North Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

and

Idaho Power Company

1221 West Idaho Street

Boise, ID 83702

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

i December 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...................................................................................... iii

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

1.1 HPTP and the Programmatic Agreement .................................................................1-2

1.2 Organization of the HPTP ........................................................................................1-2

2.0 PROJECT AND APE DESCRIPTION.............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Area of Potential Effect (APE).................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Direct Effects................................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 Indirect Effects.............................................................................................2-2

3.0 PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND CULTURAL RESOURCES TYPES IDENTIFIED 

WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA....................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties................................................3-1

3.2 Archival Research and Results.................................................................................3-1

3.3 Field Survey Methods and Results...........................................................................3-2

3.4 Ethnographic Studies................................................................................................3-2

3.5 Trails Report.............................................................................................................3-3

3.6 Definition of Cultural Resources Site Types............................................................3-3

3.6.1 Prehistoric Resources...................................................................................3-3

3.6.2 Historic Resources........................................................................................3-4

4.0 METHODS FOR DETERMINATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF 

ELIGIBILITY, AND EFFECTS........................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Determination of Eligibility .....................................................................................4-1

4.2 Determination of Effects ..........................................................................................4-1

4.3 Site Recording and Evaluation Methods..................................................................4-2

4.4 Cultural Resources Report Preparation and Documentation and Review................4-9

4.5 Segment Historic Properties Treatment Plans..........................................................4-9

5.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Avoidance.................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 General Mitigation Measures for Historic Properties ..............................................5-1

5.2.1 Mitigation for Direct Effects to Surface or Subsurface Historic Properties.5-2

5.2.2 General Mitigation for Indirect Effects to Historic Properties.....................5-2

5.2.3 Proposed Project-Wide Historic Trails Mitigation Program........................5-3

6.0 SEQUENCE OF PROJECT-RELATED TASKS.............................................................. 6-1

6.1 Pre-Construction Tasks ............................................................................................6-1

6.2 Construction Phase Tasks.........................................................................................6-2

6.3 Post-Construction Phase Tasks ................................................................................6-2

7.0 REFERENCES CITED...................................................................................................... 7-1
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(Continued)

ii December 2012

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A Monitoring Plan

Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

Attachment C Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Plan of 

Action

Attachment D Segment Historic Properties Treatment Plan (Place Holder)

Attachment E The Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Field Guide For Evaluative Testing 

of Archaeological Sites 

TABLES

Table 1. Literature Review Results for the Project Analysis Area ..............................................3-2

Table 2. Field Survey Results reported in the Draft EIS 2011 ....................................................3-2

Table 3. Treatment Classes for Unavoidable Direct Impacts...................................................... 5-2

Table 4. Treatment Classes for Unavoidable Indirect Effects.....................................................5-3

FIGURES

Figure 1a Regional Location Map and Transmission Line Routes and Alternatives –

Wyoming..................................................................................................................... 2-3

Figure 1b Regional Location Map and Transmission Line Routes and Alternatives – Idaho..... 2-4
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

iii December 2012

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APE Area of Potential Effect

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRM Cultural Resources Monitor

CRS Cultural Resources Specialist

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FAR fire-affected rock

HABS Historic American Building Survey

HAER Historic American Engineering Record 

HALS Historic American Landscape Survey

HPTP Historic Properties Treatment Plan 

kV kilovolt

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NHT National Historic Trail

NPS National Park Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NTP Notice to Proceed 

PA Programmatic Agreement

Project Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Companies PacifiCorp (Rocky Mountain Power) and Idaho Power Company

ROW right-of-way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

Segment Plan Segment Historic Properties Treatment Plan

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

USFS United States Forest Service 

VCR visual contrast rating form

VRM Visual Resources Management 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

1-1 December 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Project-wide Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) is the first step in preparing 

mitigation measures for properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) that would be adversely affected during construction of the Gateway West 

Transmission Line Project (Project). It is required by the Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the 

Project and will be approved by the signatories and invited signatories of that PA in consultation 

with the Concurring Parties. This first draft was prepared by PacifiCorp (doing business as 

Rocky Mountain Power) and Idaho Power Company, collectively known as the Companies, as 

specified in the PA. It has not been reviewed or approved by any agency or the Parties to the PA. 

It will be considered final after review and approval by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

and the Idaho and Wyoming State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). 

The purposes of this HPTP are to be applicable Project-wide and to:

• Serve as the framework document for subsequent site-specific treatment plans, prepared 

as a series of Segment Historic Properties Treatment Plans (Segment Plans, to be 

appended to this HPTP as each is approved)(appended to Attachment D);

• Provide a summary and overview of the Project itself, the Area of Potential Effects 

(APE), and previous research conducted in the area;

• Summarize methods for determination and documentation of effects that have been used 

on this Project and will be used in the event of additional discoveries;

• Document the measures that the Companies have already taken or will take to avoid and 

minimize impacts to properties eligible for or listed on the NRHP;

• Provide treatment guidelines for certain categories of adversely affected Historic 

Properties;

• Present a Monitoring Plan (Attachment A) including guidelines for how avoidance and 

minimization measures will be employed in the field during construction and operation, 

how their success will be documented, procedures for halting construction, including 

agency notification in the event of unanticipated discoveries during construction and 

under what circumstances cultural resources monitors will be present where previously 

undetected cultural resources may be found;

• Present an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Attachment B), which specifies the procedures to 

follow in the event that cultural resources are found during construction or operation 

which were not detected during the various surveys conducted prior to ground-disturbing

activities;
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

1-2 December 2012

• Present a plan for compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (Attachment C) and how its terms will be employed on 

federally managed lands

1.1 HPTP and the Programmatic Agreement 

In consultation and with the active participation of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP), the BLM developed a PA for the Project to guide Project compliance with 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (BLM 2012). The PA Stipulation V.A. requires 

the Companies to prepare this document. The Companies will submit this HPTP to the BLM for 

review and comment. When the BLM has approved the HPTP they will distribute the document 

to the signatories, invited signatories, and consulting parties for a 20-day review period. They 

will revise the document and its appendices based on review comments and submit a revised 

HPTP to the same reviewers for a final 10-day review. The HPTP will be revised if needed and

the BLM will submit the final HPTP with comments to the SHPO for review and comment for 

30 days. The BLM will incorporate any changes and provided to the SHPO for final approval. 

The Companies will develop a site-specific treatment plan for each work element for which they 

wish a separate Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the BLM (PA Stipulation X.B). The schedule and 

details for Segment Plan preparation are found in Section 4.4 of this document. As each is 

prepared and approved, it will be appended to this document. 

If there appears to be a discrepancy between the stipulations in the PA which have been 

summarized, described, or interpreted in this Plan, the conditions and stipulations, as written in 

the PA, supersede interpretations in this Plan.

1.2 Organization of the HPTP

Section 1 of this HPTP is the Introduction. Section 2 is the project history and description. 

Section 3 presents the previous research and site types within the Project analysis area. Section 4 

presents the methods, roles and responsibilities, and schedule for the determination of effects. 

Section 5 outlines the sequence of project-related tasks. Section 6 outlines the proposed 

mitigation for classes of affected Properties. Section 7 is a list of references cited in this HPTP.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

2-1 December 2012

2.0 PROJECT AND APE DESCRIPTION

This section provides a brief project description and history of the Project and defines the Area 

of Potential Effects.

2.1 Project Description

The Companies are proposing to develop approximately 1000 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) 

and 500-kV alternating current electric transmission system consisting of 10 segments between 

Windstar Substation at Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway Substation approximately 30 

miles southwest of Boise, Idaho. The Companies applied to the BLM for a right-of-way (ROW) 

grant to use the National System of Public Lands for portions of the Project. See Figures 1a and 

b for Project Maps.

2.2 Area of Potential Effect (APE)

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is the geographic area, regardless of land ownership, within 

which an Undertaking (in this case, the Project) may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the 

character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The BLM, in consultation with 

appropriate Signatories, Invited Signatories and Concurring parties, has defined and documented 

the APE based on direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the Project. The APE includes

federal, state, tribal, and private lands that may be affected by the Project’s transmission line 

corridor, and staging areas, access roads, borrow areas, transmission substations, and other 

related transmission infrastructure. The APE, as defined and documented, is a baseline for survey 

and inventory. If BLM determines that unforeseen changes to the Undertaking may cause direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects to historic properties beyond the extent of the established APE, 

then BLM shall adjust the APE using the process set forth in the PA (Stipulation I.B.3).

2.2.1 Direct Effects

The APE for direct effects is the area within which historic properties may sustain physical 

alteration or destruction as a result of the Project. The following APEs take into account grounddisturbing activities associated with the Project:

• For transmission lines, the APE will be 500 feet (250 feet on either side of centerline for 

the right-of-way).

• The APE for access roads, except for existing crowned and ditched or paved roads and 

service roads, will be 100 feet on either side of the centerline for a total width of 200 feet. 

• The APE for staging areas, borrow areas, substations, and other transmission 

infrastructure will include the footprint of the facility and a buffer of 200 feet around the 

footprint of the proposed activity.

• The APE for pulling/tensioning sites that fall outside the right-of-way will be the 

footprint of the site plus a 250-foot radius around these points.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

2-2 December 2012

• The APE for boreholes is a five acre area centered on the borehole.

2.2.2 Indirect Effects

The APE for indirect effects on historic properties considers visual, audible, and atmospheric 

elements that could diminish the integrity of the properties for which setting, feeling and/or 

association are qualifying characteristics of NRHP eligibility. The indirect APE for the Project

extends for five miles, or to the visual horizon, whichever is closer, on either side of the 

proposed routes and alternatives. The indirect APE may extend beyond the five-mile convention 

to encompass properties that have traditional religious and cultural importance or other historic 

properties when effects have been determined to extend beyond this distance. The assessment of 

visual effects will incorporate a Geographic Information System viewshed assessment as well as 

BLM Visual Resource Management (also referred to as VRM) concepts (discussed in the PA, 

Stipulation II.C.2).
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

2-3 December 2012

Figure 1a Regional Location Map and Transmission Line Routes and Alternatives – Wyoming
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

2-4 December 2012

Figure 1b Regional Location Map and Transmission Line Routes and Alternatives – Idaho
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

3-1 December 2012

3.0 PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND CULTURAL RESOURCES TYPES 

IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA

This section discusses the identification of resources and briefly discusses previous literature 

review, pedestrian field survey, and research conducted for the Project. It also identifies cultural 

resources types within the project area. Because of the phased nature of the Project, surveys will 

be conducted up to construction, and where changes in Project footprint occur, surveys will be

conducted during construction. The agreed methods for conducting these surveys, reporting on 

them, documenting sites, determining eligibility, determining effects, and finally determining 

needed mitigation or treatment where impacts cannot be avoided, is provided in Section 4 and 

requires the context of previous research and cultural resource types identified in this section. 

3.1 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties

This HPTP is based on the results of cultural resource inventories, consisting of background 

records and literature research and intensive pedestrian surveys for the Project. Similarly, the 

Segment Plans will also rely upon previous surveys (see Section 4.4). The PA outlines six phases 

in which the Companies have and will continue to conduct cultural resources inventory and 

identification of Historic Properties for this Project. The BLM will ensure that all work 

undertaken for this project will: satisfy the terms of the PA; meet the Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716); meet the requirements 

outlined in BLM Manual 8110; meet state SHPO standards, including guidance and standards 

found in respective BLM and SHPO state protocols; and meet the individual state BLM 

permitting requirements. The six phases are outlined in the PA and can be found in Section 

II.C.1-6.

3.2 Archival Research and Results

The Companies’ team of archaeological consultants preformed a literature and records review 

encompassing 0.5 mile area on either side of the Proposed and Alternative Project Routes. 

Available existing records of previously recorded sites and studies/inventories were gathered by 

an official file records request to each state SHPO. In addition, other data sources included 

published and unpublished literature, chronologies, cultural and historical contexts, and 

information provided by the BLM, United States Forest Service (USFS), and the National Park 

Service (NPS) Trails Office. The literature and records review (Phase I) was analyzed and 

developed into a comprehensive cultural narrative overview and synthesis of data on prehistoric 

and historic resources for a management focused technical report. The technical report of this 

analysis is filed as a confidential document in the Idaho and Wyoming BLM Field Offices that 

the Proposed Route crosses (Henderson et al. 2009; Nilsson et al. 2009). Table 1, below,

summarizes the record search results for the Project analysis area. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

3-2 December 2012

Table 1. Literature Review Results for the Project Analysis Area

State Previous 

Inventories Total Sites Prehistoric Historic Multicomponent

Wyoming 1,200 3,000 2850 150 <10%

Idaho 1,550 600 480 120 <10%

Nevada1 2 200 200 0 0

3.3 Field Survey Methods and Results

The Companies’ team of archaeological sub-consultants conducted an intensive pedestrian 

survey of 15 percent of the length of the Proposed and Alternative Project routes located on 

federal land in 2008, 2009, and 2010. This survey consisted of randomly selected 500-foot-wide 

by 1-mile long sample segments (areas previously surveyed in the last 5 years, 25 percent slopes, 

or exhibited recent disturbance were excluded) (BLM 2011). The consultant used 30-meter 

interval pedestrian linear survey transects across each sample. In addition, a Class III inventory 

was completed for the geotechnical locations (5-acre blocks centered on the borehole location). 

The inventory report is filed as a confidential document at the appropriate Idaho and Wyoming 

BLM Field Offices. Table 2, below, provides inventory results reported in the Gateway Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 

Table 2. Field Survey Results reported in the Draft EIS 2011

State Acres Surveyed Total Archaeological 

Sites

Wyoming -15% Sample 5,818 40

Idaho-15% Sample 11,514 131

Each Segment Plan will contain a table listing archaeological sites that will be avoided and sites 

that require a prescribed treatment within that segment. 

3.4 Ethnographic Studies 

In an effort to identify and protect Tribal contemporary and ongoing use of culturally significant 

areas and/or sites and to assist the BLM with their Tribal consultation requirements by law, the 

Shoshone-Paiute, Shoshone-Bannock, Eastern Shoshone, and Northern Ute Indian Tribes 

requested ethnographic studies be conducted for the Project analysis area. The ethnographic 

studies will combine cultural resource literature review results and ethnographic interviews to 

identify any culturally sensitive resources. The BLM will treat all information confidentially and 

the Tribes will control the distribution of their respective reports. One study has been completed 

 

1 The Nevada routes have been dropped from consideration. This information reflects work conducted prior to the 

elimination of these alternatives. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

3-3 December 2012

for the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and another is in progress. No traditional cultural properties have 

been identified as of December 2012. 

3.5 Trails Report 

A study of visual impacts to historic trails and trail-related historic properties was conducted for 

the Project analysis area and discusses impacts to visual resources on Public lands and 

specifically analyzes the impacts of the Project on the setting of these historic properties where 

appropriate. The report is on file with the Idaho and Wyoming state BLM field offices. 

3.6 Definition of Cultural Resources Site Types

The following is a summary of the different cultural resource site types found in Wyoming and

Idaho. This list is included in the draft Project EIS and was derived from the state SHPO 

databases and literature review. 

3.6.1 Prehistoric Resources

Prehistoric resources found in the Project analysis area include:

Open Camps are minimally defined by the presence of one or more hearth features. The

resource type includes open camps, stone circle sites, ceramic sties, and bone beds/kill sites.

• Stone Circle Sites—Although evidence suggests that many of these sites are habitation 

sites, the function of stone circles cannot often be inferred from the available 

archaeological data and is often determined through Native American consultation. 

• Ceramic Sites—open camps that exhibit the presence of prehistoric pottery. Such 

temporally diagnostic artifacts are useful in determining not only the age of an 

occupation, but the cultural affiliation of the occupants.

• Bone Beds/Kill Sites/Impoundments—are location where large and medium-sized 

animals were killed and butchered. Sites typically consist of a large scatter of animal 

bones in association with lithic scatters. 

Ritual Sites are places where formalized ceremonies took place or are natural features on the 

landscape that have religious significance. In the Project area, stone alignments and cairns are the 

most visible remnants of ritual localities. The most dramatic example of such sites is the 

“medicine wheel,” which consists of concentric circles of stones, radiating lines or spokes, and 

an altar stone or cairn in the center (BLM 2011). 

Sheltered Camps generally consist of a rock overhang or cave, with evidence of human 

occupancy such as smoke-stained ceilings, artifact scatters, or other features. 

Rock Art Sites include pictographs or petroglyphs, which are respectively drawn or inscribed on 

rock faces. The images often depict events such as battles, spiritual visions, environmental 

observations, hunting activities, deaths and burials, geometric shapes, or simply the visitation of 

an individual or group at that location.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

3-4 December 2012

Mortuary Sites are locations where a body has been interred or is related to burial practices.

Limited Activity Sites are short-term camps where a specialized activity took place. They 

include lithic scatters, lithic landscapes, quarry sites, and vegetal processing sites.

• Lithic Scatters—consist of stone materials that remain from lithic procurement activities 

or stone tool manufacture, and may include bifaces, unifaces, and flaking debris.

• Lithic Landscapes—cover many miles and are areas or regions where aboriginal peoples 

habitually tested and procured tool stone and lithic materials. The result is a cultural 

landscape created by thousands of years of repeated use.

• Quarry Sites—are lithic procurement locations where prehistoric peoples extracted lithic 

materials from primary or secondary geological contexts.

• Vegetal Processing Sites—are locations where diagnostic artifacts indicate the collection 

of processing of floral remains without evidence of occupation. They are often separated 

from other sites because they identify a specific type of resource extraction activity.

3.6.2 Historic Resources

Historic Resources identified within the Project analysis area include:

Trails—the Native Americans had developed extensive trail networks for travel and trade prior 

to the Euro-American westward migration. Many Native American trails were used by emigrants 

and are now more widely recognized as historic trails such as the Oregon National Historic Trail 

and the California National Historic Trail (NHT).

• Historic Trails—includes historic trails, stage roads, and freight roads, such as, Emigrant 

Trails and National Historic Trails. Trails can range from faint swales to ruts, two-tracks, 

or modern roads. 

Agricultural/Animal Husbandry Sites are locations, features, or structures associated with 

cultivating land, raising crops, feeding, breeding, or tending to domestic animals and raising 

livestock.

Exploration/Resource Extraction—the growing number of westward migrating emigrants in 

the 19th century began to actively explore for, prospect, and exploit natural resources within the 

Project analysis area. Resources for this site type include:

• Lumbering Sites—are buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts associated with 

cutting or preparing lumber.

• Mining Sites—include any buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts associated with 

natural resources extraction, such as oil, gas, coal, or other mineral. Mining sites are 

identified by single and multi-family houses (made out of milled wood, brick, stone, or 

logs), bunk and boarding houses, concrete and stone foundations, commercial buildings 

(saloons, stores, and warehouses), industrial buildings (machine shops and warehouses), 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

3-5 December 2012

mining-related buildings (pump and fan houses, elevator and hoist houses, changing 

rooms, tool storage houses), cisterns, wells, privies, and railroad features (trestles, spurs, 

switching equipment, lights, and yards). Mining-related features include adits, shafts, air 

shafts, hoist frames, and trestles. Artifacts include domestic materials (glass, clothing 

items, ceramics, food and beverage containers, and tools), machinery (pumps, fans, hoist 

and elevator equipment), and miscellaneous items such as head lamps, lunch pails, pipes, 

and other personal items.

• Power Transmission Sites—are locations, features, or structures involved with the 

movement of energy from one place to another. Until recently, transmission lines have 

not been widely recorded as historic sites. The historic context statement written for the 

Bonneville Power Administration (BLM 2011), and a report prepared for the Western 

Area Power Administration that was submitted to the Colorado and Wyoming SHPOs 

(BLM 2011), contain detailed historic context on the design and construction of electrical 

transmission systems in the western U.S. 

Transportation Sites include buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts that are associated 

with the movement of people and their belongings from one place to another. These sites can be 

related to air, rail, water, road, or pedestrian travel (BLM 2011). Resources within this category 

include historic roads, bridges, railroads, and airfield features.

Waterworks Sites consist of buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts that that store and 

supply water to its point of use.

Other Historic Sites – This category comprises the remaining resource types that do not share a 

related socioeconomic theme. These resource types include inscriptions, military sites, and urban 

and rural sites: 

• Inscriptions—sites where historical, religious, or other records are cut, impressed, 

painted, or written on stone, brick, metal, or other hard surface.

• Military—sites can include buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts that are 

associated with any activity that occurred to support military action or where military 

activities have taken place. Sites can include, but are not limited to, arms storage, 

fortification, facilities, battle sites, and roads (BLM 2011).

• Urban—sites are locations, features, or structures associated with human settlement in a 

town or city. 

• Rural—sites include buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts associated with 

human settlement in the non-urban setting. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-1 December 2012

4.0 METHODS FOR DETERMINATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF 

ELIGIBILITY, AND EFFECTS

This section discusses the methods to be used to determine effects and presents the review and 

revision requirements as specified in the PA. 

4.1 Determination of Eligibility 

The NHPA is the principal federal law guiding BLM action with respect to the treatment of 

cultural, archaeological, and historic resources. Section 106 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 

470f) of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, and give the ACHP 

and SHPO a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Historic properties are “any 

prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places” (16 U.S.C. 470w [5]). The criteria used to 

evaluate NRHP eligibility of properties affected by federal agency undertakings are contained in 

36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60.4. 

The Companies’ Project archeologist(s) will include recommendations of eligibility for cultural 

resources identified within the Project APE as a result of Phase 2-6 reporting. The BLM, in 

consultation with the signatories, invited signatories, and concurring parties, will determine the 

NRHP eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(c)(1) for each property identified within the APE of 

the Project (see PA, Section II, D, a and b). 

For each site, the determination of eligibility will be completed prior to an assessment of effects.

4.2 Determination of Effects 

Each site that meets the NRHP eligibility will be evaluated to determine if the project will 

adversely affect it. An effect occurs if there is a potential to alter the site’s attributes that 

contribute to its NRHP eligibility status. The BLM, in consultation with the signatories of the 

PA, makes determinations of effect consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(d); identifies any adverse 

effects for each historic property within the APE in accordance with the criteria established in 36 

CFR 800.5(a)(1) and (a)(2)(i)-(ivv); and provides appropriate Signatories, Invited Signatories 

and Concurring parties with the results of the findings following CFR 800.11(e)(4)-(6). 

These determinations of effects will serve as the basis for the development of the HPTP Segment 

Plans. The BLM will also utilize the Visual Contrast Rating (also referred to as VCR) system 

assessment to determine the indirect visual effects of the proposed Project on historic properties. 

In addition, The BLM will, in consultation with the signatories to the PA, broadly assess 

cumulative effects under Section 106 in order to identify reasonably foreseeable, potentially 

adverse effects as a result of the proposed Project (PA Section II[E][1-3]). 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-2 December 2012

4.3 Site Recording and Evaluation Methods

Several efforts have been made to avoid cultural resources. If previously unidentified 

archaeological resources are discovered within the project APE during construction, the

procedures outlined in the Monitoring Plan (Attachment A) will be followed. In general, the 

Cultural Resource Specialist (CRS), or Cultural Resource Monitor (CRM)2 will halt construction 

within 200 feet of the find, notify the BLM and/or SHPO, and record and map the isolated find 

or archaeological site to the appropriate state standards for submittal to the agencies. 

Construction can resume when the BLM approves the CRS evaluation of the find as ineligible or 

mitigation measures are approved by the relevant BLM and SHPO offices. 

Additional archaeological field staff (e.g. field director, crew chief, etc.) may be required to 

assist and complete archaeological site recording, testing, and data recovery for large complex

sites, if the CRS and/or CRM(s) are needed in other areas were construction is continuing and 

ongoing, and/or in an effort to complete the work within a scheduled amount of time (as not to 

delay construction for too long). All archaeological field crews will work under the supervision 

of the CRS. The roles and responsibilities of all cultural resource’s personnel are detailed in 

Attachment A, Monitoring Plan. 

4.3.1 Site Recording Methods

The CRS or CRM will record cultural resources on the appropriate state archaeological site form 

(Attachment A, Monitoring Plan, Attachment 2). The site area will be recorded and evaluated to 

determine whether it requires further testing or other mitigation measures. A tape measure and 

compass or Global Positioning System (GPS) will be used to record the distance and bearing of 

surface artifacts from the site datum and to prepare a detailed scale map of prominent site 

features. This map will show landmarks, artifacts, and test unit (as appropriate) locations. The 

site will also be plotted on a United States Geological Survey 7.5' topographic map. All activities 

will be confined to the Project APE.

The CRS, CRM, or archaeological field crew (if additional staff other than the CRS/CRM are 

needed to assist with recording) will also photograph the site and record standard site 

information about the topography, physiography, vegetation, location, and artifacts and features 

(mapped in plan view and/or profile, as appropriate), and produce stratigraphic profiles of 

selected trench walls (if find is located during construction trenching of linear line) in which 

cultural materials are exposed for the archaeological site form. Soil colors will be recorded using 

the Munsell soil color charts. No artifacts will be collected for curation unless at the request of 

the BLM Archaeologist or the Native American Monitor. An eligibility recommendation will be 

made for the resource on the form. A permanent site number will be obtained from the 

appropriate state SHPO. The draft site form, along with maps and photos, will be submitted to 

 

2 The roles and responsibilities of cultural resources personnel are detailed in Attachment A, Monitoring Plan
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-3 December 2012

the BLM for review and approval. Any potential human remains must be treated as described in 

the NAGPRA Plan (see Attachment C).

4.3.2 Site Evaluation Methods

Site avoidance will be the preferred method of dealing with cultural resources during 

construction of the Project. However, if a newly discovered resource is potentially significant 

and if avoiding the resource proves infeasible (as determined though consultation between the 

CRS, BLM, SHPO, and Companies), then site evaluation will proceed. 

Evaluation methods for a site will consist of assessing the integrity of the site, inventorying and 

identifying surface artifacts for analysis (non-collection of artifacts is preferred, if possible 

analysis of surface artifacts will be conducted in the field) and determining whether or not subsurface deposits exist, conducting any necessary test investigations to determine whether the site 

has a subsurface artifact component, and conducting data recovery excavations if necessary. 

Site investigations under this plan will take place in two stages. The first stage, test 

investigations, will help determine the extent, depth, and contents of the site. The purpose of the 

test investigation phase will be to recover information about the site and whether or not it would 

meet NRHP criteria for eligibility. Test units consist of shovel test units (STUs) and test 

excavation units (TEUs). If the archaeological site is exposed within a construction trench, then 

test units may consist of column samples.

Based on the results of the test excavation, the CRS in consultation with the BLM and SHPO, 

will determine either that full-scale data recovery is necessary, or that test investigation has 

exhausted the research potential of the site. If data recovery excavations are warranted, the 

structure of this HPTP and information gathered during the test investigations will be used to 

develop a Treatment/Data Recovery Plan. In addition, the plan will be completed in consultation 

and agreement among the signatories of the PA.

The general evaluation procedures that would be used to examine newly discovered sites, 

including surface investigations, test investigations, and data recovery, are briefly described as 

follows. The Wyoming BLM Field Guide for Evaluative Testing of Archaeological Sites is also 

provided in Attachment E as a reference for sites within the state of Wyoming. The Project 

Archaeologist will consult with the BLM and SHPO regarding appropriate procedures for 

testing.

Remote Sensing—Remote sensing techniques include magnetometry, gradiometry, soil 

resistivity, and ground penetrating radar. Remote sensing is most useful on specific site type 

deposits that contain more than one burred feature such as buried hearths, pit houses, or burials. 

If remote sensing would be useful in evaluating the site, the project Team would prepare a 

research and work plan which contains strategies for grid coverage and anomaly evaluation and 

testing. Remote sensing is the least site disturbing technique and may be the quickest way to 

obtain archaeological evidence. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-4 December 2012

Surface collection—The project team would first attempt to gather as much information as 

possible without formal excavation. Non-collection of artifacts is preferred, and when possible 

and/or feasible, analysis of surface artifacts will be conducted in the field. Surface sample 

collection often provides considerable information about the site’s artifactual constituents. Soil 

augering can provide stratigraphic information, particularly when coupled with phosphate 

analysis of soil samples taken at various depths in the auger cores. A 3-inch diameter soil core or 

larger bucket auger will be used (BLM 2003). Soil phosphate analysis assesses the quantity of 

phosphate chemicals in soils, which is a strong correlate, under most conditions, of artifact 

density. The use of these techniques must be considered in relation to their potential benefits and 

cost.

Shovel test units—The field crew will excavate STUs to determine the depth and artifact density 

of the deposit. STUs are systematic units excavated in discrete, arbitrary levels. The STUs will 

be 30-35 cm in diameter and will be evenly distributed at major points on a square grid pattern 

where the squares are 5 or 10 meters (depending on site type) on a side so that the intervals 

between STUs will be 5 or 10 meters. Some STUs will be placed near the perceived center of the 

site, and others near the probable site boundaries. STUs will be placed farther out from the center 

of the site until no debitage/cultural material is recovered. Shorter intervals, both along and 

between transects, may be necessary to confirm the subsurface site boundary. STUs will be 

excavated in levels 10-cm or 20-cm thick, to a depth at least 20 cm below surface for STUs that 

do not contain subsurface artifacts, or to a depth one level (10-20 cm) below the last level in 

which artifacts are found for STUs that contain subsurface artifacts. If the site deposits are 

sufficiently deep that excavation in an STU becomes impractical, the excavators will use a 

bucket auger from the lower limit of feasible excavation to gauge the deposit’s depth. All 

excavations will be restricted within the Project APE.

All excavated materials will be screened using 1/8-inch mesh or 1/4-inch mesh. They Wyoming 

site testing protocol request 1/8-inch mesh be used for sand and loose soils and where small 

artifacts (e.g. seeds, charcoal, retouched flakes, small animal bones) are expected. The Wyoming 

protocol also suggest 1⁄4-inch mesh in instances where soils consists of heavy and wet clays 

and/or the mesh size can recover the types of artifacts the site is likely to contain (BLM 2003).

Material will be sorted into cultural classes (e.g., flaked stone, ground stone, bone, shell, 

charcoal, etc.) and for historics (e.g., glass, metal, ceramic, etc.). The material will be collected 

and cataloged by level. The field crew will record the soil, stratigraphy, site disturbances, and 

artifact contents of the STU levels on standard STU level forms. They will describe soil color 

using the Munsell Soil Color Chart and will describe soil texture using standard U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service terminology.

Test excavation units—TEUs will be excavated if the site exhibits subsurface midden or 

concentrations of material. The stratigraphy will be assessed to evaluate the integrity of the 

deposit, and a profile will be drawn if stratigraphy is apparent. For the preliminary excavation 

phase, the field crew would first establish a grid of Cartesian coordinates relative to the site’s 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-5 December 2012

permanent datum so that crew members can accurately describe any location on the site in terms 

of metric units east and north of the grid’s off-site origin (relative to the site’s baseline). Next, 

they will choose TEUs from within the areas greatest concentration, placing the units in 

relatively undisturbed areas. The number of units will depend upon site size, following the 

formula of 1 unit per 2,000 square meters of site. The units would be 50 x 50 centimeters or 1 x 1 

meter units, excavated in 10-cm levels. 

The field crew will excavate, keeping detailed notes on each level’s contents, and collecting each 

level’s artifacts and materials separately. The notes will be taken on standard level-note forms, 

printed on acid-free paper. The CRS and or Archaeological Field Director will also keep a 

notebook for recording general observations and impressions about the site and excavation. 

Excavation will proceed using sharpened shovels and masonry trowels. The crew will screen all 

dirt through 1⁄8-inch mesh and will collect all artifacts and possible ecofacts such as animal 

bones, shell, and charcoal, and bagging each material type separately, with a separate catalog 

number. The crew will photograph each excavation and draw a scale map of each level’s floor. If 

fire-affected rock (FAR) is encountered, the crew will count and weigh the FAR from each level, 

but will discard in the tailings and returned to the excavated unit upon completion of work and 

upon backfilling. Excavation will continue to and beyond the boundary with the culturally sterile 

site soil matrix (confined within the Project APE). Each unit will be backfilled after completion.

Column sampling instead of a complete excavation unit may be appropriate if an archaeological 

deposit is exposed in a construction trench where access is restricted. The field crew would first 

use trowels and other implements to smooth the trench profile and reveal the natural and cultural 

stratigraphy. The crew would then lay out an excavation unit on the surface, 1 m wide (or the 

width of the trench if less than 100 cm) and 50 cm deep. Any non-cultural overburden would be 

visible in the trench profile and would be removed without screening. The remaining cultural 

stratigraphy would be removed from the profile by natural levels, if apparent, and screened 

through 1⁄8-inch mesh. This sample would be analyzed to determine the density, contents, and 

integrity of the deposits.

For sites of the historic era, test excavation would be most appropriate within ruined structures, 

refuse pits, and privy types. Otherwise, test excavation methods used would be similar to those 

used for prehistoric sites, except that 1⁄4-inch screen would be more appropriate.

Data recovery excavation—Planning for full-scale data recovery excavation to mitigate the loss 

of substantial and significant archaeological deposits will be guided by data gathered during the 

test investigations and by the research design (site specific treatment plan or HPTP Segment 

Plan). The CRS will consult with the BLM, SHPO, and concerned regional Native Americans, 

regarding data recovery excavations. In addition, design and execution of data recovery would be 

done in consultation and agreement among the signatories of the PA for cultural resources. 

Sampling for data recovery excavations will follow standard statistical sampling methods, but 

will be confined to the direct impact area (facility site, access road, spur road, tower location, 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-6 December 2012

laydown area, etc.). The CRS may choose the units for excavation by consulting a table of 

random numbers, or the first unit may be chosen at random and the remainder located at some 

regular interval in relation to this unit (systematic sample). If structural features are present or are 

found, additional units will be placed non-randomly to expose the features. Depending on the 

site, the site-specific research design, and data needs to address specific research questions, 

different sampling techniques might be appropriate.

Excavation, collection, and cataloging methods will be similar to those used for the TEUs. All 

structural features discovered during excavation will be carefully excavated. After profiling the 

feature (excavating one-half of it), the feature will be drawn and photographed. If the feature is a 

hearth, storage pit, or ash dump, the field crew will collect its contents for flotation to recover 

floral samples. 

The field crew will make every attempt to locate and collect datable carbon. Charcoal features 

will be carefully excavated to preserve and document the association of separate pieces so that 

the laboratory can use the standard method of radiocarbon assay. Very small pieces will also be 

collected, so that these can be submitted for dating using the accelerator mass spectroscopy 

(AMS) method, if necessary, for prehistoric sites.

For sites of the historic era, very similar techniques would apply, except that large-scale 

excavations would take place in and around ruined structures and refuse deposits within the 

Project APE.

4.3.3 Preliminary Data Analysis Methods

This analysis will all be conducted in accordance with BLM and state protocols and guidelines. 

Preliminary descriptive analyses of artifacts will begin once the collection has been catalogued 

and prepared for storage. The laboratory director and crew will then count and weigh all 

cataloged items in the collection. They will enter this basic information into a computerized 

database (such as Microsoft Access) by site, grid unit, and level. They will take the counts and 

weights for FAR from the unit level forms. 

For prehistoric sites, the laboratory director and crew will also conduct preliminary analyses of 

raw material type and stone tool waste category for lithic debris. 

For ground stone, the preliminary analysis will include a count of raw material type and 

descriptions of the shapes of ground stone surfaces and the patterns of wear found on them. 

Preliminary bone and/or shellfish analyses will include sorting into bird, mammal, shell, and fish 

bone, and counting and weighing by these categories. 

The preliminary analysis of manufactured items such as shell beads, chipped stone tools, and 

cores and core choppers will be more detailed. The laboratory director and crew will weigh these 

and measure each major dimension for recording in the computerized database. The illustrator 

will prepare a scale drawing of all diagnostic stone tools, or a reasonable and representative 

sample if these are numerous. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-7 December 2012

Analysis of historic period artifacts will begin with separation into major artifact categories, 

including glass, ceramics, cans, nails, metal, buttons, coins, leather, cloth, other materials, and 

other metal artifacts. 

4.3.4 Specialized Data Analysis Methods

The preliminary analysis phase will complete the basic inventory of artifacts and materials 

collected so that the CRS can begin to prepare a basic summary of the excavation and its results. 

Also, by examining the preliminary descriptive results of the excavations, the CRS can begin to 

discern patterns in the occurrence of the artifacts and materials that will guide additional analyses 

and help in interpreting the site. Specialized analyses will follow these preliminary and 

descriptive analyses. These analyses may involve both the application of very specialized 

techniques by specially trained experts and the execution of analyses designed to answer specific 

research questions regarding a particular site. 

4.3.4.1 Lithic Analysis

The goal of the extended lithic analysis will in most cases be to infer from the stone tool waste 

present on a site the kinds of tool manufacture or maintenance activities undertaken at a site and 

the relative importance or frequency of different activities. This, combined with other 

information, might lead to an interpretation of the role of a site in a settlement-subsistence 

system. 

Lithic analysis will be conducted by the field crew (under the supervision of the CRS) and will 

include identification of raw material and reduction stage for debitage, and functional and wear 

patterns analysis for tools. An attempt will be made to identify the sources of lithics used; if 

obsidians are found, they will be submitted for source identification through x-ray fluorescence, 

and dated through obsidian hydration analysis.

4.3.4.2 Sedimentology

Samples of sediment will be subjected to textural analysis at a commercial laboratory and the 

results used along with stratigraphic descriptions to interpret the sedimentary history of the site.

4.3.4.3 Blood and Plant Residue Analysis

Blood and plant residues on stone artifacts can be used to determine how manos, metates, and 

other plant processing tools might have been used or to determine the species of animal that was 

butchered or killed using a particular projectile point, knife, or utilized flake. This analysis 

requires that the artifacts not be washed and that control samples of soil and unutilized cobbles 

are collected with the artifact to be analyzed. 

4.3.4.4 Bead and Ornament Analysis

Shell, steatite, or schist beads or ornaments can be analyzed for stylistic type and variation within 

type. Beads are sometimes sensitive time indicators and can also provide information about long 

distance trade networks in prehistory. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-8 December 2012

4.3.4.5 Faunal Analysis

The faunal collection (bones and shells) may be sent to a zooarchaeological specialist for 

identification and quantification. Wherever possible, the faunal analyst identifies the age, sex, 

and season of death of the specimen. The analyst counts the number of identifiable specimens 

per taxon, minimum number of individuals per taxon (based on the fact a single individual may 

be represented by several bone or shell specimens), and weight per taxon by unit and level. 

According to these procedures, the minimum number of individuals is calculated for each

stratigraphic unit or feature, not for the entire site. 

The faunal analyst also examines each specimen for evidence of cultural modification, such as 

butchering marks, burning, staining, painting, and unusual breakage (such as spiral fracture for 

bone marrow extraction). Deer teeth and fish otoliths are sectioned to assess seasonality of death 

and gather evidence for the seasonality of site use. 

4.3.4.6 Floral Analysis

The heavy and light fraction flotation samples may be sent to an archaeobotanical specialist for 

the identification of charred seeds. This analysis is a simple count of the various taxa represented 

by unit and level or feature. Large pieces of wood charcoal may also be sent to the 

archaeobotanist for identification. These data, which must be interpreted in light of the modern 

vegetation surrounding the site, can be used to address significant research questions regarding 

patterns of foraging for wild plant foods, seasonality of site use, changes in land use, and 

changes in the prehistoric environment over time. 

4.3.4.7 Radiocarbon Assay

Radiocarbon dating will be performed by an outside laboratory, to determine site age and age of 

stratigraphically associated artifacts, where appropriate. Charcoal or soil from hearths or dense 

midden areas may be analyzed. Single samples producing at least 10 grams of datable carbon 

will be analyzed using the standard method. If samples this large are not available, very small 

samples of charcoal will be analyzed using the AMS method.

4.3.4.8 Historic Artifacts 

Specialized analyses for historic artifacts will include background research on ceramic makers 

marks, buttons, and other trade marks on tin cans and other items to determine age of 

manufacture, and analysis of materials and manufacturing techniques to determine age and use. 

Other specialized analyses could include analysis of ethnic artifact origin or use and analysis of 

social class and income, based on artifact quality and relative cost when new. 

4.3.4.9 Ceramic Analysis

Special analyses for prehistoric ceramics will include categorization of the sherds into 

established typologies, thin sectioning, and neutron activation to determine clay sources and 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-9 December 2012

chemical constituents. Vessel form and function may be determined through morphological 

analyses.

4.3.5 Field Equipment

Supplies for site mapping available to the CRS include GPS equipment, surveyor’s transit, and 

compass for preparing archaeological site maps, digital and conventional film cameras for 

photography, and standard archaeological excavation tools such as shovels, screens, masonry 

trowels, and line levels. 

Other standard supplies include archival quality (4-mil) locking plastic bags to hold artifacts, 

acid-free paper, and acid-free boxes for long-term artifact storage.

4.4 Cultural Resources Report Preparation and Documentation and Review 

All cultural resource reports prepared for this Project whether during the planning process, as a 

result of monitoring, or as a result of mitigation work prescribed by a Segment Plan, will be 

consistent with the appropriate current state and BLM guidelines, requirements, and formats

including determination of eligibility and effect. At the conclusion of each Phase of work, the 

Companies will submit copies of the draft report to the lead BLM office for distribution to the 

appropriate BLM District or Field office in each state and PA signatories (see PA Section III for 

reporting and review). 

4.5 Segment Historic Properties Treatment Plans

As specified in Section 1.1, above, the PA for this Project calls for site-specific treatment plans 

to be developed prior to the initiation of any construction phase of the Project. The intent of this 

HPTP is to specify the general terms of avoidance, monitoring, and a framework for mitigation 

planning. The purpose of each Segment Plan is to supplement this HPTP with site-specific 

information, including treatment plans for unavoidable direct and indirect effects. The HPTP will 

cover, with its project-wide trails mitigation plan, indirect effects to trails and trail-related 

resources. The Companies will develop a Segment Plan for each work element for which they 

wish a separate NTP from the BLM (PA Section X.B). Note that while the project is divided into 

linear Segments 1-10 for the purposes of project description and permitting, the Companies may 

request that one or more segments be combined into a single NTP, or may request an NTP for 

one or more portions of segments. For the purposes of this HPTP and the subsequent Segment 

Plans, “segment” means the portion of the project for which the Companies request an NTP. 

Each Segment Plan will contain at least the following (PA, Section V.C.):

• A description of the Segment or element action, including maps

• A table of Historic Properties that have been identified within each Segment, including 

those avoided, by land ownership and by state (if the requested NTP covers more than 

one state).

• An assessment of effects and how adverse effects to the specific characteristics of the 

Historic Properties that make it eligible for the NRHP will be resolved.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

4-10 December 2012

• Documentation of the measures that the Companies have already taken or will take to 

avoid and minimize impacts to properties eligible for or listed on the NRHP

• A clear definition of the specific mitigation strategies proposed to address the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of the Segment/element for individual Historic Properties 

• Preparation of a site-specific Monitoring Plan to supplement the general Monitoring Plan 

(Attachment A of this HPTP).

• Property-specific treatment method documentation and proposed mitigation reporting 

• Identification of the responsible parties involved in the mitigation and their roles.

• Adherence to ACHP guidance, Secretary of Interior’s Professional Standards, Historic 

American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record 

(HAER)/Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) guidance, and appropriate state 

guidelines. 

Upon final approval by the SHPOs and acceptance by the BLM, each Segment Plan will be 

attached as an Attachment to the HPTP. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

5-1 December 2012

5.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN

This HPTP presents the general framework for resolution of adverse effects from the Project on 

cultural resources eligible for or listed on the NRHP (historic properties). It first deals with 

avoidance as the preferred strategy for resolution and then outlines the Project approach to 

mitigation where adverse effects cannot be avoided. It also provides a specific project-wide plan 

for Historic Trails and trail-related resources. 

5.1 Avoidance

The Companies have designed the Project to avoid historic properties to the extent feasible. 

Cultural resources were identified within or near the project area early in Project planning phase 

through literature reviews, documentation of previous surveys, and Project-specific pedestrian

surveys. The Project design was altered where feasible to avoid effects to known significant 

cultural resources. For example, if a proposed access road would affect a prehistoric site, the 

road was redesigned to avoid the site boundaries. The Companies made numerous revisions to 

the proposed transmission line routes to avoid effects to known historic properties. 

In many cases direct effects to historic properties will be avoided by relocating a Project facility, 

but the proposed facility may be installed near the site. In order to avoid physical damage to the 

site, the site would be flagged, fenced, or staked, including a buffer (established on a site-by-site 

basis) determined by the BLM and appropriate state SHPO, and marked for avoidance on maps 

and on the ground. In some cases with large sites or complexes of sites, only that part of the site 

near the construction activities would need to be marked for avoidance. 

Each Segment Plan will include a table that lists Historic Properties that have been identified 

within the APE of the specific segment. The table will list Historic Properties that need to be 

flagged and avoided and those that require specific treatment.

Construction monitoring to assure planned site avoidance is successful and to watch for 

subsurface discoveries during grading, blading, excavation, and other initial mechanical grounddisturbing activities, will be conducted as detailed in the Monitoring Plan, Attachment A. 

During construction it is possible that surface and/or subsurface resources, not identified during 

100% pedestrian surveys in the various phases prior to construction could be discovered. 

Attachment B, Inadvertent Discovery Plan, details the required response of the cultural 

monitoring team and the contractor to such a discovery. 

5.2 General Mitigation Measures for Historic Properties 

Adverse effects to historic properties cannot be entirely avoided by this Project. Even if the 

Project could be redesigned to avoid all direct effects through ground disturbance, the substantial 

change in the setting of some important resources where setting is an aspect of integrity, 

including National Historic Trails, due to the construction and operation of the Project, cannot be 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

5-2 December 2012

entirely avoided. In addition, there may be surface resources that due to their critical location or 

size cannot be entirely avoided. 

5.2.1 Mitigation for Direct Effects to Surface or Subsurface Historic Properties

The Project has been designed to avoid direct effects to trails eligible for or listed on the NRHP, 

to trail-related resources, and to historic buildings, including fences, corrals, and outbuildings. 

Therefore, the only historic properties that would likely be adversely directly affected by the 

Project are prehistoric or historic era resources whose surface or subsurface features or artifacts 

cannot be entirely avoided. For sites determined eligible under 36 CFR 60.4(d), significant data 

could be recovered through excavation, research, and analysis, as summarized in Table 3, below: 

Table 3. Treatment Classes for Unavoidable Direct Impacts

Historic 

Property

Category 

Example Site 

Types (not a 

complete list)

Treatment Classes for 

impacts to sites without a 

subsurface component (i.e. 

surficial sites) 

Treatment Classes for impacts 

to sites with subsurface 

features or artifacts 

Prehistoric Surface lithic 

and ceramic 

scatters, 

campsites, 

hearth and 

features, quarry, 

rock alignments, 

petroglyphs

Data Recovery that includes:

• Surface Collection or 

in-field artifact 

analysis and recording

• Detailed Surface 

mapping

• Geomorphological 

studies 

• Photo documentation 

• Curation 

Data Recovery that includes:

• Surface Collection or infield artifact analysis and 

recording

• Detailed Surface 

mapping

• Geomorphological 

studies 

• Controlled scientific 

excavation

• Laboratory analysis

• Photo documentation 

• Curation 

Historic Era Trash scatters, 

structural debris, 

rock cairn, rock 

alignment 

Data Recovery that includes:

• Recording

• Surface Collection or 

in-field artifact 

analysis

• Detailed surface 

mapping

• Photo documentation

Data Recovery that includes:

• Recording

• Surface Collection or infield artifact analysis

• Detailed surface 

mapping

• Controlled scientific 

excavation

• Laboratory analysis

• Photo documentation 

5.2.2 General Mitigation for Indirect Effects to Historic Properties

Although the Project’s construction and operation will avoid direct effects to trails and historic 

buildings, the indirect effect on properties that would be eligible under 36 CFR 60.4 criteria a, b, 

or c, would be treated differently from direct effects. For these properties, data recovery may also 

include historic documentation, photographic documentation, collection of oral histories, 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

5-3 December 2012

architectural, landscape, or engineering documentation. Table 4 lists treatment classes for 

unavoidable indirect effects to historic properties. 

Table 4. Treatment Classes for Unavoidable Indirect Effects

Historic Property

Category 

Example Site 

Types (not a 

complete list)

Treatment Classes for Indirect Effects

Trails (NHT, stage 

trails, freight roads, 

etc.)

Stations

Corrals

Trail traces

Burial 

Burial Inscriptions

• Recording—including HABS/HAER/HALS

• Additional literature or archival review (e.g. 

historic maps, local papers). 

• Metal detector surveys 

Historic Structures Farms and ranch 

sites, buildings, 

utility lines, water 

conveyance systems, 

mining, bridges, 

etc. 

• Photo documentation and scale drawings

• HABS/HAER/HALS documentation Additional 

archival and literature review 

• Restoration of historic structure

• Relocation of historic structure

Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

Types could include 

ceremonial areas, 

vision quest or 

gathering areas

• Additional literature/archival review 

• Ethnographic documentation 

• Oral histories 

Additional treatment measures for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects can include (but are 

not limited to) the following (per PA, Section V.B): 

• Completion of NRHP nomination forms.

• Conservation easements.

• Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) documentation.

• Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation. 

• Historic America Engineering Record (HAER) documentation.

• Purchase of land containing NHT segments or other historic properties for transfer to 

public ownership. 

• Partnership and funding for pubic archaeology projects.

• Print publication (brochure/book).

• Video media publication (website/podcast/video).

5.2.3 Proposed Project-Wide Historic Trails Mitigation Program

The Companies, in consultation with the Wyoming SHPO and BLM, are actively pursuing a 

conservation easement with interested Wyoming landowners with important emigrant trail 

resources on parcels they own. A Memorandum of Agreement is being negotiated to allow 

public disclosure of the location. The Companies anticipate that this conservation easement 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

5-4 December 2012

would be held and managed by the Wyoming Stockgrowers Land Trust and would adequately 

compensate for all project indirect effects on historic roads and trails. The Companies will 

continue to work closely with the BLM and the Wyoming and Idaho SHPOs to complete a 

compensatory mitigation package satisfactory to those parties and proportional to the Project’s 

adverse effects on those historic properties. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

6-1 December 2012

6.0 SEQUENCE OF PROJECT-RELATED TASKS

There are a series of tasks that should be completed to assure that historic properties eligible for 

or listed on the NRHP are avoided during construction or, if avoidance is not feasible, fully 

treated as specified in each Segment Plan. These tasks are conveniently identified as those that 

must take place before construction, the signing and monitoring activities conducted during 

construction, and those post construction tasks needed to complete reporting and curation, if 

needed. 

The Monitoring Plan (Attachment A) defines procedures that will be followed during Project 

construction activities to avoid and minimize impacts to known cultural resources. The 

objectives of monitoring are to protect extant significant historic buildings, structures, sites, or 

objects from construction impacts, to identify at the time of discovery any archaeological 

materials exposed during ground disturbance, and to protect such resources from damage while 

recommendations of eligibility for the NRHP are made by the CRS and provided to the BLM 

archaeologist for review and approval.

6.1 Pre-Construction Tasks

Pre-construction tasks include completion, submittal, and approval of the project-wide HPTP 

(this document) and Segment Plans for each work element the Companies identify as agreed in 

the PA. The BLM may issue NTP(s) to the Companies for individual construction phases as 

defined by the Companies in their construction plans, under the following conditions identified 

in the PA, Section X.B.1-4:

• If the BLM, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, determines that no historic properties 

are present within the APE for that segment; or

• If the BLM, in consultation with SHPO/THPO, determines that historic properties are 

present but will not be affected within the APE for that segment; or

• The Segment Plan mitigation has been implemented for that construction phase or if 

incomplete, a 300-foot construction buffer for avoidance is clearly marked in the field 

until completion, and cultural resources monitoring, if required, is in place as outlined in 

the HPTP.

Additional pre-construction tasks include the selection of the CRS and needed CRMs and NAMs 

where indicated as part of the third-party environmental compliance team. The Companies must 

also provide the CRS and BLM, with maps and/or drawings of the project APE. As specified in 

the monitoring plan, the CRS and the CRMs are responsible for ensuring avoidance measures 

(e.g. sensitive resource flagging, complete avoidance) are in place where needed. Sites will be 

only flagged or staked as exclusion areas or “Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)” and will 

not be identified as to content or type to avoid vandalism or theft of site objects. In addition, a 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

6-2 December 2012

cultural resource training program will be incorporated into the overall environmental training 

program for all Gateway West project construction staff. 

6.2 Construction Phase Tasks 

Construction phase tasks include providing ongoing environmental training to construction staff, 

keeping current with the project schedule and monitoring activities for cultural resources, 

ensuring and documenting that avoidance measures for specific sites have been maintained. 

Monitoring tasks are described in the Monitoring Plan, Attachment A, and mitigation tasks are 

generally described in Section 6 and will be further detailed in the Segment Plans. Additional 

construction phase tasks include maintaining daily monitoring logs and providing weekly 

summaries and monthly compliance reports of cultural resources monitoring and mitigation 

activities within each NTP area of the Project. 

6.3 Post-Construction Phase Tasks

Post-construction phase tasks include preparing the final reports, completing test investigation or 

data recovery analysis and reports if buried sites are discovered during construction, preparing 

artifacts and other cultural materials for curation, and transferring these materials to the approved 

curation facility.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

7-1 December 2012

7.0 REFERENCES CITED

BLM

2003. The Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Field Guide for Evaluative Testing 

of Archaeological Sites. A supplement to the Wyoming Bureau of Land 

Management Cultural Resources Handbook. Available from the Wyoming BLM

offices and website: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/cultural/docs.Par.5970

.File.dat/testing-guide.pdf 

2011. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Gateway West 

Transmission Line Project, available on the BLM website 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/cfodocs/gateway_west/draft_eis.html

2012. Programmatic Agreement Among the BLM, USFS, ACHP, Idaho and Wyoming 

SHPO, BOR, BIA, NPS, USACE, IDANG, Idaho Power, and Rocky Mountain 

Power Regarding the Compliance with the NHPA for the Gateway West 

Transmission Line Project 

Henderson et al. 2009. Gateway West Transmission Line Project: Wyoming Cultural Resources 

Literature Review. Report on file at the State BLM office, and Casper, Rawlins, Rock 

Springs, and Kemmerer Field Offices 

Nilsson, Elena, Russell Bevill, and Michael S. Kelly. 2009. Class I Existing Information 

Inventory, Gateway West Transmission Line Project, Idaho Portion. Report on file at the 

Wyoming and Idaho State BLM offices. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT A

MONITORING PLAN 
ATTACHMENT A

DRAFT

MONITORING PLAN

of the

DRAFT HISTORIC PROPERTIES TREATMENT PLAN 

for the 

GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

Case File Numbers:

IDI-35849, Idaho

WYW-174598, Wyoming

Prepared by

Rocky Mountain Power

and

Idaho Power Company

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

i December 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES TEAM .................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Cultural Resources Specialist (Principal Investigator).............................................2-1

2.2 Cultural Resource Monitors .....................................................................................2-3

2.3 Native American Monitors.......................................................................................2-4

2.4 Management of Unanticipated Discoveries..............................................................2-5

2.4.1 Field Director ...............................................................................................2-5

2.4.2 Crew Chiefs..................................................................................................2-6

2.4.3 Field Crew ....................................................................................................2-6

2.4.4 Laboratory Director......................................................................................2-6

3.0 MONITORING AND AVOIDANCE PROCEDURES..................................................... 3-1

3.1 Cultural Resource Construction Monitoring ............................................................3-1

3.2 Authority to Halt Construction.................................................................................3-3

3.3 Flagging, Fencing, and Signage Measures...............................................................3-3

3.4 Monitoring Locations and Schedule.........................................................................3-3

3.5 Construction Compliance .........................................................................................3-4

3.6 Construction Change Management ..........................................................................3-4

Attachments

Attachment 1 Daily Cultural Resource Monitoring Log

Attachment 2 State Archaeological Site Forms 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

1-1 December 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This initial Draft Monitoring Plan (Plan) specifically addresses monitoring for cultural resources 

(including but not limited to historic properties determined to be eligible for the NRHP) during 

construction of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project (Project). This Plan provides 

details regarding roles and responsibilities of various personnel in the field in coordination with 

the Project-wide environmental Compliance Plan, itself a part of the Project’s Plan of 

Development (POD). The Programmatic Agreement (PA) developed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) as lead agency under National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in close 

cooperation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, tribes, other federal agencies, 

and other interested parties, requires the development of this Plan as part of the Historic 

Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP). This plan, prepared by PacifiCorp (doing business as Rocky 

Mountain Power) and Idaho Power Company (Companies), has not been reviewed or approved 

by agencies or the Parties to the PA. When it is reviewed, revised as needed, and approved by 

the BLM and the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) it will be attached to the approved 

HPTP. 

The purpose of this Plan is to specify:

• how avoidance of known resources will be assured and documented during 

construction, 

• how monitors will interact with other environmental compliance staff as well as with 

the construction personnel, and

• how monitors will employ the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and, if necessary, the Plan 

of Action for compliance with Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA).

This Plan, as part of the Project-wide HPTP, will be supplemented with a set of confidential 

maps and site-specific resource avoidance details for each segment Plan. This Plan presents the 

roles and responsibilities of the cultural resource team as well as specifies the procedures to be 

followed during construction activities. 

Any discussion, summary, or paraphrasing of the BLM’s PA measures in this Plan is intended as 

general guidance and as an aid to the user in understanding the stipulations and their 

implementation. If there appears to be a discrepancy between the stipulations in the PA which 

have been summarized, described, or interpreted in this Plan, the conditions and stipulations, as 

written in the PA, supersede interpretations in this Plan. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

2-1 December 2012

2.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES TEAM 

The Cultural Resources Team is a part of the Construction Contractor’s environmental 

inspection/monitoring team and will report to the Construction Contractor’s Lead Environmental 

Inspector as outlined in the Environmental Compliance Monitoring Plan (ECMP). The ECMP is 

provided as Appendix C to the Plan of Development submitted by the Companies to the BLM, 

itself Appendix B of the EIS for the Project. The Construction Contractor’s Cultural Resource 

Team will conduct cultural resource field monitoring, ensure compliance with requirements 

within the HPTP and implement treatment as prescribed within the Segment Plans. Such 

activities will be monitored and observed by the Compliance Inspection Contractor (CIC) as 

identified in the ECMP. The following sections describe the qualifications, roles, and 

responsibilities of each member of the Cultural Resources Team. 

2.1 Cultural Resources Specialist (Principal Investigator)

Qualifications—The Cultural Resource specialist (CRS) must meet, at a minimum, the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology, history, or 

architectural history as published in Title 36 CFR part 61, and in addition must have:

• At least 5 years of archaeological resource mitigation and field experience and 

• At least 3 years of experience in a decision-making capacity on cultural resources 

projects, and the appropriate training and experience to knowledgably make 

recommendations regarding the significance of cultural resources.

In addition, the CRS must hold a current (or be able to obtain) the appropriate state BLM 

Cultural Use Permit and Field Authorizations. If an alternate CRS is considered that person must 

also meet the same requirements as the originally-named CRS. 

The Companies will confirm to the BLM in writing the availability of the CRS and provide his 

or her qualifications no less than 75 days prior to the start of ground disturbance. At least 15 days 

prior to ground disturbance, the CRS will provide a letter naming anticipated Cultural Resource 

Monitors (CRMs), including sufficient alternates to account for absences, for the project and 

demonstrating that the identified CRMs meet the minimum qualifications for cultural resource 

monitoring.

Responsibilities—The CRS will be the primary point of contact between the Companies’ Project 

Manager(s), Construction Contractor’s Project Manager, the CIC, and the BLM Project Manager 

and Archaeologist. The CRS will also be responsible for the analysis and the overall quality of 

the monitoring reports and discovery reports, if any. The CRS is responsible for the planning, 

execution, completion, and quality of the cultural resources monitoring tasks undertaken just 

prior to and during the Project construction.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

2-2 December 2012

The CRS, as a member of the Construction Contractor’s Cultural Resources Team, will be 

responsible for obtaining construction plans and schedules from the Construction Contractor(s)

for tasking field personnel to monitor construction and evaluate or conduct data recovery 

excavations for any archaeological sites discovered during construction. The CRS will be 

responsible for notification of the Companies’ Project Manager(s), Construction Contractor’s

Project Manager, the CIC, and the BLM Project Manager and Archaeologist regarding cultural 

resources related issues. 

The CRS will direct the preparations for and execution of day-to-day construction monitoring 

activities: 

• Present the cultural resources section of the environmental training program (an 

employee training program for all construction personnel prior to ground disturbing 

activities). Cultural resource training will include the proper procedures to follow in the 

event that cultural resources are encountered during project ground disturbance. The 

environmental training program may include a BLM-approved video, training 

pamphlets, or other media resources.

• Direct the CRM(s) regarding where and when to monitor Project construction activities.

• Daily, review of the CRM’s daily monitoring log(s).

• Prepare a monthly summary report during active construction on the progress or status 

of cultural resources-related activities and submit to the Companies’ Project Manager, 

the CIC, and the BLM Archaeologist. The summary will include any new 

archaeological site forms (appropriate state form) for any finds identified under the 

monitoring program (see Attachment 2 for state isolate and/or archaeological site 

forms). 

• Notify the Companies’ Project Manager, the CIC, and the BLM Archaeologist, by 

telephone or e-mail of any unanticipated discoveries of any cultural resources within 24 

hours of becoming aware of the situation.

• Notify the Companies’ Project Manager, the CIC, and BLM Archaeologist by 

telephone or e-mail, of any incidents of noncompliance with any cultural resources 

within 24 hours of becoming aware of the situation, and recommend corrective action 

to resolve the problem or achieve compliance with the conditions of certification.

• Where indicated, make a good-faith effort to obtain Native American Monitors

(NAMs).

• Obtain additional technical specialists or additional monitors, if warranted or required.

• Obtain appropriate specialist (e.g. qualified backhoe operator, Project Prehistoric 

Archaeologist, Historical Archaeologist, Geoarchaeologist), as needed, to guide and 

conduct the evaluation of cultural resources that are discovered if needed.

• Oversee curation required for the Project.

• If an archaeological site is discovered within the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE)

during construction, the CRS will:
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

2-3 December 2012

• Halt construction within 200 feet of the discovery.

• Notify the CIC, the Companies’ Project Manager, and the BLM Archaeologist 

as soon as feasible. 

• Conduct a non-invasive preliminary field assessment of the find. 

• Evaluate any cultural resources that are newly discovered for eligibility in the 

NRHP.

• Submit a recommendation to the BLM Archaeologist regarding NRHP 

eligibility of the discovered site.

• The CRS will oversee the completion of site form and other appropriate documentation 

of the discovery.

• If the site is determined eligible for the NRHP, the CRS will consult with the 

Companies’ Project Manager, the CIC, and the BLM Archaeologist, to develop a 

treatment plan for the resource(s) if it is not covered by the HPTP or relevant Segment 

Plan.

• Determine the scope, methods, and techniques to be used for test investigations or data 

recovery and analysis of artifacts and other materials.

• Oversee the completion of any necessary test excavations or data recovery excavations.

• Oversee the completion of reports of tests excavations or data recovery excavations and 

ensure that the reports meet PA requirements and the appropriate state Office of 

Historic Preservation standards for completeness and quality.

2.2 Cultural Resource Monitors

CRMs will conduct the daily archaeological construction monitoring (as needed and/or specified 

by specific land owners). Preference will be given to monitors that are familiar with the types of 

historic and prehistoric resources in the area. The qualifications and responsibilities of the CRM 

are as follows.

Qualifications—CRM will either:

• Have a Bachelor of Science (BS) or Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in anthropology, 

archaeology, historic archaeology, or a related field, at least 2 years of experience 

conducting archaeological fieldwork under direction of a professional archaeologist 

with at least 3 months of archaeological construction monitoring experience; 

• Have an Associates of Arts (AA) or Associates of Science (AS) degree in 

anthropology, archaeology, historic archaeology, or related field and at least 4 years of 

experience conducting archaeological fieldwork under the direction of a professional 

archaeologist with 3 months of archaeological construction monitoring experience; 

• Be enrolled in upper division classes pursuing a degree in the field of anthropology, 

archaeology, or historic archaeology and 2 years of archaeological construction 

monitoring experience.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

2-4 December 2012

Responsibilities—The CRM will be present full time at the Project construction site, as directed 

by the CRS, to watch ground-disturbing construction activities and inspect cleared ground and 

excavation trenches for signs of previously undiscovered archaeological resources during 

construction as indicated in the Segment Plan or until monitoring reduction has been approved 

by the BLM. 

The CRM will provide daily documentation of construction activity and any findings. The 

monitor will prepare a daily monitoring log, briefly describing the field conditions, construction 

progress and activities, non-compliance activities, and record any finds of archaeological 

material. This daily log will include a report of the presence and activity of any NAM teaming 

with the CRM where one or more NAMs are assigned. 

The CRM will be responsible for implementing the requirements of the environmental training 

program. If the CRM or other construction personnel discover archaeological finds during 

construction, the monitor will have authority to halt construction in the vicinity of the find and 

will notify the CRS. 

2.3 Native American Monitors

Native American Monitors (NAMs) will be obtained to monitor ground disturbance (if applicable

and specified in the Segment Plan). All reasonable efforts will be made to contact and schedule 

NAMs. If NAMs are not available, construction may proceed after notification of the CIC and 

the BLM. Each NAM will be assigned to work closely with a CRM as a team. NAMs shall have

the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow for the 

evaluation of prehistoric resources (i.e. unanticipated discoveries) through coordination with the 

onsite CRM.

Qualifications—Native American Monitors will be selected for the Project to monitor ground 

disturbance in areas where ground disturbing activities occur. Preference in selecting a monitor 

shall be given to Native Americans with traditional ties to the Project area. The monitor will be 

selected based on the BLM’s recommendations. Preferred qualifications for NAM(s) include: 

• Knowledge of village sites, cultural, religion, ceremony, and burial practices within the 

project region, traditional ties, and familiarity with the Project area

• Knowledge and understanding of the Native American Graves Protection Act 

(NAGPRA) and ability to communicate the meaning of these laws and codes to project 

personnel 

• Ability to work with local law enforcement officials and the BLM to ensure compliance 

with NAGPRA

• Ability to travel to Project sites within traditional tribal territory
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

2-5 December 2012

• Familiarity and/or knowledge of and understanding of Section 106 of the NHPA, as 

amended.

• Ability to read a topographical map and be able to locate sites 

• Knowledge and understanding of archaeological practices, including the phases of 

archaeological investigation (formal education in an appropriate field, such as 

anthropology, archaeology, or ethnology may be substituted for experience).

• Experience as a tribal cultural resources monitor on similar projects. 

Responsibilities—The designated NAM(s) will participate in the evaluation of Native American 

artifacts. In addition, the NAM(s) will be invited to be on site at prehistoric site locations when 

construction is taking place and will be invited to assist with excavation and recording of any 

find of prehistoric cultural resources. In the event that data recovery excavation is necessary, the 

NAM will be invited to assist in excavation and site recording. 

2.4 Management of Unanticipated Discoveries

If a discovery is made in the field, additional archaeological field staff (e.g. field director, crew 

chief, etc.) may be required to assist and complete archaeological site recording, testing, data 

recovery, and analysis depending on the mitigation plan as an amendment to the relevant 

Segment Plan, for large complex sites, if the CRS and/or CRM(s) are needed in other areas were 

construction is continuing and ongoing, and/or in an effort to complete the work within a 

scheduled amount of time. All archaeological field crews will work under the supervision of the 

CRS. 

2.4.1 Field Director

Qualifications—The Field Director will have a BS or BA degree in anthropology, archaeology, 

historic archaeology, or a related field and meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification 

Standards for Archaeologists and/or be listed on the state BLM Cultural Use Permit as a 

Principal Investigator and/or Field Director (as approved by the BLM State Office).

Responsibilities—The Field Director, under the supervision of the CRS, will be responsible for 

the day-to-day activities of the testing and data recovery investigations, including management 

of field personnel and coordination of crews. The Field Director will also be responsible for 

compiling and ensuring the quality of the field data on a daily basis. Additionally, the Field 

Director will coordinate the work of sub-consultants or other contractors participating in the 

archaeological field investigations, and will be responsible for implementing the requirements of 

the environmental training, including daily safety briefings. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

2-6 December 2012

2.4.2 Crew Chiefs

Qualifications—The Crew Chief will have a BS or BA degree in anthropology, archaeology, 

historic archaeology, or a related field and at least 2 years of experience as an archaeological 

crew chief. 

Responsibilities—The Crew Chiefs will, in consultation with the Field Director, be responsible 

for implementing the field strategies at individual sites. The Crew Chief will direct field crew, 

lay out excavations, and compile collections and field documentation on a daily basis. 

Additionally, the Crew Chief will be responsible for implementing on-site safety procedures

and/or environmental training.

2.4.3 Field Crew

Qualifications—The field crew for any field recording or excavation activities will have a BS or 

BA degree in anthropology, archaeology, historic archaeology, or a related field, and field school 

experience; or an AA or AS degree in anthropology, archaeology, historic archaeology, or 

related field, and archaeological field school experience.

Responsibilities—Field crew members will conduct surface examinations and hand excavations, 

and monitor mechanical test investigation excavations. Each crew member will operate under the 

direct supervision of the Crew Chief and will conduct basic documentation of field operations,

including completing excavation-level records, bag labeling, and trench monitoring forms.

2.4.4 Laboratory Director

Qualifications—The laboratory director will have a BS or BA degree in anthropology, 

archaeology, historic archaeology, or a related field and field school experience; or an AA or AS 

degree in anthropology, archaeology, historic archaeology, or related field, archaeological field 

school experience, and have previous experience managing a laboratory for a data recovery 

project.

Responsibilities—The Laboratory Director will be responsible for directing all phases of 

laboratory processing of the data recovery collections, including check-in, cleaning, sorting, 

cataloguing, analyzing, distributing special samples, and preparing for curation. The Laboratory 

Director will coordinate closely with the CRS to ensure that the appropriate data are documented 

and compiled.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

3-1 December 2012

3.0 MONITORING AND AVOIDANCE PROCEDURES

This section describes the monitoring procedures that will apply project-wide. Where warranted, 

the Segment Plans will include additional site-specific monitoring requirements. The objectives 

of monitoring are to assure and document avoidance of extant significant historic buildings, 

structures, sites, or objects during Project construction, to identify at the time of discovery any 

archaeological materials exposed during ground disturbance, and to protect such resources from 

damage while recommendations of eligibility for the NRHP are made by the CRS and provided 

to the BLM Archaeologist for review and approval. 

3.1 Cultural Resource Construction Monitoring

Cultural resource monitoring for the Project will be conducted Project-wide, unless otherwise 

specified by the landowner, land management agency or in the Segment Plans. For the purposes 

of this HPTP Monitoring Plan, archaeological construction monitoring is defined as on-theground, close-up observation by a CRS or CRM, meeting the qualifications prescribed in Section

2.0 – Cultural Resources Team.

The CRS and/or CRM will observe the ground during mechanical scraping, grading, excavating, 

and similar activities for archaeological remains that might be exposed by these activities. 

Cultural resource monitoring will not be required once initial ground disturbance is completed or 

if equipment or vehicles are traveling over previously disturbed surfaces. Routine travel on 

existing or disturbed roads or across disturbed transmission structure pads will not be monitored

for cultural resources. However, new ground disturbance by additional blading or excavating will 

be monitored for cultural resources, even on previously-graded or bladed areas. Activities that do 

not require motorized equipment will not be monitored for cultural resources. These activities

may include but are not limited to installing fencing, silt fencing, or barriers to protect sensitive 

resources.

The CRM will maintain daily monitoring logs (Attachment 1) of Project-related construction 

monitoring activities. Logs will reflect the daily monitoring activities and will include:

• Date, time of work, and amount of time spent at a construction monitoring location

• Area of work

• Type of work, equipment present, and name of crew being monitored 

• Construction activities being performed

• Documentation of successful resource avoidance 

• Activities in which there are cultural resource problems, non-compliances, or other 

concerns
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

3-2 December 2012

• Identification of an unanticipated discovery

• Name of NAM(s), if present

• Color digital photographs shall be taken (as appropriate) to document construction and 

monitoring activities and submitted as attachments to the daily log. 

• CRMs will provide their monitoring logs daily to the CRS. The CRS will maintain 

weekly and monthly summary reports of construction progress, monitoring (monitor 

name, dates worked, finds, issues, etc.), and status of cultural resource related issues. 

The CRS will direct the preparation and distribution of a Cultural Monitoring Results 

report and an archaeological report to BLM project Manager and archaeologist and 

state standards of findings for any archaeological test excavation or data recovery 

program that takes place.

• If the CRS determines that full-time monitoring is not necessary in certain construction 

locations and that monitoring will be conducted on an “as needed” intermittent 

schedule, the CRS will provide a detailed letter or email to the BLM archaeologist (at 

least 24 hours prior to implementing any change) explaining the decision to reduce the 

level of monitoring.

• The CRS shall review each CRM’s daily monitoring log. If no unanticipated 

discoveries were identified that day, provide the appropriate state BLM archaeologist a 

statement, via email or other acceptable form of communication, to that effect. The 

CRS will notify the BLM archaeologist at least 24 hours prior to reducing or ending the 

daily reporting.

• If a discovery was made, the notification procedures found in the Inadvertent 

Discovery Plan (HPTP Attachment B) shall be followed. 

• If human remains are discovered on federal land the Native American Graves 

Protection and Reparation Act Plan of Action will be adhered to (HPTP 

Attachment C).

• The CRS shall prepare a monthly summary report (while monitoring is on-going) on 

the progress or status of cultural resources-related activities and supply this to the CIC

and BLM Archaeologist. In addition, the summary shall include any new 

archaeological site forms for finds for which such forms are required by the relevant 

State Historic Preservation Office policy and identified under the monitoring program.

• If requested by a Native American group/tribe, the CRS shall send the appropriate 

Native American representative a notification (via letter or email) following the 

discovery of Native American cultural materials other than those considered isolates. If

such notification is transmitted, the CRS shall copy the CIC and the BLM. If any 

comments are received from the Native American representative regarding the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

3-3 December 2012

discovery, the CRS shall submit copies of all received comments within 15 days of 

receipt to the CIC and the BLM archaeologist.

• The CRS and/or CRMs will maintain the flagging and staking of sensitive resources

(e.g. archaeological sites) to ensure that they are avoided, unless otherwise directed by 

BLM.

3.2 Authority to Halt Construction 

The CR and the CRM(s) will have the authority to temporarily halt construction operations 

within 200 feet (60 meters) of a find or exposed resource to determine if significant or potentially 

significant cultural resources are present and if they will be adversely affected by continuing 

construction operations. The NAM(s), if present, may also coordinate with the CRS or the CRM 

to temporarily halt construction. The CRS or CRM will be responsible for delineating the area 

within which construction will halt using flagging tape, rope, or some other means as necessary. 

The CRS will notify the Companies’ Project Manager, the CIC, the BLM Project Manger and

archaeologist, and interested Native American (groups that have expressed an interest to be 

notified of such a discovery) of the find and work stoppage within 24 hours of the find. 

Construction will not take place within the delineated find area until the CRS has completed field 

notes, measurements, and photography for a site record (unless the find can be treated 

prescriptively), and the CRS, in consultation with the CIC and BLM Archaeologist, can inspect 

and evaluate the find and determine whether or not further mitigation is required, and the BLM 

has agreed to the recommended evaluation and treatment.

3.3 Flagging, Fencing, and Signage Measures

For Project construction activities, the CRM will flag or provide signage for previously recorded 

and newly identified sensitive areas that are within 30 meters of Project construction, to assure 

such resources are avoided and that ground disturbing construction activities do not impact 

flagged site boundaries or unanticipated discoveries. The use of “Environmentally Sensitive 

Area” signage will be used for culturally and biologically sensitive areas during construction. 

The signage will be posted around (immediately outside) the cultural resource sensitive area by 

the cultural resource monitor 1 day prior (as practical) to construction in the area (to avoid 

drawing attention to the area prior to construction). 

The CRS and/or a CRM will field check and maintain signage and assure that it remains in place 

while construction activities in the vicinity are active. The CRS or CRM will remove the signs 

following the completion of Project-related construction activities in the vicinity. 

3.4 Monitoring Locations and Schedule

The CRS and/or a CRM will observe ground disturbance as specified in Section 3.1 – Cultural 

Resource Construction Monitoring. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

3-4 December 2012

As part of the Construction Contractor’s Cultural Resource Team, the CRS will obtain a 

construction schedule prior to the start of ground disturbing activities (preferably a two week 

look ahead to ensure proper staffing). The CRS will then establish a schedule for the CRM(s) 

and NAM(s) teamed with each CRM, as appropriate, to follow and a protocol for communication 

with the CIC and the Construction Contractor(s) who will confer with the CRS on any changes to 

construction dates. Daily updates or changes to the construction schedule will be provided by the 

Construction Contractor to the CRS and the CIC as appropriate. 

The CRS shall ensure that adequate monitors (including NAMs where applicable) are available 

as work load fluctuates during construction.

As described in Section 2.3 – Native American Monitors, a NAM or NAMs will be obtained (as 

applicable) and be present to monitor ground disturbing activities Project-wide, unless otherwise 

specified by the landowner, land management agency or in the Segment Plans. In general, a 

NAM will be teamed with a CRM in the field. The intent is to have an adequate number of 

NAMs on contract, where NAMs are indicated, to allow for rotation to ensure the interests of 

various tribes are represented and to allow for substitute NAMs should particular individuals 

become unable to fulfill those responsibilities at particular point in time.

3.5 Construction Compliance

The CRS and CRM(s) will coordinate with the CIC to monitor and report problem areas and 

non-compliances. The CRS will then notify the Companies’ Project Manager(s), Construction 

Contractor’s Project Manager, the CIC, and the BLM Project Manager and Archaeologist.

Procedures as specified in the ECMP will be followed. If the noncompliance includes 

unauthorized or unmonitored ground disturbance, cultural resource surveys to determine 

presence of or damage to cultural resources will be required, and effects determinations and 

mitigation also completed if indicated, before construction could be allowed to continue in the 

noncompliance area. 

3.6 Construction Change Management 

During construction, unforeseen or unavoidable site conditions can result in the need for changes 

from approved mitigation measures and construction procedures. Additionally, the need for route 

realignments, extra workspaces, or access roads outside of the previously approved construction 

work area may arise (e.g. to avoid an inadvertent discovery), resulting in the need to prepare a 

variance request. The CIC will consult with the CRS for any variances requested by the 

Construction Contractor to assure cultural resource avoidance. All applicable procedures as 

specified in the ECMP will be followed. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

3-5 December 2012

If a new area outside the previously-surveyed APE is proposed for ground disturbance, a 

pedestrian survey (Phase 6, PA Section II.C.6) for cultural resources must be conducted and a 

report documenting lack of surface resources submitted as part of the variance approval process. 

If cultural resources are found, effects determinations and mitigation must be completed before 

ground disturbance could be permitted. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment A Monitoring Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT 1 

DAILY CULTURAL RESOURCE MONITORING LOG 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Cultural Resource Monitor Daily Report Date ____ /____ /____

 

 

Monitor: ___________________________________________

Transmission Line Segment/MP#_____________________________

Weather Conditions.: ____________

Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ____________

Attachments:____________________________________

Photographs: Yes No (if yes, see page 2)

Construction Areas and Activities Monitored

Area#: ______ Time :________ Construction Crew: Construction Supervisor: ____________________ 

Activity : ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Monitor Checklist

General Yes No N/A Comments

Attach Supplemental Report if needed

Native American Monitor present? Name: 

Biological Monitor present? Name:

Workspace limits verified and properly marked?

All activities within approved workspace limits?

Only approved access roads utilized for ingress and egress?

Environmental signs in place? (e.g. access roads, sensitive area)

Trash and debris contained and disposed of in proper manner?

Work Site Conditions

Visibility (circle one) Excellent Good Fair Poor Explain, if necessary:

Soils: Desert Pavement Aeolian Sand Dunes Other, explain:
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan –Attachment A Monitoring Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT 2

STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORMS 
Page 1 of 4

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF IDAHO

SITE INVENTORY FORM

Part A – Administrative Data

1. State No.___________________

2. Agency No.__________________

3. Temporary No.__________________

4. Site name(s)_________________________________________ 5. County_________________________

6. Class: 

 Prehistoric  Historic  Traditional Cultural Property  Undetermined

7. Land owner_____________________________ 8. Federal admin. unit_________________________

9. Project________________________________________________________ 10. Report No.____________________ 

11. Recorder(s)_______________________________________________________________________

12. Organization______________________________________________ 13. Date_________________

14. Attachments and associated records:

 Topographic map (required)  Stratigraphic profiles

 Site map (required)  Rock art attachment

 Photos with labels/log (required)  Historical records 

 Artifact illustrations  Assoc. IHSI forms____________________________

 Feature drawings  Other_______________________________________

15. Elevation (site datum)__________(ft) 

16. Site dimensions:_________m X _________m Area____________m2

17. UTM at site datum: Zone____ _______________m Easting _________________m Northing using NAD 1983.

18. UTM source:

 Corrected GPS/rectified survey (<5m error)  Uncorrected GPS  Map template  Other explained under comments

19. Township________, Range________, Section_______; _______1/4 of _______1/4 of _______1/4

Additional legals listed on an attachment. 

20. USGS 7.5’ map reference_____________________________________________________________ Additional maps listed on an attachment. 

21. Access___________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

22. Site description_____________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 4

23. Site type:

 Historic building*  Rockshelter/cave  Mortuary  Faunal

 Historic structure*  Stacked/placed rocks  Rock art  Culturally modified trees

 Historic object*  Quarry/lithic source  Feature(s)  Other_____________________________________

 Prehistoric residential  Linear  Artifact(s)

 *Following definition for the National Register of Historic Places.

24. Specify themes and time periods:

 Themes Time Periods

 Prehistoric archaeology  Military  Prehistoric-general  Settlement: 1855-1890

 Agriculture  Mining industry  Paleoindian  Phase 1 statehood: 1890-1904

 Architecture  Native Americans  Archaic-general  Phase 2 statehood: 1904-1920

 Civilian Conservation Corps  Politics/government  Early Archaic  Interwar: 1920-1940

 Commerce  Public land management  Middle Archaic  Premodern: 1940-1958

 Communication  Recreation/tourism  Late Archaic  Modern: 1958-present

 Culture and society  Settlement  Late Prehistoric-general  Historic/Modern-general

 Ethnic heritage  Timber industry  Protohistoric/Contact  Unknown

 Exploration/fur trapping  Transportation  Historic Native American

 Industry  Other ___________________  Exploration: 1805-1860

25. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluation: *

 Individually eligible  Contributing in a district  Not eligible  Insufficient information to evaluate 

 *Evaluation subject to review by SHPO.

26. NRHP criteria used:

 A: Event  B: Person  C: Design and construction  D: Information potential

27. Comments on significance_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

28. If not eligible, explain why_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

29. Condition (prehistoric component):

 Excellent  Good  Fair  Poor

 Condition (historic component):

 Excellent  Good  Fair  Poor

30. Impact agents:

 Agricultural use  Development project  Mining/quarrying  Road/highway  Vandalism

 Building alteration  Erosion  No information  Rodent damage  Other_________________

 Deflation  Grazing  Recreation use  Structural decay

 Demolished  Looting  Research excavation  Timber harvest

 Comments on impact agents____________________________________________________________

31. Surface collection:

 None  Previously collected  Grab sample  Designed sample  Complete

32. Sediments:

 Absent  0-20 cm  21-100 cm  >100 cm  Suspected but not tested

 Explain how this was determined________________________________________________________

33. Excavation status: 

 Unexcavated  Auger/probe  Test unit  Backhoe, etc.

 Surface scrape  Shovel test  Block excavation

 Describe collection/testing/excavation_____________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________________________

34. Excavation volume (indicate liters or cubic meters) ___________ Screen mesh__________________

35. Additional comments________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 4

Part B – Environmental Data

36. Distance to permanent water__________________m

37. Water source:

 Spring, seep  River/stream  Lake  Other_________________________

38. On-site vegetation (estimate percentage of total vegetation for each class and identify species):

 Trees: _____% Species:____________________________________________________________________

 Shrubs: _____% Species:____________________________________________________________________

 Forbs: _____% Species:____________________________________________________________________

 Grasses: _____% Species:____________________________________________________________________

 Lichens/mosses: _____% Species:____________________________________________________________________

 Describe__________________________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________________________________

39. Visible surface area:

 0%  1-25%  26-50%  51-75%  76-100%

40. Landform (Describe, including lithology, form, and soil, using locally or regionally appropriate terms, eg. 

arroyo, playa, moraine, etc.)______________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Part C – Prehistoric Sites

41. Phase/period______________________________________________________________________

42. How classified_____________________________________________________________________

43. Maximum artifact density___________m2

44. Individual artifacts:

Count Category Description

45. Lithic Debitage – Estimated Quantity: 

 None  1-9  10-25  25-100  100-500  500+

 Flaking Stages (not present, rare, common, or dominant):

 Decortication____________ Secondary____________ Tertiary____________ Shatter_____________

46. Material types_____________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

47. Additional description________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 4

48. Features:

Count Category Description 

49. Additional description________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Part D – Historic Sites

50. Cultural affiliation__________________________________________________________________ 

51. Oldest date_________________ Recent Date________________

52. How determined_________________________________________________________________________________

53. Maximum artifact density___________m2

54. Individual artifacts:

Count Category Description

55. Additional description________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

56. Features:

Count Category Description

57. Additional description________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
WYOMING CULTURAL PROPERTIES FORM (rev. 3.0 12/18/2012) Page number ____

Date ________________________________________________________ Smithsonian # _______________________________ 

* Continue narrative as needed on separate page or by expanding section on word processor. data entry, this page ___

 

 

8A . ARTIFACTS AND DEBRIS ASSOCIATED WITH PREHISTORIC COMPONENTS

Component age* and identifier:_______________________________________________________________________________________________

*Time Periods – Unknown Prehistoric, Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Archaic (general), Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric; 

Instructions: Check to indicate artifacts present. Preferably, put in an estimated count for each artifact class in parentheses where appropriate. 

Keywords for types or forms are used in the data system to enhance finding specific sorts of artifacts (e.g., “drill”, “preform”, “Duncan”, “Folsom”). 

Artifacts diagnostic of time period or cultural affiliation should be listed in the table. Describe artifacts in the site narrative (7) or below. As appropriate, 

diagnostics should be illustrated or photographed with scale and labeled as to type identification. Additional sheets and analytical data may be attached.

GENERAL

___ Time diagnostics

___ Affiliation diagnostics

CHIPPED STONE

___ Lithic sources

___ Debitage

___ Cores (____)

___ Projectile points (____)

___ Bifaces (____)

___ Scrapers (____)

___ Other formal tools (____)

___ Modified flakes (____)

___ Core tools (____)

___ Hammerstones (____)

___ OBSIDIAN

___ FIRE-ALTERED ROCK

DEBITAGE FREQUENCY

(check only one)

___ unknown

___ none

___ 1-10

___ 11-100

___ 101 –1000

___ 1001-10,000

___ >10,000

DEBITAGE COMPOSITION

___ % Primary

___ % Secondary

___ % Tertiary

GROUND STONE

___ Manos (____)

___ Metates (____)

___ Unk. ground stone (___)

___ Other ground stone (____)

CERAMICS/STEATITE

___ Ceramics (___)

___ Steatite (___)

BONE AND ORGANIC

___ Bone (unknown size/type)

___ Large mammal

___ Medium mammal

___ Small mammal

___ Amphibian, bird, or reptile

___ Fish

___ Egg shell

___ Mollusc shell

___ Organic debris

___ Other (describe below)

OTHER ARTIFACTS

___ Shaped bone/bone tool(___)

___ Cordage(___)

___ Metal Points/Items(___)

___ Basketry(___)

___ Beads(___)

 

__bone__shell__glass__other

___ Other Decorative 

Items(___) (describe) 

___ Other (describe)

HUMAN REMAINS

___ Human remains

___ Artifacts associated 

w/remains

Estimated total assemblage size: ___ 0-10, ___ 11-100, ___101-1000, ___1001-10,000, ___>10,000

ARTIFACT KEYWORDS:

DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY (diagnostic artifacts should be plotted on site sketch map): List temporal-cultural diagnostic artifacts 

below. Use general ages from site age matrix, and list specific diagnostic type. (e.g., Middle Archaic for general age, “Duncan” for type, “McKean” for 

complex). General ages are: Paleoindian, Early, Middle, and Late Archaic, Archaic (undifferentiated); Late Prehistoric; Protohistoric; unknown age. 

See “Users Guide” for definitions and examples of technological-cultural complex. Expand table as necessary.

General Age Type name Materials 

(if known)

Count Collected

y/n

Technological or 

cultural complex

Description

__ Check here if artifacts are described in site narrative. Otherwise, describe in table above.
WYOMING CULTURAL PROPERTIES FORM (rev. 3.0 12/18/2012) Page number ____

Date ________________________________________________________ Smithsonian # _______________________________ 

* Continue narrative as needed on separate page or by expanding section on word processor. data entry, this page ___

 

 

8B. FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH PREHISTORIC COMPONENT

Component age* and identifier:_______________________________________________________________________________________________

*Time Periods – Unknown Prehistoric, Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Archaic (general), Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric

Instructions: Check to indicate features present. Preferably, also put in an estimated count for each feature class where appropriate. Features should be 

listed and described in the feature inventory table below. Keywords are used in the database to aid in searching for specific feature types – enter as 

appropriate (e.g., “slab-lined hearth”, “wickiup”, “antelope trap”). Describe features in the site narrative or below. NOTE that agency reporting 

requirements may require specific feature enumerations. Additional sheets and analytical data may be attached.

___ Hearths (___)

___ Fire-altered rock concentrations (___)

___ Localized fire-related stain (___)

___ Roasting pit (___)

___ Storage pit (___)

___ Pit (___)

___ Post hole (___)

___ Pit house/House pit (___)

___ Stone circle (___)

___ Cairn (___)

___ Bonebed (___)

___ Alignment (___)

___ Quarry feature (___)

___ Rock art panel (___)

___ Organic structure(___)

 (e.g. lean-to, wickiup, corral - describe)

___ Other (describe)

FEATURE KEYWORDS:

FEATURE INVENTORY (feature # should key to site sketch map):

Feat. Check if more

# Feature Description info attached

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

___ check here if this list is continued on a continuation form (expand on word processor as needed)

___ check here if features are described in site narrative, otherwise describe in table above.
WYOMING CULTURAL PROPERTIES FORM (rev. 3.0 12/18/2012) Page number ____

Date ________________________________________________________ Smithsonian # _______________________________ 

* Continue narrative as needed on separate page or by expanding section on word processor. data entry, this page ___

 

 

8C. ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH HISTORIC COMPONENT

Component age* and identifier:_______________________________________________________________________________________________

*Periods – Protohistoric (1720-1800) Early Historic (1801-1842) Pre-territorial (1843-1867) Territorial (1868-1889); Expansion (1890-1919); 

Depression (1920-1939) ; WWII-era (1940 to 1946); Post-WWII (1947 to 1955); Modern (1956-present); use exact dates if known

Presence/Absence of common time-diagnostics:

___purple glass (UV altered)

___aqua glass

___clear glass 

___auto machine bottles

___hand applied finish bottles

___makers’ marks

___solder dot cans

___hole-in-top cans

___sanitary cans

___cut nails

___wire nails

___ceramic trademarks

___other (describe)

Presence/Absence of common artifact classes:

___plate glass

___bottle glass

___ceramics

___metal

___nails

___tin cans

___tobacco tins

___bottle caps

___wire

___furniture hardware

___silverware/cutlery

___lamp parts

___corrugated metal

___stove parts

___wood

___furniture

___leather

___sawn lumber

___wagon parts

___car parts

___bone

___toys

___building hardware

___firearm-related

___clothing-related

___other (describe)

Estimated total assemblage size: ___ 0-10, ___ 11-100, ___101-1000, ___1001-10,000, ___>10,000

ARTIFACT KEYWORDS: 

HISTORIC ARTIFACTS

Instructions: Use lines below to list artifacts associated with this component. The IMACs user’s guide provides a fairly comprehensive 

list of artifact types but its use is optional. Alternatively, you may attach a substitute format, so long as it tallies the artifact content 

adequately.

Artifact Type Count

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____

__ check here if this list is continued on a continuation form (expand with word processor as needed) or provided in an alternate format

__ check here if artifacts are described in site narrative section, otherwise use space below for general notes on historic artifacts 
WYOMING CULTURAL PROPERTIES FORM (rev. 3.0 12/18/2012) Page number ____

Date ________________________________________________________ Smithsonian # _______________________________ 

* Continue narrative as needed on separate page or by expanding section on word processor. data entry, this page ___

 

 

8D. FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH HISTORIC COMPONENT

Component age* and identifier:_______________________________________________________________________________________________

* Periods – Protohistoric (1720-1800) Early Historic (1801-1842) Pre-territorial (1843-1867) Territorial (1868-1889); Expansion (1890-1919); 

Depression (1920-1939) ; WWII-era (1940 to 1946); Post-WWII (1947 to 1955); Modern (1956-present); use exact dates if known

Instructions: Plot features, labeled by number, on site sketch map. Attach photographs, images, drawings, notes, other recording materials as 

appropriate, labeling each with feature number. 

Human Remains:

___ Human remains (describe – include presence/absence of marker) 

___ Suspected grave

___ Artifacts associated with human remains

FEATURE KEYWORDS:

FEATURE INVENTORY (feature # should key to site sketch map):

Feat. Check if more

# Feature Description info attached

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

___ check here if this list is continued on a continuation form (expand on word processor as needed)

___ check here if features are described in site narrative, otherwise describe in table above.

Comments and Continuation (note any relevant historic documentation searches performed)
WYOMING ISOLATED RESOURCE FORM (WYIRF)

Consultant Project No. Agency No.

Review/Compliance No. WYCRO No.

1) Resource Type: _______________________________ 2) Field No.: __________________________

3) Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________

4) Name of Recorder: ___________________________________ Date: ________________________

 Company/Institution: _______________________________________________________________

5) Landowner: (specify agency, if private give name and address):

6) Collections? [ ] Yes [ ] No Repository: _______________________________________________

7) Catalog No(s): _____________________________________________________________________

8) LOCATION:

 County ________________________________ USGS Map Code (7.5') ______________________

 

 USGS 7.5' Map Name, Date __________________________________________________________

 Township ______.___ Range ______.___ Section _______ 1/4 ______________________________

 Elevation (ft) _______________

 UTM: Zone _______ E __________m N __________m 

 Datum used to calculate: _____NAD27 _____NAD 83 

 UTM source: ____ corrected GPS/rectified survey (<5m error)

 ____ uncorrected GPS ____ map template 

 ____ other: ____________________________________

9) Environmental Description (Discuss topography, vegetation, soils, slope, hydrology, on-site depositional 

environment):

10) Resource Description (Describe and discuss artifact type(s), observed raw material(s), dimensions, function, 

time period):

11) Optional attachments may include drawings or photographs with scale of representative diagnostic 

artifacts, sketch map, and/or a setting photograph. 

12) Required attachments are 7.5’ USGS map showing resource location, and photographs or illustrations 

of collected artifacts.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT B

INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN 
ATTACHMENT B 

DRAFT

INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN

of the

DRAFT HISTORIC PROPERTIES TREATMENT PLAN

for the

GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 

Case File Numbers:

IDI-35849, Idaho

WYW-174598, Wyoming

Prepared by

Rocky Mountain Power

and 

Idaho Power Company, Inc.

. 

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

i December 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Inadvertent Discovery Plan and the Programmatic Agreement ............................... 1-1

2.0 INADVERTENT DISCOVERY DEFINITIONS AND PROCEDURES ......................... 2-1

2.1 Definition of Inadvertent or Unanticipated Discoveries .......................................... 2-1

2.2 Definition of Finds ................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.1 Definition of Isolated Finds .......................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 Types of Unanticipated Discoveries Where Avoidance Is Not Required—

Prescribed Treatment .................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Plan of Discovery Procedures .................................................................................. 2-4

2.4 Identification of Human Remains ............................................................................ 2-5

2.5 Site Recording and Evaluation Methods .................................................................. 2-7

2.5.1 Site Recording Methods ............................................................................... 2-7

2.6 Confidentiality of Historic Property Information ..................................................... 2-7

Attachment 1. State Laws for the Discovery of Human Remains 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

1-1 December 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This initial Draft Plan for Inadvertent Discovery of historic properties describes the measures

that Rocky Mountain Power and Idaho Power Company (Companies) will take to ensure the 

protection of historic properties, in the event that historic properties are discovered during 

construction of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project (Project). The Companies have 

developed this initial draft as required by the Programmatic Agreement (PA), Section V.A and 

VIII. Although cultural inventories of the Project were completed, it is possible that previously 

unknown archaeological resources could be discovered during Project construction activities. 

This document details protocols and outlines procedures that will be followed in the event that 

previously unknown historic properties are inadvertently discovered or if unanticipated effects 

occur to known historic properties as a result of any construction activities associated with the 

Project. This Plan, together with the Project-wide Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP), 

will be reviewed by the Interested Parties of the PA. The Companies will revise the document at 

and a final Plan will be made a part of the approved Project-wide HPTP. 

1.1 Inadvertent Discovery Plan and the Programmatic Agreement 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead federal agency for National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance. In consultation and with the active participation of the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the BLM developed a PA for the Project to 

guide Project compliance with the NHPA. 

This Inadvertent Discovery Plan was developed as required by the Project PA, Section V.A. and 

VIII. Upon final approval by the BLM, this Plan will be appended as Attachment B to the HPTP. 

PA Section V.C. and PA, Section 7 states: 

The BLM will implement the Inadvertent Discovery Plan if potential historic properties 

are discovered or if unanticipated effects occur to known historic properties. 

If there appears to be a discrepancy between the stipulations in the PA which have been 

summarized, described, or interpreted in this Plan, the conditions and stipulations, as written in 

the PA, supersede interpretations in this Plan. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

2-1 December 2012

2.0 INADVERTENT DISCOVERY DEFINITIONS AND PROCEDURES

This section addresses procedures and mitigation for resources discovered during Project 

construction. Since it is not possible to predict which kinds of sites might be found during 

construction monitoring, the mitigation measures described in this section are necessarily 

generic. The mitigation strategy may vary depending on the type of adverse effect. 

The Project will avoid and protect historic properties assumed eligible for, or listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by monitoring, fencing, and other measures. 

Subsequent HPTP Segment Plan(s) will provide tables that identify historic properties within 

each segment of the Project and outline mitigation procedures to be followed for specific sites 

within each segment. Avoidance is the preferred strategy and may involve redesign or relocation 

of specific components of the project. 

In the event that historic properties are inadvertently discovered or affected during construction, 

data recovery may be considered as one of several possible means to mitigate those effects. Site 

evaluation, and the design and execution of data recovery or other mitigation measures 

(treatment) will be completed in consultation with the Construction Contractor’s Cultural 

Resource Specialist (CRS), the Companies, the Compliance Inspection Contractor (CIC), BLM, 

and SHPO, and if applicable and appropriate, the Native American Monitor1 (NAM). 

In the case of inadvertent discovery of cultural items on federally managed lands, the BLM will 

notify and consult with culturally affiliated tribes regarding the treatment and/ or mitigation of 

effects to historic properties, or sites of traditional religious and cultural importance. 

All activities conducted for the Project under the PA, project-wide HPTP, and HPTP Segment 

Plans will be in accordance with the protocols, contexts, and guidelines of the relevant state 

BLM office and relevant state SHPO. 

2.1 Definition of Inadvertent or Unanticipated Discoveries 

For the purpose of this Plan, an inadvertent or unanticipated discovery is a discovery of historic 

properties where they had not been previously documented and that occurs during construction. 

Examples of inadvertent or unanticipated discoveries are:

• Artifacts or cultural material discovered on the surface or in a subsurface context as the 

direct result of project excavation, grading, auguring or other soil disturbance. 

 

1 Acronyms are introduced and indexed in the HPTP. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

2-2 December 2012

• A single artifact or lithic scatters, prehistoric habitation sites, refuse scatters, military 

related activities, etc.

• Additional distinct artifacts or cultural materials that have the potential to provide 

additional data for an archaeological site that was previously determined to be 

ineligible for further treatment. 

• Artifacts or cultural materials within archaeological sites previously determined to be 

eligible for further treatment, which are qualitatively different from artifacts and 

cultural materials previously identified and/or investigated in the impacted portion of 

the site and which indicate that the impacted portion of the site has the potential to 

contribute to the eligibility of the site based on its potential to provide data relevant to 

the sorts of research issues defined in the project research design. 

• Any evidence of human remains regardless of context of discovery. All discoveries of 

bone are to be treated by construction personnel as potential human remains until a 

determination can be made by a qualified CRS, CRM, or osteologist (if required) as 

described below. 

Inadvertent discoveries may be prehistoric, historic, or both prehistoric and historic. Typical 

indicators of these sites follow. 

PREHISTORIC: Indicators of prehistoric cultural occupation by Native Americans include 

artifacts and human bone, as well as soil discoloration, shell, animal bone, cobbles, rock features,

ashy areas, and baked or vitrified clays. Prehistoric materials may include: 

• Human Bone—either intact burials or isolated bones, including teeth or fragmentary 

pieces of bone.

• Habitation—occupation sites as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground 

depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors). 

• Artifacts—such as chipped stone objects, projectile points, bifaces, and debitage; 

ground stone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, and 

hammerstones; ceramics; and bone artifacts including ornaments and beads (ornaments 

and beads were often interred with the deceased, and are considered indicative of 

potential human remains).

• Features—such as a hearth (fire-affected rock; baked and vitrified clay, ash), artifact 

caches, midden deposits, rock rings, rock cairns, hunting blinds, petroglyphs, faunal 

remains, and distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric activities. 

• Trails—Native American trails/footpaths, including trail markers (e.g. ceramic 

fragments, pot drops) 

• Ceremonial Structures—rock cairns or medicine wheels, including large circular 

stone formations, sometimes with “spokes” or linear alignment of stones that radiate 

from the center. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

2-3 December 2012

HISTORIC: Within the Project area, an inadvertent discovery of historic cultural materials may 

potentially require data recovery or avoidance if those finds include sites that are greater than 50 

years old. Historic materials may include: 

• Structural—remnants or portions of foundations (bricks, cobbles/boulders, stacked 

field stone, postholes, etc.)

• Refuse Scatters—including trash pits and associated artifacts

• Military—related activities (e.g. ration can scatters, gun shell casings, fox holes. etc.) 

• Historic Trails—evidence of trails and/or related activities. 

• Human Remains—bone and associated burial objects (e.g. coffin hardware) 

2.2 Definition of Finds

2.2.1 Definition of Isolated Finds 

The definition of an isolated find varies by state. For the purposes of the Project, the definitions 

used by the SHPOs in each state will be employed in that state. They are: 

• IDAHO: the presence of one artifact where no buried materials or features are thought 

to exist (two artifacts would be considered a site).This excludes isolated features with 

or without artifacts, such as, peeled trees, cache pits, hearths, housepits, rockshelters, 

cairns, historic mining ditches, petroglyphs, or dendroglyphs. A statement of why the 

isolate is considered non-significant should be included on the ID isolate form (Idaho 

SHPO). 

• WYOMING: the presence of fewer than 14 prehistoric artifacts where no buried 

cultural materials or features are thought to exist and fewer than 49 historic artifacts 

where no buried cultural material or features exist (Wyoming SHPO). 

Isolated finds are a priori considered ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP, unless the artifact 

itself is of exceptional significance. Diagnostic and exceptional isolated prehistoric or historic 

finds that are unique, associated with a specific setting or environment, or may contribute to the 

understanding and appreciation of prehistory and history, may be eligible for the NRHP and will 

be considered under their own merit as historic properties. The following list includes examples 

of potential diagnostic isolated artifacts that could be considered eligible for the NRHP in spite 

of being isolated finds: 

• Prehistoric—ceramics (decorated, rim, or basal sherds, lugs, figurines, complete 

vessels) and lithics (projectile points, exceptional/unusual ground stone, 

exceptional/unusual chipped-stone artifacts).

• Historic—Rare or exceptional ceramic (makers marks, complete vessels), glass 

(complete vessels), buttons, marbles, pipes, figurines) and identifiable metal (tools, gun 

parts, machine parts, buckles, flatware, wagon hardware, horse tack) that are clearly 50 

years of age or older. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

2-4 December 2012

2.2.2 Types of Unanticipated Discoveries Where Avoidance Is Not Required—Prescribed 

Treatment

Unanticipated discoveries that are considered to hold no potential to be exceptional or eligible 

for the NRHP include: 

• Isolated, non-diagnostic, unexceptional prehistoric flaked stone and ground stone 

artifacts, burned rock, or non-human bone clearly outside the boundaries of previously 

defined archaeological sites. 

• Isolated, non-diagnostic and unexceptional historic artifacts clearly outside the 

boundaries of previously defined archaeological sites. 

• Prehistoric and historic artifacts or materials within archaeological sites previously 

evaluated as ineligible for the NRHP, and that are qualitatively consistent with the 

materials previously identified at the site.

Isolates such as those listed above will be reported to the BLM and the appropriate SHPO but 

will be assumed ineligible for the NRHP and therefore not subject to further mitigation. 

2.3 Plan of Discovery Procedures 

Upon the inadvertent discovery of prehistoric cultural items not considered as categorically 

ineligible isolates as specified in Section 2.2, above, BLM will consult with tribes to determine if 

additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat the items in an appropriate manner and/or 

mitigate effects to the items.

The Monitoring Plan (Attachment A of the HPTP) defines the Project monitoring procedures and 

the roles and responsibilities of the monitoring team. The Construction Contractor’s Cultural 

Resources Team, including CRS and/or CRM and NAM (when applicable), will be present 

during Project ground disturbing construction activities (e.g. mechanical scraping, grading, 

excavating, etc.) to ensure all known historic properties sites are protected and to monitor 

construction activities for unanticipated discoveries. The CIC will also observe such activities to 

ensure compliance as described in the Monitoring Plan. In addition, the CRS and CRM will 

ensure the procedures outlined in this Plan, the Monitoring Plan, the HPTP, Subsequent HPTP 

Segment Plan(s), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 

Plan of Action (Attachment C of the HPTP) are followed. 

In the case of an inadvertent discovery, the following procedures will be followed: 

• The CRS and/or CRM(s), and the NAM(s), if present through coordination with the 

CRS or CRM, will have the authority to temporarily halt construction operations within 

200 feet (60 meters) of a find or exposed resource to determine if historic properties are 

present and if they will be adversely affected by continuing construction operations. 

• The CRM will immediately notify the construction supervisor, CRS and CIC of the 

find. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

2-5 December 2012

• The CRS will notify the Construction Contractor’s Project Manager and the 

Companies’ Project Manager of the find and of the stop work activity. 

• The CRM will inspect the area for additional resources. The CRM will use flagging 

tape, rope, or some other means necessary to delineate the area of the find within which 

construction will halt (this may also include any piles of dirt or rock spoil from that 

area). If a NAM is present, the NAM will accompany and observe the CRM during 

these procedures. 

• If the find qualifies as an isolate that requires no avoidance, the CRM will record the 

find on an applicable archaeological isolate site form, provide a detailed description of 

the item, a photograph, a location map, and record the geographic location with the use 

of Global Positioning System (GPS). Once the isolate is recorded and no other cultural 

material or features are observed, the CRS will inform the construction supervisor that 

construction may proceed. 

• The CRS will notify the appropriate lead BLM archaeologist, SHPO, and Native 

American Representative(s), via telephone and/or email within 24 hours of any 

unanticipated discovery (including isolates) 

• Construction can resume when the BLM approves the CRS evaluation of the find as 

ineligible or mitigation measures are approved by the relevant BLM and SHPO offices. 

• No invasive archaeological testing/excavation will occur and no artifacts will be 

collected without BLM approval. 

• All finds will be documented and included in the Cultural Resources Monitoring report, 

monthly compliance reports, and/or within the final monitoring report for the entire 

project. 

If the find does not qualify as an isolate as described in Section 2.2, the CRS will provide 

sufficient information regarding the find (e.g. type of site, description of visible surface artifacts 

and/or features, potential of subsurface deposits, etc.), an eligibility recommendation, and 

photographs of the discovery to the CIC, BLM Archaeologist, SHPO, and interested Native 

American Representative(s) (if requested). Construction within 200 feet of the find will be 

prohibited until the CRS, CIC, BLM, and SHPO have conferred and determined what, if any, 

data recovery or other mitigation is needed. These parties will meet or hold a conference call to 

discuss the find and mitigation measures within 5 working days of notifying the BLM of the 

find. If they agree that it is infeasible to avoid the resource, then the prohibition on construction 

in the vicinity of the resource will remain in force until the field work for data recovery or other 

mitigation is completed.

2.4 Identification of Human Remains 

Although every effort has been made during the planning phase of the project to avoid sensitive 

resources, human remains and/or funerary objects may be discovered during Project construction 

activities. If human remains are discovered, construction will stop immediately within the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

2-6 December 2012

vicinity of the find, the remains will not endure further disturbance, and the remains will be 

protected in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal statutes. 

If skeletal remains (e.g. bones) are inadvertently discovered during Project construction, the CRS

or CRM and NAM (if applicable) will perform the following initial tasks: 

• STOP CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

• Immediately halt construction within 200 feet radius of the remains and notify the 

Construction Contractor’s Project Manager, Companies’ Project Manager, CIC 

and BLM Archaeologist. 

• The area will be protected with flagging or by posting a monitor or construction 

worker to ensure that no additional disturbance occurs 

• Remains are not to be touched, moved, photographed, or further disturbed until 

assessed by the CRM in consultation with the BLM, the CRS, and the CIC 

• Consult with the CRS and identify whether or not the remains are human, the 

CRS may consult with a physical anthropologist (as appropriate). 

• If the skeletal remains are non-human and no other archaeological objects or 

features are associated with the find, the CRS and/or CRM will inform the 

construction supervisor that construction may proceed. 

• If the skeletal remains are human, the appropriate agency officials will be notified 

as specified by land ownership, below. 

• HUMAN REMAINS NOTIFICATON PROCEDURES ON NON-FEDERAL LAND

Idaho State Statues 18-7027 and 18-7028 makes it unlawful to decimate and/or 

remove graves and/or associated funerary objects and doing so is a felony punishable 

by imprisonment and/or fines. Wyoming State Statue 6-4-501 states that it is unlawful 

to disturb human remains and doing so is punishable by a fine (see Attachment 1 for 

full text of the laws of each state). 

If the human remains are identified on non-federal land, the CRS and/or CRM will 

notify the appropriate state official as follows: in Idaho, the local county sheriff, and 

in Wyoming the local coroner. They will also notify the landowner, the appropriate 

SHPO archeologist, and the nearest Federal agency archeologist

The appropriate state official will report non-forensic finds to the appropriate SHPO 

and State Physical Anthropologist. The SHPO will then handle all notifications,

consultation with affected parties, and will authorize work resumption. 

• HUMAN REMAINS NOTIFICATON PROCEDURES ON FEDERAL LAND

The NAGPRA Plan of Action will be followed for remains found on federally 

managed lands. 

Phone numbers for the key contacts in the event of an emergency discovery will be provided in 

the segment HPTPs and will be included in the proposed employee-training brochure. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

2-7 December 2012

2.5 Site Recording and Evaluation Methods

If a site containing historic properties, other than an isolated find, is discovered within the 

Project APE during construction, the CRS or CRM will record and map the site to the 

appropriate state standards. The site form will be immediately submitted to the BLM for review 

and approval following its completion. The BLM will determine whether the site requires further 

testing or other mitigation measures. If the site is in danger of being destroyed and cannot remain 

in situ and data recovery is the chosen method for mitigation, site-specific field methods (e.g. 

type and number of excavation units, in-field analysis, etc.) will be developed in consultation 

with the Companies’ Project Manager, Construction Contractor’s Project Manager, CRS, CIC,

BLM, SHPO, and consulting Tribes in accordance with the HPTP and/or Segment Plan. 

2.5.1 Site Recording Methods

The CRS or CRM will record cultural resources on the appropriate state archaeological site form.

The site area will be recorded and evaluated as to whether it requires further testing or if 

mitigation measures are required. The site recording will include the completed archaeological 

site form. GPS will be used to record the location of surface artifacts and to prepare a detailed 

scale map of prominent site features. This map will show landmarks and artifact and locations. 

The site will also be plotted on a United States Geological Survey 7.5' topographic map. Where 

the site boundaries appear to extend beyond 1320 feet (400 meters) of the APE, the site 

description will be limited to that within 1320 feet of the APE, in consultation with the BLM and 

SHPO. 

The field crew will photograph the site and record standard site information about the 

topography, physiography, vegetation, location, and artifacts and features (mapped in plan view 

and/or profile, as appropriate), and produce stratigraphic profiles of selected trench walls (if find 

is located during construction trenching) in which cultural materials are exposed. Soil colors will 

be recorded using Munsell soil color charts. No artifacts will be collected for curation except as 

instructed by the BLM. An eligibility recommendation will be made for the resource on the 

form. A permanent site number will be obtained from the appropriate state SHPO. The draft site 

form, along with maps and photos, will be submitted upon completion to the BLM for review 

and approval. Potential human remains will be treated as described in the NAGPRA Plan.

2.6 Confidentiality of Historic Property Information

Historic properties confidentiality is subject to the provisions of Section 304 of the NHPA 

relating to the nondisclosure of information about the location, character, and ownership of a 

historic property, including historic properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to 

Indian tribes. All sensitive cultural resource information (e.g. site records, inventory reports, 

maps with site location data) is confidential and not for public distribution. Where data sharing 

agreements are in place between the BLM and the Companies, the terms of those agreements 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

2-8 December 2012

will be upheld by the CRS and CRM. In the field during construction, the CRM(s) will have 

copies of all the site records and maps for known historic properties within the vicinity of the 

Project area being monitored. The CRM will ensure all data is kept confidential. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT 1

STATE LAWS FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

December 2012

Attachment 1 

Wyoming State Statue 6-4-501 

ARTICLE 5 - DESECRATING GRAVES AND BODIES

 6-4-501. Opening graves and removing bodies; penalty; exception. 

 (a)A person who opens a grave or tomb and removes a body or remains of a deceased 

 person for any purpose without the knowledge and consent of near relations of the 

deceased commits a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred 

fifty dollars ($750.00). 

 (b)This section does not prohibit exhumation if ordered by a court of competent 

jurisdiction.

Idaho State Statutes 

18-7027. DESECRATION OF GRAVE, CEMETERY, HEADSTONE OR PLACE OF 

BURIAL PROHIBITED. 

It shall be unlawful for any person, not acting in full compliance with all the terms of the 

law to desecrate or molest in any way any portion of any grave, cemetery, headstone, 

grave marker, mausoleum, crypt, or any other place of burial, whether of whole bodies, 

or ashes, or other evidence of remains of a deceased human body. 

Any person convicted or found guilty of violating the provisions of this section is guilty 

of a misdemeanor. 

18-7028. UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF HUMAN REMAINS--MALICE--INTENT TO 

SELL. 

Every person who removes any part of any human remains from any place where it has 

been interred, or from any place where it is deposited while awaiting interment, with 

intent to sell it or to dissect it, without authority of law, or from malice or wantonness is 

guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than 

five (5) years, by a fine not greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by both such 

fine and imprisonment. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

December 2012

27-501. DEFINITIONS. 

For the purpose of sections 27-501 through 27-504, Idaho Code: 

(1) “Cairn” means a heap of stones or other material piled up as a memorial or 

monument to the dead. 

(2) “Grave” means an excavation for burial of a human body. 

(3) “Indian tribe” means any Idaho Indian tribe recognized by the Secretary of 

the Interior.

(4) “Professional archaeologist” means a person who has extensive formal 

training and experience in systematic, scientific archaeology.

27-502. PROHIBITED ACTS.

(1) Except as provided in Section 27-503, Idaho Code, no person shall 

willfully remove, mutilate, deface, injure or destroy any cairn or grave. 

 Persons disturbing graves through inadvertence, including by construction, 

mining, or logging, shall cause the human remains to be reinterred. The expense 

for such reinternment shall be at least partially borne by the State Historical 

Society. 

(2) No person shall: 

(a) Possess any artifacts or human remains taken from a cairn or grave on 

or after January 1, 1984, in a manner other than that authorized under 

Section 27-503, Idaho Code. 

(b) Publicly display or exhibit any human remains. 

(c) Sell any human artifacts or human remains taken from a cairn or grave.

(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to: 

(a) The possession or sale of artifacts discovered in or taken from 

locations other than cairns or graves or artifacts that were removed from 

cairns or graves by other than human action; or 

(b) Actions taken in the performance of official law enforcement duties.

27-503. PERMITTED ACTS--NOTICE.

(1) If action is necessary to protect the burial site from foreseeable destruction 

and upon prior notification to the director of the State Historical Society and to 

the appropriate Indian tribe in the vicinity of the intended action if the cairn or 

grave contains remains of an Indian, a professional archaeologist may excavate a 

cairn or grave and remove material objects and human remains for subsequent 

reinternment following scientific study. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment B Inadvertent Discovery Plan

December 2012

Reinternment shall be under the supervision of the appropriate Indian tribe if the 

cairn or grave contained remains of an Indian. 

(2) Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section, any proposed 

excavation by a professional archaeologist of a native Indian cairn or grave shall 

be initialed only after prior written notification to the director of the State 

Historical Society and with prior written consent of the appropriate Indian tribe in 

the vicinity of the intended action. Failure of a tribe to respond to a request for 

permission within sixty (60) days of its mailing by certified mail, return receipt 

requested, shall be deemed consent. All material objects and human remains 

removed during such an excavation shall, following scientific study, be reinterred 

at the archaeologist’s expense under the supervision of the Indian tribe. 

(3) In order to determine the appropriate Indian tribe under this section and 

Section 27-502, Idaho Code, a professional archaeologist or other person shall 

consult with the director of the State Historical Society who shall designate the 

appropriate tribe.

27-504. CIVIL ACTION--TIME FOR COMMENCING ACTIONS--VENUE--

DAMAGES--ATTORNEY FEES.

(1) Apart from any criminal prosecution, any person shall have a cause of 

action to secure an injunction, damages or other appropriate relief against any 

person who is alleged to have violated the provisions of Section 27-502, Idaho 

Code. The action shall be brought within two (2) years of the discovery of the 

violation by the plaintiff. The action may be filed in the district court of the 

county in which the subject grave or cairn, remains or artifacts are located, or 

within which the defendant resides. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT C

NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION 

ACT (NAGPRA) PLAN OF ACTION 
ATTACHMENT C

DRAFT

NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND 

REPATRIATION ACT PLAN OF ACTION

of the

DRAFT HISTORIC PROPERTIES TREATMENT PLAN

for the

GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

Case File Numbers:

IDI-35849, Idaho

WYW-174598, Wyoming

Prepared by

Rocky Mountain Power

and 

Idaho Power Company, Inc.

.

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

i December 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Native American Consultation ................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 PLAN OF ACTION............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Applicability of this Plan of Action......................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Objects to be Considered as Cultural Items............................................................. 2-1

2.3 Specific Information to Determine Custody............................................................ 2-2

2.4 Planned Treatment, Care, and Handling of Human Remains.................................. 2-4

2.5 Planned Archaeological Recording and Reporting of the Human Remains and 

Cultural Materials.................................................................................................... 2-4

2.6 Analysis Planned for the Human Remains and Cultural Materials......................... 2-4

2.7 Planned Disposition of Human Remains Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.6 ........................ 2-4

2.8 Native American Monitor Role ............................................................................... 2-4

2.9 Federal Personnel and Tribal Representatives Involved in this POA...................... 2-5

Attachment 1. Discovery of Human Remains Flow Chart
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

1-1 December 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Draft Plan of Action (POA) provides an initial framework for the procedures for the 

treatment and disposition of Native American human skeletal remains, associated funerary 

objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and sacred objects (hereinafter, cultural items) for 

inadvertent discoveries during construction of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project

(Gateway West or the Project) on Public Lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) in Wyoming and Idaho, on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service in 

Wyoming and Idaho, on lands managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and on lands 

managed by the USDI Bureau of Reclamation. This POA, when completed and approved, will 

comply with the requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), 25 U.S. Code (USC) 3001 et seq. and its implementing regulations as set forth in 43 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10 (Specifically § 10.5[e]), and the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (ARPA), 16 USC 470aa-mm, with its implementing regulations (43 

CFR Part 7). The BLM, as lead federal agency, will develop and manage the final NAGPRA 

POA in collaboration and consultation with affected Tribes. As specified in the PA, the final 

Plan will be reviewed by the Interested Parties of the PA. 

1.1 Project Description

Rocky Mountain Power and Idaho Power Company, collectively known as the Companies, are

proposing to develop approximately 1000 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV), 345-kV, and 500-kV 

alternating current electric transmission system consisting of 10 segments between Windstar 

Substation near Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway Substation approximately 30 miles 

southwest of Boise, Idaho. 

1.2 Native American Consultation 

The BLM is the lead federal agency for government-to-government consultation with identified 

Indian tribal governments, tribal individuals, and tribal organizations, pursuant to 36 CFR 

800.2(c)(2). The following Tribes have been contacted to review and comment on the Project:

the Northern Arapaho, the Northern Cheyenne, the Eastern Shoshone, the Shoshone-Bannock, 

the Northern Ute, the Shoshone-Paiute, the Northwest Shoshone Band, the Southern Arapaho, 

the Southern Cheyenne, and the Oglala Sioux. 

BLM initiated consultation with the tribes for this Project in 2008. The BLM has continued 

Tribal consultation to date with letters, phone calls, and meetings to or with each of the parties 

listed above. The BLM will continue consultation throughout the planning and execution of the 

Project and specifically will consult with affected tribes on protocols for carrying out the BLM’s 

obligations under NAGPRA.
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

2-1 December 2012

2.0 PLAN OF ACTION

This section discusses the NAGPRA Plan of Action. This initial draft was prepared by the 

Companies as specified in the PA for the Gateway West Project. The BLM, as lead federal 

agency, will develop and manage the final plan in collaboration and consultation with affected 

Tribes and will be reviewed by the Interested Parties of the PA. 

2.1 Applicability of this Plan of Action

NAGPRA applies on federally managed and tribal lands. Human remains, funerary objects, 

sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony located on state and privately held lands will be 

managed according to the laws of the state in which they are found. In addition to NAGPRA, the 

BLM and other federal agencies are required under the laws of each of the states crossed by the 

Project to notify law enforcement if human remains of any description are found. 

Upon discovery of human remains, the Cultural Resource Specialist (CRS), the Cultural 

Resource Monitor (CRM), or construction staff must immediately notify the appropriate state 

law enforcement officer: in Idaho, the local county sheriff and in Wyoming, the local county 

coroner. The full text of the laws of each state is found in Attachment 1 of the Inadvertent 

Discovery Plan. The names and contact information for the appropriate law enforcement contacts 

will be listed in Table 1 of each segment Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP). The 

notification of law enforcement will occur at the same time as the activation of this POA. The 

decision of the law enforcement official regarding whether the remains fall under the jurisdiction 

of law enforcement or NAGPRA will determine the subsequent management of the remains. 

Only after the appropriate law enforcement decision has been rendered may the terms of this 

POA take effect. 

2.2 Objects to be Considered as Cultural Items

For the purpose of this plan, the objects considered as cultural items are defined in 43 CFR 10.2 

(d) and are as follows:

1. Human Remains: means the physical remains of a human body of a person of Native 

American ancestry. The term does not include remains or portions of remains that may 

reasonably be determined to have been freely given or naturally shed by the individual 

from whose body they were obtained, such as hair made into ropes or nets or individual 

teeth. For the purposes of determining cultural affiliation, human remains incorporated 

into a funerary object, sacred object, or object of cultural patrimony, as defined below, 

must be considered as part of that item (43 CFR 10.2[d][1]).

2. Funerary Objects: means items that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are 

reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally, at the time of death or later, with 

or near individual human remains. Funerary objects must be identified by a 

preponderance of evidence as having been removed from a specific burial site of an 

individual affiliated with a particular Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or as 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

2-2 December 2012

being related to specific individuals or families or to known human remains. The term 

burial site means any natural or prepared physical location, whether originally below, on, 

or above the ground into which, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, 

individual human remains were deposited, and includes rock cairns or pyres that do not 

fall within the ordinary definition of a gravesite. For purposes of completing the summary 

requirements in §10.8 and the inventory requirements of §10.9 (43 CFR 10.2[d][2]), 

funerary objects can be further defined as follows: 

a. Associated funerary objects means those funerary objects for which the human 

remains with which they were placed intentionally are also in the possession or 

control of a museum or Federal agency. Associated funerary objects also mean 

those funerary objects that were made exclusively for burial purposes or to 

contain human remains. 

b. Unassociated funerary objects mean those funerary objects for which the human 

remains with which they were placed intentionally are not in the possession or 

control of a museum or Federal agency. Objects that were displayed with 

individual human remains as part of a death rite or ceremony of a culture and 

subsequently returned or disturbed according to traditional custom to living 

descendants or other individuals are not considered unassociated funerary objects.

Funerary objects found in prehistoric burials include, but are not limited to: projectile 

points, shell beads, pendants, ceramic pots, and arrow shaft straighteners. 

3. Sacred Objects: means items that are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional 

Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American 

religions by their present-day adherents. While many items, from ancient pottery shreds 

to arrowheads, might be imbued with sacredness in the eyes of an individual, these 

regulations are specifically limited to objects that were devoted to a traditional Native 

American religious ceremony or ritual and that have religious significance or function in 

the continued observance or renewal of such ceremony. Traditional religious leader 

means a person who is recognized by members of an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian 

organization (43 CFR 10.2[d][3]) as follows:

a. Being responsible for performing cultural duties relating to the ceremonial or 

religious traditions of that Indian tribe or organization , or

b. Exercising a leadership role in an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization 

based on the tribe or organization’s cultural ceremonial or religious practices. 

4. Objects of cultural patrimony: means items having ongoing historical, traditional, or 

cultural importance central to the Indian tribe itself, rather than property owned by an 

individual tribe or organization member. These objects are of such central importance 

that they may not be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by an individual tribal or 

organization member. Such objects must have been considered inalienable by the 

culturally affiliated Indian tribe or native Hawaiian organization at the time the object 

was separated from the group (43 CFR 10.2 [d][4]).

2.3 Specific Information to Determine Custody

BLM will specify in the final version of the NAGPRA plan, in collaborative consultation with 

affected tribes, how the requirements of NAGPRA regarding custody determination will be 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

2-3 December 2012

developed for this Project. The following points are the elements of NAGPRA requiring 

consideration for custody determination:

1. Information provided by a lineal descendant(s) that can trace his or her direct 

relationship, without interruption, between themselves and the deceased by means of the 

traditional kinship system of the appropriate Indian tribe (43 CFR 10.2[b] and 43 CFR 

10.14[b]). 

2. Information provided by a Native American tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to 

the United Sates, and that can establish cultural affiliation by means of a relationship of 

shared group identity that can reasonably be traced historically or prehistorically between 

members of a present day Indian tribe and an identifiable earlier group (25 USC 3001[9], 

43 CRF 10.2[e] and 43 CFR 10.14[c]). 

3. The Federal agency official will determine cultural affiliation between a present-day 

individual or Indian tribe by a preponderance of evidence based on geographical, kinship, 

biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, oral traditional, 

historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion (25 USC 3005 [a][4], 43 CFR 

10.2[e], and 43 CFR 10.14[e]).

4. Priority order of custody of the cultural materials will be consistent with 43 CFR 10.6 (a) 

as follows:

a. In the case of human remains and associated funerary objects, in the lineal 

descendant of the deceased individual as determined pursuant to Sec. 10.14 (b);

b. In cases where a lineal descendant cannot be ascertained or no claim is made, and 

with respect to unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of 

cultural patrimony:

i. In the Indian tribe on whose tribal land the cultural items were excavated;

ii. In the Indian tribe that has the closest cultural affiliation with the cultural 

items as determined pursuant to Sec. 10.14 (c); or

iii. In circumstances in which the cultural affiliation of the cultural items 

cannot be ascertained, BLM is unable to prove a right of possession as 

defined at 43 CFR 10.10(a)(2), and the materials were excavated or 

removed from Federal land that is recognized by a final judgment of the 

Indian Claims Commission or the United States Court of Claims as the 

aboriginal land of an Indian tribe:

1. In the Indian tribe aboriginally occupying the Federal land on 

which the cultural items were excavated, or

2. If it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a 

different Indian tribe has a stronger cultural relationship with the 

cultural items, in the Indian tribe that has the strongest 

demonstrated relationship with the objects. 

BLM intends to repatriate human remains and associated funerary objects when cultural 

affiliation can be determined. If human remains and associated funerary objects whose cultural 

affiliation cannot be determined [43 CRF 10.9 (d)] are discovered, the BLM will consult with the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

2-4 December 2012

Review Committee created by NAGPRA. The Review Committee is authorized under 25 USC 

3006(c)(5) to make recommendations, “in consultation with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian 

organizations, agency, and/or appropriate scientific and museum groups”, as to how these 

remains and objects will be handled.

2.4 Planned Treatment, Care, and Handling of Human Remains

If human skeletal remains are discovered on federal or tribal land as a result of the Gateway 

West project construction or archaeological investigations, the CRS, CRM, or other project 

personnel will halt all activities within 200 feet of the remains and associated objects, protect 

them from further disturbance by placing exclusionary fencing in a 50-foot radius around the 

discovery, and provide immediate notification to local law enforcement and to the BLM of the 

discovery.

All discovered remains will be treated with respect and dignity. Specific steps for managing 

remains will be developed by the BLM in collaboration and consultation with affected tribes. 

1. The Companies are responsible for ensuring the security of in situ cultural items from 

vandalism or other disturbance through employment of security personnel, fencing, and 

other appropriate measures, as needed. Additional measures, where needed, will be 

specified by the BLM

2. The Project will not resume construction in the buffer area surrounding the discovery 

until it has received written authorization to proceed based on procedures established in 

the final NAGPRA plan and the PA. 

2.5 Planned Archaeological Recording and Reporting of the Human Remains and 

Cultural Materials

BLM will specify in the final version of the NAGPRA plan, the terms for recordation and 

reporting of any remains or cultural objects through collaboration and consultation with the 

affected tribes.

2.6 Analysis Planned for the Human Remains and Cultural Materials

BLM will specify in the final version of the NAGPRA plan, in consultation with affected tribes, 

any analyses of human remains and cultural materials including consultation regarding removal. 

2.7 Planned Disposition of Human Remains Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.6

BLM will specify details on planned disposition of human remains in the final version of the 

NAGPRA plan, in consultation with affected tribes. 

2.8 Native American Monitor Role 

If Native American Monitors (NAMs) are used for a particular segment, then they may notify the 

approved CRS about items they feel are funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of

cultural patrimony. The CRS will notify BLM within 24 hours that monitors identified funerary 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

2-5 December 2012

objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony. The report will include a description 

of the find(s), photograph(s) or drawing(s) were applicable, artifact(s) numbers or identification 

were applicable, and a description of the tribal monitor’s opinion(s).

2.9 Federal Personnel and Tribal Representatives Involved in this POA

Each Segment HPTP will list federal agency and tribal contacts and will include the names and 

contact information for the CRS, CRMs, and NAMs where appropriate. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT 1

DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS FLOW CHART
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

DRAFT Historic Properties Treatment Plan – Attachment C NAGPRA Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT 1

INADVERTENT DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT D

SEGMENT HISTORIC PROPERTIES TREATMENT PLAN

(PLACE HOLDER)
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012

ATTACHMENT E

THE WYOMING BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FIELD GUIDE 

FOR EVALUATIVE TESTING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Draft Historic Properties Treatment Plan

December 2012
Gateway West Transmission Line Final EIS

Appendix C-2

Draft Framework for Compensatory Mitigation for and Monitoring of 

Unavoidable Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
DRAFT 

FRAMEWORK FOR COMPENSATORY 

MITIGATION FOR AND MONITORING OF 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS TO WATERS 

OF THE U.S. 

Gateway West Transmission Line 

Prepared for: 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Wyoming Regulatory Office 

2232 Dell Range Blvd, Suite 210 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 

And 

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office 

5353 Yellowstone 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 

Prepared By: 

Idaho Power Company 

1221 West Idaho Street 

Boise, ID 83702 

And 

Rocky Mountain Power 

1407 W North Temple 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116 

May 2011 updated December 2012 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ iii

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

1.1 Project Description, Purpose, and Need ............................................................................. 1 

1.2 Plan Updates ...................................................................................................................... 5 

2.0 AQUATIC RESOURCE REGULATIONS ............................................................................... 5

2.1 CWA - Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters ................................................................... 5 

2.2 CWA - Section 130.7 Total Maximum Daily Load ............................................................... 5 

2.3 CWA - Section 401 Water Quality Certification ................................................................... 6 

2.4 CWA - Section 402 NPDES Permits ................................................................................... 6 

2.5 CWA - Section 404 Waters of the U.S. Permits .................................................................. 7 

2.6 Rivers & Harbors Act of 1899, Sections 9 and 10 ............................................................... 8 

2.7 Other Federal Permits and Programs ................................................................................. 8 

2.8 Idaho Permit ........................................................................................................................ 9 

3.0 AVOIDANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES ................................... 9

3.1 Siting ................................................................................................................................... 9 

3.2 BLM Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................... 9 

3.3 Environmental Protection Measures and Plans ................................................................ 10 

3.4 Road and Waterbody Crossing Standards........................................................................ 12 

3.5 Wetlands Crossings with Access Roads ........................................................................... 13 

4.0 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. .......................... 14

4.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 15 

4.1.1 Indicative vs. Design Engineering .............................................................................. 15

4.2 Impacts to Water of the U.S. ............................................................................................. 15 

5.0 MITIGATION FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................ 16

5.1 Mitigation Banks ................................................................................................................ 17 

5.2 In-lieu Fee Program .......................................................................................................... 17 

5.2.1 ILF Mitigation Parameters .......................................................................................... 17

5.3 Permittee Responsible Mitigation ...................................................................................... 18 

5.3.1 Compensatory Mitigation Sub-plans .......................................................................... 19

5.4 Location of Required Mitigation and Known Mitigation Opportunities ............................... 20 

5.5 Site-Specific Compensatory Mitigation Planning .............................................................. 23 

5.5.1 Bear River Plain ......................................................................................................... 23

5.5.2 Other Company-Owned Properties ............................................................................ 25

5.5.3 Riparian and Stream-related Wetland Crossings ....................................................... 25

6.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 25

7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 27
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page ii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Segment Summary ........................................................................................................ 2

Table 3. Access Road Wetland Crossings in the Bear River Plain ............................................ 14

Table 4. Acres of Wetland and Riparian Impacts by 6th Order HUC across the Project ........... 20

Table 5. Estimated Impacts to Riparian and Wetland Areas (from FEIS, BLM 2011) ................ 21

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Wyoming Overview Map ............................................................................................... 3 

Figure 2. Idaho Overview Map .................................................................................................... 4 

Figure 3. 6th Order HUCs across the Project ............................................................................ 22 

Figure 4. Bear Lake County Leases .......................................................................................... 26 

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment A. Impaired Waterbodies within the Proposed Route 

Attachment B. Road and Culvert Crossing Examples 

Attachment C. Current In-Lieu Fee Opportunities

Attachment D. Draft In-Lieu Fee Instrument
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page iii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CGP Construction General Plan 

Companies Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

EPM Environmental Protection Measure 

EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources 

ILF In-Lieu Fee Program 

IRT Interagency Review Team 

IM Instructional Memorandum 

kV Kilovolt 

MW Megawatt 

NDEP Nevada Department of Environmental Protection 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NTP Notice To Proceed 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

POD Plan of Development 

Project Gateway West Project 

RMP Rocky Mountain Power 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right-of-Way 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USGS U.S. Geologic Survey 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WECC Western Energy Coordinating Council 

WWEC West-Wide Energy Corridor 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page iv 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This Compensatory Mitigation Plan for Unavoidable Impacts to Waters of the U.S. presents the 

next step in the process that Rocky Mountain Power and Idaho Power (Companies) have 

undertaken for the mitigation and compensation of impacts to waters of the U.S. due to the 

construction and operation of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project (Project). That 

process was first presented in the Aquatic Permitting Program (Idaho Power Company and 

Rocky Mountain Power, 2010, incorporated by reference) that proposes a phased approach to 

aquatic permitting that is appropriate for a multi-state, 1,000 plus mile long transmission line. 

The Program was followed by a Framework for Compensatory Mitigation for and Monitoring of 

Unavoidable Impacts to Waters of the U.S. (May 2011) submitted by the Companies to the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and to the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). 

This document describes the Companies’ proposed approach for mitigating impacts to waters of 

the U.S. that would result from the proposed Project and is intended to satisfy the mitigation 

requirements of the USACE1

. The overall objective is to ensure that there would be no net loss 

of function or area of waters of the U.S. resulting from construction and long-term operation and 

maintenance (O&M) of the Project. The Project’s currently estimated permanent impacts to 

wetlands and riparian areas are approximately 23.8 acres for the Proposed Route. Temporary 

impacts to wetlands and riparian areas are currently estimated at 166.5 acres for the Proposed 

Route. Other alternative routes, suggested by agencies, local groups, and cooperating 

agencies, have different and sometimes larger impacts to wetlands and riparian areas. Impact 

estimates are based on indicative (desktop) design and would decrease as site-specific design 

engineering is completed. 

Other federal (e.g., Bureau of Land Management [BLM]) or state (e.g., Idaho Department of 

Water Resources [IDWR], Department of Environmental Quality [IDEQ]) agencies may also 

require additional mitigation for impacts to aquatic resources beyond those required for the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the USACE. As those requirements are 

specified, they would be incorporated into this Framework. 

This Framework represents the commitment on the part of the Companies to work with the 

USACE and other agencies to develop a wetland mitigation program, and provides the structure 

for reaching agreement on the program. This Framework, together with the other proposed 

environmental protection measures, other plans, and project avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation measures, comprises the Companies’ commitment to wetland mitigation. 

1.1 Project Description, Purpose, and Need 

The Companies are proposing to construct and operate approximately 1,000 miles of new 230-

kilovolt (kV), 345-kV, and 500-kV alternating current electric transmission system consisting of 

10 segments between the Windstar Substation at Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway 

Substation approximately 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed 

transmission line is needed to supplement existing transmission lines in order to relieve 

operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric 

transmission grid, allowing for the delivery of up to 1,500 megawatts (MW) of additional energy 

for the Companies’ larger service areas and to other interconnected systems. The Project 

includes ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of above-ground, singlecircuit transmission lines involving structures, access roads, multi-purpose areas, fly yards, 

 

1

 40 CFR 230; Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule; April 10, 2008 

Federal Register 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 2 

pulling sites as well as associated substations, communication sites, and electrical supply 

distribution lines. The Project crosses private land and public lands administered by the BLM, 

the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), and the states of Idaho 

and Wyoming. 

A more detailed description of the Project is provided in the Plan of Development (POD) (Idaho 

Power Company and Rocky Mountain Power, 2012, incorporated herein by reference). The 

POD provides more detailed information on the purpose and need; proposed route; projectrelated facilities; details associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project; 

and applicant-proposed environmental protection measures (EPMs). The POD is Appendix B of 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). Table 1 provides a brief summary of the 

segments and their lengths, both Proposed and BLM-Preferred, as presented in the EIS. 

Table 1. Segment Summary 

Segment 

# 

Proposed 

Length 

BLMPreferred 

Length 

Originating 

Substation 

Terminating 

Substation 

1W(a) 73.8 73.8 Windstar Aeolus 

1W(c) 73.6 73.6 Dave Johnston 

230kV 

Aeolus 

2 91.9 91.9 Aeolus Creston 

3 45.9 45.9 Creston 1/ Anticline 

3A 5.1 5.1 Anticline Jim Bridger 

345-kV 

4 197.6 197.6 Anticline Populus 

5 55.7 73.3 Populus Borah 

6 2/ 0.5 0.5 Borah Midpoint 

7 118.2 130.2 Populus Cedar Hill 

8 131.5 132.0 Midpoint Hemingway 

9 162.2 171.4 Cedar Hill Hemingway 

10 34.4 34.4 Cedar Hill Midpoint 

TOTALS 990.4 1029.7 

1/ Creston Substation has been eliminated from the Project but its location still serves as the 

terminus for Segments 2 and 3 

/2 Segment 6 disturbance limited to substations and approaching structures only 

The Companies have advised BLM that they intend to build this Project in phases. Phase 1 

encompasses Segments 1 – 4, from Windstar near Glenrock, WY to Populus, near Downey, ID. 

Phase 2 encompasses the remaining segments. The Companies anticipate that construction will 

begin mid-2015 for Segments 1 – 4 and mid-2017 for the remaining segments. The Companies 

are still refining their schedule and may develop distinct work elements within Segments 1 – 4 

for staged construction. The Companies will advise the USACE and the BLM of any further 

changes in schedule. 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 3 

Figure 1. Wyoming Overview Map 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 4 

Figure 2. Idaho Overview Map 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 5 

1.2 Plan Updates 

This Plan is a living document. It has been updated to reflect the BLM-Preferred Alternative 

routes and now contains a more focused and site-specific proposal for compensatory mitigation 

for Segments 1 - 4. It will be updated to include the following when available and appropriate: 

 Recommendations from the USACE, BLM, and state agencies on compensatory 

mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S.; 

 Other federal and state agency requirements when specified; 

 Revised impact calculations based on avoidance and minimization measures, 

including changes in road or route alignment; 

 Further details on the Companies’ proposed compensatory mitigation for 

unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S., including a package for Segments 5 – 

10 when the construction for that phase is firmly scheduled. 

2.0 AQUATIC RESOURCE REGULATIONS 

Construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project includes ground disturbing activities 

that could impact aquatic resources. The following regulations and associated permits and 

authorizations would be required for the Project. 

The Clean Water Act (CWA ((33 USC Section 1251 et seq., formerly the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1972)), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires 

states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of 

point source and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. The CWA also requires 

the USACE to administer permits for dredge or fill in waters of the U.S. Specific sections of the 

CWA that apply to the Project are described below, followed by a brief description of other 

aquatic resource permits required for the Project. 

2.1 CWA - Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters 

Section 303(d) of the CWA establishes requirements for states and tribes to identify and 

prioritize water bodies that do not meet water quality standards through current technologybased regulations and controls. A water quality standard defines the designated beneficial uses 

of a water segment and the water quality criteria necessary to support those uses. Currently, 

both IDEQ and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) are required to conduct 

a comprehensive analysis of their respective state’s water bodies every two years to determine 

if they meet water quality standards and develop a list of impaired or threatened waters that 

require Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs). The Project will implement measures to avoid and 

/ or reduce the potential that it would contribute to the listing of a water body as impaired or be 

inconsistent with an adopted TMDL. 

2.2 CWA - Section 130.7 Total Maximum Daily Load 

Section 130.7 of the CWA requires states to establish TMDL programs, which are approved by 

the USEPA for streams and lakes that do not meet adopted water quality standards. A TMDL 

includes a quantitative assessment of water quality problems, contributing sources, and load 

reductions or control actions needed to restore and protect water bodies. A TMDL budget takes 

into account loads from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources. National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits address point-source pollution to surface 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 6 

waters. Non-point source pollution is addressed by the application of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs), EPMs, and mitigation measures. 

In compliance with the federal CWA, the IDEQ and the WDEQ have identified Section 303(d) 

water quality limited streams and lakes for development of TMDL criteria. TMDLs have been 

established for surface waters in Idaho. WDEQ has developed few TMDLS at this time as they 

are just beginning to implement the TMDL program; they are currently working on eight TMDLs. 

WDEQ projects that from the time of listing a waterbody as impaired, a TMDL for that waterbody 

would be developed within 1-5 years. 

Stream segments within the Project Area that have been identified on 303(d) lists as impaired 

due to either sedimentation (sediment-impaired streams) or high temperatures (temperatureimpaired streams), are listed in Attachment A for the Proposed Route. Note that there are no 

impaired streams in Segments 1 – 4. 

2.3 CWA - Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Pursuant to section 401 of the federal CWA, any permit or license issued by a federal agency 

for an activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the U.S. requires certification from the 

state in which the discharge originates. This requirement allows each state to have input into 

federally approved projects that may affect its waters (rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands) and 

to ensure the projects would comply with state water quality standards and any other water 

quality requirements of state law. State certification ensures that the project would not adversely 

impact impaired waters (waters that do not meet water quality standards) and that the project 

complies with applicable water quality improvement plans (TMDLs). The States must grant, 

deny, or waive section 401 certification for a project before a federal permit or license can be 

issued. The Departments of Environmental Quality for both Idaho and Wyoming must provide 

Section 401 Water Quality Certifications for the federally issued permits, including the 404 

permits in both states and 402 permits issued in Wyoming. The USEPA has 402 jurisdiction in 

Idaho. 

2.4 CWA - Section 402 NPDES Permits

The NPDES program requires facilities discharging from a point source into waters of the U.S. 

to obtain discharge permits. A point source is a conveyance such as a pipe, storm drain or other 

point. USEPA is responsible for permitting and enforcing all NPDES permits in Idaho. NPDES 

permits are administered by the WDEQ in Wyoming. Most storm water discharges are 

considered point sources and require coverage by a NPDES permit. The Project will need to 

obtain coverage under existing construction storm water programs in Idaho and Wyoming. 

The NPDES Stormwater Program requires operators of construction sites that disturb one acre 

or more to obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction 

stormwater permit. In Idaho and Wyoming, the EPA and WDEQ, respectively, have issued 

Construction General Permits (CGP). In order to be covered under the CGP, a site-specific 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed. The operator files a 

Notice of Intent which indicates the operator will comply with the CGP. The site operator must 

document the erosion, sediment, and pollution controls that will be used during construction and 

operation, inspect the controls periodically, and maintain the controls throughout the life of the 

project. If a TMDL has been established for the water body where a project will discharge, and 

the TMDL indicates that it applies to construction or stormwater discharges, then the SWPPP 

must be consistent with the requirements of that TMDL. 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 7 

If hazardous materials, including fuels and lubricants, are used or stored in quantities exceeding 

certain quantities, a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan is required. 

Section 311(j)(1)(c) of the CWA contains the regulations preventing discharge of oil to surface 

water. The SWPPP also contains measures regarding the handling and storage of such 

materials. 

2.5 CWA - Section 404 Waters of the U.S. Permits

Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the USACE to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill 

material to the waters of the United States. Discharges are authorized through issuance of 

nationwide permits or individual permits for specific activities. The USACE jurisdiction over nontidal waters of the United States extends to the “ordinary high water mark provided the 

jurisdiction is not extended by the presence of wetlands” (33 CFR § 328.4); and under Title 40 

CFR § 230.3 (s)(1). Waters of the United States are defined as: 

“All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be 

susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters 

which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters 

including interstate wetlands, all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, 

streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, 

sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the 

use, degradation or destruction of which would affect interstate or foreign 

commerce, including such waters which are or could be used by interstate or 

foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes, or from which fish or 

shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce, or 

which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in 

interstate commerce; all impoundment of waters otherwise defined as 

waters of the United States interstate commerce, tributaries of waters 

identified in paragraphs 1-4 of this section, the territorial seas; and wetlands 

adjacent to waters.” 

Many wetlands are protected under the CWA as waters of the U.S. and special aquatic sites. 

Wetlands are defined by the USACE based on the presence of wetland vegetation, wetland 

hydrology, and hydric soils. In addition, Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 

Federal Register 26961), directs all federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands, and to enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Federal 

regulation and management of wetlands follows a “no net loss” policy. Under Section 404, the 

USACE issues a number of nationwide permits for different types of activities that result in 

minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment and individual 

permits for larger and more complex impacts. 

Nationwide permits. A nationwide permit is a general permit that authorizes a category of 

activities throughout the nation by streamlining the approval process for certain types of 

activities that have minimal impacts to aquatic resources. These permits are valid only if the 

conditions applicable to the permit are met. If the conditions cannot be met, a regional or 

individual permit would be required Section 404 Nationwide Permit 12 (77 Federal Register

10271-10272 February 2012) covers construction, maintenance, and repair of utility lines in all 

waters of the U.S. provided that there is no change in pre-construction contours. This 

nationwide permit also covers related facilities including substations, structure foundations, and 

roads; provided that these activities do not result in the loss of greater than 0.5 acre of waters of 

the U.S. Nationwide Permit 12 also authorizes temporary structures, fill, and work necessary to 

conduct utility line activities as long as (1) appropriate measures are taken to maintain normal 

downstream flows and minimize flooding, (2) structures and fill consist of materials that would 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 8 

not be eroded by high flows, and (3) structures and fill are removed in their entirety and the 

affected areas are returned to pre-construction elevations and re-vegetated as appropriate upon 

project completion. Impact limitations for Nationwide Permit 12 cover all disturbances at a single 

crossing of a wetland or stream, or multiple crossings of the same wetland or stream. 

Any permanent impacts over 0.1 acre to waters of the U.S. require full mitigation, regardless of 

permit type. Permanent loss of more than 0.5 acres of a water of the U.S. requires an individual 

(General) permit rather than coverage under a Nationwide Permit. 

Nationwide Permits contain general conditions that address potential impacts to the 

environment that could result from dredge or fill of waters of the U.S., such as adverse effects to 

soils, migration and spawning habitats, endangered species, or historic properties. 

Supplemental documentation may be required as part of a pre-construction notification package 

(e.g. plant and wildlife survey reports, cultural resource survey reports) to support compliance 

with the general conditions of the Nationwide Permit. Compliance with the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act is being addressed in the Environmental 

Impact Statement currently being prepared for this Project. 

Individual Permits. Individual Permits are issued following a full public notice interest review of 

an individual application for a Department of Army permit. A public notice is distributed to all 

known interested persons. After evaluating all comments and information received, a final 

decision on the application is made. The final decision is made on a case-by-case evaluation 

and is generally based on the outcome of the public notice process and a determination of 

project benefits versus detriments (losses). 

2.6 Rivers & Harbors Act of 1899, Sections 9 and 10 

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403; Chapter 425, 

March 3, 1899; 30 Stat. 1151) (Act) prohibits the construction of any bridge, dam, dike or 

causeway over or in navigable waterways of the U.S. without Congressional approval. 

Administration of section 9 has been delegated to the Coast Guard. Structures authorized by 

State legislatures may be built if the affected navigable waters are totally within one State, 

provided that the plan is approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of Army (33 

U.S.C. 401). 

Under section 10 of the Act, the building of any wharfs, piers, jetties, and other structures is 

prohibited without Congressional approval, and excavation or fill within navigable waters 

requires the approval of the Chief of Engineers. Authority of the USACE to issue permits for the 

discharge of refuse matter into or affecting navigable waters under section 13 of the 1899 Act 

(33 U.S.C. 407; 30 Stat. 1152) was modified by title IV of P.L. 92-500, October 18, 1972, the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1341-1345; 86 Stat. 877), 

as amended, which established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits. 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e; 48 Stat. 401), as amended, 

provides authority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review and comment on 

the effects on fish and wildlife of activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the 

USACE. USFWS concerns include contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill 

projects in navigable waters. 

2.7 Other Federal Permits and Programs

Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and 

short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 9 

to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable 

alternative. In accomplishing this objective, “each agency shall provide leadership and shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood 

plains in carrying out its responsibilities.” 

2.8 Idaho Permit 

An Idaho State Stream Alteration Permit must be obtained prior to altering any stream as 

defined by Idaho Administrative Code (37.03.07) which includes “... to obstruct, diminish, 

destroy, alter, modify, or change the natural existing shape of the channel or to change the 

direction of flow of water of any stream channel within or below the mean high water mark.” 

3.0 AVOIDANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES 

To the greatest extent possible, the Project has been sited and designed to avoid and minimize, 

impacts to waters of the U.S., as well as other resources, including historic properties listed on 

the National Historic Register and species listed under the Endangered Species Act. This 

section describes the siting process for the Project, the environmental protection measures that 

the Companies will implement, and the road standards used by the Companies to minimize 

impacts where waterbodies must be crossed. 

3.1 Siting 

The identification of an initial proposed route for the Project was constrained by the purpose and 

need for the project, which includes interconnecting substations between Glenrock, Wyoming 

and the Hemingway Substation located southwest of Boise, Idaho. 

The Companies originally proposed a series of segments, each of which must begin and end at 

a particular substation to meet the segments and Project’s purpose and need. The route 

between substations was identified with the intent of avoiding as many environmental 

constraints as possible. Since the initial siting effort in 2008, reported in the Siting Study (IPC 

and RMP 2008, updated 2009), the Companies have been in continuous conversation with 

agencies and landowners and have substantially modified their initial Proposed Route to avoid 

important resources as knowledge of them became available, to accommodate landowner 

routing preferences where feasible, and to conform to a changing series of regulations and 

policies, including but not limited to the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (2011-005) 

declaring sage-grouse core areas and permissible corridors through those areas in which 

transmission lines are to be sited. 

Agencies and other groups identified concerns with the route proposed by the Companies and 

proposed partial or complete alternatives for that segment to the BLM. The BLM considered 

those alternatives and included them in the DEIS where the BLM determined that they met the 

BLM’s purpose and need. The Companies worked closely with advocates of the alternative 

routes and conducted siting activities within the generally proposed alternative corridor to avoid 

known resource impacts where feasible, using the same tools and techniques used to 

determine the Proposed Route. 

3.2 BLM Preferred Alternative 

In December 2012, the BLM identified its modified Preferred Alternative for each of the 

segments. For Segments 1 – 4, the BLM identified the Proposed (as modified through 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 10 

consultation) as the Preferred Route (with the exception of the adoption of 4G, a route proposed 

by the Forest Service in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Idaho). The routes for these 

four segments also represent the State of Wyoming’s Preferred Route. 

For Segments 6 and 10 in Idaho, the BLM also identified the Proposed as the Preferred. For 

Segment 5, the BLM identified Alternative 5B as its Preferred, which includes about 33 miles of 

the proposed route to the east and west of that alternative. For Segment 7, the BLM identified 

Alternatives 7B (to avoid the Deep Creek mountains), 7C (to avoid an important historic trail 

area, 7D, and 7G, in addition to the needed portions of the originally Proposed Route to connect 

the two substations. For Segment 8, the BLM identified the Proposed Route for most of its 

length, but preferring Alternative 8B, which avoids the Morey Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 

NCA. For Segment 9, the BLM identified the Proposed Route from Cedar Hill to just south of 

Bruneau Dunes State Park, then selected 9E as modified, which dips south into the Owyhee 

foothills to avoid most of the NCA. 

3.3 Environmental Protection Measures and Plans 

The Companies have produced a series of framework plans and have submitted them to the 

BLM for inclusion as part of the Project Description for consideration during the NEPA analysis. 

Those plans were submitted as appendices to the Companies’ POD and are incorporated 

herein by reference. The Companies plan that their Engineer, Procure, and Construct (EPC) 

contractor(s) will provide the site-specific detail needed for these plans after final engineering is 

complete and impacts are known. The EPC contractors will be responsible for submitting the 

final Plans to the BLM, USFS, and other appropriate agencies with regulatory authority for 

review and approval before receiving a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to begin construction. Many of 

these plans provide protection to wetlands either directly or indirectly. As submitted in 2012, the 

Plans reference the comprehensive list of Environmental Protection Measures (EPMs) found in 

Appendix Z of the POD. When finalized, relevant measures will be moved into each of the 

plans. Plans that are currently proposed and that will provide protection to waters of the U.S. are 

listed in Table 2, below: 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 11 

Table 2. Framework Plans Contributing to the Protection of Waters of the US 

Framework Plan 

Preliminary Plan or 

Environmental Protection 

Measures 

The Environmental Compliance Management Plan will be the primary guidance 

document that states how the Companies will uphold, document, and manage 

compliance with the right-of-way grant, the POD, landowner agreements, and all 

federal, state, and local permits. It is a centralized Project environmental compliance 

reference and is thereby intended to facilitate environmental compliance across the 

entire Project. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

C. 

The Framework Reclamation Plan will include site-specific construction mitigation, 

reclamation, and re-vegetation measures for each land management area crossed by 

the ROW within BLM-managed and National Forest lands. It will combine the 

Companies’ BMPs with site-specific mitigation developed in consultation with 

agencies. Some measures will apply Project-wide, while others will be designed for 

specific areas. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

D. Environmental protection 

measures (EPMs) provided in 

Appendix Z. 

The Framework Noxious Weed Plan will provide methods to control the potential 

occurrence/infestation of noxious and invasive weeds during and following 

construction of the Project. The purpose of the plan is to ensure noxious weeds are 

identified and controlled during the construction of project facilities and all federal, 

state, county, and other local requirements are satisfied. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

E. EPMs provided in Appendix 

Z. 

The Framework Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will include measures for 

temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control that will be used during 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line and ancillary 

facilities. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

F. EPMs provided in Appendix 

Z. 

The Framework Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan will include 

measures for spill prevention practices, requirements for refueling and equipment 

operation near waterbodies, procedures for emergency response, and incident 

reporting, and training requirements. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

G. EPMs provided in Appendix 

Z. 

The Framework Plant and Wildlife Conservation Measures Plan will present the 

measures proposed by the Companies for avoidance and minimization of impacts to 

special status plant and wildlife species as related to construction activities for the 

Project and outlines specific conservation measures to be implemented in the event 

that state or Federally listed species, BLM sensitive species, or Forest Service special 

status species or their habitats are identified within or adjacent to the Project right-ofway. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

H. EPMs provided in Appendix 

Z. Compensatory mitigation 

plan for impacts to sage-grouse 

habitat submitted to the BLM 

under separate cover. 

The Framework Stream, Wetland, Well, and Spring Protection Plan will provide 

measures to protect these resources from potential impacts during construction, 

operation, and maintenance activities. The goals of this plan are to control Projectrelated erosion and sedimentation into streams and wetlands and minimize 

disturbance and erosion of streambeds and banks and protect springs and wells in the 

Project area from impacts due to blasting and hazardous materials contamination. 

Included in POD as Appendix I. 

EPMs provided in Appendix Z. 

The Framework Blasting Plan will outline methods to prevent adverse impacts to 

human health and safety, property, and the environment that could potentially result 

from the use of explosives during project construction and mitigate risks and potential 

impacts associated with blasting procedures that may be required for construction. 

The plan will provide all levels of construction personnel project-specific information 

concerning blasting procedures, including the safe use and storage of explosives. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

M. EPMs provided in Appendix 

Z. 

The Framework Hazardous Material Management Plan will reduce the risks associated 

with the use, storage, transportation, production, and disposal of hazardous materials 

(including hazardous substances and wastes). This Plan will identify Project-specific 

mitigation measures and other specific stipulations and methods to address spill 

prevention, response, and cleanup procedures for the Project. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

P. EPMs provided in Appendix 

Z. 

The Framework Operations, Maintenance, and Emergency Response Plan will include 

measures to be employed while conducting routine, corrective, and emergency 

operations and maintenance activities. Measures identified will be in compliance with 

applicable state and federal laws and policies; ensure consistency across and within 

federal jurisdictions; and allow for the Companies to access the transmission line and 

ancillary facilities in a timely, cost effective, and safe manner. 

Included in POD as Appendix 

R. EPMs provided in Appendix 

Z. 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 12 

 

3.4 Road and Waterbody Crossing Standards 

The Companies plan to use existing roads and waterbody (e.g., channel, river, and streambed) 

crossings where practicable and feasible. The Companies conducted siting and design 

engineering to avoid new crossings of perennial streams, rivers, or artificial water conveyances 

such as canals, where possible. New roads have been planned to cross waterbodies only where 

avoidance is infeasible and largely where waterbodies are ephemeral or intermittent. 

New road construction, which includes widening existing roads where necessary, would occur 

between existing roads to the ROW and each individual facility, including all transmission 

structures within the ROW. Repair or maintenance of existing roads was not included in impact 

calculations if the original road prism is not proposed to be enlarged. Examples of road crossing 

and culvert standards are found in Attachment B. The specific loads and the stream conditions 

will dictate the type of stream crossing. 

Where constructing a new waterbody crossing is impractical or would require a bridge or a very 

large (>48-inch-diameter) culvert, existing waterbody crossings will be used and access 

redesigned to avoid a new crossing. All canals and ditches will be avoided by using existing 

crossings, as would all large perennial bodies like rivers. The following waterbody crossings 

would be used where avoidance is not possible: 

 Type 1—Drive through: Crossing of a channel with only minimal vegetation 

removal and no cut or fill needed. This is typical for much of the low-precipitation 

sagebrush country with rolling topography and streams that rarely flow with 

water. 

 Type 2—Ford: Crossing of a channel that includes grading and stabilization. 

Stream banks and approaches will be graded to allow vehicle passage and 

stabilized with rock or other erosion control devices. The stream bed will in some 

areas be reinforced with coarse rock material, where approved by the landmanagement agency, to support vehicle loads, prevent erosion and minimize 

sedimentation into the waterway. The rock will be installed in the stream bed 

such that it would not raise the level of the streambed, thus allowing continued 

movement of water, fish, and debris. A ford crossing results in an average 

disturbance profile of 25 feet wide (along the waterbody) and 50 feet long (along 

the roadway) for 1,000 square feet or 0.02 acre at each crossing. Disturbance 

amount is estimated based on need to get equipment into the riparian area to 

build the 14-foot-wide travelway and protect it from erosion by adding armoring. 

 Type 3—Culvert: Crossing of a waterbody that includes installation of a culvert 

and a stable road surface established over the culvert for vehicle passage. 

Culverts are designed and installed under the guidance of a qualified engineer 

who, in collaboration with a hydrologist and aquatic biologist where required by 

the land management agency, recommends placement locations; culvert 

gradient, height, and sizing; and proper construction methods. Culvert design 

considers bedload and debris size and volume. The disturbance footprint for 

culvert installation is estimated to be 50 feet wide (along the waterbody) and 150 

feet long (along the road) for 7,500 square feet or 0.17 acre at each crossing. 

Ground-disturbing activities will comply with Agency-approved BMPs. 

Construction will occur during periods of low water or normal flow. The use of 

equipment in streams will be minimized. All culverts will be designed and 

installed to meet desired riparian conditions, as identified in applicable unit 

management plans. Culvert slope will not exceed stream gradient. Typically, 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 13 

culverts are partially buried in the streambed to maintain streambed material in 

the culvert. Sandbags or other non-erosive material are placed around the 

culverts to prevent scour or water flow around the culvert. Adjacent sediment 

control structures such as silt fences, check dams, rock armoring, or riprap may 

be necessary to prevent erosion or sedimentation. Stream banks and 

approaches may be stabilized with rock or other erosion control devices. Culverts 

will be inspected and maintained annually for the life of the Project (estimated at 

50 years or longer) for proper operation and to protect water quality. 

The performance of low water stream crossings will be monitored for the life of the access road, 

and maintained or repaired as necessary to protect water quality. 

The Companies have a standard set of BMPs in their road and construction manuals (examples 

in Attachment B) and will use additional BMPs where required by land-managing agencies 

during construction. 

For waterbodies that are primarily dry, the crossing options include Type 1 through 3, and 

require agency consultation for crossings on Federal lands. For 303(d) listed streams with 

sediment as the primary contaminant of concern, additional erosion and sediment control 

devices (e.g., turbidity curtains) will be used if flow is present during installation of in-stream 

structures and other BMPs are not effective. 

3.5 Wetlands Crossings with Access Roads 

During construction and for routine and emergency operations, access across wetlands to each 

structure location is necessary. Two methods of minimizing impact to wetlands were evaluated 

but are not proposed: 

 Constructing at-grade roads with geotextiles and road materials which allow for 

water through-flow. This type of road would be below water during certain times 

of the year which would make locating the roads difficult, and the depth of the 

water over the drivable surface may make travel over the submerged road 

surface impractical or not feasible. 

 Constructing using helicopters in wetlands. The single-circuit 500kV towers will 

be designed such that they can be erected by helicopter if needed. In each case, 

the use of ground based vehicles is still required, thus not eliminating the need 

for an access road to each structure to complete construction or during 

inspections and live-line maintenance activities. 

A combination of methods for road construction in wetlands is proposed: 

 Construction of permanent above-grade roads that will be utilized during 

construction, operation, and maintenance. This will typically entail placement of 

permanent fill in wetlands such that the travel surface would be higher in 

elevation than the ordinary high water level. The construction of above-grade 

access roads allows for the use of the types of equipment needed for 

construction, operation, maintenance; and for expedited access for emergency 

restoration throughout the year. 

 Construction or use of temporary roads during construction, followed by 

restoration of the disturbance after construction. The Companies only propose 

this approach in the area of extensive wetlands in the Bear River Plain, in part 

because it is feasible to store the amount of matting needed for emergency 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 14 

access in the immediate vicinity. Smaller wetland and riparian area crossings will 

be constructed using permanent crossing methods because it would not be 

feasible to provide for temporary crossing materials for scattered crossings along 

a thousand miles of the Project. Where feasible in areas where temporary roads 

will be used, construction equipment may travel overland if the area is dry. If 

construction occurs when the ground is solidly frozen, ice roads could be 

constructed. 

If construction must occur when the ground is wet, temporary matting materials will be installed 

to allow access for heavy vehicles and equipment. The mats typically come in the form of heavy 

timbers bolted together. They are often used over a geotextile that is applied directly over the 

wet soil surface. When construction use is complete, the mats are removed and the geotextile 

taken up. This approach will be used where feasible, since it further reduces vegetation damage 

and compaction and reduces the time for full restoration. Mats spread the concentrated axle 

loads from equipment over a much larger surface area than the tires alone, thereby reducing the 

bearing pressure on fragile soils. Matting has a limited service life before replacement is 

required and must be stored for maintenance and emergency restoration activities. Table 3 

shows an estimate of miles of temporary roads for construction access in the three largest 

wetland areas crossed by the Proposed Route. Though exact locations may change during final 

design, the Companies are committed to using temporary crossings wherever feasible in these 

three important wetland areas. They are able to make this commitment only in the Bear River 

area because they already have storage facilities near enough to the area where mats would be 

used to allow for quick deployment in case of emergency. 

Table 3. Access Road Wetland Crossings in the Bear River Plain 

Location Segment 4 

Mileposts 

Approximate Miles 

Total New or 

Improved 

Access 

Roads 

New or 

Improved 

Access Road in 

Uplands 

Proposed for 

Permanent Fill 

in Wetlands 

Proposed for 

Temporary 

Access in 

Wetlands 

Cokeville 123.0-126.8 2.2 1.3 0.0 0.9 

Bear River 133.5-134.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 

Montpielier 148.0-153.6 7.9 5.1 0.0 2.8 

Where temporary road access is utilized, road areas will be rehabilitated after construction. Any 

geotextiles and matting used will be removed and wetland vegetation allowed to re-vegetate. No 

permanent roads will be available for routine operations inspections or repairs. Operational 

inspections and repairs will be scheduled for times when the ground is dry or frozen and access 

will be overland along the road alignment by ATV. Emergency repairs requiring heavy 

equipment will access the damaged area using matting if necessary. After emergency repairs 

are completed, matting will be removed and the wetland areas allowed to restore naturally. 

4.0 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE 

U.S. 

Preliminary impacts were identified through detailed remote sensing and image interpretation 

with ground-truthing. More detailed mapping, field verifications, and jurisdictional determinations 

have been conducted on Segments 1 – 4 where access was granted in 2012. Additional field 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 15 

work will be needed in 2013 to complete delineations, functions and values evaluations, and 

impact calculations for Segments 1 – 4 once engineering design is further refined. 

4.1 Methods 

Waters of the U.S. were identified through multi-spectral imagery, National Wetland Inventory 

datasets, existing GIS hydric soil layers, and field verification. Details of this survey are 

presented in the Revised Habitat Baseline Technical Report (Tetra Tech 2010). Survey data 

were used to produce a baseline map of current vegetation that is consistent across ownership, 

can be used to route the project outside of sensitive resources to the extent practical, and 

provides the basis for impact assessment in the EIS. 

The results of the remote sensing effort were validated using data obtained during systematic 

field sampling. Before mapping commenced, biologists field-sampled vegetation communities 

on accessible public lands. Field plot data were not made available to the crews that conducted 

field mapping or remote sensing interpretation; they were used as an independent way to check 

the accuracy of the field and remote sensing efforts. The same biologists that collected field 

data also participated in the mapping and quality control effort; therefore, they were familiar with 

the vegetation communities within the Project area. 

To determine the acreage of impacts that could potentially occur to waters of the U.S., the 

Project’s construction and operational footprints were overlain onto the wet areas that were 

mapped through remote sensing. Areas where the Project’s construction or operational 

footprints were co-located with mapped waters of the U.S. were considered to be a direct impact 

and the acreage of impact was calculated using GIS. 

4.1.1 Indicative vs. Design Engineering 

Initial estimates of construction and operational footprints were determined through indicative 

engineering design. Indicative engineering used an initial project route and road layout that was 

developed based on aerial images, topographic maps, and road and environmental constraint 

data. The majority of roads and structure locations would be adjusted following field review and 

an iterative process that assesses potential siting constraints and opportunities. For example, 

Project components would be sited outside of wetlands during the final siting process whenever 

possible as a standard engineering practice. In addition, the impacts resulting from tower pads 

were estimated by applying a standard width buffer to each indicative tower location for a 

construction work area. During engineering design, structure locations would be refined to 

further avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. where feasible. Preliminary 

engineering design has been completed for Segments 1 – 4, and wetland delineations 

conducted in 2012 and 2013 have and will rely on that design for determining impacts for the 

purposes of the 404 permit application. Preliminary engineering design for Segments 5 – 10 will 

be conducted when state and local as well as federal permits are in place. 

4.2 Impacts to Water of the U.S. 

The Project comprises critical infrastructure for the Companies and the western U.S. electrical 

grid. Limiting the potential for, and duration of, unplanned outages, and planning for the use of 

live line maintenance techniques to minimize the requirement for any outages, is an important 

part of the design, construction, and O&M requirements for the Project. Because of the need to 

operate this line almost continuously and to avoid unplanned outages, permanent access to the 

line and structures is a critical component of the project. The Companies propose to use 

permanent fill to construct above-grade service roads in waters of the U.S. except in the Bear 

River Plain as explained in Section 3.5, above. This provides the most flexibility for construction 

and O&M activities and expedited access for emergency restoration throughout the year. 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 16 

Service and access roads account for the majority of unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. 

for this Project. Required vegetation management for the safe O&M of the line also contributes 

to wetland impacts. 

Where avoidance through engineering design was not possible, impacts are being minimized 

where feasible through relocation or redesign of project features. For example, impacts have 

been minimized by reducing desired vegetation management areas and road width to the 

minimum needed for safe operation and compliance with regulatory requirements. Permanent 

and temporary direct and indirect impacts to waters of the U.S. that would result from 

construction and O&M activities are similar in nature but tend to vary in extent. Removal of 

vegetation and the introduction of fill material to waters of the U.S. could directly alter their 

ability to serve as wildlife habitat; their ability to trap sediment and nutrients; and their ability to 

moderate flood flow or facilitate surface water flow. This could also result in indirect impacts 

such as increased water and soil temperatures and/or alteration of species composition (which 

can also change the function) within these areas. Any blasting that may occur within or adjacent 

to a waters of the U.S. could fracture the bedrock and alter the hydrology of a perched water 

table and potentially lead to drier conditions that impair re-vegetation efforts. Withdrawal of 

water for use during construction may temporarily impact waters of the U.S. by reducing the 

water input that they would normally receive. 

Service road maintenance and vegetation management could result in minor impacts to 

wetlands or riparian areas. Vehicle traffic in wetlands and riparian areas has the potential to 

permanently alter soil characteristics and drainage patterns unless proper precautions are 

taken. Indirect impacts during maintenance may include compaction of soils, alteration of 

drainage patterns, erosion, and sedimentation. Erosion control and sedimentation runoff 

measures such as water bars, culverts, sediment basins, or perimeter control would be installed 

as required to minimize erosion. 

Although some Project-related disturbances to vegetation would be temporary and associated 

with construction activities, long-term impacts would occur in forested wetlands because of 

ongoing vegetation management and the time it takes for re-vegetation efforts to mature. 

Construction impacts in forested wetlands and forested riparian areas would generally involve a 

conversion to a different wetland type (i.e., a change to shrub or herbaceous type), rather than a 

loss of wetland or riparian acreage. The Companies would not actively restore forested 

wetlands because of the potential for trees to interfere with the transmission line. It is likely that 

recovery would be fairly rapid in herbaceous and shrub wetlands, and construction in these 

types is not likely to cause a conversion to a different wetland type. 

5.0 MITIGATION FRAMEWORK 

The USACE recognizes three mechanisms for providing compensatory mitigation for 

unavoidable permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. Temporarily impacted areas would be 

restored to pre-disturbance conditions and are not included in the Framework. Listed in order 

from most favorable (preferred by the USACE) to least favorable, these include mitigation 

banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation. Both mitigation 

banks and in-lieu fee (ILF) programs involve off-site compensation activities that are conducted 

by a mitigation bank or an in-lieu fee program sponsor. Permittee-responsible mitigation is the 

most traditional form of compensation and continues to represent the majority of compensation 

acreage provided each year (USACE 2008a). As its name implies, the permittee retains 

responsibility for ensuring that required compensation activities are completed and successful. 

Compensatory projects can be located at or adjacent to the impact site (i.e., on-site 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 17 

compensatory mitigation) or at another location generally within the same watershed as the 

impact site (i.e., offsite compensatory mitigation). 

Project impacts would be largely confined to the requested ROW for the transmission line and 

roads, occur in multiple locations, and would generally be less than 0.5 acre at each site. The 

Companies are presently considering multiple locations on Company-owned property where 

wetland enhancement, restoration, or creation may be feasible. 

5.1 Mitigation Banks 

The USACE prefers the use of mitigation banks, but has indicated that the Project does not fall 

within the service areas of any approved and operational mitigation banks (Johnson 2010; 

Joyner 2010). In addition, it is unlikely any approved mitigation banks would be operational 

within service areas appropriate for this Project on a schedule that would allow for timely Project 

permitting. The Companies are not considering creating a mitigation bank as part of this Project 

and recognize that creating a bank may take more time than the construction schedule would 

allow. 

5.2 In-lieu Fee Program 

The Companies will consider the use of ILF programs to mitigate unavoidable impacts to waters 

of the U.S. if programs are available and applicable. Second in preference for meeting 

compensatory mitigation requirements, ILF programs have been developed in some parts of the 

U.S., but few are present in the project area. Two examples of how the in lieu fee program was 

executed in Idaho are found in Attachment C. The Companies are also considering a 

combination of ILF and permittee-responsible mitigation including a combination of restoration, 

enhancement of existing wetlands, and creation of new wetlands. In most locations, the 

Companies do not have qualified staff to provide long-term maintenance and monitoring for 

permittee-responsible projects and plan to engage a responsible third party through binding 

contracts to provide these services. The Companies also consider that a conservation 

easement instrument will be appropriate to commit the portions of those properties belonging to 

the Companies to “in perpetuity” wetland uses. 

The creation of a conservation easement and an “in perpetuity” agreement with the 

conservation easement manager to also provide maintenance and monitoring for the project 

provides the equivalent of an in-lieu fee situation. Suitable sponsors for an ILF program include 

national non-governmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, 

Trout Unlimited, or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, state organizations such as the 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation, or local land trusts. 

The proposed framework and resulting mitigation would provide mitigation at a larger scale, with 

a greater likelihood of long-term success, and an opportunity to provide increased functions 

over smaller, isolated on-site mitigation. The proposed ILF mitigation provides a more robust 

approach to ensure long-term success of mitigation goals, i.e., full replacement of lost wetland 

functions and values. 

5.2.1 ILF Mitigation Parameters 

Whether the Companies are able to use existing ILF programs or they must develop one or 

more in partnership with an organization capable of managing it, the following information would 

be provided for each separate ILF sponsor: 

 A description of the sponsor’s experience and qualifications with respect to 

providing compensatory mitigation; 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 18 

 Potential site locations, baseline conditions at the sites, and general plans that 

indicate what kind of wetland compensation can be provided (e.g., wetland type, 

restoration or other activity, proposed time line, etc.); 

 Geographic service area; 

 Accounting procedures; 

 Methods for determining fees and credits including the allocation of advance 

credits; 

 A schedule for conducting the activities that would provide compensatory 

mitigation or a requirement that projects would be started within a specified time 

after impacts occur; 

 Performance standards for determining ecological success of mitigation sites; 

 Reporting protocols and monitoring plans; 

 Financial, technical and legal provisions for remedial actions and responsibilities 

(e.g., contingency fund); 

 Financial, technical and legal provisions for long-term management and 

maintenance (e.g., trust); 

 Provision that clearly states that the legal responsibility for ensuring mitigation 

terms are fully satisfied rests with the organization accepting the fee; and 

 Review by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) as established by the district 

engineer in accordance with 40 CFR part 230, and public review and comment. 

Attachment D contains proposed language for an ILF instrument. 

5.3 Permittee Responsible Mitigation 

The Companies may use permittee responsible mitigation by itself or in combination with an ILF 

program. While the USACE guidance (FR Vol. 65, No. 216; Nov 7, 2000) states a preference for 

on-site and in-kind mitigation, the Companies would propose mitigation that would likely result in 

off-site mitigation that includes in-kind and out-of-kind activities either near the impact site or in 

the same watershed/HUC unit. The Companies are not likely to propose on-site mitigation 

because of the need to access structures and associated facilities over the life of the project. 

The comprehensive mitigation plan that would be developed for permittee responsible mitigation 

would include the following: 

Objectives—This section would discuss: 

 The resource type(s) and amounts that would be provided by the mitigation 

project; 

 The method of compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, 

and/or preservation); and 

 The manner in which the resource functions of the mitigation project would 

address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other 

geographic area of interest. 

Site Selection—This section would discuss the factors considered during the site selection 

process, such as: 

 Needs of affected watersheds; 

 On-site alternatives (where applicable); and 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 19 

 The practicability of accomplishing an ecologically self-sustaining aquatic 

resource at mitigation project site. 

Site Protection Instrument — This section would describe measures that would be used 

to ensure the long-term protection of the mitigation project site; including legal 

arrangements and instruments, as well as site ownership. 

Baseline Data—This section would discuss or include: 

 Historic and existing plant communities of the proposed mitigation site and the 

impact site(s); 

 Historic and existing hydrology of the proposed mitigation site and the impact 

site(s); 

 Soil conditions of the proposed mitigation site and the impact site(s); 

 Map(s) showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the 

geographic coordinates for those site(s); and 

 Other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as 

compensation, including delineation. 

Mitigation Ratios—This section would describe the number of acres of mitigation wetlands 

to be preserved/created/enhanced based on determined mitigation ratios and total impact 

acres of the Project. 

Monitoring—This section would include the following: 

 A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the mitigation 

project is on track to meet performance standards, or if adaptive management is 

needed; 

 A schedule for monitoring and reporting to the responsible agency; and 

 A description of the length of the monitoring period and responsible party 

(minimum of 5 years and until success criteria or ecological performance 

standards are met). 

Financial Assurances—This section would describe the financial assurances in-place and 

how these assurances are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the mitigation 

project would be successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards. 

The USACE may require additional information as necessary to determine the 

appropriateness, feasibility, and practicability of the mitigation project. 

Ecological Performance Standards—This section would describe the ecologically-based 

standards that would be used to determine whether the mitigation project is achieving its 

objectives. 

5.3.1 Compensatory Mitigation Sub-plans 

The following sub-plans would also be included as part of the Comprehensive Mitigation Plan: 

1. Work Plan—This plan would describe the following: 

 Geographic boundaries of the mitigation area(s) (including watershed size); 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 20 

 Construction methods, timing, and sequence; 

 Source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; 

 Methods for establishing the desired plant community; 

 Plans to control invasive plant species; 

 Proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate including 

plan-form geometry, channel form, and design discharge; 

 Soil management measures; and 

 Erosion control measures.

2. Maintenance Plan—This plan would include a description and schedule for the 

maintenance requirements to support continued viability of the resource once initial 

construction is completed. 

3. Long-Term Management Plan—This plan would include a description of how the 

mitigation project would be managed after performance standards have been achieved 

in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource, including long-term 

financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term management. 

4. Adaptive Management Plan—This plan would include a description of how the 

mitigation plan would be revised and implemented if changes arise. This plan would also 

identify the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive management 

measures. 

5.4 Location of Required Mitigation and Known Mitigation Opportunities 

Previous discussion with the USACE have indicated that offsite compensatory mitigation, if 

employed, must be located in the watershed in which the disturbance has taken place and that 

the watersheds must be 6th order Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) or smaller. Figure 3 identifies the 

6th order HUC boundaries crossed by the project. Table 4 lists the potential impacts from 

operation and maintenance in wetland and riparian areas by 6th order HUC. 

Table 4. Acres of Wetland and Riparian Impacts by 6th Order HUC across the Project 

6th Order HUC Name 6th Order 

HUC Number 

Acres of 

Wetland 

Impacts 

Acres of 

Riparian 

Impacts 

Total 

North Platte 101800 5.3 5.8 11.1 

Upper Green 140401 0.7 1.3 2.0 

Great Divide Closed Basin 140402 0.2 0.2 0.4 

White-Yampa 140500 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Upper Bear 160101 0.6 3.3 3.9 

Lower Bear 160102 1.3 2.2 3.5 

Upper Snake 170402 0.1 0.5 0.6 

Middle Snake-Boise 170501 0.7 1.6 2.3 

Totals 8.9 14.9 23.8 

Note: Acreages within the table are inclusive of un-vegetated waters that are associated with wetland or riparian 

areas. Un-vegetated waters such as intermittent drainages are not included in this table. 

 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 21 

Initial estimates by Proposed and BLM Preferred Routes for Segments 1 – 4 are found in Table 

5, below. 

Table 5. Estimated Impacts to Riparian and Wetland Areas (from FEIS, BLM 2011) 

Proposed and BLM 

Preferred Route 

Acres Permanent Impact 

Riparian Wetland Total 

Segment 1W(a) 2.3 2.4 4.7 

Segment 1W(c) 2.2 2.7 4.9 

Segment 2 1.4 0.2 1.6 

Segments 3 and 3A 0.4 0.2 0.6 

Segment 4 6.6 2.5 9.1 

Totals 12.9 8.0 20.9 

 

In the event ILF options do not meet the needs of the Companies, are not available when the 

Companies require them, or cannot be developed within these watersheds, the Companies 

would be responsible for the mitigation as described in Section 5.3. To identify land suitable for 

mitigation, priority would be given to sites exhibiting the following: 

 Stable, predictable water table; 

 Beneficial habitat features, such as, “in-kind” community design and connectivity 

to other protected or important habitats; 

 Proximity to other wetlands; 

 Existing functional features (e.g. flood detention); 

 Imminent risk for destruction or degradation from development; 

 Sufficient land area to provide ecologically meaningful upland buffer; and 

 Previously degraded wetlands.
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 22 

Figure 3. 6th Order HUCs across the Project 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 23 

Priorities for preservation or protection of existing wetlands are as follows: 

 Contiguous with existing preserved or important habitat areas; 

 Adjacent to areas with low potential for development; 

 Probability for sustained ecological biodiversity value for foreseeable future (low 

probability for future development); 

 Connects two or more preserved or important habitat areas; and 

 Contains important wetlands—significant in maintaining water quality, stream 

flow, and aquatic habitat in a contiguous or downstream watercourse, contains 

habitat, or has the potential for creation of habitat, for sensitive wildlife. 

5.5 Site-Specific Compensatory Mitigation Planning 

5.5.1 Bear River Plain

PacifiCorp Energy (affiliated with RMP) owns several large parcels of land west of Montpelier, 

ID, as part of the Bear River Hydroelectric Project (Figure 4). Relicensed for 30 years in 2003, 

the Bear River Project is subject to a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement and 

new license require the provision of recreational enhancements, instream flows to benefit 

aquatic resources, and various funds to conserve and benefit natural resources near the project. 

Therefore, PacifiCorp Energy has dedicated staff and resources that already manage various 

natural resources projects in the vicinity of the Gateway West Project. One of the properties 

owned by PacifiCorp and leased for meadow hay and grazing operations to a local rancher, is 

found on Ovid Creek, to the west of the main Bear River but within the larger Bear River Plain. 

The property was purchased in the 1980s to allow PacifiCorp to better control the flooding in the 

Bear River Plain that occurred during very high runoff periods. Ovid Creek, from which 

PacifiCorp owns irrigation water rights, runs adjacent to and through the parcel. The parcel is 

flood irrigated every spring/summer using those rights. Water is conveyed through ditches and 

by manipulation of water levels at the Bern Dam control structure. The lessee manages 

irrigation to produce one or two cuttings of hay. During the fall and winter months, the parcel is 

used to graze and winter cattle. 

Through PacifiCorp’s Hydro Resources Management group, PacifiCorp approved a Property 

Transaction Notice and Approval Form in late 2010 to allow a portion of this property to be 

transitioned from its current land use to use as a site for wetland restoration and enhancement. 

As part of its commitment to develop this portion of the property as a wetland mitigation site to 

compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the US within the Bear River 

drainage, the Companies have begun the following activities: 

 Install a series of piezometers across the parcel to periodically monitor shallow 

groundwater (December 2012); 

 Research existing water rights owned by PacifiCorp to determine if any changes 

in beneficial use or location need to be recorded to assure a perpetual supply of 

water for the proposed wetland restoration project (December 2012); 

 Conduct a detailed topographic survey of the parcel (one foot contour interval) to 

assist in the development of a mitigation site plan (March – May 2013); 

 Conduct a wetland delineation on the parcel (May/June 2013); and 

 Conduct a functions and values assessment of the parcel (May/June 2013). 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 24 

Figure 4. Bear Lake County Leases 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 25 

The report that results from these activities will form the basis of a site-specific mitigation plan. 

That plan will also include a written commitment from PacifiCorp Hydro to monitor and maintain 

the restored wetland so that it continues to provide the established functions and values into the 

future. 

5.5.2 Other Company-Owned Properties

There are properties owned by PacifiCorp near the Dave Johnston Power Plant and also near 

the Jim Bridger Power Plant in the vicinity of impacts from Segments 1 and 4, respectively. 

These properties include wetlands that have been degraded by open livestock grazing and 

other historic land uses. There are possibilities for improvements, restoration, enhancement, or 

creation of wetlands on these properties. Unlike the properties in the Bear River Plain, there is 

no equivalent in-house natural resource staff to manage long-term monitoring, reporting, and 

management. Pursuit of projects on these properties will be accompanied by long-term 

conservation easements or similar legal instruments with third parties to provide for such longterm services as well. 

5.5.3 Riparian and Stream-related Wetland Crossings

The general conditions for Nationwide 12 indicate that compensatory mitigation at a minimum 

one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10-acre and require preconstruction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that either some other 

form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse effects of the 

proposed activity are minimal, and provides a project-specific waiver of this requirement. For 

wetland losses of 1/10-acre or less that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer 

may determine on a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that 

the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. The Companies plan 

to work with the district engineer to use the functions and values assessment of the wetlands 

and waters of the US permanently impacted by the Project to determine the needed size and 

number of offsite mitigation projects to fully compensate for losses based on the functions and 

values restored or contributed by each project. 

Mitigating for loss of riparian habitat in an area such as Wyoming where open livestock grazing 

is common can be achieved in many locations simply by fencing out cattle from the riparian area 

and providing off-stream water by piping gravity-fed water to a trough or other watering device in 

an adjacent upland area. The Companies will search for a third-party sponsor to help it identify 

reaches of creeks and streams within each watershed impacted by the Project where willing 

landowners may be found and where such fencing activities could substantially improve the 

riparian conditions, particularly streams listed under 303d as having impaired water quality. 

Where there is landowner interest, the Companies will enter into an agreement with the thirdparty sponsor, similar to the in-lieu fee program draft found as Attachment D to fund the project 

once land-use permits on public and private lands are in place, with the intent of executing the 

mitigation in 2015, just prior to construction. Those landowner agreements will include a means 

of financing ongoing fence and watering system maintenance and may include some form of 

conservation easement, held by the third-party sponsor, that will ensure the ability to conduct inperpetuity management. 

6.0 CONCLUSION 

The Companies have sited and designed the Project to avoid Waters of the US, including 

wetlands, to the greatest extent feasible. The BLM and other permitting agencies, not the 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 26 

Companies, select the final route to be permitted. The Companies are therefore limited in their 

options for avoidance and minimization to the route, and often times to the specific roads, 

required by the permitting agencies. 

Where feasible and within the constraints dictated by the BLM and other agencies’ Preferred 

Route, the transmission structures, access roads, and ancillary facilities have been sited and 

designed to avoid water features including wetlands and wet creek crossings. Where not 

feasible to entirely avoid such crossings, the Companies have designed the road network to use 

existing crossings wherever feasible. The proposed crossings are the smallest possible impact 

given the need to safely and quickly access each structure in the event of a failure. 

In one instance, the Companies have been willing to reduce their standard of a permanent 

above-grade road to each structure and facility to minimize permanent loss of wetlands. In the 

Bear River Plain, the Companies have nearby storage available for geotextiles, timber mats, 

and the equipment and resident staffing to place and remove such temporary road structures in 

an emergency if needed. In addition, in that area, routine maintenance can be conducted from 

ATVs during the dry season without permanent roads. These unusual conditions pertain only in 

this area and do not apply to the rest of the Project, where riparian or wetland crossings are 

isolated and far from any facility in an emergency. 

All crossings of waters and wetlands have been designed and field-checked to avoid new 

crossings where feasible and to minimize the impact of proposed crossings where total 

avoidance is not possible. For example, crossings are routinely designed to cross as close to 

perpendicular to the water body as possible to minimize impacts. 

Impacts from the Project to waters and wetlands have been avoided and minimized wherever 

feasible. The small remaining unavoidable impacts represent the least damaging practicable 

alternative for the safe and compliant construction and operation, including emergency access, 

for the Project. These remaining impacts will be fully compensated for as coordinated with, and 

ultimately approved by, the USACE. 
Framework For Compensatory Mitigation For And Monitoring Of 

Unavoidable Impacts To Waters Of The U.S. Gateway West Transmission Line Project 

Tetra Tech December 2012 Page 27 

7.0 REFERENCES 

BLM and USFS. 2008. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy 

Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States (DOE/EIS-0386) 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2011. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project. 

Hoobles, M. 2010. Personal communication (phone conversation) with Mathew Hoobles (State 

Coordinator for the Wyoming State Engineers Office) and John Crookston of Tetra Tech 

on June 9, 2010. 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Working Principles and Policies for the 2008 

Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) Report 2 May. 

Idaho Power Company and Rocky Mountain Power Company. 2009 Revised Gateway West 

Transmission Line Siting Study. Memorandum to Walt George, BLM National Project 

Manager, December 30, 2009. Available online at: 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/cfodocs/gateway_west/documents/siting/GW_SitingStudy_

080915.pdf 

Johnson, Tom, 2010. USACE representative, Cheyenne Regulatory Office, Omaha District, 

personal communication with Walt Vering, January 27, 2010. 

Joyner, James, 2010. USACE representative, Idaho Falls Regulatory Office, Walla Walla 

District, personal communication with Walt Vering, January 27, 2010. 

Tetra Tech, 2010. Revised Habitat Baseline Technical Report for the Gateway West 

Transmission Line Project. Boise, Idaho - 4040RPT.DOC. 

The Environmental Law Institute (Accessed October 8, 2010; 

http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/WMB/ilfresults.cfm?state=ID&district=&program=) and 

USACE databases were reviewed to identify existing mitigation opportunities in the 

project area. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland 

Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. 

USACE. 2012. Reissuance of Nationwide Permits 77 Federal Register 10271-10272 February 

2012 / Notices. 

USACE. 2008a. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. 40 

CFR Part 230. 

USACE. 2008b. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 

Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ERDC/EL TR-08-13. 

Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 

USACE). 2008c. Interim regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 

Manual: Arid West Region. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center.
ATTACHMENT A 

WATERBODIES LISTED AS 

IMPAIRED ALONG THE 

PROPOSED ROUTE 
29 

Waterbodies Listed as Impaired along the Proposed Route 

Waterbody Name Segment Mile- post 303d_List TMDL L

(Cat4a

Bear River - Idaho/Wyoming border to railroad bridge (T14N, R45E, Sec. 21) Segment 4 139.9 Sediment Sheep Creek - source to mouth Segment 4 144.0 Sediment Sheep Creek - source to mouth Segment 4 144.9 Sediment Bear River -railroad bridge (T14N, R45E, Sec. 21) to Alexander Reservoir Segment 4 148.2 Sediment Bear River -railroad bridge (T14N, R45E, Sec. 21) to Alexander Reservoir Segment 4 148.7 Sediment Bear River -railroad bridge (T14N, R45E, Sec. 21) to Alexander Reservoir Segment 4 149.1 Sediment Bear River -railroad bridge (T14N, R45E, Sec. 21) to Alexander Reservoir Segment 4 149.8 Sediment Bear River -railroad bridge (T14N, R45E, Sec. 21) to Alexander Reservoir Segment 4 152.9 Sediment Swan Lake Creek Complex Segment 4 192.9 Sediment Marsh Creek - source to mouth Segment 4 195.7 Temperature SedimeMarsh Creek - source to mouth Segment 4 200.0 Temperature SedimeMarsh Creek - source to mouth Segment 4 201.2 Temperature SedimeMarsh Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 5.2 Temperature SedimeHawkins Creek - Hawkins Reservoir Dam to mouth Segment 5 6.5 SedimeHawkins Creek - Hawkins Reservoir Dam to mouth Segment 5 7.6 SedimeHawkins Creek - Hawkins Reservoir Dam to mouth Segment 5 8.5 SedimeHawkins Creek - source to Hawkins Reservoir Segment 5 12.7 SedimeHawkins Creek - source to Hawkins Reservoir Segment 5 13.6 SedimeHawkins Creek - source to Hawkins Reservoir Segment 5 14.9 SedimeBannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 5 23.1 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 5 23.4 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 5 25.8 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 5 26.7 Sediment West Fork Bannock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 27.8 Sediment West Fork Bannock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 29.5 Sediment West Fork Bannock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 29.6 Sediment West Fork Bannock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 30.7 Sediment East Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 33.2 Sedime
30 

Waterbody Name Segment Mile- post 303d_List TMDL L

(Cat4a

East Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 35.2 SedimeEast Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 36.0 SedimeEast Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 36.8 SedimeEast Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 5 37.4 SedimeMarsh Creek - source to mouth Segment 7 4.8 Temperature SedimeHawkins Creek - Hawkins Reservoir Dam to mouth Segment 7 6.4 SedimeHawkins Creek - Hawkins Reservoir Dam to mouth Segment 7 7.4 SedimeHawkins Creek - Hawkins Reservoir Dam to mouth Segment 7 10.5 SedimeHawkins Creek - Hawkins Reservoir Dam to mouth Segment 7 11.2 SedimeHawkins Creek - source to Hawkins Reservoir Segment 7 13.2 SedimeHawkins Creek - source to Hawkins Reservoir Segment 7 13.5 SedimeHawkins Creek - source to Hawkins Reservoir Segment 7 13.9 SedimeHawkins Creek - source to Hawkins Reservoir Segment 7 16.8 SedimeHawkins Creek - source to Hawkins Reservoir Segment 7 17.4 SedimeBannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 7 21.2 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 7 22.3 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 7 23.1 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 7 23.5 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 7 23.6 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 7 26.4 Sediment Bannock Creek - source to American Falls Reservoir Segment 7 27.6 Sediment West Fork Bannock Creek - source to mouth Segment 7 30.6 Sediment East Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 7 33.5 SedimeEast Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 7 35.4 SedimeEast Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 7 35.7 SedimeEast Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 7 37.4 SedimeSouth Fork Rock Creek - source to mouth Segment 7 40.8 SedimeRaft River - Heglar Canyon Creek to mouth Segment 7 59.4 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 7 110.3 Sedime
31 

Waterbody Name Segment Mile- post 303d_List TMDL L

(Cat4a

Unclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 7 111.0 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 7 111.3 SedimeDry Creek - source to mouth Segment 7 114.2 Temperature SedimeMalad River - confluence of Black Canyon Creek and Big Wood River to mouth Segment 8 19.2 SedimeMalad River - confluence of Black Canyon Creek and Big Wood River to mouth Segment 8 19.4 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 8 29.6 SedimeClover Creek - Pioneer Reservoir Dam to mouth Segment 8 39.0 Temperature SedimeLittle Canyon Creek - source to mouth Segment 8 47.7 SedimeLittle Canyon Creek - source to mouth Segment 8 48.2 SedimeCold Springs Creek - source to mouth Segment 8 52.9 SedimeIndian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 90.1 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 91.2 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 92.0 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 92.8 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 93.5 Sediment/ Temperature Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 93.8 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 95.0 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 95.4 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 98.8 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 99.6 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 100.9 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 101.0 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 101.1 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 101.7 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 102.9 Sediment/ Temperature Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 103.4 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 104.5 Sediment 
32 

Waterbody Name Segment Mile- post 303d_List TMDL L

(Cat4a

Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 105.6 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 106.3 Sediment Indian Creek - source to Sugar Ave.(T03N, R02W, Sec. 15) Segment 8 107.1 Sediment Snake River - C.J. Strike Dam to river mile 425 (T02N, R04W, Sec. 02) Segment 8 118.0 Temperature Rock Creek - Fifth Fork Rock Creek to river mile 25 (T11S, R18E, Sec. 36) Segment 9 2.3 SedimeMcMullen Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 3.8 Temperature SedimeMcMullen Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 4.3 Temperature SedimeMcMullen Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 5.5 Temperature SedimeMcMullen Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 6.0 Temperature SedimeMcMullen Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 6.1 Temperature SedimeCottonwood Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 8.9 SedimeCottonwood Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 9.0 SedimeSalmon Falls Creek - Salmon Falls Creek Dam to Devil Creek Segment 9 32.5 TemperaDevil Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 37.2 TemperaDeadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 48.5 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 49.0 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 49.5 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 51.4 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 51.7 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 53.1 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 61.3 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 62.6 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 72.2 Sediment Deadman Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 76.5 Sediment Sailor Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 82.1 Sediment Sailor Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 82.7 Sediment Browns Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 87.6 Sediment Sugar Valley Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 104.5 SedimeJacks Creek - confluence of Little and Big Jacks Creeks to C.J. Strike Reservoir Segment 9 104.8 Temperature Sedime
33 

Waterbody Name Segment Mile- post 303d_List TMDL L

(Cat4a

Birch Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 126.8 Sediment Castle Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 131.6 Sedime

Tempera

Sinker Creek - source to mouth Segment 9 143.8 Sedime

Tempera

Snake River - Milner Dam to Twin Falls Segment 10 23.5 Temperature SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 10 26.9 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 10 27.0 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 10 27.5 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 10 28.0 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 10 28.3 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 10 29.0 SedimeUnclassified Waters in CU 17040212 Segment 10 29.6 Sedime

*From Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Working Principles and Policies for the 2008 Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) ReportCategory 1 waters are attaining water quality standards and no uses are threatened. Category 2 waters are attaining some designated uses, and no uses are threatened, but there is insufficient (or no) data a

to determine if the remaining uses are attained or threatened. Category 3 waters have insufficient data (or no data) and information to enable determining if designated uses are being at

Category 4 waters do not support (or threaten) a standard for one or more designated uses, but they do not require the 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). There are three subcategories under Category 4: 

 Category 4a waters have had a TMDL completed and approved by EPA.  Category 4b waters have had pollution control requirements placed on them other than a TMDL—and these 

expected to attain the water quality standard in the near future. 

 Category 4c waters are those waters for which nonsupport of the water quality standard is not caused by a pollutan

Category 5 waters do not meet (or threaten) applicable water quality standards for one or more designated uses by 

Category 5 water bodies make up the 303(d) list of impaired waters. NOTE: No impaired waterbodies occur within the project in Wyoming.
ATTACHMENT B 

ROAD AND CULVERT 

CROSSING EXAMPLES 

 
TA 501

Transmission

Construction Standard

7 Apr 08

Page 1 of 10

TA 501

Roads—Construction E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Roads—Construction

A. Scope

This standard provides information about constructing transmission line access. All

road construction/improvements, fords, structure/equipment landings, and lay--down

yards shall be held to a minimum. On level terrain, road construction may only require

back-dragging a blade to remove brush to facilitate construction. In undulating or

mountainous terrain the following standards shall apply.

B. Index

The index below provides a quick reference to detailed figures contained in this

standard for road construction with varying slopes and conditions.

Referenced Road

Cross Section

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2
TA 501

Page 2 of 10

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 501 7 Apr 08

E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Roads—Construction

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

C. Planning

Before construction can take place. the road system must be planned and located

properly. Poor planning or road location is associated with the following most common

causes of road failure (Furniss et al. 1991):

S Improper placement and construction of road fills.

S Insufficient culvert sizes.

S Very steep road grades.

S Improper placement or sidecast of excess materials.

S Removal of slope support by undercutting.

S Altering drainage by interception and concentration of surface and subsurface

flows.

A plan showing existing and new road locations shall be developed and shall be shown

on the company’s access road charts, plan maps, and transportation plan map. Road

locations shall be marked on the ground by survey stakes and blue-and-white, striped

flagging. GPS coordinates shall be obtained to define the road center--line. These

coordinates shall be used to create the transportation plan map. Road information shall

also be placed on transmission line plan maps.

In the event of conflict between the drawings and the staked locations, the latter shall

take precedence and transportation plan maps and the transmission line plan maps

shall be revised accordingly. Any culverts and gates listed in access road charts are

required. Fords, drainage improvements, rip-rap fills and crushed rock requirements

listed in the access road charts are anticipated; however, requirements will be determined based on actual site conditions encountered. If changes are made in the field, the

maps shall be revised to show these changes.

Because roads are long-term features, their location must be carefully chosen to

provide safe access, avoid long-term maintenance problems, reduce potential for

degrading water quality, and minimize costs over the short and long term. For more

information see the references in Section H.

D. Road Construction

Roads shall be constructed in a manner that will support equipment for construction of

the transmission line and to provide access roads for line inspection and maintenance

equipment after the line has been constructed.

All construction access roads on federally managed public lands are subject to

approval prior to construction. Other federal, state, and local landowners may require

approvals before road construction commences on their property. Where side slopes

exceed 60 percent, a full bench cut will be reburied. No side-casting of material will be

allowed in these areas; end-haul of material will be required to a designated location

approved by the federal agency or other property owner. Close coordination with the

federal agency will be required.

The detail drawings provided in this standard for completing cuts and fills, providing

drainage, and installing culverts are furnished as guidelines for the road construction.

Actual road construction cut slopes, fill slopes, drainage requirements, rip-rap, and
TA 501

Transmission

Construction Standard

7 Apr 08

Page 3 of 10

TA 501

Roads—Construction E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

crushed rock needs will be determined during construction based on site conditions.

Cut and fill quantities shall balance when possible, reducing the material removed or

brought in for road completion.

During road construction, consideration shall be given to restoration required after

construction completion, including re-vegetation, rock cover, and other drainage and

erosion control factors. Clearing and grading shall be minimized to reduce the restoration requirements for disturbed areas. The visual impact of roads on the surrounding

areas shall be considered at all times during construction.

Crushed rock shall be sound, hard, durable, angular, or sub-angular rock, suitable for

road base courses. Crushed rock shall be well graded 2I to 1/4I size (3I to minus-size

skip-graded is a minimum acceptable substitute).

Rip Rap shall be sound, hard, durable, rock ranging in size from 2I to 8I as specified

on drawings and as required by conditions.

Any improvements made, including spur roads, fords, bridges, equipment landings and

lay-down areas, shall be held to a minimum. Following completion of the work, the

removal of these improvements shall be at the discretion of company or its representative.

Roads shall be sufficiently wide, but not less than 14i in width. The construction shall

provide bench cuts, grading, filling, compaction, and ditches necessary to accommodate heavy construction equipment and other heavily loaded vehicles. Roads shall be

installed in accordance with the figures in this standard.

All roads shall be constructed with a smooth, uniform surface and shall be outsloped

where practical to provide drainage and minimum erosion. Avoid outsloped roads

where they will direct runoff onto erodible fill, embankments, or where they would cause

off-camber curves. Where outsloping is not practical, sufficient water dips, water bars,

or ditching, shall be installed as shown in the Section E of this standard. See standards

TA 503, Roads—Water Bars and Water Dips and TA 504, Roads—Culvert Installation

for further detail on proper drainage.

Outsloping a road means building the road surface so that it is tilted outward 2-3

percent so water can run off the road surface (see Figure 1). Outsloping works well

under the right conditions. The following conditions are favorable for use of outsloped

roads with no ditch:

S Short back slopes.

S Terrain slope less than 20 percent.

S Road grades steeper than 3 percent.

S Seasonal road use.

S Light traffic.

S Fast re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes.

Outslopes become a problem if roads are not maintained when ruts begin to form. The

ruts will then act as channels.

The following conditions are unfavorable for outsloping:

S Long back slopes.
TA 501

Page 4 of 10

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 501 7 Apr 08

E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Roads—Construction

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

S Terrain steeper than 20 percent.

S Steep, continuous road grade.

S Where ruts occur and allow water to concentrate and run along the road.

S Where winter hauling is required.

To minimize rutting and erosion of the right-of-way, road construction shall be completed during predominantly dry conditions. Fills, which will essentially consist of native

soils, shall not be made when the moisture content of the soils will not permit adequate

compaction.

As a minimum level of compaction, common fill shall be placed in 12I-thick, loose lifts

and each lift compacted by walking or tracking in with a heavy dozer or rubber-tired

(pneumatic) equipment. Each lift shall be compacted by at least four passes with the

equipment.

In areas of dense vegetation, the surface organic material shall be stripped from the

ground within the roadway and cut and fill areas. Stripping to a maximum depth of 6I

will be adequate unless otherwise directed by the company or its representative.

Stripped and disturbed areas shall be compacted as specified above or as shown in the

drawings or access road charts.

Personnel constructing the access road system shall be aware of the definition of a

wetland such that potential wetlands may be identified before work is begun. In some

cases where wetlands have been identified, road construction personnel shall comply

with requirements as directed by the company or its representative.

Ditches, installed culverts, and/or installed surface drains to drain wet areas resulting

from springs, seeps, or poor surface drainage may be required to construct the road.

Drainage ditches shall be shallow, not to exceed 18I in depth. The ditch bottom shall

have a width of approximately 1i and side slopes shall not exceed 1.5 to 1 (see

Figure 5).

All earthwork and grading, cut and fill slopes, and other disturbed areas shall be

re-vegetated with seed. Unless otherwise specified, the seed mix shall consist of 45

percent rye grass, 45 percent orchard or fescue grass, and 10 percent clover. The seed

shall be applied at a minimum of 60 pounds per acre. At locations where the ground

slope is greater than 10 percent, the seeds shall be covered with straw- or wood-fiber

mulch applied at a rate of one ton of mulch per acre. The seed shall be spread in early

fall when weather permits.

All phases of operation, including the construction of truck and tractor roads, shall be

conducted to minimize as much as practical the damage to the soil and to prevent

gullies and creation of other conditions conducive to soil erosion. Repair of all erosion

damage shall be accomplished as soon as it occurs to prevent further loss of material

into existing drainages. Cut slopes shall be stabilized. Care shall be taken to avoid

creation of wet land conditions.

Crew movement on the right-of-way, including access routes, shall be limited so as to

minimize damage to land or property. Crews shall endeavor to avoid marring the lands.

Ruts and scars shall be obliterated, damage to ditches, terraces, roads and other

features of the land shall be corrected, and the disturbed land beyond the access roads

and structure landings shall be restored, as nearly as practical, to its original condition

before final acceptance of the work.
TA 501

Transmission

Construction Standard

7 Apr 08

Page 5 of 10

TA 501

Roads—Construction E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Erosion control measures shall be installed to minimize the transport of eroded

sediments to streams and other waterways. Erosion control measures may include, but

are not necessarily limited to, straw bales and silt fences.

E. Road Cross Sections

This section provides road cross sections, including required dimensions, cleared

right-of-way width, and other information. See general road construction notes in

Section G and references in Section H.
TA 501

Page 6 of 10

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 501 7 Apr 08

E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Roads—Construction

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Figure 1—Typical Road Sections for Different Terrains
TA 501

Transmission

Construction Standard

7 Apr 08

Page 7 of 10

TA 501

Roads—Construction E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Figure 2—Typical Cut and Fill Insloped Road Section

for Natural Side Slopes Less Than 30 Percent (15)

Figure 3—Typical Cut and Fill Insloped Road Section

for Natural Side Slopes Greater Than 30 Percent (15) and Less Than 60 Percent (30).
TA 501

Page 8 of 10

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 501 7 Apr 08

E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Roads—Construction

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Figure 4—Typical Cut and Fill Section

for Natural Side Slopes Greater than 60 Percent (30).

F. Typical Ditch Section

Typical ditch construction is depicted in Figure 6. Many of the road cross sections

shown above use this ditch construction.

Figure 5—Ditch Section

Notes:

1. Slope the ditch so that it will drain; ditch shall have a minimum slope of 1 percent and

not to exceed 3 percent.

2. Remove all soil, rock, and other material loosened by grading from ditch.

3. Cut slopes will be determined during construction based on site conditions and as

approved by the company representative.
Figure 6—Poor Road

Construction in Wetland Area

TA 501

Transmission

Construction Standard

7 Apr 08

Page 9 of 10

TA 501

Roads—Construction E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

G. General Road Construction Notes

1. Roads shall follow natural contours as much as practical.

2. Maximum grade for roads shall be 10 percent. Grades up to 20 percent will be allowed

for a distance of 1000 feet where unavoidable and approved by the company.

3. Radius of curves shall be 200 feet, with a minimum of 80 feet when approved by

company. When curves are less than 200 feet, roadbed shall be widened as shown in

Table 1.

4. Cut and fill slopes will be determined during construction based on site conditions

encountered and as approved by the company.

5. Unless specified otherwise by the company, fill material shall consist of site material

excavated from RG-1 cuts. Fill material shall have a maximum particle size of 12I.

6. Fills placed on side slopes of 30 percent or less shall be placed in nominal 9I lifts and

compacted by walking in with at least four passes of earthwork equipment.

7. Fills placed on side slopes greater than 30 percent

shall be placed in nominal 12I-thick lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry

density as determined by the ASTM D 696 method of

compaction.

8. Allow 1i additional road width on fill slopes for

sloughing. When fills are over 6i high at shoulder,

allow 2i additional road width.

9. Road construction across wetland areas may require

placement of fragmented 6I minus rock. Rock shall

be placed in 8I-thick lifts and compacted by a heavy

dozer or vibratory roller until well keyed. RB-(1) rock

will be provided and installed by the contractor.

Proper construction shall be use in wetlands so

conditions as shown in Figure 7 do not develop.

10. Geotextile fabric material shall consist of MIRAF1212

OHP or equivalent, as approved by the company.

Table 1—Road Width for Different Road Curves

Curve Radius

(feet)

Roadbed

Width (feet)

200 or > 14

150 to 200 16

100 to 150 18

80 to 100 20
TA 501

Page 10 of 10

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 501 7 Apr 08

E 2008 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Roads—Construction

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

H. References

1. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads, William E. Weaver, PHD. and Danny

K. Hagans, 1994.

2 A Landowner’s Guide to Building Forest Access Roads, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private

Forestry, July 1998.
TA 504

Transmission

Construction Standard

29 Sep 10

Page 1 of 12

TA 504

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Roads—Culvert Installation

A. Scope

This standard provides information about the construction of surface drainage and the

installation of culverts. It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of drainage in

maintaining stable roads and protecting water quality. Roads should be designed and

constructed to cause minimal disruption of natural drainage patterns. Provisions for two

components of road drainage should be included in every road project: 1) road-surface

drainage (including drainage which originates from the cutbank, road surface, and

fill-slope), and 2) hill-slope drainage (including drainage from large springs, gullies, and

streams which cross the road alignment).

B. Determining Culvert Diameter

Use pipe no smaller than 24I in diameter. A drainage table provides help in determining the proper size culvert (see Table 1 and Table 2). The following example illustrates

how to choose pipe size (Table 1) using the drainage table (Table 2). To use this

method, you will need information on slope, soils, and cover.

Example: The area to be drained is 70 acres on steep slopes with heavy soils and

moderate cover. In Table 2 under C opposite 70, find area required: 10.3 square feet.

Under the area table for round pipe (Table 1), the pipe size should fall between 42I and

48I. Use 42I pipe with an area of 9.6 square feet. If a wood or other type of box culvert

is planned, one 3i by 3.5i pipe would furnish the required area.

Table 1—Size of Round Pipe Needed for Area of Waterway

Area

(square feet)

Pipe diameter

(inches)

1.25 24

1.80 24

3.10 24

4.90 30

7.10 36

9.60 42

12.60 48

15.90 54

19.60 60

23.80 66

28.30 72

33.20 78

38.50 84

44.20 90

Source: Figure 45, Haussman and Pruett

1978, p. 36
TA 504

Page 2 of 12

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 504 29 Sep 10

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Table 2—Drainage Table Based on Talbot’s Formula for Rainfall

1-1/4I per Hour

Area required for waterway

Acres Impervious

100%

runoff

Steep slopes

Heavy soils

Moderate cover

Moderate slopes

Heavy to light

soils Dense cover

Gentle slopes

Agricultural

soil & cover

Flatland

Previous

soils

†C=1.00 C=0.80 C=0.70 C=0.60 C=0.50 C=0.40 C=0.30 C=0.20

Square Feet

2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3

4 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5

6 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

8 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6

10 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.3

20 2.9 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.5

30 4.0 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.6 0.5 0.3

40 4.9 3.9 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.4

50 5.8 4.7 4.0 3.5 2.9 2.3 1.2 0.6

60 6.7 5.4 4.6 4.0 3.4 2.7 1.5 0.8

70 7.5 6.0 5.2 4.5 3.8 3.0 1.8 1.0

80 8.3 6.7 5.8 5.0 4.2 3.3 2.0 1.2

90 9.1 7.3 6.3 5.5 4.6 3.6 2.3 1.4

100 9.9 7.9 6.8 5.9 4.9 3.9 2.5 1.5

150 13.5 10.6 9.3 8.0 6.7 5.4 2.7 1.7

200 16.6 13.4 11.5 10.0 8.4 6.7 2.9 1.8

250 19.8 15.8 13.6 11.9 9.9 7.9 4.0 2.0

300 22.9 18.1 15.5 13.6 13.5 9.0 5.0 2.7

350 25.5 20.3 17.5 15.3 12.7 10.1 5.9 3.3

400 28.0 22.5 19.5 17.0 14.0 11.1 6.8 4.0

450 30.9 24.9 21.0 18.5 15.3 12.1 7.5 5.1

500 33.4 26.4 23.0 20.0 16.6 13.3 8.4 5.6

600 38.5 30.8 26.3 23.0 19.0 15.2 9.0 6.2

700 43.0 34.2 29.8 26.0 21.5 17.0 9.9 6.6

800 48.0 38.1 32.9 28.5 23.8 19.0 11.4 7.7

900 52.0 41.5 35.9 31.1 26.0 20.8 12.9 8.6

1000 56.5 45.0 38.9 34.0 28.3 22.5 14.3 9.5

* See Table 1 for size of pipe needed.

{ C is the constant factor based on a combination of how much water the soil can hold, slope, and cover. C

= .70 is adequate for most conditions prevailing in the Northeast. C = 1.00 represents complete runoff of

precipitation (e.g., rock surfaces).
TA 504

Transmission

Construction Standard

29 Sep 10

Page 3 of 12

TA 504

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Table 3 provides a simplified method for determining culvert size. To use this table,

determine the size of the drainage area (in acres) above the stream crossing as well as

the expected life of the culvert. A private consultant may provide assistance determining the size of a culvert. Make sure they do not size the culverts for a 50- or 100-year

storm, unless that is what is required. For low-traffic or temporary roads, a flood

frequency of 20 years can be used.

Table 3—Culvert Sizes by Drainage Area

Recurrence interval

(years)

10 20 50

Area (acres) Culvert diameter (inches)

10 24 24 18

20 24 24 20

30 24 24 24

40 24 24 26

50 24 24 28

60 24 24 28

70 24 26 30

80 24 26 30

90 24 28 32

100 26 28 34

125 28 30 36

150 28 32 38

175 30 34 40

200 32 36 42

Source: Table 3, Helvey and Kochenderfer 1988,

p. 125

C. Determining Culvert Lengths

The following simplified procedure can be used to determine culvert lengths needed for

new stream crossings or ditch-relief drains. Refer to Figure 1 for specific locations and

distances described in the step-by-step procedure. A complete example follows these

instructions.

1. Estimate the depth of the fill (F) at the running surface on the inside of the road above

the culvert inlet (point “a”).

2. Additional width (C) due to fill is then estimated as 1.5 times the fill depth (F) (that is, all

fill slopes are assumed to be 1.5:1 in steepness).

3. Add half the road width (1/2 W) and the fill width (C). Measure this distance horizontally

upstream from the center line of the road, and place stake at location A. The horizontal
TA 504

Page 4 of 12

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 504 29 Sep 10

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

distance must be converted to slope distance before you can tape it off on the ground.

Use Table 4 to convert horizontal distance to slope distance (on-the-ground distance).

Figure 1—Culvert Length

4. Repeat steps 1 through 3 for the culvert outlet side of the crossing and place stake at

location B.

5. Measure the slope length between stakes A and B. This measurement, plus two to four

extra feet, is the length of culvert needed for the installation. The extra several feet are

added to extend the inlet and outlet beyond the edge of the fill.

Forty-four feet horizontal distance equals 52.4 feet slope distance on a 65 percent

slope.

horizontal distance × correction factor = slope distance

(44ft) × (1.19) = 52.4i

Example: What culvert length is needed for a 14i wide road crossing a

stream with a 55 percent gradient? The estimated inside fill-depth,

above the culvert inlet, will be 6i and the fill-depth above the

outlet will be 13i.

Step 1: Estimated depth of fill (F) at culvert inlet = 6i

Step 2: (C) = 1.5 × 6i = 9i

Step 3: 14i wide road (W), so 1/2 × 14i = 7i

Stake A (the location of the culvert inlet) should be placed on the

ground a distance of (9i + 7i) = 16 horizontal feet up the stream

channel from the flagged centerline of the road. According to the

correction table, 16 feet horizontally on a 55 percent slope is 18.2i

slope distance (16i × 1.14 = 18.2i).

Place the inlet stake (A) 18.2i up the channel from the centerline of the

road.
TA 504

Transmission

Construction Standard

29 Sep 10

Page 5 of 12

TA 504

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Step 4: Estimated depth of fill (F) at culvert outlet =13i

Step 5: (C) = 1.5 ×13i = 20i

Step 6: 14i wide road (W), so 1/2 × 14 = 7i

Stake B (the location of the culvert outlet) should be placed on the

ground a distance of (13i + 20i) = 33 horizontal feet down the stream

channel from the flagged centerline of the road. According to the

correction table, 33 feet horizontally on a 55 percent slope is 37.6i

slope distance (33i × 1.14 = 37.6i).

Place the outlet stake (B) 37.6i down the channel from the centerline of

the road.

Step 7: Length of culvert needed = 18.2i + 37.6i = 55.8i or about 56i.

Approximately 2i--4i should be added to this length to make sure the

culvert inlet and outlet extend sufficiently beyond the base of the fill.

Final culvert length to be ordered and delivered to the site = 56i + 4i = 60i.

Table 4—Slope Correction Factors to (C) on Vertical-Horizontal Distance to Slope Distance

Hill slope or stream

channel gradient

(%)

Correction factor

(multiplier)

Hill slope or stream

channel gradient (%)

Correction factor

(multiplier)

10 1.001 45 1.10

15 1.01 50 1.12

20 1.02 55 1.14

25 1.03 60 1.17

30 1.04 65 1.19

35 1.06 70 1.22

40 1.08 75 1.25

1 For a slope of 10 percent or less, no correction factor is needed.

D. Culvert Installation for Ditch Relief

Insloped roads should be constructed: 1) where road-surface drainage discharged over

the fillslope would cause unacceptable erosion or discharge directly into stream

channels, 2) where fillslopes are unstable, or 3) where outsloping would create unsafe

conditions for use. It is generally preferable to outslope road surfaces in order to

disperse road-surface runoff before it has a chance to concentrate.

Insloped roads should be built with an inside drainage ditch to collect and remove road

surface runoff (TA 501, Roads—Construction). Roads steeper than about 8 percent

may be too steep for an inside ditch because of the potential for gullying in the ditch.

Inside ditches should also be drained at intervals sufficient to prevent ditch erosion or
TA 504

Page 6 of 12

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 504 29 Sep 10

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

outlet gullying, and at locations where water and sediment can be filtered before

entering a watercourse. Filtering can be accomplished with thick vegetation, gentle

slopes, settling basins, or filter windrows of woody debris and mulches secured to the

slope.

As with outsloped roads, steep insloped road surfaces may be difficult to drain. Rolling

dips (for permanent, surfaced roads and seasonal roads) or waterbars (for seasonal or

temporary, unsurfaced roads) should be constructed at intervals sufficient to disperse

road surface runoff from steep road segments. See TA 503, Roads—Water Bars and

Water Dips for more information.

Ditches and culverts need occasional maintenance to maintain proper flow. Annual and

storm-period inspection can prevent small problems from growing into large failures.

When ditches become blocked by cutbank slumps, they need to be cleaned and the

spoil deposited in a stable location. However, excessive maintenance (i.e., grading) can

cause continuing and persistent erosion, sediment transport, and sediment pollution to

local streams. It may also remove rock surfacing.

Ditch relief culverts should be designed and installed along the road at intervals close

enough to prevent erosion of the ditch and at the culvert outfall, and at locations where

collected water and sediment is not discharged directly into watercourses (Table 5).

Table 5—Maximum Suggested Spacing for Ditch Relief Culverts (ft)

Road grade Soil Credibility

(%) Very High High Moderate Slight Very Low

2 600--800

4 530 600--800

6 355 585 600--800

8 265 425 525 600--800

10 160 340 420 555

12 180 285 350 460 600--800

14 155 245 300 365 560

16 135 215 270 345 490

18 118 190 240 310 435

On new roads, ditch flow should be directed into a culvert and discharged into buffer

areas and filter strips before it reaches a watercourse crossing. Ditches should neither

be discharged directly into the inlet of a watercourse crossing culvert, nor should ditch

relief culverts discharge into a watercourse without first directing flow through an

adequate filter strip. In addition to installing ditch relief culverts on either approach to

watercourse crossings, it is advisable to consider installing ditch drains before curves,

above and below through-cut road sections, and before and after steep sections of the

road.
TA 504

Transmission

Construction Standard

29 Sep 10

Page 7 of 12

TA 504

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

If a ditch is capable of transporting and delivering sediment to a Class I or Class II

watercourse during a flood event, it can be said to function the same as a Class III

watercourse. It has a bed and a bank, and it can transport sediment. Ditches which

drain directly into watercourse-crossing culverts should be treated and protected from

disturbance and erosion, just as is a Class III watercourse. Ditch relief culverts should

be installed across ditched roads before water course crossings so that water and

sediment can be filtered before reaching the stream.

Ditch relief culverts do not need to be large, since they carry flow only from the cutbank,

springs, and a limited length of road surface. In areas of high erosion and/or storm

runoff, nominal ditch relief culvert sizes should be 18I, but ditch relief culverts should

never be less than 15I diameter. Smaller culverts are too easily blocked (Figure 2).

Generally, culverts should have a grade at least 2 percent greater than the ditch which

feeds it to prevent sediment buildup and blockage. Where possible, ditch relief culverts

should be installed at the gradient of the original ground slope, so it will emerge on the

ground surface beyond the base of the fill. If this is not possible, the fill below the

culvert outlet should be armored with rock or the culvert fitted with an anchored

downspout to carry erosive flow past the base of the fill. Culverts should never be

“shot-gunned” out of the fill, thereby creating highly erosive road drainage waterfalls

(Figure 3).

Figure 2—Undersized Culvert Figure 3—Culvert Not Installed at the

Existing Stream Gradient

A 10 percent grade to the culvert will usually be self-cleaning. The culvert should be

placed at a 30_ angle to the ditch to improve inlet efficiency and prevent plugging and

erosion at the inlet. The pipe should be covered by a minimum of 18I of compacted

soil, or to a depth of 1.5 times the culvert diameter, whichever is greater. Finally, inlet

protection such as rock armoring or drop structures can be used to help minimize

erosion, slow flow velocity, and settle sediment before it is discharged through the pipe.

E. Culvert Installation for Stream Crossings

The importance of proper planning for stream crossings cannot be overstated. If stream

crossings are not planned and located before road construction begins, serious

problems may arise, including unintended damage to natural resources. Requirements

for stream crossings vary from state to state. Often, a permit is required; check with the

water division of the local natural resources agency.

Culverts can be considered dams that are designed to fail. The risk of culvert failure is

substantial for most crossings, so how they fail is critical. In the upper sketch in
TA 504

Page 8 of 12

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 504 29 Sep 10

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Figure 4, the crossing has failed and the road grade has diverted the stream down the

road, resulting in severe erosion and downstream sedimentation. Such damage to

aquatic habitats can persist for many years. Stream diversions are easy to prevent, as

illustrated by the lower sketch, in which the road grade was such that a failed crossing

caused only some loss of road fill.

Figure 4—Stream Crossing Failures

Culverts should be installed as road work progresses. The culvert and its related

drainage features should be installed via the following steps:

1. Place debris and slash to be used as a filter system, if needed.

2. Construct sediment ponds, if needed.

3. Complete downstream work first, such as energy dissipating devices and large rock

riprap.

4. Route stream around work area until pipe is installed.

5. Construct pipe inlet structure.

6. Install culvert pipe.

A culvert inlet should be placed on the same level as the stream bottom. Where the

culvert inlet has to be lower than the drainage gradient, a drop box can be constructed.

The box provides a place for sediment to settle before water enters the culvert. Drop

boxes require frequent maintenance.
Figure 5—Culvert Installed at Channel Gradient

TA 504

Transmission

Construction Standard

29 Sep 10

Page 9 of 12

TA 504

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Install culvert pipes as near as

possible to the gradient of the natural

channel and so there is no change in

the stream bottom elevation

(Figure 5). Culverts should not cause

damming or pooling. Seat the culvert

on firm ground and compact the earth

at least halfway up the side of the

pipe to prevent water from leaking.

Pipe culverts must be adequately

covered with fill; the rule is a minimum of 30I or 1.5 times the culvert

diameter, whichever is greater.

If adequate cover cannot be achieved, an arch pipe or two small culverts should be

installed. The cover must also be compacted to prevent settling in the road. Debrisladen material should not be used to cover pipe culverts.

The following are additional guidelines for installing culverts in streams:

S Limit construction activity in the water to periods of low or normal flow.

S Minimize use of equipment in streams.

S Use soil stabilization practices on exposed soil at stream crossings. Seed/mulch

and install temporary sediment control structures, such as silt fences made of

straw bales or geotextiles, immediately after road construction. Maintain these

practices until the soil is permanently stabilized.

S Use materials that are clean, non-toxic, and which do not erode.

To prevent erosion and under-cutting of the inlet end of the culvert, provide a headwall.

Sandbags containing some cement mixed with the sand, durable logs, concrete, or

hand-placed riprap are suitable.
TA 504

Page 10 of 12

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 504 29 Sep 10

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Figure 6—Stream Crossing Culverts

Installation Notes for Figure 6:

1. Culverts for existing drainage shall be aligned with the drainage.
TA 504

Transmission

Construction Standard

29 Sep 10

Page 11 of 12

TA 504

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

2. Culverts for roadway and ditch drainage shall be oriented at an angle of 30_ to 45_ to

the roadway. See TA 503, Roads—Water Bars and Water Dips, for installation

instructions.

3. Culverts shall be sloped a minimum of 1 percent or at least 1 percent steeper than the

existing drainage.

4. When the culvert outlet is above grade, a plunge pool shall be constructed with length

and width equal to two pipe diameters and a depth of one pipe diameter. Line plunge

pool with geotextile fabric filled with 2I to 8I rock.

5. Culvert clogging debris located within 50i of a culvert inlet shall be removed.

6. Cut and fill slopes will be determined during construction based on site conditions and

as approved by the company.

7. See TA 501, Roads—Construction, for general road construction information.

8. Cover over culverts shall be 18I or 1.5 times the culvert diameter, whichever is greater.

To minimize damage from culvert failure, height of fill over culverts shall be as close to

minimum as practical.

9. Outlets on culverts with pipe slopes greater than 3 percent shall be protected with a 30i

× 10i strip of geotextile fabric fastened to culvert as a bib. Fabric shall be weighted

down with 6Ito 8I rock to slow runoff.

10. Bottom of culvert shall be cushioned with fine-grain site material when installed over

large rocks.

F. Fords

A ford is an alternative way to cross a water course where the streambed has a firm

rock or coarse gravel bottom; the approaches are low and stable enough to support

traffic; the stream is small to medium-sized, with water depth less than three feet and

stream flows not exceeding 6 fps; and vehicle traffic is light. Dry fords can often be

installed and used with minimal impact to the channel system.

The following standards apply when constructing a ford:

1. Install wing ditches, water-bars, dips, and level spreaders before the crossing. These

structures should disperse runoff into an established and stable stream buffer.

2. If corduroy, coarse gravel, or gabion is used to create a driving surface, it should be

installed flush with the streambed to minimize erosion and to allow fish passage.

3. Crossings should be at right angles to the stream.

4. Stabilize the approaches by using non-erodible material. The material should extend

at least 50 feet on both sides of the crossing.

5. Requirements for stream crossings vary from state to state. Often a permit is required;

check with the water division of the local natural resources agency.

6. Fords shall be designed for a low-maintenance long-term life. Rock size and grading,

depth of rock, fabric underlayment, etc. and approaches shall be designed for the

equipment expected to use the road.
TA 504

Page 12 of 12

Transmission

Construction Standard

TA 504 29 Sep 10

Roads—Culvert Installation E 2010 by PacifiCorp. All rights reserved.

Engineer (C. Wright):

Standards Manager (G. Lyons):

Figure 7 -- Ford Stream Crossing
ATTACHMENT C 

IN-LIEU FEE 

EXAMPLES 
The following two ILF programs were identified in Idaho and serve as an example of how to set 

up an in lieu: 

Ducks Unlimited Program 

State ID 

Corps District Walla Walla 

Program Type Corps 

Sponsor Ducks Unlimited 

Sponsor Requirements Ducks Unlimited 

Administrator U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District 

Completed Projects 1 

Pending Projects 0 

Total Acres of Permitted Losses 1 

Total Acres Replaced 100 

Total Feet of Permitted Losses 0 

Delineated Service Areas No 

Description of Service Area The Corps tries to keep the restoration as local as possible. The projects 

have occurred in the same drainage basin as the impacts. 

Contact Information Mike Doherty 

Contact Address U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District 201 North 3rd Avenue 

Walla Walla, WA 99362-1876 

Replacement Ratio Determination 

Replacement ratios were not used. The Corps offered a project that it 

wanted done to the applicant and the applicant had a choice of whether to 

accept the project. 

Fee Amount Calculated For the Burlington Northern project, $265,000 was charged, based on the 

amount of money needed to complete the restoration project. 

Success Criteria 

The success criteria include vegetation planning, earthworks to ensure 

everything is at the right elevation, and required plantings. Monitoring for 

survival is required. 

Protection Mechanisms Project completed in federal wildlife refuge 

Entity Holding Funds Ducks Unlimited 

Funds To Date $265,000.00 

Date of Information 8/30/2001 

 
The Nature Conservancy In-Lieu-Fee Program 

State ID 

Corps District Walla Walla 

Program Type Corps 

Sponsor The Nature Conservancy 

Sponsor Requirements The Nature Conservancy 

Administrator U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District 

Completed Projects 1 

Pending Projects 0 

Total Acres of Permitted Losses 4 

Total Acres Replaced 100.8 

Total Feet Replaced 560 

Delineated Service Areas No 

Description of Service Area They try to keep the restoration as local as possible. The projects have 

occurred in the same drainage basin as the impacts. 

Contact Information Mike Doherty 

Contact Address USACE, Walla Walla District 201 North 3rd Avenue Walla Walla, WA 

99362-1876 

Replacement Ratio Determination 

Replacement ratios were not used. The Corps offered a project that it 

wanted done to the applicant and the applicant had a choice of whether to 

accept the project. 

Success Criteria 

The success criteria include vegetation planning, earthworks to ensure 

everything is at the right elevation, and required plantings. Monitoring for 

survival is required. 

Protection Mechanisms conservation easement 

Entity Holding Funds Bonner Boundary Board 

Funds To Date $140,000.00 

Date of Information 8/30/2001 

 
ATTACHMENT D 

PROPOSED IN-LIEU FEE 

MITIGATION INSTRUMENT
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 39

PROPOSED IN-LIEU FEE MITIGATION INSTRUMENT

The Companies would prepare a prospectus for the proposed ILF program that would include 

the following: 

1. Objectives. 

2. How the ILF would be established and operated. 

3. Proposed service area(s). 

4. Need and technical feasibility. 

5. Ownership arrangements and long-term management strategy. 

6. Sponsor qualifications. 

7. Compensation planning framework. 

8. Description of program account. 

The prospectus would be provided to the USACE and the USACE is responsible for public 

notice and coordination with the IRT. If the USACE determines that the proposed ILF program 

has the potential to provide compensatory mitigation, the Companies would prepare a Draft 

Instrument. The Draft Instrument would include the following elements: 

1. Service area. 

2. Accounting procedures. 

3. Provision stating legal responsibility to provide compensatory mitigation. 

4. Default and closure provisions. 

5. Reporting protocols. 

6. Compensation planning framework. 

a. Geographic service area(s) 

b. Description of threats 

c. Analysis of historic resource loss 

d. Analysis of current resource conditions 

e. Goals and objectives 

f. Prioritization strategy 

g. Preservation justification 

h. Description of stakeholder involvement 

i. Long-term protection and management strategies 

j. Strategy for periodic evaluation and reporting 

7. Advance credits. 

8. Method for determining project specific credits and fees & draft fee schedule 

9. In-lieu fee program account. 

10. Transfer of long-term management responsibilities. 

11. Financial arrangements for long-term management. 

12. Other information deemed necessary by the USACE district engineer. 
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 40

The Draft Instrument is not a ILF mitigation plan. The Companies would also develop an ILF 

mitigation plan, concurrent with, and dependent upon, the ILF Instrument. The ILF mitigation 

plan would include: 

1. Objectives. 

2. Site selection (further described in §332.3(d)). 

3. Site protection instrument (further described in §332.7(a)). 

4. Baseline information. 

5. Determination of credits (further described in §332.3(f)). 

6. Mitigation work plan. 

7. Maintenance plan. 

8. Performance standards (further described in §332.5). 

9. Monitoring requirements (further described in §332.6). 

10. Long-term management plan (further described in §§332.7 and 332.8(u)). 

11. Adaptive management plan (further described in §332.7(c)). 

12. Financial assurances (further described in §332.3(n)). 

The ILF mitigation plan is not discussed further in this Appendix. 

Proposed Draft ILF Instrument 

1.0 Service Area 

The geographic service area2

 for the (Gateway West ILF Program) is defined as (specify the 

geographic unit). Idaho Power Company (IPC) and Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) (the 

Companies) would provide compensatory mitigation for permitted impacts within the same 

geographic service area in which the impacts occurs unless the district engineer, in consultation 

with the IRT, has agreed to an exemption. [Insert maps of project area, impacts, service area.] 

This service area was selected because the Companies, in consultation with the district 

engineer, has concluded that the scale is appropriate to ensure that the projects selected would 

be able to effectively compensate for adverse environmental impacts across the entire service 

area. The Companies would not accept participation from other permittees; this ILF Program 

has been developed for the sole use of the Companies to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to 

waters of the U.S. resulting from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Gateway 

West 500 Kilovolt Transmission Line Project. Individual mitigation projects would be proposed 

for specific service areas in project-specific mitigation plans. 

2.0 Accounting Procedures 

The Companies shall establish and maintain a system for tracking the production of credits, 

credit transactions, and financial transactions between the Companies and ILF sponsor. Credit 

production, credit transactions, and financial transactions must be tracked on a programmatic 

 

2 Service area is defined as: “the watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province and/or other geographic 

area within which the...in-lieu fee program is authorized to provide compensatory mitigation required by 

DA permits. 
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 41

basis (i.e., the number of available credits for the entire program by service area) and 

separately for each individual project. 

3.0 Provisions Stating Legal Responsibility to Provide Compensatory Mitigation 

(Program Sponsor) assumes all legal responsibility for satisfying the mitigation requirements of 

the Corps/state permit for which fees have been accepted (i.e., the implementation, 

performance, and long-term management of the compensatory mitigation project(s) approved 

under this agreement and subsequent mitigation plans). The transfer of liability is established 

by: 1) the approval of this in-lieu fee instrument; 2) receipt by the district engineer of a credit 

sale form/letter/certificate that is signed by the (Program Sponsor) and the Companies and 

dated (see Section (X, “Reporting protocols”); and 3) the transfer of fees from the Companies to 

(Program Sponsor). 

4.0 Default and Closure Provisions 

If the Corps determines that (Program Sponsor) has failed to provide the required compensatory 

mitigation in a timely manner (i.e., (Program Sponsor) has failed to meet performance based 

milestones set forth in the project-specific mitigation plan, meet ecological performance 

standards, submit monitoring reports in a timely manner, establish and maintain an annual 

ledger report and individual ledgers for each project in accordance with the provisions in Section 

(X, “Accounting Procedures”), submit an annual financial assurances and long-term 

management funding report, report approved credit transactions, complete land acquisition and 

initial physical and biological improvements by the third full growing season after the first 

advance credit in that service area is secured by a permittee, and/or otherwise comply with the 

terms of the instrument), the district engineer must take appropriate action to achieve 

compliance with the terms of the instrument and all approved mitigation plans. Such actions 

may include suspending credit sales, decreasing available credits, requiring adaptive 

management measures, utilizing financial assurances or contingency funds, terminating the 

agreement, using the financial assurances or contingency funds to provide alternative 

compensation, directing the use of in-lieu fee program account funds to provide alternative 

mitigation (e.g., securing credits from another third party mitigation provider), or referring the 

non-compliance with the terms of the instrument to the Department of Justice. 

Any delay or failure of (Program Sponsor) to comply with the terms of this agreement shall not 

constitute a default if and to the extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any force 

majeure or other conditions beyond (Program Sponsor)’s reasonable control and significantly 

adversely affects its ability to perform its obligations hereunder, such as flood, drought, 

lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, condemnation or other taking by any governmental body. 

(Program Sponsor) shall give written notice to the district engineer and IRT if the performance of 

any of its in-lieu fee projects is affected by any such event as soon as is reasonably practicable. 

Either party to this agreement may terminate the agreement within 60 days of written notification 

to the other party. In the event that the Gateway West ILF Program operated by (Program 

Sponsor) is terminated, (Program Sponsor) is responsible for fulfilling any remaining project 

obligations including the successful completion of ongoing mitigation projects, relevant 
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 42

maintenance, monitoring, reporting, and long-term management requirements. (Program 

Sponsor) shall remain responsible for fulfilling these obligations until such time as the long-term 

financing obligations have been met and the long-term ownership of all mitigation lands has 

been transferred to the party responsible for ownership and all long-term management of the 

project(s). 

Funds remaining in the Gateway West ILF Program accounts after these obligations are 

satisfied must continue to be used for the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or 

preservation of aquatic resources. The Corps shall direct Gateway West ILF Program to use 

these funds to secure credits from another source of third-party mitigation, such as another inlieu fee program, mitigation bank, or another entity such as a governmental or non-profit natural 

resource management entity willing to undertake the compensation activities. The funds should 

be used, to the maximum extent practicable, to provide compensation for the amount and type 

of aquatic resource for which the fees were collected. The Corps itself cannot accept directly, 

retain, or draw upon those funds in the event of a default. 

5.0 Reporting Protocols 

The Companies must report to the district engineer and the IRT the following information: 

1. Monitoring reports, on a schedule and for a period as defined by project specific 

mitigation plan(s). 

2. Credit transaction notifications. 

3. An annual program report summarizing activity from the program account (financial and 

credit accounting) as detailed below. 

4. An annual financial assurances and long-term management funding report as detailed 

below. 

Monitoring reports 

Monitoring is required of all compensatory mitigation projects to determine if the project is 

meeting its performance standards and if additional measures are necessary to ensure that the 

compensatory mitigation project is accomplishing its objectives. If (Program Sponsor) fails to 

submit reports within 90 days of the deadlines outlined in the mitigation plan(s), the Corps may 

take appropriate compliance action (see Section (X, “Default and closure”)). Project-specific 

mitigation plans would detail the parameters to be monitored, the length of the monitoring 

period, the dates that the reports must be submitted (e.g., first of each month), the party 

responsible for conducting the monitoring, the frequency for submitting monitoring reports to the 

district engineer, and the party responsible for submitting those monitoring reports to the district 

engineer and the IRT. The level of detail and substance of the reports must be commensurate 

with the scale and scope of the compensatory mitigation project. The Corps is required to 

provide monitoring reports to interested federal, tribal, state, and local resource agencies, and 

the public, upon request. 

Credit transaction notification 

Section (X, “Provisions stating legal liability”) establishes the terms by which the legal 

responsibility for compensation requirements is transferred from the Companies to (Program 
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 43

Sponsor). These terms require (Program Sponsor) to submit a credit sale form/letter/certificate 

to the Corps. The document must be signed by the (Program Sponsor) and the permittee and 

dated. The credit transaction form/letter/certificate must include the permit number(s) for which 

(Program Sponsor) is accepting fees, the number of credits being purchased, and resource 

type(s) (e.g., Cowardin class) of credits being purchased. (Program Sponsor) must submit the 

signed and dated credit transaction form/letter/certificate within 10 days of receiving the fees 

from the permittee. A copy of each credit transaction form/letter/certificate would be retained in 

both the Corps’ and (Program Sponsor’s) administrative and accounting records for the 

Gateway West ILF Program. 

Annual program report 

(Program Sponsor) must submit an annual report (annual ledger report) to the district engineer 

and the IRT. The report must be made available to the public upon request. The annual 

program report must be submitted no later than the last day of March, or the following business 

day if that date falls on a federal/state holiday or weekend. The annual report must include the 

following information: 

Program account (financial) reporting: 

 All income received and interest earned by the program account for the program and by 

service area. 

 A list of all permits for which in-lieu fee program funds were accepted by service area, 

including (1) Corps permit number (and/or the state permit number); (2) service area in 

which the authorized impacts are located; (3) amount of authorized impacts; (4) amount 

of required compensatory mitigation; (5) amount paid to the in-lieu fee program; and (6) 

date the funds were received from the permittee. 

 A description of in-lieu fee program expenditures/disbursements from the account (i.e., 

the costs of land acquisition, planning, construction, monitoring, maintenance, 

contingencies, adaptive management, and administration) for the program and by 

service area. 

Ledger (credit) reporting: 

 The balance of advance credits and released credits at the end of the report period for 

the program and by service area. 

 The permitted impacts for each resource type. 

 All additions and subtractions of credits. 

 Other changes in credit availability (e.g., additional credits released, credit sales 

suspended). 

Financial assurances and long-term management funding report 

(Program Sponsor) must submit an annual report on financial assurances and long-term 

management to the district engineer and the IRT. (Program Sponsor) is required to give the 

Corps at least (XX days; to be determined by the sponsor in consultation with the Corps and 

IRT) advance notice if required financial assurances would be terminated or revoked. In 

addition, the financial assurance instrument must be written in such a way that it is the 

obligation of the bonding company or financial institution to provide the Corps notice. Inclusion 

of a summary of any changes to the financial assurances in the reporting year does not alter 
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 44

this separate obligation. The financial assurances and long-term management funding report 

must include: 

 Beginning and ending balances of the individual project accounts providing funds for 

financial assurance and long-term management. 

 Deposits into and any withdrawals from the individual project accounts providing funds 

for financial assurance and long-term management. 

 Information on the amount of required financial assurances and the status of those 

assurances, including their potential expiration for each individual project. 

6.0 Compensation Planning Framework 

The compensation planning framework must include the following ten elements: 

1. The geographic service area(s), including a watershed based rational for the delineation 

of each service area. 

2. A description of the threats to aquatic resources in the service area(s), including how the 

in-lieu fee program would help offset impacts resulting from those threats. 

3. An analysis of historic aquatic resource loss in the service area(s). 

4. An analysis of current aquatic resource conditions in the service area(s), supported by 

field documentation. 

5. A statement of aquatic resource goals and objectives for each service area, including a 

description of the general amounts, types and locations of aquatic resources the 

program would seek to provide. 

6. A prioritization strategy for selecting and implementing compensatory mitigation activities 

7. An explanation of how any preservation objectives identified above satisfy the criteria for 

use of preservation. 

8. A description of any public and private stakeholder involvement in plan development and 

implementation, including coordination with federal, state, tribal and local aquatic 

resource management and regulatory authorities. 

9. A description of the long term protection and management strategies for activities 

conducted by the in-lieu fee program sponsor. 

10. A strategy for periodic evaluation and reporting on the progress of the program in 

achieving the goals and objectives above, including a process for revising the planning 

framework as necessary. 

7.0 Advance Credits 

Upon approval of this instrument for Gateway West ILF Program, (Program Sponsor) is 

permitted to sell advance credits in the amount indicated in the chart below. The number of 

advance credits available for sale varies by service area, as indicated. The number of advance 

credits available for sale is specified by service area, as indicated in (the chart). As the 

milestones in the schedule are reached (i.e., restoration, creation, enhancement and/or 

preservation is implemented), advance credits convert to released credits. At a minimum, 

credits would not be released until (Program Sponsor) has obtained IRT approval of the 

mitigation plan for the site, has achieved the applicable milestones in the credit release 

schedule, and the credit releases have been approved by the district engineer. 
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 45

Once (Program Sponsor) has sold all of its advance credits, no more advance credits may be 

sold until an equivalent number of credits has been released in accordance with the approved 

credit release schedule outlined in a project-specific mitigation plan. Once all advance credits 

are fulfilled, an equivalent number of advance credits may be made available for sale, at the 

discretion of the district engineer and IRT. (Program Sponsor) shall complete land acquisition 

and initial physical and biological improvements by the third full growing season after the sale of 

advance credits. If (Program Sponsor) fails to meet these deadlines, the district engineer must 

either make a determination that more time is needed to plan and implement an in-lieu fee 

project or, if doing so would not be in the public interest, direct (Program Sponsor) to disburse 

funds from the Gateway West ILF Program account to provide alternative compensatory 

mitigation to fulfill those compensation obligations. 

8.0 Method for Determining Project-Specific Credits and Fees and Draft Fee Schedule 

The draft fee schedule section should simply include a chart or list of the fees charged by the 

program per unit of credit and for each wetland type provided and in each service area in which 

the program operates. Fees for Gateway West ILF Program shall be determined based on an 

analysis of the expected costs associated with the restoration, establishment, enhancement, 

and/or preservation of aquatic resources in [the state/region/watershed]. The program costs 

included in this analysis are those related to land acquisition, project planning and design, 

construction, plant materials, labor, legal fees, monitoring, remediation or adaptive management 

activities, program administration, contingency costs appropriate to the stage of project 

planning, including uncertainties in construction and real estate expenses, the resources 

necessary for the long-term management and protection of the in-lieu fee project, and financial 

assurances (including contingency costs) that are expected to be necessary to ensure 

successful completion of in-lieu fee projects. These fees shall be reviewed annually and 

updated as appropriate. Credits generated by Gateway West ILF Program shall be based on 

[an appropriate assessment 

method or other suitable metric] approved by the Corps. The standard mitigation ratios for 

wetlands are currently (insert chart). The standard mitigation ratios for streams are currently 

(insert chart). 

9.0 In-Lieu Fee Program Account 

Financial accounting 

Reporting requirements for financial reporting are at Section (X, “Reporting Protocol.”) The 

Gateway West ILF Program account would track funds accepted from permittees separately 

from those accepted from other entities and for other purposes (i.e., fees arising out of an 

enforcement action, such as supplemental environmental projects). The account would be held 

at a financial institution that is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Any 

and all interest accruing from the account would be used to provide compensatory mitigation for 

impacts to aquatic resources. The program account would be established after this instrument 

is approved and before any fees are accepted. If the Corps determines that the (Program 

Sponsor) is failing to provide compensatory mitigation by the third full growing season after the 

first advance credit is secured, the agency may direct the funds to alternative compensatory 

mitigation projects. Additional information on failure to fulfill the terms of the instrument is 
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 46

discussed in Section (X, “Default & Closure”). The Corps has the authority to audit the program 

account records at any time. Funds paid into the Gateway West ILF Program account may only 

be used for the direct replacement and management of aquatic resources. This means the 

selection, design, acquisition (i.e., appraisals, surveys, title insurance, etc.), implementation, 

and management of in-lieu fee compensatory mitigation projects. This may include fees 

associated with securing a permit for conducting mitigation activities, activities related to the 

restoration, enhancement, creation, and/ or preservation of aquatic resources, maintenance and 

monitoring of mitigation sites, and the purchase of credits from mitigation banks. Use of fees is 

explicitly prohibited for activities such as upland preservation (other than buffers), research, 

education and outreach, or implementation of best management practices for wetlands unless 

these are directly associated with the success of the mitigation and have been identified in the 

mitigation plan. Up to (__%) of the fees paid into Gateway West ILF Program may be used for 

administrative costs. Such costs include bank charges associated with the establishment and 

operation of the program, staff time for carrying out program responsibilities, expenses for day 

to day management of the program, such as bookkeeping, mailing expenses, printing, office 

supplies, computer hardware or software, training, travel, and hiring private contractors or 

consultants. 

Credit accounting 

(Program Sponsor) shall establish and maintain an annual report ledger that tracks the 

production of released credits for Gateway West ILF Program and for each individual in-lieu fee 

project. Reporting requirements for the annual report ledger are at Section (X). On the income 

side, (Program Sponsor) shall track the fees and all other income received, the source of the 

income (i.e., permitted impact, penalty fee, etc.), and any interest earned by the program 

account. The ledgers shall also include a list of all the permits for which in-lieu fee program 

funds were accepted, including the appropriate permit number (Corps or state permit), the 

service area in which the specific authorized impacts are located, the amount (acreage or linear 

feet) of authorized impacts, the aquatic resource type impacted by Cowardin class, the amount 

of compensatory mitigation required, the amount paid to the in-lieu fee program for each of the 

authorized impacts, and the date the funds were received from the permittee. (Program 

Sponsor) shall establish and maintain a report ledger for Gateway West ILF Program that would 

track all program disbursements/expenditures and the nature of the disbursement (i.e., costs of 

land acquisition, planning, construction, monitoring, maintenance, contingencies, adaptive 

management, and administration). (Program Sponsor) may also track funds obligated or 

committed, but not yet disbursed. The ledger shall also include, for each project, the permit 

numbers for which the project is being used to offset compensatory mitigation requirements, the 

service area in which the project is located, the amount of compensation being provided by 

method (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, or preservation), the aquatic resource 

type(s) represented (e.g., Cowardin class), the amount of compensatory mitigation being 

provided (acres and/or linear feet), and the number of credits certified by the IRT. The annual 

report ledger shall also include a balance of advance credits and released credits at the end of 

the report period for each service area. 
Proposed In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Instrument Page 47

10.0 Transfer of Long-Term Management Responsibilities 

After securing approval from the district engineer, (Program Sponsor) shall transfer long-term 

management responsibilities to [name a specific land stewardship entity or “a land stewardship 

entity, such as a public agency, non-governmental organization, or private land manager”]. 

Transfer of long term stewardship responsibilities may occur before or after performance 

standards have been achieved. Once long term management has been transferred to land 

stewardship entity, said party is thereby responsible for meeting any and all long-term 

management responsibilities outlined in the project-specific mitigation plan. Until such time as 

long-term management responsibilities are transferred to another party, (Program Sponsor) 

would be considered responsible for long-term management of the mitigation project. 

11.0 Financial Arrangements for Long-Term Management 

If (Program Sponsor) chooses to transfer the responsibilities for long-term management to a 

long-term steward, (Program Sponsor) must seek Corps’ approval. The Corps must be given 

the option of being a signatory to any contract or other arrangement assigning the rights and 

delegating the responsibilities to the steward. If long-term stewardship responsibilities are 

transferred to (land stewardship entity), (Program Sponsor) shall also transfer the long-term 

management funds/account for otherwise arrange for disbursements from such funds/account 

to the (land stewardship entity). 

12.0 Signatures 

_______________________________________ _______________________ 

Program sponsor Date 

_______________________________________ _______________________ 

District Engineer Date 

_______________________________________ _______________________ 

IRT members choosing to participate Date 
Gateway West Transmission Line Final EIS 

Appendix C-3 

Greater Sage-grouse Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Measures 
Gateway West Transmission Line Project:

Detailed Outline for

Offsite Compensatory Mitigation

to Offset Project Impacts

to Greater Sage-grouse

Prepared by:

and

June 15, 2012
i

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Project Overview........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Companies’ Mitigation Goals........................................................................................................ 1

1.3. Mitigation Purpose........................................................................................................................ 1

1.3.1. Mitigation Strategy for Known Impacts................................................................................ 1

2. Compensatory Mitigation for Gateway West................................................................................ 2

2.1. Approach to Determine Mitigation Obligation............................................................................. 2

2.1.1. Framework for Sage-grouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate Transmission Lines.................2

2.1.2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Recommendations................................................ 3

2.1.3. Changes to the Plan .............................................................................................................. 3

2.2. Siting Compensatory Mitigation Projects .................................................................................... 4

2.3. Timing for Financing of Mitigation Projects.................................................................................. 4

2.4. Oversight Committee.................................................................................................................... 4

3. Compensatory Mitigation Plan ..................................................................................................... 5

3.1. Direct and Indirect Loss of Habitat Services Modeled in HEA ...................................................... 5

3.1.1. Mitigation Scaling ................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.2. Mitigation Project Types....................................................................................................... 6

3.1.3. Specific Mitigation Projects................................................................................................. 10

Minimum Mitigation Project Criteria................................................................................................ 10

3.1.4. In lieu fees ........................................................................................................................... 11

4. Monitoring and maintenance ..................................................................................................... 12

5. References ................................................................................................................................. 12

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Key Participants in Gateway West HEA Modeling and Mitigation Process 

Appendix B: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recommendations on Mitigation for Impacts to Greater Sagegrouse Associated With the Gateway West Interstate Transmission Line

Appendix C: Hypothetical Example of Scaling Mitigation

Appendix D: Idaho Power Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning Greater Sage-Grouse 

Information Request
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Project Overview

Idaho Power Company and Rocky Mountain Power (Companies) propose to construct and operate 

approximately 1,000 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV), 345-kV, and 500-kV electric transmission system 

consisting of 10 segments between the Windstar Substation at Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway 

Substation approximately 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho. The Project includes ground-disturbing 

activities associated with the construction of above-ground, single-circuit transmission lines involving, 

access roads, multi-purpose yards, fly yards, pulling sites as well as associated substations, 

communication sites, and electrical supply distribution lines. The Project is designed/sited to avoid

greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) leks and adhere to lek buffers and use designated 

energy corridors. Portions of the Project will cross suitable habitat for greater sage-grouse. As a result, 

the Companies, in close coordination with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game (IDFG) have developed a mitigation strategy to compensate for the unavoidable impact to sagegrouse habitat that may occur as a result of Project construction and operation. 

1.2. Companies’ Mitigation Goals

The Companies’ mitigation goals include:

• identify mitigation opportunities that reduce or remove threats under the five listing factors 

used by the USFWS to assess the status of Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed and candidate 

species,

• compliance with Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 and other state regulatory mechanisms, and

• address primary and secondary threats identified in Idaho Executive Order 2012-02 and 

recommendations of the State of Idaho and the Idaho Task Force that may ultimately be 

adopted through regulatory mechanisms.

1.3. Mitigation Purpose

1.3.1. Mitigation Strategy for Known Impacts

Current literature identifies habitat loss/fragmentation (e.g., fire in Idaho) poses the greatest threat to 

sage-grouse however, the literature also indicates that conversion, noise, and human activity may also 

pose impacts to greater sage-grouse (refer to the Final Habitat Equivalency Analysis [HEA] report). 

Knowledge of the impacts of transmission structures and other tall structures on the landscape is 

currently lacking (Utah Wildlife in Need 2010). The Companies’ mitigation strategy is to compensate for 

known impacts to greater sage-grouse that could occur as a result of Project construction and operation. 

This mitigation strategy is guided by the following:

• Sage-grouse habitat quality and quantity varies across the landscape. To ensure that habitat 

variability is fully captured, the HEA used a quantitative habitat metric to model the direct loss 

of habitat that would result from construction and operation of the Project. 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

2

• Sage-grouse habitat services lost or impacted due to the construction and operations of the 

Project will be replaced by either preserving at-risk habitat services or enhancing degraded 

habitat services through one or more methods either modeled during the HEA effort or 

approved by an Oversight Committee (see Section 2.4).

• Offsite compensatory mitigation projects will be defined in suitable locations as close to the 

Project area as possible in order to benefit the sage-grouse populations being impacted by 

project construction and operations but may also be directed to habitats where mitigation has 

greater value in providing long term benefit to sage-grouse. 

• Mitigation projects that are approved and funded will result in:

o Habitat conservation or protection in at-risk areas

o an increase in long-term habitat availability, and/or

o an increase in habitat quality 

• The Companies will fund a program of maintenance and monitoring for each compensatory 

mitigation project to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation and provide guidance for 

future projects. Funding for maintenance and monitoring has been incorporated in the HEA and 

is therefore inherently part of the compensatory mitigation to be proposed. 

2. Compensatory Mitigation for Gateway West

2.1. Approach to Determine Mitigation Obligation

2.1.1. Framework for Sage-grouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate Transmission 

Lines

The Companies have been actively working with agency personnel (refer to Appendix A for a list) to 

satisfy the requirements of the Framework for Sage-grouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate Transmission 

Lines (November 22, 2010, last revised October 22, 2011), Attachment 3. 

The Framework specifies the use of a HEA, an economics model, to scale mitigation for the loss of 

habitat services. Habitat services include those ecosystem features (i.e., physical site-specific 

characteristics of an ecosystem) and ecosystem functions (i.e., biophysical processes that occur within 

an ecosystem) that support, in this case, greater sage-grouse populations.

The HEA for the Project produced an estimate of the permanent and interim loss of sage-grouse habitat 

services as a result of vegetation loss, noise, and human presence anticipated with project construction 

and operation. Once BLM has identified a preferred alternative, the HEA can be used to identify the sum 

total of modeled habitat services lost. The HEA also modeled feasible mitigation project types and 

incorporated their typical costs. The Companies will use the HEA-generated sum of modeled habitat 

services lost and develop a proposed set of mitigation projects, whose total habitat services gained can 

also be summed. The Companies can then use the estimated mitigation project cost for each project 

type to develop an estimated total cost for the entire Project’s compensatory mitigation obligations (see 

Section 3.0). The suggested project mix and sum of habitat services provided by the mitigation project 

types will offset the sum of modeled habitat services lost, as specified in the HEA.
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

3

2.1.2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Recommendations

The USFWS Wyoming Office provided the Companies with recommendations regarding the 

development and implementation of a mitigation plan to address Project impacts on sage-grouse and its 

habitat (attached as Appendix B). Per these recommendations, the Companies will:

• Use the HEA’s estimation of permanent and interim loss of habitat services to determine how 

many habitat services must be gained by a suite of projects. The sum of habitat services gained 

from mitigation projects selected will provide an estimate of how much compensatory 

mitigation will be offered by the Companies.

• Once the preferred alternative is selected and the ROD is issued, the Companies will select and 

submit to BLM a proposed set of projects (project mix), the sum of whose habitat services 

gained will equal the sum of the habitat services modeled as lost from the Project.

• Focus the majority of mitigation (project mix) on conservation of habitat, specifically on projects 

that protect habitat, enhance or maintain quality of habitat, and reduce fragmentation. 

Components of habitat conservation include preservation through easements, enhancements

(such as juniper removal), and restoration. These habitat conservation projects may then be 

supplemented by a smaller portion of projects such as fence-marking or others. 

• Develop an approach to ensure mitigation is implemented in a collaborative manner by 

establishing an "Oversight Committee" (see Section 2.4) that will support the in-lieu fee 

administrator (Section 3.1.4) and be composed of biologists working for BLM, USFWS, IDFG, and 

WGFD. The role of this team is to provide guidance and biological advice concerning the 

accomplishment of successful mitigation on the ground. 

Additionally, the USFWS provided specific recommendations to ensure successful completion of 

mitigation projects that contribute to sage-grouse habitat conservation. Within these recommendations, 

the USFWS emphasizes the need to consider each mitigation site individually and provide a clear 

justification regarding the value of the treatment at that site. The Companies will establish mechanisms 

for receiving, reviewing and selecting proposals for projects through coordinated efforts between the 

Oversight Committee (that has been assembled for each state or regional area) and in-lieu fee 

administrator. Each proposed project will meet the intent of the mitigation, which is to protect, 

enhance, or maintain habitat quality for sage-grouse in order to receive funding. No projects will be 

funded that do not meet one of those goals. 

2.1.3. Changes to the Plan

Given the dynamic nature of the current regulatory environment for sage-grouse, the Companies expect 

that there may continue to be changes in sage-grouse policies and guidance between submittal of this 

detailed outline, the final mitigation plan and final selection and implementation of mitigation projects. 

The Companies will consider new information as it becomes available and revise the Mitigation Plan if 

appropriate. 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

4

2.2. Siting Compensatory Mitigation Projects

Compensatory mitigation projects will be sited in the same state where the impact will occur and will be 

located using the following priorities:

First Priority: Projects will be located in polygons of Key Habitats/Core Areas (i.e., Preliminary Priority 

Habitats) that are intersected by the Project. Projects may be located in polygons of Key Habitat/Core 

(i.e., Preliminary Priority Habitats) that are not intersected by the Project but are within the region (e.g., 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ management zones) where the Oversight Committee 

agrees.

Second Priority: Projects may be located in areas outside of Key Habitat/Core (i.e., Preliminary Priority 

Habitats) where the Oversight Committee agrees that habitat connectivity may be restored.

The overarching goal and priority for siting mitigation projects is to locate projects where the greatest 

benefit to sage-grouse will be realized. The priorities stated above are a general rule for project siting, 

however, projects may be located elsewhere if the Oversight Committee (see Section 2.4) identifies 

specific opportunities that will provide a greater benefit to sage-grouse than those in the impacted 

region. Refer to Section 3.1.2 for additional discussion of mitigation project placement.

2.3. Timing for Financing of Mitigation Projects

There are three factors that influence the timing of financing and execution of mitigation projects. First, 

the best available estimates of disturbance of known habitat can only be made after the BLM establishes 

the preferred alternative for the Project and the Companies complete the design engineering for each 

segment based on that preferred alternative. Second, the Companies can only finance mitigation for a 

permitted project—that is, the mitigation investment can only be made after a permit is issued. While 

the Companies are willing to commit to making an appropriate investment if the permit is issued, 

mitigation funding would occur only after permits are in hand. Third, the Companies cannot know in 

advance what projects will be available in the timeframe between the issuance of permits and the 

desired start of construction. Flexibility is therefore required in the identification and financing of 

mitigation projects. 

2.4. Oversight Committee

As described in the USFWS recommendations for mitigation approaches, an Oversight Committee 

consisting of agency biologists and other state and federal advisors, will be created to provide guidance 

to the in-lieu fee administering entity (see Section 3.1.4.) on the utilization of mitigation funds provided 

by the Companies. The Companies expect that both local and landscape level perspectives will be 

represented on the Oversight Committee, and that membership may shift as needed to consider local 

experts in each state or region. This will likely include local sage-grouse working groups, experts in the 

fields of mitigation, sage-grouse ecology, or other applicable disciplines. Committee members should be 

familiar with the Project area to help select mitigation projects locations and approve projects proposed 

by entities for use of mitigation funds.
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

5

The purposes of the Oversight Committee are to:

• Provide guidance to the in-lieu fee administering entity by:

o Identifying and selecting mitigation projects;

o Reviewing and approving projects proposed by other entities (proposals for use of 

mitigation funds);

• Employ experts as needed to determine the habitat services replacement value of project types 

not modeled in the HEA;

• Review proposed projects for compliance with the intent of the Framework and existing 

regulation and policy regarding compensatory mitigation;

• Validate the success of mitigation projects and their effectiveness at the local or landscape 

level; and

• Provide monitoring and oversight of project implementation and review of project monitoring 

results.

A selected committee member/entity will be identified who will be responsible for facilitating 

communications among Oversight Committee members and scheduling necessary review meetings 

to discuss mitigation projects and monitoring results. The roles and responsibilities of agency 

representatives, and other Oversight Committee members will vary by mitigation project type and 

location. Once final mitigation projects are identified, participants, roles and responsibilities within 

the Oversight Committee will be determined and assigned. Further detail will be presented in the 

final mitigation proposal regarding the Oversight Committee and mitigation project selection 

criteria.

3. Compensatory Mitigation Plan

3.1. Direct and Indirect Loss of Habitat Services Modeled in HEA

The avoidance (routing and siting criteria) and minimization measures (environmental protection 

measures and plans) undertaken by the Companies and discussed in the DEIS for the Project

substantially avoid known impacts to greater sage-grouse and minimize impacts to their habitat. 

However, even with these measures in place, there are residual unavoidable impacts to habitat from the 

construction and operation of the Project. This Plan describes the Companies’ plan to compensate for 

those impacts, as modeled in the HEA, by providing adequate funding (see Section 2.1.1 regarding 

discussion on “project mix” and Section 3.1.1) for one or more projects that the agencies agree replace 

habitat services lost due to the Project.

3.1.1. Mitigation Scaling

The HEA quantified the permanent and interim loss of habitat services resulting from ground-disturbing 

activities, construction related traffic and noise, and the footprint of the physical structures as defined 

by a habitat services metric (Table 7, HEA, Attachment 1). The HEA used the same habitat services 

metric to quantify the habitat services to be gained by implementing different types of habitat 

improvement measures (measured in service-acre-years). The habitat improvement measures, 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

6

summarized in Table 8 of the HEA, Attachment 1, that were selected by the interagency HEA Technical 

Advisory Team to model in the HEA are: 

• fence marking or removal;

• sagebrush restoration and enhancement;

• juniper removal;

• seeding of a forb and bunchgrass understory; and

• purchase of conservation easements. 

The analysis also produced a cost per service-acre-year gained for each habitat improvement measure 

based on the average cost of project implementation in Wyoming and Idaho (HEA Table 8, Attachment 

1).

Compensatory mitigation will be applied to offset the modeled sage-grouse habitat service losses so 

that there is no net loss as a result of project construction and operation. Per the recommendations of 

the USFWS, the majority of conservation will focus on the conservation of habitat, specifically on 

projects that enhance or maintain quality of habitat and reduce fragmentation. The majority of the 

mitigation package will consist of habitat conservation easements (at 100% baseline habitat service 

level credit), sagebrush restoration and enhancement, which includes juniper removal, and fence 

marking or removal.

The Companies commit to selecting a set of projects that fully replace the habitat services lost, based on 

the preferred alternative when it is selected by the BLM. These portions will be identified as percentages

of the overall mitigation package and will be applied to the total habitat services lost and multiplied by 

the cost per service acre gained by each conservation measure to estimate the mitigation dollars 

allocated to each measure, and then summed across measures to estimate the total compensatory 

mitigation obligations (mitigation funding to be provided by the Companies). After the Companies 

compensatory mitigation obligations are met (mitigation funding is provided to be managed by in-lieu 

fee administrator), the breakdown of mitigation project types (project mix) at the time of 

implementation is subject to change (under guidance of the Oversight Committee and in-lieu fee 

administrator) depending upon project availability and project benefit to sage-grouse and their habitat.

However, the mitigation funding provided is fixed.

An example of how mitigation will be portioned among project types to offset the total habitat-serviceacre-years lost in a hypothetical project segment is provided in Appendix C. 

3.1.2. Mitigation Project Types

Descriptions of the mitigation project types modeled in the HEA are provided below. These projects are 

consistent with recommendations provided by the USFWS. The Companies are not limited to these 

project types for mitigation credit. Table 7 in the HEA (Attachment 1) presents total habitat services lost 

which could be replaced by the following mitigation project types.
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

7

Fence Marking and Removal

Based on Christiansen (2009) it has been demonstrated that each mile of fence within 2 miles of leks 

kills up to 53 greater sage-grouse per year. This threat can be eliminated by removing fences or 

significantly reduced by increasing the visibility of fences. Christiansen (2009) estimated a 70% reduction 

in mortalities could be expected along marked sections of fence. Stevens (2011) similarly predicted that 

marking fences with vinyl reflectors (flight diverters) reduced collision rates by up to 74%. 

To eliminate the threat of collisions, fences would be removed or marked with flight diverters similar to 

those used in the Christiansen (2009), Wolfe (2009), and Stevens (2011) studies to increase fence 

visibility to greater sage-grouse. Fences will be removed where possible. Where removal is not possible, 

two flight diverters would be installed between each fence span (4 m post-to-post). Priority areas for 

fence removal and/or marking would be:

• Sections of fence known to cause sage-grouse collisions,

• Fences within 2 km (1.2 mi) of leks (Braun 2006; Stevens 2011) or other high risk area, 

• Fences in areas with low slope and terrain ruggedness (Stevens 2011), and

• Fence segments bounded by steel t-posts with spans greater than 4 m (Stevens 2011).

Once fences have been removed or marked, local annual mortality due to fence collisions will be 

substantially reduced. As described in Section 2.2, all mitigation projects will be sited in the same state 

where the impact occurred and in a manner consistent with the priorities identified in the BLM’s IM 

2008-204.

The HEA calculated that 51,634 service-acre-years would be created for every mile of fence marked 

(with annual maintenance) or fence removed over the lifetime of the project. The Companies anticipate 

that this component will represent no more than 25% of the total habitat services gained when 

calculating the overall mitigation projects.

Sagebrush Restoration and Enhancement

Sagebrush restoration and enhancement creates new habitat for sage-grouse and can be used to create 

corridors between existing patches of sagebrush patches to produce larger patches of contiguous 

habitat. As described in Section 1.3, habitat for sage-grouse consists of a mosaic of plant communities 

dominated by sagebrush and a diverse grass and forb understory across the landscape (Wyoming 

Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. 2003). This conservation measure increases the quality and 

quantity of habitat within the landscape, contributing to the long-term survival and success of the 

greater sage-grouse.

New habitat for sage-grouse would be created by establishing sagebrush and understory grasses and 

forbs in disturbed areas (e.g., roads, unreclaimed pipeline corridors, well pads, burned areas, etc.). 

Treatment for mitigation credit is not planned for areas of Project disturbance, which will be restored as 

described in the plan of development, but in other pre-existing areas of disturbance. Sagebrush can be

seeded, planted as seedlings, or transplanted (i.e., containerized stems). Because seeded sagebrush 

takes a long time to grow to a size that provides habitat for sage-grouse, the HEA determined that 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

8

planting containerized stems was the most economical option. Sagebrush restoration and enhancement 

projects will include understory (grass and forb) treatments.

Where possible, projects will be placed strategically to decrease habitat fragmentation by connecting 

existing occupied habitats. All treatments will include monitoring plans and funding to conduct 

monitoring. Criteria that define “restoration” and “success” will be developed in coordination with the 

Oversight Committee. 

Stripping of topsoil will be avoided in potential restoration areas, as it decreases the likelihood of 

treatment success. Any topsoil that is stripped will be stored properly in order to maintain biological 

viability of soil microbes that are necessary for sagebrush survival and growth. Soil structure should be 

maintained if it is stripped, and should be maintained when placed back within restoration areas prior to 

seeding or planting.

The value of sagebrush restoration depends on the method used; methods that result in faster plant 

establishment have higher value. The HEA calculated that for every acre of disturbance seeded with 

sagebrush and bunchgrass, 1,751 service-acre-years would be created over the lifetime of the project. 

For every acre of disturbance planted with containerized sagebrush stems and seeded with bunchgrass, 

4,556 service-acre-years would be created. For every acre of disturbance planted with sagebrush 

seedlings and seeded with bunchgrass, 1,935 service-acre-years would be created. Because of the 

uncertain and delayed success rate and relatively high cost, the Companies do not anticipate selecting a 

substantial proportion of seeding or planting projects unless a cost-effective partnership opportunity 

arises that meets the approval of the Oversight Committee. The Companies anticipate that this 

component will represent no more than 5% of the total habitat services gained when calculating the 

overall mitigation projects.

Juniper Removal

Fire suppression and other post-settlement conditions have allowed western juniper to spread into 

areas previously dominated by grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Miller et al. (2005) reports that many areas 

have experienced an estimated 10-fold increase in juniper over the last 130 years. The expansion of 

juniper and other conifer species reduces habitat for sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species 

that depend on large patches of sagebrush-dominated vegetation. Sagebrush cover decreases with 

juniper encroachment as the vegetation transitions into woodland.

Most juniper communities are still in a state of transition. Miller et al. (2005) characterized three stages 

of woodland succession:

• Phase I (early) – trees are present but shrubs and herbs are the dominant vegetation that 

influence ecological processes (hydrologic, nutrient, and energy cycles) on the site; 

• Phase II (mid) – trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs and all three vegetation layers 

influence ecological processes on the site; 

• Phase III (late) – trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influencing 

ecological processes on the site. 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

9

Sites in Phase I or II successional stages often retain a significant understory of sagebrush (i.e., grasses 

and forbs), so removal of Phase I or II can produce immediate habitat benefits for sage-grouse (NRCS 

2010; USFWS recommendations). 

Juniper/conifer removal projects used for mitigation will focus primarily on the early successive stages of 

conifer/juniper stands (i.e., Phase I or Phase II juniper) with no cheatgrass component. Removal of 

juniper/conifer will be done by mechanical means without the use of fire or chemicals:

• Phase I juniper/conifer will be treated by having a field crew walk from tree-to-tree, cutting 

them into pieces and scattering them on-site (lop and scatter).

• Phase II juniper/conifer will be treated by using a masticator, a large mechanical device that 

goes from tree-to-tree and demolishes the tree with whirling blades; debris is then left on site 

(mastication).

All juniper/conifer removal projects will include understory treatment, where needed, and vegetation 

monitoring until the understory vegetation is established. Locations of removal projects will be selected 

by the Companies with guidance from the Oversight Committee so that each treatment site provides 

value to the local sage-grouse population.

The value of juniper/conifer removal in the HEA depended on the successional stage of juniper removed 

(i.e., Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III juniper). The HEA calculated that 1,108 service-acre-years are created 

for every acre of Phase I juniper treated, 1,481 service-acre-years for every acre of Phase II juniper 

treated, and 1,751 service-acre-years for every acre of Phase III juniper treated with understory seeding 

over the lifetime of the project. Juniper The Companies anticipate that this component will represent 

approximately 30% of the total habitat services gained when calculating the overall mitigation projects. 

Seeding of a Forb and Bunchgrass Understory

Bunchgrasses, as opposed to rhizomatous grasses, are recognized as an important component of sagegrouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats (Connelly et al. 2000; Crawford et al. 2004). The structure and 

abundance of bunchgrasses influence the quality of a sagebrush/bunchgrass community site for nesting 

sage-grouse. Tall, dense, residual grass in nesting habitat improves hatching success by providing cover 

for incubating females (Cagney et al. 2009). Herbaceous cover may provide scent, visual, and physical 

barriers to potential predators (DeLong et al. 1995, as cited in Connelly et al. 2000). In addition to 

providing cover from predators, forbs are an important food source for sage-grouse broods. 

Sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat is improved by seeding native bunchgrasses and forbs 

into existing sagebrush stands or into adjacent disturbance, increasing nest and brood success. 

Understory seeding project sites will be selected by the Companies in coordination with the Oversight 

Committee to maximize the benefit of these projects for sage-grouse. Objectives for these projects and 

criteria for success will be developed in coordination with the Oversight Committee. 

The HEA calculated that 56 service-acre-years are created for every acre of sage-brush vegetation that is 

overseeded with bunchgrass over the lifetime of the project. A greater number of service-acre-years are 

created when areas of disturbance (i.e., no vegetation) are seeded with bunchgrass: 282 per acre 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

10

seeded over the lifetime of the project. Because of the low habitat services gained, the uncertain and 

delayed success rate, and relatively high cost, the Companies do not anticipate using forb and 

bunchgrass understory seeding projects unless a cost-effective partnership opportunity arises that 

meets the approval of the Oversight Committee. The Companies anticipate that this component will 

represent no more than 5% of the total habitat services gained when calculating the overall mitigation 

projects. 

Purchase of Conservation Easements

Conservation easements may be purchased and managed to remove the threats of specific land uses to 

sage-grouse. The purchase of easements can prevent future sage-grouse habitat destruction or 

degradation near urban areas or oil and gas development. With appropriate management, conservation 

easements can reduce fragmentation in species core areas and key habitats. 

Conservation easements purchased for mitigation will be used in a strategic way with focus on 

areas/locations of highest demonstrable need leading to a reduction in habitat fragmentation. 

Conservation easements will be developed by the Companies in coordination with the Oversight 

Committee. Specific locations of conservation easements will depend on availability of easements for 

purchase. The Companies anticipate that this component will represent approximately 35% of the total 

habitat services gained when calculating the overall mitigation projects.

The HEA calculated that, on average, 747 service-acre-years would be created per acre of conservation 

easement purchased, assuming the easement is maintained over the life of the project. This total does 

not include the value of any subsequent habitat improvements to the property and assumes the

Companies receive 100% credit for the baseline habitat-service level of the property.

3.1.3. Specific Mitigation Projects

Specific projects will be selected by the Oversight Committee in coordination with the in-lieu fee 

administrator as project applications/proposals are received or following the recommendations and 

guidelines provided by the states, BLM, and USFWS. They may be located on either public or private 

land. Although only five mitigation measures are modeled, utilization of the compensatory mitigation 

funding provided by the Companies is not bound to only those project types. However, other project 

types must be recognized by the Oversight Committee as providing sage-grouse population or habitat 

benefits. 

Minimum Mitigation Project Criteria

The benefit of potential mitigation projects to sage-grouse will vary by type and location. The Oversight 

Committee will consider the criteria and strategy set forth in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 2.2 of this plan in 

addition to the following priorities when selecting projects for implementation: 

1. Implement activities to protect and maintain existing occupied habitats. 

a. Enhance existing occupied habitats.

2. Implement activities to conserve potential habitat and populations

a. Enhance potential habitat that adjoins known habitat so that it can support sagegrouse, thereby increasing habitat patch size and overall habitat availability.
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

11

b. Create vegetative corridors to reconnect occupied habitats and decrease habitat 

fragmentation.

c. Restore degraded habitats that could support greater sage-grouse use.

3. Potential mitigation sites will be evaluated to determine their current state, the type of 

mitigation project that would be most beneficial, and the potential for that project to meet the 

success criteria defined by the Oversight Committee. Projects that confer the greatest potential 

benefit to sage-grouse and have a high probability of success will be given priority.

3.1.4. In lieu fees

The State of Wyoming, the State of Idaho (still under consideration), and the BLM provide a potential

option for the Companies to employ an in-lieu fee approach to mitigation. The Companies can pay 

mitigation fees into accounts (managed by an in-lieu fee administrator) that will fund projects that will 

benefit sage-grouse and their habitats. Refer to Section 2.2 for general/minimum criteria for selection of 

mitigation projects that would utilize in-lieu fees.

As previously stated, the Companies will provide in-lieu fees to be utilized by projects proposed by other 

entities if they meet the required criteria. The habitat services gained by the in-lieu fee projects will be 

added to the services gained by any projects funded by the Companies to total the habitat services 

modeled as lost through construction and operation of the Project.

The Companies will work with the Oversight Committee to identify the appropriate organizations to 

receive and manage in-lieu fees (in-lieu fee administrator) in each state, as well as to set standards for 

the projects funded by those fees.

In-lieu Fee Administration

In Idaho, the Idaho SAC framework that describes the general outline for a sage-grouse compensatory 

mitigation program in Idaho is still in development. This program includes an “in-lieu fee” approach to 

compensatory mitigation through which a project developer would pay funds into an account managed 

by the mitigation program for performance of mitigation actions that provide measureable benefits for 

sage-grouse and their habitats within Idaho. The Companies will incorporate details from the SAC 

framework into this mitigation plan once it is finalized.

In Wyoming, entities such as the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust (WWNRT) have been 

identified as a potential organization that could receive and manage in-lieu fees for the Project. The 

WWNRT is an independent state agency governed by a nine-member citizen board appointed by the 

Governor and works closely with the WGFD and Wyoming state government. Opportunities with other 

entities such as the Intermountain West Joint Venture will be explored.

Requests for in-lieu funds (compensatory mitigation funding provided by Companies) must specify, at a 

minimum, the following:

• Objectives of the project, including specifically how the project will improve habitat for 

greater sage-grouse at the proposed location with specific and measurable success criteria.
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

12

• Discussion and documentation that the group requesting the in-lieu funds can successfully 

implement the mitigation project.

• Maps and descriptions of the geographic area of the mitigation project, including baseline 

habitat quality for sage-grouse and surrounding land uses. Maps should identify whether 

the project will be in a state-identified greater sage-grouse habitat (Core in Wyoming, 

Key/Restoration in Idaho).

• Detailed written specifications and work descriptions, including: timing and sequence, 

methods for establishing or enhancing vegetation, plans to control invasive plant species, 

erosion control measures, long-term maintenance, monitoring and reporting requirements, 

etc. 

• Performance standards, including an adaptive management plan if performance standards 

are not met.

4. Monitoring and maintenance

For direct impacts, monitoring the success of mitigation measures and maintaining each measure to 

ensure continued success are important elements of the Companies’ mitigation strategy. The HEA 

incorporated monitoring and maintenance costs. Each project that is selected for mitigation will require 

a monitoring and mitigation entity. This role could be filled by agencies, private landowners, NGOs, 

managers of conservation easements, environmental or reclamation contractors, the entity applying for 

funding or other appropriate monitoring entities. 

The final monitoring and maintenance approach for each mitigation project will be formalized in a 

monitoring and maintenance strategy that will be reviewed annually, or as necessary, by the Oversight 

Committee with involvement of the monitoring entity. Monitoring duration will vary for each mitigation 

project type. Results of monitoring will be provided to the Oversight Committee. Frequencies of these 

reports may vary between project types and will be determined by the Oversight Committee. The 

monitoring and maintenance strategy will also include success criteria for each project and project type. 

Examples of success criteria might include:

• Increase in desired vegetation characteristics in a treated or enhanced area when compared to a

suitable control area (trending towards desirable vegetation structure and composition with

measurable goals)

• Adherence to conservation easement contract terms

• Removal of stated acreage of encroaching juniper stands

• Miles of fence marked

5. References 

Braun, C.E. 2006. A Blueprint for Sage-Grouse Conservation and Recovery. Tucson: Grouse Inc.

Cagney, J., E. Bainter, B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. Rashford, 

M. Smith, and J. Williams. 2009. Grazing influence, management and objective development in 

Wyoming greater sage-grouse habitat with emphasis on nesting and early brood rearing. 

Unpublished report. Available at: 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

13

http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/index.asp. Accessed December 

2009.

Christiansen, T. 2009. Fence Marking to Reduce Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Collisions and Mortality near Farson, Wyoming – Summary of Interim Results. Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department. Available at: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1108/ML110830116.pdf. 

Accessed January 2012. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985.

Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosely, M.A. Schroeder, T.D. Whitson, R.F. Miller, M.A. Gregg, 

and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Synthesis paper: ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse 

habitat. Journal of Range Management 57:2–19.

DeLong, A.K., J.A. Crawford, and D.C. DeLong, Jr. 1995. Relationships between vegetational structure 

and predation of artificial sage grouse nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88–92.

Idaho Sage-grouse Advisory Committee. 2006. Conservation Plan for the Greater Sage-grouse in Idaho. 

July 2006. 477 pp. 

Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, ecology, and 

management of western juniper. Oregon State University, Technical Bulletin 152. June 2005. 77 

pp.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Oregon sage-grouse habitat improvement 

initiative: a strategic approach to Farm Bill conservation program delivery. Oregon 

Implementation Plan, March 2010. http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/sagegrouse/fy12/NRCS-ODFW_Sage-Grouse_Initiative_Plan.pdf

Stevens, B. 2011. Impacts of fences on greater sage-grouse in Idaho: collision, mitigation, and spatial 

ecology. M.S. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, 

and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Utah Wildlife in Need (UWIN). 2010. Contemporary knowledge and research needs regarding the 

potential effects of tall structures on sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus and C. minimus). 

http://www.utahcbcp.org/htm/tall-structure-info

Utah Wildlife in Need (UWIN). 2011. Protocol for Investigating the Effects of Tall Structures on Sagegrouse (Centrocercus spp.) within Designated or Proposed Energy Corridors. 

http://www.utahcbcp.org/htm/tall-structure-info

Wolfe, D.H., M.A. Patten, E. Shochat, C.L. Pruett, and S.K. Sherrod. 2007. Causes and patterns of 

mortality in lesser prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) and implications for 

management. Wildlife Biology 13 (Suppl. 1):95–104.
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

14
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

15

Appendix A: Key Participants in Gateway West HEA 

BLM – Wyoming

Walt George

Chris Keefe

Frank Blomquist

BLM – Idaho 

Paul Makela

Tim Carrigan

USFWS

Tyler Abbott

Jeri Wood

Pat Deibert

State of Wyoming WGFD

Matt Fry 

State of Idaho IDFG

Lance Hebdon

Mike McDonald

Applicants – Rocky Mountain Power/Idaho 

Power Company

Brian King

Pam Anderson

Stacey Baczkowski

EnviroIssues

Diane Adams

Gina Auriemma

SWCA Environmental Consultants

Jon Kehmeier

Ann Widmer

Tetra Tech

Steve Negri

John Crookston

Mary Garner
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

16
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

17

Appendix B: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recommendations on 

Mitigation for Impacts to Greater Sage-grouse Associated With the 

Gateway West Interstate Transmission Line

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides the following recommendations regarding 

development and implementation of a mitigation plan to address impacts of Gateway West Interstate 

Transmission Line on the Greater Sage-grouse and its habitat. These recommendations should not be 

construed as approval for any mitigation plan, nor do they shift the responsibility of successful 

mitigation for project-related impacts from the project proponent. Rather, these recommendations 

provided to the project proponents are guidelines that the Service believes will increase the likelihood 

that mitigation will succeed in off-setting project-related impacts to Sage-grouse habitat. 

GENERAL APPROACH 

1) The Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) will provide a dollar figure estimate of cost to replace habitat 

services lost, on a one-to-one mitigation ratio basis. We recommend that the Project Proponent use that 

cost estimate to provide a general allocation of how it will be spent on mitigation in terms of specific 

actions or projects proposed for implementation. For example, a general breakdown should be provided 

regarding the amount of money going toward conservation easements, habitat enhancement projects, 

fence marking, research, etc. 

The Service recommends that the majority of mitigation focus on conservation of habitat—projects that 

enhance or maintain quality of habitat and reduce fragmentation. Components of habitat conservation 

include preservation through easements, enhancements, and restoration. These habitat conservation 

projects may then be supplemented by a smaller portion of projects such as fence-marking, focused 

research in designated areas following specific guidelines, water developments, or others. 

2) The HEA provides a standardized basis for a one-to-one ratio for habitat services lost/ habitat services 

mitigated. However, the following biological factors may provide justification for adjusting the minimal 

mitigation ratio beyond one-to-one. 

(a) According to the best available science on the relative value of Sage-grouse populations, some local 

populations may contribute more to long-term species viability than others, justifying higher mitigation 

ratios. Such populations are located in: southwestern ID, central and northwestern NV, eastern OR, and 

WY populations contribute most to the long-term viability of the species;

(b) Regarding individual birds contributing to populations, hens have a much higher biological value than 

males; 

(c) Localized habitats of high ecological value such as (but not limited to) those serving key functions in 

demographic, genetic, or seasonal connectivity, important wintering areas, or leks; 

(d) Time lags for mitigation success such that habitat services in treatment areas are not immediately 

available to Sage-grouse. 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

18

3) The project proponent should follow specific recommendations listed below when implementing 

mitigation projects to ensure successful completion of such projects that contribute to Sage-grouse 

habitat conservation. 

4) Mitigation will be implemented in a collaborative manner by working with members of an "oversight 

team" composed of biologists working for BLM, Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The role of this team is to provide guidance and biological advice 

concerning the accomplishment of successful mitigation on the ground. 

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS- The following list is not exhaustive, and includes only projects that 

have been suggested as potential mitigation to date. Recommendations on other project types offered 

as mitigation will be made on a case by case basis as needed, and must be coordinated with oversight 

team (number 4 above). 

Fence marking 

At this time, there are only preliminary data that suggest the beneficial effects of fence marking on 

Sage-grouse. These data suggest that fence marking can be effective in specific problem areas within 

Sage-grouse habitat. So, while we support the use of fence marking on a limited and site-specific basis, 

fence marking should not be central focus of mitigation. 

Sage-grouse habitat restoration 

While restoration of sagebrush/Sage-grouse habitat can be accomplished with seeding and 

transplanting, all habitat restoration treatments must include consideration of understory (grass and 

forb) treatments. All restorations must have a short- and long-term follow-up treatment and monitoring 

plan to ensure success, and must be accompanied by adequate funding for implementation of these 

monitoring plans. Criteria that define “restoration” and “success” should be developed in coordination 

with the oversight team. 

If top soil must be stripped from potential restoration areas, likelihood of success will be much lower 

and, therefore, should be avoided. All topsoil that is stripped must be stored properly in order to 

maintain biological viability of soil microbes that are necessary for sagebrush survival and growth. Soil 

structure should be maintained if it is stripped, and should be maintained when placed back within 

restoration areas prior to seeding or planting. 

Conifer/juniper removal 

There has been little scientific evidence (one study to our knowledge) that definitively shows positive 

response of Sage-grouse habitat to conifer/juniper removal. Evidence suggests that if removal occurs 

during the early growth stage of plants—that is, in an earlier stage of ecological succession within the 

conifer/juniper stand with little to now cheatgrass component—treatment will be more effective as the 

habitat is less likely to have been ecologically altered. While we are aware that NRCS did a study in 2011, 

no data from this study is currently available. There should be a clear justification regarding the value of 

such a treatment within any given conifer/juniper removal site in terms of beneficial effects to Sagegrouse habitat. Such treatments also should include a plan for active understory treatment to develop 

suitable habitat. 

If conifer/juniper removal is done, all such treatment should be mechanical and without the use of fire 

to preclude loss of sagebrush. Slash removal also should be done without use of fire. 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

19

Grass/forb enhancement 

All grass/forb restoration and/or enhancement should use native plant species. The primary objective of 

all such treatments must be on Sage-grouse habitat; i.e., there must be a demonstrable need on a sitespecific basis concerning benefits to Sage-grouse habitat. While use of such enhancement sites may 

include other wildlife and livestock, all such uses remain as secondary priorities only, and should not 

drive any such restoration/enhancement mitigation projects. 

Details of “enhancement”, and criteria for success, should be developed in coordination with oversight 

team. 

Fire reduction 

Use of fire breaks for fire reduction should only be used in a focused, site-specific manner only. Fire 

reduction through the use of fire breaks should only be used in high fire risk areas, and not universally 

applied across the project area. The value of fire reduction through fuel breaks should be clearly 

demonstrated on any site where this treatment is being considered as mitigation. While fire breaks may 

include use of non-native vegetation, such non-natives are only justified in areas where the risk of fire is 

demonstrably high, and where native vegetation would compromise the value of the fire break. All fire 

breaks should be designed minimize habitat fragmentation, taking into consideration contours and 

characteristics of the natural landscape, and a review of other habitat fragmentation activities on the 

landscape. The density of firebreaks should not result in habitat fragmentation that negatively affects 

Sage-grouse. 

Conservation easements 

Conservation easements with appropriate management can reduce fragmentation in core areas. 

Easements should be used in a strategic way with focus on areas/locations of highest demonstrable 

need leading to a reduction in habitat fragmentation, and should be developed in coordination with the 

oversight team. 

Water Development 

Water developments are not necessarily good for Sage-grouse, and water development in areas where 

naturally-occurring water has not historically existed is not recommended. Any water development 

should have a clear need-based, site-specific justification in terms of benefits to local Sage-grouse, and 

should be accompanied by a plan to protect naturally-occurring wetland and riparian habitats. Certain 

types of developments may be more beneficial and appropriate for areas than others: for example, 

fencing off wetland or wet meadow habitat and replacing with upland water developments to keep 

livestock out of sensitive habitats susceptible to disturbance. Creating ponds and open water, on the 

other hand, could be more detrimental than beneficial if they facilitate mosquito reproduction and the 

spread of West Nile Virus. Thus, all water development projects need to be thought through in terms of 

site-specific needs for local Sage-grouse and clearly show how they benefit those birds, and coordinated 

with oversight team. 

Herbicide Treatments 

Any treatment of Sage-grouse habitat by herbicides must include a detailed, site-specific justification 

with clearly articulated objectives showing benefits to the Sage-grouse. 

Larvicide Treatment 

Use of larvicides could be considered in areas at high risk for West Nile virus. 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

20

Prescribed burning 

Not recommended as mitigation. 

[Prescribed burning must be approached very cautiously and conservatively, and only used on a strictly 

localized basis after analysis clearly shows a real need and benefit to Sage-grouse. For example, there 

may be some high elevation, mountain big sagebrush habitats in need of native grass and/or forb 

understory development. Generally, burning within Sage-grouse habitat is not supported by the Service, 

requiring a detailed site-specific analysis and justification regarding demonstrable benefits to Sagegrouse.]
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

21

Appendix C: Hypothetical Example of Scaling Mitigation

A hypothetical example of project scaling is provided to illustrate the process of balancing habitatservice losses with habitat-service gains from habitat conservation projects within the framework of the 

HEA. The Companies cannot commit to specific projects until the BLM has chosen a preferred 

alternative, design engineering has been completed, and the Project schedule has been finalized. 

In the hypothetical Segment X, a total of 528,294 service-acre-years were lost in the analysis area over 

the lifetime of the project. This is the mean loss among the actual project segments based on the HEA. 

Within 18 km of the transmission line, there are opportunities for all of the conservation measures 

described in Table 6 of the HEA. As described in Section 3.1.1 of this plan, projects selected will focus on 

the conservation of habitat, specifically on projects that enhance or maintain quality of habitat and 

reduce fragmentation. Habitat conservation easements (at 100% baseline habitat service level credit) 

will make up the majority of the mitigation package, followed by sagebrush restoration and 

enhancement, including juniper removal. To a lesser degree, the remaining portion of the package will 

be split among fence marking and removal, and understory seeding for planning purposes.

The Companies and Oversight Committee worked together to allocate conservation projects in a way 

that is most beneficial to the sage-grouse habitat quality in Segment X (see Table D.1). In practice, the 

percentages allocated to each conservation measure would differ among segments to account for 

differences in project availability and to allow the Oversight Committee to select the most beneficial 

project types for a specific segment. Project sizes are calculated by dividing the habitat services to be 

replaced by a measure (Table D.1) by the habitat services created by that measure over the lifetime of 

the project. The HEA assumed that funding for mitigation projects would be provided in the first year of 

construction with projects completed 1-5 years after funding is received. If mitigation funding were 

provided later, the total mitigation package would increase.

The costs to implement each of the conservation measures can be most accurately calculated by 

multiplying the number of habitat services to be replaced by this measure by the cost per services 

gained. The cost to mitigate Segment X for direct and indirect impacts that were modeled in the HEA 

would be $653,763 (Table D.2). If suitable projects cannot be found to satisfy the project sizes specified 

in Table D.1, the remaining funds may be allocated to a different conservation measure.

 
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

22

Table D.1. Habitat conservation projects selected to offset impacts modeled in the HEA for Hypothetical 

Segment X.

Conservation 

Measure General Method

Percent of Total 

Mitigation for 

Segment X

Habitat Services to 

Be Replaced by this 

Measure (serviceacre-years)

Project Sizes 

Needed to Offset 

Loss

Fence removal and 

marking with flight 

diverters

Fence marking within 2 km of leks 5% 26,415 1 mile

Sagebrush 

restoration and 

improvement 

projects

Planting seedlings and seeding 

bunchgrass understory

20% 105,659 55 acres

Juniper/conifer 

removal

Cut-pile-cover or mastication of Phase II2

juniper

20% 105,659 71 acres

Bunchgrass 

seeding projects

Seeding disturbed habitat to create

grassland

5% 26,415 94 acres

Conservation 

easements

Land purchase 100 % service credit 50% 264,147 354 acres
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

23

Table D.2. Budget to implement projects selected for mitigation in Hypothetical Segment X.

Conservation 

Measure General Method

Project 

Sizes 

Needed to 

Offset 

Loss

Estimated Cost to Implement 

Measure* (from Project HEA Report 

[SWCA 2012])

Estimated 

Project Costs

Fence removal 

and marking with 

flight diverters

Fence marking within 2 km of leks 1 mile $1,400/mile for initial installation 

(materials, labor, and estimated 

indirect costs) plus $300/mile every 

year for maintenance (materials and 

labor)

$17,170

Sagebrush 

restoration and 

improvement 

projects

Planting seedlings and seeding 

bunchgrass understory

55 acres $4,200/acre to grow and plant 

seedlings at one per 5 m2 (materials 

and labor + 50% indirect costs)

$229,279

Juniper/conifer 

removal

Cut-pile-cover or mastication of 

Phase II2 juniper

71 acres $650/acre (materials, labor, and 

estimated indirect costs)

$46,490

Bunchgrass 

seeding projects

Seeding disturbed habitat to create 

grassland

94 acres $1,200/acre (materials, labor, and 

indirect costs)

$112,527

Conservation 

easements

Land purchase 100 % service credit 354 acres $580/acre average purchase price + 

$2,500/year for maintenance

$248,298

Total $653,763

* Cost of implementation includes a 50% markup for indirect costs, which include contract writing, supervision, clearances, 

monitoring, inspections, and vehicle costs.
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

24
Gateway West Greater Sage-Grouse Detailed Mitigation Plan Outline

25

Appendix D: Idaho Power Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

concerning Greater Sage-Grouse Information Request 
June 25, 2008

Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor

Wyoming Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009

Subject: Greater sage grouse information request

Dear Mr. Kelly:

Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) submits this letter in response to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s status review of the greater sage grouse. Idaho Power’s service territory 

intersects much of the sage grouse habitat in southern Idaho. Electrical power lines have been

identified as potential threats to sage grouse. As such, Idaho Power has evaluated the status of 

sage grouse in relation to our power grid—both transmission and distribution lines. In the

following, I have summarized our findings.

Power lines are commonly hypothesized to result in the following impacts to sage grouse: 1) 

increased predation as a result of enhanced perching and nesting opportunities for raptors and 

corvids; 2) abandonment of leks because of an avoidance response to tall structures; and 3) 

habitat fragmentation. These perceptions, even in the absence of peer-reviewed journal 

publications supporting such effects, have resulted in regulatory and land management agencies 

proposing and adopting a variety of protection measures (e.g., buffers from leks, perch diverters, 

etc.)

In an attempt to evaluate the efficacy of these impacts associated within our service territory we 

used a geographic information system to evaluate our power lines in relation to sage grouse leks 

(the most complete sage grouse data available.) These analyses used current lek data from the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Power data on power pole locations. 

Lek Proximity to Power Lines

Establishing buffers between leks and power lines are a commonly used or suggested as 

measures to protect sage grouse. Theoretically, a buffer would address two hypothesized threats 

to sage grouse: 1) abandonment of leks because of the proximity of a tall structure and 2)

increased predation of sage grouse on leks by raptors using perch substrated afforded by power 

line structures. Idaho Power hypothesized that if power lines would affect sage grouse leks, we

would see fewer active leks proximate to our power lines.

As of 2007, 598 sage grouse lek locations are known to exist in Idaho Power’s service territory: 

238 active, 115 inactive, and 245 of unknown status. All reported leks in Idaho Power’s service 

territory are within 18 km of a power line. There are a number data quality issues with ‘unkown 

leks’ that limits the usefulness of these data (e.g., location accuracy, survey frequency.) 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Page 2 of 4 June 26, 2008

Forty-two active leks occur within 1 km of a power line and 28 inactive leks (Table 1). Of those 

leks within 1 km, and of known status, 60% are active. Between 1 and 5 km of a power line, 

there were 136 active leks and 62 inactive leks. However, the percentage of leks classified as 

inactive (25.5%) was highest in the 0-1 km distance category. Twenty-five active leks within 1 

km of power line structures occur along power lines that have been present for more than 40 

years (Table 2). Of the inactive leks within 1 km, 11 of the 28 leks were active for more than 20 

years after the line was built. Another 8 were active for more than 10 years before being 

designated inactive.

Table 1. Lek status by distance from nearest power pole (percentage in parentheses).

Distance from nearest power pole

Lek Status1 0-1km 1-5km 5-10 km 10-18 km Total

Active 42

(38.9)

136

(39.1)

52

(41.6)

8 

(47.1)

238

Inactive 28 

(25.9)

61 

(17.5)

24 

(19.2)

2

(11.8)

115

Unknown 38 

(35.2)

151 

(43.4)

49 

(39.2)

7 

(41.18)

245

Total 108 348 125 17 598

1 As defined by Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Table 2. Number of leks, and status, within 1 km of power lines in 

relation to years since construction.

Lek status

Years Active Inactive1 Unknown

0-10 4 6 3

10-20 4 8 6

20-30 7 5 6

30-40 2 1 6

>40 25 5 9

Built after last 

active lek 

count2

3 8

Total 42 28 38

1 The number of years a lek was active after construction of a line before becoming inactive.

2 Line built after the last known active status date was established.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Page 3 of 4 June 26, 2008

The average number of males observed at active leks (5-year average) was similar among the 

distance categories (Table 3.) 

Table 3. Average number of males (5-year average, 2003-2007) 

observed at active leks, by distance category.

Lek distance from power

line

Males/active lek

0-1 km 15.2

1-5 km 14.0

5-10 14.2

10-18 km 10.6

>18 km

Observations

While we recognize that these analyses and results have not been peered reviewed, we offer the

following observations for your consideration:

• The presence of power lines are not causing lek abandonment

• Hypotheses concerning causal mechanisms related to power lines, such as tall structures and 

raptor predation, are not validated by these data.

The loss and modification of sagebrush habitat, in terms of quantity and quality, is broadly 

recognized as a leading threat to sage grouse populations, and most likely the cause of historical 

population declines. Power lines are highly correlated with, and built in response to, economic

development and expansion in wildlands, including the expansion of agriculture through 

development of irrigation projects, urban expansion, and the proliferation of ranchettes on the 

rural landscape, all of which convert sagebrush habitat and result in habitat fragmentation.

The factors affecting sage grouse populations are complex and variable. Idaho Power suggests, 

based on empirical evidence in southern Idaho presented here, that power lines alone do not 

impact the persistence of sage grouse lekking areas.

About Idaho Power

Idaho Power is an investor-owned utility with a service territory that covers a 24,000 square mile 

area in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon, with an estimated population of 982,000. IPC holds 

franchises in 71 cities in Idaho and nine cities in Oregon and holds certificates from the 

respective public utility regulatory authorities to serve all or a portion of 25 counties in Idaho and 

three counties in Oregon. As of December 31, 2007, IPC supplied electric energy to 

approximately 482,000 customers.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Page 4 of 4 June 26, 2008

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Greater sage grouse status review. If you 

should have any questions regarding our comments, feel free to contact me at (208) 388-2330 or 

bdumas@idahopower.com.

Respectfully,

Brett Dumas

Environmental Supervisor

cc: Susan Giannettino, Idaho BLM

Walt George, Wyoming BLM

Tom Hemker, IDFG

Rick Loughery, EEI