Loading...
2010 APPENDIX C 4.5 THRU C13 Appendix C.4.5 Previously Conducted Inventories (Maps) Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI i Appendix C4.5 Previously Condaaed frrvenmres(Maps) MSTI Route • Previous Cultural inventory PCIA 2' Areas- Map Key PCIA C PCB A+ vcu_a •• Pm 6 PCIA 5 PLIAT _. PCIA a C pIA 9 Montana PCIA 10 PCIA f1 PGA 12 ` PCIf119 ` I PCIA 14 PCIA 15 • lIdaho PCIA 16 PCIA 17 I PCIA 18 PCIA 19 PCIA 20 PCIA 21 I - PCIA 22 PCIA 20 PGA 2q PCIA 25 PCIA 28 PCIA 29 PCIA 29 PCIA 27 - 'Y7 1 J-1c.. Y.¢IlmenNry/{ae M.yE �. u M L: Raymitl Fl51 R R fi - LPU a �.UUC RA I�a'�GIYi �� 2pY�t1¢a �1 euremet.e x .o U so Previous CUltural Inventory Areas-Map Key • Dmft Envi ,ewi,lmpoc,Sm,,ent C45 page-I lwm Appendix(.:.k5 PC Previnusty Conducted Inventoric,(Mops) -r Y " 6N2W 6N 1W '" �6N y1.yv' .. 6N 21 \\ 6N 3E i� �....� t 5R? - 5N 1 W / SN-tE 5N 2E I SN 3E 1Li / ei x/- � - --• - • 'f�e�' County I l tc R tleAC 9LRO z '1 Jefferson _.__._. - tl 4N 2W 4N'tW - 4N1E 4N 2E 4N 3E Uppw l.uNerxt LRO ) ;- - � 'upper Rpww.xs LROj 1{ � Rallutl n� ,Coon tJ P po eGM (IR uM P M1ve MHO M+I atla SX rsM1lp J ero Am N e rr+ l kzprt It. o,L +,.M1lmyx�bn /�}".y MRTI Ranh elHwPry Oy n sl.+me ° J a pryViuus Cultre11RVeXNrY Areas �HHM1 MYn BUIe'.� Vas¢a1 M5 >o a '� - c °LD l az( I. II ! • CN �i n1n ®'nw if hei, eR'ck LU Jal lovenlm. ivwmllGRlnOO eW:er �G�O�—�n.ov�an 4000nIV L.fie. Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 1. Draft PnvironmentallmPuct Statement CAS Page-1 MS71 Appendix C.4.5 Previou.a(y Conducted Irmznmries(Maps) Count PCIA 2. County ' - 7N 7W 7N 6W - �? 7N 5W 7N 4W 714 3W : 1 t ON SIN - ON SW 'Y% ON 4w ON 3W County • ' I' SN 7W — ON 6W ON SW _ SN 4W SN 3W 1 PbyweJ M14511R b AhamNreil.RO Mayor ROaei Surtaee Owne�ehip P !+-5?Y.. : Mmh NrbnilP <R. .o.l9Ml M1lw�9n�vi NSTI RWN f v�qg CNF` -n V5 [� eY niF PiNn Ia G i,RC Isz .R, .u.e cz � Pravima CUl1va11nwnforY0.reaa *if_ us Lnea�CUXUr:n npry — !Ptl�e�e _ vu n • �tlY �� ��py ef4 evp:I50Ke: al lnvanlory [']iwn[M1 dRdnPf VAlee ��-....:�... Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 2 Dra(l Environrnenta(/mpac[Sta[emrnl - C.4.5 Page-2 M511 • • • 0 0 0 Appendix C.4.S _ .,__-___... prrtvn usly('ondu,tdTnvenrnrins(W") _ PaWb3i _ PCIA 3.1 6N11 W N 9W 6N1nW 8 i 6N$W 6N_]`' county Cry ntq -.. I' 5N11W - SN10W r y ON 9W - 6N 8W 6N]W 4N11W 1Y,0 I� j t 4N90W I 41R 9W - - 4N BW 4H 7W Zo 18 iC YN Sr,YC \\ 4r $ 34Q! vJV/ Prgaue MSn fleNa-��bmallvuiLaO gtyor 0.oW 9uRaw PmeMlp W a1M yw S f�p In ersmle a YL N,ypree� ��' °•• MSTY MOUM C Muliy Opum &me ores Senuv ^• PrWI-5 Cultural larorn*,A S f�fl vt e m,re pme] ..us '^An Pm W.w+t�sar..0 lrtal m.nlow u P � urr Ln iana Fme KlNUro.e Pmk. �� �-iu.�. ppmAww sp a m �,oau,r C-1Uaa�o w..ry uM voim Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement --~ —CA.S Page-3 MISTT Appendix C.4.5 Prev Yauely Conducledlnventories(Maps) IM,+c,2g28.ffi \ `, IP . 41411W ti81,iiOW I ' 28 4NAW -t t �' �. 4N 8W 4H 7W 41YYm x.roln Lea -- n Jefferson'I _.. .+.... County , CrnntY Silver bow ir,xa 2n,zc \ \ County • `" -.-3NHW 3Nt xM/ - a 4 J 1B,2A.282C ZD "j .\ N9W 3N]W Ic `- --- i- a xe.m w eu.een Laa \ a +e z•ax 2c �" \\ ZNlIW 2NWW 2 8W � 2N 8W \ in,2c `� 48,2c. �l 1 I4,2e rMN b II LMa, i MSTI i /I( 4 PrvponO M3i1 P01 -/,M tivelLAa Myo,Pmde &,ISOn OwneN.10 - � � - NI �' ,Y tie LZbhl nkRble 'R9- lul tl ¢qn uM (_]. IIMIY e�rte I. P pc5e0 M5iIA +�4.e 91e Yr♦ylaY3 C.11.11 llYril il,v3nfoey Nq3 .V R¢vwS Lrcn[G�+uvYllrve..ol • PIV .Milnlanb Fafi.NArybleB PHh � �� � �� "" v,tlloa4 CUPU�M Im'eniR'V �`v lwm3MyAan9e �P�Yrele '-�I� ,�„� CuuMrin �M:er '�' �e Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 4 Dro{t P:nvironmeMOl hnpac[Stotemern G4.5 Page-0 MSTI Appendix L'.4.5 Prevlously Conducted invam<Ieins(Mops 1 PCIA 531 IN,fq Tt _ Sevin er aan - � IN,to l '2N 4W .2N3W I County fo- 1 OI 7N]W -iN 6W t 1;SW 1N 4W IN 3W 2Ca TE --------- . 1 - ---- - Madison - - - --- Silver saw / County County ism is 6W 136W 1S4W 1s3W I I p eetlM fI RC�b �lll ILRO Maj rRCatl¢ 4 k 0 M:p M na I Sea label) - Ink�zlMe U9B t'.. 1t vaimnl M8TI 0.eYte w ROUTA nVmn SYan II., wzl5an-ce x�. PreNeuc Cultural lnwnturY Meac. (]MtlIMNe RURCi o1Mx P:op�sN 1A5TI FOUle U6. Sirs Vf ` '1.r hevlo:ss Lircm CUll�rellme lorry • 09y p 7 41 Wnvaue dlaiG Ir:.x �Tn aAilXflao9c V.kler �-�✓n+-m.a nlory wm cowry um Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 5 Ihu([Environmenml Impact Smtemenr C.4.5 Page-S MS41 APpendm C.4.5 Previously Conducted Inventories(Maps) 2W r r i r BOWteI PCIA 6. 4N.iW : wlae.Ll10 x2 4N tE AN 2E Broadwater i n County/- . �' II .a .,WWr BOUIYer IH LRC .. 3N 2W / 341 7N 1E - 3j2E - 3N 3E 1, d•f to r a on tc County r ss -----------_ ___uM.1Benle.rX1 a 2 LRO' _ / : r LewM Bexbw LRC 2N'2W I / ..ry-2N-1 W-- �°�`=�N 1E'"-"•. 2N 2E 2N 3E CGallatin —r --�� aunt a �; l� i i / _ `a - - - - IN 2W IN iW tNiE - -_ -_ .- IN 2E prupowd MST Reun-nn nrtIVOLRO ,se—ft Sunea GWrreremp J rein a -m ow tree rerr. - .r�or ..a mm�.Rer.rem 'in put Sf reaa JBF ext Ser W MSTllIsser []n u N pmpautl NSTI RODU V Ve. 51- rrwlws Cultural limntory Frees rkti V epos Grea veaM ' all kry rnnm�a HbM.:cllury hre.lorY. [li' F�ryRa+ge Wler ®xiv•��. Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 6 Ora([Environmental Impact SmtenienJ C.4.5 Page-6 MST! • • Appendix C.4.5 _-_____ __, F inusly COnd :r dl venmrics(Mops) 2Ni1W_ ._.. 2N10W � l2NISW I a 2N SW �V,A �• l i iN11W 1NtOW j IN 9WI IN SW iN /W 20 2P,24 1 c( FPoww LRO 1s11w i410WtS,IOW\ - 138W is]W ZA 2a i zo a-aaverhoad County a' . - -� � � � - "_ - Madison I -_ bi Couak2r M iMn Ra N LRO ro t 2571W 2910W 2S W14 -1- .__ ..w _. 2S 7W �fl , / zsa oaaa rnsn aoux-alcmauvm-xo mWo,no.ee soX.oe ownennl> roMgsee�ce me Le HaR-o.om nM seamen L .t oufy Cpl i i sa-s 1,9 FO nr 9a nue ` ' ;, Sri b IJXIIM'.e 6u11er AC Propazc MSL ftwne.VS. Sale . Fw Cullm at b to rnvenw_,PreHa ^q.F N r L�tlumlln'renlory ! Clr Va lana rnn'Mplla8 Pvi4a ��j;;w v / ins VJalee ' Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 7 Oru(r l.nvirzmrnental lmpcza sw enIent---- - �— — - - � C s 8 - 4 Pa e 9 MSTT Appendix C.45 Previously Csnduned lnventories(Map.,) Silver bow - PCIA 8. j7StOW t59W h Count - �� tS eW. 15 TN 1 v \ Ise w P '. s I Muitlm Race LM Ibaar*maid \ q County Madison 2S1 OW '. \2$R9W / _ 2A,26 258W 2S 7W - l ��6W I i 35 SW 1 .2 - �3570W F 3S wI r= 3S SW 73{]W 3S 6W I kCre"LRO I3ssw • b � 1 Propafetl M6T��Ule Atlan at vWLRO MajarRro?e 9u,(eea Ownanlriv —� A1kma4,e •lr➢'Nl aaaeobl l:ee LNpl r ersUU 1,98 ucl LUnJ Maeam,re-. e;RS.rOIg OD .`M-. MSTI ReuM QHaII Mlk 6'.rRC Pm[aetl M311 vuN - prwlm5Cu11urw11nrcntery PrceS w PrerwaGr ulwenmry 6 cM ®NU }Pro'Awa BIOWl LU4ral lrnen;ory E (T eMLi,,e a >!Minre ®nvaw. Previous Cultural Inventory Areas S Draft Envronments!Im sct Smtmn ---_- - - - - —-- _ -- - - - C.4.5 Page-F7 MSTT is • • Appendix C.4.5 Previnu.,Iv Conducted Inventories(Maps) 3511W ! _._ _--_ ... _C3S W 338W �. - _ -I i 1 36 a 7W PCIA 9. Reek Creek LRO j 2 I 11 1 1 q tI I t i � 4s1rn - "low d f 4Ql 91 m b d I a a n r � I 458W � '437W COwn Fy ! 2Ag p I ! isave rh sad la�Jw1nnwc�reeR LRO County II / 2C,2E 43 BW. I 5s11w sslow -{' 1 ss3W ! / s�W -557w 1556W� 7 1 t BSNW 6sloW 636W / 857W L...3. wopoma Ran aome.nmmae.2nao .ao.RO.w s��mce[bner.nlP 61k t' brma odrl ee LRms nJZgnaaemen� v o _ MSTal 10 v+LOCaI ROUTy OFW�.ae Sa l'1 rt.�Jenw nlele ✓.... "'^^'°" Vrevbef C W Wril Inventery Areas '�Ha1l Mlie BJAfroLr rrc]Miu uoure...US Seo- ""' +^WPn veL Lei CUt • � 6 P�nWwn Bbd CUll ve 'van tryr G TwaSP(JRayo Np1oM1 ®n ce: cwoH L'um . Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 9 Dro�i FnWrnmm,nml fmpuct S'tuternent CAS Page-9 MLS'l'I Appendix C4.5 Previously Conducted Inca w,(Maps) �— _ -- T-- , 1]ASC PCIA 10. +. 6S11W - % I i- 65tOW q � � � 99W 659W � �Imc y I : s.ymnc Raa cwcn 1ao I llf i \ J � r Y r aB 1S11w r vsluw r t I Ir 7s 9w 7S 8W is 9W County n u o L t� ad >.Y r r I 9811W '' slow - ( �; 93 9W s3 sW 95 7W I r I 0.apbed MSil Raule-ANernaliv.ILRO M14j o.ReaDa 5u[Iaw OwnenM1ip /{� A -Ad I6ee Lail --lLLnlxle ueB eolmn4 M<negannn: v4% w MSTI IIeuN L I tmg Op' IaR V9F a_vrvme WrvlmaCultmN rpVwtpY Area �FAnrn eeuM1tr l.M1e Pm[awJ MaiIROUk.US. Sla@ ^'t..e eurcercanua i on�WV . cM wwa,a a pr - a ., v 4 ea.�.Rww awai,.DmDy t•_,a�nD�+.•y. ®"�� Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 10 Dra ft Fnvrrnnmenml Impact Statement - - � - C 4 Page-16 M$11 • • • Appendix C4.5 Pre uefv Conducted Inventories(p.¢) 1PCIA 9 ss„W �l r � s low - 3e as 9W essw as]w f ! .3A ]#9p ! I 3C .' 3e.3c n r 9s„W/ (w/ 11// .�If f • Ir 959W 959W as]W ' County _.. r r J 1 1 cu:x Can ea EaaL irta' '.. '3ai — ,0 11W - ,o E,:owJ ,os 9w ,os 9W -- ,os]w ptopossE MSiI ROaM-F.—,..LRO M4.,R..d. $V .,bxpe.¢Mp -vov olor l6ea LaMd' en a VS BU n.0 of-OM ake ronl R Xq Jr 61 lea Rewaa MSTI Raub Sr I W,A— (]FSIt IIa¢une,eA Je Pmpom]MS RoNer J� ll- st Seart V.�v Ibus CuftmMi lnvOnlOfy PrOBa ^1W.PlP�AOUa LInn•GU lualre iwry • e'� Sl+le -� — �C,2Wn cFmkf Wra Ir.,vn1uY L�^`v.niM�nree „v •Ia+ �. wnh Lme `nbter o � a s Previous Cultural lnven W ry Area511 + Drn(t Environmenml lmpuur.Statement C.45 Page-11 MS'17 Appendix C.4.0 _- _- Previously Canduc(ed lmencories(Mup3) 1011\ \ _- 10s SW- - — 1059W - -- P IA 12 1 11511W - \111s10W ( Ills 9w r Y15 aw \1 � ` \ \ _ 11s]w \\\ l 35,3C r Beaverhead A\� C uety r _. 12311W lzslow 12SZ9W 125 sw 12S Tv _.___..._ aA,36.3r `.�. G Llrfip lN0 13511 _ 13SIOW 1359W 11 r•°1 sew 135]W _ j\ PrCpose uar ROu4-PltOrsVl`eLRO M1Ltm s-d. bUr(dCC ONUenM1lp �- SMr=Xr° sXCwnas3wbf(beaLa➢') Inlerslab US BWa3u o1 on61Aanageml aI HOUWig(rpVan 91v'a' LS Fwes;Sardco ^�- N511 RA =INIMh tlurtee ottAC pVtt eL M£I ROUte lLb. 9mm Prcviouf Cultural ln—ntory Ares +�r.revvua Linear CW4 at lrvenbry • C^Y Pnnrr Q _.r♦.M. Kr'ev:cw ulw.x t,Iv r.'IrrvxnlaiV �imnaMa Rage N'ak, �� � fa.,...:,. un:/Lore c • ♦ f .. Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 12 Dru Ynvirunmenml lm acr SmYemenr -- -- _ - -� 4 Ng 12 MSTT nppendix c.a.s P...iaa3l y Conducted Inventarles(Maps) ' . \ PCIA 13. 1 U LRO 13StOW 13S 9W ,\? \\\736'8W\ i 13S7W 1396W Gq&V*rh mot ®. •v� ti 1 _1 County i 14SIOW 14S 9W_ 1458W��Y �„ 1451W - \ 143 6W \ 6 4 Bat.Lilo OKI \ Ada 15510W -1559W 1SS SW /'., 15S 7W •emu, - 1414136E� 14N36E %apaevtl M3Tl0.vule-PllemallvdlRO Mafor RaMr Svrtdce OwveraMp PI Ww (.'+velnlr srs a ud n[Mana,{ene r L IRtvGnp O4tl. SnreM 'I 44 nae MbT6oum e « [JHeIIM Ie BWlorol R. ' pa .. t SOS. low VreN Inventory C Itural Press ^uPe C -1 sllivarC! t, M . ep- pmab a os @ piYNUV5941vM ,m—"..mexy Gounl)'llre Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 13 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.5 Pagc-13 ms T7 Appendix C.4.5 Previously Conducted Inventories(Maps) srwrcn. ,d //►► 1SS 8W 14N35E� t4N38E P{jtA 14• . r 1551x111 COYOty 1336W �f Ai t1 Awl i65 „f?65 TW k 11636W' ' _ � I 13N17E Idaho 13N33E 13N35E --13N3 E §�+ 13N37E 13N34E F 12N33E 12N34E. — - _— p1 .' �. ! 12N3SE 12N3SE 12 rr , N3T6'� !� L t1N33E . ? 4E t1N] � � - -- - --_ + �_---- 11 H35E. 'I 11N36E a4 / -- se I Pmp d MSTI Route-Alttmabv LRO IAOrxeeee were nnneraM1lp �5 nos.NEneryv Fnearo A ilen 1 'fA L I Ne p en ry p k u.vlRwt�9 Wf L.-'R i'I �wnf. MSTI []ivl'Mia duNero me xyn�M:➢RO,ea La BUreap of Raoerm oc IaM..ervce au Yari M1R rem Previouf CWN.al ln in-t wMOry Artvs f 5 of °i.P.erom uneae u.e:.man•ory !nN fs enrry.nt=np,nmr awns w'l e:fa rsef9 i.EOmat SeMre a `D 4 P nvkw Rlotl.ce_.mvenlcrf T l _LOUnIy Ww Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 14 ° -. __- __. IJro([8nvironmental lmpac[S[atenlen[ C.4.5 Page-14 M11S77 • • • 0 0 0 Appendix C4.5 -------- __ Previously Condunnd rnvrnlnrles(Maps) / c1 PCIA 15. 11N32E 111,137E 11N34E 11N36E 1IN36E F �' 11N3TE f I I .. / 5A �1UN32E 4ON33E LON35E - _-----� I - 10N36E - tON3�E I --- 1 I i co:.„sy i0911132 4 _ i it 09lF 3E 09N34E - - 09N35E 09N39E 09N37E _ I i Pao�fed M611 ROUtt PIlemativelLRO Mejw NOSle ewMP J90epl.of E.reryv Pnrale fJ� .I VOVrwow O . la e. nsn HMesn 'm "p­'",,1 111.1 5L,.te YAesef ^...P e e e lv • - �Lbl�`I'-ng m rs rvelwne :b[el.ye a weal.<mee �Ti4 pPevbus SbdCNl .lnlen<11 1wnsElp'flonga _eowb une ' Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 15 Draft Environmental Impact S[otemevl C.4.5 Page-1 MSTT Appendix C.2S _. Previously Oonducted Inventories(Maps) -- 09N29E 08N30E -- J � 09N31E — - 09N32E 09N33 37E ! OSN29E - _ -- 0SN30E _ -_ 09N31E — -- - 09N32E— —: 0SN339 08N34E - SA Jyii� ou 71 11 I 07N29EA - -- - 07N30E ffff 07N31E L 07N32E r f '- -07N37E O7N34E � 06N29E pRN30E- OGN31E I 061432E 09N33E U6N34E Pepwe0r s"a . 1 sap U3l,t 1 yl P'.e f 'In-JUA. aa[dYr;9ee Le01) Vb perm rvxYmap IE R t 91 k T Lowl ivutiny WPM 'J511nr auNLw tl venegemr N r a(xrm et6Tl Route 'Ym a n. - -sn wm Prariam Culture,Inventor Areas =1 Hd(a111P 3YRercba"rtpOSen A1:i lROU.P� ^. fumaenlret rmv�inn Naluw I..1e . Slav YVMStl Hecrealron a r �.. i. , Y *1.p 'i a< ry i enP�a rrpmno xlrona.N ati_neb9 feenverva u@ Le.rvvu 3lrcAC �.rx Inver er �T wnsalprRYrye ®x o sa Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 16 Uru h'nvvnnmanml lm t Smiemem� P°' � C.4.5 Page-16 M.57Y Appendix(.4.5 Previously Conducted Invenmries(Maps) PCIA 17. 09N34E 09N35E I tl_ 09N36E 09N37E I I 0SN34E 08N35E - OBN36E , 1, 08N37E DBN38E 11 \ I 07N34E 07N35E - -- - 07N361f - 07N37E 07N38E I OBN34E - 06N35E 06N36E' 06N37E DBN38E mp OMSIIRome AftmaT LRO FYI ROW, . . Mp nP E M, le n $1 1 �/ya} - _M1 wY C Lace) - atv'e N(a/I p Nf ry p U W' n9lll,l 5. 1. B iL rcIM 4^^3^l RF IG at J' xFnM1 SGe.�re r�4 Mt-.1 to Q He'MYBfier I'Ne Rg—,Mtrl R^.e�U.S 11 RUrea��'ftec anwli Nx aIR,k S.,— sWIa Pa IRa_,ealun P[M Cull lluwnb[y 4[.ae 'eb( ,a and I i l �Y • CY U3 Cbm+'sl_n �—=1 s d'r�an' Val u'a11MNI1b Faluye U9 FV,nY9n,Nm ®env m Bl^tXC l .al lm2'.oy L.nN L,x Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 17 Draft Environmental Impact Statement_- � _- - -- -- -- ------ - -_ !' 6 .4.5 Pa e-17 MSIi Appendix C.4.5 Previow[y Conduced Inventories(Maps) � i 1 PCIA 18. :- I „ 06N29E OBN30E I_ O6NJ1E OBN32E 1 _ OSN33E— O0 O' N34E I ' ' I S4. I 1 J 11 i i'JJ L 1 OSN29E - OSNJOE OSN31E OSN72E OSN]]E — OSNJIE i I 04N29E 1 04N30E 04N31E 041432E 041,133E 04N34E �pmp e. e-lvelLflO kor ROWS 6urtu p VSI.Mry rnle A*,-- reVn — or N t Ilampene 1 vry T,1111 R.. Inn fury«.ne LI txr,MryryI aTa U6 US P neu SfL rMM SemnnL NNbnnl bmsgnh -1.I..fl Gnrm ° "a•a.•.„. MSTIROUb (�II.4(MJe i—r oi111n.mlq.a0F5il Rn.Re U.& US l RnJane,an No—m PoA 6nva Slab PUAa6R0Cmmllnr Ofevt 0u4 Cultural lnrenlefy Geeai +*Sy 11 Cu-1he.n o . CIS. US Cr,COrys IXEyllxars NalonN YNIEY6 Rnlu pay VS FOreat Belria N �nvu's"31o[k Orlu rllm<Yy .�'�TwnSMypnn96. .� caunp Lire _ . . Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - - — - - - - - - - MSTT Appendix C.4.5 Prevtoady Conducted inventories(Mops) PCIA 19. 06N34E O6N35E 7-_06N36E O6N37E 7 06N38E � .r - 6a.6C,6D' j s OSN34E 05N35E r 05N3 OSM37E OSN38E I � I - 5L . r •r 60,6D F 04N34E /J 04N33E - 04N36E `\ 041,137E r 041 3 BE Frvpo[eEMSTIRouM Pft Maff vlLRO Maim Naatla Su...'er[M, "II.,.of Enegv !'/were Sn I. 1) a e N II- V [anl ry P :nt 1 �l i..�am 9 Sak US B7 'oIL CM 7—t "IN al I J 1 Bf MST/ROUIa (�Ma'I'll TO"n.Irrc�'cposeJ"IT Ia' —Ua USBU'na cul R xtbnulu Na'onal vark 5vrrm Sao PVrke6Re[remion ° Revr CIt ul lnwrrtery bees "y Pea'nm- Cullu allnnna.Y • coy Us COryzctEnyrmnra na.oie14PJlle lteluyelVSFUVatSe'�im �'. .mu.l ockC I.ellma Icty �TOwa[kp/Ra mS v ± n `CVUM�LIre Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.5 Page-19 M.STI Appendi+C.4s Previously Conducted lnvrntories(Maps) PCIA 20. I 041,129E 04N30E 04N71E 04N32E 04N33E 04N34E � Jmiisr: vn - 07N29E E r 03N31E 03N72E OJN33E 03N34E i ' I J r.. .. r. so f rr iJJfl "J 02N29E — 02N30E 02N]RE 03N33E _. 02N31E 02N34E 01N3OE-.. ..-___. ._._._O1N31E \t — - - --01 NJ7E -:- __._ /._ptN74E Vn+Pwetl M9ll RUlite-FIIBITBYVaILRO MvIw RwT 9urlx[[6ynw[Mp V'SN,Il—, Nlveb W v. m(or(U.L ,v,I.w Nor Y y [nl nrvpy map xn Hesenam gale ;�ip� oval nalyn%Im 9G% '.tR5u xsuatL MMer:e4n'nl Irmbral Greas anm aefM6 N— "`yr n MST.FOUb �.Iary MGM O.lbr of rlre PrxWBen A1511 gaeln.U.6. V53v;aeu ul Re[larrcuon 4vrnnulPM 6erv:w Ie VeMel nxxew P.1.Ya CYIWrM I..""AM.a "MUtSe:oe[Lmfer CalN�l lnamn(ory ♦ CJy USGOIyso:Eiplreers Us Ic-16-1 {r reeve Rl¢kr'xih mllnv¢nlary cwu '. Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - -- _- - �- -C.4.5 Page-20 M517 • • • 0 0 0 Appendix(.4.5 Previously Conducted Inventories(Map.,) PCIA 21. 04N34E 04N35E 041 E 04N37E 04N36E J i i : I (A 3N34E I n OJN36E 03N36� 03N37E ' 03N38E Y I 02N34E 02N35E 021t!36E IL : ��.,�. 02N37E ! 02N36E N N Es G q EMSTIP 1 an MI R ft ID 1. IE AY R'a1 p eetu_ 1 a t p a rmy P Itl d4 �; ROUtO ^ 9^Pm 4 b el tl 1 V "'� MSTI19- L-]Hal(M eBU ero lbt opoaetl A151 (Vae.� VB9vrtou c"Pe.tlne cn "Vntl ne lnM e1nMxF in.nelon � •rhn Cult al lnw oey Lreaa mar CU6m�ImenTry • M ulpS Ol En�rcors pe o • � • - ^VerP�n:ow. �: -Li6C Vetlorre VN tl'. ieu rezf Servru r:uc .. f°Frvuw Bbil.G a ovenery Lvi sb�Ranoe � � � � n s .. .� _ comb urw. Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 21 Draft Environmental Impact Statemeni C.4.S Page-21 MS'il Appendix C.4.5 Previously Conduced Inveneve,(Mops) 7r __ __. __ —_--• ___— _ -___ _ --__. - _. .__ 02N29E - 02N30E 02N31E 02N32E 021433E i PCIA 22. i oN29E sa.So ' 1 OIN30 // • ¢ '1 011,131E DIN32E r OIN33E — 1 � � 1 I > I 111 !f I ! 4'pa W 5A.5a 1 101 30E ' 01531E 01332E .'j 01S33E U1, 93n qua,,, . g ,r, i y I { 02330E 02531E 02332E 02333E 02334E Plopoxtl RaUlo-llMma4ve/Lfl0 Malol ROaEf BunMp OUneryHp IIS OeyI WE,nryv P•veM r1 a I.M t yea 0,w.aamo-,9pa La 1, �xnar x rr e mN tlG 3 Fs <&Grae rce � o ..,.. MST B,mw03U ,UM1e y .511 Z A1, u69ure NVMJ a 1a11,AH1p1n . Il. ef CUtv.f mpl .....n . e wt,." rc ..e 11rd.l Pw 3111k l F lv^ .aa nl �TOwI2MpIRaPyc ®nuwmaic Caur'.ly tme .' Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 22 Drag Enviromm,nral lmpoct.Smtrnrenr - - _-- C.4.S Page-22 M571 • • • Appendix C.4.5 Previously Con6aed Inventories(Maps) 02N33E ---r... _ { 02N34E 02N35E._ 02N36EI1 _._ PVtFI 23. ,. ' -" __._ _ __ __ _ _. _- 1 n OiN33 ] 1N 1 O1N36E �. ..:.Ot N37E OINJJE ��yy999� .j`v. ,b 01N35E M 01533E 01535E 01536E 01537E 02533E 02534E 02535E ., , 02S SE 02537E i VroposM Po PI ILPO Malw e..a. SYn 6.v lhlo U U IF 5. 11 1 la 5o La�ll rs N 1 II p wnf rwy p. - . la'e mur� L 1 9 UP S.le :H uu.L JIP ,wn: NA IC s snewm, MSTI ReuN ww, [7ne na le nurre,u.Jre?rcpo.ca M'.T 11L U Ls bC, o.'Ra a uuo NW. ,a-1 WWIk ROC Sal ear R.1 eslon - Yra C Il IlnveMery Areea ^Yrre�bua m ll a ♦ Gry Is Cwpz of E,gneers NOaial WIIJ9b floNpv': J9 FOR615ervke � oass ocA , unllnn.oy t�iwrnrM1r>IRaRyc �—���sa - Coy^Iy Line Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 23 —_ Draft Environmental Impact StotentenL C.4.5 Vage23 MSTT Appandi,,C.4,5 Previously(:onduded Inventories(Maps) PCIA 24.11 f ry- 02527E 02328E 02529E �¢"''... 02 OE - 02531E 02S32E ( I - - - - - - - ---- ,11 se,so 03527E 03528E 03529E 03S31 E 0353YE 1 � I _ 5Q 50 I I 04S27E ! 04528E - / - _ 04529E 04330E 04431E - I � 04532E _. GA L PropaIG MBTI ROY4 ARemaOVe/LXO Malor ROnJf 9urtxe dMereMp US CeyI .1e.." Prvak� A Ilve si—CC COO Seel I e Ab ..I C-Ia 're I�HERMIB ^ e � : tars CIa11 Frsa1.— Nunn R0YN BUR,Y.0� 'O Cl'NO"t Prev....CYRYdl ln foy A-- e4 rev o�n Jne N men,nry • u[Cr.ROn,F�9mvus ry IM EM1k gea9 1'mn:-nm n '• r. •• aP pbVluW aIW,I CUl rellmerrory -_^,]ipwnAlp/fle�e ®xrwry Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 24 - Draft vironmental Impact Statement - (< Y C.45 PakeQ4 M577 • • • Appendix C.4.5 Previously Conducted lnvcna,nes(Maps) F `� = P CIA 25. F- } �' -01535E 1 ` os3T� I I 02532-E-11'. so! /�- . 02533E 02574E •.,, 02535E , yp / 025 163 6E E I l SC E, g t:t tt 03534 p3633E ' 03534E, 03535E 07536E t 1 sc,so ///// 1 A - ! 04532E • / p4533E --- 04534E _ _ --Jl 06535E 04636E Prx�+«.ausn crook-atem.wmtao rv-m P a( Im' I '6e Laver) brelefe N tall P s[n( ry P .1p i N S la .g,�P( 5 a 't B. ueiW GM g—rr 'Nt LG r.: 6 F6a MSTI.eer. Q la'uk11—'No 91,1.MITI ID-nr U s... rata vnq Po,k 6orvco Sab Porlu6Rewemhc v� PeeV 3 Wiese lnvenbry Am, rvo n r,o ..... u rvur(LlN ellmon9ry •'Cd US Cmpe✓Enyinwv 'Na o&VAINT RxIWe V6FOreeL6erNre r�-�-1 um n .Am'mvucd +l�w�uny bw,ehlr'!Fay¢ Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 25 M.517 Drab Environmental Lmpact.S. ........I C.4.5 Page-25 SII Appendix C.4.5 Previously Conducted Inventories(Maps) 04327E _ -_. 04328E 0 j - - - 04530E .. _._. 4' 45296- _ 05527E / 05528E 05328E 05530E I 05531E )06S31 OSS27E 06328E 06330E I 07526E 07527E 07528E 07529E 07530E 07S31 �_ a Po..e xlsn eam.-anemwvbtgo mal rae.m aurcxe oxmersmo as o.rn dr�Mgy Pnvam alw s....m aoobrtaoe iomal —* •wlau.m waaan m e H. s . !G IR tltlpU gaala w b '-0SB reaudL tlAl neje wl 'NUX. C 4 E b �sl:XGmrc' " e� M Ia �RaNM�e deMl of PO P.owm01A5T ROiM:�V9. '.VSBw eau alRwa a4o NWOVO POPt2cry ov 9NN PaM-d ROf�oolba PrM10N6r.Wwral WIi1111VC111ofy Neaa awl Iliu � CiV' UG<ogsd Eyiu�e NaGOVaI NFpPk Re'uq Ua F ie:l$ervi.e ' urY �fnvw_tllotk LUllu al livenlury L�iowisag•'Harge ®e.F,M-m Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 26 Dr a(tEmironmental lmpac[Slaremen[ C.4S Pa kry 26 MSTT • Previously Conducted InvemmHue(Maps) �7 S2 E \� r 07S27E j \ 07528E 0 7529E 07530E 08528E j __.._. 111 111oesnE � oes �.JI': wJ,.,: 9E 08530E un 0852 ---_�.. _ I' r..- 08528E 09528E - 09527E - – - y _ 09528E 49529E "�' �>•' 08530E's Prvpmvd M9il ROUInP NmvYXNLRO Major POeEa S rM1ee nenenlrlp I'm:�r rng:gy N. ( slrcma asowbrf�o cMtl —Inmgdm Ntll posanf vwy map : 4Rw^• lua eouYrG 6^ry MSTl lbutr ppY Slpk y50argau MEann Nanapm+r -Na oml Grgssmgs M 61"i,Pa Bfurre ws+ ll QN 1.1k4ulk+ ,111 P 1tlh6Tl ROUIi ' �L . �B.gauolR Ial r+x NOIOMI POM M1 fl9 erfeven �.°. PIHIOY CI( IInVRn<OYY Are °�.• +'^ - :Itr arl vevlery --Tiry tI9 GO'p�urE g eua rva orq 4Yir Ia r.." L 5 F,,,,i Servex g 1 �I wug UMnkf.+l a.'al lnw'+iY y;TOwmhpRVan9e !M 1♦ _?� lw�nv.n TOUnM1 We r. a .. ..,. ... Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 27 Dra(I Fm+frnnmenmllmpocLSwtenrenl C.4.5 Page-27 MSTT - Appendix C.4.5 Previously Canducl d[memories(Mops) -- - - - 05 �_ -- T - --521 E j _ ----- - - 05532E_ --_ 05523E 05524E 05�PCI 8 1 106 2'1 —� ' 6 23F ----- 06525E-06523E_ _ – \ 08524E 08528E' r I r. I 01522E 01523E 07524E 01625E 'U7528E l' 08522E r ! 08524E 1 -.. ".:. 08523E ,. 08525E 08426E PrapMen MSn Re.rW-PI[xnuMMLAO MPjateevtla EUrKef PVnw¢IrIP tIS fXNM[mgy "Prry aF Nhmallw-sYpri cWrr l3xx.4pa1 J.elelek N Ilan pnd rvymy+. Intlmi Refe unlnn 9 yy����11 ^—.w v. •.LxeI RGVI/g OpfwP �.Slem A36urew IILn'a.lAx wg mnl JNa bnal GaSaRiMS Sak F}aA form eSr/ wvnvv:. -. ["'b]YnNaPn N Maude s oLr.reRn a i4lYmluo'rPa r almpin'nebc ry AS tlRoxar♦ LLLilSy. IIG LOr(ry el ErplryBrs Na lurul MST N rcoUIIwal lnan lep Araas "Ink RfB F—s,.re Q PRNMa PJrrk CFarallnr'en lGrY I..uTP•^'^YOipFzlge t�a..,a.r, 'i•• '. Previous Cultural Inventory Areas 26 _. Drop Environmenml lmpuc[Stute Went - - - - C.45 Page-2B M577 is • • Appertdtx C.5..5 Pll"w"lly Conducted Inventories(Maps) 05517E -- 05518E _ 05319E 05520E i - PCIA 290:1 9 i' 3'..±r. ( U65t9E st. 06520E U"fi321E - FY k - - I 07517E O;St1 E I - 3 07521E iI. 07522E v 08517E -. 08518E L.. 08519E ' 08520E 08 Ii{ 521E -- 08522EI P Ior NVetle SYrlav'c0 A1k NO Ma >nIP fl r g • Altertab- a ncuu See LeLel Ile':lele 'N ll p aan ery aP.. laal Ht,1.11b. SYala JSB f—.tLn,NenapemeL, nnalGrtss6 Je fioo 1rsM1 86unm 'Qil ^•^•• MSTI Baute: �Ha Ine PmpoaM m,ntU iV 6. JS B—L tfR lenwan Na:onolnoM SCrvm Sob POrks d Re11a1.1 Pr—ious Cultural tn—r—.,�reaa T1r Fre,oua Lnea•CWluelln—Wvv • Clly ,_foP3 of Erylneem NS.ioNI VNI01b RBhge.. V6 FOre46ervR n oe r. e� •o :; iG r...I,VIn[k(n —,lr nnbry ('�'o en pHerge ��*• Cah'-in Previous cultural Inventory Areas 29 Drab nnvvonm.nml ImPom Statelnenl C.4.5 Page 29 M.571 Confidential The information herein is confidential and subject to applicable Federal and/or State laws. Unauthorized distribution is'prohibited. Appendix C.4.6 Aerial Reconnaissance Site Forms • Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.4.7 Site Densim Maps MSTI Routsi� • Site Density Analysis ! - son 2-v1 --- Map Key song ° s t Spas T jjyy I b�l S I Montana i �T -r 2 i a* soY is SSA 44 { IdahP _. ��¢Al9B 500.19 h f SD0.20 �.� S0 21 1 r T__ 1 > n... y SOA 23 ... ( 1s0A 35 SUA 20 �.;.,soA 3' '.Se NY Site OeneAY NgrS (/jj��j gttYelrvtK RopxnU USTR AXemnrvehRa n W 04 U�04t MdT MUM1 �.�IxN ROUtig Dattrn 1p K:�1 b V�uNe W ry4�-I.YO Kev 4 :Cwnh Ln ®Wua Site Density Ana"is-Map Key Draft Environmental fmpaa Statement C.4J Page-1 MSTI Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps ISDA 1 .1 'I ^aN�2W ON is—s ti .0 i{ N 2E 8H 9�•, j rj i ....... J ie I � J t * � it 1 '_ -�. ♦ ,��k � Yr11 W S 5 -1 j � 'S!1'2E�ci. PjF is 10 W t p t 1 � a )• 14 'i o f r l 4 t i s ^�, .• 1 6 coma LRp !T y • ." 1 ' JOLlq C;On aIr k _ {►OOdW at* f y�y �m sr qq COgq, ,i 77 I 4'1iR Ls�. COggIY y 1 r r > J r _ 4H 2E, .e wt � Uppm apultlw pl LRq �� ..,�,� wom ee ie as LPp •g1CY r I* In] Ognty �. %apaxYMallRwk-Al4metivNlAO Maior POadr lurgw C'xwraMp �, sa°do.(See LaeB Sj an Vaw USF 1 eL—Manawnent �nLCal ROUtira Oplon _SYak ':115F sl9ervice. "�`sr`.,,w:• MSTlawae Cullw>18�k Dmairy .LLs. I sale ""• •. limMl N S fe M ry MNylh Loa PicAeM'M ♦C'.ry vmiaro ®nx. Metliun MWabiliry nM1Ra^8°':.. Weler. .... .. ., ry. MHNa Npbahft .county Lm cultural Site Density Analysis 1 Draft Environmental Impact Stuwment C.4.7 Page-1 MSTI s� Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Mops rew0fl ,i C J >� 3 ; tK SDA 2. Y iry a.i ,y�` a aw,� i r^ 7K 3W 4 F +fir V S k 4 i: n 5x ,,-•`� f +,< _ .,e +M-,�d.- „�`'t t 2 r .+� ,,�r� f✓ Y�.!�.��d p 1� r.i£ w��� T f * +5 ts' Mrtl LM 'T'{pC�l ✓ ��l5� Rl xKp fA f � X^?+ }3 M4 1nH $.S' LY Y � aYt ���a'B 4yy .. � ✓�„a'x'�6 F y `SN TTy y; �} � zP" r T n ..*•a §�T gapoue MSiI ROUk=>MmarWeftRD Nsfet POMP $Ullue OwnerfplP. -_ ;n. .r mwwe eemlo.(see tee. Nnkre isn �ortene rumege�m _ WWIflDaft I. YRwti DRlon SIN 5f rasl Grv!fa Carnkryt ENeO m LWdrel SI@ aenePy L 5 5 Ye W a"' f1r tIRaIYSIY „c mw ProCVCIIM •CIMParem ®wrm MealNrlPmpaplif/ `4IDwWMpR(alpp Yykr (�H4p PiataE!U1` !COUmyL� 0 I 3 d 1 a Cultural Site Density Analysis 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-2 MS77 Appendix C4.7 Site Density Maps FiF f. � y ( County dk' IF w ^� awl 1W RN10W +, BN i r ## N W 6 7W, r. .Y 3. 4 i 1 -- _� FF 6X M' oar Laay• Ceune:y' X4, ,- e Aer E�11W ya ,I '—�N10W e - rry 1A 3D c 4` " 4 ,a , 4N14 4 aow t q r 4WIt1Wg, 20! "' - d ssyR . fe tG �3t L rr"I j �Y• e��MP � 31y ��, 7:' r x IV PnyoaaG NST floub AlbrmWNL0.0 Mater Raafa 9uNU Mmnbip A.. Nrvun ase[oYar^ee LaMhl�[bnbb L`3 LW Lw bMamgener.� R 9 Xtary �ffinb 9 ,Sar+aa MSiI lbbb Cunueal&te wnbry �Ilc. CuN a181f Oen.1,6 alysls aAi'1➢w ProbobllPy 04 :Mwow FSh,WWI.,&POMS ®u[a Wdw,P,,�Wcl C=T wa3NprRar9e 'PMa. ®warm q llgl'.PNbYLtiIIY warty Llm 'i Vwbr a Cultural Site Density Analysis a Draft£nvironmental Impact Statement �.Y .4 6- C .7 Pa e 3 MSII ee« appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps to SDA 4 4 tN's y4 as sc tw IN]r {^ � ` Y xot A4N 8Wx 2£ ry v 4N Jw S , 4Ni a x2w` VVAO d FA to �} t f - Ctl�Y I#lY• t R vF 8 w,„ r A "` �, fj� F af¢.� NYR " x t r' 67 " � a„r� y � � «� �X '� `�' .� �{ ;bl ^ � ta.a anumm�uro `fi`z �••: 0 W1+� ,�yyy}} '��'F d' i� na v�•. �, _ t f r, 'ate 'te s 7o naao.aa asn awn.AU.,.,an.anao mlorrzeaaa aimceowner.nv .:.: •�.. Nk- VS-9h a a[eb r3ee taLa)�narvlere U If stets Man0�Ih0t. .v'elNrvAtg Optl ns —gNe I F WTI ROYI. cmnrei se oaaaay. —7 s. sr k ,,nen... "� anarnr aun aprry MsNers s yaw moemipy •cM avmra,a mr.vnwaoeaan5 ®.ar rnamwr,PiomL�ay {sowmniwa+wa mt. _ ?NL4'XHh PidmLiaY [',wnN ilre µylw Cultural Site Density Analysis 4 Draft Environmental(nrpact Sfuwment - :. C.4.7 Page-4 MS17 • • • Appends,C.a.7 Site Oensiry Mops SSA S. swm m eutee uea a , + ts,t6 u , .g i h T .I a "f l F. ts,to 2N 4YV > y y 1 TMVy f . Ow Mtty �1CI .:tl I '° Ix.2ER I.T ' IN 4W tN-4aw 6! Q - 4<` £ 'bK�t, 6` t L + � "- � *✓ � 1 E,� z ray � ,+} a '. 'a(`` at I ".:+�• liar r is w t ,� a tk ew 7 %Ir f t"W " SnW x %'>? a,.. is PWWWd W9 ROUY-Aft—lgb,NLfm Msio�nwEa s..te vnennlp 4Iro.. -9MFn asa:oW�[eel�el nRn e d !taM lAanagemM. ' 1—1 ry a R le $ CmwN so.0. Yy Ll,w 1..q op Cg 1 2 atl M Maryaln �vl met Cultural Site Density Analysis 5 ! Oran Environmenta!Impact Statement _-- C.4.7 Page-5 MT"❑ Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps SDA6. r� , w *. rx aw r p---+, ,' „"1 { '♦ i Nvnn emote.as tea � ! ' � ', syO.rtl Mtvl�ia �� � w .� �, ♦ f T Av 3 SN tB a E . Sm SE tq te5` ';t w utrpbr• b ai�34ltl a R � `v= n ”" fs k r. t a # ig� �u41i '2 .r 37,3E f (, �N,jOi ✓At �� ♦ , v r ;t It 7 PmyouU Nail ROUb PAme YenRO Meje.Ry Surbcea —hip ' N Nw-flwxn eaerob,aee Lneebl..�Inb�awe Y a uo!LeM lRenepx�mn: rm. MST,Mata R insopf m �gWe I15F .5¢Mm CYIW HI a,.Op♦♦ N 1n 1 rLannmY0YM4 • clry^ �PnWln �_♦i~ MMlum PmNbjllry RUn¢M1IpRiMae "�NOIb ynn HpM1GrvM1aCdiN _,IXUnb tin Cultural Site tensity Analysis 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-6 MSTT Appenaix CA.7 Site Density Maps 2N11W ��1 2N. ( 2N 8W I e , SDA 7. 1 r t tp OW - �'�' .'N Fso � ,�., � �Ae s ✓fix 31 z� d� y„#i?�= 3 a 1. lRO r { t1.�� "�@✓,�'r`—_ _ r� � }� k .� fir_ �`J �?".. � xki,R+,"�'`°�: °s fV " ales ' ' r 77 a a f wu �a .. „G isswl 5� T ,!V 1 aw a " � 7 •�rtf, , f"d'S1� T '. �ia,as # k �.:����� �� 5,4`^r ; ,�:, - I ,t' tir ✓ hR,,, �.. c ? {�` _ S � � ,� . �p N loan RoaF uro � `nd'c-e• fi w '. :C � Tu Plop dM9n Raule-a11em1tv.11.. RWmRUMa Su9hm Uwrarywp -.-..V h' 9M10-xne9dCdo�See LaMl91 1. lain Mnro]ercvl x _ L aJlrq Op M. —Rare l F .nrnm MIRRPUb c Iw wsx.oe..ny —us9ry snm. C9ameal si.aaa."an.ly.t. ilmv Pm o • ^M 'i Mmlmo FRS,IlAMIMLPetAs FbOF Pmta EeEWN (�'TovosNplRaipe FeNew as �nlpnvn,owl�ry .:icom�y une )Nwmi 1 1 e 9 . Cultural Site Density Analysis 7 Ir, Draft Environmental lmpac[Sfo[emenf CA.7 Page-7 MS17 Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps W4 oon WY�Ky =:-, � s v Qi 0 y M Msn Rartk LRO F \ � � u� , tt i 'Il r y G e, } �..y ks 4` �v "f A eltS,7Mk c, I r xuG W r er� a s aB Sw� i -@SSW 5 lty` rt Tt r PmpaaeC M611 Pauh-ARemalMtllAe Mafer NOaJe. Surtlw a'ananMe ' NMllibu�'-SMVT 4so col�6ce LaCakt_ InMMaM LS BU!ca�ol LOn�Ma J[�rt'M Mart ft. LaceI ROUOrq Optm —$WR US GOreq SeMae Cull ISM1Y eyJS SW p LuHUIN SIb Mntl..a...... s Luw P�bapilAiblk p Ciry Prvak ®y, MCd nROw01Xh QT ,.xRalge u,Mt,, ®xi�owo f#k Ml vAeenlp nrylim .... .... Cultural Site Density Analysis 8 Draft Emironmenml Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-8 MST! • Appendix C.47 sh f Density Maps 3-,.. .',.'r SDA 9.I! F — MepP a«k uRD a` 1 r I` 77_7 imp l f as�sw =sstbW" ,,, 4 Goanty � ' ° ■ 64-y- ly � ,✓' '>_�€ ��t I a�+ 23 I 1x ]E LIJ - Soto g SBow, 4 S p zo Riw tr tr ,ioolow. yy-a W 4 m L l oq'sr+ ^,� ' or,Tw. YRt' y.. mn f x Nepal MSn RwM aMNnativWLRp MMprPwOe SUMOe VwerMlp ....11.. ' ::N na4a sLOw eeaooM(See lnEn- rinla.ls�e USB oaena lAU^ePoaan�. R MST Neuto L NROUtlr50plb^.. Saab USF ISnvrca Guttural SNe penaT/tLUaysia .M CW ISIh Dmriy .US. '9J4 r :Lpu p.awbuM • ch '.Rrvl •. t101 amaamv }�wmnlgR., imaia l�IAatl PpbaMYY [:WnlYbrc 6uo^`bv a •� n Cukural Site Density AaaVysis 9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 page.-9 MS77 Appendix C 4.7 Site Density Maps AT 8S11MM f —r ��: P� 7 f�yl k &S BW � t' IIII 77 r .`*F PL 11 AV IVA ri y vs�w r +° zSjeW" � Tb iw- 41 g eo x? b I x 1 s FEN, Aal'a V -, A Pmpefy MSil Reu4-Mema4rNlR6 4elp ROSY 9unsx Lxneff111p � '. '. -. M waM1Orme acnln lSee LxM'a).�..XNTeIe a uel LnnO Men�emenl I. d R nlnF al,lrne _5b a S F msll::orvin MSTI POYM cuXU.nslh Cenely —US .,alas WtMrtN 91a 0anRHY MIJyNa mw Pmemlilry is cnr M%MUn W[NOWp" NwrsOidRaepa WUr ®xumm. Cultural Site Density Analysis 10 Draft Environmental lmpact.Stu[emenr ` C.4J Page-10 MSTI • • • Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps Y t SDA 1111. ns„w m" a ktE ] ! f '� B 10W ae r8$9W asaw i '8n'7W 3C .tl n_ a511W ! w{ '$s .. sa acP t : t ■ I- lrM _J` A 1 CWkLSnWne w !fir 4 n l� a k- r T,as ..taa 4 a, - �t °t I ✓ztd 7 C"t`' df fF v Tv RopoxO WTI RmW.AematIvOLRa Malnr RnMa 9wrace Own—li" =w l ae Lew) Nuramm _1- . a onsrservke ^r M rau :AnscM ' Cqtann 61t.laumIry C.WilatecWts, 1L5 4aalYSls ma • ry MpCMn onMepply: MTewnsplyRarp PMala ®rcaw.erwe ti,Hyh%m Nky \Cwnly Lieu Cultural Site Density Analysis 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page It MSI7 Appendix C.4.7 Site DensitVW a v •-ec' - 7 3 r d4`9W 4 -a X,+� t� ft ;dw*` SDM 2. if- j �� „yA [ y' M r ' "b'° x� ,�r A 11$ ' A` 'JAI El re.we 13{D' �y t f �3 A � y � t•- +' '! `M "�'�,L�R a ryFN'a e44 �. .^ kIV r �"�+ A. 4 �.. ,d" dry{ � sw P2paeCM6T T�nmirlen Lne ARmMM,lR01.4i0.RMdf Burt US PxnaaM1lp t A.MmatiVe-slwwnesacob�5e¢LSM —traM 'US BUrtau o/LmE Manu]e,rt.nl Lc<IR0.111 —9eM dA9FOnn5.rna M6TIRmb caw assn o.,,:ry .us. isMy. •• ameroi su.wstH.naya. ww xmamay • cnr 'nk,a „ s ., e ..r +. ... .,..- MaiumGmoeary []iar^sMP'Rm6e '.V6Rr „� CeL HI6n VmpeDtlM1Y ['anN Line n � . 5 � u.n. Cultural She Density Analysis 12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - --- C.4.7 Page-12 Wn • • is -- Appendix C4.7 Site Density Maps 4� SDA 13b � j „ a ibo /{ a e t,3s�AW a ...�.'13s Sw �, i 13 �iM 135`O•r °�^ �, �` t k •�t ::,-- a� s� 3 � y �•x,( fl '�rarµ�?'' I �� ( . .�Ff�� raa oe•nc .^ '-F 1 L_._.." 'q'1 tm a 1491bW 1. . , F7 BW '741 eW v' r 1Si y �k", ( SAS Yy f 4 PR '"! S�� s • '�'! IT ax3 #.+CnJ'1ST � � � P7 i W fi' K,,rpp�^-�r, ,�.GG L • j, e r ah.t d eb zla'F u' ) h ' o x3 ,d" F M 7. rl 37e PP e. — 7 y36E 7 44"?W, 1 s mpe..e MSri Rnub�nMmeM.M.go M.Im ROeee �nelFwne L. N Nv�sMx v[oW(See dM1nls).�nmmb r. A50 euo/LenOMOregen'an( .L al R LL^q gMbnA gum 1.r zt Sercm MSTI Roub Cu bnl5b0.mifY SUS. 519k °'�• CW 151! OenWy M�IyYS. s.Lew Pof•eb1F' • raN Ri.v ®urm MNUm gMaOilA' �TwnWryRe•%e TYMR< ® v, w•...... .. „ niwx H%M1 ihc4ehiNy :�ou.ryLre d e [ _. Cultural Site Density Analysis 13 �. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Psge-B MST! z- Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps + iTM yp ■ r ,s�sw } SDA 7 4 i 4 a a a f , ' h ` w ,,.,5 <� . fir a '+"Cf .� V 1 657W —•-i. -"a— .-„'--- �, w. a tai rY: r ai ',a i i a �9 �E� - �h1 �,r= . 3d� ate', :�,u. A di,` t �" s� l z > Ir Sx" "'t^rpr i 'E 0-1 i2N1]E rf4'x to 4 i V'71, �f^P �t ". d' y: ` ,� a +""N It{ '# d ,« vf� t '•yr'k''=4tl, a� x �' ' tl�f m? ,g"`�t �" .✓ n y � < i'�,4 a �, e r k � s� - � M 3 �° >3'r:; 7 a Mr- Wi � 'S .� � .3u y- � Sal D Old PmpweJ N6n ROUtt-GM1NryatlVMRO WlovRwEa 6wNnam Mp ,: ll9 JapI.W—, 'Pfrvale .- M1 -Mamnnve-n' nawLl�IMenkN N oX are yeMnt ry p rv+rcn )Sek vjryL'.yr4 MSTI ROUb CO.S.Do " �61W 1II56urtau otl,aMfAaiapirtnt mvMtiv („ Iv FVnA Cwm Vl CuI I—SIb U.Is v0 c6 'i VS Bmwuaf Rr�lwrvlmn :-rya MaI PaM 6er�kC -'i6Wk Pab6Rttrtaron Cunun181ie pumryyGmlyels .L ronuea�H R cm P,Yl us coRam= XkC Um FrocaOilH Cqunly Lid¢ —�'aBars: Nafmvl WtlLk RVfupe _�V6FUVeIServlm ® ev :r � " Cultural Site Density Analysis 14 Drat Environmental Impact Statement — - — ""'"'---- C.47 Page-14 MSTT Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps SDA 15. 1 �11N37E 17N37E 71N 'AT14196E N � fi �J � �r � r ' x i � 2' � :•� y a� PA ✓ t�. an�d �'� �k s�'hri a"� r F �: y�^:,r ai b n P pm GM6n Ne tl NLRO Mfi oa ROeES SoRYe avT Alp 1`1 FA �Y ANaM Nl a-ste as a casor Sce-aMal as. tl Mat II pwml ery nun IM ass,saa, ..1, ary �a Lma:R.IN Oplan 59b '$B' u o1Ld O N yemanl N91 tl aSSaMh �"'0 V.FIST d as— IaSTI M. C.lwadsbaaasit, —0.5. -l_6u eau WRe le aWn 1N.1-a Po*ta1. SWC.at,&Reaeolba s I 1 7 11 CWWrAI SiM Uenaly Mnlyab Laa,— aaa . CMY C'&]U80oPe of Erg wew yNvLUnY A*iPAle Relupal J0.Fx519erNae ®uu Mztliun:Paob.biM1.Y �ioana�Ip/Rd-A° m.vwti w *1 G HLm e. •nom W ••• Cultural Site Density Analysis 15 Drat Environmental Impact Statement "- "" C.4.7 P.91 15 MSTT Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps '.w 4'L + ti'8 a E fi .c <a g �ea + ` '� y .°>,fi!•'y. ^^D �, Nt u r*'._ {,aa "`"yyr: ^V ,y �ktht '�'aritz �' � .��p�+' Y �� r � ln� � �� ', j � ti ;�.•.r� r �r „a t. F _ R v PioN O. L1fR —W. Rost WiRe� WmenMO ., I fMpl qy NkTOtluC-51�' l'xe LaCak c�ul�wLrxtl e&i Rb O U W rliq reOny 4 lm ._V.a. a S'.U, -'.u O11 P^u�W^I �eryeon� ka�9'. Rme b� u-.PM n b. '�•w. DT AWo u:Zre:u r I e '.:'.nnrrw aM Senlc I':'.avm Pansa ga:,carbn CMturaL 6na Genelty Mslyals 'LW�PraWG311y • Cilp Q�a3 COyx WE�g xers LlNalunY lMdNh ReNpx '.VSFUrcxl Sninw «' ">✓^ .,. .,.,. McEium,PrvEeEIIiN �]Torir2Mp'RB�pe �MMIM -'y PN 11$tlPM1WMtlY :CUm1YLine w,m v.�.u..m-P<..i Cultural Site Density Analysis 16 Dra(rEmironmen[al Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-1G MS77 Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps 09N34fl OSM359 99y 08 34E �1L f ..f I 366 . �r1 "aR OBN7E r �S .1 3d rbll!)3Ym'f YC a x. T`Y'� 54 6L�6e 4y ♦ arvw +-yam l k gr g I 1 N34 d` 35E sa *s y r Sd• S ' V 'Y' .. ql )� 10 u v { P / w 06N35E. Nss. ! �fl _,a S ' P,,—d MSV R uk A't vbve RO Maf Ro+. 1, 1 US 0 q of Y�-Nmu ro•le<>taeN Ih+ u Pn t .•a4r mw 91va Reeoiw4o, ssk 4 Rol Re CIPNm SPY J" I.. -N., NaI NO M ti Sah F4M1d Ge sh.MeOYb cuNnl Slh lkneM ,J.coTN.1Fttlxrtevon lNa NPad» 7jIyS rniun d. nnn CW1u I61t Me sky MUlyNv L 'P'oa�PiN. • ON Py�. OF Corps dEylnwrs .i NMFM,NdIM1 neA 9°.' .IiS FOR.41UMxT MWf mProEa011'.ry [�]TOwmAlyPa!ge z t.:n.wn t ., ._.�.,.�, Cultural Site Density Analysis 17 Draft Environmental lmpac[Sta[ement C4.7 Page-17 MSD All nnpand&C.4.7 Site Density Maps 18 I 'd6t}T'tYis ar k tl9NYtl `Gx�'�' �.E -3ro� fi"' 3. >ti N 2 I' s s, " n I r a x'ks3'€ 4E'* ;o-N, •S-e sue*" � 't'.L° f•+' § ', a �rq5 � Bn +g t, Pi i ,�, � ,? r AI� ary :k r i F GE > )X Yl4y � x P pw O . RONC gtlemaOVdt L. MI Roep 9YRMe aNledMp li dl a'xNPwn asa coW(Ba LaNI .IMWIaNtw PAI evwgMw MHw WTI -�+LWw R,Aw ceLL �$'aW U58 IMP uy Ne aeudle EMmu.� 'Nara alGa kv65 i....,51vE FkbB Game , y u4u ya• Y CuIWr69NOmeily .US. r. V9 Bavuu olRW�rylui --..Nalrond PeM Same SIWa PVka80.crearu a o,y v� �' 2 y, . Cultural sit 00119 O.inu1nr MBlyblf 'Lw PobeNi'y Gay �.a'US CerJSMEy nNR ".YYtinN lMklilu 3v4ax'.,.!VSFmevl3rrviu ®yye Med yrc PloOffiNiry QT nskpRa;ge ®w'a.art n• e � Ipn Pmpndllw tGrcmN Lne Cultural Site Density Analysis 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-18 MST! • • • • Appendix C.4.7 L IF 1 = spa 19. 1 � �,� �• Sys '` ', �� � �� r' � r * �IJ 1'. '>"�6N34E ci �NB6E �a s' '08N36E.r _ to h-j J � ,I �'#'`,✓ r Td BBN9gE [ ff 03N7BE " • .a4fi"t a Yc a �, x w tY a •^ �`Y P b A^b t S -w r °° Vra.h MBII RaYIa-FltematirdLRO Ipjw Retie 8mlac'Ow:w.Mp YVS p¢y1,UEneryy. IFMyc -.niz,Nmrn aaaropr lSee LabMSl rnn lnY,aU:a N 0 pn a every mart ;y q. Slab: " iw°,."' M9T11i L¢IROUtirq Oplon BU'S JSd INLa A .p. 'NnC d10 tls '9M�x Fd 80a,� rtent r! iwn, I s�v.n.lry. pus. '..ue sar.aamn.Yl maws 5]n+oe�.'.v.x s...k. aarev nan Re:reaton au�nl 6u.ta..eny Analysis ,.,,,wrr�:Mnurr • w,�re.a rms R�,,.c�m,mc„aM,.� ,:.nmwrm weR.anra.I;: ':u., a�n..Mr. - _ .„.. MMmm e,oeabwn. [Sraa:.nlyRarae ^^•� ply wen RmeaMMy Guttural Site Density Analysis 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-19 MS T7 N Appendix C4 Site Density Maps i /� { v'rr��,,€p"2.,A:.e``F `�4b +, SDA 20. r 'd e s rst 5�, ,z• ,e ... uwi T' r• 's 1 w`%=7t1'.e 'Q4NTE s% N3P {. t. y O6 }7E Ts'vv' a yl t N � �� o' � � � u� .t"� a S 'S4� ����yy-2+R�a�•'� ^v"" ^ta'�/� �.. t +Lk r #yr fi f F ^ .. a PMP dMan R—a-AIhT2avtLRO W.A.. &lMG¢aMIen., '.! UIInyI MI¢�1 '.RNA. x -AlkmetlVO-TOwn048 w18f 3eB LeWla).�.MCRb:e. TMtetlenprcwn vvvryimp �;M RwwmmM ieMM ;� +� LV WR,,W,Gp. —Seb :f US RUrrou IXL MWanagemril !W—WG.,aWndt r`..FkAd GOx M611 Reule r w CulExL 3Yb0.mRy SUS. :l JSC.n of R�brw4o :�NMVnM Pqk SVM¢ 9W PaM bR Crrnikn � CuRWiI31M Y1W Yly b1111yfn 'Lw'ProLaCdty 4 Cib (jy]J9 COrysNErylrcM Js r... Akylvm PNWEmN L,�NwnsM1lp'PL/-0e �uu.�eo ' t�119N P/ctWIM .:.w.'nlylarie � -a=. , n r. CSy Cultural Site Density Analysis 20 nh Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-10 MSTT • • • Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps I SDA 21. 04114134B rR . 04N35E [ 6x 004 E I 04N39E 1 1 kv N N34E 1 D3N36E S 03N97@ 03NME tl AJ�nn �59tt� k „ I,' �P , xGLJ d17 r CTM 777 3 { � -1 OIN"�J4E _ �02N35E I i s E? 'e'" 4s7N37E 02N39E r 1 la r _ PApe.mmsnwbox mmm.nvmao u.i�rwe.m Lm owosAmP e1toxoi,Ro1eaOPr P-1-111u..,allvmw .m n.nmw.sbe�obnsl�Inmeasle am raenegvmnl MSU ll.ub [uINrY SIYCenslly .os. VSMy1.of Entlr4V b if _v~�Y dKsurnl SI\ Orronsity Analysis Lmr Proba[tlN • CIS' '.Slap ®um MeE Um Piuhebliry �^ .lnsbipnz�ne. -PMe@ �XImM.a: ad 119�YNLabYXY Cou^Nllrie. Cultural Site Density Analysis 21 Draft Environmental Impact Statetnem --_—_._ ----_- C.4.7 Page-21 MS77 Appendix G4.7 Site Density Maps yt > i D2N , e ,;_, ^ �•:r�.'tca 37E v �3avr r P+ ,��'ta dR��2€r�tt��`w"�,£r' rgv .a ti %E SDA 22. fJ P Y'1 fS1 ik h 5"A" I �•;di> }ed i^ �.. Y P � aalpt'lIl r*vsi '. _ TV w u'� a Wv� 8 �* T sy+,t , Fs �n •,, >''3 v s„, k. �feg u2JS, r SPY P _ .r Bark + a H r ° 7" � 4„=i� &07 p16,M1i2 E o153A .I 4Y� C �- ` �v W 5'§LIM a ;'v'. �q •;h $ n1 .7 '�t'{" ° r y s 34%t Pd d S jza 3}m Mz' `.^T h $ k' s 1 "'4 ✓r l ` m4 z k X 9,2.533E .1)2894E Iq „ey a � v✓ f-.-:� �� eF� PropneE ROWe�PIhnuXVeh0.Q WtovRmHe IaM 6vnenXlp r ' AlbmaHra-M acdor(�irinMFl++ nlemhla II Pwoaa erteM Elar'.aymm�. Lee'P uOry OO�W Slek VSaep alErcrpS ° ..vim WTI 0. M Culbry Sp Omalty .V.S. Stak LWNral Slte Oanaky llnalyW4 stw PmHeXtry • cM !R�wn MuJ Uir.Pm4oEJHY wnabµfisiµ. mm ap or 1 . s Cultural Site Density Analysis 22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-22 MS77 • 0 • Appendix C.4.7 __._. - -_ Site Density Maps ..02N3 , _. 021494E 02NbSE _ D2N3€6 t, 'n' 17 SDA 23. asn I 1 • 56.50 {r' a P7Nl�ii 7e va •�'Sr � l '° rt � J� C L "y� u '3 •�o-'Y"b e..6 ��h� "ak��4� .p.,f ; ap L a P^ 4 R 17,1 - R> _ t ua,x ��4> �sh�.a � 3 � C Yhre: E t. 5g, �� etrn.>�Y F ,.r.yum'� 1-� �• �`� x'a'dr °s b .. 'pt '�$�,h *'4`d; �� '""I' �.�,+` PZ SnE 'F w,l•�. c x, a P� 9`� g . Ropwatl M9T Hwb-AI4maErNLRa Nqw ROMa 8urla[B O'MNlblp „+.IJS papI.dEMrgj Rlvdb ' AIMmaO N xb a6d eHOrYeLaYll labnha Abf// P mf vxymap I' R r+ SWM MST,M". rvr,apron ;V58 wLa t ma ,Nd WP I r 'Slak Fis slC Cu11wu 91e penairy lISPr'rcal orRtt em9lm wlwnM paM Seam 91ale Vmksd Recrearlon "" GvIWrN Site DMfiBy NO,yrs RobdEX, �:Iry F'AJ pS�a¢+MErcJ wart Ii Ya4ona VFWb!elope_ ev,..ernm ®w� 1`NbeEpIY '�'TwnsMplrierge ®.rmn.ry tlAS'X,Bb PmAadAh iLWnti llda i, e.i ...., n., Cuitural Site Density Analysis 23 e Draft Pnviranmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-23 MST! Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Maps u �,� aa � f ev4y {iR, st FI � r SDAG4a .. � 1 P r 4'f l xY ' IC tts fi fis '10-a i y"4 �.iv c s J 23E 4 4 ate' 3328E f d y Y r n ? h [ ,3 Y p Mw yU 9Ng a a 1 1 yl S N", erg - 8 _u r %i5 r � Y•'�t o-s ' r v; d 4 hk Y��t�tPi R >D xt.�.4 fif4 y r'#YV 4fi .M i7 f� brv� t.v jVY ? l:: %opCMU M8T RgPe-PXeTetive'LPO Maim RwEe. 9uRem O�nemMp 'H nti prpl elFmry). P1rv[Y wti NO'un acvcoWrlSCe abela)�--r�mnd�e. Yio aY en P1aaen ar'eiYweP �.�:. - MFn PoM ♦� �a{,tla w.l RuUary o!m Sole JSBUreauol La tlManpmpnl iNN nG mionds ?SIMC FISnncam[ M=IIeWtl CulWnl&Ia OaetXy �I1.5 '18 BummaW0.xJa w4ur -1 rygbM PeM 50rvlm 'S[eb CaMa6Re[mTlm (.1aMril silt De.Mly Aaalysl5 '�d Lw PmpabiltY a Gly FZMj p3 CaryyNEy nwrs ;I Nparvi lMtleR Raluga YUS F...0Sw— ®via Med'vm Giyeplllry �iumcMpparye n AAV I, rcE dtlY C Cultural Site Density Analysis 24 � Dm(t Environmental Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-24 MS77 • Appendix C.4.7 _ Site Density Maps SDA 25. �02ss�e } I or � Iv�l4 'eWFUR '01 w. Nf R .. -. •.y-t 1+L�� �. � a L F`f v +L vi i'�' § L hopwvO MBII ROUW AXVrnvtirvlL0.0 Mjw ROaJv 9mM1U Umvnhlo ra U6 ozyt Wr-11 Pmab Alkm tl -4�0' Cdo�&eLx[N) I kwY� W 1U wL rymtlp -InJ i 6 "r ouWp Or'M 1att V6B of La O. pyy IW ds '91efe F'sM160anw MLT11bVH wm mow. c ltuw sm UenvM I:R—rc ORe4erraM Ivmm Ven servre ;..:Srak VaMSa Recreelm r^•a . CuLLU ISIn Oe Ity MWYW .IM'A.bbensM • aIM :m'�9 roiW nlEN neem JWI "N e.I."�i� McOlum PmEeEN� �'TOwiMIpROhBe Cultural Site Density Analysis 25 Draft Envirenmentul lmpocr.Amemenl _ `�' " C.49 Page-25 MSTI Appendix C.4.7 Site Deosiry Mops co aagY![ i r K aaszse �," �` ; r dt ` 1s AbsYR "d � •� �� �� 1� tsg � � �.,ux ryq Sc N v i A P•opw.d MST R...-A..U.LRO Myw Rwtl• 9uttx.pmwnMp lAII aS ReM.wE, nlhma5 shoPmesar,Wr�9ee L.ta.��mcersbu Wot n pro.mr wymp tF41W aiw ( sw. M•.""" WTI haute v-,e`�o� —sx. lu s mL a w,y. _rr' +la tw• .:srem Pang mwe ew Isuo.n.lry '� Gultu ISiM century gpalyafa '.Ifvx pmpnpiR/ eAYnlele f.Itle� �15GOPV MFrcJ wrrt ,{ry.lontl lNlCNe-leNpe V6tlMftseMttn ,61e11�m 1'mbe611 N (�TCwn.Mryfl.n6e ��® Mq HIOR PIO�a[iNY. C ItI L1iIC [ i e. • • .... Cultural Site Density Analysis 26 Dra/[Environmen[al Impact Statement C.4.7 Page-26 MS77 Appendix C.4.7 Site Densityy Maps SDA 27.1 m ,r - 11 yq'/52.7E 0?53§E y "s a S7�YE °a;g7S.Y0! * :: 7 467.,ph��±y -Sy5 - ✓r ' �t. � ;�� :ta � s'"lvR# y �, r Are, V r .I l $ � t t -+486RSE..,.�_.. t ,F''�-* 4---• >t. ��: ; ���'�i r�1�"�x�"�F mxa'��, �+,rt � y s�F" J. ✓06526E ' l aba#"^ ;r - a jolm 6 527E �' E r C n 8t3!'% `.."_""*. .T--.F -:r•w, r-'�..r., f s i E .� r vapaaM WS nob-Ax w o nhtotaeaaa P s. N Ew a v:etn(SRUhe ) Inbnbk 'Net N p ant ey p ]IrvJ q 16 h WTI lout. L' IR p GYWn �Sth I13- 'vIU tlN A< '.Nay IG WOe Cu..1$.Nna [ R59uRe.0lpo leme4on ,:NAOaaI Re�A tlamx jBtakY#nBRe[reatan es µymuew e mm rAmY llN �rw,naRprR.,9a. GWaN M.D.„YYA alrilf 0 "It a g ... g�HOM1RWUbIM. ,cmnN Um '• e`• ,” '• •, Cultural Site Density Analysis 27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 page-27 MSTI v.,. Appendix C.G-Y ev Site Density Maps x. r s "�/ I 201 rx 46526E FIN cw mob a — r s< r" a ur 4a 4^4 ryx ,� s r l 2 sn r ✓� r; s o v �3 aa"S` V.yT G.A Klg'N,S t .. fi r8A Te.� f S r4�_ flig "<,i y 1 e h a � E pppo WC R uM.AaxnMlV.rLRO Malmo Raa4 S tlag mp -t5 noq. EneryY PNNO ` N alive-alnwrrwnr;aFx'19ev t+411 —In.arvlala NefW.rvyrwanl avuy p `r Ntl R W ISbb r� M�tlM1 M9TI Rout. Lcc+I RUWSCytion hrb US BUrvw aILaM Managarrcnr '.M1-/ p MnJn ISIaIa Fnlr6Gar.. r� (', Ml the tFoamity Anal Ws .m SUS -l5&nowt of RecNrtepan :Malmo ve.x 9nruM:n $MM GWFS6 RbL1eNU�l _ air CuHUral sib wmM LOw FUabAM •CM [a�US Cep el lrg rreen _Nalmn`MNAN Relyge _]JS FwwI SeMCb Nr. «... n..x...:...,.,. ....... AIMUn IiMeLAlr/ p�' IMnaMp'l4we ®arwrr y'Rj!/OM IYOLeMMI' .amlYllm - I •••• �•• �lturat Site Density Analysis 28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement --- -- -- - _ C.4.7 Page-28 MST/ 0 Appendix C.4.7 Site Density Mops SDA 29. J B520 E E � A All. W 07a16E j rr 6A .a t 4 ruffle 'N1 " 1 w ba$,2,QE � P 1 # .g_Awl' ,.. . .'i.. popovtl M]i10.oW-0.ryplNdv✓LRO Mvjai ROaOe ]urteu OV.TYeMp ♦.UY�eVI.oI Ery¢9) Ri/as. _fR R.wme vvabr lYee LNR11 _.Inhnbk Yb vY P eo werylluP 41 xfi R Slab Mjwa.m RouGry Vµ�ns Stab VYb - en qe '.Na. N3 J "5 M1 Gnrrc NSTIIbu[a SROemiry 15U reeuot2eclenw0o N+eerrM JaM�e�m '9Yk?arF eW:renem GYIIYfN SIIe PenfiH UMlYiif rwn �uG =Mw n�oneenM • CM b,r ncom.or..g ne 3Nx wary eemm .'wrarca]s�mce M N M¢CIrM ' TOVmsMpRefeY en,m �nO n P mwNlW ...eaerrry tine :. a .. ... ....5.... ..... Cultural She Density Analysis 29 __. 7 Draft Envirvnmenml Impact Sm[ement - - - C.49 Vage.-29 MSTI Confidential Appendix C.4.8 Project Component Visual Analysis Maps Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI "Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos This appendix consists of the photographs and brief descriptions for the agency identified Key • Observation Points(KOPs).These consist of eight mining districts (Argenta, Bannack, Glendale[also within Bannack], Pipestone, Ramsey, Rochester, Silver Star,and Utopia)and one National Historic Landmark District(Butte Anaconda) in Montana. These KOPs represent high value locations within each mining district. • I Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos Argenta KOP The Argenta mining district is located in central Beaverhead County.Presently,there is a moderate amount of development within and around the Argenta KOP(Figures 1-8). The most prominent existing visual intrusions occur to the southeast.These impacts are associated with residential and agricultural development.The least amount of visual impacts occur to the north.These impacts consist of a single pole utility line and some small corrals. r�'•.j t„7,�x Y����G�;"�, `fit ,_.s>� r�;��i .*ts�-urs.� w v• 5� -. .,1 �°i v''.,, x Figure 1. Argenta KOP facing north.Visual intrusions include a corral in the background with,a fence line leading up to it. •af fit' ' �M 1 L�$�M i _,`,..� ���,�� _l r rr�a :,�; �m k� -yam .�- ,, s Figure 2.Argenta KOP facing northeast.Visual intrusions include a corral in the background with a fence line leading up to it. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • Figure 3.Argenta KOP facing east.There are no notable visual intrusions. ,A bA S' nSPb�lI F• Xj` 4 F F '' S,v' r 4 ` a, �' qr"' • 1 y`W`' z r I-AT Nrf4 i IM Y Y f M1 Figure 4. Argenta KOP facing southeast. Visual intrusions include roads, buildings,fences, utility lines,agricultural fields throughout the foreground and background. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos M : a Figure 5.Argenta KOP facing south.There are no notable visual intrusions. ` A Y a t;Y A 1 Figure 6.Argenta KOP facing southwest.There are no notable visual intrusions. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-4 MSTI ♦ /I. I I �. I • •I I I S u�l rw. F S>' - "'W `,�t'. n AR' r¢�e✓'C'yC`tiz 'd,_� ty u�h�Icy / b '1 J pot t b W 1 Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos Bannack KOP The Bannack mining district is located in central Beaverhead County.Presently,there is a moderate amount of development within and around the Bannack KOP(Figures 9-16). The most prominent existing visual intrusions occur to the north,northeast and east.These impacts are associated with a triple pole utility line that can be seen traversing the viewshed.There are no noticeable visual impacts occurring the south, southwest, or west. ' {r�Yyi L L" "dad M p' M3'F.+ae IA fit•§ dte�P4d5 4 aS k • Figure 9. Bannack KOP facing north. Visual intrusions include a triple pole utility line and road. .r: Figure 10. Bannack KOP facing northeast.Visual intrusions include a triple pole utility line. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement CA.9Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • i Figure 11. Bannack KOP facing-eastNisual intrusions include a triple pole utility line. t TM yr zo- Figure 12. Bannack KOP facing southeast.Visual intrusions include a single pole utility line,a two-road associated with the utility line and a fence line. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-7 MSTI • \Y! rc t { s* 3 S� • � pEJ�N a 5 .t �l Po ^ 4 1 Alx.'yr*SCa':r nyuy°#4r{h�N,M R. Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos Butte Anaconda KOP The Butte Anaconda historic district is located in Deerlodge and Silver Bow Counties. It consists of the towns of Butte, Ramsey,and Anaconda and the railway line that connects the two towns.There are numerous visual intrusions throughout the 360 degree panorama based at this KOP(Figures 17-20). These intrusions consist of roads,highways,transmission lines,fence lines, and residential development. wl i' w v f: • Figure 17. Butte Anaconda KOP facing north:Visual intrusions consist of highway in the immediate foreground,and fences, power lines and other developments. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-10 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos nK ,talrF v 71 ' '. + imp Tl i' ^x4J Figure 18.Butte Anaconda KOP facing-east.Visual infku ions consist of highway in the immediate foreground,and fences,residential structures and power Lines. ryry ��yi } rx a Figure 19. Butte Anaconda KOP facing south. Visual intrusions consist of fences and power lines. Drat Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-11 MS TI Appendix C.4.9 . Key Observation Points Photos >b v a � Y yv Figure 20. Butte Anaconda KOP facing west,Visual intrusions consist of • highway,fences, residential structures and power tines. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-12 MSTI i Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • Glendale KOP The Glendale mining district is located in northeastern Beaverhead County. Presently,there is a moderate amount of development within and around the Glendale KOP (Figures 21-28).The most prominent existing visual intrusions occur to the east and west.These impacts are associated with residential development.There are no notable visual impacts occurring to the south and southwest. Figure 21.Glendale KOP facing north.Visual,ntlrusions include a fence line. k .F?F Im ?�i Slii. Figure 22.Glendale KOP facing northeast.Visual intrusions include a single pole utility line. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-13 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos a oM ; . Figure 23.Glendale KOP facing east.Visual intrusions include a single pole utility line. • Figure 24. Glendale KOP facing southeast Visual intrusions include a fence line. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-14 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • Ilk.. F x� 3 �3 Fm. is Figure 25.Glendale KOP facin4 s66th.There are no notable visual'_ intrusions, r o-s w - • Figure 26. Glendale KOP facing southwest.There are no notable visual intrusions. i Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-15 MSTI • Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos N` t is" Figure 27.Glendale KOP facing west.Visuatintrusions include residential development, roadsand single polerutility lines.' u z z r+ F s' Figure 28. Glendale KOP facing northwest.Visual intrusions include a fence line and single pole utility line. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-16 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • Pipestone KOP The Pipestone mining district is located in south central Jefferson County. Presently,there is a moderate amount of development within and around the Pipestone KOP(Figures 21-28).The most prominent existing visual intrusions occur to the east and northwest.These impacts are associated with a historic railroad. There are also existing roads,utility lines and urban development impacting the southeastern viewshed.There are no notable visual impacts occurring to the north. s Figure 29. Pipestotje KOP facing north.There are no notable visual uMrusiona Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-17 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos Figure 30. Pipestone KOP facing east Visual intrusions include what appears to be a historic abandoned rail road. F £ n 4R 4' Figure 31. Pipestone KOP facing southeast Visual intrusions include a paved road, a utility line and urban development. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-18 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • Figure 32.Pipestone KOP facing northwest.Visual intrusions include what appears to be a histoil'abandoned rail road, • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-19 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos Ramsey KOP The Ramsey mining district includes the town of Ramsey and is located in Silver Bow County.The KOP is located on the west side of the town. There are numerous visual intrusions throughout the 360 degree panorama(Figures 33-36).All of the visual intrusions are associated with residential development of the town. i 1 Y� ii4 8' i ry� i• r Icy � Figure 33. Ramsey kOp facing north. Visual intrusions include tanks, two track roads and construction debris. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-20 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • Figure 34. Ramsey KOP faCjng northeast.Visual intrusions include structures,two track roads quid construction debris. .fir K-Rtt'. il Y- b� � L�n dl sa^Yb res �� T Figure 35. Ramsey KOP facing east.Visual intrusions include the town of Ramsey. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-21 MSTI • Appendix C.4.9 . Key Observation Points Photos �r wz, Figure 36. Ramsey KOP facing west.Vjsuai intrusions include`tOn o track roads and construction,debris. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-22 MSII Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • Rochester KOP The Rochester mining district is located in northwestern Madison County.Presently,there is substantial development related to construction activities within and around the Rochester KOP (Figures 37-44). The most prominent existing visual intrusions occur to the north and northeast,as well to the southwest and west. The northern impacts appear to be related to excavations and possible quarries.The southern impacts are likely associated with ranching activities and consist of fence lines and two-track roads.There are no notable visual impacts occurring to the northwest. Figure 37.Rochester KOP facing north.Visual intrusions include a collapsed cabin and a dirt road, as will as possible quarries. Figure 38. Rochester KOP facing northeast.Visual intrusions include a two rack road, fence line, buildings and possible quarries. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-23 MSTI • Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos —%Ax a e� ;iR M, V { fi i G T Figure 39. Rochester KOP facing east.Visual intrusions include a two track road. I Figure 40. Rochester KOP facing southeast.Visual intrusions include a fence line. P t Environmental Impact act Statement C.4.9 Page-24 MSTI 4 h 3 1'y a ji L s' � tw. Appendix C.4.9 • a Key Observation Points Photos k n 4 r� n. r Figure 43. Rochester KOP facing west.Visual intrusions include corral and excavation back dirt pile. • Figure 44. Rochester KOP facing northwest.There no notable visual intrusions. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-26 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos Silver Star KOP • The Silver Star mining district is located in northwestern Madison County.Presently,there is substantial urban development within and around the Silver Star KOP(Figures 45-52).The most prominent existing visual intrusions occur to the south, southwest, and west.These intrusions are associated with residential development and infrastructure.There are no notable visual impacts occurring to the north. t p ' �Y Figure 45.Silver Star KOP facing nort .i There are no notable visual • intrusions. I Figure 46. Silver Star KOP facing northeast. Visual intrusions include residential development. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-27 MSTI • I Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos ry hi S;� r W,< Figure 47. Silver Star KOP facing east.Visual intrusions include residential development,,, s At�Y 'tX� 5r Sr *ti� � Y LFxq����'a } x I -. FL'^s qK Figure 48.Silver Star KOP facing southeast.Visual intrusions include a dirt road and single pole utility line as well as agricultural fields. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-28 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • t y` Figure 49.Silver Star KOP facing south:Visual intrusions include several dirt and two track roads,a single pole utiti -jine,and residential' development. • r r , Fggure 50.Silver Star KOP facing southwest.Visual intrusions include several two track roads. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-29 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos `rd.`es�>p`�•., set" �*ll�t�4 '�-Rt ° ��. y..�, J f y Figure 51.Silver Star KOP facing-West Visual intrusions include a �, microwave station and a two track road in the foreground as well as a single pole utility line. • k E P L y I uF x r` Figure 52.Silver Star KOP facing northwest.Visual intrusions include a fence line. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-30 MS IT Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • Utopia KOP The Utopia mining district is located in central Beaverhead County.Presently, there is a minimal amount of development within and around the Utopia KOP(Figures 53-60).The most prominent existing visual intrusions occur to the south and southeast. These intrusions are associated with residential development. There are no notable visual impacts occurring in any other directional viewshed. Figure 53.Utopia KOP facing ndxth therk,are nootable visual intrusions. I 4P Y Figure 54. Utopia KOP facing northeast.There are no notable visual intrusions. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-31 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos +a- - Figure 55. Utopia KOP facing east.There are no notable Visual intrusions. x S , a � z Figure 56. Utopia KOP facing southeast.Visual intrusions include residential development. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-32 MSTI Appendix C.4.9 Key Observation Points Photos • A � i- \ y Figure 57. Utopia KOP facing south,,There are no potable visual Intrusions. gy MO s: Figure 58.Utopia KOP facing southwest.There are no notable visual intrusions. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-33 MS TI • Appendix C.4.9 • Key Observation Points Photos 1 bl' y +Y P '�' ¢Y z Y s�nr w aaf Figure 59. Utopia KOP facing west.Ther6 arepo notable visual intrusions. <m Rz k',gety, a 'C aNt Y y r Sri X [ Y Figure 60. Utopia KOP facing northwest. There are no notable visual intrusions. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.9 Page-34 MS TI Confidential Appendix C.4.10 Sensitive Point Visual Analysis Maps • Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.4.11 Maps of 67 Sensitive Points Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix 0.4.11 Maps of 59 Sensitive Points NRHP Listed Sites-Butte Anaconda �? National Historic Landmark District x4 and Associated Site Points k. I q iy �f � � aP'z L €�sw�tsy..�:. �I �k'}a �x "" i a' '. 45t w.f:'°u ti r '.n „ 4!F's ./� a � n'�a- rt I - }T etYOA�.. +`� � '. € a e 4idPYIi �r`��.�� Pfl �dat '7y se'. _&r > t '` Ix _tai !• a 3" r $r ' 't, '" ( &A Ff Y - ?N71WH1 .� '"YS s' n afi?ni .• r a Ic e IIe,zw,xe,xe. z ,�.._... ,s vt .,5t� � .a'•' � am m� w�n.?yi emaoe Leo _.w' ,.ty.-, �: �fit . e '2 111r1W c x+ 21M • XRFP-Bleu 6M Ib� Buner olNe WO METI ft-le po JM6T-PHematlreM1flO QaNk Macaw NaM1V-IHislui[LaIJ MO lc.n rc'.NkfNfle EIN rSWe a� Meliwul llaylalx el xisblle%ecea PcynbJ METI ft Nbmetiwh}t0 :;M1 V b Buflx_tl nr SiJr Lbletl T.LOca I.. n ..Mm01rvb-sM1Onn afaNlw gee laM41 ("�Iprnlnp'lYerge o u rf r za � ..mow..rF'.......n=.�.. r La:.N Hammy Cgloc -.Caunry Lm National Register of Historic Places Listed Site Locations I r - - - -____-- Draft Enionmntal lm act baement C.4.11 Page-1 MS'll is • • Appendix C4.11 —------------- ;;HP;;002 40 4w 7N 3W w, A -4,%p j,,, IT, vw Sweeter av'-' P ZZ 60 j "Al p. "7" �73x B'W m3w A J Sm Aw ft RpI.s.Tl Rllema4rYLR0 m. •R�ad MSTI PO W AIk M'-RO m m... I.Mail St.L..V.. National Register of Historic Places Listed Site Locations 2 D,.fr F.rWr,c.,nwl I.pa,t SWm C.All Page-2 ABT7 Appendix C.4.11 Maps of 69 Sensitive Points «i•z s'� ��-_ a MPIdRn Rack YID R'nF.! i;n ePe' f z his'xx7�i '. L ea' 4 IF W j 2A,:* 2C 3E ! Ibek GEek LAO •.F'ni ip "i� } I } fl 7;4 ', l l 4LA� I i y �P I L s r ry MSTI IbWS • n4PIbM oubn BMh o1NP PnpaaM M9T NbmellwaRO MelppillM1 f Ii116f0liC ONCIt RcfA 4M5T1ft -AIh MM/!IYO. :1 MIb BU1ar EJMr9dn n� + LIMM 51"L..U... - Mrnlrve- nd(I:nn In P ) TMmerna,ge Sde an W'alfluuley 0ytin. Rm'mMP�ar6P -'j Wwry Llno .., National Register of Historic Places listed Site Locations 3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6.11 Page-3 M511 ,. Appendix C.411 _ Mops o(5]Sensitive Points NRHP 004 r , E < a 4 ` d 1N d1N r �. c R s '•ice �'F.bk x� y i �� �' _ ti vst�n ; 1911W ` 'If 3F ?xz q F. : fit`I Yn N ,- [ r C T tl+•v �' + t < J, if r8 �..a � .�5' r .;,"s � �e Rv c �� y�,. "� "�� �:r i�so� .�• '� �, €�� �r 1 q z w • NsFpltlMOso,lw OWNr W tlx Pm~Mn A1Nma11vMRO Mnl RONa Rc dL15TI RO'1 AI tc i1Ne9uhrEN.er 3Oe ° i NNiewal flepBbr b Hlaterle M... _.w mlrr-awm sn.b(Sre is k) ms ' U."She LO U.. ' x+WNI ROUINq Op9nn �iowwnipManpn wnN I'm •� National Register of Historic Places Listed Site Locations 4 ••Iry r Dre(tEmironmenml Impact Statement C.4.11 Page-4 MSTT F _ * z tn� 1�'� � o� " v N�rx` " 1 0 �€: $ z 7 a w? 4 q ✓ �. ,psi f $ „q ` ; � L s r .ee � � w s 'A- `Y t � �.ltr �. .Y .: 1✓ {'x r KI V' All fi IW - Appendix C.4.11 Maps o(67 Sensitive Points NRNP 006 A I - a Ow L kb0 = r "9 ar Oahh LeO pS aW 1697W a T X .�n,r t �N tl1 aN �rr ° SS"ilw Ya W �1�faf „lypry0y - Ate. � t0 C `gv. d q ` . ice' r st s+' v J" ? " a t-"e +� ,?vl . _ a •-.ps N. v ,r aW ��a _ :v �. ".ra "� ?. .�.r . • NOTJSTII ' louem auReroltln Prapoeetl MBTINbmeYnILRO Mm nouy fYCggetl MBTI RO- -AI4 eWeILNO. 11Ale euhrEitlnr9iie e�r. Mafbro br of Hlabtle PNCa Ualad . -Nbrreliw a roH(SM lqe t Ie gultrtixer5de llsbd Sly Locations �.1tttl Parnnp CpNm. �TnuennipMnrge CourMLlro. av National Register of Historic Places Listed Site Locations 6 Draft Emironmental Impact Statement 0.4.11 Page-6 MSTT Appendix C.4.11 Maps a469.Sensilive Points NRHPuvr t hl i t r " ' iA' f TO I ,xan1 e*tN �,�4+ ld j � x II flq 51+t I Sls� f sa sc so .' 11ti1 7E ? r� of ��H3�dE. f f m $ H I tla.Vmm Mir. c � i.r L. 4 h f r I.M1S I � n y" rf i " ' f�tLPl kV f yje� q fV� •MST Reub • uvHPl etrn 6uIM1 Wtlw Prape%ry MSil,<IYm*�RO '�`"• Ma1bmIM 1 fXMSXe Ybaaa Rqurtl MSTIR tt-N pelJtO. :1 Mib BuM EM�r9ke " •.'�.•. gla -glMmalrveSM1Owmm�ab(Exl M1e) 4WIa BUM1NkMer Stle LInIHfiftIb LP[Nlma +loca10.aW1,90Npn T�wmM1�FRn�gn. 1 of �f vi if ,. ,county one ..� National Register of Historic Places Listed Site Locations 7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C 4.11 Page-7 MSTT is • 40 Appendix C.4.11 Mans of 67 Sensitive Points �' f DBSITE —•^-'••'-OS&18E+ ..z*.+- f U551 E , °5 NRHP 008 ff S i OBSiBE� - 068ITEy3q.` yr ABSiBE to 4 +-¢Yrx :+ a »-»� .4• f v 2 �^' �uyg�.3A !� w-''a, zt f�. 1g.1 . t "'j Aa�f' -F § °i-: `t'Y�Ij a r YV'iP. 'yev. �' • ,� s' �- v"1� Betz� y, t A 41�y3 2 �#� �"'„�'sF,Ki�•,.F+f EyrrtA � "xkii. t w 'f x 7fR21E ''.,tRx _ a r i t' v✓ 1q.; xis } �118S15E OBB17E 08518E ^'" ca , } BBSiBEE : 3; 08638E 0621F' • MR V k e LnaW 6 Veope aE mSi.glMmallvMPO NSTf fbW{ Ryu¢DA6TI Raob N Te.t: 1H a�ln Ekxr SMa "� a Batia�ul Mg Location LI SiIS Si al t Ol�ws. Nb wl va rnu+.�mnrnmis... a1 OM etluIh�EMereW. "^'a AeE Iene r LO[eIRCNdy Cpin •Af/RZ-6e JCwnry L ne �,� National Register of Historic Places Listed Site Locations 8 Dra([Errvironmenml C.4.11 Page-8 MSTT ;Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites (Tables) Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) The following tables detail all of the previously identified sites per zone alternative and LRO within the • one mile wide study corridor.These include the sites identified through the files searches and aerial reconnaissance. Sites with trinomial Smithsonian numbers(e.g. 24DL0237)have been identified and recorded. Sites that have HS numbers(e.g.HS-08-11)are sites identified through the aerial reconnaissance,but have not been recorded. Sites that do not have either Smithsonian number or HS number,but are labeled with a name (e.g. Beauty Mine),were identified through the files searches and have not been assigned a Smithsonian number and have not been formally evaluated. Sites that are` identified by a series of numbers (e.g. 11-18004)are historic sites in Idaho that have been recorded by the Idaho State Historical Society using their numerical system. Table C.4.12-1.Zone Alternative 3A(138 Sites) SiteNUmber flit ft, ' 61lgibifity S)(e`Desypf+on 24BW0241 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BW0242 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BW0244 Historic Unknown Mining 24BWO245 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BW0246 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BWO247 Prehistoric .Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BW0248 Historic Llnkrrowrt Mining '! 246W0250 Historic Unknown Mining 24BW0446 Historic Unknown Mining 24BW0447 Historic Eli ible Mining •246W0477 Historic Unknown Irrigation 24BW0629 Prehistoric Unresolved Stone Circle 24BW0774 Historic Eligible Goodale's Cutoff 24BW0800 Historic Unknown.; Historic Building 24BW0815 Historic Not Eligible Historic Building 24DL0084-_ Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24DLOD85 Historic Unknown Mining 24DL0086 Hoonc Unknown Mining 24GO089 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24DL0091 Historic... Unknown Mining 24DLOO93 Historic Unknown Historic Building 24DL0119 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO121 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24DLO122 Historic Unknown Mining '24D1-0123 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24DLO124 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO125 Historic Unknown Unknown Historic 24DLO126 Historic Unknown Mining 24DL0127 Historic Unresolved Unknown Historic 24DL0237 Historic Unknown Irrigation Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.1.Zone Alternative 1A(138 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site Pescription 24DLO252 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO277 Historic Unknown Homestead 24DLO299 Historic Unknown Historic Building 24DLO300 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO442 Historic Unknown Railroad 24DLO443 Historic Unknown Historic Building 24DLO444 Historic Unknown Historic Builcl mg' 24DLO446 Historic Unknown Historic Budding 24DLO449 Historic Unresolved Historic Building 24DLO450 Historic Unknown Mining District 24DLO453 Historic Unknown .. Cemetery 24DLO454 Historic Unknown Historic Road 24DLO462 Historic Unknown Historic Road 24DLO663 Historic Unresolved Mintrig, 24DLO664 Historic Unknown... Mining..' 24DLO667 Historic Unresolved Mining 24DLO669 Historic Unresolved Mining • 24DLO670 Historic Unresolved. Mining 24DLO671 Historic Unresolved Mining 24DLO672 Historc Unresolved Mining 24DLO687 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO688 }Historic Unknown Historic Building 24DLO690 Historic Unresolved Historic Road 24DLO769 Historic Unknown Unknown Historic 24JF0450 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24JF0460 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0467 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF0468 Prehistoric Eligible Game Trap 24JF0469 <.Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0473 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0478 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0487 Historic Unknown Historic Building 24JF0518.. Historic Not Eligible Mining 24JF0632 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0635 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0637 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0638 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0671 Historic Eligible Homestead • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.412 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-1.Zone Alternative lA(138 Sites) • Site Number Site Type EligfiUity Site Description 24JF0673 Historic Unresolved Mining 24JF0674 Historic Unresolved Mining 24JF0675 Historic Unresolved Mining I i 24JF0676 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF0679 Historic Unknown Historic Timber Harvesting 24JF0681 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF0682 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0683 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0685 Historic Unknown Mining. 24JF0686 Historic Unknown lHomestead,, 24JF0689 Historic Unknown Homesteatl 24JF0690 Historic Unknown Miring 24JF0691 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0692 Historic Unknown Mining, 24JF0693 Historic Unknown. Historic Building 24JF0694 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF0695 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF0723 Historic Unknown° Mining 24JP0751 Historic Unknown Mining • 24JF0806 Historic. Unknown Historic Building 24JF0832 Historic Unresolved Historic Hunting Blind 24JF0890 Historic Unknown Historic Building 24JF0946 , Historic Unknown Mining District 24JF0950- Prehistoric Unresolved Rock Art 24JF0489 Historic Not Eligible Transmission Line 24JF1224. Historic. Unknown Homestead 24JF1233 Hiatonc Unknown Mining 24JF1234 Histont Unknown Homestead 24JF1343 Historic Unresolved Historic Road 243F1503 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1505 - Historic Unknown Irrigation 24JF1506 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF15074 Historic Unknown Mining 24JFIS30 Historic Unknown Historic Road 24JF1531 Historic Unknown Mining District _ 24JF1551 Historic Unknown Historic Road 24JF1692 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1695 Historic Unresolved Homestead • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-3 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) • Table C.4.12.1.Zone Alternative 1A(138 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site Description 24JF1696 Historic Eligible Stock Raising 24JF1810 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1853 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO581 Historic Not Eligible Historic Road 24SBO614 Historic Eligible Transmission Line 24SBO636 Historic Unknown Railroad Beauty Mine Historic Unknown Mining Friday Mine Historic Unknown Mining Gold Mine Historic Unknown Mining_ HS-08-01 Historic Unknown Railroad HS-08-02 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-03 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-04 Historic Unknown HistoncBuilding HS-08-05 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-06 Historic Unknown Historic Building HS-08-07 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-09 Historic Unknown Mining • HS-08-10 Historic Unknown Mining HS-08-11 Historic Unknown Historic Building HS-08-12 Historic.. - Unknown Historic Building HS-08-13 Historic Unknown Historic Building HS-08-14 Historic Unknown Mining HS-08-15 Historic Unknown Mining HS-08-16 Historic _ Unknown Homestead HS-08-17 Historic Unknown Mining HS-08-18 Historic Unknown Historic Building HS-08-19 Historic Unknown Mining HS-08-20 Historic- Unknown Mining HS-08 21 Historic Unknown Mining i s HS-08-22 'Historic Unknown Historic Building HS-08-23 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-24 Historic Unknown Homestead • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-4 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.2.Zone Alternative iB(89 Sites) • Site Number Site Type Eligibit'rty Site Description 24BWO442 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24BWO629 Prehistoric Unresolved Stone Circle 24BWO773 Historic Eligible Building 24BWO797 Historic Unknown Railroad 24BWO798 Historic Unknown Railroad 24BWO815 Historic Not Eligible Building 24BWO852 Historic Eligible Homestead 24BW1087 Historic Unknown Cairn 24DLO2111 Historic Listed Butte Anaconda NHLD 24SBO124 24DLO238 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24DLO294 Historic Unknown Homestead 24DLO295 Historic Unknown Building 24DLO300 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO476 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24JF? Historic Unknown Homestead i 24JF? Prehistoric Unknown Unknown Prehistoric 24JF0106 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 24JF0108 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter • 24JF0498 Historic .Unknown Building 24JF0766 Prehistoric' Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0839 Prehistoric ? Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0840 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0841 Prehistoric' Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0864 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0948`, Historic Eligible Railroad 24)F0977 Historic Not Eligible Homestead 24JF0995 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter 24JF1057 Historic Unknown Stock Raising 24JF1058 Historic Not Eligible Trash Dump 24JF1061 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1071 Historic Unknown Trash Dump '24JF1072 ' Historic Not Eligible Mining 24JF1092 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF1095 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF1121 Historic Not Eligible Trash Dump 24JF1200 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF1314 Historic Unknown Mining District Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-5 MSTI • Appendix 0.4.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.2.Zone Alternative 16(89 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site DeSCtiptotl 24JF1331 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1347 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1348 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1349 Historic Unknown Building 24JF1359 Historic Unknown Building .:.� 24JF1362 Historic Not Eligible Road 24JF1363 Prehistoric Not Eligible Lithic Scatter ` 24JF1367 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24JF1368 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1369 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Sc6tt4,, 24JF1370 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1383 Prehistoric Unknown tithic Seetter 24JF1384 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1385 Historic Unknown Building 24JF1572 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1573 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1603 Historic Unknown _ Mining • 24JF1616 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1640 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1690 Historic, Unresolved Mining 24JF1820 Historic Not Eligible Homestead 24JF1850 Historic Unknown Irrigation 24JF1875 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO123 Historic Unknown Mining 24Sb0163 Historic Unknown Railroad 24SBO301 = Prehistoric - Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO302 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SR0304 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO305 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO306 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO308 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO423 Historic Unknown Mining 24SB0498 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO685 Historic Unknown Building 24SBO746 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO747 Historic Unknown Road 24SBO748 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24SBO750 Historic Unknown Mining • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.2.Zone Alternative 1B(89 Sites) • Site Number Site Type ellgibility Site Description 24SBO751 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO752 Historic Unknown Mining HS-08-24 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-29 Unknown Unknown Homestead HS-08-30 Historic Unknown Mining HS-08-31 Historic Unknown Building HS-OS-32 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-33 Historic Unknown :,Homestead HS-08-34 Historic Unknown Building., HS-08-35 Historic Unknown Homestead': HS-08-36 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-37 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-38 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-39 Historic Unknown Homestead Table C.4.12-3.Zone Alternative 1C (80 Sites) Site Number Site Type Ellgibiiit;"j Site Description • 24BWO182 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24BWO499 Historic Eligible Irrigation 24BWO571 Prehistodix Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BWO572 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BWO814 Historic , Eligible Railroad 24BWO836 Historic Unre;Sa(ved Irrigation 24BWO963 Historic !Unknown Irrigation 24BWO651. Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24BW0982 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BWO983 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BWO987 Historic Unknown Homestead 24gL0211 Historic Listed Butte Anaconda NHLD (-24580124) 24DLO238 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24bL0294 Historic Unknown Homestead 24DLO295 Historic Unknown Building 24DLO300 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO442 Historic Unknown Railroad 24DLO476 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24JF? Historic Unknown Homestead • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-7 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-3. Zone Alternative 1C (80 Sites) Site Member Site* yPe Eligibility SiteDesarWon 24JF? Prehistoric Unknown Unknown Prehistoric 24JF0067 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 243F0106 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 24JF0108 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF-0498 Historic Unknown Building 24JF0766 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0839 Prehistoric Unknown LithicScattisr 24JF0840 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter' 243FOB41 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0864 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter-.:, 24JF0948 Historic Eligible Railroad 24JF0977 Historic Not Eligible Homestead 24JF0995 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter 24JF1057 Historic Unknown Stock Raising 24JF1058 Historic Not Eligible Trash Dumps; 24JF1061 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF-1071 Historic Unknown `` homestead 24JF1072 Historic Not Eligible Mining 24JF1092 Historic Unknown Homestead 243PI095 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF1121 Historic Not Eligible Trash Dump 24JP1200 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF1314 Historic Unknown Mining District 24JF1331 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 243FI347 Prehistoric AJnknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1348 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1349 His Unknown Building 24JF1359 Historic Unknown Building 24JF1360 Historic Not Eligible Homestead 24JF1362 Historic Not Eligible Road 24JF1363 Prehistoric Not Eligible Lithic Scatter 24JF1367 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24JF-1368 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 243FI369 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1370 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1383 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1384 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1385 Historic Unknown Building Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-8 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.123.Zone Alternative 1C(80 Sites) • Site dumber. Site Type� I Site Description 24JF1572 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1573 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1603 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1616 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1640 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter. 24JF1690 Historic Unresolved Mining 24JF1820 Historic Not Eligible Homesteads- 24JF1875 Historic Unknown Mmm%. 24SBO119 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO303 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter`. 24SBO307 Historic Unknown Homestead, 24SBO421 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO422 Historic Unknown ^Irrigation 24SBO439 Historic Eligible Railroad. 24SBO626 Historic Unknown Irrigation 24SBO630 Prehistoric Unknown Game Trap 24SBO631 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO632 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO666 Prehistoric Unknown 'Lithic Scatter 24SB1010 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic HS-08-25 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-27 Prehistoric Unknown _ Game Trap HS-08-28, ` Historic . - Unknown' Homestead Table C.4424.Zorie Alternative 1D(50 Sites) SKe Number Sit Type Eligibitity ; Site Description 24BWO442 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24BWO629 Prehistoric Unresolved Stone Circle 241aW0773 Historic Eligible Building 24BWb797 Historic Unknown Railroad ,24BWO798 Historic Unknown Railroad AB )815 � Historic Not Eligible Building 24BWO8522 Historic Eligible Homestead 24BW1087 Historic Unknown Cairn 24DL0442 Historic Unknown Railroad 24JF0106 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 24JF0108 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-9 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-4.Zone Alternative 113(50 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Sitkio, orJlstion 24JF0498 Historic Unknown Building 24JF0766 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0839 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0840 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0841 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF0864 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF-0948 Historic Eligible Railroad .. 24JP0977 Historic Not Eligible r Homestead 24JF1057 Historic Unknown Stock Raising 24JF1058 Historic Not Eligible Homestead,. 24JF1061 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1071 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF1072 Historic Not Eligible Mining 24JF1092 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF1095 Historic Unknown Homestead 24JF1121 Historic Not Eligible 'Trash--Dump 24JF1200 Historic Unknown Trash Dump • 24JF1314 Historic Unknown Mining District 24JF1347 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1348 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1359 Historic ' Unknown Building 24JF1362 Historic Not Eligible Road 24JF1363 Prehistoric - Not Eligible Lithic Scatter 24JF1368 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1384 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1572 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1573 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1850 Historic Unknown Irrigation :HS-08-24 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-68-29 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-30 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-31 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-32 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-33 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-34 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-35 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-36 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-37 Historic Unknown Homestead • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-10 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.4. Zone Alternative 1D(50 Sites) • Site Number Site Type Migibility Site Description HS-08.38 Historic Unknown Building Table C.4.12-5.Zone Alternative 2A(46 Sites) Site Number- Site Type J Eligibility Site Description 24BE0151 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0462 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter,. 24BE0463 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0464 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0990 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 24BE1321 Historic Unknown Mining;; 24BE1322 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1323 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1373 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1396 Prehistoric ,_ 'Unresolved -. Lithic Scatter 24BE1397 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24BE1399 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1709 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1737 Historic Migible Irrigation • 24BE2012 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE2061 Historic Unknown Road 24DL0211/ Historic Listed Butte Anaconda NHLD 24SBO124 24DLO238 Prehistoric unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24DLO294 Historic Unknown Homestead 24DLO295 H§tortc Unknown Building 24DL0300 Historic Unknown Mining 24131-0476`- Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24SBO123 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO168 prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO169 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO191 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SB[f236 Prehistoric Eligible Lithic Scatter 24SB0301,- Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO302 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SB0304 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SB0305 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO306 Historic Unknown Homestead Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-11 MSTI • Appendix C.4.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.5.Zone Alternative 2A(46 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site bes4'riptiibn 24SBO308 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO370 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24SBO423 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO498 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO685 Historic Unknown Building--' `.. 24SBO746 Historic Unknown Mining" 24SBO747 Historic Unknown 24SBO748 Historic Unknown ;-Trash bump 24SBO750 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO751 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO752 Historic Unknown Mining 24SB1003 Prehistoric Unresolved GamaTtap 24SB1004 Prehistoric Unknown UthicScatter 24SB1371 Historic Unknown Unclassified.Historic Table C.4.12-6.Zone Alternative 2B(45 Sites) • Site Number Site Type_ li6g4AOty tlteDescription 24BE0511/551 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0653 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1182 Historic i. Unresolved Homestead 24BE1314 Prehistoric. `-. Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1315 Prehistoric: Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1321 ` Historic Unknown Mining 24BE1322. Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1323 Historic Unknown Homestead 248E1373 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1396 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24BE1397 Multtcomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24BE1399 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1856 Historic Eligible Irrigation 24BE2012 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24DL0211/ Historic Listed Butte Anaconda NHLD 24SBO124 24DLO238 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24DLO294 Historic Unknown Homestead 24DLO295 Historic Unknown Building 24DLO300 Historic Unknown Mining Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-12 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.6.Zone Alternative 2B(45 Sites) • SitaNumber Site Type Eligibility Site Description 24DLO476 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24SBO123 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO168 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO169 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO191 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO236 Prehistoric Eligible Lithic Scatter 24SBO301 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO302 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO304 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO305 Historic Unknown Homestead, 24SBO306 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO308 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO370 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24SBO423 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO498 Historic Unknown Mining.:- 24SBO685 Historic Unknown Building 24SBO746 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO747 Historic Unknown Road 24SBO748 Historic Unknown Trash Dump • 24SBO749 Historic Unknown Irrigation 24SBO750 Historic- Unknown Mining 24SBO751 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO752 Historic Unknown Mining 24SB1003 Prehistoric Unresolved Game Trap 24SB1004, Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24561371 Unknown- Unknown Unclassified Historic Y. Table .4.12-7.Zone Alternative 2C(68 Sites) Site MOW Si T ype - Eligibility Site Description 24BE0221 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter 24BEOZ24 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 241360684 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0686` Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE6686 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter -24SE0688 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1297 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1298 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-13 MS IT Appendix 04.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.7.Zone Alternative 2C(68 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site Description 24BE1299 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1841 Historic Eligible Irrigation 24BE1842 Historic Eligible Road 24 / 245S6012BO12 4 Historic Listed Butte Anaconda NHLD 24DLO238 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24DLO294 Historic Unknown Homestead 24DLO295 Historic Unknown 13wldtng 24DLO300 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO476 Historic Unknown UnciassifiedA$toric 24JF? Historic Unknown Hofn2stead 24JF? Prehistoric Unknown Unknown Prehistoric 24JF0767 Historic Unknown Road 24JF0995 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter 24JP0999 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24JF1331 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1349 Historic Unknown Building 24JF1367 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter • 24JF1369 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1370 Historic Unknown Mining 243F1383 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24JF1385 Historic Unknown Building 24JF1603 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1616 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1640: Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24JF1685/ Historic Unresolved Railroad 24SBO617 24JF1690 Historic",- Unresolved Mining 24JF1820 Historic Not Eligible Homestead 24JF1847 Kstoric Not Eligible Railroad 24JF1875 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0280 Prehistoric Unknown Game Trap 24MA0486 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0487 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0664 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24MA0682 Prehistoric Unknown Game Trap 24MA0971 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0972 Historic Unknown Silver Star Mine • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-14 MSTI Appendix 04.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) • Table C.4.12-7.Zone Alternative 2C(68 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site Description 24MA0973 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0974 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0975 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0981 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA1930 Prehistoric unresolved Lithic Scatter 24MA1931 Prehistoric unresolved Game Trap 24SBO123 Historic Unknown Mining.:. 24Sb0183 Historic Unknown Railroad 24SBO301 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO302 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO304 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO305 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO306 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO308 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SBO423 Historic Mining =�- 24SB049B Historic Unknown Mirpng 24SBO685 Historic Unknown Building 24SBO746 Historic Unknown Mining • 24SBO747 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO748 Historic Unknown Road 24SBO750 ; Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO751 _ Prehistoric Unknown'- Lithic Scatter 24SB0752 Historic Unknown Mining HS-0839,' Historic Unknown Homestead Table-C.4.12.8.Zone Alternative 2D(60 Sites) Site Numtif 6 ` Site 1, Pe Eligibility Site Description ,24BE0187 Historic Unknown Town Site 24FE0461 Historic Unknown Homestead 24650519 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BED840 T Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 246E0841 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24BE 073 Prehistoric Un 1 known i hic Scatter Lt 24SE1181 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1321 Historic Unknown Mining 24BE1322 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1324 Historic Unknown Mining Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-15 MSTI Appendix 6.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) • Table C.4.12.8.Zone Alternative 2D(60 Sites) Sitewumber Site Type Htigibitity, SiteDesctSptiDa 24BE1325 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1326 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1709 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE2045 Historic Unknown Road 24DLO237 Historic Unknown Irrigation 24DLO252 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO294 Historic Unknown Homestead 24DLO300 Historic Unknown Mining 24DLO442 Historic Unknown Railroad 24DLO449 Historic Unresolved Building 24DLO453 Historic Unknown cemetery 24DLO454 Historic Unknown Road 24DLO455 Historic Unknown Road 24DL0456 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24DLO457 Historic Unknown Railroad- 24DLO458 Historic Unknown " Railroad 24DLO459 Historic Unknown Town Site • 24DL0460 Historic Unknown Building 24DLO707 Historic Unknown Road 24DLO728 ..Historic Unknown. Road 24DLO729 Historic Not Eligible Trash Dump 24DLO733 Prehistoric: -Unknown Lithic Scatter 24DLO769 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24DL460a Historic Unknown Building 24SB0090 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO178 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24SBO236 Prehistoric Eligible Lithic Scatter 24SBO298. Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO300 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO302 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO370 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24SBO422 Historic Unknown Irrigation 24560423 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO581 Historic Eligible Road 24SBO625 Historic Eligible Railroad 24SBO746 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO747 Historic Unknown Road 24560748 Historic Unknown Trash Dump • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-16 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-8.Zone Alternative 2D 60 Sites SPte Number Site Type Eligibility Site Description 24SBO749 Historic Unknown Irrigation 24SBO750 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO751 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24SBO752 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO805 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24SBO806 Historic Unknown Mining 24SB1003 Prehistoric Unresolved Game Trap 24SB1371 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic �I HS-08-01 Historic Unknown Railroad None Historic Unknown Bryant mining district None Historic Unknown Utopia mining;district None Historic Listed Butte Anaconda NHLD Table C.4.12-9.Zone Alternative 2E(28 Sites) Site Nurnber Site Type Eligibi'fity Re Descripfiotr 24BE0221 Prehistoric, Unknown _. Lithic Scatter 24BE0224 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle • 24BE0684 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0685 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0686 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0688 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1297 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1298 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1299 „Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1841,.. Historic Unknown Irrigation 24SE1842 ` Historic Unknown Road 243FO767 Historic Unknown Road 24JF0999 z; Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24JF1685/ Historic Unresolved Railroad 24SBO617 24JF1847 Historic Unknown Railroad 24MA0280 Prehistoric Unknown Game Trap 24MA0486 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0487 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0664 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 24MA0682 Prehistoric Unknown Game Trap 24MA0971 Historic Unknown Mining • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-17 MSTI P B Appendix C.4.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.9. Zone Alternative 2E(28 Sites) Site Number Sitely0e, Eligibility ;Site tips option 24MA0972 Historic Unknown Silver Star Mine 24MA0973 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0974 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0975 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA0981 Historic Unknown Mining 24MA1930 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic°Scatter, 24MA1931 Prehistoric Unknown Caame.Trap Table C.4.12-10. Zone Alternative 3A (42 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility 'Ote pescriptinn 24BE?? Historic Unknown Unclassified'Historic 24BE0022 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter 24BE0175 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24BE0197 Historic Unknown Homestead's 24BE0226 Prehistoric Unknown Stone_ Circle 24BE0227 Prehistoric Unknown Ljthic Scatter • 24BE0228 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 24BE0467 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0468 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0476 Prehistoric- Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0476 Prehistoric Unknown?. Stone Circle 24BE0514 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0515 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE066D Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0670 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0691 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0692 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 24BE0701 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 241BE0705 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24BE0772 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 246E0829 Historic Unknown Building 24BE0830:: Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0831 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0832 Historic Unknown Building 24BE1028 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1166 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1250 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-18 MS TI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-10.Zone Alternative 3A(42 Sites) . Site Number Siig Type Etigibitity Site Description- 24BE1400 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1408 Historic Eligible Railroad 24BE1516 Historic Unknown Building 24BE1767 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE2149 Historic Unknown Trash Dump HS-08-41 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-42 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-43 Historic Unknown Homestead HS-08-45 Historic Unknown Cairn HS-08-46 Historic Unknown Homestead r HS-08-47 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-48 Historic Unknown Budding HS-08-49 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-50 Historic Unknown Budding R. Lowe HS Historic Unknown Table C.4.12-11.Zone Alternative 36(46 Sites), Site Number Site Type �� gligibit#ty°<i 4° Site Description 24BE0024 Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24BE0193 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0196 Historic Unknown Mining 24BE0262 Historic _ Unknown Mining 24BE0263 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0411 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0478 - Historic Unknown Cemetery 246E_0481 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0483A Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24BE0529 Prehistoric eligible Lithic Scatter 24BE0532 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0660 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0670 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0754-` Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0761 Historic Unknown Building 2413E-0829 Historic Unknown Building 24BE0830 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0831 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0832 Historic Unknown Building • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-19 MS TI Appendix C.4.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-11. Zone Alternative 3B(46 Sites) Site Number Sile-rype� £fi ibill SEtelleserf lion 24BE0855 Prehistoric eligible Lithic Scatter 24BE0926 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1005 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter 24BE1093 Historic Unknown Mining 24BE1097 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter 24BE1098 Prehistoric eligible Rockshelter, 24BE1099 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic`Scatter 24BE1100 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1101 Prehistoric Unknown Uthic Scatter 24BE1166 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1196 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1207 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1231 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1319 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1336 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1383 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1408 Historic eligible Railroad • 24BE1569 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1573 Prehistoric Unknown- Unknown Prehistoric 24BE1724 Prehistoric Unresolved Stone Circle 24BE2009 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 24BE2102 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE2201 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE483B Prehistoric Unresolved Stone Circle HS-08-40 `Historic. Unknown Building HS-08-41 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-42.. Historic Unknown Homestead Table C.4.12-12. Zone Alternative 3C(45 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site Description 24SE0024 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0193 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0197 Historic Unknown Mining 24BE0262 Historic Unknown Mining 24BE0478 Historic Unknown Cemetery 24BE0481 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-20 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.12.Zone Alternative 3C(45 Sites) • Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site Description 24BE0483A Prehistoric Unresolved Lithic Scatter 24BE0514 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0515 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0529 Prehistoric Eligible Lithic Scatter 24BE0660 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0670 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0691 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0692 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 24BE0711 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0716 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0757 Prehistoric Unknown,", Lithic.Scatter 24BE0761 Historic Unknown Building 24BE0829 Historic Unknown Building 24BE0830 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0831 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0832 Historic Unknown Building 24BE0854 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE0855 Prehistoric Eligible Lithic Scatter • 24BE0926 Historic Unknown" Homestead 24BE1005 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter 24BE1093 Historic Unknown Mining 24BE1166 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1196' Prehistoric .`,,Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1207 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE12S1.. Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1250 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BEM9 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1383 ' Unclassified Unknown Cairn 24BE1408 Historic Eligible Railroad 24BE1569 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BEA701 Historic Unknown Building 24BE1724 x Prehistoric Unresolved Stone Circle 24BE17,67 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 246E2009 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 24BE2102 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE2201 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-21 MSTI • Appendix C.4.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-12. Zone Alternative 3C(45 Sites) Site Number SCte7ype EVigi Wit y SliteDes+capSion 24BE483B Prehistoric Unresolved Stone Circle HS-08-41 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-42 Historic Unknown Homestead Table C.4.12-13.Zone Alternative 4A(25 Sites) gO Site Number Site Type Eligibility Slte Deg rijitiprl>'µ 10CL110 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter' IOCL111 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OCL112 Prehistoric Unknown Litttic Scatter' IOCL207 Prehistoric Unknown lithic Scattet:= ' IOCL307 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10CL314 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 10CL508 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OCL510 Prehistoric Unknown ' -4 ithic Scatter IOCL736 Prehistoric Unknown Lithip Scatter IOCL743 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter . 1OCL744 Historic Unknown Building 10CL745 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10CL746 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10CL750 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOCL751 Prehistoric ' Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OCL752 Prehistoric _ Unknown'" Lithic Scatter IOCL773 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOCL774 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOCL775 "> Prehistoric iUnknown Lithic Scatter 1OCL793 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 10CL85 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 1OCL859 Historic Unknown Historic Trash Dump 10CL860 Historic Unknown Historic Trash Dump 33-242 Historic Unknown Town Site 33-5777 Historic Unknown Road Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-22 MS TI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.14.Zone Alternative 5A(137 Sites) • Site Nutitber Site Type i iigibility,- Site Description 10BM132 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM149 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM396 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBM400 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOBM401 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BM406 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOBM413 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and l_ijhic Scatter IOBM414 Multicomponent Unknown H istoric Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BM440 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM452 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter. 10BM566 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lttfiic Scatter IOBM685 Prehistoric Unknown t Lithic Scatter 10BM688 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBM716 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter IOBT107 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1185 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1284 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1313 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1314 Prehistoric Unknown v Lithic Scatter • 1OBT1315 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOBT1331 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1341 Prehistoric Unkri•7wn Lithic Scatter 1OBT1345 , Prehistoric... Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1345 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10ST1348 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1362 = Prehistorie= Unknown Lithic Scatter -IOBT1484 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1505, Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BT151 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 108T1518 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1520 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1521 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 108T1522_ Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1580 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1532 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1536 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1537 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1546 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-23 MS TI Appendix C.4.12 . Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.14.Zone Alternative 5A(137 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eirgr'biiify Site Descript)on 1OBT1556 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1562 Historic Unknown irrigation 1OBT1574 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1586 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1587 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1638 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 1OBT1653 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1696 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter I 1OBT1697 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic' after IOBT1698 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1699 Prehistoric Unknown = Lithic Scatter IOBT1700 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1704 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1713 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBT1714 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1715 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1716 Multicomponent ;Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter • 1OBT1717 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1718 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1721 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 1OBT1722 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1723 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1724 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1759 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter IOBT1760 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10871765 >:. Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1836 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1837... Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1839 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1840 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1841 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBTS842 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1843 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1844 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10671845 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10671846 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1847 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT1848 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-24 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-14.Zone Alternative 5A(137 Sites) • Site Nfimbec Site Type Eligitilli#y Site Description 1OBT1850 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IDST1853 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 1OBT19 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1967 Multicomponent Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT1968 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 1OBT2141 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT2142 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT2143 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT2144 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT2145 Prehistoric Unknown _ Unknown Prehistoric 1OBT33 Prehistoric Unknown, Lithic Scatter IOBT377 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT378 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic.Scatter IOBT380 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT387 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT393 Multicomponent, Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BT394 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 1OBT41 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT435 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter • IOBT47 Prehistoric Unknown Cave 1OBT538 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT539 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1087540 Prehi!TOQ x- Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT561 `Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBTS62 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT563 '; Prehistotic - Unknown Lithic Scatter IDBT564 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT619 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter .. 1OBT64 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOET647 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT648 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 1OB,T649 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 14BT65Q Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT651 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT652 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT653 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT654 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter IOBT657 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter • Drat Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-25 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.14.Zone Alternative 5A(137 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Sne bescrigtkin 1OBT658 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT659 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT738 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBT961 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBT962 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10CL344 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOCL345 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic banter 10CL346 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10CL355 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOCL58 Prehistoric Unknown ,Lithic Scatter, IOCL665 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOCL715 Prehistoric Unknown l thic.Scatter 10CLBOO Historic Unknown Road 10JF310 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF311 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF67 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 23-9910 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic • 23-9935 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 23-9936 Historic Unknown Building 23-9938 Historic Unknown Dosimetry Calibration Station 33-15035 Historic Unknown Building 33-15038 History Unknown Railroad 33-8614 Historic Unknown Building Table C.4.12-15.Zone Alternative 58(52 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site Description IOBM149 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter .10BM191 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBM192 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 106M194 Prehistoric Unknown Unknown Prehistoric IOBM212 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM213 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM214 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM216 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM306 Historic Unknown Goodale's Cutoff 10BM33 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBM342 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-26 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-15.Zone Alternative 5B (52 Sites) • Site Numtlet Site Type Eligibility Site Description 10BM343 Historic Unknown Cairn 10BM344 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BM396 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BM400 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BM401 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BM406 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BM413 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and-LithieScatter. 10BM414 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOBM440 Prehistoric Unknown - Lithic Scatter 10BM452 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM46 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBM566 Multicomponent Unknown ' Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BM685 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic:Scatter IOBM688 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM697 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM698 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic.Scatter 10BM699 Prehistoric ;Unknown Prbhirstoric` dividual Artifact 10BM700 Prehistoric UnkridWri Lithic Scatter • 10BM716 Prehistoric Unknown r Cave 1OBV86 Historic Unknown Hunting Blind IOCL799 Historic Unknown Road 10JF152 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF153 Prehistoric ,_ Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF154 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF155. Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 103F156 Prehisforic - Unknown Lithic Scatter 103F193 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter -� 10JF194 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOJF195 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 103F197 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 10JFVJ8 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10JFk99 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF200 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 10JF201 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1Q, 202 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF320 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF33 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJF401 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-27 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) • Table C.4.12.15.Zone Alternative 5B (52 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site C1P.sorlption 10JF402 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 11-18004 Historic Unknown Railroad 51-9345 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic Table C.4.12-16.Zone Alternative 5C(40 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site peOW ti[trt;i IOBM101 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBM306 Historic Unknown Goodales Cutoff IOBM764 Historic Unknown Aberdeen-Springfield Canal IOBM765 Historic Unknown Building 10BM766 Historic Unknown Sidehill Canal IOBM767 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature'-and Lithic Scatter 10BM768 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash andt-thic Scatter IOBM769 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact IOBM770 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOBM771 Historic Unknown Trash Dump • 10BM772 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBV41 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter IOBV42 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBV43 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter JOBV44 Prehistoric:: Unknown.: Cave IOCL799 Historic Unknown Road 10JF152 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF153:.. Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJF154 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJF155 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJF156 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF193 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJF194 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10JF195 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF-197 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic JOJF-198 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOJF199 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF200 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter `IOJF201 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF202 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF320 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter • Drat Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-28 MS TI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.16.Zone Alternative 5C(40 Sites) • Site Number Site Type Eligibility Site Description 10JF33 Unknown Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJF33 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF401 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact_ IOJF402 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 11-17799 Historic Unknown Irrigation 11-17806 Historic Unknown Railroad 11-18004 Historic Unknown Railroad 19-18147 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic I 51-9345 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic I Table C.4.12-17.Zone Alternative 5D,(42 Sites) Site w irn Site Type Etigl 0ty Site Description 10BM101 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM162 Prehistoric Unkhown' . Lithic Scatter`' IOBM172 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 10BM187 Historic Unknown Building 10BM191 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBM192 Historic Unknown Trash Dump • 10BM194 Prehistoric Unknown Unknown Prehistoric 10BM212 Prehistoric, U=nknown Lithic Scatter 10BM213 Prehistoric. Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM214 - Prehistoric, _ Unknown - Lithic Scatter 10BM215 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBM216 Prehistoric Unknown Cave 10BM306 Historic Unknown Goodale's Cutoff IOBM389 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1081VI391 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter ....IOBM724 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBM725 �Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BM726 Historic Unknown Building 10BM727 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 1OBM72$' Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 1OBM729 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter OBV86 Historic Unknown Hunting Blind 1OCL799 Historic Unknown Road 10JF152 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF153 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter Drat Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Pa • Draft e-29 MSTI p g Appendix C.4.12 • Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12.17.Zone Alternative 5D(42 Sites) Site Number Site Type Eligibility Sitepextkipti*0 10JF154 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter ` !; IOJF155 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF156 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF193 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJF-194 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Litho Scatter 10JF195 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF197 Historic Unknown UnclassiftedHistone IOJF198 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter _ IOJF199 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF200 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Featore and Littiic;Scatter 10JF201 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter, 10JF202 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JF320 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJF33 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OJF401 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric IndiwdualArtifact IOJF402 Prehistoric Unknown Piehistoricl0dividdal Artifact 51-9345 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic • Table-C.4.12-18.Zone Alternative 6A(98 Sites) Ilk Site Number ,'Site Type Eligibili SiteDescnption ??? Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic IOBM402 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBM411 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBN1135 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBN1157 ' Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10661159 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBN1160 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBN1161 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBN1162 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBN1163 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 1OBN1164 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBN1165 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBN1166 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOBN1167 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBN1168 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOBN1169 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 1OBN1170 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-30 MSTI i Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.1248. Zone Alternative 6A(98 Sites) • Site Aumbet Stte Type Ogibility Site Description` 1OBN1171 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 1OBN1259 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBN1260 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBN1261 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBN1264 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10BN376 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 1OBN395 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBN546 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBN561 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBN577 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic.Scatter 1OBN610 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10BN62 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOBN632 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 108N654 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OBN676 Multicomponent Ufaknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OBN727 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 1OBN733 Prehistoric Unknown. Lithic Scatter 10JE501 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOJE507 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic • 10JE604 Multicomponent Unknown Cairn 10JE605 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10JE647 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10JE671 _ Prehistoric Unknoww Lithic Scatter 1OLN1096 Prehistoric Lktttrt n Prehistoric Individual Artifact 1OLN1097 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OLN117 = Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter loLfit34g0 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOLN1186 Historic'- Unknown Unclassified Historic 1OLN1187 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OLN1188 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OLUi189 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OLN1190 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 10LN1191 '' Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 10LNIA9 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 1OLN1193 Historic Unknown Trash Dump 1OLN1194 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OLN1195 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OLN125 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-31 MSTI • Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) • Table C.4.12.18.Zone Alternative 6A (98 Sites) Site'Number Site Type E6gibitity Site 19eSrxiption 1OLN126 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOLN127 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOLN128 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOLN129 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 1OLN130 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOLN131 Prehistoric Unknown Rockshelter IOLN341 Historic Unknown Railroad,,, IOLN392 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter' IOLN425 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OLN436 Historic Unknown Building IOLN452 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter I 1OLN62 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOLN621 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 1OLN65 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOLN657 Prehistoric Unknown . Lithic Scatter 1OLN661 Prehistoric Unknown dame Trap IOLN665 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact • 1OLN666 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter IOLN672 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOLN892 Historic Unknown Trash Dump IOLN893 Prehistoric '' Unknown Lithic Scatter IOLN894 Multicomponent: Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 1OLN899 Multicomponent. Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 1OMA281 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter IOMA294 Historic Unknown Cairn 10MA285 Historic Unknown Cairn 10MA366 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact IOMA485 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact IOMA488 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact IOMA489 Prehistoric Unknown Prehistoric Individual Artifact 10MA490 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10MA491 Historic Unknown Cairn 1OMA492 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Scatter 10MA493 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter IOMA494 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10MA495 Historic Unknown Cairn IOMA53 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 10PR772 Historic Unknown Cairn Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-32 MSTI Appendix C.4.12 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) Table C.4.12-18.Zone Alternative 8A(98 Sites) • Sff Number . Site Type Etigibtlit4 SiteDescriptioh 1OPR780 Historic Unknown Trash Dump IOPR781 Multicomponent unknown Historic Feature and Lithic Scatter 10PR783 Historic unknown Building 53-11168 Historic Unknown Building MILNER Historic Unknown Irrigation GOODING canal Table C.4.12-19. All LRO Sites(48 Sites) LRO Narne Site Nornber site Type Eligibr�Oy Sii .ail cription Beef Trail LRO 24BSB183 Historic Unknown_ Railroad 24JF0686 Historic Unknown Homestead Boulder Hill LRO 24JF0751 Historic Unknown Mining 24JF1006 Prehistoric Unknown Game Trap 24JF1007 Prehistoric -' Unknown _Lithic Scatter.: 24BE0193 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0759 Prehistoric, Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0853 Mufti-component Unknown Stone Circle Clark Canyon East 24BE0926 Historic Unknown Homestead • LRO 24BE0965. Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE0966 Prehistoric " Unknown Lithic Scatter -.24BE1093 ni Historic ';Unknown Mining 248E1196 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter HS-08-42 Historic Unknown Homestead 24SE0196 Historic Unknown Mining 24BE0411 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle Diamond Butte LRO 24BE0669 Unknown Unknown Cairn 24BE0660 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24$E067Q' Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter Fleeter LRO No SF16S 24BE0832 Historic Unknown Building Frying Pan Gulch" LRO 24BE1166 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1573 Prehistoric Unknown Unclassified Historic Lima L#2 I b 24BE0844 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1408 Historic Eligible Railroad 24SE0692 Multicomponent Unknown Historic Trash and Lithic Link 34 Scatter 24BE0197 Historic Unknown Homestead Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-33 MSTI • Appendix C.4.22 Previously Identified Sites(Tables) • Table C.4.12-19. All LRO Sites(48 Sites) LRO Name Site Nuniber Site Type 'Ell ibiiity site 6e35ii 6rl 24BE0514 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1079 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1250 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BE1710 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter 24BE1767 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter.. 24SBO182 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic Lower Boulder 1 HS-08-31 Historic Unknown Building. LRO HS-08-32 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE1322 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BE2012 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circe Maiden Rock LRO 24SB1371 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24BE1321 Historic Unknown Mining 24SBO371 Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter Mount Haggin LRO 24DLO476 Historic Unknown Unclassified Historic 24SBO182 Prehistoric Unknown Unknown North of Buxton LRO ' HS-08-39 Historic Unknown Homestead 24BW0246 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle Radersburg LRO 24BWO800 Historic Unknown Btrilding • HS-08-19 Historic Unknown Mining Rock Creek LRO 24BE1073:- Prehistoric Unknown Lithic Scatter South of Butte LRO No Sites HS-08-38 Historic unknown Building 24BWO552 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle 24BWO883 Historic Unresolved Mining Upper Boulder 1 and 24BW0884 Historic Unresolved Mining 2 24BWO885 Historic Not Eligible Road 24BW08BG Historic Not Eligible Mining 24BW1001 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle HS-08-32 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-36 Historic Unknown Building HS-08-37 Unknown Unknown Unknown Upper Boulder 2 ' 24BW0554 Prehistoric Unknown Stone Circle HS-08-32 Historic Unknown Building Willow Creek LRO No Sites • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.12 Page-34 MSTI Confidential Appendix C.4.13 Previously Identified Site (Maps) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix CAM Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs C.4.14.5.7 Impacts to Cultural Resources within and around the LROs The following LRO analyses are organized alphabetically by Zone. Beef Trail LRO Previously Identified Sites.There is one previously identified historic site within the Beef Trail LRO. It is a railroad with an unknown NRHP eligibility. There is one previously identified historic site within the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B,,and 2C. It is a railroad with an unknown NRHP eligibility. Site Density Model.This LRO consists of 57 percent high site density areas,42 percent medium site density areas,and one percent low site density areas( Figure C.4.14-1). This model indicates that the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 2C consists of 57 percent high site density areas,42 percent medium site density areas and one percent low site density areas.Both routes have identical site density models indicating that both have-a high to moderate probability of encountering unrecorded cultural resources.--- Beef Trail LRO i Section of Alternatives 1B 1% and 2C Zvi Low .l 1% 4Medium • •High Medium - ■High i Figure C.4.14.1. Beef Trail LRO and Correspondinj Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysts Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.The Beef Trail LRO or the corresponding section of Alternatives 113 and 2C will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources. Sensitive Point Visual Impact Analysis. No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive point Tally. Of the 67 sensitive visual points that were included in the qualitative proximity imalysis,three would,' e within the visual study corridor of the Beef Trail LRO and the corresponding section of the zone 0ltematives. Summary of Beef Trail LRO.There is no appreciable difference between the impact to cultural resources from the section of Alternatives 1B and 2C and the Beef Trail LRO. Both impact the same -previously identified site,do not have any visual impacts,and have identical site density models(Table C.4.14-1). Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • Table C.4.14.1.Comparison of Beef Trail LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Beef Trail LRO LROI Alternative Beef Trail LRO Aftetnatives 1B and 2G .,r Miles in Length 2.7 miles7tkniles Total 1 1 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites Eligible 0 0 , NRHP Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 1 h Not Eligible 0 0 High 57% 57% Site Density Model Med 42% 42% Low 1% 0/0 IFG 0 0 Project FG 0 0 Visual Component MG 0 0 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MG 0 0 • Sensitive Point Talley 3 : 0 Impact on Cultural Resources Equal Equal Boulder Hill LRO Previously Identifiedy Sites.There are four previously identified sites within the Boulder Hill LRO.Two are historic sites and two are prehistoric sites.The two historic sites consist of one homestead and one mining sites.The two prehistoric sites consist of one game trap and one lithic scatter. All have unknown NRHP eligibilities. There are tour previously identified.sites within the corresponding section of Alternative 1A. One of these sites is prehistoric and three are historic. The prehistoric site is a rock art site.The historic sites are two mines and a homestead.All have unknown NRHP eligibilities. Site Density Model'.This LRO consists of 57 percent high site density areas and 43 percent medium site density areas. The corresponding section of Alternative LA is comprised of 58 percent high site density areas and 42 percent of medium site density areas(Figure C.4.14-2).The similarity between these two models indicates that both areas will have a high to moderate probability of encountering unrecorded cultural resources. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-2 MSTI i Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Boulder Hill LRO Section of ! Alternative 1A Low 43% Low Medium 1 ■Hi h t42% Medium g ■High i . Figure C.4.14-2. Boulder Hill LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results I Project Component Visual Impact Analysis. One agency identified cultural'resource will be visible from this LRO: High Ore mining district(Figure CA.14-3). Figure C.4.14-3The length of the LRO that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. High Ore mining district—2.71 miles Middle_Ground. One agency identified cultural resource will bee,-visible from the corresponding section of Alternative 1A: High Ore mining district(Figure 0.4.14-3). The length of Alternative 1A that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • • High Ore mining district 3.61 miles Middle Ground. i1 Section of Alternative'. Boulder Hill LRO l 3.00 2.71 4.00 3.61A 3.50 2.50 3.00 -' { 2.00j L 2.50 m 2.00 _ a e ! 1.00 ` nl 1.50 1.00 a 0.5 a 0.50 + 0.00 _.a._- °- `- --- E 0.00 } MG MG 'High Ore mining district j;` High Ore mining district "Mileage of Project Component with ;F Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact Cultural !' Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Resources Figure C.4.14-3. Project Component Visual Impact Model Comparing Boulder Hill LRO and Corresponding Section of Alternative 1A Showing Middle Ground (MG) Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resource will be impact by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Summary of Boulder Hill LRO. The section of Alternative lA will have a greater impact on cultural resources than the corresponding Boulder Hill LRO(Table C.4.14-2). Both routes have similarsite density models, but the Boulder Hill LRO has more previously recorded cultural resources.,Ivliddle Ground visual impacts are present in both routes and only slightly higher for the sectionnf Alternative IA. Table C.4.14-2.Comparison of Boulder Hill LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section I'M Boulder Hill LRO LROI Alternative Boulder Hill LRO . <.v#Iter ve 1A Miles in Length 4.1 miles i�- ;miles Total 4 4 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 V- Evaluations Unresolved 0; 0 Unknown 4 4 Not Eligible 0 0 • High 579/0 58°% Site Densities Med 43% 42% Low 0% 0% Project Component IFG 0 0 FG 0 0 Visual MG 2.71 3.61 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 Impact on Cultural Resources Highest Lowest Lower Boulder LRO Previously identified Sites.The Lower Boulder LRO has four previously identified historic cultural resources: These sites consist of two dump sites and two historic buildings. All of these sites have unknown NRHP eligibilities. The corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and 1D has five previously identified cultural resources. These include four historic sites and one prehistoric site.The historic sites are three homesteads and a building. The prehistoric site is a stone circle site. All have unknown NRHP eligibilides. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-4 MS TI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Site Density Model.The site density model shows the Lower Boulder LRO has 28 percent high density • areas, 71 percent medium density areas, and one percent low density areas.The corresponding section of Alternatives 113 and ID has 23 percent high density areas, 75 percent medium density areas, and two percent low density areas(Figure C.4.14-4). Both of these areas will have a moderate to high chance of encountering unrecorded cultural resources,with slightly more areas of high probability in the Lower Boulder LRO. Lower Boulder LRO ,; Section of Alternatives t Low 16 and 1D r Medium 23�j ,Low ■High 71% Medium 75% ■High Figure 0.4.14-4. Lower Boulder LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis. No agency identified cultural resources will be visually impacted by the Lower Boulder LRO or the corresponding section of Alternatives 113 and 1D. Sensitive Point Visual Impact Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by • this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Sensitive Point Tally. None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of Lower Boulder LRO The Lower Boulder LRO has two previously identified sites.The corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and 1D has five previously identified sites(Table C.4.14-3)Neither section has any sites of known NRHP eligibility.T4elther route has any identified visual impacts. Because of its higher number of recorded sues,the section of Alternatives 1B and 1D will have more impacts on cultural resources than the Lower Boulder LRO. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-5 MS TI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • Table C.4.14.3.Comparison of Lower Boulder LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Lower Boulder LRO LRO/Alternative Lower Boulder LRO Alternatives 1B and 1pr Miles in Length 11,3 miles 10.6 miles Total 4 5 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 a Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 2 5" Not Eligible 0 0 —High 28% i3o 3 Site Density Model Med 71% 75% Low 1°!0 2% IFG 0` 0 Project Component FG 0 0 Visual MG 0 ?0 Impact Miles IFG -0 0 Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 • Impact on Cultural Resources Lowest Highest Radersburg LRO Previously Identified Sites.There are three;previously identified sites within the Radersburg LRO. These include a:building,the Radersburg mining district,and a prehistoric stone circle site. All have unknown NRHP eligibilities. There are 12 previously identified sites within the corresponding section of Alternative 1A.Two of these sites are prehistoric stone circle sites,nine are historic mining sites, and one is the Radersburg mining district.All have unknown NRHP eligibilities. Site Density Model.Per the site density model this LRO consists of 34 percent high site density areas and 66 percent medium site density areas(Figure 0.4.14-5).The site density model indicates that the corresponding section of Alternative IA consists of 46 percent high site density areas and 54 percent of medium site density areas. Both of these routes will have a moderate to high probability of encountering unrecorded cultural resources, with slightly more high probability areas in the corresponding section of Alternative l.A. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Radersburg LRO ;f Section of Alternative 1A Low Low Medium -:! 066% aHigh 54%,. Medium a High Figure C.4.14-5. Radersburg LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.One agency identified cultural resource will be visible from this LRO:The Radersburg mining district(Figure C.4.14-6).The length of the LRO that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. Radersburg mining district—4.77 miles Immediate Foreground,4.69 Foreground, and 4.69 miles Middle Ground. 4.78 4.77 476 Radersburg LRO 4.74 ,' • m 4.72 m g 4.70 4.69 4,69 i i 4.68 V . 4.66 4.64 . _. .-.. . --- IFG FG MG r } Radersburg mining district Mileageof Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Figure C.414-6.Project Component Visual Impact Model of Radersburg LRO Showing Immediate Foreground(IFG),Foreground(FG),and Middle Ground(MG)Impacts One agency identified cultural resource will be visible from the corresponding section of Alternative IA: Radersburg mining district(Figure C.4.14-7).The length of Alternative 1A that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Radersburg mining district—4.28 miles Immediate Foreground,4.24 Foreground, and 4.01 miles Middle Ground. Draft Environmental Impact Statement CA.14Page-7 MS TI • i Appendix C.4.14 • Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Section of Zone Alternative 1A 4.30 -, 4.28 '- 4.24 4.25 4.20 v 4.15 m4.10 4.05 4.01 4.00 a 3.95 3.90 x a y 3.85 --. _..-.--°_.__-_ - - i IFG FG MG = Radersburg mining district , Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Figure C.4.14-7. Project Component Visual impact Model of Section of Alternative 1A Showing: Immediate Foreground(IFG),Foreground (FG),and Middle Ground (MG) Impacts Sensitive Point Visual Impact Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by • this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of the Radersburg LRO.The section of Alternative IA will have a greater impact on cultural resources than the corresponding Radersburg LRO(table C.4.14-4).The alternatives have similar visual impacts to the Radersburg mining district,but Alternative 1A will impact 11 more previously identified I sites and has a higher percentage of high density site areas than the Radersburg LRO. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-8 MS TI Appendix 04.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4.14.4.Comparison of the Radersburg LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • Radersburg LRO LROI Alternative Radersburg LRO Alternative 1A Miles in length„ 4.8 miles —5.3 miles Total 3 12 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 0 Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 3 12 Not Eligible 0 0 High 34% 46% Site Density Model Med 66% 54% Low 0% 0% IFG 14.31 12.84 Project Component FG 9.35, 5.48 Visual Impact Visual MG 4.69 4.01 Impact — Miles IFG 0 0 Sensitive Point Fa' 0 ,._.. 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 • Impact on Cultural Resources Lowest Highest South of Butte LRO Previously Identified Sites.There are no previously identified sites within the South of Butte LRO or the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B;lC,apd2C. Site Density Model.The South of Butte LRO consists of 21 percent high site density areas, 74 percent medium site density areas, and 5percettt law site density areas(Figure C.4.14-8). The site density model indicates that the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B, 1C,and 2C consist of 22 percent high site density areas, 74 percent medium site density areas, and 4 percent of low site density areas.The two 'models are nearly-identical, indicating both routes will have areas of moderate site density interspersed with high and low site density areas Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-9 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 • Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs lj South of Butte 'f Section of Alternatives 1B, LRO 1C, and 2C 21% 5% 22% 4% a Low i.Low ' Medium Medium i ■High ■High -74% 749/ Figure C.4.14.8.South of Butte LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.The South of Butte LRO and the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B, 1C,and 2C will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources. Sensitive Point Visual Impact Analysis. No agency identified sensitive.point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.Of the 67 sensitive visual points that were included in thequalitative proximity analysis, four would be within the visual study corridor of the South of Butte LRO and the corresponding section of the zone alternatives. • Summary of the South of Butte LRO.The section of Alternatives 1B, 1C and 2C and the South of Butte LRO will have similar impacts to cultural resources. Both have similar site density models and neither route has any previously recorded sites or visual impacts to agency identified sites(Table C.4.14-5). • Drat Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-10 MS TI i Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4,14-5.Comparison of the South of Butte LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • Sfiuth of Butte LOO Alternatives LROI Alternative Sauthof Butte LRO 1B,1C and 2C Miles in Length 2 1 3.2 miles , 4.2 mires Total 0 0 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 0 Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 0 0 Not Eligible 0 0 High 21% 22% Site Density Model Med 74% 74% Low 5% 4% IFG 0 `:... 0 Project Component FG 0 0 Visual Impact Visual MG 0 ;0 Impact Miles IFG 0 0' Sensitive Point FG 0'' 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley '4 4 • Impact on Cultural Resources Equal Equal Upper Boulder 1 LRO Previously Identified Sites.There are eight previously identified sites within the Upper Boulder 1 LRO. Two are prehistoric and six are historic sites The two prehistoric sites consist of one game drive site with associated tipi rings and one tip!ring site.Both of these 3sites have Unknown NRHP eligibilities. The historic sites include: the Radersburg mining district recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, two mining sites with unresolved NRHPeiigibillies,one road and one mine recommended as not eligible for inclusion in tht?NRHP,and one building with an unknown NRHP eligibility. The corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and 11)has nine previously identified historic sites. These include seven historic buildings and the Silver Star Mine.This section also transects the Radersburg mfning district. The wining district and one of the historic building sites are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and-the other seven sites have unknown eligibilities. Site,Density Model.There are no low density areas in either the Upper Boulder 1 LRO or the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and 1D. Upper Boulder 1 LRO has 62 percent high density areas and 38 percent medium density areas.The corresponding section of the alternatives has 53 percent high density areas and 47 percent medium density areas(Figure C.4.14-9). Both of these models show that the routes will have high to moderate site density with no low density areas. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-11 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Upper Boulder 1 LRO I Section of Alternatives 1B and 1D Medium - Medium ;i C38% ■High 47% ■High d. i i 44 Figure C.4.14-9. Upper Boulder 1 LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.One agency identified cultural resource will be visible from this LRO: Radersburg mining district(Figure C.4.14-130).The length of the LRO that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Radersburg mining district-1.28 miles Immediate Foreground, 1.75 miles Foreground, and 5.77 miles Middle Ground. ....7.00 • 6.00 Upper Boulder 1 LRO 577 ; } m 4.00 a f 3.00 I ` 2.00 1.75 j 1.28 ,. 1.00 �— IFG FG MG i - - Radersburg mining district r, i Cultural Resource Figure C.4.14-10. Project Component Visual Impact Model of the Upper Boulder 1 LRO Showing Immediate Foreground (IFG), Foreground(FG),and Middle Ground (MG) Impacts One agency identified cultural resource will be visible from the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and 1D: Radersburg mining district(Figure C.4.14-11). The length of the alternatives section that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-12 MSTI Appendix C.4.I4 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • Radersburg mining district—2.81 miles Immediate Foreground,3.6 miles Foreground, and 7.32 miles • Middle Ground. Section of Alternatives 8 1B and 1D 7.32 m m 4 3.6 .. - 3 2.81 f 2 •ff 1 t kp IFG FG !° M5 i j Radersburg mining district Mileage of Project Component with Potentialtp Visually Impact Cultural Resources .. Figure C.4.14-11. Project Component Visual Impact Visual Model of the Corresponding Segment of Alternatives 1B and 10 Showing Immediate Foreground(IFG), Foreground (FG),and Middle Ground(MG) Impacts°-, Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the • corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally,None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of.Upper Boulder i LRO.The Upper Boulder 1 LRO and the associated section of Alternatives 1B-and ID have compa[able lengths,` umber of previously identified resources and predicted site densities. Thi alternatives will have a Higher impact on cultural resources because of the higher visual impact to the Radefsburg miningdistrict. (Table C.4.14-6). Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-13 MS Ti • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • Table C.4.14.6.Comparison of Upper Boulder 1 LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Upper Boulder 1 LRO Upper Boulder 1 LRO]Alternative Miles in LRO Alternatives SBand 10 Length 82 miles 122 miles Total 8 9 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites Eligible 1 2' NRHP Evaluations Unresolved 2 ,.0 Unknown 3 7 Not Eligible 2 0 High 62% 53% Site Density Model Med 38% 47% ' Low 0% Project IFG 1.28 " --- —— 2.81 Component FG 1.75 3.60 Visual Visual Impact MG 5.77 7.32 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Sensitive Point FG 0 0 I, MG 0 0 • _ Sensitive Point Talley 0 r; 0 Impact on Cultural Resources Lowest Highest Upper Boulder 2 LRO Previously Identified Sites.There are three,previously identified sites within the Upper Boulder 2 LRO. Two of these sites are historic buildings and the third is the Radersburg mining district.The historic building sites both have unknown NRHP eligibilities.The mining district is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and 1D has nine previously identified historic sites. These iirclude seven historic buildings and the Silver Star Mine. This section also transects the Radersburg muting district.The mining district and one of the historic building sites are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and the other seven sites have unknown eligibilities. Site Density Modell There is no low density area in either the Upper Boulder 2 LRO or the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and 1D. Upper Boulder 2 LRO has 62 percent high density areas and 38 percent medium density areas.The corresponding section of the alternatives has 53 percent high density areas`and 47 percent medium density areas(Figure C.4,14-12). Both of these models show that the routes wdl have high to moderate site density with no low density areas. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-14 MST[ Appendix CAM Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Upper Boulder 2 • Section of Alternatives LRO 1B and 1D C389'0 Medium Medium ■High i;I 53% 47% ■High Figure C.4.14-12. Upper Boulder 2 LRO and Corresponding Alternative SectiorrSite Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis. One agency identified cultural resource will be visible from this LRO:Radersburg mining district(Figure C.4.14-13). The length of the LRO that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Radersburg mining district-1.28 miles immediate Foreground, 1.75 miles Foreground, and 5.77 miles Middle Ground. 700 Upper Boulder 2 LRO 577 6.00 i m5.00 • 4.00 v 3.00 2.00 1.28 .� _ 100 { i IFG �` FG MG Radersburg mining district 1 Cultural Resource Figure C.4.14-13. Project Component Visual impact Model of the Upper Boulder 2 LRO Showing Ftnmediate Foreground(IFG),Foreground (FG),and Middle Ground(MG) Impacts One agency identified cultural resource will be visible from the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and ID: Radersburg mining district(Figure C.4.14-14). The length of the alternatives section that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Radersburg mining district—2.81 miles Immediate Foreground,3.6 miles Foreground,and 7.32 miles Middle Ground. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-15 MSTI • Appendix 04.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Section of Alternatives 113 and 11) 8 7.32 6 � m 5 u 4 q 1 3 2.81 21 E 1 a o IFG FG MG I j I i i Radersburg mining district Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impart Cultural Resources Figure C.4.14-14.Project Component Visual Impact Visual Model of the Corresponding Segment of Alternatives 16 and ID Showing Immediate Foreground (IFG),Foreground (FG),and Middle Ground(MG)Impacts • Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources wilt be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of Upper Boulder 2 LRO.The Upper Boulder-2 LRO and the associated section of Alternatives 113 and 1D have comparable lengths and predicted site densities.The alternatives will have a higher impact on cultural resources because of its higher number of previously identified sites and the higher visual-Impact to the Raderspurg,mining district. (Table C.4.14-7). • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-16 MSTI r Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4.14-7.Comparison of Upper Boulder 2 LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • Upper Boulder 2 LRO Upper-Boulder 2 Alternatives 18 and LRO-1 Aiternativd Miles in ' LRO 11) Length 6.8 miles 12.2 miles Total 3 9 Listed 0 0" Previously Identified Sites Eligible 1 2 NRHP Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 2 7 Not Eligible 0 0 High 62%= !':-53% Site Density Model Med ago/a 470/. Low 0% 0% Project IFG 1.28 2.81 Component FG 1.75 3.60 Visual Visual Impact MG 5.77 7.32 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 • Impact on Cultural Resources Lowest Highest i Upper Boulder 1 and 2 LRO Previously Identified Sites.There is one previouslyaadendfied sites within the Upper Boulder 1 and 2 LRO.This site is a historic building with an unknown NRHP eligibility. The corresponding section of Mternatives 1B and'1D has nine previously identified historic sites. These include seven historic buildings and the Silver Star Mine.This section also transects the Radersburg mining district.The mining district and one of the historic building sites are eligible for inclusion in the ,.NRHP and the other seven sites haveitnknown eligibilities. Site Density Model.There is no low density area in either the Upper Boulder 1 and 2 or the corresponding sectio4of Alternatives 1B and 1D. Upper Boulder land 2 LRO has 51 percent high density areas and 49 percent medium density areas.The corresponding section of the alternatives has 53 percent high density.,areas and 47 percent medium density areas(Figure C.4.14-15). Both of these models show that the routes will have high to moderate site density with no low density areas. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-17 MS TI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Upper Boulder 1 and Section of Alternatives E 2 LRO 113 and 1D I Medium Medium' 49%.. ■High 47% ■High . i y Figure C.4.14-15.Upper Boulder 1 LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.The Upper Boulder 1 and 2 LRO has no visual impacts identified by the project component visual impact model. One agency identified cultural resource will be visible from the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B and 1D: Radersburg mining district(Figure C.4.14-16). The length of the alternatives section that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Radersburg mining district—2.81 miles Immediate Foreground, 3.6 miles Foreground,and 7.32 miles Middle Ground. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-18 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Section of Alternatives $ , 16 and 11) 7.32 7 6 m 5 d 4 ! 3.6 3 2.81 a 2 1 i o ' IFG FG M6 � , Radersburg mining district Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Figure C.4.14-16. Project Component Visual Impact Visual Model of the Corresponding Segment of Alternatives 1B and 1D Showing Immediate Foreground (IFG),foreground (FG), and Middle Ground (MG) Impacts Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. • Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of Upper Boulder 1 and 2 LAO.The Upper Boulder 1 and 2 LRO and the associated section of Alternatives 1B and l D have comparable,lengths and predicted site densities.The alternatives will have a higher impact odculmraf resources because of it higher number of previously identified sites and the higher vis-W) impact to the Radersburg mining d strict.(Table C.4.14-8). Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-19 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • Table C.4.14.8. Comparison of Upper Boulder 1 LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Upper Boulder 1 and 2 LRO LROI Alternative Miles in Upper Boulder 1 and 2 LAO: Alternatives 16 end 1R- 'f- Length , 5.6 miles I17,2 mites mites ' Total 1 9 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites Eligible 0 2 NRHP Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 i Unknown 1 7 Not Eligible 0 0 High 51% 53% Site Density Model Med 49% 47%, Low OMo 0% Project IFG 0 2.81 Project FG 0 --,,3.60 Visual Visual Impact MG 0 7;32 Impact — Miles IFG 0 or Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MG 0 0 • Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 Impact on Cultural Resources _. Lowest'` Highest C.4.14.5.8 Impacts to Cultural Resources within and Around the LROs in Zone 2 The following LRO analyses are organized alphabetically by Zone. Fleecer LRO Previously Identified Sites.There are no previously identified sites within the Fleecer LRO or the corresponding section of Alternative 2D. Site Density Model.The Fleecer LRO consists of 55 percent high site density areas,44 percent medium site density areas,and one percent low site density areas(Figure C.414-17)The site density model >Indicates that the section of Alternative 2D is comprised of 53 percent high site density areas, 12 percent of medium site density areas, and one percent low site density areas. Both of these models show that the areas will have high to moderate site density with only small areas of low site density areas. i • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-20 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Fleeter LRO Section of Alternative l 1% =i 2p Low �'' 1% 44% ' Medium .j -°°Low .I 46% Medium 1 High I r High i Figure C.4.14-17. Fleecer LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.The Fleecer LRO and the corresponding section of Alternative 2D will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources. Viewshed Analysis.One agency identified sensitive point sites is near the Fleecer LRO.This is the NRHP listed Big Hole Pump Station. This site will not be visually impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Sensitive Point Tally. None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of the Fleecer LRO.The section of Alternative 21)and the Fleecer LRO will have similar • impacts to cultural resources. Both routes have similar site density models and neither has any previously identified cultural resources or visual impacts to agency identified cultural resources(Table C.4.14-9). Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-21 MS TI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs . Table C.4.14.9.Comparison of Fleecer LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Fleecer LRO LRO1 Alternative Fleecer-LRO Alternative 20 Miles in Length 3.2 miles 3S mites Total 0 0 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 0 .: Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 0 0 Not Eligible 0 b High 55% 53% Site Density Model Med 44% 46% Low 1% 1% IFG 0 0 Project Component FG 0 0 Visual Visual Impact MG 0 0 Impact Miles IFG 0 0. Sensitive Point FG 0.. MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 • Impact on Cultural Resources Equal Equal Maiden Rock LRO Previously Identified Sites. There are five previously identified sites within the Maiden Rock LRO.Two of these sites are prehistoric, two are historic, and one is unknown.The two prehistoric sites consist of a lithic scatter and a stone circle site.The two Historic sites are a mining site and a homestead. All have unknown NR14P eligibilities.. There are six sites within the corresponding:section of Alternatives 2A and 2B. Two of these sites are prehistoric and include a lithic scatter and a stone circle site.The lithic scatter is smaller than the average analyzed lithic scatter.The four historic sites consist of two homesteads, a trash dump,and a mining site. All have unknown'NRHP eligibilides. Site Density Model.The site density model shows the Maiden Rock LRO consists of 29 percent high site density area's, 68 percent medium site density areas,and three percent low site density areas(Figure C.4.14-18). The site density model indicates that the corresponding section of Alternatives 2A and 2B is comprised of 34 percent high site density areas, 64 percent of medium site density areas,and two percent low site density areas. Both of these models show that the routes will have high to moderate site density with only small areas of low densities. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-22 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Maiden Rock LRO I Section of Alternatives 2A j 3% � and 2B Low 2% Medium , Low Medium 6$% ■High ,1 064% !I ■High 't Figure C.4.14-18. Maiden Rock LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.Two agency identified sites will be visible from the Maiden Rock LRO: Bryant mining district and Melrose mining district(Figure C:4.14-19).The length of the LRO that may impact the cultural resources is listed below. • Bryant mining district-3.47 miles Middle Ground. • Melrose mining district-4.49 miles Middle Ground. Two agency identified sites will be visible from the corresponding section of the Alternatives 2Aand 2B: Bryant mining district and Melrose mining district(Figure.C.4.14-20). The length of the alternatives that may impact the cultural resources is listed below. • Bryant mining district—2.99 miles Middle Ground. • • Melrose mining district 4.78 miles Middle Ground. 5.00 Maiden Roc LRO 4.49 4.00 4' 3.47 -� 3.50 no 3.00 ia 1 v 2.50 t, 1 2.00 1.50 v,. "j MG MG Bryant mining district Melrose mining district � Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Figure C.4.14-19. Project Component Visual Impact Model of Maiden Rock LRO Showing Middle Ground (MG) Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-23 MS TI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Section of Alternatives 2A and 213 6.00 .; 5.00 4.78 1 ✓ e„ d 4.00 m 2.99 _m 3.00 2.00 sir a*yrs 1.00 OW r_ AW 0.00 MG MG l Bryant mining district Melrose mining district ,1 Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Figure C.4.14-20.Project Component Visual Impact Model of Section of Alternpitives 2A and 2B Showing Middle Ground(MG) Impacts Sensitive Point Visual Impact Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.Of the 67 sensitive visual points that were included in the qualitative proximity • analysis, one would be within the visual study corridor of the Maiden Rock LRO and the corresponding section of the zone alternatives. Summary of the Maiden Rock LRO.The section of Alternatives 2A,2B, and 2D will have a similar impact on cultural resources to the corresponding Maiden Rock LRO(Table C.4.14-10).Both routes have similar site density models, number of recorded sites;,and visual impacts to agency identified resources. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-24 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4.14.10.Comparison of Maiden Rock LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • Maiden Rock LRO L11 Aitetpative , Maiden Rook LRO Alternatives 2A and 2B :�AdesiR> ngtft 5.0-miles, 6.1 miles Total 5 6 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites Eligible 0 0 NRHP Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 5 6 Not Eligible 0 0 High 29% 34% Site Density Model Med 68% 64% Low 3% ? 2% , Project IFG 0 0 Component Visual FG 0 0 Visual Impact MG 7.96 7.77 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Viewshed FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 1 0 Impact on Cultural Equal Equa Resources I Mount Haggin LRO Previously Identified Sites.The Butte Anaconda Nl LD and one previously identified site are present within the Mount'Haggin LRO.The site is an unclassified historic site with an unknown NRHP eligibility. The Butte Anaconda NHLD and one previi-fly identified site are present within the section of Alternatives 1B,2A;�,B, and 2C.The site is an unclassified historic site with an unknown NRHP eligibility. Site Density Mode(`The site density model shows this LRO consists of 41 percent high site density areas -and 59 percent medium site density areas(Figure C.4.14-21). The site density model indicates that the carresponding section of Alternatives 1B, 2A, 2B, and 2C is comprised of 38 percent high site density areas and 62percentof medium site density areas.These models show that both routes will have moderate to high probabilities of encountering cultural resources with no areas of low site densities. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-25 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Mount Haggin Section of Alternatives 113, LRO 2A, 213, and 2C i ez Low W Low " 41% Medium 38%�.. Medium 59% 62%u ■High ■High Figure C.4.14.21. Mount Haggin LRO and Corresponding Alternative Sectlhn Site Densities' Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis. One agency identified site will be visible from the Mount Haggin LRO: Butte Anaconda NHLD (Figure C.4.14-22). The length of the LRO.that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Butte Anaconda NHLD— 1.54 miles Foreground and 1.62 miles Middle Ground. .., Mount Haggin LRO I 1.65 1.62 • _ d 1.60 i A 1.54 ' m 1.55 � 1.50 � 1.45..:-�' ---- FG MG 1., Butte Anaconda NHLD 3 ; Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Figure C.4.14-22.Project Component Visual impact Model of Mount Haggin LRO Showing Foreground(FG),and Middle Ground(MG)Impacts One agency identified site will be visible from the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B, 2A, 2B,and 2C: Butte Anaconda:NHLD(Figure C.4.14-23).The length of the alternatives that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Butte Anaconda NHLD—0.97 mile Foreground and 1.76 miles Middle Ground. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-26 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Section of Alternatives 16, 2A, 213, and 2C 2.00 - 1.76 0.97 " 7 a '7: ! 0 0.00 i FG MG i i Butte Anaconda NHLD ii i Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact ' Cultural Resources Figure C.4.14-23. Project Component Visual Impact Model of Section of Alternatives 1B,2A,213, and 2C Showing Foreground(FG),and Middle Ground(MG) Impacts Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be • impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of the Mount Haggin LRO,The Mount Haggin LPO will have a greater impact on cultural resources than the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B,2A, 2B, and 2C(Table C.4.14-11).Both routes have one previously identified resource,but the Mount Haggin LRO has a slightly higher percentage of high density areas and has more-.Foreground impact to the Butte Anaconda NHLD than the corresponding alternative section. I Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-27 MS TI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs . Table C.4.14-11.Comparison of Mount Haggin LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Mount Haggin LRO Akernatives1E,2A,s LROI Altemative Mount Haggin LRO, 26 end 2C Miles in Length 1.7miles 4.6iniles r, Total 2 2 Listed 1 1 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 0 Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 1 >1 Not Eligible 0 0 High 41% 38% Site Density Model Med 59% 62010 Low 0% 0% IFG 0 0 Project Component FG 3.08 1.94 Visual Visual Impact MG 162 1.76 Impact Miles IFG 0 '0 Sensitive Point PG 0 0 MG 0 0 • Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 Impact on Cultural Resources Highest Lowest Previously Identified Sites.There are two previously identified sites within the North of Buxton LRO. One of these sites is prehistoric unknown site and the other s a homestead that was identified through aerial reconnaissance:Both of these sites have unknown NRHP eligibilides. There are three previously identified sites within the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D.These are a prehistoric game drive, a building,and a homestead.All have unknown NRHP eligibilities Site Density Model.The site density model shows that the North of Buxton LRO consists of 29 percent high site density areas, 63 percent medium site density areas, and eight percent low site density areas (Figure 0.4.14-24).The site density model indic6tes that the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B, 2A, 2B,2C,and 2D is comprised of 31 percent high site density areas, 63 percent medium site density areas, and six percent low site density areas. Both of these models show that the areas will have moderate to high site density with small intermittent low density areas. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-28 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs North of Section of Alternatives 1B, Buxton LRO 2A, 2B, 2C, and 21) 8% 6% Low n Low 1. Medium Medium 63% op 63% ■High '■High Figure C.4.14-24. North of Buxton LRO and Corresponding Alternative:Section'Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.One agency identified site will be visible from the North of Buxton LRO: Butte Anaconda NHLD (Figure C.4.14-25).The length of the LRO that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Butte Anaconda NHLD-5.22 miles Middle Ground.- One agency identified site will be visible from the corresponding'section of Alternatives 1B, 2A, 2B,2C, and 2D:Butte Anaconda NHLD(Figure C.4.14-25).The length of the alternatives that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Butte Anaconda NHLD-0.92 mile Middle Ground. . Section of Alternatives 1B, North of Buxton LRO zA, 28, u, and zo 6.00 1 5:22 5,00 - FY' 0.92 j d 4.00 ,.; 1.00 s v 3.0t7 -� n I( 0.80 ' m 0.60 2.00 ;. a 1.Do J o 40 J 0.0o 0.20 o.00 -- ` — MG Butte Anaconda NHLD MG Butte Anaconda NHLD j i 1 Component Mileage of Pro with i 1 . Mileage of Project Component with g Potential to Visually Impact Cultural 'i Potential to Visually Impact Cultural i Resources Resources Figure C.4.14-25.Project Component Visual Impact Model Showing North of Buxton LRO and Corresponding Section of Alternatives 113,2A, 2B,2C,and 2D Showing Immediate Middle Ground (MG)Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-29 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • Viewshed Analysis.One agency identified cultural resource will be visible from the North of Buxton LRO; The Butte Anaconda NHLD(Figure C.4.14-26).The length of the LRO that will be visible from this site is listed below. Butte Anaconda NHLD–4.18 miles Middle Ground. The Butte Anaconda NHLD will also be visible from the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D(Figure C.4.14-26).The length of the LRO that will be visible from this site is`listed below. • Butte Anaconda NHLD–0.43 mile Middle Ground. North of Buxton LRO Section of Alternatives 4.50 ---- 4.18 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D _- 4.00 — s 3.50 d j 3.00 - v 0 45 l 0.43 0.4 2.50 rt 0,35 i g 2.00 03 r 0.25 i 1.50 .t. i .max 02 'rR+ t Loo 0-15 ? • oso 0.05 o k- _ M6 MG Butte Anaconda NHLD Butte Anaconda NHLD --� -- �.__.----� —._- Figure C.4.1426. Sensitive Point Visual Impact Model Showing North of Buxton LRO and Corresponding Section of Alternatives 1B, 2A,28,2C,and 2D Showing Middle Ground(MG)Impacts Sensitive Point Tally.Of the 67 sensitive visual points that were included in the qualitative proximity analysis,two wouldbe within the visual study corridor of the North of Buxton LRO and the corresponding section of the zone alternatives. Summary of the North of Buxton LRO.The North of Buxton LRO and the corresponding section of Alternatives 1B,2A, 2B, 2C, and 21)will have similar impacts to cultural resources.The alternatives section has one more previously identified cultural resource, but the North of Buxton LRO has more visual imparts to agency identified cultural resources (Table C.4.14-12). • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-30 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4.14-12.Comparison of North Buxton LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • North of Buxton LRO: LROI Alteil,ative North bfBuMOn L Rq 16,2A,2B,2C,and 2D Nllfies lnLength 6.6 tttil 8.76 miles Total 2 3 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites Eligible 0 0- NRHP Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 2 3 _ Not Eligible 0 0 High 29% 31°% Site Density Model Med 63% 630% Low 8% = 6% Project IFG 0 ` 0 Component Visual FG 0 0 Visual Impact MG 5.22 0.92 Impact Miles IFG 0 0` Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MIS 4.18 0.43 Sensitive Point Talley 2 2 • Impact on Cultural Resources Equal' Equal Rock Creek LRO Previously Identified Sites,There is one prehistoric previously identified site within the Rock Creek LRO. It is a lithic Scatter with an unknown NRHP eligibility. This is smaller than average analyzed lithic scatter. There is one prehistoric previously identified site within the corresponding section of Alternative 2D. It is also a lithic scatter with unknown NRHP eligibility.This is smaller than the average analyzed lithic scatter. l Sit�])ensity ModelfThe Rock Greek LRO consists of Il percent high site density areas,82 percent meditim"side density areas, and"seven percent low site density areas(Figure C.4.14-27). The site density model indicates that the corresponding section of Alternative 2D is comprised of 15 percent high site density areas, 78 percent medium site density areas, and seven percent low site density areas.These models show that both routes will be dominated by areas with moderate probability of encountering culturalresources4ith small areas of high and low site densities. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-31 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Rock Creek LRO Section of Alternative 11%7% 2l) ti .�A Low 15% 79/ Low Medium 82% -Medium i ■High ■_High 78% Figure C.4.14-27. Rock Creek LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.The Rock Creek LRO and the corresponding section of Alternative 21)will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources. Sensitive Point Visual Impact Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.Of the 67 sensitive visual points that were included in the qualitative proximity analysis, one would be within the visual study corridor of the Rock Creek LRO and the corresponding section of the zone alternatives. Summary of the Rock Creek LRO.There is no appreciable difference in impacts to cultural resources • between the Rock Creek LRO and the corresponding section of Alternative 21) (Table C.4.14-13). Both routes have a single previously identified cultural resource and neither has any visual impact to agency identified cultural resources. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-32 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4.14.13.Comparison of Rock Creek LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • Rock Creek LRO LROI Alternative Rock Creek LRO 2D Wes in Length` 4.02 miles 4.75 miles Total 1 1 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 0 Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 1 1 Not Eligible 0 0 High 11% 15% Site Densities Med 82% 7840' Low ,7% 7% IFG 0, 0 Project Component FG 0 0 Visual Visual Impact — MG 0 0 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 1 1 • Impact on Cultural Resource$ Equal Equal Willow Creek LRO Previously Identified Sites.There are no previously identified sites within the Willow Creek LRO or the corresponding section of Alternative 2B. Site Density Model.The Willow Creek LRO consists of 49 percent high site density areas and 51 percent medium site density areas (Figure C.4.14-28),-The site density model indicates that the corresponding Alternative 2B is comprised of 51 percent high site density areas and 49 percent of medium site density areas. Both of these routes will be comprised of areas of high and moderate probability for encountering unrecorded cultural;resources with no areas of low probability. Draft Environmental Impact Statement CA.14 Page-33 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Willow Creek LRO Section of Alternative 2B I i Low n Low 49% Medium II Medium 51% { ■High I� AHigh Figure C.4.14-28.Willow Creek LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities', Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.The Willow Creek LRO will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources(Figure C.4.14-29). The corresponding section of Alternative 2B will visually impact one agency identified cultural resource: Utopia mining district(Table C.4.14-14). The length of the LRO that will be visible from this site is listed below. Utopia Mining District-0.60 mile Middle Ground. Willow Creek LRO Section of Alternative • 1.2 2B 0.70 1 0.60 0.60 050 I I 0.40 0.6 0.30 ozo r;pw � 0.4 0.10 0.2 0.00 i MG I ,0 —. __ __ } Utopia mining district j Mileage of Project Component with Mileage of Project Component with Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Resources Figure C.4;14-29. Project Component Visual Impact Model Comparing Willow Creek LRO and Corresponding Section of Alternative 2B Showing Middle Ground(MG) Impacts Sensitive Point Visual Impact Analyses Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-34 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Sensitive Point Tally. Of the 67 sensitive visual points that were included in the qualitative proximity • analysis,one would be within the visual study corridor of the Willow Creek LRO and the corresponding section of the zone alternatives. Summary of the Willow Creek LRO.The section of Alternative 213 will have a greater impact on cultural resources than the corresponding Willow Creek LRO(Table C.4.14-14).Both have similar site density models and no previously identified cultural resources. The corresponding section of Alternative 2B has a higher impact to cultural resources because it has Middle Ground visual impact to the Utopia mining district. Table C.4.14.14.Comparison of Willow Creek LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section -Willow Creek LRO LROI Alternative - Wiliotiv Creek LRO `� Alternative 2B Wiles in Length 13 mites 2.3,#iiles Total 0 0 Listed 0. 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 0 Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 0 0 Not Eligible 0 0 High 49% 51% Site Density Model Med 51% 49% • Low 0"/0 0% IFG 0 0 Project Component Visual FG 0 0 V r Impact Visual MG 0 0.60 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 vie wshed FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 1 1 Impact on Cultural Resources Lowest Highest 044.14.5..9 Impacts to Cultural Resources within and around the LROs in Zone 3 The following LRO analyses are organized alphabetically by Zone. Clark Carryon East LRO Previously Identified Sites.There are eight previously identified sites within the Clark Canyon East LRO. Five sites are prehistoric, two are historic,and one is multicomponent.All of the prehistoric sites are lithic scatters.Four of the five lithic scatters have known sizes. Each is below the average size for anazed lithic scatter sites. Of the historic sites one is a mine and one is an unclassified historic site.The multicomponent site is a prehistoric stone circle and historic trash dump.All have unknown NRHP eligibilities. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-35 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • There are 11 previously identified sites within the corresponding section of Alternatives 3B and 3C.Three of these sites are historic and eight are prehistoric.The prehistoric sites consist of six lithic scatters and two stone circle sites. The historic sites consist of a railroad,a homestead, and an unclassified historic site. All have unknown NRHP eligibilities. Site Density Model.The Clark Canyon East LRO consists of 11 percent high site density areas, 70 percent medium site density areas, and 19 percent low site density areas(Figure C.4.14.30).The site density model indicates that the corresponding section of Alternatives 3B and 3C is comprised of iS percent high site density areas, 72 percent of medium site density areas, and 10 percent lo'�isite density areas.These models are both dominated by medium density areas,but the Clark Canyon LRO shows a higher percentage of low probability areas and the corresponding section of Altema¢ves 3B and 3C has a higher percentage of high site density areas. Clark Canyon East Section of Alternatives LRO 3B and: C 11% 19% 18% 10% Low y to 1 7 � Medium =..Medium .� ■High ■High 70% 72% Figure C.4.14.30. Clark Canyon East LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities • Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis The Clark Canyon East LRO and the corresponding section of Alternatives 3B and 3C will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources. Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of Clark Canyon East LRO.The section of Alternatives 3B and 3C will have a greater impact on cultural resources than the corresponding Clark Canyon East LRO(Table CA.14.15). Neither route has any visual impact but the section of Alternatives 3B and 3C has a higher percentage of high site density areas and more previously identified resources. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-36 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4.14.15. Comparison of Clark Canyon East LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • Clark Canyort East LRO LFtOfAlternative Clark Canyon East LRO Alternatives 3B and 3C 441JeTs in Length , 7.8 miles 9.7 miles Total 8 11 Listed 0 0?' Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 0 Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 8 11 Not Eligible 0 0 High 11% 18% Site Density Model Med 70% 72% Low 19% 100/0 IFG 0. 0 Project Component FG 0 0 Visual Visual Impact MG 0 0 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 • Impact on Cultural Resources Lowest Highest Diamond Butte LRO Previously Identified Sites.Thee are six previously identified sites within the Diamond Butte LRO. These sites consist of three prehistoric,two historic,and one unknown site.The prehistoric sites consist of two stone circle sites and a lithic scatter.The two historic sites consist of a homestead and a mine site. The unknown site is a cairn dating to an undetermined period.All have unknown NRHP eligibilities. There are eight previously identified sites within the corresponding section of Alternatives 3A, 3B, and K Three of these sites are historic and five are prehistoric. The three historic sites consist of two buildings and a homestead..The prehistoric sites consist of three lithic scatters and two stone circle sites. All have unknown KRHP ehgib lifies. Site Densi*Model.`The site density model shows that the Diamond Butte LRO consists of one percent high site density areas, 93 percent medium site density areas,and six percent low site density areas (Figure C.4.14-31).The site density model indicates that the corresponding section of Alternatives 3A, 3B, and X is comprised of four percent high site density areas,90 percent of medium site density areas, and six percent low site density areas. Both models are dominated by medium sensitivity areas with small areas of moderate and low density.This indicates that most of both routes will be in areas with moderate probability of encountering unrecorded cultural resources. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-37 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • - --ice--------- __ __.---- ------ --' Diamond Butte Section of Alternatives 3A, LRO 3B, and 3C 1%r 60/. 4%�6% Low " v Low Medium ` - Medium 90% ■High .M High Figure C.4.14.31.Diamond Butte LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis. The Diamond Butte LRO and the section of Alternatives 3A,313, and 3C will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources. Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensthveppint cultural+resources'will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of Diamond Butte LRO.The section of Alternatives 3A, 3B,and 3C will have a greater • impact on cultural resources than the corresponding Diamond Butte,LRO(Table C.4.14-16). Neither route has any visual impacts to agency identified cultural resources,but the section of Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C has four more previously identified cultural resources than the Diamond Butte LRO. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement 0.4.14 Page-38 MSTI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4.14.16.Comparison of Diamond Butte LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • Diamond,Butte LAO LROI Alternative Diartnond Butte LRO Alternatives 3A,36,and 3C, Mlles in Length 4.7 mll � 54 miles Total 6 8 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites Eligible 0 0 NRHP Evaluations Unresolved 0 0 Unknown 6 6 Not Eligible 0 0 High 1% 4%0. Site Density Model Med 93% 90% Low 6% 60A Project IFG 0 0 Component FG 0 0 Visual Visual Impact MG 0 0 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Viewshed FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 • Impact on Cultural Resources Lowest Highest Frying Pan Gulch LRO Previously Identified Sites.There are three previously identified sites within the Frying Pan Gulch LRO. Two of the sites are historic and one is pfohlstoric..Tbt historic sites are a building and an unclassified historic site. Tile prehistoric sate is a lithic scatter thafis below the average size of analyzed lithic scatters. All have unknown NRHP eligibilities. There are two previously identified historic sites within the corresponding section of Alternative 3B, consisting of amine and an unknown historic site.Both have unknown NRHP eligibilities. Site Density Model-The Fryingpan Gulch LRO consists of 49 percent high site density areas and 51 percent medium site density at6s(Figure C.4.14-32).The corresponding section Alternative 3B is comprised of 49 percent high site density areas and 51 percent of medium site density areas.Both of these routes have similar areas of high and moderate probability for encountering unrecorded cultural resources. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-39 MS If • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Frying Pan Gulch LRO Section of Alternative 3B st Low A j Si% Medium m 1! ",6 ■High 49 _ 5190 Medium o High Figure C.4.14-32. Frying Pan Gulch LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section,Site Densities Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.One agency identified site will bevisible€ itn the Frying Pan Gulch LRO: Argenta mining district(Figure C.4.14-33). The length of the LRO that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Argenta mining district— 1.60 miles Middle Ground. One agency identified site will be visible from the corresponding section of Alternative 3$:Argenta mining district(Figure C.4.14-33).The length of the alternative that may impact the cultural resource is listed below. • Argenta mining district—2.67 miles Middle Ground. Frying Pan Gulch LRO Section of Alternative 3B 3.00 2.67 2.50 2.00 1.60 w 2.00 y 1.50 1 ,• a� m 1.50 , v� a 1.00 1.00 w,. it r rna n t- g 0.50f * ' y a a� 0.50 ' 0.00 0.00 MG MG ' Argenta mining district Argenta mining district Mileage of Project Component with Mileage of Project Component with - Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Potential to Visually Impact Cultural Resources Resources Figure C.4.14-33. Project Component Visual Impact Model Comparing Frying Pan Gulch LRO and Corresponding Section of Alternative 3B Showing Middle Ground(MG)Impacts • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page40 MS TI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sires will be impacted by this LRO or the • corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of the Frying Pan Gulch LRO.The section of Alternative 3B will not have appreciably different impact on cultural resources than the corresponding Frying Pan Gulch LRO(Table CA 14-17). These have identical site density models. The section of Alternative 3B has one less previously identified site,but has slightly higher Middle Ground visual impacts to agency identified cultural resources. Table C.4.14-17.Comparison of Frying Pan Gulch LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section Frying Pan Gulch LRO` LRO[Alternative Frying Pan Gulch LRO Alternative 3B !Niles fn Length 0 miles - 5JImiles Total 3 2 Listed 0' 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 0 0 Evaluations Unresolved. 0 -"D Unknown 3 2 Not Eligible 0 0 High 49% 49% Site Density Model Med 51% 51% • Low 0% 0% I! G 0 0 Project Component FG 0 0 Visual Visual Impact MG 1.60 2.67 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Viewshed FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 Impact on Cultural Resources Equal Equal #�ima LRO PrevviouslyIdentified Sites.There are two previously identified sites within the Lima LRO. One of these sites is the NRHP eligible Union Pacific and Oregon Shordine Railroad.The other is a prehistoric lithic scatter-with an unknown NRHP eligibility. There are two previously identified sites within the corresponding section of Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C. One site is a building and the other is a prehistoric lithic scatter.Both sites have unknown NRHP elig bil ties. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-41 MSTI • Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs • Site Density Model.The site density model shows this LRO has 90 percent medium site density areas, and ten percent low site density areas(Figure C.4.14-34).The site density model indicates that the corresponding section of Alternatives 3A, 313, and 3C is comprised of 90 percent medium site density areas and 10 percent of low site density areas.Neither route has any high density areas and there are only small areas of low density.In most areas of both routes,there will be a moderate probability of encountering unrecorded cultural resources. Lima LRO Section of Alternatives 3A 3B, 10% and 3C Low X10% W,Low ' Medium 90% ■High ! Medium ■High j 90% Figure C.4.14-34. Lima LRO and Corresponding Alternative'Section Site Densities Showing Immediate Foreground (IFG), Foreground(FG),and Middle-Ground (MG) Impacts Visual Impact Analysis Results Project Component Visual Impact Analysis.-The Lima LRO will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources. • The corresponding section of Alternatives 3A,313,and 3C will not visually impact any of the agency identified cultural resources. Viewshed Analysis.No agency identified sensitive point sites will be impacted by this LRO or the corresponding alternatives section. Sensitive Point Tally.None of the 67 agency identified sensitive point cultural resources will be impacted by this,LRO or the corresponding alternative. Summary of the Lima LRO.The Lima LRO shows a greater impact to cultural resources than the corresponding section of Alternatives 3A, 313, and 3C(Table C.4.14-18).Neither route has any visual impact and the site density models are identical.The Lima LRO has higher impacts because it has a higher number of previously identified sites and a NRHP eligible railroad site. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-42 MS TI Appendix C.4.14 Impacts to Cultural Resources by LROs Table C.4.14-18.Comparison of the Lima LRO and Corresponding Alternative Section • Lima LAO 1.R0/Alternative Lima iR0 Alternatives 3A,313, and 3C Miles9n Length 14 8 mi)es 11.4 miles Total 2 2 Listed 0 0 Previously Identified Sites NRHP Eligible 1 0 :, Evaluations Unresolved 0 .0 Unknown 1 2 Not Eligible 0 0 High 0% 0%: Site Density Model Med 90% 90% Low 10% 10%° IFG 0 0 Project Component FG 0 0 Visual Visual Impact MG 0 0 Impact Miles IFG 0 0 Sensitive Point FG 0 0 MG 0 0 Sensitive Point Talley 0 0 Impact on Cultural Resources Highest Lowest • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.14 Page-43 MSTI • Appendix C.4.15 Cost Estimates p er MFSA A p lication :p Requirement Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.4.15 Cost Estimates per MFSA Application Requirement This appendix provides costs estimates for mitigation of potential impacts to cultural resources in the • project area.The cost estimates are required by MFSA,and are not part of NEPA, NHPA,or any other regulation beyond MFSA. These estimates are based on the length of each project component at a survey corridor width of the 500 foot wide APE. Because of the unique attributes and qualities of individual cultural resources, costs of mitigation are difficult to estimate.As a proxy, it was assumed the cultural resource survey that would need to be conducted for the final project alignment would cost$1,000 per mile. The survey would result in the documentation of numerous newly identified cultural resources, some of which will be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and may require mitigation.The potential expenses associated with site recording, mitigation of impacts to sites,and other project components such as access roads, staging and temporary use areas,borrow areas and gravel pits,substations, geotechnical drilling,etc.'are not considered here. Estimated mitigation costs for the alternatives and LROs are provided in Tables C.4.15-1- and C.4.15-2 respectively. Table C.4.15-1.Estimated Cost of Survey per Alternative in Fulfillment of the MFSA Application Requirement Length in Estimated Survey Cost Rank Zone - Zone Alternative Mites Cost within Zone Zone Alternative 1A 51.75 $81,750 3 Zone Alternative 1B 90.23 $90.230 2 Zone 1 -- Zone Alternative 1C "`` 94.89 $94,890_ 1 Zone Alternative 1D 54,06 $54,060 4 Zone Alternative 2A 57,44 $46;660 5 • Zone Alternative 2B 5709 $57,090 3 Zone 2 Zone Alternative 2C 89.74 $89,740 1 Zone Alternati4,2D 63.37: $63,370 2 Zone Adternative 2E 53.56 $53,560 4 Zone Altemative 3A-- 72.09 $72,090 1 Zone 3 Zone Alternative 3B 67.03 $67,030 2 Zone Altemative 3C 71,87 $52,050 3 Zone 4 Zone Alternative 4A� 20.02 $20,020 1 :: .Zone Alternative 5A 107,40 $107,400 4 Zone Alternative 5B 113.96 $113,960 2 Zone 5 Zone Alternative 5C 117,46 $117,460 1 Zone Alternative 5D 111.28 $111,280 3 Zone 6 Zone Alternative 6A 106,77 $106,770 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4,15 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.4.15 Cost Estimates per MFSA Application Requirement • Table C.4.15-2. Estimated Cost of Survey per LRO in Fulfillment of the MFSA Application Requirement LRO Length in Mites Estimated SUrveyCost Radersburg 4.77 $4,770 Boulder Hill 4.08 $4,080 Upper Boulder#1 8.23 $8,230 Upper Boulder#2 6.77 $6,770 Lower Boulder 11.29 $11,290 South of Butte#1 3.21 $3,210 Beef Trail 2.69 $2'.640 North of Buxton 6.68 $6,680 Mount Haggin 1.68 $1,680 Maiden Rock 4.96 $4,960 Willow Creek 1.32 $1,320 Fleecer 118 $3,150 Rock Creek 4.02 $4,020. Frying Pan Gulch 4.80 $4,800 Clark Canyon East 7.80 $7.800 Lima 10.81 $10,810 Diamond Butte 4.72. - $4,720 • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.4.15 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.5.1 EMF Computer Modeling Assumptions Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.S.1 Computer Modeling Assumptions Part 1.EMF Computer Modeling Assumptions. Certain assumptions were made in the course of • performing the EMF evaluation. The transmission line geometry(including subconductor size,number, spacing, and type;phase spacing, circuit—to-circuit spacing,ROW widths and distance between structures, and minimum ground clearance)and loading information used for the computer calculations were provided by Power Engineers and NorthWestetn. Circuit information and assumptions 69 kV H-frame: Minimum Conductor Height: 23.5 feet Average Conductor Height: 30.6 feet Phase Spacing: 15.5 feet Conductor Type: 556 MCM ACSR Shield Wire: 3/8"Extra-High Strength Steel-Class A Galvanizing Voltage: 100%of Nominal Current:0 Amps Maximum, 0 A Typical 161 kV H-frame: Minimum Conductor Height: 23.5 feet Average Conductor Height:30.6 feet Phase Spacing: 15.5 feet Conductor Type: 556 MCM ACSR Shield Wire: 3/8"Extra-High Strength Steel Class A Galvanizing Voltage: 100%of Nominal Current: 800 Amps Maximum,61 A Typical 230 kV H-Frame: • Minimum Conductor Height:25.0 feet Average Conductor Height:41.7 feet Phase Spacing: 19.5 feet,`, Conductor Type_795 McM ACSR:-- Shield Wire: 3/8'?Extra-High Strength Steel-Class A Galvanizing Voltages 100%of Nominal . Current: 800 Amps Maximum,65A Typical 230 kV Idaho Power Line: Minimum Conductor Height: 25.0 feet Average Conductor Height: 41.7 feet Phase Sparking: 1, 5 feet Conductor Fypefi 795 MCM ACSR Shield Wire: 3/8"Extra-High Strength Steel-Class A Galvanizing Volta ge: 100%of Nominal Current: 700 Amps Maximum, 385 A Typical Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.5.1 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.5.1 Computer Modeling Assumptions ' • 345 kV Idaho Power Line: Minimum Conductor Height: 28.0 feet Average Conductor Height:36.50 feet Phase Spacing: 20.0 feet Conductor Type: 2 Bundled Stilt ACSR with 18 in.Bundle Spacing Shield Wire: 3/8" Extra-High Strength Steel-Class A Galvanizing Voltage: 105%of Nominal Current: 1,185 Amps Maximum, 620 A Typical 345 kV(500 kV Future) Gateway Line: Minimum Conductor Height: 32.0 feet Average Conductor Height: 53.0 feet Phase Spacing: 33.0 feet Conductor Type: 3-Bundled Skylark ACSR with 18 in. Bundle Spacing Shield Wire: 3/8" Extra-High Strength Steel-Class A Galvanizing Voltage: 105%of Nominal Current: 1,125 Amps Maximum, 550 A Typical 500 kV MSTI Line: Minimum Conductor Height: 32.0 feet Average Conductor Height: 53.0 feet Phase Spacing: 37.0 feet Conductor Type: 3-Bundled Lapwing ACSR with 245 in. Bundle Spacing Shield Wire: 3/8"Extra-High Strength Steel-Class A Galvanizing Voltage: 110%of Nominal • Current: 1,850 Amps Maximum, 925 A Typical Phase Configuration and Over Voltage Operations. In the United States,AC transmission lines typically have three phases consisting of one or more conductors.For a balanced three phase transmission line, the phase conductors all have the same amount of current but electrically are 120 degrees out of phase(such as 0-degrees, 120-degrees,and 240 degrees with respect to their 60-Hertz cycle). Each phase is typically designated by a lettering convention,such as;A,B, and C.For a single three phase transmission brie, the phasing arrangement itself will,not affect the amount of electric or magnetic fields associated with the operation of the line(i.e.a phasing arrangement of"A-B-C" will produce the same field levels as a phasing arrangement of"B-C-A"or any other phasing combination,with all other parameters being equal). However, for multiple transmission line circuits, the field levels generated from one circuit will interact with the field levels generated from the other circuits.Depending upon the phasing configuration(as well as other interrelated parameters such as conductor height, distance, spacing, etc.), fields generated from multiple circuits can either add to one another or provide cancellation with respect to one another. For transmission lines with lengthy routes, the phasing arrangement is often changed (phases are"tolled" or"transpositioned") in order to minimize power losses on the line. So for long line routes, the phasing arrangement of the transmission line may change phasing configurations several times during the length of the line route. Since phasing arrangements can change over the length of a transmission line route, there can be numerous phasing arrangement combinations which can occur for multiple transmission line circuits. For computer modeling purposes, horizontal circuits were assumed to have a phasing of"A—B—C"from left to-tight`for all single circuit cases. Double circuit vertical line configurations were assumed to have an unlike phasing arrangement. For the proposed double circuit 500 kV vertical configurations(Cases 2, 10, 11, 12 and 17),the phasing arrangement and direction of current flow were assumed to create higher calculated magnetic field levels than other possible arrangements. Specifically, an unlike phasing Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.5.1 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.5.1 Computer Modeling Assumptions arrangement with opposite direction of current flow was assumed.This unlike phasing arrangement was used for analysis purposes because,if the phasing arrangement was reversed to like phasing or if the load flows were in the same direction,then lower calculated magnetic field levels would be generated. A 10 percent over-voltage condition was modeled for the proposed project(i.e. a voltage of 550 kV was used). While an over-voltage condition is not specified for electric field calculations,a more conservative approach should be considered when performing an engineering evaluation such as this.Use of a higher over-voltage value will elevate the calculated electric field levels,but will not affect the calculated magnetic field levels(since electric fields are a function of voltage while magnetic fields are a function of current or load). Voltage on a transmission line is typically maintained at a consistent level,while the loading on the line is allowed to fluctuate depending upon system demand and consumer usage; therefore, over-voltage or under-voltage conditions are usually restricted to a 5 to 10 percent variation.No over voltage conditions were applied for the 230 kV, 161 kV, or 69 kV circuits,An aver-voltage condition of 5 percent was applied to the 345 kV circuits. In addition,safety codes have set a precedent for using higher than nominal voltage conditions. For example, the National Electric Safety Code(NESC)(IEEE 2007) Rule 232C.La requires that ground clearances for conductors exceeding 50 kV shall be based upon a maximum operating voltage. This requirement is echoed in the NESC Handbook(IEEE 2007)which specifies that the maximum operating voltage,typically 1.05 times the nominal operating voltage(i.e., 5 percent over-voltage), must be used for lines over 50 kV for determining conductor clearance.These voltage modeling conditions were also used by Power Engineers and North Western to generate calculated electric field levels reported in the MESA application(NlY 2008a). A three-conductor bundle was used for evaluating electric and magnetic field levels(as well as noise and interference due to corona).The MESA application indicates that two-and four-conductor bundles are also being considered.The specifications for tlitse conductor Son figurations were not provided for assessment and have not been evaluated.In general,increased conductor or bundle size will cause a small • increase in electric field,while smaller conductors or bundles will cause a small decrease in electric field. However,noise and interference will increase with smaller conductors or bundles(and decrease with larger conductor or bundle size).Magnetic field levels are unaffected by conductor or bundle size. Part 2: Induced Current Calculation Methodology.The amount of induced contact current can be used to evaluate the potential for harmful or other-effects.Previous work on appliance leakage current can provide same insight into this issue. Leakage(and induced)current is commonly measured in units of milliamperes',mA(i.e. one MA is 0.001 amperes of electric current).Many appliances have a small amount of leakage Current that flows-through.the body of the user. Usually the amount of current is very small and is below the threshold of perception.Many factors affect how much current flows. In addition to appliance design!no age, contact resistance and insulation from ground affect the magnitude of current that flows through the user. Appliance leakage currents have been measured for a variety of appliances and levels ranged from 0.002 mA m tens of mA(Kahn and Murray 1966; Stevenson 1973). There is a U.S. standard for the leakage current from appliances that was developed to minimize the potential forelectricJhock hazards and sudden involuntary movements that might result in an accident (A'NSI 1992).The standard limits appliance leakage current to 0.5 mA for portable appliances and 0.75 mA'fRr stab nary.or fixed appliances. The standard was developed with consideration of the variable threshold of human perception of electric current. Different people and different situations produce a range of contact current perception values.As an example,when an average person grips an energized conductor, the median(50-percentile) threshold for perception of an AC electric current is 0.7 mA for women and 1.1 mA for men(Dalziel 1972;EPRI 1982).If the current is gradually increased beyond a person's perception threshold, it becomes bothersome, and possibly startling. With sufficiently large currents,the muscles of the hand and arm involuntarily contract and a person cannot release the gripped object. The reasonably safe value at which 99.5 percent can let-go(0.5 percent cannot)is 9 mA for men Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.5.1 Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.5.1 Computer Modeling Assumptions • and 6 mA for women(Bridges 1985).An equivalent let-go value of 5 mA has been estimated for children (EPRI 1982).However,before the current flows in a shock situation,contact must be made, and in the process of establishing contact a small arc occurs. This causes a withdrawal reaction that,in some cases, may be a hazard if the involuntary nature of the reaction causes a fall or other accident.Consideration of .. let-go currents was the basis for the National Electrical Safety Code(NESC)to set an induced current limit of 5 mA for objects under transmission lines in the code section#23 on clearances (IEEE 2007).'' The proposed project(typical Case 1 configuration)would have the highest electric field within the`ght of-way of approximately 11.7 kV/m in the region under the conductors at the lowest point of sag.Other locations on the right-of-way will be less. The electric field will be approximately 1.5 kV/m at the right- of-way edge.These electric fields are similar to other 500 kV transmission lines presentlyin operation. The level of electric field would vary by structure configuration. The presence of other,parallel transmission lines would have a limited effect and in some cases may produce lower fields if optimum phasing arrangements are utilized that can result in some field cancellation (reduction), Induced currents can be calculated for common objects for a set of theoretical assumptions,the object is perfectly insulated from ground,located in the highest field, and touched by a perfectly grounded person. I Calculations can be made using experimentally determined induction coefficients and the calculated electric field(EPRI 1982).Calculated induced current for common objects placed on the right-of-way for the theoretical conditions previously stated for the proposed 500 kV line by itself with minimum ground clearance of 32 feet at midspan and in the typical guyed-V configuration(Case 1)that produces the highest electric field levels was conducted(Table C.5.I-1),The calculated maximum electric field for this condition is about 11.7 kV/m under the line and 1.5 kV/m at the {OW edge. Table C.5.1-1.Calculated Induced Current for Objects near 5110 kV Line for Theoretical Conditions and Case 1 Structure type • Induced ur enp e g Induced Current Coefficient- Near ROW Object ,J-ength mAfkVlm Midspan Edge Pickup Truck ;17 feet :0.10 1.17 mA 0.15 mA Farm Tractor&Wagon 31 feet 0.30 3.51 mA 0.45 mA Combine 30 feet 0.38 4.45 mA 0.57 mA School Bus 34 feet 0.39 4.56 mA 0.59 mA Tractor-Trailer Perpendicular to 52 feet 0.64 330 mA 0.49 mA Power Line It tractor_m ler is located pataNel to the power line,then induced contents would be higher. The maximum electric field only occurs on a small portion of the right-of-way, and perfect insulation and grounding States are not common,but for these assumptions the calculated induced current values for the pickup truck,farm tractor pulling crop wagon, school bus, and tractor-trailer are below hazardous levels where a person could not let go of an object(9 mA for men and 6 mA for women). At the ROW edge the induced current values are near or below the threshold of perception. However, under the 500 kV line near midspan,the calculated induced currents on some of these objects are above the threshold of perception and for certain conditions may be perceived. To evaluate induced currents for a large vehicle, calculations were performed for a 75-foot long truck (Figure C.5.1-1). The truck was assumed to be located perpendicular to the transmission line.The truck was located at an assumed maximum electric field location for induced current,with the front of the truck cab positioned at centerline of the proposed project. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.S.1Page-4 MSTI Appendix C.5.1 Computer Modeling Assumptions • T' 30 a 30 wiona.-.s W!pTN=8.5 WIDTH-g lo. _ �A h .�� w a. tJ i5 4 /p Y a O u 7$ Figure C5.1-1.Assumed Truck Dimensions for Induced Current Example Calculations The equivalent charge-collecting area of an object is used to calculate the short-circuit current(EPRI -- 1982).Calculation of the equivalent area of the vehicle is performed by breaking the object up into representative box-shaped components and then calculating the equivalent area using the following formula(EPRI 1982): a h A� =a'h' 1 + 1.4+ �ti)�r 0.1 tb '�ba) +0.7$'�bt +OD7'�b� +0.01 e: where: a=length,b =width, and h=height. In this case the truck was divided into five box*apes as`s h own in Figure C.5.1-2. Using these areas an overall equivalent area for the entire truck was calculated. > _ ebx8 awls wrora e 77777 T In, 1�r ears �/sy� 2wS a . 75 Figure C 5.1-2 Assumed Truck Dimensions Divided into Box Sections Based upon the assumed dimensions of the truck shown in Figures C.5.1-1 and C.5.1-2,Table C.5.1-2 presents a summary of the calculated overall equivalent area of the truck using the five box shapes to represeot-the truck. I Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.S.1Page-5 MSTI • Appendix C.5.1 Computer Modeling Assumptions Table C.5.1.2. Calculated Equivalent Charge-Collecting Area of a Truck Dimension Box,1 Box 3 Box 3 Box Box 5 Cumulative Dimensions A-Length 7 feet 4 feet 30 feet 4 feet 30 feet Overall =75 feet(22.9 m) B- Width 6 feet 4 feet 8.5 feet 4 feet 8.5 feet Average =7.79 feet(2.4 m) H -Height 10 feet 3.5 feet 14 feet 3.5 feet 14 feet Average= 12.51 feet(3.8 m) Using the overall length of the truck(22.9-meters)with the average width(2.4-meters)and height(,3.8- meters), an equivalent charge-collecting area of 282.3 square meters was calculated using the EPR3 formula. An induction coefficient was calculated based upon the equivalent area of the truck using the following formula(EPRI 1982): I sc =j a)EES where: ro= 2nF(or 2rz * 60 Hz), s=8.85 x 10-"Farads per meter, E = electric field strength normalized to a value of 1 kV/m,and S =equivalent charge collecting area in square meters. The calculated induction coefficient is 0.94 mA per-kV/m, Next, the electric field was evaluated using the real and imaginary components of lh eld to calculate the average electric field across the entire vehicle based upon vehicle location.Ebrconsideration of end effects, the height at each end of the vehicle is added to the overall length of the vehicle for purposes of calculating the average electric field over the entire length of the vehicle.The electric field perpendicular to the power line across the length of the truck varies in both space and time.The calculated electric field for the guyed-V configuration(Case 1) across the right-of-way ranges from approximately 1.5 kV/m at the right-of-way edge to a maximum of approximately 11.7 kV/m within the right-of-way(Figure C.5.1- 3). The electric field also varies by time,because the total electric field at a given location is the sum of the contribution of all three phase conductors which produce sinusoidal electric field waves that are shifted in time.Therefore,both spatial and'teinporalaveraging of the electric field is required to determine the average electric field; hence the need to use both the real and imaginary components of the calculated electric field in order to calculate an average field strength. Based upon this scientific method, the average electric field was calculated as 539kV/m. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.5.1 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.5.1 Computer Modeling Assumptions Casa 1-CiaaMa FIafd I i � r' Y v � r f I R-14 W 6 0 58 2 dtl -M q { b 'll M }p tAI S( 69 P R _'gyp fOl! to IF [aM FnC.ndY Rao Figure 0.5.1.3. Calculated Electric Field across Right-of<Way for Case 1 Configuration Multiplying the average electric field with the induction coefficient of the vehicle results in the calculated induced current. The calculated induced current is 5.07 mA for a 75-four ong truck located perpendicular to the proposed 500 W transmission line (Case 1 configuration) at the minimum conductor ground clearance(32 feet) and at the worst case location for maximum induced current as presented in the MFSA application.If it were possible for a similar sized vehicle to be located approximately under the transmission line conductors at the lowest point of sag aad_parallel to the conductors the calculated induced current would be higher(about twice as high since the average electric field over the length of the vehicle would be about twice as large).Orientations for a similar vehicle located at an angle somewhere • between parallel and perpendicular to the transmission linie would t2sult in an induced current value somewhere between these two values.For a similar vehicle located approximately under the transmission line conductors at the lowest point of sag and parallel to the conductors,the calculated induced current would be higher(since the average electric field over the length of the vehicle would be larger).To meet the Montana regulations at road crossings, the minimum transmission line conductor height would have to be 45 feet to meet the 7 kVIm electric field limit.Therefore,induced currents on a similar vehicle at road crossings would'be lower(since the average electric field over the length of the vehicle is lower due to the higher line conductor ground cleatances). Contact current effects associated with amma`ls, for example,can result from two different and separate sjtuafiorfs:'1)stray vo1>age,and 2)induced currents. (The term"stray voltage" is often loosely used but generally descnfbes a voltage between' two objects where no voltage difference should exist). Part 3,.,Ldn Noise Calculation Formula.The day-night equivalent noise levels (Ldn)were derived from eq values using thecomputaliional formula provided by Keast(1980)and EPRI (2005a): An = 101ogio{�24l[f5an#ilogt1Q�+9antilag Ln1010 �� where Ld= is the daytime Leq and Ln is the nighttime Leq. Le4ls defined as an equivalent sound level and represents the average level of a varying sound over a specified period of time. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.5.1 Page-7 MSTI • Appendix C.S.1 • Computer Modeling Assumptions References Cited American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1992. American National Standard for Leakage Current for Appliances.ANSI C101-1992, Underwriters Laboratories. March 1992. Bridges,J.E. 1985. "Electrical Shock Safety Criteria,Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Electrical Shock Safety Criteria",Edited by Bridges,J.E.,et al., Pergamon Press, 1985,ISBN 0-08-25399-7. Dalziel, C.F. 1972. "Electric Shock Hazard",IEEE Spectrum, February 1972, p. 41-501 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1982.Transmission Line Reference Bcok-3,45 kY and Above; (Second Edition), Palo Alto,California. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).2005a.Transmission Line Reference Book--345-RV and Above (Third Edition), Final Report#1011974,Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers(IEEE). 2007. National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). American National Standards Institute,2007 Edition, C2-2007; New York. Kahn,F. and Murray,L. 1966. "Shock-Free Electric Appliances", IEEE Transactions on„lndustry and General Applications, vol. IGA-2, No.4.July/August 1966. Keast,D.N. 1980. "Assessing the Impact of Audible Noise from AC Transmission Lines: A Proposed Method", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99,No. 3. May/June • 1980. Northwestern Energy Inc, (Northwestern or NWE). 2008a.Mountain States Transmission Intertie, Montana Major Facility Siting Art Application.(June 2008).Includes: Environmental Report, Technical Reports(Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Visual Resources, Land Use,EMF,Noise, and Electrical Effects), 2009:Preliminary Plan of Development, Preliminary Road Layout Database, Volume 1-B, Appendix A—Engineering, Cost,and System Planning Information. Completed by Power Engineers, Inc. (2008-2009). Stevenson, J. 1973. "Leakage Current from Appliances",IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. IA-9,No. 1, January/February. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.5.1 Page-8 MSTT Appendix C.5.2 Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector Draft Environmental Impact Statement MS TI Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector: • Physical Response NERC Guideline Guideline Title: Physical Response Version: 3.0 Effective Date: November 1, 2005 Approved by Board of Trustees: Revision Date: 2007 November 1, 2005 Preamble: This guideline addresses potential risks that can apply to some electricity sector organizations and provides practices that can help mitigate the risks. Each organization decides the risk it can accept and the practices it deems appropriate to manage its risk. Introduction: This Physical Response Security Guideline is to provide North American electrici ty sector organizations' with the actions they should consider when responding to the threat level alerts issued by the U.S.Department of Homeland Security 2(DHS)or Public Safety acid Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC). Threat alert levels may be issued nationally or for a specific geographical area, such as a region,city,or group of cities. The alerts could also be issued for a specific industry or facility type, such as eneratng stations substations, or hydroelectric facilities. The guideline is a framework for developing a response plan for an organization- specific physical threat. Purpose: This guideline provides actions that electricity sector.oxgantzations should consider when responding to threat level alerts from the Electricity Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center(ESISAC),DHS for U:S. organizations,or PSEPC for Canadian organizations. The intent is to help define the scope of actions each organization may implement for its specific response plan,based on the nature of the threat and the organization's specific requirements. Each organization must conduct its own assessment ofvulnerability and risk to identify critical facilities andfunctiops,and categorize Elie vulnerabilities and risks associated with those facilities and functions.Stich an assessment will help identify countermeasures to mitigate threats and allow asset ownersto make rational decisions about the level of protection needed. Goal€ This guideline and the subsequent industry actions have two goals: • Provide examples trf security measures that other electricity sector organizations should consider why responding to threat level alerts. ��• Achieve uniformity in the response actions of the electricity sector to threat level alerts_ Applicability: Tltis guideline applies to facilities and functions that are considered critical to the support of the electricity infrastructure and the overall operation of each electricity sector organization. Each electricity sector organization is expected to define and identify those facilities and functions it believes to be critical,keeping in mind that the ability to mitigate the loss of a facility or function through redundancies may make some facilities or functions less critical than others. Physical Response Security Guideline • North American Electric Reliability Council C.5.2 Page-1 Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector: • Physical Response From an industry-wide perspective, a critical facility or function may be defined as any facility, function, or combination thereof that, if severely damaged or destroyed,would have a significant impact on the ability to serve large quantities of customers for an extended period of time,would have a detrimental impact to the reliability or operability of the energy grid,or would cause significant risk to public health and safety. Process: The process for communicating changes in threat level alerts includes the following: I. Information on threats will be reported by electricity sector orgauizations to the ESISAC, where it will be assessed and communicated to DHS and other appropriate government and law enforcement agencies,or other electricity sector organizations. 2. Changes in the threat level alerts issued by DHS or PSEPC will be assessedby�the ESISAC,either independently or in cooperation with DHS, PSEPC", and industry experts, and communicated to the electricity sector organizations:: 3. To obtain additional information, or to verify the threat alert level,contact ESISAC at 609-452-1422 orinfo@ncrc.com. 4. Information on the current threat level alert status, or to review the guidelines developed for the electricity sector is available at http.1/ww g.esisac.cotn/. • Physical Response Guidelines for the Threat Alert Levels: The following are examples of physical security measuresto be considered for each threat alert level. These examples are not intetu3ed to be an exhausf ve or all-inclusive list of possible security measures. Not all measures arc applicable to all organizations. An organization may decide to reorder the sequence of some measures it deems appropriate to its environment and responsibilities. Most organizations may need to develop additional, specific security measures beyond the scope of those listed below. ES-Physical-Green (Low) Definition. Each electricity sector organization's alert level response plan will establish the base level actions to be taken for the initial ES-Physical-Green(Low)threat level. The Low threat alert level applies when no known threat of terrorist activity exists or only a general concern exists about criminal activity;such as vandalism. Response: This level warrants only routine security procedures. Any security measures applied should be maintainable indefinitely and without adverse impact to operations. This level is equivalent to normal daily operations. Action items to consider at the Low threat level include the following> 1. Ensure that normal security operating standards and procedures are in place and operational. 2. Train security staff and key personnel on all aspects of the response plan,as well as specific pre-planned operating standards and procedures. • Physical Response Security Guideline North American Electric Reliability Council 2 C.5.2 Page-2 I _ _ Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector: • Physical Response 3. All visitors should be approved before allowing them entry into a critical facility or access to a critical system. 4. Stop individuals not known or otherwise approved to determine identity and reason for presence and take appropriate action, such as issuing a badge or removing the individual from the property. 5. Conduct routine maintenance and inspection of electronic security equipment so that equipment is maintained in good working order at all times. 6. Periodically post or issue workforce awareness messages, and conduct tabletop exercises as appropriate. 7. Review and update all security,threat,and disaster-recovery`plans-at least once every year. 8. Report to security or facility management any unusual orsuspicious activity observed by critical facility personnel or contractors. 9. Address security topics at employee meetings to increase security awareness. 10.Annually audit electronic or other access programs for critical facilities to ensure • proper access authorization. 11.Ensure proper traininggf hazardous material, security, and emergency response personnel. 12. Identify critical facility long-term and short-term security measures as appropriate. - Vxamplesof security measures are; • Electronic security systems • Closing nonessential perimeter and internal portals • Physical barriers such as bollards or concrete barriers Fencing iv,„Lighting .•" • .Security'surveys • ;Vulnerability assessments Availability of security resources—contract and proprietary Law enforcement liaison • Ensure availability of essential spare parts for critical facilities I Physical Response Security Guideline North American Electric Reliability council J • C.5.2 Page-3 Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector: • Physical Response ES-Physical-Blue(Guarded) Definition: The ES-Physical-Blue(Guarded) threat level applies when a general threat of terrorist or increased criminal activity with no specific threat directed against the electric industry exists. Response: The recommended security measures are additional to those listed for the Low threat level. The Guarded threat level should be maintainable for an indefinite period of time with minimum impact on normal electricity sector organization operations. Action items to consider at the Guarded threat level include: 13. Communicate the heightened security level to all personnel and contract workers at the critical facilities. The communication should include a reminder to he alert for unusual or suspicious activities and to whom such activities should be reported. Security staff at other,noncritical facilities also should be made aware of the increased threat level. 14. Monitor all deliveries,particularly deliveries of combustible materials such as start- up fuel, diesel fuel, and gasoline. 15.Review operational plans and procedures to ensure they are up to date. They should include the following: • a. Security, threat,disaster recovery,and fail'-over plans b. Other operation plans as appropriate,e.g., transmission control procedures c. Availability of additional'security personnel d. Availability of medical emergency personnel e. Review of all data and voice communications channels to assure operability, user familiarity,and backups function as designed f. Review of fuel source requirements 16. Provide local taw enforcement agencies with any information that would support their,ability to provide assistance if called upon. 17.Monitor conditions and be prepared to escalate to a higher level or de-escalate to a lower threat level.'` ES-Physical-Yellow,(Elevatedl Definition: The ES-Physical-Yellow(Elevated)threat level applies when a general threat of terrorist or criminal activity directed against the electric industry exists. Responve: The recommended security measures are additional to those listed for Low and Guarded threat levels. Such measures are anticipated to last for an indefinite period of time. Action items to consider at the Elevated threat level include: • Physical Response Secunty Guideline North American Electnc Reliability Council 4 C.5.2 Page-4 Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector: • Physical Response 18. Increase the surveillance of critical locations. 19. Ensure all gates, security doors, and security monitors are in working order, and that visitor, contractor,and employee access controls are enforced. 20.Notify critical and on-call personnel of the elevated threat level. 21. Establish and assure ongoing internal and external communications and coordinate the organization's action plan with focal, state/provincial,and federal lave enforcement agencies as appropriate. 22. Review operational plans and procedures and ensure they adequately address the terrorist threat associated with the reason(s) for the elevated threat level`.` 23.Identify additional business-and site-specific measures as appropriate. 24. Monitor conditions and be prepared to,escalate to a higherlevel or de-escalate to a lower threat level. ES-Physical-Oranae tHiah) Definition: The ES-Physical-Orange(High)threat falert-level applies when a credible threat of terrorist or criminal activity directed against the electric industry on an international, national, or • regional basis exists. Response: The recommended security measures are additional to those listed for Low, Guarded, and Elevated threat levels. Such measures are anticipated to last for a defined period of time. Action items to consider at the High threat level include: 25.Communicate the heightened security level to all personnel and contract workers on site. The communication should include a reminder to be alert for unusual or 'suspicious activities and.to whom such activities should be reported. 26.Coordinate the security of critical facilities with neighboring organizations including other electricity sector organizations and large customers. 27. Use communieations channels with local, state/provincial, and federal law enforcement agencies and other emergency management agencies responsible for responding to the critical facility to assess the nature of any threats to the facility or organization. 28 Review related emergency action plans based on current intelligence and consider activation of alternate backup operational control and office centers as appropriate. 29.Place all essential critical facility support personnel on alert and consider conducting tabletop exercises. Physical Response Security Guideline • North American Electric Reliability Council 5 C.5.2 Page-5 Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector: is Physical Response 30. Consider deployment of additional security personnel if there is sufficient information to suggest a heightened probability of attack on the facility or the surrounding area. 31. Consider restricting parking around critical facilities. 32. Where appropriate, ensure all gates and security doors are locked and actively,_ monitored twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week,either electronically,or by random patrol procedures. 33. Verify the identity of delivery personnel and conduct a general inspection of deliveries, if feasible, (for example, verify that paperwork is in order and-the external appearance of deliveries is consistent with the paperwork). 34.Enforce strict control of visitors and visitor vehicles entering Critical facilities. 35. Consider postponing or canceling nonessential tours and visits. 36. When appropriate, contact suppliers and coordinate with combustible deliveries as necessary. 37.Perform a periodic inspection of site fuel storage and hazardous material facilities. • 38.To the extent practical,coordinate critical facility security with adjacent facilities. 39.Consider snaking immediate repairs and return to service any essential equipment that is inoperable due to repair or maintenance. If possible,suspend scheduled maintenance for essential equipment. 40,Coordinate security related media releases with security,media relations, and management. 41. Monitor conditions and be prepared to escalate to a higher level or de-escalate to a lower threat level. ' ES-Physical-Red (Severe) Definition: The ES-Physical-Red(Severe)threat level applies when a terrorist or criminal act against any segment of the North American electric industry occurs or credible intelligence information indicates such an act is imminent or has occurred. Respo ne. This alert level may apply as a result of either an incident that occurs in North America outside of the electricity sector,or a threat from an international,national,or regional incident."During this period,maximum-security measures will be recommended and all security measures defined for Low to High threat levels shall be enacted as appropriate to each electricity sector organization. The duration of a Severe alert will be defined by the incident, but it is not intended to remain in place for a substantial period of time. Implementation of such measures • Physical Response Security Guideline North American Electric Reliability Council a C.5.2 Page-6 Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector: • Physical Response could cause hardship on personnel and could seriously impact facility business and security activities. Actions items to be considered at the Severe threat level include: 42. Communicate the heightened security level to all on-site personnel. The communication should include a request to be alert for unusual or suspicious activities and to whom such activities should be reported. Ensure all on-site personnel are hilly briefed on emergency procedures and emergency conditions as they develop. 43.Contact local,state/provincial,and federal law enforcement,and other government agencies to determine the nature ofthe threat and its applicability to operations. Establish frequent communications with all appropriate law enforcement agencies for two-way updates on threat status. 44. Unless conditions dictate otherwise, open emergency center(s). 45. Account for all personnel at affected locations. 46. Unless circumstances dictate otherwise,deploy additional security resources to critical facilities. 47.Consider the release of nonessential personnel depending on the nature of the threat or incident. • 48. Discontinue all tours and visitors. 49.Consider discontinuing grail and package deliveries to critical facilities. 50.Consider suspending maintenance work on essential equipment,except work that management-determines to be emergency work and critical. 51.Cgntinuously monitor or otherwise secure all entrances to critical service facilities. This step may include use of armed security personnel or off-duty law enforcement officets. 52.Inspect all vehicles'entering every facility. -53. Identity and implement plans for any additional measures specific to the facility as appropriate based on available intelligence. 54. Iffeasible, close public access areas such as boat ramps and recreation areas, rf these facilities are part of projects licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC), inform the FERC regional office of the decision as soon as practical. 55. Continue to monitor the situation and be prepared to de-escalate to a lower threat alert level. Physical Response Security Guideline • North American Electric Reliability Council C,5.2 Page-7 Security Guidelines for the Electricity Sector: • Physical Response 56.Monitor conditions and be prepared to de-escalate to a lower threat level. Revision History: ,e Date Version Number Reason/Comments �41 Issuance of ESISAC-developed fou kfate l[N t'-, D June 14, 2002 a 4 -- Date 2 e n V rsio R Number ber a s issuance ofthe ESISA( 1 0 0 0 1 T re ium,and 2 1.0 condition model (ThreatCon No 00 o I um Hi It . D titled, eat Document spore f by c I ui L Update of guideline " the 51 e thr at model r HS e e y HS Ili ugust 2YO-02., model released by D October 8, 2002 2,0 document titled, Threi;;-Wert$ ated )We%,Md ieal Res once Guidelines or the 10 IF r. Update of the five-sla, threat Ind elto4ricorporate additional action iten ms itud to refortiWEdocument to the e HNovember 1, 2005 3.0 guideline format appirove'diby the Critii�Infrastructure Protectiom,(;ommittee (CIP Updated I d ment titled, !F,� Guide. fine Nesponse.37 0 t These threat alert levels and physical responsefuidelines do not apply to facilities regulated by the U.S. ­ W Nuclear Regulatory Com"Wgion. 2 http://WWW.AhLgqy d 1% ublic/dis laAhene=2 9.' The DIO Homeland Security Advisory System is a color-coded threaffev el Istem,Psed to'kommunica"F,with public safety officials and the public at large so that protectivc*asuira6an be unpi4ment-td to, reriucethe likelihood of impact of an attack. hUP_//wwK_psepc gi,ztYin de,x�sp- a 4V1 • _0 P Physical Response Security Guideline North American Electric Reliability Council 8 C.5.2 Page-9 Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives The following information is the length of transmission line(estimated to the nearest tenth)that crosses • the identified land uses by link and LRO in order to comply with the Major Facility Siting Act.This Act is a Montana statute that requires information from companies wishing to extend or build new facilities in Montana. The requirements of this Act do not apply to Idaho;therefore,links within Idaho are not included.The agencies' preferred alternative is composed of links and LROs that are shaded in the following tables. 1. Length of transmission line segment(miles) 1 Cross private and public ownership (miles) 3. Number of residences by distance zone that would be crossed: • 0 to 300 feet of centerline 300 to 1000 feet of centerline 4. Subdivided land crossed(miles) 5. Distance from airports 6. Miles of new access roads 7. Crossing of special designation recreation areas(SMAs) 8. Distance of paralleling linear features 9. Estimated cost 10. Land use categories and lengths: • Rangeland/pastureland • Dryland farming • Commercial/industrial/mining • Residential • Irrigated(broken out as mechanical or flood) " • Forested(broken out as logged or not logged) • Land use categories were attained from the Montana State Department of Revenue GIS layer(December 2009) and photo interpretation (2005 CM aerials from NRIS faster service). The rangeland/pastur)e land category is a combination of grazing land and continuously cropped land. • Grazing land is considered land either native range or domestic range, which are used to support agricultural livestock.Drylaad alfalfa that is not hayed a majority of the time is classified as grazing. • Continuously cropped land fsa method of farming without irrigation in which crops are grown a majdfitycif the time as part of"a normal farming practice. Christmas tree plantation and fruit orchards are classifiedas continuously cropped farmland.There are wheat fields in northwest Montana also classified as continuously cropped. Dryland fanning is considered a combination of fallow and non-irrigated hay land. Summe falfo,4 farmland is considered a method of farming in and and semi-arid areas without using irrigation which consists of cultivating a given area in alternate years(usually every other year), allowing moisture to be stored in the un-cropped(fallow)year.Even if grain crops are occasionally sequenced with alfalfa or other nitrogen fixing crops, the land will be classified as fallow if grain is the principle crop. • Non-irrigated hay land is a method of farming whereby hay is cut a majority of the years. Native vegetation cut for hay yearly or majority of the time over a period of years. Non-irrigated alfalfa and other domestic varieties cut for hay yearly or the majority of the time. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives • Commercial/industrial/mining areas were identified using photo interpretation(2005 C1R aerials from NRIS raster service). Residential areas were based on subdivision data provided by POWER Engineers in Spring of 2009 with refinement and updating by PBS&J Irrigated land, a method of farming that uses human-made water delivery systems to apply water to hayland or cropland to increase production.All hay land and cropland that is irrigated a majority of the time over the long term(2 out of 3 years,3 out of 5 years,4 out of 7 years,etc.)All agricultural land, including grazing land in a specified irrigation district where the land is designated as irrigable with shares of the water appurtenant to such land shall be classified as irrigated, regardless whether the water is actually applied or not applied to the land. Land in an irrigation district that is not designated as irrigable> by the district and is not charged an irrigation fee, is classified according to its current use. Land that has ; water available for irrigation most years is classified as irrigated if the water is used. Land that has water for irrigation most years,but the water is not utilized, is not classified as irrigated.These lauds are classified according to their current use and further broken out as mechanical(pivot and sprinkler)or flood irrigation. Forest land, defined by statue as contiguous land of 15 acres or more in one ownership that is capable of producing timber that can be harvested in commercial quantity and is producing timber unless the trees have been removed by disaster. Covenants restricting timber harvesting preclude forest laud classification,however conservation easements do not. Forested land that does,not meet the minimum forest productivity requirement(currently 100 board feet/acre/year)'is considered non-commercial forest and classified as nonforest land(or valued as grazing).Forest land means land,that Includes commercial forest land that is at least 10 percent stocked by trees of any size and capable ofxproducing timber or other • wood products.Land in which the timber has been harvested below 10 percent stocking,but forest growth will regenerate within seven years. Commercial means forest land that exceeds 15 contiguous acres of timber capable of producing 100 board feet/acre/year of commercially usable wood. Strips of forest less than 120 feet in width are uonforest. Photo interpretation was Used to classify togged/not logged areas outside the Beaverhead/Deerlodge National Forest. Logged areas on the BDNF were identified using the "Activities"shapefile-provided by the BDNF from the FACTS (Forest ACTivitieS) database,which is continually being updated but yearly entries have to be made by mid-October. The data used for this table was obtained in December 2009. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-2 MS TI Appendix C.6 _ _MESA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-1.Approximate Miles Crossed by Land Use Categories llppr6ximate o Residence Counts by Miles:of New H o Distance Zone qcr eSS Road u t arUu. J 300 Subc�IrYision i pirport5 a " u° . Q0 of Total Private FiAiie 0 3 1000 0�i000 Approximate within a ,o LRt1 MR s Mifes N Iles foot feet feet MUes Crossed 3.78 mile Private' `P'ublic ° 1 6.3 5.2- :' 11 0 2 2 0 0 3.7 1.2 2 " 2-1 3 3 0 01 0 0 0.8 0 0 .. . 0 0__ 2-2 4.3 2.8 1.5' 0 0 0 0.3 0 1.2 0.6 1.4 2-3a 20.4 7.9 >1 5 0 0 0 0 0 9.9 10.7 9 2-3b 4.4 4.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 0.1 0 2-3c 39.4 9.9 29.5 2 " 4 6 <0.1 0 5.5 21.7 0 2-3d 3.9 3.9 0 0 4 4 0.1 -1 -0 0 0 3-1 41.6 37.2 4.4 5 ' 16 v21 0.5 2 24.5 4.1 0.5 3,-2 4.7 2,7 Z 0 1; 0-,r 0 71,0 0 1.5 1.4 0 h1a $.7 6.1 2.6 0 " 1 1 0 0 1.3 1.. D7 4.1b ;1:4 1.4 0 p 0 0- 1.2 0 116 "' <0.1 0 4a 1Z.2 9.$ 2.7 0 -07 r.0 0 0 7.1 j 4:1 i, .0 4,2'h,' Sa 9 0,5 a 0 -0 0 0 10;3 1.5 0 5 15.5 10.1 5,4 0 11 11 0.3 1` 2.6 " 2.1 Z.6 W_ 6-1 7.3 0.1 7.2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1.4 2 6-2 2.5 2.4 _<0.1 6 58 ! 64 0.7 3 0 0 0 7-1 2.1 2.1 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 7-2 2.7 2.7 0 0 4 4 0° 4 1.1 <0.1 0 -- -- 7-3 1.5 0.3 1.2 0 -0 -0 0 "2 0.4 0.8 0 7-4 4.8 4.7 0.1 0 1 1 0 2 ;4.4 0.1 0 8-1 17.3 17.3 0 6 40 46 0 8 - 4 ' 09 <0.1 _ 0 8-2 2.8 2.7 0.1 0 _ 0 0 0 0- 0.1 9-1 2.5 1.1 1.4 ---0 1 1 tl"... 0 0 .9-2a 4 2.7 1.3 0 2 2 0 0' 0.1 0.8 0 9-2b 1.3 0.2 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0.3 9-2c _ 2.5 1.8 0.7 0 7 7_ 0 0 0.5'<- 0.5: 0 9-3 _ _ 1.8 1 0.8 0 0 0--- 0 0 0.3 0.2' 0.9 10 3.2 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Draft Environmental Impact.Statement C.6 Page-3 MSTI • • • i • • Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-1.Approximate Miles Crossed by Land Use Categories Approximate ` Residence Counts by Miles of New o 0 Distance Zone Access Road V LL �WU 300- Subdivision Airports c Link or Total Private Mblic 0-300 }000 01000 Approximate within `af o RO Miles Miles Miles feet fiet feet Miles Crossed 3.78 mile private Public o 11-1 12.9 11.3 1.6 _`0 1 1 _ 0 0 3.4 2 0 11-2 _ 2.7 1.5 1 2 0 - 1 _7 1 0 0 0.2 _ 0.8 11-3 _ 2.2 12 0 0 0 - 0 -0 1.9 1.4 _ _0 11-4 2.9 1.9 1 !' 0 3 3 0.1 0 0 0.1 - 0.9 11-5 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 .. 0 " 0 0 0 0.2 <0.1 0.3 12 53.6 13:8 39.7 0 1 1 0 0 15.4, 4Z8 2.1 13 20.3 9.4 10.9 1 4 5 0 _ 0 0.5 _ 0.4 <0.1_ 14-1 11 5.4 5.6 0 6 -6 _ 0 0 3.2 5.3 - 0 14-2 1.3 0.8 -0.5 0 ,O 0 0 0 1.2 1 0 --- - 14-3 7.6 2.5 5.1 0 _ 1 1 _ 0 0 0.9 2.9 0 15-1 2.4 0 2.4 0 __ 0 -0 _ 0 ___0 _ 2.4 15-2a _ 2.2 0.5 1.7 0 0 0 "0 _ 0 0.2 0.5 1.7 15-2b 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 , -0 ":0. 0 0 0.2 15-2c 8.1 0.8 73 1 -0 -1 7 0 0 0.2 1 15-2d 33.5 10.5 _ 23 0 0 - 0 0 1 5.8 8.2 7.6 16-1 1.4 0 _ 1.4 0 0 0 0 �`-0 0 _ 0.9 0 16-2 _ 4.7 1.7 3 0 D 0 0 0 1.1 3.7 2.5 16-3a 11.4 8.2 3.2 0 2 ;.:2 0� 0 4.7 3.3 0.6 16�3b! 2.8 0 2,e "0 0 0 F' 0 Q 0,4 S$ 0 18.3c 8.7 3.7 5 :0 4 4 0 0- 9.6 ! 6.2 0 1"d 12.8 0.8 12 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 13.2 0 174. 4,9 1.S 3.4 0 0 0 O, 1- 47 0 17-2 TOA 7S 29 0 0 0 0 173 5.2 0. 5 0 0 0 0 0: 1 8 0 7.4 4,8 4.1 01, 0 1 1 0 0 l 1 0 25 5 2.1 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 26' 1.7 0.8 0.9 0 2 2 0 0 0.7 0 27 15.1 0.4 14.7 0 0 0 0 0 13.9 2.8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C-6 Page-4 MSTI III Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-1.Approximate Miles Crossed by Land Use Categories Approximate c Residence Counts by Milos of New t distance Zane Access oadS � N�WiU1LL Qo." 1,,Subdivision Airports Link or Total RriJate C2Ghlic 0 360 100o 0.1000 Appmximate v�itthltl a� LR0 Milos Miles 'Miles feiCt f' t feet Miles Crossed', '3. 8 Mile Private Pul1►ic 28 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 '.. 0 0 0 2.72 _.- 29 2.5 0.7 1.8 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0.3 1.8 0.1 30 5.2 0.6 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.4 4.1 0 31 8.8 0.8 7.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 12.1 0.8 32 _._ 3.7 0.3 3.4 0 _0 0 0 0 0.4 5.2 0 33 13.5 1.6 11.9 0 "'0 0 0.3 0 0.9 13.3 <0.1 34 5A 1 0.2 -5,2 0 _ 1„ A 0 0' 0.6 $'7 5.3 35 1.7 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 <0.1 1 1.7 36? 0 0.6 '37 1.3 <0.1 1.3 0 0 V 0 0 1.1 ! 1.3 38 10.3 <0.1 I 10.3 0 0 -0 b 0 0..... 9.8 2-7_._.. 30 6.6 0:3 6.3 0 0 ,;0 D 0 0.3 LR02-2 4.8 2.5 2.3 0 ` +' 1 ?1 0.6 0 2 1 1.5 2.2 LR02-3b 4.1 4.1 0 0 0 0 ` 0 0 3.1 <01 0 LR04- 8.2 8.2 0 0 1 1 0 .:..0 6.8 <01 0 2a-1 LR04- 6.8 5.8 1 0 0 0 0, 0 4.1 0.1 0 2a a-2-2 _ LR04- r� 2a-8 5.6 4.4 1.2 0 0 0 0 x 0 3.9 1.3 0 LR04 2b 616 !4.5 2.1 4 0 0 0 0 2.9 ' 1.3 0 LR06-2 32 3 0.2 0 28 8 28 --0.5', 3,. 1 0.1 0 LR07-2 21 2.7 0 0 3 _ 3 LR07-4 6.7 5.7 1 0 0 0 1 -- _ _- 2 S.5. 0.6 0 LR09-3 1.7 1.3 0.4 0 0 0 0 0_ 0:9 0.6 0.4 [LR011-3 5 0.1 4.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 5.7: 2.2 LR014-2 1.3 0.3 r 1 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 " 1.1 _._,. 0 LRO16-2 4 8 0.3 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0,3 4.1 2.7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-5 MSTI Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-1.Approximate Miles Crossed by Land Use Categories Approximate c Residence Counts by Miles of New w Distance Zone Access Road « VU w 300- Subdivision Airports H 3 m Link or Total Private Public 0-300 3000 0.1000 Approximate within oQ� � a LRO Miles Miles Miles feet feet feet Miles Crossed'' 3.78 mile Private. Public, LRO16- 7.8 0.8 7 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 12.1 0 3c LRO17-2 10.8 LRO17-4 4.7 178 :2 9 0 0 0 0 _ 0 2.7 2.8 0 LR028 3.2 0 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 1.8 2 __ LR032 4 0.3 3.7 0 "0 0 0 0 0.3 5.1 0 Table C.6.2.Approximate Miles Crossed by Land Use Categories 7ec"h ted = F orested _m Link-or Total Private Public Rangeland Dryland Not LRQ Miles Miles Miles !Pasture Fermin `'-� d v .Flaed Lo edfl -Lo Loaned c 6.3 5.2 1.1": 53 0 < 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 2-1 3 3 0 _ 1.2 0 0 0 _ 0 :,..0 1.8 0 0 0 2-2 4.3 2.8 1.5 4 0 0 0 _ 0 p 0.2 0 0 <0.1 2-3a 20.4 7.9 12.5 10.9 _ 0 0' '0 0.6 8.7_:. 0.1 0 0 0 2-36 4.4 4.4 0 1.9 0 0 ' 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.3 0 0 0 2-3c 39.4 _9.9 29.5 12.8 0 0 0 7.8 217 t0.6__ 0 0 0 2-3d 3.9 3.9 0 3.6 0 0 _0 0 0 0:. 0 0.1 0 3-1 41.6 37.2 4.4 34.3 2 0.9 03 ` 0 =0 4.1 i 0 0 0 2 4.7 2.r 2 15 0 0 0.2 421a 87 6.] 2.6 7.8' d D 0 lj 0 4.8 0 D 0 1 1.4 0 D 0 0 0 0 (ft- 0 0 4-2a 12.2 9.5 2.7 115 0.2 0 0 0 0.5 0' 0 0 0 ..... 4-2b 10 9.5 0.5 8.9 0.2 0 0 0 0.3 `0.5 0 0 0 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.6 _ MESA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Y Table C.6-2.Approximate Miles Crossed by Land Use Categories Irr! aced Forested - 4 E Link or Total Private Pub1iF Range1arld Dryland Not y E LRO Miles ' Mile& Miles /Pasture``., Fannin Mech. Flood Logged Logged ° " o c 5 15,5 00:1 »a 12;s o 0 r7. a o2 a.4; o 0 oz 6-1 7.3 0.1 7.2, , 2.7 0 0 0 2.4 3.1 0 0 0 0 6-2 2.5 2.4 SOA 1.5 0 0 0 _ _ 0.1 0.8 0 0 0 7-1 2.1 2.1 °0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.1 0 7-2 2.7 2.7 0 1.7 0 -0 -0 0 0 0.9 -0 --0 0 7-3 1.5 0.3 1.2 0.9 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 7-4 4.8 4.7 OA 4.2 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 8-1 17.3 17.3 0 9.3 0 0 0 0 0.1 7.3 0.2 0.1 0 8-2 2.8 2.7 0.1 2 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 9-1 2.5 1.1 1.4 0.9 0 0 0 0 0.6 1 0 0 0 9-2a 4 2.7 1.3 •0.5 ,I 0 0 0 0 1.5 2 0 0 0 9-2b 1.3 0.2 1.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 0 0 0 9-2c 2.5 1.8 0.7 1.8 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.3 0 0 0 9-3 1.8 1 0.8 1.3 0 0 0 ` 0 0.1 0.5 0 0 0 10 3.2 3.2 0 3.1 0.1 0 Q,.__ 0 0 0 0 0 0 11-1 12.9 11.3 1.6 8.8 ,..0 .1 _ :<3' 0 0 4 0 0 0 11-2 2,7 1.5 1.2 2.2 �0 _0 0 0.5 0 0 0 11-3 2.2 1 1.2 2.2 <0.1 ;. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11-4 2,9 1.9 1 2.4 0 r_0 0 0 0 _ 0.5 0 0 0 11-5 1.2 0.8 0.4 1 0 0 0.1 " --0 _ r:: 0 - 0 0 0 0 12 53.6 8 39.7 50 4 <0.1 0':L., _ 2"sg 1.2 0 0 0 13 20.3 9.4 10.9 17.7 0 0.3 ,.- 0 0 2.2 0 0 0 _._._.__._- __- 14-1 11 5.4 5.6 9.2 0 0.2 ,. 0.2 _ 0 0 1.3 0 0 0 14-2 1.3 0.8 0.5 1.3 0 0 0 0 c0 -:: 0 0 0 0 14-3 7,6 2.5 5.1 6.6 0 0 +. 0 _ 0 0 .:1 0 0 0 15-1 2.4 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 ;0 0 ,-0 0 r. 0 0 0 15-2a 2.2 0.5 1.7 2.2 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 15-2b 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 -:.0 0 0 15.2c 8li b8 7.3 7'9 0 0 0 0 0 0; -0 -0 15-2d 33.5 10.5 23 31.4 0 0.2 0.9 0 _ 0 0.5' 0 0 0.2 16-1 1.4 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 16-2 4.7 1.7 3 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-7 MSTI • • • Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-2. Approximate Miles Crossed by Land Use Categories Irri ated Forested v c Link or Total Private Public RarIgela'nd Dryland Not 'y E LRO Miles Miles ilefs tRasture Farmin Mach. Flood Lo ed Lo ed °� ` °c 16-3a 11.4 8.2 3.2 8.4 0 0.7 0 0 0 2 0.1 0 0 16'-3b 2.8 0 2.8, 28 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16-3G 81 3.7 5 7.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 1.4 0 0 0 16.3d 12:8 0.8 12 12:6 0,2:,, 0 0 0 0 0 tl 0 0; 17- 49 1.5 34 4.8' 0 0 0.3 4 0 0 0 0 0 17.2 10.4 75 ' 29 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 17-3 5;2 0;2 5 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tl 0 17-4 48 4.1 03 4;8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 1 0 25 5 _ 2.1 2.9 4.6 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 26 1.7 0.8 0.9 L1 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 27 15.1 0.4 14.7 5 0 ,.0 0 0,5 9.8 _ 0 0 0 0 28 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2.5 0.7 1.8 2.3 "0 1 0.2 <01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 30 5.2 0.6 4.7 5.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 8.8 0.8 7.9 8.6 0 0 0'' 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 32 .7 0.3 3.4 3.7 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 33 13.5 1 1.6 11.9 0 0 0 :0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 34 _ 5.4 0.2 5:2 5.4 0 0 0 0 " 0 0` 0 0 0 35 1.7 0 1.7 1.7 0 ` 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36? 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1:3 <0.3 1 1.3` 1.3 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 10.3 <0.1 10.3 10.3 0 '0 0' 0 0` 0 0 0 0 39 66 0.3 6,3 6,6 0 0 0 0111 0 0 0 p 04 LR02-2 4.8 2.5 2.3 4.2 0 0 ;,. 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 LR 4.1 4.1 0 3.1 0 .0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 3b b LR04- 8.2 8.2 0 6.1 1.9 0 0 0 0 . 0.2 0 0 0 2a-1 LR04- 6.8 5.8 1 6 0.7 0 0 0 0 0.1r. 0 0 0 2a-2 LR04- 56 4.4 1.2; fi:2 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24-3 MSTI Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-8 i Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-2. Approximate Miles Crossed by Land Use Categories Irrigated l Forested 9 y Im 7orT4,) Private Pobli RangAild Dryland Not E Miles Mil "s Mi shire ° rartnipcL Me ch. Mood Logged Logged m _ # 66 45 2 1 4.7 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0" ,2b c LRO6-2 3.2 3 Oat _ 1.4 , _ '0 0 0 0 0.2 1.6 0 0 0 LRO7-2 2.7 2.7 '0 1.7 7 0 ". 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 LRO7-4 6.7 5.7 1 .;-5.1 is 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 0 LRO9-3 1.7 1.3 `0.4 `1J.9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 LRO11- 3 5 0.1 4. t' 4.9 0 <0.1 0 0 0 <0.1 0 0 0 _ LRO14- 1.3 0.3 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 LRO16- 2 4,8 0.3 4.5 4.8 0 ?0 .,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LRO16- 3c 78 08 7 7.7 0 0 0 > 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 LRO17- 2 10.8 3.2 7.6 10.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LRO17- 4.7 18 2.9 4.7 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 LRO28 3.2 0 3.2 3.2 0 :::.0 0 '0 0 -0--1 0 0 0 LRO32 4 0.3 3.7 3.9 0 0 D 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-9 MSTI • • • Appendix C.6 MFSA impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-3.Cost Estimate for Approximate Miles of each Link and LRO(2009 dollar value and materials pricing) Miles of Paralleling Linear Features n d Estimated Cost Approximate Miles of (such as roads,pipelines,existing °_ $1 millionimile New Access Road transmission lines,railroads o g o Within 110 Feet Miles within X of Linear 0.25 Miles of Private Public Public Private Feature Linear Feature 1 6.3 5.2 1.1 5200000 110 D 1.2 17 05 3.8 2-1 3 3 -` 0 3000000 .. 0 _ 0.1 _ 2.2 2-2 4.3 2.8 1.5 _ '- 2800000 1500000 0.6 1.2 0.4 2.9 2-3a 20.4 7.9 12.5 7900000 12500000 10.7 9.9 1.2 12.8 2-3b 4.4 4.4 _ 0 4400000_ 0 0.1 3.3 0.5 3.5 2-3c 39.4 9.9 .29 5 9900000 29500000 21.7 5.5 6 34.8 - - ---- 2-3d -3.9 3.9 � 0 390000060 -0 0 0.7 3.9 3-1 41.6 37.2 4.4 37200000 `` 4400000 4.1 24.5 5.6 34.7 3-2 4:7 2.7 2 2700000 2000000 114 .5 0,6 4.7 a•la 8.7 6.1 2.6 6100000 26 18 1.3 0 61 6.2 4-1b 1.4 1.4 0 1400000 0 20.1 1.6 0 0.6 4-2a 12.2 9.5 2.7 9500000 2700000 4.1. 7.1 1 6.5 4-2b 10 9.5 0.5 1 500000 500000 1.5.' 10.3 0.5 5 5 15.5 10.1 5,4 10100000' S4 00 2.,j-' 2.6 2.8 15.5 6-1 7.3 _ 0.1 7.2 100000 7200000'` 1.4 0 3.4 _ 7.3 6-2 2.5 2.4 <0.1 2400000 ?`- 25000 -0 --2 2.5 7-1 2.1 2.1 0 2100000 0 0 _ 0.2 1.7 7-2 2.7 2.7 0 2700000 0 <0 1 -11 '.. 0 1.4 7-3 1.5 0.3 1.2 300000 1200000 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 7-4 4.8 4.7 0.1 4700000 100000 0.1 -4.4 0.5 2.4 8-1 17.3 17.3 0 _ 17300000 0 <0,1 0.9 17.3 17.3 8-2 2.8 _ 2.7 0.1 - 2700000 100000 - ` ; 2.8 2.8 9-1 2.5 _ 1.1 1.4 1100000 1400000 -x:0.8 _ 2.5 9-2a 4 2.7 1.3 2700000 1300000 ,,0.8 0.1 1.4: 4 9-2b 1.3 0.2 1.1 _ 200000 1100000 0 < 0 3� , 1.3 9-2c 2.5 1.8 0.7 1800000 700000 0.5 0 5 0.6 _2.5 9-3 1.8 1 0.8 _ 1000000 800000 _ 0.2 0.3 _ 0,5 _ 1a 10 3.2 3.2 0 3200000 0 0 4, 3 11-1 12.9 11.3 1.6 11300000 1600000 2 3.4 2.4 1 11-2 2.7 1.5 _ 1.2 1500000 __ 1200000 0.8 0.2 O5_ 2 11-3 2.2 1 1.2 1000000 1200000 1.4 1.9 " 0 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-10 MSTI Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-3.,Cost Estimate for Approximate Miles of each Link and LRO(2009 dollar value and materials pricing) O - - Miles of Paralleling Un6ai�Features �e Estimated Cost Approximate Miles of ;(such as roads,pipelines;existinI ; $1 million/mile) New Access Road' transmission lines,railroads ° o , Niithin,lY0 Feet Miles within o _ gi Linear 025 Miles.r{ . ; Private Pubilk. public Pr-irate '`> " Feawre Lthear Feahtre 11-4 2.9 1:9 1' 1900000; 1000000 0.1 0 0.8 2.9 11-5 1.2 0.8 '`0.4 800000' ;. 400000 <0.1 0.2 0.2 1.2 12 516 33.$ x39,7 000_ ,. 39700000 47.8 15.6 38 36.1 13 20.3 9.4 ' 10.9 9400000 10900000 0.4 0.5 4.5 20.3 14-1 11 5.4 5.6 5400000 5600000 5.3 3.2 1.4 11 14-2 1.3 0.8 0 5 8000001 500000 1 1.2 0 1.3 14-3 7.6 2.5 51 _2500000 5100000 2.9 0.9 0.6 7.6 15-1 2.4 0 2.4 b'' 2400000 0.8 2.4 15-2a 2.2 0.5 1.7 500000 1700000 0.5 0.2 0.2 2.2 15-2b 0.6 0.4 0.2 400000 200000 0.2 0.6 15-2c 8.1 O.8 7.3 $00000; 7 0000 2 0 1.7 81 15-2d 33.5 10.5 23 10500000 23000000 8.2 5.8 7.4 32.6 16-1 1.4 0 1.4 I'll 0 1400000 0.9 0 0.2 1.4 16-2 4.7 1.7 3 1 1700,000 3000000 3.7' 1.1 2.8 4.7 16-3a 11.4 8.2 3.2 82000 , 3200000" IS 4.7 1.7 11.3 16-3 2.8 0 2.8 0' 0406 4•.I O.4 0.1 1.4 1T-3C 8.7 3;7 5 3700000 �; :2 :6 07 " 6.4 16-3d 12.8, 018 12 " 800 00. 1 1'3.2 0.5`x- 0.9'.. 819 .17.1 4.9 1.5 3,4 1 00 4.7 0.9 ',c 0.3,' 2.1 17.2 10.4 "7.5 2.9 75.0000: 2900000 3.4 7.3 1.2" 7.3 17.3 5,2 % 0.2 5 200000! 5000000 S 013. 0.7r 5. 17-4 4.8 4,1 0.7 t 4100000 700000 O.i 4.4 019 4.8 ,18_ 20 11.9 - .8.1 11900000 8100000 4.9 4.Q, '-;.. ;q.1_. 20 19 82.8 13.7 69.1 13700000 69100000 7.8 0.3 14.5 79.1 20 40A 38.8 21.6 1$800000 21600000 Q2 0.914 a 40.4 21-1 3 :2 6,5 " 25.7 6500000 2570000 8:5 1.7 9.1 30.5 21-2 16.7 1.3 15.4 1300000 15400000 7.3 <0.1 7.4 15 22 24.6 0.5 24.1 500000 24100000 6.5: 24.6 23-1 61.8 42.9 18.9 42900000 18900000 11.1 5.8 21.1r 52.5 23-2 15.2 2;8 12.3 2$00000 12300000 3`;1 " 11.3 2�C 106.8 18 2 88.5 18200000" 88600000- 50:7 6 _ -12.6 "73.7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-11 MSTI Appendix C.6 MFSA Impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-3.Cost Estimate for Approximate Miles of each Link and LRO(2009 dollar value and materials pricing) H Miles of Paralleling Linear Features w d = Estimated Cost Approximate-Miles of (such as roads, pipelines,existing $1 mill mile) New Access Road transmission lines,railroads `o g Within 110 Feet Miles Within s c e of Linear 0,25 Miles of c ..- Private Public Public Private Feature Linear Feature , 25 5 2.1 2.9 _ 2100000. 2900000 __ 0.4 5 26 1.7 0.8 "'0.9 - - 800000"+. 900000 0.7 _ 0.4 1.7 - --- 27 15.1 0.4 - 14.7 400000 14700000 13.9 3 11 28 2.5 0 2 5 0 2500000 2.7 0 0.4 29 2.5 0.7 18 700000 1800000 1.8 0.3 0.4 2.3 30 5.2 0.6 _ 4.7 60000_0 4700000 4.1 0.4 0.5 __4.6 31 8.8 0.8 7.9 800000 7900000 12.1 0.5 0.9 4.5 32 3.7 0.3 3.4 300000" 3400000 5.2 0.4 0.1 1.5 33 13.5 1.6 11.9 1600000 11900000 13.3 0.9 1.3 7.7 34 ''5.4 0.2 5.2 260000 5200006 5 7 0.6 0.4 16 35 1.7 0 _ 1.7 0 100000 "1 <0.1 0.1 1.4 36 37 1.3 <01 113 =51000 10300000 .> 1.7 0 0.1 0.5 38 10.3 <0.1 10.3 300000 6300000 9.8 0 1.3 7.2 39 6.6 03 _6.3 11606000 1240000 = 92 Q.3 0.5 3 3.2 LR02-2 4.8 2.5 2.3 4100000 0 1.5 2 0.5 _ 3.6 LR02-3b 4.1 4.1 0 8200000 0 <0.1 31 0.4 _ 3.3 L 8.2 2a-1 8.2 0 5800000 1000000 <0.1 6.8 2.3 5.2 2a-1 LR04- 6.8 5.8 1 4400000 1200000 0.1 41 2.2 4.4 2a-2 Lf3f1A- 5.6 -0.d '1.2, 45bW( 200006 1.�3 3§ . 0.5 3 2 LfI�2b .6 4:52.1 3000066? 2QOftO; 13 " '„ 2. 6 LR06-2 _ 3.2 3 0.2 2700000 0 0.1 •1n� p.5 3.2 LR07-2 2_7 2.7 0 5700000 1000000 + 0 - 1.3 _.- _ LR07-4 6.7 5.7 1 1300000 400000 0.8 5 5 t1,8___ 5.4 LR09-3 1.7 1.3 0.4 100000 4900000 0.6 0.9 D.4: 1.7 LRO11-3 5 0.1 4.9 300000 1000000 5.7 1 0.1 O.S 3.6 LRO14-2 1.3 0.3 1 300000 4500000 1.1 0.1 0'' 1 1.3 LR016-2 4.8 0.3 4.5 800000 7000000 4.1 0.3 ... `0.7 .v;.3.8 Draft Environmental impact Statement C.6 Page-12 h," MSTI Appendix C.6 MFSA impacts for Montana Alternatives Table C.6-3..Cost Estimate for Approximate Miles of each Link and LRO(2009 dollar value and materials pricing) Miles of Paralleling Linear reatures 0 Ix Estimated Cost Approximate Mile,�`of ('such as roads,-pipelines,existing y $1 millioniMile New Access;koo*d transmission iines;railroads `o a Within 110'Feet Miles Within a I of Linear D.26 Miles of Private Puri t6 Public Private Feature Linnear Feature j X,LRO16- 3c 7.8 0.8 7 3200000+ 7600000 12.1 1.8 0.2 3.3 LRO17-2 10.8 3.2 7.6 ' 1800p00 2900000 7 2.8 0.9 7.6 LRO17-4 4.7 1.8 2.9 ':0 3200000 2.8 23 0.3 _ 4.7 LRO28 1 3.2 0 3.2 300000 3700000 1.8 0 0.4 1.4 LRO32 4 0 3 3.7 5200000 1100000 5.1 0.3 0.1 1.6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.6 Page-13 MSTI • • • • Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • C.7.1 Environmental Setting Detail This subsection contains additional data and discussion regarding the current status of several socioeconomic variables presented in Section 3.7.1 of the EIS. C.7.1.1 Population This subsection characterizes the population of the core and regional study areas.It describes the historical population trend,population centers of the core study area,and relevant demographic information,including the age and racial or ethnic minority status of the population. C.7.1.1.1 Population Trend The core study area has a total population of almost 318,000,based on July 1,2008 estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division(2009). For the period 1970 to 2008,the population of the counties in the core study area grew by almost 50 percent, as shown in Figure C.7.1-1.Growth occurred steadily throughout the period, at an average annual growth rate of about 1 percent,with J-slight downturn in the mid-1980s. The core study area grew more slowly than the state of Idaho overall,which more than doubled in population between 1970 and 2008,but faster than the state of Montana overall, which grew by about 40 percent during the same period. �.00;000 1.400,000 1200.000 . _ _ +,R!"`-"++.�+ `-_-ldaho 9.000,000 ___-"� °"'Montana • - -- .. - —Regional Study Area c -- —Regional Study Area-10 p, 600,000 - —°—Regional Study Area-MT 0.00.000 --Core Study Area 20n000 :.,... e...:...�-_-a,es-.,�...- r-rte.. ^�'�'="^'�"'�"°'R1^"' '° . a. , _ -._ , .-. .. ,...- � .. Core Study Area-ID ao-. _, 0 Core StudyArea-MT 9a1. Ao- 1� A'a Y �n 66 �.9bl YI. n° p0 ti 6 ,,9 �°+ ,.9 Nc� n9 ,�94�°'9 `D 0 0 0' o°'' `N g°',y0 ry0o rytl"ry6 ry00 Source:U.S.Bureau ofhe Census Population Estimates and Population Distribution Branches(1982,1992),U.S.Census Bureau, PopulaUgn Division(2002,2009) Figure C.7.1-1.Population of the Core and Regional Study Areas 1970-2008 Table C.7,1-1 shows'the population of some counties within the core study area has grown rapidly,while the population of others has grown more slowly or declined.The core study area in Montana lost about 5 Percent of its population between 1970 and 2008,driven largely by a decline in mining activities in and around Silver Bowamd Deer Lodge Counties(Montana Department of Labor and Industry,Workforce Services Division,Research and Analysis Bureau and Montana Department of Commerce,Census and Economic Information Center 2009).In contrast, the core study area in Idaho has grown by more than 75 ;;,percent since 1970, largely driven by growth in Idaho Falls, in Bonneville County.The regional study area contains counties with larger population centers than the core study area, including Lewis and Clark (Helena, Montana), Silver Bow(Butte, Montana),Bonneville(Idaho Falls, Idaho), and Twin Falls(Twin Falls, Idaho).Thus, the population of the counties that make up the regional study area has grown faster than that of the counties that make up the core study area. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1-1. Population of the Core and Regional Study Areas, 1970-2008 z'MSTJEA' .MSTlFA Cunti lw ST I Care I M"Care'. Year Idaho M60tamAICguniies ounte 1 MT Co 40es Uq# touV"S-MT 1970 713,015 694,409 469,740 300,111 169,6291 215,282 136,684 7a,,5 1 98 1971 739,000 711,000 481,800 307,700 174,1001 219,400 139,200 80,20.0 1972 763,000 719,000 493,400 316,700 176,700 224,700 144,100 80,600 1973 782,0001 727,000 501,3001 322,500 178,800 227,600. 146,600 81,000 1974 808.00C r 737,000 513,4001 332,400 181,000 233,600 152,2W' MA00 1975 832,000 749,000 527,600 344,500, 183,100 239,200 157,800-=, 81400 1976 857,000 758,000.. 537,000 354.50� 182,500 241,700 162,4W 79,300 1977 883,000 771,000 550,400 365,200 185,200 246.300 167k,700 78,600 1978 911,000 784,000 560,900 373,400 187,500 750,500 172,706 77,800 1979 933,000 789,000 568,200 380,400 187,800 252,100 176,000 76,100 1980 944,12� 786,690 571,307 383,823 187,484 251,132 176,592 74,540 1981 962,204 795,325 581,837 392,008 189,829 254,485 180,250 74,235 1982 973,719 803,984 589,174 397,649 191,525 255,897 , 182,021 73,876 1983 901,866 814.02 596,067 402,7441 193,323 258,147 184,666, 73,481 1984 990,841 820,904 597,738 403,936 193,802 -258,732 186,486 72,276 01� 1985 994,052 822,320 597,884 402,183 195,7 258,5 1 44 -18 1 6 1 705 71,839 • 1986 990,222 813,738 594,920 400,015 194,9051 257,560 186,406 71,154 1987 984,997 805,064 591,218 391,401 193,817 257,718 187,010 70,708 1988 985,661 800,200 589,216 395,845 193,371 256,851 186,550 70,301 1989 994,422 799,634' 590,191 395,958 194,233 256,676 186,578 70,098 1990 1,012,384 800,204, 596,508 400,239 196269 259,256 189,265 69,991 1991 1,041,3-16 809,680 607,858 408,707 199,151 264,4891 194,144 70,345 1992 1,071,685 825,770 622,218 418,681 203,537 270,422 199,469 70,953 1993 1,108,768 844,761 635,176 426,454 208,722 275,2131 203,205 72,008 1994 1,145,140 861,306 647,732 434,445 213,287 279,7231 206,700 73,023 1995 1,177,322, 876,553 658,263 440,599 217,664 282,523 208,595 73,928 1996 1,203,083 886,254: 664,679 444,348 220,331 284,148 209,634 74,514 1997 1,228.520 889;8651 670,646 448,794 221.852 285,715 211,13 74,579 1998 1,252,330 892,431 676,19 452,142i 224,053 287,883 212,916 74,967 1999 1,275,67 897,5071 681,398 455,4161 225,982 289,160 214,552 74,608 2000 1,299,47 902,1951 686,485 458,533 227,952 291,425 216,915 74,510 2001 1,32(),732 905,85 690,602 461,299 229,303 29L366 218,097 73,26 2002 1,341,40 909,859 696,0721 465,456 230,616 292,767 219,908 72,859 2003 1,363,010 916,754 704,202 470,904 233,298 294,710 222,340 72,370 2004 1,390,329 925,969 715,824 478,772 237,052 298,466 225,859 72,607 2005 1,424,127 934,888 726,057 484,951 241,106 301,973 229,165 72,808 2006 1,461,183 945,428 738,933 493.12� 245,807 306,214 233,374 72,840 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-3 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics Table C.7.1-1. Population of the Core and Regional Study Areas,1970-2008 • MSTt l MSTt t MSTI EA Counties- MSTI Core MSTI Core = MST!Core Yew° t1,496,14 ontana,' Counties- unties-I Counties untiesa 2007 956,624 751,554 501,157 250,397 311,525 238,204 73,321 2008 967,440 764,8421 510,147 I5A AO5 l 317,606 243,589 74.017 Source:U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates and Population Distribution Branches(1982,1992),U.S Census Bureau Population Division(2002,2009) C.7.1.1.2 Population Centers Tables C.7.1-2 and C.7.1-3 present the populations of the counties,cities,and towns in the core study areas in Idaho and Montana. The region's major population centers are Helena and Butte in Montana, and Idaho Falls,Pocatello, and Twin Falls in Idaho. These areas are included in the regional study area, but fall outside the core study area and are not listed in the tables below. Table C.7.3-2. Population of Counties,Cities,and Towns in the Montana Core Study Area Popul_'l nt yµ Jurisdiction- 197tr - 19901 2 �6 Z' 2008 Beaverhead County 8,187 8,106 8,429 9,202 8,807 8,903 Dillon 4,548 3,976 3.991 3,752 4,106 NA Lima 351 272 ' 265 242 227 NA Wisdom CDP2 NA NA NA 114 NA NA • Broadwater County 2,526 3,267 3,328 4,385 4,579 4,704 Townsend 1,371 1,587 1,635 1,867 1,981 NA Radersburg CDP NA NA e NA 70 NA NA Toston CDP NA NA ` NA 105 NA NA Winston CDP t?t NA NA 73 NA NA Deer Lodge County 15,652 12,518 10,335 9,417 8,838 8,843 Anaconda-Deer Lodge 9,771 12,518 10,356 9,417 8,852 NA Jefferson County 5,238 7,029 7,992 10,049 11,090 11,255 Boulder 1,342 1,441 1,316 1,300 1,427 NA Basin CDP 'NA NA NA 255 NA NA Glancy CDP NA NA NA 1,406 NA NA Cardwell CDP NA NA NA 40 NA NA Jefferson City CDP NA NA NA 295 NA NA Montana City CDP NA NA NA 2,094 NA NA Whitehall 1,035 1,030 1,067 1,044 1,154 NA Madison County 5,014 5,448 5,994 6,851 7,405 7,509 Virginia City 149 192 142 130 141 NA Ennis 501 660 773 840 1,013 NA Alder CDP NA NA NA 116 NA NA Big Sky CDP (part) NA NA NA 188 NA NA • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-4 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1.2. Population of Counties,Cities,and Towns in the Montana Core Study Area popuk'ition' Jurisdiction+: 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 2008 Harrison CDP NA NA NA 162 NA NA Sheridan 636 646 652 659 699 NA Twin Bridges 613 437 374 400 424 NA Silver Bow County 41,981 38,092 33,913 34,606 32,602 32,803 Butte-Silver Bow 23,368 37,205 33,336 33,892 31,967 NA Walkerville 1,097 887 605 714 515 NA Montana Core Study Area 78,598 74,540 69,991 74,510 73,321 74,017 Montana(Statewide) 694,409 786,690 799,065 902,195 957,861 967,440 Core Study Area%of State 11% 9% 9% 8% 8%, 8% Source,U.S. Bureau of the Census,Population Estimates and Population Distribution Branches j(1982 1992),U.S. Census Bureau,Population Division(2002,2008a,2009) 1 Population values for 1970 to 2D00 based on April 1 decennial Census courts Population values for 2007 and 2008 based on July 1 annual population estimates. CDP=Census Designated Place Table C.7.1-3. Population of Counties,Cities, and Towns in the Idaho Core Study Area ppulation* "w • Jurisdiction 1970 1980 20QO 2007. 2008 Bingham County 29,167 36,489 37,603 41,744 43,359 43,903 Aberdeen NA NA NA 1,640 1,759 NA Atomic 24 34 25 25 25 NA Basalt 349 414 407 419 418 NA Blackfoot 8,716 10,065 9,646 10,419 10,867 NA Firth 362 460 429 408 485 NA Shelley = 2,614 -3,300 3,536 3,813 4,146 NA Blaine County 15,749 9,841 13,552 18,991 21,560 21,731 Bellevue 537 1,016 1,275 1,876 2,168 NA Carey NA NA NA 513 504 NA Hailey- 1,426 2,109 3,687 6,200 7,844 NA Ketchum 1,454 2,200 2,523 3,003 3,234 NA Sun Valley 180 545 938 1,427 1,448 NA Bonneville County 52,457 65,980 72,608 82,858 96,356 99,135 Ammon 2,545 4,669 5,002 6,187 12,872 NA Idaho Falls 35,776 39,590 43,929 50,730 53,279 NA Iona 890 1,072 1,049 1,201 1,287 NA Irwin 228 113 108 157 158 NA Ririe (part) 575 555 596 25 534 NA • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-5 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics Table C.7.1.3.Population of Counties,Cities,and Towns in the Idaho Core Study Area • Population* Junisdiction 1970 1980 1990 2000 2047 2008 Swan Valley 235 135 141 213 239 NA Ucon 664 833 895 943 1,070 NA Butte County 2,925 3,342 2,912 2,899 2,756 2,751 Arco 1,244 1,241 1,016 1,026 982 NA Butte 42 93 59 76 72 NA Moore 156 210 190 196 186 "NA Clark County 741 798 762 1,022 906 910 Dubois 400 413 420 647 613 NA Spencer 45 29 11 38 33 NA Jefferson County 11,740 15,304 16,589 19,212 22,777 23,860 Hamer 81 93 79` 12 12 NA Lewisville 468 502 471 467 509 NA Menan 545 605 601 -:.707 .710 NA Mud Lake 194 243 179 270 277 NA Rigby 2,324 2,624 2,681 2,998 3,312 NA Ririe(part) 575 555 596 520 NA NA Roberts 393 466 - 557 647 642 NA Jerome County 10,253 14,840 15,216 18,427 19,986 20,468 • Lincoln County 3,057 3;436 3,349 4,047 4,473 4,503 Minidoka County 15,731 19,718 19,383 20,087 18,509 18,645 Acequia 107 100 106 144 132 NA Burley (part) 8,279 8,761 81702 242 NA Heyburn 1,637 _ 2,889- 2,714 2,899 2,691 NA Minidoka 131 101 67 129 118 NA Paul 911 940 901 998 918 NA Rupert 4,563 5,476 5,455 5,645 5,075 NA Power County 4,864 6,844 7,054 7,500 7,648 7,683 American Falls 2,769 2,769 3,757 4,111 4,081 NA Pocatello(part) 40,036 40,036 46,080 24 NA NA Rockland 209 209 264 316 316 NA Idaho Core Study Area 136,684 176,592 189,028 21fi,787 238,330 243,589 Idaho(Sfatevvidej 712,567 943,935 1,006,749 1,293,953 1,499,402 1,523,816 Study Area&-of State 19% 19% 19% 17% 16% 16% *Source US.Bureau of the Census,Population Estimates and Population Distribution Branches(1982,1992),U.S.Census Bureau;Population Division(2002,2008a,2009) ` Population va lues f o r 1970 to 2 0 00 based on April 1 decennial Census counts.Population values r M op ue ro 2007 and 2008 based on July 1 annual population estimates. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics C.7.1.1.3 Population Age Characteristics The age distribution of the population within the core and regional study areas is similar to the statewide age distributions in Idaho and Montana, as Figure C.7.1-2 and Table C.7.1-4 show.Approximately 60 percent of the people living in the regional study area, from where the proposed project's local laborers are likely to be drawn, are between the ages 18 and 65, the group that contains most workers.Of those, about 90 percent are younger than 55. Idaho ,y; Montana Reg nnal Study AraadD '".". A.V17deF 18 years Regional Study Area-MT " IS to 64.years . ..:.: w:..$Q a<65 years and over Cere Study Area-ID Core Study Area-MT 0% 10% 2c% 3C% 40% SC°/r'608,6. 70% 60% 90% 100 0h Source,U.S.Census Bureau(20000 Figure C.7.1.2.Age Distribution in the Core and Regional Study Areas,2000 • Table C.7.1-4.Age Distribution in the Core and Regional Study Areas,2000 Under i8 years 18 to 64 yeazs 65 years and over ' Total Idaho 369,030 779,007 145,916 1,293,953 Montana 230,062 _ 551,184 120,949 902,195 MSTI EA Counties-ID 139,323 267,011 51,648 457,982 MST EA Counties-MT 54,216 145,357 28,379 227,952 MSTI Core Counties-ID 69,770 123,932 17,795 211,497 _MSTI Core Counties-MT 18,054 44,957 7,832 70,843 Source: U.S.Census Bureau(2000f) C.7.1.1.4, Minority Populations Figures C.7.1-3 and C.7.1-4, and Table C.7.1-5 show the ethnic and racial breakdown of the population in the study areas, and statewide in Montana and Idaho. Consistent with statewide statistics,more than 80 percent of the population in the core study area describe themselves as white.The percent of people in this category s'highest in the Montana portion of the core study area, at more than 95 percent.The largest minority communities in Idaho's portion are Hispanic or Latino and other,both at about 7 percent. American Indian and Alaska Natives are the largest minority community in the Montana portion of the core study area, at about 2 percent of the total population. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-7 - MSTI Appendix C.71 Socioeconomics • Idaho Montana 1`1'- •White •Btack or African American Regional Study Area-ID p a American Indian and Alaska Native Regional Study Area-MT 8Asian a Native Hawaiian and Other PacGfic Islander Core Study Area-ID . - 'Hispanic or Latino Care.Study Area-MT :, 'Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%90%100% Source:U.S.Census Bureau(2000a) Figure C7.1-3. Ethnicity and Race in the Core and Regional Study Areas,2000 Idaho Montana � �'t +'P.��j Slack or African American Regional Study Area-10 -e�°7r ',':; N 'Amercar Indian and Alaska Native •Asian Regional Study Area-MT rr � 'Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Core Study Areal) } % 7-' K� ^ '� � `Hispatid or Latno Other Core Study Area-MT 0% 2% 4%;S%..8% 10% 121 14% 16% 18% 20% • Source:U.S.Census Bureau(2000a) Figure C7.1-4.Percentage of Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the Core and Regional Study Areas;2000 Table C7.1-5. Ethnicity and Race in the Core and Regional Study Areas,2000 American Pacific Hispanic/ _ White Black Indian Asian Islander Latino Other ` = Idaho , 1,201,1113 8,127 27,237 171390 2,847 59,470 64,389 Montana 1131,978 4,441 66,320 7,101 1,077 5,945 7,834 MST] EA Counties-11) 420,155 2,223 10,080 4,304 807 27,511 28,997 MST EA Counties MT 221,372 763 5,383 1,882 270 1,259 1,648 MSTI Core Counties-ID 194,087 1,046 5,377 1,920 262 17,017 17,676 MST[Core Counties-MT 72,418 184 1,938 421 72 449 559 Source U.S.Census Bureau(2000a) Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.71 Page-8 WS TI • Appendix C.7.1 is Socioeconomics C.7.1.2 Income Average per-capita personal income in the core study area in 2006,the last year for which data are available,was about$30,000.The regional study area in Montana,centered on Helena, has the highest per-capita personal income,about$32,000,while the regional study area in Idaho, centered around Idaho Falls and Twin Falls,has the lowest at just over$28,000(U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2009a). Figure C.7.1-5 and Table C.7.1-6 show the per-capita personal income for the core and regional study areas in Montana and Idaho, as well as for Idaho and Montana between 1990 and , 2006.The values shown are not adjusted for inflation.Per-capita personal income across the study area has grown about 4 percent per year since 1990. The Montana portion of the regional study area , experienced greater per-capita income gains during that period,more than doubling,while the Idaho portion experienced slightly slower growth in income. m $32.000 .._.- .. _._ _. _..... .. w $30.000 0 528,000 -- - 10 z • a� 0 $26000 ar�•� .. ----Idaho c m $24,000 / •,.-. tdonfana m S Recionel.Study Area-ID HeOaowal Study Area-MT y $20,000 -°- 'Oore Study Area-ID m $18.000 �/��� -- " "'Core Study Area-MT $16,000 n. 514,000 -... - e°°^a° 4, a9�a°°ycP°o° yo o°° o°pry°°o Soutce.U.S.Department of'Commerce Bureau ol-Economic Analysis(20o9 a) Figure C.7.1-5.Per-Capita Personal Income,1090 to 2006, Not Adjusted for Inflation • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-9 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Table C.7.1-6. Per-Capita Personal Income in the Core and Regional Study Areas,1990 to 2006, not Adjusted for Inflation MSTI EA MSTI EA MST[Core MSTI Core Idaho Montana Counties.ID Counties-MT Counties-ID t Coumigs•MT 1990 $15,724 $15,448 $15,310 $15,250 $17,593 $14,424 1991 $16,030 $16,318 $15,505 $16,033 $17,068 $15,033 1992 $17,093 $16,867 $16,201 $16,675 $17,809 $15,943 1993 $18,103 $17,770 $17,126 $17,391 $18926 $16,745 1994 $18,707 $17,861 $17,331 $17,900 $18499 $16;732 1995 $19,426 $18,349 $18,104 $18,584 $191336 $17,165 1996 $20,248 $19,047 $19,117 $19,405 $20.730 $17,733 1997 $20,648 $19,877 $19,469 $20,331 $20,373`-; $18,837 1998 $21,789 $21,130 $20,666 $21,492 $21.500 $19,674 1999 $22,786 $21,585 $21,472 $22,033 $22,667 $20,121 2000 $24,077 $22,933 $22,120 $23,410 $23,327 $21,368 2001 $25,024 $24,676 $23,736 $25,281 $24,706 $23,026 2002 $25,221 $25,068 $23,900 $25,732 $24,414- $23,507 2003 $25,524 $26,353 $24,025 $27,062 $24,217 $24,827 2004 $27,361 $27,854 $25,857 $28,663 $26,693 $26,611 2005 $28,301 $29,183 $26,938 $3Q,265 $27,522 $27,982 • 2006 $29,920 $30,790 $28,259 $32,220 $28,968 $29,685 Source:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis(20096) Figure C.7.1-6 and Table C.7.17 show the mean annual wage for workers in the occupations that the proposed project most likely would employrc-irectly. The figure compares the mean annual wage across several categories of construction`jobssfor the United States,Montana,Idaho,and two regional divisions for which the Bureau of LabmY Statistics gathers data:the southwest Montana non-metropolitan area,and the eastern Idaho non-metropolitan area,The data indicate that wages in the study region are lower than the national average for these occupations:The'mean hourly wage ranges between$11 per hour for construction laborers in eastern Itfa o to$22 per hour for electricians in southwest Montana(U.S. Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009c,d). i • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-10 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics $60,000 am $50.000 - $40,000 $30,000 , - _ . '. •u5 s $20,000 ,.'i... * t;.,. •Idaho ., ._ .;: t;. me Idaho $10,000 r.+ •Montana $0 SW Montana Construction Construction Construction Electricians Cement and Extraction Laborers Equipment Masons and Occupations Operators Concrete - Finishers Source:U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics(2009c,d) Figure C.7.1-6. Mean Annual Wage for Construction Industry Trades, 2,007 Table C.7.1-7. Mean Annual Wage for Construction Industry Trades,2007 Cement Construction Masons and Construction and Extraction Construction. Equipment Q. a Concrete • Occupations Laborers )operators ,Efeoricions Finishers United States $40,620 $30,950 $42,060 $48,100 $37,300 Idaho $34,370 $27,330 $36,210 $40,870 $31,290 Montana $37,110 $31,310 $40,340 $45,910 $34,400 E Idaho Non-Metro Area $32,540 $22,430 -, $38,060 $35,630 $27,960 SW Montana Non-Metro Area $37,510 $32;840 $40,230 $45,520 $35,450 Source:U.S.Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics(2009a) C.7.1.2.1 Poverty Level The 2000 Census found that about 12.percent of the individuals in the regional study area eam incomes below the federal poverty level, three percentage points lower than Montana's statewide average,and very close to Idaho's,statewide average(U.S. Census Bureau 2000c). Poverty rates for specific counties varied widely. Granite County,Montana,had the highest poverty rate, almost 40 percent, of all counties in the core Study area,and Gallatin County,Montana,had the lowest, 6 percent.In the Idaho portion of the core study area,Madison County had the highest proportion of the population in poverty,at 31 percent. Bonneville County, at 7 percent,had the lowest level of poverty in the Idaho portion of the core study area.The rural counties in the core study area typically have higher rates of poverty than the urban counties. Figure C.7.1-7 and Table C.7.1-8 show the percent of the population below the poverty level and the counties with the highest and lowest percent of the population below the poverty level. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.Zl Page-tl MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • �O Grertite 39 ti c 40% 3.5°i„ .Madison 319e .A°k ■: e 25% Clark 20% Beaverhead 17% m .` 20% ■ u 15% !I `0 5/ k u Regional Study Regional Study Core Study Area-Core Study.Area- Idaho Montana i Area-ID A�ea-MT ID MT 0 Percent of the Population Below Poverty !Low Comfy 9.1-igh Co4x8y Source:U.S.Census Bureau(2000c) Figure C.7.1-7. Percent of the Population below Poverty, 1999 Table C.7.1-8.Percent of the Population below Poverty in the Core and Regional Study Areas, 2000 Percent of Population - I, County High County I Below Poyerly PaTent i Percent Idaho 12% Montana 150/0 - - MSTI E4 Counties-ID 13% 7% 31% MST EA Counties-MT 11% 6% 29% • MSTI Core Counties-ID 114 7% 20% MSTI Core Counties-MT 14% 9% 17% Source: U.S.Census Bureau(2000c) C.7.1.3 Employment This subsection characterizes the employment levels of the core and regional study areas. It describes the recent trend in employment, unemployment, and the unemployment rate, in the core and regional study areas, and presentsemployrneni levels by industry in the regional study area. C.7.1.3.1 Employment and Unemployment r The most.recent estlthate of annual employment found that about 382,000 people age 16 and over were employed-p some capacity in the combined Idaho and Montana regional study area in 2008.`The number of employed'persons increased in the area from 1990 to 2008 at an average annual rate of about 1. 7 percent. Between 1990 and 2008, the annual unemployment rate in the Montana portion of the study area ranged from-2.7 percent in 2007 to 5.8 percent in 1992,and the median rate was 4.3 percent(U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009b).The annual unemployment rate in the Idaho t., portion of Ill study area ranged from 2.4 percent in 2007 to 6.4 percent in 1992, and the median rate was 'The Bureau of Labor Statistics(U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008)defines employed persons as"persons 16 vears and over in the civilian population who,during the reference week,did any work at all(at least 1 hour)as paid employees;worked in their own business,profession,or on their awn farm,or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation,illness,bad weather,childcare problems,whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs." • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-12 1'1ST1 Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics 4.8 percent(U.S. Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009b).Figure C.7.1-9 and Table C.7.1-10 show that,during this time,the unemployment rate generally decreased, from its peak in the early 1990s at around 7 percent, to its trough at around 3 percent in 2007. Since 2007, the unemployment rate has risen-the most recent estimates, for February 2010, put it at 8.1 percent within the study area (U.S.Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009b). Figure C.7.1-10 illustrates the number of employed and unemployed persons,and the trend in the unemployment rate in the regional study area since 1990. 300,000 m 0 250,000 v 200.000 c Regional Study Area-ID 150,000 -Regional Study Area-MT 100,000 _..-_-� ,,..�._____,_..-,....e.r--- fore StUdY A rea-ID ° - - �. Core Study Area-MT 3 50.000 z ._ . ..._.. .,,_:. ..._. 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2D02.. 2004 2006 2W8 Source:U.S. Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor StatiStim(2009a) Figure C.7.1-8. Employment in the Core and Regional Study Areas, 1990-2008 • Table C.7.1-9. Employment in the Core and Regional Study Areas, 1990-2008 MSTI EA, MST]EA MST)Core MSTI Core Year Counties-ID Counties-MT Counties•@ Counties-MT 1990 482,045, 97,527s 92,342 31,878 1991 185,659 98,470 95,050 31,683 1992 188,553 100,414 97,011 32,010 1993 193,088 103,980 99,164 32,680 1994 207,044 107,473 103,574 33,878 1995 210,771 111,299 104,868 34,013 1996 212,121 112,711 106,852 34,030 1997 . `215,506 114,605 108,071 34,835 1998 219,736 116,723 110,016 35,630 .1999 221,015 117,703 111,162 35,360 2000 220,836 120,086 105,070 35,423 2001 223,824 120,003 106,862 35,672 2002 226,827 118,921 108,436 35,406 2003 228,627 120,242 110,055 35,317 2004 233,575 122,657 112,614 35,761 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-13 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics Table C.7.1.9. Employment in the Core and Regional Study Areas, 1990-2008 • MSTI EA ? MSTI EA ` MSTI Core MSTI Core Year ` Counties-ID ` Counties-MT S Counties-11)i Counties-MTi 2005 242,022 125,511 117,315 36,259 2006 246,844 130,864 119,824 37,141 2007 251,702 133,301 122,238 37,501 2008 248,568 134,519 120,458 38,075 Source:U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics(2009a) 2.a% e E 9.0% Idaho g 9 � &G 4.0% r ' Montana E s -Regional Study Area-lo -Regional Study Area-MT D `p 2.0% - Core Study Area to z 1.0% Care Study Area-MT 0.0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 200 2002 20134 2006 2908 Source:U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statlstics(2009b) Figure C.7.1-9. Unemployment Rate in the Core and Regional Study Areas,1990-2008 Table C.7.1-30. Unemployment Rate in the Core and Regional Study Areas, 1990-2008 MSTI EA" s„. MSTI EA MSTI Core MSTI Core Year '"Idaho Montana Counties4D Counties-MT Counties-Ip Counties-MT 1990 5.5 6.0 5.1 5.3 4.5 6.3 5.9 °„ 6.3 5.4 5.6 4.9 6.7 1992 6.A - 6.4 6.4 5.8 5.9 6.9 1993 6-1 6.0 6.0 5.3 5.4 6.2 1994 ' 5.4 5.5 5.5 4.3 5.3 5.4 1995 5.2 5.4 5.1 4.2 4.9 5.3 1996 5-31, 5.5 5.1 4.4 4.8 5.7 1997 5,1 5.3 4.9 4.3 4.6 4.8 1998 5.1 5.6 4.8 4.6 4.5 5.5 1999 4.9 5.3 4.6 4.5 4.3 5.5 2000 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.4 4.0 5.4 2001 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.8 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-14 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics 40 Table C.7.1-10. Unemployment Rate in the Core and Regional Study Areas, 1990-2008 MSTtEA ,- MSTI EA MSTI Core MSTI Core Year Idaho Montana Counties-1¢ Counties-MT Counties-0, Counties-NIT 2002 5.4 4.5 4,6 4.2 4.3 4.8 2003 5,2 4.3 4.5 3.9 4.3 4.5 2004 4.6 4.0 4.2 3.7 4.1 4,2 2005 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.8 2006 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.4 2007 3.0 3.4 2.4 2.7 2.3 ., 3.1 2008 4.9 4.5 3.9 4.0 38 4.3 Source:U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics(2009b) 456,000 7.0 0 400.000 6.0% 350,000 30D,000 Sd% 9 g 250,000 4.0% Ei 200,000 3.0% -0 E 150,000 r a 100,000 2:D% 5 z • 50,000 1.OY 0.0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2006 >ei�et'Emptoye Labor Force Unemployea Labor Porce -Unemployment Rate Source:U.S.Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics(2009a,2009b) Figure C.7.1-10. Employment and Unemployment in the Regional Study Area, 1990-2008 C.7.1.3.2 Employment by Industry Figure C.7,1-11 shows, for Montana and Idaho respectively, the distribution of total employment in the regional study area among different industry groups. In each state's portion of the regional study area,the largest percentages of total employment occur in wholesale and retail trade, and government(federal, state,and local). In Idaho, construction, farming,and manufacturing each make up 7 to 8 percent of the total industry employment, followed by accommodation and food service and professional services.In Montana, construction and accommodation and food services each comprise about 10 percent of total employment;reflecting the area's emphasis in tourism and recreation and as a destination for many retirees and=second-home buyers(Swanson 2007). The largest overall segment in both figures is"other," which includes jobs in a variety of sectors; natural resources,mining, utilities, transportation and warehousing,,information,finance and insurance,real estate,administrative and waste services,and arts, entertainment and recreation. Although the percent of workers in each industry varies between Idaho and Montana,the differences are relatively minor: the largest differences are in the farm sector, which makes up a-greater percent of employment in Idaho; in healthcare, which is a growing industry in both regions but represents up a larger portion of the workforce in Montana; and in manufacturing, which is more prominent in Idaho. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-15 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Idaho Reylonal Montana Ragimat Study Arse Study Area •Farm xz; lr�ex •Professional Services r. x� r�. aY' Health Care tr »z n aw r s �,y�, a ' rAccommodabon and food ti N . 7+ £ e Construction , wholesale&Retail Trade 4 e c d sFF�_ , rte. - "�,,. a•. 'Government t Source,U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis(2009b) Figure C.7.1-11. Percent of Employment by Industry in the Montana and Idaho Regional Study Areas,2006 C.7.1.4 Housing The most recent data on housing that cover the core study area come from the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). In 2000, the overall housing unit vacancy rate in the core study area was about 14 percent. • Vacancy rates in rental housing were higher than housing for sale,and varied considerably from county to county. In the Montana core study area,Tntal vacancy rates ranged from about 9 percent in Beaverhead and Broadwater Counties to 17 percent in Deer Lodge County, as shown in Table C.7.1-11.The housing vacancy rates in the Idaho care study area are shown in Table C.7.1-12. Rental vacancy rates ranged from I, around 6 percent in Bonneville Jerome,Jefferson and Power Counties, to almost 15 percent in Butte County. Table C.71-11. Housing Counts and Vacancy Rates in the Montana Core Study Area,2000 Housing Unit&nts,2000 Housing Vacancy Rates,2000 Owner- Renter- County -(*upied Occupied Total Owned Rental Beaverhead 2,396 1,348 4,571 3% 9% Broadwater 1,391 361 2,002 2% 9% Deer Lodge 2,942 1,053 4,958 4% 17% Jefferson 3,116 631 4,199 1% 13 0h Madison 2,082 874 4,671 5% 11% Silver Bow 10,154 4,278 16,176 3% 13% Saarce:U.S.Census Bureau(2000e) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-16 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1-12. Housing Counts and Vacancy Rates in the Idaho Core Study Area, 2000 Housing UnitCounts,2044 Housing YacatrcyRates,2000 Owner Renter- Comity Occupied Occupied Total Owned Rental r Bingham 10,564 2,753 14,303 2% 9% Blaine 5,357 2,423 12,186 2/4 14% Bonneville 21,467 7,286 30,484 2% 6% Butte 839 250 1,290 4% 15% Clark 231 109 521 3% 14% Jefferson 5,008 893 6,287 2% 7% Jerome 4,406 1,892 6,713 2% 5% Lincoln 1,082 365 1,651 3% 9% Minidoka 5,364 1,609 7,498 2010 11% Power 1,909 651 2.944 3% 6% Source:U.S.Census Bureau(2000e) Housing unit estimates available from the U.S.Census.Bureau's Population Division(211¢8a) from 2000 to 2007 indicate that the overall number of housing units hasgrown more in the Idaho portion of the core study area than in Montana. In the Montana portion of the core stuffy area,housing units have increased by only 287 units,or less than I percent,while in the Idaho portion of the core study area,they have increased by 12,684 units,or about 15 percent. In the Montana portion of the core study area, the change • in housing units was greatest in Madison County,which increased by just over 1 percent between 2000 and 2007.In the Idaho portion of the core study area, the change was greatest in Jefferson County,at about 24 percent, followed by Bonneville County, at about 22 Percent.Additional data on housing vacancy rates from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005-2007 American Community Survey(U.S. Census Bureau 2007b), which are only available.statewide and for a few counties in the study area,suggest that the rental market has tightened somewhat throughout most of the core study area in both Idaho and Montana as vacancies have decreased in rental properties.Table C.7.1-13 compares the rental and owner vacancy rates for 2000 and 2007 in the counties for which data are available. Table C.7.1-13.Comparison of Housing Vacancy Rates between 2000 and 2007 Housing Vacancy Rates,2000 Housing Vacancy Rates,2007 Jurisdiction, Owned Rental Owned Rental Montana 2% '" 8% 2% 6% Silver Bow 3% 13% 3% 8% :- Idaho 2% 8% 2% 40/0 Bingham 2% 7% 2% 9% Blaine 2% 13% 24/4 14% Bonneville 1 1% 4% 2% 6% Source"cl.S.Census Bureau(2000e,2007b) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-17 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 •C.7.1.5 Public Services and Infrastructure Socioeconomics Local governments and other entities provide public services including schools, law enforcement, fire protection,health care,municipal water infrastructure, and wastewater treatment.To assess the current status of public services and infrastructure in the core study area, interviews were conducted with authorities in each county.The focus of these interviews was twofold: gauging the current capacity of different organizations to provide public services,and identifying capacity to meet possible increases in demand,such as those that might accompany implementation of the proposed project. C.7.1.5.1 Schools Authorities knowledgeable about the status of school districts in the core study area indicated that all counties have at least one option for public education at each class level.With couple of exceptions in Idaho's Clark and Lincoln Counties, all schools have capacity to accommodate future population growth. Some school districts,especially those that have recently experienced declining enrollrttents, have considerable capacity to provide education services in response to a jump in demand.Table C.7.1-14 presents the details,by county. Table C.7.1-14. Schools in the Core Study Area, by County it Coyrrty Type of Schools -- ScFlook.DfsttictBudget , Capaci�jrforGrowth Montana Beaverhead 2 schools K-12, 5 schools K-8 No Data Available Yes Yes, new school has • Broadwater 3 schools K-12 $4,000,000 capacity for 25 more students 2 grade schools,, Deer Lodge 1 junior high schoal, $10,000,000 Yes 1 high school 1 school K-6 Jefferson 5'schools K-8, $13,000,000 Yes,enrollment declining, 2 high schools Montana City building more Madison No Data Available - No Data Available No Data Available 2 elementat schools, Silver Bow 3..middle school, No Data Available No Data Available 2 high schools Idaho -P 5 districts: Bingham 16 schools PK-8, $49,000,000 Yes 5 high schools I 1 school K-12, Blaine 4 elementary schools, $51,000,000 No Data Available 1 middle school, 2 high schools Bonneville No Data Available No Data Available- ab e No Data Available Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-18 MST, Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1-14. Schools in the Core Study Area, by County County Type of Schools School District Budget Capacity f irbrowth 2 elementary schools, Butte 1 middle school, $4,500,000 Yes 1 high school 1 school K-5, Yes,could handle 100 Clark $1,800,000 students spread throughout 1 school 6-12 all grades 3 districts: 7 elementary schools, Jefferson 1 elementary/middle $31,000,000 Yes school, 2 middle schools, 4 high schools 2 districts: 1 school K-12, Jerome 2 elementary schools, $20,000,000 Yes 1 school 4-5, 1 school 6-8, 1 high school Lincoln 4 schools K-12 $6,000,000 limited 5 elementary schools, Minidoka 2 middle schools, No Data Available No Data Available • 1 high school i elementary school, 1 school K-6 , Power i middle school,., $2,000,000 Yes 1 high school Source ECONorlhwest based on interviews wrth county officials. C.7.1.5.2 Law Enforcement' Interviews with representatives of sheriffs' offices and police departments provided an overview of the current status of law enforcement in the core`study area.Most of the counties have sufficient capacity in their law-enforcement systems to handle increases in population in the near future. This appears not to be the case,however,in Silver Bow and Beaverhead Counties in Montana,and in Jerome,Lincoln,and Minidoka Counties in Idaho.Table C.7.1-15 provides detail, by county. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-19 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Table C.7.1-15. Law Enforcement in the Core Study Area, by County Other Lave Number of Number of Enforcement Number of Capacity for bounty Officers Vehicies offices:: 3aiis< Growth, x Montana Beaverhead 5 7 Dillon Police Dept. 1 Limited' Broadwater 9 full-time 4 13 None 1 Yes reserves DeerLOdge 26 No Data None 1 Yes Available Jefferson No Data No Data No Data Available No Data No Data Available Available Available Available Madison 11 13 No Data Available 1 No Data Available Silver Bow 46 21-22 None " 1 Currently understaffed Idaho Shelley Police Bingham 85 40-42 bept 1 Yes Blackfoot Police„ Dept. HaileyPolice Dept., Ketchum Police • Blaine 23 22 Dept, 1 Yes i Sun Valley Police Dept, No Data Available Bonneville No Data No Data No Data No Data Available Available Available Available 2 full-time Butte l 5 Nave 1 Yes 3 part-time> Clark 3 No Data None 1 Yes - Available, ' Jefferson 52 30 Rigby Police Dept. 1 Yes Jerome Police Limited, need Jerome 30-1 42 Dept. 2 for additional infrastructure Lincoln 6full-torte 6 Shoshone Police 0 Doubtful 2part-time Dept. Minidoka :<8 25 Rupert Police Dept. 1 Limited Power 17 25 American Falls 1 Yes Police Dept. Source:ECONerthwest,based on interviews with county officials. C,7.LS.3 Fire Protection Table C.7.1-16 describes the current capacity of fire-protection services by county in the core study area. In most of the counties,these services rely on volunteers for fire protection even when there are some Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-20 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics paid firefighters on their staff.About half of the counties reported that their fire-protection services would be able to accommodate future increases in population.The others estimated that they would have to increase the number of staff and vehicles to respond to an increase in the number of fire incidents associated with increased population. Table C.7.1-16. Fire Protection in the Core Study Area,by County Number of t apjr for County Fire Districts Staff Vehicles g0Mh Montana No Data Need to hire more Beaverhead Available No Data Available No Data Available paid employees and change procedures Broadwater 2 52 volunteers, 3 fire engines, Need more funds 4 EMTs 7 tenders 10 firefighters, Deer Lodge 1 3 volunteers 4 fire engines Yes. (10 EMT certified) 250 volunteers, Need to hire more Jefferson 9 EMTs available No Data Available paid employees and (number unavailable) change procedures 2 structure engines, Madison 1 30 volunteers 2 rescue-water, No Data Available 2 tenders, • 3 wildlands volunteers available Silver Bow 1 (number unavailable) No Data Available No Data Available Idaho 22 shift personnel_ 20 volunteers, Need to hire more Bingham 3 1 chief 5 class A tankers employees (all EMT certified)" 35 firefighters, 9 fire engines, 160 on call 3 support Blaine 9 firefighters, ambulances, None (100 EMT certified) 2 command vehicles Bonneville No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available Butte No Data No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available Available Clark No Data 13-15 volunteers 2 fire engines Yes Available • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-21 MSTI Appendix C.7.I Socioeconomics • Table C.7.1-16. Fire Protection in the Core Study Area, by County Number of Capacity for County Fire Districts Staff Vehicles Growth 2 firefighters, 7 fire engines, Jefferson 2 100 volunteers 6 pumpers, Yes (53 EMT certified) 5 mini pumpers 10 firefighters, Jerome 2 volunteers available 10 fire trucks Yes (number unavailable) 26 firefighters, 6 trucks, 24 volunteers 8 pumps, Lincoln 1 (4 EMT certified) 2 water tenders,. Restrained (3 first-responder 5 brush trucks,' certified) 1 support.truck 20 fire engines 3 firefighters, 2 tenders, Minidoka 3 90 volunteers, 3 pumpers, Yes (40 EMT certified) 1 rescue unit, ,- 1 command unit Power 3 10 firefighters; 4 fire engines Yes 40 volunteers Source:ECONonhwest,based on interviews with countyoffiaals C.7.1.5.4 Health Care • Table C.7.1-17 summarizes the status of health care facilities in the counties included in the core study area. Most counties are served by at least one hospital, although the level of services available varies. Three counties,Jefferson ir Montana and Clark and3effersoff in Idaho,do not have hospital services. Most hospitals in the corestudy area do not provide fife-flight services but collaborate with hospitals in larger population'centers to offer them when necessary.With one exception,Bingham County in Idaho, health care authorities indicated that the existing hospitals and medical centers would be able to serve an increase in population in the near futureat current capacity levels. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-22 MS TI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1-17. Health Care Facilities in the Core Study Area, by County Capacity County Service Types Staffand Capacity Flight Services for Growth Montana 12 doctors, Beaverhead Barret Hospital (Dillon): 48 nurses, Yes Yes full range of services 20 beds Broadwater Health Center (Townsend): 2 doctors, Broadwater 24-hr emergency care, 15 nurses, No Yes ambulance, 9 beds acute care 68 medical staff, Yes Yes Deer Lodge Community Hospital of 25 beds (has landing pad •ER recently Anaconda (62 additional beds with flight services in nursing home) out of Missoula) expanded No Jefferson Two medical centers 3 doctors (nearest services. No Data (no hospital services) are from Great Available Falls and Missoula)' 2 hospitals: Ruby Valley Hospital: • 24-hr emergency room, 3 doctors, radiology, 5 physician Yes Madison physical therapy;, assistants, (Madison Valley Yes Madison Valley Hospital: 15 nurses, Hospital) emergency room, 20 beds imaging, in-patient care St. James Hospital: 60 physicians, Silver Bow No Yes level 3 trauma 250 nurses Idaho Bingham Memorial No Hos ital: 50 doctors, Bingham p - 65 nurses, (nearest services No 3 urgent care units, are from Pocatello emergency room 25 beds and Idaho Falls) St. Luke's Wood River Blaine Medical Center: No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available emergency room Bonneville No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available Lost Rivers Hospital: 3 doctors, No emergency room, 2 physician Butte g y assistants, (nearest services Yes radiology, are from Pocatello lab 15 nurses,13 beds and Idaho Falls) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-23 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics Table C.7.1.17. Health Care Facilities in the Core Study Area, by County • Capacity County - Service Types , Staff and Capacity Right Services for Growth Clark No hospital or emergency None None None services Jefferson No hospital;one clinic in No Data Available No Data Available No Data Rigby Available 14 doctors, St. Benedict Family 6 physician Jerome Medical Center assistantsinurse No Yes practitioners, 25 beds 1 doctor, 1 nurse Lincoln Shoshone Medical Center practitioner, No Yes 2-3 nurses, 0 beds Minidoka Memorial 13 doctors, Minidoka Hospital: 30 nurses, Yes Yes 24-hr emergency room 25 beds Harm Memorial Hospital: 4-6 doctors, Power emergency room 30 beds: Yes Yes Source:ECONorthwest,based on interviews with countyahaals . C.7.1.5.5 Municipal Water Infrastructure Table C.7.1-18 describes the current status of water-supply services available in the counties in the core study area. Some urban areas rely on water supplied-by municipal utilities,while the majority of rural households rely on prjvate wells for their water suppdy which are not addressed in Table C.7.1-18. Local officials indicated that all the Montana counties I trihe carte study area would be able to absorb additional demands from increased population,but a few counties in Idaho have either limited or no capacity to accommodate additional demand. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-24 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1-18. Municipal Water Infrastructure in the Core Study Area, by County Ga�aotyfior County Municipal Water System Main Water Sources . Growtft Montana Beaverhead Approx. 1,800 households Groundwater Yes Broadwater Approx. 790 households Groundwater Yes Deer Lodge Approx. 2,800 households Groundwater Yes Jefferson No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available Madison No Data Available Groundwater Yes Basin Creek Reservoir, Silver Bow Approx. 12.000 households Moulton Reservoir,Big Hole River, Yes Divide Creek Reservoir' Idaho Bingham Approx. 1,300 households Groundwater J No Groundwater: Blaine No Data Available Big Wood River aquifer,; Maybe; study in Snake River Pine aquifer s' Process Bonneville No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available • Butte Approx. 1,300 households Groundwater,Lost River Yes Dubois has municipal water Clark supply(quantity unknown) Beaver Creek Yes Jefferson No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available Jerome No municipal water supply Snake River Plain Aquifer No Data Available Big Wood River, Lincoln No Data Available Little Wood River, Limited Magic Reservoir Heyburn, Rupert,,and Paul Minidoka have municipal water Groundwater Yes supplies(quantity unknown) American Falls and Rockland Groundwater, Power have municipal water Yes systems(quantity unknown) Sunbeam Creek Source,ECONorthwest, based on interviews with county officials. C.7.1.5.6 Wastewater Treatment Table C.7.1-19 describes the current status of wastewater-treatment services available in the counties in the core study area. Some municipalities use centralized treatment facilities,while others employ a system • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-25 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics of sewage lagoons.Rural areas rely on individual septic tanks.All counties for which information was • available indicated they would be able to accommodate an increase in population in the near future. Table C.7.1-19.Wastewater Treatment in the Core Study Area,by County Fees Capacity fcfif County Facilities (residentiaticommereial) Growth Montana Community sewer system(Dillon), No Data Beaverhead 2 rural sewer districts No Data Available Available=. 40/month Broadwater Aerated sewage lagoons (Townsend) Residential:$22. Yes Commercial:$22.40 1month Yes Deer Lodge 1 wastewater treatment facility Residential:$63/year currently Commercial$21/unit operating at 50%capacity Jefferson No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available Madison 5 wastewater treatment facilities Residential:$50/month Yes -Residential:$162/year Silver Bow 1 wastewater treatment facility a Yes Commercial:$0.0192$6/tt Idaho 1 wastewater plant(Blackfoot), Residential:$37 70/month Bingham Sewage-lagoon systems Commercial. $45.69 Yes • 110.61/mortth Some, except Blaine 4 wastewater treatmentfacillties Residential: $180-420/year for the City of Hailey Bonneville No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available Butte No Data Available No Data Available No Data Available Residential: Clark 1 sewage system(Dubois) $28.75/equialent dwelling Yes unit(EDU) Jefferson Nopata Available No Da[a Available No Data Available Jerome '__ No Rata Available No Data Available No Data Available Lincoln 1 Wastewater treatment facility No Data Available Yes 2 wastewater plants, Residential:$45/month Mmidoka Commercial:volume Yes 1 sewage-lagoon system dependent 2 wastewater treatment facilities Power (American Falls and Rockland) Residential:$80/month Yes Source:ECONOrthwest,based on interviews with county officials. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-26 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics C.7.1.6 Government Revenues Table C.7.1-20 presents the most recent information available on county revenues in the core study areas in 2008 for Montana and 2006 for Idaho. Table C.7.1-20. Total Local Government Revenues in the Core Study Area,by County Montana Core Study Area Idaho Core Study Area Counly Total Revenue,,2008 Coun . Total Rev' !Le,2006 Beaverhead $5,733,822 Bingham ' $18,159797 Broadwater $4,880,239 Blaine $52,714,354 Deer Lodge $9,950,456 Bonneville $63,969,153 Jefferson $7,998,449 Butte $1,702,562 Madison $15,392,042 Clark $840,588 Silver Bow $59,600,119 Jefferson $8,334,347 Jerome - $12,452,697 Lincoln $2,910,938 Minidoka $9,247,853 Power $9,519,573 Source:Erickson(2009),Idaho Department of Commerce(2008) To comply with MFSA requirements, for each of the counties in Montana's core study area,Table C.7.1- • 21 presents the total expenditures and the top three funds that benefited from appropriations in 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-27 MSTI I Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics Table C.7.1.21. Local Government Expenditures in the Montana Core Study • Area, by County Coun ty Largest Three Funds Expenditures Beaverhead Total County Expenditures $5,950,000 General Fund $1,382,618 Road Fund $1,272,566 Public Safety Fund $881,575 Broadwater Total County Expenditures $4,657,935. Public Safety Fund $1,238,651 - General Fund $992,328 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund $415,480 Deer-Lodge Total County Expenditures $9,345,081 General Fund _ $2,467,198 Water Enterprise Fund $1,100,026 Public Safety/Law Enforcement Fund,, $1,039,982 Jefferson Total County Expenditures $9,117,359 General Fund $2,179,083 Public Safety Fund $1,735,355 Road Fund _ $1,208,506 Madison Total County Expenditures ! $14,999,452 • Nursing Homes interpris6Fund $5,355,769 General Fund $3,736,374 Road Fund $2,315,138 Silver Bow Total County Expenditures $57,886,174 General Fund: $19,077,020 Water Enterprise Ftind $6,572,564 Metrp.Sewer Enterprise Fund $3,817,093 Source: Enckso612009) 0.7.1.7 Ecosystem-Goods and Services Other sections in tho EIS provide detailed information about the natural resources that the proposed `project would potentially affect, including wildlife (Section 3.3),water and wetlands(Section 3.12), and Vegetation (Section 110). Section 3.7, Socioeconomics, is not concerned with the natural resources,per se,but with the goods and services that the resources, as elements of ecosystems,produce,thereby generating socioeconomic benefits or costs or both. In recent years, there has been growing attention toward investigating the impacts of industrial and commercial activities by studying their effects on ecosystem,goods and services(Daily 1997). Sanleecosystem goods and services have economic value when they are extracted, as when water is diverted from a stream to irrigate crops. Others have value in situ within the ecosystem,as when homeowners enjoy scenic views from their kitchen window.The list of goods and services provided by • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-28 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics the region's ecosystems, shown in Table C.7.1-22,is long and growing as ecological scientists learn more about the inner workings of ecosystems and people find new ways to derive benefits from them. In most times and places there are insufficient resources to satisfy all the demands for all of the ecosystem' goods and services in Table C.7.1-22. Hence,there is competition for the resources and,when resources are used to produce one set of goads and services,the demands for others go unmet.One could categorize the competition in any of a number of ways,but a taxonomy that distinguishes among four types of demand is used in this analysis.Two of these involve demands for production amenities, Le.,,those goods and services that are,or could be, inputs to processes that produce other goods and services.The other two are called demands for consumption amenities, i.e., those goods and services that directly enhance the well being of consumers. Figure C.7.1-12 illustrates the relationships between these foue sources of > demand. Table C.7.1-22. Summary of Ecosystem Goods and Services Examples of Ecosystem Goods dnd,Services,L,' " y 1 Production and 7 Production of food for 12 Production of ornamental regulation of water humans resources 2 Formation & 8 Production of raw materials 13 Production of aesthetic retention of soil for industry resources > 3 Regulation of 9 Pollination of wild plants and 14 Production of'recreational atmosphere&climate agricultural crops resources 4 Regulation of floods 10 Biological control of pests& 15 Production of spiritual, and other disturbances diseases historic,'&cultural resources • 5 Regulation of nutrients 11 Production of genetic& 16 Production of scientific& and pollution medicinal resources educational resources 6 Provision of fish and wildlife habitat Source:Adapted by ECONWhwest from De Groot et al (2002),Kusler(2004),Postel and Carpenter(1997) Dominant Commercial Quality of Life Uses(Johs) (Household Location) R PAXkNWM M1111111111 camunillodw willllm . AwWWW . X )k Competing Commercial Environment Uses(Other Jobs) (Non-use,Other Values) Source:ECONorthwest Figure C.7.1-12. Relationship between Demands for Natural Resources and the Economy Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-29 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Demand for the region's production amenities comes from private and public enterprises,defined broadly to include private corporations, incorporated cities, and public agencies, as well as households that conduct commercial activities,such as ranching operations.The demands for production amenities are separated into two groups—a dominant commercial use(a transmission line, for example)and other commercial demands(agriculture or hunting outfitters, for example)—to show that,sometimes,the positive consequences arising from the dominant use can be offset,more or less, by negative effects on other commercial sectors. The other source of demand for the region's natural resources come directly from consumers':the residents of and visitors to the region.These consumers consider the region's natural resources economically important for how they directly contribute to their well-being. In economic parlance,these are known as consumption amenities.The demands for consumption amenities are also separated into two groups: amenities that contribute to quality of life and household-location decisions, and amenities associated with environmental values. Some ecosystem goods and services, such as recreational opportunities and scenic vistas,contribute directly to the well-being of people who have access to them.Their`contribution to consumers' well-being makes them economically important in their own right,but they have additional economic importance when they also influence the location decisions of households and firms. In general,the nearer people live to amenities, the lower their cost of using them.Thus,consumers can increase their economic well-being by living in a place that offers recreational opportunities;pleasant scenery,wildlife viewing, and other amenities they consider important.Quality-of-life values can be powerful. Differences m quality of life explain about half the interstate variation in job growth(Partridge and>Rickman 2003),and the quality of life available in Montana and Idaho is a majorfactor influencing why many households come to and stay in these states. Some Montanans and Idahoans undoubtedly could enjoy higher earnings living elsewhere, but choose not to do so because their overall economic welfare the sum of their earnings plus quality of • life—is higher here. Some aspects of this quality of fife—fhe strength of communities,schools,and churches, for example—are notdireetly related to natural resources,but others are: open space,way of life,and opportunities for fishing and hunting, to mention a few. All else equal, if the state's natural- resource-related consumption amenities improve,some people already here will tend to stay and additional people wili=iend to move in. Degradation of the amenities will have the reverse impacts. Other ecosystem goods and services are important in,That they fulfill demands associated with economic values that datiot necessarily entail a conscious,eXplicit use of natural resources. These are called environmental values.There aretwo geaeralcategories: nonuse values and values of goods and services that generally go unrecognized.Nonuse values arise whenever people place a value on maintaining some aspect of the environment, even though they do not use it and have no intention to do so. Research has 'documented nonuse values for maintaining the existence of species threatened with extinction, for example, and for special natural areas, such as national parks.They also can materialize when people want to maintain a particular cultural or ecological characteristic of a resource,as when people want to maintain the existence of landscapes associated with traditional agriculture or native wilderness, for enjoyment by future generations. Environmental values also can be important when a water-related ecosystem providesvaluable services that people generally consume without being aware of them. Some scienUStsand economists believe many services have great economic value, even though people generally are unaware of#heir importance (Daily 1997).Environmental values typically increase as people learn more about the environment and the services it provides (Blomquist and Whitehead 1998). Not all of the ecosystem services listed in Table C.7.1-22 are discussed in Section 3.7,because the y are addressed in other sections of the EIS, which present information that indicates the proposed project is unlikely to generate additional socioeconomic consequences.For example, Section 3.12,Water Resources and Wetlands, found that it is unlikely that the proposed project would significantly alter the ecosystem's Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-30 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • ability to regulate water, flooding, and the flow of nutrients and pollution. The Section 3.8, Soils and Geology, found that while the proposed project would produce moderate and high impacts to soils in some areas during construction,there would be no significant long-term impacts.The socioeconomic consequences of impacts to ecosystem goods and services discussed in Section 3.7 include provision of fish and wildlife habitat, as it relates to sensitive species and habitat and certain recreation opportunities; production of food for humans, as it relates to agricultural production; production of aesthetic resources and production of spiritual, cultural, and historic resources,as they relate to the amenities that enhance recreational opportunities,contribute to property values, and improve quality of life; and production of recreational resources. C.7.1.7.1 Agricultural Production Agricultural land uses in the study area are described in detail in Section 3.6,Land Use and Recreation. This subsection focuses on the socioeconomic dimensions of agricultural land uses and activities in the study area.The 2007 Census of Agriculture found that about 39 percent of the land in the Montana portion of study area is used for agriculture,and about 31 percent in the Idahaportiod, as Tables C.7.1-23 and C.7.1-24 respectively show (U.S.Department of Agriculture,-,National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009a and 2009b). The number of farms, market value of production, and average net income per farm, however,are all considerably higher in Idaho.The market value of crops and livestock produced in the Idaho portion of the core study area, for example, is almost 10 times greater than that produced in the Montana portion. Table C.7.1-23. Agricultural Statistics for Montana Core Study Area,Counties,2007 Number of Acres in %land=+Area Market V'te Average Net • County Farms Farms to Farms of Rrod on Income per Farm Beaverhead 431 1,239,068 35% $86,126,000 $46,636 Broadwater 302 474,892 > 62% $25,531,000 $29,700 Deer Lodge 123 79,335 17%. $4,026,000 $4,993 Jefferson 370 391,248 37% '< $13,703,000 $8,066 Madison 585 1,060,883 46% $53,187,000 $12,198 Silver Bow 175 101,081 22% $5,082,000 $4,550 Total 1,986 3,346,507 39% $187,655,000 $20,443 Source: U.S.Department of AgricultureNational AgnCuftural Statistics Service(2009a) i Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-31 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics Table C.7.1-24. Agricultural Statistics for Idaho Core Study Area Counties,2007 • Niumber of Acres in %Land Area Market Value Average Net County Farms Farms t in Farms of Production Income per Farm Bingham 1,328 912,607 68% $355,135,000 $66,338 Blaine 193 191,949 11% $26,437,000 $16,953 Bonneville 926 453,068 38% $189,277,000 $56,501 Butte 222 121,176 8% $24,976,000 $34,668 Clark 81 157,872 14% $30,338,000 $107,245 Jefferson 826 325,380 46% $233,053,000, $89,248 Jerome 604 188,753 49% $461,599,000 $160,765 Lincoln 258 117,377 15% $130,974000 $165,862 Minidoka 626 226,161 46% $257,039,000 $100,420 Power 336 451,198 50% $164134,000 ' $124,522 Total 5,400 3,145,541 31% $1,872,9621000 $88,590 Source:U.S.Department of Agriculture,National Agricultural Statistics Service(20096) The 2007 Census of Agriculture found that the average net income per farm in both the Who and Montana core study areas was positive in 2007,and four times higher in Idaho than in Montana (U.S. Department of Agriculture,National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009a, 2009b).Tables C.7.1-23 and C.7.1-24 report the average net income per faun.Not all farms,however,realized a positive net income. In Montana,almost two-thirds of all farms had jexpendkureg�that exceeded their incomes, resulting in a negative net farm income,but their overall net losses were outweighed by the positive net earnings on the • other one-third of the farms.The average net gains were four-times"greater than average net losses. In Idaho,just under half of all farms earned negative net farm income.The average net gains,for farms with positive net earnings, were eight-times greater than the average net losses. The value of livestock and related products sold in 2007 exceeded the value of crops in the Montana portion of the study area,while the reverse was true in Idaho, with the exception of Jerome and Lincoln Counties,as Figure C.7.1-13 shows.The top crop grown in each of the Montana counties in the core study area is forage to support the livestock industry.Cattle and calves are the primary livestock produced, and a great deal of theland in farms is dedicated to pasture and range. In the counties within Idaho's core study area, farmers produce a greater variety of crops,ranging from dryland forage and grain crops to higher-value,irrigated crops,such as silage corn, potatoes, vegetables,and sugar beets, along the -Snake River. Theprimary livestock raised are cattle and calves,and several counties in the core study area are Idaho's largest dairy production centers.The U.S. Department of Agriculture ranked Jerome and Lincoltr counties in the top 15 counties,by production, in the Northwest region in 2008(Progressive Dairy Publishing 2009). Comparisonaf the data from the 2002 and 2007 agricultural censuses shows that, across the core study area,farm acreage:increased in most counties with a few notable exceptions.In Deer Lodge County in Montana and Blaine County in Idaho,farm acreage decreased by 41 percent and 15 percent, respectively. In Deer Lodge County,however, this trend was accompanied by a 13 percent increase in the number of Farms.This pattern points toward land being converted, from being used for its ability to produce commercial agricultural products to being used for its ability to produce amenities associated with hobby fari3fs,ranchettes, and other residential housing, a trend that has been documented in southwest Montana (Swanson 2006). Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-32 MSTI • Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics $soo $450 $400 a $350 $350 E 250 m _ $ $200 � � � ■lwe "Crops k s $5$ 0 0 �. . e s $5 .� tread Baer °ale z`yec ayd. `fop rare `a�ee ey��e �oae G4i, e`� coFe etc cr ease ot°aa O�,c �� �a 64 0e°' Q'�'tF }Q �Tsc e4 0 Source:U.S.Department of Agriculture,National Agricultural Statistics Service(2009a,2009b) Figure C.7.1-13.Agricultural Statistics for Core Study Area Counties,MT and D,2007 C.7.1.7.2 Recreation and Tourism Recreation(along with travel and tourism)is an important sector of the economies of southwestern Montana and southeastern Idaho(Subsection C.7.1.I.3, above),Nonresident travelers spent about$310 million in the Montana portion of the core study area in 2005,with the highest percentages in Beaverhead and Silver Bow Counties(institute for Tourism and Recreation Research 2007).�FNonresident travelers spent about$490 million in the Idaho portion of the core study area in 2004, with the highest percentages • in Bonneville and Blaine Counties (Global Insight and D.K. Shifflet&Associates, Ltd.2005).The contribution of travel and tourism to the region's economy has been increasing since at least the 1980s (Gran and Bruns-Dubois 2008). The proposed project would pass through an important corridor for recreation and tourism activities. Much of the route is widely regarded as a'scenic corridor(Rand McNally 2005).Montana's natural attractions ranked high as reasons vacationers came to Montana: of the top ten attractions for vacationers in 2005, mountains and forests ranked first, followed by open space and un-crowded areas(third),rivers (fourth),wildlife and fish(sixth), and lakes(seventh).Vacationers identified driving for pleasure as their top-ranked activity in the state; other resource-related activities—wildlife watching,day hiking, picnicking, nature study, camping,and fishing—were all in the top ten (Gran and Bruns-Dubois 2008). Visitors to Idaho also"ranked natural attractions and outdoor recreation as important reasons why they visited the state. Of visitors who came to Idaho for overnight leisure trips between 2003 and 2005, 24 percent engaged in sightseeing, 12 percent camped, 10 percent hiked or biked, 8 percent visited national or state parks, and 6'percent participated in eco-tourism. Six of the top ten activities that visitors participated in involved Idaho's natural attractions(D,K. Shifflet&Associates, Ltd. 2007). Outfitting and guided recreation,in particular, are important sources of revenue for some of the businesses in the study area. In 2007, nonresident hunters to Montana spent$133 million on outfitters and guides(Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research 2008). This is a state-wide figure, and represents Nonresident expenditure totals include gas and oil;restaurants and bars;hotel,motel,and B&B;groceries and snacks;auto rental and repairs; outfitters and guides;transportation fares;licenses and entrance fees;miscellaneous • services;campground and RV parks;and gambling(Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research 2007). Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-33 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • all kinds of guided recreation, including rafting,fishing,and hunting;data on the income earned related to outfitting and guided recreation in the care study area itself are unavailable. General Recreation Recreational opportunities typically are not traded in markets and,hence, it is not possible to use market prices and common, price-based techniques to estimate their value. Accordingly,economists have developed other data and techniques to estimate the value of recreational services.The total economic value of recreational experiences usually has two components.The first is the amount of money people spend to participate in a recreational activity.These expenditures include everything from;permits and equipment,such as hunting rifles and fishing poles required for an activity,to the gas, food and lodging purchased in transit and during a recreational trip.The amount of money recreationists pay to enjoy the region's recreational goods and services usually is less than what they are willing to pay,however.The difference between what they are willing to pay and what they actually pay represents the second component of value,called the consumer surplus, or net economic benefit.Consumer surplus is important because it registers improvements in economic well-being:if someone can pay lust a little tp enjoy fishing,boating, or some other activity that is worth a lot,then he or she is economically better off.In contrast,recreational expenditures do not directly improve the economic well-being of arecreationist,but are important in that they can generate jobs and incomes in the communities where they are spent. Table C.7.1-25 summarizes data for the Intermountain Region, which includes Montana,and Idaho,on the average consumer surplus value of several recreation activities,measured in 2008 dollars(Loomis 2005). Table C.7.1-25. Economic Value of Select Kinds of Recreation,Intermountain Region �#Oarage Consumer Surplus Value Recreation Activity (per Person,pepday,2008$) • Camping $39 Floatboating/rafting/canoeing $76 General recreation $54 Fishing $56 Hiking $43 Hunting $54 Off-road vehicle driving $26 Pleasure driving $78 Snowrnobiling $41 Wildlife viewing ,_ $42 .Source I oomf5(2005) -Some studies completed within or nearby the study area indicate the values in Table C.7.1-25 may understate the actual-value of the goods and services supporting fishing,wildlife-watching,and hunting in theTegion lbne study found the statewide average consumer surplus for trout fishing in Montana was between$80 and$175 per trip(Duffield, Loomis, and Brooks 1987,values converted to 2008 dollars). Another study found the consumer surplus associated with waterfowl hunting in Montana was $200 per trip for residents and$520 per trip for nonresidents (Duffield and Neher 1991,values converted to 2008 dollars;.`Recreation values are growing rapidly.A recent summary of economic studies of recreation found that viewing scenery, fish, and wildlife is one of the fastest growing outdoor recreational activities in the U.S.,more than doubling since 1982 (Swanson 2004).The author concluded that these activities are especially important in the mountain states.The authors of another study concluded that the economic • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-34 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics values associated with outdoor recreation in the U.S.as a whole are growing faster than inflation,with the value of an outdoor recreational activity-day growing by about$1 per year(Rosenberger and Loomis 2001). Scenic/Pleasure Driving Scenic driving is the most popular activity among vacationers to Montana, with 62 percent indicating they engaged in this activity(Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research 2008). Similar data are not available for Idaho,but national statistics indicate that driving for pleasure is one of America's top outdoor recreation pastimes(U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service 2004).Three official scenic byways are located within the core study area: the Lost Gold Trails Loop, located in Zones 4 and S,t he Sacajawea Historic Byway,located in Zone 5; and the Big Sheep Creek Back Country Byway,located in Zone 3. In addition,several of the region's major highways are identified as scenic in' popular maps: Rand McNally lists I-15 and I-90 through Zones 1, 2, 3, 4,and 5 as scenic routes (Rand McNally 2005). The average consumer surplus associated with a day of pleasure driving in the intermountain region,as Table C.7.1-25, above, reports, is$78. Hunting Hunting is an important recreation activity in the study area in both Montana and Idaho.The primary game species pursued in the core study are elk, deer, pronghom,and game birds;limited moose and big horn sheep hunting also occurs in the area(Montana Fish,Wildlife&Parks 2007, Idaho Fish and Game 2009a, 2009b). Montana Fish,Wildlife&Parks and Idabo,Fish and Game are responsible for hunting management and track hunting statistics annually by hunting management units In Montana,the proposed project would cross 9 deer and elk hunting management units, 12 Pronghorn antelope hunting management units, and 12 special big game hunting management units(for moose and big horn sheep); in Idaho, the line would traverse 11 hunting management units.Table C.7-1-26 and C.7.1-27 show the levels . of hunting activity and success in these areas. Table C.7.1-26. Hunting Activity;in the Montana Core Study Area,2007 Total Harvest Species Hunters (No:of Animals) Days Hunted Elk 11,089 2,514 69,850 Deer(AlI Species) 7,710 4,033 45,329 Pronghorn 2,659 1,632 8,977 Special Big Game 121 106 840 Total _ 21,579 8,284 124,995 Source:Montana Fish,Wildlife&Parks(2007) "Special Big Game includes Moose,Sheep,and Goat.Data are from 2006. Table C.7.1-27.Hunting Activity in the Idaho Study Area,2007 Totat Harvest Species Hunters (No.of Animals) Days Hunted EIIC 4,388 797 28,563 Deer - 7,226 1,683 37,160 Antelope 720 312 3245 Moose 105 209 NA Total 12,439 3,001 68,967 Source:Idaho Fish and Garne(2009a,20096) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-35 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Figure C.7.1-14 shows the distribution of elk hunters in Montana, indicating that the study area includes some of the highest-densities of elk hunters in the state. }de 1 <1.00 hunters*.mi.habitat.shp 1.00 to 1.99 hunters/sq. mi.habitetshp 2.00 t6 Z99 hunters/sq.mi.habitat shp 3.00 to 3.99 hunters/sq,mi.hahhtet.shp 'M>4.Q0 huntersisq.mi«habitatshp Source:Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks.(2004) Figure C.7.1.14. Density Distribution of Elk Hunters in Occupied Habitat by Hunting District, • 1999-2001 The average consumer surplus associated with a day of hunting in the intermountain region, as Table C.7.1-25,above, reports;is$54. To the extent that the hunting opportunities found in the study area are above average in quality,they likely exhibit values that exceed the average value. Elk hunters in Montana, for example, have a higher wt`llhngncrss tq pay for a day of hunting: the average willingness to pay is about$71`per day(Loomis 1988, value converted to 2008 dollars). Hunters' expenditures are not available at-a-management-unit level or at a county level,but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:,which tracks this information at a statewide level found that, in Montana, the average resident spenti$1,475 throughout the year on hunting-related expenses, averaging approximately $30 in trip expenditures per day(U.S.Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau 200$b). Nonresidents hunting in Montana averaged$1,849 in spending per hunter, and approximately$220 In trip expenditures per day. Expenditures related to hunting in Montana in 2006 "totaled$31, million.ne same research effort also found that, in Idaho,the average resident spent$1,085 1n:2006 on hunting-rlated expenses,averaging approximately$38 in trip expenditures per day. Nonresident'hunters spent$1,951,on average,and approximately$58 in trip-related expenditures per day.Expe-nditurp `related to hunting in Idaho in 2006 totaled$260 million(Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau 2008a). `Angling Fishing is another important recreation activity for the local communities in both the Montana and Idaho portions of the study area. Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks and Idaho Fish and Game are responsible for fishing management and track statistics annually. In the Montana portion of the core study area, in 2007, • Drat Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-36 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics anglers fished almost 622,000 days(Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks 2009d). In the Idaho portion of the core study area, in 2003,the last year for which data are available, anglers fished almost 476,000 days (Idaho Fish and Game 2005c). The average consumer surplus associated with a day of fishing in the intermountain region,as Table C.7.1-25, above, reports, is$56. To the extent that the angling opportunities found in the study area are above average in quality, they probably exhibit values that exceed the average value. Stream angrlers in Montana, for example, have a higher willingness to pay for a day of angling: the average willingness to pay is about$186 per day(Duffield, Loomis,and Brooks 1987,value converted to 2008 dollars). Anglers' expenditures are not available at the county level, but statewide research indicates thaf, in 2006, the average Montana resident spent$714 throughout the year on fishing-related expenses,,averaging approximately$30 in trip expenditures per day(Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau 2008b).Nonresidents averaged $874 in spending per angler,and approximately $139 in trip expenditures I per day.Expenditures related to angling in Montana in 2006 totaled$226 million. Spending by anglers in the Idaho portion of the core study area exceeded$47 million in 2003, almost 11 percent of the total expenditures by anglers statewide(Idaho Fish and Game 2005c).The average expenditures per angler day for the counties in the Idaho portion of the core study area was$69,with per-day expenditures exceeding $100 per day in Blaine and Bonneville Counties. Wildlife Watching Wildlife viewing in Montana increased by more than 200 percent between the early 1980s"and the early 2000s, from approximately 22 million participants,ages 12 and older, to almost 73 million participants (Montana Birding and Nature Trail Steering Committee 2005). Forty-four percent of Montana residents watch birds compared to a national average of 22 percent,and in 2005, 35 percent of Idahoan • participated in wildlife watching(Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006). Several important bird habitats are located in the study region. Canyon Ferry Reservoir in Broadwater County, Montana is a haven for bird watchers to view bald eagles, resident colonies of terns and pelicans, and other bird species that use the reservoir as a wintering ground(U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 2008). Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Beaverhead County, Montana provides habitat for trumpeter swans, sandhill cranes, curlews,peregrine falcons, eagles, and numerous hawks and owls, and approximately 12,000 people visit the refuge each year(Fish and Wildlife Service 2008c). The average consumer surplus associated with a day of watching birds and other wildlife in the intermountain region,as Table C.7.1-25,above,reports,is$42. To the extent that the wildlife-watching opportunities found in the study area are above average in quality,which seems likely,they probably exhibit values that exceed the average value. In 2006, the average Montana resident spent$274 throughout the year on wildlife watching-related expenses,averaging approximately $25 in trip expenditures per day(Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau 2008h). Nonresidents averaged$765 in spending per wildlife-watcher,and approximately $175 in trip'expenditures per day. Expenditures related to wildlife-watching in Montana in 2006 totaled $376 million. The average Idaho resident spent$243 on wildlife watching-related expenses, averaging approximately$23n trip expenditures per day. Nonresident hunters spent$463, on average,and approximately$50 in trip-related expenditures per day. Expenditures related to wildlife-watching in Idaho in 2006 totaled$265 million(Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.Census Bureau 2008a). • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-37 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics C.7.2 Public Attitudes and Concerns Detail • This subsection contains additional detail and discussion regarding the public attitudes and concerns presented in Section 3.7.1.4 of the EIS. This subsection summarizes information regarding the public's attitudes toward and concerns about the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project. Some comments raise concerns about issues directly connected to the socioeconomic consequences of the proposed project: its impact on jobs and income, government revenues, and property values.other comments express concern about issues related to the biophysical resources in the region, and to the health of residents living near the proposed project These comments also have socioeconomic importance,as they reflect commenters' preferences and indicate that they value certain resources,and/or would prefer to avoid the risk and uncertainty associked with the proposed project's potential impacts on those resources.Thus,the review that follows is consistent with the professional standards for performing an economic analysis,and with the requirements of information submitted for a MESA application,which direct the socioeconomic analysis to consider.-Issues that might divide communities,cause resentment,or be seen as changing the character of an area. To complete the summary,the following tasks were completed: • Review of all documentation of public attitudes and concerns,as reported in the MFSA application and IDER, and through the scoping efforts of the agencies,(PBS&J 200921) • Identification of relevant attitudes and concerns that have been expressed about the socioeconomic impacts of transmission lines in the professional literature and in appliediuvestigations, such as environmental impact statements for similar facilities • Integration of all the relevant information into an assessment of;the attitudes and concerns regarding • the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project C.7.2.1 General Attitudes and Concerns Regarding Transmission Lines The professional literature on public attitudes and concernsabout transmission lines generally distinguishes between two categories(FUrby et al. 190). One involves the attitudes and concerns regarding the impacts of file transmission line itself.For example, when a transmission line is proposed or built in a community,concerns regarding its impacts typically focus on visual resources, property values, and human health,,Addnional concerns'errferge regarding the need for the transmission line,the cost of building infrastructure related to the line, the possibility that the line's costs will outweigh its benefits, and the faimess of imposing costs on local residents and businesses so that others may enjoy the benefits (Resource Strategies Inc.2003,Tikalsky and Wiliyard 2007, Vajjhala and Fischbeck 2006). The othercategory of public attitudes and concerns relates to the process public agencies and proponents use to disseminate information, respond to citizens' concerns,and make decisions about a proposed transmission line. Citizens often express concerns about the fairness of the process, and the extent to which a project proponent and public agencies respond to the public's concerns with relevant and reliable information in a.timely manner(Furby et al. 1988). The review!-of concerns submitted during the regulatory processes associated with proposed transmission tines elsewhere in the western U.S. confirms these findings (Aspen Environmental Group 2008, U.S. Department of Energy 2008c,and U.S. Department of Energy 2008a). In addition, proposals to develop transmission lines in the West have evoked concerns about impacts on flora and fauna (especially those • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-38 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics listed under the Endangered Species Act), agricultural production,the local tax base,noise,human health, and property values. C.7.2.2 Attitudes and Concerns Specific to the Proposed Project The types and magnitude of socioeconomically-relevant public attitudes and concerns raised during scoping efforts follows the pattern of those described in the professional literature and in the comments reported in the EISs for other western transmission lines. C.7.2.2.1 Concerns about Impacts on Population No comments were received related to the proposed project's impacts on population. C.7.2.2.2 Concerns about Impacts on Income and Employment Some commenters noted that the proposed project would create construction lobs for the region. Some commenters expressed concerns that the proposed project would adversely affect tourismrelated jobs and outdoor-guiding businesses.This concern focused on areas with notable tourism activity,such as the Beaverhead, Jefferson,and Boulder valleys in Montana. Other commenters expressed concern that a reduction in full-time residents would impact the economic stability of the region. C.7.2.2.3 Concerns about Impacts on Housing No comments were received related to the proposed project's impacts on housing. ' • C.7.2.2.4 Concerns about Impacts on Public Services and Infrastructure Some commenters raised issues about the proposed project's impact on roads,which may not be sufficient to handle additional traffic that the proposed project may generate. Other commenters were concerned about the impact of the proposed project on television, emergency broadcasting,and cellular phone service. Some concerns were raised about whether NorthWestern Energy would expect increased fire protection at the expense of the agencies and the public.No comments were received about the project's potential impacts on other public services and infrastructure, such as education,water supplies, wastewater services, or police protection. C.7.2.2.5 Concerns about Impacts on Government Revenue Concerns about how the proposed project would impact the taxes in the affected areas were multifaceted. Some commenters expressed concern that, if the transmission line diminished the value of their property, this loss might not be immediately reflected in their tax obligations, so that they would have unfair tax obligations:Others expressed concern that if there were positive impacts on tax revenues resulting from the line, these might not offset the negative impacts. Some citizens of Anaconda, Montana,expressed hope that tax revenue could be extracted from siting the proposed project on Superfund land. C.7.2.2.6 Concerns about Impacts on Public Health and Safety Health-related comments expressed concerns about health risks associated with proximity to electro- magnetic fields (EMFs), potential increases in ozone,and safety risks associated with the development and operation of the transmission line.More comments on health-related issues were received in Montana than in Idaho. Some comments voiced concerns about the potential health impacts of the transmission line on livestock and on wildlife, Other commenters raised the issue of potential reductions in safety for air Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-39 MSTI Appendix C.7.I Socioeconomics traffic if the proposed project were located near landing strips or above agricultural fields, and potential • threats to the safety of recreationists recreating nearby the towers and guy wires.No comments said that the proposed transmission line would have a neutral or positive effect on public health and safety. C.7,2.2.7 Concerns about Impacts on Species and Habitat Most wildlife-related comments expressed concern that development and operation of the transmission line would adversely affect sensitive species and reduce the productivity of wildlife habitat. Some comments expressed concern that the transmission line might adversely affect sage-grouse populations and increase its probability of listing under the Endangered Species Act(ESA), so that the operator and customers of MSTI,as well as others,would incur ESA-related costs.Others expressed concern that the transmission line might fragment habitat or increase access for hunters and others to previously roadless areas and increase disturbance of wildlife. Several comments in Montana, however, expressed the opinion- that,since wildlife are more mobile than human settlements, the lines should encroach on wildlife habitat rather than be sited close to areas with high human population densities. C.7,2.2.8 Concerns about Impacts on Agricultural Production Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed project would-idversely affect ranching activities. These concerns reflect the perception that the line's rights-of-way and structures would restrict the movement of livestock on the property, diminish the land available for grazing,and negatively impact the health of livestock.Additionally, farmers and ranchers were concerned that the line would constrain their ability to irrigate their land and increase the costs they incur to cope with weeds and invasive species. Overall, some farmers and ranchers anticipate that the line would decrease the revenues they collect from crops,livestock, grazing leases, and recreation leases. C.7.2.2.9 Concerns about Impacts to Aesthetic Resources • Concerns about the degradation of the visual landscape dominated the comments received from Montana, Idaho, and other parts of the U.S. Expressions of concern mostly addressed the potential negative impacts the towers and lines would have on the scenery seen#rom homes in the affected area, as well as on the aesthetic quality of recreational activitiesin4he_area.A majority of commenters said that the landscape played an important role in their decision to locate in ilieir current residences and that the introduction of the transmission lines would `negatively impact their`quality of life and the satisfaction they would derive from their altered view. Some comments also referred to the impacts of the transmission line on the satisfaction people get from driving on roads where the proposed project would be built. No comments communicated that the proposed transmission lines would have positive visual impacts. C.7.2.2.10 Concerns about impacts on Property Values Commentsxpressedin the scoping process for the proposed project raised concerns related to the Magnitude of the transmission line's impacts on the value of nearby properties.The number of comments oa this issue expressed in Montana exceeds that in Idaho. No comments expressed the opinion that the proposed project would positively affect their property values, C.7.2.2.11 Concerns about Impacts on Recreation and Tourism Many comments expressed concern that,by degrading the aesthetic quality of the landscape and disturbing wildlife habitats,the transmission line would negatively impact the value of recreational opportunities in the region.These concerns cover diverse recreational activities: fishing, hunting, wildlife and bird watching,hiking, and camping. Some comments expressed concern about the potential impacts • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-40 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics on recreational fisheries, especially with respect to rivers widely recognized as having high-quality fishing opportunities,such as the Big Hole and Beaverhead rivers in Montana, and Silver Creek in Idaho. Several comments were concerned that the transmission line would adversely affect hunting and fishing guide businesses. Others were concerned that increased road access would provide access for off-road vehicles,which would displace non-motorized recreationists.None of the commenters suggested that the proposed transmission line would have no impact on or would enhance the value of recreational experiences. C.7.2.2.12 Concerns about Impacts on Quality of Life Many of the comments described in other subsections also related to the proposed project's impact on quality of life. Commenters in both Montana and Idaho voiced concern about the impacts ctn land zoned . to preserve wildlife habitat or agricultural activities. Specific concerns addressed the impacts that might arise insofar as the construction of the proposed project over these types of land zonings would conflict with the stipulations of the agreements that established these protected areas and jeopardize.the investments that have been made to create them. C.7.2.2.13 Concerns about Impacts on the Transmission System Many commenters in Montana expressed doubt that the proposed project would result in lower electricity rates. Some comments questioned the need for the proposed project,because_future investments in energy conservation or the emergence of better transmission technology may render it redundant.` C.7.2.2.14 Concerns about Cumulative Effects • Property owners expressed opposition to the proposed project because it would add to the adverse effects of other transmission lines already crossing their properties. Other commenters,though, suggested that the proposed project be placed in areas where transmission lines already exist, since those areas already have incurred the depreciation costs associated with the presence of the lines. C.7.2.2.15 Concerns about the Regulatory Process of the Proposed Project Some commerners raised issues related to the fairness of the process. Several questioned the motives behind the lack of clarity in the maps representing alternative routes for the proposed line. Others have complained about the lack of information in the media regarding the details pertaining to possible impacts of the proposed project in their area, as well as about the brief time they have had to study the proposed project and to submit comments during the scoping period. Some commenters expressed concerns that the proposed project was not drafted in good faith and asserted that segments of the line were purposefully placed in treacherous areas to justify high construction costs. C.7.3 Analysis Methods Detail I'his subsection contains additional data and discussion regarding the current status of several socioeconomic variables presented in Section 3.7.2 of the EIS. The economic analysis performed in Section 3.7 follows generally-recognized professional standards and is consistent with regulatory guidance for conducting analyses under NEPA, MFSA, and MEPA. The professional standards for preparing economic analyses are articulated by federal agencies, such as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and Office of Management and Budget(OMB),which provide official guidance for preparing economic analyses of regulatory actions.This guidance generally is consistent with professional standards developed in the field of economics. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-41 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Guidance toward a sound evaluation of regulatory and non-regulatory actions has been prepared by the EPA, in its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses(2000).This document dictates that economic analyses should consider both benefits and costs,economic impacts,and an assessment of equity. Furthermore, it observes that, unless an analysis is broad in scope and embraces even impacts for which there are no monetary data,it cannot provide the public and decision-makers with all relevant economic information: "For most practical applications, therefore, a complete economic analysis comprises a benefit- cost analysis,an economic impacts analysis,and an equity assessment. Benefit-cost analysis evaluates the favorable effects of policy actions and the associated opportunity costs of those actions.The favorable effects are defined as benefits and the opportunities foregone define economic costs. [...] "Economic analyses should present and highlight non-monetized effects when these are important for policy decisions.Reasons why these consequences cannot be valued in monetary terms are important to communicate as well. Unquantified,but potentially significant,consequences of a policy also should be highlighted, especially when these could be important enough in magnitude to affect the broad conclusions of an economic analysis of different policy options and alternatives"(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator 2000,p.20 and 176). The federal Office of Management and Budget(OMB)offers similar guidance. It clearly directs the heads of executive agencies to describe both benefits and costs—and to take a broad perspective when doing so: "A good regulatory analysis should include[...],an evaluation of the her and costs— quantitative and qualitative—of the proposed action and the maul alternatives identified by the • analysis. [...] "If you are not able to quantify the effects,you should present any relevant quantitative information along with a description of the'unquantified effects, such as ecological gains, improvemettts'in quality of life,and aesthetic beauty.You should provide a discussion of the strengths end limitations of the qualitative information,This should include information on the key reakon(s)why they'cannot be quantified:In one instance,you may know with certainty the magnitude of a risk to which a substantial,but unknown,number of individuals are exposed.In another instance,the existenceof a risk may be based on highly speculative assumptions, and the magnitude of the risk may be unknown. "For cases in which the unquantified benefits or costs affect a policy choice,you should provide a clear explanation bf the rationale behind the choice. Such an explanation could include detailed information on the n3tur2,timing,likelihood, location, and distribution of the unquantified benefits and Costs.Also,please include a summary table that lists all the unquantified benefits and costs,and use your professional judgment to highlight(e.g.,with categories or rank ordering) those that you believe are most important(e.g.,by considering factors such as the degree of certainty,expected magnitude,and reversibility of effects)" (Office of Management and Budget 2003,p.2 and 27). s!�onsisteut with these guidelines, the economic analysis presented in Section 3.7 evaluates both benefits and costs of the proposed project, including those that cannot be described in monetary terms. It also considers equity issues,and the economic implications of risk and uncertainty. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-42 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • According to the EPA, "Uncertainty is inherent in economic analyses,particularly those associated with environmental benefits for which there are no existing markets"(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator 2000,p.27).As professional standards require,Section 3.7 presents the proposed project's socioeconomic impacts based on the expected(most plausible)outcomes, but also describes the uncertainty surrounding those outcomes by outlining all known key assumptions,biases„ and omissions.Where uncertainty is created by unavailable or inadequate information,consistent with CEQ's regulations for implementing NEPA(40 CFR 1502.22), a statement is made that such information is incomplete or unavailable, but relevant to evaluating the impact, and a summary is providedof other relevant existing information that provides insight into the direction,magnitude, extent, speed, and duration of the impact. The EPA Guidelines also recommend that economic analyses recognize that uncertainty,itself,has economic value,insofar as the public tends to favor certainty over uncertainty, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of the Administrator 2000,p. 29).To.mee€tfis requirement, Section 4.4 in Chapter 4 provides a detailed discussion of the economic value of risk and uncertainty associated with the proposed project. The remainder of this subsection outlines the specific analytical methods used to assess public attitudes and concerns, the current conditions of the affected area,the proposed project's impacts on socioeconomics variables, and the cumulative effects of the proposed project. C.7.3.1 Assess Public Attitudes and Concerns Guidance for implementing MFSA requires that "Jahn application must characterize the nature and magnitude of public concerns about the facility based on contacts with representdhve groups of persons residing in the study area,and/or comments received atany scoping and other public meetings the applicant holds,and comments from local service providers and public officiaW'(Montana Department of • Environmental Quality 2004b,p. 16).This requirement is augmented by a request from the federal agencies that the socioeconomic analysis of the proposed project include an "independent assessment of public attitudes and concerns about the project"(Bureau of Land Management and Montana Department of Environmental Quality 2008e, p. 13).: The following were reviewed and summarized to assess public attitudes and concerns: • relevant academic and professional literature regarding general public attitudes and concerns associated with transmission lines • relevant comments received for impact statements prepared for other major transmission line projects in Montana and the west,with potential implications for this proposed project • documentation of public attitudes and concerns,as received through the scoping efforts of the BLM and Montana l Q and in newspaper articles on the proposed project 0.7.3.2 Describe Current Conditions of the Affected Area and Specify the Baseline The incremental socioeconomic impacts attributable to the proposed project are revealed by comparing two scenarios: one without the proposed project and one with it.The former constitutes the baseline, which is analogous to NEPA's No Action alternative.To describe the current conditions of the affected area and define the baseline,the socioeconomic and environmental justice variables that the proposed project may affect are identified.Table C.7.1-28 lists the variables analyzed in Section 3.7.Many of these variables are specifically identified in Circular MFSA-2(Montana Department of Environmental Quality 2004, p. 16). Others,such as the enviromneutal justice variables, are reqnired by federal law,or were identified through the agencies' scoping efforts. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-43 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Table C.7.1.28.Socioeconomic Variables Analyzed in this EIS Section Variables Population Ecosystem Goods and Services Income Species and Habitat Employment Agricultural Production Housing Aesthetic Resources Public Services and Infrastructure Property Values Government Revenue Recreation and Tourism Public Health and Safety Quality of Life Transmission System and Electricity Price I Source:ECONorthwest To describe the current status of each variable, data were collected from these sources: the MSTI MESA Application and associated reports prepared by NorthWestem Energy,Power Engineers,PBS&J and other technical specialists;relevant local,state, and federal government agencies; interviews of state and local government staff in Montana and Idaho; and surveys of the relevant literature. The forces and trends likely to alter the status of each variable in the future are described and applied to predict the variable's likely future status. C.7.3.3 Identify Expected Socioeconomic Impacts Based on analyses conducted for this EIS, supplemented by analyses completed by Power Engineers for • the MSTI MFSA application, the expected impacts of the proposer]project on the variables in Table C.7.1-28 are identified. Circular MFSA-2 defines"significant adverse impact"to mean"a detrimental change in the social,economic, cultural,physical or,natural environment as a result of the construction, operation, maintenance,or decommissioning of a fa-cility,as determined by the department on the basis of the impact's severity,duration, geographic extent,or frequency of occurrence or the uniqueness of the affected environmental value or its importance-2o the state and/or to society" (Montana Department of Environmental-Quality 2004,p'i 5). CEQ Regal atiou-s for Implementing NEPA(40 CFR 1500-1508)do not provide a specific definition for significance;but suggest that identification of a significant impact "requires considerations of both context and lttensity"(40 CFR 1508.27).For site-specific actions, the regulations stipulate that significance would usually depend on the effects in the locale,rather than the world as a whole,and-that both short-term and long-term effects are relevant. Significance also depends on the severity of the impact, including 1)the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial; and 2)the degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would have a significant impact if it imposed highly uncertain or controversial effects, or unique or unknown risks,in the short-term or long-term,on a socioeconomic variable.The context for this analysis could be large (a regional market)or small(an individual or firm)in scale. For example, the proposed project could produce significant socioeconomic impacts if it would: 1, Induce increases or decreases in population growth or housing demand in an area,either directly or indirectly. 2. Displace people or existing housing. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-44 MSTI Appendix C.71 Socioeconomics 3. Generate demand for temporary housing of construction workers that exceeds the supply of local housing,temporary lodging,or camping facilities. 4. Cause a change in revenue or expenditures for local businesses, government agencies,or Indian tribes. 5. Disproportionately affect minority and/or low-income populations. 6. Impose disproportionate costs, risks,and uncertainties on, or have disproportionate negative impacts on jobs, income, and related variables affecting minority or low-income groups. 7. Alter the contribution of the natural environment to the social and economic requirements of present and future generations of Americans. 8. Alter the economic value of use and enjoyment the American public derides froze public lands. 9. Alter the value of economically important goods and services society derives from the natural environment. 10. Alter the level of economically important risk and uncertainty regarding future changes in the natural environment or the economy. H. Generate socioeconomic impacts or distribute them in a mariner that may divide communities, cause individual resentment,and result in public debate. 12. Cause wear-and-tear on public infrastructure. 13. Cause a change in the type or level of service demanded of public agency or non-governmental organization that provides fire protection,police, water,solid waste disposaf,wastewater- treatment,roads, schools, or other service. • 14. Disrupt existing utility systems. 15. Conflict with applicable land use plans and policies associated with socioeconomics,public services,or utilities, 16. Alter the economic benefits or costs associated with the regional transmission system. 17. Induce or deter development of other;projects,such as electricity-generation projects and other transmission lines. 18. Alter employment opportunities. 19. Change the value of property near or on the right-of-way of the proposed project. 20. Alter the economic benefits or costs associated with land ownership. 21. Alter business activity in the regional economy. 22. Alter the economic benefits or costs associated with the operations of a farm, ranch, or other business. 23. Alter the demand for or supply of governmental services associated with the proposed project. 24. Alter electricity prices. The analysis of impacts seeks to determine if the significant impacts likely would occur and, if so, to describe,within the limits of available information,the size of the impact, the group(s)affected, and risks and uncertainties associated with it. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-45 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • C.7.4 Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Detail This section presents additional data and discussion of the socioeconomic impacts discussed in Section 3.7.3 of the EIS. C.7.4.1 Impacts on Income and Employment Differences in skills between local and non-local workers would be reflected in the wages received by the two groups. Specialized workers are expected to earn approximately$42 hourly(with an overtime rate of 1.5 times the hourly wage)plus union benefits plus a per diem allowance of$60 for food and accommodations,while the local,workers with unspecialized skills are expected to receive about$35 hourly(with an overtime rate of 1.5 times the hourly wage)plus union benefits.'Fables,C.71-29 and C.7.1-30 show expected incomes for the two groups in Montana and Idaho. Clark(2008)predicts that a worker from outside of the study area would spend approximately$120 per day,including$50 for lodging,$50 for food, and$20 for other expenses,which equates to about$10.8 million of spending in the regional study area by workers in Montana and about$6 million of spending in the regional study area by workers in Idaho. • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-46 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1.29. Non-local and Local Income of Construction Workers in Montana Manetizab)e Worker- Worker- Gross Employee After-Tax Hours. Weeks Income' Benefits _ dncomO Non-local Workers 2010 61,188 1,224 $2,826,887 $565,377 $2,374,585 2011 313,472 6,269 $14,482,389 $2,896,478 $12165,207 2012 262,888 5,258 $12,145,433 $2,429,087 .. $10,202,163 2013 5,299 106 $203,996 $40,799 $171,357 Subtotal 642,847 12,857 $29,658,706 $5,931,741 $24,913,313 Local Workers 2010 20,396 408 $785,246 $157,049 $659,607 2011 104,491 1,090 $4,022,886 $804,577 $3,379,224 2012 87,629 1,753 $3,373,731 $674,746 $2,833,934 2013 1,766 35 $67,999 $13,600 $57,119 Subtotal 214,282 4,286 $8,249,862 $1,649,972 $6,929,884 Total 857,129 17,143 $37,908,568 .$7,581,714 ,. $31,843,197 Source:Clark(2008) s, 1 Non-local workers paid at a regular rate of$421hour and an overtime rate at$63lhour local workers paid at a regular rate of $351hour and an overtime rate of$52.51hour.All workers are assumed to work an average of 50 hoorsN✓eek. 2 Monetizable employee benefits are assumed to be 20 percent ofgross income. 3 After-tax income calculated at 70 percent of total income(sum of gross income and monetizabl€benefits). • Table C.7.1-30. Non-local and Local Income of Construction Workers in Idaho Monetizable Worker. Worker- Gross .'. Employee After-Tax trfours Weeks Income' Benefits' Income Non-local Workers 2010 - 50,599 ' 1,012 $2,337,695 $467,539 $1,963,664 2011 191,241 3,825 $8,835,328 $1,767,066 $7,421,676 2012 115,449; 2,309 $5,333,760 $1,066,752 $4,480,358 2013 2,426 . 49 $112,099 $22,420 $94,163 Subtotal 359,716 7,194 $16,618,883 $3,323,777 $13,959,861 Local Workers 2010 16,866 " 337 $649,360 $129,872 $545,462 2011 63,747 1,275 $2,454,258 $490,852 $2,061,577 2012 38,483 770 $1,481,600 $296,320 $1,244,544 2013. 809 16 $31,139 $6,228 $26,156 Subtotal 119,905 2,398 $4,616,356 $923,271 $3,877,739 Total 479,621 9,592 $21,235,239 $4,247,048 $17,837,601 Source Clark(2008) '!1 Non local workers paid at a regular rate of$421hour and an overtime rate of$63/hour; local workers paid at a regular rate of $35thour and an overtime rate of$52.5/hour.All workers are assumed to work an average of 50 hours/week. 2 Monetizable employee benefits are assumed at 20 percent above gross income. 3 After-tax income calculated at 70 percent of total income(sum of gross income and monetizable benefits). • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-47 MS TI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics C.7.4.2 Impacts on Government Revenue • Table C.7.1-31. Expected Annual Property-Tax Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project by Alternative, by County in Montana Expe" AgIibaf Atternative z ,. rtansmtssfon _ Substation TOW Taxable Mill P06perty _ b Couh Miles tine Costax Costs' costs value Rate' . Taxes Alternative 1A Broadwater 17.82 $23,884,978 $132,000,000 $155,884,996 $18,706,200 478.71 $8,954 845 I $12,911,79 Deer Lode 16-06 $21,526,795 $123,500,000 $145,026,811 $17,403,217 741.92 5 Jefferson 42.95 $57,548,040 $57,548,083 $6,905,770 461.84 $3,189,361 II Silver Bow 4.92 $6,588,464 $6,588,469 $790,616 678.89 $536,741 $25,592,74 Total 81.7 $109,548,277 $255,500,000 $365,048,35 $43,805,803 2 Alternative 1B Broadwater 21.62__W8,976J07 $132,000,000 $160,97$,128 $19.317J35 478.71 $9,247,306 $11,550,98 Deer Lade 4.6E $6,242,067 $123,500,OOC $129,742,071 $15,569.049.. 741.92. 9 Jefferson 38.93 $52,168,0 $52,168,073 ._$6,260,169 F478.71 $2,891,196 Silver Saw 25.0 $33,523,30 $33,523,331 $4,022,800 - $2,731,039 $26,420,52 Total 90.2 $120,909,51 $255,500.00 $376,409604 $45,16915 9 Alternative 1C Broadwater 30.7 $41,217,82 $132.000, $173,217859 $20786,143 $9,950,535 99 $11,647,77 Deer LOd a 5.47 $7,329,17 $123,500,0- $130829,18 $15699,502 4 Jefferson 37.5 $50,262,22 �' $50,267,26 '$6,031,472 461.84 $2,785,575 Silver Bow 21.15 $28;343,02 $28,343,84 $3,401,261 678.89 $2,309,082 _ $26,692,96 Total 94.8 $127,153,054 $255,500,00 $382,653,14 $45,918,378 6 Alternative 1D Broadwater 21.62 $28;676,10 ;.,.$132,000,00 $160,976,128 $19,317,135 478.71 $9,247,306 Jefferson 324 $43,460,590 $43,460,623 $5,215,275 461.84 $2,408,622 $11,655 92 Total 54.06 $72,436,69 $132,000,00 $204,436,751 $24,532,410 8 Alternative 2A Beaverhead- 23.951 _ $32,698,524 $32,088,548 $3,850.626 522.16 $2,010,643 "beer Lode 11 661 $6,242,067 $6,242,071 $749,049 741.92 $555,734 Silver Bow ,28.8 $38,643,526 $38,643,SS4 $4,637,2271 678.89 $3,148,167 574 $76,974,116 $76,974,1M $9,236,901 $5,714,544 .Alternative2B Beaverhead --n.60 $31,617,329 $31,617,352 $3,794,082 522.16 $1,981,118 Deer Lodge. 4.6E $6,242,067 $6,242,071 $749,049 741.92 $555,734 Silver Bow �'28.84 $38,643,5261 $38,643,554 $4,637,227 678.89 $3,148,167 Total 570 $76,502,921 576,502,97 $9,180,357 $5,685,019 Alternative 2C.. '- Beaverhead 14.2 $19,055,815 $19,055,829 $2,286,699 522.16 $1,194,023 Deer Lode 4.66 $6,242,067 $6,242,071 $749,049 741.92 $555,734 Jefferson 17.72 $23,750,343 $23,750,361 $2,850,043 461.84 $1,316,264 Madison 25.13 $33,674,55 $33,674,581 $4,040,950 378.81 $1,530,752 Silver Bow 28.00 $37,522,60 $37,522,630 $4,502,716 678.89 $3,056,849 Total 89.7 $120,245,38 $120,245,47 $14,429,45 $7,653,622 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-48 MS TI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1.31. Expected Annual Property-Tax Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project by Alternative, by County in Montana Expected Annual �. Alternative Transmission Substation Total Taxable Mill PropelYt, b Cou' Miles, une Costs,_ :Costs=. costs; value Bate; Taxed Alternative 21) _ Beaverhead 25.65 $34,373,951 $34,373,977 $4,124,877 522.16.$2,153,846 Deer Lode 8.7 $11,662,382 $11,662,391 $1,399,487 741.92 $1,038,307 Silver Bow 29.0 $38,879,213 $38,879,24 $4,665509 678.89 $3,167,367 Total 63.37 $84,915,5471 $84,915,61C $10,189,8731 $6359,521 Alternative 2E Beaverhead 14.22 $19,055,815 $19,055,829 $2,286699 52216 $1,194,023... Jefferson 11.23 $15,042,899 $15,042,910 $1,805,14 `461.84 $833,690' > Madison 25.13 $33,674.556 $33,674,581 $4,040,950 378.81 $1,530,752 Silver Bow 2.98 $3,999,296 $3,999,299 $479,916 '678.89 $325,810 Total 53.5 $71,772,56 $71,772619 $8,612714 $3,884,275 { Alternative 3A _ Beaverhead 72.09 $96,597,5001 $96,597,571 $11,591,709.: 522.16 $6,052,727 Total 72.091 $96,597,5001 $96,597,572' $11,592,709 $6,052,727 Alternative 3B Beaverhead 6TO3 9,819,658 $89,819,725 $10,718,367 522.16 $5,628,032 Total 67.0 $89,819,65 -- $89,819,725 $10„778,90 $5,628,032 Alternative 3C • Beaverhead 71.87 $96,305,592 $96,305,664 $11,656,68 522.16 $6,034,436 Total 71.87 $96,305.59 $96,305;664 $11,556,68 3 $6,034,436 Source:ECONorthwest,with data from Montdna Department of Revenue(2009) 1.Average cost of transmission liners assumed to be$1,340,000 per mile(Appendix 6.4). 2.Taxable value represents 12percent of the total assessed value. _ 3.Mill levies are expressed in dollars per thousand dollars of property value. Table C.7.132. Potential Property Tax Exemptions in 2014 Associated with the Proposed Project by Alternative,by County in Montana* Total Taxable Expected Total Value of Value of Annual Alternative Agricultural Agricultural Property by County Miles Land Land Mill Rate, Faxes Waived Alternative 1A Broadwater 17.82 $230,518 $5,694 478.71 $2,726 ' . Deer Lodge 16.06 $185,337 $4,578 741.92 $3,396 Jefferson 42.95 $316,359 $7,814 461.84 $3,609 Silver Bow 4.92 $11,321 $280 678 $190 _Totah 81.75 $743,534 $18,365 $9,920 Alternative-1B Broadwater 21.62 $251,329 $6,208 478.71 $2,972 Deer Lodge 4.66 $42,782 $1,057 741.92 $784 Jefferson 38.93 $272,015 $6,719 461.84 $3,103 Silver Bow 25.02 $57,707 $1,425 678 $966 • Total 9023 $623,833 $15,409 $7,825 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-49 MS T7 Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Table C.7.1-32. Potential Property Tax Exemptions in 2014 Associated with the Proposed Project by Alternative, by County in Montana* TotafTaxable Expected Total Value of Value of Annual Alternative Agricultural. Agricultural Property, by County Milos' Land Land Mill Rate Taxes Waived Alternative 1C Broadwater 30.76 $355,766 $8,787 478.71 $4,207 Deer Lodge 5.47 $90,623 $2,238 741.92 - $1,661 Jefferson 37.51 $354,338 $8,752 461.84 ` $4,042 Silver Bow 21.15 $49,392 $1,220 678'- $49,392 Total 94.89 $850,119 $20,998 $850,119 Alternative 1D Broadwater 21.62 $251,329 $6,208 478.71 $2,972 Jefferson 32.43 $229,348 $5,665 461.84 ` $2,616 Total 54.06 $480,677 $11,873 $5,588 Alternative 2A Beaverhead 23.95 $226,611 $5,597 522.16 $2,923 Deer Lodge 4.66 $42,782 $1,057 741.92 $784 Silver Bow 28.84 $106„143 $2,622. 678 $1,778 Total 57.44 $375,536 - $9,276 ! $5,484 Alternative 26 Beaverhead 23.60 $235,439 $5,815 522.16 $3,037 Deer Lodge 4.66 $42 782 $1,057 '. >741.92 $784 Silver Bow 2&84 $106.143 $2,622 678 $1,778 • Total 57.09 $384,364, $5,598 Alternative 2C T Beaverhead 14.22 $105,285 $2,601 522.16 $1,358 Deer Lodge 4.66 $42,782 $1,057 741.92 $784 Jefferson 17.72 $117,349 $2,899 461.84 $1,339 Madison 25.13 $311768 $7,701 378.81 $2,917 Silver Bow 28.00 $64;751 $1,599 678 $1,084 Total 89.74 $6411,935 $15,856 $7,482 Alternative 2D Beaverhead 26.14 $199,250 $4,921 522.16 $2,570 ,Beer Lodge _ 8.70 $72,244 $1784 741.92 $1,324 Silver Bow ..29.01 $80,781 $1,995 678 $1,353 Total 63.86 >. $352,275 $8,701 $5,246 Alternative 2E Beaverhead 14.22 $105,285 $2,601 522.16 $1,358 'Jefferson 11.23 $74,682 $1,845 461.84 $852 Madison: 25.13 $311,768 $7,701 378.81 $2,917 Silver Bow _ 2.98 $7,044 $174 190 $33 Total 53.56 $498,779 $12,320 $5,160 Alternative 3A Beaverhead 72.09 $612,901 $15,139 522.16 $7,905 7rzfal 72.09 $612,901 $15,139 $7,905 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-50 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics Table C.7.1.32. Potential Property Tax Exemptions in 2014 Associated with the Proposed Project by Alternative, by County in Montana* Total Taxable Expected Total Value of Value of Annu& , Alternative Agnculturat Agricuttural Propert by County Miles Land Land Mill Rafe Taxes Waived Alternative 3B Beaverhead 67.03 $553,318 $13,667 522.16 $71136 Total 67.03 $553,318 $13,667 $7,136 Alternative 3C " Beaverhead 71.87 $537,624 $13,279 522.16 .. $6;934 Total 71.87 $537,624 $13,279 - $6,934 Source:ECONorthwest,.Wth data from Montana Department of Revenue(2009) Taxable value represents 2.47 percent of the total assessed value. • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-51 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Table C.7.1-33. Expected Annual Property-Tax Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project by Alternative, by County in Idaho Expected Annual Alternative Transmission Substation Total Property Property by County Miles Line Costs Costs Cush 'fax Rate- Taxes Alternative 4A Clark 20 $26,794,039 $26,794,039 0.765% $204,974 Total 20 $26,794,039 $26,794,039 $204,974 Alternative 5A Bingham 25.01 $33,516,407 $33,516,407 1178% $394823 Butte 40.17 $53,821,811 $53,821,811 1355%` $729,286 Clark 39.72 $53,226,219 $53,226,219 0.765% $407,181.. Jefferson 2.50 $3,348,525 $3,348,525 1.M% $34,389 Total 107.40 $143,912,962 $143,912,962 $1,565,679 Alternative 56 Bingham 47.85 $64,122,971 $64J22,97 1 1.178% $755,369 Bonneville 9.37 $12,555,777 $12,555,777 _ 0,993% $124,679 Butte 2.39 $3,198,619 $3`198 619 13554'0 $43,341 Clark 16.99 $22,771,362 $22,771,362 0.765°/% $174,201 Jefferson 37.36 $50,056,201 $50,05626}, 1027% $514,077 Total 113.96 $152,704,931 $152,704,931 $1,611,667 Alternative 5C Bingham 55.51 $74,377,908 $74,377,908 1.178% $876172 Bonneville 14.17 $18,981,329 $18,981329 0.993% $188,485 Clark 16.99 $22,771,362 ' ,$22,771362 0.765% $174,201 • Jefferson 30.79 $41,265,279 $41,265279 1.027% $423,794 Total 117.46 $157,395,878 $157,395,878 $1,662,652 Alternative 5D Bingham 47.57 $63737:,595 $63,737,595 1178% $750,829 Bonneville 9.37 $12,555,777 -::. $12,555,777 0.993% $124,679 Clark 1699 :322,771,362 $22,771,362 0.765% $174,201 Jefferson 37.36 -$50,056,261;-u - $50,056,201 1.027% $514,077 Total 11126 '$149,120,935 $149,120,935 $1,563,786 Alternative 6A..>. Bingham .. 3.05 -$4,409-1,.928 $4091928 1.178% $48203 Blaine =19.83 $26,574,405 $26,574,405 0.438% $116,396 Jerome'. : 4x46 '$45,975,337 $23,000,000 $28,975,337 1.107% $320,757 Lincoln 34.15.. $45,759,585 $45,759,585 0.961% $439,750 Minidoka -13.72 $18,391,030 $18,391,030 0.828% $152,278 power.... 31.55 $42,282,558 $42,282,558 1.490% $630,010 Total 106.77 -$143,074,843 $23,000,000 $166,074,843 $1,707,393 4 Source ECONOrthmst v#kt data from Idaho State Tax Commission(2008) "Average cost of transmission line is assumed to be$1,340,000 per mile(Appendix B.4). C.7.4.3 Impact on the Value Derived from Scenic Views 'traffic volume estimates roughly indicate the number of vehicles that would pass the proposed project, however there is insufficient information to estimate the extent to which travelers would see the proposed project from the road,the degree to which the obstructed views would diminish a traveler's scenic experience, and, hence,the value of the economic loss. Nevertheless, relying on data from the Idaho Transportation Department(2007)and the Montana Department of Transportation (2007), the • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-52 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics approximate number of hours the proposed project may be viewed by travelers each year were estimated. First,the highway segments that paralleled or intersected the proposed transmission line alignments were identified. Then, the miles of highway parallel to the proposed alignments less than a mile from the proposed transmission line were estimated.These segments were divided by the official speed limit of the highway (in miles per hour)and multiplied by average annual daily traffic counts estimated by the state Departments of Transportation.This resulted in a rough approximation of the number of hours vehicles traveling on interstate, national,state, and county highways were likely within viewing distance of the proposed transmission line.This number was then adjusted to reflect the average occupancy rates of vehicles in the nation weighted by mile traveled(U.S. Department of Transportation,Bureari of Transportation Statistics 2003), and the average percent of travel that occurs during daylight hours._ (Varghese and Shankar 2007). Table C.7.1-34 presents the analytical results.The transmission line would be most heavily viewed in Zone 1,particularly along Alternative 1C.Alternative 2C represents the highest potential viewing from the highway in Zone 2, and Alternative 3B in Zone 3.Alternative 5B in Zone 5 is the only alternative that would not hkely be viewed from the highway.These numbers are only rough estimates, arid may underestimate or overestimate the actual amount of time travelers would be affected by,the transmission line's impacts on visual aesthetics. Portions of the proposed project that intersect highways would also be visible to highway travelers but are not included in the numbers presented in Table C.7.1-34. Table C.7.1-34. Hours of Visual Impact for Highway Travelers per Year, by Alternative Zone ' Alternative Tot"grr al View g HtWrs 1 1A 17,578 1B 1,158,116 • 1C 2,473,$33 1D 681,105 2 2A 371,301 2B 553,509 2C 639,437 2D 272,348 2E 162,426 3 3A 56,955 3B 495,582 3C 457,179 4 4A" 78,840 5 -5A 37,264 5B 62,668 5C 54,626 5D 62,668 6 6A 50,538 Source.ECONonhwest Economic data are not available to quantify the value of the impact of the proposed action on travelers in the study area.The absence of economic information does not necessarily mean,however,that the value of the impact is zero.The following paragraphs present research findings that suggest the direction of the impact for most travelers would be negative(representing an economic cost), and the magnitude of the • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-53 MSTI Appendix C,7.1 Socioeconomics • impact would likely vary from person to person,depending on their individual preference for high-quality aesthetic amenities. That people value the scenery from roadways,both in the foreground and background, is well documented.Landscape architects have put a priority on roadside scenery for road planning since the beginning of road construction for automobile travel (Parsons et al. 1998).Visual resource management systems, such as the one used by the BLM, identify characteristics of roadside scenery that are more desirable and less desirable(U.S.Bureau of Land Management 2009d). Highway median and roadside beautification projects have received substantial planning attention and funding since the 1970s. Under federal law,every state is required to dedicate a portion of its federal highway funds to transportation enhancements,which include acquisition of scenic easements, scenic highway programs,and landscape and scenic beautification. Since 1992,states have spent more than$2,2 billion on these programs (National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse 2008). Scenic roadway routes have been established to promote use and benefits from roadside visual amenities(National Scenic Byways Program 2009). A traveler's experience of a scenic highway is influenced by a variety of factor,including cultural additions(e.g., land uses and structures),transportation concerns (e.g., reason for travel,speed, and congestion),and transitional relationships(e.g.,changes in elevation and landscape)(Clay and Smith 2004).Research has recognized that the economic importance of a traveler's experience is not superficial: scenic highways can enhance a region's tourism potentialand create economic benefits for individuals, businesses,and communities.For example,improvements in roadside aesthetics can change the time an individual spends traveling in a car from being an economic cost(reduction in well-being)to a benefit (improvement in well-being).In particularly attractive scenic areas with roadside amenities,such as rivers and mountains,viewing roadside scenery can provide the main motivation for choosing one route over a less scenic alternative(Walsh et al. 1990). • Research on the specific effects of transmission lines on highway travelers is very limited,but suggests they can produce economically important adverse impacts. Idthe only study of its kind that was found, Ontario Hydro conducted survey of drivers on a major cross-province freeway and found that although transmission lines are not among the landscape features drivers are most aware of, drivers who recalled seeing transmission lines during their trip believed that the lines detracted from the landscape. Those surveyed indicated that the lines did not constitute a serious blemish on the landscape,although they had a more negative effect than gass'stations, advettising,slgns,overpasses,and railroads (Ontario Hydro, Route and Site Selection,Division 1983,'as cited in Priestly 1992).The differences between the context surrounding this survey and the-proposed project are worth noting: preferences for high-quality scenery among tfavelers in Mt[ntana may be different than preferences among travelers in Ontario, Canada, and those preference&may have changed since 1983,when the survey was conducted. X9.5 Literature Cited Aspen Environmental Group. 2008.Final Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement and Proposed Land Use Amendment:San Diego Gas&Electric Company Application for the Sunrise Poio rlink Project. SCH#2006091071. Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission and U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. Ilomquist,G.C. and I.C.Whitehead. 1998. "Resource Quality Information and Validity of Willingness to Pay in Contingent Valuation."Resource and Energy Economics 20(2): 179-196. Clark,D.C. 2008.Mountain States Transmission Interne 50MV Project: Socioeconomic Analysis. Economic Planning Resources.June. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-54 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • Clay, G.R. and R.K. Strict. 2004. "Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Descriptor Variables Used in Scenic Highway Analysis."Landscape and Urban Planning 66: 239-255. D.K. Shifflet&Associates, Ltd. 2007. Idaho:2005 Visitor Profile,Public Version.January. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://Iabor.idaho.gov/publications/Idaho_Visitor_Profile.pdf. Daily,G.C. 1997.Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem.Washington, Dom:.: Island Press. De Groot,R.S.,M.A. Wilson, and R.M.J.Boumans. 2002. "A Typology for the ClassificaTion, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services."Ecological Economics 41 (3): 393-408. Duffield,J.W.,J. Loomis,and R. Brooks 1987. The Net Economic Value of Fishing in Montana.Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife and Parks. August. Duffield,J.W. and C.Neher. 1991, Montana Waterfowl Hunting:A Contingent Valuation Assessment of Economic Benefits and Hunter Attitudes. Missoula,MT: Montana DepartmentofFish, Wildlife and Parks. Erickson, D. 2009.E-mail communication from Darla Erickson(Montana Department of Administration, Accounting Systems Fiscal Manager)to Cleo Neculae(ECONorthwest)regarding county revenues and expenditures in Montana.April 27. Furby,L., P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff,and R. Gregory. 1988. "Public Perceptions of Electric Power • Transmission Lines."Journal of Environmental Psychology 8:,19-43- Global Insight and D.K. Shifflet.&Associates Ltd.2005. The Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism in Idaho:A Comprehensive Analysis. State of Idaho, Division of Tourism Development. September. Retrieved April 13,2010,from http:/llaborJdaho.govr publications/tourism—economic tmpact_2005.pdf. Gran, K. and M.Bruns-Dubois. 2008. The Economic Review of the Travel Industry in Montana. 2008 Biennial.Edition. University of Montana, Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research. July. Retrieved April 13, 2010,from'http:/„www.itrr.umt.edu/ecorev/Economicreview2008.pdf. Idaho Department of Commerce. 2008.Socioeconomic Profiles: County Profiles. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://mmmerce.idaho.gov/business/socioeconomic-profiles.aspx. Idaho Fish and Game. 2005c.2003 Idaho Sport Fishing Economic Report[County Reports]. Retrieved April 13, 2010,from http://fishandgame.idabo.gov/cros/fish/misc/03econstudy/default.cfm. Idaho Fish and Game. 2009a. Controlled Hunt Harvest Information [2007 Data for Pronghorn,Deer, Elk,and Moose]. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/ch/harv.cfm. Idaho Fish and Game. 2009b. Idaho Big Game Seasons and Rules 2009. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from httpa/fishan dgame.idaho.gov/cros/hunt/rules/bg/full_boo kl et.pdf. Idaho State Tax Commission. 2008. "2008 Average Property Tax Rates.”Available at http://tax.idaho.gov/pubs/EPBOO129-12-31-2008.pdf. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-55 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics Idaho Transportation Department. 2007.2007 Rural Traffic Flow Map: State of Idaho.Retrieved April • 13, 2010, from http://itd.idaho.gov/planning/roadwaydata/Maps/ATR_D6_.html. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, 2007.Nonresident Expenditures by County. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.itrr.umt.edu/research08/CntyExpendMap07.pdf. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research.2008. The Economic Review of the Travel Industry in Montana.The University of Montana,Missoula, Montana. July 2008. Kusler,J. 2004.Final Report 1: Wetland Assessment for Regulatory Purposes,Assessing Functions and Values.Wetland Assessment for Regulatory Purposes. Berne, New York: Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy and Association of State Wetland Managers,Inc. September 1, 2004. Retrieved April 13,2010, from http://www.aswm.org/propub/pubs/aswm/asw massessment.htm. Loomis, J. 1988. The Montana Elk Hunting Experience: A Contingent Valuation Assessment of Economic Benefits to Hunters. Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks. September 1988. Loomis, 12005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands. General Technical Report No. PNW-GTR-658.U.S.Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. October. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr658.pdf: Montana Birding and Nature Trail Steering Committee. 2005.Addmg it Up:Economic Value of Birding and Wildlife Viewing to Montana. Retrieved April.7 3, 2010,from http://www.montanabirding trail.orgibencmts.php'., Montana Department of Environmental Quality.2004b. Circa/or MPSA-2:Application Requirements for • Linear Facilities. Retrieved April 13,2010,from http://www.deq.state.mt.us/ MFS/LawRules/Circnlar2.pdf. Montana Department of Labor and Industry,Workforce Services Division, Research and Analysis Bureau, and Montana Department,of Commerce,Census and Economic Information Center. 2009. Demographic andEconvmic Information for Silver Bow County.February.Retrieved April 13, 2010,from http:l/www ourfactsyourfumre.4rg/admin/uploadedPublications/ 3383_CF09—Silverbow.pdf. Montana ftartmetrtpf Revenue:409.Biennial Report:Montana Department of Revenue: July 1,2006 to June 317 200$.January 13,2009. Montana,Department.of Transportation. 2007.2007 Rural Traffic Flow Map.Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/datastats/traffic_maps.shtml. Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks(MFWP).2004.Montana Statewide Elk Management Plan.Retrieved April 13,2010, from fwp.mt.gov/content/getltem.aspx?id=31439. Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks(MFWP).2007.Harvest&Hunting Reports[2007 Reports for Antelope,Deer(Combined),Elk, and Upland Game Bird, and 2006 Report for Special Big Game]. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestreports.html. Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks. 2009d. "Montana Fisheries Information Systems(MFISH)."Retrieved April 13, 2010,from http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/mfishidefault.aspx. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-S6 MSTI • Appendix C.7.1 • Socioeconomics National Scenic Byways Program. 2009. The National Scenic Byways Program.Retrieved April 13, 2010,from http://www.byways.orgleam/program.html. National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. 2008.Transportation Enhancements:Summary of Nationwide Spending as of FY 2007. May 2008. Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4 to the Heads of Executive Agencies and Establishments Regarding Regulatory Analysis. September 17,2003. Ontario Hydro, Route and Site Selection Divison. 1983.Procedural Document for Processing Secondary Uses of Ontario Hydro Property-Exemption Order OH-27. File#00541.061. Outdoor Industry Foundation.2006. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy;A$730 Billion Contribution to the U.S.Economy.Retrieved April 13,2010, from ` http://www.outdoorindustry.orWmedia.oia.php?news_id=2175&sore yea[-2006,: ' , Parsons, R., L.G.Tassinary, R.S. Ulrich et al. 1998. "The View from the Road:,Implications for Stress Recovery and Immunization." Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 113-139. Partridge, M.D. and D.S.Rickman. 2003. "The Waxing and Waning of Regional Economies: the Chicken-Egg Question of Jobs Versus People. Journal of Urban Economics 53:76-97. PBS&J. 2009a.Mountain States Transmission Interne Environmental Impact Statement:Scoping Report: Appendix I:Master Comment Analysis Database.Prepared for Montana,Department of Environmental Quality and Bureau of Land Management.January 19, 20119. • Pastel, S. and S. Carpenter. 1997. "Freshwater Ecosystem,Services"In G.C. Daily, ed.,Nature's Services:Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Pp. 195- 214. Progressive Dairy Publishing.2009.2008 U.S.Dairy Statistics: Northwest Region. Retrieved April 13, 2010,from http://www.progressivedairy.com/downloadsi2009/general/ 2009_pd rl_stats_lowres.pdf. Rand McNally. 2005.Road Atlas of United:States, Canada,and Mexico. Skokie, IL:Rand McNally. Resource Strategies,Inc. 2003. Surtsey of Electric and Gas Rights-of-Way Practitioners: Current Practices and View's of Future Transmission Line Siting Issues.Technical Report 1009291. Electric Power Research Institute. Rosenberger R.S. and J. Loomis. 2001.Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan(2000 Revision). General Technical Report No.RMRS-GTR-72.U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Retrieved April 13, 2010,from http://www.fs.fed.uslrmlpubs/rmrs—gtr72.pdf. Swanson, C"2004.Fish and Wildlife Recreation and Tourism. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://fwp.mt.gov/tmc/reports/tourisrn.html. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-57 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics Swanson, L. 2006. Growth and Change in the Bitterroot Valley and Implications for Area Agriculture • and Ag Lands. University of Montana, O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West; Ravalli County Right to Farm and Ranch Board;and Bitter Root Land Trust.April.Retrieved April 2010, from http://crmw.org/read/Downloads/BRLT/Partsl-4.pdf. Swanson, L. 2007. Growth and Change in the Yellowstone-Teton Region. University of Montana, O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West and the Yellowstone Business Partnership. March. Retrieved April 2010, from http://crmw.org/read/DownloadsiYBP-Swanson.pdf. Tikalsky, S.M.and C.J. Willyard. 2007. "Aesthetics and Public Perception of Transmission Structures:A Brief History of the Research."Right of Way(March/April): 28-32. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates and Population Distribution Branches. 1982,Preliminary Estimates of the Intercensal Population of Counties I970-1979.April. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/pre-1980/e7O79co.txt. U.S.Census Bureau, Population Estimates and Population Distribution Branches. 1992.Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population of States and Counties 1980-1989. March.Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1980s/e8O89co.xls. U.S.Census Bureau. 2000a. Census 2000 Summary Fr e;.1 (SF 1), QT P6,Race Alone onjn Combination and Hispanic or Latino.American Factfinder.Retrieved April 13, 201%from http://factfiDder.census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000c. Census 2000 Summary Fire,3(5F3),DP-3,Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics.American Factfinder. Retrieved Apri113, 2010, from http://factfinder.census.gov/. • U.S. Census Bureau. 2000e. Census2000 Summary File (SF 1.,GCT-H5,General Housing Characteristics.American Factfiwer. Retrieved April-13, 2010,from http://factfinder.census.gov/. U.S.Census Bureau.2000f. Census 2006 Summary File I (SF I), QT-P1,Age Groups and Sex.American Factfinder.Retrieved April 13,2010,from http://factfinder.census.gov. U.S.Census Bureau, Population Division, 2002.Intercensal Estimates: Time Series of Intercensal Estimates by County. April 17.Retrieved April 27, 2010, from http://www.ce.osus.gov/popest/archives`/2000 s/vi ntage_2001/CO-E ST2001-12/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2007b."2005-2007 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates." U.S.Census Bureau;'�Populaiioo Division. 2008a.Population Estimates: Cities and Towns,All Places 20170-2007. July 10. Retrieved April 13,2010, from http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB- EST2007 4.1in 1. U.S.Cepsti`s Bureau, Population Division.2008b.Housing Units Estimates:Annual Estimates of Housing Units foj�Counties:April 1,2000 to July I,2007.Retrieved April 13, 2010,from http:/f"w.census.gov/popesUhousing/HU-EST2007-4.html. U.S.Census Bureau,Population Division. 2009. County Population Estimates:Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties:April 1, 2000 to July 1,2008. March 19. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2008-Ol.html. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-58 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics • U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2004.Recreation Statistics Update.Report No. 1.August 2004. i U.S. Department of Agriculture,National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009a.2007 Census of Agriculture: Idaho State and County Data. Vol. 1. Geographic Area Series. Part 12. February. Retrieved April 13,2010, from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007fFull Report! ' Vol ume_l,_Chapter_2_County_LeveUIdaho/idvl.pdf. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009b.2007 Censsus of Agriculture: Montana State and County Data. Vol. 1. Geographic Area Series.ParV26.February. ` Retrieved April 13, 2010,from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007,Full_Report/= V olume_l,_Chapter_2_County_LeveVMontana/idvl.pdf. U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2009a.Regional Economic Accounts, Local Area Personal Income, Table CAI-3,Personal Income Summary. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/. U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysts. 2009b.Regional Economic Accounts, Local Area Personal Income, Table CA25N, Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by NA1CS Industry(NAICS). Retrieved April 13,2010, from bttp:,I/www.bea.gov/regional/reis. U.S.Department of Energy(DOE). 2008a.West wide Energy Corridor Prograti vatic Environmental Impact Statement, November 2008.DOE/EIS-0386. U.S.Department of Energy. 2008c. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Montana Alberta Tie • Ltd. (MAIL)230-kV Transmission Line.Vol. 1 September 2008. U.S.Bureau of Land Management(BLM). 2009d Visual Resource Management: Using VRM as a Tool. Presented at the National Land Use Planning''Conference in Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation. 2008.Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Canyon Ferry Unit—Montana. Retrieved April 13,'2010, from http://www.usbr.gov/projects/ProjeCt.j sp?proj_Name=Canyon%20Ferry%20Unit%20Project. U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Glossary:E (Employed Persons]. February 28. Retrieved April 13, 2019, from http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htrn. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009a.Local Area Unemployment Statistics: Employment(Not Seasonally Adjusted)1990-2008. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http:iiw,ww.bls.gov/lau/. U.S.Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009b.Local Area Unemployment Statistics: Unemployment Rate(Not Seasonally Adjusted) 1990-2008.Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http:77www.bls.gov/lau/. U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics.2009c. Occupational Employment and Wages,May 2008: 49-9051 Electrical Power-Line Installers and Repairers. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from hftp://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes499051.htm. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-59 MSTI Appendix C.7.1 Socioeconomics U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics.2009d.Occupational Employment Statistics,May • 2007 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.bis.gov/oes/CurrenU oessrcma.htm. U.S.Bureau of Land Management and Montana Department of Environmental Quality.2008e. Request for Proposal for the Mountain States Transmission Interne Project.June 30, 2008. U.S.Department of Transportation,Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2003. Highlights of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey.BTS03-05. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)and U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. 2006 National Survey of Fishing,Hunting,and Wildlife Associated Recreation:Idaho.Report No. FHWJ06ID.March. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06 id.pdf. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)and U.S. Census Bureau. 2000.20061lational Survey of Fishing,Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation:Montana. Report No.FHW/0&MT. March. Retrieved April 13,2010, from http://www.census.gov/prodf2008pubs/thw06 mt.pcff. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008c. "Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge,Lima,Montana." Federal Register 73(188): 55864-55865. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator.2000. Guidelines far Preparing Economic Analyses. Report No.EPA 240-R-00-003. September 2900. ' Vajjhala, S,P.and P.S. Fischbeck. 2006.Quantifying Siting Difficulty: ACase Study of U.S. Transmission Line Siting, RFF DP 06-03. Resources for the Future.February 2006. • Varghese, C. and U. Shankar.2007.Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalities by Day and Night-A Contrast. Traffic Safety Facts.Washington D.C.: U.S.I7epartment of Transportation,National Highway Safety Administration. Walsh, R.G.,L.D. Sanders, and]R. Mckeatc 1990. "The Consumptive Value of Travel Time on Recreation Trips."Journal of Travel Research 29'(17). Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.7.1 Page-60 MSTI • Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings ! Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings Prepared for PB s&J Missoula,Montana • July 2009 GIt121WHILL Thomas Priestley, PhD 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 • Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings Contents 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................1 1 2.0 Overview of the Research on the Relationships between Electric Transmission Lines and the Value of Nearby Properties...................................... ...,..... ....I...2-1 2.1 Appraiser Studies.................. .... ....... ........ ................ ... ........... ............... ......... .22' 2.2 Attitudinal Surveys.. .... ..... ..... . ...... ................... ........ .. ...........2-2 2.3 Statistical Anal yses.. ........... ......... .................. . . .. :.... ,> • .................2-3 3.0 The Key Findings............................................................... ........,, ........3-1 3.1 Does the Presence of High-Voltage Overhead Transmission Lines on of near a Property Affect the Value of that Property?......... ..................:.............3-1 3.1.1 Single-Family Residences......... ... .... ......... ....................3-1 3.1.2 Vacant Residential Land. . .......... .... . . ..... ..... .........3-2 3.1.3 Recreational Land..... ........ ...... . .................................. ........ .......... ......3-3 3.1.4 Agricultural Land.... ... ...i ......... ... ........3-3 3.1.5 Distance Effects........ ......... ........ ........ ......... ..... ....3 3 3.1.6 Temporal Effects...... ........ ....................3-3 3.2 Does Proximity to a Transmission Line Affect Appreciation? .................. .. .3-4 • 3.3 To What Degree are Transmission Line/Property Value Effects Influenced by Concerns about Electric and Magnetic Fields?..............................................3-4 4.0 References.... .... ..... ......... ......... ........................................................4-1 Appendices A Kroll and Priestley 1992 Research Review B Review of Research Published Subsequent to the 1992 Kroll and Priestley Research Review BAD 0EIS APPENDIX C 7 2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings SECTION 1.0 Introduction Often,when proposals are made for the development of new electric transmission lines or increasing the capacity of existing lines,concerns are raised about the new or upgraded lines potential to adversely affect the value of nearby properties.The announcement of a new project often generates high levels of public concern, including anecdotaland speculative statements regarding the project's potential impacts to property values. To properly evaluate and weigh these statements during decision making,regulators and policy-makers need solid, statistically valid information about what effects transmission lines have actually had on the sales prices of properties in the areas surrounding them. The question of whether and the extent to which transmission lines affect,the value of nearby properties has been the subject of systematic research for nearly 'DO years, and the accumulated body of knowledge provides a good point of departure for considering transmission line/property value concerns.The purpose of this report is to inform the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)for the Mountain States Transmission Intertie (MSTI) with a summary of the findings of this research. The intent is to provide a backdrop for evaluating the concerns that have been expressM a-bout the potential property value impacts of the proposed MSTI 500-kilovolt(kV) transmission line project.This report includes an overview of the research that has been conducted to date ontransmission line/property value relationships,and summarizes the conclusions that can be drawn from it. The foundation for this report includes two separate research reviews, the first prepared for the Edison Electric Institute Siting and Environmental Planning Task Force by Dr. Cynthia Kroll,with the assistance of this report's author (Kroll and Priestley 1992).This review focused on the research published between 1975 and 1990, and summarized and evaluated the findings of over30 studies. With,the permission of the Edison Electric Institute,a copy of this report is included as Appendix A. A.seeond review was developed by this report's author for presentation'to the Advisory Cornmittee of the Virginia General Assembly Joint Commission on Technology,and Sciencen 2005;this report was for the purpose of documenting research published subsequent to the compilation of the 1992 literature review.To bring these first searches up to date,additional literature reviews were conducted in 2007 and 2009 to identify studies published since the completion of the 2005 update. The results of the significant studies published since 1992 are summarized in Appendix B.The original 1992 research review and the review of the research published since Were restricted to review of studies conducted in the United States and Canada. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the research that has been done on the question of how fransmission lines might affect the value of nearby properties.It identifies the historic evolution of research in this area,the different kinds of research that have been done, the strengths and weaknesses of the various research approaches, and the research paradigm that appears to be emerging. Section 3 provides a concise summary of what we can now say about the relationships between transmission lines and property values that is supported by the results of credible research. This summary supplements conclusions reached by the • MOODS APPENDIX C.7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 1-1 Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings literature review in 1992(Kroll and Priestley)with insights provided by the results of the additional research published in the 1992-2009 period. • • BAD IDES APPENDIX C.7 VALUE REV.DOCX 1-2 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings SECTION 20 Overview of the Research on the Relationships between Electric Transmission Lines and the , Value of Nearby Properties Research on the potential effects of electric transmission lines on the value of nearby properties began in the 1950s when a number of utility companies engaged appraisers to conduct case studies to document whether transmission lines affect the sales prices of nearby properties.Starting in about 1975,the level of research activity on the transmission line/property value issue increased and research approaches became more systematic and rigorous.During the period from 1975 through the early 1990s,a time when considerable transmission-line development activity was taking place in the U.S. and Canada, a substantial body of research on transmission line/property value relationships was generated.Starting in the mid-1990s,with the uncertainties created by the deregulation of the electric utility industry,there was a drop-off in the level of transmission-line development activity, and with that drop-off came a decline in the volume of transmission line/property value research. Even with the slow-down in the research activity during this most recent period,several important-land valuable studies were completed. Early reviews of the transmission line/property value research include those by Di Mento (1982), Fridriksson (1982),Soleco Constiltants,Inc.(1t 85),and Kinnard (1988 and 1989).In • addition,the transmission line/property;value literature tvas`encompassed in broader reviews of transmission line effects on land use by Butler(1983)and Priestley(1983). The most complete and thorough review of the transmission line/property value literature published to date is the one prepated by Kroll and Priestley in 1992 for the Edison Electric Institute Siting and Environmental Planning Task Force (presented in Appendix A). The most important overview of work in the field published since 1992 is a review article by Kinnard and Dickey,which appeared in Real Estate Issues in 1995. The basic question addressed by the transmission line/property value research is: "Does the presence of high-voltage overhead transmission lines on or near a property affect the value of that property?" If effects are present,further dimensions of this question include: • What is themagnitude of the effect? • What characteristics of the line or right-of-way are associated with that effect? • What types of property are most vulnerable to impacts? • Teo impacts change over time? Other questions include: Does proximity to a transmission line affect property value appreciation? • To what degree are transmission line/property value effects influenced by concerns about electric and magnetic fields? • BAO_1DEI5 APPENDIX C.7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV DOCX 2 1 i Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings As Kroll and Priestley indicate in their 1992 review,the research undertaken in an effort to develop answers to these questions falls into three categories: 1. Appraiser Studies 2. Attitudinal Surveys 3. Statistical Analyses 2.1 Appraiser Studies Initially, studies evaluating the influence of transmission lines on property-values,were , conducted by appraisers,who were responsible for almost all the transmission line property value impact studies done before 1975.The appraisal technique used for this research involves paired-sales analysis,which entails comparing sales prices for properties located close to the transmission line of interest with the sales prices of carefully matched properties located in areas presumed to be out of the transmission line's zone of influence and then noting any price differences,which are assumed to be related to theproperty's physical relationship to the transmission line.Traditionally,descriptive statistics have been used to compare sales in the two areas to determine the effect of the transmissionaine on sales price. In recent years,some studies have applied statistical tests in an effort to establish the significance of the relationships. One of the difficulties in using the paired sales approach is that identifying pairs of essentially identical properties requires a great deal of judgment, and that finding a sufficient number of pairs to provide a representative sample of the market is often difficult(Kinnard and Dickey 1995), A critical concern is that the paired sales • approach may not provide statistically reliable results because differences between the properties in the pairs may contribute to the price differences between the properties located close to and away from the transmission line (Kroll and Priestley 1992). 2.2 Attitudinal Surveys Attitudinal surveys have been used to determine how property owners or real estate professionals perceive the effect of transmission lines on property sale values. In some cases, this data is collected as a part of studies of the public's perceptions of the full range of a transmission line's potential impacts. In other cases,the surveys are restricted to property value issues,and occasionally, the data is collected and used as part of a contingent valuation modeling process that attempts to quantify likely purchasing behavior by potential buyers.The results of the attitudinal surveys have to be treated with great caution because what residents and even real estate professionals say about what they think the effects of transmission lines might be on property values may in fact be quite different from the actual effects that occur. For example, in their summary of the results of an advanced analysis of a comprehensive survey of perceptions of those living near transmission lines, Priestley and Evans(1996) found respondents may have a tendency to overstate the transmission line's effects. In a 1994 conference paper,William Kinnard and colleagues (Kinnard,Geckler, and Dickey 1994) point out that there can be a significant divergence between opinions expressed in the abstract in response to a survey question and actual behavior. For example,Kimlard et al. cite their findings in a study of the property value impacts of a transmission line in Orange County,New York,in which they interviewed real estate professionals active in the local market and owners of properties adjacent to the transmission lines in addition to conducting statistical analyses of the actual effect of the • HAD IDDBS APPENDIX C.7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 2-2 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings transmission line on sales prices.They found that the real estate professionals had a more negative perception of the transmission line's effects on property values than the owners of the properties alongside the line,and that these perceptions of negative effect were not supported by the analysis of the actual sales prices,which found no statistically significant reduction in the sales prices of properties located alongside the transmission line (Kinnard et al. 1988). 2.3 Statistical Analyses Since the mid-1970s,there has been increasing reliance on the use of multiple regression analysis in the hedonic pricing model format to determine the effect of proximity to transmission lines on property values. Regression analysis is a statistical method by which the changes in a variable of interest,known as the dependent variable(which in a property value study would be the sales prices of the properties in the study area) are explained as a function of changes in other factors that are known as explanatory variables, or regressors. Regression analysis allows the relationship between the dependent variable and each of the explanatory variables to be displayed in a model and estimated,providing a numerical estimator for each relationship. The hedonic pricing model format that is used to structure the regression model assumes that the amount paid for the purchase of a property reflects the value placed on specific attributes of the home and property,including contextual factors. Using this approach allows thei elationship betcveenproperty value and the variables that determine it to be statistically isolated,and the relative contribution to property value of each of the explanatory variables to be identified.': The use of the multiple regression approach requires a large data set of sales in the area of • potential impact and in a control area.For each sale,data is required for variables related to the broad spectrum of factors potentially affecting sales price, including variables that measure the distance from and the visibility of the transmission line.' Through use of multiple regression analysis in the hedonic pricing model format,it is possible to identify each variable`that has a statistically significant effect on property sales value in the study area andto identrfy.the percentage of the total sales value that can be attributed to each of the variables.At present,the multiple regression/hedonic modeling approach is favored by academic researchers and professli&tals as the means to identify the effects of proximity to transmission lines on sales`prices (Kinnard and Dickey 1995). Hedonic modeling is also in widespread use for evaluating the effects of other environmental and contextual variables on property value.z The value of the multiple regression/hedonic modeling studies is that `because they reflect the prices that buyers actually pay,rather than speculation about what buyers might do under hypothesized conditions,they are more reliably reflective of actual transmission line effects than the attitudinal surveys. In addition,the use of large sample sizes and advanced statistical techniques makes the results of the multiple regression/hedonic modeling studies considerably more reliable than those of the paired For a-t7etailed review of the variables included in studies of this type,the efforts required to generate this data,and the strategies for analyzing it,see Ignelzi and Priestley 1989, 2 For example,a journal article by Boyle and Kiel(2001)reviews a large number of studies based on hedonic modeling that evaluate the property value effects of air quality;water quality;distance from undesirable land uses,including nuclear and fossil fuel electric power plants,hazardous waste sites,landfills,incinerators,and heavy industrial facilities;multiple environmental pollutants;and neighborhood factors,such as location relative to roads,public transportation,and airports, school quality,crime levels,and water amenities. • SAO_@EIS APPENDIX C.72 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX pJ it Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings sales studies.Furthermore,there is some evidence that the results of the multiple regression/hedonic modeling studies can be transferred from one market area to another (Kinnard and Dickey 1995). • • BAD\DEIS APPENDIX C.'.2 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DDCX 2-4 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings SECTION 3.0 The Key Findings Although the research that has been done to date on the question of transmission line effects on property values is not unanimous in its conclusions, taken as a whole, it provides a frame of reference for understanding possible transmission line/property value relationships, and it brackets the range of magnitudes of any potential effects. Below is a summary of the answers that the empirical research provides to the questions that have been the focus of this research.This summary is based on the 1992 Kroll and Priestley research review as updated to reflect the results of the research published since the 1992 review was completed: 3.1 Does the Presence of High-Voltage Overhead Transmission Lines on or near a Property Affect the Value of that Property? As described in the subsections that follow,research studies have examined how the presence of high-voltage overhead transmission lines affects the values of properties, including single-family residences,vacant residential land,recreational property, and agricultural land. These studies have also examined the`roles distance and time have on the transmission lure/property value relationship,Questions that aretypically asked during the research efforts include: If effects are present,what°are the direction and magnitude of those effects? Are there differences in effect related to type of property?Are there characteristics • of the line or right-of-way that appear to be associated with the effects? 3.1.1 Single-Family Residences Most of the research studies based on paired sales analysis have found that transmission lines have no effect on thevalueofnearby single-family residences;these studies include Blanton(1980);Bottemiller, Cahill, and Cowger`(2000); Cowger,Bottemiller, and Cahill (1996); Earley and Earley (1988);Rhodeside and Harwell and A.White3 (1992 and 1996);and Wolverton and Bottemiller (2003),In addition, a number of the analyses using multiple regression analysis, including Kinnard et al. (1984),Kinnard (1988),and Kinnard (1997a and 1997b)found that transmission lines do not have a significant effect on the sales prices of nearby properties,including Single-family homes. A few of the pared sales studies as well as many of the studies that relied on multiple regression analysis found that transmission lines have a statistically significant effect on the sales values of taearby single-family residences. Although these price-reduction effects are statistically significant,in most cases,they are not large, generally ranging from 2 to 10 percent (Van Court and Company 1988, Ignelzi and Priestley 1991, Hamilton and Schwanm1996). A study undertaken by Des Rosiers (2003) in a suburb of Montreal found that in=general in the areas studied,homes adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way and facing a transmission tower experience a drop in property value of 10 percent. They 3 In two of the three Virginia regions analyzed,Rhodeside and Harwell found no effect on the value of properties located adjacent to transmission line rights-of-way.In the Eastern region,they found that location adjacent to a rig ht-of-way was associated with an increase in property value. • BAO TEIS APPENDIX C.7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV DOCX 3 1 Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings also found that in specific cases where the setback from the transmission line is very limited, the impact for homes adjacent to the line and facing a tower can be higher,ranging from 10 to 15 percent in areas with lower price homes,and from 15 to 20 percent in areas with more expensive homes. In a study done for the Lower Colorado River Authority, Kokel (1997) found that average sales prices for single-family homes located near or on an electric transmission line easement were likely to be 0 to 5 percent lower than the prices for homes with similar characteristics that were not located near or on a transmission line easement. The study by Chalmers and Voorvart (2009)found that neither the proximity nor visibility of a 345 kV line had a statistically significant effect on the sales values of properties. The only effect they found was a relatively small decrease in values(on the order pt'l%) in cases where properties were encumbered by transmission line easements. A number of studies provide evidence that in some cases,overhead transmission lines and their rights-of-way may have positive effects on the value of some properties. The degree to which this occurs depends very much on the circumstances of the lisle itself afie neighborhood,and the improvements made to the right-of-way,The most frequently mentioned benefit of having a property located next to a transmission line right-of-way is the advantage of having one less neighbor(e.g., Blanton 1980).In one of theneighborhoods included in the Ignelzi and Priestley (1991)stucly,the right-of-way of an existing transmission line was integrated into the design of the subdivision that was developed around it,was landscaped, and turned into a neighborhood amenity.in this neighborhood, location next to the right-of-way has a positive impact on sales prices,The Des Rosiers • (2003) study found that for properties located next to the transmission line right-of-way,but not right next to a transmission tower,there is a'positive-price impact that ranges from 7 to 22 percent.Des Rosiers also found that for properties that were not immediately adjacent to the right-of-way, but for which the transmission corridor affords views that have an open character,the presence of the corridor creates property value increases in the range of 3 to 4 percent. These findings are consistent with the findings of some of the perception studies. For example,`Rhodeside and Harwell{1988)found that in a Northern Virginia suburban area, residents perceived a heavily wooded transmission line right-of-way to be an aesthetic amenity.The Priestley and Evans analysis of the data from a comprehensive survey of those living in neighborhoodsaround a transmission line (1996) found that residents evaluated the landscaping of the right-of-way in a positive way. They also found that although the right-of-way was not developed for recreational use,those who made informal use of the right-of-way for recreational activities tended to evaluate the transmission line in more positive ways}ban those who didn t use the right-of-way. An apt summary of the findings of the credible research on transmission line effects on property values is provided by Des Rosiers,who observed that: "In short,most studies conclude that proximity to a HVTL per se does not necessarily lead to a drop in the value of surrounding properties and that other physical as well as neighborhood variables prevail in the price determination process" (Des Rosiers 2002, p.277). 3.1.2 Vacant Residential Land In an evaluation of the impacts of transmission lines on the sales prices of vacant residential land in two subdivisions,Blinder (1979) found no effect on the value of lots in one • BAO%DEIS APPENDIX C.7 2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.D00% 3 2 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings subdivision and a negative effect on the value of lots on the other.In a study in Maine, Kinnard (1988) found that a 345-kV line did not have a statistically significant effect on the sales prices of vacant parcels with potential for development for residential use. A study of vacant land with potential for residential development along the route of the 345-kV Marcy- South line in New York State by Kinnard and Mitchell (1988, and also published as Mitchell and Kinnard 1996) found that the construction of the transmission line did not have a' significant effect on the sales value of these properties. 3.1.3 Recreational Land A study by the Universite du Quebec A Montr @al (1982),which evaluated the sales of both. vacant lands with potential for second home development and a smaller number of developed second home properties found that proximity to and a view of-a transmission line could reduce the value of the lot by as much as 34 percent,while,the presence of an easement has a positive effect. 3.1.4 Agricultural Land Several of the studies of the effects of transmission lines on the value of agricultural land have found that the transmission lines do not have a statistically significant effect on the value of the properties crossed by the line(Brown 1476,Weber and Jensen 19713).Other studies have found some level of effect,Ball (1989) found-a decrease of 2 percent.Jensen Management Services(1983) found impacts ranging from no effect to up to a 20 percent decrease in value in cases where there were disruptions to irrigation and farm operations. Woods Gordon (1981)found no effects in two out of the six areas studied and positive • effects in two of the other areas,In the remaining two areas,where there was potential for residential development,there,was a negative effect,In one of these areas,there was an average property value decrease of 16 percent. Boyer(1976) found impacts ranging from 16 to 29 percent on the sales prices of agricultural lands crossed by a 500-kV line. 3.1.5 Distance Effects Several studies that have found transmission lines to affect property values include findings that the effects are highest in the areas closest to the transmission line and taper off quickly with distance. Colwell and Foley (1979),for example,found the effects to be highest within 5Q feet of the right-of-way and then to drop off very quickly with increasing distance, disappearin&ahribst entirely after 200 feet. The multiple regression analysis/hedonic model study conducted byHamiltoriand Schwann(1996)found that the property value effect is greatest next twShe right-of-way and decreases with distance,fading out entirely at 200 meters (626,,feet).The study by Des Rosiers(2002)found the impacts to be highest in places where direct views of towers were present in very close proximity to residences and that,in general;the impacts decreased with distance,fading to 1 percent at 500 feet. 3.1.t Temporal Effects There is some evidence to suggest that the property value effects of developing a new transmission line or upgrading an old one may decrease over time. Colwell and Foley (1979) found that the property value impacts of the transmission line in their study area decreased over time, leading them to speculate that the decrease may have been related to the growth of vegetation that increased the extent to which the transmission line was screened from • RAO 00S APPENDIX C22 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 3-3 Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings view. Ignelzi and Priestley (1991)found that in the study area crossed by a transmission line that was upgraded in the middle of the period during which the property value data was collected, the impacts were greatest in the first year after the upgrade was completed and tapered off quickly, disappearing nearly completely within 5 years. 3.2 Does Proximity to a Transmission Line Affect Appreciation? The question of the extent to which the presence of a transmission line might affect the appreciation of the value of nearby property has not received much attention in the studies undertaken to date.The only analysis that has made an explicit assessment of this issue is the one undertaken by Wolverton and Bottemiller (2003),who found that residences abutting the transmission line right-of-way appreciated at thesame rate as the�et of comparison homes located further away. I 3.3 To What Degree are Transmission Line/Property Value Effects Influenced by Concerns about Electric and Magnetic Fields? In discussions related to the potential property value impacts of high-vpltage electric transmission fines,one of the claims often raised is that the potential health effects of the • elevated electric and magnetic fields(EMF) associated with these lines could lead to reduced property values in the areas in close proximity to them. It is frequently assumed that these concerns began in 1992 when Swedish epidemiological studies were published that found a small increase in rates of childhood leukemia among children living close to high-voltage transmission lines(ivl. Feychting and A. Ahlborn 1993). Because of this,the claim is sometimes madethat theresults of the property value research conducted prior to 1992 is no longer valid because since 1992,a widespread"cancerphobia" has developed that substantially affects the--market for housing in areas close to transmission lines.The claims made about"cancerphbia" and its implications for property values and the relevance of pre-1992 research are not substantiated by the facts. The reality is that concerns about the potential health effects of high-voltage transmission lines did not begin suddenly in 1992 with publication of the Swedish research;these concerns date back much further. For example, a study published by Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper in 1979(Wertheimer and Leeper 1979) suggested links between high-voltage transmission lire EMF fields and higher rates of cancer,generating considerable levels of concern throughout the 1980s about possible health risks associated with living near transmission Imes. In 1988,author Paul Brodeur published a book about alleged EMF health risks(Brodeur 1988). In the next year,Brodeur published a three-part series in the New Yorker titled "The Annals of Radiation" that began with a summary of the Wertheimer and Leeper study and similar studies and continued with a series of frightening anecdotes about the health risks of EMF exposure from transmission lines and other sources (Brodeur 1989a, 1989b,1989c).In 1990 and 1992(Brodeur 1990a,1990b,1992),Brodeur continued with three additional installments of the"Annals of Radiation" that presented anecdotes about alleged cancer clusters in the vicinity of electric facilities. By the time the Swedish epidemiological • BAD OEIS APPENDIX C.72-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 34 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings studies were published,knowledge of and concerns about possible links between electric transmission lines and health were already widespread. The claim is also frequently asserted that awareness and perceptions of possible health risks of living in proximity to a high-voltage transmission line have escalated since 1992,leading to ever-increasing impacts on the values of properties near transmission lines. In reality, rather than increasing,there are signs that concerns about the potential health risks of EMF have been on the decline. A large number of epidemiologic studies published in the 1990s found no relationship between measurements of electric and magnetic fields in residences and cancer rates,In 1995,a PBS Frontline TV program titled"Currents of Fear" interviewed Paul Brodeur and used the then-available epidemiological findings to suggest that the scientific evidence did not support the fears that he had been promoting in his writings. Major reviews of possible links between EMFs and cancer risks published by the National Research Council in 1996 (National Research Council 1996) and the National Cancer Institute in 1997(Campion 1977)concluded that there is no decisive evidence that supports such a link.Continuing findings that have downplayed the possible health risks associated with living near high-voltage transmission lines have undercut the basis for transmission line fears that reached their peak in the 1980s and early 19905, In the mid-1990s,William Kinnard and colleaguesfrom the Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut undertook two studies to test the hypothesis-that allegedly increasing concerns about the health risks of EMT were having an effect on the sales values of properties located near transmission lines.One of these studies was a multiple regression analysis of the sales prices of 5,952 residential properties located at varying distances from a 138-kV • transmission line in Las Vegas, Nevada(Kinnard,Gecklef,and DeLottie 1997).This study found no systematic pattern of price decline after the publication of the Swedish study in 1992, and no systematic pattern of negative price influence in the areas closest to the transmission line. Kinnard and colleagues also conducted a multiple regression analysis of data on 1,377 residential sales in studv areas in the vicinity of St. Louis,Missouri located near several substations and a transmission lute(Kinnard,Geckler, and DeLottie 1997).The results of this analysisfound that there wasno statistically significant pattern of negative impact ortsales price associated with proximity to or visibility of the transmission line or substation or.associated With sales"that occurred after 1993. The study,undertaken by Des Rosiers along a 345-kV transmission line in a suburb of Montreal was based on analysis of sales data from the period from 1991 through 1996, thus encompassing sales that took place before, during,and after the Swedish study was releas€d.Even thoughthese studies received widespread publicity,Des Rosiers noted that his study found=that the release of these reports had no detectable effect on sales prices in the vicinity of the power lines studied. The findings of the Kinnard and Des Rosiers studies of no property value impact during the period ofSresumed heightened concern about EMF-related health risks is consistent with the results of the Kung and Seagle (1992) survey-based study. In their survey of a sample of homeowners in Tennessee,Kung and Seagle found their respondents to be unaware of any health risks associated with proximity to transmission lines, and,based on this finding, they speculate that the market does not accurately capture property value differentials related to perceived EMF-related risks.In the mid 1990s,Gregory and von Winterfeldt,who are well • BAD %DEIS APPENDIX C.7.2-PROPERTYVALUE REV.DOCX 35 Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings known for their research on perceptions of risks related to EMFs,conducted a secondary analysis of the property value impact literature in an effort to determine the extent to which concerns about EMF affect property sales prices. They concluded that although the findings _ suggest a small decrease in property values adjacent to transmission lines in some cases, the available evidence does not allow for a determination of how much can be attributed to perceived health impacts. The Chalmers and Voorvart analysis,which was based on sales between 1998 through 2007, found that proximity to and visibility of transmission lines had no statistically significant effects on property values,suggesting that"cancerphobia" was not a factor that-was affecting sales prices in the areas they studied during the period 6 to 1.9 years after the publication of the Swedish research. As this review suggests,the notion that a widespread °cancerphobia invalidate the results of the currently available research on property value effects of transmission lines is not supportable, and that in fact,the research conducted using sales that occurred both before and after 1992 provides a reasonable indication of the range of effects that transmission lines are likely to have on the sales values of nearby properties. • • SAO 1DEI5 APPENDIX C 7.2-PROPER7V VALUE REV.DOCX 3-6 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings SECTION 4.0 References Ball, Thomas A. 1989.A Study of the Economic Affects of High Voltage Electrical Transmission Lines on the Market Value of Real Properties. Prepared for Salt River Project,Phoenix. Tempe.March. Blanton,Herman W. 1980.A Study of Transmission Line Effects on Subdivisions in Harris County, Texas. Blinder,Calvin L. 1981. The effect of high voltage overhead transmission lilies on residential property value," in Tillman,R.E,ed.Environmental ConcernsI in Rights of Way Management,Proceedings of Second Symposium Held October"16 -19,1979. Palo Alto:Electric Power Research Institute. Bottemiller,S.,J.Cahill, and J.Cowger,2000.Impacts on residential property values along transmission lines; an update study of4hree Pacific Northwest metropolitan areas. Right of Way. 18 (July August): 18 20, 55. Boyer,Jeanette C., Bruce Mitchell, and Shirley„Fenton,et a1.1978.The Socio-Economic Impacts of Electric Transmission Corrid`tit .A Comparative`Analysis.Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:Faculty of Environmental$tidies,University of Waterloo.April. • Boyle, M. and K Kiel, 2001. A survey of house price heclonic studies of the impact of environmental externalities.Journal of Real Estate Literature. 9(2):117-144. Brodeur,P.1988.Currents of Death,,Power Lilies,Computer Terminals, and the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health.New York:Simon and Schuster,1989 Brodeur,P. 1989a.1+,nnals of Radiation,"'The Hazards of Electromagnetic Fields I -Power Lilies.” The New Yorker.June 12,1989. Brodeur,P.19j89b. Annals of Radiation,"The Hazards of Electromagnetic Fields II - Something is Happening." The New Yorker.June 19, 1989. Brodeur,P.1989c.Annals of Radiation,"The Hazards of Electromagnetic Fields III-Video Display Terminals"The New Yorker.June 19,1989. Brodeur, P. 199f1a. Annals of Radiation,"Calamity on Meadow Street" The New Yorker. In IV 9,1^990. Brodeur,P.1990b. Dept.of Amplification.The New Yorker. November 19,1990. Brodeur;P. 1992.Annals of Radiation,"The Cancer at Slater School." The New Yorker. "December 7,1992. Brown,Dean J.A. 1976.The effect of power line structures and easements on farm land values.Right of Way. (December 1975-January 1976):33-38. • BAO 05S APPENDIX C.7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOC% 41 Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings Butler,JoAnn C. 1983. Electric Utility Transmission Lines and Land Use Compatibility:Annotated Bibliography. Chicago:The American Planning Association. Campion,E.W. 1997.Power lines,cancer,and fear. New England Journal of Medicine. 337:44= 46,1997. Chalmers,James A. and Voorvart,Frank A. 2009.High-voltage transmission lines: proximity,visibility, and encumbrance effects. The Appraisal Journal.Summer: 227- 245. Colwell, Peter F. 1990. Power lines and land value.Journal of Real Estate IZeseirrch 5(1): 117- 127. Cowger,J.,S.Bottemiller,and J.Cahill.1996.Transmission line impact on residential property values;a study of three Pacific Northwest metropolitan areas- of Way. 43(September/October): 13-17. Delaney,C,and D.Timmons. 1992. High voltage power lines. do they affect residential property value? The Journal of Real Estate Research. 7(3): 315-329. ` Des Rosiers, 2002. Power lines, visual encumbrance and house values:a microspatial approach to impact measurement.Journal of Real Estate Research.23 275-301. DiMento,Joseph.1982. The Effect of Transmission Lines on Residential PropPity Values:A Review of the Literature: First Draft. Report prepared for the Bonneville Power • Administration. Fechting, M. and Ahlbon,A.1993. Magnetic fields and cancer in children residing near Swedish high-voltage power lines:'American Journal of Epidemiology. (138): 7. Fridriksson,Gunnar, Michael MacFadven,and Christine Branch. 1982. Electric Transmission Line Effetts on Land Values:A Critical Review of the Literature. Draft report prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration. Billings, Montana: Mountain West Research, Inc. Gregory,R.and D. von Winterfeldt. 1996.The effects of electromagnetic fields from transmission lines on public fears and property values.Journal of Environmental Management.48 (201-214). Hamilton,S.and G.Schwann,1995. Do high voltage electric transmission lines affect property value?Land Economics. 71 (4): 436-44. Ignelzi,P.and T. Priestley, 1989.A Methodology for Assessing Transmission Line Impacts in Residential Communities. Prepared for Edison Electric Institute Siting and Environmental Planning Task Force,Washington,DC. Ignelzi,P.and T.Priestley. 1991.A Statistical Analysis of Transmission Line Impacts on Residential Property Values in Six Neighborhoods.Final Report Prepared for Pacific Consulting Services, Albany,CA, 110 pp. • BAD 1DE15 APPENDIX C72,PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 42 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings Kellough,W. R.1980.Review and Summary of Available Literature Pertaining to the Physical Effects of Transmission Lines on Agriculture.Toronto:W. R. Kellough and Associates. March. Kinnard,William N.Jr.1988. The Effect of High-Voltage Overhead Transmission Lines on Sales Prices and Market Values ofNearby Real Estate:An Annotated Bibliography and Evaluative Analysis.Prepared for Central Maine Power Company by The Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut,Inc.September. Kinnard,William N.Jr.1989. The Effect of High-Voltage Overhead Transmission Lines on Sales Prices and Market Values of Nearby Real Estate:An Annotated Bibliographyand Evaluative Analysis.A Paper Submitted at the Edison Electric Institute Workshop,Portland, Oregon.Storrs, Connecticut: Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut,Inc. October 12, 1989. Ki3mard,William N.Jr., M.B. Geckler,J.K.Geckler,J.B. Kinnard,and P:S.Mitchell. 1984.An Analysis of the Impact of High Voltage Electric Transmission Lines on Residential Property Values in Orange County,New York.Storrs, Connecticut: Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut.May, Kinnard,William N.Jr., and Philip S.Mitchell.1988, Effects of Proximity to Marcy South Transmission Line Right of Way onsVacant Land Sales. Towns ofHmnptonburgh and Wawayanda, Orange County,New York, January 1983 December 1987.Storrs, Connecticut: Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut.May. Kinnard,William N.Jr.,John K Geckler,Jeffrey A;Kinnard,and Phillip S.Mitchell. 1988. • Effects of Proximity to High-Voltage Electric Transmission Lines on Sales Prices and Market Values of Vacant Land and-'Single Family Residential Property:January 1978-June 1988, (Art Analysis of Real EstateMMarketActivi4y hi Penobscot County,Maine). Storrs, Connecticut.Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut. December. Kinnard, W., M.Geckler,and S.Dickey.1994,Fxar(As A Measure of Damages) Strikes Out: Two Case Studies Comparisons Of Actual Market Behavior With Opinion Survey Research. A Paper Prepared,for Presentation at the 1994 Annual Conference American Real Estate Society.Santa Barbara,California. April 16. Kinnard,W. ands Dickey,1995.A primer on proximity impact research: residential property values near high-voltage transmission lines.Real Estate Issues. 20 (1):23-29. Kinnard, W. 1996. EMFAnd The Eighth Deadly Sin: The Literature on Property Value Impacts From Proximity to High Voltage Transmission Lines Since 1994.Presented at The EMF Regulation and Litigation Institute"Anticipating,Avoiding,and Managing EMF Claim3" Washington,DC.April 15-16. Kinnard,,-W.,M.Geckler,and J. DeLottie. 1997. Post-1992 Evidence Of EMF Impacts On Nearby -Residential Property Values. Price Effects from Publication of and Widespread Publicity About the Floderus and Ahlborn-Feychting Studies in Sweden.A Paper Presented at the 1997 Annual Conference American Real Estate Society.Sarasota,Florida.April 16-19. Kinnard,W.,S. Bond,P.Syms,and J.DeLottle. 1997. Effects Of Proximity To High Voltage Transmission Lines On Nearby Residential Property Values:An International Perspective • BAO%DEIS APPENDIX C 72-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 4.3 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings On Recent Research. A Presentation at the 1997 International Conference American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association,University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,California.May. Kokel, L.1997.A Study of the Impact of Electric Transmission Lines on Real Estate Values. Prepared as a Supplement for the Appraisal of Various Parcels Located along State Highway 195 and IH 35 North of Georgetown, Texas. Kroll,C.,and T.Priestley, 1992, The Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines on Property Values. Edison Electric Institute Siting and Environmental Planning Task Force, Washington, D.C.,101 pp. Kung,H., and C. Seagle. 1992.Impact of power transmission lines on property values:a case study. The Appraisal Journal.July:413-418. Mitchell, P. and W. Kinnard. 1996.Statistical analysis of high-voltage ouerhead transmission line construction on the value of vacant land. Valuation.June:23-29. National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. 1997.Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields.Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Priestley,Thomas. 1983. Transmission Lines and land Use Development Final Report:Annotated Bibliography. Prepared for the Community and Regional Planning Task Force of the Edison Electric Institute.July. • Priestley,T.and G. Evans. 1996. Resident perceptions of a'nearby electric transmission line. Journal of Environmental,Psychology.16: 65-74 Rhodeside&Harwell,Incorporated.1988:T'ereeptions of Power Lines:Residents' Attitudes. Prepared for Virginia Power. Alexandria, Virginia: Rhodeside and Harwell. Rhodeside and Harwell and A.White,1992.Transmission Line Impact on Property Values. Prepared for Virginia Power. Alexandria, Virginia:Rhodeside and Harwell. Rhodeside and Harwell and A. White,1995. Transmission Line Impact on Property Values; Supplemental Study: Visibility.Prepared for Virginia Power, Alexandria,Virginia: Rhodeside and Harwell. Soleco Consultants,Inc. 1985. Examen de la litterature recente et les avenues de recherche dans le(romaine de l'evaluation des impacts des equipements electriques sur la valour fonciere des proprietes. Rapport final:Novembre. Title translation: Examination of recent literature and research directions in the area of evaluation of the impact of electric facilities on property value. University du Quebec a Montreal. 1982.Impact de 1'implantation des lignes de transport d`energie hydro-electrique sur les valeurs foncieres des sites de Villegiature.Project Hydro-Quebec HA-596-507.June. Title translation: Impact of the establishment of hydroelectric transmission lines on the property values of second home lots. Van Court and Company. 1988. Real Estate Appraisals:Greenwood-Daniels Park 115/230 KV Conversion--Arapahoe County, Colorado. • RAC OEIS APPENDIX C72 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOC% 44 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings • Weber,William V. and Glenn A.Jensen.1978.A Study of High Voltage Power Line Easements and their Effect on Farm Land Values in West Central Minnesota. Luverne,Minnesota: Jensen Management Service. Wertheimer,N.,and E.Leeper.1979.Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology.109:273-284. Wolverton,M., and S. Bottemiller. 2003.Further analysis of transmission line impact on residential property values. The Appraisal Journal.July(713): 244-252. Woods Gordon (Management Consultants). 1981. Study on the Economic Impact of Electric Transmission Corridors on Rural Property Values:Final Report. • • BAO_DEIS APPENDIX C7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 45 Appendix C.7.2 • Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings • Appendix A 1992 Kroll and Priestley Research Review Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings Insert 1992 Kroll and Priestley report here • • Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: • Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings • Appendix B Research Review and Update for this Report Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings • APPENDIX B Review of the Research Published Subsequent to the 1992 Kroll and Priestley Research Review B.1 Study Scope and Approach This review encompasses the original research conducted in the United States and Canada on the effects of transmission lines on property values that was published during the period after the completion of the 1992 Kroll and Priestley review. The information reviewed in preparing this update included: • Relevant reports and articles found in the author's extensive personal collection of research materials related to perceived effects and property value impacts of electric facilities • Published articles obtained by searching the journal databases in the Hass School of Business Library at the University of California at Beikeley, CA,and the Branford Millar Library on the campus of Portland State University in Portland,OR • Articles and research reports found through searches conducted on the Internet • An effort was made to collect and review all articles doeumeriting original research studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals, along with as many research reports published elsewhere as could be obtained. I Once the research-based articles and reports were obtained,they were reviewed,the reports and articles based on research that was eondueted in North America and that employed sound research designs and analysis methods were summarized in tables which have a format similar to that of the summary tables used in the 1992 Kroll and Priestley research review. These,summaries are presented here as Tables B-1,B-2,and B-3. B.2 1992-2009 Research During the 17-year peiiod`since the completion of the Kroll and Priestley research review, new research projects related to transmission line effects on property values have included two attitude surveys, six studies based on paired sales analysis,and five studies entailing rise of multiple regression analysis in the hedonic model format. The characteristics and results of the`survey-based studies are presented in Table B-1, the paired-sales analyses in Table B-2,and the Multiple Regression/Hedonic Model analyses in Table B-3. • BAO_IDEIS APPENDIX C.7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 31 APPENDIX B REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PUBLISHED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 1992 EEI RESEARCH REVIEW • i This page intentionally left blank. • SAO DEIS APPENDIX C.7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV DOCX 82 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE 13-1, Summa of serve Based Studies Not Included in the 1992 Review _ Property Number of Authorl " Line Features/ Geographic Statistical Date Client `Factors Tested Arta Typel Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Time Period Observations Delaney& Independent High voltage 47 States Descriptive 219 Descriptive The perception exists Timmons. (Academic}' ;gverhead" and Puerto '1990 statistics based appraisers statistics— among appraisers that the 1992 electric Rico on survey summary of market value of residential transmission survey property can be affected (HVOETts) responses by proximity to high- lines voltage power lines. Responses from appraisers indicate a negative impact to property values: experienced appraisers estimate a 10.01% reduction in property values near high-voltage lines whereas appraisers inexperienced with appraisals near power lines estimate an 11.93 percent decline._ Kung and Independent Power Memphis Residential. Descriptive r: 47 complete Descriptive Study found that the public Seagle. (Academic) transmission and Shelby homes statistics based responses statistics— surveyed evaluated the 1992 lines County,TN directly on survey out of$p summary of power lines and towers as under or homeowners "survey visually unattractive,but adjacent to surveyed responses are unaware of any power lines potential health risks associated with proximity to power transmission lines. Public not well informed about the potential link between " .,power lines and health. Thus,markets do not accurately capture property value differentials. BAD DEIS APPENDIX C22-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DDCX 33 • • • Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B-2 Summary Paired Sales Anal ses Not included in the 1992 Review Line Featuresl Geographic Property Number of Statistical AuthorlDate Client Type/ Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Factors Tested Area Time Period Observations Significance* Rhodeside Virginia Effect of The Northern, Single- Paired Sales 110 comparable Paired Analysis In two of the and Harwell& Power adjacency to central and family proximatenon- T-statistic looked regions included Andrew White power lime on Eastern residences proximate pairs at differences in in the study, no 1992 home sales Service 1968-1989 of home sales mean sales price difference in price Regions of for proximate sales price VA and non- between homes proximate next to homes. transmission Paired Student's lines and those T-statistic not not next to significant for transmission Central and lines. Northern regions In one of the as well as overall regions,there study,but was was a positive significant for the price impact for Eastern region residences ANCOVA located next to Analysis the transmission F-ratio/statistic line for ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) model of sales price on :.,proximity to transmission lines was not significant. Similarly,the F- ratlbs for ANCOVA models,for each of the regions were also inslgn,ificant. ANCOVA model MOODS APPENDIX C 72-PROPERi VALUE REVDOCX DA Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B-2. Summary Palled Sales sAnalyses Not Included In the 1992 Review `, Line Features/ Geographic Property Number of Statistical Author/Date " Clienti Type! Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Factors Tested Area Time Period Observations Significance* accounts for effects of house size,number of bedrooms,and number of bathrooms on sales price.The model uses sales price ' adjusted for inflation to 1989 level. Rhodeside Virginia Effect of The Northern, Single- ,Paired Sales 244 home sales ANCOVA No difference in and Harwell& Power visibility of Central,and family . of which 30 Ana sis sales price Andrew White power line on Eas[erb residences never had a view F-ratio/statistic between homes 1996 home sales Service I of the for ANCOVA from which price Regions of transmission model of sales transmission VA lines,29 had a price on visibility lines can never seasonal view of of transmission be seen,can be the transmission lines was not seen only lines and 185 significant. seasonably,and always had a Similarly,F- can be seen all view of the ratios associated the time. transmission +. with the lines ANCOVA All 30 homes models wherein that never had a the visibility view of the I variable was transmission receded into 24 lines were note- categortes was proximate 3 0' msignificant.As the 29 with '' was the model seasonal 3iews dropped the WE re proximate; °seasonal" 4 One category collapsed"seasonally"and"always"visible together to he compared with the"never"visible and the other collapsed the"never"and the"seasonally"visible together to be compared with"always"visible. BAD IDEIS APPENDIX C t 2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX B 5 • • • Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B=2.. Summary Paired Sales Analyses Not in in Uje 1992 Review _ Line Features/ Geographic Property Number of Statistical AuthorlDate Client Type/ Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Factors Tested Area Time Period _ Observations Significance' and 114 of the category and 185 homes that compared the always had a "always"to the view were "never"visible. ,. proximate. With the 23 comparable exception of the proximate/non- visibility variable, proximate pairs all other of home sales. variables used in the ANCOVA analyses are similar to the 1992 analyses. Paired Analysis Paired Student's T-statistic not significant for 23 proximate/non- proximate pairs. T-statistic looked at differences in mean sales price for proximate and non- proximate homes. Cowger, Bonneville 16 different Portland,OR Residential Differences-ml 4 counties 2 i Difference in Small decreases Bottemiller,& Power transmission area home sales means test OR and 2 in WA. means between in property Cahill. Administratio lines, 115 kV (Washington abutting states Subjects and values found in Sept/Oct 1996 n(BPA) to 500 kV and EPA high- 29 4b)ect5 Comparaples not Seattle and Transmission Clackamas voltage sales and 281 spa tisncally,. Vancouver structures: Counties in transmis- comparabies significant at property data. 1 line with OR) Sion lines (comps) 95%confidence Portland concrete Vancouver, 1990 and 281 aired levels Subjects showed 5 Sample homes along transmission lines are referred to as Subjects in report. BAO\DEIS APPENDIX C.72-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX B-5 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE 8+2,: Summary Paired Sale Ana ses Not included In the 1992 Review Property Number of Statistical AuthorlDate ' client?.- Line Features) Geographic Type/ Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Factors Tested Area Time Period Observations Significance* ^. poles '`WA area 1991 samples Stepwise slightly higher J.line with , (Clark forward property values two-polo H- County) regression compared to the frame wood Seattle,WA showed: matched Comps. structures ar08(Kings 1)Slightly Differences not 1$lines with County) significant for statistically lattice steel percent significant. towers differences and distance to line in Portland,OR; with R-squared 0.04 2)No significant relationships between percent differences in sale price and square footage, distance to transmission line,days between sale of Subject and Comp,and year built were found in Seattle or Vancouver data. BAO_\DEIS APPENDIX C 12 PROPERTY VALUE REV.000% 37 • • • Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and.Summary of Key Findings TABLE B•2. Summary Paired Sales:Analyses Not included In the 1992 Review —� i Property Number of Statistical AuthorlDate client. Line Features/ Geographic Typel Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Factors Tested Area Time Period Observations Significance- Kokel Lower 138 kV North Austin, Residential Comparison 719 Single-family Other than On-line per acre- 1997 Colorado Analyze Round Rock, subdivisions of average residential home calculating foot sales River impact of and in North sales price sales from 8 average and averages differ Authority overhead Georgetown ,Austin,Round for homes subdivisions weighted from off-fine transmission TX" Rock,and located in average sales sales averages .lines on Georgetown, subdivisions prices, no other by 0-5%for all various types TX through statistics were homes in all 8 of properties 1991.1997 which a evaluated. subdivisions. transmission This range of line passes values includes (on-line)and adjustments "williamson 42 vacant land !. those not(off- made for home and northern Vacant land line) lots size. 'Travis along . No statistical County,TX various analysis done. transmission Comparison Comparison lines in of actual based on actual Williamson vacant land sale prices. Area located and northern sales within an electric Travis transmission line County, easement has a Comparable 90%diminution type in value due to properties the presence of not the easement, impacted by Although an electric analysis of the transmission sales indicated line no discernable easements. difference in 1992-1996 value in tracts with and without electric transmission line easements,it is ':concluded that an area of 200 feet!wide BAO 1DHS APPENDIX G].2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DDCX. 88 Xi !1 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings k., TABLE B.2. Summa Rai ed Sales Ana ses Not Included In tfre 1992 Review Line Feattlresl Geographic Property Number of Statistical AutharlDate '. Client Type] Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Factors Tested area Time Period Observations Significance* adjoining the proposed easement has some diminished value. Extent of diminished value is dependent on various factors, ._ e.g., location of the remainder. Cowger, Bonneville 16 different "Portland,OR Residential Differences in 4 counties;2 in Difference in Data confirms Bottemiller,& Power transmission area home sales means test OR,and 2 in WA means between findings from Cahill.2000 Administratio lines, 115 kV ,(Washington abutting 260 pairs Subjects and 1996 analysis n(BPA) to 500 kV and BPA Mgh•' Comparables that overhead, Transmission Clackamas voltage only statistically high-voltage structures: Counb6sm transmis- significant(at transmission 1 line with OR) slon lines 95%confidence lines have a concrete Vancouver;::. 1994 and levels)for the minimal impact poles WA area 1995 Seattle data on residential 1 line with (Clark Regression property value. two-pole H- County) analysis indicate Data may not be frame wood Seattle,WA that the percent representative of structures area(King I differences are entire population 14 lines with County) not well of residential real lattice steel correlated with estate adjacent towers home and sale to overhead characteristics transmission lines in the Portland, Vancouver and Seattle markets. BA00EIS APPENDIX C.1.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.D X B-9 I • • • Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B''-2:-. Summary Paired Sales Ana ses Not included in the 1992 Review Line Features/ Geographic Property Number of Statistical Author/Date [:Client ` Type/ Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Factors Tested > Area Time Period Observations Significance" Wolverton and I Bonneville 16 different Portland,OR Residential ANCOVA 4 counties;2 in Most of the 1)Price effect Bottemiller Power transmission" area home sales Regression OR and 2 in WA coefficients on from abutting an 2003 Admmistratio lines,115 kV (Washington abutting model of 296 Subjects temporal date of HVTL right-of- IT to 500 kV and :BPA high- price on sales and 281 sale,site and way does not Transmission Clackamas voltage abutment or Comparables site improvement exist. structures Counties in transmis- abutment by (comps) R-Square 0.864; 2)There are no I tine with OR) sion lines geography 281 paired models are differences in concrete Vancouver, 1989-1992 (county) samples highly significant price - poles s- WA area (p-values less appreciation 1 line with (Clark than 0.001) over time for two-pole H County) Student Tt-tests properties frame wood Seattle,WA indicate price abutting and not structures area(King effects of abutting an 14 lines with County)" abutting an HVTL right-of- lattice steel HVTL right-of- way. towers way is not Authors caution significant. against Results generalizing confirmed by 4 from(1)above different since sample modeling data used in approaches& study was not a correlation representative analysis random sample. between the Authors suggest abutting an further study to HVTL factor and, confirm or refute location,and (2)above. building rmprovement variables T:The results are sigr itiFant and of the expected _sign and^ 6 Sample homes along transmission lines are referred to as Subjects in report. BAOJDEIS APPENDIX C 7.2 PROPERTY VALUE REVo0CX B 10 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE g fir. Summary Paired Sales Ana ses Not Included In the 1992 Review Line Feat4resl Geographic Property Number of Statistical AuthorlDate ' Client Factors Tested Area Type/ Methodology Cases and Results Conclusions Time Period Observations Significance* magnitude. Differences in the price appreciation rates for homes abutting and not abutting an HVTL right-of- way were found to be insignificant. BAO IDEIS APPENDIX C 7 2 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX 8-11 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B•3 _Summa of Studies Usin .Multi le Re ression Anal`sis in the Hedonic Model Format Not Included in the 199_2 Review _ Line Geographic Property Number of Statistical Results Author/Date Client Features/Factors Area'. Type/Time Methodology Gases and R•Squared, Conclusions Tested A Period Observations Significance Hamilton& BC 500 kV Vancouver, Residential Multiple 12,907 Likelihood ratio For properties Schwan. Hydro 230 kV British homes sales Regression transactions of tests(Chi-square) adjacent to a 1995 60 kV Columbia otsingle, single for functional transmission line,a transmission lines detached detached specifications for 6.3%decrease in dwellings in dwellings in the three distance value was found that 41 separate 4 study areas. zones are all was related to the neighborhoo Of these,2,364 significant, after closeness to the line ds were within correcting for and line visual 1985-1991 200 meters(m) heteroscedasticity. impact.The effects (656 feet[ft])of The functional were found to transmission relationships were decrease quickly with line with 426 found to be distance,dropping to being adjacent statistically a decrease of 1%of to or partially different across the value at 200 m(656 within the right- three distances. ft)from the center- .of-way Student T-statistics line. is significant at 0.06 indicating that the removing the existing visual externality of high- voltage electric transmission :towers increases property value by 5.7%for adjacent properties.For mid-range, properties,T- statisiieis 0sigmhcdht `Effect of-increasing„ distance of MID- . Range(for an I. average of 30 m) and Adjacent' _ ro ernes"from BAD WEIS APPENDIX C 72 PROPERTY VALUEREV.DOCX B 12 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B-3 Summary of tltdies Using Multi le Regression Anal`sis in the Hedonic Model Format Not Included in the 1992 Review Lme Property Number of Statistical Results Author/Date `Chen[ 'Featoresteactors `Geographic Type�me Methodology Cases and R-Squared, Conclusions Tested Area Period_ Observations Significance" transmission lines is statistically significant. Removing both visual effect of towers and proximity effect is statistically significant. Property values increase by 6.3% for 100 on(328 ft) and by 1.1%for Mid-Range properties. Kinnard et Indepen High Voltage Las Vegas, Single-family Multiple r. ;,5,952 of which Adjusted R- Results indicate that al., 1997 dent transmission lines Nevada residential .Regression `4,269 were Squared 0.9209 awareness and (Acade 138Kv 1989-1996 t-test ^'" single-family (for model that knowledge of the mic) r-,test while the rest includes detached construction and were duplex, 1-family only units), installation of the new triplex,and 0.9204(for model HVTL had no quadnplex. that includes significant or duplex,triplex, systematic negative quadriplex effect on prices. strgctures. Thus,knowledge of Model uses the Swedish studies, St. Louis and Single-family Multiple loglmear as captured by sales St.Charles residential Regression specification. after 1992, had no Counties, 1990-1996 t-test 1,377 of which impact on prices in Missouri r-test 956 did not Nevada. have a view of the HVTL ,Adjusted f1- and/or a Squared range Visibility of HVTL substation from 0.72(for ` ;;produced a modest while 421 had Study Area 3)to increase in average a view of the 0.96(for Study marketing time. HVTL and/or a Area 2)for base I Negative price substation. models that do not I impacts associated BAO IDEIS APPENDIX C 7.2-PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX B-13 I Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B-3 Summary of Studies Using_Multiple Regression AnaPy sis in the_Hedonic Model Format Not Included in the 1992 Review Line Property Number of Statistical Results Author/Date Client -Features/Factors Geographic TypelTime Methodology Cases and R•Squared, Conclusions Tested Area Period Observations Significance* include Distance with HVTUsubstation Zone,"Visibility"or proximity or visibility "After 1993". were less than 3% HVTL visibility and and non-significant. sales price in Study Area 2 were observed to be positive correlated and significant at the 0.05 level. HVTL proximity to property was also found to be positively correlated to sales price(at the 0.05 level). Des Hydro- High-voltage City of Single-family Multiple 507 of which Adjusted R- Severe visual Rosiers. Quebec transmission lines Brossard, residential regression 257 town Squared 0.951(for encumbrances 2002. 315 kV Greater 1991-1996 T-test cottages sold linear model), related to a direct Montreal F-test between Feb 0.968(for log-linear view of a area, 1991 and Nov model) transmission tower Canada 1996 Physical exerts a negative 383 houses characteristics impact on house I have a limited, All Coefficients are prices,averaging moderate Or of the right sign 10%for the area as a pronounced and magnitude and whole,and 148 rear,side or are°significant at where the setback front view on 0.05 With most between the the line. 34 ibeing sigri'ificant:at transmission line and houses are 0.01 Coefficients ,. lot boundary is 15 m adjacent to the relate to ago,,living ,(50 it).Properties at line area,propertytype the lower end of the 184 sold prior HVTL related '" market with severe to 1993 attributes visual:encumbrances 166 sold in Ad'usted`R-Square l expel fence BAO WEIS APPENDIX C7.2 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX J___ B-14 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings I TABLE B4� Summa of Studies Uslh ultipleReciressionAn al`.sis in the Hedonic Model Format Not Included in the 1992 Review One : Geographic Property Number of Statistical Results AuthorlDate Client 12.e5ttTesteactors Area TypetTime Methodology Cases and R-Squared, Conclusions _ Tested Period Observations Significance- 1993 0.86 to 0.97 for reductions in the 10 157 sold post models derived for to15%range,while 1994 specific market those at the upper segments and end experience locations. reductions of 10 to 20%.A direct view on the conductors reduces property values in the range of 5 to10%,and in some cases, 15%. Location next to an easement will not necessarily cause a decrease in property value. In some cases,the value of such properties can rI, increase between 7 and 22%because of increased privacy and an increased visual field. Along one transmission line segment,there was a loss in value of 5.3% for homes located 165 to 325 feet from the transmission line easement,and 4.1% for homes located 325 to 500 it from the 'easement. Along another line segment,there was an 8.4% ro ert SAO_IDEIS APPENDIX C 72 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOC% B-15 • • • Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B-3Si Summary of S[udies Uslti Multi le Re ression An sts in the Hedonic Model Format Not Included in the 1992 Review Line Geogra phic Property Number of Statistical Results AuthorlDate Client I`Features/Factors Area TypeRime Methodology Cases and R-Squared, Conclusions Tested . _ _ Period Observations Significance* value loss for homes within 50 on(165 ft)of - the transmission line easement,and a 12°/a loss for homes located 50 to 99 m (165 to 325 ft)away. After 99 in(325 ft), there was a loss of 0.7%, but this was not statistically significant,and after 152 m(500 ft),the effects on property values faded out entirely. Extensive media coverage of the 1992 Swedish epidemiological studies on EMF- induced health hazards had no measurable impact on house prices. Chalmers Northea High-voltage Massachuset Single-family Multiple 1,286 sales The adjusted R In the four study and st transmission lines is and residential regression transactions for ,Squared for the areas examined, Voorvart. Utilities 3145 kV Connecticut 1998-2007 T-test single family Base Model for the there is no evidence 2009. F-test homes located four,analpsis areas that either the within 2,000 ran'6ed'from.88.25 proximity or visibility Teet of 345 RY to 93.5Z of a 345-kV transmission, transmission line has lines on 130- The base models ,a systemic effect on foot high steel have good property values, poles located explanatory power in nine areas in _the independent ( Encmilcrance of the Massachusetts variables are transmission fine BAO IDEIS APPENDIX C 7 2-PROPERTY VALUE REV WCX B-Is Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B-3 1 a Summ2y of Studies using Multiple Re ression Analysis in the Hedonic Model Format Not Included in the 1992 Review Line Property Number of Statistical Result- s Author/Date Client Features/Factors eographic reslFactors TypeRime Methodology Cases and R•Squared, Conclusions Tested Arm Period Observations Significance- and generally easement on Connecticut statistically adjoining properties that were significant with the appears to have a grouped into anticipated sign negative effect on four analysis and are of property value, but areas. reasonable the statistical magnitudes. significance of this effect varies.The dollar value of this effect is small, implying an effect of $3,000 for a property with a 12,000 square foot encumbrance and a sale price of $300,000. Higher-valued properties show no greater sensitivity to the high voltage transmission line variables than lower- valued properties. No evidence was found that transmission lines have a greater effect on property values in a down market, although the !..numbers of 'observations in the relevant periods were small, BAO MEIS APPENDIX C 72-PROPERTY VALUE REVDOCX B-1] • . • Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings TABLE B-3 Summaryy of Studies Using Multi le Re ression Anal sis in the Hedonic Model Format Not Included in the 1992 Review Line Geographic Property Number of Statistical Results Author/Date Client `Features/Factors Type/Time Methodology Cases and R-Squared, Conclusions Tested Area Period Observations Significance` The presumption that high voltage transmission lines have material negative effects on property values is not warranted. BAO 0EG APPENDIX C.7.2 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX B-10 Appendix C.7.2 Transmission Lines and Property Values: Review of the Research and Summary of Key Findings • B.3 References Bottemiller,S.,J. Cahill,and J. Cowger.2000.Impacts on residential property values along transmission lines;an update study of three Pacific Northwest metropolitan areas.Right of Way. 18 (July August):18-20,55. Chalmers,James A. and Voorvart, Frank A. 2009.High-voltage transmission lines:,proximity, visibility,and encumbrance effects. The Appraisal Journal.Summer: 227-245. Cowger,J.,S. Bottemiller,and J. Cahill-1996.Transmission line impact on residential property values; a study of three Pacific Northwest metropolitan areas.Right ofWay 43 (September/October):1317. Delaney,C,and D.Timmons.1992. High voltage power lines: do they affect residential property value? The Journal of Real Estate Research. 7(3,),315-329. Des Rosiers,F.2002. Power lines,visual encumbrance and house values: a microspatial approach to impact measurement.Journal of Real Estate Research. 23 (3):275-301. Hamilton, S.and G. Schwann, 1995. Do high voltage electric transmission lines affect property value?Land Economics.71 (4):436-44. Kinnard,W.,M. Geckler,and J. DeLottie.1997.Post 1992 Evidence Of EMF Impacts On Nearby Residential Property Values.Price Effects from Publication of and Widespread Publicity About the Floderus and Al9born-Feychting;Studies in Sweden.A Paper Presented at the • 1997 Annual Conference American Real Estate Society. Sarasota,Florida. April 16-19. Kokel, L.1997. A Study of the linpac+gf Electric i'ransmission Lines on Real Estate Values. Prepared as a Supplement for the Appraisal of Various Parcels Located along State Highway 195 and IH 35 North of Georgetown, Texas. Kung,H., and G.Beagle. 1992:Impart of power.transmission lines on property values: a case study. The Appraisal Journal.July:413-418. Kroll, C., and T. Priestley,1992. The Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines on Property Values. Edison Electric Institute Siting and Environmental Planning Task Force,Washington, D.C.,101 pp. Rhodeside and Harwell and A,,White. 1992. Transmission Line Impact on Property Values. 1thodeside and Harwell and A. White.1995. Transmission Line Impact on Property Values; Supplementtlf Study: Visibility. The Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut,Inc.1988. Effects of Proximity to Marcy South Transmission Line Right of Way on Vacant Land Sales - Towns of Hamptonburgh and Wawayanda, Orange County, New York. Study commissioned by the New York Power Authority. Wolverton,M.,and S. Bottemiller.2003. Further analysis of transmission line impact on residential property values. The Appraisal Journal. (July 713):244-252. • RAO 0EIS APPENDIX C7.2 PROPERTY VALUE REV.DOCX B-19 Appendix C.8.1 Methods and Data Used to Determine Impacts for Geology.and Soils Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.8.1 Methods and Data Used to Determine Impacts for Geology and Soils • C.8.1.1 Methods of Analysis Data presented in the MSTI Montana Major Facility Siting Act Application (NWE 2008a)were used in conjunction with geographic information systems(GIS)database(s) to characterize soil and geology resources and potential impacts along the alternative transmission line routes.The geologic evaluation- focused on geohazards. Data were adapted for presentation using the six analysis zones and corresponding links and alternatives. Within a zone,data summaries, resource sensitivity analyses, and impacts determination were performed at the link and alternative scale to facilitate a comparison of impacts between the altematives. LROs are compared to the links they could replace if sehected. Analyses were performed for three separate disturbance areas including 1)transmission line corridor, 2)overland routes(roads)and 3) new roads. Within a zone, data summaries,resource sensitivity analyses, and impacts determination were performed at the link and alternative scale to facilitate a comparison of impacts between the alternatives. LROs are compared to the links they could replace if selected. Analyses were performed for three separate disturbance areas including 1)transmission line corridor, 2)overland routes(roads)and 3)new roads. Relative sensitivity classes were developed for geology/geohazards and soil resources based on their occurrence and key physical characteristics of the existing resource. The geologic evaluation focused on geohazards,including Quaternary faults, mass movement (potential or mapped)and areas of potential liquefaction,defined as floodplain alluvial deposits and unconsolidated mine tailings. Potential mass movement is defined as areas with cretaceous shales on slopes >1533.The presence or absence of mapped or potential geohazards resulted in high or low sensitivity and Impacts,respectively.Overall soil sensitivity(low, moderate,high)was determined usinga 6mbination of three parameters that characterize the soils sensitivity to water erosionl(K Factor),wind erosion(Wind Erodibility Group)and • relative productivity(T Factor). In addition to the specific soil factors discussed above, Circular MFSA-2 (MDEQ 2004b, Section 3.4, 1(k))requires the identification of areas 'With severe-reclamation constraints,including soils formed on Cretaceous shales, intrusive igneous rocks and lacustrine deposits. It is noteworthy that soils formed on these rock types are conservatively assumled to be present where the rocks are mapped,regardless of STATSGO soi data(KW, WEG and TFactor)iii these areas. For soils,including those formed,'on erodible rock types, the sensitivity classes were used in conjunction with slope to determine initial impacts during construction.For example, ground disturbance of soils formed on<intntsive"iticks would have a higher initial impact(i.e. erosion potential)on a steep slope compared to a relatively flat slope. Residual and permanent impacts`were determined for geohazards and soils in a similar manner as initial impacts,6ut after considering the application of resource-specific and management-based mitigation measures.The magnitude of an impact was determined based on the availability and implementability of the mitigation measures employed to alleviate the impact. For example,properly implemented erosion control and'revegetation plans and efforts can mitigate impacts associated with both initial and long-term soil egos n.The degree of success of the mitigation would be affected in part by the inherent sensitivity of the resource�to erosion and the slope,with impacts on steeper slopes more difficult to mitigate.All impacts associated with new roads were determined to be permanent. The size of the corridor for which information was analyzed is 1 mile on each side of the transmission line centerline or local routing options,for a total width of 2 miles. The proposed new Townsend and Mill Creek substations fall within this corridor. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.1 Page-1 MSTI Appendix C.8.1 • Methods and Data Used to Determine Impacts for Geology and Soils The total mileage of sensitive soils and geohazards was determined along the transmission line corridor center line.For determination of initial and residual impacts,the miles of sensitive soils were converted to acreage using the corridor disturbance model developed by NWE 2008a)and presented in summarized in Table C.8.1-1. This model provides temporary and permanent disturbance areas for towers,staging areas and other infrastructure. It is noteworthy that the largest disturbance of soils is associated with the forest right-of-way due to the removal of trees from this area.This disturbance was considered a temporary, initial impact for the soil and geology analyses. Table C.8.1-1. Disturbance Model for MSTI Transmission Line Alternatives Temporary Impact PernlanenW ip�ict Type of Impact Disturbance ac/mile Disturbatce r�7 ;°' a' a�e s 6 structures/mile Structures at 1.1 acres/ 6.60 Structures(1) 2.10 structure) Right-of-Way in Forests Only(150 to 220 feet Linear 26.70 wide)2 Mid-Span Conductor 2 acres every 3.4 Splicing Sites (hydraulic 0.59 method) miles Pulling/Tension Sites 3 acres every 3 1.00 -- for Tangent Structures miles • Pulling/Tension Sites 6 acres every 3 2 00 for Strain Structures miles Material Staging Sites 15 acres every 30 0.50 miles Concrete Batch Plants 5 acres every 35 0.14 miles 1 Conservatively assumes Self-supporting Steel Tubular tower;.greatest per acre disturbance. 2 Impacts to soilslgeology considered temporary initial impact C.8.1.1.1 Geology The goal of the geology evaluation is to present the geologic information required to permit an evaluation of potential risks, hazards, and impacts to the geologic resource and power line infrastructure. 0.8.1.1.1.1 Data Sources and Categories A G1S database was utilized for the geologic analysis and included geologic data that were gathered from several sources including the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology(MBMG), Idaho Geologic Survey (IGS)and the United States Geological Survey(USGS)(NWE 2008a). Geologic hazards were obtained from geologic maps and the USGS Quaternary Faults and Folds Database(USGS 2006)and summarized in GI S (NWE 2008a)and updated for this analysis. This database contains only faults that show evidence of being,t he source of a large-magnitude, surface-deforming earthquake during the last 1.6 million years. Geologic hazards include the following features: • Mapped mass movement(landslides). • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.1 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.8.1 Methods and Data Used to Determine • Impacts for Geology and Soils • Active faults. • Areas prone to potential liquefaction—These areas consist of unconsolidated alluvium or mine tailings mapped in stream or river floodplain areas and some lacustrine sediments considered to be the most prone to liquefaction because of the possible presence of fine-grained, unconsolidated alluvial materials in areas of relatively shallow groundwater(i.e.potentially saturated). In addition to mapped mass movements, potential mass movement areas, defined for this analysis as areas where Cretaceous bedrock underlies slopes> 15%,were identified for the transmission litre corridor. C.8.1.1.1.2 Sensitivity Classes Two general sensitivity categories were developed to characterize existing geologic conditions and assess' impacts associated with geohazards. • High Sensitivity—the presence within the link of any geologic hazard. • Low Sensitivity-the absence within the link of any geologic hazard. Initial Impacts High Impact High initial impacts were determined using the following criteria, • Infrastructure located on mapped faults and landslides, • The presence of liquefiable sediments presept on alluvial€loodplains and some lacustrine deposits • (playas and beach deposits). • High potential for landslidesinassmovement)on areas with slopes over 15 percent underlain by Cretaceous shales. Moderate Impacts A moderate initial mpact could occur itrinfrastructure,or ground disturbance areas on slopes> 15%. where rock is blasted or removed for infrastructure ot-road construction. Low Impacts A low initial impact could occur in infrastructure or ground disturbance areas under the following conditions:" ' On slopes <15%q where rocks blasted or removed for infrastructure or road construction. "On existing improved roads.' No Identifiable Impacts No'ldentifipble inidi'I impacts to the transmission line infrastructure and associated facilities would occur in tire absence of the hazards described above. No initial impacts to overland mads would be expected. Residual Impacts or Constraints Residuatimpacts reflect the implementation of mitigation measures,including avoidance,planning and design criteria for geohazard areas. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.1 Page-3 MSTI Appendix C.8.1 Methods and Data Used to Determine • Impacts for Geology and Soils High and Moderate Impacts No high or moderate residual geologic impacts or constraints are expected in infrastructure or ground disturbance areas. Low Impacts A low residual impact could occur in infrastructure or ground disturbance areas under the following conditions: • On slopes > 15 %where rock is blasted or removed for infrastructure or road construction,or,. unconsolidated material is removed for use in construction. • Areas of potential liquefaction, mass movement or active faults. No Identifiable or Substantial Impacts No identifiable or substantial residual impacts to geologic resources would occur on existing improved or unimproved roads and construction areas with slopes< 15%in areas where reclamation is'performed. C.8.1.1.2 Soils The goal of the soil evaluation is to provide an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project and associated roads on soil resources,including an evaluation of potential impacts to, and identify the presence of, soils that are susceptible to wind and water erosion and that have limitations to reclamation. These factors address in a general manner the physical(horizon thickness,structure;texture,organic matter, etc.)characteristics of soils that relate to their erosion sensitivity and limitations for revegetation • and reclamation and generally correspond with the key elements of concern in the USFS and BLM FMP's and RMP's, respectively. Hydric soils associated with wetland featuresare discussed in the Water Resources, Section 3.12. Soil resources associated with farmlands are addressed in the Land Use, Section 3.6. C.8.1.1.2.1 Data Sources and categories The soil CIS database contains data from the State SollGeographic(STATSGO)database and includes areas associated with the proposed links,alternative corridors and LROs.As described on the Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS) website"(Soil Survey Staff 2009), STATSGO is a digital general soil association map developed by the National Cooperative Soil Survey and distributed by the NRCS (formerly Soil Conservation Service) of the USDA. It consists of a broad based inventory of soils that can be cartographically shown at the scale mapped.The soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed soil survey maps.Where more detailed soil survey maps are not available,data on geology,topography,vegetation, and climate are assembled, together with Land Remote Sensing Satellite (LANDSAT)images.°The STATSGO was designed primarily for regional,multicounty, river basin, state,and multistate resource planning,management,and monitoring. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.1 Page-4 MSTI Appendix C.8.1 Methods and Data Used to Determine Impacts for Geology and Soils • Soil Loss Tolerance Factor(T Factor) This factor reflects the maximum amount of a given soil that can be lost without affecting its quality as a plant growth medium.T Factors are assigned to soils without respect to land use or cover and are used to compare soils.They do not directly relate to vegetation response(NRCS 2007c). The T Factor classes range from 1 through 5 and represent tons of annual soil loss that can be sustained without incurring,the effects discussed above. Thus, deeper soil will have a higher T Factor value and be less impacted by the effects of erosion.For this analysis,the T Factor was used, in conjunction with water[K(w)]and wind erodibility(WEG),as a surrogate for soil loss affecting revegetation efforts.T Factor values were grouped into the following classes: • 1—2: Least Resilient(Most Susceptible) • 3-4: Moderately Resilient(Moderately Susceptible) • 5: Most Resilient(Least Susceptible) Water Erosion Potential (Kw) The soil erodibility factor(Kw)quantifies soil detachment by runoff and raindrop impact for the soil as a whole,including both the fine and coarse fractions(NRCS 2007c).It is used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)and Revised USLE (RUSLE)to predict the long-term average soil loss from sheet and rill erosion under crop systems and conservation techniques.Experimentally measured Kw factors vary from 0.02 to 0.64 and are grouped into 14 specific classes including 0.02,0:05, 0.10,0.15, 0.17,0.20, 0.24,0.28,0.32,0.37, 0.43, 0.49, 0.55,and 0.64. These classes were consolidated into three broader groups shown below.This approach seemed reasonable for the purposes of comparing relative impacts between soils of varying classification at the scale of theMSTI project. • 0.37-0.64: Most Susceptible • • 0.20-0.32: Moderately Susceptible • 0.02-0.17: Least Susceptible Wind Erodibility Group (WEG) A wind erodibility group(WEG)is a grouping of soils that have similar properties affecting their resistance to soil blowing in cultivated areas. The groups are used in calculating the wind erosion index (NRCS 2007c).Soils are placed into wind erodibility groups on the basis of the properties of the soil surface layer including soil texture, organic matter and contents,calcareous reaction and mineralogy.The values for WEGjnclude 1, 2, 3,44L,5, 6,,,7, and 8.For the purposes of this evaluation,WEG values are placed into the following groups:,, • �1-2t Must Susceptible �' 3-6:Moderately Sffseeptible • 7-8: Least SuscePtible Soils Formed on Rock Types with Reclamation Constraints `Jr addition to the specific soil factors discussed above,Circular MFSA-2(MDEQ 2004b, Section 3.4, 1(k))requires the identification of areas with severe reclamation constraints, including soils formed on the following rock types: Cretaceous shales are fine-grained,fissile siltstones and mudstones formed in a shallow marine environment that can weather to produce soils that have relatively high clay and salt content that impedes the establishment of vegetation and can be prone to erosion. • Intrusives are igneous rocks that formed beneath the earth's surface and can weather to coarse- grained, nutrient poor, sandy soils prone to erosion. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.1 Page-5 MS T1 • Appendix C.8.1 • Methods and Data Used to Determine Impacts for Geology and Soils • Lacustrine deposits are characterized by fine,silty material deposited in lakes. They can have physical and chemical characteristics that impede the establishment of vegetation and can be prone to erosion. It is noteworthy that soils formed on these rock types are conservatively assumed to be present where the rocks are mapped,regardless of STATSGO soil data(Kw,WEG and T Factor)in these areas. C.8.1.1.2.2 Sensitivity Classes Three general categories(Table C.8.1-2)were developed to determine the sensitivity of aportion of a: given link to impacts associated with soil type as defined by the three soil factors descritiedabove.The, presence of any of the three categories within a higher sensitivity class for a given polygon`resulted in the conservative designation of the entire polygon to the highest sensitivity class.This is a`reasonable approach given that a high sensitivity for any factor would result in impacts and require fttitigation.The rankings were assigned to each soil polygon and summarized for each link and alternative corridor route using the following criteria: Table C.8.1-2.Soil Sensitivity Classes Category,• Sensitivity Class T Factor Kw WEG High 1-2 0.37-0.64 1-2 Moderate 3-4 0.20-0.32 3-6 • Low 5 0.02-0.17 7-8 Additionally, impacts to soils formed from Cretaceous shales,intrusives'and lacustrine deposits were evaluated(MFSA).It is noteworthy that these soils are conservatively assumed to be present where the aforementioned rack types are mapped regardless of the actual data(Kw,WEG and T Factor) in these areas.These sensitivity,rankings were assigned to the corresponding portion of each link using the following criteria: • High Sensitivity—the presence within the link of the rack types that weather to form soils with reclamation constraints. • Low Sensitivity,the absence within the link of the rock types that weather to form soils with reclamation constraints. Initial Impacts She impacts to soils were determined by combining slope classes and the sensitivity classes with the acreage of disturbance associated with transmission line infrastructure and new and overland road construction (NWE 2008a). No initial impacts were determined for new roads because they are presumed to be permanent and therefore have permanent impacts to soils. If these roads are reclaimed in the future, there would be some level of residual impacts. These were not quantified in this analysis. For overland road travel areas where disturbance of soil and vegetation is expected to be nominal,initial impact classes are adjusted downward (i.e. high impacts in disturbed areas equates to moderate impacts in overland travel areas). Initial impacts criteria for soils are summarized in Table C.8.1-3. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.1 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.8.1 Methods and Data Used to Determine Impacts for Geology and Soils • Table C.8.1-3. Soil and Erodible Rock Type Initial Impacts Classes Transmission Line Corridor Overland Roads Overall Soil Overall Soil Impacts Sensitivity Slope Sensitivity Slope High Any High None None Moderate or Low > 15 Moderate Moderate < 15 High Any Low >8 Moderate or Low >15 Low Low <8 Moderate <15 Low >8 No Impact None None Low < 8 Residual Impacts Residual soil impacts remaining after implementation of mitigation measures reflect a lower impact rating for a given slope as a result of mitigation including engineering and construction management, erosion control, and revegetation efforts(Section 3.8). It is presumed that such measures would be more difficult to successfully implement on very steep slopes and that initial impacts on such areas would in turn affect the residual,longer-term impacts.For Overland road travel areas where disturbance is expected to be nominal, residual impact classes are adjusted downward(i.e. highimpaets in disturbed areas equates to moderate impacts in overland travel areas). Initial impacts criteria for rsoils are summarized in Table C.8.1-4. Table C.8.1-4. Soil and Erodible Rock Type Residual Impacts Classes • Transmll Line Corddor Overland RoadS2 Overall Soil . z Slope' ,z erail Soil Slope Impacts Sensitivity' Sensitivity(i) High None None :: None None Moderate High 530 None None Low Moderate or Low B-36. High > 30 No Substantial Low" <'8 Moderate or Low 0-30 Impact t Applies to ail soils in ground disturbance areas as well as to soils formed on erodible rock types. ' 2 No initial impacts f©r new roads;all impacts presumed permanent(residual. Referen"`ces Cited Montana Department of Environmental Quality(MDEQ). 2004b.Major facility Siting Act Circular Ml SA-2,Application requirements for Linear Facilities. Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS). 2007c.National Soil Survey Handbook,title 430-VI. [Online]Available: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.1 Page-7 MSTI • Appendix C.8.1 • Methods and Data Used to Determine Impacts for Geology and Soils North Western Energy Inc. (NorthWestern or NWE). 2008a.Mountain States Transmission Intertie, Montana Major Facility Siting Act Application. (June 2008).Includes: Environmental Report, Technical Reports(Biological Resourcesi Cultural Resources, Geology and Sods,Visual Resources, Land Use,EMF, Noise, and Electrical Effects), 2009:Preliminary Plan of Development,Preliminary Road Layout Database, Volume 1-B, Appendix A—Engineering,,:; Cost, and System Planning Information. Completed by Power Engineers,Inc. (2008-2009). Soil Survey Staff. 2009. U.S. General Soil Map(STATSGO2)for Montana. Natural Resources Conservation Service,United States Department of Agriculture.Available online at http://Soildato mart.nres.usda.aov. U.S.Geological Survey(USGS). 2006. Quaternary fault and fold database for the Untied States. Available at http//earthguakes.usgs.gov/regional/gfaults/. List of cooperators:-,daho Geological Survev, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.1 Page-8 MSTI Appendix C.8.2 Geohazard Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.8.2 Geohawrd Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.2.1. Summary of Miles of Active Faults by Link Intersects tup Intersect Link Cen3er43ne Center lane" GYanr7Tatat 11-1 y 3.61 3.61 11-2 4.12 4.12 11-3 1.27 127 12 3.32 3.32 15-2d 9.13 9.13 16-3a 0.70 0:70 17-1 2.54 2.54 ` 17-2 8.70 8.70 19 10.75 10.75 21-1 4.8 4.8 29 2.03 2.03 30 5.26 5.26 5 0.74 0.74 6-1 2.07 2.07 6-2 - 2.42 2.42' 7-3 2.06 2.06 7-4 2 2.00 8-1 2.22 2.22 • LRO11-3 " 1103 1.03 LRO17.2 7.07 7.07 LR06-2 3:37 3.37 ER07 4 '2,69 2.69 Grand Total" 45.99 35.92 81.91 Table C.8.2-2. Summary of Miles of Mapped Mass Movement by Link Link -trand Tbtal(miles) 15-2d 0.22 2-2 .08 39 0.39 4-1a .04 LRO16-3c .02 LRO17-4 0.45 LRO2-2 0.29 Grand Total 1.49 Draft Environmental Impact Sta tement C.8.2 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.8.2 Geohazard Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.2-3. Summary of Miles of Potential Mass Movement for Cretaceous Shales on Slopes>15% Link >15%,slopefroiles) 1 10 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 0.49 11-5 12 0.20 13 0.23 14-1 14-2 14-3 15-1 0.16 15-2a 15-2b • 15-2c 15-2d 16-1 16-2 16-3a 16-3b 16-3c 16-3d 17-1 17-2 1.14 17-3 17-4 18 19 20 2-1 21-1 21-2 22 2-2 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.2 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.8.2 Geohazard ImpactAnalysis Tables Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.2-3. Summary of Miles of Potential Mass Movement for Cretaceous Shales on Slopes> 15% Link >15 9L slope(miles) 23-1 23-2 2-3a .04 2-3b 2-3c 2-3d 24 25 26 27 0.86 28 0.85, 29 30 31. 2.9 3-1 32 3-2 33 124 _ 34 0.81 35 36 37 38 -- 39 ---- 40 4-Sa 4=1b 4-2a- .06 4-2b 5 6-1 6-2 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 8-1 • Draft Environmental lm Impact C.8.2 Page-3 MS TI P g Appendix C.8.2 Geohazard Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.2-3. Summary of Miles of Potential Mass Movement for Cretaceous Shales on Slopes> 15% Link >15 46 slope,(tmil'as) 8-2 9-1 9-2a 9-2b 9-2c 9-3 LR011-3 0.96 LRO14-2 LRO16-2 LRO16-3c LRO17-2 1.35 LRO17-4 LRO2-2 LRO2-3b LRO28 0.76 LRO32 1.88 • LR04-2a-1 LRO4-2a-2 LRO4 2a 3 LRO4 2b LP06.2 LRO7-2 LR07-4 LRO9-3 — — Grand Total 15.95 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.2 Page-4 MSTI Appendix C.8.2 Geohazard Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.2-4.Summary of Miles of Potential Liquefaction by Link UnkNumber GfandTotalImilesy 11-1 1.91 11-2 0.58 11-3 .06 11-4 0.43 12 4.54 13 0.5 14-1 0.69 14-3 3.93 15-2c 0.57 15-2d 4.06 16-3a 3.03 16-3d 0.14 17-1 17-2 0.18 17-3 1 0.97 18 • 18 �'�3 - 19` 24,54 20 6.42 22 U.2 24' 1.9 2-2 0.25 29 0.42 30, 0.45 31 0.6 3-1 1.86 T 3-2 0.4 39 0.38 4-1a 1.28 4-2b 0.49 5 0.9 6-1 .09 6-2 1.05 7-1 0.28 8-1 0.31 LRO11-3 0.18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.2 Page-5 MSTI • Appendix C.8.2 Geohazard Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.2-4. Summary of Miles of Potential Liquefaction by Link Link Number Grand Total(miles) LRO17-2 0.42 LRO17-4 0.45 LRO2-2 .04 LRO6-2 0.33 Grand Total 62.44 • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.2 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3.1. Summary of Overall Soil Sensitivity by Link Overall Sensitivity(Miles). ? Link,. Low � Mode r Higli aran�Totat 1 3.32 3.01 6.34 10 1.99 1.16 316 11-1 12.88 0.1 12.98 11-2 2.75 275 11-3 2.06 0.13 2.18 11-4 .03 2.86 2.89 11-5 1.16 1.16 12 36.06 17.50 5356 13 14.84 5 43 . ' 20.7 14-1 3.63 7.32 1095 14-2 ': .:1.34 ,.:1.34 14-3 7.62 - 7.62 15-1 2-40' x., 2;40 15-2a =2.18 2.18 15-2b 0.45: 013. 0.58 15-2c 08 " 8.04 8.12 15-2d17 77 15.73 33.51 16-1 1.35 1.35 16-2 177 0.91 4.67 16-3a 5J4 5.62 11.35 16-3b 1.71 1.09 2.8 16-3c 8.68 .04 8.72 16-3d 12.83 12.83 17-1 4.07 0.82 4.9 17-2 7.73 2.84 10.57 17.3 5.19 5.19 _ 17-4 4.78 4.78 18 16 3.99 19.99 19 1.92 80.89 82.82 20 5.10 35.34 40.43 2-1 3.05 3.05 21-1 32.21 32.21 21-2 16.73 16.73 22 12.08 12.5 24.58 2-2 0.19 4.09 4.27 23-1 0.85 60.99 61.84 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-1 MSTI • i Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3-1. Summary of Overall Soil Sensitivity by Link Overall Sensitivity(miles), Link Loth Moderate ` High Grand Total 23-2 15.18 15.18 2-3a 8.16 12.22 20.38 2-3b 1.11 1.95 1.37 4.43 2-3c 6.22 14.99 18.15 39:36 2-3d 3.63 0.29 3.92 24 8.1 7.4 913 106.8 25 5.15 - 5.15 _ 26 0.71 0.97 1.67 27 6.32 5.79 15.11, 28 2.53 2.53 29 2.50 2.50 30 5.12 0.12 5.24 31 7.92 0.85 8:78 3-1 3.35 38.28 .41.64 32 3.75 - 3.75 3-2 2.73 - 1.94 4.68 • 33 13.48 13.48 34 -5.14 0.31 5.45 35 1.65 1.65 36 0♦61 0.61 37 1.18 013 1.31 38 .09 10.22 10.31 39 4.75 1.81 6.56 40 -J-- -- 23.45 23.45 4-1a 2.58 6.13 8.71 4-1b 1.39 1.39 4-2a 4.89 7.32 12.20 4-2b 5.20 4.76 9.97 5 1.03 14.43 15.46 6-1 3.26 4.08 7.34 6-2 2.47 2.47 7-1 2.13 2.13 7-2 2.70 2.70 7-3 .05 1.42 1.48 7-4 4.45 0.33 4.78 8-1 11.35 5.96 1731 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3.1. Summary of Overall Soil Sensitivity by Link Overall Sensitivity(miles), . Link tow Moderate High Grand Total 8-2 2.85 2.85 9-1 2.46 2.46 9-2a 3.04 0.94 3.98 9-2b 1.35 1.35 9-2c 0.77 1.73 2.50 9-3 1.84 1.84 LRO11-3 4.28 0.68 4.96 LRO14-2 1.32 1-.32 LRO16-2 3.08 1.72 4.80' LRO16-3c 5.25 2.54 7.80 LRO17-2 11.08 2.45 13.54 LRO17-4 4.72 4.72 LR02-2 0.3Q >, 448 4.77 LR02-3b 0.79 1.82 1.47 4:08 LR028 3.18-_. 3.18 LR032 4.02 4.02 LR04-2a-1 8.23 8.23 • LR04-2a-2 6.78 6.78 LR04-2a-3 0.46 5.09 5.55 LR04-2b 4:31 2.31 6.62 LR06-2 . 3.Z1 3.21 LR07+2 2 6 ..` 2.69 LR£07-4 _ 195 2.73 6.68 _.` LR09.3 1.68 1.68 Grand Totki,_. 16.22 390.87 657.43 1064.52 Table C.8.3=2.Summary of Soil Initial Impacts by Link impact acres) Link ligh Grand Total 1 - ' 35.98 32.63 68.61 10 21.60 12.58 34.17 11-1 125.37 15.26 140.63 11-2 21.39 8.38 29.77 11-3 17.43 6.23 23.66 11-4 31.27 31.27 11-5 9.92 2.61 12.53 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3.2.Summary of Soil Initial Impacts by Link Impact(acres) Link Low Moderate high Grand Total 12 202.80 425.65 628.45 13 120.42 102.11 222.53 14-1 23.54 95.08 118..612 14-2 14.50 14.50 14-3 82.52 ;82.52 15-1 23.61 2.34 25.95 15-2a 20.67 2.95 23.62 15-2b 4.64 1.65 6.30 15-2c 0.90 87.07 87. 7 15-2d 112.68 255.79= 368.46 16-1 14.65 14.65 16-2 3417 16.35 50.62 16-3a 34.59 88.85 123.44 16-3b 8.52 21 97 30.49 16-3c 75.19 25.22 100.41 16-3d 138.23 0.68 138.91 • 17-1 36.30 16.75 53.05 17-2 64.63 49.80 114.43 17-3 48.57 7.69 56.25 17-4 45.51 6.30 51.81 18 129.54 88.50 218.04 19 2084 881.90 902.74 20 55.21 382.69 437.90 2-1 33 33 213 348.88 348.88 21-2 181.18 181.18 22 130.81 135.41 26611 2-2 1.24 46.58 47.83 23-1 9.22 660.52 669.73 23-2 164.45 164.45 2-3a 55.08 305.6 360.68 2-3b 12.03 23.21 21.51 5635 2-3c 4.90 115.96 652.65 773.51 2-3d 40.22 3.12 43.34 24 87.35 80.39 988.60 1156.34 25 55.73 55.73 • Draft Environmental Impact Statem ent C.8.3Page4 MSTI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3-2.Summary of Soil Initial Impacts by Link impaet(ecres) Link Low Moderate High Grand Total 26 2.77 19.39 2216 27 21.57 276.13 29710 28 14.16 13.24 27.40 29 25.89 1.19 27.07 30 30.79 25.91 31 30.79 67.95 9875 3-1 31.02 421.17 452.19 32 19.80 20.80 40.60 3-2 19.72 30.92 50.64 33 90.40 61.55 151.95 34 31.19 27.80 58.98 35 14.62 3.25 17.87 36 '6.23 0.42 6.65 37 10.71 3.43 14.14 38 1.01 110.64 111.66 39 19.29 51.71 ' 71 40 253.98 253.98 • 4-1a 27.91 67.30 95.22 4-1b 15.05 15.05 4-2a 48.23 106.93 155.16 4-2b, ,.` ;,47.72 112.52 160.24 S 2.63 165.87 168-70 6-1 , '37.36 108.56 145.92 ,5-2 24.81 429 29.10 7-1, 23.03 23.03 7-2 29.02 0.18 29.20 7-3. 21.48 21.48 7-4 41.25 14.23 55.48 8-1 :' 109.25 80.11 189.36 8-2 30.85 30.85 94 38.02 38.02 9-2a 5.07 75.89 80.96 9-2b 1.93 26.96 28.89 9-2c 3.37 30.53 33.90 9-3 21.85 21.85 LRO11-3 10.69 43.77 54.46 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-5 MSTI • Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3-2.Summary of Soil Initial Impacts b Link p Y Impact(acres) Link Low Moderate Higfi Gtatr�iTotat: LRO14-2 14.35 14.35 LRO16-2 24.24 27.78 52.02 LRO16.3c 43.27 45.48 88.75 LRO17-2 80.38 66.21 146.59 LRO17-4 23.45 27.71 LRO2-2 2.92 50.31 :z4 LRO2-3b 7 18.65 22.84 48.48 LRO28 23.98 10.49 34.46 LRO32 14.18 30.21 ` 44..39 LRO4-2a-1 89.17 -> _-89.17 LRO4-2a-2 73.85 73.85 LRO4-2a-3 4.98 5516 60,14 LRO4-2b 38;37 43.59 81.96 LRO6-2 23.94 18.38 42.32 LRO7-2 28.92 019 29.11 LRO7-4 39.14 46.09 '! 85.23 • LRO9-3 18.89 18.99 Grand Total 111.28 3070.33 9338.87 12520.48 Table C.8.3-3, Summary of Soil Residual Impacts by Link Impact(acres) Ido Substantial n ` Link Low Moderate Grand That Impact 1 49.28 6.03 55.31 10" 25.24 2.31 27.55 11-1 65.68 47.68 113.36 11-2 10.36 13.64 24 11-3 3.74 15.33 19.07 11-4 4.94 19.26 1.01 25.21 11-5 4.46 5.64 10.10 12 206.50 305.53 3.94 515.97 13 80.57 99.18 0.23 179.98 14-1 45.77 47.27 2.57 95.62 14-2 5.03 6.66 11.69 14-3 64.04 2.19 0.29 66.52 15-1 5.96 14.96 20.92 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-6 MS TI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3.3.Summary of Soil Residual Impacts by Link impact acres) No Substantial LinYe Impact Low, Moderate Grand Total 15-2a 10.74 8.30 19.04 15-2b 3.54 154 5,08 15-2c 43.85 25.86 1.2 70.91 15-2d 142.77 153.77 1.57 2981 16-1 7.74 4.07 17-.81 16-2 22.33 18.48 40.8 16-3a 59.8 39.8 99.6 16-3b 1.85 17.55 5.2 24.6 16-3c 35.07 47.03 82.09 16-3d 61.88 50.09 111.97 17-1 21.04 21.72 42.76 17-2 42.05 49.22 0.97 92.24 17-3 26.60 18.75 45.35 17-4 24.81 16.95 41.76 18 101.39 -72,31 2.36 - 176.06 19 688.49 37.65 2.69 728.83 20 352.96 Q3 352.99 2-1 26.60 26.6 21-1 280.52 0.71 281.23 21-2 143.91' 2.14 146.05 2- 210.49 4.11 214.59 2-2 16.72 21.79 0.34 38.85 2°8-1 536.76 3.11 539.87 23-2,. 132.54 .02 132.56 2-3a '`. 34.98 238.95 43.94 317.87 2-3b 30.40 17.05 47.44 2-3c -.-142.25 480.19 68.43 690.86 2-3d ? 35.1 35.1 24 925.91 6.21 932.12 - 25 44.93 44.93 21` 4.53 13.48 0.64 18.64 27 17.69 223.22 25.05 265.97 28 1.24 20.85 22.09 29 15.61 6.21 21.82 30 12.39 33.32 45.71 31 11.16 67.89 1.26 80.32 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-7 MSTI • Appendix C,83 Soil Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3.3. Summary of Soil Residual Impacts by Link Impact(acres) No Substantial Link Impact Low Moderate Grand Total 3-1 143.76 194.35 26.65 364.75 32 5.23 27.49 32.72' 3-2 12.52 26.9 1.4 .0.82 33 37.04 86.60 123.64 34 15.53 32.01 '47:58 35 8.33 6.08 14.41 36 2.82 2.54 5.36 37 7.29 4.11 AA I 38 45.73 41.61 2.67. 90.01 39 6.73 43.35 7.16 57.23 40 204.73 204.73 4-1a 50.41 2617 0.25 76.93 4-1b 8.82 3 31' ,12.13 4-2a 51.64 75.68 2.22 " 129.5 4-2b 29.05 103.2 7.05 . 139.3 . 5 82.89 50.18 3 jt6 ' 136.24 6-1 29.85 94.98 5.68 130.52 6-2 1-8-41 5.49 23.9 7-1 18.29 0.27 18.56 7-2 20.15 3.39 23.54 7-3 6.62,, 11.76 18.38 7-4 21.26 20.86 3.32 45.44 8-1 111,78 40.78 0.46 153.01 8-2- 1795 6.66 0.25 24.86 9-1 4.42 21.99 6.43 32.85 9-2a 22 67.94 2.45 72.59 9-2b ,:: 0.21 25.86 26.07 9-2c ` 6.19 22.45 28.64 9-3 2.02 15.24 0.72 17.98 LR011-3 3.01 38.68 2.34 44.03 LRO14-2 4.43 7.14 11.57 LRO16-2 19.35 22.58 41.93 LRO16-3c 16.42 50.05 5.91 72.37 LRO17-2 41.43 76.18 0.55 118.16 LRO17-4 7.16 34.08 41.24 LR02-2 20.75 19.13 3.34 43.21 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-8 MS77 Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8,3.3. Summary of Soil Residual Impacts by Link Impact(acres) NaSobstantial Link M�pact Law Moderate Grand Total LRO2-3b 23.78 16.13 39.91 LRO28 4.97 22.81 2738-`` LRO32 4.90 31.06 35.96 LRO4-2a-1 63.98 7.90 71.9 LRO4-2a-2 57.17 2.45 59.6 LRO4-2a-3 30.34 17.46 0.67: 48.5 LRO4-2b 35.20 32.08 .0.78 ,..:68.1 LRO6-2 16.50 19.08 35;58 LRO7-2 21.67 1.79 23.47 LRO7-4 32.03 28.86 10.31 71.20 LRO9-3 2.15 12.79 0.52 15.46 Grand Total 6219.32 3809.65 255.98 10284.95 Table C.8.3-4.Summary of Soil Permanent,, Impacts by Ligk Link Graph Total[Acres) • 1 13.30 _ 010 6.63 114- 27.27 11-2 5.77 11-3 4.59 11-4 6.06 11-5 _ 2.43 12 112.48 ,.. 13 42.55 14-1 23 14-2 2.81 14-3 16 15-1 5.03 15-2a 4.58 15-2b 1.22 15-2c 17.06 15-2d 70.36 16-1 2.84 16-2 9.82 16-3a 23.84 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-9 MSTI • Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3.4. Summary of Soil Permanent Impacts by Link Link Grand Total(Acres) 16-3b 5.89 16-3c 18.31 16-3d 26.93 17-1 10.29 17-2 22.19 17-3 10.91 17-4 10.05 18 41.97 19 173.91 20 84.91 2-1 fi:40 21-1 67.65 21-2 35.13 22 51.62 2-2 897 23-1 129.87 • 23-2 31.89 2-3a _ 42`81 2-3b '...9.31 2-36 82.65 2-3d - 8.24 24 224.2 25 10.81 26 3.52 27 31.73 28 5.31 29 5.25 30 10.99 31 18.43 3-1 87.44 32 7.87 3-2 9.82 33 28.31 34 11.44 35 3.47 36 1.29 37 2.74 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-10 MS TI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3-4. Summary of Soil Permanent Impacts by Link Link Orand Total jAcres) 38 21.65 39 13.77 40 49.25 4-Sa 18.28 4-1b 2.92 4-2a 25.62 4-2b 20.93 5 32.46 6-1 15.41 6-2 519 7-1 4.47 7-2 5.66 7-3 3.10 7-4 10.03 8-1 36.34 8-2 5.98 9-1 5.17 • 9-2a 8,36 9-2b 2.82 9-& 5.26 9-3 3.87 i LR011-3"- 10.42 LRO14-2 2.78 LRO16-2 10.09 LRO16-3C 16.38 LRO17-2 28.42 LRO17-4 9.92 LRO2-2 10.02 LRO2-3b 8.57 LRO28 6.68 LRO32 8.43 LRO4-2a-1 17.29 LRO4-2a-2 14.23 LRO4-2a-3 11.66 LRO4-2b 13.90 x LRO6-2 6.74 LRO7-2 5.64 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-11 MSTI Appendix C.8.3 • Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3-4.Summary of Soil Permanent Impacts by Link Link Grand Total{Acres) LRO7-4 14.03 LRO9-3 3.53 Grand Total 2235.43 Table C.8.3-5. Summary of Miles of Cretaceous Shales by Link Link Grand Total 12 0.91 13 2,87 27 1.73 28 1.54 31 3.97 33 6.75 34 1.56 11-4 0.72 15-1 2.21 • 17-2 2.48 2-3a .09 4-2a 0.55 LRO113 1.12 LRO17 2: 5.44 LRO28 1.61 LRO32 2.08 :LRO4-2a-2'" 0.16 LRO4-2a-3 0.10 Grand Total 35.89 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-12 MS Ti Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3-6.Summary by Link of Initial Impacts for Soils formed on Cretaceous Shales [!n pact acres Unk Lowy- lOoderate High Grand Total" 12 7.1 0.5 2.2 9.8 13 15.4 13.2 2.5 311 27 1.7 7.8 10.2 19.7 28 0.8 6.6 9.2 16.7 31 5.4 6.4 31.6. 43.4 33 19.5 20.3 37.9 77.6 34 4.3 3.8 8.8 16.9 11-4 0.7 1.8 5.3'' - 7.8 15-1 6.1 16 1.8 23.9 17-2 6.9 7.6 12.3 26.9 2-3a 0.5 -x..0.5 0.9 4-2a 0.7 3;4 1.9 6 LRO11-3 0.2 1.6 10.6 12.3 LRO17-2 25 11.4 22.5 58.9 LRO28 1.5 7.7., 8.3 17.4 LRO32 0.3 18 21.3 23.4 LRO4-2a-2 1.7 1.7 LRO4-2a-3 ` ;x:,1.1 1.1 Grand Total`` 98.4 110.4 186.9 395.7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-13 MSTI • Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3-7. Summary by Link of Residual Impacts for Soils formed on Cretaceous Shales Impart(acres)':: : No Substantial Li»k Impact tow Moderate Grand Total - 12 5.7 0.9 1.3 7.9 13 12.4 12.7 25.1' 27 1.4 14.5 0.1 ,16.1 28 0.7 12.8 13.5 31 4.3 22.5 8.2 35 33 15.8 37.2 10.5 X63.5 34 3.5 9 1.1 173.6 11-4 0.5 5.7 6:3" 15-1 4.9 14.4 19.3 17-2 5.6 12.7 3.4 21.6 2-3a 0.4 Q,4 0.8 4-2a 2.7 2.1 4,8 LRO11-3 0.1 9 0.8 9.9 LRO17-2 20.1 :22.3 511.:.. "` 47.5 LRO28 1.2 12.8 0.1 14.1 • LRO32 0.2 8 10.8 19 LRO4-2a-2 1.4 1.4- LR04-2a-3 09: 0.9 - Grand Total 814: 197 41.8 320.2 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-14 MSTI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3-8.Summary by Link of Permanent Impacts for Soils formed on Cretaceous Shales Link Grand Total'(acresj,. 12 1.9 13 6 27 3.6 28 3.2 31 8.3 33 14.2 34 3.3 11-4 1.5 15-1 4.6 17-2 5.2 2-3a 0.2 4-2a 1.2 LRO11-3 2.3 LRO17-2 -11.4 LRO28 3.4 LRO32 " ,:,.. 4.4 LRO4-2a-2 0.3 LRO4-2a-3 0.2 • Grand Total 75.3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-15 MSTI • Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3.9.Summary of Miles of Intrusive Rock by Link Link Grand Total 5 0.68 12 5.08 27 7.84 2-3a 6.06 2-3b 3 2-3c 21.36 3-1 .06 4-la 0.76 4-Ib .07 4-2a 0.94 6-1 7.25' 7-2 1.80 7-3 1.48 7-4 0.37 8-1 5.01 ` 8-2 0.72 9-1 1.82 • 9-2a 216'` �9-2c 1.03 9.3 1.65 LR02'-3b 2.02 LRO4-2a-i 0 LRO4-2a-2 0.39 LRO7-2 1.68 LRO74 1.61 -.LRO9-3 1.54 Grand Total 76.37 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-16 MSTI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3-10. Summary by Link of Initial Impacts for Soils formed on Intrusive Rock Im act aeras Link Eovu. Moderate High - Gran&Total 5 0.6 0.6 7.4 8.7 12 3.2 18.8 79.8 101.8 27 9.3 38.9 127.4 175.6 2-3a 10.1 26.4 96.8 133:3 2-3b 21.6 12.9 6.7 41,2' 2-3c 29.8 104.7 3243 459.2 3-1 0.4 0.2 016 4-1a 0.1 3.2 4.9 8.3 4-1b 0.8 0.8 4-2a 3.8 2.6 3.8 102 6-1 34 50 59:6_:: 143.6 7-2 15.3 �4' 0.2 19 5,.. 7-3 7.8 4.6 9.1 21.5 7-4 2.1,. 5.7 7.7 8-1 37.2 11.6,_ 7.4 56.1 8-2 1.6 3.7 2.5 7.8 • 9-1 0.6 6.3 24.1 31 9-2a 2.3 4.4 312 39.9 9-2c 3.6 2.4 6.3 12.2 9-3 1.7 A 14.1 19.8 LR02-3b 8.1 11.2:,- 6.9 26.2 LRO4-2a-1 0 0 LR04.2a-2 ;2.8 1.4 0 4.2 LR07-2 r.16 2 0.2 18.2 LRO74 11 4.2 24.6 29.9 LR09-3 2.7 8 6.9 17.5 Grand Total 214.5 328.3 852.1 1394.9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-17 MSTI • Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3.11. Summary by Link of Residual Impacts for Soils formed on Intrusive Rock Impact acres No Substantfat Link Imp act LOW Moderate i Grandx " 5 0.52 4.74 1.99 7,2$ 12 2.73 56.36 32 91.1 27 8.08 127.2 23.89 159:17 2-3a 8.78 84.34 27.46 520.58 2-3b 17.85 17.05 34:90 2-3c 25.62 294.96 93.75 414.33 3-1 0.36 0.14 0.5 4-1a .08 6.58 6.67 4-1b 0.64 0.64 4-2a 3.05 4.32 0.85:. 8.22 6-1 29.85 85.85 12.7 126139 7-2 12.31 3.39 15.70 7-3 6.62 11.76 18.38 • 7-4 2.95 4,02 6.97 8-1 29.98 14.60 1.05 45.63 8-2 1.27 4.74 0.25 6.27 9-1 0.54 20.25 6.43 27.23 9-2a 194 23.38 10.02 35.34 9 2c 2.96- 7..09 10.05 9-3 1.38 14.22 0.72 16.32 LR02-3b 6.53 15.42 21.95 LR04-2a-1 .04 .04 LR04 2a-2 2.29 1.11 3.4 LR07-2 12.9 1.79 14.69 LRO7%4 0.86 13.94 11.72 26.53 LR09=3 2.15 11.59 0.52 14.26 Grand Total 179.34 827.77 227.38 1234.5 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-18 MSTI Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables Data Summaries by Link • Table C.8.3.12.Summary by Link of Permanent Impacts for Soils formed on Intrusive Rock �LInk° _ BrandTutal#acres� - 5 1.43 12 10.67 27 16.45 2-3a 12.72 2-3b 6.29 2-3c 44.86 3-1 0.12 4-1a 1.6 4-1b 0.15 4-2a 1.98 6-1 1,55.22 7-2 3.78 7-3 3.1 7-4 0.78 8-1 10.51 8-2 1.51 9-1 3.82 9-2a 4.53 • 9-2c 216 3.47 LR02 3b? 4.25 LR04 2a-1 .01 LR04 2a-2-" 0.82 LRO7-2 3.53 1:RO7-4 338 LR09 3 3.24 Grand Total 160.39 Table C.8.3-13. Summary of Miles of Lacustrine Deposits by Link Link Grand Total(acres) 19 2.6 20 2.8 22 0.2 24 1.9 Grand Total 7.5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-19 MSTI • Appendix C.8.3 Soil Impact Analysis Tables • Data Summaries by Link Table C.8.3-14. Summary by Link of Initial Impacts for Soils formed on Lacustrine Deposits Impact(aCr�s) ? Link Low Moderate Gland Totaf 19 2638 1.56 28.35 20 29.87 29.87 22 219 2.19 24 20.41 20.41 Grand Total 79.25 1.56 80.82 Table C.8.3-15.Summary by Link of Residual Impacts for$oils forme¢; ' on Lacustrine Deposits im act acres No Substantial' Link Impact,,,: Low Grand Total' 19 21.59 1.26 22.85 ` 20 24.08 24.08 22 1.77 .: 1.77 24 16.A5 16.45 Grand Total 63.88 1,26 - 65,15 'Table C.8.3-16.Summary by Link of Permanent Impacts for Soils formed on Lacustrine:Deposits Link Grand Total(acres) 19 5.5 20 5.79 22 0.42 24 3.96 Grand Total 15.67 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.3 Page-20 MSTI A}Pendix C.8.4 USFS Region 1 Soil Quality Standards Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI I Appendix C.8.4 USFS Region I Soil Quality Standards • FOREST SERVICE MANUAL Missoula, Montana FSM 2500 - WATERSHED AND AIR MANAGEMENT R-1 Supplement No. 2500-99-1 Effective November 12, 1999 POSTING NOTICE: Supplements to this title are numbered consecutively by title and calendar year. Post by document name. Remove entire document and replace with this supplement. Retain this transmittal as the first page of this document. This is the first supplement to this Title. Superseded Nevi Document Name (Number of Pages) 2550 6= 2509.18,2 9 Digest: 2554 - This FSM supplement updates'and clarifies the previous soil quality supplement (FSH 2509.18,2) based on recent research and collective experience from the field. This supplement replaces FSH R4 Supplement 2509.18-94-1, effective 5/4/94, chapter 2, Soil Qt alitty Mbrnitoring handbook in its entirety. /s/ Ronald D.Larsen (for) DALE N. BbSWORTH Regional Forester Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.4 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix G.8.4 • USES Region 1 Soil Quality Standards FSM 2500 - WATERSHED AND AIR MANAGEMENT R-1 SUPPLEMENT 2500-99-1 EFFECTIVE 11/12/1999 CHAPTER 2550 - SOIL MANAGEMENT 2554 - SOIL QUALITY MONITORING. 2554.02 - Obiectives. To meet direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other legal mandates. To manage National Forest System lands tinder ecosystem management principles without permanent impairment of land productivity and to maintain or improve soil quality. 2554.03 - Polic . Design and implement management practices that tnallitain or improve soil quality. Protection of the soil resource should be emphasized; restoration practices should be implemented where necessary. "Soil quality is maintained when erosion, compaction, displacement, rutting, burning, and loss of organic matter are maintained within defined soil quality standards._ Design new activities that do not create detrimental soil conditions on more than 15 percent of an activity area. In areas where less than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental"effect of the current activity following project implementation and restoration must not exceed • 15 percent. In areas where more than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality. 2554.04 - Responsibility. 1. Regional Foresters. a. Develop Regional Soil Quality Standards. b. Coordinate with Research in the selection of suitable methods for monitoring soil disturbances. c. Review Forest soil quality monitoring plans for technical adequacy and to ensure coordination within the Region. d. Review soil quality monitoring results for application to other areas and for coordination with Research efforts. 2. +!Forest Supervisors. a. Ensure that Forest-wide and project-level plans include soil quality standards. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.4 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.8.4 USES Region I Soil Quality Standards b. Assess the extent to which soil quality standards are being met and • whether they are effective in maintaining or improving soil quality. c. Provide training in the application of soil quality standards. d. Evaluate the effectiveness of soil quality standards and recommend adjustments to the Regional Forester. e. Report monitoring results to the Regional Forester. 3. District Rangers. a. Ensure that project planning documents identify measures necessary to meet soil quality standards. b. Conduct post activity implementation monitoring to determine if soil quality standards have been met. Consult with soil scientists to evaluate the need to adjust management practices or apply rehabilitation measures. 2554.1 - Monitoring. Management activities-,create various-amounts of soil disturbance, but ecologically sustainable land'stewardship can minimize adverse impacts on soils. Soil quality standards provide benchmark values that indicate when changes in soil properties and soil conditions would result in significant change or impairment of soil quality based ort available research and Regional experience (Page-Dumroese et al. In Review) Prope"-pplication of these standards requires professional knowledge and judgement. Soil quality standards apply to Iands where vegetation and water resource management are.the principal objectives,--that is, timber sales, grazing pastures or allotments, wildlife habitat, and riparian areas. The standards do not apply to intensively.developed sites such as mines,-developed recreation sites, administrative sites, or rock quarries. They are not intended to prohibit other resource management practices such as, installing waterbars or preparing sites for planting, as long-as such practices are consistent with long-term sustainability of the soil resource. permaneri --roads do affect soil-hydrologic function, however, their revaluation is more appropriately done on a watershed basis using models and other watershed analysis tedhniques. 1. Detrimental Soil Disturbance. These disturbances includes the effects of compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, surface erosion, loss of surface organic matter, and soil mass movement. At least 85 percent of an activity area must have soil that is in satisfactory condition. Detrimental conditions include: Compaction. Detrimental compaction is a 15 percent increase in natural bulk density. The cumulative effects of multiple site entries on compaction should also be considered since compacted soils often recover slowly. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.4 Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.8.4 USFS Region 1 Soil Quality Standards • Rutting. Wheel ruts at least 2 inches deep in wet soils are detrimental. Displacement. Detrimental displacement is the removal of 1 or more inches (depth) of any surface soil horizon, usually the A horizon, from a continuous area greater than 100 square feet. Severely-burned Soil. Physical and biological changes to soil resulting from high- intensity burns of long duration are detrimental. This standard is used when evaluating prescribed fire. Guidelines for assessing burn intensity are contained in the Burned-Area Emergency Rehabilitation Handbook (FSH 2509.14,, Surface Erosion. Rills, gullies, pedestals, and soil deposition are all indicators of detrimental surface erosion. Minimum amounts of ground cover necessary to keep soil loss to within tolerable limits (generally less than 1 to 2 tons per a6fj es per year) should be established locally depending on site characteristics.` Soil Mass Movement. Any soil mass movement caused by management activities is detrimental. 2. Organic Matter Guidelines. The loss of surface organic matter Qan cause nutrient and carbon cycle deficits and negatively affect physical,and biological soil conditions. Objectives for fine organic matter layer thickness and distribution should be determined locally based on similar soils or ecological types. The direct • benefits of coarse woody material to soils can vary widely, depending on ecological type. Research guidelines such as those contained in Graham et al. 1994, should be used if more specific local guidelines are not available, Since the management of coarse woody materiafis important to wildlife, fire, and other resources, integration based:on local objnctivesneeds to-occur. 3. Monitoring_MettLods. Visual methods are generally used to make initial evaluations of the effects of management activities on soils. The major objective of soil quality monitoring is to ensure that ecologically sustainable soil management practices are being applied. In most cases, qualitative estimates will be considered sufficient. The use of photo points provides good documentation and is recommended. Measurements and detailed sampling are used to calibrate visual methods and to conduct investigations where visual methods are inadequate or where benchmark or statistically valid sampling is required. a. Areal Extent Sampling. Estimates of the percent of an activity area affected by detrimental soil disturbance can be made visually or by transecting. If statistically valid techniques are needed for benchmark sites, determine sample size and transect design using procedures described in Howes, Hazard, and Geist 1983. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.4 Page-4 MSTI I Appendix C.8.4 USFS Region I Soil Quality Standards b. Soil Sampling Techniques. Soil displacement, rutting, severely burned • soil, erosion, mass movement, and above-ground organic matter can be observed and measured. Soil compaction can be assessed by observing management-induced platy structure or by evaluating changes in bulk density, macroporosity, or penetration resistance using appropriate methods. Tile spade estimations of soil compaction are very effective and can be calibrated with soil strength (Clayton 1987). Root-restricting bulk densities for various soil particle-size classes are displayed in the National Soil Survey Handbook, 618.06. These bulk density values can also be used as indicators of detrimental soil compaction. Randomly located samples should be taken prior to soil disturbance to estimate the natural bulk density, penetration resistance, infiltration rate, or soil structure. If the site has been previously disturbed, an adjacent area with similar soils can be sampled. DEFINITIONS Activity Area. A land area affected by a management activity to which soil quality standards are applied. Activity areas must he feasible to monitor and include as harvest units within timber sale are , prescribed burn areas, grazing areas or pastures within range allotments, riparian areas,`recreation areas, and alpine • areas. All temporary roads, skid trails, and landings are Considered to be part of an activity area. Bulk Density. The-mass of dry soil per unit volume, corrected for weight and volume of coarse fragments greater than 2mm in diameter. Compaction. A physical change in soil pr6perties from compression, vibration, or shearing that'inereases sail bulk density and decreases porosity, air exchange, root penetration, infiltration, and permeability. Coarse Wood, Material. Organic materials on the soil surface such as plant stems, branches, and logs with a diameter greater than 3 inches. Detrimental Soil Condition. The condition where established soil quality standards are not met and the result is a significant change in soil quality. Displacement. The removal and horizontal movement of soil from one place to another, usually by mechanical forces such as dozer blades, repeated vehicular traffic, or the yarding of logs. Fine-Organic Matter. Organic materials such as plant litter, duff, and woody material less than 3 inches in diameter in contact with the soil surface. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.4 Page-5 MSTI • Appendix C.8.4 USFS Region 1 Soil Quality Standards • Ground Cover. Ground cover consists of vegetation, fine organic matter, coarse woody material, and rock fragments larger than three-fourths inch in diameter in contact with the soil surface. Hydrologic Function. Soil hydrologic function is the ability of the soil to absorb, store, and transmit water, both vertically and horizontally. Changes in soil bulk density, soil structure, and ground cover can alter the hydrologic function of-the soil. .. Restoration. Treatments that restore vital soil functions to their inherent range of variability. It is recognized that treatments may need to occur over�aperiod of. years and may need to be maintained. Restoration treatments could include, but` are not limited to, tillage, ripping, seeding, mulching, recontouring if temporary roads, and water barring. Rutting. Deformation of the soil under saturated conditions resulting in' detrimental changes to soil structure and reduced porosity. Soil Function. Primary soil functions are: (1) the sustenance of biological activity, diversity, and productivity, (2) soil hydrologic function, (3)filtering, buffering, immobilizing, and detoxifying organic and inorganic materials, and (4)`�storing and cycling nutrients and other materials. Soil Mass Movement. The detachment and downslope movement of soil or the • surface mantle in the form of debris slides/avalanches or deep-seated rotational failures or slumps. Soil Quality. The capacity of a specific soil to function within its surroundings, support plant and animal productivity, maintainer enhance water and air quality, and support human health and habitation, Surface Erosion. The detachment and transport of individual soil particles by wind, water, or gravity. Surface erosion is the loss of soil in a fairly uniform layer across the land surface (sheet erosion), in many small rills, or as larger gullies. REFERENCES Clayton, James U.; Kellogg, Gary; Forrester, Neal. 1987. Soil disturbance - tree growth relations in central Idaho clear-cut. Research Note INT-372. Ogden, Utah: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6 p. Graham, Russell T.; Harvey, Alan E.; Jurgensen, Martin F.; Jain, Theresa B.; Tonn, Jonalea R'; Page-Dumroese, Deborah S. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the rocky mountains. Research Paper INT-RP-477. Ogden, Utah: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13 P. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.4 Page-6 MSTI I Appendix C.8.4 i USFS Region 1 Soil Quality Standards Howes, Steve; Hazard, John; Geist, J. Michael. 1983. Guidelines for sampling some • physical conditions of surface soils. Region 6-RWM-146-1983. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 34 p. Page-Dumroese, D.;Jurgensen, M.; Elliot, W.; Rice, T.; Nesser, J.; Collins, T.;,, ` Meurisse, R. In Review. Soil quality standards and guidelines for forest sustainability: a synthesis of monitoring and research results in northwestern North America. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, Idaho. 24 p. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.4 Page-7 MSTI • `Appendix C.8.5 Soil Relative Mitigation Cost Estimate Draft Environmental Impact Statement MS 77 Appendix C.85 Soil Relative Mitigation Cost Estimate C.8.5.1 Introduction • This document briefly summarizes the approach used to develop the relative costs for mitigation and reclamation for impacts for each alternative of the MSTI project. Many site-specific factors that can greatly affect actual costs cannot be known at this time. For this reason,this estimate is intended to provide a relative comparison of costs between the alternatives based on analysis of impacts determined using the methods described in Section 3.8.2 of the EIS and Appendix C.8.1. Impacts related to geohazards are primarily concerned with impacts to structures and infrastructure of the transmission line. It was assumed that mitigation efforts associated with geohazards would therefore be addressed through planning,design and construction methods applicable to the entire corridor(primarily avoidance of high risk areas or features). Costs associated with these actions are not considered in mitigation cost calculations. C.8.5.2 Approach The primary impacts to soils are erosion,compaction, mixing of soil horizons and a loss of productivity. These impacts are mitigated primarily through implementation of erosion control and reclamation/revegetation efforts. For this reason, soil mitigation costs are closely tied to revegetation and reclamation efforts. Components of reclamation would include ripping subsoil,placement of topsoil, regrading,seedbed preparation,seeding/fertilization,erosion control and rated control.To be consistent among resources,the reclamation cost estimate developed for vegetation mitigation(section 3.12 of the EIS)was utilized in conjunction with the approach described below'. Assumptions regarding unit costs for reclamation are footnoted in C.8.3-1. Costs related to additional site-specific ilivestfgations performed in support of final design of the transmission line are not included. The per acre costs for reclamation of upland areas provided in the vegetation section of the EIS was • utilized as a baseline for recla rprior in "average"'disturbance areas assumed to have a low slope(< 8 generally dry soil conditions and not present any serious impediments to reclamation (bedrock,very high coarse fragment content,high clay percentage).Obviously,conditions will vary greatly along the length of the power line cocridor but this variation is addressed somewhat through the approach described below. Relative cost estimates for mitigation activities wetegleveloped based on the levels of residual impacts to soils. Residual$oil impacts take into account keylktors that would control costs of a given mitigation measure including,the sensitivity of the resource to an impact and slope.The level of effort for mitigation should therefore be generally proportional to the residual soil impacts associated with a given alternative. For example,reclamation of disturbances on steeper slopes requires not only more time and effort but 'typically more etosion'trol measures relative to a flat or gentle slope. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.5 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.8.5 • Soil Relative Mitigation Cost Estimate Table C.8.5.1. Preliminary Estimate of General Upland Reclamation Unit Costs for the MSTI Project Number of Item Rough Cott Estimate years Total Uplands Average Ripping to a Depth of 12 inches (per acre) $1,3001 1 $1,300 Design and Recontouring (per acre) $3,0002 1 $3,000 Seeding (per acre) $3503 1 $350 Weed Management(per acre) $70 4!year 5 '$350, 1.RS Means 2003. 2.Personal Communication:Robert Secor,Secor Excavation, Inc.,Bozeman,Montana Estimate includes use of three types of heavy equipment(ranging from$110-$3001hr)and up to 8 hours to recontour and lay,6 inches of topsoil„boors will vary depending on soil conditions(rock content)and topography.Total cost also includes estimates for mobdizatiort�fuel, permitting,bonding,and per diem. 3.Circle S Seeds,Three Forks,Montana;price will vary as a result of native species utilized and species aimlability.Seed may need to be added each yearto compensate poor germination rates as a result of climate,animal consumption or other environmental stressors;this cost is incorporated into the estimate.Estimate also,includes labor for Seed application. 4. Personal Communication: Dynamecc Property Services,Bozeman,Montana. To develop an estimate of relative costs that account for impacts and terrain variations as described above, an"average" per acre cost for reclamation ($5,000) was multiplied,by the,follo'wing values for each the corresponding residual impact class: • No Impact= 1 • Low Impact= 1.1 • Moderate Impact=1.25 To calculate a weighted average cost for each alternative,the sum of the acreage of residual impacts(less permanent impacts associated warh tower's and infrastructure) plus one half of the acreage of new roads was multiplied by the values above(1, 13 or 1.25) for the respective impact class and the resulting product was then multiplies by the per acre reclamation cost.Although new roads are presumed to be permanent,this approach accounts for some of the costs associated with reclamation of borrow areas and disturbed areas adjacent to roads.Although general in nature,this should provide a reasonable comparison of costs between alternatives. It is noteworthy that this cost estimate does not take into consideration unique obstacles that may be present within portions of agiven alternative.For example, reclamation costs would be higher in areas where topsoil needs to be imported from greater distances.Costs can also be affected by"rough"terrain and bedrock encountered within the Snake River Plain or mountainous areas along the proposed transmission line corridor. C.&S 3 Analysis Results of the analysis are presented in Table C.8.5-2. Unit costs were used as an index to discuss the relative costs of mitigation between alternatives in the EIS. In Zone 1,mitigation costs are notably higher for Alternative 1A than for the other alternatives in Zone 1 (Table 3.8-11).Alternative IA has substantially greater areas of impacts associated with tree removal in • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.8.5 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.8.5 Soil el tive R a Mitigation Cost Estimate the forest right-of-way.This,in combination with sensitive soils, some formed on intrusive rocks,and • relatively steep terrain in some areas, leads to higher unit costs relative to the other alternatives.Costs for Alternative 113 are somewhat higher than for Alternatives 1C and 1D for similar reasons as Alternative IA. In Zone 2, relative soil mitigation costs are somewhat greater in Alternatives 2C and 21)because of impacts associated with the presence of more forested right-of-way and sensitive soils. Mitigation unit costs are very similar between alternatives within Zones 3 and 5 owing to the similarity in terrain and soil sensitivity through which they travel and lack of forests. Zones 4 and 6 each have only a single alternative so a comparison of costs is not possible. • Draft Environmental Impart Statement C.8.5 Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.8.5 Soil Relative Mitigation Cost Estimate Table C.8.5-2.Summary of Soil Mitigation Relative Costs Residual Impacts Acres lRoads anent Total Cost Unit Cost Zone Alternative Miles None Low Moderate s Acres $ $Imile A 818 335 764 113 163 6,991,172 65,516 B ^ 90.2 446 538 32 125 5,698,703 63,157 1 C 94.9 442 422 V 38 112 5,045,991 53,177 D 54;1 291 .245 13 108 3,156,783 58,397 A 57.5 210 -357 11 39 3,175,816 55,217 B 57.2 244 313 _ 13 78 3,225,065 56,419 2 C 89.7 361 598 23 215 5,774,413 64,349 D 64.4 192 50428 167 4,330,981 67,251 E 53.6 207 306 4 184 3,198,749 59,721 A 72.2 321'' 311 4 -.636 112 3,621,500 50,138 3 B 67.2 303 284 6 593 211 3,640,996 54,204 C 72 287 331 16 "635 235 3,946,725 54,806 4 A 20 101 72 2 176 27 986,690 49,368 A 107.4 899 42 3 943 23 4,800,015 44,694 B 114 988 7 0 995 54 5,113,620 44,872 C 117.5 1022 3 0 1025' .52 5,259,832 44,780 D 111.3 971 1 0 ,; 972 50., 4,982,057 44,769 6 A 106.8 926 6 0 932 224 5,223,000 48,904 Draft Environmental lmpactStatement C.8,5 Page-4 J MSTI i Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic ,Units and Sediments i Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments C.9.1 Sensitive Geologic Unit Descriptions • The following geologic units, occurring within the study limits of the MSTI project area,have been identified as having a degree of paleontological sensitivity that is moderate(Class 3) or higher(Class 4 and Class 5). Individual descriptions of the units were compiled from the geologic maps and reports referenced in Section 3.9 and Chapter 8 of the EIS The types of paleontological resources that may potentially occur in these units is based on the geologic time frame in which the formation was deposited and are also described. C.9.1.1 Alluvium, Fans, Dunes, Terraces,Sand Sheets Class 3a, Moderate These units include a variety of sediments deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch. Marty of these deposits are poorly lithified and contain a variety of sediment types. Sediments include thick conglomeratic sequences,fine to coarse-grained sandstones, mudstones,and other fin-grained overbank deposits,thick gravel beds, and fine-grained wind-blown deposits.Although relatively rare, paleontological resources do occur in these deposits.Fossils or partially-lithifigd remains that may be found in these units include Pleistocene megafauna,including giaritsloths, short faced hears, tapirs, two species of now extinct llamas,peccaries, the American lion,giant condors,American cheetahs(not true cheetahs), saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, saiga, camelops, at least two species of bison, stag-moose, horses,mammoths and mastodons, and giant beavers. C.9.1.2 Older Alluvium Class 3a, Moderate These units include valley fill deposits associated with drainage courses deposited during the Pleistocene and Pliocene epochs. Sediments associated with these deposits include gravels,sandy gravels,sandstones, • thinly interbedded very fine sand,-gilt and clay, and poorly developed paleosols. Many of these sediments may also be associated with outwash streams from continental glaciation.Paleontological resources are very rare in this unit,but may be present,and include the Pleistocene megafauna listed in Section C.9.1.1 and Pliocene mastodons and,gomphotheres, camel,deer, horses, rhinos, tapirs, ebalicotheres,diverse carnivores (including the weaseLfamily),ground sloths,and glyptodonts. Less common potential fossils would include reptiles,birds and fishes. C.9.1.3 Quaternary Surf iciaTSedimepta�Deposits Class 3 a br b, Moderate These deposits consist'of;generally unconsolidated alluvial materials similar to those described in Sections C.9.1.1 add C.9.1.2.Fossils may include those identified in Sections C.9.1.1 and C.9.1.2. C.9.1.4 Undivided Sedimentary Rocks#1 Cfass 4, High rhest`.nriits include unnamed deposits from the Pliocene and Miocene epochs.Of the geologic maps including this unit,none gives a detailed lithologic description.In general these units are comprised of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, sand,silt and clay interpreted to have been deposited by streams and "'lakes These units are commonly referred to as"basin fill.Fossils that may be found in these units include the,Pliocene fauna listed in Section C.9.1.2 plus Miocene micro-mammals(mostly rodents)as well as the larger equids, perissodactyls, procyonids,camelids.Other common fossils that may be present include turtles,fish,amphibians,reptiles,and non-marine molluscs. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-I MSTI • Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments • C.9.1.5 Fine Grained Sedimentary Rocks Class 4, High to Class 5a-5b, Very High 9 rY 9 These units include various undifferentiated deposits from the Miocene Epoch. Sediment types include grayish-pink to grayish-orange clayey,tuffaceous siltstone with grayish-brown to light gray conglomeratic sandstone beds,and numerous lenses and some beds of dominantly pebble conglomerate or gravel that may be either matrix or clast-supported. Siltstones typically have numerous calcareou5tootlet, - traces, and zones of root casts are present locally.Conglomerate or gravel typically includes cldsts derived from the Archean Eon (older than 2,500 Ma)and dark extrusive and intrusive volcanic rocks, characteristically including reddish brown scoria as well as chert, quartzite,and rare limestone. Locally, conglomerate or gravel clasts are dominantly cobble and small boulder size. Glassy ash Beds are present locally in the siltstone. Fossils found in these units would include Miocene micro-mammals(mostly rodents) as well as the larger equids,perissodactyls,procyonids,camelids.Other common fossils that maybe present include turtles, fish, amphibians, reptiles,and non-marine molluscs.to the Madison bluffs area(Gallatin County,MT),bone fragments and pieces of opalized wood are common.v6ssils found in lenses of pebble conglomerate or gravel in the basal and middle parts of the unit were identified as a Merychippus jaw bone and teeth. C.9.1.6 Sixmile Creek Formation Class 5a-5b, Very High This formation was deposited during the Miocene Epoch.the sandstone and siltstone include light gray and olive-gray to yellowish-gray,pale brownish gray and grayish-`orange,fine to medium-grained, calcareous,cross-laminated,partly tuffaceous sandstone and siltstone.These sedimentary rocks are interbedded with units of thicker and more massive, yellowish--gray, partly tuffaceous fine-grained • sandstone and siltstone and sandy or silty tuff, and light gray fine to medium-grained,calcareous crystal tuff in beds.Many beds contain isolated small well rounded"pebbles of basalt, quartzitic sandstone, and chert,and thin beds, lenses, and,rhannel fills of pebble conglomerate or conglomeratic sandstone.Also, many beds are thinly laminated or crosslaminated and some are characterized by large,festoon cross laminations.The conglomerate lithology includes cobbles and pebbles,well rounded,mainly of locally derived quartzitic sandstone, chest, limestone, dolomite, and rare quartzofeldspathic gneiss.They also include basalt,vesicular basalt, and a small percentage of Belt Supergroup pebbles and cobbles derived from the Gravelly Range gravel.This formation is commonly well sorted,with cobbles,and rare boulders of vesicular basalt floating in'a pebble-sand matrix.It is interbedded light gray to pale yellowish-gray calcareous, partly-tuffaceous siltstone and very fine-grained sandstone in beds. Fossils found in this formation would include Miocene micro-mammals(mostly rodents)as well as the larger equids, perissodactyls,procyonids, camelids. Other common fossils that may be present include turtles, fish, amphibians,reptiles„arid non-marine molluscs. 0.9.1.7 Undivided Sedimentary Rocks#2 Class 4, High to Class 5a-5b, Very High These units include unnamed deposits from the Miocene to the Oligocene epochs.Lithologies present include light gray to orangish-pink tuffaceous conglomerate, sandstone claystone,and clayey limestone. Most units are poorly sorted and weakly hardened with very crude bedding. Some units contain abundant shards of volcanic rock debris.The fossils found in these units would include the Miocene fauna listed in Sections C.9.1.4, C.9.1.5 and C.9.1.6 plus the common vertebrate fossils from the Oligocene including a wide variety of reptiles and mammals. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments C.9.1.8 Vitric Tuff and Tuffaceous Sedimentary Rocks • Class 3a, Moderate These units include primary volcanic ash and reworked volcanic ash deposits from the Miocene to the Oligocene epochs.The vitric tuff includes light gray to pinkish gray pyroclastic deposits with very fine ash grains and glassy phenocrysts. The sedimentary rocks include light brown to light gray,poorly to moderately hardened, massive to poorly bedded,tuffaceous siltstone,and fine to medium-grained sandstone.The fossils found in these units would include the Miocene fauna listed in Sections C.9.1.4, C.9.1.5 and C.9.1.6 plus the common vertebrate fossils from the Oligocene including a wide variety of reptiles and mammals. C.9.1.9 Bozeman Group Class 5a-5b, Very High This unit contains a wide range of heterogeneous beds from the Tertiary Period ranging in age from the Miocene to Eocene epochs.Many of the units are similar in composition to the Miocene anif Oligocene undivided sedimentary rocks and Sixmile Creek Formation described in Section C.9.1.5.Other Eocene fossil assemblages include fossilized wood,stumps and leaves from,trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood,as well as many other subtropical and tropical species:Leaf fossils from deciduous trees are also common. Common and important mammals included creodonts,uintatheres,titanotheres, pantodonts, anthracotheres,chalicotheres,rhinoceroses,and camelids. Reptiles,rodents,birds,and fish are also common specimens found in Eocene deposits.In general,this group contains tuffaceous sandstones,siltstone and shales,conglomerates,and minor limestone beds. C.9.1.10 Climbing Arrow Formation Class 3b, Moderate • This formation was deposited duYirtg,he Oligocene and Eocene epochs.Lithologies include pale olive, light olive brown,and reddish-brown,bentonitic,sandy clay and claystone that display"popcorn' weathering;yellowish-gray,coarse-grained,argillaceous sandand sandstone;and white, tuffaceous siltstone and fine-graf6ed sandstone composed almost entirely of volcanic glass. The fossil assemblages found in this formation are similair to the Oligocene andEucene formation in Section C.9.1.9. C.9.1.11 Dunbar Creelrformation Class 3a, Moderate This formation was deposited during the Oligocene and Eocene epochs. Lithologies are dominantly -grayish-yellow,yellowlsh-wbite, and-light gray,tuffaceous siltstone,and fine-grained sandstone,with isolated coarse-grained sand stone arid conglomerate beds and lenses;and calcareous,tuffaceous paleosol weds.The-conglomerate be --t formation have subangular to subrounded granule and pebble-size clasts; coarse sand and granule-size glassy quartz grains; and rarely, isolated pebble to small cobble-size €lasts of scoria and silicified wood.Conglomerates are dominantly matrix-supported. Many of the coarse- grained sandstones are poorly sorted and superficially resemble granitic rocks by their clast composition and distribution.Some sandstones also contain many red grains that may be derived from Proterozoic Belt rocks. The'Ibwer part of the formation includes yellowish-white, light gray to gray, light brawn silty or sandy tuffaceous limestone interbedded with calcareous siltstone, fine-grained sandstone, and air-fall "ash beds The fossil assemblages found in this formation are similar to the Oligocene and Eocene fbiutaf 6D in Section C.9.1.10. Draft Environmental Impact Statement CA Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.9 Paleontologicolly Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments • C.9.1.12 Renova Formation Class 4, High This formation has been classified as part of the Bozeman Group(Section C.9.1.9)and was deposited during the Oligocene and Eocene epochs.The formation is composed of channel-fill conglomerates, plagioclase arkoses, and complexly interbedded flood plain silty, tuffaceous sandstones and limestone paleosols. Deposition of this formation has been interpreted to represent a high sinuosity stream system that flowed from southwest to northeast in the late Eocene and early Oligocene epochs. Deposition by a high sinuosity stream is indicated by the proportions of paleosols and floodplain sediments to channel-fill conglomerates and current direction is signified by sediment provenance. The fossil assemblages found in this formation are similar to the Oligocene and Eocene formation in Section C.9.1.11. C.9.1.13 Red Hill Member of the Renova Formation Class 3b, Moderate This member of the Renova Formation was deposited during the Oligocene and Eocene epochs. Lihhologies are dominantly moderate-red and reddish-orange mudstone with thin beds atirf lenses of pale olive-gray or moderate red,very coarse-grained, immature sandstone,with clasts that include limestone, shiny black chert,clear and rose quartz, and red mudstone rip-up clasts;granule, pebble, and conglomerate lenses of similar composition in red mudstone matrix; and lunestone breccia with red mudstone matrix. This unit typically weathers to red soil,The fossil assemblages found inrhis formation are similar to the Oligocene and Eocene formation in Section C,9.1.12. C.9.1.14 Beaverhead Group • Class 3, Moderate This group is characterized by interbedded sandstone,silcstone,mudstone, and conglomerate deposited and was formed during the Paleocene Epoch and late Cretaceous Period. Sandstone lithologies are typically yellowish-gray,light olive-gray to light gray, fine-grained to medium-grained,rarely coarse- grained, commonly moderately to well rounded and well sorted; and locally containing abundant grains of dark gay chert,locally calcareous, commonly cross-bedded;locally contains scattered pebbles and pebbly zones of yellowish gray to dark gray chert; in places contains abundant fragments of partly fossilized wood,`charcoal,lignite, and leaf imprints.Sfltstone and mudstone lithologies are yellowish- gray to olive-gray or dark gray,partly calcareous,locally bentonitic, and interbedded.Conglomerate lithologies are medium gay to yellowish-gay,thin to thick-bedded, containing well rounded pebbles or subangular to sub-rounded chips of medium gray to dark gray or yellowish-gray chert, and less abundant quartzite in a matrix of medium to very coarse sand. Mammals known to occur in Paleocene age deposits in this epoch include multituberculates,insectivores, primates,:,condylarths creodants,and pantodonts.A variety of reptile specimens are also quite common. Although present,bird specimens are quite rare.The Cretaceous-age deposits include marine fossils such as mososaurs;plesiosaurs,bony fishes,sharks, and rays.Invertebrate marine fossils include ammonites, scaphites, baculites,pelecypods,and a variety of crustaceans. Terrestrial vertebrate fossils include dinosaurs,reptiles,amphibians,turtles, birds,and small mammals. Common dinosaurian taxa represented during the Cretaceous include tyrannosaurids,ornithomimids,elmisaurids,dromaeosaurids, hypsilophodantids,troodontids, hadrosaurids,pachycephalosaurs, ceratopsians, and ankylosaurs. Terrestrial invertebrates include a variety of pelecypods and gastropods.Plant remains and petrified wood are also common. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-4 MSTI Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments C.9.1.15 Colorado Group • Class 4, High The Cretaceous-age Colorado Group is most commonly medium light gray to yellowish or greenish-gray or olive-gray,very fine to medium-grained,but coarse-grained in places, with subrounded or subangular grains of quartz,dark gray chert, feldspar, and biotite; commonly calcareous,with some beds nearly sandy limestone;laminated or cross-laminated, and thinly plary.This sandstone is pebbly or conglomeratic in places,containing well rounded pebbles of quartzite and chert. Sandstone beds may be thick in single beds or in intervals,interbedded with siltstone and mudstone, making up most of the formation. The basal sandstone of the formation is light to medium gray, fine to mediuni�grained with abundant chert grains. Siltstone and mudstone are olive-gray to medium gray or medium to dark gray, partly bentonitic,partly porcellanitic, chippy, and typically concealed. Limestone is meditu_n gray to olive-gray, fine-grained,thinly platy,in thin and irregular beds,nodules, and concretion's. The Cretaceous-age deposits include marine fossils such as mososaurs,plesiosaurs,bony fishes,sharks, and rays.Invertebrate marine fossils include ammonites, scaphites,baculites,pelecypods, and a variety of crustaceans.Terrestrial vertebrate fossils include dinosaurs,reptiles,amphibians turtles,birds, and small mammals. Common dinosaurian taxa represented during the Cretaceous include tyrannosaurids, omithomimids,elmisaurids,dromaeosaurids,hypsilophodontids, troadontids,hadrOsaurids, pachycephalosaurs,ceratopsians, and ankylosaurs.Terrestrial invertebrates include a variety of pelecypods and gastropods. Plant remains and petrified wood are also common. C.9.1.16 Frontier Formation Class 3a, Moderate The Frontier Formation was deposited during the late Cretaceous Period and is comprised of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and limestone.The sandstone in this formation ranges from light to dark gray,but most commonly is medium light gray toyellowish or greenish-gray or olive-gray.The sandstone is typically very fine to medftim-grained,with subrounded or subangular grains of quartz, dark gray chert, feldspar,and biotite. It s Commonly calcareous with some bens nearly sandy limestone; laminated or cross-laminated,andthinly pfaty.,,Sandstne is pebbly or conglomeratic in places, containing well rounded pebbles o6quartzite and chert~'5andstone beds may be thick in single beds or in intervals or interbedded with siltstone andemudstone making up rhost of the formation.The basal sandstone of the formation is medium gray to medium-light gray,fine to medium-grained with abundant chert grains. Siltstone and mudstone are olive-gray tomediwn gray or medium to dark gray,partly bentonitic, partly porcellanitic,chippy,and typically concealed:'Limestone is medium gray to olive-gray, fine-grained, thinly peaty;in thin and irregular beds, nodules,and concretions.The fossil assemblages found in this formation are similar twibe Cretaceous formation in Section C.9.1.15, C.g:TIT Blackloaf Formation 'Glass 5a-5b,Very.HHigh This formation was-1eposited during the Cretaceous Period and consists of three recognizable units, an upper sandstone, amiddle shale,and a lower sandstone. Upper Sandstone Unit—Medium to Iight gray and pale red to yellowish-gray and dusky yellow, fine-to `'medium.gfained,calcareous,subrounded to subangular grains or quartz and sparse chert,locally cross- lanunated, and interbedded medium gray to olive-gray,fissile to chippy shales and mudstone.The basal sandstone of unit is thin bedded to massive. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-5 MSTI • Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments • Middle Shale Unit—Dark gray to medium dark gray,fissile to chippy,light olive-gray and brownish-gray to grayish-brown,calcareous,chippy mudstone and silty or muddy limestone;interbedded with sparse beds of yellowish-gray, fine-grained sandstone. Lower Sandstone Unit—Sandstone and interbedded sandstone,mudstone,and shale.This sandstone is medium to light gray to dusky-yellow,and weathers to distinctive rusty color. It is very fine-to medittm- grained with subrounded to subangular grains; calcareous; partly thinly laminated or cross laminated and pebbly or conglomeratic in places. Interbedded siltstone, mudstone and shale are medium to light gray and light olive-gray to medium to dark gray,calcareous, partly fissile to chippy.Interbeddedlimestone is medium gray to grayish-brown,very fine-grained,in platy.The basal sandstone typically is olive gray or yellowish-gray to pale red, fine-grained with well rounded to subangular grains of quart,,,and sparse ibert, and is usually calcareous. The units described above may all contain Cretaceous fossils similar to those listed fn Section C.9.1.15. C.9.1.18 Thermopolis Shale Class 4, High This formation was deposited during the Early Cretaceous. Lithologies include dark gray-weatbered, fissile shale that contains many thin bentonite beds and several sandstone beds including a yellowish brown-weathered,thin-bedded, and fine-grained basal sandstone bed.The middle of the Formation contains a brownish-gray-weathered,medium-gratified, trough cross-bedded,hummocky of ripple-bedded sandstone bed and a reddish-brown, lenticular,.fiine to medium grained,limonite=cemented sandstone bed. The fossil assemblages are similar to those found in Section C.9.1.15. • C.9.1.19 Undivided Sedimentary Rocks#3 Class 3a, Moderate to ClassrfibiNery High These units include several unspecified formations from the,Cretaceous to the Jurassic periods. Lithologies present include variegated sandstone,siltstone,shale and limestone. Deposits may represent nearshore marine, offshore marine, and terrestrial environments.The Cretaceous-age fossil assemblages are similar to those identified in Section C.9.1.1Ti,Jurassic fossils that may be found in these units include vertebrate marine fossils suchas marine reptiles(e.g,plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs),turtles,and various fishes. Marine invertebrates include a variety of molluscs, crinoids,crustaceans, and belemnites. Terrestrial vertebrate fossils include dinosaurs,reptiles, amphibians,turtles, and very rarely mammals. Dinosaurian taxa represented during the Jurassic include a wide range of diverse therapods,sauropods, oraithopods and the less diverse stegosaurs.Terrestrial invertebrates include a variety of pelecypods and gastropods.Plant remains and petrified wood are also common. C.9.1.20 Morrison Formation Class 5a-5b, Very.High This formation was deposited during the Jurassic Period. It is primarily composed of olive-gray, greenish- gray,dusky-yellow,pate red to light brownish-gray,and medium-dark gray,fissile to blocky mudstone and shale. It includes nodules up to 3-feet long and thin interbeds of medium-light gray to blackish-red, very fine-grained, conchoidal limestone. Includes thin interbeds of olive-gray,rusty weathering fine- grained,dirty sandstone as much as 40 feet thick in some areas but absent in others. Jurassic fossils that may be'found in these units include vertebrate marine fossils such as marine reptiles (e.g.plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs),turtles, and various fishes.Marine invertebrates include a variety of molluscs, crinoids, crustaceans,and belemnites.Terrestrial vertebrate fossils include dinosaurs,reptiles,amphibians,turtles, and very rarely mammals.Dinosaurian taxa represented during the Jurassic include a wide range of • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-6 MSTI i Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments diverse therapods, sauropods, ornithopods,and the less diverse stegosaurs. Terrestrial invertebrates • include a variety of pelecypods and gastropods. Plant remains and petrified wood are also common. C.9.1.21 Undivided Sedimentary Rocks#4 Class 2, Low to Class 5a-5b, Very High These units include several formations from the Jurassic to the Triassic periods. Formations present V include the Morrison, Thaynes,Woodside and Dinwoody.The fossil assemblages found in this Formation are similar to the Jurassic fossils listed in Section C.9.1.20. C.9.1.22 Undivided Lower Pennsylvanian and Mississippian Rocks Class 2, Low to Class 3b, Moderate These units include the Upper Mississippian and Lower Pennsylvanian Snowcrest Range Group and the Lower to Upper Mississippian Tendoy Group,the Upper Mississippian Railroad Canyml Pormation, and carbonate rocks originally mapped as the Mississippian Madison Group, Paine Limestone,and Milligen Formation that are now included in the Surrett Canyon, South Creek, Scott Peak, Middle Canyon,and McGowan Creek Formations. The upper two-thirds of the formatidS is medium to dark gray to pale red, thin to thick-bedded, fine to medium-grained limestone and interbedded brownish gray to pale red siltstone and mudstone;the lower third of the formation is grayish-red to dark gray mudstone and papery shales. Rocks of Pennsylvanian age in this unit consist of only marine invertebrates including various corals, brachiopods and other bivalves, fusulinids, and trilobite trace fossils(Cruziana).The Mississippian assemblages also include crinoids, bryozoans and rarely fish-fu sils. C.9.1.23 Big Snowy Group • Class 2, Low to Class 3b, Moderate This group was deposited wring the Early Pennsylvanian and Mississippian periods and consists of three units,upper, middle and lower. The upper`unit consists of dark gray to black, fossiliferous shale, shale limestone,and cherry litestone.3 he middle,unit consists of red,pink,and pale yellowish-orange sandstone, sandy siltstone sandy dolomite,and subordinate red siltstone.The lower unit consists of red and pink dolomitic siltstone,and red to purple hackly shale with subordinate thin,light gray or very pale orange dolomite,Qr dolomite-clas2 breccia.The fossil assemblages found in this unit are similar to those listed in Section C.9,1.22. =0.9.1.24 Madison Group Class 2,Low to Class 3b,.Moderate This group includes the Mission Canyon and Lodgepole Limestone formations and was deposited during the Mississippian Period.The Mission Canyon Limestone consists of gray,microcrystalline, thick- bedded,locally fossil-bearing limestone with abundant gray,black,olive-black,and pale yellowish- brow% lentil-shaped or elongate chert nodules. Solution breccia and paleo-karst features are apparent in some areas.Thg Lodgepole Limestone consists of dark gray, thin-bedded,fossiliferous, microcrystalline limestone,with yellowish-brown and grayish orange, thin partings and interbeds of calcareous mudstone. Fossil assemblages found in this unit consist of marine invertebrates such as various corals,brachiopods and other bivalves, fusulinids, and trilobite trace fossils(Cruziana),crinoids, bryozoans and rarely fish fossils, Draft Environmental Impact Statement C,9 Page-7 MSTI • Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments • C.9.1.25 Snake River Group Class 1, Low to Class 4a, High This group consists of Upper Pleistocene Snake River Plain basalt lava flows. Pleistocene and Holocene terrestrial vertebrates are found in lava tubes and caves within the basalt. C.9.1.26 Geertson Formation Class 3a, Moderate The fossil-bearing components of the Geenson Formation in the MSTI corridor area consist of Quaternary colluvium, fanglomerate and talus. Some glacial debris may be present in upland valleys. Terrestrial vertebrate fossils include mammoths and bison. C.9.1.27 Yellowstone Group Class 3a, Moderate The fossil-bearing components of the Yellowstone Group in the project corridoxarea consists of Quaternary alluvium. Some glacial deposits and colluvium may be present in uplands Known fossils include mammoth and camels. Table C.9-1. Mileage Summary by Link and Paleontological Sensitivity Class' PotenlW Fossil Yield+ev4fssificatio* rM Grand , Link None 3a or b 3a . 3b 4 i orb= Sa&b Total 1 3.6 2.7 6.3 • 5 2.8 4.9 7.8 15.5 10 0.1 0.5 2.6 3.2 12 29.6 15.6 1 5.6 2.9 53.6 13 2.0 18.3 20.3 18 20.0 20.0 19 24.2 45.0 13.7 82.9 20 36.6 3.9 40.5 22 ==.2.8 - 21.8 24.6 24 "= A8 83.0 106.8 25 5.0`" 5.0 26 1.7 1.7 27 145 0.6 15.1 28 2.5 2.5 29 - 1.8 0.4 0.3 2.5 30 0.9 0.3 4.0 5.2 31 2.1 1.8 4.8 8.8 32- 3.7 3.7 33 8.8 4.5 13.3 34 4.8 0.6 5.4 35 0.8 0.9 1.7 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-8 MS TI Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments Table C.9-1. Mileage Summary by Link and Paleontological Sensitivity Class' • Potential Fossil Yield Classification Gravid Link None -306w b 3a 3b 4 1 or 4a Sa&b Total 36 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.6 37 0.6 0.3 0.4 113 38 7.0 3.3 10.3 39 6.1 0,2 03_- 6.5 40 4.9 18.6 23.5 11-1 0.0 12.9 12.9 11-2 2.7 2.7 11-3 0,1 0.0 2.1 2.2 11-4 2.9 2.9 11-5 0,9 0,3' 12 14-1 2,8 8.2 11.0 14-2 1.3 1.3 14-3 1.8 58 7.6 15-1 - 2.4' 2.4 15-2a 2.2 2.2 15-2b 0.6 0.6 I 15-2c 0.2 1.0 0.6 6.3 8.1 • 15-2d 162 4.2 11,8 0.5 0.8 33.5 16-1 1.4 1.4 16-2 4.7 4.7 16-3a 4.7' 1.0 5.7 11.4 16-3b 12.8 0p 2,8 16-3c 4.5 3.2 1.0 8.7 16-3d 0.1 1,,tl 10.9 12.8 17-1 43 4,9 17-2 2.4 0.8 7.2 10.4 17-3 ,4A 1.1 5.2 3Zr4 23 2.5 4.8 2-1 3,t 3.0 21-1 ' 13�9 18.4 32.3 21-2 t 2.7 14.1 16.8 2-2 1.6 2,7 4.3 23-1 _ 57.0 4.9 61.9 23;2 6.1 9,1 152 2-3a 10.5 1.1 2.6 2.2 4.0 20.4 2-3b 4.4 0.0 4.4 2-3c 35,5 3.9 39.4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-9 MSTI • Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments • Table C.9.1, Mileage Summary by Link and Paleontological Sensitivity Class' -Potentiat Fossil Yield q!aSsificatiort Gragtl Link. None 3a orb 3a 31b 4 1or4a ` 5a&b TotaF 2-3d 3.3 0.6 19.: 3-1 12.5 11.1 4.4 0.9 12.7 41.6 3-2 4,7 4.7 4-1a 0.6 3.8 4.3. 8.7 4-1b 1.4 14 4-2a 12.2 ,_` 12.2 4-2b 2.5 1.0 5.8 11.7 10.0 6-1 7.3 7.3 6-2 1.9 0.6 2.5 7-1 2.1 2.1 7-2 2.7 2.7 7-3 1.5 1.5 7-4 0.4 4.4 4.8 8-1 8.1 2.8 6.* 17.3 8-2 0.9 19 2.8 9-1 0.6 1.9 2.5 • 9-2a 4.0 4.0 9-2b 1.3 0.0 1 3 9-2c 1.1 0.3 1.1 2.5 9-3 1.3 0.5 1.8 LRO11-3 0.2: '2.2 + 2.6 5.0 i LRO14-2 1.0 0.3 1.3 LRO16-2 0.2 4.6 4.8 LRO16-3c 4.4 3.4 7.8 LRO17-2 0.4 3.4 0.6 0.4 6.0 10.8 LRO17-4 4.0 0.3 0.4 4.7 �LRO2-2 1.5 2.8 0.5 4.8 LRO2-3b 4.1 4.1 LRO28. 3.2 3.2 LR032 40 4.0 LRO4-2a-1 3.3 3.3 LRO4-2a-2 5.5 0.2 1.1 6.8 LRO4-2a-3 4.9 0.2 0.5 5.6 LRO4,2b 2.8 1.6 2.2 6,6 LP06-2 3.2 3.2 LRO7-2 2.7 2.7 LRO7-4 1.9 4.8 6.7 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-10 MSTI Appendix C.9 Paleontologically Sensitive Geologic Units and Sediments Table C.9.1. Mileage Summary by Link and Paleontological Sensitivity Class 1 • Poter lFossd Yield Classification Grand Link None 3a or b $a 3b 4, 1 or4a Sa&b Total LRO9-3 1.1 0.6 1.7 Grand Total 485.1 10.4 150.3 27.4 13.1 187.5 183.2 1056.9 i 1—The most sensitive value is assigned to all units with a range of sensitivity class values(i.e.2—3b;3a—5 a&b);exception is class 1 or 4a,which represents fossils found in caves(class 4a)with basalt flows(class 1)on the Snake River Plain. i • f I Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.9 Page-11 MSTI • Appendix C.10.1 Cover Type Descriptions C.10 Appendices (C.10.1 - C.10.7) include cover type descriptions,a complete list of noxious weeds known to occur in the project area, rangeland health for grazing allotments in the project area, estimated impacts to)ndividuwl grazing allotments, and detailed special status plant tables. • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.10.1 Cover Type Descriptions Plant cover type and habitat data were derived from aerial photo-interpretation,Gap Analysis Program • (GAP)land cover data, and field checking by Power Engineer biologists.Plant cover type and habitat information was further refined during PBS&J's review, as well as reviews by agency specialists of initial work products. i Field checks conducted by Power Engineer biologists consisted of identifying general habitat characteristics, ground truthing GIS data,and capturing GPS and photo points of check locations,Field investigation and verification were conducted where necessary during the weeks of September 16'h, October 10 2007,and January 20ih, 2008.Over 250 field points located throughout the project area were checked and a total of 330 photos points were taken in Montana and Idaho. In addition to the data collection efforts by Power Engineers described above,PBS&J updated the species occurrence information in the MFSA Biological Resources Technical Report.This included collection of new data for new route alternatives not covered in the MFSA application.Additional biological data were collected from scientific literature, aerial photography and agency contacts.New draft National Wetland Inventory(NWI)wetland/riparian GIS data were obtained from the MNHP for portions of Zones 1 and 2 (MNHP 2009a).MTNHP is currently developing NWI mapping data for different potions of the Montana. A PBS&J wetland scientist reviewed wedandlripanan mapping for the entire project area using aerial photography in a GIS system. Color infrared aerials (NAIP 200t,)from the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP)were used in the Montana portion of the project area and natural color NAIP aerial photographs (NAIP 2004)were used in the Idaho portion of the project area.Previously unmapped glr wetland/riparian areas were mapped and existinolygons were modified or reclassifiedas necessary within 300 feet of the proposed alternatives and all preliminary roar)locations.Other land cover type polygons were evaluated during this process and charigo if determined to require reclassification. Additional changes were made based on input from BliM,MDEQ,USFS, and/or Power Engineers resource specialists. For each community type a few of the more common plant species that can occur in a community type are provided as examples.Actual species assemblages`and theirtelative composition can and will vary considerably from site to site because of varying levels of precipitation, soil texture and fertility, elevation, aspect, and"other site spectfic factors. Forests The conifer and broadleaf forest communities are represented by juniper,mixed conifer,and mixed conifer deciduous,forest land use'categaries..The conifer forest cover type includes Rocky Mountain juniper(Juniperus skopulorum),limber pine(Pinus flexilis),Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine(Ping ponderosaf lodgepole pine(Pinus contorta), Engelmann spruce(Picea -engelmannii), stdbalpine fir(Abies la ocarpa), and whitebark pine(Pinus albicaulis) forests. A variety of shrub,species also occur and can include whortleberry(Vaccinium spp.),snowberry (Symphoricarpos spa.),and ninebark 03hysocarptis malvaceus). Some of the grass and forb species commonly found in the understory of forested areas include bluebunch wheatgrass(Pseudoroegneria spicato), Idaho fescue fFestuca idahoensisf,pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), and arnica(Arnica spp.). In the study area,broadleaf forests typically occur in stands intermixed with coniferous forest, primarily in more'moist areas, such as near riparian areas, or in woody draws. Some of the more prevalent broadleaf tree species present in these mixed forests are aspen(Populus tremuloides) and cottonwood(Populus sp.). ,Shrub species commonly found in the understory of these mixed forests include alder(Alnus spp.), huckleberry(Vaccinium spp.), serviceberry(Amelanchier alni foiia),thimbleberry(Rubus parviflorum), and'snowberry. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C10.1 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.10.1 Cover Type Descriptions • Wildfire and mountain pine beetle(MPB)are two of the major types of disturbances that have affected or are affecting forests in and around the project area. Many of the coniferous forests in the project area have been severely affected by the MPB epidemic currently affecting many forests throughout the Rocky Mountain region. The current MPB attack in Montana began in the late 1990's, and by the end of 2008 had affected over 3.35 million acres,with over 31 million trees having been affected(MDNRC 2009)., Qualitative observations of the project area in 2009, suggest that the number of affected acres has risen dramatically since the last reporting period in 2008. To put the scale of this MPB outbreak in context, the last MPB epidemic in Montana was in the 1970's and 1980's and at the peak of the outbreak in 1982,had affected 2.2 million acres(MDNRC 2009). This revious epidemic lasted through 1990. P P g The MPB primarily targets lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine, though they also commonly attack other species of pine,such as limber pine,western white pine(Pinus monticolo), and whltebarkpine(MDNRC 2009).Alternative IA traverses through the epicenter of the current MPB outbreak,which is generally ` located in western Jefferson county, Silver Bow county,Deer Lodge county and southwestem Lewis and Clark county(MDNRC 2009). Grassland Communities Grasslands in the study area are dominated primarily by short to medium height grasses and forbs.These grasslands typically occur in valleys and foothills and on southern aspects at mid to high elevations. According to the MFWP(2005)grasslands in Montana are associated with more terrestrial species in greatest need of conservation than any other community type.Prevalent gr'a5 land plant species in the project area include Idaho fescue,bluebunch wheatgrass, blue grama(Bouteloaa gracilis}(in MT), bluegrasses(Pon sp.),bluestem(Andropogon spp.),green needlegrass(NosselIavirtdufa), needle-and- thread grass(Hesperostipa comata),prairie junegrass(Koeleria macranth^ rough fescue(Festuca scabrella),western wheatgrass(Pascopyrum smithit),arrowlegf balsamroot(Bolsamorhiza sagittato), • fringed sagewort(Artemisia frigida),and lupine(Lupinus spp.).Where native"grasslands have been disturbed the vegetation in these locations can include bull thistle(Cirsium vulgare),Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), cheatgrass(Eromus tectorum),common dandelion(Taraxacum officinale), crested wheatgrass(Agropyron cristb[um), field brume(Brtomus arvensis),Timothy grass(Phleum pratense), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), smooth biome(Bromus inermis),spotted knapweed(Centaurea stoebe), St. Johnswort (Hypert`cum perforotum),western ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus offtcinalls)(NWE 2008a) Shrubland Communities (other than sagebrush) Due to its importance in the project area as a dominant cover type, sagebrush is not included in the more general shrubland cover type discussed here. Shrublands in the project area can be classified as xeric(dry) or mesic (nmist). Xeric shrublandsin the project area occur primarily in valleys and low elevation mountain slopes where mixed shrubs are dominant with an understory of grasses and(orbs.Shrub species commonly found in these xeric shrublands include antelope bitterbrush(Purshia tridentata), greasewood (Sarcobaus spp.), mountain mahogany(Cercocarpus spp.),yellow rabbitbrush(Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), rubber rabbitbrush(Ericameria nauseosa), four-wing saltbush(Atriplex canescens),spiny hopsage (Groyia spinosa),shadscale saltbrush(Atriplex confertifolia),winterfat(Krascheninnikovia lanata),andhorsebrush(Tetradymia spp.)and budsage (Picrothomaus desertorum).Associated grass species can include bluebunch wheatgrass, blue grama(in Montana), Idaho fescue and western wheatgrass. -Mesic shroblands in the study area occur in mountain areas in draws and valleys. Shrub species found in mesic shrublands can include alder, buffaloberry(Shepherdia argentea),ceanothus(Ceanothus spp.), huckleberry,Labrador tea(Ledum glandulosum),ninebark,mountain heath(Phyllodoce empetriformis), shiny-leaf spiraea (Spiraea betulifolia), sumac(Rhus spp.), snowberry, serviceberry, and whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium). Common understory plant species include arnica and pinegrass. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.1 Page-2 MS TI Appendix C.10.1 Cover Type Descriptions Sagebrush Communities • Sagebrush shrublands occur primarily in valleys and occasionally occur on low to mid-elevation mountain slopes.The amount of sagebrush canopy cover in the sagebrush dominated communities is variable and can range substantially from location to location.However,an average of 20 percent sagebrush canopy cover is generally assumed.The remaining 80 percent canopy cover is generally comprised of bare ground and grasses and(orbs; though some conifer and/or different shrub species may also be present in low amounts at some locations. Several different species of sagebrush occur in the project area,including basin big sagebrush(Ariemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata),mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp.voseyano),Wyoming big sagebrush(A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis),sillier sage(A. tuna),black sagebrush (A. nova), threetip sagebrush (A. tripartito),white sagebrush(A.lu'doviciana),and little sagebrush(A. arbuscula). Common grass and forb species can include bluebunch wheatgrass,blue grama(in MT), Idaho fescue,western wheatgrass, onion(Allium textile), littleleaf pussytt es(Antennoria microphyllo),basalt milkvetch(Astrogalus(tlipes), freckled milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus),Douglas dustymaiden(Chaenactis douglasii),tapertip hawksbeard(Crepis acuminato),cushion buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium),and fernleaf biscuitroot(Lomatium dissectum). Riparian,Wetland, and Water Communities Riparian and wetland areas are transitional areas between water ariddrier landscapes,Vegetation in these areas is typically more lush and abundant than surrounding areas due to the presence of water. Riparian/wetland areas in the project area can be have an overstory of woody plants such as trees or shrubs,or be completely herbaceous.A more complete discussion of riparian/wetland areas is provided in Section 3.12. In the project area forested riparian areas are dominatertby conifers,broadleaf.species or a mixture of both. Common coniferous tree species include Douglas<tir and Engelmann spruce.Dominant broadleaf species present in riparian areas include aspen,black cottonwood(Pgpulus balsamifera ssp. trichocorpo), • and plains cottonwood(Populus deltoides).Associated shrub species present in forest dominated riparian areas include alder,bunchberry_(.Cornus canadensis), serviceberry, thimbleberry,and willows(Salix spp.).Within shrub dominated riparian areas,several different species of willow are typically encountered.Additional ant species present in these areas can include red-osier dogwood(Corpus sericeo),alder,blackhawthom tCratoeaus douglasltl, chokecherry (Prunus virginiano),currant(Ribes lacustre), and water birch(Betula oecideneahs) Wetlands dominated by grasses, sedges,rushes,and forb species (e.g.,wet meadows, marshes)are also present in the study area. Plant species present iti these emergent wetlands include sedges(Carex spp.), rushes(Juncus spp:),spikerush(Eleocharis spp.), cattails(Typho spp.),bulrushes(Scirpus spp.), tufted hairgrass(Desghampsia cespitoso)„bluejoint reedgrass(Calamogrostis conodensis),cinquefoil ,JPotentillo spp.),and saxifrage species(Soxifroga spp.). Sparse yegetatio'O Corntntinities ''The sparsevegetatiotay,cover type includes areas of rock,vegetated lava,and mixed barren land. Rock 'communities are defined as exposed rock, rock outcrops,and talus or scree slopes with less than five percent vegetative cover. Vegetated lava only occurs in the Idaho portion of the proje ct area and is defined as lava.field with greater than five percent total vegetative cover.Plants usually occur on islands or pockAs in toe lava flow where soils are present,albeit relatively shallow. Mixed barren land is generally defined as barren land and exposed soil with less than five percent total vegetative cover. Species,that may occur in these communities include:Torrey's milkvetch(Astragolus calycosus),basalt m4vet'ch(Astragaius filipes),lava aster(lonactis alpina),fennel-leaved desert parsley(Lomatium foeniculaceum),tufted evening-primrose(Oenothera coespitosa),woolly groundsel(Paekero cana), various phlox species(Phlox spp.), Indian ricegrass(Achnatherum hymenoides), broom snake weed Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.1 Page-3 MS TI • Appendix C.10.1 Cover Type Descriptions • (Gutierrezia sarothrae),and Rocky Mountain juniper. Rocky Mountain juniper trees are especially important to wildlife in vegetated lava areas. Anthropogenic Communities The anthropogenic cover type is represented by areas that have been altered by human activity such as irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture and urban areas. References Cited: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks(MFWP). 2005. Montana's Comprehensive Fish and- Wildlife-Conservation Strategy.Helena, Montana. Page 158. Site accessed May 28, 2010,Avatlabie URL: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/conservationlnAction/fuliplan.html. Montana Department of Natural Resources(MDNRC). 2009.Website on mountain pine beetles. Available URL: http://beeties.rnt.gov/.Accessed August 2009. Montana Natural Heritage Program(MNHP). 2009a.Elemental occurrence records for Montana Species of Special Concern in vicinity of proposed MSTI route alternatives.February 2009. Helena, Montana. NorthWestetn Energy Inc. (NorthWestern or NWE).2008a.Mountain States Transmission Intertie, Montana Major Facility Siting Act Application. (June 2008).Includes:.Envrronmental Report, Technical Reports (Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Visual Resources,Land Use,EMF,Noise, and Electrical Effects), 2009: Preliminary Plan of Development,Preliminary Road Layout Database, Volume 1-13, Appendix A—Engineering, • Cost,and System Planning Information.Completed by Power Engineers, Inc. (2008-2009). U.S. Department of Agriculture,Farm Service Agency, National Agriculture Imagery Program(NAIP). 2004. Natural color Idaho aerial imagery. Aerial Photography Field Office in Salt Lake City, Utah. U.S.Department of Agriculture,Farm$ervice Agency,,National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). 2005.Color infrared Montana aerial imagery.Aerial Photography Field Office in Salt Lake City, Utah: • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.1 Page-4 MSTI -A endi C1 pp x . .02 Nokious Weeds li • Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.10.2 Noxious Weeds Table C,10.2-1.Documented State and County Listed Noxious Weed Occurrences within the • MSTI Project Area" Commoirmame SeentificNama County Alternatives Babysbreath Gypsophilia paniculata MT—Broadwater, Deer 1A,1B,1C,2A,2B 2C Lodge, Silver Bow' - Beaverhead, Broadwater, ID- Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger Clark,Jefferson, Butte, All Alternatives Bonneville, Bingham, Power, Blaine, Minidoka Buffalobur Solanum rostratum ID—Butte, Bonneville,- 5A,5B,5C,6A Minidoka Burdock Arctium minus MT- Broadwater` 1A,16,1C Canada thistle Cirsium arvense All MSTI Counties All Alternatives Caraway Carum carvi MT-Silver Bow 1A,1B,1C,2A,2B,2C Common crupina Crupina vulgans ID-Bingham 5A,5B,5C,6A Common mullein Verbascum thapsus MT-,Beaverhead, Deer 1A,1B,1C,Lodge 2A 26,2C,3A,3B Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare AtI.,MSTI MT Counties 1A•16,iC, 2A,2B,2C,3A,3B Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum M? Beaverhead 2A,2B,2C,3A,3B • Curley dock Rumex crispus MT-Deer Lodge 1A,1B,1C,2A,2B All MSTI MT counties; ID Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp` -Clark,Jefferson, Butte, All Alternatives dalmahca Blaine,Bingham, Bonneville,Jerome MT-Broadwater, 'Jefferson, Madison, Beaverhead, Silver Bow; Diffuse Knapwepd Centat(rea dittus ID—Jefferson, Butte, All Alternatives Bonneville, Bingham, Power, Blaine, Minidoka, Lincoln,Jerome MT- Silver Bow, Dyer's woad Isatis tinctoria Beaverhead; ID-Clark, All Alternatives Butte, Bonneville, Blaine, Power, Lincoln,Jerome Pield bindweed Convolvulus arvensis All MSTI Counties All Alternatives Reldscabiousm Knautia arvensis MT- Beaverhead, 2A,2B,2C,3A,3B Madison Hoary alyssum Beneroa incana ID- Blaine 6A ID—Clark, Bonneville, Hoary cress Cardaria drabs Bingham, Butte, Power, 5A,5B,5C,6A Blaine, Minidoka, Lincoln, Jerome Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.2 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.10.2 Noxious Weeds • Table C.10.2.1. Documented State and County Listed Noxious Weed Occurrences within the MSTI Project Area* Common Name Scientific Name County Alternatives All MST[MT Counties; ID Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale —Clark,Jefferson, All Alternatives Bonneville,Bingham, Butte, Power, Blaine Japanese knotweed Polygonum ID -Power 6A cuspidatum Johnson grass Sorghum halepense ID -Jefferson SA{58 5 Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica ID-Bingham, Blaine, Power 5A,5B,5C 6A I, Kochia Bassia scoparia (Syn. MT- Deer Lodge 1A41B,1C,2A,2B Kochia scoparia) All MSTI MT Counties; ID:' -Clark,Jefferson, Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Bonneville, Bingham, Al}Alternatives Butte,Power, Blaine, Minidoka, Lincoln Matrimony vine Lycium halimifolium MT—Silver Bow 1A,1B,1C,2A,2B Milium Milium vernale ID - Bingham 5k5B,5C,6A MT'-Beaverhead, • Broadwater, Madison lD —Clark, Jefferson, Musk thistle Carduus nutans , All Alternatives Bonneville,Bingham Butte, Power, Blaine, Minidoka, Jerome MT Madison, Deer 1A,1B,1C, Orange hawkweed Hieractum aurantiacum Lodge; ID-Jerome 2A,2B,2C Leucanthemum MT- Broadwater, 1A,1B,1C, Oxeye daisy vuigare Beaverhead, Madison, (Syr). Chrysanthemum Deer Lodge; ID— 2A,2B,2C,3A,3B leucanthemum) Jefferson, Power, Blaine 5A,5B,5C,6A Parrotfeather mitfod Mynophyflum ID-Jerome 6A aquaticum MT—Broadwater, Silver Bow, Deer Lodge; ID- 1A,1B,1C,2A,2B Perennial Oepperweed Lepidium latitolium Jerome, Minidoka, 5A,5B,5C,6A Bingham, Bonneville, Jefferson MT— Broadwater; ID— 1A,18,1C, Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis Clark,Jefferson, gA,5A,5B,5C,6A Bonneville, Bingham Plum6less thistle Carduus acanthoides ID—Butte, Bonneville 5A,5B,5C MT—Broadwater, ID— 1A 1B,IC, Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Clark, Butte, 'Bonneville, 4A,SA,58,5C,6A Bingham, Power, Blaine, • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.2 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.10.2 Noxious Weeds Table C.10.2-1.Documented State and County Listed Noxious Weed Occurrences within the • MSTI Project Area* Cominort Name Soierttifiic Name . County Alternatives Minidoka, Lincoln,Jerome Policemans helmet Impatiens glandulifera ID—Bonneville, Bingham 5A,5B,5C,6A MT- Silver Bow; ID— Bonneville, Bingham, 1,1B,IC,2r4,2B Puncturevine Tribufus terreshis Butte, Power, Minidoka, 5A,5B,5C,6A Lincoln,Jerome ID—Jefferson, Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Bonneville, Power, 5A,5B,5C,6A Minidoka, Lincoln,Jerome ID—Jefferson, Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Bonneville, Bin am 5A156 SC 6A Butte, Blaine, Minidoka, , Lincoln, Jerome Acroptilon repens 1A,1B,1C, Russian knapweed (Syn. Centaurea All MSTI Counties 2A 2B,2C,3A,3B repens) 5A,5B,5C,6A Scentless chamomile Matncaria maritime MTY Beaverhead 2A,2B,2C,3A,3B ID—Bonneville, Linepin, Scotch broom Cyti'sus scoparius 5B,5C,6A Mt—Brdadwater;All 1A,1B,1C, • Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthiom MSTI ID Counties 4A,5A,5B,5C,6A Silverleaf Nightshade S°Ianuln ID - Butte` SA elaeagmfolrum Skeletonleaf bursage Ambrosia tore entosa ID-Power 6A Cent4urea stoebe Spotted knapweed (Syn.Centaurea ` All MSTI Counties All Alternatives macutosa) St. Johnswort` Hyper7c MT-Jefferson, 1A,1B,1C,mfr� Beaverhead 2A,2B,2C,3A,3B MT- Broadwater, 1A,1B,1C, Sulfur cinquefoil Potenti la recta Beaverhead,Jefferson, 2A 26 2C,3A,3B Madison Sy an beancaper Zyyophyllum fabago D—Blaine, Power,Minidoka 5A,58,5C,6A Tall buttercup Ranunculus aces MT-Madison 2C MT—Broadwater, Jefferson; ID— lA,1B,1C,2C Tamarisk(SoIcedar) Tamarix spp. Bonneville, Bingham Butte, Blaine, Power,, 5A,5B,5C,6A Minidoka Pansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea ID—Bonneville, Bingham SA,5B,SC,6A Toothed spurge Euphorbia dentata ID-Bingham 5A,5B,5C,6A White bryony Sryonia alba ID—Butte, Bingham, 5A,5B,5C,6A Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.2 Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.10.2 Noxious Weeds • Table C.10.2.1. Documented State and County Listed Noxious Weed Occurrences within the MSTI Project Area• _ Common Name ,: ScisntificName County Alternatives 1 Power All MSTI MT Counties; ID —Clark, Bonneville, Whitetop Cardaria draba Bingham, Butte, Power, All Alternatives Blaine, Minidoka, Lincoln, Jerome Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitiafis ID—Bonneville,Jerome 5B.5C,6A. All MSTI MT Counties, ID Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris —Clark, Bingham, At Alternatives Bonneville, Butte, Blaine Yellowtlagiris Irispseudacorus MT—Jefferson 16E1B,1C Sources:MNWSAC-WMTF 2008;MDA 2009;ISDA 2008 The Plan of Development(POD)(Appendix B.4)also lists noxious weed species occurrence by county-Occurrence information for weeds differs somewhat between the POD appendix and this Appendix because of the use of different sources of information In the development of these lists. • i • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.2 Page-4 MSTI i Apo epdix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alt rnative and Agency Local Routing Options Projected Impacts to Vegetation Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Draft Environmental Impact Statement MS TI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3.1.Summary of Projected Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Caused by MSTI Alternatives Access Road acres ShoYLOrlg . - Transmissio Line Term. Permanent Totals facraii ged . Beaverhead- Deerlodge 32.3 111 594 " 705 0 0 26 75.6 76 111 669 780 BLM-Butte 14.3 94 155 249 .4 1.3 10,9 31.7` 33 95 187 282 MT-State 0.3 2 3 5 0 0 �0.4 1 +'--1 =2 4 7 Beaverhead- 76 34 122 156 2.1 6 14= 4.2 10 40 126 166 Deerlodge 16 BLM-Butte 16.5 151 76 227 0.9,.-.. 2.7 11.8 34.2 37 ` 154 110 264 MT-State 9.5 93 30 123 .0 1 8 23 24 94 53 147 Beaverhead- 5.8 24 97.2 12Y 2 .. 5.8 14 t4,2 10 " 30 101 131 Deerlodge 1C BLM-Butte 14.0 133 52 186 1.3 3.8 7.7 22.5 26 137 75 212 MT-State 6.5 66 14 79 1 .3 4.9 14 18 69 28 97 • BLM-Butte 12.1 119 X36. 154 ',0.9 2.7. e1, 0.8 73 34 121 67 188 1D MT-State T2 73 15 88 %A 1 7 20 22 74 35 110 Beaverhead Deerodge _38 1¢,. 25 = 35 TA UZ 0 0 0.3 10 25 35 2q BLM-Butte S.f. 55:` 15= '70 fll- e x.02 4.3 12.5 13 55 28 83 BLM-03fon 12.ti ,121 30 151 ()F1 0.3 0.5 1.6 2 121 32 153 MT-State z,- 4.6 46 - 13, 59 0 0 2.3 7 7 46 20 66 Beaverhead-' eaverhead 18 10 !. 25 35 0.1 0.3 0 0 0.3 10 25 35 5eeiodge 2B BLM-Butte 5.5 . 55 15 70 .01 .02 4.3 12.5 13 55 28 83 BLM-Ddfon 12.2 125 _- '25.7 150 2.5 7.2 9.3 27.1 34 132 53 185 MT-State .10.2 103 25 128 1 2 7.3 21 23 105 46 151 Ser ead Deerkid ge 7.7 34 122 157 2.1 6 1.6 4.7 11 40 127 167 l� 2C BLM-Butte 11.2 76 114 190 0.9 2.6 9 261 29 79 140 219 9LM-DiMn 32.8 328 84 412 0.3 0.8 39.6 115.2 116 329 199 528 MT-State 20.6 206 53 259 1 3 18.4 53 57 209 106 316 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-1 MS TI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • _ Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3.1. Summary of Projected Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Caused by MSTI Alternatives 'Access Road ACMES fi Shormon# Transmission tine Term - permanent = _Totals ncni d L: d m a a E e y m c : d a yr * 4� E ° m = 0ro in r Beaverhead 10.8 34 206 241 0 0 14.3 41.6 42 34 248 282 Deerlodge 2D BLM-Butte 12.5 125 31 156 0 0 9.3 26.8 27' 1215,' 58 183 BLM-Dillon 22.4 223 62 285 0 0 28.2 821 82 .223 144 367 MT-State 10.4 104 27 130 0 0 9.5 28 28 104 54 158 i Beaverhead- 04 .45 0 0.5 0 0 02 0.5 1 0 Y 1 Deerlodge 2E BLM-Butte 6.7 44 74 118 t1.9 2.6 8 23.1 26 46 97 144 BLM-Dillon 32.8 326 84 412 0.3 0.8 39.6 115.2 116 329 199 528 MT-State 18.3 186 38 225 1 .3. 17.4 50 54 190 89 278 • 81-M-Dillon 46.5 474 98 572 5.7 16.5' 19.7 57.4 74 491 155 646 3A MT-State 14.2 145 30 174 4 11 88 26 36 155 55 211 3B BLM-Dillon 39.4 404 85 485 3.7 10.8 ' 43.3 125.9 137 411 211 622 MT-State 22.6 229 49 . 278 2 7.. 22.1 64 71 236 114 350 3C BLM-Dillon 53.8 547,. 115 662 5.1 14.8 57 165.8 181 562 281 843 MT-State 20.5 208 "' 45 253 2 7 20.1 58 65 215 103 318 Caribou Targhee 6.1 82 15 77 1.8 5.3 5.2 15.2 20 67 31 97 . 4A BLM-Upper- 1.7 17 3 20" 0.1 0.3 0 0 0.3 17 3 21 Snake ID Stat 1 30 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 12 Idaho National :39.2 396 91 487 4.2 12.3 0 0 12 408 91 500 Lap oratory 5A BLM-Upper - Snake- 50.3 512 106 618 8.3 24.1 6.4 18.5 43 536 124 660 ID-Stete 3.7 38 8 46 1 4 1.4 4 8 42 12 54 BLM-Upper 71.3 726 150 876 10.3 30.0 10.7 31.3 61 756 181 937 5B Snake ID-State 15.6 159 33 191 0 0 5.2 15 15 159 48 207 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.I0.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3.1.Summary of Projected Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Caused by MSTI Alternatives - `Access�L aces ShorVLong Ttansmissron Line Term Permanent Totals ac d E F. y' } - .. c BLM-Upper 50.8 517 107 624 13.4 38.9 11.3 32.7 72 556 139 696 5C Snake ID-State 2.1 22 4 26 .03 .10 0 0 0,1 22 4 26 BLM-Upper 545 556 115 670 18.2 52.9 +6 17.6 70 609 132 741 5D Snake ID-State 17.5 179 37 216 1 4 7.8 =. 23 27 183 60 242 BLM-Burley 33.9 345 71 416 16.2 ;:.. .47.2 99 28,9 76 392 100 492 BLM- Shoshone 39 397 82 479 - 10.7 31.1 24.9 72.5 ` 104 428 154 582 BLM-Upper Snake .03 .26 .05 .32 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ID-State 3.5 36 7 43 1 1, 3°4 9 11 37 17 54 i I ` i Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-3 MSTI • i Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-2.Summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands EsNmated::ImPaGts,Pgr Vey att4rs Cove"r TyPe>;aG) u 4 O a No . g b - - t m rn -at Q Q E tY Miles Crossed 0 5 1.9 2.7 21.4 1.2 0 32.3 Permanent(acres) 0 11 4 6 571 _ 3 "0 594' B-D NF 1A Short/Long Term 0 51 19 28 0 13 0 111 (acres) Total (acres) 0 62 23 33 571 ` 15 '4; 705 Miles Crossed 0.1 2.1 0.2 0,4 ` 4.3 -: 6.3 0.1 7.6 Permanent(acres) 0 4 0 1 115 1 0 122 B-D NF 1B Short/Long Term 1 21 2 4 0 4 1 34 (acres) Total(acres) 2 26 -3 5 115 4 1 156 Miles Crossed 0.1 1.6 0.2 0 3.5 0.3 0.1 5.8 Permanent(acres) 0.3 3 4 1 0,5.. 0 92.3 0:6 0.153 97.2 B-D NF 1C Short/Long Term . 1 16 ,2 0 0 3 1 24 (acres) Total (acres) 2 20 3 0 92 4 1 121 Miles Crossed D. 0.5; 0 0.4 0.9 0 0 1.8 Permanent(acres) 0: 1 0 1 23 0 0 25 B-D NF 2A Short/Long Term (acres) 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 10 Total(acres) 0 6 0 5 23 1 0 35 Miles Crossed 0 0.5 0 0.4 0.9 0 0 1.8 Permanent(acres);„ 0 1 0 1 23 0 0 25 B4:)1'4r 28.. Short/Loog Term (acres) "- 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 10 TmaN,(acres) 0 6 0 5 23 1 0 35 Miles Grossed 0.1 2.1 0.2 0.4 4.3 0.3 0.1 7.7 Permanent(acres) 0 5 0 1 115 1 0 122 8-D NF 2C Short(Long Term 1 22 2 4 0 4 1 34 (acres) Total(acres) 2 26 3 5 115 4 1 157 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement 0.10.3 Page-4 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-2.Summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands 1=st{rhated:3mpaCtS pet Uegetatiotl Cover Type Oc) u ., y . 0 Q d Q 37 N' ill 11 K r K> '.' '*.*�l- Miles Crossed 0 1.2 0 1.4 7.5 0.7 0 10:8 Permanent(acres) 0 3 0 3 199 1 `' 0 206 B-D NF 2D Shon/Long Term (acres) 0 12 0 15 0 7 0 34 Total(acres) 0 15 0 18 199 9 0 241 Miles Crossed 0 .04 0 6,. 0 ='.. d 0 .04 Permanent(acres) 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 B-D NF 2E Short/Long Term (acres) o 0.45 o 0 0 0 0 0.45 Total(acres) 0 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 Miles Crossed 0 0.9 0 32.4! 0 0 0 319 Burley FO Permanent(acres) 0 2 '0 69 0 0 0 71 6A Short/Long Term 0 '19 0 336 0 0 0 345 (acres) _ • Total(acres) 0 117 0 405 0 0 0 416 Miles Crossed 0=- 1% 3.6 2A 5.1 0.3 0 14.3 Permanent(acres) 01;: 6 8 5 136 1 0 155 Butte FO 1A Short/Long Term 0 ' 30 47 24 0 3 0 94 (acres) _ Total(acres), s 0 36 " 144 29 136 4 0 249 Mips Crossed 11 0.8 2.6 1.7 0.3 0 16.5 Pentlanent(acres-}'. 0 23 2 5 45 1 0 76 Butte F6-18 Short/Long Term (acres) ' 1 112 8 27 0 3 0 151 Tota}Lacresj' - 1 135 9 32 45 4 0 227 Miles Crossed w 0.5 9.9 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.1 0 14 Permanent(acres) 1 21 3 2 25 0 0 52 Butte FO 1C% Short//Long Term (ages) 5 101 14 12 0 1 0 133 'Total(acres) 6 122 17 15 25 1 0 186 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-5 MST, • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-2.Summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Wmated'.Impacts per Vegetatl6h Cover Type(aC) N 7 N Miles Crossed 0.1 9.8 0.6 1 0.4 0.2 0 12A Permanent(acres) 0 21 1 2 11 -: 0 `0 36 Butte FO ID Short/Long Term 1 100 6 10 P 2 0 119 (acres) Total(acres) 1 120 7 13 11 2 .0., 154 Miles Crossed 0.1 3.5 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.2 0 5.5 Permanent(acres) 0 7 0 3 4 0 , 0 15 Butte FO 2A Short/Long Term (acres) 1 35 1 15 0 2 0 55 Total(acres) 2 43 1 18 4 3 _ `0 70 Mlles Crossed 0.1 3.5 0.1 1.5" 0.1 y 11.2 0 5.5 Permanent(acres) 0 7 'a 3 4 01 0 15 Butte FO 2S Short/Long Term • 1 35 `i 15 0 2 0 55 (acres) Total(acres) 2 43. 1 1s 4 3 0 70 Miles Crossed 0.. 4.4,' 0.7 2.2 3.7 0.2 0 11.2 Permanent(acres) 0 9 2 5 98 0 0 114 Butte FO 2C Shoraong Tenn (camas) 6 45 T 22 0 2 0 76 Total(acres) 0 54 9 26 98 2 0 190 Miles Crossed .01 9.7 0 22 0,2 0.3 0 12.5 Permanent(acres) 0 20 0 5 5 1 0 31 Butte FO 2D Short/Long Term 1 98 0 22 D 3 0 125 (acres) Total:-:(acres) 2 119 0 27 5 4 0 156 Miles Crossed 0 3.2 0.5 0.5 2.4 0 0 6.7 Permanent(acres) 0 7 1 1 65 0 0 74 Butte FO 2E Short/Long Term 0 33 5 6 0 0 0 44 (acres) Total(acres) 0 39 6 7 65 0 0 118 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-2.Summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimafedlritpactsper Vegetation Coverlype�ac CL Ix U) 3t 2 1,02 Miles Crossed 0 0 0.3 5.2 0.1 0.6 0 6.1 Permanent(acres) 0 0 1 11 3 1 0 15 C-T NF 4A Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 3 53 0 6 0 62 Total(acres) 0 0 3 64 3 7 77 Miles Crossed 0.1 6.5 0.5 4.7 0.2 0.2 0 12.1 Permanent(acres) 0 14 1 10 5 0 0 30 Dillon FO 2A Short/Long Term 1 66 5 47 0 2 0 121 (acres) Total(acres) 1 80 6 57 5 2 0 151 Miles Crossed 0 1-72 0.4 4.2 0 0.4 0 12.2 Permanent(acres) 0 15.2 6,0, 8.8 0 0.9 0 25.7 Dillon FO 2B Short/Long Term (acres) 0 74 43 0, 4 0 125 Total(acres) 0 89 5 52 0 5 0 150 Miles Crossed 0,3 26, 2.8 2.6 0.6 0.5 0 32.8 Permanent(acres) 1 55 6 5 16 1 0 84 Dillon FO 2C Shortil-ong Term (ace I as) _3 265 5 29 26 0 5 0 328 'Total ( crei), 4 320,,,,, 35 32 16 6 0 412 -Miles Crossed 13.9 1 6.7 0.6 02 0 22.4 Permanent(acres) 0 29 2 14 16 0 0 62 Dillon FO'2D-,Shor!JLof,g Term 0 142 10 69 0 2 0 223 Total acres) 0 171 12 83 16 3 0 285 Miles Crossed 0.3 26 2.8 2.6 0.6 0.5 0 32.8 Permanent(acres) 1 55 6 5 16 1 0 84 Dillon FO 2E ShodfLong Term - - (acres) 3 265 29 26 0 5 0 328 "total(acres) 4 320 35 32 16 6 0 412 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C,10.3 Page-7 MST, • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-2.summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimated:lgpacts per,Vegetation CoverTypeTac) U; a = p T P N G 3 Q £ Q f7 N N LL 3 y .p,v4 O Miles Crossed 0.2 12.1 0.5 32.6 0 12, 0.1 46.5 Permanent(acres) 0 25 1 68 0 2 '0 98 Dillon FO 3A Short/Long Term 2 123 5 332 0 12 1 474 (acres) Total(acres) 2 148 6 400 0 14 -1< 572 Miles Crossed 0.1 15.2 1.5 22-1 0.1 04 0.1 39.4 Permanent(acres) 0 32 3 46 2 1 0 85 Dillon FO 3B Short/Long Term 1 155 16 225 0 a 1 400 (acres) Total(acres) 1 186 19 ._271 2 4 1 485 Miles Crossed 0.1 122 1.6 39.3 Q 1 0.4 01 53.8 Permanent(acres) 0 26 3 83 2 1 0 115 Dillon FO 3C Short/Long Term • (acres) 1 124 16 400 0 v 4 1 547 Total(acres) 1 150 19 A83 2 5 1 662 Miles Crossed D.1 0 4.4 34.2 0.4 0 0.2 39.2 ID Nat'l Lab Permanent(acres) 0 0 9 72 10 0 0 91 5A Short/Long Term 1 0 45 348 0 0 2 396 (acres) Total(acres) 1 0 54 420 10 0 2 487 Miles Crossed 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ID-STATE Permanent(acres) 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 - aA ShorULong Term , 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 (acres) Total{acres] 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 Miles Grossed 0 0 0 3.7 0 0 0 3.7 1D-STATE. Permarent(acres) 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 5A Short/Long Term 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 38 (acres) =Total(acres) 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 46 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-8 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-2.Summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estlmated lmpags per Vegetation Cover Type(ac) 0 EE ° n c3 w y rn U, a3 ,• `z> Miles Crossed 0.1 0 0 15.5 0 0 0 15.6 Permanent(acres) 0 0 0 32 0 0 ' 0 33 ID-STATE 513 Short/Long Term 1 0 0 157 0 0 0 159 (acres) Total(acres) 1 0 0 190 0 0 _-..4 191 Miles Crossed 0.1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2.1 Permanent(acres) 0 0 0 4 - 0 0 0 4 ID-STATE 5C Short/Long Term (acres) 1 0 0 21 0; 0 - 0 22 Total(acres) 1 0 -0 25 0 0 '-0 26 Miles Crossed 0.1 0 0 174 .0 0 0 17.5 Permanent(acres) 0 0 '0 37 0 0 0 37 ID-STATE 5D ShortlLong Term 1 0 Q 178 0 0 0 179 (acres) • I Total (acres) 1 0 0 214 0 0 0 216 Miles Crossed 9 0 0 - 3.5 0 0 0 3.5 Permanent(acres) 0 " 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 ID-STATE , 6A Shortliong Term 36 0 0 0 36 (acres) Total(acres) 0 ._. 0 43 0 0 0 43 Miles Crossed 0 `0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 Permanent(acres) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 MTmSTATE 1A ShorUL$rig Term 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 (acres) Totalocres) 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 5 Miles dossed 0 6.8 0.5 1.5 0.4 03 0 9.5 UT-STATE, Permanent(acres) .03 14 1 3 10 1 0 30 : lg Short/Long Term 0.16 69 5 16 0 3 0 93 (des) Total(acres) 0.2 84 6 19 10 4 0 123 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-9 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-2.Summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands -. Estimated-IMpacKSpef Veyetatiod CnveY�pe:(8C) O 3 FaT 6 _ CL CC 5 a, W OL I 2 Miles Crossed OA 4.8 0.8 0.3 0 0.1 0: 65.. Permanent(acres) 1 10 2 1 0 - 0 '0 14 MT-STATE 1C Short/Long Term (acres) 4 49 8 3 0 1 0 66 Total(acres) 5 59 10 3 0 -` 1 - 0; 79 Miles Crossed .02 6.4 0.2 013. 0 0.2 0 7.2 Permanent(acres) .03 13 1 1 0 0 0 15 MT-STATE 1D ShonAong Term (acres) 0.16 65 2 3 -0 2 0 73 Total(acres) 0.2 79 3 4 0 2 0 88 Miles Crossed .02 •2.4 0.1 1.7" 0.1 0.3 0 4.6 MT-STATE Permanent(acres) .04 5 0 4 4 1 0 13 • 2A Short/Long Term (acresacres)) 0.17 25 1 17 0 3 0 46 Total(acres) - ,Q.21 30 1 21 4 3 0 59 Miles Crossed 0:_, 5 7 0.3 3.5 0.1 0.6 0 10.2 MT-STATE Permanent(acres) 0 12 1 7 4 1 0 25 - 2g Shon/Long Term (acres) 0 58 3 36 0 6 0 103 Total(acres) 0 70 3 43 4 8 0 128 Miles Crossed 03 15A 1.2 2.8 0.4 0.6 0 20.6 Permanent(acres) - 1 32 3 6 10 1 0 53 MT-STATE. . 2C Short/Long Term 3 157 13 28 0 6 0 206 (acres) Total{acres) 4 189 15 34 10 7 0 259 Miles Grossed 0.1 8 0 1.8 0.2 0.2 0 10.4 MT STATE Permanent(acres) 0 17 0 4 5 1 0 27 2D - Short/Long Term 1 82 0 19 0 2 0 104 (acres) Total(acres) 1 99 0 22 5 3 0 130 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-10 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency . Table C.10.3-2.summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimated 3lmpaci s Per Vegetation Dover Type(ac) CL Miles Crossed 0.3 15 1 1.5 0 0.4 r 0 M3 MT-STATE Permanent(acres) 1 31 2 3 0 1 ' 0 38 2E Short/Long Term 3 153 10 16 0 2V 0 186 (acres) Total (acres) 4 184 13 19 0 51 6 225 Miles Crossed 0.1 6.1 0 7.7 0 6.3 ' 0 14.2 MT-STATE Permanent(acres) 0 13 0 16 0 1 0 30 3A Short/Long Term (acres) 1 62 0 78 "0.. 3 0 145 Total(acres) 1 75 ,. 0` .,95 0 4 _ '0 174 Miles Crossed 0 9 0.5 12.6 :O.1 0-3 0 22.6 Permanent(acres) 0 '1 27 2 1 0 49 MT-STATE 3g Short/Long Term 0 92 5 129 0 3 0 229 (acres) • I Total(acres) 0 111 6 155 2 3 0 278 Miles Crossed` 04. 8 - 0.4 - 11.7 0.1 0.2 0 20.5 Permanent(acres) 0 : 17 1 25 2 1 0 45 MT-STATE 3C Shortly ong Term 4 120 0 3 0 208 (geres) ; �= Total(acres)_' 0 98 r 5 144 2 3 0 253 Mugs Crossed f"3 0 37.4 0 0.2 0 39 Pernianent(acres) 0 3 0 78 0 0 0 82 Shoshone FO 6A Short] g Term 1 14 0 381 0 2 0 397 i (acres) Total(acres) 1 16 0 459 0 2 0 479 Miles grossed 0 0 1 0.6 0 0.1 0 1.7 Permanent(acres) 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 Upper Snake 4,k Sho fll-ong Term 0 0 10 6 0 1 0 17 (acf6s) . Total(acres) 0 0 12 6 0 1 0 20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-11 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-2.Summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to vegetation on Public Lands Estimated:impacts pQr Vegetation Cover Type(ac] a agl rt y a - Q a s N Vl ' Q Miles Crossed 0.1 0 1.7 48.3 0 0 0.1 sf1.3 Permanent(acres) 0 0 4 101 0 0 _ 0. 106 Snake e5A Short/Long Term (acres) 1 0 18 492 0 0 1 512 Total(acres) 1 0 21 594 0 0 618 Miles Crossed 0.3 0 1.7 68.6 0 0 0.7 71.3 Permanent(acres) 1 0 4 144" 0 0 1 150 Snake 58 Short/Long Term (acres) 3 0 17 699 0 0 7 726 Total (acres) 3 0 21 843 0 0 : 9 876 Miles Crossed 0.4 0 1 37.1 0 ` 0 12.3 50.8 Permanent(acres) 1 0 '2 78 0 0 26 107 Upper Snake 5C Shon/Long Term 4 0 10 378 0 0 125 517 • (acres) Total(acres) 4 0 12 455 0 0 151 624 Miles Crossed 0.1 0 1 53.4 0 0 0 54.5 Permanent(acres) 0 : 0 2 112 0 0 0 115 Upper Snake 5D Shortt on 0 Taint (acres) 1 0 10 544 0 0 0 556 <. Total (acres) 2 0 - 12 656 0 0 0 670 Miles Crossed 0 0 0 .026 0 0 0 .03 Upper Permanent(acres) 0 0 0 .054 0 0 0 .05 Snake 6A Shod/Lopg Term 0 0 0 0.263 0 0 0 0.26 (acres) Total(acres) 0 0 0 0.317 0 0 0 0 *B-D NF=Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest;C-T NF=Caribou-Targhee National Forest;FO=Field Office. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-12 MS T7 Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimated impacts perYegeSatiwtCOVer:Type li z 2Y 0 y y h >. O 40 CL G m a„{ E cu - o rn 14 aQ u° a > F° New Road(miles) 0 5.5 1.1 3.3 15.9 0.2 0 26 Perm.Impact 0 16 3 10 46 1 0 75.6 (acres) B-D NF 1A Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 New Road(miles) .03 0.2 0.1 0 1 01 0 1.4 Perm. Impact 0.1 1 0.3 0 3 0.4 0 4.2 (acres) 8-D NF 16 Overland Routes (miles) o 1 n 0 1 0.1 0.1 2.1 F Shor9Long Term 0 3 s 0.3 0 3 0.2 0.3 6 (acres) 11 New Road(miles) .03 0.2 i 0.1- 0 1 - 0.12 0 1.4 Perm. Impact (acres) 0.1 1 0.3 0 3 0.36 0 4.2 B-D NF 1C Overland Routes (miles);. 0 t 01 0 0.83 .06 0.1 2 Shorn/-ong Term.. 0 3' 0.3 0 2.42 0.16 0.3 5.8 (acres) New Road(mites) 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm. Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) B-D NF 2A Overland Routes (miles] 0 .05 0 0 .03 .01 0 0.1 ShorULOng Term 0 0.14 0 0 0.1 .02 0 0.3 (acres) Nex+Road(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B-D NF 26 (acres) (SAME AS D Overland Routes 2A) (miles) 0 .05 0 0 .03 .01 0 0.1 Short/Long Term 0 0.14 0 0 01 .02 0 0.3 (acres) I Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-13 MST] • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimated impacts per Vegetation cover Type x U C"d. G M M Z C a a a is L L°i u° d eta riot u New Road (miles) .03 0.4 0.1 0 1 Perm. impact (acres) 0.1 1 0.3 0 3 0.4 0 47 B-D NF 2C Overland Routes .. (miles) 0 1 0.1 0 0.86 0.1- 0.1 2.1 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 3 0.3 '0 2.52:: 0.2 0.3 6 New Road(miles) 0 3.3 .04 0.5 10 0A .02 14.3 Perm. Impact (acres) 0 SO 0.12 2 29 1 .06 41.6 B-D NF 2D Overland Routes (miles) 0 b 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 ,.0 0 0 0 0 0 • New Road(miles) 0 0.2 i 0. 0 0 0 0 0.2 Perm. Impact (acres) 0 0.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0.5 B-D NF 2E Overland Routes (miles)_ 'a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ShartlLong Term; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _(acres) 0 New Road(miles) 0 0 0 9.9 0 0 0 9.9 Perm. impact 0 ,., 0 0 29 0 0 0 28.9 (acres) Burley FO 6A Overland Routes 0 1 0 15 0 0 0 16.2 Short/LongTerm 0 2 0 45 0 0 0 47.2 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 3.2 2.7 1.8 3.2 0 0 10.9 Perm. Impact (acres) a 9 8 5 9 0 0 31.7 Butte FO 1A Overland Routes (miles) 0 0.4 0 0.1 a 0 0 0.4 ShorULong Term (acres) 0 1.1 0 0.2 0 0 0 1.3 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-14 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MST] New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimatedlmpactsper Vegetation Cover Type a+ - F � {gp !R all, Oy� .... F New Road(miles) .02 9.4 0.4 0.8 1.1 0 0 11.8 Perm. Impact (acres) 04 27 1 2 3 :' 0 0 34.2 Butte FO 16 Overland Routes (miles) 0 1 .004 0.2 0 02 0 0.9 Short/Long Term 0 2 .012 b'5 0 - 06 0 2.7 (acres) New Road(miles) 0.1 6.5 11 'Di t}, 0 0 0 7,7 Perm. Impact (acres) 0.3 19 3 .03 D 0" 0 22.5 Butte FO 1C Overland Routes (miles) 0.2 1 .04 0.1 0 '. .015 , 0 1.3 Short/Long Term (acres) 0.6 3 <$;11 0.3 D 0.14 0 3.8 New Road(miles) .02 9.2 ? 0.2° 0.3 1 0 0 10.8 • I Perm Impact (acres) 04 27 1 1 3 0 0 31.3 Butte FO 1D Overland Routes (miles ..0 $ 004 0.16 0 .02 0 0.9 StrrYfULOng Tenn. 0 2 ?. .012 0.46 0 .06 0 2.7 �jacres) New Road(mites) 0.1 3,2 0 1 0 .04 0 4.3 Perm, Impact 0.2 9 0 3 0 0.12 0 12.5 (acres) Butte Fp 2A Overland Routes (miles) 0 .01 0 0 0 0 0 0 ShorULmg Term 0 .02 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) NeW Road(miles) 0.1 3.2 0 1 0 0 0 4.3 Perm Impact Butte F028 (acres) 0.2 9 0 3 0 0 0 12.5 ? (-gAME A'S Overland Routes BUTTtc 2A) (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ShorULong Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-15 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MST New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estinlate81n1paCt9 per et8ti8n CtJYpr'type 7 x V w Z JI u s ff New Road(miles) 0 2.3 1 1.1 4.5 .514 ` 8 '9. Perm. Impact (acres) 0 7 3 3 13 0.11 0.24 26.1 Butte FO 2C Overland Routes (miles) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0,9 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 3 0 `'0 0 0 0 2.6 New Road(miles) .04 6.7 0 2.4,.. 0 ;07 0 9.3 Perm. Impact (acres) 0,13 20 0 7 0 O19,µ. 0 26.9 Butte FO 2D Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 '--,0 0 0 0 0 0 • New Road(miles) 0 2.1 ` 0.8 0.6 4.4 .04 .08 8 Perm. Impact 0 6 2 2 13 0.11 0.24 23.1 (acres) Butte FO 2E Overland Routes 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 (miles) Short/Long Term. 0 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 0 0.4 4.7 .03 0 0 5.2 Perm. Impact 0 0 1 13.8 (acres) .09 0 0 15.2 U-T NF 4A Overland Routes (miles). 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0 1.8 Shoru'Long Term 0 0 0 4 0 1.5 0 5.3 (acres) -- New Road(miles) 0.1 0.3 0 0.11 0 0 0 0.5 Perm.Impact (acres) 0.4 1 0 0.31 0 0 0 1.6 Dillon FQ:2A Overland Routes (miles) 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0.3 0 0 D 0 0 0.3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-16 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MST]New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimated fmpac4speryegetziian t at�cType Via. o,` _. - v °•L� New Road(miles) 0 5.1 0 4.2 0 . Q 0 9 3 Perm. Impact (acres) 1 0 15 0 12 0 0 0 27 Dillon FO 2B Overland Routes (miles) .Ol 2 0.2 0.5 0 0 0 2.5 Short/Long Term (acres) .02 5 0.7 S.4 0 - 0 10 7.2 I New Road(miles) 0.2 32.5 2.7 3- 0.g p2 0 39.6 Perm. Impact (acres) 1 95 B 9 3 1 =. 0 115.2 Dillon FO 2C Overland Routes (miles) 0 0.3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0.3 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0.8 -Q 0 0 0 0 0.8 New Road(miles) 0 ,16.5 2 8 12 0.5 0 28.2 Perm Impact (acres) 0 .48 6 23 4 1 0 82.1 Dillon FO 2D Overland Routes (milesl �.0 !� 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term ' {acres) Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Road(miles) 0.2 32.5 2.7 3 0.9 0.2 0 39.6 Perm. Impact (acres) 195 8 9 3 1 0 115.2 Dillon FU.2E Overland Routes' - (miles):.. 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 'ShorULang Term 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 (aces) Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-17 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MST] New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimated Impacts per vegetarian qqver.rype u '0 • d w N ar CL 5 C� V 0 3: 6:Q �f: C7 N N tl (L �S* C> F New Road(miles) 0.1 8.9 0.1 10.5 0 :49 .45 19.7 Perm. Impact (acres) 0.3 26 0 30 0 1 0.26 ,.0.15 57.4 Dillon FO 3A Overland Routes (miles) 0 1.6 0 4 0 0.6-, 0 5.7 ShortfLong Term (acres) 0 5 0 10 0 ,1- 2 0 16.5 New Road(miles) 0.1 18.4 11 233:. 0.3 61 0 43.3 Perm. Impact 0.29 54 3 68 1 0 3 0 125.9 (acres) Dillon FO 3B Overland Routes (miles) 0 0.6 03 3.1 0 02 0 3.7 Shon/Long Term 0 1.7 - .08 9 0 .05 0 10.8 (acres) New Road(miles) 0.1 14.8 2 39..6 as 0.2 A5 57 • Perm. Impact 0.29 43 (acres) 6 315 1 1 0.15 165.8 Dillon FO 3C Overland Routes (miles):- 0 0.5 .03 4.496 0 .02 0 5.1 Shorill-ong Term; 0 1.6- .08 13.08 0 .05 0 14.8 (acres) New Road(mites) 0 D. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm. Impact 0. - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) ID Nat'l lab bA Overland Routes' (miles). 0 0 0.5 4 0.1 .001 .01 4.2 ShortlLOng Term 0 0 1.4 11 0.2 .001 .04 12.3 (acres) Nev;Road(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Perm. Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) ID-STATE4A Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) . Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-18 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands ,Estimated Impacts per Vegetation Cover Type a q s a a to rn u s" a s:: New Road(miles) 0 0 0 1.4 0 0 - 0 1.4 Perm. Impact (acres) 0 0 0 4 0 '' 0 0 4 ID-STATE 5A Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 1 Short/Long Term 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 0 0 5.2;. 0 0 0 5.2 Perm. Impact (acres) 0 0 0 15 0 o e.. 0 15 ID-STATE 5B Overland Routes ` (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Short/Long Term 0 0 ` '> 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 0 0' '-, 0 '0 0 0 0 • Perm. Impact (acres) 0 <A 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID-STATE 5C Overland Routes '0 0 0 .03 0 0 0 .03 (miles') Shott)Long Term _ 0.:. 0 -. 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 (icres) New Road(mites) 0 0 0 7.8 0 0 0 7.8 Perm. Impact - 0 - 0 0 23 0 0 0 23 '{acres) ID STATE 5D O Irland Routes (miles), 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ShortfLong Term 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 0 0 3.2 0 0 0 3.2 Perm. impact 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 (acres) ID STATE`6A Overland Routes ., 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 '(miles) Short/Long Term 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 (acres) Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-19 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimated Impacts per Vegetation Covet Type t Q a Q_; t9 W VF rl Kam... . C` :x'�"a.. N ' New Road(miles) 0 0.3 0 0 0.1 11 b' OA Perm.Impact (acres) 0 1 0 0 0 '- 0 0 1 MT-STATE 1A Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Road(miles) 0 7.1 0.2 0.6-.. 0.1 0 0 8 Perm.Impact 04 21 1 2 0 0 . 0 23 (acres) MT-STATE 1B Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 1 'z:,0 0 0 ::: 0 0 1 • New Road(miles) 0 4 0.8 0 0 0 0 4.9 Perm.Impact 0 -12 2 0 0 0 0 14 (acres) MT-STATE IC Overland Routes 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 1 (miles) ShortlLong Term- (acres) 1. T: 0 0 0 0 0 3 New Road(mites) .02 6.9 0 0.1 0 0 0 7 Perm. Impact(acres) 04 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 MT STATE 1D Overland Routes .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D (miles) Short/Long Term 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 1.6 0 0.7 0 0 0 2.3 Penn. Impact 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 7 (acres) MT-STATE"2A Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term (acres) D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-20 MSTI I Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation b P 9 Y Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands I`Stfmated tmpactspee Yegetudoil Cover Type ' q a � � ,. Al 0 New Road(miles) 0 4.1 0 3.1 0 '0 0 7.3 Perm. Impact 0 12 0 9 0 = 0 0 21 (acres) MT-STATE 2B Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. 0 1 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 New Road(miles) 0.2 14.8 1.1 2 0.1 CIA 0 18.4 Perm. Impact (acres) 1 43 3 6 ': 0 0r:. 0 53 MT-STATE 2C Overland Routes (miles) 0 ,'1 0 D 0 0 0 1 Short/Long Term 0 3 . .Q 0 0 0 0 3 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 7.3 Q: 2 0 0.1 0 9.5 • Perm. Impact (acres) 0 21 06 0 0 0 28 z MT-STATE 2D Overland Routes (miles):. '.0 Z}. 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 Stid-tt/Long Term. D .. 0 ., U 0 0 0 0 0 ,,(acres) _ . New Road(miles) 0.2 14.E , 1 1.5 0 0.1 0 17.4 Perm Impact . (acres) 42 3 4 0 0 0 50 MT STATlz 2E Ovarland Routes- (Mil* 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Short/LOng Term 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 (acres) ' Net+,(Road(n$fes) 0 4.1 0 4.6 0 0.1 0 8.8 Per#fi. Impact 0 12 0 13 0 0 0 26 (awes) MT-STATE'3A Overland Routes (miles) 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 Short/Long Term 0 4 0 7 0 0 0 11 (acres) Draft Environmental Impact Statement 0.10.3 Page-21 MSTI • Appendix C1O.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.30.3-3.Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands rrstimated Impacts Per Vegetation Cover Type a }� c s . W i m � a New Road(miles) 0 10.8 0.4 10.5 0.3 9:1, 0 2Z.1 _ Perm, Impact (acres) 0 31 1 31 1 0 0 64 MT-STATE 3l3 Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 ShorVLong Term (acres) 0 1 0 0 0 0 �0 7 New Road(miles) 0 9.3 0.4 10�. 0.3 -0.1 0 20.1 Perm.Impact 0 27 1 29 1 0 0 58 (acres) MT-STATE 3C Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 1 -.0 6 0 -. 0 0 7 • New Road(miles) .02 1.3 ` 0 23.5 -0 .04 0 24.9 Perm. Impact 04 .4 0 68 0 0.13 0 72.5 Shoshone FO (acres) 6A Overland Routes (miles) :.0 Q. 0 11 0 0 0 10.7 -- ShdrVLong Term jacres) 0. . 0 0 31 0 0 0 31.1 New Road(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm. Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) Upper Snake AA Overland Routes`:. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 (miles). WrVLong Term 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.3 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 0 0 6.4 0 0 0 6.4 Perin. Impact 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 18.5 Upper Snake (acres) 5A: overland Routes 0 0 0.5 8 0 .02 0 8.3 (miles) Short/Long Term 0 0 1.4 23 0 M 0 24.1 (acres) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-22 MSTI i Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency . Table C.10.3-3.Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation on Public Lands Estimated Impacts per Vegetation Cover Type E ate ' 2 � . did o ig o m ¢aa. . �o ��. New Road(miles) 0 0 0 10.4 0 0 p 4 M7 Perm. Impact 0 0 0 30 0 D 1 31.3 Upper Snake (acres) 58 Overland Routes 0 0 0.1 l0 0 0 + 0 10.3 (miles) Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 0.3 30 O t 0 0 30 New Road(miles) 0 0 0 02 0 ,,6 11.1 11.3 Perm. Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32.7 Upper Snake (acres) 5C Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 -,13 0 0 - 0 13.4 ., ShorULong Term (acres) 0 0 .:0 39 0 D 0 38.9 New Road(miles) 0 0 ! 0 6 0 0 0 6 • Perm. Impact 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 17.6 Upper Snake (acres) 5D Overland Routes 0 $, G`- 18 0 0 0 18.2 (miles).-,- Shdr/Long Terril (acres) 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 52.9 V� New Road{rriil es) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upper Snake '{acres) _ 6A ;, Overland Routes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (miles), Short/Lrmg Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) I Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-23 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-4.Local Routing Option Summary of Projected MSTt Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Estimated Impacts per Yegetaripn Cbyer type i .a y =s. Local Routing Options Impact Type ¢ t7 m ar U. S m°+y Total. Miles Crossed 0 0.9 0 1.7 0 0.1 0 2.7 Permanent (acres) 0 2 0.1 4 0 O`.2 0 5.6 Beef Trail Short/Long Term ' (acres) 0 9 0.4 17, 0 ? 1 -0 27.4 Total(acres) 0 11 0.5 21 0 ' 1 0 33.0 Miles Crossed 0 3 0.01 0+' 0 1 0 4.1 Permanent (acres) 0 6 0.02 0 7 1:: 0 15.2 Boulder Hill NJ Short/Long Term 1 31 X0.1 0 "D. 7 0 38.8 (acres) Total(acres) 1 37 0.1 0. 7 t 9 0 54.0 Miles Crossed 0 2 0.6 5 0.3. V.1 0 7.8 Clark Canyon Permanent (acres) 0 4 1.3 10 7 0.1 0 23.0 • East Short/Long Term 0 22 62 48 D 1 0 76.7 (acres) Total.{acres) 0 26 8 - 58 7 1 0 99.7 Miles Crossed 0 03 0' 31 0 0.6 0.4 4,7 Permanent (acres) 0 1 0 6 0 1.3 1 9.9 Diamond Butte Short/tong Term (acres) D ` 7 D 31 0 6 4 48.1 Tooth (acres) 0 9 0 37 0 8 4 58.0 _ Miles Crossed Q 3 0 0 0 0.03 0 3.2 Permanent (acres) 0 7 0 0 0 0.1 0 6.7 Fleecer Shon/Long Term (acres) +- 0 32 0 0 0 0.4 0 32.4 Total(acres) 0 39 0 0 0 0.4 0 39.1 `.. Miles Crossed 0 3 0 1.8 0 0 0 4.8 `Frying Pan Permanent (acres) 0 6 0 4 0 0 0 10.1 Gulch -.=Short/Long Term (acres) 0 30 0 19 0 0 0 48.9 Total(acres) 0 37 0 22 0 0 0 59.0 Miles Crossed 0.1 11.0 0 2.3 0 0.1 0 13.5 Permanent (acres) 0.2 23 0 5 0 0.2 0 26A Lima Short/Long Term (acres) 1 112 0 24 0 1 0 137.9 Total(acres) 1 136 0 29 0 1 0 166.3 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-24 MSTI I Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-4. Local Routing Option summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Estimated impacts reset Vegetation Cover Type 9 C d Local ROS+http 'c ,' 0 a `3 a OP>lons 'Ih1PacrType.� xt .Ci W 01 uo a a Total Miles Crossed 1.1 4.4 4.8 0.2 0.6 02 0 11.3. Permanent (acres) 2 9 10 0.3 17 0 5 0 39 7 - Lower Boulder Short/Long Term - (acres) 11 45 49 2 0 2 0 108.4 Total(acres) 13 54 59 2 17 2,8 0 148.1 Miles Crossed 0 3 0.5 2 0.04 01 0 5.0 Permanent (acres) 0 _51 4 1 0.3 0 11.5 Maiden Rock Short/Long Term (acres) 0 26 5 18 0 13 0 50.1 Total (acres) 0 32 &- , 22 1 2 '. 0 61.6 Miles Crossed 0 `0.7 0.1 07 0.1 01 0 1.7 Permanent (acres) 0 1 -, -0,.3 1 1 0.2 0 4.8 Mount Haggin Short/Long Term (acres) 0 7 2 7 7 0 1 0 16.6 Total(acres) 0 8 2 $ '- 1 1 0 21.4 Miles Crossed 0.1 4,2 0.04 1.5 0.8 0.1 0 6.7 Permanent (acres) 0.1 9< 0.1 3 22 0.2 0 34.0 North of Buxton Short/Long Term ' 1 42 0.4 15 0 1 0 59.8 aaes) Total,(acres) 1 51 '''0.5 18 22 1 0 93.8 Miles Crossed 0 0.2` 0 6 0 0 0 6.1 Potential :Permanent (acres) ' 0 0.5 0 12 0 0 0 12.7 Crossover,.. Short/Long Term ( res) 0 2 0 59 0 0 D 61.7 ac Total(acres) 0 3 0 72 0 0 0 74.5 Miles Crossed 0 2.9 0 1.8 0.1 0 0 4.8 Permanent (acres) 0 6 0 4 3 0 0 12.4 .Ratlersburg' - Short/Long Term (acres) 0 29 0 18 0 0 0 47.6 Total (acres) 0 35 0 22 3 0 0 60.1 _ Miles Crossed 0 2 1 1 0.1 0.1 0 4.0 Permanent (acres) 0 5 2 2 2 0.2 0 9.8 �,�(ook Creek Short/Long Term (acres) 0 23 8 8 0 1 0 40.3 Total(acres) 0 28 10 10 2 1 0 50.2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-25 MSTI • Appendix C10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3.4.Local Routing Option Summary of Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Estimated Impacts per Vegetation Cnyej`n e � a oe a .c 3 L Q N A d Locat Routing dt Type p Lz o Ca o -1, 'tt :?7-, ? �"tatal Miles Crossed 0 2.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 . 0 32: South of Butte Permanent (acres) 0 4 01 1 13 -` 0 5 0 18.4 1 Short/Long Term 0 21 1 4 9 "2 0 27.9 (acres) Total(acres) 0 26 1 51 13 ' 3 0 46.3 Miles Crossed 0 2.8 0 53 0 0 0 9.1 Permanent (acres) 0 6 0 11 0 .01 0 17.1 South Pioneers Short/Long Term 0 28 D 54 D OT 0 82.8 (acres) Total(acres) 0 34 0 65 0- 01 0 99.8 Miles Crossed 2.3 11.3 04 01 0 03.` 0 13.8 Upper Boulder Permanent (acres) 5 24 _01 0 0 01 0 29 #1 Short/Long Term 24 115 .0 4 1 0 0.3 0 140.5 . (acres) Total(acres) 29 138 OS 1 0 0.4 0 169.4 Miles Crossed 1.5 10.7 04 " .03 0 .03 0 12.3 Upper Boulder Permanent (acres) 3 23 01 0.1 0 0.1 0 259 #2 $hbrULong,Term 15 109-. 0.4 0.3 0 0.3 0 125.6 {acres) Total(acres) 16 132 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 0 151.5 Miles Crossed 0 1.1 0 0.2 0 0 0 1.3 PermanentJacres) 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2.8 Willow Creek `Short/Long Tgrm (acres) 0 11 0 3 0 0 D 13.5 >Total(acres).. 0 13 0 3 0 0 D 16.3 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-26 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-4.Local Routing Option Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation 15stimated-l"actspkrVegetationCayer7r a -- n kr.. 'C a ` yi vi z a !09 r Local Halting m Option Name Impact TVpe c y`, rn u°' m '•'_ �°. Total New Road(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm. Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) Beef Trail Overland Routes - _ 0 0 0 0 0 ; 0 '-D D (miles) Short/Long Term 0 0 0 (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 New Road(miles) 0 2.7 0 0. 0.2 0:2 0 3.1 Perm. Impact 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 9 (acres) Boulder Hill NJ Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 ShortlLong Term 0 (acres) ,.:Q 0 0 _0 0 0 0 New Road(miles) ff. 2, "1e7 10 R2- 0 0 13.9 Perm. Impact 0 7" 28 _ 1 0 0 40.5 • Clark Canyon (acres) East Overland-Routes 0 ( 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 (Miles)- Short/Long TemE 0 0 "-:0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) New Road(miles) _ 0 0.7 0 4.1 0 0.4 0.3 5.5 Perin. Impact 0 2 0 12 0 1 1 16.1 (acres) Diamond Butte — Overland Routes (Hiles) Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "(acres) New Road(r0es) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 Perm,fn5pact 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 (acres) Fleecer, Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ShortlLong Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 2.2 0 2.2 0 0 0 4.4 Perm, Impact 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 12.8 (acres) FrymgPdn Gulch Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3Page27 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • AIternative and Agency Table C.303A Local Routing Option Summary of Projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation WmateSttmpaCts per Vegetatlarr Cover Type u 0 o a Local Routing is 2 CD m option Name Impact Type a _ca m - i 9 1 �3,,( .a> --'total , New Road (miles) 0 9.7 0 01 0 =0 0 9.$,: Perm. Impact 0 28 0 0 3 0 z 0 R 0 28.6 (acres) Lima Overland Routes (miles) 0 1 0 0 0 s 0 0 1.5 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 3 0 1 0 0 a 0 4.3 New Road(miles) 0.7 3.1 3.2 0.2 0.1 001 0 7.2 Perm. Impact 2 9 9 g,,, 0.1 .02 0 21 (acres) Lower Boulder Overland Routes (miles) 0.2 0A 01 0 0 0 0 0.6 Short/Long Term 0.51 1 0.2 0 0 t. 0 0 1.7 (acres) New Road(miles) fl 3- 1 2 0.1, 0 0 5.8 Perm. Impact (acres) 0 3. .2' 5 0.2 0 0 16.8 • Maiden Rock Overland Routes [rttles) 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 ShorULong Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres);, New Road(miles)` 0 0.7 0A 0.7 .03 0 0 1.5 Perm. Impact 0 .. 2- 0.3 2 0.1 0 0 4.5 (acres) Mount Haggin Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ShorULong Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;. (acres) - New Road{miles) 0 4.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 .002 0 6.3 Perm. lmpact 0 12 0.2 4 2 .01 0 18.3 1acies) 'Norio of Buxton Overland Kutes ' (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-28 MS T1 Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-4.Local Routing Option Summary of projected MSTI New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation Estimated impacts per vegetation coverjype u L Local Routing we �a " Option Name Impact T ype a u'°r amt u° to Ir s .,oTotal 0 0.2 0 6 0 0 0 6.7 New Road(miles) Potential Perm. Impact 0 1 0 19 0 0 0 19.5 Crossover (acres) Overland Routes 0 0 0 0 0: 0 t3 0 (miles) Short/Long Term 0 0 0 0 0'- ' 0 0 0 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 22 0 1,3 .03 0 0 3.5 Perm. Impact 0 6 0 4 !. 0 0 0 102 (acres) Radersburg Overland Routes (miles) 0 _ 0 0, 0 0 ; D 0 0 ShorULong Term , 0 6 �` 0 0� 0 0 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 3 1: 2 0.2 0 0 5.3 Perm. Impact 0 7 2 5 1 1 0 15.5 • Rock Creek (acres) OverlandRoutes (miles_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shortlt-ong Ternf; 0 'a 0 :0 0 0 0 0 0 _ (acres)" New Road(miles. __0 -, 0.8-, ' .04 0,1 0.3 0 0 1.2 Perm. Impact 0 � 2 0.1 02 1 0 0 3.4 (acres) South of Butte 1 Overland;ROUtes 0 1 0.1 0,1 0 0 0 1.5 (mi(es} Short/Lang Term 0 4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 4.2 (acres) New Road*es) 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 Perm.fmpact 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 _ _ (acres) South Pioneers Overland Routes _ (miles) 0 0.5 0 .02 0 0 0 0.5 Short/Long Term 0 1 0 0.1 0 0 0 1.5 (acres) Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-29 MSTI Appendix G10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-4.Local Routing Option Summary of Projected MST] New Road and Overland Route Impacts to Vegetation Estimated impacts per metatton cover 1" e 0 't m d ry N y G A 4 m R C N . a Wi u Local Routing ?; Option Name Impact Type At t? ai rn u Kai^'" Natal New Road(miles) 1 10 .04 0.1 0 0 0 12 Perm. Impact 4 30 0.1 0.3 0 0,-,- 0 34.9 (acres) Upper Boulder#1 Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term 0 D D - 0 0 ' b - 0 (acres) New Road(miles) 0.4 9 0 '. 02 0 0 0 94 Perm.Impact (acres) 1 26 D ,05.: 0 D 0 27.3 Upper Boulder#2 Overland Routes 0 -0 D 0 0 0 0 0 (miles) Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 l. . 0 0 0 New Road(miles) 0 12 0 0 0 , '0 0 1.2 Perm.Impact (acres) 0 31 0 D 0 0 3.5 • Willow Creek Overland Routes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (miles) ShoWl-ong Term 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) • Draft Environ mental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-30 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.9-5.Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to vegetation Caused by Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimated Impacts peryeaetation Cover Type c A m o. Alternative(LRO) ' Impact Type y m $ d l7ptal Miles Crossed 0 1.6 0.0 2.6 0.1 0 0 4.3 Permanent 1A acres 0 3 0 5 $ -, 0 0 11.4 (Radersburg) ShorYLong Term 0 16 0 26 0: 0 0 42.6 (acres) Total(acres) 0 19 0 ` 32 3. 0 0 53.9 _ Miles Crossed 0.2 2.3 0.3 0 0.6 1.1 0 4.4 Permanent 1 5 1 V, 15 2- 0 22.9 1A (acres) (Boulder Hill NJ) Short/Long Term 3 23" 3 0 ,0 11 0 39.6 (acres) Total(acres) 3 28 3 ' 0 15 13 0 62.4 Miles Crossed 0.2 51'- 0.8 0.4 '3.3 0.1 0 10 Permanent 0.5 10,7 1.7 0.9 88 0.3 0 102 16 (acres) (lower Boulder) ShoNLon Term (acres) 2 52 8 4 0 1 0 68 Total(acres} . 3 63 10 5 88 2 0 170 Miles Crossed, 0.4 '=_1.3 0 0.4 0.1 02 0.0 2.5 Permanent 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 8.8 16 '(acres). (South of Butte 1) 'Short/Long Term 4 X33 0 4 0 2 0 23.7 (acres) F c. Total'(acres)_..w,y5 16 0 5 4 2 0 32.49 _ Miles Crossed 0 0.9 0.2 1.6 0 0.1 0 2.7 Permanent 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 5.7 1B (acres) (Beet Trail) Shonfliong Term 0 9 2 16 0 1 0 27.5 (acres) Total(acres) 0 11 2 20 0 1 0 33.1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-31 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-5.Projected MST]Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Caused by Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimged mpaactsper Ye4etation CO- Type'= ,a= E 4A ¢ p- - �LQ_ .55 i3 ti. ca Alternative(1.00) ImpactType d ca ai ]i a' tr j cTOtal Miles Crossed 0.1 3.8 0 2.1 1.0 0 4-, .6 '22 Permanent 0 8 0 4 26! 0, 0 38.8 1B (acres) (N of Buxton) Short/Long Term (acres) 1 39 0 22 0 2 0 64 Total (acres) 1 47 0 26 26 3 i 0 102.8 Miles Crossed 0 0.5 0.1 0.9 01--,`` 0 2. 0 1.8 Permanent 0 1 0 2.. 4 0 0 7.1 1B (acres) (Mount Haggin) Short/Long Term 0 5 1 9 rt 0 2- 0 17.4 (acres) Total(acres) 0 7 1 10 4. 2 ' 0 24.54 Miles Crossed 1 10 0 1 1 0 0 13.6 Permanent 2 21. ;,0 2 39 0 0 64.2 16 (acres) • (Upper Boulder#1) Short/Long Term 9 104 0 11 0 0 0 123.7 (acres) Total(acres) 11 125 0 13 39 0 0 187.9 Miles Crossed +.. 0 9 0 1 1 0 0 113 Permanent 0 -19 0 2 39 0 0 59.5 16 {acres)'; (Upper Boulder#2) Short/Long Term 01 91 0 9 0 0 0 100.5 (acres) Total acres) 0 110 0 11 39 0 0 160 Miles Crossed` " 1.3 0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0 2.5 Permanent 1C 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 8.8 ;(South of Butte 1) (acres) Short/Long Term same as for 16 (acres) 4 13 0 4 0 2 0 23.7 Total(acres) 5 16 0 5 4 2 0 32.5 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-32 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-5.Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Caused by Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimated lmpactspet Vegetation Cover Type LD CL U Alternatiyell.ROj go:Lx „Tatal Miles Crossed 0.2 5.1 0.8 0.4 3.3 '01, 0 -10 1D Permanent 0.5 10.7 1.7 0.9 88 03 0 102 :. (LowerBoulder) (acres) - same as for 113 Short/Long Term (acres) 2 52 8 4 0 1 0 68 Total acres 3 63 10 5 88 2 0 170 Miles Crossed 1 10 0 1 1 0 0 13.59 1D Permanent 2 21 0 2. 39 0 0 64.24 (Upper Boulder#1) (acres) same as for SB Short/Long Term (acres) 9 104 0 11 0 0 0 123.67 Total(acres) 11 125 A, 13 39 0 0 187.91 Miles Crossed 0, 9 0 - '1 1 0 0 11.32 1D Permanent 0= 19" 0 2 39 0 0 59.47 (Upper Boulder#2) (acres) Short/Long Term ( • same as for 1B (acres) 0 91 ' 0 z V 0 0 0 100.54 Total(acres) 0 110 0 11 39 0 0 160.01 Miles Crossed 0 3.7 0.3 0.9 0 0.2 0 5.1 2A Permanent':. 0 8 ;.(acres). 3 2 0 0 0 10.7 (Maiden Rock) Short/Long Terms, O 37 3 9 0 2 0 51.7 (acres) Total(acres) 1 45 3 11 0 2 0 62.3 Miles Crossed J0 1.2 0 0.4 0.7 0.2 0 2.5 Parp#anent 0 2 0 1 19 0 0 23 2A � {acres) "N of Buxton) `%;ShorULong Tern 0 12 0 4 0 2 0 17.7 (aces) Total-(acres) 0 14 0 4 19 3 0 40.7 Draft Environmental Im p act Statement C. 0 3 Page-33 MSTI • Appendix 0.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-5.Projected MST]Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Caused by Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimated impacts{fer Veget�tiOttOVef o AlternativeRO) Impact �¢ t7 m % H ¢ 1z M �3�'. �> " Total Miles Crossed 0 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.1 ,-0$' 0 1.8 Permanent 0 1 0 2 4i 0.4- f 0 7.1 > 2A (acres) .. (Mount Haggin) Short/Lon g Term 0 5 1 9 0 - 2 -. 0 17.4 (acres) Total acres 0 7 1 14 A' - 2 `0 24.5 Miles Crossed 0 3.7 0.3 09 o` 02r 0 5.1 2B Permanent 0 8 1 2:. 0 0 0 10.7 (Maiden Rock) (acres) same as for 2A ShortlLong Term 0 37 3 9 0 2 ,. 0 51.7 (acres) Total(acres) 1 .45 3 11 b 2 0 62.3 ­ Miles Crossed 0 1.2 0 °01 0 6 0 1.3 Permanent 0 3 ;:9 0 0 0 0 2.6 2B (acres) • (Willow Creek) Short/Lon g Term 0 12 �`0 1 0 0 0 13.6 (acres) Total(acres) 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 16.45 Miles Crossed r, 0 1.2 0 0.4 0.7 0.2 0 2.5 Permanent ;(acres) same Shortl ` 0 2 0 1 19 0 0 23 (N of Buxton) Long Term same as for 2A (acres) 6 . 12 " 0 4 0 2 0 17.7 total(acres) 0 '14 0 4 19 3 0 40.7 Mile's Crossed 0 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.2 0 1.8 Permanent 26- - � 0 1 D 2 4 0 0 7.1 (Mount Haggin) (acres) ShortlLong Term same as for 2A (acres) 0 5 1 9 0 2 0 17.4 Total(acres) 0 7 1 10 4 2 0 24.5 Miles Crossed 0.4 1.3 0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0 2.5 2e. Permanent 1 3 0 1 4 0 0 8.8 (South of Butte 1) (acres)Short/Long Term same as for 1B 4 13 0 4 0 2 0 23.7 (acres) Total(acres) 5 16 0 5 4 2 0 32.5 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-34 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-5.Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Caused by Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimated fmaiacts per vegetation coverlrpe _ t' d a m CL a Nternatfstie(k120) impact Type N u° M C° Total Miles Crossed 0 0.9 0.2 1.6 0 0.1 ,. 0 2.7 2C Permanent 0 2 0 3 0 0 D 57 (Beef Trail) - (acres) same as for 18 Short/Long Term 0 9 2 16 0 1 0 27.5 _ (acres) Total(acres) 0 11 2 20 0- 1 0 33.1 Miles Crossed 0.1 3.8 0 2.1 1.0 0.2 0 7.2 2C(N of Buxton) Permanent 0 8 D $.. 26 0 0 38.8 same as for 16 _ (acres) Short/Long Term 1 39., 0 22 0 2 -. 0 64 (acres) Total(acres) 1 =`47 "0 26 26 3 0 102.8 Miles Crossed o 05 0.1 6.9= 0.7 02 0 1.8 2C(Mount Haggin) Permanent 0 1 '- 0 2 4:. 0 0 7.1 same as for 2A (acres) Short/Long Term (acres) 0 5 ' '1 9. 0 2 0 17.4 Total(acres) 0 7 1... 10 4 2 0 24.5 Miles Crossed] 0 2.5 .0 0 0 0 0 2.5 _ Permanent ' 2D (acres 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 5.3 ,: (Fleeter) ,ShortlLong Term - (acres) 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 25.8 Total(acres) 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 31.1 Mllescrossed 01 2.2 0.3 1 0 0.2 0 3.7 Permanent 2D 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 7.9 (acres) (Rock Creek) Sh ( cres)ortlLong Term 1 22 3 10 0 2 0 38.2 a 'TOldf(acres) 1 26 4 12 0 2 0 46.1 Miles Crossed 0.5 8.1 0.1 1.3 0 0.5 0 10.6 Permanent 1 17 0 3 0 1 0 22.2 3A', (acres) (Linia) ShorlLong Term 5 83 1 13 0 5 0 107.7 (acres) Total(acres) 6 100 1 16 0 6 0 129.8 i Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-35 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-5.Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Caused by Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimated impacts perftemlon GDYef Type a. s c m p Type(t3O) fm ` . ,s. aotal Miles Crossed 0 0.2 0 3.4 0 , 1 1, :0 kL8 Permanent 0 0 0 7 3A (acres) 0 2- 0 10 (Diamond Butte) Short/Long Term (acres) 0 2 0 35 0 it _ 0 48.7 Total (acres) 0 3 0 42 0 13 '0 58.8 Miles Crossed 0 3.8 0 0 9 O t 0 0 4.7 Permanent 0 a 0 2 0' 0 0 9.8 3B (acres) , (Frying Pan Gulch) Short/Long Term 0 38 0 9 =. 0 6---:. 0 47.6 (acres) _ Total(acres) 0 46 0 11 Q 0 =. 0 57.4 Miles Crossed 0 3.1 0.8 '4.3- 0.4 0:1 0 8.7 Permanent 36 0 6 2 9 10i 0 0 27.6 (Clark Canyon (acres) • Short/Long Term ( East) (acres) 0 31 !: 9 -44 0 1 0 85 Total(acres) 0 37 10 53 10 1 0 112.6 Miles Crossed 0.5 8.1 0.1 1.3 0 0.5 0 10.6 Permanent, 3B 1 17 '0 3 0 1 0 22.2 (Lima) -- ' :(acres) Short/Long Term-,' same as for 3A ,.' (acres) 5 83- 1 13 0 5 0 107.7 `Total�acres) 6 100 1 16 0 6 0 129.8 Miles Crossed '0 0.2 0 3.4 0 1.1 0 4.8 Permanent 36 - 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 10 (Diamond Butte) (acres) �horULong Term same as for 3A S (acres) 0 2 0 35 0 11 0 48.7 Total(acres) 0 3 0 42 0 13 0 58.8 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-36 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-5. Projected MSTI Transmission Line Impacts to Vegetation Caused by Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimated impacts pet`Vegetation Cover Type a� m II _m 'CS w i1' W G� f U Ol Alternative(LRO) lmpect Type t; m ti K;71" M j,. ;.Total Miles Crossed 0 3.1 0.8 4.3 0.4 0.1 0 8.7 3C Permanent 0 6 2 9 10 4.. 0 276` (Clark Canyon East) (acres) same as for 38 Short/Long Term 0 31 9 44 0 1 0 85 (acres) Total(acres) 0 37 10 53 10 1 --0 112.6 Miles Crossed 0.5 8.1 0.1 1.3 0 0,5 0 10.6 3C Permanent 1 17 0 '3. 0 1 0 22.2 (Lima) (acres) same as for 3A Short/Long Term 5 83 1 13 0 5 0 107.7 (acres) Total(acres) 6 100 1 16 -0 6 0 129.8 Miles Crossed 0 0.2 0 3.4 0 11 0 4.8 3C Permanent . q ` 2 0 10 (Diamond Butte) (acres) 0 0 7 0 same as for 3A Short/Long Term • 0 2 '0 35 0 11 0 48.7 (acres) _ Total(acreQ 0 3 0 42 0 13 0 58.8 Miles Crossed 0 0 0.7 9.6 0 0 0 10.3 Permanent .; 3C ,(acres) 0 `0 1 20 0 0 0 21.7 _J acres) Pioneers) Short/Long Teraf�- 0 0 7 98 0 0 0 105 Total(acres) 0 '0 8 118 0 1 0 126.7 I i i Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-37 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-6.Projected Impacts to Vegetation Caused by New Roads and Overland Routes Associated with Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimated impacts per"a etatlon Cover type y ll-i z At (LRO) "PTq e a 0 y u: - .�,ti Del- Alternative 'F tal New Road(miles) 0 1 0 0.7 0 0 '-'0 1.7 Perm. Impact 1A (acres) 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 5.1 F (Radersburg) Overland Routes 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2.2 (miles) Short/Long Term 0 4 0 3 0 i. 0 0 6.4 (acres) New Road(miles) 0.2 1.7 0.3 0 0.6 at 0 3.4 1A (acres) Perm. Impact 1 5 1 0 2 2 0 9.8 (Boulder Hill NJ) Overland Routes 0 0 0 0 Flr.. 0 ' 0 D (miles) Short/Long(acres)Term 0 0. 0 0 0 - 0 0 D New Road(miles) .004 7 `U 0.4 3.5 0 0 11.8 • Perm Impact ,01 20 2 ,3 11 0 0 34.2 1B (acres) (Lower Boulder) Overland Routes 0.22 1 0.1 0 .03 .01 0 1.2 .. Siw t/Long Term 1 2 0..4 0 0.1 .02 0 3.4 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm, Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1B _ I(acres _ (South of Butte 1) Overland Routes 0.2 1 0 1 0 .04 0 2.7 (miles) Short/1_0119.Term (acres) 1 4 0 3 0 0.11 0 7.9 New Road(miles) 0 0.2 0 0.7 0 0.2 0 1.1 Perm. Impact D 1 0 2 0 0.5 0 3.2 �g• (acres) (Beef Trail),; + Overland Routes 0 1 0.1 1 .03 0 0 1.9 (miles) ShortlLong Term (acres) 0 2 0.2 3 .08 0 0 5.5 New Road(miles) 0 2.1 0 1.7 0.6 0.1 0 4.5 Perm.Impact 0 6 0 5 2 0 0 13.1 16 (acres) :(N of Buxton) Overland Roiles)utes .003 2 0 0.3 .03 0.2 0 2.3 (m Short/Long Term 01 5 0 1 0.10 1 0 6.7 (acres) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-38 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-6.Projected Impacts to Vegetation Caused by New Roads and Overland Routes Associated with Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options jstimated ImpaoCT par "elation Coveti Type Altematiiya too) _ Impact-ylfe - D y 'w u ir 9r,i -Total New Road(miles) 0 0.3 0.0 0-2 .ODS .02 0.0 0.4. Perm. Impact 0 1 0 0.5 .01 0.1 0 1.3 1B (acres) (Mount Haggin) Overland Routes (miles) 0 0 0 0 b 0 ;. 0 0 Short/Long Term 0 D D (acres) .4 D 0 0 D New Road(miles) 0.7 9 0 1.4 1.7 0 ,' 0 12.7 Perm. Impact 1B (acres) 2 26 0 4= 5 .D4 0 37.1 (Upper Boulder#1) Overland Routes (miles) 1 ,i 0 0 `-.0 0 0 2.1 Short/Long Term (acres) 4 2 0 0 0'. 0 0 6.2 New Road(miles) 1 8 0 1 2. .01 0 11.1 Perm. Impact 1g (acres) 2 22 0' 3 5 .02 0 32.3 • (Upper Boulder#2) Overland Routes (Miles) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 _. ShorilLong TenxT 4 2 .0 0 0 0 0 6.2 (acres) New Road(miles) r: 0 '.0 i 0 0 0 0 0 Perm.Impact 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 1C _(acres) (South of Butte.lj Overland Routes same as for 16 0.2 '1 0 1 0 .04 0 2.7 (miles) Short/Long Term ,.1 4 0 3 0 0.11 0 T9 ;(acres) - New Road(mmiles) .004 7 0.8 0.4 3.6 0 0 11.8 �E Perm. Impact ,01 20 2 1 11 0 0 34.2 1D _ (acres) (Lower Boulder) Ovedand-Routes same actor lB `-(miles) 0.22 1 0.1 0 .03 .01 0 1.2 `.. Short/Long Term 1 2 0.4 0 0.1 .02 0 3.4 (acres) = New Road(miles) 0.7 9 0 1.4 1.7 .01 0 12.7 t Perm. Impact 2 26 0 4 5 1D (acres) .04 0 37.1 (Upper Boulder#1) Overland Routes -. same as for IS (miles) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 Short/Long Term 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 6.2 (acres) Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-39 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-6.Projected Impacts to Vegetation Caused by New Roads and Overland Routes Associated with Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Est(mater{lmpacts per Xejj_atiorcCOVerTgpe u c er L C Ca P Alternative(LRO)- Impact Type ¢ t, rn u u° a[ x iY> "Total New Road(miles) 1 8 0 1 2 ,01 0 111,1 Perm. Impact 2 22 0 3 5 F. 02-: ' 0 32.3 1D (acres) (Upper Boulder#2) Overland Routes 1 1 0 0 0 '0 _ 0 21 same as for 1B (miles) - - ShorULongTerm 4 2 D D 0 0 �-0 6.2 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 0 0 ,0 0 '' 0 0 0 Perm. Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 2A (acres) (Maiden Rock) Overland Routes ( 0 0 0 0 :0 0 r 0 0 miles ) Short/Lon g Term 0 0 0 :.:0 0 _I 0 D 0 (acres) New Road(miles) 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 2A (acres) Perm. Impact 0 ' 0 0`' 0 O 0 0 0 • (N of Buxton) Overland Routes .003 1 0 .02 .03 0.2 0 1 (miles) Short/Long Term .009 2 0 .07 01 1 0 28 (acres) New Road..(miles) 0 `0.3 00 02 .005 .02 0 0.4 _(acres) 2A Perm.Impact 0 1 0 0.5 0.01 0.1 0 1.3 (Mount Haggm) Overland Routes same as for 18 (miles) 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Ong Term (acres) Q D 0 0 0 0 0 D New Road(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm. Impact 2B (acres) 0 0 0 D D 0 0 0 (Maiden Rock) Overland RZles same as for 2A (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ShorULong Term (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Road(miles) 0 1.9 0 0.3 0 0 0 2.2 2B Perm. impact 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 6.5 (acres) -.., (Willow C(eek) Overland Routes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (miles) Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 • Draft Environmental I mpact Statement C.10.3 Page-40 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3.6.Projected Impacts to Vegetation Caused by New Roads and Overland Routes Associated with Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options Estimated Impacts perYegetation cover type t+ a nr y Alternative RO) Impact Type _ ', y {L `dotal New Road(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0.: Perm. Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (N (acres) (N of Buxton) Overland Routes ,003 1 0 02 .03 02 0 1 same as for 2A (miles) ShortfLong Term (acres) ,009 2 0 .07 0.1 1 0 2.8 New Road(miles) 0 0.3 00 2 .005 02 0 0.4 Perm. Impact 2B (acres) 0 1 0 05 .Ol 0:1 0 1.3 (Mount Haggin) Overland Routes same as for 2A (miles) 0 Q�- 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 0 _.: 0 0`I 0 0 0 New Road(miles) 0'- 0.t 0 0 " 0_ 0 0 0 Perm. Impact 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 2C (acres) , • (South of Butte 1) Overland Routes same as for 1B :,(miles) 0.2 1 0 1 0 .04 0 2.7 ShorULongTerm (acres) i q ,0 3 0 0.11 0 7.9 °-'New RR d(miles) 0 0.2 d: 0.7 0 0.2 0 1.1 2C _ Pemi.`Impact.(acres) 0 2 0 0.5 0 3.2 , (Beef Trail) Overland Routes same as for 1F3 (miles) 0 3 0.1 1 .03 0 0 1.9 ShortlLong`Ternr. .Jacres) 2 0.2 3 .OS 0 0 5.5 New Road (miles) 0 2.1 0 1.7 0.6 0.1 0 4.5 Perm. lmpaet 2C 0 6 0 5 2 0 0 13.1 (acres) (N of Buxton) Ovedand Routes saine'as for 16 (miles) 003 2 0 0.3 .03 0.2 0 2.3 Short/Lon g( Tacres)erm .009 5 0 1 0.1 1 0 6.7 New Road(miles) 0 0.3 0 0.2 0.005 0.02 0.0 0.4 v PermJmpact 2C 0 1 0 0.5 .01 0.1 0 1.3 (acres) (Mount Haggm) Overland Routes same as for 2A (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short/Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-41 MSTI • Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by • Alternative and Agency Table C.10.3-6. Projected Impacts to Vegetation Caused by New Roads and Overland Routes Associated with Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options EsrimYed Impede per Yeyetattotr Cover Typ ' v m a r 'c m c r Alternative..(LRO) Impact Type a c7 H =m m New Road(miles) 0 2.6 0 0 0 0A 0, 2.7 Perm. Impact 0 8 0 0 0 -` 0 `0 7.7 2D (acres) - Fleecer Overland Routes ( ) 0 0 0 0 0, ro 0 0 (miles) ShorULong Term 0 0 0 0 0 6 ..0 0 (acres) New Road(miles) 0.1 3.6 0.4 3.3 0 0.2, 0 5.6 Perm. Impact 0 10 1 d 0 3.. 0 16.3 2D (acres) (Rock Creek) Overland Routes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (miles) Short/Lon g Term (acres) 0 0 0 .:,0 0 ? 0 0 0 New Road(miles) 0.4 8.8 0 1.5 0 0 0 10.7 Perm. Impact 1 26 0 '- 4 0� 0 0 31.1 • 3A (lima) Overland Routes 0 0.4 0.1 -_` 3 " 0 0.3 0 1.7 �inlle5) Short/Lwg Term 0 `._ 1 0.2 3 0 1 0 4.9 (acres) New Road(miles) .02 0 0: 3.6 0 0.8 0 4.4 ,Perm.Impact-- ::DS 0 0 10 0 2 0 12.9 3A I-(acres) (Diamond Butte) Overland Routes 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 (miles) ShorULong Term (acres) _.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 New Road(miles) 0 3.4 0 1.4 0 0 0 4.8 3B Perm. Impact 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 14 (acres) (Frying.,Pan Gulch) Overland:ROUtes 0 0.3 0 .004 0 0 0 0.3 (miles) ShorULong Term 0 1 0 .01 0 0 0 1 (acres) New Road(miles) .01 4.6 1.1 8.7 1.2 0.1 0 15.8 38 Perm Impact. 02 13 3 25 3 0.3 0 45.9 (acres) (Clark Canyon East) Overland Routes same as for 3C (mites) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Short/Lon g Term (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 Page-42 MSTI Appendix C.10.3 Projected Impacts to Vegetation by Alternative and Agency • Table C.10.3-6.Projected Impacts to Vegetation Caused by New Roads and Overland Routes Associated with Alternative Segments that Correspond to Local Routing Options 15stimated Impacts per Vegetation Cover Type ra a t t m a. i`ir a a C fir. tD.a Alternative ILRO) Linpact Type a t7 a a r° i > Total New Road(miles) 0.4 8.8 0 1.5 0 0 0 10.7 36 Perm. Impact(acres) 1 26 0 4 0.: 0 0 311 (Lima) Overland Routes same as for 3A (miles) 0 0.4 0.1 1 0 0.3 0 1.7 Short(Long Term 0 1 0.2 3 0 1 D 4.9 (acres) New Road(miles) .02 0 0 3.6 0 0.8 0 4.4 3B Perm. Impact(acres) ,05 0 0 10 0 2: 0 12.9 (Diamond Butte) Overland Routes same as for 3A (miles) 0 U 0 0 3 0 0 0 0.3 Short/Long Term (acres) 0 0 0 -.1 0 b 0 0 0.9 New Road(miles) .0 4:e 1.1 8 7 12.. 0.1 0 15.8 3C Perm. Impact 02 13 3 25 3 0.3 0 45.9 (acres) (Clark Canyon Overland Routes East) .(miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 ShorULong Term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (acres) ; ;`New Rpad.(miles) ;` 0.4 $.8 Q 1.5 0 .0 0 10.7 brm ampact 3C #Y _ .(acres) - 26 0 4 0 0 0 31.1 (Lima) Overland Routes same as forA (miles) 0 0.4 0.1 1 0 0.3 0 1.7 Short/LonyTarm A 1 0.2 3 0 1 0 4.9 (acres) :.New Road(miles) -02 0 0 3.6 0 0.8 0 4.4 3C Perm. Impact .05 0 0 10 0 2 0 12.9 (acres) same nd Butte) 'oil _.outes (miles) same as for 3A 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 ` Short/Lon'Term 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.9 (acres) _ New Road(miles) 0 0 1 8.6 0 0.1 0 9.8 Perm. Impact 0 0 3 25 0 0.2 0 28.4 3C (acres) (South Pioneers) Overland Routes 0 0 0 1,3 0 0 0 1.3 (miles) Short/Long Term 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3.8 (acres) Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.3 P age-43 MSTI • .Appendix C.10.4 Short Term Impact Estimates for Concrete Batch Plants and Staging Areas 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.10.4 Short Term Impact Estimates for Concrete Batch Plants and Staging g g Areas . Table. C.10.4.1.Short Term Impact Estimates for Concrete Plants and Staging Areas within the MSTI Project Area Shgt#Termlmpacts(acres) CanCrefe Batch ` Alternative Len4tkmife5) Staging Areas Plants Total 1A 81.8 40,876 11.679 52.555 16 90.2 45.115 12.890 , 58.006 1C 94.9 47.445 13.556 61.001 1D 54.0 27.016 7.719 34.735 2A 57.5 28.757 8.216 36.974 28 57.2 28.582 8.166 36.748 2C 89.7 44,868 12.819 57`887 2D 63.5 31,737 9.068 40.804 2E 53.5 26.756 7.645 34.401 3A 72.2 36.115 10.319, 46.434 3B 67.2 33.586,1"' 9.596 43.182 3C 72.0 36,006 ,:10.287 46.294 4A 20.0 10,011 2.860 12.871 5A 107.4 53.699 15.343 69.041 5B 114.0 56.979 16.280 73.259 • 5C 117.5 58.230 16.780 75.510 5D 111,3 55,642 15.898 71.540 6A 104.5 52.264, 67.197 i TableX.10.4-2.Short Term Impact Estimates for Concrete Plants and Staging Areas within the MST[Preferred Alternative Shor: emtlmPactsfacres fteferiti „ Alternativ '?r ; Concrete Batch Zone A(mil r Sta' tt Ar eas plants- Total 1 - 55.4 27.7 7.9 36 2 '` 53.5 26.8 7.6 34 3 71.4 35.7 10.2 46 4-' 20.0 10.0 2,9 13 5 111.3 55.6 15.9 72 6 104.5 52.3 14.9 67 i Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.4 Page-1 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and impacts to, Grazing Allotments • February 2010 MS TI EIS Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Statement Internal document not for publication Appendix C.10.S Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10,5.1. Rangeland Health of BLM Grazing Allotments in the Montana Portion of the MSTI Project Area a NleetingRangelanctHeatth Standards? 2 ei d r-4 p� Ln . Jf r far > - per 5 m u W -3s,p. a a: o ad a x 5 4 m Cy Broken Barrier 07707 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Devil's Fence 10243 Yes NA Yes Yes Yes>- Wood Gulch 10262 Yes NA NA Yes No Huller Springs 10264 No No Yes Yes Yes Summit 10282 Yes Yes Yes Yes, Yes Cottonwood 10285 Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Moose Creek AMP 10303 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Toston Canal 10376 Partial Partial z_. Yes Yes Partial Q&Q 20202 Yes NA NA Yes No Amazon 20204 Yes No No Yes No Wickes 20205 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dowdy Ditch 20209 Yes NA NA - Yes Yes County Line 20210 Yes' "Yes Yes Yes Yes North Doherty 20211 Yes NA NA Yes Yes South Doherty 29217 Yes No Yes Yes Yes • Butte Yellowshack 20221 Not yet assessed by BLM Keating Gulch Common 20225 Yes No Yes Yes Yes .• Big Pipestone 20230 Ye`s� No Yes Yes Yes Creek High,re "$0231 Yes No No Yes No :High Peak ? 20234 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Johnny Gukb 20236 Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Cable Gulch 20244 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Boomerang 20246 Yes No No Yes No Rawhide 20247 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ringing Rocks 20258 Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Elkhorn Creek 20266 Yes NA NA Yes N0 Riverside School 20272 No NA NA Yes Yes Copper City 20284 Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Smith Individual 20286 No NA NA Yes Yes Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-1 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5-1. Rangeland Health of BLM Grazing Allotments in the Montana Portion of the MSTI Project Area Nteeting%mdelarCdtiedlth SYandacds? fl a sv m v us F LL m Ea> E a� s' m o. E ? = n3 = nom � ma, mQ 6Z Q Ea M: inn � 52 MA0 Horse Gulch 20287 Yes NA Yes Yes No Lower Johnny Butte Gulch 20291 Yes NA NA "Y"es Yes Rails Mines 20292 Yes NA NA Yes Yes East&West 20375 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Radio TV 00150 Yes NA NA 'Yes Yes Gallagher 20114 Yes No Yes Yes' Yes Red Spring 10120 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Frenchie 10121 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Huntsman 10123 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Cedar Creek 10124 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Frying Pan 10131 No NA NA Yes Yes Hayden 10134 Yes' , NA NA Yes Yes Big Hole Road 10135 Yes: NA NA Yes Yes • Rocky Hills 10148 Yes Na Yes Yes Yes Allotment E -10149 '. Yes NA NA Yes Yes Smith Indiv SGC 10346 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lower Rochester 10353 No No No Yes No Dillon West Big Hole _ Road- 10503' Yes: NA NA Yes Yes Wolfe 10703 Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Rebich� 20174 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes .Railroad .. - 20175 Yes NA NA Yes Yes fKennfson Spring 20182 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Bell Canyon 20193 Yes No Yes Yes No Williams - 20195 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Bell Ranch 20197 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Clark Canyon 20206 Yes No No Yes No Isolated Iron Rod 20268 Yes No No Yes No :Rochester Basin 20324 Yes No No Yes Yes Hells Canyon 20325 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5-1. Rangeland Health of BLM Grazing Allotments in the Montana Portion of the • MSTI Project Area Meeting Rangeland Health Standards;? z° n+ m 2.2 g o 111 CL M i b1iC7 N'a ym Peck SGC 20336 Yes NA NA Yes' Yes Seven Springs 20337 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Seyler Pasture 20354 No No No Yes No South Seven Springs 20362 Yes No _lies Yes Yes McCartney Mtn 20366 No No Yes Yes"i No South Hogback 20486 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Snowline Custodial 20607 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Dell 20620 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Burk SGC 20657 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Welborn Dell 20714 Yes NA NA -Yes Yes Stanford 20717 No NA NA Yes No Snowline Isolated tracts 20719 Yes= NA NA" Yes Yes Roe West 20728 +: Yes NA NA Yes Yes Dillon Clark Canyon 30002 Yes No No Yes No Stonehouse 30005 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Armstead Mtn 30008 Yes No Yes Yes No Crooked Creek 30010 YJ?s NA NA Yes Yes Mosman 30011 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Gallagher Mtn 300,1,3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Barretts 30014 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Anderson Field 30026 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Snowline 30029 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ,.. Phalarope West ` 30204 Yes No NA Yes Yes North Willow Creek 30311 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Mipond Glendale 30358 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Lost Willow 30364 Yes Yes No Yes Yes " Birch Creek 30365 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -fled Butte SE 30615 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Frying Pan Basin 30691 Yes NA NA Yes Yes Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-3 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.2. Rangeland Health of USFS Grazing Allotments in the Montana Portion of the Project Area Condition Glass of t?dmaryCattle Range* (acies� Allotment National;Forest A1lotmentName No. Excellent Good i Fair Pgu Basin 90201 24 2,619 828 -- Boulder 90203 -- 1,047 1,865 90^ Dry Cottonwood 90106 344 4,949 1,582 -- Elkhorn 90208 -- 1,826 662 25 Beaverhead- Homestake 90212 -- 2,114 676 Deerlodge Indian Creek 90127 291 961 52 Lockhart- Whitehouse 90215 20 749 647 Norton 90412 95 1,700 :- 235 ' 5 Saratoga Ruby 90219 - 669 1,365 -- *Source: Godboit 2009. Condition class assigned in the 1970's. - • • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-4 MS77 Appendix C.10.5 r. Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5-3 Rangeland Health of BLM Grazing Allotments in the Idaho Portion of the Project Area Rangeland Health Ratings* v ? _ ' it n o to Ii E N a b n v > E ao v o vM ca sf�t N'� S N tl., (n Z U t!I U1' t�j im EAST MINIDOKA 1206 1 8 8 1 1 8 8 3 LAKE CHANNEL �— 1209 1 8 8 8 1 8 8 1 MINIDOKA },210 11 8 8 3 1 8 8 3 Burley RAILROAD 1213 Not yet assessed by BLM SAND 1214 Not yet assessed by BLM SCHODDE 1215 1 8 8' a. 1 1 8 8 3 WALCOTT 1216 1 8 8 8 1 8 8 1 CAMP 1 90921 1 8. 8 1 1 8 8 3 KIMAMA 80713 �1 8 a 2 3 3 8 3 Shoshone SID BUTTE 80708 Not yet assessed by BLM STAR LAKE 80709 Not yet assessed by BLM WILDHORSE 80711 1 '2 1 2 2 1 2 2 AIRPORT 15005 1 8 8 - 4 8: 8 8 4 BEAVER CREEK 15002 1 1 1 1 : 8 + 8 1 1 BERRETT 3001 1 8 - 8 '- 3 8 _ 8 8 3 Upper Snake BIG DESERT 7000 1 8 8 1 1 ';.,8 8 1 BLUESTEM 3008 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 CEDAR BUTTE 7005 1 8 8 4 1 = 8 8 4 CINDERCONE 7002 1 8 8 2 8 ? ' 8 8 2 Drat[Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-5 MSTI • • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.3. Rangeland Health of BLM Grazing Allotments in the Idaho Portion of the Project Area - Rangeland Health Ratings" a G L 0 aC Mz a V w � � y `� .E nm mu` 9 C.. 9 it.0 9 rn Q. N ,:.7 , it N E' R0 `N._N.. � `p o. � m3 `� c uaa> m - mom... m a a � a E a � Etn gg` a g E m �' E c ui m a a in in3 _ vtg � �i iR� N 2 CROFT 3010 1 8 8 3 8 8 8 8 CROOKED CREEK 16004 1 4 4 1 8 8 4 1 HELL'S HALF 3005 "2 ACRE 8 8 3 8 8 8 3 HIGHWAY Y50ll 1 8 `-.8 1 8 8 8 1 HOUSE 604$ 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 MAHOGANY 2025 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 BUTTE NO.2WELL 7006 „1 8 8 2 2 �- 8 �- 8 2 Upper Snake NORTH DUBOIS 1354 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 NORTH HAWGOOD 5189 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 PARK 5195 1 8.. 8 _ 1 8 8 8 1 PETERSEN 5200 1 8. .8' 1 8. 8 8 1 RAILROAD 5080 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 RATTLESNAKE 6019 1 4 '4 '1 $,. 8 4 1 POI NT ROCK CORRAL 7003 1 8 8 1 8 8": 8 3 RUDEEN 7017 1 8 8 2 8 :. 8 8 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-6 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table 0.10.5.3. Rangeland Health of BLM Grazing Allotments in the Idaho Portion of the Project Area Rangeland Health wrings'" , t Q TL a P 01 S o ro eQ ° v E o or cW 6 m in3 br ° zu "� ut +ati urn , SAGE JUN&ION 5;178 " 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 STAGE ROAD 7010 2 8 8 4 8 8 8 2 SINKS 2P20 3 8 8 3 8 8 8 3 SOUTH DUBOIS 1855 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 SPENCER 5059 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 SPRINGFIELD 70G7 1 8 1 1 8 8 3 Upper Snake -- -- - STAGEROAD 7010 '2 8 8 4 8 8 8 2 THREE SPRINGS 6021 1 4 8 4 8 8 8 4 TWIN BUTTES 13000 1 8 8 2 1 8 8 2 WEST DUBOIS 6025 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 1 WEST MONICA 4264 1 2 4 1 8 8 4 1 WIGWAM BUTTE 2032 1 8 8 1 8 8 8 4 "Key for Rangeland Health Standards: 1=meeting standard;2=not meeting the standard but making progress towards the standard,3,=not meeting the standard,current livestock grazing management practices are not significant factors;4=not meeting the standard,current livestock glazing practices are significant factors;8=standard does not apply. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-7 MSTI is 0 0 Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • C.10.5.1 Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-1, Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MSTI Transmission Line Construction "ected TmMts(acres) Forest or Allotment Allotment Total ShortFtong Alternative Field Office No. Name Miles Perm. Tetm ,°` Total Beaverhead- DRY 90106 8.94 18.8 91-11 109.9 Deerlodge COTTONWOOD Beaverhead- Deerlodge 90127 INDIAN CREEK 3.80 8 38.7 48:7 Beaverhead- Deerlodge 90201 BASIN 4.41 9.3 44.9 54.2 _ Beaverhead- 90203 BOULDER 3.97 B-3 40:4 48.7 Deerlodge Beaverhead- 90208 ELKHORN 3.29 6.9 ;33.5 40.4 Deerlodge Beaverhead- 90215 LOCKHART- 2 96 6.2 30.2 36.4 Deerlodge WHITEHOUSE Beaverhead- SARATOGA. 90219 3.33 7 33:9 40.9 Deerlodge RUBY.. Butte 10243 DEVIL'S FENCE 5.46 11.5. ..'55.6 67.1 Butte 10262 WOOD GULCH 0.631.3 6.4 7.7 Butte 10282 SUMMIT - 1.43 3 14.6 17.6 • Butte 20202 Q&Q 2.49 5.2 25.4 30.7 Butte 20209 DOWDY DITCH 0.84 1.8 8.5 10.3 KEATING Butte 20225 GULCH 2.68 5.6 27.3 32.9 COMMON Butte 20231 HIGH ORE 2.96 6.2 30.2 36.4 Butte 20236 JOHNNY -GULCH 1.62 3.4 16.5 19.9 Butte - 20246 _ _BOOMERANG 2.32 4.9 23.6 28.4 Butte 20247 RAWHIDE 0.56 1.2 5.7 6.8 Butte 20266 ELKHORN 1.22 2.6 12.4 14.9 CREEK Butte 20272'' RIVERSIDE 0.77 1.6 7.9 9.5 SCHOOL Butte 20286 SMITH 2.91 6.1 29.7 35.8 INDIVIDUAL Butte 20287 HORSE GULCH 0.91 1.9 9.3 11.2 Butte' 20292 RALLS MINES 0.57 1.2 5.8 7 Beaverhead- 90212 HOMESTAKE 4.62 9.7 47.1 56.8 Deerlodge Beaverhead- 1B 90412 NORTON 1.59 3.3 16.2 19.6 Deerlodge Butte 7707 BROKEN 2 4.2 20.3 24.5 BARRIER • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-8 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-1.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MSTI Transmission • Line Construction Projected Impacts(acres)* Forest or Allotment Allotment Total Short/Long Alternative Field O ice,, `yd.- "Nahre Miles Perm, Term Total Butte 10243 �DEVIL'SFENCE 1.42 3 14.4 17.4 Butte 10282 SUMMIT 2.09 4.4 21.3 e; '' 25.7 Butte 10285 COTTONWOOD 1.09 2.3 11.1 13.4 Butte 20210 COUNTY LINE 5.04 10,6 ,514 62 Butte 20211 NORTH DOHERTY 2.30 4.8 23.4 28.2 _ Butte 20217 SOUTH DOHERTY 0.16 0.3 1.6 2 BIG Butte 20230 PIPESTONE 2.21 4.6 22:5 27.2 CREEK 1B Butte 20236 JOHNNY G ULCH 0.36 0.8 3.7 4.5 Butte 20258 RINGING ROCKS 1.67 3.5 17.0 20.6 Butte 20272 RIVERSIDE 0.84 1.8 8.6 10.3 SCHOOL Butte 20286 SMITH INDIVIDUAL 2.91 6.1 29.7 35.8 LOWER Butte 20291 JOHNNY + 2.91 fia 29.7 35.8 • GULCH Butte 24292 RALLS MINES 1.05 2.2 10.7 12.9 Butte 20375 EAST&WEST 2.61 5.5 26.6 32,1 Beaverhead- Deerladge 90212 HOMESTAKE '! 4.62 9.7 47.1 56.8 Butte 7707 BROKEN 2 4.2 20.3 24.5 BARRIER Butte 10285 COTTONWOOD 2.86 6 29.1 35.1 State 1p376 TQSTON 0.5 1.1 5.1 6.2 CANAL 1C BIG Butte ` 20230,. PIPESTONE 2.20 4.6 22.4 27.1 CREEK Butte: 2O 34 HIGH PEAK 0.58 1.2 5.9 7.1 Butte 20244 CABLE GULCH 5.31 11.1 54.1 65.2 Buttq'1 20258 RINGING 1.67 3.5 17.0 20.6 ROCKS Butfe 20284 COPPER CITY .03 0.1 0.3 0.4 Butte 20375 EAST&WEST 2,61 5.5 26.6 32.1 Butte 7707 BROKEN BARRIER 2,00 4.2 20.3 24.5 1D Butte 10243 DEVIL'S FENCE 1.42 3 14.4 17.4 Butte 10282 SUMMIT 2.09 4.4 21.3 25.7 Butte 10285 COTTONWOOD 1.09 2.3 11.1 13.4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-9 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1-1. Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MSTI Transmission Line Construction Projocted ImpaC#s-(acres* Forest or Allotment Allotment Total StrorrlLong Alternative Field Office No, Name Miles Perm. Term Tow Butte 20210 COUNTY LINE 5.04 10.6 51.4 62 Butte 20211 NORTH DOHERTY 2.3 4.8 23.4 _ 28.2 Butte 20217 SOUTH DOHERTY 0.16 0.3 1.6 2 BIG Butte 20230 PIPESTONE 0.34 0.7 35 4.2 : CREEK Butte 20236 JOHNNY GULCH 0.36 0.8 3.7 4.5 1D Butte 20258 RINGING ROCKS 1.67 3.5 17 " 20.6 RIVERSIDE Butte 20272 SCHOOL 0.84 1.8 8.6 10.3 Butte 20286 SMITH INDIVIDUAL 2.91 6.1 293 35.8 LOWER Butte 20291 JOHNNY 2.91 6.1= 29.7 35.8 GULCH Butte 20292 RALLS MINES- 1.05 2.2 10.7 12.9 • Butte 20375 EAST&WEST 2.61 5.5 26.6 32.1 Beaverhead- 90412 NORTON 158 3.3 16.1 19.5 Deerlodge Butte 10303 AMP e Creek 1.25 2.6 12.8 15.4 Dill©n 20182 PRINGON S .2 2 49 5 25.4 30.6 PRING- 2A Dillon 20336 PECK SGC 0.51 1.1 5.2 6.3 Dillon 203 SEVEN 37 2.91 6.1 29.6 35.8 SPRINGS Dillon 20362 SOUTH SEVEN SPRINGS 1.26 2.6 12.8 15.4 Dillon 20657< BURK SGC 0.85 1.8 8.6 10.4 Dillon 30364 LOST WILLOW 4.05 8.5 41.3 49.8 Dillon 30365 BIRCH CREEK 2.42 5.1 24.7 29.8 Beaverhead- 90412 NORTON 1.58 3.3 16,1 19.5 Deerodge Moose Creek 28 Butte 10303 AMP 1.25 2.6 12.8 15.4 Dillon 10346 SMITH INDIV SGC 0.5 1.1 5.1 6.2 Dillon 20336 PECK SGC 0.51 1.1 5.2 6.3 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-10 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1.1.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MSTI Transmission • Line Construction Protected impacts(acres)* Forestay Allotment Allotment Total ShotVLong Alternative ` Fi��ft!t/f& No. Name. Miles Perm. Term Total Dillon 20337 SEVEN S PRINGS 2.7 5.7 27.6 33.2 2B Dillon 20362 SOUTH SEVEN SPRINGS 1.81 3.8 18.8 22.3 Dillon 30364 LOST WILLOW 0.94 2 9.6 '11.6 Beaverhead- Deerlodge 90212 HOMESTAKE 4.62 9.7 47,1 56.8: Beaverhead- Deerlodge 90412 NORTON 1.59 3.3 16.2 19.6 BIG Butte 20230 PIPESTONE 2,19 4.6. 22.3 26.9 CREEK 2C Dillon 20268 IRON ROD 5 10.5 50.9 61.4 Dillon 20324 ROCHESTER 5.17 :. 10.9 ..,.52.7 63.6 BASIN Dillon 20325 HELLS CANYON 0.34 0.7 3 5 4.2 Dillon 20366 MCCARTNEY MTN SOUTH:... 8.31 17.5 84.7 102.1 Dillon 20486 HOGBACK< 7.73 16.2 78.8 95 Beaverhead- 90412 NORTON 5.fi3 11.8 57.4 69.2 • Deerlodge Dillon 20182 KENNt50N 2.58 5.4 26.3 31.7 SPRING Dillon 20336_ PECK S .08 0.2 0.8 0.9 2D Dilon 20362 SOUTH SEVEN SPRINGS 3.27 6.9 33.3 40.1 -- --- VIPOND Dillon 30358 5.76 12.1 58.7 70.8 GLENDALE Dillon 30364 LOST WILLOW 4.19 8.8 42.7 51.4 Dillon 30365 BIRCH CREEK 3.35 7 34.2 41.2 BIG Butte 20230 PIPESTONE 0.29 0.6 3 3.6 CREEK Dillon! 20268 IRON ROD 5 10.5 50.9 61.4 RCH 2E Dillon' 20324 BOSINESTER 5.17 10.9 52.7 63.6 Dillon 20325 HELLS CANYON 0.34 0.7 3.5 4.2 Dillon 20366 MCCARTNEY 8.31 17.5 84.7 102.1 MTN SOUTH Dillon 20486 HOGBACK 7.73 16.2 78.8 95 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-11 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing AIlotments • Table C.10.5.1.1.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MSTI Transmission Line Construction ProJ eCted Impacts{acres)* Forest or Allotment Allotment Total ShorlZLong Alternative Field Office -'No: Name Miles Perm, ' Tef+ri TQt7" Dillon 150 RADIO TV 0.57 1.2 5.8 6.9 Dillon 10120 RED SPRING 1.61 3.4 16.4 19.8 Dillon 10121 FRENCHIE 1.02 2.1 10.4. 12.6 Dillon 10124 CEDAR CREEK 5.09 10.7 5Y8 62.5 Dillon 10148 ROCKY HILLS 2.71 5.7 27.6 33.2 Dillon 10149 ALLOTMENT E 0.22 0.5 2.2 2.7: Dillon 10703 WOLFE 1.83 18s 18.6 22.4 _ Dillon 20168 FRENCHIE 4 8.4 40.8 49.2 Dillon 20175 RAILROAD 1.46 3.1 14,8 17.9 Dillon 20182 KENNISON 218 4-£ 22:2 26.8 SPRING Dillon 20193 BELL CANYON 3.63 7.66 37 44.6 Dillon 20195 WILLIAMS 2.35 4.9 23.9 28.8 Dillon 20197 BELL RANCH 2.7 5.7 27.5 33.2 Dillon 20607 SNOWLINF OS 02 08 1 3A CUSTODIAL Dillon 20714 WELBORN 1.31 2.7 13.3 16.1 DELL Dillon 20717 STANFORD -..0.66 14; ' 6.7 8.1 • Dillon 20728 ROE WEST 1.03 2.2 10.5 12.7 Dillon 30005 STONEHOUSE 2;82 5.9 28.7 34.6 Dillon 30008 ARMSTEAD MTN 1.4 2.9 14.3 17.2 Dillon 30010 CROOKED 0.87 1.8 8.9 10.7 CREEK' Dillon 30011 MOSMAN 3.12 6.6 31.8 38.4 Dillon 30026 ANDERSON FIELD 1.17 2.5 11.9 14.3 rr Dillon 30029 SNOWLINE 2.19 4.6 22.3 26.9 Dillon: 30204 PHALAROPE 1.4 2.9 14.3 17.3 WEST Dillon 30615- RED BUTTE SE 0.17 0.4 1.7 2.1 Dillon 10131 FRYING PAN 2.03 4.3 20.7 24.9 Dillon 10134 HAYDEN 0.52 1.1 5.3 6.4 Dillon 10135 BIG HOLE 2,03 4.3 20.7 25 ROAD 3B Dillon 10703 WOLFE D.95 2 9.7 11.7 Dillon 20114 GALLAGHER 3.69 7.7 37.6 45.3 Dillon 20174 REBICH 0.10 0.2 1 1.2 Dillon 20175 RAILROAD 1.46 3.1 14.8 17.9 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-12 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-1.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MSTI Transmission • Line Construction Projected Impacts(acres) Forestor Allotment Allotment Total ShortfLong AlternatiYe Field<7foce No. Name Mites Perm. Term Total CLARK Dillon 20206 CANYON 0.47 1 4.8 5.7 ISOLATED Dillon 20607 SNOWLINE CUSTODIAL .08 0.2 08 1.0 Dillon 20714 WELBORN 1.31 2.7 13.3 DELL 16,1. Dillon 20717 STANFORD 0.66 1.4 6.7 81 Dillon 30002 CLARK CANYON 437 92 44.5 53.7 Dillon 30008 ARMSTEAD MTN 4.86 10:2 435 59.7 36 CROOKED Dillon 30010 CREEK 0.87 1.8 8.9 10.7 Dillon 30011 MOSMAN 3.12 6.6 31.8 38.4 Dillon 30013 GALLAGHER''_MTN 131 3;6 1,7,4 21.0 Dillon 30014 BARRETTS 151 3.2 15.4 18.6 Dillon 30029 SNOWLINE 2.19 4.6 22.3 26.9 Dillon 30204 PHALAROPE 1.4 2.9 14.3 17.3 WEST • Dillon 30615 RED,BUTTE SE 0.17 0.4 1.7 2.1 Dillon 30691' Frying Pan Basin 0.12 0.2 1.2 1.4 Dillon 10120 RED SPRING 1.35 2.8 13.8 16.6 Dillon' 10703 WOLFE- 0.95 2 9.7 113 DVbn 20114 t3ALiAGI;I�R 2.72 5.7 27.7 33.4 Dillon 20168 FRENCHIE 1.87 3.9 19.1 23 -Dillon 20175 RAILROAD 1.46 3.1 14.8 17,9 Dillon 20182 45PRSON SPRINING 2.18 4.6 22,2 26.8 Dillon -- _20197.. BELL RANCH 2.06 4.3 21 25,3 CLARK 3C Dillon 20206 CANYON 0.47 1 4.8 5.7 ISOLATED Dillon 20607 SNOWLINE CUSTODIAL 08 0.2 0.8 1 Dillon 20714 WELBORN 1.31 2.7 133 16.1 DELL ' Dillon 20717 STANFORD 0.66 1.4 6.7 8.1 Dillon 30002 CLARK 4.37 9.2 44,5 53.7 CANYON Dillon 30005 STONEHOUSE 8.51 17.9 86.7 104.5 • Dro("t Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-13 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1.1.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MSTI Transmission Line Construction Projected tmpactsap s}" Forest or Allotment Allotment Tot01 Sir)kong Alternative Field Office No. Name ' Mile3 Perm. -Term TO Dillon 30008 MTNSTEAD 4.86 10.2 49.5 59.7 Dillon 30010 CROOKED 0.87 1.8 8.9 10.7 CREEK Dillon 30011 MOSMAN 3.12 6.6 31.8 ---38.4 Dillon 30013 GALLAGHER MTN 1.71 3.6 17.4 21 3C Dillon 30026 ANDERSON FIELD 3.72 7.3 37.9 45.8 Dillon 30029 SNOWLINE 2.19 4.6 "22;3 26.9 Dillon 30204 PHALAROPE 1.4 29::. 14:3 17.3 WEST Dillon 30615 RED BUTTE SE 0.17 : 0.4 1.7 2.1 Targhee 107 EAST BEAVER 5.55 11.6 ,56.5 68.2 Targhee 123 WEST BEAVER 0.42 0.9, 4.3 5.1 4A Snake 4264 WEST MONIDA 0.42 0.9 4.3 5.2 • Upper 5059 SPENCER 2.8 5.9 28.5 34.4 Snake Upper Snake 15002 CREEK R 2.65 5.6 27 32.6 Upper 2020 SINKS 518 11.1 53.8 64.9 Snake` Upper MAHOGANY Shake 2025 BUTTE 9.18 19.3 93.5 112.8 Upper 2032 WIGWAM 3.83 8 39 47.1 Snake_ BUTTE Upper 6019 RATTLESNAKE 0.22 0.5 2.2 23 Snake POINT Upper 6021 THREE 5A Sna ke SPRINGS 6.72 14.1 68.5 82.6 Upper 6025 WEST DUBOIS 4.27 9 43.5 52.4 Snake Upper 7000 Big Desert 8.92 18.7 90.9 109.6 Snake Upper 7002 CINDERCONE 2.53 5.3 25.7 31 Snake Upper 7003 ROCK CORRAL 2.37 5 24.1 29A Snake Upper 7005 CEDAR BUTTE 6.01 12.6 61.3 73.9 Snake • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-14 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-1.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MSTI Transmission • Line Construction Projected Impacts(acres)' Forest or, Allotment Allotment Total ShorULong Alternative Field office No. : Name Miles Perm, Term Total Upper 7006 NO. 2 WELL 239 5.9 28.4 34.3 Snake Upper 7007 SPRINGFIELD 6.21 13 63.31 76.3 Snake SA Upper Snake 13000 TWIN BUTTES 4.96 10.4 50.6 61 Upper 16004 CROOKED Snake CREEK 13.14 27.6 133.9 161.4 Upper 1354 North DUBOIS 0.97 2 98 it 9 Snake Upper 1355 South DUBOIS 1,08 2.3 ,.11 13.3 Snake Upper 3001 BERRETT 3.02 6.4 30.8 37.2 Snake Upper 3008 BLUESTEM 2.33 4.9 23.7 28.6 Snake Upper Snake 5080 RAILROAD 2.18 4.6 22.2 26.7 Upper 5178 SAGE 1.68 3:5 17.1 20.6 Snake JUNCTION Upper NORTH Snake 5189 HAWGOOD 165 3.5 16.8 20.2 • Upper 5195 -, Park 0.81 1.7 8.3 10 Snake 56 Upper 6045 HOUSE 1.17 2.5 11.9 14.4 Snake- Upper 7000 -Big Desert 7.97 16.7 81.2 97.9 Snake Upper 7002 CINDERCONE 2.53 5.3 25.7 31 I, Snake Upper Snake 7003 ROCK CORRAL 2.37 5 24.1 29.1 r` Upper 7005` CEDAR BUTTE 6.07 123 61.8 74.5 Snake Upper Snake V06 NO. 2 WELL 2.79 5.9 28.4 34.3 - Upper. .7007 SPRINGFIELD 6.21 13 63.3 76.3 Snake Upper 13000 TWIN BUTTES 27.58 57.9 281 338.9 Snake Upper 15005 AIRPORT 5.91 12.4 60.2 72.6 Snake Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-15 MS TI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1.1.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MST]Transmission Line Construction Projected tmpacts faci'esr Forest or Allotment Allotment Total Sho Long Alternative Field Office No. Name Miles Perm Term Tn ', Upper Snake 1354 North DUBOIS 0.97 2 9.8 11.9 _ Upper Snake 1355 South DUBOIS 1.08 2.3 11 . 13.3 Upper 3005 HELL'S HALF 0126 0.5 ;�2.6 32 Snake ACRE Upper Snake 3008 BLUESTEM 2.33 4.9! 23.7 28.6 Upper 3010 CROFT 1.6 3.4 16,3 19.7 Snake Upper 5080 RAILROAD 2.18 4.6 22.2 26.7 Snake SC Snake 5178 JUNCTION 1.68 3.5 17.1 20.6 Upper 5189 NORTH 1.65 3.5 Z6.8 20.2 Snake HAWGOOD. Upper 5195 Park 0.81 1.7': 8.3 10 Snake Upper 6045 HOUSE 1.17 2.5 11.9 14.4 Snake Upper 7000 Big Desert 16.80 35.3 171.1 206.4 • Snake Upper 13000 : TWtN BUTTES 3 6.3 30.6 36.9 Snake Upper Snake 15005 :. AIRPORT :, 5.91 12.4 60.2 72.6 . Upper Snake 1354 North DUBOIS 0.97 2 9.8 11.9 Upper Snake 1355 South DUBOIS 1.08 2.3 11 13.3 . Upper Snake 3001 BERRETT 3.02 6.4 30.8 37.2 Upper 3008 BLUESTEM 2.33 4.9 23.7 28.6 Snake Upper 5080 RAILROAD 2.18 4.6 22.2 26.7 SD Snake Upper 5178 SAGE Snake JUNCTION 1.68 3.5 17.1 20.6 Upper 5189 NORTH Snake HAWGOOD 1.65 3.5 16.8 20.2 `Upper 5195 Park 0.81 1.7 8.3 10 Snake -- Upper 6045 HOUSE 1.17 2.5 11.9 14.4 Snake Upper 7000 Big Desert 15.46 32.5 157.5 189.9 Snake • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-16 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-1.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused By MST[Transmission • Line Construction Projected Impacts(acres}* Fareaor, Allotment allotment Total Shorf/Long^ Alternative FietdCNfico. No. Name Miles Perm. Term Total Upper 7010 Stage Road 2.25 4.7 23 27.7 Snake _ 5D Upper 13000 TWIN BUTTES 15.27 32.1 155.6 187.7 Snake Upper 15005 AIRPORT 5.91 12.4 60.2 72.6 Snake Burley 1206 EAST MINIDOKA 5.7 11.9 58 69.8 Burley 1209 LAKE 3A Z2 35 41.9 CHANNEL Burley 1210 MINIDOKA 113 23.8 116 139.4 Burley 1214 SAND 3:3 7 34 41.1 Burley 1215 SCHODDE 7.8 16.4 79 95.7 Burley 1216 WALCOTT 1.4 3 15 1Z8 6A Shoshone 90921 CAMP 1 7.7 "16.3 e79 95.2 Shoshone 80713 KIMAMA 9.1 19.1 93 112 Shoshone 80708 SIDBUTTE 0.4_ 0.9 4 5.3 Shoshone 80709 STAR LAKE 14.7 30.9 150 180.7 Shoshone 80711 WILDHORSE 10.8 22.7 110 132.6 Upper Snake 7000 BIGflESERT 11.7 24.6 120 144.1 • Upper Snake 7017 RUDEEN 4.1 8.5 41 49.8 *Note: Impact calculations do not include impacts associateduith forest Clearing. On most allotments forest clearing is relatively minimal or non-etrrstent and is generally expected to increase forage production for livestock. Table C.10:5.1-2.ProjectedDirect Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads and Overland Routes Projected Impacts ShorHLong X„ Permanent t Tenn Total Forte or Allotment . ,Atteniative Field i*ce " . No; AlioutientName. Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Beaverhead- DRY Deerlodge 90106 COTTONWOOD 6.04 23.4 0 8.04 23.4 Beaverhead- Deellotlge 90127 INDIAN CREEK 2.63 7.7 0 0 2.63 7.7 Beaverhead- �beerlodge 90201 BASIN 4.43 12.9 0 0 4.43 12.9 Beaverhead- Deerlotlge 90203 BOULDER 3.74 10.9 0 0 3.74 10.9 i Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-17 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1.2.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MST] Access Roads and Overland Routes Proleded Impacts ., 5tiortlt_ong Permanent ''term- Total,d�,' Forestar Allotment z Alternative Field Office NHS. AllotlnentNamel Miles- Acres- Miley Acres Milep' Acres,r'� Beaverhead- 90208 ELKHORN 3.06 8.9 0 0 3.06 8.9 Deerlodge _ Beaverhead- 80215 LOCKHART- 0.72 2.1 0 0 0,72 2.1 Deerlodge WHITEHOUSE Beaverhead- 90219 SARATOGA Deerlodge RUBY 1.92 5.6 0 4 1.92 5.6 _:. Butte 10243 DEVIL'S FENCE 6.37 18.5 0 0 6.37 18.5 - Butte 10262 WOOD GULCH 0.55 l.fi 0 4 :. 0.55 1.6 Butte 10282 SUMMIT 1.16 34 0 0 '1.16 3.4 Butte 20202 Q&Q 1.78 ,5.2 0' 0- 1.78 5.2 Butte 20209 DOWDY DITCH 0 ':0 1.18 3.4 1.18 3.4 KEATING Butte 20225 GULCH 1.45 4.2 -0.54 1.6, 1.98 5.8 1A COMMON Butte 20231 HIGH ORE 1.43 4.2 0; 0" 1.43 4.2 Butte 20236 JOHNNY . 2.5875 - 0.. 0 2.58 7.5 GULCH • Butte 20246 BOOMERANG 1.51 4A -0 0 1.51 4.4 Butte 20247 RAWHIDE 0.64 X19 0 0 0.64 1.9 Butte 242E6' -.CREEK ELKHORN 12fl` 3.5 0 0 1.20 3.5 Butte 20272 RIVERSIDE SCHOOL 0, 0 0.78 2.3 0.78 2.3 Butte 20286 SMITH 3.88 11.3 .01 .0 3.89 11.3 INDIVIDUAL Butte 20287 HORSE GULCH 0.57 1.7 0 0 0.57 1.7 Butte 20292 -RALLS MINES 0.64 1.9 0 0 0.64 1.9 Beaverhead 90212. . HOMESTAKE 0.65 1.9 1.68 4.9 2.33 6.8 Deerlodge Beaverhead. 90412. NORTON 0 0 .08 0.2 .08 0.2 Deerlodge Butte 7707 BROKEN 0.6 1.8 0.52 1.5 1.13 3.3 BARRIER 1B Butte - 10243 DEVIL'S FENCE 1.53 4.5 0 0 1.53 4.5 Butte 10282 SUMMIT 2.5 7.3 0 0 2.5 7.3 Butte 10285 COTTONWOOD 1.44 4.2 0.12 0 1.56 4.5 Butte 20210 COUNTY LINE 4.21 12.3 0.27 0.8 4.48 13 Butte 20211 NORTH 2 78 8.1 0 0 2.78 8.1 DOHERTV • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-18 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1.2.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads • and Overland Routes Projected Impacts Short/Lang Permanent Term. Total Forest or Allotment Altentative Meld O lice No. 0oftentName Mites Acres Miles Acres.;: Miles` Acres,' Butte 20217 SOUTH 0.67 2 0 0 0.67 2 DOHERTY Butte 20236 JOHNNY GULCH 0.42 1.2 0 0 0.42 '!_L2 Butte 20258 RINGING ROCKS 0 0 0.10 03 0.10 0.3 1B Butte 20272 SCHOOL 0 0 0.82 24 0.82 2.4 Butte 20286 SMITH INDIVIDUAL 3.86 ll 3 01. 0 3.89 11.3 LOWER Butte 20291 JOHNNY A2 01. 2.96 $.6 2.98 8.7 GULCH Butte 20292 RALLS MINES 1,28 3.7 -'0 0 }, 1.28 3.7 Butte 20375 EAST&WEST 1.4 :-4.1 0 0 1.4 4.1 Beaverhead- Deerlodge 90212 HOMESTAKE 0.65 1.9 -1:68 4.9 2.33 6.8 • Butte 7707 BROKEN BARRIER 06 1.8 0.52 1.5 1.13 3.3 Butte 102 COTTONWOOD 0.75 2.2 0.49 1.4 1.24 3.6 1C Butte 10376 CANAL TOSTON 0,2 0.6 0 0 0.2 0.6 Butte 20234 HIGH PEAK 1.51 4.4 0 0 1.51 4.4 Butte 20244 ,>CA E GULCH -0.53 1.5 2.05 6 2.58 7.5 Butte 20258 RINGINU ' 0 0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 ROCKS Butte 20284' COPPERCITY .02 0.1 0 0 .02 0.1 Butte=. 20375 EASF&WEST 1.4 4.1 0 0 1.4 4.1 Butte 7707 BROKEN 0.6 1.8 0.52 1.5 1.13 3.3 BARRIER Butte`... -10243 DEVIL'S FENCE 1.53 4.5 0 0 1.53 4.5 Butte 10282 SUMMIT 2.5 7.3 0 0 2.5 7.3 Butte 10285 COTTONWOOD 1.44 4.2 0.12 0.3 1.56 4.5 ID Butte 20210 COUNTY LINE 4.21 12.3 0.27 0.8 4.48 13 Butte; 20211 NORTH DOHERTY 2.78 8.1 0 0 2.78 8.1 Butte 20217 SOUTH 0.67 2 0 0 0.67 2 DOHERTY Butte 20236 JOHNNY 0.42 1.2 0 0 0.42 1.2 GULCH Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-19 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1.2. Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads and Overland Routes Prq�ectedimpacts� S}�odll,ong = --'--77, . Permanant Term, TotaFa _ Forest or Atiotment Alternative Field Office No. AltotmeM Name Miles Acres Miles a_­Miles Acres Butte 20258 RINGING ROCKS 0 D 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 Butte 20272 RIVERSIDE SCHOOL 0 0 0.82 2A 0.82 Butte 20286 SMITH 1D INDIVIDUAL 3.88 113 .01 C7, 3.89 113 LOWER Butte 20291 JOHNNY .02 01 2.96" at 2.98 8.7 GULCH Butte 20292 RALLS MINES 1.28 3.7 0 8 0- 1.28 3.7 Butte 20375 EAST&WEST 1.4 '41 0 0" 1.4 4.1 Beaverhead- 90412 NORTON 0 0 .08 0<a .08 0.2 Deerlodge 2A Butte 10303 AMP SE CREEK 1.4 41 0 0 1.4 4.1 Dillon 20362 SOUTH SEVEN: .. ..0.25 0.7 0 ; 0 0.25 0.7 SPRINGS • Beaverhead- 90412 NORTON 0 .:p .08 0.2 .08 0.2 Deerlodge " Butte 10308' MOOSE CREEK 1.g0 4.1 0 0 1.4 4.1 Dillon 10131 FRYING PAN 0 0 0.27 0.8 0.27 0.8 SMITH INDIV Dillon 10346 SGC .04 0.1 0 0 .04 0.1 2B Dillon 20337 SEVEN 2.77 8.1 0.16 0.5 2.93 8.5 SPRINGS Dillon 20362 SOUTH SEVEN SPRINGS 0.25 0.7 1.51 4.4 1.77 5.1 "....:Dtllon -' 30364 LOST WILLOW 1.56 4.5 0 0 1.56 4.5 Dillon 30365 BIRCH CREEK 0.27 0.8 0 0 0.27 0.8 Beaverhead 90212 HOMESTAKE 0.65 1.9 1.68 4.9 2.33 6.8 Deerlodge Beaverhead- 90412 NORTON 0 0 .08 0.2 .08 0.2 Deerlodge 2C BIG Butte 20230 PIPESTONE 0.42 1.2 0 0 0.42 1.2 CREEK Dillon 20268 IRON ROD 6.34 18.4 0 0 6.34 18.4 Dillon 20324 ROCHESTER 742 21.6 0 0 7.42 21.6 BASIN • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-20 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-2.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads • and Overland Routes Projected Impacts ShordLong Permanent. Term Total Forest or Allotment Alternative Field Office No. Allotment Name: Mites Acres Miles Acres Miles .Acres Dillon 20325 HELLS CANYON 0.35 1 0 0 -0.35 1 2C Dillon 20366 MCCARTNEY 13.20 38.4 0 8. 13.20 38.4 MTN SOUTH Dillon 20486 HOGBACK 9.16 26.7 0 - 0 " 9.16 26.7 Beaverhead- 90412 NORTON 4.82 14.0 -0 0 4.82 14 Deerlodge Butte 10303 MOOSE CREEK AMP 1.66 4.8 0 0 1.66 4.8 Dillon 20182 KENNISON 2D SPRING 2.1 "?61 0 0 2.1 6.1 Dillon 20362 SOUTH SEVEN SPRINGS 434 12.6 0 8. 4.34 12.6 _ - Dillon 30358 VIPOND - GLENDALE 842 24.5 b 0 8.42 24.5 Dillon 30364 LOST WILLOW. 4.66 135, 0 _ 0 4.66 13.5 Dillon 30365 BIRCH CREEK 3.44 10 0 0 3.44 10 BIG • Butte 20230 PIPESTONE 042 1.2 0 0 0.42 1.2 CREEK Dillon 20268 =IRON ROD: 6.34 18.4 0 0 6.34 18.4 2E Dillon 20324 ROCHESTER 742 21.6 0 0 7.42 21.6 ASIN Dillon _ 20325 ` 0.35 1 0 0 0.35 1 CANYON' Dillon 20366 MCCARTNEY MTN SOUTH 13.2 38.4 0 0 13.20 38.4 Dillon:, 20486 HOGBACK 9.16 26.7 0 0 9.16 26.7 Dillon 150 RADIO TV 0.18 0.5 0 0 .18 0.5 Dillon 10120 RED SPRING 0.33 0.9 0 0 .33 0.9 Dillon .: -10124 CEDAR CREEK 0.7 2 0 0 0.7 2 Dillon ` 18148 ROCKY HILLS .08 0.2 0 0 .08 0.2 Dillon 10149 ALLOTMENT E .09 0.3 0 0 .09 0.3 r 3A Dillon ` 10703 WOLFE 1.35 3.9 0 0 1.35 3.9 Dillon 20168 FRENCHIE 0.22 0.6 0 0 0.22 0.6 Dillon 20175 RAILROAD 2.93 8.5 0 0 2.93 8.5 Dillon 20193 BELL CANYON 3.74 10.9 0.49 1.4 4.23 12.3 Dillon 20195 WILLIAMS 0.78 2.3 0 0 0.78 2.3 Dillon 20197 BELL RANCH 0.71 2.1 0 0 0.71 2.1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-21 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1-2.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads and Overland Routes Prolected Impacts Sho d Permanent Term" T- Forest or Allotment Alternative Field Office No. Allotment Name Miles Acres Miles ,Acres ; i4il Acres,," Dillon 20714 WELBORN 1.44 4.2 0 0 3.44 42 DELL Dillon 20717 STANFORD 0.8 2.3 0 0 - 0.8 , 2.3 Dillon 20719 SNOWLINE ISOLATED 0.29 0.8 0 0.;. £7.29 0.8 Dillon 20728 ROE WEST 0.29 0.8 0.31 0.9 0.6 1.7 :. Dillon 30005 STONEHOUSE 0 0 0.20 0.6 0.2 0.6 Dillon 30008 MRNSTEAD 1.9 55 0 t 0 1.9 5.5 3A Dillon 30010 CROOK ED 1.52 4.4 0 - 0 1.52 4.4 Dillon 30011 MOSMAN 2.93 8.5.. 0.2 0.6 3.13 9.1 Dillon 30026 ANDERSON FIELD ,07 0.2 -.. 0 Q .07 0.2 Dillon 30029 SNOWLINE 0.13 0.4 177 5,2_" 1.91 5.6 Dillon 30204 PHALAROPE 0.65 1.9 0.1 0.3 0.75 2.2 WEST • Dillon 30615 RED BUTTE SE '. 0.23 0.7 0 0 0.23 0.7 Dillon 10131,.:,.. FRYING PAN 0.43 1.3 " 0.22 0.6 0.65 1.9 Dillon 10134 -:HAYDEN 111 12 0 0 1.11 3.2 Dillon 10135 BIG HOLE ROAD 3.42 9.9 0.12 0.3 3.54 10.3 Dillon 107U3 WOLFE 1.06 3.1 0 0 1.06 3.1 pillon 20114 GALLAGHER 6.1 17.8 0 0 6.1 17.8 Dillon 20175 RAILROAD 2.93 8.5 0 0 2.93 8.5 -- CLARK Dillon; 20206 CANYON 0.68 2 0 0 0.68 2 ISOLATED 3B WELBORN Dtllan 20714 DELL 1.44 4.2 0 0 1.44 4.2 Dtllon -. 20717 STANFORD 0.8 2.3 0 0 0.8 2.3 Dillon 20719 SNOWLINE 0.29 0 0 0 0.29 0 ISOLATED ^Dillon 30002 CLARK 9.04 26.3 0 0 9.04 26.3 CANYON Dillon 30008 MTNSTEAD 5.34 15.5 0 0 5.34 15.5 Dillon 30010 CROOKED CREEK 3.52 10.2 0 0 3.52 10.2 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.S Page-22 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-2. Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads • and Overland Routes Proj_igio Impacts Short/Long Permanent Term, Total Forest or pllo meni Alternative Field Office Na. Allotment Name: Mites Acres Miles Acres Miles`-" Acres Dillon 30011 MOSMAN 1.82 5.3 0.2 0.6 202 5.9 Dillon 30013 GALLAGHER 3.51 10.2 0 0 3.51 10.2 MTN Dillon 30014 BARRETTS 1.25 3.6 0 0 1.25 3.6 38 Dillon 30029 SNOWLINE 0.13 0.4 1.78 . 5:2 - 1.91 5.6 Dillon 30204 PHALAROPE 0.65 1.9 01 0.3 0.75 2.2 WEST Dillon 30615 RED BUTTE SE 0.23 01 0- 0 1 0.23 0.7 Dillon 10120 RED SPRING 0.77 2.2 0 0 0.77 2.2 Dillon 10703 WOLFE 1.06 " 3,1 0 0 1.06 3.1 Dillon 20114 GALLAGHER 4.95 14.4 0 0 4.95 14.4 Dillon 20168 FRENCHIE 1.59 4.6 0 Q ;. 1.59 4.6 Dillon 20175 RAILROAD 2.93. 85 "0. 0 2.93 8.5 Dillon 20197 BELLRANCH 142 4.1 0.19 0.6 1.61 4.7 CLARK Dillon 20206 CANYON 0.58 2 0 0 0.68 2 ISOLATED • WELBORN Dillon 20714 DELL 144 4.2 '" D 0 1.44 4.2 Dillon 20717 -,STANPOgD Q8 2.3 0 0 0.8 2.3 Dillon 20719 SNOWLINE [SOLATED 029 0.8 0 0 0.29 0.8 Dillon 30002 CLARK 9.04 26.3 0 0 9.04 26.3 3C CANYON Dillon 30005 STONEHOUSE 8.84 25.7 1.3 3.8 10.14 29.5 Dillon 30008 ARMISTEAD MTN- 534 15.5 0 0 5.34 15.5 Dillon 30010 CROOKED 1.52 4.4 0 0 1.52 4.4 CREEK Ddlort -,30011- MOSMAN 2.93 8.5 0.2 0.6 3.13 9.1 Dillon 30013 GALLAGHER 3.51 10.2 0 0 3.51 10.2 MTN Dillon . 30026 ANDERSON FIELD 5.78 16.8 0 0 5.78 16.8 _ Dillon 30029 SNOWLINE 0.13 0.4 138 5.2 1.91 5.6 Dillon 30204 PHALAROPE 0.65 1.9 0.1 0.3 0.75 22 WEST Dillon 30615 RED BUTTE SE 0.23 0.7 0 0 0.23 0.7 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-23 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1.2. Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads and Overland Routes . prtilected ItnpaCts 9ho+ULong` ,�� tgemanent Tenn 76taC,�„�' Forest or Allotment - Alternative Field Office No. Allotment Name Miles Acres. Miles Acres Miles""" Acres' Targhee 107 EAST BEAVER 5.14 15 1.36 4 0.50 18.9 Targhee 123 WEST BEAVER 0 0 0.41 I2 Q.41 ,1 2 4A Upper Snake 4264 WEST MONIDA 0 0 .05t 0.1 .05 0.1 Upper Snake 5059 SPENCER 1.75 5.1 0.57 1.7.-,:,- 2.33 6.8 Upper Snake 15002 BEAVER 0.84 24 O.iA 0.4 0.98 2.8 Upper 2020 SINKS 0 '0. 0.6 1.8 0.60 1.8 Snake _ Upper 2025 MAHOGANY 0 0 1.17 3.4 1.17 3.4 Snake BUTTE Upper 2032 WIGWAM 0 0 05:..,. 1.5 0.50 1.5 Snake BUTTE.= Upper 6019 RATTLESNAKE 0 0 .n1= 0 .01 0 Snake POINT Upper• Snake 6021 SPR NGS 211 +6.i 014 0.4 2.25 6.6 Upper 6025 ::WEST DUBOIS .07 0.2 2.06 6 2.13 6.2 Snake Upper 7000 BIG DESERT 0 0 1.08 3.1 1.08 3.1 Snake 5A Upper.... ,.. Snake 7002 CINDERCONE 0 0 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.9 Upper Snake 7003.- ROCK CORRAL 0 0 0.14 0.4 0.14 0.4 Upper, 7005`-. CEDAR BUTTE 0 0 1.03 3 1.03 3 Snake' Upper 7006 NO. 2 WELL 0 0 0.37 1.1 0.37 1.1 Snake Upper 7007 SPRINGFIELD 0 0 0.8 23 0.8 2.3 Snake Upper 13000 TWIN BUTTES 0 0 0.78 2.3 0.78 2.3 .. - Snake, 16004 CROOKED 4,55 13.2 0.99 2.9 5.55 16.1 - Snake CREEK Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-24 MS TI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1.2.Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads • and Overland Routes Projected Impacts ShoryLong" _ Permanent Tenn Total e Forest or Altotment Altenrati a Field 6ttice' Nu. - ° AllotmetrtN4*0 Wes Acres Miles Acres Mileir Acres NORTH Upper Snake 1354 DUBOIS 0 0 0.97 2.8 0.97 2.8 Upper 1355 SOUTH DUBOIS 0 0 0.47 L4 047 1.4 Snake Upper 3001 BERRETT 1.02 3 0 .. 0 ` 1.02 3` Snake Upper Snake 3008 BLUESTEM 0 0 0.83 2.4 0.83 2.4 - Upper Snake 5178 UNCTION .08 a2 0' 0 `' .08 0.2 Upper Snake 5195 PARK 09 '0.3 0 0 .09 0.3 Upper 7000 BIG DESERT 0 0 1.08 3.1 1.08 3.1 Snake 5B Upper Snake 7002 CINDERCONE ' ` Q 0 0.30 09 =* 0.3 0.9 Upper °C" Snake 7003 ROCK CORRAL 0 0 914 0.4 0.14 0.4 Upper 7005 CEDAR BUTTE '' 0.82 2.7 0.75 2.2 1.67 4.9 Snake t • Upper 7006 NO.2 WEiL 0 Snake 0 0.37 1.1 0.37 1.1 Upper Snake 7007 SPRINGFIrLD 0 0 0.8 2.3 0.8 2.3 Upper 130(30 Snake TWIN BUTTES 9.83 28.6 3.28 9.5 13.11 38.1 Upper make 0005 AIRPORT 0 0 2.66 7.7 2.66 7.7 Snake. 1363 LDBC3fS .� 0 0 0.97 2.8 0.97 2.8 Upper 1355 SOUTH DUBOIS 0 0 0.47 1.4 0.47 1.4 Snake Upper. 3005 HELL'S HALF 0.19 0.6 0 0 0.19 0.6 Snake,, ACRE Upper - 5C Snake 3008 BLUESTEM 0 0 0.83 2.4 0.83 2.4 SAGE ° Snake 5178 JUNCTION .08 0.2 0 0 .OS 0.2 Upper 5195 PARK .09 0 0 0 .09 0 Snake -Upper 7000 BIG DESERT 0 0 922 26.8 9.22 26.8 Snake Upper 15005 AIRPORT 0 0 2.66 7.7 2.66 7.7 Snake 5D Snake 1354 NORTH 0 0 0.97 2.8 0.97 2.8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-25 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1-2. Projected Direct Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by MSTI Access Roads and Overland Routes Projected imStiorUtojracts ng, Permanent Torn Total�' Forest or Allotment Alternative Field Office ko:D Allotment Name Miles Acres Miles Acres M446cre%->`` Upper 1355 SOUTH DUBOIS 0 0 0.47 1.4 _,0.47 1.4 Snake s Upper 3001 BERRETT 1.02 3 0 a 1.02 3 Snake Upper Snake 3008 BLUESTEM 0 0 0.83 �A 0.83 2.4. Upper SAGE Snake 5178 JU CTION .OS 0.2 0 0 A8 0.2 Upper 5D Snake 5189 HAWGOOD 0 .A 0� , ' 0 0 0 Upper Snake 5195 PARK 09 '-0.3 0 .A .09 0.3 Upper 7000 BIG DESERT 0.39 1.1 7.34 4.3 7.73 22.5 Snake - Upper 7010 STAGE ROAD ,0 0 2.25 6 5 2.25 6.5 Snake Upper Snake 13000 TWIN BUTTES 4.71 131 3.28 9.5 7.99 23.3 Upper 15005 AIRPORT 0. 0 2.66 7.7 2.66 7.7 Snake • Burley 1206 MINIDOKA 04 '1.1 4.8 14.0 5.2 15 Burley .1209 t.AKE CHANNEL 0 0 1.2 3.5 1.2 3.5 Burley E 1210 MINIDOKA T:1 20.7 4.6 13.5 11.7 34.1 Burley 1214: SAND 0.6 1.8 0 0.1 0.6 1.9 Barley 1215 SCHODDE 2.2 6.5 1.8 5.2 4 11.6 Burley 1216 . WALCOTT 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.5 1.4 6A Shoshone 80708 SID:-BUTTE 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 Shoshone 80709' STAR LAKE 14.5 42.2 1.1 3.3 15.7 45.6 Shoshone..:. 80711 WILDHORSE 3.4 9.8 4.2 12.2 7.6 22 Shoshone 80713' KIMAMA 5.5 16 4 11.7 9.5 27.7 Shoshone 90921 CAMP 1 4.9 14.3 1.2 3.6 6.1 17.8 Upper 7000 BIG DESERT 10.6 30.7 0 0 10.6 30.7 -:-. Snakes Upper 7017 RUDEEN- 4.1 12 0 0 4.1 12 Snake Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-26 MSTI Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-3.Projected Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by the Transmission Line in • the Preferred Alternative Projected impacts(acres)" ,-Preferred, RlternatiVe _016sCor Allotment-, Allotment Total ShorAong Zone# Field Office No. Name Mites Perm. Term ,'" Total Butte 7707 Broken Barrier 2 4.2 203 24.5 _ Butte 10243 Devil's Fence 1.42 3 14.4 17.4 Butte 10282 Summit 2.09 4.4 21.3 25.7 Butte 10285 Cottonwood 2.86 6 29.1 35.1° Butte 20210 County Line 5.04 10.6 51.4 62.0 Butte 20211 North Doherty 3.27 6.9 33:3 40.2 _ Butte 20230 Big Pipestone Creek 0,71 1:5 7.2 8.7 1 Butte 20236 Johnny Gulch 0.36, 0.8 3.7 4.5 Butte 20258 Ringing Rocks 1.67 3.5 17 20.6 Butte 20272 Riverside School 0.84 1.8` 8.6 10.3 Butte 20286 Smith 2.91 6-1 293 35.8 Individual • Butte 20291 tower 2.91 6.1 293 35.8 Johnny Gulch Butte -: 20292 Ralls Mines 1.05 2.2 10.7 12.9 Butte 20375, East&West 2.61 5.5 26.6 321 Big Pipestone Butte 20230`' Creek 0.29 0.6 3 3.6 Dillon 20268 Iron Rod" 5 10.5 50.9 61.4 2 Dillon 20324 Rochester Basin 5.17 10.9 523 63.6 Dillon 20325 Hells Canyon 0.34 0.7 3.5 4.2 Dillon 20366 McCartney Mtn South 8.31 17.5 84.7 102:1 Dillon 2I486 Hogback 7,73 162 78.8 95 Dillon 10120 Red Spring 1.19 2.5 12.2 14.7 Dillon 10131 Frying Pan 3.95 8.3 40.2 48.5 Dillon 10703 Wolfe 0.95 2 9.7 11.7 Dillon 20114 Gallagher 2.72 5.7 27.7 33.4 3 Dillon 20168 Frenchie 4 8.4 40.8 49.2 Dillon 20175 Railroad 1.59 3.3 16.1 19.5 Dillon 20197 Bell Ranch 0.94 2 9.6 11.5 Dillon 20607 Snowline 2,11 4.4 21.5 25.9 Custodial Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-27 MS TI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1-3. Projected Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by the Transmission Line in the Preferred Alternative Projected lmtracts.(acres)* Preferred Alternative Forest or Allotment Allotment Total Shwi�1#tg_ Zone# Field Office No, Name° Miles Pemr Terra ital Dillon 20714 Welborn Dell 1.31 2.7 13.3 16.1 Dillon 20717 Stanford 0.66 1.4 6,7 8.1 Dillon 30002 Clark Canyon 4.68 9.8 4�.7 57.5_ Dillon 30005 Stonehouse 4.33 9.1 X4.1 53.2 Dillon 30008 Armstead Mtn 4.86 10.2 49.5 59.7 Dillon 30010 Crooked C 0.87 1.8 $,9 10.7 3 reek Dillon 30011 Mosman 3,111 6.6 32,4 38.5 Dillon 30013 Gallagher 2,01 4.2 20.5 24.7 Mtn Dillon 30026 Anderson Field 3.72 7.8 M1 37.9 45.8 Dillon 30029 Snowline 2.94 6.2 29.9 36.1 Dillon 30204 Phalarope West 1.66 35 16.9 20.4 Targhee 107 BEEAST AVER 5.97 12.5 60.8 73.3 • 4 Upper Snake 4264 MONIDA 0.42 0.9 4.3 5.2 Upper Snake` 5059 SPENCER 2.8 5.9 28.5 34.4 BEAVER Upper Shake 15002 CREEK 2.65 5.6 27 32.6 Upper Snake 1354 North DU641S' 0.97 2 9.8 11.9 Upper Snake 1355 South DUBOIS 1.08 2.3 11 13.3 Upper Snake 3001 BERRETT 3.02 6A 30.8 37.2 Upper Snake '3008 BLUESTEM 2.33 4.9 23.7 28.6 Upper Snake 5080 RAILROAD 2.18 4.6 22.2 26.7 Upper Snake 5178 SAGE JUNCTION 1.68 3.5 17.1 20.6 5"r - NORTH Upper Snake 5189 HAWGOOD 1.65 3.5 16.8 20.2 Upper Snake 5195 Park 0.81 1.7 8.3 10 Upper Snake 6045 HOUSE 1,17 2.5 11.9 14.4 Upper Snake 7000 Big Desert 15.46 32.5 157.5 189.9 Upper Snake 7010 Stage Road 2.25 4.7 23.0 273 Upper Snake 13000 TWIN BUTTES 15.27 32.1 155.6 187.7 Upper Snake 15005 AIRPORT 5.91 12.4 60.2 72.6 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-28 MS TI Appendix C.10.S Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.30.5.1.3.Projected Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by the Transmission Line in • the Preferred Alternative Projected Impacts(acres)* Preferred Alterri Forest oi Allotment' Allotment Total ShorULong -Zone# field Office _ 46- Name Miles Perm, Term Total Burley 1206 EAST 5.68 11.9 57.8 69.8 MINIDOKA Burley 1209 CHANNEL 3.41 7.2 34.8 41.9 Burley 1210 MINIDOKA 11.34 23.8 115.6 139A Burley 1214 SAND 3.35 7.0 34.1 411 Burley 1215 SCHODDE 7.79 16.4 79.4 95.7 6 Burley 1216 WALCOTT 1.45 3.0 14.$ 17.8 Shoshone 90921 CAMP 1 7,75 16.3 78.9 95.2 Shoshone 80713 KIMAMA 912 19:1 92.9 112.0 Shoshone 80708 SID BUTTE o.43 0.9 4.4 5.3 Shoshone 80709 STAR LAKE 14.70- 30.9 149.8 180.7 Shoshone 80711 WILDHORSE 10.79 22.7 149.9 132.6 Upper Snake 7000 BIG DESERT 11.73 24.6 119.5 144.1 Upper Snake 7017 RUDEEN 4.05 8.5 41.3 49.8 *Note: Impact calculations do not include impacts associated with forest clearing, on most allotments forest clearing is relatively minimal or non-existent and is generally expected to increase forage'production for livestock. Table C.10.5.1-4. Projected-lnnpacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by New Roads and Overland • Routes'n the Preferred Alternative Projected impacts t ShortlLong i7 I Permanent Term Total Preferred ''..Forest or Alt Zone ,Field Allcy�ttkh�n AI otroent # Office tfo. ` lie Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres oken Br Butte 7707'' Barrier 0.6 1.8 0.52 1.5 1.13 3.3 Bufle Devil's 10243 . Fence 1.53 4.5 0 0 1.53 4_5 Butte 7707 Broken Barrier 0.6 1.8 0.52 1.5 1.13 3.3 Butte 10243 Devil's Fence 1.53 4.5 0 0 1.53 4,5 1 Butte 10282 Summit 2.5 73 0 0 2.50 7.3 Butte 10285 a ottonwoo 0.75 2.2 0.49 1.4 1.24 3.6 Butte 20210 County Line 4.21 12.3 0.27 0.8 4.48 13 Butte 20211 North Doherty 1.98 5.8 0 0 1.98 5.8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-29 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1-4.Projected Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by New Roads and Overland Routes in the Preferred Alternative Projected lnri ShortfLong, Permanent4 Term Totak;F Preferred Forest or Att Tone Field Allotmert Allotment # Office tNa. Name Miles Acres Miles Acres Mies Acres.; Big Butte 20230 Pipestone 0.42 1.2 0 0 0,42, . 1.2 Creek Butte 20236 Johnn Gulch y 0.42 1.2 00 _, °0.42 1.2 1 Butte 20258 Ringing Rocks 0 0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 Butte 20272 Riverside 0 0 0.82 2.4 0.82 2.4 1 School Butte 20286 Smith Individual 3.88 11.3 M 0 3.89 11.3 Lower Butte 20291 Johnny .02 0.1 2.96 8.6 :.. 2.98 8.7 Gulch Butte 20292 Rails Mines 1.28 3.7 0 0 1.28 3.7 Butte 20375 East& west 4 4.1 0 - 0 1.40 4.1 • Big Butte 20230- Pipestone 0.42 12 0 0 0.42 1.2 Creek Dillon 20268 Iron Rod 6.34 18.4 0 0 6.34 18.4 2' Dillon 20324 Basin Rochester 7.42 21.6 0 0 7.42 21.6 Dillon 20325 Hells 0.35 1.0 0 0 0.35 1.0 _ Canyon Dillon 20366 MccanMey 13.20 38.4 0 0 13.20 38.4 Mtn South Dillon - 20486-,_ Hogback 9.16 26.7 0 0 9.16 26.7 Dillon 10120 Red Spring 0.21 0.6 0 0 0.21 0.6 Dillon, 10131- Frying Pan 5.21 15.2 0 0 5.21 15.2 Dillon 10703 Wolfe 1.06 3.1 0 0 1.06 3.1 Dillon. 20114 Gallagher 4.95 14.4 0 0 4.95 14.4 Dillon 20168 Frenchie 0.22 0.6 0 0 0.22 0.6 3 Dillon 20175 Railroad 1.49 4.3 0 0 1.49 4.3 Dillon 20197 Bell Ranch 0.51 1.5 0 0 0.51 1.5 Clark Dillon 20206 Canyon 0.39 1.1 0 0 0.39 1.1 Isolated • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-30 MS TI Appendix C.10.S Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments Table C.10.5.1-4.Projected Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by New Roads and Overland • Routes in the Preferred Alternative Projected Impacts Short/Long Permanent Term Total Preferred forest or Alt.Zone Field Allotmen Allotment # _ Office tNo. Name Miles Acres Miles: Acres Mites Acres Dillon 20607 Snowline 1.71 5.0 0 0 1.71 5 Custodial Dillon 20714 Welborn 1.44 4.2 0 0 1.44 4.2 Dell Dillon 20717 Stanford 0.8 2.3 0 0 0.8 2.3 Dillon 20719 Snowline Isolated 0.29 0.8 0 0 0.29 0.8 Dillon 30002 Clark 9.06 26:4 0 0 9.06 26.4 Canyon Dillon 30005 eStonehous 2,07 6 0.2 0.6 2.27 6.6 3 Dillon 30008 Arm stead 5.34 15.5 0. 0 5.34 15.5 Dillon 30010 Crooked 1.52 4A 0 0 1.52 4.4 Creek Dillon 30011 Mosman 385 11.2 0: 0 3.85 11.2 Dillon 30013 Gallagher 3.63 10.5 0 0 3.63 10.5 Mtn • Dillon 30026 Anderson 5.78 16.8 0 0 Field 5.78 16.8 Dillon 30029 Snowline 147 4.3 1.62 4.7 3.08 9 Dillon 30204 VyPhalarope est `, 163 1. 4.8 0 0 1.63 4.8 Torghee 107 = SST- 5.14 15 1.76 5.1 6.91 20.1 BEAVER ,. 4 Upper WEST Snake 4264 MON DA 0 0 05 0.1 .05 0.1 Upper 5059; SPENCER 1.75 5.1 0.57 1.7 2.33 6.8 Snake; Upper 15002 BEAVER 0.84 2.4 0.14 0.4 0.98 2.8 Snake CREEK Upper 1854' North DUBOIS Snake" 0 0 0.97 2.8 0.97 2.8 Upp Sna 1355 DUBOIS 0 0 0.47 1.4 0.47 1.4 $ Upper BERRETT 1.02 3 0 0 1-02 3 Upper 3008 BLUESTE 0 0 0.83 2.4 0.83 2.4 Snake M SAGE Snake 5178 JUNCTION 08 0.2 0 0 .08 0.2 i Drat Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-31 MSTI • Appendix C.10.5 Rangeland Health and Impacts to Grazing Allotments • Table C.10.5.1.4. Projected Impacts to Grazing Allotments Caused by New Roads and Overland Routes in the Preferred Alternative Pro}acted ImpacCs ShortlLOng 7 Permanent Term Total Preferred Forest or Alt Zone Field AUotmen Allotment # Office tNo, Name Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acresx^ Upper NORTH Snake 5189 HAWGOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Upper 5195 Park .09 0.3 0 0 Snake .09 0 3 . Upper 5 Snake 7000 Big Desert 0.39 1.1 7.34 213 7.73 22.5 Snake 7010 Road 0 0 2.25 6.5 2.25 6.5 Upper 13000 TWIN 4.71 13.7 3.28 9.5 7.99 23.3 Snake BUTTES Upper 15005 AIRPORT 0 0 2.66 7.7 2.66 7.7 Snake Burley 1206 MINIDOKA 0.4 1.1 4.8 14 5.2 15 Burley 1209 CHANNEL 0 0 12 15 1.2 3.5 • Burley 1210 MINIDOKA 7.1 20.7 4 6. 13.5 11.7 34.1 Burley 1214 SAND 0.6 1.8 0 0.1 0.6 1.9 Burley 1215 " SCHODDE 2.2 6.5 1.8 5.2 4 11.6 6 Burley 1216 WALCOTT 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.5 1.4 Shoshone 80708 BUTTE 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 Shoshone' 80709 SSTTAR 14.5 422 1.1 3.3 15.7 45.6 ` Shoshone 80711 WILDHOR SE 3.4 9.8 4.2 12.2 7.6 22 Shoshone 80713 KIMAMA 5.5 16 4 11.7 9.5 27.7 Shoshone 90921 CAMP 1 4.9 14.3 1.2 3.6 6.1 17.8 • Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.5 Page-32 MSTI • Appendix C.10.6 Special Status Plants Montana (120 SPECIES) • Draft Environmental Impact Statement MSTI Appendix C.10.6 Special Status Plants Montana Table 0.10.6.1„Special Status Plant Species in Montana Evaluated for the MSTI Project a m ' v p r A c �: Mootan� a + N m a ° t „ €rtaral C0 ilkl �5e . ,Qcxnr in 18antlin � ° m Habita Forest of 4 0 all, ckiArr of M1C Flo1 Achnatherum �� ' Limestone talus Documented Letterman's lettermann - and dry fescue needle grass grassland in the Beaverhead, populations occur in g (Syn. ann) °9' _ �'+�, g Madison the southern portion leftermanit) ; valley and foothill zones. of AIL 3A/36/3C near _ Lima,MT. 1' Somewhat likely. +” Two populations occur within 1 mile of Alt.1A on either side f"� of the alternative; however,the preferred habitat type is extremely limited in the project area and it is seems Musk-root Adoxa Shaded,damp Jefferson, that repeated moschateltina °' X cliffs and Slopes Madison surveys have taken place in this area, ' suggesting that either the appropriate habitat type does not occur specifically in the project area,or that it it does, the species has not been located there. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.6 Page-1 MSTI 40 • • Appendix C.10.6 Special Status Plants Montana Table 0,10.64:;Special Status Plant Species in Montana Evaluated for the MST[Project m z a a c ,ti Montana . c =m c 0 a a ° MSTI, P'teritial to (General Coui ntie' ocour itt Montana E y 0 ai am ,ar NabiCat" ` Fe7jo Glri R Grits ld fOf e ',.Pbr#iom'b*fA�rAeSaT,I Somewhat likely. Potentially suitable habitat is limited in _ the portions of the Sparsely project area it is horse-'s A sickii he �i : vegetated, known to occur west horse-mint cusickii X- X `X' �� southern aspect Beaverhead of the southern talus slopes. portion of Alts.3A and Alt.36,west of Lima,MT). Closest - known population is >4.3 miles from Alt. 3A. - -§ Somewhat likely. s. Potentially suitable habitat is moderately limited in the Ageratina portions of the occidentahs Rocky outcrops& project area it is Western .' slopes in known to occur(west Eupatonum (Syn. X X ,� Beaverhead joepye-weed montane&lower of the southern _ occidentale) ;, - subalpme." portion of where Alt. 3A rejoins Alt. 3B13C), Closest known population is >12 miles from prolect area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.6 Page-2 MSTI Appendix C.10.6 Special Status Plants ' Montana Table C.10.64,Special Status Plant Species in Montana Evaluated for the MSTI Project W nta E s _ + ° P htiat to CotPntl M$?I s, 'tc � Mdrwt#Ma}:� v m aN c 1ctRt ` Monts' f id C o e ?- Unlikely.Potential K, habitat occurs in much of the project �. ` Open areas, area,but the single Tapenip Allium X `"fa ` foothills and Madison occurrence in onion acuminatum plains. Madison county is in ' i ^ the NE portion of the county;much removed from the project area. ' Somewhat likely. ' Potential habitat ,$ ! Dry,open forests, occurs in much of r woodlands,or the project area,and Small onion Allium ��, X TI r 5�= 4 grasslands on Beaverhead the single parvum x., '. warm slopes in documented the montane occurrence in zone. Beaverhead County is relatively close to Alts.3A and 3C. Unlikely.Preferred habitat is extremely limited in the project leaved Antennaria '" X area.The single densifolia ,,� Limestone talus. Deer Lodge occurrence in Deer antennaria Lodge County is located roughly 18 miles west of the „project area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.6 Page-3 MST] • • • Appendix C.10.6 Special Status Plants Montana Table C.10.6.1 Special Status Plant Species in Montana Evaluated for the MST[Project N E Manteha q w :,,: m 4 ��x ° MST! o6tan041to' E c 3 '5 E <m c Oenerall ounteos, Occur in MwArrs E aui vi :'. `' a a tiabttat Fgr86t4 or Foltion OfMS . " 2 a 13e uirem�nts Field CS i' ro ect Area Unlikely.Preferred habitat is extremely limited in the Moist soil of open portions of the Sitka Aquilegia X 1. coniferous, Beaverhead, project area it is columbine Formosa cottonwood,or Madison known to occur(Alts. aspen forests. 3A and 3B), Closest known population is >3 miles from project area. td; Occurs on soils derived exclusively from calcareous parent material. Prefers moderate to steep slopes with warm Likely.Populations aspects(SE,S, 9W,W)and are known to occur - ' sparse vegetation in the surrounding Sapphire Arabis Beaverhead, area of Alts.2A,2B X X X.' ;� 4� -typically rockcress fecunda .)„ Silver Bow and 2D.Closest sagebrush,curl known population is leaf mountain known 1.8 miles mahogany from project area. juniper .,'woodlands or" very op6n, "+ Douglas fir OY crested `i wheatgrass communities. Draft Environmental Impact Statement C.10.6 Page-4 "'3s MSTI Appendix C.10.6 Special Status Plants __,_. Montana Table 0,,10.6-t,Special Status Plant Species in Montana Evaluated for the MST]Project & �y- d c IVrSTI POtcM�ilyo t(� ' n'f185s occur j, 'T•n t8n3, Habtq PGit9sr,4r �ortiarrtlMiT Unlikely.No suitable a- Sand dunes, habitat occurs in the Asuagalus needs early project area. closest Painted a - Beaverhead population is in the milkvetch ceramicus - ,� p p succession sand var. opus ' Centennial Valley dune habitat. >20 miles away from Alt.4A. t" Likely. Potential a habitat occurs within the project area and A two populations ✓' Hillsides, bluffs, occur approx. 6 miles east and west Astragalus benc