March 1, 2010

Dear Mr. Porter:

We are writing today to express several serious concerns we have with the environmental assessment recently released in regards to the White Mountain Wind Energy Project. We have reviewed the EA online and have also taken part in the phone conferences that have occurred to date under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. All these contacts have left us with some profound concerns regarding this project.

One of our primary concerns, as you may know, is that the BLM failed to do a complete assessment of the known prehistoric and historic sites to determine whether or not this area was eligible for the National Register as either a Rural Historic Landscape (RHL) or a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). The sheer magnitude of the resources you have uncovered should have raised this question among your professional staff and we are disappointed that your office did not address this issue as part of your original analysis. Considering that the Northern Ute tribe raised this issue well before the release of this EA, we are unsure why this question was not fully evaluated before the issuance of your NEPA documents. The fact that you have chosen to issue this environmental assessment prior to reaching a final determination on this important issue is troubling. While we understand that your office is currently analyzing the potential for listing the area as a RHL or a TCP, we have serious concerns about whether this analysis can now receive proper evaluation under the NEPA process since you have already released the EA. Unfortunately, it appears as though the Rock Springs Field Office was intent on issuing this document based on some pre-set timetable, regardless of whether or not the assessment was complete. We do not believe this kind of analysis conforms to the requirements of NEPA.

In fact, we believe that even if these sites are not eligible for the National Register as a Rural Historic Landscape or a Traditional Cultural Property, the sheer scope of this project should have triggered a full-scale environmental impact statement rather than the abbreviated environmental analysis you have issued. By your own analysis, this project will impact some 163 cultural resources. A large percentage of these sites are likely to suffer adverse effects as a result. Yet, in your environmental analysis, these sites are not analyzed in any significant detail; they are simply listed in a table as Appendix D. Significant questions regarding possible avoidance and minimization under the National Historic Preservation Act are not addressed at all. For instance, will dust during construction or decommissioning impact the listed rock art sites? This has been an issue in several other projects and is a known concern. How will this be avoided or minimized? Have any of these sites been examined for the effects of shadow flicker? How will this be avoided or minimized? Nothing in the EA gives us any idea.

The Alliance for Historic Wyoming believes that this environmental assessment is inadequate to the scope of this undertaking and that a full environmental impact statement should have been undertaken. Even if an EA was the proper vehicle under NEPA, this particular EA seems woefully inadequate when it comes to addressing the multiple concerns that exist regarding cultural resources.

Reading through this EA, it appears as though the Rock Springs BLM is relying much too heavily on the programmatic agreement (PA) process to resolve a whole series of issues related to eligible cultural properties. Never before has the Alliance for Historic Wyoming encountered a NEPA document that relies so heavily on the mitigation process to address such concerns. This seems entirely inappropriate. Throughout this document, you state that issues related to cultural resources will be dealt with through the use of a PA which can only address mitigation. However, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that the agency must work first to avoid a resource. When avoidance is not possible, NHPA requires minimization of the impact. Nowhere in this document is minimization even discussed. Instead, the document seems to assume that, if avoidance is not possible, the adverse affects will be mitigated through the Section 106 process and that this is adequate under the law. But this analysis skips a very important step that should be addressed in the NEPA documents.

This missing step was further underscored by your own comments, as quoted by the Casper Star-Tribune in a recent article reporting on the public meeting held by the Rock Springs Field Office to discuss this project. In that article, you are quoted as saying:  “Now we’re identifying those cultural resource values and what visual impacts there will be … and then we’ll come up with proposed mitigation measures to offset those impacts.” While we cannot know what is missing from this statement, as indicated by the ellipses, it does appear as though you have made the jump from impact to mitigation without a full consideration of either avoidance or minimization, as required by NHPA. Even the EA itself seems to echo this misunderstanding of what is required under NHPA. In Section 4.2.1.1, the EA states that “(e)ffects are negligible because they would be mitigated.” Mitigation, in no way, turns an adverse effect into a “negligible” effect. It simply mitigates it. And mitigation of an adverse effect is the last resort. Therefore, it is disturbing to see the Rock Springs Field Office jump straight to mitigation and treat it as some sort of solution to the problem of adverse impacts.

Moreover, the heavy reliance on the programmatic agreement and mitigation to address all the issues involving adverse impacts to the cultural resources contains another inherent problem. While the general public has indicated a deep interest in this project, they will have almost no input into a programmatic agreement. We harbor significant doubts about how much most members of the general public understand about the process that will lead to a PA. While members of the public could request to be involved in this process as interested parties under Section 106 of NHPA, we do not see any place in the EA where this process is spelled out so that members of the general public could request to participate, if they so chose. Also, since the consultations on this PA were begun well before the EA was released, it is not at all clear that additional members of the public would now be welcomed into the discussions. When you are dealing with such a large potential impact to such a great array of cultural resources, it simply does not seem to reflect an adequate analysis to shove all these concerns onto an ancillary working group. A programmatic agreement was never intended to replace the full-scale environmental analysis required by NEPA.

Furthermore, should these sites be determined eligible for listing as either a Rural Historic Landscape or a Traditional Cultural Property, we do not believe that the PA process will be capable of addressing the many important issues that such a determination will trigger. Since this determination was not sought prior to the release of this EA, adequate analysis of these properties will not have been undertaken. Should these sites be found eligible as either a RHL or a TCP, we believe the Rock Springs BLM would be obligated, at a minimum, to conduct a supplement environmental assessment. Most certainly, it will not be appropriate to rely on the PA to resolve all the issues that will then arise.

We are also deeply concerned about the extent of the visual analysis that was done for this EA. Judging from the contents of this document, it does not appear as though the Rock Springs Field Office has conducted a full visual assessment of culturally sensitive sites within the twenty-mile designated analysis buffer zone. We believe that this analysis would require a visual assessment for portions of the National Historic Trails, trail segments within the Kinney Cutoff, portions of the North Evans Route of the Cherokee Trail as well as portions of the Overland Trail. Again, it appears from our reading of the EA that these are issues that you expect to have resolved through the programmatic agreement. In previous experiences reading through NEPA-required environmental documents, we have never run across such a heavy reliance on the PA process to address significant issues regarding resource protection. We believe that, under NEPA, you have an obligation to address these issues as regards cultural resources and that it is not proper for you to simply relegate them to be handled by the PA process under Section 106 of NHPA.

We also wonder whether there has been adequate analysis of all the resources located in the twenty-mile buffer zone. We understand that emigrant diaries indicate there may be alternate routes of the historic emigrant trails located on the south side of the Big Sandy River that have not been thoroughly evaluated. Additionally, it does not appear from the EA that the ten plus miles of common trail corridor belonging to the Oregon, California, Pony Express, and Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails have been thoroughly analyzed for potential impacts. Visual impacts to the trail viewshed are likely to be extensive and both dust and shadow flicker are likely to severely impair the experience of those seeking to enjoy these national trails.

Another concern regards the level of training that will be given to heavy equipment operators in the field. We find your repeated statements in the EA that operators will be told they are “not allowed to search for cultural resources (i.e., arrowhead hunting)” startling, at the very least. In fact, as we are sure you know, searching for cultural artifacts on federal lands is a violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). While ARPA does, in fact, have what is commonly known as the “Boy Scout exemption” which allows the collection of arrowheads, it is shocking that the BLM would not feel compelled to make sure that field operators understand their quite extensive obligations under ARPA to protect any resources discovered in the course of their field work. We would expect much better training to be conducted by the Rock Springs Field Office in regards to ARPA than simply telling the field operators that they cannot pick up arrowheads. In the past, your office has experienced situations where heavy equipment operators have obliterated stretches of historic trails through negligence. This should have made it clear how important it is to train these operators in how to recognize the historic trails and other conditions that might indicate the existence of cultural resources. We would hope that you would consider some in-depth training for these operators rather than just telling them that they can’t go arrowhead hunting. Otherwise, you are willfully exposing them to possible criminal penalties under ARPA.

This need for training is further evidenced by your statement in Section 4.2.5 that “increased visitation from survey and construction crews and from the general public may lead to increased vandalism of archaeological sites….” Again, we are stunned that you are so casual about the potential for increased vandalism of archaeological sites from “survey and construction crews.” Certainly, the Rock Springs Field Office must accept some responsibility for ensuring that professional crews operating on federal lands on projects authorized by the BLM are not going to be involved in vandalizing archaeological sites. Again, such actions would be a clear violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. For the BLM to authorize work to be done by crews whom you believe might engage in illegal conduct is totally unacceptable. If this is a real concern of the BLM, as stated in the EA, you must find some responsible way to address it before granting any permits.

As you can tell from these comments, we have a number of very serious concerns with this environmental assessment. Unfortunately, your office appears to be rushing this project through the required processes, resulting in an inferior analysis which is likely to result in serious degradation to resources you are charged with protecting. We are asking that all these issues be addressed before any record of decision is issued. In particular, we ask that you wait until a decision has been made regarding the potential National Register eligibility of this area under the standards of either a Rural Historic Landscape or a Traditional Cultural Property before issuing your decision. If it is determined that the area is eligible as either a RHL or a TCP, we would then ask that you do a supplemental environmental study before proceeding. While we understand this may well delay the proposed project, we believe this delay is essential to protect the cultural resources that you are charged with protecting.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Should you have any questions about our concerns, please feel free to contact us at the above address.