Consistency with Applicable Plans or Policies: The Project would be consistent with the LRMP as all the management prescriptions in the area of the Proposed Action allow for geothermal exploration and development. Visual retention areas along Primary Forest Road 97 and partial visual retention areas surrounding Alcohol Crater also allow for mineral development if it is consistent with visual quality objectives. The findings of the visual resource assessment indicate that no significant visual impacts would result from the Project after mitigation measures are applied (see Section 3.8). The Medicine Lake Management Area S&G state that geothermal development should not be precluded by other management activities. There are no Forest-wide S&G that would preclude the Project.

The Project would be consistent with the standards and guidelines of the NFMP ROD amendments to the Modoc National Forest LRMP (see Section 3.3).

The Project would comply with the environmental stipulations of the respective federal geothermal leases comprising the proposed Participating Area.

The Project would be consistent with the Siskiyou County General Plan and its Elements, particularly the Geothermal and Energy Elements. The Project would not directly conflict with existing land uses in the area of proposed operations.

Federal, state, and local land use plans were reviewed and analyzed to determine if conflicts existed between goals and objectives in these documents and the Proposed Action. It was found that several of these documents, including the LRMP and the Siskiyou County General Plan Geothermal and Energy Elements, had provisions for geothermal development of the project vicinity. No adverse effects are expected to occur with respect to land use plan conflicts if the Project were to be implemented.

Disrupt or Divide an Established Community: The area of the Proposed Action is relatively undeveloped and uninhabited; no community is expected to be physically or socially divided or disrupted by any proposed facilities. No adverse effects are expected to result that would destabilize any established communities.

Conflict with Established Recreational, Educational, Religious or Scientific Uses of the Area: Recreational use of the area is discussed in Section 3.10 of this EIS/EIR; Native American traditional and spiritual uses of the area are discussed in Section 3.6. No educational or scientific uses of the area are expected to be adversely affected by the proposed Project. The proposed power plant and associated facilities could become a visitor attraction to those wishing to see a modern geothermal power plant in operation, and the Project could thus increase the educational and scientific value of the area. No adverse effects except those described for Native Americans (see Section 3.6.3) are expected to occur to recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area.

Compatibility with Existing Land Uses in the Area: The Project would be compatible with existing land uses and Forest management prescriptions in the area of the Proposed Action. Impacts discussed in other environmental resource sections (i.e., air quality, noise, visual resources, and recreation) of this EIS/EIR identify adverse effects of the Project which may affect offsite land uses or periodic visitors in the area of the Proposed Action, but the resource-specific impacts are considered to be below the level of significance after prescribed mitigation measures. The Project would not prohibit Native American use of the area. No specific land use incompatibilities were identified.

The NFMP ROD (page C-17) states, “Developments of new facilities that may adversely affect Late-Successional Reserves [including MLSAs] should not be permitted. New development proposals that address public needs or provide significant public benefits, such as powerlines, pipelines, reservoirs, recreation sites, or other public works projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and may be approved when adverse effects can be minimized and mitigated. These will be planned to have the least possible adverse effects on Late-Successional Reserves. Developments will be located to avoid degradation of habitat and adverse effects on identified late-successional species (USFS and BLM 1994).” As discussed in Section 1.3, the proposed Project meets the criteria of public needs and benefits that would allow the development to occur as long as the adverse effects are minimized and mitigated. Measures to minimize and mitigate the adverse effects of the Site B Project Alternative on late-successional habitat are described in Section 3.3.3.5.1.

Impact 3.9.3.5-1: Approximately 6 acres of surface disturbance would occur in the Medicine Lake Managed Late-Successional Area from the construction of well pad 77-18 and related access road and pipeline corridor. This development could be inconsistent with direction from the Northwest Forest Management Plan Record of Decision and the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Significance of the Impact: This impact is considered potentially significant but implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3.3.3-9 and 3.3.3.3-10 would reduce the adverse effects of the impact to below the level of significance.

As discussed in Section , the transmission line originating at the Telephone Flat Project power plant site would be routed to interconnect with a transmission line located within one of the six alternative utility corridors evaluated in the Fourmile Hill Project EIS/EIR to be selected by the agencies as the preferred utility corridor between the Medicine Lake Highlands and the existing BPA Malin-Warner transmission line (BLM et al. 1998). The Fourmile Hill Project EIS/EIR evaluated seven different possible line segments (segments A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C1 and C2) which could be used in different combinations to comprise the preferred utility corridor. Only five of these line segments (A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2) could possibly be used by the Telephone Flat Project, and the Plans and Policies as well as the Land Use and Recreation analysis from the Fourmile Hill Project EIS/EIR of the five line segments which could be potentially used by the Telephone Flat Project are incorporated by reference into this EIS/EIR (see pages 3-148 through 3-179, and 4-180 through 4-209 of the Fourmile Hill Project EIS/EIR; BLM et al. 1998). The findings of the earlier assessment are also summarized in Exhibit 4 of this EIS/EIR (See Table S-5, pages S-30 to S-36, in Exhibit 4).

Telephone Flat Project Route Alternatives:

If the agencies select one of the Fourmile Hill Project utility corridor alternatives which route through the Medicine Lake basin in close proximity to the Telephone Flat Project (i.e., Alternatives 1 through 4), then the Telephone Flat Project would construct either line segment D1 (if Alternatives 1 or 2 is selected) or line segment D2 (if Alternatives 3 or 4 is selected), and no specific agency decision on transmission line route alternatives would need to be made for the Telephone Flat Project. However, if the Northern Utility Corridor for the Fourmile Hill Project (i.e., Alternatives 5 or 6) is selected as the agency-preferred utility corridor, then a second decision for the Telephone Flat Project would need to be made with respect to how to interconnect the Telephone Flat Project transmission line with the Northern Utility Corridor. Two alternative Telephone Flat Project transmission line routes (Route 1 and Route 2) are being considered for transporting power generated from the Telephone Flat Project power plant site to the Northern Utility Corridor.

The USFS is currently considering a proposal to temporarily halt all road construction in roadless areas on National Forests. While this proposal is being developed, the USFS issued a proposed interim policy to temporarily halt road construction in most areas of the National Forest system that are not currently roaded. Forest plans that have been amended by the NFMP ROD, such as the Modoc National Forest LRMP, would be exempted from the interim proposal (USFS 1998). Therefore, it is not expected that the Proposed Action would be affected by the temporary moratorium on new road construction as currently proposed.

Line Segment D1:

Line segment D1 is located entirely within the Project wellfield area, and the effects for line segment D1 would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action.

Line Segment A2:

The Proposed Action would be generally consistent with the standards and guidelines of the NFMP ROD; however, the NFMP ROD requires that a watershed analysis be prepared by the Forest prior to any management activities in a non-Key Watershed that contains roadless area. For the Proposed Action, Alternative Transmission Route 1 of the Proposed Action would proceed through the Mt. Hoffman Released Roadless Area (RRA); Alternative Transmission Route 2 would avoid roadless areas. The Proposed Action would occur in an area subject to the NFMP ROD, and is considered to be non-Key Watershed by the Forest.

Impact 3.9.3.6.1-1: If Alternative Transmission Route 1 of the Proposed Action, or any variation that includes line segment A2 that passes through the Mt. Hoffman RRA, is selected and approved for implementation, this Project would be potentially noncompliant with the standards and guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan unless and until a watershed analysis is conducted and completed prior to transmission line construction activities.

Significance of the Impact: This impact is potentially significant as the Project would be in noncompliance with USFS and BLM environmental management direction. This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the following mitigation measure.

Mitigation Measure 3.9.3.6.1-1: A watershed analysis shall be prepared prior to transmission line construction activities within the route of alternative line segment A2 if Alternative Transmission Route 1 of the Proposed Action, or any variation that includes line segment A2, is selected and approved for implementation. The watershed analysis shall comply with the requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the USFS prior to construction of the affected transmission route line segment.

Line segment A2 was also the subject of earlier environmental analysis as part of the Fourmile Hill Project EIS/EIR (BLM et al. 1998). That analysis is incorporated by reference into this EIS/EIR, and the findings of that analysis are summarized below and amended to be consistent with the statement of impact and significance formatting of this EIS/EIR.

Impact 3.9.3.6.1-2 (Fourmile Hill Impact described in Section 4.11.5): Line segment A2 would pass through the portion of the Mt. Hoffman Released Roadless Area that has a ROS designation of Roaded Natural. Line segment A2 would skirt the northwest margin of the Glass Mountain Geologic Area which has an ROS designation of Primitive. Approximately 2 miles east of Mt. Hoffman, the transmission line would pass through a gap in the Geologic Area. At this location, a spur of lava extends to the northwest, and is separated from a small outlying patch of lava by several hundred feet. The Glass Mountain Geologic Area includes both the spur of lava and the outlying patch, but does not include the space between the two. The proposed transmission line would pass through this gap, which has an ROS designation of Roaded Natural. Construction of the transmission line in this area, therefore, would be consistent with the ROS designation of Roaded Natural, which allows for road construction and conventional motorized uses. This consistency with ROS allocations would be the same during operations and decommissioning.

Significance of the Impact: Line segment A2 would be consistent with the ROS allocation of Roaded Natural. Impacts to land use are expected to be less than the level of significance. Measure 3.1.3.6.1-2 in Section 3.1.3.6.1 would ensure that no project activities would take place in the Glass Mountain Geologic Area.

Impact 3.9.3.6.1-3 (Fourmile Hill Impact described in Section 4.11.9): Construction of line segment A2 would remove timber from designated timber lands being managed for both future commercial timber harvesting and resource protection. Operation of the transmission line would also result in effects to timber lands as on-going maintenance activities would limit natural revegetation of cleared areas over the life of the project. Decommissioning would return the transmission line corridor to forest uses.

Significance of the Impact: This impact is considered adverse but not significant. Although not required to reduce a significant impact, the following other measure would ensure that forest areas disturbed by the implementation of line segment A2 is revegetated as timber lands.

Measure 3.9.3.6.1-3 (Fourmile Hill Measure 4.11.9a): In consultation with the USFS, the Project Applicant shall select and plant appropriate timber species as part of the revegetation efforts during decommissioning of the project. Ultimately, this replanting program would serve to replace timber lands removed as a result of transmission line development.

Line Segment D2:

Line segment D2 is located entirely within the Project wellfield area, and the effects for line segment D2 would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action.

Line Segment B2:

Line segment B2 was the subject of earlier environmental analysis as part of the Fourmile Hill Project EIS/EIR (BLM et al. 1998). That analysis is incorporated by reference into this EIS/EIR, and the findings of that analysis are summarized below and amended to be consistent with the statement of impact and significance formatting of this EIS/EIR.

Except for the difference in transmission line length, the adverse effects of the Alternative Route 2 on land uses would be similar to those described for Route 1. However, line segment B2 would be routed through an approximately 1¾-mile portion of the Medicine Lake MLSA. Assuming a 125-foot-wide transmission line right-of-way (BLM et al. 1998), a total area of about 26.5 acres of surface disturbance in the MLSA would occur. As described in Section , development that meets public needs or provides public benefits can occur in MLSAs as long as the adverse effects of the development can be minimized and mitigated.

Impact 3.9.3.6.2-1 (Fourmile Hill Impact discussed for Alternative 3): Timber would also be removed for line segment B2. However, the value of the timber along line segment B2 is considered greater as late successional seral forests exist along this line segment.

Significance of the Impact: This effect is considered adverse and potentially significant. Measures 3.3.3.6.2-5a, 3.3.3.6.2-5b, and 3.3.3.6.2-5c would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 3.9.3.6-2: Line segment B2 would be routed through the Medicine Lake Managed Late-Successional Area. This development could be inconsistent with direction from the Northwest Forest Management Plan Record of Decision and the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Significance of the Impact: This impact is considered potentially significant but implementation of Measures 3.3.3.6.2-5a, 3.3.3.6.2-5b, and 3.3.3.6.2-5c would reduce the adverse effects of the impact to below the level of significance.

Impact 3.9.3.7-1: The No Action Alternative would deny the proposed development of the geothermal resources beneath geothermal leases comprising the proposed Participating Area. This action would be inconsistent with the LRMP and the Geothermal and Energy Elements of the Siskiyou County General Plan, each of which foresaw and provided for the exploration and development of the area for geothermal power generation. This Alternative would also conflict with authorizations provided in the issued geothermal leases comprising the proposed Participating Area which state the lease owner has the “exclusive right and privilege to drill for, extract, produce, remove, utilize, sell, and dispose of geothermal steam and associated geothermal resources” beneath the leases. The No Action Alternative would not prohibit future proposals for development of the geothermal resources beneath the area comprising these geothermal leases.

Significance of the Impact: This impact is considered below the level of significance and no mitigation measures are required.

In addition, if the Project does not proceed, then the electrical energy that would have been provided by the Project would need to be met by other sources of electrical energy. Some of these other sources may not be renewable energy sources and additional consumption of the resource(s) supplying the other source(s) of energy would occur proportional to the energy demand not provided by the Project. Similarly, some of the other sources of energy may have adverse environmental impacts that would be unavoidable.