HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgreements/Contracts - Development Services (002)1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 1 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
IIIIIII III VIII 1111111111 VIII 1 111111 111111 IIII IIII VIII VIII VIII I III VIII VIII IIID IIII IIII
Return to: Damien Hooper, Director
Development Services
Document Titles: Development Agreement
Reference Number
Grantor(s):
1. Grant County
2.
3.
4.
5. Additional grantors on page
Grantee(s):
1. Grant County Conservation District
2. Quincy Solar Energy LLC
3.
4.
5. Additional grantees on page
Legal description (lot, block and plat name or section, township & range):
Approx. one mile northwest of the main runway at the Grant County International Airport in S 1,
T 20 N, R 27 E, WM. (approx. 713 acres)
Assessor's property parcel number:
1. 16-1606-000
2.
3. Additional parcel numbers on page
The Auditor's Office will rely on the information provided on this form. The staff will not read
the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information provided
hereon.
.1U', 2 4 ?4.20
GRANT c^-1NTv C0MR91S�10NERS
K=0-087 ORIGINAL
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this o13 qday of
U /✓ii5 , 2020, between Grant County, Washington, duly organized and operating
under and by virtue of the Constitution and the laws of the State of Washington ("County"), Grant
County Conservation District, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("Conservation
District"), and Quincy Solar Energy LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware ("Developer"), all of which are collectively referred to as "Parties."
RECITALS
Revised Code of Washington ("RCW") 36.70B.170 authorizes a local government to enter
into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property
within its jurisdiction. Such agreement shall set forth the development standards and other
provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of
the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement.
2. Grant County Unified Development Code ("UDC") Chapter 25.28 authorizes the execution
of a development agreement between the County and a person having ownership or control
of real property within its jurisdiction. As referenced in RCW 36.70B.170, such agreement
shall set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and
govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real
property for the duration specified in the agreement. For purposes of this Development
Agreement, "development standards" shall include, but not be limited to, all standards set
out and referenced in UDC 25.28.030.
3. The Developer has control of real property in the County to develop, own and operate the
Quincy Solar Energy Project ("Project").
4. Grant County Development Services determined that the Project is in a Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area ("HCA") and therefore required the Developer to prepare and
implement a Habitat Management Plan to mitigate impacts in accordance with UDC
24.08.360.
5. The Developer developed and submitted a Habitat Management Plan to Grant County
Development Services, dated January 28, 2020, which includes a contribution of
$166,577.87 ("Contribution") to fund compensatory mitigation for impacts to the HCA
("Project Mitigation").
6. Grant County Development Services requested the preparation and formation of a
development agreement to memorialize the Project Mitigation which will ultimately be
implemented by the Conservation District.
7. RCW Section 89.08.220(4) authorizes a conservation district to enter into an agreement to
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 2 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
Page 1 of 9 PLANNING
11111111 III 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIA IIIA 1111111 III IIIA IIIA IIIA 1111 IN
furnish aid to any agency, governmental or otherwise, regarding the conservation of
renewable natural resources within the district.
8. A public hearing was held regarding this Development Agreement and the Grant County
Board of County Commissioners ("County Board") adopted a resolution ("Adopting
Resolution") as required by RCW 36.70B and GCC 25.28, approving execution of this
Development Agreement on Jv— a 3 , 2020 ("Adopting Resolution Effective Date").
The Adoption Resolution states that the Development Agreement is in accordance with
ordinances required by RCW 36.70B.170(3) and adopted by the County Board in effect on
the Adopting Resolution Effective Date, including the adopting ordinances that govern the
permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use, and the design, improvement,
construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Project
Mitigation, including, but not limited to the County's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map,
Development Standards, Public Works Standards, SEPA, and all other applicable
ordinances, codes, rules and regulations of the County establishing Subdivision standards
and building standards ("Existing Land Use Regulations").
9. This Development Agreement is intended to allow for the flexibility for the County, the
Developer and the Conservation District to make modifications to the Project to satisfy
changed conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants herein, the
Parties mutually agree to enter into this Development Agreement as follows:
AGREEMENT
General Provisions
Section 1. The Project. The Project is a photovoltaic solar electrical generating facility with
an energy storage system that will generate up to 120 megawatts of renewable energy power and
connect to the Gant County Public Utility District transmission system. The Project is located
approximately two miles northwest of the County airport in Township 20, Range 27, Section 1 on
assessor's parcel number 161606000. The Developer has leased this parcel and has rights to
develop, build, own and operate the Project on it. Access to the Project will be from Road 10 NE
on a new one -mile -long access driveway through public land managed by the US Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Project may be built in phases, the first of which would be a very limited scope of work
affecting less than ten acres of land and requiring less than a month of construction. This
Development Agreement would not apply to this first phase. The second phase would be full
construction of the Project, and the Project would commence commercial operations within one
year of starting the second phase of construction.
Section 2. Project Mitigation Parameters. The Parties agree that the Contribution shall be used
to fund habitat mitigation projects conducted by the Conservation District that meet all the
following parameters ("Project Mitigation Parameters").
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 3 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
Page 2 of 9 PLANNING
111111111111111111111111111 IIIA 11111111111111111 III 1111 IIIA IIIA 1111111111 IIIA IIIA IIIA 111 III
2.1 Project Mitigation will include one or more habitat mitigation projects.
2.2 Project Mitigation will improve upland shrub -steppe and/or eastside steppe habitat.
2.3 Project Mitigation will occur on land within the Upper Crab Creek Reach in Grant County
which is a half -mile -wide project target area around Crab Creek between Moses Lake and
the Lincoln County line, with additional consideration for areas deemed to be wildlife
habitat conservation areas.
2.4 Project Mitigation may occur on private and/or public land.
2.5 To the extent possible, Project Mitigation will occur on land with minimal potential risk of
being disturbed by other actions in the future.
2.6 To the extent possible, Project Mitigation activities shall be completed within three years
of the Contribution.
2.7 The Developer will make the Contribution to the Conservation District no later than the
commencement of commercial operations of the Project. This Contribution will fully
satisfy the Developer's obligation for compensatory mitigation for the Project and the
Developer will not be responsible for managing or monitoring the administration of the
Contribution following payment.
2.8 The Conservation District will use the Contribution to fund the implementation of Project
Mitigation. A portion of the Contribution can be used for the Conservation District's
technical assistance, planning, designing and administrative costs for implementing the
Project Mitigation, which may include permitting and/or land acquisition costs. A portion
of the Contribution will be used for the Conservation District to monitor the effectiveness
of the Project Mitigation.
2.9 The Conservation District shall notify the County when Project Mitigation projects have
been implemented and completed. The Conservation District shall also report monitoring
results to the County in order to ensure Project Mitigation projects are successful.
Section 3. Exhibits. Exhibits to this Development Agreement are as follows:
Exhibit A Quincy Solar Energy LLC. 2020. Habitat Management Plan, Quincy Solar
Energy Project, Grant County, Washington. Quincy Solar Energy LLC,
Chicago, Illinois. January 28, 2020. 28 pages + appendix.
Exhibit B Adopting Resolution
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 4 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PLf�NNING
Page 3 of 9 11111111 III 111111 IIII 1111111111111111111.111 IN 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Section 4. Development of Project and Project Mitigation. The Developer will obtain a
Conditional Use Permit and all applicable building permits from the County prior to building the
Project. The Conservation District will obtain all applicable permits from the County prior to
completing Project Mitigation.
Section S. Project and Project Mitigation are Private Undertakings. It is agreed among the
Parties that the Project and the Project Mitigation are private developments and that the County
has no interest therein except as authorized in the exercise of its government functions.
Section 6. Term of Agreement. This Development Agreement shall commence on the
effective date of the Adopting Resolution approving this Development Agreement and shall
continue in force until the Project is removed unless extended or terminated as provided herein.
Section 7. Modification of Project Mitigation Parameters. The County and Developer
acknowledge that there may need to be modifications to the Project Mitigation Parameters based
upon changes in economic, financial, or other conditions. The County and Developer recognize
that the Developer may submit an application to modify the Project Mitigation Parameters and that
any such modification shall be mutually agreeable to the developer and the County, and will take
effect upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners at the conclusion of a public hearing
to consider the amendments.
Section 8. Modifications of Exhibits. Modifications of the exhibits attached hereto may be
made by Developer and/or approved by the County in accordance with the provisions of the Code
and shall not require an amendment to this Development Agreement.
Section 9. Vested Rights of Developer. During the term of this Development Agreement,
unless sooner terminated in accordance with the terms hereof, in developing the Project Mitigation
described herein, Developer is assured, and the County agrees, that the development rights,
obligations, terms and conditions specified in this Development Agreement, are fully vested in the
Developer and may not be changed or modified by the County, except as may be expressly
permitted by, and in accordance with, the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement,
including the Exhibits hereto, or as expressly consented thereto by the Developer.
Section 10. Further Discretionary Actions. Developer acknowledges that the Existing Land Use
Regulations contemplate the exercise of further discretionary powers by the County, which powers
are to be exercised reasonably and without undue delay or conditions. The County specifically
reserves authority, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.180(4), to impose new or different results to the extent
required by a serious threat to public health and safety.
Section 11. Default.
11.1 Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, failure or delay by either Party
to perform any material term or provision of this Development Agreement shall constitute
a default. In the event of alleged default or breach of any terms or conditions of this
Development Agreement, the Party alleging such default or breach shall give the other
Party not less than thirty (30) days' notice in writing, specifying the nature of the alleged
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 4 of 9 Page 5 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PL NNING
1111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
default and manner in which said default may be cured. During this thirty (30) day period,
the Party charged shall not be considered in default for purposes of termination or
institution of legal proceedings.
11.2 After notice and expiration of the thirty (30) day period, if such default has not been cured
or is not being diligently cured in the manner set forth in the notice, the other Parry to this
Development Agreement may, at its option, institute legal proceedings pursuant to this
Development Agreement. In addition, the County shall be entitled to enforce the Code and
to obtain penalties and costs as provided in the Code for violations of this Development
Agreement and the Code. Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to limit the
Parties' ability to seek and obtain legal remedies except as may be otherwise provided
herein.
Section 12. Termination. This Development Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration of
the term identified in Section 6. Upon termination of this Development Agreement, the County
shall record a notice of such termination reciting that the Development Agreement has been
terminated.
Section 13. Effect of Termination on Developer Obligations. Termination of this Development
Agreement shall not affect any of the Developer's obligations to comply with the County
Comprehensive Plan and the terms and conditions of any applicable zoning codes(s) or other land
use entitlements approved with respect to the Project.
Section 14. Effect of Termination on County. Upon termination of this Development
Agreement, or any portion thereof, the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement shall
no longer be vested.
Section 15. Assignment and Assumption. The Developer shall have the right to sell, assign or
transfer this Development Agreement with all Developer's rights, title and interests therein to any
person, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Development Agreement.
Section 16. Covenants Running with the Land. The conditions and covenants set forth in this
Development Agreement and incorporated herein by the Exhibits shall run with the land and the
benefits and burdens shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties. The Developer and every
purchaser, assignee or transferee of an interest in the Project, or any portion thereof, shall be
obligated and bound by the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, and shall be the
beneficiary thereof and a party thereto, but only with respect to this Project Mitigation. Any such
purchaser, assignee or transferee shall observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations
of the Developer contained in this Development Agreement, as such duties and obligations pertain
to the Project Mitigation.
Section 17. Amendments to Development Agreement: Effect of Development Agreement on
Future Actions. This Development Agreement may be amended at the sole discretion of the Board
of County Commissioners, provided that any such amendment shall follow the process established
by law for the adoption of a development agreement (see RCW 36.708.200). Any amendment to
the County's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, Official Zoning Maps or other development
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 14929140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 5 of 9 PLgNNINof 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
11111111 III 11111111111111111111111111111111111111
regulation shall not impact the Developer's rights under this Development Agreement.
Section 18. Releases. Developer may free itself from further obligations relating to the sold,
assigned, or transferred property, provided that the buyer, assignee or transferee expressly assumes
the obligations under this Development Agreement as provided herein.
Section 19. Notices. Notices, demands, and correspondence to the Parties shall be sufficiently
given if dispatched by pre -paid first-class mail to the addresses of the Parties as designated herein.
County:
Board of County Commissioners
Chairman of the Board
PO Box 37
Ephrata, Washington 98823
Developer:
Quincy Solar Energy LLC
1 S Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Conservation District:
Grant County Conservation District
1107 S Juniper Drive
Moses Lake, Washington 98837
The Parties hereto may, from time to time, advise the other of new addresses for such notices,
demands or correspondence.
Section 20. Reimbursement for Development Agreement Expenses of the County. Developer
agrees to reimburse the County for actual expenses incurred over and above fees paid by the
Developer as an applicant incurred by the County directly relating to this Development Agreement,
including recording fees, publishing fees and reasonable staff and consultant costs not otherwise
included within application fees. This Development Agreement shall not take effect until the fees
provided for in this section, as well as any processing fees owed by to the County for the Project
are paid to the County. Upon payment of all out-of-pocket expenses, the Developer may request
written acknowledgement of all fees. All fees shall be paid, at the latest, within thirty (30) days
from the County presentation of a written statement of charges to the Developer, upon payment of
which Developer shall owe no further amounts to County with respect to or relating to this
Development Agreement.
Section 21. Applicable Law and Attorneys' Fees. This Development Agreement shall be
construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If litigation is
initiated to enforce the terms of this Development Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled
to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs from the non -prevailing Party. Venue for any
action shall lie in Grant County Superior Court or the U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 7 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
Page 6 of 9 PL9NNING
i l l l l l l III 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 X 11111111111111111111 I I 111111111 I 1111111111111
Section 22, Specific Performance. The Parties specifically agree that damages are not an
adequate remedy for breach of this Development Agreement, and that the Parties are entitled to
compel specific performance of all material terms of this Development Agreement by any Party
in default hereof.
Section 23. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement should
be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of
this Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected,
impaired or invalidated thereby.
Section 24. Construction. In the event of a dispute between the parties as to the meaning of
terms, phrases or specific provisions of this Development Agreement, the authorship of this
Development Agreement shall not be cause for this Development Agreement to be construed
against any Party nor in favor of any Party.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Page 7 of 9
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 8 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
1111111 111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 11111111111111 III 11111 IIIII 111111111 IN
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Development Agreement to
be executed as of the dates set forth below:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
PageXof 9
S
DEVELOPER:
Quincy Solar Energy LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
By: ACL# e5 W911*k•fts
Its: Vice President
CONSERVATION DISTRICT:
Grant County Conservation District, a
Washington political subdivision
By: r'� 1 U r Lo i z
Its: rh 0-6 0--T-
DEVELOPMENT
T
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 9 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111 I I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I 111111111111111111111111
GRANT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
Passed by the Board of County Commissioners in regular session at Ephrata, Washington, by the
following vote, then signed by its membership and attested to by its Clerk in authorization of such
passages this �?S'= ay of 52020.
Approved as to form:
Kevin J. McCrae, WSBA No. 43087
Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Page 9 of 9
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GR�1T TUC WASHINGTON
Cindy Caftb4 Chair
�XC�sCA
Tom aylor, Vice Chair
Richard Stevens, Member
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 10 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111 III 111111 VIII IIII 111111 VIII IIII 1111111111111 IIII IIII VIII VIII 1111111 III VIII VIII VIII 1111 IIII
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT A
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 11 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLRNNING
11111111 III 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Habitat Management Plan
Quincy Solar Energy Project
Grant County, Washington
Quincy Solar Energy LLC
One South Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
Chicago, Illinois 60606
January 28, 2020
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG �----"
Page 12 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111 III 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 I 1111111111111111 I N IN
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
Name Role Organization
Erik Jansen Report Writer WEST, Inc.
Todd Mabee Senior Reviewer WEST, Inc.
David Klein Technical Editor WEST, Inc.
Laura Miner Project Manager Quincy Solar Energy LLC
REPORT REFERENCE
Quincy Solar Energy LLC. 2020. Habitat Management Plan, Quincy Solar Energy Project, Grant County
Washington. Quincy Solar Energy LLC, Chicago, Illinois. January 28, 2020. 28 pages + appendix.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG January 2020
Page 13 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................
1
1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................2
1.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................
4
1.2.1 Endangered Species Act......................................................................................
4
1.2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act......................................................................................
4
1.2.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act..................................................................
4
1.2.4 Washington State Regulations.............................................................................
5
1.2.4.1 State Environmental Policy Act........................................................................
5
1.2.4.2 Noxious Weed Control Board...........................................................................
5
1.2.5 Grant County Code..............................................................................................
6
1.2.5.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ...................................................
6
1.2.5.2 Revegetation Requirements.............................................................................
6
1.3 Corporate Policy and Coordination.......................................................................
6
1.4 Agency Coordination............................................................................................
6
2 DESKTOP AND FIELD STUDIES..................................................................................
7
2.1 Tier 2 Site Characterization Study........................................................................
7
2.1.1 Land Cover and Protected Lands.........................................................................
7
2.1.2 Federal and State -Protected Species...................................................................
8
2.1.3 Big Game.............................................................................................................
8
2.2 Tier 3 Wildlife Surveys.........................................................................................14
2.2.1 Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species Surveys.....................................14
2.2.2 Raptor Nest Surveys...........................................................................................14
2.2.3 Habitat Mapping...................................................................:..............................15
3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS..................................................................................................17
3.1 Birds....................................................................................................................17
3.1.1 Eagles.................................................................................................................17
3.1.1.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts..............................................................................17
3.1.2 Other birds..........................................................................................................18
3.1.2.1 Direct Impacts.................................................................................................18
3.1.2.2 Indirect Impacts...............................................................................................20
3.2 Bats.....................................................................................................................20
3.2.1 Direct Impacts.....................................................................................................20
3.2.2 Indirect Impacts...................................................................................................20
3.3 Big Game............................................................................................................20
3.3.1 Direct Impacts....................:................................................................................20
3.3.2 Indirect Impacts...................................................................................................21
14929140 07/02/ Y0
2020 10:21 RM RG J..,y2 NI4 f 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WP
PLRN
11111111 III 111111 �1I 111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 11111111111111111111111111111 IIIA 11111 IE IN
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
4
CONSERVATION MEASURES.....................................................................................21
4.1
Project Siting.......................................................................................................21
4.2
Facility Design and Construction.........................................................................22
4.3
Operations and Maintenance...............................................................................23
4.4
Reclamation and Decommissioning............................................... ...................... 23
4.5
Compensatory Mitigation.....................................................................................24
5
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................25
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Federal or state protected wildlife species, status, preferred habitat, and their
likelihood of occurrence by seasons within the Quincy Solar Energy Project area and
20 -mi Study Area, Grant County, Washington................................................................ 9
Table 2.2. Federal and state non -listed species of concern and their likelihood to occur within
the Quincy Solar Energy Project area or 20 -mi Study Area, Grant County,
Washington...................................................................................................................12
Table 4.1. Impacted acres by habitat type at the Quincy Solar Energy Project, Grant County,
Washington...................................................................................................................24
Table 4.2. Mitigated acres by habitat type at the Quincy Solar Energy Project, Grant County,
Washington...................................................................................................................24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Quincy Solar Energy Project area, Grant County, Washington ................................. 3
Figure 2.1 WDFW (2009) habitat types within the Quincy Solar Energy Project area, Grant
County, Washington......................................................................................................16
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Noxious weeds listed by Washington and the Noxious Weed Control Board in
Grant County, Washington.
January 2020
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 15 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111 III 111111 IIIA 1111111111 IIIA 11111111111111111 IN 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
1 INTRODUCTION
Quincy Solar Energy LLC (Quincy Solar) proposes to construct, own, operate, maintain, and
decommission the Quincy Solar Energy Project (Project) in Grant County, Washington. The
Project consists of an alternating current solar photovoltaic (PV) power generating facility within
750 acres (ac) of private land that will be up to 120 megawatts in size. The Project is located
approximately two miles (mi) northwest of the Grant County International Airport (Figure 1.1) in
Township 20 North, Range 27 East, Section 1.
Project components include PV modules and associated equipment, perimeter fencing, access
roads, and temporary use areas, all located on private land. The Project will send the power it
generates to the substation via underground 34.5 -kilovolt (kV) collector lines. From the Project
substation, an approximately 200 -foot span of overhead 115kV transmission generation -tie (gen-
tle) line will connect to a new substation to be built by Grant PUD along its existing 115 kV
transmission line. The Project substation and the Grant PUD substation will be adjacent to each
other in the southwestern corner of the Project area. A full Project description can be found in the
narrative document of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for the Project. A site plan
with dimensions of all project components can also be found in the CUP application. Quincy Solar
plans to start limited scope of construction (a portion of the inverter foundations) by the end of
2020 and full construction by the end of 2022.
This Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was developed by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
(WEST) to provide a consolidated summary of Quincy Solar's efforts to characterize avian, bat,
big game, and habitat resources within the Project area, assess potential Project impacts, and to
document conservation measures that have been or will be taken to avoid, minimize, and/or
mitigate for those potential impacts. The HMP was requested by the Grant County Development
Services in a letter to Quincy Solar dated November 6, 2019 and addresses the requirements
stated in the Grant County Code Chapter 24.08.360 for a HMP. It is a supplement to information
provided previously by Quincy Solar in the CUP application. In the absence of federal guidance
for commercial -scale solar projects, studies following a tiered approach consistent with the 2012
Land -Based Wind Energy Guidelines (WEG; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2012) were
completed to inform these efforts. Similarly, in the absence of state guidance for commercial -
scale solar projects, studies and conservation measures were informed by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Wind Power Guidelines (WDFW 2009).
The HMP includes the following major sections, per the Grant County Code Chapter 24.08.360
• regulatory setting and agency correspondence
• desktop studies and analysis of wildlife and habitat resources
• potential impacts to birds, bats, big game, and habitats
• risk reduction and conservation measures
• construction avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 RM RG January 2020
Page 16 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WR
PLXNNING
11111111III111111IIIA1111111111IIIA 1111111111111111111111111�1111IIIA1111111IIIIIIAIIIAIIIA11111111
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
This HMP will cover the anticipated 30 -year functional life of the solar facility and potential
extended operations and/or decommissioning of the Project. Invenergy will update this HMP, as
needed, throughout the Project's life. Should the Project be re -powered at the end of the Project's
expected life, the HMP will remain in effect until the Project is decommissioned.
1.1 Purpose
The objectives of the Quincy Solar HMP are as follows:
• Document how wildlife and habitat resources were analyzed and describe baseline
conditions for avian, bat, big game, and habitat resources present within the Project area
from desktop and field studies
• Document agency correspondence during development of the Project
• Specify conservation measures that, when implemented during construction, operation,
maintenance, and decommissioning at the Project, will avoid and minimize potential
impacts for avian, bat, big game, and habitat resources located on and adjacent to the
Project area
Describe mitigation for potential impacts to wildlife and habitat resources
24y29140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
NNING f 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PL
11111111 11111111111111
January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
R
Northiake Rd NE
OniM
YMar+wManM Akoon
puincy Solar Energy Protect Project area --- Railroad
Grant Go . Weshmgton
County Boundary Electric Transmission Line
'ti. State Highway — NHD Major Stream
0%.o County Road NHD 1Naterbody
Dm SJ NEU-'n Gevlagibc. ESFU. LOGS
k"41 1W'3 U IA{ 1-1IN
U91e 2112.9 A1^1 EW:
Figure 1.1. Quincy Solar Energy Project area, Grant County, Washington.
WEST
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG January 2020
Page 18 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 11111111111111 1111111111111111111111 IN
,
ti
i
ti
,
,
,
5k
4
fY
i
Northiake Rd NE
OniM
YMar+wManM Akoon
puincy Solar Energy Protect Project area --- Railroad
Grant Go . Weshmgton
County Boundary Electric Transmission Line
'ti. State Highway — NHD Major Stream
0%.o County Road NHD 1Naterbody
Dm SJ NEU-'n Gevlagibc. ESFU. LOGS
k"41 1W'3 U IA{ 1-1IN
U91e 2112.9 A1^1 EW:
Figure 1.1. Quincy Solar Energy Project area, Grant County, Washington.
WEST
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG January 2020
Page 18 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 11111111111111 1111111111111111111111 IN
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
1.2 Regulatory Setting
1.2.1 Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] §§ 1531 et seq.)
provides for the listing, conservation, and recovery of endangered and threatened species. The
USFWS implements the ESA to conserve terrestrial species and resident fish species. Section 9
of the ESA prohibits the unauthorized take of listed species. Under the ESA, "take" is defined as
"to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" a listed species (ESA
§ 3(19), 16 U.S.0 1532(19)). The term "harm" has been further defined in agency regulations to
mean habitat modification that actually kills or injures a federally listed species.
1.2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-711) prohibits the take of migratory birds,
their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically permitted by regulations. Under the MBTA,
"take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
§ 10.12). The USFWS maintains a list of all species protected by the MBTA (50 CFR § 10.13).
This list includes over 1,000 species of migratory birds including eagles and other raptors,
waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, wading birds, and passerines. At present, there is no MBTA
permit authorizing the incidental or non -purposeful take of an MBTA-protected species.
On December 22, 2017, U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) Office of the Solicitor issued
Memorandum M-37050 regarding what constitutes prohibited 'lake" under the MBTA. This
Opinion states, "the (MBTA) statute's prohibitions on pursuing hunting, taking, capturing, killing,
or attempting to do the same apply only to affirmative actions that have as their purpose the taking
or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs." It goes on to argue that incidental deaths
of covered birds are not a violation under MBTA, even if direct and "foreseeable."
On April 11, 2018, the USFWS issued guidance (FWS/AMB/067711) further clarifying the
Service's limitations on its authority regarding MBTA, stating it would not base its comments,
recommendations, or requirements on or implied by authority under the MBTA to regulate
incidental take of migratory birds, and would not request, nor require mitigation based on
incidental take concerns.
1.2.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d) prohibits the take
of bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden (Aquila chrysaetos) eagles unless authorized by
a permit. Under the BGEPA, take is defined as "...to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill,
capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb" (50 CFR § 22.3). The term "disturb" is defined as "to
agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on
the best scientific information available: (1) injury to an eagle; (2) a decrease in its productivity by
substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or (3) nest
abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior"
(50 CFR § 22.3).
14829140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
PL9NN19 ING f 46 R 148.50
Grant Co, WA
11111111 III 111111111111111 11111111111111111 IN 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN
January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
BGEPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit the take of bald or golden eagles for
several defined purposes, including when "necessary to permit the taking of such eagles for the
protection of wildlife [...] or other interests in any particular locality." Based on this authority, the
USFWS published a final rule (Eagle Permit Rule) on September 11, 2009 (50 CFR § 22.26),
authorizing permits for the take of bald eagles and golden eagles where take: (1) is compatible
with the preservation of the bald and golden eagle; (2) is associated with and not the purpose of
an otherwise lawful activity; and (3) cannot practicably be avoided.
On May 2, 2013, the USFWS published the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (ECPG; USFWS
2013) to assist wind energy developers in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating risks to eagles
during the construction and operation of a wind energy facility. The ECPG interpreted and clarified
the permit requirements in the regulations at 50 CFR 22.26 and 22.27, but it did not impose any
binding requirements beyond those specified in the regulations.
Effective January 17, 2017, the 2009 Eagle Rule was replaced by a new rule governing eagle
take permits (81 FR 91495 [December 16, 2016]). The new rule adjusted the standards, maximum
duration, and requirements for eagle take permits.
1.2.4 Washington State Regulations
1.2.4.1 State Environmental Policy Act
Enacted in 1971, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Chapter 43.21 C RCW) establishes
the framework for Washington State and local agencies to consider the environmental
consequences of a proposal before making decisions. These decisions may be related to issuing
permits for private projects, constructing public facilities, or adopting regulations, policies, or
plans. Information provided during the SEPA review process helps agency decision -makers,
applicants, and the public understand how a proposal would affect the environment. This
information can be used to change a proposal to reduce likely impacts, or to condition or deny a
proposal when adverse environmental impacts are identified. SEPA applies to decisions by every
state and local agency within Washington State, including state agencies, counties, cities, ports,
and special districts (such as a school or water district).
1.2.4.2 Noxious Weed Control Board
Under Chapter 17.10 RCW, the state has provided Grant County the authority to establish a
noxious weed control board to prevent, control and eradicate the degrading effects of noxious
weeds within the County. The Boards works with landowners to educate landowners, provide
recommendations and assist in the enforcement of state weed laws. There are three classes of
weeds in Washington that range from top priority (Class A) where immediate eradication is the
goal to lower priority (Class C) where suppression is the goal (Appendix A). Chapter 16-750 WAC
includes the state Noxious Weed List, definitions and descriptions of region boundaries for Class
B weeds', and the schedule of monetary penalties. Chapter 16-752 WAC describes the
Class B noxious weeds are considered a local priority for control and are designated by Region. Grant County is
Region 5 (WAC 16-750-011). https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=16-750-011&pdf=true
January 2020
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 20 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
1111111 11111111111111 111111 IN 11 IIIA IIIA 1111111111111 IIIA 1111111 IN
Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
quarantine list maintained by the state Department of Agriculture. The state law that calls for the
creation and maintenance of the quarantine list is RCW 17.24.
1.2.5 Grant County Code
1.2.5.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Grant County requires an HMP, prepared by a Qualified Biological Professional, to identify how
impacts of proposed development will be mitigated (Grant County Code 24.08.360[a]). A HMP is
required when the Administrative Official determines a designated Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area (HCA; as defined by Grant County Code 24.08.300[a] and 24.08.310) will likely
have a significant adverse impact (Grant County Code 24.08.350[a]). Grant County has
determined that the entire Project area is a HCA because the habitat types are WDFW Priority
Habitats (see Section 2.1.1).
1.2.5.2 Revegetation Requirements
Grant County requires areas disturbed during construction to be "replanted with native vegetation
and maintained until firmly established, unless waived by the Administrative Official' (Grant
County Code 23.12.160[a][1]).
1.3 Corporate Policy and Coordination
Quincy Solar maintains a commitment to work cooperatively to minimize adverse impacts to
protected bird, bat, big game, and habitat resources. Through the planning stages of the Project,
Quincy Solar and its consultants have been working in coordination with federal and state agency
personnel regarding necessary wildlife and habitat studies and siting considerations to ensure
that all parties understand the scope of the Project and that potential issues are identified and
addressed early in the planning process. Quincy Solar will continue to work with the agencies to
implement conservation measures intended to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts
to bird, bat, big game, and habitat resources, including those measures identified in this HMP.
1.4 Agency Coordination
Quincy Solar began consulting with WDFW and USFWS on September 6, 2018, at an in-person
meeting. Representatives from Quincy Solar provided an overview of the Project. WEST then
made a formal request to WDFW priority habitat and species list (PHS) on December 19, 2018,
to obtain rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal records data for the Project area
and 20 -mi Study Area (i.e., the Project area plus a 20 -mi buffer; Jansen at al. 2019a). The
response letter and digital data from WDFW PHS were received on Friday, January 4, 2019
(Jansen at al. 2019a). Data were not made available encompassing the 20 -mi Study Area, rather
WDFW PHS provided data within one mi of the Project area. Communication with WDFW PHS
indicated no known golden eagle observations or nests were located within 10 -mi of the Project
area. On January 29, 2019, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system
was queried to obtain a list of federally listed species and other resources such as critical habitat
within the Project area and 20 -mi Study Area (Jansen et al. 2019a).
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 21 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PL9NNING
1111111 III 111111 X11111111111111 VIII 1111111111111111111111111 IIIA IIIA 1111111 III IIIA VIII VIII X111 IN
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Another meeting with WDFW was held March 5, 2019, with representatives from Quincy Solar
and WEST to obtain additional feedback from WDFW on species of concern that may occur in
the Project area. Species mentioned by WDFW included Washington ground squirrel (State
candidate for listing), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; State candidate for listing) and raptors.
These were subsequently incorporated into the Tier 3 survey. Quincy Solar also met with LISFWS
April 25, 2019, to obtain additional feedback. USFWS agreed during the meeting that habitat
present onsite was not likely to support federally listed species.
Results of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 surveys were shared with WDFW August 28, 2019, along with a
solicitation for feedback on conservation measures. WDFW provided a letter September 6, 2019,
focused entirely on compensatory mitigation, and representatives from Quincy Solar and WEST
met with WDFW to discuss the letter on October 10, 2019.
WDFW provided a letter November 5, 2019 to Grant County requesting additional information
from Quincy Solar. Grant County provided a letter November 7, 2019 requesting Quincy Solar
prepare an HMP. Quincy Solar sent a draft version of this HMP to WDFW November 21, 2019
and to Grant County December 4, 2019. Grant County provided a letter December 17, 2019
requesting additional information, and WDFW provided a letter with final comments January 17,
2020. Quincy Solar, WDFW, Grant County and the Grant County Conservation District met
January 17, 2020 to discuss the HMP; this discussion has been incorporated into this version.
2 DESKTOP AND FIELD STUDIES
In 2019, WEST conducted a desktop analysis of wildlife, habitat, and aquatic resources for the
Project and Study areas and a field survey. These studies included a Site Characterization Study
(SCS; Jansen et al. 2019a) and a Tier 3 Wildlife Survey Report (Jansen et al. 2019b). A summary
of the methods and results of these analyses are provided below.
2.1 Tier 2 Site Characterization Study
A preliminary site evaluation and site characterization (Jansen et al. 2019a) was completed using
a combination of 1) a desktop review of existing information obtained from publicly available
sources including reports, published literature, online databases, and geographic information
system (GIS) data; and 2) site reconnaissance conducted January 15-16, 2019. Information on
species of concern was requested from WDFW and USFWS out to 20 mi from the Project area
to be inclusive of the buffers for other resources.
2.1.1 Land Cover and Protected Lands
Land cover within the Project area was a mixture of shrub/scrub and herbaceous land cover types.
No records of Washington PHS were found within the Project area (Jansen et al. 2019a); however,
shrub -steppe and eastside steppe (referred hereafter as eastside "interior' grassland) are both
WDFW Priority Habitat types according to the 2019 Priority Habitats and Species List (WDFW
2019). No wetlands occur within the Project area. There are no Protected Areas which are defined
as public open space held in trust by state, federal, or local governments, or non-profit
14y29140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
NNING f 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WR
PL9
1X111111III111111IIIA1111111111IIIAIIII1111111111111111111111IIIAIIIA1111111IIIIIIAIIIAIIIA1111III
January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
organizations within the Project area according to the USGS GAP "Protected Areas of the U.S."
database (USGS 2016).
2.1.2 Federal and State -Protected Species
The likelihood of a federal- and state -listed endangered wildlife/plant species or threatened wildlife
species occurring in the Study Area or Project area was determined by considering the species'
range, habitat suitability, species' mobility, population size, and records of occurrence in the
appropriate area; these species are shown in Table 2.1 and Appendix C of Jansen et al. (2019a).
The likelihood of all remaining species of concern (e.g., federal or state sensitive species,
candidate species for listing or state threatened plants) was evaluated by determining if suitable
habitat occurs in the Study Area or Project area; these species are shown in Table 2.2 and
Appendix C of Jansen et al. (2019a). The broad criteria used to determine the presence of suitable
habitat was whether the Study Area or Project area was located within the known current
distribution of a species or an occurrence had been recorded within the county.
Based on the WDNR rare plant database (Camp and Gamon 2011, WDNR 2018), 38 plant
species are state -listed as endangered (2), threatened (15), or species of concern (2 1) in Grant
County (Jansen et al. 2019a). Because of the absence of suitable habitat within the Project area
(e.g., alkaline flats, vernal pools, basalt cliffs), and the degraded quality of shrub/scrub and
herbaceous land cover types within the Project area due to livestock grazing and prevalence of
invasive grass species, none of the plant species are likely to occur within the Project area
(Jansen et al. 2019a).
2.1.3 Big Game
Although big game species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hermionus), elk (Cervus canadensis),
and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) are not federal- or state -listed species, their populations
are monitored and managed by WDFW throughout Washington. The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Gap Analysis Program (USGS 2016) indicates mule deer winter and year-long habitat
fully overlaps the 20 -mi Study Area. Elk and pronghorn are unlikely to occur in the Project area.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 23 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
1111111 III 111111 X1111 ��111111111111111111111111111111111111 X11111111111111!1 III X111 IIIII 11111 X1111 IIII
January 2020
4-m
mJ
of
N
AN
CO (S)
is ■+
mm
N
i D
� 3
3
0
0
D
D ci
D
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Table 2.1. Federal or state protected wildlife species, status, preferred habitat, and their likelihood of occurrence by seasons within the
Quincy Solar Energy Project area and 20 -mi Study Area, Grant County, Washington.
Wildlife Status Habitat by Seasons of Potential Occurrence and
Suitab
Type/Common Scientific Name (Fed.; Season/Equivalent NLCD Likelihood of Occurrencez abitat?3
Name State)' Land Cover Types Spring Summer Fall Winter
Amahibian
Aquatic habitats year-round /
Northern Rana pipiens __; SE Emergent or woody Possible Possible Possible Possible° S
leopard frog wetlands, open water,
riverine
Birds
Golden eagle
Aquila
chrysaetos
Nests in trees and cliffs
during spring and summer;
BGEPA; SC forages in shrub -steppe Likely Likely Likely Possible P, S
habitats spring, summer, fall,
& winter / Shrub/scrub,
herbaceous
Nests in large trees during
spring & summer; forages
near water and in steppe
and shrub -steppe habitats
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus
BGEPA; -- spring, summer, fall, & Likely Likely Possible Possible P, S
leucocephalus
winter/ Deciduous forest,
evergreen forest, mixed
forest / shrub/scrub,
herbaceous
Nests and forages along
open water year-round.
Require shallow water for
American white
Pelecanus
foraging along lake or river a a a a
ST Likely Likely Likely Likely S
pelican
erythrorhynchos
edges and in open areas
within emergent herbaceous
/ Open water, woody
wetlands
January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Shrub/scrub, mixed forest,
woody wetlands
Table 2.1. Federal or state protected wildlife species, status, preferred habitat, and their likelihood of occurrence by seasons within the
Quincy Solar Energy Project
area and 20 -mi Study Area, Grant County,
Washington.
Wildlife
Status
Habitat by
Seasons of Potential Occurrence and
Type/Common
Scientific Name
(Fed.;
Season/Equivalent NLCD
Likelihood of Occurrence'
Habit?'
Name
State)'
Land Cover Types
Spring Summer Fall Winter
ests and forages in
cultivated cropland,
herbaceous, shrub/scrub
Columbian
sharp -tailed
Tympanuchus
ST
during spring, summer, fall.
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
S
phasianellus
Forages in deciduous
air
grouse
shrub/scrub in winter /
N
Shrub/scrub, cultivated
Z.
ZNr
crops herbaceous
�v m
Nests and forages in
°
herbaceous and shrub/scrub
m m
communities during spring,
Ferruginous
Buteo regalis
BCC; ST
summer, and fall.
Possible Possible Possible Unlikely
P, S
C9
N
hawk
Hay/pasture fields and
AN
cultivated crops with sparse
Is
vegetation coverage /
'm Nm
Shrub/scrub herbaceous
oa
Lekking, nesting and
N
Greater sage-
Centrocercus
BCC; ST
wintering in shrub/scrub
possible° Possible' Possible^ Possible
S
.-
grouse
urophastanus
year-round / Shrub/scrub,
c n
herbaceous
a
Nests in herbaceous
emergent wetlands spring,
o
summer, and fall. Forages in
n
a0
Sandhill crane
Grus canadensis
--; SE
herbaceous wetlands,
cultivated crops, and
Possible° Unlikely4 Possible° None
S
herbaceous habitats year-
round / Shrub/scrub,
herbaceous
Nests and forages in open
woodland with thick
Yellow -billed
Coccyzus
FT; SE
understory habitats spring,
Unlikely* Unlikely^ Unlikely" Unlikely°
S
cuckoo
americanus
summer, fall, & winter /
Shrub/scrub, mixed forest,
woody wetlands
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Table 2.1. Federal or state protected wildlife species, status, preferred habitat, and their likelihood of occurrence by seasons within the
Quincy Solar Energy Project area and 20 -mi Study Area, Grant County, Washington.
Wildlife Status Habitat by Seasons of Potential Occurrence and
Type/Common Scientific Name (Fed.; Season/Equivalent NLCD Likelihood of Occurrence' Suitable
Name State)' Land Cover Types Spring Summer Fall Winter
A variety of land cover types
are used year-round. Highly
Gray wolf Canis lupis D; SE mobile species / Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely S
Shrub/scrub, Forest,
Forages, breeds, and
nn NColumbia
Basin
Brachy/agus
FE, SE
shelters in shrub/scrub
Possible°
Possible°
Possible°
Possible°
S
zm
z
pygmy rabbit
idahoensis
habitat year-round /
n° o
Shrub/scrub
Fish
A
Breeds and resides in cold
p
open water within stable
m
stream channels, clean
N
Bull trout
Salvelinus
FT; SC
spawning gravel, complex
Unlikely°
Unlikely°
Unlikely°
Unlikely°
S
A N
B
confluentus
and diverse cover, and
m
unblocked migration routes
6-
year-round / Open water
G!?
Plants
Flowers mid-July through
�a
September; Low elevation,
„ s
Ute ladies-
Spiranthes
FE; ST
wetland complexes and
Unlikely°
Unlikely°
Unlikely°
Unlikely°
S
tresses
diluvialis
moist meadows/ Wetlands
0
and riverine
a
Fruits and flowers in mid-
July - September. Native
Spalding's
Silene spaldingii
FT, ST
grasslands with minor shrub
Unlikely'
Unlikely'
Unlikely°
Unlikely°
S
silene
component and occasional
conifer / Shrub/scrub,
herbaceous
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Table 2.1. Federal or state protected wildlife species, status, preferred habitat, and their likelihood of occurrence by seasons within the
Quincy Solar Energy Project area and 20 -mi Study Area, Grant County, Washington.
Wildlife Status Habitat by Seasons of Potential Occurrence and
le
Type/Common Scientific Name (Fed.; Season/Equivalent NLCD Likelihood of Occurrence Habitat?'
Name State)' Land Cover Types S rin Summer Fall Winter
BGEPA = e era a an Golden age rote ion ct, = e era y e is e = e era y n angere FT = Federally Threatened, SP = Mate
Endangered, ST = State Threatened, SC = State Candidate; PS/LT= Federal Partial Status/Threatened. -- = Not federal or state listed as endangered or
threatened
2 Likelihood of species to occur for breeding, nesting, spawning, migration, flowing, etc., based on the species' range, habitat suitability, species' mobility,
population size, and records of occurrence in the appropriate area. Unless otherwise footnoted, seasonal likelihood of occurrence applies to both Study and
Project area
r.p ' P = Project area; S = Study Area
N
zNY ^Study Area only; likelihood of occurrence is None in the Project area.
610 Sources: Camp and Gamon (2011); Washington PHS List (WDFW 2019); Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks (2017);
Washington Department of Natural Resources Vascular Plant Species of Special Concern List (2018); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International, Planning,
n and Consultation (USFWS IPaC 2019).
my
m
N
�N Table 2.2. Federal and state non -listed species of concern and their likelihood to occur within the Quincy Solar Energy Project area or
AN 20 -mi Study Area, Grant County, Washington.
we
Areal
M_ Wildlife Type/Common Name Scientific Name Status (Fed.; State)' project Study
Birds
m3 Burrowing owl' Athene cunicularia BCC; SC Y Y
'. Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis —; SC N Y
Loggerhead shrike Lanius tudovicianus BCC; SC N Y
o
o 3D Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus SOC; — N Y
n Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus SC Y Y
Sagebrush sparrow Amphispiza nevadensis BCC; SC N Y
Clark's grebe Aechmophorus clarkii —; Sc N Y
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis —; Sc N Y
Mammals
Black -tailed jackrabbit Lepus califomicus —; SC Y Y
White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii —; SC Y Y
Merriam's shrew Sorex merrlami SC Y Y
Preble's shrew Sorex preblei SC Y Y
January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Table 2.2. Federal and state non -listed species of concern and their likelihood to occur within the Quincy Solar Energy Project area or
20 -mi Study Area, Grant County, Washington.
Wildlife Type/Common Name Scientific Name Status (Fed.; State)' Project Areae Study
Townsend's big -eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SOC: SC N Y
Washington ground squirrel Urocitellus washingtoni --; SC Y Y
Herpetofauna
Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris FC; SC N Y
Sagebrush lizard Sce/oporus graciosus SOC; Sc Y Y
Striped whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus --; SC Y Y
Species occurrence data within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Project area
r- Do 40b ' BCC = Federal Bird of Conservation Concern; SOC = Federal Species of Concern; FC = Federal Candidate SC = State Candidate, SS = State Sensitive; ST =
ZMcNo State Threatened.
t+
5Nw 2 Y = Yes: the area overlaps the species known current distribution, the area contains suitable habitat, or the area contains previous records of the species N =
0 No: the areas is located outside the species known distribution, no previous records were found of the species in the area, or the area does not contain
suitable habitat.
a
mm Sources: Camp and Gamon (2011): Washington PHS List (WDFW 2019), Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks (2017);
C9 Washington Department of Natural Resources Vascular Plant Species of Special Concern List (2018); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for
N Planning and Consultation (USFWS IPaC 2019).
� N
� N
C B
N r+
C m �
N
- N
0
� 3
� 7
0
0
- a
= D
13 January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
2.2 Tier 3 Wildlife Surveys
The lists of wildlife and plant species compiled during the SCS, along with input from WDFW, was
used to design field surveys for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species (TESS surveys).
The objective of the TESS surveys was to determine if any of the TESS species were present in
the Project area. Focal species included Washington ground squirrel and burrowing owl, both
state candidate species. Other listed species and species of concern were recorded if observed
and included species identified as Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) in an IPaC
query (USFWS IPaC 2019) conducted for the Tier 2 Site Characterization Study (Jansen et al.
2019a, Appendix A). Additionally, raptor nest surveys were conducted to determine territory
occupancy and breeding status. Lastly, habitat mapping was completed to characterize and map
the general habitat types across the Project area to inform mitigation requirements for temporary
and permanent impacts to habitat resulting from Project development per WDFW (2009).
2.2.1 Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species Surveys
The TESS survey was conducted during two survey periods: April 10-11, 2019, and May 18-20,
2019. Twenty wildlife species were documented during TESS surveys, of which 17 were avian
species and three were mammals (Jansen et al. 2019b). Of the 20 species, two were species of
concern including burrowing owl (State Candidate) and long -billed curlew (Numenius americanus;
USFWS BCC).
Sign (pellet, wing feathers) of burrowing owls was observed in two locations during the first survey
on April 10. Both observations were in the southwestern corner of the Project area. Long -billed
curlews (15 observations of one or two individuals) were observed during both surveys throughout
the Project area, but activity was concentrated in the southwestern corner of the Project area.
Observations were typically of individuals calling from the ground or conducting courtship
displays, which represents attempts at pair formation (Jansen et al. 2019b, Sedgwick 2006).
Despite thorough searches in areas where birds were observed, no curlew nests were found in
the Project area.
2.2.2 Raptor Nest Surveys
Two stick nests were located within the 1 -mi buffer Study Area during the first survey on April 10-
11, 2019. Both nests were located along the electrical transmission line that crosses the north
end of the access road in the Project area (Jansen et al. 2019b). Of the two stick nests, one was
occupied by common raven (Corvus corax; Nest 1) and the other was likely constructed by a
common raven but was dilapidated and in poor condition (Nest 2; Jansen et al. 2019b). At Nest
1, high common raven activity of numerous individuals during the second TESS survey suggested
the nest fledged young. Nest 2 remained in a dilapidated condition and unoccupied during the
second survey round conducted May 18-20. Suitable raptor nest substrate within the Survey Area
was limited to the transmission line and several trees associated within a residential property
located 0.8 mi south of the intersection of Northlake Road NE and the proposed Project access
road.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM January 2020
Page 29 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co,AWA
PLANNING
1111111 III 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111$ 11111111IIIA IIIE 1111111111111111111111111 IP IIII
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
2.2.3 Habitat Mapping
The dominant habitat type in the Project area was eastside (interior) grassland (731.7 ac) followed
by shrub -steppe (50.3 ac; Jansen et al. 2019b). There are no wetlands within the Project area.
Found throughout the Project area, eastside (interior) grasslands were interspersed between
shrub -steppe in the western half of the Project area (Figure 2.1; Jansen et al. 2019b). A non-
native grass species, downy brome (Bromus tectorum), was found throughout the Project area
and outcompetes native plant species and reduces habitat value for wildlife species. Livestock
grazing was evident within the Project area, which reduced shrub and grass cover. However,
grasslands also contained a minor component of native grass species such as
squirreltail/wheatgrasses (Elymus spp.) and bunchgrasses (Grama spp.), and native shrub and
forb species that included buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium),
chicory (Cichorium intybus), scarlet globe mallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea), sagebrush buttercup
(Ranunculus glaberrimus), yellow fritillary (Fritillaria pudica), and phlox (Phlox spp.).
Shrub -steppe habitat was the second most abundant habitat type and was located in the western
half of the Project area with patch sizes from approximately 0.02 ac to 18.90 ac (standard
deviation = 4 ac; Figure 2.1; Jansen et al. 2019b). The dominant native shrub species within
shrub -steppe was sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), with a minor component of rubber rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus nauseosus), buckwheat and other woody shrubs. Native forbs such as twin
arnica (Arnica sororia), prairie star (Lithophragma parviflorum), arrowleaf balsamroot
(Balsamorhiza sagitata), and desert parsley (Lomatium spp.) were present; however, similar to
grasslands, dense areas of non-native downy brome covered much of the understory. Other non-
native plants found in shrub -steppe included kochia (Kochia scoparia), yellow salsify (Tragopogon
dubius), flixweed (Descurainia sophia), Russian thistle (Salsola kah), and tumble mustard
(Sisymbrium altissimum). The extent of shrub -steppe was defined by previous management
activities that may have included shrub removal to enhance livestock forage, or deteriorated
through fire or livestock grazing. Higher -quality shrub -steppe habitat was found along shallow
swales and sandy side slopes in the western portion of the Project area (Figure 2.1; Jansen et al.
2019b). Despite evidence of livestock grazing throughout the Project area, cryptogamic crust, a
sign of healthy, undisturbed soils, was observed within portions of both habitat types in the Project
area (Jansen et al. 2019b).
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG January 2020
Page 30 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
X1111 III P111 IIII IE IIEI IIIII El 11EI IIIII IIII �I IIIII III EIII1 �I II IIIII III �E III
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Figure 2.1 WDFW (2009) habitat types within the Quincy Solar Energy Project area, Grant
County, Washington.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 31 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111 III 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIA IIIA 1111111 III IIIA IIIA IIIA 1111 IN
January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Direct impacts to wildlife resources can occur at different temporal scales (e.g., during the
construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the Project) and spatial scales (e.g.,
within or outside the Project area). Direct impacts include wildlife fatalities resulting from
interactions with facility development or infrastructure. Some potential direct impacts from PV
solar development include:
• Collisions: overhead lines, substations, PV modules, buildings, fences, vehicle and
equipment collisions
• Avian power line interactions
• Habitat loss, fragmentation, and/or alteration during construction, operation, and
decommissioning
Indirect impacts to wildlife resources can also occur at different temporal scales (e.g., during and
after construction and operation) and spatial scales (e.g., within or outside the Project area).
Indirect impacts are often unintended, may produce unforeseen consequences to wildlife, and are
difficult to predict, especially at PV solar facilities where indirect impacts have not been studied.
In this document, indirect impacts will focus on what could occur at the Project, particularly habitat
loss and/or alteration and the potential effects of fencing disrupting wildlife movements.
3.1 Birds
3.1.1 Eagles
3.1.1.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts
Potential direct impacts to breeding eagles from construction and operation activities could
include injury or mortality due to vehicle collisions, but are unlikely because of their low anticipated
use of the Project area (e.g., no known nests within 10 mi of the Project). No electrocution or
collision risk to eagles would apply to the buried 34.5 kV collector lines. The potential for collision
risk with the overhead 115 kV gen-tie transmission line would be low given the low probability of
eagle use of the Project area, the low incidence of power line collision for raptors, and because
line collision risk for eagles has primarily been associated with crossing lines daily in concentrated
movement corridors (Olendorff and Lehman 1986, Bevanger 1994, Mojica et al. 2009, Avian
Power Line Interaction Committee [APLIC] 2012).
Indirect impacts from the loss of foraging habitat are also unlikely because of the low probability
of eagle use of the Project area and the prevalence of foraging habitat in the Study Area. Potential
impacts to eagles would be reduced through implementation of conservation measures and
mitigation measures required by USFWS for protection of wildlife and other resources (see
Section 4).
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 32 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111 III 11111111111 !III 1111111111111111111111111111
January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
3.1.2 Other birds
3.1.2.1 Direct Impacts
3.1.2.1.1 PV Solar
Potential direct impacts to birds as a result of collisions with PV solar panels or associated project
infrastructure is possible based on the limited studies to date. No publicly available studies of
avian mortality at PV solar facilities in Oregon or the Pacific Northwest are known to exist;
however, three studies at utility -scale PV solar facilities in California have been conducted
between 2012 and 2016. Two of the study sites (California Valley Solar Ranch [CVSR] and Topaz)
were in grassland and agricultural habitats whereas Desert Sunlight (DS) was in the Sonoran
desert (Althouse and Meade 2014, H. T. Harvey and Associates 2014, WEST 2016). The number
and type of detections (i.e., any carcass, partial carcass, feather spot, and injured birds as part of
a standardized search, or an incidental discovery) varied among projects: CVSR = 368 detections
(56% passerines, 30% doves & pigeons); Topaz = 364 detections (48% passerines, 42% doves
& pigeons), and DS = 149 detections (52% waterbirds, 23% passerines).
Passerines, doves, and pigeons were the most frequently detected species groups at both
grassland projects (CVSR, Topaz), with the most frequent detections of mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and
western meadowlark (Stumella neglecta) and few detections of raptors and water -associated
birds. In contrast, at DS, water -associated birds were most commonly detected, including western
grebe [Aechmophorus occidentalis], eared grebe [Podiceps nigricollis], and pied -bill grebe
[Podilymbus podiceps]), American coot (Fulica americana), common loon (Gavia immer), ruddy
duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), and sora (Porzana carolina). Most fatalities and injuries found in solar
arrays could not be assigned a definite cause of death or injury, based on an external examination
of the remains. However, predation was attributed to almost half of the detections found at Topaz
whereas collision and stranding of obligate waterbirds was observed at DS.
Fatalities or injuries of water -associated birds such as grebes, loons, herons, coots, and diving
ducks at solar energy facilities has led some scientists to suggest that these species might
interpret solar facilities as water (Kagan et al. 2014, Walston et al. 2015, Huso et al. 2016). Thus,
the lake -effect hypothesis was developed based on the idea that water -associated birds were
attracted to the facility because it was perceived to look like water. How water -associated birds
perceive polarized light is poorly understood, hence the lake -effect hypothesis cannot be used to
predict if water -associated bird fatalities would occur at a proposed solar project because the
mechanism is unknown. Other environmental factors, such as proximity of a proposed project to
water or location in a water -associated bird migratory pathway, may influence project related
impacts; however, there are limited water bodies in this Project area.
The study of avian impacts at utility -scale PV solar facilities is an emerging science and the
potential correlates of risk at these facilities (e.g., project size, bird density, proximity to habitat
features, etc.) are not yet understood, making quantitative predictions of fatalities at the Project
difficult at this time. New data are being gathered and analyzed at more facilities, allowing for
more informed assessments in the future. Given the lack in similarity between the habitat
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 RM RG
Page 33 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Cc, WA
PLMNING
11111111IIIhill IIIA1111111111IIIA11111111111IRE IIII Ill IIIAIIIA1111111ill X1111IIIAHill Ill IN
Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
characteristics of the sites in California and the Project, it is not appropriate to predict the
magnitude of anticipated impacts to birds; however, the species composition of the fatalities at
existing PV projects could be relevant for the proposed Project. There were detections of two
species found at studies in California that are species of concern at the Project: burrowing owl,
and long -billed curlew. Most detections in the arrays in the California studies were classified as
unknown cause of death or predation, some were found during construction (i.e., arrays were not
necessarily built at the time of death), and potential collision with an array (Althouse and Meade
2014, H. T. Harvey and Associates 2014, WEST 2016).
Construction of the Project could lead to direct impacts of local avian species such as in injury or
mortality resulting from collisions with construction equipment in the Project area. These impacts
are unlikely, however, based on the current plan of development and the wildlife conservation
measures intended to prevent these impacts (see Section 4).
3.1.2.1.2 Avian Power Line Interactions
Potential impacts to birds from power line operation include electrocution and collision and
depend on line location, voltage, and configurations relative to area habitats and bird
presence/use. For this Project, the 34.5 kV collector lines from the PV modules to the Project
substation will be buried, eliminating the electrocution or collision risk from these undergrounded
lines.
Electrocution risk to birds on the 200 -ft, 115 kV gen-tie line would not be expected, given line size
and clearances required by the National Electrical Safety Code for 115 kV transmission lines
typically exceed the necessary clearances for the largest birds in this region (e.g., golden eagle).
The necessary clearances to prevent avian electrocutions for 115 kV transmission voltages would
equal 71 in horizontal and 51 in vertical for phase -to -phase (i.e., energized -to -energized) contacts
and 61 in horizontal and 41 in vertical for phase -to -ground contact points (APLIC 2006; Nielsen
and Ehmke pers. comm., WEST). However, structure configurations for the lower voltage
transmission lines commonly dictate overall electrocution risk to large birds that may potentially
perch on these structures. In this type of open habitat suitable for golden eagles, it may be prudent
to ensure the engineering design incorporates a bird -friendly design for these structures (APLIC
2006). An example would be to avoid use of metal monopole structures with horizontal post
insulators. Depending on the manufacturer and engineering design, this type of insulator array
may not meet the necessary clearances for 115 kV phase -to -ground clearances (i.e., 61 inch and
41 inch horizontal and vertical clearances, respectively, between energized and grounded
portions of the structure, which may present an electrocution risk to eagles). Although the design
of the 115 kV transmission line is pending, measures outlined in Section 4 address line design to
ensure these clearances are met.
Potential direct impacts to birds from collisions with gen-tie lines on solar PV projects are possible,
but the species composition and magnitude of these impacts is difficult to predict because of the
limited data available to date.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 RM RG January 2020
Page 34 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLMNING
11111111 III 111111111111111111111 IIIA 11111111111111111
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
3.1.2.2 Indirect Impacts
Construction of the Project will result in habitat impacts that could lead to indirect impacts of
displacement of local avian species in the Project area. These impacts are difficult to predict,
however, as the revegetation of the disturbed habitats over time may or may not change the avian
species composition using these habitats. Potential impacts to avian species would be offset
through implementation of compensatory mitigation (see Section 4.5).
3.2 Bats
3.2.1 Direct Impacts
Potential direct impacts to bats as a result of construction and operation activities appears unlikely
based on the studies to date. No publicly available studies of bat mortalities at PV solar facilities
in Oregon or the Pacific Northwest are known to exist; however, three studies at utility -scale PV
solar facilities in California have been conducted between 2012 and 2016. Two of the studies
(CVSR, Topaz) were in grassland and agricultural habitats whereas DS was in the Sonoran desert
(Althouse and Meade 2014, H. T. Harvey and Associates 2014, WEST 2016). Acoustic monitoring
was not conducted prior to or concurrently with fatality monitoring at any of the sites, therefore
the activity level of bats at these sites is unknown, although surveys before or during construction
noted the presence of bats or suitable bat habitat at each facility. No bat detections were found
at any of these PV solar facilities during standardized monitoring.
The results of these initial studies are consistent with observations that bats infrequently collide
with stationary structures (Van Gelder 1956, Crawford 1981). Given the paucity of fatality studies
at PV solar facilities it is premature to provide a quantitative prediction of bat fatality risk at the
Project (or any proposed project); however, based on the lack of bat fatalities at PV solar facilities
to date, bat collision fatalities would be expected to be uncommon at the Project.
3.2.2 Indirect Impacts
Understanding how PV solar facilities could affect bats through indirect effects is limited by the
lack of knowledge on this topic. Changes in habitat during construction could produce changes in
insect abundance yet it is unknown how insects respond to PV solar development. For example,
several studies have shown that insects that oviposit on water (polarotactic) are attracted to PV
solar panels as a result of the polarized light reflected from the PV panels (Horvath et al 2010,
Szaz et al. 2016). However, not all insects are polarotactic, and many oviposit on vegetation.
Thus, the vegetation at the solar facility likely affects insect abundance in the area, but insect
abundance pre- and post -construction at a solar facility has not been studied. Attempting to infer
indirect impacts from PV solar to bats is not possible at this time because of the state of knowledge
on this topic.
3.3 Big Game
3.3.1 Direct Impacts
Potential direct impacts to big game as a result of construction and operation activities could
include injury or mortality due to vehicle collisions. These impacts are unlikely, however, based
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG January 2020
Page 35 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
on the current plan of development and the wildlife conservation and mitigation measures
intended to offset these impacts (see Section 4).
3.3.2 Indirect Impacts
Potential indirect impacts to big game could include the alteration of movement patterns through
the Project area because of fencing around the Project. Predicting the effect of this impact is
difficult, however, because the migration patterns of big game are known only through modeling
exercises in the Project area and beyond. The Washington Connected Landscapes Project
modeled mule deer habitat within the Project area as medium to high quality (index >0.5), which
is an index derived from remotely sensed data and expert opinion. Open shrub/scrub land cover
within the Project area provides suitable foraging habitat for mule deer year round. Shrub/scrub
and the unfragmented land cover within the Columbia Basin Wildlife Area Complex adjacent to
the Project area provides high-quality habitat for mule deer (Jansen et al. 2019a).
Indirect impacts from the loss of foraging habitat will be largely ameliorated because the region
contains the state's second largest herd of mule deer (approximately 37,000 individuals in 2013);
the prevalence of high-quality foraging habitat in the nearby Columbia Basin Wildlife Area
Complex; the lack of any topographic features concentrating mule deer in the Project area; and
the ability of mule deer to pass around the Project area en route to higher quality habitats.
Potential impacts to mule deer would be offset through implementation of compensatory
mitigation (see Section 4.5).
4 CONSERVATION MEASURES
The Project has or will implement the following conservation measures during the full lifecycle.
4.1 Project Siting
The Project was sited to avoid and minimize impacts to environmental resources. Macro -siting
considerations for the Project include the following:
• The Project was sited in an area that is unlikely to support any state- or federally listed
wildlife.
• The Project was sited in an area that minimizes impacts to WDFW Priority Habitats and
Species.
• The Project was sited outside of areas designated for environmental resource
conservation, such as natural area preserves and natural resources conservation areas,
naturally occurring ponds or waters of the State as defined by WAC 222-16.
• The project was sited outside of Audubon Important Bird Areas, National Wildlife Refuges,
Wilderness Area, known bird migration or stopover sites, critical big game habitat, high
concentrations of wildlife or other specially designated areas.
• The Project was sited in an area with limited existing native vegetation on land that has
been used historically for cattle grazing.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG January 2020
Page 35 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111 I I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I I 1111111111111111111111 I I 111111111111111111111111
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
• The Project was sited in an area with existing transmission infrastructure, requiring only a
200 -foot overhead gen-tie line span from the Project substation to the Grant PUD
substation to connect to the existing 115 kV transmission line.
4.2 Facility Design and Construction
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be incorporated into the design and
construction of Project facilities, as relevant and applicable:
• Site preparation will occur in a manner to minimize grading, vegetation removal and topsoil
removal.
• All cut and fill from grading will be balanced onsite such that no fill will be imported and no
soil will be exported from site.
• Construction will follow guidelines required in the WA Construction Stormwater General
Permit (1200-C) administered by the WA Department of Ecology including use of BMPs
to minimize possible impacts from erosion or other impacts to soil and water.
• Construction vehicles will limit activities to service roads, laydown areas and locations of
necessary construction activity and will follow a 25 mi per hour speed limit.
• Vegetation clearing will occur outside of the WDFW-recommended burrowing owl nesting
season (February 15 — September 25; M. Ritter, WDFW, pers. comm.) to avoid potential
impacts to burrowing owl (if present) and other nesting birds.
• If vegetation clearing outside of the burrowing owl nesting season is not feasible, pre -
construction nest surveys will be conducted and if nests are observed, vegetation clearing
and construction during the nesting season will be avoided within '/2 mile of occupied
active burrowing owl nests, based on WDFW recommendations.
• Power line facilities will be designed based on current guidelines and methodologies
(APLIC 2006 and 2012) to minimize the potential for avian electrocutions or collisions,
respectively.
• Perimeter security fencing for the solar facility will consist of 8 -ft high heavy gauge hog
wire fence with 4x4 inch openings and no barbed wire on the top to allow small mammals
and birds to enter/exit and to keep mule deer out safely; the substations will be separately
fenced with 6 -ft high security fencing with barbed wire.
• Prior to construction, all supervisory construction personnel will be instructed on the HMP
and wildlife resource protection measures, including: 1) applicable federal and state laws
(e.g., those that prohibit animal collection or removal) and 2) the importance of these
resources and the purpose and necessity of protecting them, and ensure this information
is disseminated to applicable contractor personnel, including the correct reporting
procedures. Personnel will also be instructed on how to use an incidental reporting
process to document bird or bat casualties during construction within the Project area.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG January 2020
Page 37 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
1111111 III 111111 ����� ���� ������ ����� ���� ������� 111111 IN 11 IMI 111111111111 III ����� ���11 ���11
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
4.3 Operations and Maintenance
The following BMPs will be implemented during the operations and maintenance phase of the
Project, as relevant and applicable:
• All vehicle parking and storage of any spare equipment will be confined to the O&M facility
area.
• Maintenance vehicles will limit activities to service roads to the extent practicable and will
follow a 25 mi per hour speed limit.
• Mowing and other treatment of vegetation will be conducted only if it will help encourage
desired vegetation and/or to avoid shading the panels, otherwise vegetation will be
encouraged to grow up to 18 inches to provide structure and diversity for wildlife.
• If mowing is required, it will occur outside of the WDFW-recommended period of April 1 —
June 30 to provide nesting habitat and to allow grasses and forbs to pollinate and set and
drop seed, which provides food to birds and wildlife (M. Ritter, WDFW, Pers. Comm.).
• All noxious weeds will be managed in accordance with the state of Washington weed law
RCW 17.10.
• All unnecessary lighting at night will be turned off to limit attracting wildlife, particularly
migratory birds.
• All personnel will be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of local plants and
wildlife. Personnel will also be instructed on how to use an incidental reporting process to
document bird or bat casualties during routine maintenance work and at other times that
they are within the Project area.
4.4 Reclamation and Decommissioning
The following BMPs will be implemented during the reclamation and decommissioning phase of
the Project, as relevant and applicable:
• Reclamation will begin as soon as possible to reduce the likelihood of ecological resource
impacts in disturbed areas.
• Any areas temporarily disturbed by construction or decommissioning that will not be
covered with gravel or by permanent structures will be replanted with native vegetation
and maintained until firmly established.
o The vegetation will consist of weed -free native or naturalized shrubs, grasses,
and forbs from local sources where available to help control non-native
vegetation. Per WDFW recommendation, Quincy Solar will consult with a
native vegetation restoration company to develop a seed mix that may include
bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa
secunda) and Thurber needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum). Planted
seed will have good seed -soil contact for germination and growth rates to
enable vegetation to become firmly established.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 38 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, UP
PLANNING
�IIIIII 11111111111111111111111111111
January 2020
Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
c Quincy Solar will report to Grant County and WDFW on the success of such
efforts annually during the first five years of operations and once within two
years after decommissioning.
4.6 Compensatory Mitigation
Recognizing that even after implementing avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures the
Project may still have some impacts to shrub -steppe and grassland habitat, Quincy Solar will
mitigate these impacts by making a one-time contribution to a nearby land conservation project
prior to operations. The specific project will be identified with input from WDFW and Grant County
and will include a requirement to maintain and monitor effectiveness. Additional details can be
found in the forthcoming Development Agreement between Quincy Solar and Grant County.
The contribution amount has been determined by using the number of acres that may be impacted
in the two types of habitat (Table 4.1) and applying a formula developed with WDFW to calculate
the acres to be mitigated (Table 4.2). The assumptions for tables 4.1 and 4.2 are listed below.
These 236.66 acres were then multiplied by $703.87 which is the approximate land value for the
Quincy Solar Energy Project plus a WDFW administrative cost to determine the total
compensatory mitigation payment of $166,577.87.
Table 4.1. Impacted acres by habitat type at the Quincy Solar Energy Project, Grant County,
Washington.
Habitat Type Impervious' Shaded' Unshaded' Total
Shrub -steppe 1.75 1204. 36.50 50.30
Grassland 22.76 138.49 463.03 624.28
Total 24.51 150.53 499.54 674.58
1 Impervious acres include areas with foundations, internal service roads, access road, fencing, substations, energy
storage system and 08M building; the calculations for these areas are shown in Table 1 of the QSEP Project
Narrative in the CUP application.
2 Shaded acres include areas beneath the 370,000 3' x 6'solar panels when horizontal minus the amount of
impervious acres with foundations (0.19 acres in shrub -steppe, 2.17 acres in grassland) to avoid double -counting.
3 Unshaded areas include the area within the perimeter fence and access road (674.58 ac) minus the shaded acres
and the impervious acres to avoid double -counting.
Table 4.2. Mitigated acres by habitat type at the Quincy Solar Energy Project, Grant County,
Washington.
Impervious' Shaded' Unshaded'
Habitat Type (2:1/1:1) (1:1/0.5:1) (1:1/0.2:1) Total
Shrub -steppe 3.51 12.04 36.50 52.05
Grassland 22.76 69.24 92.61 184.61
Total 26.26 81.29 129.11 236.66
1 Impervious acre mitigation ratios follow those in the 2009 WDFW Wind Power Guidelines.
2 The shaded and unshaded acre mitigation ratio for shrub -steppe assumes that it will be difficult to reestablish this
vegetation and it will be converted to grassland. The ratios for grassland assumes grassland vegetation under and
between panels may be impacted, but that it will still retain some biological function and value. The mitigation ratios
also reflect impacts from the perimeter fencing that will exclude large mammals and reduce landscape connectivity.
Scientific studies are unavailable to inform these ratios at this time but have been recommended by WDFW.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 RM AG January 2020
Paye 39 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PL
9NNING
�IIIIIIII III 111111 VIII 1111111111 VIII 11111111111111111 Ilii 1111 VIII VIII 1111111 III VIII111111 VIII
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
5 REFERENCES
16 United States Code (USC) §§ 1531-1544. 1973. Title 16 - Conservation; Chapter 35 - Endangered
Species; Sections 1531-1544. 16 USC 1531-1544. Available online:
hftps://www.fws.gov/le/USStatutes/ESA.pdf
16 United States Code (USC) §§ 668-668d. 1940. Title 16 - Conservation; Chapter 5a - Protection and
Conservation of Wildlife; Subchapter II - Protection of Bald and Golden Eagles; Sections (§§) 668-
668d. 16 USC 668-668d. [June 8, 1940.]. Available online:
hftps:/Avww.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-titlel6/pdf/USCODE-2010-title 16-chap5A-
subchapll.pdf
16 United States Code (USC) §§ 703-711. 1918. Title 16 - Conservation; Chapter 7 - Protection of Migratory
Game and Insectivorous Birds; Subchapter II - Migratory Bird Treaty; Sections (§§) 703-711. 16
USC 703-711. Available online: hftp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-
title 16/pdf/U SC O D E -2010 -title 16-cha p7-su bchapl I. pdf
50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 10.12. 1973. Title 50 - Wildlife and Fisheries; Chapter I -United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; Subchapter B Taking, Possession,
Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants; Part 10
- General Provisions; Subpart B - Definitions; Section (§) 10.12. Definitions. 50 CFR 10.12. [38
Federal Register (FR) 22015, August 15, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 32377, June 24, 1977; 42
FR 59358, November 16,1977;45 FR 56673, August 26,1980; 50 FR 52889, December 26,1985;
72 FR 48445, August 23, 2007.].
50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 22.26. 2009. Title 50 - Wildlife and Fisheries; Chapter I - United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; Subchapter B - Taking, Possession,
Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants; Part 22
- Eagle Permits; Subpart C - Eagle Permits; Section (§) 22.26 - Permits for Eagle Take That Is
Associated with, but Not the Purpose of, an Activity. 50 CFR 22.26. [74 FR 46877, September 11,
2009, as amended at 79 FR 73725, December 9, 2013].
50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 22.3. 1974. Title 50 - Wildlife and Fisheries; Chapter I -United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; Subchapter B - Taking, Possession,
Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants; Part 22
- Eagle Permits; Subpart a - Introduction; Section (§) 22.3 - Definitions. 50 CFR 22.3. [39 Federal
Register (FR) 1183, January 4, 1974, as amended at 48 FR 57300, December 29, 1983; 64 FR
50472, September 17, 1999; 72 FR 31139, June 5, 2007; 74 FR 46876, September 11, 2009].
81 Federal Register (FR) 242: 91494-91554. 2016. Eagle Permits; Revisions to Regulations for Eagle
Incidental Take and Take of Eagle Nests; Final Rule. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service. 81 FR 91494. December 16, 2016. Available online: hftps:/Avww.gpo.govtfdsys/pkg/FR-
2016-12-16/pdf/2016-29908.pdf
Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2014. Topaz Solar Farms 2013 Fourth Quarter/Second Annual Report for Avian
and Bat Protection Plan and Bird Monitoring and Avoidance Plan. Prepared for Topaz Solar Farms
LLC, Santa Margarita, California. Prepared by Alehouse and Meade, Inc., Paso Robles, California.
March 2014.
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power
Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) Final Project
Report CEC-500-2006-022. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy
Commission. Washington D.C. and Sacramento, California.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 40 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, Wn
PL9NNING
I1111111III 111111IIIA 1111111111IIIA11111111111111111IIII1111IIIAIIIA1111111IIIIIIA111111IIIA�1111111
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The
State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC, Washington D.C.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). 1940. 16 United States Code (USC) § 668-668d. Bald
Eagle Protection Act of 1940, June 8, 1940, Chapter 278, § 2, 54 Statute (Stat.) 251; Expanded to
include the related species of the golden eagle October 24, 1962, Public Law (PL) 87-884, 76 Stat.
1246. As amended: October 23, 1972, PL 92-535, § 2, 86 Stat. 1065; Nov. 8, 1978, PL 95-616, §
9, 92 Stat. 3114.
Bevanger, K. 1994. Bird Interactions with Utility Structures: Collision and Electrocution, Causes and
Mitigating Measures. Ibis 136:412-425.
Camp, P. and J. G. Gamon. 2011. Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington. University of Washington
Press, Seattle.
Crawford, R. L. 1981. Bird Kills at a Lighted Man -Made Structure: Often on Nights Close to a Full Moon.
American Birds 35(6):913-914.
ESRI.2018. World Imagery and Aerial Photos. ArcGIS Resource Center. Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI), producers of ArcGIS software. Redlands, California. Available online:
hftp:/Iwww.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=l
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2014. California Valley Solar Ranch Project Avian and Bat Protection Plan
Annual Postconstruction Fatality Report: 16 August 2012 — 15 August 2013. Project # 3326-03.
Prepared for HPR Il, LLC, California Valley Solar Ranch, Santa Margarita, California. Prepared by
H.T. Harvey & Associates, San Luis Obispo, Califomia. March 28, 2014.
Horvath, G., M. Blaho, A. Egri, G. Krista, I. Seres, and B. Robertson. 2010. Reducing the Maladaptive
Attractiveness of Solar Panels to Polarotactic Insects. Conservation Biology 24(6):1644-1653.
Huso, M., T. Dietsch, and C. Nicolai. 2016. Mortality Monitoring Design for Utility -Scale Solar Power
Facilities. US Geological Survey (USGS) Open -File Report 2016-1087.44 pp.
Jansen, E. W., T. J. Mabee, S. R. Brown, and M. Martin. 2019a. Site Characterization Study, Quincy Solar
Energy Project, Grant County, Washington. Final Report: May 2019. Prepared for Quincy Solar
Energy, LLC., Chicago, Illinois. Prepared by Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST),
Corvallis, Oregon. May 17, 2019. 33 pp + appendices.
Jansen, E. W., S. R. Brown, and T. J. Mabee. 2019b. Tier 3 Wildlife Survey Report, Quincy Solar Energy
Project, Grant County, Washington. Draft Report. Prepared for Quincy Solar Energy LLC, Chicago,
Illinois. Prepared by Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Corvallis, Oregon. July 19,
2019. 13 pp + appendices.
Kagan, R. A., T. C. Viner, P. W. Trail, and E. O. Espinoza. 2014. Avian Mortality at Solar Energy Facilities
in Southern California: A Preliminary Analysis. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ashland, Oregon. April 2014. Available online:
http://docketpublic. a nergy. ca. gov/publ icdocuments/09-afc-
07c/tn202538_20140623tl54647_exh 3107_kagan_et_al_2014.pdf
Mojica, E. K., B. D. Watts, J. T. Paul, S. T. Voss, and J. Pottie. 2009. Factors Contributing to Bald Eagle
Electrocutions and Line Collisions on Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Journal of Raptor
Research 43:57-61.
National Geographic Society (National Geographic). 2018. World Maps. Digital topographic map. PDF
topographic map quads. Accessed March 8, 2018. Available online:
hftp://www.natgeomaps.comftrail-mapslpdf-quads
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 RM AG January 2020
Page 41 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Ca, WA
PLPNNING
I1111111III IIIII!111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIAIIIA1111111IIIIIIA1111111111IIII1111
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
North American Datum (NAD). 1983. NAD83 Geodetic Datum.
Olendorff, R. R. and R. N. Lehman. 1986. Raptor Collisions with Utility Lines: An Analysis Using Subjective
Field Observations. Final report. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Research and Development,
San Ramon, California.
Szaz, D., D. Mihalyi, A. Farkas, A. Egri, A. Barta, G. Kriska, B. Robertson, and G. Horvath. 2016. Polarized
Light Pollution of Matte Solar Panels: Anti -Reflective Photovoltaics Reduce Polarized Light
Pollution but Benefit Only Some Aquatic Insects. Journal of insect conservation 20(4):663-675.
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2018. Order No. 3362 - Subject: Improving Habitat Quality in Western
Big -Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors. Available online:
https://www. doi. gov/sites/doi. gov/files/uploads/so_3362_migration. pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. December 2008.
Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
NewReportsPu blications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008. pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Land -Based Wind Energy Guidelines. March 23, 2012. 82
pp. Available online: http://www.fws.gov/cno/pdf/Energy/2012_Wind_Energy_Guidelines_final.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Module 1 - Land -Based
Wind Energy. Version 2. Division of Migratory Bird Management, USFWS. April 2013. Available
online at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Eagle_Conservation_Plan_Guidance-
Module%201. pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC). 2019.
Environmental Conservation Online Systerm (ECOS), USFWS. Accessed March 2018. Available
online: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Program (GAP). 2016. Protected Areas Database of the
United States (PAD -US). Version 1.4 Combined Feature Class. May 2016. Available online:
http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/download/
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. USGS Topographic Maps. Accessed January 17, 2018. Information
online: https://nationalmap.gov/ustopo/index.html
Van Gelder, R. G. 1956. Echo -Location Failure in Migratory Bats. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of
Science 59(2):220-222. doi: 10.2307/3626963.
Walston, L. J., Jr., K. E. Rollins, K. P. SMith, K. E. LaGory, K. Sinclair, C. Turchi, T. Wendelin, and H.
Souder. 2015. A Review of Avian Monitoring and Mitigation Information at Existing Utility -Scale
Solar Facilities. ANL/EVS-15/2. Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne). Prepared for
US Department of Energy (USDOE), SunShot Initiative and Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE). April 2015. Available online: http://www.evs.an1.gov/downloads/ANL-
EVS_15-2.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Wind Power Guidelines. WDFW, Olympia,
Washington. April 2009. 35 pp.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017. Washington Natural Heritage Program List of
Animal Species with Ranks. Accessed January 2019. Available online:
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh-animals-ranks.pdf
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG lanuary 2020
Page 42 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
1 X1111 III 111111111/ X111111111111111111111111 X111
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2019. Priority Habitat and Species List. Accessed
January 2019. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Available online:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2018. Vascular Plant Species of Special Concern
List. Available online: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPlists
Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). 2010. Washington Connected
Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and
Transportation, Olympia, Washington.
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2016. Avian and Bat Monitoring at the Desert Sunlight
Solar Farm Project Riverside County, California, 2015 - 2016 Annual Report [Draft]. Prepared for
Desert Sunlight 250, LLC and Desert Sunlight 300, LLC, Juno Beach, Florida. Prepared by WEST,
Cheyenne Wyoming.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 43 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
11111111 III 1111111111111111111111111111111111111X11111 X11111 IIIA IIIA 1111111 III 11111 IIIA IIIA 11111111
January 2020
Quincy Solar Energy Project Habitat Management Plan
Appendix A. Noxious weeds listed by Washington and the Noxious Weed Control Board
in Grant County, Washington.
1429140 07/02/2020 10:21 AM AG
Page 44 of 46 R 148.50 Grant Co, WA
PLANNING
1111111 III 111111 IIIA 1111111111 IIIA 1111111111111111111111111 IIIA IIIA 1111111 III IIIA IIIA IIIA X111 IN
January 2020
2019
Washington State
Noxious Weed List
Dalmatian toadflax is designated for control
in three additional counties in Washington
for 2019. Check with your County Noxious
Weed Control Board to find out about new
Class 8 designation changes in your county.
List arranged alphabetically by:
COMMON NAME
Noxious Weed
Control Board
Class C Weeds
Class C Weeds continued
absinth wormwood
Artemisia absinthium
scentless mayweed MuMcans perforate
Austrian fieldcress
Ronppa austriaca
smoothseed alfalfa dodder Cuscuta app—Marta
babysbreath
Gypsophdal paniculata
spikeweed Csntromadia pungens
black henbane
Hyoscyamus niger
spiny cocklebur xanthium spinosum
btackgmss
Alopecurus myosurcides
spotted jewelweed Impatiens capensu
bugalobur
Solanum mshatum
Swansonpea Sphaerophysa sa(su/a
cereal rye
S.1, cereals
thistle. bull Cirsium vulgate
3>0A
common barberry
Berbens vulgaris
nistle, Canada Cesium arvense
Zed
common catsear
Hypochsans redicata
tree -0f -heaven AJlarmus altissima
common groundsel
Senecio vulgaris
veritnata Ventenata dubia
cZi a
common St. Johnswon
Hypencum perloraNm
white cockle Silene IefiloNa nip. alba
cornmon tansy
Tanacetum vulgate
wild cannot (except where Dew. carol.
s. a
common teasel
Dipsacus /ulbnum
commerdally grown)
or
arlyleafpontlweed
Potamogeton crispus
yellow flag his Ins pasudacorus
O
ish hawn
Engltlar
Crataegus morrogyna
yellow toadllaz Linana vulgaris
N
Englishwy- four alsvars
Heders heli
xl yV
only
' Pillsburgh'. and Star. and
To learn more about noxious weeds and
o
� p
Eurasian vaterimfoil
H. hibemica'Hibemice'
Mynophyllum spicatum s
noxious weed control in Washington
Nr+
hybrid
Mynopnyllum sfixicum
State, please Contact:
o m
evergreen blackberry
Rubus laciniatus
�_ ^y
field bindweed
Coreolvulus arvensis
WA State Noxious Weed Control Board
fragrant watedily
Nymphae. odor.ta
P.O. Box 42560
C ;'a
hairy whdetop
Lepldium appelianum
Olympia, WA 98504-2560
R3
Himalayan blackberry
Rubus armeniacus
(360}725-5764
hoary cress
Lepidum draba
n
Italian alum
Ammltalicum
Email: noxiousweeds(@agcwa.gov
- 7D
Japanese selgrass
Zosterajaponka
Website: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov
E ul
v
ubata
jgrass
Conaderisjubata
Or
jointed goatgrass
Aegdops cylindma
lewm iced
Soliva sessVis
WA State Department of Agriculture
longspine sandbur
Cenchms longlspinus
21 North First Avenue#103
medusahead
Tassmatherum caput.
Yakima, WA 98902
medusae
(509) 249973
nonnative cattail species
Typha species
Or
and hybrids (remnder.
does not include the
Your County Noxious Weed Control
native common cattail
Board
Typha latiloli.)
old man's beard
Clematis vilalbe
y
oxeye daisy
Lewenthemum vulgate
Please help protect Washington's
Pampas grass
Cortaderia salloana
economy and environment from
perennial sowthistle
Sonchus arvensis
noxious weeds!
reed canarygrass
Phalan arundki—a
Russian olive
E/aeagnus angustilolia
Cover photo by Jennifer Andreas, wSU Enension,IWCP
O
2019
Washington State
Noxious Weed List
Dalmatian toadflax is designated for control
in three additional counties in Washington
for 2019. Check with your County Noxious
Weed Control Board to find out about new
Class 8 designation changes in your county.
List arranged alphabetically by:
COMMON NAME
Noxious Weed
Control Board
Class A Weeds: Nan-native species whose distribution
purple starlhistle
Centaures calcdmpa
hoary alyssum
Barteroa intens
in Washington is still limited. Preventing new Infestations and
reed sweetgrass
Glycena maxime
houndstongue
Cynoossum o((cinale
eradicating existing infestations are the highest priority,
ricefeld bulrush
SchoeWocfus
indigobush
Amorpha fruticosa
Eradication of all Class A plants Is required by law.
mucronatus
knapweed, black
Centsume nigra
sage, dary
Salvia sclaree
knapweed, brown
Centsumajacea
Class B Weeds: Non-native species presently limited to
sage, Mediterranean
Salvia aethiopis
knapweed, diffuse
Centaures diffuse
portions of the State. Species are designated for required
silverleaf nightshade
Solanum elaeagn fatium
knapweed, meadow
Cerdeuma x nimckmox
control in regions where they are not yet widespread.
small-flowered jewelweed
Impatiens parviflom
knapweed, Russian
Rhaponh'cum repents
Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high prionty.
Spanish broom
Spartium junceum
knapweed, spotted
Centaurea stoebe
vro A
In regions where a Class B species is already abundant.
Syrian beancaper
Zygophydum fabago
knotweed. Bohemian
Polygonum x bohemicum
z a
control is dedded at the local level, with containment as the
Texas blueweed
Hedanthus cdons
knotweed. giant
Polygonum sachalinense
Z,-
primary goal. Please contact your County Noxious Weed
thistle, Italian
Carduus pycnocephalus
knotweed.. Himalayan
Persicada wallichii
ch O1 a
Control Board to learn which species are designated for
thistle, milk
Sdybum marianum
knotweed. Japanese
Polygonum cuspldetum
y
control in your area.
thistle, slenderf ower
Carduus fenuidorus
kochia
Bssse scopana
0 ca
vanable-leaf miltoil
Mydophyllum
lesser celandine
F-mil vernal
M-4
Class Weeds: Noxious weeds that are typically
hatemphyllum
loosestrife, garden
Lysimachm vulgaris
widespread in WA or are of special Interest to the state's
wild four-o dock
Muabdis nyclaginea
loosesMfe, purple
Lythrum salwarla
N
agricultural industry. The Class C status allows county weed
wand
Malta
arum
p N
boards to require control if locally desired, or they may
Class B Ulfegdg
stfe,
Malta slarthisile
Cant- -
Cenfaurea melitensis
p N
choose to provide education or technical consultation.
blueweed
Echium vulgere
partotteather
Mynophydum aquatcum
o' O
Brazilian elodea
Egena dense
perennial pepperweed
Lepidwm 180101-
aofolium0-
0-
Class A Weeds
bugloss. annual
Anchusa arvensis
poison hemlock
Conium maculafum
m o
Eradication Is required
bugloss, common
Anchusa offldnalis
policeman's helmet
Impatiens glandNilem
N
"
common aupina Crupina vulgaris
butterfly bush
Buddleja davidii
punclurevine
Tribulus teaestris
co rass, common S rtina an lira
rd9 Pe 9
cemelthom
Alhagi mauromm
Ravenna grass
Saccharum revennao
a
m 3
cordgrass. dense-flowered Spamna densiflore
common fennel, (except
Foemculum vulgare except
rush skeletonweed
Chonddllajuncee
cordgrass, sallmeadow Spartina patens
bulbing fennel)
F. vulgate var. azodcum)
saltcedar
Tamanx remosissima
cordgrass, smooth Spartna alfemdbra
common reed (nonnative
Phregmdes australis
Scotch broom
Cyosus scopadus
o
dyer's woad isatis tinctoria
genotypes only)
shiny geranium
Geranium lucldum
- a
eggleaf spurge Euphorbo oblongata
Dalmatian toadflex
Linana dalmah'ca ssp
spurge flax
Thy relsea passers
v Gh
false brome Brachypodium sylvalicum
dalmatica
spurge laurel
Daphne laureola
floating primrose-willow, Ludwgia peploides
Eurasian watennilfoil
Mynophydum spk:alum
spurge, Italy
Euptwbia otgafa
flowenrg rush Butomus umbellatus
European coltsfoot
Tussilago fadam
spurge, myrtle
Eutiftbia mymindes
French broom Genists monspessulans
fanwon
Cabombe carotrimna
sulfur cinquefoil
Polenfilla recta
garlic mustard Anions petiolam
gorse
Ulex eumpaeus
tansy mgwort
Jacobaea vulgaris
giant hogweed Heracleum
grass-leaved arrowhead
Sagdaria graminea
thistle, musk
Cerduus nutans
mantegazzianum
hairy willowherb
Epdobium Mrsutum
thistle, plumeless
Carduus acanthoides
goatsme Galega officinalis
hawkweed oxtongue
Picris hieracioides
thistle, Scotch
Onopomium acamhium
hydrilla Hyddila verticillate
hawkweed, orange
Hieracium auranbacum
velvetleaf
Abuh'lon theophrast
Johnsongrass Sorghum he*—.
hawkweeds. All nonnafive
Nreracium, subgenus
water primrose
Ludwgia hexapefala
knapweed, bighead Centaures macrocephala
species and hybrids of the
Piloseda
white bryony
Bryonia alba
y
knapweed. Vochm Cemauma ngrescens
meadow subgenus
wild chervil
Anthnscus sylvestris
Z,
kudzu Puerana montane var.
hawkweeds: Al nonnative
Hieracium, subgenus
yellow archangel
Lamiashum galeobdolon
boosts
species and hybrids of the
Hieracium
yellow floalingheart
Nymphoides pallets
meadow dary Salvia pretensis
wall subgenus
yellow nutsedge
Cyperus esculentus
Noriental
demaas Clematis onemalis
herb-Robert
Gerenium mbenianum
yellow sta-Mistle
Cenmuma solstili
0