1 / 20

Table Mountain Wind Proposal

Table Mountain Wind Proposal. Jean Field Office. Project Information. Proponent: Table Mountain Wind Co., LLC

roger
Download Presentation

Table Mountain Wind Proposal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Table Mountain Wind Proposal Jean Field Office

  2. Project Information • Proponent: Table Mountain Wind Co., LLC • Project Specifics: ROW grant to use BLM administered lands for construction, operation and maintenance of wind turbine field and ancillary facilities including a substation, distribution lines, access roads, and meteorological towers. • Project Authorization Term: 25-year term ROW which can be renewed indefinitely. The EIS analyzes 25-year term.

  3. Project Area

  4. Original Proposal • 250 Wind Turbines across Wilson Pass, Shenandoah Peak, and Table Mountain • Transmission Lines • Access Road • Substation

  5. Revised Proposal • 88 Wind Turbines on Table Mountain only • Fewer associated transmission lines • One access road to plateau • Substation

  6. Proponent Proposal

  7. VRM Classes for the Area

  8. Key Observation Point • Highway SR-161 between I-15 and Sandy Valley Road is the main roadway to be influenced by the proposal.

  9. Field of View from a Moving Observation Point Based on Speed

  10. Key Observation Point: Beginning

  11. Key Observation Point: Middle

  12. Key Observation Point: End

  13. Key Observation Point Video

  14. Visual Contrast Rating • The current proposal with suggested mitigations can meet the objectives of VRM Class III. • The current proposal with suggested mitigations does not appear to meet the objectives of VRM Class II. • If the project area is amended to VRM Class III or IV it appears the objectives of either VRM class can be reasonably reached.

  15. Design Strategies • Relocate Substation • Option #1:Topographically shielded placement • Adjacent powerline can still be utilized • Place powerlines coming down the plateau slopes in drainage features to shield visibility • Underground powerlines • Option #2:Top of plateau recessed from ridgeline view • Follow access and existing powerline ROWs for transmission. • New powerline construction limited to plateau area where they are not visible from KOP • Underground powerlines

  16. Design Strategies • Change Wind Turbine color to light grey to diminish visibility • Color all ancillary facilities and power poles to blend with surroundings • Ridgeline Turbine Placement • Recess from ridge • Use smaller turbines in ridgeline row • Reduce number of turbines in ridgeline row • Eliminate turbines ridgeline row • Utilize interim reclamation practices for disturbances and minimize access road after initial construction

  17. Proponent Proposal

  18. Design Strategy Result

  19. Summary • Design strategies would meet VRM Class II and Class III objectives • VRM Class III Area: Proposed project does not dominate the view of the casual observer from the Key Observation Point • VRM Class II Area: Proposed project may be seen but will not attract attention of the casual observer from the Key Observation Point

More Related