- •VOLUME 1 CONTENTS
- •NOTATION
- •ENGLISH/METRIC AND METRIC/ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS
- •EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- •ES.1 Background
- •ES.2 BLM Proposed Action
- •ES.2.1 BLM Purpose and Need
- •ES.2.2 BLM Scope of Analysis
- •ES.2.3 Applications for Solar Energy Development on BLM Lands
- •ES.2.4 BLM Alternatives
- •ES.2.4.1 Program Elements Common to Both BLM Action Alternatives
- •ES.2.4.3 Solar Energy Zone Program Alternative
- •ES.2.4.4 No Action Alternative
- •ES.2.4.5 Reasonably Foreseeable Solar Energy Development
- •ES.2.4.6 Summary of Impacts of BLM’s Alternatives
- •ES.2.4.7 BLM’s Preferred Alternative
- •ES.3 DOE Proposed Action
- •ES.3.1 DOE Purpose and Need
- •ES.3.2 DOE Scope of Analysis
- •ES.3.3 DOE Alternatives
- •ES.3.3.2 No Action Alternative
- •ES.3.4 Summary of Impacts of DOE’s Alternatives
- •ES.4 Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination
- •ES.5 References
- •1 INTRODUCTION
- •1.1 Applicable Federal Orders and Mandates
- •1.1.1 Executive Order 13212
- •1.1.2 Energy Policy Act of 2005
- •1.1.3 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
- •1.1.4 DOI Secretarial Order 3285A1
- •1.1.5 Executive Order 13514
- •1.1.6 DOI Secretarial Order 3297
- •1.3 BLM Requirements and Objectives for the PEIS
- •1.3.1 BLM’s Purpose and Need
- •1.3.2 BLM Decisions To Be Made
- •1.3.3 Authorization Process for Solar Energy Development on BLM Lands
- •1.3.3.1 New Applications
- •1.3.3.2 Pending Applications
- •1.3.3.3 Approved Applications
- •1.3.4 BLM Land Use Planning Process
- •1.3.5 BLM Scope of the Analysis
- •1.3.5.1 Program Analysis Versus SEZ-Specific Analysis
- •1.3.6 BLM Planning Criteria
- •1.4 DOE Requirements and Objectives for the PEIS
- •1.4.1 DOE’s Purpose and Need
- •1.4.2 DOE Decisions To Be Made
- •1.4.3 DOE Scope of the Analysis
- •1.5 Cooperating Agencies
- •1.6.1 Renewable Portfolio Standards and Other Regional and State Initiatives
- •1.6.2 Related Initiatives
- •1.6.2.1 Energy Corridor Designation
- •1.6.2.3 California Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
- •1.6.2.4 Arizona Restoration Design Energy Project
- •1.6.2.5 Wind Energy Development PEIS
- •1.6.2.6 Geothermal PEIS
- •1.8 References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 BLM Alternatives
- •2.2.1 Program Elements Common to Both BLM Action Alternatives
- •2.2.1.1 Right-of-Way Authorization Policies
- •2.2.1.2 Monitoring, Adaptive Management, and Mitigation
- •2.2.1.3 Design Features
- •2.2.1.4 Segregation of Lands with Potential for Solar Development
- •2.2.2.1 Proposed Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas
- •2.2.2.2 Proposed Solar Energy Zones
- •2.2.2.3 Proposed Variance Areas for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development
- •2.2.2.4 Land Use Plans To Be Amended
- •2.2.3 SEZ Program Alternative
- •2.2.3.1 Proposed Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas
- •2.2.3.2 Proposed Solar Energy Zones
- •2.2.3.3 Solar Energy Zone Policies
- •2.2.3.4 Land Use Plans To Be Amended
- •2.3 DOE Alternatives
- •2.3.1 No Action Alternative
- •2.3.2 Action Alternative—DOE’s Proposed Programmatic Environmental Guidance
- •2.3.2.1 General Mitigation Measures
- •2.3.2.2 Institutional and Public Outreach
- •2.3.2.3 Land Use
- •2.3.2.4 Water Resources and Erosion Control
- •2.3.2.5 Biological Resources
- •2.3.2.6 Air Quality
- •2.3.2.7 Cultural Resources and Native American Interactions
- •2.3.2.8 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
- •2.3.2.9 Socioeconomics
- •2.3.2.10 Environmental Justice
- •2.3.2.11 Safety and Health
- •2.4 Description of Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario
- •2.4.1 Comparison of RFDS with Lands Available under the Action Alternatives
- •2.5 Other Alternatives and Issues Considered
- •2.5.1 Distributed Generation
- •2.5.2 Conservation and Demand-Side Management
- •2.5.3 Analysis of Life-Cycle Impacts of Solar Energy Development
- •2.5.4 Analysis of Development on Other Federal, State, or Private Lands
- •2.5.5 Restricting Development to Previously Disturbed Lands
- •2.5.6 Restricting Development to Populated Areas
- •2.5.7 Restricting Development to the Fast-Track Project Applications
- •2.5.8 Analysis of Development on the Maximum Amount of Public Lands Allowable
- •2.5.9 Changes to BLM’s Proposed Solar Energy Zones
- •2.5.10 Other Suggested Alternatives
- •2.5.11 DOE Environmental Requirements
- •2.6 References
- •3.1 Technologies
- •3.2 Development Process Overview for All Technologies
- •3.2.1 Site Characterization
- •3.2.2 Site Preparation and Construction
- •3.2.3 Operations
- •3.2.4 Decommissioning and Reclamation
- •3.2.5 Transmission Facilities
- •3.4 Transportation Considerations
- •3.6 Health and Safety Aspects of Solar Energy Projects
- •3.7 Existing Agency Processes and Guidance
- •3.8 References
- •4 UPDATE TO AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Lands and Realty
- •4.4 Rangeland Resources
- •4.4.1 Livestock Grazing
- •4.4.2 Wild Horses and Burros
- •4.4.3 Wildland Fire
- •4.5 Recreation
- •4.6 Military and Civilian Aviation
- •4.7 Geologic Setting and Soil Resources
- •4.7.1 Geologic Setting
- •4.7.2 Geologic Hazards
- •4.7.3 Soil Resources
- •4.8 Minerals
- •4.9 Water Resources
- •4.9.1 Surface Water Resources
- •4.9.2 Groundwater Resources
- •4.9.3 Water Rights, Supply, and Use
- •4.10 Ecological Resources
- •4.10.1 Vegetation
- •4.10.2 Wildlife
- •4.10.3 Aquatic Biota
- •4.10.3.1 Pacific Northwest Hydrologic Region
- •4.10.3.2 Lower Colorado, Rio Grande, and Great Basin Hydrologic Regions
- •4.10.3.3 California Hydrologic Region
- •4.10.3.4 Upper Colorado River Hydrologic Region
- •4.10.3.5 Missouri River Basin Hydrologic Region
- •4.10.4 Special Status Species
- •4.11 Air Quality and Climate
- •4.11.3 Update to Section 4.11.2.4 of the Draft Solar PEIS: Visibility Protection
- •4.11.4 Update to Section 4.11.2.5 of the Draft Solar PEIS: General Conformity
- •4.11.5 Addition of New Section 4.11.4: Toxic Dust and Snowmelt
- •4.12 Visual Resources
- •4.13 Acoustic Environment
- •4.14 Paleontological Resources
- •4.15 Cultural Resources
- •4.16 Native American Concerns
- •4.17 Socioeconomics
- •4.18 Environmental Justice
- •4.19 References
- •4.20 Errata to Chapter 4 of the Draft Solar PEIS
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Lands and Realty
- •5.4 Rangeland Resources
- •5.4.1 Livestock Grazing
- •5.4.2 Wild Horses and Burros
- •5.4.3 Wildland Fire
- •5.5 Recreation
- •5.6 Military and Civilian Aviation
- •5.7 Geologic Setting and Soil Resources
- •5.8 Minerals
- •5.9 Water Resources
- •5.10 Ecological Resources
- •5.10.1 Vegetation
- •5.10.2 Wildlife
- •5.10.3 Aquatic Biota and Habitats
- •5.10.3.1 Common Impacts
- •5.10.3.2 Technology-Specific Impacts
- •5.10.4 Special Status Species
- •5.11 Air Quality and Climate
- •5.11.1 Common Impacts
- •5.11.1.1 Construction: Update to Section 5.11.1.2 of the Draft Solar PEIS
- •5.11.1.2 Operations: Update to Section 5.11.1.3 of the Draft Solar PEIS
- •5.12 Visual Resources
- •5.13 Acoustic Environment
- •5.13.1 Common Impacts
- •5.13.1.1 Construction: Update to Section 5.13.1.2 of the Draft Solar PEIS
- •5.13.1.2 Operations: Update to Section 5.13.1.3 of the Draft Solar PEIS
- •5.14 Paleontological Resources
- •5.15 Cultural Resources
- •5.15.1 Common Impacts
- •5.16 Native American Concerns
- •5.17 Socioeconomics
- •5.18 Environmental Justice
- •5.19 Transportation
- •5.20 Hazardous Materials and Waste
- •5.21 Health and Safety
- •5.22 References
- •5.23 Errata to Chapter 5 of the Draft Solar PEIS
- •6 ANALYSIS OF BLM’S SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
- •6.1.2 Minimize Environmental Impacts
- •6.1.3 Minimize Social and Economic Impacts
- •6.1.4 Provide Flexibility to Solar Industry
- •6.1.5 Optimize Existing Transmission Infrastructure and Corridors
- •6.1.6 Standardize and Streamline the Authorization Process
- •6.1.7 Meet Projected Demand for Solar Energy Development
- •6.2 Impacts of the SEZ Program Alternative
- •6.2.2 Minimize Environmental Impacts
- •6.2.3 Minimize Social and Economic Impacts
- •6.2.4 Provide Flexibility to Solar Industry
- •6.2.5 Optimize Existing Transmission Infrastructure and Corridors
- •6.2.6 Standardize and Streamline the Authorization Process
- •6.2.7 Meet Projected Demand for Solar Energy Development
- •6.3 Impacts of the No Action Alternative
- •6.3.2 Minimize Environmental Impacts
- •6.3.3 Minimize Social and Economic Impacts
- •6.3.4 Provide Flexibility to Solar Industry
- •6.3.5 Optimize Existing Transmission Infrastructure and Corridors
- •6.3.6 Standardize and Streamline the Authorization Process
- •6.3.7 Meet Projected Demand for Solar Energy Development
- •6.5 Cumulative Impacts
- •6.5.1 Overview of Activities in the Six-State Study Area
- •6.5.1.1 Energy Production and Distribution
- •6.5.1.2 Other Activities and Trends
- •6.5.2 Cumulative Impact Assessment for Solar Energy Development
- •6.5.2.1 Lands and Realty
- •6.5.2.2 Specially Designated Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
- •6.5.2.3 Rangeland Resources
- •6.5.2.4 Recreation
- •6.5.2.5 Military and Civilian Aviation
- •6.5.2.6 Geologic Setting and Soil Resources
- •6.5.2.7 Mineral Resources
- •6.5.2.8 Water Resources
- •6.5.2.9 Ecological Resources
- •6.5.2.10 Air Quality and Climate
- •6.5.2.11 Visual Resources
- •6.5.2.12 Acoustic Environment
- •6.5.2.13 Paleontological Resources
- •6.5.2.14 Cultural Resources
- •6.5.2.15 Native American Concerns
- •6.5.2.16 Socioeconomics
- •6.5.2.17 Environmental Justice
- •6.5.2.18 Transportation
- •6.6 Other NEPA Considerations
- •6.6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
- •6.6.2 Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity
- •6.6.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
- •6.6.4 Mitigation of Adverse Effects
- •6.7 References
- •7 ANALYSIS OF DOE’S ALTERNATIVES
- •7.1 Impacts of DOE’s Proposed Action
- •7.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative
- •7.3 Cumulative Impacts
- •7.4 Other NEPA Considerations
- •7.4.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
- •7.4.2 Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity
- •7.4.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
- •7.4.4 Mitigation of Adverse Effects
- •14.1 Public Scoping and Public Outreach
- •14.2 Government-to-Government Consultation
- •14.3 Coordination of BLM State and Field Offices
- •14.4 Agency Cooperation, Consultation, and Coordination
- •14.5 References
- •15 LIST OF PREPARERS
- •16 GLOSSARY
- •FIGURE ES.2-1 Areas Proposed for Exclusion Since Publication of the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS Based on Continued Consultation with Cooperating Agencies and Tribes
- •FIGURE ES.2-4 BLM-Administered Lands in Colorado Available for Application for Solar Energy ROW Authorizations under the BLM Alternatives Considered in This PEIS
- •FIGURE 1.2-2 Solar Direct Normal Insolation Levels in the Southwestern United States
- •FIGURE 2.2-3 BLM-Administered Lands in Colorado Available for Application for Solar Energy ROW Authorizations under the BLM Alternatives Considered in This PEIS
- •FIGURE 2.2-7 Areas Proposed for Exclusion Since Publication of the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS Based on Continued Consultation with Cooperating Agencies and Tribes
- •TABLE ES.2-3 Proposed SEZs and Approximate Acreage by State
- •TABLE ES.2-5 Summary-Level Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts of Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development by Alternative
- •TABLE ES.2-6 Comparison of BLM’s Alternatives with Respect to Objectives for the Agency’s Action
- •TABLE 2.2-3 Proposed SEZs and Approximate Acreage by State
- •TABLE 4.15-3 ACECs Designated for Protection of Cultural Resource Values That Are near BLM-Administered Lands Available for Application through the Variance Process
- •TABLE 6.1-2 Summary-Level Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts of Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development by Alternative
- •TABLE 6.4-1 Comparison of BLM’s Alternatives with Respect to Objectives for the Agencies’ Action
- •TABLE 6.5-10 Recreational Visits for the BLM and NPS in FY 2000 and FY 2010 and for USFS in FY 2000 and FY 2010
1guidance. It would not adopt programmatic environmental guidance with recommended
2 environmental best management practices and mitigation measures that could be applied to all 3 DOE-supported solar projects.
4
5
62.3.2 Action Alternative—DOE’s Proposed Programmatic Environmental Guidance
7 |
(DOE Preferred Alternative) |
8 |
|
9As described in the Draft Solar PEIS and the Supplement to the Draft, under the proposed
10action (action alternative), DOE would adopt programmatic environmental guidance, which it
11would use to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of
12proposed solar projects. In the Final Programmatic EIS, DOE has identified the proposed action
13(action alternative) as its preferred alternative. Early consideration of this guidance, especially
14both in project planning and development, could substantially streamline the project-specific
15NEPA review, permitting processes, and community interactions. DOE application of this
16guidance is limited to those actions where DOE has authority for a federal decision-making role.
17DOE’s proposed programmatic environmental guidance is presented in Sections 2.3.2.1
18through 2.3.2.11.
19 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
21 |
2.3.2.1 General Mitigation Measures |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
23 |
• Consider siting facilities in predetermined solar development zones (e.g., an |
|
|
24 |
SEZ designated by the BLM) in order to assist in the sharing of technologies, |
||
25 |
resources, and data to ensure a more detailed understanding of environmental |
||
26 |
resources, to facilitate consistency with land use planning and zoning |
|
|
27 |
designations, and to make use of existing infrastructure (e.g., access to |
|
|
28 |
transmission equipment and lines). |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
30 |
• Include in early correspondence between the applicant and appropriate |
|
|
31 |
permitting or interested government agencies, preliminary project designs, |
|
|
32 |
planned use of new technologies, PODs, and related information in sufficient |
|
|
33 |
detail to allow adequate evaluation of potential impacts. |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
35 |
• Develop a thorough understanding of all applicable federal, state, and local |
|
|
36 |
environmental regulatory requirements, processes, consultations, and |
|
|
37 |
interactions. |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
39 |
• Make early contact with local officials, regulators, and inspectors to explore |
|
|
40 |
all applicable regulations and address concerns unique to solar power |
|
|
41 |
generation projects. |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
43 |
• Conduct early project development discussions with potential energy users to |
||
44 |
identify how energy production can be transmitted to load centers and |
|
|
45 |
increase the ability to finance projects. |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
Final Solar PEIS |
2-58 |
July 2012 |
1• Be aware of possible preand post-construction environmental monitoring
2 |
through agency and public interactions. |
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
2.3.2.2 Institutional and Public Outreach |
6 |
|
7• Emphasize early identification of, and communication and coordination with,
8 |
stakeholders, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local agencies; |
|
|
9 |
special interest groups; Native American tribes and organizations; elected |
|
|
10 |
officials; and concerned citizens. |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
12 |
• Consider holding periodic public update meetings and/or hosting a Web site |
|
|
13 |
with project and contact information. |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
• Consider providing renewable energy public relations and scientific program |
|
|
16 |
speaker support and input to community educational programs, other interest |
|
|
17 |
groups, and the media. |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
20 |
2.3.2.3 Land Use |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
22 |
• Maximize the use of previously disturbed lands. |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
24 |
• Avoid land requiring deforestation/de-shrubbing and/or significant slope |
|
|
25 |
leveling or grading. |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
27 |
• Avoid siting projects on prime or unique farmland and rangelands. |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
29 |
• Avoid impacts on special use lands such as NPS lands, Wilderness Areas, |
|
|
30 |
National Wildlife Refuge System lands, ACECs, Wildlife Management Areas, |
||
31 |
National Historic and Scenic Trails, traditional cultural properties and other |
|
|
32 |
culturally sensitive sites, critical habitat for special status species, and military |
||
33 |
operations areas and other regulated military lands. |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
35 |
• Consult with local agencies regarding potential impacts of developing within, |
||
36 |
adjacent, or close to state or local special use areas such as parks. |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
38 |
• Use technologies and facility layouts and designs that will minimize land |
|
|
39 |
disturbance at a site. |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
41 |
• Avoid or minimize the use of lands that would adversely affect high-use |
|
|
42 |
recreational areas such as hiking, camping, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) |
|
|
43 |
use locales. |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
45 |
• Consider potential direct and indirect impacts on private lands from project |
|
|
46 |
siting. |
|
|
|
Final Solar PEIS |
2-59 |
July 2012 |
1• Ensure lands considered are appropriately zoned for project development
2 |
(e.g., industrial or energy development uses). Avoid lands identified as |
3 |
incompatible for renewable energy development by local governments. |
4 |
|
5• Solar development in close proximity to airports will likely trigger the need
6 |
for consultation with the FAA; development in proximity to military lands |
|
|
7 |
will likely trigger the need for consultation with the appropriate DoD |
|
|
8 |
organization(s). |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
2.3.2.4 Water Resources and Erosion Control |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
• Prioritize technologies that minimize water use. |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
• Promote the sustainable use of water resources through appropriate |
|
|
16 |
technology selection and implementation of conservation practices that |
|
|
17 |
protect and preserve the function, acreage, and quality of the existing natural |
|
|
18 |
water bodies (including streams, wetlands, ephemeral washes, microphyll |
|
|
19 |
woodlands, and floodplains, as well as groundwater aquifers). |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
21 |
• Consider the use of rain, gray, and/or other recycled water for facility |
|
|
22 |
operations, including plant cooling, steam generation, irrigation, maintenance, |
||
23 |
and dust suppression. |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
25 |
• Avoid locations that would involve impacts on surface water bodies, |
|
|
26 |
ephemeral washes, playas, microphyll woodlands, and natural drainage areas |
|
|
27 |
(including groundwater recharge areas). |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
29 |
• To the extent practicable, minimize the use of and impacts on surface and |
|
|
30 |
groundwater resources (including sole source aquifers) during construction |
|
|
31 |
and operations. |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
33 |
• Avoid groundwater resource project requirements that would result in |
|
|
34 |
overappropriation or overdrafting of any groundwater basin. |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
36 |
• Identify source capacity, prior water rights, and adequacy of capacity to serve |
||
37 |
project requirements and dependent biological resources in the area. |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
39 |
• Avoid or minimize the use of land within an identified 100-year floodplain or |
||
40 |
identify engineering controls to mitigate potential impacts. |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
42 |
• Avoid locating facilities on steep slopes, in alluvial fans, and in other areas |
|
|
43 |
prone to landslides or flash floods, or within gullies or washes. |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
45 |
• Compare preliminary site grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control |
|
|
46 |
plans with applicable local jurisdiction requirements. |
|
|
|
Final Solar PEIS |
2-60 |
July 2012 |
1• Consult federal, state, and local “water-wise” guidelines, as applicable, for
2 |
project development in the arid southwest. |
3 |
|
4• Coordinate with the USACE to discuss the reach and extent of waters of the
5 |
United States on the proposed project site. As appropriate, present a |
|
|
6 |
reasonable range of on-site and off-site alternatives and an analysis that |
|
|
7 |
evaluates alternatives to avoid impacts on waters in compliance with |
|
|
8 |
Section 404 of the CWA. |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
2.3.2.5 Biological Resources |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
• Review federal and state databases and technical reports for regulatory |
|
|
14 |
requirements for protection of special status animal and plant species and |
|
|
15 |
habitats. |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
17 |
• Begin early consultation processes with the USFWS and state environmental |
|
|
18 |
and wildlife agencies for identification of potential issues, and ensure ongoing |
||
19 |
communication in the course of project development. |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
21 |
• Locate project facilities and ancillary components so that environmentally |
|
|
22 |
sensitive areas (e.g., riparian habitats, streams, wetlands, critical wildlife |
|
|
23 |
habitats, and migration corridors, and other protected areas) are avoided. |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
25 |
• Consider glint, glare, reflection, and linear characteristics of project |
|
|
26 |
components on bird and terrestrial animal movements in the project area. |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
28 |
• Develop biological survey protocols and plans in consultation with regulatory |
||
29 |
agencies to ensure that specific regional and other requirements are met. |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
31 |
• Consider potential impacts on indigenous and special status plant species |
|
|
32 |
(including State Natural Heritage ranks G1 and G2), while addressing controls |
||
33 |
for non-native/invasive species and noxious weeds. |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
35 |
• Consider reclamation and conservation initiatives for disturbed lands after |
|
|
36 |
construction. |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
38 |
• Consider developing habitat restoration and management plans and |
|
|
39 |
compensatory mitigation and monitoring plans. |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
42 |
2.3.2.6 Air Quality |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
44 |
• Identify applicable federal, state, and local air quality management agencies |
|
|
45 |
and follow requirements and application procedures. |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
Final Solar PEIS |
2-61 |
July 2012 |