1 Chapter 5 may be applicable, as appropriate, across all lands within the study area. Because the 2 scope of Chapters 4 and 5 encompasses all lands within the six-state study area, parties other 3 than the BLM and DOE may be able to use the information in this PEIS to support their own 4 analyses of utility-scale solar energy development in this area.

5

6

7 2.5.5 Restricting Development to Previously Disturbed Lands

8

9A number of comments suggested that the agencies limit utility-scale solar energy

10development to lands that have been “previously disturbed.” This issue has not been incorporated

11into the PEIS as an independent alternative; however, consideration was given to previously

12disturbed lands in identifying areas best suited to solar energy development. While there is no

13clear and well-established definition of what constitutes “previously disturbed public lands,” nor

14are there any clearly defined thresholds for determining when lands cannot be restored to their

15former, undeveloped state, the BLM identified some lands within SEZs as particularly well

16suited for solar development because previous human or natural disturbance had occurred on

17those lands. In addition, the proposed SEZ Identification Protocol (Section A.2.6 of Appendix A)

18highlights the consideration of degraded, disturbed, and/or previously disturbed lands as part of

19all future processes to identify new or expanded SEZs. The proposed variance process also

20provides for favorable consideration of ROW applications on disturbed lands.

21

22As discussed in Section 1.6.2.4, separate from the Solar PEIS, the BLM Arizona State

23Office, through its RDEP (launched in April 2010), is taking steps to identify disturbed or

24previously disturbed sites in Arizona that can be made available for renewable energy projects

25(http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/arra_solar.html). That initiative is not limited to

26public lands, but also includes private lands. Identified sites will be evaluated in terms of their

27restoration potential, potential for other land use, and technical suitability for renewable energy

28development. In the future, the BLM may implement similar programs in other states. In

29addition, the EPA has launched the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative to promote the siting

30of renewable energy production facilities on contaminated land (see http://www.epa.gov/

31renewableenergyland/index.htm); however, the types of contaminated properties it has identified

32are not likely to coincide substantially with BLM-administered public lands.

33

34From DOE’s perspective, it may elect to establish programmatic guidance that promotes

35utility-scale solar development on previously disturbed lands.

36

37

38 2.5.6 Restricting Development to Populated Areas

39

40Suggestions also were made to restrict solar energy development to areas near population

41centers. While this issue has not been incorporated into the PEIS as an independent alternative,

42consideration was given to proximity of available lands to existing infrastructure such as

43transmission lines. Some of the proposed SEZs are located close to population centers. The

44Solar PEIS also analyzes the social, economic, and environmental impacts of constructing and

45operating solar energy facilities that may be located away from population centers.

46

10Comments were received during scoping for the Draft Solar PEIS requesting that the

11BLM evaluate an alternative under which development on BLM-administered lands would be

12limited to the 14 fast-track solar projects proposed at that time. These projects were to be located

13in three states and would have a total electricity generating capacity of about 6,022 MW

14(see Section 1.3.3).10 This alternative was not considered for several reasons. While the fast-

15track projects would contribute to the goal of 10,000 MW of electricity generated from

16renewable energy projects located on public lands as set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,

17an alternative limiting solar development to these projects would not meet the requirements of

18Secretarial Order 3285A1 to identify and prioritize locations best suited for large-scale

19production of solar energy on public lands. Limiting development to BLM-administered lands

20included in fast-track applications would completely exclude development on BLM-administered

21lands in three of the states included in this assessment (Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah). This

22restriction would arbitrarily limit solar development on BLM-administered lands over the next

2320 years. Finally, since the fast-track projects were still in the environmental review phase, it was

24possible that some would not be approved or would be approved at a reduced capacity. In fact,

25since the publication of the Draft Solar PEIS, several of the fast-track projects have submitted

26requests to change technology, and will require additional case processing and environmental

27review prior to authorization.

28

29

30 2.5.8 Analysis of Development on the Maximum Amount of Public Lands Allowable

31

32Under both of the action alternatives being evaluated by the BLM in this PEIS, the

33BLM is considering restricting utility-scale solar energy development from lands where it has

34determined such development is incompatible with existing resources, resource uses, and special

35designations. These discretionary exclusions are listed in Section 2.2.2.2. The BLM has decided

36not to evaluate a maximum lands alternative that would make some or all of these potentially

37sensitive lands available for application for solar energy development, because it believes that

38ROW authorizations for solar energy development would not be approvable in these areas given

39existing resource protections. Utility-scale solar energy development requires that large parcels

40of land be converted to a single-use, with a year-round dominance over other potential uses of

41the land and long-term commitment of resources. These conditions are inherently in conflict with

10Six fast-track projects have been approved in California and two have been approved in Nevada: BrightSource Energy’s Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, Tessera Solar’s Imperial Valley and Calico Solar Projects, Chevron Energy Solution’s Lucerne Valley Solar Project, NextEra’s Genesis Ford Dry Lake Solar Project, Solar Millennium’s Blythe and Amargosa Farm Road Solar Projects, and First Solar’s Silver State North Solar Project.

1the important resources, resource uses, and special designations on some BLM-administered

4In determining which lands should be excluded from solar energy development, the

5 BLM also has decided to not make lands available for application for solar energy development 6 where the slope is equal to or greater than 5% or where the solar insolation level is less than

76.5 kWh/m2/day. As discussed in Section 2.2.2.2, the solar technologies evaluated in the PEIS

8are limited in terms of the slope of the land on which they can be constructed, with 5% slope

9 being a reasonable upper limit. The rationale for restricting the available lands based on the solar

10insolation level is to maximize the efficient use of BLM-administered lands and meet the

11multiple use intent of FLPMA by reserving for other uses lands that are not ideal for solar energy

12development.

13

14On a related note, one commentor suggested that the PEIS should evaluate solar

15energy development in Wilderness Areas (WAs). This suggestion was not incorporated

16into any of the BLM’s alternatives because such development is prohibited by law and,

17therefore, is not appropriate to analyze.

18

19

20 2.5.9 Changes to BLM’s Proposed Solar Energy Zones

21

22Several commentors requested evaluation of different and/or additional locations to the

23BLM’s proposed SEZs. As discussed in Section 2.2.2.2, suggestions to modify the boundaries of

24the proposed SEZs were considered, along with input from BLM state and field office staff, in

25defining the areas proposed and evaluated in the PEIS. Modifications were made to SEZs in

26each of the six states both prior to and subsequent to the publication of the Draft Solar PEIS; a

27detailed description of these modifications is included in the SEZ-specific sections in Chapters 8

28through 13.

29

30Suggestions to include additional SEZs were considered. However, because the site-

31specific evaluation of SEZs requires a large amount of data and lengthy evaluation time, the

32BLM decided not to include additional proposed SEZs in the Solar PEIS. As discussed in

33Section 2.2.2.25, the BLM intends to identify new and/or expanded SEZs as part of the Solar

34Energy Program in the future, using an SEZ Identification Protocol outlined in Section A.2.6 of

35Appendix A. The BLM will identify new or expanded SEZs at the state or field office level as an

36individual land use planning effort or as part of an ongoing land use plan revision. Further, the

37BLM has initiated efforts to identify new SEZs in the states of California, Arizona, Nevada, and

38Colorado through ongoing state-based efforts (see Section 2.2.2.2.6 for more information) and

39anticipates identifying new or expanded SEZs in the remaining states in the near future.

40

41

42 2.5.10 Other Suggested Alternatives

43

44A few suggestions regarding alternatives to be analyzed in the Solar PEIS were

45determined to be beyond the scope of DOE and BLM’s purpose and need for agency action in

46this PEIS, as defined by the agencies. While certainly worthy of analysis, suggestions to also

1evaluate other electricity generation technologies (e.g., coal, nuclear, natural gas, geothermal,

2 and wind) and compare the relative impacts and benefits of these alternatives were determined to 3 be beyond the scope of this PEIS. In addition, suggestions to evaluate hauling ice from outside 4 the study area to supply water for solar power facilities and to site solar power facilities in space 5 were considered to be out of scope.

6

7

8 2.5.11 DOE Environmental Requirements

9

10DOE received several comments suggesting that the proposed guidance should be

11implemented as requirements and offering additional suggestions for requirements. DOE is a

12large, multifaceted agency with a three-pronged mission: (1) to transform the nation’s energy

13system and secure U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies; (2) to be a leader in science and

14innovation as a cornerstone of economic prosperity; and (3) to enhance nuclear security through

15defense, nonproliferation and environmental efforts.

16

17To meet this mission, the DOE has 10 program offices, including, among others,

18Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), the Loan Programs Office, and Energy

19Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). DOE also includes National Laboratories and

20Technology Centers that are leaders in R&D in all aspects of clean energy. In addition, DOE has

214 Power Marketing Administrations and 10 Operations Offices, some of which administer sites

22that are as large and complex as major communities. All of these organizations have different

23purposes and specific goals, many of which may include implementation of solar energy

24production at some level, whether to supply local energy at an operating site, to productively use

25a brownfield managed by Legacy Management, to fund basic R&D to make a technology more

26efficient and/or competitive, to provide grants to help local communities meet clean energy

27goals, or to support commercial development of solar technology. All of these programs may

28have differing funding mechanisms or authorizations from Congress, which ultimately defines

29the purpose(s) of expended funds.

30

31The application of existing requirements supplemented by programmatic guidance that is

32adaptable to the circumstances of a particular proposal will provide DOE flexibility to best

33ensure environmental protection across the variety of DOE solar activities.

34

1

2 FIGURE 2.2-1 BLM-Administered Lands in Arizona Available for Application for Solar Energy

3ROW Authorizations under the BLM Alternatives Considered in This PEIS

1

2FIGURE 2.2-2 BLM-Administered Lands in California Available for Application for Solar

3Energy ROW Authorizations under the BLM Alternatives Considered in This PEIS

1

2 FIGURE 2.2-4 BLM-Administered Lands in Nevada Available for Application for Solar Energy

3ROW Authorizations under the BLM Alternatives Considered in This PEIS

1

2FIGURE 2.2-5 BLM-Administered Lands in New Mexico Available for Application for Solar

3Energy ROW Authorizations under the BLM Alternatives Considered in This PEIS

1

2 FIGURE 2.2-6 BLM-Administered Lands in Utah Available for Application for Solar Energy

3ROW Authorizations under the BLM Alternatives Considered in This PEIS