- •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
1types of resources include cemeteries, campsites, and dwelling places associated with tribal
2ancestors; traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering places; traditionally important plant and
3 animal species and their habitats; traditional water and mineral sources; and sacred places, trails, 4 landscapes, and resources important to the free practice of traditional Native American religions 5 and the preservation of traditional Native American cultures.
6
7 Information provided in the Draft Solar PEIS remains valid; there are no further updates 8 for this section.
9
10
11 4.17 SOCIOECONOMICS
12
13This section describes current socioeconomic conditions and local community services
14within the region of influence (ROI), which encompasses the area in which workers are expected
15to spend most of their salaries and in which a portion of site purchases and non-payroll
16expenditures from the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of proposed solar
17developments are expected to take place. Socioeconomic resources described are employment
18and income, direct sales and income taxes, population, local housing markets, and local public
19service and educational employment. Because higher levels of population in-migration may
20produce social change (with the breakdown of traditional rural community structures) and social
21disruption (with potential increases in crime, alcoholism, depression, and other social impacts)
22data for these measures are also described.
23
24Information provided in the Draft Solar PEIS remains valid; there are no updates for this
25section.
26
27
28 4.18 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
29
30The assessment of environmental justice issues associated with the development of solar
31facilities considered information on minority and low-income populations for each SEZ and an
32associated 50-mi (80-km) radius around the boundary of the SEZ based on demographic data
33from the 2000 Census. The following definitions were used to define minority and low-income
34population groups:
35 |
• Minority. Persons who identify themselves as belonging to any of the |
|
|
36 |
|
||
37 |
following racial groups: (1) Hispanic, (2) Black (not of Hispanic origin) or |
|
|
38 |
African American, (3) American Indian or Alaska Native, (4) Asian, or |
|
|
39 |
(5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
41 |
The CEQ guidance proposed that minority populations should be identified |
|
|
42 |
where either (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50% or |
|
|
43 |
(2) the minority population percentage in the affected area is meaningfully |
|
|
44 |
greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or |
|
|
45 |
other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
Final Solar PEIS |
4-40 |
July 2012 |
1 |
This PEIS applies both criteria in using the Census data for census block |
2 |
groups, wherein consideration is given to the minority population that is |
3 |
both greater than 50% and 20 percentage points higher than in the state |
4 |
(the reference geographic unit). |
5 |
• Low-Income. Individuals who fall below the poverty line. The poverty line |
6 |
|
7 |
takes into account family size and age of individuals in the family. In 1999, |
8 |
for example, the poverty line for a family of five with three children below |
9 |
the age of 18 was $19,882. For any given family below the poverty line, all |
10 |
family members are considered as being below the poverty line for the |
11 |
purposes of analysis. |
12 |
|
13Information provided in the Draft Solar PEIS remains valid; there are no updates for this
14section.
15
16
17 4.19 REFERENCES
18
19Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where
20reference data were obtained for the analyses presented in this Final Solar PEIS. It is likely that
21at the time of publication of this Final Solar PEIS, some of these Web pages may no longer be
22available or their URL addresses may have changed. The original information has been retained
23and is available through the Public Information Docket for this Final Solar PEIS.
24
25ADEQ (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality), 2012, Welcome to the Air Quality
26Division. Available at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/. Accessed Jan. 9, 2012.
27
28Belnap, J., et al., 2001, Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management, Technical Reference
291730-2.
30
31Belnap, J., et al., 2009, “Sediment Losses and Gains across a Gradient of Livestock Grazing and
32Plant Invasion in a Cool, Semi-Arid Grassland, Colorado Plateau, USA,” Aeolian Research
331:27–43.
34
35BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2008, Special Status Species Management, BLM Manual
366840, Release 6-125, U.S. Department of the Interior, Dec. 12.
37
38BLM, 2011, Herd Area Statistics, FY 2011. Available athttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/
39medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/wild_horses_and_burros/statistics_and_
40maps.Par.67883.File.dat/HAHMA_stats2011.pdf.
41
42BLM, 2012, San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area—BLM Arizona. Available at
43http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ncarea/sprnca.html. Accessed March 29,
442012.
45
Final Solar PEIS |
4-41 |
July 2012 |
1Burden, C.B., et al., 2011, Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2011, Cooperative
2Investigations Report No. 52, U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with Utah Division of
3Water Rights and Utah Division of Water Quality.
4
5CARB (California Air Resources Board), 2012, Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at
6http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf (02/17/12). Accessed April 9, 2012.
7
8CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment), 2010, Air Quality Control
9Commission, Ambient Air Quality Standards, 5 CCR 1001-14. Available at http://www.cdphe.
10state.co.us/regulations/airregs/5CCR1001-14.pdf. Accessed Jan. 10, 2012.
11
12EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2006, How Air Pollution Affects the View, EPA-
13456/F-06-001, April. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/pdfs/haze_brochure_
1420060426.pdf.
15
16EPA, 2011, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Last updated Nov. 8, 2011.
17Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed Nov. 23, 2011.
18
19EPA, 2012, The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Last updated
20March 30, 2012. Available at www.epa.gov/oaqps011/greenbk/. Accessed April 13, 2012.
22Graham, T.B., 2001, Survey of Ephemeral Pool Invertebrates at Wupatki NM: An Evaluation of
23the Significance of Constructed Impoundments as Habitat, final report for Wupatki National
24Monument, WUPA-310, and Southwest Parks and Monuments Association Contract No. 97-13.
26Hand, J.L., et al., 2011, Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and Its
27Constituents in the United States, Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
28(IMPROVE) Report V, June. Available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/
29Reports/2011/PDF/Cover_TOC.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2012.
31House, P.K., 2005, “Using Geology to Improve Flood Hazard Management on Alluvial Fans—
32An Example from Laughlin, Nevada,” Amer. Water Res. Assn. 41(6):1431–1447.
34Husar, R.B., et al., 2001, “Asian Dust Events of April 1988,” J. Geophys. Res. 106(D16):18,317–
3518,330, Aug. 27.
37Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers Council, 2012, various documents and pages, National Wild
38& Scenic Rivers Web site, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.; National Park
39Service, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Va.; U.S. Forest Service,
40Washington, D.C. Available at www.rivers.gov. Accessed March 28, 2012.
42Joy, P., 2005, “Global Dust-up: Scientists Profile Vast Cloud of Dust from Sahara Desert,”
43Virgin Islands Daily News, July 31.
Final Solar PEIS |
4-42 |
July 2012 |
1Kavouras, I.G., et al., 2009, “Source Reconciliation of Atmospheric Dust Causing Visibility
2Impairment in Class I Areas of the Western United States,” Journal of Geophysical Research
3114(D2):1–18.
4
5Lake, P.S., 2003, “Ecological Effects of Perturbation by Drought in Flowing Waters,”
6Freshwater Biology 48:1161–1172.
7
8Levick, L., et al., 2008, The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and
9Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American Southwest, U.S. Environmental
10Protection Agency and USDA/ARS, Southwest Watershed Research Center, EPA/600/R-08/134,
11ARS/233046, Nov.
12
13Lytle, D.A., et al., 2008, “Drought-Escape Behaviors of Aquatic Insects May Be Adaptations to
14Highly Variable Flow Regimes Characteristic of Desert Rivers,” The Southwestern
15Naturalist 53:399–402.
16
17McCarthy, M., 2004, “ ‘Toyota-ization’ Is Latest Global Threat as Desert Dust Storms Spread,”
18Independent Digital (UK) Ltd, Aug. 20.
19
20McClure, R., 2009, “African Dust Bringing Toxic Chemicals to U.S., Caribbean; Is It Killing
21Corals? Hurting People?” Investigate West, Nov. 24.
22
23 Mormon, S.A., 2010, “Arsenic: A Detective Story in Dusts,” Earth 55(6):40–47, June. 24
25NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 2010, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
26Program—Pollutants of Concern. Last updated June 1, 2010.Available at http://ndep.nv.gov/
27baqp/monitoring/aaqstd.html, Accessed April 9, 2012.
28
29Neff, J.C., et al., 2008, “Increasing Eolian Dust Deposition in the Western United States Linked
30to Human Activity,” Nat. Geosci. 1:189–195.
31
32NMED (New Mexico Environment Department), 2009, 20.11.8. 13 New Mexico Administration
33Code, Summary of Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at http://www.
34nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title20/20.011.0008.pdf. Accessed Jan. 3, 2012.
35
36NPS, 2006, 2005 Statistical Abstracts, National Park Service Social Science Program, Public
37Use Statistics Office, Denver, Colo.
38
39Painter, T.H., et al., 2007, “Impact of Disturbed Desert Soils on Duration of Mountain Snow
40Cover,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L12502.
41
42Painter, T.H., et al., 2010, “Response of Colorado River Runoff to Dust Radiative Forcing in
43Snow,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(40):17,125–17,130. Available at
44www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913139107.
45
Final Solar PEIS |
4-43 |
July 2012 |
1Planert, M., and J.S. Williams, 1995, Ground Water Atlas of the United States: California,
2Nevada, HA 730-B, U.S. Geological Survey.
3
4Reheis, M., et al., 2003, “Potential Health Hazards of Owens Lake Dust?” poster. Available at
5http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/sw/swdust/toxic_dust_poster.pdf.
6
7Reheis, M.C., et al., 2009, “Compositions of Modern Dust and Surface Sediments in the Desert
8Southwest, United States,” J. Geophys. Res. 114, F01028.Robson, S.G., and E.R. Banta, 1995,
9Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, HA 730-C,
10U.S. Geological Survey.
11
12Sponseller, R.A., et al., 2010, “Responses of Macroinvertebrate Communities to Long-Term
13Flow Variability in a Sonoran Desert Stream,” Global Change Biology 16:2891–2900.
14
15Stanley, E.H., et al., 1994, “Invertebrate Resistance and Resilience to Intermittency in a Desert
16Stream,” American Midland Naturalist 131:288–300.
17
18UDEQ (Utah Department of Environmental Quality), 2012, Air Quality Board. Available at
19http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Air-Quality-Board/index.htm. Accessed Jan. 10, 2012.
20
21URS Corporation, 2006, Aquatic Communities of Ephemeral Stream Ecosystems. Arid West
22Water Quality Research Project, prepared for Pima County Wastewater Management
23Department, with funding by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX.
24
25USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), 2009, Global Climate Change Impacts in the
26United States, T.R. Karl et al. (editors), Cambridge University Press. Available at http://
27downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf.
28
29 Upper San Pedro Water District, 2010, Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, Sept. 30
31USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2003, Principal Aquifers in the 48 Conterminous United States,
32Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Madison, Wisc., Oct.
33
34USGS, 2008, Water Resources of the United States Hydrologic Unit Maps. Available at
35http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. Accessed Nov. 3, 2008.
36
37Utah DWR, (Utah Division of Water Resources), 2001, Utah’s Water Resources, Planning for
38the Future, Utah State Water Plan, May.
39
40Utah DWR, 2005, Conjunctive Management of Surface and Ground Water in Utah, Utah State
41Water Plan, July.
42
43Utah DWR, 2012, Groundwater Policy Map. Available at http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/
44gisinfo/maps/agwpol.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2012.
45
Final Solar PEIS |
4-44 |
July 2012 |
1Wiele, S.M., et al., 2008, Update of the Accounting Surface along the Lower Colorado River
2U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report, 2008–5113.
3
4Wilson, R.P., and Owen-Joyce, S. J., 1994, Method to Identify Wells That Yield Water That Will
5Be Replaced by Colorado River Water in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah,
6U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report, 94-4005.
7
8
Final Solar PEIS |
4-45 |
July 2012 |