- •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
1 |
tribes, and other stakeholders early in the planning process, the impact may be |
2 |
lessened or avoided. |
3 |
|
4• Discussion of the 1997 BLM National PA is being revised to acknowledge
5 |
that this PA has been updated with the 2012 National PA. |
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
5.16 NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS |
9 |
|
10As discussed in Section 5.16.1 of the Draft Solar PEIS, impacts on resources important
11to Native Americans (including, but not limited to, cultural sites and landscapes, traditional use
12areas, culturally important plants and wildlife, geographic features, and water sources) that
13could result from utility-scale solar energy development include those associated with initial
14site characterization, facility construction, operations, and decommissioning. The complete
15destruction of resources of significance to Native Americans could occur from the clearing,
16grading, and excavation of the project area, and the construction of facilities and associated
17infrastructure. Destruction and/or degradation of resources of significance to Native Americans
18is possible within the project footprint downslope or downstream from the alteration of
19topography; the alteration of hydrological patterns; the removal of soils; the erosion of soils;
20runoff into and sedimentation of adjacent areas; and oil or other contaminant spills. Impacts are
21also possible from the modification of natural flow systems and possible degradation of surface
22water quality as a result of construction activities and water withdrawals for a solar energy
23development project; increased human access and subsequent disturbance (e.g., looting,
24vandalism, and trampling) from the establishment of corridors or facilities in otherwise intact or
25inaccessible areas; visual degradation of a landscape caused by the presence and associated land
26disturbance of utility-scale solar energy facilities could affect those resources for which visual
27integrity is a component of a site’s significance; and the pristine nature and peacefulness of a
28culturally significant location could be affected by noise degradation caused by utility-scale solar
29energy development. The potential for impacts on resources of significance to Native Americans
30would be directly related to the amount of land disturbance, the presence of significant resources
31of concern, and the location of the project.
32 |
|
33 |
The information provided in Section 5.16 remains valid, with the following update: |
34 |
|
35 |
• Reference to IM 2012-032 (BLM 2011d) is being added as additional |
36 |
guidance for conducting Native American consultations. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
5.17 SOCIOECONOMICS |
40 |
|
41Socioeconomic resources could be affected by the construction and operation of utility-
42scale solar energy facilities through the creation of direct and indirect employment and income,
43the generation of direct sales and income taxes, SEZ acreage rental and capacity payments to the
44BLM, the in-migration of solar facility workers and their families, and impacts on local housing
45markets and on local public service and educational employment. Higher levels of population in-
46migration may also produce social change, with the breakdown of traditional rural community
Final Solar PEIS |
5-24 |
July 2012 |
1 structures, and social disruption, with potential increases in crime, alcoholism, depression and 2 other social impacts, depending on the residential location of solar workers and their families, 3 and the extent to which in-migration is temporary or permanent.
4
5Information provided in the Draft Solar PEIS remains valid; there are no updates for this
6 |
section. |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
5.18 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE |
10 |
|
11Potential impacts from noise and dust during construction and operations, visual impacts,
12cultural impacts, and effects on property values could be incurred as a result of the construction
13and operation of solar facilities, and could affect environmental justice if impacts are high,
14adverse, and disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations. Higher levels of
15population in-migration may also produce social change, with the breakdown of traditional rural
16community structures, and social disruption, with potential increases in crime, alcoholism,
17depression, and other social impacts, which might disproportionately affect low-income and
18minority population groups, depending on the residential location of solar workers and their
19families, and the extent to which in-migration is temporary or permanent.
20
21Information provided in the Draft Solar PEIS remains valid; there are no updates for this
22section.
23
24
25 5.19 TRANSPORTATION
26
27Potential impacts on transportation near solar facilities are related to the specific project
28location, the project size, the delivery of equipment, materials, and supplies; and the daily
29commute of workers, as was discussed in Section 5.19 of the Draft Solar PEIS.
30
31The potential general transportation impacts as discussed in the Draft Solar PEIS remain
32valid, with the following updates:
33 |
|
34 |
• It is recognized that site planning and the incorporation of site access into the |
35 |
local and regional road network must be conducted under the supervision of |
36 |
local, county, state, and federal agencies with jurisdiction over relevant |
37 |
matters such as road maintenance and repair, road improvements, |
38 |
requirements for and construction of new roads, if necessary, and traffic |
39 |
management. Dependent on the agencies with jurisdiction and the actual site |
40 |
location and existing roads and traffic patterns, approval of any site access |
41 |
proposal, including any mitigation measures, could require traffic studies, |
42 |
analyses of existing and proposed new roads to handle the added load from |
43 |
increased construction, commuter, and truck traffic, and possibly other |
44 |
environmental studies. |
45 |
|
Final Solar PEIS |
5-25 |
July 2012 |
1• In addition to potential impacts on aviation from glare from solar facility
2 |
operation, improper facility design could also result in impacts from glare to |
3 |
motorists on nearby roads and the operation of nearby railroads. |
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
5.20 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE |
7 |
|
8 |
Section 3.5 of the Draft Solar PEIS provided a discussion of the amounts and types of |
9hazardous materials that would be present at a solar facility during its construction, operation,
10decommissioning, and reclamation phases. Section 5.20 discussed the possible adverse impacts
11resulting from the presence and use of hazardous materials and the generation, management, and
12disposal of wastes. For example, the potential for contamination of environmental media from
13accidental releases was discussed.
14
15Information provided in Section 5.20 of the Draft Solar PEIS remains valid; there are no
16updates for this section.
17
18
19 5.21 HEALTH AND SAFETY
20
21As discussed in Section 5.21 of the Draft Solar PEIS, impacts on public and worker
22health could result from utility-scale solar energy development during initial site
23characterization, facility construction, operations, and decommissioning. For workers, the
24primary concerns are associated with injuries or fatalities from physical hazards (e.g., electrical
25hazards, exposure to weather extremes, and retinal damage from exposure to glare). Health and
26safety risks to the general public can include physical hazards from unauthorized access to
27construction or operational areas of solar facilities; increased risk of traffic accidents in the
28vicinity of solar facilities; risk of eye damage from glare from mirrors, heliostats, and power
29tower receivers; and aviation safety interference. Because of the remote nature of most solar
30facilities, these health and safety risks are generally low. Health and safety risks to both workers
31and the public would be addressed in project-specific health and safety plans for solar facilities.
33The information provided in the Draft Solar PEIS remains valid, with the following
34updates:
35 |
|
|
|
36 |
• A potential hazard, particularly during construction, is the possible increased |
|
|
37 |
release of spores of the fungus that causes valley fever, a condition |
|
|
38 |
characterized by coldor flu-like symptoms, which in infrequent cases also |
|
|
39 |
spreads through the bloodstream resulting in a more serious condition called |
|
|
40 |
disseminated coccidioidomycosis (named for the fungal organism causing the |
||
41 |
condition) (A.D.A.M. 2011). The best method to prevent exposure to the |
|
|
42 |
organism is to reduce fugitive dust emissions using best available practices as |
||
43 |
required under a facility’s Dust Abatement Plan and described in various |
|
|
44 |
design features included for the protection of soil, water, and air resources |
|
|
45 |
(see Section A.2 of Appendix A). The Health and Safety plans for solar |
|
|
46 |
facilities in areas endemic to the coccidioides fungus should also include |
|
|
|
Final Solar PEIS |
5-26 |
July 2012 |
1 |
requirements for construction workers with exposure potential to wear dust |
2 |
masks. |
3 |
|
4• With respect to proper siting and design of solar facilities to eliminate glint
5 |
and glare effects, it is noted that consideration of potential impacts on nearby |
6 |
railroad staff and passengers needs to be considered, in addition to impacts on |
7 |
roadway users, nearby residences, commercial areas, or other highly sensitive |
8 |
viewing locations. As stated in the design features for the Final Solar PEIS |
9 |
(see Section A.2.2.13.2 of Appendix A), efforts to eliminate glint and glare |
10 |
impacts or reduce them to the lowest achievable levels will be required. |
11 |
Regardless of the solar technology proposed, potential glint and glare effects |
12 |
will be assessed and potential health, safety, and visual impacts associated |
13 |
with glint and glare effects will be addressed. |
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
5.22 REFERENCES |
17 |
|
18Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where
19reference data were obtained for the analyses presented in this Final Solar PEIS. It is likely that
20at the time of publication of this Final Solar PEIS, some of these Web pages may no longer be
21available or their URL addresses may have changed. The original information has been retained
22and is available through the Public Information Docket for this Final Solar PEIS.
23
24A.D.A.M., 2011, “Valley Fever: San Joaquin Valley Fever, Coccidioidomycosis,” in ADAM
25Medical Encyclopedia, PubMed Health. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
26pubmedhealth/PMH0002299. Last reviewed Aug. 29, 2011.
27
28ADWR (Arizona Department of Water Resources), 2012, Water Management Requirements for
29Solar Power Plants in Arizona. Available at http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/WaterManagement.
30Accessed March 28, 2012.
31
32AMEC Americas Limited, 2005, Mackenzie Gas Project Effects of Noise on Wildlife, prepared
33for Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited, July. Available at http://www.ngps.nt.ca/Upload/
34Proponent/Imperial%20Oil%20Resources%20Ventures%20Limited/birdfield_wildlife/
35Documents/Noise_Wildlife_Report_Filed.pdf. Accessed Feb. 19, 2010.
36
37Archer, S.R., and K.I. Predick, 2008, “Climate Change and Ecosystems of the Southwestern
38United States” Rangelands 30:23–28.
39
40Barber, J.R., et al., 2010, “The Costs of Chronic Noise Exposure for Terrestrial Organisms,”
41Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(3):180–189.
42
43Barber, J.R., et al., 2011, “Anthropogenic Noise Exposure in Protected Natural Areas:
44Estimating the Scale of Ecological Consequences,” Landscape Ecology 26:1281–1295.
Final Solar PEIS |
5-27 |
July 2012 |
1 Bayne, E.M., et al., 2008, “Impacts of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise from Energy- 2 Sector Activity on Abundance of Songbirds in the Boreal Forest,” Conservation
3 Biology 22(5):1186–1193.
4
5 Belnap, J., et al., 2001, Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management, Technical 6 Reference 1730-2.
7
8 BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 1998, Instruction Memorandum 98-164, Visual Resource
9 Management Restatement, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Sept. 8. 10
11BLM, 2008, Instruction Memorandum 2008-204, Offsite Mitigation, U.S. Department of the
12Interior, Washington, D.C., Sept. 30.
13
14BLM, 2009, Instruction Memorandum 209-167, Application of the Visual Resource Management
15Program to Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., July 7.
16
17BLM, 2011a, Consideration of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the Land Use Planning
18Process (Public), BLM Manual 6302, Release 6-127, U.S. Department of the Interior,
19Washington, D.C., Feb. 25. Available at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/
20Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.46960.File.dat/6302.pdf.
21
22BLM, 2011b, Consideration of LWCs for Project-Level Decisions in Areas Not Analyzed in
23Accordance with BLM Manual 6302 (Public), BLM Manual 6303, Release 6-128,
24U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Feb. 25. Available at http://www.blm.gov/
25pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.
26Par.36094.File.dat/6303.pdf.
27
28BLM, 2011c, Instruction Memorandum 2011-060, Solar and Wind Energy Applications—Due
29Diligence, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Feb. 7.
30
31BLM, 2011d, Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-032, Native American Consultation and
32Section 106 Compliance for the Solar Energy Program Described in Solar Programmatic
33Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1.
34
35BLM and DOE (BLM and U.S. Department of Energy), 2010, Draft Programmatic
36Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,
37DES 10-59, DOE/EIS-0403, Dec.
38
39BOR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), 2012, WaterSMART. Available at http://www.usbr.gov/
40WaterSMART/water.html. Accessed March 28, 2012.
41
42Brattstrom, B.H., and M.C. Bondello, 1983, “Effects of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on Desert
43Vertebrates,” pp. 167–206 in Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles, Impacts and
44Management in Arid Region, R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire (editors), Springer-Verlag,
45New York, N.Y. (as cited in Larkin 1996).
46
Final Solar PEIS |
5-28 |
July 2012 |
1 Bredehoeft, J., and T. Durbin, 2009, “Ground Water Development—The Time to Full Capture 2 Problem,” Ground Water 47(4):506–514.
3
4 Brown, B.T., et al., 1999, “The Influence of Weapons-Testing Noise on Bald Eagle Behavior,” 5 Journal of Raptor Research 33:227–232.
6
7 Brumm, H., 2004, “The Impact of Environmental Noise on Song Amplitude in a Territorial 8 Bird,” Journal of Animal Ecology 73:434–440.
9
10CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2012, Lake and Streambed Alteration
11Program. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/1600. Accessed March 28.
12
13Chan, A.A.Y.-H., et al., 2010, “Anthropogenic Noise Affects Risk Assessment and Attention:
14The Distracted Prey Hypothesis,” Biology Letters 6(4):458–461.
15
16Datry, T., 2011, “Benthic and Hyporheic Invertebrate Assemblages along a Flow Intermittence
17Gradient: Effects of Duration of Dry Events,” Freshwater Biology 57(3):563–574.
18
19Delaney, D.K., et al., 1999, “Effects of Helicopter Noise on Mexican Spotted Owls,” Journal of
20Wildlife Management 63(1):60–76.
21
22Desert Tortoise Council, 1994 (revised 1999), Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises during
23Construction Projects, E.L. LaRue, Jr. (editor), Wrightwood, Calif.
24
25Egnor, S.E.R., et al., 2007, “Tracking Silence: Adjusting Vocal Production to Avoid Acoustic
26Interference,” Journal of Comparative Physiology A 193:477–483.
27
28EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2012, Clean Water Act Definition of “Waters
29of the United States.” Available at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/
30CWAwaters.cfm. Accessed March 28, 2012.
31
32Field, K.J., et al., 2007, “Return to the Wild: Translocation as a Tool in Conservation of the
33Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii),” Biological Conservation 136:232–245.
34
35Francis, C.D., et al., 2009, “Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities and Species
36Interactions,” Current Biology 19:1415–1419.
37
38Fthenakis, V.M., et al., 2004, “Experimental Investigation of Emissions and Redistribution of
39Elements in CdTe PV Modules during Fires,” presented at the Nineteenth European PV Solar
40Energy Conference, Paris, France, June 7–11.
41
42Habib, L, et al., 2007, “Chronic Industrial Noise Affects Pairing Success and Age Structure of
43Ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla,” Journal of Applied Ecology 44:176–184.
44
45Halfwerk, W., et al., 2011, “Negative Impact of Traffic Noise on Avian Reproductive Success,”
46Journal of Applied Ecology 48:210–219.
Final Solar PEIS |
5-29 |
July 2012 |
1 Herrera–Montes, M.I., and T.M. Aide, 2011, “Impact of Traffic Noise on Anuran and Bird 2 Communities,” Urban Ecosystems 14:415–427.
3
4 Hockin, D., et al., 1992, “Examination of the Effects of Disturbance on Birds with Reference to 5 Its Importance in Ecological Assessments,” Journal of Environmental Management 36:253–286. 6
7 Horváth, G., et al., 2009, “Polarized Light Pollution: A New Kind of Ecological Photopollution,” 8 Frontiers in Ecology 7(6):317–325.
9
10Horváth, G., et al., 2010, “Reducing the Maladaptive Attractiveness of Solar Panels to
11Polarotactic Insects,” Conservation Biology 24:1644–1653.
12
13Krausman, P.R., et al., 2004, “Effects of Military Operations on Behavior and Hearing of
14Endangered Sonoran Pronghorn,” Wildlife Monographs 157:1–41.
15
16Lackey, M.L., et al., 2011, “Effects of Road Construction Noise on the Endangered Golden-
17Cheeked Warbler,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 35(1):15–19.
18
19Lake, P.S, 2003, “Ecological Effects of Perturbation by Drought in Flowing Waters,”
20Freshwater Biology 48:1161–1172.
21
22Larkin, R.P., 1996, Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review, Technical
23Report 96/21, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Ill.
25Larned, S., et al. 2010, “Emerging Concepts in Temporary-River Ecology, “ Freshwater
26Biology 55:717–738.
28Leonard, M.L., and A.G. Horn, 2008, “Does Ambient Noise Affect Growth and Begging Call
29Structure in Nestling Birds?” Behavioural Ecology 19:502–507.
31Levick, L., et al., 2008, The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and
32Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American Southwest, EPA/600/R-08/134,
33ARS/233046, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA/ARS, Southwest Watershed
34Research Center, Nov.
36Longcore, T., and C. Rich, 2004, “Ecological Light Pollution,” Frontiers in Ecology and the
37Environment 2(4):191–198.
38
39Manci, K.M., et al., 1988, Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals and
40Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis, NERC-88/29, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology
41Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colo.
42
43McCluney, K.E., and J.L. Sabo, 2011, “River Drying Lowers the Diversity and Alters the
44Composition Assemblage of Desert Riparian Arthropods,” Freshwater Biology 57(1):91–103.
Final Solar PEIS |
5-30 |
July 2012 |
1Navara, K.J., and R.J. Nelson, 2007, “The Dark Side of Light at Night: Physiological,
2 Epidemiological, and Ecological Consequences,” Journal of Pineal Research 43(3):215–224. 3
4 NPS (National Park Service), 2000, Director’s Order #47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise
5 Management, approved by Robert Stanton, Director, Dec. 1. Available at http://www.nps.gov/ 6 policy/DOrders/DOrder47.html. Accessed May 7, 2012.
7
8 Parris, K.M., and A. Schneider, 2008, “Impacts of Traffic Noise and Traffic Volume on Birds of 9 Roadside Habitats,” Ecology and Society 14(1):20. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety. 10 org/vol14/iss1/art29. Accessed Feb. 22, 2012.
11
12Pater, L.L., et al., 2009, “Recommendations for Improved Assessment of Noise Impacts on
13Wildlife,” Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5):788–795.
14
15Quinn, J.L., et al., 2006, “Noise, Predation Risk Compensation and Vigilance in the Chaffinch
16Fringilla coelebs,” Journal of Avian Biology 37:601–608.
17
18Rheindt, F.E., 2003, “The Impact of Roads on Birds: Does Song Frequency Play a Role in
19Determining Susceptibility to Noise Pollution?” Journal of Ornithology 144:295–306.
20
21Riggs, A.C., and J.E. Deacon, 2002, “Connectivity in Desert Aquatic Ecosystems: The Devils
22Hole Story,” Conference Proceedings, Spring-Fed Wetlands: Important Scientific and Cultural
23Resources of the Intermountain Region, May 7–9, Las Vegas, Nev.
24
25Schaub, A., et al., 2008, “Foraging Bats Avoid Noise,” The Journal of Experimental Biology
26211:3174–3180.
27
28Secretary of the Interior, 2010, “Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the
29Bureau of Land Management,” Secretarial Order 3310, Dec. 22. Available at http://www.blm.
30gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_
31attachments.Par.26564.File.dat/sec_order_3310.pdf.
32
33Slabbekoorn, H., and E.A.P. Ripmeester, 2008, “Birdsong and Anthropogenic Noise:
34Implications and Applications for Conservation,” Molecular Ecology 17(1):72–83.
36Sponseller, R.A., et al., 2010, “Responses of Macroinvertebrate Communities to Long-term Flow
37Variability in a Sonoran Desert Stream,” Global Change Biology 16:2891–2900.
38
39Stanley, E.H., et al., 1994, “Invertebrate Resistance and Resilience to Intermittency in a Desert
40Stream, American Midland Naturalist 131:288–300.
41
42Sullivan, R.G., et al., 2012a, “Wind Turbine Visibility and Visual Impact Threshold Distances in
43Western Landscapes,” Proceedings, National Association of Environmental Professionals 2012
44Annual Conference, Portland, Ore., May 21–24.
45
Final Solar PEIS |
5-31 |
July 2012 |
1 Sullivan, R.G., et al., 2012b, “Visual Impacts of Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facilities on 2 Southwestern Desert Landscapes,” Proceedings, National Association of Environmental 3 Professionals 2012 Annual Conference, Portland, Ore., May 21–24.
4
5 Sun, J.W.C., and P.M. Narins, 2005, “Anthropogenic Sounds Differentially Affect Amphibian 6 Call Rate,” Biological Conservation 121:419–427.
7
8Swaddle, J.P., and L.C. Page, 2007, “High Levels of Environmental Noise Erode Pair
9 Preferences in Zebra Finches: Implications for Noise Pollution,” Animal Behaviour 74:363–368. 10
11SWCA and University of Arizona (SWCA Environmental Consultants and Bureau of Applied
12Research in Anthropology), 2011, Ethnographic and Class I Records Searches for Proposed
13Solar Energy Zones in California, Nevada, and Utah for the Bureau of Land Management’s
14Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by SWCA Environmental
15Consultants, Albuquerque, N.M., and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University
16of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., Dec.
17
18Utah DWR (Utah Division of Water Rights), 2004, Stream Alteration Program Fact Sheet, SA-1,
192nd ed. Available at http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/strmalt/whitepapers/default.asp. Accessed
20March 28, 2012.
21
22Wright, A.J., et al. 2007, “Anthropogenic Noise as a Stressor in Animals: A Multidisciplinary
23Perspective,” International Journal of Comparative Psychology 20:250–273.
24
25Zhou, Y., 2009, “A Critical Review of Groundwater Budget Myth, Safe Yield and
26Sustainability,” Journal of Hydrology 370:207–213.
27
28
Final Solar PEIS |
5-32 |
July 2012 |