1 6 ANALYSIS OF BLM’S SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

SEZ Alternative

No Action Alternative

Program Alternative

(approximately

(approximately

(approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas)

285,000 acres in

98 million acres available

Resource

(approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process)

priority areas)

for application)

Rangeland

Some livestock grazing allotments may be affected by solar energy

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

Resources

development through reductions in acreage and/or loss of AUMs.

alternative, except impacts

alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a

could potentially be more

Wild horses and burros also could be affected, with animals displaced from

smaller geographic area

dispersed, and there is less

the development area; the number of wild horse and burro HMAs

within a known set of

certainty about which

overlapping with or in the vicinity of lands available for ROW application

grazing allotments and

grazing allotments and

would be less than under the no action alternative.

HMAs (there is very little

HMAs potentially could be

overlap of SEZs with wild

affected. There would be no

These impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of

horse and burro HMAs).

specific design features to

variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required

reduce impacts.

variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

Recreation

Recreational uses would be precluded within lands used for solar energy

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

development. Recreational experiences could be adversely affected in areas

alternative, except impacts

alternative. There would be

proximate to solar energy projects and related transmission. These impacts

would be concentrated into a

no explicit exclusions to

potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas;

smaller, known geographic

avoid SRMAs, recreational

however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance

area. This could increase the

facilities, and special-use

process.

magnitude of potential

permit recreation sites. There

impacts but affect fewer

would be no specific design

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

recreational resources.

features to reduce impacts.

All SRMAs are excluded from solar energy development (except in

Impacts could potentially be

Nevada and portions of the Yuma East SRMA in Arizona). Also excluded

more dispersed and greater

are developed recreational facilities and special-use permit recreation sites.

on those recreational areas

that would be excluded under

the action alternatives.

SEZ Alternative

No Action Alternative

Program Alternative

(approximately

(approximately

(approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas)

285,000 acres in

98 million acres available

Resource

(approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process)

priority areas)

for application)

Military and

Military and civilian aviation impacts would be identified and adequately

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

Civilian

avoided, minimized and/or mitigated prior to the BLM’s issuance of a

alternative, except impacts

alternative, except impacts

Aviation

ROW authorization.

would be concentrated into a

could potentially be more

smaller, known geographic

dispersed.

area.

Soil Resources

Development of large tracts of land up to several thousand acres for solar

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

and Geologic

energy facilities and related infrastructure would result in impacts on soil

alternative, except impacts

alternative, except impacts

Hazards

resources in terms of soil compaction and erosion, although these impacts

would be concentrated into a

could potentially be more

could be effectively avoided, minimized and/or mitigated. Impacts on

smaller, known geographic

dispersed. There would be no

biological soil crusts would be long term and possibly irreversible. These

area.

specific design features to

impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of

reduce impacts.

variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required

variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

Mineral

Mineral development within the project footprint for solar energy

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

Resources

development would generally be an incompatible use; however, some

alternative, except impacts

alternative, except impacts

resources underlying the project area might be developable

would be concentrated into a

could be potentially more

(e.g., directional drilling for oil and gas or geothermal resources,

smaller, known geographic

dispersed.

underground mining). These impacts potentially could be dispersed across

area.

the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be

minimized due to the required variance process.

Lands within SEZs may be withdrawn from location and entry under the

Lands within SEZs may be

No SEZs would be identified

mining laws.

withdrawn from location and

or withdrawn.

entry under the mining laws.

SEZ Alternative

No Action Alternative

Program Alternative

(approximately

(approximately

(approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas)

285,000 acres in

98 million acres available

Resource

(approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process)

priority areas)

for application)

Water

Solar thermal projects with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

Resources

water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Solar thermal

alternative, except impacts

alternative, except impacts

projects with dry-cooling systems need less than one-tenth of the amount of

would be concentrated into a

could be potentially more

water required for wet-cooling systems. Projects would necessarily be

smaller, known geographic

dispersed. There would be no

limited to locations with sufficient groundwater supplies where water rights

area. This could increase the

specific design features to

and the approval of water authorities could be obtained.

magnitude of potential

reduce impacts.

impacts but affect fewer

All solar energy facilities require smaller volumes of water for mirror or

water resources.

panel washing and potable water uses, which would result in relatively

minor impacts on water supplies.

Other potential impacts, including modification of surface and groundwater

flow systems, water contamination resulting from chemical leaks or spills,

and water quality degradation by runoff or excessive withdrawals, can be

effectively avoided, minimized and/or mitigated.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

Vegetation

Solar development will typically require the total removal of vegetation at

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

most facilities, which could result in significant direct impacts in terms of

alternative, except impacts

alternative. There would be

increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species

would be concentrated into a

no explicit exclusions to

composition and distribution, habitat loss (e.g., dune or riparian areas), and

smaller, known geographic

avoid known sensitive

damage to biological soil crusts. Indirect impacts also likely in terms of

area. This could increase the

vegetation resources and no

dust deposition, altered drainage patterns, runoff, and sedimentation.

magnitude of potential

specific design features to

Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of

impacts but affect a smaller

reduce impacts.

variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required

number of areas.

variance process.

SEZ Alternative

No Action Alternative

Program Alternative

(approximately

(approximately

(approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas)

285,000 acres in

98 million acres available

Resource

(approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process)

priority areas)

for application)

Wildlife and

Numerous wildlife species would be adversely affected by loss of habitat,

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

Aquatic Biota

disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on

alternative, except the

alternative. There would be

movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat

potential area of impact

no explicit exclusions to

fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Impacts potentially could

would be limited to a

avoid known sensitive

be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however,

smaller, known geographic

wildlife resources, and no

impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

area.

specific design features to

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

reduce impacts.

Impacts could potentially be

Exclusion of ACECs, Research Natural Areas, big game migratory

more dispersed and greater

corridors and winter ranges, and lands with seasonal restrictions as

on those wildlife resources

identified in applicable land use plans would avoid impacts on wildlife in

excluded under the action

specific areas

alternatives.

The following example species’ habitats overlap with variance areas

The following example

available for ROW application by the percentages shown:

species’ habitats overlap with

the lands that would be

available for ROW

application by the

percentages shown:

Western rattlesnake – less than 6%

Less than 1% of the habitats

Western rattlesnake –

Golden eagle – less than 6%

for western rattlesnake,

about 27%

Black-tailed jackrabbit – less than 6%

golden eagle, black-tailed

Golden eagle – about 23%

Pronghorn – less than 5%

jackrabbit, pronghorn, mule

Black-tailed jackrabbit –

Mule deer – less than 6%

deer, and mountain lion are

about 24%

Mountain lion – less than 5%

located within the SEZs.

Pronghorn – about 22%

Mule deer – about 22%

Mountain lion – about 21%

SEZ Alternative

No Action Alternative

Program Alternative

(approximately

(approximately

(approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas)

285,000 acres in

98 million acres available

Resource

(approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process)

priority areas)

for application)

Special Status

Special status species and critical habitats would be protected in

Special status species and

Special status species and

Species

accordance with ESA requirements either through avoidance, translocation

critical habitats would be

critical habitats would be

(plants), or acquisition and protection of compensatory habitat. Impacts

protected as under program

protected as under program

potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas;

alternative.

alternative. There would be

however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance

no specific design features to

process.

Lands available for ROW

reduce impacts.

application within SEZs

In some cases, habitat

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

include areas of potentially

suitable habitat for special

identified by state fish and

Critical habitat designated or proposed by the USFWS would be excluded.

status species (see

game agencies would be

All ACECs designated for habitat would be excluded along with identified

Appendix J of this Final

excluded, as identified

desert tortoise translocation sites and other areas where the BLM has made

Solar PEIS).

through applicable land use

a commitment to protect sensitive species (including Mohave ground

plan decisions. Critical

squirrel and flat-tailed horned lizard habitat in California, greater sage-

habitat, ACECs designated

for habitat value, and other

grouse habitat in California, Nevada, and Utah, and Gunnison’s sage-

areas where the BLM has

grouse habitat in Utah).

made a commitment to

Variance areas for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable

protect sensitive species

would not be excluded.

habitat for special status species (see Appendix J of this Final Solar PEIS).

For example, the following species’ habitats overlap by the percentages

Lands available for ROW

shown:

application include areas of

potentially suitable habitat

for special status species (see

Appendix J). For example,

the following species’

habitats overlap by the

percentages shown:

SEZ Alternative

No Action Alternative

Program Alternative

(approximately

(approximately

(approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas)

285,000 acres in

98 million acres available

Resource

(approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process)

priority areas)

for application)

Special Status

Plants:

For example, about 1% or

Plants:

Species

Nevada dune beardtongue – less than 61%

less of the habitat for two

Nevada dune

(Cont.)

White-margined beardtongue – less than 8%

plant species (Nevada dune

beardtongue – 66%

Munz’s cholla – less than 16%

beard tongue, white-

White-margined

margined beard tongue) and

beardtongue – 34%

Animals:

nine animal species (desert

Munz’s cholla – 45%

Desert tortoise – less than 12%

tortoise, western burrowing

Western burrowing owl – less than 8%

owl, greater sage-grouse,

Animals:

Greater sage-grouse – less than 7%

Gunnison prairie dog,

Desert tortoise – 29%

Gunnison prairie dog – less than 3%

Gunnison sage-grouse,

Western burrowing

Gunnison sage-grouse – less than 1%

northern aplomado falcon,

owl – 27%

Northern aplomado falcon – less than 11%

and southwestern willow

Greater sage-grouse – 54%

Southwestern willow flycatcher – less than 1%

flycatcher, Townsend’s big-

Gunnison prairie

Townsend’s big-eared bat – less than 6%

eared bat, and Utah prairie

dog – 15%

Utah prairie dog – less than 11%

dog) are located within the

Gunnison sage-

SEZs; less than 4% of

grouse – 24%

Munz’s cholla habitat is

Northern aplomado

located within the SEZs.

falcon – 26%

Southwestern willow

flycatcher – 7%

Townsend’s big-eared

bat – 23%

Utah prairie dog – 36%

SEZ Alternative

No Action Alternative

Program Alternative

(approximately

(approximately

(approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas)

285,000 acres in

98 million acres available

Resource

(approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process)

priority areas)

for application)

Cultural

Cultural resources subject to loss during construction, but impacts also

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

Resources and

possible during operations. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across

alternative, except impacts

alternative. There would be

Native

the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be

would be concentrated into a

no explicit exclusions to

American

minimized due to the required variance process.

smaller, known geographic

avoid known sensitive

Concerns

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

area.

cultural resources. There

would be no specific design

ACECs designated for cultural or historic resource values, National

Same exclusions as program

features to reduce impacts.

alternative.

Historic and Scenic Trails, National Historic and Natural Landmarks,

Impacts could be potentially

properties designated or eligible for the National Register of Historic

more dispersed and greater

Places, and areas with important cultural and archaeological resources

on those cultural resources

would be excluded.

excluded under the action

alternatives.

Transportation

Local road systems and traffic flow could be adversely affected during

Same impacts as program

Same impacts as program

construction. Impacts during operations would be minor. Impacts

alternative, except impacts

alternative, except impacts

potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas;

would be concentrated into a

could be potentially more

however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance

smaller, known geographic

dispersed. There would be no

process.

area. This could increase the

specific design features to

magnitude of potential

reduce impacts.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

impacts, particularly during

construction, but affect a

smaller number of areas.