- •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 |
6.5.2.17 Environmental Justice |
2 |
|
3Environmental justice effects concern any disproportionately high and adverse human
4health or environmental effects of federal actions, programs, or policies on minority and low-
5 income populations. Solar energy development has the potential for such effects where minority 6 or low-income populations may be affected. Such effects may derive from air pollution, noise, 7 land use, cultural, or socioeconomic impacts. These effects may be negative, as in the case of
8 increased noise levels or altered land use patterns, or positive, as in the case of local or regional
9economic benefits resulting from increased jobs and revenue. Mitigation of effects would include
10surveys to identify potentially affected minority and low-income populations, direct mitigation
11of effects on natural resources, and social programs to mitigate economic and social effects.
12Cumulative effects on environmental justice from foreseeable development in the six-state study
13area are expected to be small. Contributions from solar development would likely be small, due
14to the low level of health and environmental effects associated with solar facilities, sparse
15populations in solar areas, and the availability of effective mitigation.
16
17Contributions to environmental concern, likewise, could be intensified in some areas
18while eliminated in others owing to the general consolidation of solar facilities resulting from the
19elimination and modification of proposed SEZs since the issuance of the Draft Solar PEIS.
20
21
22 6.5.2.18 Transportation
23
24Effects on transportation systems from solar development would occur mainly during
25construction of facilities and would affect primarily local road systems and traffic flow. Such
26effects would be temporary and could be mitigated through minor road improvements at access
27points and through reduction in traffic congestion through car pooling and coordination of shift
28changes. Only minor contributions to cumulative effects on transportation would be expected in
29the six-state study area during the development of solar facilities. Because of the small number
30of workers required to operate plants and the relatively low level of delivery traffic to and from
31facilities required for operation, cumulative impacts on transportation systems during facility
32operations would be minimal.
33
34Contributions to cumulative effects on transportation could be increased slightly overall
35due to the general consolidation of solar facilities resulting from the elimination and
36modification of proposed SEZs since the issuance of the Draft Solar PEIS. Such effects would
37occur during the simultaneous construction of more than one solar facility in a given area.
38
39
40 6.6 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS
41
42
43 6.6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
44
45Utility-scale solar development under the action alternatives and under the no action
46alternative would result in some unavoidable adverse impacts, as follows:
Final Solar PEIS |
6-73 |
July 2012 |
1• Short-term air quality impacts due to dust generated during site-preparation
2 |
and construction, and noise impacts due to the use of heavy construction |
3 |
equipment; |
4 |
|
5• Short-term influx of workers and transportation-related impacts
6 |
(e.g., increased traffic) during the construction phase; |
7 |
|
8 |
• Long-term loss of grazing allotments; |
9 |
|
10 |
• Long-term reduction in available water supply (relatively insignificant for PV |
11 |
facilities); |
12 |
|
13 |
• Long-term loss of soil, vegetation, and habitat for wildlife (including sensitive |
14 |
species), and potentially irreversible impacts on biological soil crusts; |
15 |
|
16 |
• Long-term impacts on some species, both at the population level and on |
17 |
individual organisms; |
18 |
|
19 |
• Long-term visual impacts on residents of communities near solar facilities, |
20 |
users of roads passing near solar facilities, and patrons of specially designated |
21 |
areas within the viewshed of solar facilities; and |
22 |
|
23 |
• Long-term noise impacts for solar dish engine facilities and trough or power |
24 |
tower facilities employing TES. |
25 |
|
26The magnitude of these adverse impacts would to some degree depend on a specific
27project and would be decreased by implementing the programmatic design features required
28under the action alternatives (e.g., siting facilities away from the most sensitive resources),
29although the extent to which these impacts could be mitigated cannot be assessed, except at the
30project level, and it is possible these impacts could not be completely avoided.
31
32
33 6.6.2 Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity
34
35For this assessment, short-term uses are defined as those occurring over a 2- to 3-year
36period, generally applicable to site characterization/preparation and construction phases. Long-
37term uses and productivity are those that occur throughout the 20-year time frame considered in
38this PEIS.
39
40Although land disturbance within the footprint of solar energy generation facilities would
41be long term, additional areas affected during the construction of the generation facilities and
42related infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission lines, and natural gas or water pipelines) would
43result in relatively short-term disturbance. Land clearing and grading and construction and
44operation activities would disturb surface soils and wildlife and their habitats, and affect local air
45and water quality, visual resources, and noise levels within and around the solar facility areas
Final Solar PEIS |
6-74 |
July 2012 |
1 and on additional lands used for project-related infrastructure. Short-term influxes of 2 construction workers would affect the local socioeconomic setting.
3
4The lands used long term for solar facilities would produce electricity generated from a
5renewable source and would result in reduced emissions of GHGs and combustion-related
6 pollutants, assuming the solar facilities avoid electricity generated by fossil fuel power plants. 7 These facilities would generate stable jobs and income for nearby communities (although at a
8lower rate than during the short-term construction phase), sales and income tax revenues, and
9income for the federal government in the form of ROW rental revenues over the life of the
10 |
projects. |
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
6.6.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources |
14 |
|
15Solar energy development on BLM-administered lands would result in the consumption
16of sands, gravels, and other geologic resources, as well as fuel, structural steel, and other
17materials, some of them special-use materials (i.e., metals used in PV solar cells). At
18decommissioning, some of these materials would be available for reuse.
19
20Water resources would be consumed during the construction phase and during operations,
21with the extent of water use varying by the technology selected; this would be an irreversible and
22irretrievable loss.
23
24For most plant and animal species, population-level effects would be unlikely, based
25on the assumption that required design features are implemented; however, population-level
26effects are possible for some species. In addition, during construction, operation, and
27decommissioning, individual plants and animals would be affected. Site-specific and species-
28specific analyses conducted at the project level for all project phases would help ensure that the
29potential for such impacts would be minimized to the fullest extent possible. There would be
30long-term reductions in habitat due to fencing of large areas during the operational period; this
31impact would be partially mitigated through siting in locations that do not contain critical habitat.
32Additional programmatic policies (e.g., requiring long-term monitoring and related additional
33mitigation) and design features would reduce the impacts over time. However, it is unknown
34whether irreversible and irretrievable impacts on species would occur.
35
36Biological soil crusts are fragile and damage to them could constitute an irreversible and
37irretrievable impact. When these biological soil crusts are removed, the underlying soils may be
38subject to increased erosion by both wind and water. Programmatic design features that minimize
39the amount of land disturbance could be applied to reduce the impacts on these resources.
40
41Cultural and paleontological resources are nonrenewable. Impacts on these resources
42would constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment; however, implementation of the
43programmatic design features would minimize the potential for these impacts to the extent
44possible.
45
Final Solar PEIS |
6-75 |
July 2012 |