- •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 |
7 ANALYSIS OF DOE’S ALTERNATIVES |
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
Through this PEIS, DOE is evaluating two alternatives: a proposed action (action |
5 |
alternative) and a no action alternative (see Section 2.3). |
6 |
|
7 |
DOE developed the proposed environmental guidance presented in Section 2.3.2 of this |
8 |
Final Solar PEIS to facilitate the advancement of solar energy development. Under the proposed |
9 |
action, DOE would adopt this programmatic guidance, including recommended environmental |
10practices and mitigation measures, for consideration in its investment and deployment strategies
11and decision-making process. This guidance would provide DOE with a tool for making more
12informed, environmentally sound decisions on DOE-supported solar projects. In the Final
13Programmatic EIS, DOE has identified the proposed action (action alternative) as its preferred
14alternative.
15
16The proposed action has been developed to support DOE in meeting the mandates
17discussed in Section 1.1 of this Final PEIS that provide the purpose and need for agency action.
18Specifically, these mandates are established by E.O. 13212, “Actions to Expedite Energy-
19Related Projects” (Federal Register, Volume 66, page 28357, May 22, 2001); E.O. 13514,
20“Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” (Federal Register,
21Volume 74, page 52117, Oct. 5, 2009); and Section 603 of EISA (P.L. 109-58). Collectively,
22these mandates require DOE to promote, expedite, and advance the production and transmission
23of environmentally sound energy resources, including renewable energy resources and solar
24energy and, in particular, cost-competitive solar energy systems at the utility scale.
25
26Under the no action alternative, DOE would continue to conduct environmental reviews
27of DOE-supported solar projects on a case-by-case basis. It would not adopt programmatic
28guidance regarding environmental practices and mitigation recommendations to apply to DOE-
29supported solar projects.
30
31This chapter presents an analysis of DOE’s two alternatives in terms of their
32effectiveness in meeting the mandates established for the agency. Specifically, the alternatives
33are analyzed in terms of their potential to affect the pace and cost of solar energy development,
34the environment, and socioeconomic setting.
35
36Sections 7.1 and 7.2 present the analysis of the two alternatives. Section 7.3 discusses
37the cumulative impacts of the alternatives. Section 7.4 discusses the other NEPA considerations
38related to the proposed action, including unavoidable adverse impacts, short-term uses of the
39environment and long-term productivity, irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources,
40and mitigation of adverse impacts.
41
42
43
Final Solar PEIS |
7-1 |
July 2012 |
1 |
7.1 IMPACTS OF DOE’S PROPOSED ACTION |
2 |
|
3 |
The proposed guidance presented in Section 2.3 is intended to better enable DOE to |
4 |
comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments to minimize |
5 |
the environmental impacts of solar technologies for DOE-supported solar projects. |
6 |
|
7 |
DOE could also consider the proposed guidance in establishing environmental mitigation |
8 |
recommendations to be considered by project proponents. The recommendations contained in the |
9guidance, which are based upon the analysis of impacts of solar energy development and
10potentially applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 5 of the Draft and Final Solar
11PEIS, would help DOE ensure that adverse environmental impacts of DOE-supported solar
12projects would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.
13
14Collectively, streamlined environmental reviews and quicker project approval processes
15would likely increase the pace of DOE-sponsored development and reduce the costs to industry,
16regulatory agencies, and stakeholders. These outcomes would support the mandates of
17E.O.s 13212 and 13514 and Section 603 of EISA.
18
19Increasing the pace of solar energy development would, in turn, translate into other
20benefits. Utility-scale solar energy development would result in reduced GHG emissions
21and combustion-related pollutants, if the development results in avoided electricity generation by
22fossil fuel power plants (see Section 5.11.4 of the Draft and Final Solar PEIS). If the pace of
23solar energy development is faster as a result of DOE’s proposed action, the potential beneficial
24impacts of reduced GHG emissions would be realized at a faster rate.
25
26Utility-scale solar energy development would result in local and regional economic
27benefits in terms of both jobs and income created (see Section 5.17.2 of the Draft Solar PEIS).
28The associated transmission system development and related road construction would also
29produce new jobs and income. These benefits would occur as both direct impacts, resulting from
30wages and salaries, procurement of goods and services, and collection of state sales and income
31taxes, and indirect impacts, resulting from new jobs, income, expenditures, and tax revenues
32subsequently created as the direct impacts circulate through the economy. Increasing the pace of
33solar energy development would cause these economic benefits to be realized at a faster pace as
34well.
35
36As discussed in Section 5.17.1.1 of the Draft Solar PEIS, there may be some adverse
37socioeconomic impacts resulting from changes in recreation, property values, and environmental
38amenities (e.g., environmental quality, rural community values, or cultural values), and
39disruption potentially associated with solar development. There could also be beneficial
40socioeconomic impacts in these areas resulting from economic growth and a positive reception to
41the presence of a renewable energy industry. Increasing the pace of solar energy development
42would also speed up the pace of these types of socioeconomic changes. At the programmatic
43level, it is difficult to quantify these impacts.
44
45In summary, the proposed programmatic guidance that DOE has developed under its
46proposed action would likely minimize the potential adverse environmental impacts of solar
Final Solar PEIS |
7-2 |
July 2012 |
1 energy development for DOE-supported projects. As a result of adopting this guidance in various 2 DOE solar-related programs, the pace of solar energy development could increase.
3
4
5 7.2 IMPACTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
6
7 Under the no action alternative, DOE would continue its existing case-by-case process 8 for addressing environmental concerns for DOE-supported solar projects. It would not adopt
9programmatic environmental guidance to apply to DOE-supported solar projects. As a result,
10DOE would not undertake any efforts (i.e., programmatic environmental guidance) to
11programmatically promote the reduction of environmental impacts of solar energy development
12or streamline environmental reviews for DOE-supported projects. Such achievements, and the
13potential benefits in terms of increased pace of solar energy development and decreased
14associated costs, might occur under the no action alternative, but they would not be
15programmatically promoted by DOE (by adoption of programmatic environmental guidance
16with recommended environmental practices and mitigation measures).
17
18
19 7.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
20
21As discussed in Section 6.5, the purpose of this cumulative impact assessment is to
22determine how the environmental, social, and economic conditions within the six-state study
23area may be incrementally affected by DOE’s alternatives over the next 20 years. The CEQ, in
24its regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508), defines
25cumulative effects as follows:
26
27“... the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of
28the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
29actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes
30such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).
31
32Typically, the “incremental impact of the action” is characterized in terms of a specific,
33quantifiable set of activities. In a programmatic impact analysis, this type of characterization
34might be based on a projected amount of development expected to occur as a result of the
35proposed action. DOE and the BLM developed an RFDS for solar energy development in the
36six-state study area over the next 20 years (see Section 2.4), which projects the amount of solar
37energy in megawatts that might be developed in each state by about 2030. The RFDS analysis
38also estimates how many acres of land might be required to support the projected development.
39The projected levels of development and estimated acres developed are presented in Table 2.4-1.
40Across the six-state study area, the RFDS projects that about 6,000 to 32,000 MW of solar
41energy capacity would be developed over the next 20 years on BLM-administered lands as well
42as other federal, state, tribal, or private lands. On the basis of the highest projection, assuming
439 acres/MW (0.04 km2/MW), this amount of development could require approximately
44285,500 acres (1,155 km2) of land.
45
Final Solar PEIS |
7-3 |
July 2012 |