- •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
1Although DOE certainly has an influence over the amount of solar energy development
2that occurs in the United States and has designed its proposed action specifically to shape
3 some aspects of its influence, it is not possible to calculate how much of the projected RFDS 4 development and associated land use would be directly attributable to DOE’s proposed action.
5Conversely, because the BLM is evaluating a new Solar Energy Program that would determine
6how it manages such development on BLM-administered lands, including the identification of
7 lands that would be excluded from and lands that would be available for development, the RFDS 8 identifies which portion of the projected development might occur on BLM-administered lands 9 over the next 20 years. It is assumed that this development would be facilitated in large measure
10by the BLM’s new program, and therefore the development is considered to be a result of BLM’s
11proposed action. Of the total 32,000 MW of solar capacity projected by the RFDS, 75%, or
12approximately 24,000 MW, is assumed to be developed on BLM-administered lands; this
13equates to about 214,000 acres (866 km2) of land.
14
15The cumulative impact analysis of BLM’s alternatives, presented in Section 6.5.2,
16evaluates the full amount of development projected by the RFDS. It defines the “incremental
17impact” of the agency’s action as that portion of the RFDS projected on BLM-administered lands
18(i.e., 24,000 MW of solar energy capacity and 214,000 acres [866 km2]), and the rest of the
19RFDS projected development as “reasonably foreseeable” solar energy development resulting
20from the actions of others. Consequently, the full RFDS projected level of development is
21considered in the cumulative impact analysis of BLM’s alternatives.
22
23In all likelihood, only a small percentage of utility-scale solar energy development
24projected in the RFDS would be directly attributable to DOE’s proposed action, in light of the
25anticipated limited availability of federal funds to support such projects in the six-state study
26area. As a result, the BLM cumulative impact analysis is considered to provide the upper bound
27description of potential cumulative environmental impacts. Consequently, a separate cumulative
28impact analysis has not been prepared for DOE’s alternatives.
29
30
31 7.4 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS
32
33
34 7.4.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
35
36Utility-scale solar development would result in some unavoidable adverse impacts, as
37follows:
38 |
|
39 |
• Short-term air quality impacts due to dust generated during site preparation |
40 |
and construction, and noise impacts due to the use of heavy construction |
41 |
equipment; |
42 |
|
43 |
• Short-term influx of workers and transportation-related impacts |
44 |
(e.g., increased traffic) during the construction phase; |
45 |
|
46 |
• Long-term loss of grazing allotments; |
Final Solar PEIS |
7-4 |
July 2012 |
1• Long-term reduction in available water supply (relatively insignificant for
2 |
PV facilities); |
3 |
|
4• Long-term loss of soil, vegetation, and habitat for wildlife (including sensitive
5 |
species) and potentially irreversible impacts on biological soil crusts; |
6 |
|
7• Long-term impacts on some species, both at the population level and on
8 |
individual organisms; |
9 |
|
10 |
• Long-term visual impacts on residents of communities near solar facilities, |
11 |
users of roads passing near solar facilities, and patrons of specially designated |
12 |
areas within the viewshed of solar facilities; and |
13 |
|
14 |
• Long-term noise impacts from solar dish engine facilities and trough or power |
15 |
tower facilities employing TES. |
16 |
|
17The magnitude of these adverse impacts would depend on a specific project and would be
18decreased through mitigation, although the extent to which this is possible cannot be assessed
19except at the project level, and it is possible that these impacts could not be avoided completely.
22 7.4.2 Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity
23
24For this assessment, short-term uses are defined as those occurring over a 2- to 3-year
25period, generally applicable to the site characterization, preparation, and construction phases.
26Long-term uses and productivity are those occurring throughout the 20-year time frame
27considered in this PEIS.
28
29Although land disturbance within the footprint of solar energy generation facilities would
30be long term, additional areas affected during the construction of the generation facilities and
31related infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission lines, and natural gas or water pipelines) would
32result in relatively short-term disturbance. Land clearing and grading and construction and
33operation activities would disturb surface soils and wildlife and their habitats, and affect local
34air and water quality, visual resources, and noise levels within and around the solar facility
35areas and on additional lands used for project-related infrastructure. Short-term influxes of
36construction workers would affect the local socioeconomic setting.
37
38The lands used for solar facilities long term would produce electricity generated from
39a renewable source and would result in reduced GHG emissions and combustion-related
40pollutants, assuming the solar facilities offset electricity generated by fossil fuel power plants.
41These facilities would generate stable jobs and income for nearby communities (although at a
42lower rate than during the short-term construction phase), sales and income tax revenues, and
43income for the federal government in the form of ROW rental revenues over the life of the
44projects.
45
46
Final Solar PEIS |
7-5 |
July 2012 |
1 |
7.4.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources |
2 |
|
3 |
Solar energy development would result in the consumption of sands, gravels, and other |
4 |
geologic resources, as well as fuel, structural steel, and other materials, some of them special-use |
5 |
materials (i.e., metals used in PV solar cells). At decommissioning, some of these materials |
6 |
would be available for reuse. |
7 |
|
8 |
Water resources would be consumed during the construction phase and during operations, |
9 |
with the extent of water use varying by technology selected; this would be an irreversible and |
10 |
irretrievable loss. |
11 |
|
12For most plant and animal species, population-level effects would be unlikely, based on
13the assumption that mitigation measures would be implemented; however, population-level
14effects are possible for some species. In addition, during construction, operation, and
15decommissioning, individual plants and animals would be affected. Site-specific and species-
16specific analyses conducted at the project level for all project phases would help ensure that the
17potential for such impacts would be minimized to the fullest extent possible. There would be
18long-term reductions in habitat due to fencing of large areas during the operational period; this
19impact would be partially mitigated through siting in locations that do not contain critical habitat.
20Additional mitigation measures (e.g., conducting long-term monitoring and related additional
21mitigation) would reduce the impacts over time, if implemented. However, it is unknown
22whether irreversible and irretrievable impacts on species would occur.
23
24Biological soil crusts are fragile, and damage to them could constitute an irreversible and
25irretrievable impact. When removed, the underlying soils may be subject to increased erosion by
26both wind and water. Mitigation measures that minimize the amount of land disturbance could be
27applied to reduce the impacts on these resources.
28
29Cultural and paleontological resources are nonrenewable. Impacts on these resources
30would constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment; however, implementation of
31appropriate mitigation measures would minimize the potential for these impacts to the extent
32possible.
33
34Impacts on visual resources in specific locations could constitute an irreversible and
35irretrievable commitment. Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would minimize
36the potential for these impacts to the extent possible; additional mitigation efforts would be
37undertaken at the project level with stakeholder input.
38
39
40 7.4.4 Mitigation of Adverse Effects
41
42Under the proposed action, DOE would adopt programmatic environmental guidance
43with recommended environmental best management practices and mitigation measures that could
44be applied to all DOE-supported solar projects. These recommended measures would likely be
45consistent with the mitigation requirements that would be adopted by the BLM under its action
46alternatives. BLM’s proposed requirements are presented in Section A.2 of Appendix A. By
Final Solar PEIS |
7-6 |
July 2012 |
1recommending a comprehensive set of mitigation measures, DOE would help ensure that
2 impacts from solar energy development would be mitigated to the fullest extent possible. Any 3 potential adverse impacts that could not be addressed by DOE’s programmatic guidance would 4 be addressed at the project level, where resolution of site-specific and species-specific concerns 5 is more readily achievable.
6
Final Solar PEIS |
7-7 |
July 2012 |
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 This page intentionally left blank.
14
Final Solar PEIS |
7-8 |
July 2012 |