1 6 ANALYSIS OF BLM’S SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 2 3 4 Through this programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS), the U.S. Department 5 of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is evaluating three alternatives for 6 managing utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands in the six-state 7 study area. These alternatives, which are described in Section 2.2, include two action 8 alternatives—a solar energy development program alternative and a solar energy zone (SEZ) 9 program alternative—and a no action alternative. 10 11 Under the action alternatives, the BLM would establish a new Solar Energy Program 12 to replace certain elements of its existing Solar Energy Policies (BLM 2007, 2010a,b; 13 see Appendix A, Section A.1).1 The action alternatives identify lands that would be excluded 14 from utility-scale solar energy development and, on the basis of those exclusions, the lands that 15 would be available for solar right-of-way (ROW) application.2 Both action alternatives also 16 identify SEZs where the agency would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission 17 infrastructure development. Final SEZs would be identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) for 18 the Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Under the solar energy 19 development program alternative, the SEZs would constitute a subset of the total lands available 20 (i.e., applications would be accepted within the SEZs and on specific lands outside the SEZs). 21 Under the SEZ program alternative, applications would only be accepted within the SEZs, and 22 no additional lands would be available outside the SEZs. 23 24 In addition to establishing lands available for solar ROW authorizations, the action 25 alternatives would establish a suite of program administration and authorization policies and 26 design features that would apply to utility-scale solar energy projects on BLM-administered 27 lands (see Section 2.2.2 and Appendix A, Section A.2).3 These design features represent the 28 most widely accepted methods to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts from the types of 29 activities associated with solar energy development and to successfully administer solar energy 30 development on public lands and therefore are proposed as standard features of both action 31 alternatives. 32 33 Under both action alternatives, the elements of the BLM’s new program would be 34 implemented through amendment of almost all of the land use plans within the six-state study 1 It is anticipated that elements of the existing policies addressing rental fees, terms of authorizations, due diligence, bonding requirements, and BLM access to records would remain in effect. 2 The exclusions proposed under the action alternatives would apply only to the siting of utility-scale solar energy generation facilities and not to any required supporting linear infrastructure, such as roads, transmission lines, and natural gas or water pipelines. Management decisions for supporting linear infrastructure, including available lands, are defined in existing applicable land use plans. Siting of supporting infrastructure would be analyzed in project-specific environmental reviews. 3 As discussed in Section 2.2.2, design features are mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the proposed action or alternatives to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. The proposed programmatic design features of the Solar Energy Program would apply to all utility-scale solar energy ROWs on BLM-administered lands under both action alternatives. Additional design features have been proposed for individual SEZs. Draft Solar PEIS 6-1 December 2010 1 area (see Appendix C). Similar programs have been established and have proven useful for other 2 types of renewable energy development, specifically for wind and geothermal energy 3 development (more information about these and other BLM energy programs is available at 4 http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy.html). 5 6 Under the no action alternative, the BLM would continue to develop solar energy 7 resources under its existing policies (BLM 2007; 2010a,b). The agency would not take further 8 steps to programmatically or comprehensively identify lands excluded and lands available for 9 solar energy development or establish a program of policies or required mitigation measures. 10 11 Table 6.1-1 lists the approximate amount of land that would be available for utility-scale 12 solar ROW applications in each state under the three alternatives. Maps showing the distribution 13 of these lands are included at the end of Chapter 2 (see Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-6). 14 15 This chapter presents an analysis of the BLM’s three management alternatives in terms of 16 their effectiveness in meeting the objectives outlined as part of BLM’s purpose and need for 17 action (see Section 1.3.1). These objectives include the following: 18 19 • Facilitating near-term utility-scale solar energy development on public lands; 20 21 • Minimizing potential negative environmental, social, and economic impacts; 22 23 24 TABLE 6.1-1 Summary of Potentially Developable BLM-Administered Land under the No Action Alternative, the Solar Energy Development Program Alternative, and the SEZ Program Alternativea BLM- BLM- Administered Administered Lands Constituting Lands BLM-Administered Solar Energy Constituting SEZ Lands Constituting Development Program Total State No Action Program Alternative State Acreageb Alternative (acres) Alternative (acres)c (acres) Arizona 72,700,000 9,218,009 4,485,944 13,735 California 100,200,000 11,067,366 1,766,543 339,090 Colorado 66,500,000 7,282,061 148,072 21,050 Nevada 70,300,000 40,794,055 9,084,050 171,265 New Mexico 77,800,000 12,188,361 4,068,324 113,052 Utah 52,700,000 18,182,368 2,028,222 19,192 Total 440,200,000 98,732,220 21,581,154 677,384 a To convert acres to km2, multiply by 0.004047. b From Table 4.2-1. c The acreage estimates were calculated on the basis of the best available geographic information system (GIS) data. GIS data were not available for the entire set of exclusions, so the exact acreage could not be calculated. Exclusions that could not be mapped would be identified during the ROW application process. Draft Solar PEIS 6-2 December 2010 1 • Providing flexibility to consider a variety of solar energy projects 2 (e.g., location, facility size, and technology); 3 4 • Optimizing existing transmission infrastructure and corridors; and 5 6 • Standardizing and streamlining the authorization process for solar energy 7 development on BLM-administered lands. 8 9 The analysis in this chapter also evaluates the extent to which each management 10 alternative would assist the BLM in meeting the projected demand for utility-scale solar energy 11 development, as estimated by the reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) 12 developed for this PEIS (see Section 2.4). The extent to which each option would assist the 13 BLM in meeting the mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law [P.L.] 109-58) and 14 Order 3285A1, issued by the Secretary of the Interior (2010) (see Section 1.1), including but not 15 limited to the mandate to identify and prioritize specific locations best-suited for utility-scale 16 solar energy development on public lands, is also assessed. 17 18 This chapter provides summary-level information on the potential impacts to resources 19 and resource uses from solar energy development in the context of how such impacts would vary 20 as a function of the alternatives. The level of detail presented for individual alternatives is 21 commensurate with the programmatic decisions to be made, which are primarily planning-level 22 decisions (i.e., allocation and exclusion decisions). This chapter provides a summary of the key 23 adverse impacts of solar energy development for each SEZ (based on the detailed analysis of 24 SEZs included in Chapters 8 through 13) that will inform possible decisions regarding the size, 25 configuration, and/or management of the SEZs. This chapter also assesses the cumulative 26 impacts of utility-scale solar development expected in the six-state study area over the next 27 20 years based on the RFDS. 28 29 Table 6.1-2 provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the alternatives. 30 Because of the programmatic focus of the PEIS, the impact summaries are primarily qualitative; 31 however, some impacts have been quantified. Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of the 32 impacts summarized here; Appendix J provides a comparison of species affected by alternative. 33 The impacts of solar development itself are largely similar across the alternatives. However, 34 because the alternatives represent planning decisions (i.e., allocations and exclusions for solar 35 ROWs), differences between the alternatives are found in the location, pace, and concentration of 36 this development. Table 6.1-3 includes a summary of the potential resource conflicts identified 37 for individual SEZs and the extent to which these conflicts would potentially limit the amount of 38 land available for development within each SEZ. 39 40 Sections 6.1 through 6.3 discuss the potential effectiveness of each of the management 41 alternatives at meeting the described objectives and their potential environmental impacts. 42 Section 6.4 compares the alternatives and identifies the BLM’s preferred alternative. Section 6.5 43 discusses the potential cumulative impacts of developing utility-scale solar energy on BLM- 44 administered lands in the six-state study area over