### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Competitive Process es , Terms, and Conditions for Leasing Public Lands for Solar and Wind Energy Development and Technical Changes and Corrections

for 43 CFR Parts 2800 and 2880

Office of the Assistant Director, Energy, Minerals and Realty Management (WO

300) 1849 C Street NW, Room 2134LM Washington, DC 20240

DOI

- BLM

- WO

- 301

- 2013

- 0001

- EA

September 20141 

### DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

C ompetitive Process , Terms, and Conditions for Leasing Public Lands for Solar and Wind Energy Development and Technical Changes and Corrections for 43 CFR Parts 2800 and
2880

U.S. Department of t he Interior Bureau of Land Management



## I. Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is developing a proposed rule to : amend portions of 43 CFR Part 2800, Rights

- o

f

- Way u nder the Federal Land Policy Management Act ; develop a revised subpart 2809 for a competitive process for leasing public lands for solar a nd wind energy development ; and amend portions of 43 CFR Part 2880, Rights

- of

- Way under the Mineral Leasing Act

. While t he proposed regulatory amendments are eligible to be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the regulations at
43 CFR 46.205 and 46.210

, t he BLM Office of the Assistant Director, Minerals and Realty Management, elected to prepare this draft environmental assessment (EA) under the National
Environmenta l Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq

. This document will analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of the proposed rule to inform agency decision makers and the public. Based on the EA, the BLM will prepare a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or, if the potential environmental impacts of the proposed rule are determined to
be significant, a more detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to deciding whether to
issue a final rule based on the proposed rule

.

(a) Background and Overview

T he D epartment of the Interior’s (DOI ’s ) BLM administers over 245 million surface acres of public land

, most of which is located in the 12 w estern most states, including Alaska. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) provides the framewor k for the administration, management, protection, development, and enhancement of public lands. The public lands are extremely diverse and they are a storehouse of natural and cultural resources. Among the many traditional uses of public lands is energy pr oduction, which has historically
featured the development and production of oil, gas, and coal. Today, renewable resources

— solar, wind, and geothermal

—have taken their place alongside the traditional sources of energy as a growing use of the public lands

.

Executive Order (EO) 13212, “Actions to Expedite Energy

- Related Projects,” dated May 18, 2001, established a policy that F ederal agencies should take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects to increase the p roduction, transmission, or conservation of energy. Subsequent ly

, a Memorandum of Understanding was developed among the Departments of Energy, the Interior, and Agriculture ; the Environmental Protection Agency ; the Council on Environmental Quality ; and the members of the Western Governors’ Association to establish a framework for cooperation between the western states and the F ederal2

G overnment

, to address energy problems facing the w est

, and to facilitate renewable energy production.

In response to EO 132 12, in 2002 the BLM developed the Interim Wind Energy Policy to address immediate needs for responding to requests for wind energy development on public lands. Because of the need for a permanent policy

, the BLM in 2003 began a comprehensive process of rev iewing the potential of the public lands to support wind energy development. Utilizing a programmatic environmental impact statement ( PEIS; in this case, the Wind PEIS) that analyzed alternatives and potential impacts of wind energy development

, 1 the BLM i n January of 2006 issued a Record of Decision 2 (ROD) that :

(1) Established a comprehensive Wind Energy Development Program to administer the development of wind energy resources on BLM

- administered public lands in 11 western states: Arizona, California, Color ado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. A component of the program is the requirement for
continued consultation with Indian Tribes at the project

- specific level ; (2) Provided that future project

- specific environmental a nalyses for wind energy development would tier from the analysis in the Wind PEIS/ROD, thereby allowing the project

- specific analyses to focus on critical, site

- specific issues of concern ; (3) Established policies and best management practices (BMPs) for the a dministration of wind energy development activities and established minimum requirements for mitigation measures ; (4) Replaced the BLM Interim Wind Energy Policy with a new policy that incorporated the programmatic policies and BMPs evaluated in the PEIS ; and (5) Amended 52 BLM land use plans in nine states: Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The land use plan amendments included the adoption of the Wind Energy Development Program policies and BMPs
described in the Wind PEIS

, as well as identification of specific areas where wind energy development will be excluded.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Act) (Public Law ( P.L. ) 109

- 58) encouraged the DOI and

BLM to develop renewable resources on public lands

. Section 21 1 of the Act states: “It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Interior should, before the end of the 10

- year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, seek to have approved non

- hydropower renewable energy projects located on the public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity.”

1 A summ ary table (Table A

- 1) displaying the types of environmental impacts of the adopted Wind Energy Program is provided in Appendix A. The Wind PEIS was not site

- specific; consequently, the level of its environmental analysis was generic in nature. Potential im pacts associated with each stage of a wind energy project are described

in Table A

- 1. The requirement for additional, project

- level environmental analysis is part of the adopted Wind Energy Program and will be required for individual wind energy developmen t projects. The analysis of environmental impacts and comparison of alternatives are contained in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Wind PEIS found at http://windeis.anl.gov

. 2 Complete d etails about the BLM’s Wind Energy Prog ram can be found in the Record of Decision (ROD) at http://windeis.anl.gov

.3

I n 2012, the BLM met the goal established by Congress by approving over 12,000 MW of renewable energy. However, the development of renewable energy is a continuing Federal priority. On June 25, 2013, to emphasize the importance of the renewable energy goals of the nation, the President announced the release of a Climate Action Plan to reduced carbon pollution. The Climate Action Plan set a new goal for the Departme nt of the Interior to approve a renewable energy capacity of at least 2 0,000 MW of electricity on the public lands by 20 20

.

In 2007

, the BLM issued a Solar Energy Development Policy to address increased interest in solar energy development on BLM

- administ ered public lands and to implement goals to construct renewable energy facilities on public lands. This policy established procedures for processing right

- of

- way (ROW) applications for solar energy development projects in
accordance with FLPMA and the BLM’ s implementing regulations ( 43 CFR Part 2800). This policy was updated in 2010 by two more detailed policies that established a maximum term for authorizations, diligent development requirements, bond coverage, potential best management practices for solar energy development projects, and interim guidance on how to calculate rent for utility

- scale solar energy facilities.

The BLM’s practice at th at time was to evaluate solar energy ROW applications on a project

- by

project basis. In addition, many of the B LM’s land use plans did not specifically address solar energy development; therefore, projects that were not in conformance with existing land use plans required individual land use plan amendments. Moreover, the BLM did not have a standard set of mitigati on measures that could be applied consistently to all solar energy development projects. The need to develop mitigation measures case

- by

- case and amend land use plans added to the time needed to process ROW applications for solar energy projects.

On Marc h 11, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3285, which announced a policy goal of identifying and prioritizing specific locations best suited for the large

- scale production of solar energy on public lands. The Secretarial Order requ ired DOI agencies and bureaus to work collaboratively with each other and with other F ederal agencies, individual states, Tribes, local governments, and other interested stakeholders, including renewable energy generators and transmission and distribution utilities, to encourage the timely and responsible development of renewable energy and associated transmission, while protecting and enhancing the nation’s water, wildlife, and other n atural resources; to identify appropriate areas for generation and trans missi on; to develop best management practices for renewable energy and transmission projects on p ublic lands to ensure the most environmentally responsible development and delivery of renewable energy; and to establish clear policy direction for
authorizin g the development of solar ener gy on public lands. On February 22, 2010, Secretarial
Order 3285 was amended to clarify Departmental roles and responsibilities in prioritizing development of renewable energy. The amended order is r eferred to as Secretarial
Order 3285A1.

As an agency with a multiple

- use mission, to com p ly with Secretarial Order 3285A1

, the BLM must make land use decisions that are environmentally responsible and sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoymen t of present and future generations. The BLM recognized that for solar energy development to be successful, it must be consistent with protection of other important resources and values, including units of the National Park System;4

national wildlife refuge s; other specially designated areas; wildlife; and cultural, historic, and paleontological values.

To comply with EO 13212 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and later with Secretarial Order 3285A1, and to replace elements of the 2007 Solar Energy Develo pment Policy, the BLM began developing a comprehensive Solar Energy Program in much the same way as the BLM had developed the 2006 Wind Energy Policy. In May 2008, in conjunction with the DOE

, the BLM
initiated the Programmatic Environmental Impact Stateme nt for Solar Energy Development in
the Six Southwestern States (Solar PEIS) under NEPA

. Through the NEPA process

, the agencies engaged extensively with their cooperating agencies, key stakeholders, and the public to obtain input on the scope

, objectives , a nd potential impacts of the proposed actions. On the basis of this input, the BLM incrementally refined its proposed actions, alternatives, and analyses. In December 2010, the BLM and DOE published the Draft PEIS. During the comment period, the public, as well as many cooperating agencies and key stakeholders, offered suggestions on how the BLM and DOE could increase the utility of the analysis, strengthen elements of the BLM’s proposed Solar Energy Program, and increase certainty regarding solar energy dev elopment on

BLM

- administered lands. On October 28, 2011, the lead agencies published a Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS, in which adjustments were made to elements of the proposed Solar Energy Program and to guidance for facilitating utility

- scale solar energy development to better meet the BLM and DOE’s solar energy objectives. The Final Solar PEIS was published in July 2012 ; after
further deliberation and consultation

, the ROD 3 was signed by the Secretary in October 2012
that:

(1) Established a comprehens ive Solar Energy Program to administer the development of utility

- scale solar energy resources on BLM

- administered public lands in six southwestern states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. A component of the program is the requi rement for continued consultation with Tribes at the project

- specific level ; (2) Provided that future, project

- specific environmental analyses for solar energy development would tier from the analysis in the Solar PEIS/ROD, thereby allowing the project

- specifi c analyses to focus just on critical, site

- specific issues of concern ; (3) Establishe d land use allocations and incorporate d required programmatic and specific design features into 89 BLM land use plans in the six

- state study area ; and (4) In addition, t he decisio n: (a) I dentifie d areas excluded from utility

- scale solar energy ROWs ; (b) Established 17 Solar Energy Zones (SEZ s )

, which are priority areas for utility

scale solar energy development ROWs, and identified a process to establish new
SEZs ; and (c) Identifie d “variance areas , ” areas potentially available for utility

- scale solar energy development outside of exclusion areas and SEZs.

3 The analysis of environmental impacts and the comparison of alternatives are contained in the Draft Solar PEIS, Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS, and Final Solar PEIS. A summary table (Table B

- 1) comparing the impacts of the alternatives considered is attached in Appendix B. Complete details of the BLM’s Solar Program are in the ROD . All

of these documents are available at http://solareis.anl.gov/

.5

As the BLM’s renewable energy program developed, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
evaluated the BLM to assess the effectiveness o f its renewable energy program. In its final
report, t he OIG found that the BLM was poised for a massive expansion of wind and solar projects

. See report number CR

- EV

- BLM

- 0004

- 2010

, dated June 12, 2012. Recommendations were made by the OIG to improve the long

- term management of BLM’s renewable energy program. Such recommendations by the OIG included rent, bond management, and the competitive process es for solar and wind energy developments on the BLM

- administered lands. In its response to the OIG, the B LM agreed to implement actions necessary to effectively address
the recommendations and maintain consistency in its management of the public lands

.



## II . Purpose and Need for Action and Decision to be Made

The purpose of the proposed action is to amend th e BLM’s ROW regulations in response to heightened priorities for and interest in wind and solar energy development on public lands. Specifically, the purpose is to amend 43 CFR Part 2800

, Rights

- of

- Way under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

, to p romote the use of preferred areas for solar and wind energy development (designated leasing areas), and establish competitive processes, terms, and conditions (including rent s, fees, and bonding requirements) for solar and wind e nergy development rights

- of

- way both inside and outside designated leasing areas. In addition to setting forth competitive proce ss es for solar and wind energy, the proposed rule would effectively respond to many of the recommendations made by the OIG

. 4 The purpose includes
amendin g 43 CFR Part 2880

, Rights

- of

- Way under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), in order to maintain consistency with the administrative procedures under 43 CFR Part 2800. Proposed adjustments to Part 2800 regulations are reflected under Part 2880 where possible. T he decision to be made is whether the BLM should promulgate this rule for implementation.

The need for the action is to respond to changing demand for wind and solar energy development on public lands. Through the completed Wind and Solar PEISs, t he BLM has identified wind and solar energy development on public lands as a n important component for meeting the nation’s energy goals and objectives

, as well as complying with applicable orders and mandates.
The BLM has also identif ied a need to respond efficie nt ly and effective ly to the high interest in wind energy development and utility

- scale solar energy development on public lands and to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potential adverse impacts of such developm ent.

FLPMA directs that the United States receive fair market value for the use of the public lands
and their resources

, unless otherwise provided for by statute

. The BLM is proposing the competitive process es described in this proposed rule b ecause of th e potential size and magnitude of the BLM wind and solar energy programs, the level of interest in developing solar

4 The Solar Energy PEIS/ROD created designated leasing areas (these are the SEZs ), but the Wind PEIS/ROD did not create similar areas. The BLM is beginning the process to establish wind energy priority development areas similar to SEZs that would be subject to the proposed competitive leasing process.6

and wind energy facilities on public land, and the requirement to receive fair market value for the use of the public lands,



## III . Issues

S ecretarial Order 3285A1, “Renewable Energy Development by the Department of the Interior,” established the development of renewable energy on public lands as one of the D epartment’s highest priorities. One of the principal or major uses defined by the FLPM A includes the
issuance of ROW s on public lands. FLPMA also mandates that “the United States receive fair market value for the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by

s tatute” (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(9)). The existing ROW re gulations (43 CFR 2804.23) provide authority for conducting a competitive process, but only to resolve competing applications for the same facility or system. The competitive process in the proposed rule would modify those regulations for solar and wind e nergy development

.

Several c omments on both the Draft Wind PEIS and the Draft Solar PEIS expressed interest in a competitive leasing process with the goal of properly valuing the solar and wind resources on public land

. In the Wind PEIS, the BLM indicated that competitive bidding would be conducted only on a case

- by

- case basis, mainly because interest in the approach was limited. G reater
interest in establishing a competitive leasing process was expressed by the public at the time of preparation of the Sol ar PEIS

. I n response to increasing demand for both types of renewable energy development on BLM

- administered lands and the mandate to receive fair market value for the use of the public lands, the BLM is now proposing to offer through a competitive process designated leasing areas that have been or will be identified as having high potential for wind or solar development and that have been assessed as having a minimum amount of conflict with other public land resources

. For solar energy , the Solar Energy P EIS/ROD established solar energy zones (SEZs) , which under the proposed action would be considered designated leasing

areas . While the Wind Energy PEIS/ROD did not establish similar areas for wind energy facilities, the BLM is beginning a process to estab lish wind energy priority development areas that would be subject to the proposed competitive leasing process.

The BLM published a n Advance Notice of Proposed Rulem aking (ANPR) on December 29,
2011 ( 76 FR 81908)

, stating that regulations would be develope d to provide the authority to offer public lands in side designated solar or wind energy d evelopment leasing areas (e.g., SEZs for solar) through a nomination and competitive process instead of simply through an application

process. In addition to the proce ss that was emphasized in the ANPR

, the proposed rule includes

a different proposed competitive process for lands outside designated leasing areas and a number of amendments to other provisions of the right s

- of

- way regulations found at 43 CFR part s 2800

an d 2880.7



## IV . Proposed Action

(a) Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is an administrative action to amend and revise portions of 43 CFR

Part 2800, Rights

- o

f

- Way under the Federal Land Policy Management Act and portions of
43 CFR Par t 2880

, Rights

- of

- Way u nder the Mineral Leasing Act. The proposed regulations
would implement decisions contained in the RODs for both the Wind and Solar energy PEISs

, and would not in and of themselves authorize development of wind or solar projects. The action
includes develop ing a revised subpart 2809 defining a competitive process for solar and wind energy development on designated areas of public lands

. Under the proposed action, the BLM would have the authority to offer designat ed land s for wind or so lar energy development through a competitive leasing process consistent with the FLPMA requirement that it receive fair market
value for the use of public land s

. The proposed action also would establish a competitive process for solar and wind energy outsi de designated lands, rental rates , fees, and administrative provisions for wind and solar energy ROW grants and leases

, as well as other technical revisions
for ROWs

. The BLM is making several administrative changes to clarify the regulations and codify ex isting policies. The following summarizes , by existing or proposed subpart

, the proposed amendments and revisions to 43 CFR Part s 2800 and 2880

.

43 CFR Part 2800

— Rights

- of

- Way under the FLPMA

— Proposed Revisions

Subpart 2801

, General Information , addres ses the acronyms and definitions to be found in

Part 2800

, as well as other general information. Included within this subpart are the ROW program objectives, scope and the severability of the regulations, identification of when a grant is needed, and how t o appeal a decision under the regulations in this part.

Proposed amendments to subpart 2801 include the addition of new terms and modification of existing terms that are necessary to facilitate the other substantive regulatory changes proposed
in Part 280 0. Other amendments to the subpart include the text that pertain s to ROW grants held by F ederal agencies and describes solar and wind energy development facilities and associated
action authorizations

.

Subpart 2802

, Lands Available for FLPMA Grants , addre sses those lands available for FLPMA
authorizations and the BLM designation of ROW corridors. Proposed amendments to this subpart would add “designated leasing areas” to the existing regulatory text, where appropriate.

Subpart 2803

, Qualifications for Hol ding FLPMA Grants , states that individuals and entities that have the technical and financial ability to use public lands may hold grants. There are no proposed amendments to this subpart.

Subpart 2804

, Applying for FLPMA Grants , identifies pre

- applicatio n actions, where to apply

, and what to provide when submitting an application. In addition , this subpart identifies the financial obligations associated with an application and/or authorization, to include processing or8

monitoring fees and the way in which the fees are determined. Further, this subpart addresses the
circumstances in which the BLM may determine competition among applications and deny an application.

Proposed amendments to subpart 2804 provide clarity for the handling of applications for sol ar and wind energy development

, any transmission line with a capacity of 100 kV or more, or any pipeline 10 inches or more in diameter

, and include additions to the existing regulations for required pre

- application meetings and their cost reimbursement, ap plication filing fees, and the BLM’s authority to collect processing fees on behalf of other F ederal agencies

. The proposed
rule would establish a competitive process for solar and wind energy outside a designated leasing

area . BLM also proposes environme ntal screening criteria , mandatory pre

- application public meetings and due diligence requirements for solar and wind development applications. The BLM could offer lands competitively for all rights

- of

- way on its own initiative, instead of only
where there are two or more competing applications.

Subpart 2805

, Terms and Conditions of Grants

, addresses topics such as how a grant is authorized, what is contained within a grant, the general and specific conditions that must be complied with, conveyed and retai ned rights of a grant, and the payment of monitoring fees.

Expansion of the general conditions include s record access, maintenance and repair, common use and bond determination criteria

. Specific terms and conditions for solar and wind authorizations
incl ude maximum durations for grants, minimum bonding requirement, diligent development provisions, and project site repair and cleanliness.

Subpart 2806

, Rents

, describes the rules for an authorization’s general administrative actions to

include how the rent is established ; when and where rent is to be paid ; late rental payments ; and the proration, exemption

, and waiver of rent. Furthermore, subpart 2806 addresses the specific
rental schedules for authorizations such as linear and communication site rents , an d what to do when the specific schedules do not apply

.

Proposed amendments to subpart 2806 include technical adjustments to incorporate proposed amendments to the regulations within this subpart and to remove outdated references to
communication site rent al and identify BLM’s authority to retroactively collect rent . The solar and wind rental schedule is introduced and includes a description of the Acreage Rent , Megawatt Capacity Fee

, and their adjustment and phase

- in structure for solar and wind energy
dev elopment.

Subpar t 2807

, Grant Administration and Operation

, addresses requirements of operation s for grant holders , including when they may begin activities, when they must contact the BLM, and
their liabilities. In addition , the effects on grants if the lands are transferred from BLM ownership are discussed. The conditions under which the BLM may order a temporary suspension of activities or suspend or terminate a grant are specified. The requirements for amendment and reassignment of grants or leases are discussed , as well as renewal of grants or
leases.9

Proposed amendments to subpart 2807 include modifications to when grant holder must contact
the BLM during operations , changes in terms and conditions for assigning grants and leases to a third party, an d requirements for when the name of the grant holder is changed. Some adjustments to the conditions for grant or lease renewal are included , as well as the proposed change to include relocated regulatory text that pertains to ROW grants held by Federal age ncies

.

Subpart 2808

, Trespass

, defines trespass and discusses the BLM ’s actions when it determines trespass has occurred. There are no proposed amendments to this subpart.

Subpart 2809

, Competitive Process for Leasing Public Lands for Solar and Wind Ener gy Development , is a completely revised subpart. The revised subpart addresses the competitive process within designated leasing areas, and includes the nomination and parcel selection processes, methods for conducting competitive offers, the bid and bonus bid, selection of the successful bidder, variable offsets , BLM’s reserved rights in the competitive process, terms and conditions of a solar and wind energy lease, and applications within a designated leasing area.

43 CFR Part 288

0

— Rights

- of

- Way under the MLA

— Proposed Revisions

Part 2880 follows the same general outline as Part 2800 , but for M ineral L eas ing Act (MLA)
ROWs and temporary use permits (TUPs) . The amendments to 43 CFR Part 2880 are proposed

in order to maintain consistency with the propose d amendments to 43 CFR Part 2800. The proposed changes are in subpart 2884 regarding terms for applying for MLA grants or TUPs (such as application filing and pre

- application meetings, P O D submittals, processing fees, and
cost reimbursement for other F eder al agencies) ; subpart 2885 on terms and conditions of MLA Grants and TUPs (such as p erformance and r eclamation bonding, rent al payment terms, and monitoring fees ); and subpart 2886 regarding operations on MLA grants and TUPs (including
when the BLM must be contacted, conditions for assigning MLA grants and TUPs, and renewa l of grants)

.

( b ) No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative

, there would be no modi fications or additions to 43 CFR

Part 2800, Rights

- o

f

- Way u nder the Federal Land Policy M anagement Act

, or 43 CFR Part 2880, Rights

- of

- Way under the Mineral Leasing Act

, to create a new competitive leasing process

. Competition for grants for solar or wind energy development would continue to be limited to
instances where there are competing ap plications f or the same facility or system; there would be no competitive leasing for solar and wind energy development in designated areas , except in certain circumstances where competition exists

.

Rents for solar and wind energy ROW grants would continu e to be established by the BLM based on current practices. The per

- acre county rates for calculating acreage fees and the rates for calculating megawatt capacity fees proposed in the regulation would not go into effect.10



## V. Affected Environment

The 245 million acres of public lands in the United States that the BLM administers are extraordinarily diverse, and include desert mountain ranges, coastal areas, alpine tundra, evergreen forests, expanses of rangeland

, and red rock canyons. These lands are manag ed for a variety of resource values and uses that include recreation, conservation, visual resources, rangeland resources, ROWs , and mineral development

.

The proposed rule would apply to all BLM

- administered lands. As noted above

, some of the impacts ass ociated with solar and wind energy development on public lands in six southwestern

states

– Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah

– have been analyzed through the programmatic EISs

(a) Solar

The Solar PEIS /ROD establishe d a Solar Energy Program that is applicable to all solar energy development on public lands in six southwestern states : Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah

. The principal components of the Solar PEIS/ROD : ( 1) i dentif ied about 285,000 acres ( 1,153 km 2 ) of public lands in the six states as priori ty areas for solar development (called SEZs in the PEIS ) ; ( 2) in accordance with an established variance process

, 5 allow ed for
consideration of utility

- scale solar development in variance areas outside of SEZs totaling

ap proximately 19 million acres ( 82,964 km 2 ); ( 3 ) i dentif ied types of lands that are excluded from development for the protection of ecological, cultural, recreational, and other resources 6 and

uses ; and ( 4) amend ed 89 land use plans to inc orporate the Solar Energy Program and the identified SEZs, varia nce areas, and exclusion areas. These items are described in the ROD for
the Solar PEIS

, which was published in October 2012

.

The 17 SEZs identified in the ROD for the Solar PEIS are the des ignated solar energy development leasing areas for which competitive leasing procedures would be established in the proposed rule. The Affected Environment for the SEZs is discussed in chapter four and chapters
8

- 13 of the Draft and Final PEIS. If fully d eveloped over the next 20 years, the SEZs would provide enough electricity to meet the projected need under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario ( RFDS) presented in the PEIS. 7 However, some restriction of the area of development within the SEZs is expected because of either technological limitations or resource
conflicts. To ensure that solar development is not constrained by insufficient availability of
SEZs

, the Solar PEIS also included a protocol for the identification of new SEZs. There are

o ngoing efforts to identify new SEZs in Arizona and California through a process that includes requirements to amend applicable land use plans and to conduct the necessary environmental and public review process es to inform any land use plan amendments

.

5 Described in pages 177

– 186 of the ROD.

6 Excluded areas are defined in Table A

- 2 , pages 38

– 41, of the ROD

. 7 The RFDS presented in the Solar PEIS was ba sed on the requirements for electricity generation from renewable energy sources established in the Renewable Portfolio Standards in each of the six states. Under the RFDS, the estimated amount of solar energy generation on BLM

- administered lands in the si x

- state study area over the 20

- year study period is about 24,000 MW, with a corresponding dedicated use of about 214,000 acres (866 km 2 ).11

(b ) Wind

The ROD for the Wind PEIS established a Wind Energy Development Program applicable to all wind energy development on public lands in 11 western states : Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, an d Wyoming , and amended
52 land use plans to adopt the new program. The Affected Enviro nment section of the Wind PEIS in chapter four describes the affected resource subject to this proposed rule. Specific wind energy development zones were not identified in the Win d PEIS, and no designated leasing areas

were established. Wind energy development was excluded from certain areas protected by statutory or administrative controls (e.g., Wilderness Areas, National Monuments

, and Wilderness Study Areas ). The Wind PEIS did identify the total potentially developable land area over the time period 2005 through 2025 ; this area encompasses ap proximately 21 million acres (84,984 km 2 ) in the 11

- state study area. A model was used to estimate th at the economically developa ble area for public lands in the 11 states was about 160,000 acres (this value is analogous to the projected dedicated use area for solar development

, 214,000 acres

, estimated
under the RFDS for the Solar PEIS).



## VI . Environmental Effects

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations found at 40 CFR 1508.8(a) define
direct effects as “those effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.” CEQ regulat ions at 40 CFR 1508.8(b) define indirect effects as those effects “w hich are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, populati on density, or growth rate, and related effects on water and air and other natural systems, including ecosystems.” The following discussion
describes any direct and indirect effects that may result from implementation of the proposed
rule.

(a) Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The new requirements in this proposed rule are of an administrative or procedural nature and primarily pertain to establishing a n efficient competitive process to obtain fair market value for the use of public lands fo r solar and wind energy

, as FLPMA requires

. A programmatic analysis
of the environmental effects of the BLM’s S olar and W ind E nergy D evelopment P rograms has already been completed in the Solar and Wind PEIS s described above. These documents have analyzed

, to the extent practicable

, the environmental effects of the establishment of BLM’s Wind and Solar Energy Programs

, establishing clear requirements for excluding sensitive areas

, and providing for future site

- specific analysis of impacts of particular proje cts

. While the12

proposed rule would be used to authorize both wind and solar energy projects, the proposed rule
itself does not contribute to any direct or indirect effect associated with the development programs analyzed in the two PEIS s

.

The proposed rul e contains provisions that outline how the BLM would comply with NEPA
while processing solar and wind applications . This action would affect the project

- specific environmental review process outside of designated leasing areas. S ubpart 2804 of the proposed regulations would require the BLM, in coordination with other F ederal, state

, local agencies and Tribes, and the public to evaluate applications for solar or wind energy development before either denying the application or deciding to continue processing the application

. Subsequently, the BLM would prioritize the application for processing based upon screening criteria. Prioritization of the applications is established after consideration of known environmental factors, national designations

, and land use planning decisions of the application area. Early review of these criteria with a project application allows for their consideration in the application and development of a project through macro and micro siting changes and development of design features for specific resources such as endangered species or cultural and historic properties. A proposed project with fewer conflicts and a lesser degree of environmental impacts would be given priority over a project with more conflicts and greater environment al impacts. The prioritization of an application incentivizes the thoughtful and reasonable development of the public lands, establishing an agency emphasis on giving priority to applications that meet the appropriate prioritization category criteria. Li ke the existing regulations, the proposed regulations would then require the BLM either to complete a NEPA analysis or rely on a previously completed NEPA analysis before issuing a ROW grant

.

The existing rules identify terms and conditions for rights

- of

- way issued by the BLM. The proposed rule would clarify existing regulations and codify existing policy requirements to remove procedural uncertainty . The proposed amendments to the terms and conditions are generally administrative in nature

, such as comm on use of rights

- of

- way or maintenance and repair of facilities . Since the proposed rule would clarify existing regulations or codify existing policy, there is no change to existing requirements

.

The existing rules identify rental requirements for use of the public land within the authority granted it by FLPMA. Through statutory policy in FLPMA, the BLM must receive fair market value for the use of the public lands and their resources. The BLM would establish a schedule for acreage rent specific for s olar or wind rights

- of

- way and a fee per MW for generation of energy that captures the value for the increased industrial use of the right

- of

- way. The proposed
amendments to the ROW rent al structure are administrative in nature and will be used to help
de termine fair market value for the use of the public lands

, as determined by the Secretary through the BLM.

Existing regulatory authority requires the payment for use of the public land and resources. Within the proposed rule, the BLM clarifies how and wh en it may retroactively collect rent for the use of the public land. This proposed amendment to the rule is directed at providing administrative clarity for rent on the public land and does not affect rent outside the scope of the current regulatory autho rity of BLM.13

Within the proposed rule the BLM clarifies performance and reclamation bonding requirements for all rights

- of

- way and for those specific to solar and wind. The existing rule describes the BLM’s authority for collecting a bond for right

- of

- w ay authorizations, but leaves the bond as a discretionary action for BLM to require. The proposed rule clarifies what a right

- of

- way holder’s bond is responsible for, what the BLM would consider in determining the bond amount

that the BLM would collect fo r a right

- of

- way, and establishes minimum bond amounts specific
for solar and wind.

The BLM would require a bond for each solar or wind right

- of

- way on the public lands. T he
Solar and Wind PEISs considered how the BLM might use a reclamation cost estim ate to
determine the amount of a performance and reclamation bond

.

For the holder of a solar or wind right

- of

- way authorization, a bond would be required and held by the BLM in the event that a holder is unable or unwilling to remove the authorized fac ilities as required. The proposed rule would update and codify existing minimum bonding requirements set by policy for solar and wind energy development right

- of

- way grants and
establish a standard bond for solar or wind energy development right

- of

- way le ases. The BLM proposes to update minimum bond amounts for right

- of

- way grants after review of recent solar and wind energy project bonds and their reclamation cost estimates.

Based upon site

- specific requirements, a right

- of

- way grant’s bond may be hig her than the
minimum bond amount and w ould be determined based on the reclamation cost estimate. The bond amount for these grants, which would be issued outside of designated leasing areas, would be sufficient for the BLM to reclaim the land affected by th e right

- of

- way if the holder were to
default.

The standard bond for right

- of

- way leases would equal the proposed minimum bond amounts outside a designated leasing area for solar and wind energy development. The bond amount for these leases, which would b e issued inside designated leasing areas, is based on an average of existing projects, so the standard bond amount is not expected to vary greatly from the final bond amounts of projects outside of designated leasing areas

.

T here is still the potential fo r the standard bond amount to be insufficient to fully reclaim areas of the public lands affected by a right

- of

- way. R ight

- of

- way holders are liable for all costs associated with the right

- of

- way, including the costs of full reclamation . I f the holder we re to go bankrupt or for some other reason not be in a position to fully reclaim the land, the n the BLM
would rely on the bond to fund any necessary reclamation . If the bond amount were inadequate to fully reclaim the public lands affected by a right

- of

- w ay , then the BLM may not be able to remove the facilities from the affected lands or perform other reclamation activities to return the
lands to a satisfactory condition

. Though the environmental effects of this proposed standard bond requirement are too broad, speculative, and conjectural to assess for this proposed rulemaking , on a project

- by

- project basis it is possible that use of a standard bond, as described in the proposed rule, could adversely affect environmental and cultural resources on the land in the right

- of

- way or surrounding areas. For example, facilities not removed from the right

- of

- way could cont inue to impact visual resources, or the habitat for local wildlife may not be fully restored on the right

- of

- way and this may create stress on s urrounding areas.14

However, t he BLM would only use standard bond amounts in designated leasing areas

. Such

areas would be identified in part because there is less potential for impacts to sensitive resource s than in other BLM

- managed lands.

Subpart 2809 of the proposed regulations would require the BLM to review nominations of lands for solar and wind energy development within designated leasing areas

, identify parcels that are most suitable to be offered competitively, and to complete the work neces sary

— including NEPA and other required reviews

— to prepare the selected parcels for a competitive offer.

The elements of the Solar Energy Development Program and the associated land use plan amendments were evaluated through the preparation of the Final Pr ogrammatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States . The PEIS contained an environmental analysis of the anticipated types of impacts on natural and cultural resources on public lands that might result from the development of utility

- scale solar facilities. For the

17 proposed SEZs, a much finer scale of impact analysis was conducted in order to streamline the process of authorizing projects within these areas. A summary of the detailed impact analysis
can be fo und in Appendix B to this EA

. Consideration of development proposals within the SEZs will require additional site

- specific environmental analysis, but that analysis will incorporate the analyses from the PEIS; in other words, further environmental analysi s of the SEZs will “tier” to the PEIS. The process for considering development in the variance areas will also tier to the PEIS to the extent practical and will fully consider site

- specific conditions.

The Wind Energy Development Program and the associate d land use plan amendments were evaluated through the preparation of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM

- Administered Lands in the Western United States . The PEIS contained an environmental analysis of th e potential environmental impacts to natural and cultural resources on public lands that might result from the development of commercial wind energy facilities. A summary of the potential environmental impacts can be found in Appendix A
to this EA . The PE IS assume s that additional site

- specific analysis of proposed projects would be required under NEPA, but that additional NEPA analyses would be tiered to the PEIS.

The proposed rule would provide for project

- specific NEPA analyses both inside and outside of designated leasing areas. The proposed rule is primarily administrative, legal and procedural in nature, because it would establish a new competitive process. The BLM has determined that the proposed rule, if adopted as a final rule, would have no indi rect impact s

.

Promulgating the proposed rule could have the positive econo mic impact of capturing the fair market value for the use of public lands through competitive process es that are more clearly
identified than the existing competitive process.

Cumulative Effects

The CEQ regulations define cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably15

foreseeable future actions regardless of what age ncy ( F ederal or non

- F ederal ) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7)

. Since there are no direct or indirect environmental
eff ects of the proposed regulation

, there are no cumulative environmental effects.

( b ) No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The existing regulation is primarily administrative , legal, or procedural in nature with no direct
or indirect effects on the environment.

Cumulative E

ffects

Because there are no direct or indirect environmental effects of the no action alterna tive

, there
are no cumulative environmental effects.



## VII . Tribes , Individuals, Organizations, and Agencies Consulted

(a) Tribes Consulted

Tribes were consulted in the development of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energ y Development on BLM

- Administered Lands in the Western United

States and the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States . The summary of Tribal consultation for the Wind Energy Prog r am is includ ed in in Chapter 7.3 of the Final Wind PEIS. While all Tribes located in
or with interests in the 11

- state study area were contacted by the BLM State Directors, only three
Tribes indicated an interest in consultation.

For the Solar PEIS, in addition to pu blic scoping, the BLM initiated government

- to

- government consultation with 316 Tribes , chapters, and bands with a potential interest in solar energy development on BLM

- administered public lands in the six southwestern states. Consultation in
the form of co rrespondence ; telephone conversations ; e

- mails ; and transmission of maps, documents, and reports has taken place with more than 65 Tribes . Face

- to

- face meeting s occurred with 18 Tribes and 15 federally recognized Tribes commented on the Draft Solar PEIS

an d the Supplement to the Draft. A summary of consultation can be found in Appendix K of the
Final PEIS.

T ribes were not directly con tacted for the competitive lease rule for solar and wind energy development . T he rule is a BLM administrative and procedura l action and does not have any tribal implications. Tribes were consulted during the preparation of both the Wind and Solar Energy PEIS s . Future Tribal consultation will occur when site

- specific solar or wind energy16

projects are proposed. The Advance Noti ce of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding a Competitive Process for Leasing Public Lands for Solar and Wind Energy Development (ANPR) was published in the Federal Register on December 29

, 2012

. 8 No comments were received from a tribe for the ANPR. Further opport unity for t ribal comment s will be available when the proposed
rule is published in the Federal Register for public comment

.

( b ) Others Consulted

As stated in Section III of the ANPR

, t he notice explained that the BLM believed a rulemaking allowing a co mpetitive leasing process would enhance its ability to capture fair market value for the use of public lands. It also described how the Wind PEIS and Solar PEIS had identified areas with wind and solar energy development potential and fewer resource confli cts.

To facilitate public comments and suggestions on the scope of such competitive process es and guide dev elopment of such process es , the BLM posed the following questions:

(1) How should a competitive process be structured for leasing lands within designat ed solar or wind energy development leasing areas? (2) Should a competitive leasing process be implemented for public lands outside of designated solar or wind energy development leasing areas? If so, how should such a competitive leasing process be structure d? (3) What competitive bidding procedures should the BLM adopt? (4) What is the appropriate term for a competitive solar energy ROW lease? (5) What is the appropriate term for a competitive wind energy ROW lease? (6) Should nomination fees be established for the competit ive process? If so, how should the
fees be determined? (7) How should the bidding process for competitive solar and wind ROW leases be structured to ensure receipt of fair market value? (8) Should a standard performance bond be required for competitive solar and w ind energy
ROW leases and how should the bond amount be determined? (9) What diligent development requirements should be included in competitive solar and wind energy ROW leases?

The BLM received input from 76 industry representatives, environmental groups, i ndividuals,
and local and s tate governments who provided comments and suggest ions

, and the BLM used them to the extent possible in drafting the proposed rule. C ommen ters were generally supportive
of a new competitive leasing process within wind and solar d esignated leasing areas and the existing competitive application process for lands outside these areas; the proposed rule adopts that approach. Comments on a bidding process included requests that the process be clearly defined, that fair market value be o btained, that competitive bidding should be used

, and that the
bid selection process take more into account than just the dollar amount of the highest bid. The proposed rule attempts to address these suggestions and contains a provision for the BLM to halt the competitive leasing process if there is insufficient interest in the process.

8 Federal Register

, Vol. 76, No. 250

, p ages 81906

– 81908

, Thursday, December 29, 2011

.17

The majority of commenters suggested a 25

- to 30

- year timeframe for grant or lease authorizations; the proposed rule includes a 30

- year term for both. Most commenters sugge sted that a nomination fee be required to allow the BLM to recover its costs; this suggestion is incorporated in the proposed rule.

Some commenters, in response to the question of how to ensure receipt of fair market value

, expressed their opposition to t he competitive bidding process

, whereas others proposed varying models for establishing a lease rate. There was general agreement, however, that performance bonds should be required; the proposed rule includes such provision. Commenters were also generally supportive of due diligence requirement s in leases.

The BLM, in its discretion, will make this EA and an unsigned FONSI available for public
review on the BLM’s website at blm.gov. These documents will be available to the public to
better inform them of the proposed rule.



## VIII . List of Preparers

Bureau of Land Management , Renewable Energy Coordination Office :

Mr. Jayme Lopez , National Wind Energy Program Lead Mr. Jeff Holdren, Senior Realty Specialist

Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental S cience Division:

Ms. Elizabeth Hocking (J.D.) Ms. Heidi Hartmann (M.S.) Mr. Jim May (M.S.) Mr. Bob Moore (B.S.)18 

### APPENDIX A Wind Energy Development Program, Summary of Impact Assessment



## A.1 . Introduction

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Prog rammatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM

- Administered Lands in the Western United States (Final Wind PEIS) was published in December of 2005. The scope of the Final Wind PEIS analysis included an assessment of positive and negative environmental, social, and economic impacts; discussion of relevant mitigation measures to address these impacts; and identification of appropriate, programmatic policies and best management practices (BMPs) to be included in the proposed Wind Ene rgy Development Program. The scope included all Bureau of Land Management

- administered (BLM

- administered) lands in the western United States, excluding Alaska. These lands are located in 11 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. A maximum potential development scenario (MPDS) was developed to help define the potential magnitude of future wind energy development activities on BLM

- administered lands within these states. Additional
mode ling was conducted to consider the impact of various economic factors affecting wind energy development and to define how much wind power might be generated over the next
20 years within the 11

- state study area.

The Final Wind PEIS also assessed the propo sed amendment of 52 BLM land use plans. The proposed amendments included : (1) A doption of the proposed programmatic policies and

BMPs ; and (2) I dentification of specific areas where wind energy development would not be allowed. None of the proposed amendm ents addressed designation of lands for competitive right

of

- way (ROW) bidding processes, although this was identified as a possibility in the Notice of Intent ( NOI ) . Interest in competitive bidding processes was limited to two areas and was
addressed in l ocal BLM land use planning efforts.

As a programmatic evaluation, the Final Wind PEIS did not evaluate site

- specific issues associated with individual wind energy development projects. A variety of location

- specific factors (e.g., soil type, watershed, ha bitat, vegetation, viewshed, public sentiment, the presence of threatened and endangered species, and the presence of cultural resources) would vary considerably from site to site, especially over an 11

- state region. In addition, the variations in project size and design would greatly determine the magnitude of the impacts from given projects. The combined effects of these location

- specific and project

- specific factors cannot be fully anticipated or addressed in a programmatic analysis; such effects must be evaluated at the project level.

Table A

- 1 was developed from the impact analysis included in Chapter 5 of the Final Wind
PEIS 1 and is presented as a visual summary of the anticipated impacts of the proposed action

1 The complete Final Wind PEIS a nd ROD, as well as other supporting documents

, can be found at http://windeis.anl .gov

.19

disclosed in the Final Wind PEIS. The im pact analysis looked at 20 resource areas or programs and analyzed potential impacts for the four stages of development in a typical wind energy project.

Following the table is a narrative summary of the three alternatives that were considered in the
Fina l Wind PEIS. This narrative was excerpted from the Executive Summary in the Final Wind
PEIS.20 TABLE A

- 1 Potential Impacts of Wind Energy Development as Summarized from the Wind PEIS

Natural and
Cultural Resources
, and Land Uses Monitoring and Testing St age Construction Stage Operations Stage Decommissioning Stage Comments Geologic Resources No significant impact Measurable impact requiring mitigation No significant impact No significant impact Sand and gravel use during

construction.

Soils No significa nt impact Minimal or short

- term impact No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact Most soil disturbance will be stabilized seeding. Paleontological

Resources Other a Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Other Other Requires case

- by

- case

ass essment of non

- renewable

resource. Construction stage most likely to cause damage.

Water Resources/Quality No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact Water use for dust control and concrete produc tion. Alteration of surface flow by

roads. Air Quality No significant impact Measurable impact requiring mitigation No significant impact Measurable impact requiring mitigation Dust; employee, construction, and delivery vehicles; vegetation clearing; and batch plant emissions.

Noise No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact Localized, rural areas, construction machinery, and blasting. Transportation No significant impact Measurable impact requi ring mitigation No significant impact Measurable impact requiring mitigation Overweight, oversize vehicles, increased traffic, road and bridge damage,

access road construction.
Hazardous Materials, Waste Management No significant impact No significant im pact No significant impact No significant impact Standard practices greatly reduce the chance of spills, disposal of construction and

demolition materials.21 Health and Safety No significant impact Measurable impact requiring mitigation Measurable impact requiring mitigation Measurable impact requiring mitigation Construction hazards, large vehicle traffic, impact on nearby homes

– low

frequency noise, shadow flicker, aviation hazard.

TABLE A

- 1 (Cont.)

Natural and
Cultural Resources
, and Land Uses Mo nitoring and Testing Stage Construction Stage Operations Stage Decommissioning Stage Comments Vegetation No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact 5

– 10% of site permanently

disturbed. Risk of int roduction of invasive species, plant

collection.

Wildlife No significant impact Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Reduced habitat quality

(foraging, migra tion, reproduction), human disturbance, impact on migratory birds/bats, invasive vegetation, roads and

transmission lines. Wetland and Aquatic

Biota No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact Road impact to drainages, sediment deposition in
streams and wetlands from

construction.

Threatened and Endangered Species Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation O ther Measurable impact requiring mitigation Site

- specific; likely avoidance

of sensitive habitats.

Construction and decommissioning stage sensitive for most species although operations also could adversely impact migratory
birds/bats. Roads and

transmissio n lines.22 TABLE A

- 1 (Cont.)

Natural and
Cultural Resources
, and Land Uses Mo nitoring and Testing Stage Construction Stage Operations Stage Decommissioning Stage Comments

Aviation No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact No significant impact Federal Aviation Administration guidelines are

clear about consultation on location of, and hazard marking of facilities. Military Operations No si gnificant impact Other Other No significant impact Numerous military training routes in the west; needs close coordination with military to minimize impact to military training

Recreation No significant impact Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation No significant impact Wind and solar facilities largely incompatible with

some recreation uses; impact

on viewshed of sensitive recreation areas (wilderness parks, etc.) and recreation use.

Visual Resources No significant impact Other Other Other Potential to adversely affect large areas, residences, and specially designated areas.

Cultural Resources No significant impact Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Other Measurable impact requiring mitigation Minimal or short

- term

impact Disturbance/loss of cultural sites, long

- term monitoring, increased human access, tribal concerns; most impacts in early stage s

. Economics No significant impact Minimal or short

- term impact Minimal or short

- term impact Minimal or short

- term impact There would be positive economic impacts, especially in California and Nevada; impacts would be small compared to state economies

, but could be locally significant.23 TABLE A

- 1 (Cont.)

Natural and
Cultural Resources
, and Land Uses Mo nitoring and Testing Stage Construction Stage Operations Stage Decommissioning Stage Comments

Environmental Justice (EJ) No significant impact Other Other Other T here could be EJ concerns if any adverse effects were significantly high and if they would disproportionately affected minority and low

income populations.

a Other = For example, site

- specific analysis of individual projects required on a case

- by

- case ba sis.24



## A.2 . Summary of Wind PEIS Alternatives

A.2 (a ) Summary of Impacts

Potential adverse impacts on natural and cultural resources could occur during each stage of wind energy development (i.e., site monitoring and testing, construction, operation, a nd decommissioning) if effective mitigation measures are not implemented. The nature and magnitude of these impacts would vary by stage and would be determined by the project location and size. Potential direct impacts would include use of geologic and wat er resources; creation or increase of geologic hazards or soil erosion; water quality degradation; localized generation of airborne dust; generation of noise; alteration or degradation of wildlife habitat or sensitive or unique habitat; interference with r esident or migratory fish or wildlife species, including protected species; alteration or degradation of plant communities, including the occurrence of invasive vegetation; land use changes; alteration of visual resources; release of hazardous
materials or wastes; increased traffic; increased human health and safety hazards; and destruction or loss of paleontological or cultural resources. More limited, potential indirect impacts on cultural and ecological resources could also occur.

Effective mitigation m easures could be implemented to address many of the direct and indirect adverse impacts that could occur. For some resources, minimum requirements could be established that would effectively mitigate impacts at all potential development sites. For other

re sources, however, such as ecological and visual resources, mitigation would be better defined at the project level to address site

- specific and species

- specific concerns.

The potential impacts of wind energy development on local and regional economies wou ld be largely beneficial, depending upon the size of the project and the resultant wind power capacity.

The proposed action and its alternatives presented options for the management of wind energy development on BLM

- administered lands. A brief summary of the effectiveness of each of the alternatives at mitigating potential adverse impacts and facilitating wind energy development is provided in the following sections.

Proposed Action: Implement the Wind Energy Development Program

The proposed Wind Energy Development Program policies and BMPs would establish a comprehensive mechanism for ensuring that the impacts of wind energy development on BLM

administered lands would be kept to a minimum. The proposed policies and BMPs were generated on the basis of an impact analysis conducted for the Wind PEIS and reviews of relevant mitigation measures; they would be applicable to all wind energy development projects. These elements of the program, along with the proposed amendment of BLM land use plans, would likely result in shorter timelines and reduced costs for wind energy projects, thereby facilitating development.25

In terms of facilitating wind energy development, implementation of the proposed action would be expected to minimize some of the delays that curren tly occur for wind energy development projects and reduce costs. In addition, the proposed program would ensure consistency in the way ROW applications and authorizations for wind energy development are managed. These
benefits would be realized as a result of the emphasis on site

- specific and species

- specific concerns during the project

- level environmental analyses, the amendment of numerous land use plans to address wind energy development, and the potential to tier future National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analyses off of the Wind PEIS and decisions in the
resultant ROD.

In terms of mitigating adverse environmental impacts, the proposed policies would identify specific lands on which wind energy development would not be allowed; establish re quirements for public involvement, consultation with other F ederal and state agencies, and government

- to

government consultation; define the need for project

- level environmental review; establish requirements for the scope and content of the project Plan o f Development (POD); and incorporate adaptive management strategies. The proposed BMPs would establish environmentally sound and economically feasible mechanisms to protect and enhance natural and cultural resources. They would identify the issues and conc erns that must be addressed by project

- specific plans, programs, and stipulations during each stage of development. Mitigation measures protecting these resources would be required to be incorporated into project PODs; this would include incorporation of s pecific programmatic BMPs as well as the incorporation of additional mitigation measures contained in other existing and relevant BLM guidance, or developed to address site

- specific or species

- specific concerns.

Implementation of the proposed program woul d ensure that potential adverse impacts on most of the natural and cultural resources present at wind energy development sites, except wildlife and
visual resources would be minimal to negligible. This includes potential impacts on soils and geologic resou rces, paleontological resources, water resources, air quality, noise, land use, and cultural resources not having a visual component. Potential impacts on wildlife would be considerably reduced by the programmatic BMPs and by the requirement that site

- spec ific and species

- specific concerns be addressed comprehensively at the project level. While it is possible that adverse impacts on wildlife could occur at some of the future wind energy development sites, the magnitude of these impacts and the degree to wh ich they could be successfully mitigated would vary from site to site. Similarly, the proposed program would reduce potential impacts on visual resources, although the degree to which this could be achieved would be site

specific; this includes cultural re sources that have a visual component (e.g., sacred landscapes). The proposed program would require that the public be involved in and informed regarding potential visual impacts of a specific project during the project approval process. Minimum requirement s regarding project design would be incorporated into individual project plans. Ultimately, determinations regarding the magnitude of potential visual impacts would be made by local stakeholders.

Finally, with respect to potential environmental impacts, t he proposed requirement for the BLM and operators to adopt adaptive management strategies would further ensure that potential environmental impacts would be kept to a minimum. This includes requirements for periodic review and revision of programmatic poli cies and BMPs; comprehensive site monitoring26

programs, including metrics for measuring impacts; and protocols for incorporating monitoring observations and new mitigation measures into standard operating procedures and project

specific BMPs.

The potential economic impacts of the proposed action would generally be beneficial to local and regional economies. The projected development would result in new jobs and increased income, gross state product, sales tax, and income tax in each of the 11 states during both construction and operation. Impacts on residential property values associated with proximity to wind energy projects were not calculated in the Wind PEIS; however, other studies of these impacts suggest that there would not be any measurable negative impacts.

In terms of cumulative impacts under the proposed action, the potential for wind energy development on BLM

- administered lands, as projected by the MPDS, is relatively small compared both with other commercial uses of BLM

- administered lands and wi th projected levels of wind energy development on non

- BLM

- administered lands. Under the proposed action, potential environmental impacts would be mitigated to the maximum extent possible by the programmatic policies and BMPs. Provided that the level of dev elopment falls within the MPDS projections for the next 20 years and that the proposed policies and BMPs are implemented, the cumulative impacts of the proposed action are unlikely to be significant. Individual site

- specific wind energy projects on BLM

- adm inistered lands that are within the scope of this cumulative analysis and in accordance with the Wind Energy Development Program described by the proposed action are considered to have been adequately addressed by the Wind PEIS.

No Action Alternative

Un der this alternative, wind energy development would be subject to the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. The interim policy establishes some restrictions on lands that can be developed and includes requirements for environm ental review of individual projects in accordance with NEPA. Comprehensive guidance regarding mitigation of potential adverse impacts is not included in the interim policy. In addition, under this alternative, land use plan amendments to address wind energ y development would occur only on a plan

- by

- plan basis.

In terms of facilitating development, the absence of a BLM Wind Energy Development Program would likely cause wind energy development on BLM

- administered lands to occur at a slower pace than under th e proposed action. The anticipated benefits of the Wind Energy Development Program, in terms of the availability of comprehensive BMP requirements, land use plan amendments, and tiered NEPA analyses, would not be realized under the no action alternative.

O ne can predict that without these benefits, the length of time needed to review, process, and approve ROW applications for wind energy projects would increase. Extended timelines usually translate into increased costs, and the cost per unit of wind power d eveloped would likely be greater under the no action alternative than under the proposed action. This could result in delays in establishing necessary project financing and power market contracts. Furthermore, developers may elect to avoid delay and uncert ainty by shifting their projects to state, Tribal, and private land with potentially less F ederal environmental oversight.27

In terms of mitigating adverse environmental impacts, implementation of the interim policy requirements for project

- specific environ mental reviews would likely result in the development of effective mitigation measures for individual wind energy projects. In that event, the potential adverse impacts on natural and cultural resources would be similar to those of the proposed
action. The absence of a Wind Energy Development Program, however, could result in inconsistencies in the type and degree of mitigation required for individual projects.

Economic benefits also would be realized locally and regionally under the no action alternative. However, if the amount of wind energy development was reduced as a result of real or perceived impediments to development on BLM

- administered lands, the economic benefits to local communities adjacent to BLM

- administered lands in the west could be reduced

.

Limited Wind Energy Development Alternative

Under this alternative, the amount of wind energy development would be greatly restricted in comparison to both the proposed action and the no action alternative. Therefore, in terms of facilitating wind ene rgy development, this alternative would be the least effective of the three alternatives considered. In terms of mitigating potential environmental impacts, the required project

- specific reviews, including NEPA analyses, would likely result in effective mi tigation so that local impacts would be reduced to the greatest extent possible. Potential regional impacts, including beneficial economic impacts, would be lower under this alternative because of the limited level of development on BLM

- administered lands.

A.2 (b) Conclusions

The Wind PEIS is consistent with the requirements promulgated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321), as amended; and Council on Environmental Quality regulations (Code of Federal Regul ations, Title 40, Parts 1500−1508 ( 40
CFR Parts 1500

– 1508 ) ). A scoping process was conducted to obtain input from individuals, public interest organizations, and governmental agencies, and this input was used to develop the
alternatives and issues consider ed in the Wind PEIS. The Draft Wind PEIS was made available for public review, and comments received during that review were considered and incorporated into the Final Wind PEIS as appropriate. The Final Wind PEIS met all administrative and procedural requ irements.

On the basis of the impact analyses presented in the Wind PEIS, the proposed action was identified as presenting the best approach for managing wind energy development on BLM

administered lands. The Wind Energy Development Program was identified as likely to result in the greatest amount of wind energy development over the next 20 years, at the lowest potential cost to industry. Simultaneously, the proposed action was identified as providing the most comprehensive approach for ensuring that poten tial adverse impacts would be minimized to the greatest extent possible. And, finally, the proposed action was identified as likely to provide the greatest economic benefits to local communities and the region as a whole. As a result, the28

proposed action w as identified as best meeting the objectives of the National Energy Policy recommendations to increase renewable energy production on F ederal lands.29 

### APPENDIX B Solar Energy Program, Summary of Impact Assessment



## B.1 Background

The Record of Decision ( RO D ) for the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States ( Final Solar PEIS) established a comprehensive Solar Energy Program and amended 89 Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ) land use plans to guide the processing of new utility

- scale solar energy applications on BLM

administered land. The scope of the Final Solar PEIS analysis included an assessment of positive and negative environmental, social, and economic impacts; identification of required

progr ammatic design features to address these impacts; and identification of appropriate, programmatic policies that were included in the Wind Energy Development Program. A reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RF DS) was developed to help define the pote ntial magnitude of future solar energy development activities on BLM

- administered lands with in the
six

- state study area.

Through the Solar PEIS, the BLM evaluated three alternatives for managing utility

- scale solar energy development on BLM

- administered l ands in the six

- state study area. These alternatives
included two action alternatives

— a solar energy development program alternative and a Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) program alternative

— and a no action alternative. The solar energy development program alterna tive was identified in the Final Solar PEIS as the BLM’s preferred

alternative.

Under the solar energy development program alternative (referred to as the “program alternative”), the BLM proposed categories of lands to be excluded from utility

- scale solar energy development (about 79 million acres [319,702 km 2 ] proposed for exclusion) and identified specific locations well suited for utility

- scale production of solar energy (i.e., SEZs) where the BLM proposed to prioritize development (about 285,000 acres [1,553 km 2 ] in SEZs). The program alternative emphasized and incentivized development within SEZs and proposed a collaborative process to identify additional SEZs. To accommodate the flexibility described in the BLM’s program objectives, the program altern ative allowed for responsible utility

- scale solar energy development in variance areas outside of SEZs in accordance with a proposed variance process (about 19 million acres [82,964 km 2 ] in variance areas). The program alternative also established programm atic design features for utility

- scale solar energy development on BLM

administered lands.

Under the SEZ program alternative (referred to as the “SEZ alternative”), the BLM would restrict utility

- scale solar energy development to SEZs only, and identify a ll other lands as exclusion areas for utility

- scale solar energy development (approximately 98 million acres [396,600 km 2 ]). Under the SEZ alternative, the same programmatic design features applicable to the program alternative would apply to utility

- scale solar energy development in SEZs, and new or expanded SEZs would be identified in the future following the collaborative identification process mentioned above.30

Under the no action alternative, the BLM would continue the issuance of ROW authorizations
fo r utility

- scale solar energy development on BLM

- administered lands by implementing the requirements of the BLM’s existing solar energy policies on a project

- by

- project basis. Lands available for solar energy development would include those areas currently allowable under existing applicable laws and statutes (approximately 98 million acres [396,600 km 2 ] in the six

state study area) and in conformance with the approved land use plans. The BLM would not implement any of the proposed elements of the Solar Ener gy Program described in the two
action alternatives.

Table B

- 1 was included in the Final Solar PEIS as Table 6.1

- 2. The in

- depth analyses of potential impacts of development in the proposed SEZs

, as presented in Chapters 8 through 13 of
the Draft and Fina l Solar PEIS

, provided part of the basis for the summary of impacts of the SEZ alternative that is provided in Table B

- 1. The SEZ analyses included an assessment of cumulative impacts, considering ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions specifically for the vicinity of each SEZ.

The impacts of solar development itself were largely similar across the program alternatives presented in the Final Solar PEIS. However, because the alternatives represent planning

- level decisions (i.e., allocation and exclusion decisions), differences between the alternatives were found in the location, pace, and concentration of solar energy development.31 TABLE B

- 1 Summary

- Level Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts of Utility

- Scale Solar Energy Development by Alterna tive

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres b in priority areas, and approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Lands and Realty Solar energy development would preclude other land uses within the

project footprint and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Development of supporting infrastructure (e.g. , new transmission lines and roads) would also locally affect land use. These impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

Design features c ould effectively avoid or minimize many impacts. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts could potentially be more dispersed. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Specially Designated

Areas and

Lands with

Wilderness

Characteristics Specially designated areas and lands with wilderness characteristics could

be significantly affected through direct and indirect impacts (e.g., visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust) during both the construction and operations stage s . Similar impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts

wo uld be minimized due to the required variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

All NLCS lands would be excluded. Also excluded would be ACECs; SRMAs (except in Nevada and portions of the Yuma East SRMA in

Arizona ); DWMAs; National Recreation Trails and National Backcountry Byways; National Historic and Scenic Trails; Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers, and segments of rivers determined to be eligible or suitable for Wild and Scenic River status; and lands withi n the proposed Mojave Trails National Monument.

All areas where there is an applicable land use plan decision to protect

lands with wilderness characteristics would be excluded. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated int o a smaller, known geographic

area. This concentration of development could increase the magnitude of potential impacts but affect a smaller

number of areas. Same impacts as program alternative, except that only

most NLCS lands are

excluded from solar ener gy development and other exclusions do not apply. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Impacts could potentially be more dispersed and greater on specially designated lands

and lands with wilderness

characteristics due to few

exclu sions under the no

action alternative.32 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Rangeland

Resources Some livestock grazing allotments may be affected by solar energy

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

Wild horses and burros also could be affected, with animals displaced from the development area; the number of wild horse and burro HMAs overlapping with or in the vicinity of lands available for ROW application

would be less than under the no act ion alternative.

These impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller geographic area

within a known set of grazing allotments and HMAs (there is very little overlap of SEZs with wild horse and burro HMAs). Same impacts as program

alternati ve, except impacts could potentially be more dispersed, and there is less certainty about which grazing allotments and HMAs potentially could be

affected. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Recreation Recreational uses would be precluded within lands used for solar energy

development. Recreational experiences could be adversely affected in areas proximate to solar energy projects and related transmission. These impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance

process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

All SRMAs are excluded from solar energy development (except in Nevada and portions of t he Yuma East SRMA in Arizona). Also excluded are developed recreational facilities and special

- use permit recreation sites. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. This could increase the magnitude of potential impacts but affect fewer

recreational resources. Same impacts as program

alternative. There would be no explicit exclusions to avoid SRMAs, recreational facilities, and special

- use permit recreation sites. There would be no spec ific design features to reduce impacts.

Impacts could potentially be more dispersed and greater

on those recreational areas

that would be excluded under

the action alternatives.33 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Military and

Civilian

Aviation Military and civilian aviation impa cts would be identified and adequately

avoided, minimized

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

ROW authorization. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts could potentially be more dispersed.

Soil Resources and Geologic

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

energy facilities and related infrastructure would result in impacts on soil resources in terms of soil compaction and erosion, although these impacts could be effectively avoided, minimized

, and/or mitigated. Impacts on biological soil crusts would be long term and possibly irreversible. These impacts potentially c ould be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts. Same impacts as program alternative, except impact s would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts could potentially be more dispersed. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Mineral

Resources Mineral develo pment within the project footprint for solar energy

development would generally be an incompatible use; however, some resources underlying the project area might be developable (e.g., directional drilling for oil and gas or geothermal resources, undergroun d mining). These impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts could be potentially more dispersed.

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

withdrawn from location and entry under the mining laws. No SEZs would be identified

or withdrawn.34 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Water

Resources Solar thermal projects with wet

- cooling systems require large volumes of

water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Solar thermal projects with dry

- cooling systems need less than one

- tenth of the amount of water required for wet

- cooling systems. Projects would necessarily be limited to locations with sufficient groundwater supplies where water rights and the approval of water authori ties could be obtained.

All solar energy facilities require smaller volumes of water for mirror or 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. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. This could increase the magnitude of potential impacts but affect fewer

water resources. Same impacts as progr am alternative, except impacts could be potentially more dispersed. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Vegetation Solar development will typically require the total removal of vegetation at

most facilities, which could result in significant direct impacts in terms of increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss (e.g., dune or riparian areas), and damage to biological soil crusts. Indirect impacts also lik ely in terms of dust deposition, altered drainage patterns, runoff, and sedimentation. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process. Same impa cts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. This could increase the magnitude of potential impacts but affect a smaller

number of areas. Same impacts as program

alternative. There would be no expl icit exclusions to

avoid known sensitive vegetation resources and no specific design features to reduce impacts.35 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Vegetation (Cont.) Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts. Impacts could potentially be more dispersed an d greater on those vegetation resources

excluded under the action

alternatives.

Less than 14% each of the Central Basin and Range and Chihuahuan Deserts Ecoregions, and less than 7% each of the Madrean Archipelago, Mojave Basin and Range, and So noran Basin and Range Ecoregions are located within the lands that would be available for application. Other ecoregions coincide with these lands at levels below 5%. Of the five ecoregions that coincide with SEZs, less than 1% of each ecoregion would

be av ailable for ROW application. Lands available for

ROW application span

22 ecoregions. More than

50% of 2 ecoregions (Central Basin and Range, Northern Basin and Range) would be available for application.

The land cover types for the following exa mple species overlap with variance areas available for ROW application by the percentages shown:

Joshua tree

– less than 7% Saguaro

– less than 7% Less than 1% of the land cover type for Joshua tree and saguaro species is

located within the SEZs. The lan d cover types for the following example species overlap with the lands that

would be available for ROW application by the percentages shown:

Joshua tree

– about 31% Saguaro

– about 26%36 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Wildlife and Aquatic Biota Numerous wildlife species would b e adversely affected by loss of habitat,

disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

Exclusion of ACECs, Research Natural Areas, big game migratory corridors and winter ranges, and lands with seasonal restrictions as identified in applicable land use plans would avoid impacts on wildlife in specific areas

The following example species’ habitats overlap with variance areas

available for ROW application by the percentages shown: Same impacts as program alternative, except the potential area of impact

would be limited to a smaller, known geographic

area. Same impacts as program

alternative. There would be no explicit exclusions to

avoid known s ensitive wildlife resources, and no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Impacts could potentially be more dispersed and greater

on those wildlife resources

excluded under the action

alternatives.

The following example species’ habitats overlap wi th

the lands that would be

available for ROW application by the percentages shown:

Western rattlesnake

– less than 6% Golden eagle

– less than 6%

Black

- tailed jackrabbit

– less than 6% Pronghorn

– less than 5%

Mule deer

– less than 6%

Mountain l ion

– less than 5% Less than 1% of the habitats for western rattlesnake, golden eagle, black

- tailed jackrabbit, pronghorn, mule deer, and mountain lion are

located within the SEZs. Western rattlesnake

– about 27% Golden eagle

– about 23%

Black

- tailed jackra bbit

– about 24% Pronghorn

– about 22%

Mule deer

– about 22%

Mountain lion

– about 21%37 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Special Status Species Special status species and critical habitats would be protected in

accordance with ESA requirements either through avoidance, translocat ion (plants), or acquisition and protection of compensatory habitat. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance

process.

Design features could effe ctively avoid or minimize many impacts.

Critical habitat designated or proposed by the USFWS would be excluded. All ACECs designated for habitat would be excluded along with identified

desert tortoise translocation sites and other areas where the BLM has made a commitment to protect sensitive species (including Mohave ground squirrel and flat

- tailed horned lizard habitat in California, greater sage

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

grouse habitat in Utah).

Variance areas for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species (see Appendix J of the Final Solar PEIS). For example, the following species’ habitats overlap by the percentages

shown: Special status species and

critical habit ats would be protected as under program

alternative.

Lands available for ROW application within SEZs include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species (see Appendix J of this Final Solar PEIS). Special status species and

critical h abitats would be protected as under program

alternative. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

In some cases, habitat identified by state fish and game agencies would be excluded, as identified through applicable land use plan deci sions. Critical habitat, ACECs designated for habitat value, and other
areas where the BLM has
made a commitment to protect sensitive species
would not be excluded.

Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for spec ial status species (see Appendix J). For example, the following species’ habitats overlap by the percentages shown:38 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Special Status Species (Cont.) Plants:

Nevada dune beardtongue

– less than 61%

White

- margined beardtongue

– less than 8%

Munz’s cholla

– less than 16%

Animals:

Desert tortoise

– less than 12% Western burrowing owl

– less than 8% Greater sage

- grouse

– less than 7% Gunnison prairie dog

– less than 3% Gunnison sage

- grouse

– less than 1% Northern aplomado falcon

– less than 11%

South western willow flycatcher

– less than 1% Townsend’s big

- eared bat

– less than 6% Utah prairie dog

– less than 11% For example, about 1% or

less of the habitat for two plant species (Nevada dune beard tongue, white

margined beard tongue) and nine animal spe cies (desert tortoise, western burrowing owl, greater sage

- grouse, Gunnison prairie dog, Gunnison sage

- grouse, northern aplomado falcon,

and southwestern willow flycatcher, Townsend’s big

eared bat, and Utah prairie dog) are located within the SEZs; less t han 4% of
Munz’s cholla habitat is

located within the SEZs. Plants:

Nevada dune beardtongue

– 66%

White

- margined beardtongue

– 34%
Munz’s cholla

– 45%

Animals:

Desert tortoise

– 29% Western burrowing

owl

– 27% Greater sage

- grouse

– 54% Gunnison prairi e dog

– 15% Gunnison sage

grouse

– 24% Northern aplomado

falcon

– 26%

Southwestern willow flycatcher

– 7% Townsend’s big

- eared

bat

– 23% Utah prairie dog

– 36%39 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Air Quality

and Climate Air quality would be adversely affected locally and temporarily during

construction by fugitive dust and vehicle emissions, although impacts would be relatively minor and could be mitigated (e.g., dust control measures, emissions control devices, and vehicle maintenance). Operations

would result in few air quality impacts. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

Climate Ch ange: Relatively minor CO 2 emissions would be generated by the use of heavy equipment, vehicles, and backup generators. Overall, CO 2 emissions could be reduced if solar energy production avoids fossil fuel energy production. Same impacts as program

alterna tive, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. This could increase the magnitude of potential impacts, particularly during construction, but affect a

smaller number of areas.

Climate Change: Same impacts as program

alter native, assuming level of development is the same. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts could be potentially more dispersed and of smaller magnitude locally. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Climate Change: Same impacts as program alternative, assuming level of development is the same.

Visual

Resources Solar energy projects and associated infrastructure introduce strong

contrasts in forms, line, colors, and textures of the existing landscape, which may be perceived as negative visual impacts. Suitable development sites typically located in basin flats surrounded by elevated lands where sensitive viewing locations exist. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

Various potentially sensitive visual resource areas, including National Historic and Scenic Trails, National Historic and Natural Landmarks, properties designated or eligible for the National Register of Historic

Places , and areas with important cultural resources that possess historical vistas may be impacted. Same impacts as program alternative, except the impacts would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic area. This could increase the magnitude of potential impacts, particularly during construction, but affect a

smaller number of areas.

SEZs are visible from approximately Same impacts as program

alternative. Some NLCS

lands are excluded from solar energy development under

the no action alternative. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Impacts could be potentially more dispersed and greater

on those areas excluded

under the action alternatives.40 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Visual

Resources (Cont.) Design feature s could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts but

some large impacts cannot be avoided.

All NLCS lands and ACECs are excluded. All SRMAs are excluded (except in Nevada and portions of the Yuma East SRMA in Arizona). Developed recreational facilities, special

- use permit recreation sites, National Recreation Trails, and National Backcountry Byways are

excluded.

Approximately 995 potentially sensitive visual resource areas (not including ACECs) are located in or within 25 mi c of the lands available for

ROW viewsheds. 105 potentially sensitive visual resource areas (not including ACECs) within

25 mi. About 1,473 potentially

sensitive visual resource areas (not including ACECs)

are located in or within 25 mi

of the lands available for ROW application and could be affected by solar development within their

viewsheds.

Acoustic

Environment Construction

- related noise could adversely affect nearby residents

and/or wildlife, and would be greatest for concentrating solar power projects requiring power block construction. Operations

- related noise impacts would generally be less significant than construction

- related noise impacts but could still be significant for some receptors located near power block or dish engine facilities. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

wo uld be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. This could increase the magnitude of potential impacts, particularly during construction, but affect a

smaller number of areas. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts could be potentia lly more dispersed. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Paleonto

logical

Resources Paleontological resources subject to loss during construction, but impacts

also possible during operations. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts could be potentially more dispersed. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.41 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

Resource Program Alternative (approximately 285,000 acres in priority areas) (approximately 19 million acres subject to variance process) SEZ Alternative (approximately 285,000 acr es in priority areas) No Action Alternative (approximately

98 million acres available

for application)

Cultural

Resources and

Native

American

C oncerns Cultural resources subject to loss during construction, but impacts also

possible during operations. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required varia nce process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts.

ACECs designated for cultural or historic resource values, National Historic and Scenic Trails, National Historic and Natural Landmarks, properties designated or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and areas with important cultural and archaeological resources

would be excluded. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts

would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area.

Same exclusions as program alternative. Same impacts as program

alternative. There would be no explicit exclusions to

avoid known sensitive

cultural resources. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Impacts could be potentially more dispersed and gr eater
on those cultural resources

excluded under the action

alternatives.

Transportation Local road systems and traffic flow could be adversely affected during

construction. Impacts during operations would be minor. Impacts potentially could be dispersed across the 19 million acres of variance areas; however, impacts would be minimized due to the required variance

process.

Design features could effectively avoid or minimize many impacts. Same impacts as program alternative, except impa cts
would be concentrated into a smaller, known geographic

area. This could increase the magnitude of potential impacts, particularly during construction, but affect a

smaller number of areas. Same impacts as program alternative, except impacts could be po tentially more dispersed. There would be no specific design features to reduce impacts.

Abbreviations: ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern; AUM = animal unit month; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; CO 2 = carbon dioxide;

DWMA = Desert Wildlife M anagement Area; ESA = Endangered Species Act; HMA = herd management area; NLCS = National Landscape Conservation System; ROW = right

- of

- way; SRMA = Special Recreation Management Area; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Footnotes on next page.42 TABLE B

- 1 (Cont.)

a The lands composing the no action alternative have not changed significantly since release of the Draft Solar PEIS; thus, the habitat overlap values (percentages) presented remain valid.

b To convert acres to km 2 , multiply by 0.004047.

c T he acreage estimates were calculated on the basis of the best available GIS data. GIS data were not available for the entire set of exclusions; therefore, the acreages cannot be quantified at this time.

d To convert mi to km, multiply by 1.609.