## University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Research Foundation



# SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CENTER

January 2009



## Final Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

DOE/EA-1622

U.S. Department of Energy

Golden Field Office National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401This Environmental Assessment was prepared on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Research Foundation with contractual assistance from Ninyo & Moore, Inc. and MBP Consulting, LLC.Finding of No Significant Impact Solar Technology Center

January 2009Finding of No Significant Impact Solar Technology Center

January 2009Finding of No Significant Impact Solar Technology Center

January 2009Finding of No Significant Impact Solar Technology Center

This page intentionally left blank.

January 2009Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... ................. 1

1.2 National Environmental Policy Act

......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Need

............................................................................................................................... .. 2

1.3 Scoping

............................................................................................................................... ................... 2

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

..................................................................... 3

2.1 Proposed Action (UNLV Research Foundation Proposed Project)

........................................................ 3

2.1.1 Location

............................................................................................................................... .. 3

2.1.2 Field Station and Test Areas

.................................................................................................. 3

2.1.3 Operations

............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1.4 Public Information Resource Center

...................................................................................... 7

2.1.5 Environmental Protection Measures

...................................................................................... 7

2.2 No Action Alternative

............................................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Alternate Sites Considered and Eliminated

............................................................................................ 8

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

...................................................................... 9

3.1 Land Use

............................................................................................................................... ................ 9

3.1.1 Existing Environment

............................................................................................................. 9

3.1.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Air Quality

............................................................................................................................... ............. 11

3.2.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 11

3.2.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Biological Resources

........................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 13

3.3.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 15

3.4 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns

............................................................................ 17

3.4.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 17

3.4.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 18

3.5 Geological Resources

.......................................................................................................................... 18

3.5.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 18

3.5.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 19

3.6 Noise

............................................................................................................................... .................... 19

3.6.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 20

3.6.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 20

3.7 Safety and Occupational Health

.......................................................................................................... 20

3.7.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 20

3.7.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 21

3.8 Socioeconomic Factors

....................................................................................................................... 21

3.8.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 21

3.8.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 22

3.9 Utilities and Transportation

.................................................................................................................. 22

January 2009 iFinal Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

3.9.1 Existing Environment ...........................................................................................................22

3.9.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 23

3.10 Visual Quality

............................................................................................................................... ........ 24

3.10.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 24

3.10.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 24

3.11 Waste Management and Hazardous Materials

.................................................................................... 25

3.11.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 25

3.11.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 25

3.12 Water Resources

............................................................................................................................... .. 26

3.12.1 Existing Environment

........................................................................................................... 26

3.12.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

................................................................................................. 26

3.13 Intentional Destructive Acts

................................................................................................................. 27

3.14 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative

................................................................. 27

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

................................................................................ 29

5.0 COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES AND SHORT-TERM USES

....................................................................... 31

6.0 REFERENCES

............................................................................................................................... .................. 33



### TABLES

Table 1. Desert Tortoise Sign Observed in the Survey Area

.................................................................................... 14

Table 2. Estimated Desert Tortoise Density based on Corrected Sign per Acre ......................................................14 Table 3. Estimated Desert Tortoise Density in the Survey Area ...............................................................................14 Table 4. Population and Income Demographics .......................................................................................................22



### FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

............................................................................................................................... ................. 4 Figure 2. Aerial Location ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Solar Technology Center Site Plan and Utilities Plan ................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. Land Uses in Projec t Area ........................................................................................... ............................ 10



### APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Scoping Letter and Distribution List APPENDIX B Scoping Response Letters APPENDIX C Draft EA Comment Letters and Responses

January 2009 iiFinal Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### ACRONYMS

APE area of potential effect

bgs below ground surface BLM Bureau of Land Management

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CER Center for Energy Research CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

DAQEM Department of Air Qua lity and Environmental Management

dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DOE Department of Energy

EA environmental assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act

°F degrees Fahrenheit

GPS global positioning system

Ldn day-night average sound level

MSHCP Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAC Nevada Administrative Code

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife

NDSL Nevada Division of State Lands NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NO x nitrogen oxides NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRS Nevada Revised Statutes

NSO Nevada Solar One

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act

P.L. Public Law

PM 10

particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PV photovoltaic

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

January 2009 iiiFinal Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan STC Solar Technology Center

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

UNLV University of Nevada, Las Vegas UNLV-CER University of Nevada, Las Vegas Center for Energy Research

U.S. United States

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOCs volatile organic compounds

ZOI zone-of-influence

January 2009 ivFinal Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Congress provided funding in t he Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108- 447) to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for renewable energy resources, including t he establishment of a Solar Technology Center (STC) at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). The DOE is proposing to provide funding from this Appropriations Act to the UNLV Research Foundat ion to construct and operate the STC in collaboration with the UNLV Center for Energy Research (CER). The ST C, hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Action, would operate for research and development, educational training, and as a center for renewable energy and conservation

information.

The UNLV Research Foundation is an aff iliated foundation of UNLV whose mission is to support research projects and develop the university’s research and technology parks for scientific and financial growth. The Research Foundation manages select federal research grants and contracts for UNLV. The CE R is affiliated with the College of Engineering at UNLV. The CER is a focus area for res earch, information exchange, and education in energy topics, including solar energy utilization schemes. The CER collaborates with people from a variety of disciplines and industries to work on specific energy issues and inte rests, and seeks funding sources for this work.



### 1.2 National Environmental Policy Act

The proposal to use federal funds for the STC is a federal action subject to the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S. Code 4321 et seq.). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural prov isions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508) and DOE’s implementing procedures for compliance with NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021.330 et seq.) require that DO E, as a federal agency:

• assess the environmental impacts of its Proposed Action;

• identify any adverse environmental effects t hat cannot be avoided should the Proposed Action be implemented;

• evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Acti on, including a No Action Alternative;

• describe the relationship between local short-term uses of the environm ent and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and

• characterize any irreversible and irretrievable co mmitments of resources that would be involved should the Proposed Action be implemented.

These requirements must be met before a final decision is made to proceed with any proposed federal action that could cause significant impacts to human health or the environment. This Environmental Assessment (EA) meets DOE’s regulatory requirements under NEPA and provides t he necessary information for DOE and other state and federal agencies to make informed decisions regardi ng the construction and operat ion of the proposed STC.

This EA evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumula tive effects of the Proposed Action. For purposes of comparison, this EA also evaluates the impacts that woul d occur if DOE did not prov ide funding and the STC is not constructed (the No Action Alternative). There are no other alternatives analyzed in detail, but alternate sites that were considered for the proposed STC location and elimi nated from further analysis are briefly discussed.

This draft EA will be available to interested members of t he public and to federal, state, and local agencies for review and comment prior to DOE’s final decision on the Proposed Action.

January 2009 1Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### 1.2 Purpose and Need

The DOE’s Proposed Action is to provide up to $744,059 of financial assistance to the UNLV Research Foundation in support of the construction and operati on of the STC. The Proposed Action would support DOE’s mission to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. By providing financial assistanc e to support this project, DOE would support national energy needs and the development of alternative fuel sources.

Continued research and testing is needed to develop and advance different solar technologies for cost-effective use by the industry in different geographic and environmental se ttings. The purpose for the STC is to operate as a research and educational facility to assist industry with these challenges in developing efficient and reliable renewable energy technologies.

The CER is located on the main campus of UNLV. The ab ility to construct and test different solar technologies is limited by the amount of available l and area, classroom space, and unobstruct ed sunlight. The proposed STC would provide the additional area needed to expand the CER and attr act prospective industry partners for research opportunities.



### 1.3 Scoping

Scoping is the process of identifying alternatives to the Proposed Action and determini ng the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the EA. Federal, state, and lo cal agencies, tribal government representatives, elected officials, businesses, and organizations and special interest groups were notified of the Proposed Action in May 2008. The DOE mailed postcards directing the recipients to DOE’ s public reading room website to read a scoping letter that described the Proposed Action and requested assistance in identifying potential i ssues that should be evaluated in this EA. The scoping letter with project location maps and t he distribution list of recipients are included in Appendix A.

Comments in response to the scoping letter were received fr om the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and from the Nevada Department of Wildlife ( NDOW), Nevada Division of State Lands (NDSL), and Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) via the Nevada State Clearinghouse. Copies of these response letters are included in Appendix B.

The comments from USFWS and NDOW pertained to federal and state protected wildlife and migratory birds that potentially use the project area and prov ided impact minimization measures. The NDOW also expressed concern of solution chemistry if evaporative or cooling ponds woul d be part of the project, and provided requirements to authorize biological monitors to survey for and remove state protected wildlife from the pr oject site. The USFWS was

also concerned about the source and amount of water t hat would be needed for operation and maintenance of solar panels, and the potential spread of non-nat ive plants from construction activi ties. The NDSL was concerned about cumulative visual impacts to users of adjacent pub lic lands and provided suggestions for lighting and building materials and colors that are compatible with the surrounding natural environment. The SHPO indicated support for the project as written.

January 2009 2Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The DOE proposes to provide financial assistance to the UNLV Research Foundation to support construction and initial operation of the STC in collabor ation with the UNLV-CER. This sect ion describes general and site-specific

activities that would occur if the STC was constructed as planned (i.e., Proposed Action) and if it was not constructed (i.e., No Action Alternative).



### 2.1 Proposed Action (UNLV Research Foundation Proposed Project)

The UNLV Research Foundation proposes to use DOE funding to establish t he STC where existing and new solar technologies and prototypes would be researched, developed, and tested for t he renewable energy industry.

2.1.1 Location

The proposed STC would be constructed on l and leased from the City of Boulder Ci ty, Nevada. The site is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Boulder City in t he Eldorado Valley (see Figure 1). The triangular shaped site covers about 33 acres on the north side of Eldorado Valley Dr ive approximately 1.5 miles west of U.S. Highway 95 (see Figure 2). The site is located in Section 5, Township 25 South, Range 63 East, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian in Clark County.

2.1.2 Field Station and Test Areas

The proposed STC would include a field station with a par king lot and two test areas. Grading, construction, and development of the STC would encompass an area of less than 10 acres, or slightly less than one-third of the entire site. The Nevada Solar One (NSO) concentrating solar power plant operated by Acciona Energy forms the west border of the site, and an underground natural gas pipeline owned by Southwest Gas Corporation and a dirt road parallels the east border. The site plan fo r the proposed STC is shown on Figure 3.

The field station would be a modular building of approxim ately 1,500 square feet of classroom and work space, research laboratory, reception area, storage area, and washroom facilities. The reception area would include space for educational information such as posters and brochures on alternative energy technologies and information on the various research projects. The field station would be c onstructed according to local building codes. The foundation and building for the field station would require a seismic site class determination according to the International Building Code and in accordance with the City of Boulder City building code.

The outside test areas could include phot ovoltaic (PV) panels, parabolic trough collectors, and solar dishes. Based on the type of technology that would be installed and te sted, the outside test areas may be graded and concrete footings or pads may be installed, as needed. The lifetime of the installation would depend on the type of technology being tested and the tests agreed to between UNLV-CER and the industry partner. Currently the only plan is for installation of the building. Other disturbances may take place as business develops but would occur within the STC footprint. The site is expected to be dynamic, with UNL V-CER and industry partnering to evaluate new technologies as they become available.

The STC would be enclosed by an eight-f oot chain-link fence. Approximatel y 1,800 linear feet of fence would be

constructed inside the site boundaries and would tie into the existing NSO power plant fence on the west side.

Utilities that would be installed for the STC include a septic system and drain (leach) field, water, and telecommunications (see Figure 3). The UNLV Research F oundation is coordinating with Acciona Energy for access to a fiber optic conduit for telecommunications. Approx imately 325 feet of fiber would be installed from the

January 2009 3Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

January 2009 4Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Figure 2. Aerial Location of Solar Technology Center

January 2009 5Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Figure 3. Solar Technology Center Site Plan and Utilities Plan

January 2009 6Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

southwest corner of the site to the field station. A temporary diesel-fueled generator (approximately 20 kilowatts) would be used until power is produced at t he site. Approximately 400 feet of wa terlines would be installed from the Boulder City main line located along Eldorado Valley Drive on the south edge of the site to the field station and to a fire hydrant. The UNLV Research Foundation would be responsible for obtaining an excavation permit from the City of Boulder City and installing all utilities.

2.1.3 Operations

The UNLV-CER would manage the tasks for each research proj ect at the STC and ensure t hat project objectives are met and public services are continued. The UNLV-CER fo cuses on renewable energy research and collaborates with energy industry partners in developing solar energy technologies including concentrating PV and thermal technologies. The CER anticipates researching and testi ng the following technologies at the STC: concentrating solar power, concentrating PV point focus and linear arrays, flat plate PV, energy st orage, and tracking and control systems. The STC would also be used to conduct research on new energy efficient and post-consumer products for use in residential and commercial construction, as well as different types of energy conserving technologies (i.e., insulations, surface coatings, textures, roofing, appliances, and windows).

University students would have opportunities to receive hands-on experience and work with industry partners in conducting research and in developing renewable energy tec hnologies. At least one student would participate in each research project. The research laboratory would allow students to meet with visitors and provide them information on emerging technologies, receive advice on renewable energy applications, monitor and maintain renewable energy equipment, and work with companies on development of new technologies.

The STC would be occupied as needed for the different research projects; therefore, ther e would not be set hours of operation. Signage would be posted around t he facility providing information on research work being installed or

conducted.

Acciona Energy is one candidate organization that may te st and evaluate solar equipment at the STC. Other companies in the solar industry would be contacted by the UNLV Research Foundation and UNLV-CER regarding use of the STC for testing and eval uation of equipment and technologies.

2.1.4 Public Information Resource Center

The proposed STC would serve the public by being a local resource center for renewable energy and conservation

information. Visitors would be able to tour the STC to receive general information regarding ongoing research and testing projects, and additional information would be pr ovided in print and electronic media about commercial technologies currently available to the general public. Cont act information for the STC would be posted at the site

and on a website that would be creat ed for the STC. Tours of the STC would be scheduled by appointment.

2.1.5 Environmental Protection Measures

Measures will be incorporated into the c onstruction and operation of the STC to mi nimize or avoid potential impacts to the surrounding environment and to safeguar d the health and safety of construc tion workers, employees, students, and the public. The UNLV Research Foundation and the UNLV-CER will be responsible for incorporating appropriate measures into construction bid documents and implementing m easures in operational practi ces at the STC. These

measures include:

• Obtain a dust control permit from the Clark C ounty Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management and implement control measur es to reduce fugitive dust such as watering the site or applying soil stabilizers and installing a construction ent rance with track-out control devices.

January 2009 7Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

• Stabilize disturbed land surfaces with pavement, ground cover (i.e., rock or mulch), or landscaping after construction is completed to minimize fugitive dust, soil erosion, and runoff.

• Pay mitigation fees based on the number of ground su rface acres disturbed to fund management actions

that benefit the desert tortoise.

• Implement a construction worker awareness program on protocols to follow if t he state protected Gila monster or federal protected desert tortoise is encountered on the site during construction.

• Conduct a survey of the site by a qualified biologist to confirm the absence of bird nests and nesting activity if clearing and grading activities are scheduled to occur during breeding season (generally mid-March through mid-August). Prohibit construction around active nests (containing eggs or young) until they are no longer active or the young birds have fledged.

• Use solid fence posts or post caps, and fill any holes in the posts with rivets or nuts and bolts to prevent injury to migratory birds that may perch on the fence.

• Eradicate any invasive weed species that take r oot on disturbed ground surfac es during construction and before ground cover is installed. Construction equipm ent will be cleaned of potential sources of invasive and noxious weed seeds prior to use at the site.

• Cease work and contact a qualified archaeologist and DOE if unexpected cultural deposits are discovered during construction. Take appropriate measures to i dentify and treat the resource after DOE consults with

the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer.

• Wear personal protective equipment required by o ccupational safety and health regulations, including hearing protection while operating construction equipm ent. Train students and employees in the UNLV Risk Management and Safety Program. Request public visitors to adhere to the safety program and practices

established for the STC while on site.

• Obtain a construction storm water general permi t and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Follow best management practices such as installing silt fences, straw bales, or sand bags for temporary erosion and sediment controls to mini mize runoff from the site during construction.

• Select building materials and colors that are compatib le with the natural environment and select security lighting that illuminates downward. Use native vegetation in any landscaping around the STC.



### 2.2 No Action Alternative

A No Action Alternative is considered in the EA and prov ides a benchmark enabling decision-makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the alternatives (including the Pr oposed Action). Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide funding and the STC would not be construc ted on the site leased from Boulder City.

While it is possible that the STC c ould be built and operated without DOE financ ial assistance, that scenario would not provide for a meaningful No Action Alternative analysis, as it would be identical to the Proposed Action. For purposes of this EA, the No Action Alternative is eval uated as if the proposed STC we re not built and operated.



### 2.3 Alternate Sites Considered and Eliminated

Two alternate locations were originally consider ed for development of the pr oposed STC but have since been

eliminated from further consideration. The UNLV Research Foundation initially considered 360 acres to the south of Eldorado Valley Drive. This site was rejected by the City of Boulder City because the City wanted this land available for future energy development that would provide a revenue source. A parcel of 40 acres on the west side of the NSO power plant was also considered. However, Acciona Energy requested this land remain open for possible future expansion of the NSO power plant. For these reasons, t hese alternate locations have been eliminated from further discussion and evaluation as potential alter natives for the proposed STC site.

January 2009 8Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The following sections describe the ex isting environment in the project area, which is defined as the location proposed for the STC and the surrounding ar ea that would likely be affected if the Proposed Action is implemented. The existing environmental conditions serve as a baseline from which to identify and ev aluate potential environmental changes attributable to the Proposed Action and No Action Alte rnative. The potential dire ct and indirect, adverse and beneficial, and long-term and short-term impacts of the propose action are evaluated by resource and compared to the environmental consequences of t he No Action Alternative.



### 3.1 Land Use

Land use is described by land ownership and the governing entities’ management plans and zoning that define land use types and regulate development patterns.

3.1.1 Existing Environment

Boulder City began as a construction camp in 1930 for t he workers building Hoover Dam and remained a government town until the passage of the Boulder City Act and formal incorporation as an independent municipal government in 1960. The U.S. Congress passed Public Law (P.L.) 85-339 in 1958 to provide for the direct sale of 126,775 acres of public land in the Eldorado Valley in Clark County, Nevada to the Colorado River Commission acting on behalf of the State of Nevada. The Colorado River Commission purc hased 107,412 acres in 1995 from the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and subsequently sold it to the City of Boulder City. This area is referred to as the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area and extended the City’s corporate limits significantly to the south and west. The sale of the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area by the BLM was subject to specific land uses, including approximately 3,000 acres for solar energy development, approximately 6,000 acres for recreation use, and the remaining for conservation of the desert tortoise (BLM, 1994).

The proposed STC site is owned by the City of Boulder City and is part of Clark County Assessor’s parcel number 213-00-001-002. The Boulder City Comprehensive Master Pl an has this parcel zoned “ER” for Energy Resource Zone. According to the zoning ordinance for Boulder City, a permitted use for this zone is the development of private and/or public solar electric generation fac ilities, electrical transmission and distri bution facilities, ancillary facilities, and other similar uses (Boulder City, 1997). The City current ly has 3,040 acres zoned for energy development land use in the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area, of which less than 500 acres has been developed and the rest is open desert.

Land adjacent to the Energy Resource Zone is zoned “GO” fo r Government. The permitted use for this zone is public or quasi-public uses and preservation of open space real property (Boulder City, 1988). The City granted an easement to Clark County for this land, consisting of approx imately 85,000 acres, as a c ondition of the sale by the BLM. The Desert Conservation Program manages the easement for the preservation and protection of the desert

tortoise and its habitat.

The proposed STC site is undisturbed, vacant land locat ed in the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area on the land zoned for energy development. Land uses and zoning des ignations are shown on Figure 4.

3.1.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

The purpose for the STC is to conduct research and te sting of new and emerging solar energy technologies, and therefore, operation of the ST C would be compatible with the zoning designat ion of the land on which it is proposed to be constructed. The City of Boulder City has zoned and dedicated the use of this land for energy development.

January 2009 9Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Figure 4. Land Uses in the Project Area

January 2009 10Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Construction of the STC would convert approximately 10 acres of open deser t land to developed facilities. The facilities would be planned, designed, and constructed in co mpliance with the Boulder City Comprehensive Master Plan and appropriate city codes. The STC in its proposed location would not conflict with other adjacent land uses or zoning designations.



### 3.2 Air Quality

Air quality is characterized by the existing concentrations of various pollutants and t he climatic and meteorological conditions that influence the quality of the air. Precipitation, wind direct ion and speed, and atmospheric stability are

factors that determine the extent of pollutant dispersion.

3.2.1 Existing Environment

The U.S. Environmental Protection A gency (EPA) established the National Am bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, which are those compounds that cause or contri bute to air pollution which could endanger public health and the environment. These pollutants may direct ly or indirectly originate from diverse mobile and stationary sources. The criteria po llutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10

), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. While ozone is a regulated pollutant, it is not emi tted directly from sources but is formed by a combination of nitrogen oxides (NO

x ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reacti ng with sunlight in the atmosphere.

Air quality is determined by comparing ambient air levels with the upper concentration limits of the NAAQS for each criteria pollutant. Geographic areas t hat exceed NAAQS are designated as non-atta inment for the specific pollutant that is in violation of the standard, whereas areas that meet NAAQS are des ignated as being in attainment for the criteria pollutant. An area designated as uncla ssified is assumed to be in attainment.

In Nevada, the geographic areas (airsheds) for air qualit y compliance are defined as hydrographic areas. The proposed STC is located in the Eldorado Valley which is hydrographic area 167. This airshed is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard and unclassified or a ttainment for the other crit eria pollutants (40 CFR § 81.329). However, the Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM) has designated the Eldorado Valley airshed as a “management area” for CO, PM 10

, NO
x , and VOCs (Clark County, 2004). This designation is a preemptive measure to address an ar ea that has a high probability of causing a non-attainment designation or causing an exceedence of t he NAAQS. The DAQEM submitted the 8-Hour Ozone Early Progress Plan for Clark County, Nevada (Clark County, 2008a) establishing steps to reach attainment status.

There is no air quality monitoring station within the proj ect area. The nearest station, which monitors ozone and

PM 10

, is located over 15 miles to the northeast in Boulder City. Sources of air pollutants in the project area include the El Dorado Energy power plant, NSO power plant, wi ndblown dust from disturbed ground surfaces, fugitive dust from off-road vehicle use, and emissions from vehicles traveling on Eldorado Valley Drive and U.S. Highway 95.

The climate for the project area is typi cal of the Mojave Desert – hot summers , mild winters, and very little rain. Temperatures usually exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the summer with the humidity normally less than 10 percent. Winters are typically mild with average highs near 60°F. The sky is sunny appr oximately 85 percent of the year. The majority of precipitation (less than five inches) falls between January and March; however, the monsoonal flow during July and August brings desert thunderstorms , flash floods, and strong winds. High wind events can generate widespread areas of blowing dust and sand. Av erage annual wind speed is about 9.3 miles per hour and is predominantly from the southwest. (National Weather Service, 2008)

January 2009 11Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

3.2.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

Changes in the concentrations of atmospheric pollutants as a result of specific actions constitute an air quality impact. This section discusses impacts to air quality from cons truction and subsequent operations of the proposed STC.

Construction of the proposed STC would include grading approximately 10 acres of the 33-acre site resulting in localized, short-term increases in fugitive dust (PM 10

emissions). Exhaust from construction vehicles and heavy equipment would also result in localized, short-term increases in CO and NO
x emissions. The increase in PM 10

would be primarily from soils disturbed duri ng clearing and grubbing vegetation and from grading the site, and from vehicles and heavy equipment moving across the site during construction. Construction of the proposed STC is projected to

take less than two months and construction traffic is estimated between four to ten vehicles a day. The PM 10

State Implementation Plan for Clark County (Clark County, 2001) provides an equation to estimate emissions from construction activities. For general construction sites t hat do not include cut and fill areas, large-scale earthmoving operations, or heavy traffic volumes, an emission factor of 0.11 tons per acre per month is used to estimate PM 10 increases. Using this equation, the conservative increase in PM 10

emissions from construction activities would be approximately 2.2 tons (0.11 tons PM 10

x 10 acres x 2 months). For comparison, this is well below the threshold of 70 tons per year allowed by the DAQEM from a major stati onary emission source in the Eldorado Valley airshed.

The proposed STC would not be a major st ationary emission source and therefore would not be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions or New Source Re view permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act. A portable diesel-fueled generator would be needed tempor arily to provide power to the fiel d station until the STC is operational and producing its own power. The generator would qualify as a categorically-exempt emission source and would not require an air permit from the DAQEM to operate. To tal emissions from the generator would be dependent on hours of operation but would likely include negligible amounts CO, NO
x , and PM 10

.

Solar technologies that would be researc hed and tested at the STC would not be majo r sources of criteria pollutants. Current and likely future solar technologies produce near-z ero carbon dioxide emissions which would be a beneficial impact to the air quality.

Construction activities that disturb so ils and that emit or have the potential to emit particulate matter must obtain a dust control permit from the DAQEM and submit a dust mitigat ion plan specifying the contro l measures that would be implemented during construction to reduce fugitive dust and mini mize impacts to air quality. Dust control measures would include watering the site or applying soil stabilizers, installing a construction entr ance with track-out control devices, and stabilizing disturbed land surfaces with pavement or landscaping after construction is completed.

Given the small area of the proposed site, minimal number of vehicles, anticipated short dur ation of the construction, and implementation of dust control meas ures, the potential direct impacts to air quality would be temporary and negligible.

Section 176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires federal agenc ies to determine if the federal action conforms to applicable state implementation plans (SIPs) for achievi ng and maintaining the NAAQS. A federally sponsored or

funded action must not cause emissions of criteria pollutants (or their prec ursors) above EPA’s established threshold levels in designated non-attainment or maintenance areas. The threshold emission rates in a non-attainment area for ozone are 100 tons per year of NO
x or VOCs. Emissions sources to c onstruct and operate the proposed STC would not be remotely close to exceeding threshold levels of NO
x or VOCs and therefore the Proposed Action is assumed to

conform to the SIP.

January 2009 12Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### 3.3 Biological Resources

The biological resources of interest include the comm on native and introduced plants and animals, species afforded special protections, and the vegetative communities on and in the vicinity of the proposed site.

3.3.1 Existing Environment

Vegetation: Mojave creosote bush scrub is the characteristic vegetation community in the project area. The proposed site is dominated by creosote bush ( Larrea tridentata ) and white bursage ( Ambrosia dumosa ). Other plants noted during a field survey of the proposed site include desert marigold ( Baileya multiradiata ), apricot globemallow ( Sphaeralcea ambigua ), Mormon tea ( Ephedra spp.), Mediterranean grass ( Schicmus spp.), fescue ( Vulpia spp.), filaree ( Eriodium spp.), cheesebush ( Hymenoclea salsola ), four-winged saltbush ( Atriplex canescens ), and shadscale ( Atriplex confertifolia ). There were no cactus or yucca plants observed on the proposed site.

Common Wildlife: Wildlife that could typically be found on and adjacent to the proposed site include black-tailed jackrabbit ( Lepus californicus ), white-tailed antelope squirrel ( Ammospermophilus leucurus ), desert pocket mouse ( Chaetodipus spp.), desert woodrat ( Neotoma lepida ), desert kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis ), western whiptail lizard ( Cnemidoporous tigris) , side-blotched lizard ( Uta stansburiana ), and desert iguana ( Dipsosaurus dorsalis ). These species are fairly common and widespr ead throughout the project area; however, only the western whiptail lizard, black-tailed jackrabbit, and a sidewinder ( Crotalus cerastes ) were observed during a field survey conducted by MBP Consulting, LLC in mid-spring 2008.

Threatened and Endangered Species: A species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is so designated because of danger of its extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development without adequate conservation. The desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii ) is the only federally listed species known to occur in the project area. The Mojave population of the desert tortoise was listed as threatened by the USFWS in 1990.

The desert tortoise is a large herbivor ous reptile that inhabits desert scrub v egetation with annual precipitation from two inches to eight inches. The optimal habitat is creosote bush scrub but creosote bursage complex, shadscale scrub, saltbush scrub, and blackbrush scrub can also be suitabl e habitat. The tortoise can be found at elevations to 7,300 feet above mean sea level, but more favorable habitat occurs between 1,000 feet and 3,000 feet. Annual wildflowers and native desert grasses, especially galleta and Indian rice grass, are preferred forage. Burrows are excavated in gently sloping terrain and sandy-gravelly soils to steep slopes and rocky soils. Soils must be friable enough for tortoises to dig burrows but also firm enough to pr event collapse. Desert tortoises are generally most active during the spring and early summer when mati ng behaviors are exhibited and annual plants are more prevalent. Additional activity occurs after summer rainstorms and during warm er autumn months. The remainder of the year the tortoises are in burrows protect ed from the extreme conditions of the desert.

A field survey for desert tortoise was performed on May 4, 2008 in accordance with the protocol described in Procedures for Endangered Species Act Compliance for the Mojave Desert Tortoise (USFWS, 1992). The proposed STC site was surveyed using the presence-or-absence su rvey method, which is the recommended method for areas below 5,000 feet elevation within the known range of the desert tortoise. This method is used when surface disturbing actions would result in cl earing or crushing of vegetation.

The presence-or-absence survey consisted of linear transects spaced approximately 30 feet apart to provide 100 percent coverage of the area. Transects were narrowed where the vegetation reduced vi ews of the ground surface. Zone-of-influence (ZOI) transects were surveyed on land adjacent to the proposed site. The purpose of ZOI transects is to determine if adjacent land supports desert tortoise t hat may overlap into the survey area and be affected by the Proposed Action. The ZOI transects were spaced approx imately 60 feet apart and ex tended approximately 900 feet to the east and approximately 1,200 feet to the north of the proposed site.

January 2009 13Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Data collected to determine presence of tortoise habitat in cluded number of live tortoises, burrows, scat, carcasses, and other signs such as tracks, courtship rings, drinking sites, egg shells, and grazed vegetation. Burrows were inspected for presence of tortoise and tortoise sign by illuminating the burrow cavity with sunlight reflected from a hand-held mirror. Tortoise signs were recorded on dat a sheets and mapped using global positioning system (GPS) coordinates. To avoid overestimating tortoise population densities, the total sign are adjusted (i.e., corrected) to account for sign clearly attributable to the same tortoise. For example, scat located adjacent to a burrow would equal two total sign but would be counted as one corrected sign. Burrows that could not be positively identified as associated with desert tortoise (i.e ., burrow classes 4 and 5) were not counted as corrected sign. The type and number of sign observed are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Desert Tortoise Sign Observed in the Survey Area

Survey Area Acres 1 Live

Tortoise Carcass Burrow Scat Other Sign 2 Total Sign Corrected Sign

STC Site 33 0 0 30 1 1 32 16

Zone-of-Influence 86 0 0 16 2 0 18 9

1 Approximate

2 Tracks, egg shells, drinking sites, courtship rings, or grazed vegetation

Estimated numbers of tortoise (i.e., density) are quantifi ed using corrected sign per acre based on a linear regression model using triangular-strip survey transects, and a density scale developed for Nevada. Table 2 shows the results of this methodology developed to estimate tortoise density.

Table 2. Estimated Desert Tortoise Density based on Corrected Sign per Acre
Corrected Sign per TriangularStrip Transect 1 Corrected Sign per Acre 2 Tortoises per Square Mile 1 Relative Density

0 0.0 – 0.1 0 – 10 Very Low

1 – 3 0.2 – 0.6 10 – 45 Low

4 – 7 0.7 – 1.4 45 – 90 Moderate

8 – 11 1.5 – 2.1 90 – 140 High

12+ 2.2 + 140 + Very High

1 Methodology from Berry and Nicholson (1984) and Karl (1981)

2 Corrected sign per triangular-strip transect divided by 5.5, which is amount of acres surveyed in one triangular-strip trans ect

The estimated numbers of tortoise in t he survey area are displayed in Table 3. Although the results of the survey indicate low density on the proposed STC site, the project area is considered good habitat overall to support a tortoise population. The surrounding area in the Eldorado Valley is part of the Boulder City Conservation Easement managed by Clark County for the protection of desert tortoise and habitat (see Section 3.1.1). The low density on the proposed STC site may be attributed to the fragmented habitat created by the NSO power plant, natural gas pipeline, and road that border the site. The adjac ent area density would likely have been higher had the area been surveyed for 100 percent coverage. The lack of winter and spring precipitation combined with the sparse covering of annual grasses may also be factors affecting the absence of tortoise in the survey area.

Table 3. Estimated Desert Tortoise Density in the Survey Area

Survey Area Acres Corrected Sign Corrected Sign/Acre Tortoises/ Square Mile Square

Miles Estimated

Tortoise Numbers Relative Density

STC Site 33 16 0.48 10 – 45 0.05 1 – 2 Low

Zone-of-Influence 86 9 0.10 0 – 10 0.13 0 – 1 Very Low

State Protected and Sensitive Species: The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) lists species of native flora and fauna identified for preservation and prot ection because populations are declining and habitats are deteriorating. The Gila monster ( Heolderma suspectum ) is classified as a sensitive rept ile (NAC 503.080) and the loggerhead shrike

January 2009 14Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

( Lanius ludovicianus ) is classified as a sensitive bird (NAC 503.050). These species have the potential to occur in the project area. The geographic range and habita t of the banded Gila monster overlap wi th that of the desert tortoise. This venomous lizard is found below 5,000 feet elev ation on rocky slopes and landscapes of upland desert scrub interspersed with desert washes. The loggerhead shrike prefers open dry plant communities of creosote bush and uses cactus spines to impale and immobilize prey.

Migratory Birds: Most birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA provides protection of nearly all species of birds from harm by prohibiting t he destruction of active nesting habitat. The Mojave creosote bush scrub vegetation community provides habitat for for aging and nesting for a variety of songbird and raptors; however, only the common raven ( Corvus corax ) was observed during the field surv ey of the proposed STC site in May 2008. Although there are numerous burrows on the proposed site, no western burrowing owls ( Athene

cunicularia ) were observed.

Invasive Species/No xious Weeds: Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species directs federal agencies to make efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive pl ant species. Invasive species are usually destructive, difficult to control or eradicate, and generally cause ec ological and economic harm. A noxious weed is any plant designated by a federal, state, or county government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property. The control of noxious weeds is regulated by the Nevada Department of Agri culture under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 555. Invasive species and noxious weeds are generally found in disturbed soil conditions. The proposed STC site is mostly undisturbed and no noxious weeds or invasive species were observed during the field survey conducted in May 2008.

3.3.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

Surface disturbance from construction would impact biologica l resources. The extent of disturbance relative to adjacent or replacement habitat types determi nes the significance of the impact.

Vegetation: Grading the proposed site for construction would have a direct impact on approximately 10 acres of vegetation. The loss of predomi nately creosote bush and white bursage would be negligible because of the abundance of similar undisturbed vegetation in the project area. Any landscapi ng of disturbed areas around the field station and parking lot would include native vegetation. Vegetation would be cont rolled in the test areas to avoid interfering with equipment operation.

Common Wildlife: Construction activities would displace comm on wildlife species that inhabit or use the proposed site for forage or cover and potentially cause direct mortality of less mobile species, such as reptiles. Similar habitat on adjacent open land would support the displaced species and thus potential impacts would be negligible. The typical species that could be impacted are widely distri buted and thus loss of some individuals and habitat would not impact the populations throughout their range.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Construction activities would direct ly disturb approximately 10 acres of low density habitat. The analysis of impacts to desert tortoise and tortoise habitat conservatively assumes the 33 acres of the site would be affected, and therefor e, the potential for incidental take of one to two tortoises (see Table 3). Typical direct impacts from construction may include incr eased mortality or injury from tortoises and burrows being crushed by vehicles and equipment, increased harassment of tortoises being moved out of harm’s way, and loss of forage and increased fragmentation of habi tat. Potential impact to forage and fragmentation of habitat would be negligible since the proposed site is already fragmented from adjacent habitat and is relatively small compared to surrounding forage sources.

Impacts to the desert tortoise from development of th is part of the Eldorado Valley were addressed in USFWS Biological Opinion File No. 1-5-94-F-283. This opinion was issued to the BLM for the sale of 107,412 acres of federal land in accordance with the Eldorado Valley Act (P.L. 85-339), including approximately 3,000 acres designated for

January 2009 15Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

solar energy development in which the proposed STC site is located. With the estab lishment of a conservation easement to preserve and protect tortoises and habitat, it was determined the land sale and development for solar energy would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tort oise and would not likely destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat (BLM, 1994). Therefore, implementing the Proposed Action should not

have a different determination or conclusion.

The Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was developed to address the take of listed species eligible for federal protection under the ESA and spec ies that may become listed in the future. The USFWS issued a permit under Section 10 of the ESA to allow inci dental take of the desert tortoise and numerous other species by private action on non-federal lands within Cl ark County, which would include the proposed STC site. However, the MSHCP does not allow for incidental take resu lting from federal actions on non-federal lands; therefore, Section 7 of the ESA would govern the take of desert tortoi se for this project. The DOE consulted with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA to confir m that the direct or indirect impacts of providing financial assistance for the construction and operation of the STC may a ffect but is not likely to adversely a ffect the desert tortoise, and therefore, would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

To minimize and mitigate the effects of the Proposed Acti on, the UNLV Research Foundation would comply with the terms and conditions of the Section 10 incidental take permi t for the MSHCP, which includes the remuneration of fees to fund management actions that benefit the desert tortoise. The fees woul d be based on $550 per acre of surface disturbance and would be paid prior to beginning construction. It is estimated that fees would be required for less

than 10 acres of disturbance and would be determined from the final site grading plan that would be submitted to the City of Boulder City for approval. Construction workers will be informed of procedures to follow should a live desert tortoise be encountered during construction, including avoi dance, vehicle checks, and contact information for the Clark County Tortoise Pick-Up Service. Although the Proposed Action may affect the desert tortoise, with implementation of any additional mitigati on measures required by the USFWS, the DOE’s actions are not likely to adversely affect the continued existence and recovery of the Mojave population of the species.

State Protected and Sensitive Species: The Proposed Action would not affect species classified as protected or sensitive by the State of Nevada. Suitable habitat of rocky outcrops and desert washes for the Gila monster is not found on the proposed STC site and the abs ence of cacti limits the use of t he site by the loggerhead shrike for hunting and feeding. Although an encounter wi th a Gila monster is not expect ed during construction, the encounter protocol (see Appendix B, page B-7) will be provided to t he construction contractor for awareness purposes as requested by NDOW.

Migratory Birds: Construction activities would displace any birds foraging on the proposed site; however, potential impacts would be negligible because of available adjacent habitat and the mobility of the species. There were no observations made during the field surv ey that the proposed site was being us ed or had been used by nesting birds. However, if clearing and grading activities are schedul ed to occur during breeding season (generally mid-March through mid-August), a qualified biologist will survey the si te to confirm the absence of nests and nesting activity, and inspect burrows, cracks, and crevices for burrowing owls . Construction will not be allowed around active nests (containing eggs or young) until they are no longer active or the young birds have fledged. The area to be avoided will be appropriate to the species but at least 250 feet distance from burrowing owl nests.

Raptors and perching birds can get their talons and feet c aught in hollow fence posts. To prevent this potential impact, fence posts will either be solid or have fence caps , and holes will be filled with rivets or nuts and bolts.

Invasive Species/No xious Weeds: Surface disturbance and construction activities could facilitate the establishment and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds. Aggr essive non-native species c ould become established if ground disturbance is extensive and lengthy. However, t he size of disturbance for the proposed STC and the short length of time before the ground surface is stabilized would minimize the risk of invasive species becoming established and therefore any potential impacts would be negligible. Prev entive measures such as monitoring and

January 2009 16Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

eradication will be implemented to reduce weeds from inv ading the proposed site after ground disturbance occurs. Heavy equipment transferring among construction sites could also introduce invasive species; however, because of the relatively small scale of this site and distance from other ongoing construction, it is likely that equipment would mobilize to the proposed site only once and thereby minimize this risk. Construction contractors will be required to use equipment that has been cleaned of potential sources of invasive and noxious weed seeds.



### 3.4 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns

Cultural resources are the physical remains of past human activity and include prehistoric and historic sites, structures, features, or locations cons idered important to a culture or a comm unity for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. Prehistoric archaeological resources ma y include features such as rock shelters, lithic scatters, rock rings, habitation structures, or roasting pits. Historic sites may include buildings, structures, refuse deposits, or transportation routes and trails.

3.4.1 Existing Environment

The project area or area of potential effe ct (APE) for cultural resources is defined as the area t hat is potentially impacted physically, visibly, and/or audibly by the Proposed Action. The APE is proposed at a one mile radius from the proposed STC site. Information in this section on the cultural resources has been summarized from NEPA documents and from a search of records of cultural resources surveys completed in the APE (BLM, 1994; DOE, 1996; Knight & Leavitt, 2008).

A search of records was conducted at the Southern Nevada Archaeological Archive located at the Harry Reid Center on the UNLV campus. There have been five surveys comple ted within the APE; no sites recorded were determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Pl aces (NRHP). The NSO power plant site was surveyed but no report was available in the archives. The NRHP, State Regi ster of Historic Places, and other historical documents were reviewed to determine the potential for cultural resour ces in the project area. T he nearest property listed on the NRHP is the Sloan Petroglyphs, which is approximately 13 m iles to the northwest of the proposed STC site. The General Land Office map dated 1941 shows that the old highway that pre- dated U.S. Highway 95 passed through Section 5, which is the same section where the pr oposed STC site is located. (Knight & Leavitt, 2008)

The proposed STC site lies in the Eldorado Valley in souther n Nevada, an area with a pr ehistory that may span the past 10,000 years or more. Properties ranging from the early prehistoric period to historic mining and ranching sites

are known to exist. Most of the cultural resources t hat have been recorded in the pr oject area have resulted from transmission line and power line surveys. Prehistoric si tes have been recorded around the perimeter of Eldorado Dry Lake, located approximately three miles to the north-northeast of the proposed STC site. Two temporary camps have been recorded but both sites were recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. Other sites in the area date to the historic period and are not eligible for the NRHP. The other sites are mostly is olated occurrences of cans, which may have been left behind by prospectors or by Hoover Dam c onstruction workers passing through the area. (DOE, 1996)

The project area was included in a Class II cultural resources inventory of 107,412 acres completed by the BLM in 1994 prior to the sale of the land in accordance with the Eldorado Valley Act (P.L. 85-339). That inventory consisted

of a number of 160-acre blocks that represented an approximate 10 percent sample of the survey area. The BLM documented in Report 5-2244 that the invent ory was sufficient to characterize the cultural resources in the area designated for sale. The land identified for the proposed STC was included in that survey and is located between survey blocks 19 and 20 in Sections 6 and 5, respectively. No cultural resources were recorded in either of those 160-acre blocks. There were five prehistoric sites and tw o large diffuse prehistoric lithic scatters of 18 subsites recorded during the inventory but were determined not eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, the BLM determined, and the SHPO concurred, that the land sale would have no effect on historic properties. (BLM, 1994)

January 2009 17Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Groups of Southern Paiute and Mohave people lived within or used parts of the Eldorado Valley at the time of first European contact. The Colorado River def ines the southern boundary of Southern Paiute territory where it formed the core of Mojave territory. There are spiritual and physi cal Indian trails associated with the Eldorado Valley. The trails were used by Pahrump and Las Vegas Paiutes to travel to places along the Colorado River. The valley is also associated with Indian funeral songs, including the Cry Ceremonial. The McCullough Mountains (which define the western edge of Eldorado Valley) are important to American Indian people because of trails, sacred sites, plants, and animals of cultural sensitivity. (DOE, 1996)

3.4.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would not affect any historic property listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP and there are no known cultural resources on the proposed STC site that would be impacted by c onstruction. Based on the results of the BLM’s 1994 survey and others completed in the APE, it is concluded that the pres ence of unknown archaeological artifacts, sites, or features on t he proposed STC site is unlikely.

Although Indian trails are known to cross through the Eldorado Valley, the small size of the proposed site adjacent to existing energy developments would not likely have an impac t to a traditional Native American resource.

As the lead federal agency, DOE consult ed with the SHPO and Native American tribes in accordance with Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The DO E has determined that providing financial assistance to construct and operate the STC would have no affect to hi storic properties determined eligible for the NRHP or traditional cultural sites deemed important to Native Am ericans, and requested concurrenc e with this determination from the SHPO and tribes. By letter dated December 16, 2008, the SHPO concurred with this determination (see Appendix C, page C-2). DOE did not receive any response from the tribes.

In the unlikely event of an unexpected discovery of cultur al deposits during construction of the proposed STC, work will cease in the area of discovery, an appropriate DOE authority and an archaeologi st will be contacted, and measures will be taken to identify and treat the resource.



### 3.5 Geological Resources

Geological resources include the physical surface and subs urface features including landforms, topography, soils, minerals, and hazards.

3.5.1 Existing Environment

The project area is in the Eldorado Valley in the southwestern portion of the Great Basin subdivision within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The valley is a vast area of open and undeveloped lands formed by the McCullough Range to the west, the Eldorado Mountains to the east, the River Mountains to the north, and the Highland Range to the south. The mountai ns range in elevation from approximat ely 3,000 feet to over 7,000 feet. The elevation of the proposed STC site ranges from approximately 1,820 feet to 1,750 feet from south to north. The topography in the immediate vicinity of the site exhibi ts an approximate 1.3 percent slope to the northwest.

The floor of the Eldorado Valley consists of alluvial , aeolian, and playa deposits surrounded by more steeply sloping alluvial aprons of poorly sorted gravel and sand deposits. T he sediments can be up to 4,000 feet thick in some parts of the valley. The soils on the proposed site consist of the Tonopah-Arizo association, which are fan remnants and aprons deposited from the eroding adjacent m ountain ranges. The soils are very grav elly to extremely gravelly sandy loam with surface rock fragments and cobbles. These soils are excessively drained. Geotechnical borings were drilled and percolation tests were conducted in May 2008 to det ermine subsurface conditions at the proposed site in preparation for construction (Ninyo & Moore, 2008). One soil boring was drilled to a depth of 15 feet below ground

January 2009 18Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

surface (bgs). The soil boring encountered silty gravel with sand from the surfac e to a depth of five feet bgs and silty sand with gravel below five feet.

No geologic faults have been identified across the proposed si te but the Black Hills, Holocene age fault is located approximately seven miles to the northwest at the bas e of the McCullough Range. North-south trending faults

associated with the Eldorado Mountains are located to the east and southeast of the proposed site. Eldorado Valley is located within Seismic Zone 2B as defined by the Un iform Building Code, which is an area with moderate damage potential from seismic hazards associated with known faults.

Mineral resources in the project area include a fair potentia l for sand and gravel. Hard rock mining for gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc historically occurred in the Eldor ado Canyon district in the southern part of the Eldorado Mountains and along the northern end of the Opal Mountains. There is no acti ve mining known in the project area.

3.5.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

Site preparation, construction, and oper ation of the proposed STC would have negligible impacts to the geological resources in the project area. Construction activities w ould be primarily surface struct ures or shallow below ground installations. Grading would be required to level the siteand compact the soil for construction but extensive cut-andfill is not anticipated. Because the slope is minor, c hanges to landforms and topography would be negligible. The total disturbed area would be approximately 10 acres, which would be the minimum necessary to construct the field station, parking lot, and test areas. T he triangular-shaped parcel limits the use of the northern tip of the site and thus less ground surface would be disturbed. Topsoil would be st ockpiled for reuse on the site after construction is completed but the small size of the site may make this pr actice impracticable. Soils would be lost due to physical alteration of the existing soil profile but this loss would be negligible.

Ground disturbance would result in incr eased erosion potential from exposure of bare soils to wind and storm water

runoff. Trenches excavated for utilities would be backfilled as soon as possible to minimize erosion. Best management practices such as applying water or soil pa lliatives would be implemented during construction to minimize soil erosion and exposed surfaces would be landscaped after construction is completed.

The potential for extractable hard rock minerals is low and mining for sand and gravel in the project area is not planned, therefore, the Proposed Ac tion would have no adverse impacts on mineral resources.



### 3.6 Noise

Noise is defined as unwanted sound that inte rferes with normal activities or in some way reduces the quality of the environment. Response to noise varies according to its type, its perceived importance, its appropriateness in the setting and time of day, and the sensitiv ity of the individual receptor.

A decibel (dB) is the physical unit commonly used to descr ibe sound levels. Sound measurement is further refined by using an “A-weighted” decibel (dBA) scale that more clos ely describes how a person perceives sound. People tend to exhibit differing sensitivity to noises generated by ti me of day, with noise at night being more annoying than daytime noise. Therefore, a day-night average noise le vel (Ldn) is used to determine whether noise would be perceived adversely. The EPA developed an index (threshold) to assess noise impacts from a variety of sources using residential receptors. If Ldn values exceed 65 dBA, residential development is not recommended (EPA, 1974).

Noise sensitive receptors are defined as the occupants of a facility or a location where a state of quietness is a basis

for use or where excessive noise interferes with the normal use of the facility or location. Typical noise sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, churches, libraries , homes, parks, and wilderness areas. Some species of wildlife may also be sensitive to noise.

January 2009 19Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

3.6.1 Existing Environment

The project area is a rural environment with low ambient noise levels. Sources of noise include the power generating stations at the El Dorado Energy plant and the NSO power plant, the natural gas line regulating station, truck traffic on U.S. Highway 95, and off-road vehicles. The project ar ea experiences low to moderate noise levels. Although no specific data are available, background noise levels at the proposed STC site would be expected to range from 40 dBA (rural area during the day) to 60 dBA (commercial ar ea heavy traffic), with occasional spikes related to equipment starting and stopping and off-r oad vehicles passing the site.

The visitor center at the El Dorado Energy power plant c ould be defined as a noise sensitive receptor. This facility serves as a classroom and museum; however, the sensitivity of the receptor is limited by the purpose for the function.

The visitor center serves to educat e people about the energy industry and noise from the adjacent power plant is therefore expected and a cceptable. The administration building at t he NSO power plant is not a noise sensitive receptor because its basis of use is i ndustrial operations. Public lands and wilderness areas in the vicinity would be

considered noise sensitive.

3.6.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

Construction of the proposed STC would re sult in temporary increases in ambient noise levels for approximately two months. A variety of construction equipment such as graders, backhoes, trenchers, jackhammers, cement trucks, dump trucks, and delivery trucks would generate noise intermi ttently and during daylight hours. Noise levels from construction sites measured approximately 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from t he center of the site (CERL, 1978). Sites in flat-lying areas with minimal vegetation experience noise attenuation at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of

distance between the source and the re ceptor (CERL, 1978). A receptor located between 800 and 1,000 feet away from the proposed STC site would hear noise levels at approximately 65 dBA and ther efore would not be negatively impacted by construction activities. With no noise sensitiv e receptors within this distance, the Proposed Action would not have an impact.

Heavy equipment would generate noise that could affect the onsite workers during construction. Construction equipment typically emits noise in the 85 dB to 100 dB range. The construction contractor would require workers to wear hearing protection in accordance with Occupational Sa fety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.

Operational noise from solar panel arrays that may be installed on the proposed STC site would be negligible and would likely be inaudible against ambient levels. Perfor ming outdoor maintenance, repos itioning test equipment, and using tools in the test areas of t he proposed STC would temporarily increase ambient noise levels but no receptors would be impacted.



### 3.7 Safety and Occupational Health

Safety is an integral part of all DOE actions including the responsibility to protect worker s and to safeguard the natural

and human environment.

3.7.1 Existing Environment

The Eldorado Valley where the proposed STC is locat ed is predominantly undeveloped open desert. Safety and

health considerations are associated with the environment al elements (primarily during summer months), including potential for heat stroke, heat exhaustion, dehydration, and poisonous spider and snake bites. Emergency services for fire, police, and medical are provided by the City of Boul der City. Medical facilities are located in Boulder City, approximately 20 miles from the proposed STC site.

January 2009 20Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

3.7.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

Construction and trade workers would be exposed to safety and health hazards faced at similar construction sites. Potential impacts to the health and safety of the workers would be minimized by adherence to federal, state, and local regulations, OSHA regulations, and to the safety plans of the general contractor. No unusual construction site considerations are expected during the installation of solar power arrays and associated equipment.

The UNLV-CER would establish a program for a safe work environment for students. Students and workers operating the STC may be exposed to mi nor amounts of hazardous chemicals that may be used in research and testing projects. Students and workers are subject to the policies provided by the UNLV Risk Management and Safety program (UNLV, 2006). These policies include, but are not limited to, Emergency Response Planning, Material Safety Data Sheets, Chemical Inventor y Management Program, Environm ental Management and Laboratory Safety, and Occupational Safety. Students and workers w ould receive training in worker exposure and use of personal protective equipment to prevent injuries. The STC would not produce or stor e any chemicals that would result in catastrophic release or exposure to the general public. There would be no radioactive sources or materials maintained at this facility. No unique occupational health or safety hazards would be expected from working at the

STC.

The general public would not be adversely impacted by t he construction and operation of the proposed STC. The remote location of the site and construction of a fenced enclosure would minimize exposure of the public to potential safety hazards at the site. Public visitors to the STC would be requested to follow the established UNLV rules and safety precautions established for the STC to minimize a ccidents or injuries, and to pr otect the integrity of ongoing testing projects.



### 3.8 Socioeconomic Factors

Socioeconomic factors describe the local economy, employment, and demographics that may be influenced by the Proposed Action.

3.8.1 Existing Environment

Economy and Employment: Boulder City is located in Clark County, Nevada, which is one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. Through 2006, t he economy of Clark County was experiencing significant increases in job growth, labor force, personal income, and property valuat ion. Boulder City, on the other hand, has been controlling growth for years. As of 2007, Boulder City's population has remained steady, the unemployment rate is less than the U.S. average, and jobs have increased by 3. 8 percent, but the City's cost of liv ing is over 18 percent higher than the U.S. average.

Environmental Justice: Environmental justice is the fair treat ment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, r egulations, and policies. Fair treat ment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the adverse environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.

Federal agencies must identify and addre ss disproportionately high and adverse e ffects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populati ons (Executive Order 12898). An environmental justice population is defined as a population being at least half minority status or at least half low-income status, or this status is meaningfully greater than t he general population. A minority is def ined as Black or African-American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, American Indian and Alaskan Nati ve, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander. The U.S.

January 2009 21Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Census Bureau defines the average poverty threshold as a maximum annual income of $23,691 or less for a family of four for the year 2006 (U.S. Census, 2006).

The proposed STC site is located with in the corporate limits of Boulder City in a rural area zoned for energy development. The project area is in census tract 57.03 that encompasses Eldorado Valley. The demographics of this census tract are compared against the demographics of Boulder City to identif y any potential environmental justice population. As shown in Table 4, the numbers of Blacks and Hispanics residing in the census tract are 14 percent and 10 percent more, respectively, than the City as a whole. These percentages can be viewed as being meaningfully greater as compared to the general popul ation of Boulder City and therefore defined as an environmental justice population in regards to minority status.

Table 4. Population and Income Demographics

Area Total 1 White Black American

Indian 2 Asian Pacific

Islander Hispanic 3 Other Median

Household

Income

Tract 57.03 2,702 1,847 367 20 137 5 388 81 $35,531

Percent of Total Population 1 68 14 1 5 <1 14 3
Boulder City 14,966 14,149 107 108 107 24 650 190 $50,523

Percent of Total Population 1 95 <1 <1 <1 <1 4 1

1 Does not equal total population or 100% by race and et hnicity because of census reporting by individuals.

2 Data represents ethnic grouping of American Indian alone or in any combination.

3 Data represents Hispanic or Latino of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

3.8.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

Economy and Employment: The Proposed Action does not include a residential component or require an influx of workers and employees and therefore would not be expected to increas e population or change the demographic character of the project area. The Proposed Action w ould generate short-term employment opportunities during construction activities. There would be no impact to long-term employment opportunities as UNLV students and faculty would be operating the STC.

Operation of the STC would potentially provide economic benefits to UNLV-CE R and to the City of Boulder City from renewable energy generated at the site.

Environmental Justice: The analysis indicates that the proposed STC would be located in a census tract that has a meaningfully higher percentage of minorit ies than the general population of Boul der City. However, there are no people living adjacent to or in close proximity to the site and thus no environmental justice populations would be impacted. Construction and operation of the STC would not have long-term or adverse health or environmental impacts and therefore no impacts would be disp roportionately borne by any one population.



### 3.9 Utilities and Transportation

Utilities and transportation are the infrastructure necessary to support the STC including electricity, water, sewer, communications, and access.

3.9.1 Existing Environment

Utilities: The proposed STC would be located adjacent to the NSO power plant and approximately one mile from the El Dorado Energy generating plant. Both of these properties generate power that is pr ovided to the NV Energy

January 2009 22Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Company (formerly Nevada Power Company) electrical grid system located to the west of the project area. The generated power is delivered through overhead power lines which run along Eldorado Valley Drive. The proposed STC site is vacant with no utilities. An underground nat ural gas pipeline owned by Southwest Gas Corporation parallels the east border of the project site. Fiber optic cables and telecommunications are located underground within the Eldorado Valley Drive right-of-way adjac ent to and south of the proposed STC site.

Potable water service is provided by the City of Boulder City. The City receives treated water from the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the wholesale water provider to municipal water agencies in Clark County. The Colorado River via Lake Mead is the source of appr oximately 90 percent of the water. T he City distributes treated water via an underground water main that parallels Eldorado Valley Drive in the right-of-way adjacent to and south of the site. There is no municipal sanitary sewer collection service pr ovided to the Eldorado Valley. Developments install septic tanks and drain (leach) fields for wast ewater treatment and disposal needs.

Transportation: Eldorado Valley Drive is a two-lane asphalt road pr oviding east/west access in the project area. The road is located along the south edge of the proposed STC site. Eldorado Valle y Drive primarily serves the El Dorado Energy plant, NSO power plant, and McCullough switch ing station. Capacity of the road is more than adequate for current traffic levels. U.S. Highway 95 is a north/south, four-lane divided highway connecting Boulder City to Searchlight and Laughlin, Nevada. The highway is lo cated approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the project site. The highway was recently expanded to four lanes to increase capacity.

3.9.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

Utilities: The anticipated demand for utilities services to support construction and operat ion of the STC would be minimal, not require any system upgrades, and have no impact on the capacity demands of t he service provider. The utilities needed for the proposed STC and the location of these utilities are shown in Figure 3.

Construction of the STC would require obtaining access to pub lic utilities. During construction, temporary electrical power would be provided by contractors to operate cons truction tools and machinery. Because of the short construction duration and minimal electrical needs, power would be provided by diesel-fueled generators. After construction, the STC would require power to operate the field station. The UNL V Research Foundation would purchase a small diesel-fueled generator of approximately 20 kilowatts as a tem porary electrical power source until the STC is operational and able to generate enough pow er to sustain the operations.

Construction and operation of the STC would require potable water. Water would be needed to serve the occupants of the field station and for use in cleaning and maintaining solar panels and arrays that would be installed. The length

of the service line to the field station from the main wa ter line in Eldorado Valley Drive is expected to be less than 500 feet. The NSO power plant uses approximately 800 gallons of ionized water every two weeks to clean one loop of eight solar collectors (Potrovitza, 2008). The size and c onfiguration of the STC site would not accommodate the testing of more than one to three solar collectors; therefore, estimated water consumption to support testing could be less than 200 gallons per week. The capac ity of the Boulder City water system is adequate to meet the needs of the STC (Hanson, 2008). Natural gas would not be required to operate the STC and no impacts to that utility would occur.

The STC would require telecommunications access. The UNLV Research Foundation is negotiating with Acciona Energy to tap an available fiber optic line in an existing conduit. The conduit runs from the west side of the NSO power plant and parallels Eldorado Valley Drive. The fiber optic line would be tapped in t he southwest corner of the STC site and connected to the field station (see Figur e 3). The available fiber line is adequate for the

telecommunication needs of the STC.

A septic system would be designed and installed for the STC to accommodate two restroom facilities located in the field station. The proposed location of the septic system is shown on Figure 3. The system would have a septic tank,

January 2009 23Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

a distribution box, and a leach field. The wastewater would sit in the septic tank until the solids settle to the bottom. The remaining liquid would then pass through the distribution box where it is evenly distributed to the leach field where microbes would digest or remove most contaminates before they could reach the groundwater. Percolation testing was performed at the proposed leach field site in accordance with the Soil Percolation Test Procedure (Section XV) established by the Clark C ounty District Board of Health. Thes e percolation test results would be used to design the system. The septic tank is expected to be less than 5,000 gallons and ther efore would be regulated by

the Southern Nevada Health District. The leach field w ould be designed proportional to the tank size and would not extend off the STC property. Regulations require all commercial septic systems to be designed by a registered Nevada professional engineer and that engi neer must certify proper installati on of the system. Regular pumping and inspection would prolong the life of t he septic system and proper functioning to ensure no impacts to groundwater sources. With proper design, installation, and maintenance, no impacts are expected.

Transportation: Construction of the STC would temporarily increase the traffic volume of personal vehicles of

construction workers as well as construction trucks and equipment on both Eldorado Valle y Drive and U.S. Highway

95. The estimated construction workforce would not be large, nor would the construction be long-term. It is estimated that up to 10 vehicles per day would be needed fo r approximately two months of construction. After construction is complete, workers and visitors to the ST C would slightly increase traffic volume on both Eldorado Valley Drive and U.S. Highway 95 but would not impact av ailable roadway capacity ( Lerud, 2008). The STC would not be operational every day and therefor e the number of vehicles traveling to the site would fluctuate.



### 3.10 Visual Quality

The physical and biological features of the landscape contribute to the sceni c quality of an area and the visual appeal

of an observer.

3.10.1 Existing Environment

The visual quality of the project area is characte rized by expansive open space and dramatic basin and range landforms of the Eldorado Valley. The project area is surrounded by mountain ranges in each direction that drain to a large playa lakebed and flat valley. Elevations range from 1,700 feet to over 7,000 f eet. Wildflowers and blooming shrubs and cacti add color to the landscape in spring and early summer. Visible manmade elements in the area include roads, overhead transmission lines, power generating pl ants and substations, and the field of solar panels.

The NSO solar field viewed from the north off U.S. Hi ghway 95 gives a blue hue to the landscape and appears to be a body of water.

Lands managed by the BLM are classified based on relative va lue of the visual resource. Visual resource management Class I and Class II are the most valued, Class III represents a moderate value, and Class IV is of least value. The objective of these classes is to limit future im pacts on the visual and aesthetic character of the public land. Activities on non-federal lands adjacent to BLM land are not restricted by these visual classifications.

The mountain ranges surrounding the proj ect area are Class II because of their wilderness designation (BLM, 1998). The scenic quality of the mountains is va lued because of their visual appeal to users (i.e., hikers, campers). The BLM lands on the valley floor adjacent to the project area are Class III because of proximity to development and as a buffer between the more valued lands and metropolitan areas.

3.10.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

The proposed STC site is located in an area designated for energy development. Removing vegetation and constructing the field station and test areas would impact the visual character of t he immediate area and add other manmade elements to the landscape. T he proposed STC site is less than 10 perc ent of the size of the adjacent energy facilities which dominate the vis ual quality of the area. The field station would be designed and constructed

January 2009 24Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

using building materials and colors that are compatible with the natural environment. Landscaping around the STC would be with native vegetation and security lighting woul d illuminate downward to be less obtrusive. These design

measures would minimize the visual intrusion of the building and meet the comprehens ive planning requirements of Boulder City for the energy development zone.

The STC may be visible by users of the adjacent wil derness areas; however, the quality of their wilderness experience would not be impacted becaus e of the dominance the other energy facilities have on the landscape.



### 3.11 Waste Management and Hazardous Materials

Hazardous materials are substances that may present a danger to public health or safety or to the environment because of its quantity, concentration, or characteristic. Solid waste is non-hazardous and generally consists of household trash, landscaping waste, or construction debris.

3.11.1 Existing Environment

The proposed STC site is undisturbed, va cant land. There was no evidence of storage, disposal, or release of hazardous materials on the proposed site. Other than windblow n trash, no wastes or waste products were observed during a field survey of the site.

The City of Boulder City operates a Class I landfill for munici pal solid waste. Solid waste is collected from residences and businesses by contractors and dis posed at the landfill located on the eas t edge of the City. Horizontal and vertical expansion to the landfill is being reviewed to ex pand the capacity to 77 acres from the permitted 40 acres and

extend the life of the landf ill for many years.

3.11.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

Construction activities present the pot ential to encounter previously unidentifi ed contaminated soils or groundwater. Based on a site reconnaissance and review of operations at adjacent facilities, t he likelihood of encountering contamination is extremely low and no impacts from cont aminants would be expected dur ing construction. Small amounts of potentially hazardous waste materials (e.g., wast e oils, lubricants, solvents, cleaners, paints) would be generated during construction but proper use and storage of the materials would ensure no impact to workers and the environment. Use or storage of hazardous materials on site during construction will be in accordance with applicable regulations, and appropriate spill prevent ion measures will be implemented. If hazardous materials are spilled or deposited on the site during or after construction, the res ponsible party will immediatel y notify appropriate regulatory parties, take all necessary actions to clean up and properly dispose of the materials, and complete all reporting requirements.

Operation of the STC is not expected to require hazardous materials ot her than those found in sealed photovoltaic panels, solar power systems, and various fluids commonly used in most industrial facilities. Research and testing activities may produce non-hazardous and hazardous wastes . The amount of hazardous waste generated would not likely require a small quantity generator identification number in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Photovoltaic panels may cont ain hazardous materials, and although the panels are sealed under normal operating conditions, there is the potential for environmental c ontamination if damaged or improperly disposed upon decommissioning. Concentrating solar power system s may employ liquids such as synthetic oils or molten salts that may be hazardous and present spill risks. In addition, various fluids are commonly used in most industrial facilities, such as hydraulic fluids, coolants, and lubricants. These fluids may in some cases be hazardous and present a spill related risk.

Any waste handling and disposal activities would confor m to the requirements of RCRA, OSHA, and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection regulations. In the ev ent hazardous waste is generat ed, UNLV-CER would package and

January 2009 25Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

dispose of the hazardous waste through off-site commerc ial treatment and disposal firms. Proper planning, implementation of spill prevention plans , and good maintenance practices would minimize impacts to workers and the

environment from hazardous materials.

Small amounts of trash and household wa stes generated by the occupants of the STC would be collected by contractors for disposal at the Boulder City Landfill. T he amount of trash generated woul d not impact the capacity of the landfill (Martello, 2008).



### 3.12 Water Resources

Water resources include groundwater, surface water sources including wetlands, and floodplains.

3.12.1 Existing Environment

The project area is situated in the Eldorado Valley hydrographic sub-basin of the Central Region groundwater basin. Groundwater that originates as precipit ation over areas of higher elevation gener ally flows toward the axis of the basin and then north into the Las Vegas Valley or eastward into the Colorado River Valley. Groundwater under Eldorado Valley occurs at depths ranging from about 275 to 320 feet below land surface in the north-central part of the basin (Buqo and Giampaoli, 1988). Percolation tests were performed for the leach field for the proposed STC septic system. One soil boring was advanced to a depth of 15 feet and no groundwater was encountered (Ninyo & Moore, 2008). There are no groundwater wells within the project area.

There are no intermittent or permanent surface water sources or wetlands in the project area. A small ephemeral drainage or swale crosses the proposed STC site from northeast to southwest. The flow of water in these smaller drainage systems occurs only during infrequent storm event s and has no nexus to the Colorado River system and therefore would not be regulated by t he U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Eldorado Valley is a closed basin; runoff from the adjacent mountain ranges and surface flow drain inward to a playa lake (Eldorado Dry Lake) located approximately three m iles north of the proposed site. The storm waters that drain into the isolated playa evapor ate soon after the storms end.

The project area has been surveyed for flood hazards and mapped on the Federal Insurance Rate Map for unincorporated Clark County. The El dorado Dry Lake is designated as a s pecial flood hazard area subject to inundation by the one percent chance annual flood event (i .e., 100-year floodplain). The adjacent area surrounding the playa, which includes the proposed STC site, has been determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be outside the 0.2 percent annual c hance floodplain (i.e., 500-year floodplain).

3.12.2 Impacts of Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would not likely impact any surface water or groundwater resources, or floodplains. Excavations are not anticipated to be deep enough to intercept groundwater. There are no surface waters, wetlands, or regulated ephemeral washes on the site that woul d be filled or altered to construct the STC.

Storm water runoff from construction activities can have an impact on water quality, cont ributing sediment and other pollutants exposed at construction sites. Any potential impacts to water quality from construction activities would be short-term, localized, and negligible. With a large storm event, eroded soils and runoff of sediments and construction

contaminants from the site could reach the playa lake if adequate cont rol measures are not implemented and maintained during construction. The site would be graded and contoured to minimize disruption to natural flow patterns. The remaining exposed soil would be paved fo r the parking lot or landscaped, minimizing runoff and potential impacts to water quality.

January 2009 26Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

The construction contractor for the UNL V Research Foundation will be required to file a Notice of Intent with the

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for cove rage under the general permit for storm water discharge

associated with construction that disturbs more than one surface acre. The general permit requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared and im plemented. The SWPPP w ill outline best management practices such as silt fences, straw bales, or sand bags for temporary erosion and sediment controls to minimize runoff from the proposed site during construction. Installa tion of landscape materials as soon as practicable after

construction will further minimize runoff that could affect surface water quality.

Floodplain characteristics and values would not be impacted by the Propose Action because the site is not located within a regulated floodplain.

Improperly functioning and overloaded septic systems are major sources of water pollution. Failing septic systems leak harmful pollutants, like bacteri a and excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), into groundwater. From there, pollutants make their way into lakes, streams, and rivers . Regular septic tank pumpi ng, inspection, and maintenance would prolong the life of the septic system and leach field installed for t he STC, and ensure proper functioning to minimize potential impacts to groundwater sources.



### 3.13 Intentional Destructive Acts

In December 2006, the DOE Office of General Counsel issued interim guidance stipulating that NEPA documents completed for DOE actions and projects should explicitly consi der intentional destructive acts (i.e., acts of sabotage or terrorism). Construction and operation of the STC would not involve the transporta tion, storage, or use of radioactive, explosive, or toxic materials. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that construction or operation of the STC would be viewed as a potential target by saboteurs or terrorists. The project location is not near any national defense infrastructure or in the immediate vicinity of a major in land port, container terminal, freight trains, or nuclear power plants. The Proposed Action would not offer any targets of opportunity for terrorists or saboteurs to inflict adverse impacts to human life, heath, or safety.



### 3.14 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide federal funding assi stance for the construction and operation

of the STC. The UNLV Research Foundat ion would not lease land from the Ci ty of Boulder City and the UNLV-CER would pursue solar technology research opportunities that could be tested using existing facilities on campus.

There would be no change in land use and zoning designations . The proposed site would continue to be zoned for solar energy development. The triangular shape, minimal size , and adjacent constraints could adversely affect future interest in that parcel for its designated use.

The No Action Alternative would not di sturb surface soils for constructing fa cilities and extending public utilities, and thereby, destroying vegetation, displacing or disrupting wildlife, and affecting local air quality with increased fugitive dust. Site conditions would remain unchanged and desert to rtoise densities could increase with improved annual vegetation cover. There would be no potential of locating or exposing a previ ously unknown cultural resource.

There would be no manmade elements added to the visual char acter of the landscape that could be viewed by people using adjacent lands.

The surface hydrology would not be altered and runoff fr om the site would not carry additional sediments or

contaminants that could affect wate r quality at off-site locations.

There would be no health and safety risks to workers or students under the No Action Al ternative, and no increased risk to storing and using hazardous materials or generati ng and disposing of hazardous wastes from research

January 2009 27Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

projects. There would be no short-term changes in ambient noise levels from construction activities and no additional vehicles on Eldorado Valley Drive. The opportunity to create short-term construction jobs in a slowing economy and the opportunity for a long-term source of energy generation for the City of Boulder City and the STC would be lost.

The No Action Alternative would not satisfy the purpos e and need for the Proposed Action. The benefits that would be gained from having a larger facility in which to conduct further research and testing of existing and emerging solar technologies would not be realized by the solar energy industry, by the public that desires alternative forms of energy, or by DOE.

January 2009 28Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

This section describes the impacts to the environment that may potentially occur because of the additive (i.e., cumulative) effects of implementing the Proposed Action with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually mi nor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Past and present actions included in the cumulative im pact analysis include the construction and operation of the NSO solar power plant and the El Dorado Energy electr ical power plant, and installation and upgrades to overhead electrical transmission lines, substations, and underground natur al gas pipelines. The foreseeable future actions include the construction of new or expanded alternative energy facilities th roughout the 3,000-acre area in Eldorado Valley designated for such development.

Because the proposed site could eventually be developed for so lar energy uses in accordance with the City’s plans for this area of the Eldorado Valley, t he potential impacts to the resources as described for the Proposed Action would occur, but at some future time and by a different pr oponent. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not necessarily generate additive cumulative effects to the area, but may onl y affect the timing of those impacts. The areas that would most likely experience cumulative effects with the Proposed Action include:

• Regional and local air pollutant emissions

• Habitat loss

• Visual landscape

• Land use and development

• Energy demand

Regional and local air pollutant emissions: Air quality in the project area has been poor in the past and the area is

in non-attainment for ozone. Construction emissions are short-term and with implement ation of adequate dust control measures during and after construction, increases in PM 10

emissions should not exceed NAAQS or affect the attainment designations in the airshed. Constructing new solar fields and increasing solar energy generation to provide electricity to the region woul d have a beneficial cumulative impact on air quality by reducing emissions of ozone precursors. Given the potential air quality benefits of renewable energy and energy efficiency research to be performed at the STC, the overall net impact of the Proposed Action on cumulative air quality in the region and locally would probably be neutral. The research activities to be conducted at the STC would pr ovide a net advantage to air quality by harnessing non-polluting solar power, while construction of the STC would result in a temporary increase in some emissions of criteria air po llutants and hazardous air pollutants.

Habitat loss: The Proposed Action in combination with other energy development projects in this area would result in the cumulative permanent loss of nat ive vegetation and the wild life that inhabit the area. However, the USFWS Biological Opinion File No. 1-5-94-F-283 concluded that the loss of approximately 3,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat to energy development in the Eldorado Valley would not jeopardize the continued exis tence of the species. Other non-federal projects occurring within Clark County come under the purview of the Clark County MSHCP and associated incidental take permit for impacts to desert tort oise and other covered wildlife and plant species.

Visual landscape: Construction and operation of the STC would slight ly modify the overall visual impression of the landscape that is planned for energy devel opment but is not yet developed. The STC would be visually compatible with the adjacent energy facilities. The vacant open landscape within the Eldorado Valley would change to an industrial dominated view as additional energy-related developm ent occurs. This could have an adverse cumulative effect on people in nearby wilderness areas. However, t he majority of people using mountainous areas for scenic view purposes are generally focused on the views provided into the mountain ranges rat her than toward the Eldorado Valley and thus cumulative impacts to viewer sensitivity would be negligible.

January 2009 29Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Induced development: The Proposed Action includes new development in the desert, but it does not create unplanned development or present the pot ential to open up new areas for development. It does not create improved access to real estate, reduce development restrictions, or substantially induce new development in unanticipated areas. Implementation of the Propos ed Action would have no adverse cumulative impact on land use and planning. The project is consistent with current zoning and t he Boulder City Comprehensive Master Plan, and would be compatible with neighboring uses. Related projects must be assessed for zoning and plan consistency, and mitigation measures applied where any land use impacts mi ght be expected. With mitigation (if needed) the related projects would not have a substantial impact.

Energy Demand: All projects requiring energy have incremental im pacts related to energy consumption, but very few offer the possibility of making a positive contribution toward renewable energy and energy efficiency. The STC and its research activities specifically intend to adv ance the use and acceptance of renewable energy and to enhance solar energy efficiency.

January 2009 30Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### 5.0 COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES AND SHORT-TERM USES

An irreversible commitment of resources can be defined as t he loss of future options. I rreversible effects result primarily from consumption or destruction of a specif ic resource that cannot be replaced within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., minerals or soils). Irretrievable res ource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected

resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action (e.g., extincti on of a threatened or endangered species or the destruction of a cultural site).

Labor, energy, materials, and capital would be committed for c onstruction of the STC. T hese resources would not be

recovered. Short-term use of a labor force would re sult in long-term productivity of energy development. Construction would make permanent use of building materi als; however, rare resources would not be consumed in the process. The construction materials, except to the extent they can be recycl ed, would be irretrievably committed.

Approximately 10 acres of land would be o ccupied by the STC and related research activities for some time into the future until the operations are terminated. This land coul d be re-used for other energy development, or restored to its existing condition as open space and replanted with native deser t flora; therefore, the commitment of land is not

irreversible.

The incremental loss of desert tortoise habitat and open-s pace and scenic values is balanced by the protections afforded to the long-term productivity of the site for solar energy development. Improved efficiency and increased use of renewable energy sources could subst antially reduce the use of and reliance on imported fossil fuels in the future.

January 2009 31Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

This page intentionally left blank.

January 2009 32Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center



### 6.0 REFERENCES

Association of Engineering Geologists. 1996. Seismic Hazards in the Las Vegas Region, Field Trip Guidebook.

Southwestern Section.

Berry, K. H. and L. L. Nicholson. 1984. The Distribution and Density of Desert Tortoise Populations in California in the 1970s. Pages 26-60 In: The Status of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the United States. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from t he Desert Tortoise Council. Order No. 11310-0083-81.

Boulder City. 1988. City of Boulder City, Nevada. Ci ty Code Title 11 Zoning and Subdivisions, Chapter 16, Section 3. Effective March 23, 1988.

________. 1997. City of Boulder City, Nevada. City Code Title 11 Zoning and Subdivisions, Chapter 19, Section 2. Effective July 16, 1997

________. 2008. Boulder City, Nevada Data. http://www.city-data.com/city/Boulder-City-Nevada.html . Accessed July 8, 2008.

Buqo, T.S, and M.E. Giampaoli. 1988. Hydrologic Study and Water Supply Evaluation, Searchlight, Nevada, Final Report , Las Vegas Valley Water District, Las Vegas, NV.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1994. Environmental Assessment for Sa le under P.L. 85-339, Eldorado Valley Act. EA Number NV-054-94-111. Las Vegas Office , Stateline Resource Area. August 22, 1994.

________. 1998. Proposed Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II. Las Vegas Field Office. May 1998.

Clark County. 2001. PM-10 State Implementation Plan for Clark County. Appendix B-Emission Inventories, Methodology, Emission Factors, and Emission Estimates. June 2001.

________. 2003. Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook. Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management. Adopted March 18, 2003.

________. 2004. Clark County Air Quality Regulations. Section 0 – Definitions. Amended October 7, 2004.

________. 2005. Clark County Comprehensive Plan. March 30, 2005.

________. 2008b. Clark County Assessor’s OpenWeb Info Mapper. http://gisgate.co.clark.nv.us/ openweb/asp/openweb.as p?getParcel=21300001002 . Accessed June 4, 2008.

________. 2008a. 8-Hour Ozone Early Progress Plan for Clar k County, Nevada, Revision 1. Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management. April 2008.

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL). 1978. Construction-Site Noise Control, Cost-Benefit Estimation Technical Background. U.S. Army. January 1978.

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Envi ronmental Justice in Minorit y Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629).

January 2009 33Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2002. Fl ood Insurance Rate Map of Clark County, Nevada and Incorporated Areas. Panel 3200 of 4090. September 27, 2002.

Hanson, Steve. 2008. Director, Boulder City Public Works Department. Personal communication with Ryan Jones, Ninyo & Moore. September 17, 2008.

Harrill, J.R., J.S. Gates, and J.M. Thomas. 1988. Major Ground-Water Flow Systems in the Great Basin Region of Nevada, Utah and Adjacent States, Hydrological Investigations Atla s HA-694-C Scale 1:1,000,000, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

Johnston, Jeff. 1994. Class II Inventory of the Propos ed Eldorado Valley Lands Act, Clark County, Nevada. BLM Report 5-2259(P). Mariah Associates project 840-07.

Karl, A. 1981. The Distribution and Relative Densities of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada. Proceedings of the 1981 Dese rt Tortoise Council Symposium. pp. 76-92.

Knight & Leavitt Associates. 2008. Records Search and Cu ltural Assessment of a Parcel in Eldorado Valley, Clark County, Nevada. June 20, 2008.

Jerud, Jeff. 2008. Principal Traffic Engineer, Nevada D epartment of Transportation. Personal communication with Ryan Jones, Ninyo & Moore. September 23, 2008.

Longwell, C.R., Pampeyan, E.H., Bowyer, B., and Roberts, R.J. 1965. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Clark County, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 62.

Martello, Robert. 2008. Manager, Boulder City Disposal. Personal communication with Ryan Jones, Ninyo & Moore. September 23, 2008.

National Weather Service. 2008. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Western Region Headquarters. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/vef/climate/ Las% 20Vegas%20Climate%20Book.pdf . Accessed June 16, 2008.

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2008. Bureau of Water Pollution Control. Commercial Septic Systems. http://ndep.nv.gov/BWPC . Accessed June 9, 2008.

Nevada Power Company. 2008. Nevada Power Facts. www.nevadapower.com . Accessed June 11, 2008.

Ninyo & Moore. 2008. Percolation Test Results for the UNLV Solar Technology Center. May 7, 2008.

Potrovitza, Nicholas. 2008. Director of Research, Acci ona Energy. Personal communication with Mary Peters, MBP Consulting, LLC. June 17, 2008.

Public Law 108-447. 2004. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005. 118 Stat. 2809. December 8, 2004.

Rush, F.E., and C.J. Huxel, Jr. 1966. Ground-Water Appraisal of the Eldor ado - Pahute Valley Area, Nevada and

California. Department of Conservation and Natural Resource s, Water Resources - Reconnaissance Series Report 36. State of Nevada. Carson City, NV.

Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). 2008. Sout hern Nevada Water Authority 2008 Water Resource Plan.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. DP-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics. Boulder City, Nevada.

January 2009 34Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

________. 2006. Poverty Thresholds. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html . Accessed July 8, 2008.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. Natural Res ource Conservation Service, Nevada Online Soil Survey Manuscripts. http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/nevada . Assessed June 2008.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1996. Final Envir onmental Impact Statement of the Nevada Test Site and OffSite Locations in the State of Nevada. DOE/EIS-0243. August 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Informat ion Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. USEPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004. March 1974.

_________. 2008. EPA Region 9 Air Program. Air Quality Maps. http://www.epa.gov/region09/ai r/maps/maps_top.html . Accessed June 16, 2008.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Procedur es for Endangered Species Act Compliance for the Mojave

Desert Tortoise. Procedures Manual. October 1992.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). 2006. Risk Management and Safety. http://rms.unlv.edu . Accessed September 17, 2008.

________. 2008. University of Nevada, Las Vegas Research Foundation. http://research.unlv.edu/foundation.html

. Accessed June 25, 2008.

January 2009 35Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

This page intentionally left blank.

January 2009 36Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 

# Appendix A

Scoping Letter and Distribution ListFinal Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 

### This page intentionally left blank.Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 A-1Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 A-2Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 A-3Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 A-4Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 A-5 

### SCOPING LETTER DISTRIBUTION LIST

The U.S. Department of Energy notified federal, state, and local agencies, tribal government representatives, elected officials, businesses, organizations, and special interest gr oups of the Proposed Action. The list of recipients that were notified by postcard of the availability of the scoping letter and attachments is presented below.

FEDERAL AGENCIES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 321 North Mall Drive, L101 St. George, UT 84790 Ms. Leilani Takano

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 Environmental Review EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

Mary Jo Rugwell Field Manager, BLM 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 Ms. Kim Liebhauser Supervisory Realty Specialist, BLM 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVES

Ms. Lora Tom

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Tribal Council

440 North Paiute Drive Cedar City, UT 84720-2613 Chairperson Moapa Band of Paiutes

P.O. Box 340 Moapa, NV 89025 Mr. Richard Arnold Las Vegas Indian Center

2300 West Bonanza Road Las Vegas, NV 89106

Chairperson Pahrump Paiute Tribe

P.O. Box 4311 Pahrump, NV 89041 Mr. Daniel Eddy, Jr.

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Route 1, Box 23-B Parker, AZ 85344 Mr. Thomas Siyuja Havasupai Tribal Council

P.O. Box 10 Supai, AZ 86435

Ms. Nora McDowell Fort Mojave Tribal Council

500 Merriman Avenue Needles, CA 92362 Chairperson Las Vegas Paiute Tribal Council

One Paiute Drive Las Vegas, NV 89106 Mr. Charlie Vaughn Hualapai Tribal Council

P.O. Box 179 Peach Springs, AZ 86434

Mr. Charles F. Wood

Chemehuevi Tribal Council

P.O. Box 1976 Havasu Lake, CA 92362

NEVADA STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Ronald James

State Historic Preservation Office

100 N. Stewart Street Carson City, NV 89701 Mr. John Jones Division of Forestry 4747 W. Vegas Drive Las Vegas, NV 89158 Mr. Rudy Malfabon Department of Transportation 123 Washington Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89101

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

Division of Environmental Protection 2030 E. Flamingo Road, #230 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Mr. Brad Hardenbrook Department of Wildlife 4747 W. Vegas Drive Las Vegas, NV 89108Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 A-6 CLARK COUNTY AGENCIES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS

Mr. Gale Fraser Regional Flood Control District 600 S. Grand Central Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89155 Ms. Marci Henson Desert Conservation Program 500 S. Grand Central Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89155 Mr. Richard Mendes

Water Reclamation District 5857 E. Flamingo Road Las Vegas, NV 89122

Mr. Lewis Wallenmeyer Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management 500 S. Grand Central Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89155 Mr. Bruce Woodbury

Board of Commissioners 500 S. Grand Central Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89155

CITY AGENCIES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS

Mr. Roger Tobler Mayor City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350 Ms. Vicki Mayes City Manager City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350 Ms. Pamella Maimstrom City Clerk City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350

Mr. Skip Spilman Conservation Specialist City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350 Mr. Scott Hansen Public Works Department City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350 Mr. Dave Olsen City Attorney City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350

Ms. Andrea Anderson

Council Member City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350 Mr. Travis Chandler

Council Member City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350 Mr. Mike Pacini

Council Member City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350

Ms. Linda Strickland

Council Member City of Boulder City

P.O. Box 61350 Boulder City, NV 89006-1350

U.S. CONGRESSIONAL OFFICIALS

Honorable Harry Reid

U.S. Senator 333 S. Las Vegas Blvd., #8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Honorable John Ensign

U.S. Senator 333 S. Las Vegas Blvd., #8203 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Honorable Jon Porter U.S. Representative 2470 St. Rose Pkwy, Ste. 204 Henderson, NV 89074

BUSINESS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS

Mr. Robert Boehm UNLV Mechanical Engineering Department 4501 Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89154 Supervisor, Right-of-Way

Nevada Power

6226 W. Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89146 Supervisor, Right-of-Way Southwest Gas Corporation 4300 West Tropicana Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89193Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 A-7 Mr. Earl Hodge

2836 Belmont Drive Henderson, NV 89074 Mr. Gilbert Cohen

Nevada Solar One 8275 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Archeo Nevada Society 9921 West Charleston Blvd., #5 Las Vegas, NV 89117

Executive Director Nevada Conservation League 7473 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89128 Southern Nevada Project Director The Nature Conservancy 1771 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 104A Las Vegas, NV 89119 Desert Tortoise Council

P.O. Box 3273 Beaumont, CA 92223-1202

Southern Nevada Environmental Forum

705 Mallard Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89107 Southern Nevada Field Office

Sierra Club

732 S. 6th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Regional Coordinator The Wilderness Society Ca/NV 655 Montgomery Street, #1000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Southern Nevada Off-Road Enthusiasts

P.O. Box 270516 Las Vegas, NV 89127-4516 Nevada Conservation Forum

Desert Research Institute 2215 Raggio Parkway
Reno, NV 89512

LIBRARIES

Boulder City Library

701 Adams Blvd. Boulder City, NV 89005 Clark County Library 1401 Flamingo Road Las Vegas, NV 89109 Las Vegas Public Library 833 N. Las Vegas Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89101

James R. Dickinson Library

UNLV 4505 S. Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89154

NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AGENCIES

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources D epartment of Wildlife, Director’s Office Division of Emergency Management Department of Wildlife, Las Vegas Commission on Economic Development Division of Water Resources Fire Marshal Natural Heritage Program State Health Division National Nuclear Security Administration Hawthorne Army Depot Agency for Nuclear Programs

Indian Commission Division of State Parks Division of State Lands Congressman Porter

Naval Air Station Fallon Public Utilities Commission Commission on Minerals State Energy Office

Division of Conservation Districts State Historic Preservation Office

Division of Environmental Protection Burea of Mines Department of TransportationFinal Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 A-8 

### This page intentionally left blank.Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 

# Appendix B

Scoping Response LettersFinal Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 

### This page intentionally left blank.Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-1Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-2Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-3Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-4Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-5Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-6Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-7Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-8Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-9Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-10Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-11Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-12Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-13Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 B-14Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 

# Appendix C

Draft EA Comment Letters and ResponsesFinal Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 This page intentionally left blank.Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 C-1Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 C-2Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 C-3Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 C-4Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 C-5Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 C-6 

### Comments and Responses on the Draft Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

NO. COMMENT RESPONSE

Nevada Department of Wildlife

1 “Thank you for incorporating considerations and provisions regarding wildlife resources . . . the Department does no t anticipate any

additional consideration for wildlife

resources.” Comment acknowledged.

Nevada State Historic Preservation Office

1 “The SHPO concurs with your

determination that no additional inventories are necessary to identify historic properties . . . that could be affected by the undertaking.” Comment acknowledged.

2 “The SHPO could find no evidence that the Department of Energy has

consulted with a ffected Native America tribal representatives . . .” DOE provided evidence of their consultation with tribal representatives to the SHPO. No responses we re received fr om any tribal representative. Section 3.4.2 of the Final EA was updated to describe this consultation process.

Clark County Department of Air Quality and Envi ronmental Management

1 “. . . air quality regulations require a dust control permit before any construction activities can begin . . .” It was written in Section 3.2.2 on page 12 that the STC must obtain a dust control permit from the Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM) and submit a dust mitigation plan specifying the control measures that would be implemented during construction. The requirement for the UNLV Research Foundation to obtain such a permit was listed as an environmental protection measure in Section 2.1.5 on page 7. The comment was adequately addressed in the Draft EA and no revisions were made in

the Final EA.

2 “. . . standby generators . . . with a rating greater than 35 horsepower or 26 kilowatts require a stationary source permit.” It was written in Section 2.1.1 on page 7 that a temporary dieselfueled generator (approximately 20 kilowatts) would be used until power is produced at the site. As written in Section 3.2.2 on page 12, this generator would qualify as a categorically-exempt emission source and would not require an air permit from the DAQEM to operate. The comment was adequately addressed in the Draft EA

and no revisions were made in the Final EA.

3 “The EA refers to ‘hydrographic basin’; please change this to the correct term for the state of Nevada, ‘hydrographic area’ (HA)”. The geographic area designations for air quality are based on the Nevada Division of Water Resources’ map titled Water Resources and Inter-basin Flows dated September 1971. These geographic areas are watersheds or hydrographic basins. The word “basin” has been replaced with “area” in Section 3.2.1 on page 11 to be consistent with the terminology in the footno tes in 40 CFR § 81.329.
4 “Section 176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires federal agencies to conform to applicable state implementation plans . . .” An analysis of conformance in accordance with Section 176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act was written in Section 3.2.2 on page 12. The comment was adequately addressed in the Draft EA and no revisions

were made in the Final EA.Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 C-7 NO. COMMENT RESPONSE

5 “. . . HA 167 . . . is designated ‘Unclassified, Nonattainment’ for the

8-hour ozone . . . standard.” According to 40 CFR § 81.329 (revised July 1, 2007), hydrographic area 167 is designated “Nonattainment” for the 8-hour ozone

standard. No revisions were made in the Final EA.

6 “. . . Eldorado Valley is designated a ‘Management Area’ . . . a preemptive measure that addresses areas with a high probability of causing a nonattainment area designation . . .” The designation of the Eldorado Valley as a “management area” by Clark County was written in Section 3.2.1 on page 11. The comment was adequately addressed in the Draft EA and no revisions were

made in the Final EA.

7 “The proposed project . . . falls under the purview of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act . . .It should therefore undergo

consultation with the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service and be evaluated for Section 7 mitigation fees rather than

Section 10 land disturbance fees . . “ The section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit authorizes the incidental take of the desert tortoise for private actions on non-federal lands, including the parcel leased for the STC by the UNLV Research Foundation from the City of Boul der City. That permit does not provide Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for federal agencies that authorize, fund, or carry out actions on private land, rather that ESA compliance is provided through the section 7 consultation process. It was written in Section 3.3.2 on page 16 that DOE is consulting with the U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA for its propos ed funding for a private action on non-federal land. DOE proposes to minimize and mitigate the effects of the federal action (i.e., funding th e STC) on the desert tortoise by requiring the UNLV Research Foundation to comply with the terms and conditions of the section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit for private actions on non-federal land and anticipate the Service will

concur.

8 “The draft EA should include the

calculations used to arrive at its estimate of 85,617 acres for the

easement . . .” The number of acres for the conservation easement that Boulder City was to grant to Clark County was quoted from the Environmental Assessment for Sale under P.L. 85-339, Eldorado Valley Act, BLM EA Number NV-054-94-111, dated August 22, 1994. The text will be changed to “approximately 85,000” to match the language in the grant.

9 “On Figure 4, the boundaries displayed for Boulder City and the

Desert Conservation Area are confusing. A map showing the

correct boundaries is enclosed.” The intent of Figure 4 is to show the land use surrounding the STC parcel and not to depict the entire boundary of Boulder City or the conservation easement area, which are well outside the project area.

No revisions were made in the Final EA.Final Environmental Assessment Solar Technology Center

January 2009 C-8 This page intentionally left blank.