- Table 2-3 (continued).
Solar Energy Zone (SEZ)
Site-Specific Condition
(SEZ Developable Area)
Condition in the Vicinity
of SEZ (Local-Regional
Status)
Landscape-Ecoregional
Condition Ecoregional Trendsa
Coarse Filter Conservation Element: Landscape Condition Model
Average Current Condition
Value Within the SEZ (SD*)
Average Current Condition
Value Within 5 mi of SEZ
Boundary (SD*)
Average Current
Condition Value Within
Mojave Basin and Range
Ecoregion (SD*)
Average Future Condition
Value Within Mojave
Basin and Range
Ecoregion (SD*)
Average Ecoregional
Difference in Current and
Future Condition
Values (%)
Landscape Condition
Value 57.4 (5.0) 66.0 (9.4) 76.6 (13.8) 72.3 (17.3) -4.3 (5.6%)
Fine Filter Conservation Element: Mojave Desert Tortoise Distribution
Potential Distribution
(Acres) Within SEZ
Potential Distribution
(Acres) Within 5 mi of SEZ
Boundary
Potential Distribution
(Acres) Within Mojave
Ecoregion
Future Conversion to
Human Development
(Acres)
Percent Future Conversion
Mojave Desert
Tortoise Potentially
Suitable Habitat Model
(SWReGAP)
3,471 92,168 16,772,653 1,059,811 6.3%
- Permalink Reply by on
- comprehensive assessment
of the potential impacts of
solar development at the
Dry Lake SEZ was provided
in the Final Solar PEIS (BLM and
DOE 2012). Potential adverse
impacts included effects on nearby
wilderness areas, recreational use
of the SEZ lands, military use of the
SEZ lands, soils, water resources,
vegetation, wildlife, special
status species (both vegetation
and wildlife), air quality, visual
resources, paleontological and
cultural resources, Native American
concerns, and transportation.
Some potential positive impacts
of development were identified
for local socioeconomics, as well
as positive impacts in terms of
potential to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions if solar energy produced
at the SEZ would displace use of
fossil fuels.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Dry Lake Cultural Resources
Following the process for evaluating cultural resources outlined in Appendix E of the BLM technical reference, titled “Procedural Guidance for
Developing Solar Regional Mitigation Strategies” the BLM interdisciplinary team determined cultural resources at the Dry Lake SEZ could most
likely be mitigated onsite and would not require regional mitigation.
At the time of the pilot Dry Lake SEZ Solar Regional Mitigation Planning Project, a relatively high percentage of the Dry Lake SEZ (well over 20%)
had been previously surveyed and/or had been previously disturbed during other industrial activities (e.g., power generation, transmission,
mining/milling) with few known sites recorded. A segment of the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road (not identified as part of the congressionally
designated national historic trail) was previously evaluated and determined significant; it is listed as part of a National Register historic district.
Because of its proximity to two washes already established as avoidance areas and a set of existing transmission line rights-of-way, it was
determined by the interdisciplinary team that any potential impacts on the cultural site (road) are “avoidable,” and no development with the
potential to impact the site would be approved in that portion of the SEZ (see Section 2.4.1.2). No other National Register-eligible sites were
known within the SEZ at the time of the pilot. An archaeological inventory of the unsurveyed portions of the SEZ is scheduled to be completed
prior to offering the SEZ for competitive lease.
In the case of the pilot, it was determined by the interdisciplinary team that a regional approach to mitigation planning did not make sense for
the Dry Lake SEZ because other SEZs would not likely benefit (not in same region) and because little cost savings and efficiency could be gained
with so little survey needed. It was also assumed that the few significant sites that might be found in the SEZ during the future inventory could
be mitigated most effectively onsite (i.e., within the SEZ) using traditional methods and in consultation with the state historic preservation
officer and tribes. The cultural resource mitigation planning for the Dry Lake SEZ was able to be stopped at this point, and it was concluded that
standard procedures for addressing cultural resource impacts made the most sense; the standard procedures would complete the inventory and
evaluation and mitigate for any significant sites within the SEZ.
In addition, consultation with the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians and other tribes had not identified archaeological/cultural resources significant
to them in the SEZ, although resources in the surrounding areas had been identified through an ethnographic study (SWCA and University of
Arizona 2011). At the time of the pilot, the BLM was still seeking clarifications from the Moapa on whether portions of the Salt Song Trail or other
traditional trails crossed the SEZ and whether cultural resource impacts of interest to the tribe were possible. This issue has not yet been resolved.
Based on feedback during the pilot Dry Lake SEZ Solar Regional Mitigation Planning Project workshops, the Moapa were most concerned about
impacts on habitat, wildlife, and water use.
- Permalink Reply by on
- documented (see Appendix
A, Impact Assessment
Summary Table).
• The team identified the impacts
that could be mitigated onsite
through avoidance and/or
minimization, including the
required design features and
additional measures described
previously.
- For each resource, the design
features and additional
avoidance and minimization
measures were evaluated
as to the degree that they
could avoid and minimize the
impacts.
• The residual impacts were
considered to possibly
warrant regional mitigation
(see Section 2.4.3.2).
The summary table presented
in Appendix A documents the basis
for the identification of unavoidable
impacts for the Dry Lake SEZ.
2.4.3.2 Unavoidable Impacts that
May Warrant Regional Mitigation
2.4.3.2.1 Conceptual Models
A conceptual model or models
depicting interrelationships
between key ecosystem
components, processes, and
stressors at the Dry Lake SEZ
is needed to evaluate the
effectiveness of mitigation
investments employed through an
SRMS. The Dry Lake SEZ specialist
team constructed conceptual
models to explain the role that
resources, individually and in
concert with one another, play
in the function of the relevant
ecological, social, and cultural
systems present in the region.
This regional model provided the
context to identify critical resources
at the local scale. Information
sources used for the development
of the conceptual model included:
• BLM REAs.
• BLM RMPs.
• Resource specialist expert
opinion.
• Nature Conservancy ecoregional
assessments.
• Habitat conservation plans.
Additional resources (e.g.,
other baseline resource surveys,
inventories, occurrence records,
studies/research, assessments,
and plans providing insight into
regional conditions and trends;
ethnographic studies; BLM, county,
or regional land use plans; and
federal, state, or local social and
economic studies) could be used to
refine the models in the future.
Developing conceptual
models for the Mojave Basin and
Range ecosystem, for solar energy
development, and for solar energy
development at the Dry Lake SEZ
was an iterative process between
the BLM and the stakeholders, with
a goal of describing in detail the
processes essential to sustain the
ecosystem and the stressors that
influence those processes. These
conceptual models are presented in
Appendix B.
2.4.3.2.2 Unavoidable Impacts that May
Warrant Regional Mitigation
Based on the best available
information, conceptual models,
assessments, and expert opinion,
the Dry Lake specialist team
identified at-risk resources and
processes in the region that
coincided with resources as likely
experiencing unavoidable adverse
impacts due to solar development
within the SEZ. The Sonora-Mojave
Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert
Scrub community was identified
as at risk on the basis of the
regional trend analysis described in
Section 2.1.3.2. The team estimated
how the unavoidable impacts of
solar development could affect the
condition and trend of the at-risk
resource values at both local and
regional scales.
For each unavoidable impact,
the Dry Lake specialist team
identified criteria to help determine
at what point the degree of
unavoidable impacts might warrant
regional mitigation. The criteria/
decision point referenced:
a. The relative importance placed
on the resource in the land use
plan.
b. The rarity, legal status, or state
or national policy status of the
resource.
c. The resilience of the resource in
the face of change and impact.
Next, a team applied the criteria
to the assumed full build-out of the
SEZ to identify which unavoidable
impacts, in the context of the
regional setting, may warrant
regional mitigation for the Dry
Lake SEZ. This list has been
reviewed by stakeholders, and
their comments have been
considered. The process for
assessing whether impacts to visual
resources at the Dry Lake SEZ may
warrant regional mitigation is
presented in Appendix C.
- Permalink Reply by on
- 2.5 Regional Mitigation Goals
2.5.1 Background on
Regional Goals
The regional mitigation
described in this strategy is focused
on recommending appropriate
compensation for the unavoidable
impacts of developing the Dry Lake
SEZ (i.e., those impacts that cannot
be either avoided or minimized
onsite and are likely to exacerbate
problematic regional trends).
For impacts recommended for
regional mitigation, the mitigation
goal, at the broadest level, is to
offset the unavoidable adverse
impacts that are expected to
occur onsite with actions that
improve or protect the impacted
resource elsewhere in the region.
As detailed in the “Procedural
Guidance for Developing Solar
Regional Mitigation Strategies”
(BLM forthcoming), regional
mitigation goals should include
consideration of the effectiveness,
feasibility, durability, and risk of
mitigation locations and actions
for compensating for unavoidable
impacts in the SEZ.
The unavoidable impacts that
may warrant regional mitigation
for the Dry Lake SEZ (identified
in previous steps in this strategy
process) are as follows:
• The loss of desert tortoise
habitat and the potential loss
of individual desert tortoises.
The desert tortoise is listed as
a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act.
• The loss of habitat and the
potential loss of individual
animals for the following
BLM special status species:
Gila monster, Mojave Desert
sidewinder, ferruginous hawk,
golden eagle, loggerhead shrike,
and Le Conte’s thrasher.
• The loss of rosy two-toned
penstemon (also known as
pinto beardtongue) habitat and
the potential loss of individual
plants. The rosy two-toned
penstemon is a BLM special
status species plant.
• The loss of ecosystem services
and the human uses depending
on them, as a result of
development and until the lease
expires and the site is restored.
The primary components of
an ecological system are: soils,
vegetation, water, air, and
wildlife.
• The visual impacts that will
occur that exceed the allowable
level within the portion of the
SEZ located within the area
designated as visual resource
management (VRM) Class III in
the Las Vegas RMP (BLM 1998).
In addition, the following
unavoidable impacts were
identified as having the potential
to occur, depending on the way
the area is developed, the success
of onsite mitigation activities,
data gaps, and/or the discovery of
unanticipated resources:
• Introduction and spread of
invasive/noxious weeds.
• Alterations to surface hydrology.
• Loss of cultural resources.
• Increased density of desert
tortoise in the Coyote Springs
ACEC (established for tortoise
recovery).
• Visual resources as seen from
nearby specially designated
areas.
• Certain Native American
concerns (e.g., loss of habitat and
spiritual value).
While no regional mitigation
objectives are proposed for these
potential impacts, they will be
the focus of an elevated level of
monitoring so as to facilitate the
timely detection of unanticipated
impacts and conditional
stipulations to be included in the
grant to afford prompt and effective
remediation.
2.5.2 Las Vegas Resource
Management Plan Goals
and Objectives
The Las Vegas RMP (BLM
1998) guides BLM project-specific
decisions in the region in which
the Dry Lake SEZ is located. The
Las Vegas RMP established the
following management goals
and objectives related to the
unavoidable impacts identified in
2.5.1 for the Dry Lake SEZ:
Desert Tortoise
• Manage habitat to further
sustain the populations of
federally listed species so they
no longer need protection under
the Endangered Species Act.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Solar Regional Mitigation Planning
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is Solar Regional Mitigation Planning (SRMP)?
Solar Regional Mitigation Planning (SRMP) is a unique approach to mitigating the
unavoidable adverse impacts associated with developing and operating utility-scale solar
power generation facilities on public lands within solar energy zones (SEZs) identified
through the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy
Development in Six Southwestern States (Solar PEIS). In short, the approach calls for a
more strategic, systematic, and collaborative approach for identifying, implementing, and
monitoring the outcomes of off-site mitigation actions.
2. What is off-site mitigation and does SRMP fit?
Off-site mitigation is covered under current BLM policy and consists of compensating for
resource impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or habitat at a different
location than the project area.1
Off-site mitigation is supplemental to on-site mitigation
and is used to enhance the BLM’s ability to fulfill its mission of providing multiple uses
on the public lands, while ensuring its resource management objectives are met.
Solar regional mitigation planning for SEZs would be considered a strategic approach to
off-site mitigation, one that specifically identifies compensation priorities based on
landscape-level or other ecological, recreation, or socioeconomic objectives. Any off-site
mitigation and compensation, including regional mitigation planning for SEZs, would be
triggered only for unavoidable impacts that could not be measurably avoided or
minimized to an acceptably low significance level.
3. Why is the BLM looking to change the way mitigation is handled for solar
development?
Comments on the Solar PEIS revealed discontent with the current process from both the
development and conservation perspectives and requested that opportunities be sought for
a new way of addressing mitigation. Some commenters pointed out that the current
process of having solar project developers propose specific off-site mitigation actions for
BLM consideration is inefficient and frustrating. Other commenters contended that the
current process of selecting off-site mitigation actions and where these actions will occur
lacks a larger context which, if considered, could focus mitigation actions on activities
and in places that would magnify the positive outcomes of the mitigation actions.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The presented distortion of the dangers of radiation have been disproved by Chernobyl, Japan WW II bombing, South Pacific Nuclear bomb test range, 3 mile island, high voltage transmission lines.Like the global warming it is faked Grant Science funded by those that want to reduce world population by 2/3 so it can be sustainable. The same reason they fight energy production = population control and control over the elements of production. all of their papers that they created publications that would grant them peer review status so they could apply for GRANTS. Legitimate peer review publications deny 80% +- of all papers so the AGW were losing 80% of GRANT opportunity to fund Professors that agreed with them for money.The 100% failure of the hockey stick CO2 observation is proof that the numbers were gamed - in science 100% outcomes are unheard of - How about creating some JOBS and start to use American natural resources to restart our base value added manufacturing?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I thought you might be interested in this article:Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders.Sent via the Fox News app for Android. Download the app here:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Interesting the AGW CO2 supporters never present any new facts or data – they just find another Alphabet agency using computer modeling programs that are based on the SAME GAMED information base of AU and Mann.Please explain how all of these organizations came to the same identical conclusions and they were all 100% wrong 100% of the time. 15 years in a row they have been wrong.It is not a conspiracy theory that was the problem, it is a concept of your construct to help save what little respect the scientific community has for the E-GREEN political machine. The extreme left is so invested with the concept of a global tax on life itself [carbon] that the truth and facts evade their minds.Oh yes, the E=GREENS say with all that money we could social engineer the entire world to meet our failed premises on climate and population – explain to all what level your desired sustainable population for the entire planet has been set.All of your E=GREENs are not scientists in fact most of your invented Consensus of scientists were Ph.D in social sciences and other things like gender bias. Add to that you movement could not pass the real science peer review so you all formed your own peer review journals.This new peer review system was the only way the E+GREEN movement could secure the hundreds of peer reviews so they could then apply to the Government and corporations for GRANTS – thus the first fake of the GRANT SCIENCE machine that funded so many University Professors – oh did they vote then? CONFLICT OF INTEREST.Science is not proven by a Democratic Vote – A Majority of votes does not amount to a PROOF. No not one of the many faked papers has advanced in the world of real science to the theory Status.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I shall rename this Biden speech the BUNDY V. BLM/US GOVERNMENT speech. Just change the words from No nation to no citizen [Bundy - Nage] and Russia to the US agencies. Leave the armed agents on the border of the ranch. Yes it is the same but Biden and the left cannot grasp that the E=GREEN policy of conversion of private land to public by Federal edict as in Endangered Species act, Clean water and air acts, EPA and BLM/USFS acts as taking property rights without JUST COMPENSATION.
Today, the Prime Minister and I talked about the work before us. We discussed the most acute problem, the most acute matter facing the Ukrainian people, the ongoing threat to their country’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity. I’ll say it again, Ukraine is and must remain one country from Lviv to Kharkiv down to the Black Sea -- one country, one united Ukraine.
The United States supports a strong, united Ukraine with productive and peaceful relationships with both the East and the West, with both Russia and Europe. And that's a goal that I know you share, Mr. Prime Minister. But no nation -- no nation -- has the right to simply grab land from another nation. No nation has that right. And we will never recognize Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea, and neither will the world, as was demonstrated by the overwhelming vote that took place in the Security Council in the General Assembly.
No nation should threaten its neighbors by massing troops along the border. We call on Russia to pull back these forces. No nation should stoke instability in its neighbor’s country. We call on Russia to stop supporting men hiding behind masks in unmarked uniforms, sowing unrest in Eastern Ukraine. And we have been clear that more provocative behavior by Russia will lead to more costs and to greater isolation. The United States has demonstrated, as Ukraine has, that it supports diplomatic efforts to deescalate the situation.
Mr. Prime Minister, your government has taken important steps to uphold the agreement reached in Geneva just last week, including putting forward a broad amnesty bill for separatists, which you’ve done, who give up -- amnesty for those who give up buildings and their weapons. You’ve also sent senior representatives to the east to help the OSCE move the process forward. You’ve met with the head of that delegation, as I did yesterday.
We’ve heard a lot from Russian officials in the past few days, but now it’s time for Russia to stop talking and start acting. Act on the commitments that they made: to get pro-Russian separatists to vacate buildings and checkpoints, accept amnesty and address their grievances politically; to get out on the record calling for the release of all illegally occupied buildings. That's not a hard thing to do, and to send senior Russian officials to work with the OSCE in the east. These are commitments made; they should be fulfilled. We need to see these kinds of concrete steps. We need to see them without delay. We will not allow this to become an open-ended process. Time is short in which to make progress.
In this time of testing, the instability in the east is only one of several challenges Ukraine and the government must confront. It also has challenges in politics, economics and in energy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/22/remarks-press...
Remarks to the Press by Vice President Joe Biden and Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk...Article V Project to Restore Liberty Here is the Hage case where Hage was granted over $ 12 million from the Government for a RICO conspiracy to steal his property - the Government is appealing and the US Attorney is investigating the actions of the BLM and USFS agents at the order from Judge Jones.http://law.justia.com/.../nvdce/2:2007cv01154/55973/235/
law.justia.comORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment 186 is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that... See MoreThis is a long time directed action by Government to TAKE property and rights from the people using Rules, Regulations and finding plants, insects and animals that are on the edge of their territories and then declare them endangered when moving north or south they have healthy populations.The Government then restricts your land use without paying you just Compensation for the rights "TAKEN."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Want to end the BLM, IRS, EPA, NSA, USFS? Join this effort and send the email letters to your State Legislators - this is a 100% safe, sure and certain method to force the Overreaching Federal Government back under the limits of the Constitution.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.htmlThe fight is on now for real.
No comments:
Post a Comment