xs7hy9e06w?redirect_to=http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444

Recommendations

Info

Resource/ Issue Are impacts comprehensive and accurate? Do impacts need to be amended? Any additional design features? To what degree are impacts likely to be mitigated onsite? Are impacts likely to be adequately mitigated? Justification for impacts being or not being mitigated onsite: Recreation (Includes Travel Management Areas) Yes No No Virtually all impacts on recreation can be mitigated onsite. The potential impacts are primarily related to providing access to Dry Lake and the Arrow Canyon mountain range to the west of the SEZ. Through a combination of avoidance, design features, and the establishment of alternative access routes to these areas, the potential impacts can be adequately mitigated onsite. Yes Relatively little recreation currently occurs in the SEZ. Access to the Arrow Canyon Range and Dry Lake can be maintained by existing and/ or new routes. If new routes are established, a NEPA analysis would be required for those routes. Socioeconomic Yes No No Possible adverse impacts of in-migrating workers required for project construction and operation (e.g., hiring of police, fire fighters, and teachers and providing services to new area workers and families). Onsite mitigation could include requiring developers to secure agreements for local government services as a condition of a “Notice to Proceed.” Yes Any adverse impacts caused by the requirement for local government services would be mitigated by the requirement for the developer to secure agreements as a condition of the “Notice to Proceed.” Transportation Yes No No Virtually all impacts on transportation can be mitigated onsite. The potential impacts are primarily related to providing access to Dry Lake and the Arrow Canyon Range to the west of the SEZ. Through a combination of avoidance, design features, and the establishment of alternative access routes to these areas, the potential impacts can be adequately mitigated onsite. Yes Relatively few transportation routes would be impacted by development in the SEZ. Alternative routes to the Arrow Canyon Range and Dry Lake can be established. Wild Horses and Burros Yes No No No mitigation is necessary as the SEZ is not part of a herd management area, and no horses or burros are known to exist in the area. Yes The SEZ is not part of a herd management area, and no horses or burros are known to exist in the area. Wilderness and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Yes No No No mitigation is necessary as there are no designated wilderness areas or lands with wilderness characteristics within or adjacent to the SEZ. Because of extensive existing development within the SEZ (roads, power lines, pipelines, active mill-site, electrical substation, and natural gas-fired power plant), the area lacks wilderness characteristics. Yes Not applicable—resources would not be impacted. 1 The Final Solar PEIS identified seven BLM-Nevada special status plants that occur in and around the Dry Lake SEZ. However, only the rosy two-toned penstemon is expected to occur in the Dry Lake SEZ. To determine potential impacts on BLM special status plants, the BLM reviewed occurrence data and “Clark County Rare Plant Habitat Modeling” (Hamilton and Kokos 2011). The habitat modeling report can be downloaded from the Clark County Desert Conservation Program website at http://bit.ly/Qbm19H. 50 • REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY FOR THE DRY LAKE SOLAR ENERGY ZONE • TECHNICAL NOTE 444
Appendix B: Regional and Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Conceptual Models Conceptual models are used to understand ecosystem interactions at an ecoregional scale (Tier 1), the solar development scale (Tier 2), and the SEZ-specific scale (Tier 3). The models used for the pilot Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Solar Regional Mitigation Planning Project (as revised with stakeholder input) are presented here. Additional, more complex models may be constructed if needed to support impact assessment in the future. Tier 1 Conceptual Model, Mojave Basin and Range Ecoregion Model Climatic and Physiographic System Seasonal weather pattern, drought, wind, fire, water runoff-infiltration, evaporation, soil erosion/ disturbance, soil development, soil chemistry, freeze/thaw, nutrient cycling Snowpack formation/melt, water runoff-detention-recharge, surface flow, aquifer storage, surface-subsurface water exchange, evaporation, sediment erosion-deposition, connectivity, water chemistry, freeze/thaw Montane Dry Land System Basin Dry Land System Montane Wet System Basin Wet System Grazing, recreation, logging, fire alteration, land conversion, contamination, invasive species, air pollution, hunting, wildlife/human conflict, trampling, collecting Natural Driver Human Systems (Change Agents and Drivers of Change): Demography, socioeconomics, policy, resource development pressure Water withdrawal/diversion, grazing, invasive species, water pollution, wetland drainage, fishing, trampling, recreation Human Driver REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY FOR THE DRY LAKE SOLAR ENERGY ZONE • TECHNICAL NOTE 444 • 51
Page 1 and 2:
Regional Mitigation Strategy for th
Page 3 and 4:
Regional Mitigation Strategy for th
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT_________
Page 7 and 8: The “Regional Mitigation Strategy
Page 9 and 10: 1.2 Background I n 2012, the BLM an
Page 11 and 12: 1.4 Stakeholder Involvement in the
Page 13 and 14: Range. A full description of the la
Page 15 and 16: plant communities of regional impor
Page 17 and 18: Figure 2-4. Dry Lake Solar Energy Z
Page 19 and 20: Figure 2-6. Land cover types in the
Page 21 and 22: Geospatial Data 1. Landscape Condit
Page 23 and 24: Table 2-3 (continued). Solar Energy
Page 25 and 26: 2.3 Summary of Solar Development Im
Page 27 and 28: 2.4.2 Minimization 2.4.2.1 Summary
Page 29 and 30: documented (see Appendix A, Impact
Page 31 and 32: • Manage desert tortoise habitat
Page 33 and 34: Step 1: Select Mitigation Action(s)
Page 35 and 36: 2.8 Evaluation of Mitigation Locati
Page 37 and 38: Figure 2-10. Gold Butte Area of Cri
Page 39 and 40: Mitigation Goals and Tasks Reason W
Page 41 and 42: 2.9 Mitigation Effectiveness Monito
Page 43 and 44: (MacKinnon et al. 2011) and supplem
Page 45 and 46: are evaluated. These data are also
Page 47 and 48: Remote sensing technologies provide
Page 49 and 50: 2.10 Implementation Strategy This p
Page 51 and 52: References BLM (Bureau of Land Mana
Page 53 and 54: Resource/ Issue Are impacts compreh
Page 55: Resource/ Issue Are impacts compreh
Page 59 and 60: Tier 3 Conceptual Model, Dry Lake S
Page 61 and 62: Resource/ Issue Unavoidable Impacts
Page 63 and 64: Appendix D: BLM Screening of Candid
Page 65 and 66: # Criteria SEZ Candidate Sites Note
Page 67 and 68: # Criteria SEZ Candidate Sites Note
Page 69 and 70: Appendix E: Mitigation of Visual Re
Page 71 and 72: The Dry Lake SEZ is located within
Page 73 and 74: This distribution indicates that Sc
Page 75 and 76: for determining VRM Class objective
Page 77 and 78: Figure 7. BLM Southern Nevada Distr
Page 79 and 80: Sensitivity. Distribution of sensit
Page 81 and 82: VRM Class Objectives: The majority
Page 83: Desert National Wildlife Refuge, th
show all

xs7hy9e06w?redirect_to=http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?