Coalition Comments on BLM EIS for Solar Energy Development

ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION – NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW

Submitted by email to: so***@bl*.gov

 

April 1, 2024

Jeremy Bluma, Senior Advisor
National Renewable Energy Coordination Office
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Subject:  Draft Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development PEIS/RMPA

Dear Mr. Bluma:

I am writing on behalf of more than 2,600 members of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition), who collectively represent more than 45,000 years of national park management experience. The Coalition studies, educates, and advocates for the preservation of America’s National Park System. Among our members are former National Park Service (NPS) directors, regional directors, superintendents, resource specialists, park rangers, maintenance and administrative staff, and a full array of other former NPS employees, volunteers, and supporters.

In February 2023, the Coalition submitted detailed scoping comments on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed programmatic EIS for solar energy development. We are pleased to now provide the following comments regarding the Draft Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development PEIS/RMPA (draft PEIS).

GENERAL COMMENTS

First and foremost, the preferred alternative in the draft PEIS represents a significant update and improvement in BLM’s existing solar energy development guidance provided in the 2012 Western Solar Plan (2012 plan). There are many “positives” regarding the draft SEIS, which we summarize below. Our primary concern with the proposal is that BLM would continue to allow, consider, and possibly approve solar energy development applications on public lands immediately adjacent to units of the National Park System (parks) and other special protected areas managed by agencies other than the BLM. This is a significant problem that the draft PEIS fails to adequately address.

1. Positives – Among the many proposed changes, the following stand out as being among the most important for BLM to implement:

A. BLM has appropriately expanded the geographic scope of the draft PEIS from 6 states to an 11-state planning area – The 2012 Western Solar Plan applied to only six western states, which left public lands in a number of states with the potential for solar energy development to occur without a coherent, overarching solar energy development policy.

B. The draft PEIS has appropriately redefined “utility scale” to mean any solar project(s) with a theoretical output (or “nameplate”) capacity of 5 megawatts (MW) or higher – In contrast, the 2012 solar plan had defined “utility-scale” facilities as projects with capacities of 20 MW or greater that generate electricity that is delivered into the electricity transmission grid. The revised definition will encompass most large-scale solar energy projects likely to occur on public lands and will be consistent with the definition of “utility-scale” solar energy used by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Bolinger et al. 2022; Denholm et al. 2022).

C. The draft PEIS, Section 2.2, provides an updated and presumably more accurate Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) than the 2012 plan – The draft PEIS estimates that a total of 700,000 acres would be needed in the 11-state area to provide for foreseeable solar energy development. See Table 2.2-2. The updated RFDS provides important baseline information that can be used to evaluate the adequacy of the total acreage that would be available for application under the respective action alternatives in the draft PEIS.

D. The draft PEIS, Table 2.1-3, identifies effective Proposed Resource-Based Exclusion Criteria – These resource-based exclusions are similar to those listed in Table A-2 of the 2012 plan, but have presumably been reviewed and updated. The use of exclusion criteria to prohibit, not just restrict, solar energy development in resource sensitive locations is an effective strategy that would avoid, not just reduce, impacts to sensitive resources that would otherwise be adversely impacted if any level of solar energy development in these areas were allowed. Regrettably, the list of exclusions does not include “exclusion buffers” (i.e., systematic setbacks) along the boundaries of national parks or other special protected areas not managed by the BLM. As a result, the potential for solar energy development in close proximity to national park boundaries remains a distinct possibility and a significant concern under any of the action alternatives described in the draft PEIS. We will discuss this concern in more detail later in this letter.

E. Programmatic design features required under all the Action Alternatives would provide additional mitigation by minimizing impacts from proposed solar development – A comprehensive list of programmatic design features is provided in Appendix B. While the list of design features is extensive, we note with concern that Section B.19 Design Features for Visual Resources fails to follow BLM’s own guidance found in “Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered Land.” (BMPs). Specifically, Section 6.2.1 (p. 141) of the BMPs recommends: “Site [i.e., locate] facilities and ROWs outside of sensitive viewsheds or as far as possible from sensitive viewing locations.” Appendix B specifically and the draft PEIS in general provide no guidance on what would provide adequate exclusion buffers near national parks or other special protected area boundaries in order to protect visual resources as seen from those sites. We will discuss this concern in more detail later in this letter.

F. The draft PEIS would eliminate the designation of “solar energy zones” (SEZs) – SEZs were identified in the 2012 plan to designate “an area within which the BLM will prioritize and facilitate utility-scale production of solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development.” Although well intended, the concept of preferred leasing areas or SEZs was ineffectively implemented in large part because BLM also allowed development in many other less-preferred locations called “variance areas” without providing adequate incentives to encourage development within SEZs. As a result, most of the solar energy development that BLM has approved since 2012 has actually occurred in variance areas, not in SEZs.

G. The draft PEIS would eliminate the Western Solar Plan’s variance process and remove the land use allocations for variance lands – Under the 2012 plan, most solar energy development applications have actually occurred in variance areas, rather than in the preferred SEZs that had been identified by BLM. Instead of identifying SEZs and variance areas, the draft PEIS makes a simpler, binary distinction between “solar application areas,” where such development is permissible, and “exclusion areas” where such development is not permitted. This simplification is appropriate and should help reduce confusion about where the BLM is actually encouraging development.

H. The draft PEIS would establish commonsense project screening criteria, including resource-based exclusions; a >10% slope exclusion; transmission proximity (i.e., proximity to existing transmission infrastructure); and previously disturbed lands – The five action alternatives in the draft PEIS would apply some combination of these four criteria to eliminate acreage within the 11-state planning from availability for solar energy application. For example, Alternative 3, the BLM preferred alternative, would apply the combination of: 1) resource-based exclusions; 2) the >10% slope exclusion; and 3) transmission proximity to determine acreage available for solar energy application. Alternative 3 would not prioritize the use of previously disturbed lands and would make a total of 22 million acres available for application.

I. Similar to the 2012 plan, under the proposed PEIS the BLM would perform a screening analysis when processing solar applications, in accordance with existing regulations, policy, and procedures (see 43 CFR Part 2800) – Specifically, the BLM would individually evaluate each application and apply screening criteria to identify potential intersections with “areas of special concern” prior to initiating NEPA analysis. In our view, conducting an effective screening process guided by detailed, directive, and appropriate siting criteria is the most important step in BLM’s project review process. For the most part, the draft PEIS would provide effective screening criteria. However, again, we are very concerned that, in the absence of straightforward exclusion buffers, BLM would continue to consider and possibly approve inappropriate project proposals along park boundaries and boundaries of other protected areas managed by other agencies.

J. “Areas of Special Concern” are described in Appendix H, which we will comment on in more detail later in this letter – As described in this appendix, in cases where screening identifies an intersection between a proposed project and areas of special concern, project developers could propose avoidance and/or other mitigation measures to address resource concerns. The screening process would preserve some aspects of the Western Solar Plan’s variance process but would eliminate redundancy with application processing elements under BLM regulation or policy. While it is a positive step that BLM has identified these special areas, it is a concern that BLM has not proposed straightforward exclusion buffers along the boundaries of these “areas of special concern” in order to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to areas of special concern that are not managed by the BLM. As proposed, BLM would still consider and possibly approve solar energy projects in locations with known potential conflicts; and mitigation of impacts in these locations would still be a discretionary function subject to basic flaws in BLM’s planning processes (such as reliance on outdated land use plans and outdated Visual Resources Management classifications), which we will discuss in more detail later in this letter.

K. Appendix H, section H.4, includes the most comprehensive documentation of NPS concerns about potential resources impacts of proposed BLM actions that we have ever seen in a BLM NEPA document – Appendix H includes over 750 maps submitted by NPS that document resource areas of concern along the boundaries of approximately 120 park units. We applaud the diligence of NPS staff in providing such extensive information to BLM and commend BLM for including it in the draft PEIS. However, we are very concerned about the adequacy of how BLM would address NPS concerns during the planning process and will comment more specifically about Appendix H later in this letter.

2. Concerns – While the draft PEIS includes many improvements over existing BLM solar energy guidance, our primary concern with the proposal is that BLM would continue to allow, consider, and possibly approve solar energy development applications on public lands immediately adjacent to units of the National Park System (parks) or other special protected areas managed by agencies other than the BLM. Our concerns include the following:

A. BLM is aware of public and agency interest in BLM establishing “exclusion buffers” near park boundaries, yet decided not to consider, analyze, or include such a measure in any of the action alternatives – The Scoping Summary Report indicates that many commenters recommended that BLM establish exclusion buffers around specially designated areas such as parks. The report specifically mentions 15 miles as the recommended exclusion buffer between solar energy projects on BLM land and national park boundaries. See section 2.1.3.3 of the report. In addition, as described in section 5.19 Visual Resources, Argonne National Laboratory guidance indicates that PV solar energy facilities might be visible from greater than 20 mi (32 km) distance, though not recognizable as a solar energy facility at that distance (Sullivan et al. 2012). This suggests that a 20-mile exclusion buffer may be necessary to avoid visual impacts to the landscapes as seen from special protected areas such as parks. Lastly, as described in Appendix H, the NPS provided the BLM with approximately 750 maps showing areas of special concern within 25 miles of NPS-managed lands, which suggests a 25-mile exclusion buffer may be appropriate in these locations.

However, BLM has not considered establishing exclusion buffers to ensure protection of park or other special protected area viewsheds in any of the action alternatives. In effect, under the draft PEIS BLM would still consider and possibly approve solar energy applications right up to the boundaries of national parks and other special protected areas managed by agencies other than BLM.

Instead of providing exclusion buffers as recommended in public comments and in the documents identified above, Appendix H simply describes a “process” for discussing NPS concerns if a project application overlaps with NPS’s 25-mile area of concern. This is far different and much less effective than providing guidance that would actually prevent, avoid, or otherwise exclude solar energy projects in these areas. As a result, the PEIS, if approved as drafted, would fall short of preventing obvious conflicts between proposed solar energy development and the protection of resources and values in adjacent parks and other special protected areas. In effect, it would leave such decisions to the discretion of the responsible BLM manager rather than providing definitive guidance.

Our observation has been that BLM managers commonly base project and ROW application decisions on whether the proposed activity is permissible under applicable policy guidance. In essence, if an activity is generally “authorized” (i.e., permissible) under FLMPA, then BLM managers are prone to allowing the activity unless there is specific guidance, such as in the applicable land use plan or in a programmatic EIS, excluding such activity within a specific area. Our concern about Appendix H is that BLM managers will view its provisions as permissive, rather than restrictive guidance. As drafted, Appendix H fails to provide a clear directive to restrict or deny requests to build solar farms adjacent to parks and other protected areas.

The crux of our concern is that resources and values within areas (parks) managed by the NPS are protected under a higher conservation standard than resources on public lands managed by the BLM. Notwithstanding FLPMA’s “multiple use” mandate, the Secretary of the Interior has an “absolute duty” under the NPS Organic Act, as amended, to protect the resources and values within units of the National Park System (parks). The Organic Act established the fundamental purpose of units of the National Park System, which is:

…to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (54 USC § 100101(a))

Congress supplemented and clarified the NPS Organic Act’s 1916 provisions through enactment of the General Authorities Act in 1970, and again through enactment of a 1978 amendment commonly referred as the “Redwood amendment” because it was included in a bill expanding Redwood National Park. Key language from these amendments includes the following:

Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System… shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by section 1 of this title [the Organic Act provision quoted above], to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1) (Emphasis added)

Congress intended the language of the Redwood Amendment to the General Authorities Act to reinforce the provisions of the Organic Act, not create a substantively different management standard. As stated in the Senate committee report:¹S. Rep. No. 95-528, 95th Congress, 1st Session at 13-14 (1977)

The Secretary is to afford the highest standard of protection and care to the natural resources within . . . the National Park System. No decision shall compromise these resource values except as Congress may have specifically provided. . . . The Secretary has an absolute duty, which is not to be compromised, to fulfill the mandate of the 1916 Act to take whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will safeguard the units of the national park system. (Emphasis added)

Similarly, the House committee report described the Redwood amendment as a “declaration by Congress” that the promotion and regulation of the National Park System are to be consistent with the Organic Act. The House report²H. Rep. No.95-581, 95th Congress, 2nd Session at 21. (1978) stated:

The Secretary is to afford the highest duty of protection and care [to parklands]. (Emphasis added)

The Secretary’s “absolute duty” to protect park resources and values is reinforced by USDOI Solicitor’s Opinion M-36993 (referred to as “the Doe Run opinion”). See “Section IV, Subsection B – The 1978 Amendment to the Organic Act and the Exercise of Secretarial Authority Over Activities on Non-Park Lands” (p 17), which states , in part:

[U]nlike the 1916 Organic Act (which speaks of promotion and regulation of the use of the national park system areas), the 1978 [Redwoods] Amendment speaks explicitly of “protection” as well as “management and administration” of the various areas of the national park system. The focus on protection carries some implication that external threats fall within its reach, an implication supported, or at least not contradicted, by the legislative history discussed above. Finally, the reference to the “authorization of activities” in the second sentence of 16 U.S .C. § la-1 is not limited to activities inside the boundaries of national park system units. It can, then, be read to encompass the Secretary’s authority… in circumstances where park units might be affected by the exercise of that authority. (Emphasis added)

In other words, while FLPMA Title V may “authorize the Secretary to issue ROW grants on public lands for systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric public lands,” the Secretary also has an “absolute duty” to comply with the NPS Organic Act and “take whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will safeguard the units of the national park system.” (Emphasis added)As a result, we are very concerned that BLM’s failure to propose exclusion buffers that would reasonably preclude solar farms from being developed immediately adjacent to parks is in direct conflict with the Secretary’s “absolute duty” to protect park resources and values.

Rather than disregard this approach outright as the draft PEIS has done, we urge BLM to fully consider exclusion buffers in at least one action alternative. Based on NPS’s Area of Special Concern maps, the Argonne National Laboratory recommendation cited previously, and public scoping comments, an exclusion buffer in the range of at least 15-25 miles would seem appropriate. However, we defer to NPS concerns about the many parks that could be impacted by future BLM decisions under the PEIS. We therefore recommend that BLM establish an exclusion buffer of 25 miles around the parks identified in Appendix H, section H.4 National Park Service Areas of Special Concern.

The analysis should include identifying the potential benefits to parks and other special protected areas in terms of the totality of adverse impacts avoided, as well as quantifying the impact, if any, of this approach on reducing the availability of otherwise suitable acres for solar energy application. For the latter, we suggest that BLM conduct a GIS analysis to determine how many acres would be removed from application availability if BLM were to implement a 25-mile exclusion buffer around the boundaries of these units of the national park system; and then compare the remaining acres available for applications with the RFDS “need” of 700,000 acres. If the benefits of avoiding impacts to NPS areas of special concern equals or outweighs the relative loss of acreage available for solar energy development, then implementing an exclusion buffer near parks would be an obviously beneficial decision considering the Secretary’s “absolute duty” to protect park resources and values.

B. In general, for ALL of BLM’s energy development programs (i.e., fluid minerals, mining, and renewable energy), the BLM should adopt a “good neighbor” policy and provide clearly defined exclusion buffers to prevent adverse impacts of BLM-approved actions on national parks and other special protected areas managed by other agencies – In our scoping comments, we encouraged BLM to establish exclusion buffers around special protected areas such as national parks to prevent or minimize impacts of BLM-approved actions on resources and values in adjacent areas managed by other agencies. However, as straightforward and effective as exclusion buffers would be, BLM has not considered them in any of the action alternatives in the draft PEIS. Regrettably, all action alternatives proposed in the draft PEIS would potentially allow solar energy development right up to the boundaries of special protected areas managed by other agencies, including units of the National Park System.

In using the term “good neighbor” above, we are not referring to the Good Neighbor Authority described in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2022-023. We simply mean that the BLM should fully assume responsibility for preventing and/or minimizing the impacts of its management decisions on neighboring conservation lands managed by other agencies. Specifically, BLM should notauthorize activities, especially industrial-scale energy development or fluid mineral extraction, in close proximity to national parks or other special protected areas. Unfortunately, under BLM’s generally permissive policy guidance that exists now, it is common for BLM to accept applications and/or authorize industrial-scale energy activities in locations immediately adjacent to national park boundaries. This is neither “responsible energy development” nor being a good neighbor.

Example #1: Oil and Gas Development Near National Parks – A noteworthy example of a park that has been severely impacted by BLM’s failure to exclude energy development in proximity to park boundaries is Chaco Culture National Historical Park in northwest New Mexico. As described in a report prepared by the Coalition and Archeology Southwest, BLM has leased over 90% of the federal lands surrounding Chaco for drilling. Oil and gas companies have already drilled more than 37,000 wells in the area and built a sprawling network of roads – 15,000 miles – five times longer than the distance from Los Angeles to New York. A 2016 NASA study documented the multiple compounding adverse effects of oil and gas development in the area, including the presence of a massive methane cloud positioned over the Four Corners region of the United States, including northwestern New Mexico.

This egregious example, involving over 37,000 wells, is particularly illustrative of BLM’s permissive approach to approving energy development proposals. Absent explicit policy guidance to limit, restrict, exclude, or otherwise prohibit a highly impactful activity (in this case oil and gas drilling) from a resource sensitive area, BLM decision makers are more likely than not to allow industrial energy development in close proximity to national park system units. Fortunately, in June 2023 the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Lands Order (PLO) No. 7923 to impose a 20-year “withdrawal” (i.e., moratorium) on new drilling in the vicinity of Chaco Culture NHP. However, absent this restrictive guidance imposed by the Department of the Interior, it is likely that BLM decision makers would have continued to allow oil and gas drilling to expand in the Greater Chaco Area.

Example #2: Renewable Energy Development Near Parks – A second example involves the proposed Lava Ridge Wind Project in central Idaho in close proximity to Minidoka National Historic Site, a unit of the national park system. The planning area for the project is covered by the outdated 1986 Monument RMP, which did not include a VRM classification or landscape management objectives that could serve as a baseline for determining the appropriateness of future development proposals. In the absence of such information or effective project siting criteria, such as exclusion buffers or other restrictive guidance, BLM Idaho accepted for consideration and is currently evaluating a massive wind farm project proposal (Lava Ridge) that could involve the construction of as many as 400 wind turbines that are up to 780-feet high, with some turbines proposed as close as ½ mile from the park boundary.

The stark setting of the World War II Japanese-American internment camp is a fundamental resource of the park as it is essential for conveying the raw sense of isolation experienced by internees. The highly controversial project is in the latter stages of the planning process, with a final EIS expected to be issued in the next few months. Whatever BLM decides, the bureau is likely to get sued either for providing inadequate measures (such as exclusion buffers) to protect resources and values within the park; and/or for requiring the project proponent to spend millions of dollars in project development costs if it turns out that BLM approves a modified project that is significantly different or has lower revenue potential than what the proponent has proposed. Either way, this project represents a clear failure of BLM wind energy policy to provide effective project siting criteria or guidance, including exclusion buffers.

Comment: We suggest there are lessons to be learned from the proliferation of oil and gas wells surrounding Chaco Culture NHP and from the Lava Ridge Wind proposal to construct a massive wind farm adjacent to Minidoka NHS. It is clear that absent guidance that includes exclusion buffers to preclude energy development on public lands adjacent to parks or other special protected area boundaries, it is more likely than not that BLM field managers will continue to consider and possibly approve inappropriately located energy development projects that inevitably impact park resources and values. Considering the Secretary’s absolute duty to protect national park resources and values, avoidance of impacts is the most effective and straightforward strategy for BLM to consider in the draft solar PEIS. Avoidance can readily be achieved by the BLM providing effective project siting criteria guidance that includes reasonable restrictions, including exclusion buffers, on energy development projects adjacent to park boundaries.

SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS

1. Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives – As described in this chapter, the draft PEIS would establish straightforward project screening criteria, including: 1) resource-based exclusions; 2) a >10% slope exclusion; 3) transmission proximity; and 4) previously disturbed lands. The five action alternatives in the draft PEIS would be based on some combination of these four criteria to identify acreage within the 11-state planning that is available for solar energy application.

Alternative 1 is based on resource-based exclusions only and would make approximately 55 million acres of public lands available for solar energy application. We note that this would provide 78 times more acreage for solar energy applications than is identified as needed in the RFDS. Alternative 2 is based on resource-based exclusions plus the >10% slope exclusion, and would make approximately 36 million acres of public lands available for solar energy application. This would provide 51 times more acreage than is identified as needed in the RFDS. Alternative 3 is based on resource-based exclusions, plus the >10% slope exclusion and transmission proximity; and would make approximately 22 million acres of public lands available for solar energy application. This would provide 31 times more acreage than is identified as needed in the RFDS. Alternative 4 focuses on previously disturbed lands. In addition to limiting solar applications to previously disturbed lands, it also applies the resource-based exclusions and >10% slope exclusion used under Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would provide approximately 11 million acres for application in the 11-state planning area, which is 16 times more acreage than is identified as needed in the RFDS. Lastly, Alternative 5 would apply the resource-based exclusions, >10% slope exclusion, disturbed lands focus, and transmission proximity criteria, resulting in approximately 8 million acres of public lands available for solar energy application. This would provide 11 times more acreage than is identified as needed in the RFDS.

Comment: In the section above we quantified how each action alternative would provide many multiples more acres available for solar application than the RFDS has identified as needed in order to make the following point. If BLM were to consider standardized exclusion buffers adjacent to parks and other special protected areas, it is mathematically unlikely that such a measure would reduce the amount of acreage available for solar application to such an extent that the action alternatives would be untenable due to a lack of available development areas. We therefore urge BLM to fully consider and analyze straightforward exclusion buffers along the boundaries of national parks and other protected areas in at least action alternative and allow that analysis to inform a well-reasoned decision regarding the relative  benefits and impacts of the proposed exclusion areas.

In addition, it is unclear from the information provided in Chapter 2 if the 22 million acres of availability provided under Alternative 3 overlaps with or otherwise incorporates the 11 million acres of disturbed lands identified under Alternative 4. We understand BLM’s rationale for not preferring Alternative 4, as it would limit applications to ONLY disturbed lands and thus significantly reduce the total amount of acreage available for solar applications. However, when evaluating the amount of acreage available for application needed to provide adequate “flexibility’ in administering the program, BLM should keep in mind that the RFDS identifies the need for only about 700,000 acres total for solar energy development. Even Alternative 5, the most restrictive active alternative, would still provide 11 times more acreage than the RFDS indicates would be needed.

In our view it would be appropriate for the BLM to still consider previously disturbed lands for solar applications, even if applications are not limited solely to previously disturbed lands. For example, we recommend that the 11 million acres of disturbed lands identified under Alternative 4 be included in the 22 million acres identified as available for application under Alternative 3. Since it is unclear in the draft PEIS if that is the case, we ask BLM to clarify how many acres of disturbed lands would be included in the 22 million acres of lands available for application under the BLM preferred alternative.

2. Chapter 5, Section 5.16 Specially Designated Areas and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics – As described in this section, under all Action Alternatives, national conservation lands (NCLs) and ACECs (special designations) managed by the BLMare excluded from solar energy facilities, which are not compatible with the purpose for these special designations. These areas contain outstanding cultural, ecological, scientific, and/or other values which are recognized by Congress, the president, and/or the BLM through special designation. However, the above-mentioned areas could be indirectly affected by development of utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands adjacent to or near these areas… However, “indirect impacts could occur inareas proposed for wilderness designation; and areas managed or designated by other federal, state, and local agencies (e.g., national park and national refuge system units or state parks)… Even with implementation of mitigation measures, a project could adversely affect the solitude/remoteness of these areas by introducing unnatural visual elements into the landscape, the indirect impacts of which cannot be avoided.” (Emphasis added)

While we strongly support the protection of specially designated areas managed by BLM, the same level of care could and should be given to avoiding adverse impacts caused by BLM energy development decisions on adjacent national parks and other special protected areas managed by agencies other than the BLM.

3. Chapter 5, Section 5.19 Visual Resources – As described in this section, “[b]ecause of their size and visual contrast with surrounding natural-appearing landscapes, in some circumstances, PV solar energy facilities might be visible from greater than 20 mi (32 km) distance, though unlikely to be noticed by a casual observer, and not recognizable as a solar energy facility at that distance (Sullivan et al. 2012). At shorter distances, and particularly as seen from elevated viewpoints, PV facilities are easily visible and recognizable.” This suggests that a minimum 20-mile exclusion buffer may be necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to visual resources and scenic values in special protected areas, such as national parks and wildlife refuges, adjacent to BLM-managed solar energy project sites.

Furthermore, the BLM has no authority to cause adverse impacts to units of the National Park System, which are protected under the NPS Organic Act as amended; or units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which are protected under the National Wildlife Refuge System Act. We therefore encourage BLM to fully consider at least one action alternative that would include a 25 mile exclusion buffer adjacent to units of the National Park System and other special protected areas managed by agencies other than the BLM.

APPENDICES

1. Appendix A: Proposed BLM Land Use Plan Amendments Under the BLM Action Alternatives – FLPMA requires the BLM to develop land use plans, also called resources management plans (RMPs), to guide the management of the lands it administers. An RMP typically covers BLM-administered lands managed under a particular BLM field office. As part of the draft PEIS planning effort, land use plans in the 11-state planning area would potentially be amended to address solar energy development. Appendix A includes a comprehensive list of BLM Resource Management Plans (RMP’s) that would be amended by the PEIS.

While it is important that local RMP’s adopt the provisions of BLM’s bureau-wide guidance, such as the draft solar PEIS, it is concerning that over 40% (i.e., 69 out of 154) of the RMP’s listed in Appendix A for the 11 states are greater than 20 years old. Idaho stands out as the worst case scenario with two-thirds of its RMPs (i.e., 14 out of 21) being more than 30 years old. Under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning requirements, outdated RMPs often do not provide an adequate basis for BLM’s energy development decisions, regardless of what kind of energy is being developed. This is especially true of BLM’s oil and gas leasing program, where numerous recent lease sale decisions have been based on environmental assessments (EAs) tiered to outdated RMPs that never considered the potential impacts of fracking, a commonly used practice on BLM lands; and did not considered the cumulative impacts of oil and gas leasing on climate change.

Similarly, the Lava Ridge Wind Project near Minidoka NHS in central Idaho is based on the outdated 1986 Monument RMP, which did not include a VRM classification or landscape management objectives that could serve as a baseline for determining the appropriateness of future development proposals. In addition, the RMP did not recognize or consider the historical significance of the Minidoka War Relocation Center (WRC) nor contemplate the creation of Minidoka Internment National Monument by Presidential Proclamation in 2001 or the establishment of Minidoka NHS by act of Congress in 2008. Lastly, the 1986 RMP was not amended by and did not incorporate guidance provided in BLM’s 2005 Wind Energy PEIS. Despite these gaps in applicable planning documents, BLM accepted and is considering a massive wind energy project proposal immediately adjacent to Minidoka NHS.

Comment: In brief, BLM’s all too frequent reliance on outdated land use plans (RMPs) and/or outdated (or absent) VRM classifications is a significant problem that ripples throughout BLM’s energy development programs, whether it be fluid mineral leasing or renewable energy development. Apart from this solar energy planning effort, we urge the BLM to conduct a comprehensive review of its land use planning program to evaluate the currency of existing plans and adopt basic, commonsense standards for determining and certifying the adequacy of such guidance if it is more than 10 years old. Where RMPs or VRM classifications are clearly outdated or do not provide adequate analyses of the potential impacts of the proposed development, then the BLM should adopt the policy of preparing an EIS (not an EA) for any proposed energy development project (whether it be oil and gas or renewable energy) that is not tiered to a recent EIS.

2. Appendix B: Design Features – This appendix identifies numerous design features that are likely to be effective at mitigating or minimizing potential impacts caused by the construction and operation of utility-scale solar energy projects on public lands. For example, section B.19 Design Features for Visual Resources (VR), feature VR-G-10, provides that: “Project developers shall consider landscape settings observed from a unit of the National Park System, National Monuments, National Historic Sites, National Trails, State Parks, and cultural resources of Tribal concern that may be a part of the historic context contributing to the historic significance of the site or trail.” (emphasis added)

While we appreciate that project developers would be expected to “consider landscape settings observed from a unit of the National Park System…,” a more important first step would be for the BLM to consider such landscape settings when BLM conducts its initial visual resource inventory of the area as part of its own land use planning process. Under BLM policy, an area’s Visual Resource Management (VRM) class rating determines “the level of change [allowed] to the characteristic landscape.” Our observation has been that it is common for public lands adjacent to and as seen from national park units to be rated as VRM Class III or IV, either of which provides relatively few protections from “change” (i.e., development).

In many cases, if the same visual resources had actually been considered from the point of view of the adjacent park unit during the inventory process, the rating may have been Class I or II. If a BLM landscape adjacent to a park was initially under-rated as a visual resource because BLM did not consider its value from the point of view of the park, then BLM policy would inevitably allow greater “change” (i.e., adverse visual impacts) based on the inaccurate rating. As a result, it is insufficient for BLM to expect project developers alone to consider visual impacts to such landscapes unless BLM itself also considers such impacts during its land use planning processes, including when BLM conducts its initial VRM inventory.

Similar to our concern above about BLM relying upon outdated RMPs as the basis for approving new energy development projects, we are equally concerned when BLM relies upon inadequate existing (or non-existent in the case of Minidoka) VRM inventories and classifications to approve industrial-scale energy projects adjacent to parks. If the existing VRM inventory analysis for a project area is more than 10 years old, then the BLM should adopt a policy of reviewing, certifying the adequacy of, and/or updating, if needed, the dated VRM analysis before BLM considers any new energy development projects that are proposed adjacent to national parks, national wildlife refuges, or other special protected areas managed by other agencies. The updated visual resource inventory should consider not only the value of the landscape as it is seen from BLM lands, but also as it is seen from adjacent national parks or other protected areas. Such an approach would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the “good neighbor policy” that we discussed earlier in this letter.

A case in point is the previously mentioned Lava Ridge Wind Project in central Idaho immediately adjacent to Minidoka NHS. In principle, BLM should have prepared a baseline VRM classification assessment during one of its previous land use planning processes for the area well before accepting and considering a wind energy project proposal of this magnitude. However, the previously mentioned 1986 Monument RMP did not include a VRM management classification or identify landscape management objectives that would serve as a baseline for determining the appropriateness of future energy development proposals. It also did notrecognize or consider the historical significance of the Minidoka WRC (the portions on BLM land) or the future creation of Minidoka Internment National Monument by Presidential Proclamation in 2001 or the establishment of Minidoka NHS by act of Congress in 2008. As a result, protecting visual resources and landscape scenic values from the perspective of the Minidoka NHS had never been considered by BLM before it received the Lava Ridge Wind Project proposal. Then BLM waited until late in the Lava Ridge DEIS planning process to finally determine that the project area would be considered a Class IV VRM area, which is the least protected class of visual resources under BLM’s VRM system. See the Visual Resources Technical Report for the Lava Ridge Wind Project. Given the historical significance of Minidoka’s isolated setting in the stark landscape of central Idaho, the Class IV rating is patently inappropriate. Clearly, BLM did not consider the landscape’s visual resource values as seen from the park in developing this rating.

3. Appendix H: Areas of Special Consideration – Section H.4 describes NPS Areas of Special Consideration for national park units adjacent to public lands that may be made available for solar energy applications under the draft PEIS. NPS has provided over 750 maps identifying 8 different resource areas of concern within 25 miles of approximately 120 park units. The areas of concerns relate to the following resource areas that could be impacted by utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands:

• Dark Night Skies – areas of less than 26 nanoLambert average anthropogenic light in the sky, based on the NPS Night Sky Division’s Anthropogenic Light Ratio dataset
• Points of Entry – areas within 800 meters of NPS visitor access points.
• Upstream Watersheds – Upstream watersheds that flow into NPS lands.
• Wind Erodibility – areas where soils are susceptible of being eroded by winds.
• Water Erodibility – areas where soils are susceptible of being eroded by water.
• Landscape Intactness – areas with high or very high intactness, based on the USGS Landscape Intactness Index. (Note: these lands are excluded under Alternatives 4 and 5).
• Viewshed Key Observation Points (KOPs) – KOPs identified in 2023 as 2023 Enjoy the View points or 2012 as Key Points of Observation.
• National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) KOPs – KOPs identified in 2012 as park NRHP points.

As described in the Appendix, if a proposed project overlaps an NPS Area of Special Consideration, as shown in the figures in this section, then:

1. The BLM will request NPS input during the preliminary application review meetings required in 43 CFR 2804.12 and will include NPS input for the prioritization of that proposed project.
2. At the first preliminary application review meeting to include the applicant and external agencies, BLM will offer the NPS a slot on the meeting agenda. The NPS will share the Area of Special Consideration (ASC) maps and describe resource concerns if they have resource concerns for the proposed project location.
3. The BLM will include NPS in the baseline needs assessment to identify any needed baseline studies relevant to NPS resources, and the relevant analyses needed in the BLM NEPA documentation.

Although the above provisions provide a “process” for discussing NPS concerns if a project application overlaps with any of NPS’s 25-mile areas of concern, that is far different and much less effective than providing straightforward guidance that would actually avoid, prevent, or otherwise exclude such projects in these areas. Similar to the concerns we expressed earlier in this letter about BLM’s oil and gas leasing program and wind energy development program, the approach described in the draft PEIS for addressing potential impacts of solar energy development on park resources is permissive rather than restrictive. It falls short of avoiding obvious conflicts between proposed solar energy development and the protection of resources and values in adjacent parks and other special protected areas. In the context of solar energy development, our concern is that BLM managers will view the provisions of Appendix H as permissive, rather than restrictive guidance, when making future decision about proposed solar farms adjacent to parks.

To address this concern, we urge BLM to consider a straightforward, standardized exclusion buffer between proposed solar energy projects and adjacent special protected areas, including parks, in at least one action alternative. Based on the previously described NPS maps showing Areas of Special Concern, the Argonne National Laboratory recommendation, and the public scoping comments, an exclusion buffer in the range of at least 15-25 miles would seem appropriate. However, we defer to NPS concerns about the approximately 120 parks that could be impacted by future BLM decisions under the PEIS; and recommend that BLM to establish an exclusion buffer of 25 miles around the parks identified in Appendix H, Section H.4. The evaluation of the exclusion buffer alternative should include a GIS analysis to determine how many acres would be removed from application availability if BLM were to implement a 25-mile exclusion buffer around the boundaries of units of the national park system. Such analysis should then inform a well-reasoned decision on BLM’s part. If the benefits to the NPS areas of special concern equals or outweighs the relative loss of acreage available for solar energy development, then implementing the exclusion buffer should be incorporated into the final PEIS.

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

The report summarizes public and agency comments received during the scoping period for the proposed PEIS. We call your attention to the following sections of the report:

1. Section 2.1.3 Exclusion Criteria: Many commenters recommended reviewing the exclusion criteria from the 2012 Western Solar Plan and using the best available information to expand or remove criteria to better meet updated priorities. Specific exclusion recommendations were separated into three categories: (1) technology-based exclusions, (2) resource-based exclusions, and (3) exclusion buffers surrounding communities and specially designated areas. (Emphasis added)

2. Section 2.1.3.2 Resource-Based Exclusions: Commenters recommended that the BLM identify areas with the lowest conflict as priority areas and identify exclusions based on current, updated science. Some commenters suggested exclusion evaluations be completed during project-level NEPA activities. They recommended the following exclusions (including):

• Specially designated areas (including): National parks (note that national parks are not administered by the BLM) (Emphasis added)
• Visual resource management: Class I and Class II (in Utah Class III) areas (Emphasis added)

Comment: We agree that the BLM statement in the section above that BLM does not administer national parks. However, that does not negate the bureau’s responsibility for managing development on public lands in a manner that does not adversely impact resources and values of park lands adjacent to BLM project sites. The existing exclusion from development of Class III areas adjacent to parks in Utah cited in section 2.1.3.2 above demonstrates BLM’s awareness of the concern, even if BLM has currently addressed it in only one state. Similar to BLM’s policy of excluding from development VRM Class III adjacent to national parks in Utah, BLM should consider such a measure more broadly in the action alternatives. We urge BLM to fully reconsider and evaluate the resource impacts and benefits of including a bureau-wide VRM Class III exclusion buffer for proposed projects adjacent to parks in at least one action alternative in the draft PEIS.

3. Section 2.1.3.3 Exclusion Buffers around Populated Areas and/or Specially Designated Areas: Commenters recommended buffers around certain areas, including:

• National parks: 15 mi (Emphasis added)
• Population centers: 20–30 mi

Comment: Despite receiving specific public comments in support of BLM establishing exclusion buffers along boundaries of national parks and other protected areas, BLM has not considered or included such a measure in any of the action alternatives. We urge BLM to fully reconsider and evaluate the resource impacts and benefits of including an exclusion buffer in at least action alternative in the draft PEIS. We recommend an exclusion of 25 miles, which would avoid adverse impacts in the areas of special concern identified by the NPS.

CLOSING COMMENT

For the most part, we believe the draft PEIS would provide effective guidance that would likely minimize adverse impacts of solar energy development on lands and resources managed by the BLM. However, we are very concerned that the draft PEIS would notprovide adequate or effective guidance to ensure the protection of resources and values on national park lands adjacent to BLM-approved solar energy development project sites. While BLM would provide “resource-based exclusions” to avoid adverse impacts to BLM-managed resources, the draft PEIS merely proposes a “process” to consider such impacts to national park resources and values on a project-by-project basis. We therefore urge the BLM to establish a straightforward, standardized exclusion buffer to preclude solar energy development within 25 miles of national park boundaries.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important plan.

Sincerely,

 

 

Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Chair of the Executive Council
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks

cc:

Steve Feldgus, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management

Shannon Estenoz, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks

Tracy Stone-Manning, Director, Bureau of Land Management

Charles F. Sams, III, Director National Park Service

Ray Sauvajot, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, NPS

• 1
  S. Rep. No. 95-528, 95th Congress, 1st Session at 13-14 (1977)
• 2
  H. Rep. No.95-581, 95th Congress, 2nd Session at 21. (1978)