Compensatory Mitigation for Utility- Scale_ Solar Energy Projects__________________

_______________Barbara Neal_______________Prepared for Argonne National Laboratory

Environmental Science divisionJuly 2015

Table of contents____________________________________Section Page

Barbara Neal -July 2015 1

I. Abstract 3

II. Introduction A. Background on Mitigation and CostsB. Different Solar Technologies and ImpactsC. Data Sources

5568

III. Methods and Materials A. Places to Find Information/Government Sites

Table 1: Documents and Location URLB. Types of InformationC. Projects ReviewedD. Types of Costs Included

88

10111112

IV. Results Table 2: Project Information & Compensatory Mitigation Costs

1313

V. Discussion/Conclusion A. Need for Utility-Scale Solar Development

and Data on Compensatory Mitigation CostsB. How do the numbers compare?C. Missing data.D. Questions.E. What’s next?

16

1616191920

VI. References 20

Barbara Neal -July 2015 2

I. Abstract_____________________________________

__The purpose of this research is to compile and analyze available data on

compensatory mitigation costs for utility-scale solar facilities. The aim was to allow

comparison of these costs across projects, to identify the types of compensatory

mitigation costs incurred to date and allow better understanding of the effectiveness of

the mitigation actions and consistency of requirements across projects. In this paper the

hypothesis is examined that compensatory mitigation costs are related across projects.

Steps are being taken in many companies across the United States to meet the projected

demand for solar energy.

There is a lack of Information on the costs of compensatory mitigation. This

evaluation of costs, done for six utility-scale solar energy projects, was meant to help

with that process. From this research it was found that due to the lack of established

pricing of compensatory mitigation costs, the costs are very dissimilar. In reviewing the

results of this research it can be seen that compensatory mitigation costs are unrelated to

amount of acres acquired for the project footprint, or to the power generating capacity of

the facility. No two facilities show similar per acre or per MW costs. The findings from

this study suggest that compensatory mitigation costs are inconsistent within states and

from state to state. The findings also suggest that compensatory mitigation costs are

inconsistent no matter what plant/animal species are affected. The required ratios for

compensation were dissimilar. The prices for desert tortoise compensation lands were

Barbara Neal -July 2015 3

also dissimilar within the same state. The data also suggest that compensatory mitigation

costs are unrelated to the type of solar technology used.

This research shows that a better area (avoiding endangered species) will lower

cost. One project in this study was able to avoid any endangered species and therefore

avoid any mitigation fees associated with endangered species. These findings from the

combined six projects do suggest that compensatory mitigation prices go up as the MW

output goes up. With the exception of the Crescent Dunes project, the price per megawatt

increases as the number of megawatts increases.

Information was not located to explain the inconsistency in cost data. This

research did not identify clear reasons for the differences in price or land compensation

ratio requirements. We don’t know if the government is properly managing our land. In

reviewing these documents I am led to ask whether there are any real rules set in place

for the actual costs of compensatory mitigation. The BLM has approved and began

construction of 14 projects since 2010, so there is a chance that as more documentation

for development of those facilities becomes available, it can fill in some of the gaps in

compensatory mitigation cost data. Continued research on mitigation costs is needed to

be sure the compensatory mitigation process is fair.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 4

II. Introduction_________________________________ _

A. Background on Mitigation and Costs___________________________

In the United States, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) has

been put in place to protect the environment. Compensatory mitigation costs, as they

relate to this project, are the costs associated with off-site1 measures taken to prevent

impacts to the environment and biosphere on public land. Many effects have to be taken

into consideration. Utility-scale solar facilities (that is, larger facilities generally over 20

MW that will send electricity to the transmission grid) will reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and reduce air pollutant emissions, but they still have ecological impacts on the

environment. The purpose of this project is to find what off-site costs are associated with

trying to avoid unsought effects to the environment while building solar facilities.

Avoiding damage is the first priority of mitigation. (CEQ, 1979) When an initial

plan is written for a project, the plan is intensively reviewed by the government, the

shareholders, and the public. To avoid the occurrence of unforeseen adverse impacts,

some actions are immediately eliminated in whole or in part. After avoidance,

minimization efforts are taken to lessen impacts. For example, visual impacts from a 90

foot wall can be reduced by limiting that wall to 45 feet.

In general, even after avoidance and minimization, there will still be impacts.

According to the Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) hierarchy, the next two

steps are rectifying and reducing. (CEQ, 1979) The area within the project footprint

disturbed from construction can be rectified by reclamation and restoration. Then

overtime, reduction of impacts happens by preserving and maintaining what was rectified 1Off-site- Locations outside of the proposed project footprint.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 5

(CEQ, 1979). Each of these actions are done on-site, and each idea is developed before

any off-site measures are considered.

Compensatory mitigation is essentially the last element in mitigation. The goal of

compensatory mitigation is to alleviate loss that cannot be addressed on-site, by restoring

anticipated loss off-site. In compensatory mitigation, substitute resources or

environments will be acquired, restored, and/or preserved offsite to offset the

unavoidable impacts. Ideally the project can provide “in-kind” mitigation, which would

replace the lost resource with a similar or equivalent resource. A lake could be replaced

by a similarly-sized nearby lake. In a less ideal scenario, compensatory mitigation funds

could be provided for some alternative action that the public agrees upon. The alternative

action would provide positive effects to a resource to counteract the negative impacts to a

different resource.

More compensatory mitigation information is available for wetlands. The

National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan has been in place since 2002, while the Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in

Six Southwestern States has only been in place since 2012.

This report will focus on the costs of compensatory mitigation for existing

operational utility-scale solar facilities. The data is mainly from the public records from

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the California Energy Commission. The

purpose of this research is to allow comparison of these costs across projects, to identify

the types of compensatory mitigation costs incurred to date and allow better

understanding of their effectiveness and consistency across projects.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 6

B. Different Solar Technologies and

Impacts_______________________

There are different types of solar energy generating technologies, which may

warrant different types of compensatory mitigation. The main technologies in use

currently include power towers, power towers with thermal storage, parabolic trough, and

solar photovoltaic. Power tower collection happens when energy produced by the sun

beaming onto reflectors (called heliostats) is directed to a collection tower. One example

impact of concern with respect to power towers is avian population impacts. Birds can fly

into the light beams and be killed by this type of solar power generation.

Parabolic troughs create energy by concentrating the solar heat with a parabola

shaped mirror to a tube containing oil (called a heat transfer fluid).The oil heats up and

turns water into steam, which turns a wind turbine to create energy.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology has a complex chemical process discovered

by a French physicist in 1839. “Edmund Becquerel discovered the

photovoltaic effect during experiments with electrolytic cells; he

noticed that certain materials were capable of generating small

amounts of electric current when exposed to sunlight” (BLM and DOE,

2010). When the sun hits semi conductive materials atoms are ionized and a chemical

imbalance takes place which directly translates to electricity.

PV and trough facilities raise a different avian concern. The collectors are not

very far apart and reflect light, so they look like lakes. Birds may be attracted to this and

collide with the panels; the extent of this occurrence is currently under study. “Indirect

Barbara Neal -July 2015 7

impacts may extend beyond the solar project footprint as the result of factors such as

runoff, water depletion, dust deposition, noise, or visual impacts (Walston, 2015).”

Some solar energy technologies incorporate mechanisms that can equip them with

energy storage, or sensors that follow the sun to receive the best available sunlight

concentration. In this paper we will examine the hypothesis that compensatory mitigation

costs are related to the type of solar technology used.

C. Data Sources

______________________________________________

NEPA requires companies to submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a

document that describes the consequences of the proposed project on the environment.

Action plans and some costs to offset the impacts are also included. The draft EIS is

evaluated by the federal agency overseeing the project, and given a public review period

to assess alternatives to decrease those impacts. The final EIS is then published, with

public comments and responses included.

Additional information on projected costs may be found in the Record of Decision

(ROD) for the EIS, a document submitted from the governmental agency to the public

with the final decision on the project specifications, required avoidance and minimization

measures, and required compensatory mitigation. A project may cause significant impacts

as long as those impacts were identified in the EIS and revealed to the public. An agency

may decide that the benefits of a project outweigh the significant adverse impacts. Often

when significant impacts will occur, compensatory mitigation for those impacts is

required. For projects on public lands (that is, lands administered by the BLM,

Barbara Neal -July 2015 8

compensatory mitigation costs may also be found in the right-of-way (ROW) document,

this document specifies final stipulations on project design and mitigation requirements.

III. Methods and Materials___________________________

A. Places to Find Information/Government Sites____________________For this project, available NEPA documents for utility-scale solar facilities that

have been approved by the BLM since 2010 were reviewed to gather data on

compensatory mitigation requirements and costs. An Excel file was kept with all

document titles and webpages that were reviewed. All compensatory mitigation costs

were placed in this file. Only the most recent information for each project was used for

the final information recorded in this report. A total of 30 documents were reviewed for

the 6 projects. All documents reviewed were not necessary to include, but review of these

documents was important in the research process to understand which documents

contained the accurate information. A Microsoft word file was also kept with copies of

important compensatory mitigation tables provided in the reviewed documents.

NEPA process asks companies to reference other documents, instead of repeating

information, in order to reduce paper work, therefore many documents that were

reviewed referenced data from other documents. The ROW Lease/Grant document is the

final document produced in the BLM leasing process; it specifies final stipulations on

project design and mitigation requirements. In some cases the information in the ROW

document will differ from that presented in earlier documents like the draft and final EIS.

In other cases the information will stay the same, and the ROW will reference the earlier

document that has the final information. For some of the projects reviewed information

Barbara Neal -July 2015 9

was missing or incomplete. Table 1 below provides the location URLs for the mandatory

documents and the home websites of the six utility-scale solar energy projects reviewed

in this study. The data recorded in Table 2 (see Section V) reflects information directly

from, or referred to in the ROW document (or ROD when the ROW was not available).

Barbara Neal -July 2015 10

Table1: Documents and Location URLFacility Project

WebsiteRight-of- Way Lease/Grant

Record of Decision Final Environmental Impact Statement

Biological Opinion

Crescent Dunes

http://www.solarreserve.com/en/

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/nepa/crescent_dunes_solar.Par.66476.File.dat/ROW%20Grant.PDF

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/nepa/crescent_dunes_solar.Par.21510.File.dat/Crescent%20Dunes%20ROD.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/nepa/crescent_dunes_solar.Par.86958.File.dat/Appendix%20E.pdf

Missing

Genesis Solar Power Project

http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/pdf_redesign/Genesis_factsheet.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/palmsprings/genesis.Par.30433.File.dat/GSEP%20Fully%20Executed%20ROW.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/palmsprings/genesis.Par.95255.File.dat/Genesis%20ROD.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/palmsprings/genesis.Par.93917.File.dat/Vol1_Genesis%20PA-FEIS_0cover-ch1-ch2-Intro-PropAction.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/palmsprings/genesis.Par.62210.File.dat/GSEP%20Appendix%204.pdf

Harry Allen

Missing N/A Decision record availablehttps://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/42096/58928/64069/Harry_Allen_DR_508.pdf

Environmental assessment availablehttps://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/42096/58928/64069/Harry_Allen_DR_508.pdf

https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/42096/58931/64072/Appendix_C_Biological_Opinion.pdf

Ivanpah http://www.ivanpahsolar.com/

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/needles/lands_solar.Par.22970.File.dat/Ivanpah%20ROW%20Grant.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/needles/lands_solar.Par.68027.File.dat/FinalRODIvanpahSolarProject.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/needles/lands_solar.Par.20589.File.dat/2-4_0_Affected_Environment_and_Environmental_Consequences.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/needles/lands_solar.Par.71302.File.dat/ISEGS_Reinitiation,%20Final%20BO.pdf

Silver State North

http://www.enbridge.com/

Missing http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/nextlight_-_other/nextlight_rod.Par.44736.File.dat/Silver_State%20ROD_signed.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/nextlight_-_other/FEIS_FedReg_NOA.Par.60000.File.dat/Silver%20State%20Solar%20FEIS%20Volume%20II.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/nextlight_-_other/NextLight_BO.Par.54027.File.dat/NextLight_Silver_State_Solar_BO%20.pdf

Barbara Neal -July 2015 11

Silver State South

http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/home/index.shtml

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/silver_state_south.Par.47245.File.dat/ROW%20Grant_SIGNED_03_17_2014.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/silver_state_south/record_of_decision.Par.91671.File.dat/Silver%20State%20South%20ROD_Signed_2%2014%2014_with%20Appendices_reduced%20and%20corrected%20TOC.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/silver_state_south/final_seis.Par.30711.File.dat/Chapter_2-Alternatives_and_Proposed_Federal_Actions.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/silver_state_south.Par.96025.File.dat/SilverState_BBCS_FINAL.pdf

B.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 12

C. Types of

Information________________________________________

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) website contains a webpage for each

project being developed with access to most or all of the required NEPA documents on

developing projects on public lands. In addition to the above documents the BLM website

also contains conservation plans, some stop work orders, and biological opinions. The

Biological opinion is typically provided by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and

contains information as to whether or not the building of the facility is expected to risk

the continual survival of listed species or have an outcome in the devastation or adverse

alteration of critical habitat. (USFWS, 2013) www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html

The California Energy Commission (CEC) is also responsible for permitting of

utility-scale power tower and parabolic trough solar facilities (but not photovoltaic

facilities). Therefore, this website also includes extensive documentation for these

facilities, which was also referenced for the two California projects reviewed for this

report (i.e., the Ivanpah and Genesis solar projects).

Individual project websites listed above are good for public information and quick

references to project specifications. These websites include beneficial information and

background on the technology used.

D. Projects

Reviewed__________________________________________

This work was limited to six utility-scale solar facilities on public lands. There are

many projects currently in the development stages, under construction, and in operation.

The information on some solar facilities is unavailable because facilities located on

Barbara Neal -July 201513

private lands are not required to release information for public review, although they are

required to meet county and state regulations, and are permitted by these agencies. Any

facility that uses public land has to be reviewed under NEPA and receive a BLM right-of-

way grant prior to beginning construction; this is a process that requires two or more

years to complete. Projects on public land were included in this report because

information is publically available. The six projects reviewed range from 50-370 MW,

and from 594-4,640 acres. “BLM manages more than 19 million acres of public lands

with excellent solar energy potential in 6 states: California, Nevada, Arizona, New

Mexico, Colorado and Utah. Since 2010, the BLM has approved   33 utility-scale solar

energy projects, with a total approved capacity of 9,278 megawatts.” (BLM, 2015) Of the

33 approved facilities approved, 4 have been terminated, 11 are not on BLM public lands,

but have a transmission line that runs across public lands. There are 14 facilities that are

either under construction or in operation, totaling a potential of 3,864 MW. If data from

more facilities could be obtained, the compensatory mitigation cost information would be

strengthened. If data from more facilities could be obtained, the compensatory mitigation

cost information would be strengthened.

E. Types of Costs

Included_____________________________________

Mitigation costs summarized in this report are limited to compensatory (off-site)

costs. Some actions, for example driveway sweeping to reduce visible dust from

construction,, are done off-site, but are not considered compensatory mitigation because

driveway sweeping is considered a part of good construction practices. Compensatory

mitigation is restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation (for example,

Barbara Neal -July 2015 14

through acquiring new lands, conservation easements) of lands outside of the project area

(BLM 2013). Therefore, only costs associated with these actions are considered

compensatory mitigation costs in this document.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 15

IV. Results__________________________________________________________ __

For this project, compensatory mitigation costs for six utility-scale solar energy projects were evaluated (four located in

Nevada and two in California). Table 2 gives an overview of what the costs were for and an evaluation of approximate costs per

acre and approximate costs per Megawatt.

Table 2: Project Information & Compensatory Mitigation Costs

Project Name Information Documented Compensatory Mitigation Activities and Costs

Total Compensato

ry Mitigation

Costs2

Approx. Cost

Per Acre

Approx. Cost

Per MW

Crescent DunesStatus: Construction completed; running tests ROW granted 2010

Nye County, NevadaAcres: 1620Technology: ConcentratedSolar Thermal Power Tower110 MW

Study of kangaroo mouse habitat - $200,000 (BLM 2011) $200,000 $123 $1,818

2 Documents have incomplete information; actual costs may have been different than these estimated costs.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 16

Silver State NorthStatus: In operationROD 2010

Clark County, NevadaAcres: 600 Technology: Thin film PV50 MW

Desert tortoise: a) Remuneration fees; paid to BLM $774/acre *600 acres - $464,400 b) Housing, care, treatment, other fees; paid to recovery center - $9000 per tortoise (project no more than 5 tortoises) – $45,000Common Ravens: Reduce potential for increased predation (costs not available)Non-native plant species: Reduce spread (costs not available)All above (NFWS, 2010)

$509,4003 $849 $10,188

Silver State SouthStatus: Initial ConstructionROW granted 2014

Clark County, NevadaAcres : 2,427Technology: PV250 MW

Crypto biotic soil mitigation - $50,000 (BLM, 2014, ROW)Monitor and Enforce Disturbance Buffers for nests of raptors and MBTA-protected species (costs not available) (BLM, 2014, ROW)Desert tortoises (BLM, 2014, ROD): a) Monitoring - $3,500,000 b) Dust palliatives - $100,000 c) Restoration 400 acres of roads within the proposed ACEC4 - $400,000 d) Law enforcement: within the proposed ACEC- $350,000 e) Health and genetics - $200,000 f) Remuneration fee $824 per acre x 2400 acres - $1,977,600 g) Remove perimeter fence/ fence highway 93 - $700,000

$7,277,600 $2,998 $29,110

Harry Allen Solar Energy Center Project(Dry Lake SEZ Parcel 1)Status: Approved

Clark County, NevadaAcres : 594Technology: PV112 MWComment and Review

Desert tortoise remuneration: $843/acre x 594 acres - $500,742 (BLM, 2015)Dust palliatives’ movement during rain study - $23,000 (BLM, 2015)Solar Regional Mitigation: $1,836/acre x 594 acres -$1,090,584 (BLM, 2015)Long-term Monitoring of Mitigation projects - $620,382 (BLM, 2015)

$2,234,708 $3,762 $19,952

3 Data on actual compensatory mitigation costs for the Silver State North project were limited as project documentation was not available through the project website at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/nextlight_renewable0.html

4 “Amendments to the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan designate a 31,859-acre Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) adjacent to the ROW grant area.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 17

Decision Record 2015

Period

Genesis Solar Power ProjectStatus: In operationROW granted 2010

Riverside County, CaliforniaAcres : 4,640Technology: Parabolic Trough250 MW

Desert tortoise compensatory mitigation (BIO-12)5 -$4,263,5001:1 & 5:1 ratio for impacts to 24 acres = 1870 acres; Acquisition: $500/acre; Initial habitat improvement: $330/acre, Long-term management: $1,450/acre)State waters(BIO-22)6: 111 acres needed -$342,768(Microphyllous Riparian Vegetation (16 acres) 3:1;Un-vegetated Ephemeral Dry Wash (53 acres) 1:1; Indirect Impacts to Un-vegetated Ephemeral Dry Wash (21 acres) 0.5:1)Mojave fringe-toed lizard: -$422,668(Stabilized/partially stabilized sand dunes (7.5 acres) 3:1; Playa and Sand Drifts (38 acres) 3:1.)Burrowing Owls: BIO-12. 19.5 acres per owl (two owl estimate) -$120,432 7

Special-Status Plants: BIO-12. 3:1 ratio (Rank 1 plants) & 2:1 ratio (Rank 2 plants) Protection, habitat improvement, long-term management -$2,280/acre.Regional Raven Management Program: 1754 acres at $105/acre - $184,170DTCCL and NRHP: $25/acre + up to 20% -$116,000 to $139,200Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub & Associated Wildlife: 1774 acres; BIO-12. (costs not available) Golden Eagle: BIO-12. (costs not available) Special-Status Birds & Migratory Birds: BIO-12. (costs not available) Desert Kit Fox & American Badger: 1,811 acres; BIO-22; BIO-12. (costs not available) Bats: BIO-22; BIO-12 (costs not available) All Above (CEC, 2010)

$5,329,106 -

$5,352,306

$1,148 - $1,153

$21,316 -

$21,409

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating SystemStatus: In

San Bernardino County, CaliforniaAcres : 3,471Technolog

School impact fees -$3,195 ALL (BLM,2010)Desert tortoises: killed/dead have necropsied (costs not available) Raven Management Plan(costs not available) Acquire land (3:1 ratio) 10,414 acres 2/3rds: Maintenance of fencing & habitat enhancements - $17,426,627 Land Acquisition: $910/acre -$6,519,240; Initial habitat improvements: $250/acre – $1,791,000; Long-Term management of lands: $1,350/acre- $9,671,400

$29,547,635

$8,512 $79,848

5 Genesis BIO-12- Desert tortoise compensatory mitigation, calls for the most land compared to other needed mitigation. Project was allowed to use the dessert tortoise land to mitigate loss of land for other species/resources as long as it met the requirements for the said species/resource.6 Genesis BIO-22- Is the water replacement plan and many species/resources can use the same land as all requirements are met.7 Not included in total, because it can be covered under BIO-12

Barbara Neal -July 2015 18

operationROW granted 2010

y: Power tower370 MW

1/3rd: Desert tortoise habitat enhancement - $12,117,813 (50 miles of fencing- $7,084,341; Long-Term Maintenance of Fencing $1,450/acre – $5,193,500; Administrative -$276,469)Burrowing owls: Relocate all occupied burrows from site. (costs not available)Mojave milkweed: 30 acres (costs not available)Nelson’s bighorn sheep: construct & manage artificial water source (costs not available)Ephemeral drainages: BIO-178. 175 acres of state jurisdictional waters (costs not available)

Acronyms: ACEC – Area of Critical Environmental Concern; DTCCL – World War II Desert Training Center California-Arizona Maneuver Area Cultural Landscape (Historic District) Documentation ; MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act; MW – Megawatt; NRHP – National Register of Historic Places Nomination contribution ; PV – Photovoltaic.

8 Ivanpah BIO-17: Desert tortoise compensatory mitigation, calls for the most land compared to other needed mitigation. Project was allowed to use the dessert tortoise land to mitigate loss of land for other species/resources as long as it met the requirements for the said species/resource

Barbara Neal -July 2015 19

V. Discussion/ Conclusion___________________________

A. Need for Utility-Scale Solar Development and Data on Compensatory Mitigation Costs ___________________________________________In order to reserve non-renewable resources, reduce greenhouse gas to prevent

climate change, live in harmony with our environment, and explore the capacities of

science, companies produce solar energy. According to the BLM and DOE the main goal

of creating their solar energy program for utility-scale solar energy development on

BLM-administered lands is to meet the demands of Congressional mandates, Executive

Orders 13212 & 13514, and DOI Secretarial Order 3285SA1, to generate renewable

energy on public lands (BLM and DOE 2012).

“The BLM has identified a need to respond in a more efficient and effective

manner to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public

lands and to ensure consistent application of measures to mitigate the potential adverse

impacts of such development.” (BLM and DOE 2012) There is a demand for solar energy

development all over the world. According to the Sun Shot vision study of February

2012, the United States has fallen behind China/ Taiwan, Europe, and Japan in solar

development within the previous 10 years.(DOE, 2012) Steps are being taken in many

companies across the United States to meet the projected demand for solar energy. There

is a lack of information on the costs of compensatory mitigation. This evaluation of costs,

done for some of the utility-scale solar energy projects currently approved on public

lands, was meant to help with that process.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 20

How Do the Numbers Compare?

______________________________

The findings suggest that compensatory mitigation costs are unrelated to amount

of acres acquired for the project footprint, or to the power generating capacity of the

facility. For example the Harry Allen Solar Energy project footprint and the Silver State

North project foot print were essentially the same (594 and 600 acres, respectively). The

Silver State North compensatory mitigation costs were approximately $849/acre and

$10,188/MW. The Harry Allen Solar Energy project compensatory mitigation costs were

approximately $3,762/acre and $19,952/MW. Silver State only paid 19% of what Harry

Allen paid per acre. MW payment was closer, but still far away, only 51% paid by Silver

State North compared to Harry Allen. No two facilities show similar per acre or per MW

costs.

The findings from this study suggest that compensatory mitigation costs are

inconsistent within states and from state to state. The findings also suggest that

compensatory mitigation costs are inconsistent no matter what plant/animal species are

affected. For example, in 2010 in California, rights-of -way grants were issued by the

BLM for both the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System and the Genesis Solar Power

projects. The compensatory mitigation cost per acre of project area was estimated to be

$8,512 for the Ivanpah project, but only $1,153 for the Genesis project. Some reasons for

these different costs are the amount of land that was required to be compensated for, the

ratio of lands required, and the costs of those lands. For the Ivanpah project each acre of

the project foot print required compensation, whereas for the Genesis project

compensation for only a portion of the lands occupied was required.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 21

The required ratios for compensation were also dissimilar. The Ivanpah project

required compensation land in a 3:1 ratio9, while the Genesis Project compensated for

lands with ratios ranging from 0.5:1 to 5:1. The differing compensation ratios occurred

for the two projects located in the same state and approved in the same year. There was a

3:1 desert tortoise land compensation requirement for each of Ivanpah’s 3,471 acres, for a

total of 10,413 compensation acres (300% of the project footprint). Only a 1:1 ratio for

1,750 acres and 5:1 ratio for 24 acres were used for the Genesis Project, totaling 1,870

acres or only 40% of Genesis’s 4,640 acre project footprint.

The prices for the desert tortoise compensation lands were also dissimilar. Desert

tortoise compensation land was $910/acre for the Ivanpah project, but only $500/acre for

the Genesis Project. This cost difference is surprising, the facilities are only 20 min apart.

The Ivanpah and Genesis projects were similar in the way that they both required

desert tortoise compensation lands and they both allowed those desert tortoise lands to be

counted as compensation land for other endangered species that compensation was also

required for, as long as the lands met both of the species’ requirements (see Genesis BIO-

12 (CEC, 2010) & Ivanpah BIO-17 (CEC, 2010) compensation exceptions).

The comparative data presented in Table 2 also suggest that compensatory

mitigation costs are unrelated to the type of solar technology used. For example, the

Crescent Dunes project and the Ivanpah project both use power tower technology and

were both approved in 2010. As seen in Table 2 Crescent Dunes’ approximate

compensatory mitigation price per acre was $123, while Ivanpah’s approximate price per

acre was $8512. Crescent Dunes paid only 1% of what Ivanpah paid per acre. Crescent 9 3:1 ratio: For every 1 acre of land used the project must acquire and preserve 3 acres of land outside the project area. For example if the project must compensate for 1000 acres of land on a 3:1 ratio, 3000 acres must be purchased. If the project must compensate on a 1:1 ratio for 1000 acres of land, then only 1000 acres would need to be purchased.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 22

Dunes’ approximate price per MW was $1,818, while Ivanpah’s approximate price per

MW was $79,858. Crescent Dunes’ approximate price per MW is only 2% of Ivanpah’s

price. The compensatory mitigation costs for the Crescent Dunes and Ivanpah projects

showed the largest variation among the six projects reviewed. The Cresent Dunes project

did not mitigate for desert tortoise. This research shows that a better area (avoiding

endangered species) will lower cost. The Crescent dunes project was able to avoid any

desert tortoise habitat, therefore avoiding the mitigation fees associated with desert

tortoise.

These findings from the combined six projects do suggest that compensatory

mitigation prices go up as the MW output goes up. With the exception of the Crescent

Dunes project, the price per megawatt increases as the number of megawatts increases.

The larger the megawatt capacity of a project, the more customers it will be able to

service, and the project should therefore be more profitable. If this hypothesis is correct it

should not take these projects long to make back the cost of compensatory mitigation fees

through profits.

A. Missing data.______________________________________________Information was not located to explain the inconsistency in cost data. For

example, in the Ivanpah and Genesis comparison, the two sites are in the same state and

approved in the same year. Yet, the tortoise land acquisition prices and acquisition ratios

are different. If there is some information that explains why that is so, that needs to be

included with the mandatory paper work. In the Ivanpah and the Genesis Solar Project

comparisons many costs were unavailable, but most costs that were not listed fell under

the category of species that fell into the Genesis BIO-12 & Ivanpah BIO-17

Barbara Neal -July 2015 23

compensation exceptions. This research did not identify clear reasons for the differences

in price or land compensation ratio requirements. We don’t know if the government is

properly managing our land. When important information on price inconsistencies is left

out, we only know the prices are different, while the year of ROW and the states that the

projects were built in are the same.

B. Questions.__________________________________

_ ___________

In reviewing these documents I am led to ask whether there are any real rules set

in place for the actual costs of compensatory mitigation. Where do the numbers come

from? Many projects were approved in the same year, so why are the variations so large?

Is the government properly managing our land?

C. What’s next?

_____________________________________________

More research needs to be done. The BLM has approved and began construction of

14 projects since 2010, so there is a chance that as more documentation for development

of those facilities becomes available, it can fill in some of the gaps in compensatory

mitigation cost data. In general, guidelines or standards should be put in place for

compensatory mitigation requirements. Continued research on mitigation costs is needed

to be sure the compensatory mitigation process is fair.

VI. References__________________________________ ___

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2010. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating SystemFinal Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management

Barbara Neal -July 2015 24

Needles Field Office, Needles, California. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/needles/lands_solar.Par.20589.File.dat/2-4_0_Affected_Environment_and_Environmental_Consequences.pdf

BLM, 2011. Crescent Dunes Final Environmental Impact Statement FES-10-57, N-86292, DOI-BLM-NVB020-2009-0104-EIS, Appendix E: BLM Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. BLM Battle Mountain District, Tonanah, Nevada. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/battle_mountain_field/blm_information/nepa/crescent_dunes_solar.Par.86958.File.dat/Appendix%20E.pdf.

BLM, 2014. Draft MS-1794 – Regional Mitigation, (P). Available at:http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/im_attachments/2013.Par.57631.File.dat/IM2013-142_att1.pdf

BLM, 2014. Record of Decision Silver State Solar South Project and Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan Amendment. Las Vegas, Nevada. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/silver_state_south/record_of_decision.Par.91671.File.dat/Silver%20State%20South%20ROD_Signed_2%2014%2014_with%20Appendices_reduced%20and%20corrected%20TOC.pdf

BLM, 2014. Right-of- way Lease/Grant Silver state South Serial Number N-85801. Southern Nevada District Las Vegas Field Office. Las Vegas, Nevada. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/silver_state_south.Par.47245.File.dat/ROW%20Grant_SIGNED_03_17_2014.pdf

BLM, 2015. Biological Opinions for Four Solar Energy Projects in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone. U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 4701, Las Vegas, Nevada. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/42096/58931/64072/Appendix_C_Biological_Opinion.pdf

BLM, 2015. Solar Energy. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/solar_energy.html

BLM and DOE (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy), 2010, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, DES 10-59, DOE/EIS-0403, Dec.

BLM and DOE, 2012. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. FES 12-24, DOE/EIS-0403. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

CEC (California Energy Commission), 2010. Genesis Solar Energy Project Commission Decision. Sacramento, California. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-800-2010-011/CEC-800-2010-011-CMF.PDF

Barbara Neal -July 2015 25

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1979. CEQ Regulation 1508-- Terminology and Index. Available at: https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm

DOE (Department of Energy), 2012. SunShot Energy Vision Study. Available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/47927.pdf

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2015. Compensatory Mitigation. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmitigation_index.cfm

NFWS (National Fish and Wildlife), 2010. Biological Opinion for the Silver State Solar Project File No. 84320-2010-F-0208,Fish and Wildlife Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/energy/nextlight_-_other/NextLight_BO.Par.54027.File.dat/NextLight_Silver_State_Solar_BO%20.pdf

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 2013. Parabolic Trough Power Plant Market, Economic Assessment and Deployment. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/market_economic_assess.html#overview

United States, 2005. Regulations For Implementing The Procedural Provisions Of The National Environmental Policy Act Reprint 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. Available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA-40CFR1500_1508.pdf

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 2013. Consultations. Available at:http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html

Walston, Leroy, 2015. A Review of Avian Monitoring and Mitigation Information at Existing Utility-Scale Solar Facilities. ANL/EVS-15/2. Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Science Division, Lemont, IL.

Barbara Neal -July 2015 26