By Greg Hibbard, Energy Law Fellow
 |
| Department of Energy |
The Gemini Solar Project will be located approximately 33 miles
northeast of Las Vegas and will span roughly 7,100 acres. The project will have
a nameplate capacity of 690 megawatts and is projected to operate for 30 years.
The benefits of the project should not be understated. The solar power produced
by the project will help the states of Nevada and California reach their
renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) goals. In particular, the project
will provide energy to Las Vegas and southern California. Although Nevada currently sources only 20
percent of its electricity from renewable sources, the state’s RPS goals
require that share to jump to 50% by 2030. Additionally, the BLM estimates that
California will need to acquire several more gigawatts of renewable energy to
meet its 2030 goal of 60 percent renewable energy.
The BLM’s DEIS considers four potential actions to implement
the project: the proposed action, which calls for the project to be constructed
using “traditional” methods, an all mowing alternative, a hybrid alternative,
and a no action alternative. These alternatives are primarily distinguished by
construction method. The analysis contemplates two methods of construction:
traditional and mowing. The analysis defines traditional methods to include a
“disk and roll” technique that would completely remove the vegetation and
compact the soil. On the other hand, the mowing method would simply require
mowing the vegetation in the area to a height of 18 to 24 inches. Importantly,
according to the BLM, much of the vegetation in the area is already shorter
than 24 inches in height. The methods
also vary in how they would accommodate the desert tortoise. While both methods
would require the installation of fencing around the project, the fencing
installed under the traditional method would prevent the desert tortoise from
accessing the area during the life of the project. Under the mowing method, the
fencing would be lifted off of the ground to allow for tortoise movement.
Another important difference in the methods is the potential for lasting impact
on the area. If the project employs traditional methods of construction,
vegetation in the area may require over a century to recover after the project
is decommissioned. Mowing the project area, however, would largely maintain pre-project
vegetation conditions throughout the life of the project. As a result, prior vegetation conditions would be restored quickly after the project is decommissioned.
In addition to the proposed action and all mowing
alternative, the DEIS also considers a hybrid alternative that would entail mowing
65 percent of the solar development area (4,460 acres) and constructing the
remaining 35 percent of the area (2,578 acres) with traditional methods.
Lastly, the DEIS considers a “no action” alternative under which the project
would not be built. At this stage of the process, the BLM identifies the hybrid
alternative as the preferred alternative.
The potential impacts to the desert tortoise vary across the
four alternatives. The project’s proposed action would effectively remove
desert tortoise habitat across all 7,100 acres of the project—displacing 215
adult tortoises in the process. The BLM acknowledges that there would be no
opportunity for tortoise relocation in the area and that this “take” of the
species would be substantially adverse to the species and local population. The
BLM appears to have identified the hybrid alternative as the preferred
alternative, in part, because it would maintain habitat on 65 percent of the
project area and allow tortoises to reoccupy the mowed portion of the project
area after construction is completed. Under the hybrid alternative, the BLM
anticipates that 183 adult tortoises would reoccupy the area and an additional
36 adults would be moved to another area. However, of the four alternatives
considered, the all mowing alternative would best serve the desert tortoise.
The analysis estimates that 220 adult tortoises would be expected to reoccupy
the area with an additional 34 translocated to a nearby region if mowing was
used across the entire project.
The BLM’s DEIS does not sufficiently explain why the hybrid
alternative is preferred in light of the fact that the all mowing alternative
would minimize effects to the desert tortoise. Economic factors may be one
justification, as the all mowing alternative will likely require increased
labor and may extend the duration of construction. However, the BLM’s analysis
notes that increased labor would create more employment opportunities and
economic output for local communities, including local tribes. Additionally,
due to the large amount of vacant housing available, the labor increase would
not affect housing or public services. Uncertainty may have also played a role
in the BLM’s determination. The DEIS provides that few solar projects have been
constructed using the all mowing method. Nevertheless, the potential
uncertainty does not seem to have been a prevalent factor in the decision to
identify the hybrid alternative as the preferred course of action because the
hybrid alternative is primarily dependent on the mowing method.
The potential for one of the largest solar facilities in the
world to come online in the relatively near future is exciting. However, the
Gemini Solar Project risks seemingly unnecessary harm to the endangered Mojave
desert tortoise and the surrounding environment. Based on the DEIS, there is no
reason why the benefits of the project cannot be secured with relatively minimal
impacts to the desert tortoise. Therefore, with its final EIS, the BLM should
either fully explain why the hybrid alternative is worth the additional harm to
the desert tortoise or identify the all mowing alternative as the most
appropriate action. Interested parties can provide their own thoughts on the
issue to the BLM until the 90-day comment period closes on September 5, 2019.
