Environmental Due Diligence for siting and permitting solar PV facilities at the utility scale

1. EUCI
Due Diligence for
Solar PV Projects
Daniel Belin, AICP
ecology and environment, Inc.
www.ene.com

2. Enhancing Due Diligence
and Streamlining Permitting
June 14-15, 2011
Daniel Belin, AICP
ecology and environment, Inc.
www.ene.com

4.  Project Development Overview
 Due Diligence – Real Estate vs. Environmental
 GIS Demo
 The Permitting Process
 Streamlining Tips

6. Phase I & II ESA
 Legal standard - ASTM
 Real Estate document
 Contamination liabilities
 CERCLA
 Benefits – addresses legal liability for
contamination
 Limitation – does not address other
regulatory liability

7. Phase I & II ESA
 Not a green light
to start design
 Don’t rush into
development

8.  Did not
invest in
early issue
identification
 Adjusting
layout after
design
 Wastes time
and money

9.  Database searches
 GIS investigation
 Site reconnaissance
 Agency consultation
 Permitting matrix
 Critical Issues Analysis

10. Natural Environment Built Environment
 Wildlife and Habitat  Land use
 Special Status and State-  Flat-panel PV -- 2.5~12.5
Listed species acre/MW
 Habitat fragmentation or  Solar-thermal -- 5.0~12.5
removal acre/MW
 Microclimate/habitat  Aesthetics/Visual Resources,
changes glare
 Water availability  Recreation
 Cultural resources  Public involvement

11. Must be compatible with
other uses, immediate
and adjacent
 Mining and Agriculture often
compatible
 Recreation/Tourism requires
consideration
 Federal land: recreation use classes
may preclude large-scale solar
developments:
 Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV)
 Near Designated Wilderness Areas
and Wilderness Study Areas
 Wild and Scenic Rivers
 National Trails
 Scenic Byways
 National, state, and local parks
 Cumulative impacts

12.  Disruption of wildlife
movement corridors
 Direct loss of or
change in native
species habitat
 Shading from solar
arrays can create a
microclimate
 Disturbance due to
human activity,
roads, fences, and
light

13.  Includes archaeology,
paleontology, and historic
structures
 Consultation with State
Historic Preservation Office
 Tribal and federal agency
consultation
 Varying levels of assessment
 Phase I survey where resources
possible
 Phase II survey where
resources known
 Monitoring during construction
 Historic buildings 50+ years
old. Can include structures
(cemeteries, bridges, dams)

14.  Often the most significant public
concern
 Landscapes differ in their ability
to accommodate change
 Technical approaches can quantify
impacts. BLM and USFS have
standard protocols.
 Strategies to minimize impacts
and ease public controversy
 Determine visual sensitivity level
 Reduce impacts with careful array
and road placement, vegetation
screens

15.  Water for thermal-solar
project cooling and
mirror washing
requirements can
be significant
 Impacts to wetlands
and streams (arroyos)
must be avoided or
mitigated
 Runoff / erosion from
impervious surface

16. Water Use by Fuel Source and Generation Technology1
Wet Cooling Wet Cooling
Water Other Water Water Other Water
Consumtion Consumptionb Generation Consumtion Consumptionb
Generation Technology (gal/MWh)a (gal/MWh) Technology (gal/MWh)a (gal/MWh)
irrigation
Solar Trough 760-920 8 Biomass2 300-480 dependentd
Natural Gas
Combined
Solar Tower 750 8 Cycle 18-21 180
Photovoltaic Solar 0 5c Coal (IGCC)f 140 200
avg. 4,500
Wind 0 0 Hydroelectric (evap)
Fossil 300-480 35-104 Nuclear 400-720e 75-180
1 Data calculated from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water (Dec. 2006), available at
http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/docs/121-RptToCongress-EWwEIAcomments-FINAL.pdf. Carter provided notes. See Carter & Campbell, supra note 8, at 8.
a. Data is for cooling tower technology.
b. Includes water consumed in producing or enhancing the fuel source and in generation; excluding cooling water consumption.
c. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Fuel from the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply, NREL/SR-550-32160 (July 2002), at 99.
d. CRS provided note.
e. Cooling ponds which are commonly used at nuclear facilities consume roughly 720 gal/MWh.
f. IGCC is Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle.
22 The biomass referenced in Table 2 does not include woody biomass.

17. » Case Study – Silver State Solar
Predicted Water Consumption
 400 MW PV
 Ivanpah Valley, NV
 600 Acre-Feet-Annually (AFA) / 4 years
(construction)
 21 AFA (operations)
 Average industrial development in
region – 4,717 AFA

18. 14: Easements,
ROWs, Legal Issues
1: 4: Visual 5/6: 8: 15: Other
2: T & E Species 3: Open Space/ 7: Floodplain/ 9: Waterways 10: Prime
Acres Zoning Conservation Resources Hist./Cult. Wetlands Encumbrances,
(c) Parks (d) Drainage (g) (i) Ag. Land (j)
Areas (b) (e) (miles) (f) (h) 17: Other Significant
Resources and
Notes:
 Swainson's
hawk 0.8 miles Yes. Floodplain
away borders northern Stream/River Site is located in an
8.15 miles 7.79 miles
 Delta button- part of property and crosses the Enterprise Zone
from from Prime
160 AG-40 No. celery 1.5 miles No stream through No property; Site has an Agricultural
designated Historic canal/ditch along Farmland
and property/ Preserve R-69-C1
scenic route House northern border
 giant garter Moderately well designation
snake approx 3 drained
miles
 California tiger
salamander
 Northern
Hardpan Vernal
Freshwater
Pool Site is located in an
1.42miles 9.15 miles Emergent
 vernal pool fairy Stream/River Enterprise Zone
from from No/Moderately well Wetland on Grazing
40.09 AG-40 Yes. shrimp No borders Site has an Agricultural
designated Historic drained eastern northwest corner land
 valley elderberry Preserve R-69-C1
scenic route Farm property
longhorn beetle designation
border.
 western
spadefoot are
< 5 miles from the
site but not on site
One
Swainson's hawk 22.96 from Yes. Floodplain Stream/River Site is located in an
4.89 miles crosses the Eastern
0.29 miles from the the covers southern Enterprise Zone
Park 2.3 miles from property, one portion is
106.62 AG-40 No site, burrowing owl intersection end of No stream/river
Site has an Agricultural
from the site Historic prime
0.6 miles from the of HWY property/somewhat borders the Preserve R-80-8
House farmland
site 580/5. poorly drained south end of the
site
Swainson's hawk
0.8 miles 23.24 miles Farmland
4.22 miles Site is located in an
Burrowing owl 2.6 from the of
Park 1.7miles from No/Somewhat No streams or Enterprise Zone
43.31 AG-40 No miles. California intersection No rivers
Statewide
from the site Historic poorly drained No Agricultural
tiger salamander of HWY Importanc
House Preserve designation
within 5 miles. 580/5. e

19. GIS Online Siting Tool

20. 1. Define regulatory process and involved agencies
2. Conduct initial surveys and studies to identify
potential environmental impacts and required
permits
3. Hold agency consultations
4. Complete detailed environmental surveys
5. Develop permit applications
6. Agency review
7. Public hearings
8. Final permits issued

21.  Bureau of Land
Management
ROW Application
and Plan of
Development
 National
Environmental
Policy Act
 State Siting
Committee
 Conditional Use
Permit Applications
(County level)

22. Pre- application meeting
Submit preliminary application
30 day public
notice and
County scheduled public hearing with P&Z comment
Board and BOCC period
30 day public
Submit final 1041 application notice and
comment
period
Joint public hearing with Planning and
Zoning Board and BOCC
Total:
P&Z Board hold meeting on same day and
3-4 Months
issue recommendations to BOCC
BOCC Meeting
Final Approval issued within 7 days

23. Preliminary Discussions 0-2 Months
Pre- Application Period 6-9 Months
Application Submittal Period 3 Months
Hearing and Service of Decision 0-2 Months
Appeal Window 1 Month
Total:
18 Months

24. Application 30 days
Notice of Intent Published
45 days
Public Scoping
Draft EIS 6-9 months
45 days
Comment Period / Agency Review
Final EIS 6-9 months
Comment Period / Agency Review 45 days
Record of Decision (ROD)
Total:
Appeal Period 18-24 months

25.  What takes so long?
 Seasonal field studies
 NEPA/State equivalent
applicability
 Permit linkages and
Agency communication
 Agency expertise and
workload
 Statutory review times
 Quality and
completeness of
applications
 Agency and community
relationships

26. “By putting these renewable energy
projects on a fast track, we are managing
our public lands not just for conventional
energy development but also for
environmentally responsible renewable
energy production that will power our clean
energy future.”
Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar
November 5, 2009

27.  NEPA Fast Tracked Projects
 2 Solar PV projects
 Silver State – 400 MW PV
 Start to Finish – 14 months
 Agency schedule pre-set
 RECO office
 Statutory review times
 Strong management on all sides
 Project completely vetted
before initiating NEPA

28.  Streamlining process Desert tortoise
Identification of key issues for
timely resolution - 9 months
before filing the application
 Shaved 6 months by
establishing pre-filing process
 Issues raised during pre-filing:
 Quantitative cumulative impacts
approach for desert tortoise
 New alternatives
 Dry lakes recreation
 Visual resources
 Mojave National Preserve
Transmission lines in Ivanpah Valley

30.  Get your team talking details for a complete
Project Description

31.  Dual state and federal lead agencies
 Cover needs for both agencies at once
 Added complexity can mean delays
 Plan ahead even more with two lead
agencies

32. Frequent Data Gaps in Project Descriptions
 Complete land use tables
 GIS Data for access roads, tower locations
 Helicopter use plans
 Noxious weed plan
 Construction schedule – realistic?
 Work force requirements for O&M
 Decommissioning
 All project components covered?
 Construction equipment used – air emissions

33.  Expect a
sophisticated public
 Document all
outreach efforts
 Identify key public
issues for your
project
 Explain alternatives
development
process
 Take public
recommendations
for alternatives
seriously

34.  Track all alternatives screened
 Address system alternatives
(PV vs. CSP)
 Develop an adequate range of
alternatives: BLM to require 3 to 4
alternatives for renewable projects
 Agencies expect public engagement to
develop alternatives for contentious
projects

35.  No longer
business as usual
 The bar has been
raised
 Early agency
attention equals
feedback for your
developing
project and most
likely a quicker
decision process

36. Questions?
Dan Belin
(703) 522-6065
dbelin@ene.com