Under all alternatives, the development of renewable energy would consider the management and objectives of other resources. Considering the management of other resource objectives could restrict the development of renewable energy in certain areas or impose siting and design requirements or other mitigation that could limit the potential for development.
Government-to-government consultation with potentially affected Tribes could further limit or restrict the development of renewable energy in the Planning Area. However, consultation with Tribes could also increase the potential for successful renewable energy development by establishing communication with Tribes to allow for more effective and collaborative planning of projects.
Under all alternatives, WSAs are closed to renewable energy development, which would result in long-term adverse impacts by prohibiting the development of renewable energy in these areas.
Under Alternative A, no specific renewable energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas are identified. Renewable energy projects are considered on a case-by-case basis. However, exclusion and avoidance/mitigation areas for ROWs would apply to the development of wind-energy (and solar and biomass) facilities. Wind-energy development also is constrained by existing management policies and prohibitions involving lands with high resource values. Case-by-case permitting of renewable energy projects increases the processing timeframe and costs associated with these facilities. Case-by-case permitting of renewable energy could also result in a distributed pattern of renewable energy development and require additional ROW authorizations to support required infrastructure such as transmission lines to distribute the energy.
Management actions for ROW authorizations would have long-term impacts to renewable energy development. Management actions that restrict ROW authorizations in areas of high potential for wind energy (Map 46) would limit the potential for development in these areas. Additionally, management for ROWs that limits or restricts the development of ROWs (including transmission lines) in areas needed to connect renewable energy facilities to the electrical grid would also adversely impact renewable energy development.
Under Alternative A, all management for ROW exclusion and avoidance/mitigation applies to renewable energy, except that renewable energy is open in the following areas, all of which are ROW avoidance/mitigation areas:
Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ
South Bighorns area
Canyon Creek area
Basin Gardens Play Area
Basin Gardens
Alternative A manages only the fossil concentration area in the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC and the Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark as ROW exclusion areas.
Requiring a visual contrast rating worksheet in VRM Class I areas for projects would affect renewable energy development in these areas; wind turbines cause a high degree of visual impact because of their size. A visual contrast rating worksheet may reveal visual impacts of renewable development and result in mitigation to meet VRM objectives in VRM Class I areas, or the BLM may prohibit development if visual impacts cannot be adequately mitigated.
Under Alternative B, a total of 246,448 acres is open to renewable energy development (area not included in renewable energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas). Identifying areas open to renewable energy development would reduce the potential for adverse impacts associated with case-by-case permitting described under Alternative A. Implementation of Alternative B would result in an approximate 92 percent decrease in area open for renewable energy development compared to Alternative A.
Under Alternative B, a total of 1,691,497 acres are managed as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas. Managing renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas would create long-term adverse impacts by limiting the development of renewable energy in these areas and potentially placing additional constraints, mitigation, monitoring, or other stipulations on development approved in avoidance/mitigation areas. Under Alternative B, the Chapman Bench, Foster Gulch Paleontological Area, McCullough Peaks South Paleontological Area, Rainbow Canyon, and Sheep Mountain ACECs are managed as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas.
Under Alternative B, a total of 1,251,869 acres are managed as renewable energy exclusion areas. Allocation of renewable energy exclusion areas would result in long-term adverse impacts by prohibiting the development of renewable energy in these areas. Under Alternative B, the Clarks Fork Basin/Polecat Bench, Clarks Fork Canyon, and Rattlesnake Mountain ACECs are managed as renewable energy exclusion areas.
Under Alternative B, all management for ROW exclusion and avoidance/mitigation applies to renewable energy except that renewable energy is excluded in the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ, which is a ROW avoidance/mitigation area.
Designation of ACECs under Alternative B would create adverse impacts to renewable energy as these areas are all managed as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas. Renewable energy development would be limited or prohibited in these areas.
Avoiding wind-energy development in big game winter ranges and parturition habitat, raptor concentration areas, and mitigating wind-energy development for the protection of greater sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas would result in long-term adverse impacts to renewable energy by limiting development in these areas.
Managing areas within 5 miles of trails and eligible NRHP and TCP sites as exclusion areas for wind-energy development (unless screened from the site by intervening topography) would result in long-term adverse impacts to renewable energy by prohibiting facilities in these areas.
Requiring a visual contrast rating worksheet in VRM Class I, II, or III areas and requiring a visual simulation and design mitigation for all areas viewable from VRM Class I and II areas would create adverse impacts to renewable energy development. Wind turbines are large structures and these VRM requirements prior to project approval may limit wind-energy development in these areas or necessitate certain design requirements that make projects infeasible.
Under Alternative C, a total of 1,425,762 acres are open to renewable energy development (area not included in renewable energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas). Identifying areas open to renewable energy development would reduce the potential for adverse impacts associated with case-by-case permitting described under Alternative A. Implementation of Alternative C would result in an approximate 479 percent increase in area open for renewable energy development compared to Alternative B.
Under Alternative C, a total of 1,612,547 acres are managed as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas. Long-term impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because Alternative C allocates less acreage.
Under Alternative C, a total of 151,506 acres are managed as renewable energy exclusion areas. Impacts would be the same as for Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because Alternative C allocates less acreage.
Managing areas within 5 miles of trails and eligible NRHP and TCP sites as avoidance/mitigation areas for wind-energy development (unless screened from the site by intervening topography) would create adverse long-term impacts to renewable energy by limiting facilities in these areas. If renewable energy is allowed in these areas, it may require substantial siting and design requirements and other BMPs to ensure the protection of cultural resources.
Requiring a visual contrast rating worksheet in VRM Class I areas would result in the same impacts to renewable energy development as those described under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because of exemptions in allocated ROW corridors.
Under Alternative D, a total of 393,593 acres are open to renewable energy development (area not included in renewable energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas). Identifying areas open to renewable energy development would reduce the potential for adverse impacts associated with case-by-case permitting described under Alternative A. Alternative D would result in approximately 60 percent more area open for renewable energy development than Alternative B and approximately 72 percent less than Alternative C.
Alternative D manages a total of 2,501,876 acres as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas, the most of any alternative. Long-term impacts would be similar to Alternative B, although to a greater extent because Alternative D allocates more acreage as avoidance/mitigation areas. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D designates the Chapman Bench area and the Sheep Mountain ACEC as a renewable energy avoidance/mitigation area.
Alternative D manages a total of 294,345 acres as renewable energy exclusion areas. Impacts would be the same for Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because Alternative D allocates less acreage as exclusion areas.
Collocating renewable energy ROWs where possible in the Southern Bighorns ERMA may result in long-term impacts to renewable energy development by limiting the location of renewable energy facilities and related infrastructure (e.g., roads and transmission lines) in this area.
Avoiding wind-energy projects in big game winter range and parturition habitat, raptor concentration areas, and greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas would result in long-term impacts to renewable energy similar to Alternative B. Avoidance in these areas would constrain the development of wind resources.
Avoiding surface-disturbing activities (including renewable energy development) up to 3 miles from important cultural sites and requiring the use of BMPs to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts would result in lesser long-term adverse impacts to renewable energy than those described under alternatives B and C. If renewable energy development is allowed in these areas, authorization may require substantial siting and design requirements and other BMPs to protect important cultural sites.
Requiring a visual contrast rating worksheet in VRM Class I areas would result in the same impacts to renewable energy development as those described under Alternative A.