The Obama administration's approval of the Soda Mountain Solar Project is being soundly criticized by conservation groups that said it was the wrong move to help wean the country off fossil fuels.

While Interior Department and Bureau of Land Management officials praised the decision, groups such as the National Parks Conservation Association and the Sierra Club condemned the move in large part due to its location next to Mojave National Preserve in California.

“The approval of Soda Mountain Solar is a stark contradiction by the Obama administration,” Theresa Pierno, NPCA's president and CEO, said Tuesday. “Less than two months ago, we lauded the administration as conservation heroes after they designated national monuments in the California desert to protect and connect important landscapes. Today, in an incredibly disappointing move, the administration approved this harmful renewable energy project that is devoid of public support and contradicts its own scientists and policies. This decision inhibits national park wildlife from migrating and adapting to a changing climate, and fails to abide by the Interior Department’s pledge to balance energy development with the protection of special places. We will continue to fight this decision and work to protect this pristine, beautiful, wildlife-rich landscape.”

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Janice Schneider, calling the project part of President Obama's Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon pollution, create jobs and energize the economy, signed the Record of Decision that approves a revised project design that the BLM "developed through extensive outreach and consultation, rigorous science-based analysis and substantial mitigation to address issues raised by stakeholders, partner agencies, the developer and the public."

When fully built, an Interior Department release said, the project would generate 287 megawatts of renewable energy, enough to power more than 86,000 homes and help toward meeting the president's Climate Action Plan goal of 20,000 megawatts of power derived from renewable energy projects on public lands by 2020.

“Today’s approval is the result of a comprehensive, multi-year environmental review and extensive consultation process, including scientific analysis and meaningful mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to resources,” said Assistant Secretary Schneider. “The rigorous standards of outreach, analysis and mitigation for the project reflect this administration’s commitment to facilitate responsible clean energy development in the right places and in the right ways.”

Under the BLM’s approved alternate design, the project proposed by Soda Mountain Solar, LLC (Bechtel) would be located on 1,767 acres of BLM-managed lands about six miles southwest of Baker, California. Reduced from an originally proposed 2,222 acres, the project will be located in an area of disturbed lands that include Interstate Highway 15 and an active utility corridor for oil and gas pipelines, electricity transmission and communication lines and facilities, the government release said. The site is adjacent to an approved, but not yet built, high-speed rail route between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and will be near the Rasor Off Highway Vehicle Area.

NPCA officials, citing the threats posed by Soda Mountain Solar, selected the Mojave National Preserve as one of nine #ParksInPeril identified by the organization. 

Also speaking out against the project was the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks.

“Our organization is comprised of former National Park Service rangers, park superintendents, and scientists who dedicated their careers to safeguarding natural treasures including Mojave National Preserve,” said Maureen Finnerty, chair of the group's Executive Council. “Therefore it is deeply disappointing on a very personal level to see the Interior Department make such a poor decision, following years of opposition by Mojave National Preserve’s superintendent and many other current and former park officials.”

Since 2009, the Interior Department has permitted 58 utility-scale renewable energy projects on public lands, including 35 solar, 11 wind and 12 geothermal utility-scale renewable energy projects and associated transmission infrastructure. Together, these 58 projects could support nearly 15,500 MWs of renewable energy capacity, enough to power about five million homes and representing $40 billion in potential private capital investments.

“Soda Mountain is another step forward toward diversifying our nation's energy portfolio and meeting the State of California’s growing demand for renewable energy,” said BLM Director Neil Kornze. “The project is consistent with the BLM’s landscape approach for the California desert, which supports careful development of renewable energy where it makes sense while protecting the resources and places that make the desert special.”

Sierra Club officials disagreed, saying there are better places to site such a facility.

“We can enjoy the benefits of 100 percent clean energy without sacrificing unspoiled public land," said Bruce Nilles, senior campaign director for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. "At the same time we are fighting to eliminate dirty fossil fuels, we have a shared responsibility to protect vulnerable species, and lands, such as Soda Mountain. There has been tremendous progress in landscape level planning for renewable energy and conservation, yet regulatory agencies continue to let projects which are relic of a previous era move forward. The federal government has made two reckless decisions in one week for California’s wildlife legacy — approving both Soda Mountain and the Panoche Valley Solar Project, a similar ‘relic’ project that could devastate three endangered species in Central California.”

According to the Interior Department release, the approved design "removes an array of solar panels originally proposed for north of the interstate highway, eliminating virtually all visual impacts from the project within neighboring Mojave National Preserve. The project would not be seen from most parts of the Preserve, including from any highway or established route of travel within the Preserve, the release added.

BLM officials also said the project as designed would not interfere with future efforts to re-establish bighorn sheep movement across the interstate highway.

In response to issues raised by partner agencies and other stakeholders, the BLM’s environmental review incorporated additional analysis and mitigation, including:

* A groundwater study independently verified by the U.S. Geological Survey that shows the project’s water use would “not measurably affect” nearby springs depended upon by the endangered Mohave tui chub (a rare desert fish);

* Additional mitigation to reduce the project’s night lighting and dust emissions and compensate for lost habitat;

* Developed a bighorn sheep adaptive management strategy to maintain existing foraging, movement and feeding opportunities, improve opportunities to restore sheep movement and connectivity, and provide funding for long term genetic connectivity;

* Additional mitigation to reduce impacts to visual resources, groundwater, air quality and other resources.

Among those critical of the decision was Thomas E. Lovejoy, professor of environmental science and policy at George Mason University, and former science advisor to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt.

“One of the lessons I have learned from years of scientific research is that conservation depends not only on protection but also on connection,” said Professor Lovejoy. “The recolonization of the Soda Mountains by bighorn sheep shows how important these natural connections are and how resilient nature can be when given a chance. The neighboring Mojave National Preserve, along with the Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks, constitute glories of the Southwest that should be managed in perpetuity, not chipped away and degraded.”