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.”
Comments
If you were a Scots-Irishman arriving in Virginia's Tidewater, you learned quickly who was in "control"--the planter class and their idea of "government." It became a familiar pattern until the country was finally settled. New arrivals were largely closed out. On the frontier, they still had to look back east for support, and did, with the argument that they were "advancing" the frontier and civilization. You're right, EC. Hate is perhaps too strong a word. But the West certainly never liked the East, and clashed repeatedly with the "original" settlements over issues of taxation, land use, statehood, Indian removal--you name it. Why EC, you carry on the tradition today!
Alfred, there is a difference between "hating" government and wanting it to stick to its proper role. As you admit, people didn't go West because they hated the government, they went West because the government encouraged them to do so. So those pioneers were fully justified to expect the government to do what one of its designated powers prescribed - i.e protect the people.
And yes we clash over certain issues like taxes. Not that I (or my ilk) don't want ANY taxes, we don't want taxes that are then spent for purposes not authorized by the Constituion or taxes that represent transfer payments rather than necessary government services. Yes we clash over land use - some of us believe in property rights others seem to think they know better. Don't know that there have been any statehood or indian removal clashes for quite some time so I certainly am not participating in them.
Probably the very best way to install enough solar power to make a difference is to install as much as possible on rooftops of individual homes and businesses. How many million acres of those exist in this country?
But for many Americans, installation of rooftop solar is either restricted by zoning or HOA rules --- or, more likely, is simply cost prohibitive. In many parts of the country, power companies and others that might see some cuts in their profit margins are quietly trying to stymie solar efforts.
Then there is the question of distribution. Current technology, although advancing rapidly, doesn't adequately support storage of solar energy. It needs to be pushed at least partly into the existing power grid, and solar owners need to be able to draw power from the grid when needed. However, some power companies are not exactly friendly toward cooperating in helping to develop a system that will allow input and extraction of power from various sources. It's certainly short sightedness driven by profit motives, but unless or until we somehow manage to balance the need for businesses to make profits with the need for advances that will also benefit the rest of us, not much real progress will be made.
There are other countries, particularly in Europe, where that kind of balance is being acheived and there are winners on all sides. Why can't we be smart enough to follow their example?
Unfortunately, a host of habitual deniers who are wiling to sacrifice chances of a sustainable future for short term profit are doing a good job of standing in the way. Greed too often trumps (pun intended) common sense and progress in America.
Unsuprisingly Lee fails to even attempt to substantiate his claims that big oil and Walmart are subsidized. He then goes on to make further baseless accusations and blame business despite the fact that it has been business and the profit motive that has been the primary driver of the advancement of technology. Smart enough to follow Europe? No thanks
"The low wages paid by businesses, including some of the largest and most profitable companies in the U.S. - like McDonald's and Wal-Mart - are costing taxpayers nearly $153 billion a year.
After decades of wage cuts and health benefit rollbacks, more than half of all state and federal spending on public assistance programs goes to working families who need food stamps, Medicaid, or other support to meet basic needs."
-- Washington Post
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages/
Even Forbes Magazine reports the same kind of information, but I couldn't get their link to open for some reason -- ad blocker got in the way. But anyone interested can Google it up.
But it's senseless to try to substantiate anything when dealing with habitual deniers -- like the Donald, they are very good at ignoring whatever they want to ignore and claiming that anything they don't agree with is baseless. Dodge around a question and divert attention. As for following Europe --- don't look now, but we're being left behind in the dust by many countries that we once looked upon as ignorant third world dumps. Might not be too long before they overtake us and we have become a third world dump because we refuse to look forward instead of backward.
Let's get back to Soda Mountain for a moment. The Obama Administration promises us 287 megawatts, enough for 86,000 "homes." Do notice the word magic--"homes." How could any American disagree with solar power that runs a "home?"
What if we said 10,000 Walmarts. Would we be as excited then? And the point remains: It isn't just homes. It is also our insatiable appetite for energy period, including all of those lighted billboards in Las Vegas.
Why the desert? Because it is "cheap." The same solar plant in an urban setting would drive land costs through the roof.
At the very least, let us see the irony here. On the one hand, Uncle Sam denied an oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore. Environmentalists also plead that the cattle be removed. Do we only stand up for our national parks? What about the rest of our public lands?
How do we say to the Bundys of the world that you can't graze your cattle, but we are giving 40 million acres away for solar power? That is the equivalent of Pennsylvania. It is no wonder that the American people have become so cynical they rate Congress below the mafia. You deny me, but you give to him. Why? Good point. I've watched these solar plants get built, and the bulldozers scrape the land bare. At least, Mr. Bundy leaves something of nature behind, if only cattle poop.
When government grows this distant from reality--fairness--look out. It is not the utilities pushing this. Their investments took years to build. For 287 megawatts, they would go with natural gas. The plant would occupy between 10 and 20 acres. The 40,000,000 acres are to appease the Wizard. What is he selling? Why, he is selling the dismantlement of our public lands. Now you know what green energy really means, and it has nothing to do with "homes."
I agree with the observation that the mainline environmental groups have lost their way, and share some of the responsibility for these large-scale solar projects which are adversely impacting our deserts. Also discouraging is the BLM, which has fast-tracked some of these questionable projects without adequate study of their environmental impacts.
Dr. Runte is correct. That takes us back to the question of why we're not using the millions of acres of roofs available throughout the land.
The Europeans have been smart enough to use theirs with great success. Why can't we?