Sunday, June 7, 2015

Are You Kidding?: Interior Set to Approve Project Near Soda Mountain

The Department of Interior released its final environmental impact statement for Bechtel's Soda Mountain Solar project and appears to abandon previous "landscape-level" planning.  The document signals imminent approval for the nearly three square mile project that could ironically make it more difficult for desert bighorn sheep to adapt to climate change and imperil an endangered desert fish, ignoring alternative locations for the solar panels on rooftops or already-disturbed lands.

According to the environmental review, the desert habitat that will be destroyed to make way for the Soda Mountain Solar project currently hosts as many as 142 different species of native plants, 13 reptile species, and 15 mammal species, including three species of bats that forage on the site.  Fifty-one different bird species have been documented using the habitat, including burrowing owls.  Biologists found 50 recently active owl burrows on the project site.


Confidence Rests on Dangerous Assumptions

The final environmental impact statement assumes the project's impacts on wildlife will be limited, despite many unknowns about large-scale solar projects and concerns that some impacts are being underestimated.  The Department of Interior has been down this road before and was later forced to acknowledge harmful consequences that it downplayed or didn't bother to evaluate with other large-scale energy projects in the desert.  Yet, here we are again taking unnecessary risks and ignoring better alternatives.  Although the final environmental review pledges to monitor impacts, such monitoring cannot always stop impacts in time, and not all damage will be reversible.    

Bighorn Sheep

Bighorn sheep at Soda Mountain
The Soda Mountain area has been identified as the only opportunity to reestablish demographic connectivity across Interstate-15 for the desert bighorn sheep.  Thus, if Bechtel installs a field of photovoltaic panels here it will impede this opportunity to improve sheep migration north and south across a significant portion of the Mojave.  If we do not restore demographic connectivity, the genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep will continue to decline if sheep only breed among isolated populations.  This loss of genetic diversity will challenge the species' ability to adapt to climate change.

Much of the solar project's "East Array" will be built less than a quarter mile from the slopes of the Soda Mountains and destroy key foraging habitat used by the sheep.  Bighorn sheep are sensitive to human disturbance, so an industrial-scale solar facility probably will restrict the animal's local range and also complicate efforts to lure sheep to any future wildlife crossings;  they have already shown a reluctance to approach Interstate-15.

The environmental impact statement will require the installation of guzzlers - human-installed water sources - to try to entice bighorn sheep to cross culverts underneath Interstate-15 or the existing vehicle overpass at Zzyzx Road.  If those do not result in sheep safely crossing under or over the highway, Bechtel will be required to put $250,000 toward a possible wildlife overpass just north of the solar array.  But because the solar project extends so far into sheep foraging habitat and close to the slopes of the Soda Mountains, our options for where to optimally place the wildlife overpass are constrained. 

The final EIS mentions that studies are ongoing to determine bighorn sheep crossing opportunities, so it seems bizarre that Interior is ready to approve a solar project layout without sufficient information to evaluate its impacts on bighorn sheep.  With so many sustainable alternative locations for solar panels - on rooftops, over parking lots, or on already-disturbed lands - Interior is taking an unnecessary risk approving this solar project and jeopardizing bighorn sheep habitat connectivity.

Mohave Tui Chub

The Mohave tui chub is an endangered desert fish that lives in natural springs and at Lake Tuendae in the Mojave National Preserve, just east of the solar project.  The Soda Mountain Solar project will pump 62.5 million gallons of water per year during construction, and 10.7 million gallons of water each year for for dust suppression and panel washing during operation of the completed project. Some are concerned that this groundwater pumping will take enough water from the aquifer that the Mohave tui chub habitat will dry up.  And the desert bighorn sheep will lose a critical water source, as well.
Mohave tui chub at Soda Spring

According to the Bureau of Land Management, the Mohave tui chub habitat probably gets most of its water from rainfall on the east side of the Soda Mountains, not from the same groundwater basin as the solar project.  But the National Park Service asserts, and the BLM acknowledges, that water may also permeate through the Soda Mountains from the solar project's groundwater basin and to the fish habitat.  The BLM and Bechtel are assuming a great risk, betting that pumping groundwater from the Soda Mountain Valley will not have much of an impact on the springs that provide habitat for the endangered Mohave tui chub and keep bighorn sheep alive.   If the BLM is wrong, the effects on wildlife could be harmful and fast.  Groundwater builds slowly over time, but its manifestations at the surface - at natural springs - can disappear with little warning.  Even if Bechtel ceases its pumping, it may not be able to reverse the damage.

Pollution and Water a Vicious Cycle
 
Another key concern about the project is the amount of particle pollution (PM 10 and PM 2.5) that this project will generate during construction and operation - bulldozing desert habitat removes topsoil and increases windblown dust.  Although solar projects do not emit the same amount or type of pollution that fossil fuel projects do, they can still have a harmful impact on health and regional visibility.  The best way to avoid this problem is to put solar panels on rooftops, and to avoid adding to the problem you can build on already-disturbed lands.   Instead, Bechtel will add to the problem.  And in order to suppress this dust, Bechtel will have to pump millions of gallons of groundwater to spray the project site and hold down dust pollution.  However, other solar projects that have used groundwater to control pollution still emit a great deal of dust, as shown below.  Once again, policies that encourage solar panels on rooftops or over parking lots would allow us to generate clean energy without these environmental costs.

Dust kicked up at the Ivanpah Solar project after BrightSource mowed down desert vegetation there. Dust suppression uses a lot of water, and is not always effective. Photo by Basin and Range Watch.


Saturday, May 30, 2015

BrightSource Cancels Hidden Hills, But Threats Loom

The Pahrump Valley, a vast stretch of creosote, yucca and Joshua tree that unfolds as you descend from the Spring Mountains, remains the target of extensive development proposals despite a recent decision to terminate a solar power tower project here.  BrightSource Energy this week cancelled its proposal to build the destructive Hidden Hills solar power tower project on the California side of the Pahrump Valley.  The project would have replaced desert habitat with nearly 5 square miles of giant heliostat mirrors and two 750-tall towers that would have burned birds and insects, as is the case with the Ivanpah Solar and Crescent Dunes power tower projects.  Hidden Hills also would have pumped hundreds of millions of gallons of groundwater over its construction and operational lifetime from an already-overdrafted basin, threatening wildlife that depend on nearby natural springs.  So it is indeed a relief that the project has been withdrawn.

The Spring Mountains in the distance are the most dominant feature of this mostly intact desert valley.  It would be nice to avoid further human competition with this beautiful landscape, including 750-tall power towers.
Towers May Still Loom on the Horizon

In comments to KCET writer Chris Clarke, BrightSource indicated that it may submit a new application with an energy storage capability.  The company probably would face an uphill battle with such an application on the California side of the Pahrump Valley because Inyo County has implemented a new land use plan that prohibits solar power tower projects.  Both the Inyo County plan and the draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan would allow large-scale photovoltaic projects on the California side of the border, although there are no imminent plans for such projects.

However, BrightSource does have a dormant proposal to use thousands of acres of public lands on the Nevada side of the Pahrump Valley, according to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) records.  The company submitted a $75,000 fee to the BLM in 2012 essentially staking claim to these public lands.  The company could use this Nevada parcel to build its renewed solar power tower application with energy storage once it submits plans and goes through environmental review.  According to the BLM's draft Resource Management Plan amendment for the southern Nevada area, the BrightSource parcel would be in an area where the BLM would still consider solar applications.

A BLM photo submitted to the California Energy Commission shows evidence of subsidence in the Pahrump Valley - the land lowering significantly as a result of groundwater pumping for agricultural and residential purposes.
Other solar company applications also target the Pahrump Valley.  Abengoa has plans for a solar power tower project on the Nevada side of the Pahrump Valley; its BLM application has been dormant since last year.  Abengoa also has submitted a plan of development for a concentrating solar trough project, and two other companies have eyed the Pahrump Valley for photovoltaic projects.  Even if a couple of these projects were built, habitat in the area would be significantly fragmented and natural springs likely jeopardized.

Transmission a Key Constraint

However, any large-scale projects here likely will require progress in the Valley Electric Association's (VEA) proposal to build a new transmission line connecting the Pahrump Valley to the El Dorado substation over 50 miles away near Searchlight.  The BLM had begun an environmental review for the project, although it appears it has since stalled with the suspension and now cancellation of the Hidden Hills solar project.  Either way, a new power plant in the Pahrump Valley will also need to ensure the success of this transmission line application and a power purchase agreement with a California utility.  The VEA, although based in Nevada, is part of the California transmission grid. 

The necessity of the transmission line underscores the absurdity of such remote, utility-scale solar projects.  Smaller photovoltaic projects on rooftops or over parking lots could feed clean energy to the nearby town of Pahrump, or the city of Las Vegas.  But instead, developers would scrape clean thousands of acres of desert to ship energy across hundreds of miles of transmission lines to reach customers in faraway Los Angeles or San Francisco.  We are a long way off from sanity in how we generate and consume energy, and the Pahrump Valley can still look a lot different if corporations get their way.  BrightSource's withdrawal of the Hidden Hills application is a welcome relief for conservationists and advocates for responsible renewable energy, but there will be more battles ahead in our effort to protect public lands and open space in the Pahrump Valley from unnecessary destruction.



Sunday, April 26, 2015

As Distributed Solar Becomes More Potent, Attacks Become More Fierce

Distributed solar generation threatens to upend the centralized electric grid in a good way.  This technology gives more people the opportunity to generate clean energy for themselves and to share with others without destroying wildlands.  As Bill McKibben wrote in his book Eaarth about our energy future, "our projects, if we are wise, will be myriad and quiet, not a grand few visible to the world."

Now it appears that energy storage will be a force multiplier for sustainable, distributed solar energy as the technology becomes cheaper and more efficient.  According to a report by the Rocky Mountain Institute, a combination of energy efficiency investments and improving cost forecasts for rooftop solar with battery storage means that "tens of millions" of utility customers (residential and commercial) will find it more cost effective to produce and store their own clean energy by the year 2020.  That means that technology will give millions of people the option to defect from the grid by 2020, and even more after that.  Solar paired with storage means that the energy we do not use during the day may be available to us at night.  Even if you don't own the rooftop over your head, community solar policies are expanding, allowing those living in apartment buildings or renting a home to choose a more sustainable energy source.


It is no surprise that utility companies are stepping up their attack against rooftop solar.  The more we get used to the idea that we can generate - and eventually store - our own clean energy, the sooner that utility companies lose their grip on the massive profits they gain from building and maintaining a destructive grid.  Rooftop and parking lot solar installations will not make utility companies go away completely, but the utility business model will no longer be based on the promise of entangling our wildlands in transmission lines and destructive power plants built hundreds of miles from the places we live.  Utility companies know that distributed solar technology is becoming more cost effective, so their attacks are focused on adding extra costs to the technology.  The companies are proposing additional fees to be charged to families and businesses that install solar panels. 

As some continue to be fascinated by the glaring solar power towers and utility-scale fields of solar panels and wind turbines that are strapped to giant transmission lines, distributed solar generation makes continued investment in an outdated grid seem absurd.  But solar panels on a home or business do not provide the same "big infrastructure" backdrop that more destructive utility-scale projects provide to policymakers and elected officials.  Afterall, our definition of progress and success is still as outdated as our concept of the centralized electric grid.

Instead of subsidizing fossil fuel extraction or bulldozers scraping desert wildlands, why not implement policies that shift the grid (and the economy overall) to a more decentralized model?  How about feed-in-tariffs for those that sell energy back to the grid from their rooftop solar panels, or rebates for people that buy into rooftop or community solar?  Instead of handing billions of dollars in subsidies to a handful of already-wealthy corporate executives, how about more help for normal folks that want to make their home or business more energy efficient, and powered by a set of local solar panels?  Solar panels that sit on a rooftop, or provide shade to a parking lot - adding value to a space in our city that we took for granted as having only one purpose.


But that sort of shift in the grid will require a shift in policy. And that shift in policy will require that we desire distributed solar not only because it is clean energy, but because it is more sustainable.  Because we would rather pay a little extra for electricity, and be more efficient in the way we use electricity, than continue to dispose of wildlands and wildlife as if they were something to swap for convenience in a marketplace ever more disconnected from our natural heritage.  The value of distributed solar - and its potential to transform the way we consider our relationship with electricity - is more than just the technical comparison of system costs - replacing transformers or new software to manage the grid.  The value of distributed generation that we may never manage to perfectly capture is how much we need - but may not fully appreciate - a beautiful desert valley in the Mojave, a pristine ridge north of Tehachapi watched over by red-tailed hawks, or an intact grassland in New Mexico that is not scarred by natural gas well pads and roads.  Those are the places that may be spared by an investment in distributed generation.  How do we factor that into our utility bills?

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Cimate Hawk Response to Franzen Misses the Big Picture

Reading the climate hawk response to conservationist Jonathan Franzen makes it clear that we cannot make progress on climate or conservation if we do not recognize a broader sustainability deficit and take responsibility for our own participation in growing environmental disasters.

The New Yorker published an article this month written by Franzen, who expressed concern that the focus of attention and resources on climate change comes at the expense of traditional conservation efforts to protect wildlands and wildlife.  A wave of criticism followed, with self-styled "climate hawks" slamming Franzen as being too "myopic," and "birdbrained."   If you haven't been following the debate, Chris Clarke has an excellent blog post on Franzen and the critical response: "Orthodoxy in the Climate Movement: Franzen and his Deniers." 

The ongoing discussion among those concerned about climate change and conservation exposes a fault line in the environmental community that some climate pundits have created with their refusal to recognize that climate change is part of a broader sustainability deficit.  Any mention of other environmental problems  - and especially any discussion of the environmental impacts of renewable energy - is usually slapped down with assertions that these problems are minuscule compared to the effects of climate change.   We do indeed need to take serious steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but browbeating conservationists that want to synchronize our climate movement with a broader ethos of sustainability is counterproductive.  Unfortunately, I don't think Franzen's piece does a good job of communicating this broader problem, either.

I do not agree with everything Franzen said or how he said it.  I don't like his pessimism, or what seems to be his lack of faith in our options to significantly reduce our impact on the climate and wildlife. And, above all, I do not agree with Franzen that our contribution to climate change as individuals "makes no difference." I thought this was a shocking contradiction of the points he makes later (I will get to this...hang with me).

But it was the response to Franzen's piece by self-appointed referees in a much broader environmental discussion that frustrated me the most.  Pundits like David Roberts and Joe Romm frequently go on the defensive against conservationists' concerns, and are perfectly happy with the needless sacrifice of wildlands and wildlife in service of human society (they frequently dismiss concerns about wildlife impacts at renewable energy facilities as a "distraction").  These pundits borrow from the same themes and tactics employed by ultra-conservative war mongers.  Just as some are quick to abandon civil liberties and social justice in the face of threats to our safety, some climate pundits argue that it is okay to sacrifice biodiversity and wildlands for what is ultimately a temporary fix to our sustainability problem.

Roberts, Romm, and some other climate hawks preach to environmentalists as if climate change is some new problem that we do not understand, and accuse environmentalists of being myopically focused on birds or other wildlife.  They completely miss the point that it is often environmentalists that see the big picture - climate change is not the problem, but a piece of a much bigger problem - our unsustainable, and often selfish expectations of what this planet can and should provide to humans.   We dig up and burn oil and coal with the same feverish and blind ambition that we drain wetlands for subdivisions and office parks, dam rivers for energy and recreation, and bulldoze woodlands for strip malls and highways.  Replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable energy is a necessary upgrade to our way of life, but it is ultimately just a temporary patch for what is actually an outdated operating system that will continue to undermine the vibrance of our planet long after the last coal power plant is shut down.

I know how bad climate change is, and the people, wildlife and places I care about are already being impacted.  I am not arguing that we should ignore climate change, but rather that our solution to climate change is mindful of, and corrects the underlying cause of climate change.  When I argue for distributed generation and energy storage as a higher priority than bulldozing wildlands for utility-scale solar and wind turbines, it is because I don't want to repeat the same mistakes that got us into the climate mess.  Climate pundits like Roberts and Romm believe that deploying the renewable energy patch is good enough.  Most environmentalists know that we have more work to do beyond fixing our emissions.

Climate Change - Illness or Symptom?

Let's be clear.  Climate change is indeed a serious threat to the people, wildlife, and places that I care about.  But claims by climate hawks that climate change surpasses all other threats to the richness and viability of our planet is ridiculous.  Swapping out coal plants with utility-scale wind turbines and solar plants will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it will not necessarily stop the severe decline in biodiversity, the loss of habitat or ensure the health of ecosystems.  This is because climate change is not the central threat to the environment, but a symptom of a dysfunctional human way of life that shows no respect for the planet upon which we live.  And a persistent effort by climate hawks to deny this is the reason that they are just as incapable of leading an environmental debate as Republican climate deniers on Capitol Hill are incapable of making sound policy decisions about greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change will worsen the cycle of drought and wildfire in the west, but even if we find a way to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to below 350 parts per million we will still struggle to live within our means.  We will struggle to share water between humans and wildlife, and protect the open spaces that wildlife need to survive, let alone thrive.  Even before the impacts of anthropogenic climate change began to significantly impact our air, water and land, we had already found other ways to devastate wildlands and wildlife.  The World Wildlife Federation found that between 1970 and 2010, populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish around the globe dropped 52 percent.   Habitat loss is the greatest threat to biodiversity, and the WWF identifies it as the main threat to 85% of all species described in the IUCN's Red List (those species officially classified as "Threatened" and "Endangered").  Climate change will contribute to habitat loss - but solving climate change will not end habitat loss.

Watching wildlife go extinct is not just some sentimental issue, even though I'd like to think that wildlife have an intrinsic value just as humans do.  KCET ReWild highlighted a study by UC Santa Barbara that a loss of biodiversity has cascading impacts on how well ecosystems function, putting extinction on par with many other human-caused environmental calamities.  We're in for a bad ride as climate change will accelerate extinction, but to argue that it is okay to add to the loss of biodiversity with our renewable energy solutions is short-sighted.  What most environmentalists argue for is not a zero-impact solution to climate, but a smart one that prioritizes energy efficiency and the most sustainable deployment of clean energy.  So why do we get attacked by climate hawks when we raise this point?  Because they have adopted - and reinforce through their writings - an anthropocentric ethos that absolves individuals of their own role in this environmental disaster.

Anthropocentric Ethos Dominates; Conservation Ethic is Dismissed

Climate pundits' unwillingness to recognize a broader sustainability problem is a severe handicap for them because it undermines their own ability to move people to action even on the climate piece of the sustainability pie.  Some climate pundits, and apparently even Franzen, seem to ignore the culpability of individuals in environmental disasters.  I assume that this stems from hierarchy of considerations prevalent in our society that gives right-of-way to consumption and economic growth, in which our own materialism plays an important role.  It is politically taboo to question the mantra of growth, the persistence and strength of which depends upon consumption.

In Roberts' criticism of Franzen, he asserts that Franzen doesn't get it because climate change is "incredibly complex." Roberts believes the complexity of climate change is why we all have a "climate thing," like some sort of safety blanket.  He argues that a "climate thing" is "a lens that magnifies one aspect of the issue at the expense of all others."  Isn't that ironic?  Roberts is telling environmentalists arguing for sustainability that they lost sight of the real problem.   But the irony doesn't stop there.  Roberts says Franzen's "climate thing" is birds, and for others it is "consumption." Yes, Roberts views consumption as irrelevant, or perhaps some small subset to the climate problem. 

Roberts then laments in his critique of Franzen that "nobody gives a shit" about bird deaths or climate.   But why should we be surprised? One of the most popular voices on climate change implicitly defends needless waste.  Wind turbines can kill all the birds they want because we need them to power our DVRs and charge our iPads.   He absolves us all of any guilt for the damage caused by wind turbines, presumably because we have more important things to worry about.  In a Roberts tweet that Chris Clarke highlights in his blog post, Roberts tells another writer that he is perfectly okay with the idea of cutting down a grove of redwood trees or bulldozing the desert to build solar projects.  Roberts is telling his readers and followers that they should feel no guilt for their consumption; we just need to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy without any regard for a conservation ethic. 

Roberts then states that he nodded to one paragraph in Franzen's piece, which happens to be the one paragraph with which I strongly disagree:
"Shouldn’t our responsibility to other people, both living and not yet born, compel us to take radical action on climate change? The problem here is that it makes no difference to the climate whether any individual, myself included, drives to work or rides a bike. The scale of greenhouse-gas emissions is so vast, the mechanisms by which these emissions affect the climate so nonlinear, and the effects so widely dispersed in time and space that no specific instance of harm could ever be traced back to my 0.0000001-per-cent contribution to emissions."
I don't know if Franzen intended that passage to absolve individuals of responsibility or if he was trying to make another point indirectly.  But the words send the same message that climate pundits repeat when they say that bird mortality at wind farms is minuscule compared to climate change, and therefore don't make a difference.

An article on climate change and moral judgement - that Roberts has praised in a separate piece - identifies the reasons we cannot motivate people to give a shit about climate, and it is precisely because of the point that Franzen makes in the paragraph above.  Because people either don't recognize their role in the problem, or they get defensive.  The study found that the blamelessness of unintentional action or consequences makes it difficult for people to grasp climate change (and other environmental problems).   It also states that discussion of the human role in climate change provokes a "self-defensive bias."

It is a lot easier for climate pundits and environmentalists alike to focus our actions on policymakers and corporations, rather than on the impact of our own participation in the economy.  I'm not saying that we should give corporations and misguided politicians a break.  Far from it.  I am saying that our efforts to cut fossil fuels and chart a more sustainable path requires that we actually confront the fact that each of us, as individuals, need to do a lot more to reduce consumption.  Then we can actually assume more power power over politicians and CEOs.

But I don't think that we have had that reckoning yet in the discussion about climate change and what to do about it.  There is deep acceptance of the fact that we need to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, but we tend to tread more lightly on the topics that address our actions as individuals, such as energy conservation and the impact of meat consumption, for example. So here we are, wondering why nobody gives a shit about birds or the climate as we shrug off the impacts of wind turbines and solar power towers on wildlife.  The same shrug of indifference that climate pundits give to birds is what millions of people do when they leave video game and DVR consoles running, or drive to the store when they could walk or take the bus.  It's not their problem, or it's too minuscule to matter.

As Franzen said in his New Yorker article:
"Americans today live far from the ecological damage that their consumption habits cause, and even if future consumers are more enlightened about carbon footprints, and fill their tanks with certified green fuel, they’ll still be alienated. Only an appreciation of nature as a collection of specific threatened habitats, rather than as an abstract thing that is “dying,” can avert the complete denaturing of the world."
I'm not saying that we should turn and browbeat readers for every transgression they commit against the climate.  But our ethos and message needs to accept that climate change is one of many symptoms of an unhealthy way of life on this planet, and that CEOs, policymakers, and every other neighbor shares responsibility.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Public Lands Debate Hijacked by Extremists in Nevada

At the urging of a small but vocal group of extremists, the Nevada legislature is considering an unconstitutional bill that would take public lands currently managed by the Federal government and hand them over to private interests for grazing, logging and mining (Assembly Bill 408).  Cliven Bundy, whose dangerous supporters aimed semi-automatic rifles at law enforcement officers, characterizes the bill as a "freedom and liberty thing," according to the Los Angeles Times.  They suggest that the Federal government limits public access to public land in Nevada, but they apparently define "freedom" as giving industry free reign to destroy the desert.

Southern Nevada is blessed with some beautiful desert wildlands.  Drive in any direction from Las Vegas and you'll find a corner of desert where you can enjoy solitude, the smell of creosote, and a beautiful landscape.  Contrary to what Bundy would like me to believe, I have never felt fenced out.   I have camped and hiked on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) south of Searchlight where I watched the setting sun light up Spirit Mountain.  I camped with my brother in the Wee Thump Wilderness area among a forest of Joshua Trees.  I have enjoyed visits to the Desert and Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuges where I stood in awe of how species can adapt and thrive in such an unforgiving landscape.  I watched a shelf of billowy white and silver clouds sit on top of the magnificant Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area as a late winter storm approached.  I drove up rough roads to the base of Bare Mountain to investigate a natural spring frequented by bighorn sheep, and watched a golden eagle circle high above the peak.

Sunset across the Piute Valley with Spirit Mountain catching the last rays of light. BLM lands south of Searchlight, Nevada.
Public lands in Nevada are not being shielded from human destruction, either.  I would argue that quite the opposite is happening as increasing human and industrial demands are taking a toll.  There are bulldozers scraping several square miles of desert habitat next to Primm for First Solar's Silver State South solar project.  Suburbs and cities in southern Nevada have ballooned over the past few decades, eating up open space and tapping into a dwindling water supply.  Bundy's cows are grazing illegally on thousands of acres of the desert near Gold Butte, while cows belonging to other ranchers that follow the law and pay their fair share also graze in the state.  In Clark County alone, mines produced over 4.5 million metric tons of various commodities in the year 2013. Off-highway vehicle enthusiasts enjoy open areas and miles of routes carved into the desert, some of which I also depend upon to get to my favorite camping spots. 

So what do Cliven Bundy and some members of the Nevada legislature think we should be doing with our public lands?   Apparently they want a free-for-all where the most powerful interests can expand destructive uses, depriving the rest of us of the natural treasures that we should be protecting for future generations.  Are these people familiar with the tragedy of the commons?

I do not always agree with the Federal government's decisions on how to manage public lands, but I sure as hell do not agree with Cliven Bundy's proposal to hand over public lands to industry and other profiteers under the guise of freedom.  Public lands should stay in public hands, and that means finding a balance among the multitude of human demands that protects wildlife and wide-open landscapes.  We should not take open space and biodiversity for granted.

We should have a rational discussion about land management in Nevada, but people like Cliven Bundy - who want to deprive us of our ability to enjoy and explore public lands - have proven that they have nothing constructive to say.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

West Mojave Plan Would Expand OHV Route Network


The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in February released a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the West Mojave Plan that would expand the open route network for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and limit livestock grazing.  Despite concerns that an earlier iteration of the plan's OHV route network would have a significant adverse effect on wildlife, this draft proposes to significantly expand authorized OHV access to 10,428 miles of routes.  For the sake of comparison, the City of Los Angeles alone has about 6,500 miles of paved roads.

The last iteration of the West Mojave Plan was finalized in 2006 and proposed to designate 5,098 miles of open routes, but a Federal judge ordered the BLM to revise the plan.  The court ruled that the original plan lacked sufficient analysis of the effects of OHV use and grazing on wildlife, and asked the BLM to evaluate alternative OHV route networks that would minimize conflict and avoid considerable adverse effects on soil, wildlife and cultural resources.

A wash southwest of Ridgecrest known to support Mohave ground squirrel and desert tortoise.  The El Paso Mountains can be seen in the distance.
The court also asked the BLM to update its baseline inventory of existing routes (both authorized and unauthorized).  The public expressed concern that the BLM's original assessment of 8,000 miles of existing routes underestimated the amount of illegal new routes carved by OHV riders not following open routes.  In response, the BLM took another look at the West Mojave using high resolution satellite imagery and found approximately 15,000 miles of authorized and illegal routes carved into the West Mojave - far more than the BLM had originally thought existed.

Miles of existing routes inventoried in 2001: approximately 8,000 miles

Miles of open route designated in the 2006 West Mojave Plan:  5,098

Miles of existing routes inventoried in 2012: approximately 15,00

Miles proposed as open routes in the 2015 supplemental EIS: 10,428

Despite public concern that the smaller open route network would itself have adverse impacts on wildlife, the BLM is now proposing to more than double the miles of authorized routes in its 2015 supplemental EIS.   Although every fan of the desert relies on open routes to access our favorite corners of this beautiful region, there is a careful balance that needs to be struck between access, recreation, and protecting the integrity of our wildlands.  The plan would create areas where the concentration of open routes combined with the high frequency of OHV use would encourage a pattern of erosion and vegetation loss that could threaten the viability of wildlife habitat over time.  Specifically, a significant portion of the proposed open routes occur between the Golden Valley and El Paso Mountains Wilderness areas, which serves as important habitat for the Mohave ground squirrel and desert tortoise.  Each route eliminates desert vegetation, and reduces forage and cover available to animals.

A screen shot of the open route network map for a portion of the West Mojave Plan area near Ridgecrest, California.  The open routes are designated in green, with a significant concentration between the Golden Valley and El Paso Mountains Wilderness Areas.
Perhaps the impacts of the route network could be manageable if every OHV rider stayed on designated routes, but the impacts are likely to expand with unauthorized route creation.  Without proper education and enforcement, riders sometimes add to the network by departing from authorized routes and carving new tracks across the desert.  Once a track is carved into the desert soil, it is unlikely to disappear for years.   Other riders may see and follow the track, assuming it is part of an open network.  The repeat OHV travel on the illegal track increases the damage, and makes it all the more difficult to conceal from other OHV riders. 

A hill south of Ridgecrest scarred by multiple OHV routes.  Over time, the loss of topsoil contributes to erosion and prevents vegetation from growing.  As routes become impassable, OHV riders sometimes carve new routes, further expanding erosion and loss of vegetation.
The BLM is accepting comments on the draft supplemental EIS until June 4, 2015, and has indicated that it may revise the open route network based on specific comments from the public.


Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Grid Operator Says Coolwater-Lugo Transmission Line Unnecessary

Southern California Edison's (SCE) proposal to build a destructive new transmission line across desert wildlands just hit a snag.  The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) - the organization responsible for managing the state's transmission grid - reported that SCE's proposed Coolwater-Lugo Transmission Project is no longer necessary to bring all of the Mojave Solar project's energy to the grid.  SCE had argued that it could not deliver energy from Abengoa's Mojave Solar on existing transmission lines because those lines were already in use by other power plants.  A new 75 mile transmission line would be needed to connect the project to the grid, according to SCE, a portion of which would be built outside of existing transmission corridors.

The early dawn sun highlights desert silhouettes in the northern Lucerne Valley, just east of the Granite Mountains.  The proposed Coolwater-Lugo Transmission Project would cut right through this landscape.
However, the CAISO's submission to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) undercuts SCE's case for building the new transmission line.  SCE needs CPUC's approval in order to pass along costs to build the new line to ratepayers.  CAISO argues that the retirement of other power plants in the region have freed up enough capacity on transmission lines to fully deliver the energy generated by the Mojave Solar project.  This doesn't count the Coolwater natural gas plant, that has also ceased operations but has not relinquished its rights to transmission lines.  If that plant also follows suit, even more capacity will be available.

SCE has put forward other reasons to build the Coolwater-Lugo Transmission line, but it had scrapped less destructive alternatives because it argued that it needed to serve the Mojave Solar project.  Hopefully CPUC will ask SCE to reconsider its options for transmission line upgrades in the desert.  There are plenty of existing transmission corridors that can be upgraded, and distributed generation and storage should be used to alleviate the need for new transmission lines in the first place.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

DRECP: Is the New Approach a Threat or Opportunity?

The Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT) agencies announced this week that they would adopt a phased approach to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) in response to widespread concern about the proposed endangered species permitting mechanism and conflict with county land use plans.   Under this approach, the more contentious aspects of the DRECP will be further refined after additional consultation with the counties and rolled out at a later date.

The first phase will amend the land use planning for Federal lands in the California desert, establishing both conservation and development focus areas.  The second phase will establish development areas on private lands as well as the streamlined permitting process for renewable energy projects under State and Federal Endangered Species Acts.  Reactions to the phased approach range from concern to relief.

Will Desert Conservation Move Forward?

How well the first phase is received will depend largely on whether or not the BLM sticks to its original preferred alternative or attempts to cram more Development Focus Areas (DFAs) onto public lands.  CEC Commissioner Karen Douglas during a teleconference this week noted that many of the 12,000 public comments on the DRECP expressed strong support for conservation designations on public lands.  It is safe to say that many of those comments probably asked for even more public lands to be included in the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) or designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).

Although the draft BLM land use plan was not perfect, many recognize the need to confer the conservation designations that the desert needs.   As California expands its Renewable Portfolio Standard, we can expect the energy rush on public lands to continue; any delay in conservation measures will only prolong the dangerous game of  roulette that we have played with our prized desert landscapes and wildlife.

However, public land enthusiasts and conservation groups have expressed concern that the BLM may try to compensate for the delayed roll out of DFAs on private lands by adding more DFAs on public lands.  During the teleconference announcement this week BLM California Director Jim Kenna did not specify whether, or how much the "preferred alternative" would change when it is rolled out in a final environmental impact statement.  This is not surprising considering that Federal agencies have not finished reviewing public comments and typically maintain silence regarding internal deliberations.  However, Mr. Kenna did acknowledge that the BLM land use plan will be based on the original range of alternatives included in the draft DRECP. 

A significant addition of DFAs on public lands almost certainly would rile the majority of people that spent time reviewing and commenting on the DRECP because of the overwhelming support for conservation designations, and the fact that most people probably did not have the time to comment on the DRECP beyond the preferred alternative.  Although the draft DRECP identified several other alternative land use plans with varying configurations of DFAs and conservation designations, most people I spoke with had focused their comments on the the constellation of DFAs identified in the preferred alternative.  Selecting a different alternative would constitute a last minute bait-and-switch, depriving people of providing meaningful input on additional DFAs.



An Opportunity to Reduce DFAs

Delaying the second phase of the DRECP provides more time for agencies to reconsider the role that distributed generation can play in meeting our renewable energy goals.  Plenty of individuals and groups urged the REAT agencies to re-evaluate the role that energy efficiency and rooftop solar can play, thereby reducing the need for DFAs.  During this week's announcement,  the REAT agencies did not give any indication that they planned to do so, however.  In fact, the announcement of the phased approach reiterated the DRECP's underlying assumption that DFAs should accommodate 20,000 megawatts of large-scale renewable energy generation in the California desert.

However, closer coordination with the counties should still allow for a reduction in the DFAs.  The draft DRECP over-allocated DFA lands in part to counter perceived uncertainty regarding whether renewable energy companies can secure access to private lands for development.  Presumably, coordination with counties will clear up some of this uncertainty, enabling planners to significantly reduce proposed DFAs. 

Sand verbena blooming at the base of Amboy Crater in the Mojave Desert