|
| |
LUCERNE VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (LVEDA)
To: Brenda Williams – Director (210) - via e-mail and regular mail
BLM
P. O. Box 66538
Washington, DC 20035
Cc: Roxie Trost – Barstow BLM Field Mgr.
Mickey Quillman, Barstow BLM Chief of Resources
Greg Thomsen – BLM
Re: PROTEST – PPA/FEIS - Chevron Energy Solutions – Lucerne Valley Solar
From: Chuck Bell, Pres. (chuckb@sisp.net)
P. O. Box 193
Lucerne Valley, CA 92356 760 964 3118
Date: 9/9/10
(Please incorporate by reference our 8/3/09 Scoping comments and 5/27/10 DEIS
comments – attached).
LVEDA’s Mission Statement:
Provide a forum for discussion and action on important community issues –
promote infrastructure improvements – work with County and developers to promote
development that is both “economic” and compatible with our rural lifestyle,
environment and resource availability.
BLM’s approval of the PPA in and by itself is inconsistent with our mission
statement – in turn leading to approval of the Chevron Solar Project that is not
economically beneficial to our community and will result in direct and
cumulative impacts.
Since only the CDCA Plan Amendment approval can be “protested” – not the
right-of-way grant – LVEDA’s protest inherently references the PPA. It’s
obviously difficult to separate project issues from the PPA – which enables the
project.
We ask BLM to do some serious “soul searching”! The Chevron Solar project does
not warrant a CDCA Plan Amendment – especially since this project was not vetted
via the so-called “Programmatic” process. The CDCA’s intent was to keep the
“whole of the Calif. Desert” intact – not parcel it out bit by bit in reaction
to each and every project application – diluting its land-use integrity.
BLM’s responses to our comments in the FEIS (most likely drafted by EIS preparer
Ecology and Environment, Inc.) are predominantly the typical “boiler plate” –
kick the can down the road” statements that don’t adequately deal with on the
ground reality of a Plan Amendment approval.
Some of our previously submitted comments on the DEIS are listed below.
Following them (in BOLD CAPs) are our protest points on the BLM responses
contained in the FEIS:
LVEDA provides an “open forum” dealing with major projects and issues
affecting/benefiting Lucerne Valley. We are in general opposition to
utility-scale solar projects – especially on public land – preferring the use of
pre-disturbed/fallowed private land – but as a first priority – solar panels on
rooftops/parking lots/etc. throughout s. Calif. (which the DEIS failed to
analyze as a viable alternative to the further commitment of public land
resources to subsidize urban areas). AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
TO THE USE OF BLM - ADMINISTERED PUBLIC LAND IS NOT “BEYOND THE SCOPE” OF A
VALID NEPA DOCUMENT. THE “REASONS DETAILED IN SECTION 2.3.1.OF THE DEIS” ARE NOT
SUFFICIENT TO JUST GLOSS OVER ALTERNTIVES.
We question the intent of a large corporation or its affiliates going through
all the time, expense, permitting, paperwork, mitigation, etc. for a (relatively
minor) 45 MW project. If it’s a “feel good – we’re doing something ‘green’
endeavor” – we prefer that the applicant partner with SCE and spread out its
“good will” on rooftops and parking lots – a bigger public relations benefit. WE
CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THIS “WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER”.
Before the final decision is made, this project should be assessed via BLM’s
Programmatic process which will identify the limited areas available and
suitable for solar plants – along with an understanding of all the land-uses
that Lucerne Valley already provide s. Calif. - to fully understand current
conflicts and why we need an "Energy Element" in our current BLM and County
Plans. THE FACT THAT “…THIS APPLICATION WILL BE FULLY PROCESSED PRIOR TO A
PROGRAMMATIC SOLAR EIS BEING COMPLETED IN CALIFORNIA” IS THE PROBLEM. THE HORSE
NEEDS TO BE IN FRONT OF THE CART!
Alt 4 – Modified Site Layout – a viable option - would allow a buffer and
on-site location and maintenance of transplanted yuccas/joshua trees – more
reliable than “availability off-site to the public” – which would likely result
in 50% mortality at best. “WORKING WITH SB COUNTY TO DEVELOP A SALVAGE PLAN”
DOESN’T INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THE “MODIFIED SITE LAYOUT” ALTERNATIVE WAS
INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. WAS IT?
The “private land” alternative was basically ignored with inadequate rationale.
First Solar and Next-Era found large, fallowed parcels in Lucerne Valley – with
a lot more existing all the way to Palmdale. THE RESPONSE THAT “THIS ALTERNATIVE
IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS EIS” IS COUNTER TO NEPA AND COMMON SENSE OBJECTIVES
TO FIND THE BEST PLACES FOR THESE RENEWABLES. MORE IMPORTANTLY – IT JUST REVEALS
THAT BLM (PUBLIC) LAND IS THE CHEAPEST AND EASIEST OPTION!
Rated generating capacity vs. actual production is a major issue with desert
solar projects. The net benefit is likely marginal. Energy/CO2 emissions/etc.
required for making panels, structures, construction, etc. – plus the
consumption of 516 acres of public land (@11 ½ acres/MW) – plus the additional
loss of “multiple use” on the mitigation/compensation land ----compared to other
energy sources – need to be assessed from a more global perspective. IF “THE
PURPOSE OF THE NEPA PROCESS IS TO WEIGHT THE VARYING BENEFITS AND LOSSES FOR
PROPOSED PROJECTS” – THE FEIS NEEDS A MORE QUANTIFIABLE COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
De-brushing/grading will create a long-term dust source, adversely affecting the
facility and down-wind receptors. Minimal grading, vegetation mowing and
placement of decomposed granite or small gravel will help to stabilize the site
and reduce weed infestations – as well as enhancing native re-vegetation if and
when facilities are removed. However, the perennially-shaded ground will become
devoid of vegetation and root structure – and the partially shaded area will
likely generate more weeds than natives – thus a hindrance to operations and the
need for regular weed abatement. PER THE RESPONSE: “THE ENTIRE SITE WOULD BE
ROUGH GRADED” - WHICH REALLY MEANS “GRADED”- THEREFORE A PROJECT REALITY AND
CONSEQUENCE OF PPA APPROVAL THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIVULGED AT THE ONSET.
Construction water might be obtainable from the Mojave Water Agency’s “Morongo
Pipeline” – generally following Foothill Rd. immediately north of the project
site – the use of untreated state water vs. good quality groundwater. Contact:
MWA (760 946 7000) for info. and location of connections. THE FACT THAT “CES IS
AWARE OF THIS SOURCE OF WATER AND MAY CONSIDER IT AS A RESOURCE” LEAVES
UNRESOLVED ANY ALTERNATIVE SOURCES THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE UTILIZED – WITH IMPACTS
NOT DIRECTLY ASSESSED IN THE FEIS.
3.11-3: The statement: “Hunting is not an allowable use on the Proposed Action
site” is very likely incorrect. It certainly won’t be when construction starts –
but currently – the only regulation we know of is “shotgun only”. APPRECIATE THE
CORRECTION IN THE FEIS.
To fully assess the consequence of the project’s effect on biological resources
– the DEIS needs a description of the most likely location for the 1:1 ratio
mitigation/compensation – the location and ultimate loss of “multiple uses” on
said parcel that might be purchased – or to what resource any “in-lieu” fee
might be directed. Off-site mitigation/compensation requirements ARE a direct
result of this project and need to be fully explained. FUTURE ADHERENCE TO THE
“NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION POLICY” WHICH “DOES NOT HAVE SPECIFIC
INFORMATION REGARDING FUTURE ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS OR ACQUISITION” - DOESN’T TELL
US WHERE AND HOW THIS PROJECT WILL BE MITIGATED/COMPENSATED – A DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE OF THIS PROJECT NOT DIVULGED – RELIANCE ON A FUTURE “SEPARATE NEPA
DOCUMENT” - JUST BETTING ON THE COME – KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN.
Assuming the applicant fully intends to develop both phases, approval of Phase 1
alone is premature w/o knowing the transmission requirements of both phases
together (upgrading existing line or a new one). Needs discussion! THE RESPONSE
ADMITS THAT THIS IS NOT RESOLVED – CERTAINLY NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH “THE WHOLE
OF THE ACTION” CONCEPT – YET A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE AND IMPACT RESULTING FROM THE
PLAN AMENDMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS.
New transmission lines or upgrades should include “raven proof” devices to the
extent feasible – ravens being the biggest threat to juvenile tortoises. THE
RAVEN MGT. PLAN WOULD NEED TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED – NOT FILED ON A SHELF LIKE
SO MANY OTHERS.
The “heat sink” and albedo “change” effects need to be assessed, especially for
the larger projects and those close to residential uses. JUST BECAUSE THE
PROJECT IS “NOT CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA” (BUT IS CLOSE TO RESIDENCES!) – NO
EXCUSE TO SHINE IT ON. LOCALIZED HEAT SINKS CAN AFFECT MICRO ENVIRONMENTS. THE
SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, NEEDS TO BE QUANTIFIED.
The “level of service” (LOS) assessments for regional highways/roads don’t
adequately quantify the actual “on the road” impacts – especially on Hwy 18
through Lucerne Valley’s commercial area and 4 way stop. CHP escorting will
likely be necessary. The proposed “off-peak” construction travel may not fully
suffice in and by itself. IMPLEMENTING TRAFFIC BMPs WON’T SOLVE THE 4-WAY STOP
PROBLEM – WITH MULTIPLE TRUCK TRIPS FROM AND THROUGH LUCERNE VALLEY DURING
OFF-PEAK HOURS - WHICH WASN’T DIRECTLY ASSESSED. FEDERAL AND STATE APPROVED
PROJECTS NOTORIOUSLY NEGLECT LOCAL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS AND
LIMITATIONS.
Unless we missed it – there was no mention of a right-turn lane onto Santa Fe
Fire Rd. Quote from our scoping letter: “A right-turn lane on Hwy 247 would
provide safer egress in this area of high-speed traffic – especially for the
construction phase”. INSTEAD OF “MAY CONSIDER DEVELOPING A TEMPORARY RIGHT TURN
LANE FOR USE DURING CONSTRUCTION” – IT SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT - AND LEFT IN
PLACE FOR PROJECT MAINTENANCE AND RESIDENTIAL USE.
The analysis re: the project’s future effect on BLM’s CDCA Plan’s “Contingent
Corridor S” is probably correct – but this “corridor” needs to be removed from
the Plan in order to preclude another “Green Path North” attempt. IF BLM
APPROVES THIS PLAN AMENDMENT OVER OUR OPPOSITION – THE LEAST IT CAN DO FOR
LUCERNE VALLEY IS ELIMINATE THIS CONTINGENT CORRIDOR FROM THE CDCA PLAN.
4.6-5: Question: The project description seems to indicate that the panels would
be “fixed” in place – thus w/o tracking ability. If so – is this statement
correct?: “During precipitation events, solar panels would be placed in the flat
horizontal position”. SINCE “BOTH FIXED TILT AND SINGLE AXIS TRACKER SYSTEMS ARE
POSSIBLE, BUT A FINAL DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE” – THE NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION
VS. OUTPUT FROM THE TWO SYSTEMS SHOULD BE DESCRIBED.
Figure 3.18-1: The Cumulative Projects Map shows a “Cumulative Effects Study
Area” (CESA) boundary within a 6 mile “buffer” radius from the project site.
However it shows other proposed project locations outside said “buffer”. A
complete and adequate cumulative impact analysis needs to show and assess all
the proposed projects within the larger Lucerne Valley area that is affected.
Some of the renewable projects listed may no longer be considered. The ones not
shown – all with applications currently being processed by the County and/or BLM
– are 2 “First Solar” PV’s west on Hwy 18 and another adjacent to Barstow Rd. –
Granite Wind west of Barstow Rd. (with DEIR/EIS issued) – Next-Era’s PV in n.
Lucerne Valley – plus the proposed 29 Palms Marine Base expansion into a major
portion of Lucerne/Johnson Valleys northeast of the Chevron site. All these
projects will have significant cumulative effects on our community. THE RESPONSE
DOESN’T DEAL WITH THE REAL ISSUES. EVEN THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS - LOCAL 477 - HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPLICATIONS
THAN THE FEIS AUTHORS!
4.15-3: The statement: With the project, “the social well-being of LVEDA (and
its reps.) would be enhanced because compatible sustainable infrastructure
development would be implemented within the Lucerne Valley” is a bit esoteric
and certainly not fully consistent with our mission. Some of the residents close
to the project site remain opposed and thus seem to be “adversely affected” by
the project. THE RESPONSE - “THE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND FINANCIAL STIMULUS TO THE AREA” BEGS THE QUESTION – WHAT “ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT” OR REAL LONG-TERM “STIMULUS”? NOTHING CONVINCING TO THAT EFFECT IS
IN THE FEIS.
Need more emphasis on “local hiring”. Talent and equipment are locally available
for a substantial portion of the construction and maintenance work required. It
certainly won’t look good to import a lot of outside workers – union or not –
when a local workforce is available. Would be just another imposition on our
community. Cement/concrete/aggregate are locally available and we certainly
expect that they be utilized if the project is built. JUST HOW WILL THIS “BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER”? BLM IS IN NO POSITION TO TELL
CONTRACTORS WHO OR WHERE TO HIRE. THIS CAN ONLY BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE PROJECT
DEVELOPER.
The project’s effect on surrounding private land values is summarily dismissed.
At the very least, it could hinder area sales. Empirical data is insufficient to
determine “no substantial effect”. RELIANCE ON MODELS DOESN’T ALWAYS REFLECT
REALITY – ESPECIALLY THE LOST OPPORTUNITIES FOR SALES DUE TO PROXIMITY TO
CERTAIN LAND-USES. THERE IS ENOUGH PRIVATE LAND WITHIN THE LOCAL AREA THAT COULD
BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
These projects aren’t necessarily “beneficial” to local communities. We need
ways to make them more “friendly and welcomed”. Chevron could be the lead in
devising a method to “arrange” the purchase of materials in San Bernardino
County – with sales tax benefiting the county – and ideally – the ½ cent Measure
I (road tax) portion dedicated to Lucerne Valley roads that get hammered by all
the truck traffic associated with these projects. THIS NEEDS TO BE “TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT” BY THE APPLICANT – NOT JUST THE “AUTHORIZED OFFICER”. JUST TELL US
WHETHER YOU ARE WILLING TO DO IT OR NOT!
We invite the applicant to a LVEDA meeting to better explain the project’s tax
revenue benefit – specifically the annual taxes from its “leasehold interest”.
Property taxes are not generated from public lands. How do these projects’ tax
incentives affect property tax revenue normally based on the assessed values of
the facilities? Would the annual “leasehold interest” revenue be deducted from
what the county receives from BLM as “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILT)? CES DID
“ATTEND A MEETING WITH LVEDA IN AUGUST 2010” – CERTAINLY APPRECIATED – BUT THESE
“REVENUE” QUESTIONS WERE NOT FULLY ANSWERED – STILL WAITING RESPONSES.
|
