[Senate Hearing 111-625]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-625
CALIFORNIA DESERT BILL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 2921, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSERVATION, ENHANCED
RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES, AND DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE
CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN OFFICES TO SERVE AS RENEWABLE ENERGY
COORDINATION OFFICES FOR COORDINATION OF FEDERAL PERMITS FOR RENEWABLE
ENERGY PROJECTS AND TRANSMISSION LINES TO INTEGRATE RENEWABLE ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
MAY 20, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-623 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Abbey, Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department
of the Interior................................................ 6
Baker, Harry, Vice President, California Association of 4 Wheel
Drive Clubs, Sacremento, CA.................................... 43
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator From California............. 3
Hubbard, David, P., Esquire, Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance LLP,
Escondido, CA.................................................. 39
Krueger, Faye, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Department of Agriculture.............................. 19
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 2
Myers, David, Executive Director, The Wildlands Conservancy, Oak
Glen, CA....................................................... 33
Pizarro, Pedro, Executive Vice President, Power Operations,
Southern California Edison, Rosemead, CA....................... 36
Robyn, Dorothy, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations
and Environment, Department of Defense......................... 14
Wald, Johanna, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council, San Francisco, CA..................................... 51
White, V. John, Director, Center for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Technologies, Sacremento, CA......................... 47
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 61
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 73
CALIFORNIA DESERT BILL
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. OK, let us get started. Thank you all for
being here.
This morning, we receive testimony on S. 2921, the
California Desert Protection Act of 2010. This is legislation
Senator Feinstein has proposed.
Sixteen years ago, Senator Feinstein shepherded into law
one of the most sweeping conservation bills ever. That was the
California Desert Protection Act, protecting millions of acres
of southern California desert through a combination of
wilderness and national park designations. The current bill
would expand on the 1994 law with a series of new conservation,
recreation, and renewable energy provisions.
Any legislation involving the California desert presents
unique and complicated management challenges due to the many
competing uses, including military bases, national parks,
endangered species habitat, motorized and nonmotorized
recreation, mining, and renewable energy development. I know
Senator Feinstein spent a great deal of time and effort to try
and balance these uses, and I congratulate her not only for her
past California desert successes, but also for her continuing
efforts as reflected in this bill we are considering.
At almost 180 pages of text, S. 2921 is not a typical park,
wilderness, or energy proposal. Because of the broad scope of
the bill, the large amount of acreage involved, as well as the
many policy issues that are raised by the various conservation
and renewable energy proposals, I thought that we should have a
hearing before the full committee as the appropriate way for us
to begin to understand the many issues that are dealt with.
Title I of the bill would make several new conservation
designations, including 2 new national monuments, totaling over
1 million acres. It would designate 250,000 acres of new BLM
and Forest Service wilderness, add almost 75,000 acres to the
existing national parks in the region, and establish 5 new off-
highway recreation areas.
As Senator Feinstein knows from her work on other bills to
designate wilderness in the California desert and elsewhere in
the State, any conservation proposals on this scale will bring
with them controversy, and we will work with her and Federal
agencies to better understand the potential effects of these
designations on other uses and address concerns with some of
the specific management provisions.
Title II addresses the development of renewable energy on
public lands. As I read the bill, these provisions would affect
renewable energy authorizations on public lands West wide and
not just in California. The energy legislation reported by the
committee on a bipartisan basis last summer also addresses the
development of renewable energy on public lands, and we need to
focus on some of the provisions that I believe may be
inconsistent with what the committee reported.
We look forward to working with Senator Feinstein on this
whole range of issues. I know we share an interest in promoting
the development of renewable energy on appropriate Federal
lands, and I certainly support her efforts to protect important
natural and cultural desert resources.
Before calling on Senator Feinstein for her statement, let
me call on Senator Murkowski for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to you, Senator Feinstein. Please know that I have
great respect for you, your leadership here in the Senate, and
for the people that you represent in the State of California.
While I--and I think certainly on this committee, we have a
longstanding tradition of allowing a delegation from a State to
take the lead on wilderness bills within their State, and I
respect that, I do have some concerns about the bill that we
have in front of us. I will just take a brief moment to state
what those concerns are.
Primarily, the message that will be sent concerning the
development of renewable energy on Federal lands. Many in this
body, including myself, believe in the importance of reducing
our dependence on oil by developing a new energy economy based
on our alternative sources.
But it seems that many times, when we have actual wind or
solar or geothermal projects proposed, there are those who will
move to kill the project. My concern is that if we move forward
without significant changes, that it will encourage more of the
``not in my backyard'' behavior that we have seen with respect
to other renewable energy projects on Federal land.
I do think and agree quite strongly with the chairman that
we must diversify our energy sources to include wind, solar,
biomass, geothermal, as well as nuclear and other sources. But
it has been frustrating when we recognize that it took 10 years
to approve offshore wind farm on the east coast, even more
frustrating to see one of the better areas for solar production
in the West to be encumbered by national monuments and
wilderness areas.
I think that we must be cautious when we oppose renewable
energy projects on Federal lands by proposing more wilderness
areas and other forms of procedures where we essentially take
those lands off the table before our Federal agencies have had
an opportunity to complete their assessment, make
recommendations as to where to site the projects.
I also will raise a concern about the rights of those who
have invested private funds in pursuing the solar permits in
the areas that are covered by S. 2921, and who did so at the
suggestion of the Bureau of Land Management. As I understand,
this bill would negate that investment without compensation.
I do understand that there is a process that would allow
the companies that were working on developing the solar permit
proposals to get bumped up in line for applications in other
areas. But I think there is some question as to whether or not
that is adequate compensation for the investments that are
made.
I think we recognize that there is an issue that these
companies depend on private financing to fund these projects,
and we all know how difficult it is to secure the necessary
financing in this economy. I am concerned that those who are
willing to invest in these projects are going to get gun shy
about investing in future projects if when they feel they have
got a good project proposed that Congress or the administration
or the courts again take the ``not in my backyard'' protest
even before the impacts of the project have been evaluated.
I do look forward to working with the chairman, working
with the committee on this issue about the concerns that I have
raised and look forward to working with you, Senator Feinstein,
as we try to find that balance that does allow for
opportunities to truly expand our renewable resources, do so on
our public lands, and do so in a way that is able to meet the
needs of all involved.
With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Feinstein, welcome to the committee
and go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for holding this hearing.
Senator Murkowski, thank you as well, and I thank both of
you for your comments.
Let me get right to it. The bill I have introduced would
designate 2 new national monuments. The first is the Mojave
Trails National Monument, and there you have a picture of the
very famous Cady Mountains, which are part of it. The Sand to
Snow National Monument, and there you have a picture of the
Pacific Crest Trail on that Sand to Snow Monument.
The bill would add adjacent lands to Joshua Tree and Death
Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve. Now
those were all part of my 1994 desert bill. These parts simply
fill in and are really done because they have been suggested to
us by the Government as positive adds to that. There you see
the Castle Mountains.
The bill would permanently protect 5 wilderness study areas
as designated wilderness and protect 4 important waterways--the
Amargosa River, Deep Creek--as wild and scenic rivers. The bill
would also facilitate renewable development on suitable lands,
improve the permitting process for wind and solar on public and
private land, and enhance recreational opportunities, while
ensuring that the training needs of the military are met.
Now here is how this all happened. Following the passage of
the Desert Protection Act in 1994, it became evident that the
southern part of the Mojave Preserve needed additional
protection. There were literally hundreds of thousands of acres
in patchwork squares owned by the Catellus Corporation on which
private development could happen.
The Wildlands Conservancy at the time was able to raise $40
million from the private sector. Together with $18 million of
Federal funds, which we put in over 6 years, we were able to
purchase some 600,000 acres of these former Catellus inholdings
to protect those lands for conservation.
Now I thought all was well. In February of last year, David
Myers, who is going to be testifying today, of the Wildlands
Conservancy, came to my office in San Francisco. He brought
with him charts, photographs, and renderings of huge energy--
solar trough facilities--intended for the very inholdings that
had been purchased to remain in conservation.
Now, obviously, I viewed that with some surprise.
Obviously, I thought, ``Oh, my goodness, how did this happen?''
But it happened.
Now, up to that point, the largest solar facility in
America was approximately 160 megawatts. Yet I learned that
some companies were proposing to build solar facilities of
sizes that had never been built before. One company in
particular proposed to build an 8-mile-square solar facility, 8
miles square, in Sleeping Beauty Valley, which is here, which
would have generated 800 megawatts of power.
Now I should also mention that these large solar facilities
do, in fact, alter the landscape. The ground is removed. It is
leveled. Gravel is placed on it. The troughs go in. The tower
goes up. Outbuildings are built. The projects are fenced. So
they are very, very large. One 8 square miles is not a small
facility. The area is substantially changed.
So, last March, I went out to see exactly where these
projects would go. I asked the CEOs of BrightSource, Cogentrix,
Southern California Edison, and PG&E to accompany me, and in
fact, they did. We were also joined by individual company
developers from Solel, Florida Power and Light, and Oak Creek
Wind.
We spent the day looking at these lands, and I think it
quickly became apparent that land set aside for conservation
had been done so for very good reason. We saw prime desert
tortoise habitat. We drove to the middle of this beautiful
valley. We drove down the famous Route 66. We also stopped at
the Pisgah lava flow and the Amboy Crater.
Over the course of many months then, my staff and I met key
stakeholders, including Federal, State, and local officials,
environmental groups, renewable energy companies, off-highway
recreation enthusiasts, hunters, cattle ranchers, mining
interests, the Department of Defense, California's public
utility companies, the county officials, and local officials
that were involved.
We worked hard to incorporate the vast majority of their
suggestions, and out of these meetings, this bill emerged. We
tried to achieve a careful balance between conserving the
desert's pristine heritage, while creating an efficient process
for renewable energy development. We also made sure to
incorporate lands designated for recreation and military
training purposes.
So far, we have assembled a diverse coalition of support. I
would like to submit to the committee 76 endorsements for the
record.
The Chairman. We are glad to have that in the record.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The bill is supported by several energy companies,
including Cogentrix, Abengoa, and Edison International, the
parent company of Southern California Edison. Southern
California Edison, who will testify today, is one of the
largest electric utilities in the country. It provides power to
more than 13 million people across 11 counties in central,
coastal, and southern California. They are, in fact, the
largest purchaser of renewable energy in the entire country,
particularly solar. Their support is very important to me.
One thing we learned through this process is that the
Federal renewable energy permitting system was broken. Until
recently, the BLM process had operated on a first-come, first-
served basis. It didn't distinguish between a viable project
and a speculative one.
In fact, over the past 5 years, more than 100 applications
have been submitted to build utility-scale renewable energy
projects on public lands, and not a single project has received
a permit. Under this status quo, no one wins.
We have written this bill to try to help fix the system and
ensure that the development of wind and solar occurs on
suitable land. We have done this by streamlining the Bureau of
Land Management permitting process for renewable energy
development, seeing that disturbed private lands are not
penalized, but can also be used for development.
When I drove through the area with biologists,
environmentalists, what they pointed out to me were acres and
acres of disturbed private land that could be used, but in this
process, it was all public land. Now I happen to believe land
is made public for a purpose, and one of those purposes is
generally to conserve it and not to have development on it.
Seeing that disturbed private lands are not penalized, but can
also be used for development, which we do in this bill.
Improving and expanding the existing transmission
infrastructure, which actually runs right through this area.
Requiring that, in addition to the BLM, the Forest Service and
the Department of Defense evaluate their lands and set up
renewable energy development on that land which is suitable.
The BLM has identified 350,000 acres in California as solar
energy study areas. Now California needs roughly 120,000 to
150,000 acres to meet the 33 percent renewable electricity goal
by 2020. That goal is actually the highest of any State, and we
can easily achieve twice that amount through the BLM zones.
Now, not one acre of the proposed monument is within these
BLM solar study zones. Not one acre of what I propose is within
the solar study zones. The bill also has no negative impact on
any of the 9 solar and 3 wind ``fast-track'' BLM proposals. Nor
does it impact the 4,803 megawatts of solar energy under review
at the California Energy Commission.
We have worked a map, which we will submit for your
consideration, which clearly shows those zones and the fact
that they do not conflict. Additionally, there are transmission
corridors that can be improved to accommodate renewable power.
I would like to close by making one final recommendation. I
would have no objection if the committee were to add an
amendment to establish a new solar energy study area in the
western Mojave. It is believed that there are literally
hundreds of thousands of acres directly north of Edwards Air
Force Base, which should be seriously evaluated for solar
potential. I have encouraged the BLM to do this
administratively, and I would welcome an amendment by the
committee in this bill to achieve that.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I
am very grateful, Mr. Chairman, that you have scheduled this. I
would look forward to working with the committee on any
accommodations or changes that you might want to make.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your excellent
testimony.
Why don't we--unless Senator Murkowski or Senator Udall
have questions, why don't we allow you to go on with your other
duties, and we have 9 witnesses on 2 panels. So we would go
ahead with the first panel at this point.
It is made up of 3 Government representatives: Honorable
Robert Abbey, who is the Director of the BLM in the Department
of Interior; Dr. Dorothy Robyn, who is the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment with the
Department of Defense; and Faye Krueger, who is the Acting
Associate Deputy Chief with the National Forest System, for the
Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture.
So we are glad to have all 3 of you here, and I think, as
is our usual custom, if you could take 5 or 6 minutes each and
just make the main points. Obviously, we will include your
complete statement in the record, and then we will have some
questions.
Mr. Abbey.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Abbey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
The Department of Interior appreciates the invitation to
testify on S. 2921, the California Desert Protection Act of
2010. S. 2921 represents a milestone in Senator Feinstein's 2
decades-long effort to conserve the deserts of southern
California while providing for appropriate public access,
recreation, and development, including the growing demand for
renewable energy development.
This bill provides a comprehensive approach to future
management of Federal lands in the California Desert
Conservation Area. In addition, S. 2921 strives to enhance the
efficiency and responsiveness of the wind and solar energy
development permitting process on public lands throughout the
West.
The Department of the Interior supports the goal of S. 2921
and looks forward to working closely with Senator Feinstein and
others as this bill moves through the legislative process.
I am accompanied today by Jim Abbott, the BLM's California
State Director, and Ray Brady, Manager of the BLM's Energy
Policy Team.
The California Desert Conservation Area contains over 25
million acres and includes 16 million acres of public lands
administered by the Department of the Interior. The management
of this conservation area's fragile resources must be balanced
with the public's needs for recreation access, energy
development, rights-of-way, and other uses.
Responsible renewable energy development is one of the
department's highest priorities, and the BLM is balancing its
renewable energy goals with the protection of its treasured
landscapes, wildlife, and cultural resources. We have expanded
our efforts to evaluate applications for wind and solar energy
projects by establishing Renewable Energy Coordination Offices
and expanded renewable energy staffing in 10 western States.
In addition, the BLM and the Department of Energy are
preparing a Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement to address this use. Under consideration is a
plan for selectively siting solar energy projects on BLM-
administered public lands in the Southwest that have the best
potential for utility-scale solar energy development.
Landscape-scale planning and zoning could provide a more
efficient process for permitting and siting this type of
development.
The department is committed to working closely with Senator
Feinstein, this committee, and the Congress on addressing the
renewable energy national priority and the many challenges in
accommodating a multitude of uses in California's deserts.
Title I of S. 2921 is the outcome of Senator Feinstein's
extensive local collaborative effort. Her office engaged a
broad cross-section of desert groups and interests in dialog,
meetings, and field trips. This effort achieved a significant
level of consensus among participating groups, most notably
consensus regarding the bill's conservation provisions, and it
led to important compromises concerning designation boundaries,
accommodations for future military expansions, allowances for
renewable energy development and transmission corridors, and
many other uses.
Title I includes the establishment of 2 new national
monuments, creation of 3 new wilderness areas and expansion of
2 existing wilderness areas, designation of potential
wilderness areas, designation of 5 Off-Highway Vehicle
recreation areas, expansion of 3 existing units of the National
Park Service, and additions to the National Wild and Scenic
River System.
Title II of S. 2921 proposes to improve the wind and solar
energy development permitting process on BLM-administered lands
throughout the West and balance renewable energy development
and conservation in the California desert. Key provisions of
title II include designation of BLM Renewable Energy
Coordination Offices in each BLM State with significant wind
and solar resources; distribution of revenue receipts from wind
and solar projects on BLM-administered public lands;
development of an MOU with affected Federal agencies to address
the processes for improving renewable energy project review;
deposit of solar and wind energy revenues in the existing oil
and gas BLM Permit Improvement Fund; and other miscellaneous
provisions.
The Department of the Interior supports the goals of S.
2921, but we do have numerous substantive as well as minor and
technical modifications to recommend. We look forward to
working closely with Senator Feinstein, the member of this
committee, and our Federal partners as S. 2921 moves through
the legislative process.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior, on S. 2921
Thank you for the invitation to testify on S.2921, the California
Desert Protection Act of 2010. S. 2921 represents a milestone in
Senator Feinstein's two decades-long effort to conserve the deserts of
southern California while providing for appropriate public access,
recreation, and development, including the growing demand for renewable
energy development. This bill, which amends the 1994 California Desert
Protection Act (CDPA) (Public Law 103-433) and Section 365 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, provides a comprehensive approach to future
management of federal lands in the California Desert Conservation Area
(CDCA). In addition, S. 2921 strives to enhance the efficiency and
responsiveness of the wind and solar energy development permitting
process on public lands throughout the west. We defer to the Department
of Agriculture and the Department of Defense regarding provisions
concerning their lands and interests.
The Department of the Interior supports the goals of S. 2921 and
looks forward to working closely with Senator Feinstein, the Committee,
and our federal partners as this bill moves through the legislative
process. Given the complexity of the bill, we also note that the
Department will provide a letter detailing our comments to the
Committee at a later date. I am accompanied today by Jim Abbott, the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) acting State Director in California
and Ray Brady, Manager of BLM's Energy Policy Team.
Background
The CDCA contains over 25 million acres and includes 16 million
acres of public lands administered by the Department. It was the only
public land area in the country singled out for special management in
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Section 601
of FLPMA recognized the unique location of the CDCA which is adjacent
to the metropolitan areas of the Southern California coastal region and
its estimated 20 million citizens. This juxtaposition has always meant
the management of the CDCA's fragile resources must be balanced with
the public's need for recreation access, energy development, rights-of-
way, and other uses.
The CDCA Plan, mandated by FLPMA and completed in 1980, was vast in
scale, ambitious in goals, and designed to accommodate many future
uses. In the early 1990s, however, concerns about conservation balance
led to the enactment of the 1994 CDPA, which amended the Desert Plan on
a broad scale. The current focus on renewable energy development is
again raising concerns about how much of the Desert is protected, and
how and where the national, region, and state priorities for renewable
energy development will be accommodated. S. 2921 proposes to amend both
the Desert Plan and the 1994 CDPA to address these public concerns and
national priorities.
Responsible renewable energy development is one of the Department's
highest priorities, and the BLM is balancing its renewable energy goals
with the protection of its treasured landscapes, natural resources,
wildlife, and cultural resources. We have expanded our efforts to
evaluate applications for wind and solar energy projects by
establishing Renewable Energy Coordination Offices (RECOs) and expanded
renewable energy staffing in 10 western states. Renewable energy
policies on payment of rents, required bonding, diligent development,
and best management practices designed to support and guide progress in
the field are being developed and issued.
In addition, the BLM and the Department of Energy are preparing a
Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS). Under consideration is a plan for selectively siting solar
energy projects on BLM-administered public lands in the Southwest that
have the best potential for utility-scale solar energy development. The
plan will include mandatory best management practices. Landscape-scale
planning and zoning could provide a more efficient process for
permitting and siting this type of development. The draft Solar PEIS is
expected to be released for public comment near the end of the year.
The BLM is also reviewing 34 ``fast track'' renewable energy
projects that include 14 solar energy projects with a potential
capacity of nearly 6,500 MW; 7 wind energy projects with a potential
capacity of about 800 MW; 6 geothermal projects with a potential
capacity of 285 MW, and 7 transmission projects traversing over 750
miles of BLM-administered lands. Through the ``fast track'' process,
the Bureau is conducting full environmental analysis and public
participation while focusing our staff and resources on the most
promising renewable energy projects. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) and the National Park Service (NPS) are also engaged in this
review.
In California specifically, the BLM's two RECO offices are fully
staffed and operational with work proceeding on more than a dozen fast
track projects. These offices are working to streamline application
processing and enforce due diligence on pending applications to avoid
speculation. The state of California is lead in the preparation of a
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP), with the BLM and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as full partners, to take a long-term
strategic view of where best to site these important projects in the
future, including on private lands already disturbed from past
activities.
The Department is committed to working closely with Senator
Feinstein, the Committee and the Congress on addressing the renewable
energy national priority and the many challenges in accommodating a
multitude of uses in California's deserts.
Title I--``California Desert Conservation and Recreation''
Title I of S. 2921 is the outcome of Senator Feinstein's extensive
local collaborative efforts. Her office engaged a broad cross-section
of desert groups and interests in dialogue, meetings, and field trips.
This effort achieved a significant level of consensus among
participating groups-most notably consensus regarding the bill's
conservation provisions-and it led to important compromises concerning
designation boundaries, accommodations for future military expansions,
allowances for renewable energy development and transmission corridors,
and many other issues.
Title I includes--the establishment of two new National Monuments;
creation of three new wilderness areas and expansion of two existing
wilderness areas; designation of potential wilderness areas;
establishment of five Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation Areas;
expansion of three existing units of the National Park System and
additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System.
Conservation Designations
The spectacular and diverse landscapes of the BLM's National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) include 16 National Monuments. S.
2921 would add the Mojave Trails National Monument and the Sand to Snow
National Monument to that list. The proposed Mojave Trails National
Monument (NM) encompasses approximately 940,000 acres of BLM-
administered public lands in the desert of southeastern California
along historic Route 66 between Needles and Ludlow, California. It
surrounds six existing designated BLM wilderness areas and lies to the
south of the NPS' Mojave National Preserve. The Mojave Trails NM would
protect critical wildlife corridors between Joshua Tree National Park
and the Mojave National Preserve as well as the best preserved section
of the ``Mother Road'' (historic Route 66). Within the proposed NM are
nearly 200,000 acres of ``Catellus lands'' acquired by the BLM through
donation and purchase with Land and Water Conservation Fund monies in
the late 1990s for conservation purposes. The BLM currently manages
much of this area to protect the desert environment through
administratively-created Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACECs) and Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) protecting the
habitat of the threatened desert tortoise and many other listed and
sensitive species.
The proposed Sand to Snow National Monument straddles a
biologically diverse terrain and includes approximately 73,000 acres of
BLM-administered lands and 60,000 acres of lands under the management
of the U.S. Forest Service within the San Bernardino National Forest.
The proposed monument extends from the snows of the 11,000 foot Mount
San Gorgonio on the west down through the sands of the Sonoran and
Mojave deserts, on to the unusual desert riparian oasis of Big Morongo
Canyon, and finally connects in the east to the stark beauty of Joshua
Tree National Park.
Each of the National Monuments and National Conservation Areas
(NCAs) designated by Congress and managed by the BLM is unique.
However, all of these designations have certain critical elements in
common, including withdrawal from the public land, mining, and mineral
leasing laws; OHV use limitations; and language that charges the
Secretary of the Interior with allowing only those uses that further
the purposes for which the area is established. The designations
proposed in S. 2921 are consistent with these principles and we support
their designation.
The Department believes it is critical to maintain the integrity of
existing designated federal rights-of-way and utility corridors
throughout the United States. As we develop renewable energy throughout
the west, new transmission capacity will be needed to bring this clean
energy to the population centers. S. 2921 recognizes the critical role
played by the public lands within the proposed Mojave Trails National
Monument in the transmission of energy to southern California. As such,
the bill specifically makes provisions for both existing and future
energy transmission rights-of-way. In addition, the bill recognizes and
preserves this portion of the West Wide Energy Corridor, established
under the provisions of section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
which bisects the proposed monument. The Department supports these
provisions.
While a variety of multiple uses continue in the BLM's NCAs and
National Monuments, these energy transmission provisions are unusual
and represent specific collaboration with stakeholders regarding the
unique needs and values of this specific area. We do not anticipate
similar management direction in future proposed monuments or NCAs. The
Department would like the opportunity to work with the Committee on a
number of specific provisions in S. 2921 regarding both the Mojave
Trails and Sand to Snow National Monument.
At present there is only one grazing allotment within the proposed
Mojave Trails NM. Section 1303(c) (1) provides that the monument
designation does not affect that existing permit, and we do not oppose
this subsection. However, subsection 1304(c) (2) and (3) makes
allowance for the federal government to acquire the base property of
this individual rancher, and associated grazing privileges. While we
have no objection to acquiring this private inholding, the BLM has
serious concerns about the practice of federal buyouts of grazing
privileges in general. Grazing permits and leases are privileges and
not rights, a position reaffirmed most recently by the Supreme Court in
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (2000). Grazing permits
do not rise to the level of a protectable property interest and they do
not confer a right, title or interest to the lands of the United
States. The provisions of Public Law 111-11, the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009, that address the management of grazing in
Owyhee County, Idaho, provide an alternative approach to a proposed
reduction in grazing.
There are currently 12 pending renewable rights-of-way energy
applications on the public lands within the proposed Mojave Trails NM,
encompassing over 200,000 acres; six are for solar authorizations and
six are for wind authorizations. These right-of-way applications do not
represent valid existing rights and perfecting these applications would
not be allowed after designation of the monument. Section 1307 provides
authority to the six solar applicants to apply for replacement sites
for other lands that are not currently encumbered by other applications
or for lands within Solar Energy ``Zones'' to be designated by the
Solar Programmatic EIS. Although these applications do not represent
valid existing rights, the bill language would disrupt the application
process. We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the
Committee to explore alternatives to address the concerns that have
been raised regarding these applications.
Section 1501 would designate the 86,000-acre Avawatz Mountains
Wilderness, 8,000-acre Great Falls Basin Wilderness, the 80,000-acre
Soda Mountains Wilderness, and the 30,000 acre Bowling Alley
Wilderness, and would expand the existing Golden Valley Wilderness by
2,600 acres, the Kingston Range Wilderness by 53,000 acres, and the
Death Valley National Park Wilderness by approximately 59,000 acres.
The Department supports each of these designations. These proposed
National Wilderness Preservation System additions will protect fragile
desert ecosystems and provide important habitat for a diversity of
plant and animal life. They also serve as a unique and irreplaceable
living research laboratory. The Avawatz Mountains has been identified
as an important link for regional habitat connectivity, enabling
wildlife to move across a large landscape. All of the proposed
wilderness areas provide opportunities for hiking, rock-climbing and
horseback riding, for those who wish to experience the desert solitude
and an outstanding backcountry experience.
We would like the opportunity to work with Senator Feinstein and
the Committee on mapping issues as well as management language
modifications in both section 1502 and the related section 102(b) of S.
2921.
Section 1503 proposes to release over 120,000 acres of BLM-
administered wilderness study areas (WSAs) from WSA restrictions
thereby allowing a full range of multiple uses. We support this
provision and recommend additional small WSA releases in the Kingston
Range WSA, Avawatz Mountains WSA, Death Valley WSA and White Mountain
WSA. These lands are small portions of WSAs that were not designated
wilderness by this or previous legislation.
Sections 1601 through 1604 create the 75,000-acre Vinagre Wash
Special Management Area (SMA) and identify four future potential new
wilderness areas or expansions of existing designated wilderness areas
within the SMA. The Secretary is directed to preserve the character of
these lands for eventual inclusion in the National Wilderness
Preservation System with limited specific exceptions for military uses.
Designation of the lands would occur when the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, determines
that all activities on these lands are compatible with the Wilderness
Act of 1964.
On other lands within the SMA, 112 miles of motorized vehicle
routes are designated. In recognition of the importance of the lands
within the SMA to the Quechan Indian Nation and other Indian tribes,
this section includes special protections of tribal cultural resources
and provides for a two-year study of those resources and related needs.
Finally, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is
amended in Title I by adding segments of five rivers to the National
Wild and Scenic River System. Three of these, the Amargosa River,
Surprise Canyon Creek and Whitewater River, cross public lands managed
by the BLM and NPS. All three of these are important and rare riparian
areas in the deserts of southern California providing habitat for a
number of threatened, endangered and sensitive species.
We support these designations and would like to work with the
Committee on technical issues.
National Park Service Transfers
Over 72,000 acres of BLM-managed lands would be transferred to the
NPS under the provisions of sections 1701-1703 for the expansion of
Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and Mojave National
Preserve. These provisions will enlarge each unit to improve resource
protection and management efficiencies. The BLM and the National Park
Service support these provisions and would like to work with the
Sponsor and Committee staff to address mapping issues, make management
language modifications, and to clarify future management of rights-of-
way and land acquisition authority of the agency in these areas.
OHV Recreation
Section 1801 designates five OHV Recreation Areas totaling nearly
345,000 acres. These areas were administratively designated as ``open''
areas for OHVs in the CDCA Plan of 1980. The BLM supports each of these
designations as they would provide congressionally designated areas for
this popular recreational activity in the California Desert. BLM-
California estimates that these areas receive nearly 600,000 visitor
days of use annually. We would appreciate the opportunity to work with
Senator Feinstein and the Committee on minor and technical amendments
to this section.
Miscellaneous Provisions
Sections 1901 through 1905 contain a number of miscellaneous
provisions including transfers and land exchanges within the State of
California, studies on climate change and tribal issues, and
restrictions on donated and acquired lands. Specifically, the Secretary
is directed to transfer nearly 1,000 acres of BLM-administered lands
within the Table Mountain Wilderness Study Area to the California
Department of Parks and Recreation; develop a process, in consultation
with the California State Lands Commission, to exchange isolated
parcels of federal and state land within the California Desert
Conservation Area; develop a process, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Commission, to purchase or exchange
parcels of state lands within the area of expansion for the Twentynine
Palms Marine Corp Base; convey approximately 3,500 acres of BLM-
administered lands to the Department of Transportation for airport
expansion in Imperial County; and grant the State Lands Commission
right of first refusal to exchange state land for BLM-administered land
within the city limits of Needles, California. The Secretary is also
directed to complete studies on the impacts of climate change on the
CDCA and a tribal resource management plan on the Xam Kwatchan Trail.
Lastly, Section 1904 would prohibit certain uses on lands acquired for
the Conservation Area through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
on lands donated to the Conservation Area for conservation purposes.
We generally do not object to these miscellaneous provisions and
propose to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on minor
modifications. For example, we propose that the land exchanges be
conducted in accordance with FLPMA, standard appraisal practices, and
reflect fair market value exchanges.
Section 520 prohibits the BLM from processing any right-of-way
applications for projects that propose to use native groundwater from
aquifers adjacent to the Mojave National Preserve in excess of the
estimated recharge rate as determined by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). The USGS has developed a model to estimate recharge in
the desert southwest using precipitation and air temperature data from
1970 through 2006. Rainfall, runoff, and recharge estimates for
groundwater basins adjacent to Mojave National Preserve could be
extracted from this model to assist in the evaluation of right-of-way
applications for projects adjacent to the Mojave National Preserve.
Continued hydrologic monitoring will be necessary to avoid any
significant impacts on the groundwater resource and other environmental
resources supported by groundwater. The Department has no objection to
this provision, which would strengthen protection of this critical
resource by requiring a careful and balanced review of development
proposals in this area.
Title II--``Desert Renewable Energy Permitting''
Title II of S. 2921 proposes to modify the wind and solar energy
development permitting process on BLM-administered lands throughout the
West, and balance renewable energy development and conservation in the
California Desert. Among its key provisions, Title II requires the
designation of BLM Renewable Energy Coordination Offices (RECOs) in
each BLM state with significant wind and solar resources; requires the
distribution of revenue receipts from wind and solar projects on BLM-
administered public lands; requires the development of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with affected federal agencies to address the
processes for improving renewable energy project review; places solar
and wind energy revenues in the existing oil and gas BLM Permit
Improvement Fund; and provides other miscellaneous provisions aimed at
improving and streamlining the wind and solar energy application
process.
Renewable Energy Coordination Offices
Section 201 would require the Secretary to designate at least one
BLM field or district office in ten western states to serve as RECOs.
The BLM has already established four RECOS in the states with the
greatest renewable energy development demand: Arizona, California,
Nevada, and Wyoming. In addition, the BLM has established renewable
energy teams in six other western states-Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New
Mexico, Oregon/Washington and Utah-to support the timely processing of
renewable energy project applications. The BLM supports the RECO
process but has concerns about the specific legislative mandates in
this bill. We would like to work with Senator Feinstein and the
Committee to ensure the Secretary maintains flexibility in determining
the number and location of RECOs. This flexibility is necessary in
order to maximize workload and management efficiencies.
S. 2921 recognizes the importance of improving the renewable energy
permit process on federal lands throughout the west. The bill
specifically requires the development of an MOU among affected federal
agencies to address RECO coordination and to establish a single
multiagency joint process for the review and approval of renewable
energy projects. We support the need for improved coordination, and we
recommend that the section be amended to include Department of Energy
as a party to that MOU. However, we oppose the 90-day period for
completion of an MOU, which would involve ten states and numerous and
separate authorities for renewable energy, as this short timeframe
would not provide the entities involved with sufficient time to develop
an effective agreement. We would be happy to discuss alternative time
frames.
Renewable Energy Receipts
Section 201 (a) provides for the deposit of wind and solar energy
receipts into the existing oil and gas BLM Permit Processing and
Improvement Fund, authorized under Section 365(a) of the Energy Policy
Act. This fund is currently funded by receipts from oil and gas
operations pursuant to separate authorities and responsibilities under
the Mineral Leasing Act. The BLM has authority under the Mineral
Leasing Act to authorize oil and gas operations on other federal lands.
However, the BLM does not possess similar authorities to administer
wind and solar development on other federal lands. As such, the bill
would blend revenues from programs with different authorizing statutes
and regulations, thus creating significant administrative and financial
management issues.
We also have serious concerns regarding the diversion of solar and
wind energy receipts from the Treasury, as this change in the revenue
distribution formula would have significant long term costs. We would
like to work with the Committee to resolve these concerns. The
President's fiscal year 2011 Budget proposes to terminate the BLM
Permit Processing Improvement Fund for the oil and gas program,
replacing it instead with a combination of discretionary appropriations
and user fees that have a clear connection to program funding needs.
The Department strongly supports renewable energy development on the
public lands, as evidenced by the attention and funding BLM's program
has received in the President's Budget and through funding made
available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Under Section
201, the revenue from wind and solar energy authorizations collected by
the BLM would be distributed as follows: states (25%), counties (25%),
BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund (40% through 2020), Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) (40% after 2020), and a Solar Energy
Land Reclamation, Restoration, and Mitigation Fund (10%).
S. 2921 also contains provisions addressing performance bonds for
reclamation of renewable energy sites upon termination of a project.
The BLM already requires a performance and reclamation bond for all
renewable energy project authorizations sufficient to cover the costs
of reclamation and restoration. It is appropriate that all such costs
remain the responsibility of the renewable energy project developer and
not the federal taxpayer.
Renewable Energy Application Process
Section 202 contains provisions to streamline the solar and wind
energy application process for projects on lands administered by the
Secretary of the Interior such as: establishing timeframes for
processing and evaluating wind and solar projects; providing guidance
to deny and prioritize wind and solar right-of-way applications; and
requiring a wind and solar application fee. The issuance of right-of-
way permits for renewable energy projects is a discretionary decision.
The BLM's existing regulations provide the authority to deny right-of-
way applications based on several factors including when the proposed
use is inconsistent with the BLM's existing land use plan, would not be
in the public interest, would be inconsistent with FLPMA and other
laws, or when the BLM determines that an application is deficient.
Section 202(h) requires a 50% refundable application processing fee
(deposit) upon acceptance of a right-of-way application for a wind or
solar facility on BLM-administered lands. Under existing authorities
and regulations, the BLM currently collects full cost recovery as costs
are incurred throughout the wind and solar application process. Due to
the difficulty in estimating 50% of the total cost for processing an
application upfront, the BLM recommends continuing its current cost
recovery process.
Mitigation Zones
Section 205 describes a mechanism to allow payments into a
federally administered mitigation fund to facilitate the review of
renewable energy projects on non-federal land under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). While we share the objective of finding a
means whereby projects on non-federal lands can be considered within
the same timeframes as those on public lands, we have serious concerns
with the establishment of new mandatory funding, supplemented by
additional appropriations, and we would like to work with the committee
to resolve these concerns.
Miscellaneous Provisions
Sections 203 through 208 contain a number of miscellaneous
provisions including the following: requiring a Solar Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); establishing a Habitat Mitigation
Zone program in the California Desert Conservation Area; establishing a
categorical exclusion for meteorological site testing and monitoring;
and requiring various renewable energy reports to Congress. The bill
would also require RECOs to prepare environmental reviews for renewable
energy projects under the Habitat Mitigation Zone program on non-
federal lands. This is a significant expansion of the role and
responsibilities of the BLM RECOs, and we recommend deleting this
provision. In addition, we recommend minor technical corrections
throughout these sections.
Conclusion
The Department of the Interior supports the goals of S. 2921 and
has numerous substantive as well as minor and technical modifications
to recommend. Generally the bill includes substantial workloads within
short timeframes which may be overly optimistic; we want to insure that
the goals of the legislation can be realistically achieved. We look
forward to working closely with Senator Feinstein, the Committee, and
our federal partners as this bill moves through the legislative
process.
The Chairman. Thank you for your statement.
Dorothy Robyn, we are glad to see you here in your new
capacity.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Robyn. Thank you, Senator Bingaman, and thank you for
the other members of this distinguished committee for allowing
me the opportunity to testify today.
The California Desert Protection Act represents a
significant and laudable effort to preserve the environment and
promote the development of renewable energy while, at the same
time, protecting the ability of the U.S. military to carry out
its mission. The Department of Defense supports all 3 of these
goals.
Renewable energy represents a critical plank in the
Department's energy security platform. Military installations,
many of them located in the Southwest and along our coasts, are
well-situated to support large-scale solar, wind, and
geothermal energy projects. Such projects can help the
department achieve 2 important goals.
First, renewable energy can help us reduce our costly
reliance on fossil fuels and the related greenhouse gas
emissions they generate. The Department of Defense has pledged
to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by a third over the next
decade, and the expansion of renewable energy development on
our installations will be key to meeting that goal.
Second, the development of renewable energy can help
installations provide for greater mission assurance. When
combined with microgrid technology and energy efficiency
investments that significantly reduce demand, distributed
renewable energy sources can assist in allowing military
installations to carry out mission-critical activities in the
event of disruption to the electricity grid.
For these and other reasons, we have been actively pursuing
solar, wind, geothermal, and other forms of renewable and
alternative energy. For example, Nellis Air Force Base, where
the President spoke a year ago, in southern Nevada built a 1-
megawatt photovoltaic solar array. Nellis saves $1 million a
year in electricity costs and avoids 24,000 tons of carbon
dioxide emissions.
The military's interest in renewable is nothing new. Naval
Air Weapons Station China Lake in California has been operating
a 270-megawatt geothermal plant since 1987. The department is
also doing a significant amount of R&D on renewable energy. The
Navy is looking at ocean thermal energy conversion, OTEC. A
program that I oversee is using DoD installations as a testbed
for next-generation renewable and other forms of energy
technology.
Those technologies that prove effective, the military can
help create a market for them, as it has done with aircraft,
electronics, and the Internet. So, in many, many ways, we are
deeply supporting renewable energy, but specific projects can
pose problems for us.
The siting of a large-scale renewable energy project on or
near a military installation may not be compatible with a
current or projected mission. The issue of wind turbines and
radar comes to mind. I have been dealing with that lately.
A second potential conflict arises from the fact that
military installations, which represent some of the best
protected and most pristine land in the Federal inventory, are
home to many threatened and endangered species, more than 300
to be exact. An installation may not be able to, in all cases,
accommodate the construction of, say, a large solar facility if
it would adversely affect sensitive habitat.
We are grateful to Senator Feinstein for recognizing how
important her legislation is to the military and for working so
cooperatively with the department's regional environmental
staff in California prior to introducing the bill. As a result
of that collaboration, the bill incorporates many provisions
that address and protect our operations.
Let me highlight several things where our initial review
suggests that we would like to have further discussion. First,
in Title I, we see many potential benefits to the bill's basic
approach, namely the designation of large monument and
wilderness areas as off limits to development. I lay out a
number of reasons why that would have positive benefits for
military installations.
It could, depending on--the devil is in the details,
depending on where the--if that serves to steer development to
other areas, that could conceivably present a problem for us.
So we need to do a more detailed site-by-site analysis of
exactly what is in the bill in order to determine that.
In title II, there are 2 specific sections that raise
potential concerns for us. Section 206 calls for the Defense
Department and other Federal agencies to do a programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement. We like that approach for a
variety of reasons.
However, we are concerned with the time restrictions
included in the bill. For the results of this programmatic EIS
to improve the quality of our siting process and our land
management decisions, we need to use a rigorous and complete
analysis. We believe it will take significantly more time than
currently provided in the bill.
Second, section 201 calls for BLM to create Renewable
Energy Coordination Offices in 10 States. It is not clear from
the bill if the intent is for those offices to have permitting
authority for all Federal lands in these States or only for
those lands currently managed by the BLM. We have overriding
responsibility to protect our ability to test, train, and
operate on all of our installations, including those formed in
whole or in part from lands withdrawn from the public domain.
The Department of Defense already has a permitting process,
under its separate authorities, for lands under its management.
This process works well to ensure that appropriate energy
production occurs on these lands, without interfering with the
mission of the department. Although our own permitting process
would no doubt benefit from additional coordination with the
permitting process of BLM, it would not be beneficial to limit
our authority with regard to permitting on our installations.
In closing, we strongly support the goals of S. 2921. We
like many of the approaches embodied in the bill. We will
provide additional views on the bill in the near future, and
along with the other Federal agencies here today, we look
forward to working closely with the committee in the coming
months to address the issues that I have highlighted today.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Robyn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense,
Installations and Environment, Department of Defense
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and provide
preliminary comments on S. 2921, the California Desert Protection Act
of 2010, introduced by Senator Feinstein. This bill represents a
significant and laudable effort to preserve the environment and promote
the development of renewable energy while at the same time protecting
the ability of the U.S. military to carry out its mission. The
Department of Defense supports these goals and we want to work closely
with the committee to ensure that military, renewable energy, and
environmental equities are protected as you further develop this
legislation. We defer to the Department of Interior and Agriculture
with respect to provisions that solely concern their lands and
interests.
As the Quadrennial Defense Review made clear, crafting a strategic
approach to energy and climate change is a high priority for the
Department. This reflects mission considerations above all. The
Department's own analysis confirms what outside experts have long
warned: our military's heavy reliance on oil and other fossil fuels
creates significant risks and costs at a tactical as well as a
strategic level. They can be measured in lost dollars, in reduced
mission effectiveness and in U.S. soldiers' lives. Unleashing
warfighters from the tether of fuel and reducing our military
installations' dependence on a costly and potentially fragile power
grid will not simply enhance the environment, it will significantly
improve our mission effectiveness.
Renewable and alternative energy represents a critical plank in the
Department's energy security platform. Military installations-many of
them located in the Southwest and along our coasts-are well-situated to
support large-scale solar, wind and geothermal energy projects that are
carefully sited and developed in ways that are consistent with our
current and projected military mission requirements. The development of
such mission-compatible renewable energy to support our military
installations can help the Department achieve two important goals.
First, it can help the Department reduce its costly reliance on
fossil fuels and the related greenhouse gas emissions they generate.
DoD's permanent installations, which include some 300,000 buildings and
2.2 billion square feet of floor space, account for about 28 percent of
the Department's total energy usage ($4 billion in 2009). Installations
account for even more of DoD's greenhouse gas emissions-nearly 40
percent-because of their reliance on the commercial electricity grid,
which is heavily powered by coal. The Department has pledged to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from non-combat activities by 34 percent over
the next decade, and the expansion of renewable energy development on
our installations will be key to meeting that goal.
Second, combined with appropriate technologies and necessary energy
assurance policies, the development of renewable energy can help
military installations provide for greater mission assurance. According
to the Defense Science Board, the increasing fragility of the
commercial grid to cyberattack, natural disaster and other threats
places the continuity of critical military missions at growing risk.\1\
When combined with microgrid technology and energy efficiency
investments that significantly reduce demand, distributed renewable
energy sources can assist in allowing installations to carry out
mission-critical activities and support restoration of the grid in the
event of disruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``More Fight-Less Fuel,'' Report of the Defense Science Board
Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy, February 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The military has been actively pursuing solar, wind, geothermal and
other forms of renewable and alternative energy to achieve these and
other goals. For example, Nellis Air Force Base in southern Nevada
built a 14-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar array: more than 72,000
solar panels track the sun to generate 30 million kilowatt-hours of
electricity per year-equivalent to a quarter of the total power used at
the 16,000+ population base. As with most renewable energy projects on
military installations, Nellis took advantage of third-party financing.
Nellis saves $1 million a year in electricity costs and avoids 24,000
tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
The military's interest in renewable energy is nothing new. Naval
Air Weapons Station China Lake in California has been operating a 270-
MW geothermal plant since 1987. The heat from 166 wells, some of them
12,000 feet deep, is sufficient to light up 180,000 homes. The Navy is
helping the Army tap into geothermal resources at its Weapons Depot in
Hawthorne, Nevada, and that project will be capable of producing 30 MW
of clean power. Working to further develop and deploy advanced
geothermal technologies to make this a viable strategy at additional
installations may be an important element of our energy assurance
program.
Also relevant is the Department's effort to use DoD's installations
as a testbed for next-generation energy technologies coming out of
industry, Department of Energy and university laboratories. These
include technologies to improve the conservation and efficiency of
building energy, control and management of local energy loads, as well
as on-site alterative and renewable energy generation. DoD can assess
the performance, cost, and environmental impact of these advanced, pre-
commercial technologies. For those technologies that prove effective,
DoD can serve as an early customer, helping create a market, as it did
with aircraft, electronics and the internet. This approach is key to
meeting the Department's needs but it is also an essential element of a
national strategy to develop and deploy the next generation of energy
technologies needed to support our built infrastructure.
Despite the Department's support for renewable energy, specific
renewable energy projects can pose problems for the military. Let me
discuss three situations.
First, the siting of a large-scale renewable energy project on or
near a military installation may not be compatible with the current or
projected mission of the installation. For example, wind turbines or a
solar tower can interfere with mission-critical navigation or other
radar. We are working actively both to identify potential problems well
in advance of siting and to develop better mitigation technology.
However, some conflicts may be unavoidable, and sustaining our ability
to conduct our current and projected mission requirements must be our
overriding consideration.
A second potential conflict arises from the fact that military
installations, which represent some of the best protected and most
pristine land in the federal inventory, are home to many threatened and
endangered species and other species at risk. Such an installation may
not be able to accommodate the construction of, for instance, a large
solar facility if it would adversely affect sensitive habitat. Even if
the proposed site for a solar facility were outside of the installation
fence, the facility could negatively affect military operations by
placing additional burdens on the installation for species recovery or
by potentially increasing the vulnerability of installation
populations.
A third potential conflict has to do with the competition for
water. The same areas that are ideally suited to large solar projects
also typically face severe water shortages. The construction of such a
solar project on or near an installation will almost always increase
the competition for water supplies that are already scarce and which
may become even more scarce in the future. In addition to putting
pressure on the military mission directly, this can make it even more
difficult for an installation to maintain its sensitive habitat and the
threatened and endangered species it sustains.
In sum, the military has significant interests and equities in
federal policy dealing with the development of renewable and
alternative energy sources. This is particularly the case with respect
to energy development in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts, where we
conduct an enormous amount of testing, training and other operational
activity. The test and training ranges in this unique part of the
country are among the Department's most valuable and irreplaceable
installations, often described as our ``crown jewels.''
We are grateful to Senator Feinstein for recognizing how important
this legislation is to the military and for working so cooperatively
with the Department's regional environmental staff in California prior
to introducing the bill. As a result of that collaboration, the bill
incorporates many provisions that address and protect our operations.
Below, I mention some of them. I also highlight several sections where
the Department's initial review has revealed the need for further
discussion. We will provide a letter to the Committee detailing our
comments after we have had an opportunity to review the legislation in
depth.
Title I--California Desert Conservation and Recreation
We appreciate that, throughout Title I, the bill recognizes that
the military is an essential presence in both the proposed Mojave
Trails National Monument and the Sand to Snow National Monument. Let me
cite three examples:
The bill includes representatives from the Department of
Defense on the Advisory Committee for both Monuments, giving us
an important role in their long term management.
The bill excludes certain areas from the Mojave Trails
National Monument pending possible withdrawal and addition to
the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms,
protecting our options to address future mission needs.
In establishing the Avawatz Mountains, Golden Valley, and
Soda Mountains Wilderness Areas adjacent to Fort Irwin, the
Great Falls Basin Wilderness Area adjacent to China Lake, and
the Kingston Range Wilderness Area to the east of Fort Irwin,
the bill protects the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
conduct military activities at desert installations,
facilities, and ranges. Particularly critical is the language
explicitly protecting those military activities that can be
seen or heard from within the Wilderness Areas.
Nevertheless, to ensure that our activities are protected, we must
better understand the bill's land management requirements in total,
particularly as they relate to our ability to conduct testing,
training, and operational activities and our responsibilities under the
Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species and
the associated critical habitat.
We see many potential benefits to the bill's approach-namely, the
designation of large monument and wilderness areas as off-limits to
development. This approach may protect our installations from the
encroachment that such development could cause. Having these areas
protected may expand critical habitat and spread species management
responsibilities over a larger area, thereby lessening the pressures on
the species and on DoD's land management responsibilities. Precluding
development in these areas would also reduce the competition for
limited water resources. On the other hand, the limitation of
development in certain areas would likely steer development to other
areas, which may not be compatible with our current and projected
mission requirements in every case. Therefore, we need to conduct a
detailed, site-by-site analysis in light of our current and projected
missions to understand the full implications of Title I.
Title II--Desert Renewable Energy Permitting
One thrust of Title II would be to concentrate renewable energy
development in particular geographic areas within the Mojave Desert.
This is potentially quite beneficial: the designation of specific areas
for renewable energy development would facilitate such development by
giving developers and Federal agencies alike clear parameters early in
the planning process, by facilitating coordination with ongoing
regional planning efforts at the local, state, and federal levels, and
by streamlining that process in numerous other ways. Depending on where
those areas are located, however, the concentration of renewable energy
development could be incompatible with the Department's current and
projected mission requirements. Here, again, we would need to conduct a
more detailed analysis.
In addition, based on our preliminary review of the legislation,
there are three specific sections in Title II that are of particular
interest or that raise potential concerns for the Department.
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Sec. 203)
We appreciate the bill's intent to have federal agencies evaluate
the environmental impacts of renewable energy in a programmatic manner,
early in the process. This approach enables a more strategic assessment
of the range of options and the associated direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts. By evaluating these impacts earlier, it shortens
the process when we move to site specific decisions while ensuring that
we better understand the cumulative impacts of each project.
The Department is, however, concerned with the time restrictions
included in the bill. As you can appreciate, for the results of this
programmatic environmental impact statement to improve the quality of
our siting process and our land management decisions, we need to gather
the appropriate information and apply a rigorous and complete
environmental analysis. To ensure that this is a thoughtful and
meaningful process, we believe it will take significantly more time
than currently provided in the bill. Moreover, in the interests of
efficiency and overall environmental protection, any programmatic
assessment for renewable energy options by DoD should be produced
concurrently with assessments done by the Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management and other federal agencies to coordinate efforts,
scope, regional coverage, use of data and desired outcomes.
Military Installations Study (Sec. 204)
The military installations study directs the Department to assess
the financial, environmental, and national security implications of
renewable energy development on military installations in the Mojave
and Colorado Deserts in the States of California and Nevada. This area
includes many large and critical military installations and contains
some of the most important testing and training ranges within the
Department of Defense. Renewable energy is a critical component of the
Department's energy strategy and this region of the country has
significant renewable energy resources that could be exploited. Section
204 identifies important issues that the Department must consider as we
continue to develop renewable energy programs. The Department needs to
understand the full impacts of renewable energy development on our
installations. We have already initiated plans to conduct such a study
based on language in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
FY 2010.
Renewable Energy Coordination Offices (Sec. 201)
We appreciate the Senator's efforts to make the Department an
integral part of the Federal permit coordination process. Renewable
energy siting decisions in this region, on or off military
installations, must comport with military activities in order to ensure
the viability of our training, testing, and operations, to safeguard
the public, and to protect the security of sensitive activities.
We believe some aspects of the prescribed process and structure
need clarification. First, it is not clear if the Renewable Energy
Coordination Offices that the bill would create will have permitting
authority for all Federal lands in these states or only those lands
currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We have the
overriding responsibility to protect our ability to perform testing,
training, and operational missions on all of our installations,
including those formed in whole or in part from lands withdrawn from
the public domain. The Department of Defense already has a permitting
process, under its separate authorities, for lands under its
management. This process works well to ensure that appropriate energy
production occurs on such lands, without interfering with the mission
of the Department. The Department's authorities provide strong
incentives to installation commanders to pursue such projects. Although
the Department's own permitting process would benefit from additional
coordination with the permitting process of BLM, it would not be
beneficial to limit the authority of the Department with regard to
permitting on our installations.
In addition, siting of renewable energy facilities and associated
infrastructure on private and state lands has the potential to have a
significant impact on our testing, training, and operational missions.
It is not clear that the permitting process outlined in the bill
adequately addresses the critical interaction of Federal agencies with
state and local permitting processes.
Conclusion
We strongly support the goals of S. 2921-namely, to advance
renewable energy while protecting the environment and protecting our
current and projected military missions. We will provide additional
views on the bill in the near future. Along with the other federal
agencies, the Department of Defense looks forward to working closely
with the Committee in the coming months to address the issues we have
highlighted today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Krueger, why don't you go ahead? Then I know that
Senator Udall has to leave by 10:15 a.m. So we will defer to
him to ask a question before he leaves after you finish your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF FAYE KRUEGER, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF,
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Krueger. All right. Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views
of the Department of Agriculture on S. 2921.
The department supports this bill. However, we defer to the
Department of Interior and Department of Defense regarding the
provisions concerning their lands and interests. We look
forward to working closely with Senator Feinstein, the
committee, and our Federal partners to address the concerns of
the administration as this bill moves through the legislative
process.
Most of the Forest Service lands in the bill are in the San
Bernardino National Forest. The San Bernardino National Forest
Land Management Plan Revision of 2006 was developed through an
extensive 5-year process with considerable public involvement.
The monument and wilderness designations in S. 2921 are closely
aligned with recommended wilderness and forest management
objectives included in the revised plan.
S. 2921 would designate approximately 60,000 acres of land
in the San Bernardino National Forest, along with approximately
73,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands as the Sand to
Snow National Monument, to be managed jointly by both agencies.
The purpose of the monument would be to preserve the nationally
significant biological, cultural, educational, geological,
historic, scenic, and recreational values at the convergence of
the Mojave and Colorado Deserts and the San Bernardino
Mountains.
The legislation would also provide for consistent
management of the area with BLM. The Forest Service and BLM
have been successful in similar co-management in California.
The proposed wilderness addition would also designate a little
over 7,000 acres to be added to the San Gorgonio Wilderness in
San Bernardino National Forest, and the department supports the
wilderness designation.
The bill would also designate 76.3 miles of the Deep Creek
and Whitewater River as part of the National Wild and Scenic
River System. During our initial evaluation, we found each
river eligible for designation based on their free-flowing
character and regionally important river-related values. The
department supports designation of these eligible rivers.
Energy section 203 would direct the Secretary to complete a
programmatic Environmental Impact Statement no later than 18
months after the date of enactment of the bill. The
programmatic EIS would analyze the potential impacts of a
program to develop solar, biomass, and wind energy on National
Forest System lands.
We agree that renewable energy options from sources on
National Forest System lands should be fully explored, and we
would like to look at how best to focus our resources for on-
the-ground efficiencies. We would like to work with the
committee on revisions to clarify the roles and relationships
of Federal agencies in the permitting process as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the department generally
supports this legislation and looks forward to working with the
committee on the changes requested. I would be happy to answer
any questions you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Krueger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Faye Krueger, Acting Associate Deputy Chief,
National Forest System, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on S.
2921. The Department supports the goals of S. 2921. However, we defer
to the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of Defense
regarding provisions concerning their lands and interests. We look
forward to working closely with Senator Feinstein, the Committee, and
our Federal partners to address the concerns of the Administration as
this bill moves through the legislative process. Most of the Forest
Service lands in the bill are in the San Bernardino National Forest.
The San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan Revision of
2006 was developed through an extensive five-year process with
considerable public involvement. The selected plan alternative
emphasized ``environmentally sustainable recreation.'' The monument and
wilderness designations in S. 2921 are closely aligned with recommended
wilderness and forest management objectives included in the revised
plan. We would like to work with the committee on some minor
modifications to provisions in Title I, including some technical
aspects of the bill such as map reference dates and wilderness acreage
figures.
Monument Designation
S. 2921 would add section 1402 to the California Desert Protection
Act of 1994 to designate approximately 60,000 acres of land within the
San Bernardino National Forest; along with approximately 73,000 acres
of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands as the Sand to Snow National
Monument, to be managed jointly by the agencies. The purpose of the
monument would be to preserve the nationally significant biological,
cultural, educational, geological, historic, scenic and recreational
values at the convergence of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts and the
San Bernardino Mountains. Designation would also secure the opportunity
for present and future generations to experience and enjoy the
magnificent vistas, wildlife, land forms, and natural and cultural
resources of the monument. The bill also would direct DOI and USDA to
complete a management plan for the conservation and protection of the
monument within 3 years, and address whether a visitors center should
be established.
The 2006 Forest Plan recognizes the importance of wildlife
connections and corridors to and from the National Forest, as well as
the significant biological, cultural, scenic and recreational values of
the greater San Gorgonio Mountain ecosystem. The monument designation
would help us address these critical wildlife and resource issues.
The legislation would also provide for consistent management of the
area with the BLM. The Forest Service and BLM are successfully using
the Service First co-management model for the Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains National Monument. The Department anticipates using a
similar management model if this new monument is designated.
The requirement to establish an advisory committee that would
provide advice on the development and implementation of the management
plan for the monument closely mirrors the success of the Santa Rosa and
San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. The Department believes that
an advisory committee would also be helpful in developing the Sand to
Snow Monument plan.
However, due to the length of time necessary to establish a FACA
committee, and the importance of creating a successful management plan,
the Department recommends that the bill language be changed to provide
that the management plan be completed three years after the advisory
committee is established.
The Department agrees that the monument plan should address the
needs for a visitor center. If the Secretaries determine that a visitor
center is needed, it is critical that the advisory committee provide
recommendations about sources of funding to build, staff, operate and
maintain the visitor center.
Proposed Wilderness Addition
Section 1501(c), as added to the California Desert Protection Act
of 1994 by S. 2921, would also designate a 7,141-acre wilderness
addition to the west and south of the existing 95,953-acre San Gorgonio
Wilderness in the San Bernardino National Forest. The area under
consideration is currently an inventoried roadless area. The Department
supports the wilderness designation. Although this designation is
smaller than what was recommended in the 2006 Forest Plan revision, the
adjustment would make management of the area less complex.
Wild and Scenic River Designation
Section 102 of S. 2921 would designate approximately 76.3 miles of
the specified rivers as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. Of this total, approximately 34.5 miles of Deep Creek,
including its principal tributary, Holcomb Creek, and 17.1 miles of the
North, Middle and South Forks of the Whitewater River are within the
boundary of the San Bernardino National Forest and would be
administered by the Department of Agriculture.
During step one of the evaluation process, the Forest Service found
each river eligible for designation based on their free-flowing
character and regionally important river-related values. We have not
conducted the second part of the evaluation process, the suitability
study, for either of the rivers. However, the Department supports
designation of these eligible rivers based on general support from the
communities of interest and consistency of designation with the
management of National Forest System lands within the river corridors.
We wish to work with the Subcommittee to clarify the co-administration
of the designated segments of the Whitewater River and provide other
technical corrections.
Energy
Section 203 would direct the Secretary to complete a programmatic
environmental impact statement (EIS) not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of the bill. The programmatic EIS would analyze the
potential impacts of a program to develop solar, biomass, and wind
energy on National Forest System (NFS) lands, and any necessary
amendments to land use plans for the land as appropriate.
We agree that renewable energy options from sources on NFS lands
should be fully explored. We'd like to look at how best to focus our
resources to expand our on-the-ground efficiencies; including whether a
programmatic EIS might be helpful in expanding our capabilities while
protecting our National Forests. In addition, any programmatic
assessment for renewable energy options should be done concurrently
with assessments done by the Bureau of Land Management, Department of
Defense, and other federal agencies to coordinate efforts, scope,
regional coverage, use of data, and desired outcomes.
Section 201(a) of the bill would amend section 365 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15924) to add subsection (j) requiring
the Secretary of the Interior to establish a process for the
coordination of Federal permits for projects to develop renewable
energy derived from wind, solar, renewable biomass, hydro and
geothermal sources and associated transmission lines, and a subsection
(k) providing for the distribution of income collected by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) for solar and wind energy development. We would
like to work with the committee to clarify the roles and relationship
of Federal agencies in the permitting process.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, the Department supports the goals of
this legislation and looks forward to working with the committee on the
changes requested. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall, why don't you go ahead with your questions?
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting me at
the front of the line. I very much appreciate it.
The testimony this morning is important. I did want to
acknowledge Senator Feinstein's leadership. These are big and
important and contentious questions. But if we were to avoid
facing them, then we miss opportunities on the renewable energy
front. We also miss opportunities to preserve these remarkable
lands.
I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking
member and others as we grapple with what I think can
ultimately be an important solution.
Let me make a comment in addition, and then I have a
question for Dr. Robyn. I did want to just register, Mr.
Chairman, my concern about the use of categorical exclusions in
the bill.
I understand the need to move quickly. I understand energy
industry frustrations. But I also think we have seen, in some
cases, CEs, as they are known in the parlance, being used
perhaps inappropriately. Most notably, the oil and gas spewing
out of the Gulf right now was part of a process where a CE was
used. So I think it would be important to have conversations
about the use of categorical exclusions, particularly in a
broad-based way.
So if I could turn to Dr. Robyn? Again, thank you for your
testimony. I serve on the Armed Services Committee, as does the
chairman, and I am really interested in your testimony in
regard to the DoD serving as a testbed for new and emerging
technology. You already are, frankly. There are lot of great
stories, and the military is leading on this whole effort, this
mission to be energy self-reliant.
I would ask that you would provide detailed information to
the committee concerning this initiative that would outline the
current scope of activities, the relationships with the DOE and
other agencies, current and projected resources to take
advantage of this approach, and the applicability of the
approach to a broader range of energy technologies, as well as
energy-related policies and programs within the broader Federal
Government.
I have thrown a lot at you. Can you talk briefly about this
and then provide additional information for the record? If you
would turn your mike on, that would be great, too.
Ms. Robyn. Yes. You asked me about my--perhaps my favorite
topic. The Defense Department in general, but in particular,
installations that I oversee, serving as a testbed for pre-
commercial technology, technology coming out of DOE labs,
industry laboratories.
First of all, let me say that the reason the Defense
Department has been so successful as in support for technology
going back to Eli Whitney and interchangeable parts for musket
production is that we perform the R&D, and then we have a hand-
in-glove relationship with the people who take that R&D, the
services, and use it. No one else has that kind of a
relationship, and it has historically been incredibly
successful.
In the case of energy, we won't be doing the bulk of the
R&D. We will be doing R&D in areas where we have mission-unique
needs. But most of the R&D is going to be done in the
Department of Energy, in industry, other places. But we still
have that ability to serve as a very, very sophisticated first
adopter. So at the alpha and beta stage for this pre-commercial
technology, and then as an early customer, as we have done
historically.
So for those technologies that are successful, we can help
create the market. We are working closely--the Department of
Energy has from Dr. Chu on down, have recognized that this is a
natural partnership, that where DOE has been weak in the past
has been the lack of customer pull. It has all been technology
push from the laboratory.
So we are working with them so that we can be their
customer, in effect, and so that they can carry out R&D on
batteries, storage, building energy in ways that suit our needs
as a customer. That will make both of us more effective. So I
see this as being a very, very powerful part of our national
energy program, and I would love to give you more information.
Senator Udall. I very much look forward to additional
information for the record. I know the chairman, the ranking
member, and the rest of the committee would as well.
It seems only right, given that the DOE is, in effect, an
offspring of the Department of Defense, and perhaps now that it
is an adult child will work fully hand-in-hand with the
Department of Defense. But DoD is going to lead us in many ways
to this goal we have of energy self-reliance.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, just one 10-second additional comment.
Ms. Krueger, thank you for your testimony, and I was
thinking about Colorado when you talk about a Sand to Snow
National Monument. We may have a model that would be of some
use as an analog, and that is the Great Sand Dunes National
Park, based in the San Luis Valley, which includes elevations
from about 6,000 feet to 14,000 feet and is a quilt, if you
will, of Federal land, some private lands, forest lands, now
national park lands. There may be some examples and lessons
learned there that would be applicable as we pursue Senator
Feinstein's vision that is tied to this important piece of
legislation.
Thank you.
Ms. Krueger. Thank you for that information.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. You are certainly welcome.
Senator Murkowski, go ahead with your questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Abbey, with regards to the renewable energy permitting
office in section 201 that sets forth the specific uses for the
funding and how the income that is generated is disbursed. Can
you inform me whether or not if 2921 is enacted, would you
impose this revenue-sharing proposal on all renewable projects
that are proposed for Federal lands?
Mr. Abbey. Senator Murkowski, it is my understanding, based
upon my interpretation of the bill, that it would apply to all
renewable energy, or solar energy projects throughout the West,
the distribution of revenue.
Senator Murkowski. Correct. But you say on Federal lands
throughout the West. What if you have Federal lands that are
not necessarily in the West? I just want to know whether you
envision this as a nationwide revenue proposal?
Mr. Abbey. It would apply to BLM-managed projects.
Senator Murkowski. OK. All right. Then how is this proposed
formula different than from the onshore oil and gas royalty
formula?
Mr. Abbey. The oil and gas revenue include both rental and
royalties. The rental revenue provides 50 percent to the State
and 50 percent to the oil and gas permit processing improvement
fund. The royalties go 50 percent to the State and 50 percent
to the Federal Treasury.
The distribution of revenue as proposed by Senator
Feinstein is unique. It differs from what is currently in place
for oil and gas revenues. So it would create a different
disbursal--mechanism for disbursal.
Senator Murkowski. Is the BLM in agreement that that
distinction is something that you would support?
Mr. Abbey. This is one of those areas that we would like to
work with Senator Feinstein and the members of this committee
to address. We certainly have differences of opinions of how
those moneys could be disbursed.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you about the situation with
the companies that had potential leases for solar development
on these lands, have a pending application. Now as I understand
it, these companies will have the option to move to the head of
the line for other potential lease opportunities on Federal
lands, but doesn't specify where.
The first question is did BLM encourage companies to
consider leasing solar sites within any of these 1.6 million
acres that are proposed by the bill?
Mr. Abbey. I wouldn't use the term ``encourage.'' We
certainly accepted applications within those areas. We were--we
received several hundred applications over a short period of
time. Some of the applications that were submitted on the
Catellus lands that were acquired and donated to the Bureau of
Land Management primarily for conservation purposes were
included in some of those applications.
The BLM did receive applications on those lands. They began
processing those applications up until May 2009, when the
Bureau of Land Management issued clarifying directions to our
offices, restricting the acceptance of applications on lands
that were acquired through lands and water conservation funds
or through donations for purposes of conservation.
Senator Murkowski. So, those that were pending have
effectively been placed on hold since May of last year?
Mr. Abbey. The applications are still being processed. We
are working with the proponents for those projects on their
applications to see whether or not their projects are
compatible with the uses of those land.
Senator Murkowski. Tell me where you are seeking to make
these Federal lands available for these applicants that will be
allowed to jump to the head of the line.
Mr. Abbey. We would be directing them toward lands that are
under consideration as part of the solar study areas that are
now being analyzed. These applicants would be directed to look
at the appropriateness of those lands for their projects.
Senator Murkowski. Do you know whether they would have
equivalent or perhaps better solar potential, not only the
potential but access to infrastructure such as the roads and
transmission?
Mr. Abbey. Those solar study areas were selected for
specific reasons, and one of the primary factors were that they
were more conducive to this type of development. We believe
those areas that would be designated in the future as solar
zones would probably be more compatible for such development
than where they are currently being proposed.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, Dr. Robyn, just very
quickly, given the proposals in the bill related to the
wilderness and national monuments, are you prepared to say that
the training and the other needs for the military for the
present and then going into the future are going to be fully
protected under this legislation?
Ms. Robyn. We need to look more closely at exactly what
lands are set aside. We like the general approach. We just--it
can be--some of these areas can provide buffer protection
around installations. But if they serve to steer development to
other areas that are incompatible, then that could be an issue.
So we need to look at it closely. We like the approach. The
devil is in the details.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have some additional questions that I will
be submitting for the record. I have to attend another hearing
this morning, but I appreciate the testimony from the
witnesses.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me ask a few questions that occur to me. First,
Director Abbey, let me ask you about it is my understanding
that Secretary Salazar set up a group called the Renewable
Energy Action Team, REAT. I don't know if that is the right way
to pronounce the acronym. But it is comprised of
representatives of the BLM, the California Energy Commission,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and
Game.
That team, according to what I have been told, is
developing a Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for the
State, which would identify areas primarily for conservation
and other areas suitable for development. If that is underway--
I guess that group was set up in November 2009--and the report
is due, I guess, later this year, wouldn't it be premature for
us to be trying to legislate in many of these areas dealt with
in this bill until we see the results of that team's report?
Mr. Abbey. I am not sure I would use the term
``premature,'' but certainly, as we move forward and continue
to work in cooperation with the State of California as well as
our other Federal partners, we are learning more and more about
which areas are more appropriate for such large-scale
commercial development for solar and wind projects.
We have a tremendous working relationship in the State of
California, as we do throughout the western United States since
our common goals is to increase the amount of renewable energy
as part of our Nation's energy portfolio.
The purpose of the California Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan is to look at a variety of lands, including
previously disturbed lands, for possible use for such
development. The conservation plan will help direct where such
solar and wind commercial projects should be developed, whether
that is Federal or private lands.
The Chairman. Let me ask about this permitting system that
there is a set of proposals for changing the permitting system.
What is the status of the BLM's effort to revise its permitting
process with regard to renewable energy projects on BLM land?
Mr. Abbey. Mr. Chairman, I am glad you asked that because
this morning I just pulled together some of the actions that
have been taken over the past year to help improve the
efficiencies and the effectiveness of our permitting process.
For one, you have heard about the solar programmatic EIS that
is now moving forward.
We anticipate releasing a draft programmatic EIS in
December 2010. As part of this effort, the Bureau of Land
Management is analyzing 23 million acres, which appear to be
technically and environmentally suitable for solar energy
development, and also within that acreage, 24 solar energy
study areas, encompassing almost 700,000 acres. Four areas are
located in California.
In the meantime, we are processing 34 fast-track renewable
energy projects, and by fast track, I mean that we anticipate
reaching decisions on all 34 of those projects by December
2010. Even though the Bureau of Land Management got off to a
fairly slow start as far as dealing with solar energy project
proposals, we are rapidly advancing the permitting process. We
are working with the industry to improve the efficiencies of
our permitting process without taking shortcuts because we are
talking about large-scale footprints on our public lands.
We want to make sure that all analysis is thorough, that
mitigation measures are identified and potentially incorporated
into any decision document. I am quite pleased with the
progress that we have made over the course of the last year.
The Chairman. Let me just try to ask a little more
specifically. It seems to me that we reported a bill out of our
committee here last summer that contains some provisions that
are intended to improve the process itself, the permitting
process that you folks follow. You have got other initiatives
underway to improve that process.
Senator Feinstein's legislation that we are considering
this morning has a whole series of recommended changes in that
process. Has the BLM settled on what it would like that process
to look like and how it would like that process to operate,
separate from the question of how many applications you can get
approved by December. But the process itself, do you have a
good idea of what that should look like and how much of it we
should be trying to legislate?
Mr. Abbey. Mr. Chairman, we do have a good idea. In fact,
we continue to provide directions to our field offices
regarding this particular issue. Quite frankly, we do have some
concerns with the provisions that are incorporated into Senator
Feinstein's legislation relative to the process.
We believe that there are areas that need improving. We
have the administrative remedies to create those efficiencies
ourselves without a legislative mandate. We understand the
serious role that we have to be smart from the start when
addressing and reviewing these project proposals that come
before us. We are, again, as I mentioned earlier, making
significant progress in improving the process.
The Chairman. Let me just ask finally, and then I will call
on Senator Bennett for his questions. But I think both Interior
and Defense have noted that they will provide detailed comments
on the bill at a later time. When would we be able to expect
that?
Mr. Abbey. We will work with this committee to provide
timely responses to the questions that we might receive, based
upon how quickly you would like to move this bill.
The Chairman. I think we would like any--if you are
preparing detailed comments on the bill, not responses to
questions from us, but detailed comments on the bill, which is
what I thought you had indicated, then we would be anxious to
get those as soon as you have them available.
Mr. Abbey. We can have those available fairly quickly
because we have done a thorough analysis of this bill.
The Chairman. OK. If you could get those to us in the next
couple of weeks, is that reasonable? That would be very
helpful.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here. My own attitude about
wilderness bills is that great deference should be paid to the
attitude and wishes of the Senator in the State in which the
wilderness is being created. We have had a number of fights
about that with respect to Utah, and I have always argued the
Utah Senator should be the one to make this decision. So I am
more than happy to defer to Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer
in this area. But I do have some questions, and you may not be
the ones to answer them.
I would like a procedure where we have an EIS, not only an
Environmental Impact Statement, but an economic impact
statement. I wonder if any studies have been done as to how
much economic value will really come out of these various solar
arrays that get put there?
Solar energy is one that always has great promise, but only
produces with heavy subsidies, and we are going to put your
phrase, Mr. Abbey, large-scale footprints in some of the area
of greatest protection for our public lands, and what are we
going to get out of it? Has anybody in the department done any
examination of that?
Mr. Abbey. We haven't performed any kind of economic
analysis of this bill. I would like to point out, Senator
Bennett, that in the areas proposed for designation, we have
received 12 applications--6 for solar, 6 for wind--all within
the proposed Mojave Trails National Monument.
Again, looking at the resources within the proposed area,
we believe there are more appropriate lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management or even on private lands where such
projects can be developed rather than where they are currently
being proposed. This information doesn't address your concerns
relative to an economic impact study.
Senator Bennett. Once you generate the electricity, how do
you get it to market?
Mr. Abbey. Through transmission.
Senator Bennett. Yes. My examination, cursory though it has
been, suggests that transmission lines are going to intrude in
wilderness areas or other areas in ways that a lot of folks may
not like.
Now maybe subsequent witnesses, Wilderness Society and
others, can address that and tell us how the transmission of
this power is going to get to market in such a way that it will
not be damaging. But is that an area that any of you looked at?
Mr. Abbey. Let me address that, and then maybe there would
be some other responses as well. Senator Feinstein has worked
diligently with--through a collaborative process to identify
where transmission needs might be for some of the proposed
renewable projects in southern California. She has provided for
corridors in some of these proposed national monuments and some
of the other areas to allow transmission lines to be built not
in designated wilderness areas, but certainly in some of the
other designated areas.
Senator Bennett. They are handy to where the solar array
would be or the wind farm would be?
Mr. Abbey. Based upon our best projections and where we
anticipate development.
Senator Bennett. Ms. Krueger, you look anxious to respond?
Ms. Krueger. Oh, I was just going to respond and say for
the wilderness in the monument area, we didn't find any
conflict with transmission lines.
Senator Bennett. OK, very good. My concern about solar, the
sun doesn't always shine. Now maybe in this part of the world
it always does. But there is one factor that applies to solar
that can be depended upon is that at the end of the day, the
sun goes down.
Some studies that I have seen suggest that the assumption
that solar power is available during the peak hours of demand,
in fact, are off by about an hour or 2. That is the sun is
shining and strongest about an hour or 2 before the demand for
peak power hits.
Now, Dr. Robyn, have you had any examination of that as far
as your experience at Nellis? Or does the Nellis array not
service the peak power demands of Nellis Air Force Base?
Ms. Robyn. Actually, I think the power from Nellis goes
directly into the commercial grid, and then----
Senator Bennett. Yes. Right.
Ms. Robyn [continuing]. Nellis. So, no. I mean, we
typically analyze these things in terms of the benefits to us
rather than the broader economic benefits that you are
referring to.
Senator Bennett. We are talking about--just a concluding
comment, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about a very significant
commitment. Again, to use your phrase, Mr. Abbey, a large-scale
footprint, and the Senator from California is fine with that,
other people are fine with that, I am fine with that--if, at
the other end, we get something worthwhile.
I want to be absolutely sure that the studies have been
done to say once we have this massive amount of land that is
taken over by solar arrays or wind farms, and we have got the
transmission lines built, do we know that the way the power
will be generated, because both solar and wind are intermittent
power. This is not a nuclear plant where you know it is
available 24 hours a day.
Do we know, has somebody done--did the State of California,
the Government--maybe Southern California Edison when they can
testify will describe it. Has somebody done a very careful
economic analysis to say once all of this has been built, and
as I say, with solar and wind, it will be built with subsidies
because right now, the market does not support either solar or
wind without some kind of subsidy.
This massive amount built with subsidies, will we get
anything out of it that we can actually use? I think that is a
legitimate question, and I hope that if not in this panel, the
next we can get some answers to it.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Questions for you, if I could, Dr. Robyn. I am increasingly
concerned about the gridlock between 2 objectives that this
country absolutely has to address. One of them is national
security. I sit on the Intelligence Committee. It's obviously a
dangerous world. The other is energy security. As you know,
there are pending scores of projects that can result in
thousands of good-paying jobs for our people and thousands of
megawatts of good, clean, renewable green power.
But there has got to be a way to resolve these conflicts
that are cropping up all over the country, and I want to relate
very specifically what I am concerned about this morning. As
you know, I and the Oregon congressional delegation, we are
very troubled about the problem of getting approved what will
be the world's biggest wind farm. It will be located at
Shepherds Flat in eastern Oregon. The challenge was dealing
with radar that was near Fossil, Oregon.
I put more than 4 years into the project, 4 years. At the
very last minute, DoD came in and raised an objection. Came out
of nowhere. Nobody had heard word one about this during the 4
years. The last minute, DoD comes in.
As you know, we were in extensive discussions with
Secretary Gates and the White House and others, and a couple of
weeks ago, we got it resolved. That is good news. I appreciate
it and appreciate the department stepping up and helping us in
that regard.
My concern is yesterday I just learned we have got the same
problem at another project close by. In other words, Shepherds
Flat, after all of the wrestling and all of the discussions
back and forth, got approved. But just yesterday, I heard about
a problem at the Montague wind project, again in the general
area--400 megawatts of wind power, 2,000 construction jobs, 80
permanent jobs--and exactly the same situation.
Instead of a hands-on discussion with the Defense
Department and the community and the energy people and all the
people related, the Defense Department did exactly what it did
until I and the congressional delegation stepped in on
Shepherds Flat, and the Defense Department filed all these
objections with the Federal Aviation Administration. Everything
is on hold.
We can't go on like this. The investors, for example, are
going to walk. They are going to walk on these projects if the
Defense Department doesn't step up and get a way to resolve
these issues. I read your statement, and you basically said,
hey, conflicts are unavoidable. By God, we have got to get our
mission taken care of.
I support your mission completely. It is a dangerous world.
I am not going to take a back seat to anybody in terms of
national security. But what is the department going to do to
set in place a system, a process to get these issues resolved?
Because that is what is really needed.
As you know, a group of Senators sent you a letter a year
ago, and there is still no evidence that a system is being
developed. The area, for example, that I am most concerned
about is let us bring these conflicts out at the beginning
rather than the end. That alone, if you were to do nothing else
but to have a system that would provide for that, I would feel
we are moving in the right direction.
So tell me, if you would, what is being done to get a
system in place? So this country can have national security and
energy security together rather than these conflicts which,
after the good news at Shepherds Flat, I am now concerned we
are going to be back in exactly the same spot not just in
Oregon, but all over the country.
Ms. Robyn. Let me address the specific one and then talk
more generally. I think the--well, let me talk about the
general problem.
We are not a regulator, nor do we want to be a regulator.
When these issues come up, we are able to resolve them in
almost all cases. Something like 98 percent of all wind farm
proposals, we have had no--we have approved outright or have
been able to find mitigation for.
I think we all got a wakeup call with the Caithness project
at Shepherds Flat. We realized how ill-suited the timing of the
FAA process, the obstacle OEAAA process that the FAA has is for
DoD. The FAA does not need to know until fairly late in the
process where--what a developer is proposing. They are looking
for impediments to air navigation.
We use that process. We want to continue to use that
process, but we need to have developers come to us at an
earlier stage. I could not agree more . The process is broken.
I said that in testimony several months ago.
I think the silver lining of Caithness, aside from the fact
that it did get resolved, is that it made very, very clear to
everybody and all agencies at the National Security Council,
and we are very actively working now to come up with an
alternative process. Do we need our own screen? Can we continue
to rely on the FAA, but get developers to us at an early stage?
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Dr. Robyn, I feel so strongly about this. I need to have
more specifics on this. Will you get back to me, to the
committee, within 30 days and outline your plan for a strategy
here? Will you get that to me within 30 days?
Ms. Robyn. Yes. Can I just say one more piece of it because
there has been----
Senator Wyden. But you will get to me within 30 days?
Ms. Robyn. Yes. No, no, no. I would be happy to.
There is a tendency--I mean, fixing the process is step
one. There are things in the pipeline that are not going to--we
are still going to have issues with them. But fixing the
process is step one.
But step 2 is increasing the level of R&D by the Defense
Department, Homeland Security, and other agencies in 2 areas.
Coming up with better tools, better modeling tools to estimate
what the impact of proposed turbines or a solar tower will be
on radar. That is the low-hanging fruit. Then the somewhat
higher-hanging fruit is mitigation technology. Digital signal
processing, stealth blades, there are a variety of things.
We don't have a silver bullet here. I am very hopeful that
Lincoln Lab will come up with a mitigation strategy at Fossil,
Oregon, and that that will take care of the Montague project as
well. We won't know that until they come back. But R&D is as
important as fixing the process. Technology will solve this
problem at the end of the day.
The Chairman. All right. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there is an article in today's Wyoming
Tribune-Eagle in Cheyenne, Wyoming--Governor Dave Freudenthal
on the wind projects. Wind projects and power transmission
lines are the topic for a question-and-answer session in
Wheatland, Wyoming, with Governor Dave Freudenthal.
This is in light of, Ms. Krueger, in November 2009, the
U.S. Forest Service published new guidelines for siting
transmission lines, and in Wyoming, we have world-class wind.
The new manual reads, ``The Forest Service will--'' and this is
FSM 2700 under Denial of Use. ``The Forest Service will deny
proposals,'' this is in quotes, ``deny proposals for uses of
National Forest System land which can reasonably be
accommodated on non National Forest System land.''
So the directive seems very plain and simple. Your position
is just say no. The administration is forcing transmission
lines onto private land. That means farms, ranches, businesses,
homes, and schools will have transmission lines, but not
Federal land. This will site these lines using eminent domain.
The administration's policies explicitly disadvantage
private land owners. I tried to fix this problem with an
amendment to the energy bill by requiring transmission siting
to minimize use of private land whenever possible.
Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated in this committee,
but we will certainly take that up with the bill gets to the
Senate floor in the future.
So I want to just get this straight. Does the Obama
administration oppose private property rights?
Ms. Krueger. The Governor did bring that issue forward to
the Forest Service, and we have done a policy review. Our
manual direction, we proposed some updates to it because we
don't want to just say no. We have over 14,400 miles of
transmission line on National Forest System land. So our policy
is not to just say no, and we work in conjunction often with
BLM and other agencies to permit those.
So we do support energy transmission lines. We have
reinstated our direction with a letter in March 2010, of this
year, to our field units to make sure that it is not a just say
no policy, that we continue to look at opportunities to site
energy lines on National Forest System lands. So we are moving
forward to clarify our policy.
Senator Barrasso. We will look forward to some additional
clarification.
Mr. Abbey, if I could, you don't follow the same manual.
Can you talk a little bit about the BLM policy directing
transmission siting and private land?
Mr. Abbey. We entertain proposals from the industry to
place transmission lines on public lands that are managed by
the Bureau of Land Management, and we go through an application
review. We conduct a NEPA analysis to determine whether or not
those lands are appropriate for such a use and make a decision
accordingly.
Except where areas are designated for special uses like
wilderness or national conservation areas or national
monuments, we look at the appropriateness of the public lands
where applications are submitted.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate that. I wanted to talk a
little bit, Mr. Abbey, if I could, with you about oil and gas
leasing.
Mr. Abbey. You bet.
Senator Barrasso. Whether it is siting transmission lines
or permitting wind or solar or natural gas product, the process
obviously takes years. On Monday, the Department of Interior
added what seems to me to be more red tape to the process. The
policy changes are going to discourage energy production and
investment in the Rocky Mountain West, and I think it is going
to cost jobs, hurt State and local budgets.
In Wyoming, the revenues paid by private companies to BLM
for oil and gas bonus bids and for rental fees were down
considerably between 2008 and 2009, and I think 2008, we
collected $93 million, and in 2009, it dropped to $10 million.
So $93 million down to $10 million, and that is a huge loss of
revenue not just for the State of Wyoming, but also to the
Federal Government.
So did the department analyze the potential loss in terms
of jobs before implementing these changes and also about loss
of revenues for the State and for the Federal Government?
Mr. Abbey. Senator Barrasso, we believe that some of that
downward trend in the oil and gas industry was based upon the
market conditions. We do not believe the new procedures that we
have distributed to our field offices on Monday will add the
additional bureaucratic layer that you described.
The whole purpose of these new procedures is, again, to be
smart from the start. We want to determine the appropriateness
of leasing those areas prior to leasing them and then dealing
with the aftermath of the issues that might come about during
the analysis of an application for permit to drill.
In 1999, 1 percent of all the parcels that were proposed
for leasing by the Bureau of Land Management were protested or
litigated. In 2009, the number of parcels that were protested
or litigated was almost 50 percent.
We believe by putting our efforts up front to do a thorough
review prior to offering these parcels for leasing, that it
will actually provide greater certainty to the industry and to
all the public who have interest in how these public lands are
going to be managed for the long term.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Abbey.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
At this point, I think we will dismiss the first panel and
call the second panel of six witnesses. Thank you all very much
for your testimony. Appreciate it.
The second panel is made up of 6 witnesses from California:
David Myers, executive director of the Wildlands Conservancy in
Oakland, California; Pedro Pizarro, who is the executive vice
president for power operations with Southern California Edison;
David Hubbard, who is an attorney with EcoLogic Partners; Harry
Baker, who is south district vice president with the California
Association of Four-Wheel Drive, 4WD Clubs, Inc.; V. John
White, who is the executive director for the Center for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Technologies in Sacramento; and
Johanna Wald, who is a senior attorney with the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Thank you all for being here. I think we will try to do the
same format as before. If each of you could take about 5
minutes and make the main points you think we need to
understand, and we will include your entire statement in the
record, as if read.
Mr. Myers, why don't you go ahead? Then we will just go
right down the table.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MYERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE WILDLANDS
CONSERVANCY, OAK GLEN, CA
Mr. Myers. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, S. 2921
will preserve California's irreplaceable desert landscapes,
including the geographic center, as Mojave Trails National
Monument. This legislation will not impact millions of acres
being studied and planned for renewable energy in California.
The Mojave Trails National Monument honors one of America's
storied landscapes. This land includes the Creation Trail that
is sacred to all seven Colorado River tribes. It includes the
Mojave Trail, the route early pioneers forged through steep red
rock canyon walls of Afton Canyon along the Mojave River. It
includes the National Trails Highway, which John Steinbeck
traveled in search of America's soul and dubbed ``The Mother
Road'' in The Grapes of Wrath.
It covers a vast network of jeep roads for exploring,
sightseeing, and remote camping amid heroic scenery with names
like Sleeping Beauty Mountains and Pisgah lava flow. It
encompasses hiking trails that wind into Amboy Crater, a
national natural landmark, and trails leading to the Trilobite
Fossil Beds, home of 450 million-year-old creatures that were
among the first living things on Earth to have eyes.
It includes valleys and vistas so vast that our hopes seem
grand and our problems seem small. These iconic national
treasures, including magnificent cactus gardens, are bundled
into the Mojave Trails National Monument.
The Wildlands Conservancy answered our Nation's call when
Catellus Development Corporation was selling over 600,000 acres
inside Joshua Tree National Park, Mojave National Preserve, 20
congressionally designated wilderness areas, and critical
wildlife habitat. We donated $45 million in private funds
toward acquiring this land, which was called the largest land
gift in American history.
This gift became the hallmark of Vice President Gore's
Legacy of the Land Program. Vice President Gore called these
lands ``some of the most pristine and scenic desert lands in
the world.'' He also stated, ``These stunning California desert
lands are being preserved for future generations through a true
public-private partnership.''
The monuments and wilderness areas in this legislation are
outside the Department of the Interior's 351,000 acre solar
energy study areas, as well as outside the preliminary 2.7
million acre renewable energy study area that the California
Renewable Energy Action Team is looking at. All 14 Federal
fast-track wind, solar, and transmission projects lie outside
the conservation lands in this bill.
Over 1 million acres of BLM applications for solar, wind,
and geothermal energy projects in California are also outside
this bill's proposed conservation lands. Additionally,
environmentalists support solar energy on hundreds of thousands
of acres of degraded, fallowed, and abandoned farmlands
throughout high-solar insulation areas of the State.
Some opponents of this legislation say the Mojave Trails
National Monument will take a million acres out of potential
solar development. The 468,000 acres of the 941,000 acre
monument are within wildlife management areas and areas of
critical environmental concern, 99 percent of which are
restricted from disturbance.
The 84,000 acres are in the Cady Mountains wilderness study
area and off limits for solar. The 103,000 acres outside of the
areas of critical environmental concern were donated and
pledged for conservation. Of the remaining 283,000 acres, the
vast majority is over 5 percent slope and too steep for solar
or in critical Big Horn sheep wildlife corridors.
Conservationists originally recommended a 2.8 million acre
national monument that was scaled down to 941,000 acres to
accommodate energy projects on the east, west, and south sides
of the monument boundary, many of which would industrialize
donated lands. The Wildlands Conservancy supports the
legislation and its provision for the acquisition of private
inholdings inside Mojave Trails National Monument as a one-to-
one compensation for donated lands outside the monument
repurposed for energy development.
This legislation honors the representations to protect this
land made by President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt, and BLM Director Tom Fry. Ten years
ago, prominent Democrats and Republicans alike saluted this
donation as a patriotic private sector solution. We urge the
committee to support this legislation and to reaffirm America's
tradition of wildlands philanthropy that has expanded national
parks from Acadia to Grand Tetons to the California redwoods.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Myers, Executive Director, The Wildlands
Conservancy, Oak Glen, CA
Ladies and Gentlemen--Good Morning
Senate Bill 2921 will preserve California's last large unprotected
desert landscapes, including the geographic center, as Mojave Trails
National Monument. This legislation will not impact millions of acres
being studied or planned for renewable energy in California.
The Mojave Trails National Monument honors one of America's storied
landscapes. This land includes the Creation Trail that's sacred to all
seven Colorado River tribes. It includes the Mojave Trail, the route
early pioneers forged through the steep red rock canyon walls of Afton
Canyon along the Mojave River. It includes the National Trails Highway,
which John Steinbeck traveled in search of America's soul and dubbed
the Mother Road in The Grapes of Wrath. It covers a vast network of
Jeep roads for exploring, sight seeing, and remote camping amid heroic
scenery with names like: Sleeping Beauty Mountains and Pisgah Lava
Flow. It encompasses hiking trails that wind into Amboy Crater, a
National Natural Landmark; and trails leading to Trilobite fossil beds,
home of 450 million year-old creatures that were among the first living
things on Earth to have eyes. It includes valleys and vistas so vast
that our hopes seem grand and our problems seem small. These iconic
national treasures, including magnificent cactus gardens, are bundled
into the Mojave Trails National Monument.
The Wildlands Conservancy answered our nation's call when Catellus
Development Corporation was selling over 600,000 acres inside Joshua
Tree National Park, Mojave National Preserve, 20 congressionally
designated wilderness areas, and critical wildlife habitat. TWC donated
$45 million in private funds toward acquiring this land, which was
called the largest land gift in American history. This gift became the
hallmark of Vice President Gore's Legacy of the Land Program. Vice
President Gore called these lands ``some of the most pristine and
scenic desert lands in the world.'' He also stated, ``These stunning
California Desert lands are being preserved for future generations
through a true public-private partnership . . . ''
The monuments and wilderness areas in this legislation are outside
of the Department of the Interior's 351,069 acre Solar Energy Study
Areas as well as outside California's preliminary 2,771,807 acre
Renewable Energy Study Area. All 14 federal fast-tracked wind, solar
and transmission projects lie outside the conservation lands in this
bill. Over 1 million acres of BLM applications for solar, wind and
geothermal energy projects in California are outside this bill's
proposed conservation lands. Additionally, environmentalists support
solar energy on hundreds of thousands of acres of degraded, fallowed or
abandoned farmlands throughout high solar insulation areas in
California.
Opponents of this legislation say the Mojave Trails Monument will
take a million acres out of potential solar development.
1. 468,672 acres of the 941,000 acre monument are in Wildlife
Management Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern,
99% of which is restricted from disturbance.
2. 84,400 acres are in the Cady Mountains Wilderness Study
Area and off limits to solar.
3. 103,221 acres that are outside the Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern were donated and pledged for
conservation.
4. Of the remaining 283,707 acres, less than 78,000 acres is
under 5% slope and suitable for solar.
Conservationists initially recommended a 2.8-million-acre national
monument that was scaled down to 941,000 acres to accommodate energy
projects on the east, west, and south sides of the monument boundary,
many of which will industrialize lands donated for conservation. TWC
supports the legislation's provision for the acquisition of private
inholdings inside Mojave Trails National Monument as a one to one land
compensation for donated lands outside the monument repurposed for
energy development.
This legislation honors the representations to protect this land
(which you have copies of) made by President Clinton, Vice President
Gore, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, and BLM Director Tom Fry. Ten
years ago prominent democrats and republicans alike saluted this
donation as a patriotic private sector solution. We can protect
America's natural heritage while developing renewable energy resources.
We must do both.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement.
Mr. Pizarro, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF PEDRO PIZARRO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, POWER
OPERATIONS, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, ROSEMEAD, CA
Mr. Pizarro. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman.
I want to thank you and the rest of the committee for
inviting Southern California Edison to participate here. Our
utility, or our parent company, Edison International, have
worked with you and several of the members of the committee on
renewable-related projects in each of your respective States,
and I thank you for those efforts also.
Importantly, I also want to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein
for her leadership and tireless effort in drafting this bill,
the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. As testimony
today indicates, this legislation impacts a number of very
disparate and sometimes competing interests, and Southern
California Edison applauds Senator Feinstein for working to
address all of these views.
As many of you know, last year, Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger signed an executive order setting a new goal
that 33 percent of California's energy come from renewable
generating sources like wind, solar, and geothermal. I believe
this act will help the State increase its renewable energy
resources in a manner that safeguards our State's natural
beauty and resources.
SCE, again, a subsidiary of Edison International, is
currently country's the largest purchaser of renewable
electricity. In 2009, we delivered 13.7 billion kilowatt hours
of renewable energy, representing approximately 17 percent of
our customers' energy consumption. We are also the leading
purchaser of solar energy, and we procured approximately 65
percent of all U.S. solar generation in 2008.
I am responsible for the procurement, generation, and
delivery of electricity for our customers. As such, a lot of my
time is spent working to increase the company's renewable power
portfolio and ensuring that our high-voltage transmission
system is capable of delivering that renewable power.
The California Desert Protection Act of 2010 protects 1.7
million acres of California desert from development. It should
also help speed up renewable development outside of those
areas, while preserving a corridor for the construction and
upgrade of transmission lines that are needed to bring
renewable power to urban load centers.
There is probably no entity on which these new designations
will have more direct impact than Southern California Edison,
both as a transmission owner and as a purchaser of renewable
resources. I want to assure the committee that SCE would not
support this legislation if we believed, as some critics
suggest, that it would endanger our ability to increase
delivery of renewable energy to our customers.
The actual threat to building transmission comes from the
arbitrary and sometimes draconian nature of the permitting
process. Just as an example, today SCE has energized recently
the first 700 megawatts of one of the most significant
renewable transmission lines in the country, bringing wind and
solar energy from the Tehachapi region to the demand center in
Los Angeles.
We are ready to construct the rest of the 4,500 megawatt
line, but we may face some considerable delay from 11th-hour
concerns raised by a Federal agency. So we understand what it
takes to work to these issues.
SCE believes that the desert renewable energy permitting
provisions of the bill will help expedite the development of
new renewable energy projects. The bill allows projects on
private lands to mitigate environmental impacts by providing
funding to help purchase or rehabilitate additional BLM lands.
SCE also supports provisions establishing deadlines for
action by Federal agencies and holding those agencies
accountable for meeting those deadlines. Just as importantly,
the bill ensures that the agencies have the staff and the
resources to enable them to meet those deadlines, which is
critical.
Finally, SCE appreciates the language in the bill that
expressly authorizes the company to maintain, to upgrade, and
to replace existing transmission and substation facilities in
the monuments, including the development of a new east-to-west
line that has been preliminarily identified through the State
of California's Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, or
RETI, stakeholder process.
I want to take just a moment to point out the extraordinary
steps that Senator Feinstein has taken to build consensus for
this legislation. She led a group of stakeholders including Ted
Craver, the chairman and CEO of Edison International; 2 of
today's panelists, Mr. Myers and Ms. Wald; and others on a tour
of the proposed monument site. Seeing the natural beauty of
California's desert areas made it clear why the Senator is so
passionate about this issue.
Simply put, this legislation is a win-win for the
environment. It will conserve irreplaceable desert lands for
future generations while promoting renewable energy
development. Senator Feinstein is to be commended for her
leadership in developing this very innovative and comprehensive
approach.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pizarro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pedro Pizarro, Executive Vice President, Power
Operations, Southern California Edison, Rosemead, CA
I want to thank Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and
the rest of the Committee for inviting Southern California Edison to
participate in this hearing. I also want to thank Senator Dianne
Feinstein for her leadership and tireless effort in drafting S. 2921,
the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. As today's testimony
indicates, this legislation impacts a number of very disparate and
sometimes competing interests. Southern California Edison applauds
Senator Feinstein for working to address all of these views.
As many of you know, last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
signed an executive order setting a new goal that 33 percent of
California's energy come from renewable generating sources such as
wind, solar, and geothermal. Developing significant new wind and solar
generation while protecting California's natural resources is a big
challenge--especially since most of our state's best renewable areas
lie amidst relatively pristine desert and remote mountain areas. Absent
a thoughtful balancing of interests, doing the right thing by reducing
California's emissions can be the wrong thing for our own desert
natural resources. This legislation does a good job of reconciling
these important and sometimes competing interests in a reasonable way.
I believe the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 will help the
state increase its renewable energy resources in a manner that
safeguards our state's natural beauty and resources.
Southern California Edison (SCE), a subsidiary of Edison
International, is currently the largest purchaser of renewable
electricity in the country. SCE serves about 13 million people and
300,000 businesses over a 50,000 square mile service territory in
southern and central California. In 2009, we delivered 13.7 billion
kilowatt hours of renewable energy, representing approximately 17
percent of our customers' energy consumption. Since 2002, SCE has
entered into 58 contracts that are expected to deliver up to 31.2
billion kilowatt-hours per year of renewable energy. SCE signed
contracts for every major renewable technology: wind, solar,
geothermal, small hydropower and biomass. SCE is the nation's leading
purchaser of solar power, and procured approximately 65 percent of all
U.S. solar generation for its customers in 2008. In February 2009, SCE
executed one of the world's largest solar deals. The series of seven
``power tower'' projects will provide up to 1,300 megawatts of solar
thermal energy; they are to begin producing in San Bernardino County,
California, starting in 2013.
As SCE's Executive Vice President for Power Operations, I am
responsible for the procurement, generation, and delivery of
electricity for our customers. As such, much of my time is spent
working to increase the company's renewable power portfolio and
ensuring that our high voltage transmission system is capable of
delivering that renewable power.
The California Desert Protection Act of 2010 protects 1.7 million
acres of California desert from development. It should also help speed
up renewable development outside of those areas, while preserving a
corridor for the construction and upgrade of transmission lines needed
to bring renewable power to urban load centers.
Senator Feinstein's proposed creation of the Mojave Trails and Sand
to Snow national monuments and the proposed expansion of the Death
Valley, Mojave Preserve and Joshua Tree national parks are all within
SCE's service territory. There is probably no entity on which these new
designations will have more direct impact than Southern California
Edison, both as a transmission owner, and as a purchaser of renewable
resources. We have worked long and hard with Senator Feinstein to make
sure the proposals are good for our customers and employees and will
help us meet the policy goals of the state of California.
I want to assure the Committee that SCE would not support this
legislation if we believed it would endanger our ability to increase
delivery of renewable energy to our customers.
SCE believes that the desert renewable energy permitting provisions
of the bill will help expedite the development of new renewable energy
projects. Some of the most noteworthy aspects of the legislation are
the provisions designed to encourage the development of renewable
projects on previously disturbed private lands through the creation of
Habitat Mitigation Zones in the California Desert Conservation Area.
Currently, when projects impact federally protected species or
their habitat, the process for permitting renewable energy development
on private lands is significantly slower than projects proposed on
public lands, taking years instead of months. The bill addresses this
inequity by allowing projects on private lands to mitigate
environmental impacts by providing funding to help purchase or
rehabilitate additional BLM lands. Use of this money would be guided by
an advisory panel consisting of environmental groups, state and local
governments, and the renewable energy industry.
SCE also supports provisions establishing deadlines for actions by
federal agencies and holding those agencies accountable for meeting
those deadlines. Just as importantly, the bill ensures that the
agencies have the staff and resources to enable them to meet those
deadlines by creating a dedicated revenue stream through solar and wind
leasing revenues.
Finally, SCE appreciates the language in the bill that expressly
authorizes the company to maintain, upgrade, and replace existing
transmission and substation facilities in the monuments, including the
development of a new east-to-west line that has been preliminarily
identified through the State of California's Renewable Energy
Transmission Initiative (RETI) stakeholder process. S. 2921 will both
protect public lands and enable the construction of transmission
projects necessary to support renewable energy development and deliver
clean power to southern California. Specifically, SCE will be able to
expand the current Pisgah switchyard to a new 500 kV substation which
will collect power from renewable projects in the Mojave Desert and
deliver it to California's electric customers. Additionally, the
legislation permits future high voltage transmission lines within the
monuments.
I want to take just a moment to point out the extraordinary steps
that Senator Feinstein has taken to build consensus for this
legislation. She led a group of stakeholders including Ted Craver,
Chairman and CEO of Edison International, two of today's panelists, Mr.
Meyers and Ms. Wald, and others, on a tour of the proposed monument
site. Seeing the natural beauty of California's desert areas made it
clear why Senator Feinstein is so passionate about this issue. This act
would conserve these spectacular and sensitive lands for the benefit
and enjoyment of future generations.
Decisions on where to site generation and transmission facilities
require a delicate balancing act between providing electricity and
protecting the environment. This legislation will help to achieve this
balance. It is a win-win for the environment by conserving pristine
land and promoting renewable energy projects. Senator Feinstein is to
be commended for her leadership in developing a comprehensive approach
that will spur renewable development in California and will provide new
protections for vast portions of the desert.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hubbard.
STATEMENT OF DAVID P. HUBBARD, ESQUIRE, GATZKE, DILLON &
BALLANCE LLP, ESCONDIDO, CA
Mr. Hubbard. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
this opportunity to speak.
Since 2001, I have been legal counsel for a host of off-
highway vehicle groups, and among the many venues visited by my
clients, the deserts of California are, by far, the most
popular. Every year, my clients and their members, along with
millions of other OHV enthusiasts, recreate in the California
deserts, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into local and
regional economies. In fact, without OHV revenue, many of the
little towns in the California desert would dry up and blow
away.
But the last 2 decades have taken a toll on OHV recreation
and other outdoor activities that depend on OHVs for safe
access to remote locations. While OHV sales have increased and
while the number of OHV users continues to rise, the areas
available for OHV recreation and camping have diminished
sharply in both number and size. This has forced OHV users onto
smaller parcels with fewer trails, resulting in more
concentrated impacts on natural and cultural resources.
So it is with great skepticism that my clients receive news
of a fresh piece of legislation seeking to protect the
California desert. Such statutes almost always result in us
having to do more with less.
But every once in a while, there is something new under the
sun. The bill currently under review represents a radical
departure from the way desert land use legislation has
typically been developed. Rather than have a bill shoved down
our throats, Senator Feinstein's staff asked for our input
early and often, as they did with other stakeholders.
The big surprise was not that we had disagreements on some
issues or on the wording of certain provisions. The big
surprise was that we had so much in common. For example, we
agreed that OHV use and camping in the California desert are
important recreational activities and warrant Federal
recognition and protection.
We also agreed that there are some places in the California
desert where OHV use is not appropriate. We agreed that new
monuments and wilderness areas could be created without
reducing existing OHV routes and use areas.
We agreed that renewable energy exploration and development
was critical, but that it need not necessarily trump
conservation areas and efforts or recreational uses. We also
agreed that renewable energy projects needed a better process
for permitting.
We agreed that the military's mission, specifically with
respect to the Twenty-Nine Palms Marine Corps Base, had to be
accommodated in this bill but could be done in a way that was
sensitive to both natural resources and recreational needs.
These agreements did not come easy. They did not come
cheap. People had to compromise. Yet we kept going, and we kept
making progress.
Now there are members of my OHV community who disagree and
who oppose this bill. They don't like it at all. But as much as
I respect their opinion, I think they are missing an
opportunity to recast the old debate between OHV recreation and
environmental protection, and they are also missing a chance to
advance the somewhat more recent debate between public access
and renewable energy development.
In short, they are missing the chance to shape land use in
the California desert for the next 50 years. This bill
represents a new step forward, a paradigm shift that is long
overdue.
A couple of things I wanted to point out. One is that the
bill does not create any new OHV trails or OHV use areas. It
simply preserves the status quo, including trails that exist in
monuments and in wilderness areas, but it doesn't create any
new trails.
With respect to the OHV recreation areas, what it does is
it codifies the existing permitted OHV uses in those areas. It
doesn't create anything new. The point for us is that this is
Federal recognition that OHV recreation is a bona fide and
accepted, under the Federal scheme, use of these public lands.
The last thing I would want to say is that it is up to the
Defense Department to decide whether and to what extent they
need to expand into Johnson Valley. That hasn't been determined
yet. We are more than happy to continue working with the
military and with the Senator's office to find a means where
perhaps a joint use alternative could be accommodated.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard follows:]
Prepared Statement of David P. Hubbard, Esquire, Gatzke, Dillon &
Ballance LLP, Escondido, CA
Introduction
Since 2001, I have been legal counsel for a host of organizations
that engage in off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation throughout the
western United States. Among the venues visited by my clients, the
deserts of California, especially those managed by the federal
government, are the most popular. Every year, my clients and their
members, along with millions of other OHV enthusiasts, recreate in the
California deserts, pumping close to a billion dollars into local and
regional economies.
But the last two decades have taken a toll on OHV recreation and
other outdoor activities that depend on OHVs for safe access to remote
locations. While OHV sales have increased, and while the number of OHV
users continues to rise, the areas available for OHV recreation and
camping have diminished sharply in both number and size. Hundreds of
thousands of acres formerly open to OHV use have been closed in the
last 10 years alone. This has forced OHV users onto smaller parcels
with fewer trails, resulting in more concentrated impacts on natural
and cultural resources. It has also devalued the wilderness experience
for those families who travel to the desert to ride their motorcycles
and quads in a safe and uncrowded environment.
The Process of Developing the ``California Desert Protection Act of
2010''
The trend of closures is a sad and disturbing one for my clients.
Not only do they consider themselves good stewards of the land, they
view OHV recreation as one of those rare activities that allow families
to spend time together outdoors--away from the television and video
games, and away from the drugs and crime and violence which,
unfortunately, characterize life in many California cities and suburbs.
So it is with great skepticism that my clients receive news of a
fresh piece of legislation seeking to ``protect'' the California
Desert. Such statutes almost always cause further erosion of
recreational access to the public lands of the state. My clients are
never consulted, their interests are disregarded, and they are forced
to do more with less.
But every once in awhile, there is something new under the sun.
The bill currently under review--the ``California Desert Protection
Act of 2010''--represents a radical departure from the way desert land
use legislation has typically been developed. Rather than shove the
bill down our throats, Senator Feinstein's staff asked for our input
early and often, and then did the same with other stakeholders,
including key conservation organizations, energy interests, and the
Department of Defense. The big surprise was not that we had
disagreements on some issues and on the wording of certain provisions.
We all kind of expected that. The big surprise was that we had so much
in common.
Let me give you some examples.
We agreed that OHV use and camping in the California Desert
are important recreational activities that warrant federal
recognition and protection.
We agreed that there are some places in the California
Desert where such activities are appropriate and can be enjoyed
with relatively minor environmental impacts.
We agreed that there are some places in the California
desert where OHV use is not appropriate, where the potential
for damage to natural and cultural resources is simply too high
to allow vehicle access.
We agreed that new National Monuments and New Wilderness
Areas could be created without reducing existing OHV routes and
use areas.
We agreed that renewable energy exploration, while important
to the nation and feasible in certain parts of the desert, must
not trump conservation efforts and recreational use.
We agreed that renewable energy project projects deserved a
streamlined permitting process.
We agreed that, with creative land use strategies, the
expansion of the Twenty-Nine Palm Marine Corps Base, which is
vital to our nation's security, could be accomplished without
significant loss of recreational opportunity or natural
resources.
These ``agreements'' did not come easy. Nor did they come cheap.
Everybody had to bend. Everybody had to compromise. There were hurt
feelings, bruised egos, and internal feuds within each stakeholder
camp. Yet we kept it together. We kept moving forward, making
progress--largely because of the excellent leadership of the
legislative staff and the open-mindedness of the groups involved.
Are there members of the OHV community who oppose this bill? Sure.
There are some who hate it, who view it as a travesty and a betrayal.
You will hear from some of them today. But as much as I respect their
opinion, I think they are missing the point. Worse, they are missing a
great opportunity to recast the old debate between OHV recreation and
environmental protection, and advance the somewhat more recent debate
between public access and renewable energy development. In short, they
are missing the chance to shape land use in the California Desert for
the next 50 years. They want to fight the same old battles, using the
same arguments and tactics which, in the past, have failed to produce
enhanced recreational access, improved environmental protection, or a
sound alternative energy policy. The current bill represents a new step
forward--a paradigm shift that is long overdue.
The Benefits of the Proposed Bill
So what did we achieve? Let me highlight a few key provisions that
answer this question. The bill, if approved, would:
Establish the Mojave Trails National Monument and the Sand-
to-Snow Monument. Existing OHV trails in the monuments would be
preserved, but no new trails would be created.
Add Wilderness areas to the Death Valley National Park
(59,264 acres), the San Gorgonio Wilderness (7,141 acres), and
the Bowling Alley Wilderness (30,888 acres).
Establish new Wilderness Areas in the following areas:
--the Avawatz Mountains (86,614 acres)
--Golden Valley (21,633 acres)
--Great Falls Basin (7,871 acres)
--Kingston Range (53,321 acres)
--Soda Mountains (79,376 acres)
Release Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the Cady Mountains,
in Great Falls, and in the Soda Mountains, so that they can be
planned and managed for other purposes consistent with the
``multiple use'' mandate of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act.
Establish a Special Management Area in Vinagre Wash (75,595
acres) that safeguards natural and cultural resources, respects
the OHV access needs of existing residents, and protects Navy
SEAL training areas.
Add land to Death Valley National Park (40,740 acres), the
Mojave National Preserve (29,246 acres), and the Joshua Tree
National Park (2,904 acres).
Establish OHV Recreation Areas at
--El Mirage (25,600 acres)
--Johnson Valley (180,000 acres minus USMC expansion of Twenty-Nine
Palm training base)
--Rasor (24,170 acres)
--Spangler Hills (56,198 acres)
--Stoddard Valley (38,931 acres)
It is important to note that OHV use is currently permitted in each
of these newly-designated Recreation Areas. The new designations would
merely codify the status quo; no new OHV routes or use areas would be
created. However, the bill does instruct the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct studies to determine whether more land might be added to the
OHV Recreation Areas, provided the proposed acquisitions would not
result in resource conflicts.
Renewable Energy, Military Preparedness, and OHV Use
The proposed bill also addresses two other difficult land use
issues in the California Desert--renewable energy development and
military base expansion. With regard to the first, the bill would
improve and streamline the federal permit process for renewable energy
facilities. It also would create a rational method for distributing the
income derived from solar and wind energy projects located on federal
land. Finally, it would allow renewable energy projects to utilize
programmatic Environmental Impact Statements and Land Use Plans, thus
making compliance with NEPA and FLPMA easier, faster, and more cost
effective.
Contrary to what some people have stated, the bill would not
preclude renewable energy development in the OHV Recreation Areas.
Instead, the bill simply requires that energy projects proposed in such
areas be compatible with OHV use. This is not an exceptionally
difficult hurdle to overcome, if the project applicant is willing to
work with the OHV community and BLM. It does, however, operate as a
deterrent to energy speculators who wish merely to tie up desert land
in hopes of ``flipping'' it for a profit.
So please, review the text of the OHV and energy provisions
closely. The bill does not sacrifice renewable energy development at
the altar of OHV recreation; but neither does it allow the recreating
public to be run over by those who want a cheap ride on the renewable
energy bandwagon.
With respect to military base expansion, the bill defers to the
Secretary of the Navy to determine how much land must be added to the
Marine Corps training facility at Twenty-Nine Palms. Indeed, it is very
likely that a significant portion of the newly-designated Johnson
Valley OHV Recreation Area will be lost to the expansion of the base.
This is a substantial impact to the OHV community; but my clients--many
of whom are or were members of the armed services--recognize that when
it comes to preparing American Marines for battle, recreational
interests must yield to those of national security. In addition, the
Marine Corps has worked hard to integrate existing OHV uses into its
land planning vision. As a result, the proposed bill includes a ``joint
use'' provision. Under this provision, the Marine Corps and the
recreating public would both have access to certain areas within
Johnson Valley. Given the challenges that currently face our military,
my clients consider this an acceptable compromise.
Conclusion
In its 178 pages, the proposed bill covers a lot of ground and
tackles many issues that are fraught with conflict. Yet the bill
succeeds because it respects and honors both sides of these long-
standing debates, without getting bogged down in them. Instead, it
builds a new land management regime on a platform of shared interests.
The California Desert is a natural resource, an economic opportunity, a
recreational haven, and a military asset. Senate Bill 2921 allows the
Desert to play each of these roles simultaneously, while minimizing
clashes between them. For that reason, it has earned my clients'
support. We hope it earns yours as well.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baker.
STATEMENT OF HARRY BAKER, VICE PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF 4 WHEEL DRIVE CLUBS, SACREMENTO, CA
Mr. Baker. Thank you.
Good morning. I am Harry Baker, and I am here to give my
organization's views of S. 2921. Thank you for this
opportunity.
We oppose legislation that denies the public's access to
public lands. We represent families and individuals, virtually
anyone that uses a vehicle, including the handicapped, to
access public land be it for work, recreation, sightseeing,
trail head access, film making, or just relaxing.
We are joined in these efforts and in this opposition by
the California Off-Road Vehicle Association. Contrary to what
you may have been told, not all OHV recreationalists support
this bill.
This legislation is really about changing the
classification of public land to please special interest
groups, and not because these lands present an opportunity to
protect a special environment. The proposed new national
monuments will block alternative energy and natural resource
development in areas that have been identified for potential
use.
The management plans that are required for this monument
has the potential to change the current uses and management, as
has happened in monuments like the Carrizo Plains National
Monument in California and the Escalante National Monument in
Utah.
This proposed bill will increase the wilderness acreage in
the California desert, which already has 9 million acres of
wilderness. Not all of this land is designated as being
suitable for wilderness. These new wilderness areas would be on
lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.
While there is language in this legislation that certain
OHV areas will be congressionally protected, there is no
guarantee in this bill that they will remain as open areas, and
that is very critical to the off-road community and the
recreation community. There is nothing in this legislation that
will require that.
We object to language in the bill that would restrict the
amount of acreage that can be set aside for OHV use. One of the
OHV areas, the Johnson Valley OHV area, is being reviewed as an
area for possible expansion of the Twenty-nine Palms Marine
Base. Should this expansion occur, it would severely impact the
amount of acreage available for recreational use. It would cut
it by one third.
The lands being added to the national parks that are now
managed by the BLM as limited use areas. Do we really need to
transfer this land to the National Park Service at this time of
economic decline and incur the added cost of managing this land
by the Park Service? It seems to us that this is not a prudent
use of national taxpayers' money.
This proposed legislation is about more than vehicle use.
It is about alternative energy and national monuments. It is
about limiting public access to public lands, creating a
special interest, removing land from potential alternative
energy development, blocking the military from future expansion
of national defense needs, and ignoring the economic impact to
the surrounding areas.
This proposed legislation is using the terms
``conservation,'' ``recreation,'' ``special management areas,''
and ``renewable energy'' to push a goal of locking up the
California desert. We cannot support legislation which has been
conceived and championed by special interest groups as being
what the majority of Californians need and wants and supports.
We respectfully request that field hearings be held in the
areas that would be affected by this legislation to allow the
local communities and desert visitors to have their voices
heard and that all the current and cumulative financial
ramifications be fully examined.
I did have a map that I brought today. I want to kind of
explain a couple of things on that. One of them is the land use
right now, all the areas that you see in orange, those are
wilderness areas currently in the California desert. The areas
in gray are the military installations. The light yellow is the
BLM-managed land.
This area here in green, this is the proposed national
monument, the Mojave Trails National Monument, and this is the
proposed Sand to Snow National Monument. Huge areas of public
land being locked up from public access.
Yes, the bill right now says that all current uses will
continue. We know that doesn't hold true. There is kind of a
historic precedence set that as soon as a bill becomes or the
land becomes a national monument, steps are taken to change the
management plan, and uses that are in there today are phased
out. We are very concerned about that.
I would like to present that map as testimony in this
presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to have our views
heard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harry Baker, Vice President, California
Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, Sacramento, CA, on S. 2921
The California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs is opposed to S.
2921. We oppose legislation that restricts the public's access to
public lands. We oppose the creation of new National Monuments and
Wilderness areas that withdraw lands from public access and close
existing routes. We oppose the creation of new Wilderness areas that do
not meet the standards of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established
the National Wilderness Preservation System. We oppose legislation that
attempts to close any area or route of travel without verification of
the economic impact to the area. And we oppose legislation that
proposes to use public lands for development on private land.
The California Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs, a state wide
organization, is the largest organization of its type in the United
States. It was founded in 1959 and has over 50 years of service to the
recreating public. The Association works to maintain access to public
lands and promotes responsible use of those lands. Our members come
from all walks of life and economic circumstances. We represent
families and individuals, virtually anyone that uses a vehicle,
including the handicapped, to access public land be it for work,
recreation, sightseeing, trail head access, film making, or just
relaxing.
We are joined in these efforts and in this opposition by the
California Off Road Vehicle Association whose members recently voted to
oppose to this Legislation. We have also received petitions containing
more than 6000 signatures from individuals that use public lands
stating their opposition to this bill. Copies of the petitions have
been provided electronically for the record and are available from our
office.
This proposed legislation, S. 2921 the California Desert Protection
Act of 2010, will limit or curtail those activities or access, by
creating new National Monuments, by setting aside land for Wilderness,
by designating a Special Management Area, by transferring BLM managed
land to the National Park Service and by using public lands as
mitigation for development on private lands. It will have a severe
impact on the local communities, desert residents, hunters, property
owners, miners, wildlife and off-road recreational enthusiasts. The
American taxpayer will be tasked with paying for the enormous cost for
the provisions in this bill.
This legislation is really about changing the classification of
public land, to please special interest groups, and not because these
lands present an opportunity to protect a special environment.
The proposed new National monuments, The Mojave Trails National
Monument, 941,000 acres and the Sand to Snow National Monument, 134,000
acres, will block Alternative Energy and Natural Resource development
in prime areas that has been identified for potential use. They will
block future growth and development and or will create hardships for
any community or individuals in the area of the monuments. The bill
proposes to take land that was purchased by the federal government,
with no caveats, and protect it from development for a special interest
group and thereby eliminating other groups from using it. Any and all
land that is taken out of exploration, recovery or production of
natural resources makes us more dependent on other areas and even
foreign countries, like China, for our future needs.
Proponents will say that all current uses can continue should these
Monuments be approved but we know from experience that this is not the
case. In places like the Carrizo Plains National Monument in California
and the Escalante National Monument in Utah and in other National
Monuments, access has been limited, roads have been closed and time
honored historic uses such as grazing and mining have been eliminated.
This legislation does call for a new management plan for this area that
will set new regulations for the use of the land within the monuments.
We are very concerned that while this legislation calls for the
continued management of the land by the BLM, the management could very
easily be changed to the National Park Service and thereby increase the
cost of managing the land and change the regulations that would govern
it.
This proposed bill would increase the areas that are wilderness in
the California Desert District, which already has more than 9 million
acres of Wilderness. While some of these proposed areas are currently
Wilderness Study Areas, there is additional land being included as
wilderness which in our opinion is an attempt to further restrict
alternative energy development and curtail any future development of
mining, expansion of military bases or any other types of land use.
These new wilderness areas would be on lands managed by the National
Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management. Much of the land that is proposed for wilderness does not
meet the criteria for designation as set forth in the Wilderness Act of
1964 which established the National Wilderness Preservation System.
There are more that 14 million acres of Wilderness in California and we
believe that enough is enough.
There is language in the legislation that certain Off Highway
Vehicle (OHV) areas, but not all of the OHV areas in the Desert
District, will be congressionally protected, but there is no guarantee
that this language will remain in the bill and it has been stated by
Senator Feinstein's staff that the Environmental community is adamantly
opposed to having these areas congressionally designated. There is
nothing in the legislation that would require that the OHV areas would
remain as unrestricted cross country travel ``open'' areas. There is a
requirement for new management plans to be developed or the existing
plans to be reviewed. We object to the language in the bill that would
restrict the amount of acreage that can be set aside for OHV use. The
largest OHV area, proposed for designation is the Johnson Valley OHV
area, which although being considered is not fully protected. It is
under study for possible expansion by the Twentynine Palms Marine Base,
should this expansion occur it would severely impact the amount of
acreage available for recreational use. We believe that a deal has been
made with the Marines to facilitate their expansion into Johnson
Valley, with little concern for the impact that this would have on the
desert communities of Johnson Valley and Lucerne Valley. A Marine Base
expansion into the Johnson Valley area will devastate the local
economy, create a hardship on, and have a severe impact on the way of
life of those citizens living in the surrounding area. While we support
National Defense and the Marines with their need for training, if
expansion is required, we believe that an expansion to the east would
be best. It would have the least impact on the citizens and still
enable the Marines to complete their mission.
The 74,000 acres being added to the National Parks, are now managed
by the BLM as limited use areas. Do we really need to transfer this
land to the National Park Service at this time of economic decline and
incur the added cost of managing that land by the Park service? It
seems to us that this is not a prudent use of the tax payer's money.
A Special Management Area, of 76,000 acres, is proposed of which
49,000 acres will be managed as potential Wilderness. Again we see this
as an attempt to lock up more land in the guise of protection, to block
out alternative energy, other natural resource development and public
access. This special management area and potential wilderness is also
catering to a special interest group which wants the land removed from
potential development.
This legislation also calls for the setting aside of a minimum of
200,000 acres of land, in no specified areas, as mitigation for
alternative energy development on private land. Why should public land
be used to mitigate development on private land? We believe that this
action, should it be approved, will further erode the public's access
to public lands. Alternative energy development should be encouraged on
private land but not at the expense of public lands.
This proposed legislation is about more than vehicle use,
alternative energy and National Monuments, it is about limiting public
access to public lands, catering to special interests, removing land
from potential alternative energy development, blocking the military
from further expansion for national defense needs, and ignoring the
economic impact to the surrounding areas. This proposed legislation is
using the terms; conservation, recreation, special management areas and
renewable energy to push a goal of locking up the California Desert and
ultimately all public lands to all forms of entry and use.
We cannot support legislation which has been conceived and
championed by special interest groups as being what the majority of
Californians need, or wants and supports.
We respectfully request that field hearings be held in the areas
that would be affected by this legislation to allow the local
communities and desert visitors to have their voices heard, and that
all the current and cumulative financial ramifications be fully
examined.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. We are glad to
get the map. Thank you.
Mr. White.
STATEMENT OF V. JOHN WHITE, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES, SACRAMENTO, CA
Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
invitation to be here. My name is John White. I am the director
of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies.
We are a partnership of renewable energy developers and
environmental organizations committed to working on global
warming and air pollution reduction.
This collaboration and the kind of discussion we are having
today is crucial for moving forward with respect to balancing
and integrating our renewable energy goals with resource
protection goals and other uses.
In recent years, we have had a renewal of interest in solar
energy in the desert, along with wind energy, after many years
of being asleep. During the time that we were off on other
adventures, even though we had the early years of development
of renewables in California, the largest solar plant existing
in the world today are in the Mojave Desert. But there hasn't
been any new plants developed since the 1980s.
During the planning period that a lot of the desert
conservation work was done, the solar voice wasn't really much
part of the discussion. So we are grateful to Senator Feinstein
for recognizing the importance of including the renewable
industry in these deliberations, and also we want to note the
extraordinary cooperation that has gone on between the Obama
administration Department of Interior and Governor
Schwarzenegger's administration.
We have an intensive State and Federal planning efforts now
underway, as you noted, with regard to the Renewable Energy
Action Team and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.
In our written testimony, we make some specific suggestions for
how these can be best coordinated. We think a combination of
statutory direction and oversight by the committee is
important.
We have a couple of specific areas that we would like to
commend Senator Feinstein for, particularly her statement this
morning about adding a new solar energy study zone for the west
Mojave area. This is an area that is not affected by the
monument proposal but is an area with significantly better
solar resources than in the east by about 10 percent. It is
also land that is closer to transmission, largely disturbed,
but will require intensive coordination on wildlife management
and also with the military.
We also commend Senator Feinstein for getting the military
to recognize their role with regard to renewable energy
development, as well as with regard to, we hope, helping with
species planning.
The mitigation bank proposal that is included in the
legislation is a very important one, but it needs to be closely
coordinated with the State effort so that the mitigation is put
to its best use. Scarce resources are deployed effectively.
Also we would note that the discussion about moving more
renewable development to private land is a position of the
conservation community and one that we share. However, there
are significant barriers to the development of renewables on
private land, including specifically the issue of coordinating
review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Unless there is a Federal nexus, it can take significantly
longer to get a Fish and Wildlife review on private land. So,
that is an area that we would urge the committee to give some
attention to. We also think that the mitigation bank should be
made available to private--excuse me, to private as well as
public land so that we can, again, coordinate with the ongoing
planning efforts.
California has a really unique resource in this, in solar.
Some of the very best land in the world within 100 miles of 10
million people and all the air conditioning that we need in
southern California. Secretary Salazar, when he was out in
California in March, said that we are the point of the spear in
the Nation's fight to get more renewable energy on the ground.
We are doing an extraordinary amount of coordination and
cooperation between and among all of the various groups and the
agencies, State and Federal, and we urge the Congress to work
with us. Senator Feinstein's legislation can be a vehicle for
ensuring some of that cooperation, although we note the
chairman's leadership also with regard to renewable energy and
transmission, and we would like to see these efforts merged,
coordinated, and overseen once they are passed.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
Prepared Statement of V. John White, Director, Center for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Sacramento,CA
It is with great appreciation and respect that the Center for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT) offers this
testimony regarding the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. CEERT
is a partnership of major environmental groups and private-sector clean
energy companies who strive to advance global warming solutions and
renewable energy policies in California and the West. Collaboration
between environmentalists and renewable energy developers, among other
stakeholders, is crucial for the holistic planning and protection of
California's desert resources, so our organization appreciates the
opportunity to present our views on how to improve this important
legislation.
California and the Federal Government have a long history of desert
conservation that spans the legacy of the late Senator Alan Cranston
and culminated with the passage of Senator Feinstein's California
Desert Protection Act in 1994. In addition to Senator Feinstein's
legislation, the Bureau of Land Management adopted the West Mojave
Management Plan, which further restricts development in the critically
important West Mojave; home to some of the best solar radiation land in
the United States. These desert protection efforts, while critically
important for wildlife conservation, wilderness and recreation
interests, largely failed to consider or evaluate future development
needs and opportunities for the abundant and strategic renewable
resources which lie within California's desert.
Even though California launched the global wind and solar
industries in the 1980's, our state and the federal government fell
asleep shortly thereafter, lulled by low energy prices and electricity
deregulation. When desert conservation and recreation planning efforts
were launched in the 1990's in California, everyone was at the table
except the renewable energy industry and renewable energy advocates.
Consequently, vast tracts of land were set aside for habitat
conservation for protected species, along with expansion of military
lands, recreation, and wilderness. But virtually no land was reserved
for renewable energy in areas with some of the highest solar radiation
in the world. This failure to identify and reserve areas for solar and
wind development has come back to haunt California and jeopardize the
strategic national interest in renewable energy.
In recent years, the return of high oil prices and global attention
to climate change sparked a revival in renewable energy. A solar land
rush resulted in a flood of speculative lease applications on the
Bureau of Land Management's desert lands at the end of the Bush
Administration. More than a million acres of lease applications were
filed, with no effort by BLM to weed out speculators and paper
projects. The desert conservation community became alarmed, which
prompted calls for a moratorium on lease applications and late but
comprehensive solar planning initiatives by BLM.
Our failure to plan for large-scale solar development, combined
with the continuing expansion of protected lands for desert
conservation, recreation, and military training, has exposed us to the
possibility that much of the most productive high solar radiation land
in the state has already been taken off the table. As a result, we are
struggling to find a way to integrate and balance environmental
conservation and recreational needs with the imperative to develop and
reserve our extraordinary renewable resources in the desert.
We support the protection of lands for conservation purposes, but
believe that protection should be accorded for those lands that have
true conservation value, not just all lands that are available for that
purpose. In so doing, we can prioritize our conservation objectives
without unnecessarily eliminating the best sites for solar and wind
energy. As Congress takes on energy legislation over the coming months,
and examines the need to increase our long-term domestic energy supply,
we must think about the most sustainable path toward energy
independence. The California Desert is a national resource which we
feel should be considered for long-term energy needs, especially as we
discuss reopening other areas of national significance for oil and gas
exploration.
Part of the challenge involves identifying areas where renewable
development would not be restricted due to other designations and
protections. Of public lands in the California desert, 4.8 Million
acres are protected for the Desert Tortoise and 1.7 Million acres for
the Mohave Ground Squirrel, a state-protected species. Although the
Mohave Ground Squirrel management area allows 1% of the covered land
for development, BLM has, so far, been unwilling to designate even a
fraction of 1% of this land for solar development in this most valuable
solar resource area. Seven hundred thousand acres are open to off-
highway vehicle use. Furthermore, two large military training
facilities lie within in the most productive and valuable solar lands
in the Mojave Desert; China Lake and Edwards Air Force Base, which
together comprise 1.4 Million acres.
For these reasons, we strongly urge the Committee and Senator
Feinstein to direct the BLM to revisit the West Mojave Plan's
provisions limiting solar development. This review of the West Mojave
Management Plan should consider the best available scientific
information on habitat and species protection, and take into account
the availability of disturbed land with very high solar radiation
levels, which is also close to electric transmission lines.
We would also urge the Committee and Senator Feinstein to encourage
BLM to clear out speculative lease applications and those which
represent projects which are not moving forward, and only approve those
projects which are commercially feasible and have a reasonable
expectation of being developed.
In order to reach the 2020 goal of 33% renewable energy, California
needs to develop fifty to one hundred thousand acres of prime solar
land in the desert (ideally previously disturbed land with high solar
radiation). To achieve the 2050 climate goal, approximately 350,000
acres of desert land are needed for development. The amount of land
that should be considered for renewable energy development is quite
small in comparison to land that has already been conserved for other
purposes. And although BLM has set aside around 200,000 for a PEIS
study area in Riverside East, one BLM field manager has suggested that
a maximum of one-eighth of that area could be developed while avoiding
environmentally sensitive lands, leaving the need for developable solar
lands unmet.
Of course, the sun is not the only extraordinary renewable resource
found in California's Desert, and so we urge the Committee and Senator
Feinstein to consider the area's other renewable resources alongside
other desert attributes. For example, we understand that the California
Wind Energy Association (CalWEA) has proposed very minor adjustments to
the Monument's border areas, mostly on already disturbed lands, which
would preserve the viability of four projects totaling 1,300 MW. We
suggest consideration of all renewable resources in future planning
efforts in the desert.
To limit reliance on public lands for renewable energy development,
the conservation community often suggests construction of renewable
energy facilities on private land. A number of barriers require
attention in order to make development on private lands a viable
option. First, if no federal nexus exists (i.e. the project is not on
federal lands), Section 10 consultation by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service is necessary. Renewable project developers tell us that this
takes significantly longer than a Section 7 consultation; and can take
as long as 7-10 years. This creates a practical disincentive not to
develop on private lands. Furthermore, the extreme parcelization of the
region to multiple landowners-often over 100 per square mile-severely
limits the acquisition of plots of private land large enough to sustain
a large-scale renewable electricity generation facility.
We are encouraged by the leadership and cooperation provided by
Secretary Salazar and Governor Schwarzenegger in achieving an
unprecedented level of interagency cooperation on renewable project
permitting, and for integrating conservation and renewable resource
planning. We look forward to sustaining and expanding this cooperation,
and extending it to the recently initiated California Desert Renewable
Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). In addition, California recently
enacted Senate Bill 34, which requires the California Department of
Fish and Game to develop a funded interim mitigation strategy for
``fast-track'' renewable energy projects in the desert.
Section 205 of the California Desert Protection Act of 2010
establishes an innovative mitigation banking system to encourage
development of renewable energy projects on private lands, which may
help remedy the Section 7 issue we identified earlier. This language
was drafted prior to the initiation of the DRECP and enactment of SB
34, and therefore should be modified so as not to undermine the current
rigorous scientific and consensus-building planning efforts in
California. More specifically:
Design and implementation of the proposed federal mitigation
program should be coordinated with the DRECP. Upon completion
and approval of the DRECP by the BLM, the mitigation program
should be subsumed into the DRECP conservation structure.
Design and implementation of the proposed federal mitigation
program should coordinate with the California Department of
Fish and Game's (DFG) interim mitigation strategy, per
California Senate Bill 34, so that any land acquisition or
other mitigation actions identified by BLM for conservation are
done in collaboration with DFG's strategy. This modification
will prevent any overlap and potential conflict between
separate mitigation efforts.
The cap to limit the mitigation payments for land
acquisition to 75% of the fair market cost of purchasing the
acreage needs to be changed to 100% of fair market value in
order to ensure conformance with the developing DRECP and the
state's interim mitigation strategy. This will ensure that it
does not unintentionally limit the use of this fund for
projects.
The Mitigation Council should include one representative
from the DRECP.
This section should apply to all projects, not just those
located on private land.
All funds provided by BLM land rents or leases should
support conservation and should be directed toward mitigation,
monitoring, and management.
We are grateful to Senator Feinstein that a number of elements of
the proposed legislation will assist the state, region, and country in
identification and development of solar development lands. We applaud
the designation of Renewable Energy Coordination Offices throughout the
west to accelerate the issuance of federal permits for renewable energy
projects and transmission lines to integrate renewable energy
development. This will accelerate the often sluggish permitting
process. Additionally, we support the proposed establishment the
California Desert Mitigation Bank Pilot Program, under which eligible
lands in the California Desert Conservation Area will be made available
as habitat mitigation zones for the development of renewable energy
projects on non-federal land. Because of the noted constraints on
development on private land, we would respectfully urge the mitigation
bank be made available to projects on federal land as well. Finally, we
support the proposed statute's requirement for a study analyzing the
impacts of a program to develop renewable electricity generation
projects on military installations in California and Nevada.
Identifying the potential for development in these areas will be a key
first step in building a productive partnership between the renewable
energy industry and the Department of Defense.
In conclusion, CEERT strongly believes that we can achieve the
proper balance between desert protection and renewable energy
development, recognizing the multiple uses demanding land in the
desert. We support the protection of valuable habitat and historical
viewsheds. We appreciate Senator Feinstein's significant efforts to
ensure timely and orderly renewable energy development in the desert,
and hope that land use restrictions will be based on conservation value
and best available science, while taking into account the most valuable
solar and other renewable energy resources. In order to more
effectively manage the needs of various stakeholders and desert
resources, and to identify the appropriate lands for solar development
in such a rich and important region, we urge every effort be made to
improve consistency with ongoing state and federal planning and
permitting. Such cooperation has already advanced the dialogue between
parties within the region, and will continue to shape the sustainable
management of desert character and resources in the future.
We commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership in protecting
California's fragile and extraordinary desert resources, and for her
and the Committee's willingness to listen and respond to the
constructive suggestions from the wide variety of citizens and
interests seeking to coexist in a manner that preserves the desert's
environment.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wald, you are the final witness. Thank you for being
here.
STATEMENT OF JOHANNA WALD, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Ms. Wald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
invitation to appear today.
I am Johanna Wald, and I am a senior attorney with the
Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC is a national nonprofit
environmental organization, which has worked for 4 decades to
protect lands managed by the Department of Interior's Bureau of
Land Management and to promote sustainable energy policies.
NRDC supports the overarching goals of S. 2921 to protect
unique and special places on the public lands while
facilitating renewable development on appropriate areas, and we
commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership on these issues.
At the same time, we have some serious concerns about the
energy title that we would like to work with this committee and
the Senator to resolve.
Like Senator Feinstein, NRDC believes that we do not need
to sacrifice special places on public lands to obtain the
renewable energy necessary to meet the unprecedented challenge
of global warming. Not all lands in the California desert are
appropriate for renewable energy or other development, and the
protections this bill would extend to wildlands and wild rivers
in the desert are certainly warranted.
Like the Senator, NRDC believes we need to develop
renewable energy as quickly as possible to address global
warming. However, we must do that development right, whether on
public or private lands. We must put more emphasis on
conservation, efficiency, and distributed generation, and we
must have sound environmentally responsible renewable energy
programs.
More specifically, we must have a renewable energy program
for the public lands that ensures that necessary development
takes place on appropriate areas and that allows the Secretary
of the Interior and BLM to learn from experience gained in the
permitting and operation of solar and wind projects.
The Interior Department and administration have said that
they want this kind of program. But BLM and Interior have very
little experience with these technologies. What is more, the
scale of these projects is unprecedented, and we do not yet
know the full range of their impacts.
BLM and Interior are learning, though, and we should expect
them to adapt their environmental reviews, decision-making, and
policies to reflect what they learn from the permitting and
operating of these projects. So, our fundamental concern with
the energy title is that it would legislate key components of a
renewables program for the public lands at the very beginning
of its life rather than allow the agencies to learn from
experience.
For example, the bill would impose very tight deadlines on
BLM review of permit applications, jeopardizing the quality of
those reviews. Rather than locking in deadlines, Congress
should tell the Secretary to establish deadlines and report
back on their effectiveness.
The bill would also legislate a categorical exclusion for
the National Environmental Policy Act for certain wind and
solar testing projects. This is unwise and unnecessary.
Interior has authority underneath it to establish categorical
exclusions where appropriate, and BLM has already decided that
an administrative exclusion can be used for wind testing
projects under certain circumstances.
Similarly, the bill would legislate baseline statistics
that BLM would have to use in calculating rental fees for solar
projects. We are concerned that the specified statistics will
undervalue public lands. Instead, the Secretary should retain
the authority to set an appropriate fee for solar projects,
which is the approach the bill takes for wind projects.
We are also very concerned about the fact that this bill
accepts the right-of-way system as the basis for allocating
wind and solar development rights on public lands. We
understand the bill aims to enhance this system, which is what
BLM is using now, but we are concerned that it would, in
effect, codify a system with known shortcomings.
Instead, Congress should clearly acknowledge that a more
robust, not simply a faster system, such as competitive
leasing, is needed and give the Secretary discretion to adopt
such a system. Our written testimony goes into greater detail
about these and other aspects of the bill.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation and for
your consideration of our views.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Johanna Wald, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources
Defense Council, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the invitation to testify today regarding S. 2921,
the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. My name is Johanna Wald,
and I am a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC). NRDC is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists,
lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public
health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1.3
million members and online activists nationwide, served from offices in
New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and
Beijing.
Introduction
NRDC has a long history of efforts to protect and conserve the
nation's federal lands and resources, including the lands and resources
managed by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
in California and other western states. In addition, we have an
extensive history of advocacy promoting the increased use of energy
efficiency and renewable energy sources to meet the nation's energy
needs. NRDC believes the nation must transition away from fossil fuels
as quickly as possible in response to the unprecedented threats posed
by global warming. We must employ energy efficiency, conservation and
demand side management practices, and develop clean renewable energy at
multiple scales, from distributed generation to utility scale renewable
energy projects to reduce the nation's output of greenhouse gas
pollution.
The three main points that we will make in our testimony today are
as follows:
1. The nation does not need to sacrifice special and unique
places on the public lands to still have renewable energy on
public lands--energy that we need to address the climate
challenge.
2. We do need to develop renewable energy as quickly as we
can, because of the unprecedented threat posed by global
warming to natural resources as well as public health and
wellbeing, and because treasured natural resources are already
suffering the effects of warming.
3. We need a renewable energy program for the public lands
that ensures that necessary development takes place in
appropriate areas and that allows the Secretary of the Interior
and the BLM to learn from and adapt to experience gained in the
permitting and operation of renewable energy projects.
I. We do Not Have to Make a Choice
The President has expressed clear and strong support for the public
lands to play a critical role in his vision of a clean energy economy.
For almost three years, NRDC has been heavily engaged in efforts at the
national level as well as in the West, and particularly in California,
to ensure that renewable energy development on these lands will take
place in a balanced and environmentally responsible manner. We
affirmatively support the twin goals of Senator Feinstein's
legislation--to protect unique and sensitive publicly-owned wildlands
in California while simultaneously lighting the way toward a cleaner
energy future. We commend her for the leadership she has shown in
advancing these goals.
Senator Feinstein's legislation is an important step toward
balancing America's need to shift to clean energy as quickly as
possible with the need to protect our precious wildlands. Coupled with
support for its goals, however, we remain concerned about some aspects
of the Energy title, Title II, which addresses features of renewable
energy planning and siting. It is those concerns that our testimony
will focus chiefly on today.
To summarize our views, we believe that this Title would legislate
matters that should be left to the discretion of the Secretary of the
Interior, given the fact that renewables development on the public
lands is in its infancy. The Interior Department, the BLM and indeed
the nation would benefit greatly from the ability to learn from and
adapt to experience gained with the permitting and operation of these
new projects. We very much look forward to working with the Senator and
with Committee members to address our general and specific concerns
going forward.
As indicated, NRDC agrees with the overarching goals of the
Senator's legislation. First, we believe that our country does not have
to choose between protecting our special places and having the
renewable energy that we need to address the climate challenge. Senator
Feinstein knows this as well and it is reflected in her bill.
The California Desert is a unique and special environment, as
Congress recognized more than 30 years ago when it enacted the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and established the
California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA).\1\ This vast landscape is
home to diverse biological communities, scenic and wild places, and
other resources including significant renewable resources. Not all of
the lands in the Desert are appropriate for renewable energy--or other
economic development--and the protections that the Senator's bill would
extend to important wild areas and wild rivers as well as the lands
within the two new National Monuments are certainly warranted.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1781(a)(1)-(4). Upon passing this
legislation, Congress found the following:
(1) the California desert contains historical, scenic,
archeological, environmental, biological, cultural, scientific,
educational, recreational, and economic resources that are uniquely
located adjacent to an area of large population;
(2) the California desert environment is a total ecosystem that
is extremely fragile, easily scarred, and slowly healed;
(3) the California desert environment and its resources,
including certain rare and endangered species of wildlife, plants, and
fishes, and numerous archeological and historic sites, are seriously
threatened by air pollution, inadequate Federal management authority,
and pressures of increased use, particularly recreational use, which
are certain to intensify because of the rapidly growing population of
southern California;
(4) the use of all California desert resources can and should be
provided for in a multiple use and sustained yield management plant to
conserve these resources for future generations, and to provide present
and future use and ejoyment, particularly outdoor recreation uses,
including the use, where appropriate, of off-road recreational vehicles
. . .
Id.
\2\ Other positive aspects of title I of this legislation include
its recognition of the need to allow for the possibility of
transmission expansion in the new monuments: it may be necessary to
transmit renewable energy produced on appropriate sites outside of the
monuments or outside the state to population centers of southern
California to meet the state's ambitious renewable goals (although we
believe that the bill's language on this issue can be improved.)
Futhermore, NRDC welcomes the Senator's acknowledgement of the
importance of addressing the equitable interests of legitimate solar
developers with proposed projects within the new monuments. See S.
2921, Sec. 101(a) (amending the California Desert Protection Act of
1994, Pub. L. 103-433 (1994) to add Section 1307, which grants
applicants who meet specified terms a ``right of first refusal'' in
solar energy zones to be designated by BLM). With other organizations,
NRDC advocated for such a provision for companies which have invested
substantially in areas with BLM's encouragement (although again we
believe that the proposed statutory language can be improved). Lastly,
as an organization with a longstanding interest in the BLM's
administration of grazing privately-owned livestock on the public
lands, we also appreciate Senator Feinstein's inclusion of provisions
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to permanently retire grazing
permits within the Mojave Trails National Monument and to prohibit
grazing on lands within the CDCA that were acquired using federal funds
or donated funds. See Section 101(a) (amending the Sections 1304(c)(3)
and 1904(b)(2)(C) of the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, Pub.
L. 103-433 (1994)) (although, to be sure, we would have preferred this
grant be for the entire California Desert Conservation Area).
On the other hand, we are very troubled by the proposal to
legislatively designate permanent off-highway vehicle recreation areas.
In our view, land use decisions such as these are better left to land
management agencies to make through their established planning
processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Renewable Energy is Needed as Quickly as Possible due to Climate
Change
We agree with Senator Feinstein that the nation needs to increase
the generation and use of renewable energy as quickly as we can. The
devastating and ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico provides tragic
evidence of the need to break our nation's addiction to fossil fuels.
What is more, global warming itself represents an unprecedented
threat to the survival of ecosystems and wildlife, including publicly
owned resources, and the human communities that depend on those
resources. Indeed, distinctive resources of publicly-owned lands in
California and elsewhere are already suffering the impacts of global
warming. To take just two examples: conifer forests and pikas, small
chinchilla-like animals, are moving uphill in places like Yosemite
National Park to escape warming temperatures. Joshua trees may not
persist much longer in Joshua Tree National Park and other high desert
areas because of climate warming.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Stephen Saunders, Tom Easley, Dr. Jesse A. Logan, & Theo
Spencer, Losing Ground: Western National Parks Endangered by Climate
Disruption (Rocky Mtn. Climate Org. & NRDC), July, 2006, at 6, 11,
available at http://www.nrdc.org/land/parks/gw/gw.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, while the nation needs renewable energy quickly, we must
ensure that its development is done right. We are at the very beginning
of a new era, one which will culminate with the transformation of this
country's economy from one based on fossil fuels to one based on clean
and green energy. To ensure that this new economy has the soundest
possible footing, we must be ``smart from the start'' in where and how
we obtain that energy, whether on private or public lands. We must not
only put more emphasis on conservation, efficiency, demand side
management and distributed generation, we must have sound,
environmentally responsible renewable energy development programs.
The Interior Department and the Obama administration have expressed
a clear desire to have an environmentally responsible renewable energy
program for our public lands--and NRDC, is committed to helping them
achieve this objective. Developing such a program is a challenge,
however. We are talking about new technologies with which the Interior
Department and the BLM have very little experience. The Bureau has only
just begun permitting these new technologies: as of this date, no solar
projects have been permitted and only 202 wind projects have been
approved on the public lands\4\--representing less than two percent of
the total installed wind capacity within the nation.\5\ What is more,
the scale of these projects is unprecedented--one of the proposed solar
projects in California that the BLM is reviewing at this time involves
more than 7,000 acres, and the average footprint of the solar projects
now under review is about 5,000 acres.\6\ Given the scale of these
projects alone, we really cannot know what the full range of impacts
might be. Because so few of these projects have been permitted, BLM and
other federal agency staff have almost no experience in predicting
their impacts, in developing best management practices or in evaluating
the efficacy of such practices and mitigation measures. In short they
have little to no expertise in renewables development on the lands
under their jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Figures based on right-of-way authorizations through fiscal
year 2009. See BLM, DEP'T OF THE INTERIOR, BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS AND
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FISCAL YEAR 2001 (IV-165 (2010), available at
http://www.doi.gov/budget/2011/data/greenbook/FY2011_BLM_Greenbook.pdf
\5\ In fiscal year 2009, the BLM administered 427 megawatts of
installed wind capacity. In comparison, the nation has 29,440 megawatts
of total installed wind capacity. See id. at I-20.
\6\ See BLM, Fast-Track Renewable Energy Projects, May 7, 2010,
http://www/blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy/fast-
track_renewable.html (providing a frequently updated list of projects
receiving fast-track review by the BLM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are learning, however, and NRDC and other members of the
environmental community are expecting that they will learn a great deal
from the experiences that they are having in permitting the fast-track
projects--that is, those projects that are potentially eligible for
approval by December 2010 and thus for funding under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In California, the BLM is not
only gaining experience in permitting projects on lands it manages, it
is learning how to work with state agencies--and particularly the
California Energy Commission and the California Department of Fish and
Game--in new and effective ways that we believe will ultimately help
speed the approval and construction of renewables projects on not just
public lands within the state and elsewhere, but also private lands.
As indicated, we appreciate and share the goal of the energy title
of the Senator's bill--namely to speed development of renewable energy
on appropriate public lands, including lands managed by the U.S. Forest
Service and Department of Defense, as well as BLM. This title
incorporates a number of praiseworthy concepts including its
recognition that the lands managed by the Bureau are not the only
federal lands that should help the nation meet its needs for renewable
energy. See S. 2921, Sec. Sec. 203-204 (requiring the Forest Service
and the Defense Department to prepare programmatic NEPA documents
assessing the suitability of federal lands under their respective
jurisdictions for renewable energy development).
The bill also includes language to address the significant backlog
of solar applications that accumulated during the last administration,
and specifically provisions aimed at weeding out applications for
renewable generation projects that are either speculative in nature or
proposed in locations that are unsuitable for development. See S. 2921
Sec. 202 (providing for deadlines for applicants and direct authority
for the Secretary of the Interior to screen applications for
significant resource conflicts). It is our understanding that there are
projects of both types now pending in California. To achieve a rapid
transition to a clean energy economy, investments of federal staff and
resources must go to viable proposals whose proponents have recognized
the value of getting projects on line quickly by avoiding and
minimizing adverse environmental impacts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We were also pleased to see the inclusion of provisions that
aim to promote advanced, high-efficiency electricity transmission in
Section 209, and that recognize the importance of using some of the
revenues from renewable energy development on public lands for
conservation purposes. See S. 2921 Sec. 201(k)(ii)(directing a
significant sum of those revenues to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) beginning in 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Renewable Siting--Smart From the Start
At the same time, however, and as noted above, the Energy Title
raises some serious concerns that we would like to work with the
Committee to resolve.
Our fundamental concern with this title is that it seeks to
legislate key components of a renewable energy program for the public
lands at the very beginning of its life, rather than allow the federal
agencies to learn from and adapt to experience gained in both the
permitting process and the operation of these projects going forward.
For example, Section 202 of the bill seeks to legislate ambitious
and ill-conceived deadlines for BLM review of permit applications,
placing a heavy resource burden on the agency, while also jeopardizing
the quality of its environmental reviews. Rather than locking in
deadlines for these critically important reviews, we believe that the
Secretary of the Interior should be required to establish appropriate
deadlines and to report to Congress on the effectiveness of those
deadlines once established.
In addition, the bill seeks to establish a class of wind and solar
testing projects that would be eligible for categorical exclusion (CE)
from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
conservation community is very critical of efforts to legislate CEs and
with good reason: historically they have created confusion and resulted
in administrative abuses.\8\ What is more, such exclusions do not
necessarily guarantee expedited development would occur for numerous
reasons, including the increased likelihood of litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Gov't Accountabilitability Office, Energy Policy Act of
2005: Greater Clarity Needed to Address Concerns with Categorical
Exclusions for Oil and Gas Development Under Section 390, GAO-09-872,
at 30 (2009). (referring to the CE created by Section 390 of the Energy
Policy Act, GAO found that ``BLM's use of section 390 categorical
exclusions has frequently been out of compliance with both the law and
BLM' guidance . . . ''). The report further found that ``[a]lack of
clear guidance and oversight contributed to the violations and
noncompliance. While many of these are technical in nature, others are
more significant and may have thwarted NEPA's twin aims of ensuring
that BLM and the public are fully informed of the environmental
consequences of BLM's actions.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC has a long history of opposing attempts to legislate CEs and
we oppose this one. Not only is it bad policy, it is also unnecessary.
The Interior Department has broad discretion under NEPA to establish
administrative CEs where appropriate, including in connection with
proposed renewable energy activities. Furthermore, as a consequence of
BLM's Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement,\9\ the Bureau considered the extent and breadth of such
proposed activities for wind resources at a policy level. Through that
process, the Bureau established that an administrative CE can be
applied to meteorological testing of wind under certain
circumstances.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 71 FR 1768
\10\ See BLM, Dep't of the Interior, Inst. Memo. No. 2009-043, Wind
Energy Development Policy (Dec. 19, 2008) (expiring on September 30,
2010), available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/
Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-
043.html. BLM, Dep't of the Interior, H-1790-1, National Environmental
Policy Handbook, 152 (2008), available at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/
etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/
blm_handbook.Par.24487.File.dat/h1790-1-2008-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the bill seeks to legislate the baseline statistics that
BLM must use in determining the fair market value of public lands and
thus the rental fees to be charged solar energy developers. See S. 2921
Sec. 201(k)(2)(A). We are concerned that the specified statistics--
from the National Agricultural Statistical Service--will likely
undervalue the public lands because they are derived from activities
unrelated to energy production of any kind, such as dryland
agriculture. Rather than encourage undervaluation of these lands,
Congress must ensure that DOI receives fair market value when the right
to develop public lands for wind and solar resources is conveyed to
private interests.
Traditionally, energy development on the public lands has been
governed by a system that addresses both the need to recompense
American taxpayers fairly for the loss of a limited resource (surface
area, subsurface minerals, or both) and the need to compensate
taxpayers for the loss of other uses of the area subject to
development. This legislation does not address the issue of a royalty--
which would compensate for loss of other uses. We understand the
Secretary is now contemplating such a policy. NRDC would support a
royalty system as part of a comprehensive program for the development
of renewables on public lands. At a minimum, rather than require use of
the specified baseline metrics which would discount the value of lands
allocated to renewable development, Congress should ensure that the
Secretary retains the discretion to determine an appropriate fee at an
appropriate time. In fact, that is the approach the bill takes for wind
projects. See S. 2921 Sec. 201(k)(2)(B) (providing that the Secretary
shall establish a fee schedule).
We are also extremely concerned about the fact that this
legislation is predicated on an historic realty-based system--the right
of way system codified in Title V of FLPMA--as the basis for allocating
wind and solar development rights on public lands. While we understand
that the aim of the legislation is to enhance this system, which is the
one the BLM is currently using, we are concerned that it would instead
in effect codify the system--even though its utility for use in
authorizing large scale renewable developments is unproven and it has a
number of structural flaws that make it ill-suited for the long-term
management of solar and wind resources.
For one, the right of way system was designed to issue conveyances
for linear facilities such as irrigation ditches, roads and
pipelines.\11\ As well, the system is agnostic about ensuring that the
best energy resources are chosen and planned for development. Rather,
the process of developing these energy resources is dependent on the
priorities of an administration. Whatever emphasis a particular
administration may or may not place on approving projects can be the
determinant factor for success or not. This also means that strategic
decisions to develop the best available energy resources are often
foregone. That is, often the system does not attempt to ensure that the
types of projects considered are actually the most suitable for
approval and will produce the greatest dividends. Additionally, terms
of approval can be changed arbitrarily, which undermines the type of
long-term economic certainty these kinds of projects require. Lastly,
the system does not ensure that taxpayers receive a fair share of
revenues in allocating public assets to private enterprises. This also
means that mitigation payments and other reclamation assurances are not
guaranteed in the current right of way system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 43 CFR Sec. 2801.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than reinforce use of the right of way system, we think
Congress should clearly acknowledge that a more robust--not simply a
faster--system, such as competitive leasing, is needed and the
Secretary should be given the discretion to develop and update as
appropriate such a system. In this regard, we commend to the
Committee's attention Section 366 of S. 1462, the American Clean Energy
Leadership Act of 2009.
Last but not least, we are concerned about Section 205 of the bill
which would establish a creative mitigation banking system to encourage
development of renewable energy projects on private lands in
California. NRDC supports the goal of this section because we believe
that renewable development should not be limited to public lands, but
rather should be balanced between private and public lands. This
section was drafted prior to the start of the Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan (DRECP)--a major effort involving the state and
federal governments and multiple stakeholders, including members of the
conservation community and renewable developers, to identify
appropriate zones for renewable development and for conservation along
with a comprehensive mitigation strategy for public and private lands
in the California Desert. The DRECP's first official meeting occurred
in March of this year with the first meeting of its independent science
advisors' panel occurring in April.
The bill was also drafted prior to the enactment, in March, 2010,
of California's Senate Bill 34, which requires the California
Department of Fish and Game to develop an interim mitigation strategy
for ``fast track'' renewable energy projects in the Desert.\12\ Under
these circumstances, we urge that careful consideration be given to
ensure that this section does not undermine the rigorous scientific and
public participation requirements that the DRECP is subject to under
the State's Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act of 1991.
Provisions of particular concern include Section 205(d)(3)(C)(i), which
provides that only 75% of the cost of acquiring mitigation lands need
to be paid by participants. We also urge that consideration also be
given to ensuring that the 200,000 acres or more of land required to be
identified as part of this mitigation banking system under Section
205(c)(1) is done in collaboration and consistent with state mitigation
and planning efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Cal, S.B. 34 (2010). The California Senate reported that the
bill, S.B. 34, would authorize the [California Department of Fish and
Game], in consultation with the Energy Commission and, to the extent
practicable, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and United
States Bureau of Land Management, to design and implement actions to
protect, restore, or enhance the habitat of plants and wildlife that
can be used to fully m itigate the impacts of the take of endangered,
threatened, or candidate species (mitigation actions) resulting from
certain solar thermal and photovoltaic powerplants in the planning area
of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as defined. The bill
would establish the Renewable Energy Resources Development Fee Trust
Fund as a continuously appropriated fund in the State Treasury to
serve, and be managed, as an optional, voluntary method for developers
or owners of eligible projects, as defined, to deposit fees sufficient
to complete mitigation actions established by the department and
thereby meet their requirements pursuant to CESA or the certification
authority of the Energy Commisssion.
Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
In conclusion, NRDC supports the goals of Senator Feinstein's
legislation and believes that it is an important step toward balancing
America's need to shift to clean energy with the need to protect unique
and sensitive lands. We stand ready to work to resolve the concerns
detailed above with the Senator and with this Committee.
Thank you for considering our views.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I just have a few questions. Mr. Myers, as I read this, the
legislation establishing the monuments, it seems that current
uses of these areas are expressly allowed to continue,
including hunting, off-road vehicle recreation in certain
areas, electric transmission rights-of-way, grazing. The one
thing which would be prevented, of course, is the sighting of
renewable energy projects in these areas.
Is that the main thrust of the legislation or the
establishment of these monuments, as you would see it?
Mr. Myers. Yes. The goal is to preserve the status quo. The
status quo is a product of many years of public hearings, both
with BLM and at a local level, and nobody has disputed these
uses over the last 10 years, and these existing uses have all
been challenged by renewable energy projects that would
displace them. So the goal of this is not to change the
existing recreational uses of these lands.
The Chairman. Ms. Wald, let me ask you, I put a question to
the earlier panel about whether or not it was premature for us
to be legislating all of the various things that are in this
legislation, particularly with regard to the permitting of
renewable energy projects on Federal land. It seems as though
that is somewhat the gist of your testimony.
You seem to be saying let us let the Federal land managers
develop and refine their permitting system before we step in
and try to legislate or prescribe how it would work in detail.
Is that a correct paraphrasing of what your testimony is?
Ms. Wald. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. These technologies,
these projects, these programs are in their infancy now on
public lands. We think it is appropriate for the Interior
Department to be given the opportunity to develop experience--
gain experience and develop the expertise in permitting these
projects and in seeing how they operate. Now as I----
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Ms. Wald. I wanted to make clear that we understand the
desire for accountability and would encourage the Secretary and
encourage Congress to tell the Secretary to establish
deadlines, to report back on the progress that he is making.
But we think it is too early in time to decide what the program
for developing renewable energy on public lands ought to look
like.
The Chairman. We have in the bill we reported last July
from the committee a provision that calls on the Secretary to
look at this issue of competitive leasing rather than the
issuance of rights-of-way. Is that an appropriate action by the
Congress, as you see it?
Ms. Wald. Yes. Yes. I think that is a very constructive
suggestion. We understand that, in fact, the Secretary is
considering competitive leasing as part of the solar
programmatic EIS that is under preparation and that Director
Abbey spoke about. We certainly think that consideration of a
leasing framework is something that they ought to look at
extremely carefully, and a pilot project I think would be
helpful in that regard.
The Chairman. Mr. White, did you have a position on that
point?
Mr. White. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We generally agree with Ms.
Wald's view on this matter. I think the key is to have an
interactive relationship between the oversight and statutory
direction of the Congress and the process as it is unfolding.
We are learning a lot as we speak and as we move forward. I
think one of the areas I wanted to mention about the leases,
however, is the notion of rental fees and raising revenues for
solar projects needs to be carefully done, and done in a way
that is consistent with what has already been done with wind.
We also need to be sure that at least some of those revenues
are dedicated to help support the ongoing mitigation work that
is going to be required.
These projects are fragile themselves. The technologies are
expensive, but they are very important. We think that there is
also going to be an extraordinary amount of mitigation that is
going to accompany these projects and how that mitigation gets
managed and how the land, as a whole, works together is going
to be important.
I think we also think the BLM should be more careful in the
way the lands are leased now. They are currently sort of first-
come, first-served, and there is a lot of projects that have
applied for leases that we don't believe will ever be built.
So, weeding those out and then maybe moving to some kind of a
competitive system, considering, though, that the revenues that
are gained from these lands need to be balanced against the
cost of the projects and not be too heavy on the front end.
The Chairman. All right. We have, I think, got good
testimony here from all of you. As I indicated at the
beginning, we want to, if you have additional points that you
think we need to understand, please supplement your testimony
here in the next few days. We would appreciate that.
But I think this has been a good hearing, and we appreciate
you all being here.
We will conclude the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Harry Baker to Questions From Senator Murkowski
You have complained that many of these areas proposed for
Wilderness do not meet the Definition of a Wilderness as set forth in
the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Question 1. Could you give me some specific examples of how the
proposed Wilderness areas conflict with your understanding of the 1964
Wilderness Act?
Answer. The Wilderness Act of 1964 specified among other criteria
that Wilderness is where earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.
Wilderness further excludes all forms of motorized and mechanized
equipment. There can not be any roads within a Wilderness area and the
area can not be less than 5,000 acres, nor can there be any mining,
structures, radio towers or other signs of man in Wilderness areas.
In the proposed Avawatz Wilderness Area there are existing roads
which were traveled on with Senator Feinstein's staff, by vehicle on
May 28, 2010. Also on that tour, mine adits were seen as well as mine
tailings and debris. The ruins of several structures were also
photographed as well as a modern radio tower, all within the proposed
Wilderness area.
The Proposed Wilderness Area has been expanded to the Right of Way
of Highway 127 and now includes an area that was considered for siting
of alternative energy development.
The Proposed Kingston Range Wilderness Addition also is expanded
out to the Right of Way of Highway 127 and includes part of the area
that was considered for alternative energy. The proposed area is cut by
the Tidewater and Tonopah Railroad grade and another non wilderness
corridor that truncates the proposed Wilderness into an area of less
than 5,000 acres.
Both the Avawatz and Kingston additions include flat alluvial fans
that are not wilderness quality land and appear to be nothing more that
a land grab to block alternative energy.
The southern section of the proposed Golden Valley Wilderness Area
is bisected into six sections, five of which are less than 5,000 acres,
by several non-wilderness motorized corridors. These proposed corridors
include the historical Twenty-Mule Team Road.
The northern section of the proposed Golden Valley Wilderness Area,
along with the southern portion and the existing Golden Valley
Wilderness and the Grass Valley Wilderness will completely block any
westward expansion of the China Lake Naval Weapons Center should it
become necessary in the future for national defense.
The proposed Great Falls Basin Wilderness could be supported as
wilderness as it meets the criteria for wilderness except that when it
is combined with the existing Argus Range Wilderness any potential
expansion of the China Lake Naval Weapons Center to the east is
blocked.
If a road, a mining operation or mans presence exists in a proposed
Wilderness area and is recognized by the proponents of Wilderness, is
the area really Wilderness? I think not.
Question 2. Could you provide me with some specific examples of
where future growth and development will be blocked by these National
Monuments?
Answer. A study of areas for alternative energy development
included the area that is now included within the proposed Mojave
Trails National Monument and will be blocked by this legislation. A map
depicting the Solar Energy Study Areas in California which was prepared
June 5, 2009 and available through the Washington BLM Office clearly
shows the land in the proposed Mojave Trails National Monument as being
analyzed for Solar Development. There were proposals submitted to the
BLM for Solar sites within the proposed MTNM. These potential
alternative energy areas have been omitted from the map that is being
used to show where the boundaries of the proposed MTNM would be in an
attempt, I believe to disguise the fact that the area of the proposed
monument is prime for the siting of solar.
Any of the communities that are within the boundaries of the MTNM,
such as Amboy, Ludlow, Goffs, etc., will not be allowed to expand in
the future. Conversely these communities could benefit and expand if
alternative energy sites are constructed in their vicinity.
The proposed Wilderness areas and the MTNM are all on the
perimeters of military bases and if designated, will stop any further
expansion by the military for National Defense needs; an example of
this is the proposed expansion of the Twentynine Palms Marine Base. The
study areas for the expansion are to the East, South and West but the
Eastward expansion away from homes and business is limited by the Sheep
Hole Wilderness Area. Although dedesignation of the northern portion of
the Sheep Hole Mountains Wilderness Area would enhance the Marine Base
expansion, Senator Feinstein has stated that this is a non starter and
not to be considered. This, in my opinion says that once an area is
designated as Wilderness even the needs of the Marine Corps will not
trump Wilderness.
Question 3. Could you provide me with some specific examples of the
hardships on communities and individuals that these designations will
impose if passed?
Answer. We know from past experiences that with new management
plans such as are mandated by this legislation, that the present usages
are not guaranteed, and will likely not be allowed to continue, for
example in the Carrizo Plains National Monument in California grazing
is being eliminated, rock hounding is no longer allowed and access
roads are being eliminated. Existing roads and uses are also being
eliminated in the Escalante National Monument in Utah. These were all
existing uses that were to be allowed to continue in the monuments per
the original legislation.
Question 4. In your mind what part of the state of California
should be reserved in a combination of Wilderness, Wilderness Study
Areas, National Monuments, National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers and
other set-asides?
Answer. I do not believe that a certain percentage or quota needs
to be set, rather the criteria for special designation be it
Wilderness, National Parks and Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers or
other set-asides should be on merit, what the land designation
currently is, it's use and the potential national need. National
Monuments and Wilderness should not be used to appease a special
interest group, Wild and Scenic River designation should not be used
for dry river beds and to block motorized access to private property,
and other set-asides must not be used to stop public access. No more
land should be locked up for an exclusive use.
Fifty percent of the total land in California is privately owned.
Presently there is approximately 16 percent of the land in California
designated as Wilderness or 32 percent of the public land! I believe
that the initial Wilderness Act envisioned about 20 million acres in
the United States as suitable and today we have over 109 million acres,
when will enough be enough? There is constant pressure to take more
land out of production in the name of protection which diminishes our
tax base and limits our ability to extract natural resources and makes
us more dependent on foreign countries.
I11___
Responses of David P. Hubbard to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. If we are not going to develop renewable energy on
federal lands in the desert, where do you recommend these resources be
developed?
Answer. Although my client, EcoLogic, would like to see renewable
energy projects sited on private as opposed to public land, it realizes
that this is not always possible. For this reason, EcoLogic does not
believe that renewable energy projects should be excluded categorically
from federal lands in the California desert. However, the matter is
complex. We are concerned that the intense federal and state interest
in developing renewable energy resources has attracted speculators who
will tie up public land but never really produce a project that
generates significant renewable energy. We are also concerned that the
push for renewable energy may operate to forfeit recreational
interests, with little or no mitigation for the loss. Specifically, if
the federal government is going to site these large energy projects in
popular recreational areas of the desert, the entities who will profit
from those projects should be required to develop compensatory
recreational areas at a 1:1 ratio. In short, our support for renewable
energy development in the desert comes down to a single issue--
mitigation.
Question 2. Are you concerned that actions by the Congress, the
Administration or the Courts to prohibit renewable energy development
every time a project is proposed on Federal land will result in
investors being less willing to invest in renewable energy projects in
our country?
Answer. Legal regulation is always a deterrent to business
development; but it is a necessary evil, as it ensures the well-being
of the public and of the resources held in trust by the federal
government. So the question is not whether regulation will deter, to
some extent, investment in renewable energy, but whether the
regulations are so stringent as to strangle such investment altogether.
As stated above, EcoLogic does not wish to unduly impede the
development of alternative energy sources--in the California desert or
anywhere else. That does not mean, however, that renewable energy
development applicants should be given a free pass and be relieved of
all regulation. That would be a huge mistake, and an unnecessary one.
Given how little the energy companies will be paying to use the federal
land on which the projects will be located, and given how much those
companies stand to make in terms of profit, there is no need to relax
the regulatory controls that govern other business in the energy
sector. Further, the proposed bill (S.2921) provides for a more
streamlined approval process for renewable energy projects.
Question 3. Is it your experience that being forced to develop on
private land is more costly and time consuming than proceeding on
federal land? If so how much on average does it cost?
Answer. In the context of renewable energy projects, development on
private land may be, and likely is, more expensive and time consuming
than development on federal land, if only because the federal lease
terms are very favorable to the project applicant. Indeed, one of our
concerns is that the federal government, in an effort to attract
renewable energy investment on federal land, may be lowering the bar of
entry to such an extent that BLM will be inundated with applications
from unworthy, unstable, and/or unreliable project proponents. This
will serve only to clog the system and delay the actual development of
bona fide renewable energy projects.
Question 4. In your mind what percent of the State of California
should be reserved in a combination of Wilderness, Wilderness Study
Areas, National Monuments, National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers and
other set-asides?
Answer. I do not think this question can be answered by giving a
percentage of land area. There are only so many areas in California
that qualify as Wilderness, or may meet the criteria of a Wild and
Scenic River. So these kinds of resources are highly location-specific.
One must assess them on an individualized basis. That said, however, it
has been our experience that the process of designating Wilderness
Study Areas has been roundly abused and employed primarily as a means
to tie up land that (1) has no hope of ever qualifying as Wilderness,
and (2) could be put to better public use. This practice should be
stopped. For this reason, we support the effort of S.2921 to release a
number of Wilderness Study Areas that do not meet the established
criteria for Wilderness.
______
Responses of Pedro Pizarro to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. The State of California has one of the most aggressive
Renewable Electricity Standards in the nation--requiring 20% of
electricity to come from renewable sources by this year and a whopping
33% by 2020. Where is Southern California Edison on meeting this
requirement? Doesn't legislation to block off some of the most
promising solar areas in the desert make it even harder for California
entities to comply with this standard?
Answer. In 2009, SCE purchased and delivered 13.6 billion kWh of
energy from eligible renewable resources. This represents about 17% of
SCE's customers' needs. SCE has enough contracts with new renewable
resources to achieve the current 20% goal framework for the foreseeable
future.
SCE's ability to meet future California renewables goals is more
difficult to predict in light of programmatic changes currently under
consideration. While there is an Executive Order in place setting a 33%
renewables goal for California, the specific rules regarding what types
of resources will count toward that goal are not final. Similarly, the
structure of proposed legislation continues to be the subject of
vigorous debate in Sacramento. SCE is working with energy agencies and
California's legislature to ensure that any increased goals for
renewables contain programmatic structures which recognize California's
various environmental needs and do not unduly restrict the ability to
meet new goals if the supply of renewables in California is
constrained. Accordingly, if a renewables program is instituted that
does not include necessary flexibility, 33% may be difficult for
California to achieve. On the other hand, if a program containing
appropriate flexibility is adopted, 33% may be more achievable.
Question 2. Would you agree that the process laid out in the
provisions of Title II Sections 201--208 to govern renewable energy
permitting substantially differs from the process this Committee
approved in Sec. 366 (Development of Solar and Wind Energy on Public
Land) of S. 1462 the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009?
Answer. According to the Report language for Section 366, only a
pilot program is being initiated and only two solar and two wind sites
are to be chosen. Section 366 does not seem to contain modifications to
the authorization process that would appear to shorten the process for
obtaining a permit for renewable generation facilities located on
federal lands.
Question 3. If Title II of S. 2921 were to be stripped in the mark
up process, would you and your company still support this bill?
Answer. SCE endorsed S. 2921 as it was introduced in Congress. Any
modifications to the legislation would require additional review to
determine the impact on the company. SCE perceives the permitting
components of the bill as a key benefit to SCE's customers in helping
California meet its renewable energy goals. The permitting improvements
are viewed by SCE as a reasonable tradeoff for the removal of portions
of the California desert from potential development.
Question 4. If we are not going to develop renewable energy on
federal lands in the desert, where do you recommend these resources be
developed?
Answer. This legislation removes a relatively small amount of
federal land with perceived important natural resources from
development. Less environmentally valuable public land and private land
is better suited for the development of renewable power.
Question 5. Are you concerned that actions by the Congress, the
Administration or the Courts to prohibit renewable energy development
every time a project is proposed on Federal land will result in
investors being less willing to invest in renewable energy projects in
our country?
Answer. There are many barriers to building on both private and
government land. We believe this legislation will remove many of those
barriers.
Question 6. Is it you experience that being forced to develop on
private lands is more costly and time consuming than proceeding on
federal lands? If so how much on average does it cost?
Answer. It is premature to determine whether developers face any
difference in cost or time when it comes to site renewable projects on
private vs. government land. Building on private land will likely
require a longer time frame for the Endangered Species Act (ESA) review
because there is no federal nexus. Potentially balancing the longer ESA
review is the fact that private disturbed land may have less
environmentally sensitive issues than building on non-disturbed
government land.
Question 7. In your mind what percent of the State of California
should be reserved in a combination of Wilderness, Wilderness Study
Areas, National Monuments, National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers and
other set-asides?
Answer. SCE believes that all protections of federal land should be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
Question 8a. he bill directs BLM to ``ensure that existing rights-
of-way and utility corridors within the [Mojave Trails National]
Monument are fully utilized before permitting new rights-of- way or
designating new utility corridors within the Monument.'' How should the
BLM determine whether or not an existing right-of-way is ``fully
utilized''?
Answer. BLM should rely upon the utilities using established
engineering, operations and maintenance standards, and transmission
system planning criteria to determine whether a utility has the ability
to safely and reliably install additional facilities within an existing
right of way.
Question 8b. What if an existing right-of-way is 100 miles away
from a needed utility corridor?
Answer. In that case, then an additional right of way should be
granted. Utilities should not be required to route facilities into
corridors that are not located in the general vicinity of the proposed
route. The National Environmental Policy Act environmental review
process requires that a federal permitting agency consider a
``reasonable range of alternatives''. This standard should be used for
determining when the use of an existing right of way should be
considered for a proposed transmission line.
______
Responses of Dorothy Robyn to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Military Lands
Question 1. I understand that DOD is interested in using some
public lands withdrawn for military purposes for utility-scale
renewable energy development. Under what legal authority would DOD do
this? Prior to authorizing a utility-scale project on these lands, will
DOD review each applicable withdrawal order to ensure that utility-
scale renewable energy development is a ``military purpose'' within the
meaning of the withdrawal order? How does DOD propose to dispose of the
revenues received for these facilities?
Answer. The Department of Defense has various authorities, mostly
contained in chapter 173, Energy Security, of title 10, United States
Code, that address renewable and alternative energy projects. In
particular, sections 2916 and 2917 of that chapter deal with sale of
electricity from alternate energy and cogeneration production
facilities and development of geothermal energy on military lands. In
addition, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2667, the DoD's general leasing statute, may
be utilized in appropriate circumstances to allow such a project.
Section 203 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act (Pub. L. 109-58) and
section 2911 of title 10, United States Code, both require that the
Department of Defense increase the percentage of energy consumed from
renewable sources. Each project authorized on a military installation
must comply with all applicable requirements, including any
requirements contained in withdrawal legislation. The various
withdrawal statutes are not uniform, however. Consequently, projects
need to be reviewed on an individual basis.
Regarding revenues received from such projects, the Department of
Defense can only use funds in a manner authorized by Congress. For
example, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2916 explicitly authorizes the use of proceeds
from the sale of electricity from alternate energy facilities to be
credited to the appropriation account currently available to the
military department concerned for the supply of electrical energy. If
the facility were constructed under a lease pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 2667, the DoD's general leasing statute, the proceeds could be
used in accordance with the various uses authorized under that statute.
Generally speaking, revenues are used to support the installation
performing its mission. However, the Department may receive other
benefits from these projects, such as direct provision of electrical
power and guaranteed access to generation capability.
Coordination
Question 2. Please describe and provide for the record any
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Cooperative Agreement between DoD
or any branch of the Armed Services and the Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior, relating to the siting of renewable energy
projects. If such agreements do not exist, is there a plan to enter
into any such agreement? To help facilitate the authorization of wind
and renewable projects?
Answer. For the last two years, the Bureau of Land Management and
the Department of Defense have had an MOU in place that establishes a
process for DoD to review and comment on proposed wind energy
applications on BLM-administered public lands and a process to develop
mitigation measures. The MOU also includes an appeals process through
existing BLM structures. The MOU is attached to this answer. We are
considering expanding the scope of the MOU to include other renewable
energy sources, such as solar.
Program Administration
Question 3. BLM currently administers the oil and gas leasing
program on National Forest System Lands and public lands withdrawn for
military purposes, where consistent with the particular withdrawal
order. Should BLM also administer the solar and wind energy development
programs on these lands?
Answer. The BLM and DoD have a long history of working together
successfully on energy development issues, including the development of
renewable energy on military installations. Moreover, DoD is actively
seeking to develop renewable energy projects on its installations,
including on withdrawn land where consistent with the withdrawal order.
However, in contrast to the arrangement with oil and gas leases, DoD
needs to be able to administer such projects, albeit in close
consultation with BLM. First, unlike oil and gas development, renewable
energy development on a military installation is usually designed to
assure energy supply to the installation itself and thereby facilitate
continuity of operations. The installation commander needs to have
direct control over what could be a critical source of energy security.
Second, renewable energy projects must be sited and managed in a way
that preserves the installation's ability to meet its testing, training
and other operational missions, which DoD can do most effectively.
Finally, DoD has the incentive and ability to respond more quickly than
other federal agencies to proposals for renewable energy development on
military installations, thus facilitating their approval and
implementation.
Responses of Dorothy Robyn to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Boundaries Between the 29-Palms Base and the New Proposed Wilderness
Question 1. If there will have to be negotiations on where
boundaries are finally drawn between the 29-Palms base and the new
proposed Wilderness wouldn't it make more sense to just wait to
designate the Wilderness at some later point when the military and the
BLM have completed their discussions?
Answer. Answer: DoD supports the approach taken in S.2921, the
California Desert Protection Act of 2010. The bill identifies a process
by which lands may be withdrawn either as wilderness area or for
military use. Although it may take some time to identify the final
boundary between the installation at Twentynine Palms and the new
proposed wilderness area, the bill establishes clear limitations on any
future use of the land, protecting the interests of the Department and
BLM while the decision-making process proceeds. Therefore, we have no
objection to enactment of such legislative language, even before the
final boundaries are agreed upon.
DOD Renewable Energy Goals
Question 2. Is it correct that DOD has established a goal to
generate 25% of its energy needs from renewable resources by 2025? What
percentage of renewable electricity does the Defense Department
currently use? How realistic is your 25% target by 2025?
Answer. Yes. The Department established the goal to purchase and/or
generate renewable energy equal to or greater than 25% of electricity
consumed by 2025. The goal was then codified by section 2852 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364).
The Department is currently on track to meet the 25% by FY2025
goal. In FY2009, the Department produced or procured 9.8% of its total
electricity from renewable energy sources. The goal is aggressive: to
meet it, the Department will need to invest in small-scale renewable
projects while also leveraging private sector capital to develop large-
scale renewable projects.
Renewable Energy Study
Question 3. The legislation directs DoD to study the viability of
developing a renewable energy program on Southwest military bases. Has
this type of study been undertaken previously by the Defense Department
in other areas? Has DoD considered a national approach to assessing the
renewable energy potential on its lands?
Answer. This legislation overlaps the requirements in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which requires DoD to
examine the feasibility of renewable energy in its 2010 Annual Energy
Management Report (AEMR) [and a study requested in the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2010]. Senate Report 107-68
previously directed the DoD to conduct an assessment of wind, solar,
and geothermal energy potential on U.S. military installations. The
Department completed that assessment in March 2005. The Military
Services are currently conducting renewable energy assessments to
identify promising locations, rule out poor or marginal locations and
identify the approximate capacity available. The results of these
assessments will be included in the 2010 AEMR.
______
Responses of Johanna Wald to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Your organization has been at the forefront of the
renewable energy movement. Does the NRDC believe it is good public
policy to set-aside 1.6 to 2 million acres of some of the most
promising lands with solar potential for additional National Monuments
and Wilderness-particularly in an area such as this which is already
heavily populated with Wilderness and National Parks?
Answer. NRDC believes that our nation does not need to choose
between protecting special and unique places on our public lands and
obtaining the renewable energy that we need from those lands. Indeed,
we believe that the key to obtaining the renewable resources found on
our public lands is to promote their development on lands with
relatively low natural resource values and to avoid lands that are
highly valued for preservation, such as the kinds of lands that would
be set aside by S. 2921. Promoting development on lands with highly
valued ecological resources will inevitably lead to conflict,
controversy and delay whereas proposing development on lands with
comparatively low potential for conflict and controversy should
facilitate their timely review and processing.
Question 2. If this bill is signed into law, what does that suggest
about the potential future for renewable energy development on other
federal lands?
Answer. If S. 2921 is signed into law, it will, we believe, signal
to all concerned that the nation does not have to sacrifice our special
places to meet our needs for renewable energy. This result should help
the renewable energy industry continue to cultivate the broad support
it now has from the public given the measurable economic and
environmental benefits this industry can provide for the nation.
Passage should also help reassure concerned members of the public that
places that are not appropriate for development will be protected as we
transition to a cleaner energy economy.
Question 3. Many of the companies who have begun the process to get
leases in the area, did so after being encouraged by the BLM to look in
this general area. If this bill is enacted do you think the federal
government should compensate them for the investments they had already
made to develop their proposals?
Answer. Like Senator Murkowski, NRDC understands that a number of
the companies which began the process of obtaining renewable rights-of-
way within one of the national monuments proposed by S. 2921, the
proposed Mojave Trails National Monument, did so with the encouragement
of some BLM field staff. However, it is well-established within the
Code of Federal Regulations that pending right-of-way applications do
not represent valid existing rights. Accordingly, if S. 2921 were
enacted, they would not be entitled to receive compensation from the
federal government for any investments they have made in the
application process. That said, NRDC urged that S. 2921 acknowledge the
equitable interests of legitimate solar developers with proposed
projects within the proposed monument and we welcome the bill's
inclusion of language that aims to do just that. See S. 2921,
Sec. 101(a) (amending the California Desert Protection Act of 1994,
Pub. L. 103-433 (1994) to add Section 1307, which grants applicants who
meet specified terms a ``right of first refusal'' in solar energy zones
to be designated by BLM).
Question 4. In your mind what percent of the State of California
should be reserved in a combination of Wilderness, Wilderness Study
Areas, National Monuments, National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers and
other set-asides?
Answer. NRDC does not have any preconceived idea as to what percent
of the public lands in California should be reserved for conservation
purposes. While many areas have already been protected, for example by
designation as Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and National
Parks and still others are under consideration for protection,
including the lands subject to S. 2921, we do not doubt that there are
additional areas on public lands in California equally deserving of
protection from commercial development, including energy development.
Sound, environmentally responsible renewable energy programs for the
public lands that are designed to guide development to the most
appropriate places under the circumstances will minimize, if not
entirely eliminate, conflicts over renewable development on our public
lands. We are working with BLM to ensure that such programs are put in
place as promptly as possible.
______
Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies,
Sacramento, CA, June 18, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources,Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman, Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday,
May 20, 2010 to offer testimony on S. 2921, and for the opportunity to
respond to Senator Murkowski's questions regarding Senator Feinstein's
California Desert Protection Act of 2010. Please find my responses to
Senator Murkowski's questions below.
Question 1. What signal does this bill send to those who might
consider investing in the development of renewable energy projects in
California?
Question 2. What signal does this bill send to those who might
consider investing in the development of renewable energy projects on
Federal lands?
Answer. Senator Feinstein's bill signals that land lease
applications for renewable development in areas that had been donated
for conservation purposes will be extremely difficult to successfully
develop. In retrospect, there was too little effort by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to weed out speculative applications, and a
failure to anticipate conflicts over areas that were likely to be
controversial on the part of both BLM and some developers.
The federal government and the state of California haven't done the
kind of integrated planning for desert lands that should have been done
decades ago. While great attention has been paid to the interests of
the military, off road vehicle users, mineral extraction, as well as
wilderness and wildlife conservation, too little attention has been
paid to renewable energy development.
We appreciate the recent efforts that have attempted to identify
the best places for renewable energy development, such as California's
Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative and the BLM solar Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). We are hopeful that the combined
efforts of the BLM and the Department of the Interior, under the
leadership of Secretary Salazar, and the state of California, through
the work of the state and federal Renewable Energy Planning Group to
expedite permitting of ARRA eligible projects, and the California
Desert Renewable Conservation Plan (DRECP), can remedy these earlier
conflicts, and create a sustainable environment for new investment.
Question 3. You have complained that Off-Road Vehicle and
motorcyclists are getting special treatment, are you suggesting that
solar and wind and geothermal need their own reserves for dominant use
too?
Answer. Given the extraordinary dependence of our country on fossil
fuels, and the body of evidence regarding their impact on the
environment, human health, and the global atmosphere, it is
inconceivable to me that our planning for the use of federal land in
the California desert would have paid so much attention to the special
interests of Off-Highway Vehicles users, while at the same time
essentially ignoring the high quality abundant renewable energy
resources on desert lands. More than 750,000 acres have been set aside
for off-road vehicle use of desert lands, while virtually no renewable
development areas have been identified as part of previous conservation
and multiple use planning efforts. We realize that this disparity is in
large part the result of historic practices and policies, but it is
time to fix them. We are hopeful that efforts to identify and preserve
the best renewable resource land as part of BLM's solar PEIS and the
state and federal cooperative planning now underway as part of the
California DRECP will remedy this disparity. We strongly support the
suggestion Senator Feinstein made in her testimony before the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the BLM should include a
new Solar Energy Study Area in the West Mojave, where solar radiation
levels are among the very best in the world.
Question 4. If so how much land should be set-aside in the State of
California for these uses?
Answer. We have estimated that the approximate amount of land
needed for renewable development in California in order to meet the
state's 33 percent by 2020 renewables target is between 50,000 and
100,000 acres. We reached these numbers by making assumptions about
energy demand, renewable resource areas, and land use requirements for
each technology. We based the energy demand on a ``net short'' estimate
produced with broad support by RETI and adopted by the California
Transmission Planning Group (CTPG). To reach a renewable energy
portfolio of 33 percent by 2020, we estimate that 52,764 GWh/yr would
need to be produced. We assumed that 70 percent of the new renewable
energy would come from inside California's border, and 70 percent of
the in-state energy (roughly 23,000 GWh/yr) would likely come from land
within the DRECP planning area. The ratio of in state to out of state
generation is consistent with the CTPG estimates. We based our estimate
of land used per MW on an energy analysis done by Black & Veatch.
Additional land would be needed to meet the state's 2050 climate
target, but the amount needed will depend on the quality of the
resource and the proximity to transmission.
Question 5. Are you concerned that actions by Congress, the
Administrations or the Courts to prohibit renewable energy development
every time a project is proposed on Federal land, will result in
investors being less willing to invest in renewable energy projects in
our country?
Answer. Significant financial risks and uncertainty exist around
permitting for renewable energy projects in California and in other
regions for projects on federal as well as private land. No standards
exist for the permitting process or timeline, or for mitigation.
Because costs are uncertain when no standard process exists, we are
concerned about the willingness to invest in renewable energy in our
country. We believe the best way to overcome these risks and create a
stable and attractive investment climate for renewable energy is to
follow a policy of sustained, orderly development of renewable
resources. Such development should occur through intensive cooperation
among state and federal agencies and consensus-based planning that
involves key stakeholders, including conservation and clean energy
oriented environmentalists, native American tribes, as well as state
and local governments.
We believe the Obama Administration and California state government
have made significant efforts to create a more predictable and stable
environment for permitting and planning new renewable energy projects,
especially with respect to ARRA eligible projects. We are hopeful that
these efforts are expanded and sustained over the next several years,
and that innovative strategies for wildlife conservation and recovery,
such as California Senate Bill 34 (Padilla), can reduce conflict with
important conservation objectives, while expediting renewable project
approvals.
Question 6. Is it your experience that development on private lands
is more costly and time consuming? If so how much on average does it
cost?
Answer. We would agree that significant administrative and
financial barriers exist in the development of renewable projects on
private lands. The extreme parcelization of the region to multiple
land-owners, including those who received a few acres of land through
radio giveaways in the 1920s, severely limits the acquisition of plots
of private land large enough to sustain a solar plant, and obtaining
timely review of potential wildlife impacts from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) can take nearly three times the length of time
required on BLM lands due to the lack of a federal nexus. While we do
not have specific information regarding the magnitude of the additional
cost of developing renewable projects on private lands, it is clear
that the increased cost barriers of working with multiple land owners
who own much smaller parcels of land than the federal government,
combined with the longer response time from the USFWS, would increase
both the time and the cost of most projects.
The California desert conservation community is extremely
interested in removing barriers to development on private land, and is
working with renewable developers to try and make private land more
available for renewable development. But many of these barriers,
including state policy to require substantial mitigation for the loss
of private land from agricultural use, will be difficult to overcome.
In the meantime, it would be extremely helpful to eliminate the
extraordinary delays that too often require reviews by USFWS on private
land where no federal nexus exists.
Question 7. In your mind what percent of the State of California
should be reserved in a combination of Wilderness, Wilderness Study
Areas, National Monuments, National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers and
other set-asides?
Answer. Conservation of land with wilderness value is crucial to
maintaining California's ecological character, and we do not object to
land designations for wilderness study areas, national parks and
monuments, wild and scenic rivers, or other purposes. We do, however,
believe that it is necessary to balance wilderness preservation with
development of extraordinary renewable resource development. The amount
of federal land needed for renewable energy development in the
California desert to meet renewable energy and climate targets is
modest, and can be ably accommodated alongside the preservation of land
for wilderness, conservation, military and recreational uses. However,
up until recently, renewable energy has taken a back seat to all of
these other uses, and has been, at best, an afterthought in state and
federal desert planning efforts. We believe it is essential that the
highest quality renewable resource areas that are close to existing
transmission corridors, such as the West Mojave, be given equal
consideration alongside conservation, wildlife, and recreational uses,
and protected and preserved for future development where appropriate.
We also believe that military lands and training operations that are in
close proximity to prime renewable resource areas and wildlife habitat
corridors, such as the China Lake Weapons facility, should be planned
and executed in a manner that supports strategic renewable resource
development and wildlife conservation.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to these questions.
If you or any other Members or staff have additional questions, please
feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
V. John White,
Executive Director, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Technologies.
______
Responses of Faye Krueger to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Authorities--Under what legal authority does the Forest
Service issue authorization for the use of National Forest System lands
for wind and solar projects?
Answer. Section 501(a)(4) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4) (FSM 2701.1, paragraph 15) authorizes
the Forest Service to issue rights-of-way for the use and occupancy of
NFS lands for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric
energy.
Question 2. Guidelines--What is the status of the development of
guidance by the Forest Service for the issuance of authorizations for
wind and solar projects on lands administered by the Forest Service?
Answer. The Forest Service is currently working to finalize its
wind energy directives. It is anticipated that the final wind energy
directives will be published in the Federal Register later this summer.
The Forest Service has not developed directives specifically addressing
solar projects on National Forest System lands. An application to
construct and operate a solar project would be evaluated utilizing
existing special use regulations and directives.
Question 3. Status--Please provide for the record a listing of all
wind and solar projects authorized to date by the Forest Service.
Please also provide a listing of all applications for wind and solar
energy production on National Forest System lands received by the
Forest Service.
Answer. No wind or solar projects have been authorized on National
Forest System lands. However, recent interest in wind energy has
spurred 14 projects to collect data regarding the feasibility of
developing a wind energy facility on National Forest System lands. Nine
of these testing sites are in California, two are in Michigan, and the
remaining three are in Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. One request for
construction and operation of a wind energy facility on National Forest
System lands, to be located in Vermont, is undergoing environmental
analysis. Additionally, the Forest Service is analyzing one request for
a permit to test the feasibility of converting a decommissioned radar
installation site in California to a solar energy facility. A
spreadsheet of wind and solar special use applications is attached.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Spreadsheet has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. NEPA--Has the Forest Service undertaken any
programmatic analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act with
respect to the development of wind or solar energy on National Forest
System lands? If not, does the Forest Service plan to do so?
Answer. The Forest Service has chosen not to prepare a programmatic
environmental impact statement for wind testing on National Forest
System lands. Given the diversity of National Forest System lands and
their uses and the small number of projects proposed to date, the
Forest Service believes it is more efficient and effective simply to
look at each proposed wind and solar energy site and assess the
potential effects of the proposed use as it relates to that site.
Question 5. Program Administration--BLM currently administers the
oil and gas leasing program on National Forest System Lands and public
lands withdrawn for military purposes, where consistent with the
particular withdrawal order. Should BLM also administer the solar and
wind energy development program on these lands?
Answer. No. We believe special use authorizations should remain
under the administration of the Forest Service. It is unclear what
efficiencies would be gained if solar and wind permitting were to be
handled by BLM, since the Forest Service would still need to review all
projects to ensure consistent and coordinated land management of all
activities conducted on the surface of those lands.
Responses of Faye Krueger to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Ms. Krueger, you heard me ask Mr. Abbey for maps on land use
designation vs. solar potential in the area. I see that the Forest
Service has a number of small Wilderness Additions proposed in this
legislation.
Question 1. Could you have your agency personnel work with the
Bureau of Land Management to provide my office with the maps and data
tables that the BLM prepared for the State of California, as well as a
map and data table that adds the lands authorized for protection in
this bill? I would like those maps within three weeks.
Answer. We have provided wilderness information to the BLM to
include with the mapping information you requested. We do not have the
renewable energy data you requested.
Question 2. Does the Forest Service believe it is ever appropriate
to site and build renewable energy projects and their associated
transmission lines on Forest Service lands?
Answer. Yes. The Forest Service is facilitating development of wind
energy facilities on National Forest System lands by issuing directives
for that purpose. Locating wind and solar energy facilities on National
Forest System lands presents several challenges. For example,
commercial solar operations generally require large, flat areas of
land, which are more common on lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. With regard to wind energy, the public has expressed
concerns about impacts on scenery from ridge top development; as we
make specific siting decisions, these concerns need to be reconciled
with the clear benefits that wind energy development can provide.
The Forest Service is updating Forest Service Manual 2703 to
include policy and direction encouraging the authorization of renewable
energy and electric transmission lines on National Forest System (NFS)
lands where it is compatible with existing uses and land use plans, and
where it complies with applicable agency and federal regulations.
National Forest System lands have the potential for other types of
renewable energy development as well. For example, there is significant
potential for biomass production on National Forest System lands as an
added benefit of our efforts to reduce hazardous fuels and develop
healthier, more fire-resistant, and more sustainable national forests.
In addition, there is significant potential to increase the efficiency
of hydroelectric facilities located on National Forest System lands, as
well as to provide for additional small-scale, environmentally
compatible hydroelectric facilities. There are also additional
opportunities for geothermal development on National Forest System
lands.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
The American Motorcyclist Association,
D37 Competition,
Garden Grove, CA, May 20, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Senator, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Jeff Bingaman: I am writing to you today about S.2921,
The California Desert Protection Act of 2010. My organization The
American Motorcyclist Association District 37 (AMA D37) is non-profit
and dedicated to providing our members with fun, family oriented
events, and protecting the rights of our members to be able to enjoy
the sport of motorcycling. AMA D37 has been involved with protecting
the rights of motorcyclists for over 40 years. We have over 3500
members and hold 40 off-road events a year in the high desert of
Southern California. At this time AMA D37 is in support of S.2921 as it
is currently written. If there are changes to the language as it moves
through the legislative process we will have to re-evaluate our
support.
S. 2921 is a product of complex negotiations and compromises
amongst a very diverse group of stakeholders. Senator Feinstein and her
staff have done an amazing job of trying to fulfill the needs of the
recreation, conservation and renewable energy communities that will be
affected by this bill. We are concerned that certain components in this
bill, the ones that are key to our support (listed below), might be
removed and or changed during the legislative process.
The language that congressionally designates the 5 open
areas as Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.
The language that allows all current existing uses to
continue in both the proposed OHV recreation areas and proposed
monuments.
The language that allows the open areas to continue to
operate under their existing management plans until either the
DOI creates new plans or amends the existing ones.
The language that mandates the Department of the Interior
(DOI) study land adjacent to the open areas for possible
expansion.
The language that ensures continued use of OHV/green sticker
vehicles on designated trails.
The language that continues to allow commercial touring in
the proposed monuments.
We are grateful to have been included in the formation of this
monumental piece of legislation. Please consider this letter our formal
request to have these comments included in the official record for this
hearing.
Sincerely,
Jerry Grabow,
AMA D37 Off-Road--President.
______
Blueribbon Coalition,
Pocatello, ID, May 20, 2010.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Senate Building Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Feinstein, Bingaman and Murkowski, the BlueRibbon
Coalition (BlueRibbon) is an Idaho non-profit corporation with over
10,000 individual, business and organizational members representing
approximately 600,000 individuals nationwide. BlueRibbon members use
motorized and non-motorized means, including Off-Highway Vehicles
(OHV), snowmobiles, horses, mountain bikes and hiking, to access and
enjoy recreating upon state and federally-managed lands throughout the
United States, including such lands throughout the National Forest
System and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.
A significant percentage of BlueRibbon's members live in California
and recreate on federally-managed lands throughout the state, including
the lands affected by the California Desert Protection Act of 2010
(S.2921). S. 2921 is a hugely complicated piece of legislation
concerning a wide range of uses of public lands. S. 2921 addresses
military base expansion, Wilderness designation, off-highway vehicle
management, renewable energy development, habitat migration zones, and
state land exchanges and transfers.
Senator Feinstein's staff is to be commended for navigating the
many challenges of issues and viewpoints across the political spectrum.
In addition to the Senator's staff, BlueRibbon commends the leadership
of the various stakeholder groups involved, including recreational off-
highway vehicle groups, local cities, counties and conservation groups.
Given the dizzying array of hugely contentious issues, S. 2921 does a
good job of balancing competing interests to provide some benefit to
all of the stakeholders.
One purpose of S. 2921 is to mitigate the loss of OHV recreation
caused in part by the Marine base expansion at Twentynine Palms, CA, by
establishing OHV Recreation Areas at El Mirage, Johnson Valley, Razor,
Spangler, Stoddard Valley and Vinagre Wash. Associated language in
sections 1801 and 1603 is especially important to our qualified support
of S. 2921, and we request the language in those sections to remain
intact as currently drafted and faithful to its originally intended
purpose.
Some preservationist special interests are likely to portray S.
2921 as a ``pro'' off-highway vehicle bill. Our members wish Congress
to understand that the military base expansion alone will eliminate
meaningful, currently available, off-highway vehicle riding
opportunities. While we recognize and appreciate the particular efforts
in section 1801 and elsewhere to acknowledge the legitimacy of
effectively-managed off-highway vehicle recreation, it remains likely
that its opponents will continue to seek restriction of off-highway
vehicle access throughout the desert, including in designated OHV
Recreation Areas.
Off-highway vehicle recreation is a very popular family activity,
especially in Southern California. According to the California State
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR), between 1980 and
2007 the number of registered OHVs has increased 370%. Unfortunately,
since 1980 the amount of desert lands available for this type of
recreation has fallen dramatically. Due to its proximity to southern
California metropolitan areas, Johnson Valley is one of the most
important areas for serving this growing demand for both in-state and
out-of-state visitors.
Many off-highway enthusiasts feel conflicted; on one hand
supporting the US Military and understanding the economic importance of
Twentynine Palms to adjacent communities. On the other hand, off-
highway vehicle users have, over the years, been ``crammed'' into the
Johnson Valley area after decades of Wilderness designation,
administrative closures, and lawsuits that closed millions of acres of
the California desert, making it a difficult pill to swallow to lose
the area now to the base expansion.
In light of this, we appreciate, as stated above, that S. 2921
attempts to mitigate the loss of off-highway vehicle recreation areas
and provide some assurance the remaining off-highway areas will remain
open and be actively managed for off-highway vehicle and other types of
recreation. In recognition of the effort to forge a difficult balance
here, BlueRibbon supports S. 2921, provided that the locations and
language addressing continuation of OHV recreation in OHV Areas,
proposed monuments, and elsewhere in the bill, is not diluted.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony and look
forward to participating in this and other public lands management
efforts.
Sincerely,
Greg Mumm,
Executive Director.
______
California Off-Road, Vehicle Association,
Simi Valley, CA, May 15, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable Committee Members, At the Annual Meeting of the
California Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORVA) held in Bakersfield, CA
on May 15, 2010, the Members voted in opposition to the California
Desert Protection Act of 2010. CORVA has joined the California
Association of 4WD Clubs in opposition to the Act, which if passed may
have a major negative impact on the desert environment, the business
environment, the recreational choices of the public and the
availability of access to the desert by future generations.
Further, the Association states the main reasons for opposition
includes (but is not limited to):
1) The addition of more than 290,000 acres of Wilderness to
the already 9 million acres of Wilderness currently designated
in the California Desert recognizing that the Wilderness
designation removes this land from all human visitation except
hikers.
2) The removal of vast Desert areas currently and
historically used by the American public for multiple uses with
no guarantee that more areas will not be removed from use in
the future.
3) The addition of yet another management plan replacing the
management plan currently controlled by the Bureau of Land
Management, without stipulated funding to implement the new
plan or guarantees that the management plan will match the
original bill.
4) The plan to locate necessary solar energy resources in the
desert, geographically distant from where the power will be
used necessitating a transmission infrastructure and perhaps
further eroding multiple use land.
Although our Association, which represents over 5000 Californians
who use off-highway motorized vehicles, has voted in opposition to
S2921, we acknowledge the courtesy and professionalism of Senator Diane
Feinstein and her staff for including our members, most of whom are her
constituents, in the discussion. We further encourage the Senator to
continue this practice and include all stakeholders in continuing
discussion of this legislation and future legislation affecting OHV
recreation.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Woods,
President.
______
California Wind Energy Association,
Berkeley, CA, May 18, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman, The California Wind Energy Association
(CalWEA) offers the following comments on S. 2921, the California
Desert Protection Act of 2010 (CDPA), for the Committee's consideration
at the upcoming hearing on May 20th. In brief, we have significant
concerns about the negative impact that the bill, in its present form,
would have on wind energy development in California and the West. We
have discussed these concerns with Senator Feinstein's staff and have
provided staff with a relatively modest set of proposed changes that,
if accepted or otherwise addressed, would enable CalWEA to support the
bill.
CalWEA is a trade association comprised of 25 companies engaged in
wind energy development in California and other Western states. The
CDPA, which would significantly affect the siting and permitting of
wind energy projects, is therefore of significant interest to CalWEA
and its members.
CalWEA appreciates Senator Feinstein's desire to protect the
California desert region from development that would reduce its
essential character and unduly compromise its ecological values. This
goal must be carefully balanced against equally important national
energy interests and achievement of California's greenhouse gas
reduction and renewable energy goals. In the case of wind energy, we
believe this balance can be achieved with modifications to the bill as
follows.
Title I: Wind energy resources lost to land preservation
Only a small fraction of California's valuable wind energy
resources remain available for development. In wind-rich San Bernardino
County, for example, of almost 13 million total acres of land, nearly 5
million acres host commercial-grade winds but only 1.3 million of those
acres remain available for project development, due to military and
environmental federal land designations. Under the CDPA, this amount
would be reduced to just 800,000 acres (with some of this area
undevelopable due to military, aviation, or other conflicts),
eliminating some of California's most concentrated remaining wind
energy resource areas.
With its small ground disturbance ``footprint'' and careful siting,
wind projects can be compatible with land preservation efforts while
reducing reliance on traditional energy sources which are causing
serious impacts on our climate, air quality, water resources, and human
health. CalWEA has therefore proposed to Senator Feinstein limited and
reasonable adjustments to the boundaries of the proposed conservation
areas which, along with providing access to the existing transmission
grid, would enable several commercially active project development
areas to remain viable. Most of these developments are located on
previously disturbed lands and/or are proximate to existing roads,
pipelines, and other infrastructure. Our proposed boundary adjustments
would:
Enable the development of four projects totaling over 1,300
MW of wind energy capacity--preserving about 45% of the
commercial wind resource potential that otherwise will be lost
to the monument.
Reduce the monument area by approximately 3%, while
disturbing less than 1,000 acres.
Provide an additional $18 million annually in property tax
revenues to San Bernardino County ($26 million in total from
the projects if built as proposed).
Create an additional 50 permanent direct jobs (with the
projects creating over 70 direct permanent jobs in total), and
an additional 200-400 construction jobs lasting 3 to 5 years as
these projects are constructed.
All told, these projects would create an estimated 6,000
job-years, including both direct and indirect jobs.
Altogether, these projects would satisfy over 1% of California's
total electricity supply, or 10% of the additional electricity needed
to meet California's 33% RPS requirement.
Title II: Facilitating permitting on private lands
CalWEA supports the primary objective of Title II of the CDPA--to
facilitate permitting on private lands, thereby possibly reducing
permitting pressures on public lands. We also appreciate proposed
Section 207(b), which would facilitate the permitting of temporary
resource measurement activities on public lands, which now requires an
inordinate amount of time and resources.
We have, however, identified many areas in which these objectives
require clarification so as not to inadvertently complicate permitting
on public or private lands. We have provided Senator Feinstein's office
with specific suggestions for achieving much of the needed
clarification.
CalWEA looks forward to further discussions with Senator Feinstein
to enable the achievement of both desert protection and wind energy
development goals. We would be glad to share our detailed proposals
with the Committee.
Sincerely,
Nancy Rader,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of Kim Delfino, California Program Director, Defenders of
Wildlife
Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) thanks the Committee for the
opportunity to submit testimony for the record regarding S. 2921, the
California Desert Protection Act of 2010 (``CDPA'')\1\. My name is Kim
Delfino, and I am the California Program Director for Defenders.
Founded in 1947, Defenders is a nonprofit organization with more than 1
million members and supporters across the nation and is dedicated to
the protection and restoration of wild animals and plants in their
natural communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The California Desert Protection Act of 2010, S. 2921, 111th
Cong. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
As a conservation organization strongly committed to addressing
both the causes and impacts of global warming, Defenders recognizes and
supports the need to shift from greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources,
such as coal-and oil-fired power plants, to renewable energy sources,
such as solar and wind. In making this transition, however, we also
strongly believe that, as with any other type of energy development,
renewable energy development, including development of associated
transmission facilities, must be carried out in a way that avoids
significant adverse impacts on wildlife and ecosystems and minimizes
and mitigates those impacts that are unavoidable.
Defenders has taken the lead among conservation organizations in
recognizing the benefits of renewable energy while also sounding a
cautionary note, calling attention to the potential negative impacts on
wildlife, habitat and ecosystems from the push for wide-scale renewable
energy development on public and private lands. Defenders has provided
comments highlighting the impacts to wildlife and habitat that will
result from proposed projects, as well as comments on the Bureau of
Land Management's (``BLM'') solar programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement. In our comments, we highlight the need to protect wildlife
and ecosystems and advocate for incentives to steer renewable energy
development away from sensitive wildlife habitat and toward already-
degraded areas on public and private lands. Currently in California,
Defenders is working with renewable energy companies to locate solar
power plants in areas where the impacts on wildlife will be avoided
and/or minimized. In addition, we are collaborating with California
state energy officials to develop the Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan to help ensure responsible solar and wind development
in the Mojave Desert.
We appreciate Senator Feinstein's commitment to both protect
conservation land and promote responsible yet rapid generation of
renewable energy on appropriate lands. While we support the goals of
the legislation, we continue to have concerns about Title I, California
Desert Conservation and Recreation, and Title II, Desert Renewable
Energy Permitting.
I. Title I: California Desert Conservation and Recreation
Although California's Mojave Desert has recently drawn national
attention as ground-zero in the nation's transition to renewable power,
Senator Feinstein aims to put the spotlight back on what makes the
Mojave such a remarkable place. The areas protected in Senator
Feinstein's conservation bill will help numerous imperiled animals and
declining desert plants, including the threatened desert tortoise,
bighorn sheep, Mojave fringe-toed lizard and the iconic Joshua tree.
Although we fully support the designation of new national monuments,
wilderness, and additions to Joshua Tree and Death Valley National
Parks and the Mojave National Preserve, we have concerns over the
following aspects of the monument provision of the bill.
First, while the bill would protect large areas from renewable
energy development, it would also mandate that certain areas be open to
off-road vehicles, a determination which is currently made by the BLM
on a case-by-case basis. One of the most important reasons to conserve
our desert lands is to reduce the pressure placed on imperiled plants
and animals. Our concern is that the bill would create permanent off-
road vehicle areas and take away the flexibility from the BLM in
determining what areas should be open and what areas should be closed
to this destructive use. Off-road vehicles can permanently scar the
fragile desert with erosive tire tracks that fragment habitat and drive
wildlife away from these important places.
Unlimited off-road vehicle use in the CDCA is incompatible with
standards for public land health established in the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act\2\ and BLM policy. The possible expansion of the
designated areas to adjacent public lands would result in impacts to
recently designated conservation areas for the Desert Tortoise and
Mohave Ground Squirrel. In addition, the possible establishment of
competitive off-road vehicle racing corridors between the Johnson
Valley and Stoddard Valley would involve the destruction of critical
habitat for the Desert Tortoise. In addition, the bill would require
the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the expansion of the open
areas to include any such opportunities identified in a mandatory
study. Defenders would support modification of the bill with regard to
existing off-road vehicle recreation areas if it resulted in
establishing sustainable and environmentally responsible opportunities
for off-road vehicle use through application of land health
assessments, mitigation and stabilization of areas that have been
heavily impacted by intensive vehicle use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill also authorizes motorized vehicle use within the new
national monuments on currently designated open vehicle routes, and
such use would be allowed for both licensed and unlicensed vehicles,
including off-road vehicles. Defenders strongly supports only licensed
(street-legal) motorized vehicle use on designated open vehicle routes,
and a requirement that all vehicle operators have a state-issued driver
license. An analysis of current open routes needs to be done and those
routes found to be contrary to the purposes of the monument should be
closed through a planning process.
An additional concern is that, pursuant to the CDPA, new national
monuments would be open to target shooting and plinking using firearms.
Other than for legitimate hunting purposes, all firearm use in the new
monuments should be prohibited. Target shooting and plinking is of
concern to us because it contributes to accumulation of trash from
discarded shell casings, targets, broken bottles, and appliances. It
also poses a safety risk to the visiting public and increased incidence
of wildlife injury and mortality from gun-shots. These issues are
widespread in various parts of the California Desert and especially the
western Mojave region.
In addition, we would like the Committee to retain the entire Cady
Mountains Wilderness Study Areas as wilderness. We would also like to
extend wilderness protection to the southern portion of the Soda
Mountains. These areas support the threatened Desert Tortoise and
Desert Bighorn Sheep. We believe wilderness designation of these two
areas is the most effective way of protecting these important habitats
and species.
We want to commend Senator Feinstein for recognizing the need for
climate change and wildlife corridor studies, and requiring that those
studies be done within two years of enactment of the bill. The studies
include the identification of critical areas that should be preserved
for maintaining wildlife movements through various habitats and regions
in the California Desert. We support this and strongly recommend that
the bill require the land managing federal agencies to implement the
recommendations of the studies including the designation and
preservation of wildlife movement corridors within two years after
completion of the study.
II. Title II: Desert Renewable Energy Permitting
This bill provides a good start at addressing some of the difficult
issues surrounding the siting and permitting of renewable energy
projects, timely processing of applications and coordination between
federal agencies and states in wildlife matters. While we support the
overall intentions of this provision, we continue to have reservations
about several aspects of the bill including but not limited to:
categorical exclusions for wind and solar testing facilities,
permitting deadlines, designation of habitat mitigation zones; the
distribution of solar and wind income; and determinations about fair
market value of public lands.\3\ Although we welcome the opportunity to
discuss all of our concerns in greater detail, we would like to take
this opportunity to draw your attention to S. 2921 Sec. 201, the
distribution of solar and wind energy income, and S. 2921 Sec. 205,
habitat mitigations zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See S.2921, Sec. Sec. 207, 202, 205, and 201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two main points that we will make in our statement for the
record are:
1. As our nation makes the transition to green energy, we
must ensure that efforts to mitigate the impacts of renewable
energy are adequately funded; and
2. We need to ensure that a federal mitigation banking
program to encourage renewable energy development is consistent
with California Senate Bill 34 and other existing state laws.
a. revenues from renewable energy development should be directed to
conservation efforts
The California Desert Protection Act sets out a revenue structure
for income from solar and wind energy development.\4\ As currently
drafted, the CDPA distributes income collected by the BLM for
permitting as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. Sec. 201(a)(k)
25% to the states and 25% to counties hosting
renewable energy development.
For fiscal years 2009-2040, 40% to the BLM Permit
Processing Improvement Fund
For fiscal years 2021 and onward, 40% to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund
10% to the Solar Energy Land Reclamation,
Restoration and Mitigation Fund (SELRRM) to be used for
reclamation and mitigation of lands disturbed by solar
development, with a lifetime total cap of $50,000,000, with
surplus directed to the general Treasury fund.
Defenders highlights two distinct issues with this section. First,
we believe the funds directed to LWCF should instead be directed to the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and be deposited
immediately, instead of delaying deposits until 2021. Second, given the
significant impacts large scale energy development will have on the
fragile California desert, including habitat fragmentation and direct
impacts on species, we appreciate and support Senator Feinstein's
acknowledgment that mitigation efforts and funding are essential to a
comprehensive and robust renewable energy program. We believe any fund
used for mitigation of lands disturbed by renewable energy development
should analyze the costs of a mitigation project in order to provide a
more realistic estimate of funding needs (i.e. 10% may not be enough).
The development of a single major solar plant in the California Desert,
for example, can involve leveling and clearing thousands of acres of
biologically-fragile desert land that supports a wide range of
sensitive and imperiled species (including the desert tortoise and
Mohave ground squirrel) and unique habitats. Defenders would also like
to highlight for the committee our position that all money directed to
a mitigation fund should be dedicated without further appropriation,
and without a lifetime total cap.
B. Habitat Mitigation Zones and Potential Conflict with New State Law
Senator Feinstein's bill creates a mitigation banking system in the
California Desert to encourage development of renewable energy projects
on private lands.\5\ This includes a requirement that the Secretary
identify at least 200,000 acres of federal lands to use as mitigation
for private land development. At the time the bill was drafted, there
was no comprehensive renewable energy planning or mitigation effort in
place in California. With the enactment of California's Senate Bill 34,
which requires the California Department of Fish and Game to develop an
interim mitigation strategy for ``fast-track'' renewable energy project
in the desert, and the official initiation of the Desert Renewable
Energy Conservation Plan planning effort--both of which include the
requirement of identifying areas for mitigation, Defenders believes the
bill must ensure that the mitigation banking program is consistent with
the new planning and mitigation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id Sec. 205
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the mitigation banking system limits the mitigation
payments for land acquisition to 75% of the fair market cost of
purchasing the acreage necessary for mitigation. Because the California
Endangered Species Act requires ``full mitigation'' of impacts to
threatened and endangered species, Defenders remains concerned that the
bill does not adequately ensure that project developers will still
meet, or can meet, state endangered species law requirements. In
addition, in light of the new planning and mitigation tools which are
being developed under the new California Senate Bill 34 and the Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, it is unclear how the 75% cap on
mitigation payments comport with these two efforts, which rely on full
mitigation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate and support Senator
Feinstein's effort to conserve important lands in California and
promote responsible renewable energy development. Defenders looks
forward to working with the Committee to address the issues we have
highlighted above. Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement
for the record.
______
Statement of Terry Weiner, Imperial County Projects and Conservation
Coordinator, Desert Protective Council, San Diego, CA
Honorable Senators,
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Desert Protective
Council and its members. I request that these comments be placed in the
record during the ten day window for additional testimony on S. 2921
following the May 20 2010 Senate Energy and National Resources
Committee Hearing on this legislation.
The Desert Protective Council submitted comments to this committee
on May 20 2010 regarding our concerns with several sections of the bill
related to off-road vehicle recreation. The comments below will briefly
cover our concerns with the renewable energy permitting provisions of
the bill. Our support of the CDPA is qualified pending amendments to
the off-road recreation and these renewable energy sections of the
bill:
Section 1304 Uses of the [Mojave Trails National] Monument
Section 1404 Uses of the [Sand to Snow National] Monument
These sections clarify non-prohibited uses of the proposed
Monuments ranging from legal hunting and access to in holdings to
expansion of energy transmission corridors as well as establishment of
new transmission corridors, and rights of way to same.
1) We are greatly concerned at the potential impact of this
section on some of the most unspoiled desert wild lands
remaining in the Southwest--lands the Monuments are expressly
intended to preserve. While the language of the bill reaffirms
that all new transmission corridors or expansions of existing
corridors must comply with Federal environmental law as well as
with the Monument management plans, insufficient specifics are
provided as to the evaluation of cumulative effects of
expansion of such corridors and rights of way on the landscape.
The cumulative effects with which we are concerned include but
are not limited to:
Fragmentation of habitat for retiring wildlife species such
as desert bighorn sheep;
Destruction of habitat for sensitive species such as the
desert tortoise, fringe-toed lizard, and other species within
the construction footprint of new transmission rights of way;
Disruption of normal wildlife behavior patterns with results
such as increased raven predation on desert tortoises due to
new development corridors in formerly intact desert, new secure
raven nesting sites in the transmission towers, and ravens'
increased facility in spotting vulnerable tortoises due to the
tall perching surfaces transmission towers would provide;
Introduction and spread of invasive exotic plants into
previously un-colonized lands, which spread is known to be
accelerated by development and road-building;
Increased risk of devastating wildfire sparked by faults in
electrical transmission lines or pipelines carrying combustible
fluids, and;
Loss or degradation of some of the most compelling visual
resources to be found in the continental United States, in
which hundreds of square miles of desert can currently be
viewed with no obvious human intrusion or presence apparent.
Title II: Renewable Energy Permitting
Sec. 201: Renewable Energy Coordination Offices
This section mandates designation of BLM offices as Renewable
Energy Coordination Offices for ten western states, and authorizes
coordination of agency procedure and timelines for public lands energy
project permitting.
1) The current system of evaluation and permitting of
industrial energy development projects on public lands is
broken. Despite the best intentions and remarkable skills of
Federal employees charged with overseeing the permitting
process, the sheer volume of applications has overwhelmed the
system. Required environmental surveys of project sites have
been done in rushed and slipshod fashion, with deadline
pressures contributing to incomplete accountings of wildlife
populations, visual impacts, vegetative communities and
hydrological risks to construction. In many places contractors
have conducted surveys of project sites without leaving their
vehicles.
The result has lead to incomplete and sometimes seriously
misleading official assessments of the environmental impacts of each
project. This poses a serious obstacle to informed citizen input where
avenues for it exist, and deprives land managers of the information
they need to make creditable decisions in the permitting process.
It is clear that we need to do things differently. Coordination of
state, local and federal agencies is an important first step. However,
we have strong concerns that the language in the bill will be read as a
mandate to ``streamline'' the permitting process. The process has been
streamlined far too much already. In order to best protect our
irreplaceable public lands and the resources thereon we feel that the
best reform of the permitting process includes benchmarks rather than
deadlines. We urge Senators to amend the bill to establish and/or
reaffirm credible baseline standards for the environmental reports
required of each applicant.
The beauty and ecological integrity of the southwestern deserts, in
particular, have been under-appreciated and under-researched. New
species, and new populations of rare species, are discovered in our
deserts with remarkable frequency. We owe it to future generations to
ensure that those who would convert publicly owned desert wild lands to
industrial use commit to basic due diligence in their surveys of the
wildlife, archaeological, and other values of the land proposed for
development.
2) We feel strongly that fair market cost based on a right-
of-way standard is an improper basis for establishing fees
charged developers of industrial energy projects on public wild
lands. These projects utterly and irrevocably change the
character of the land upon which they are sited. A right-of-way
standard that may apply to building of a road or railway, or of
a small facility such as a microwave repeater, seems to us
misapplied in projects that involve the wholesale destruction
of thousands of acres of desert land at a time. Given the slow
recovery of arid land habitat communities, these disturbances
are essentially permanent. Charging developers fees based on a
20-year right-of-way equates to charging a tenant rent on a
building when their plan is to demolish that building. We urge
Senators to amend the bill to establish a cost calculation that
takes into account the full and permanent destruction of these
lands' many values.
Chairman Bingaman and members of the Committee, thank you for your
work and for consideration of our comments.
We look forward to working with you and with Senator Feinstein to
improve and pass the California Desert Protection Act 2010.
______
Statement of Frederic C. Johnson III, PG, Utah Licensed Professional
Geologist, Virgin, UT
Honorable Chairman Bingaman and Members of the Committee, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss ramifications of S. 2921 upon the
ability of the United States and the State of California to maintain
and sustain a viable renewable energy program consistent with national
security, and to discuss some necessary steps to help return the Nation
and the State of California to economic good health.
As a professional mining geologist with 36 years experience that
includes living and working in the California Desert for 30 years and
working as an advisor with BLM and Inyo County on the initial Sec. 603
FLPMA mandated Desert Plan in the 1980's, I appreciate the opportunity
to discuss this legislation that will so drastically affect the people
of the desert. S. 2921 needs significant revision to keep from
negatively affecting the people of the desert area and continuing to
negatively affect California. Although the land designations for
renewable energy projects are a good idea to keep from impacting the
desert environment, the proposed designations of National Monuments and
wilderness areas that were partially crafted by environmental lobby
groups are not a good idea for California's fragile and collapsing
economy.
During my 25 years of work with the borate industry in and near
Death Valley, California and experience in the deserts of the
southwestern United States, I learned that many areas within the
diversely and richly mineralized California Desert have never been
adequately explored for important industrial minerals and much of it is
now considered off limits to mineral exploration due to short-sighted
legislations. These legislations that refused to address the importance
of our mineral estate to this nation have damaged and almost destroyed
what was a $1.3 to 2 billion dollar industrial mineral industry in the
1990's in a State that is approaching financial bankruptcy. Today S.
2921 proposes more withdrawals of mineral exploration territory from
exploration, research, and development at a time when our nation needs
to be independent for its energy (renewable or otherwise) and
economically productive.
S. 2921 unfortunately overlooks priority one. This first priority
should be to study and address the ramifications of the proposed bill
on national security and the socioeconomic viability of local, state,
and national economies. S. 2921, ignores mining and mineral uses that
should be considered to support not only renewable energy with
products, but to help bolster a dieing economy, It is disturbing to see
a country put itself out of business by adopting non-scientific short-
sighted land management practices that deter the research and
development (exploration) necessary for the future.
If the good things that lead to permitting land bases for renewable
energy projects are to be realized with this S. 2921 Bill, then the
bill needs to be re-written to allow exploration, research, responsible
development, and innovative uses of local industrial minerals to
support technological advances in renewable energy facilities in the
future. This exploration and study should include all the lands in S.
2921.
To enumerate several important issues that are being overlooked and
worst yet being stifled by S. 2921 please consider the following list:
1. All renewable energy projects and their developing
technology are in their infancy and are still working on what
mineral bases make the best materials for energy capture.
Minerals are the basis for the capturing mechanisms and
research and development is on going. As some environmental
activists would advocate to preserve all land to make sure you
do not overlook an endangered species, one who understands the
importance of energy independence and the need for minerals to
supply that independence would state the obvious; `` If it
can't be grown, it has to be mined''. therefore, lets explore,
research, and responsibly develop the resources we have to heal
our country. New mineral species found in new ground could be
the next saving grace for the free world just like the finding
of new animal species can be the next great cure. Therefore the
continued removal of the shrinking federal land base from
exploration has dire consequences for the future.
2. Much of the new wilderness proposed by S. 2921 does not
qualify as wilderness according to the descriptions of
wilderness in the Wilderness Act of 1964. Most newly proposed
wilderness areas have roads and/or were previously inventoried
by BLM and deemed unsuitable because other multiple uses
benefited the nation better. In fact, some of the wilderness
areas designated in the 1994 California Desert Protection Act
have roads that are not even signed. If Congress insists on
making wilderness with roads (contrary to the Wilderness Act),
then put a provision in the bill that the roads into a
wilderness can be driven to access the wilderness so that many
of our unsuspecting public do not become criminals.
3. The small amount of exploration and mineral study that has
been done in some of the areas proposed for wilderness and
National Park expansions shows several areas with high
potential for the rare earths and other industrial minerals
that are critical to our technological world. Presently,
communist China is the only active producer of rare earths, and
they are trying to buy controlling interests in our rare earth
and other mineral deposits every day.
4. At this time in our economic history, our country needs to
produce and manufacture and sell something ``Made in the USA''
to climb out of the economic hole, but continuing to ignore the
problem will get us deeper in the hole.
5. S. 2921 ignores another major economic factor. `Tourism
and being the ``service station'' for the rest of the world
will never give this nation sustainable economies, because
something has to be produced and sold somewhere for an economy
to allow tourism'. If it is only other nations' tourism we are
supporting then we truly will become the ``service station for
the world'' and we will be owned.
6. S. 2921 will send more good paying jobs that produce
something in California to other countries by continuing to
scare producing industries off. No one will risk capital in a
country or state that legislatively restricts and prohibits
land use in most of its area; therefore, mining companies and
capital investors look beyond the U.S. and California to
countries that do not have the environmental conscience of our
nation.
7. The job of wilderness lobby groups like the ones who have
helped draft this legislation is to put land into ``No Use''
categories that subsequently put other people out of business
and take away jobs. As a country we have large amounts of
wilderness and many National Parks. Wilderness lobby groups say
there will never be enough wilderness because it is their jobs,
but it is time to consider putting someone who produces
something back to work. Enough wilderness has been reached, our
nation cannot economically stand to let it go on. We can
develop in an environmentally responsible way.
8. No further lands should be withdrawn from mineral entry.
The self-initiative exploration promoted by the mining law is
the beginning of the research and development and discovery of
new mineral resources and uses. Removing lands from this
process sends all those willing to explore to other countries.
9. A careful inventory of and use of existing roads for
access to all lands identified in the bill should be written
into the bill. Keep existing accesses open.
10. Maintaining a significant landmass open to exploration
should be a critical concern in these economic and perilous
times. Mineral exploration can boost economies and may well
lead to more efficient energy alternatives like the uses of
Lithium, Gallium, Germanium, and other rare earths in solar and
computer technologies and the use of high quality Calcium
Carbonate to replace many petroleum product uses. Additionally,
mineral exploration should be considered vital to this nations
security. If we need it and we don't know where it is when we
need it, it just may be too late. Please, No more wilderness.
11. Please realize that of all the millions of acres of
public land explored, less than 0.02% ever becomes a mine. So
we are not talking about mining the west here, we are talking
about exploring to maintain our country's security and to help
recover its economic viability.
12. Contrary to projected belief by wilderness lobbyists that
the Desert is being destroyed, once one is away from the
populated centers, the peace and tranquility is there and ATV's
are not running amuck because the terrain is difficult.
Traveling the desert like I have around Death Valley for 36
years it seems that the trail riding ATV and Motorcycle folks
respect the Desert also and stay on the existing trails and
roads. The massive destruction scenario is a falsehood promoted
by those that are in the business of putting others out of
business.
13. A few good things in this bill are the designation of
land areas for energy development and for ORV play.
In these economic hard times an extremely important aspect of the
mining sector is that each mining job creates 2 to 3 additional jobs,
so why is S.2921 trying to run these jobs out of the country. At a
recent meeting with the Inyo County, California Supervisors, the
representative of the California Wilderness Coalition who helped draft
and is promoting the wilderness portion of this legislation was asked
why wilderness was proposed in areas where it was highly mineralized
and roaded and previously rejected as non-wilderness in character. The
answer from the Wilderness Coalition was that `` it is just to stop
mining''. Is this the reason for legislating wilderness?
Please consider implementing the following concerning S. 2921:
1. Please consider a thorough mineral inventory for all areas
of the bill that are proposed for withdrawal from mineral
entry. After inventory results are made public, field hearings
would allow the public to express their support or opposition
of S. 2921. The inventories should be for all possible economic
mineral potential to insure that jobs and future needed mineral
developments are not prohibited by withdrawal.
2. Please consider establishing the Monuments, if needed,
with provisions to allow mineral entry by exploration and
discovery, and potential mining under special use permits for
proven critical minerals. Enhanced reclamation standards can
apply in any specially designated areas. Any needed withdrawals
should be studied, proposed, and brought through the processes
that BLM is allowed under FLPMA and NEPA to insure that the
decisions to withdraw are backed by good science and not a
lobbyist's desires.
3. Please write into S. 2921 that a thorough non-partisan and
non-biased socioeconomic study of the ramifications of all
aspects of S. 2921 on the local people of the affected areas
will be done before field hearings and consideration of the
bill for passage. The results of this study would be good
information for discussion at field hearings.
4. Please allow field hearings for the public to voice their
support or reservations on this large public land withdrawal in
an area that is already economically devastated.
5. Please consider no further additions to the Wilderness
system because a land base is needed in the mineral rich and
diverse California Desert for mineral exploration to help guide
our nation into the future and insure local minerals to support
renewable energy development.
6. Please consider provisions in the bill to use the present
management structure for land protection under the FLPMA and
NEPA laws by bolstering the agencies with directives to help
all concerned with the desert to achieve their goals without
prejudice to others and in a fashion that protects while
expediting needed economic concerns. After all, the issue of
the environmental impact of permitting large land areas to
develop renewable energy was brought to light in the public
process mandated by NEPA.
The designation of areas for renewable energy projects in S. 2921
is a great idea, and I agree that the desert should be protected from
over development. However, highly mineralized areas like the large rare
earth areas in and adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park, un-studied
mineralized areas in the Avawatz Mountains with roaded access, the
highly mineralized and relatively unstudied Bowling Alley with roaded
access and private lands, and the Soda Mountains with high and poorly
studied mineral potential should be left open for mineral exploration
and not put into wilderness.
I am not totally against all aspects of S. 2921; however, the noted
issues that are not addressed in S. 2921 are extremely important to
California and our Nation. This legislation needs a lot of revision to
help all concerned.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this important
legislation that could be made good or bad.
______
Statement of Gary Niles, Resident, Walters Camp, Imperial County, Palo
Verde, CA
Walters Camp Resident Supports Desert Protection
A 25-Year Perspective of Local Land Use
I am Gary Niles, a homeowner at Walters Camp since 1987 and full-
time resident since 2002. I am greatly concerned as special interest
groups compete for the last vestiges of California's pristine desert
lands. Walters Camp is especially vulnerable, where five wilderness
areas and two wildlife refuges surround 58 homes and a BLM campground
along the Colorado River. Surprisingly the growth rate here exceeds Los
Angeles and San Diego where the majority of Walters Camp homeowners
live permanently. New construction will soon add 34 more vacation homes
to total 92, more than doubling the number of private residences over a
25 year period.
I strongly support Senate Bill S.2921 proposing 74,714
acres in nearby Vinagre Wash as a Special
Management Area (Title XVI, Section 1602).
Then and Now
In 1985 most folks were lucky to share an old jeep with their
entire family. The annual ``poker run'' of 20 or 30 vehicles was
considered a big event and easily accommodated by local sand washes.
Water sports dominated three seasons with hunting, rock-hounding and
trail-riding reserved for winter months. A decade later the explosive
popularity of off-roading changed all that.
In 2010 families have at least one ORV for every man, woman and
child, capable of going virtually anywhere at any speed. More visitors
arrive here each year to escape the crowds at Glamis. Increased
population and vehicle performance makes Walters Camp a convenient
``launch point'' for hundreds of drivers to access backcountry lands on
any given weekend.
Culture Shock
A handful of neighbors at Walters Camp have worked diligently to
identify local ORV trails to be included in the proposed legislation.
However this is not our greatest challenge. What cannot be legislated
is tomorrow's ``off-road culture'' which is a very socially-complex
issue. Lacking the restraint of previous generations, some off-roaders
show-off their vehicles and driving skills by competing on pristine
hillsides and waterfalls in culturally significant areas. Rogue riders
continue to make new trails which are soon followed by others and, even
if corrected, the erosive scarring lasts for decades. A culture of
trespassing on private and public property is rationalized by those who
believe they have a ``prescriptive right'' to drive wherever they wish.
This behavior is witnessed by youngsters eager to make their own
mark on the world while maps, private land and wilderness boundaries
are ignored. Like the nearby Glamis sand dunes, if left unchecked our
desert wilderness will evolve into just another giant amusement park.
Off-Roading We Can Live With
Any successful negotiation, they say, leaves all sides frustrated,
no one getting every-thing they want. For better or worse, we are
governed by compromise. Such is the ``battle'' over how public land is
used. The river basin south of Walters Camp is bounded by remnants of
California's wilderness first inhabited by our Native American
ancestors. As citizens we have a responsibility to preserve these
unspoiled areas for future generations. The proposed legislation is a
first step toward responsible management and will determine the
ultimate fate of our precious natural resources. Your support of Senate
Bill S.2921 is greatly appreciated.
______
Statement of Rose Chilcoat, Associate Director, Great Old Broads for
Wilderness, Durango, CO
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important piece of
legislation. Great Old Broads for Wilderness is a national wilderness
advocacy organization that uses the voices and activism of elders to
preserve and protect wilderness and wild lands. We have more than 5,000
members in all 50 states and exist to give voice to the millions of
older and no longer so able Americans who still desire to see America's
remaining wild landscapes protected for future generations. More
information on our organization can be found at www.greatoldbroads.org
.
We applaud Senator Feiinstein for her strong leadership regarding
wilderness protections and we fully support the three new wilderness
areas, Avawatz Mountains, Great Falls Basin and Soda Mountains and the
additions proposed for the Golden Valley, Kingston Range, Death Valley
National Park Wilderness and the San Gorgonio Wilderness in the San
Bernadino National Forest. These are all important wild landscapes that
deserve the strongest possible protection in a world of ever
diminishing wildness. However, there are some further improvements that
could be made to this bill. Please give wilderness designation to the
entire Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area or if that is not possible,
please do not ``release'' the remaining WSA from its present
protections.
We believe that the Cady Mountains, a wilderness study area east of
Barstow and west of the Mojave National Preserve also deserves to be
designated as wilderness in this bill. Prior opposition is no longer
relevant and wilderness would provide the greatest degree of protection
for these lands. Inclusion of this area in the Mojave Trails National
Monument, while good, would not protect this area from degradation from
potential development, power lines or off-road vehicle use.
There is one other area, Conglomerate Mesa, that we feel should be
included in this bill. It would be a valuable and logical addition to
the Malpais Mesa wilderness.
The two new National Monuments, Mojave Trails and Sand to Snow
would both provide valuable protected wildlife habitat corridors and
connectivity with other protected landscapes. Please be sure to include
language to ensure use of off-road vehicles is addressed via a
management plan for these areas. We support and applaud these
protective designations as a legacy for future generations of
Americans. Our children and grandchildren will thank us.
While we overall support this legislation, there are some aspects
that we believe are mis-guided and troubling, namely the Congressional
designation of more than 400,000 acres of off-road vehicle (OHV) use
areas as National Recreation Areas. To enshrine permanently by law the
use of public lands for off-road vehicle use/abuse is short-sighted and
removes completely the ability of the managing agencies to reduce,
regulate or stop such use should circumstances change or unacceptable
impacts occur. This also sets a terrible precedent for similar language
to be included in other future wilderness bills. Our public lands
agencies already have the ability to respond to public demands for
various types of recreational opportunities. This does not need the
attention or action of Congress. Providing for multiple use while
ensuring soil stability, water quality, air quality, wildlife habitat
and other values are maintained and not degraded is part of every
agency's purpose. Congress should not feel compelled to step in and
interfere with this role. Land use and development is not lacking on
our public lands, land protection is; this is why the Wilderness Act of
1964 was passed by a bipartisan majority. Please do not weaken the
intent of this landmark act by making permanent destructive concessions
to a single user group for self serving and potentially dangerous and
damaging purposes. Many communities across America are struggling to
deal with the negative impacts of off-road vehicles. Putting into place
Congressional direction for such use simply is incredulous. Our desert
landscapes are already under assault from far more deserving proposals
such as renewable energy development. Adding to the impacts and stress
on these fragile resources makes no sense ecologically or
legislatively. In the face of climate change, it further ties our hands
in being able to ensure our public lands are healthy and resilient.
Please remove the language designating these off-road vehicle areas
from this legislation.
Thank you for this opportunity to have input into such an important
legislative proposal.
______
Statement of David Lamfrom, California Desert Program Manager for
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), Barstow, CA
Chairman Bingaman and committee members, National Parks
Conservation Association appreciates the committee's consideration of
the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 (S. 2921). We support this
bill because an integral part of our mission is to protect and enhance
the National Park System-S. 2921 will enhance these desert parks.
S.2921 is another historic opportunity to better protect the California
Desert, a location with diverse and sometimes competing industrial and
recreational opportunities and interests. The bill balances the needs
of both residents and visitors, with needed protection for world-
renowned, pristine ecological systems. It honors the history of the
Westward Movement and Native Americans of the region through landscape
preservation, while seeking to develop a responsible and responsive
system for harnessing the California desert's immense renewable energy
potential.
National Parks Conservation Association has been the leading voice
for the National Parks since 1919. We are comprised of 320,000 members,
including 44,000 in California. We strive to uphold the protections
awarded to the California desert national parks in the original
California Desert Protection Act of 1994. We applaud Senator Feinstein
for her leadership and vision in protecting these critical lands.
Stakeholders and other California Desert residents have embraced her
thoughtful and inclusive process to educate and engage communities and
organizations about this opportunity to conserve our legacy, while
carefully creating economic opportunities and a renewable energy
future.
Title 1 proposes the creation of two National Monuments; the
protection of critical watersheds through Wild & Scenic designation;
the designation of wilderness; and the expansion of Death Valley
National Park, Joshua Tree National Park, and the Mojave National
Preserve. NPCA is supportive of these recommended protections. The
Mojave Trails National Monument, which incorporates hundreds of
thousands of acres of Catellus lands, will protect 1.6 million acres of
rugged mountains and sandy valleys that connect species like Desert
Bighorn Sheep to their lambing grounds and along their ancestral
migration corridors. This proposed monument will protect critical
habitat for federally threatened species including the desert tortoise
and preserve the longest remaining continuous stretch of Historic Route
66. Mojave Trails National Monument will also connect Mojave National
Preserve, Joshua Tree National Park, and 13 wilderness areas. This
significant landscape level protection will incorporate varied
elevational gradients and provide desert species protection from the
worst effects of global climate change. Protecting connected ecosystems
allows gene-flow across populations, and increases the resilience of
many species in the face of a rapidly changing environment. Similarly,
the Sand to Snow National Monument will connect a national parkland to
neighboring conservation lands. In addition to being a tourist
destination for Inland Empire, Morongo Basin, and San Bernardino
Mountain communities, this monument will effectively connect Joshua
Tree National Park to the San Bernardino Mountains. This monument,
which includes the highest point in Southern California, will also
protect critical watersheds such as the Whitewater River and the Big
Morongo Canyon springs and bosque.
Roughly 70,000 acres will be added to the California desert
national parks through this legislation. These additions will protect
watersheds, discourage inappropriate adjacent development and provide
interpretative and educational opportunities. The 29,000 acre Castle
Mountains proposed addition to Mojave National Preserve represents a
parcel that was pulled out of the original California Desert Protection
Act of 1994 due to the presence of gold. Viceroy Mine operated three
open-pit mines on 700 acres of this parcel, and they retain
approximately 1200 acres of patented land. Viceroy no longer actively
mines this area, and has successfully re-vegetated much of the
disturbed land. This largely-pristine parcel represents one of the
rarest ecosystems in the California Desert, high desert grassland. The
area, lush with Joshua Trees, Juniper, and native bunch grasses, was
recognized in 1980 by the BLM as a Unique Plant Assemblage. Castle
Mountains is home to both resident and migratory herds of Desert
Bighorn Sheep and desert tortoise, and will be studied for the re-
introduction of pronghorn antelope by the National Park Service.
The 32,000 acre Bowling Alley proposed addition to Death Valley is
a long and thin parcel separating Death Valley National Park from the
Fort Irwin Military Reservation. This rugged landscape is important
desert tortoise habitat and is home to several perennial springs.
Adding this parcel to Death Valley National Park will provide
consistent management in this area, and is a common-sense boundary
adjustment recommended by the National Park Service.
Crater Mine, a defunct sulfur mine, is a BLM inholding within Death
Valley National Park. This 6,300 acre parcel proposed for addition into
Death Valley National Park will provide the National Park Service the
opportunity to feature a sulfur mine as one of their interpretative
programs which teach about mining history and the history of the West.
The proposal of Wild and Scenic River designation for Surprise Canyon's
perennial spring and stream and riparian area, as well as additional
mileage of designation for the Amargosa River support critical riparian
corridors on Death Valley National Park's Eastern and Southwestern
boundaries. The protection of surface flow and riparian corridors in
one of the hottest places on Earth is critical for the protection of
species that depend on them for survival. The Amargosa River is a
critical water resource for gateway communities in Southern Death
Valley.
The 2800 acres of additions to Joshua Tree National Park are
currently managed by the BLM, and feature cactus gardens, old-growth
Joshua Trees, and protect a wildlife corridor between Joshua Tree
National Park and the Twentynine Palms Military Base. Similarly to the
Bowling Alley, these parcels, directly connected to Joshua Tree
National Park make common-sense additions to the park for consistency
of management.
NPCA looks forward to working with committee staff and Senator
Feinstein to improve the legislation's language. We encourage more
protective language within the National Monuments section of title 1.
We request that all energy transmission corridors within Mojave Trails
and Sand-to-Snow National Monuments be limited to existing right-of-
ways. We do not oppose the expansion or maintenance of existing
corridors, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act to
meet energy transmission needs.
NPCA also requests that the language forming a Memorandum of
Understanding between Death Valley National Park and Inyo County be
removed from the legislation. The National Park Service should retain
discretion when managing park roads. At a minimum, the provision should
be changed to include ``may develop a memorandum of understanding'' to
ensure the agency has full discretion to allow or disallow use of a
road for the stated purpose in the legislation.
Additionally, we believe that commercial overflight language in
both new national monuments should be consistent with the Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto National Monuments of 2000. Language pertaining to the
management of commercial air tours should be added that caps air tour
operations at the same amount of tours taking place at the time the
monuments are established. Such action will preserve natural values
inherent to the proposed National Monument that makes this area prized
by recreationists.
Based on the significant positive impact of this proposed
legislation to national parks in the California Desert, NPCA supports
the improvement and passage of this bill. We look forward to continuing
to work with both this committee and Senator Feinstein on this
legislation.
______
Off-Road Business Association,
Bakersfield, CA, May 20, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Senator, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: I am writing to you today about S.2921, The
California Desert Protection Act of 2010, on behalf of the Off-Road
Business Association (ORBA) a national non-profit trade association
representing all aspects of the motorized recreation industry--from OEM
manufacturers to aftermarket suppliers, distributors, and local
retailers across the United States. We believe this bill strikes a good
balance between recreation, conservation and responsible renewable
energy development. At this time ORBA is in support of S.2921 as it is
currently written. If there are changes to the language as it moves
through the legislative process we will have to re-evaluate our
support.
S. 2921 is a product of complex negotiations and compromises
amongst a very diverse group of stakeholders. Senator Feinstein and her
staff have done an amazing job of trying to fulfill the needs of the
recreation, conservation and renewable energy communities that will be
affected by this bill. We are concerned that certain components in this
bill, the ones that are key to our support (listed below), might be
removed and or changed during the legislative process.
The language that congressionally designates the 5 open
areas as Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.
The language that allows all current existing uses to
continue in both the proposed OHV recreation areas and proposed
monuments.
The language that allows the open areas to continue to
operate under their existing management plans until either the
DOI creates new plans or amends the existing ones.
The language that mandates the Department of the Interior
(DOI) study land adjacent to the open areas for possible
expansion.
The language that ensures continued use of OHV/green sticker
vehicles on designated trails.
The language that continues to allow commercial touring in
the proposed monuments.
We are grateful to have been included in the formation of this
monumental piece of legislation. Please consider this letter our formal
request to have these comments included in the official record for this
hearing.
Sincerely,
Fred Wiley,
President/CEO.
______
Statement of Karen Schambach, California Field Director, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Georgetown, CA
Honorable Senators:
I am writing on behalf of Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, our staff and members. PEER is a national, nonprofit
service organization dedicated to assisting federal, state and local
resource professionals who fight to uphold environmental laws and
ethics within their organizations. PEER protects public employees who
protect our environment. There is probably no single issue about which
we hear more about from state and federal employees in California than
damage associated with off-road vehicles (ORVs) on our public lands.
PEER generally supports S. 2921, but we have some serious concerns
regarding portions of the bill that address off-road vehicles. Some
sections of this bill are in conflict with existing laws and
regulations that attempt to manage ORVs. Existing regulations require
federal land managers to manage ORVs to minimize damage by these
vehicles to soils, water, wildlife, wildlife habitat, vegetation and
cultural resources. We fear the following provisions in S2921 weaken or
nullify the Bureau of Land Management's ability to enforce those
regulations.
1. We are opposed to the creation of National Recreation
Areas in four current BLM ORV Open Areas.
Not only does this provision not belong in a Wilderness Bill, but
also it sets a terrible precedent to permanently dedicate public lands
for ORV use. Current law requires BLM to monitor ORV use on its lands
and close areas where damage to resources is significant. This
provision would eliminate BLM's ability to responsibly manage ORV use
in these areas. The Bill states there will be no new management plans,
essentially tying BLM's hands should the need to protect natural or
cultural resources require a management change. Wilderness Areas are
subject to new or revised management plans, and often do adopt new
plans to address changing needs. Why would we require less of a use
that is far more challenging to manage, and which has the potential for
very serious impacts on resources?
We ask that the provisions for NRAs be removed from this bill and
addressed in separate legislation. At a minimum, management plans must
be required, with the ability for BLM to update and revise the plans as
necessary to protect the public's lands and the wildlife and cultural
resources that reside within those lands. Land managers must retain the
authority to enforce existing regulations that allow them to close
areas where unacceptable damage is resulting from ORV use.
2. The Imperial County Vinegre Wash Special Management Area
(SMA) promotes off-road vehicle recreation in an area that
should be managed to protect its extensive Native American
cultural resources. The SMA would not even require a management
plan! We request this bill be amended to require a Management
Plan specifically crafted to protect the rich cultural
resources of the area and based on an inventory of those
cultural resources. Vehicle travel should be limited to street
legal vehicles. ORVs simply will not stay on designated routes,
and a designated route system is essential to protecting this
area.
3. For the same reason, vehicle travel in National Monuments
should be limited to street legal vehicles. Too many ORV riders
simply refuse to stay on designated routes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Statement of Richard L. Russell, Sidekick Off Road, Apple Valley, CA
To whom it may concern,
I am against any further restrictions of access to public lands,
especially by motorized use.
My family and friends enjoy visiting and exploring the backcountry
in off highway vehicles. We explore historic routes, old mining camps
and remote areas. We car-camp and picnic in areas that S-2921 would
close. The previous Wilderness Bill removed thousands of acres from
public access by restricting motorized travel in newly established
Wilderness Areas, severely limiting travel in the newly established
Mojave Preserve and expanding restrictive National Park rules to many
more acres that were previously accessible by off road vehicles under
the management of the BLM. Even when motorized routes are ``cherry
stemmed'' to protect motorized access, such as Surprise Canyon was in
the S-21 Bill, the non-motorized groups pressure the land managers to
close access. The land managers always seem to surrender to these
minority environmental groups.
I have been making and selling backcountry maps to the motorized
community for over 20 years and am quite familiar with the areas
covered by S-2921. Not only would this bill negatively affect my
business, but also more than 150 stores who sell our products.
______
Sierra Club,
May 20, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman, on behalf of the more than 1.3 million
members and supporters of the Sierra Club, I am writing to thank you
for holding a legislative hearing on S. 2921. This bill is at the
center of the ongoing conversation about balancing conservation of the
California desert and appropriate renewable energy development.
Sierra Club commends Senator Feinstein for her dedication to
protecting the California desert and for her work to bring together
many divergent interests and views to craft S. 2921, the California
Desert Protection Act of 2010. This bill represents an important first
step towards achieving balance between the protection of public lands
and wildlife in the desert and the pressing need for renewable energy
development to address the challenge of climate change. While the
Sierra Club supports Senator Feinstein's goals and many of the bill
elements, we continue to have concerns with S.2921, as it is currently
written.
Balancing Renewable Energy Development and Land Conservation in a
Warming World
For more than 100 years, Sierra Club members and activists have
worked to protect the California desert from the traditional threats of
development, pollution, and extractive industries. More recently, we
have worked to protect the fragile desert ecosystems from a dramatic
increase in off-road vehicle abuse. Today, the California desert is
also threatened by the impacts of climate change. In the face of the
unprecedented threats posed by global warming to our natural resources,
public health, and local communities we need to develop clean renewable
energy as quickly as possible. America's treasured landscapes, natural
resources, wildlands and wildlife are already suffering the effects of
global warming.
However, we must not sacrifice special landscapes or important
wildlife habitat in the rush to combat climate change. Instead, we need
a renewable energy program that ensures that necessary renewable energy
development takes place in areas inventoried and identified as
appropriate for development while avoiding, minimizing and mitigating
impacts; and that allows land managers to learn from and adapt to
experience gained in the permitting and operation of renewable energy
projects.
S. 2921--The California Desert Protection Act of 2010
Sierra Club strongly supports the wilderness designations, wild and
scenic rivers designations and the National Park expansions found in
Title I of S.2921. The bill represents a good opportunity to preserve
some of the California desert's most spectacular scenery, from rugged
mountains and hidden springs to tranquil desert washes and Joshua tree
woodlands. The bill will designate approximately 371,000 acres of
wilderness from the Avawatz Mountains near Death Valley to Milpitas
Wash, the largest Sonoran Desert woodland in North America. It will
also create two new national monuments, the Mojave Trails National
Monument and the Sand to Snow National Monument, expand Joshua Tree and
Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve, and
protect important free-flowing rivers like the Amargosa River and Deep
Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Sierra Club also strongly supports several provisions included in
Title II. The bill aims to clarify the BLM's solar and wind energy
permitting processes and includes efforts to improve permitting of wind
and solar energy projects on public and private lands. The bill
recognizes the need for additional policy, guidance, and procedures for
focusing federal resources on the most economically and environmentally
viable renewable energy development proposals. In addition, the bill
includes a strong provision that reinvests new revenues in important
land acquisition programs.
While we are supportive of much of the bill, we continue to have
some concerns, and look forward to working closely with Senator
Feinstein and the Committee staff to make improvements to the bill.
Specifically, Sierra Club's remaining concerns with S. 2921 include:
Title I
OHV Recreation Areas
Sierra Club strongly opposes the designation of the proposed OHV
Recreation Areas in Title I.
Title I would designate five `Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation
Areas' encompassing more than 400,000 acres. While these areas
are currently used for such purposes, we see no reason to tie
the hands of future land managers in requiring that these lands
be permanently focused on this destructive use.
We believe strongly that designating large areas of public
land, for a single type of destructive recreation, is bad
public policy. First, it assumes that the demand for such
recreation will continue for the foreseeable future. Second, it
assures that restoration of the lands in question will not be
possible regardless of future needs for other multiple uses, or
for habitat protection as a result of climate change.
We also worry that this provision will set a dangerous
precedent, which will significantly increase the pressure from
OHV groups for such designations in any new public lands bills,
not just in California but nationwide.
Sec 1801 (f), also requires that there be a study of
possible expansion of all four of these OHV recreation areas.
There are limitations including not exceeding the current acres
administratively designated for OHV use in the CDCA, and
excluding areas needed for conservation or renewable energy
development or transmission. However, the provision still opens
the door for including even more acreage in this permanent,
harmful, singleuse OHV system of designated management areas.
Cady Mountains WSA release
Sierra Club opposes the release of the Cady Mountains WSA (Sec 1503
(b)(1)), the release of the Soda Mountains WSA, and the exclusion of
the Conglomerate Mesa area from wilderness designation.
The Cady Mountains are included in the Mojave Trails
National Monument boundaries. However, the monument management
language would leave this area at risk from new utility
corridors and motorized vehicle routes. Preferably, we would
like to see this area designated as wilderness or otherwise
protected from potential negative impacts.
Title II
Renewable energy permitting process
Sierra Club would like to see the bill's tight deadlines in Section
202 relaxed.
We would prefer a provision requiring the Secretary to
establish achievable deadlines and report to Congress on the
effectiveness of those deadlines once established.
Additionally, Section 202 should provide greater discretion
to the Secretary to determine and update the legal framework
most appropriate to govern commercial wind and solar energy
production on federal lands. While this legislation seeks to
enhance the current system that relies on rights-of-way grants,
we are very concerned this approach would, in effect, codify an
unproven system with known shortcomings.
Categorical exclusion of wind and solar testing facilities.
Sierra Club has long opposed attempts to legislate categorical
exclusions.
The Interior Department has broad discretion under NEPA to
establish administrative CEs where appropriate, including in
connection with proposed renewable energy activities. Section
207 should be removed as it is unwarranted and unnecessary.
Fair market value
The baseline metric for calculating fair market value for solar in
Section 201(k)(2) should be removed, and instead the bill should
clearly spell out that the agency's responsibility and discretion for
determining an appropriate valuation system that ensures a fair return.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate Sierra Club's gratitude to
Chairman Bingaman and the other committee members for holding this
important hearing on S. 2921. I also would like to express our
appreciation to Senator Feinstein for her leadership in working to
protect the California Desert. Sierra Club supports much of S. 2921,
but we continue to have some remaining concerns. We look forward to
working with Senator Feinstein and the other members of the Committee
to make improvements to the bill, in order to offer our full support.
Thank you for your consideration,
Debbie Sease,
National Campaign Director, Sierra Club.
______
Statement of Rhone Resch, President & CEO, Solar Energy Industries
Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on S. 2921,
the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. We are grateful that the
Committee recognizes the important role that public lands play in
shaping our clean energy future.
I. Introduction
Established in 1974, the Solar Energy Industries Association is the
national trade association of the solar energy industry. As the voice
of the industry, SEIA works with its 1,000 members to make solar a
mainstream and significant energy source by expanding markets, removing
market barriers, strengthening the industry and educating the public on
the benefits of solar energy. SEIA represents solar companies across a
variety of solar energy technologies, including photovoltaic (PV),
solar water heating and concentrating solar power (CSP). SEIA members
include manufacturers, distributors, contractors, installers,
financiers and developers of solar energy projects for both utility-
scale and distributed generation deployment.
Despite the recession, the U.S. solar industry grew significantly
in 2009--doubling the size of the residential photovoltaics market and
adding three new concentrating solar power plants. In addition, the
industry added 10,000 new solar jobs to the U.S. economy.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the U.S. Solar Industry Year in Review 2009 at Attachment
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Overview of the Solar Industry
SEIA is grateful to Senator Feinstein for her long commitment to
promoting the greater use of renewable energy in the United States. We
commend her introduction of S. 2899, the Renewable Energy Incentive
Act, which would extend the highly successful Treasury Grant Program
for renewable energy and would create new incentives for renewable
energy deployment.
While many think of solar energy as a distributed generation
resource, deployment of utilityscale solar power plants is increasingly
common. Utility-scale solar can create domestic jobs across the country
now and quickly diversify our energy portfolio. In July 2008, this
Committee held a field hearing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on
concentrating solar power technologies where this trend was discussed.
In addition to the CSP plants already operating in the Southwest, many
announced projects intend to use photovoltaic arrays to generate
hundreds of megawatts of electricity nationwide.\2\ Regardless of the
technology, solar project developers share a common goal:
environmentally-responsible solar development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2 See Utility-Scale Solar Projects List at Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility-scale solar power can generate significant amounts of clean
energy as part of a diverse energy portfolio, providing one of the
quickest ways for states to meet their renewable portfolio standards
and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The Southwest U.S. has some
of the world's best sunlight and we should take advantage of this
limitless natural resource to generate clean energy and transmit it to
America's population centers.
While overwhelming support for increased use of solar energy has
long been known (92% of Americans think it is important to develop and
use solar energy\3\), a recent poll by Gotham Research found that the
American public broadly supports the development of solar energy on
public lands: three out four Americans support developing solar energy
plants on public lands. This same poll shows that the most important
energy challenge facing the country today is developing energy sources
while protecting the environment, according to respondents.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.seia.org/cs/news__detail?pressrelease.id=638
\4\ See Gotham Research Polling Results at Attachment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last two years have brought many changes and an increased focus
on the issue of developing solar energy on public lands. In 2008, the
Bureau of Land Management initiated a Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) for solar development. Last year Secretary Salazar
established four Renewable Energy Coordination Offices within BLM,
initiated ``fast-track'' procedures for the permitting of 14 solar
projects, and identified 24 ``Solar Energy Study Areas'' to undergo
rigorous environmental review as part of the solar PEIS. Solar
developers, Interior Department staff, and environmental stakeholders
alike are adjusting to the increased activity and emerging processes
for developing utility-scale solar power in the United States.
III. The Solar Industry Is Committed to Responsible Energy Development
Development of solar energy on public lands is one important piece
of the increased generation of renewable power in this country. There
are numerous provisions in this proposed legislation that the solar
industry supports, others that merit further review, as outlined below.
A. Provisions the Solar
Industry Supports SEIA supports the establishment of a mitigation
bank to be accessed by any solar developer, whether on public or
private lands. California's collaboration with BLM to establish a
mitigation pool could serve as an effective model for this program.
Allowing developers to pool financial resources and perform mitigation
on high-quality habitat is a win-win scenario.
The solar industry also supports having the Department of the
Interior perform an analysis of climate change impacts. Further, we
believe that this legislation should empower BLM to use those study
results and take into account the positive impacts of renewable energy
development on climate change when it considers right-of-way
applications.
Secretary Salazar's establishment of Renewable Energy Coordination
Offices last year was lauded by the solar industry, and we support the
continuation and expansion of offices whose employees are expert in the
permitting of renewable energy applications. Continued coordination
among BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state agencies will
be necessary to achieve the goal of greater renewables deployment.
Rents paid by the solar energy industry should be used to further
the goals of better and faster permitting, full staffing of the
Renewable Energy Coordination Offices, and a share could go to state
and local government entities where these projects are located. On the
broader topic of solar rents paid to BLM, SEIA supports a rental policy
that provides fair, transparent, and consistent results that are
comparable to private land transactions for similar uses.
B. Provisions that Merit Further Review
The proposed legislation would prohibit BLM processing of any
right-of-way application that could affect native groundwater supplies,
both within and adjacent to the proposed Mojave National Preserve. The
National Environmental Policy Act and other laws already require the
consideration of the environmental impacts of water use by any proposed
project, and SEIA believes these existing provisions to be sufficient.
The additional requirement proposed in S. 2921 could serve to restrict
solar development, even on lands outside protected areas.
Another provision in this proposed legislation would allow BLM to
deny a right-of-way application for any project which is on
``wilderness quality land'' or which may impact ``sensitive species
listed by the BLM.'' SEIA is concerned that these provisions are overly
broad and could unduly limit solar energy development in the Southwest.
III. Conclusion
We cannot fight climate change without clean energy sources like
solar. Solar energy is pollution-free, produces no carbon, and is
fueled by an inexhaustible and renewable resource--the sun. Utility-
scale solar power plants will power millions of homes with clean energy
as part of a diverse energy portfolio that includes distributed
generation, solar water heating and other renewable sources.
The solar industry is committed to solving our most pressing energy
and environmental challenge in a thoughtful manner. Solar power plants
can be developed in a way that balances environmental protection with
our energy demands. The Southwest's plentiful solar resources can be
harnessed in a way that safeguards water resources, habitat, and
wildlife.
Again, thank you for allowing SEIA to submit this testimony. We
look forward to working with the Committee to improve this proposed
legislation and the process for developing utility-scale solar power in
the United States.
______
Statement of Janine Blaeloch, Director, Western Lands Project
I submit this testimony on behalf of the Western Lands Project and
its members and request that these comments be placed on the record.
Ours is the only organization in the country whose mission is to
monitor federal land sales, exchanges, and conveyances and to oppose
actions that would privatize federal public lands. Our goal is to keep
public land public.
We are opposed to S. 2921 as now proposed on the basis of three
broad issues:
(1) It employs a quid pro quo strategy that trades protection
on some federal lands for intensified use on others.
(2) It sanctions, facilitates, and streamlines the
development of potentially massive ``renewable'' energy
developments that have the potential to greatly harm public
lands and fragile habitat-and which we believe entails virtual
privatization.
(3) It provides incentives to the BLM that may
inappropriately facilitate permit approvals.
Quid pro quo protection
In the past several years, we have submitted testimony to this
Committee and worked in many other ways to oppose various quid pro quo
wilderness bills that ``balanced'' wilderness designation in some areas
with the sale, conveyance, or intensified use of public land elsewhere.
Like those bills, S. 2921 seeks to buy the silence of wilderness-and
protection-averse constituents such as off-road vehicle users by
sanctioning their continued destruction of public land outside of the
new, special-protection zone the bill creates. This type of legislation
treats public land as a conglomeration of special areas to be afforded
protection and purportedly not-so-special sacrifice zones doled out to
satisfy political and utilitarian needs.
S. 2921 repeats this pattern with the special designations and
permanent consignment of vast acreages of public land to high-impact
off-road vehicle use. This provision is similar to one that was
proposed in an early version of the Central Idaho Economic Development
and Recreation Act, whereby an overlay covering some 300,000 acres
would have created a priority area for ORV use. The provision could not
get through even under the former, anti-public land Republican
majority, and this type of environmentally harmful political horse-
trading should not be brought back now.
Similarly, S. 2921 seeks to secure protection of some public land
by offering up other, unknown public lands for ``renewable'' energy
development. It proposes to fast-track these potential projects by
providing special deadlines for permitting and environmental analysis.
In other provisions, it allows land exchanges between the State and
Federal governments that entail special land-value arbitration
procedures and waive regulations regarding land-value ``credit
balances.'' Another allows lessees on state land acquired by the
federal government whose leases expire to bypass the National
Environmental Policy Act when applying for a continuation of the lease.
We oppose any waiver or truncation of the NEPA process, and we
continue to oppose this quid pro quo approach to protecting and
simultaneously doling out public land.
Desert relegated to ``energy corridor''
For more than ten years, from eastern California to southwest Utah,
we have scrutinized numerous projects that treated the Mojave Desert as
a disposable commodity. Land exchanges, sales, and outright disposals
coming from both the BLM and Congress have posed an ongoing threat to
the integrity of the Mojave, a perennially undervalued ecological
treasure.
Many of the projects we have reviewed have been located in habitat
of the threatened desert tortoise, and have proposed to address effects
on that species by ``translocating'' the tortoises, even though it does
not appear translocation has been effective, and in some cases results
in mortality. Another major issue in many projects we have scrutinized
is water supply, which, like the tortoise issue, always seems to get
ironed out in favor of more development.
Recently, our concern has focused on the numerous, gargantuan plans
in play to fast-track massive solar, wind, and geothermal projects on
public lands of the arid West, many of which involve, among other
things, both species viability and water supply issues. We fear that
the Mojave and other biologically rich parts of the arid West are being
carved up and sucked dry to the point of ecological collapse and to the
detriment of the numerous benefits they offer the American public.
A bottom-line issue for us, as pertains particularly to massive-
footprint solar projects, is that the multifaceted invasiveness and
long-term, even permanent, impacts of these projects essentially add up
to privatization of the public lands they would occupy. The fact that
these are public lands belonging to all Americans is repeatedly glossed
over with the unquestioned public value of ``renewable'' energy
development.
From our review of several environmental analyses for pending
projects, it appears that what the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) calls the ``irreversible or retrievable commitments of
resources'' associated with these projects are substantial.
Most rights-of-way issued by the government are either small
projects or linear rights-of-way such as for pipelines or transmission
lines that have a comparatively small impact area within the right-of-
way and around or under which other activities and natural processes
can continue. This doesn't appear to be the case with large-scale
planned solar facilities: while footprints of the projects may not
occupy the entire area under right-of-way, between the collection
apparatus and other structures such as buildings and fences, their
impact on the site is complete. Clearly, there is a big difference in
intensity between the virtually permanent impact of a powerline
corridor or road and that of one of these facilities.
Considering the number and size of the projects that are planned,
these will create impacts on a massive scale. The California Desert
District of the BLM alone has nine fast-tracked solar projects pending
that would occupy more than 43,000 acres. Those are just the fast-
tracked solar projects. Fast-tracked wind and transmission line
projects will pose more distributed and linear impacts on about 20,000
acres and along about 300 miles of new transmission-line corridors.
Misguided incentives
We are very alarmed by Title II of this bill. Its provisions go far
outside the California Desert Conservation Area to substantially amend
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and create a further-streamlined and
incentive-laden process for energy project permitting in ten western
states.
Of particular concern is the proposed redistribution of proceeds of
rental income from rights-of-way, including the allocation of 40
percent of the funds toward BLM permit administration. There should be
no direct nexus between the income from permitted projects and the
income of BLM staff who issue them. The same is provided in regard to
oil and gas processing. In light of recent events, including the
consequences of fast-tracked permitting, we do not believe these
provisions are remotely appropriate.
Conclusion
The desert is not just an ``energy corridor.'' We cannot continue
to treat it merely as a swath of cheap land to be the repository of any
use we desire. We believe the headlong enthusiasm for ``renewable''
energy projects that has now become accepted policy needs immediate,
serious reconsideration.
In addition to rejecting this legislation as now proposed, we ask
that the Committee begin a concerted effort to explore alternatives to
these damaging projects, such as distributed solar-installations on
rooftops, parking lots, etc.-and other more environmentally sound and
efficient approaches.
It may be possible to put fossil fuels, Deepwater Horizons, and
Upper Big Branch Mines behind us, but the policy that is now being
followed, and would be further facilitated in S. 2921, is not a
responsible way to do that.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Statement of William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society, San
Francisco, CA
Chairman Bingaman and members of the committee, thank you for
scheduling this hearing on this important bill regarding conservation
of the California Desert and renewable energy permitting.
The Wilderness Society is a national non-profit conservation
organization founded in 1935 with over 500,000 members and supporters.
Our mission is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for
our wild places.
Let me start by expressing my deep appreciation to Senator
Feinstein not only for all of her work consulting stakeholders and
crafting this balanced bill, but more broadly for her distinguished
accomplishments championing the preservation of America's natural
heritage.
From Joshua tree forests to endless acres of spring wildflowers,
from inhospitable salt flats to life giving streams, the California
desert provides a multitude of variety where plants and animals
flourish, including such noted species as bighorn sheep, Mojave ground
squirrel, and desert tortoise.
This landscape also benefits mankind in numerous ways. It provides
places for a wide array of recreation and relaxation, substantial
economic benefits from tourism and new residents, and has the necessary
conditions for appropriate development of much needed renewable energy.
These lands also help connect us with our past as they include many
significant Native American sites, relics from America's pioneer
history, and even noteworthy traces of our 20th century progress, such
as historic Route 66.
The California Desert Protection Act of 2010, which The Wilderness
Society supports, comprehensively addresses the many needs of both
society and nature in one of our country's most dramatic landscapes.
Title I of the bill would designate two new National Monuments,
create three new wilderness areas, expand four existing wilderness
areas, protect over 70 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and designate a
new Special Management Area. It would also transfer some Bureau of Land
Management holdings to adjacent National Park Service units and protect
the native groundwater of the Mojave Preserve.
The new monuments and BLM wilderness will be important additions to
the National Landscape Conservation System and expansion of the
National Park units will continue our nation's tradition of protecting
our most spectacular natural national treasures.
You have heard testimony from some who say that the protection of
these lands will significantly harm the prospects for renewable energy
development in the California desert. Our review of the bill in the
context of other efforts currently underway indicates that this is
patently not the case. In fact, the BLM is now assessing the
suitability of 351,000 acres in the California desert for potential
solar energy development zones. This acreage is significantly more than
experts estimate is needed to meet California's renewable energy
portfolio goal. Also, the BLM is moving forward expeditiously with key
projects across the west that will result in 5,300 megawatts of new
wind, solar, and geothermal power. Neither the BLM study areas nor any
of the projects in process are precluded by the land designations in
Senator Feinstein's proposal. Further, no existing or designated energy
transmission corridor would be adversely affected.
Title I also designates five new National Off-Highway Vehicle
Recreation Areas which would permanently give off-road vehicle users
places to ride. Though The Wilderness Society is not supportive of
permanent designation of off-road vehicle areas, the bill as written
enables the BLM to manage these areas in a manner that protects their
natural resources and non-motorized recreational opportunities.
Ideally, The Wilderness Society would like to see a few changes
made to Title I of the bill as it moves through the legislative
process.
First, regarding the management language for the national
monuments, the bill currently contains provisions stating that monument
designation does not preclude, prevent, or inhibit the maintenance,
upgrade, expansion, or development of new energy transport facilities
within the monuments (Sec. 1304 (f)(1) and 1404(e)(1)). We recognize
the need for new electric transmission facilities in the region, but we
believe this language is overly broad and unnecessary as the issue of
energy transmission is addressed in other sections of the bill. We do
not oppose the provisions allowing for maintenance, upgrade, expansion
and development of energy transport facilities within existing
corridors. The monument management language also contains ambiguous
provisions that could be interpreted to require all existing off-road
vehicle use within the monuments to continue (Sec. 1304(a)(1) and
1404(a)(1)). It is our hope that this will be revised to make its
intent to designate off-highway vehicle routes through the management
planning process clearer.
Next is the issue of releasing the entirety of the Cady Mountains
Wilderness Study Area (Sec 1503 (b)(1)). The bulk of this released WSA
would be designated as part of the Mojave Trails National Monument but
as written, the monument management language would leave this area at
risk from new utility corridors and motorized vehicle routes.
Preferably, we would like to see this area designated as wilderness or
otherwise protected from potential negative impacts.
Sec 1603 (b)(1) and (2) of the bill prohibit the permanent closure
of any off-highway vehicle routes within the Special Management Area.
It is our strong belief that the BLM should be allowed to actively
manage OHV use within the Special Management Area and that this
authority include permanent closure of routes due to natural or
cultural resource damage or public safety concerns.
Finally, Senator Feinstein's proposal requires the BLM to survey
lands adjacent to the newly designated National Off-Highway Vehicle
Recreation Areas for potential inclusion in those areas (Sec. 1801
(f)). We would like to see the potential expansion of the recreation
areas more tightly limited.
Title II of the bill would clarify the BLM's solar and wind energy
permitting processes and includes efforts to improve permitting of wind
and solar energy projects on public and private lands. The bill
recognizes the need for additional policy, guidance, and procedures for
focusing federal resources on the most economically and environmentally
viable renewable energy development proposals. The bill includes a
strong provision that reinvests new revenues in important land
acquisition programs. The bill also affirms the government's authority
to reject poorly-sited projects at any point in the time-bound permit
process it establishes. While the bill is a step toward responsibly
addressing renewable energy development, The Wilderness Society would
like to see several changes to this title as the bill moves forward.
Regarding the renewable energy permitting process, we would like to
see the bill's tight deadlines in Section 202 relaxed, instead
requiring the Secretary to establish achievable deadlines and report to
Congress on the effectiveness of those deadlines once established.
Additionally, Section 202 should afford greater discretion to the
Secretary to determine and update the legal framework most appropriate
to govern commercial wind and solar energy production on federal lands.
While this legislation seeks to enhance the current system that relies
on rights-of-way grants, we are very concerned this approach would, in
effect, codify an unproven system with known shortcomings.
The categorical exclusion of wind and solar testing facilities in
Section 207 should be removed as it is unwarranted and unnecessary.
According to the BLM, wind and solar site testing facility
authorizations have been processed in a year or less on average, and
the agency already has authority to execute such exclusions based on
professional judgment under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The baseline metric for calculating fair market value for solar in
Section 201(k)(2) should be removed, and instead the bill should
clearly spell out that the agency's responsibility and discretion for
determining an appropriate valuation system that ensures a fair return.
We believe the National Agricultural Statistical Service tool, which
was designed to price land in agricultural production, could
significantly undervalue the commercial value of land used for solar
generation.
Chairman Bingaman and members of the Committee, thank you for your
consideration of our comments and we look forward to working with you
and Senator Feinstein to both improve and pass this important
legislation.
______
Statement of Richard E. Stoddard, Chairman of the Board of Mine
Reclamation, LLC and of the Board of Kaiser Ventures LLC
Recent testimony offered by Donna Charpied before the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee regarding S. 2921, the California
Desert Protection Act of 2010, contained a number of factual errors and
outrageous assertions that must be corrected for the record.
At various points within the testimony there are references to
lands owned by Kaiser Eagle Mountain (``Kaiser'') and by the Bureau of
Land Management (``BLM'') as ``pristine'' and ``untrammeled by man''.
In fact, the Kaiser and BLM lands approved in 1999 for development as
the Eagle Mountain Landfill project are hardly ``pristine'' or
``untrammeled by man'' as shown clearly in the *photo below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Photo has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact the lands referenced in the Charpied testimony of May 20,
2010, are devastated by over 40 years of mining and were approved in
1999 to be reclaimed for another purpose as a regional, rail-haul solid
waste landfill. The project will be owned and operated by the Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts in cooperation with Riverside
County, the jurisdiction charged with local land use authority.
The Charmed testimony also seeks to rewrite history related to
Kaiser and BLM lands, the landfill project, Joshua Tree National Park
and the original California Desert Protection Act (``Act'').
Originally, the boundary for the proposed Joshua Tree National Park
(then Monument) included the lands proposed for the Eagle Mountain
Landfill project. It was the leadership of Joshua Tree National
Monument and local environmental interests that requested that the
boundary be changed to exclude the landfill project.
Throughout the processing of the proposed legislation and prior to
the adoption of the Act, Senator Feinstein sought the support of
numerous stakeholders, including Kaiser and one of its major owners,
the New Kaiser Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA) and its
then over 7,000 members. VEBA is a non-profit trust of retirees and
their dependents who lost lifetime medical and death benefits during
the 1987 bankruptcy of Kaiser Steel Corporation. VEBA was established
for the purpose of restoring those lost benefits.
After numerous meetings and consultations with stakeholders during
the processing of the Act, Senator Feinstein simply agreed to make
adjustments to the legislation as a result of their requests and with
the support of the landowner.
In 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein clarified Desert Protection Act
legislative intent in a letter to Kaiser Ventures Inc. Chairman Richard
E. Stoddard. ``During the consideration of the legislation, I met with
dozens of desert users, visited the region, and offered more than 50
amendments to address different concerns,'' she stated. ``In reviewing
the proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill project which is outside of the
boundaries of the desert parks and wilderness areas, it appears its
status is unchanged by the enactment of the California Desert
Protection Act. It is not the intent of this Act to impose on the
project any new or additional federal environmental regulations to be
satisfied.''
Senator Feinstein made perfectly clear prior to and subsequent to
the passage of the Act that approval of the landfill was solely a
matter for federal, state and local law. The proximity of the project
to Joshua Tree National Park was not to be an issue.
Landfill project developer and the land owner understood that the
National Park Service opposed the project due to its proximity to the
Park. There was never a dispute about their position. But the landfill
was proposed many years before the federal government moved the Park
boundaries closer to the project. The closest campground or trail is
over 15 miles away from the landfill project site. The landfill is
downwind from the Park. Visitors cannot see the landfill from the Park.
Senator Feinstein indicated during Desert Protection Act hearings that
the expansion of the Park boundaries should not interfere with the
development of the landfill since that process was already well
underway and in the hands of the local permitting authority.
The legislative history of the original Act makes clear, and
Senator Feinstein's repeated written clarifications underscore, that
the Act was never intended to create a defacto buffer zone around the
Park for purposes of land use. With these assurances in place, Kaiser
pursued the required permits and approvals for the landfill and related
land exchange. During the permitting process, and in response to a
proposal by a former Joshua Tree National Park Superintendent, Kaiser
agreed to go further than required to address issues of concern related
to the Park and negotiated an agreement with the National Park Service
to provide unprecedented protections and ongoing funding for the Park.
In summary, the facts related to the Kaiser Eagle Mountain and BLM
lands referenced by the Charpied testimony before the Committee are
clear. The lands are devastated as opposed to ``pristine''. Further,
the history of Senator Feinstein's leadership in insuring that
thousands of acres of desert lands are protected for future generations
is also clear, as is the legislative history related to the intent of
the Act with respect to adjacent lands. The landfill project was well
known to those considering boundaries for the proposed Joshua Tree
National Park created by the Act. Moving the boundary closer to the
Kaiser and BLM lands was never intended to add or create buffer zones
around the Park or add any additional federal requirement or burden for
the Eagle Mountain project.
Thank you for allowing us to correct the record and underscore the
importance, value and appreciation we all owe to Senator Feinstein for
her consistent leadership and unrelenting efforts to insure that
environmental and economic interests can effectively be served with
desert protection legislation.