Title

Joshua Tree NP Uneasy About Solar Plant's Effect on Dark Skies, Birds, and Pollution

jtree-stars-11-21-13-thumb-600x480-64379
NPS fears this could be a thing of the past if the Palen solar pproject goes up east of Joshua Tree National Park. | Photo: Ross Manges Photography/Flickr/Creative Commons License
 

The National Park Service has made its opinion known on a proposed solar power tower project just outside the boundaries of Joshua Tree National Park, and the agency says the project would have "unavoidable and unmitigatable significant adverse impacts" to the park.

The summation by the Park Service came in the form of the agency's comments on the Draft Supplemental environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on BrightSource Energy and Abengoa Solar's proposed Palen Solar Electric Generating System (PSEGS), which would place 160,000 billboard-sized mirrors surrounding two 750-foot solar power towers about ten miles from the park's eastern boundary.

Foremost among the National Park Service's requests: scrap the power tower design and go back to the drawing board to create a solar power plant with less visual impact than the two power towers, which at 750 feet would tie for sixth place among the tallest structures in California.

The mere presence of the towers, with the requisite safety lightings and navigation beacons, poses concern to the park agency, which holds among its many missions protecting the dark desert night skies over Joshua Tree. In the words of the comment letter:

During the preparation of the Draft SEIS, according to the document, the NPS provided five viewpoints within and near the park that National Park Service staff felt were of critical importance in gauging the project's effect on Joshua Tree National Park. None of the five are mentioned in the Draft SEIS.

Story continues below

The comments also question assumptions about the scope of the project's visibility that go unmentioned in the Draft SEIS:

ReWire was one of those media outlets that reported on the possible visibility issues.

The National Park Service also commented on a facet of PSEGS and other BrightSource-designed projects that often escapes notice, namely that the plant would use natural gas to pre-heat the plant's boiler fluid in the mornings, and to maintain the fluid's temperature on cold or cloudy days. "The applicant has not clearly defined the amount of natural gas that will be used on any given day or during extended periods of inclement weather," notes the NPS document, pointing out that the project will generate more than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. The agency suggests that applicants BrightSource and Abengoa -- doing business as Palen Solar Holdings (PSH) -- should be made to follow EPA air pollution rules for large emitters of both CO2 and large particulate matter pollution, a.k.a PM10.

Predictably, the agency also has concerns over PSEGS' likely impact on wildlife ranging from solar flux injuries and collisions to disorientation for migrating birds from the towers' lights. National Park Service staff say that the Draft SEIS omits mention of recent discoveries of eagle nests within ten miles of the PSEGS site, and express concerns that insufficient study might mean that the project will pose far more threat to eagles than the Draft SEIS considers likely. The nearby Lake Tamarisk attracts more than 200 bird species, according to a local checklist, hinting at the region's importance for wildlife.

The comment letter contains a number of pragmatic management suggestions intended to alleviate some of the National Park Service's concerns should the project be approved, but it states in remarkably strong terms that it wants the power tower design jettisoned.

"NPS strongly recommends that BLM consider whether solar power tower technology, as proposed by the applicant, is appropriate for this location. NPS preference would be for BLM to limit development in this location to different technologies that have a lower profile and less potential to negatively impact the resource of Joshua Tree NP, such as a photovoltaic solar system."

That suggestion is not going to make the project proponents happy: BrightSource is only in the business of building solar power towers, and changing the project's design essentially means halting the last project the company has on the drawing board for the California desert. That fact seems not to be lost on the National Park Service, which is supporting the Draft SEIS's "No Action Alternative A" -- which consists of denying the project, refusing to grant a right of way on the 3,896 acres of public land it would occupy, and sending those who'd like to put solar generating capacity on the parcel all the way back to square one.

For ongoing environmental coverage in March 2017 and afterward, please visit our show Earth Focus, or browse Redefine for historic material.
KCET's award-winning environment news project Redefine ran from July 2012 through February 2017.

We are dedicated to providing you with articles like this one. Show your support with a tax-deductible contribution to KCET. After all, public media is meant for the public. It belongs to all of us.

Keep Reading