Inyo Supes approve Munro Valley Solar CEQA doc

Native American Heritage Commission threatens litigation.

At their Tuesday, December 9th board meeting, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors went ahead with their approval of the Munro Valley Solar Project, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with the enhanced mitigation measures from their November 12 meeting, and approving the necessary change to the General Plan.

The approval greenlights the project to move forward.

The approval came despite reviewing a “Notice of Litigation” letter received from the state’s Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) questioning the process used in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) report prepared for the 4-megawatt alternating current solar photovoltaic generating facility project in Olancha known as the Munro Valley Solar project.

The NAHC is questioning the Board’s right under CEQA to vote on the project before a cultural resource survey is completed, a position supported by the Big Pine Tribe, says Alan Babcock, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. The Board decided to approve a letter with an explanation of the County’s legal position notifying the Commission of the County’s decision to move forward with its approval of the project.

The Board did not agree with the Big Pine Tribe’s position as it aligned itself with the NAHC, nor with its position as represented by Babcock, that the S.B. 18 consultations were not concluded (or at least not to their satisfaction).

State Planning law under S.B. 18 requires cities and counties to consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places.

Alan Babcock told the Supervisors that, “The Tribal Council had not made a decision to participate in the litigation.”Nevertheless he went on to say that the Tribe would like the County to rescind its approval of declaration from its Nov. 12 meeting. He further stated that the Tribe felt that the S.B. 18 consultation was not adequate or complete.

Fourth District Supervisor Mark Tillemans, who participated in those consultations as the Board liaison with the Planning Commission, took issue with Babcock’s comments

“We [the County] did consult,” he said. “We crafted mitigation measures from those meetings. We came to those meetings with Planning and the Tribe to consult, to listen, and to adjust mitigation measures based on concerns presented during consultation. We did that and the result was the mitigation measures included in the Negative Impact.”

The Supervisors rejected the Native American Heritage Commission’s allegation that the requirements in CEQA Guideline Section 150604.5 under “tribal cultural resources,” had not been met. This section requires parties to consult in good faith and is deemed concluded when either parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource (if such a significant effect exists), or when a party concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

“The County,” said County Attorney Greg James, “adopted mitigation measures that protect the resources to the same extent as they would whether they were historic or not. The company has an archeologist onsite doing further investigation, Should they find anything, the mitigation calls for further investigation and stoppage of work, and relocation of the project to preserve the artifacts.“

Fifth District Supervisor Matt Kingsley said, “The County is in no way trying to circumvent any on the ground survey or any treatment of artifacts that might be found.”

Several Olancha residents once again complained about the project, saying their concerns were being ignored, and again suggested a reconfiguration of the project’s footprint to move the photovoltaic to the west of their current proposed location on the east side of the 395 Hwy.

One resident even suggested that the Supervisors should not have the authority to approve the project, but rather that it should be put to a vote by the people. The Supervisors roundly rejected that argument.

“What are we here for then?” asked First District Supervisor Linda Arcularius later. “We are elected by the people to make these types of decisions.”

In the end, the Supervisors decided on a vote of 4 to 1 to approve the CEQA document and reject any further mitigation changes than those already made. The concern was that any more mitigation changes might trigger a need for yet another CEQA report, further delaying the project, which they feel meets the criteria that many of their constituents insisted upon for solar projects.

Second District Supervisor Jeff Griffiths offered the only dissenting vote, despite following up his vote by voicing support of the project.