Californias Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan What it Means - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

California’s Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan What it Means for Wind and Solar in Southern California 2 8 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 5

Presenter: Andrew C. Bell Partner, Marten Law San Francisco E - abell@martenlaw.com D - 415 . 684 . 9350

DRECP 22.5 Million acres Renewables species permitting Conservation Comments due 23 Feb. 2015

Outline Background Basic Framework Land Use Categories Alternatives Permitting Process Implications for Wind and Solar

Background – Origin of the DRECP 17 November 2008 Memorandum of Understanding among: • California Energy Commission • California Department of Fish & Wildlife • United States Fish & Wildlife Service • Bureau of Land Management Creation of the Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT)

Basics – What is it Made of? Draft DRECP published on 26 September 2014. A combined programmatic document consisting of: • Proposed BLM Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) • Proposed USFWS General Conservation Plan (GCP) • Proposed CDFW Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) • NEPA draft EIS with USFWS and BLM co-lead agencies • CEQA draft EIR with CEC lead agency

Basics – Covered Activities Pre-construction, Construction, O&M and Decommissioning of: • Solar (PV and thermal) • Wind • Geothermal • Transmission within existing corridors • Gen-ties • Substations and switchyards Conservation activities • Includes implementation of project mitigation.

Basics – Covered Species 37 Covered species. • 23 currently listed under CESA or FESA, including desert tortoise, mohave ground squirrel, Yuma clapper rail, Bakersfield cactus. • 7 California fully protected species, including golden eagle and California condor. • “No surprises” assurances for 14 species not yet listed.

Basics– Incidental Take Permitting Paths Permitting Mechanism Varies by Lands and Statutes Involved: Federal Endangered Species • GCP if no federal nexus • FESA Section 7 if federal nexus California Endangered Species • NCCP County participation

Land Use Categories Development Focus Areas DRECP Plan-Wide Reserve Lands Study Area Lands

Development Focus Areas Lands within which Streamlined Incidental Take Authorization Under the DRECP can Occur. • Primary streamlining advantage is for private land projects lacking a federal nexus. • Potential for NEPA/CEQA tiering.

Study Area Lands Lands within DRECP but not (yet) covered by DRECP: • Future Assessment Areas – potential subsequent DRECP amendment. • Special Analysis Areas – designation decided in Final DRECP. • Variance Lands – BLM Solar PEIS.

DRECP Plan-Wide Reserve Lands Existing conservation areas. BLM Land Use Plan Amendment Conservation Designations: • National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) • Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) • Wildlife Allocations Conservation Planning Areas.

acres of DFAs Alternative 2,024,000 Preferred

Acreage by Alternative Preferred DFA

acres of DFAs Alternative 1 1,070,000

acres of DFAs Alternative 2 2,473,000

acres of DFAs Alternative 3 1.4 million

acres of DFAs Alternative 4 1.6 million

No Action Alternative 6,285,000 acres available for development

Inside DFAs Permitting

Avoidance and Mitigation Conservation Management Actions (CMAs)

Some survey requirements would vary by location. Desert tortoise example.

Permitting – BLM Grandfathering Provisions Certain BLM projects within a DFA are exempt from the DRECP. • Projects with a ROD before publication of Draft DRECP. • Projects located within a SEZ that are “pending projects” under the Solar PEIS. • Projects with a draft EIS published no later than 25 November 2014, with limitations.

Implications - Wind

Implications - 4,000 MW of wind through 2040 instead of 12,500 MW 70% of potential wind off limits

Implications - Solar Of 2 million acres sought by LSA and CEERT, less than half would be available under the preferred DRECP alternative. Remainder rejected on the basis of resource conflicts. 575,000 acres of BLM variance lands would be placed off limits as well, leaving a remainder of 13,000 acres.

Implications – Avoidance and Mitigation Requirements

Implications – Riparian Setback Example

Implications – Riparian Setback Example

Implications – Riparian Setback Example

Implications – Riparian and Dune Setback Example

Implications – “Soft Zoning” DRECP compliance mandatory on BLM lands. Technically voluntary on private lands, but less so in practice. Projects deemed inconsistent with DRECP goals likely subject to lengthier, more restrictive review by USFWS and CDFW, with greater risk of challenge.

Implications – The need for a robust, project- level “rebuttable presumption” framework.

Implications - Interagency Plan-Wide Conservation Priority Areas

Conclusion Substantial reduction of developable land. Tightened limitations over the remainder. drecp.org drecp.databasin.org

martenlaw.com Washington | California | Oregon | Idaho