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

Andrew C. Bell

Presenter: Partner, Marten Law San Francisco E - D - abell@martenlaw.com 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.

Preferred Alternative 2,024,000 acres of DFAs

Preferred Alternative Acreage by DFA

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 acres of DFAs

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

Permitting Inside DFAs

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

• f 12,500 MW

70% of potential wind

• ff 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