Permitting

Subscribe to Permitting via RSS

A local air district is developing a rule that would require both existing and proposed warehouses to reduce trucking emissions or pay a mitigation fee.

By Joshua T. Bledsoe

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) is developing a so-called Indirect Source Rule (ISR) that would require Southern California warehouses to reduce emissions associated with trucking activity and on-site equipment. Proposed Rule 2305, recently released by the District in discussion draft form, would establish the Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program — which would apply to owners and operators of warehouses located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) with greater than 100,000 square feet of indoor space in a single building. If the SCAQMD’s development timeline holds, Proposed Rule 2305 will phase in on July 1, 2020.

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[i]

By Christopher W. Garrett, Daniel P. Brunton, James A. Erselius, and Christopher Adam Martinez

In an unpublished opinion issued October 22, 2018, Tennis Club Preservation Society v. City of Palm Springs, Case No. E068896, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing the Tennis Club Preservation Society’s (Petitioner’s) petition seeking to enjoin the City of Palm Springs (City) from issuing building and other permits for Phase III of a proposed development (Project) by real parties in interest John Wessman and Baristo Group, LLC (collectively, Developer). In summary, the court determined:

  • The doctrine of laches prevents the Petitioner’s claim that the Phase III plan violates the mitigated negative declaration’s (MND’s) mitigation measures because the Phase III plan conforms with the plans approved 15 years prior.
  • The Project is not a phased development for the purposes of a local ordinance such that planning commission review and approval would be required prior to further development.

DRECP under review in an effort to alleviate burdens on energy development.

By Marc T. Campopiano, Joshua T. Bledsoe, Jennifer K. Roy, and James Erselius

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently issued a notice of intent to review the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) for potential burdens on domestic energy production in California. The BLM issued the notice on February 2, 2018, in response to Executive Order (EO) 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” EO 13783 was issued on March 28, 2017, and requires the heads of federal agencies to review all existing agency actions that “potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.”

Finalized in 2016, the DRECP established a framework to streamline permitting for renewable energy projects on public lands in the California Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran desert region. The DRECP covers renewable energy development activities, including solar, wind, and geothermal projects, as well as transmission facilities that service renewable energy projects. As discussed in a previous post, concerns from local agencies, industry, and environmental groups caused state and federal agencies to narrow DRECP’s focus to public lands only.

The corresponding Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), issued when the DRECP was finalized, affects land use planning decisions for all of the 10.8 million acres of federal lands within the 22 million total acres covered under the DRECP. The LUPA set aside certain BLM-managed lands for conservation and recreation, and identified priority areas for renewable energy development. As detailed in a prior post, the approved LUPA designates 388,000 acres of Development Focus Areas, which are lands identified as having high-quality solar, wind, and geothermal energy potential and access to transmission. In addition to Development Focus Areas, the approved LUPA designates: 40,000 acres of Variance Process Lands for renewable energy development; approximately 6.5 million acres for conservation; approximately 3.6 million acres for recreation; and 419,000 acres of General Public Lands, which lack a specific land allocation or designation. A land use plan amendment is needed to develop renewable energy in General Public Lands areas.

By Bob Wyman, JP Brisson, Joshua Bledsoe, Andrew Westgate, and Brittany Dryer

On April 18, 2017, California Assembly Members Garcia, Holden, and Garcia proposed amendments to Assembly Bill No. 378 (AB 378) that are intended to extend but significantly reshape California’s Cap-and-Trade Program.[1] This post briefly summarizes the backdrop against which AB 378 has been proposed and discusses the key provisions of AB 378.

Summary

The Members initially introduced AB 378 on February 9, 2017 to “make sure social justice [and] environmental justice [are] addressed” as the California Legislature contemplates how to meet Governor Brown’s 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals, as codified in Senate Bill 32 (SB 32).[2] As discussed below, it would appear that the amendments to AB 378 would support the extension of the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030. The amendments to AB 378, however, propose a number of fundamental changes to the Program. For example, the amendments would create individual facility GHG emissions caps and empower the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to establish “no-trade zones” and facility declining caps. These changes, taken together, would gut the flexibility that is otherwise inherent to a cap-and-trade program, convert the Program into an unwieldy command-and-control mechanism, and ultimately undermine the ability of the state to meet the SB 32 GHG emission targets in a cost-effective way. Finally, the amendments also would require ARB to adopt new criteria pollutants and air toxics emissions standards in response to ongoing concerns expressed by the Environmental Justice (EJ) Community.

By Janice Schneider, Joel Beauvais, Stacey VanBelleghem, Jennifer Roy, and Francesca Bochner

On March 19, 2017, 52 new or reissued nationwide permits (NWPs) for discharges into “waters of the United States,” issued pursuant to Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act went into effect. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) requires a Section 404 permit when development activities discharge dredged or fill materials into jurisdictional waters (i.e., “waters of the United States,” including wetlands). The NWPs – which are used to permit tens of thousands of new projects each year – cover a broad range of activities, including development of oil and gas pipelines, transmission and other utility lines, linear transportation projects, renewable energy, coal mining activities, and residential development. The Corps developed the NWPs as programmatic permits to expedite approval of specific types of activities deemed to have minimal environmental impacts. Seeking authorization under an NWP is less expensive and less time-consuming than obtaining an individual permit.

The prior NWPs were issued in March 2012 and expired on March 18, 2017. In the new NWPs, the Army Corps: (1) reissued all 50 of its existing NWPs, with revisions to twenty-seven; (2) issued two new permits; and (3) added one new general condition. The new NWPs include a grandfather provision that allows activities authorized under the 2012 NWPs that have commenced or are under contract to commence by March 18, 2017, to have until March 18, 2018, to complete the activity under the terms and conditions of the 2012 NWP. Activities that have not commenced by March 18, 2017, and/or will not be complete by March 18, 2018, must seek authorization under the new NWPs.

By Sara Orr, Jennifer Roy and Francesca Bochner

On December 14, 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) finalized its proposed revisions to the Eagle Rule (Final Rule) and released its Record of Decision (ROD). The Final Rule allows companies and others to obtain 30-year incidental take permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (the Act) in exchange for committing to conservation measures designed to reduce impacts to eagles.

As discussed in our previous articles (here and here), this is FWS’ second attempt at revising the Eagle Rule to allow for 30-year permit terms. The draft version of the revisions and the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) were originally released on May 2, 2016. FWS accepted public comments on the proposed revisions and DPEIS until July 5, 2016, receiving over 700 comments from other agencies, public interest groups, industry organizations, and private citizens.

By Sara Orr, Bobbi-Jo Dobush and Francesca Bochner

On November 28, 2016, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) simplified Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (IIP) Process will go into effect.[i]

The IIP is a voluntary, pre-application process intended to streamline and improve the permitting and siting process for qualifying electric transmission projects. In an effort to increase efficiency, the IIP allows DOE to coordinate with applicable federal and non-federal entities to identify issues early in the process and before the developer submits a formal application.

Under the IIP, DOE is responsible for overseeing the IIP Process, coordinating the roles of other Federal entities and maintaining a consolidated administrative record. Developers may participate in two meetings with DOE and other federal and non-federal agencies (local, regional, and tribal stakeholders) to discuss potential issues with a project. While developers must still obtain all other necessary permits, the process is intended to minimize delays by involving all applicable parties from the outset. When the IIP process is complete, developers may submit their formal permit applications to agencies that have already had an opportunity to air concerns and suggest changes.

By Sara Orr, Jennifer Roy and Francesca Bochner

On July 5, 2016, the public comment period closed for the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proposed revisions to the rules authorizing eagle take permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) and accompanying Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), paving the way for FWS to complete and release a final rule, possibly as early as the end of this year.

FWS originally released the revised proposed rules on May 6, 2016, as discussed more fully in our previous post. FWS received over 700 comments on the proposed revisions and Draft PEIS from other agencies, public interest groups, industry organizations, and private citizens.

By Marc Campopiano, Josh Bledsoe, Jennifer Roy, and James Erselius

Phase I of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) has now been approved, paving the way for streamlined permitting and environmental review of qualified renewable energy projects on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered lands in the Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran desert regions of Southern California.

As discussed in a previous post, the four lead agencies responsible for preparing the DRECP introduced a phased approach to implementing the DRECP in March 2015. After receiving public comments, BLM released a Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Phase I—the DRECP’s federal land component—in November 2015. On September 14, 2016, BLM signed the Record of Decision (ROD) approving the LUPA.

By Joshua Bledsoe, Sara Orr and Stacey VanBelleghem

On August 2, 2016, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued its final guidance for federal agencies to assess the impact of their decisions on greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and also how such decisions may be impacted by a changing climate (e.g., future sea level rise impacts on a long-term infrastructure project proposed for a coastal barrier island) when conducting reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The final guidance follows CEQ’s issuance of draft guidance in 2010 and revised draft guidance in 2014, incorporating consideration of public comments and feedback on the two drafts. Following this six-year process, CEQ’s guidance is a recommendation to federal agencies versus a formal legal requirement and therefore does not have the same authority as a federal rule or regulation.

The guidance does not establish any particular quantity of GHG emissions as representing a significant burden on the environment – that determination will be left to the discretion of the agencies. However, the guidance does prohibit the so-called “de minimis approach” where an agency would compare a Federal action’s GHG emissions to global GHG emissions, finding that since the action did not represent a meaningful percentage of the global GHG inventory, the action did not significantly affect the environment.