DRECP DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
 

PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Executive Summary | October 2015 
2
 DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Part One: Overview and Background 5 

Section 1.1 Background and Framework for the Final EIS 6 

Section 1.2 DRECP Plan Area and BLM LUPA Decision Area 6 

Section 1.3 Planning Goals 9 

Part Two: Planning Process 11 

Section 2.1 Overview 12 

Section 2.2 BLM Land Use Planning Designations 12 

Section 2.3 BLM Biological Conservation Planning 12 

Section 2.4 BLM Renewable Energy Areas 12 

Section 2.5 Duration of the DRECP BLM LUPA 12 

Part Three: Alternatives 15 

Section 3.1 Approach to Developing DRECP Alternatives 16 

Section 3.2 BLM LUPA Preferred Alternative 16 

Section 3.3 Action Alternatives 23 

Section 3.4 No Action Alternative 23 

Section 3.5 BLM LUPA Alternatives Comparison 24 

Part Four: Environmental Analysis 27 

Section 4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Compliance 28 

Section 4.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts 29 

Section 4.3 Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives 29 

Part Five: Public Participation and Outreach 33 

Part Six: Document Organization 35 

3 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 
PART ONE 

OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND 
DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

PART ONE: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND
 

1.1 Background and Framework for the 

Final EIS 

The California Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran desert region is a 

remarkable place, home to an impressive array of sensitive species 

and their habitats, a robust cultural heritage, and recreational 

opportunities for residents and visitors. Yet there is much more— 

the California desert supports a variety of communities, military 

installations, and business interests, including agriculture, mining, 

and tourism. It also has an abundance of some of the best solar, wind, 

and geothermal resources in the nation. These renewable resources 

will play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gasses to address 

climate change and promote energy independence over the next 

several decades. 

The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) is a 

collaborative planning effort by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), California Energy Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife that 

recognizes the desert’s diverse values. The DRECP seeks to facilitate 

renewable energy development in appropriate places in the desert 

while conserving these other resources and uses. 

The Draft DRECP, released in September 2014, was developed to 

(1) advance federal and state natural resource conservation goals and 

other federal land management goals; (2) meet the requirements of 

the federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species 

Act, Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, and Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in the Mojave and 

Colorado/Sonoran desert region of Southern California; and (3) 

facilitate the timely and streamlined permitting of renewable energy 

projects. The Draft DRECP included a strategy that identified and 

mapped potential areas for renewable energy development and areas 

for long-term natural resource conservation. 

In March 2015, the DRECP partner agencies announced a phased 

approach to completing the DRECP. As part of the approach, the 

BLM component of the DRECP is being finalized first in Phase I, 

making designations for conservation and renewable energy on public 

lands. 

The BLM is releasing this Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment 

(LUPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as Phase I 

of the DRECP. The Proposed LUPA supports the overall renewable 

energy and conservation goals of the DRECP. The Proposed LUPA 

would amend the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan 

as well as the Bishop and Bakersfield Resource Management Plans, 

specifically related to natural resource conservation and renewable 

energy development. The National Park Service, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Department of Defense, California Public Utilities 

Commission, California State Lands Commission, California State 

Parks, and California Independent System Operator are assisting 

in the preparation of the DRECP, but none of these agencies is 

an applicant for state or federal take authorizations at this time. 

Likewise, the seven counties with jurisdiction over land within the 

DRECP Plan Area, as well as the City of Lancaster and Town of 

Apple Valley, have provided comments during the development of the 

DRECP. The BLM’s Proposed LUPA reflects input from all of these 

agencies, as well as tribal government and public comments received 

on the Draft DRECP. 

1.2 DRECP Plan Area and BLM LUPA 

Decision Area 

The Draft DRECP and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/EIS 

included the DRECP Plan Area and the BLM LUPA Decision 

Area. The DRECP Plan Area encompasses the Mojave Desert 

and Colorado/Sonoran Desert ecoregion subareas in California 

(see Figure 1). The DRECP Plan Area includes portions of the 

following counties: Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, 

San Bernardino, and San Diego. The DRECP Plan Area covers 

approximately 22,585,000 acres. Although the entire DRECP Plan 

Area was used to develop the DRECP and is included throughout the 

Final EIS for analysis and illustrative purposes, the BLM LUPA will 

only apply to BLM-managed public lands. 

The LUPA would also identify lands for inclusion in National 

Landscape Conservation System in those portions of the CDCA 

outside the DRECP Plan Area, in accordance with the Omnibus 

Public Lands Management Act (Public Law 111-11), and establish 

Visual Resource Management Classes and land use allocations outside 

the DRECP Plan Area but within the CDCA. The BLM LUPA 

Decision Area would not include the Colorado River Corridor, which 

is under the management of the BLM–Arizona State Office. In all, 

the LUPA Decision Area includes 10,869,000 acres of BLM-managed 

lands within the CDCA and Bakersfield and Bishop Resource 

Management Plans (see Figure 2). 

The Proposed LUPA 

supports the overall renewable 

energy and conservation goals 

of the DRECP. 

6 
FIGURE I.0-1

DRECP Plan Area

0 12.5 25

Miles

Sources: ESRI (2015); CEC (2013); BLM (2015); CDFW (2013); USFWS (2013)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. DRECP Plan Area 

7 

Pacific

Ocean

M E X I C O MEXICO

A r i z o n a Arizona

N e v a d a Nevada

U t a h U t a h

Calexico 

El Centro Holtville 

Imperial 

Brawley 

Calipatria 

Blythe 

Coachella 

Palm 

Desert 

Indio 

Palm 

Springs 

Twentynine 

Palms 

Big Bear

Lake 

Victorville 

Adelanto 

Lancaster 

Needles Barstow 

California 

City 

Independence 

Imperial 

Inyo 

Kern 

Los 

Angeles 

Riverside 

San 

Bernardino 

San 

Diego 

I m pe rial Va l l e y 

Ea s t R i v e r s i d e 

Lu c e rn e Va l l e y 

We s t M o j a v e 

Ce n t ra l Mo j a v e 

C ho co la t e M o unt a ins 

Te h a c h a p i M o u n ta in s 

O w e n s Va l le y 

DRECP Planning Area Boundary 

CDCA Plan Boundary 

County Boundary 

Land Ownership 

Federal Lands 

United States Bureau of Land Management 

United States Department of Defense 

United States Bureau of Reclamation 

United States Department of Agriculture 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

United States National Park Service 

State Lands 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

California State Lands Commission 

Other State Lands 

Other Lands 

Tribal Lands 

Local Agency 

Private 
FIGURE I.0-2

Land Use Plan Amendment Lands

0 12.5 25

Miles

Sources: ESRI (2015); CEC (2013); BLM (2015); CDFW (2013); USFWS (2013)

DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

 

 

 

 

PART ONE: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND 

Figure 2. Land Use Plan Amendment Lands 

8 

Pacific

Ocean

M E X I C O MEXICO

A r i z o n a Arizona

N e v a d a Nevada

U t a h U t a h

Calexico 

El Centro 

Holtville 

Imperial 

Brawley 

Calipatria 

Blythe 

Coachella 

Palm 

Desert 

Indio 

Palm 

Springs 

Twentynine 

Palms 

Big Bear

Lake 

Victorville 

Adelanto 

Lancaster 

Needles Barstow 

California 

City 

Independence 

I m pe rial Va l l e y 

Ea s t R i v e r s i d e 

Lu c e rn e Va l l e y 

We s t M o j a v e 

Central Mojave 

C ho co la t e M o unt a ins 

Tehachapi Mountains 

Owens Valley 

Land Use Plan Amendment Lands 

Base Layers 

Legislatively and Legally Protected Areas 

Military Expansion Mitigation Lands 

Military 

Open OHV Areas - Imperial Sand Dunes 

Open OHV Areas 

Johnson Valley OHV Shared Use Area 

Tribal Lands 

CDCA Plan Boundary 

DRECP Planning Area Boundary 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 

1.3 Planning Goals 

The interagency goal of the DRECP is to provide a streamlined 

process for the development of utility-scale renewable energy 

generation and transmission consistent with federal and state 

renewable energy targets and policies, while simultaneously providing 

for the long-term conservation and management of special-status 

species and vegetation types, as well as other physical, cultural, scenic, 

and social resources within the DRECP Plan Area with durable and 

reliable regulatory assurances. 

BLM’s objectives for the DRECP and Final EIS are to: 

Conserve biological, physical, cultural, social, and scenic 


resources.
 

Promote renewable energy and transmission development, 

consistent with federal renewable energy and transmission goals 

and policies, in consideration of state renewable energy targets. 

Comply with all applicable federal laws, including the BLM’s 

obligation to manage the public lands consistent with the 

FLPMA. 

“Preserve the unique and irreplaceable resources, including 

archaeological values, and conserve the use of the economic 

resources” of the CDCA (FLPMA 601[a][6]; 43 United States 

Code [U.S.C.] 1701 et seq.). 

Identify and incorporate public lands managed for conservation 

purposes within the CDCA as components of the National 

Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), consistent with the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-11). 

Amend land use plans consistent with the criteria in FLPMA and 

the CDCA Plan. 

Coordinate planning and management activities with other 

federal, state, local, and tribal planning and management 

programs by considering the policies of approved land resource 

management programs, to the extent consistent with federal law. 

Make some land use allocation decisions outside the DRECP area 

but within the CDCA, including Visual Resource Management 

Classes, land use allocations to replace multiple-use classes, and 

NLCS designations. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 
PART TWO 

PLANNING PROCESS 
12 DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

PART TWO: PLANNING PROCESS
 

2.1 Overview 

The DRECP planning process combined renewable energy planning, 

biological conservation planning, and BLM land use planning 

elements as described in detail in the Draft DRECP. 

The Phase I DRECP presented in the Final EIS focuses in greater 

detail on the planning process for the BLM LUPA Decision Area. 

Within the BLM LUPA Decision Area, planning criteria described 

in Section I.3.1.1 of the Final EIS are applied to make decisions 

regarding National Conservation Lands and BLM land use plans 

(CDCA and Bishop and Bakersfield Resource Management Plans), 

and to guide future site-specific implementation decisions, subject to 

separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, such as 

renewable energy right-of-way applications, geothermal leases, and 

post-lease development. 

2.2 BLM Land Use Planning Designations 

The BLM land use planning designations include: 

Areas suitable for renewable energy development (Development 

Focus Areas [DFAs]) 

Areas potentially available for renewable energy development 

(Variance Process Lands [VPLs]) 

Areas to be managed for biological, cultural, and scientific 

conservation (BLM conservation designations also known as 

National Conservation Lands, Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern [ACECs], and Wildlife Allocation areas) 

Areas to be managed for recreational use (Special Recreation 

Management Areas [SRMAs] and Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas [ERMAs]) 

Areas that will continue to be managed for multiple use without a 

specified allocation 

The requirements of Public Law 111-11 for conservation of nationally 

significant ecological, cultural, and scientific resources led to the 

identification of National Conservation Lands. The multiple use 

and sustained yield requirements of FLPMA led to modifications 

in the management of recreation (including the establishment of 

SRMAs and ERMAs), allowing for continued exploration of mineral 

resources, establishment of Visual Resource Management Classes, and 

grazing. BLM also developed mitigation measures for impacts to the 

various multiple uses and resources it considers in managing its lands, 

and developed mitigation measures to maintain multiple use and 

sustained yield. Tribal input was considered in the development of 

the DFAs and conservation areas, including removal of areas of tribal 

significance from DFAs and assurance of adequate protection through 

inclusion in conservation areas. 

2.3 BLM Biological Conservation Planning 

Each alternative includes a LUPA-wide conservation strategy 

that includes areas for biological conservation, as well as other 

biological conservation strategy elements, such as Conservation 

and Management Actions (CMAs) and monitoring and adaptive 

management. The areas for biological conservation include the 

existing conservation areas and BLM LUPA conservation designations 

on BLM-administered lands. The initial steps in identifying and 

mapping areas important for biological conservation included 

establishing the conservation focus, identifying a proposed Focus 

Species (see Glossary of Terms) species list, assembling baseline 

information, and identifying biological resource and other ecological 

(e.g., hydrology, soil) goals and objectives. The biological conservation 

planning process follows from these initial steps and concludes with 

mapping and describing the conservation designations for each 

alternative. 

2.4 BLM Renewable Energy Areas 

The DFAs were developed based on a consideration of mapped 

renewable energy resources and modeled renewable energy 

technology profiles on the one hand, and areas with important or 

sensitive natural resources, as identified in the biological conservation 

planning process and BLM’s land use planning process, on the 

other. The renewable energy planning process was guided by the 

need to reduce the environmental impacts of anticipated renewable 

energy development and the need to help achieve state and federal 

renewable energy goals. The DRECP assumes that renewable 

energy development will occur in DFAs and examines alternative 

configurations for DFAs and renewable energy technology profiles 

that could accommodate the development of renewable energy 

projects to meet California’s anticipated need through 2040. While 

the Draft DRECP estimates approximately 20,000 megawatts of 

renewable energy development may occur on federal, state, and 

private lands in the DRECP Plan Area through 2040, the BLM lands 

within the DRECP Plan Area are expected to accommodate only a 

portion of that development. 

2.5 Duration of the DRECP BLM LUPA 

BLM regulations under 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

1610.5-5 do not specify a duration for LUPAs; therefore, the LUPAs 

approved as part of the DRECP would not expire and would remain 

in place until amended through future land use planning efforts as 

described in BLM regulations (43 CFR 1610). The BLM periodically 

evaluates land use plans to determine if new plan decisions are 

required (see BLM 2005, pp. 33–38). The plan amendment process 

is subject to NEPA and includes opportunities for participation by 

the public and other federal, state, and local agencies. The LUPAs 

approved as part of the Phase I DRECP could be amended in the 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 

future pursuant to changing conditions or law and policy as required 

by federal law and regulation, including FLPMA. 

The public lands within the CDCA that comprise nationally 

significant landscapes with outstanding cultural, ecological, and 

scientific values that are administered by the BLM for conservation 

purposes are part of the National Landscape Conservation System 

and will be managed to protect the values for which these lands 

were designated. The BLM interprets the Omnibus Act to provide 

for permanent inclusion of these lands in the National Landscape 

Conservation System, and therefore it cannot remove lands from 

the National Landscape Conservation System through a LUPA. 

While the lands themselves are permanently included in the National 

Landscape Conservation System, the CMAs remain subject to land 

use planning decisions and may be changed through the land use plan 

amendment process, so long as those changes are consistent with the 

Omnibus Act. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 
PART THREE 

ALTERNATIVES 
16 DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES
 

3.1 Approach to Developing DRECP 

Alternatives 

The approach to developing DRECP alternatives is described in 

detail in the Draft DRECP and, as noted previously, incorporates 

and integrates BLM land use planning, biological conservation 

planning, and renewable energy planning processes. Those planning 

processes, together with stakeholder and public input gained through 

community outreach efforts, including scoping, seven Tribal–Federal 

Leadership Conferences, and BLM–tribal government-to-government 

dialogue and consultation resulted in identification of a range of 

alternatives for consideration in the Draft DRECP. The development 

of BLM LUPA alternatives was integrated with the overall process 

for the DRECP alternatives. The Proposed LUPA and Final EIS 

remains within the range of alternatives proposed for BLM lands 

in the Draft DRECP. The LUPA alternatives also include a range of 

proposed National Conservation Lands to comply with the Omnibus 

Act. The National Conservation Lands were identified based on 

having nationally significant ecological, cultural, and scientific values 

as called for under Public Law 111-11 and using criteria listed in 

Chapter II.3 of the Proposed LUPA and Final EIS. 

3.2 BLM LUPA Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative has been revised based on public input on 

the Draft DRECP. Key revisions are summarized in Section I.0.4 

of the Proposed LUPA and Final EIS, and include additions to and 

subtractions from proposed DFAs and conservation designations, 

clarifications to CMAs, more detail and definition to the disturbance 

cap for National Conservation Lands and ACECs, more definition of 

management of unallocated lands, and a more detailed discussion of 

the planning for National Conservation Lands. 

The following provides an overview of the Preferred Alternative, also 

referred to as the Proposed LUPA. The Preferred Alternative/Proposed 

LUPA integrates renewable energy and resource conservation with 

other existing uses on BLM-managed land within the DRECP Plan 

Area (LUPA Decision Area). 

At the broadest level, the Preferred Alternative includes the following 

components defined below: DFAs, VPLs, unallocated lands, BLM 

Conservation Areas, and Recreation Management Areas. 

Development Focus Areas (DFAs). Represent the areas within 

which the activities associated with solar, wind, and geothermal 

development, operation, and decommissioning would be covered 

under this alternative. Transmission development and operation 

would occur in previously designated corridors and other identified 

areas, both inside and outside the DFAs. Detailed descriptions of 

renewable energy activities for the Preferred Alternative are presented 

in Section II.3.3. 

Variance Process Lands (VPLs). Lands that were defined as 

Study Area Lands in the Draft DRECP. The Draft DRECP included 

three categories of Study Area Lands: Special Analysis Areas, Future 

Assessment Areas, and Variance Lands. There are no longer any 

Special Analysis Areas in the Proposed LUPA. Based on further 

analysis and public comments, the Special Analysis Areas in the 

Draft DRECP are now included in either DFAs or conservation 

designations. 

The Future Assessment Areas and Variance Lands that remain from 

the Draft DRECP are now collectively called Variance Process Lands 

(or VPLs). These lands would be open for solar, wind, and geothermal 

energy applications under the BLM LUPA. However, all solar, wind, 

and geothermal energy development applications would have to 

follow a variance process before the BLM would determine whether 

to continue with processing them (see Section II.3.3.3.2 for details of 

the variance process). Applications in Variance Process Lands would 

not receive the incentives that apply to DFAs (described in Section 

II.3.3.3.1). 

Unallocated Lands. BLM-administered lands that do not have an 

existing or proposed land allocation or designation. These areas would 

be open to renewable energy applications but would not benefit 

from permit review streamlining or incentives. The Proposed LUPA 

includes CMAs that apply to activities in unallocated lands. 

BLM Conservation Areas. Under the Proposed LUPA, the 

following conservation designations are proposed: National 

Conservation Lands, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs), and Wildlife Allocations (see Section II.3.2 and Glossary of 

Terms for descriptions of these designations). 

Recreation Management Areas. The Proposed LUPA includes 

two types of recreation management areas: Special Recreation 

Management Areas (SRMAs) and Extensive Recreation Management 

Areas (ERMAs) (see Section II.3.2.4 and Glossary of Terms for 

descriptions of these designations). 

Because the DRECP was developed as an interagency plan, the Draft 

DRECP and EIR/EIS included areas that are not managed by the 

BLM and identified those areas for renewable energy development 

and conservation. These areas will not be covered under the DRECP 

Proposed LUPA. DRECP Proposed LUPA decisions would only 

apply to BLM-managed public lands, also known as the LUPA 

Decision Area. LUPA decisions will not change management on lands 

outside of the BLM’s jurisdiction. 

As shown in Table 1, approximately 9,784,000 acres of BLMadministered lands occur within the DRECP area. An additional 

1,085,000 acres of BLM-administered lands occur in the CDCA 

outside the DRECP area, resulting in 10,869,000 acres in the LUPA 

Decision Area. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 1. DRECP LUPA Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Components1 Acreage2 

DFAs 388,000 

VPLs 40,000 

Existing Conservation Areas3 3,259,000 

BLM LUPA Conservation Designations4 4,926,000 

Existing BLM OHV Areas5 369,000 

Unallocated Areas6 802,000 

DRECP Area Total 9,784,000 

N

Notes: The following general rounding rules were applied to acreage values: values greater than 

1,000 were rounded to nearest 1,000; values less than 1,000 and greater than 100 were rounded 

to the nearest 100; values of 100 or less were rounded to the nearest 10, and therefore totals may 

not sum due to rounding. In cases where subtotals are provided, the subtotals and the totals are 

individually rounded. The totals are not a sum of the rounded subtotals; therefore the subtotals may 

not sum to the total within the table. 

1 	 Table provides an overview of alternative components. The BLM LUPA would also designate 

approximately 2,458,000 acres of SRMAs and 946,000 acres of ERMAs on BLM-administered 

lands in addition to the 193,000 acres of existing SRMAs on BLM-administered lands in the 

DRECP area. SRMAs and ERMAs are BLM designation overlays that overlap portions of the 

components provided in this table. 

2	 Acreages reported are on BLM-administered lands only within the DRECP area. Acreage does 

not include the portion of the BLM LUPA Decision Area that is within the CDCA but outside 

the DRECP area; approximately 1,085,000 acres of BLM-administered lands occur in the BLM 

LUPA Decision Area outside the DRECP area. Total acreages on BLM-administered land were 

revised from the Draft DRECP to reflect updates to the land ownership base data. 

3	 BLM existing conservation areas include areas considered Legislatively and Legally Protected 

Areas (e.g., designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and National Scenic or Historic 

Trails) and Military Expansion Mitigation Lands. See the Glossary of Terms for more detail. 

4	 BLM LUPA conservation designations include proposed NLCS, existing and proposed ACECs, 

and Wildlife Allocations. See Glossary of Terms for more detail. This overview table reports 

acreage within the DRECP area. Overlaps of BLM LUPA conservation designations with 

existing conservation areas are reported in the existing conservation area acreages. In the CDCA 

outside the DRECP, approximately 287,000 acres of BLM LUPA conservation designations are 

also proposed on BLM-administered land outside existing conservation areas. An additional 

62,000 acres of BLM LUPA conservation designations are proposed on BLM-administered 

lands in existing conservation areas in the CDCA outside the DRECP. Overlaps of BLM LUPA 

conservation designations with DFAs (29,000 acres) are reported here as DFAs in this table; no 

surface occupancy would be permitted in these overlapping DFA areas and renewable energy 

development in these areas must be consistent with the values of the land allocation. Overlaps of 

BLM LUPA conservation designations with Open OHV Areas (13,000 acres) are reported here 

as BLM OHV Areas and these areas would be managed in concert. 

5 Public Law 113-66 authorized the withdrawal and reservation of approximately 53,000 acres of 

public lands in the Shared Use Area (SUA) of the Johnson Valley Off Highway Vehicle Recreation Area. The SUA is managed by the Secretary of the Interior for public recreation during any 

period in which the land is not being used for military training and as determined to be suitable 

for public use, as well as natural resources conservation. For two 30-day periods per year, the 

SUA will be used and managed by the Secretary of the Navy for military training. Two company 

objective areas (approximately 22 acres each) to be used exclusively by the Secretary of the Navy 

for military training are also located in the SUA. 

6 A portion of the unallocated area acreage reported here is designated as SRMA (199,000 acres) 

and ERMA (66,000 acres); therefore, the remaining unallocated area accounting for SRMA and 

ERMA designations would be 536,000 acres. 

As shown in Table 2, approximately 5,255,000 acres of BLM LUPA 

conservation designations would be designated on BLM-administered 

lands, outside of existing conservation, in the LUPA Decision Area 

under the Preferred Alternative. These designations include NLCS 

lands (National Conservation Lands), existing and proposed. ACECs, 

and Wildlife Allocations. 

1

t

n

i

n

1

2

17 

Table 2. Preferred Alternative BLM LUPA Conservation 

Designations 

BLM LUPA Conservation Designation Acreage1,2 

DRECP Area 

NLCS 298,000 

NLCS (and Existing and Proposed ACEC) 3,337,000 

Existing and Proposed ACEC 1,314,000 

Wildlife Allocation 18,000 

Subtotal 4,966,000 

CDCA Outside the DRECP Area 

NLCS 80,000 

NLCS (and Existing and Proposed ACEC) 141,000 

Existing and Proposed ACEC 66,000 

Subtotal 287,000 

LUPA Decision Area Total 5,255,000 

otes: The following general rounding rules were applied to acreage values: values greater than 

,000 were rounded to nearest 1,000; values less than 1,000 and greater than 100 were rounded 

o the nearest 100; values of 100 or less were rounded to the nearest 10, and therefore totals may 

ot sum due to rounding. In cases where subtotals are provided, the subtotals and the totals are 

ndividually rounded. The totals are not a sum of the rounded subtotals; therefore the subtotals may 

ot sum to the total within the table. 

 	 Acreages reported are on BLM-administered lands only. Total acreages on BLM-administered 

land were revised from the Draft DRECP to reflect updates to the land ownership base data. 

 	 In the DRECP area, approximately 1,201,000 acres of BLM LUPA conservation designations 

on BLM-administered lands occur within existing conservation areas and 14,000 acres occur 

within BLM OHV areas or military. In the CDCA outside the DRECP, an additional 62,000 

acres of BLM LUPA conservation designations are proposed in existing conservation areas on 

BLM-administered lands in the CDCA outside the DRECP. These overlapping acres are not 

reported in this table. 
DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

In addition to the proposed BLM LUPA conservation designations, 

the Preferred Alternative includes proposed BLM LUPA SRMAs and 

ERMAs, as shown in Table 3. A total of 3,597,000 acres of existing 

and proposed SRMAs and proposed ERMAs are proposed in the 

DRECP area and 173,000 acres of existing and proposed SRMAs 

occur in the CDCA outside the DRECP area. Land use allocations 

and limitations are described in Section II.3.2. 

Table 3. Preferred Alternative SRMAs and ERMAs Within 

the BLM LUPA 

SRMA/ERMA Acreage1 

DRECP Area 

Existing SRMA 193,000 

Proposed SRMA 2,458,000 

Proposed ERMA 946,000 

Subtotal 3,597,000 

CDCA Outside the DRECP Area 

Existing and Proposed SRMA 173,000 

Subtotal 173,000 

LUPA Decision Area Total 3,770,00 

PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES 

Notes: The following general rounding rules were applied to acreage values: values greater than 

1,000 were rounded to nearest 1,000; values less than 1,000 and greater than 100 were rounded 

to the nearest 100; values of 100 or less were rounded to the nearest 10, and therefore totals may 

not sum due to rounding. In cases where subtotals are provided, the subtotals and the totals are 

individually rounded. The totals are not a sum of the rounded subtotals; therefore the subtotals may 

not sum to the total within the table. 

1 Acreages reported are on BLM-administered lands only. 

Exhibit 1 depicts the contribution of each main component of the 

DRECP Proposed LUPA Preferred Alternative for BLM-administered 

lands in the DRECP area. 

Exhibit 1. Preferred Alternative BLM LUPA Designations 

(SRMA Overlay Shown as Lighter Hatched Areas 

in Each Designation) 

Figure 3 provides the map of the major land allocations for the 

Preferred Alternative. Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 provide maps 

of the Preferred Alternative ecological and cultural conservation 

and recreation designations combined, ecological and cultural 

conservation designations alone, and recreation designations alone, 

respectively. 

In addition to the land use allocations listed above, the Proposed 

LUPA includes goals and objectives and CMAs for the following 

resources: 

Biological Resources 

Air Resources 

Climate Change and 

Adaption 

Comprehensive Trails and

Travel Management 


Cultural Resources and Tr

Interest 

Lands and Realty 

Livestock Grazing 

Minerals 

Paleontology 

Recreation and Visitor 

Services 

Soil, Water, and WaterDependent Resources 

Special Vegetation Features 

Vegetation 

Visual Resources 


Management 


Wild Horses and Burros 

Wilderness Characteristics 

 


ibal 

18 
710

110

605

215

5

405

210

15

6

241

142

57

134

213

56

75

71

22

90

55

73

330

27

371

67

91

173 39

66

243

60

74

38

76 79

2

178

78

FIGURE II.3-1

Preferred Alternative

DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS

Sources: ESRI (2015); CEC (2013); BLM (2015); CDFW (2013); USFWS (2013)

August 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

Figure 3. Preferred Alternative 

19 

40 

8 

10 

395 

95 

202 

266 

136 

115 

86 

177 

247 

14 

98 

138 

111 

18 

127 

58 

190 

Pacific

Ocean

M E X I C O MEXICO

A r i z o n a Arizona

N e v a d a Nevada

U t a h Utah

Calexico 

El Centro Holtville 

Imperial 

Brawley 

Calipatria 

Blythe 

Coachella 

Palm 

Desert 

Indio 

Palm 

Springs 

Twentynine 

Palms 

Big Bear 

Lake 

Victorville 

Adelanto 

Lancaster 

Needles Barstow 

California 

City T e h a c h a p i M o u n t a i n s 

E a s t R i v e r s i d e 

L u c e r n e V a l l e y 

W e s t M o j a v e 

C e n t r a l M o j a v e 

C h o c o l a t e M o u n t a i n s 

I m p e r i a l V a l l e y 

O w e n s V a l l e y 

0 12.5 25

Miles

Renewable Energy Development 

Development Focus Areas 

Variance Process Lands 

BLM Proposed LUPA Conservation and Recreation Designations 

National Landscape Conservation System 

Wildlife Allocation 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Special Recreation Management Area 

Extensive Recreation Management Area 

Base Layers 

Legislatively and Legally Protected Areas 

Military Expansion Mitigation Lands 

Military 

Open OHV Areas - Imperial Sand Dunes 

Open OHV Areas 

Johnson Valley OHV Shared Use Area 

Tribal Lands 

United States Bureau of Land Management 

Solar Energy Zones 

Proposed Feinstein Bill 

CDCA Plan Boundary 

DRECP Plan Area Boundary 
710

110

605

215

5

405

210

15

6

241

142

57

134

213

56

75

71

22

90

55

73

330

27

371

67

91

173 39

66

243

60

74

38

76 79

2

178

78

FIGURE II.3-2

Preferred Alternative - Conservation and Recreation

DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS

Sources: ESRI (2015); CEC (2013); BLM (2015); CDFW (2013); USFWS (2013)

August 2015

DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES 

Figure 4. Preferred Alternative – Conservation and Recreation 

20 

40 

8 

10 

395 

95 

202 

266 

136 

115 

86 

177 

247 

14 

98 

138 

111 

18 

127 

58 

190 

Pacific

Ocean

M E X I C O MEXICO

A r i z o n a Arizona

N e v a d a Nevada

U t a h Utah

Calexico 

El Centro Holtville 

Imperial 

Brawley 

Calipatria 

Blythe 

Coachella 

Palm 

Desert 

Indio 

Palm 

Springs 

Twentynine 

Palms 

Big Bear 

Lake 

Victorville 

Adelanto 

Lancaster 

Needles Barstow 

California 

City T e h a c h a p i M o u n t a i n s 

E a s t R i v e r s i d e 

L u c e r n e V a l l e y 

W e s t M o j a v e 

C e n t r a l M o j a v e 

C h o c o l a t e M o u n t a i n s 

I m p e r i a l V a l l e y 

O w e n s V a l l e y 

0 12.5 25

Miles

BLM Proposed LUPA Conservation and Recreation Designations 

National Landscape Conservation System 

Wildlife Allocation 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Special Recreation Management Area 

Extensive Recreation Management Area 

Base Layers 

Legislatively and Legally Protected Areas 

Military Expansion Mitigation Lands 

Military 

Open OHV Areas - Imperial Sand Dunes 

Open OHV Areas 

Johnson Valley OHV Shared Use Area 

Tribal Lands 

United States Bureau of Land Management 

Solar Energy Zones 

Proposed Feinstein Bill 

CDCA Plan Boundary 

DRECP Plan Area Boundary 
710

110

605

215

5

405

210

15

6

241

142

57

134

213

56

75

71

22

90

55

73

330

27

371

67

91

173 39

66

243

60

74

38

76 79

2

178

78

FIGURE II.3-3

Preferred Alternative - Conservation

DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS

Sources: ESRI (2015); CEC (2013); BLM (2015); CDFW (2013); USFWS (2013)

August 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Preferred Alternative – Conservation 

21 

40 

8 

10 

395 

95 

202 

266 

136 

115 

86 

177 

247 

14 

98 

138 

111 

18 

127 

58 

190 

Pacific

Ocean

M E X I C O MEXICO

A r i z o n a Arizona

N e v a d a Nevada

U t a h Utah

Calexico 

El Centro Holtville 

Imperial 

Brawley 

Calipatria 

Blythe 

Coachella 

Palm 

Desert 

Indio 

Palm 

Springs 

Twentynine 

Palms 

Big Bear 

Lake 

Victorville 

Adelanto 

Lancaster 

Needles Barstow 

California 

City T e h a c h a p i M o u n t a i n s 

E a s t R i v e r s i d e 

L u c e r n e V a l l e y 

W e s t M o j a v e 

C e n t r a l M o j a v e 

C h o c o l a t e M o u n t a i n s 

I m p e r i a l V a l l e y 

O w e n s V a l l e y 

0 12.5 25

Miles

BLM Proposed LUPA Conservation Designations 

National Landscape Conservation System 

Wildlife Allocation 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Base Layers 

Legislatively and Legally Protected Areas 

Military Expansion Mitigation Lands 

Military 

Open OHV Areas - Imperial Sand Dunes 

Open OHV Areas 

Johnson Valley OHV Shared Use Area 

Tribal Lands 

United States Bureau of Land Management 

Solar Energy Zones 

Proposed Feinstein Bill 

CDCA Plan Boundary 

DRECP Plan Area Boundary 
710

110

605

215

5

405

210

15

6

241

142

57

134

213

56

75

71

22

90

55

73

330

27

371

67

91

173 39

66

243

60

74

38

76 79

2

178

78

FIGURE II.3-4

Preferred Alternative - Recreation

DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS

Sources: ESRI (2015); CEC (2013); BLM (2015); CDFW (2013); USFWS (2013)

August 2015

DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES 

Figure 6. Preferred Alternative – Recreation 

22 

40 

8 

10 

395 

95 

202 

266 

136 

115 

86 

177 

247 

14 

98 

138 

111 

18 

127 

58 

190 

Pacific

Ocean

M E X I C O MEXICO

A r i z o n a Arizona

N e v a d a Nevada

U t a h Utah

Calexico 

El Centro Holtville 

Imperial 

Brawley 

Calipatria 

Blythe 

Coachella 

Palm 

Desert 

Indio 

Palm 

Springs 

Twentynine 

Palms 

Big Bear 

Lake 

Victorville 

Adelanto 

Lancaster 

Needles Barstow 

California 

City T e h a c h a p i M o u n t a i n s 

E a s t R i v e r s i d e 

L u c e r n e V a l l e y 

W e s t M o j a v e 

C e n t r a l M o j a v e 

C h o c o l a t e M o u n t a i n s 

I m p e r i a l V a l l e y 

O w e n s V a l l e y 

0 12.5 25

Miles

BLM Proposed LUPA Recreation Designations 

Special Recreation Management Area 

Extensive Recreation Management Area 

Base Layers 

Legislatively and Legally Protected Areas 

Military Expansion Mitigation Lands 

Military 

Open OHV Areas - Imperial Sand Dunes 

Open OHV Areas 

Johnson Valley OHV Shared Use Area 

Tribal Lands 

United States Bureau of Land Management 

Solar Energy Zones 

Proposed Feinstein Bill 

CDCA Plan Boundary 

DRECP Plan Area Boundary 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 23 

Land use plan decisions for public lands fall into two categories: 

desired outcomes (goals and objectives) and allowable uses (including 

restricted or prohibited) and actions anticipated to achieve desired 

outcomes (BLM 2005).2 In the DRECP LUPA, CMAs represent 

those management actions and allowable uses. 

2 Land Use Planning Handbook. BLM Handbook H-1601-1. 

The DRECP LUPA also includes land use allocations to replace 

the multiple-use classes within the CDCA and establishes Visual 

Resource Management Classes. 

The BLM LUPA elements outside of the DRECP, but within the 

CDCA, consist of land use allocations to replace the multiple-use 

classes, establishment of Visual Resource Management Classes, 

and identification of National Conservation Lands. The DRECP 

Proposed LUPA does not otherwise amend any BLM Land Use Plan 

for areas outside the DRECP boundary. 

The proposed BLM LUPA would not modify existing energy 

corridors, including “corridors of concern” defined in the Section 368 

Energy Corridors settlement agreement described in Section I.2.1.8.7. 

3.3 Action Alternatives 

Four additional action alternatives are identified for the BLM LUPA 

that originate from the integrated planning process used to develop 

the DRECP alternatives. Alternatives 1–4 in the Proposed LUPA and 

Final EIS are the BLM-land portions of the alternatives that appeared 

in the Draft DRECP. Each action alternative’s configuration of DFAs 

reflects a different approach to balancing the goals of minimizing 

resource conflicts and maximizing opportunities to site renewable 

energy projects in areas of high-value renewable energy resources. 

Each action alternative also reflects a different balance of conservation 

and recreation land use allocations. 

Like the Preferred Alternative, Alternatives 1–4 are responsive 

to tribal, public, and agency input. Alternative 1 emphasizes 

low biological resource conflict as requested by environmental 

nongovernmental organizations and communities. Alternative 2 

emphasizes renewable energy siting and design flexibility as requested 

by industry representatives. Alternatives 3 and 4 are variations on 

the themes of Alternatives 1 and 2 with additional consideration 

of ways to consider variance lands from the Western Solar Plan. 

The alternatives also present different configurations of National 

Conservation Lands by assigning different weights to the criteria used 

identify National Conservation Lands, and propose alternative CMAs 

for the management of National Conservation Lands. 

3.4 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative is used to compare the relative impacts 

of not approving the DRECP Proposed LUPA with all other 

action alternatives and thus assumes that renewable energy and 

transmission development and mitigation for such projects would 

continue to occur on an ad hoc basis in a pattern consistent with 

past and ongoing renewable energy and transmission projects on 

BLM lands within the planning area. The No Action Alternative 

would carry forward existing planning documents, including BLM 

land use plans (including existing amendments to those plans, such 

as the Solar Programmatic EIS). The No Action Alternative assumes 

a continuation of current renewable energy development and 

mitigation and current BLM land management, and it serves as a 

baseline for comparison of the action alternatives. 
DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

3.5 BLM LUPA Alternatives Comparison 

Table 4. Summary of the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS Alternatives 

Preferred 

AlternAtive 

AlternAtive 

1 

AlternAtive 

2 

AlternAtive 

3 

AlternAtive 

4 

no Action 

AlternAtive 

Renewable Energy Development 

Total acres of DFAs1 388,000 81,000 718,000 211,000 258,000 2,804,000 

Total acres of VPLs2 40,000 35,000 29,000 2,000 579,000 579,000 

Total estimated footprint impacts (all renewable energy 81,000 52,000 88,000 69,000 71,000 101,000 

technologies and transmission)3 

Conservation 

Existing Conservation In the DRECP area: 3,259,000
 

In the CDCA outside the DRECP area: 631,000
 

BLM LUPA 

Conservation 

Designations4 

In the DRECP area 4,966,000 4,863,000 5,191,000 5,023,000 4,431,000 2,395,000 

In the CDCA outside the 

DRECP area 

287,000 209,000 428,000 258,000 265,000 79,000 

Recreation5 

Areas Managed for Recreation Emphasis — — — — — 1,465,000 

Existing SRMAs 193,000 193,000 193,000 193,000 193,000 193,000 

Proposed SRMAs 2,458,000 2,537,000 2,463,000 2,531,000 2,489,000 — 

Proposed ERMAs 946,000 — — — — — 

PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES 

24 

Notes: Acreages reported are on BLM-administered lands only within the DRECP area. Acreage does not include the portion of the BLM LUPA Decision Area that is within the 

CDCA but outside the DRECP area; approximately 1,085,000 acres of BLM-administered lands occur in the BLM LUPA Decision Area outside the DRECP area. Total acreages 

on BLM-administered land were revised from the Draft DRECP to reflect updates to the land ownership base data. 

1There are no Development Focus Areas (DFAs) under the No Action Alternative. Acreage reported here for the No Action Alternative is the area available for renewable energy 

development on BLM-administered land where megawatts have been assigned in a spatial distribution that mimics current development patterns and technology mixes. 

2 Variance Process Lands (VPLs) (referred to in the Draft DRECP as Study Area Lands) are lands that are available for renewable energy development but are outside DFAs and not 

streamlined under the BLM LUPA. DRECP Variance Lands represent the BLM Solar Programmatic EIS Variance Lands and other BLM lands identified through the LUPA as 

screened for the DRECP using BLM screening criteria. Alternative 4 and the No Action Alternative include the full extent of the Solar Programmatic EIS Variance Lands within 

the DRECP. 

3 The estimated ground disturbance for renewable energy development is based on the estimated megawatt distribution used for each alternative for BLM-administered lands. The 

renewable energy context for estimating the renewable energy impacts is provided in Section I.3.3 and Appendix F of the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS. The estimated ground disturbance for transmission development is based on the TTG report (Draft DRECP Appendix K) for both BLM-administered lands and non-BLM lands. Impacts 

reported here include project footprint impacts; the impacts reported here do not reflect operational impacts. For solar, ground-mounted distributed generation, geothermal, and 

transmission development, the footprint impacts include all short-term and long-term impacts associated with facility construction, assumed to be equivalent to the “project area” 

and/or right-of-way within which all project facilities would be built. For wind development, the footprint impacts include all short-term and long-term impacts associated with 

facility construction, which is not equivalent to the “project area” and/or right-of-way necessary for wind project siting. Effects associated with the wind “project area” are addressed 

under operational impacts. Operational effects for all technologies are discussed Chapter IV.7, Biological Resources, and are not reported in this table. 

4 BLM LUPA conservation designation acreage reported is on BLM-administered land only. There is no LUPA under the No Action Alternative; Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) acreage reported here includes the existing ACECs within the DRECP Plan Area outside of the Legally and Legislatively Protected Areas and Military Expansion 

Mitigation Lands. National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) overlaps with ACEC or Wildlife Allocation are reported as NLCS. 

5 Approximately 369,000 acres of designated Open Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) areas exist within the DRECP area as shown in Table 1. These Open OHV areas occur both inside 

and outside of existing SRMAs under the No Action Alternative. All Open OHV acres not currently designated as SRMAs would be designated as SRMAs as part of the DRECP. 

Portions of the SRMAs and ERMAs overlap the DFAs, VPLs, and conservation categories shown in this table. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 25 

Exhibit 2. Renewable Energy Designations for the Action Alternatives of the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS 

Exhibit 3. Conservation Designations for the Range of Alternatives of the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS in the 

LUPA Decision Area 

Exhibit 4. Recreation Designations for the Range of Alternatives of the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS in the 

LUPA Decision Area 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 
PART FOUR 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 
28 DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

This section summarizes the effects of the Proposed LUPA for the Preferred Alternative and the other five alternatives. It also compares the effects of 

the alternatives. 

4.1	 National Environmental Policy Act 

Compliance 

This document is prepared in compliance with NEPA, which has the 

specific goal of facilitating informed federal governmental decision 

making regarding projects and operations that may affect the environment. BLM issued its Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on November 

20, 2009. The BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an additional joint Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on July 29, 2011. BLM 

issued a third Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on April 4, 2012, 

amending the November 2009 and July 2011 notices. This programmatic Final EIS reflects the cooperation of multiple state and federal 

agencies. The National Park Service, Department of Defense, and the 

California Independent System Operator are cooperating agencies 

under NEPA. 

ProgrAmmAtic environmentAl imPAct Assessment 

Under NEPA, a Programmatic EIS is prepared to consider “broad federal actions such as the adoption of new agency programs or regulations... 

timed to coincide with meaningful points in agency planning and 

decision making” (40 CFR 1502.4[b]). This programmatic document 

discusses at a broad level the general environmental consequences of this 

complex, long-term program and describes regional impacts within the 

LUPA Decision Area. 

This Proposed LUPA and Final EIS describes, in general terms, potential 

environmental, economic, and social effects of the Preferred Alternative 

and other alternatives. For each alternative, the LUPA includes designation of SRMAs and ERMAs, establishes Visual Resource Management 

Classes and National Trail Corridors, nominates National Recreational 

Trails, and closes some grazing allotments. The precise impacts of individual future projects cannot readily be identified at this planning stage; 

additional NEPA documents will be prepared to address project-specific 

analyses when specific projects are proposed. 

APProAch to environmentAl AnAlysis 

The affected environment defines the existing condition of the environment and is used to determine the effects of the Proposed LUPA. 

The impact analysis for each environmental resource addresses the 

potential effects of all of the following aspects of the Proposed LUPA, 

both within the DRECP Plan Area and outside of it. 

Environmental Effects Within the LUPA Decision Area 

Within the LUPA Decision Area, effects could result from two major 

components of each alternative: 

Renewable energy and transmission development within the 

DRECP: The impacts of site characterization, construction and 

decommissioning, and operations and maintenance are 

considered for solar, wind, and geothermal projects, as well as 

for electric transmission and substations. 

Ecological and cultural conservation and recreation designations 

and Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs): The 

analysis considers the potential effects of the newly designated 

conservation areas and management actions that would 

minimize and mitigate the effects of development on desert 

resources. 

Impact analysis includes consideration of direct impacts, indirect 

impacts, and cumulative impacts. 

Environmental Effects Outside of the DRECP Area 

Implementation of the LUPA would create effects outside of the 

DRECP area because transmission facilities would have to be constructed or upgraded between the renewable generation facilities in 

the desert and the areas with the highest electricity demand. The 

regions outside of the DRECP Plan Area that could be traversed by 

potential new transmis-sion lines are in central and coastal San Diego, 

Riverside, and Los Angeles counties, as well as in the San Joaquin 

PART FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Valley. The effects of transmission outside of the DRECP Plan Area 

are analyzed in the EIS. 

4.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts 

This EIS considers impacts in 23 disciplines, listed in Table 5. 

Table 5. Environmental Disciplines Analyzed 

Air Quality 

Meteorology and Climate Change 

Geology and Soils 

Flood Hazard, Hydrology, and 

Drainage 

Groundwater, Water Supply, and 

Water Quality 

Biological Resources 

Cultural Resources 

Native American Interests 

Paleontological Resources 

Land Use and Policies 

Agricultural Land and Production 

BLM Lands and Realty— 

Rights-of-Way and Land Tenure 

BLM Land Designations, 

Classifications, Allocations, 

and Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Mineral Resources 

Livestock Grazing 

Wild Horses and Burros 

Outdoor Recreation 

Transportation and Public Access 

Visual Resources 

Noise and Vibration 

Public Safety and Services 

Socioeconomics and Environmental 

Justice 

Department of Defense Lands and 

Operations 

This EIS evaluates the potential for environmental impacts to occur in 

multiple specific areas within each of the resources defined in Table 5. 

As a result, there are nearly 80 separate impacts evaluated in the EIS. 

Impact reduction also results from implementation of existing laws and 

regulations, the adopted requirements of the BLM’s Solar Program-matic EIS, and specific CMAs that are defined as components of each 

alternative. 

4.3 Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives 

This section provides an overview of the key differences in the types 

and degree of potential effects among the DRECP alternatives, 

including the No Action Alternative, by summarizing the major 

impacts and differences. 

Key fActors for comPAring AlternAtives 

When comparing the environmental impacts of DRECP alternatives, 

the most important differences among alternatives are the following 

factors: 

The locations in which renewable energy development could 

occur 

The impacts to sensitive species and Critical Habitat 

The locations and types of conservation lands protected 

The alternative-specific CMAs that protect resources by defining 

specific avoidance areas, development and consultation 

processes, and other constraints 

The acreage and types of conservation designations proposed in 

the LUPA 

These factors are used to compare the impacts of alternatives in the 

following paragraphs. 

comPArison of Preferred AlternAtive with no Action 

AlternAtive 

Development Locations. In the No Action Alternative, development 

would not be constrained to Development Focus Areas (DFAs). 

Development could occur in any location that is not currently protected, and it is assumed to continue to occur in areas where there is 

already existing development (2.8 million acres of BLM-administered 

lands). While BLM-administered lands currently include protected 

lands within wilderness areas and other land designations, there are 

thousands of acres of high-value habitat for sensitive species where a 

development application could be submitted. Projects proposed there 

could result in habitat loss and habitat fragmentation, affecting native 

vegetation and wildlife. Under the No Action Alternative, the fewest 

acres of BLM-administered lands with low terrestrial intactness could 

be available for development of renewable energy and transmission 

(40%). 

The Preferred Alternative would concentrate renewable energy development into approximately 388,000 acres of DFAs on BLM-administered lands as compared to the over 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered lands considered open to renewable energy development 

under the No Action Alternative.3

3 Available development areas under the No Action Alternative includes the portion of the planning area where renewable energy development (i.e., solar, wind, or geothermal 

technologies) is not prohibited and where past and current renewable energy projects are being sited. Not all areas are available or suitable for all renewable energy technologies. In 

addition, the BLM Solar Programmatic EIS ROD identified approximately 737,000 acres of Solar Energy Zones (SEZs) and Variance Process Lands (VPLs) in the planning area 

where solar development would be allowable, of which approximately 438,000 acres occur in regions where past and current renewable energy projects are being sited. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, 

the BLM LUPA would designate approximately 4.9 million acres of 

BLM LUPA conservation designations on BLM-administered lands, 

including 3.6 million acres of NLCS, 1.3 million acres of ACEC, and 

approximately 18,000 acres of Wildlife Allocation. There are approximately 2.4 million acres in existing ACECs on BLM-administered 

lands under the No Action Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative, 50% of DFAs would occur on BLM-administered lands with 

low terrestrial intactness, as compared to 40% under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Impacts to Sensitive Species and Critical Habitat. Under the No 

29 
30 DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

PART FOUR: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
 

Action Alternative, the impacts of renewable energy development 

would continue as it has been in recent years. Without the LUPA 

conservation designations, land protection would be substantially 

reduced. 

Conservation Designations. If the No Action Alternative is selected, 

there would be no new designation of protected BLM-administered 

lands. Each renewable energy project would have mitigation imposed for its own impacts, and each project would require individual assessment for effects to sensitive species under the Endangered 

Species Act. In addition, the No Action Alternative would protect 

substantially fewer of the lands defined as having the highest value 

for Native American issues. Because the No Action Alternative would 

not designate new conservation lands, access to and use of economic 

mineral resources would remain unchanged within the DRECP. The 

No Action Alternative would not include any changes to existing land 

use designations or existing multiple-use classes designated in the 

California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, as amended. 

The conservation lands defined for the Preferred Alternative would 

protect over twice the amount of important desert tortoise lands and 

about 30% more lands with habitat linkages as compared to the No 

Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would result in more 

acres of BLM land designations than the No Action Alternative, 

resulting in greater potential impacts to public access. However, 

Conservation and Management Actions would reduce impacts, and 

existing authorized operations would be allowable within BLM land 

designations and unpatented mining claims would retain valid existing rights. Any access to lands with conservation designations would 

be subject to area-specific management plans, including disturbance 

limits. 

Conservation and Management Actions. The No Action Alternative 

would result in the continued use of project-specific mitigation measures adopted after project-level NEPA documents. Under the Preferred Alternative, there are detailed Conservation and Management 

Actions that have been developed by BLM to protect a wide range 

of resources. These Conservation and Management Actions include 

survey and monitoring requirements, development restrictions, and a 

wide range of other resource protection requirements. They apply to 

nearly all environmental resources (listed in Table 5). 

The Preferred Alternative includes a number of important changes to 

the CDCA Plan, resulting in greatly increased resource protection on 

BLM-administered public lands. For example, under the Preferred 

Alternative, there would be approximately 3.6 million acres of lands 

designated for recreation (SRMAs and ERMAs), compared with less 

than 2 million acres of lands managed for recreation (existing SRMAs 

and lands managed for recreation emphasis) under the No Action Alternative. In addition, under the Preferred Alternative, the Proposed 

LUPA designates a 1-mile corridor on either side of National Scenic 

and Historic Trails; development would be prohibited to protect the 

historic viewshed within this corridor. 

comPArison of Action AlternAtives 

The five alternatives that are evaluated in this EIS have varying 

amounts of land designated for renewable energy development and 

conservation, and the management constraints defined in the BLM 

LUPA and CMAs vary. In addition, this EIS evaluates those alternative characteristics for 23 different environmental resources. Key 

differences among the alternatives are highlighted through the points 

below. 

Preferred Alternative 

Has the fewest groundwater basins with overdraft or stressed 

status located in DFAs 

Has one of the smallest likelihoods of affecting cultural 

resources within DFAs (along with Alternative 3) 

Has the greatest number of acres managed for wilderness 

characteristics 

Designates the most new recreation areas within the BLM 

LUPA Decision Area (SRMAs and ERMAs) 

Designates the most acres of Visual Resource Management 

Class II and Class III areas 

Alternative 1 

Designates the fewest acres of BLM-administered land as DFAs 

(1%) 

Best minimizes development of the eastern Riverside County 

area (between Desert Center and Blythe), where sand transport 

corridors provide valuable habitat to the Mojave fringe-toed 

lizard (Uma scoparia) 

Minimizes development in the Western Mojave area where the 

valuable Mohave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis) habitat is centered 

Has the lowest potential impacts to habitat linkages, wetland 

vegetation, desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) important areas, 

and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) territories 

Results in the lowest potential water use per year 

Has the greatest likelihood of affecting cultural resources within 

DFAs (with Alternative 2) 

Designates the smallest National Scenic and Historic Trail 

Management Corridor, with a 0.25-mile buffer on either side of 

trails 

Has the fewest acres of Native American Elements within DFAs 

(along with Alternative 3) 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 31 

Designates the fewest acres of NLCS lands 

Designates the most acres of ACECs, SRMAs, and Wildlife 

Allocations 

Conserves the Owens Dry Lake and the West Mojave area along 

U.S. 395 north of Edwards Air Force Base 

Alternative 2 

Designates the most BLM-administered land in DFAs (8%) 

Has the most acres of Mohave ground squirrel important areas 

designated as DFAs 

Allows development of the Silurian Valley, the Pahrump Valley 

area, Searles Dry Lake, and the area along U.S. 395 north of 

Edwards Air Force Base 

Has the greatest number of groundwater basins with overdraft 

or stressed status located in DFAs 

Has the greatest number of cultural resources in conservation 

Designates the largest National Scenic and Historic Trail 

Management Corridor, with a 10-mile buffer on either side of 

trails 

Has the most acres of DFAs within Herd Management Areas 

for wild horses and burros 

Designates the most acres of NLCS lands 

Designates the least Wildlife Allocations and new recreation 

areas (SRMAs) within the BLM LUPA Decision Area 

Has the most DFAs within 5 miles of Legislatively and Legally 

Protected Areas 

Alternative 3 

Reduced development of the eastern Riverside County area 

(between Desert Center and Blythe), where sand transport 

corridors provide valuable habitat to the Mojave fringe-toed 

lizard 

Lowest potential impacts to desert tortoise important areas 

(along with Alternative 1) 

Affects the fewest number of known cultural resources and 

Native American elements within DFAs 

Has the greatest number of known cultural resources within 

BLM conservation designations (along with Alternative 2) 

Has the fewest acres of DFAs within 5 miles of Legislatively and 

Legally Protected Areas 

Conserves the Owens Dry Lake and the West Mojave area along 

U.S. 395 north of Edwards Air Force Base 

Alternative 4 

Has the greatest number of acres of Variance Process Lands 

(VPLs) 

Has the fewest acres of Mohave ground squirrel important areas 

within DFAs 

Designates most acres for recreational use (SRMAs) (along with 

Alternative 1) 

In Alternative 4, the BLM VPLs have not been modified for the 

DRECP and appear as they do in the BLM Solar Programmatic EIS. 

This contrasts with other action alternatives where areas identified in 

the BLM Solar Programmatic EIS as variance lands are screened for 

the DRECP using BLM DRECP screening criteria. 

Inclusion of variance lands as they appear in the BLM Solar Programmatic EIS in Alternative 4 may provide greater flexibility under this 

alternative with respect to siting for renewable energy development. 

Inclusion of variance lands as they appear in the BLM Solar Programmatic EIS in Alternative 4 would provide less certainty regarding conservation and management of these lands for the benefit of biological 

resources than would occur under other action alternatives. 

Agency Preferred AlternAtive 

The BLM has determined that the agency Preferred Alternative is the 

Preferred Alternative/Proposed LUPA. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 
PART FIVE 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH 
34 DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

PART FIVE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH
 

Public participation in the DRECP process has been extensive. DRECP 

public outreach began in early 2009, and more than 40 publicly noticed 

meetings were held in preparation of the Draft DRECP. A series of public field visits was held to supplement the public meetings and meetings 

of the Independent Science Advisors and Panel. In December 2012, the 

Description and Comparative Evaluation of Draft DRECP Alternatives 

was released to the public to provide stakeholders and the public the 

opportunity to review and provide feedback on what was developed up 

until that time. 

In July 2011, the California Energy Commission filed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Preparation for the DRECP 

with a 45-day public comment period. Also in 2011, the BLM and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a joint NEPA Notice of Intent, 

following on the BLM’s original Notice of Intent from November 2009. 

In August of 2011, the Renewable Energy Action Team agencies held 

public scoping meetings on the DRECP’s EIR/EIS preparation process 

in Ontario and Sacramento. 

Public meetings on the drAft eir/eis 

The original comment period for the Draft EIR/EIS was from September 26, 2014, to January 9, 2015. The comment period was extended to 

February 23, 2015. On October 9, 2014, an informational webinar was 

held on the Draft EIR/EIS. Additional webinars were held on December 

15 and 17, 2014. Public meetings to hear comments on the Draft EIR/ 

EIS and to answer questions from the public were held as follows: 

Monday, October 20: 

El Centro, CA 

Tuesday, October 21: 

San Diego, CA 

Monday, October 27: 

Lone Pine, CA 

Tuesday, October 28: 

Ridgecrest, CA
 

Wednesday, October 29: 

Victorville, CA 

Monday, November 3: 

Lancaster, CA 

Wednesday, November 5: 

Blythe, CA 

Thursday, November 6: 

Ontario, CA 

Friday, November 7: 


Palm Desert, CA
 

Thursday, November 13: 

Sacramento, CA 

Wednesday, November 19: 

Joshua Tree, CA 

The public was also encouraged to submit written comments in addition 

to their recorded oral comments. Written comments were accepted until 

the close of the formal comment period. 

Consultation with Native American tribal governments began in 2011 

and is being carried out under multiple state and federal authorities. To 

date, agencies have hosted 10 Tribal–Federal Leadership Conferences 

and various other face-to-face meetings that have shaped the development of the DRECP and will continue throughout the DRECP process 

and implementation. 

comments on the ProPosed luPA And finAl eis 

The BLM and Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Federal 

Activities will publish Notices of Availability (NOAs) for the Final EIS 

in the Federal Register when the final document is ready to be released 

to the public. The Environmental Protection Agency’s NOA will initiate 

a 30-day protest period on the Proposed LUPA to the Director of the 

BLM in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.5-2. 

After any protests have been resolved, BLM may publish an Approved 

Plan Amendment and a Record of Decision (ROD). Publication and 

release of the ROD would serve as public notice of BLM’s decision on 

the Project Application, which is appealable in accordance with 43 CFR 

Part 4. 

document AvAilAbility 

The document is available at the BLM website: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/DRECP.html 

In addition, document copies are available at local area libraries and at 

BLM field offices. 
PART SIX 

DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION 
DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS

The Proposed LUPA and Final EIS is organized as outlined below. 

Volume I, Background and Planning Process, includes: 

Introduction 

Purpose and need 

Regulatory framework 

Descriptions of conservation, renewable energy, and transmission 

planning processes 

Volume II, Description of Alternatives, includes: 

Descriptions of the Proposed LUPA (Preferred Alternative), No 


Action Alternative, and Alternatives 1 through 4
 

Alternatives considered but not carried forward for further analysis 

Volume III, Environmental Setting/Affected Environment, 

includes: 

Descriptions of Affected Environment (referred to as NEPA 


baseline in the Draft EIR/EIS)
 

Descriptions of existing conditions and affected environment for 


23 environmental, cultural, social, and scenic resource categories
 

Volume IV, Environmental Consequences/Effects Analysis, 

includes: 

Analysis of environmental consequences for 23 environmental, 


cultural, social, and scenic resource categories for each alternative
 

Analysis of cumulative effects; cumulative effects will include past, 


present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including 


ongoing renewable energy and conservation planning on private 


land
 

Additional required NEPA sections 

Scoping and Planning Issues 

Collaboration with Other Agencies 

and Groups 

VOLUME I 

INTRODUCTION 

VOLUME II 

ALTERNATIVES 

VOLUME III

EXISTING 

CONDITIONS/

AFFECTED 

ENVIRONMENT 

VOLUME IV 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

I 

VOLUME V 

CONSULTATION, 

COORDINATION,

AND PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT 

Mitigation Monitoring and 

Reporting Program 

Describes Compliance Requirements for 

Mitigation Measures During Implementation 

Technical Appendices APPENDICES 

Background 

Purpose & Need 

Regulatory Framework 

Description of Conservation & 

Renewable Energy Planning Processes 

Description of NEPA Baseline 

Required NEPA Sections 

Description of Existing Conditions/ 

Affected Environment for 23 

Environmental Resource Categories 

Analysis of Environmental Consequences 

for Preferred, No Action, & Other Action 

Alternatives Addressed in DRECP 

Description of Preferred, No Action, 

& Other Action Alternatives 

Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Analysis 

Together, these six volumes and appendices provide the 

documentation for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

analyze and support actions it may consider on the DRECP 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA). 

VOLUME VI 

MITIGATION 

MONITORING

AND REPORTING 

PART SIX: DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION 

36 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 37 
38 DRECP PROPOSED LUPA AND FINAL EIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 39 
Bureau of Land Management 

California State Office 

2800 Cottage Way, W-1928 

Sacramento, CA 95825