Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1icfi.com |
March 31, 2015
HCP Team Meeting
2icfi.com |
Introductions and Overview
NCCP Recommendation
Structured Decision Tools
Implementation Strategy
Alternatives (All together vs. individually)
Aquatic Resource Permit Overview
Example HCP projects for Aquatic Resource Permitting
Programmatic Permit Costs/Benefits
CDFW Programmatic Options
ACOE Programmatic Options
Agenda
3icfi.com |
1st Stage:
• Planning the HCP, Key Issues, and Preparing the Data
2nd Stage:
• Preparing the HCP and Environmental Documents
3rd Stage:
• Application package and permits
Upper SAR HCP Planning Process
Where are we now?
1st Stage
2nd Stage
3rd Stage
You are here
4icfi.com |
Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Recommendation
5icfi.com |
Should the Upper SAR HCP be and NCCP too?
Conference call with CDFW and USFWS (10/27/14)
• Discussed “River Only” NCCP approach vs. all communities (river + uplands) NCCP• CDFW said can’t make findings on “River Only” NCCP
• CDFW NCCP Findingso Landscape scaleo Diversity of habitats (upland and wetland)o Connectivityo Recovery in plan area
o Findings difficult to achieve without land use authority• County and Cities needed for a viable NCCP option
6icfi.com |
State ITPs: NCCP or 2081Pros of NCCP approach:
Stronger Regulatory Assurances. NCCPs provide strong and durable “No Surprises” assurances from the state for all listed and non-listed covered species. These No Surprises assurances are not available under a CESA 2081 permit, nor can a CESA permit cover non-listed species.
Take of Fully Protected Species. NCCPs allow for direct take of fully protected species. Direct take of fully protected species is not allowed under a CESA 2081 permit.
7icfi.com |
State ITPs: NCCP or 2081Cons of NCCP approach:
Higher Conservation and Procedural Standards. NCCPs require a higher standard of “conservation” of covered species, rather than “fully mitigate” as under a CESA 2081 permit. Additional planning and implementation costs would be incurred to meet the higher conservation standard of an NCCP. NCCPs also have additional procedural requirements that contribute to slightly higher planning costs as compared to a 2081 permit.
NCCP will increase the complexity of the permitting process. The HCP is already very complex. Pursuing and NCCP will make it even more so, which will increase the number of potential pitfalls.
Additional time to prepare an NCCP. The increased complexity will require more time to coordinate with other entities including independent science advisors, local jurisdictions, and the public.
CDFW is not supportive of an NCCP for this plan. CDFW has said that they don’t see any way to prepare an NCCP that they would support without including more entities with land use authority on a large scale for upland habitat types.
8icfi.com |
Land Use Authority of HCP Team is limited
9icfi.com |
Recommendation:
Do not pursue NCCP at this time Costs outweigh the benefits
Possible opportunity to “upgrade” to an NCCP in the future
Focus on completion of the HCP and securing permits for incidental take of Santa Ana sucker and other covered species
10icfi.com |
Structured Decision Making
11icfi.com |
Decision Support ToolsTime to add some structure to our process?
12icfi.com |
Natural Resource Management DecisionsSDM Approach and Tools Help Address Challenges
Resource Allocation Balancing Resource Uses and Values Integrates Natural Resources and
Socioeconomics Provides for quantifying trades offs
Defensible Transparent Process Meaningful Stakeholder Involvement Political Acceptance Accounts for Policies and Directives
13icfi.com |
Define ProblemStep 1
QuantifyConsequences
Step 4
DefineAlternatives
Step 3
EstablishObjectives
Step 2
UnderstandTradeoffs
Step 5
Decide & Take Action
Step 6
Trigger
SDM Analysis Toolkit(MCDA)
Social Values:Preference scales,
Economic Costs
DataResource Modeling
Toolkits(EDT, GIS Effects Model)
Mandates:Laws,
Policies, & Preferences
Consider:Uncertainty, Risk, Linked decisions
Integrated Process
Assess
Source: USFWS
Structured Decision Making
14icfi.com |
What specific decision(s) has to be made?Decision – agree to description of the level of take
Problem Definition
Establish ObjectivesWhat are the management objectives?
• Realm of policy,• Legal and regulatory mandates, • Stakeholder viewpoints.
Decision – Establish biological goals and objectives (offset take)
Define ProblemStep 1
EstablishObjectives
Step 2
Mandates:Laws,
Policies, & Preferences
15icfi.com |
What are the different management actions from which we can choose?
• Explicitly articulate the alternatives available • Consider: Risk, Uncertainty and Linked
Decisions
• Decision – agree with the description of potential alternatives to offset “take” with conservation measures
Defining/Understanding Alternatives
DefineAlternatives
Step 3
EstablishObjectives
Step 2
Consider:Uncertainty, Risk, Linked decisions
16icfi.com |
What are the consequences of different management actions?
• Depends on quality of information available (Data)
• Ability to predict the consequences of the alternative actions with an appropriately-chosen model(s)
• Ability to integrate results
Decision – agree with description of take associated with alternatives with and without conservation measures
Quantify Consequences
QuantifyConsequences
Step 4
DefineAlternatives
Step 3
Social Values:Preference scales,
Economic Costs
DataResource Modeling
Toolkits(EDT, GIS Effects Model)
17icfi.com |
Understand Trade Offs
QuantifyConsequences
Step 4
UnderstandTradeoffs
Step 5
SDM Analysis Toolkit(MCDA)
Social Values:Preference scales,
Economic Costs
• If there are multiple objectives:
• How do they trade off with each other?
• In most complex decisions, the best we can do is to choose intelligently between less-than-perfect alternatives.
Decision – agree with the tradeoffs (social and natural resource)
18icfi.com |
Understanding Trade Offs
19icfi.com |
UnderstandTradeoffs
Step 5
Decide & Take Action
Step 6
Trigger
Assess
Decide and take action
• Learn from opportunities that improves management later
• Provided appropriate monitoring program
• Utilize adaptive management
Decision – agree to course of action
Decision – agree with monitoring and adaptive management program
20icfi.com |
Define ProblemStep 1
QuantifyConsequences
Step 4
DefineAlternatives
Step 3
EstablishObjectives
Step 2
UnderstandTradeoffs
Step 5
Decide & Take Action
Step 6
Trigger
SDM Analysis Toolkit(MCDA)
Social Values:Preference scales,
Economic Costs
DataResource Modeling
Toolkits(EDT, GIS Effects Model)
Mandates:Laws,
Policies, & Preferences
Consider:Uncertainty, Risk, Linked decisions
Integrated Process
Assess
Source: USFWS
21icfi.com |
SDM Tool Offers Recognizes and incorporates existing/past approaches/methods
Quantifiable process for integrating: • Objectives,
• Environmental consequences,
• Socio-economic preferences, and
• Tradeoffs
Builds on existing scientific and negotiation methods• Quantification of resource impacts
• Ecosystem services
• Setting economic values/preferences to natural resources
• Incorporating multiple criteria analysis into decisions
Introduces new tools for natural resource management
22icfi.com |
HCP Implementation Strategy:
A key decision
23icfi.com |
• Decision on approach important to structure HCP document
1. One Implementing Entity• Centralized coordination of covered activity implementation,
conservation measures, tracking take, reporting• Single entity holds permit• Take conveyed to other permittes through Certificate of
Inclusion or similar device
2. Multiple Implementing Entities (i.e., each water agency)• More autonomy for each water agency• More difficult to track and coordinate take and conservation• Each water agency holds their own permit
Two Basic Alternatives for HCP Implementation Structure
24icfi.com |
Coordinated Programmatic Aquatic Resource Permitting
25icfi.com |
Parallel and Coordinated Regulatory Processes
Credit: Mike Thomas, USFWS
26icfi.com |
Construction, modification, or maintenance of the following
• Channel improvements and diversions
• Basins
• Pipelines
• Wells
• Reservoir tanks
Covered Activity Types Potentially Needing Aquatic Resource Permits
PermitCoordination and Preparation Approval
Project by Project PermitsCDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
2 months 6 months
USACE 404 Nationwide Permit 2 months 6 months; up to 1 year if consultation are required
USACE 404 Individual Permit 4 months 1 – 1.5 yearUSACE 404 10 Year Individual Permit 4 -6 months 2 – 2 1/2 yearsRWQCB 401 Certification 2 months 6 monthsProgrammatic Permits
CDFW Routine Maintenance Agreement 4 months 1 to 1.5 yearsCDFW Master Agreement 4 months 1 to 2 yearsUSACE 404 Programmatic General Permit 6 months 1 to 1.5 yearsUSACE 404 Programmatic Individual Permit 8 months 1.5 to 3 years
RWQCB 401 Programmatic Water Quality Certification
8 months 1.5 to 3 years
Timing: Project by Project vs. Programmatic
Advantages & Disadvantages: Project by Project vs. Programmatic
Individual Project PermitsAdvantages Disadvantages
CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Faster permitting time
Project by project permitting and individual mitigation plans, sites, and/or credits
USACE 404 Nationwide Permit Faster permitting time
Project by project permitting and individual mitigation plans, sites, and/or credits
USACE 404 Individual Permit
Longer authorization period (5 -10 years)
Subject to NEPA, detailed alternatives analysis, public interest factors and individual mitigation plans, sites, and/or credits
RWQCB 401 Certification Longer authorization period (5 -10 years)
Subject to CEQA, detailed alternatives analysis, and individual mitigation plans, sites, and/or credits
Advantages & Disadvantages: Project by Project vs. Programmatic (cont.)
Programmatic PermitsAdvantages Disadvantages
CDFW Routine Maintenance Agreement
Streamlines Permitting Process for O&M, provide mitigation one time vs. project by project
Takes longer to get the permit
CDFW Master AgreementStreamlines Permitting Process for all covered activities, provide mitigation one time vs. project by project
Takes longer to get the permit, but individual site authorizations thereafter are simple notifications
USACE 404 Regional General Permit
Longer authorization period (5 years) and easy renewal for subsequent periods, provide mitigation one time vs. project by project
Takes longer to get the programmatic permit, but individual site authorizations thereafter are simple notifications
Advantages & Disadvantages: Project by Project vs. Programmatic (cont.)
Programmatic Permits (cont.)
Advantages Disadvantages
USACE 404 Programmatic Individual Permit with LOP Procedures
Longer authorization period (10-20 years) and opportunities for renewal, streamlines permitting process for subsequent covered activities, and provides mitigation one time vs. project by project
Takes longer to get the programmatic permit, but individual site authorizations thereafter only need to provide information in LOP procedures and deduct “credits” from mitigation site
RWQCB 401 Programmatic Water Quality Certification
Longer authorization period (10-20 years) and opportunities for renewal, streamlines permitting process for subsequent covered activities, and provides mitigation one time vs. project by project
Takes longer to get the programmatic permit, but individual site authorizations thereafter only need to provide information in established procedures and deduct “credits” from mitigation site
31icfi.com |
Potential Next Steps
Preliminary Exclusion of RGP
Based on the small number of anticipated activities that have minimal effects on aquatic resources individually or cummulatived, the RGP does not seem like good fit.
Potential coverage for routine maintenance activities and pipeline installation. Others?
Steps similar to developing a Programmatic IP (discussed next) Complete Application Public Notice NEPA» Public interest review» Compliance with NHPA, ESA, » Alternatives analysis – EPA 404(b)(1) to determine LEDPA» Cumulative impacts analysis» Presuming the Corps arrives at a Finding of No Significant» Impact (FONSI), following conclusion of consultations Corps then issues the RGP with Special Conditions
Also needs 401 Cert (including CEQA document), ESA compliance, etc…
Clean Water Act Section 404 IP USACE Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division (“Corps”)
• Pursuant to CWA Section 404 (33 USC 1344) applicants are required to obtain authorization for activities resulting in a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.
• Actions subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)• Activities resulting in greater than minimal impacts, individually and
cumulatively, require the project proponent (applicant) to apply for an Individual Permit (IP) (see next slide) Permittee or co-permittees are signatory to the application
and permit Once IP is issued, individual
activities (e.g., basin construction, pipeline maintenance) are then authorized on project-by-project or periodic basis under Notice(s) to Proceed (NTP) or Letter(s) of Permission (LOP)o IP is active for > 5 years
Submission of Corps application and sufficient information to issue a Public Notice, including:• Written project description/preliminary designs• Jurisdictional delineation of waters (“waters”) of the U.S.
AND proposed impacts to waters • Statement of proposed avoidance, minimization, and
compensation measures • Baseline information AND preliminary assessment of
impacts on cultural resources, historic properties, and federally-listed plant and animal species
• No application filing fee for public agencies Following Public Notice:
• Corps coordinates with applicant to address comments,and consults with resource agencies (USFWS, NMFS, SHPO) and Tribes, and then prepares an Environmental Assessment (EA), including: Public interest review Compliance with NHPA, ESA, and CWA 404(b)(1)
Guidelines Alternatives analysis – EPA 404(b)(1) to determine LEDPA Cumulative impacts analysis Presuming the Corps arrives at a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI), following conclusion of consultations the Corps then issues the IP with Special Conditions
Steps to CWA 404 IP Process
Steps to Master Lake & Streambed Alteration Agreement Process
CDFW, Inland Deserts Region• Pursuant to CA Fish & Game Code Section 1602, applicants are required to obtain a Lake &
Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) for activities that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow—or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank—of any river, stream, or lake
A Master Lake & Streambed Alteration Agreement (MLSAA) may be developed for activities covered under an HCP/NCCP (term of > 5 years), and includes the following requirements:• Submission of Lake & Streambed Alteration Agreement application• Written project description/preliminary designs• Jurisdictional delineation and habitat assessment of affected lakes &
streambeds AND proposed impacts under proposed project• Fish and wildlife species expected to be present (including federal and
state- listed species), AND proposed impacts to these species under proposed project
• Proposed avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures** (see footnote)
• Evidence of CEQA compliance (e.g., EIR)• Application filing fee ($36,842 in 2014) and annual fee ($3,070 in 2014)• Notification and fee ($307.25) on a project by project basis for activities
covered under MLSAA
**Mitigation for HCP/NCCP authorized impacts generally consists of preservation, whereas mitigation for LSAA-authorized impacts generally consists of creation, restoration, and enhancement
Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)• Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA (33 USC Section 1341), a project
proponent is required to obtain a “401 certification” for activities regulated under CWA Section 404 authorization (USACE) Certifies that proposed activities comply with CWA Sections 301-303, 306-307
• Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (CWC Division 7), any person discharging waste that may affect water quality must file a report of waste discharge
Waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (water Code section 13050(e)), and may include non-federal waters (e.g., isolated waters)
Steps to Develop Programmatic 401 Certification
A programmatic 401 certification may be developed for activities covered under an HCP/NCCP (duration dependent on Corps’ 404 permit), and includes the following requirements:• Submission of 401 certification application• Written project description/preliminary designs• Jurisdictional delineation of waters of U.S. and waters of
the state AND proposed impacts under proposed project• Baseline information AND assessment of impacts on
listed plant and animal species• Proposed avoidance, minimization, and compensation
measures*• Evidence of CEQA compliance (e.g., EIR)• Status of dewatering (NPDES) and stormwater
(SWPPP) permits• Application processing fee (up to $90,000 in 2014), plus
annual discharge fee and post-discharge monitoring fee are assessed on a program-level basis (all projects) for activities covered under the programmatic certification Fees based upon total area, volume, or length of discharge
Discuss individual projects
Discuss groups/categories of projects
Potential impacts
Potential alternatives/approaches to criteria
• 404(b)(1) in light of Cost, Logistics, Technology
• Cost of individual projects/types (construction costs only)
• Logistics of constructing elsewhere (other environmental resources, property ownership, access to roads, utilities, etc., ramifications of not constructing the projects)
• Technology is rarely a limitation any more, but should discuss nonetheless
Discussion and Brainstorming Session