hcp team meeting · 2020. 9. 3. · • decision on approach important to structure hcp document 1....

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)


EstablishObjectives

Step 2

Mandates:Laws,


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


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


Step 4

DefineAlternatives

Step 3


Economic Costs



17icfi.com |

Understand Trade Offs


Step 4

UnderstandTradeoffs

Step 5



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


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 |



Step 4

DefineAlternatives

Step 3

EstablishObjectives

Step 2

UnderstandTradeoffs

Step 5


Step 6

Trigger



Economic Costs



Mandates:Laws,



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