DRAFT. October 11, 2011 MEMORANDUM

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "DRAFT. October 11, 2011 MEMORANDUM"

Natalie Harvey
5 years ago
Views:

1 MEMORANDUM To: DRECP REAT Agencies From: Dudek/ICF Date: INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to introduce the topic of alternatives development for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) and to present a list of concepts for alternative conservation strategies. s are used in a variety of contexts in any habitat conservation plan (HCP) and natural community conservation plan (NCCP), so it is first important to understand each one. There are three primary ways in which alternatives inform an HCP/NCCP: Conservation Strategies s to Take EIR/EIS s. There are both similarities and differences between the purposes, scope, and uses of these three types of alternatives (Table 1). s may also overlap among them. For example, often alternatives for an HCP/NCCP EIR/EIS will include alternative conservation strategies. Each type of alternative is summarized below. Conservation Strategies conservation strategies are a useful planning tool to arrive at a preferred conservation strategy. conservation strategies are not required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the NCCP Act but they can be used to help define alternatives to take or EIR/EIS alternatives, which are required. Conservation strategy alternatives can also help to address 1 October 2011

2 stakeholder comments by exploring alternative approaches to the conservation design. We intend to describe the alternative conservation strategies in the draft DRECP (Chapter 4) to explain how we arrived at the preferred strategy. We provide concepts for alternatives to take in the draft DRECP (Chapter 9). (Chapter references are per draft DRECP Working Outline posted October 12, 2010 at Table 1. Comparison of s for the DRECP and EIR/EIS. Parameter Regulatory Basis Scope of Evaluation DRECP Conservation Strategy s (Ch. 4) None; internal planning exercise approaches to meeting conservation goals and regulatory standards DRECP s to Take (Ch. 9) Federal ESA Sect. 10 s that reduce take Species Covered species Covered wildlife and fish (not plants) Level of Evaluation Quantitative comparison Qualitative comparison among alternatives Standard of Evaluation Optimizing design to meet conservation goals and test feasibility Does alternative reduce take and is it feasible? EIR/EIS s CEQA and NEPA s that meet purpose and need, avoid or reduce impacts (all topics) and are potentially feasible All species (focused on special-status species) Quantitative or qualitative comparison based on available data Significance of impact according to CEQA criteria and NEPA guidelines s to Take The ESA requires that applicants for incidental take permits specify in an HCP what alternative actions to the take of federally listed species were considered and the reasons why those alternatives were not selected. The Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1998) identifies two alternatives commonly used in HCPs: (1) an alternative that would reduce take below levels anticipated for the proposed project and (2) an alternative that would avoid take and hence not require a permit from USFWS. s to take (DRECP Chapter 9) will address these requirements and consider alternative approaches that only reduce take of the listed fish and wildlife species. The ESA does not prohibit take of plants on private land, so it is not mandatory to evaluate alternatives to the take of plants. Because alternatives to take serve a more narrow purpose than alternative conservation strategies (Table 1), they can be developed independently. However, there likely will be overlap 2 October 2011

3 between the EIR/EIS alternatives and alternatives to take. The NCCP Act contemplates that project alternatives will be considered in the program EIR prepared for the NCCP (Section 2820[e]) but not in the NCCP itself. EIR/EIS s The EIR/EIS, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), must include a reasonable range of alternatives. These alternatives must be defined by the circumstances and the facts of the proposed federal actions (issuance of incidental take permit by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and the amendment to the land use plan for the Bureau of Land Management [BLM]). For the state actions (approval of the plan and authorization of incidental take by CDFG and adoption of the plan by the CEC, CPUC, and SLC), the alternatives must also meet most of the basic project objectives, must be feasible, and must avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant s impacts on the environment of the proposed project. EIR/EIS alternatives can take a variety of forms but must meet regulatory requirements to lessen any significant environmental impacts where feasible, not just impacts to proposed Covered Species. Typically, EIR/EIS alternatives for HCP/NCCPs include one or more alternatives that provide: Different conservation strategies (use one or more of the conservation strategy alternatives explored in the DRECP process) Different types, amounts, or locations of covered activities Different permit terms Different sets of proposed Covered Species. s for the EIR/EIS will be explored and developed over next several months. CONCEPTS FOR ALTERNATIVE CONSERVATION STRATEGIES Conservation strategy alternatives, as illustrated in the DRECP process flow chart, provide a planning tool to help us reach a preferred conservation strategy. Conservation strategy alternatives can take a variety of forms, including: reserve designs with same or different conservation targets 3 October 2011

4 mitigation approaches approaches to the strategy (e.g., more or less use of public vs. private lands) permit durations and levels of development, which scales the level of conservation provided by the plan. conservation strategies developed for the DRECP will be described in the conservation strategy chapter (Chapter 4) as part of the process to arrive at the preferred strategy. One or more of these alternative conservation strategies could become an alternative in the EIR/EIS. A list of possible alternative approaches to the conservation strategy are presented in Table 2. These alternative concepts are divided into three categories: land based, implementation based, and permit term. Land-based concepts relate to how and where the reserve system will be established. Implementation-based alternatives consider different ways to structure the conservation strategy during implementation (e.g., the use of different approaches to mitigation). Finally, permit term concepts vary the permit term. These alternative concepts are presented for stakeholder consideration and to spur discussion. Feedback on these concepts for conservation strategy alternatives and suggestions for other concepts are welcome. Table 2. Concepts for Conservation Strategy s Concept Description Issues/Considerations Land-based Public Lands Emphasis Integrate public and private lands conservation Variations or Components: Management Emphasis - Conservation only through enhanced management on public lands (increasing enforcement, fencing, removing grazing, rehabilitation, etc.) Limit new private lands conservation to acquisition of key linkages, inholdings or populations of key covered species (e.g., plants, riparian) Consider both public and private lands that are must haves or keys for conservation of proposed Covered Species based on the Agencies regional reserve concept, Marxan This concept may be received more favorably by local jurisdictions concerned with targeting private lands for acquisition This concept may direct renewable energy development to private lands This concept may restrict renewable energy development on public lands in some areas if more conservation and greater management is directed to these lands Conservation on private lands still needed at some level because some Covered Species are found mostly or entirely on private lands This concept likely to be received less favorably by local jurisdictions because of the focus on private land acquisition 4 October 2011

5 Table 2. Concepts for Conservation Strategy s Concept Description Issues/Considerations modeling and other reserve design tools (ACE-II?) Target those areas for conservation on a proportional basis based on impacts of DRECP Covered Activities Subarea Conservation mitigation approaches Phased Conservation and Development Plan Structure Options Define focus areas/subareas within which development and conservation are linked provide a more specific correlation geographically between conservation, including Covered Species, and covered activities (e.g., West Mojave, Owens Valley, Pisgah, East Riverside, and Imperial Valley; or ecoregion based, County based, other). Implementation-based Mitigation/credit options fee, like/kind by resource type and/or geographic subunit This alternative would correlate to concept discussed in working groups of defining focus areas for development and conservation based phases involving buildout in each phase prior to moving to the next Could exclude transmission line development from phasing requirements to provide more flexibility for these larger projects that support the region Could add element to focus development near existing transmission lines in first phase Hardline/softline variations; fee only with survey requirements in certain areas; criteria in other areas Permit coverage area variations; permits cover only renewable energy study areas and associated proportional mitigation areas May pose geographic constraints on development and conservation but could incorporate criteriabased incentives to promote flexibility with lower mitigation burden for like/kind conservation within the defined geographic area and greater burdens for development outside a renewable energy focus area and mitigation outside the defined development/conservation subarea Range of mitigation/credit options provide opportunities to incentivize development in low biological conflict areas Constrains development to phases May limit or impose additional burdens in transmission planning (if included in phasing) Limiting areas of permit coverage may pose additional burdens on transmission planning and confine renewable energy development areas Fee only areas may provide incentives to site renewable energy development in low biological conflict areas May be difficult to present an alternative with a hardline that is not selected; could cause controversy and perception that we are selecting a weaker alternative 5 October 2011

6 Table 2. Concepts for Conservation Strategy s Concept Description Issues/Considerations Permit Term Variations in reserve design based on different assumptions about type and amount of development or permit durations Variations might include ground disturbance scenarios and technology mix; fixed and flexible development options Issues raised in Working Group discussions regarding how RPS targets are established and achieved, and the relationship to DRECP (CEC Calculator inputs and assumptions) Allows carrying forward different development scenarios and provides opportunity for stakeholders to see what conservation would be needed for each scenario 6 October 2011

DRAFT October 26, 2011

DRAFT October 26, 2011 5. PLAN INTEGRATION This section summarizes previous presentations provided to stakeholders regarding the form of the Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and provides