Transcript Breeding and Non-breeding Survival of Lesser Prairie

HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLANNING
Charles J. Randel,1 III, Howard O. Clark, Jr.,2
Darren P. Newman,2 and Thomas P. Dixon3
1Randel
Wildlife Consulting, Inc., South Pasadena, CA
2H.T. Harvey & Associates, Fresno, CA
3Atkins, Austin, TX
Introduction
► Habitat
Conservation Planning and
Environmental Impact Assessments require a
working knowledge
 Federal and State Statutes
 Federal, State, and Local environmental statutes,
regulations, and policies
Federal Statutes
► National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
 Provides guidance to federal agencies on the evaluation of
federal actions on the environment
► Endangered
Species Act (ESA)
 Section 9 – basis on which Habitat Conservation Plans are
founded
 Section 7 – Informal Consultation
► Required federal agencies
proposing actions to consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries Service (Informal Consultation)
 Section 10 – Formal Consultation
► Allows
species
for issuance of “incidental take permits” for federally listed
State Statutes
► State
Environmental Policy Acts (SEPA)
 15 States currently have SEPAs which are similar to
NEPA, with a state agency given regulatory
oversight
 Policies and regulatory oversight agencies will vary
by state
Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA)
► EIA
is the process of identification and
evaluation of human actions on the environment
► Regulatory agencies
are responsible for the
preparation and certification of EIAs
EIA Documents
► EIA
Document Types
 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
 Environmental Assessment (EA)
►The
EA is the most commonly prepared EIA
 Categorical Exclusion (CatEx)
 Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Environmental Assessment
► The
EA is meant to be a succinct public document
analyzing when a proposed action or project has a
potential to have environmental impacts
► Preparation of EAs may vary between federal agencies,
but must include:




Need for the proposed action
Description of the proposed action and alternatives
Anticipated effects of the proposed action and alternatives
Agency and expert consultation conducted
Public Review
► Proposed federal
actions determined to have a
significant environmental affect must
 Publish a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the federal
register
 Prepare a Draft EIA and publish a Notice of
Availability (NOA) to receive comments from
interested parties
 Address received public comments and publish a
Final EIA
Habitat Conservation Plan
► Concept
and process modeled after the San Bruno
Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) developed
in the mid-1970s
► Created by Congress as a method to reduce issues and
conflicts between species with a federal listing and
nonfederal development projects
► HCPs vary in size of area, number of species covered,
and agreement duration
 Areas of approved HCPs range from 0.07 ha to >6,475 km2
 May be created for single species or >150
HCP Requirements
► The
following must be included in an HCP
 Effects likely to result from the proposed taking
 Measures undertaken to monitor, minimize, and
mitigate effects, and funding to undertake such
measures
 Alternative actions considered resulting in no “take”
and justification for not implamenting
 Additional measures USFWS or NOAA Fisheries
may require as necessary or appropriate
Assessing “Take”
“Take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in such
conduct” by the ESA
► Prior to drafting an HCP coordination with USFWS or NOAA
Fisheries Service should be conducted to determine if “take” is a
likely result of an action or project
► USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service may determine “take” can
reasonably be avoided by one of the following:
►
 Relocation of the proposed action or policy area
 Relocation of project facilities
 Seasonal changes in timing of project
►
When “take” cannot be avoided an Incidental Take Permit
application will be recommended
Species and Effect Determination
►A
project applicant must identify which species are
likely to be effected by their proposed project or policy
► It is recommended that all species potentially effected
by addressed in the HCP to reduce potential violations
of the ESA
► HCPs




should include:
Delineation of HCP boundary or plan area
Biological data collected and synthesis for species covered
Identification of activities likely to result in incidental take
Qualification of anticipated levels of “Take”
Anticipated Take Levels
► Incidental
take anticipated due to proposed actions must
be provided
► A “good faith” effort must be made to determine the
amount of incidental take for each species covered
under the Incidental Take Permit
 May be the actual number of each species anticipated to be
killed, harmed, or harassed by the proposed action
 May be based on the amount of habitat affected either directly
or indirectly from proposed project elements when the
number of individuals is unknown or cannot be determined
Mitigation
► Commonly employed mitigation
approaches for
HCPs
 Avoidance
►May
be accomplished through project design or timing of
proposed activities
 Minimization or effects
►Must
be approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 Habitat Restoration
 Habitat Preservation
Available Funding
► Regardless
of species, size, or duration HCPs
must have sufficient funding to ensure proper
implementation
► Failure
to meet funding levels prior to approval
are grounds for suspension, revocation, or denial
of existing permits, including Incidental Take
Permits
Alternative Actions
► Actions
considered during the HCP process and
determined infeasible during implementation
► Must include a “no build” alternative
► Examples include
 Modification of schedules
 Project element relocation
 Land purchase agreements
Coordination and Planning
► Early
coordination with either the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Services
is essential to successful HCPs
► Coordination with state regulatory agencies for
potential affects on state-listed species should
additionally be conducted to ensure successful
implementation of an HCP
Implementation
► Once
an HCP is approved and an Incidental
Take Permit is issued implementation of the
HCP may begin
► Monitoring is key to ensure the HCP is being
implemented as agreed
► Periodic reports are required to ensure
compliance with issued permits
Safe Harbor Agreements
► Safe
Harbor Agreements are voluntary
agreements where U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service work with nonfederal landowners to
develop management actions contributing to the
recovery of listed species for a predetermined
period of time
Candidate Conservation Agrements
►A
formal agreement between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and nonfederal landowners
addressing conservation needs of candidate or
at-risk species
SUMMARY
►
Key environmental statues (e.g., NEPA and ESA)
established in the 1960s and 1970s
►
Environmental Impact Assessment can be:




►
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Environmental Assessments (EA)
Findings of No Significant Impacts (FONSI)
Categorical Exclusions (CATEX)
EIA preparation times are dependent on project or action
complexity
SUMMARY
►
Incidental Take Permits (ITP) are allowed for private projects
under Section 10 of the ESA
► Prior to USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service issuing an ITP a
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) must be prepared
► HCPs must include:
 (1) Purpose Statement, (2) Assessment of Potential “take”, (3) Listed and
nonlisted species considered for coverage, (4) Likely effects, (5)
Delineation of HCP boundary and duration of HCP, (6) Mitigation of
“take”, (7) Available Funding, (8) Alternative actions considered, and (9)
Coordination and Planning
►
Voluntary alternatives to HCPs include:
 Safe Harbor Agreements
 Candidate Conservation Agreements