Implementation of the Conservation and Management Actions from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Land Use Plan Amendment
July 31, 2020
In Reply Refer To:
1620 (CA930) P
EMS TRANSMISSION 7/31/2020
Information Bulletin No. CA-2020-004
To: All California District and Field Managers within the Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan area
From: California State Director
Subject: Implementation of the Conservation and Management Actions from the Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Land Use Plan Amendment
Purpose: This Information Bulletin provides guidance on application of Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA).
Background: The DRECP LUPA contains CMAs that are intended to minimize or mitigate impacts from the development and use of the public lands. Each of these CMAs are land use plan decisions and must be applied to decisions and authorizations in order to be in conformance with our land use plan.[1] Application of the CMAs, however, must be evaluated based upon the resources present and the action or activity’s anticipated impacts.
Discussion: Because application of the CMAs provides mitigation and minimization for activities’ impacts, field offices must take care to understand each activity’s impacts upon the resources that the CMAs are intended to protect. Even if a resource is present in the project site, one must evaluate the potential effects of an activity or specific action to determine the need to apply protective CMAs. If there is no potential for impact from the activity upon the resource a CMA is intended to protect, the CMA does not need to be applied even if its automatic application appears to be implied[2]; however, rationale for not applying the CMA must be clearly documented in the project file.
Example one: if a transmission line’s right-of-way crosses a riparian zone but no structures, roads, construction, or operation and maintenance activities occur on the ground in the riparian zone, fish (LUPA-BIO-RIPWET-4 and 5) and possibly certain riparian (LUPA-BIO-RIPWET- 1, 2, 6, and 7) CMAs likely do not need to be applied. In this transmission example, if operations and maintenance include vegetation management, these CMAs may be applicable if there is a potential to impact fish or riparian resources.
Example two: LUPA-BIO-14 requires measures intended to minimize impacts to focal and special status species. If focal and special status species are not present on the site or if there is not a probability of an impact upon focal and special status species, the specific measures do not need to be applied. As a further example, if the site is not within the range of focal and sensitive wildlife, there may not need to be a prohibition on domestic pets. Likewise, if domestic pets are leashed or under verbal control of their owners, their prohibition may not be necessary.
Contact: Russell Scofield, DRECP Implementation Coordinator, (760) 833-7139, ascofiel@blm.gov.
Signed by:
Karen E. Mouritsen
State Director
Authenticated by:
Lawrence Weitzel
GIS/Applications Mgmt. Branch, CA-946
[1] Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) as codified in 43 U. S. Code 1732, and 1712(e) require that BLM management of the public lands, and implementation decisions be in conformance with the applicable land use plan.
[2] The DRECP LUPA Record of Decision (ROD) states on page 63: In connection with the review of a particular activity, the BLM will determine, on a case-by-case basis, which CMAs apply to any given activity based on its location and the resources present there. At the outset, it should be noted that each CMA applies to actions that may impact the resource for which the CMA was developed.