Yolo County Board of Supervisors January 23, 2018 AB 2087 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Yolo County Board of Supervisors January 23, 2018

AB 2087 –  Establishes goals and content of an RCIS Regional  Enables Mitigation Credit Agreements (MCA) Conservation Investment  Outlines process for obtaining MCAs when entities Strategies invest in conservation consistent with an RCIS  Provides assurances that state and local agencies can get credit for advance mitigation planning investments  Creates framework for voluntary, philanthrophic conservation efforts

LOCAL CONSERVATION PLAN  Not part of the RCIS statute—an outgrowth of the HCP/NCCP  Voluntary, non-regulatory conservation framework for species and habitat types of local concern in Yolo County and adjacent areas  Allows local, state, and federal agencies and concerned citizens to evaluate conservation opportunities in the county  Allow private landowners to benefit from and better understand the conservation value of their lands in a regional context  Justify fundraising (e.g., grants, federal assistance ) for landowners for voluntary conservation projects (e.g. pond maintenance).

RCIS PROJECT TEAM AND ENGAGEMENT: STEERING COMMITTEE Core Team Additional Members • Yolo County • Representative from • Yolo Habitat Conservancy Advisory Committee • Department of Water • American Rivers Resources • Environment Defense Fund • The Resources Agency • ICF • Conservation Strategy Group

YOLO RCIS/LCP PROJECT TEAM AND ENGAGEMENT: ADVISORY COMMITTEE Members and Alternates  Steve Greco, Environment  Steve Thompson, Landowner  Glen Holstein, Environment  Charles Tyson, Landowner  John Hopkins, Environment  Jeanette Wrysinski, Agriculture  Kent Lang, Agriculture  John Brennan, Landowner  Chad Roberts, Environment  Bonnie Chiu, Development  Michelle Azavedo, Development

RCIS OVERVIEW • Voluntary, non-regulatory • Non-binding on land use authorities • Proposed by any public agency • Good for up to ten years • Can be extended, updated or amended • RCIS required for MCAs including species & other elements to be in MCA

What is the County interest in the RCIS/LCP?  Consideration and accommodation of local agricultural sustainability and land use policies in the RCIS planning process  Coordinated mitigation for local projects—including those that are not covered by the HCP/NCCP (e.g., endangered, threatened, and rare fish species)  Allows the County to support private conservation efforts by creating a plan that could serve as the foundation for compatible grant applications

RCIS COMPONENTS • 41 “focal species that are state/federally listed or may become listed 72 “conservation species” = other species of local concern • • Summary of mitigation banks in RCIS Area • Consider working lands conservation—multi-benefit projects Identify conservation & enhancement actions •

POTENTIAL CONSERVATION & ENHANCEMENT ACTIONS • Acquire and protect land • Restore creeks and rivers Restore habitat on public land • Install wildlife crossings • • Remove fish barriers • Create/restore rearing habitat

MITIGATION CREDIT AGREEMENT OVERVIEW • Anyone may apply for an MCA • Based on conservation & habitat enhancement actions in an approved RCIS Consistent with CDFW’s Banking Program • • NCCP Implementing Entity approval required (a big deal) • Not allowed for Delta water conveyance facilities

MCA ENABLES: Advance mitigation • • Transferrable credits • Excess project conservation & enhancements used as credits • Offset impacts under CESA, CEQA, LSA Offset permanent and • temporary impacts • On public or private land

EXAMPLE– FLOOD CONTROL = sensitive habitat/resource RCA Setback Levee MCA RCIS

REMAINING YOLO RCIS/LCP STEPS & ISSUES Procedural Steps • Submission of administrative draft to CDFW • 30+ day adequacy review • Plan updated to address CDFW comments (+ others) • 30+ day public review and comment period • Final revisions and County action (presumably, to approve) • Submission to CDFW for approval Substantive issues • Implementation—who, how, with what funding? • County role in implementation of MCAs (if out-of-county mitigation allowed via RCIS and MCA)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS • Authorize submission of administrative draft to CDFW • Direct staff to: • Continue supporting Yolo Habitat Conservancy in efforts to define and identify funding for meaningful implementation • Evaluate need to amend Habitat Mitigation Ordinance to capture MCAs with out-of-county “service area” • Report back to Board on implementation and out-of- county mitigation issues prior to final County action