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

Yolo County Board of Supervisors January 23, 2018

AB 2087 – Regional Conservation Investment Strategies

• Establishes goals and content of an RCIS
• Enables Mitigation Credit Agreements (MCA)
• Outlines process for obtaining MCAs when entities

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

• 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
• pportunities 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).

LOCAL CONSERVATION PLAN

RCIS PROJECT TEAM AND ENGAGEMENT: STEERING COMMITTEE

Core Team

• Yolo County
• Yolo Habitat Conservancy
• Department of Water

Resources

• The Resources Agency
• ICF
• Conservation Strategy

Group Additional Members

• Representative from

Advisory Committee

• American Rivers
• Environment Defense Fund

YOLO RCIS/LCP PROJECT TEAM AND ENGAGEMENT: ADVISORY COMMITTEE

• Steve Greco, Environment
• Glen Holstein, Environment
• John Hopkins, Environment
• Kent Lang, Agriculture
• Chad Roberts, Environment
• Steve Thompson, Landowner
• Charles Tyson, Landowner
• Jeanette Wrysinski, Agriculture
• John Brennan, Landowner
• Bonnie Chiu, Development
• Michelle Azavedo, Development

Members and Alternates

• 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

RCIS OVERVIEW

• 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

What is the County interest in the RCIS/LCP?

• 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

RCIS COMPONENTS

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

POTENTIAL CONSERVATION & ENHANCEMENT ACTIONS

• 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

MITIGATION CREDIT AGREEMENT OVERVIEW

• 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

MCA ENABLES:

EXAMPLE– FLOOD CONTROL RCA RCIS MCA Setback Levee

= sensitive habitat/resource

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)

REMAINING YOLO RCIS/LCP STEPS & ISSUES

• 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

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS