|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Consent-General Government # 10.
|
| Board of Supervisors |
County Counsel |
|
|
|
| Subject |
| Authorize the County Administrator to sign a comment letter on the draft Yolo County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy/Local Conservation Plan. (No general fund impact) (Pogledich) |
| Recommended Action |
| Authorize the County Administrator to sign a comment letter on the draft Yolo County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy/Local Conservation Plan. |
| Strategic Plan Goal(s) |
Sustainable Environment
Flourishing Agriculture |
| Reason for Recommended Action/Background |
The purpose of this item is to authorize the County Administrator to sign a comment letter on behalf of the County regarding the Yolo County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy/Local Conservation Plan (RCIS/LCP). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) released a public review draft of the RCIS/LCP for public comment on May 18; the comment period closes at 5:00 on July 16. The public review draft RCIS/LCP is available on the Yolo Habitat Conservancy website (www.yolohabitatconservancy.org).
Information regarding the RCIS/LCP has been presented to the Board on several occasions, including a detailed presentation on January 23, 2018. The PowerPoint from that presentation is included as Attachment A. As the Board will recall, the County participates on the Steering Committee of the RCIS/LCP and is currently considered a co-author of the document (along with the Yolo Habitat Conservancy, California Natural Resources Agency, and California Department of Water Resources). The County has the continuing ability to comment on and influence the content of the RCIS/LCP beyond the close of the public comment period. Staff nonetheless recommend a comment letter to address the following key points:
1. To express support for the multi-benefit approach to state infrastructure projects reflected in the document. As described in Section 3.1 of the RCIS/LCP, multi-benefit projects encouraged by the plan are those that "are designed to achieve a primary public objective (by way of example only, reducing flood risk) while also creating additional public benefits such as enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, sustaining agricultural production, improving water supply and water quality, increasing groundwater recharge, and providing public recreation and educational opportunities, or any combination thereof." Section 3.2.3 of the draft RCIS/LCP further expounds upon this approach, emphasizing the protection of agriculturally productive lands and reciting various Yolo County General Plan policies that are described as "an appropriate framework for evaluating projects proposed to implement this RCIS/LCP on farmed lands."
2. To emphasize the County's interest in better understanding how the RCIS/LCP may be implemented before it is submitted to CDFW for final approval. State law gives CDFW responsibility for approving an RCIS. State law also directs CDFW to prepare regulations for implementation of mitigation credit agreements--the principal means of implementing an RCIS. Although the RCIS legislation containing this directive was signed into law over 18 months ago, CDFW has yet to produce these regulations. County staff understand, however, that CDFW is considering allowing out-of-county mitigation by even private developers and other local public agencies within counties that have an approved RCIS. Whether and how this will work, and whether any approval by the County will be required as part of the CDFW process, remains unknown.
Understanding this potential consequence of RCIS approval is essential, and the County should have an opportunity to review the CDFW regulations and propose changes to the RCIS before CDFW considers its approval. Ideally, CDFW would extend the public comment period on the Yolo RCIS to a reasonable point in time after its implementing regulations are released. (Note that as previously directed by the Board, staff are proposing minor edits to the County's Habitat Mitigation Ordinance and expect to return with an ordinance for Board consideration on July 24.)
3. To express support for the Yolo Habitat Conservancy's position regarding transparency and accountability in RCIS implementation. The Conservancy notified CDFW of several concerns regarding implementation in a February 12, 2018 letter, included as Attachment B. The concerns include funding for the Conservancy to serve as the RCIS implementation sponsor (which has long been the assumed role for the Conservancy after RCIS approval), an estimate of related costs, a commitment to annual public meetings and reports on RCIS implementation, and a process for coordination between CDFW, the County, and the Conservancy on projects that propose to implement the RCIS. CDFW has not responded to these concerns. Moreover, DWR now proposes to serve as the RCIS sponsor in lieu of the Conservancy, but it has not provided any detail on how it would carry out this obligation (nor has it committed to any local outreach or reporting). These issues must be resolved before the RCIS can be properly considered by CDFW for approval.
Staff propose to develop a comment letter prior to the July 16 deadline, coordinating with the Delta Ad Hoc Subcommittee to the extent necessary and feasible. The letter will address the issues above and any other issues that may be appropriate for comment and within the scope of policy positions previously articulated by the County (for example, on the duration of seasonal floodplain habitat on farmed lands). |
| Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies) |
| County Administrator, Yolo Habitat Conservancy |
|
| Fiscal Impact |
|
|
| Source of Funds for this Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|