Transcript White Background - Yuba Sutter RCP

Yuba-Sutter Regional Conservation Plan
EIS/EIR
SCOPING MEETING
January 6, 2015
Purpose of the Scoping Meeting
1. To obtain feedback on the scope of the EIS/EIR
2. Provide overview of the Yuba-Sutter Regional
Conservation Plan (RCP)
3. Explain the federal and state Endangered Species Acts
4. Explain the environmental review process
RCP History
• 2001 – Caltrans improvements to State Routes 99 and
70 trigger need for an HCP
• 2001 – Sutter and Yuba Counties agree to prepare
HCP/NCCP
• 2006 – New plan boundaries are adopted
• 2010 – Cities formalize participation, and plan boundary
is expanded to include spheres of influence
• 2014 – EIS NOI and EIR NOP released to begin
environmental document scoping
Key Aspects of the RCP
• What is the RCP – An “HCP” (federal Endangered
Species Act) and an “NCCP” (Section 2800 of
California Fish and Game Code)
• Purpose – To implement growth identified in
General Plans
• Location – Covers valley floor area of Yuba and
Sutter Counties
• Timing – Proposed permit term = 50 years
• Participants – Yuba and Sutter Counties, Cities of
Yuba City, Wheatland, and Live Oak
Benefits of the RCP
• Reduce the cost of endangered species permitting
• Provide certainty of regulatory costs and
requirements
• Provide local control
• Provide improved habitat preserves for species
• Protect the rights of private property owners
Who is Involved in the RCP?
Applicants
• Sutter County
• Yuba County
• Cities of Yuba City, Wheatland, and Live Oak
Permitting Agencies
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Consultants
• PMC (RCP)
• Dudek (EIS/EIR)
The RCP Plan Area
Covered Species
3 invertebrates – vernal pool fairy
shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp,Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle
3 amphibians and reptiles – giant
garter snake, western spadefoot, western
pond turtle
8 birds – Swainson’s hawk, western
yellow-billed cuckoo, bank swallow,
California black rail, greater sandhill crane,
bald eagle, western burrowing owl,
tricolored blackbird
3 plants – dwarf downingia, Ahart’s
dwarf rush, legenere
Covered Activities
• Residential, commercial, industrial, and
commercial agricultural projects
• Recreational facilities
• Transportation facilities
• Public and private utilities
• Mining and mineral extraction
• Ground water supply and delivery facilities
• Flood control maintenance and streamrelated facilities
• Wastewater and water management facilities
• Activities within the RCP reserves
The RCP and NEPA
• Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit is a federal action
• NEPA requires that environmental effects of all federal
actions be evaluated/disclosed
• EIS is the appropriate NEPA document
• USFWS is the NEPA lead agency
The NEPA Process
• Trigger for EIS
• NOI/Scoping (written public comments received)
• Prepare Draft EIS (public comments received)
• Prepare Final EIS
• Including responses to public comments
• Lead agency decision (Record of Decision)
The RCP and CEQA
• Two ways to authorize incidental take of a state-listed
species
• Incidental Take Permit (Section 2081 California Fish and Game Code, under
Section 2050 et seq. of California Endangered Species Act)
• NCCP (Section 2800 et seq. California Fish and Game Code)
• As a state action, approval of an NCCP requires
analysis under CEQA
• Sutter County is the CEQA lead agency
• CDFW is a responsible agency under CEQA
The CEQA Process
• Trigger for EIR
• NOP/Scoping (public comments received)
• Prepare Draft EIR (public comments received)
• Prepare Final EIR
• Including responses to public comments
• Lead agency decision (Notice of Determination)
Environmental Factors Considered
• Agriculture
• Land Use
• Air Quality
• Public Services and Facilities
• Biological Resources
• Recreation
• Climate Change
• Socioeconomics and
• Cultural Resources
• Hydrology and Water
Quality
• Hazardous Materials
Environmental Justice
• Soils, Geology, and Mining
• Transportation and Circulation
• Growth-Inducing Effects
Alternatives to be Analyzed
• No Action/No Project
• Preferred Alternative
• Alternative(s) to be identified through the scoping
process. Possible alternatives include:
-
Reduction in scope of permits (reduced impacts)
Variations in conservation strategy
Reduction in permit duration
Variations in covered species
Variations in covered activities
Reduction in permit area
Some combination of these elements
Public Comments Encouraged
• All comments must be received by January 29, 2015
• Comments:
• USFWS NEPA requirements require written comments
• Sutter County CEQA requirements allow all comments
• Written comments are encouraged!
• Please be as specific as possible
How to Comment
• Comment cards – available today
• Faxed comments –
• Sutter County: (530) 822-7220 – Attn: Danelle Stylos
• USFWS: (916) 414-6713 – Attn: Mike Thomas
• Emailed comments – [email protected]
• Written comments –
Sutter County Development Services
Attn: Danelle Stylos
1130 Civic Center Boulevard, Suite A
Yuba City, CA 95993
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: Mike Thomas
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825
Additional Information
Yuba-Sutter Regional Conservation Plan website:
http://www.yubasutterrcp.com/
USFWS website: www.fws.gov
CDFW website:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP
Q &A
Additional Slides
Public Comment Opportunities
During the Preparation of the EIS/EIR