Intro

1
Welcome
2
Intro 1 to Conservation-Plan-Speak

• ESA federal Endangered Species Act
• HCP Habitat Conservation Plan defined in
  federal ESA and agency regulations
• CESA California Endangered Species Act (part of
  CA Fish Game Code)
• NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
  defined in the CA Fish Code and state
  regulations ties into CESA.
• Take Permit/Authorization ESA and/or CESA
  authorization to adversely affect a listed species

3
Project Overview

• Project Origin
• Planning Process
• Current Status
• Upcoming Decisions

4
Project Origin

• Began with federal review of bio effects of
  proposed highway improvements
• Lead to local agreement to work on a conservation
  plan for federal and state listed species
• Developed into combined HCP/NCCP planning process

5
Federal Review

• ESA requires review of federal actions that could
  affect federally listed species (Section 7
  Consultation)
• Proposed improvements to Hwy 99/70 federal
  action
• Consultation concluded conservation measures were
  needed to offset impacts of proposed project
  including impacts of growth associated with the
  improved roads

6
Agreement to Work on Conservation Plan

• HCP recommended as way to offset effects of
  future development
• Counties agree to work cooperatively on plan
• Working Group (staff from Counties, USFWS, CDFG,
  NOAA Fisheries, Caltrans) formed to coordinate
  planning
• Cumulative effects area for the highway
  projects identified as HCP Plan Area

7

• Plan Area as Defined by Cumulative Effects Area
  of Highway Projects

8
Options for CESA Compliance

• Consultation covered federally listed species
  separate process applies to state listed species.
  
• Two primary options, both similar to HCPs
• CESA Section 2081
• NCCP program

9
Advantages of the NCCP Approach

• More comprehensive covers conservation of
  ecosystems
• Intended to reduce need for future listings and
  promote species recovery
• Federal and state funding available for planning
  and implementation

10
NCCP/HCP Similarities

• Similar planning process, with emphasis on
  scientific input and public participation
• Similar required components, including impact
  avoidance/minimization, monitoring, and adaptive
  management
• Similar approval criteria for take authorization

11
NCCP/HCP Differences

• Generally, more shalls in NCCP Guidelines than
  in HCP Guidelines
• Planning agreement required for NCCP often used
  but not a requirement for HCPs
• Interim project review process required while
  NCCP is being prepared review consistent with
  federal policy but not required for HCPs
• NCCPs typically must be regional in scale HCPs
  can cover large or small areas.

12
Counties Move Forward on Combined NCCP/HCP

• Grant applications submitted funding awarded for
  planning.
• Project team formed
• County staff
• Consultant (Jones Stokes)
• Technical support from wildlife agencies
• Work program groups tasks into phases, with key
  decisions made at end of each phase

13
Four Phases Proposed

• Data collection and initial steps in NCCP/HCP
  process
• Development of conservation alternatives
• Selection of an alternative and completion of the
  plan
• Environmental review and approval of the plan

14
Phase I

• Budget of 716,835
• 459,400 from grants
• 257,435 in local matching funds
• Four types of tasks
• Project management and project team meetings
• Public involvement and stakeholder outreach
• NCCP-related requirements (planning agreement and
  science advisors)
• Baseline data collection (resources and land uses
  in Plan Area)
• Initial Plan Area same as identified in Section 7
  consultation

15
Completed and Pending Tasks
16
Remaining Phase I Budget
17
Phase I Decision Points

• Science Advisors Report
• Planning Agreement
• First cut at scope of Plan (area, species,
  activities covered by it)
• Best use of remaining Phase I funds
• Ready for transition to Phase II?