Live Life Lincoln * Live Life Lincoln. Live Life Lincoln . Live Life . Lincoln Live Life Lipcoln  MINUTES Regular Meeting July 12, 2016  CITY OF LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL & LINCOLN REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY  OPEN SESSION MEETING  6:00 PM 1. 2.  City Hall. - Third Floor Conference Room  CALL TO ORDER by Mayor Short at 6:00PM. ROLL CALL: Councilmen present: Paul Joiner  Stan Nader Peter Gilbert Spencer Short Matt Brower, City Manager  Mayor Pro Tem: Mayor: Staff members present:  Councilmembers absent: Gabriel Hydrick Leslie Walker, City Attorney Steve. Ambrose, Support Services Director Jennifer Hanson, Public Services Director Ray Leftwich, City Engineer Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk  Kurt Snyder, Fire Chief  Matt Wheeler, Community Development Director  Various City employees, consultants and members of the public were also present.  3. 4. 5.  REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION - none.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE led by Paul Harrison, Lincoln Leadership member.  INVOCATION by Father Eric Lofgren of St. Joseph Church  Councilman Gilbert asked: for a moment of silence in memory oft the slain Texas officers and any  other officers killed in the line of duty.  6. 7.  AGENDA REVIEW/MODIFICATION none. CITIZENS ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL  a) Lena Labosky, al Lincoln resident, requested Council enact a policy to prevent last minute budget groveling and any special requests be considered during the whole process. b) Byron Chapman, a Lincoln resident, agreed with Councilman Gilbert's suggestion for a moment of silence and wondered why these tragedies seem to be getting worse.  8. A.  PRESENTATIONS  Presentation of Fourth of. July Parade Awards - Tom Cosgrove, Allison Santiago, and Ana Roa, Linçoln Area Chamber of Commerce - postponed to. July 26, 2016 meeting.  B. Airfest Video Presentation.  Richard Pearl presented a brief video and introduced Barry Stiger and Maggie McGurk who took  extensive video and photographs of the event and assisted in preparing the video.  600 Sisth Street Lincoln. CA,95648 ww.dilincaln.ca.as 916-434-2400    Live - Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln. Live - Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln - Live Life Lipcoln  Page 2of5 City Council and Regular Meeting July12,2016 C.  Linçoln Redevelopment Successor Agency  PROCLAMATION 2016-23 declaring July, 2016 as Parks Make Life Better month. Motioned by Councilman Joiner and seconded by Councilman Gilbert to approve PROCLAMATION 2016-23 declaring July, 2016 as Parks Make Life Better month - Unanimously Approved except by D. Economic Development Committee Strategic Plan update and quarterly report. Mike Miller, Vice Chair of the Economic Development Committee, gave a brief report on the  Councilman Hydrick who was absent.  Economic Development strategic action plan.  9.  CONSENT AGENDA  Mayor Short announced Item 9B, Street Resurfacing Plans & Specifications, had been pulled from the Consent Agenda. Counçilman Gilbert motioned and Councilman Joiner seconded to approve the balance of the Consent Agenda Unanimously Approved except by Councilman Hydrick who was  absent. Those items approved were:  A. Warrants Resolution 2016-142 receiving/filing Warrants of June 24 and 30, 2016. C. Joiner Parkway Median Landscape - Adopt Resolution 2016-143 augmenting $10,000 from Fund 270 - Lighting and Landscaping to CIP 369 - Joiner Parkway Median Landscape Irrigation to Reclaimed Water Project and authorizing the City Engineer to approve change orders not to exceed $30,000 for construction of the Joiner Parkway Median Irrigation D.E Electrical Services Adopt Resolution 2016-144 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Contract for Services with Prodigy Electric & Controls Inc. to provide electrical services for at total amount not to exceed $221,445 (escalation included) for a three-year period (ending June 30, 2019), with the option to extend the contract for one additional three-year term. E. Approve a Letter in Opposition to AB1217 (Orange County Fire Authority), and authorize the  Reclaimed Water Conversion Project.  Mayor to sign the letter.  Items pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion:  B. Street Resurfacing Plans & Specs Approve the plans and technical specifications and authorize the City Engineer's Department to proceed with the bidding process for construction of CIP 124: Annual Street Resurfacing Project. A complete set of Improvement Plans and Specifications are available for viewing at the Engineering Department counter in Councilman Nader stated he pulled this item because he was concerned about how smooth the road would be due to numerous citizen complaints on previous projects. Ray Leftwich, City Engineer, stated because these streets are sO severely alligatored there is no way to get the smoothness of new streets but this project would improve the condition of those streets. Mayor Short stated the project would be int front of his home and asked the City Attorney if he needed to excuse himself from the dais. Leslie Walker, City Attorney, stated he did not need to leave.  City Hall during normal business hours.  600 Sixib Strecr . Lincdln. GA. Kc'sad.liscalacawt 916-434-2400    Live Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln. Live - Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln . Live Life Lipcoln  Page3of5 City Council and Regular Meeting July12,2016  Lincoln Redevelopment Successor Agency  Councilman Joiner motioned and Councilman Gilbert seconded to approve the plans and technical specifications and authorize the City Engineer's Department to proceed with the bidding process for construction of CIP 124- Approved by the following roll call vote: Joiner-  Aye, Gilbert - Aye, Nader - Aye, Short - Abstain and Hydrick = absent.  10. PUBLIC HEARINGS  A. Medical Marijuana Staff recommends City Council conduct a public hearing, accept public testimony and Introduce and waive first reading of Ordinance 914B repealing and reenacting Article IV, Section 18.34.120, et. seq. of Title 18 of the Lincoln Municipal Code to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries and the delivery of medical marijuana within City limits and finding the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15060(c)(2)(3); 15061(b)(3); 15064(d)(3); and, 15378(a). Steve Prosser, Senior Planner, stated the City currently prohibits marijuana dispensaries but this ordinance would close a gap and also prohibit delivery of medical marijuana. Mayor Short a) Rich Miller, representing Americans for Safe Access, stated he does not agree with the Council's position that nothing go forward with the County. Mr. Miller continued the Council is denying access to cannabis and is discriminating against those most in need Mayor Short closed the public hearing at 7:42PM. A discussion ensued between Council and Leslie Walker, City Attorney, regarding current law and penalties. Mayor Short expressed concern that the City would have to pay to prosecute if no other agency chose to prosecute. Councilman Joiner motioned and Councilman Gilbert seconded to introduce and waive first reading of Ordinance 914B repealing and reenacting Article IV, Section 18.34.120, et. seq. of Title 18 of the Lincoln Municipal Code to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries and the delivery of medical marijuana within City limits and finding the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15060(c)(2)(3); 15061(b)(3); 15064(d)(3); and, 15378(a) - Approved by the following vote: Joiner - Aye, Gilbert - Aye, B. Solar Moratorium - Staff recommends City Council conduct a public hearing, accept public testimony and Introduce and waive first reading of Urgency Ordinance 915B extending the interim ordinance placing a moratorium on the approval of permits for all solar energy Leslie Walker, City Attomey, reported staff is still studying the impact of large solar systems and drafting regulations and would like to extend the urgency ordinance to allow time to do sO. Mayor Short opened the public hearing at 6:58PM with the following comments:  opened the public hearing at 7:39PM with the following comment:  and asked the Council to reconsider their position.  Nader - Aye, Short = Aye and Hydrick = Absent.  systems larger than 15 kilowatts.  a)  Marianne Morse, a Lincoln resident, thanked the Council for extending the time and allowing her to speak in opposition of the proposed Sun City Lincoln Hills (SCLH) solar  project.  600 Sisth Strect Lincoin. CA 95648 "wwww.di-lincala.saux 916-434-2400    Live - Life . Lincoln . Live Life - Lincoln. Live Life - Lincoln Live Life Lincoin Live Life Ligcoln  Page 4of5 City Councila and Regular Meeting July 12,2016  Lincoln Redevelopment Successor Agency  b) Gerry Morse, a Lincoln resident, also thanked the Council for extending the time period and stated he was opposed to the SCLH solar project being located in the parking lot or maintenance yard and requested Council stop the relocation of the project. Bruce Pohle, a Lincoln resident, stated the proposed SCLH solar project would create a lot of problems for the residents and also urged approval of the time extension. d) Lena Labosky, a Lincoln resident, stated a large solar project could pop up anywhere in the City and also thanked the City for their consideration to extend the time limit for e) Byron Chapman, a Lincoln resident, stated he supported the time extension for the proposed SCLH solar project but urged the Council to keep in mind the push to go 'green' and suggested solar projects on high buildings in Downtown to keep an even Mayor Short closed the public hearing at 7:05PM with brief discussion ensuing with Leslie Walker, City Attorney, on alternate locations, time extension and rescinding moratorium. Councilman Gilbert announced an arrest in Foster City of a man in connection with burglaries in Sun City Lincoln Hills and stated the City of Lincoln is 5h safest city in a recent study for our C. 2015 UWMP Staff recommends City Council conduct a public hearing, accept public testimony, and Adopt Resolution 2016-145 approving the City of Lincoln 2015 Urban Water Matt Wheeler, Community Development Director, stated the City had circulated a draft of the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update (UWMP) as part of the water master plan effort as mandated by the State and had only received one comment via email which he distributed to Council, made a part of these minutes by mention thereof, and introduced the City's consultant, Greg Young of Tully & Young. Greg Young presented a powerpoint. An extensive Council discussion ensued regarding conservation factors in the draft plan, groundwater baseline, gallons per capita day calculation, Placer County Water Agene/PCwAyNevada Irrigation District (NID) reductions and why the year 2040 was used rather than the 2050 buildout used in the City's General Plan. Mayor Short opened the public hearing at 7:50PM with the following a) Lena Labosky, a Lincoln resident, stated she reviewed the document and did not see an engineer's stamp and continued she knew the State allowed small cities to create their own UWMP but since the City hired a consultant she felt the document should contain a stamp on all documents that the City is paying for even ifiti is a planning document. b) Byron Chapman, questioned if the City owned the rights to groundwater over the area, if we pay PCWA for groundwater or use our own, if the State allows banking of groundwater and if so, who controls the piggybank? Mr. Chapman stated he is concerned if someone over landscapes their yard they may incur tiered rates.  c)  further research.  balance.  category and Foster City, where he raised his family, is the 4th safest city.  Management Plan Update.  comments:  600 Sisth Strect lincoln. CA 95648 . Maeadifincala.c.us 916-434-2400    Live Life - Lincoln Live Life Lincoln. Live Life Lincoln Live Life Lincoln - Live Life Lincoln  Page 5of5 City Council and Regular Meeting July 12, 2016  Linçoln Redevelopment Successor Agency  Mayor Short closed the public hearing at 7:55PM and stated the City does have overlying rights over groundwater and we do use our own groundwater but that groundwater banking requires additional work but the City has data going back 40 years and is in a very stable position and that the City already has tiered water rates. Mayor Short asked Greg Young if the UWMP could be used to extend the City's sphere of influence over areas that the City provides reclaimed water. Greg Young stated that would require additional research and a discussion ensued regarding appropriative versus prescriptive water rights and concluded by stating he is an  engineer and did stamp the UWMP. 11. GENERAL BUSINESS  A. LOCC Voting Delegate - Adopt Resolution 2016-146 designating the City of Lincoln's voting delegate and alternate(s) to the League of CA Cities Annual Conference. Councilman Gilbert motioned and Councilman Nader seconded to approve Resolution 2016- 146 designating the City of Lincoln's voting delegate and alternate(s) to the League of CA Cities Annual Conference - Approved by the following vote: Gilbert - Aye, Nader = Aye, Joiner- Aye,  Short = Aye and Hydrick - Absent.  12. COUNCIL INITIATED BUSINESS - none. 13. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS  Councilman Nader reported he and the Mayor had attended the Placer County Water Agencyl City of Lincoln meeting today where the voluntary 10% conservation and self-certfication were discussed. Councilman Nader continued the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was also discussed and he was concerned that staff was working on a Memorandum of Agreement rather than a Joint Powers Agreement which as the ability to police themselves with an extensive discussion ensuing on that topic. Leslie Walker, City Attorney, stated this topic was not agendized so staff would bring it back for discussion at a later date. Councilman Nader reported that he and the Mayor had also attended the Placer County Conservation Plan meeting where cultural resources, environmental impact report and Foothill versus Valley Floor financing was discussed and provided copies of the meeting materials to the rest of the Council, made a part of these minutes by mention thereof. Mayor Short asked staff  tor review the financing to see what it means to the City's developers.  14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Short adjourned the meeting at 8:25PM. 2boa &ah Submitted by Gwen Scanlon, City Clerk  600 Sivth Street Lincaln. CA 95648 "wwwdi-fiucaln.uIX-916-34--00    Gwendolyn Scanlon From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gwen (and team):  Matthew Wheeler Thursday, July 07, 2016: 10:49 AM Matthew Brower; Gwendolyn Scanlon Pam Mathus; Jim Bermudez  FW: URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Comment  received the attached public comment regarding our Draft Urban' Water Management Plan - which is scheduled for  public hearing on Tuesday night. Questions:  How do we handle written public comments received prior to the public hearing? Do we need to print them and bring them to the hearing for reading?  Thanks,  Matthew J. Wheeler, P.E. Community Development Director : Lincoln, A City ofOpportunity From: wrinc@sbglobal.net malofwincesbgoaine. Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 4:491 PM To: Matthew Wheeler; Peter Gilbert; Spencer Short Subject: URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN  Mayor, Matthew,  l'am a resident of Lincoin Hills and a retired water engineer. Ih have reviewed the Draft. lunderstand that this report is primarily prepared in direct response to the UWMP act. I have to congratulate the Ibelieve that for better understanding for the City Council, as well as for the Public of this 170 plus pages report, I'suggest that the consultant prepare a separate EXCECUTIVE SUMMARY describing  City of Lincoln for its foresight and great planning in the past.  the conclusions. Thank you Rene Fuog    Shan  Lincoln Foothills Fee Structure Overlay  June 6, 2016  The original construction of analysis zones in the Placer County conservation program (PCCP) relied on a division between the Valley and the Foothills that falls roughly along the 2001 foot elevation contour. This elevation change corresponds to a recognizable change in terrain and natural community land cover, notably the shift from grassland int the' Valley to woodland in the Foothills. For administrative simplicity, all of the city of Lincoln and the City of Lincoln's Sphere Of Influence (SOI) were included ini the Valley analysis zone. The eastern portion of Lincoln's SOI, however, actually occupies higher elevation, steeper terrain, and woodland communities more similar to land included in As the Western Placer HCP/NCCP progressed, it became clear that development patterns, mitigation requirements, and fee structure would differ between the Valley and the Foothills. Considering the terrain and woodland character of the Eastern Lincoln SOI, it may be appropriate to establish an overlay Based on existing land development patterns, terrain, and land cover, a logical Foothills fee structure overlay would be eastward of a line dropped due south from the intersection of Virginiatown Road and Hungry Hollow Road (see Figure 1, Lincoln Foothills Overlay Zone Boundary). This overlay zone would comprise roughly 3932 acres. Existing and baseline land use is prédominantly urban/suburban and rural residential, with the balance being in grassland) rangeland) and woodland, as shown in Figure 2 Lincoln Foothills Overlay Zone Existing Land Use and Table 1, Existing Land Use in the Lincoln Foothills Overlay  the Foothills analysis zone.  where the Foothills fee structure would be applied.  Zone.  Table 1, Existing Land Use in the Lincoln Foothills Overlay Zone  Land Use Urban/Suburban Rural Residential Grassland Woodland Wetland Grand Total Source: MIGITRA20160613  Area (acres) 1,259 417 780 1,444 33 3,932  The demographic analysis and the finance plan do not break out growth projections for this portion of the Lincoln SOI. Much of the buildable area is already subject to low or very low density development. The remaining open land is constrained by terrain andi is likely to remain undeveloped or to be developed at very low densities. The low density development potential would likely mimic rural residential development int the unincorporated county further east in the Foothills analysis zone. It would be straightforward to apply the Foothills fee schedule to this portion of the East Lincoln SOI.    Figure 1, Lincoin Foothills Overlay Zone Boundary  HungyHallowRd  Costaln 12uhSt Virginiasown Rd 110si Elthst GladdingMcBean EShSt ethst 7th5: 6hst Lincoln 6hst St 4ihSt GR) Sedst 1siSt  Virginistownrd  Virgin  VirginiatownRd  Virginiatown Rd  Virglniatownnd  E8S TurkeyCreeke Golfch  A  Lhncoin Newcastlet Hwy  0)  1j  a  Graeln SonerdgeBNd  De'webbBNd Lincolnkils Goffçourses  TwelveB BridgesDr  ky    VERDERA  0  Sonelearbln hyAborin  Black HowkL TwaeBndgeDr 2 Omegac  McCormac* Park Porkor  Lincoin Quanyz Zone  a E  whney    Figure 2, Lincoln Foothills Overlay Zone Existing Land Use    RI  -  LuE Trim    Slim  COUNTY OF  Placer  AGENDA  PLACER COUNTY CONSERVATION PLAN (PCCP)  Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting Tuesday July 12, 2016 2:00- - 3:30p.m. AGENDA  Community Development Resource Agency - 2nd Floor Linden Conference Room  Washington DC Agency Meeting Follow Up  Cap to Cap: April County: June  II. Section 106 Process/Complance (Lisa Westwood Ecorp) Cultural Resources Management Plan Update  County Museums UAIC coordination IH. Program Status Update - PCCP Agency Review EIR/EIS In-Lieu Fee Program IV. Policy issue Review Hunting Temporary Effects Lincoln Foothills Exhibit  Aquatic Resources Program (see attached Corps memo)  V. National Marine Fisheries Service Meeting VI. PCCP Schedule & Next Steps  September City of Lincoln Workshop Next Ad-Hoc Meeting  NEXT MEETING TBD SEPTEMBER    COUNTY OF  Placer  AGENDA  Participants  Steve Ambrose, Chris Beale, Jim Bermudez, David Boesch, Matt Brower, Jennifer Byous, Gerald Carden, Loren Clark, Gregg McKenzie, Stacey McKinley; Richard Moorhead, Stan Nader, Karin Schwab, Spencer  Short, Paul Thompson, Kirk Uhler, Matt Wheeler, Robert Weygandt  Support Staff  Beverly Roberts, Michele Nichols, Elizabeth Brown, Ashley Brown, Christina Shaw, Heidi Paoli, Wendy  Chencovich    COUNTY OF  Placer  MEMORANDUM  DATE: TO: FROM:  July 12, 2016  Placer County Conservation Plan Ad-Hoc Committee Gregg McKenzie, PCCP Administrator Jennifer Byous, Senior Planner  SUBJECT: Ad-Hoc Committee Discussion Items  Washington DC Agency Meetings  Placer County and City of Lincoln elected officials and staff participated in the 2016 Cap to Cap program. The PCCP was generally included in discussions with the federal wildlife agencies as part of the Land Use and Natural Resources Team's priorities. Placer County met separately with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) with the goal of finding a means of reducing process overlap between the federal agencies when integrating Section 106 compliance into the PCCP and CARP. Further work with FWS staff has led to a 9-step process the FWS will utilize and is substantially The County also had the opportunity to meet with the CEQ, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in June. The goal of these meetings was to complete the attached Corps' wetland Permitting Strategy White Paper and reinforce the need for direction to district/region staff regarding the integration of wetland regulation into the PCCP. We also met with NMFS leadership with the goal of ensuring that adequate staff resources and priorities are available to review the policy and environmental documents and issue the permit. The White Paperi is attached for your reference and follow up meetings arè being scheduled with  consistent with the Corps' process (see Section 106 process below).  both the EPA and! NMFS. Section 106 Process  Lisa Westwood of ECORP Consulting will provide the Ad Hoc Committee an overview of the cultural resources consultation process and will seek additional direction regarding the following: In addition to the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, the PCCP and CARP also address the programmatic need for compliance with other applicable federal laws and regulations. The FWS, NMFS, and Corps are all required to consider potential impacts on cultural resources under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act prior to permit issuance. Compliance through Section 106 involves a demarcation of the area to be affected and may include surveys to ascertain the presence of    artifacts that are eligible for National Register listing. The ACHP, State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO), and other consulting parties advise and assist the federal agencies in this effort. This consultation ordinarily occurs between federal agencies and can take a considerable amount of time, depending upon the circumstances and areas ofc controversy. Because the PCCP and CARP are designed to streamline the permit process, we are seeking consensus with the federal agencies and SHPO for the County/City to issue permits on behalf of federal agencies while adhering to specific Section 106 requirements. To ensure adequate funding, the PCCP's cost model assumes in-house compliance staff at 0.5 full time equivalent (FTE) for the duration of the permit term. The in-house staff will be an employee of the Placer County Department of Museums that meets the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior to fill the FTE position. Planning staff will coordinate with the in-house Museums position to oversee and assist with the permitting process, reviewing cultural resource and archeological surveys and CEQA exemptions, NEPA categorical exclusions, and mitigated negative declarations as an expanded element oft the typical A Cultural Resources Management Plan is being drafted for incorporation into the EIR/EIS and is intended to result in a defined compliance process with the FWS and a Programmatic Agreement with the Corps. One principle question remains and needs" to be addressed priar to circulation of the draft Additional clarification is needed with respect to the City of Lincoln's participation in the compliance process and the Programmatic Agreement as well as the process for engagement with the County  planning entitlement application process.  plan to the United Auburn Indian Community and state/federal agencies for review:  Museum staff.  Program Status Update PCCP Agency Review  PCCP staff and consultants continue to meet with the FWS, Corps, and CDFW regularly to review and live-edit the policy document. These meetings have generally been productive and we have progressed through Chapter 7, with a short list of policy related issues needing to be resolved (see Policy Issue Review below). Chapter 8 (Plan Implementation) is scheduled for review on July 13th with the balance  ofthe Chapters scheduled to be completed by mid-August.  EIR/EIS  The EIR/EIS is trailing behind the policy document in its preparation as to be expected. Working closely with Planning staff and the consultant we anticipate the completion of an Administrative Draft  for agency review by the end of September (see attached draft program schedule).  CARP  The. Aquatic Resources Program has been reviewed by the Regulatory Agencies (Corps and State Water Resources Control Board) and revisions are being incorporated into the document. Therevised program isc currently scheduled to be resubmitted in August. As a result of the comments received and as noted above, staff requested and the Corps has provided a Permitting Strategy White Paper. This document    prescribes the Corps' direction and serves as further assurance to stakeholders and staff oft the intent to integrate the program into the PCCP and the permitting strategy to be followed during implementation.  In-Lieu Fee Program  The County has continued its work to prepare an In-Lieu fee (ILF) program for either advance or concurrent adoption with the PCCP. The ILF will allow a project proponent to mitigate many, ifnot all, oftheir impacts on wetlands and species through fee payment in lieu ofi implementing traditional project specific mitigation. The Corps issued a public notice for the program on January 14, 2016 with a comment period expiring February 15, 2016. Comments were received from existing and proposed mitigation banks. Work to incorporate relevant comments and refine the mitigation approach to be consistent with the PCCP's conservation strategy continues and a draft instrument is anticipated to be The first property (Lennar- - Sheridan) proposed for incorporation into the program was subject to a field review with representatives oft the Interagency Review Team (IRT) including the EPA, Corps, and FWS on June 29th. This 325-acre property is proposed to be included as a means to both initiate the ILF  submitted to the Corps for consideration in August.  program and to serve as future credits for the Placer Vineyards project.  Draft Model Implementing Ordinance  The draft model implementing ordinance was circulated to the City and has since been submitted to the agencies for review. This ordinance provides for the adoption of procedures to implement the PCCP, the adoption oft requirements for development to avoid or minimize impacts to natural resources, and the adoption of fees for mitigation of the effects of covered activities. This document will become an  appendix to the HCP/NCCP document. Doty Preserve Habitat Management Plan  The Doty Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been submitted to the agencies for review. The HMP establishes goals, objectives, and tasks to monitor, manage, maintain, and report on the contribution of thel Doty Preserve toward the conservation objectives of the PCCP. The Preserve is 427 acres (ac) in size and is located north oft the City ofLincoln in western Placer County. The Doty property is proposed as part oft the jump-start for thel PCCP, therefore this HMP will need to be approved priort to the! PCCP being finalized and willi become an attachment to the conservation easement proposed for the property.  Policy Issue Review Public Access - Recreation  The issue of recreation on reserve lands has occupied some time and debate at meetings with the wildlife agencies. Most of the comments and discussion with the agencies has focused on the land proposed to be enrolled in the reserve system (e.g. Hidden Falls, Harvego with the developed trail network) with the agencies suggesting a "discounting of biological value land based on recreational impacts". The policy There willl be limited public access toi reserve lands forr recreational purposes.. Most of thel Reserve System will be managed solely to: achieve thel biological goals and objectives of the Plan: and will not  document states:    include access for public recreation. There willl be, however,al few exceptions. Hidden Falls Regional Park is currently developed as aj passive recreational park. The Harvego Bear River Preserve willl be developed with at trail network, but at al lesser scope and: scale compared with that at Hidden Falls. A limited amount of additional trail development will occur on a number of reserves between these two reserves. The balance of the Reserve System will not be significantly developed with public recreational facilities. There: are no adopted parks/trails plans for areas within the RAA thati identify A memorandum is being developed to provide the acquisition history and funding contributions for each property to detail the acreage/dollar amount proposed for "credit" and jump-start. This memo will also provide aj proposed discount for recreation areas which would reduce the creditable"a acreage for  new parks and trails facilities:  separate review at a future meeting. Hunting/Fishing  The issue of hunting on future reserve lands has also occupied significant debate at meetings with the wildlife agencies. As a result, we have tentatively agreed to the following restrictions subject to Ad Hoc review. These restrictions were reviewed with the Wildlife Heritage Foundation's Executive Director who reports a similar policy ofrestricting hunting activities ini their conservation easements.  Hunting on reserve lands owned ini fee title or easement will be prohibited unless thel hunting occurs for management purposes (e.g, feral pigs) where the hunting contributes to achieving the goals and objectives of the Plan, with exceptions described below. Landowners who have hunted game (e.g., pheasant, ducks, deer,feral pigs) on their property that becomes part of the Reserve System througha conservation easement willl be allowed to continue this use as long as it is consistent with thel biological goals and objectives of thel Plan. Hunting on' "any agricultural land" incorporated into thel Reserve System (6,240 acres through CM1 A0-1) through conservation easements may continue by invitation of The PCA will develop hunting protocols for reserves in coordination with other agencies that utilize hunting for management purposes (e.g., CDFW, California Department of Parks and Recreation) and Fishing is allowed on land acquired for the Reserve System when the activity does not conflict with the biological goals and objectives of the Plan andi iti is consistent with an approved reserve management plan. Fishing that occurs already on existing protected areas enrolled in the Reserve System would continue (see Section 5.3.1.3.5, The Role of Existing Protected. Areas in the Conservation Strategy).  the landowner.  require approval by Wildlife Agencies.  Temporary Effects  The Corps, FWS, and CDFW all took issue with the proposed definition of temporary effects for the purposes of establishing impacts and the land conversion fee (2% of the land conversion fee). Temporary effects typically result from utility line construction and maintenance, construction staging areas, and similar projects where the permanent loss of habitat can be avoided. Temporary effects however do not apply for activities resulting in impacts that occur more than once during the term ofthe plan. In such cases, 100% of the land conversion fee would apply. Temporary effects were argued to be one year for construction and one year for restoration = two years total. All three agencies have established temporary effects in practice as being one year total in order to avoid temporal loss. This    issue was raised to agency leadership who affirmed the timeframe as policy. Following is the definition  as currently proposed to meet the agencies request:  -Permanent effects are all effects that persist for more than one year. project conditions within 1y year from the time of groundbreaking.  -Temporary effects are all effects that persist for lesst than oney year. Temporary effects will return habitat to pre-  Lincoln Foothills Request  The City requested consideration of shifting portions of the City's sphere ofi influence from the Valley to the Foothills. After reviewing this request with MIG/TRA, we have identified a limited area for consideration based on its physical characteristics and species being consistent with those of the foothills. However, staff does not recommend amending the conservation strategy and finance model due to the implications for time, cost, and likely agency angst for the relatively small shift across onlya couple of potential future projects. If this shift were to be considered, staff would recommend it be  négotiated as part of the implementing agreement or other resolution.  National Marine Fisheries Service  One of thè recurring issues facing completion of the PCCP chapter review process is the lack of engagement by the NMFS. NMFS continues to state their support but this has not resulted in a commitment of time and resources to review the program and ultimately issue the permit. The County met with NMFS leadership in Washington and Chris Beale is in the process of scheduling an appointment with their regional leadership as has been successful in the past. In the meantime, the other agencies are voicing their concern with the aggressive review schedule ifNMFS doesn't engage in the  near future.  Program Schedule Update  Attached for your review and discussion is an updated draft PCCP Program working schedule. The schedule is a rough projection of what staff considers being realistic given each element ofthe program, including many of the individual elements noted in the items above. Completion of the chapter by chapter agency review of the PCCP policy document is our current priority. Timely resolution of policy related issues and our ability to drive NMFS staff availably and engagement will likely serve as the  greatest near term influence to achieving these goals.    GWA 404 Permit Strategy Alignet with the  Placer County Conservation Plan  U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS  BUILDING STRONG.  June 2016  Background  The Placer County Conservation Program (PCCP) applies to western Placer County and specific conservation activity areas in neighboring Sutter County. The PCCP includes both a proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and the proposed' Western Placer County Aquatic Resources Program (CARP). The HCP/NCCP proposes to cover fourteen species of wildlife, including nine state and/or federally-listed as threatened or endangered. The CARP is proposed by the County to provide a structure for protecting aquatic resources in western Placer County while streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts to aquatic resources. The HCP/NCCP uses a regional approach to address issues related to planned development and species habitat conservation and restoration. The proposed boundaries of the PCCP are generally Nevada and Yuba Counties tot the north, the City of Aubum and California State Highway 49 on the east, Sacramento County on the South, and Sutter County to the west. The PCCP Plan Area also includes specific areas in western Placer County and a small area in adjacent Sutter County where specific covered activities may be conducted by the Pian Participants. The Plan Area excludes the Cities of Auburn, Roseville and Rocklin and the Town of Loomis, with the exception of specific activities within these cities that would be conducted by the Plan Participants. The four PCCP Plan Participants are the County of Placer, City of Lincoln, South Placer Regional Transportation. Authority (SPRTA), and the Placer CountyWater, Agency (PCWA). Thel Plan Participants aret forming the Placer Conservation Authority (PCA), a joint exercise of powers agency, to implement the HCP/NCCP and the CARP commitments and requirements. Based on the HCP/NCCP, the U.S. Fish and' Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will issue species incidental take permits to the Plan Participants and the PCA under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA 10). Before they can issue incidental take permits, the USFWS and NMFS must internally consult under Section 7 of the ESA (ESA 7) and are required to The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands and other special aquatic sites, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA 404) through its Regulatory Program. Permits are issued to applicants only after a determination has been made that the proposed activity is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) 404(b)(1) Guidelines. A determination of the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines involves evaluating avoidance, minimization and compensation for proposed impacts to waters of the U.S. Further, the Corps must comply with ESA 7, NEPA, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA 401), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 106) before authorizing an activity under CWA 404. Types of permits the Corps issues include general permits established on a regional, nationwide, or programmatic basis for açtivities with minimal impacts on the aquatic environment, individually and cumulatively, and individual permits (standard permits and letters of permission) for those activities which. do not fall under a general permit and/or have greater than minimal impacts. The Corps' Sacramento District (Sacramento District) administers the Regulatory Program in the Central Valley and Sierra In2004, recognizing that many of the listed species to be covered by the HCP/NCCP spend some or all of their Regulatory Program, the Sacramento District was invited to In 2006, the USEPA, Sacramento District work with the Plan Participants and agencies. In 2006, the and other agencies advanced a proposed USEPA, Sacramento District and other agencies advanced a approach to complying with the 404(b)(1) proposed approach to complying with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines Guidelines at a regional level. Sacramento District identified principle needs for establishing a CWA 404 permitting strategy that could align with  comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other related laws.  Nevada of California, the States of Nevada and Utah, and the Western Slope of Colorado.  lifecycles in aquatic environments regulated under the Corps'  at a regional level.' In addition, in 2012 and 2014, the  U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT  1325. JS Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 wwwpkusaceamym    and complement the HCP/NCCP. A CWA permitting strategy would provide for better assurances and quicker CWA: 404 permit decisions for the regulated public, while protecting aquatic resources to an equal or greater level than existing regulations, policies and processes. This expectation continues to be based on a number of tenets  upon which the HCP/NCCP is founded including, but not limited to: protection of al broad range of species and habitats, low impact development strategies (LIDS), consistency with general plans, avoidance of high quality vernal pool landscapes, preservation of watershed functions and stream corridors, and  development of large, contiguous preserves, with particular focus on the Reserve Acquisition Area. Presently, the Corps reviews permit applications on an individual basis, making it challenging to evaluate the avoidance, minimization and compensation of impacts to aquatic resources on a broad scale. As a result, the Corps' review is generally focused on the merits of the individual activity and the characteristics of the proposed project site, with limited ability to comprehensively evaluate where the risks, trade-offs and interactions among several projects and aquatic resources can be considered. Over time, environmental issues and development HCP/NCCP as a chance to improve but fall short of more ecologically meaningful and sustainable protection in a coordinated way on a instance, in some areas, permits issued by the Corps have led to a planned development, and providing inconsistent preserve boundaries and be functionally compromised location and its mitigation site may be considerable or located in another watershed, especially in cases where the compensatory mitigation was accomplished through the purchase of credits at a mitigation bank or through an in- lieu fee program. The Sacramento District views the HCP/NCCP as a chance to improve both species and aquatic resource protection in a coordinated way on a regional scale, taking into account planned development and providing greater certainty for the regulated public. Witht this in mind, the Sacramento District has been coordinating with the USFWS, NMFS and Plan Participants to develop and implement a "streamlined" approach to permitting  demands, especially in urbanizing areas, have resulted in adverse effects to the aquatic ecosystem that are not necessarily surprising, outcomes that al landscape-scale permitting solution may afford. For patchwork of wetland mitigation sites, which may have disjointed or by abutting development, causing edge effects, and other adverse impacts. Furthermore, the distance between the permitted impact  The Sacramento District views the both species and aquatic resource regional scale, taking into account greater certainty for the regulated  under CWA 404 that encompasses a number of different permit types and processes.  Benefits of CWA 404 Alignment  In addition to providing a regional platform to inform better and faster CWA 404 permit decisions, a USFWS- and NMFS-approved HCP/NCCP provides several other benefits to the Sacramento District and its customers. As an action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, the HCP/NCCP requires the USFWS, as the under NEPA that will include impact analyses over a 50-year period of all Asac cooperating agency, the HCP/NCCP covered activities within the Plan Area. As a cooperating Sacramento District intends to agency, the Sacramento District intends to use the EIS in a programmatic use the EIS in a programmatic manner to underpin its CWA 404 permit strategy. Because the EIS is manner to underpin its CWA expected to examine a range of reasonable aternatives affecting waters of 404 permit. strategy. less damaging alternatives and mitigation under USEPA's 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Sacramento District would adopt the EIS and make its own Record of Decision regarding the CWA 404 permit strategy's compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines at the regional scale. Any necessary subsequent NEPA documentation prepared by the The Sacramento District would seek to further streamline the CWA 404 regulatory review process by requesting the USFWS and NMFS to consult once programmatically for all HCP/NCCP covered activities that require a CWA  lead Federal agency, to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)  the U.S., it can serve as al basis for the Sacramento District's evaluation of  Sacramento District would tier from the HCP/NCCP EIS.  U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT  1325. J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 yw.spkusaceamwm!    404p permit, eliminating the needf fori individual project-by-project: ESA7consulations. Furthermore, the Sacramento District would request programmatic water quality certification under CWA 401 from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for all activities undert the CWA 404 permit strategy. This would eliminate. the need for permit applicants to applyi individually for CWA4 401 certification. Finally, toc complywith! NHPA 106, the Sacramento District would seek to develop a programmatic agreement with the State Historic. Preservation Officer, following coordination with tribes and others, for the CWA 404 permit strategy. The Sacramento District would work with USFWS to avoid any potential duplication or conflicts in complying with NHPA 106 and. Appendix C of the Corps' The Sacramento District recognizes the CWA 404 permit strategy is a critical element for streamlining regulatory approvals, while achieving greater protection of the highest quality aquatic resources than the existing project-by- The Sacramento District recognizes the CWA District has worked closely with the USFWS, NMFS,  regulations at 33 CFR Part 325.  project review process. For several years, the Sacramento USEPA, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, andi the State and Regionai Water Quality Control Boards to ensure processes and policies related to aquatic resource protection are understood and aligned. In June 2010, the agencies completed a permit process relationships mapping exercise which included aligning schedules, and provided  404 permit strategy is a critical element for streamlining regulatory approvals, while achieving greater protection of the highest quality aquatic resources than the existing prolectbyproectrevew process.  the output to the Plan Participants and other interested parties. These agencies continue to meet and resolve differences among their authorities and policies in the interest of a successful PCCP. The Sacramento District is committed to having its CWA 404 permit strategy in place, including programmatic compliance with ESA7, CWA  401 and NHPA 106, when USFWS and NMFS issue permits based on the HCP/NCCP.  CWA 404 Permitting Strategy  The Sacramento District has developed a multi-tiered approach to CWA 404 permittingt that would address activities which involve discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. covered by the USFWS- and NMFS- Ap programmatic general permit (PGP) founded on a local aquatic resources protection. program, and designed to reduce duplication with that program, for activities with minimal individual and A regional general permit (RGP), if needed, for activities with minimal individual and cumulative effects ont the aquatic environment that do not fallu under thel PGP and for certain activities conducted Ap procedure for issuing Letters of Permission (LOPs) for activities with more than minimal but less than significant effects on the! human environment, including aquatic resources; and An abbreviated process fori issuing standard permits (SPs) for other activities consistent with the PCCP but not covered under the PGP, RGP, or the LOP procedure.  approved PCCP. This CWA404 Permitting Strategy consists of the use of:  cumulative effects on the aquatic environment;  by PCWA;  PGP  Based ont the! PCCP andl local aquatic resource ordinances (Placer County and City of Lincoln) that implement the CARP, the Sacramento District intends to establish al PGP for covered activities that would have minimal impacts ont the aquatic environment, individually and cumulatively. Thel PGP is premised on the ordinances resulting int the same or better level of protection to waters of the U.S. as currently in place under CWA 404. The process for the Corps to establish a PGP follows the standard permit process, which requires a public notice. The PGP will be addressed in the Sacramento District's ROD prepared for the PCCP EIS: The PGP, which will likely include limits and thresholds that exceed those found in the Nationwide Permits, would be effective once the local aquatic  U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT  1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 wwwspkusaceamym!    resources ordinances are approved. An activity determined to be compliant with the HCP/NCCP and ordinances, and the CARP would be authorized under the PGP, assuming all terms and conditions of the PGP are met. The activities for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for the loss of aquatic The PGP would not impose resources beyond those required under the HCP/NCCP, CARP, and additional requirements or ordinances. A simple notification to the Sacramento District for individual special conditions for avoiding, activities may be necessary; however, the Corps would generally rely on minimizing or compensating for the entities responsible for administering the CARPlordinances to regularly the loss of aquatic resources. under thel PGP. The ultimate goal of the PGP is to rely heavily on the HCP/NCCP, HCP/NCCP EIS, USFWS's and NMFS's programmatic biological opinions, CARP and the local aquatic resources ordinances, thus eliminating to the maximum extent possible the Sacramento District's review of activities with minimal impacts on waters of the For any remaining PCCP covered activities andlor covered activities conducted by PCWA with minimal impacts to aquatic resources that do not fall under the PGP, the Sacramento District would establish al RGP. Like the PGP, the method for establishing a RGP follows the standard permit process and would be documented in the Sacramento District's ROD. The RGP would have limits and thresholds greater than those found in thel Nationwide Permit Program. The RGP would rely on the HCP/NCCP to reduce the Sacramento District's review of activities with minimali impacts on waters of the U.S., and would be designed to not impose additional requirements or special conditions for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for the loss of aquatic resources for individual activities. An activity determined to be compliant with all HCP/NCCP requirements would be authorized under the RGP after the applicant has notified the Sacramento District and thel District has verified the activity meets all terms and conditions For covered activities found to be consistent with the PCCP requirements which would have more than minimal impacts to aquatic resources but less than significant impacts on the human environment under NEPA, the Sacramento District would institute an abbreviated procedure for issuing LOPS under CWA404. The process for  PGP would noti impose additional requirements or conditions on individual  report to the Sacramento District on use of the ordinances and coverage U.S. The PGP would result in CWA 404 authorization in under 30 days.  RGP  of the RGP. The RGP is expected to result in CWA 404 authorization in about 30 days.  LOP Procedure  establishing the LOP procedure requires the development of a list of categories or activities proposed for authorization through coordination with Federal, state and local agencies, aj public notice, and a 401 WQC issued or waived on a general or individual basis. The decision to process by eliminating the need for a public notice and only require the preparation of a simplified decision document that tiers from the PCCP  The LOP procedure would rely on the HCP/NCCP to address avoidance, minimization and  requirements for compensatory implement the LOP procedures will be addressed in the Sacramento mitigation for impacts to aquatic District's ROD. TheLOP procedure would streamline the standard permit EIS. Further, the LOP procedure would rely on the HCP/NCÇCP to address avoidance, minimization and requirements for compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic resources. Fori instance, compensatory mitigation requirements should be the same as those in the HCP/NCCP. The goal is to issue LOPS in 60 days or less, A small number of PCCP covered activities requiring CWA 404 will not fall under the PGP, RGP, or LOP procedure and will require a SP. In many cases, these activities are those that may potentially have a significant impact on under NEPA. Even for activities that require a SP, the process Off-site alternatives analyses under the and amount of time it takes to reach a permit decision can be Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines would not compressed significantly by relying on the avoidance, be required because avoidance has minimization and compensation and other measures required already been addressed at the regional under the HCP/NCCP. Fori instance, the degree of analysis in level and compensatory mitigation the project EIS would be lessened by tiering from the PCCP requirements would align with those of Guidelines would not be required because avoidance has already been addressed at the regional level and  resources.  assuming programmatic compliance with other laws is in place.  SP Abbreviated Process  the human environment and require the preparation of an EIS  EIS, and off-site alternatives analyses under Section 404(b)(1)  U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT  1325. JStreet, Sacramento, CA 95814 wwwspkusaceamym:    compensatory! mitigation requirements would align with those oft the HCP/NCCP. In addition, the on-site alternatives analysis under Section 404(b)(1) would focus on evaluating alternative means of applying on-site avoidance and minimization measures required under the HCP/NCCP. Time may further be shortened through the preparation of joint EIS/EIRS for projects. In addition, the Corps would pursue programmatic compliance with ESA, NHPA 106 and CWA 401 to provide for greater assurances and further streamline the process. With reliance on the PCCP EIS and programmatic compliance with related laws, the Corps expects to complete SP decisions for activities Tocomplete its CWA4 404 Permit Strategy aligned withthe! HCP/NCCP, the Sacramento District must rely on several sources of information, including a baseline estimate of the location and amount of waters of the U.S. int the PCCP Plan area, the functional or conditional quality of those resources, use of a watershed approach to assess the existing and proposed future condition of the major watersheds within the PCCP Plan Area, a CWA 404 cumulative impact assessment, draft ordinances describing local aquatic resource protection plans, ESA recovery plans for aquatic species, and analysis in the PCCP EIS. For the permit types described above, the Sacramento District would need to compiete a CWA 404 jurisdictional determination (JD) for most proposed activity sites, based on an aquatic resources delineation provided by the project proponent, before the applicant submits an application for a Activities involving a discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. that are not covered under the PCCP would be  under the PCCP within six months.  CWA 404 permit.  subject to the normal Corps' regulatory permit processes.  The Way Forward  As an EIS cooperating agency with significant interest in the success of the PCCP, the Sacramento District will continue to work with the USFWS and NMFS to ensure the PCCP Draft EIS addresses and incorporates the proposed CWA 404 Permit Strategy, includingt the terms, conditions, limits/thresholds: and processes for each permit type described above. Following public input on the Draft EIS, coordination with the Plan Participants, resource agencies and others, and the review of any new information that becomes available, the Sacramento District's approach to streamlined CWA 404 permitting will be updated and included in the Final EIS for the PCCP. With adoption of the EIS, the Sacramento District would then complete a ROD and implement its CWA 404 Permit Strategy. At the implementation phase, the Sacramento District plans to execute a MOU with Placer County and  the City of Lincoln to address coordination and permit timelines.  'See Al Proposed Methodology for a "Regional LEDPA" Determination: Permitting under CWA Section 404 in Westem Placer County (6 April 2006) Tim Vendlinski USEPAI Wetland Regulatory Office. This proposed methodology was premised on and incorporated other references including a description of EPA's Federal Guidelines (40 CFR230), and the Corps' implementing regulations (33 CFR 323) released by Sylvia Quast at Resources Law Group entitled: Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Process For Projects in Westem Placer County That Cannot Be Authorized Under The County's Aquatic Resource Plan; plus the classic treatment of' "impact avoidance" published in the journal Wetlands: Wetlands Protection Through Impact Avoidance: A Discussion of the 404(b)(1). Altematives Analysis (Yocom, Leidy, and Morris, 1989).  U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT  1325. JStreet, Sacramento, CA 95814 wwwpkusaceamym    PCCP Document Status Last Updated: 7/6/16  Comments recélved from,  BWE (laeal Aakeldlder) N/A X X X X X X NC X X**  PCCP.Draft Chapter &CARP 0-Executive Summary 2-Covered Activities 3-P Physical & Biological Setting edits 4- Effect of Covered Activities working on 5-Conservation Internal review Strategy 6-Program Participation & and ICF working Conditions on Covered Activities 7-Monitoring & Pend agency Adaptive Management Program 8-Plan Implementation comment 9-Funding 10-A Assurances Penda agency/ 11-A Alternatives Pend agency/  EPA/ ACOE N/A X X NC X X X X X X NC NC X  Stetus Admin draft in progress edits ICFworking on edits ICF working on TRA/ICF edits and ICF working on edits Internal review on edits comment Pend agency Pend agency comment stakeholder comment stakeholder comment Salix working on edits  DFW, N/A X X X X X* x*  FIS NOAA N/A X. X X X X X  RWOCB N/A  N/A  1-l Introduction ICF working on  toTake CARP  X  N/A- Not applicable NC- No comment *Large amount of comments received ** Review pending BWG discussion    PLACER COUNTY CONSERVATION PROGRAM  DRAFT WORKING SCHEDULE  July 12, 2016  2016  1) February: Submitted 2016. Admin Draft CARP to Agencies/BWGIAG-noc 2) March: Submitted 2016. Admin Draft HCP/NCCP. Document to Agencies/BWGIAG-noc 3) April- August: Comments/discussions on PCCP documents with Agencies/BWG (Table  1-Chapter comment status)  4) June: Doty Preserve HMP submitted to Agencies 5) June: Implementing Ordinance submitted to Agencies  6) June - October: Consultant integrates County/City, USFWS, CDFW, and stakeholder edits into HCP/NCCP and prepares Public Review Draft HCP/NCCP for County/City staff  review. Prepare internal draft of Implementation Agreement  7) July: Submit Draft In-Lieu Fee Instrument to IRT  8) August: Submit Cultural Resource Management Plan to VAIC/Agencies/BWG August: Submit revised CARP&. City/County Draft Ordinances to Agences/BWGIAG-noc 10) April - Sept: EIR/EIS contractor for HCP/NCCP prepare. document. CARP permitting strategy and draft MOU incorporated as an appendix to' EIR/EIS 11) End of Sept: Submit. Admin Draft EIR/EIS to Agències 12) August: Submit draft of PCCP Implementing Agréement to Agencies/BWG 13) Oct-December: Admin Draft EIR/EIS review by Agencies  9)  2017  14) December - January: Admin Draft EIR/EIS Agencies comments incorporated into 16) Jan/Feb (1 month): Review of screen check Public Review Draft HCP/NCCP and 17) March: Live edit meeting for Public Review Draft HCP/NCCP and EIR/EIS with 19) April - May (3 weeks): USFWS prepares NEPAI Notification of Availability (NOA) of public review draft HCP/NCCP, public review draft IA, and public review draft EIS/EIR. Section 106 consultations with USFWS, SHPO and Native Amencans/nterested parties  document EIR/EIS  15) January: Deliver Public review draft HCP/NCCP and EIR/EIS  County/City, andi wildlife agency staff.  18) April: Deliver Public Review Draft EIR/EIS and HCP/NCCP  ongoing  20) June: USFWS publishes NOA  21) June = Sept (3 months): Release of Public Review Draft HCP/NCCP and EIR/EIS.  Formal review period for document package