Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11031992 - WC.2 WC.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS : �: Contra Costa FROM: WATER COMMITTEE County SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON, CHAIR SUPERVISOR SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK DATE: NOVEMBER 3 , 1992 SUBJECT: BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL, EAST COUNTY .AREA; REPORT ON REVISED DRAFT WETLANDS ORDINANCE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Request (relevant) County industry preparation of a draft financial plan insuring their financial liability should the County incur costs with (potential) assumption of local sponsorship for maintenance dredging of the (Avon to New York Slough section) Baldwin Ship Channel, east County; and present same to County staff and the Water Committee. 2 . Accept update on (proposed) revised draft wetlands ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. At the request of several industries in the east County area, the County is currently researching the potential for assumption of local sponsorship of a portion of the Baldwin Ship Channel between Avon and New York Slough. The Port of Stockton currently has local sponsorship responsibility for this area. The Port plans to assess County industry for a portion of their costs incurred as a result of acquisition and CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : / /��� - i' ��✓ v " l�`v Supervisor Tom Torlakson, Chair Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak ACTION OF BOARD ON & 1 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Roberta Goulart (510/646-2071) ATTESTED 2, cc: Community Development Dept. (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Administrator Office THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RG:gms BY , DEPUTY wa2Abo\dredge.BSC Baldwin Ship Channel, East County Area; Report on Revised Draft Wetlands Ordinance Continued - Page Two development of upland disposal sites. Industry has approached the County, requesting County assumption of local sponsorship responsibility, citing concern with the amount of Port assessments, the necessity, lack of control and an industry preference that assessments come from this County, rather than San Joaquin County. A recent meeting of staff and the Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, indicates that assumption of local sponsorship responsibility would seem to a reasonably straightforward matter. Basically the Corps assumes 100% of maintenance dredging and disposal operations for this section of the channel, as the Corps uses in-bay disposal sites. The Port of Stockton's current Local Cooperation Agreement requires upland disposal site acquisition and development by the Port, through the Sacramento District Corps. The San Francisco Corps now has responsibilitiy for this section of the channel. Some concern exists regarding the ability of the Corps to accomplish in-bay disposal once the Long Term Management Strategy effort currently underway is completed in 1994. A number of agencies are working with the Environmental Protection Agency to establish disposal sites, and in-bay disposal may be disallowed in some areas, and perhaps entirely eliminated. It is feasible that despite the Corps' assurances, an upland disposal site and/or funding to accomplish ocean or upland disposal might become necessary at some point in the future, or delays in dredging operations could occur. Therefore it is necessary for some financial assurance to be in place for costs incurred as part of this project. 2 . A draft wetlands ordinance was prepared in early 1991, and reviewed by the Water Committee. A large number of comments regarding the draft ordinance, coupled with some uncertainty over the extent and location of significant wetland areas in the County prompted a Water Committee recommendation and Board direction to hold further revision on the ordinance until a wetlands assessment could be substantially completed. A wetlands assessment is essentially complete, identifying wetland areas for selected sections of the County. The draft wetlands preservation ordinance has been revised and distributed to interested parties, and relevant agencies. The Water Committee has requested that written comments be provided to staff by November 10, 1992. Discussion on the draft ordinance will be the main topic at the Water Committee meeting scheduled for November 16, 1992 . The draft ordinance will be revised, sent to County Counsel and submitted to the Board. The ordinance is scheduled to be introduced at the Board meeting of December 8, 1992 and reviewed for adoption December 15, 1992 . The draft ordinance has been substantially revised to accommodate comments submitted, and to further integrate wetlands preservation activities with the existing County land use permit process. If wetlands are identified through review of County records during the initial CEQA environmental review, the proposed ordinance requires wetlands to be identified via an Environmental Impact Report (if otherwise required) , or (if not required) , a wetlands assessment study must be completed. If necessary, a wetlands mitigation plan must also be included. If mitigation is required, it will be recorded as a condition of approval on the project. RG:gms wet:\bo\drefte.BSC DRAT..................................DRAFr..................................DRAFr June 11, 1991 ZT1-91 Revised: October 20, 1992 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I. ARTICLE GENERAL ( 1) FINDINGS: Wetlands, and their associated upland habitats, are among the most important, unique habitat areas in the County. Wetlands are areas of great natural productivity, hydrological utility and environmental diversity, providing natural flood control, improved water quality, recharge of aquifers, flow stabilization of streams and rivers, and habitat for fish and wildlife resources . Wetlands provide recreational, scientific and aesthetic resources to the people of the County. A considerable number of these important natural resources have been lost or degraded by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, development, release of pollutants, and other activities . Without sufficient protection, piecemeal or cumulative losses will, over time, destroy remaining wetlands . It is therefore necessary for the County to ensure protection of wetlands by closely monitoring development activities in wetlands and those activities at associated upland sites . It is the County's intent to encourage restoration of previously degraded or destroyed wetland habitats whenever possible. (2 ) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to implement the Goals and Policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan Conservation Element for the preservation of wetlands and the Safety Element for the reduction of risk associated with development on areas prone to seismic or flood hazards . The County intends to protect wetlands that may not be under the jurisdiction of other regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers; and in cases where wetland losses can not be avoided, to ensure wetland compensation, restoration or creation to offset further losses . In order to accomplish its purpose, this ordinance provides a procedure to address development projects proposed in wetland areas . - Page 1 - DRAFT..................................DRAFT..................................DRAFT II. ARTICLE DEFINITIONS Associated Upland Habitat. An integral part of a wetland's ecosystem which functions as a transition zone between a wetland and adjacent land uses. Compensatory Mitigation. Efforts taken to create, restore or enhance a wetland and associated upland area in order to offset adverse effects of development on the area. In-kind mitigation. Efforts taken to create, restore or enhance a wetland and associated upland area to an equivalent wetland classification, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's classification system (Cowardin, et al. , 1979) . Out-of-kind mitigation. Efforts taken to create, restore or enhance a wetland and associated upland area which would produce a wetland of a different classification, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's classification system (Cowardin, et al. , 1979) . Setback. Land which is designated as a buffer between the wetland area and adjacent land uses for the purpose of protecting the habitat and wildlife within the habitat from harmful impacts of current or future development. The setback may include associated upland habitat as part of the buffer. Wetland. Wetlands are identified as areas that have one or more of the following attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes (water loving plants) ; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil (water-logged soil) ; and (3) the substrate is non-soil (decayed vegetative material such as peat) and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time (typically 7-14 days) during the growing season of each year. Wetland Assessment. A biological report prepared for the County, based upon field investigation, performed by a qualified professional (s) to determine the biological extent, function and value of a wetland site. The Wetland Assessment may be conducted in conjunction with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures. The Wetland Assessment may be prepared in conjunction with the Wetland Mitigation Program described below (see Article V "Elements of a Wetland Assessment") . Wetland Mitigation Program. A report that contains proposed compensatory mitigation plans, as well as a mitigation monitoring program when warranted, for development impacts not otherwise reduced to a level of insignificance through avoidance or minimization efforts (see Article VI: "Elements of a Wetland Mitigation Program") . - Page 2 - DRAFT..................................DRAFT..................................DRAFT III. ARTICLE ADMINISTRATION (1) DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: It shall be the duty and responsibility of the Director of the Community Development Department (Director) or his designee to administer and implement this ordinance. The Director shall approve the Wetland Assessment and/or Wetland Mitigation Program, and ensure coordinated review with governmental agencies having interest in or regulatory jurisdiction over the project. IV. ARTICLE APPLICATION AND REQUIREMENTS (1) APPLICATION: This Ordinance shall apply to all discriHonary development entitlement applications and projects. (2) EXEMPTIONS: An exemption from this ordinance shall be made for lands which remain in agricultural use (cropland and grazing lands) and for levee maintenance activities as permitted by regulatory agencies. (3) DETERMINATION: As part of each development proposal's standard initial environmental review under CEQA, a determination shall be made by the Director as to whether the proposed project site contains wetland or associated upland habitat (as defined in Article II of this Ordinance) . This review shall be based upon the administrative records of - Contra Costa County. A. If it is determined that wetland or associated upland habitat is present, a Wetland Assessment of the site shall be required. The Wetland Assessment shall be conducted in a manner that enables it to be incorporated into documentation required by other agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the project. B. If warranted by the evidence in the Wetland Assessment (ie. , the proposed development will cause a potentially significant impact on a wetland area) , a Wetland Mitigation Program shall be required. The Wetland Mitigation Program shall be incorporated into the project's Conditions of Approval for any discretionary County entitlement. (4) FEES: The standard initial review fees shall apply to all project applications, as listed on the Community Development Department Fee Schedule. If an Environmental Impact Report is not otherwise required, an additional Administrative Fee may be required for review of the Wetland Assessment and/or the Wetland Mitigation Program. - Page 3 - DRAFT..................................DRAFT..................................DRAFT In cases where a Wetland Mitigation Program is required, the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the Program. (see Article VI) . The applicant shall contract with the County, or through the County, for an independent wetlands consultant, who shall be selected by and be responsible to the County. The consultant shall perform the Wetland Assessment, and if warranted by the results of the Assessment, prepare the Wetlands Mitigation Program. V. ARTICLE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE WETLANDS ASSESSMENT (1) ELEMENTS OF A WETLAND ASSESSMENT: A Wetland Assessment shall include, but not be limited to: A. A delineation of wetland and associated upland habitat on maps acceptable to the Director and consistent with General Plan policy, as well as a delineation of existing land uses and anticipated project impacts in the immediate area; B. The biological extent, function and value of the wetland and associated upland habitat using a consistent classification system acceptable to the County; C. An assessment of any potentially significant impacts on . wetland resources; D. An assessment of soil stability and flood potential; E. A recommendation for an appropriate setback in order to maintain the biological integrity of the wetland area. VI. ARTICLE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM (1) ELEMENTS OF A WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM: A Wetland Mitigation Program shall follow the sequencing policy of avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation as described below: A. AVOIDANCE/MINIMIZATION: Avoidance of impacts to wetland or associated upland habitat(s) shall be given highest preference. Alternative measures to avoid or to minimize potential impacts on wetland areas to levels of insignificance shall be assessed in the Wetland Mitigation Program. Avoidance may be accomplished by locating the project on an alternative site, re-designing the project, and/or providing a setback sufficient to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Avoidance/minimization could involve granting development rights to wetland and upland areas to the County or its designee. - Page 4 - DRAFT..................................DRAFr..................................DRAFT B. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: The Wetland Mitigation Program shall include compensatory mitigation for impacts remaining after avoidance and minimization techniques have been applied to the project. Functional replacement ratios shall be contingent upon the relative functions and values of those wetlands being impacted. Replacement ratios may be as high as 3: 1. To ensure no net loss of wetland functions and values over time and to incorporate a margin of safety reflecting expected degree of success associated with the Mitigation Program, replacement ratios shall be no less than 1. 5: 1. Compensatory Mitigation shall be based upon the following guidelines, listed below in order of preference: 1. In-kind mitigation is preferred to out-of-kind. 2 . On-site mitigation is preferred to off-site and shall be completed concurrently with project development. 3 . Off-site mitigation shall be undertaken in areas contiguous, adjacent to, or in the same watershed as the site whenever possible. Off-site mitigation shall be completed prior to project construction to avoid loss of wetland habitat(s) values over time and to demonstrate the success of the mitigation. C. PROGRAM ELEMENTS: The Wetland Mitigation Program shall include: a. Project description, including funding source; b. Completion time-line; c. Hydrology Management Program, including design to ensure no migration of contaminants; d. Revegetation Program; e. Vector Management Program; f. Expected degree of mitigation success; g. Long-Term Management Program, including: •Conservation/Preservation Plan; •Mitigation Monitoring Program, including anticipated costs as well as frequency and oduration of monitoring; •Wildlife and Game Management Plan; h. Additional information as may be required by the Director. - Page 5 -