HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02021993 - WC.2 WC.2
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
.�fJ
FROM: WATER COMMITTEE ,a+ Costa
SUPERVISOR SUNNE McPEAK, CHAIR
SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON. County
DATE: FEBRUARY 2 , 1993
SUBJECT: REPORT ON PROPOSED WETLANDS ORDINANCE AND LONG-RANGE PROGRAMS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize Chair to sign letters to agencies involved in
wetlands regulation to explore methods of coordination for
permit streamlining purposes.
2 . Approve formation of wetland committees to address concerns
with the proposed wetlands ordinance as well as long-range
programs, and report to the Water Committee at the next
scheduled meeting.
3 . Direct County Counsel to report to the Water Committee on
potential liability of County regulatory involvement in
wetlands matters, methodology by which to identify significant
wetland areas, and potential for property value devaluation of
areas declared. to be wetlands.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
1. 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
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: xx YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
Su - i T m�r or akson Supervisor Sunne McPeak, Chair
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED T 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 N THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Roberta Goulart (510/646-2071) ATTESTED q�
cc: Community Development Dept. (CDD) PHIL BATCHE R, CLERK OF
County Administrator Office THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RG:gms BY DEPUTY
wa2:\bo\2-2-93.WM
4 � .
Report on Proposed Wetlands Ordinance
and Long-Range Programs
Continued - Page Two
direction to hold further' revision on the ordinance until a
wetlands assessment could be substantially completed. A
wetlands assessment was completed in August, 1992 , identifying
wetland areas for selected sections of the County. The draft
wetlands preservation ordinance has subsequently been revised,
and has been the subject of discussion at recent Water
Committee meetings.
In addition to accommodating comments received, ordinance
revisions further integrate wetlands preservation activities
with the existing County land use permit process and CEQA
review.
The draft wetlands preservation ordinance as revised remains
controversial in some areas, primarily regarding the
definition of wetlands. The County General Plan incorporates
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Cowardin classification,
requiring only one wetland parameter to be present, rather
than the three parameters required by the Army Corps of
Engineers. The Water Committee has requested that interested
and/or concerned individuals work on aspects of the ordinance
and also other ancillary programs to achieve consensus where
possible, as part of the Committees, which will then report
back to the Water Committee.
Inquiries into the potential . for regulatory agency
coordination with proposed wetland programs at the local level
(proposed ordinance) have resulted in very positive verbal
feedback from relevant regulatory agencies, particularly by
representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Water
Committee recommends that some written communication into the
potential for coordination be initiated so methods for
coordination and permit streamlining opportunities can be . .
explored.
Agricultural interests located in the east County area are
concerned about value of property classified as wetlands. In
addition, potential methodology to enable identification of
significant wetland areas from a legal perspective needs to be
explored, either as part of the ordinance or ancillary
programs. The Army Corps of Engineers indicated during a
Water Committee meeting that potential exists for the County
to assume lead responsibility for wetlands regulatory
purposes. Although the County is not pursuing this option at
this time, it is a factor which needs to be considered as part
of any County regulatory action considered. Questions of this
importance need to be resolved prior to Board consideration of
the proposed ordinance.
RG:gms
wag:\bo\2-2-93.WC2
DRAFT..................................DRAFT..................................DRAFT
October 20, 1992 ZT1-91
Revised: November 16, 1992
Revised: December 14, 1992
DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS IN CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
1 I. ARTICLE GENERAL
2 (1) FINDINGS: Wetlands, and their associated upland habitats, are among the most
3 important, unique habitat areas in the County. Wetlands are areas of great natural
4 productivity, hydrological utility and environmental diversity, providing natural flood
5 control, improved water quality, recharge of aquifers,flow stabilization of streams and
6 rivers, and habitat for fish and wildlife resources. Wetlands provide recreational,
7 scientific and aesthetic resources to the people of the County.
8 A considerable number of these important natural resources have been lost or
9 degraded by draining,dredging,filling, excavating,development, release of pollutants,
10 and other activities. Without sufficient protection, piecemeal or cumulative losses will
11 continue to occur.
12 It is therefore necessary for the County to ensure protection of wetlands by closely
13 monitoring development activities in wetlands and at associated upland sites. It is the
14 County's intent to preserve wetland habitat and to encourage restoration of previously
15 degraded wetland habitat where possible.
16 (2) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to implement the Goals and Policies
17 of the Contra Costa County General Plan Conservation Element for the preservation
18 of wetlands and the Safety Element for the reduction of risk associated with
19 development on areas prone to seismic or flood hazards.
20 The County intends to protect wetlands including those that may not be under the
21 jurisdiction of other regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers; and in
22 cases where wetland losses can not be avoided, to ensure wetland compensation,
23 restoration or creation to offset further losses. In order to accomplish its purpose, this
24 ordinance provides a procedure to address proposed development projects that affect
25 wetland areas.
26 II. ARTICLE DEFINITIONS
27 Associated Upland Habitat. An integral part of a wetland's ecosystem which
28 functions as a transition zone between a wetland and adjacent land uses, and provides
29 refuge for wetland animals during periods of inundation.
- 1 -
DRAFT..................................DRAFT...................................DRAFT
30 Compensatory Mitigation. Efforts taken to create, restore or enhance a wetland and
31 associated upland area in order to offset adverse effects of development on the area.
32 Discretionary Development Entitlement. As used in California Environmental Quality,
33 Act (CEQA), an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of
34 judgement in deciding whether to approve and/or how to carry out a project. Projects
35 covered by this ordinance include, but are not limited to, the enactment and
36 amendment of general and specific plans and zoning ordinances, the issuance of
37 zoning variances,the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative
38 subdivision maps.
39 In-kind mitigation. Efforts taken to create, restore or enhance a wetland and
40 associated upland area to an equivalent wetland classification, based on U.S. Fish and
41 Wildlife Service's classification system (Cowardin, et al., 1979).
42 Out-of-kind mitigation. Efforts taken to create, restore or enhance a wetland and
43 associated upland area which would produce a wetland of a different classification,
44 based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's classification system (Cowardin, et al.,
45 1979).
46 Setback. Land which is designated as a buffer between the wetland area and
47 adjacent land uses for the purpose of protecting the habitat. The setback may include.
48 associated upland habitat as part of the buffer.
49 Wetland. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems
50 where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is covered by
51 shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more
52 of the following attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly
53 hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the
54 substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some
55 time during the growing season of each year. Wetlands typically include, but are not
56 limited to, mudflats, unvegetated seasonally-ponded areas, wet meadows, vernal
57 pools, and riparian woodland and scrub.
58 Wetland Assessment. A biological report based upon field investigation, performed
59 by a qualified professional(s) to determine the biological extent, function and value of
60 a wetland site. The Wetland Assessment may be conducted in conjunction with the
61 CEQA procedures.The Wetland Assessment may be prepared in conjunction with the
62 Wetland Mitigation Program described below (see Article V "Elements of a Wetland
63 Assessment").
64 Wetland Mitigation Program. A report that contains proposed compensatory
65 mitigation plans, as well as a mitigation monitoring program when warranted, for
66 development impacts not otherwise reduced to a level of insignificance through
- 2 -
DRAFT..................................DRAFT..................................DRAFT
67 avoidance or minimization efforts (see Article VI: "Elements of a Wetland Mitigation
68 Program").
69 III. ARTICLE ADMINISTRATION
70 (1) DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: It shall be the duty and responsibility of the
71 Director of the Community Development Department (Director) or his/her designee to
72 administer and implement this ordinance.
73 The Director shall approve the Wetland Assessment and/or Wetland Mitigation
74 Program, and ensure coordinated review with governmental agencies having interest
75 in or regulatory jurisdiction over the project.
76 IV. ARTICLE APPLICATION AND REQUIREMENTS
77
78 (1) APPLICATION: This Ordinance" shall apply to all discretionary development
79 entitlement applications and projects.
80 (2) EXEMPTIONS: An exemption from this ordinance shall be made for lands which
81 remain in agricultural use (cropland and grazing lands), for levee maintenance activities
82 as permitted by regulatory agencies and for any project exempt from CEQA under
83 Section 15260 (Statutory) and Section 15300 (Categorical).
84 (3) DETERMINATION: As part of each development proposal's standard initial
85 environmental review under CEQA, a determination shall be made by the Director as
86 to whether development of the proposed project site could impact wetland or
87 associated upland habitat (as defined in Article II of this Ordinance). This review shall
88 be based upon the administrative records of Contra Costa County.
89 A. If it is determined that wetland or associated upland habitat could be
90 impacted, a Wetland Assessment of the site shall be required. The Wetland
91 Assessment shall be conducted in a manner that enables it to be incorporated into
92 documentation required by other agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the project.
93 B. If warranted by the evidence in the Wetland Assessment (i.e., the proposed
94 development will cause a potentially significant impact on a wetland area), a Wetland
95 Mitigation Program shall be required. The Wetland Mitigation Program shall be
96 incorporated into the project's Conditions of Approval.
97 (4) FEES: The standard initial review fees shall apply to all project applications, as
98 listed on the Community Development Department Fee Schedule.
- 3 -
DRAFT..................................DRAFT..................................DRAFT
99 If an Environmental Impact Report is not otherwise required, an additional
100 Administrative Fee will be required for review of the Wetland Assessment and/or the
101 Wetland Mitigation Program. In cases where a Wetland Assessment/Mitigation
102 Program is required,the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the
103 Program. (see Article VI).
104 The applicant shall contract with the County for an independent wetlands consultant,
105 who shall be selected by and be responsible to the County, or the consultant may be
106 hired directly by applicant with the approval of the Director. The consultant shall
107 perform the Wetland Assessment, and if warranted by the results of the Assessment,
108 prepare the Wetlands Mitigation Program.
109 V. ARTICLE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE WETLANDS ASSESSMENT
110 (1) ELEMENTS OF A WETLAND ASSESSMENT: A Wetland Assessment shall include,
111 but not be limited to:
112 A. A delineation of wetland and associated upland habitat on maps
113 acceptable to the Director and consistent with General Plan policy, as
114 well as a delineation of existing land uses and anticipated project impacts
115 in the immediate area;
116 B. The biological extent (including acreage), function and value of the
117 wetland and associated upland habitat using a consistent classification
118 system acceptable to the County;
119 C. An assessment of any potentially significant impacts on wetland
120 resources;
121 D. Inventory of Biological Resources;
122 E. An assessment of soil stability and flood potential;
123 F. A recommendation for an appropriate setback in order to maintain the
124 biological integrity of the wetland area. Individual parcels which would
125 be rendered unbuildable by this setback shall be exempt from the
126 setback requirement.
127 VI. ARTICLE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE WETLAND MITIGATION
128 PROGRAM
129 (1) ELEMENTS OF A WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM: A Wetland Mitigation
130 Program shall follow the sequencing policy of avoidance, minimization and
131 compensatory mitigation as described below:
132 A. AVOIDANCE/MINIMIZATION: Avoidance of impacts to wetland or
133 associated upland habitat(s) shall be given highest preference.
- 4 -
1
DRAFT..................................DRAFT..................................DRAFT
134' Alternative measures to avoid or to minimize potential impacts on
135 wetland areas to levels of insignificance shall be assessed in the Wetland
136 Mitigation Program.
137 Avoidance may be accomplished by locating the project on an alternative
138 upland site, re-designing the project, and/or providing a setback
139 sufficient to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
140 Avoidance/minimization could involve granting development rights to
141 wetland and upland areas to the County or its designee to assure their
142 preservation.
143 B. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: The Wetland Mitigation Program shall
144 include compensatory mitigation for impacts remaining after avoidance
145 and minimization techniques have been applied to the project. The
146 Mitigation Program shall take into account related existing Plans and
147 Programs.
148 Functional replacement ratios shall be contingent upon the relative
149 functions and values of those wetlands being impacted, as identified in
150 the Wetlands Assessment. Replacement ratios shall ensure no net loss
151 of wetland extent, function or value and shall be identified in the
152 Wetlands Mitigation Program.
153 Compensatory Mitigation shall be based upon the following guidelines,
154 listed below in order of preference:
155
156 1. In-kind mitigation is preferred to out-of-kind.
157 2. On-site mitigation is preferred to off-site and shall be completed
158concurrently with project development.
159 3. Off-site mitigation shall be undertaken in areas contiguous,
160 adjacent to, or in the same watershed as the site whenever
161 possible.
162 4. All mitigation requiring intervention.shall be completed prior to or
163 concurrently with project development.
164 C. PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
165 The Wetland Mitigation Program shall include:
166 a. Project description, including funding source;
167 b. Recommended functional replacement ratios;
168 C. Completion time-line including clear goals and an estimate
169 for when each of the goals will be achieved;
- 5 -
DRAFT..................................DRAFT..................................DRAFT
170 d. Hydrology Management Program if necessary, including
171 design to ensure no migration of contaminants;
172 e. Revegetation Program if necessary;
173 f. Vector Management Program;
174 g. Expected degree of mitigation success;
175 h. Long-Term Management Program, including:
176 *Conservation/Preservation Plan;
177 •Mitigation Monitoring Program, including responsible
178 agencies and anticipated costs as well as frequency and
179 duration of monitoring;
180 •Wildlife and Game Management Plan;
181 L Feasibility of Public Access;
182 j. Additional information as may be required by the Director.
jm1/Wetland.Ord
- 6 -
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: , WATER COMMITTEE
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
FROM: Roberta Goulart, Staff
DATE: January 11, 1993
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES OF WETLANDS COMMITTEES
As directed by Supervisor Torlakson at the Water Committee meeting
of December 14, 1992, interested/concerned members of the community
have been formed into two Committees. The first Committee is
dealing with language which could make the draft Wetlands Ordinance
more acceptable. The second Committee is looking at ancillary
programs by which to perhaps identify and preserve significant
wetlands in the community, as well as other possible programs
identified at the above-mentioned Water Committee meeting (see next
page) . There are many of the same representatives which serve on
both Committees .
THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
The definition contained in the County General Plan remains the
primary focus of concern for the majority of representatives from
the development and agricultural community. Absent a change in the
General Plan definition however, it appears that almost all members
of this Committee are willing to work with the existing definition,
and have been engaged in amendments to the ordinance; specifically
in how the one-parameter areas are dealt with. Changes in
applicability of the ordinance to those areas may satisfy many of
their concerns. Attached for your information are some
communications from Committee members regarding this issue. In
addition, Mr. Bob Henn, an attorney representing Ironhouse Sanitary
District, has provided an amended version of the ordinance which we
will be discussing in detail at Committee meetings .
This Committee has set a deadline of March 31, 1993 for Committee
resolution of this issue. Members will either provide a consensus
document, 'or detail rationale as to why consensus was not possible.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM COMMITTEE
As mentioned above, this Committee has reviewed suggested programs
discussed during the December 14, 1992 Water Committee meeting.
Initial effort was made to link related programs together, and then
the focus was to differentiate regulatory and non-regulatory
programs, with the focus on non-regulatory programs here.
Discussion also focused on the need to identify significant wetland
areas for preservation, and the role of the Atlas in this effort.
Re-occurring dialogue has also centered on the role of the County
as a lead agency in wetlands efforts, perhaps in pilot programs
with other agencies. Emphasis on the formation of a plan which
could be presented to the Water Committee was determined to be a
necessary element. An initial goal of "creation of more quality
wetland areas" was established, and additional purpose will be
discussed at the next meeting.
In addition, Committee discussion focused specifically on areas
which ( for the most part) are publicly-owned, and what type of
efforts could be made on the part of the County to facilitate
preservation of these areas; specifically lands owned by PG&E, the
Concord Naval Weapons Station, Flood Control and areas where the
Mosquito Abatement District are involved. A number of preservation
efforts are planned in these areas, and the Committee feels that
significant wetlands acreage is represented here. The Committee
is requesting that the Board send an official letter of request to
these entities, asking what barriers exist to wetlands preservation
efforts, and asking how the County can assist in preservation
activities . In addition, it was also requested that Reclamation
Districts also be sent a letter. Some additional work may be done
to further identify relevant areas such as those described above.
POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS
AS OUTLINED AT WATER COMMITTEE DEC. 14, 1992
1. MITIGATION BANK
2 . LAND ACQUISITION
3. INCENTIVES
4. SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN/PILOT PROGRAMS
5. USE OF OPEN SPACE FUNDS FOR ACQUISITION, MITIGATION
6. VOTER APPROVED FUNDING MEASURES (later in process)
7 . DOCUMENTATION (WRITTEN COMMITMENT) TO STREAMLINED PROCESS
8. DEEDING OF LAND (valuable habitat protection) Stewardship
9. WETLAND CREATION USING EFFLUENT (NPDES vs RWQCB)
10. AGENCY COORDINATION (MAD, FLOOD CONTROL)
CONTRA COSTA
BOARD OFTRUSTEESMOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION
PRESIDENT 155 MASON CIRCLE MANAGER
Ronald Wheeler, Ph.D. CONCORD, CA 94520 � Charles 114sley, Ph.D.
Martinez t
[510) 685-9301
VICE PRESIDENT [800) 331-8321 .r �:•
David Jameson, Ph.D. FAX: 685-0266 S
Danville
SECRETARY January 5, 19930
Fredo Ericksen
Pleasant Hill
ANTIOCH
Charles T.Mozzei Ms. Roberta Goulart
BRENTWOOD Senior Planner, Conservation
Vacant Contra Costa County Community Development Department
CLAYTON 651 Pine St. - 4th Floor, North Wing
John Hanley Martinez, CA 94553
CONCORD
Earl Mortenson SUBJECT: COUNTY WETLANDS DEFINITION
CONTRA COSTA CO. Dear Ms. Goul art:
Patricia Bello
Jim Pinckney "
William Ross As we discussed`' before :the last meeting of the Water
ELCERRITO Committee, the County' s criteria for defining wetlands is
Dr. Sedgwick Mead becoming a source of: controversy, :and a review of the County's
definition and its rationale might help the Committee draft
HERCULES and implement effective and efficient wetland protection.
Dr. Ninon Kafka Specifically, the potential delineation of drained farmland as
LAFAYETTE "wetland" has generated''si 'n ficant opposition to the draft
Marilyn Milby Wetlands Ordinance.,;,.yet it is. not_ clear from the original
MORAGA documents that ;the. County!,s stated. definition actually
Vacant includes and protects many .of these -areas.
OIn its general plan, Contra Costa County adopted the wetlands
Chaarlesrles Lupsho
criteria of the US Fish,. and Wildlife Service, otherwise known
PINOLE as the "one-criterion ',.delineation" or the "Cowardin, 1979
Vacant classification. " Essent'%allY.` this standard declares a
:
PITT5BURG wetland if either hydrophytic vegetation, undrained hydric
Robert Hussey soils, or specified hydrology is present. Applying this
RICHMOND definition can be subtle, and the original paper by Cowardin,
Vacant et al. (1979 , reprinted by USFWS, 1992) , describes these
SAN PABLO criteria in considerable detail ; I am including a copy of that
Vacant paper because the excerpts quoted by ;the County in the draft
Wetlands Ordinance are incomplete. The significant passages
SAN RAMON are on page 3 and I have high-lighted'those I think are most
Vacant important. Specifically, land that , has been drained for
WALNUT CREEK agriculture and that does not support hydrophytic vegetation
Nancy Brownfield when left fallow is not considered wetland even if it is both
historic and potential wetland.
I had a long discussion with Dr. Cowardin yesterday, and it
became clear that the USFWS definition is essentially
functional - while agricultural activities do not auto-
matically exclude land from classification in this system,
neither historical conditions nor hydric soils automatically
include land in the "wetland" category. While there are
certainly farmed areas in east county that are functional
wetlands, and that should be protected as such, it seems
likely that considerable areas mapped as wetlands in the Atlas
MEMBER CALIFORNIA MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL ASSOCIATION
Y
do not strictly satisfy the Cowardin definition. Of course, the
County has the option to reinterpret this or any other wetlands
definition, both to protect current and potential wetlands, but as
long as the County is citing Cowardin et al, it seems prudent to
consider carefully what they wrote.
I have not located any other free copies of the manual, but it can
be ordered for about $23 from the US Geological Survey at (415)
853-8300. Ask for the Map Store. They also sell copies of the
National Wetland Inventory maps, on 7. 5 ' quadrangle base maps, at
the same location. I 've ordered the set that covers the County's
tidal zone, and you are welcome to take a look as soon as I receive
them (probably 3-4 weeks) . I have also included some information
about the Society of Wetland Scientists conference in Davis in
March. If you or Vicki would like to make a presentation about
your work on mapping and protecting wetlands, we would be honored
to invite you; please give me a call if you want more information.
Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District strongly supports efforts
to protect, enhance, and manage high-quality wetlands. If you have
any questions, or if there is any other way we can help you or the
water committee, please feel free to call me at 685-9301.
Sincerely,
Karl Malamud-Roam
Marsh Specialist
KMR/kmr
Enclosure
CC:CCMAD County Wetland Ordinance File
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
up: kmr\cccnty\Goulart1
MT. DIABLO AUDUBON SOCIETY
P.O.BOX 53
WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596
3 January 19.93
RECEIVED
sones
JAN 5 is 3
et ttee
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Greetings:RE:Wetiand Ordinance et al COMA COSTA CO.
It is the general view of knowledgable, enlightened individuals that our
remaining wetlands are vital, natural components of the bio diversity that
has been a part of our world for centuries. Remaining wetlands are vital to
humans, birds, animals, fish etc.
With such thoughts in mind we offer the following comments and
suggestions in an effort to develop, promptly an adequate county wetland
ordinance to "back-up" the wetland elements of the General Plan.
The public and many decision makers have on understanding of the import
of wetlands. Our view, which we believe is shared by all who understand
the issues: the County has a responsibility to ensure existing wetlands are
not destroyed, or used for purposes inimical to their value as habitat, etc.
To that end County decision makers and personnel must have adequate
powers to deal with all facets of .the various issues that enter the wetland
issue debate.
Some members of the current Task Force have indicated displeasure with
any proposed wetland regulation by the County. This, on the basis "such
would be on added layer of bureaucracy" ergo another problem for those
who might wish to make use of some wetland area.
It is not our purpose to create additional burdens. To that end we suggest
in this age of computers it should be possible to create a permit system
that would accomplish several things at once. We would suggest, that
apart from the creation and implementation of adequate County regulation
there be a separate committee and/or process whose purpose would be to
develop a comprehensive permit system for the County. We would believe
those who would be interested in reducing regulation provide funding so
the County could undertok necessary work, study and action to try to
implement such a process. Printed on 100%RagdedPaper
We have indicated as clearly as possible that we have NO interest in
merely creating MORE regulations. We have also asserted by tetter and
orally, it is not our desire to create problems for agricultural (or like j
activity) people. We believe Section 404f of the Clean Water Act already,
exempts certain types of activity from wetland regulation.
However, we do not believe it will 'be possible to propose major landuse
changes that may well involve present or former wetlands without having
to comply with County regulations and/or US Army Corps of Engineer
scrutiny as well as possible EPA action.
We are willing to try to develop a consensus wetland ordinace. However
any such ordinance must have meaning, be subject to stern review by
County forces and/or others. It must also be the intent of the ordinance
that county wetland areas will NOT be diminished.
Lastly, there has been discussion about the County assuming major
responsibilites, over and beyond those involved in the proposed wetland
ordinace and General Plan. We are willing to explore such idea,. We
believe such an effort should NOT deter or delay creation and
implimentation of the proposed county Wetland Ordinance>
Respe ully,
J
A. B.
Mc
ney
Vice President-Consery ti n
cc :Conservation Committee
I