Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10051993 - WC.2 r WC. 2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: WATER COMMITTEE Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak, Chair Costa Supervisor Tom Torlakson County DATE: October 5, 1993 SUBJECT: Report on Proposed Wetlands Projects SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept report from the community Wetlands Subcommittee on recommended programs for wetlands enhancement within the County; and request Subcommittee input related to a work program, 12-month budget, and management Criteria for a proposed waterfront enhancement program. 2 . Direct the Community Development Department to work with the East Bay Regional Park District on identification of sites for pilot projects for wetlands enhancement, mitigation banking and/or related projects. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) :_ _ C �`� 1411-sol, . Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak, Chair Supervisor Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON ACT 5 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS _ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II 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 OCT 5 1993 cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Growth Management & Economic Development THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY RG:rw RWC/WC2993.bod Page 2 Board Order Proposed Wetlands Projects October 5, 1993 3 . Direct the Community Development Department to work with relevant agencies for consideration of a master plan concept for wetlands regulation within the County, in order to streamline the existing multi-agency review process. 4 . Direct the Fish and Wildlife Committee to consider and recommend the most appropriate sites for wetlands pilot projects to the Water Committee. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONJBACKGROUND As directed by the Board on July 13 , 1993 , the Community Development Department has focused efforts on potential wetlands preservation, enhancement and mitigation banking programs, rather than continue work on the wetlands ordinance at this time. The Wetlands Subcommittee has been working in connection with the Water Committee for most of 1993 on these issues, and has provided a report to the Water Committee on recommended programs for wetlands preservation and enhancement activities. The Subcommittee's report recommended and discussed the relative merit of three proposed programs. The first recommendation included enhancement of the waterfront area along the San Joaquin River, perhaps in concert with a toxic cleanup program, where necessary, with the County as facilitator. The second recommendation consisted of a wetlands mitigation banking program, in order to best mitigate impacts to wetlands (where appropriate) in other areas of the County. The third recommendation suggested that a pilot project be the initial effort, in order to gauge the success or failure of a project on a smaller scale. The pilot project could incorporate either the waterfront and/or mitigation bank proposals. During the September 27th Water Committee meeting, another suggestion was made, and incorporated into the report. This proposal calls for the County to work with the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game regarding habitat mitigation efforts which take place as a result of levee restoration activities. The Water Committee recommends that some site identification and evaluation should go forward at this time, in order for a pilot project to be feasible in the future. In addition, some detail as to cost and feasibility of the waterfront project is in order, to better evaluate this project's potential. In addition, the Water Committee recommends that some dialogue occur between relevant agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board(s) regarding the feasibility of streamlining the multi-agency permit review process. This would enable the County to utilize a "Master Plan" approach, in order to handle one wetlands regulatory program at the County level which could satisfy all agency requirements. RG:rw RWC/WC2993.bod MEMORANDUM TO: Water Committee, Board of Supervisors FROM: Wetlands Program Committee DATE: September 10, 1993 RE: Programs for Wetlands Increase and Enhancement The overall goal is to significantly increase the extent and quality of wetlands in the County. Your committee has identified three possible programs to achieve this goal which deserve your consideration, and several goals and concerns. We also list the programs which we identified but believe deserve a lower priority. There was a consensus that any County wetland enhancement program should be one which knits together the different groups, developing a feeling of trust and encouraging cooperation. This includes the concerned governmental agencies, where a subsidiary purpose would be coordination of their wetland enhancement efforts in the County. At the present time, this bringing together of the different groups appears possible with all three of the alternatives developed below. All of the worthwhile programs involve a potentially significant effort by the County, and there is concern as to whether the County can realistically be expected to be able to commit the necessary resources. It is difficult to estimate costs at this early stage, and a major consideration with each alternative is the availability of funding from other sources. This factor needs to be carefully evaluated if the three alternatives are developed further. Partly for this reason, it was also the Committee's recommendation that you work on only one alternative and develop it further, rather than try to keep working on more than one. IR000418.50 01/61/01 Water Committee, Board of Supervisors September 10, 1993 Page 2 1. Waterfront Project. Develop and enhance wetlands along the southern shore of Suisun Bay and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, starting from a point east of Carquinez Strait and going east, possibly as far as Pittsburg. This offers a mix of tidal, seasonal and in between wetlands. There are a series of major landowners with most of the acreage in this area, all or most of which have an incentive to develop wetlands in one way or another. Many are former industrial sites on degraded wetlands with toxic cleanup needed and often desired by the landowner. The Department of Fish and Game has the Point Edith property. A successful effort here could restore previous wetlands, and greatly enhance degraded ones, along a breathtaking sweep of river front. The scale and river-front location could provide self-sustaining habitat for whole ecologies, rather than the scattered acreage of a few small wetlands. The result could be an increase in wetlands quality and extent far in excess of any other alternative of which we are aware. The incentive for the landowners would be County leadership and support in encouraging governmental agencies to accept wetlands as a solution to the previous toxic contamination problems, under (of course) proper scientific safeguards. The County could also be the lead agency in developing a unified plan for the different landowners, saving them the considerable expense and difficulty of each processing a separate plan. The Navy, on its ordinance lands, is already conducting some wetlands pilot projects. PG&E has been exploring the feasibility of a wetlands project on its 500 acres at There are reports that other landowners feel stymied by the difficulties of persuading governmental agencies to sign off on toxic clean up programs. At this level of analysis, the potential seems to be there. Further investigation is obviously required before feasibility can be determined. Also, it needs to be recognized how very ambitious this project is. In addition to staffing and funding needs, it will also require a substantial investment of time and energy from you personally, in order to help galvanize the decision-makers at the numerous players into action. 2. Mitigation Banking. Mitigation banking's failures in the 1980s have left skepticism concerning the reality of IR000418.50 01/61/01 Water Committee, Board of Supervisors September 10, 1993 Page 3 its promise. There are concerns as to whether mitigation off-site really increases the quality and extent of wetlands, or is just an excuse to fill remaining wetlands. Agencies such as Fish and Game, which watched past failures, have an understandable caution in approaching current mitigation banking proposals. There was a consensus that mitigation banking is worth a try, but should first be done on a pilot project basis to build confidence that it can work for the benefit of wetlands. There is also some sentiment favoring assistance to the private sector in developing mitigation banking projects, but it seemed that at least a nonprofit approach will be needed in order to enlist the full cooperation of the concerned governmental agencies. 3 . Pilot Project. Select a site to serve as a pilot project for wetlands development and enhancement. This could help establish the feasibility of mitigation banking. If this site were along the water front area outlined above, it could also help to determine the feasibility of alternate one. There is so much to learn about wetlands development and enhancement that this alternative seems like a logical first step towards the other two alternatives. If you select this as an alternative, the next step would be to develop a list of possible sites and criteria for their selection. The two principal considerations should be the biological and funding potential of each site. Here are the other alternatives developed by the Committee, which for a variety of reasons are ranked behind the foregoing. [Here incorporate and develop list from agenda for August 18, 1993 meeting. ] IR000418.50 01/61/01 rev. 7/29/93 PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF COUNTY WETLANDS PROGRAM GOAL: A significant net Increase in wetland extent, function and value within the County. (Consistent with General Plan policy) The wetlands (comprehensive) program will have a purpose which: 1) Considers how best to mitigate existing and future Impacts to wetlands resources, and; 2) Considers other methods to expand the existing inventory of wetlands within the County. Proposed components to the above-mentioned program are as follows; the below components reflect revisions in accordance with the Committee's July 29, 1993 recommendations. . . . I. WETLAND RESTORATION/MANAGEMENT Enhancement of existing wetlands areas; priority is the corridor along the San Joaquin River (feasibility of joint toxic cleanup and wetland enhancement) WETLAND CREATION Construction and other methods (to Insure success) Using Treated Wastewater Using Dredged materials 2. MITIGATION BANKING Form and Function Wetland type(s) and application Short and long-term management Economic aspects (nexus between impacts and proposed mitigation) OTHER, LOWER PRIORITY PROGRAMS 3. LAND ACQUISITION (willing seller situation possible; not recommended to be pursued at this time, due to cost and other considerations) . Priorities for acquisition (agency requests,, etc. ) Deeding of Land Use of Open Space Funds for acquisition, mitigation Voter-approved funding measures (later in process) Other voluntary programs 4. OTHER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS (possible future program) Tax Incentives: (example; agriculture farm bill) Fee Title Conservation Easements (implementation intensive) 5.. PILOT/ OTHER PROGRAMS (stay informed only; is tool for permit streamlining, below) RWQCB 404 implementation - Federal-local biodiversity project PERMIT STREAMLINING Wetlands mitigation Wastewater use 6. COMPLETION OF COUNTY WETLANDS MAPPING (not recommended; low priority; look at coordination with other research programs) .