Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10032000 - SD3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAURICE SHIU PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Staff Support to Contra Costa Watershed Forum SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION RECOGNIZE that the recently formed Contra Costa Watershed Forum is a valuable committee for coordinating creek and watershed discussions and planning in the County, and AUTHORIZE the Community Development and Public Works Departments to provide staff support to the Contra Costa Watershed Forum. FISCAL IMPACT No impact to the General Fund. Public Works and Community Development staff costs of about $10,000 per year would be incurred, but these costs will be covered within the budgets of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District, in the case of Public Works, and the Water Agency, in the case of Community Development. BACKGROUND/REASONSBAQKGRQUNDIREA5QNS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Contra Costa Watershed Forum is an open committee of local government representatives, non-profit creek and environmental education organizations, special districts, environmental regulatory agencies and others that works to find and CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ��• �. RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October 3, 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Kopchik (925) 335-1227 ATTESTED October 3. 2000 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Administrator (CAO) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND CO NTY AD ISTRATOR Public Works Contra Costa Watershed Forum BY , DEPUTY DAJohn maintwffina1authbos00.doc Authorization of Staff Support to the Contra Costa Watershed Forum October 3, 2000 Page 2 promote implementation of mutually acceptable solutions to creek and watershed problems. The Watershed Forum is an outgrowth of the County-sponsored Creek and Watershed Symposium held on April 7, 1909 which attracted approximately 300 attendees. The group which planned and organized the Symposium recommended establishing a standing committee comprised of a broad spectrum of interests to discuss creek and watershed issues. The group felt that such a committee could be an appropriate vehicle for pursuing suggestions made at the Symposium, sharing information, improving coordination, developing new ideas and approaches to creek and watershed problems, and fostering consensus. On August 3, 1999, the Public Works and Community Development Departments reported to the Board of Supervisors on the outcomes of the Symposium and received interim approval to staff the Watershed Forum. Since then the Watershed Forum has met approximately every other month to discuss both matters of organization and substance. Over the past year, the Watershed Forum has organized a number of activities, including the following: • A mini-workshop on creek and watershed education programs and needs in the County; • Development of a common database on available grants including more than 140 entries; • Development of a proposal to coordinate the process of finding mitigation sites (please see companion staff report for more information on this proposal); • A subcommittee is developing a web-site for the Forum. When complete, the web page will include features such as contact information for, and links to, watershed organizations, the grant database, information on mitigation sites, a calendar of events, and Watershed Forum meeting materials. The subcommittee is collecting $50 from each participating organization and is seeking grants to fund this effort. • Another subcommittee has been formed to discuss implementation of the plans completed in the early 1990s to enhance the Walnut Creek channel. As mentioned previously, the Watershed Forum is an open committee. Meetings are open to whoever wishes to attend and there is no defined membership. The Forum will have no independent authority. Instead, it hopes to have an impact by developing and communicating group consensus and by enabling participating organizations to perform their separate missions more effectively and with greater coordination. The attached Mission Statement provides additional information on the purpose, structure and planned activities of the Watershed Forum. Staff believes that the Watershed Forum will be an effective mechanism for addressing creek and watershed issues. We also believe it is a good vehicle for incorporating community outreach and input into the watershed-related functions of the Public Works and Community Development Departments. We therefore recommend continued support to the activities of the Watershed Forum. Attachments: X Mission Statement for the Contra Costa Watershed Forum DAJohn ma1ntwffina1authbos00.doc Mission and Function of the Contra Costa Watershed Forum September 14,2000 Mission Statement: The mission of the Contra Costa Watershed Forum is to identify common principles among parties involved in creek and watershed issues and promote actions that transform these principles into multi-objective enhancements of creeks and watersheds throughout the county. The following general goals reflect input from the April 1999 Contra Costa County Creek and Watershed Symposium and shall help to guide the work of the Forum: X Promote creeks as community amenities and encourage coordination and cooperation in creek and watershed management to achieve this goal. X Promote protection and restoration of creek ecosystems,water quality,hydrological processes,wildlife corridors, recreational opportunities,and scenic appeal while also reducing flood risks and protecting health, safety, and property. X Improve and streamline regulations and regulatory compliance. X Promote cooperative planning processes that protect flood plains and riparian areas while maintaining the interests of property owners. X Promote public education and outreach to improve understanding of and involvement in creek and watershed issues. X Improve the level of trust among all parties involved in creek and watershed issues. Basic committee functions: The Contra Costa Watershed Forum shall attempt to implement its mission by drawing on the experience, expertise, and interests of the broadest possible group of participants. The committee will have no independent authority. It will seek to develop and communicate group consensus and to enable participating organizations to perform their separate missions more effectively and with greater coordination. Ivey areas of potential committee work are summarized below: COQEDINATIOIN X Provide a forum for agencies, organizations, and individuals to discuss creek and watershed issues of mutual interest, enabling them to coordinate actions to improve effectiveness and avoid duplication. X Identify needs and opportunities for joint projects. X Develop more efficient means for sharing and disseminating information, including potential creation of a web-site and/or general information telephone number. X Maintain an up-to-date mailing list and database of contact information and interests. FUNDING X Provide a clearinghouse for information on available funding sources for creek and watershed projects. • Support grant funding to projects in the county by providing applicants with advice and technical information. Demonstrate to granting authorities that there is county- wide interest in such projects and that coordination is a priority. help match projects and funding. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH X Initiate workshops and symposia on particular topics related to creeks and watersheds. Plan for holding a second,general county-wide symposium in 2-5 years. X Develop or assist with developing written educational materials specific to creek and watershed issues in the county, including base materials such as maps of watersheds. Wage 1 of 2 X Provide a forum for educational institutions to coordinate their creek and watershed curricula and activities. X Provide technical and other assistance to agencies in the county which request it. X Coordinate volunteer activities relating to creek and watershed projects. X Develop a speakers bureau, a library of education materials, and/or a list of education programs related to creeks and watersheds. POLICY MNOVATION X Provide a forum to discuss means for improving the implementation of creek and watershed policies to better protect resources and the interests of all sectors of the local community. X Develop suggestions for streamlining regulatory permitting while maintaining or improving protections for creek and watershed resources. X Develop a model creek ordinance. X Develop a program for coordinating creek and wetland mitigation. TECHNICAL SUPPORT X Provide interested individuals and organizations with technical assistance on creek and watershed issues by holding workshops, developing written information for distribution, or connecting these interested parties with technical experts or other technical resources. X Discuss technical issues related to implementation of newer approaches to creek and watershed management, such as bio-engineered channels and use of flood control detention basins as restored flood plain habitat. Discuss potential improvements in the design and construction of such projects. X Assist with coordinating any efforts to expand creek and watershed monitoring and data sharing. Participation and Representation: Participation on the Contra Costa Watershed Forum shall be open to all interested individuals and organizations. Because broad participation and representation of a diversity of interests is crucial to the success of the Forum, the following list of target constituencies has been developed to drive the recruitment of participants: Local governments Conservation advocacy organizations Special districts Environmental education institutions Regulatory agencies Developers Private landowners and agriculturalists General community interests/citizens Industry Private sector professionals/consultants Business community Operating Procedures: The Contra Costa Watershed Forum shall make decisions by consensus. The Forum shall attempt to avoid reaching agreements on matters directly affecting specific constituencies when these constituencies are not present. When this is not possible, due to factors such as a consistent lack of participation,the Forum shall not represent agreements to be any broader than they actually are and shall continue to strive to seek the input of unrepresented interests. The Forum may form subcommittees to address specific topics and develop more specific operating procedures as needed. Administrative support will be provided by Contra Costa County. DAJohn main\wfmissionfinal.doc Page 2 of 2 AF TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAURICE SHIU PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Program to Streamline and Improve the Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks and Wetlands SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION- A) C MMENDATIONA) AUTHORIZE the Community Development and Public Works Departments to conduct a two year pilot program to streamline and improve the mitigation of impacts to creeks and wetlands. B) AUTHORIZE County staff to apply for grants from appropriate sources to cover part of the administration costs of the mitigation coordination program. C) DIRECT County staff to report back to the Board in two years with an evaluation of the pilot project, including information on how the program was used, how much it cost to administer, and how much restoration was funded through the program, and a recommendation on continuing the program. FISCAL IMPACT Staff costs to implement the two year pilot project are estimated to be $5000 per year. Funds to cover these costs will come from the approved budgets of the County's Water Agency and the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —X–YES SIGNATURE ' *�4&1— / RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Octob r 3, 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED -IL OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Kopchik (925) 335-1227 ATTESTED October 3, 2000 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Administrator (CAO) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY A07-137 INISTRATOR Public Works Contra Costa Watershed Forum BY0 , DEPUTY DAJohn mainWmitigationboardorder.doc Program to Streamline& Improve Mitigation of impacts to Creeks &Wetlands October 3, 2000 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 'I. Overview The pilot mitigation coordination program being recommended by staff includes the following two components: 1) Creation of a list of proposed creek and wetland enhancement projects that need funding in order to proceed: Developers and others needing mitigation could use this list to more quickly find mitigation opportunities satisfactory to regional, state and federal regulatory agencies. Restoration projects would receive greater exposure to funding opportunities and mitigation actions could be partially coordinated to achieve better environmental results. 2) Creation of a County-managed trust account to receive funds from developers and others whose projects have small impacts and require only minor mitigation for creeks and wetlands: These small mitigation payments would be pooled in the trust account and aggregated to pay for creek and wetland enhancement at a meaningful scale. County staff would manage the program with guidance and input from the Contra Costa Watershed Forum. The Contra Costa Watershed Forum assisted with developing this proposal and has endorsed it. In addition to local support, the cooperation of regional, state and federal regulatory agencies will be essential to the success of the program. These agencies have expressed interest in and conceptual support for the proposed mitigation coordination program. However, uncertainty remains as to exactly how the proposed program can be integrated with specific enforcement mandates of these agencies. A one to two year pilot effort is recommended as the best way to test feasibility and effectiveness. 2. Background on the Current Mitigation Process There are public and private projects throughout the County that require some sort of mitigation in order to proceed. The type of mitigation required of these projects can vary from tidal wetlands replacement to landscaping to creek restoration/enhancement to fresh water wetlands creation to habitat acquisition. Typically, project proponents and their environmental consultants work with the regulatory agencies to establish the extent of the project impact and the type, quality and quantity of mitigation that will be necessary to comply with regulations. The consultants then search for actual lands and projects that may satisfy the regulatory agencies. Often, staff at the County, cities, the East Bay Regional Park District and the regulatory agencies are consulted for suggestions on suitable mitigation sites. The process can be long and cumbersome and is generally repeated for each new project. An available alternative approach to project-by-project mitigation and so called "spot" mitigation is to use officially-approved mitigation banks. Mitigation banks are specific properties which have received approval from regulatory agencies to sell mitigation credits. Mitigation banks, however, are few and far between and are very difficult to set up. There is only one established bank in Contra Costa County: a tidal wetlands mitigation bank on Brown's Island. Another mitigation bank for freshwater wetlands and upland habitats is nearing approval on Pleasanton Ridge in Alameda County. 3. Defining an Alternative Program With the Contra Costa Watershed Forum Program to Streamline& Improve Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks&Wetlands October 3, 2000 Page 3 Over the past six months, County staff has worked with the Watershed Forum to develop and refine an alternative approach to mitigating impacts (the Watershed Forum is an open committee of creek organizations, government agencies, and other groups which was initially recognized by the Board of Supervisors on August 3, 1999 and is proposed for final recognition in an companion to this staff report). The guiding principle identified by the group as it worked on a proposal was to focus on "mitigation for success." The Watershed Forum also reached the following general conclusions regarding the need for improving the mitigation process and the shape these improvements should take: a) The current process for mitigating projects can sometimes be inefficient and ineffective. Developers and others often need to "recreate the wheel" every time they mitigate off-site, calling agencies and non-profits over and over for advice on mitigation options. There is no assurance that mitigation dollars will be spent wisely or locally (or even within the County). Likewise, the biological benefits of this mitigation can be questionable, particularly if it results in disconnected, postage-size habitat areas, or if the mitigation fails to support the habitat or species for which it was intended (i.e., a created wetland that doesn't perform due to improper soils, etc.). Projects with small mitigation requirements are especially problematic. b) Providing some kind of county-wide coordination for mitigation could streamline the regulatory process, help to retain mitigation dollars within the County, keep mitigation as close to the place of impact as possible, and improve the ecological effectiveness of mitigation by enabling comparison, evaluation, coordination, and aggregation of potential restoration projects. c) Working to match developers with suitable mitigation projects would be relatively easier than banking developers' mitigation funds. The former task should be conducted and implemented first while the details of implementing the latter task can be worked out. 4. The Mitigation Coordination Proposal The proposed program would have two parts. The more basic of these would strive to improve coordination through development of a list of potential mitigation projects. The more complicated component involves pooling of mitigation funds from projects with small impacts that are difficult to mitigate independently. The more basic task would be implemented first. Both tasks are described in more detail below. Developing a list of restoration projects: The Watershed Forum would solicit restoration proposals and develop a master list of all restoration projects in the county that wished to be considered for funding. A subcommittee of the Forum would review and screen funding applications as they came in. The Forum would rely on the subcommittee recommendations to ratify and possibly prioritize the restoration project list. The list would be provided to cities, County departments, developers, special districts and others seeking mitigation ("mitigation seekers"). Mitigation seekers would be free to use or not use the list as they chose, and any rankings contained in the list would be advisory only. The regulatory agencies could tacitly reinforce the list priorities by making their interests known to mitigation seekers. Pooling mitigation funds and granting collected funds to restoration projects: In addition to the coordination/clearinghouse component, the program would also include a grant program. Implementation of this second program component may depend on successful completion of the first program component. Funding to support this grant program would come from mitigation seekers with mitigation requirements that are very small and likely to result in unreliable or ineffective restoration unless their mitigation actions are combined with actions performed by others. Funding might also come from Program to Streamline& Improve Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks&Wetlands October 3,2000 Page 4 fines imposed by the Regional Board for violations of water quality regulations. The Watershed Forum would select from the master list of restoration projects the four top projects in the County, one in each of four geographical regions of the County; north- central, south-central, east and west County. These top projects would be pre-designated to receive funds from the grant pool. If a mitigation seeker paid an in-lieu fee toward a restoration project, in say East County, then those monies would go to the top Fast County project. The same could occur with Regional Board fine money. The money would be held by the County and combined until enough money had come in to fund the priority project in-full. Once a priority project was fully-funded, the Forum would choose another project so that a list of the top four projects by region in the County is maintained. To make both the coordination and grant aspects of the program successful, a key task for the Watershed Forum would be to continually solicit restoration proposals and to effectively advertise that the program exists. The program should be considered and assessed as a two-year pilot effort. After a two-year test, the program should be evaluated to determine if it should be continued, modified, or dropped. 5. Objectives of the Mitigation Coordination Program • Make mitigation funds more available to restoration projects. • Reduce the hassle and difficulty of finding a place to spend mitigation dollars. • Improve coordination of mitigation expenditures, thereby improving the effectiveness of mitigation requirements • Aggregate small mitigation expenditures to achieve substantive environmental benefits • Strive for equity in the distribution of mitigation dollars • The program is not intended to increase the occurrence of off-site mitigation. Project proponents will still be required to avoid and minimize impacts before being allowed to mitigate. As is the case now, regulatory agencies shall have final discretion on the acceptability of mitigation proposals and on the acceptability of off-site mitigation. 6. Work Plan for Initiating the Mitigation Coordination Program The following steps were discussed to establish the proposed coordination/grant program: i) Solicit proposals for restoration projects • Advertise the potential availability of grant funding applications using the Watershed Symposium mailing list, newspapers, etc. • Use a simple (two page maximum) application form • Create a data base to store and manage the project list ii) Application Screening • Establish a technical subcommittee of the Forum • Subcommittee will develop categories for sorting the restoration projects so that like projects may be compared (categories to be ratified by the Forum). Some potential categories are: ❖ Geographic areas of the county (north-central, south-central, east, west) ❖ Urban/rural character (to help assure that impacts to urban creeks aren't mitigated only with improvements to rural creeks) Type of habitat to be restored • Subcommittee will develop criteria for evaluating restoration projects by category (criteria to be ratified by the Forum) • Subcommittee will screen applications so that only those projects judged to meet some minimum standard of quality are included on the master list (Forum to ratify Program to Streamline& Improve Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks&Wetlands October 3,2000 Page 5 screening) +► Subcommittee may prioritize applications on master list (Forum to ratify) iii) Selection of priority projects to participate in grant program (grant funds to come from development projects with small mitigation requirements and possibly also from Regional Board fines). • Subcommittee recommends one top project for each of the four geographic regions of the county • Watershed Forum ratifies recommendations and selects priority projects iv) Advertise the availability of master list and priority projects to mitigation seekers. Put it on the web in interactive format. v) Manage the master list and the grant program • Establish contact person—someone needs to provide staff function to the program • Identify who will receive and deposit monies. Manage and track the flow of money from the four County subareas and distribute to priority projects when enough funds are accumulated to fully fund the priority project. vi) Monitoring • Identify entity to monitor and track the projects for at least the first one year assessment period, particularly the priority projects in the grant program. Monitoring reports will be submitted twice per year to the Watershed Forum for review. 7. Institutional Structure The County would administer the program with guidance and input from the Watershed Forum. There would be no formal memorandum of understanding with the regulatory agencies at this point. The program would proceed on an informal basis for a period of two years, at the end of which time we would assess its success, and consider actions to formalize. It is likely that the small development projects contributing funds to the grant program would be coming through the Department of Fish and Game. As a result, there may be a need for a more specific understanding with Fish and Game. Any action to formalize this process would require approval from the Board of Supervisors 8. Considerations and Issues The group discussed a number of other points that should be considered or addressed as the program is developed. Some of these are the following: Focus on creeks and wetlands restoration. The program should address any type of mitigation for and restoration of wetlands and creeks, including seasonal wetlands, tidal wetlands, permanent fresh water wetlands, vernal pools, permanent fresh water wetlands, permanent and seasonal streams and creeks, other water bodies, and riparian habitat. Mitigation for non-water related impacts (i.e. oak woodland, grassland, etc.) will not be addressed by the program. Likewise, projects that are specifically educational, interpretive, or artistic will not be included. The program will also emphasize wetlands restoration rather than creation. Public or private lands may be considered for restoration. Determining the maximum mitigation size that could be accepted by the grant program. The Watershed Forum agreed that only mitigation seekers with small Program to streamline& Improve Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks&Wetlands October 3,2000 Page 6 mitigation requirements would be eligible to pay into the grant program (all would be welcome to use the master list of restoration projects directly). Defining this threshold is difficult, but will need resolution. Several potential descriptions of"small," were discussed, and the Forum agreed that "small" should be defined by the acreage to be mitigated rather than by a dollar amount. The current working definition of the cutoff for contributing funds to the grant program is "less than Y2 acre of impact". Converting mitigation requirements to a dollar figure. The Army Corps and the other regulatory agencies typically address mitigation in terms of acreage and habitat quality, but these requirements will ultimately need to be converted to a dollar figure for the grant program. That is, the developers with smaller mitigation requirement will need to know how much to pay into the grant program to satisfy the regulatory agencies. The Forum discussed three potential means for doing this: ❖ The restoration project to receive the grant funds establishes the conversion factor by indicating how much it will cost to construct the restoration project on a per acre basis. The regulatory agencies will of course need to be sure that they are comparing apples to apples, that is, that the restoration project would provide the same type and quality of habitat improvement that the developer is impacting. ❖ A general formula, that is accepted by the regulatory agencies., could be used to establish the value of mitigation. ❖ The mitigation seeker could establish the equivalent value through a consultant, in concurrence with the regulatory community. Operational costs. The two-year pilot will help us to better define operational costs. Currently we estimate these at$5000 per year. Participation in the Watershed Forum. Participation in the Forum by mitigation seekers and others should be reviewed to insure that an appropriate range of interested parties are represented and a balance of perspectives and "influence" is maintained. Conflict of interest. The issue of conflict of interest should be explored during the pilot project with a recommendation at the end of two years. Scientific basis for screening restoration projects. Criteria should be established to make sure that restoration sites (mitigation projects) are successful. For example, make sure soils are compatible with creation of a wetlands. We should use existing, successful mitigation sites as models for future work. Resource assessments. The group generally believed that we should rely on existing information on resources to evaluate proposed restoration projects and the best places for restoration. Conducting a new resource assessment would be controversial and time-consuming and would delay our proposed two-year test of this experimental program. Priority projects to be funded through the grant program need a track record. The Forum should focus not only on the quality of the proposed restoration project when choosing the four priority projects, but also on the reliability and experience of the organization performing the work. This is especially important to the regulatory agencies. These agencies are charged with ensuring that mitigation seekers mitigate fully and appropriately for their impacts. Allowing mitigation seekers with small mitigation requirements to pay into a pool rather than performing actual mitigation is a leap of faith for these agencies, a leap they may be willing to take if aggregating small mitigation efforts can achieve greater environmental benefits. However, we should minimize the risk by selecting established restoration organizations to receive funds. Program to Streamline& Improve Mitigation of Impacts to Creeks&Wetlands October 3, 2000 Page 7 Contingency strategy. The Forum should identify one or more restoration organizations to receive any funding leftover at such time as the program is discontinued. Monitoring projects funded through the grant program. Programs funded through the grant program will be required to perform monitoring. The Watershed Forum and County staff will be required to oversee this task. Application for outside grant funds to kick-start the grant program. County staff and the Forum may consider applying for restoration grant funds to help get the grant program going. Funds received in this manner would augment mitigation funds and help get the program underway. D:Wohn mainiwfmitigationboardorder.doc