Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03081994 - WC.1 WC1 - Contra CostaTO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r, FROM: WATER COMMITTEE C u* supervisor .Sunne Wright McPeak Supervisor Tom Torlakson DATE: March 8, 1994 SUBJECT: Report on Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group, Proposed Wetlands Programs SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Support and encourage the joint effort on biodiversity currently underway by the Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group. 2 . Direct Community Development staff to hold one additional meeting with interested/concerned parties on the revised draft wetlands ordinance, and report to the Water Committee at the March 14 , 1994 meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) C . Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak Supervisor Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON / 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 ATTESTEDJ0 / cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Department AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY RG:rw RRG I/3-8wd.bod Board Order Proposed Wetlands Programs March 8, 1994 - Page 2 - REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND 1. Five agencies currently co-sponsor the Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group. The (larger) working group is comprised of public agencies, conservation and community organizations, universities, private landowners and citizens dedicated to protecting and maintaining the region's biodiversity and to increasing the public awareness and understanding of biodiversity issues. Currently, a proposal is being presented to Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, and Congressman George Miller, requesting $250, 000 to develop a Coordinated Regional Biodiversity Conservation Plan (CRBCP) for the two-county area. The CRBCP would provide a Geographic Information System (-GIS) inventory, regional biodiversity conservation strategies, and will identify mechanisms by which land and resources planning can occur with consideration towards multi-species protection and habitat conservation. On July 13 , 1.993 the Board authorized a letter to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Congressman Miller to explore a local-federal partnership or other opportunity for a pilot project. 2 . During the Water Committee meeting February 28, 1994, potential programs for wetlands protection and preservation in the County were again reviewed. The Water Committee recommends one more meeting with interested/concerned parties on the revised draft wetlands protection ordinance, reporting back to the Water Committee at their March 14, 1994 meeting. Additional discussion will take place at that time, and the Water Committee may recommend that a workshop be held at the Board level. The draft Wetlands Protection Ordinance addresses no-net-loss of wetlands where these areas are considered for development through the County development review process. It offers a consistent methodology for looking at wetlands and potential effects of development, insuring that adequate mitigation takes place, insuring no-net-loss in accordance with federal and state policy, as well as policy contained in the County General Plan. . RG:rw RRG 1/3-8wd.bod c_c.—I I Wis Z.tZ-'! IC11 . - . the 1991 of a biodiversity _ DivenflXby I federal and state io&t Si _._.. � t� : � agerKies. CAngress has defined bio- pts + FROM PAGE to u1. _: "v0ri diversity as"the full range of "� p battle: +�' and me variety and variability within and C have intensified.ed. . . . , among living organisms, and the -n&is realty the e3radcte we ecological complexes in which they idea to work have left,",Elliott said a show. ..aoocur." Put another way, it it the tine is endless conflict." sum total of W living things. smear SES 9RLWARS ##��--I� be first.m ep ibr the Alameda- "Together, park and watershed a'fasta Btodive�i�► woelding bods make up about 20 percent of p e� two counties fiadivetsity and ecosystem man' ` dn�r�to y of rLst Hq pleats mW an. -novel heritage heritage bank.The group is agement are among the nation's imal , said a�„ W w cmxxrned with how private newest environmental buzzwords. �14ita {;�Y per, To hasp ,ands are managed and developed. Naw t�rere those wadi,the group will�e .Developers and ranchers, who to a hr Say. 400 bom the faderal govawa. . antrol much of the counties' pri. V government jurisdictions #lior�widWhich a embaric ed GDA sa- igreed ra work fiogetlrer so vote open spaces,ar+e being enoour- and adimals have axhem to � �'eY' ' � -aged to�,�said. pbm � the 't how �+ 4aoisiona we can mawe w"" volae skepticism. d�rp�g carriers and 1emewsys• maid ' �° �- The tocdrs: developing policies a • bid it remains a vague con- > tur; governments ire . 2W conserve awre ecological syr- ;oa+tra;tOostaltC unty, Alameda •:'�+ no Paul Campos, staff attor- rams rather than protea i� spun fast Jay Regional:Park neY , d l rg Industry :sire,#�� endange �- �'' ties,acid Bruce Elliott,• senior bwl- ' ��� 'les not stfist affect It would grid std the rotate of ttg4t with the state Fish and Game guh VW Game.c ntmlo=w of �e on�t Pmposals- tment to wfuch is 4evatoping the Los One is with the kka. advocates say, ilseei�dr sa rwtt BOA00-Y U.S. Fi*'sem i'�3ervice, prre nt what,inferior Secretary t fbntb -which,all **"rs thd:` En- Bruce Babbitt calis'*MkOW train ->�•aldd 1U ,a Spades Act.;"N they don't wrecksr' are Wowed Niue what we.came VP with, Oey The brink of }per• -�.q y ooald*,-Vo:bad to the ftwing �r• W on ciao nehrral world public i>�� board.'" •. . .: P�to a � �t Haat fin dndseaeing growing ve W put biodiversity i�P.there =Afier ffie East Bay data fii"'6m- Please sae DIVERSITY,book Pape Mir other r"said per, a conservation ice' will Andres adcenzh�. park,., hem to illustrate .haw to piertuer. •'Each his idflfiettia� Donned wasting park and water- f ,ions and different charges,bit''We shed Preserving these�r- �rll shave a oommon desire WO tano-dcorri art for wildlife and Gie biodiversity of the region" ' plants,'Mackenzie said. Other Citi- - The Fast Bay gip is olke of sev cal habitat areas might also be WW emerging statewide following mapped for potential protection. - Altlie same time,she said,areas capable of supporting development oft minimum harm to the environ- amt will be identified. Builders have urged the estab- lishment of conservation priorities for a long time, Campos said. -So far, the accepted gospel is that everything must be saved at W costs.I think some people are start- ing to rethink that." The effort needs to be taken ane atop at a time, said Al McNabney, who follows conservation issues for the Mt.Diablo Au&ftn Society.He places a premium on compiling Vod resource information. "Owe that's done, then everr body can sit dawn and look at it, and am what needs to be done to preserve everybody e .is shooting in the v STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME POST OFFICE BOX 47 r, YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 (707)944-5500 y3 ^ February 1, 1994 Dear Interested Participant: The California State Department of Fish and Game, Contra Costa County, Alameda County, East Bay Regional Park District, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District invite you or your agency/organization to formally participate in the Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group. The Biodiversity Working Group is a committee comprised of public agencies, non-profit organizations, and individuals interested in cooperatively addressing local issues and conflicts related to the conservation of the regionally significant areas of biological diversity* in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. * (Biological diversity is defined as all species of indigenous animals and plants and the natural environments upon which they rely. ) The Biodiversity Working Group was initiated by the California Department of Fish and Game after the "Agreement on Biological Diversity, " a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among 10 State and Federal agencies, was signed in 1991. This agreement makes the maintenance and enhancement of biological diversity a pre-eminent goal in the protection and management of California' s natural . resources . Consistent with the statewide agreement, the Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group brings together a range of agencies, organizations, and individuals to discuss strategies for agency coordination and sharing of resource and map data. Participation in the Biodiversity Working Group would provide local jurisdictions with greater opportunities for: * Improved planning, coordination, and implementation among public agencies, environmental organizations, citizens, and landowners * Information exchange among agencies and institutions resulting in an expanded base of resource information for long-range planning and environmental review * Cooperative programs in public education, technical assistance, and staff training * Greater funding opportunities for cooperative projects Page Two To formalize regular interagency coordination and cooperation and improve each agency' s ability to share information resources and staff, we are requesting official participation by a representative of your agency/organization. It is anticipated that the Biodiversity Working Group would require a staff time commitment of approximately one meeting every four to six weeks, as needed. The Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group meets on a regular basis every other month at the EBMUD building in Oakland. Please contact Deborah Hillyard of the Department of Fish and Game at (408) 726-3847, or Andrea Mackenzie of East Bay Regional Park District at (510) 635-0135, ext. 2623 , to find out when the next meeting will be held. We look forward to you or a representative of your agency participating in this program. Sincerely, Brian Hunter, Regional Manager Department of Fish and Game Tom Torl kson, Chair Contra 3 to Board of Supervisors Ed Campbell, President Alameda County Board of Supervisors cels, President ast Bay Regional Parks District Board of Directors Stuart Flashman, President Board of Directors East Bay Municipal Utility District 2 t� Proposal to Develop a Coordinated Regional Biodiversity Conservation Plan for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties Proposal This proposed project requests $250,000 to develop a Coordinated Regional Biodiversity Conservation Plan (CRBCP) over a two-year period, for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. CRBCP components will include a Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping element, the identification and prioritization of special study or critical habitat areas, buffer zones, wildlife corridors and appropriate development zones, as well as other conclusions and recommendations. The final product, the CRBCP, will provide a GIS ecosystem inventory, regional biodiversity conservation strategies, and will identify mechanisms by which land and resources planning can occur with consideration toward multi-species protection and habitat conservation. Participants The project will be overseen by Contra Costa County with a technical oversight committee composed of representatives of Contra Costa County, Alameda County, California Department of Fish and Game, East Bay Regional Park District, and East Bay Municipal Utility District. These five agencies currently co-sponsor the Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group, which is a committee of public agencies, conservation and community organizations, universities, private landowners and citizens dedicated to protecting and maintaining the region's biodiversity and to increasing the public awareness and understanding of biodiversity issues. A strong element of citizen participation is being developed as part of this process, primarily through committees dedicated to various components of this program and the inclusion of public outreach as a priority. Contacts Project contacts for this proposal are Ms. Roberta Goulart, Contra Costa County, 651 Pine Street, 4th floor north wing, Martinez, CA 94553-0095, (510) 646-2071; and Ms. Deborah Hillyard, CA Dept. of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 4003, Aromas, CA 95004, (408) 726-3847. Background Alameda and Contra Costa counties are home to a wide range of plants, animals and microorganisms that interact to form natural communities and ecosystems. This diversity of life is a basic property of nature that sustains ecosystems and human populations, providing a vast array of food, fiber, health, recreational, aesthetic and other benefits. Despite existing State and Federal Endangered Species regulations, the biodiversity of our two counties is steadily declining. In California, 2,352 species of plants and animals are 1 i 4" listed as being threatened, endangered or otherwise determined to be at-risk. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties alone there are 70 known"special status species". The five agencies have come together to try a regional approach to land and resources planning. This approach emphasizes early identification, planning and protection of natural communities and areas of high biological diversity while accommodating the region's economic growth, rather than mitigating impacts to individual plant and animal species on a project by project basis. The agencies who have endorsed this approach and are participating in this project are Alameda County, Contra Costa County, East Bay Municipal Utility District, East Bay Regional Park District, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The program has also been supported by the California Native Plant Society, the Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, local land trusts and scientists. Development of the CRB CP is critical at this juncture for several reasons: First, the two-county urban area will continue to develop in accordance with the respective County General Plans, without the benefit of a study of this type. It is important to the respective Counties to have the benefit of this kind of information in order to make intelligent land use decisions in a timely manner. Counties and other agencies are still currently oriented toward the single-species preservation approach, through the Endangered Species Act and project-by-project mitigation of impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act. Second, an opportunity exists at this time to coordinate with two agencies located within the two-County area which are currently involved in updating watershed studies, using the ecosystem management approach. (agencies are the East Bay Regional Park District and the East Bay Municipal Utility District). These two agencies will be preparing new master plans dealing with about 128,000 acres of land in the east bay. In addition, the Contra Costa Water District will soon be involved in watershed management activities for the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Coordination at this time will be more cost-effective and will ensure inter-agency consistency related to ecosystem management for the two-county area. Proiect coals In order to preclude the need for continued listing of species as threatened and endangered, to address resource allocation issues on a regional basis, and to streamline the regulatory process, a conservation strategy that provides comprehensive, up-front resource planning is needed. This project would develop a Coordinated Regional Biodiversity Conservation Plan that will provide a regional data base of information on the natural resources of the area, utilize this information for development of a regional conservation strategy that includes economic development within the region, and identify mechanisms to implement a regional conservation plan. 2 Specific project goals include the following: 1. develop information on the natural resources of significance within the region; 2. identify issues that are important in the region in making land use decisions; S. develop a strategy for conserving significant natural resources of the region while addressing economic needs; 4. identify implementation mechanisms and integrate into conservation strategy; 5. educate citizens, private landowners, and public officials as to the importance of regional conservation planning and maintenance of regional biodiversity. Scope of Proposed Project To meet the above defined goals, development of a Coordinated Regional Biodiversity Conservation Plan would include the following tasks: 1. Development of a regional repository of information on the natural resources in Alameda and Contra Costa counties: 1a. Identify geographic study area and develop scope of resource information to be included, such as: vegetation, soils, topography, species of special concern, significant natural areas, wetlands (jurisdictional and otherwise), wildlife habitats and corridors, etc. lb. Develop criteria for consideration of resources of significance, such as: rarity, endangerment, condition, representativeness, habitat value, size, location, associations, corridors, etc. lc. Determine standards (data consistency, level of detail for data management purposes) of information to be collected and potential sources of such information, including potential for volunteer monitoring. Id. Compile background information: - literature search; interviews with professional biologists and researchers purchase aerial photos (or have new ones produced where gaps in the photographic record exist) - compile all available EIRs and/or other environmental documents with appropriate information - locate and import other sources of data and/or data layers le. Identify physical location(s) for repository of information and mechanism for public access (long-term locale with outreach network in progress and/or the potential for dissemination). Potential locations include University of California, Berkeley; East Bay Regional Park District; California Department of Fish & Game, Region 3, East Bay Municipal Utility District. . 1f. Map and field verify vegetation of two county area with emphasis on classification system tied to California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and the Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR) 3 Y 9, systems and in coordination with the California Native Plant Society. 1g. Input information collected into relational data base that is linked with a Geographic Information System. 2. Consider regulatory framework for making land and resource decisions for the two county area: 2a. Identify governmental agency boundaries and authorities. 2b. Identify regulatory authorities, and geographic jurisdictions. 2c. Identify major landowners in the region, both public and private. 2d. Identify major land uses, including geographic sub-areas where particular land uses dominate, of the region (agriculture, parks, timber harvesting, tourism, grazing, urban/suburban development, etc.). 2e. Utilize outreach tools to gather information from all constituents (questionnaires, workshops, newsletters, etc.). Of. input information collected into relational data base that is linked with a Geographic Information System. 3. Develop a regional biodiversity conservation strategy that would protect and maintain regional biodiversity and address the economic needs of the region. 3a. Identify criteria needed to determine conservation needs for ,resources of significance (minimum population sizes, minimum viable areas, breeding territories, foraging territories, predator-prey relationships, buffering needs, natural processes such as flooding and fire, corridors, etc.). 3b. Identify optimal reserve system that will allow for protection of significant resources and sustained conservation of regional biodiversity. 3c. Use data base/GIS to overlay land use information with natural resources and analyze relationship to identify compatibility and conflicts between the two. Identify natural areas consistent with current land-use designations without expectation of change in land use in the near future (areas of little or no conflict where biodiversity is conserved); identify those areas where historical land uses are converting to land uses that would result in biodiversity loss (areas of higher potential for conflict and higher priority for action). 3d. For higher priority areas,develop matrix of land use options that would help meet both biodiversity conservation and economic goals. 3e. Develop economic analysis of costs and benefits to region of land use options, including costs of various implementation mechanisms. 4. Identify implementation mechanisms that will allow for conservation of significant natural resources and while allowing for economic growth of the region. 4 4a. Identify regulatory incentives for designating land uses consistent with resource conservation (jurisdictional wetlands, presence of rare and endangered species, development constraints such as geophysical hazards, percolation, steep slopes, need for mitigation under CEQA). 4b. Identify organizations/agencies important in affecting changes in land use through regulation (cities, counties, LAFCO, other regulatory agencies) or through other negotiated means (Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, etc.). 4c. Identify mechanisms that can be implemented to achieve both conservation and economic goals, such as clustering of development, transfer of development credits, joint powers agreements, scenic easements, conservation easements, acquisition of sensitive habitats, etc.). 4d. Match up identified mechanisms and incentives to implement land use options identified with areas that are higher priority for action (3c. and 3d. above). 5. Educate citizens, private landowners, and public officials as to the importance of regional conservation planning and maintenance of regional biodiversity. 5a. Develop informational materials that address the importance of biodiversity and the immediacy of need. 5b. Develop informational materials that describe the progress of the project. 5c. Identify a "high impact" mailing for initial distribution of informational materials. Existing Opportunities for Cooperation Much of the desired information is already available for inclusion in a data base and/or GIS; we will be cooperating extensively with work at University of California, Berkeley and the CA Resources Agency. At UC Berkeley, the Center for Environmental Design and Research (CEDR) under the direction of Dr. Robert Twiss, is compiling a data base and GIS that includes Information on terrestrial ecosystems of the San Francisco Bay Region. They are cooperating closely with the Aquatic Habitat Institute, housed at the University's Richmond Field Station, which is working on a data base and GIS of information related to the Bay itself and nearshore environment. The CA Resources Agency is building an advanced high technology system called CERES (California Environmental Resources Evaluation System), which will stitch together diverse information and develop an electronic highway to move it around. Products This project will result in a Coordinated Regional Biodiversity Conservation Plan with the following specific products: 5 1. Data base and geographic information systems (GIS). The data . base/GIS will be established with all currently available natural resource and regulatory/land use information for the two county area. This data base will need updating regularly once this project has concluded, a task which is managed by the participating agencies.once currently existing information is inputted. It can contribute significantly to the national Biological Survey currently being conducted by the U. S. Department of Interior. It will provide the basis for local agencies and landowners to evaluate cumulative biological impacts of proposed changes in land use. 2. Regional biodiversity conservation strategy. A regional biodiversity conservation strategy will be developed which evaluates the alternatives for conserving significant natural resources in light of planning for economic growth that is consistent with the maintenance of regional biodiversity. We are just beginning to understand the importance of stewardship of plant and animal species, significant habitats, and influential natural processes within the context of the ecosystem; the need for knowledge takes on greater importance in rapidly developing areas such as the East Bay without development and implementation of such a strategy. 3. Identification of mechanisms for implementation of a regional biodiversity conservation strategy. There is a real challenge in conserving ever diminishing natural resources in this era of dwindling financial resources; the complexity of this challenge is best met with a wide variety of tools for implementation. This project will identify a variety of mechanisms, such as those described in 4c. , under scope of the proposed project. Implementation will then be the responsibility of the governing agency. 4. Materials to provide education of the public and outreach to the community. As a part of this project, various tools will be developed to educate the public about the need for maintenance of biodiversity and the, opportunities to.incorporate planning for biological diversity into the local planning processes. Typical products may include regular. newsletters, press releases, video presentations, brochures, maps and reports Schedule This work will be done over a period of approximately two years, based on full-time efforts of staff identified in this proposal. The first year will consist primarily of putting together a data base and GIS; the second will be filling in gaps in the data and completing analyses necessary to develop the regional conservation strategy and investigate implementation mechanisms. Budget This project will be conducted by two full time staff or contract employees; 6 • other expenses include costs ,of equipment, daily operations, travel,. reprographics, materials, and communications. Personnel: Geographer/D40tizer, familiar with maps, ARCInfo, GRAS; responsible for general quality control. $75,000 Contract Biologist, to review information on data base, coordinate additional analysis as necessary, determination of critical habitat areas, and development of regional conservation strategies in concert with participating agencies $75,000 Sub-total Personnel $150,000 Equipment: High elevation aerial photos for two county area $40,000 Computer equipment and software, including: 486 IBM-compatible computer w/ math coprocessor, 18 X 28 digitizer, PC-ArcInfo software package, 2 gigabytes storage, color plotter, supplies (mylar, plotting paper), reproduction, mail, computer network / communicatio]$30,000 Sub-total Equipment $70,000 Communications, reproduction: telephone, computer linkage ($200/mo.) $4,800 copying, report production $1,200 Sub-total Communications $6,000 Travel: Vehicle rental (400/mo x 24 months) $9,600 gasoline, maintenance ($0.25/mile x 30,000 miles) $7,500 per diem, 100 days @ $84/day $8,400 Sub-Total Travel $25,500 GRAND TOTAL: $251,500 7=1:gisdbsse.pro 7 i THE DRAFT WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE: A SUMMARY Since 1991, several drafts of a County Wetlands Protection Ordinance have evolved in response to comments from various agencies and other sources. In the course of drafting the Ordinance, many controversial issues have emerged and a far- reaching consensus has been difficult to achieve. The issues include the appropriate definition for wetlands; the role of federal, state, and local government as it relates to wetlands, agricultural concerns, and the potential for new costs and delays resulting from the incorporation of wetlands regulatory authority at the local level. However, the proposed ordinance, as it currently reads, is designed to minimize delays by simplifying and streamlining the development review process by bringing together the appropriate parties in the early planning stages . Furthermore, costs associated with wetlands would only be incurred by applicants whose proposed development is situated on or near a wetlands area, in the form of a wetlands delineation (Corps) or an assessment study, as part of CEQA review. In earlier drafts of the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, the definition of wetlands mirrored that of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition contained in the County General Plan. The latest draft ordinance utilizes both definitions, using the Corps definition for "significant" (three-parameter) wetland areas not addressed by the Corps. Wetlands potentially significant under County regulation wcKild primarily include those wetland areas where the Corps is not exercising jurisdiction. These areas would include, but not be limited to, areas, less than one acre, isolated wetlands and/or areas impacted by activities other than dredging or filling. To comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition contained in the County General Plan, the latest draft Wetlands Protection Ordinance has also incorporated wetland-related habitat fitting this definition as one of the County's regulatory responsibilities when the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to a proposed development. Lands remaining in agricultural use, and levee maintenance activities, would be exempted from the Ordinance. For projects potentially impacting wetland-related habitat, and therefore requiring a wetlands assessment study, the assessment would tell the County the extent, function and value of habitat, as well as any impacts and mitigation measures recommended by a designated consultant. A wetland delineation consistent with Corps requirements would be required for significant wetland areas for which the Corps is exercising jurisdiction. In some cases, both a delineation and assessment would need to be incorporated into environmental documentation for a given project. It is the County's position that a consistent approach to consideration of impacts, as well as appropriate mitigation requirements is important to establishing no-net-loss as part of development. r Draft of March 25, 1993 . Minor revision February 1994 DRAFT ORDINANCE PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Article I Findings ( 1) FINDINGS: Wetland areas, and their associated habitats, are among the most important and 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 stopover for migratory waterfowl and other 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 continue to occur. It is therefore necessary for the County to ensure protection of significant wetland areas by closely monitoring development activities in wetlands and in wetland-related habitat areas . It is the County' s intent to preserve wetland areas as well as their function and values. (2 ) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to partially implement the Goals and Policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan. The General Plan classifies a "wetland" as an area that has one or more of the following attributes : ( 1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. This ordinance implements this classification by regulating two different categories: potentially significant wetlands and wetland- related habitat. The County intends to protect both significant wetland areas and related habitat areas . In cases where losses to wetlands and related habitat are not avoided, compensation, restoration, creation or other mitigation will be required to offset further losses . In order to accomplish its purpose, this ordinance provides a procedure to address proposed development projects that 1 affect significant wetland areas and wetland-related habitat areas . It is also the purpose of this ordinance to reduce the delays and uncertainty which can occur in the current wetland planning and regulatory framework through improved coordination (to the extent possible) and by providing mechanisms for expedited permit review consistent with the conservation of wetland resources . This ordinance implements this objective in part by defining a significant wetland in the same way as the Federal Corps of Engineers, through the soils, water and vegetation requirement, in order to avoid inconsistent government regulation, and then reaching wetlands in areas not subject to such individual Corps jurisdiction, by examination of associated habitat. The wetlands-related habitat component bridges the gap between the Corps regulatory definition of wetlands, and the biologically- oriented definition used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is also contained in the County General Plan (January 1991) . In this manner, the County can regulate significant wetlands consistent with the Corps, but also ensure consistency with the General Plan through the broader habitat-related component. Article II Terms Assessment. An assessment of wetlands-related habitat, as more particularly provided in Article IV(C) . Atlas . "Atlas of Tidal and Formerly Tidal Wetlands in Contra Costa County, California" ( 1992 ) prepared for the Community Development Department, Contra Costa County, California by the Botanical Research Group, Berkeley, California; and its accompanying report, "Selected Tidal and Associated Wetlands in Contra Costa County, California" . Attribute. One of the parameters which defines a wetland, which are as follows; saturated soil, water, and/or vegetation adapted to saturated conditions . See (potentially) significant wetland and wetland-related habitat definitions) . Board. The Board of Supervisors or such other County decision maker as may have jurisdiction over the project, with such rights of appeal and review as may be provided by County ordinances other than this ordinance. CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. , as amended, including the State CEQA Guidelines ( "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, " 14 Calif. Code Regulations Sections 2 15000 et seq. ) and applicable court decisions . Corps. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . Delineation. An examination of potentially significant wetlands on the project site meeting Corps ' requirements, as more particularly provided in Section IV(B) . Department. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Development Project. A "discretionary project" , as defined by CEQA, primarily involving a significant change in the density or intensity of use of land. Director. The Director of the Community Development Department or such persons as the Director may designate to administer and implement this ordinance. General Plan. The Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 dated January 1991, as the same may be amended. Mitigated Negative Declaration. A negative declaration with revisions in the project avoiding or mitigating potentially significant environmental effects, as described in CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15070(b) and the comments to it. (Potentially) Significant Wetland. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions . Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. (definition requiring all three attributes to be present) . Program. A wetland related habitat mitigation program, as more particularly provided in Article V. Project. The particular project which is the subject of an application to the Department. Project site. The land on which the project is located. Wetland-Related Habitat. Habitat for species which are dependent upon wetland areas, consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition of wetlands, as follows . Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one of the following attributes : ( 1) at least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominately undrained hydric soil; and ( 3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. Wetlands typically include, but are not limited to, mudflats, unvegetated seasonal ly-ponded areas, wet meadows, vernal pools, and riparian woodland and scrub. (definition requiring 1 of 3 attributes) . Article III Authority, Application and Determinations A. Relationship to Corps Authority and Administration. 1 . When the Corps is exercising its authority over potentially significant wetlands on the project site, the County's regulation of such potentially significant wetlands shall be consistent with Corps ' requirements to the extent possible and to the extent the Corps ' requirements are known at the time the County is acting. In these circumstances the County's efforts will be primarily concerned with wetlands-related habitat through the CEQA process . B. County Authority and Administration. 1 . The Director is responsible for the administration and implementation of this ordinance. The Director shall encourage coordinated review of each development project subject to this ordinance with the Corps and other governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the Project. 2 . The Director shall review any delineation, assessment and program, and recommend approval, conditional approval or denial of such delineation, assessment or program to the Board. When the project ultimately comes before the Board for approval, the determinations by the Director under this ordinance are subject to review by the Board, which may approve, modify or reverse the Director's determinations, as the Board may determine. C. Application of Ordinance. 1 . Application. This ordinance shall apply to all discretionary development entitlement applications and projects not otherwise exempt under CEQA. 2 . Exemptions . The following is exempted from this ordinance; 4 a-. Land remaining in agricultural uses . b. Levee maintenance activities . D. Initial Determination by Director. 1 . Initial Determination. IAs part of each development project's initial review under CEQA, a determination shall be made by the Director as to: (a) whether there is a reasonable possibility that potentially significant wetlands or wetlands-related habitat may be existing on the project site; and (b) whether the project could have an adverse environmental effect on such wetlands and wetlands-related habitat, if they exist. In making these determinations, the Director may refer to any delineation which the applicant may have elected to prepare, the Atlas, and any other information available to the Department. Any determination that potentially significant wetlands may exist on the project site shall be based on some adequate documentary evidence. The Atlas shall be used as a guideline for purposes of the initial determination and shall not be used for wetland delineation purposes. 2 . Delineation and Assessment Requirement. If the Director determines that there is a reasonable possibility that wetlands may exist on the project site, then a wetland delineation and/or assessment shall be required. a. If the applicant elects to cause its project to entirely avoid potentially significant wetlands, the applicant shall be exempt from further application of this ordinance. A project shall have entirely avoided wetlands when in the reasonable judgment of the Director the project entirely avoids any construction on (or other significant physical change, or other impacts to) potentially significant wetlands on the project site and provides a setback (deemed adequate by regulatory authorities) around such wetlands sufficient to protect wetland-related habitat values . b. If the applicant does not so elect to entirely avoid wetlands, then the Director shall require a delineation of potentially significant wetlands and an assessment of wetland- related habitat on the project site pursuant to Article IV of this ordinance and this ordinance shall apply to the project. 3. Inapplicability When No Wetlands. If the Director 5 determines that there is not a reasonable possibility that potentially significant wetlands or wetlands-related habitat may be existing on the project site, or (b) that the project would not have a significant effect on such wetlands/habitat, then this ordinance shall not thereafter apply to the project. Article IV Delineation and Assessment A. Overall . This Article IV shall apply when the Director has required a delineation and/or an assessment pursuant to Section III (D) (2) (b) . 1 . Time. The delineation and/or assessment shall be conducted prior to or in conjunction with the preparation of an initial study, environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. B. Delineation. A determination of the extent, function and value of potentially significant wetlands on the project site which satisfies Corps jurisdictional requirements, made by a qualified independent professional acceptable to the Corps and the County. The delineation should identify any impacts to significant wetlands areas and include a program to mitigate those impacts, consistent with Article V. C. Habitat Assessment. 1 . Procedure. If a delineation is to be completed, the same consultant may, where qualified, complete the habitat assessment, or the assessment may be done by a different qualified professional with the approval of the Director. 2 . Contents . The assessment shall include an evaluation of wetlands-related habitat, considering the biological extent, function and value of the wetland-related habitat based upon the following information: a. An identification of wetland-related habitat (and any significant wetlands) on maps acceptable to the Director, consistent with General Plan policy. b. An evaluation of site characteristics including physical features and geographic setting, such as current land use, levels of disturbance, areas and shape of contiguous wetland related habitat, and the relationship to neighboring non-habitat areas . C. An inventory and evaluation of associated biological resources, such as plant communities and plant species; 6 wildlife habitat relationships and animal species, including all species of special concern (e.g. endangered species) ; d. An assessment of soil stability and flood potential where appropriate; e. An assessment of any potentially significant impacts on wetland resources; f. Recommendations for appropriate mitigation of any significant impacts of the project on habitat. g. Other information reasonably required by the Director to enable adequate habitat evaluation. 3 . Additional Contents if No Corps Jurisdiction. If the delineation establishes that the Corps will not be exercising jurisdiction over the project site, then the assessment shall also include an identification of any potentially significant wetlands on the project site over which the Corps is not exercising jurisdiction. The purpose of this identification is to enable the County to assess the value of such potentially significant wetlands, assess impacts, and mitigate as necessary. D. Mitigation Program Requirement. A mitigation program shall be required pursuant to Article V if the evidence in the approved delineation or assessment establishes that the project as proposed will have an adverse environmental effect on potentially significant wetlands . Article V Mitigation Program [To be prepared] Article VI Guidelines The following provisions are guidelines to assist applicants in preparing their applications and the Director in the implementation of this ordinance; they are not rules which must be invariably applied. They are arranged in the same order as the articles of the ordinance above. A. Findings. [To explain consistency with General Plan. ] B. Terms . 7 General Plan. Note that the ordinance relies on the current General plan in effect at the time the project is being reviewed, not the General Plan in effect on the date the ordinance was adopted. Development Project. To be subject to the ordinance, a project must be "discretionary" . a. A project is "discretionary" if it would be so classified by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Under the CEQA definition, a discretionary project (generally speaking) is one requiring the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from "ministerial" and other non- discretionary projects. In cases where there is any doubt, reference should be made to the CEQA definition for an exact determination of what is discretionary and what is ministerial or otherwise not discretionary. See Public Resources Code Sec. 21080 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15268, 15357) . b. A project is a "development" project if it primarily involves a significant change in the density or intensity of use of land. Potentially Significant Wetland: In order to avoid inconsistent governmental regulation, the definition of a potentially significant wetland contained in the ordinance is the same as the definition of a wetland by the Corps of Engineers, as it relates to the three "parameters" or attributes (key elements) of a wetland; hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic plants. The interpretations of the Corps ' definition by the Corps and the Courts will apply to Corps ' delineations of potentially significant wetlands pursuant to the ordinance, but not for other purposes . The geographic and activities limitations on the Corps ' exercise of its jurisdiction do not apply to the ordinance. While the Corps ' definition is brief, its interpretation is the subject of an extensive set of materials . These include the manual being applied by the Corps at the time this ordinance was adopted [ 1987 manual] and the Corps regulatory guidance letters . Reference should be made to these interpretive materials, as in effect on the applicable date, in determining the presence and extent of wetlands . (While the EPA has authority to veto Corps wetland determinations, this is seldom exercised. ) It is the intention of the ordinance to apply the Corps ' wetland definition (three-parameter component) and its interpretations in effect on the applicable date. The applicable date is the date the Director makes the initial determination 8 • concerning the presence of wetlands, for purposes of the initial determination (Section III(C) ( 1) , and the date of the wetlands assessment for all other purposes . While this ordinance relies on the Corps definition to some extent and interpretations for purposes of determining what is a wetland (i .e. for wetlands delineation) , the County's jurisdiction over wetlands is not subject to the Corps ' geographic and activities limitations . For example, this ordinance applies to wetlands even if they are not "waters of the United States" , and even if they are "isolated wetlands" . It also applies to any type of substantial adverse environmental effect on a wetland, not just discharges of dredged or fill materials into a wetland. [Further Guidelines to be prepared. ] 9