Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 06242003 - C.29
Contra Y Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ;/,G't6? Supervisor John Gioia DATE: June 24, 2003 SUBJECT: REPORT ON LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (LTMS) FOR DREDGING AND DISPOSAL IN THE BAY AREA AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL WINDOWS WORK GROUP: FEDERAL FY 2004 FUNDING REQUEST SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZE Chair to sign letters to appropriate legislators in support of a federal FY 2004 $2.5 million Congressional add, for the Environmental Windows Program as part of the Long Term Management Strategy(LTMS), for Dredging and Disposal in the bay area. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the County from this action. If funding were to be realized, it would go to the LTMS Environmental Windows effort. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENSATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR x RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER ff,F� t SIGNATURE(S): -EL-, Su r-vlsor John Gioia Chair ACTION OF BOARD ON`- st _a,2 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES:UNANfMOUS {ABSENT v ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AAND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE **District III Seat VACANT** SHOWN. Contact: Roberta Goulart (925) 335-1226) ATTESTED Juie '24, 2003 cc: Community Development department (CDD) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,r i , DEPUTY BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS For over a decade,the US Army Corps of Engineers,the US Environmental Protection Agency, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (and State Board) and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) labored over a mostly-public process to evaluate ship channel and Port dredging and disposal in the bay area, culminating in environmental documentation in 1998, and then Management Plans released in the years 2000 and 2001. The final Management Plan details a strategy to be implemented over a 50-year period dubbed 40-40-20 plan. This strategy essentially dictates decreasing disposal in-bay(to 20% and perhaps eliminating altogether overtime), with an increase in deep ocean (40%fl) and upland disposal (40%). Biological Opinions were included in this Plan, drafted by the resource agencies not otherwise part of the primary planning effort. Summaries of the Biological Opinions were provided, dictating when dredging and disposal could occur, according to geographical area and endangered species thought to be present in those areas. These documents indicated that dredging and disposal were allowed to occur for only 4 to 5 months out of the year, and were labeled `environmental windows'. From an economic and dredging standpoint, windows are problematic, as dredging needs to occur during more of the year for a number of reasons (in-bay monthly disposal limits, all dredging cannot be done within the limited timeframe, dredging contractors need to stay busy more of the year or they leave for other areas, etc.). The dredging community appealed to the LTMS agencies and the resource agencies, and requested they engage in a collaborative process to see what could be done to 1) establish some flexibility in the windows process, 2) look at additional science to answer questions about species and the effects of dredging and disposal, 3) investigate new technology to decrease effects of dredging, and 4) consider more effective planning processes to get more dredging done within the window periods. The agencies determined that a collaborative process would be in everyone's best interest,and could be accomplished as part of the LTMS framework,with inclusion of the resource agencies, other agencies and organizations, and the dredging community. The Environmental Windows Work Group met monthly for some time, engaged in an intensive education process for all involved, producing a Mission Statement (Manifesto) and a Work Plan (still in development). The Work Group now meets less frequently, having established subcommittees (Science, Technology and Operations, Confounding Factors and Short Term (dredging issues this year) doing much of the planning at this time. The Windows Group received approximately $90,000 in federal funding in FY 2003, and the Science and Technology subcommittees are currently in the process of making recommendations to the larger group as to how the funding could be best spent. Same of this funding is currently being used by the Corps to construct a database on relevant and defensible scientific reports already completed. The Bay Planning Coalition has sponsored a recommendation for additional funding in federal FY 2004,for$2.5 million,to coverfunding for a study of methylmercury in the bay, and for the work on windows. It is anticipated that science investigations to attempt to answer the myriad of questions posed by the agencies and the dredging community would become the most costly part of this effort. The other non-federal windows agencies are following suit in supporting the $2.5 million federal funding request. 2 ____.. SQg ber 9.2002 draft San Francisco Bay LTMS Environmental Windows Work Group Mission Statement ("Manifesto") Context: The LTMS The Environmental Windows work group is part of the ongoing LTMS program,building on the LTMS goals and the overall approach to regional dredged material management established by the EISlEIR(1998) and Management-Plan(2001). Relevant concept&from"Special Report 262" of the Transportation Research Board,National Research Council(NAS, 2001)provide additional important guidance for the work group's efforts. The LTMS goals are to: • Maintain in an economically and environmentally sound manner those channels necessary for navigation in San Francisco Bay and Estuary and eliminate unnecessary dredging activities in the Bay and Estuary • Conduct dredged material disposal in the most environmentally sound manner • Maximize the use of dredged material as a resource • Maintain the cooperative permitting framework for dredging and disposal applications Issue Statement How can we complete dredging in a timely manner while meeting the LTMS goals? Work Group Goals • To minimize environmental impacts of dredging and dredged material disposal on important biological resources, and in particular to fully protect threatened and endangered species • To identify how this protection may be achieved while allowing necessary dredging projects to be completed with the most flexibility possible, in compliance with all relevant state and federal laws Obiectives The programmatic LTMS windows are based on present knowledge—and uncertainty—about the ecology, geography, and temporal presence of state- and federally-listed species and other species of concern(i.e. herring), as opposed to detailed assessments of specific impacts of dredging and disposal. The next steps should incorporate assessments that are both programmatic and project specific. .Short Terim. Facilitate immediate dredging needs by considering whether/how existing data and technologies may allow more flexibility for individual projects or groups of projects that have difficulty working within the existing windows. This may be done in the context of the project-specific informal consultation process set forth in the Management Plan. Am ,s Longer-Term. (1) Identify key scientific data gaps which if filled may allow modification of the programmatic windows themselves; consider potential funding mechanisms for investigations to fill the key data gaps identified (2)Evaluate new or emerging technologies or operational measures (including monitoring) that may allow unacceptable impacts to be avoided even when target species are known to be present; consider possible pilot projects (possibly in collaboration with the NAS)to demonstrate promising technologies or operational measures (3)Identify other factors related to dredging projects that if resolved may allow more projects to complete dredging operations during established work windows Desired Process The work group is open to all LTMS interested parties. It is important that each LTMS agency, and the resource agencies (USFWS,N©A.A.Fisheries, CDFG) actively participate in order for progress to be made. Key work group meetings should be facilitated whenever possible, with summaries that include any action items or consensus on issues distributed to all interested parties. The work group should identify how "Special Report 262"may best be used as a reference for its efforts. The work group will ultimately report to the LTMS Management Committee any recommendations that are within the agencies' authorities to implement. AA LTMS p Environmental Windows Word. Group Drat Work Plan iY�+ rs ff J V i M� a. N. February 28, 2003 00 2/28/03 LTMS Environmental Windows Draft Work Plan Fable of Contents Page Number I. Introduction 2 IL Environmental Windows Mission Statement 3 Ill. Scope of Work Plan 4 IV, Structure/Process 6 V. Tasks 8 A. Short Term Work Group 9 B. Science Assessment and Data Gaps 9 C. Technology and Operations 10 D. Confounding Factors 12 E. Funding 13 V1. Measures of Success 13 Figures LTMS Study Area 5 Environmental Windows Work Group Organization Chart 7 Appendices A. Proposed Data Collection Matrix 14 B. List of Confounding Factors 15 C. Ongoing Efforts 16 1 2/28/03 LTMS Environmental Windows Word. Plan I. Introduction As described in the preface of the Marine Board's Transportation Research Special Report 262 on setting environmental work windows, "Environmental windows are those periods of the year when dredging and disposal activities may be carried out because regulators have determined that the adverse impacts associated with dredging and disposal can be reduced below critical thresholds during these periods. Environmental windows,therefore, are used as a management tool for reducing the potentially harmful impacts of dredging activities on aquatic resources." w The 2001 Long`Perm Management Strategy for Placement of Dredged Material Management Plan (LTMS) established a number of programmatic_enyironmental work windows specifically for the Bay Area dredging and disposal projects. These programmatic windows were developed through the Endangered Species Act formal consultation process, and through the recommendations of the California Department of Fish and Game. While this process was different than those recommended by the Marine Board's Report 262, the resulting programmatic windows and subsequent consultation process follows the intent of the report. The main difference between the LTMS process and the Marine Board's process is that the LTMS windows are based primarily on endangered species, and therefore are based on avoidance of impacts to the species of concern, and are conservative in nature. In addition,the LTMS process - was not a consensus based process as is the Marine Board process, where stakeholders, engineers and biologists work together to form the windows. This work plan seeks to V0 use the current LTMS windows and open communication between the dredging Ig ,; community, scientists, regulatory agencies and dredging technology experts. The Long Term Solutions Work Group has been established to address these issues. In addition, five sub-work groups have been established. They include the Short Term Solutions Work Group,the Science and Data Gaps Work Group,the Technology and Operations Work Group,tl�e Confounding Factors Work Group and the Funding Work Group. When a project cannot meet an environmental window,the Short Term Work Group has been established to assist with the informal consultation process and to create a forum to discuss possible solutions to the dredging issues. This Work Plan was developed to facilitate a review of existing scientific �F information, identify data gaps, investigate technology or operations that could lessen the impacts to the resources, and to streamline the regulatory process necessary to complete a dredging project. The Work Plan will recommend actions that are possible with the current available resources, and identify those that would need additional funding or resources. 2 � w 2/28/03 H. Environmental Windows Work Group Mission Statement ;M �5 k_ The Environmental Windows work group is part of the ongoing LTMS program, building on the LTMS goals and the overall approach to regional dredged material management established by the EIS/EIR(1998) and Management Plan (2001). Relevant concepts from"Special Report 262"of the Transportation Research Board,National Research Council(NAS,2001)provide additional important guidance for the work group's efforts. The LTMS goals are to: • Maintain in an economically and environmentally sound manner those channels necessary for navigation in San Francisco Bay and Estuary and eliminate unnecessary dredging activities in the Bay and Estuary • Conduct dredged material disposal in the most environmentally sound mariner • Maximize the use of dredged material as a resource • Maintain-the cooperative permitting framework for dredging and disposal applications Issue Statement How can we implement environmental windows in such a manner that dredging is completed in a timely mariner while meeting the LTMS Goals? Work Group Goals • To minimize environmental impacts of dredging and dredged material disposal on important biological resources, and in particular to fully protect threatened and endangered species • To identify how this protection may be achieved while allowing necessary dredging projects to be completed with the most flexibility possible, in compliance with all relevant state and federal laws Objectives The programmatic LTMS windows are based on present knowledge--and uncertainty—about the ecology, geography,and temporal presence of state- and federally-listed species and other species of concern(i.e. herring). They do not reflect detailed assessments of specific impacts of dredging and disposal. The next steps should incorporate assessments that are both programmatic and project specific. Short-Term Facilitate immediate dredging needs by considering whether/how existing data and technologies may allow more flexibility for individual projects or groups of projects that have difficulty working within the existing windows. This may be done in the context of the project-specific informal consultation process set forth in the Management Plan. Longer-Term The Long Term Work Group will organize the long-term tasks under the following sub-groups: 3 ......................... 2/28/03 (1) Science and Data Gaps: Identify key scientific data gaps regarding life histories of sensitive species and impacts of dredging and disposal on sensitive species,which if filled may allow modification of the programmatic windows themselves. (2)Evaluate new or emerging technologies or operational measures (including monitoring) that may allow unacceptable impacts to be avoided even when target species are known to be present; consider possible pilot projects (possibly in collaboration with the NAS)to demonstrate promising technologies or operational measures - (3) Confounding Factors: Identify other factors, such as projects funding and contracts, regulatory process, and scheduling or equipment needs,related to dredging projects that if resolved may allow more projects to complete dredging operations during established work windows (4)Funding Group: Consider potential funding mechanisms for investigations to fill the key data gaps identified,and pursue the research,technology and confounding factors needs. III. Scope The Environmental Windows Work Group's efforts are focused on the LTMS Study Area as defined in the LTrbfS Management flan. The study area includes the San Francisco Bay and.Delta. (Figure 1) The environmental windows workgroup includes the following five subcommittees in the following categories: Short Term Solutions, Science Assessment and Data Craps,Technology& Operations, Confounding Factors, and Funding. Oversight of the subcommittee work will take place by the larger, Long Term Windows Group. Tasks of each subcommittee would include assessing existing information, identifying data gaps, and identifying and prioritizing potential tasks within each subcommittee. The prioritized tasks from each subcommittee would then be provided to the Long Term work group for synthesis and further prioritization with the recommendations from the other task groups. Other tasks include the assimilation of relevant and solid data and assessment of data gaps. An important component of this process would be for significant communication between each of the subcommittees to occur. Therefore, as recommended by the Marine Board Report,the chairperson from each task group will participate in the other groups. Peer review(in a form and fashion to be determined) will also be an important component of this effort. A schedule for eventual conclusion of this process needs to be determined. Once this process has been concluded, it is anticipated that additional relevant information could be incorporated, consistent with the adaptive management concept embodied in this process. 4 2128/43 Insert LTMS Study Area Map Here Attached PDF File 5 2/28/03 N. STRUCTURE/PROCESS As stated in the mission statement above, the Environmental Windows Work Group includes all interested parties, and will strive to address Short Term issues, examine the Long Term process and information gaps. This work plan establishes the structure and process for the work to be completed. Currently, there the structure includes the Long Term Work Group,the Short Term Work Group,and a Funding Work ,. Group. The song Term Group oversees the larger process is the most comprehensive of the Groups. This Work Plan is being completed at the direction of the Long Term Group. The Long Term Group examines the big picture questions around dredging,disposal and the environmental work windows. The Short Term-rrnup seeks to solve the problems of specific dredging projects that have difficulty working with in the environmental windows. This group also identifies and considers the list of proposed dredging projects for the year and analyzes the regional dredging program for the year, and attempts to identify areas of conflict,be they equipment shortages, permitting issues, or other confounding factors. This group also is a foivm for project proponents to come and talk to the resource and regulatory agencies in an informal setting and get technical advice both from experienced dredgers and the agencies. _ The Funding Group is investigating funding sources to complete the work proposed by the Long Term Group. Additional work groups may be identified as the project proceeds. The Work Plan has been divided into three categories, Science, Technology and Operations, and Confounding Factors, that have been identified by the Long Term Work Group as areas that if addressed, could provide changes to the current programmatic environmental windows, or establish a template for the dredgers or the agencies of things that could be included in the consultation process. The members of the work groups understand that the outcome of this wort{could result in the environmental windows becoming more restrictive, allowing a shorter work window or permissive, allowing a longer work windows in some areas. An effort should be made to include scientific, technical or process experts at the appropriate meetings and enlist their input on specific studies or tasks. b x .,i 2/2$/03 LTMS Environmental Window ' cork Cir Organization Chart . _a Iy. , AM + � tYxYiL1iF�.u4�aw lvwa�.wws'u`eyriatte�s.Ar 'Eo:� � ��-. ''Aw'2u�s.�'' s�, .rt&i �rx�mwoau4�w�h ac�i . 7 4-12 V28/03 The Work Plan encompasses an adaptive management philosophy, allowing changes to be made as new information and technology develops.In addition,the tasks have been prioritized, so that progress can be made rapidly,focusing resources on the most effective processes. In addition,this group recognizes that some tasks can take place simultaneously, and do not require each task to be completed in a sequence that might slow the overall progress of the group. The results of both the information gathering stage and any research that is completed, will need to be presented to the Environmental Windows Work Group. One method for compiling and presenting the information is using a data matrix system. Attachment A is an example of how the information might be summarized in a matrix. In addition the Long Term Group plans to establish a data management system, as well as a library where studies and documents can be stored and accessed by interested individuals. Proposed studies should go through the following process: 1. Identify issue 2. Do a literature search to identify what has been done 3. Review for useful and credible information 4. Based on the information, gathered, focus and revise study scope 5. Study plan development and literature review should include the agencies, particularly by the resource agencies for relevance to questions Peer Review . This process will include scientific and technical peer review when appropriate, based on existing knowledge,the area of study and the need for added expertise regarding the study. The establishment of peer review group will be careful to include individuals who are respected in their field,have the appropriate expertise, are available to the process, and determined appropriate given the task at hand. In addition,the work group,will seek to include more scientific and technical expertise within the working groups. Schedule The individual Work Groups will develop a schedule for the identified tasks and submit it back to the Long Term Solutions Work Group for review and approval. V. TASKS --Short Term Solutions, Science, Technology and Operations, Confounding Factors and Funding The Long Term Work Group participants have determined that the tasks associated with the Short Term Solutions, Science Assessment and Data Gaps, Technology and Operations, Confounding Factors, and Funding work groups are equally important in reducing the difficulty of working within the environmental work windows, or providing information supporting the expansion of the work windows. All five work groups should be working cooperatively and simultaneously to create the most efficient,well structured and supported outcomes. It is also recognized by the group that addressing Confounding Factors maybe the quickest and least expensive way to move dredging projects forward while protecting the species of concern as these issues represent improved communication and regulation of the dredging community. 8 2/28/03 A. Short Term Work Group 1. Identify projects that will be dredged during the calendar year. 2. Identify any difficulties that may exist(e.g. equipment availability, scheduling, contracting,closure of window) that may impede completion of the project within the calendar year. 3. Facilitate and expedite information provided to the Corps and the processing of administrative matters to minimize the impact of these factors on dredging projects. 4. Facilitate the informal consultation(i.e., direct applicant to supply proper information) with resource agencies. 5. Apply lessons learned from previous years to improve communication, logistics and impacts from confounding factors. B. Science Assessment and Data Gaps Species Information-- What Information is Needed to Protect Species of Concern? 1. Conduct focused literature search on species of concern(use species from biological opinion and Coho) (contract)Use Phil's matrix and add in information from BO (i.e., life history, development, toxicity, disturbance, behavior,regional information, etc.) Eric has for herring,reference list from BO, get from NMFS & FWS (ST no $) - 2. Review literature for relevance to situation(science panel) a. Research Option: Verify presence of species, e.g. fish tracking studies 3. Identify conflicting interpretation of report and literature(science panel) 4. Identify necessary information and data gaps needed to assist in biological assessments (agencies and science panel) 5. Prioritize suggested studies for implementation 6. Develop study design and seek agency approval of design 7. Initiate studies and incorporate appropriate peer/scientific review Impacts Information-What Information Do We Need to Understand and Evaluate the Impacts of Dredging on Species of Concern? 1. Identify impacts of concern, for example: turbidity,behavior, including migration, contaminant mobility/effects, entrainment,habitat loss, foraging ground loss, etc. (contract) 2. For each impact identify the questions that need to be answered for each species a. For each impact, identify whether it's known to occur or listed because it's "possible" b. For each impact in the"known"category, identify whether measures/metrics show it to occur and what degree or whether it is generically known c. For each impact in the"possible"category, identify what information is missing(presence/absence etc) or would be helpful to know in moving it to the known category d. Identify information needed to verify impacts to species where no information exists in the opinion 3. Gather existing information on possible impacts effects on species (contract) 9 MA 2/28/43 4. Review literature for relevance to situation a. Research Option: Turbidity Study-Examining the Extent of Plume 5. Identify conflicting interpretation of report and literature 6. Identify necessary information and data gaps needed to assist in biological assessments 7. Prioritize suggested studies and/or monitoring techniques for implementation S. Develop study design and seek agency approval of design 9. Initiate studies and incorporate appropriate peer/scientific review Process— Who will provide the science expertise and how will they fit into the process? 1. Promote the inclusion of scientists in the scoping of studies that need to be completed to address issues - 2. Identify science experts—scientists as advisors, including agency representatives 3. Select Chair (Chair will also attend Technology and Operations Meetings) 4. Recommend existing studies for review 5. Review and critique existing studies 6. Summarize findings for each species 7. Review information provided from the Technology and Operations Committee 8. Suggest possible changes to Technology and Operations to reduce impacts to species 9. -Identify possible standard conditions based on information provided 10. Provide findings to agencies for possible use as basis for changes to or establishment of new biological opinions 11. Make recommendations for new studies if necessary 12. Yearly review of data gathered through studies Nexi'Steps - What happens after new information is developed? 1. Incorporate new concepts into the process through adaptive management 2. Revise existing methods, and possibly regulations as appropriate. 3. If necessary,request re-opening of the biological opinion 4. Utilize a programmatic and/or project specific approach 5. Provide information regarding changes to the agencies and industry C. Technology and Operations Operational Changes -Are there operational changes that might allow dredgingldisposal to occur during restricted periods? 1. Review current best management practice of dredging/and disposal 2. Assess whether or not best management practices are being followed 3. Assess whether there are operational changes that can be made which would reduce impacts to species of concern 4. Recommend modifications to dredging/disposal operations to further to reduce impacts 10 M ..t. 2/28/43 Equipment Assessment- "at types of equipment is available, how much is Y available, and what are their impacts to the environment? 1. List available/existing dredging technologies and their specifications and capabilities 2. Do a literature review on dredging techniques and impacts, starting with a WES " (ERDC)"DOTS'"request from San Francisco District 3. Create a list of advantages/disadvantages of each type of dredge/disposal method relative to impacts identified and cross-reference them with the species that ... would be expected to be impacted 4. Identify costs associated with different types of dredging, (i.e.,hydraulic, clamshell,environmental bucket) Investigate other areas-Are there other types of equipment or operations in other parts of the country1world that might be advantageous to use here? -1. Identify--current technology or techniques used for dredging projects elsewhere, especially where there are environmental windows in place 2. Identify other technologies that could be used in the Bay Area 3. Identify the impacts that any additional techniques (found through this revievi) had different/additional impacts Process— Who will provide the science expertise and how will they fit into the process? I. Identify dredging technology experts—as advisors, including agency representatives(these could be engineers, contractors, etc) 2. Select Chair(Chair will also attend Science Meetings to relay information back to the technology group 3. Review and critique existing tecluiologies and their associated impacts 4. Identify data or information gaps regarding the impacts of different types of equipment or practices S. Summarize findings for each dredgeldisposal type 6. Review information provided from the Science Committee 7. Suggest possible changes to equipment or operations to reduce impacts to species 8. Suggest possible physical measures to reduce impacts (i.e. silt curtains, types of buckets) 9: Discuss findings resource agencies, and determine if different dredging technologies would allow work outside of windows in some instances or if suggested measures could be used as basis for consultation requirements I O.Make recommendations for neer studies/technology development if necessary 11.Yearly review of data gathered through studies Research 1. Through monitoring of current projects and existing data, establish a database of characteristics of dredges -i.e., suction velocities which will inform decisions in the future 2. Recommend pilot studies or use of appropriate operations or technological measures 11. A-lit 2/28/03 3. Design studies that will provide needed information about impacts of different types of equipment D. Confounding Factors 1►s1any factors influence the dredgingldisposal process. Can appropriate actions be taken to improve the dredging/disposal process without additional studies? 1. Document steps required for a dredging project to begin(Port of Oakland to ='m provide) 2. Examine Confounding Factors that delay or prevent a dredging/disposal to proceed in a timely fashion(See Appendix.B) 3. Identify which of the above listed factors are within group's control 4. Identify areas.where streamlining could take place, or changes can be made to improve the process - i.e. could sediment quality testing be completed earlier or could the process be more standardized? 5. If the issue is not within this group's purview, identify the group(s), which may be able to address the issue and seek their cooperation 6. Form a work group to develop alternatives to processes or practices that need to be improved 7. Address the incorporation of beneficial reuse in a project, and whether changes in the project specific or programmatic consultation can result Proposed Actions - ghat are the actions that are currently needed to aid in the dredging/disposal process? 1. Suggest a timeframe for informal consultations (formal consultations take 135 clays) 2. Revise the Corps of Engineers contracting process shifting the operations and maintenance budget away from the fiscal year, and create a multi-year funding cycle 3. Identify options for ensuring contracts (Corps and Private) are ready to go when work windows open 4. Develop a process that maximizes the use of existing data and Tier 1 testing exclusions in order to have as many projects approved and ready to go when windows open 5. Create a first tier of information and/or a set of criteria for each project that can be provided to the resource agencies for consultations 6. Create a monitoring process for the dredging community that provides information to the resource agencies 7. Identify how monitoring techniques can used as conditions in the permit process 8. Establish an annual regional planning meeting to evaluate upcoming dredging projects; identify windows;and prioritize projects, assign equipment/contracts, request consultation for challenging projects as needed 9. Create an educational tool - Biannual "Learn the Process" meetings, which will keep people informed about the process and constraints (for both agencies and dredging community) 10. Develop informational materials regarding dredging, disposal, environmental windows, in the form of handouts,worksheets, and power point presentations for website 12 2f281o3 11. Consider the idea of compensatory mitigation, especially for"potential"verse known impacts E. Funding 1.Assess the costs associated with the agreed upon work plan and prepare a draft 10F budget. _.. . 2. Develop a garne plan for securing funding from private and governmental sources, including from within company and agency budgets. 3. Assist in preparation of applications as appropriate. VII. Measures of Success. 1. Impacts to threatened, sensitive and endangered species are avoided, minimized or eliminated. 2. The majority of the projects are completed during the environmental work windows. 3. Beneficial reuse sites are available and being utilized. 4. The regulator,process (including consultation)is streamlined. 5. Dredging projects are reviewed annually and regionally for compliance with the environmental work windows and projects that do not meet the windows proceed to the consultation process right away. 6. Consensus is reached on improvements to the environmental windows that protect endangered and other species of concern, and provide timely dredging of Bay Area Projects. 13 AAR 2/28/03 Appendix A See Attached Document Proposed Data Matrix <<< Data Type, >>> Species information Status Life his Development Toxicity Disturbance Behavior Season v v Basic im act° Basicd impact, aslcd im act° asicd im act° Basic tm act* Basic Biolo icai O inionb ew information` Infarrnetion needed' "u u,. iota ical O inion° information` infarmailan needed' ffi.,. s ",fin Biola ical O inlonb Species Y 4ew Information' Information needeci' Biota icalO inion° Species Z New information` nformation needed' IIJ , 17 ''t - -1 n 6 ° Data type codes could include: NA=not available,E=extrapolated,0=no info in SF Bay, 1 =little info in SF Bay,2=moderate info in Sr Note: Data type categories are shown as examples:additional data categories will likely be identified. b or other controlling document known to be available,not included in Biological Opinion d'Basic"means information about the topic under natural conditions. e"Impact"means information about a dredging or related impact. r Proposed categories: X=low,XX=medium,XXX=high priority 14 = JA 2/28/03 Appendix B: List of Factors That Can Confound The Dredging/Disposal Process ..fib.n.. ...... 1)possible Historic backlog of dredging 2)permits not ready, or too long to get 3)financial hardship of marinas/applicant 4) consultation requirements, length of time to get 5)information not provided for permit application or consultation 6)volume limits at disposal site 7) staff/equipment unavailable for dredging project 8) length of L7KMO process 9) chemically challenged material that doesn't have an (affordable)home 10)project frequency,projects that haven't been dredged in several years currently require dredging - 11)three bay area bridges under construction at one time and possibly utilizing staff/equipment that might otherwise be utilized for dredging 12) getting Corps dredging contracts out to bid late 13)Port labor disputes causing complications for Port berth dredging 14) General contracting issues(other than the Corps issues) Some Identified Issues: I. Conflicting Closure.Issues- How do we minimize overall impacts when needs of multiple sensitive species are in conflict. 2. Conflicting Project Issues - Flow do we minimize overall impacts when needs of multiple projects are in conflict. (Or, How do we prioritize projects if needed?) 3. Beneficial Reuse - How does the use of beneficial reuse sites for disposal affect the application of the environmental windows? — E.g. if material goes to Hamilton, or.Montezuma, can some dredging windows be waived?In what instances? (This supports the overall LTMS goals, and reduces impacts to .Bay resources) 15 MO 2/28/03 Appendix C Ongoing Efforts arts 1. Scoping for Study of Effects from a Dredging Project on Turbidity 2. Port of Oakland Monitoring of Fifty Foot Project 3. Port of Oakland Monitoring of Least Tern Colony Corps Literature Review 4.NOAA Port Coordination Pilot Project 16 Agenda Item Presentation on the ABAG ABACA:FED Process. John She The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board Count Administration Building and Y 9 GL County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925)325.1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County r John Giola, 1st District IJV Gaye B.Ui€kema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSau€n€er,4th District + • Federal D.Glover,5th District The Honorable David Hobson House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development House Appropriations Committee 2362 Rayburn House Office Building Washington,D.C. 20515 June 24,2003 Dear Congressman Hobson: Today the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted to support a federal FY 2004 congressional add of$2.5 million for the Lang Term Management of Dredging and Disposal (LTMS),Environmental Windows Project in San Francisco Bay. This budget item would provide funding for a very important program which includes all agencies and organizations which deal with dredging and endangered species in the Bay and Delta. The Environmental Windows Work Group is a consensus-based process by which all involved are engaging in activities to enable dredging activities to occur while providing for the protection of endangered species. This has become problematic in the Bay and Delta area, as resource agencies have established 4-5 months a year when dredging can occur(the actual windows) without an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation(most often disallowing dredging entirely). The intent of the Work Group is to 1) establish some flexibility in the Windows process, 2)look at additional science to answer questions about species and the effects of dredging and disposal,3)investigate new technology to decrease effects of dredging, and 4) consider more effective planning processes to get more dredging done within window periods. Funding would go primarily to science projects which could provided much needed information about the effects of dredging on species,and additional information about aquatic species needs, geographic location and other related issues. Approximately$90,000 in funds were acquired in FY 2003,which are being utilized to build a database of reliable relevant scientific data and study of suspended sediment characteristics of dredged material. We look forward to your favorable consideration of our request regarding this very important project. If you or your staff has questions,please contact Roberta Goulart at(925) 335-1226. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier Chair, Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisorsonta Jo Sweeten eBoard ten rk ant! County Administration Building Costa County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925}335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 Cot Fnt.. y John Glola,1st District (,� �,,Jl! Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District � The Honorable David Hobson, Chair House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development House Appropriations Committee 2362 Rayburn House Office Building Washington,D.C. 20515 July 8,2003 Dear Congressman Hobson: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recently voted to support a federal FY 2004 congressional add of$2.5 million for the Long Terra Management of Dredging and Disposal (LTMS),Environmental Windows Project in San Francisco Bay. This budget item would provide funding for a very important program which includes all agencies and organizations dealing with dredging and endangered species in the Bay and Delta. The Environmental Windows Work Group is a consensus-based process by which all involved are engaging in activities to enable dredging activities to occur while providing for the protection of endangered.species. This has become problematic in the Bay and Delta area, as resource agencies have established 3-4 months a year when dredging can occur(the actual windows) without an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation(most often disallowing dredging entirely). The intent of the Work Group is to 1)establish some flexibility in the Windows process,2)look at additional science to answer questions about species and the effects of dredging and disposal, 3)investigate new technology to decrease effects of dredging, and 4) consider more effective planning processes to get more dredging done within window periods. Funding would go primarily to science projects which could provide much needed information about the effects of dredging on species,and additional information about aquatic species needs, geographic location and other related issues. Approximately$90,000 in funds were acquired in EY 2003,which are being utilized to build a database of reliable relevant scientific data and study of suspended sediment characteristics of dredged material. We look forward to your favorable consideration of our request regarding this very important project. If you or your staff has questions,please contact Roberta Goulart at(925)335-1226. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier Chair The Beard of SupervisorsJohn Sweeten Clark of tate Board and County Administration wilding � �c� County Administrator t` 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (�o (925)335-19M Martinez, California 94553-1293 �,� ouni.. John Glola, 1st District Gayle S.Ullkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Maris DeSaulnler,4th District ` Federal D.Glover,5th District March 11,2003 The Honorable George Miller 7tb Congressional District 2205 Rayburn House Office Building Washington,D.C. 205 Dear Congressm i ler: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would life to thank you for your active support of FFY 2004 appropriations for navigation projects which are very important to the Bay-Delta region.Your taking the'lead in putting together the March 28,2003 joint letter of request to the Mouse Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water(signed by not less than seven representatives)is very much appreciated. Your efforts,will go a long way toward our obtaining funding for these much needed projects. We also would like to thank your staff,both locally and in Washington. They are always happy to help and have provided immeasurable assistance to us during what we are sure are very busy times during the budget cycle. Projects for which we requested funding included the Suisun By New York Slough Maintenance Dred�in .(includes beneficial reuse of dredged material for wetlands and levees),the San Francisco-Stockton(BaldwinjShip Channel(salinity and related studies),and the Pinole Shoal Maintenance Dredging Project. In FFY2003,we were unable to obtain full funding for our projects. This is very important,as these:projects contain elements which are clearly to the public benefit, such as beneficial reuse of dredged sediments for wetlands creation and levee rehabilitation.These projects cost more as a result, and come during difficult budgetary times. We hope you will continue to work with us on these important projects,despite the financial challenge they represent Your support continues to be much appreciated. We look forward to successfully obtaining full funding for these important projects with your help. If you have questions,please contact Roberta Goulart,our Water Agency staff,at(925) 335-1226. Sincerely, YVCS�aulnier, Chair Board of Supervisors The Beard of SupervisorsJohn Sweeten ��'} +'}+� Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building VLG1 County administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 { 2�)335-19ofl Martinez,California 94553.1293 Count John Glola, 1st District Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District i Mark DeSeufnler,4th District r Federal D.Glover,5th District ' July 8, 2003 The Honorable Barbara Lee - 9th Congressional District 1724 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20 ,15.�.} Dear Congresswo Lee: The Centra Costa.County Board of Supervisors would life to thank you for your support of Federal FY 2004 appropriations for navigation projects which are very important to the Bay--Delta region. Your signature on the March 28, 2003 joint letter of request to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water is very much appreciated. Projects for which we requested funding included the Suisun Bay/New York Slough Maintenance Dredging, (includes beneficial reuse of dredged material for wetlands and levees),the San Francisco-Stockton(Baldwin) Sbb Channel D enin (salinity and related studies), and the Pinole Shoal Maintenance Dredging Project. We are requesting funding for FFY 2004, as we were unable to obtain full funding in FFY2003. Full funding of our projects is very important, as these projects benefit a large region and contain elements which are Clearly to the public benefit, such as beneficial reuse of dredged sediments for wetlands Creation and levee rehabilitation. These projects cost more as a result, and come during difficult budgetary times. We hope you will continue to work with us on these important projects, despite the financial challenge they represent. Your support is much appreciated. We look forward to successfully obtaining full funding for these important projects with your help. If you have questions,please contact Roberta Coulart,our Water Agency staff', at(925) 335- 1226. Sincerely, *arkDeSaulnier, Chair Beard of Supervisors The Beard of SupervisorsJohn Sweeten Cterk of the Board of County Administration Building and County Administrator 651 Pirie street, Roam 1.06 Ca (925}93�-190 Martinez, California 94553-7293 Count John Gioia, 7 st District Gayle B.Ulfkerrta,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark Uesaulnier,4th District Federal 0.Glover,5th District � The Honorable Nancy Pelosi July 8, 2003 8th Congressional District 2371 Rayburn.House Office Building "Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Democratic Leader Pelosi: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would like to thank you for your support of Federal FY 2004 appropriations for navigation projects which are very important to the Bay-Delta.region. Your signature on the March 28, 2003 joint letter of request to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water is very much appreciated. Projects for which we requested funding included the Suisun BU/New York Slough Maintenance Dredging,(includes beneficial reuse of dredged material for wetlands and levees),the San Francisco-Stockton{Baldwin)Ship Channel Dee ening(salinity and related studies), and the Pinole Shoal Maintenance Dredging Project We are requesting funding for FFY 2004, as we were unable to obtain full funding in FFY2003. Full funding of our projects is very important, as these projects benefit a large region and contain elements which are clearly to the public benefit, such as beneficial reuse of dredged sediments for wetlands creation and levee rehabilitation. These projects cost more as a result, and come during difficult budgetary times. We hope you will continue to work with us on these important projects, despite the financial challenge they represent. Your support is much appreciated. We look forward to successfully obtaining full funding for these important projects with your help. If you have questions,please contact Roberta Goularrt,our Water.Agency staff, at(925)335- 122.6. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier, Chair Beard of Supervisors The Bear( of Supervisors Contra ��kff�eBoad and County Administration(wilding1�Costa County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 <J [...t. {325}335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-12931. . Coun John Glola, 1 st District j✓�/ Gayle U.Ulikoma,2nd District k Donna Gerber,3rd District t Mark DeSautnier,4th District Federal 0.Glover,5th District July 8, 2003 The Honorable Mike Thompson S, 1't Congressional District 119 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 24515 Dear Congressman Thompson: The Contra Costa County Beard of Supervisors would life to thank you for your support of Federal FY 2004 appropriations for navigation projects which are very important to the Bay-Delta region. Your signature on the:March 28, 2003 joint letter of request to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and eater is very much appreciated. Projects for which we requested funding included the Suisun Bgy New York Slough Maintenance Dredging, (includes beneficial reuse of dredged material for wetlands and levees),the San Francisco-Stockton(Baldwin)Ship Channel Deepening-(salinity and related studies), and the Pinole Shoal Maintenance Dredgu�g_Project. We are requesting.funding for FFY 2404, as we were unable to obtain full funding in FFY2003. Full funding of our projects is very important, as these projects benefit a large region and contain elements which are clearly to the public benefit, such as beneficial reuse of dredged sediments for wetlands creation and levee rehabilitation. These projects cost more as a result, and come during difficult budgetary times. We hope you will continue to work with us on these important projects, despite the financial challenge they represent. Your support is much appreciated. We look forward to successfully obtaining full funding for these important projects with your help. If you have questions,please contact Roberta Goulart, our Water Agency staff, at(925) 335- 1226. Sincerely, Mark DeSaulnier, Chair Board of Supervisors