Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Regional Channel Maintenance Workgroup; Regional Channel Maintenance Workgroup; 2006-06-07FINAL WORK PLAN REGIONAL CHANNEL MAINTENANCE WORKGROUP REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT PACKAGE AND PROCESS Prepared by EDAW, Inc. 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 620 San Diego, California 92101 June 7,2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of the RGP Process/Package 1 1.2 Programmatic vs. Individual Permits 2 1.3 Project Personnel and Roles 5 2.0 PROGRAMMATIC PERMIT PACKAGES AND PROCESSES ..„ 7 2.1 Programmatic Permit Packages 7 2.2 Programmatic Permit Processes 17 3.0 MEETINGS 18 3.1 RCM Workgroup Meetings 18 3.2 Agency Meetings 20 4.0 WHITE PAPER AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATION 21 5.0 SCHEDULE 22 APPENDDC A - Regional Channel Maintenance Workgroup Members and Contact Information LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Project Schedule -. 23 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page i 05080211RCM-RGP Final Work Plan JJune2006.doc 6W2006 This page intentionally left blank. Page ii RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan OS080211RCM-RGP Final Work Plan Jjme2006.doc 6/1/2006 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Work Plan has been prepared to guide the development of packages and descriptions of processes that will summarize what members of the Regional Channel Maintenance (RCM) Workgroup will need to consider, analyze, and prepare when they pursue programmatic approvals from the resource agencies for citywide channel maintenance activities. This section of the Work Plan provides an introduction and further description of the purpose of the packages and processes that will prepared, the benefits of obtaining programmatic authorizations from the resource agencies, regulatory background information specific to programmatic approvals, and a summary of the personnel and roles for the technical specialists who will conduct the work described in this Work Plan. 1.1 Purpose of the RGP Process/Package Since the mid-1990s, the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has issued several Regional General Permits (RGPs) that have authorized various municipalities to conduct routine maintenance on flood control facilities that would affect jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, for the purpose of maintaining existing infrastructures and preventing flooding. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also have issued comparable programmatic approvals to authorize these routine activities. These RGPs and programmatic approvals have established an expedited procedure to authorize activities that are similar in nature and must be repeated as needed, in some cases at hundreds of locations throughout the applicant's jurisdiction. In September 2004, the County of San Diego, and all 18 cities within the county, received letters entitled "Directive Regarding Channel Maintenance Activities" from the RWQCB that mandated the submittal of a Required Technical Report (RTR) pertaining to channel maintenance activities and practices. Subsequently, all of the cities and the County met to discuss the RTR and channel maintenance throughout the region, whereby, the RCM Workgroup was formed. The RTR submitted to the RWQCB by the City of Poway included a list of over 2,000 channel sites that had been maintained between 2002 and 2004. Based on similar submittals by many of the RCM Workgroup members, the RWQCB determined that all of these municipalities must obtain permits prior to conducting further channel maintenance activities. All jurisdictions within the RCM Workgroup face the same challenges of meeting goals of water quality and habitat conservation while performing necessary channel maintenance and flood RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page 1 05080211 RCM-RGP Final Work Pltmjjme2006.doc 6W2006 control work. Based on meetings between the RCM Workgroup and staff from the RWQCB, CDFG, and the Corps, the Workgroup determined that an RGP from the Corps would provide the most comprehensive permit. As needed, additional agency-specific programmatic approvals would be sought. Until these approvals are issued by the resource agencies, the RCM Workgroup members cannot proceed with many of the routine maintenance activities that would need to occur within jurisdictional resources unless project-specific permits are obtained. The RCM Workgroup's goal is to develop packages and describe processes that will guide each Workgroup member through the steps required for applying for an RGP from the Corps and comparable approvals from the other resource agencies. Specifically, packages will be developed, including forms, instructions, and, where relevant, standardized approaches and components that will streamline many of the permit requirements (e.g., mitigation, operational protocols, and annual reporting requirements). Clarifying and streamlining the process and requirements associated with these permits, and illustrating the benefits to be gained, will aid City Managers and City Council/Board Members in reviewing and approving requests to apply for these permits from their own Public Works divisions. 1.2 Programmatic vs. Individual Permits Individually, or in smaller groups, channel maintenance activities, including minor repair, could be authorized by the Corps and other agencies under existing 404 general permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) #3 for Maintenance, NWP #13 for Bank Stabilization, NWP #18 for Minor Discharges, NWP #19 for Minor Dredging, NWP #31 for Maintenance of Existing Flood Control Facilities, NWP #43 for Stormwater Management Facilities) or other standard approval processes (e.g., the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement); however, there are several benefits to obtaining programmatic approvals for repeated, routine activities. These benefits include the following: • Pre-authorizes similar activities at numerous locations • Replaces case-by-case applications/authorization • Offers flexibility to accommodate in the future additional sites that meet established criteria • Increases efficiency in conducting routine activities • Establishes consistent approach for avoiding and minimizing impacts to regulated environmental resources • Provides comprehensive approach for mitigation Page 2 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 050B0211RCM-RGP Final Work PlanJjime2006Joe 6M20M • Allows an extended authorization period • Reduces demand on the resource agencies • Increases level of regulatory independence for the applicant • Decreases long-term costs, i.e., one programmatic review, process, and associated fees, vs. numerous case-by-case costs Because so many RCM Workgroup members will pursue programmatic authorizations from the resource agencies, additional benefits may include the following: • Co-use of mitigation sites • Co-ownership of mitigation banks within regional watersheds • Clear and consistent definition of regulated channel maintenance activities subject to programmatic permits The specific regulations that pertain to the programmatic permits and other authorizations that the RCM Workgroup members will seek are summarized below. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the Corps to issue general permits on a state, regional, or nationwide basis. All permits authorized by the Corps under Section 404(e) must be reviewed every 5 years. This section of the CWA specifically states that the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may: "...after notice of opportunity for public hearing, issue general permits on a State, regional, or nationwide basis for any category of activities involving discharges of dredged or fill material if the Secretary determines that the activities in such category are similar in nature, will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment." The RGPs that the RCM Workgroup members will individually pursue, following the guidelines and using the templates that will be prepared under this contract, are a type of general 404 permit. Reference to an RGP or Section 404 permit, as used below, are interchangeable. RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page 3 050S0211RCU-RGPFinalWorkPlmJjtme2006.doc 6/8/2006 Other authorizations or approvals must be obtained before the Corps can issue an RGP. Authorizations/approvals applicable to an RGP for channel maintenance include the following: • Water quality certification - Applicant must obtain an individual certification, or waiver. • Coastal zone management - Applicant must obtain an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence, or waiver. • Endangered species - No activity that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species, species proposed for listing, or the critical habitat of any such species, can be permitted. If an activity might affect such species, the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act (i.e., informal or formal consultation requirements) must be satisfied. • Mitigation - Discharges into wetlands must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable, unless the Corps has approved a compensation mitigation plan for the specific activity(ies). Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Water Quality Certification Section 401 of the CWA requires that any person applying for a federal permit or license, which may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S., must obtain a state water quality certification (401 Certification) that specifies activity-based compliance requirements (applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions). No license or permit may be issued by a federal agency until certification required by Section 401 has been granted. Although the California Code of Regulations does not include specifications for applying water quality certification on a programmatic level, the RWQCB has issued 401 Certification in conjunction with RGPs. California Coastal Commission, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Statement The California Coastal Act (CCA) and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) regulate wetlands within California's coastal zone. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) has jurisdiction over all wetlands within the coastal zone. Under the CCA, a "wetland" means lands within the coastal zone that may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens (Ca. Pub. Res. Code Section 30121). Page 4 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 050S0211RCM-RGP Final Work Pl<m_7jtme2006.doc 6W2006 The CCA does not include specifications for obtaining coastal zone management consistency determinations on a programmatic level. However, certain activities may be exempt from a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) under Section 30610(d) of the CCA, which authorizes developments without a CDP for "[r]epair or maintenance activities that do not result in an addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object of those repair or maintenance activities" [Ca. Pub. Res. Code Section 30610(d)]. California Department of Fish and Game, Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code regulate activities that would alter the flow, bed, channel, or bank of streams and lakes. The term stream, as defined under the jurisdiction of Sections 1600-1607, can include intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams (USGS maps), and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. The CDFG requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for projects that would alter a stream or propose to use any material from a Streambed. The SAA is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Sections 1600-1607, the CDFG may issue a SAA for routine maintenance, which covers multiple routine maintenance projects that the applicant will complete at different time periods during the term of the SAA, and describes a procedure the applicant must follow for any maintenance project that the SAA covers. In addition to the regulatory purview of the CDFG under Sections 1600-1607, the CDFG is the primary agency that administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. The CESA provides protection for all species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered, fully protected, or Species of Special Concern. The CESA also regulates take of the state-listed species. 1.3 Project Personnel and Roles The following project staff will be responsible for various project activities, deliverables, and coordination/management as described below. RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page 5 050S0211RCM-RGP Final Work PlanJJme2006.doc 6M/2006 ED AW, Inc. Paula Jacks, Project Manager. Ms. Jacks will provide overall project management and support, be the primary author on the documents prepared under the contract, coordinate all contributory authoring, and act as the direct point of contact with the RCM Workgroup's Contract Management Subcommittee. Teresa Wilkinson, CEQA Specialist. Ms. Wilkinson will provide input and guidance regarding all CEQA documentation information required by the application packages and processes, among other issues. Mark Williams, Water Quality Specialist. Mr. Williams will provide input and guidance regarding all water quality information required by the application packages and processes. Jacqueline Dompe, Principal in Charge. Ms. Dompe will oversee the project's management, quality control, and resources allocation. RCM Workgroup and RGP Contract Management Subcommittee The RCM Workgroup is composed of the region's 18 cities and the County of San Diego. The RGP packages and processes that will be prepared by ED AW under this contract are on behalf of 14 of the member cities that are interested in pursuing programmatic authorizations for routine channel maintenance activities within their jurisdiction. Contact information for these 14 cities is provided in Appendix A. ED AW will work directly with the Contract Management Subcommittee on day-to-day needs related to this contract. The Contract Management Subcommittee is composed of the following representatives of four of the RCM Workgroup member cities: City of Carlsbad: David Hauser City ofEscondido: Cheryl Filar City of Poway: Robin Miller and Pat Ryan City of San Diego: Jeannette DeAngelis Page 6 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211RCM-RGP Final Wort PIanJjaK2006.doc 6M2006 2.0 PROGRAMMATIC PERMIT PACKAGES AND PROCESSES The resource agencies, their respective programmatic permits or approvals, and the relevant documents associated with those permits are summarized below. All information described herein for the Corps, RWQCB, CDFG, and USFWS is relevant to all RCM Workgroup member cities. The information summarized for the CCC is only relevant to those member cities that conduct channel maintenance activities within the coastal zone. Therefore, two agency-approved application processes and packages will be prepared, one for coastal jurisdictions and one for inland jurisdictions. These products will assist each member of the RCM Workgroup in applying for and obtaining environmental permits for their channel maintenance activities. The agency-approved application processes and packages will be submitted in a binder format. ED AW will also provide the materials on CD. As requested by the RCM Workgroup, the final packages will include language to the effect that the proposed process and package content are not binding on any jurisdiction, and each jurisdiction eventually will make permitting decisions according to its best interest. 2.1 Programmatic Permit Packages The packages will include a list of the items that must be included in the submittals to each agency, the required forms, instructions to complete the forms, a permit fee schedule, and other items, as described below. Required Components Regulations or other resource agency guidance specify what is required to initiate their formal review of an application. The relevant permit application form and other materials that will need to be provided to each agency are summarized in the following tables. ED AW will discuss the individual components with each agency to verify that together, all components constitute a complete package. In addition, EDAW will seek clarification on the items noted in the column titled "Issues to Clarify." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 404 Permit. Application Package RGPs require submission of an individual application and compliance with the Corps' formal review process. The process provides opportunities for public notice and comment and requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The following table RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page 7 050S021! RCM-RGP Final Work Plan_7june2006.doc 6/8/2006 summarizes what is required for a 404 application to be considered complete. Supplemental information may be requested from the applicant during the Corps' review of the application. 404 Application Requirements Notes Issues to Clarify Application.Instructions for completing the form will be provided. No permit fees are associated with the 404 application. None. Public Notice (PN).Applicant prepares a draft PN for the Corps to review and revises as needed, and Corps finalizes. Corps requests that electronic file of PN be <1.5 megabytes. Once finalized, PN is distributed by the Corps for a 30-day public review period. None. NEPA documentation, including Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and404(b)(l) evaluation. Generally, the Corps prepares this document and requests information from the applicant to complete specific sections (e.g., suspended particulates/turbidity; flood control functions; erosion; changes to wildlife such as fish and amphibians; traffic; energy consumption; safety; air quality; noise; general water quality; and cumulative effects). Preparation of the EA begins following the end of the 30-day public review period for the PN. None. Associated Relevant, Requirements-'?:?^Notes Issues to Clarify 401 Water Quality Certification.Copy of final (or draft final) materials provided to RWQCB must be included with the 404 application package. Final 401 certification must be obtained before 404 permit can be issued. See RWQCB 401 Certification below. Coastal zone management consistency concurrence, or waiver from CCC, if activities occur within coastal zone. Consistency concurrence or waiver must be obtained before 404 permit can be issued. See CCC consistency determination below. ESA Section 7 consultation (if an activity may affect federally listed species, the requirements of the ESA must be satisfied). Biological Opinion, or letter, documenting the results of formal or informal consultation with USFWS may be required. If formal consultation is determined necessary, then preparation of a Biological Assessment will be required. The full list of species to be addressed (all wetland- EDAW will discuss with the Corps/USFWS guidelines that would allow RCM member cities to determine which upland- associated species would need to be addressed. ED AW will also discuss whether Incidental Take Authorizations issued or forthcoming for Subarea Plans PageS RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211 RCM-RGP Final WorkPlanJjme2006.doc 6/S/2006 dependent federally listed species and some upland-associated species) will depend on the scope of analysis that the Corps defines for the RGP, and what RCM Workgroup members want included. may cover maintenance activities. Mitigation Plan.Impact avoidance and minimization measures must be identified. For all unavoidable impacts, mitigation will likely include habitat creation, restoration, and enhancement. Discuss concept of multiple cities within a watershed co-owning a mitigation bank, co-locating mitigation efforts, and/or jointly preparing mitigation plans. Discuss whether a single mitigation plan per jurisdiction (or partnering jurisdictions) could be submitted to all agencies. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Notification Package In evaluating water quality permitting needs, it will be important to first determine whether general permitting under Waste Discharge Requirements or 401 Certification protocols are most appropriate (or acceptable to the RWQCB) for an RGP approach. Regardless of which protocol is ultimately established for defining the scope for water quality analysis within an RGP context, addressing the topics and issues stated below will be necessary. For 401 Certification, the RWQCB has a public comment period that starts shortly after an application has been deemed complete and lasts a minimum of 21 days (period closes when RWQCB decides to take an action on the 401 Certification application). The following table summarizes what is required for a 401 Certification application to be considered complete. Supplemental information may be requested from the applicant during the agency's review of the application. Certification Application Requirements Application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Fee. . Notes Instructions for completing the form will be provided. Application fees apply based on fee formula. .V t Issues to Clarify None. Standard fee formula is not applicable to programmatic projects. RWQCB needs to consider base fee and defer payment per activity during the pre-notification process. RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211 RCM-RCP Final WorkPlan_7jime2006.doc 6/8/2006 Page 9 Associated Relevant Requirements Notes Issues to Clarify Full, technically accurate project description, including the purpose and final goal of the entire activity (including jurisdictional delineation, affected waters, impact avoidance, construction/post-construction water quality protection, protection of impaired waters, mitigation and monitoring plans, any other documents relating to water quality, and beneficial uses). Supplemental information/ documentation is typically required for adequate comprehensive description. Determine what level of descriptive information is required for the 401 submittal. Work plans and/or drawings and detailed maps. None.Establish what activity-specific information is required for the 401 submittal. Identification of the 404 permit for which 401 Certification is being requested; copies of 404 application and agency-applicant correspondence; copies of state, or local licenses, permits, or agreements concerning the project, or a list of those being sought. None.None. CEQA documentation, including IS/MND. RCM Workgroup members may be able to provide environmental clearance for channel maintenance activities in planning level documents (e.g., Program EIRs for Drainage Infrastructure Plans) Mitigation Plan.Impact avoidance and minimization measures must be identified. For all unavoidable impacts, mitigation will likely include habitat creation, restoration, and enhancement. Discuss concept of multiple cities within a watershed co-owning a mitigation bank, co-locating mitigation efforts, and/or jointly preparing mitigation plans. Discuss whether a single mitigation plan per jurisdiction (or partnering jurisdictions) could be submitted to all agencies. California Coastal Commission, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Statement Notification Package For projects within the Coastal Zone, an individual coastal zone management consistency determination needs to be obtained or waived (see Section 330.4(d)), or the project activity must Page 10 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211 RCM-RGP Final WorkPlan_7june2006.doc 6/8/2006 be determined to be exempt. The following table summarizes what is required for a coastal zone management consistency determination. Supplemental information may be requested from the applicant during the CCC's review of the application. Coastal Commission Requirements Notes Issues to Clarify Waiver or exemption request.CCC reviews PN for RGP and provides a consistency/ nonconsistency determination. During pre-notification process, CCC will determine if activity results in a direct impact to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Exemptions may not be granted if activity occurs within ESHAs. If activity occurs within coastal zone boundary and within an ESHA, need to provide project information showing limits of work and construction methodology. If feasible, conduct work using hand tools and set up staging areas in previously disturbed areas. Coastal Development Permit (CDP) if exemption not granted. It is anticipated that some routine activities will require a CDP. ED AW will discuss what types of drainage maintenance or repair activities would require a CDP, e.g., headwall, rip rap, or concrete culvert replacement, placement of structural support to protect existing infrastructure, etc. Associated Relevant Requirements -.Notes:Issues to Clarify Provide CEQA documentation.RCM Workgroup members may be able to provide environmental clearance for channel maintenance activities in planning level documents (e.g., Program EIRs for Drainage Infrastructure Plans). None. Mitigation Plan.Impact avoidance and minimization measures must be identified. For all unavoidable impacts, mitigation will likely include habitat creation, restoration, and enhancement. Discuss concept of multiple cities within a watershed co-owning a mitigation bank, co-locating mitigation efforts, and/or jointly preparing mitigation plans. Discuss whether a single mitigation plan per jurisdiction (or partnering jurisdictions) could be submitted to all agencies. California Department of Fish and Game, Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Notification Package SAAs require submission of an individual application and compliance with CEQA. No public noticing is required for the SAA. The following table summarizes what is required for an SAA RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211 KCM-RGP Final WorkPlanJjune2006.doc 6/8/2006 Page 11 application to be considered complete. Supplemental information may be requested from the applicant during CDFG's review of the application. SAA Notification Requirements Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration form (FG 2023). Project Questionnaire form (FG 2024). Notification fee. Associated Relevant Requirements CEQA documentation, including IS/MND. CEQA-related fee. 2081.1 Consistency Determination and/or 208 l(b) Incidental Take Permit, if state- listed species may be affected by proposed activities that are not otherwise covered under Incidental Take Authorizations that could be applied to the channel maintenance activities. Mitigation Plan. Notes Instructions for completing the form will be provided. Instructions for completing the form will be provided. Fee covers CDFG's costs to process the notification and prepare the SAA. There is a base fee of $1,200 for routine maintenance activities approved to occur within 5 years or less and $2,400 for approvals that extend beyond 5 years. A $100 fee per activity is also applied. '; Notes" '-- -* ' RCM Workgroup members may be able to provide environmental clearance for channel maintenance activities in planning level documents (e.g., Program EIRs for Drainage Infrastructure Plans). A separate fee is required to cover CDFG's CEQA review costs. The full list of species to be addressed (all wetland-dependent state-listed species and some upland-associated species) will depend on the scope of analysis that CDFG defines for the SAA, and what RCM Workgroup members want included. Impact avoidance and minimization measures must be identified. For all unavoidable impacts, mitigation will likely include habitat creation, restoration, and enhancement. -, Issues to Clarify None. None. Determine whether a term >5 years could be issued for this programmatic agreement; if so, the supplemental base fee may apply. Issues to Clarify None. None. Discuss with CDFG guidelines that would allow RCM member cities to determine which upland- associated species would need to be addressed. ED AW will also discuss whether Incidental Take Authorizations issued or forthcoming for Subarea Plans may cover maintenance activities. Discuss concept of multiple cities within a watershed co-owning a mitigation bank, co-locating mitigation efforts, and/or jointly preparing mitigation plans. Discuss whether a single mitigation plan per jurisdiction (or partnering jurisdictions) could be submitted to all agencies. Page 12 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 050801! 1 RCM-RGP Final WorkPlm_7june2006.doc 6/8/2006 Additional Components There are many common components among the application forms or questionnaires that are required by the different resource agencies. To the extent possible, ED AW will create templates for the common elements of each agency's packages that should not vary, or vary little, for the cities that will seek their own permits in the future. These templates may serve as is, or would need to be amended by each city to reflect unique needs or issues relevant to their maintenance activities. Items that ED AW anticipates could be provided as a template are summarized below, along with notes and issues we would clarify during our meetings with the resource agencies. Information Suitable for? Standardization/Template Notes',Issues fo Clarify Purpose and final goal of the channel maintenance activities. Collectively work with the RCM Workgroup to prepare the draft purpose, need, and goal of the channel maintenance activities. Each city may then use and revise, as needed, that description when they pursue their programmatic permits. None. Technically accurate description of maintenance activities, including type, methods, equipment, and frequency. RCM Workgroup members to provide information to ED AW. ED AW will prepare a template of the common activities. Discuss with agencies what activities can be included in these channel maintenance RGPs, and begin organization that will help later when cities apply for RGPs. Description of operational protocols to avoid and minimize impacts. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for activities such as routine trash and debris/sediment removal, annual noxious weed control, and annual flow line maintenance will be pursued. RCM Workgroup members to suggest other BMPs they want developed, and consider whether BMPs for features, e.g., access roads, should also be prepared. None. Description of permanent vs. temporary maintenance impacts. These impacts are generally based on activity-specific impact areas and regional databases (e.g., vegetation, designated critical habitat, etc.). EDAW will provide template tables for organizing this required information. None. Discuss with agencies what information should be included in these survey forms. Pre-activity survey form to be used by individual cities. Standard survey forms should be developed for these site-specific maintenance assessments. RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211 RCM-RGP Final Work Plan_7june2006.doc 6/8/2006 Page 13 Mitigation approach for permanent vs. temporary impacts. Components of conceptual mitigation plans. Based on RGPs issued to date and discussions with the agencies, the general requirements for mitigating permanent vs. temporary impacts will be described. Provide example outline. Discuss with agencies strategies for mitigation among RCM Workgroup members. Discuss with agencies strategies for mitigation among RCM Workgroup members. General Items to Clarify EDAW will seek clarification or verification on a number of items when we meet with the resource agencies. Our findings about the following items will be summarized to provide additional insight and information for the RCM Workgroup members as they pursue individual programmatic permits. • Some of the regulations provide clear guidance regarding the types of waters and wetlands that are excluded from regulation; however, project-specific exceptions can recapture these normally excluded resources. EDAW will seek clarification regarding which agency regulates the following types of waters and wetlands relevant to channel maintenance, and under what circumstances: drainages ditches excavated hi uplands, brow ditches, concrete-lined channels, and any other items that RCM Workgroup members request that we discuss with the agencies. • Similarly, some of the regulations provide clear guidance regarding the types of activities that are excluded from regulation; however, project-specific exceptions can recapture these normally excluded activities. EDAW will seek clarification regarding which agency regulates the following activities relevant to channel maintenance, and under what circumstances: maintaining drainage ditches (see below), maintaining or reconstructing structures that are currently serviceable, removal of vegetation, removal of silt, mowing vegetation, activities that cause only incidental fallback of fill (see below), and any other items that RCM Workgroup members request that we discuss with the agencies. • EDAW will seek clarification from the Corps on the application of the Clean Water Act § 404(f)(l)(C) exemption for routine maintenance of pre-1975 drainage ditches. Specifically, we will discuss how applicants can demonstrate that original channel Page 14 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 050S0211RCM-RGP Final Work Plan Jjme2006.iloc 6/8/2006 dimensions have been preserved, that toxic sediments are not present, or that water quality would not be deteriorated by routine maintenance activities. • EDAW will discuss with the Corps the cyclic nature of maintenance activities, the requirements for demonstrating channel-specific periodic maintenance and a maintenance baseline, and the development of wetlands between maintenance events. The effect of these issues on mitigation required under the RGP will also be discussed. • EDAW will (1) seek clarification from the Corps under what circumstances channel maintenance activities are exempt under the Tulloch "Incidental Fallback" Rule (66 Fed. Reg. 4550, January 17, 2001); (2) seek confirmation from the RWQCB that they would waive § 401 certification where the Corps determines the project is Tulloch exempt; and (3) discuss with CDFG and CCC whether they are similarly willing to waive permitting requirements for projects that fit within the federal exemption. • EDAW will discuss with the resource agencies whether the authorizations granted to each jurisdiction when they obtain RGPs and other programmatic permits can be transferred to private Home Owners Associations or other entities that maintain flood control channels on private lands. • EDAW is aware of the use of NWP #31 by an applicant to permit temporary impacts to numerous soft-bottom channels, affecting cumulatively over 600 acres of wetlands and waters. EDAW will seek clarification on whether NWP #31 may be used to permit a subset of the channel maintenance activities that are being conducted by RCM Workgroup members. The use of other general permits to authorize subsets of maintenance activities at multiple locations, and the application of existing regulatory exemptions (e.g., Tulloch Rule) on specific maintenance activities will also be discussed with the Corps. If these approaches are applicable, EDAW will clarify what remaining activities would be covered under an RGP, and the pros and cons of using multiple types of authorizations for channel maintenance activities. Finally, if multiple approaches with the Corps are possible, then the affect on obtaining programmatic permits with the other resource agencies (CDFG, RWQCB, USFWS, CCC) will also be discussed. • The implications of current Supreme Court cases (e.g., Rapanos and Carabell) will be discussed and summarized for the RCM Workgroup. RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page 15 05080211RCM-RGP Final Work Planjjme2006.iioc 6/8/2006 • The relationship of the San Diego Municipal Storm Water Permit, Jurisdictional and Watershed Urban Runoff Management plans, RGP requirements, and 401 Certification needs will be discussed with the RWQCB and summarized for the RCM Workgroup, including the annual reporting requirements for the RGP/401 Certification and compliance with the forthcoming Municipal Storm Water Permit, e.g., routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility. • Compliance with local and regional Habitat Conservation Plans. • EDAW will discuss whether the mitigation ratios and other conditions associated with RGP 53 (Special Conditions, No. 1(B)(6)), which reflect the fact that most channel maintenance activities throughout the region cause only temporary impacts and are located in highly urbanized areas, will similarly apply to RGPs that RCM Workgroup members pursue. • EDAW will discuss with the resource agencies the mitigation requirement for removing wetlands that have become established in manufactured channels, basins, and pipe outfalls, or wetlands that were voluntarily planted for pollution control or to make a flood control feature more visually appealing to neighboring residents. A determination on whether the agencies would consider a reduction or elimination of mitigation for specific cases will be pursued. • Draft federal guidance, if finalized, will permit out-of-kind wetland mitigation where it is environmentally preferable, taking into account watershed priorities, local importance of the aquatic resources, practicability, ecological performance, and various other factors (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers draft "Federal Guidance on the Use of Off-Site and Out- of-Kind Compensatory Mitigation Under § 404 of the Clean Water Act," April 7, 2004). EDAW will discuss with the Corps under what circumstances out-of-kind mitigation will be permitted in the future if the draft guidance is adopted, and whether jurisdictions will be able to reopen mitigation clauses in the future. General Items to Discuss EDAW will discuss with the resource agencies the two policy issues noted below that are of interest to members of the RCM Workgroup. Our findings will be summarized to the RCM Workgroup members. Page 16 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan OSOS0211RCM-RGP Final Work Plan Jjme2006.doc 6/S/2006 • The existing NWPs that are applicable to drainage maintenance activities (i.e., 3, 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 27, 31, 33, 37, 41 and 43) have not been certified by the State Water Resources Control Board. Without State Board certification, the streamlining benefits of these NWPs for channel maintenance are limited. Because the RCM Workgroup members need permitting flexibility while they pursue RGPs, EDAW will discuss with RWQCB under what circumstance they would be willing to urge the State Board to temporarily certify the existing NWPs relevant to drainage maintenance activities while the cities secure programmatic permits. • The RWQCB has a waiver policy for waste discharge requirements under Porter- Cologne. Policy No. 13 waives dredging project wastes up to 5,000 cubic yards with a § 401 certification; however, this waiver is of limited use for flood channel maintenance projects which regularly exceed 5,000 cubic yards of material, and for situations that do not require § 401 certification. EDAW will discuss with the RWQCB whether they would move to harmonize the waiver policy with the CEQA exemptions that most closely apply to flood control channel maintenance: Existing Facilities Maintenance § 15301(b); Maintenance of Existing Native Growth § 15301(h); Maintenance of Stream Channels § 15301(i); and Minor Alterations to Land § 15304. 2.2 Programmatic Permit Processes EDAW will organize and prepare an agency-specific description of the process for obtaining environmental permits for channel maintenance activities. The description of the process will include a list of the information or activities that each jurisdiction should anticipate needing to assemble or conduct to provide the regulatory agencies with the information they will need to formally review and process city-specific regional programmatic permits. The list will be developed through discussions with the resource agencies and is anticipated to include: • Summary of the watersheds, water courses, and 303(d) waters within the jurisdiction • Jurisdiction-wide maps (organized by watershed) indicating where channel maintenance is conducted (e.g., culverts, drainages, bridges) • Description and list of BMPs and other measures to avoid/reduce impacts • Regional vegetation mapping • Site-specific information regarding the frequency and nature (i.e., vegetation and/or sediment removal) of the maintenance activities • Tabular summary of probable or potential maintenance areas RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page 17 050S0211KCM-RGP Final WorkPlanJjtme2006.doc 6/8/2006 • Photo-documentation of all, or representative, sites where maintenance activities occur • Field assessment of sites that require more than an evaluation of the photographs by qualified biologists • Deferring wetland delineations to the pre-activity notification process • Known occurrences of federally and state-listed species • CEQA documentation • NEPA documentation • Approximation of impacts to sensitive habitats (wetlands and uplands), listed species, designated critical habitat, and select species covered under local and regional Habitat Management Plans • Mitigation and monitoring • Annual reporting requirements ED AW will request examples of the relevant programmatic permits that the resource agencies have issued to date (and others that they may require) from each agency. As applicable, this information will be compiled into appendix material to support RCM Workgroup member cities in developing then- respective programmatic permits. ED AW will prepare flow charts to summarize the process that coastal and non-coastal cities will need to pursue to obtain their programmatic permits. In addition, timelines typical for the work conducted prior to permit submittal, and formal timelines for the processing after permit packages are deemed complete by the agencies, will also be summarized. 3.0 MEETINGS Several meetings with the RCM Workgroup and the resource agencies (Corps, RWQCB, USFWS, CDFG, and CCC) will be held to discuss the permit application processes and packages that will be developed under this contract. Goals identified for these meetings are summarized below. 3.1 RCM Workgroup Meetings Per the contract, EDAW will attend four meetings with the RCM Workgroup. Agenda items and topics anticipated to be covered at each of these meetings are summarized below. Page 18 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211RCM-RGP Final Work Planjjiaie2006.doc 6/8/2006 RCM Workgroup Meeting #1 • ED AW to present and discuss the Work Plan for project completion. • EDAW to comment on materials RCM Workgroup members have provided to date (e.g., descriptions of routine channel maintenance activities; frequency of the activities and equipment used; RTR summaries) and request other materials that would assist us in our discussions with the agencies. • Discuss target dates for initial meetings with each regulatory agency and attendees. • Discuss introductory letter that the RCM Workgroup chair and vice-chair will prepare to be sent to the agencies to formally remind them of the plan to obtain programmatic approvals, and that EDAW will be contacting them on the behalf of the RCM Workgroup. • Schedule for completion of the work contracted. • Schedule the second meeting with the RCM Workgroup. RCM Workgroup Meeting #2 • Present summary of the initial individual meetings with the regulatory agencies. • Present a summary of the components of the permit packages that the agencies agree can be standardized for the RCM Workgroup members. • Based on initial agency input, review goals of the permits and packages to be prepared. • Review timeline for submittal of the draft packages and processes, review by the Contract Management Subcommittee, revisions by EDAW, submittal to regulatory agencies, and revisions per agency comments. • Discuss target date for the joint meeting with the regulatory agencies. RCM Workgroup Meeting #3 The bulk of the work under the contract will take place between the second and third meetings with the RCM Workgroup. Specifically, EDAW will have prepared and distributed the draft application processes and packages to each agency for their review and comment, met jointly with the agencies, and then submitted revised packages to each agency for their final review. The white paper (see Section 4) will have also been prepared. Topics for discussion at the third meeting will include the following. RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page 19 05080211KCM-RGP Final Work Plan_7jme2006.doc 6/8/20M • ED AW will present its findings of what materials and information is required from the regulatory agencies. The findings will be shown as a PowerPoint presentation and the draft final application processes and packages provided to each agency will be discussed. RCM Workgroup Meeting #4 Between the third and fourth meetings with the RCM Workgroup, EDAW will have met individually with each agency to obtain their final acceptance of the application processes and packages. EDAW will incorporate any final comments, prepare the final documents, and obtain final agency approval on the descriptions and permit templates. At the fourth meeting the following will be provided and discussed. • Two separate, final, regulatory agency-approved, application processes and packages, one for coastal jurisdictions and one for inland jurisdictions (one hard copy and one electronic copy on CD for each of the 14 cities participating under this contract). 3.2 Agency Meetings EDAW, together with representatives of the Contract Management Subcommittee, will meet with each of the regulatory agencies (Corps, RWQCB, CDFG, and CCC). Because the permitting process with each of these resource agencies varies somewhat, it is anticipated that each agency will be met with individually to begin with to discuss their permit process and required components of their permit packages. EDAW will develop draft agency-specific elements of the deliverables to be prepared under this contract after receiving input at these meetings. After the initial one-on-one meetings with each regulatory agency and preparation of the preliminary documents, EDAW will meet with all four agencies together to discuss the draft documents, common elements of their permits (e.g., standard maintenance BMPs, mitigation strategies, annual reporting), and methods to further streamline and maximize consistency among the permit processes. At this meeting, EDAW will encourage the agencies to coordinate their input to avoid conflicting comments on the draft application packages they were provided for review. EDAW will work with the agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts that could occur. Input received at this meeting will be incorporated into the final draft application processes and packages, which will then be distributed to the agencies for further review. One final meeting will be scheduled with each agency to discuss their comments on the final documents and request written concurrence and approval of the materials pertaining to their agency. Page 20 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211RCM-RGP Final Work Plan Jjme2006.doc 6/8/2006 4.0 WHITE PAPER AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATION i As each city will choose whether and how to use the agency-approved application processes and forms, it is essential that the city managers and city council/board members fully understand the rationale, related issues, and benefits of obtaining programmatic authorizations for channel maintenance activities. EDAW will prepare a white paper and PowerPoint presentation that describes the completed work, using limited technical jargon and suitable for briefing city managers and department heads, elected officials, and interested parties. EDAW proposes that members of the RCM Workgroup Contract Management Subcommittee and two or three representative municipal public affairs officers review the draft of each of these products, before finalization for publication and presentation. This white paper and PowerPoint presentation will include, but not be limited to the following: • The concept of RGPs and other programmatic authorizations • Authorities and responsibilities of the permitting agencies • Benefits and values of RGPs and other programmatic authorizations relative to standard agency approvals • Overview of the types of maintenance activities conducted by the cities to be covered by the programmatic authorizations • Applicable federal and state environmental legislation, and the history of the maintenance activities related to this legislation • Required permits and processes • Requirements and options for mitigation • Information required for the development of each permit • Decisions and authorized decision-makers • Flow charts • Activities that will not be covered under the programmatic authorizations • The larger context of interagency cooperation in managing regional watershed issues RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan Page 21 05030211RCM-KGP Final Work Plan_7jmt2006.doc 6/8/2006 5.0 SCHEDULE A timeline for the tasks that will be conducted under this contract is included as Figure 1. Starting with EDAW's Notice to Proceed in early March 2006, we anticipate completing the work described herein by January 2007. Page 22 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211RCM-RGP Final Work Planjflme2006.doc 6/8/2006 ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Project: Date: W Task Name D Notice to Proceed | NTP Meeting | Prepare Draft Work Plan RCM Subcommittee Group Review Revise Work Plan 1st RCM Workgroup Meeting Meet with Agencies Individually (4 separate mtgs) I 2nd Workgroup Meeting ! Prepare Draft Package/Process \ RCM Workgroup Review ! Submit Draft Package/Process to Agencies | Multiagency Meeting ! Prepare Final Draft Package/Process I RCM Workgroup reviews Package/Process I Submit Final Package/Process to Agencies Prepare White Paper+PPT 3rd RCM Workgroup Meeting i Meetiwith Agencies Individually I Templates/Descriptions Accepted by Agencies ! 4th Workgroup Meeting ! DraftSchedule Task *• y. '•• ed 6/7/06 FIGURE 1 Regional Channel Maintenance Workgroup RGP Project Schedule June 7, 2006 uration Start 0 days | Fri 3/1 0/06 1 day | Tue 4/4/06 10 days i Fri 4/28/06 10 days | Fri 5/1 2/06 7 days i Fri 5/26/06 1 day I Tue 6/6/06 21 days! Wed 6/21/06 1 day ! Tue 8/1/06 30 days Wed 8/2/06 15 days Wed 9/13/06 1 clay Tue 10/10/06 1day| Tue 10/1 7/06 10 days Wed i 0/1 8/06 5 days Wed 11/1/06 1day! Wed 11/8/06 15 days! Wed 10/18/06 1day! Wed 11/8/06 15 days] Thu 11/9/06 30 days Thu 11/30/06 1 day Thu 1/1 1/07 Milestone 4 Finish Fri 3/1 0/06 Tue 4/4/06 Thu 5/1 1/06 Thu 5/25/06 Mon 6/5/06 Tue 6/6/06 Wed 7/19706 Tue8/i/b6 Tue 9/1 2/06 Tuelb/37b6 tueib/ib/be Tue 10/17/06 tuelb/3l7b6 Tue 11/7/06 Wed 1 1/8/06 fue11/7/b6 Wed 11/8/06 Wed 11/29/06 Wed 1/1 0/07 Thu 1/11/07 2006 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul I Auq 1 Sec i Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 4 3/10 { j h I ^ • i This page intentionally left blank. Page 24 RCM Workgroup, RGP Package and Process, Final Work Plan 05080211RCM-RGP Final WorkPtan_7jme2006.doc 6/8/2006 APPENDIX A REGIONAL CHANNEL MAINTENANCE WORKGROUP MEMBERS AND CONTACT INFORMATION Appendix A Regional Channel Maintenance Workgroup Members and Contact Information Jurisdiction Carlsbad Chula Vista Chula Vista Chula Vista County County County Encinitas Encinitas :« Escondido Escondido Escondido Escondido La Mesa La Mesa Lemon Grove National City National City National City National City National City Oceanside Oceanside Oceanside Poway Poway Poway Poway Poway San Diego - r San Marcos^ Saniee " Solana Beach Vista "v "*• Vista Name David Hauser* Khosro Aminpour Dave McRoberts Erik Steenblock Julia Quinn Tom Duffy Nelson Olivas Kathy Weldon Andy Bullington Cheryl Filar* Rob Miller Patrick Thomas Barb Redlitz Malik Tamimi Hamed Hashemian Cora Long; :; Arsalan Dadkhah John Quenzer Din Daneshfar Joe Smith Jeff Servatius Karen Brown MarkSabelis Mo Lahsaie Jim Howell Kevin Quinn Robin Miller* Danis Bechter Pat Ryan* Jeannette DeAngelis* Ken.StClair- Lee Miller Danny King J Chris Dzwigalskl Larry Pierce Email dhaus@ci.carlsbad.ca.us r ~ kaminpour@ci.chula-vista.ca.us ; dmcroberts@ci.chula-vista.ca.us esteenblock@ci . chula-vista. ca.us julia.quinn@sdcounty.ca.gov thomas.duffy@sdcounty.ca.gov nelson.olivas@sdcounty.ca.gov kweldon@ci . encinitas . ca.us abulling@ci.encinitas.ca.us <. .-„ cfilar@ci.escondido.ca,us r2miller@ci . escondido .ca.us pthomas@ci.escondido.ca.us bredlitz@ci.escondido.ca.us mtamimi@ci,la-mesa.ca.us : hhashemian@ci.la-mesa.ca.us cschexn@ci.lemori-grove.ca,us - arsalan@dmaxinc . com j quenzer@dmaxinc . com ddaneshfar@ci.national-city .ca.us jsmith@ci.national-city.ca.us j servatius@ci .national-city .ca.us kfbrown@ci . oceanside. ca.us rnsabelis@ci.oceanside.ca.us mlahsaie@ci.oceanside.ca.us jhowell@ci .po way .ca.us kquinn@ci.poway.ca.us rmiller@ci .poway. ca.us dbechter@ci.poway.ca.us pryan@ci.poway,ca.us *: ; JDeAngelis@sahdiego,gov r kstclair@cLsan-marcos.ca.iis ' •* hniller@ci.santee.ca.us dking@cosb.oTg cdzwigalski@jci.vista.ca.us - lpierce@ci.vista.ca.us Phone Number 760.602,2739 619.397.6111 --"•' 619.397.6009 619.397.6134 858.874.4054 858.874.4039 760.633.2632 760.633:2873 760.839.6315 760.839.4363 760.839.4304 760.839.4546 619.667.1340 619.667.1153 619.825.3830x3925 858.455.9988 x22 619.336.4387" 619.336.4587 619.336.4586 760.435.5005 r760.435.5260 858.668.4706 858.668.4711 858.668.4707 858.668.4630 858.668.4717 . . 619.52739431. ,760,752.7550x3307 619.258.4100x186 858^.720.2477 -' 760.726.1340x1630 "Contract Management Subcommittee member 1 Highlighted names are the main RCM Workgroup contacts for the jurisdiction.