Tier I - Long Range Planning Division - Santa Barbara County ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Compliance Manual Santa Barbara County Permit Coordination Program Agency Mandates That Can Affect One Conservation Project Regulatory Mandate Agency Involved Section 404 Clean Water Act Federal Endangered Species Act 2 Environmental Protection Agency Army Corps of Engineers United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service National Historic Preservation Act State Historic Preservation Office National Environmental Policy Act Federal Agencies Section 401 Clean Water Act Regional Water Quality Control Board Porter Cologne Act California Coastal Act California Coastal Commission Coastal Zone Management Act Fish and Game Code Section 1602 California Department of Fish and Game California Endangered Species Act California Environmental Quality Act State and local agencies Erosion and Grading Ordinances, County government Development Standards, Environmental Protection Ordinances, and Local Coastal Plans The results of the conservation projects implemented under the Elkhorn program were dramatic. Between 1998 and 2006, 50 projects were completed, 50% more than was originally projected. More than 60,000 tons of sediment were prevented from entering the Elkhorn Slough, its tributaries, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and more than two miles of stream bank and channel were restored or revegetated. In addition, the program brought NRCS into cooperation with many farmers who had not previously expressed interest in on-farm conservation. The results originally anticipated – more conservation projects, a broader range of projects, and better quality projects – were met and exceeded. 1.2.2 Evolution of Permit Coordination Following the success of the Elkhorn project, similar permit coordination programs have now been established in other areas along California's coast, including the Morro Bay watershed, Santa Cruz County, Humboldt County, Alameda County, Marin County, the Salinas River watershed, the Navarro River watershed, and the upper Pajaro River watershed. The most recent programs established are for Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County. While all these programs followed the same original blueprint, they all have turned out differently. The best outcome for any program is to end up with a complete set of programmatic permits from all the regulatory agencies that affect a project. In reality, this outcome is a rarity: most of the programs have had difficulties obtaining one or more permits from regulatory agencies. Reasons for inconsistencies among programs are not well understood, but seem to be related to individual staff preferences rather than a given agency‟s policy. Support from local county government is especially important because it also reflects support from the Coastal Commission. Most coastal counties have adopted Local Coastal Programs for projects implemented in the coastal zone in order to comply with the Coastal Act, but the Coastal Commission generally defers to
Compliance Manual Santa Barbara County Permit Coordination Program county recommendations. If a county is supportive of a proposal, the Coastal Commission is also generally favorable (and vice versa). 1.3 The Santa Barbara County Permit Coordination Program The Santa Barbara County Program followed the lead of the programs developed previously in different California counties, as mentioned above. This has resulted in an easier process in some respects, as the Program has benefited from the experience and lessons of past efforts. In other respects, it has been more difficult as, over time, the approach to permit coordination has changed fundamentally for some regulatory agencies as well as for NRCS itself. The Santa Barbara County Program is unique in several ways: Due to a different approach from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for assessing project impacts, this is the first time the “tiered” approach was required. The tiered approach (see Section 3 for details) resulted in the “Tiered Impacts Decision Tool” which allows placement of a project in one of four Tiers based on the level of project impacts. It remains to be seen if this approach will benefit on-the-ground project implementation. This is the first time the Corps of Engineers did not participate in Program development and did not issue a programmatic permit (also true for the San Luis Obispo Program). This could result in significant time delays because individual projects that require a Corps permit will need to undergo the typical project review process. NRCS (at the national level) decided to change its position on what constitutes a “federal nexus.” A federal nexus is required in order to consult with agencies that have jurisdiction over listed species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This would include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). For past permit coordination programs, NRCS was the federal lead agency for listed species consultations for projects that were funded, approved, or carried out by NRCS. This allowed RCD projects, not receiving N RCS funding, to be covered under the federal Section 7 consultation process for listed species. With the recent policy changes, NRCS can only be the lead federal agency for projects that receive federal funding. Therefore, the resulting permits will not cover RCD projects. This situation will likely result in project delays for RCD projects where listed species could be impacted. This is the first time support from a County has been lacking. Despite lengthy negotiations and assurances, the County failed to issue a programmatic permit. This will most likely affect projects implemented in the coastal zone, where Coastal Commission approval will also be required for some projects. This is the first time that the installation of “new ponds” has been approved as one of the conservation practices. Implementation of this practice could assist in the recovery of the endangered California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County. 1.4 Regulatory Agencies and Programmatic Permits Issued 3
Page 1 and 2: DATE: July 5, 2012 TO: GavPAC Membe
Page 3 and 4: 4. Agricultural Permit Streamlining
Page 5 and 6: Parcel Size Maximum RSU (Square Fee
Page 7 and 8: 1 Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory C
Page 9 and 10: GavPAC Meeting #52- DRAFT Meeting M
Page 11 and 12: GavPAC Meeting #52- DRAFT Meeting M
Page 13 and 14: I. Statement of Purpose & Intent 2
Page 15 and 16: II. Updated PRT Map 4
Page 17 and 18: III. Siting Principles & Criteria 6
Page 19 and 20: Coastal Trail Specific Siting Princ
Page 21 and 22: IV. Specific Criteria & Narrative f
Page 23 and 24: Deliberation: Feeney expressed agre
Page 25 and 26: Arroyo Hondo to San Onofre ACTION:
Page 27 and 28: ACTION: Motion by McKenna to refer
Page 29 and 30: Public Recreation Gaviota Coast Pla
Page 31 and 32: ACTION: Motion by Bowman, seconded
Page 33 and 34: [Note: GavPAC direction to remove r
Page 35 and 36: VI. Incentives 24
Page 37 and 38: Voluntary Actions on Agricultural L
Page 39 and 40: GavPAC Meeting #53 DRAFT Meeting Mi
Page 45 and 46: PROCEDURES FOR COMPLYING WITH MULTI
Page 47 and 48: Compliance Manual Santa Barbara Cou
Page 49: Compliance Manual Santa Barbara Cou
Page 57 and 58: Practice Name (FOTG #) Compliance M
Page 59 and 60: 4. Grassed Waterw ay (412) Complian
Page 61 and 62: 7. Ponds (378) Compliance Manual Sa
Page 101 and 102:
Compliance Manual Santa Barbara Cou
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Gaviota Coast Plan - Draft GavPAC P
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Draft - Scalability Proposed Permit
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
show all

Tier I - Long Range Planning Division - Santa Barbara County ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?