wetlands - USACE vs CDFW juridiction

wetlands - USACE vs CDFW juridiction

Postby zabee » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:03 pm

Hi all,
I am hoping someone can help me differentiate between what falls under USACE jurisdiction vs CDFW jurisdiction for wetlands projects particularly in terms of what bodies of water fall under each jurisdiction?

USACE jurisdiction covers "waters of the US"
- streams
- wetlands in/next to streams
- tidal areas
- navigable waters/lakes/reservoirs
- up to Ordinary High Water Mark & to landward limits of wetlands - in non-tidal waters

CDFW jurisdiction covers activities altering flow/bed/banks/channel/riparian areas of "waters of the State"
- rivers/streams/lakes

I am assuming that USACE & CDFW jurisdiction would NOT overlap b/c a body of water would be classified as either US or State water, not both. (Although CDFW might have jurisdiction over a USACE project that also involves a State endangered species - I think - but I'm just talking about water bodies here.)

I get that anything along the coast (influenced by tides) - ex: Monterey Bay - falls under USACE. But what's the difference btwn US streams & State streams? Or US navigable waters/lakes vs State waters/lakes? Is it correct to assume that US waters are "navigable" but State waters are not?

I have not been able to find a good definition of "navigable" - does it mean water bodies that can be navigated by boats or for recreation - as in they are of a certain size to accommodate water vehicles? or does it mean water bodies where vehicles/people are allowed are considered navigable (Sacramento River, San Francisco Bay, Lake Tahoe) vs those where vehicles/people are not allowed would be considered non-navigable (Crystal Springs Reservoir - used for drinking water; Alameda Creek - used for watershed drainage to Bay) Sorry some of these are Bay Area examples, so may not be familiar to all...

Examples usually help me understand better, so if someone can provide any additional examples to clarify (or correct me), I'd really appreciate it!
thanks,
zabee
zabee
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:08 am

Re: wetlands - USACE vs CDFW juridiction

Postby zabee » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:41 pm

Ok, in reviewing the Ventura Co Wetlands Permitting Guide, I am seeing a lot of examples where USACE & CDFW jurisdictions DO overlap... If the exam is like the VCWPG and the question states info like whose jurisdiction the water body is under, than the above post is moot. But I seem to remember some flashcards NOT indicating jurisdiction and I had to guess who is responsible for work in/near a particular body of water... in which case help with the above is appreciated...
zabee
zabee
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:08 am

Re: wetlands - USACE vs CDFW juridiction

Postby usa4 » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:55 am

If there's any endangered species (flora or fauna)- the CDFW will be involved!
CDFW also provides biological expertise for CEQA docs.
Look for other key words that might indicate CDFW involvement- Lake and Stream bed Alteration Program, Tiberland Conservation Program & Marine Life Protection Act (this covers Marine Protected Areas along the coast.)
Most times- more than 1 state and federal agency is involved when working with a wetland that can include: CDFW, CAL- EPA, State Water Resource Control Board, CAL Coastal Commotion, US Fish and Wildlife, USACE, EPA & Coast Guard.
usa4
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:12 pm


Return to CALIFORNIA SUPPLEMENTAL EXAM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron