marin county local coastal program update - County Home
marin county local coastal program update - County Home
marin county local coastal program update - County Home
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MARIN COUNTY<br />
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UPDATE<br />
Biological and Wetland Protection<br />
Technical Background Report<br />
Project Manager: Michele Rodriguez, AICP, Principal Planner<br />
Alex Hinds, Planning Director<br />
Dan Dawson, Senior Planner, AICP<br />
Kristin Drumm, Planner<br />
Larisa Roznowski, Planning Aide<br />
Sophina Sadeek, Clerical Support<br />
Sharon Silver, Clerical Support<br />
Special Consultant: Environmental Collaborative Nichols • Berman<br />
1268 64 th Street 110 East D Street, Suite E<br />
Emeryville, CA 94608 Benicia, CA 94510<br />
June 2003<br />
The Marin <strong>County</strong> Community Development Agency, Planning Division<br />
3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND .........................................................................1<br />
A. PURPOSE....................................................................................................1<br />
B. BACKGROUND AND METHODS ...........................................................1<br />
II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK............................................................................2<br />
A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ....................................................................3<br />
1. Federal Authority.............................................................................4<br />
2. State Authority.................................................................................4<br />
B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ................................................6<br />
1. Federal and State Authority .............................................................7<br />
C. WETLANDS................................................................................................7<br />
1. Federal Authority.............................................................................8<br />
2. State Authority.................................................................................8<br />
D. HABITAT CONNECTIVITY .....................................................................9<br />
1. Federal and State Authority ...........................................................10<br />
III. MAPPING SUMMARY........................................................................................10<br />
IV. LOCAL COASTAL ZONE SETTING..................................................................12<br />
A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ..................................................................13<br />
B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ..............................................21<br />
C. WETLANDS..............................................................................................21<br />
V. MARIN COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM POLICY REVIEW ..........22<br />
A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ..................................................................46<br />
B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ..............................................46<br />
C. WETLANDS..............................................................................................47<br />
D. WILDLIFE HABITAT AND CONNECTIVITY......................................47<br />
E. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................47<br />
F. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION........................................................48<br />
G. MITIGATION ISSUES .............................................................................48<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page i
VI. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES, TRENDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES................49<br />
VII REFERENCES.....................................................................................................50<br />
A. PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORT PREPARTION.......................50<br />
B. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ..............................50<br />
C. BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................50<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
1. Special-Status Species Known from Coastal Zone of Marin <strong>County</strong> ........................ 14<br />
2. Evaluation of Existing Local Coastal Program Biological and Wetlands<br />
Resources Policies and Programs.......................................................................... 23<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page ii
A. PURPOSE<br />
I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND<br />
This Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report provides a description<br />
of the regulatory framework related to sensitive biological and wetland resources, a general<br />
description of resources within the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, and a review of the current policies of the<br />
existing Local Coastal Program (LCP). Its purpose is to provide background information on<br />
sensitive resource within the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, regulations and <strong>program</strong>s which provide for their<br />
protection, an evaluation of the degree to which the current LCP addresses these resources,<br />
and areas of necessary focus in updating the LCP to ensure greater protection and<br />
sustainability of the natural environment.<br />
B. BACKGROUND AND METHODS<br />
The Marin <strong>County</strong> Local Coastal Program, Unit 1 (1979) and Unit 2 (1980) provides<br />
background information and policies on biological and wetland resources in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone.<br />
Background information and specific policies in the LCP, Unit 1 focuses on stream<br />
protection, Bolinas Lagoon protection, dune and sandy beach protection, and habitat<br />
protection, along with a limited discussion of agriculture. In the LCP, Unit 2, adopted over a<br />
year later, agriculture is addressed as a separate subsection from natural resources under the<br />
more general section of Resource Protection. Background information in the LCP, Unit 2<br />
includes the <strong>marin</strong>e environment of Tomales Bay, water quality of Tomales Bay, streams<br />
and riparian habitats, wetlands, and <strong>coastal</strong> dunes and other sensitive land habitats, together<br />
with LCP policies on natural resources.<br />
This Technical Report was based on the review of available information, existing mapping,<br />
and consultation with representatives of agencies with resource management authority.<br />
Available literature and resource mapping reviewed included:<br />
• policies and <strong>program</strong>s from the current LCP;<br />
• the Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan Update (Wetlands Research et al, 1996);<br />
• the preliminary environmental assessment and restoration alternatives for Big<br />
Lagoon (Philip Williams & Associates, 1996);<br />
• the Mount Tamalpais Area Vegetation Management Plan of the Marin Municipal<br />
Water District and Marin <strong>County</strong> Open Space District (Leonard Charles &<br />
Associates, 1995);<br />
• the General Management Plan for Point Reyes National Seashore (National Park<br />
Service, 1980);<br />
• the final report on <strong>County</strong> land use policies and management practices on<br />
anadromous salmonids and their habitats (Harris et. al, 2001);<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 1
• the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered<br />
Vascular Plants (2001);<br />
• mapping prepared as part of the California Land Cover Mapping and Monitoring<br />
referred to as the CalVeg <strong>program</strong> (USDA Forest Service, 2000);<br />
• mapping prepared as part of the National Wetland Inventory (U.S. Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service, various dates); and<br />
• the occurrence records of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).<br />
The National Wetland Inventory (NWS) wetlands mapping and occurrence records of the<br />
CNDDB are maintained in Geographic Information System (GIS) of the Marin <strong>County</strong><br />
Community Development Agency (CDA). The occurrence records of the CNDDB provided<br />
information on the known distribution of sensitive natural communities and special-status<br />
species for the <strong>coastal</strong> zone of Marin <strong>County</strong>, which was combined with other available<br />
records. The NWI provided a general mapping of wetland resources for the <strong>coastal</strong> zone of<br />
Marin <strong>County</strong>, which has been combined with the <strong>County</strong>’s mapping of perennial and<br />
intermittent streams. Identification of the biological and wetland resources in the <strong>coastal</strong><br />
zone of the <strong>county</strong> was based on existing information, and no detailed field surveys were<br />
conducted as part of this assessment.<br />
II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK<br />
Local, State, and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and<br />
management of sensitive biological and wetland resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service (USFWS) is responsible for implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act<br />
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has<br />
primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under §404 of the Clean Water Act. The<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has federal authority over anadromous fish and<br />
<strong>marin</strong>e wildlife under the federal Endangered Species Act. At the State level, the California<br />
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is responsible for administration of the California<br />
Endangered Species Act, and for protection of streams and waterbodies through the<br />
Streambed Alteration Agreement process under §1601-1606 of the California Fish and<br />
Game Code. Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board is also<br />
required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to<br />
§401 of the Clean Water Act and EPA §404(b)(1) Guidelines.<br />
Local regulations addressing sensitive biological and wetland resources include policies<br />
from the Marin <strong>County</strong>wide Plan, which is currently being <strong>update</strong>d, and the natural resource<br />
policies from the current LCP, Unit 1 and Unit 2. The LCP was prepared pursuant to the<br />
Coastal Act of 1976, which required all <strong>coastal</strong> jurisdictions to prepare a Local Coastal<br />
Program. The protection of natural resources in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone is a major emphasis of the<br />
Coastal Act. A detailed review of the adequacy of the current LCP for Marin <strong>County</strong> is<br />
provide in Chapter V of this Background Report.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 2
A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES<br />
Special-status species 1 are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State<br />
and/or federal Endangered Species Acts 2 or other regulations, as well as other species that<br />
are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant<br />
special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting<br />
or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Species with legal<br />
protection under the federal and California Endangered Species Acts often represent major<br />
constraints to development, particularly when they are wide ranging or highly sensitive to<br />
habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a "take" of these<br />
species. "Take" as defined by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) means "to harass,<br />
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, would, kill, trap, capture, or collect" a threatened or endangered<br />
species. "Harm" is further defined by the USFWS to include the killing or harming of<br />
wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e. breeding, feeding, or<br />
sheltering) through significant habitat modifications or degradation. The CDFG also<br />
considers the loss of listed species habitat as "take", although this policy lacks statutory<br />
authority and case law support under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).<br />
The primary information source on the distribution of special-status species in California is<br />
the CNDDB inventory, which is maintained by the Natural Heritage Division of the CDFG.<br />
Occurrence data is obtained from a variety of scientific, academic, and professional<br />
organizations, private consulting firms, and knowledgeable individuals, and entered into the<br />
inventory as expeditiously as possible. The occurrence of a species of concern in a particular<br />
region is an indication that an additional population may occur at another location if habitat<br />
conditions are suitable. However, the absence of an occurrence in a particular location does<br />
not necessarily mean that special-status species are absent from the area in question; only<br />
that no data has been entered into the CNDDB inventory. Detailed field surveys are<br />
generally required to provide a conclusive determination on presence or absence of sensitive<br />
resources from a particular location, where there is evidence of potential occurrence.<br />
1 Special-status species include:<br />
Officially designated (rare, threatened, or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the CDFG.<br />
Officially designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the USFWS or NMFS.<br />
Species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, such as those<br />
identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California by the CNPS (2001).<br />
And possibly other species which are considered sensitive or of special concern due to limited distribution or lack of adequate<br />
information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on list 3 in the CNPS Inventory or<br />
identified as animal “California Special Concern" species by the CDFG. California Special Concern species have no legal<br />
protective status under the California Endangered Species Act but are of concern to the CDFG because of severe decline in<br />
breeding populations.<br />
2 The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 declares that all federal departments and agencies shall utilize their<br />
authority to conserve endangered and threatened plant and animal taxa. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of<br />
1984 parallels the policies of ESA and pertains to native California taxa.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 3
1. Federal Authority<br />
The USFWS and NMFS have jurisdiction over species that are formally listed as threatened<br />
or endangered under the federal ESA. An "endangered" plant or animal species is one that is<br />
considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range.<br />
A "threatened" species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable<br />
future. The USFWS also maintains a list of species proposed for listing as endangered or<br />
threatened that have been published in the Federal Register. In addition, the USFWS<br />
maintains a list of candidate species for which sufficient information is available to support<br />
issuance of a proposed listing rule.<br />
Any activity that could result in take of a federally-listed species requires a §10 take permit<br />
authorization from the USFWS or NMFS. Should another federal agency be involved with<br />
permitting the project, such as the Corps under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, §7 of the<br />
ESA requires the federal lead agency to consult with the USFWS and/or NMFS before<br />
permitting any activity that may result in take of a listed species. Section 9 of the ESA and<br />
its applicable regulations restrict certain activities with respect to endangered and threatened<br />
plants. However, these restrictions are less stringent than those applicable to fish and<br />
wildlife species. The provisions prohibit the removal of, malicious damage to, or destruction<br />
of any listed plant species from areas under federal jurisdiction. Listed plants may not be<br />
cut, dug up, damaged or destroyed, or removed from any other area (including private lands)<br />
in knowing violation of a state law or regulation.<br />
In addition to the protection offered under the ESA, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act<br />
(MBTA) provides for protection of migratory bird species, birds in danger of extinction, and<br />
their active nests. It is illegal to posses or take any bird protected under the act without a<br />
depredation permit from the USFWS, which includes protection of eggs, young, and nests in<br />
active use. Although the MBTA technically provides for protection of most bird species, it<br />
is typically applied as a mechanism to protect active nests of raptors and colonial nesting<br />
species through the breeding and nesting season.<br />
2. State Authority<br />
The CDFG has jurisdiction over threatened or endangered species that are formally listed<br />
under the CESA. The CESA is similar to the federal ESA both in process and substance,<br />
providing additional protection to listed species in California. The CESA does not supersede<br />
the federal ESA, but operates in conjunction, with some species having different listing<br />
status. The CESA is intended to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance listed species and<br />
their habitat. Compliance with the CESA is required when a take is considered likely by the<br />
CDFG.<br />
The CDFG maintains informal lists of "California Special Concern" (CSC) species. These<br />
CSC species are broadly defined as plants and animals that are of concern to the CDFG<br />
because of population declines and restricted distribution, and/or because they are associated<br />
with habitats that are declining in California. These species are inventoried in the CNDDB,<br />
focusing on nesting, roosting, and congregation sites for non-listed species. Species<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 4
designated as "Fully Protected" or "Protected" may not be taken or possessed without a<br />
permit.<br />
The CESA prohibits the take of any plant listed as endangered, threatened, or rare. A "rare"<br />
plant species is one not presently threatened with extinction but may become endangered if<br />
its present environment worsens. State listing of plants began in 1977 with passage of the<br />
Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA). The CESA expanded upon the NPPA and enhanced<br />
legal protection for plants. To align with federal regulations, CESA created the categories of<br />
threatened and endangered species. It grandfathered all rare animals into the CESA as<br />
threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants.<br />
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit conservation organization<br />
dedicated to the preservation of native flora in California. The CNPS has been involved in<br />
assembling, evaluating, and distributing information on special-status plant species in the<br />
state, as listed in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS, 2001).<br />
A list 1A plant is a species, subspecies, or variety that is considered to be extinct. A list 1B<br />
plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. A list 2<br />
plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California but is more common<br />
elsewhere. A list 3 plant is a species for which the CNPS lacks necessary information to<br />
determine whether or not it should be assigned to a list. A list 4 plant has a limited<br />
distribution in California and is considered a "watch list" by the CNPS.<br />
All of the plant species on List 1 and List 2 meet the requirements of the NPPA (§1901,<br />
Chapter 10) or §2062 and 2067 of CESA, and are eligible for state listing. Species<br />
maintained by CNPS on Lists 1 and 2 should be considered special-status species under the<br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some List 3 plant species also meet the<br />
requirements for state listing. Very few List 4 plants are eligible for listing but may be<br />
<strong>local</strong>ly important and their listing status could be elevated if conditions change.<br />
The CEQA requires government agencies to consider environmental impacts of projects and<br />
to avoid or mitigate them where possible. Under §15380, CEQA provides protection for<br />
both State-listed species and for any other species that can be shown to meet the criteria for<br />
State listing. The CDFG recognizes that Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS Inventory consist<br />
of plants that, in a majority of cases, would qualify for listing and these species should be<br />
addressed under CEQA review. In addition, the CDFG recommends, and <strong>local</strong> governments<br />
may require, protection of species that are regionally significant, such as <strong>local</strong>ly rare species,<br />
disjunct populations, essential nesting and roosting habitat for more common species, or<br />
plants on the CNPS Lists 3 and 4.<br />
The Coastal Act also provides for protection of essential habitat for special-status species<br />
and other sensitive habitat. Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines “environmentally<br />
sensitive area” (ESHA) to mean any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are<br />
either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and<br />
which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activity and development. As<br />
defined in §30240 of the Coastal Act, ESHAs are to be protected against any significant<br />
disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources are to be allowed<br />
within those areas. Development adjacent to ESHAs and open space lands are to be sited<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 5
and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and are to be<br />
compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. The California<br />
Coastal Commission generally interprets this section to mean that even with mitigation, a<br />
non-resource-dependent use can not be permitted in an ESHA. The Coastal Act requires a<br />
specific finding in conjunction with each <strong>coastal</strong> permit approval that it is consistent with the<br />
policies of the LCP, providing added protection for an ESHA and the resources associated<br />
with the area. In the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, essentially every approval is discretionary unless it is<br />
exempt from a <strong>coastal</strong> permit altogether or is categorically excluded under the categorical<br />
exclusion order adopted by the Coastal Commission.<br />
B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES<br />
In addition to species-oriented management, protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is<br />
increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the state. This is<br />
considered the most effective means of providing long-term protection of ecologically viable<br />
habitat, and can include whole watersheds, ecosystems, and sensitive natural communities.<br />
Providing habitat connectivity between natural areas is essential to sustaining healthy<br />
wildlife populations and allowing for the continued dispersal of native plant and animal<br />
species.<br />
The CNDDB is also responsible for maintaining up-to-date records of sensitive natural<br />
communities, those considered rare or threatened in the state. Until recently, the<br />
classification of natural communities used by the CNDDB was generally a habitat-based<br />
approach defined by dominant or characteristic plant species as described in the Preliminary<br />
descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California (Holland, 1986). The<br />
classification of natural communities now used by the CNDDB is based on the system<br />
described in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). It is a<br />
floristically based system that uses two units of classification, called the alliance and the<br />
association in the National Vegetation Classification (Grossman et al, 1998). Although it is<br />
just now beginning to be used on a broad scale, this quantitative vegetation classification and<br />
systematic mapping methods will allow conservationists and resource managers a greater<br />
understanding of natural ecosystems, their abundance, and their relative security. This new<br />
system is now used by the CDFG, CNPS, State Parks, National Park Service, U.S. Geologic<br />
Survey, and some <strong>local</strong> agencies, and has been or is currently being used to map the Golden<br />
Gate National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National Seashore, Suisun Marsh, Yosemite,<br />
Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks, and Napa <strong>County</strong>.<br />
The purpose of the CNDD natural community inventory was originally to identify and<br />
determine the significance and rarity of the various vegetation types in the state. While<br />
identifying and mapping sensitive natural communities continues to be a primary focus of<br />
the inventory, a more thorough understanding of all natural communities is essential to<br />
accurately define rarity, identify monitoring trends and threats, and broaden the approach to<br />
ecosystem-level conservation of biological diversity. This will presumably lead to mapping<br />
of vegetation throughout the state using the newer classification system. In the interim,<br />
sensitive natural community types recorded in the CNDDB are still generally mapped<br />
according to the older Holland classification system. Considerable work is necessary in<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 6
updating and refining existing mapping records, identifying new occurrences of sensitive<br />
natural communities, and expanding the data base to include the identification of highquality<br />
stands of all natural communities. In Marin <strong>County</strong>, much of the <strong>coastal</strong> zone has<br />
already been mapped using this newer classification system because of the joint efforts of the<br />
GGNRA, Point Reyes National Seashore, and the State Parks.<br />
1. Federal and State Authority<br />
Although these natural communities have no legal protective status under the state or federal<br />
Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protection under CEQA. The<br />
CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist), identify potential impacts on a<br />
sensitive natural community as one of six significance criteria. As an example, a<br />
discretionary project that has a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, native<br />
grassland, dune or bluff scrub, or other sensitive natural community would normally be<br />
considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural<br />
community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its<br />
relative abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the<br />
specific community type. Where determined to be a significant impact under CEQA, the<br />
potential impact would require mitigation through avoidance, minimization of disturbance or<br />
loss, or some type of compensatory mitigation when unavoidable.<br />
Locations supporting sensitive natural communities in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone could be interpreted<br />
as ESHAs under the Coastal Act, providing added protection for these resources. As<br />
discussed under special-status species, the definition of “environmentally sensitive area” in<br />
the Coastal Act is broad enough to encompass well preserved occurrences of sensitive<br />
natural communities in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, such as native grasslands, riparian, and dune or<br />
bluff scrub. Where designated as ESHAs, these occurrences are to be protected against any<br />
significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on these resources are to be<br />
allowed.<br />
C. WETLANDS<br />
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that<br />
are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support<br />
vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on<br />
a regional and national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as<br />
storage areas for storm and floodwaters, and water recharge, filtration, and purification<br />
functions. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by the Corps<br />
and the USFWS, which generally define wetlands through consideration of three criteria:<br />
hydrology, soils, and vegetation.<br />
In recognition of the importance of wetlands, in 1977 the USFWS began a systematic effort<br />
to classify and map remaining wetlands in the country, now known as the National Wetlands<br />
Inventory Program (NWI). Using the USGS topographic maps as a base, the wetlands<br />
mapping effort provides a generalized inventory of wetlands according to the Classification<br />
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (USFWS, 1979) used by the<br />
USFWS. Mapping under the NWI has been prepared through interpretation of aerial<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 7
photographs, with only limited ground confirmation, which means that a more thorough<br />
ground and historical analysis may result in a revision to wetland boundaries in a specific<br />
location. The inventory is not an attempt to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of<br />
any governmental agency.<br />
1. Federal Authority<br />
The Clean Water Act was enacted to address water pollution, establishing regulations and<br />
permitting requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm water, dredge and<br />
fill material operations, and water quality standards. This regulatory <strong>program</strong> requires that<br />
discharges to surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge<br />
Elimination System permitting requirements that apply to sources of water runoff, private<br />
developments, and public facilities.<br />
Under §404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps is responsible for regulating the discharge of<br />
fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters" includes wetlands and nonwetland<br />
bodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Code of Federal<br />
Regulations. All three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be<br />
identified as a wetland under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human<br />
activity. In general, a permit must be obtained before fill can be placed in wetlands or other<br />
waters of the U.S. The type of permit depends on the amount of acreage and the purpose of<br />
the proposed fill, subject to discretion of the Corps.<br />
Certain activities in wetlands or "other waters" are automatically authorized, or granted a<br />
nationwide permit which allows filling where impacts are considered minor. Eligibility for a<br />
nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationwide permits cover<br />
construction and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activities such as minor<br />
road crossings, utility line crossings, streambank protection, recreational facilities and outfall<br />
structures. To qualify for a nationwide permit, a project must demonstrate that it has no<br />
more than a minimal adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, including species listed under<br />
the ESA. This typically means that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage or<br />
habitat value, resulting in appropriate mitigation where fill activities are proposed.<br />
The Corps assumes discretionary approval over proposed projects where impacts are<br />
considered significant, requiring adequate mitigation and permit approval. To provide<br />
compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's §404(b)(1) Guidelines, an applicant<br />
must demonstrate that the proposed discharge is unavoidable and is the least environmentally<br />
damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the overall project purpose. The 1990<br />
Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the Determination of<br />
Mitigation under the Guidelines prioritizes mitigation, with the first priority to avoid<br />
impacts, the second to minimize impacts, and the third to provide compensatory mitigation<br />
for unavoidable impacts.<br />
2. State Authority<br />
Jurisdictional authority of the CDFG over wetland areas is established under §1601-1606 of<br />
the Fish and Game Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 8
or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The Fish and Game Code<br />
stipulates that it is "unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or<br />
substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake" without notifying<br />
the CDFG, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration<br />
agreement. The Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFG states that the Fish and Game<br />
Commission will "strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands...unless, at<br />
a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat<br />
values or acreage". The Department is also responsible for commenting on projects<br />
requiring Corps permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958.<br />
In addition, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for<br />
upholding state water quality standards. Pursuant to §401 of the Clean Water Act, projects<br />
that apply for a Corps permit for discharge of dredge or fill material, and projects that qualify<br />
for a Nationwide Permit must obtain water quality certification.<br />
The Coastal Act and associated regulations define wetlands in a broad way, which is<br />
generally more inclusive than the definition used by the Corps. Under Title 14, §13577(b) of<br />
the California Code of Regulations, an area is considered a wetland in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone when<br />
either hydrophytic soils or wetland indicator plants are present, not a combination of the<br />
three criteria of soils, vegetation, and hydrology as is typically required under Corps<br />
definitions. This provides for greater protection of certain types of wetland, particularly<br />
where vegetation is lacking and soils are poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent or<br />
marked fluctuations in surface water levels and other factors. This broader definition under<br />
the Coastal Act also provides for protection of hydrologically isolated wetlands such as<br />
seeps or seasonal wetlands, which are now considered exempt from Corps jurisdiction under<br />
a recent Supreme Court ruling. The Coastal Act policy prohibits the filling of wetlands for<br />
residential purposes, based on a court decision in the Bolsa Chica Land Trust case.<br />
D. HABITAT CONNECTIVITY<br />
As noted previously, protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is essential to sustaining native<br />
plant and animal populations. Viability is a function of numerous factors, including the size<br />
and health of <strong>local</strong> plant and animal populations, habitat quality and diversity, habitat<br />
connectivity, and ecosystem dynamics such as fire, flooding, seasonal changes, and other<br />
natural disturbances, predation, and plant-herbivore pressures. Human-induced changes to<br />
the landscape have significant affects on the health and productivity of the natural<br />
environment, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban, suburban, and even<br />
rural development, conversion to agricultural crops, poor land management practices, and<br />
the network of roadways, flood control modifications to drainages, and other infrastructure<br />
that supports our existence.<br />
Protecting and enhancing habitat connectivity and functional movement corridors between<br />
the remaining natural areas is essential to sustaining populations and allowing for the<br />
continued dispersal of native plant and animal species. Natural linkages include riparian<br />
corridors and drainages, canyons, ridgelines, and corridors across valley floors where<br />
impermeable barriers such as dense urban development, exclusionary fencing, and heavily<br />
traveled roadways haven’t yet eliminated options for wildlife movement and plant<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 9
dispersal. While narrow corridors may be the only option in some locations due to the<br />
extent of existing development, habitat linkages are most effective through maintenance of a<br />
permeable landscape, one that allows for uninhibited movement of species across large<br />
areas.<br />
Very little study or mapping of opportunities for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and<br />
habitat connectivity have been prepared addressing resources in Marin <strong>County</strong> or the State as<br />
a whole. The Missing Linkages conference in November 2000, cosponsored by the<br />
California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, the Biological Resource Division<br />
of the USGS, the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, and California State<br />
Parks, provided the first coordinated statewide effort in California to systematically identify,<br />
study, and protect wildlife corridors. The resulting report, Missing Linkages: Restoring<br />
Connectivity to the California Landscape (California Wilderness Coalition et al, 2001),<br />
describes the methodology in identifying landscape linkages, connectivity choke-points, and<br />
missing links, and prioritizes these features based on conservation opportunities, presence of<br />
target species, overall threat, and existing documentation. While the Missing Linkages<br />
conference focused primarily on wildlife movement, it does provide a starting point in<br />
considering importance of linking core wildlands for both wildlife connectivity and plant<br />
dispersal. It identified locations and features considered to be of statewide and regional<br />
significance by those in attendance at the conference. Because of this broad purpose, it is of<br />
only limited value when applied at the <strong>county</strong> level, but still serves as an initial source of<br />
analysis and recommendations.<br />
1. Federal and State Authority<br />
Although there are no state or federal laws directly addressing habitat connectivity and<br />
preserving biodiversity, the Endangered Species Acts provide for protection of essential<br />
habitat for listed species. In addition, one of the significance criteria in the CEQA<br />
Guidelines, Appendix G, focuses on potential impacts on movement of any native resident or<br />
migratory fish or wildlife species, but not the dispersal of native plant species that can be<br />
particularly vulnerable to extirpation in isolated occurrences. Another significance criteria in<br />
the CEQA Guidelines pertains to the degree to which a discretionary project conforms with<br />
<strong>local</strong> policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This significance criterion does<br />
provide an opportunity to establish specific <strong>local</strong> policies and perhaps ordinances pertaining<br />
to habitat connectivity and biodiversity on a <strong>local</strong> level.<br />
III. MAPPING SUMMARY<br />
The current LCP includes numerous references to Natural Resource maps, which are<br />
available for review at the Marin <strong>County</strong> Community Development Agency. These maps<br />
provide general information on resources in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, such as cover types, locations<br />
of marshland, native trees, butterfly trees, and wildlife habitat areas. However, these maps<br />
were prepared in the early 1980s and need to be <strong>update</strong>d.<br />
The GIS section of the Community Development Agency has prepared several maps as part<br />
of the Marin <strong>County</strong>wide Plan <strong>update</strong>, which are applicable to identification of biological<br />
and wetland resources in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. These include:<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 10
• Exhibit 1, Vegetative Cover - showing vegetation cover modified from the CalVeg<br />
mapping <strong>program</strong> of the U.S. Forest Service (2000) and the Fire and Resources<br />
Assessment Program (FRAP) of the California Department of Forestry and Fire<br />
Protection (2002). This consists of mapping from the CalVeg land cover assessment<br />
in 2000 for most of the <strong>county</strong>, and more generalized mapping from the FRAP of<br />
2002 for the City-Centered Corridor in the eastern part of the <strong>county</strong>. Cover types<br />
have been merged to simplify major vegetation associations in the exhibit. The<br />
Vegetation Exhibit gives a generalized indication of the various vegetation types,<br />
and their relationship to major drainages, roadways, and urban development in the<br />
<strong>county</strong><br />
• Exhibit 2, Public Open Space Lands - showing designated public open space and<br />
watershed lands in the <strong>county</strong>, distinguishing federal, state, <strong>local</strong> and water district<br />
lands. These open space and watershed lands are vital to maintaining viable habitat<br />
for native plants and wildlife in the <strong>county</strong>. Consideration should be given to how<br />
these protected lands are interconnected and where additional open space lands<br />
must be secured to maintain critical habitat links, particularly along stream<br />
corridors, <strong>coastal</strong> shoreline, and ridgelines.<br />
• Exhibit 3, Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities - showing<br />
recorded occurrences of special-status species plant and animal species and of<br />
sensitive natural communities based on the CNDDB records. Streams with known<br />
occurrences of coho salmon and steelhead trout are also indicated in the exhibit.<br />
Most of the occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural communities<br />
are from the state and federally-protected lands of Point Reyes and Mount<br />
Tamalpais, and the marshlands along San Francisco and San Pablo bays. The<br />
occurrence records vary in their specificity and the mapped data varies accordingly,<br />
with some locations considered very accurate and others covering a wide area of<br />
several miles considered to be potential habitat. Streams with known occurrences<br />
of the federally-threatened coho salmon and steelhead trout extend throughout the<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> zone, including Redwood, Pine Gulch, Easkoot, Olema, Lagunitas,<br />
Tomasini, Walker, and Estero Americano creeks.<br />
• Exhibit 4, Wetlands and Streams - showing wetlands and streams based on the NWI<br />
and designated perennial and intermittent stream on USGS topographic maps. The<br />
wetland mapping has been simplified to show major wetland systems, including<br />
<strong>marin</strong>e, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine. Summaries of these different<br />
systems are contained in the exhibit. Marshland, mudflats, and open water of the<br />
bays and lagoons are classified as part of the estuarine system. The rocky shoreline<br />
and open waters of the Pacific Ocean are classified as part of the <strong>marin</strong>e system.<br />
The man-made reservoirs and channels are classified as part of the lacustrine<br />
system. The creeks and streams, scattered smaller stockponds, and seasonal<br />
wetlands are classified as part of the palustrine and riverine systems.<br />
IV. LOCAL COASTAL ZONE SETTING<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 11
Marin <strong>County</strong> is well known for its natural beauty and diversity of natural resources, ranging<br />
from the <strong>marin</strong>e environments of the <strong>coastal</strong> zone to the forests, chaparral, woodlands and<br />
grasslands of Mount Tamalpais. Much of this land in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone is under public<br />
management as parks, open space, conservation easements, and watershed lands, providing a<br />
unique opportunity to effectively protect and manage sensitive biological and wetland<br />
resources.<br />
The natural communities of the <strong>coastal</strong> zone support a wide diversity of plant and animal<br />
species, including a high number of special-status species. Natural community types in the<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> zone include: mixed evergreen forest, pine forest, douglas fir/redwood forest, oak<br />
woodland, grassland, <strong>coastal</strong> beach dune, northern <strong>coastal</strong> scrub, chaparral, <strong>coastal</strong> salt<br />
marsh, riparian, and freshwater marsh. Exhibit 1 shows the distribution of vegetative cover<br />
in the <strong>county</strong>, modified from the 2000 CalVeg mapping <strong>program</strong> of the U.S. Forest Service.<br />
Major distinguishable characteristics of the <strong>coastal</strong> zone include: the extensive grasslands to<br />
the north which intergrade with scrub and forest lands in the Point Reyes Peninsula; the<br />
forests, woodland, and chaparral on the western slopes of Mt. Tamalpais; and the mosaic of<br />
grassland and scrub on the Bolinas Mesa and hillsides south of Bolinas Bay.<br />
Historic land use has altered much of the landscape in the <strong>county</strong>, including the plant<br />
communities and wildlife dependent upon them. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century<br />
and continuing into the present, activities such as livestock grazing, timber operations,<br />
clearing and disking for agricultural production, road building, and urban and suburban<br />
development have markedly altered the remaining natural communities. Native perennial<br />
grasslands have been largely replaced by non-native annual grasslands, and a number of<br />
highly invasive species now threaten the remaining grasslands. Fire suppression, livestock<br />
grazing, and more recently the affects of Sudden Oak Death have greatly altered the extent<br />
of woodland and forest cover. The past affects of timber harvesting and overgrazing<br />
continue to affect the aquatic habitat of the streams, creeks, and lagoons in the <strong>county</strong>, and<br />
limits the viability of the anadromous fisheries. These influences on the natural landscape<br />
have changed in the past few decades, from one of primarily agricultural-related activities<br />
to one of increased development pressure and recreational uses.<br />
Although past influences have greatly altered the natural landscape, the extensive system of<br />
open space lands in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone provides a unique opportunity to work toward the<br />
protection and enhancement of biological and wetland resources. However, this can only be<br />
successfully achieved through coordinated management efforts between private landowners<br />
and public agencies, and through implementation of effective policies defining permissible<br />
uses and necessary development controls established as part of the LCP. Exhibit 2 shows the<br />
relationship between public and privately-held lands in the <strong>county</strong>, identifying watershed<br />
lands, federal parks and facilities, state parks and facilities, and Marin <strong>County</strong> and <strong>local</strong><br />
parks. This includes the Point Reyes National Seashore, Golden Gate National Recreation<br />
Area, Muir Woods National Monument, Mount Tamalpais State Park, Audubon Canyon<br />
Ranch, and Marin <strong>County</strong> open space lands.<br />
A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 12
The records of the CNDDB indicate that special-status plant and animal species occur in a<br />
wide range of habitat types throughout the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. Most of the reported occurrences<br />
are from public lands including the Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate<br />
National Recreation Area, and the State Park and Marin Municipal Water District watershed<br />
lands on Mount Tamalpais. This may be due in part to a more concerted effort to survey and<br />
identify sensitive resources on public lands than private lands. Table 1 provides a list of the<br />
51 animal species and 76 plant species reported from Marin <strong>County</strong> which are monitored by<br />
the CNDDB. An estimated 84 percent of these species are known or suspected to occur in<br />
the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, as indicated in Table 1. Exhibit 3 shows the distribution of special-status<br />
plant and animal species throughout the <strong>county</strong> based on the CNDDB occurrence records,<br />
with the highest concentrations in the public lands of West Marin and Mt. Tamalpais. This<br />
mapping effort has been simplified to shown occurrences of plant and animal species,<br />
together with streams known to support coho salmon and steelhead trout.<br />
Of the special-status species which are known from or frequent the <strong>coastal</strong> zone of Marin<br />
<strong>County</strong>, occurrence information is not carefully monitored by the CNDDB for a number of<br />
species for a variety of reasons. This includes the possible seasonal occurrence of some bird<br />
species, the limited status of some animal species as a California Special Concern species by<br />
the CDFG, and the limited status of many plant species on lists 2, 3, or 4 of the CNPS<br />
Inventory. Some of these species are identified in Table 1, but the number of occurrences<br />
from the CNDDB records does not accurately reflect their generally greater abundance and<br />
distribution than species that are actually listed under the state or federal Endangered Species<br />
Acts.<br />
For many of the special-status species known from Marin <strong>County</strong>, habitat suitability is<br />
severely limited by the direct and indirect affects of development. These include the direct<br />
loss of habitat as a result of conversion to urban uses, affects of on-going habitat<br />
modifications due to vegetation management and agricultural practices, and indirect affects<br />
such as non-point discharge into aquatic habitat and recreational activities in the open space<br />
lands. The affect of habitat fragmentation is an important consideration in evaluating the<br />
recovery of listed species and the viability of natural communities as a whole.<br />
Identification and protection of essential habitat for special-status species must be<br />
recognized during the environmental review of proposed development applications,<br />
implementation of land management practices, and in planning future open space<br />
acquisitions. Detailed surveys should be conducted for sites where there is a potential for<br />
occurrence of special-status plant and animal species.<br />
A number of special-status species known from Marin <strong>County</strong> are wide-ranging and the<br />
focus of management efforts by trustee agencies. Species of particular concern in the <strong>coastal</strong><br />
zone include California red-legged frog, northern spotted owl, coho salmon, steelhead trout,<br />
and monarch butterfly. The following provides a summary of relevant management issues<br />
for each of these species.<br />
TABLE 1<br />
SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES KNOWN FROM MARIN COUNTY<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 13
Common Name (Scientific Name)<br />
* Species Known or Suspected from Coastal<br />
Zone noted with an Asterisk<br />
ANIMALS<br />
Status<br />
Federal/State<br />
Number of<br />
Occurrences<br />
in 2001<br />
CNDDB<br />
Records Habitat<br />
Amphibians/Reptiles<br />
*Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) T / – 0 Open ocean.<br />
*Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys<br />
marmorata marmorata)<br />
– / CSC 8 Streams/ponds/lakes.<br />
*Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) E / – 0 Open ocean.<br />
*Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) T / – 0 Open ocean.<br />
*California red-legged frog (Rana aurora<br />
draytonii)<br />
FT / CSC 8 Forests/woodlands/grasslands and streamsides.<br />
*Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) – / CSC 3 Streams with rocky substrate.<br />
Birds<br />
*Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)<br />
(nesting colony)<br />
– / CSC 5 Freshwater marsh and surrounding fields.<br />
*Great egret (Ardea alba) (rookery) – / – 9 Colonial nester in large trees.<br />
*Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) (rookery) – / – 7 Colonial nester in trees, cliff-sides, marshes.<br />
*Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (burrow<br />
sites)<br />
*Western snowy plover (Charadrius<br />
alexandrinus nivosus) (nesting)<br />
– / CSC 2 Open grasslands/scrub.<br />
FT / CSC 5 Nesting along sandy beaches and shorelines<br />
*Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) (nesting) – / CSC 1 Nesting in marsh and low shrubs.<br />
*Back swift (Cypsefloides niger) (nesting) – / CSC 1 Nesting on cliffs and behind falls.<br />
*Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia<br />
brewsteri) (nesting)<br />
– / CSC 1 Nesting in willows and riparian cover.<br />
*Snowy egret (Egretta thula) (rookery) – / – Colonial nester in trees, cliff-sides, near<br />
marshland.<br />
*White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) (nesting) – / FP 1 Nesting in grassland/marshland with trees.<br />
*Tufted pufin (Fratercula cirrhata) – / CSC Colonial nester on off-shore islands/cliffs.<br />
*Saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis<br />
trichas sinuosa)<br />
*California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis<br />
coturniculus)<br />
*Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax<br />
nycticorax) (rookery)<br />
*Ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodrama homochroa)<br />
(rookery)<br />
– / CSC 14 Salt and brackish water marsh.<br />
– / ST; FP 14 Coastal saltmarsh.<br />
– / – Colonial nester in trees/shrubs near marshland.<br />
– / CSC 1 Colonial nester on off-shore islands.<br />
*Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (nesting) – / CSC 1 Nesting in trees associated with water bodies.<br />
*California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris<br />
obsoletus)<br />
*Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis<br />
caurina)<br />
FE / SE 12 Salt and brackish marsh.<br />
FT / – 23 Forest and woodland.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 14
Common Name (Scientific Name)<br />
Status<br />
Federal/State<br />
Number of<br />
Occurrences<br />
in 2001<br />
CNDDB<br />
Records Habitat<br />
Fish<br />
*Tidewater goby (Eucyclogorius newberryi) FE/ CSC 7 Brackish water, marsh/bays.<br />
*Tomales roach (Lavinia symmetricus ssp.<br />
symmetricus)<br />
– / CSC 1 Tributaries of Tomales Bay.<br />
*Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) FT / SE 2 Spawns in freshwater streams.<br />
*Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) FT/CSC 0 Spawns in freshwater streams.<br />
Invertebrates<br />
*Tomales isopod (Caecidotea tomalensis) – / – 3 Freshwater marsh/ponds.<br />
*Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)<br />
(colonies)<br />
– / – 26 Overwinters in blue gum eucalyptus.<br />
*Williams’ bronze shoulderband<br />
(Helminthoglypta arrosa williamsi)<br />
– / – 1 Known only from Hogg Island.<br />
*Peninsula coast range shoulderband snail<br />
(Helminthoglypta nickliniana awania)<br />
– / – 1 Known only from Point Reyes headland.<br />
*Ricksecker’s water scavenger beetle<br />
(Hydrochara rickseckeri)<br />
– / – 1 Aquatic habitat/pools and ponds.<br />
Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides<br />
missionensis)<br />
FE / – 1 Shrubs/grasslands with lupine host.<br />
*Bumblebee scarab beetle (Lichnanthe ursina) – / – 3 Coastal dunes.<br />
Tiburon micro-blind harvestman (Microcina<br />
tiburona)<br />
– / – 2 Serpentine outcrops near spring/seeps.<br />
*Myrtles silverspot (Spexeria zerene myrtleae) E / – Scrub/grassland with larval host.<br />
*California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica)<br />
Mammals<br />
FE / SE 4 Freshwater streams with undercut banks.<br />
*Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) – / CSC 3 Roosts in protected locations.<br />
*Point Reyes mountain beaver (Aplodontia<br />
rufa phaea)<br />
– / CSC 9 Springs/ seeps with dense cover.<br />
*Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) T / T; FP 0 Open ocean, beaches.<br />
*Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) E / – 0 Open ocean.<br />
*Blue whale (Balaenoptera musulus) E / – 0 Open ocean.<br />
*Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) E / – 0 Open ocean.<br />
*Townsend’s western big-eared bat<br />
(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)<br />
– / CSC 2 Roosts in protected locations.<br />
*Grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus) E / – 0 Open ocean.<br />
*Stellar seal lion (Eumetopias jubatus) T / – 0 Open ocean, beaches.<br />
*Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) FT / FP 1 Nearshore marsh habitat.<br />
Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys<br />
raviventris)<br />
FE / SE; FP 10 Coastal saltmarsh.<br />
Angel Island mole (Scapanus latimanus isularis) – / CSC Coastal scrub/prairie on Angel Island.<br />
*Point Reyes jumping mouse (Zapus trinotatus<br />
orarius)<br />
– / CSC 0 Coastal scrub/grassland from Point Reyes.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 15
TABLE 1<br />
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES KNOWN FROM MARIN COUNTY<br />
Common Name (Scientific Name)<br />
Status<br />
Federal/<br />
State/CNPS<br />
Number of<br />
Occurrences<br />
in 2001<br />
CNDDB<br />
Records Habitat<br />
*Pink sand-verbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora) SC / – / 1B 2 Coastal dunes/stand.<br />
*Blasdale’s bent grass (Agrostis blasdalei) SC / – / 1B 10 Coastal dunes/scrub/prairie.<br />
*Point Reyes bent grass (Agrostis clivicola var puntareyesensis)<br />
SC / – / – 10 Coastal scrub/prairie/ coniferous<br />
forest.<br />
*Sonoma alopecurus (Alopecurus aequalis var sonomensis) FE / – / 1B 7 Freshwater marsh/riparian scrub.<br />
Napa false indigo (Amorpha californica var napensis) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/chaparral/woodland.<br />
*Bent-flowerred fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub/woodland/<br />
grassland.<br />
*Mt. Tamalpais manzanita (Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp.<br />
montana)<br />
SC / – / 1B 17 Chaparral/grassland.<br />
*Marin manzanita (Arctostaphylos virgata) – / – / 1B 17 Coniferous forest/chaparral.<br />
*Coastal marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pynostachyas var p.) – / – / 1B 0 Dunes/marshes/swamps.<br />
*Point Reyes blennosperma (Blennosperma nanum var.<br />
robustum)<br />
SC / SR / 1B 13 Coastal prairie/scrub.<br />
Small groundcone (Boschniakia hookeri) – / – / 2 2 Coniferous forests.<br />
*Thurber’s reed grass (Calamagrostis crassiglumis) SC / – / 2 4 Coastal scrub/freshwater marsh.<br />
Tiburon mariposa lily (Calochortus tiburonensis) FT / ST / 1B 1 Serpentine grassland.<br />
*Coastal bluff morning-glory (Calystegia purpurata ssp.<br />
saxicola)<br />
– / – / 1B 0 Dunes/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub.<br />
*Swamp harebell (Campanula californica) SC / – / 1B 24 Bogs/ferns/ marshes in coniferous<br />
forest.<br />
*Flaccid sedge (Carex leptalea) – / – / 2 0 Bogs/fens/meadows/seeps.<br />
*Lyngbye’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei) – / – / 2 0 Marshes/swamps.<br />
Tiburon indian paintbrush (Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta) FE / ST / 1B 9 Serpentine grassland.<br />
*Humbolt Bay owl’s clover (Castilleja ambigua ssp.<br />
humboldtiensis)<br />
SC / – / 1B 1 Coastal saltmarsh.<br />
*Mt. Vision ceanothus (Ceanothus gloriosus var. porrectus) SC / – / 1B 10 Coniferous forest/<strong>coastal</strong><br />
scrub/prairie.<br />
*Mason’s ceanothus (Ceanothus masonii) SC / SR / 1B 6 Chaparral/serpentine.<br />
*San Francisco Bay spineflower (Chorizanthe cuspidata var.<br />
cuspidata)<br />
*Woolly-headed spineflower (Chorizanthe cuspidata var.<br />
villosa)<br />
SC / – / 1B 3 Coastal scrub/prairie/dunes.<br />
– / – / 1B 5 Coastal scrub/prairie/dunes.<br />
*Sonoma spineflower (Chorizanthe valida) FE / SE / 1B 1 Coastal prairie.<br />
*Franciscan thistle (Cirsium andrewsii) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/<strong>coastal</strong> bluff scrub/prairie/<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> scrub.<br />
Mt. Tamalpais thistle (Cirsium hydrophilum var. vaseyi) SC / – / 1B 8 Forest/chaparral.<br />
*Raiche’s red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. raichei) SC / – / 1B 1 Coastal bluff scrub.<br />
*Round-headed chinese houses (Collinsia corymbosa) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal dunes.<br />
*Point Reye’s bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp.<br />
palustris)<br />
SC / – / 1B 19 Coastal saltmarsh/dunes.<br />
*Soft bird’s beak (Cordylanthus mollis spp. mollis) FE / SR / 1B 2 Coastal saltmarsh.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 16
Common Name (Scientific Name)<br />
Status<br />
Federal/<br />
State/CNPS<br />
Number of<br />
Occurrences<br />
in 2001<br />
CNDDB<br />
Records Habitat<br />
*Baker’s larkspur (Delphinium bakeri) PE / SR / 1B 1 Coastal scrub.<br />
*Yellow larkspur (Delphinium luteum) PE / SR / 1B 5 Chaparral/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub/prairie.<br />
*Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) – / – / 1B 6 Forest/chaparral/woodland.<br />
*Supple daisy (Erigeron supplex) – / – / 1B 2 Coastal bluff scrub/prairie.<br />
*Minute Pocket-Moss (Fissidens pauperculus) – / – / 1B 0 Forest floor along coast.<br />
*Marin checker lily (Fritillaria affinis var tristulis) – / – / 1B 14 Coastal bluff scrub/prairie.<br />
*Fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) SC / – / 1B 13 Coastal scrub/prairie/ grassland.<br />
*Dune gilia (Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis) – / – / 1B 0 Dunes/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub.<br />
*Wooly-headed gilia (Gilia capitata ssp. tomentosa) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub/outcrops.<br />
*Dark-eyed gilia (Gilia millefoliata) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal dunes.<br />
*San Francisco gumplant (Grindelia hirsutula var.<br />
maritima)<br />
– / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub/<br />
grassland.<br />
Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/chaparral/woodland/<strong>coastal</strong><br />
scrub/grassland.<br />
*Short-leaved evax (Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevitolia) – / – / 2 0 Coastal bluff scrub/dunes.<br />
Marin western flax (Hesperolinon congestum) FT / ST / 1B 12 Chaparral/grassland.<br />
*Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) T / E / 1B 0 Coastal prairie/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub/<br />
grassland.<br />
*Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea) SC / – / 1B 2 Confierous forest/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub/<br />
chaparral.<br />
*Point Reyes Horkelia (Horkelia <strong>marin</strong>ensis) SC / – / 1B 3 Coastal scrub/prairie/dunes.<br />
*Thin-lobed horkelia (Horkelia tenuiloba) – / – / 1B 5 Coastal scrub/chaparral.<br />
*Baker’s goldfields (Lasthenia macrantha ssp. bakeri) – / – / 1B 0 Coniferous forest/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub.<br />
*Perennial goldfields (Lasthenia macrantha ssp. macrantha) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub/dunes/<strong>coastal</strong><br />
scrub.<br />
*Beach layia (Layia carnosa) FE / SE / 1B 10 Coastal dunes.<br />
Tamalpais lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var. micradenia) SC / – / 1B 4 Chaparral/grassland in serpentine.<br />
*Maison’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii) SC / SR / 1B 1 Fresh and brackish marsh.<br />
*Coast lily (Lilium maritimum) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/prairie/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub/marshes/<br />
swamps.<br />
*Point Reyes meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii ssp.<br />
sulphurea)<br />
SC / SE / 1B 8 Freshwater marsh/prairie/seeps.<br />
*Rose linanthus (Linanthus rosaceus) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub.<br />
*Tidestrom’s lupine (Lupinus tidestromii) FE / SE / 1B 8 Coastal dunes.<br />
*Marsh microseris (Microseris paludosa) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/woodland/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub/<br />
grassland.<br />
Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri) – / – / 1B 1 Woodland/seeps/pools/grassland/<br />
forest.<br />
Marin <strong>County</strong> navarretia (Navarretia rosulata) – / – / 1B 10 Coniferous forest/chaparral.<br />
White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) FE / SE / 1B 5 Grassland on serpentine.<br />
*North Coast phacelia (Phacelia insularis var. continentis) SC / – / 1B 3 Coastal bluff scrub/dunes.<br />
*Point Reyes rein orchid (Piperia elegans ssp. Decurtata) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub only from Pt.<br />
Reyes National Seashore.<br />
Hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) / / 1A 0 Meadows/seeps/marshes/swamps.<br />
North Coast semaphore grass (Pleuropogon hooverianus) SC / SB / 1B 3 Forest/steeps.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 17
Common Name (Scientific Name)<br />
Status<br />
Federal/<br />
State/CNPS<br />
Number of<br />
Occurrences<br />
in 2001<br />
CNDDB<br />
Records Habitat<br />
*Marin knotweed (Polygonum <strong>marin</strong>ense) SC / – / 3 3 Marshes/swamps.<br />
*Tamalpais oak (Quercus parvula var. tamalpaisensis) – / – / 1B 0 Coniferous forest only on Mt.<br />
Tamalpais.<br />
*California beaked-rush (Rhynchospora californica) SC / – / 1B 1 Bogs/marshes/seeps/confierous<br />
forest.<br />
Point Reyes checkerbloom (Sidalcea calycosa ssp.<br />
rhizomata)<br />
– / – / 1B 9 Marshes/swamps.<br />
*Marin checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. viridis) SC / – / 1B 3 Chaparral.<br />
*Purple-stemmed checkerbloom (Sidalcea malviflora ssp.<br />
purpurea)<br />
– / – / 1B 0 Forest/prairie.<br />
Tamalpais jewel-flower (Streptanthus batrachopus) SC / – / 1B 5 Confierous forest/chaparral.<br />
*Mt. Tamalpais jewel-flower (Streptanthus glandulosus ssp.<br />
pulchellus)<br />
– / – / 1B 9 Chaparral/grassland.<br />
*Santa Cruz microseris (Stebbinsoseris decipiens) SC / – / 1B 3 Forest/chaparral/<strong>coastal</strong> scrub/<br />
prairie.<br />
Tiburon jewel-flower (Streptanthus niger) FE / SE / 1B 2 Grassland on serpentine.<br />
*Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum) FE / – / 1B 3 Grassland/<strong>coastal</strong> bluff scrub.<br />
*San Francisco owl’s clover (Triphysaria floribunda) SC / – / 1B 14 Coastal prairie/grassland.<br />
* INDICATES THOSE SPECIES WITH KNOWN OR SUSPECTED POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE IN COASTAL ZONE.<br />
STATUS DESIGNATIONS<br />
Federal:<br />
FE = Listed as “endangered” under the federal Endangered Species Act.<br />
FT = Listed as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act.<br />
PE = Proposed for federal listing as “endangered”.<br />
PT = Proposed for federal listing as “threatened”.<br />
C = A candidate species under review for federal listing. Candidates include taxa for which the USFWS has<br />
sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened.<br />
SC = Species of Concern; formerly considered a candidate species for listing by the USFWS.<br />
State:<br />
SE = Listed as “endangered” under the California Endangered Species Act.<br />
SR = Listed as “rare” under the California Endangered Species Act.<br />
ST = Listed as “threatened” under the California Endangered Species Act.<br />
CP = California fully protected species; individual may not be possessed or taken at any time.<br />
CSC = Considered a species of special concern by the CDFG; taxa have no formal legal protection but nest sites and<br />
communal roosts are generally recognized as significant biotic features.<br />
CNPS:<br />
1A = Plants of highest priority; plants presumed extinct in California.<br />
1B = Plants of highest priority; plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere.<br />
3 = Plants requiring additional information; a review list.<br />
4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 18
Northern Spotted Owl. The USFWS listed the northern spotted owl as a threatened<br />
species in 1990. The southern limit of their range extends into Marin <strong>County</strong> where<br />
they occur in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National<br />
Monument, Point Reyes National Seashore, and other parts of the <strong>county</strong>. On-going<br />
studies have been conducted to monitor population health and further define essential<br />
habitat, including annual status reports (Fehring et. al, 2001). According to the latest<br />
status report, the Marin <strong>County</strong> population of spotted owl is subject to several threats,<br />
including: 1) urban development along park boundaries; 2) disturbance due to intense<br />
urban recreational pressures; 3) hazardous fuel management; 4) potential for<br />
catastrophic wildfire along the urban/wildland interface; 5) possible genetic isolation;<br />
and 6) continued range expansion of the barred owl. Of particular concern is the<br />
continuing die-off of tanbark and coast live oaks throughout spotted owl habitat due<br />
to Sudden Oak Death (SOD), and the long-term impacts this may have on prey<br />
populations and owl nesting habitat.<br />
In the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, suitable habitat for northern spotted owl occurs on the forested<br />
slopes along the southeastern side of Tomales Bay, to the east and southeast of<br />
Bolinas Lagoon, and southeast of Stinson Beach. Essential habitat for this species<br />
extends beyond the <strong>coastal</strong> zone over the adjacent forest and woodland cover on the<br />
slopes of Mount Tamalpais.<br />
Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout. Coho salmon and steelhead trout are both listed<br />
as threatened under the federal ESA within the Central California Coast<br />
Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Past timber harvest activities, overgrazing, channel<br />
modifications and removal of riparian vegetation, flood control and water diversion,<br />
and secondary water quality degradation have all contributed to a decline of these and<br />
other fishery resources. Coho and steelhead are anadromous, spawning in <strong>coastal</strong><br />
streams and rivers and then migrating to and maturing in the ocean, and both are<br />
known from streams in Marin <strong>County</strong>. Streams with established or historic records of<br />
these species are indicated in Exhibit 3, many of which occur in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone.<br />
These include: Estero Americano, Walker, Millerton Gulch, Tomasini, Lagunitas,<br />
Olema, Pine Gulch, Cooper Mine Gulch, Wilkins Gulch, Pike Country Gulch,<br />
Audubon Canyon, Morses Gulch, McKinnan Gulch, Stinson Gulch, Eskoot, and<br />
Redwood Creeks. Where a record of salmon or steelhead has been reported from a<br />
stream, the entire drainage has been indicated as supporting the species, although<br />
habitat conditions have generally not been confirmed in the field.<br />
Marin <strong>County</strong> is currently participating in the FishNet 4C <strong>program</strong>, which is a <strong>county</strong>based,<br />
regional salmonid protection and restoration <strong>program</strong> created under a<br />
Memorandum of Agreement between the six central California <strong>coastal</strong> counties of<br />
Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma. FishNet 4C<br />
recognizes the need for these counties to meet the requirements of the ESA in<br />
protecting anadromous salmonids and their habitats. Given these requirements, a<br />
prime objective of the FishNet 4C <strong>program</strong> has been to evaluate the land management<br />
practices of each <strong>county</strong> and any written policies related to protecting salmonid<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 19
populations, and to make recommendations for improving these practices and<br />
policies.<br />
Based on the FishNet 4C review, Marin <strong>County</strong> has a number of policies in place that<br />
serve to protect fish habitat. These policies are most comprehensive in the <strong>coastal</strong><br />
zone where strict development standards protect salmonid streams with riparian<br />
buffers. Coastal zone regulations restrict building in floodplains, channel<br />
modifications, streamflow withdrawals, and grading. Outside the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, fish<br />
habitat protection measures are less stringent and less consistent. The most important<br />
policies pertain to riparian buffers and grading, and all of the <strong>county</strong> is covered by a<br />
comprehensive storm water pollution prevention ordinance. Identified deficiencies in<br />
the FishNet 4C report relate to policy gaps regarding wildlife habitat, streamflow<br />
quantity modifications, riparian corridor protection, sedimentation, channel<br />
modification, water quality, and fish passage. These policy deficiencies should be<br />
considered as part of the LCP <strong>update</strong>. Additional detailed survey work is necessary to<br />
confirm habitat conditions and opportunities for restoration and enhancement for coho<br />
and steelhead. The CDA is currently developing proposed zoning regulations that<br />
would establish standards for development and conservation within Streamside<br />
Conservation Areas for unincorporated properties. Although the regulations are<br />
intended to focus on the central and eastern portions of Marin, it is also being<br />
considered for West Marin and the <strong>coastal</strong> zone.<br />
California red-legged frog. This species is listed as threatened by the USFWS and is<br />
recognized as a CSC by the CDFG. It typically occurs in aquatic habitat of streams<br />
and ponds, but can disperse considerable distances in search of breeding and<br />
estivation sites. Before withdrawing their mapping designation in 2002 as a result of<br />
a court decision, the USFWS designated 209,000 acres of west Marin as critical<br />
habitat for the federally-threatened California red-legged frog of which approximately<br />
52 percent are under management by the National Park Service, the State Department<br />
of Parks and Recreation, and the Marin Municipal Water District. The remaining 48<br />
percent of the previously designated lands are privately owned and are generally<br />
under agricultural zoning and used for grazing. Management plans of the National<br />
Park Service, State Parks, and Marin Municipal Water District include consideration<br />
of this species, although some conflicts with agricultural use and water quality<br />
degradation are of concern. Future development and management activities in the<br />
coast zone, including plans for habitat restoration, must consider the affects on this<br />
listed species.<br />
Monarch butterfly. This migratory butterfly species has no legal protective status<br />
under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, but rests and overwinters in<br />
large colonies that are highly sensitive to disturbance and are monitored by the<br />
CNDDB. Most overwintering sites along the Marin <strong>County</strong> coast are from dense<br />
groves of blue gum eucalyptus and stands of Monterey pine, both introduced<br />
species which provide important shelter and congregation areas. Due to the<br />
importance of these trees to this butterfly species, significant alteration or removal<br />
of the stands requires a <strong>coastal</strong> project permit pursuant to Section 30106 of the<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 20
Coastal Act. Known overwintering colonies have been reported along the coast<br />
north of Dillon Beach, Tennessee Valley, Muir Beach, Stinson Beach, and<br />
numerous occurrences across the Bolinas Mesa. A field study of the overwintering<br />
activity of Monarch butterflies in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone was conducted during the fall of<br />
2002 and winter of 2003 by consultants retained by the CDA. A detailed<br />
assessment of the extent and importance of overwintering sites is currently being<br />
prepared, which will be used in refining mapping of known occurrences and<br />
defining essential habitat characteristics for this species.<br />
B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES<br />
Several of the natural communities within the <strong>coastal</strong> zone are considered to have a high<br />
inventory priority with the CNDDB, and should receive appropriate recognition in updating<br />
LCP policies. These “high inventory priority” communities have been designated as<br />
sensitive due to rarity and continuing loss as a result of development, flood control<br />
improvements, intensive grazing, and other factors. Sensitive natural communities mapped<br />
by the CNDDB in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone include: <strong>coastal</strong> and valley freshwater marsh, <strong>coastal</strong><br />
brackish marsh, <strong>coastal</strong> terrace prairie, central dune scrub, northern <strong>coastal</strong> salt marsh, and<br />
northern maritime chaparral, among others. Stands of native grasslands not mapped by the<br />
CNDDB occur in many locations throughout the <strong>coastal</strong> zone, as do the sensitive riparian<br />
forest and scrub communities along creeks and larger drainages. Detailed surveys should be<br />
conducted for sites where there is a potential for occurrence of sensitive natural<br />
communities.<br />
While oak woodlands are not considered to have a high inventory priority with the CNDDB,<br />
they should be recognized as an important habitat type in the <strong>county</strong> due to their high<br />
wildlife value and their vulnerability to the affects of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SOD).<br />
Tanoaks and coast live oaks are dying in large numbers, and black oaks, California buckeye,<br />
California bay, madrone, huckleberry, and rhododendron are suspected to be hosts or<br />
potential carriers of the fungus suspected to cause oak mortality. This fungus, Phytophthora<br />
ramorum, and several beetle species are consistently associated with the dying oaks. It is<br />
contributing to significant changes in vegetative cover over large parts of the <strong>county</strong>, altering<br />
habitat for woodland-dependent species and exacerbating hazardous fire conditions where<br />
wildlands interface with developed areas. While most of the confirmed isolations of<br />
Phytophthora ramorum are from the eastern and central portions of the <strong>county</strong>, areas<br />
suspected of having SOD include the <strong>coastal</strong> zone along the west side of Tomales Bay<br />
through the northern portion of Inverness, in Frank Valley of the Mt. Tamalpais State Park,<br />
and the upper watersheds of Olema Creek and Pine Gulch Creek along Bolinas Ridge.<br />
C. WETLANDS<br />
Wetlands in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone include areas of salt and brackish water marsh along the<br />
shoreline of the coast and Tomales Bay, riparian habitat along creeks and streams, and<br />
scattered freshwater seeps and springs. The existing Natural Resource Maps for the LCP<br />
generally show the locations of “marshland” and “riparian streams”, but these are only<br />
vaguely mapped, some with no boundaries. Exhibit 4, Wetlands of Marin <strong>County</strong>, shows the<br />
extent of major wetland systems mapped as part of the NWI, which consist of a range of<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 21
characteristic wetland types, together with streams mapped by the CDA for the Main<br />
<strong>County</strong>wide Plan Update. These include the <strong>marin</strong>e and estuarine system of the ocean<br />
shoreline, Tomales Bay, Bolinas Lagoons, Drakes Estero, and marshland at the mouth of<br />
Lagunitas and Walker Creeks; the riverine and lacustrine systems of major creeks and<br />
channels; and the palustine system comprising freshwater marsh, riparian scrub and<br />
woodland, and scattered stock ponds. Some wetland features, such as freshwater seeps and<br />
springs, are typically not identified as part of the NWI because of the general scale of the<br />
mapping effort. Detailed wetland delineations would be required to determine the extent of<br />
jurisdictional wetlands and other waters as specific locations, particularly where<br />
development is proposed.<br />
V. MARIN COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM POLICY REVIEW<br />
The LCP serves as the principal planning document regulating development and providing<br />
for conservation of important resources on a <strong>local</strong> level for the <strong>coastal</strong> zone of Marin<br />
<strong>County</strong>. Policies from the Natural Resources Protection section of the LCP, Unit 1 and the<br />
Natural Resources section of the LCP, Unit 2 are of particular relevance to the conservation<br />
of natural resources, focusing on stream conservation, wetlands, and <strong>coastal</strong> dunes. The<br />
CDA is responsible for reviewing individual development applications to ensure compliance<br />
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental<br />
Protection Act (NEPS), and the Coastal Act.<br />
Table 2 provides a review of each of the existing policies from the current LCP related to<br />
biological and wetland resources. This includes a summary statement on whether they still<br />
apply and how they should be refined, expanded, or reorganized as part of the LCP <strong>update</strong><br />
process. The status of many policies related to detailed improvements or land use activities<br />
in specific locations is uncertain and needs verification as part of the <strong>update</strong> process.<br />
In general, the existing Natural Resource Protection policies in the LCP lack clear direction<br />
on what sensitive resources need protection in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. These sensitive resources<br />
should include: wetlands, occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural<br />
communities, and other resources that could be considered to constitute an “environmentally<br />
sensitive area”. Many of the current policies focus on streams and riparian habitat<br />
protection, which are essential resources but represent only part of the important natural<br />
resources in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. Additional detailed policies on protection of essential habitat<br />
for special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and important wildlife habitat are<br />
necessary as part of the LCP <strong>update</strong>. Of the current LCP policies, some are overly specific<br />
and call for detailed improvements that would be better contained in a management plan<br />
required as part of the LCP, rather than actual policy language in the LCP. As an example,<br />
Policy II.5 of the LCP for Unit 1 calls for installation of a stream gage station on Pine Gulch<br />
Creek as part of a study for Bolinas Lagoon conducted by the Corps. The appropriateness of<br />
these detailed recommendations should be reconsidered as part of the LCP <strong>update</strong>.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 22
POLICIES<br />
TABLE 2<br />
EVALUATION OF EXISTING LCP BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND<br />
RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROGRAMS -- UNIT 1<br />
I. Public Access and Recreation<br />
1. The <strong>County</strong>'s policy is to require provisions for<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> access in all development proposals located<br />
between the sea and the first public road. This policy<br />
recognizes, however, that in certain locations public<br />
access may not be appropriate. Upon specific<br />
findings, that public access would be inconsistent<br />
with the protection of 1). public safety, 2) fragile<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> resources or 3) agricultural production or,<br />
upon specific findings that public use of an<br />
accessway would seriously interfere with the privacy<br />
of existing homes, provision for <strong>coastal</strong> access need<br />
not be required. In determining whether access is<br />
inconsistent with the above, the findings shall<br />
specifically consider whether mitigation measures<br />
such as setbacks from sensitive habitats, trail or<br />
stairway development, or regulation of time,<br />
seasons, or types of use could be developed which<br />
would adequately mitigate any potential adverse<br />
impacts of public access. A finding that an access<br />
way can be located 10 feet or more from an existing<br />
single family residence or be separated by a<br />
landscape buffer or fencing if necessary should be<br />
considered to provide adequately for the privacy of<br />
existing homes.<br />
9. Adequate public access to Stinson Beach currently<br />
exists across Federal park lands, <strong>County</strong> land at Calle Del Sierra<br />
and private land at the Calles and Walla Vista. To encourage<br />
the continuance of access availability in these areas the<br />
<strong>County</strong> shall post the existing pedestrian access<br />
easements along Calle Del Arroyo. However, should the current<br />
levels of usage be jeopardized in the future, the <strong>County</strong> shall open and<br />
maintain at least two additional pedestrian access easements on Calle<br />
Del Arroyo. One of these will be at Walla Vista; the other would be<br />
situated where appropriate in the Calles. On street parking along the<br />
northerly side of Calle Del Arroyo shall continue to be available for dayuse<br />
beach access.<br />
10. Public access to Duxbury Reef shall continue to<br />
be protected consistent with current State laws prohibiting the<br />
collecting of most intertidal animals.<br />
EVALUATION<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement - Need to define “fragile<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> resources” and “sensitive habitats” in LCP <strong>update</strong>, how<br />
these resources are identified, and standards for avoidance and<br />
mitigation. Policy should refer to Natural Resource Protection<br />
policies and definitions in LCP. Sensitive resources should<br />
include wetlands, occurrences of special-status species and<br />
sensitive natural communities, and important wildlife habitat<br />
such as breeding, roosting and foraging areas.<br />
Unsure of Status – Need to confirm that public access to<br />
Stinson Beach does not result in direct or indirect impacts to<br />
sensitive <strong>coastal</strong> dune or marshland natural communities, or<br />
essential habitat for wildlife.<br />
Unsure of Status – Need to confirm effectiveness of current<br />
restrictions on access, collection, and disturbance in the<br />
sensitive intertidal zone, and possibly expand language to<br />
specify additional protection. This could include additional<br />
signage explaining sensitivity of habitat and prohibition on<br />
collection, and increased monitoring and enforcement.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 23
11. Historic public use of the two access trails across<br />
Bolinas Mesa to the RCA beach and of the beach area itself<br />
shall be protected in accordance with the access <strong>program</strong><br />
approved by the North Central Coast regional<br />
Commission in its action on Permit No. 31-78<br />
(Commonweal). As provided by the conditions of the<br />
Commonweal permit approval, use of the access trails and beach areas<br />
shall be limited to the level and character of the historic use of the property<br />
(including but not limited to use for beach access, hiking, swimming, and<br />
horseback riding) in order to protect the natural resources of Duxbury<br />
Reef. Upon acceptance by a public agency of easements. over the<br />
access trails, trailheads, and beach areas which are to be offered as a<br />
condition of the Commonweal permit approval, limited signing<br />
shall be provided to identify the access trails and<br />
caution trail users of the fragile <strong>coastal</strong> resources of<br />
the area.<br />
II. Natural Resource Protection<br />
1. Stream impoundments and diversions shall be<br />
limited to necessary water supply projects, flood<br />
control projects where no other method for protecting<br />
existing structures in the flood plain is<br />
feasible and where such protection is necessary for<br />
public safety or to protect existing development, or<br />
developments where the primary function is the<br />
improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Before any<br />
such activities are permitted, minimum flows<br />
necessary to maintain fish habitat and existing water<br />
quality, and to protect downstream resources (e.g.<br />
riparian vegetation, groundwater recharge areas,<br />
receiving waters, estuarine habitats, spawning areas)<br />
and other downstream users shall be determined by<br />
the Department of Fish and Game and the Division<br />
of Water Rights of the State Water Resources<br />
Control Board. New impoundments or diversions<br />
which, individually or cumulatively, would decrease<br />
streamflows below the minimum shall not be<br />
permitted.<br />
2. The alteration of stream channels and banks shall<br />
be allowed only for the developments identified in Policy II-1 in<br />
order to protect streamwater quality and the volume and rate of<br />
streamflow. All such developments shall incorporate the best<br />
mitigation measures feasible, including erosion and runoff control<br />
measures and revegetation of disturbed areas with native species.<br />
Unsure of Status – Need to confirm that public access across<br />
Bolinas Mesa does not result in significant direct or indirect<br />
impacts to sensitive grassland, riparian, or <strong>coastal</strong> bluff scrub<br />
natural communities, or essential habitat for wildlife.<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Policy must be refined to<br />
acknowledge need to consider potential impacts on specialstatus<br />
species as well, many of which are dependent on aquatic<br />
habitat, such as California freshwater shrimp, California redlegged<br />
frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, and coho salmon.<br />
As a general rule, new impoundments and diversions should be<br />
discouraged because of their direct and indirect effects on<br />
aquatic and riparian habitats. This should be stated as policy,<br />
together with a requirement of a thorough assessment of<br />
potential impacts, coordination with and approval from<br />
jurisdictional agencies, and implementation of adequate<br />
mitigation, if determined necessary.<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Could be more clearly<br />
stated that any alteration should be discouraged, with the<br />
exception of habitat enhancement and management conducted<br />
as part of an approved plan. The phrase “best mitigation<br />
measures feasible” could be replaced with reference to “best<br />
management practices” and “effective mitigation that provides<br />
for improved habitat values and functions”.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 24
3. A riparian protection area and a stream buffer area<br />
shall be established for all streams within Unit I. The<br />
riparian protection area shall include all existing<br />
riparian vegetation on both sides of the stream. The<br />
stream buffer area shall extend a minimum of 50 feet<br />
from the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, but in<br />
no case shall be less than 100 feet from the banks of<br />
the stream.<br />
4. No construction, alteration of land forms, or<br />
vegetation removal, shall be permitted within the riparian<br />
protection area. However, if a parcel is located entirely within<br />
the stream buffer, design review shall be required for<br />
any proposed structure and shall consider impacts on water quality,<br />
riparian vegetation/and the rate and volume of streamflow. in<br />
general, development shall be located on that portion of the site<br />
which results in the least impact on the stream, and shall include<br />
provision for mitigation measures to control erosion and runoff and to<br />
provide restoration of disturbed areas by replanting with plant species<br />
naturally found on the site.<br />
The following 3 policies are applicable to Pine<br />
Gulch Creek.<br />
5. The USGS should install a stream gaging station<br />
as part of the Army Corps study of Lagoon to<br />
measure creek flow below the last significant stream<br />
diversion or at a location selected by the Department of Fish and<br />
Game, This station shall be monitored by the <strong>County</strong> Employee who<br />
patrols the Duxbury Reef/Bolinas Lagoon area.<br />
6. The Department of Fish and Game should begin<br />
studies to empirically determine the instream flow<br />
requirements of Pine Gulch Creek necessary to<br />
maintain the steelhead and silver salmon resource. In<br />
the event no funding is available for this work,<br />
Coastal Conservancy funds should be sought.<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – This standard provides a<br />
minimum acceptable setback and buffer along riparian<br />
corridors. Does not define protected stream, which is<br />
presumably limited to intermittent and perennial streams.<br />
Adequate protection may call for a wider setback when<br />
special-status species such as California red-legged frog are<br />
present. Method to assess and define the extent of woody<br />
riparian vegetation is necessary to determine need for setback<br />
greater than 100 feet. Need to clarify that minimum setback is<br />
from “top of bank” not simply “banks of the stream”. Need to<br />
expand policies to include protection of ephemeral drainages.<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Policy should be<br />
expanded to include a requirement of a thorough assessment of<br />
potential impacts, coordination with and approval from<br />
jurisdictional agencies, and implementation of adequate<br />
mitigation to ensure avoidance or replacement, if allowed<br />
under Coastal Act. Policy should also be revised to indicate<br />
that parcels located largely or entirely within stream buffer<br />
should be considered a priority for open space acquisition due<br />
to their sensitivity, particularly when adjacent to existing open<br />
space or where a number of similarly constrained parcels occur<br />
together.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether stream gaging station has been installed and<br />
monitored. Policies with this level of detail regarding specific<br />
improvements may be inappropriate in LCP. Policies should<br />
be revised and expanded to address management objectives<br />
and monitoring called for in Bolinas Lagoon Management<br />
Plan Update<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether study has been conducted by CDFG, possibly as part<br />
of overall management for Bolinas Lagoon. Policies should be<br />
revised and expanded to address management objectives and<br />
monitoring called for in Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan<br />
Update.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 25
7. The <strong>County</strong>, landowners within the Pine Gulch<br />
Creek watershed, and the Soil Conservation Service<br />
should undertake a joint study to recommend<br />
agricultural uses and practices which will protect the<br />
water quality of the creek and also Bolinas Lagoon. The report<br />
should be prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. This<br />
report should also recommend alternative methods of<br />
supply water to agricultural users in the event stream diversions<br />
must be halted to protect anadromous resources. The<br />
report shall be distributed to all landowners within<br />
the watershed. SCS will be contacted to undertake the study<br />
upon adoption of this LCP. Where necessary, the findings<br />
of the study should be incorporated into the LCP as<br />
amendments. Recommended restoration techniques<br />
appropriate to permit applications should be included as<br />
conditions of permit approval.<br />
The following policies are applicable to Redwood<br />
Creek.<br />
8. The biotic resources of Redwood Creek shall be protected from<br />
intense development by the redesignation of the<br />
privately owned parcels along the Creek from 10,000 square<br />
feet lot size zoning to a 1 acre lot size zoning. (See Policy IV-27).<br />
9. The USGS should install a stream gauging station<br />
to measure creek flow below the last significant<br />
stream diversion at a location selected by the<br />
National Park Service and California Department of<br />
Fish and Game. This station should be monitored by<br />
the Park Service.<br />
10. The Department of Fish and Game should begin<br />
studies to empirically determine the instream flow<br />
requirements of Redwood Creek necessary to maintain the<br />
steelhead and silver salmon resource.. In the event<br />
no funding is available for this work, Coastal Conservancy funds<br />
shall be sought.<br />
11. The National Park Service should be encouraged<br />
to investigate the possibility of creating artificial<br />
pools through Muir Woods National Monument to<br />
increase the streams carrying capacity of one and two<br />
year old salmonids. This would increase the number of salmonids<br />
spawning within the boundaries of the National<br />
Monument, and provide a better opportunity for the public<br />
to view salmonid reproductive behavior.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement - Need to confirm whether<br />
study has been conducted by SCS, possibly as part of<br />
management plan for Bolinas Lagoon. Policies should be<br />
revised and expanded to address management objectives and<br />
monitoring called for in Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan<br />
Update.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether properties in questions were redesignated or remain in<br />
private ownership. As recommended in Policy II-4, policy<br />
should be revised to indicate that parcels located entirely<br />
within stream buffer should be considered a priority for open<br />
space acquisition due to their sensitivity, particularly when<br />
adjacent to existing open space or where a number of similarly<br />
constrained parcels occur together. Policies should be revised<br />
and expanded to address management objectives and<br />
monitoring called for in the final Redwood Creek Watershed<br />
Vision and final restoration plans for Big Lagoon and<br />
Redwood Creek.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether stream gaging station has been installed and<br />
monitored. Policies should be revised and expanded to<br />
address management objectives and monitoring called for in<br />
the final Redwood Creek Watershed Vision and final<br />
restoration plans for Big Lagoon and Redwood Creek.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether study has been conducted by CDFG, possibly as part<br />
of overall management for Redwood Creek and Big Lagoon.<br />
Policies should be revised and expanded to address<br />
management objectives and monitoring called for in the final<br />
Redwood Creek Watershed Vision and final restoration plans<br />
for Big Lagoon and Redwood Creek.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm status<br />
on habitat enhancement efforts for Redwood Creek through<br />
Muir Woods National Monument, which has included inchannel<br />
modifications for pool habitat and retention of large<br />
woody debris. Policies should be revised and expanded to<br />
address management objectives and monitoring called for in<br />
the final Redwood Creek Watershed Vision and final<br />
restoration plans for Big Lagoon and Redwood Creek.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 26
12. A single, coordinated resource management plan<br />
to guide the future use and activities in and around Bolinas<br />
Lagoon shall be developed with the involvement of the various<br />
public agencies that have specific legislative and regulatory<br />
responsibilities over different activities in and around the<br />
Lagoon. This plan would identify:<br />
The level, type and location of recreational facilities and uses;<br />
The level, type and location of commercial fishing and aquaculture<br />
activities;<br />
The location and types of educational and scientific <strong>program</strong>s and<br />
facilities;<br />
The legal and physical <strong>program</strong>s necessary to protect<br />
and enhance specific wildlife and <strong>marin</strong>e resources and habitats;<br />
and<br />
The management techniques, <strong>program</strong>s and<br />
responsibilities to successfully implement such a resource<br />
management plan.<br />
Such a joint agency/organization resource planning <strong>program</strong> shall be<br />
established within 12 months of final certification of the LCP. The<br />
<strong>County</strong> of Marin would seek Coastal Commission or Conservancy<br />
funding to establish this management <strong>program</strong>. (This<br />
<strong>program</strong> was completed in January, 1981.)<br />
Completed/Needs Refinement – Need to revise and expand<br />
policy to provide framework of management objectives and<br />
monitoring called for in Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan<br />
Update.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 27
13. Prior to the completion of the joint agency<br />
resource planning <strong>program</strong> described in Policy 11-12, above,<br />
the following policies shall apply:<br />
(a) Except where modified below, the Bolinas<br />
Lagoon Plan's Policies are incorporated by reference<br />
as the LCP policies governing uses and development<br />
in and around the Lagoon.<br />
(b) The diking, filling, dredging and other<br />
alterations of these wetlands shall occur only for<br />
minor public works projects and shall be in conformance<br />
with Coastal Act Section 30233. The construction of physical<br />
improvements along the Bolinas Lagoon parklands is<br />
not consistent with these Lagoon policies.<br />
(c) Maintenance dredging of existing boating channels<br />
may occur prior to final recommendations of the present Army Corps<br />
of Engineers study. Additional alteration of these wetlands will be<br />
considered as an LCP amendment following review of this study's<br />
recommendations.<br />
(d) Commercial extraction of <strong>marin</strong>e species<br />
should be prohibited pending completion of adequate base<br />
studies and the management <strong>program</strong>. Recreational fishing<br />
activities should be monitored by the Department of<br />
Fish and Game to establish any necessary<br />
modifications in open areas or take limits.<br />
(e) The Lagoon's waters continue to experience significant<br />
pollution and degraded quality from past and present<br />
adjoining land use activities. The correction of those<br />
factors contributing to poor water quality shall<br />
continue. However, until tests substantiate conclusive<br />
improvements in water quality, the health, safety and welfare<br />
of the general public require continuation of existing<br />
health quarantine for the Lagoon.<br />
(f) A five mile per hour speed limit will be<br />
established within the Lagoon in order to protect<br />
wildlife habitat from disturbances and to minimize<br />
conflicts between swimmers, fishermen, naturalists,<br />
boaters, and other lagoon users. An ordinance that, at<br />
the minimum, includes such a speed limit shall be<br />
presented to the State Coastal Commission for<br />
certification within 120 days of the adoption of the<br />
land use plan.<br />
14. The use of toxic substances to control algae<br />
growth in any body of water which is discharged into a public<br />
waterway shall be subject to a discharge permit from the Regional<br />
Water Quality Control Board.<br />
Needs Replacement – Interim policies should be replaced with<br />
framework of management objectives and monitoring called<br />
for in Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan Update.<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Use of toxic substances<br />
to control algae growth was not addressed in the Bolinas<br />
Lagoon Management Plan Update, presumably because this is<br />
no longer practiced in the lagoon.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 28
15. The possibility of a publicly-sponsored<br />
restoration project to eliminate all vacant lots along the north<br />
side of Calle del Arroyo through acquisition or the transfer of what<br />
limited development potential such parcels may have to another<br />
area is encouraged. The Coastal Conservancy, the<br />
Audubon Society and other potentially interested<br />
agencies or organizations should be advised of the importance of<br />
pursuing such a restoration project.<br />
16. Pending implementation of a restoration<br />
project for the vacant lots along the north side of Calle del<br />
Arroyo, the area shall be redesignated as a "Resource Management<br />
Area" for a use or uses consistent with the maintenance of the marsh<br />
areas located both on and adjacent to the lots. The designation of the<br />
area as a "Resource Management Area" will recognize the severe<br />
development constraints affecting these properties due to their size<br />
and location in proximity to Bolinas Lagoon, and will thus<br />
assure conformity with Sections 30233 and 30240 (a)<br />
and (b) of the Coastal Act.<br />
Permitted uses of the Resource Management Area<br />
shall include fishing, birdwatching, photography, nature<br />
study, and other similar scientific and recreational uses. In addition,<br />
other uses may be permitted by use permit which will assure that<br />
such uses are sited and designed to be of controlled intensity and<br />
location such that they will not adversely affect the adjacent<br />
marsh area. The use permit procedure shall also assure that<br />
the uses are compatible with the character of the adjacent community.<br />
Uses which may be permitted by use permit shall include: small<br />
boat and equipment storage, non-commercial private<br />
parking, apiaries, truck farming, (provided that the application of<br />
pesticides, herbicides and other toxic chemicals is<br />
prohibited), and other uses of similar type and intensity.<br />
Existing dwellings shall be designated non-conforming uses but<br />
shall be allowed to rebuild if damaged or destroyed by<br />
natural disaster, provided however, that the floor<br />
area, height and bulk of the new structure shall not exceed<br />
that of the destroyed structure by more than 10 percent, and that the<br />
new structure is set back as far as feasible from the wetland<br />
area. Any proposed improvement to an existing home<br />
which results in more than a 10 percent increase in internal floor area of<br />
the structure shall require a <strong>coastal</strong> permit in order to assure that such an<br />
improvement is sited and designed to minimize impacts on the<br />
adjacent marsh. Such improvements shall only be<br />
permitted if an acceptable wastewater system is provided in<br />
accordance with the applicable LCP policy, and if the improvements<br />
are located as far as feasible from the adjacent wetland area.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether property acquisition and restoration has been<br />
achieved. Possible need to refine policy based on status of<br />
acquisition or transfer. Undeveloped parcels were<br />
recommended for acquisition in the Bolinas Lagoon<br />
Management Plan Update, as were several other parcels not<br />
specified in the LCP<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether property acquisition and restoration has been<br />
achieved. Possible need to refine policy based on status of<br />
acquisition or transfer. Undeveloped parcels were<br />
recommended for acquisition in the Bolinas Lagoon<br />
Management Plan Update, as were several other parcels not<br />
specified in the LCP.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 29
17. The eleven-acre Henry Wilkins property (Assessor<br />
Parcel Numbers 195290-13 and 24) is the only<br />
remaining hightide roost for shorebirds and water<br />
fowl in Bolinas Lagoon that is protected from<br />
significant disturbance, and is the only habitat adjacent to the<br />
lagoon for snipe (Capella gallinago), with a population<br />
of about 100 individuals. In addition, it is one of the few<br />
locations around the lagoon where there is a transition from salt marsh<br />
to freshwater marsh habitats and thereby adds to the total diversity of<br />
habitat areas around the lagoon. In order to protect the wetland and<br />
upland habitat values of the parcel, changes in existing grazing use of<br />
the site shall be preceded by detailed environmental investigation and<br />
shall assure protection of the habitat values of the site in accordance<br />
with other policies in the LCP. Public acquisition of the site is<br />
encouraged.<br />
18. T o the maximum extent feasible, a buffer strip, a minimum of<br />
100 feet in width, shall be maintained in natural condition along the<br />
periphery of all wetlands as delineated by the Department of Fish and<br />
Game and in accordance with Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and<br />
with the criteria developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No<br />
uses other than those dependent upon the resources shall be allowed<br />
within the buffer strip.<br />
19. In order to preserve the natural sand dune<br />
formation and sandy beach habitat, and to protect potential<br />
prescriptive rights over the dry sand areas west of the Patios,<br />
development of the existing lots west of the paper street<br />
Mira Vista shall not be permitted. These lots shall be rezoned from R-<br />
1 to RSP-2.0, and contiguous ownerships across Mira Vista shall be<br />
consolidated in order to assure protection of the existing sandy beach<br />
areas. No development, including erection of fences,<br />
signs, or other structures, shall be permitted west of Mira Vista in order<br />
to preserve both the natural dune habitat values, vegetation and<br />
contours, as well as the natural sandy beach habitat, and to protect<br />
potential public prescriptive rights over the area..<br />
The <strong>County</strong> shall continue to pursue a land trade<br />
between the lots seaward of Mira Vista and the street right-ofway<br />
as proposed in the Stinson Beach Community plan, in order to<br />
more clearly establish and define the boundaries between public<br />
and private beach areas.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether property acquisition and restoration has been<br />
achieved. Possible need to refine policy based on status of<br />
acquisition or transfer. Undeveloped portion of property east<br />
of Bolinas-Olema Road recommended for acquisition and<br />
restoration in the Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan Update,<br />
as were several other parcels not specified in LCP.<br />
Needs Refinement/Reorganization – Need to refine and<br />
expand policy to state importance of protecting wetland<br />
resources as a primary objective in <strong>coastal</strong> zone. Policy<br />
should also address primary management concerns and<br />
functions of buffer zone, and should define restrictions and<br />
methods to control possible indirect effects of public access<br />
and recreational use, grazing, agricultural practices, and other<br />
activities.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm<br />
whether property acquisition and restoration has been<br />
achieved. Possible need to refine policy based on status of<br />
acquisition or transfer. Recommendations addressing<br />
acquisition of dunes at Stinson Beach in Bolinas Lagoon<br />
Management Plan Update are limited to the tip of Stinson<br />
Beach Sandspit.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 30
20. Development of other shorefront lots<br />
within the Stinson Beach and Seadrift areas shall assure<br />
preservation of the natural sand dune formations in order to protect<br />
environmentally sensitive dune habitat and vegetation and to<br />
maintain the natural protection from wave runup that such natural<br />
dunes provide. Where no dunes are evident, any new development<br />
on shorefront lots shall be set back behind the first line<br />
of terrestrial vegetation to the maximum extent feasible, in order to<br />
minimize the need for protective works, to protect sandy beach<br />
habitat, and to provide a buffer area between private and public use<br />
areas in order to protect both the scenic and visual character of the<br />
beach, and the public right of access to the use and enjoyment of dry sand<br />
areas.<br />
21. No additional subdivision of beachfront lots shall be<br />
permitted in recognition of the cumulative negative<br />
impacts such divisions would have on both public<br />
and private use of the beach, except if a finding is<br />
made that such a subdivision will be consistent with<br />
the above policy. Similarly, the erection of fences,<br />
signs, or other structures seaward of any existing or<br />
proposed development and the modification of any<br />
dune or sandy beach area shall not be permitted<br />
except as provided in Chapter III of the LCP in order<br />
to protect natural shoreline processes, the scenic and<br />
visual character of the beach, and the public and<br />
private use of dry sand areas in accordance with<br />
Section 30211 of the Coastal Act.<br />
22. Butterfly trees and other trees or vegetation<br />
identified on the natural resource maps on file with<br />
the Marin <strong>County</strong> Planning Department, which provide<br />
roosting and/or nesting habitat of wildlife, shall be considered major<br />
vegetation, and significant alteration or removal of such vegetation<br />
shall require a <strong>coastal</strong> project permit pursuant to Section 30106 of the<br />
Coastal Act. Such trees shall not be altered or removed except<br />
where they pose a threat to life or property.<br />
23. Development adjacent to wildlife nesting and<br />
roosting areas shall be set back a sufficient distance<br />
to minimize impacts on the habitat area. Such<br />
development activities shall be timed so that disturbance to nesting<br />
and breeding wildlife is minimized and shall, to the extent practical,<br />
use native vegetation for landscaping.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Policy should be<br />
expanded to include a requirement for site assessment and<br />
mitigation to determine dune conditions, avoid sensitive dune<br />
habitat, and preserve dune functions. Policy could include a<br />
recommendation that parcels located entirely within dune<br />
habitat be considered a priority for open space acquisition due<br />
to their sensitivity, particularly when adjacent to existing open<br />
space or where a number of similarly constrained parcels occur<br />
together. Policy should be refined to include minimum criteria<br />
for avoidance, setback standards, and mitigation requirements<br />
for development in dune habitat, if limited disturbance is<br />
allowed under LCP <strong>update</strong>.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Policy should be<br />
expanded to include a requirement for site assessment to<br />
determine dune conditions, avoid sensitive dune habitat and<br />
preserve dune functions prior to approval of additional<br />
subdivision or structural improvements in dune habitat. Policy<br />
could include a recommendation that parcels located entirely<br />
within dune habitat be considered a priority for open space<br />
acquisition due to their sensitivity, particularly when adjacent<br />
to existing open space or where a number of similarly<br />
constrained parcels occur together. Policy should be refined to<br />
include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards,<br />
and mitigation requirements for development in dune habitat.<br />
Needs Refinement – Mapping of monarch overwintering<br />
colonies is being prepared based on detailed field surveys and<br />
recommendations to ensure their protection and management<br />
are currently being developed as part of the LCP <strong>update</strong>.<br />
Policy should be refined and expanded based on the results of<br />
the mapping and report findings and recommendations. Policy<br />
should be expanded to include a requirement for site<br />
assessment and mitigation where proposed development may<br />
affect mapped overwintering colonies, and should include<br />
minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards, and<br />
mitigation.<br />
Needs Refinement - Policy should be expanded to include a<br />
requirement for site assessment and mitigation where proposed<br />
development may affect sensitive nesting and roosting areas,<br />
and should include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback<br />
standards, and mitigation.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 31
24. Public access to these identified sensitive habitat<br />
areas, including the timing, intensity, and location of<br />
such access, shall be controlled to minimize<br />
disturbance to wildlife.<br />
25. Fences, roads, and structures which significantly<br />
inhibit wildlife movement, particularly access to<br />
water, shall be avoided.<br />
26. Upland grassland feeding areas shall be protected<br />
against any significant disruption of habitat values.<br />
27. Use of Duxbury reef shall continue to be<br />
regulated in accordance with existing State laws. The<br />
area should continue to be patrolled by a representative<br />
of the <strong>County</strong> Parks and Recreation Department on a daily basis.<br />
28. Invasive exotic plant species are proliferating in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone at<br />
the expense of native plants. In order to preserve<br />
indigenous native plant species within the <strong>coastal</strong><br />
zone, development permits shall be conditioned, where<br />
applicable, to require the removal of any invasive, non-indigenous<br />
plant species such as Pampas Grass, Brooms, and Thistles.<br />
30. In order to preserve the maximum amount of<br />
agricultural land, protect important upland grassland<br />
feeding areas and to promote the concentration of<br />
development in accordance with Section 30240 (a) and (b), e land<br />
now designated as A-5 and A-10 zoning districts shall be rezoned<br />
to APR-5 and APR-10 to encourage greater flexibility in the design of<br />
future land divisions within the area. New land divisions<br />
shall be designed to provide the maximum feasible clustering<br />
of new units and by easement or similar recorded instrument shall<br />
provide both the retention of the maximum amount of land in<br />
agricultural use and the protection of important upland feeding<br />
areas, which are identified on the resource maps on file in<br />
the Maria <strong>County</strong> Planning Department.<br />
Needs Reorganization and Refinement – Policies related to<br />
protection of “sensitive habitat areas” need to be reorganized<br />
and greatly expanded. Current policies are focused on specific<br />
features such as Bolinas Lagoon, Pine Gulch Creek, and<br />
Redwood Creek, and do not address other sensitive resources.<br />
Sensitive habitat should specifically include wetlands,<br />
occurrences of sensitive natural communities and specialstatus<br />
species, and important wildlife habitat such as breeding,<br />
roosting and foraging areas. Policies should be expanded to<br />
include a requirement for site assessment and mitigation where<br />
proposed development may affect sensitive habitat areas, and<br />
should include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback<br />
standards, and mitigation.<br />
Needs Refinement – Policy should be refined to include<br />
avoidance standards and methods to minimize disruption of<br />
opportunities for wildlife movement. These could include<br />
restrictions on exclusionary fencing, avoidance of new roads<br />
and crossings of riparian corridors, and siting structures<br />
outside of important movement corridors.<br />
Needs Refinement – Policy should be refined and expanded to<br />
identify functions and values to be protected, and methods to<br />
achieve avoidance. Minimum buffer setbacks from wetlands,<br />
maintenance of grassland cover, and proper management of<br />
grazing lands to prevent overgrazing are possible methods to<br />
protect grassland habitat.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm current<br />
patrol practices for Duxbury Reef, Bolinas Lagoon, and other<br />
sensitive habitat areas. Policy should be expanded to<br />
encourage use of interpretive <strong>program</strong>s and signage to protect<br />
sensitive resources, in addition to patrolling and enforcement.<br />
Needs Reorganization and Refinement – Policy should be<br />
expanded as part of a larger goal of habitat protection and<br />
management, and revised to clearly state the need for removal<br />
and control of invasive exotics, prohibit planting of<br />
undesirable species in landscaping, and require invasive exotic<br />
removal as part of proposed development approval. Identified<br />
undesirable species should be expanded to include other<br />
known invasive exotics which pose a threat in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm status<br />
of recommended rezoning. Policy should be refined to specify<br />
target species needing protection such as foraging raptors, and<br />
should emphasize avoidance of native grasslands.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 32
III. Shoreline Protection and Hazard Areas<br />
6.To minimize visual and sand transport impacts on<br />
Stinson Beach, any permit granted to construct<br />
erosion control structures shall require the reestablishment<br />
of the former dune contour and<br />
appearance. In case of emergency permits, the<br />
property-owner of record shall agree, in writing, that<br />
such restoration work will be accomplished within<br />
60 days after the threat of damage has passed.<br />
IV. Public Services and New Development<br />
1. Roads, flood control projects and utility service<br />
expansions shall be limited to the minimum<br />
necessary to serve development as identified by LCP<br />
land use policies. All such public works projects<br />
shall be reviewed under resource and visual policies<br />
of the LCP.<br />
27. Redesignate residential lot size of parcels along<br />
Redwood Creek from 10,000 square feet to 1 acre minimum lot size.<br />
(See also Policy 11-8).<br />
30.The properties presently Zoned R-3 along<br />
Shoreline Highway shall be rezoned to R-2 in order to<br />
minimize flood hazards and the adverse impacts on Easkoot Creek<br />
which would result from such development (Easkoot Creek runs<br />
across the subject properties). Redesignation of the R-3 properties to<br />
R-2 will also assure development consistent with the existing<br />
character of the community. Development shall not be<br />
permitted within the 100-year floodplain of Easkoot Creek and shall<br />
otherwise conform with LCP Policies on septic systems and stream<br />
protection.<br />
31. The properties presently zoned R-1 on 'the east side of Calle del<br />
Arroyo should be redesignated to a "Resource<br />
Management Area" in order to assure protection of<br />
the adjacent marsh areas of Bolinas Lagoon. (See<br />
also Chapter II.)<br />
32. The properties presently zoned R-1 on the seaward side of the paper<br />
street Mira Vista should be redesignated to RSP-2.0<br />
in order to assure preservation of the natural sand dunes and sandy<br />
beach areas located seaward of Mira Vista.<br />
Needs Refinement - Policy should be expanded to include a<br />
requirement for site assessment and possible mitigation as<br />
recommended under Policy II-21.<br />
Needs Refinement – Policy should be expanded to include a<br />
requirement for site assessment and mitigation where proposed<br />
development may affect sensitive habitat areas, and should<br />
include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards,<br />
and mitigation, where allowed under Coastal Act.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Revision – Need to confirm whether<br />
properties in questions were redesignated or remain in private<br />
ownership, and to specify appropriate restrictions as called for<br />
in Policies II-4 and II-8.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Revision – Policy should indicate that<br />
any new development must comply with stream protection<br />
policies and include assessment and adequate mitigation, if<br />
necessary.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Revision – Policy should indicate that<br />
any new development must comply with lagoon and marsh<br />
protection policies and include assessment and adequate<br />
mitigation, if necessary.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Revision – Policy should indicate that<br />
any new development must comply with dune protection<br />
policies and include assessment and adequate mitigation, if<br />
necessary.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 33
POLICIES<br />
TABLE 2 (Continued)<br />
EVALUATION OF EXISTING LCP BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND<br />
RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROGRAMS -- UNIT 2<br />
I. Public Access<br />
1. General policy and elements of Public Access<br />
Component. The <strong>County</strong> of Marin supports and encourages the<br />
enhancement of public access opportunities to the coast, in<br />
conformance with Sections 30210 through 30214 of the<br />
Coastal Act. There are three methods by which the policies of these<br />
sections will be implemented in the <strong>County</strong>'s Public Access<br />
Component:<br />
a. Existing accessways. The LCP recognizes existing public<br />
accessways in Unit II, both public and private, as an integral part of the<br />
<strong>County</strong>'s overall access <strong>program</strong>. These accessways, identified in<br />
Table 1 on page 6, should be maintained open to the<br />
public.<br />
b. Offered easements. A total of nine offers of public access<br />
easements in Unit II have been required as a condition of past permit<br />
approvals by the <strong>County</strong> - or the North Central Coast<br />
Regional Commission. The LCP recommends that certain of<br />
these easements, as specified in Policy #3 below, be accepted by the<br />
<strong>County</strong> or other agency and incorporated into the <strong>County</strong>'s access<br />
<strong>program</strong>.<br />
c. New accessways. The <strong>County</strong> views public access easements,<br />
gained through offers of dedication as a condition of <strong>coastal</strong> permit<br />
approval, as the primary means available to increase public access<br />
opportunities in Unit II. Potential areas where such<br />
easements could be required have been evaluated based on their<br />
desirability and physical suitability, evidence of prescriptive rights, and<br />
proximity to other access points and existing uses. Based on these<br />
criteria, specific recommendations for new accessways have been<br />
developed (Policy #3). In addition to the easements recommended, the<br />
<strong>County</strong> may require additional access in the future as the need arises.<br />
If funds become available for acquisition of public<br />
accessways, they should be allocated according to the<br />
priority recommendations in Policy A.<br />
2. General standards. The following general policies<br />
and procedures shall apply to all new accessways in<br />
Unit II, including those specifically recommended in<br />
the LCP at this time, those not currently recommended<br />
but considered in the future, and those which may be<br />
acquired by public purchase.<br />
EVALUATION<br />
Needs Refinement – Needs to acknowledge importance of<br />
avoiding sensitive biological and wetland resources, and refer to<br />
Natural Resource Protection policies.<br />
Needs Refinement - Need to define “fragile <strong>coastal</strong> resources” in<br />
LCP <strong>update</strong>, how these resources are identified, and standards for<br />
avoidance and mitigation. Policy should refer to Natural<br />
Resource Protection policies and definitions in LCP.Sensitive<br />
resources should include wetlands, occurrences of special-status<br />
species and sensitive natural communities, and important wildlife<br />
habitat such as breeding, roosting, and foraging areas.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 34
5. Exceptions for parcels not recommended for access<br />
at this time. When the <strong>County</strong> reviews <strong>coastal</strong> permits<br />
for development on parcels not specifically listed in<br />
Policy #3, the general standards in Policy #2 shall apply<br />
as well as the following exception:<br />
Public access may not be required upon specific findings by the<br />
<strong>County</strong> that,<br />
(1) It is inconsistent with public safety or the protection of fragile<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> resources, or<br />
(2) Agriculture would be adversely affected, or<br />
(3) Public use of an accessway would seriously<br />
interfere with the privacy of existing homes.<br />
The <strong>County</strong>'s findings on any point above shall<br />
include a consideration of whether or not measures such as<br />
setbacks from sensitive habitats, trail or stairway development, or<br />
regulated hours, seasons, or types of use, could adequately mitigate<br />
potential adverse impacts from access.<br />
I. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities &<br />
Federal Parklands<br />
1. General policy. The <strong>County</strong> of Marin supports and encourages<br />
the enhancement of public recreational opportunities and the<br />
development of visitor-serving facilities in its <strong>coastal</strong> zone.<br />
Such development must, however, be undertaken in a manner<br />
which preserves the unique qualities of Marin's coast and which is<br />
consistent with the protection of natural resources and<br />
agriculture. Generally, recreational uses shall be lowintensity,<br />
such as hiking, camping, and fishing, in keeping with the<br />
character of existing uses in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. New<br />
visitor-serving commercial development shall be<br />
compatible in style, scale, and character with that of the<br />
community in which it is located and shall be sited and designed to<br />
minimize impacts on the environment add on other uses in the area. The<br />
<strong>County</strong> encourages that a diversity of recreational opportunities and<br />
facilities be provided, especially those of moderate cost.<br />
Facilities for water-oriented recreational uses, such as<br />
clamming and boating, are preferred to those which do not require a<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> location.<br />
3. a. General standards and zoning. In order to<br />
preserve the integrity and special qualities of <strong>coastal</strong> villages in<br />
Unit II, visitor serving and commercial development shall be<br />
compatible in architectural style, scale, and function with the character<br />
of the community in which it is located. Such development shall also<br />
be evaluated for its conformance with LCP policies on natural<br />
resources and agriculture, visual quality, public access, and public<br />
services, among others. Existing commercial zoning<br />
shall be modified in accordance with policies 3(b) through 3(g)<br />
below.<br />
Needs Refinement _ Need to define “fragile <strong>coastal</strong> resources” in<br />
LCP <strong>update</strong>, how these resources are identified, and standards for<br />
avoidance and mitigation. Policy should refer to Natural<br />
Resources Protection policies and definitions in LCP. Sensitive<br />
resources should include wetlands, occurrences of special-status<br />
species and sensitive natural communities, and important wildlife<br />
habitat such as breeding, roosting, and foraging areas.<br />
Still Applicable – Need to acknowledge importance of both<br />
“protection” and enhancement of sensitive biological and wetland<br />
resources as a condition of any future recreational use or facility<br />
development.<br />
Still Applicable – Assumes policies pertaining to Natural<br />
Resource Protection will be <strong>update</strong>d to provide greater definition<br />
of standards for assessment, avoidance and mitigation.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 35
3. Natural resources. Federal projects which involve the<br />
modification or alteration of natural resources should be evaluated by the<br />
Coastal Commission through the consistency review process.<br />
4. a. The continuation of agricultural land uses in<br />
the GGNRA and PRNS is strongly encouraged, where<br />
and at a level which is compatible with the protection of<br />
natural resources and public recreational use.<br />
Agricultural operations should be monitored to<br />
ensure that they are compatible with resource<br />
carrying capacity. Where conflicts arise between agriculture<br />
and resource protection or public access or recreational uses, they should<br />
be resolved in such a way as to protect resources - and public<br />
safety while still allowing the continuation of the<br />
agricultural operation.<br />
II. Natural Resources<br />
1.Marine environment. Tomales Bay is currently being<br />
considered for inclusion in a proposed Point Reyes -<br />
Farrallones Federal Marine Sanctuary. The <strong>County</strong> of<br />
Marin strongly supports the objectives of the proposed Marine<br />
Sanctuary which would protect valuable habitat for<br />
<strong>marin</strong>e species, and recommends that <strong>local</strong> Marin <strong>County</strong><br />
organizations and qualified citizens be represented in any citizen<br />
advisory committee that may be established for the Sanctuary.<br />
Still Applicable –Review of federal project for consistency with<br />
LCP should include consideration of new standards in policies<br />
pertaining to natural resource protection.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm status of<br />
any monitoring of agricultural activities and necessary policy<br />
refinement to ensure protection of sensitive resources.<br />
Needs Refinement – Policy should be expanded to address all<br />
<strong>marin</strong>e environments in Coastal Zone, not just Tomales Bay.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 36
3.Streams and riparian habitats. The policies<br />
contained in this section shall apply to all streams in the Unit II<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> zone, perennial or intermittent, which are mapped by the<br />
United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) on the 7.5 minute<br />
quadrangle series.<br />
a.Stream alterations. Stream impoundments, diversions,<br />
channelizations, or other substantial alterations shall be<br />
limited to the following purposes:<br />
(1) Necessary water supply projects, including<br />
those for domestic or agricultural purposes;<br />
(2) Flood control projects where no other method<br />
for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is<br />
feasible and where such protection is necessary for<br />
public safety or to protect existing development; or<br />
(3) Developments where the primary function is<br />
the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.<br />
Before any such activities are permitted, minimum flows necessary to<br />
maintain fish habitat and water quality, and to protect downstream<br />
resources (e.g. riparian vegetation, groundwater recharge<br />
areas, receiving waters, spawning habitats, etc.) and downstream<br />
users shall be determined by the Department of Fish and<br />
Game and the Division of Water Rights of the State<br />
Water Resources Control Board. New impoundments<br />
which, individually or cumulatively, would decrease stream flows<br />
below the minimum shall not be permitted.<br />
b.Conditions. The alteration of streams allowed for the purposes<br />
listed in (a) above shall be held to a minimum to protect streamwater<br />
quality and the volume and rate of streamflow. All<br />
such developments hall incorporate the best mitigation<br />
measures feasible, including erosion and runoff control<br />
measures, and revegetation of disturbed areas with native species.<br />
Disturbance of riparian vegetation shall be held to a minimum.<br />
c. Stream Buffers. Buffers to protect streams from the<br />
impacts of adjacent uses shall be established for each stream in Unit II. The<br />
stream buffer shall include the area covered by riparian vegetation on<br />
both sides of the stream and the area 50 feet landward from<br />
the edge of the riparian vegetation. In no case shall the stream buffer be<br />
less than 100 feet in width, on either side of * the stream, as<br />
measured from the top of the stream banks.<br />
Needs Refinement – Current policies refer only to perennial and<br />
intermittent streams. Need to expand policies to include<br />
protection of ephemeral drainages and importance of providing<br />
minimum setbacks along these features given their importance in<br />
filtration function and habitat connectivity.<br />
As a general rule, new impoundments and diversions should be<br />
discouraged because of their direct and indirect effects on aquatic<br />
and riparian habitats. This prohibition on new stream alterations<br />
should be stated as policy, together with a requirement of a<br />
thorough assessment of potential impacts, coordination with and<br />
approval from jurisdictional agencies, and implementation of<br />
adequate mitigation, if determined necessary. Repeats Policy II-1<br />
in LCP, Unit 1.<br />
Needs Refinement – Could be more clearly stated that any<br />
alteration should be discouraged, with the exception of habitat<br />
enhancement and management conducted as part of an approved<br />
plan. The phrase “best mitigation measures feasible” could be<br />
replaced with reference to “best management practices” and<br />
“effective mitigation that provides for improved habitat values<br />
and functions”. Repeats Policy II-2 in LCP, Unit 1.<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – This standard provides a<br />
minimum acceptable setback and buffer along riparian corridors.<br />
Adequate protection may call for a wider setback when specialstatus<br />
species such as California red-legged frog are present.<br />
Method to assess and define the extent of woody riparian<br />
vegetation is necessary to determine need for setback greater than<br />
100 feet. Repeats Policy II-3 in LCP, Unit1.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 37
d. Development in Stream Buffers. No construction,<br />
alteration of land forms or vegetation removal shall be permitted<br />
within such riparian protection area. Additionally, such<br />
project applications shall identify a stream buffer area which shall<br />
extend a minimum of 50 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation,<br />
but in no case less than 100 feet from the banks of a stream. Development<br />
shall not be located within this stream buffer area. When a parcel is located<br />
entirely within a stream buffer area; design review shall be required to<br />
identify and implement the mitigation measures necessary to protect<br />
water quality, riparian vegetation and the rate and volume of stream<br />
flows. The design process shall also address the impacts of erosion and<br />
runoff, and provide for restoration of disturbed areas by replacement<br />
landscaping with plant species naturally found on-the site. Where a<br />
finding based upon factual evidence is made that development outside<br />
a riparian protection or stream buffer area would be more<br />
environmentally damaging to-the riparian habitat than development<br />
within the riparian protection or stream buffer area, development of<br />
principal permitted uses may occur within such area subject to design<br />
review and appropriate mitigation measures.<br />
e. Diversions Outside the Coastal Zone. Freshwater<br />
inflows to Tomales Bay are critical to the ecology of the Bay. These<br />
inflows maintain unique estuarine habitats along the shoreline of the<br />
Bay, affect the spawning characteristics of silver salmon and steelhead<br />
trout, flush saltwater and accumulated bottom sediments seaward, and<br />
influence the distribution of shellfish, including a rare and<br />
endangered species of shrimp, Syncaris pacifica. Existing<br />
dams and reservoirs have already significantly decreased<br />
the mean annual net freshwater inflow to Tomales Bay by<br />
approximately 25%. There is general recognition that the water quality<br />
and <strong>marin</strong>e life of Tomales Bay have been adversely affected by<br />
these reduced inflows. The effect of further diversions on the<br />
Bay is not known; however, the cumulative effect is generally<br />
regarded as significant.<br />
Coastal Act policies 30230 and 30231 provide for the protection of<br />
<strong>marin</strong>e resources and water quality. In addition, Section<br />
30402 provides that all state agencies shall carry out their duties and<br />
responsibilities in conformance with the policies of the<br />
Act. Although most freshwater diversions occur outside<br />
the <strong>coastal</strong> zone and are thus beyond the jurisdiction of the LCP,<br />
the important effects of such diversion projects on the <strong>coastal</strong> zone should<br />
be considered by all agencies involved so that<br />
conformance to the Coastal Act policies cited above is<br />
ensured. The <strong>County</strong> urges all agencies involved with<br />
diversions outside the <strong>coastal</strong> zone which affect<br />
freshwater inflows to Tomales Bay to properly notify<br />
the <strong>County</strong> of any plans for such diversions so that<br />
opportunity for <strong>local</strong> comment is assured.<br />
The LCP recommends that the impacts from diversion projects,<br />
especially on the two major tributaries to Tomales Bay, Walker and<br />
Lagunitas Creeks, be fully studied through the EIR process before they<br />
are permitted to proceed and that in all cases, mitigation and<br />
enhancement measures be required to ensure that <strong>coastal</strong> resources<br />
influenced by freshwater inflows are not significantly damaged.<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Policy should be expanded<br />
to include a requirement of a thorough assessment of potential<br />
impacts, coordination with and approval from jurisdictional<br />
agencies, and implementation of adequate mitigation, if<br />
determined necessary. Policy should also be revised to indicate<br />
that parcels located largely or entirely within stream buffer should<br />
be considered a priority for open space acquisition due to their<br />
sensitivity, particularly when adjacent to existing open space or<br />
where a number of similarly constrained parcels occur together.<br />
Partially repeats Policy II-4 in LCP, Unit 1.<br />
Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Policy should be expanded<br />
to consider thorough evaluation of any proposed diversion from<br />
drainage along entire <strong>coastal</strong> zone, not just tributaries to Tomales<br />
Bay.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 38
4.Wetlands. Wetlands in the Unit II <strong>coastal</strong> zone shall be<br />
preserved and maintained, consistent with the policies in this<br />
section, as productive wildlife habitats, recreational open space, and<br />
water filtering and storage areas. Land uses in and adjacent<br />
to wetlands shall be evaluated as follows:<br />
a. Diking, filling, and dredging of wetlands shall be<br />
permitted only in conformance with the policies<br />
contained in the LCP on this subject, presented on page 136.<br />
In conformance with these policies, filling of wetlands for the purposes<br />
of single-family residential development shall not be permitted.<br />
b. Allowable resource-dependent activities in wetlands<br />
shall include fishing, recreational clamming, hiking, hunting, nature<br />
study, bird watching, and boating.<br />
c. No grazing or other agricultural uses shall be<br />
permitted in wetlands except in those - reclaimed areas<br />
presently used for' such activities.<br />
d. A buffer strip 100 feet in width, minimum, as<br />
measured landward from the edge of the wetland, shall be<br />
established along the periphery of all wetlands. Where appropriate, the<br />
required buffer strip may be wider based upon the findings of the<br />
supplemental report required in (e). Development activities<br />
and uses in the wetland buffer shall be' limited to those specified in (a)<br />
and (b) above.<br />
e. As part of the application for a. <strong>coastal</strong> development permit on any<br />
parcel adjacent tom Tomales Bay, except where there is no<br />
evidence of wetlands pursuant to the Coastal Commission's guidelines,<br />
the applicant shall be required to submit supplemental biological information<br />
prepared by a qualified ecologist at a scale<br />
sufficient to identify the extent of the existing wetlands,<br />
based on Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and the area of the<br />
proposed buffer areas.<br />
5.Coastal Dunes and Other Sensitive Land Habitats.<br />
Development in or adjacent to sensitive habitats shall be subject to<br />
the following standards:<br />
a. Coastal Dunes. No development shall be permitted in<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> dunes in order to preserve dune formations, vegetation, and<br />
wildlife habitats. If additional development is proposed at<br />
Lawson's Landing, it shall be sited out of the dunes and designed to<br />
minimize impacts on adjacent dune vegetation and habitat.<br />
Overuse in the dune area shall be prevented by such<br />
mechanisms as restricting parking, directing pedestrian<br />
traffic to areas capable of sustaining increased use, and fencing.<br />
No motor vehicles shall be permitted in beach or<br />
dune areas except for emergency purposes. The<br />
existing sand quarry operation shall be reviewed in February<br />
1982 when the current permit expires for conformance with LCP<br />
policies.<br />
Needs Refinement/Reorganization – Should be revised and<br />
expanded to address wetlands through entire <strong>coastal</strong> zone. Policy<br />
should also address primary management concerns and functions<br />
of buffer zone, and should define restrictions and methods to<br />
control possible indirect effects of public access and recreational<br />
use, grazing, agricultural practices, and other activities. Policy<br />
should acknowledge permit authority of jurisdictional agencies<br />
for wetlands and unvegetated other waters, and need to provide<br />
coordination when resources may be affected by proposed<br />
development. Partially repeats Policy II-18 in LCP, Unit 1.<br />
Needs Refinement/Reorganization – Need to refine and expand<br />
policy to address all sensitive natural communities, including<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> dunes, bluff scrub, maritime chaparral, native grasslands,<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> salt marsh, brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, and riparian<br />
scrub and woodland, among others. This should be stated as a<br />
primary objective in <strong>coastal</strong> zone. Policy should be expanded to<br />
include a requirement for site assessment and mitigation where<br />
proposed development may affect sensitive habitat, and should<br />
include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards, and<br />
mitigation.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 39
. Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitats.<br />
Other sensitive habitats include habitats of rare or<br />
endangered - species and unique plant communities.<br />
Development in such areas - may - only be permitted<br />
when it depends upon the resources of the habitat area. Development<br />
adjacent to such areas shall be set back a sufficient distance to<br />
minimize impacts on the habitat area. Public access<br />
to sensitive habitat areas, including the timing, intensity, and<br />
location of such access, shall be controlled to minimize disturbance to<br />
wildlife. Fences,' roads, and structures which significantly inhibit<br />
wildlife movement, especially access to water, shall be avoided.<br />
III. Agriculture<br />
1. General policy. Marin <strong>County</strong> intends to protect the existing<br />
and future viability of agricultural lands in its <strong>coastal</strong> zone, in<br />
accordance with Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act. The<br />
<strong>County</strong>'s LCP policies are intended to permanently preserve productive<br />
agriculture and lands with the potential for agricultural use, foster<br />
agricultural development, and assure that non-agricultural<br />
development does not conflict with agricultural uses or is incompatible<br />
with the rural character of the <strong>County</strong>'s <strong>coastal</strong> zone. These<br />
policies are also intended to concentrate development<br />
in suitable locations, ensure that adequate public services are<br />
available to serve new development, and protect <strong>coastal</strong> wildlife,<br />
habitat, and scenic resources, in accordance with Sections 30240,<br />
20250, and 30251 of the Coastal Act.<br />
f. The proposed land division and/or development will<br />
have no significant adverse impacts on environmental quality or<br />
natural habitats, including stream or riparian habitats and<br />
scenic resources. In all cases, LCP policies on streams and<br />
natural resources shall be met.<br />
8. Agriculture on state parklands. State parklands with<br />
the potential for agricultural use should be made<br />
available for such use, especially during the interim<br />
period before the parks are opened for public use. Once<br />
opened, the parks should retain agricultural uses unless<br />
public recreation or natural resources on the site would be adversely<br />
affected. If conflicts between agriculture and public uses<br />
occur, they should be resolved in such a way as to protect resources<br />
and public safety while still allowing the continuation of<br />
the agricultural operation. Agricultural leases with<br />
private operators should be reviewed five years prior to<br />
expiration for compatibility with park goals.<br />
Operators should be notified at that time whether or not<br />
their leases will be renewed and what revisions in operating<br />
arrangements, if any, are necessary.<br />
Needs Refinement/Reorganization – Need to refine and expand<br />
policy to provide for protection of special-status species<br />
throughout <strong>coastal</strong> zone. This should be stated as a primary<br />
objective in <strong>coastal</strong> zone. Policy should be expanded to include a<br />
requirement for site assessment and mitigation where proposed<br />
development may affect sensitive habitat, and should include<br />
minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards, and<br />
mitigation. Policy should acknowledge permit authority of<br />
jurisdictional agencies for listed species, and need to provide<br />
coordination when essential habitat may be affected by proposed<br />
development.<br />
Still Applicable – Proposed development and agricultural<br />
practices should be compatible with protection of sensitive<br />
biological and wetland resources.<br />
Still Applicable – Proposed development and agricultural<br />
practices should be compatible with protection of sensitive<br />
biological and wetland resources, and meet refined standards in<br />
LCP <strong>update</strong> for assessment, avoidance, and mitigation.<br />
Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm status of<br />
any monitoring of agricultural activities and necessary policy<br />
refinement to ensure protection of sensitive resources.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 40
IV. Tomales Bay Uses- Mariculture<br />
1. General policy. The <strong>County</strong> of Marin supports and encourages<br />
mariculture in its <strong>coastal</strong> zone for the purposes of producing food, enhancing<br />
and restoring fisheries stocks, and contributing to the State's<br />
economy. This policy recognizes, however, that the<br />
need for mariculture sites in <strong>coastal</strong> waters must be balanced with<br />
the need to provide for other uses, such as commercial fishing,<br />
recreational clamming, and boating, and the need to protect <strong>coastal</strong><br />
wildlife, water, and visual resources.<br />
2d. Protection of eelgrass beds. The siting of oyster<br />
allotments, mariculture leases, and mariculture structures shall<br />
avoid interference or damage to eelgrass beds in Tomales Bay, in conformance<br />
with Section 165(5), Title 14, of the California Administrative<br />
Code.<br />
V. Tomales Bay Uses- Shoreline Structures<br />
1. General policy. The <strong>County</strong> discourages the proliferation of<br />
shoreline structures in the Unit II <strong>coastal</strong> zone due to their visual impacts,<br />
obstruction of public access, interference with natural shoreline<br />
processes and water circulation, and effects on <strong>marin</strong>e habitats and<br />
water quality. In some cases, however, the <strong>County</strong><br />
recognizes that the construction of protective works or piers may<br />
be necessary or desirable. When' piers are allowed, multiple public<br />
and private, commercial and recreational uses shall be<br />
accommodated, if feasible, to maximize the use of these structures<br />
and minimize the need for further construction. Coastal<br />
permits for all shoreline structures will be evaluated<br />
based on the criteria listed in the policies below.<br />
Still Applicable - Protection of sensitive habitat areas is essential<br />
to maintenance of the aquatic habitat values of the bay.<br />
Still Applicable – Protection of sensitive habitat areas is essential<br />
to maintenance of the aquatic habitat values of the bay.<br />
Still Applicable – Need to acknowledge review and approval<br />
from jurisdictional agencies.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 41
2. Shoreline protective works. The construction or<br />
reconstruction of revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, or<br />
other artificial structures for <strong>coastal</strong> erosion control shall be allowed only if<br />
each of the following criteria is met:<br />
a. The structure is required to serve a <strong>coastal</strong>-dependent<br />
use, a <strong>coastal</strong>-related use in a developed area, or to protect existing<br />
development or public beaches.<br />
b. No other non-structural alternative is practical or<br />
preferable.<br />
c. The condition causing the problem is site<br />
specific and not attributable to a general erosion trend, or the<br />
project reduces the need for a number of individual projects and solves<br />
a regional erosion problem.<br />
d. It can be shown that a structure(s) will<br />
successfully mitigate the effects of shoreline erosion and will<br />
not adversely affect adjacent or other sections of the<br />
shoreline.<br />
e. The structure will not be located in wetlands or<br />
other significant resource or habitat area, and will not cause<br />
significant adverse impacts to fish or wildlife.<br />
f. There will be no reduction in public access, use,<br />
and enjoyment of the natural shoreline environment, and<br />
construction of a structure will preserve or provide access to related<br />
public recreational lands or facilities.<br />
g. The structure will not restrict navigation, mariculture,<br />
or other <strong>coastal</strong> use and will not create a hazard in<br />
the area in which it is built.<br />
Before approval is given for the construction or reconstruction of any<br />
protective shoreline structure, the applicant for the<br />
project shall submit a report from a registered geologist,<br />
professional civil engineer, or certified engineering<br />
geologist verifying that the structure is necessary for <strong>coastal</strong><br />
erosion control and explaining how it will perform its intended<br />
function. Such a report shall not be required for emergency permit<br />
applications; however, the application shall specifically<br />
establish why the need for protective structures was<br />
not foreseen.<br />
Still Applicable – Need to acknowledge review and approval<br />
from jurisdictional agencies.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 42
3. Piers and similar recreational or commercial<br />
structures. These structures shall be limited to sites located within<br />
existing developed areas or parks. New piers shall be permitted only if<br />
each of the following criteria is met:<br />
a. The structure will be used to serve a <strong>coastal</strong>-dependent use or will<br />
preserve or provide access to related public recreational lands or<br />
facilities.<br />
b. The structure will not be located in wetlands or other significant<br />
resource or habitat area and will not, individually or cumulatively,<br />
cause significant adverse impacts on fish or wildlife.<br />
c. The structure will not interfere with public access, use, and<br />
enjoyment of the natural shoreline environment.<br />
d. The structure will not restrict navigation, mariculture, or other<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> use and will not create a hazard in the area in which it is built.<br />
e. There is no pier with public access within ½ mile, or use of a nearby<br />
pier would not be feasible due to its size, location, or configuration.<br />
The reconstruction of existing piers shall be permitted provided that the<br />
pier is of the same size and in the same location as the original pier.<br />
Enlargements-or changes in design or location shall be evaluated<br />
based on criteria (a) through (e) above.<br />
5. Design standards for all shoreline structures. The<br />
design and construction of any shoreline structure<br />
shall:<br />
a. Make it as visually unobtrusive as possible;<br />
b. Respect natural landforms to the greatest degree<br />
possible;<br />
c. Include mitigation measures to offset any<br />
impacts on fish and wildlife resources caused by the<br />
project;<br />
d. Minimize the impairment and movement of sand<br />
supply and the circulation of <strong>coastal</strong> waters; and<br />
e. Address the geologic hazards presented by<br />
construction in or near Alquist-Priolo earthquake<br />
hazard zones.<br />
Still Applicable – Need to acknowledge review and approval<br />
from jurisdictional agencies.<br />
Still Applicable – Need to acknowledge review and approval<br />
from jurisdictional agencies.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 43
VI. Tomales Bay Uses- Diking, Dredging, and Filling<br />
3. Conditions and standards. Diking, filling, or<br />
dredging may be permitted for the purposes specified<br />
above, provided that the following conditions and<br />
standards are met:<br />
a. There is no feasible less environmentally damaging<br />
alternative.<br />
b. Where feasible, mitigation measures have been<br />
provided to minimize adverse environmental effects.<br />
c. The activities are planned, scheduled, and carried<br />
out to avoid significant disruption to <strong>marin</strong>e and<br />
wildlife habitats, fish and bird breeding and migrations, and<br />
water circulation.<br />
d. The need for both initial and maintenance<br />
dredging shall be minimized by careful design and location of<br />
facilities with respect to existing water depths, water<br />
circulation, siltation patterns, and by efforts to reduce<br />
controllable sedimentation.<br />
e. In estuaries and wetlands, the diking, filling, or<br />
dredging shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the<br />
wetland or estuary.<br />
f. Dike and fill projects in wetlands shall include<br />
mitigation measures specified in Section 30607.1 of<br />
the Coastal Act.<br />
Still Applicable – Need to acknowledge review and approval<br />
from jurisdictional agencies.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 44
The following provides a discussion of the major issues which need to be addressed as part<br />
of the LCP <strong>update</strong> process. These include reorganizing the natural resources sections of the<br />
current LCP to provide additional or refined policies regarding special-status species,<br />
sensitive natural communities, wetlands, wildlife habitat connectivity, and vegetation<br />
management. New policies regarding the need to encourage interagency coordination as part<br />
of watershed and resource protection, and establishing policies on mitigation standards and<br />
options should be considered.<br />
A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES<br />
The current LCP provides for very little protection of special-status species, with only one<br />
reference to “rare or endangered species” made in Policy II.4.b of the LCP for Unit 2.<br />
Protection of essential habitat for special-status species should be a major goal of the LCP,<br />
and policies should be reorganized accordingly, consistent with the Coastal Act intent to<br />
protect “environmentally sensitive areas” in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. Revised policies should<br />
include acknowledgement of state and federal jurisdiction over sensitive resources, and the<br />
need for a thorough inventory and assessment of these resources as part the environmental<br />
review process where potential habitat may be affected by proposed development. There are<br />
no Marin <strong>County</strong> ordinances or habitat management plans related to the protection and<br />
recovery of special-status species.<br />
B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES<br />
As noted above under the discussion of special-status species, Policy II.4.b of the LCP for<br />
Unit 2 refers to sensitive habitat and “unique plant communities”, but provides no clear<br />
standards for resource identification, avoidance, and mitigation. Policies pertaining to the<br />
streams and riparian habitat, <strong>coastal</strong> dunes, and wetlands provide some degree of protection<br />
for some sensitive natural community types in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. However, additional<br />
policies and standards are necessary to provide for adequate protection of sensitive natural<br />
communities as “environmentally sensitive areas” in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone.<br />
Along with wetland resources, the issues of special-status species, sensitive natural<br />
communities, and wildlife habitat connectivity should be expanded into separate subsections<br />
to provide a framework for effective protection and restoration of viable habitat for sensitive<br />
natural resources. There are no Marin <strong>County</strong> ordinances related to the protection and<br />
enhancement of sensitive natural communities.<br />
The <strong>County</strong> of Marin Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (Ordinance #3291)<br />
established regulations for the preservation and protection of native trees, providing some<br />
protection of tree resources and woodland habitat in the non-agricultural unincorporated<br />
areas of the <strong>county</strong>, and an indication of their importance as a sensitive resource in the<br />
<strong>coastal</strong> zone. Protected trees under the ordinance are generally native species with trunk<br />
diameters of either six or 10 inches, depending on species. The ordinance is intended to:<br />
control the removal of protected trees; prevent the unpermitted wholesale removal of a<br />
majority of native trees on a parcel prior to application for a development permit; protect<br />
woodland environments on agricultural land through an educational outreach <strong>program</strong>;<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 45
educate residents of the <strong>county</strong> about the functions, benefits and values of trees; and allow<br />
removal of protected trees when appropriate. A permit is typically required prior to removal<br />
a protected tree unless assessed as part of environmental review of a proposed development<br />
application.<br />
C. WETLANDS<br />
The current LCP contains numerous policies related to protection of streams and riparian<br />
habitat. Policy II-4 of the LCP for Unit 2 addresses wetlands, but is limited in its coverage<br />
for only part of the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. There is no direct acknowledgement of the authority of<br />
other jurisdictions, process for <strong>county</strong> oversight, and mitigation framework. Protected<br />
streams are limited to mapped perennial and intermittent streams, which does not<br />
acknowledge the important function ephemeral streams provide for filtration and habitat<br />
connectivity. The <strong>County</strong> of Marin does not have specific ordinances addressing protection<br />
of creeks, marshlands, or other wetland resources, although a draft Stream Conservation<br />
Area ordinance is currently being prepared by the CDA.<br />
The process to verify jurisdictional wetlands as part of development review, provide for their<br />
protection and replacement, and ensure adequacy of mitigation and enhancement should be<br />
provided as part of the LCP <strong>update</strong>. This should include protection of ephemeral drainages,<br />
seeps, springs, and seasonal wetlands as “environmentally sensitive areas” in the <strong>coastal</strong><br />
zone. Policies should be developed which address the important functions of wetland buffer<br />
zones and define restrictions and methods to control possible indirect effects resulting from<br />
public access and recreational use, grazing, agricultural practices, and other activities.<br />
D. WILDLIFE HABITAT AND CONNECTIVITY<br />
The current LCP provides very little discussion of the importance of protecting sensitive<br />
wildlife habitat, and maintaining and improving habitat connectivity as a method of<br />
sustaining viable habitat for native plants and wildlife. Several policies call for the<br />
protection of riparian habitat, <strong>coastal</strong> dunes, and the wetlands of the Bolinas Lagoon and<br />
Tomales Bay. Policy II-25 in the LCP for Unit 1 and Policy II-4b in the LCP for Unit 2 refer<br />
to improvements, which could affect opportunities for wildlife movement, but they provide<br />
no standards or methods to minimize possible disruption. An important task of the LCP<br />
<strong>update</strong> process should be to expand current policies to provide appropriate standards to<br />
identify and avoid important wildlife habitat, such as essential foraging, roosting, and nesting<br />
areas as “environmentally sensitive areas” in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone.<br />
E. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT<br />
Vegetation management is only briefly addressed in the current LCP, with references to<br />
protection of existing riparian and dune vegetation, and one policy addressing invasive<br />
exotics. The critical issues of hazardous fuel management, control of invasive exotics such as<br />
broom, gorse, and pampas grass, the devastating loss of woodlands as a result of Sudden Oak<br />
Death, and the affects these changes have on essential habitat for special-status species such<br />
as northern spotted owl, California red-legged frog, and California freshwater shrimp<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 46
contribute to the need to develop clear policies on vegetation management in the LCP<br />
<strong>update</strong>.<br />
Appropriate policies should be more restrictive in prohibiting the use of invasive species,<br />
require their removal as part of proposed development throughout the <strong>county</strong>, and include<br />
<strong>program</strong>s to encourage their control and management on public and private lands. Policy II-<br />
28 from LCP, Unit 1 requires the removal of invasive exotic plant species on sites where<br />
development is proposed, but this should be expanded to include restrictions on additional<br />
undesirable species, elimination of these species from all lands to be developed, and control<br />
where they interface open space. One non-native species of particular note is the blue gum<br />
eucalyptus. Although blue gum is an invasive species, it does provide important habitat for<br />
native wildlife such as nesting raptors and migrating monarch butterflies. Recommendations<br />
for removal or control of blue gum should recognize and balance its value as a biological and<br />
aesthetic resource in the <strong>coastal</strong> zone.<br />
F. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION<br />
The coordinated management efforts of the Tomales Bay Watershed Council (TBWC)<br />
provides a possible model for <strong>county</strong>wide implementation of an interagency planning<br />
process. The TBWC is preparing a draft watershed management plan addressing water<br />
quality and health of the 220-square mile Tomales Bay watershed and developing<br />
recommendations for the implementation of technically sound management practices. The<br />
goals of the watershed management plan are to: ensure water quality in Tomales Bay and<br />
tributary streams sufficient to support natural resources and sustain beneficial uses; restore<br />
and preserve the integrity of natural habitats and native communities; develop strategies to<br />
implement the plan and protect the watershed; and involve and educate the public as<br />
watershed stewards. Coordination of this watershed-level planning effort with management<br />
practices throughout the <strong>coastal</strong> zone is an important step toward providing comprehensive<br />
protection and management of sensitive resources.<br />
G. MITIGATION ISSUES<br />
Several policies in the LCP refer to allowing development on parcels constrained by<br />
sensitive resources, but are not specific regarding mitigation requirements. Compensatory<br />
mitigation for potential impacts is generally required when complete avoidance of sensitive<br />
biological and wetland resources is not feasible. When compensatory mitigation is<br />
required, it can be met through a number of different approaches. These can include<br />
enhancing, restoring, or creating new habitat (either on-site or an alternative location),<br />
securing similar habitat in an alternative location in fee title or through establishment of a<br />
conservation easement, and more recently, through use of mitigation banking <strong>program</strong>s.<br />
The LCP <strong>update</strong> process should consider the appropriateness of the various mitigation<br />
options, and how these are to be achieved given the stringent requirements for avoidance in<br />
the <strong>coastal</strong> zone in protecting “environmentally sensitive areas”.<br />
VI. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES, TRENDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 47
The LCP <strong>update</strong> process provides an opportunity to reevaluate the appropriateness of current<br />
policies, assess the organizational effectiveness of the current LCP, and determine any<br />
additional goals and policies necessary to provide a framework for comprehensive<br />
management of natural resources within the <strong>coastal</strong> zone. As described in detail in Section<br />
V, numerous aspects of the current LCP require considerable reorganization and refinement<br />
to provide for adequate protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources,<br />
acknowledge the authority of jurisdictional agencies, and define new goals and policies<br />
pertaining specifically to special-status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands,<br />
wildlife habitat and connectivity, vegetation management, and interagency coordination.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 48
VII. REFERENCES<br />
A. PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORT PREPARATION<br />
Marin <strong>County</strong> Community Development Agency<br />
Alex Hinds, Planning Director<br />
Michele Rodriquez, AICP, Principal Planner<br />
Dan Dawson, Senior Planner<br />
Kristin Drumm, Planner<br />
Larisa Roznowski, Planning Aide<br />
Sophina Sadeek, Clerical Support<br />
Sharon Silver, Clerical Support<br />
Environmental Collaborative<br />
Jim Martin<br />
Nichols • Berman<br />
Bob Berman<br />
B. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED<br />
Neysa King, Tomales Bay Watershed Council, Watershed Coordinator<br />
Liz Lewis, Marin Department of Public Works, Stormwater Program Administrator<br />
Mischon Martin, Marin <strong>County</strong> Open Space District, Resource Specialist<br />
Dave Shirokauer, Point Reyes National Seashore, GIS Services<br />
Gary Stern, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Biologist<br />
Robert Taylor, Jr., Marin <strong>County</strong> Community Development Agency, GIS Analyst<br />
C. BIBLIOGRAPHY<br />
California Department of Agriculture, Plant Quarantine Manual, Oak Mortality Disease<br />
Control, Section 3700, 2001.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 49
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, List of California<br />
Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base, 2001.<br />
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, Special Animals,<br />
2002.<br />
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, Special Plants, 2002.<br />
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment<br />
Program, Wildlife Habitats, 2002.<br />
California Exotic Pest Plant Council, The CalEPPC List: Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest<br />
Ecological Concern in CA, October 1999.<br />
California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of<br />
California, Special Publication No. 1 (6th Edition), 2001.<br />
California Native Plant Society, Policy on Invasive Exotic Plants, Adopted September 1996.<br />
California Native Plant Society, Terrestrial Vegetation of California, 1988.<br />
California Native Plant Society, Statement of Policy – Wetlands, Adopted August 1991.<br />
California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, Biological Resource Division of<br />
the USGW, Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, and California State Parks,<br />
Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape, 2001.<br />
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, Classification of wetlands and<br />
deepwater habitats of the United States, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service, Washington, D.C., 1979.<br />
Environmental Laboratory, Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual, Technical<br />
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.,<br />
1987.<br />
Fehring, Katherine, E., Dawn B. Adams, and Daphne Hatch, Northern Spotted Owls in<br />
Marin <strong>County</strong>, California, 2000 Annual Report, 2001.<br />
Grossman, D., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. Weakley, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeon, R. Crawford,<br />
K. Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, and L. Sneddon,<br />
International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United<br />
States Volume 1, The National Vegetation Classification System: Development, Status, and<br />
Applications, The Nature Conservancy, 1988.<br />
Hall, E.R., The mammals of North America, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981.<br />
Harris, Richard R., Susan Kocher, and Kallie Marie Kull, Effects of <strong>County</strong> Land Use<br />
Policies and Management Practices on Anadromous Salmonids and their Habitats, 2001.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 50
Hickman, J.C., The Jepson manual: higher plants of California, University of California<br />
Press, Berkeley, California, 1993.<br />
Holland, R., Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California,<br />
California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, 1986.<br />
Howell, John Thomas, Marin Flora, 1970.<br />
Leonard Charles & Associates, Mount Tamalpais Area Vegetation Management Plan,<br />
prepared Marin Municipal Water District and Marin <strong>County</strong> Open Space District, 1995.<br />
Munz, P. and D. Keck, A California Flora and Supplement, 1973.<br />
Marin <strong>County</strong> Community Development Agency, Environmental Quality Element Technical<br />
Report #3, Species Protection in Marin, 1991.<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, The ESA and Local Governments:<br />
Information on 4(d) Rules, 1999.<br />
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest and Southwest Regions, A Citizen's Guide to<br />
the 4(d) Rule for Threatened Salmon and Steelhead on the West Coast, 2000.<br />
National Research Council, Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management,<br />
March 22, 2002.<br />
Peterson, R.T., Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1969.<br />
Philip Williams & Associates, A Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Wetland<br />
Restoration Alternatives for Big Lagoon at Muir Beach, Marin <strong>County</strong>, prepared for the<br />
California Department of Transportation, District IV, April 1996.<br />
Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service, General Management Plan, 1980.<br />
Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service, Resource Management Plan, 1999.<br />
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf, A Manual of California Vegetation, California Native<br />
Plant Society, Sacramento, 1995.<br />
Schueler, T. and H. Holland, The Practice of Watershed Protection, Techniques for<br />
protecting our nation’s streams, lakes, rivers and estuaries, 2000.<br />
Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz Laboratory, Status Review Update for Coho<br />
Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from the Central California Coast and the California portion<br />
of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Evolutionarily Significant Units, 2001.<br />
Stebbins, R.C., A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 2nd Edition, Houghton<br />
Mifflin Co., Boston, 1985.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 51
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the<br />
United States, 1979.<br />
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, CalVeg Geobook, Version 1, 2000.<br />
Wetland Research Associates, Phillip Williams Associates, Avocet Research Associates,<br />
Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan Update. 1996.<br />
Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report<br />
June 2003 Page 52