marin county local coastal program update - County Home

MARIN COUNTY 

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UPDATE 

Biological and Wetland Protection 

Technical Background Report 

Project Manager: Michele Rodriguez, AICP, Principal Planner 

Alex Hinds, Planning Director 

Dan Dawson, Senior Planner, AICP 

Kristin Drumm, Planner 

Larisa Roznowski, Planning Aide 

Sophina Sadeek, Clerical Support 

Sharon Silver, Clerical Support 

Special Consultant: Environmental Collaborative Nichols • Berman 

1268 64 th Street 110 East D Street, Suite E 

Emeryville, CA 94608 Benicia, CA 94510 

June 2003 

The Marin County Community Development Agency, Planning Division 

3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND .........................................................................1 

A. PURPOSE....................................................................................................1 

B. BACKGROUND AND METHODS ...........................................................1 

II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK............................................................................2 

A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ....................................................................3 

1. Federal Authority.............................................................................4 

2. State Authority.................................................................................4 

B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ................................................6 

1. Federal and State Authority .............................................................7 

C. WETLANDS................................................................................................7 

1. Federal Authority.............................................................................8 

2. State Authority.................................................................................8 

D. HABITAT CONNECTIVITY .....................................................................9 

1. Federal and State Authority ...........................................................10 

III. MAPPING SUMMARY........................................................................................10 

IV. LOCAL COASTAL ZONE SETTING..................................................................12 

A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ..................................................................13 

B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ..............................................21 

C. WETLANDS..............................................................................................21 

V. MARIN COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM POLICY REVIEW ..........22 

A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ..................................................................46 

B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ..............................................46 

C. WETLANDS..............................................................................................47 

D. WILDLIFE HABITAT AND CONNECTIVITY......................................47 

E. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................47 

F. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION........................................................48 

G. MITIGATION ISSUES .............................................................................48 

Marin Local Coastal Program Update Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report 

June 2003 Page i

VI. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES, TRENDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES................49 

VII REFERENCES.....................................................................................................50 

A. PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORT PREPARTION.......................50 

B. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ..............................50 

C. BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................50 

LIST OF TABLES 

1. Special-Status Species Known from Coastal Zone of Marin County ........................ 14 

2. Evaluation of Existing Local Coastal Program Biological and Wetlands 

Resources Policies and Programs.......................................................................... 23 


June 2003 Page ii

A. PURPOSE 

I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 

This Biological and Wetland Protection Technical Background Report provides a description 

of the regulatory framework related to sensitive biological and wetland resources, a general 

description of resources within the coastal zone, and a review of the current policies of the 

existing Local Coastal Program (LCP). Its purpose is to provide background information on 

sensitive resource within the coastal zone, regulations and programs which provide for their 

protection, an evaluation of the degree to which the current LCP addresses these resources, 

and areas of necessary focus in updating the LCP to ensure greater protection and 

sustainability of the natural environment. 

B. BACKGROUND AND METHODS 

The Marin County Local Coastal Program, Unit 1 (1979) and Unit 2 (1980) provides 

background information and policies on biological and wetland resources in the coastal zone. 

Background information and specific policies in the LCP, Unit 1 focuses on stream 

protection, Bolinas Lagoon protection, dune and sandy beach protection, and habitat 

protection, along with a limited discussion of agriculture. In the LCP, Unit 2, adopted over a 

year later, agriculture is addressed as a separate subsection from natural resources under the 

more general section of Resource Protection. Background information in the LCP, Unit 2 

includes the marine environment of Tomales Bay, water quality of Tomales Bay, streams 

and riparian habitats, wetlands, and coastal dunes and other sensitive land habitats, together 

with LCP policies on natural resources. 

This Technical Report was based on the review of available information, existing mapping, 

and consultation with representatives of agencies with resource management authority. 

Available literature and resource mapping reviewed included: 

• policies and programs from the current LCP; 

• the Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan Update (Wetlands Research et al, 1996); 

• the preliminary environmental assessment and restoration alternatives for Big 

Lagoon (Philip Williams & Associates, 1996); 

• the Mount Tamalpais Area Vegetation Management Plan of the Marin Municipal 

Water District and Marin County Open Space District (Leonard Charles & 

Associates, 1995); 

• the General Management Plan for Point Reyes National Seashore (National Park 

Service, 1980); 

• the final report on County land use policies and management practices on 

anadromous salmonids and their habitats (Harris et. al, 2001); 


June 2003 Page 1

• the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered 

Vascular Plants (2001); 

• mapping prepared as part of the California Land Cover Mapping and Monitoring 

referred to as the CalVeg program (USDA Forest Service, 2000); 

• mapping prepared as part of the National Wetland Inventory (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, various dates); and 

• the occurrence records of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 

The National Wetland Inventory (NWS) wetlands mapping and occurrence records of the 

CNDDB are maintained in Geographic Information System (GIS) of the Marin County 

Community Development Agency (CDA). The occurrence records of the CNDDB provided 

information on the known distribution of sensitive natural communities and special-status 

species for the coastal zone of Marin County, which was combined with other available 

records. The NWI provided a general mapping of wetland resources for the coastal zone of 

Marin County, which has been combined with the County’s mapping of perennial and 

intermittent streams. Identification of the biological and wetland resources in the coastal 

zone of the county was based on existing information, and no detailed field surveys were 

conducted as part of this assessment. 

II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Local, State, and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and 

management of sensitive biological and wetland resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) is responsible for implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act 

and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has 

primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under §404 of the Clean Water Act. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has federal authority over anadromous fish and 

marine wildlife under the federal Endangered Species Act. At the State level, the California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is responsible for administration of the California 

Endangered Species Act, and for protection of streams and waterbodies through the 

Streambed Alteration Agreement process under §1601-1606 of the California Fish and 

Game Code. Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board is also 

required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to 

§401 of the Clean Water Act and EPA §404(b)(1) Guidelines. 

Local regulations addressing sensitive biological and wetland resources include policies 

from the Marin Countywide Plan, which is currently being updated, and the natural resource 

policies from the current LCP, Unit 1 and Unit 2. The LCP was prepared pursuant to the 

Coastal Act of 1976, which required all coastal jurisdictions to prepare a Local Coastal 

Program. The protection of natural resources in the coastal zone is a major emphasis of the 

Coastal Act. A detailed review of the adequacy of the current LCP for Marin County is 

provide in Chapter V of this Background Report. 


June 2003 Page 2

A. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 

Special-status species 1 are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State 

and/or federal Endangered Species Acts 2 or other regulations, as well as other species that 

are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant 

special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting 

or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Species with legal 

protection under the federal and California Endangered Species Acts often represent major 

constraints to development, particularly when they are wide ranging or highly sensitive to 

habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a "take" of these 

species. "Take" as defined by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) means "to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, would, kill, trap, capture, or collect" a threatened or endangered 

species. "Harm" is further defined by the USFWS to include the killing or harming of 

wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e. breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering) through significant habitat modifications or degradation. The CDFG also 

considers the loss of listed species habitat as "take", although this policy lacks statutory 

authority and case law support under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). 

The primary information source on the distribution of special-status species in California is 

the CNDDB inventory, which is maintained by the Natural Heritage Division of the CDFG. 

Occurrence data is obtained from a variety of scientific, academic, and professional 

organizations, private consulting firms, and knowledgeable individuals, and entered into the 

inventory as expeditiously as possible. The occurrence of a species of concern in a particular 

region is an indication that an additional population may occur at another location if habitat 

conditions are suitable. However, the absence of an occurrence in a particular location does 

not necessarily mean that special-status species are absent from the area in question; only 

that no data has been entered into the CNDDB inventory. Detailed field surveys are 

generally required to provide a conclusive determination on presence or absence of sensitive 

resources from a particular location, where there is evidence of potential occurrence. 

1 Special-status species include: 

Officially designated (rare, threatened, or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the CDFG. 

Officially designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the USFWS or NMFS. 

Species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, such as those 

identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California by the CNPS (2001). 

And possibly other species which are considered sensitive or of special concern due to limited distribution or lack of adequate 

information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on list 3 in the CNPS Inventory or 

identified as animal “California Special Concern" species by the CDFG. California Special Concern species have no legal 

protective status under the California Endangered Species Act but are of concern to the CDFG because of severe decline in 

breeding populations. 

2 The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 declares that all federal departments and agencies shall utilize their 

authority to conserve endangered and threatened plant and animal taxa. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 

1984 parallels the policies of ESA and pertains to native California taxa. 


June 2003 Page 3

1. Federal Authority 

The USFWS and NMFS have jurisdiction over species that are formally listed as threatened 

or endangered under the federal ESA. An "endangered" plant or animal species is one that is 

considered in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

A "threatened" species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future. The USFWS also maintains a list of species proposed for listing as endangered or 

threatened that have been published in the Federal Register. In addition, the USFWS 

maintains a list of candidate species for which sufficient information is available to support 

issuance of a proposed listing rule. 

Any activity that could result in take of a federally-listed species requires a §10 take permit 

authorization from the USFWS or NMFS. Should another federal agency be involved with 

permitting the project, such as the Corps under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, §7 of the 

ESA requires the federal lead agency to consult with the USFWS and/or NMFS before 

permitting any activity that may result in take of a listed species. Section 9 of the ESA and 

its applicable regulations restrict certain activities with respect to endangered and threatened 

plants. However, these restrictions are less stringent than those applicable to fish and 

wildlife species. The provisions prohibit the removal of, malicious damage to, or destruction 

of any listed plant species from areas under federal jurisdiction. Listed plants may not be 

cut, dug up, damaged or destroyed, or removed from any other area (including private lands) 

in knowing violation of a state law or regulation. 

In addition to the protection offered under the ESA, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) provides for protection of migratory bird species, birds in danger of extinction, and 

their active nests. It is illegal to posses or take any bird protected under the act without a 

depredation permit from the USFWS, which includes protection of eggs, young, and nests in 

active use. Although the MBTA technically provides for protection of most bird species, it 

is typically applied as a mechanism to protect active nests of raptors and colonial nesting 

species through the breeding and nesting season. 

2. State Authority 

The CDFG has jurisdiction over threatened or endangered species that are formally listed 

under the CESA. The CESA is similar to the federal ESA both in process and substance, 

providing additional protection to listed species in California. The CESA does not supersede 

the federal ESA, but operates in conjunction, with some species having different listing 

status. The CESA is intended to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance listed species and 

their habitat. Compliance with the CESA is required when a take is considered likely by the 

CDFG. 

The CDFG maintains informal lists of "California Special Concern" (CSC) species. These 

CSC species are broadly defined as plants and animals that are of concern to the CDFG 

because of population declines and restricted distribution, and/or because they are associated 

with habitats that are declining in California. These species are inventoried in the CNDDB, 

focusing on nesting, roosting, and congregation sites for non-listed species. Species 


June 2003 Page 4

designated as "Fully Protected" or "Protected" may not be taken or possessed without a 

permit. 

The CESA prohibits the take of any plant listed as endangered, threatened, or rare. A "rare" 

plant species is one not presently threatened with extinction but may become endangered if 

its present environment worsens. State listing of plants began in 1977 with passage of the 

Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA). The CESA expanded upon the NPPA and enhanced 

legal protection for plants. To align with federal regulations, CESA created the categories of 

threatened and endangered species. It grandfathered all rare animals into the CESA as 

threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. 

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit conservation organization 

dedicated to the preservation of native flora in California. The CNPS has been involved in 

assembling, evaluating, and distributing information on special-status plant species in the 

state, as listed in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS, 2001). 

A list 1A plant is a species, subspecies, or variety that is considered to be extinct. A list 1B 

plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. A list 2 

plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California but is more common 

elsewhere. A list 3 plant is a species for which the CNPS lacks necessary information to 

determine whether or not it should be assigned to a list. A list 4 plant has a limited 

distribution in California and is considered a "watch list" by the CNPS. 

All of the plant species on List 1 and List 2 meet the requirements of the NPPA (§1901, 

Chapter 10) or §2062 and 2067 of CESA, and are eligible for state listing. Species 

maintained by CNPS on Lists 1 and 2 should be considered special-status species under the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some List 3 plant species also meet the 

requirements for state listing. Very few List 4 plants are eligible for listing but may be 

locally important and their listing status could be elevated if conditions change. 

The CEQA requires government agencies to consider environmental impacts of projects and 

to avoid or mitigate them where possible. Under §15380, CEQA provides protection for 

both State-listed species and for any other species that can be shown to meet the criteria for 

State listing. The CDFG recognizes that Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS Inventory consist 

of plants that, in a majority of cases, would qualify for listing and these species should be 

addressed under CEQA review. In addition, the CDFG recommends, and local governments 

may require, protection of species that are regionally significant, such as locally rare species, 

disjunct populations, essential nesting and roosting habitat for more common species, or 

plants on the CNPS Lists 3 and 4. 

The Coastal Act also provides for protection of essential habitat for special-status species 

and other sensitive habitat. Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines “environmentally 

sensitive area” (ESHA) to mean any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are 

either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and 

which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activity and development. As 

defined in §30240 of the Coastal Act, ESHAs are to be protected against any significant 

disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources are to be allowed 

within those areas. Development adjacent to ESHAs and open space lands are to be sited 


June 2003 Page 5

and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and are to be 

compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. The California 

Coastal Commission generally interprets this section to mean that even with mitigation, a 

non-resource-dependent use can not be permitted in an ESHA. The Coastal Act requires a 

specific finding in conjunction with each coastal permit approval that it is consistent with the 

policies of the LCP, providing added protection for an ESHA and the resources associated 

with the area. In the coastal zone, essentially every approval is discretionary unless it is 

exempt from a coastal permit altogether or is categorically excluded under the categorical 

exclusion order adopted by the Coastal Commission. 

B. SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES 

In addition to species-oriented management, protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is 

increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the state. This is 

considered the most effective means of providing long-term protection of ecologically viable 

habitat, and can include whole watersheds, ecosystems, and sensitive natural communities. 

Providing habitat connectivity between natural areas is essential to sustaining healthy 

wildlife populations and allowing for the continued dispersal of native plant and animal 

species. 

The CNDDB is also responsible for maintaining up-to-date records of sensitive natural 

communities, those considered rare or threatened in the state. Until recently, the 

classification of natural communities used by the CNDDB was generally a habitat-based 

approach defined by dominant or characteristic plant species as described in the Preliminary 

descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California (Holland, 1986). The 

classification of natural communities now used by the CNDDB is based on the system 

described in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). It is a 

floristically based system that uses two units of classification, called the alliance and the 

association in the National Vegetation Classification (Grossman et al, 1998). Although it is 

just now beginning to be used on a broad scale, this quantitative vegetation classification and 

systematic mapping methods will allow conservationists and resource managers a greater 

understanding of natural ecosystems, their abundance, and their relative security. This new 

system is now used by the CDFG, CNPS, State Parks, National Park Service, U.S. Geologic 

Survey, and some local agencies, and has been or is currently being used to map the Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National Seashore, Suisun Marsh, Yosemite, 

Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks, and Napa County. 

The purpose of the CNDD natural community inventory was originally to identify and 

determine the significance and rarity of the various vegetation types in the state. While 

identifying and mapping sensitive natural communities continues to be a primary focus of 

the inventory, a more thorough understanding of all natural communities is essential to 

accurately define rarity, identify monitoring trends and threats, and broaden the approach to 

ecosystem-level conservation of biological diversity. This will presumably lead to mapping 

of vegetation throughout the state using the newer classification system. In the interim, 

sensitive natural community types recorded in the CNDDB are still generally mapped 

according to the older Holland classification system. Considerable work is necessary in 


June 2003 Page 6

updating and refining existing mapping records, identifying new occurrences of sensitive 

natural communities, and expanding the data base to include the identification of highquality 

stands of all natural communities. In Marin County, much of the coastal zone has 

already been mapped using this newer classification system because of the joint efforts of the 

GGNRA, Point Reyes National Seashore, and the State Parks. 

1. Federal and State Authority 

Although these natural communities have no legal protective status under the state or federal 

Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protection under CEQA. The 

CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist), identify potential impacts on a 

sensitive natural community as one of six significance criteria. As an example, a 

discretionary project that has a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, native 

grassland, dune or bluff scrub, or other sensitive natural community would normally be 

considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural 

community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its 

relative abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the 

specific community type. Where determined to be a significant impact under CEQA, the 

potential impact would require mitigation through avoidance, minimization of disturbance or 

loss, or some type of compensatory mitigation when unavoidable. 

Locations supporting sensitive natural communities in the coastal zone could be interpreted 

as ESHAs under the Coastal Act, providing added protection for these resources. As 

discussed under special-status species, the definition of “environmentally sensitive area” in 

the Coastal Act is broad enough to encompass well preserved occurrences of sensitive 

natural communities in the coastal zone, such as native grasslands, riparian, and dune or 

bluff scrub. Where designated as ESHAs, these occurrences are to be protected against any 

significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on these resources are to be 

allowed. 

C. WETLANDS 

Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that 

are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support 

vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on 

a regional and national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as 

storage areas for storm and floodwaters, and water recharge, filtration, and purification 

functions. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by the Corps 

and the USFWS, which generally define wetlands through consideration of three criteria: 

hydrology, soils, and vegetation. 

In recognition of the importance of wetlands, in 1977 the USFWS began a systematic effort 

to classify and map remaining wetlands in the country, now known as the National Wetlands 

Inventory Program (NWI). Using the USGS topographic maps as a base, the wetlands 

mapping effort provides a generalized inventory of wetlands according to the Classification 

of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (USFWS, 1979) used by the 

USFWS. Mapping under the NWI has been prepared through interpretation of aerial 


June 2003 Page 7

photographs, with only limited ground confirmation, which means that a more thorough 

ground and historical analysis may result in a revision to wetland boundaries in a specific 

location. The inventory is not an attempt to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of 

any governmental agency. 

1. Federal Authority 

The Clean Water Act was enacted to address water pollution, establishing regulations and 

permitting requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm water, dredge and 

fill material operations, and water quality standards. This regulatory program requires that 

discharges to surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permitting requirements that apply to sources of water runoff, private 

developments, and public facilities. 

Under §404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps is responsible for regulating the discharge of 

fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters" includes wetlands and nonwetland 

bodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. All three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be 

identified as a wetland under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human 

activity. In general, a permit must be obtained before fill can be placed in wetlands or other 

waters of the U.S. The type of permit depends on the amount of acreage and the purpose of 

the proposed fill, subject to discretion of the Corps. 

Certain activities in wetlands or "other waters" are automatically authorized, or granted a 

nationwide permit which allows filling where impacts are considered minor. Eligibility for a 

nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationwide permits cover 

construction and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activities such as minor 

road crossings, utility line crossings, streambank protection, recreational facilities and outfall 

structures. To qualify for a nationwide permit, a project must demonstrate that it has no 

more than a minimal adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, including species listed under 

the ESA. This typically means that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage or 

habitat value, resulting in appropriate mitigation where fill activities are proposed. 

The Corps assumes discretionary approval over proposed projects where impacts are 

considered significant, requiring adequate mitigation and permit approval. To provide 

compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's §404(b)(1) Guidelines, an applicant 

must demonstrate that the proposed discharge is unavoidable and is the least environmentally 

damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the overall project purpose. The 1990 

Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the Determination of 

Mitigation under the Guidelines prioritizes mitigation, with the first priority to avoid 

impacts, the second to minimize impacts, and the third to provide compensatory mitigation 

for unavoidable impacts. 

2. State Authority 

Jurisdictional authority of the CDFG over wetland areas is established under §1601-1606 of 

the Fish and Game Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow 


June 2003 Page 8

or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The Fish and Game Code 

stipulates that it is "unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or 

substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake" without notifying 

the CDFG, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration 

agreement. The Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFG states that the Fish and Game 

Commission will "strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands...unless, at 

a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat 

values or acreage". The Department is also responsible for commenting on projects 

requiring Corps permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. 

In addition, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for 

upholding state water quality standards. Pursuant to §401 of the Clean Water Act, projects 

that apply for a Corps permit for discharge of dredge or fill material, and projects that qualify 

for a Nationwide Permit must obtain water quality certification. 

The Coastal Act and associated regulations define wetlands in a broad way, which is 

generally more inclusive than the definition used by the Corps. Under Title 14, §13577(b) of 

the California Code of Regulations, an area is considered a wetland in the coastal zone when 

either hydrophytic soils or wetland indicator plants are present, not a combination of the 

three criteria of soils, vegetation, and hydrology as is typically required under Corps 

definitions. This provides for greater protection of certain types of wetland, particularly 

where vegetation is lacking and soils are poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent or 

marked fluctuations in surface water levels and other factors. This broader definition under 

the Coastal Act also provides for protection of hydrologically isolated wetlands such as 

seeps or seasonal wetlands, which are now considered exempt from Corps jurisdiction under 

a recent Supreme Court ruling. The Coastal Act policy prohibits the filling of wetlands for 

residential purposes, based on a court decision in the Bolsa Chica Land Trust case. 

D. HABITAT CONNECTIVITY 

As noted previously, protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is essential to sustaining native 

plant and animal populations. Viability is a function of numerous factors, including the size 

and health of local plant and animal populations, habitat quality and diversity, habitat 

connectivity, and ecosystem dynamics such as fire, flooding, seasonal changes, and other 

natural disturbances, predation, and plant-herbivore pressures. Human-induced changes to 

the landscape have significant affects on the health and productivity of the natural 

environment, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban, suburban, and even 

rural development, conversion to agricultural crops, poor land management practices, and 

the network of roadways, flood control modifications to drainages, and other infrastructure 

that supports our existence. 

Protecting and enhancing habitat connectivity and functional movement corridors between 

the remaining natural areas is essential to sustaining populations and allowing for the 

continued dispersal of native plant and animal species. Natural linkages include riparian 

corridors and drainages, canyons, ridgelines, and corridors across valley floors where 

impermeable barriers such as dense urban development, exclusionary fencing, and heavily 

traveled roadways haven’t yet eliminated options for wildlife movement and plant 


June 2003 Page 9

dispersal. While narrow corridors may be the only option in some locations due to the 

extent of existing development, habitat linkages are most effective through maintenance of a 

permeable landscape, one that allows for uninhibited movement of species across large 

areas. 

Very little study or mapping of opportunities for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and 

habitat connectivity have been prepared addressing resources in Marin County or the State as 

a whole. The Missing Linkages conference in November 2000, cosponsored by the 

California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, the Biological Resource Division 

of the USGS, the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, and California State 

Parks, provided the first coordinated statewide effort in California to systematically identify, 

study, and protect wildlife corridors. The resulting report, Missing Linkages: Restoring 

Connectivity to the California Landscape (California Wilderness Coalition et al, 2001), 

describes the methodology in identifying landscape linkages, connectivity choke-points, and 

missing links, and prioritizes these features based on conservation opportunities, presence of 

target species, overall threat, and existing documentation. While the Missing Linkages 

conference focused primarily on wildlife movement, it does provide a starting point in 

considering importance of linking core wildlands for both wildlife connectivity and plant 

dispersal. It identified locations and features considered to be of statewide and regional 

significance by those in attendance at the conference. Because of this broad purpose, it is of 

only limited value when applied at the county level, but still serves as an initial source of 

analysis and recommendations. 

1. Federal and State Authority 

Although there are no state or federal laws directly addressing habitat connectivity and 

preserving biodiversity, the Endangered Species Acts provide for protection of essential 

habitat for listed species. In addition, one of the significance criteria in the CEQA 

Guidelines, Appendix G, focuses on potential impacts on movement of any native resident or 

migratory fish or wildlife species, but not the dispersal of native plant species that can be 

particularly vulnerable to extirpation in isolated occurrences. Another significance criteria in 

the CEQA Guidelines pertains to the degree to which a discretionary project conforms with 

local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This significance criterion does 

provide an opportunity to establish specific local policies and perhaps ordinances pertaining 

to habitat connectivity and biodiversity on a local level. 

III. MAPPING SUMMARY 

The current LCP includes numerous references to Natural Resource maps, which are 

available for review at the Marin County Community Development Agency. These maps 

provide general information on resources in the coastal zone, such as cover types, locations 

of marshland, native trees, butterfly trees, and wildlife habitat areas. However, these maps 

were prepared in the early 1980s and need to be updated. 

The GIS section of the Community Development Agency has prepared several maps as part 

of the Marin Countywide Plan update, which are applicable to identification of biological 

and wetland resources in the coastal zone. These include: 


June 2003 Page 10

• Exhibit 1, Vegetative Cover - showing vegetation cover modified from the CalVeg 

mapping program of the U.S. Forest Service (2000) and the Fire and Resources 

Assessment Program (FRAP) of the California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection (2002). This consists of mapping from the CalVeg land cover assessment 

in 2000 for most of the county, and more generalized mapping from the FRAP of 

2002 for the City-Centered Corridor in the eastern part of the county. Cover types 

have been merged to simplify major vegetation associations in the exhibit. The 

Vegetation Exhibit gives a generalized indication of the various vegetation types, 

and their relationship to major drainages, roadways, and urban development in the 

county 

• Exhibit 2, Public Open Space Lands - showing designated public open space and 

watershed lands in the county, distinguishing federal, state, local and water district 

lands. These open space and watershed lands are vital to maintaining viable habitat 

for native plants and wildlife in the county. Consideration should be given to how 

these protected lands are interconnected and where additional open space lands 

must be secured to maintain critical habitat links, particularly along stream 

corridors, coastal shoreline, and ridgelines. 

• Exhibit 3, Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities - showing 

recorded occurrences of special-status species plant and animal species and of 

sensitive natural communities based on the CNDDB records. Streams with known 

occurrences of coho salmon and steelhead trout are also indicated in the exhibit. 

Most of the occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural communities 

are from the state and federally-protected lands of Point Reyes and Mount 

Tamalpais, and the marshlands along San Francisco and San Pablo bays. The 

occurrence records vary in their specificity and the mapped data varies accordingly, 

with some locations considered very accurate and others covering a wide area of 

several miles considered to be potential habitat. Streams with known occurrences 

of the federally-threatened coho salmon and steelhead trout extend throughout the 

coastal zone, including Redwood, Pine Gulch, Easkoot, Olema, Lagunitas, 

Tomasini, Walker, and Estero Americano creeks. 

• Exhibit 4, Wetlands and Streams - showing wetlands and streams based on the NWI 

and designated perennial and intermittent stream on USGS topographic maps. The 

wetland mapping has been simplified to show major wetland systems, including 

marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine. Summaries of these different 

systems are contained in the exhibit. Marshland, mudflats, and open water of the 

bays and lagoons are classified as part of the estuarine system. The rocky shoreline 

and open waters of the Pacific Ocean are classified as part of the marine system. 

The man-made reservoirs and channels are classified as part of the lacustrine 

system. The creeks and streams, scattered smaller stockponds, and seasonal 

wetlands are classified as part of the palustrine and riverine systems. 

IV. LOCAL COASTAL ZONE SETTING 


June 2003 Page 11

Marin County is well known for its natural beauty and diversity of natural resources, ranging 

from the marine environments of the coastal zone to the forests, chaparral, woodlands and 

grasslands of Mount Tamalpais. Much of this land in the coastal zone is under public 

management as parks, open space, conservation easements, and watershed lands, providing a 

unique opportunity to effectively protect and manage sensitive biological and wetland 

resources. 

The natural communities of the coastal zone support a wide diversity of plant and animal 

species, including a high number of special-status species. Natural community types in the 

coastal zone include: mixed evergreen forest, pine forest, douglas fir/redwood forest, oak 

woodland, grassland, coastal beach dune, northern coastal scrub, chaparral, coastal salt 

marsh, riparian, and freshwater marsh. Exhibit 1 shows the distribution of vegetative cover 

in the county, modified from the 2000 CalVeg mapping program of the U.S. Forest Service. 

Major distinguishable characteristics of the coastal zone include: the extensive grasslands to 

the north which intergrade with scrub and forest lands in the Point Reyes Peninsula; the 

forests, woodland, and chaparral on the western slopes of Mt. Tamalpais; and the mosaic of 

grassland and scrub on the Bolinas Mesa and hillsides south of Bolinas Bay. 

Historic land use has altered much of the landscape in the county, including the plant 

communities and wildlife dependent upon them. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century 

and continuing into the present, activities such as livestock grazing, timber operations, 

clearing and disking for agricultural production, road building, and urban and suburban 

development have markedly altered the remaining natural communities. Native perennial 

grasslands have been largely replaced by non-native annual grasslands, and a number of 

highly invasive species now threaten the remaining grasslands. Fire suppression, livestock 

grazing, and more recently the affects of Sudden Oak Death have greatly altered the extent 

of woodland and forest cover. The past affects of timber harvesting and overgrazing 

continue to affect the aquatic habitat of the streams, creeks, and lagoons in the county, and 

limits the viability of the anadromous fisheries. These influences on the natural landscape 

have changed in the past few decades, from one of primarily agricultural-related activities 

to one of increased development pressure and recreational uses. 

Although past influences have greatly altered the natural landscape, the extensive system of 

open space lands in the coastal zone provides a unique opportunity to work toward the 

protection and enhancement of biological and wetland resources. However, this can only be 

successfully achieved through coordinated management efforts between private landowners 

and public agencies, and through implementation of effective policies defining permissible 

uses and necessary development controls established as part of the LCP. Exhibit 2 shows the 

relationship between public and privately-held lands in the county, identifying watershed 

lands, federal parks and facilities, state parks and facilities, and Marin County and local 

parks. This includes the Point Reyes National Seashore, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area, Muir Woods National Monument, Mount Tamalpais State Park, Audubon Canyon 

Ranch, and Marin County open space lands. 



June 2003 Page 12

The records of the CNDDB indicate that special-status plant and animal species occur in a 

wide range of habitat types throughout the coastal zone. Most of the reported occurrences 

are from public lands including the Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, and the State Park and Marin Municipal Water District watershed 

lands on Mount Tamalpais. This may be due in part to a more concerted effort to survey and 

identify sensitive resources on public lands than private lands. Table 1 provides a list of the 

51 animal species and 76 plant species reported from Marin County which are monitored by 

the CNDDB. An estimated 84 percent of these species are known or suspected to occur in 

the coastal zone, as indicated in Table 1. Exhibit 3 shows the distribution of special-status 

plant and animal species throughout the county based on the CNDDB occurrence records, 

with the highest concentrations in the public lands of West Marin and Mt. Tamalpais. This 

mapping effort has been simplified to shown occurrences of plant and animal species, 

together with streams known to support coho salmon and steelhead trout. 

Of the special-status species which are known from or frequent the coastal zone of Marin 

County, occurrence information is not carefully monitored by the CNDDB for a number of 

species for a variety of reasons. This includes the possible seasonal occurrence of some bird 

species, the limited status of some animal species as a California Special Concern species by 

the CDFG, and the limited status of many plant species on lists 2, 3, or 4 of the CNPS 

Inventory. Some of these species are identified in Table 1, but the number of occurrences 

from the CNDDB records does not accurately reflect their generally greater abundance and 

distribution than species that are actually listed under the state or federal Endangered Species 

Acts. 

For many of the special-status species known from Marin County, habitat suitability is 

severely limited by the direct and indirect affects of development. These include the direct 

loss of habitat as a result of conversion to urban uses, affects of on-going habitat 

modifications due to vegetation management and agricultural practices, and indirect affects 

such as non-point discharge into aquatic habitat and recreational activities in the open space 

lands. The affect of habitat fragmentation is an important consideration in evaluating the 

recovery of listed species and the viability of natural communities as a whole. 

Identification and protection of essential habitat for special-status species must be 

recognized during the environmental review of proposed development applications, 

implementation of land management practices, and in planning future open space 

acquisitions. Detailed surveys should be conducted for sites where there is a potential for 

occurrence of special-status plant and animal species. 

A number of special-status species known from Marin County are wide-ranging and the 

focus of management efforts by trustee agencies. Species of particular concern in the coastal 

zone include California red-legged frog, northern spotted owl, coho salmon, steelhead trout, 

and monarch butterfly. The following provides a summary of relevant management issues 

for each of these species. 

TABLE 1 

SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES KNOWN FROM MARIN COUNTY 


June 2003 Page 13

Common Name (Scientific Name) 

* Species Known or Suspected from Coastal 

Zone noted with an Asterisk 

ANIMALS 

Status 

Federal/State 

Number of 

Occurrences 

in 2001 

CNDDB 

Records Habitat 

Amphibians/Reptiles 

*Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) T / – 0 Open ocean. 

*Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys 

marmorata marmorata) 

– / CSC 8 Streams/ponds/lakes. 

*Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) E / – 0 Open ocean. 

*Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) T / – 0 Open ocean. 

*California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii) 

FT / CSC 8 Forests/woodlands/grasslands and streamsides. 

*Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) – / CSC 3 Streams with rocky substrate. 

Birds 

*Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) 

(nesting colony) 

– / CSC 5 Freshwater marsh and surrounding fields. 

*Great egret (Ardea alba) (rookery) – / – 9 Colonial nester in large trees. 

*Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) (rookery) – / – 7 Colonial nester in trees, cliff-sides, marshes. 

*Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (burrow 

sites) 

*Western snowy plover (Charadrius 

alexandrinus nivosus) (nesting) 

– / CSC 2 Open grasslands/scrub. 

FT / CSC 5 Nesting along sandy beaches and shorelines 

*Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) (nesting) – / CSC 1 Nesting in marsh and low shrubs. 

*Back swift (Cypsefloides niger) (nesting) – / CSC 1 Nesting on cliffs and behind falls. 

*Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia 

brewsteri) (nesting) 

– / CSC 1 Nesting in willows and riparian cover. 

*Snowy egret (Egretta thula) (rookery) – / – Colonial nester in trees, cliff-sides, near 

marshland. 

*White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) (nesting) – / FP 1 Nesting in grassland/marshland with trees. 

*Tufted pufin (Fratercula cirrhata) – / CSC Colonial nester on off-shore islands/cliffs. 

*Saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis 

trichas sinuosa) 

*California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis 

coturniculus) 

*Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax 

nycticorax) (rookery) 

*Ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodrama homochroa) 

(rookery) 

– / CSC 14 Salt and brackish water marsh. 

– / ST; FP 14 Coastal saltmarsh. 

– / – Colonial nester in trees/shrubs near marshland. 

– / CSC 1 Colonial nester on off-shore islands. 

*Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (nesting) – / CSC 1 Nesting in trees associated with water bodies. 

*California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris 

obsoletus) 

*Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina) 

FE / SE 12 Salt and brackish marsh. 

FT / – 23 Forest and woodland. 


June 2003 Page 14


Status 

Federal/State 

Number of 

Occurrences 

in 2001 

CNDDB 


Fish 

*Tidewater goby (Eucyclogorius newberryi) FE/ CSC 7 Brackish water, marsh/bays. 

*Tomales roach (Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 

symmetricus) 

– / CSC 1 Tributaries of Tomales Bay. 

*Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) FT / SE 2 Spawns in freshwater streams. 

*Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) FT/CSC 0 Spawns in freshwater streams. 

Invertebrates 

*Tomales isopod (Caecidotea tomalensis) – / – 3 Freshwater marsh/ponds. 

*Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) 

(colonies) 

– / – 26 Overwinters in blue gum eucalyptus. 

*Williams’ bronze shoulderband 

(Helminthoglypta arrosa williamsi) 

– / – 1 Known only from Hogg Island. 

*Peninsula coast range shoulderband snail 

(Helminthoglypta nickliniana awania) 

– / – 1 Known only from Point Reyes headland. 

*Ricksecker’s water scavenger beetle 

(Hydrochara rickseckeri) 

– / – 1 Aquatic habitat/pools and ponds. 

Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides 

missionensis) 

FE / – 1 Shrubs/grasslands with lupine host. 

*Bumblebee scarab beetle (Lichnanthe ursina) – / – 3 Coastal dunes. 

Tiburon micro-blind harvestman (Microcina 

tiburona) 

– / – 2 Serpentine outcrops near spring/seeps. 

*Myrtles silverspot (Spexeria zerene myrtleae) E / – Scrub/grassland with larval host. 

*California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) 

Mammals 

FE / SE 4 Freshwater streams with undercut banks. 

*Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) – / CSC 3 Roosts in protected locations. 

*Point Reyes mountain beaver (Aplodontia 

rufa phaea) 

– / CSC 9 Springs/ seeps with dense cover. 

*Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) T / T; FP 0 Open ocean, beaches. 

*Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) E / – 0 Open ocean. 

*Blue whale (Balaenoptera musulus) E / – 0 Open ocean. 

*Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) E / – 0 Open ocean. 

*Townsend’s western big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) 

– / CSC 2 Roosts in protected locations. 

*Grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus) E / – 0 Open ocean. 

*Stellar seal lion (Eumetopias jubatus) T / – 0 Open ocean, beaches. 

*Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) FT / FP 1 Nearshore marsh habitat. 

Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys 

raviventris) 

FE / SE; FP 10 Coastal saltmarsh. 

Angel Island mole (Scapanus latimanus isularis) – / CSC Coastal scrub/prairie on Angel Island. 

*Point Reyes jumping mouse (Zapus trinotatus 

orarius) 

– / CSC 0 Coastal scrub/grassland from Point Reyes. 


June 2003 Page 15

TABLE 1 

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES KNOWN FROM MARIN COUNTY 


Status 

Federal/ 

State/CNPS 

Number of 

Occurrences 

in 2001 

CNDDB 


*Pink sand-verbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora) SC / – / 1B 2 Coastal dunes/stand. 

*Blasdale’s bent grass (Agrostis blasdalei) SC / – / 1B 10 Coastal dunes/scrub/prairie. 

*Point Reyes bent grass (Agrostis clivicola var puntareyesensis) 

SC / – / – 10 Coastal scrub/prairie/ coniferous 

forest. 

*Sonoma alopecurus (Alopecurus aequalis var sonomensis) FE / – / 1B 7 Freshwater marsh/riparian scrub. 

Napa false indigo (Amorpha californica var napensis) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/chaparral/woodland. 

*Bent-flowerred fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub/woodland/ 

grassland. 

*Mt. Tamalpais manzanita (Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. 

montana) 

SC / – / 1B 17 Chaparral/grassland. 

*Marin manzanita (Arctostaphylos virgata) – / – / 1B 17 Coniferous forest/chaparral. 

*Coastal marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pynostachyas var p.) – / – / 1B 0 Dunes/marshes/swamps. 

*Point Reyes blennosperma (Blennosperma nanum var. 

robustum) 

SC / SR / 1B 13 Coastal prairie/scrub. 

Small groundcone (Boschniakia hookeri) – / – / 2 2 Coniferous forests. 

*Thurber’s reed grass (Calamagrostis crassiglumis) SC / – / 2 4 Coastal scrub/freshwater marsh. 

Tiburon mariposa lily (Calochortus tiburonensis) FT / ST / 1B 1 Serpentine grassland. 

*Coastal bluff morning-glory (Calystegia purpurata ssp. 

saxicola) 

– / – / 1B 0 Dunes/coastal scrub. 

*Swamp harebell (Campanula californica) SC / – / 1B 24 Bogs/ferns/ marshes in coniferous 

forest. 

*Flaccid sedge (Carex leptalea) – / – / 2 0 Bogs/fens/meadows/seeps. 

*Lyngbye’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei) – / – / 2 0 Marshes/swamps. 

Tiburon indian paintbrush (Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta) FE / ST / 1B 9 Serpentine grassland. 

*Humbolt Bay owl’s clover (Castilleja ambigua ssp. 

humboldtiensis) 

SC / – / 1B 1 Coastal saltmarsh. 

*Mt. Vision ceanothus (Ceanothus gloriosus var. porrectus) SC / – / 1B 10 Coniferous forest/coastal 

scrub/prairie. 

*Mason’s ceanothus (Ceanothus masonii) SC / SR / 1B 6 Chaparral/serpentine. 

*San Francisco Bay spineflower (Chorizanthe cuspidata var. 

cuspidata) 

*Woolly-headed spineflower (Chorizanthe cuspidata var. 

villosa) 

SC / – / 1B 3 Coastal scrub/prairie/dunes. 

– / – / 1B 5 Coastal scrub/prairie/dunes. 

*Sonoma spineflower (Chorizanthe valida) FE / SE / 1B 1 Coastal prairie. 

*Franciscan thistle (Cirsium andrewsii) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/coastal bluff scrub/prairie/ 

coastal scrub. 

Mt. Tamalpais thistle (Cirsium hydrophilum var. vaseyi) SC / – / 1B 8 Forest/chaparral. 

*Raiche’s red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. raichei) SC / – / 1B 1 Coastal bluff scrub. 

*Round-headed chinese houses (Collinsia corymbosa) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal dunes. 

*Point Reye’s bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. 

palustris) 

SC / – / 1B 19 Coastal saltmarsh/dunes. 

*Soft bird’s beak (Cordylanthus mollis spp. mollis) FE / SR / 1B 2 Coastal saltmarsh. 


June 2003 Page 16


Status 

Federal/ 

State/CNPS 

Number of 

Occurrences 

in 2001 

CNDDB 


*Baker’s larkspur (Delphinium bakeri) PE / SR / 1B 1 Coastal scrub. 

*Yellow larkspur (Delphinium luteum) PE / SR / 1B 5 Chaparral/coastal scrub/prairie. 

*Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) – / – / 1B 6 Forest/chaparral/woodland. 

*Supple daisy (Erigeron supplex) – / – / 1B 2 Coastal bluff scrub/prairie. 

*Minute Pocket-Moss (Fissidens pauperculus) – / – / 1B 0 Forest floor along coast. 

*Marin checker lily (Fritillaria affinis var tristulis) – / – / 1B 14 Coastal bluff scrub/prairie. 

*Fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) SC / – / 1B 13 Coastal scrub/prairie/ grassland. 

*Dune gilia (Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis) – / – / 1B 0 Dunes/coastal scrub. 

*Wooly-headed gilia (Gilia capitata ssp. tomentosa) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub/outcrops. 

*Dark-eyed gilia (Gilia millefoliata) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal dunes. 

*San Francisco gumplant (Grindelia hirsutula var. 

maritima) 

– / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub/coastal scrub/ 

grassland. 

Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/chaparral/woodland/coastal 

scrub/grassland. 

*Short-leaved evax (Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevitolia) – / – / 2 0 Coastal bluff scrub/dunes. 

Marin western flax (Hesperolinon congestum) FT / ST / 1B 12 Chaparral/grassland. 

*Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) T / E / 1B 0 Coastal prairie/coastal scrub/ 

grassland. 

*Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea) SC / – / 1B 2 Confierous forest/coastal scrub/ 

chaparral. 

*Point Reyes Horkelia (Horkelia marinensis) SC / – / 1B 3 Coastal scrub/prairie/dunes. 

*Thin-lobed horkelia (Horkelia tenuiloba) – / – / 1B 5 Coastal scrub/chaparral. 

*Baker’s goldfields (Lasthenia macrantha ssp. bakeri) – / – / 1B 0 Coniferous forest/coastal scrub. 

*Perennial goldfields (Lasthenia macrantha ssp. macrantha) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub/dunes/coastal 

scrub. 

*Beach layia (Layia carnosa) FE / SE / 1B 10 Coastal dunes. 

Tamalpais lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var. micradenia) SC / – / 1B 4 Chaparral/grassland in serpentine. 

*Maison’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii) SC / SR / 1B 1 Fresh and brackish marsh. 

*Coast lily (Lilium maritimum) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/prairie/coastal scrub/marshes/ 

swamps. 

*Point Reyes meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii ssp. 

sulphurea) 

SC / SE / 1B 8 Freshwater marsh/prairie/seeps. 

*Rose linanthus (Linanthus rosaceus) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub. 

*Tidestrom’s lupine (Lupinus tidestromii) FE / SE / 1B 8 Coastal dunes. 

*Marsh microseris (Microseris paludosa) – / – / 1B 0 Forest/woodland/coastal scrub/ 

grassland. 

Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri) – / – / 1B 1 Woodland/seeps/pools/grassland/ 

forest. 

Marin County navarretia (Navarretia rosulata) – / – / 1B 10 Coniferous forest/chaparral. 

White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) FE / SE / 1B 5 Grassland on serpentine. 

*North Coast phacelia (Phacelia insularis var. continentis) SC / – / 1B 3 Coastal bluff scrub/dunes. 

*Point Reyes rein orchid (Piperia elegans ssp. Decurtata) – / – / 1B 0 Coastal bluff scrub only from Pt. 

Reyes National Seashore. 

Hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) / / 1A 0 Meadows/seeps/marshes/swamps. 

North Coast semaphore grass (Pleuropogon hooverianus) SC / SB / 1B 3 Forest/steeps. 


June 2003 Page 17


Status 

Federal/ 

State/CNPS 

Number of 

Occurrences 

in 2001 

CNDDB 


*Marin knotweed (Polygonum marinense) SC / – / 3 3 Marshes/swamps. 

*Tamalpais oak (Quercus parvula var. tamalpaisensis) – / – / 1B 0 Coniferous forest only on Mt. 

Tamalpais. 

*California beaked-rush (Rhynchospora californica) SC / – / 1B 1 Bogs/marshes/seeps/confierous 

forest. 

Point Reyes checkerbloom (Sidalcea calycosa ssp. 

rhizomata) 

– / – / 1B 9 Marshes/swamps. 

*Marin checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. viridis) SC / – / 1B 3 Chaparral. 

*Purple-stemmed checkerbloom (Sidalcea malviflora ssp. 

purpurea) 

– / – / 1B 0 Forest/prairie. 

Tamalpais jewel-flower (Streptanthus batrachopus) SC / – / 1B 5 Confierous forest/chaparral. 

*Mt. Tamalpais jewel-flower (Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. 

pulchellus) 

– / – / 1B 9 Chaparral/grassland. 

*Santa Cruz microseris (Stebbinsoseris decipiens) SC / – / 1B 3 Forest/chaparral/coastal scrub/ 

prairie. 

Tiburon jewel-flower (Streptanthus niger) FE / SE / 1B 2 Grassland on serpentine. 

*Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum) FE / – / 1B 3 Grassland/coastal bluff scrub. 

*San Francisco owl’s clover (Triphysaria floribunda) SC / – / 1B 14 Coastal prairie/grassland. 

* INDICATES THOSE SPECIES WITH KNOWN OR SUSPECTED POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE IN COASTAL ZONE. 

STATUS DESIGNATIONS 

Federal: 

FE = Listed as “endangered” under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

FT = Listed as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

PE = Proposed for federal listing as “endangered”. 

PT = Proposed for federal listing as “threatened”. 

C = A candidate species under review for federal listing. Candidates include taxa for which the USFWS has 

sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. 

SC = Species of Concern; formerly considered a candidate species for listing by the USFWS. 

State: 

SE = Listed as “endangered” under the California Endangered Species Act. 

SR = Listed as “rare” under the California Endangered Species Act. 

ST = Listed as “threatened” under the California Endangered Species Act. 

CP = California fully protected species; individual may not be possessed or taken at any time. 

CSC = Considered a species of special concern by the CDFG; taxa have no formal legal protection but nest sites and 

communal roosts are generally recognized as significant biotic features. 

CNPS: 

1A = Plants of highest priority; plants presumed extinct in California. 

1B = Plants of highest priority; plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. 

3 = Plants requiring additional information; a review list. 

4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list. 


June 2003 Page 18

Northern Spotted Owl. The USFWS listed the northern spotted owl as a threatened 

species in 1990. The southern limit of their range extends into Marin County where 

they occur in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National 

Monument, Point Reyes National Seashore, and other parts of the county. On-going 

studies have been conducted to monitor population health and further define essential 

habitat, including annual status reports (Fehring et. al, 2001). According to the latest 

status report, the Marin County population of spotted owl is subject to several threats, 

including: 1) urban development along park boundaries; 2) disturbance due to intense 

urban recreational pressures; 3) hazardous fuel management; 4) potential for 

catastrophic wildfire along the urban/wildland interface; 5) possible genetic isolation; 

and 6) continued range expansion of the barred owl. Of particular concern is the 

continuing die-off of tanbark and coast live oaks throughout spotted owl habitat due 

to Sudden Oak Death (SOD), and the long-term impacts this may have on prey 

populations and owl nesting habitat. 

In the coastal zone, suitable habitat for northern spotted owl occurs on the forested 

slopes along the southeastern side of Tomales Bay, to the east and southeast of 

Bolinas Lagoon, and southeast of Stinson Beach. Essential habitat for this species 

extends beyond the coastal zone over the adjacent forest and woodland cover on the 

slopes of Mount Tamalpais. 

Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout. Coho salmon and steelhead trout are both listed 

as threatened under the federal ESA within the Central California Coast 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Past timber harvest activities, overgrazing, channel 

modifications and removal of riparian vegetation, flood control and water diversion, 

and secondary water quality degradation have all contributed to a decline of these and 

other fishery resources. Coho and steelhead are anadromous, spawning in coastal 

streams and rivers and then migrating to and maturing in the ocean, and both are 

known from streams in Marin County. Streams with established or historic records of 

these species are indicated in Exhibit 3, many of which occur in the coastal zone. 

These include: Estero Americano, Walker, Millerton Gulch, Tomasini, Lagunitas, 

Olema, Pine Gulch, Cooper Mine Gulch, Wilkins Gulch, Pike Country Gulch, 

Audubon Canyon, Morses Gulch, McKinnan Gulch, Stinson Gulch, Eskoot, and 

Redwood Creeks. Where a record of salmon or steelhead has been reported from a 

stream, the entire drainage has been indicated as supporting the species, although 

habitat conditions have generally not been confirmed in the field. 

Marin County is currently participating in the FishNet 4C program, which is a countybased, 

regional salmonid protection and restoration program created under a 

Memorandum of Agreement between the six central California coastal counties of 

Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma. FishNet 4C 

recognizes the need for these counties to meet the requirements of the ESA in 

protecting anadromous salmonids and their habitats. Given these requirements, a 

prime objective of the FishNet 4C program has been to evaluate the land management 

practices of each county and any written policies related to protecting salmonid 


June 2003 Page 19

populations, and to make recommendations for improving these practices and 

policies. 

Based on the FishNet 4C review, Marin County has a number of policies in place that 

serve to protect fish habitat. These policies are most comprehensive in the coastal 

zone where strict development standards protect salmonid streams with riparian 

buffers. Coastal zone regulations restrict building in floodplains, channel 

modifications, streamflow withdrawals, and grading. Outside the coastal zone, fish 

habitat protection measures are less stringent and less consistent. The most important 

policies pertain to riparian buffers and grading, and all of the county is covered by a 

comprehensive storm water pollution prevention ordinance. Identified deficiencies in 

the FishNet 4C report relate to policy gaps regarding wildlife habitat, streamflow 

quantity modifications, riparian corridor protection, sedimentation, channel 

modification, water quality, and fish passage. These policy deficiencies should be 

considered as part of the LCP update. Additional detailed survey work is necessary to 

confirm habitat conditions and opportunities for restoration and enhancement for coho 

and steelhead. The CDA is currently developing proposed zoning regulations that 

would establish standards for development and conservation within Streamside 

Conservation Areas for unincorporated properties. Although the regulations are 

intended to focus on the central and eastern portions of Marin, it is also being 

considered for West Marin and the coastal zone. 

California red-legged frog. This species is listed as threatened by the USFWS and is 

recognized as a CSC by the CDFG. It typically occurs in aquatic habitat of streams 

and ponds, but can disperse considerable distances in search of breeding and 

estivation sites. Before withdrawing their mapping designation in 2002 as a result of 

a court decision, the USFWS designated 209,000 acres of west Marin as critical 

habitat for the federally-threatened California red-legged frog of which approximately 

52 percent are under management by the National Park Service, the State Department 

of Parks and Recreation, and the Marin Municipal Water District. The remaining 48 

percent of the previously designated lands are privately owned and are generally 

under agricultural zoning and used for grazing. Management plans of the National 

Park Service, State Parks, and Marin Municipal Water District include consideration 

of this species, although some conflicts with agricultural use and water quality 

degradation are of concern. Future development and management activities in the 

coast zone, including plans for habitat restoration, must consider the affects on this 

listed species. 

Monarch butterfly. This migratory butterfly species has no legal protective status 

under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, but rests and overwinters in 

large colonies that are highly sensitive to disturbance and are monitored by the 

CNDDB. Most overwintering sites along the Marin County coast are from dense 

groves of blue gum eucalyptus and stands of Monterey pine, both introduced 

species which provide important shelter and congregation areas. Due to the 

importance of these trees to this butterfly species, significant alteration or removal 

of the stands requires a coastal project permit pursuant to Section 30106 of the 


June 2003 Page 20

Coastal Act. Known overwintering colonies have been reported along the coast 

north of Dillon Beach, Tennessee Valley, Muir Beach, Stinson Beach, and 

numerous occurrences across the Bolinas Mesa. A field study of the overwintering 

activity of Monarch butterflies in the coastal zone was conducted during the fall of 

2002 and winter of 2003 by consultants retained by the CDA. A detailed 

assessment of the extent and importance of overwintering sites is currently being 

prepared, which will be used in refining mapping of known occurrences and 

defining essential habitat characteristics for this species. 


Several of the natural communities within the coastal zone are considered to have a high 

inventory priority with the CNDDB, and should receive appropriate recognition in updating 

LCP policies. These “high inventory priority” communities have been designated as 

sensitive due to rarity and continuing loss as a result of development, flood control 

improvements, intensive grazing, and other factors. Sensitive natural communities mapped 

by the CNDDB in the coastal zone include: coastal and valley freshwater marsh, coastal 

brackish marsh, coastal terrace prairie, central dune scrub, northern coastal salt marsh, and 

northern maritime chaparral, among others. Stands of native grasslands not mapped by the 

CNDDB occur in many locations throughout the coastal zone, as do the sensitive riparian 

forest and scrub communities along creeks and larger drainages. Detailed surveys should be 

conducted for sites where there is a potential for occurrence of sensitive natural 

communities. 

While oak woodlands are not considered to have a high inventory priority with the CNDDB, 

they should be recognized as an important habitat type in the county due to their high 

wildlife value and their vulnerability to the affects of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SOD). 

Tanoaks and coast live oaks are dying in large numbers, and black oaks, California buckeye, 

California bay, madrone, huckleberry, and rhododendron are suspected to be hosts or 

potential carriers of the fungus suspected to cause oak mortality. This fungus, Phytophthora 

ramorum, and several beetle species are consistently associated with the dying oaks. It is 

contributing to significant changes in vegetative cover over large parts of the county, altering 

habitat for woodland-dependent species and exacerbating hazardous fire conditions where 

wildlands interface with developed areas. While most of the confirmed isolations of 

Phytophthora ramorum are from the eastern and central portions of the county, areas 

suspected of having SOD include the coastal zone along the west side of Tomales Bay 

through the northern portion of Inverness, in Frank Valley of the Mt. Tamalpais State Park, 

and the upper watersheds of Olema Creek and Pine Gulch Creek along Bolinas Ridge. 

C. WETLANDS 

Wetlands in the coastal zone include areas of salt and brackish water marsh along the 

shoreline of the coast and Tomales Bay, riparian habitat along creeks and streams, and 

scattered freshwater seeps and springs. The existing Natural Resource Maps for the LCP 

generally show the locations of “marshland” and “riparian streams”, but these are only 

vaguely mapped, some with no boundaries. Exhibit 4, Wetlands of Marin County, shows the 

extent of major wetland systems mapped as part of the NWI, which consist of a range of 


June 2003 Page 21

characteristic wetland types, together with streams mapped by the CDA for the Main 

Countywide Plan Update. These include the marine and estuarine system of the ocean 

shoreline, Tomales Bay, Bolinas Lagoons, Drakes Estero, and marshland at the mouth of 

Lagunitas and Walker Creeks; the riverine and lacustrine systems of major creeks and 

channels; and the palustine system comprising freshwater marsh, riparian scrub and 

woodland, and scattered stock ponds. Some wetland features, such as freshwater seeps and 

springs, are typically not identified as part of the NWI because of the general scale of the 

mapping effort. Detailed wetland delineations would be required to determine the extent of 

jurisdictional wetlands and other waters as specific locations, particularly where 

development is proposed. 

V. MARIN COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM POLICY REVIEW 

The LCP serves as the principal planning document regulating development and providing 

for conservation of important resources on a local level for the coastal zone of Marin 

County. Policies from the Natural Resources Protection section of the LCP, Unit 1 and the 

Natural Resources section of the LCP, Unit 2 are of particular relevance to the conservation 

of natural resources, focusing on stream conservation, wetlands, and coastal dunes. The 

CDA is responsible for reviewing individual development applications to ensure compliance 

with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental 

Protection Act (NEPS), and the Coastal Act. 

Table 2 provides a review of each of the existing policies from the current LCP related to 

biological and wetland resources. This includes a summary statement on whether they still 

apply and how they should be refined, expanded, or reorganized as part of the LCP update 

process. The status of many policies related to detailed improvements or land use activities 

in specific locations is uncertain and needs verification as part of the update process. 

In general, the existing Natural Resource Protection policies in the LCP lack clear direction 

on what sensitive resources need protection in the coastal zone. These sensitive resources 

should include: wetlands, occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural 

communities, and other resources that could be considered to constitute an “environmentally 

sensitive area”. Many of the current policies focus on streams and riparian habitat 

protection, which are essential resources but represent only part of the important natural 

resources in the coastal zone. Additional detailed policies on protection of essential habitat 

for special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and important wildlife habitat are 

necessary as part of the LCP update. Of the current LCP policies, some are overly specific 

and call for detailed improvements that would be better contained in a management plan 

required as part of the LCP, rather than actual policy language in the LCP. As an example, 

Policy II.5 of the LCP for Unit 1 calls for installation of a stream gage station on Pine Gulch 

Creek as part of a study for Bolinas Lagoon conducted by the Corps. The appropriateness of 

these detailed recommendations should be reconsidered as part of the LCP update. 


June 2003 Page 22

POLICIES 

TABLE 2 

EVALUATION OF EXISTING LCP BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND 

RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROGRAMS -- UNIT 1 

I. Public Access and Recreation 

1. The County's policy is to require provisions for 

coastal access in all development proposals located 

between the sea and the first public road. This policy 

recognizes, however, that in certain locations public 

access may not be appropriate. Upon specific 

findings, that public access would be inconsistent 

with the protection of 1). public safety, 2) fragile 

coastal resources or 3) agricultural production or, 

upon specific findings that public use of an 

accessway would seriously interfere with the privacy 

of existing homes, provision for coastal access need 

not be required. In determining whether access is 

inconsistent with the above, the findings shall 

specifically consider whether mitigation measures 

such as setbacks from sensitive habitats, trail or 

stairway development, or regulation of time, 

seasons, or types of use could be developed which 

would adequately mitigate any potential adverse 

impacts of public access. A finding that an access 

way can be located 10 feet or more from an existing 

single family residence or be separated by a 

landscape buffer or fencing if necessary should be 

considered to provide adequately for the privacy of 

existing homes. 

9. Adequate public access to Stinson Beach currently 

exists across Federal park lands, County land at Calle Del Sierra 

and private land at the Calles and Walla Vista. To encourage 

the continuance of access availability in these areas the 

County shall post the existing pedestrian access 

easements along Calle Del Arroyo. However, should the current 

levels of usage be jeopardized in the future, the County shall open and 

maintain at least two additional pedestrian access easements on Calle 

Del Arroyo. One of these will be at Walla Vista; the other would be 

situated where appropriate in the Calles. On street parking along the 

northerly side of Calle Del Arroyo shall continue to be available for dayuse 

beach access. 

10. Public access to Duxbury Reef shall continue to 

be protected consistent with current State laws prohibiting the 

collecting of most intertidal animals. 

EVALUATION 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement - Need to define “fragile 

coastal resources” and “sensitive habitats” in LCP update, how 

these resources are identified, and standards for avoidance and 

mitigation. Policy should refer to Natural Resource Protection 

policies and definitions in LCP. Sensitive resources should 

include wetlands, occurrences of special-status species and 

sensitive natural communities, and important wildlife habitat 

such as breeding, roosting and foraging areas. 

Unsure of Status – Need to confirm that public access to 

Stinson Beach does not result in direct or indirect impacts to 

sensitive coastal dune or marshland natural communities, or 

essential habitat for wildlife. 

Unsure of Status – Need to confirm effectiveness of current 

restrictions on access, collection, and disturbance in the 

sensitive intertidal zone, and possibly expand language to 

specify additional protection. This could include additional 

signage explaining sensitivity of habitat and prohibition on 

collection, and increased monitoring and enforcement. 


June 2003 Page 23

11. Historic public use of the two access trails across 

Bolinas Mesa to the RCA beach and of the beach area itself 

shall be protected in accordance with the access program 

approved by the North Central Coast regional 

Commission in its action on Permit No. 31-78 

(Commonweal). As provided by the conditions of the 

Commonweal permit approval, use of the access trails and beach areas 

shall be limited to the level and character of the historic use of the property 

(including but not limited to use for beach access, hiking, swimming, and 

horseback riding) in order to protect the natural resources of Duxbury 

Reef. Upon acceptance by a public agency of easements. over the 

access trails, trailheads, and beach areas which are to be offered as a 

condition of the Commonweal permit approval, limited signing 

shall be provided to identify the access trails and 

caution trail users of the fragile coastal resources of 

the area. 

II. Natural Resource Protection 

1. Stream impoundments and diversions shall be 

limited to necessary water supply projects, flood 

control projects where no other method for protecting 

existing structures in the flood plain is 

feasible and where such protection is necessary for 

public safety or to protect existing development, or 

developments where the primary function is the 

improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Before any 

such activities are permitted, minimum flows 

necessary to maintain fish habitat and existing water 

quality, and to protect downstream resources (e.g. 

riparian vegetation, groundwater recharge areas, 

receiving waters, estuarine habitats, spawning areas) 

and other downstream users shall be determined by 

the Department of Fish and Game and the Division 

of Water Rights of the State Water Resources 

Control Board. New impoundments or diversions 

which, individually or cumulatively, would decrease 

streamflows below the minimum shall not be 

permitted. 

2. The alteration of stream channels and banks shall 

be allowed only for the developments identified in Policy II-1 in 

order to protect streamwater quality and the volume and rate of 

streamflow. All such developments shall incorporate the best 

mitigation measures feasible, including erosion and runoff control 

measures and revegetation of disturbed areas with native species. 

Unsure of Status – Need to confirm that public access across 

Bolinas Mesa does not result in significant direct or indirect 

impacts to sensitive grassland, riparian, or coastal bluff scrub 

natural communities, or essential habitat for wildlife. 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Policy must be refined to 

acknowledge need to consider potential impacts on specialstatus 

species as well, many of which are dependent on aquatic 

habitat, such as California freshwater shrimp, California redlegged 

frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, and coho salmon. 

As a general rule, new impoundments and diversions should be 

discouraged because of their direct and indirect effects on 

aquatic and riparian habitats. This should be stated as policy, 

together with a requirement of a thorough assessment of 

potential impacts, coordination with and approval from 

jurisdictional agencies, and implementation of adequate 

mitigation, if determined necessary. 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Could be more clearly 

stated that any alteration should be discouraged, with the 

exception of habitat enhancement and management conducted 

as part of an approved plan. The phrase “best mitigation 

measures feasible” could be replaced with reference to “best 

management practices” and “effective mitigation that provides 

for improved habitat values and functions”. 


June 2003 Page 24

3. A riparian protection area and a stream buffer area 

shall be established for all streams within Unit I. The 

riparian protection area shall include all existing 

riparian vegetation on both sides of the stream. The 

stream buffer area shall extend a minimum of 50 feet 

from the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, but in 

no case shall be less than 100 feet from the banks of 

the stream. 

4. No construction, alteration of land forms, or 

vegetation removal, shall be permitted within the riparian 

protection area. However, if a parcel is located entirely within 

the stream buffer, design review shall be required for 

any proposed structure and shall consider impacts on water quality, 

riparian vegetation/and the rate and volume of streamflow. in 

general, development shall be located on that portion of the site 

which results in the least impact on the stream, and shall include 

provision for mitigation measures to control erosion and runoff and to 

provide restoration of disturbed areas by replanting with plant species 

naturally found on the site. 

The following 3 policies are applicable to Pine 

Gulch Creek. 

5. The USGS should install a stream gaging station 

as part of the Army Corps study of Lagoon to 

measure creek flow below the last significant stream 

diversion or at a location selected by the Department of Fish and 

Game, This station shall be monitored by the County Employee who 

patrols the Duxbury Reef/Bolinas Lagoon area. 

6. The Department of Fish and Game should begin 

studies to empirically determine the instream flow 

requirements of Pine Gulch Creek necessary to 

maintain the steelhead and silver salmon resource. In 

the event no funding is available for this work, 

Coastal Conservancy funds should be sought. 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – This standard provides a 

minimum acceptable setback and buffer along riparian 

corridors. Does not define protected stream, which is 

presumably limited to intermittent and perennial streams. 

Adequate protection may call for a wider setback when 

special-status species such as California red-legged frog are 

present. Method to assess and define the extent of woody 

riparian vegetation is necessary to determine need for setback 

greater than 100 feet. Need to clarify that minimum setback is 

from “top of bank” not simply “banks of the stream”. Need to 

expand policies to include protection of ephemeral drainages. 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Policy should be 

expanded to include a requirement of a thorough assessment of 

potential impacts, coordination with and approval from 

jurisdictional agencies, and implementation of adequate 

mitigation to ensure avoidance or replacement, if allowed 

under Coastal Act. Policy should also be revised to indicate 

that parcels located largely or entirely within stream buffer 

should be considered a priority for open space acquisition due 

to their sensitivity, particularly when adjacent to existing open 

space or where a number of similarly constrained parcels occur 

together. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm 

whether stream gaging station has been installed and 

monitored. Policies with this level of detail regarding specific 

improvements may be inappropriate in LCP. Policies should 

be revised and expanded to address management objectives 

and monitoring called for in Bolinas Lagoon Management 

Plan Update 


whether study has been conducted by CDFG, possibly as part 

of overall management for Bolinas Lagoon. Policies should be 

revised and expanded to address management objectives and 

monitoring called for in Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan 

Update. 


June 2003 Page 25

7. The County, landowners within the Pine Gulch 

Creek watershed, and the Soil Conservation Service 

should undertake a joint study to recommend 

agricultural uses and practices which will protect the 

water quality of the creek and also Bolinas Lagoon. The report 

should be prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. This 

report should also recommend alternative methods of 

supply water to agricultural users in the event stream diversions 

must be halted to protect anadromous resources. The 

report shall be distributed to all landowners within 

the watershed. SCS will be contacted to undertake the study 

upon adoption of this LCP. Where necessary, the findings 

of the study should be incorporated into the LCP as 

amendments. Recommended restoration techniques 

appropriate to permit applications should be included as 

conditions of permit approval. 

The following policies are applicable to Redwood 

Creek. 

8. The biotic resources of Redwood Creek shall be protected from 

intense development by the redesignation of the 

privately owned parcels along the Creek from 10,000 square 

feet lot size zoning to a 1 acre lot size zoning. (See Policy IV-27). 

9. The USGS should install a stream gauging station 

to measure creek flow below the last significant 

stream diversion at a location selected by the 

National Park Service and California Department of 

Fish and Game. This station should be monitored by 

the Park Service. 

10. The Department of Fish and Game should begin 

studies to empirically determine the instream flow 

requirements of Redwood Creek necessary to maintain the 

steelhead and silver salmon resource.. In the event 

no funding is available for this work, Coastal Conservancy funds 

shall be sought. 

11. The National Park Service should be encouraged 

to investigate the possibility of creating artificial 

pools through Muir Woods National Monument to 

increase the streams carrying capacity of one and two 

year old salmonids. This would increase the number of salmonids 

spawning within the boundaries of the National 

Monument, and provide a better opportunity for the public 

to view salmonid reproductive behavior. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement - Need to confirm whether 

study has been conducted by SCS, possibly as part of 

management plan for Bolinas Lagoon. Policies should be 

revised and expanded to address management objectives and 


Update. 


whether properties in questions were redesignated or remain in 

private ownership. As recommended in Policy II-4, policy 

should be revised to indicate that parcels located entirely 

within stream buffer should be considered a priority for open 

space acquisition due to their sensitivity, particularly when 

adjacent to existing open space or where a number of similarly 

constrained parcels occur together. Policies should be revised 

and expanded to address management objectives and 

monitoring called for in the final Redwood Creek Watershed 

Vision and final restoration plans for Big Lagoon and 

Redwood Creek. 


whether stream gaging station has been installed and 

monitored. Policies should be revised and expanded to 

address management objectives and monitoring called for in 

the final Redwood Creek Watershed Vision and final 

restoration plans for Big Lagoon and Redwood Creek. 


whether study has been conducted by CDFG, possibly as part 

of overall management for Redwood Creek and Big Lagoon. 

Policies should be revised and expanded to address 

management objectives and monitoring called for in the final 

Redwood Creek Watershed Vision and final restoration plans 

for Big Lagoon and Redwood Creek. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm status 

on habitat enhancement efforts for Redwood Creek through 

Muir Woods National Monument, which has included inchannel 

modifications for pool habitat and retention of large 

woody debris. Policies should be revised and expanded to 

address management objectives and monitoring called for in 

the final Redwood Creek Watershed Vision and final 

restoration plans for Big Lagoon and Redwood Creek. 


June 2003 Page 26

12. A single, coordinated resource management plan 

to guide the future use and activities in and around Bolinas 

Lagoon shall be developed with the involvement of the various 

public agencies that have specific legislative and regulatory 

responsibilities over different activities in and around the 

Lagoon. This plan would identify: 

The level, type and location of recreational facilities and uses; 

The level, type and location of commercial fishing and aquaculture 

activities; 

The location and types of educational and scientific programs and 

facilities; 

The legal and physical programs necessary to protect 

and enhance specific wildlife and marine resources and habitats; 

and 

The management techniques, programs and 

responsibilities to successfully implement such a resource 

management plan. 

Such a joint agency/organization resource planning program shall be 

established within 12 months of final certification of the LCP. The 

County of Marin would seek Coastal Commission or Conservancy 

funding to establish this management program. (This 

program was completed in January, 1981.) 

Completed/Needs Refinement – Need to revise and expand 

policy to provide framework of management objectives and 


Update. 


June 2003 Page 27

13. Prior to the completion of the joint agency 

resource planning program described in Policy 11-12, above, 

the following policies shall apply: 

(a) Except where modified below, the Bolinas 

Lagoon Plan's Policies are incorporated by reference 

as the LCP policies governing uses and development 

in and around the Lagoon. 

(b) The diking, filling, dredging and other 

alterations of these wetlands shall occur only for 

minor public works projects and shall be in conformance 

with Coastal Act Section 30233. The construction of physical 

improvements along the Bolinas Lagoon parklands is 

not consistent with these Lagoon policies. 

(c) Maintenance dredging of existing boating channels 

may occur prior to final recommendations of the present Army Corps 

of Engineers study. Additional alteration of these wetlands will be 

considered as an LCP amendment following review of this study's 

recommendations. 

(d) Commercial extraction of marine species 

should be prohibited pending completion of adequate base 

studies and the management program. Recreational fishing 

activities should be monitored by the Department of 

Fish and Game to establish any necessary 

modifications in open areas or take limits. 

(e) The Lagoon's waters continue to experience significant 

pollution and degraded quality from past and present 

adjoining land use activities. The correction of those 

factors contributing to poor water quality shall 

continue. However, until tests substantiate conclusive 

improvements in water quality, the health, safety and welfare 

of the general public require continuation of existing 

health quarantine for the Lagoon. 

(f) A five mile per hour speed limit will be 

established within the Lagoon in order to protect 

wildlife habitat from disturbances and to minimize 

conflicts between swimmers, fishermen, naturalists, 

boaters, and other lagoon users. An ordinance that, at 

the minimum, includes such a speed limit shall be 

presented to the State Coastal Commission for 

certification within 120 days of the adoption of the 

land use plan. 

14. The use of toxic substances to control algae 

growth in any body of water which is discharged into a public 

waterway shall be subject to a discharge permit from the Regional 

Water Quality Control Board. 

Needs Replacement – Interim policies should be replaced with 

framework of management objectives and monitoring called 

for in Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan Update. 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Use of toxic substances 

to control algae growth was not addressed in the Bolinas 

Lagoon Management Plan Update, presumably because this is 

no longer practiced in the lagoon. 


June 2003 Page 28

15. The possibility of a publicly-sponsored 

restoration project to eliminate all vacant lots along the north 

side of Calle del Arroyo through acquisition or the transfer of what 

limited development potential such parcels may have to another 

area is encouraged. The Coastal Conservancy, the 

Audubon Society and other potentially interested 

agencies or organizations should be advised of the importance of 

pursuing such a restoration project. 

16. Pending implementation of a restoration 

project for the vacant lots along the north side of Calle del 

Arroyo, the area shall be redesignated as a "Resource Management 

Area" for a use or uses consistent with the maintenance of the marsh 

areas located both on and adjacent to the lots. The designation of the 

area as a "Resource Management Area" will recognize the severe 

development constraints affecting these properties due to their size 

and location in proximity to Bolinas Lagoon, and will thus 

assure conformity with Sections 30233 and 30240 (a) 

and (b) of the Coastal Act. 

Permitted uses of the Resource Management Area 

shall include fishing, birdwatching, photography, nature 

study, and other similar scientific and recreational uses. In addition, 

other uses may be permitted by use permit which will assure that 

such uses are sited and designed to be of controlled intensity and 

location such that they will not adversely affect the adjacent 

marsh area. The use permit procedure shall also assure that 

the uses are compatible with the character of the adjacent community. 

Uses which may be permitted by use permit shall include: small 

boat and equipment storage, non-commercial private 

parking, apiaries, truck farming, (provided that the application of 

pesticides, herbicides and other toxic chemicals is 

prohibited), and other uses of similar type and intensity. 

Existing dwellings shall be designated non-conforming uses but 

shall be allowed to rebuild if damaged or destroyed by 

natural disaster, provided however, that the floor 

area, height and bulk of the new structure shall not exceed 

that of the destroyed structure by more than 10 percent, and that the 

new structure is set back as far as feasible from the wetland 

area. Any proposed improvement to an existing home 

which results in more than a 10 percent increase in internal floor area of 

the structure shall require a coastal permit in order to assure that such an 

improvement is sited and designed to minimize impacts on the 

adjacent marsh. Such improvements shall only be 

permitted if an acceptable wastewater system is provided in 

accordance with the applicable LCP policy, and if the improvements 

are located as far as feasible from the adjacent wetland area. 


whether property acquisition and restoration has been 

achieved. Possible need to refine policy based on status of 

acquisition or transfer. Undeveloped parcels were 

recommended for acquisition in the Bolinas Lagoon 

Management Plan Update, as were several other parcels not 

specified in the LCP 




acquisition or transfer. Undeveloped parcels were 

recommended for acquisition in the Bolinas Lagoon 

Management Plan Update, as were several other parcels not 

specified in the LCP. 


June 2003 Page 29

17. The eleven-acre Henry Wilkins property (Assessor 

Parcel Numbers 195290-13 and 24) is the only 

remaining hightide roost for shorebirds and water 

fowl in Bolinas Lagoon that is protected from 

significant disturbance, and is the only habitat adjacent to the 

lagoon for snipe (Capella gallinago), with a population 

of about 100 individuals. In addition, it is one of the few 

locations around the lagoon where there is a transition from salt marsh 

to freshwater marsh habitats and thereby adds to the total diversity of 

habitat areas around the lagoon. In order to protect the wetland and 

upland habitat values of the parcel, changes in existing grazing use of 

the site shall be preceded by detailed environmental investigation and 

shall assure protection of the habitat values of the site in accordance 

with other policies in the LCP. Public acquisition of the site is 

encouraged. 

18. T o the maximum extent feasible, a buffer strip, a minimum of 

100 feet in width, shall be maintained in natural condition along the 

periphery of all wetlands as delineated by the Department of Fish and 

Game and in accordance with Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and 

with the criteria developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No 

uses other than those dependent upon the resources shall be allowed 

within the buffer strip. 

19. In order to preserve the natural sand dune 

formation and sandy beach habitat, and to protect potential 

prescriptive rights over the dry sand areas west of the Patios, 

development of the existing lots west of the paper street 

Mira Vista shall not be permitted. These lots shall be rezoned from R- 

1 to RSP-2.0, and contiguous ownerships across Mira Vista shall be 

consolidated in order to assure protection of the existing sandy beach 

areas. No development, including erection of fences, 

signs, or other structures, shall be permitted west of Mira Vista in order 

to preserve both the natural dune habitat values, vegetation and 

contours, as well as the natural sandy beach habitat, and to protect 

potential public prescriptive rights over the area.. 

The County shall continue to pursue a land trade 

between the lots seaward of Mira Vista and the street right-ofway 

as proposed in the Stinson Beach Community plan, in order to 

more clearly establish and define the boundaries between public 

and private beach areas. 




acquisition or transfer. Undeveloped portion of property east 

of Bolinas-Olema Road recommended for acquisition and 

restoration in the Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan Update, 

as were several other parcels not specified in LCP. 

Needs Refinement/Reorganization – Need to refine and 

expand policy to state importance of protecting wetland 

resources as a primary objective in coastal zone. Policy 

should also address primary management concerns and 

functions of buffer zone, and should define restrictions and 

methods to control possible indirect effects of public access 

and recreational use, grazing, agricultural practices, and other 

activities. 




acquisition or transfer. Recommendations addressing 

acquisition of dunes at Stinson Beach in Bolinas Lagoon 

Management Plan Update are limited to the tip of Stinson 

Beach Sandspit. 


June 2003 Page 30

20. Development of other shorefront lots 

within the Stinson Beach and Seadrift areas shall assure 

preservation of the natural sand dune formations in order to protect 

environmentally sensitive dune habitat and vegetation and to 

maintain the natural protection from wave runup that such natural 

dunes provide. Where no dunes are evident, any new development 

on shorefront lots shall be set back behind the first line 

of terrestrial vegetation to the maximum extent feasible, in order to 

minimize the need for protective works, to protect sandy beach 

habitat, and to provide a buffer area between private and public use 

areas in order to protect both the scenic and visual character of the 

beach, and the public right of access to the use and enjoyment of dry sand 

areas. 

21. No additional subdivision of beachfront lots shall be 

permitted in recognition of the cumulative negative 

impacts such divisions would have on both public 

and private use of the beach, except if a finding is 

made that such a subdivision will be consistent with 

the above policy. Similarly, the erection of fences, 

signs, or other structures seaward of any existing or 

proposed development and the modification of any 

dune or sandy beach area shall not be permitted 

except as provided in Chapter III of the LCP in order 

to protect natural shoreline processes, the scenic and 

visual character of the beach, and the public and 

private use of dry sand areas in accordance with 

Section 30211 of the Coastal Act. 

22. Butterfly trees and other trees or vegetation 

identified on the natural resource maps on file with 

the Marin County Planning Department, which provide 

roosting and/or nesting habitat of wildlife, shall be considered major 

vegetation, and significant alteration or removal of such vegetation 

shall require a coastal project permit pursuant to Section 30106 of the 

Coastal Act. Such trees shall not be altered or removed except 

where they pose a threat to life or property. 

23. Development adjacent to wildlife nesting and 

roosting areas shall be set back a sufficient distance 

to minimize impacts on the habitat area. Such 

development activities shall be timed so that disturbance to nesting 

and breeding wildlife is minimized and shall, to the extent practical, 

use native vegetation for landscaping. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Policy should be 

expanded to include a requirement for site assessment and 

mitigation to determine dune conditions, avoid sensitive dune 

habitat, and preserve dune functions. Policy could include a 

recommendation that parcels located entirely within dune 

habitat be considered a priority for open space acquisition due 

to their sensitivity, particularly when adjacent to existing open 

space or where a number of similarly constrained parcels occur 

together. Policy should be refined to include minimum criteria 

for avoidance, setback standards, and mitigation requirements 

for development in dune habitat, if limited disturbance is 

allowed under LCP update. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Policy should be 

expanded to include a requirement for site assessment to 

determine dune conditions, avoid sensitive dune habitat and 

preserve dune functions prior to approval of additional 

subdivision or structural improvements in dune habitat. Policy 

could include a recommendation that parcels located entirely 

within dune habitat be considered a priority for open space 

acquisition due to their sensitivity, particularly when adjacent 

to existing open space or where a number of similarly 

constrained parcels occur together. Policy should be refined to 

include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards, 

and mitigation requirements for development in dune habitat. 

Needs Refinement – Mapping of monarch overwintering 

colonies is being prepared based on detailed field surveys and 

recommendations to ensure their protection and management 

are currently being developed as part of the LCP update. 

Policy should be refined and expanded based on the results of 

the mapping and report findings and recommendations. Policy 

should be expanded to include a requirement for site 

assessment and mitigation where proposed development may 

affect mapped overwintering colonies, and should include 

minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards, and 

mitigation. 

Needs Refinement - Policy should be expanded to include a 

requirement for site assessment and mitigation where proposed 

development may affect sensitive nesting and roosting areas, 

and should include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback 

standards, and mitigation. 


June 2003 Page 31

24. Public access to these identified sensitive habitat 

areas, including the timing, intensity, and location of 

such access, shall be controlled to minimize 

disturbance to wildlife. 

25. Fences, roads, and structures which significantly 

inhibit wildlife movement, particularly access to 

water, shall be avoided. 

26. Upland grassland feeding areas shall be protected 

against any significant disruption of habitat values. 

27. Use of Duxbury reef shall continue to be 

regulated in accordance with existing State laws. The 

area should continue to be patrolled by a representative 

of the County Parks and Recreation Department on a daily basis. 

28. Invasive exotic plant species are proliferating in the coastal zone at 

the expense of native plants. In order to preserve 

indigenous native plant species within the coastal 

zone, development permits shall be conditioned, where 

applicable, to require the removal of any invasive, non-indigenous 

plant species such as Pampas Grass, Brooms, and Thistles. 

30. In order to preserve the maximum amount of 

agricultural land, protect important upland grassland 

feeding areas and to promote the concentration of 

development in accordance with Section 30240 (a) and (b), e land 

now designated as A-5 and A-10 zoning districts shall be rezoned 

to APR-5 and APR-10 to encourage greater flexibility in the design of 

future land divisions within the area. New land divisions 

shall be designed to provide the maximum feasible clustering 

of new units and by easement or similar recorded instrument shall 

provide both the retention of the maximum amount of land in 

agricultural use and the protection of important upland feeding 

areas, which are identified on the resource maps on file in 

the Maria County Planning Department. 

Needs Reorganization and Refinement – Policies related to 

protection of “sensitive habitat areas” need to be reorganized 

and greatly expanded. Current policies are focused on specific 

features such as Bolinas Lagoon, Pine Gulch Creek, and 

Redwood Creek, and do not address other sensitive resources. 

Sensitive habitat should specifically include wetlands, 

occurrences of sensitive natural communities and specialstatus 

species, and important wildlife habitat such as breeding, 

roosting and foraging areas. Policies should be expanded to 

include a requirement for site assessment and mitigation where 

proposed development may affect sensitive habitat areas, and 

should include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback 

standards, and mitigation. 

Needs Refinement – Policy should be refined to include 

avoidance standards and methods to minimize disruption of 

opportunities for wildlife movement. These could include 

restrictions on exclusionary fencing, avoidance of new roads 

and crossings of riparian corridors, and siting structures 

outside of important movement corridors. 

Needs Refinement – Policy should be refined and expanded to 

identify functions and values to be protected, and methods to 

achieve avoidance. Minimum buffer setbacks from wetlands, 

maintenance of grassland cover, and proper management of 

grazing lands to prevent overgrazing are possible methods to 

protect grassland habitat. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm current 

patrol practices for Duxbury Reef, Bolinas Lagoon, and other 

sensitive habitat areas. Policy should be expanded to 

encourage use of interpretive programs and signage to protect 

sensitive resources, in addition to patrolling and enforcement. 

Needs Reorganization and Refinement – Policy should be 

expanded as part of a larger goal of habitat protection and 

management, and revised to clearly state the need for removal 

and control of invasive exotics, prohibit planting of 

undesirable species in landscaping, and require invasive exotic 

removal as part of proposed development approval. Identified 

undesirable species should be expanded to include other 

known invasive exotics which pose a threat in the coastal zone. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm status 

of recommended rezoning. Policy should be refined to specify 

target species needing protection such as foraging raptors, and 

should emphasize avoidance of native grasslands. 


June 2003 Page 32

III. Shoreline Protection and Hazard Areas 

6.To minimize visual and sand transport impacts on 

Stinson Beach, any permit granted to construct 

erosion control structures shall require the reestablishment 

of the former dune contour and 

appearance. In case of emergency permits, the 

property-owner of record shall agree, in writing, that 

such restoration work will be accomplished within 

60 days after the threat of damage has passed. 

IV. Public Services and New Development 

1. Roads, flood control projects and utility service 

expansions shall be limited to the minimum 

necessary to serve development as identified by LCP 

land use policies. All such public works projects 

shall be reviewed under resource and visual policies 

of the LCP. 

27. Redesignate residential lot size of parcels along 

Redwood Creek from 10,000 square feet to 1 acre minimum lot size. 

(See also Policy 11-8). 

30.The properties presently Zoned R-3 along 

Shoreline Highway shall be rezoned to R-2 in order to 

minimize flood hazards and the adverse impacts on Easkoot Creek 

which would result from such development (Easkoot Creek runs 

across the subject properties). Redesignation of the R-3 properties to 

R-2 will also assure development consistent with the existing 

character of the community. Development shall not be 

permitted within the 100-year floodplain of Easkoot Creek and shall 

otherwise conform with LCP Policies on septic systems and stream 

protection. 

31. The properties presently zoned R-1 on 'the east side of Calle del 

Arroyo should be redesignated to a "Resource 

Management Area" in order to assure protection of 

the adjacent marsh areas of Bolinas Lagoon. (See 

also Chapter II.) 

32. The properties presently zoned R-1 on the seaward side of the paper 

street Mira Vista should be redesignated to RSP-2.0 

in order to assure preservation of the natural sand dunes and sandy 

beach areas located seaward of Mira Vista. 

Needs Refinement - Policy should be expanded to include a 

requirement for site assessment and possible mitigation as 

recommended under Policy II-21. 

Needs Refinement – Policy should be expanded to include a 


development may affect sensitive habitat areas, and should 

include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards, 

and mitigation, where allowed under Coastal Act. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Revision – Need to confirm whether 

properties in questions were redesignated or remain in private 

ownership, and to specify appropriate restrictions as called for 

in Policies II-4 and II-8. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Revision – Policy should indicate that 

any new development must comply with stream protection 

policies and include assessment and adequate mitigation, if 

necessary. 


any new development must comply with lagoon and marsh 

protection policies and include assessment and adequate 

mitigation, if necessary. 


any new development must comply with dune protection 

policies and include assessment and adequate mitigation, if 

necessary. 


June 2003 Page 33

POLICIES 

TABLE 2 (Continued) 

EVALUATION OF EXISTING LCP BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND 

RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROGRAMS -- UNIT 2 

I. Public Access 

1. General policy and elements of Public Access 

Component. The County of Marin supports and encourages the 

enhancement of public access opportunities to the coast, in 

conformance with Sections 30210 through 30214 of the 

Coastal Act. There are three methods by which the policies of these 

sections will be implemented in the County's Public Access 

Component: 

a. Existing accessways. The LCP recognizes existing public 

accessways in Unit II, both public and private, as an integral part of the 

County's overall access program. These accessways, identified in 

Table 1 on page 6, should be maintained open to the 

public. 

b. Offered easements. A total of nine offers of public access 

easements in Unit II have been required as a condition of past permit 

approvals by the County - or the North Central Coast 

Regional Commission. The LCP recommends that certain of 

these easements, as specified in Policy #3 below, be accepted by the 

County or other agency and incorporated into the County's access 

program. 

c. New accessways. The County views public access easements, 

gained through offers of dedication as a condition of coastal permit 

approval, as the primary means available to increase public access 

opportunities in Unit II. Potential areas where such 

easements could be required have been evaluated based on their 

desirability and physical suitability, evidence of prescriptive rights, and 

proximity to other access points and existing uses. Based on these 

criteria, specific recommendations for new accessways have been 

developed (Policy #3). In addition to the easements recommended, the 

County may require additional access in the future as the need arises. 

If funds become available for acquisition of public 

accessways, they should be allocated according to the 

priority recommendations in Policy A. 

2. General standards. The following general policies 

and procedures shall apply to all new accessways in 

Unit II, including those specifically recommended in 

the LCP at this time, those not currently recommended 

but considered in the future, and those which may be 

acquired by public purchase. 

EVALUATION 

Needs Refinement – Needs to acknowledge importance of 

avoiding sensitive biological and wetland resources, and refer to 

Natural Resource Protection policies. 

Needs Refinement - Need to define “fragile coastal resources” in 

LCP update, how these resources are identified, and standards for 

avoidance and mitigation. Policy should refer to Natural 

Resource Protection policies and definitions in LCP.Sensitive 

resources should include wetlands, occurrences of special-status 

species and sensitive natural communities, and important wildlife 

habitat such as breeding, roosting, and foraging areas. 


June 2003 Page 34

5. Exceptions for parcels not recommended for access 

at this time. When the County reviews coastal permits 

for development on parcels not specifically listed in 

Policy #3, the general standards in Policy #2 shall apply 

as well as the following exception: 

Public access may not be required upon specific findings by the 

County that, 

(1) It is inconsistent with public safety or the protection of fragile 

coastal resources, or 

(2) Agriculture would be adversely affected, or 

(3) Public use of an accessway would seriously 

interfere with the privacy of existing homes. 

The County's findings on any point above shall 

include a consideration of whether or not measures such as 

setbacks from sensitive habitats, trail or stairway development, or 

regulated hours, seasons, or types of use, could adequately mitigate 

potential adverse impacts from access. 

I. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities & 

Federal Parklands 

1. General policy. The County of Marin supports and encourages 

the enhancement of public recreational opportunities and the 

development of visitor-serving facilities in its coastal zone. 

Such development must, however, be undertaken in a manner 

which preserves the unique qualities of Marin's coast and which is 

consistent with the protection of natural resources and 

agriculture. Generally, recreational uses shall be lowintensity, 

such as hiking, camping, and fishing, in keeping with the 

character of existing uses in the coastal zone. New 

visitor-serving commercial development shall be 

compatible in style, scale, and character with that of the 

community in which it is located and shall be sited and designed to 

minimize impacts on the environment add on other uses in the area. The 

County encourages that a diversity of recreational opportunities and 

facilities be provided, especially those of moderate cost. 

Facilities for water-oriented recreational uses, such as 

clamming and boating, are preferred to those which do not require a 

coastal location. 

3. a. General standards and zoning. In order to 

preserve the integrity and special qualities of coastal villages in 

Unit II, visitor serving and commercial development shall be 

compatible in architectural style, scale, and function with the character 

of the community in which it is located. Such development shall also 

be evaluated for its conformance with LCP policies on natural 

resources and agriculture, visual quality, public access, and public 

services, among others. Existing commercial zoning 

shall be modified in accordance with policies 3(b) through 3(g) 

below. 

Needs Refinement _ Need to define “fragile coastal resources” in 

LCP update, how these resources are identified, and standards for 

avoidance and mitigation. Policy should refer to Natural 

Resources Protection policies and definitions in LCP. Sensitive 

resources should include wetlands, occurrences of special-status 

species and sensitive natural communities, and important wildlife 

habitat such as breeding, roosting, and foraging areas. 

Still Applicable – Need to acknowledge importance of both 

“protection” and enhancement of sensitive biological and wetland 

resources as a condition of any future recreational use or facility 

development. 

Still Applicable – Assumes policies pertaining to Natural 

Resource Protection will be updated to provide greater definition 

of standards for assessment, avoidance and mitigation. 


June 2003 Page 35

3. Natural resources. Federal projects which involve the 

modification or alteration of natural resources should be evaluated by the 

Coastal Commission through the consistency review process. 

4. a. The continuation of agricultural land uses in 

the GGNRA and PRNS is strongly encouraged, where 

and at a level which is compatible with the protection of 

natural resources and public recreational use. 

Agricultural operations should be monitored to 

ensure that they are compatible with resource 

carrying capacity. Where conflicts arise between agriculture 

and resource protection or public access or recreational uses, they should 

be resolved in such a way as to protect resources - and public 

safety while still allowing the continuation of the 

agricultural operation. 

II. Natural Resources 

1.Marine environment. Tomales Bay is currently being 

considered for inclusion in a proposed Point Reyes - 

Farrallones Federal Marine Sanctuary. The County of 

Marin strongly supports the objectives of the proposed Marine 

Sanctuary which would protect valuable habitat for 

marine species, and recommends that local Marin County 

organizations and qualified citizens be represented in any citizen 

advisory committee that may be established for the Sanctuary. 

Still Applicable –Review of federal project for consistency with 

LCP should include consideration of new standards in policies 

pertaining to natural resource protection. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm status of 

any monitoring of agricultural activities and necessary policy 

refinement to ensure protection of sensitive resources. 

Needs Refinement – Policy should be expanded to address all 

marine environments in Coastal Zone, not just Tomales Bay. 


June 2003 Page 36

3.Streams and riparian habitats. The policies 

contained in this section shall apply to all streams in the Unit II 

coastal zone, perennial or intermittent, which are mapped by the 

United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) on the 7.5 minute 

quadrangle series. 

a.Stream alterations. Stream impoundments, diversions, 

channelizations, or other substantial alterations shall be 

limited to the following purposes: 

(1) Necessary water supply projects, including 

those for domestic or agricultural purposes; 

(2) Flood control projects where no other method 

for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is 

feasible and where such protection is necessary for 

public safety or to protect existing development; or 

(3) Developments where the primary function is 

the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. 

Before any such activities are permitted, minimum flows necessary to 

maintain fish habitat and water quality, and to protect downstream 

resources (e.g. riparian vegetation, groundwater recharge 

areas, receiving waters, spawning habitats, etc.) and downstream 

users shall be determined by the Department of Fish and 

Game and the Division of Water Rights of the State 

Water Resources Control Board. New impoundments 

which, individually or cumulatively, would decrease stream flows 

below the minimum shall not be permitted. 

b.Conditions. The alteration of streams allowed for the purposes 

listed in (a) above shall be held to a minimum to protect streamwater 

quality and the volume and rate of streamflow. All 

such developments hall incorporate the best mitigation 

measures feasible, including erosion and runoff control 

measures, and revegetation of disturbed areas with native species. 

Disturbance of riparian vegetation shall be held to a minimum. 

c. Stream Buffers. Buffers to protect streams from the 

impacts of adjacent uses shall be established for each stream in Unit II. The 

stream buffer shall include the area covered by riparian vegetation on 

both sides of the stream and the area 50 feet landward from 

the edge of the riparian vegetation. In no case shall the stream buffer be 

less than 100 feet in width, on either side of * the stream, as 

measured from the top of the stream banks. 

Needs Refinement – Current policies refer only to perennial and 

intermittent streams. Need to expand policies to include 

protection of ephemeral drainages and importance of providing 

minimum setbacks along these features given their importance in 

filtration function and habitat connectivity. 

As a general rule, new impoundments and diversions should be 

discouraged because of their direct and indirect effects on aquatic 

and riparian habitats. This prohibition on new stream alterations 

should be stated as policy, together with a requirement of a 

thorough assessment of potential impacts, coordination with and 

approval from jurisdictional agencies, and implementation of 

adequate mitigation, if determined necessary. Repeats Policy II-1 

in LCP, Unit 1. 

Needs Refinement – Could be more clearly stated that any 

alteration should be discouraged, with the exception of habitat 

enhancement and management conducted as part of an approved 

plan. The phrase “best mitigation measures feasible” could be 

replaced with reference to “best management practices” and 

“effective mitigation that provides for improved habitat values 

and functions”. Repeats Policy II-2 in LCP, Unit 1. 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – This standard provides a 

minimum acceptable setback and buffer along riparian corridors. 

Adequate protection may call for a wider setback when specialstatus 

species such as California red-legged frog are present. 

Method to assess and define the extent of woody riparian 

vegetation is necessary to determine need for setback greater than 

100 feet. Repeats Policy II-3 in LCP, Unit1. 


June 2003 Page 37

d. Development in Stream Buffers. No construction, 

alteration of land forms or vegetation removal shall be permitted 

within such riparian protection area. Additionally, such 

project applications shall identify a stream buffer area which shall 

extend a minimum of 50 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, 

but in no case less than 100 feet from the banks of a stream. Development 

shall not be located within this stream buffer area. When a parcel is located 

entirely within a stream buffer area; design review shall be required to 

identify and implement the mitigation measures necessary to protect 

water quality, riparian vegetation and the rate and volume of stream 

flows. The design process shall also address the impacts of erosion and 

runoff, and provide for restoration of disturbed areas by replacement 

landscaping with plant species naturally found on-the site. Where a 

finding based upon factual evidence is made that development outside 

a riparian protection or stream buffer area would be more 

environmentally damaging to-the riparian habitat than development 

within the riparian protection or stream buffer area, development of 

principal permitted uses may occur within such area subject to design 

review and appropriate mitigation measures. 

e. Diversions Outside the Coastal Zone. Freshwater 

inflows to Tomales Bay are critical to the ecology of the Bay. These 

inflows maintain unique estuarine habitats along the shoreline of the 

Bay, affect the spawning characteristics of silver salmon and steelhead 

trout, flush saltwater and accumulated bottom sediments seaward, and 

influence the distribution of shellfish, including a rare and 

endangered species of shrimp, Syncaris pacifica. Existing 

dams and reservoirs have already significantly decreased 

the mean annual net freshwater inflow to Tomales Bay by 

approximately 25%. There is general recognition that the water quality 

and marine life of Tomales Bay have been adversely affected by 

these reduced inflows. The effect of further diversions on the 

Bay is not known; however, the cumulative effect is generally 

regarded as significant. 

Coastal Act policies 30230 and 30231 provide for the protection of 

marine resources and water quality. In addition, Section 

30402 provides that all state agencies shall carry out their duties and 

responsibilities in conformance with the policies of the 

Act. Although most freshwater diversions occur outside 

the coastal zone and are thus beyond the jurisdiction of the LCP, 

the important effects of such diversion projects on the coastal zone should 

be considered by all agencies involved so that 

conformance to the Coastal Act policies cited above is 

ensured. The County urges all agencies involved with 

diversions outside the coastal zone which affect 

freshwater inflows to Tomales Bay to properly notify 

the County of any plans for such diversions so that 

opportunity for local comment is assured. 

The LCP recommends that the impacts from diversion projects, 

especially on the two major tributaries to Tomales Bay, Walker and 

Lagunitas Creeks, be fully studied through the EIR process before they 

are permitted to proceed and that in all cases, mitigation and 

enhancement measures be required to ensure that coastal resources 

influenced by freshwater inflows are not significantly damaged. 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Policy should be expanded 

to include a requirement of a thorough assessment of potential 

impacts, coordination with and approval from jurisdictional 

agencies, and implementation of adequate mitigation, if 

determined necessary. Policy should also be revised to indicate 

that parcels located largely or entirely within stream buffer should 

be considered a priority for open space acquisition due to their 

sensitivity, particularly when adjacent to existing open space or 

where a number of similarly constrained parcels occur together. 

Partially repeats Policy II-4 in LCP, Unit 1. 

Still Applicable/Needs Refinement – Policy should be expanded 

to consider thorough evaluation of any proposed diversion from 

drainage along entire coastal zone, not just tributaries to Tomales 

Bay. 


June 2003 Page 38

4.Wetlands. Wetlands in the Unit II coastal zone shall be 

preserved and maintained, consistent with the policies in this 

section, as productive wildlife habitats, recreational open space, and 

water filtering and storage areas. Land uses in and adjacent 

to wetlands shall be evaluated as follows: 

a. Diking, filling, and dredging of wetlands shall be 

permitted only in conformance with the policies 

contained in the LCP on this subject, presented on page 136. 

In conformance with these policies, filling of wetlands for the purposes 

of single-family residential development shall not be permitted. 

b. Allowable resource-dependent activities in wetlands 

shall include fishing, recreational clamming, hiking, hunting, nature 

study, bird watching, and boating. 

c. No grazing or other agricultural uses shall be 

permitted in wetlands except in those - reclaimed areas 

presently used for' such activities. 

d. A buffer strip 100 feet in width, minimum, as 

measured landward from the edge of the wetland, shall be 

established along the periphery of all wetlands. Where appropriate, the 

required buffer strip may be wider based upon the findings of the 

supplemental report required in (e). Development activities 

and uses in the wetland buffer shall be' limited to those specified in (a) 

and (b) above. 

e. As part of the application for a. coastal development permit on any 

parcel adjacent tom Tomales Bay, except where there is no 

evidence of wetlands pursuant to the Coastal Commission's guidelines, 

the applicant shall be required to submit supplemental biological information 

prepared by a qualified ecologist at a scale 

sufficient to identify the extent of the existing wetlands, 

based on Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and the area of the 

proposed buffer areas. 

5.Coastal Dunes and Other Sensitive Land Habitats. 

Development in or adjacent to sensitive habitats shall be subject to 

the following standards: 

a. Coastal Dunes. No development shall be permitted in 

coastal dunes in order to preserve dune formations, vegetation, and 

wildlife habitats. If additional development is proposed at 

Lawson's Landing, it shall be sited out of the dunes and designed to 

minimize impacts on adjacent dune vegetation and habitat. 

Overuse in the dune area shall be prevented by such 

mechanisms as restricting parking, directing pedestrian 

traffic to areas capable of sustaining increased use, and fencing. 

No motor vehicles shall be permitted in beach or 

dune areas except for emergency purposes. The 

existing sand quarry operation shall be reviewed in February 

1982 when the current permit expires for conformance with LCP 

policies. 

Needs Refinement/Reorganization – Should be revised and 

expanded to address wetlands through entire coastal zone. Policy 

should also address primary management concerns and functions 

of buffer zone, and should define restrictions and methods to 

control possible indirect effects of public access and recreational 

use, grazing, agricultural practices, and other activities. Policy 

should acknowledge permit authority of jurisdictional agencies 

for wetlands and unvegetated other waters, and need to provide 

coordination when resources may be affected by proposed 

development. Partially repeats Policy II-18 in LCP, Unit 1. 

Needs Refinement/Reorganization – Need to refine and expand 

policy to address all sensitive natural communities, including 

coastal dunes, bluff scrub, maritime chaparral, native grasslands, 

coastal salt marsh, brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, and riparian 

scrub and woodland, among others. This should be stated as a 

primary objective in coastal zone. Policy should be expanded to 

include a requirement for site assessment and mitigation where 

proposed development may affect sensitive habitat, and should 

include minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards, and 

mitigation. 


June 2003 Page 39

. Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitats. 

Other sensitive habitats include habitats of rare or 

endangered - species and unique plant communities. 

Development in such areas - may - only be permitted 

when it depends upon the resources of the habitat area. Development 

adjacent to such areas shall be set back a sufficient distance to 

minimize impacts on the habitat area. Public access 

to sensitive habitat areas, including the timing, intensity, and 

location of such access, shall be controlled to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife. Fences,' roads, and structures which significantly inhibit 

wildlife movement, especially access to water, shall be avoided. 

III. Agriculture 

1. General policy. Marin County intends to protect the existing 

and future viability of agricultural lands in its coastal zone, in 

accordance with Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act. The 

County's LCP policies are intended to permanently preserve productive 

agriculture and lands with the potential for agricultural use, foster 

agricultural development, and assure that non-agricultural 

development does not conflict with agricultural uses or is incompatible 

with the rural character of the County's coastal zone. These 

policies are also intended to concentrate development 

in suitable locations, ensure that adequate public services are 

available to serve new development, and protect coastal wildlife, 

habitat, and scenic resources, in accordance with Sections 30240, 

20250, and 30251 of the Coastal Act. 

f. The proposed land division and/or development will 

have no significant adverse impacts on environmental quality or 

natural habitats, including stream or riparian habitats and 

scenic resources. In all cases, LCP policies on streams and 

natural resources shall be met. 

8. Agriculture on state parklands. State parklands with 

the potential for agricultural use should be made 

available for such use, especially during the interim 

period before the parks are opened for public use. Once 

opened, the parks should retain agricultural uses unless 

public recreation or natural resources on the site would be adversely 

affected. If conflicts between agriculture and public uses 

occur, they should be resolved in such a way as to protect resources 

and public safety while still allowing the continuation of 

the agricultural operation. Agricultural leases with 

private operators should be reviewed five years prior to 

expiration for compatibility with park goals. 

Operators should be notified at that time whether or not 

their leases will be renewed and what revisions in operating 

arrangements, if any, are necessary. 

Needs Refinement/Reorganization – Need to refine and expand 

policy to provide for protection of special-status species 

throughout coastal zone. This should be stated as a primary 

objective in coastal zone. Policy should be expanded to include a 


development may affect sensitive habitat, and should include 

minimum criteria for avoidance, setback standards, and 

mitigation. Policy should acknowledge permit authority of 

jurisdictional agencies for listed species, and need to provide 

coordination when essential habitat may be affected by proposed 

development. 

Still Applicable – Proposed development and agricultural 

practices should be compatible with protection of sensitive 

biological and wetland resources. 

Still Applicable – Proposed development and agricultural 

practices should be compatible with protection of sensitive 

biological and wetland resources, and meet refined standards in 

LCP update for assessment, avoidance, and mitigation. 

Unsure of Status/Needs Refinement – Need to confirm status of 

any monitoring of agricultural activities and necessary policy 

refinement to ensure protection of sensitive resources. 


June 2003 Page 40

IV. Tomales Bay Uses- Mariculture 

1. General policy. The County of Marin supports and encourages 

mariculture in its coastal zone for the purposes of producing food, enhancing 

and restoring fisheries stocks, and contributing to the State's 

economy. This policy recognizes, however, that the 

need for mariculture sites in coastal waters must be balanced with 

the need to provide for other uses, such as commercial fishing, 

recreational clamming, and boating, and the need to protect coastal 

wildlife, water, and visual resources. 

2d. Protection of eelgrass beds. The siting of oyster 

allotments, mariculture leases, and mariculture structures shall 

avoid interference or damage to eelgrass beds in Tomales Bay, in conformance 

with Section 165(5), Title 14, of the California Administrative 

Code. 

V. Tomales Bay Uses- Shoreline Structures 

1. General policy. The County discourages the proliferation of 

shoreline structures in the Unit II coastal zone due to their visual impacts, 

obstruction of public access, interference with natural shoreline 

processes and water circulation, and effects on marine habitats and 

water quality. In some cases, however, the County 

recognizes that the construction of protective works or piers may 

be necessary or desirable. When' piers are allowed, multiple public 

and private, commercial and recreational uses shall be 

accommodated, if feasible, to maximize the use of these structures 

and minimize the need for further construction. Coastal 

permits for all shoreline structures will be evaluated 

based on the criteria listed in the policies below. 

Still Applicable - Protection of sensitive habitat areas is essential 

to maintenance of the aquatic habitat values of the bay. 

Still Applicable – Protection of sensitive habitat areas is essential 

to maintenance of the aquatic habitat values of the bay. 

Still Applicable – Need to acknowledge review and approval 

from jurisdictional agencies. 


June 2003 Page 41

2. Shoreline protective works. The construction or 

reconstruction of revetments, breakwaters, groins, seawalls, or 

other artificial structures for coastal erosion control shall be allowed only if 

each of the following criteria is met: 

a. The structure is required to serve a coastal-dependent 

use, a coastal-related use in a developed area, or to protect existing 

development or public beaches. 

b. No other non-structural alternative is practical or 

preferable. 

c. The condition causing the problem is site 

specific and not attributable to a general erosion trend, or the 

project reduces the need for a number of individual projects and solves 

a regional erosion problem. 

d. It can be shown that a structure(s) will 

successfully mitigate the effects of shoreline erosion and will 

not adversely affect adjacent or other sections of the 

shoreline. 

e. The structure will not be located in wetlands or 

other significant resource or habitat area, and will not cause 

significant adverse impacts to fish or wildlife. 

f. There will be no reduction in public access, use, 

and enjoyment of the natural shoreline environment, and 

construction of a structure will preserve or provide access to related 

public recreational lands or facilities. 

g. The structure will not restrict navigation, mariculture, 

or other coastal use and will not create a hazard in 

the area in which it is built. 

Before approval is given for the construction or reconstruction of any 

protective shoreline structure, the applicant for the 

project shall submit a report from a registered geologist, 

professional civil engineer, or certified engineering 

geologist verifying that the structure is necessary for coastal 

erosion control and explaining how it will perform its intended 

function. Such a report shall not be required for emergency permit 

applications; however, the application shall specifically 

establish why the need for protective structures was 

not foreseen. 




June 2003 Page 42

3. Piers and similar recreational or commercial 

structures. These structures shall be limited to sites located within 

existing developed areas or parks. New piers shall be permitted only if 

each of the following criteria is met: 

a. The structure will be used to serve a coastal-dependent use or will 

preserve or provide access to related public recreational lands or 

facilities. 

b. The structure will not be located in wetlands or other significant 

resource or habitat area and will not, individually or cumulatively, 

cause significant adverse impacts on fish or wildlife. 

c. The structure will not interfere with public access, use, and 

enjoyment of the natural shoreline environment. 

d. The structure will not restrict navigation, mariculture, or other 

coastal use and will not create a hazard in the area in which it is built. 

e. There is no pier with public access within ½ mile, or use of a nearby 

pier would not be feasible due to its size, location, or configuration. 

The reconstruction of existing piers shall be permitted provided that the 

pier is of the same size and in the same location as the original pier. 

Enlargements-or changes in design or location shall be evaluated 

based on criteria (a) through (e) above. 

5. Design standards for all shoreline structures. The 

design and construction of any shoreline structure 

shall: 

a. Make it as visually unobtrusive as possible; 

b. Respect natural landforms to the greatest degree 

possible; 

c. Include mitigation measures to offset any 

impacts on fish and wildlife resources caused by the 

project; 

d. Minimize the impairment and movement of sand 

supply and the circulation of coastal waters; and 

e. Address the geologic hazards presented by 

construction in or near Alquist-Priolo earthquake 

hazard zones. 






June 2003 Page 43

VI. Tomales Bay Uses- Diking, Dredging, and Filling 

3. Conditions and standards. Diking, filling, or 

dredging may be permitted for the purposes specified 

above, provided that the following conditions and 

standards are met: 

a. There is no feasible less environmentally damaging 

alternative. 

b. Where feasible, mitigation measures have been 

provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. 

c. The activities are planned, scheduled, and carried 

out to avoid significant disruption to marine and 

wildlife habitats, fish and bird breeding and migrations, and 

water circulation. 

d. The need for both initial and maintenance 

dredging shall be minimized by careful design and location of 

facilities with respect to existing water depths, water 

circulation, siltation patterns, and by efforts to reduce 

controllable sedimentation. 

e. In estuaries and wetlands, the diking, filling, or 

dredging shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the 

wetland or estuary. 

f. Dike and fill projects in wetlands shall include 

mitigation measures specified in Section 30607.1 of 

the Coastal Act. 




June 2003 Page 44

The following provides a discussion of the major issues which need to be addressed as part 

of the LCP update process. These include reorganizing the natural resources sections of the 

current LCP to provide additional or refined policies regarding special-status species, 

sensitive natural communities, wetlands, wildlife habitat connectivity, and vegetation 

management. New policies regarding the need to encourage interagency coordination as part 

of watershed and resource protection, and establishing policies on mitigation standards and 

options should be considered. 


The current LCP provides for very little protection of special-status species, with only one 

reference to “rare or endangered species” made in Policy II.4.b of the LCP for Unit 2. 

Protection of essential habitat for special-status species should be a major goal of the LCP, 

and policies should be reorganized accordingly, consistent with the Coastal Act intent to 

protect “environmentally sensitive areas” in the coastal zone. Revised policies should 

include acknowledgement of state and federal jurisdiction over sensitive resources, and the 

need for a thorough inventory and assessment of these resources as part the environmental 

review process where potential habitat may be affected by proposed development. There are 

no Marin County ordinances or habitat management plans related to the protection and 

recovery of special-status species. 


As noted above under the discussion of special-status species, Policy II.4.b of the LCP for 

Unit 2 refers to sensitive habitat and “unique plant communities”, but provides no clear 

standards for resource identification, avoidance, and mitigation. Policies pertaining to the 

streams and riparian habitat, coastal dunes, and wetlands provide some degree of protection 

for some sensitive natural community types in the coastal zone. However, additional 

policies and standards are necessary to provide for adequate protection of sensitive natural 

communities as “environmentally sensitive areas” in the coastal zone. 

Along with wetland resources, the issues of special-status species, sensitive natural 

communities, and wildlife habitat connectivity should be expanded into separate subsections 

to provide a framework for effective protection and restoration of viable habitat for sensitive 

natural resources. There are no Marin County ordinances related to the protection and 

enhancement of sensitive natural communities. 

The County of Marin Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (Ordinance #3291) 

established regulations for the preservation and protection of native trees, providing some 

protection of tree resources and woodland habitat in the non-agricultural unincorporated 

areas of the county, and an indication of their importance as a sensitive resource in the 

coastal zone. Protected trees under the ordinance are generally native species with trunk 

diameters of either six or 10 inches, depending on species. The ordinance is intended to: 

control the removal of protected trees; prevent the unpermitted wholesale removal of a 

majority of native trees on a parcel prior to application for a development permit; protect 

woodland environments on agricultural land through an educational outreach program; 


June 2003 Page 45

educate residents of the county about the functions, benefits and values of trees; and allow 

removal of protected trees when appropriate. A permit is typically required prior to removal 

a protected tree unless assessed as part of environmental review of a proposed development 

application. 

C. WETLANDS 

The current LCP contains numerous policies related to protection of streams and riparian 

habitat. Policy II-4 of the LCP for Unit 2 addresses wetlands, but is limited in its coverage 

for only part of the coastal zone. There is no direct acknowledgement of the authority of 

other jurisdictions, process for county oversight, and mitigation framework. Protected 

streams are limited to mapped perennial and intermittent streams, which does not 

acknowledge the important function ephemeral streams provide for filtration and habitat 

connectivity. The County of Marin does not have specific ordinances addressing protection 

of creeks, marshlands, or other wetland resources, although a draft Stream Conservation 

Area ordinance is currently being prepared by the CDA. 

The process to verify jurisdictional wetlands as part of development review, provide for their 

protection and replacement, and ensure adequacy of mitigation and enhancement should be 

provided as part of the LCP update. This should include protection of ephemeral drainages, 

seeps, springs, and seasonal wetlands as “environmentally sensitive areas” in the coastal 

zone. Policies should be developed which address the important functions of wetland buffer 

zones and define restrictions and methods to control possible indirect effects resulting from 

public access and recreational use, grazing, agricultural practices, and other activities. 

D. WILDLIFE HABITAT AND CONNECTIVITY 

The current LCP provides very little discussion of the importance of protecting sensitive 

wildlife habitat, and maintaining and improving habitat connectivity as a method of 

sustaining viable habitat for native plants and wildlife. Several policies call for the 

protection of riparian habitat, coastal dunes, and the wetlands of the Bolinas Lagoon and 

Tomales Bay. Policy II-25 in the LCP for Unit 1 and Policy II-4b in the LCP for Unit 2 refer 

to improvements, which could affect opportunities for wildlife movement, but they provide 

no standards or methods to minimize possible disruption. An important task of the LCP 

update process should be to expand current policies to provide appropriate standards to 

identify and avoid important wildlife habitat, such as essential foraging, roosting, and nesting 

areas as “environmentally sensitive areas” in the coastal zone. 

E. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 

Vegetation management is only briefly addressed in the current LCP, with references to 

protection of existing riparian and dune vegetation, and one policy addressing invasive 

exotics. The critical issues of hazardous fuel management, control of invasive exotics such as 

broom, gorse, and pampas grass, the devastating loss of woodlands as a result of Sudden Oak 

Death, and the affects these changes have on essential habitat for special-status species such 

as northern spotted owl, California red-legged frog, and California freshwater shrimp 


June 2003 Page 46

contribute to the need to develop clear policies on vegetation management in the LCP 

update. 

Appropriate policies should be more restrictive in prohibiting the use of invasive species, 

require their removal as part of proposed development throughout the county, and include 

programs to encourage their control and management on public and private lands. Policy II- 

28 from LCP, Unit 1 requires the removal of invasive exotic plant species on sites where 

development is proposed, but this should be expanded to include restrictions on additional 

undesirable species, elimination of these species from all lands to be developed, and control 

where they interface open space. One non-native species of particular note is the blue gum 

eucalyptus. Although blue gum is an invasive species, it does provide important habitat for 

native wildlife such as nesting raptors and migrating monarch butterflies. Recommendations 

for removal or control of blue gum should recognize and balance its value as a biological and 

aesthetic resource in the coastal zone. 

F. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

The coordinated management efforts of the Tomales Bay Watershed Council (TBWC) 

provides a possible model for countywide implementation of an interagency planning 

process. The TBWC is preparing a draft watershed management plan addressing water 

quality and health of the 220-square mile Tomales Bay watershed and developing 

recommendations for the implementation of technically sound management practices. The 

goals of the watershed management plan are to: ensure water quality in Tomales Bay and 

tributary streams sufficient to support natural resources and sustain beneficial uses; restore 

and preserve the integrity of natural habitats and native communities; develop strategies to 

implement the plan and protect the watershed; and involve and educate the public as 

watershed stewards. Coordination of this watershed-level planning effort with management 

practices throughout the coastal zone is an important step toward providing comprehensive 

protection and management of sensitive resources. 

G. MITIGATION ISSUES 

Several policies in the LCP refer to allowing development on parcels constrained by 

sensitive resources, but are not specific regarding mitigation requirements. Compensatory 

mitigation for potential impacts is generally required when complete avoidance of sensitive 

biological and wetland resources is not feasible. When compensatory mitigation is 

required, it can be met through a number of different approaches. These can include 

enhancing, restoring, or creating new habitat (either on-site or an alternative location), 

securing similar habitat in an alternative location in fee title or through establishment of a 

conservation easement, and more recently, through use of mitigation banking programs. 

The LCP update process should consider the appropriateness of the various mitigation 

options, and how these are to be achieved given the stringent requirements for avoidance in 

the coastal zone in protecting “environmentally sensitive areas”. 

VI. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES, TRENDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 


June 2003 Page 47

The LCP update process provides an opportunity to reevaluate the appropriateness of current 

policies, assess the organizational effectiveness of the current LCP, and determine any 

additional goals and policies necessary to provide a framework for comprehensive 

management of natural resources within the coastal zone. As described in detail in Section 

V, numerous aspects of the current LCP require considerable reorganization and refinement 

to provide for adequate protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources, 

acknowledge the authority of jurisdictional agencies, and define new goals and policies 

pertaining specifically to special-status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, 

wildlife habitat and connectivity, vegetation management, and interagency coordination. 


June 2003 Page 48

VII. REFERENCES 

A. PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORT PREPARATION 

Marin County Community Development Agency 

Alex Hinds, Planning Director 

Michele Rodriquez, AICP, Principal Planner 

Dan Dawson, Senior Planner 

Kristin Drumm, Planner 

Larisa Roznowski, Planning Aide 

Sophina Sadeek, Clerical Support 

Sharon Silver, Clerical Support 

Environmental Collaborative 

Jim Martin 

Nichols • Berman 

Bob Berman 

B. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 

Neysa King, Tomales Bay Watershed Council, Watershed Coordinator 

Liz Lewis, Marin Department of Public Works, Stormwater Program Administrator 

Mischon Martin, Marin County Open Space District, Resource Specialist 

Dave Shirokauer, Point Reyes National Seashore, GIS Services 

Gary Stern, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Biologist 

Robert Taylor, Jr., Marin County Community Development Agency, GIS Analyst 

C. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

California Department of Agriculture, Plant Quarantine Manual, Oak Mortality Disease 

Control, Section 3700, 2001. 


June 2003 Page 49

California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, List of California 

Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base, 2001. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, Special Animals, 

2002. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, Special Plants, 2002. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment 

Program, Wildlife Habitats, 2002. 

California Exotic Pest Plant Council, The CalEPPC List: Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest 

Ecological Concern in CA, October 1999. 

California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of 

California, Special Publication No. 1 (6th Edition), 2001. 

California Native Plant Society, Policy on Invasive Exotic Plants, Adopted September 1996. 

California Native Plant Society, Terrestrial Vegetation of California, 1988. 

California Native Plant Society, Statement of Policy – Wetlands, Adopted August 1991. 

California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, Biological Resource Division of 

the USGW, Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, and California State Parks, 

Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape, 2001. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C., 1979. 

Environmental Laboratory, Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual, Technical 

Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 

1987. 

Fehring, Katherine, E., Dawn B. Adams, and Daphne Hatch, Northern Spotted Owls in 

Marin County, California, 2000 Annual Report, 2001. 

Grossman, D., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. Weakley, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeon, R. Crawford, 

K. Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, and L. Sneddon, 

International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United 

States Volume 1, The National Vegetation Classification System: Development, Status, and 

Applications, The Nature Conservancy, 1988. 

Hall, E.R., The mammals of North America, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981. 

Harris, Richard R., Susan Kocher, and Kallie Marie Kull, Effects of County Land Use 

Policies and Management Practices on Anadromous Salmonids and their Habitats, 2001. 


June 2003 Page 50

Hickman, J.C., The Jepson manual: higher plants of California, University of California 

Press, Berkeley, California, 1993. 

Holland, R., Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California, 

California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, 1986. 

Howell, John Thomas, Marin Flora, 1970. 

Leonard Charles & Associates, Mount Tamalpais Area Vegetation Management Plan, 

prepared Marin Municipal Water District and Marin County Open Space District, 1995. 

Munz, P. and D. Keck, A California Flora and Supplement, 1973. 

Marin County Community Development Agency, Environmental Quality Element Technical 

Report #3, Species Protection in Marin, 1991. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, The ESA and Local Governments: 

Information on 4(d) Rules, 1999. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest and Southwest Regions, A Citizen's Guide to 

the 4(d) Rule for Threatened Salmon and Steelhead on the West Coast, 2000. 

National Research Council, Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management, 

March 22, 2002. 

Peterson, R.T., Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1969. 

Philip Williams & Associates, A Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Wetland 

Restoration Alternatives for Big Lagoon at Muir Beach, Marin County, prepared for the 

California Department of Transportation, District IV, April 1996. 

Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service, General Management Plan, 1980. 

Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service, Resource Management Plan, 1999. 

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf, A Manual of California Vegetation, California Native 

Plant Society, Sacramento, 1995. 

Schueler, T. and H. Holland, The Practice of Watershed Protection, Techniques for 

protecting our nation’s streams, lakes, rivers and estuaries, 2000. 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz Laboratory, Status Review Update for Coho 

Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from the Central California Coast and the California portion 

of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Evolutionarily Significant Units, 2001. 

Stebbins, R.C., A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 2nd Edition, Houghton 

Mifflin Co., Boston, 1985. 


June 2003 Page 51

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the 

United States, 1979. 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, CalVeg Geobook, Version 1, 2000. 

Wetland Research Associates, Phillip Williams Associates, Avocet Research Associates, 

Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan Update. 1996. 


June 2003 Page 52

marin county local coastal program update - County Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?