[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
J0,5California Coastal Commission U.. S. DEPARTMENT OF COutERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 20405-2413 as~e~ ~June 15,1994 Propezty of -',0 L'b ary 1 assistance for preparation of this document was provided by the Coastal Zone QH ment Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal 76.5 source Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. .C2 P76 1994 Preface A Note On The Use Of This Document The Coastal Act provides strong enforceable policies for the protection of wetlands in the coastal zone. However, the accumulation of new scientific information on wetlands and the inevitability, over time, of staff changes gave rise to the need for a consistent framework for the application of those policies by Commission staff in their preparation of proposed findings for the Commission. Based on that need, the Commission sought and obtained a federal grant to develop the document: Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California's Coastal Zone. The development of this new procedural guidance document will significantly improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the Commission staff's analysis and of the recommendations upon which the Commission bases its decisions; thus enhancing the Commission's ability to protect the State's coastal wetland resources. It is important, however, to accurately characterize this document and explicitly delineate its appropriate use. Consistent with the authority delegated to the executive director by the Commission to direct the work of staff, arid consistent with the Commission's duty to examine projects, amendments, and other items for Commission action on a case-by-case basis, this procedural guidance document will provide staff with relevant background information and an analytic framework for drafting proposed findings and recommendations. Although the sources of information (e.g., scientific research results or precedential Commission actions) contained in this document can and will be referenced when developing a staff report, this procedural guidance document itself will not be cited, quoted, or relied upon as the basis for recommendations or findings contained in any staff report. This is a publication of the State of California, California Coastal Commission pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number NA270Z088-01. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...VI List of Figures ...VII Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... VIII Chapter One -Coastal Development Permit Review Process .....................................1 I. Introduction .......................................................................................................1 II. The Environmental Review Process ................................................................3 A. The Lead and Responsible Agencies .....................................................4 B. The Initial Study .......................................................................................8 C. The Negative Declaration ......................................................................8 D. The Environmental Impact Report......................................................9 HIi. Coastal Development Permit Application Review ...................................... 10 A. Initial Application Review...................................................................... 11 B. Staff Analysis '.. 11 1) Allowable Use Analysis ...................................................................... 12 2) Alternatives Analysis .19 3) Mitigation .............................................................................................. 21 IV. Wetland Identification and Delineation ........................................................ 25 V. Establishing Buffer Areas ................................................................................. 26 VI. Determining Functional Capacity .................................................................. 27 Chapter Two - An Overview of Mitigation Processes and Procedures ..................... 29 I. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 29 IL. Mitigation Defined ............................................................................................ 29 III. Types of Mitigation ........................................................................................... 30 A. Avoidance ................................................................................................. 30 B. Enhancement Restoration and Creation ............................................... 30 C. In-Lieu Fees and Wetland Mitigation Banks ........................................ 32 IV. Mitigation Ratios .......................................................................... .................... 33 in TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) V. Enhancement and Restoration ......................................35 A. Effectiveness of Enhancement and Restoration .............4.....35 B. Designing an Effective Enhancement or Restoration Plan .........36 C. Contents of an Enhancement or Restoration Plan.................38 D. Basic Standards for a Monitoring Plan..........................39 Chapter Three -Protection and Management of Wetlands in the California Coastal Zone: A Review of Relevant Agencies and Processes ....41 I. Introduction......................................................41 II, Definition and Classification of Wetlands.............................42 A. Definition and Classification by Federal Agencies................42 B. Definition and Classification by California State Agencies.........48 III. Agencies and Regulations Relating to Wetlands ......................49 A. Federal Regulatory Programs and Agencies.....................49 B. Federal-State Interaction .....................................51 C. State Regulatory Programs and Agencies .......................52 D. Local Government Regulatory Programs and Agencies ...........61 IV. Existing Management Practices.....................................64 A. Management of Federal Owned Lands in California..............64 B. Management of State Owned Lands in California ................64 C. Management of Individual Wetlands...........................65 D. Wetland Management Goals and Concerns......................65 V. Summary....... ................................................66 Chapter Four - Priority Wetland Resource Concerns: A Review of Relevant Technical Information .............................68 I. Introduction .....................................................68 II. The Ecology of Wetlands in Brief...................................68 A. Topography ................................................69 B. Hydrology ..................................................71 C'. Water Quality ...............................................73 IV TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) D. Biological Interactions........................................75 11I. Understanding the Functions and Values of Coastal Wetlands. . ........78 IV. Factors Impacting California's Coastal Wetlands . .....................80 V. Summary........................................................83 Literature Cited...........................................................84 Glossary..................................................................89 Appendix A -Statewide Interpretive Guidelines For Wetlands And Other Wet Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas ......................................93 Appendix B -Sample Form Letters For Use In The Review Of CEQA Required Documents And The Processing Of Coastal Development Permit Applications .............................165 Form Letter One......................................................166 Form Letter Two .....................................................169 Form Letter Three.....................................................172 Form Letter Four .....................................................173 Appendix C -A List Of Information Required For Evaluation Of Coastal Development Permit Applications Proposing Development Activities Affecting Wetland Resources..............175 Appendix D - Wetlands Resource And Regulatory Agency Contact List .........182 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1 A Comparison Among Commonly Proposed Types of Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Projects ....................31 Table 2 Summary of California Coastal Commission Permit Activity Relating to Section 30233, 1973-1986...............57 Table 3 Key Functions and Values of California's Coastal Wetlands.........79 Table 4 Summary of Historic Losses of California Coastal Wetlands.........81 VI LIST OF FIGURES Figure I EIR Procedures Flow Chart.................................... 5 Figure 2 CCC Permit Procedures: Flow Chart for Reviewing a Wetlands Development Project Application.......................13 Figure 3 Alternatives Analysis Decision Making Matrix ................... 20 Figure 4 Scope of Corps Regulatory Jurisdiction...........................44 Figure 5 Diagram Illustrating Major Wetland Systems .....................46 Figure 6 Map of Local Coastal Program - LCP Certification Status...........63 Figure 7 Map of Major California Coastal Wetlands........................70 Figure 8 Location Map of Southern California Coastal Wetlands and Major Rivers.....................................72 Figure 9 Diagram of a Wetland Food Chain...............................77 V11- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 309 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1990 required coastal states with certified coastal zone management programs to develop "enhancement objectives" for specific issue areas. Wetlands was one of the issue areas specified in Section 309, and subsequently the California Coastal Commission (CCC) adopted an enhancement strategy that proposed strengthening the Agency's wetlands decision-making process. This wetlands procedural guidance document is the mechanism for implementing the required program changes. This wetlands procedural guidance document has two main purposes: 1) to provide specific updated interpretations of the enforceable California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) wetlands policies and their associated procedures for Commission staff, applicants, local governments, and/or other wetlands management authorities; and 2) to refine and supplement the wetlands ecology and management issues discussed in the Coastal Commission's Statewide Interpretive Guidelines For Wetlands And Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, which were adopted in 1981. This Wetlands Procedural Guidance Document consists of four chapters and three appendices, which together meet the stated purposes. The document begins with a description of the various procedures currently available for reviewing proposed wetland development projects located in the coastal zone. Topics covered include a discussion and review of the environmental review process (CEQA/NEPA), and the CCC's coastal development permit application review process for wetland development projects. Specific strategies for effective use of these review. processes are also described. A major objective of these procedures is to promote early and effective participation in the relevant review process. Chapter two provides basic information necessary for the objective development and review of comprehensive mitigation plans for development projects affecting wetlands. Mitigation for the adverse affects of development projects in wetlands can take on a variety of forms. However, compensatory mitigation (enhancement, restoration, or creation) is the most common type of mitigation proposed in coastal development permit applications. Numerous partially successful, or failed mitigation projects attest to the fact that mitigation is not a panacea. Past experience clearly shows a great deal of effort is required by all parties to ensure successful mitigation. Chapter three provides an up-to-date review of the agencies and processes involved in the protection and management of California's coastal wetlands. The regulations, policies, and processes guiding the management and protection of California's coastal wetlands are numerous, and complex. Although specific regulations controlling development in wetlands exist at all levels of government, there is evidence to suggest VII the goal of no-net-loss 'of wetlands has not been achieved. The ability to protect existing wetlands is also hampered by inconsistencies among regulatory agencies and gaps in existing regulations. The lack of a single, clear, and broadly instituted definition for a wetland is a major inconsistency among regulatory agencies, which can act to compound regulatory problems. Meanwhile, certain types of wetlands, such as riparian areas and seasonal wet wetlands, do not receive equal protection at all levels of government because of differences in adopted definitions, -agency imposed limitations of adopted definitions, and jurisdictional limitations. More recent activities, however, should improve the current situation. Specifically, the Wilson administration (State) and the Clinton administration (federal) released wetland policy statements in August 1993, which are designed to provide a consistent policy framework for the management *and protection of wetlands. Implementation of these policy statements is underway. Chapter four presents a review of scientific and technical information relevant to understanding priority wetland resource concerns. Three features of coastal zone wetlands are discussed: 1) ecology; although a multitude of concepts, principles, and methodologies exist to assist in understanding the ecology of wetlands, our level of knowledge is still relatively rudimentary. This is particularly true for California's wetlands, where ecosystem research lags far behind that of Atlantic or Gulf cost efforts. 2) functions and values; California's coastal wetlands have a number of important functions and values. Although knowledge of most functions and values has existed for some time, their combined importance has increased over time because of the enormous wetland losses California has endured. And 3) sources of impacts; because of the relatively high social -value placed on the coastal zone, coastal wetlands have received greater protection than their inland counterparts. 'The alteration of wetlands in many coastal states - including California - is strictly regulated and generally prohibited. Much of the current loss of wetlands in the coastal states is attributed to either a lingering legacy of past development (e.g., agricultural, urban, and industrial development) or related to secondary or indirect effects of current projects (e.g., point- and nonpoint-source pollution, or changes in the timing and amount of fresh and saltwater inputs). This document also contains a glossary of terms, which is designed to assist the reader in understanding specific terms and scientific jargon. All words underlined in the text are defined in the glossary. An important element of this document is the implicit commitment to keep the information current. CCC staff will update this document as new policies are put into place and as new information becomes available. This is especially relevant in light of the recently released State and. federal wetland policy statements. Implementation of the initiatives and action items in these policy statements may affect management and regulation of -wetlands in the coastal zone. This document provides one way to integrate these and other future changes into the CCMP. IX CHAPTER ONE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS I. INTRODUCTION: Throughout the existence of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) much has been learned regarding California's coastal wetland resources. Over twenty years of agency- wide experience has shown that effective regulation and protection of wetland resources involves numerous components and considerable time and resources. In 1981, the CCC adopted its Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (hereafter referred to as the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines). These Statewide Interpretive Guidelines (Appendix A) were written to "integrate ecological concepts and policies found in many sections of the Coastal Act into a consistent whole, explain policies for protecting natural resources, define technical terms, and facilitate application of the policies by the State and regional Commission" (CCC, 1981). Many of the objectives for this Wetlands Procedural Guidance Document are the same as those for the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines. The overall goal of this document, however, is to provide a consistent process for the review of proposed wetland development projects in the California coastal zone. Additionally, this document includes information not available until after 1981, thereby serving to update information contained in the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines. There are several ways in which the CCC is notified of potential wetland development projects in the coastal zone, including: 1) The Environmental Review Process: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Many wetland development projects will trigger the State and/or Federal environmental review process. As a regulatory agency the CCC is required to review projects within its jurisdiction. 2) Coastal Development Permit Application. Permit application review requires CCC staff to analyze the complete permit application and prepare a staff report including recommendations for Commission action. In addition, the CCC receives notice of all pending local coastal development permits. 3) US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permits. The CCC reviews all Section 404 permits for activities affecting the coastal zone to ensure consistency with California's Coastal Management Program. 4) Local Coastal Program (LCP) Certification and Amendments. The Coastal Act directs each of the 73 cities and counties lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone to prepare an LCP. Local jurisdictions containing wetlands must include regulatory policies in their LCP's to ensure consistency with the Coastal Act. This process is especially important in southern California where many land use decisions regarding wetlands are made through the LCP certification or amendment process. (See the local government regulatory programs and agencies section in chapter three for more information on this topic.) 5) Other Regulatory Activities. Several regulatory processes require documentation of existing or proposed project impacts. These include biological assessments for impacts to special status species, streambed alteration agreements, and violations of the Coastal Act or other regulations. Presently, CCC staff efforts in southern California are devoted mainly to the review of coastal development permit applications (item two above). In northern California, CCC staff efforts focus on review of Section 404 permits and LCP certification and amendments (items three and four above). However, most effective regulation of wetland development, is achieved through CCC staff devoting adequate time to follow all types of wetland development project notifications. A major objective of these procedures is to promote early and effective participation in the review of wetland development projects. Early and effective participation will often require CCC staff input prior to receipt of an application for a coastal development permit. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a description of various procedures for reviewing wetland development projects. The first section deals with the environmental review process, because it is during this process that CCC staff have the greatest opportunity to begin early and effective participation in the review of. wetland development projects. The second section describes the CCC's coastal development permit review process for proposed wetland development projects. The third, fourth, and fifth sections describe topics of special importance in the review of all proposed wetland development projects: identifying and delineating wetlands, establishing buffer areas, .and determining functional capacity. II. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS: Early and effective participation in the environmental review process is one of the best ways to ensure consistent regulation of California's coastal wetlands. Active participation in the environmental review process provides the following benefits: Increases the Depth of Analysis. CCC staff can use the CEQA/NEPA process to request project sponsors to prepare and complete the information and studies described later in this chapter prior to application for a coastal development permit. Thus, CCC staff increase the overall time available to complete an in-depth analysis of the proposed project. Better Cooperation From Applicants. Applicants appreciate early and complete identification of wetland issues, required studies, and possible mitigation alternatives. In a survey of former applicants conducted by the CCC in 1987-88, the lack of assistance in identifying necessary wetland mitigation alternatives was noted as a major short-coming of the CCC permit process. Further, when the CCC required additional studies for processing a coastal development permit application, it was often perceived by the applicant as being too late in the overall process. The earlier applicants are notified of requirements for specific studies and mitigation measures, the more likely they are to consider such issues in detail during the overall regulatory process. * Reduction in Permit Application Review Time. With adequate and early input during the environmental review process, most issues will have been identified and analyzed prior to receipt of an application for a coastal development permit. This will reduce the staff time required for application analysis and report preparation. The environmental review process either follows guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) depending on the lead agency, and the location and type of project. The following description is for CEQA, but the NEPA process is very similar. CEQA review involves three main steps: 1) A lead agency is identified, which is responsible for examining the project to determine if it is subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061). If the project is exempt, a notice of exemption (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15062) is prepared. 2) For non-exempt projects, the lead agency conducts an initial study to determine if the project has any potential significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15063 and 15065). If it is determined the project will have no significant impacts, then a negative declaration is prepared (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15070-15075). 3) If the initial study shows the project may have a significant impact, the lead agency then prepares. either a mitigated negative declaration or a notice of preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). Figure 1 provides an overview of the CEQA environmental review process in the form of a flow chart, while each of the three main steps are discussed further below. A. The Lead and Responsible Agencies: CEQA Section 21067 defines the lead agency to mean: The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The lead agency has primary responsibility for ensuring all CEQA requirements are fully met, and that agency ultimately decides whether an EIR or a negative declaration is required for the project. The lead agency is determined in one of two ways. If the project will be carried out by a public agency, then that agency is designated the lead agency (CEQA, Section 15051(a)). If a non-governmental person or entity carries out the project, then the lead agency is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole (CEQA, Section 15051(b)). Although it is rare for the CCC to act as the lead agency, there are instances when this might occur. For example, some projects proposed in the CCC's original permit jurisdiction where the CCC is the first agency to review the project under CEQA, or in the CCC's review of Local Coastal Programs. The CCC's responsibilities under CEQA are normally met through the coastal development permit process, so a full EIR is not necessarily required. In contrast, CEQA Section 21069 defines the responsible agency to mean: A pubic agency, other than the Lead Agency which has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. A responsible agency is required to review and comment on the lead agency's environmental determination. Having a lead agency and one or more responsible agencies results in a check and balance system intended to provide full protection of the State's natural resources. Figure I EIR PROCEDURES FLOW CHART LEAD AGENCY RECEIVES OR S Q I PREPARES PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~~ I~~CONDUCT PRELIMINARY REVIEW Determine if Project is Exempt from CEQA Im ? Yes Prepare Notice of CCC Exemption Form Noti 'No ! CONDUCT INITIAL STUDY ! > Consult with Responsible Agencies. Obtain their Recommendations on whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared ~.~~ > Complete 'Initial Assessment Checklist' CCRv > Describe potential "impacts' listed on Checklist as 'yes or Maybe' > Describe Feasible Mitigation for Suspected Impacts � Describe How and If Mitigations will reduce impacts to insignificant levels !STUDY CONCLUSION I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS POTENTIAL FOR ON ENVIRONMENT SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Got o Step 4 (Go toStep 9 5 Figure I EIR PROCEDURES FLOW CHART (Continued) PREPARE DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION s ~ I Notice Negative Declaration iews ~.Negative - Maximum 45 Day Review Period Ngtv c'~~ l Review & Respond to Comments Received During Review !I Conduct Public Hearing I or Staff Level Review Consider and Review Testimony Determine if Project Will Have lAny Significant Impacts No~ Yes ~~ ~Approve & Adopt Scoping Meeting Negative Declaration Go to Step 18:) (Go to Step 9 6 Figure 1 EIR PROCEDURES FLOW CHART (Continued) PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR (ADEIR) I s3 ~> Send Out Notice of Preparation (NOP) (30-Day Response Period) eview > Based on Input Received on NOPs, Modify Scope of EIR & Send Out for ReviewNOP > Response-For Proposals (RFPs) s(~ 3~ )1 ~ Review and Revise ADEIR (Note-in House Review Only) S Q 1 ~Review Revised ADEIR & Approve for Public Hearing (In House Review) Send Hearing Draft of EIR to Involved Agencies for Review & Comments '~~'~ ~~-s - A Notice Draft EIR for a Public Hearing and Send 10 Copies to State Clearinghouse Reviews ~ t~~l~ ~Review Period is a Minimum of 45 Days Prior to Public Hearing Draft QED1.~ .EIR ~'-3 J ! EVALUATE & RESPOND TO COMMENTS ON THE HEARING DEIR > Response to Comments Must be Attached to DEIR *~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' I HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON DEIR | > Accept Comments on the Adequacy & Accuracy of DEIR I PREPARE THE FINAL EIR 1 > Prepare Addendum Listing All Comments & Letters Received & Responses to them + I NOTICE HEARING FOR CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR & CERTIFY | > Hearing Must Be Noticed A Minimum Of 10 Working Days Prior To Hearing COASTAL COMMISSION PERMIT REVIEW 18 SEE PERMIT PROCEDURES FLOW CHART (Figure 2) 7 B. The Initial Study: The first step in obtaining approval for a development in or adjacent to a wetland is for the project sponsor to apply for a permit. Typically this permit is from a local government, special district, or in certain cases from the State or federal government. (Special districts include port, harbor, and flood control districts, as well as State colleges and universities.) Development within a wetland located in the coastal zone will also require a coastal development permit from the CCC. After receiving a permit application, the lead agency conducts a preliminary review to determine if the project is categorically exempt from the CEQA process. Although some minor projects are exempt from CEQA, it is unlikely that any project affecting a wetland would be exempt under normal conditions. If the project is not exempt, then an initial study is required. The initial study consists of a checklist of potential project impacts, a qualitative assessment of the degree of impact, and an explanation for any perceived significant impacts. The completed study is then sent to all responsible agencies for review and comment. At this early stage in the CEQA process (step 3 in Figure 1), CCC staff have the opportunity to notify the potential applicant regarding information required to process a coastal development permit application. Form letter one in Appendix A and Appendix B list information that should be requested at the time comments are submitted on the initial study. C. The Negative Declaration: After completion of the initial study, the lead agency prepares either a negative declaration or a notice of preparation of an EIR. A negative declaration is the lead Agency's explanation of why the project will not significantly affect the environment, and therefore, does not require preparation of an EIR. In some cases, a project that may have deleterious environmental effects can include mitigation measures, which reduce the overall environmental impact to an insignificant level. Such an interpretation requires the lead agency to issue a mitigated negative declaration. CCC staff will have an opportunity to comment on the negative declaration or the mitigated negative declaration during the review period (step 5 in Figure 1). Like the initial study, CCC staff can use this opportunity to identify Coastal Act issues and I Public Resources Code Section 13610a states: Until such time as the commission certifies a plan for an area identified as a wetland, estuary, or existing recreation area pursuant to Public Resources Code', Section 30710, any development proposed to be undertaken in such an area shall require a coastal development permit as provided in Chapter 7 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and these regulations". 8 information necessary to file and analyze a permit application for a wetland development project (see Form Letter One, Appendix A and Appendix B). D. The Environmental Impact Report: An environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if the lead agency determines that the proposed activity will have a significant environmental impact, which cannot be reduced to insignificant levels through the actions of a mitigated negative declaration. As previously mentioned, this determination is made through completion of the initial study. The lead agency will publish a notice of preparation (NOP) if an EIR is required (step 9 in Figure 1). The purpose of the NOP is to elicit input on the scope of issues and the kinds of analyses the EIR should include. Responding to the NOP provides CCC staff with the best opportunity to request all of the necessary information, data, studies, and analyses required for filing a complete coastal development permit application (see Form Letter One, Appendix B and Appendix C). It is essential for CCC staff to identify all information needs at this stage, because it is often more difficult to obtain additional information after the EIR is completed2. The draft EIR is the first version of an EIR released by the lead agency for public comment (step 13 in Figure 1). Examination of the draft EIR is another opportunity for CCC staff to review and comment on proposed wetland development projects (see Form Letter Two, Appendix B and Appendix C). However, comments for new information or analyses, or other significant changes are not as effective as when they are presented at the NOP stage. Comments on the draft EIR should focus on pointing out errors in data and analyses, and on establishing an administrative record by which the commenting party may pursue other options under CEQA. However, any information requested by CCC staff in earlier comments, should be requested again if it is not included in the EIR. Throughout the CEQA process CCC staff have multiple opportunities to submit comments regarding the proposed development project. Each of these opportunities (but particularly comments on the negative declaration or NOP) can serve as early notice to the applicant of the CCC's requirements for information necessary to file and evaluate a coastal development permit application. 2 This is particularly true in light of several changes made to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) during the 1993 legislative session. The emphasis of these changes , as well as a general trend in the environmental review process, is to 'front load' the. review process. This could mean, for instance: 1) emphasizing master EMs which are prepared at the land use plan stage, rather than the specific project review stage; 2) forcing or encouraging agencies to participate more fully in the initial project referral process conducted by the lead agency; or 3) other steps designed to avoid 'late-hits' in the environmental review process. 9 ILL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION REvIEw: The overall goal in reviewing a coastal development permit application is to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Act. To ensure the review considers all appropriate sections of the Coastal Act, one of the first steps is to determine the type of project and the potential impacts. Such determinations are initially made from information provided in the permit application. In the case of a coastal development project affecting a wetland, relevant information might include: 1) A wetland delineation report; 2) identification of environmentally sensitive areas; or 3) notification that the project includes dredging, diking, or filling. However, Coastal Act Section 30121 broadly defines a wetland in the following way: Wetland means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, orfens. Thus, the applicant may be unaware that a wetland (as defined in the Coastal Act) exists in the proposed development area. To ultimately determine if a wetland exists, CCC staff may need to consult other agency staff (e.g., the Department of Fish and Game, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), other information sources (e.g., aerial photographs, or national wetland inventory maps), or personally visit the site. If it is determined that the proposed project could affect a wetland then the following procedures are applicable. Successful and complete review of an application for a coastal development project affecting a wetland is a relatively complex process. Procedural problems facing CCC staff can include incomplete applications, missing environmental documentation, inadequate studies, 'uncooperative applicants, and limited staff time for internal analysis. A complete permit application for a wetlands development project will include administrative and technical information, an analysis of alternatives, and if necessary, plans for mitigation and monitoring. In addition to the procedural requirements, review of a wetland development project application is made more difficult by the complex nature of wetlands (see chapter four). Wetlands must be viewed as a complete ecosystem that require a full complement of critical components in order to function. Some of these components are proper soil and hydrology, an unpolluted water source, and adequate buffer areas. Additionally, the wetland may contain one or more habitat types (e.g., upland, vegetated marsh, mudflat, and open water) within its boundaries. These components and habitats interact to form a complex ecosystem that supports a diverse and abundant assemblage of plants and animals, and performs numerous beneficial functions. Thus, analysis of a proposed wetland development project must examine the impacts to the entire ecosystem, not just localized site-specific impacts. 10 The following sections present a description of the steps necessary in the review of a coastal development permit application for a wetland development project. A. Initial Application Review: A coastal development permit application should not be filed until after an initial review is completed to determine the presence of all required information. In addition to the items required by Section 13053.5 of the CCC Administrative Regulations, all of the relevant information listed in the ecological study checklist (Appendix B) must be present. If, after the initial review, the application is found to be incomplete, a letter identifying the missing items should be sent to the applicant (see Form Letter Three, Appendix A). This initial review is an integral part of the overall CCC staff analysis, since many of the application items must be examined in detail to determine if they are complete. Thus, it is important to use the time spent on the initial analysis not only to determine application completeness, but to gain an overall sense of the project and formulate initial reactions as well. This latter information may. also help in clarifying or augmenting requests for additional information. B. Staff Analysis: A coastal development permit application is considered "filed" after CCC staff determine the application is complete. Under normal circumstances, the CCC must act on a fied application within a limited time frame. The first step in this process is for CCC staff to complete an analysis of the application for consistency with the Coastal Act. The results of this analysis are described in the form of a staff report to the Commissioners, which includes suggested findings, recommendations, and any special conditions. In analyzing a wetlands development project for consistency with the Coastal Act, CCC staff analysis should consider Sections 30230, 30231, 30233, and 30240; however, Section 30233 is the most specific policy regulating development in wetlands3. That section establishes three tests for CCC evaluation of a wetlands development project: 1). whether the project is one of eight allowable uses; 2) whether the project is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative; and 3) where adverse impacts will occur, whether the project includes a feasible mitigation plan. 3 See Chapter Three, Section 1i1(C) for a complete citation of Coastal Act Section 30233, including a listing of the eight allowable uses. 11 Figure'2 contains a flow chart that shows the order in which these tests are completed and the essential parts of each test. Additionally, each of these tests is discussed below in further detail. 1) Allowable Use Analysis4: The first test requires analysis of the proposed project to determine if it is consistent with one of the eight allowable uses cited in Coastal Act Section 30233. Interpretation of certain allowable uses has generated some uncertainty in the past, so further elaboration is provided here. i. Allowable use Number One: This allowable use includes "new or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities". Past controversy has centralized on the definition of a "coastal-dependent industrial facility". Coastal Act Section 30101 defines a coastal-dependent facility to mean: any development or use which requires a- site on, or adjacent to the sea to be able to function at all. Determining if the facility must be located on or adjacent to the sea to function is the key to deciding whether an industrial facility is coastal-dependent. Examples of this type of development may include, but are not limited to, fish processing plants, seawater desalinization plants, and kelp processing plants. ii. Allowable Use Number Three: This allowable use describes the conditions under which the development of boating facilities is permitted in wetlands. Much of the controversy involving this allowable use centralizes around development in degraded wetlands. Development of boating facilities in degraded wetlands is an allowable use provided that the total development does not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland and that a substantial portion (but no less than 75 percent) of the degraded area is restored and maintained as highly productive wetland. Determining whether a wetland is degraded or not is often a central issue to application of this allowable use. A framework for determining the status of a wetland is incorporated into this allowable use by reference to the provisions under Section 30411 of Coastal Act. Specifically, through the process outlined in Coastal Act Section 4 Not all allowable uses are discussed here. See Chapter Three, Section HIl(C) for a complete citation of Coastal Act Section 30233, including a listing of the eight allowable uses. 12 Figure 2 CCC PERMIT PROCEDURES FLOW CHART FOR REVIEWING A WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICATION CCC Receipt of a Coastal Development Application Assignment of the application to a staff member and initial No Evaluate application under screening of the application to , other relevant procedures ote rElvanute applicedonundes determine if it proposes development in a wetland Yes4 Review application for completeness including items required in section 13053.5, a complete analysis of alternatives and various ecological information (see Appendix B) 4 Write letter to applicant No.. requesting additional Application deemed complete? i nformting (adixoa, ~~~~'- I information (see Appendix A, s Form Letter 3) Yes~ Application filed Analyze proposed project for consistency with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, consider sections 30230, 30231, 32033 and 30240 Focus on section 30233 for wetland development project involving filling, diking, or dredging Continued on next page 13 Figure 2 Continued from previous page Evaluate proposed project via three tests in section 30233 (1) Allowable use (2) Least damaging alternative (3) Feasible and adequate mitigation Is proposed project one of the eight types allowable in section 30233? Pay No Stop analysis and recommend permit types allowa~~~b lei eto 03?PyN denial. Staff may complete tests 2 & 3 for particular attention to interpretation for di al S taff recommestior additional support for recommendation. allowable uses 1, 3, 5, 7, 8. Yes Determine if the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative based on alternatives analysis provided in the application. (See Figure 3 for more information regarding alternatives analysis.) Consider alternatives not discussed in the application, this may necessitate a request for more information. Alternatives analysis is complete? Alternatives analysis is unacceptable. That is, proposed project is not the Yes least environmentally damaging No alternative. Alternative analysis is acceptable, i.e., the proposed project is Require additional the least environmentally information from damaging afternative. applicant (Form letter 3, Appendix A). Write staff report recommending a revised project with conditions for Go to implementing least damaging Test Three I Go Back to alternative. Permit denial is not I Test Two precluded. Continued on next page 14 Figure 2 Continued from previous page If negative impacts will'occur, evaluate mitigation measures and determine if they are feasible and adequate. Mitigation plan Mitigation plan is Mitigation plan is feasible not feasible or information is and adequate. adequate. incomplete. Write staff report and Write staff report, Require more recommend approval recommend approval information from possibly with with conditions or applicant (form conditions. denial. letter 3 append. A) Go Back to Test Three 15 30411(b), the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in consultation with the CCC, and the Department of Boating and Waterways may study degraded wetlands and verify those most feasibly restored in conjunction with the development of a boating facility (see Chapter three for more information). In particular, Coastal Act Section 30411(b)(3) states that the DFG shall in the study of degraded wetlands include consideration of the following: Whether. restoration of the wetland's natural values, including its biological productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjunction with a boating facility or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve such values. In determining the status of a wetland, the DFG must decide if anthropogenic activities have altered the wetland system to such an extent that what remains exists in a degraded condition when compared to other unaltered areas or historic informations. Such an assessment must consider the overall condition of the subject area including an investigation of the physical, chemical, and biological properties, the habitats present, and the functions. The DFG has completed several such studies in the past (e.g., DFG, 1981). The Statewide Interpretive Guidelines provide an expanded interpretation of Section 304116. This interpretation encourages development types other than boating facilities, so long as restoration of the degraded wetland is a primary objective. This interpretation has been used to support other types of projects (e.g., flood-control facilities) in degraded wetlands. Determining a degraded wetland's boundaries is also a potential source of controversy. In general, the wetland boundaries should be based on the area the entire wetland occupied prior to degradation. This determination is most readily made from a review of historic information including aerial photographs. In the DFG's 1981 report, Determination Of The Status Of The Bolsa Chica Wetlands a degraded wetland was defined as 'A wetland which has been altered by man through impairment of some physical property and in which the alteration has resulted in a reduction of biological complexity in terms of species diversity of wetland-associated species which previously existed in the wetland areas." 6 The Statewide Interpretive Guidelines, Section VTI(D) state: "Section 30411 does not explicitly identify the other types of restoration projects. However,. such projects are encouraged if they promote the restoration of degraded areas and if boating facilities are not feasible. An example would include flood control projects undertaken by a public agency. Such projects may be permitted under Section 30411 if they restore channel depths, are designed to enhance the functional capacity of the wetland area, and are the least environmentally damaging alternative to achieve restoration." 16 iii. Allowable Use Number Five: This allowable use relates to incidental public service purposes that temporarily impact the resources of an area, such as burying cables and pipes, or inspection and maintenance of existing structures such as piers and outfall lines. One potential area of controversy involving this allowable use focuses on what constitutes a temporary project and whether mitigation is required for temporary impacts to a wetland. Coastal Act Section 30607.1 provides some direction on the issue of mitigation for temporary projects and states in part: The mitigation measures shall not be required for temporary or short-term fill or diking if a bond or other evidence offinancial responsibility is provided to assure that restoration will be accomplished in the shortest feasible time. However, past decisions by the CCC have been fairly restrictive as to what constitutes a temporary project. Additionally, the CCC has in certain instances required mitigation measures for temporary impacts. Thus, CCC staff must use caution in their review of projects qualifying under this allowable use. Another question arising under this allowable use is whether roads qualify as an incidental public service. Although the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines (CCC, 1981) states that roads do not qualify as an incidental public service, footnote three of this document states that: When no other alternative exists, and when consistent with the other provisions of this section [i.e., Coastal Act Section 30233], limited expansion of roadbeds and bridges necessary to maintain existing traffic capacity may be permitted. Activities described in the Commission's Guidelines on Exclusions from Permit Requirements applicable to roads also should be consulted. As written, however, this interpretation only applies to the limited expansion of existing roadbeds and bridges where necessary to maintain existing traffic capacity. iv. Allowable Use Number Seven: Restoration is another use allowed under Section 30233, which has been subject to varying interpretations. In the strictest sense, projects undertaken solely for restoration purposes are beneficial, since the project should result in an increase in wetland acreage and function. Thus, in reviewing projects proposing strictly wetlands restoration, staff should focus on the net benefit or gain in wetland functions and habitat. In contrast, Section IV(C) of the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines (CCC, 1981) makes a case for allowing "some fill for non-permitted uses if the wetlands are small, extremely 17 isolated and incapable of being restored", if the applicant "provides funds sufficient to accomplish an approved restoration program in the same general region7". The main point of this section, however, is that filling wetlands for non-permitted uses is allowed only where restoration is the main purpose of the project. Nevertheless, this approach should be used with caution. Recommending a coastal development permit for an unallowable use as part of a wetland restoration project should be avoided even if the restoration component appears adequate. Wetlands are hard to restore and even harder to create, and CCC staff are encouraged to work with what they have. To allow even partial filling of any wetland in exchange for restoration can result in a net loss of both wetland acreage and function. v. Allowable Use Number Eight. This allowable use permits wetland development for nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. Most of the discussion surrounding this allowable use is related to determining what constitutes an aquaculture activity. Coastal Act Section 30100.2 defines aquaculture to mean: A form of agriculture that is devoted to the controlled growing and harvesting offish, shellfish, and plants in the marine, brackish, and fresh water. Aquaculture products are agricultural products, and aquaculture facilities and land uses shall be treated as agricultural facilities and land uses in all planning and permit issuing decisions governed by this division. Although the Coastal Act interprets aquaculture and agriculture as similar activities and is generally supportive of these activities, the Act does not intend for agricultural activities to be considered an allowable use in wetlands. For example, aquaculture does not mean the culture and production of commercially utilized inland crops, including but not limited to, rice, watercress, or bean sprouts. Additionally, aquaculture activities can only be located in a wetland if they are dependent upon the resources of the wetland to function. Support facilities, such as parking lots and buildings for maintenance or processing activities are not permitted in the wetland under this allowable use. 7 Here region is used in the ecological context to mean a proximity that results in direct benefits to the same suite and/or populations of organisms. 18 2) Alternatives Analysis: An alternatives analysis is required if the proposed wetland development project is determined to qualify as one of the eight allowable uses (Coastal Act, Section 30233). Completion of an alternatives analysis is extremely valuable, as it requires the analyst and the applicant to view the project from a different perspective, which can result in the synthesis of creative designs that significantly reduce or minimize project impacts. If the alternatives analysis cannot yield a definitive finding because of insufficient information, the applicant should be contacted for additional information (see Form Letter Four, appendix A), which if not provided will result in a recommendation for denial of the project. This situation is avoided by carefully reviewing the permit application before filing, in order to determine the adequacy and completeness of the alternatives analysis. Section 30233 allows for the filling, dredging, or diking of wetlands, provided the project is an allowable use and that there are no less environmentally damaging feasible8 alternatives. The alternatives analysis framework presented here is based on Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and CEQA9 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.). In addition to the discussion below, an alternatives analysis flow chart is presented in Figure 3. In an alternatives analysis CCC staff examine the primary alternative (i.e., the proposed project), and compare it to other possible alternatives to determine which is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. All alternatives are proposed by the applicant. Each alternative is analyzed under two resource impact criteria: 1) loss of wetland acreage; and 2) loss of wetland functional capacity. The most straightforward way to complete this analysis is to determine the level of impact for each criterion separately and then compare the results among alternatives. The alternative with the lowest overall resource impacts is deemed the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. Unfortunately, most alternative analyses are not this straightforward and require comparisons between criteria as well as alternatives. Additionally, while evaluating the loss of wetland acreage is a relatively straightforward process, evaluating the loss of functional capacity is often complex (see determining functional capacity section below). Moreover, the weight given each criterion is not necessarily fixed or equal: in some cases it may be determined that preservation of wetland acreage is more important than preservation of functional capacity, although in other cases it may be determined that preservation of functional capacity is more important than 8 Feasible is defined in Section 30108 of the Coastal Act to mean "... capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors". 9 In fact one of the best ways to achieve a thorough alternative analysis is through the CEQA/NEPA process. 19 Figure 3 Figure 3 ~~~ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DECISION MAKING MATRIX ALTERNATIVES FIRSTCRITERION SECOND CRITERION PREFERRED PROJECT STEP 1 IS WETLAND ACREAGE IS WETLAND FUNCIONAL CAPACITY MAINTAINED AND PROJECT MAINTAINED AND PROJECT Relocate Project RESULT IN NO NET LOSS? RESULTS IN NO NET LOSS? IF THIS ALTERNATIVE HAS THE Off-She IF THIS ALTERNATIVE HAS THE (Assumes Off-Site LOWEST OVERALL IMPACTS Alternative Has No * YES I YES ON- AND IS FEASIBLE, STOP Impacts On Wetland) PROCESS AND RECOMMEND THIS ALTERNATIVE. IF NOT, 1st Priority GO TO STEP 2. DEVELOP MITIGATION AND/OR RESTORATION PLAN NOI DROP ALTERNATIVE STEP 2 Reconfiguration NO IF ALTERNATIVE HAS LOWEST oAlternatives * YES In'- YES * OVERALL IMPACTS, STOP (Includes altering A PROCESS AND RECOMMEND THIS design, scale, and/or DROPALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE.IFNOT,GOTO density) N O N O - f1WI DROP I RSTEP 3. 2nd Priority DEVELOP MITIGATION AND/OR RESTORATION PLAN DEVELOP MITIGATION AND/OR RESTORATION PLAN * NO * DROPALTERNATIVE STEP 3 NO l IF ALTERNATIVE HAS LOWEST Propjet As -YES I/- YES OVERALL IMPACTS, STOP Proposed PROCESS AND RECOMMEND THIS (Primary Alternative) ALTERNATIVE. NO ~ NO - DROP ALTERNATIVE- "41* / ~~~~~~Consider Other Alternatives 3rd Priority DEVELOP MITIGATION AND/OR or Recommend Denial RESTORATION PLAN preservation of wetland acreage. Above all, the analysis should focus on an objective assessment of the alternatives, and result in a clear, concise description with defensible findings. Obviously, the least environmentally damaging alternative is total avoidance. That is, relocation or discontinuation (no project alternative) of the project so that any damage to the wetland is completely avoided. Other alternatives generally assume the project will be located in or adjacent to the wetland, but consider various types of reconfigurations such as changes in scale and density, or changes in project size - particularly building footprint - or shape. Presumably, any of these alternatives will impact the wetland and would therefore require a mitigation plan. However, the alternatives analysis should be confined to determining the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and should not include an evaluation of any mitigation plans. If the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is expected to adversely impact the wetland then the next phase of application review, evaluation of the mitigation plan must be completed. As this discussion suggests, alternatives analysis is a complex process. The key to a good alternatives analysis, however, is a thorough objective review of all potential alternatives. Although the methods described here are fairly general, they do provide a consistent framework for the analysis, which will vary with the specifics of the project and the potential alternatives. 3) Mitigation: The final test identified in Section 30233 requires an evaluation of the applicant's mitigation plan to determine if it is feasible and appropriate relative to the environmental impacts arising from the proposed project. All wetland development projects should include a mitigation plan, which if enacted will result in no net loss of wetland acreage or function. Compensatory mitigation is the most common type of mitigation proposed in applications for coastal development permits. Although mitigation through compensation can take several forms, restoration projects are most often encountered by CCC staff'0. If restoration is proposed, then a restoration plan must be developed prior to final permit review. The plan must answer specific questions regarding the adequacy of the proposed mitigation, and the overall consistency of the proposed 10 For this discussion, restoration refers to the replacement or provision of substitute resources or environments, such as the re-establishment of a former wetland. Another type of mitigation, however, is restoration of the impacted site. Undoubtedly, this would be required of the applicant in any event, 'but additional mitigation would also be required for the resources lost through development. The restoration plans discussed here relate to this additional required mitigation. 21 mitigation with the policies of the Coastal Act. The following information applies only to the review of restoration plans for dredging, diking, and filling of wetlands. Chapter two of this document provides a more thorough discussion of available mitigation alternatives including other types of compensatory mitigation, in-lieu fees, mitigation banking, as well as more detailed information on restoration plans. Various sections of the Coastal Act (e.g., 30411(b) and 30607.1), identify wetland restoration as a mitigation alternative for allowable wetland development projects. However, attempts at wetland restoration have generally met with limited success. The restoration of natural wetlands is not a short-term project. Many natural wetlands have taken thousands of years to reach their present form and function. Thus, it can be many years after a wetland is lost through development, before a wetland with similar form and function is completely re-established via restoration. One should proceed cautiously in recommending wetland restoration as mitigation for the loss of existing wetlands. Again, CCC staff should emphasize impact avoidance and protection of existing wetlands. The use of restoration projects should be reserved for those cases where there is no less environmentally damaging feasible alternative for an allowable use, and where there is no other feasible mitigation alternative. The enhancement of degraded wetlands has also been considered a form of compensatory mitigation. Although this process can improve wetland functions (and therefore enhance the value), there is rarely a net increase in wetland acreage especially when the loss from the proposed development project is taken into account. Thus, considering the enhancement of degraded wetlands as acceptable mitigation for wetlands lost through development can lead to a net loss of wetland area. Restoration projects involve the re-establishment of key wetland characteristics in former wetland areas, with the eventual goal of re-establishing a functionally productive and self-sustaining wetland. For example, breaching dikes to restore tidal action, removing fill material to restore proper elevations, and restoring the natural course of streams and rivers are all restoration processes that can result in the recreation of former wetlands. Section IV D(b)(2) of the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines offers the following guidelines in the use of restoration: The applicant may, in some cases, be permitted to open equivalent areas to tidal action" or provide other sources of surface water. This method of mitigation would 11 A footnote for this section goes on to state" 'Opening up equivalent areas to tidal action' means to permanently open to tidal action former intertidal wetlands capable of providing equal or greater biological productivity. Mitigation measures should restore areas which are no longer functioning in a manner beneficial to wetland species. For example, returning a diked-off, formerly saltwater, but presently freshwater marsh to tidal action would not constitute mitigation. However, improving tidal flushing by removing tide gates, digging tidal channels and clearing culverts might qualify, if the 22 be appropriate if the applicant already owned filled, or diked areas which themselves were not environmentally sensitive habitat areas but would become so, if such areas were opened to tida action or provided with other sources of surface water. Restoration plans will vary depending on the type and extent of the impacts arising from the proposed development, and the available alternatives. The information presented here is only intended to provide general guidance in the review of such plans. Normally, the restoration plan should include provisions for starting restoration prior to project implementation; this approach gives the applicant an incentive to successfully implement the restoration plan. In addition, every restoration plan must include a detailed construction and management plan that: � Identifies the habitat functions and values that will be created at the restoration site, and stipulates a time frame for achieving those functions and values. * Establishes a maintenance program that provides for repairs, modifications, and maintenance of the restoration site to ensure that the restoration goals are achieved and maintained. These procedures should also include specific remedies in the event the mitigation project does not meet the designated goals * Establishes a monitoring program (including reporting of results) that provides detailed information about the restored area over time to permit an accurate determination of whether the restoration goals have been met. * Assures the applicant is legally bound as totally responsible for implementation and completion of the restoration project prior to or concurrent with construction of the proposed wetland development project. * Assures that prior to commencement of the development project, the restoration site will be purchased and dedicated to a public agency, or otherwise permanently designated as open space. * Presents convincing evidence that the restoration site is located in an area no longer functioning in a manner beneficial to wetland species or other organisms, such as a former productive wetland or estuary that currently exists as unproductive dry land. � Presents convincing evidence that the site can be restored to equal or greater biological productivity when compared to the area lost through development. At a minimum, the restoration site must provide equivalent or greater habitat Comminssion determines that such actions would restore an area to equal or greater habitat value than the area lost.' 23 values to the same type and variety of plant and animal species that use the proposed development site (CCC, 1981). Shows that the restoration site is located in the same general region (e.g., the same watershed) as the proposed development site. In contrast, a proposed restoration area should not be used as a mitigation site if it contains any of the following characteristics: � The area constitutes a locally and/or regionally significant area of upland or transitional weftand habitat. � The area contains special status species (e.g., threatened or endangered species), or locally or regionally unique plants or animals. � The area serves as an essential ecological component to an adjacent wetland area, such as a buffer zone or transitional upland habitat. In addition to the general guidelines for restoration plans, there are also specific considerations for wetland dredging that can reduce the project impacts, and potentially the mitigation requirements. Where a dredging operation is proposed, Section 30233(b) of the Coastal Act provides that: Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption of marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore current systems. Furthermore, Statewide Interpretive Guidelines Section IV D(2)(a)(2) reinforces Section 30233(b) through the following statement: Limitations may be imposed on the timing of the [dredging] operation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged material removed, and the location of the spoil site. These special considerations for dredging focus on the logistics and methods of the operation. All mitigation plans for dredging impacts should take these logistical and methodological constraints into account. All of the previously described processes for evaluating proposed wetland development projects assume staff are made aware of a project through normal notification or application procedures. However, these processes may also apply in the examination and evaluation of illegal activities. Once a violation (for example constructing a building in a coastal wetland without a coastal development permit) is 24 discovered the property owner is in most' cases required to apply for an after-the-fact permit. Analysis of this application would follow the same steps outlined above for a normal coastal development permit, and may or may not result in permit approval. Further enforcement and penalties in connection with the violation are determined separately. IV. WETLAND IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION: All coastal development permit applications proposing development in a wetland must include a map delineating the wetland area12. A wetland delineation map identifies the wetland's location and pinpoints the boundary line between the wetland and adjacent upland area by determining the extent of one or more key wetland characteristics: hydrology, hydric soils, and hvdrophvtic vegetation. Other resources such as aerial photographs, national wetland inventory maps, and soil conservation maps may also prove useful in determining the location and size of a wetland. CCC staff must review the resulting delineation map and supporting information carefully, because the delineation results can vary depending on the wetland definition and delineation procedure used (see chapter three for more information). In the coastal zone, the CCC, with assistance from the DFG, is responsible for determining the presence and size of wetlands subject to regulation under the Coastal Act. The local government also has a direct role in the identification and delineation process in areas with a certified local coastal program. Although the exact procedure has varied somewhat in the past, the DFG wetland definition and classification system (described in chapter three) is the delineation methodology generally followed by the CCC. For wetland development projects requiring Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) review, the applicant may, in some cases, need to obtain two delineations, one for the coastal development permit, and another for the ACOE Section 404 permit. A number of ecologically distinct wetland types occur in California, and these ecological differences can also affect the identification and delineation of wetlands. The subject of wetland ecology is discussed further in other parts (particularly chapter four) of this document, but some points relevant to this section are introduced here. In addition to the more traditional fresh- and salt-water marshes, the California coastal zone also contains a number 6f riparian areas, most often occurring as corridors along streams and rivers. Resource and regulatory agencies have found it hard to strictly define riparian areas as wetlands because of the often transient hydrology, the absence of hydric soils, and the heterogeneous vegetation composition. Yet riparian areas do exhibit many of the functions and values found in other wetlands. In the past, CCC 12 In determining project related impacts the CCC considers the wetland as it currently exists and not as it may have existed historically. Thus, the accuracy of a wetland delineation is determined, in part, by how recently is was completed. 25 staff have recognized riparian areas as "environmentally sensitive areas" within the meaning of Coastal Act section 30107.5, and then regulated development through Section 30240. Additionally, Sections 30231 and 30236 provide for the protection of many riparian areas. The semi-arid climate of Southern California also presents problems for the identification and delineation of wetlands. Some wetlands in this part of California can remain dry for one -or more seasons due to the Mediterranean climate. Many of the information sources listed above can assist CCC staff in identifying such seasonally wet wetlands. Additionally, Ferren and Fiedler (1993) have developed a technical description useful for identifying wetlands in Central and Southern California. As evidenced by this brief discussion, accurate wetland identification and delineation can be challenging. CCC staff are encouraged to work with the DFG, the ACOE, local government and any other applicable agencies to minimize delays relating to wetland delineation. Early communication can go a long way to preventing problems later on. V. ESTABLISHING BUFFER AREAS: Buffer areas are undeveloped lands surrounding wetlands. These areas act to protect the wetland from the direct effects of nearby disturbance (both acute and chronic), and provide necessary habitat for organisms that spend only a portion of their life in the wetland such'as amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. A buffer area should be an integral component of any proposed development project located within or adjacent to a wetland. Buffers should have all of the following characteristics: 1) Buffer width should be a minimum of 100 feet (CCC, 1981)13. In some cases, such as when a species requires habitat adjacent to a wetland for part of its life or when nearby development poses increased hazards to a wetland or wetland species, larger buffer areas should be considered. 2) Buffers should work to minimize the disturbance to a wetland from adjacent development. If the adjacent development includes residential areas, the buffer must include a fence and/or a natural (e.g., vegetation or water) barrier to control the entry of domestic animals and humans into the wetland. The buffer should also provide for visual screening in those cases where resident or migratory wetland species are particularly sensitive to human impacts. The use of walls, berms and other barriers should be considered where excessive artificial light or noise is a problem. 13 In Southern California, the CCC has typically required 100 foot buffers for fresh- and salt-water wetlands and 50 foot buffers for riparian areas. Riparian areas (as defined in the glossary) are considered environmentally sensitive areas, but for a variety of reasons have not always received the same treatment as other types of wetlands. 26 3) Buffers should be designed, where necessary, to help minimize the effects of erosion; sedimentation, and pollution -arising from.- urban, industrial, and agricultural activities. However, to the extent possible, erosion, sedimentation, and pollution control problems should be dealt with at the source not in the wetland or buffer area. Sources of pollution include point and non-point source discharges into the watershed and air, domestic and industrial garbage and debris, and biological pollution arising from the introduction of exotic organisms. Regular maintenance must be provided for any devices (e.g., silt or grease traps) built in the buffer zone. 4) Buffers should provide habitat for species residing in the transitional zone between wetlands and uplands. All project designs should consider the movement of food and energy between habitats as well as the life cycles of organisms that feed or reproduce in the wetland but generally reside outside the wetland. -Any revegetation work in the buffer area should use native species from local sources. 5) Buffers should allow for passive recreational uses within the area, only if it can be shown that these uses will not adversely impact the wetland ecosystem or the buffer's function as described in the above criteria. These uses should be limited to bird watching, walling, jogging, and bike riding, and may include the. construction of paths and interpretive signs and displays. All paths should be constructed to minimize impact to plants and animals. VI. DETRMINING FUNCTIONAL CAPACrry: A functional capacity analysis must be included as part of the application for a coastal development permit. Since the determination of functional capacity is a scientific one, it must be made by a qualified ecologist. CCC staff review of the wetland functional capacity analysis is a mong the most important elements of the permit application review process. The functional capacity analysis assists CCC staff in determining whether a development project will diminish the overall capacity of a wetland to function as an integrated ecosystem. Maintaining the functional capacity means maintaining the same level and number of species, maintaining the same level of biological productivity, and maintaining the same relative size and number of habitats. Functional capacity analysis is also an important part of the alternatives analysis discussed above. Finally, functional capacity analysis is one method available for determining the appropriateness of any proposed mitigation; however, compensatory mitigation is not a substitute for maintaining the functional capacity of the impacted wetland. California coastal wetlands have a number of important functions and values, which have increased in relative importance because of the enormous wetland losses that have 27 occurred throughout California. In general, wetland functions are those processes that directly or indirectly result in values that benefit humans or other organisms, or values perceived by humans as desirable or worthy of protection. All of the known functions and values of coastal wetlands are a manifestation of one or more of the physical, chemical, or biological processes inherent to wetlands. Determinations of functional capacity must consider each of these components in the overall assessment. (See chapter four, for a further discussion of wetland functions and values.) Determining the functions and values of seasonally wet wetlands (often referred to as seasonal wetlands) can be a contentious issue for resource and regulatory agencies. Because of their transient nature, it is argued that seasonally wet wetlands are more limited in function, and therefore of lower value than perennially wet wetlands. While the transient hydrology of seasonally wetlands may reduce the time period of a function, the performance of that function and its overall value are not necessarily diminished relative to perennially wet wetlands. In fact, many of the same functions and values present in both types of wetlands. Additionally, seasonally wet wetlands can, during certain times of the year, provide greater value for certain functions (e.g., ground water recharge, floodwater storage, habitat for endangered species, or feeding and resting spots for migratory birds), relative to nearby perennially wet wetlands. Functional capacity determinations of wetlands considered "marginal" can also be problematic. "Marginal wetland" is an arbitrary term that is generally applied without a technical basis. A marginal wetland may or may not qualify as a "degraded wetland" (Coastal Act Section 30411). Marginal wetlands may be seasonal or perennial, and are sometimes considered less important because of their location (e.g., small isolated areas), reduced species diversity, or reduced habitat complexity. Nevertheless, marginal wetlands do provide important functions and values, which may be of special significance on a local or regional level. For example, some marginal wetlands provide unique or rare habitat that may in turn be vitally important to a threatened or endangered species. Such a wetland would also have important educational and scientific value. 28 CHAPTER TWO AN OVERVIEW OF MITIGATION PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES I. INTRODUCTION: Mitigation for the adverse affects of development projects in wetlands can take on a variety of forms. Compensatory mitigation (enhancement, restoration, or creation) is the most common mitigation proposed in coastal development permit applications. However, under certain circumstances the CCC has also accepted less desirable mitigation alternatives such as in-lieu fees and contributions to mitigation banks. Although a variety of mitigation alternatives exist, all of them have drawbacks and limitations. (Not the least of which is the large amount of money often required to undertake a mitigation program.) Numerous partially successful, or failed mitigation projects attest to the fact that mitigation is not a panacea. Past experience clearly shows a great deal of effort is required by all parties to ensure successful mitigation. This chapter presents a brief overview of several common mitigation alternatives for proposed projects directly affecting wetlands. Additionally, the chapter presents information on mitigation ratios, and more detailed information on restoration plans. IL MITIGATION DEFINED: Although the Coastal Act does not define mitigation, the California Environmental Quality Act does. Under CEQA, mitigation includes all of the following: a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b) Minimizing impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 29 This definition is hierarchical with avoidance being the most preferred type of mitigation and compensation being the least preferred type. Past experience in reviewing applications for coastal development permits shows applicants rely heavily on compensatory mitigation to minimize habitat loss, regardless of the impacts. Typically, compensation measures are included as an integral part of the project design. This form of mitigation is often justified through arguments designed to show that the wetland acreage enhanced or restored is equal to the acreage lost. However, this concept of compensatory mitigation often fails to recognize the complexity of the wetland ecosystem, its relationship to the watershed, and the fact that wetland functions may not be directly related to acreage. Additionally, the success of compensatory mitigation - especially restoration projects - is not proven. Overall, more emphasis should be placed on mitigation alternatives that include wetland impact avoidance and minimization. Compensation for wetland impacts should only be considered as the last alternative, and only if there are no other less environmentally damaging feasible alternatives. II. TYPES OF MITIGATION: A) Avoidance: Avoidance of project impacts is the preferred mitigation alternative under CEQA. Through this form of mitigation, adverse impacts are avoided altogether through alteration of project location, design, or other related aspects. For obvious reasons, this mitigation alternative is not generally preferred by permit applicants, since it requires a change (possible substantial) in the proposed project. Yet in evaluating mitigation alternatives, CCC staff should give first consideration to impact avoidance for all or some of the proposed project impacts. B) Enhancement, Restoration, and Creation: The enhancement, restoration, or creation of wetlands are three types of compensatory mitigation. In this document, enhancement is considered a mitigation activity that improves the size or function of degraded or other existing wetlands. Restoration is considered a mitigation activity that re-establishes a former wetland. Creation is considered a mitigation activity that results in the formation of a new wetland. Although not without drawbacks, enhancement of an existing wetland is among the most common type of compensatory mitigation. The principal shortcoming of most proposed enhancement projects is that they can often result in a net loss of wetland acreage (Table 1). Only through the restoration of former wetlands or through the 30 Table 1 A COMPARISON AMONG COMMONLY PROPOSED TYPES OF WETLAND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROJECTS Ty e oMitigio Advan a iDisadvantages- i- -.i.i.iE40020.|-400.0.E ij~t- :, i...:.i,. --;. : i i.iiiiii-0 .. -i- i. ...i-i.-.-i-i !04- :.:. - BE. in E ... .. Enhancement of degraded Good chances of success, Net loss of wetland area wetlands with some existing since project located in an and/or functions. functional value. existing wetland ecosystem. Restoration of former Net gain of wetland acreage Still somewhat experimental. wetlands area with no present and function. Success rate May be a long time between functional value. higher than for projects loss of developed wetland creating new wetlands. and completion of the restoration project. Creation of a new wetland Provides greater flexibility Still experimental. Success site not adjacent to existing for mitigating impacts. rate is low. Functional value wetland. not well documented. creation of new wetlands can no-net-loss be achieved. Enhancing existing (e.g., degraded) wetlands as mitigation for wetland resources does not provide additional wetland acreage, but can increase the function and value of existing habitat. CCC staff should review wetland enhancement projects carefully. All wetlands in coastal California are extremely valuable, even if degraded, because of the dramatic loss in wetlands throughout the State, and the unique habitats wetlands provide. In urban areas, the remaining wetlands still support important plant and animal species. Though many of these wetlands are disturbed by human activities, they can still be a significant resource. In contrast to enhancement projects, the restoration of a former wetland can result in a net increase in both wetland acreage and function (Table 1). Restoration of a former wetland is by no means foolproof, but may have a reasonable chance of re-establishing fundamental wetland characteristics such as the proper elevation or hydrology. However, having no guarantee the restoration project will achieve the stated goals in the specified time frame is a major concern regarding wetland restoration. To provide a higher probability of success, the restoration project should be located adjacent to a functioning wetland. Isolated restoration sites will probably have a lower chance of sustaining maximum function and values, due to isolation from seed sources, and limitations on the migration and dispersion of wetland animals. Established 31 connections among wetlands can be critically important in the event of local catastrophes, which can result in localized extinction without inputs from other wetlands. The creation of a new wetland is probably the most uncertain type of compensatory mitigation (Table 1). Not only must the project provide the proper form and balance of fundamental characteristics, but it must also result in a system that is self-sustaining or provide for a permanent maintenance program. Creating new wetlands has many of the problems associated with wetland enhancement and restoration projects. Additionally, it can be a very long time from the creation of a new wetland to the establishment of functions and values equal to those lost through development. Thus, there is an interim (often permanent) loss of functions and values. CCC staff should be very cautious in recommending wetland creation projects as mitigation for the loss of existing wetlands. C) In-Lieu Fees and Wetland Mitigation Banks: In-lieu fees and wetland mitigation banks are two types of compensatory mitigation that result in the applicant allocating funds for the augmentation of wetlands. Typically, in-lieu fees are funds placed in one or more accounts designated for restoration, enhancement, or preservation of existing wetland resources. In contrast, wetland mitigation banks are either existing or newly created wetland areas that are available for purchase and subsequent management and preservation. In practice, funds paid by the applicant are used to purchase a portion (i.e., credits) of an existing wetland mitigation bank, or are used to fund the creation of a new bank. Using a pre-negotiated formula, the applicant draws on the purchased credits to mitigate for wetland impacts arising from the development project. In-lieu fees and mitigation bank purchases have generally met with limited success in serving as adequate mitigation for wetland losses. As previously discussed, there are numerous technical difficulties inherent to wetland creation and restoration. Additionally, the allocation of funds through these alternatives are generally not tied to a specific type of mitigation. Thus, there is a reduced chance for in-kind mitigation, and even less chance the mitigation site will be near the impact site. Project time lags can also reduce the overall success of mitigation due to the loss of wetland functions between the time of adverse impacts, the collection of adequate funds to undertake the project, and completion of the mitigation project. Resource management agencies have also found that the complete cost of mitigation is not always accounted for in the fees collected, while mitigation bank funds are not always adequate to implement the bank project in a timely fashion. Wetland restoration costs remain high --particularly the purchase of coastal property - especially in southern California, where land is extremely expensive. 32 Mitigation banks raise special problems of their own. More often than not, the promised mitigation is never realized. Simply put, resource scientists do not know how to build sustainable wetlands that match the functions and productivity of natural wetlands. Thus, any broad use of mitigation banks could lead to a net loss of wetland habitat. Moreover, resource agencies are concerned that the creation of mitigation banks will reduce the barriers to filling wetlands and estuaries, and may even encourage projects, as bank sponsors seek to'recover their costs. On a broader scale, there is strong interest at many levels of government in formalizing the mitigation bank process and expanding its use as a viable mitigation alternative for wetland impacts. Nevertheless, it is recommended that CCC staff coordinate with resource agencies to determine the success of a mitigation bank's activities prior to recommending an applicant's involvement in the bank as mitigation for wetland development impacts. In-lieu fees or contributions to wetland mitigation banks should not be used because the applicant is having difficulty in locating a suitable mitigation site. Often this approach only transfers the problem of locating an appropriate mitigation site to a public agency. CCC staff are encouraged to work with the applicant to reach an environmentally acceptable decision regarding mitigation prior to initiation of the project. In evaluating various mitigation options, CCC staff should remember that mitigation banks and in-lieu fees are alternatives not solutions. Mitigation banks and in-lieu fees are forms -of compensatory mitigation, which under CEQA is the least preferred alternative. IV. MITIGATION RATIOS: When an applicant proposes to restore or create a wetland as mitigation for impacts from development, the CCC must determine if the quantity and quality of the proposed mitigation will adequately compensate for the wetland area lost through development. Resource and regulatory agencies have usually required additional acreage beyond that lost through development, because of interim losses in wetland acreage and functional capacity, and because the success and resulting value of compensatory mitigation projects are uncertain. The ratio of wetland acreage created or restored to the wetland acreage lost to development is termed the wetland replacement ratio or mitigation ratio. Wetland replacement ratios may vary depending on the acreage, functions, and values of the wetland lost to development and the type of mitigation proposed. To refine and standardize the process of determining mitigation ratios, some agencies have relied on technically based habitat evaluation methods such as the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) and the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET). These procedures are complex and include evaluation criteria that are both objective and subjective. Unfortunately, several of the evaluation criteria do not accurately account 33 for the ecological processes present in California's coastal wetlands and this is a major difficulty with the use of HEP and WET in California (Onuf and Quammen, 1985). In an attempt to address this problem a modified version of HEP was developed for use in evaluating California's coastal wetlands. However, this modified HEP has been characterized as even more subjective than the original procedure. Additionally, the use of these methods can result in erroneous information under certain' situations. For example, through these techniques it is possible to conclude that a smaller wetland restored to a higher value offsets the loss of a larger wetland with lower values (e.g., a degraded wetland). Finally, a full evaluation under HEP or WET is very involved requiring a great deal of biological, physical, and chemical information. Unfortunately, the required information is often incomplete or nonexistent for many of California's coastal wetlands, rendering completion of these procedures unrealistic. Because of the controversy and inherent problems associated with HEP and WET, CCC staff are discouraged from using information and results from these procedures to determine wetland replacement ratios. The preferred procedure is to use the results from the functional capacity analysis (see chapter one), which provides for the preservation of both wetland acreage and functional capacity, in evaluating the adequacy of compensatory mitigation and mitigation ratios. In determining if functional capacity is maintained, both the adverse impacts and the proposed mitigation must be evaluated. In order to maintain functional capacity and wetland acreage, a mitigation plan should at least include the following: A wetland mitigation ratio in excess of one to one (i.e., one wetland acre must be restored or created for each acre lost through development). Many coastal development permits14 have required a mitigation ratio of four to one to compensate for wetland acreage and functional capacity lost during the re- establishment and maturation of the mitigation area. In some cases, larger mitigation ratios have been required to ensure that at least some compensation occurs in the event the mitigation project is only partially successful. Enhancement of degraded habitat may be included as a component of a mitigation plan if the total package results in an acceptable mitigation ratio. * Wetland creation projects should be located adjacent to existing wetland habitat whenever possible, to increase the probability for success. � Wetland creation projects should replace the same habitat type, preferably in the same watershed or area. However, if a regional management plan has been prepared for the area that demonstrates the need for a specific habitat type, the CCC may consider replacement with the identified critical habitat, provided that 14 For specific examples see permit numbers 5-90-913, 5-92-408, 5-93-276, 6-86-2, 6-87-611, 6-87-667, 6-88- 277, 6-88-388, 6-89-195, 6-90-219, 6-90-77. 34 this replacement is endorsed by the appropriate fish and wildlife management agencies. ' V. ENHANCEMENT AND RESTORATION: A. Effectiveness of Enhancement and Restoration: Wetland enhancement and restoration projects are among the most common types of wetland mitigation submitted with coastal development permit applications. Wetland enhancement and restoration efforts in California have been criticized because of an overall failure to fulfill the goal of no net loss and a failure to replace lost wetland values. These failures are due to many factors, including a lack of project completion, limited project success, and unclear goals and evaluation criteria. For example, in a review of 58 wetland mitigation projects in the San Francisco Bay area, Eliot (1985) found that very few of the projects achieved the stated goals. Additionally, Maguire (1985) identified the inability to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of restoration projects as a continuing problem because of: * Unclear objectives. * Insufficient technical detail in the design. - Inadequate identification of the type and quantity of habitat lost through development. * Inadequate baseline data regarding the biological, physical, and chemical condition of the restoration area. However, a more recent study by Josselyn et al. (1993) found that 13 out of 22 (59%) Coastal Conservancy sponsored wetland restoration projects were effective in meeting initial project goals. This success rate is high compared to results of evaluations focusing on wetland mitigation projects (Josselyn et al., 1990). This higher success rate was expected due to the extensive planning that goes into Conservancy projects, the frequent interaction among various resource and regulatory agencies and the Conservancy, and the funding of project grantees who have a genuine interest in restoring wetlands (Josselyn et al., 1993). While wetland mitigation success remains low, the results of Conservancy sponsored projects suggests the potential exists for increasing the success rate. 35 B. Designing an Effective Enhancement or Restoration Plan: The creation of a well designed enhancement or restoration plan is a complex process involving all of the following: * Determination of regional habitat goals. � Determination of enhancement or restoration goals and objectives. * Detailed documentation of on-site conditions. * Comparison of on-site conditions with regional goals and selecting priority species and habitats for the mitigation area. * A detailed description of the post- enhancement or restoration environment and essential components, and a description of the materials and methods used to achieve that environment. * A detailed and comprehensive review of the enhancement or restoration plan and revision as necessary. Development of the final plan. The following is a list of design criteria and standards that should be used by applicants in developing an enhancement or restoration plan15: 1) Maximize the chances ]br success: If a wetland mitigation plan proposes to enhance a degraded wetland area, then enhancement should ultimately improve the function and values with the least amount of habitat modification. Using enhancement of degraded wetlands as mitigation is discouraged because there is often a net loss of wetland area, especially when the area lost through development is considered. However, incorporating an existing wetland ecosystem (no matter how disturbed) into the mitigation plan can dramatically improve the chances of a successful project over creating new, isolated wetlands. An existing wetland will serve as a reservoir of biota that can colonize restored areas and ensure long-term survival of the wetland. Since most new wetlands are isolated, they will not have this reservoir to draw from, and it will be difficult for the wetland to attain the level of diversity and function of a self-sustaining wetland ecosystem. 15 For further information on this subject, the reader should consult other published documents, such as Salt Marsh Restoration (Zedler, 1984), and Marsh Restoration in San Francisco Bay: A Guide to Design and Plan (Josselyn, 1984), and references within. 36 2) Maximize wetland size: Mitigation plans should strive to maximize wetland size by choosing sites adjacent to or connected with existing functional wetlands. Such plans must also include provisions for the appropriate habitats (e.g., open water, marshland vegetation, mudflat, etc.) in the proper proportions. Large consolidated areas can offer larger habitats and a greater number of habitats resulting in greater species diversity and population size. However, this criterion should not be interpreted as justification to consolidate remaining wetland acreage into "wetland reservations", which would result in a loss of important adjacent upland habitat and can work against the existence of rare species and habitats. 3) Maintain linkages between wetlands: Where two or more wetland habitats or systems are connected, a mitigation plan should maintain these linkages. Wetland connections should not be severed by development. These connections are vitally important as migration corridors and transition zones between wetlands and adjacent habitats. These connections are also critical for the recolonization of wetlands that suffer local catastrophes such as lagoon closures, or episodes of acute toxicity. 4) Establish and maintain buffer areas: Buffer areas are undeveloped lands surrounding wetlands. These areas act to protect the wetland from the direct effects of nearby disturbance (both acute and chronic), and provide habitat for organisms that spend only a portion of their life in the wetland such as amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. (See chapter one for more information on buffers.) 5) Use of existing vegetation and soil: Mitigation projects should strive to salvage the wetland vegetation and topsoil removed during construction for use in the mitigation area. Additional plant material should be drawn from local sources so that local gene pools are maintained. Non-native wetland plants or plants and soils from different regions should not be used at the restoration site. 6) Revegetation: The success of revegetation can be enhanced by planting species at their elevation of greatest natural abundance and in soils with a salinity no higher than those found in the native habitat. In addition, transplanted vegetation may require additional maintenance, such as watering or enclosures to prevent grazing, until they become established. 7) Consider elevation and topography: The elevation and topography of wetland areas is critical to determining the hydrologic regime and the resulting habitats. Elevation changes on the order of centimeters can have dramatic effects on the wetland ecosystem. Not only must the elevations be determined accurately, there must be sufficient detail so that an overall understanding of the landscape. topography is clear. For example, intertidal habitat should slope towards the channel at an even grade of one to two percent to reduce ponding and maximize the intertidal area. 37 8) Consider Hydrology: The source and supply of water to the wetland is key to determining the overall structure of the ecosystem. For wetlands connected to the ocean, the tial p2rism must be sufficient to provide adequate exchange of saltwater over the tidal cycle. This is especially important in lagoons where closure of the lagoon mouth may or may not be a natural phenomenon. Designs for new wetlands must incorporate protection from the direct force of waves and tidal currents. Fresh water sources must also be accounted for in the mitigation design. Freshwater supply can vary dramatically throughout the year in many parts of California. The mitigation design should also consider the beneficial flood control function of a wetland. 9) Minimize sedimentation: ff excessive sedimentation is a potential problem, then the mitigation plan must include sediment basins and/or maintenance dredging programs to control the build-up of sediments. The plan should encourage the use of upstream sediment controls, including prohibition of grading during the rainy season, stabilization of slopes prior to the rainy season, and protection of native vegetation on steep slopes and stream banks. 10) Construction timing: In order to minimidze the disturbance to existing wetland habitat, mitigation projects should avoid active periods of reproduction, growth, or migration of wetland species. C. Contents of an Enhancement or Restoration Plan: The following list of criteria is intended to assist applicants in preparing an enhancement or restoration plan, and CCC staff in reviewing such plans. At a minimum, an acceptable plan will include: 1) Clearly stated objectives and goals consistent with regional habitat goals. These regional goals must identify functions and or habitats most in need of enhancement or restoration and must be as specific as possible. If the regional goals have not been identified, then the applicant and CCC staff should work with relevant federal, State, or local agencies to determine if the proposed plan is consistent with the ecology and natural resource composition of the area. 2) Adequate baseline data regarding the biological, physical, and chemical criteria for the mitigation area. 3) Documentation that the project will continue to function as a viable wetland over the long term. 38 4) Sufficient technical detail in the project design including, at a minimum, an engineered grading plan and water control structures, methods for conserving or stockpiling topsoil, a planting program including removal of exotic species, a list of all species to be planted, sources of seeds and/or plants, timing of planting, plant locations and elevations on the mitigation site base map, and maintenance techniques. 5) Documentation of performance standards, which provide a mechanism for making adjustments to the mitigation site when it is determined through monitoring, or other means that the enhancement or restoration techniques are not working. 6) Documentation of the necessary management and maintenance requirements, and provisions for remediation should the need arise. 7) An implementation plan that demonstrates there is sufficient scientific expertise, supervision, and financial resources to carry out the proposed activities. 8) A monitoring program (see below for more details). D. Basic Standards for a Monitoring Plan: A monitoring plan is a critical component of an enhancement or restoration plan that provides an objective way to evaluate the success of the project. When properly conducted, monitoring provides invaluable information regarding: � A ssurance that the mitigation project is meeting the stated goals. * Identification of major problems or flaws in the mitigation area. � Ways to improve future wetland enhancement or restoration plans. The monitoring program is intended to document changes in the physical, chemical, and biological status of the mitigation area through the collection and analysis of relevant data. The monitoring plan should include the following components: 1) Provisions for independent monitoring of the site at least five years after completion of the mitigation project. The intent is to continue monitoring until the project has successfully met the stated goals and objectives. For larger projects where new wetlands are created, extended monitoring will be required. 2) Repetitive surveys for plants and animals (including species of special concern) throughout the various habitats of the mitigation area. The surveys should use 39 techniques that permit a determination of species composition and abundance. Both terrestrial and aquatic organisms should be surveyed. Timing of the surveys should be considered, since the abundance of many plant and animal species often varies with season. Surveys sufficient to characterize the mitigation site should also be completed prior to any enhancement or restoration activities. 3) Monitoring of hydrology. For tidal wetlands this would include a determination of the areas inundated at high and low tide, tidal prism, and water velocity. For non- tidal wetlands, this would include determination of permanent and seasonal patterns of inundation and water sources. 4) Monitoring of water quality. Repetitive sampling of various chemical and physical constituents such as salinity, pH, nutrient concentration, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and turbidity throughout the year. The sampling pattern may vary throughout the year and may include more intensive sampling over several tidal cycles to determine short-term salinity patterns. 5) Monitoring of soil chemistry. This will serve primarily to document trends in soil salinity in tidal wetlands, but may include measurements of other constituents as required. 6) Ongoing procedures for the identification and correction of problems as they arise. Such problems may be related to the physical, chemical, or biological attributes of the mitigation site, or difficulties in meeting enhancement or restoration objectives and timelines. These procedures should include specific remedies in case the mitigation project does not meet the designated goals. 7) Provisions for timely analysis and production of annual reports. These reports will be distributed to the CCC and other interested parties. The final monitoring report, submitted upon completion of the monitoring program, should analyze all monitoring data and presents different management options. 40 CHAPTER THREE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF WETLANDS IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE: A REVIEW OF RELEVANT AGENCIES AND PROCESSES L. INTRODUCTION: Numerous processes, policies,. and regulations issued from all levels of government have dramatically influenced the amount and quality of wetlands in California since the early 1800's. Early on, much of the interest in wetlands focused on their 'reclamation" for agriculture. More recently, however, interest has focused on the preservation and restoration of wetlands in California, resulting in protection oriented policies and regulations. Currently, a complex network of government agencies is responsible for enforcing the - many rules and regulations pertaining to wetland management and protection. Although a few statutes and directives are specific to wetlands, most of the regulatory influence over wetlands occurs indirectly through management or regulation of water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife, endangered species habitat, water navigation, floodplain control, public trust, coastal resources, and environmental land use regulations (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). However, even with the myriad of regulatory measures, wetlands resources throughout the State do not receive equal protection. Moreover, implementation within and among government agencies is inconsistent. In short, California 'is currently lacking a fully implemented comprehensive policy for the management and protection of its wetlands. More recent activities, however, should improve the current situation. Specifically, the Wilson administration (State) and the Clinton administration (federal) released wetland policy statements in August 1993, which are designed to provide a consistent policy framework for the management and protection of wetlands. These policy statements detail a series of action items and initiatives designed to achieve three principal goals: 1) ensure no net loss of wetlands; 2) reduce procedural complexity; and 3) develop private and public partnerships to encourage wetland conservation and protection. Implemetation of these policy statements is underway. This chapter presents a review of the relevant agnis processes, and policies affecting California's wetlands. Topics covered include: 1) definition and classification of wetlands; 2) agencies and regulations relating to wetlands; and 3) existing management practices. The focus is on wetlands occurring in the coastal zone. This chapter is not 41 intended to present an exhaustive review, but rather to give the reader a basic level of understanding and a sense of the current regulatory procedures. The subjects covered here are complex. The reader is encouraged to consult the referenced literature for additional information. IL DEFINrrION AND CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS: The lack of a single definition for a wetland is one of the more problematic issues affecting wise stewardship of this resource. The use of different definitions by regulatory and resource agencies has lead to unequal protection of California's wetland resources and inconsistencies in evaluating the existence and management of wetlands. All of the regulatory processes related to wetland protection and development apply only after the existence of a wetland is established. Thus, the criteria and processes used to define a wetland are central to determining which regulations apply and to what extent they are applied. The word wetland is a relatively new term used to describe a particular landscape known throughout the world by a variety of names (e.g., swamp, bog, fen, mud flat, mire, and marsh). In fact, many of the terms used to define a wetland were developed as a way to describe the more obvious characteristics that exist within this landscape. Fundamentally, a wetland is land that remains wet long enough to result in the alteration of key physical, chemical, and biological elements relative to the surrounding landscape. However, the complex nature of wetlands requires a more elaborate definition, one which accounts for their variable nature and their subtle, but important, features. A. Definition and Classification by Federal Agencies: Several definitions for a wetland are applied by numerous State and federal resource and regulatory agencies, and this combined with the complex nature of wetlands has resulted in public confusion and frustration. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have developed the two definitions most commonly used by federal, State, and local agencies. The ACOE and EPA definition for a wetland (hereafter referred to as the ACOE definition) is probably used most often throughout the United States because of the ACOE's direct permit authority over development in wetlands and deepwater areas, and because the definition has been upheld in several courts of law. The ACOE definition is often referred to as a "three parameter definition" because three key parameters: hydrology, soil, and vegetation must all occur and meet the defined 42 characteristics in order for a location to be classified a wetland. The ACOE definition (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) reads as follows: The following definition, diagnostic environmental characteristics, and technical approach comprise a guideline for the identification and delineation of wetlands. a. Definition: The ACOE (Federal Register, Section 328.3(b), 1991) and the EPA (Federal Register, Section 230.4(t), 1991) jointly define wetlands as: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do. support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. b. Diagnostic environmental characteristics: Wetlands have the following general diagnostic environmental characteristics: 1. Vegetation: The prevalent vegetation consists of macrophvtes that are typically adapted to areas having hydrologic and soil conditions described in (a) above. Hydrophytic species, due to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptation(s), have the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and/or persist in anaerobic soil conditions. 2. Soil: Soils are present and have been classified as hydric, or they possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. 3. Hydrology: The area is inundated either permanently, or periodically at mean water depths < 6.6 ft. (- 2 m), or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation. The period of inundation or soil saturation varies according to the hydrologic/soil moisture regime and occurs in both tidal and non-tidal situations c. Technical approach for the identification and delineation of wetlands: Except in certain situations defined in this manual, evidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation) must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination. Figure 4 presents a cross-sectional diagram of the areas and habitats under ACOE jurisdiction, and under which this definition applies. 43 FIGURE 4 Scope of Corps Reg'ulaoyJrsitn TIDAL WATERS FRESH WATERS SECTION 404 * ~~~~~disposal of dredged or fill material SECTION 404 rdwaad 3O I disposal of dredged of fill materialI j~~~~~ETO 1 0 I SECTIONl 10 austructures and work: levee, dock, aet. I all structures arnd work wf~dt Vonbel*Wi isaaka INTO OCEAN ~~~~~~WATERSSETO13. TWELNDSWETAND Like the ACOE definition, the FWS definition (Cowardin, et al., 1979) of a wetland incorporates the three key parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology: Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly16 hydrophytes; (2) the substrate. is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. In addition to the above definition, the FWS has developed an elaborate classification system for wetlands and deepwater habits, which was primarily created to facilitate a national inventory of wetlands (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Cowardin and his associates (1979) acknowledged the difficulty, if not impossibility, of arriving at a "single, correct, indisputable, ecologically sound definition" because of the diversity of wetland types, and because "the demarcation between wetland and dry land lay along a continuum". The FWS classification system is hierarchical, progressing from broad system descriptors to very specific modifiers for water regime, water chemistry, and soils (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands within each system share similar physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. The systems consist of the coastal wetlands which include marine and estuarine wetlands, and the interior wetlands which include riverine, lacustrine and palustrine wetlands (Figure 5 illustrates these systems diagram- matically). Although the FWS classification system is complex, it does provide an objective method for identifying virtually any wetland landscape. Relative to the ACOE definition, the FWS definition is generally regarded as being more inclusive in the classification and subsequent delineation of a wetland. This is because the FWS classification system defines a wetland by the presence of the proper hydrology and either the presence of hydric soils or hydrophytic vegetation, except in nonsoil areas, such as rocky intertidal areas, where only the presence of proper hydrology is requiredl7. 16 Normally, a particular vegetation type (e.g., hydrophytic vegetation) is considered to predominate when it makes up at least 50% of the vegetative cover on an areal basis. 17 A common misconception is that the FWS definition requires only one of the three requisite attributes (ie., proper hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydric soils) be present in order for any location to qualify as a wetland. This was never the Agency's intention. For a specific discussion of this topic, the reader is referred to Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1989. A clarification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's wetland definition. National Wetlands Newsletter. 11(3)6-8. 45 FIGURE 5 -Diagram fliustrating Major Wetland Systems INLAN) ICOASTAL Forested 1ottmlands' ~~~~~~~Salta Systems El Marine, Rocky E .Riverine Boundaries X>~ Marine, Interticdal E DLacustrine Estuarine Palustrine Source: Willams, 1991 46 Another federal wetland definition is found in the Food Security. Act of 1985. This definition is important because it applies to agricultural lands: The term "wetland", except when such term is part of the term "converted wetland" means land that has a predominance of hydric soils and that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The Soil Conservation Service currently assists farmers in making wetland determinations on agricultural lands. Under the "Swampbuster Provisions" of the Food Security Act (as amended in 1990), the presence of wetlands can affect the amount of federal benefits farmers receive through the federal farm benefits program. The Swampbuster Provisions allow for farm benefits to be withheld from any person who: 1) plants an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland that was converted by drainage, dredging, leveling, or any other means after December 23, 1985; or 2) converts a wetland for the purpose of or to make agricultural commodity production possible after November 28, 1990. A recently released wetlands policy statement from the Clinton Administration charges the Soil Conservation Service with the responsibility of serving as lead agency for identifying wetlands on agricultural lands under both the Clean Water Act and the Food Security Act (Office on Environmental Policy, 1993). All of the federal definitions use some combination of three principal attributes (i.e., hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation) to determine the presence and define the boundaries of a wetland. Although a discussion of why these attributes were chosen is beyond the scope of this document, it is clear that their nation-wide use offers several advantages: 1) Each attribute is clearly defined, and the definitions are very similar if not identical among agencies; 2) the presence of each attribute, with few exceptions, is readily determined with a high degree of precision; and 3) each attribute represents a key wetland characteristic. While it has been known for some time that several (and somewhat conflicting) wetland definitions exist at the federal level, only recently have steps been taken to address this problem. In 1993, the Clinton Administration commissioned the National Academy of Science to lead the development of a single wetland definition that will be used by all relevant federal agencies to identify wetland areas. This work will be completed in September, 1994, and should result in a more cohesive approach to wetlands regulation at the federal level. 47 B. Definition and Classification by California State Agencies: In addition to the definition and classification procedures developed by federal agencies, some California resource and regulatory agencies have developed their own wetland definition and classification procedures. Although these State agency procedures are generally based on the FWS definition and classification procedure described above, they do differ in specific details. In the California coastal zone , the California Coastal Commission (CCC), with the assistance of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is responsible for determining the presence of wetlands subject to regulation under the California Coastal Act. As the primary wetland consultant to the CCC, the DFG essentially relies on the FWS wetland definition and classification system, with some minor changes in classification terminology, as the methodology for wetland determinations (Radovich, 1993). However, one important difference in the DFG delineation process compared to the FWS process, is that the DFG only requires the presence of one attribute (e.g., hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation) for an area to qualify as a wetland (Environmental Services Division, 1987). In contrast to the detailed definition and classification system adopted by the DFG, Section 30121 of the California Coastal Act (1976), the statute governing the CCC, has an exceptionally broad definition for a wetland: Wetland means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, orfens. However, the CCC Administrative Regulations (Section 13577 (b)) provides a more explicit definition: Wetlands are lands where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result offrequent or drasticfluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salt or other substance in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deepwater habitats. As discussed in chapter one, the CCC with assistance from the DFG, is responsible for determining the presence and size of'a wetland subject to regulation under the Coastal Act. Although the exact procedure has varied somewhat in the past, the DFG wetland 48 definition and classification system is the delineation methodology generally followed by the CCC. This discussion demonstrates that defining, delineating, and classifying wetlands are not simple matters, requiring an understanding of both wetland science and current regulatory definitions. Recently, wetland policy statements were released by both the Clinton administration and the Wilson administration, which may offer some help in this regard. Both statements identify. the development of a single wetland definition as a high priority. Such a definition would need to encompass all types of wetlands and meet the needs of all relevant agencies. However, a single, clear definition for a wetland could aid in the sound management and protection of this resource, since many decisions regarding this resource are based on the definition used. III. AGENCIES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO WETLANDS: Numerous federal, State, and local agencies administer and enforce a myriad of federal, State, and local regulations that pertain to the development and alteration of wetlands in the California coastal zone. Although intended to provide clear and complete oversight and protection of wetlands, the sheer number and complexity of these regulations often have the opposite 'result. In this section some of the more important laws and regulations affecting the development and alteration of coastal wetlands are described's. A. Federal Regulatory Programs and Agencies: Two statutes at the federal level provide the primary regulatory authority over wetlands in the United States: 1) The Clean Water Act (Section 404 (b)) regulates dispos- al of dredge and fill materials in waters of the United States, including all streams to their headwaters, lakes over 10 acres, and contiguous wetlands, including those above the ordinary high water mark in non-tidal waters and mean high tide in tidal waters; and 2) the River and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 10) regulates the diking, filling, and placement of structures in navigable waterways. The ACOE is responsible for the enforcement of rules and regulations pertaining to both of these sections. 18This section is not a complete review of all laws and regulations pertaining to wetlands. For more information the reader is encouraged to review the following references: 1) Muir, T.A., C. Rhodes, and J.G. Gosselink. 1990. Federal statutes and programs relating to cumulative impacts in wetlands. Pages 223- 236 in J.G. Gosselink, L.C. Lee, and T.A. Muir [Eds.]. Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts: Illustrated by Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.; and 2) Dennis, N.B. and M.L. Marcus. 1984. Status and trends of California wetlands. Final report prepared for the California Assembly, Resources Subcommittee. 49 The original intent of the River and Harbors Act was protection of waterway navigability. In 1968, however, the ACOE established a more expansive review process, "public interest review", which included assessment of local and regional interests such as land use, economics, flood control, fish and wildlife, ecology, pollution, as well as traditional navigability (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). The availability of alternatives, 'permanence of impacts, and cumulative'effects were adopted as additional review criteria in 1974 (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). Thus, the ACOE Section 10 review process incorporates numerous. criteria applicable to the regulation of wetlands occurring in navigable waterways. Under Section 404(b) regulations, all saline, brackish, and freshwater wetlands adjacent to (and in some circumstances, isolated from) navigable waters are subject to ACOE jurisdiction. The Section 404 regulatory program has a complex judicial and administrative history, in which wetlands have become the regulatory focus of 'waters of the United States"'. Additionally, as part of the Section 404 permit program, the EPA and the ACOE have developed guidelines (specifically 404(b)(1) guidelines) that specify disposal sites for dredged or fill material. The purpose of these guidelines is to control discharges of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters in order to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters. These guidelines set the criteria against which permit applications are measured. Unfortunately, the intent and administration of the Section 404 program in interpreted in fundamentally different ways by various federal agencies. For example, the ACOE views its primary regulatory function as protecting water quality, whereas the FWS, who comments on many Section 404 permit actions, regards protecting the integrity of wetlands and their habitats as the primary function of Section 404 (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). It is important to note that not all activities in wetlands are regulated under Section 404. For example, excavation, clearing, leveling, draining, and vegetation removal are all unregulated activities. Additionally, the ACOE's general permit system exempts the deposition of fill material in a wide variety of riparian habitats and small (� 1 acre) wetlands. This is particularly troublesome in California, where the seasonally dry nature of many streams and ponds precludes ACOE jurisdiction of many riparian corridors and small freshwater wetlands. Although the River and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act empower the ACOE with primary responsibility for the federal. regulation of development and alterations in wetlands, other federal agencies are also involved. The EPA, FWS, Soil Conservation Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can review applications for ACOE Section 404 permits and provide comments and recommendations to the ACOE. In fact, under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the ACOE is required to consult with the FWS and the NMFS and give full consideration to their recommendations in 50 evaluating permit decisions. Additionally, under certain circumstances the EPA, FWS, and NMFS can elevate an ACOE district engineer's permit decision to the Assistant Secretary for review and reconsideration'9. However, only the EPA has the authority (albeit, rarely used) to veto an ACOE permit decision. Notable exceptions to this division of agency responsibility occur when threatened or endangered species are present, or when an activity is subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. In these situations a multitude of agencies with direct regulatory authority may become involved. The lead and participating agencies will vary depending on the specific circumstances. B. Federal-State Interaction2�: Pursuant to regulations adopted by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), applicants for ACOE Section 404 and Section 10 permits must include in their application a certification of consistency with the California Coastal Management Program21. This certification, and accompanying data and analysis, must also be submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for review and concurrence. The ACOE may not issue their permit until the CCC reviews and concurs with the applicant's consistency certification. This requirement is in addition to any other r.equirements the CCC has for coastal development permit applications. Pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the ACOE must also give full consideration to comments submitted by the DFG. As the principal State resources trust agency, the DFG is obligated to comment on ACOE permit decisions in order to ensure protection of the State's natural resources. In this capacity, the DFG has drawn on the policy direction of the California Coastal Act, the California Endangered Species Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and other relevant State laws. The DFG also consistently relies on the policy direction of California's Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993), which calls for no net loss of wetlands and a long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland acreage and values. 19 For a more detailed discussion of the elevation process see Davis, M.L.- and R.C. Gardner. 1993. Recognizing the Corps' commitment. National Wetlands Newsletter. 15(2)9-10. 20 Information in this section is from the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines (CCC, 1981). 21 The consistency certification process must still be completed, even if the ACOE undertakes the work (e.g., maintenance dredging, or channel modification). 51 C. State Regulatory Programs and Agencies: Numerous State agencies regulate, manage, or otherwise control natural resources within California through a wide variety of general and specific laws and directives, which are carried out by resource departments, commissions, and boards (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). Analyses completed in the early 1980's reviewed the effectiveness of 59 California State statutes in protecting wetlands and other water related lands, and concluded the State has limited direct authority over wetlands except in three geographic areas: the coastal zone, San Francisco Bay, and Suisun Marsh (Jones, 1981; Shute and Mihaly, 1982). Thus, although the coast is relatively well protected, inland California is not. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets the State's basic charter for environmental protection. Among other policies, CEQA aims to minimize or eliminate the environmental impacts from development projects. Specific wetland areas are listed as having regional or statewide significance (e.g., Suisun Marsh, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and wild and scenic rivers), and the resource in general (wetlands and riparian lands) is defined as significant habitat. The Keene-Nejedly California Wetlands Preservation Act (1976) is the only State legislation besides the Coastal Act to define wetlands (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). The act states there "is a need for an affirmative and sustained public policy and program directed at their [wetlands] preservation, restoration, and enhancement, in order that such wetlands shall continue in perpetuity". The act provided for acquisition of ten important wetlands, using funds from several sources, and was intended to support preparation of a statewide wetlands plan. However, acquisition funds were not allocated in 1976 (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). The California Wild and Scenic rivers Act (1972) provides for the preservation of certain rivers, which possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values. Designated rivers are preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments. All of the rivers currently included under this act occur in the northern half of California. Preservation under this act provides additional protection to the riparian areas adjacent to the rivers. The Resources Agency functions as' an umbrella agency for the State's resource departments, conservation boards, and commissions. The agency sets major resource policy for the State and oversees programs of member departments such as the DFG. With respect to wetlands, the Resources Agency is just beginning to implement Governor Wilson's Statewide wetlands policy. This policy defines the State's goals and objectives with regard to the preservation of remaining wetlands and set priorities and guidelines for restoration. 52 The State Regional Water Quality Control Boards are a regulatory body within the newly formed California Environmental Protection Agency. The regional boards' primary role is to enforce the federal Clean Water Act, and in doing so, assert regulatory authority over development activities affecting the water quality of navigable water and wetlands. Under Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act: Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity...which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State... that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this Act. In turn, California Code of Regulations Section 3831(k) defines the State certification required under Section 401 as: 'Water Quality Certification' means a certification that there is a reasonable assurance that an activity which may result in a discharge to navigable waters of the United States will not violate water quality standards, where the activity requires a federal license or permit. Water quality standards are specified in federal regulation (40 CFR 131.6 et seq.) to include: 1) a State's numeric and narrative water quality criteria (objectives); 2) designated beneficial uses; and 3) anti-degradation policy. The anti-degradation policy requires, in part, the maintenance and protection of existing instream water uses including the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses. Through the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, the United States EPA interprets the anti- degradation policy to be satisfied with regards to fills in wetlands if the discharge did not result in "significant degradation" to the aquatic ecosystems. In practice, the regional boards have applied their authority over water quality standards to all waters of the State, including wetlands. Discharge to wetlands and riparian wetlands may violate water quality objectives (e.g., turbidity, temperature, or salinity); impair beneficial uses (e.g., groundwater recharge, recreation, wildlife habitat, fish migration, and shellfish harvesting); and conflict with the anti-degradation policy. The California Department of Fish and Game has Statewide resource responsibilities and authority that directly and indirectly influence projects and activities in coastal zone wetlands. In addition to being responsible for the maintenance and protection of California's fish and wildlife, the DFG has authorities under California's Public Resources Code, and the federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to regulate or comment on activities in wetland and riparian areas. The DFG also assumes primary responsibility for implementation of the California State Endangered Species Act, and the Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1603). This agreement is one of the State's few direct legal instruments for the protection of 53 * streams, rivers, and lakes. Additionally, as mentioned previously, the DFG is a primary consultant to the CCC regarding the affects of coastal development on wetlands and other natural resources. The DFG also comments directly to the ACOE concerning fish and wildlife aspects of Section 10 and Section 404 permits. DFG's official position regarding the protection of wetlands is that development projects should not result in a net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat value (DFG, 1987). The California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) is another State agency actively involved in the protection and enhancement of coastal wetlands, although the agency has no regulatory function. The SCC was created by the legislature in 1976 to protect, restore, and enhance California's coastal resources. A primary purpose of the SCC is to resolve coastal land use conflicts not amenable to regulatory solutions, in order to protect coastal resources and expedite environmentally sound development. The SCC functions to address these conflicts with solutions unavailable to other State agencies because of their regulatory responsibilities, or because of limitations in funding, jurisdiction, or function. The SCC accomplishes its purpose through various programs, including: * Provision of technical assistance and guidance to nonprofit organizations * Purchase and restoration of Wietlands, sand. dunes, and other important natural lands * Revitalization of the State's urban waterfronts * Preservation of prime agricultural lands * Funding construction of beach access ways and trails, and retiring antiquated subdivisions within the coastal zone and San Francisco Bay During the last 16 years, the SCC has given over $40 million to 77 nonprofit organizations to acquire and restore key wetland, open space and agricultural lands along the coast. In addition, about one-third of all SCC funds ($60 million) have gone to fund resource enhancement projects. With these fund, the SCC, in partnership with local governments and nonprofit organizations, has completed 91 resource enhancement plans, 60 wetland enhancement projects (at least one in every coastal county), and protected 24,000 acres of wildlife habitat, most of which are wetlands. The California Coastal Commission is charged with the regulation of development in California's coastal zone as stipulated in the California Coastal Act. Sections 30230, 54 30231, 30233, 30236, and 30240 of the Coastal Act are directly applicable to the preservation and protection of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas22. Development23 or alteration of California's coastal wetlands is primarily regulated by Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act, which states: The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible24 less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation 22 Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines an environmentally sensitive area as "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 activities and developments". 23 According to Section 30106 of the Coastal Act" 'Development' means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto: construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with Section 4511)." 24 Feasible is defined in Section 30108 of the Coastal Act to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors". 55 channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake or outfall lines. (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. Among other things, Section 30233(a) lists the types of development for which diking, filling, or dredging may be permitted in .open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes occurring in the coastal zone. This section also stipulates the criteria under which development is permitted (i.e., least environmentally damaging alternative and existence of feasible mitigation measures). Although permits under this section of the Coastal Act can have numerous outcomes, a review of the CCC permits relating to Section 30233 shows several clear trends (Table 2). Of the 106 permits processed Statewide between 1973 and 1986, 71 (67%) were for the deposition of fill material, 58 permits (55%) were for dredging activity, and 5 permits (5%) were for diking. (Some permits included both dredge and fill activities.) Eighty-three (78%) of the 106 permits were for new development or maintenance of existing development, while 26 (25%) were for restoration projects. Forty-nine (46%) permits included mitigation requirements. Ninety-eight (92%) of the permits were approved. Mitigating for wetland losses is frequently required in conjunction with coastal development permits granted under Section 30233. Most commonly, these projects involve compensatory mitigation. Both in-kind mitigation and out-of-kind mitigation are used. Coastal Act Section 30607.1 contains some of the most explicit language regarding mitigation for wetland development projects, and states in part: 56 Table 2 SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMIISSION PERMIT ACTIVITY RELATING TO SECTION 30233, 1973-198625 Yew Tofal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nqieum unbe Niaeof Nu1ea uhrf Number of Number of~ Number Numberal ofFemi 6tr Friaor Fai fr ri Permitas Develor Restoration Requiring PmFs Dftdin Dikin F M. Aprvied: Denied 1Maint. proj. Poet Mtgto 1973 2 0 0 2 (100%) 1 (,50%)26 1 (50%) 2(100%) 0 0 1974 3 2(66%) 0 1(33%) 3 (100%) 0 3 (100%) 0 0 1975 2 0 0 2(100%) 2(100%) 0 2 (100%) a 1 (50%) 1976 4 3(75%) 1(25%) 1(25%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 4 (100%) 0 0 1977 5 2(40%) 0 5(100%) 5 (100%) 0 4 (80%) 1(20%) 1(20%) 1978 7 1(14%) 0 6(86%) 5 (71%) 2(29%) 7 (100%) 0 5 (71%) 1979 8 6 (75%) 0 5 (63%) 8 (100%) 0 6 (75%) 3 (38%) 1(13%) 1980 10 5 (50%) 0 7(0) 10 (100%) 0 8(80%) 4 (40%) 8 (80%) 1981 7 6 (86%) 0 2 (29%) 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 4 (57%) 3(29%) 1 (14%) 1982 is 7(39%) 1 (6%) 12 (67%) 17 (94%A) 1 (6%) 15 (83%) 3 (17%) 10 (56%) 1983 18 12(67%) 2(11%) 14 (78%) 16 (89%) 2 (11%) 12 (67%) 6 (33%) 6 (33%) 1984 11 8 (73%) 1 (9%) 7 (64%) 11 (100%) 0 8 (73%) 3 (27%) 7 (64%) 1985 5 2 (40%) 0 3 (60%) 5 (100%) 0 3 (60%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 1986 6 4 (66%) 0 4 (66%) 6 (100%) 0 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 6 (100%) 1973- 106 so8(55%) 5(50/0) 7 ( 67*/a) 98 (92%) a 8(8%) 83(78%/) 2 ( 25%/) 49 (46%) 1986 25Based on information contained in: CCC 1988. Draft Wetlands Task Force Report, Appendix C. 2-6 Percentages are calculated as the proportion of the total number of permits occurring in a specific category. 57 Where any dike and fill development is permitted in wetlands in conformity with Section 30233 or other applicable policies set forth in this division, mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, either acquisition of equivalent areas of equal or greater biological productivity or opening. up equivalent areas to tidal action; provided, however, that if no appropriate restoration site is available, an in-lieu fee sufficient to provide an area of equivalent productive value or surface areas shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency or the replacement site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development may proceed... One interpretation suggests Section 30607.1 sanctions acquisition of an existing wetland as acceptable mitigation for an allowable wetland development project. However, such an approach would lead to a net loss of wetland area. In practice, the CCC has interpreted the phrase "at a minimum" to require inclusion of a restoration component in any acquisition plan in order to avoid the net loss of wetland area. The CCC works with the applicant to develop specific mitigation requirements with the help of DFG, Coastal Conservancy, FWS, EPA, NMFS, and ACOE staff. Determining the amount and type of mitigation required is a contentious and complex matter often confounded by both a lack of applicable technical information and the regulatory process. Although numerous mitigation projects have been approved by the CCC, there is little information describing the success of these projects. This is a serious and chronic problem attributable to a lack of specific performance standards necessary to gauge the success of mitigation projects, and a lack of technical information and/or resources needed to evaluate these projects. Probably one of the more contentious issues under Section 30233 is the stringent review of projects proposed in "degraded wetlands" (Section 30233(a.3)). With respect to historic wetland losses along the southern California coast, one intent of the Coastal Act is to halt the loss of wetlands and, where feasible, restore the resource (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). The main points of contention usually focus on the wetland delineation and the determination of what constitutes "degraded condition. Section 30411 establishes the DFG as the lead agency charged with the study and identification of degraded wetlands, and provides general guidelines for classifying a wetland as degraded. However, the ecological complexity of wetlands and the lack of a single definition limits the degree of certainty with which these determinations can be made. The DFG has described its process for determining if a wetland is in fact degraded (for example see, DFG, 1981). In essence, the DFG makes this determination through an examination of the subject area to determine if the system has been adversely impacted by previous alterations, resulting in a degraded condition when compared to remaining unaltered areas or historic information. In addition, Coastal Act Section 30411(b) states that any such study of a wetland shall include consideration of all of the following: 58 (1) Amount and elevation offilled areas. (2) Number and location of dikes and other artificial impediments to tidal action and freshwaterflow and the ease of removing them to allow tidal action to resume. (3) Degree of topographic alterations to the wetland and associated areas. (4). Water quality. (5) Substrate quality. (6) Degree of encroachmentfrom adjacent urban land uses. (7) Comparison of historical environmental conditions with current conditions, including changes in both the physical and biological environment. (8) Consideration of current altered wetland conditions and their current contribution to coastal wetland wildlife resources with relation to potential restoration measures. (9) Chemical cycling capabilities of the wetland including water quality enhancement, nutrient accumulation, .nutrient recycling, etc. As part of this identification process, the extent of any wetland on the site must be identified with precision (CCC, 1981). Section 30233(c) of the Coastal Act further limits development and alteration of wetlands throughout the coastal zone, stating: In addition to the other provisions of this Section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the 1927 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division. For the purposes of this section, "commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay" means that not less than 80 percent of all boatingfacilities proposed to be developed or improved, where such improvement would create additional berths in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for commercial fishing activities. 27 See the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines (CCC, 1981) For a complete list of these 19 wetlands. 59 Numerous coastal wetlands (e.g., riparian areas) are considered environmentally sensitive habitat areas because they provide critical habitat to threatened or endangered species, or because of their uniqueness relative to the surrounding landscape. Thus, Section 30240 provides additional regulatory oversight of wetlands in certain situations. Section 30240 states: a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat recreation areas. Ports and port-related develop also have the potential of affecting coastal wetlands28. Development within those portions of Ports Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Diego Unified Port District lying within the coastal zone is generally governed by the provisions contained in Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act. However, wetlands and .estuaries that have been identified on the CCC's Port Jurisdiction Maps (adopted by the Commission on April 6, 1977 pursuant to Section 30710) are not governed by the provisions of Chapter 8, but instead are subject to Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act (Coastal Act Section 30700). Chapter 8 provisions apply to all "water areas" (a termed used only in this chapter) regardless of whether such area is considered wetland, estuary, or open coastal water. The diking, filling, or dredging of any water area within the defined areas of these ports is limited by Section 30705, 30706, and 30708 of the Coastal Act. The diking, filling or dredging of any wetland or estuary occurring in any port, harbor district or authority not named in Chapter 8 (e.g., Humbolt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation Districts, or Moss Landing Harbor District) is subject to Chapter 3 provisions of the Coastal Act. Section 30236 of the Coastal Act regulates development in aquatic regions such as rivers and streams. These sections address specific types of development such as channel alteration, dams, and flood control projects, which could impact riparian areas or tidal marshlands. Finally, the CCC has adopted the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (CCC, 1981; Appendix A). These guidelines 28 Information relating to ports and port activities is taken from Section IV(E) of the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines (CCC, 1981). 60 were developed to assist the CCC, local government, and the public in the application of the Coastal Act and certification of local coastal plans. These guidelines contain technical definitions for wetlands and riparian areas, discuss conditions for permitting development in these areas, and provide information pertaining to the maintenance and restoration of wetlands. D. Local Government Regulatory Programs and Agencies: The California Coastal Act is designed to delegate local governments with much of the CCC's authority over control of coastal development. Section 30004(a) of the Coastal Act states: To achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, it is necessary to rely heavily on local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement. To meet the objectives of Section 30004(a), the Coastal Act directs each of the 73 cities and counties lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone to prepare a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for CCC review and certification29. With a certified LCP, each local government assumes authority for permitting certain types of development in specified areas of the coastal zone. It is important to note, however, that even after LCP certification, the CCC continues to have a major role in regulating wetland development. Specifically, Coastal Act Section 30519(b) states in part: Subdivision (a) [that is, delegation of development review authority to a local government] shall not apply to any development proposed or undertaken on any tidelands, submerged lands, or on public trust lands, whether filled or unfilled, lying within the coastal zone,... Thus, the CCC retains regulatory authority over virtually all of the wetlands in the coastal zone either through its original jurisdiction, or through the appeal process30. LCP's provide for the regulation of wetland development in one of two principal ways: 1) through the adoption of Coastal Act Section 30233 (with or without some modification); or 2) by identifying wetlands as environmentally sensitive areas and then 29 The Coastal Act allows local governments, with CCC approval, to divide their coastal zone into geographic segments, and to prepare a separate LCP for each segment For this reason, there are currently 126 LCP segments, instead of 73 (the actual number of coastal zone cities and counties). To date, 80 total LCP segments (64 percent) have been effectively certified and the relevant local governments are now issuing coastal development permits. 30 With regard to projects affecting wetlands, Coastal Act Section 30603(a)(2) limits the appeal of an action taken by a local government on a coastal development permit application to "developments... that are located within.100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream..." 61 adopting Coastal Act Section 30240 (with or without some modification). Of the 67 LCP's with policies regulating development in wetlands, 37 (55 percent) use Section 30233 and 27 (40 percent) use Section 30240. The remaining three LCP's (5 percent) regulate wetland development through the creation of new policies. The way in which LCP's regulate wetland development is somewhat influenced by the distribution of wetlands throughout the California coastal zone. Wetlands are relatively more numerous and diverse in the northern half of the State (North Coast and Central Coast regions, Figure 6); thus, the overall approach to wetland regulation is somewhat more dependent on development activity. LCP's from these regions contain policies that generally regulate development in wetlands and are applied as wetland development projects occur. In contrast, wetlands are relatively scarce in the southern half of the State (South Central Coast, South Coast, and San Diego Coast, Figure 6), and so each one is considered vitally important. Thus, many of the LCP's specifically identify the wetlands within the respective jurisdiction and contain specific regulations for development. Some general trends in the type of wetlands regulated also exist among the LCP's. All of the LCP's contain some discussion of wetlands ranging from a single statement that wetlands do not occur within the jurisdiction, to an elaborate discussion of the types and characteristics of the wetlands found within the jurisdiction. Overall, riparian areas were most often included as a specific type of wetland, with 41 (61%) of the 67 LCP's identifying this habitat as a type of wetland. Additionally, it was not uncommon for the LCP's to identify specific areas (mainly river and stream corridors) as riparian areas. Of the 80 LCP's effectively certified Statewide, only 13 (16%) have no policies explicitly limiting development in wetlands. In all cases, this is because wetlands were known not to occur, or have not been identified within the jurisdictional boundaries. Of these 13 LCP's, two occur in the north coast region, one occurs in the central coast region, two occur in the south central coast region, seven occur in the south coast region, and one occurs in the San Diego coast region (Figure 6). 62 FIGURE 6 The Resources Ace=CY California Coastal Commission ...................... ........ ........ .. Local Coastal Progr am LCP Certification Status 0 a ~~~~~~~~~As of July 1I 1 993 NORTH COAST W d~ U Crescent City .* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~County LUP Effectively Certified 9Trinidad Al N ~o County LCP/LUP Arecta . . . ........ Effectively Certified Eurekaj I3 Cily LCP Effectively Certified Flart~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ City LUP Effectively Certified Point~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ArH o LCP/LUP Effectively Certified cSKMAL C OAST~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... ....... .. 3M' 1%V -MO A* W - . a .e r. PUGHrc IN Hall MoanBa S apitala ~ h a Watsonvili a.l4eo Q Pacific Grove 2 Morro say......... *PTsmaBec *Graver BahSnLsOip sooTHw CS'NTRAL COASTSat rar *Guadalupe . etr Santa Barbara Z Carpinteria 1F - a Son Buenaeventu La nee 2 OxnardLoAnle a Port iHuemneme -fM.... ...... sOUTH COAST a Maliki a Los AngelesS.O ro Santa Monica -. Sa Beac 0 El Segundo .SaBec 9 Manhattn Beach *Huntington ceach ...... HermasaBeach ~ Costa Mesa Hermoa Sao' QNewport Beach h12~ *Redondo Beach UIvn casd *Palos Verdes Estates 2 Laguna Beach CCrsbd *Rancho Palos Verdes Laguna Ciue 3 Encinitas e.... .. � Long Beach a Done Point C solaria Beach � Avalon - o lmnt e a a Son Diego 9 Coronado *Ntional City (2)2 of A LCP Segm~ents Effectively Certified anhu Vista 44 of 7 LCP Segrrents Effectively Certified 0 impernd Beach * ~~63 IV. EXISTING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: A. Management of Federal Lands in California: Approximately 45% of California's land (46.5 million acres) is managed by federal agencies (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). The majority of these lands are managed by the Forest Service (46 %, 21. 4 million acres) and the Bureau of Land Management (37%, 17.2 million acres), but the defense departments also manage substantial acreage, many containing small but significant wetlands. In addition, the National Park Service manages park lands, and the FWS maintains National Wildlife Refuges. Both of these lands can contain substantial wetland areas. The federal government's management and control of California's wetlands is substantial, given the significant amount of land under federal ownership. Federal lands are used for the extraction and production of minerals, oil, gas, and timber, and for grazing, industrial activities, living quarters, military training, water storage, parks, and wilderness areas. Various statutes, orders, and regulations such as President Bush's Wetlands Protection Executive Order (E.O. 11990), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land and Management Act, and the Forest Management Act give some assurance that sensitive resources, such as wetlands, occurring on federal lands will receive appropriate protection. However, the federal land management agencies can exercise considerable discretion in their management practices, since the statutes and other 'rules provide little specific guidance (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). Outside scrutiny by private interest groups, local government, and State resource agencies provide another check of federal activities. B. Management of State Owned Lands in California: Approximately two percent (1.95 million acres) of California's land is in State ownership (Fay, et al., 1990). Nearly 66 percent of the State owned lands are administered by the California Department of Parks (Fay, et al., 1990), but other State agencies such as the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Forestry, the Coastal Conservancy, and State universities and colleges hold title to lands with sub- stantial wetlands. Overall, the State's land holdings are significantly smaller than those of the federal government, but the vast majority of the State lands are owned by agencies focusing on conservation and preservation. The California Environmental Quality Act governs the State's development activities on its lands. Additionally, State owned lands in the coastal zone are subject to regulation under the Coastal Act. The State of California also owns nearly 4 million acres of sovereign lands.- These lands underlie the State's navigable and .tidal waterways and include the beds of: 64. 1) hundreds of tidal and non-tidal rivers, streams, and sloughs; 2) nearly 100 non-tidal navigable lakes; 3) the tidal navigable bays and lagoons; and 4) intertidal and subtidal lands adjacent to the entire coast and offshore islands of the State from the mean high tide line to. three miles offshore. Thus, many of these State-owned sovereign lands are adjacent to or include wetland areas. Depending on their location, sovereign lands are managed by the California State Lands Commission and other State and local agencies as public trust resources. C. Management of Individual Wetlands: Numerous individual wetlands within California are managed by various public agencies as a way to ensure their preservation. Such "managed wetlands" often include both modified and unmodified areas, and range in size from tens to thousands of acres. Two examples of such wetlands in the California coastal zone are the National Estuarine Research Reserves of Elkhorn Slough and the Tijuana River Estuary. The overall goal of these-management activities is to preserve, restore, and enhance one or more of the functions and values attributable to wetlands. Such functions and values include retention of flood waters, detoxification of receiving waters, recreation, research, and provision of critical habitat. Typically, a management plan31 serves to guide the direction and implementation of the activities essential for obtaining the overall goal. D. Wetland Management Goals and Concerns: The primary goal of resource and regulatory agencies is to preserve the remaining wetland acreage (i.e., maintain a 'no net loss policy'). A secondary, but equally important goal is to restore lost and disturbed wetland landscapes. Thus, in addition to the preservation and protection of existing coastal wetlands, resource and regulatory agencies must strive to increase total wetland acreage through restoration, and improve the chemical, physical, and biological quality of degraded wetlands. Although these goals are easily stated, they are not easily achieved. The high population densities in the California coastal zone, particularly along the south coast and San Francisco Bay, continue to exert pressure for further urban and industrial development in wetland areas. Meanwhile agricultural activities (historically the leading cause of wetland loss in California) continue with limited regulation. Changes 31 Management plans vary greatly in both format and. content; however, a useful guide for the development of wetland management plans has been produced by the Lane Council of Governments (1992). Hints on Preparing a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. Pages 21-29 in The Association of State Wetland Managers. Background Report Symposium Wetlands and Watershed (Water Resources) Management. May 10-12, 1993. Sparks, Nevada. 65 in permitting procedures have also yielded results counter to the no net loss policy. For example, ACOE Nationwide Permit Number 26 (NWP 26) authorizes the discharge of dredge or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters of the United States in certain situations. Projects seeking authorization under INTWP 26 receive considerably less scrutiny and evaluation through the associated ACOE process. An analysis of ACOE permits granted in California between 1987 and 1992 found that 775 projects were authorized under NWP 26, resulting in a loss of at least 725 acres of wetlands in. the northern two-thirds of the State (Long, et al., 1992). Clearly, NWP 26 permitting is having a negative impact on wetlands in California. Thus, the inevitable conflicts between preservation goals for enviromnmental resources and development activities present a major challenge to resource and regulatory agencies. Other important considerations include the multitude of agencies involved in wetlands regulation and the conflicting and confusing definitions and classification procedures. These process concerns combined with the paucity of substantive technical information are critical management concerns. V. SUMMARY: The regulations, policies, and processes guiding the management and protection of California's coastal wetlands are numerous, and complex. Although specific regulations controlling development in wetlands exist at all levels of government, there is evidence to suggest the goal of no-net-loss of wetlands has not been achieved. The ability to protect existing wetlands is also hampered by inconsistencies among regulatory agencies and gaps in existing regulations. The lack of a single, clear, and broadly instituted definition for a wetland is a major inconsistency among regulatory agencies, which can act to compound regulatory problems. Meanwhile, certain types of wetlands, such as riparian areas and seasonal wetlands, do not receive equal protection at all levels of government because of differences in adopted definitions, agency imposed limitations of adopted definitions, and jurisdictional limitations. Additionally, several activities resulting in the loss of wetlands such as draining, vegetation removal, and agriculture are not regulated to the same degree as dredging, filling, and diking. Of the wetland development projects that are permitted, many involve some form of mitigation. Although mitigation can be a viable alternative, establishment of the specific requirements is generally on a case-by-case basis and often involves a complex and time intensive process. This approach is incompatible with attempts by regulatory agencies to implement consistent mitigation policies and requirements. In many cases the level of protection a wetland receives is a function of both ownership and land use. Although much of California is held in public (i.e., federal, State, or local government) ownership, many wetlands of significant size are under private 66 ownership. The level of wetland protection can be lower on private lands, although public ownership does not necessarily guarantee appropriate protection. Meanwhile, land use patterns can have direct and indirect affects on wetlands: urban and agricultural development in a wetland are obvious direct affects, while development outside the wetland but within the same watershed can indirectly affect wetlands through alteration of physical and chemical processes. On a larger scale, regional, Statewide, and. (in the case of Canada) international land use patterns can affect coastal wetlands through, for example, changes in air quality, hydrology, and the abundance of birds and fish. It is clear that the management and protection of wetland resources involves numerous complex issues. Although we have come a long way in our knowledge and protection of Califotnia's coastal wetland resources, much work still remains. 67 CHAPTER FOUR PRIORITY WETLAND RESOURCE CONCERNS: A REVIEW OF RELEVANT TECHNICAL INFORMATION I. INTRODUCTION: Wetlands are a significant natural resource within the United States. Only since the late 1960's, however, have wetlands engaged the attention of individuals from a range of disciplines who endeavor to -understand their variety and complexity (Williams, 1991). Recent but intense interest in wetlands is due largely to their nature and our changing perceptions of them. We have come to understand how important wetlands are to the existence of numerous plants and animals, as well as the many functions they perform that are important to our quality of life and very existence. Indeed, the scarcity, complexity, and intrinsic value of wetlands has engendered substantial concern and sustained interest. This chapter presents a review of'scientific and technical information relevant to understanding the priority wetland resource concerns for California. Three features of wetlands are discussed: 1) ecology; 2) functions and values; and (3) sources of impacts. A basic understanding of each feature is essential for the intelligent management of this valuable resource. This chapter focuses on those types of wetlands occurring in the California coastal zone. It is not intended to present an exhaustive review, but rather to give the reader a basic level of understanding and a sense of the information available. The subjects covered here are complex and the information base is rapidly expanding. The reader is encouraged to consult the referenced literature for additional information. II. THE ECOLOGY OF WETLANDS IN BRIEF: Wetlands are a transitional landscape occurring within a continuum that begins in aquatic habitats and ends in dry upland habitats. Because of their intermediate location, wetlands contain-characteristics of both aquatic and terrestrial environments: they are an ecotone. Thus, a variety of physicochemical processes such as topography, hydrology, sediment dynamics, and water chemistry interact to form the environment that largely determines the flora and fauna found within a wetland. Additionally, biological interactions continually act to further shape the wetland community. In this section some of the major physical. -(topography and hydrology), chemical (water 68 quality), and biological components affecting the ecology of California's coastal wetlands are described. A. Topography: On a geological time scale California's coastal wetlands are relatively recent landscape features resulting from the complex interaction of geological processes and changes in sea level (Bloom, 1983ab). These geological processes, driven by plate tectonics, resulted in a coastline characterized by a sharp, steeply inclined coast of uplifted marine terraces into which narrow river valleys were cut during the Pleistocene glacial epoch (Bloom, 1983a,b). Coastal wetlands were created during the last 15,000 years when the rapid rise in sea level and the end of the last ice age inundated coastal river valleys resulting in the formation of bays, estuaries, lagoons, and salt marshes32 (Bloom, 1983a,b; Orme, 1991). As a result, the majority of California's coastal wetlands are geographically isolated landscape features and relatively small when compared to the extensive wetlands present in other parts of the United States (NOAA, 1990). California, however, does have the most extensive wetlands of any west coast state excluding Alaska (NOAA, 1990). Its 110 major coastal wetlands (see Figure 7) represent a diversity of habitat types, ranging from the generally undeveloped estuaries and marshes that border tidal-flushed river mouths in the north, to the highly urbanized saline lagoons, embayments, and salt marshes in the kouth. This diversity of wetlands is principally due to California's position at the edge of a dynamic continental land mass, where sea level and land elevation are in flux. Coastal wetlands in the northern region of the State (Del Norte and Humboldt counties) are of four general types: 1) riparian areas surrounding rivers, streams, and other water bodies; 2) relatively isolated fresh- and brackish-water lagoons; 3) estuarine river mouths; and 4) protected bays or coves with little estuarine area. Wetlands in this region have been subjected to relatively little human development, which can have significant impacts on the topography of this landscape. Some of the State's largest wetlands occur in the central region of California, which extends from Cape Mendocino to Point Conception. Excluding the San Francisco 32 For a more detailed discussion of the historical processes that formed California's coastal wetlands, the reader is encouraged to review: Josselyn, M. 1983. The ecology of San Francisco Bay tidal marshes: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-83/23. 102 pp.; and Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby, and B.E. Kus. 1992. The ecology of the Tijuana Estuary, California: a national. estuarine research reserve. NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington D.C.; and references cited within. 69 FIGURE 7- Map of Major California Coastal Wetlands L~k F-rl Lak* ~ia~sDEL NORTEI .-trea.* SayHUMBOLDT 'rem Mile ie-. .. Silta Rirut 6.Arria River YIEN-DOCINO saIegi Bay K Eig1ter Ameia-Vsa Elfe." de Ssaw 411 'Tonvalef saySONOMA Petalumia Rio-er Bedinai Lap;o" Saw Francis= aaSAN FRANCISCO PesceadgmJfrn ite Wsnitsoma-e Slosf- A N MA E &*hor" -1lf SANTA CRUZ MONTEREY~ Mfajor California SAN LLIS OBISPO Coastal WedalndS 0.-. Ltio, Santa Yeuz JRiw SANTA BARBARA. soucie SI.. 1h 'CJEstevsI CarpsiuiasVNTR S."'fa CuE Riter LOS ANGELES Lal, BadayEsur Lpw Swo ay DIEG Sant MaTaije ..qc..n Sage V~ista LaoIn sags Pt adsq Lifson' San 516L.eeI. Tiju.anaEsur Source: Dennis & Marcus, 1984. 70 Estuary, many of the wetlands in this region have been subjected to limited human disturbance (with some notable exceptions). Numerous small coastal wetlands, usually at the terminus of coastal streams exist in this region. Freshwater lakes also exist in the coastal zone of several central California counties. Mendocino County contains California's only coastal fen a relict of the ice age. Vernal pools exist in the coastal terraces of Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. The San Francisco Estuary, which includes the San Francisco Bay, the Suisun Marsh, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, is the largest estuary on the west coast of North and South Anierica (Meiorin, et. al., 1991). Wetlands and related habitats comprise some of the most valuable natural resources of this estuary, but also some of the most adversely affected natural resources. A recent comprehensive study found that only 19% (~-44,400 acres) of the original tidal marshes remain in this estuary (Meiorin, et. al., 1991)33. At one time, extensive wetland areas occurred in Southern California (Point Conception to Mexico), but only 25% of the total (-13,100 acres) is thought to remain (Septh, 1969a,b). The remaining wetlands are relatively small and discrete, confined by narrow river valleys, and separated by coastal hills and mountains (Zedler, 1982) (Figure 8). Most commonly, wetlands in this region occur along the fringe of bays, as lagoons, river mouth marshes, and salt marshes. Generally, the marshes occur on intertidal slopes or the tops of creek banks that quickly grade from mean sea level to extreme high water (Zedler, 1982). Many of the wetlands in Southern California exist under very disturbed conditions often surrounded by extensive urban development (Zedler, 1982). The primary value of southern California's coastal wetlands is habitat and its role in maintaining biodiversity (Zedler, 1991) For California then, large scale evolutionary processes have acted to produce a highly variable coastal zone with numerous relatively isolated and unique wetland landscapes. Humans have also significantly impacted these wetlands resulting in further alterations of the topography as well as the overall ecology. B. Hydrology: The hydrology of coastal wetlands is made complex by their location at the interface between terrestrial and marine environments (Orme, 1991). Tides, waves, currents, river discharge, and ground-water seepage are all important, but temporally and spatially variable components of coastal wetland hydrology (Orme, 1991). Yet even 33 The reader is encouraged to review the cited literature for additional information on the San Francisco Estuary. 71 .' salinity, water salinity has a direct affect on the distribution and abundance of wetland vegetation (Mall, 1969). In southern California where hypersaline soils occur, wetland flora is limited and highly stressed: up to 17 species of halophytes (mostly succulents) are common, and all respond to decreased salinity by becoming taller and more dense (Zedler, 1982). Patterns in primarv productivity also show strong correlation with soil salinity (Zedler, 1982). Although the suite of plant species differs among California's coastal wetlands, there is little doubt that salinity is a major limiting factor to vascular plant growth (Josselyn, 1983; Zedler, 1982). Water turbidity is another water quality constituent that directly affects wetland ecology. Turbidity is caused by the suspension of inorganic sediments and particulate organic matter (POM) derived from sources inside (autochthonous) or outside (allochthonous) the wetland. Autochthonous materials are generated biogenically or chemically, originating either from the accumulation of plant and animal detritus or from the in situ precipitation of evaporate deposits from brines (Orme, 1991). In coastal wetlands, tide and wind resuspension of accumulated sediments are also major causes of turbidity (Orme, 1991) Allochthonous materials arrive via wind, or in suspension with freshwater inflows and tidal waters (Orme, 1991). In California, freshwater inflows can be a major source of suspended material, but are spatially and temporally variable because of the geographical and seasonal variability in precipitation. Although turbidity directly affects both wetland plants and animals, the impact is mainly confined to the subtidal portion of wetlands. For plants, turbidity affects light penetration, and thus is one factor controlling the lower limit of plant establishment and overall production (osselyn, 1983). In the intertidal zone, however, turbidity is probably not limiting to plant establishment and growth because these areas are exposed a portion of each day. In the intertidal zone, other factors such as plant shading, desiccation, and temperature increase in importance (Zedler, et al., 1992). For animals, turbidity impacts the effectiveness of visual predators, such as birds and mammals, and the feeding ability of benthic filter feeding organisms (Dickert, et al., 1978; Josselyn, 1983; Nichols and Pamatmat, 1988). Overall, turbidity has limited but important impacts on the distribution of plants and the foraging of some animals. Nutrients are also water quality constituents of critical importance to the existence of wetland organisms. Nutrients are continually required by all living organisms for growth and reproduction. Although a variety of nutrients are required by plants and animals, most studies focus on the availability of inorganic nitrogen because this constituent is considered most limiting to plants34. Plants, in turn, are the major source of nutrients for animals. 34 More recently, this view has been challenged. For more information see Smith, S.V. 1984. Phosphorus versus nitrogen limitation in the marine environment. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29:1149-1159; and Howarth, R.W. and J.C. Cole. 1985. Molybdenum availability, nitrogen limitation, and phytoplankton growth in natural waters. Science 229:653-655. 74 As with turbidity, both allochthonous and autochthonous sources of nutrients are available to wetland organisms. The wetland landscape is an open system with an ongoing exchange of materials among deepwater habitats, uplands, and the atmosphere. The majority of California's coastal wetlands have connections with both the ocean and. one or more sources of freshwater. Allochthonous nutrient sources include freshwater inflows and tidal flows, while autochthonous sources include nitroeen fixation, remineraliztion, and animal excretions (Nixon, 1980). Nutrient dynamics within wetlands are very complex. Both nutrient availability and requirements vary through time and space. Thus, few accurate generalizations regarding nutrient patterns exist. It does appear that coastal wetlands vary in their needs for. nitrogen. For example, results from Winfield's (1980) study of the Tijuana Estuary indicate that while both nitrate and nitrite were exported from the estuary in small amounts, overall there was a net import of inorganic nitrogen. Ammonium was usually the most prevalent form of inorganic nitrogen found during the study, with higher concentrations measured on a seasonal basis during the winter and spring, and on a daily basis during flood tide. Thus, while it is clear that nutrients are important to wetlands, much more information is needed (particularly for California's coastal wetlands) before we fully understand the dynamic processes of nutrient sources and sinks. In summary, like topography and hydrology, water quality also has a direct role in the ecology of wetlands. Evidence to date shows 'salinity is probably the most important water quality constituent in coastal wetlands, although pollutants, turbidity, nutrients, and a variety of other constituents can also be very important at certain times and locations. D. Biological Interactions: The diversity and abundance of organisms in coastal wetlands is remarkable, given the often extreme and variable conditions that can occur. Bacteria, protozoa, algae, vascular plants, invertebrates, amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals can all be found within the wetland, and together comprise the biotic community of the wetland. Many of these organisms are completely dependent on the wetland for their existence, either spending their entire lives in the wetland, or spending a critical portion of their life cycle in the wetland. Still other species receive direct benefit from wetlands but are not dependent upon wetlands for their existence. The interactions among these organisms are obviously complex and numerous, but basically occur in response to environmental tolerances and resource requirements. For example, vascular plants show strong patterns of distribution within a wetland that are related to their tolerance of specific environmental conditions, such as salinity, soil type, 75 FIGURE 8 -Location Map of Southern California Coastal Wetlands and Major Rivers POINT CONCEPTION '<SANTA ANA RIVER C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SNTA MARGARITA 0 he PALOSVE LU~~~~~~~~~~(IS REY RIVEN I. J`IJUANA ESTIJARY 2. 4WEEIWAFF.H14AIISH. PAIIAIIISECHEEK MAASIO. 1 4 , UPPER NEWPORT RAY ANIEORIVER 3. MISSION BAY MARS" IKENDALL FROST RESERVE). HUNTINGTON BEACH MARSH. TIJUANA ROVER SAN DIeG R iven MARSH 17. ALAMITOSSBAY ILOS CERRITOS MARSH) 4. LOS PEN=OUT0S LAGOON IS. IIALLONA WETLANDS (DEL REY LAGOON). B. SAN DIEGUITO LAGOON SLOALGO.ADBL.N AS S. SAN ELLUG LAGOON l e . MALIBU CREEK 7. IIATIOUITOS LAGOON 20. MUJGU LAGOON D. AGUA NEDINONA LAGOON 2) MCGRATH LAKE---- 9. BUENA VISTA LAGOON 22. SANTA CLARA ROVER IG. SAN ILUIS REY RIVER MARSH 23. VIENTURA RIVER II. SAN I^ MARGARITA RIVER 24. CARPINTERIA MARSH IS. LAS FLONESMARSIS 25. ISOLETA SLOUGH 13. SAN MATED MARSH 26. DEVERAUX LAGOON Source: Zedler, 1982. 72 with this complex and variable hydrology, coastal wetlands are unified as a system by low gradients, low wave energy, fine-grain sediments and pervasive saltwater influences (Orme, 1991). In California, many coastal wetlands are marine dominated during much of the year, becoming dominated by terrestrial freshwater sources primarily during rainy periods (Josselyn, 1983; Zedler, 1982). In addition, these systems are directly affected by the multi-year drought/flooding events (as is much of California). Thus, for much of the year tidal processes drive coastal wetland hydrology, although seasonally and/or locally important freshwater inputs do occur. As might be expected, hydrodynamic processes affect many of the environmental and biological processes within wetlands. For example, wetland hydrology affects both the location and rate of sedimentation and erosion, as well as the distribution and concentration of important chemical constituents such as dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and salt (Orme, 1991). In Southern California, tidal processes are extremely important in structuring the salt marsh communities. Sea water provides most of the soil moisture for these intertidal wetlands because of the low precipitation, the limited freshwater runoff, and frequent droughts (Zedler, 1982). The variable tidal regime present in California (i.e., a mixed semidiurnal tidal regime), and the semiarid climate that dominates southern California result in an extremely broad range of wetland soil salinity and long periods of hypersalinity (Zedler, 1982). Soil salinity, in turn, directly affects the distribution of plants within the wetland (Zedler, 1982). In contrast, hydrodynamic processes are affected by the presence or absence of vegetation. Wetland plants such as Spartina foliosa reduce current velocities, dampen waves, discourage erosion, and promote sediment deposition (Orme, 1991). From this brief discussion it is clear that California's coastal wetlands are strongly affected by hydrologic processes, which are highly variable and complex. Thus, although many wetlands may appear to be in equilibrium with their environment, that equilibrium is neither static nor predictable (Orme, 1991). C. Water Quality: Interest in wetland water qualitv has intensified recently, because of the ability of wetlands to enhance water quality. Through a variety of processes, wetlands are able to remove sediments and both organic and inorganic pollutants from the overlying water (Chan, et al., 1981; Duda, 1992; Sather and Smith, 1984). In addition, however, several water quality constituents have a direct impact on the ecology of coastal wetlands, the most significant of which is probably salt concentration. Ocean water is the principal source of salts in coastal wetlands, and source inputs are continually renewed by tidal flows. Thus, the tides are not only responsible for physical processes (i.e., hydrology), but chemical processes as well. Through its influence on soil 73 and hydrology, and the competitive interactions that occur among species for limited resources such as recruitment space, nutrients, and light35. The same is generally true for animals, but their mobility affords them the flexibility to seek out more suitable habitat. Additionally, animals consume plants and other animals adding another dimension of interaction, namely predator-prey relationships, which can alter the distribution and abundance patterns of both the predator and the prey25. Another way to characterize biological interactions is on the basis of energy flow. With the exception.of plants, which use sun light as their energy source, all organisms found in wetlands consume plants or animals to meet their energy requirements. This energy in turn, is used by the organism for growth and reproduction. Diagrams of a food chain or food web (many food chains) are used to conceptualize the flow of energy within an ecosystem. Figure 9 shows a diagram of one such food chain. In general, plants (vascular plants and algae) are termed primary producers and are at the base of the food chain. The next level up the food chain is occupied by herbivores followed by omnivores and carnivores. Energy is lost to respiration at every level of the food chain; thus an enormous amount of plant material is required to provide the energy necessary for the existence of top predators such as carnivorous birds and mammals. Although food chains can be very complex, they do provide a relatively simple way to conceptualize biological interactions. The food chains within many California coastal wetlands are thought to be relatively short (Zedler, 1982). Nonetheless, the wetland food web is complex because of the extensive overlap and shear number of food chains that exist. In general, our knowledge of how food chains are modified as wetland habitat diminishes is not extensive; however, there is little doubt that the native food web is essential to the maintenance of community structure (National Research Council, 1992). Although a multitude of concepts, principles, and methodologies exist to assist in understanding the biology and ecology of wetlands, our level of knowledge is still relatively rudimentary. This is particularly true for California's wetlands, where ecosystem research lags behind that of Atlantic and Gulf coast efforts by several decades (Williams and Zedler, 1992). We now know that the environment of Pacific coast wetlands differs in fundamental ways (e.g., topography, geology, hydrology, 3 For detailed examples from California's coastal wetlands see: Zedler, J.B. 1982. The ecology of southern California coastal salt marshes: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Washin'gton D.C. FWS/OBS-81/54; and Josselyn, M. 1983. The ecology of San Francisco Bay tidal marshes: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington D.C. FWS/OBS-83/23. 76 FIGURE 9- Diagram of a Wetland Food Chain .< Vascular plants often require decomposition before being palatable to Joel: w animals. Algal productivity can go directly to grazing animals. JMO Source: Zedler, 1982. 77 climate, and species composition) from wetlands in other parts of the nation. Thus, information from Atlantic or Gulf coast wetlands does not necessarily apply to Pacific coast wetlands. Additionally, it is difficult to transfer information between coasts on processes such as primary productivity and nutrient cycling because the functions driving these processes are site specific; however, the effects of habitat loss and reduced biodiversity are universal (Williams, et al., 1992). Nevertheless, the task of developing the technical information base necessary for the wise and successful management of California's coastal wetlands is critical. Ill. UNDERSTANDING THE FUNCTIONS AND VALUES OF COASTAL WETLANDS: Assessing the functions and values of wetlands depends on, and is limited by, information from three fields: science, economics, and politics (Scodari, 1990). For example, scientists have determined that wetlands serve (i.e., function) as critical habitat for a number of threatened and, endangered species, while State and federal legislation affords such species higher levels of protection, and therefore increased value. However, because of their limited numbers, threatened and endangered species often contribute little net value to the wetland on an ecological (scientific) or economic basis. As the above example illustrates, the functions and values of wetlands are often interconnected. In general, wetland functions are those attributes that directly or indirectly benefit humans and other organisms, or provide values perceived by humans as desirable or worthy of protection. However, there is limited agreement on the importance of any one function or value. As Dennis and Marcus (1984) note "[piresent day land owners, developers, regulatory agencies, and scientists in California are not in agreement on the value of wetlands. A landowner or developer may see a wetland only as flat, developable real estate, made more valuable by its proximity to a waterfront. Traditionally, communities have viewed wetlands as convenient dumping grounds. Engineers acknowledge the functional uses of wetlands for floodwater regulation or shoreline protection... Scientists and educators place a high value on the biological productivity and wildlife habitat of wetlands. A hunter appreciates wetlands for the waterfowl they support, while a farmer may regard a wetland as unproductive unless drained and cultivated.' All of the known functions and values of coastal wetlands are a manifestation of one or more of the physical, chemical, or biological processes. inherent to this environment. However, wetland assessments based on functions and values are problematic due to the lack of rigorous and objective assessment criteria. Recent attempts have used economic principles to develop monetary valuations (Allen et al., 1992; Scodari, 1992). Although this is a valid approach, it does not include estimates of intrinsic qualities such as natural beauty, fascination, and peace of mind. Nevertheless, such assessments 78 are important because many of the regulatory decisions regarding wetlands are ultimately decided on the relative importance of these attributes, or the cost to replace them. Overall, California coastal wetlands have a number of important functions and values36 (Table 3). Although knowledge of most functions and values has existed for some time, their combined importance has increased over time because of the enormous wetland losses California has endured. Thus, the reduction in wetland acreage and function has increased the overall value of this resource regardless of the value of specific attributes (Allen, et al., 1992). Table 3 KEY FUNCTIONS AND VALUES OF CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL WETLANDS37 :g i . 0 Comnmercial factors:: USupport of commercial fisheries: Coastal wetlands are important spawning and nursery areas and provide sources of nutrients for commercial fish such as flounder, perch, and English sole, and shellfish such as clams and shrimp. nProvision of commercially harvested organisms: Because of their high natural productivity, both tidal and inland wetlands have food production potential for aquaculture enterprises. ,Water supply and storage: Wetlands are potential sites for groundwater recharge and surface water storage. Damage prevention factors. KPollution assimilation/water purification: Wetlands contribute to improving water quality by removing excess nutrients and excess chemical contaminants; some wetlands are used in the tertiary treatment of wastewater. nFlood control: Riverine wetlands and adjacent floodplain lands often form natural floodways that convey floodwaters from upstream to downstream areas; wetlands can also store water during floods and slow the movement to downstream areas, thereby lowering flood peaks. *Erosion control: Wetlands reduced flood flows and the velocity of floodwaters, reducing erosion causing floodwaters to release sediment. 36 For a more detailed discussion of wetland functions and values the reader is encouraged to review: Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1994. An Overview of Major Wetland Functions and Values. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/18; and National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 37 Sources: Scodari, 1990; National Research Council, 1992 79 Table 3 Continued KEY FUNCTIONS AND VALUES OF CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL WETLANDS Ecological ors aor EProvision of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species: In California numerous threatened or endangered' species such as the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, the clapper rail, the salt marsh harvest mouse, and the soft-haired bird's beak all rely on wetlands for their existence. EProvision of habitat for native wildlife: Wetlands provide essential breeding, feeding, and refuge habitats for many native plants (e.g., cord grass, salt grass, and pickleweed) and animals (e.g., great blue heron, garter snake, and the tiger salamander); this directly contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity. RProvision of resting and feeding habitat for migratory waterfowl: California's wetlands provide essential nesting, feeding, and refuge habitats for migratory birds along the Pacific flyway; this directly contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity. EFood chain support to resident and non-resident species: Wetlands have the ability to support nutrient transformations (both microbial and chemical processes); wetlands act as sources and sinks of nutrients and food and provide a medium for the transfer of these materials.. .:a ::::-:: : :. : i::;;::. ::Oth:r fa:tors m EConsumptive recreation: Wetlands serve as recreation sites for fishing and hunting. aNonconsumptive recreation: Wetlands serve as recreation sites for hiking, boating, and bird watching. USource of open space and contribution to aesthetic values: Wetlands are areas of great diversity and beauty, and provide open space for human enjoyment. EEducation and research: Wetlands provide educational opportunities for nature observation and scientific study. IV. FACTORS IMPACTING CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL WETLANDS: The major impact suffered by California's wetlands is direct loss attributable to human activities (Dennis and Marcus, 1984). Total wetland loss in California is estimated at 4.6 million acres, which is approximately 91% of the acreage present before European settlement (Dahl, 1990). The majority of this loss (approximately 3.6 million acres) has occurred in the central valley (Dahl, 1990; Dennis and Marcus, 1984). All portions of the coast have suffered losses as well, the largest losses (on a percentage basis) are thought to have occurred in San Francisco Bay and along the south coast (Table 4). 80 Table 4 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC LOSSES OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL WETLANDS38 :Estimated Estimated Estimated Region ~ Original . Remaining Percent Acreage Acreage Reduction North Coast Unknown 31,300 Unknown Central Coast39 Unknown 3,800 Unknown S.F. Bay4� 200,000 93,000 54 % South Coast 53,000 13,100 75 % Statewide 5,000,000 450,000 91 % A variety of activities are known to have caused the dramatic loss and alterations of wetlands in California. The major activities include: Agricultural use and development: This involves the conversion of wetlands to agricultural land. Typically, wetlands are diked or filled, or vegetation is removed in order to expand adjacent crop or grazing lands. Disturbance and degradation can also occur where cattle and other pasture animals are allowed to graze in wetlands, or where nonpoint-source runoff containing pesticides and fertilizers occurs. Agricultural activities are the primary cause of wetland loss in California (Dahl, 1990). � Residential development: The development and subdivision of land for residential use has resulted in direct wetland loss through filling. Additionally, this development activity has substantially increased sediment discharge into wetlands, through the acceleration of soil erosion. This is especially true in southern California where extensive building has occurred on or near highly erodible soils (Zedler, 1982). 38 Source: Dennis and Marcus, 1984. 39 Central Coast numbers exclude San Francisco Bay. 4( Estimates for S.F. Bay updated from: Meiorion, E.C., M.N. Josselyn, R. Crawford, J. Calloway, K. Miller, R. Pratt, T. Richardson, and R. Leidy. 1991. Status and trends report on wetlands and related habitats in the San Francisco estuary. San Francisco Estuary Project, Oakland, California. 81 * Commercial and industrial development: Hotels, business parks, and industrial complexes within and adjacent to wetlands can include wetland fill and loss of habitat through encroachment. The release of toxic materials from these forms of development is also a source of wetland degradation. * Oil and Gas development: Oil and gas wells and the supporting infrastructure have severely impacted several coastal wetlands in Southern California. The deposition of fill for roads and well pads and the unintentional release of pollutants from this form of development results in the fragmentation and degradation of wetland habitat. � Roads highways and railways: The maintenance and development of transportation corridors has resulted in direct wetland loss through filling. Numerous wetlands have also suffered adverse impacts from the construction of bridges and polluted runoff from -these structures. * Port and marina development: This form of development includes dredging new and expanded channels to increase deepwater area, and the direct filling of wetlands to increase the area of shoreline support facilities. * Flood control: Development in flood plains and adjacent to wetlands increases the susceptibility of these structures to flooding. Flood -control projects result in the dredging, filling, and channelization of wetlands to prevent the natural dissipation of water into low-lying areas. Many of these activities still occur in California (Dennis, et al., 1984). Yet because of the relatively high social value placed on coastal wetlands, this resource has received greater protection than their inland counterparts (Gosselink, et al., 1991). In California's coastal zone, the Coastal Act does allow certain types of development in wetlands (see chapters one and three), and these activities can result in the loss of wetland habitat. However, wetland alteration in many coastal states of the U.S. - including California - is strictly regulated and generally prohibited. Much of the current loss of wetlands in. the coastal states is attributed to either a lingering legacy of past development (e.g., agricultural, urban, and industrial development) or related to secondary or indirect effects of current projects (e.g., point- and nonpoint-source pollution, or changes in the timing and amount of fresh and saltwater inputs) (Gosselink, et al., 1991). 82 V. SUMMARY: Wetland resource concerns for California span a variety of complex and sensitive issues. Of paramount concern is the extreme loss of wetlands California has endured, dramatically increasing the intrinsic value of the remaining resource. However, numerous other issues discussed in this chapter also affect the level and focus of concern for this resource. These issues, which are summarized below, generally fall into one of two categories: science and impacts. 1) Science: Large scale evolutionary processes have acted to produce a highly variable coastal zone with numerous, relatively isolated and unique wetland landscapes. This fact complicates preservation and restoration activities. � Wetlands are ecologically complex regions. * Sound scientific information on California coastal wetlands is lacking, limiting our understanding and predictive ability. * Rigorous, objective methods to quantify wetland functions and values are generally lacking. 2) Impacts: * Human's are responsible for virtually all of the losses and impacts to California's wetlands. * Many of the remaining wetlands suffer from chronic disturbance and degradation. 83 LITERATURE CITED Allen, J., M. Cunningham, A. Greenwood, and L. Rosenthal. 1992. The value of California wetlands: an analysis of their economic benefits. The Campaign To Save California Wetlands, Oakland, California. Bloom, A.L. 1983a. Sea level and coastal morphology of the United States through the Late Wisconsin glacial maximum. Pages 215-229 in S.C. Porter [Ed.]. The late Pleistocene, Vol. I of H.E. Wright, Jr., [Ed.]. Late Quaternary environments of the United States. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Bloom, A.L. 1983b. Sea level and coastal changes. Pages 42-51 in H.E. Wright Jr.,[Ed.]. The Holocene, Vol. II of H.E. Wright, Jr., [Ed.]. Late Quaternary environments of the United States. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. California Coastal Commission. 1981. Statewide interpretive guideline for wetlands and other wet environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Chan, E., T.A. Brusztynsky, N. Hantzsche, and Y.S. Litwin. 1981. The use of wetlands for water pollution control. Association of Bay Area Governments, Berkeley, California. Cowardin, L.M., W. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetland and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Service. Washington D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Dennis, N.B. and Marcus, M.L. 1984. Status and trends of California wetlands. Final report prepared for the California Assembly, Resources Subcommittee. Department of Fish and Game. 1981. Determination of the status of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Department of Fish and Game. 1987. The status of wetland habitat and its protection, enhancement, and expansion. 84 Dickert, T.G., J. Nybakken, G.M. Cailliet, M.S. Foster, G.V. Morejohn, and G. Page. 1978. Wetlands management in coastal zone planning: a prototype framework for relating natural science and land-use planning. U.C. Berkeley R/CZ45: 37-48. Duda, P.J. 1992. Chevron's Richmond refinery water enhancement wetland. A report submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Eliot, W. 1985. Implementing mitigation policies in San Francisco Bay: a critique. State Coastal Conservancy. Oakland, California. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Environmental Services Division. 1987. Department of Fish and Game Recommended Wetland Definition, Mitigation Strategies, and Habitat Value Assessment Methodology. Presented by Glenn Rollins, Environmental Services Supervisor in a public workshop to the Fish and Game Commission, on June 24, 1987, Sacramento, California. 14 pp. Ferren, W.R. Jr. and P.L. Fiedler. 1993. Rare and threatened wetlands of Central and Southern California. Pages 119-131 in: J.E. Keeley [Ed.]. Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles. Gosselink, J.G. and E. Maltby. 1991. Wetland loss and gains. Pages 296-322 in M. Williams [Ed.]. Wetlands: a threatened landscape. Alden Press Ltd., Oxford, England. Jones, B.E. 1981. California legislation affecting water-related resources: landmark acts with emphasis on regulation of fill. Prepared for the Resources Agency, State of California. Josselyn, M. 1983. The ecology of San Francisco bay tidal marshes: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington D.C. FWS/OBS-83/23. 102 pp. Josselyn, M. and J. Burcholz. 1984. Marsh restoration in San Francisco Bay: a guide to design and planning. Technical Report No. 3. Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California. 104 pp. 85 Josselyn, M., J. Zedler, and T. Griswold. 1990. Wetland mitigation along the Pacific Coast of the United States. In Kusler, J.A., M.E. Kentula [Eds.] Wetland Creation and Restoration: the Status of the Science. Vol. I: Regional Reviews. EPA 600/3- 89/038a. Josselyn, M., S. Chamberlain, K. Goodnight, H. Hopkins, and A. Fiorillo. 1993. Evaluation of Coastal Conservancy enhancement projects. Report prepared for Reed Holderman, California Coastal Conservancy. 21pp. plus appendixes. Kramer, John. 1982. The State's participation in the Section 404 permit process. Summary, presented to American Bar Association Legal Institute on flood plains and wetlands, San Francisco, May'28-29, 1982. Long, M.M., M. Friley, D. Densmore, J. De Weese. 1992. Wetland losses within Northern California from projects authorized under nationwide permit number 26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Sacramento Field Office. Sacramento, California. Maguire, C.E. 1985. Wetland replacement evaluation. Contract No. DACW-65-85-D- 0068. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, Virginia. Mall, R.E. 1969. Soil-water-salt relationships of waterfowl food plants in the Suisun Marsh of California. Wildlife Bulletin No. 1. California Department of Fish and Game. 59 pp. Meiorin, E.C., M.N. Josselyn, R. Crawford, J. Calloway, K. Miller, R. Pratt, T. Richardson, and R. Leidy. 1991. Status and trends report on wetlands and related habitats in the San Francisco estuary. San Francisco Estuary Project, Oakland, CA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1990. Estuaries of the United States: vital statistics of a national resource base. Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, NOAA. 79 pp. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. Nichols, F.H. and M.M. Pamatmat. 1988. The ecology of the soft-bottom benthos of San Francisco bay: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 85(7.19). 73 PP. 86 Nixon, S. 1980. Between coastal marshes and coastal waters'- a review of twenty years of speculation and research on the role of salt marshes in estuarine productivity and water chemistry. Pages 437-525 in P. Hamilton and K. MacDonald [Eds.]. Estuarine and wetland processes. Plenum Press, New York. Office on Environmental Policy. 1993. Protecting America's wetlands: a fair, flexible, and effective approach. Washington D.C. Onuf, C.P. and M.L. Quamrmen. 1985. Coastal and riparian wetlands of the pacific region: the state of knowledge about food chain support. In: Pacific regional wetland functions. National Wetland Technical Council Workshop. Orme, A.R. 1991. Wetland morphology, hydrodynamics, and sedimentation. Pages 43- 94 in M. Williams [Ed.]. Wetlands: a threatened landscape. Alden Press Ltd. Oxford, England. Radovich, R.A. 1993. An identification and generalized classification of the wetlands of California (with accompanying key). Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division. Administrative Report 93-2. Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984. An overview of major wetland functions and values. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of- Biological Services. FWS/OBS-84/18. 68 pp. Scodari, P.F. 1990. Wetlands Protection: the role of economics. Environmental Law institute, Washington D.C. Septh, J.W. 1969a. Status report on the coastal wetlands of southern California as of February 1, 1969. California Department of Fish and Game. Septh, J.W. 1969b. The fuss over coastal wetlands. Outdoor California. 30(4)4-7. Shute, E. C. Jr. and M.B. Mihaly. 1982. Analysis of powers exercised by regulatory agencies over diked historic baylands, and recommendations. Prepared for the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Williams, M. 1991. Understanding wetlands. Pages 1-41 in M. Williams [Ed.]. Wetlands: a threatened landscape. Alden Press Ltd., Oxford, England. Williams, S.L. and J.B. Zedler. 1992. Restoring sustainable coastal ecosystems on the Pacific coast: establishing a research agenda. California Sea Grant College, U.C. San Diego, La Jolla, California. No. T-CSGCP-026. 87 Winfield, T.P. 1980. Dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in a southern California salt marsh. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside, and San Diego State university, San Diego. 76 pp. Zedler, J.B. 1982. The ecology of southern California coastal salt marshes: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Washington D.C. FWS/OBS-81/54. 110 pp. Zedler, J.B. 1984. Salt marsh restoration: a guidebook for Southern California. California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP-009. Zedler, J.B. 1991. The challenge of protecting endangered species habitat along the southern California coast. Coastal Management. 19:35-53. Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby, and B.E. Kus. 1992. The ecology of Tijuana estuary, California: a national estuarine research reserve. NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington D.C. 88 GLOSSARY Anaerobic Soil: Soil that is devoid of interstitial oxygen. In wetlands this condition most normally occurs because of the sustained presence of water, which limits contact with the atmosphere. Biogenic: Chemicals or material created (generated) by biological processes. For example, waste products are generated through the biological processes of digestion. Carnivore: Animals. whose diet normally includes only other animals. Detritus: Organic debris from decomposing plants or animals. Ecotone: A habitat created by the juxtaposition of distinctly different habitats; an edge habitat, or a zone of transition between habitat types. For example, the intertidal zone is an ecotone occurring at the intersection between the subtidal zone and dry land. Estuarine: The estuarine environment consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semii-enclosed by land but have open, partially obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. Former Wetland: A land area originally existing as a wetland, which has been altered to another land-form through human or natural processes. Agricultural lands created from the diking or filling of wetlands are an example of former wetlands. Former wetlands do not generally exhibit any of the original wetland characteristics (i.e., form and function). In contrast, degraded wetlands do exhibit some of the original wetland characteristics, although often to a lesser extent. Fen: A unique type of wetland characterized by a saturated substrate dominated by organic material in which acidic conditions (pH < 7) prevail. Contrast with a bog, which has a saturated substrate dominated by organic material in which basic conditions (pH > 7) prevail. Hydric Soil: A type of soil with characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation and chemically reducing conditions such as occurs under anaerobic conditions. (See Anaerobic Soil above.) Hydrology: The dynamic processes of the water within an environment including the sources, timing, amount, and direction of water movement. 89 Hydrophytic Vegetation: Plants that have adapted to living in aquatic environments. These plants are also called hydrophytes. In wetlands, hydrophytic species occur where at least the root zone of the plant is seasonally or continually found in saturated or submerged soil. In-Kind-Mitigation: A mitigation project in close proximity to the site of impact that is designed to replace lost resources with identical or very similar resources. Lacustrine: A lake or lake-like environment. Cowardin et al. (1979) define the lacustrine environment as "wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following characteristics: (1) situated in a topographic depression or dammed river channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, mosses, or lichens with greater than 30% areal coverage; and (3) total area exceeds 8 ha (20 acres). Similar wetland and deepwater habitats totaling less than 8 ha are also included in the lacustrine environment if an active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature makes up all or part of the boundary, or if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 2 m (6.6 feet) at low water. Lacustrine waters may be tidal or non-tidal, but ocean-derived salinity is always less than 0.5 parts per thousand." Macrophytes: Plants visible to the unaided eye. In terms of plants found in wetlands, macrophytes are the conspicuous multicellular plants. Marine: The marine environment consists of the ocean and the associated high-energy coastline. Marine habitats are exposed to the waves and currents of the open ocean and the water regimes are determined primarily by the ebb and flow of oceanic tides. Mixed semidiurnal tidal regime: The tidal regime occurring along the California coast. This tidal regime is characterized by two high tides and two low tides every 25 hours. The tidal extremes (point of maximum high or low water) all differ and occur in a mixed sequence. That is, the higher high tide is followed by the lower low tide, followed by the lower high tide, and then the higher low tide. The tidal height is primarily determined by gravitational forces among the Earth, moon, and sun, but is also affected by weather and local geography. Nitrogen Fixation: Biochemical conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into nitrogen compounds such as nitrate and nitrite. This process is naturally carried out by certain soil-inhabiting bacteria and certain blue-green algae. 90 Nutrients: Chemical compounds or elements required by all living organisms for growth, reproduction, and the maintenance of homeostasis. Most commonly, measurements are taken from water samples to determine the concentration of nutrients required by plants (e.g., primary producers). For plants, inorganic macronutrients (i.e., nutrients required in relatively large amounts) include nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, and phosphates. Inorganic micronutrients (i.e., nutrients required in relatively small amounts) include copper, molybdenum, and magnesium. Organic nutrients include amino acids and vitamins. Omnivore: Animals whose diet normally included both plants and animals. Out-of-Kind mitigation: A mitigation project that replaces lost resources with resources that are not similar (e.g., using an artificial reef as mitigation for filling a salt marsh). The mitigation project may or may not bein close proximity to the site of impact. Palustrine: The palustrine environment includes all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent macrophytes, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 5 parts per thousand (ppt). It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha (20 acres); (2) active. wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features are lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of the basin is less than 2 m at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts is less than 5 ppt (Cowardin et al., 1979). Plate tectonics: The theory that accounts for seismic activity, mountain building, volcanism, and other geological manifestations of crustal plate movement with sea-floor spreading. Productivity: The transfer of energy and nutrients into living matter over time. Productivity is a function of both the growth rate and biomass of an organism and is expressed as a rate of change. For example, primary productivity is the rate of increase in plant material over a unit area and time e.g., grams Carbon/m2/yr. Secondary productivity applies to animals and is expressed in the same terms. Remineralization: Release of nutrients and other compounds chemically bound in soils or sediments through chemical processes. Respiration: (1) Internal respiration: the chemical processes from which all living organisms derive energy from stored reserves and food. (2) External respiration: breathing of air; taking oxygen from the environment and giving off carbon dioxide. 91 Riparian Area: A type of habitat occurring along the bank of a water course or other water body typically consisting of water tolerant trees and shrubs such as alder, cottonwood, and willows. Many riparian areas occur as bands of vegetation along a water course, often called riparian corridors. Riverine:- An aquatic environment with a water source conveyed by a channel. A channel is an open conduit either naturally or artificially created that periodically of continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water. Rivers, streams, creeks, and aqueducts are all riverine environments. Tidal Prism: The volume of water that flows in and out of an area between higher high tide and lower low tide. Vernal Pool: A seasonal wefland formed in depressions having a specific geology and hydrology, which directly influence the plants and animals found within. Water quality: Most generally described as the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the water. 92 Appendix A Statewide Interpretive Guidelines For Wetlands And Other Wet Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas 93 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1. Introduction ....................................................96 A. What arc "Wetlands". ........................................96 D. I low the Coastal Act Protects Wetlands.........................97 VII. Standards For Siting Development Adjacent To Environmentally Sensitive C. Use of the Guideline and its Relationship to LCPs................98 Habitat Areas....................................................115 II. What Are "Evironmentally ensitive Habita Areas"? .. 98 'A. Criteria for Reviewing Proposed Development Adjacent to II. What Are "~~~~~~~~~~~~Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas"?................9 niomnal estv aia ra......................115 A. "Wetlands"..............................................:.... 99 B. Criteria for Establishing Buffer Areas...........................116 B. "Estuaries . ................................................99Vill. Restoration And Maintenance Of Wetland Habitat Areas ...............118 C. "Streams' and 'Rivers".......................................100 B. Requirements Applicable to All Restoration Projects ............120 E. "Open Coastal Waters" and "Coastal Waters".100 ~~~C. Requirements Applicable to Restoration of Degraded Wetlands in F. "Riparian Habitats". .........................................100 Conjunction with Boating Facilities ............................121 Ill. When Is Development Permitted In An Environmentally Sensitive D. Requirements Applicable to Restoration of Degraded Wetlands I labitat Area? ...................................................100 Using Projects Other Than Boating Facilities.....................121 A. Requirements for All Development Proposals in Environmentally Appendix A -Applicable Coastal Act Policies.................................123 Sensitive Habitat Areas ......................................101 B. Requirements for Additional Project Information . 101 ~~~~~~~~~~~~Appendix B -Resources Agency Wetland Policy...............................138 BV. Requirpments formAditinlPoete Informtiond ................. Esuaie Appendix C-Summary of Federal and State Regulatory Involvement Regarding IV. DeveopmentsPermitte In Wetands AndEstuaris .............................n104iDeelopmendin WetlndshandOtherEWevEnviroeentall A. Developments and Activities Permitted in Wetlands and Estuaries 104 Sensitive Habitat Areas........................................139 B. Special Limitations on Development in Those Coastal Wetlands Appendix D-Technical Criteria for Identifying and Mapping Wetlands and Identified by the Department of Fish and Game..................107 Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive habitat Areas ...............144 C..esoraiosPrjetsterittd nPSctone023t.......................n18SApedixE-losar3o0Tems..............................................................52 D. Requirements for All Permitted Development ...................109 F. Provisions Applicable to Proposed Development in Wetlands and Estuaries Within Port jurisdictions.............................113 V. Developments Permitted In Open Coastal Waters And Lakes. . .........113 A. Developments and Activities Permitted in Open Coastal Waters and Lakes ..................................................113 B. Requirements for All Permitted Developments ..................114 VI. Developments Permitted In Streams And Rivers......................114 A. Permitted Developments in Streams and Rivers..................114 B. Requi'rements for All Development ............................114 94 95 STATEWIDE INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINE FOR WETLANDS AND OTHER WET ENVIVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS (Adopted 21/4/81) Migratory animals feed and rest in Caifornia's coastal wetlands in large SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS (Adopted 2/4/81) enough numbers to make the wetlands invaluable habitat areas. Most waterfowl and shorebirds found in North America, such as ducks, geese, sandpipers, and I. INTRODUCTION dunlines, are migratory. They nest in Alaska or Canada in the summer, and winter in the U.S. or points sbuth. During the fall and spring migrations, millions of these birds move along well-defined routes called flyways. The The Commission adopted this guideline as a decision of the Commission after millions of these birds move along well-defined routes called flyays. The recevinexensveublctetimnynddholding ten pCalifornia coast, part of the Pacific Flyways, was assigned third highest receiving extensive public testimony and comments and holding ten public priority (out of a total of 33 areas nationally) for wintering habitat hearings at numerous locations in the coastal zone. In addition, the Regional pr iority (out of a total of 33 areas nationally) for wintering habitat Commissions provided valuable comments and information as a result of an preservation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. approximately equal number of hearings which they held. Guidelines should be rich laboratories for ecological studies. viewed as a tool in reviewing coastal permit applications and LCPs for wetlands and adjacent areas. The Commission intends local governments to use the guideline when developing LCPs but believes that more flexibility may be appropriate in an LCP than in an individual permit decision. Guidelines of B. How the Coastal Act Protects Wetlands necessity must focus on issues primarily of statewide concern. The LCPs will focus in depth on regional wetlands issues. For example, the Humboldt County Since wetlands are so valuable from both an economic and biologic Northcoast Area Land Use Plan addressed farmed wetlands in detail, a subject sta the Ca lifornia Coastal Act and many other Federal and state only footnoted in this guideline. It adopted explicit criteria for identifying Section 30001 of the Coastal Act states in part that the Legislature finds and "armed wetlands and designated the areas exclusive agriculture. The Commission Section 30001 of the Coastal Act states (in part) that t the Legislature finds and farmed wetlands and designated the areas exclusive agriculture. The Commission certified the LUP as consistent with the policies of Chapter 3, even though such specific criteria are not contained or endorsed in this guideline. This example valuable resource and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem; that the illustrates that the guideline is a valuable tool., but only a tool, to be used permanent protection of the state's natural resources is of paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and the nation; and that it is in conjunction with permit and planning decisions. necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its -deterioration and destruction. Therefore, the Act requires that the biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, A. What Are "Wetlands"? estuaries, and lakes be maintained and, where feasible, restored. Sections of the Act provide general policies for development in and adjacent to wetlands, The Coastal Act defines wetlands as land "which may be covered periodically the Act provide general policies for development in a nd adjacent to wetlands or permanently with shallow water." Wetland areas, such as marshes, mudflats and lagoons, serve many functions: to absorb pollutants and storm energy; to serve as nutrient sources and genetic reservoirs; and to provide some of the In order to apply'Com s tal Act policies on wetlands to specific areas and world's r4Cheat wdife habitats~~. 'developments, the Commission has adopted this interpretive guideline. The world's richest wildlife habitats. guideline integrates ecological concepts and policies found in many sections of Wetlands are highly diverse and productive. The combination of shallow and the Act into a consistent whole, explains policies for protecting natural resources, defines technical terms, and facilitates application of the policies deep water, and the variety of vegetation and substrates produce far greater possibilities for wildlife feeding, nesting and resting than is found in less policiby the State and regCoastal commissions. ine many ofdistigui the resource diverse areas. Individual wetlands may be inhabited by hundreds of species of portance of the policies and their interrela tio nship s. Statutory provisions importance of the policies and their interrelationships. Statutory provisions birds, mammals, fish and smaller organisms. Abundant microorganisms serve as which govern all environmentally sensitive habitat areas are laid ut and food for crabs, clams, oysters, and mussels which live in the tidal flats, which govern all environmentally sensitive habitat areas are lard out and food for crabs, clams, oysters, and mussels which live in the tidal flats. specific development standards and criteria are explained for particular habitat Wetlands' natural abundance draws people for recreation such as clamming, areas (e.g. wetlands estuaries open coastal waters lakes and streams). bird watching and fishing. Fish such as the king and silver salmon and steelhead trout live much of their lives in the ocean but return to freshwater Wetlands are not isolated independently unctioning systems , and they to spawn. Commercially important fish such as herring, anchovy and California depend upon and are highly influenced by their surroundings. Therefore the tto spawn. Co nmercially important fish such as herries. g, anchovy and Califia guideline includes standards for the review and evaluation of proposed projects halibut are also found in California's estuaries. adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Food for ocean fauna is supplied from California's coastal estuaries. Estuarine productivity therfore contributes to a complex ocean food web. For The State Department of ish and came as the authorized cusodian s California's fish and wildlife resources and serves as the Commission's example, a significant amount of the net areal primary productivity of the resources Tijuana Estuary is exported in the form of dissolved carbon wnich can be taken principal consultant on all matters related to these resources. this responsibility includes but is not limited to: determination of project :mpacts; up and used by oysters, bacteria and phytoplankton, which may in turn be eaten byuother creatures .mored by oyestuares providehadequacy of technical data; and identification of appropriate mitigation or by other creatures. Perhaps more importantly, estuaries provide habitat for restoration measures for affected habitat. organisms to use that food, therefore making these habitats important for man, for example, as aquaculture sites. _,)()~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0- ) C. Use of the Guideline and Its Relationship to LCPs As stated in the 'INTRODUCTION," wetlands are not isolated, independently functioning systems. Rather, they depend upon and are highly influenced by This guideline is meant to assist the public and the Commissions in their associated watersheds and upland transition areas. Therefore, hinflu en thed b applying Coastal Act policies for wet environmentally sensitive habitat areas Commission determines that any adjacent area is necessary to maintain the and is in no way meant to supersede those policies. The guideline should be functional capacity of the wetland, the Commission will require that this area viewed as a tool in reviewing coastal permit applications and LCPs for wetlands be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values consistent and adjacent areas as explained above. with Section 30240(a). These areas may be protected either by inclusion in a buffer area subject to land use restrictions or through provision of a bu'ver The question of the relationship between interpretive guidelines and Local area around the ecological related adjacent area itself, or through oth-r means. Coastal Programs (LCPs) has been hotly debated and underscores the importance of Section VII of this guideline discusses the use of buffers. developing a comprehensive, consistent approach to these valuable coastal areas, but the LCPs (such as Humboldt County example discussed above) become the standard of review after certification. This guideline is a decision of the A. 'Wetlands' Commission, and therefore, it does serve as a tool or guide to local governments in preparing their LCPs as specified in Section 30625 (c) of the Act and in Section 00113 of the LCP Regulations. The Coastal Act defines "wetland" in Section 30121 as follows: "'Wetland' means lands within the coastal zone which may II. WHAT ARE "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS"? be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens." The Coastal Act defines "environmentally sensitive area" in Section 30107.5 as follows: This is the definition upon which the Commission relies to identify 'wetlands." The definition refers to lands "...which may be periodically or "'Environmentally sensitive area' means any permanently covered with shallow water ... However, due to highly variable area in which plant or animal life or their environmental conditions along the length of the California coast, wetlands may habitats are either rare or especially valuable include a variety of different types of habitat areas. For this reason, some because of their special nature or role in an wetlands may not be readily identifiable by simple means. In such cases, the ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed Commission also will rely on the presence of hydrophytes and/or the presence of or degraded by human activities and hydric soils as evidence that an area may be periodically or permanently covered developments." with shallow water. These are useful indicators of wetland conditions, but the presence or absence of hydric soils and/or hydrophytes alone are not necessarily determinative when the Commission identifies wetlands under the Coastal Act. In The term "environmentally sensitive habitat area' is also used in Section the past, the Commission has considered all relevant information in making such 30240 of the Coastal Act. The two terms are synonymous. determinations and relied upon the advice and judgement of experts before reaching its own independent conclusion as to whether a particular area will be 'The Commission generally considers wetlands, estuaries, streams, riparian considered wetland under the Coastal Act. The Commission intends to continue to habitats, lakes and portions of open coastal waters to be environmentally follow this policy. The discussion in "APPENDIX D" provides more detail and sensitive habitat areas because of the especially valuable role of these habitat further guidance on wetland identification. areas in maintaining the natural ecological functioning of many coastal habitat areas and because these areas are easily degraded by human developments. In acting on an application for development one of these areas, the Commission D. "Estuaries' considers all relevant information. The following specific policies apply to these habitat areas: Sections 30230; 30231; 30233; and 30236. Section 30240, a more general policy, also applies, but the more specific language in the former An "estuary" is a coastal water body usually semi-enclosed by land, but sections is controlling where conflicts exist with general provisions of Section which has open, partially obstructed, or intermittent exchange with the ocean 30240 (e.g., port facilities may be permitted in wetlands under Section 30233 and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by fresh water runoff even though they may not be resource dependent). This guideline addresses wet from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above the open ocean environmentally sensitive habitat areas only. The discussion in this section by evaporation. In general, the boundary between "wetland" and "estuary" is the and in section VII is not intended to describe or include all environmentally line of extreme low water (see Appendix 0 for a more complete discussion of sensitive habitat areas which may fall under Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. wetland/estuary boundaries). -98-. _9(_ C. "Streams" and "Rivers" A. Requirements For All Development Pronosals in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas A "stream or a "river" is a natural watercourse as designated by a solid line or dash and three dots symbol shown on the United States Geological Survey map most recently published, or any well-defined channel with distinguishable developmet is permitted in an environmentall sensitive habitat area. First, bed and bank that shows evidence of having contained flowing water as indicated development proposed m permitted use under the applicable the type of development proposed must be a permitted use under the applicable section of the Coastal Act. For example, any development proposed in a wetland must be specifically described in Section 30233(a) of the Act. The permitted developments allowed in each type of environmentally sensitve habitat area are D. "Lakes" discussed in subsequent sections. Additional permitted developments in environmentally sensitive habitat areas are projects which depend on the natural A "lake" is a confined, perennial water body mapped by the United States type of eurcesnviro in that h abitat area aadin order to function. Geologic Survey on the most current 7.5 minute quadrangle series. Second, any permitted use must also meet all general requirements. For example, before development could be approved in a wetland, the Commission must E. "Open Coastal watersfl and �Coastal Waters" find that there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative, that feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and that the functional capacity of the wetland is The terms "open coastal waters or 'coastal waters" refer to the open ocean environtain effects, anced These requirements are discussed in subsequent overlying the continental shelf and its associated coastline. Salinities exceed sections. requirements are discussed in subsequent 30 parts per thousand with little or no dilution except opposite mouths of estuaries (see Appendix D). B. Requirements for Additional Proiect Information Some portions of open coastal waters, generally areas without especially significant plant or animal life, may not be considered environmentally To meet the statutory requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233, 30236, sensitive habitat areas. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas within open and 30240 of the Coastal Act, an applicant for a permit to develop within or coastal waters may include "Areas of Special Biological Significance as near an environmentally sensitive habitat area may be required to submit identified by the State Water Resources Control Board, habitats of rare or supplemental information, including any or all of the maps described below. endangered plant and animal species, nearshoro reefs, rocky intertidal areas The size of the study area will depend upon natural topographic features, (such as tidepools), and kelp beds. location of existing development, and potential biological significance of adjacent lands. In undeveloped areas, the required study area may extend 500 feet or more around the environmentally sensitive habitat area, but the 500 foot distance is not an. absolute standard. It is recommended that this information be developed before the application comes before the Commission, but the Commission may require additional information as a part of its permit process. A "riparian habitat" is an area of riparian vegetation. This vegetation is an association of plant species which grows adjacent to freshwater watercourses, When there is a dispute over the adequacy of the information, the Commission including perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and other bodies of fresh will request the State Department of Fish and Game to review the material and water (see Appendix D). submit written comments to the Commission. A qualified private professional acceptable to the applicant may be employed by the Commission to assist in this review or to provide additional information. The Commission may require the applicant to reimburse it for any reasonable expenses incurred in providing III. wHEJ IS DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED IN AN ENVI3RONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT additional information or in the review of the applicant's information. AREA? 1. Maps "Development" is defined in Section 30106 of the Coastal Act, and includes 1. Maps the placement of fill; construction or alteration of any structure or facility; a. Topographic base map. The base map should be at a scale suf- discharge of any waste material; dredging or extraction of any materials; change ficiently large to permit clear and accurate depiction of vegeta- in the density or intensity of use of land; removal or harvest of major vegeta- tive associations and soil types in relation to any and all tion except for agricultural purposes; and other alterations to the land and proposed development (normally the scale required will be 1"-200'). water in the coastal zone (see Appendix A). Contour intervals should be five feet, and the map should contain a north arrow, graphic bar scale, and a citation for the source -I ()0D- of the base map (including the data). The map should show ole following information: I ~- The report should describe and analyze the following: 1) Boundary lines of the applicant's property and adjacent property, including assessor's parcel numbers, as well as the a. Present extent of the habitat, and if available, maps, boundaries of any tidelands, submerged lands or public trust photographs or drawings-showing historical extent of the habitat lands. area. 2) Names and locations of adjacent or nearby roads, streets or highways, and other important geographic, topographic and b. Previous and existing ecological conditions. physical features. 1) The life history, ecology and habitat 3) Location and elevation of any levees, dikes or flood requirements of the relevant resources, such as plants, fish control channels. and wildlife, in sufficient detail to permit a biologist familiar with similar systems to infer functional 4) Location, size and invert elevation of any culverts or tide relationships (the maps described in above may supply part of gates. this information). 2) Restoration potentials. b. Inundation map. For nontidal wetlands, a map should be prepared indicating permanent or seasonal patterns of inundation (including sources) in a year of normal rainfall. c. Present and potential adverse physical and biological impacts on the ecosystem. c. Vegetation map. Location and names of plant species (e.g., Salicornia virginica) and vegetation associations (e.g., saltmarsh). This map should be prepared by a qualified ecologist d. Alternatives to the proposed development, including different or botanist based upon the technical criteria provided in Appendix projects and off-site alternatives. D. c. Soils map. If no soil survey is available, a soils map should e. Mitigation measures, including restoration measures and be prepared by a qualified soils scientist, and should show the proposed buffer areas (see pp. 14-17 and pp. 20-23). location of soil types and include a physical description of their characteristics based upon the technical criteria provided in Appendix D. f. If the project includes dredging, explain the following: 1) The purpose of the dredging. 2. Supplemental information 2) The existing and proposed depths. A report should be prepared which demonstrates that all of the criteria for development in environmentally sensitive habitat areas 3) The volume (cubic yards) and area (acres or square have been met. The report should investigate physical and feet) to be dredged. biological features existing in the habitat area and evaluate the impact of the development on the existing ecosystem. The 4) Location of dredging (e.g., estuaries, open coastal information should be prepared by an ecologist or professional waters or streams). environmental scientist with expertise in the ecosystem in which the development is proposed. For example, in preparing such a 5) The location of proposed spoil disposal. report for a proposed development in a salt marsh, the expertise of a qualified wetland ecologist, botanist, ornithologist, 6) The grain size distribution of spoils. hydrologist, soil scientist or other technical professional may be required. The report should be based on an on-site investigation, 7) The occurrence of any pollutants in the dredge spoils. in addition to a review of the existing information on the area, and should be sufficiently detailed to enable the Commission to determine potential immediate and long range impacts of the g. If the project includes filling, identify the type of f1tl proposed project. material to be used, including pilings or other structures, and specify the proposed location for the placement of the fill, the quantity to be used and the surface area to be covered. -102- I D3_1 h. If the project includes diking, identify on a map the location, size (length, top and base width, depth and 3. Coastal-dependent industrial facilities2, such as commercial elevation of the proposed dike(s)) as well as the location, size fishing facilities. and invert elevation of any existing or proposed culverts or tide gates. 4. Maintenance of existing or restoration of previously dredgei depths in navigation channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring i. If the project is adjacent to a wetland and may cause mud areas, and boat launching ramps. waves, a report shall be prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer which explains ways to preve~nt or mitigate the problem. 5. Incidental public service purposes which temporarily impact the resources of the area, which include, but are not limited to, burying cables and pipes, inspection of piers, and maintenance of existing j. Benchmark and survey data used to locate the project, intake and outfall lines (roads do not qualify)3. the lines of highest tidal action, mean high tide, or other 6. Restoration projects.4 reference points applicable to the particular project. (continued on next page) k. Other governmental approvals required and obtained. Indicate the public notice number of Army Corps of Engineers permit if applicable. Any maps or technical data submitted by the applicant will be subject to re- view by the State Department of Fish and Game, the State Lands Commission, or other applicable agencies who may submit comments to the Commission. IV. DEVELOPMENTS PERMITTED IN WETLANDS AND ESTUARIES Of all the environmentally sensitive habitat areas mentioned specifically in the Coastal Act,: wetlands and estuaries are afforded the most stringent pro- tection. In order to approve a project involving the diking, filling1, or dredging of a wetland or estuary, the Commission must first find that the.pro- ject is one of the specific, enumerated uses set forth in Section 30233 of the Act (hesedevelpmens andactiitie are iste in sctio A. 'nd B be-2 For the purposes of this guideline, a coastal-dependent industrial facility Act (these developments and activities are listed in section A. and B. be- i n hc eursasr n rajcn o h e ofnto.Seas is one which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to function. See also low). The Commission must then find that the project meets all three requirements of Section 30233 of the Act (see pp. 14-17). In addition, permitted development in these areas must meet the requirements of other 3 When no other alternative ex'ists, and when consistent with the other pro- applicable provisions of the Coastal Act. visions of this section, limited expansion of roadbeds and bridges necessary to maintain existing traffic capacity may be permitted. Activities described in the Commission's Guideline on Exclusions from Permit Requirements applicable to A. Developments and Activities Permitted in Wetlands and Estuaries inads also should be consulted. . Restoration projects allowable under Section 30233 are discussed in detail 1. Fort facilities.a n p . 1 14 on pp. 13-14. 2. Energy facilities. The Coastal Act defines "fill" as '... earth or any other substances or material, including pilings placed for the purposes of erecting structures thereon, placed in a submerged area" (Section 30108.2). -104- 7. Nature study, aquaculture,5 or similar resource-dependent activities B. Snecial Limitations on Development in Those Coastal Wetlands Identified by the Deoartment of Fish and Game 8. In wetland areas, only entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities7 may be constructed, except that in a degraded wetland, other boating facilities may be permitted according to the Pursuant to Section 30233(c) of the Act, the type and amount of development requirements of Section 3041L discussed on pp. 23-27. in the coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game is even 9. or expanded b ing facilis in euaries. 9 more limited than those developments set forth in section A. above. 9. New or expanded boating facilities in estuaries. 9 Not all coastal wetlands are identified by the Department of Fish and Game; rather, only 19 are identified for acquisition purposes in their report, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California." However, the Department of Fish and Game may identify additional coastal wetlands pursuant to Section 30233(c). If the Department elects to identify additional wetlands pursuant to Section 30233(c), the Commission recommends that the Department develop standards and procedures for doing so. Wetlands not identified by the 5 Aquaculture is not defined in the Coastal Act. The definition contained in pa ent of Fish and Gam Wetlands not identified by th Department of Fish and Game are still protected by the'Coastal Act, becarse Public Resources Code, Division 1, Chapter 4, Section 828 will be used for the development in any wetland as defined in the Coastal Act (see section II A., purposes of this guideline. ". . . 'aquaculture' means the culture and above) must meet the requirements of Section 30233 and other applicable se-tions husbandry of aquatic organisms, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, of the Act. The coastal wetlands identified for acquisition purposes to date mollusks, crustaceans, kelp and algae. Aquaculture shall not mean the culture are as follows: and husbandry of commercially utilized inland crops, including, but not limited to, rice, watercress, and bean sprouts." Aquaculture activities could only be sited in a wetland or estuary if they depended upon the resources of the wetland 1. Lake Earl 11. Carpenteria Marsh or estuary to be able to function at all. Support facilities which could be 2. Ten Mile River 12. Upper Newport Bay located on upland sites (e.g., parking lots, buildings) would not be permitted 3. Big River 13. Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the wetland or estuary. This requirement is not intended to discourage 4. Bodega Bay 14. Batiquitos Lagoon aquaculture projects or to prohibit vertical access. The Coastal Act encourages 5. Estero Americano 15. San Elijo Lagoon aquaculture. 6. Estero de San Antonio 16. San Dieguito Lagoon 7. Pescadero Marsh 17. Los Penasquitos Lagoon 6 For the purposes of this guideline, similar resource-dependent activities . eLkhorn Slough 18. South San Diego Bay 9. Elkhorn Slough 18. South San Diego Bay include scientific research, hunting and fishing (where otherwise permitted). In 9. Morro Bay 19. Tijuana River addition, when wetlands are seasonally farmed, the continued use of agriculture 10. Santa Maria River is allowed. Expanding farming operations into non-farmed wetlands by diking or otherwise altering the'functional capacity of the wetland is not permitted. Farm-related structures (including barns, sheds, and farm-owner occupied Development permitted in the wetland portions of those areas named above is housing) necessary for the continuance of the existing operation of the farmed limited to the following: wetlands may be located on an existing farmed wetland parcel, only if no alternative upland location is available for such purpose and the structures are sited and designed to minimize the adverse environmental effects on the farmed 1. Very minor incidental public facilities which temporarily impact wetland. Clustering and other construction techniques to minimize both the land the resources of the area, such as the inspection of piers, and the area covered by such structures and the amount of fill necessary to protect such maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines (see footnote 43). structures will be required. 2. Wetland restoration. 7 Boating facilities include, but are not limited to, boat landings, boat launching ramps, and marinas. 3. Nature study. 8 The term "degraded wetland" (emphasis added) is discussed on pp. 24-25. 4. Commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay (the meaning of this phrase is further defined in Section 30233(c)). 9 The list of developments permitted in wetlands and estuaries is the same except that new or expanded boating facilities ire permitted in estuaries but 5. Development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay. are not permitted in wetlands. -106- -117- Additional flexibility will be allowed for restoration projects located in C. Restoration Projects Permitted in Section 30233 wetlands which are degraded (as that term is used in Section 30411 of the Coastal Act). Section VIII discusses the requirements of such projects. Restoration projects which are a permitted development in Section 30233 (a)(7) are publicly or privately financed projects in which restoration is the D. Requirements for All Permitted Development sole purpose of the project. The Commission found in its decision on the Chula Vista LCP that projects which provide mitigation for non- permitted development Any proposed project which is a permitted development must also meet the may not be broadly construed to be restoration projects in order to avoid the three statutory requirements enumerated below, in the sequence shown: strict limitations of permitted uses in Section 30233. 1. Diking, filling or dredging of a wetland or estuary will only be permitted if there is no feasiblel0 less environmentally Restoration projects may include some fill for non-permitted uses if the damaging alternative (Section 30233(a)). The Commission may require wetlands are small, extremely isolated and incapable of being restored. This the applicant to submit any or all of the information described in limited exception to.Section 30233 is based on the Commission's growing section III. B. above. experience with wetlands restoration. Small extremely isolated wetland parcels that are incapable of being restored to biologically productive systems may be 2. If there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, filled and developed for uses not ordinarily allowed only if such actions feasible mitigation measures must be provided to minimize adverse establish stable and logical boundaries between urban and wetland areas and if environmental effects. the applicant provides funds sufficient to accomplish an approved restoration program in the same general region. All the following criteria must be a. If the project involves dredging, mitigation measures must satisfied before this exception is granted: include at least the following (Section 30233(b)): 1) Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption11 to wetland 1. The wetland to be filled is so small (e.g., less than I acre) and habitats and to water circulation. so isolated (i.e., not contiguous or adjacent to a larger wetland) that it is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of 2) Limitations may be imposed on the timing of the oper- biological productivity without major restoration activities. ation, the type of operation, the quantity of dredged mater- ial removed, and the location of the spoil site. 2. The wetland must not provide significant habitat value to wetland fish and wildlife species, and must not be used by any species which 3) Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment shall, is rare or endangered. (For example, such a parcel would usually be where feasible, be transported to appropriate beaches or unto completely surrounded by commercial, residential, or industrial suitable longshore current systems. development which are incompatible with the existence of the wetland as a significant habitat area). 3. Restoration of another wetland to mitigate for fill can most feasibly be achieved in conjunction with filling a small wetland. 4. Restoration of a parcel to mitigate for the fill (see pp. 14-17 for details about required mitigation) must occur at a site which is next to a larger, contiguous wetland area providing significant 10 "Feasible" is defined in Section 30108 of the Act to mean "... capable of habitat value to fish and wildlife which would benefit from the being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, addition of more area. In addition, such restoration must occur in taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." the same general region (e.g., within the general area surrounding the A feasible less environmentally damaging alternative may involve a location for same stream, lake or estuary.where the fill occurred). the proposed development which is off the project site on lands not owned by the applicant. Feasible under the Coastal Act is not confined to economic 5. The Department of Fish and Game and the U,S. Fish and Wildlife considerations. Environmental, social and technological factors also shall be Service have determined that the proposed restoration project can be considered in any determination of feasibility. successfully carried out. uI To avoid significant disruption to wetland habitats and to water circulation the functional capacity of a wetland or estuary must be maintained. Functional capacity is discussed on page 17. 4) Other mitigation measures may include opening up areas to 3) However, if no appropriate restoration sites under tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or options I and 2 are available, the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee of sufficient value to an appropriate public The Executive Director or the Commission may request the agency for the purchase and restoration of an area of Department of Fish and Game to review dredging plans for developments in or adjacent to wetlands or estuaries. The This third option would be allowed only if the applicant is Department may recommend measures to mitigate disruptions to unable to find a willing seller of a potential restoration habitats or to water circulation. site. The public agency may also face difficulties in b. If the project involves diking or filling of a wetland. re- acquiring appropriate sites even though it has the ability to quired minimum mitigation measures are the following-12 condemn property. Thus, the in-lieu fee shall reflect the additional costs of acquisition, including litigation, as well as the cost of restoration. If the public agency's 1) If an appropriate restoration site is available, the applicant shall submit a detailed restoration plan which restoration project is not already approved by the includes provisions for purchase and restoration of an Commission, the public agency may need to be a equ ivalent area of es for pqualt or greater biological co-applicant for a coastal development permit to provide equivalent area of equal or greater biological conditions can be imposed to assure productivity13 and dedication of the land to a public adequate assurance that conditions c an he imposed to assure agency or otherwise permanently restricts its use for open that the purchase of the perm it. n addition such restoration must space purposes. The site shall be purchased before the dike occur in the same general region (e.g., within the same or fill development may proceed. stream, lake, pr estuary where the fill occurred). 2) The applicant may, in some cases, be permitted to open A preferred restoration program would remove fill from a formerly equivalent areas to tidal action4 or provide other sources productive wetland or estuary hicis no biologically of surface water. This method of mitigation would be unproductive dry land and would establish a tidbiologically appropriate if the applicant already owned filled, diked to assure adequate flushing. Few if any restoration projects have areas which themselves were not environmentally sensitive tobeen implemented for a sufficient length of time to provide much habitat areas but would become so, if such areas were opened guidance as to the long-term restorability of such areas. Since to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface such projects necessarily involve many uncertainties, restoration water. should preceed the diking or filling project. At a minumum, the permit will be conditioned to assure that restoration will occur simultaneously with project construction. Restoration and management plans shall be submitted with the permit application. 12 Mitigation measures shall not be required for temporary or short-term fill The restoration plan should generally state when restoration work or diking, if and only if a bond or other evidence of financial responsibility will commence and terminate, should include detailed diagrams Ls provided to assure that restoration will be accomplished in the shortest drawn to scale showing any alterations to natural landforms, and feasible time. For the purposes of this guideline, short-term generally means should include a list of plant species to be used as well as the that the fill or dikes would be removed immediately upon completion of the method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession, construction of the project necessitating the short-term fill or diking (Section vegetative transplanting, etc.). 30607.1). vegetative transplanting, etc.). 30607.1). The management plan would constitute an agreement between the 13 For an area to be of "equal or greater biological .productivity," it must applicant and the Commission to guarantee the wetland is restored provide equivalent or greater habitat values to the same type and variety of to the extent established under stated management objectives and plant and animal species which use the area affected by the proposal. withe exten t a specified time frame. within a specified time frame. 14 "Opening up equivalent areas to tidal action" means to permanently open to The plan should describe the applicant's responsibilities in tidal action former intertidal wetlands capable of providing equal or greater maintaining the restored area to assure the Commission that the biological productivity. Mitigation measures should restore areas which are no project will be successful. The management plan should g:ner.tly longer functioning in a manner beneficial to wetland species. For example, include provisions for a monitoring pr and for making ny returning a diked-off, formerly saltwater, but presently freshwater marsh to include provisions or a m onitoring program and for a king tidal action would not constitute mitigation. However, improving tidal flusningation site by removing tide gates, digging tidal channels and clearing culverts might qualify, if the Commission determines that such actions would restore an area to III- equal or greater habitat value than the area lost. - lb-- The applicant should periodically submit reports on the project which give information on the following: C. Provisions Applicable to Prooosed Develooment in Wetlands and Estuaries Within Port Jurisdictions - distribution and type of vegetation established Development within those portions of the Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, Los - benthic invertebrate abundance Angeles, and San Diego Unified Port District lying within the coastal zone is generally governed by the provisions contained in Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act. However, wetlands and estuaries which have been identified on the Commission's Port Jurisdiction Maps (adopted by the Commission on April 6, 1977 pursuant to - fish and other vertebrate abundance Section 30710) are not governed by the provisions of Chapter 8, but instead are subject to Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act as described above in this section (Section 30700). 3. Diking, tilling or dredging of a wetland or estuary Imust maintain Chapter 8 treats all other "ater areas" (term used in this chapter only) or enhance the funtional capacity of the wetland or estuary [Section without regard to whether such areas may be considered 'wetland," 'estuary" or 30233(c)]. Functional capacity means the ability of the wetland or "opn coastal waters" as described in this guideline. estuary to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity5 .In order to establish that the functional capacity is The diking, filling or dredging of any water area within one of these ports being maintained, the applicant must demonstrate all of the following: is limited by the following sections of the Coastal Act: 30705, 30706 and 30708 (these sections are provided in full in Appendix A). The diking, filling or a. That the project does not alter presently occurring plant and dredging of any wetlands or estuaries lying within any port or harbor district animal populations in the ecosystem in a manner that would impair or authority not named in Chapter 8 (e.q., Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and the long-term stability of the ecosystem; i.e., natural species Conservation District and Moss Landing Harbor District) is subject to Chapter 3 diversity, abundance and composition are essentially unchanged as policies of the Coastal Act as described above in this section. a result of the project. b. That the project does not harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered. V. DEVELOPMENTS PERITITErD IN OPEN COASTAL WATERS AND LAKES c. That the project does not harm a species or habitat that is Section 30233 lists the types of developments for which diking, filling or essential to the natural biological functioning of the wetland or dredging may be permitted in open coastal waters and lakes. This Section also estuary. states requirements for determining when those developments are permitted. The types of development identified below are the only ones that are permitted in d. That the project does not significantly reduce consumptive open coastal waters and lakes, and may only be permitted if consistent with the (e.g., fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or nonconsumptive (e.g., development requirements for these habitat areas. water quality and research opportunity) values of the wetland or estuarine ecosystem. A. Developments and Activities Permitted in Ooen Coastal Waters and Lakes 1. All developments allowed in wetlands and estuaries described as Items 1-7 (section IV. A). 15 The intention here is to convey the importance of not only how many species there are but also the size of their populations (abundance) and the relative 2 Now or expanded boating facilities. importance of the different species to the whole system (composition). It cannot be overemphasized that the presence of a species by itself is an inadequate 3. In portions of open coastal waters that are not environmentally indicator of the condition of a natural system. In a "healthy" wetland sensitive habitat areas,16 sand or gravel may be extracted. ecosystem, the absolute number of individuals of a species and the relative number compared to other species will depend on the size of the organism and its place in the food web (what it feeds on, what feeds on it, and what competes with it for the same food or other resources). H4ajor changes in absolute or relative numbers of some species will have far-reaching consequences for the 16 it shall be the responsibility of the permit applicant to provide evidence whole ecosystem because of their interactions with other species. that the area i not an environmentally sensitive habitat area The Zxecutive airector or the Commission will usually require an applicant for a permit to extract minerals from open coastal waters to submit supplemental information. -112- B. Requirements for All Permitted Developments 2. Flood control projects shall be subject to both of the Any proposed project which first is a permitted development as listed above following conditions (Section 30236): must also meet the two statutory requirements enumerated below in the sequence shown. a. The project must be necessary for public safety or to protect existing development. 1. Diking, filling or dredging of open coastal waters or lakes will only be permitted if there is no feasible less environmentally damaging b. There must be no other feasible method for alternative (Section 30233(a)). protecting existing structures in the floodplain. 2. If there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, 3. Boating facilities constructed in streams are subject to the feasible mitigation measures must be provided to minimize adverse same requirements as boating facilities constructed elsewhere. environmental effects (Section 30233(a)). VI. DEVELOPMENTS PERMITTED IN STREAMS AND RIVERS VII. STANDARDS FOR SITING DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS Sections 30236 and 30233 of the Coastal Act list all permitted developments in streams and rivers, including dams, channelizations, or other substantial alterationsl7. The general policies for development adjacentl8 to environmentally sensitive habitat areas appear in Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act: A. Permitted Developments in Streams and Rivers "Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas 1. Necessary water supply projects. shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible 2. Flood control projects. with the continuance of such habitat areas." (emphasis added) 3. Developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. A. Criteria for Reviewing Proposed Development Adjacent to Environmentally 4. New or expanded boating facilities. Sensitive Habitat Areas As with development located in environmentally sensitive habitat areas,-the B. Requirements for All Development key standard for evaluating development adjacent to such areas is the extent to which the proposed development maintains the functional capacity of such areas Any proposed project which is a permitted development must also meet the (the standards to evaluate whether the functional capacity is being maintained following statutory requirements: are located on page 17). A development which does not significantly degrade an environmentally sensitive habitat area will maintain the functional capacity of i. All channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations that area. The type of proposed development, the particulars of its design, of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation location in relation to the habitat area, and other relevant factors all affect measures feasible to minimize adverse environmental effects. the determination of functional capacity. 18 Adjacent means situated near or next to, adjoining, abutting or juxtaposed 17 Substantial alterations shall include cnannelizations, dams, or comparable to an environmentally sensitive habitat area. This will usually mean that any projects which significantly disrupt the habitat value of a particular river or development proposed in an undeveloped area within a distance of up to 500 feet stream. A development which does not significantly disrupt the habitat value of from an environmentally sensitive habitat area will be considered to be adjacent a particular river or stream is one which maintains or enhances the functional to that habitat area. In developed areas factors such as the nature, location capacity of that river or stream. Roads and bridges necessary to cross streams and extent of existing development will be taken into consideration. and rivers may be permitted if there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and if feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. -I 5- -I14- Accordingly, the Commission may set limits and conditions to development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas based upon any or all of the feeding, breeding 'or resting). This determination requires the following sections of the Coastal Act: 30230; 30231; 30233; 30236; and 30240. expertise of an ecologist, wildlife biologist, ornithologist or The Commission has required the following types of mitigation measures: botanist who is familiar with the particular type of habitat involved. setbackse buffer strips.; noise barriers; landscape plans; pervious surfacing Where a significant functional relationship exists, the land with drainage control measures to direct storm run-off away from environmentally supporting this relationship should also be considered to be part of sensitive habitat areas; buffer areas in permanent open space; land dedication the environmentally sensitive habitat area, and the buffer area should for erosion control; and wetland 'restoration, including off-site drainage be measured from the edge of these lands and be sufficiently wide to improvements. This section only discusses the requiements for establishing the protect these functional relationships. 'Where no significant width of buffer areas. It does not discuss any other measures as noted above functional relationships exist, the buffer should be extended from the which may also be necessary and more appropriate to ensure that the development edge of the wetland, stream or riparian habitat (for example) which is is compatible with the continuance of the habitat area. adjacent to the proposed development (as opposed to the adjacent area which is significantly related ecologically). B. Criteria for Establishinq Buffer Areas 2. Sensitivity of species to disturbance. The width of the buffer area should be based, in part, on the distance necessary to ensure that the most sensitive species of plants and animals will not be A buffer area provides essential open space between the development and the disturbed significantly by the permittted development. Such a environmentally sensitive habitat area. The existance of this open space determination should be based on the following: ensures that the type and scale of development proposed will not significantly degrade the habitat area (as required by Section 30240). Therefore, development allowed in a buffer area is limited to access paths, fences necessary to protect a. Nesting, feeding, breeding, resting or other habitat the habitat area, and similar uses which have either beneficial effects or at requirements of both resident and migratory fish and wildlife least no significant adverse effects on the environmentally sensitive habitat species. area. A buffer area is not itself a part of the environmentaly sensitive habitat area, but a "buffer" or "screen" that protects the habitat area from b. An assessment of the short-term and long-term adaptibility of adverse environmental impacts caused by the development. various species to human disturbance. A buffer area should be established for each development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas based on the standards enumerated below. 3. Susceptibility of parcel to erosion. The width of the buffer The width of a buffer area will vary depending upon the analysis. The buffer area should be based, in part, on an assessment of the slope, soils, area should be a minimum of 100 feet for small projects on existing lots (such impervious surface coverage, runoff. characteristics, and vegetative as one single family home or one commercial office building) unless the cover of the parcel and to what degree the development will change applicant can demonstrate that 100 feet is unnecessary to protect the resources the potential for erosion. A sufficient buffer to allow for the of the habitat area. If the project involves substantial improvements or interception of any additional material eroded as a result of the increased human impacts, such as a subdivision, a much wider buffer area should proposed development should be provided. be required. For this reason the guideline does not recommend a uniform width. The appropriate width will vary with the analysis based upon the standards. 4. Use of natural topographic features to locate development. Hills and bluffs adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas should For a wetland, the buffer area should be measured from the landward edge of be used, where feasible, to buffer habitat areas. Where otherwise the wetland (Appendix D). For a stream or river, the buffer area should be permitted, development should be located on the sides of hills away measured landward from the landward edge of riparian vegetation or from the top from environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Similarly, bluff faces edge of the bank (e.g., in channalized streams). Maps and supplemental should not be developed, but should be included in the buffer area. information may be required to determine these boundaries. Standards for determining the appropriate width of the buffer area are as follows: 5. Use of existing cultural features to locate buffer zones. Cultural features, (e.g., roads and dikes) should be used, where feasible, to buffer habitat areas. Where feasible, development 1. Biological significance of adjacent lands. Lands adjacent to a should be located on the side of roads, dikes, irrigation canals, wetland, stream, or riparian habitat area vary in the degree to which flood control channels, etc., away from the environmentally sensitive they are functionally related to these habitat areas. That is, habitat area. functional relationships may exist if species associated with such areas spend a significant portion of their life cycle on adjacent lands. The degree of significance would depend upon the habitat requirements of the species in the habitat area (e.g., nesting, 1,- l fl7- 6. Lot configuration and location of existing development. Where an existing subdivision or other development is largely built-out and be maintained and where feasible restored, through, among other means, the buildings are a uniform distance from a habitat area, at least encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that same distance will be required as a buffer area for any new that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. dqvelopment permitted. However, if that distance is less than 100 feet, additional mitigation measures (e.g., planting of native Section IV C previously discussed "restoration purposes," a permitted use in vegetation which grows locally) should be provided to ensure Section 30233(a)(7). Projects which qualify for consideration as a "restoration additional protection. Where development is proposed in an area purpose" will be solely restoration projects, including only those permitted which is largely undeveloped, the widest and most protective buffer uses listed in Section 30233(a). Such projects may be carried out on we lands area feasible should be required. which have not been determined to be degraded by the Department of Fish an, Gaus. It is anticipated that public or private agencies performing restoration 7. Type and scale of development proposed. The type and scale of of wetland habitat areas by restoring tidal action, removing fill, establishing the proposed development will, to a large degree, determine the size appropriate contours, and performing other similar activities will be permitted of the buffer area necessary to protect the environmentally sensitive under Section 30233. habitat area. For example, due to domestic pets, human use and vandalism, residential developments may not be as compatible as light This section discusses a second alternative approach to wetland restoration, industrial developments adjacent to wetlands, and may therefore applicable only to wetlands formally determined by the Department of Fish and require wider buffer areas. However, such evaluations should be made Game to be degraded and in need of major restoration activities, according to on a case-by-case basis depending upon the resources involved, and the procedures and requirements of Section 30411. By including Section 30411 in the type and density of development on adjacent lands. the Coastal Act, the Legislature provided the Commission and the Department with a means to encourage landowners and public agencies to develop restoration projects which can be implemented with public or pricate funds. Restoration VIII. RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF WETLAND HABITAT AREAS projects under this approach may include uses that are not permitted in Section 30233 if the project meets all of the other requirements of Section 30233 and 30411. Originally there were approximately 300,000 acres of coastal wetlands in California; now there are about 79,000 acres (excluding San Francisco Bay). In The Commission has closely examined the relationship of the two alternative addition to those acres lost, many wetlands have been severely altered through approaches to restoration. The Coastal Act expressly distinguishes degraded filling and/or sedimentation. The Coastal Commission encourages public agencies from non-degraded wetlands. The importance of the distinction is related to the and landowners to work towards restoration and enhancement of these altered flexibility in consideration of permitted uses. Thus, Section 30233 allows the wetlands. Commission to consider seven enumerated permitted uses in all wetlands without the mandatory involvement of the Department of Fish and Game. Section 30233 Restoration of habitat areas is strongly encouraged in the Coastal Act. The expressly allows only one additional use, a boating facility, in wetlands which Legislature found that the protection, maintenance, and, where feasible, the Department has determined to be degraded and in need of major restoration. enhancement and restoration of natural resources is a basic goal of the Act In making this determination, the Department must consider all "feasible ways" (Section 30001.5). Section 30230 requires that marine resources be maintained, other than a boating facility to accomplish restoration of degraded wetlands. enhanced, and restored where feasible; that special protection be given to areas The Commission interprets the boating facilities reference in Section and species of special biological or economic significance; and that uses of the 30233(a)(3) to include the "other feasible ways" of restoration which the marine environment be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological Department must consider in Section 30411(b)(3). The remainder of this Section productivity19 of coastal waters and will maintain "healthy populations"20 addresses the requirements of Section 30411. of all species of marine organisms. Section 30231 requires that the biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain "optimum populations"21 of marine organisms 'A. Identification of Deqraded Wetlands The Department of Fish and Game must identify degraded wetlands. Generally, coastal wetlands are considered degraded if they were formerly tidal but their present resource value has been greatly impaired because they are 19 In general, biological productivity means the amount of organic material presently diked or otherwise modified and, as a result, tidal influence has produced per unit time. For the purposes of this guideline, the concept of ceased or is greatly diminished. The Department has not yet transmitted to the biological productivity also includes the degree to which a particular habitat Commission its criteria or procedures for identifying degraded wetlands, but the area is being used by fish and wildlife species. Thus, an area supporting more Commission considers the following factors relevant to determining whether or species of fish and wildlife would be considered more productive than an area not a particular wetland is degraded. supporting fewer species, all other factors (e.g., the amount of vegetative cover, the presence or absence of endangered species, etc.) being equal. 1. Amount and elevation of filled areas. 20&21 These phrases refer generally to the maintenance of natural species diversity, abundance, and compositon. -I I')- -118- 2. Number and location of dikes and other artificial impediments to tidal action and freshwater flow and the ease of removing them to C. Requirements applicable to Restoration of Degraded Wetlands in allow tidal action to resume. Conjunction with boating Facilities 3. Degree of topographic alterations to the wetland and associated Section 30411 explicitly provides for the construction of boating facilities areas. when this is the most feasible and least environmentally damaging means to restore a particular degraded wetland. Recognition of boating facilities as a 4. Water quality. use in Section 30411 is consistent with the Coastal Act's emphasis on promoting recreational use of the shoreline (see Section 30224). The specific 5. Substrate quality. requirements for boating facilities are discussed in overlapping portions of Sections 30233 and 30411 as follows: 6. Degree of encroachment from adjacent urban land uses. 1. At least 752 of the degraded wetland area should be restored and 7. Comparison of historical environmental conditions with current maintained as a highly productive wetland in conjunction with the conditions, including changes in both the physical and biological boating facilities project (Section 30411(b)(2)). environment. 2. The size of the wetland area used for the boating facilities, including 8. Consideration of current altered wetland conditions and their berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any current contribution to coastal wetland wildlife resources with necessary support service facilities, cannot be greater than 25 percent relation to potential restoration measures. of the total area to be restored (Section 30233(a)(3)). 9. Chemical cycling capabilities of the wetland including water quality enhancement, nutrient accumulation, nutrient recycling, D. Requirements Applicable to Restoration of Degraded Wetlands Usilg etc. Projects Other Than Boating Facilities Section 30411 does not explicitly identify the other types of restoration As part of this identification process, the extent of wetlands on the site projects. However, such projects are encouraged if they promote the restoration must be identified with precision. of degraded areas and if boating facilities are not feasible. An example would include flood control projects undertaken by a public agency. Such projects may be permitted under Section 30411 if they restore channel depths, are designed to B. Requirements Applicable to All Restoration Proiects enhance the functional capacity of the wetland area, and are the least environmentally damaging alternative to achieve restoration. Under the Act, the Department of Fish and Game, in consultation with the Commission and the Department of Boating and Waterways, is responsible for Boating facilities may be compatible with a wetland ecologically if they identifying those degraded wetlands which can most feasibly be restored in (a). provide increased tidal flushing and deep-water habitat, but nonetheless it may If the Department undertakes a study, it shall include facts supporting the not be physically or economically feasible to locate such facilities in a following determinations: particular wetland. On the other hand, boating facilities may be feasible, but may be more environmentally damaging than other feasible means. For example, (1) The wetland is so severely degraded and its natural processes are so they may displace scarce intertidal habitats, introduce toxic substances, or substantially impaired that it is not capable of recovering and damage natural estuarine channels by causing excessive scouring due to increased maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major current velocities. restoration activities. According to Section 30411, at least 75 percent of a degraded wetland area (2) Restoration of the wetlands' natural values, including its biological must be restored in conjunction with a boating facility, and Section 30233 productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most feasibly achieved requires that a boating facility cannot exceed 25 percent of the wetland area to and maintained in conjunction with a boating facility. be restored. However, this may still result in the net loss of 20 percent of the wetland area. The Coastal Act allows this tradeoff because additional (3) There are no other feasible ways22 besides a boating facility to boating facilities in the coastal zone are a preferred coastal recreation use restore the wetland. and the Coastal Act explicitly provides for this type of wetland restoration project. Projects permitted under Section 30411 other than boating facilities should result in no net loss of the acreage of wetland habitat located on the site as a minimum. However, projects which result in a net increase in wetland habitat areas are greatly preferred in light of Coastal Act policies on wetland ' "Other feasible ways" includes only less environmentally damaging restoration and Senate Concurrent Resolution 29 which calls for an increase in alternative restoration projects; but may include uses not permitted Ln Section wetlands by 50% over the next 20 years. For example, it has been the 30233(a)(3) according to priorities discussed herein. 121 -120- Commission's experience in reviewing vegetation and soils information available for degraded wetlands in Southern California that sometimes wetland and upland sites are intermixed on a parcel. Since Section 30411 discusses percentage of wetland area as the standard of review for required restoration, the Commission will consider restoration plans which consolidate the upland and wetland portions on a site in order to restore a wetland area the same size or larger as the total number of acres of degraded wetland existing on the site. The first priority for restoration projects is restoration as permitted under Section 30233(a)(7). Other preferred options include restoration in conjunction with visitor serving commercial recreational facilities designed to increase public opportunities for coastal recreation. Thus, the priority for projects used to restore degraded wetlands under the Coastal Act in a list are as follows; ". "Restoration purposes" under 30233(a)(7). 2. Boating facilities, if they meet all of the tests of section C. (above). 3. Visitor serving commercial recreational facilities and other priority uses designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation.' 4. Private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development. The Coastal Act does not require the Department of Fish and Game to undertake studies which would set the process described in this section in motion. Likewise, the Commission has the independent authority and obligation under Section 30233 to approve, condition or deny projects which the Department may have recommended as appropriate under the requirements of Section 30411. This section is, however, included to describe, clarify, and encourage, public and private agencies to formulate innovative restoration projects to accomplish the legislative goals and objectives described earlier. Adopted February 4, 1981 APPENDIX A. APPLICABLE COASTAL ACT 1`1OIECS i. Coastail Act Definitions sectLion 30101. "Coastal-dependent development or use" ' 30106. "1Development""oat1demtuL eeonetors"mcas 30107. Eeg aiiy ajiy devoiopmnejim or utse whitth'requires a site 30107.5 "Environmentally sensitive area" mo!'Ijcmtttm e o10a~et 3O1O~~~~~. "Feasible" ~~~~~~~~~filkei.) fmiat all. 30108.2 -'Fill" 30121. "Wetland" "iDeveiopinmolkmt" 111call.1 oil laild, Ill or ummiler wate,0. 1.11w 1d acU111emaI. oi- erect) on or' ally alId 1mmatertal. or strilcture; dlaciiargci or dIalponal of any' d~rEaged material. or of ally gafneotig3, I IlkjI, o Id, I 0 9Or tI-en11uml. wildie; t'rad ing ruillovi 1mg, drod~gI~lg, wi~illing, oi- extractionm of' almy 11atOral~ala chilmage III tile dellsity or JILCIteSity of us3e of laium11Il, .e-ludilng, bUt ijt limited to subdivision pursuanti to t,1e 31ub14IS-k HialolmH Act (commmammelicinmg wRit Set~cion 661,.io of time (awerimsmest (bloe), anid aniy Other division of laldl including lot "pliS, except where time mmmii divIaion is brougiat alotmil. lom coiiiiect loam wi tim tile lpurchase or sucim JasidI I~y a ptmiii ageiicy for pulikic recveatoiiomal kUsej (3hmamige, LIN time13L Omtrist ofO ueOf water, oi- of accoss tHereto; Const~ructionl revolir- stats-iiCoil, delnol itlioma or alteration of Like size of miky structure, Irietiudl-sig ally faclllity or aniy private, uhi) le, or muumid.ellal WAiI ityj fmiel time removal or Ikarvestlitg of mmajor viegel~otitiom other timaii for agr.ictiltural. purpionses hehll havvestilug, amid ti imbr operatIomm imi utcii "ro Iiii accora'eiame wit timat limber havveslti plmg~dait fithlJttILed p~alrallaimt to thle pirovialolksm of time Z' ierl-Hojedi y Sorest Practceo Act or .i9'13 ( cfmimimeiH 11111 mmg i ti1en1 m i511I). Aq ti-jouIIIli thisi8~~tlom "I't ructulle Ilwmillies, bU11t I's mmot, 1 I mmmted to, ammy holi d ling, road, ph pel CImmi'(101mmmIm tsipihomip aquodlict, tol ejmlmome .1 lime itmi l o ~ i i vhwh-h-m pow(,w mu 1,-11.11Uilw 11aild 4ll v,rIikitlomi 1. (cont.) "ELluargy faclii Iy" 1118and ally puii Ic: or [it-vaco I)I4a(et I ig prdui rggelleraLi lig sLorinrgff LraluisItLLIaago or- recoverling facilJt AiLYr elew-Lctl iy, natural gas, petrol etwil coal, or oI.Isor uource of energy. "L1 ivi rmmi ua1]ialIy nonal Lve area" Mansac ally saroa In whilci. p1lant or azil.al. I ife or their ImbiaLaaa are elther rare or ospaciaily valuable Imcimso ol' Mieir special nature or role tirt ask feclsytiLemi andI Whisch could Ibe easily dl aturlied or tiegratl-lid by likunall activitiez3 and developileiats. "I.,asI ibl flia" asaa capable of bel aig accompli-alled Iil a 131wc0*anfl. nlianner witlais a reasonabl e p~~orlo of time, Lak lug into accounLi ecoanuimic, eauvi roimauseLall socilal, aanl LeeAINK)oHIcal "Fl'l"l' ineanss eartLii or aiw other substance or inaterial, lailtludling pilltaga placed for Clio pur- poses of Ierecting "cruccures thereonl placed in a oulmoorgelI area. "Wocia(I, aud"aeans I atult witi Lii at.th coastal zoite which. mlay lie (.overe'l pariocllcall y or IjoraneakaUaay wit-Lb :jlaciltow waiter anid Iinciutae jalltwal.ar maaralies, lfreai- wrsitig ii11aatrshest opcii or clo.-ild brack isal water anarshica, II. Coastal Act. Policies for the Location of New Boating Facilities Section 3021,. Recreational boating use; encouragement; i.', facilities * ~~~~~~~~~II'eroased recreatlonal. boatitig kino or eoaaai~a waters ithal.1I lie casi-ouraged-, lit atenordasiro wa it I-ills (JIviSI(IIII Iy dievoloplamg dry altorage aireas, Inacreasitig pub'i14Ic fiiimchia zg facl-.11Lies, III-(] vi dhig addlll iouil beri.Inig space.A ea xi stiLg Ia~z~aos, . limi uo ik~-walt~ox-depondueaa. I atil ainus Miat cotil-ozi acces.9 cori-Wors asd piroci tide ljoanatg stip~port Faclil I tis, proviultaig harborsv oAf �Cretga, taatd 1ky prov-iding for slew buaiaing i'aeil li ag lit iiatural hiat-bora, SION Irt cII water areCas, asil! hi aritas drudlged FIowa dry l and. I-. Ill. Coastal Act, Policies for Water and Marine Resources and Envivonfnentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Section 30230. Marine resources; maintenance. ~120 30231. Biological productivity; waste water. I M iii eltln"salb nlial"l lhlcd 30233. Diking, filling or dredging. Mrn ooic~ hl emmlaand mhtcd 30236. Water supply and flood control. andi Where feasible, rest1ored, Sp)ecial l31`01,eCUIlk 30240. Envilron-mentally sensitive habitat areas; 19liali be givema to areas alld species of Speci~al adjacent development. biological Or eConolliic sigxaificaiice. Uses DIV the mnarinie envilrotmikemat shall be carried out Inm a ainataner Chat will oustaita the biologi1cal prodikLamcvity of coastal watera aamd ULkat, will mata ntain heal thy popul atioois or' all species of minarinte organa isms adiequate for iageiicommeialrecreat ba mal, ad eit ific$ and educatiomial purposes. Ilime biological productivitLy agadl tie quality of' coastal waters, st~reams, wetClands, estuar~lese anid I ai( ". appropriate Lo maintain opLIM11111 popt-. latloams of' amarline organismms and for the protection or hufflan lineall tShall bea 11mmaintalned WHIdP where- feasibile, restor-ed tHroughk, ammong othier ineiams, muhniziiimoimg adverse effects of' waste water s.l- charges anld elltrai. mumielat, controli mg rluloffl pravelltlaag depldetion of gr-ounld water suppli[es and subsLatit ial 'Interference witih surface waet r flow, em tou agg waste water reclamiat oI 111ikalinatlim rg aiature Vegetation blafele areas thfat lrotect ri parn an habitLats, anid 1mmi tab mi z ring a Ltea'- ation of' natural streams. coa~tn I waltern, W011111U lii0i1, s.1aaurI n amill Iaku"I Shall 1iba nihLe 1mm ~Iei(lA,-c w. I ti othekr bImEl'& II() ~ I'0ik.511)1 U l :Coas uv i rain mmi(ta IaIy daummal-a I im .railVi, fiua lm Vi-O fees9Ihil e Uil 1A WO-loma m~miifi n ~ li y 1, ~~np1'VI iiti 1.o mu I iii mmii n) DIN(WHOL4. tuni ut mi~ i.~ Iel'Ii'm-ll stemill uhia ii lie 111ii m ed to ii. (co IL.) Ho Nw ol. expl~aiitei pioal-' (iative.ye allot const-al- ( 4 Icg agadso il-dsposal sabl I. la delantitlut ii. ral- Klewist lCc . I Inetic)tailaig (.011- planiaed asid carriled ouL Lo avoid ci gmaifieait, 111011cial 1,131111111 d~~~~~~~iltarupLioti La miarille 111(1WI (Hird e liaiILaln allot ( :~) Ha tile lii tag cxi il iig, o recioriwaLev ci rcuiatloi. Drodge spoilis an 1l-1)1 e for- (2)v tiasidy aidtigel oxlulaiac , iir res~ c is-ig ivigloiiiecaeptmiuea iolileIainore fr ehtattatl a~ I~tmii mi Iaeii ift,1,esneIberIIaitig taicach I~repoeisa loi shorid ale beacheslior~ .1ora iwiou I tgmlyao atmilp.11 doai iauiml IIIe'SII Iaviga renip V41.130 111,-11,11ilkl, 111H f(c) puradptose Lo appilate o ealie r JarOicIto (-I) ili t wmClai d areas otily,' eitlratiac cliauniel (c lii a sec iond ktog Ciliog olir (irodgisigin I'm loom 01 expatudosi hoeitivg facililles; 'aud iII a exiailai seamluar~digs and wellandor (1iacl1i cig ti]n 05 i li anii (Jluame puratiatti Lo subdivic lIot (1)) ol'o eliliatte the. IuiacLl onal Cajpacity of' I-le we-l'latmi rur boa~oig ValULI-asIf, hkor ecltuary. Ally alteralion or coastlel woilatais -Ao (lt j0lt Ii~lt IIia~ i at111c~ Idetlit,1ied lay Clioe Ibiartiuteii;kt' lao iti awd (Litte, colijuic-Leioll wil,1 ll. niula hULIltg facli 111cc, a miub- 1itIciAd~fitg, ol NIL , 11111Iled LO, Lile 19 COUjLti detalijll iii aoL it of Clio e (tgraded welatiuti we ndc -dtai.fe nhsrerteild oI.Omsorill mmil iia allallnod an a biologi~cal IY pro- 14Ac'jaiai lio Prior Ai s oraliher etloct1. e'l a flieu ye weCl aud1 provided, however, Cha.it. III) ol "Aqualto I'-0HCa forua, dai e liite caLo l very iiti MW t.vitill. ulial I ici size) of Clio weLlarid area used hi eIalpal ei ttc elrhu srs Coi mi.cuic Ixac.i ig rak.I lily, I uchuditig ijuvtia i g I(Adalitlrmte ratdy-VIRieimrela ficit tig acti i measti s spaceu harti tg 1)anIis taiincessary tatavigaL lot. Ridega flay, alu]dkotvel-opitent l n already deve1.1up(310 1.it11mtIsiu 111, ally Aioce.-Juary sul)p~ovt Derv ice par-La of south :fair Dl)ego Day, If oilithewise iii rao.Huca I a greater Lital 25 percumd. of theo accorciatiac will.Lilts divIsionl. Col-l u eaili areaCij it, res tiored. [at e0p'n coamulal waLers, oilier iita wt.L-- lof h Uricno il scin cuimr i (4)~~~~~~~~~~lo laki fioslhisa fad 111 en Ilk 11011ea Bany iteaks Lthal, iatiiff] ,114:41luiiug -Itr-eamic eu~ari en, Ilk)iee~ tao lesn Luai 1k) 1erCentL Of all boat'llag fatil 1.1c tIkw Oll expaailidd Wiattijtg racii lli c. iprotiused Lo be developed or Imtproved, Where, skuch Itimpixovmient, woul.d crea Le addi Iioztia -rt~is (5) Incl.dektlal public service IMuI-I)OB0a. II ibmiega flay. shall lie designied and isned for Illcludlig ilg hailK hail ed Lo, burying cald cc oiietes ~~t~m(alvl c ando pi pell or I nspection or' piers amid maitibetm- altee tit' wdting lnamlcake tu outrall 1iihes. S!(,'0,0 (6) Hhieiral exuracti-on, Inucludineg sanid rov rebtori aig beaciaea, except tin etmurouitentally ;lhamaunch I at i 0mm, daiim, 'Othr 0111 1' uuiiati. I ai Sotnil" ive areas. 1111.01-Alotin oft rivarn aftdr stroaloishallc io' (')ifesboraliota1 pIIarOese. porade [,he lest, litle n iota 11iaaNaUreS feCant ila (H) Nauesllalatilue rB~tarltil he ii umi led Co (i ne cnsuary water nmahipl y (U) N~ure ~ndyaettacul Luevrc ml t rojeclc, (2) I'looll collirlol projecltmi whlaoru ilm oilier imiellod foAw lel a exIntl tg inl larz ini 1.ii I'l(oodp fit;11I feunlsid. e aftad whriten mitic I aiOLOVuIA,lu IS Illt-iuno-tar y for Ilal Ic( vijal'uy (,II I.) r~u cl , fud c.-AI; ig deve I opulilL m- 41 (J) II... . I .~~~~Im 1)1-111,1.I 11111.-II'io. I..-I~a (a) vovirolentally neinsl Li ve hahi tat areas Where any dikce amlt fill1 developmnent 1.8 pet-all Liedi sall li e priotected againat any slg[1iri.cantl dis- ~atwiazads fil collf~ol'llt y WithLi this dtivisiur, I-kylioll of Iaahi-tat valuen, and only 4805 depetatleni i iainmaue hi nldat aIIiithn, ola suolk resources Shall be allowed WI Lthlt Buchl 111igt.1er a icakrinolitao shriall arlueas af equald.11f areas * ~~~~~~~~~~~or greater biotlogical. Productivity or openumag upl (14k-velolimusiL In areas adjacent to nifvironl- ulqu~ivl-ent, areas t-o tidal actiori1 provided, flow- immeaual ly :snitv habitat areas arid parks an-i effer, Chat 'if no appropiIate restoration .9iLO recrea~ton areas shall be sited and desig-n1ed to Is available , anl-l In eu fee sufficient to providie proveuiL lImpactsC Witch Would significantly degrade all at-Oa Of e'uvlUA111t Pluductive value or surface such areas, and shall be compatible wl-th thle con- areas uluall be dedicated to an appropriate tLI uancee of Buell habi tat areas. Public 0aencY, or Buch replacement site lhall be purelhased before tile (like or fill developammntli may Proceed. Suell amitigation measures shall lnot ~~ii~~~O, i0255. ~~~~~be required for temporary or hoart-terna fil, or flktugi provided, that, a bond or Other evidience of "iaieantla 1-63`pom15AsidlLY to provided to assures Coasah-~epiuhI&Ldevelopmaents halkli have that. rostorationl will bie accomiplishied its tile piriority over other developamenita onl or uaear shiortest feasible Cine. thIe OJaoruheiIn. Exccept an provaided elsewhere Inl this aldvisonr coastal-depwandeit develop- mcaah~s .9liall tnot be aited in a wetland. Whmeti alinronrlrato. coastal-related decoi mu.111a A-m-n-aoIll ka- accolmfodated wILIA~ziu reasnable iaroxiaulty to tile coastal-depeneidluu usea se Su~j1orL,, -T-aaaond by Cal. Stats. 1979, Mh. 109)0.) IVl. Coastal Act policies for Wetland Management. Programs Involving Other State Agencies Section 30411. Department of Fish and Game; Fish S W 0JI and Game Commissioni managementI programs; wetlands. (a) 11me iepartllomnt ofC Filh and luaicm andi Ume 14 al andl Game Waoinnms~ion are LIAO principal state agencies responsibie for the establish-. went andi control of wildlife and fishery 111allagemenet progranms and neither the commuission nor any regional coimmla-sioti sball establish or impose any controls witha respect thareto Chat duplicate or exceed regulatory control a estal-11I.Shed try such agencies pursuant to specific statutory requi remosits or authorization. (b'iliah WIjeartwentL of Fish and flamilke, In consumltation witl.Clhe cooviiimmtson and time IC-part- wammnt of' Navi gationm andi fitean DevelopumentL amay stiudy degraded wetlanlda amti identify timoseu wimicih call nost feasibly be restored to cost- junction with developiment of a boati~ng facility as provided in sbdnilvial-or (a) of' Sectiona 3023.3. Anly alit-I study salali linclde Consideration of all of' tile following11: (T) WhIetiker time wetland isto tnseverely degraded anti Its mmatural processes no sub-. tawittally impairod thialt ito Is t caiabl~e of recovering and 1mmaillamtIni11 a III& leVel Of b1)10ogi cal p) roduati vi ty wi.thmout major restoration activitis. (2) Whmethmer a substamtatla portion of tlime degraded wotl and WCutI ino event tons thani 15 purcent, can fie restored aud imairitaluned as a imighly productive wetland lain conjunction within a boating facilities project. (3) Whmether rest~oral~toma of Clio wotland'a miatuaral valmiene, i mmcludlmmg its blologi cal produmctivlity amid wi idlif h ' amldtt features, .(-aim imool, UeaulIlily lij aitml eyed and waimajitaimied4 III Cumll,111nmet on withi a Ihost ltg fact iity ork Wimetiher there- arca otimer fea1sible ways to alimIle-ve nlicl valunn.c I v. (Cont.) The7/i Lt'givlatiirv Ii,,d' :11d declares that salt w.'-ter or lrawk is/ so :ster aquactilt-ur is it coastal-delejaildeInt useo ws hich s/u uld be vnL'our.,gcqd to aukgmient Ibod supplits In to further thn P)oliciws yet forth in Chapter 41 (voin iencing siith 'Sectio,, SW)~ of Dti-vision I. 'rie Di parinjent ofl'lisl aind Giunaru ,v idenitifs, coastdisites it deell)-vappropriato for aqiiaculture facilitic Such sites Shall -he identified in conjunction withe the appropriate localI co. istal progqrarn prepared pursuant to this d~it -ision. 'F/i conmajs~ion, and is-'herc appropriate., local gove~ rnments shall, consistent u,'itlh the coastal planning requuirements of this division, pro i'ide lbr as mn vn coastal sites identifi-ed b V the D~epartmnent of Fish and C~ate lbr sucehiusesiasiarcei-consivtent ,vith the policies of Chapter 3 t commumvning wvith Section 3020.9) of this division. V. Coastal Acts policies Governing Ports section 30700. Ports included. .'7-1 30705. Miing, filling or dredging water areas. 30706. Fill. [h~~~~~~~~~t-r putrposen of' this dlyl.13101, notwithstontiitg 307083. Location, design and construction of any othaur proVISOi~as at' this division except as port related developments. sjpecificially sta~ted lii Clits clipipter thist chlAj)r 30710. Jurisdictional map of port.Shall govern1 those portions of' Lila Iorl5s of' lhicnoetie 30710. Jurisdictinal ma p o f port.long Reach -Los,.Algelef, ardi San Dliego Unified Port Di1strict, located wIthiii the coastal Wtio' excluding any wetland, estuary,.or existlaig recreatioii area ItidIcated Iii Part. TV of tile coastal plane are colitatiaed within this chapter. (a) water area'a may he diked, filled, or dredgeil Who, ossent with a cortAfted port iiaster plan only for Clio fol-lowhig: (1) SUCII COUStruction, Aleepelnirg, wideuting, 101i90lihiai g, or maintenance of slil p cblaiiail approaces shipl chlsnitel a, uriling basils, berthing areas9 and' factilities Hs are requIrIIed for the safety and Liac accoaimiiolaliohi of ccoimmorca and vessels to b~e serveil by port facklitilea. (2) How oi- expandied facilites or waterfront lanul for port-relatad fucilitiles. (3) Now or expanded emoawircial f~shiaag failii- Lies ox- recroaaionala boalliag facilities. (14) flici'doltai public Service purpoaoses, iII (.11dingH buti lius limited to, buryling cables or pipes or InpapctIoia of piers said maiauauaiance of existing Intake and outfall lines. (5) MhrUrtia ex~raC1,1011, IIIAt alwhhig .9aliut for resutring buachea, except In biAologi call y sonal- Live arean. (6RIestoratilon 11iurIXIBL- 01' urva~ll oz llow V. (cont.) (7) Htalsro sulady, laaarl culituror tip siml Iar '(b) Ilse tiature, lo0cal.ioau, antI extenti of ally ~~~~~aceoa ta-(I)livielat viels. fill Im.I"AUnEg Liao disposal of dredge spoils (11) M4ama- rill For imaprovitig slioroliiae withiat sat area designaited for fill., shall 1111.iaaal1zo appearance or publ~ic access to Cthe water. Itarmuful effacta; to coastal resources, such as water quality, fisht or wildlife resources, recrea- (b) 'ilia design anti location af slow Or 0 X_ Lional resources, or saimi'transport systemns, andi Ijakaaled facili ties shall to theo exteaut practicablee shall mainlaualze reductionas of ithe volane, Btu-face take adlvantaige of' exishluug waler duptius, water area, or circulation of water.I c-ualaisiltatiedue onpaternsllabl euneain mlso asal (c) Iflia fill is constructed in accordance with ble t rdimicnisrollabe needifolall sora sound safety stamilards which will afford reasonable Lo (lmlal-h Cio eed foruture dredging. protection Lo per-sons said property against Cthe (c) iPreugilau salali be plannked, acihedulads &aid hazards of unstable geologic or soil conditions carried outi to minimiize disruption to fritshand or Of frlood or. sio11 waters. * hi d lro duaug and n igrat ons, arine luabiats,(d) Ilia fill In consistent with navlgational 1111d tiater ui rcui ation. ilOU0to sedlimentls ors a ey "edluimial. ealuriate shall be analyzed for Coxi.-saey LO ~caiuLs prior to diredgiaag or mining, ani wAerm wacer quality standards are "lot, dredge spoils may 1)13 deposited lit Olson coastal water sites St. 'XY i)lI. duloimuated La o auIntaizme potentilal adverse him- pa(-s an mrnuslle (rganisima, or I a cilaahiuued coastal All jiorL-ralated developmaents strall be locatedo wad~eas dhesignataei as fil~l sites lay Clio master detifguledl andi constructed so as tot Atlan wluero sm.Is spoil caaa be Iniolated anda con- *(a) Niuaim10ize substanlial adverse anvirtui- tained, fir laI fill bastins on upland "ites. 111~iitrcs iveulga manLoaial s9hall not he transported fronum (b Inuuilactse.altafi mjfteL coaaltal waters into qostaaarine Or fresh waler (4Muiiieptniltafccufi~ ar~~an for di ulluosal ~~~~~betweell v08.sels. art~~a.-i for dinpingal. ~~~(c) naive highest priority to theo Use Of ext sting l and space within harbors for port purpIOses, including, bult not laimanle to Iaus v- gall onal. facili Li s, shiapping 11ndusLri-esa, aid Iau addition to Ctae Other provisions of thils chapter, n aecessary support arid accesas facilities. Clio policie contained In this section shall govern (11) Provide for Other beuuoficial uses coaa- ftillaug seaward of Clio naeati high tide line writhin sileatot withli pastile ru ctruAl, iau.l uding, baiL I-le Jurisdiction of portas: 11,I Hlmi te(I to, recroation amid wildi fe luali lat (a) 'Ili water area to be filled shall be Ciue aimes, to Clio exteant ruathbiJIV uaulaalaaaauiu 11uccssary to acluteve Liao purpose of' hute ()1aoaaeri evc opr r fill. cud u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sial ,1Li coaaapalay tite ol' fact-IiiLI s. V. (cont.) Witlaiuif 9(3lays after Janluary to 19'1'1 the Cown- iia~oi ~ia1,after public tearing, adopt, certIfY, amid i'ti wWkt each lkorl governing body a miap dellhi- eating Like present legal geographaical oWvitmariea; of each lxort' jmmrtadictiomm wthin the coastal. zone. Mme (?o1milml soo ualkhali 1 thini such 9)0-day perloud, adolA amid cortify after publitc hearing, a wap delis,- cal~ting bomamalariea, of any wetland, estuary, or exist~ng recreation area indicated In Part IV of Lime coasalaI plan witlaim the geographical boundaries of each IX)rt. 'VI. Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Section SEC. 30519 30519. Termination of development review authority; exceptions (a) Except for appeals to the commissione, as 30603. Appeals after certification of local provided in Section 30603, after a local coastal pro- programi; grounds; standard of review; gram, or any portion thereof, has been certified and all finality of acts implementing actions within the area affected have become effective, the development review authority provided for in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 30600) shall no longer be exercised by the regional commission or by the conuission where there is no regional commission over any new development proposed within the area to which such certified local coastal program, or any portion thereof, applies and shall at that time be delegated to the local government that is imple- menting such local coastal program or any portion thereof. (b) Subdivision (a.) shall not apply'to any development proposed or undertaken on any tidelands, submerged lands, or on public trust lands, whether filled or unfilled, lying within the coastal zone, nor shall it apply to any development proposed or undertaken within ports covered by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 30700) or within any state university or college within the coastal zone; however, this section shall apply to any development proposed or undertaken by a port or harbor district or authority on lands or waters granted by the Legislature to a local goverr:ment whose certified local coastal program includes the specific development plans for such district or authority. VI. (cont.) (a) After certi~fication of Its local con.A&I.a (ta) 8 gr ~ounds for all appeal pursuant to p tsgl-1111 ara action taken by a I ocal 1pvoranileat paragraphs (1) of' subdivision (a) shall be usa a c4)autal duovololimseat peiadt ajaplicaLion asay limit ed to Like followinge lit. ajapealed to teClioowiuslltsoia for maly of Cliot (1 Iflia davololsuest, fails to provide adequate ful I Iowl nsg: Physical access oi- public or private coiiisaserci al. (1) liumaiopsaessto alppriove lay Lile local go voka- ueo . trfrswi uc ss saws a liot.weea Ciho sea asad CLis Vi'ral, pidlaid roadt (2) hIia davolopmeat falls to protect paiaailolliag Ciso sea or w~itnas 14)) feeL of theo Public Views froms asay public road'or from a hail asd uxteas, of asky beacla or of thke muats high recreationsal- at-on too and a-long, thle coast. I'llin liine at' tile sea where thol-0 l JIG bajacls 3 h lvlIa o osaiiw wich uhat-e to Chot greater diatasace. ,. , oissesaW I C I eA (2) appl-Oved by the la~~~~t-ahaan ie ast"111Islaed physical scale of Like area.' (2)ii jtl. Isiluo-dwihn aagr~aapprv by t lof' goveik (4) 'Ili development may aigaatillcantiy -Jahu'hl-viah-os losiatax on Ltillidasoss ~IsegdJns alter existing natural laradfomns. Us psaal I s trust lalathJ, withanl a) 0 feet of' ally wIetland, (5) lisa developisemat does not cosaply AdL11 uwil.1al-Ys'y treallpas, or III 'iMsg 1'e fuL.1 Clof Lop~ of sisoreline eroalon atid geologic seatback that, aeawiarl- face of' any coastal bluffC. raqul reissesata, (1) l-volulmlleilsto approved by Like local govda-sa- (U) 1110 atdsaidard of review for ally develop- msswl, slut hnald sed witlain pak-agrapis (i ) or (2) of Wsent reviewed pursuiasL to subdiv-isiona (a)(3) 1,11h5 Slaahhly-1.3ill located in a sesasitive coautal. ahall be iII colaformity with Cho Implemsenting 11IM.Mlsa':1 arsa Ir1 Clio allegation on appeal. In that actions of theo certified local coastal programs. tHe 11U4,uvo11Ojasan is h)lt, In COlsfO11111ty W ith CLis haslaessestngactlosas of' Clis lo-rtifid Tocal coastal Such actionl shlls becomae final after tile hI[(It~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lols.1th worklaag clays uadess an appeal :1s filed withial that Lille. (11) Anly devalomissent approvaed RAY a coastal I-i~lity tisat is not desi1gnAted as thle lprisselipa jacaissi llud Also aIlIer the zoilinsg or-diniasca or zolliisg MAll . mtiutsap approved purijuasat to (haapter 6 (colaS- 11110,111 wi tha Sectihon 3050). (5) Any davellopssaont which constitutes a sajaor public wtrltk p~roject or a major energy ftl I CiY. VIII. IjevelopMent Authorized WithouL a Coastal Dovei~qjperiL Permit see Lion 30610. Development authorized without permit. SE6.3010 Notwitlhstanding any provision In this 41iviaioll Lo thle contrary, no toastal development- perilit shall be required pursuant to this chapter for the followinag typos of development arid in tile following areass (a) Ianprovemaento to existing single-famIly restidenceal provided, however, that tile commission shall opacify, by regulation, those classes of' developnimemt which involve a risk of' adverse envi-ron- Iiaental effect, and shall require that a coastal developaiteal. pemi~t be obtained unader thin chapter. JbI IdivroveIIaents to any1 structLure othev* jjha asingi e-fam~iiy rsdepluene RE 8 Public Narita facility: pio~e li-ar .the commssioni shl ARRS11'Y" b Tens~ioxa ths ypes Re imaprovements whi-chm J Invo~ a risk of 0' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~adverse enviromiental. effect 2dera sj ~ffj~t i~lc seems*, gr M nvolve a chaisge In use 2nta~ osa Auic o if t di lylgion. Anl figrovewesit so Rj~ftIredif by1 the igniss ion shall reqtuirg .2 coastal d eelpmenmt,01ML 4-I4P~1Maintenance dredging of extesting navigation channels or inioving dredged material from such channels to a disposgal at-ea outside the coastal. zone, pursuant to a permit from Like Witted States A-ily Corps of algilicors. 4-e){W Rlepair or miaintenance activities that (to Kilt result In all addition toll or enilargertieati or is~~aslsiof traobject of such repairorat, teanaed activitiesi provided, however3 that If tile colluission determoines that ceertain extra- ordinary methods ol' iepair anid analsitenance that inWolve a rI'lsk ol' vidistantial adverse exiviroit- mrental impact, It Whall, by regulation, require that a permlit be obtained wider- thils chapter. VITI. (Cont.) As used lit this aubdlvioloim. "bualk" ieansi total luterl culic Ellgune #a piga sured fromt (-)(A~Aiiy cate-gory of develolmumimt, or amay eat~e- C lio exterilor surface of Mie, structure gory ofI .iovoiopineimt withimi a 01)(1:i ical ly defined01 Tigi-mmlod by 0-al.* Hsta~. 1979, Olt. 91.9.) gy.-ogr'aphimc area, Chat Clim oium oef ailca' pubii c Imearimig, aimilt by two-i, Irds vjno ILD alloillted illeimbtirs Ilan dail3501'I hod or I delitlIF elel am11 mlwi tim respiect to Whichi Like CouN11il as.loam han lomimid that Chare s In o pmojenlt~ai for anty aigamif- icaski. adverse affe*,s c~ber Jimilvldmally or cmmmmifiiatlvely, oil coantal. reea(trces or omi public accessl to or along, Clio coast amlId Chat such ex- (.111alomwillW4 not Impair Lime ability of locAl givormweiiem to pIreparo a local coastal livograum. 4-eXi 'l Ime I natalIAL oam, Letti igl awil p1 acelemmt Ila ijorvico or tlim replacemenet of ammy necessary Utili1ty COnm06c,1on between1 ama eXlsIBC11 service fac tI Ii Cy amid any development a~mao vedi 4mrstiamt, to Cilias dlvi 510111 provided Chat Cioe collmualastlom tony, wahere amecessary, requimro rousoamahie ConditLions LO ~to mmItkitgate ammy adverse Impacts oil coastal resources,6 l miktiuil mag seentic resourcesi, {g,) 'Ili replaceument of A au'structure, oumlertha 1,11a pblic works facility, doutrojo b, naiturial dilsaister, Ruch I-eplacement srticuture shall conforin to appi ical~olexisting~ jutidi~ reipilremume,~. shallI ba for Clio same use an Like dositroye'l structure.. simall. not exceed ~j jim !L:s ilafo area. lim ALtA or b~ill o f Liao ilegiroy~d strcture b~y emore than 10 pox ciii.,, "ait aimall. be sited inj le I ua locatiomi 0mm time arrucwtcd provorty as tlime daL~ rd Urpwturo As imuod jjj jjhje oul~tyjjlot, "amatural. (II B11m11.t1-1 geans anI s~iLaatioim jai which Clm im frce~ or forccn wHi cu denroyo Climo s~ttructre to jie trial limced wor iielguiem Rj ontrol of I a o! wl I i K APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY INVOLVEMENT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN WETLANDS AND OTHER WET ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS APPENDIX B. RESOURCE AGENCY WETLAND POLICY Dredging, filling, or otherwise altering wetlands or associated nabitar areas, including estuaries, lakes, streams or open coastal waters, is but'ject to (Issued on September 19, 1977 by Nuey D2 Johnson, Secretary for Resources] the regulatory requirements of a number of federal and state agencies. In ad- dition to any permits required by local governments, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the California State Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the The heed to raise thinking, and action to the ecosystem level is especially Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and, in some instances, the State evident as it relates to proposed construction projects on wetlands of the Lands Commission (SLC), have regulatory authority in'such areas. The following state. is a discussion of the regulatory involvement of these and other agencies that issue or provide official comments on permits for alterations of wetlands and The value of marshlands and other wetlands to the economy and to the overall associated habitat areas. This is not meant to be an all-encompassing analysis long term quality of life, has been described by many, including Gosselink, of agencies' regulations, but an overview of those agencies that are involved in Odum, and Pope (1973) In "The Value of the Tidal Marsh'; the Day Conservation permit processes for these areas. This discussion is intended as an overview and Development Commission (BCDC) in "The San Francisco Bay Plan'; and the De- for general information. For further information regarding the specific partment of Fish and Game in "The Fish and Wildlife Plan." In spite of these responsibilities and duties of the agencies, please refer to the references that and other efforts, filling and other destruction of the State's wetlands has are cited in the discussion, or contact the agencies directly. continued at an alarming rate. Most of San Francisco Bay's wetlands are not protected by BCDC. But, before the Commission came into existence, over 225 square miles of Bay wetlands had been filled or destroyed. Still not all of the I. Federal Permits Say's wetlands are protected. Over 40,000 acres are not in the Commission's jurisdiction. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, also called the Federal ,Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Portions of other important wetlands still exist along the coast, its es- Harbors Act of 1899, the Army Corp of Engineers (COE) is the principal federal tuaries, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and along several natural bodies of agency involved in regulating development in wetlands and associated habitat water including Clear Lake, the Colorado River, and others. Many of these areas. A COE 404 permit is required for any operation that would discharge wetlands are not under permit authority and sometimes federal authority (Corps dredged or fill material into any waters of the United States. A Section 10 of Engineers) exists over specific projects and areas. permit is required for any operation that would excavate in, or locate a 4 structure in, navigable waters or any operation that would transport dredged it is the purpose of this memorandum to establish a basic wetlands policy to material for the purposes of dumping it into ocean waters (see COE publication be observed by all Departments, Boards, and Commissions of the Resources Agency "U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Permit Program, A Guide for Applicants," EP when developing projects or when authorizing or influencing private or public 1145-2-1, November 1, 1977). The COE has issued regulations for processing projects and permit actions taken by other authorities including federal, state, permits and has developed policies to protect wetlands (COE, "Permits for and local agencies. Activities in Navigable Waters," Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 144, Part IV, July 25, 1975) (33 C.F.R. Parts 320-324). In general, the COE will only issue a permit for altering a wetland for water dependent activities, and only if such Resources Agency Basic Wetlands Protection Policy activities have mitigatible adverse environmental impacts (see also article by Lance Wood and John Hill "Wetlands Protection: The Regulatory Role of the U.S. It is the basic policy of the Resource Agency that this Agency and its De- Army Corps of Engineers," Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 4, 1978, pp. partment, Boards and Commissions will not authorize or approve projects that 371-407). Furthermore, applicants for COE 404 and Section 10 permits must fill or otherwise harm or destroy coastal, estuarine, or inland wetlands. include in their application a certification of consistency with the California Coastal Management Program (see section It below). Exceptions to this policy may be granted provided that the following con- dition are met: Pursuant to Section 404 (b)(l) of the Clean Water Act of 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the COE has developed 1. The proposed project must be water dependent or an essential trans- guidelines for regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters portation, water conveyance or utility project. of the U.S. (EPA, "Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material," Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 173, Part LI, September 5, 1975). These guidelines, which are 2. There must be no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative currently being revised, provide the basis on which the COE acts in issuing location for the type of project being considered. Section 404 permits. ("Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material" 33 C.F.R. Part 323). The COO may override the guidelines if navigation or anchorage requires. Nevertheless, EPA may prohibit or restrict any discharges of dredged or fill 3. The public trust must not be adversely affected. material after public notice, opportunity for public hearing, and consultation with the COt, if such discharges might have an unacceptable adverse impact on a 4. Adequate compensation for project-caused losses shall be a part of the municipal water supply, wildlife, recreation area, or shellfish beds and fishery project. Compensation, to be considered adequate, must meet the fololowing areas, including breeding and spawning grounds. EPA has issued a pamphlet "A criteria: Guide to the Dredge or Pill Program" which explains these regulations (issued July, 1979 by the Office of Water Planning and Standards WH585, Washington, D.C. a. The compensation measures must be in writing in the form of either 20460) EPA has also issued a statement to establish EPA policy to preserve conditions on a permit or an agreement signed by the applicant and the wetland ecosystems and to protect them from destruction through waste water or Department of Fish and Game or the Resources Agency. nonpoint source discharges (EPA, "Protection of Nation's Wetlands Policy Statement," Federal Register, Vol. 30, No. 84, May 2, 1973} EPA Regulations, 40 b. The combined long-term 'wetlands habitat value' of the lands C.F.R. Part 230). involved (including project and mitigation lands) must not be less after project completion that the combined "wetlands habitat value" In addition to EPA, a number of federal agencies, most importantly the U.S. that exists under pre-project conditions. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NHFS), strongly influence the COE permit process. Pursuant to the Clean W?5ar Act of 1972 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordinatiop Act, the FWS and thi. S-S review and comment on permit applications to federal agencies, includin, COt Section 404 permits, to protect fish and wildlife resources and to mitrgate project impacts (FWS, 'Review of Fish and Wildlife Aspects of Proposals in or Affecting Navigable Waters," Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 231, Part IV, December 1, 1975) (16 U.S.C. 662). The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act particularly emphasize that the FBWS review, comment, and provide technical assistance, primarily through the National Wetland Inventory. In response to the President's Water Policy Message of June 6, 1978 and the President's Water Policy Memorandum dated July 12, 1978, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Interior (of which the FWS is a part) have recently promulgated guidelines to standardize agency procedures and interagency relationships in the analysis of the impacts of federally-approved, water-related projects upon wildlife resources (Department of Interior, Department of Commerce 'Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Notice of Proposed Rule-making," Federal Reqister, Vol. 44, No. 98, Part V, May 18, 1979). The FWS and the NMFS, in preparing comments, and the COE, in reviewing comments, also rely on the policy direction of the following federal statutes: the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, the Estuary Protection Act, the Watershed Protection Act, and others. Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) provide further guidance to federal agencies. The Department of Interior has issued interim guidelines for complying with these Orders (Department of Interior, "Protection Procedures Interim Guidelines," Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 112, Part IV, June 7, 1978). By affecting the decisions of agencies within the Department of Interior, including the FWS, these guidelines further influence the COE permit process. 1I. Federal-State Interaction Pursuant to regulations adopted by the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM} under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), applicants for CODE 404 and Section 10 permits must include in their application a certification of ~~~~~~~~~~~-14()0~~~~~~~~~~-~141- -14{}- consistency with the California Coastal Management Program. This certification, and accompanying data and analysis, must also be submitted to the Coastal The State Water Resouces Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Commission for review and concurrence. The federal agency may not issue the Control Boards Issue several different permits that may be required in order to permit until the Commission reviews and concurs in the applicant's consistency alter a wetland or associated habitat area. The SWRCB issues permits to certification. This requirement is in addition to those described in Section appropriate water and water diversion permits; water quality must be protected III, below, for coastal permits, although the standard of review will be in order for these to be issued. The RWQCB issues National Pollution Discharge substantially the same. Elimination System Elimination Discharge permits for any pollutant that might be discharged into navigable waters, and issues waste discharge permits for any development or operation affecting groundwater quality, including erosion from In addition, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the COE soil disturbances and drainage from agricultural operations. Both the SWRCB and must give full consideration to comments submitted by the California State the RWQCB may receive comments from federal and other state agencies. Department of Fish and Game. As the principal state agency responsible for protecting fish, wildlife and other natural living resources, the DFG influences The State Lands Commission becomes involved in the permitting process when a COE permit decisions in order to protect these resources. The DFG has drawn on project is proposed on land that is owned by the State. The SLC reviews these the policy direction of the California Coastal Act of 1976, the California projects for environmental assessment and considers the comments made by other Endangered Species Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and other agencies before issuing a permit, lease or other document. state laws in making comments to the COE. The DFG has also relied consistently on the policy direction of the Resources Agency Wetland Policy issued by the Secretary for Resources, Huey Johnson, on September 19, 1977, which calls for IV. Summary the preservation of wetlands in perpetuity (see Appendix B for complete text). In summary, any development in the coastal zone in or affecting a wetland or associated habitat area will require permits or agreements from at least the III. State Permits � � following agencies: At the state level, the California Coastal Commission is the principal 1. U.8. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 and Section 10 permits; agency involved in regulating development in the coastal zone, including development in wetlands and associated habitat areas located in this zone. The 2. California Coastal Commission coastal development permit, and a Coastal California Coastal Act of 1976 is the law that guides the CCC in their Commission consistency certification concurrence or consistency regulatory decisions, generally actions on coastal development permits. determination, Statewide interpretive guidelines promulgated by the CCC provide further guidance to the public and to permit applicants. Such guidelines describe the 3. California Department of Fish and Game 1601-1603 agreement; Coastal Act policies dealing with wetlands and associated habitat areas and explain how the Commission has previously interpreted relevant Coastal Act 4. State Water Resource Control Board (permit depends on the operation); sections. In addition, the Commission takes under advisement the Resources and Agency Basic Wetlands Protection Policy. The Commission also receives and considers comments from state and federal agencies, including the DFG and the 5. Regional Water Quality Control Board (permit depends on the operation). FWS, and from other public and private groups; however, the final decision by the Commission must be based on the Coastal Act. A permit from the California State Lands Commission may also be required. The permit requirements for each agency are the result of federal or state in addition to the review and comment role of the DFG on COE Section 404 and statutes. Federal and state agencies interadt in the issuance of permits by Section 10 permits and on CCC coastal development permits, the DFG regulates receiving and issuing comments. The decision to issue a permit by a particular suction dredging and stream flow alterations, including wetland alterations, agency can be either the sole responsibility of that agency (e.g., a SLC under Sections 1601 and 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. Although the document permit), or it can be a shared responsibility (e.g., a Section 404, which though required under these sections of the law is not termed a permit, it is illegal issued by the COE, mast be consistent with guidelines issued by EPA and FWS, and if such an arrangement is not obtained before commencement of a project. Under with the California Coastal Management Program). Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2B (September 13, 1979), the DFG has been requested to propose plans to protect, preserve, restore, acquire and manage wetlands. The findings and declarations of this Resolution and of Chapter 7, Section 5811 of the Public Resources Code, further guide the DFG in their regulatory and advisory responsibilities. -141- -142- APPENDIX'D. TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING AND MAPPING WETLANDS AND OTHER classification system as a guide in wetland identification. Applying the same set WET ENVIRONEMENTALLY SENSITIVE RHABITAT AREAS of biological criteria consistently should help avoid confusion and assure certainty in the regulatory process. This appendix discusses the adapation of this classification system to the Coastal Act definition of "wetland" and other The purpose of this discussion is to provide guidance in the practical ap- terms used in the Act, and will form the basis of the Commission's review of plication of the definition of wetland' contained in the Coastal Act. The proposals to dike, fill or dredge wetlands, estuaries or other wet habitat areas. Coastal Act definition of 'wetland' is set forth in Section 30121 of the Act which states: I. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Classification Systems Upland/Wetland/Deep-water Habitat Distinction SEC. 30121 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service classification is hierarchical, "Wetland" means lands within the coastal zone which progressing from systems and subsystems, at the most general levels, to classes, may be covered periodically or permanently with subclasses, and dominance types. The term 'system' refers here to a complex of shallow water and include saltwater marshes, wetland and deep-water habitats that share the influence of one or more dominant freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water hydrologic, geomorphologic, chemical, or biological factors. marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fans. The Service provides general definitions of wetland and deep-water habitat and This is the definition upon which the Commission relies to identify designates the boundary between wetland and deep-water habitat and the upland "wetlands." The definition refers to lands ". which may be periodically or limit of a wetland. The following are the Services' definitions of wetland and permanently covered with shallow water . . However, due to highly variable deep-water habitats= environmental conditions along the length of the California coast, wetlands may include a variety of different types of habitat areas. For this reason, some A. wetlands may not be readily' identifiable by simple means. In such cases, the Commission will also rely on the presence of hydrophytes and/or the presence of "Wetlands are lands transitional between ter- hydric soils. The rationale for this in general is that wetlands are lands where restrial and aquatic systems where the water saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil table is usually at or near the surface or the land development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and is covered by shallow whter. For purposes of on its surface. For this reason, the single feature that most wetlands share is this classification, wetlands must have one or more soil or substrate that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by of the following three attributes: (1) at water, and this is the feature used to describe wetlands in the Coastal Act. The least periodically, the land supports water creates severe physiological problems for all plants and animals except predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is those that are adapted for life in water or in saturated soil, and therefore only predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the plants adapted to these wet conditions (hydrophytes) could thrive in these wet substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or (hydric) soils. Thus, the presence.or absence of hydrophytes and hydric soils covered by shallow water at some time during the make excellent physical parameters upon which to judge the existence of wetland growing season of each year. habitat areas for the purposes of the Coastal Act, but they are not the sole criteria. In some cases, proper identification of wetlands will require the 'Wtlands as defined here include lands tat are skills of a qualified professional. identified under other categories in some land-use classifications. For example, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has officially adopted a wetland wetlands and farmlands are not necessarily ex- classification system* which defines and classifies wetland habitats in these elusive. Many areas that we define as wetlands terms. Contained in the classification system are specific biological criteria are farmed during dry periods, but if they are for identifying wetlands and establishing their upland limits. Since the wetland not tilled or planted to crops, a practice that definition used in the classification system is based upon a feature identical to destroys the natural vegetation, they will support that contained in the Coastal Act definitions, i.e., soil or substrate that is at hydrophytes.* least periodically saturated or covered by water, the Commission will use the For the purposes of identifying wetlands using the technical criteria con- tained in this guideline, one limited exception will be made. That is, drainage "Classification of Wetlands and Deep-Water Habitats of the United States." By ditches as defined herein will not be considered wetlands under the Coastal Act. Lewis M4. Cowardin, et al, United States Department of the Interior, Fish and A drainage ditch shall be defined as a narrow (usually less than 5-feet wide), Wildlife Service, December 1979. manmade nontidal ditch excavated from dry land. -144- 14- Drained hydric soils that are now incapable "The boundary between wetland and deep-water of supporting hydrophytes because of a habitat in the Marine and Estuarine Systems change in water regime are not considered (i.e., areas subject to tidal influence) wetlands by our definition. These drained coincides with the elevation of the extreme hydric soils furnish a valuable record of low-water of spring tide (ELWS); permanently historic wetlands, as well as an indication flooded areas are considered deep-water of areas that may be suitable for restora- habitats in these systems. The boundary tion. between wetland and deep-water habitat in the Riverine, Lacustrine and Palustrine The upland limit of wetland is designated as Systems lies at a depth of 2m (6.6 ft.) (1) the boundary between land with below low-water; however, if emargents, predominantly hydrophytic cover and land shrubs or trees grow beyond this depth at with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic any time, their deep-water edge is the covert (2) the boundary between soil that is boundary.' predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric! or (3) in the case predominanstly nonhydri or (3) in the casIe II. Wetland/Estuary/Open Coastal Water Distinction of wetlands without vegetation or soil, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time each year and land For the purposes of mapping 'wetlands" under the Coastal Act's definition of that is not." wetlands, and of mapping the other wet environmentally sensitive habitat areas referred to in the Act, including 'estuaries," "streams." "riparian habitats," Wetlands should be identifed and mapped only after a site survey by a "lakes' and "open coastal water," certain adapations of this classification system qualified botanist, ecologist, or a soil scientist (See section III. B. of the will be made. The following is a discussion of these adaptations. guideline for a list of required information)*. guideline for a list of required inforation. etland," as defined in Section 30121 of the Coastal Act, refers to land 3. Deeowater Habitats - covered by 'shallow water," and the examples given in this section include fresh, salt and brackish water marshes, mudflats and fens. A distinction between "wet- "Deepwater habitats are permanently flooded - land' and the other habitat areas in the Act, for example, 'estuary," must be made lands lying below the deepwater boundary of because the Act's policies apply differently to these areas, and because the Act woes not define some of these terms (such as "estuary"). A reasonable distinc- wetlands. Deepwater habitats include environments where surface water tion can be made between "wetland" and "estuary" on the basis of an interpretation is permanent and often deep, so that of the phrase 'shallow water." Using the service's classification system, 'shallow water, rather than air, is the principal water" would be water that is above the boundary of deep-water habitat, which medium within which the dominant organisms would be the line of extreme low-water of spring tide* for areas subject to live, whether or not they are attached to tidal influence and 2 meters for non-tidal areas. Therefore, wetland begins at the substrate. As in wetlands, the extreme low-water of spring tide and "estuary" or "open coastal water" is anything dominant plants are hydrophytes; however, deeper. The Coastal Act definition of "wetlands" would include the wetland areas the substrates are considered nonsoil of Estuarine, Palustrine, and Lacustrine ecological systems defined by the Fish because the water is too deep to support emergent vegetation (U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff 1975)." While the Service's classification system uses "extreme low-water of spring tide" as the datum to distinguish between "shallow-water" and "deep-water habitat," such datum is not readily available for the California coast. Therefore, the lowest historic tide recorded on the nearest available tidal bench mark established by the U. S. National Ocean Survey should be used as the datum. Further details regarding the standards and criteria for mapping wetlands Data for such bench marks are published separately for each station in loose-leaf form by the National Ocean Survey, Tideland Water Levels, Datum and using the Service's classification system may be found in the following, "Mapping 20840. These compilations include the Conventions of the National Wetland Inventory," (undated), published by the Information ranh, (C23), Riverdale, MD 20840. These compilations include the U.S.F.W.S. The document may be obtained from the U.S.F.W.S., Regional eetland description of all bench marks at each tide station (for ready identification on Coordinator, Region I Portland, Oregon. the ground), and their elevations above the basic hydrographic or chart datum for the area, which is mean lower low-water on the Pacific coast. The date and length of the tidal series on which the bench-mark elevations are based are also given. -146- -147- For the purposes of the Coastal Act, an "estuary" is a coastal water body usu- As with wetlands, riparian habitats should be identified and mapped only after ally semi-enclosed by land, but which has open, partially obstructed, or a site survey by a qualified botanist., freshwater ecologist, or soil scientist.* intermittent exchange with the open ocean and in which ocean water is at least (See pp. 6-9 of the guideline for a list of information which may be required of occassionally diluted by fresh water runoff from the.land. The salinity may be the applicant). periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. "Open coastal water" or "coastal water" as used in the Act refers to the open IV. Vernal Pools ocean overlying the continental shelf and its associated coastline with extensive wave action. Salinities exceed 30 parts per thousand with little or no dilution except opposite mouths of estuaries. Senate Bill No. 1699 (Wilson) was approved by the Governor on September 13, 1980 and the Bill added Section 30607.5 to the Public Resources Code to read: III. Wetland/Riparian Area Distinction 30607.5. Within the City of San Diego, the commission shall not impose or adopt any requirements in conflict with the provisions of the plan for the protection of vernal pools approved and adopted by the City of For the purpose of interpreting Coastal Act policies, another important dis- San Diego on June 17, 1980,. following consultation with state and tinction is between "wetland" and "riparian habitat." While the Service's clas- federal agencies, and approved and adopted by the United States Army sification system includes riparian areas as a kind of wetland, the intent of the Corps of Engineers in coordination with the United States Fish and Coastal Act was to distinguish these two areas. "Riparian habitat" in the Coastal Wildlife Service. Act refers to riparian vegetation and the animal species that require or utilize these plants. The geographic extent of a riparian habitat would be the extent of The Commission shall adhere to Section 30607.5 of the Public Resources Code in all the riparian vegetation. As used in the Coastal Act, "riparian habitat" would permit and planning matters involving vernal pools within the City of San Diego. include the "wetland" areas associated with Palustrine ecological systems as defined by the Fish and Wildlife Service classication system. All vernal pools located within the city of San Diego in the coastal zone are depicted on a map attached as Exhibit I to a letter from Commission staff to Mr. Unfortunately, a complete and universally acceptable definition of riparian James Gleason, City of San Diego (4/29/80). While "vernal pool" is a poorly vegetation has not yet been developed, so determining the geographic extent of defined regional term, all information available to the Commission suggests t".at such vegetation is rather difficult. The special case of determining consistent all vernal pools in the coastal zone are located in the City of San Dieto. at is boundaries of riparian vegetation along watercourses throughout California is important to point out, however, that vernal pools are distinct from vernr. ponds particularly difficult. In Southern California these boundaries are usually ob- Wn.t vernal lakes, which exist in other parts of the coastal zone (e.g. Jio Flaco vious; the riparian vegetation grows immediately adjacent to watercourses and only Lakes in S4n Luis Obispo County). The Commission generally considers these extends a short distance away from the watercourse. In Northern California, how- habitat areas to be wetlands for the purposes of the Coastal Act, and therefore ever, the boundaries are much less distinct; vegetation that occurs alongside a all applicable sections of the Coastal Act will be applied to these areas. stream may also be found on hillsides and far away from a watercourse. For the purposes of this guideline, riparian vegetation is defined as that association of plant species which grows adjacent to freshwater watercourses, including perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and other freshwater bodies. Riparian plant species and wetland plant species either require or tolerate a higher level of soil moisture than dryer upland vegetation, and are therefore generally considered hydrophytic. However, riparian vegetation may be Identification of riparian habitat areas in Northern California presents distinguished from wetland vegetation by the different kinds of plant species. At peculiar difficulties. While in Southern California riparian vetetation generally the end of this appendix, lists are provided of some wetland hydrophytes and occurs in a narrow band along streams and rivers, along the major rivers in riparian hydrophytes. These lists are partial, but give a general indication of Northern California it may be found in broad floodplains, abandoned river channels the representative plant species in these habitat areas and should be sufficient and the bottoms adjacent to the channels. In forested areas, the overstory of to generally distinguish between-the two types of plant communities. riparian vegetation may remain similar to the adjacent forest but the understory may contain a variety of plant species adapted to moist or wet substrates. For The upland limit of a riparian habitat, as with the upland limit of vegetated example, salmonberry, bayberry, willow, twinberry and lady fern, may all be more wetlands, is determined by the extent of vegetative cover. The upland limit of common in the understory of riparian habitat areas than in other types of forest riparian habitat is where ripariad hydrophytes are no longer predominant. habitat areas. -148- -14')- V. Representative Plant Species -in Wetlands and Riparian Habitat Areas This is a list of "representative" species that can be expected to be found in 0. Riparian the various habitat areas indicated. Not all of them will be found in all areas of the State, and there are numerous others that could be included. However, this Willows (Salix spp.) list should suffice to generally distinguish between these types of plant Cottonwoods (Populus spp.) communities. Red alder (Alnue rubra) Box older (Ac-er nequ~ndo) A. Salt Marsh Sycamore (Platanus racemona) Blackberry (Rubus vitifol~ia) Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) So. Black walnut (Juglans californica) (So. Calif.) Glasawort (S. subterminalis) California Bay (Umbelularia californicum) (So. Calif.) Satras(istichlis spicata) Bracken fern (Pteraaulnm Cn ai. Cordgrass (Sp-artina totiosa) Current (Rtibes spy.) Jaumea (Jaugea -carnoisaT Twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) (No. Calif.) Saltwort (Batis--a-itiima) Lady fern (tyimfelix-femina) Alkai hea~th ranniiT grandifolia) Salmonberry (No. Calif.) Salt cedar (.4onanthochloe littoralis Bayberry (No. Calif.) Arrow grass (TrIgloch5.n mar~itimum) Sea-blite (Suaeda-c-a-177ornicavar pubescens) E. Vernal Pools Marsh rosemary Lionium ca-13fornicum var mexicanum) Gum plant (Grind~eiastri-ct-a- Downingia (Downingia op.) Salt Marsh fleabane (Pluchea purpurescens) Meadow-foxtail (Alopecurus howellil) Hair Grass (Deachmpsia danthonjoides) *B. Freshwater Marsh Quillwort (Isoetes; sp.) Meadow-foam (Limnanthes up.) Cattails (Typha app.) Pogogyne (Pogogyne sp.) Bulrushes T(Scirpus app.) Flowering Quillwort (Lilaea scilloides) Sedges (Carex a9pp.) Cryptantha (Cryptantha op.) Rushes (Uu~_Zus spp.) Loosestrife Mytru hyssopifolium) Spikerus~h__(Heleochai9 palustris) 'Skunkweed (Navarretia ap.) Pondweeds (Poaoso~ Button-celery (Eryngium op.) Smartweeds (Ply-gonum * )Orcutt-graas (Orcuttia sp.) Water lilies (Nphar app.) Water-starwort (Callitriche sp.) Buttercup (Rannuu autilis) Waterwort (Eiatine up.) Watr-res Natutii~EIiMle Woolly-heads (Psilocarpus Sp.) Bur-reed (Spargnim eurycarpum) Brodiaea (Brodiaea sip.) W~ter parsley (Venanthe sarmentosa) Tillaea (Crasaula acquatica) NaiadsB (N. C. Brackish Marsh Alkali bulrush (Scirpus robustus) Rush (Juncus balEticus) Brass bu-ttons-(Coatula coronopifolia) Fat-hen (Atriplex patula var hastata) Olney's bulru~s~h_(Scirpus ole-7 Common cule (Scir~pus acutiYsT_ Common reed (Ph~ragmite~s -communis) APPENDIX E. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Fen A fen is a poorly defined regional term for a type of marsh (see APPENDIX D) usually said to be formed on peat that is circumneutral or alkaline in pH; Aquaculture ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Aquaculture ~vegetation is marked by high species diversity. A fen is equivalent to the sedge-meadow of many areas. (Note: To date the only fen known to exist in ". . . 'aquaculture' means the culture and husbandry of aquatic organisms, the coastal zone is Inglenook Fen in Nendocino County) the coastal zone Is Inglenook Fen in Mendocino County). including, but not limited to: fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp and algae. Aquaculture shall not mean the culture and husbandry of commercially utilized inland crops, including, but not limited to: rice, pill watercress and bean sprouts." (Public Resources Code, Division 1, Chapter 4, Section 828) (See also footnote #5 on page 11). (see APPENDIX A (Section 30108) Biological productivity Functional capacity Biological productivity generally refers to the amount of organic material Functional capacity refers to the ability of a particular ecosystem to be produced per unit time (see lso footnote 19 on page 23)Functional capacity refers to the ability 'of a particular ecosystem to be produced per unit time (see also footnote 19 on page 23) self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity (also refer to page 17). "Coastal-dependent development or use" Healthy Populations (see APPENDIX A [Section 301011) The phrases, healthy populations of all species of marine organisms ~~~~~Coastal-dependent industrial facility ~and ". .. optimum populations of marine organisms . . .* (Sections 30230 and 30231, respectively) refer generally to the maintenance of natural species A coastal-dependent industrial facility is one which requires a site on, or diversityabundance, and composition. adjacent to. open coastal waters to function. Hydric soil "Development" Hydric soils are soils that for a significant period of the growing season (see APPENDIX A [Section 301061) have reducing conditions* in the major part of the root zone and are saturated** within 25 cm of the surface. Most hydric soils have properties '"~~~~~~~~~~~~~Energy facility" ~that reflect dominant wetness characteristics, namely, they have immediately below 25 cm dominant colors in the matrix as follows: (see APPENDIX A [Section 301071) 1. If there is mottling, the chrome is 2 or less. "Environmentally sensitive area" 2. If there is no mottling, the chrome is 1 or less. (see APPENDIX A [Section 30107.51) ("Wet Soils of the United States" (draft copy), January 9, 1980, United Estuary States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. ) As estuary is a coastal water body usually semi-enclosed by land, but which has open, partially obstructed, or intermittent exchange with the ocean and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by fresh water runoff from the land (see also page 4 and APPENDIX D). "Feasible" (see APPENDIX A [Section 301081) Reducing conditions means soil solution is virtually free of dissolved oxygen. A soil is considered saturated at the depth at which water stands in an unlined borehole or when all pores are filled with water. Soils (temporarily) saturated as a result of controlled flooding or irrigation are excluded from hydric soils. -152- -1593- * - - ~~~~~~~Cannission District Staff and the characteristics of the terrain, landform and vegetati surrotnding the parcel. In sme~ cases, either through general planning, the avdr~~~~~onvtt~~~~~~c ~~~- IIZ~~XP'*s or the aMA process this kind of information has been synthesized into an arcnaeological sensitivity map which divides a gecojiaphic area into various degrees Any RI-Pt grs:gin statr or on a Substrate Char Ls at least Pdrrodczally of archaeologica~l sensitivity. def~~cientto~ orge as tuit a! axtcesslv .ater ctent .. plants typiaall, '..no in war hAbi-Ars). s~ 'L1 ~S~T'IYO OETA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S1S FLOWakeOMCA EETVV RPTUA Lake ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If the Commnission Staff determines the archaeological sensitivity of a psr- A lake is a canfined, pereonnal waer. body mopped by C-,e Un:,-.d StAren ticlar parcel is kwJ, and there is only a slight potential that archax-7.iaogi- Ge~oogi Surey he ;.5 quadrangle series, cc -tdenc~!4ed -a 16cal coascLclrsucold eetedbyan y excavation or grading that is planned, Xeopvjcpant irq standard condition: erAny(ie. plantsgon -yhavle moisurand inohbtatio conitios1 bvetwgeen Sou~ld archaeological resources be disclosed during any construction exc-aes (ie., pantstypiclly -.ad n nabta:A i-.4&~Grat Moiturephase of the project, all activity which could damage or destroy these conditions, nor usually dry or wet). resources shall be temporarily suspended until the site has been examined motion OO.Laticaa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~by a qualified archaeologist and mitigation measures have been developed Ontinon vosu~~~~~~~~~~~ations ~~~~to address the impacts of the projection archaeological resources. Such (see dt~ifli-ion of "heaily populations" abo-G)mitigation measures shall, be reviewed by the State office of Historic Preserv- ation and approved by the Executive Director of the Regional Commission. Risarianhbia A ripar-an habitat in 4P area of riparian vegetation and associated animal SITE C' (NVERAE TO HIGH ARCHAE01XICL SENSIIVITY AN PO~TEIRIL spe..-as. This vegetation is an association of plant Spec-as vofiah grow adjacont t fr.27sh.atar vater-ourses, including pereanta-l and intermi'.Zan When a permit application is received for a project in an area which, in the StreaMs, lakes, and Other bodies of fresh -ster (set als APNDIX Dl. judgment of Camnission Staff has moderate to high archaeological sensitivity, ?,iver or Stream the Camurission Staff may require the applicant to submit with the application information developed by a qualified archaeologist regarding the presence and A vriveror screm" is a atural atecou sdsgaed by a *soLid lind so' sinfcn of archaeological materials. The selection of die archaeologist deaso and three dots symbol snowo on the United States Geological Surv'ey naP nol ecntypulihe.oran vlleiod hanl ir dstnuihaiebd retained by the applicant will be subject to the approval of the Executive and han hrecently ebisndenc or sainy conannel fwingter a'stindititabo ed byDirector. Appendfix A details the necessary qualification Archaeological in- scour or spos.-. a rack. snd. X-*"I soill, o debris.vestiglations generally fall into three phases; 70=a, pool ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1) Archaeological Reconnaissance: This phase is designed to locate A vernal pool MAY be defined generally as .. a small depression, usually' archaeological sites.- it typicai-ly background research, including undrlan y sonsuburacelaer hih pohiit dringe nt th twerlierair review and a search of the records in the Infornation Center soil proilein cicOdurig th rany sason watr na erad fo peronoof the California Archaeological Inventory. Where the literature review/ of time nuftetto prohibit tonal vegetlation from developing. The nabitat rhv: erhfnsta naeut uvyo h rahspeiul t oaroosset LO duration or inundation her-don mersnos (n*KOra'Yahvls e a rh f n s t a naeut uvey ofh reha prvously rarl dr)an ot oacoouiis(eeornlrrlyubrgd .- been done, with no resources indicated, additional work is usually not ("The vegetation Of Vernal PcOls: A Survey.' By Rober: P. Ro~llnd. necessary. Otherwise a surface reconnaissance wili be necessary. The Deparzment P! Agronomy & Rtange Science, universit.y of California, Davis. surface reconnlaissance entails a walkover of the site and inspection PubLixned in. Vern-al POOlS: Their- Ecology and Conservation. A Symponoultn of the land surface'for visible archaeological resources. Occasionally sponsored byte J.1t:1tots of clgUteot f ao:riDv a the reconnaissance will require sme~ subsurface testing to determine 1-~,197 or confirm the presenrce of an archaeological resource, especially in We: I an areas of rapid alluvial accisrulation, in sand dune deposits or in filled areas. At the conclusion of this work, a-report will be prepared (see AFEND!C--S A and U [Section 301:11) toD detail reconnaissance inathodology, findings and recaunandations. tsrovnvt;; olnot I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n most projects this relatively inexpensive initial study will be ,Any plane &r-oonj in a naL:a:t oz wniz., an ppcr-tA~e por-.Lon'ot tad rpc:tor the only investigation necessary. necdum dies -b :the -i.-.ig coef~ficien: a0 frtq-1 t Tervas ..... anZ5 -154- ARCHAEOIO ICAL GUIDELINES (Adopted 12/16/81) 2) Testing and Determination of Significance. Where an archaeo- logical site has been found in the reconnaissance, further work is The Coastal Zone was prcbably the most densely occupied region in California perfolned to define the precise location a ndaies of the achaeo- in pre-historic times. The same amenities which attract people to the Coast- Subsurface te"n is usually done thrgh hand ecavation of several al Zone today, including a mild climate and abundant and varied natural re- Subsrface testing is usually done through ha excavation of several sources, attracted aboriginal peoples in pre-historic times. As a result, the probability of discovering archaeological materials in the Coastal Zone t required an the basis of site intesear h o is unusually high, and the potential for the destruction of such resources through develcment is considerable. ethic and historical value and the potential for public appreciation. Where the testing is extensive, or where it may affect an environ- If not properly located and designed, development can significantly impact mentally sensitive area special conditions will apply (see Section archaeological resources. Excavation or grading commonly performed as part "B" below). o f the site preparation for a project can obliterate archaeological materials, or disturb their provenance to such an extent that the information that could 3) Mitigation Plan. At the completion of testing the potential have been derived from the knowledge of their relative position would be pro,5t impacts can be assessed and appropriate protection or mitiga- permanently lost. Development can also impact archaeological resources by tion measure are frulated. The mitigation plan details constraints compacting the archaeological materials, or by changing their chemical canpo- ad permit coditions which will apply to the proposed project, sition. As so many archaeological sites have been destroyed or damaged as stipulating actions to preserve the site or mitigate unavoidable a result'of man-made developnents or natural processes, the remaining sites, damage. even though they may be less rich in archaeological materials, have become increasingly valuable. Additionally, because archaeological sites if -tudied MITIGATION MEASURES collectively may provide information on subsistence and settlement patterns, the loss of individual sites can reduce the scientific value of the sites The type of mitigation which is necessary or appropriate to protect archaeo- which remain intact. logical resources varies with the particular circumstances surrounding each project. As recommended by the consulting archaeologist and approved by Archaeological sites also have great cultural and religious significance for the Caonission as conditions on the project, they may range from cxnplete contemporary Native Americans and their destruction or desecration is of avoidance of the site to a full scale excavation and analysis of the great concern to the Native American community. archaeological materials. Arranged by order of preference, these mitigation measures include: The Coastal Act establishes a mandate to protect archaeological resources and mitigate the impact of development upon them. Public Resources Code 1. Prohibiting any development over archaeological resources Sections 30001.5 and 30244 state: 2. Permitting only open space uses (e.g., landscaping) over archeo- Section 30001.5 The Legislature further finds and declares that the logical sites basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to: 3. Locating developcment on the least sensitive or significant (a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore portions of an archaeological site the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and manmade resources... 4. Filling over all archaeological areas with appropriate materials (e.g., 12-18 inches of clean sand) before placing structures on the Section 30244 Where development would adversely impact archaeologi- site cal or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required. 5. Partially Archaeologically Excavating: Where there is no way to avoid partly damaging a site, requiring that the excavation that The following Interpretive Guidelines are in two parts (a) guidelines to must be done (for the foundation, sewer line or the Like) be done mitigate the archaeological impact of coastal development in general and (b) scientifically by archaeologists. guidelines for theconduct of archaeological studies themselves. Addition- ally, a discussion providing guidance for Local Coastal Programs is included. 6. Conducting an archaeological survey and salvaqe excavation prior to commencing construction. A. MITIGATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENTS: Archaeological excavations as in 5 and 6 above will be subject to the provisions of Section B below. In order for archaeological resources to be protected, they must first be identified. Several types of information can indicate the potential a par- The mitigation plan may also require that an archaeological monitor be ticular parcel has for containing archaeological resources. These include present during all construction in an archaeological site or sensitive the pattern of known archaeological sites as catalogued by the regional Infor- rtea. mation Centers of The California Archaeological Inventory; specific studies of the parcel that may have been done under CEQA; preliminary field checks by the -156- I --157- B. GUIDELINES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS A briefer outline research design may be used for projects involving on]; a testing program. Such a program is limited to obtaining data necessary for delneating a Archaeological work in the Coastal Zone generally occurs through either site, evaluating its potential significance, assessing the impact of a proposed academic and professional research or through mitigation programs carried out development and estimating mitigation costs for those impacts. under NHPA, CEOA, NEPA or the Coastal Act. These programs are intended to avniid or mitigate the impact of same other type of development (i.e., construction of Peer Review Statement a building, trenching for a pipeline, grading for a road) on archaeological resources. Where an archaeological investigation involves "grading removing... In order to provide for the maximum cnservation of the archaeological resources or extraction of any material..." it is in itself a development under PRC 30106 and to provide the Cnmmission with a broarder perspective on the values of proposed and requires a permit action by. the CcOmission. archaeological works, the permit application involving excavation of more than two meters of surface area shall include a statement evidencing that the research I PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL ZONE design has been submitted to at least three other qualified archaeologists practicing in the region where the work is proposed. The research design shall Archaeological resources, the material evidence remaining from human life and also be filed for informational purposes with the Archaeological Inventory regional culture in past ages, are often extremely fragile and easily degraded or Cter. Where the city or county in which the project is located has an destroyed. Important scientific information is often contained not only in archaeologist on staff, he or she shall be included in the three peer reviewers. archaeological artifacts themselves, but in how they are deposited in a site, The sta ent shall include copies of the comments offered by the reviewers and and related to the surrounding environment. Moreover, saome materials found rests of the peer review. in an archaeological site have a profound cultural and religious significance to same people, especially related Native American groups. Key elements of Consultation with Affected Native Amerians an effective program to protect and mitigate the impact upon these resources include assuring that only qualified ersons perform archaeologicalwork, that Any application proposing excavation of more than 2 square meters of surface area shall include a statement that the appropriate Native American groups their work contributes to our understanding of history or prehistory and that have been consulted in the development of the proposed investigation, and Ntative American and other affected orouDs be consulted in the process of such work, have reviewed the research design. The statement shall provide copies of any written coments and describe other results of the consultation. The Native Professional Qualificaticns American Heritage Ccmnission maintains a county listing of the affected groups that are to be consulted and can facilitate these consultations. Particular The undisciplined disturbance of archaeological sites, such as that done by pot- attention shall be given to resolving any conflicts over the treatment of burials hunters,results in the loss of valuable scientific information and destruction that may be encountered in the archaeological site. of the resource. Individuals trained in and meeting the standards of the archaeological profession have a high standard of regard for the cm=servation II. PROTECION OF OTHER COASTAL RESOURCES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESIGIONS of archaeological resources in their work. Applicants for any subsurface excavation of an archaeological site in the coastal zone must meet, or work Archaeological investigations in the coastal zone may involve a variety of under the direct supervision of someone who meets the U.S. Department of Inteior different procedures incling surface diskin test hole augering and backhoe mini/un standards for archaeological consultants. These standards are additionally ' trenching, and full scale site excavation. In addition to the impact on the endorsed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. The standards are found archaeological resources themselves the principal concerns with these activities in 36 CFR 66 and 36 CFR 64 and are paraphrased in Appendix A. Members of the is their potential impacts on environmentally sensitive areas. The Coastal Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) certified for field research are Act of 1976 states: considered to meet these qualifications. Section 30107.5 Research Design "Enviarontally sensitive area" means any area in For any archaeological work involving excavation of more than two meters of which plant or animal life or their habitats are either surface area (see "Permitting" below) the coastal permit application shall include rare or especially valuable because of their special a written research design. The research design is an explicit statement of nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily research objectives and a program for carrying out these objectives. It is disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. intended to assure that disturbance of the archaeological site is warrented in terms of the information that will be yielded or the mitigation that is Typical examples of environmentally sensitive areas include wetlands (coastal achieved. The research design should include (1)a statement of the theoretical streams, lagoons, sloughs, esturies, coastal lakes, vernal pools), special problem, with reference to the problems of regional concern, (2)a research coastal land forms and aggregations of major vegetation such as dunes, native working hypothesis, (3) a statement of data required to ofirm or reject the oak, pine or cypress groves, native bunch grass, rare or endangered plant species hypothesis, (4) field and laboratory data collection procedures, (5) techniques and habitat areas for rare or endangered animals. to be used in data analysis, and (61 arranqements for curation of collections when appropriate. and disseminaticn of the -easearch findings. Aparchaeological investigation may have the potential for directly or indirectly impacting an evironarntally sensitive area through, for example, direct disruption due to excavation, through developing access to the study site, or 159-i through erosion or runoff from a large excavation to an area such as a coastal lagon. The application shall specify the potential for involvement of these groups as the activities proceed. In granting the permit the Ccmnission may articulate the specific conditions that would apply to each activity. Work could proceed on each new activity delineated by the permit 'Indiv"uals interested in conducting archaeological investigations can find after notification to and approval by the District Director, without requir- information about the type of and location of environmentally sensitive areas ing separate permits and hearings. present in specific areas in the certified Incal Coastal Land Use Plan for the area and/or by contacting the Zoastal Commission District Office. SANLDARD CITICNS III. PERMITUING ~ 3ARCHAEOL \L kUORK f~IN . CcSTAL The following conditions will be applied to all permits for archaeological in- III. PERMITTING ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE COASTAL ZOE vestigations. Same archaeological work typically carried out in the Coastal Zone, such designee shall be on site atharl tf field wrk, or a qualified as a reconnaissance site walkover, is not a development under the Act. However, where material is to be removed, as in an archaeological excavation, b. Archaeological excavations not a permanent part of permitted Commission permit action is required. Same archaeological reconnaissance construction shall be restored by back filling the excavation and testing involving remcnal of material would have no potential for sig- and otherwise leaving the area in as near to original condition nificant adverse effect on the archaeological or other coastal resources. as possible These types of activities are defined and categorized below. To avoid unnecessary delay of this work, an administrative permit procedure will generally be used. c. All operations shall be ccducted in a manner to prevent the If and when the Crmnission adopts procedures for waivers of projects, this erosion of land, pollution of water resources, and damage to category of projects may be also considered for waivers. the watershed, and to prevent or reduce to the fullest extent the scarring of lands. Pdministrative Permits d. Within six weeks of the conclusion of field work, a synopsis of An administrative permit will generally be issued, as determined by the the new materials found and their archaeological significance shall Executive Director, where an application is for archaeological work that: be provided to the State Historical Preservation Office and the Commanission. 1) is reconnaissance work to locate, Ldentify and define an e. No later then one year after completion of field work a final report on the excavation and analysis shall be submitted to the Stale 2) will be conducted by a qualified archaeologist (as defined in Historic Preservation Office and the Commission. .Fppendix A) and, CCONFIDENIALITY 3) will not disturb any sensitive er-viromemntal habitats, and 3) Commission staff will not identify the exact location of an archaeological site 4) will not result in the excavation or disturbance of more than in any reports available for general public review. Such information provided 2 square meters of surface area, and by the applicant or others involved with a permit will be marked "Not for Public Review" and kept in a file for use only by staff and others having a bona-fide 51 will not affect Native PTnrican burials or cemnetries, or need for the information as determined by the District Director. where agreement has been reached with affected Native Americans on this issue. Regular Calendar Items/Phased Permi-t- Applications for archaeological investigations which could significantly affect archaeological or other resources not meeting the criteria above will generally be handled as consent or hearing items. As an alternative to applying to the Commission for each individual archaeological study, individuals or institutions, such as universities, which plan extensive archaeological work within the Coastal Zone over time may apply for a phased permit. The permit application shall specify a distinct geographic area which will be covered by the permit and shall include a research design which in part specifies the variety of planned activities over the period of the permit (generally three years). Statements of peer review and Native American consultation, as described above, shall be included and should detail the ongoing -I- -160- C. PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES THROUGH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS APPENDIX A The protection of archaeological resources through the Local Coastal Plans ooses Professional Qualifications essentially the same difficulties presented by the Commission's permit review It is essential that any location and identification study be staffed by process. qualified persons. While students, interns, trainees, and volunteers are commonly and effectively used as team memboers, it is vital that th.ey be At a minimum, the Local Coastal Plans must include a general policy comparable tommonly su per vi sed by pers, it is tal at expe Public Resources Code Section 30244 regarding the protection of archaeological si- sources. In addition, the Local Coastal Plans should also include more specific In the following definitions, a month of professional experience need policies and zoning requirements which set forth the Orocedures and standards by not consist of a continuous month of full-time work but may be made up of which archaeological resources are to be protected. These provisions must aderess discontinuous periods of full-time or part-time worg adding up to the the problem of initially identifying archaeological resources as well as the type and level of mitigation which will be required to protect archaeological materials from imoacts stemming from develooment. The preceeding Guidelines establish The minimum professional qualificati in archaeology are (a) a graduate the Commission's standard for review of LCPs. degree in archaeology, anthropology, or a closely related field, or equiv- alent training accepted for accreditation purposes by the Society of The initial identification of archaeological resources is both a critical step alent trated abilitato carr y thearch Professional Archaeologists, (h) demonstrated ability to carry research in the protection of these resources, and one which can be greatly facilitated to completion, usually evidenced by timely completion of theses, research by the "up-front" work of the LCP. The preparation of archaeological sensi- reports, or similar documents, and (c) at least 16 months of professional tivity maps is a practical, efficient, and effective method of identifying experience and/or specialized training in archaeological field, laboratory, archaeological resources. When prepared by a qualified archaeologist, such or library research, administration, or management, including at least maps can synthesize the data previously collected in a region and, based 4 months experience and/or specialized training in the kind of activity upon terrain. vegetation and other physical features, extrapolate the data the individual proposes to practice. For example, persons supervising to classify a given area as to the relative potential for containing archaeo- field archaeology should have at least I year or its equivalent in field logical resources. While such maps cannot be used to definitively determine a and/or specialized field training, including at least 6 months the presence or absence of archaeological material, they can be used to choose in a supervisory role. Persons engaged to do archival or documentary re- the appropriate level of archaeological study. The Commission's Guidelines search should have had at least I year of experience and/or specialized provide a model for such a system. training in such work. Archaeologists engaged in regional or agency Because of the high' probability of discovering archaeological resources .' ' planning or compilance w ith historic preservation procedures should have in the Coastal Zone, the Local Coastal Plan should include a policy requiring all at least I year of experience in work directly pertinent to planning, dIscretn tonary review pmjects be cc~iditioned to Stipulate that compliance actions, etc., and/or specialized historic preservation or dis~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~cutrlretioltsmnarygevientwan4g pra~cts ec itioner t stprlaethistoi work-oo the Oroject be stopped' in the event that archaeological materials are dis- cultural resource management training. A practitioner of prehistoric covered during construction, regardless of the archaeological designation of -he archaeology should have had at least I year of experience or special train- area in which the development is located. Section A of the Guideines contan ing in research concerning archaeological resources of the prehistoric: a model of such a policy. period. A practitioner of historic archaeology should have had at least I year of experience in research concerning archaeological resources of the Finally, the Local Coastal Program should also include provision for the historic period. procedures outlined in the guidelines relative to professional qualifications, research design, peer and Native American consultation, protection of environmentally sensitive habitats, standard mitigation conditions, and confidentiality. Adopted December 16, 1981 -- -1 DEFINITIONS Where used in the specific guidelines, the following definitions of terms should apply: 1. Canyon Setback. in situations where other Interpretive Guidelines or Coastal Act policies do not apply, an adequate setback, generally no less than 10 feet in highly developed urban areas, from the crest of the slope of a canyon. Where existing structures are already built closer than this to the canyon rim, new structures shall not encroach on the line of primaxy canyon vegetation. 2. Strinaline Method of Preventins Beach Encroachment. In a developed area where new construction is generally infilling and is otherwise consistent with Coastal Act policies, no part of a proposed new structure, including decks, shall be built farther onto a beachfront than a line drawn between the most seaward portions of the adjoining structures. Enclosed living space in the new unit should not extend farther seaward than a second line drawn between the most seaward portions of the enclosed living space of the adjoining structure. Adopted May 3, 1977 Appendix B Sample Form Letters For Use In The Review Of CEQA Required Documents And The Processing Of Coastal Development Permit Applications 165 Form Letter One Purpose:- This form letter can be used as a guide for commenting on an initial study, negative declaration, or notice of preparation for an environmental impact report involving a wvetland 'dezvelopment project in the coastal zone. Date Dear (insert name of individual or agency receiving comments): Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the (insert complete name of document reviewed). The project referenced in this document involves development activities in the coastal zone and, as presented, will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. Further, it appears that the proposed project may affect a wetland within the coastal zone through dredging, diking, filling, or other similar activity. The Coastal Act provides clear policies that allow for the regulation of development activities within 'or affecting wetlands. Among other requirements, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act identifies eight allowable uses, requires that the proposed project be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative, and where applicable, requires feasible and appropriate mitigation. Specifically, Section 30233 provides, in part, that: (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetlands, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the 166 degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake or, outfall lines. (6) Mineral extraction, including. sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore current systems. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, 'Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division. In addition, Coastal Act Sections 30230 and 30231 requires the protection of marine and biological resources. Section 30230 provides that: Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced' and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a 167 manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-. term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. Section 30231 provides that: The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, 'restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion- of ground w'ater supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. In order to assess the potential project effects on wetlands and their consistency with the Coastal Act, -Comn-dssion staff have developed detailed filing requirements for coastal development permit applications proposing wefland development projects. Enclosed with this letter is a list of information required by Commnission staff for the filing and processing of a coastal development permit application for a project proposing development in a wetland. It is suggested that the lead agency consider the Coastal Act sections cited above and the attached list of requirements and incorporate the necessary analyses into the, appropriate documents required under CEQA. This will ensure that the resulting documents satisfy both the CEQA requirements and the California Coastal Commission's requirements for filing a complete coastal development permit application. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on this document. Should you have any questions, please call (insert name and phone number of CCC staff person). Sincerely, District Director enclosure (enclose a copy of the list in Appendix B) 168 Form Letter Two Purpose. This form letter can be used as a guide for commenting on an environmental impact report involving a wetland development project in the coastal zone. Date Dear (insert -name of individual or agency receiving comments): Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the (insert complete name of document reviewed). The project referenced in this document involves development activities in the coastal zone and, as presented, will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. Further, it appears that the proposed project may affect a wetland within the coastal zone through dredging, diking, filling, or other similar activity. The Coastal Act provides clear policies that allow for the regulation of development activities within or affecting wetlands. Among other requirements, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act identifies eight allowable uses, requires that the proposed project be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative, and where applicable, requires feasible and appropriate mitigation. Specifically, Section 30233 provides, in part, that: (a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance -channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetlands, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411,1 for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive 169 wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recre- ational opportunities. (5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake or outfall lines. (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transpo rted for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore current systems. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, 'Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California', shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division. In addition, Coastal Act Sections 30230 and 30231 requires the protection of marine and biological resources. Section 30230 provides that: Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters, and will 170 maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long- term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. Section 30231 provides that: The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, arnd lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. In order to assess the potential project effects on wetlands and their consistency with the Coastal Act, Commission staff have developed detailed filing requirements for coastal development permit applications proposing wetland development projects. Enclosed with this letter is a list of information required by Commission staff for the filing and processing of a coastal development permit application for a project proposing development in a wetland. The items identified with an "X" on the enclosed list are not included in the environmental impact report for the proposed project. Commission staff recommend revision of the environmental impact report to include the noted items, since they will be necessary for filing.a complete coastal development permit application. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on this document. Should you have any questions, please call (insert name and phone number of CCC staff person). Sincerely, District Director enclosure (enclose a copy of the list in Appendix B) 171 Form Letter Three Purpose:- This form 'letter can be used as a guide for notifyjing an applicant that their coastal development permit application is incomplete. Date Subject: Coastal Development Permit Application (No. insert application number) for (include a brief description of the project and its location) Dear (include name of applicant or their agent): The Commission staff has completed an initial review of your coastal development permit application, which was received on (insert date of application receipt). This review found the proposed project involves activities affecting wetland resources. As a result, your application was also evaluated to determine the presence of all information required for development activities affecting these resources. This evaluation showed the information submitted in support of your application is not sufficient for complete analysis o f all potential wetland impacts. Therefore, Comm-ission staff have determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be filed at this time. Enclosed with this letter is a list of information necessary for the filing of a coastal development permit application for a project involving activities affecting wetland resources. The items identified with an 'X" on the enclosed list were not included with your initial application. Please submit the required information to this office by (insert appropriate date), or this application will be returned to you. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please call (insert name and phone number of CCC staff person). Sincerely, District Director enclosure (enclose list of required information -from Appendix B) 172 Form Letter Four Purpose: This form letter can be used as a guide for requesting additional information after a permit for a development project affect wetland resources has been filed. Date Subject: Coastal Development Permit Application (No. insert application number) for (include a brief description of the project and its location) Dear (include name of applicant or their agent): In reviewing the above-referenced permit application, Commission staff have determined the proposed project involves activities affecting wetland resources. As a result, your application was also evaluated to determine the presence of all information required for development activities affecting these resources. On the basis of this detailed review, it has been determined that the information submitted in support of this application is not sufficient for completing the required comprehensive analysis of potential wetland impacts. Please submit the information requested below, so that the evaluation of your permit application can be completed. (Include a clear, concise list of the information required.) 1. 2. etc. This request is made pursuant to the Permit Streaming Act, Government Code Sections 65944(a) and (c), which authorize the following requests for information: 1) Requests for clarification, amplification, correction, or supplementation of the information included with the permit application; and 2) requests for information necessary to enable the Coastal Commission to fulfill its obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act. Please be advised that the Permit Streamlining Act expressly authorizes the Coastal Commission to deny your application on the basis of an applicant's failure to furnish the information requested in this letter (Government Code Section 65956[c]). Please 173 submit the requested information to this office by (insert appropriate date), to ensure processing of your permit application is not further delayed. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please call (insert name and phone number of CCC staff person). Sincerely, District Director 174 Appendix C A List Of Information Required For Evaluation Of Coastal Development Permit Applications Proposing Development Activities Affecting Wetland Resources 175 INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE EVALUATION OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION PROPOSING DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN A WETLAND. All coastal development permit applications must contain information required in Section 13053.5 of the CCC Administrative Regulations. In addition, applications for development projects affecting wetland resources must include all maps necessary to describe the project, results of biological, soil, and hydrological surveys, an alternatives analysis, plans for mitigation and monitoring as appropriate, and an ecological study. At a minimum, the application should contain the following information: 1) A comprehensive project description. 2) A description of wetland habitat type(s) and the approximate area each habitat covers using the classification procedures described in Cowardin et al. (1979)1. 3) Detailed topographic base map(s)2 of the site with information taken from recent (1-2 year old) aerial photographs. If only older aerial photographs are available, the site information must be updated from field visits. The map should indicate 0.5 to 1.0 foot contours, the specific datum reference used (either mean sea level or mean lower low water), and show the applicant's property boundaries and adjacent property boundaries (including parcel lines of any tidelines, submerged lands or public trust lands). All parcels should be identified by their assessor parcel numbers. 4) A detailed hydrologic map. For tidal wetlands the map should show areas inundated at high and low tides, along with estimates of the effective tidal range and tidal lag. For non-tidal wetlands the map should show the permanent or seasonal water patterns of inundation (including sources) in years of low, average, and high rainfall. 5) A detailed vegetation map. This map should identify the type, location, and percent cover of all plant species. 6) A detailed soils map. This map should identify the type and location of all soils and include a description of the soil types. 1 Cowardin, L.M., W. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Service. Washington D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. 2 All maps should be completed at the same scale and use the same orientation to allow overlaying. 176 7) A detailed site map. This map should show the location and size of the proposed development, including and dikes, culverts, or tide gates. 8) A grading plan. This plan should show the extent and quantity of filling and/or dredging, the type and source of fill and/or dredge material including determinations of grain size and tests for possible pollutants, and the location of any proposed dredge disposal site. 9) History of the site, if available, including: a) Collection of older aerial photographs. and maps. These historic photographs and maps should be used to establish, if possible, the previous natural state of the wetland prior to any artificial modification. b) Collection and summary of all available studies of the wetland site. This should include land use studies, environmental documents, and scientific reports. Existing land use policies and any approved plans for the site should also be included. 10) A complete description and analysis of existing ecological conditions at the project site, including: a) A discussion of the ecological value of the plants and animals using the wetland and adjacent areas. b) A discussion of the wetlands present functions and values. c) An evaluation of potential and existing impacts including the effects of sedimentation and pollutants from residential, industrial, agricultural, and flood control activities to the wetland and associated watershed. 11) An analysis and discussion of project impacts, including an analysis of whether the project maintains and enhances the functional capacity of the wetland. "Functional capacity" means the ability of the wetland or estuary to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. In order to establish that the functional capacity is maintained, the applicant must demonstrate all of the following: a) That the project does not alter presently occurring plant and animal populations in the ecosystem in a manner that would impair the long-term stability of the ecosystems, that is, that the natural species diversity, abundance, and composition are essentially unchanged as a result of the project. 177 b) That the project does not harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered. c) That the project does not harm a species or habitat, which is essential to the natural biological function of the wetland or estuary. d) That the project does not significantly reduce consumptive (e.g., fishing, and hunting) or non-consumptive (e.g., water quality, and bird watching) values of the wetland or estuary. 12) An alternatives analysis that at a minimum includes the following: a) A review of all feasible alternatives including: i) Consideration of alternative sites, including sites which are completely outside the wetland. ii) Reconfiguration of the project including a reduction in project size, density, or coverage. b) Identifies the wetland impacts of each alternative, including a determination of the amount of habitat lost and an analysis of the impacts to the functional capacity of the system. c) Selects the least damaging feasible alternative. 13) A mitigation plan. When there is a potential loss of existing wetland habitat or value, a plan must be included that, if implemented, will result in the replacement of all lost wetland functions and provide a net gain in wetland acreage. A mitigation plan can take several forms, although a restoration plan is the most common form submitted to the CCC. The list below assumes that wetland restoration is the type of mitigation chosen. a) All restoration plans must at a minimum include the following: i) Clearly stated goals and objectives that provide for the establishment of functions and values at least equal to those occurring at the impact site. The stated goals and objectives should also be consistent with established regional habitat goals where possible. These regional goals must identify functions and or habitats most in need of replacement or restoration and must be as specific as possible. 178 ii) Adequate baseline data regarding the biological, physical, and chemical criteria for the restoration area. iii) Documentation that the project will continue to function as a viable restored wetland site over the long term. iv) Sufficient technical detail on the restoration design including, at a minimum, an engineered grading plan and water control structures, methods for conserving or stockpiling topsoil, a planting program including removal of exotic species, a list of all species to be planted, sources of seeds and/or plants, tfiming of planting, plant locations and elevations on the restoration base map, and maintenance techniques. v) Documentation of performance standards, which provide a mechanism for making adjustments to the mitigation site when it is determined, through monitoring, or other means that the restoration techniques are not working. vi) Documentation of the necessary management and maintenance requirements, and provisions for timely remediation should the need arise. vii) An implementation plan that demonstrates there is sufficient scientific expertise, supervision, and financial resources to carry out the proposed activities. viii) A monitoring program (see below for more details). b) For a restoration plan to be deemed acceptable, it must also include evidence or other conclusive information that: i) The site can be purchased prior to commencement of the development project and dedicated to a public agency or otherwise permanently restricted in use to 'open space' ii) A bond or other method exists to guarantee successful completion of the mitigation project. iii) The site is located in an area no longer functioning in a manner beneficial to wetland species, such as a formerly productive wetland or estuary that is now biologically unproductive dry land. 179 iv) The site can'be restored to 'equal or. greater biological productivity" (Coastal Act Section 30607.1) than the area lost, with the same type and variety of plant and animal species. That is, the mitigation wetland would replace the functions and values existing at the impacted wetland v), The site is located in the same regiorn (e.g., within the same water body or watershed) as the wetland impacted through development. c) The restoration plan shall include detailed construction and management plans that: i) Identify the habitat values that will be created at the restoration site and the time frame for completion. ii) Establishes monitoring and maintenance programs that provides an objective way to evaluate the success of the restoration project and ensure its long-term maintenance. 15) The monitoring plan provides an objective way to evaluate the success of the restoration project. When properly conducted, monitoring provides invaluable information regarding: * Compliance of the restoration plan: with the stated restoration goals. * Identification of major problems or flaws in the restored area. * Provide ways to improve future wetland restoration plans. The monitoring program is intended to document changes in the physical, chemical, and biological status of the restored area through the collection and analysis of relevant data. The monitoring plan should include the following components: a) Provisions for independent monitoring of the site for at least five years after completion of the mitigation project. The intent is to continue monitoring until the succss"of the project has been determined. For larger projects where new wetlands are created, extended monitoring will be required. b) Repetitive surveys for plants and animals (including species of special concern) throughout the various habitats of the restoration area using techniques that permit a determination of species composition and abundance (percent cover for plants). Both terrestrial and aquatic animals should be surveyed. At least one survey should occur prior to any restoration activities. 180 c) Monitoring of hydrology. For tidal wetlands this would include a determination of the areas inundated at high and low tide, tidal prism, and water velocity. For non- tidal wetlands, this would include determination of permanent and seasonal patterns of inundation and water sources. d) Monitoring of water quality. Repetitive sampling of various chemical and physical constituents such as salinity, pH, nutrient concentration, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and turbidity throughout the year. The sampling pattern may vary throughout the year and may include more intensive sampling over several tidal cycles to determine short term salinity patterns. e) Monitoring of soil chemistry. This will serve primarily to document trends in soil salinity in tidal wetlands, but may include measurements of other constituents as required. f)Ongoing procedures for the identification and corre ction of problems as they arise. Such problems may be related to the physical, chemical, or biological attributes of the restoration site, or difficulties in meeting restoration objectives and timelines. g) Provisions for timely analysis and production of annual reports. These reports will be distributed to the CCC and other interested parties. Upon completion of the monitoring program, a final monitoring report that analyses all monitoring data and presents different management options shall be completed. Appendix D Wetlands Resource And Regulatory Agencies Contact 182 Preface This contac~t list is intended to facilitate communication and coordination among all levels of government regarding activities involving wetlands. The document contains an address and phone list of individuals involved 'in the management, regulation, and preservation of California's wetlands. Individuals from both State and federal agencies are listed. Additionally, a table is included that cross-references the regional offices of State and federal agencies relative to various geographic areas of the State. This is a publication of the State of California, California Coastal Commission pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA270Z0288-01. Although this document was prepared by the California Coastal Commission, much of the information contained within was originally assembled by staff of the State Water Resources Control Board. It is intended for this contact list to be widely distributed. Anyone is free to copy and *distribute this document as appropriate. 183 WETLANDS RESOURCE AND REGULATORY AGENCIES CONTACT LIST Contents: Page RESOURCES AGENCY ............................................... 185 AQIUATIC HABITAT INSTITUTE .............................. 185 CA COASTAL COMMISSION .................................... 185 CA COASTAL CONSERVANCY ................................ 186 CA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ................ 186 S.F. BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ................................ 187 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION-CALTRANS ............ 188 STATE LANDS COMMISSION ................................... 188 CA STATE AND REGIONAL WATER BOARDS ...... 188 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ................ 190 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD ...................... 190 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ........................... 191 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ... 193 US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE .......................... 194 US NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ...... 195 US SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE ...................... 195 TABLE: CROSS REFERENCE INDEX ..................... 196 184 STATE AGENCY CONTACTS RESOURCES AGENCY 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1131 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-3006 Fax (916) 653-8102 Craig Denisehoff Wetlands Coordinator (916) 654-2755 AOUATIC HABITAT INSTITUTE Building 180 Richmond Field Station 1301 South 46th Street Richmond, CA 94804 (510) 231-9539 Fax (510) 231-9414 Josh Collins Wetlands Specialist (S.F. Bay) CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS/NORTH COAST AREA OFFICE 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 (415) 904-5200 Fax (415) 904-5400 Headquarters Zach Hymanson Wetlands Coordinator (415) 904-5253 Jim Raives (415) 904-5280 North Coast Area Office Steve Scholl (415) 904-5260 Bob Merrill (415) 904-5260 CENTRAL COAST AREA OFFICE 725 Front Street, Suite 300 Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4508 (408) 427-4863 Fax (408) 427-4877 Les Strnad 185 COASTAL COMMISSION, CONT. SOUTH CENTRAL COAST AREA OFFICE 89 South California Street, Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93001-2801 (805) 641-0142 Fax (805) 641-1732 Mark Capelli SOUTH COAST AREA OFFICE P.O. Box 1450 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, CA 90802-4416 (310) 590-5071 Fax (310) 590-5084 Teresa Henry SAN DIEGO COAST AREA OFFICE 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108-1725 (619)521-8036 Fax (619) 521-9672 Debora Lee CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612-2530 (510) 286-1015 Fax (510) 286-0470 Reed Holderman CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME STATE HEADQUARTERS 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-7664 - Fax (916) 653-1856 Ken Anderson (916) 657-2392 Robert Radovich Wetlands Regulatory Coordinator (916) 653-9757 REGION 1 - REDDING 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 (916) 225-2300 Fax (916) 225-2381 John Siperek (916) 225-2312 186 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, CONT. REGION 2 - RANCHO CORDOVA 1701 Nimbus Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 (916) 355-0978 Fax (916) 355-7102 David Zezulak (916) 355-7030 REGION 3 - YOUNTVILLE P.O. Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 (707) 944-5500 Fax (707) 944-5563 Carl Wilcox (707) 944-5525 REGION 4 - FRESNO 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710 (209) 222-3761 Fax (209) 445-6426 Mike Mulligan (209)445-6152 REGION 5 - LONG BEACH 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 (310) 590-5132 Fax (310) 590-5193 Curt Tausher (310) 590-5137 S.F. BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011 San Francisco, CA 94102-6013 (415) 557-3686 Fax (415) 557-3767 Steve McAdam Steve Goldbeck 187 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - CALTRANS STATE HEADQUARTERS 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 654-2852 Fax (916) 653-3291 Environmental Division 650 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95821 Fax (916) 263-1075 Veda Lewis Wetlands Specialist (916) 263-3416 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STATE HEADQUARTERS 1807 13th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 322-7777 Fax (916) 322-3568 Environmental Planning And Management Division Dwight E. Sanders Chief (916) 322-7827 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND REGIONAL WATER OUALITY CONTROL BOARDS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Division of Water Quality 901 P Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 657-2390 Fax (916) 657-2388 Oscar Balaguer (916) 657-1025 Walt Shannon (916) 657-1027 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS REGION 1 - NORTH COAST 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 576-2220 Fax (707) 523-0135 John Hannum (707) 576-2655 188 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS, CONT. REGION 2 - SAN FRANCISCO BAY 2101 Webster Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 286-1255 Fax (510) 286-1380 Michael Carlin Dredging (510) 286-1325 Dick Whitsel Fill & Minor Dredging (510) 286-1329 REGION 3 - CENTRAL COAST 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5427 (805) 549-3147 Fax (805) 543-0397 Adam White (805) 549-369 REGION 4 - LOS ANGELES 101 Centre Plaza Drive Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156 (213) 266-7500 Fax (213) 266-7600 Lauma Jurkevics (213) 266-7609 REGION 5 - CENTRAL VALLEY 3443 Routier Road Sacramento, CA 95827-3098 (916) 255-3000 Fax (916) 255-3015 Larry Beatty Fresno Office (209) 445-6188 Fax (209) 445-5910 Jack Del Conte Sacramento Office (916) 361-5600 Annie Payson Redding Office (916) 224-4784 Fax (916) 224-4857 REGION 6 - LAHONTAN 2092 Lake Tahoe Blvd. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 (916) 542-5400 Fax (916) 544-2271 John Short Tahoe Office (916) 544-3481 Ken Carter Victorville Office (619) 241-6583 Fax (619) 241-7308 REGION 7- COLORADO RIVER 73-720 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 346-7491 Fax (619) 341-6820 Cary Anderson (619) 776-8945 189 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS, CONT. REGION 8 - SANTA ANA 2010 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507-2409 (909) 782-4130 Fax (909)781-6288 Michael Adackapara (909) 782-3238 REGION 9 - SAN DIEGO 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite B San Diego, CA 92124 (619) 467-2952 Fax (619) 571-6972 Greig Peters (619) 467-2976 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 9th Street, Rm 1121-2 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-5791 Fax (916) 653-5028 Kate Hansel Wetlands Coordinator (916) 653-0562 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD 801 K Street, Suite 806 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-8448 Fax (916) 323-0280 Scott Clemons Riparian Habitat Program Manager Marilyn Cundiff-Gee Wetlands Program Manager 190 FEDERAL AGENCY CONTACTS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY STAFF SACRAMENTO DISTRICT 1325 J Street, Room 1444 Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 (916) 557-5250 Fax (916) 557-7943 Art Champ Chief Regulatory (916) 557-5252 Jean Elder (916) 557-5256 Larry Vinzant (916) 557-5263 Central Valley Unit (Chico to Tehachapis) Tom Coe Chief (916) 557-5255 Lou Cadwell (916) 557-5253 Tom Cavanaugh (916) 557-5261 Jim Monroe (916) 557-5266 Kathy Norton (916) 557-5260 Phyllis Petras (916) 557-5259 Karen Shaffer (916) 557-5269 Nevada/Sierra Unit (Northern CA, Eastern Sierra, Nevada) Bob Junell Chief (916) 557-5254 Mike Finan (916) 557-5324 Brad Hubbard (916) 557-5268 Kevin Roukey (916) 557-5264 Ginger Tippett (916) 557-5258 SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 211 Main Street, Room 802 San Francisco, CA 94105-1905 (415) 744-3036 Fax (415) 744-3320 Calvin Fong Chief, Regulatory (415) 744-3036 x233 Compliance Section Jurisdictional Calls, NWPs, Enforcement & Compliance) Sharon Moreland Chief (415) 744-3318 x232 Eric Behn North Area Manager (415) 744-3318 x227 Robert Lawrence South Area Manager (415) 744-3318 x234 Carin High East Area Manager (415) 744-3318 x246 Dan Martel Wetland Specialist (415) 744-3318 x230 Molly Martindale Mitigation Compliance (415) 744-3318 x228 Jane Hicks (415) 744-3318 x238 191 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CONT. SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CONT. Permit Section (Permit Management, 404(b)(1) Analysis, Public Interest Review) John Hendricks Chief (415) 744-3324 x239 Mark D'Avignon (415) 744-3324 x236 David Ammerman (415) 744-3037 x241 Debra O'Leary (415) 744-3324 x247 Bob Smith (415) 744-3324 x237 Peter Straub (415) 744-3325 x235 Craig Vassell (415) 744-3324 x240 Impact Analysis Section (EIAs, EIS Management, Mitigation Plan Evaluation, Aerial Photos) Lars M. Forsman Chief (415) 744-3322 x226 Peter Baye (415) 744-3322 x223 Jennifer Vick (415) 744-3322 x225 Wade Eakle Dredging Program Manager (415) 744-3325 x222 Karl Motoyama (415) 744-3318 x231 Jennifer Vick (415) 744-3322 x225 LOS ANGELES DISTRICT 300 North Los Angeles Street, Room 6062 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 894-5606 Fax (213) 894-2151 John Gill Chief Regulatory North Coast Section David Castanon Chief Fari Tabatabai Los Angeles Cheryl Conel Los Angeles Erin Allen Los Angeles South Coast Section Michelle Waltz Chief Bob Smith Riverside County Fari Tabatabai Los Angeles County �Mark Sudol Backlog Bruce Henderson Orange County 192 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CONT. LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CONT. Ventura Field Office 2151 Allessandro Drive, Suite 100 Ventura, CA 93001 (805) 641-1127 Fax (805) 641-0230 Diane Noda Wetlands Technical Information (805) 641-1128 Tiffany Welch (805) 641-2935 Mike Jewell (805) 641-0301 San Diego Field Office 9808 Scranton Road, Suite 430 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 455-9406 Fax (619) 455-1060 Elizabeth White Wetlands Technical Information (619) 455-9422 David Zoutendyk Biologist (619) 455-9414 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION IX HEADQUARTERS 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 (415) 744"2300 Fax (415) 744-1078 WETLANDS PERMITS AND ENFORCEMENT SECTION Clyde Morris Chief (415) 744-1962 Stephanie Wilson Acting Chief (415) 744-1968 Permits and EIS Review Nancy Dubbs (415) 744-1969 Harriet Hill (415) 744-1980 Paul Jones (415) 744-1976 Suzanne Marr Wetlands Planning (415) 744-1974 Mike Monroe (415) 744-1963 James Romero (415) 744-1967 Tom Yokem Wetlands Technical Information (415) 744-1975 Enforcement Juliet Hannafin (415) 744-1973 Robert Leidy (415) 744-1970 Wendy Molgin (415) 744-1966 Aaron Setran (415) 744-1981 193 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1823 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 (916) 978-5408 Fax (916) 978-4619 Wetlands Branch (916) 978-4613 Mike Accituno Chief Mike Long Wetlands Technical Information Jim Browning Darren Fong Mark Littlefield Ruth Pratt CENTRAL CALIFORNIA OFFICE 2140 Eastman Avenue, Suite 100 Ventura, CA 93003 (805) 644-1766 Fax (818) 904-6288 Naomi Mitchell San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara Counties Cathy Brown Ventura, Inyo, Mono Counties Ray Bransfield San Bernardino County Carey Phillips Vandenberg Air Force Base SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE 2730 Locker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 95825-1846 (619) 431-9440 Fax (619) 431-9624 404 Permit Review Jack Fancher Chief John Hanlon Los Angeles County Loren Hays Orange County John Konecny Western Riverside County Art Davenport Eastern Riverside, Imperial Counties Ann Kreger North San Diego County Nancy Gilbert South San Diego County Martin Kenney San Diego Bay, Tijuana River, Valley 194 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, CONT. PORTLAND EASTSIDE FEDERAL COMPLEX 911 N.E. 11th Ave. Portland, OR 97232-4181 Dennis Peters Wetlands Coordinator (503) 231-6154 (National Wetlands Inventory) Fax (503) 231-6243 U.S. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHERN AREA (Above Morro Bay) 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (707) 578-7513 Fax (707) 578-3435 Michael Thabault SOUTHERN AREA (Below Morro Bay) 510 West Ocean, Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802 (310) 980-4043 Fax (310) 980-4047 Bob Hoffman U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE STATE OFFICE 2121-C Second Street, Suite 102 Davis, CA 95616-5475 (916) 757-8200 Fax (916) 757-8382 Gene Kelly State Wetlands Biologist (916) 757-8309 195 CROSS REFERENCE INDEX FOR STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH REGIONAL JURISDICTIONS* State Agencies Federal Agencies Region RWQCB DFG CCC ACOE FWS NMFS North Coast Santa Rosa (1) Redding (1) San San Francisco . Sacramento Santa Rosa Yountville (3) Francisco Northeast Sacramento (5) Redding (1) N/A Sacramento Sacramento Santa Rosa Interior S. Lk. Tahoe (6) Ran. Cordova (2) San Francisco San Francisco (2) Yountville (3) San San Francisco Sacramento Santa Rosa Bay Area Francisco Central Coast Oakland (2) Yountville (3) Santa Cruz Los Angeles Sacramento Santa Rosa S. L. Obispo (3) San Francisco Ventura East Central Sacramento (5) Ran. Cordova (2) N/A Los Angeles Sacramento Santa Rosa Interior S. Lk. Tahoe (6) Fresno (4) Sacramento Ventura Long Beach (5) South Central S. L. Obispo (3) Yountville (3) Ventura Los Angeles Carlsbad Long Beach Coast Monterey (4) Long Beach (5) Ventura South Coast Monterey (4) Long Beach (5) Long Beach Los Angeles Carlsbad Long Beach Riverside (8) Southeast Sacramento (5) Long Beach (5) N/A Los Angeles Carlsbad Long Beach Interior Palm Desert (7) Ventura San Diego San Diego (9) Long Beach (5) San Diego Los Angeles Carlsbad Long Beach Coast * Region office numbers are in parentheses. 196