NCRP_Plan_IV_January_2020 — Crescent City City Council, January 17, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

3.1.1.2 NATIVE HABITAT & WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
Promote Legislation and Policy
• Promote legislation and policies that incorporate
climate change planning into conservation lands
planning, acquisition, and design (OPR 2018b).

Utilize Data-Based Planning and Management
• Modify existing conservation and open space
management priorities to buffer species from the
effects of climate change (Micheli et al. 2016).
• Several sources for climate and hydrology
projections for conservation lands are available.

Land managers are encouraged to use
proven data and tools to determine optimal
lands for protection (Micheli et al. 2016).
• Identify multi-benefit conservation values
that include other land use priorities for
management purpose (DFW 2018b)
Implement Comprehensive Monitoring
• Expand and improve monitoring programs to better
understand ecosystem dynamics (DFW 2016b).
• Consider vegetation monitoring for stress and
mortality, particularly during drought events,
in locations identified with high vegetation
vulnerabilities (Micheli et al. 2016).
• Tailor program to specific local/regional setting and define potential threats as specifically as possible
to ensure usefulness of data collected (OPR 2018b).
• Collect and collate data about wildlife corridor
use (e.g., roadkill, radio tracking, genetics)
in and around agricultural areas to ascertain
management and other protection measures to
ensure or enhance such uses (CDFW 2016e)
Practice Adaptive Management
• Reduce non-climate stressors, such as habitat
loss, invasive species, and pollution, by continuing
current management practices, such as habitat
restoration and invasive species removal. Lessstressed systems will be more resilient to climate change impacts (DFW 2016b, OPR 2018b).
• Keep abreast of current research in
climate adaptation and management
techniques to preserve native habitat and
wildlife corridors (Micheli et al. 2016)
» Prioritize preservation of landscape units
with high topographic heterogeneity to allow
for climate shifts over shorter distances,
increasing the likelihood of overlap between
current climate and future climate within a
landscape unity and therefore increasing the
likelihood of successful species migration and
survival within that unit (Heller et al. 2015).
• Assist landowners to develop wildlife friendly
practices on their working lands that can
be sustained and co-exist with agricultural
operations; the Wildlife Conservation Board
accepts grant applications for habitat restoration
projects on a continuous basis (WCB 2018).

Foster Innovation
The list of potential management actions to
anticipate, respond to, slow, or facilitate climatedriven ecosystem change is rapidly expanding.

Examples include (Micheli et al. 2016):
• Ensure genetically appropriate seed collection,
propagation and ecological restoration that
takes into consideration projected shifts
in conditions due to climate change
• Species translocations
• Reevaluation of invasive species risks
• Re-creation of historical water flows (DFW 2016a)
• Facilitated ecosystem transformations

3.1.1.3 NEAR SHORE MARINE AREAS PROTECTION
Improve Water Quality Inputs
Mitigation of the water quality issues impacting
North Coast Region freshwater aquatic ecosystems
will directly improve the quality of waters
draining into near-shore marine areas.

Plan and Implement Strategic Retreat
Strategic retreat (also called planned retreat,
managed realignment, managed retreat, set back,
and de-embankment) entails establishing thresholds
to trigger removal and relocation of development
threatened by rising sea levels. As part of this process, actively maintained defenses against storm surge and
sea level rise will most likely need to be adjusted over time, typically further inland and to higher ground, in response to encroaching waters. Planning for strategic
retreat entails first identifying vulnerable properties and structures and then developing incentives, such as
regulatory, tax, and market-based tools, to encourage
and achieve realignment. Strategic retreat options
include the following (Reza and Tinsman 2018):
• Refined assessments of assets at risk
120 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 • Preservation and enhancement of coastal wetlands
• Transfer of development rights
• Purchase of development rights
• Zoning and development standards
• Rolling easements
• Fee-simple acquisitions
• Preservation of Open Space
• Infrastructure relocation
Conservation Activities
• Support Community MPA Collaboratives
to ensure that local and regional expertise
informs management decisions (DFW 2016d)
• Facilitate the distribution of publications to local
communities and partners about MPA regulations,
resources, and monitoring results (DFW 2016d)
— be proactive in presenting science-based
information to the general public and engage
the community frequently with opportunities to
ask questions and participate as volunteers in
data collection, invasive species removal, and
native species planting (Judge et al. 2017)
• Encourage marine resource assessments
and monitoring on areas/ species, such
as rocky intertidal, marine birds, marine
mammals and eelgrass (DFW 2016d)
• Engage partners on the ground in data
collection both on their own land (for buy
in) and on their partners’ land (to increase
understanding of landscape level processes)
• Encourage coastal monitoring consistent
with the State’s Wetland and Riparian
Area Monitoring Plan (DFW 2016d)
• Improve fish passage through use of estuary
enhancement data (DFW 2016d)
• Consider development of a list of marine restoration
options such as eelgrass, native oyster and salt
marsh restoration, land purchases for habitat
restoration to buffer from sea level rise, and
other activities that would directly benefit MPAs
and marine resources in general (DFW 2016d)
• Consider wildlife needs in management of water
and floods in estuaries and wetlands (DFW 2016d)

3.1.1.4 FOREST HEALTH
Practice Adaptive Management
• Careful management can maintain
economic value, watershed function, and
biodiversity (DFW 2016e, OPR 2018c).
• A monitoring program that is tailored to regional
needs allows for responsive management of
these systems and enables identification of
areas where insects and disease, invasive
species, and/ or tree mortality levels are
high or increasing (Micheli et al. 2016).
• Manage forests for climate adaptation
by considering potential climate effects,
the spatial scale of response, timing and
prioritization of adaptation efforts.
• Consider forests at the landscape scale to
aid in prioritizing site and stand level actions
to reduce threats to forest health and forestbased economies (Micheli et al. 2014). • Manage forest composition by altering
management regimes are altered to favor
species that have characteristics suited to
projected environmental conditions.
» There is uncertainty about how native
vegetation may respond to changing climate
conditions; long-term monitoring is need
to better inform models with an improved
understanding of mechanisms and trajectories
of potential change (Micheli et al. 2014)
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 121
» Results from model simulations could
inform planting choices to maximize
timber harvest, carbon sequestration, and
drought tolerance (Micheli et al. 2014)
» Development of mixed-species forests
decreases risks associated with pest
outbreaks and promotes greater genetic
diversity and resilience (CalFire et al. 2017)
• Use tools such as C-CAT to provide analytical
support for investments in landscapes
from the State’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund through California’s cap-and-trade
program (TNC & SCAPOSD 2016)
Manage Forest Density for Forest Health, Wildfire Risk
Reduction, Energy Production & Carbon Sequestration
• Practice density management; to increase
summer water yield, thin stands between
4,000 and 6,000 feet in elevation on northwest
to east facing slopes (5C 2017)
• Forest managers should seek vegetation
management tools and treatments capable
of reducing accumulated fuel loads and
associated fire risks (Micheli et al. 2016).
• Fuel load reduction can also provide a significant
stream of biomass, which may be useful to a
regional effort to develop biomass energy systems
(DFW 2016e, Morris et al. 2017, Woods 2018)
» When evaluating potential for biomass energy
systems, scale is vital: the average biomass
feedstock haul mile distance vs. the amount
of total energy expended reached a threshold
of diminishing returns at around 60 miles; the
authors recommend 45 miles. To meet the goal of
both reducing emissions and lowering energy use
overall, a smaller geographic sphere of influence
should be considered (Morris et al. 2017).
• “Managing forests in California to be healthy,
resilient net sinks of carbon is a vital part of
California’s climate change policy (CalFire
2017).” The California Forest Carbon Plan calls
for increasing the pace and scale of forest
and watershed improvements on nonfederal
forest lands, fuels reduction, invasive species
removal, road improvements, prevention of
forest land conversions through easements,
acquisitions and land use planning, biomass
utilization, and continued research and data
management, including development and
dissemination of tools to assist landowners.
» Carbon offsets offer a mechanism for private
landowners to receive market-based incentives
for maintaining and enhancing forest health. The
California Air Resources Board issues carbon
offset credits to projects meeting requirements
in its Cap-and-Trade Regulation (ARB 2017).
• Post-fire management plans should be
developed to address strategies for native
vegetation resilience and mitigation of impacts
on watershed runoff (Micheli et al. 2016).

Align Governance Priorities
• Managers of both public and private forests should
expand collaborative approaches to landscape-level
vegetation management and treatments (Micheli et
al. 2014). With the vast majority of the forested lands in the Region being managed by federal agencies,
alignment among agencies and collaboration
with local communities is essential for successful
implementation of these strategies (DFW 2016e).
• The policy and strategy recommendations above
enact and help to accomplish the objectives of
the State’s climate change program, including
increasing the use of renewable electricity (state
goal of 50%), protecting and managing natural
and working lands, and providing a strong
natural resource foundation for a successful
Cap-and-Trade program (CAB 2017).
» Assistance and collaboration from state
agencies in aligning these efforts can help
ensure the effectiveness of these efforts
and serve as a model for other regions
of California and the United States.
• Work with partners to improve landowner
access to entry into the Air Resources Board’s
carbon market as well as voluntary carbon
markets that are currently cost-prohibitive
for many forestland owners (CAB 2017).
• Work with the California Board of Forestry and
Fire Protection and the California Air Resources
Board, forest professionals, and stakeholders
to change policies that can hinder sustainable
forest management and have led to a decline in
forestry labor as well as resulted in unhealthy
forests and increased wildfire risks.
122 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

3.1.2 AGRICULTURE
• Improve Agricultural Lands Stewardship: The
NCRP report Climate Change and Agriculture
in the North Coast of California (Roberts 2009)
identifies project-level agricultural BMPs that
will reduce GHG emissions and increase soil
carbon sequestration and economic incentives
and policy specific to agriculture. These include:
» Carbon farming, implementing practices that
are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is
removed from the atmosphere and converted
to plant material and soil organic matter, with
co-benefits including increased water holding
capacity and nutrient availability (CAN 2015,
CDFA et al. 2016, Woods 2018) (https://www.
marincarbonproject.org/carbon-farming).
» Organic farming operations provide multiple
opportunities to reduce agricultural GHG
emissions and sequester carbon; a twelve year
study in California showed a 36% increase in
carbon sequestration with the use of organic
practices such as green manures and animal
manures despite increased tillage compared
to the conventional system (CAN 2015).
» Farmscaping describes a broad range of
agricultural practices that incorporate
perennial and annual flora into agricultural
production to benefit both farm productivity
and the environment; these practices include
hedgerows along farm margins, riparian buffer
zones and winter cover crops (CAN 2015).
» Methane digesters and on-farm electrical
generation (ARB 2017) (https://www.epa.gov/
anaerobic-digestion/farm-digester-projects).

In an analysis conducted specifically for the
North Coast Region, The Watershed Research
and Training Center found that together with
forest products, agricultural based biomass
resources could support the development and
operation of appropriately scaled biomass
energy systems (Morris et al 2017). (http://www.
northcoastresourcepartnership.org/resources/)
» Switch to alternative irrigation techniques to
use less water and less energy; in some cases
conversion to alternative irrigation techniques
can be funded as offsite mitigation of GHG
emissions as part of a project’s CEQA review.

Local jurisdictions can support alternative
irrigation techniques through partial or full
coverage of cost and/ or technical support
(CAN 2015, Reza and Tinsman 2018).
» California Climate and Agriculture Network
(CalCAN) Cap-and-Trade. CalCAN’s
goal is to secure revenue to incentivize
agricultural practices that mitigate climate
change (DFW 2016 c, ARB 2017)(http://
calclimateag.org/cap-and-trade/).
» Soil Best Management Practices (DFW
2016c, ARB 2017) (http://agwaterstewards.
org/practices/soil_management/).
» Habitat Restoration (DFW 2016c) (https://
wcb.ca.gov/programs/agricultural-lands).
» Surface storage: rainwater catchment for
agricultural uses has increased in the North
Coast in the past decade as water balance
analyses have shown that the Region receives
adequate rainfall to support all beneficial uses
of water, but that the timing of the rainfall is
out of step with water demand, which is high
for all beneficial uses during the summer
dry season. The North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board is supportive of efforts
to provide off-channel storage for summer
agricultural use as an alternative to summer
instream withdrawals to protect salmonid
populations (NCRWQCB 2011) and California’s
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 123
Healthy Soils Action Plan (CDFA et al. 2016)
promotes on-farm water storage for soil health.
» Diversify crop choices and take advantage of
local microclimates to enhance resilience to
changing climatic conditions (OPR 2018d).
» Diversify potential sources of farm income,
including value-added products, agricultural
tourism, roadside stands, organic farming and
farmers’ markets (Reza and Tinsman 2018).
• Evaluate, identify and map locations within the
Region that have ideal characteristics for soil carbon
sequestration and water infiltration to improve soil
health, food production and resilience to climate
change impacts and drought (CDFA et al. 2017).
• Policy and economics as incentives: local
governments can institute new ordinances, zoning
laws, pricing policies, and land use practices
that support agriculture and limit conversions
of wildlands, incentivize carbon sequestration,
generate energy from biogas, improve agricultural
water efficiency, and use conservation easements
to protect agricultural operations and land.

3.1.3 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
To include or apply Traditional Ecological Knowledge
in a project or management plan, partnership and
collaboration with the Tribe(s) from the territory of
the project or management plan is necessary. The
NCRP, however, is aware that the majority of the Tribes in the region continue to be guided by Traditional
Ecological Knowledge for regional resource stewardship
and to inform climate change decisions. NCRP
Tribal Representatives and the Tribal Engagement
Coordinator continue to work with Tribes in the North
Coast to implement and provide support of NCRP
Goal 1, Objective 3 — Integrate Traditional Ecological
Knowledge in collaboration with Tribes to incorporate
these practices into North Coast Projects and Plans
(see Section 1.1 NCRP Goals and Objectives).

3.1.4 FLOOD ATTENUATION USING

NATURAL SYSTEMS
• Wetlands and riparian areas are particularly
effective, efficient flood management systems,
reducing flood damage by storing flood water,
reducing flood height, and slowing flood
velocity. They typically occur as natural buffers
between uplands and adjacent water bodies
and act as natural filters of nonpoint source
pollutants, including sediment, nutrients,
pathogens, and metals, to waterbodies, such as
rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters.
• It is important to preserve and restore damage
to wetlands and riparian areas because these
areas can play a significant role in managing
adverse water quality impacts that often are
associated with flood/ stormwater events.
• Preserved, viable wetlands (fresh and
saltwater) and riparian areas help decrease
the need to build and maintain costly
stormwater and flood protection facilities.

3.1.5 OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

3.1.5.1 ANALYZE REGIONAL TRAINING, LEADERSHIP

AND RECRUITMENT PROGRAMS
• Engage regional SBDC and other organizations
in conversations about identified gaps and
needs in relation to the Priority Actions
for other areas of this document.
• Engage private sector regarding the need for,
and viability of, a regional intern program.
• Engage public sector organizations in civics
leadership and sector governance and policy
knowledge development (energy, natural
resources, communications, transportation).
• Together with the California Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection explore the
development of programs to expose students
to careers in forestry management.
• Inventory the current offerings from local
colleges and universities and integrate
those into the three points above.
• Invite and engage current leadership in serving
as mentors and training their replacements.

3.1.5.2 SOURCE HIGH VISIBILITY REGIONAL

ALUMNI AND SUPPORTERS
• Identify and contact high-visibility alumni and
supporters of the Region to bring their resources,
124 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 expertise and visibility to assist long term in
supporting specific programs, goals, and initiatives.
• Integrate these contacts into regional
training, leadership, and recruitment
programs listed above, as appropriate.

3.1.5.3 ANALYZE A “RECRUIT BACK” STRATEGY TO

RE-ATTRACT TALENT DEVELOPED IN THE REGION
Similar to recruitment strategies for rural health care, develop student loan repayment programs and other
incentives to bring back locally developed talent after they have completed their formal educations. Additionally, in job recruitment efforts, engage the alumni list
mentioned above to assist with “recruit-back” strategies.

3.1.5.4 IDENTIFY, ENGAGE, AND SUPPORT

CURRENT EMERGENT LEADERS
Support and assist the current leadership to
strengthen their commitment and demonstrate
to future leaders that they will be stepping into
supportive businesses, jobs, and elected positions.

3.2 BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE

STRATEGY

3.2.1 BROADBAND ACCESS AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

3.2.1.1 SUPPORT AND ENHANCE EFFORTS OF

CURRENT RURAL BROADBAND ADVOCATES
While there are already solid teams in place advocating at the state level for infrastructure expansion, there is a need to support, enhance and strengthen efforts to
obtain equitable access to broadband throughout the
Region. Humboldt and Del Norte counties can serve
as successful examples: Humboldt achieved Internet
route diversity in 2011 and Del Norte in 2014; both
counties forged and maintained coalitions of public
and private interests to leverage funding opportunities that improved reliability and Internet data capacity
for their communities (Hight 2014, Woods 2018).

3.2.1.2 WORK REGIONALLY TO ENCOURAGE

USE AND EFFICACY
Development of tools and training, similar to other
outreach efforts of the NCRP, such as the Water and
Wastewater Service Provide Outreach and Support
Program, can enhance usage and efficacy of broadband
infrastructure as it continues to expand within the Region.

3.2.1.3 INCLUDE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE

WITHIN FUTURE ENERGY RISK ASSESSMENTS
Communications infrastructure is one of many
essential public service assets potentially at risk
during emergency events such as energy interruptions
and natural disasters (Boudreau et al. 2016).

Redundancy in communications infrastructure is
vital to ensure public safety during such events.

3.2.1.4 PLAN FOR TIERED COMMUNICATIONS

STRATEGIES DURING EMERGENCIES
There is increasing risk to power and communications
infrastructure in light of more frequent and intense
storms, fires, predicted through climate modeling
and other natural disasters, such as earthquakes
and tsunamis. Local communities should develop/
update a tiered communications strategy to
respond during local emergency situations.

3.2.1.5 ASSESS THE NEED FOR PUBLIC

ENTITY MICRO-NETWORKS
Even with the expansion of fiber optic lines in more areas of the region, private sector vendors are not always
incentivized to provide viable access to remote, more
dispersed populations. As with the expansion of the
electric power grid, public sector support and capacity may be a viable option within the Region (Gonzalez
2018). Because the model is somewhat similar, there
may be opportunities to co-locate these networks with
distributed power micro-grids, with multiple benefits
achieved through such combinations (Woods 2018). A
report by Earth Economics (2018) suggests that wood
biomass, along with wind-power and hydro-electric
generation, could present an opportunity for multiple
benefits when combined with data centers that provide
essential information technology needs, such as wireless and optic fibers for high speed internet access.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 125

3.2.2 ENERGY GENERATION AND

CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE

3.2.2.1 USE A PLANNED RETREAT/ GREEN

INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH TO ADAPT

TO SEA LEVEL RISE AS FEASIBLE
Planning for strategic retreat entails first identifying vulnerable properties and structures and then
developing incentives, such as regulatory, tax, and
market-based tools, to encourage and achieve
realignment (Reza and Tinsman 2018).

3.2.2.2 CONDUCT RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR AT-RISK

WATERWAYS AND COASTAL AREAS
Areas that should undergo risk assessments
include:
• Infrastructure at risk (private and public)
• Viability of transportation routes for
evacuation/planned retreat
• Potential number of evacuees and
impacts on local housing
• Risk to communications infrastructure
and redundancy planning
• Environmental impacts from damaged/
inundated infrastructure

3.2.2.3 INCENTIVIZE SUSTAINABLE LAND USE PLANNING

AND INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT
To ensure that measures to protect or relocate resources and begin limitation on building in at-risk areas, explore potential mitigation funding, or other creative ways to drive the process. Planners should incorporate natural
hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes to
reduce flood risk by influencing the cause of the harm, including the probability, extent, or depth of flooding. The general principles of integrated management include
adaptation planning to embrace sustainability while
considering equitable distribution and apportionment of costs and benefits of adaptation measures, especially
with regard to disadvantaged communities (DWR 2013).

3.2.3 WATER AND WASTEWATER STORAGE

AND CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE
Because of the strong demonstrated link between water
and energy, reducing water use results in complimentary reduction energy use and the associated GHG emissions.

Water conservation efforts that reduce the use and
waste of water, more water-efficient appliances and
technologies, and water recycling reclamation efforts that allow for the reuse of wastewater can all also be effective GHG reduction strategies. All of these strategies are being pursued in various ways across the North Coast Region.

The strategies recommended for protection and
preservation in Section 3.2.2, Energy Generation and
Conveyance Infrastructure should be incorporated to
protect and safeguard water and wastewater storage
and conveyance infrastructure. Additionally:
• Local governments and agencies should
incorporate climate change trends in present day
risk and vulnerability assessments for community
infrastructure and update their plans accordingly.
• Addressing climate change in plans and ongoing
operations procedures (e.g., maintenance) assures
improved preparation and greater resilience to
climate change impacts (CEMA and CNRA, 2012).
• Particular attention should be paid to economic
risks during these assessments. While retrofitting
or relocating infrastructure can be costly, the
costs associated with projected disruption
to these systems can be even greater.
• Community plans and programs, such as local
hazard mitigation plans, urban water management
plans, stormwater management plans, regional
transportation plans, and capital improvement
plans, be coordinated and consistent.
126 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

3.2.4 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

3.2.4.1 LEVERAGE NCRP SOCIAL, POLITICAL,

AND ECONOMIC CAPITAL
• Enhance Existing Efforts — for the transportation
sector specifically, significant analytical
resources and planning are conducted on
an annual basis through Caltrans, county
transportation departments, and other entities.

The NCRP should focus on collective actions
to expand and enhance existing efforts.
• Determine Shared Transportation Needs of Local
Governments — conduct a high-level initial analysis
of current spending on transportation by individual
local governments, and potential for shared efforts
and planning, to inform whether opportunities for
cost savings/ increased quality of service delivery
may be realized via regional collaboration.
• Analyze Current and Potential Public Transit
Connections and Infrastructure — although there
are a number of counties within the Region that
have established cross-county public transit
connections, gaps in the system still exist.

Analyses should be considered to assist in closing
these gaps and to determine where related
infrastructure could potentially be leveraged (e.g.

Zero Emission vehicle — ZEV — Infrastructure).
• Establish/ Expand a Working Group of Regional ZEV
Deployment Partners — over the last ten years,
most counties within the Region have seen an
emergence and expansion of ZEV infrastructure.

Trinity and Modoc Counties are developing theirs:

Trinity does have three publicly available charging
stations, though they are not conveniently located
and two of the three are specific to a single type
of vehicle (Tesla); Modoc County hosts two Teslaspecific stations. It “is critical for the NCRP Region to accelerate the deployment of alternative fueling
infrastructure (Micheli et al. 2016).”
Establishing key public and/ or private sector
partners, regionally and the development of
funding for their activity to expand infrastructure
would assist in accelerating deployment. Several
jurisdictions have established district taxes to fund
transportation priorities, which recently have come
to include advance mitigation (ECONorthwest 2017).

The North Coast Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan
identifies the follow supporting activities as
necessary to facilitate EV adoption (Woods 2018):
» Engage with regional permitting entities
to encourage the adoption of standardized
and streamlined permitting and inspection
processes and fee structures.
• Produce a streamlined set of EVCS criteria
to assist potential EVCS owners/operators in
choosing what equipment to install and to assist
contractors with adopting best practices and
understanding regional permitting requirements.
» Engage with potential site hosts for
EVCS in the North Coast Region and
produce preliminary engineering designs
and cost estimates for 30-40 sites.
» Install directional signage guiding
drivers to at least 10 regional EVCS.
» Promote PEV adoption through public and fleet
operator outreach and education campaigns.
» Educate and support regional municipalities
on the potential to adopt local building
codes that promote PEV adoption.
» These activities are currently being
implemented through a grant from the
California Energy Commission.
• Encourage Regional Advocacy to Repair/Protect Key
Routes and Infrastructure — leverage the combined
strengths of the Region to assist with needed
infrastructure repair, especially along major routes

3.2.4.2 EXPAND THE USE AND SAFETY OF BIKE

AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Where appropriate, support a broad range of
investments to encourage corridor-wide and
community-wide strategies that will increase active
(non-motorized) transportation for short trips, first/
last mile transit trips and school trips (Caltrans 2016).

3.2.5 RESIDENTIAL AND

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS

3.2.5.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Improving energy efficiency in buildings is a key step in reducing emissions while also saving building owners and residents money on bills and reducing the need to build new energy infrastructure. California Energy Commission releases new building energy efficiency standards
approximately every three years. The new 2019 Title 24
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
will go into effect January 1, 2020. The standards apply to construction of buildings resulting in increased
energy efficiency and overall less dependence on fossil fuels. Mandatory requirements cover techniques, such
as temperature controls for water heaters, limiting air NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 127
leakage in building envelopes, and high efficiency lighting systems (California Building Standards Commission 2016).

3.2.5.2 GREEN BUILDING PROGRAMS
In the North Coast Region, the County of Sonoma has
developed a robust Green Building program, which
adopted California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) establishing requirements for residential and non-residential construction. CALGreen is composed of
certain mandatory measures and two tiers of voluntary
measures. Local agencies, such as the County Board
of Supervisors, have the option of adopting these
state-suggested voluntary measures as mandatory
requirements at the local level (County of Sonoma).

3.2.5.3 ZERO NET ENERGY BUILDINGS
Ultimately these efforts are pushing toward zero net
energy (ZNE) buildings, which through high-efficiency
systems and onsite renewable energy generation
are able to produce as much energy onsite as they
use over the course of the year. California’s LongTerm Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan establishes a State-level goal to have all new residential buildings
be Zero Net Energy by 2020, and all new commercial
buildings be Zero Net Energy beginning in 2030. A
range of tools and resource on this topic are available through the California Zero Net Energy Action Plan
web portal at https://www.capath2zne.org/

3.2.6 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG BUILT

INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS
According to the California Air Resources Board,
in the face of rising temperatures, six economic
sectors — water, energy, transportation, tourism and
recreation, agriculture, and public health— would
together incur tens of billions per year in direct costs, even higher indirect costs, and expose trillions of
dollars of assets to collateral risk (CARB 2010).

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is a clear
push for reducing dependency on oil and natural gas
by electrifying transportation and heating in homes.

Energy efficiency of systems and appliances becomes
increasingly important as electrification increases
demand. With transportation being a key source of
regional GHG emission it is particularly important to
address the electrification of transpiration and the need to develop regional electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The electrification of heating and transportation
also increases dependence on transmissions and
distribution systems, furthering the need for systems
that can cope with grid power interruptions.

There is a strong connection between water supply
and conveyance with energy use. At its core, the
water-energy nexus stems from the fact that there
is both limited supply and high demand for energy
and water. Climate change has forced the waterenergy nexus into the forefront (NCRP 2014).

3.2.7 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS

FROM FAILING BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure for electricity, transportation, and
communication is critical for everyday life and especially for those in rural and hard-to-reach areas. Mitigation
funds remain scarce and often directly compete with
funds to tackle decaying national infrastructure and
increased disaster response costs stemming from
climate change (RCEA 2017). Not only is infrastructure
already aging, the rugged terrain and dispersed
populations in the North Coast Region add an extra
challenge to communities who are trying to mitigate
their contributions towards climate change. Logistical
and technical feasibility of mitigation projects remain challenges, however funding remains the largest hurdle.

Impacts from climate change, specifically wildfires
and sea level rise, are not only broad environmental
issues but also pose direct, major threats to the safety, quality of life, and economy of the people of the NCRP
region. Counties should continue mitigating their
contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, while also
planning to adapt to the consequences of climate change that the region is already starting to experience.

3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE & ENERGY

INDEPENDENCE STRATEGY

3.3.1 GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION & ENERGY

INDEPENDENCE STRATEGIES
Energy Independence strategies broadly focus on 1)
increasing energy efficiency, 2) developing renewable
energy resources, and 3) reducing the consumption
of carbon-intensive fossil fuels via fuel switching

3.3.1.1 TRANSPORTATION
Alternative fuels refer to vehicles that run on a fuel other than conventional petroleum fuels like gasoline and
diesel. Replacement of conventional vehicles with lowor zero-emission vehicles would have the potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions locally and globally.

Plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) drivers have the ability to easily charge vehicles at home during the night,
taking advantage of off-peak electricity rates. To
encourage modes of non-fossil fuel transportation,
Sonoma Clean Power’s Drive EverGreen program
pays for the cost of home charging equipment for
PEVs. Once customers have charging equipment
128 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 installed, they are also encouraged to buy Sonoma
Clean Power’s 100% local, renewable electricity option
to lower personal GHG emissions (SCP 2018).

Another emerging technology is hydrogen fuel
cell electric vehicles, which create electricity
from a chemical reaction, not combustion.

Currently, there are no commercial hydrogen
fueling stations in the North Coast Region.

In addition to building alternative fuel infrastructure, continued implementation of supporting activities
called for in regional readiness plans is critical
to accelerating adoption. For example, the North
Coast Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan
identifies the follow supporting activities as
necessary to facilitate EV adoption (RCEA 2014):
• Engage with regional permitting entities
to encourage the adoption of standardized
and streamlined permitting and inspection
processes and fee structures.
• Produce a streamlined set of EVCS criteria
to assist potential EVCS owners/operators in
choosing what equipment to install and to assist
contractors with adopting best practices and
understanding regional permitting requirements.
• Engage with potential site hosts for EVCS
in the North Coast Region and produce
preliminary engineering designs and
cost estimates for 30-40 sites.
• Install directional signage guiding drivers
to at least 10 regional EVCS.
• Promote PEV adoption through public and fleet
operator outreach and education campaigns.
• Educate and support regional municipalities
on the potential to adopt local building
codes that promote PEV adoption.

In addition to the technological solutions provided
by alternative fuel vehicles, developing programs
and incentives that facilitate and support walking,
biking, and public transportation use can be key
local, community-scale GHG-reduction strategies.

3.3.1.2 LAND USE AND ZONING
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Growth
development principals helps communities develop
while benefitting the economy, environment, and
public health. Development principles in urban and
rural areas have similarities, such as mixing land use, taking advantage of compact design, encouraging
stakeholder collaboration, and preserving farmland,
natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.

The EPA’s Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Rural
Planning, Zoning, and Development Codes outlines
the importance of determining areas for growth
and for preservation, using cluster development,
and encouraging right-size rural roads to protect
pedestrian and bike traffic. Counties have the
opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with
zoning by reusing existing structures for mixed use
development and offering transportation choices other
than driving, such as walking and bicycling (EPA).

While infill projects and transit-oriented development
are often considered urban planning strategies, adapting these principles in rural areas can help reduce GHG
emissions, maintain the rural and historic character
of regional small cities and towns, and created more
livable and accessible communities (which is often of
most important to disadvantaged populations and well
as the increasing percentage of senior citizens).

Zoning for the development of renewable energy
is also important to energy independence and
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions- “The
County of Sonoma has adopted changes to its
zoning code that enable the construction and use of
renewable energy facilities throughout the county,
while protecting sensitive resources and ensuring
neighborhood compatibility” (Sonoma County
Permit and Resource Management Department).

3.3.1.3 RESIDENTIAL AND MUNICIPAL ENERGY

INDEPENDENCE OPTIONS
California Assembly Bill 3232 established the goal stating new residential and nonresidential buildings built on or after January 1, 2030, should be zero-greenhouse-gas
emission buildings. Zero-emission buildings are
buildings with operational parameters that result in
zero or negative emissions of greenhouse gases, as
measured on an annual basis, when considering the
hourly marginal emissions factors from both thermal
fuels and electricity at the time when energy is used in the building (California Legislative Information 2018).

The 2019 update to Title 24 building energy
efficiency standards will provide tools for local
governments to adopt ordinances to achieve
zero net energy through reach codes.

A key strategy to achieving energy independence is Net
Energy Metering (NEM). Customers who install small
solar, wind, biogas, and fuel cell generation facilities to serve all or a portion of onsite electricity needs are eligible for the state’s net metering program (CPUC).

Pacific Gas and Electric serves most of the North Coast Region and offers NEM programs to reduce customers’
monthly electric bills with the energy generated by
their own renewable system. All Community Choice
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 129
Aggregation programs in the North Coast Region,
Sonoma Clean Power and Redwood Coast Energy
Authority, offer NEM programs to customers.

3.3.1.4 SMALL SCALE BIOMASS GENERATION
Biomass plants process raw plant and waste materials
into useable biofuels like wood or paper pellets. Biomasssourced fuels are, in theory, more sustainable than fossil fuels because the carbon burned (e.g. wood) is
newly removed from the carbon cycle, versus coal or
oil that had been sequestered more or less indefinitely.

Transporting waste or crop biomass over long distances
to large, widely distributed biomass processing plants
can overcome its actual value as fuel. It is therefore
preferable to collect biomass and process it locally,
distributing energy via a network of small biomass
plants located strategically throughout the region.

Forest biomass utilization offers many benefits far
beyond the energy related benefits: it plays a critical role supporting the responsible disposal of residues
from the logging and forest products industries. It is
also a pathway to help support forest management
practices like thinning and fuel reduction efforts; sales of biomass-generated products such as biochar could
potentially offset forest management costs, as well as
serving to amend soil on agricultural lands. Because
of the many faceted benefits associated with biomass
energy, it is recommended that key opportunities in the biomass sector be pursued, particularly in Humboldt,
Mendocino, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties. Potential
biomass energy projects should include both heating
and combined heat and power applications, as well as
other higher valued products (densified biomass, biochar, torpified material, etc.). Where viable, other biomass
projects should be considered as well, such as biogas
for WWTP digesters, animal farm manure digesters,
landfill gas, and woody biomass crop residues.

3.3.1.5 SOLAR ENERGY
Solar energy can be captured and used to heat water
or produce electricity. Solar power implementation
should be pursued throughout the region. Solar power
generation is now cost competitive with conventional
generation sources. Unused power can be stored in
batteries or transmitted via the grid to other electricity customers elsewhere. Solar is the quietest way to
generate energy, involves no moving parts, and releases no GHGs at the source (production of PVs and other
components utilize energy and emits GHGs, however).

While some parts of Siskiyou or Modoc Counties
might have adequate solar resources to warrant a
large, utility-scale solar power plant, these resources are not near population centers where the power is
needed. While power generated could be fed into the
electrical transmission system, it seems unlikely that
utility-scale solar projects in the region would be
competitive with those in other parts of the state.

However, distributed scale solar proves competitive,
especially if it is valued at the retail electricity rate via a net metering arrangement. Distributed scale
solar opportunities could include larger, communityscale systems that serve groups of customers, or facility level systems that serve one facility (residence, commercial facility, etc.). Distributed solar should be pursued in the NCRP region. Note that both Sonoma
Clean Power and Redwood Coast Energy Authority
Community Choice Energy Programs are pursuing
new solar projects, and smaller distributed scale
solar projects are common throughout the region.

3.3.1.6 SMALL HYDROPOWER
Hydroelectric energy generation produces no GHG
emissions locally and aggressive implementation
could significantly reduce local and global GHG
emissions. Traditionally, hydroelectric power generation was dam-and-reservoir and reserved for largescale applications. The endangered and threatened status of local salmonids; future drought scenarios;
and the huge physical infrastructure (and capital)
130 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 required for building a dam and its hydro facility
have dissuaded large infrastructure investment.

Small-scale hydroelectric power (“micro-hydro”),
which generates at a capacity of 30 megawatts or less,
has good potential for the North Coast’s rural, widely
distributed, off-the-grid locations, particularly where other energy sources are not available. Opportunities,
while not insubstantial in the region, are likely to face significant challenges regarding feasibility. In some
locations, the possibility of drought and endangered or threatened status of local salmonids may make even
micro-hydro unattractive, despite its potential to help lower GHG emissions and provide rural electricity.

Conduit hydropower opportunities are another
possibility, though substantial opportunities are not
apparent in the region; nonetheless, these opportunities should be investigated further and potentially
pursued if favorable opportunities are identified.

3.3.1.7 OTHER RENEWABLE SOURCES
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy is power extracted from heat stored
deep underground, used to generate electricity and heat to run a variety of industrial, desalination and agricultural applications. The North Coast is home to a portion of the largest geothermal energy plant in world: The Geysers
field (in Sonoma and Lake Counties), which claims to
produce one-fourth of the “green” energy in the state.

Though it appears unlikely that a large-scale power
plant such as Geysers could be developed elsewhere,
geothermal opportunities exist in the NCRP region, as
the practice of using underground heat for energy can
be applied at scale of the individual home or business.

It may be possible to develop a smaller scale electrical generation or district heating system in Siskiyou or
Modoc counties. Feasibility depends on finding adequate resources located in close proximity to a population
center where the heat or power could be utilized.

Wind Energy
Wind energy generation is a well-established technology with significant regional potential with numerous
opportunities throughout the NCRP region, as several
locations exist where commercial scale wind farms
could be built. Probably the best known is the Cape
Mendocino area in Humboldt County. A project on
Bear River Ridge was proposed a few years ago and
developer are currently evaluating a new project in the same general area. Other potential onshore wind farm
sites include locations in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, however it is uncertain if these locations would prove
feasible. Smaller community-scale wind projects or
facility-scale wind projects might prove feasible in
the right locations throughout the NCRP region.

Perhaps the best wind resource opportunity in the
region is offshore. The floating foundation technology
needed to deploy offshore wind turbines in deep waters
(like those off the Pacific Coast of California) is just now reaching commercialization. This presents another
opportunity (see Wave Energy) for Humboldt County to
market the Humboldt Bay deep-water port to support
the first deployment of this technology in California.

Wave Energy
Wave energy is the transport of energy by ocean surface waves, and the capture of the energy for electricity
generation, water desalination, water pumping and other work. Theoretically, wave energy releases no GHGs locally and could be a vast source of local, renewable energy.

However, currently it is an immature technology. There
are concerns about pursuing wave energy facilities (e.g. inevitable saltwater corrosion of infrastructure; the
possibility of entangling marine life in mooring lines; underwater noise pollution; and potential interference
with local fisheries and fisheries-based economies).

The wave energy resource off the northern California
coast is substantial, with Humboldt Bay a particularly
well-suited deep-water port that could provide the
needed supporting infrastructure for a wave energy
project. Wave generation technology is still very much
in the research and development stage, but the region
should position itself as a prime location for early
wave energy demonstration projects in California

3.3.1.8 POLICY AND FINANCING OPTIONS
In July 2008, Assembly Bill 811 was approved, which
allows property owners to enter contractual assessments to finance the installation of distributed generation
renewable energy sources or energy efficiency
improvements that are permanently fixed to existing
homes and businesses. Property Assessed Clean Energy
is an innovative mechanism for financing energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements, where property
owners finance the up-front cost of energy improvements on a property and then pay the costs back over time
through a voluntary assessment. The County of Sonoma
developed the Sonoma County Energy Independence
Program, which guides commercial and residential
buildings through funding mechanisms, such as Property
Assessed Clean Energy, rebates, and other incentives
(Sonoma County Energy Independence Program).

Sonoma County was an early pioneer of PACE financing
with the highly-successful Sonoma Energy Independence
Program. Building off of Sonoma’s model, numerous
state-wide PACE programs have now been established
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 131
and are available for local governments to join to be able to offer PACE financing in their jurisdictions, with all counties in the region except Trinity now making one or more PACE programs available to their communities.

3.3.2 GHG ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORKS
A robust GHG accounting framework is a central element
of accurately tracking GHG emission sources and sinks.

GHG accounting is an important tool for developing welltargeted GHG action strategies as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of those strategies over time. This
section on GHG Accounting Frameworks is excerpted
from North Coast Resource Partnership Integrated Strategic Plan: Climate Change Mitigation, GHG Emissions Reduction and Energy Independence, Redwood Coast Energy
Authority, 2017 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Roadmap for the North Coast Regional Partnership, Schatz Energy Lab, 2017 available on the NCRP website.

3.3.2.1 EXISTING GHG INVENTORIES AND

ASSESSMENTS IN THE NCRP REGION
Sonoma, Mendocino, and Humboldt counties have seen
the most local government action in this space, with
Sonoma County and the City of Arcata being recognized
early leaders. Furthermore, the BAAQMD is the only entity in the NCRP region to issue guidance on GHG emissions
significance thresholds for CEQA compliance. The
Mendocino AQMD explicitly recommends the use of the
BAAQMD significance thresholds, while all other AQMDs
in the region do not address significance thresholds.

All AQMDs in the region provide some level of guidance
regarding models and data sources on their websites.

Humboldt County
Except for the City of Arcata, Humboldt County
and jurisdictions recently began actively
inventorying GHG emissions due in large part to
the proactive and effective Green Communities
program implemented by PG&E and ICLEI.

The City of Arcata is an internationally recognized leader in sustainable community planning. Along with the
County of Sonoma, the City joined the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign developed by ICLEI. The City
completed their first GHG inventory in 2001, followed by an inventory update and a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan in 2006, inclusion of GHG reduction goals in their General Plan in 2008, and another inventory update for 2015. The City now works to align their GHG accounting efforts
with those pursued by other county jurisdictions through efforts by the Redwood Coast Energy Authority (RCEA).

In 2005 RCEA partnered with the Schatz Energy
Research Center in the development of a technical
analysis for the Energy Element of the Humboldt
County General Plan Update. This report noted
greenhouse gas reductions as a motivation for
pursuing alternative and renewable energy sources.

More recently jurisdictions in the County have begun
pursuing climate action plans. The City of Trinidad
developed a draft climate action plan in 2010, and
in the same year the City of Fortuna included GHG
reduction goals in their General Plan. In 2011 RCEA
conducted a GHG Inventory for the Humboldt County
Planning Department’s draft Climate Action Plan
which was released in 2012. In 2012 RCEA partnered
with PG&E and ICLEI in the Green Communities
program and began conducting GHG Inventories
for all jurisdictions in the County. RCEA continues
to update GHG inventories for jurisdictions on a
regular basis. Recently other jurisdictions in the
County have begun pursuing climate action plans.

Mendocino County
Mendocino County has been very proactive regarding
the inclusion of GHG reduction in local government
planning. The Mendocino Council of Governments
has been including GHG reduction as a motivation
in transportation planning since 2000. The 2004 City
of Ukiah General Plan directly includes reductions
in GHGs, two years before the passage of AB 32.

More recently, the 2009 County General Plan
specifically discusses GHG reduction goals. In the
same year the Ukiah Department of Planning and
Building completed a city- wide GHG inventory. The
development of climate action plans followed for both
the City of Ukiah and City of Fort Bragg in 2012. The
Community Development Commission of Mendocino
County has been conducting GHG inventories for
jurisdictions in the County through a Green Communities partnership with PG&E and ICLEI since 2012.

Sonoma County
The Center for Climate Protection (CCP) in Sonoma
County has been conducting GHG Inventories for the
County since 2003 after the county joined the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign developed by ICLEI. This
campaign included guidance on the development of a
GHG Inventory. The CCP continues to use this guidance
facilitating consistent tracking and comparison with past inventories even though the methodology is now outdated.

Partly in recognition of the fact that the GHG Inventory methodology space is dynamic, the Sonoma County
Water Agency contracted with the CCP in 2010 to
assess the current status of GHG tracking and make
recommendations for future action. Notably, they
partnered with ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI USA) who developed a GHG Inventory framework
132 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 specifically for Sonoma County. Shortly thereafter ICLEI released the U.S. Community Protocol based in part on
the county-specific framework developed for Sonoma
County. Currently the U.S. Community Protocol is
used widely for local-scale accounting of emissions.

In 2016 the Regional Climate Protection Authority
(RCPA) developed a climate action plan for the
county. For this effort RCPA conducted a communitylevel inventory of the county, the methodology of which differs from that used by CCP, following
primarily the ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol.

Private Sector
There has been a global proactive effort within the private sector to quantify GHG emissions and environmental
impacts associated with business operations and product supply chains. This has largely been driven by consumer interest via local government and community pressures
in recent years. With the release of International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 series
standards focused on corporate and product sectors,
the success of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol® suite of
guidelines and tools, and the development of widely
adopted modeling software, private sector accounting
of GHG emissions is becoming increasingly common. As
important as this background is, a review of activity in this sector within the NCRP region is left for future work.

3.3.2.2 EXISTING PROTOCOLS, FRAMEWORKS, AND TOOLS
This section presents a preliminary set of
recommendations to assist an entity in navigating through the myriad options for accounting GHG emissions.

Recommendations focus on local government agencies
but are also relevant to other stakeholder groups.

Community
• Humboldt County Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory Tool 31
» Developed by the Redwood Coast Energy
Authority specifically for assessing community
inventories for jurisdictions in Humboldt County.
» Based upon the ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol.
» Output facilitates reporting to the
Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative
(SEEC) ClearPath California tool.
• ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol: http://
icleiusa.org/ghg-protocols/
» Offered at no cost to cities and counties.
» Development was a collaborative between
ICLEI, ILG, LGC, and the California InvestorOwned Utilities. The Climate Registry also contributed to its development.
» Integrates with the Statewide Energy
Efficiency Collaborative (SEEC) ClearPath
California tool that is freely available to, and
developed specifically for, local government
jurisdictions to facilitate tracking emissions and
estimating the mitigation potential of actions
that can feed into a climate action plan.
• SEEC ClearPath: http://californiaseec.
org/seec-clearpath/
» Freely available online tool targeted to local
government and Community GHG Inventories.
» Facilitates tracking Inventory updates, forecasting
future emissions, and visualizing mitigation
impact associated with proposed actions.

Organization
• Local Government Operations (LGO) Protocol:
http://icleiusa.org/ghg-protocols/
» Freely available, and endorsed and
used by The Climate Registry, CARB,
CAPCOA, and many others.
» Widely used in the NCRP region
• EPA Center for Corporate Climate Leadership:
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership
» Targeted to the private sector.
» Freely available suite of Protocols and
Methodologies with a couple high- level tools.
• Greenhouse Gas Protocol® Corporate
Accounting Standard: http://ghgprotocol.org/
» The Climate Registry assisted in the development
of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 2
Guidance and Corporate Value Chain (Scope
3) Accounting and Reporting Standard.
» Freely available and widely used globally
• Energy Star Portfolio Manager: https://www.
energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-andmanagers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager » Widely used online tool to benchmark
and track energy consumption and
GHG emissions of buildings.
» Built by the EPA Energy Star program
» Freely available
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 133
Policy
• California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures: http://www.capcoa.org/documents/
» Freely available and widely used in California
» Highly detailed Protocol and Methodology
for quantifying the potential impact of both
GHG mitigation policies and actions.
» Widely utilized in California and
recommended by all air quality districts
» The CalEEMod tool fully includes the
Methodology from this document
• ICLEI Recycling and Composting Protocol:
http://icleiusa.org/ghg-protocols/
» Compliments the U.S. Community Protocol,
and allows for assessing the net GHG
impact associated with recycling and
composting efforts in a community.
• Greenhouse Gas Protocol® Policy and Action
Standard: http://ghgprotocol.org/
» Collaboratively developed internationally,
and as such is not focused on any
particular geographic region
» Applicable to all scales of focus entities
or actions from a local policy or project
to one of international breadth.

Project
• California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod): http://www.capcoa.org/caleemod/
» Developed for CAPCOA and recommended by
all air quality districts in the NCRP region
» Replaces URBEMIS which many local
government entities are familiar with
» Designed for assessing compliance with
CEQA, NEPA, and local air quality standards
» CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures: http://www.capcoa.org/documents/
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) CEQA Information: http://www.
baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/californiaenvironmental-quality-act-ceqa » The BAAQMD provides extensive and useful
information regarding assessing GHG
emissions for projects and CEQA compliance.
• CalTrans Standard Environmental Reference
(SER): http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/
» Provides handbooks of environmental guidance
regarding transportation- related projects
» GHGs are addressed in Volume 1, Chapter 13
» CARB Description of Methodology for ARB
Staff Review of Greenhouse Gas Reductions
from Sustainable Communities Strategies
(SCS) Pursuant to SB 375 [38] and CARB
Summary of Off-Model Strategies
• The CARB Description of Methodology provides
additional Protocol- level information for MPOs and
RTPAs regarding quantifying GHG emissions for
Projects related to SB 375 goals and requirements.
» Significant discretion is left to the practitioner
regarding what Methodology to use.
» The CARB Summary of Off-Model Strategies
discusses approaches that other MPOs
and RTPAs have taken to quantify the GHG
emissions reduction impacts from projects
that traditional transportation models are
currently not able to quantify, such as ride
sharing or intelligent transportation systems.
• CARB Guidance for Projects Funded with
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds (GGRF):
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/
auctionproceeds/quantification.htm
» Methodologies developed specifically for
projects funded with Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Funds which are raised through
Cap-and- Trade auction proceeds.
» Although developed specifically for GGRFfunded projects, can be useful for assessing emissions associated with similar projects.

Methods are typically reliant on CalEEMod
and CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse
Gas Mitigation Measures (see above).
• CARB Compliance Offset Protocols: https://www.
arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/offsets/offsets.htm
» Developed by CARB for assessing mitigated
emissions for projects to be submitted
for compliance under cap-and-trade
» Can be useful for assessing emissions associated
with related projects even if those projects are
not pursuing cap-and-trade compliance or credits
• Greenhouse Gas Credit Exchange
(GHGRx): http://www.ghgrx.org/
» Developed by CAPCOA, specific to California
134 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 » Can be useful for assessing emissions associated
with related projects even if those projects are
not pursuing GHGRx emissions reduction credits
• Protocols from CARB-approved registries:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/
offsets/registries/registries.htm
» There are currently three approved registries
which are listed on CARB’s website,
each with their own set of Protocols
» Can be useful for assessing emissions
associated with related projects even
if those projects are not pursuing
voluntary emissions reduction credits
» Local AHJ guidance
» As accounting for GHG impacts for CEQA
compliance becomes more common local
jurisdictions will be able to offer insight
regarding Protocols, Methodologies, and
Tools for projects within their local area

3.3.3 CARBON SEQUESTRATION &

EMISSIONS AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES

3.3.3.1 MECHANISMS FOR RETAINING CARBON IN

NATURAL AREAS AND WORKING LANDS
Carbon sequestration is a collection of techniques
for the capture and long-term storage of carbon
dioxide, charcoal, or other forms of carbon using
combinations of biological, physical, or chemical
processes. Natural biological processes that sequester
carbon include ocean mixing, photosynthesis and soil
sequestration. Since plants and soils naturally absorb
carbon dioxide, preventing outright deforestation
and managing forests and agricultural lands as
carbon sinks can remove significant amounts of
GHGs. If large-scale algae farms become viable,
they would also act as biological carbon sinks.

It is well-established that forest conservation and
management of forests as carbon sinks and to prevent
catastrophic wildfires can be a viable strategy to
reduce GHGs and the impacts of future climate change.

The Forest Investment Zones program is funded
by the non-profit US Endowment for Forestry and
Communities and is California’s first county-wide energy efficiency financing district, authorized by AB 811.

Enhancing resiliency of forests to wildfire and pests
is generally achieved by removing biomass that
historically and naturally was removed by more frequent wildfire. Investments in fuel reduction help to ward
off large scale losses of biomass from wildfire. The
material removed can be used to produce energy while
displacing energy production from fossil fuels and can
be used as feedstock for innovative wood products,
such as cross laminated timber, which will increase
the proportion of carbon in long-lived wood products.

3.3.3.2 AUCTION PROCEEDS AS A

MECHANISM FOR FUNDING
Carbon sequestration is a collection of techniques
for the capture and long-term storage of carbon
dioxide, charcoal, or other forms of carbon using
combinations of biological, physical, or chemical
processes. Natural biological processes that sequester
carbon include ocean mixing, photosynthesis and soil
sequestration. Since plants and soils naturally absorb
carbon dioxide, preventing outright deforestation
and managing forests and agricultural lands as
carbon sinks can remove significant amounts of
GHGs. If large-scale algae farms become viable,
they would also act as biological carbon sinks.

3.4 MULTI-OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES

FOR VITAL COMMUNITIES,

WORKING LANDS &

NATURAL SYSTEMS
Since 2005, the NCRP has been implementing
integrated, multi-benefit projects that achieve myriad
local, state, and national objectives. Given its status as an economically disadvantaged region, the NCRP has
become adept at “doing more with less” — creatively
using limited funding to attain the most benefit for its communities and landscapes. The thoughtful integration
of multiple objectives and strategies allows the NCRP
to achieve its goals in an efficient and effective manner, NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 135
achieving economies of scope and scale by “stacking”
benefits within a single initiative, action, or project.

The following section is a set of six high-priority
integrated strategies (“actionable priorities”) for efficiently achieving the NCRP vision of healthy watersheds, vital
communities, and thriving economies. This section
builds on the individual strategies for each focus area that are illustrated and summarized in Section 3.

Every integrated strategy will inform the NCRP project
evaluation and selection process and guidelines,
ensuring that funders and project proponents have a
clear understanding of the intentions and priorities of the NCRP, and that all projects achieve long-lasting multiple benefits. For detailed description of the strategies,
their history in the North Coast, and how they relate
to one another, please refer to: Healthy Watersheds,
Vital Communities, Thriving Economies: Actionable
Strategies for California’s North Coast Region.

3.4.1 NATURAL CAPITAL: HEALTHY

FORESTS AND WATERSHEDS
Increasingly volatile climate patterns, vegetation stress due to drought, fuel loading due to a long history of
fire suppression, and increased human habitation
at the wildland-urban interface has resulted in the
region’s forests and communities being increasingly
vulnerable to catastrophic fires. Frequent and severe
wildfires have obvious negative consequences for human
communities and natural ecosystems throughout the
Region. In addition to direct loss of life and property, the aftermath of fires can bring additional hazards (debris flows, flooding, hazard trees, sedimentation, dissolved organic carbon, blockage of water intakes, loss of habitat) and release of massive amounts of GHG emissions.

Impaired air quality due to wildfire is a public health, as well as environmental health, issue. For example, during a 45-day time period in 2017 (August 3 – September 17), for twelve communities in Siskiyou and Humboldt counties (a total of 464 24-hour periods or “community days”), only 27 “community days” (5.82% of the time) had an air quality index (AQI) of “good;” 163 “community days” (35.13% of
the time) had an AQI of “moderate,” in which unusually
sensitive individuals should consider limiting prolonged or heavy exertion, and the rest of the “community days” (274 24-hour periods, or 59.05% of the time), AQI was
unhealthy, very unhealthy or hazardous for at least
some community members (see Table 12, 45 Days of 24
hour average AQI values across NW California; Ray Haupt, NCRP Meeting Presentation, Redding, CA, April 20, 2018).

Note that seventy-six (of the 464) 24-hour periods did
not have data due to equipment failure or other issues.

These data gaps mostly occurred in the communities
of Willow Creek and Mount Shasta with Orleans,
Weitchpec, and Callahan also experiencing data gaps.

TABLE 12. FORTY-FIVE DAYS OF 24 HOUR AVERAGE AIR

QUALITY INDEX (AQI) VALUES ACROSS NW CALIFORNIA
AQI
# “Community
Days” (24
hour periods) Percent of time Recommended Actions
Good 27 5.82% None
Moderate 163 35.13%
Unusually sensitive individuals
should consider limiting
prolonged or heavy exertion
USG 73 15.73%
People within sensitive groups
should reduce prolonged
or heavy outdoor exertion
Unhealthy 111 23.92%
People within Sensitive
Groups should avoid
all physical activity
Very
Unhealthy 53 11.42%
Everyone should avoid
prolonged or heavy exertion
Hazardous 37 7.97%
Everyone should avoid
any outdoor activity
In addition to impacts on vegetation, forest stress, and the resulting impacts on wildlife habitat, climate change has reduced snow pack and increased the volatility of
weather patterns and extreme events: these impacts
are expected to increase in magnitude in the coming
years. Stream corridors are likely to experience more
frequent and intense flood events, impacting fish and
wildlife habitat as well as downstream communities.

The NCRP has an opportunity to address many of these
challenges via an integrated strategy portfolio focused on protecting and managing North Coast forests and
watersheds to maximize their value: as habitat for an
array of terrestrial and aquatic species, for carbon
sequestration, for water supply and filtration, to reduce fuel loading near vulnerable human development,
and to create jobs and revenue for local communities.

A preliminary assessment of areas in the Region
that provide multiple benefits is seen below.

3.4.1.1 ACTIONABLE PRIORITIES I — NATURAL CAPITAL
136 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 i. Advocate for sustainable forest management,
fuel load reduction, prescribed fire,
and fire management that reduces fuel
loads in the understory and maximizes
carbon sequestration in larger trees,
while protecting wildlife habitat, aquatic
ecosystems, and native plant communities.
ii. Support projects that include sustainable forest
management to support local jobs and local
revenue, including projects that provide education
and training for a forestry labor force, projects
focused on bio-energy, bio-char, bio-products,
cellulosic ethanol, pellets, and other forest
products, including forest-based nanocelluloses
and other natural-occurring nanocelluloses,
and projects that reduce carbon footprints and
minimize the need for petroleum based products.
iii. Promote development of and support for
state and national policies that result
in sustainable forest management,
fuel load reduction, prescribed fire,
and fire management while enhancing
opportunities for local jobs and revenue.
iv. Rely upon Tribal entities and indigenous
people’s Traditional Ecological Knowledge
to ensure that Tribal understanding of
ecosystems and land management are
used to support positive outcomes.
v. Refine assessment of high priority areas for
forest and watershed management and/ or
protection, based on amount and concentration
of human habitation, fuel loading and forest
management status, potential for carbon
sequestration, importance of area for water
quality and supply, and presence of habitat
for threatened and endangered species.
vi. Explore acquisition of conservation easements
and similar protective status designations
that protect biodiversity, water quality,
and water supply values of forests, while
allowing for sustainable forest management
to reduce fuel load and sequester carbon,
improve water quality and supply, and create
and maintain local jobs and revenue.
vii. Pursue partnerships with private landowners,
companies, and public agencies to align,
enhance, and further goals and strategies
related to healthy forests and watersheds.

3.4.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS:

UPSTREAM INVESTMENTS &

DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS
The NCRP has a strong focus on salmonid recovery, given that salmonids are a primary indicator of watershed
and ecosystem health, and the salmon fishery is a
foundational part of the culture, economy, and historic subsistence of North Coast Tribes and other more recent inhabitants. The North Coast still retains viable salmonid populations, yet these species are threatened with
extinction. The factors that are important for salmonid recovery are often the same factors that influence the
viability of other species and habitats, and also affect human community health and economic well-being.

These factors include stream corridors, freshwater
wetlands, salt marshes, estuaries, and near shore
marine areas; all are critically important for supporting biological diversity, clean abundant sources of water,
and for climate change resiliency and the moderation
of extreme events such as flooding. Additionally, stream zones act as a terrestrial and aquatic circulation system in a watershed, creating opportunities for plant and
animal populations to move and adapt in response to
habitat degradation and changes in the climate. The
Region is home to relatively intact aquatic ecosystems
when compared to other parts of California, and it is
more cost effective to protect them from degradation
than to attempt to recover them after they have been
damaged. Aquatic ecosystem protection and enhancement
are therefore high priorities for the NCRP, given the
multiple benefits that flow from these investments.

3.4.2.1 ACTIONABLE PRIORITIES II —

FUNCTIONAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
i. Rely upon Tribal entities and indigenous
people’s Traditional Ecological Knowledge
to ensure that Tribal understanding of
ecosystems and land management are used
to support positive restoration outcomes.
ii. Expand on existing natural capital
documentation to quantify and monetize
the multiple benefits of protecting and
enhancing aquatic ecosystems, including:
» Water quality: natural filtration, public
health, benefits to aquatic organisms
» Water supply: groundwater infiltration,
forested watershed runoff
» Recreational tourism: dependent
on clean, natural systems
» Biodiversity and economic benefits: of
Tribal subsistence and cultural values,
, commercial fishery, clean water
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 137
» Avoided costs: moderation of extreme
events such as flooding
» This monetization will support programs such
as Payments for Ecosystem Services, enhance
public understanding of the value of functional
systems, and provide a more nuanced view of
ecosystem services for planning discussions.
iii. Protect riparian corridors and wetlands
via conservation easements that protect
the floodplain, allow for the long-term
meandering of the stream channel, and
promote infiltration of groundwater.
iv. Convene aquatic ecosystem experts to
prioritize aquatic ecosystems for protection
based on multiple benefits and values.
v. Support restoration and enhancement
projects on stream corridors, wetlands,
and estuaries that use locally collected
native plant materials and restore long
term physical and ecological processes.
vi. Advocate for unified policy and corresponding
funding for protection and restoration
of North Coast aquatic ecosystems
across agencies and jurisdictions.
vii. Compile existing information regarding
aquatic ecosystems, identify data gaps, and
prioritize assessments to fill the gaps.
viii. Assess future cost/benefit to Region of out
of basin water transfer, power production,
and water deliveries to the rest of state.
ix. Use a “planned retreat” approach to
protecting and enhancing wetlands and
estuaries along the bay and coast in
response to projected sea level rise.

3.4.3 BUILT CAPITAL: ENHANCING

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMMUNITIES
The North Coast Region encompasses many economically
disadvantaged and severely economically disadvantaged
communities. These communities are challenged by
degraded or inadequate built infrastructure, including
water and wastewater infrastructure, communications
infrastructure (such as broadband and fiber optic
networks), transportation systems, and energy
transmission infrastructure. Fixing or enhancing this
failing or inadequate infrastructure — as well as creating new efficient built infrastructure — has multiple benefits for the local economy, for public health, and for achieving local, state, and national goals related to emissions
reductions and climate change adaptation. Additionally, many of the enhancements to this built capital can have positive impacts on natural capital in the region. For
example, resolving problems with failing wastewater
treatment plants not only enhances human health and
local economic viability and reduces energy and financial expenditures, but also avoids the contamination of
North Coast streams and habitats with pollutants.

3.4.3.1 ACTIONABLE PRIORITIES III — BUILT CAPITAL
i. Develop and support projects focused on
enhancing or replacing failing or inadequate
water and wastewater infrastructure with a
specific intent to enhance the local economy,
create and maintain jobs and revenue, support
public health, and protect sensitive habitats.
ii. Develop and support projects that reduce
emissions and provide renewable energy
generated and used within the region, with an
emphasis on small scale energy generation that
create and maintain local jobs and revenue.
iii. Develop and support electric car
charging infrastructure at accessible
locations region-wide.
iv. Create policy and messaging support for the
expansion of Community Choice Aggregation
models such as Sonoma Clean Power and the
Redwood Coast Energy Authority, and partner
with these entities where appropriate.
v. Evaluate all proposed built infrastructure
projects based on their ability to
measurably reduce emissions as a result of
implementation, including water conveyance,
water conservation, communications,
transportation, and energy infrastructure.
vi. Evaluate and communicate the potential for
built infrastructure funding mechanisms such
138 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 as Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts,
local assessments, and tax mechanisms.
vii. Explore and support infrastructure projects
that enhance the ability of the North Coast to
adapt to a changing climate, including localized
small-scale energy generation, movement of
existing infrastructure, comprehensive use of
green infrastructure practices, and provisions
for redundancy in existing and future systems.
viii. Build on existing regional and local
assessments regarding built infrastructure
to evaluate the opportunities and benefits
of enhancing built infrastructure.

3.4.4 HUMAN CAPITAL: A PLACE FOR PEOPLE
Retention, recruitment, and enhancement of human
capital and talent in the North Coast Region are
fundamental factors in the current and future success
of local communities, as well as the long term health
of North Coast economies and watersheds. In both
the public and private sectors, people drive success.

Ensuring that public entities, local businesses, and
non-profit organizations have the talent to carry on
and adapt their missions over the long term is an
investment that will yield positive results, not only
for future residents and generations but for the
landscapes, ecosystems, and natural resources that
combine to make the North Coast Region a valuable
and precious resource for the entire state.

As a source region, the North Coast supplies clean
and abundant water, sequesters large amounts of
carbon, and retains extremely high levels of biological diversity — attributes which benefit all of California and beyond. These ecosystem services are critical to the
state economy and to achieving legislated climate and
environmental goals. Yet these watersheds must be
managed by people to ensure that these services continue to be provided to communities within and outside the
region. For example, the watersheds of the North Coast
supply millions of acre feet of water to other regions of California (e.g. Central Valley and Silicon Valley) and this water is translated into billions of dollars of economic value in the agricultural and technology sectors.

Very little of the revenue generated from these sectors is re-invested in the North Coast sources, so its severely economically disadvantaged communities struggle
to retain a qualified and stable workforce to steward
these important lands. With the increasing impact of
climate change on forested landscapes, and the lack of
human capital and funding resources for sustainable
management, many areas are increasingly likely to
experience catastrophic fires which have the potential
to negatively impact carbon stocks, biodiversity,
water supply, and quality of life. Thoughtful, strategic investments in source regions — with a specific
emphasis on retaining qualified people to steward
these lands — is critically important to meeting the
needs of Californians and the objectives of the State.

3.4.4.1 ACTIONABLE PRIORITIES IV — HUMAN CAPITAL
i. Identify and map current human
capital assets region-wide.
ii. Develop strategies for attracting
and retaining human capital.
iii. Evaluate opportunities for local job and
revenue creation that are sustainable and
that rely on intact natural capital.
iv. Evaluate built capital gaps that act as a deterrent to attracting human capital (e.g., failing/
inadequate transportation, communications,
water and energy infrastructure).
v. Evaluate opportunities to ensure that the
legalization of cannabis results in investments
that restore and/ or enhance North Coast
watersheds, communities, and economies.
vi. Align current human capital assets with current/
future regional/ organizational needs.
vii. Analyze and enhance current training, education,
and leadership programming to reflect future
needs, emphasizing jobs focused at the
intersection of built and natural capital.
viii. Identify county by county opportunities to
broaden the range of economic drivers to
limit future boom and bust models.
ix. Assess current quality of life factors based
on above; identify gaps and solutions.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 139

3.4.5 FINANCING AND INVESTMENT:

EXPLORING TOOLS AND STRATEGIES
The NCRP has a proven track record of working in a
voluntary, collaborative framework to bring funding
and resources to the economically disadvantaged
North Coast Region. These funds have been highly
effective at enhancing watersheds and failing built
infrastructure, while creating jobs and revenue.

Because the NCRP is built on trust and collaboration
— respecting local autonomy and acting as a “synchro”
between state and local objectives — there is a high
level of support for the partnership among a diversity
of partners and stakeholders. This long-term trust
and collaboration is foundational to the success of the NCRP as an entity that documents, integrates, and
shares local priorities with state and federal agencies and other funders, while also acting as an equitable
delivery mechanism for funding to the region.

The NCRP has benefitted from long term partnerships
with State funding agencies — including the Department
of Water Resources, Strategic Growth Council, State
Water Resources Control Board and the California
Energy Commission. However, these bond funded
grant programs are by their nature volatile.

Many potential funding sources, particularly those
emerging from recent legislation and pending voter
approved bonds, promise significant potential, yet they are inherently volatile and do not provide the type of stable long-term funding needed to maintain local capacity.

Emerging opportunities include Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts, Public Goods Charges, Regional
Advanced Mitigation/Regional Conservation Investment
Strategies, payments for ecosystem services, pre-disaster mitigation, carbon markets, and new approaches to
private capital investment. Additional longer-term
opportunities include potential tax and fee mechanisms, with significant evaluation of scale and resolution still required. Diversification and stability of base funding are important for the NCRP’s continued ability to serve the North Coast region; no single funding source will
provide NCRP with the stability and level of investment required to accomplish its goals and objectives — a
strategy that focuses on integrating multiple funding
sources holds the best potential for supplying the
NCRP with a stable and long-term revenue stream.

3.4.5.1 ACTIONABLE PRIORITIES V —

FINANCING AND INVESTMENT
i. Explore combinations of financing options with a
focus on aggregation, integrating existing finance
opportunities at the local and regional level.
ii. Develop legislation for baseline funding
that can also include funding for other
partners or interests in the region.
iii. Develop a regional profile/story and share it
widely with the current network and other
prospective funders including outreach to
private sector, foundations, agency staff,
and legislators to share success stories
and the long term vision for the NCRP.
iv. Seek legislated funding, as the North Coast
Region may have the opportunity to gain
support for state legislation (and potentially
federal legislation) that could provide baseline
funding; potential alignment and coordination
with the nine Resource Conservation Districts
(RCDs) within the region, who are also seeking
baseline funding, could be effective.
v. Evaluate opportunities to inform and align with
the CA Forest Carbon Plan to support the State in
achieving its goals for AB 32, SB 32 and SB 375.
vi. Evaluate opportunities to develop public
private partnerships with private partners who
have shared goals with the NCRP, including
140 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 natural resource related sectors related
to recreation, tourism, renewable energy,
agriculture, commercial fishing, and timber.
vii. Providing regular briefings for all of the
region’s legislative representatives (local,
state, national) to share and elevate current
and past success and ensure awareness
of the NCRP goals, needs, and ability to
achieve state and national objectives.
viii. Explore with agencies and NGOs the possibility
of building a management program such
as payment for ecosystems services (PES).

Pilot PES programs could be implemented
where barriers to entry are low.
ix. Identify investment opportunities for,
and co-benefits of, North Coast capital
(e.g. natural, built, human).

INVESTMENTS IN NATURAL CAPITAL
• Protection and enhancement of forested landscapes that supply population centers throughout California with clean drinking water • Protection and enhancement of wetlands and natural lands that can treat wastewater while achieving other environmental benefits • Water conservation efforts, resulting in efficient water conveyance that reduces emissions, stress on aquatic ecosystems and groundwater, and volume of municipal and residential water need • Forest management projects in areas near communities that integrate multiple objectives including fuel load reduction, local jobs and revenue, biomass energy, protection of built infrastructure, carbon sequestration/avoided emissions, avoided public health impacts, and the protection of biodiversity ✔ Built Capital Co-Benefits — Less impact on existing
infrastructure; less need to mitigate human impacts
✔ Human Capital and Organization Co-Benefits — Clean
drinking water; more secure water supplies; job creation and economic enhancement; reduction of community risk from
wildfire; potential reduced energy costs; improved public health; and potential reduced cost of infrastructure maintenance

INVESTMENTS IN BUILT CAPITAL
• Communications infrastructure that can allow for telecommuting, enhance economic opportunity, reduce emissions, and create stable high paying jobs • Create, enhance and maintain functional water and wastewater infrastructure that achieves multiple benefits
• Priority built capital in and near towns, cities, and population centers that rely on the services provided by natural and working lands outside of these areas • Creation or repurposing of energy transmission systems that allow for local, small-scale renewable generation
such as biomass from forests and distributed solar
• Remove or modify built infrastructure from areas likely to be impacted due to sea level rise, flooding, fires, or other risks associated with extreme events, including in lowlands around the coast and bays, riparian corridors, and areas of recurrent fires • Expansion of ZEV vehicle infrastructure and use
✔ Natural Capital Co-Benefits — Reduced need for vehicle travel and associated emissions; reduced damage due to aging or at risk infrastructure and associated contaminants; increased environmental health from well managed working lands; statewide improvement in energy sources ✔ Human Capital and Organization Co-Benefits — Increased economic jobs and opportunities; increased opportunities for economic diversity which increases economic security; reduced cost of living/operations for individuals, private and public sectors; increased educational opportunities; lowered risk of infrastructure failing during emergency events/natural disasters

INVESTMENTS IN HUMAN CAPITAL AND ORGANIZATION
• Analyze organizational changes/enhancements needed to implement natural environment and built environment investments listed above and begin to communicate those needs region-wide and to partners outside of the Region to secure capital and needed technical assistance • Identify, document, and engage current human capital assets including current and emergent local leaders, current and emergent technical experts in the region, high-visibility North Coast alumni, and organizational support from outside the region • Work with current and new partners to identify, enhance and expand current regional training, leadership and talent recruitment programs, including significant outreach to educational institution and private business sectors • Combine the three investments above into a unified human capital development strategy for lasting natural and
built environment strategies for the long term
✔ Natural Environment Co-Benefits — Provides the workforce, talent, community support, and longevity needed to implement natural environment investments outlined above and steward the natural capital in the region, which benefits local communities and other regions in California ✔ Built Environment Co-Benefits — Provides the workforce, talent, community support, and longevity needed to implement the built capital investments outlined above

3.4.6 ECONOMIES OF SCOPE AND
SCALE: INTEGRATING BUILT,

NATURAL, & HUMAN CAPITAL
Historically, the relationship between built and natural capital has been one of conflict, with residential
development, water supply, wastewater treatment,
transportation, and energy infrastructure objectives
having negative impacts on natural capital, thereby
creating regulatory frameworks that are costly and rife NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 141
with conflict. At the same time, in some sectors there
has historically been a lack of appreciation for the
role of working and natural lands (natural capital) in
providing the foundational services that are transported or conveyed by built capital, services including clean
drinking water, clean air, or renewable energy.

A substantial body of research has demonstrated
that protecting and investing in natural capital and
working lands while also strategically integrating built capital investments may allow our communities to
achieve quality of life and local economic development
goals in a more cost effective manner than if these
investments were made separately. Although this
thinking presents significant “great than the sum of
their parts” opportunities through unified strategic
investments in natural and built capital, those
investments alone will not guarantee success.

Across all communities in the North Coast region,
some level of change in how we manage ourselves
will be required to better align with the surrounding
natural environment and to secure the full potential
of our communities through long term commitment
to these integrated strategies and investments.

The North Coast Region has the opportunity to
maintain our traditional, historic, rural quality of life, while effectively stewarding our regional lands and
communities, resulting in multiple local, regional,
and statewide benefits that can be enhanced for
future generations. If successful in implementing this
overall combined strategic investment in the people,
infrastructure and natural environment, significant shared goals can be achieved. . Future success will require
analysis and adaptation of the region’s human capital,
retention and attraction of a talented workforce, and
modification of our organizational structures to ensure that our communities can demonstrate resiliency for the short and long term. Individual communities across the
Region have demonstrated great creativity and innovation over the years, especially in times of crisis. As a Region we now have the opportunity to leverage that innovation while also taking advantage of the economies of scope
and scale that regional collaboration can provide.

3.4.6.1 ACTIONABLE PRIORITIES VI —

ECONOMIES OF SCOPE AND SCALE
i. Document the integrated outcomes related
to built, human, and natural capital on every
project, including summarizing this information
on an ongoing basis at the individual project
scale and the regional scale; quantitative
cost/benefit analyses for each project;
and the relationships among built/human/
natural capital investments and outcomes.
ii. Drawing from lessons learned by others,
identify opportunities to solve challenges
facing the North Coast by strategically
including and cost-effectively integrating
built, human, and natural capital solutions.
iii. Evaluate land conservation strategies, working
with willing participants in a voluntary, incentivebased framework to protect ecosystem services that can be integrated in a costeffective manner with built infrastructure, and including private parties and public agencies.
iv. Evaluate opportunities to avoid sprawl,
including avoiding the loss of farmland and
natural habitats; plan for growth that allows
for functional built infrastructure, intact
ecosystems, forests, watersheds and habitats,
local agriculture, and healthy places for people
to live and share information region-wide.
v. Identify and request priority financial
investments in integrated natural-built-human
capital projects and plans (see “Actionable
Priorities: Financing and Investment” above).

3.4.7 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
This section outlines the Resource Management
Strategies (RMS) that DWR has developed to implement
the California Water Plan (DWR 2009, 2013). An RMS is
a project, program or policy that helps local agencies
and governments manage their water and water-related
resources. The purpose of including RMS in the NCRP
Plan is to document the range of strategies considered
by the NCRP to meet the Goals and Objectives of
the NCRP, and to ensure diversification of the water
management strategies and projects as a way to mitigate for uncertain future circumstances, per requirements
in the DWR IRWM Guidelines (DWR 2016). Following is
a listing of RMS that do and do not apply to the NCRP,
as well as a brief discussion of potential synergies
that can be gained by combining multiple RMS.

3.4.7.1 RMS THAT ARE ADDRESSED BY THE NCRP
DWR has defined 32 RMS in the 2013 update of the
California Water Plan. It is critical that the proposed RMS complement the operation of existing local water
systems. Water managers in different parts of the
Region likely will have different perspectives on the
applicability and cost-effectiveness of RMS for meeting local, regional, and statewide priorities (DWR 2013).

The NCRP has determined that 26 RMS have high
potential for successful application in the North Coast.

Only six RMS do not apply to water management in
the Region. Although this section presents RMS as
separate elements, in practice various RMS are often
142 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 connected to each other, as well as to other activities such as local land use planning (DWR 2012).

A subset of fifteen RMS is identified in the 2013 California Water Plan as having “great potential to benefit water
quality in the North Coast Hydrologic Region.”
• Agricultural Lands Stewardship
• Agricultural Water Use Efficiency
• Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage
• Ecosystem Restoration
• Flood Risk Management
• Forest Management
• Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation160
• Land Use Planning and Management
• Pollution Prevention
• Recharge Areas Protection160
• Surface Storage — Regional/Local
• Urban Runoff Management
• Urban Water Use Efficiency
• Water-dependent Recreation
• Watershed Management
The 26 RMS that the NCRP considers applicable in the
North Coast Region are listed and described below.

1. Agricultural Lands Stewardship: Farm and
ranch landowners (the stewards of the
state’s agricultural land) producing public
environmental benefits in conjunction with the
food and fiber they have historically provided
while keeping land in private ownership.

2. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency: The use and
application of scientific processes to control
agricultural water delivery and use to achieve a
beneficial outcome. It includes an estimation of
net water savings resulting from implementing
efficiency measures as expressed by the ratio
of output to input, resulting benefits, and
strategies to achieve efficiency and benefits.

3. Conjunctive Management and Groundwater
Storage: The coordinated and planned use
and management of both surface water and
groundwater resources to maximize the
availability and reliability of water supplies
in a region to meet various management
objectives. Involves the efficient use of both
resources through the planned and managed
operation of a groundwater basin and a surface
water storage system combined through a
coordinated conveyance infrastructure.

4. Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution: Providing
a reliable supply of safe drinking water is the
primary goal of public water systems in the
Region, which must develop and maintain
adequate water treatment and distribution
facilities. In addition, the reliability, quality, and
safety of the raw water supply are critical.

5. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and
Water Pricing): Economic incentives include
financial assistance, water pricing, and
water market policies intended to influence
water management. Economic incentives can
influence the amount and time of water use,
wastewater volume, and source of water supply.

6. Ecosystem Restoration: Restoration of modified
natural landscapes and biological communities.

7. Flood Risk Management: Contains four
approaches within a single RMS, to respond to
the complexity of integrated flood management,
including nonstructural, restoration of
natural floodplain functions, structural,
and flood emergency management.

8. Forest Management: Focuses on
forest management activities, on both
public and privately owned forested
lands, whose goals specifically include
improvement of the availability and quality
of water for downstream users.

9. Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation: Removing
foreign constituents to improve the quality
of degraded groundwater for beneficial
use. Drinking water supply is the beneficial
use that typically requires remediation
when groundwater quality is degraded.

10. Irrigated Land Retirement: Not likely to be a
common strategy for the North Coast because
of the high value of working lands for provision
of ecosystem services, farm products, and
quality of life value, this strategy may become
useful for coastal lands experiencing salt
water intrusion due to the effects of climate
change. Conversion of these lands to salt
water marsh or other appropriate natural
ecosystems could buffer storm surges and
provide wildlife habitat and ecosystem services.

11. Land Use Planning and Management: More
efficient and effective land use is linked to
several resource management strategies
including watershed, water use efficiency,
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 143
flood management, parks and recreation,
climate change adaptive management,
and agricultural lands stewardship.

12. Matching Water Quality to Use: Recognizing that
not all water uses require the same level of water
quality ensures proper use of limited potable
water sources; use of high quality water sources
for drinking and industrial purposes and lesser
quality water can be adequate for some uses.

13. Outreach and Engagement: Outreach and
engagement for water management in
California is the use of tools and practices
by water agencies that allow public
groups and individuals to contribute to
good water management outcomes.

14. Pollution Prevention: Reducing or eliminating
waste at the source by modifying production
processes, promoting the use of non-toxic or
less toxic substances, the implementation of
practices or conservation techniques including
activities that reduce the generation and/or
discharge of the pollutants, and the application
of innovative and alternative technologies which
prevent pollutants from entering the environment
prior to treatment. Can also include new
equipment designs or technology, reformulation
or redesign of products, substitution of raw
materials, updating or improvements of
existing management practices, continued
maintenance of previously implemented
management practices, training and education/
outreach, and improved collaboration.

15. Precipitation Enhancement/Fog Collection:

This RMS has not been used in California as a
management technique, but occurs naturally
with coastal vegetation. New technologies may
have success capturing measurable amounts
of water from fog by using a louvered device
with slats set vertically for rapid draining.

16. Recharge Areas Protection: Recharge areas are
those areas that provide the primary means
of replenishing groundwater. Protection of
recharge areas requires a number of actions
based on two primary goals: (1) ensuring
that areas suitable for recharge continue to
be capable of adequate recharge rather than
being covered by urban infrastructure, such
as buildings and roads, and (2) preventing
pollutants from entering groundwater to avoid
expensive treatment that may be necessary prior
to potable, agricultural, or industrial uses.

17. Recycled Municipal Water: The recycling
of municipal wastewater treated to a
specified quality to enable it to be used
again. Focus is water from municipal plant;
does not include gray water, untreated
industrial water, or agricultural water.

18. Salt/Salinity Management: To reduce salt loads
that impact the Region; in some areas this
is a key component of securing, maintaining,
and recovering usable water supplies.

19. Sediment Management: To stabilize and/
or restore the watershed for sediment
production mimics natural sediment production,
without eliminating it, and thus provides the
various ecological and beneficial uses.

20. Surface Storage (Local/ Regional): The use
of human-made, aboveground reservoirs to
collect water for later release when needed.

Focuses on regional and local surface storage
alternatives but does not include the major
surface storage investigations of the State and
federal CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED)

21. System Reoperation: Changing the existing
operation and management procedures
for a water resources system to improve
existing facilities to meet existing system
needs more efficiently and reliably, or to
prioritize one system need over another.

22. Urban Runoff Management: A broad series
of activities to manage both stormwater
and dry weather (e.g. excess landscape
irrigation water flows to the storm drain)
runoff. Traditionally, urban stormwater runoff
management was viewed as a response to
flood control concerns resulting from the
effects of urbanization; today the stormwater
is viewed as a potential water source.

23. Urban Water Use Efficiency: Reduction of
urban water use by Demand Management
Measures and Best Management
Practices to secure water supplies.

24. Water & Culture: Increasing the awareness
of how water management affects cultural
values, uses, and practices — and how
these have an effect on water management
— helps inform policies and decisions.

25. Water-Dependent Recreation: Recreation
activities in or on water, including fishing,
swimming, skiing, snowboarding, waterfowl
hunting, motor boating, surfing, and
144 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 kayaking, wildlife viewing, picnicking,
biking, camping, and hiking.

26. Watershed Management: The process of
creating and implementing plans, programs,
projects, and activities to restore, sustain,
and enhance watershed functions.

3.4.7.2 RMS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE NCRP
Six RMS (below) recommended by DWR are considered
by the NCRP to be not applicable to water management
strategies for water supply in the North Coast at this time.

The Region has a high incidence of rainfall and generally exports more water than is consumptively used (DWR
2013). Therefore, RMS focused on water conveyance,
transfer, or state water storage efforts are not included in the NCRP Plan strategy development. Likewise,
there has not been sufficient demand or investment in
desalination of seawater as an alternative water source, so this RMS is also not included in the NCRP Plan.

1. Conveyance — Delta

2. Conveyance — Regional/Local

3. Crop Idling for Water Transfers

4. Desalination

5. Surface Storage — CALFED/ State

6. Water Transfers

3.4.7.3 BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING MULTIPLE RMS
The NCRP has always recognized that the management of
a natural resource, especially water, requires integration of various management efforts through a watershedbased planning framework. The integration of multiple RMS (e.g. through NCRP projects being implemented
throughout the Region) is necessary to provide longterm benefits to the Region’s communities, ecosystems, and economies; these benefits cannot be secured
by application of a single management strategy.

Strategies not listed in the California Water Plan, but identified by the NCRP as complimentary strategies to
achieve climate resiliency and multiple benefits are:

1. Continually Evaluate Climate Vulnerabilities
and Impacts: Revisit and revise the NCRP
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
to support development of appropriate
adaptation and mitigation strategies.

2. Groundwater Basin Monitoring: Participation
in statewide CASGEM monitoring to ensure
groundwater elevations are adequate for the
North Coast and to monitor effectiveness
of projects and programs implemented
to bolster groundwater supplies.

3. Integrate Ecosystem Resilience with DAC Resilience:

Recognize the connection between ecosystem
function and economic vitality and promote
strategies that benefit from this connection.

3.4.7.4 ALIGNMENT WITH NCRP GOALS/

OBJECTIVES & STATE RMS
The process for soliciting and selecting projects to
implement the NCRP Plan was designed and is continually refined to enable NCRP’s selection of technically sound projects that meet (1) local needs as articulated via
the NCRP goals and objectives, (2) statewide priorities related to water planning and resource management,
and (3) consideration of climate impacts and adaptation and mitigation actions. Since 2007, as part of the
NCRP’s adaptive management process, the NCRP’s
goals and objectives have been refined, although the
original themes related to intra-regional cooperation,
salmonid recovery, and beneficial uses of water remain
constant. The state’s Resource Management Strategies
(RMS), which identify priorities for the California Water Plan, likewise have been refined over time. Below is
a discussion of how recommended state RMS (DWR
2013) have been applied, via project implementation,
to address the NCRP goals and objectives.

NCRP Goal 1: Intraregional Cooperation
& Adaptive Management
Objective 1 — Respect local autonomy
and local knowledge in Plan and project
development and implementation
Objective 2 — Provide an ongoing framework for
inclusive, efficient intraregional cooperation and
effective, accountable NCRP project implementation
Objective 3 — Integrate Traditional Ecological
Knowledge in collaboration with Tribes to incorporate
these practices into North Coast Projects and Plans
Associated RMS
North Coast IRWMP Goal 1 and associated objectives
predate the two new RMS for California Water Plan
Update 2013, but also incorporate them. These are
the Outreach and Engagement and Water and Culture
RMS. Through a transparent, inclusive process and
continual outreach and networking efforts, the NCRP
demonstrates respect for local authority while providing an ongoing intra-regional framework for analysis,
discussion, and innovation. The open and inclusive
record of the NCRP speaks to its incorporation of the
Outreach and Engagement RMS since its inception.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 145
Successful implementation of this RMS has led to the
hard-won comity exhibited by the NCRP membership
and region’s stakeholders and by the recognized success of its implementation projects. By actively incorporating Tribal needs and concerns in all meetings, outreach, and project evaluation, the NCRP recognizes and supports
the Tribes’ ancestral relationship with water. Likewise, through this Goal and objectives, the NCRP acknowledges and supports the ranching and agricultural communities’ historic cultural relationship with the region’s waterways.

NCRP Goal 2: Economic Vitality
Objective 4 — Ensure that economically disadvantaged
communities are supported and that project
implementation enhances the economic vitality of
disadvantaged communities by improving built and natural infrastructure systems and promoting adequate housing
Objective 5 — Conserve and improve the
economic benefits of North Coast Region
working landscapes and natural areas
Goal 2 and its associated objectives are met in part by project implementation of specific RMS, but also through NCRP processes. Through prioritizing projects that
support DACs and Tribes during project selection and its stated commitment to the working landscapes heritage
of the North Coast, the NCRP contributes to regional
economic vitality. To date, the NCRP has invested over
$67 million in state, local, and federal funding through implementation of 91 projects that collectively have used all RMS identified as relevant to the NCRP Plan. Most of these projects have employed multiple RMS to achieve
multiple benefits for the region, including economic
vitality, support of Tribal and Disadvantaged communities, and conservation and improvement of working landscapes
and natural areas. These strategies will also protect the region from anticipated climate impacts: healthy natural and working lands provide ecosystem services that
sequester carbon and increase resiliency by buffering
against storm surges and flood events, protecting
groundwater recharge areas, and enhancing ecosystem
services such as water filtration and pollination.

Associated RMS
RMS that prioritized projects have used to
contribute toward Objective 4 include:
• Agricultural Water Use Efficiency
• Conjunctive Management & Groundwater
• Recycled Municipal Water
• Surface Storage
• Matching Water Quality to Use
• Pollution Prevention
• Agricultural Lands Stewardship
• Ecosystem Restoration
• Forest Management
• Recharge Areas Protection
• Land Use Planning and Management
• Watershed Management
Agricultural water use efficiency, conjunctive
management, recycled municipal water, surface storage,
and matching water quality to use provides improved
water management for working landscapes; these
improvements are likely to translate to farm profits,
agricultural viability, and help to invigorate the local economy. Pollution prevention projects contribute to
maintaining instream water quality, which lessens
regulatory burdens (such as TMDL compliance) for
agricultural landowners. By voluntarily implementing
projects that contribute toward meeting TMDL
requirements, farmers and other landowners are also
contributing toward agricultural sustainability in the
region. Ecosystem restoration, forest management
and recharge area protection help to conserve and
protect working landscapes and natural areas.

Watershed management and land use planning
that protect open space and agricultural lands also
contribute toward attainment of these objectives.

NCRP Goal 3: Ecosystem Conservation
and Enhancement
Objective 6 — Conserve, enhance, and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, including functions, habitats,
and elements that support biological diversity
Objective 7 — Enhance salmonid populations by
conserving, enhancing, and restoring required
habitats and watershed processes
Associated RMS
Many prioritized projects directly or indirectly
contribute toward achievement of these
Objectives. Specific RMS include:
• Agricultural and Urban Water Use Efficiency
• Agricultural Lands Stewardship
• Ecosystem Restoration
• Forest Management
• Surface Storage
• Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation
• Land Use Planning and Management
146 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 • Recharge Areas Protection
• Pollution Prevention and Urban Runoff Management
• Watershed Management
RMS such as agricultural lands stewardship, ecosystem
restoration, forest management and recharge areas
protection include fish passage enhancement, road
repair, native tree plantings, riparian restoration and wetlands enhancement/creation. Such projects directly
benefit aquatic ecosystems and salmonid habitat through improved habitat, increased stream canopy cover,
or provision of ecosystem services such as pollutant
filtration, which improves instream water quality. These RMS also enhance regional resiliency to the impacts
of climate change, including increased intensity and
frequency of precipitation events, increased length and severity of drought, and increased air temperatures.

Ecosystem restoration and forest management also
sequester carbon and reduce the chance of wildfires.

Agricultural and urban water use efficiency, surface
storage, and groundwater and aquifer remediation
benefit aquatic ecosystems by decreasing the amount
of water withdrawn from surface waters, thereby
increasing instream flow, which can contribute toward
cooler summertime temperatures and provide greater
pollutant dilution and protection from the stress of hotter, dryer periods expected with climate change. Pollution
prevention, urban runoff management and groundwater
and aquifer remediation can improve surface water
quality, which also improves salmonid habitat. Sediment reduction projects are particularly important for salmonid habitat restoration. Land use planning and watershed
planning that factors these strategies into an integrated management framework protects and improves critical
habitat as well as providing climate change resiliency.

NCRP Goal 4: Beneficial Uses of Water
Objective 8 — Ensure water supply reliability
and quality for municipal, domestic, agricultural,
Tribal and recreational uses while minimizing
impacts to sensitive resources
Objective 9 — Improve drinking water quality and water
related infrastructure to protect public health, with a focus on economically disadvantaged communities
Objective 10 — Protect groundwater resources
from over-drafting and contamination
Associated RMS
Many NCRP projects have contributed toward
objectives related to water supply and drinking
water quality and adaption strategies for anticipated
increases in the amount and intensity, timing,
quality, and variability of precipitation events and
stormwater runoff and recharge. RMS that meet
these challenges when implemented include:
• Agricultural and Urban Water Use Efficiency
• System Reoperation
• Conjunctive Management & Groundwater
• Recycled Municipal Water
• Surface Storage
• Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution
• Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation
• Matching Water Quality to Use
• Agricultural Lands Stewardship
• Ecosystem Restoration
• Recharge Areas Protection
Agricultural and urban water use efficiency projects,
system reoperation, conjunctive management, matching
water quality to use, and recycled municipal water
projects increase supply reliability directly and implement practices that will be necessary for adaptation to the
hotter, drier conditions predicted with climate change.

Water efficiency projects also decrease GHG emissions
associated with water delivery systems. Surface storage, including diversion and storage of peak flow during
periods of high precipitation for use during the dry
summer months, is becoming an increasingly important
strategy for local water supply reliability in many North Coast Watersheds. Drinking water quality treatment and
distribution projects in DACs protect public health by
improving failing infrastructure. Groundwater and aquifer remediation help to buffer supplies, improve drinking
water quality, and protect groundwater resources, an
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 147
important component of climate change adaptation.

Agricultural land stewardship protects supply reliability, improves surface water quality, which can lead to
better drinking water quality, and protects groundwater resources from over-drafting and contamination.

Ecosystem restoration and recharge areas protection
contribute toward supply reliability and improved water quality, and enhance carbon sequestration, and will assist with the capture and storage of increased precipitation and stormwater runoff expected due to climate change.

NCRP Goal 5: Climate Adaptation
& Energy Independence
Objective 11 — Address climate change effects, impacts, and vulnerabilities, including droughts, fires, floods, and sea level rise. Develop adaptation strategies for
local and regional sectors to improve air and water
quality and promote public health and safety.

Objective 12 — Promote local energy independence,
water/energy use efficiency, GHG emission reduction,
carbon sequestration, and jobs creation
Associated RMS
Climate adaptation and energy independence is
addressed at the policy level by the NCRP, but several
NCRP projects have implemented the following
RMS toward the achievement of these objectives:
• Agricultural and Urban Water Use Efficiency
• Economic Incentives
• Forest Management
• Land Use Planning and Management
• Watershed Management
• Ecosystem Restoration
• Recharge Areas Protection
Agricultural and urban water use efficiencies promote
water and energy use efficiency and GHG emission
reduction. Economic incentives encourage landowners
and businesses to install water and energy saving
devices, solar energy panels, and other efficiencies.

Forest management to produce biochar enhances local
energy independence and carbon sequestration. Land
use planning and watershed management that consider
vehicle miles traveled, enhance walkability, and assess climate change, impacts, vulnerabilities, and strategies also contribute toward this goal. Many of the habitat
enhancement and watershed/recharge area protection
projects listed above help to make natural and human
communities more resilient to the expected impacts of
climate change, such as more volatile weather, shifting climate zones, temperature extremes and flooding.

NCRP Goal 6: Public Safety
Objective 13 — Improve flood protection, forest and
community resiliency to reduce the public safety
impacts associated with floods and wildfires
Associated RMS
Several NCRP projects have improved flood protection
and reduced flood risk. RMS employed include:
• Flood Risk Management
• Ecosystem Restoration
• Recharge Area Protection
• Land Use Planning and Management
• Watershed Management
Flood risk management directly addresses this goal
by reducing flood impacts. Ecosystem restoration
and recharge area protection enhance green
infrastructure: the natural capacity of floodplain
features to collect and hold excess stormwater when
intense precipitation events occur. These RMS also
buffer against expected increases in storm surges and
precipitation frequency and intensity associated with
climate predictions. Land use planning and watershed
management that use low impact development and
consider downstream impacts also contribute to
this objective and regional climate adaptation.

3.4.8 COORDINATION OF LOCAL WATER
& LAND USE PLANNING
NCRP objectives were developed and updated to reflect
local, regional, state, and federal priorities and the NCRP has solicited input from these entities throughout the
process. NCRP regional planning activities are feeding
directly into local planning efforts through (in part):
148 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 • The infusion of grant funds for needed projects
• Technical support and professional networking
• Provision of General Plan and municipal
ordinance templates and processes
• Development of Community
Watershed & Planning Areas
• Development of NCRP Small Community
Water Provider Toolbox
• Sharing of the latest information to keep local
projects and programs aligned with state priorities
The NCRP strives to provide an inclusive framework for
intra-regional cooperation. NCRP members are enabled
to focus on programs and activities they subscribe to,
and maintain the autonomy to opt out of participating
in others, while remaining signatories and active
participants in other programs/applications/projects.

3.4.8.1 INTEGRATION OF LOCAL & REGIONAL

PLANNING JURISDICTIONS
The jurisdiction for each local plan in the Region coincides with the jurisdiction of the county or municipality that has developed the plan. The jurisdictions of watershed plans, (e.g. TMDLs), however, are basin- or sub-basin-wide. Note that the county and municipal plans carry enforcement
authority, while the watershed plans usually call for
voluntary participation. Each North Coast jurisdiction
meets its local planning and implementation challenges
within the broader NCRP framework. Local plans address
local challenges and give an indication of local needs.

These needs and challenges are considered by the PRP
and documented and incorporated into the NCRP Plan
through analysis of local plans, incorporation of proposed projects as an indication of regional need, surveys,
interviews, outreach, workshops, and conferences.

Often, implementation of projects to satisfy local needs also satisfy broader regional goals, such as ensuring a reliable water supply or restoring salmonid habitat.

3.4.8.2 INTEGRATION OF EXISTING PLANS
& NCRP GOALS/OBJECTIVES
Lists of local, regional, state, and federal plans and
other planning documents related to land and water
resource use planning have been compiled by NCRP staff
and are available on the NCRP web page (North Coast
Plans, Policies and Reports, May 2019). All have relevance to the Region’s resource planning, and all are at least partially consistent with the current priorities, goals and objectives of the NCRP. Specific sections of all the local planning documents and efforts referenced herein clearly relate to one or more NCRP goals/objectives. Examples
of consistencies between the NCRP and existing plans
include, but are by no means limited to the following:
• UWMPs and General Plans set water
supply reliability as a goal
• Watershed plans often meet several of the
primary NCRP objectives related to salmonids,
drinking water, and water supply provision
with minimal environmental impacts.
• Land and water plans most often apply a diversity
of RMS, combining them to achieve multiple goals.
• Because they share fundamental priorities
with existing plans (by design), the NCRP
projects also frequently implement local and
sub-regional watershed plan elements.

As Land Use Plans such as General Plans, Water
Resources Elements, Coastal Plans, Forest Plans,
and other land management plans are updated,
the updates may include strategies provided by the
NCRP and template elements developed during
the process when municipalities/counties choose
to incorporate them. This will place plans into a
regional context while preserving local autonomy:
individual planning efforts will be tailored to the
specific community while keeping regional needs and
interdependencies as important planning components.

3.4.8.3 LINKING WATER & LAND USE

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
Historically, the approach to land and water planning
has been to manage and make decisions about
each resource separately, from the perspective of
different agencies. Although water clearly moves
across jurisdictional boundaries, water management
historically has been based strictly within jurisdictional areas. The IRWM process seeks to resolve this
conflict through diverse water management
portfolios and early water management input to
those responsible for making land use decisions
and implementing land use changes (DWR 2012).

In the last decade in California, there has been a
movement toward a more inclusive watershed approach
to planning. Water, resource and land planners and
managers may tackle regional water issues and meet
multiple water management objectives by implementing
a single multi-benefit project or program, rather than
individual projects from one agency with a single purpose.

For example, NCRP activities toward floodplain restoration also benefit water supply, water quality, salmonid habitat, recreational access, flood attenuation, and carbon
sequestration. The NCRP planning process also provides
an opportunity to expand and link existing programs
with stakeholders who would benefit from them.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 149

3.4.8.4 COMMUNICATION NEEDS & STRATEGIES
Often, the relationship among and between land and
water resource agencies is characterized as reactive
in that one agency is expected to act to accommodate
a decision the other agency has already made; early
communication is critical to change this relationship
dynamic from reactive to proactive (DWR 2012).

Open and transparent communication between and
among NCRP participants and potential stakeholders
is integral to the NCRP approach to planning and
implementation. Improved interaction between water
managers and land use planners can advance the
implementation of the NCRP: they can make decisions
with better understanding of their impact on each
other, and they can identify and act upon opportunities to collaborate and meet multiple goals cooperatively.

Communication must flow both ways: to local entities
and from local entities into NCRP, state, and federal
planning processes. The NCRP has established robust
mechanisms to ensure public input during formal
review periods, group meetings, and via one-on-one
communication. The PRP continually evaluates and
improves processes to provide for transparency,
inclusiveness, and openness in all NCRP activities.

3.4.8.5 PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Multi-objective planning frameworks are increasingly
the preferred paradigm for local, regional, state,
and federal government efforts. Strategies to
improve planning and implementation increasingly
rely on existing frameworks, plans, programs, and
pilot projects. Collaborative strategies provide:
• A cooperative framework to move past differences
and implement positive projects and programs
locally that have a regional and statewide benefit
• Efficiencies of scale
• Pooling of technical expertise
• Sharing of financial, human, and technical resources
• Opportunities to develop and disseminate
General Plan and other templates that can be
customized to suit local entities’ priorities
• Leverage of collaborative partnership
to benefit each partner locally

3.4.8.6 LOCAL AGENCY PARTICIPATION
Currently, relationships between local land use planning entities and water management entities can theoretically be collaborative, cooperative, nonexistent, uncooperative, or confrontational. Agencies are increasingly searching out cooperative, collaborative projects and programs
that can accomplish multiple objectives while
benefitting the local community. Through the NCRP,
local land and water use decision makers are given
an opportunity to review and comment on the latest
NCRP Plan elements that are related to their respective jurisdictions. Versions of the NCRP and North Coast
IRWM Plans (2005, 2007, 2014, 2019) have been signed
and adopted by a variety of local and regional agencies with land management authority (including counties,
cities, and water agencies). As the NCRP continues to
increase benefits to local entities in the Region (i.e. via the Water & Wastewater Service Provide Outreach &
Support Program and others) more entities are likely to participate, increasing the synergy, technical capacity, and diversity of participation in the NCRP process.

3.4.8.7 TRIBAL PARTICIPATION
North Coast Tribes have demonstrated support for the
NCRP following their inclusion in the decision-making
bodies of the NCRP, including the PRP, TPRC and ad
hoc committees in 2011. Representatives of North Coast
Tribes were added to the NCRP governance and technical
bodies in 2011. Formal Tribal participation in the NCRP was approved through a revised MoMU that includes
the adopted “Tribal Representation Process”, in 2010.

This decision has made the North Coast the region in
California with the most formal Tribal involvement in
water governance and implementation project technical
review. Inclusion of Tribal representation has the effect of ensuring the NCRP addresses Tribal priorities and
that the existing plans and programs of North Coast
Tribes are recognized and included in the synthesis of
planning documents herein. In 2015 the NCRP elected
the first NCRP Vice-Chair from among the PRP Tribal
Representatives, and for the first time two Tribal
Representatives serve on the Executive Committee.

The Tribal Representation process and Tribal engagement in the DACTI Program and IRWMs is coordinated
150 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 by a Tribal Engagement Coordinator who receives
instruction from the elected Tribal Representatives
and their alternates. All 34 North Coast Tribes are
encouraged to participate in NCRP meetings and in
particular in the Tribal NCRP quarterly meetings wherein participating Tribes discuss items before the quarterly NCRP meetings and provides feedback to the Tribal
Representatives who will vote on NCRP action items.

3.4.8.8 PROCESSES FOR ONGOING

COORDINATION & INTEGRATION
The process for coordinating and integrating local water and land use planning with the NCRP Plan is ongoing
and is aligned with the processes by which the Plan
is amended. The Plan incorporates the most current
land use and water management issues, and identifies
planning strategies that may be implemented or explored in the future. Reports commissioned for the NCRP and
summary tables related North Coast planning efforts
help to support ongoing NCRP Plan updates and process
refinements; inform continued outreach efforts; and relate North Coast planning efforts to specific Plan elements. • The NCRP, under the direction of the PRP, is
committed to identifying and implementing
future plans to further a collaborative, proactive
relationship between land use planners and
water managers and between both groups
and the NCRP. Upcoming opportunities
anticipated by the NCRP include:
• General Plan updates are in progress or
planned within five years for most local agencies
within Region; their updated information
will be incorporated into the NCRP Plan
• Future forums, conferences, and workshops
to cultivate the relationship between
water and land use decision-makers
• Continue to identify and fund water management
projects that meet water supply and water quality
objectives while being compatible with existing
and planned future land use designations
• Continue and extend outreach to and expand
collaborative relationships with local, state,
federal resource entities, particularly those
representing the land use community
• Continue to identify and promote opportunities
for shared water-land management that
satisfies priorities of all participants

3.4.8.9 COORDINATION WITH STATE AGENCIES

AND NEIGHBORING IRWM EFFORTS
The NCRP keeps in close contact with state agencies
and other IRWM efforts through participation in
agency-led meetings, workshops and conferences
and the Roundtable of Regions statewide IRWM
group. The NCRP also invites participation by state
representatives to quarterly meetings, workshops,
and annual events as well as requesting in-person
and telephone meetings when warranted. Some of
the counties in the NCRP also participate in other
IRWMs, and they bring relevant information from those
efforts to NCRP meetings. There are no existing water
management conflicts with adjacent IRWM regions.

The state can assist with implementation of IRWM
planning, processes and projects by continuing to
prioritize integrated regional management at the
state level and to continue to provide robust funding
opportunities for planning and project implementation.

The cooperation of multiple state agencies around
streamlining permitting (e.g., watershed-based
general permits for watershed restoration/ road
decommissioning) has been helpful for project
implementation; continuation and expansion of this
type of assistance, especially as it relates to prescribed burning as a tool in North Coast forest management,
would be helpful, especially to North Coast Tribes.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 151

3.5 MODEL PLANNING &

POLICY ELEMENTS

3.5.1 PLANNING AND POLICY

TOOLS AND MODELS
The NCRP Model Planning and Policy Elements can be
found in the Resources section of the NCRP website at
https://northcoastresourcepartnership.org/resources/.

3.5.1.1 ENERGY & EMISSIONS AVOIDANCE
Site Resilience and Energy Assessment Process for
Key Assets, Redwood Coast Energy Authority
This report discusses how to identify natural hazards
that affect essential services, identify key assets,
and assess energy requirements for a specific asset.

The report works in parallel with a spread sheet to
collect and track data. The approach addresses a
small subset of a much broader, more comprehensive
energy assurance planning methodology. For example,
the Department of Energy defines a 10-Step Energy
Assurance Planning Framework1, which in turn was
the basis for work on the CaLEAP2process to establish
guidelines for local governments in California.

The goal of this report is to help jurisdictions and
agencies to identify and develop high-level energy
assessment plans for critical key assets, prepare
demonstration sites for future energy independence
and resilience funding opportunities, and to promote
and sustain awareness of energy assurance planning
among local jurisdictions beyond a recent catastrophe.

3.5.1.2 LAND USE
Humboldt County General Planning Models
and Environmental Impact Report
This suite of planning models includes a model
for an Environmental Impact Report for a County
General Plan as well as several model elements of a
County General Plan, including: Land Use Element,
Community Infrastructure and Services Element,
Water Resources Element, Energy Element, Safety
Element and an Implementation Action Plan. The Plan
for which these model elements were developed was
adopted by the County of Humboldt in October, 2017.

North Coast Irrigation Water & Fertigation
Management Plan User’s Guide & Tool Version 1.0,
Humboldt County Resource Conservation District
Humboldt County Resource Conservation District staff has conducted a series of interviews with livestock producers in the coastal bottomlands around the Humboldt Bay
region. These producers represent management of
hundreds of acres of pastures and crops where seasonal
irrigation and fertilization practices have been conducted for years, or decades, or in some cases, generations.

These interviews have included inquiries to find out how producers make decisions on scheduling irrigations
and nutrient applications, what kind of volumes of
water are applied, and whether they consider soil
moisture status, soil water holding capacity and crop
needs in their decisions. It was through these types of interviews that HCRCD realized the need and benefits of a project such as the North Coast Irrigation Water and
Fertigation Management Plan (IWFMP). Fertigation is
the injection of fertilizers, soil amendments, and other water-soluble products into an irrigation system.

The IWFMP uses Excel worksheets as an input framework
for use by agricultural producers and is based on
calculating a water and nutrient balance for a variety of crop types (System requirements: Microsoft Excel 2010
(or newer)). It is regionally adaptable for use throughout the North Coast Region to inform producers of optimal
water and fertilizer use for enhanced management
of farm resources and to maximize crop production.

Producers input farm-specific data such as acreages,
crop type, irrigation sources, application rates, pumping rates, irrigation schedule, and fertilizer applications.

The model uses this information to provide the user
with a summary of past management for the current
year and information for each designated land unit.

The IWFFMP includes the ability to incorporate farmspecific equipment information, information for soil moisture monitoring data, well water monitoring, and
other agronomic information to better refine outputs.
152 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

3.5.1.3 WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY
Mendocino County Integrated Planning and Outreach,
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District
Mendocino County has identified many planning goals
and action items which are in alignment with North
Coast Resource Partnership/North Coast Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan Goals and Objectives.

Although the process of identifying which Action items/ Projects “fit” with NCRP priorities was cumbersome,
it’s clear that the outcomes were very positive for the County, particularly at a critical time when their Water Agency is undergoing a capacity building phase.

MCRCD and County Building and Planning Services
(PBS), held two meetings regarding the scope of the
project and expected outcomes. Additional meetings
were conducted concerning CASGEM compliance,
with Both Water Agency and PBS staff. During the
course of the Project, the Water Agency cycled
through two key staff members—one retired, and the
other transferred out of the area. To meet CASGEM
data gaps and State compliance, MCRCD stepped
in at the County’s request, to assist with completing
the CASGEM Plan for the Ukiah Valley medium/high
priority groundwater monitoring elements—and is now
under contract to monitor approximately 17 wells.

The elements that might be improved are: 1) to create
a simplified database, in an electronic format—entering data by hand is time consuming and doesn’t breathe life into the process; 2) CASGEM is an important mechanism
for securing future grant funding by and for county
government—partnerships could be strengthened for
project development and project prioritization in future funding initiatives; 3) Water Agency staff hold critical institutional knowledge—the MCRCD partnership with
the County may help facilitate capacity building for the Water Agency and help preserve institutional knowledge.

Assistance for Small Community Water and
Wastewater Service Providers, Siskiyou County
Siskiyou County is a large, sparsely populated county
located in the northernmost part of California with a
population of approximately 45,000 people. In 2014,
Siskiyou County contracted with Water Works Engineers
(WWE) to assist a limited number of small community
water and wastewater service providers in Siskiyou
County with assessment of the system’s most pressing
needs for their water and/or wastewater systems. As
part of Water Works Engineers proposal to provide
value-added services, a comprehensive list of the small community water and wastewater service providers
was compiled from County records and currently known
information. This was done to provide the County with
a maintainable list of all the service providers for the small, economically disadvantaged communities, in
the event that future funding becomes available to
pursue potential projects in these communities.

Water Resources Planning Proposal, Trinity County
Trinity County is a sparsely populated county in the North Coast region that lacks the resources of more populous
counties. In order to assist the County to respond
to drought, this project was completed. It developed
recommendations to improve policies to better manage
water resources for the review and consideration of
the County and local water providers. Strategies for
improving water use efficiency and conservation were
developed and the County worked with community water
providers to: engage in water conservation education and outreach; develop rate structures where cost recovery is proportional to water use; and develop recommendations
for increased or additional water supply sources from
sustainable and low impact sources. A support network
between the County, community water providers, local
resource agencies and the development community
was established that is designed to assist landowners
to be good water stewards. Online resources were
developed to enable access by all interested parties
and to help bridge the gap between County land use
goals, written policies, and practical implementation.

3.5.1.4 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Mendocino County Water Emergency Preparedness
for Underserved Districts, Mendocino County
Resource Conservation District
The Mendocino County Resource Conservation District
(MCRCD) worked with Tribal and small water suppliers
to improve their capacity to meet water emergencies
by: 1)conducting a needs assessment; 2) holding
seven water conservation workshops and events;3)
creating the four-part Water Wise radio series on
public radio; 4) providing free downloadable educational and outreach materials; 5) publishing an on-line
water conservation resource guide;6) training staff
to conduct residential water audits; and 7) assisting
suppliers with developing drought contingency plans.

The MCRCD found that the primary vulnerability among
small water suppliers was water supply insecurity due
to reliance on a single source of water, lack of water
rights, or insufficient back-up storage. Many suppliers lacked the funds and staff to meter their customers,
hampering their ability to institute and enforce water use restrictions. The help requested from the MCRCD focused on assistance with grant writing for meters and storage, free outreach materials, help educating customers,
free water audits and help adopting drought policies.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 153

3.5.1.5 WASTE
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System Planning
Options Evaluation Methodology, Disposal Solutions
Scenarios, Management Model Guidelines, Hoopa Tribe
This handbook is intended as an introduction to cluster systems, and also provides basic tools for the reader
to perform some preliminary planning. The tools are
intended to assists the reader in developing a general
understanding of their environment, regulatory
requirements, and costs required for a cluster system;
however, these tools are not intended to replace
field investigations, and a certified professional
must be consulted should the reader conclude that
a cluster system may be a viable option to pursue.

3.5.1.6 TRIBAL MODEL POLICIES
Planning Guide for Tribal Energy Sovereignty,
Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria
The goal of this document is to allow for Energy
Sovereignty, whereby a Native Sovereign Nation or
Tribe can own its renewable energy, and stop burning
fossil fuels. This document is intended to be used by
local Tribal entities who wish to eliminate fossil fuel use in buildings with their locally available, renewable energy resources such as solar power, wind power,
and bio-mass. It includes a description of how existing Tribal buildings use energy, how to switch methane
gas (“natural gas”) burning equipment to high
performance electric equipment and then generate
that electricity with local renewable resources.

Trinity River Hoopa Valley LiDAR Technical Data
Report, Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries
In October 2013, WSI (Watershed Sciences, Inc.)
was contracted by the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council
to collect Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data
and digital imagery in the fall of 2013for the Trinity
River Hoopa Valley project in Northern California.

Data were collected to assist the Hoopa Valley Tribal
Fisheries Department in assessing the topographic
and geophysical properties of the study area to support aquatic habitat analysis and fisheries monitoring. This report accompanies the delivered LiDAR data and imagery and documents data acquisition procedures, processing
methods, and results of all accuracy assessments
Planning Guide for Development of Tribal Environmental
Protection Ordinance, Yurok Tribe Environmental Program This Planning Guide is a direct result of a specific
project the Yurok Tribe undertook to enhance its
environmental protection program. Development of
a Planning Guide and a Model Tribal Environmental
Protection Ordinance is intended to assist other Tribes to improve their environmental protection programs.

The project focused on modification of existing Yurok
Ordinances for land use and solid waste based on
an extensive review of available Tribal Code.

The Yurok Tribe project improved their existing
environmental program by reviewing and revising current land use environmental ordinances and writing additional ordinances. Individual Ordinances were then consolidated into a single Ordinance to improve access to subject
matter and streamline and clarify the enforcement
process. This Planning Guide describes the planning
process and options for other Tribes to consider while
undertaking similar projects to develop codes. The Model Tribal Environmental Protection Ordinance generated
for the Yurok project is offered to other Tribal Nations as a template for their similar efforts, with particular applicability to other North Coast Tribal Nations. The
Planning Guide describes the steps and options necessary to develop a Tribal Environmental Protection Ordinance.

Model Tribal Environmental Enforcement Response
Plan, Yurok Tribe Environmental Program
Development of a Model Tribal Environmental
Enforcement Response Plan is intended to assist other
Tribes to improve their environmental programs. The
overall project focused on development of a model
Tribal Environmental Protection Ordinance which will
contain enforcement elements. The Yurok Tribe project
improved their existing environmental program by
evaluation of existing environmental codes and policies and development of an Enforcement Response Plan
for the Yurok Environmental Protection Ordinance. The
Model Tribal Enforcement Response Plan generated for
the Yurok project will be offered to other Tribal Nations as a template for their similar efforts, with particular applicability to other North Coast Tribal Nations.

Residential Land Use Policy Related
to Water Use, Yurok Tribe
In the summer of 2014, creek flow measurements
were collected on the following creeks:1)Upper Rock
Chute and lower Rock Chute 2)East Burrell and Burrell
100 3)Upper Bens and lower Bens 4)Upper Ha Amar
and lower Ha Amar 5)Upper Devil and lower Devil 6)
Upper Chqui and lower Chqui 7)Wautec Intake/Achelth
8)Upper Cawtep and lower Cawtep 9)Upper Bertha
and lower Bertha 10)Nellie Although there were a
total of 16 creeks identified in the proposal as points of interest, some creeks required more than one flow
measurement due to the change in the surface water
velocity between locations. There were also locations
that were unsafe to access due to trespass marijuana
154 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 grows occupying land near the surface water and were
abandoned after one flow measurement was collected.

Flow measurements were collected by the Yurok Land
Management cadastral survey crew in August, October,
and November. The cadastral survey crew constructed
weirs for measurements and converted the times into a
conversion formula into gallons per minute. This formula is used by engineers from Indian Health Services.

As flow measurements were being collected, we
discussed some of the issues that we were hearing
from the community about presence of heavy metals,
arsenic, and e-coli in the water. The levels of flows
were of little consequence if the water has naturally
occurring arsenic. Since the Yurok Reservation was
heavily mined in the past, it seemed important to also
determine if the main creeks that are providing drinking water are experiencing general water quality issues.

Water quality was extremely poor for all of the creeks.

Coliform was present at extremely high levels in every
creek as well as e-coli. There is some concern that
the high levels of coliform and e-coli could mean
septic leaks or dumping on the rural creeks. Without
more information, the Yurok Tribe decided to include
mandatory sand filtration on residential water systems
that are proposing to use surface water sources.

From the flow measurements, the Planning Department,
Yurok Land Management cadastral survey crew, and
Tribal Council developed a water policy for residential water sources; “Water Resources: Land Use Policy”.

This policy set forth the goals to monitor future
residential developments that through identified goals
and implementation tools to ensure water diversions are monitored and the health and safety of the community is prioritized. The final Tribal Council adopted residential water policy requires at least one year of water flow
measurements on a creek that has not been measured
previously to determine if the surface water source can support a year-round diversion and water quality testing.

3.5.2 NCRP WATER & WASTEWATER

SERVICE PROVIDER OUTREACH
& SUPPORT PROGRAM

3.5.2.1 2013 –2014 SURVEY AND OUTREACH
The NCRP received a DWR grant to improve the
capacity and quality of service of small water supply
and wastewater service providers through coordination,
technical assistance, trainings, integrated planning,
funding opportunity identification, and education.

Survey Efforts
In 2013, Humboldt County staff, acting on behalf of
the NCRP, circulated a survey to over 300 entities
representing all public water and wastewater systems
serving communities in the North Coast Region. The
entities surveyed included Tribal systems, cities, special districts, and mutual water companies, many of which
provide critical services in small rural communities.

The survey was intended to determine technical,
managerial, and financial needs and project priorities
and it highlighted the following expressed needs:
• Assistance with securing funding and
navigating the process of replacing or
upgrading aging infrastructure;
• Assistance with general water and
wastewater system infrastructure
operations, maintenance and repair;
• Support to comply with state standards
(especially drinking water standards);
• Assistance with identifying funding opportunities
and preparing grant applications; and
• Support to develop and maintain maps
of water and wastewater systems.

In response to these needs, the NCRP worked with the
Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC), Cal
Rural Water, and a team of engineering consultants to
develop a suite of trainings and tools that build capacity for providers in disadvantaged communities and that
can be replicated statewide. The work followed a “utility management cycle” developed by the North Coast region
and includes information that supports the development
of capital projects, system management, training for
providers and sound financial management. On the
capital project side, the effort included development
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 155
of a “Small Community Toolkit” to assist water and
wastewater purveyors in the initial scoping and
development of solutions to their infrastructure needs.

Trainings and Tools
For operations support, the targeted grant effort worked to leverage the established “Technical Managerial
and Financial” (TMF) template developed by RCAC.

This on-line template allows purveyors to prepare the
13 elements required for funding from the California
Department of Public Health and is an important
resource for “self-help” in disadvantaged communities.

Training was provided through a series of workshops
that introduced participants to the Small Community
Toolkit, the TMF Template, and funding and financing
opportunities. Many of the workshop locations also
afforded participants the opportunity to upload their
Preliminary Project Information onto the NCRP website,
which helps them take advantage of future funding
opportunities and ensures that the NCRP’s understanding of regional funding needs remains current and valid.

Because the survey results revealed significant needs
around funding, the NCRP convened a “Small Community
Assistance Workshop” in Sacramento on February 28,
2014. The workshop included representatives from DWR,
the California Department of Public Health, the State
Water Resources Control Board, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service, California’s
Infrastructure Bank, the Indian Health Service and RCAC.

These state, federal and non-profit organizations work
together to organize the California Funding Fair and
provided valuable insight on the needs survey results,
the tools being developed by the NCRP and the funding
and financing vehicles available for small communities.

Their input informed the funding opportunities
considered in the 2014 Plan and subsequent updates
(2019). Workshop participants also identified barriers
to assisting disadvantaged communities, including:
• Disadvantaged and Tribal systems
often don’t have drought plans
• Disadvantaged and Tribal systems often
don’t have emergency plans
• Disadvantaged communities need
a way to fund storage
• Indian Health Service emergency funding can only
be accessed when supply is reduced to 15-25 gpd
• Disadvantaged communities need technical
assistance with financials and rate studies because
rates must be at 1.5% to 2% of MHI before grants
• Disadvantaged communities need technical
assistance with hiring consultants
• USDA requires a Vulnerability Assessment and
Emergency Response Plan to fund a project
• CDPH planning funding requires four Technical,
Managerial, and Financial (TMF) elements
• CDPH construction funding requires full TMF
• Decentralized systems are difficult to manage
without a governance overlay for O&M
• Board members for small districts need training
• Solar projects can reduce long-term costs but
payback benefits aren’t universally understood
• It is very difficult to assist
non-federally recognized Tribes
• Mobile home park systems are often private,
for-profits making them very difficult to assist
• Forming legal entities that can receive assistance
is difficult, time consuming and expensive
• It is hard to access pre-planning
funding for early application work
While the Small Community Toolbox, TMF template and
workshops help address some of these barriers, the list is an important reminder of how financing plans need to be structured to support disadvantaged communities.

Small Community Toolbox
The NCRP Small Community Toolbox was created to
provide resources to help with system maintenance,
replacement and upgrades as well as to assist in the
project development process. The Toolbox is intended to help small utilities develop a “first order” understanding of what their options are, how they should begin to
budget, where to find funding opportunities, and how to get help. This resource is organized around the steps
associated with the “Utility Management Cycle”. Tools
contained in the Toolbox may be provided as documents,
maps, charts, or links to web resources. The goal of
the toolbox is to provide additional resources to small communities that help them minimize gaps and allow
small and or disadvantaged purveyors to more effectively move through the Utility Management Cycle and access
financial and technical assistance. The Toolbox is not a substitute for professional assistance with operations, management, engineering and legal issues (see Appendix
K, Table K-51, Small Community Toolkit Elements).

Demonstration Projects
In order to test the usefulness of its tools, the NCRP’s targeted grant also included ten demonstration projects where the tools will be applied to help agencies move
forward in the application process. These projects each 156 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 received approximately $15,000 of assistance, are outlined in Appendix K, Table K-52 (“Economically Disadvantaged
Community Demonstration Projects”). This assistance
is additive to the IRWM funding outlined in Appendix K, Table K-49 (“Summary of NCRP Use of Funds”) and Table
K-50 (“Summary of Funding and Financing to Date”).

3.5.2.2 2017–2019 SURVEY AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Survey & Results
In 2017, the NCRP received Proposition 1 funding for
outreach and assistance to Tribal and Economically
Disadvantaged Communities. The NCRP, using the 2013
survey as a basis, developed a follow-up survey for water suppliers and wastewater treatment operators that was
administered in late 2017 through mid-2018 primarily
via email and the internet with some phone interviews
and US Postal Service mail surveys also conducted
for those who preferred. A special effort was made to
obtain responses from the small systems that did not
participate in the 2014 NCRP System Needs Survey.

The survey was left open on the internet and responses
continued to trickle in through early 2019. Results
of the first set of surveys were analyzed in May 2019
(see Disadvantaged Community Water & Wastewater
Service Provider Water Needs Survey Summary).

By April 25, 2018, there was a 54% response rate to the survey (120 responses representing 112 systems). The top five areas of concern were aging treatment systems (need to replace system parts), financial stability for operating the system and maintaining a reserve, fire suppression
supply reliability, drinking water supply reliability,
and outdated treatment system (need new/ improved
technology). With respect to technical assistance,
the greatest need was for assistance with funding
opportunities. About 40% of respondents expressed
moderate need for assistance with maintenance and
repair, operations, and capital improvement planning,
while about a third of the respondents indicated
moderate need for assistance with meeting regulations,
rate structures, and equipment calibrations.

Nearly 40% of 88 respondents indicated that sharing
resources with neighboring or nearby systems would
help address needs for specialized tools, equipment,
qualified operators, or system management. Slightly
more indicated that this would not be useful, while
about 20% weren’t sure. Many of the systems indicated
that they currently share resources or technical staff
with other facilities. For example, one water treatment operator serves many small coastal systems. Others
assist or receive assistance from a neighboring system.

Of those who do not think sharing resources would be
beneficial, several commented that they are too far away from other systems for it to be practicable. In response to the query about resources to share, over half of the 103 respondents replied that they do not have specialized tools, equipment, or other resources to share through
partnerships. About one quarter of respondents indicated that they do have resources to share, while another
20% were uncertain. The list of items that respondents
indicated they are willing to share with other systems
is impressive: qualified operators, backhoe and other
tools, CCTV for sewer/ pipe videoing, fleet equipment,
operators, generators, system repair tools, storage tanks, vactor trucks, water level indicator tools, waterline leak detection and waterline location equipment, and technical expertise were some of the items offered for sharing.

Some respondents indicated that they already assist
smaller entities or have service contracts or MOUs for
sharing specialized equipment. These responses indicate that there is a need in the North Coast for sharing
equipment, tools, operators, and technical expertise,
and that there are many individuals and agencies willing to do so. The NCRP, through its website, conferences,
workshops, and other mechanisms, is uniquely
positioned to facilitate the expansion of existing efforts.

Technical Assistance
Concurrent with the water and wastewater treatment
needs survey, NCRP staff compiled a list of water and
wastewater system providers in the North Coast region
in need of technical assistance (see Disadvantaged
Community Water & Wastewater Service Provider Water
Needs Survey Summary). This list was put through a
rigorous screening and prioritization process. A list
of preliminary evaluation criteria was developed that
included economic status (only systems in or serving
areas considered disadvantaged by the state were
considered), Drinking Water State Revolving Fund criteria for public health need, Clean Water State Revolving
Fund criteria for public health and water quality,
implementation readiness, and sustainability criteria,
including infill development, existence of capital and
asset management plans, climate change planning,
protection of environmental or agricultural resources,
and presence of project in one or more regional
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 157
environmental management plans. DWR IRWM Program
Statewide Goals were also factored into the prioritization process, including drought readiness, ecosystem
protection and restoration, expansion of water storage
capacity, improvement of groundwater management and
increased flood protection. The resulting list of water and wastewater system providers in the region was reviewed
with the NCRWQCB and Division of Drinking Water District Offices 01, 03 and 18 to ensure that systems were good
candidates for assistance based on state experience and knowledge. When the preliminary ranking was developed
and DWR and NCRWQCB had added their input, additional
adjustments were made based on system responsiveness
to outreach, whether systems were currently receiving
planning or construction funds from other sources,
whether systems had previously received NCRP
assistance, and whether projects were consolidations,
which increase regional self-reliance. Once the final
adjusted points were developed each project was ranked
based on their score within each NCRP member county.

Top candidates were selected for technical assistance.

About twenty disadvantaged water and wastewater
systems in the North Coast region were helped by this
first allocation of technical assistance. The first allocation of technical assistance focused on entities with a project that were almost ready to apply for the first round of
NCRP IRWMP Proposition 1 Implementation funding
in spring of 2019. In these cases, technical assistance supported application development and/ or minor project development assistance. Additionally, the prioritization process identified communities that were not ready
to apply for implementation funding in 2019, but need
technical assistance to develop a project for the second round of DWR IRWMP funding anticipated in 2021.

The NCRP anticipates more than one round of technical
assistance to be provided as part of the overall DACTI
program. The first allocation of technical assistance
focused primarily on water and wastewater providers, but the NCRP is developing a separate strategy to outreach
to economically disadvantaged communities, Tribes,
and other organizations responsible for watershed
management, stormwater, and other ecosystem functions.

3.6 LONG-TERM ECONOMIC
& FINANCING PLAN
Since 2005, the NCRP planning process and project
implementation has been financed from a variety of
sources, including via Proposition 50 and Proposition
84 grant funding; alternative grant sources (e.g.

California Energy Commission, Energy Efficiency &
Conservation Block Grant Program; and Strategic
Growth Council Sustainable Communities Grant); and
local cost-share agreements with the Sonoma County
Water Agency, Humboldt County, and other NCRP
member counties. NCRP funding awards from 2005-
2019 total over $65 million and leverage over $95 million in funding match. With its commitment to achieving
multiple objectives through local action, the NCRP is
well poised to attract and utilize new federal, state,
local, and private funding sources as they become
available. NCRP projects are likely to qualify for many types of grants and low interest loans. The NCRP was
initiated with and continues to benefit from voluntary
member contributions. Financial contributions have
not been a requirement of membership in the NCRP,
although all members have contributed substantial
staff time to the effort. See Appendix K “Financing
History and Future Financing” for more information.

The NCRP developed a financing plan to help
stakeholders understand the complex history of NCRP
funding and develop future funding to sustain the
NCRP effort. The financing plan identifies a diversity
of funding types to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NCRP framework, processes, and projects. The
Financing Plan accommodates a 20-year planning
horizon and includes the following elements:
• Sources of funding (program-level description
of funding sources for Plan development and
potential sources for project implementation and
O&M costs) including but not limited to ratepayers;
operating funds; water enterprise funds; special
taxes, assessments, and fees; state, federal,
and private grants & loans, and local bonds
• Potential alternative funding including opportunities to leverage ecosystem service value (consider other
than grant awards; consistent, secure, long-term
funding e.g. general funds, rate-based funds)
• Certainty of funding (current statues
as secure, submitted, proposed)
• Conclusions and recommendations of professional
economists based on consideration of stakeholder
and NCRP review and input, previous funding
sources, and projected funding needs.

3.6.1 CHALLENGES TO FINANCING IN

THE NORTH COAST REGION
Relatively small communities and spectacular
natural resources characterize the North Coast
Region. However, an uncounted number of potentially
beneficial projects have been stalled because of the
hurdles created by the need for affirmative votes to
implement them. As the Public Policy Institute of
California (PPIC) recently described, Article XIII of
the State’s Constitution (put in place by Proposition
13 in 1979 and Proposition 218 in 1996) can “stymie
158 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 local agencies’ ability to pursue the modern water
management techniques needed to maintain reliable…
service.” Rigid constitutional requirements that rates
and fees must be specifically linked to services for each property jeopardize the implementation of innovative
programs and the provision of basic services.

Despite these universal challenges, the integrated
planning process has been successful in the North
Coast Region. To date, the State’s investment has
been approximately $69 million and the North Coast
Region has used this as leverage to complete over
$160 million of watershed improvements. This
has more than doubled the State’s investment and
created a framework and processes for implementing
additional successful integrated projects.

An assessment conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in 2011 found California could use
$44.5 billion to fix aging drinking-water systems over
the next two decades (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2013). ASCE’s 2012 “Infrastructure Report Card
for America” gave the state a “C” and assigned the
following investment needs for water infrastructure:
• Levees/Flood Control: $2.8 billion per year
• Urban Runoff: $6.7 billion per year
• Wastewater: $4.5 billion per year
• Water: $4.6 billion per year
More recently, the PPIC’s 2014 work focuses on
the same type of investments that are included
in the NCRP and reports funding gaps of $2
to $3 billion dollars annually including:
• $30 million to $160 million to provide safe drinking
water in small, disadvantaged, rural communities
• $800 million to $1 billion for floods
• $500 million to $800 million for
stormwater management
• $400 million to $700 million for ecosystem
support for endangered species
• $200 million to $300 million for
integrated water management

3.6.2 DESIRED OUTCOMES

3.6.2.1 FUNDING & CERTAINTY OF

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for
NCRP projects comes from various sources including
ratepayers, landowners, operating funds and future
grants. Many of the municipalities and agencies
that provide water or wastewater services fund
implementation projects through utility rates and/or
operating funds. Nonprofit agencies implementing NCRP
projects fund O&M through landowner agreements for
project maintenance, operating funds, and by obtaining
future grants (in which O&M costs may be funded)
and private donations. Landowner agreements are
obtained prior to implementing projects on private lands; landowners commit to maintaining projects for a specified time period — usually 10–20 years — in exchange for
having the project implemented on their land. Resource
Conservation Districts and other natural resource
agencies are expected to fund O&M from operating funds
and, where appropriate, through landowner agreements.

Tribes fund O&M through Tribal operating funds.

O&M funding source certainty is considered high for
most NCRP projects. Nonprofit organizations, RCDs,
Tribes, and natural resource entities that participate
in the NCRP have a proven track record of obtaining
funding, implementing projects, and maintaining
completed projects, which increases confidence that
O&M funding for NCRP projects will be ongoing.

Likewise, the large municipalities and water supply
and wastewater treatment agencies have the customer
base and rate structure to be confident of long-term
O&M funding for implementation projects. The least
certain sources of O&M funding for the NCRP are
the smaller water supply and waste water treatment
providers located in economically disadvantaged
communities (DACs). Because O&M costs are shared
across a smaller number of customers, rate increases
are often not feasible in DACs leaving small utilities
financially burdened and unable to commit scarce
operating funds to O&M for a completed project. North
Coast Tribal Representatives are discussing options for sharing O&M staff and funding regionally to promote
resiliency and consistency in services (see Appendix K, Table K-50, Summary of Funding and Financing to Date).

3.6.2.2 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR ECONOMICALLY

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
For the past several years, the NCRP has focused on
building capacity for disadvantaged communities. This
has included outreach in 2014 to ascertain need and
then workshops and technical classes, development
of a “Small Community Toolbox,” and implementation
of several demonstration projects. This effort was
followed by another outreach effort in 2018 that led
to identification of communities most in need of
technical assistance, provision of technical assistance in the form of project planning and grant application
development in early 2019. Further technical assistance is in development for communities in need.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 159

3.6.2.3 ENERGY/WATER USE EFFICIENCY
The NCRP has successfully expanded the types of
assistance it provides to include energy efficiency
and greenhouse gas reduction efforts, which is
consistent with the goals for the Region. In 2009/10,
the NCRP managed an energy efficiency block grant
program that provided nearly $1 million in funding
and assisted 11 agencies in accomplishing a variety
of upgrades and conversions (see Appendix K, Table
K-53, Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program).

The results of the Energy Efficiency Block Grant
Program highlight a concept that became evident in
the DAC Targeted Grant Program; saving energy pays
for itself and that helps the Region. Several of the DAC Demonstration Projects will facilitate the conversion of local utilities to renewable solar power, which USDA and the Indian Health Service have both concluded reduces
the operations and maintenance costs for utility systems.

Because of these experiences, the funding opportunities considered in this plan include programs that fund energy conservation and conversion to renewable power. While
this is not required by DWR’s IRWM Guidelines, the NCRP has learned that funding these improvements reduces
uncertainty around future costs and upward pressure on
utility rates, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

3.6.3 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

CONSIDERED FOR THE NCRP
Because of the North Coast Region’s strong history in
matching IRWM funds, the NCRP brings an understanding
of available funding mechanisms, including several
local funding structures that have supported project
implementation, operations and maintenance. In
accordance with the IRWM Guidelines, this section
documents various funding opportunities outside the
IRWM process. The NCRP understands that projects
can be more easily matched to funding sources when
applicants understand the mandate of the funding agency.

Through its work on the DAC Targeted Grant Program,
the NCRP has coordinated with a number of funding
agents representing state, federal, Tribal and private
organizations (see Appendix K, Table K-55, Summary
of Funding Agencies, Mandates and Eligibility and Table K-56, NCRP Funding Opportunity Descriptions by Type).

3.6.3.1 LOCAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Because grants will rarely cover 100% of any projects
cost and because many of the identified funding
agencies provide loans, the NCRP has identified common
local funding mechanisms that can secure loans and
support operations and maintenance. Appendix K, Table
K-54 “Common Local Agency Funding Mechanisms”
illustrates how local rates, assessments, and taxes
can be utilized to secure debt to implement projects.

As also highlighted by PPIC’s findings, four of the
commonly employed local funding mechanisms require
affirmative votes to implement, which can be a barrier
to project implementation and long-term operational
funding. When local rates, assessments or taxes have
been put in place, they provide a certain and longlived mechanism for funding capital, operational and maintenance costs. However strong community outreach
and understanding are often required to establish or
increase these various local funding mechanisms.

The Region’s water and wastewater utilities
generally employ rate revenue to fund operations
and maintenance, capital improvements and to
match grants. Within the Region, several other local
funding mechanisms support water supply, water
quality and restoration activities. For example:
• The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and
Open Space District is funded by a ¼ cent sales tax
• The Sonoma County Water Agency’s Flood Control
Zones receive revenue from benefit assessments
• The City of Santa Rosa’s Stormwater Utility
is funded by a local property-based fee

3.6.3.2 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT FINANCING
The NCRP has experienced situations where an approved
project was not able to fully expend its grant allotment.

In an effort to keep unexpended dollars in the Region,
the PRP in 2012 formalized the process for reallocation the funding of alternative projects. The NCRP Project
Funding Reallocation Process policy was updated and
approved by the PRP in 2018 and is described below.

3.6.3.3 NCRP PROJECT FUNDING

REALLOCATION PROCESS
With concurrence from DWR, the NCRP allows
reallocation of funds to another project within the
existing suite of projects to supplement budget
short-falls and/or expand the current scope of work
to increase the project benefits. Funds will not be
reallocated to a project not included within the existing suite of projects. NCRP staff will have the discretion to determine if a portion of the reallocation is necessary to supplement the grant administration budget.

1. For amounts less than $50,000, NCRP staff
will use discretion to reallocate the funds
to an eligible project within the existing
suite of projects with a priority for:
a. Supplementing budget short-falls.
160 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 b. Supplementing a project that received
less than their requested amount during
the original selection process.

2. For amounts greater than $50,000, project
funding reallocation will occur, to the greatest
extent feasible, within the County or Tribal
region where the original project is located and
is within the existing suite of projects in the grant
agreement. PRP members from the County
or Tribal region, where the original project is
located, will determine which projects receive
reallocation and the amount of funding.
a. If the original funds are from a non-Tribal
project, they will be made available
to another project within the existing
suite of projects in the county where
the original project was located. The
PRP members representing that County
will determine which projects receive
reallocation and the amount of funding.
b. If the original funds are from a Tribal
project, the funds will be made available
to another project within the existing suite
of projects in the Tribal region where the
original project was located. The PRP
member representing that Tribal region
will determine which projects receive
reallocation and the amount of funding.

3. If the County or Tribal region of origin option
is not available (i.e., no projects from the
County or Tribal region of origin within the
project suite need additional funding):
a. Staff will announce the availability of funds
to project proponents within the grant
agreement suite of projects; staff will
solicit project requests and description of
need from eligible project proponents
b. Staff will determine eligible projects
c. TPRC ad hoc committee will be formed via
email or at NCRP meeting if timing allows
d. Ad hoc committee will develop criteria
for project reallocation selection
e. Ad hoc committee will develop project
reallocation option recommendations
f. PRP will review and approve
recommendations at the next PRP meeting
g. TPRC ad hoc committee will be disbanded

3.6.3.4 NEW FUNDING SOURCES AND STRATEGIES
The 2017 financing plan: A Review and Assessment of
Potential Funding Sources for the North Coast Resource
Partnership (ECONorthwest 2017) describes and evaluates multiple funding sources based on criteria developed
from NCRP’s funding goals and objectives including
demands for future funding and current and past
funding sources. The comparison matrix developed by
ECONorthwest is provided below as Table 13. Comparison
of Funding Sources. The table is color-coded to highlight points; dark green shows more favorable scoring while
light green indicates less favorable scoring. The final column provides the sum total for each funding type.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies 161
TABLE 13. COMPARISON OF FUNDING SOURCES
Funding Source Funding
Capacity
Administrative
Requirements
Long-Term
Stability Flexibility Acceptability Ancillary Benefits Total Points Sales Tax 3 3 3 2 2 1 14
Property Tax 3 3 3 1 2 1 13
Transient Occupancy Tax 3 3 3 2 2 1 14
Fees 3 3 3 1 2 1 13
AB 32 Auction revenues 2 1 1 2 3 2 11
EIFDs 2 1 3 1 2 3 12
Community Choice Aggregation 2 2 3 1 3 3 14
SB 375 Integration 1 1 2 2 2 2 10
Regional Advance Mitigation Planning 1 1 3 3 3 3 14
Public Goods Charge 1 3 3 3 1 1 12
Regional Energy Networks 1 1 2 1 1 2 8
Natural Capital as Infrastructure 1 1 2 3 3 3 13
Pre-Disaster Mitigation 2 2 2 3 3 2 14
Carbon Markets 2 2 3 2 3 2 14
Foundation Partnerships 1 1 2 3 3 1 11
Research Partnerships 1 1 2 3 3 1 11
Public-Private Partnerships 1 1 2 3 3 3 13
Through this assessment, several conclusions
and recommendations emerge:
• The NCRP is not alone in searching for funding
solutions. Resources for investing in waterrelated goods and services are lacking throughout California. This is a statewide problem, and
efforts at the state level may yet yield a statewide
solution that could, at least in part, become
part of NCRP’s overall funding strategy.
• No single funding source will provide the NCRP
with the stability and level of investment required
to accomplish its goals and objectives.
• A strategy that focuses on integrating
multiple funding sources holds the best
potential for supplying the NCRP with a
stable and long-term revenue stream.
• Many potential funding sources, particularly
those emerging from recent legislation, hold
huge potential but are still in development. This
presents NCRP with two opportunities: to nudge
the policy development in ways that align with the
goals of the region; and to lead in implementation,
which may afford more opportunities for
experimentation and innovation. This leadership
may come with additional costs as well, in the
form of uncertainty and social capital development.

These costs should be factored into a decision to
pursue less-well-developed funding sources.
• The NCRP should consider new regional
assessments, in the form of taxes or fees, to
pay for environmental investments. This type
of funding source provides long-term stability
and comes with relatively low administrative
overhead. The logistics of implementing and
collecting the revenue across the region may
prove more challenging, but worth exploring.

ECONorthwest recommends the NCRP initiate the
development of a formal funding strategy as a next step.

This would involve a detailed assessment of all or a
subset of the funding sources identified in this report, with the goal of assembling an integrated portfolio
of funding sources that would yield a quantifiable
amount of revenue over a set period of time. The
strategy document would outline a timeline and specific set of steps for developing this integrated portfolio
over time (e.g., a five-year development period).

3.6.4 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES LEVERAGING

THE NORTH COAST AS A SOURCE REGION
As described in Section 2.3.11 Natural Capital Values,
the value of working lands and natural ecosystems of the North Coast region are approximately $861 billion using a 3% discount rate or $1.3 trillion using a declining discount rate. Owners of natural and working lands may be able to “cash in” on some of this value while retaining and even improving the land and the ecosystem services it provides.

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are payments
to individuals or institutions for land conservation or improvements that yield environmental benefits. The
most common direct payments for ecosystem services
in the United States have been implemented through
the USDA via payments to landowners on agricultural
land. Wetland mitigation banking is common throughout
California as well. Individual transactions to protect
162 Section 3 — NCRP Strategies
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 specific services in specific locations, such as forests for source water protection, occur occasionally as
well. More recently, efforts have focused on developing established markets for ecosystem services where
prices are reflective of the demand including avoided
costs associated with supply of natural resources both
in extractive and conservation contexts. Regulatory
compliance drivers and pursuit of cost-savings
efficiencies are common forces driving market activity.

Multiple examples of ecosystem service markets currently exist in California: water supply, water quality trading, and carbon cap-and-trade with offsets. Although the ability to participate in these markets is limited due to situational and regulatory constraints, NCRP may have opportunities to create local revenue streams through the carbon
offset market in particular. Participation in water supply transactions may be an option for water rights holders
within the NCRP, but is not likely a useful strategy for the NCRP to pursue collectively. Water quality markets also tend to be driven by regulation and limited in geographic scope and scale, so are also less likely to be a promising avenue to pursue without new regulatory drivers. The
carbon offset market is addressed in more detail below.

Leveraging the value of ecosystem services provided
by the natural capital in the North Coast doesn’t
have to happen through a formal market: by officially
recognizing and quantifying the goods and services
it supplies, and identifying the beneficiaries of those services, the NCRP is taking the first step toward
forging partnerships that may evolve into future revenue streams designed to secure and enhance the supply
of ecosystem services. Beneficiaries have traditionally not had to pay directly for these services, so translating supply and demand into payments may take time and
additional political assistance or regulatory incentives.

As PES schemes have evolved over the years, the
federal government remains one of the largest payers,
through conservation programs administered by NRCS
and USDA. Conservation organizations are another
leading payer, through transactions that secure
conservation easements and land trusts. More recently,
utilities have become common payers, motivated
to reduce their costs for drinking water treatment,
stormwater treatment, or wildfire mitigation.

ECONorthwest (2017), in A Review and Assessment of
Potential Funding Sources for the North Coast Resource
Partnership describes several avenues through
which organizations have found success leveraging
funding through ecosystem services: securing funding
normally reserved for large-scale infrastructure for
ecosystem improvement; tapping the emerging markets
for carbon, through the AB 32 offset program; and
accessing disaster-preparation funding for ecosystem
(and thus community) resilience. There are also
potential avenues through which partnerships could
lead to payments for ecosystem services, absent
formal government funding programs or markets.

3.6.5 ASSESS CURRENT NCRP
GOVERNANCE TO ENSURE LONGTERM FINANCIAL VIABILITY
Although the NCRP has never charged for membership,
an option to fund staffing and programs at the regional level would be to require financial contributions from each governing body which has membership on the PRP. These
financial contributions would not need to be the same
for each member entity, but could potentially be scaled with consideration for population size, relative median household income, current monetary commitment to the
NCRP, or other relevant factors. Due to the economically disadvantaged status of several North Coast governments, this could potentially impose a hardship on some members.

3.6.6 CERTAINTY AND LONGEVITY OF IRWM

PLAN AND PROJECT FUNDING
Because of its proactive approach to and proven success in acquiring funding for projects and programs that further its goals, the NCRP is highly likely to be able to obtain and maintain funding into the foreseeable future. The NCRP
has been “ahead of the curve” on several key issues, such as pursuing energy independence, reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, forest and working lands management
for carbon sequestration, and economic valuation of
ecosystem services, obtaining funding for such projects and programs before they became state standards. With
this forward-thinking adaptive management style, the
NCRP is very likely to remain on the forefront of natural resources and water management and continue to obtain
funding from a variety of sources to achieve regional goals.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 163
4 NCRP PROJECTS
MAP 51 NCRP PROJECT LOCATIONS IN THE NORTH COAST REGION

4.1 PROJECT APPLICATION, REVIEW
& SELECTION PROCESS
This section describes the process steps and guidelines developed by the NCRP Policy Review Panel (PRP)
and utilized by the PRP and Technical Peer Review
Committee (TPRC) to identify, rank, and select priority projects to implement the NCRP Plan. The current
NCRP 2019 Project Review and Selection Process
Guidelines (NCRP Guidelines) standardize the process
and are subject to continual review and refinement
per recommendations of the PRP, TPRC, NCRP staff,
funding opportunity requirements and state focus.

The NCRP process and implementation of NCRP Priority
Projects identified through the planning process address economic and ecological impacts at their source and
generate lasting benefits that will materialize in the
local, regional, and statewide economy. In a bottom-up
manner, these projects have been planned and
proposed to address a suite of local needs identified by North Coast stakeholders through the NCRP process
(see, Appendix L, NCRP Project Information). Projects
are implemented at the basin scale by local entities
in accordance with local jurisdictional planning.

To be included in the NCRP and to qualify for related
funding opportunities, projects proposed for PRP
and TPRC approval must demonstrate how project
implementation will contribute to achieving one or more of the specific NCRP Goals & Objectives, and how the
project relates to one or more California Water Plan
Resource Management Strategies identified in the NCRP
Plan. Projects must also align with the priorities of local, Tribal, regional, state, and federal stakeholders, as well as the funding source preferences and requirements.

Further, project proponents must sign the Memorandum
of Mutual Understanding for the NCRP Plan. These
and other North Coast priorities provide the foundation for ongoing refinement of the NCRP Guidelines.

4.1.1 OVERVIEW OF PROCESS STEPS
The NCRP project application, review and selection
process is an ongoing, multi-step progression that
involves the participation of the NCRP PRP, TPRC,
project proponents and other regional stakeholders.

The process and Guidelines are continually revised as
needed and as opportunities for input are presented
and priorities of funding programs change. The details
of some project selection steps have been revised
since earlier Plans, but these seven steps continue
to form the foundation for identifying, evaluating,
and recommending projects for inclusion in the
NCRP Plan and related funding applications.

STEP 1 — Preliminary Project Information Upload
Project proponents are provided with information
about IRWM guidelines and funding opportunities via
the NCRP website, email listserve, workshops and
other media. Project proponents upload Preliminary
Project Information to the NCRP website on an
ongoing basis; project proponents submit a signed
MoMU; and staff publishes eligible NCRP Projects.

STEP 2 — Project Solicitation & Supplemental
Project Information Request
At the direction of the PRP and when there is a funding opportunity, a call for proposals will be announced to
North Coast stakeholders. Staff will develop and make
available Project Solicitation application materials based on the NCRP priorities and the funding source solicitation and requirements. The project application materials
will include an application, detailed instructions and a clear description of scoring guidelines and evaluation
criteria, all of which will be reviewed by the TPRC and PRP and approved by the PRP prior to public release.

Project applicants will provide application materials
to NCRP staff via email. A Microsoft Word version of
the NCRP project application will be made available
for reference, for application development and for
164 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 submittal to NCRP staff. Staff will provide outreach,
education and technical assistance via workshops and
informal meetings by phone, internet and in person.

STEP 3 — Individual TPRC Review &
Scoring of Project Applications
Staff compiles and provides application materials to the TPRC for review and scoring using approved evaluation
forms. TPRC members individually review and score
the NCRP Step 1 project applications for contribution
to strategic implementation of the Plan, technical
merit, technical feasibility, project costs, financing and matching funds, project readiness (planning, permits,
CEQA, implementation), project’s expected contribution to climate change adaptation and GHG reduction compared
to alternatives, and specific benefits to critical resource issues for Tribal communities as well as other criteria as defined by the funding solicitation, NCRP PRP-directed
guidelines, and the professional expertise and judgment of the TPRC (see NCRP 2019 Project Review and Selection Process Guidelines for detail). The mix of criteria for the 2019 RFP include climate change, statewide and
Tribal priorities, water self-reliance and safety, and
benefits for economically disadvantaged and severely
economically disadvantaged communities; the criteria
comprise the NCRP’s focus on Environmental Justice for
this funding round. Additionally, since over 93.4% of the area of the North Coast is considered an Economically
Distressed Area, most projects that encompass
human communities contain an environmental justice
component. TPRC members provide individual scores
to NCRP staff for compilation. TPRC members review
all projects referred to them unless they recuse
themselves due to a potential conflict of interest.

STEP 4 — Group TPRC Review of
Project Applications & Scores
Staff compiles all preliminary scores assigned by
individual TPRC members to determine a preliminary
average project score. TPRC members and staff meet
to discuss each project and may make adjustments as
necessary to their individual scores based on the group discussion. Staff compiles all updated TPRC individual
scores to determine an updated average project score and ranks proposed projects. TPRC review meetings are open
to project proponents and the general public with time
allotted for public comment. All meeting deliberations, project scores, applicant and public input and recusals are recorded and made available via the NCRP website.

STEP 5 — TPRC Selection of Draft
Portfolio of NCRP Priority Projects
During the group project review meeting, the TPRC
selects a draft portfolio of NCRP Priority Projects,
including draft budget totals for each project. This
selection is based on technical project scores, project scalability, critical need, potential funding allowance, the overall balance of projects based on the PRP’s
defined guidelines for project selection (e.g. for regional equity and balance of grey and green project types), and the ability of the project portfolio to meet NCRP goals and the associated Resource Management Strategies
(Section 3.4.7). The TPRC also recommends a list of
contingency projects, which are approved to replace
one or more of the priority projects, if necessary
(i.e. if a project becomes unable to proceed, or if
additional appropriate funding becomes available).

STEP 6 — PRP Review, Consideration and
Final Approval of Draft Portfolio
During a public NCRP meeting, the PRP reviews and
makes adjustments as appropriate to the draft suite
of NCRP Priority Projects recommended by the TPRC
and approves a final suite of NCRP Priority Projects
to forward to the funding entity. The PRP makes their
final decision based on TPRC recommendations, PRP
guidelines, funding requirements, and other factors that they believe represent the best interest of the North
Coast Region. Final approved NCRP Priority Project
lists are made publicly available through posting to
the NCRP website. Project review scores and review
meeting materials are made available to the project
proponents and, as requested, to the general public.

STEP 7 — Priority Project Application
Materials for Regional Proposal(s)
NCRP Priority Project proponents may be asked
to provide additional project information to include
in a competitive regional application. Additional
information may include, but not be limited to, a
detailed work plan, budget, schedule, eligibility
certification, monitoring & performance measures, and
technical documentation to support the project. Where
feasible, NCRP staff provides technical assistance
to those project proponents who request it.

The 2019 NCRP Project Review & Selection Process
Guidelines, which included climate change, economic
need, and Tribal considerations, are available on
the NCRP website. The active participation by North
Coast Tribal representatives in the NCRP enables the
group to understand in detail the challenges faced
by Tribal communities, and ensures that projects
that help to address critical water supply and water
quality needs of Tribal communities are prioritized.

For a description of targeted technical assistance to
Disadvantaged Communities and Tribes in project
identification and proposal development based on a
needs assessment survey conducted in 2018, please
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 165
see Disadvantaged Community Water & Wastewater
Service Provider Water Needs Survey Summary.

4.1.2 PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS
The intent of the PRP-directed NCRP Guidelines
is to provide an acceptable method to solicit,
identify, and evaluate projects proposed for NCRP
-related funding. The NCRP Guidelines allow the
PRP to objectively compare and confidently select
planning or implementation projects that promote
NCRP goals and objectives, while allowing for local
flexibility in addressing specific statewide program
preferences and funding requirements. The PRP
includes the following priority considerations in its
decision-making process and scoring criteria:

4.1.2.1 Regional Representation
The PRP will make every effort to ensure geographic
representation by including projects from each of
the six WMAs; seven counties; and from the north,
mid and southern Tribal areas of the North Coast
Region. This guideline will apply only to those
projects which are eligible for funding under the
NCRP and other state and federal requirements, and
which have met the technical criteria established
by the PRP and evaluated by the TPRC.

4.1.2.2 Economically Disadvantaged Community
& Environmental Justice
As part of its commitment to respecting the local
autonomy and local culture of each NCRP member,
the group has opted out of using some common
terminology, such as “Environmental Justice,” that
can have multiple meanings and may be considered
inflammatory to some members. The North Coast is a
rural region where economic disparity is the main driver.

Thus, there is a strong focus on severely disadvantaged, disadvantaged and underserved communities within
the region and the PRP has regularly and consistently
supported efforts to address economic disparity as the
predominant mechanism to address environmental
justice. Project review, selection and NCRP Plans
consistently and comprehensively address economic
disparity through implementation of projects that
serve these communities. To date, 94% of the projects
selected for funding by the NCRP leadership benefit
disadvantaged communities and 15% benefit Tribes.

In an effort to build capacity and extend services to
communities that are under-served and/or limited by
socioeconomic barriers, the TPRC includes screening
criteria that will confer additional weight to projects that, in addition to meeting other NCRP criteria, will
benefit North Coast Tribes, severely disadvantaged and
disadvantaged communities and/ or mitigate economic
disparity. The PRP reserves the right to prioritize Tribal, disadvantaged communities and/ or environmental
justice projects, based on a project’s ability to mitigate threats to public health, watershed health, and the
economic and public health benefits that project
implementation would bring to these communities.

4.1.2.3 Jurisdictional Notification & Coordination
Project applicants are required to demonstrate that
they have notified counties and Tribes re: proposed
projects in the proposed project impact area of a
particular watershed or relevant area of County or
Tribal interest. Project applicants are required to
demonstrate coordination and outreach to potentially
interested stakeholders including Tribes in the
relevant watershed, sub-watershed or project impact
area; including source and receiving water areas.

4.1.2.4 Programmatic Integration and
Balance of Project Type
The PRP requires that proposed projects effectively
implement NCRP goals and objectives and, further,
address specific federal, state, regional, and local
priorities. Projects that address specific priorities
identified by the PRP may be prioritized by the PRP
(examples may include, but are not limited to, biomassrelated projects, effective instream flow approaches, energy retrofits, or drought/ flood preparedness).

Diversity in project “type” (including, for example, built infrastructure projects and natural system restoration
projects) will be achieved at the project portfolio level.

That is, small and/ or individual projects are not required to demonstrate integration of all priorities, yet they
must contribute to a comprehensive suite of projects
that achieve a multi-benefit, integrated program.

Programmatic integration and project type diversity will be achieved over time and through
multiple rounds of funding. Projects that
166 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 propose to provide multiple benefits will be
prioritized, when all else is equal.

4.2 NCRP FUNDING

4.2.1 PROJECT FUNDING HISTORY
A brief description of NCRP project planning and
implementation funding sources and awards (beginning
in 2005) is provided below and in Appendix K, Table K-50 “Summary of Funding and Financing to Date”. Grants
have been managed through the County of Humboldt.
• Proposition 50 IRWM, NCIRWMP
Planning Grant (2005)
» Award Amount: $500,000
» Award Description: This grant allowed for
North Coast regional planning and pilot local
planning efforts and also provided funding for
revisions of the Phase I NCIRWMP document.
• Proposition 50 IRWM, Implementation
Grant, Round 1(2006)
» Award Amount: $25,000,000
» Award Descriptions: This grant funded
implementation of 21 IRWM projects throughout
the North Coast Region. Sub-grantees include
city governments, Resource Conservation
Districts, Community Service Districts, state
agencies, and non-profits throughout the Region.
• Proposition 50 IRWM, Implementation
Grant, Round 2 (2007)
» Award Amount: $2,079,000
» Award Description: This supplemental
grant provided support four priority
Integrated Coastal Watershed Management
(ICWM) projects via the NCIRWMP.
• Proposition 50 IRWM, Implementation
Supplemental Funding (2010)
» Award Amount: $2,176,860
» Award Description: This grant continued
support for the four priority ICWM projects.
• California Energy Commission Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Block Grant (2010)
» Award Amount: $959,117
» Award Description: This grant provides funding
for projects that propose to deliver lasting
financial benefits to California consumers
and the economy through promotion
and facilitation of energy efficiency.
• Proposition 50 IRWM, DAC Assistance Grant (2011)
» Award Amount: $500,000
» Award Description: This grant was DWR directed
funding intended for local assistance planning
funds to support water quality and supply
objectives of small wastewater and water supply
entities in disadvantaged communities. The
funding enabled the development of the pilot
NCRP Water Supply & Wastewater Services
Provider Outreach & Support Program.
• Proposition 84 IRWM, NCIRWMP
Planning11 Grant (2011)
» Award Amount: $1,000,000
» Award Description: This grant allowed for “Phase
III” North Coast regional planning and pilot local
planning efforts and also provided funding for
revisions of the Phase II NCIRWMP document.
• Proposition 84 IRWM, NCIRWMP
Implementation12 Grant, Round 1 (2011)
» Award Amount: $8,222,000
» Award Description: This grant continues
funding for implementation of Round 1
projects, providing funding for 18 NCRP
projects throughout the Region.
• Strategic Growth Council, Sustainable
Communities Grant (2012)
» Award Amount: $1,000,000
» Award Description: This grant provides
funding for projects that propose to
improve air and water quality, natural
resource protection, and public health.
11 Proposition 84 Planning Grant information at https://water.ca.gov/ Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs/Proposition-84 12 Proposition 84 Implementation Grant information at https://water.ca.gov/ Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs/Proposition-84 NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 167
• Proposition 84 IRWM, NCIRWMP
Implementation Grant, Round 2 (2013/2014)
» Award Amount: $5,386,000
» Award Description: This grant continues
funding for implementation of Round 2
projects, providing funding for 13 NCRP
projects throughout the Region.
• Proposition 84 IRWM, NCRP 2014
Drought Project Grant (2014)
» Award Amount: $8,700,000
» Award Description: This grant provides
expedited funding for implementation of
drought-related and preparedness projects.
• Proposition 84 IRWM, NCRP 2015
Implementation Grant, (2015)
» Award Amount: $11,047,939
» Award Description: This grant is
the final Proposition 84 funding for
implementation of NCRP projects.
• Proposition 1 IRWM, NCRP Disadvantaged
Community Involvement Grant (2017)
» Award Amount: $2,650,000
» Award Description: This grant is 10% of the
Proposition 1 North Coast Funding Area
allocation to support the NCRP Disadvantaged
Community & Tribal Involvement Program.
• California Department of Conservation, Regional
Forest and Fire Capacity Program Block Grant
» Award Amount: $4,250,000
» Award Description: Preparation of a
Regional Priority Plan; project development
and permitting; demonstration projects;
and outreach, education and training.

4.2.2 ONGOING NCRP PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Increasingly, funding opportunities for project
implementation require or give preference to projects that are included in a regional Plan. The NCRP Leadership
Guidance Handbook describes the PRP approved policy
and the Project Funding portion of the NCRP website
provides instructions and an application for including
projects on an on-going basis into the NCRP Plan.

4.3 IMPACTS & BENEFITS
This section and Appendix M, “NCRP Project Impact &
Benefit Analysis” documents the impacts and benefits
of the NCRP and its projects; relates past and current
projects to local, regional, and state priorities, goals, and objectives; and presents a framework for communicating
observed impacts and benefits to NCRP stakeholders
and other interested parties. It is recognized that this is a screening-level discussion that is not intended to be highly quantitative or specific to proposed projects at this time. However, estimated impacts and benefits
of 88 of the 91 previously funded NCRP projects are
presented below and these estimates will be updated
and refined with future iterations of the NCRP Plan as
data and improved economic estimates become available.

A NCRP Project Benefits Summary can be downloaded
at the NCRP website Impacts and Outcomes section.

4.3.1 ADVANTAGES OF INTEGRATING

REGIONAL PLANNING AND LOCAL
EFFORTS: THRESHOLD EFFECTS
While respecting and acknowledging local autonomy, the
NCRP and the NCRP Plan act as a synchronizing feature
between state priorities and local individual plans and projects. A regional plan such as the NCRP that includes the local knowledge and experience and preferences
of local community members has many advantages —
regional planning that integrates locally unique individual projects may reduce project implementation costs,
enhance the types and amounts of benefits achieved
from projects, enhance sharing of information among
individual entities, and minimize adverse impacts on
biophysical and socioeconomic resources in the Region.

Implementing projects through a framework of regional
cooperation can be more cost effective than implementing individual projects separately or on an ad-hoc basis.

With regional coordination, aspects of project planning and implementation can be consolidated, which
prevents the duplication of efforts and reduces costs.

The coordination required to implement a regional
approach also leads to greater levels of information
and data sharing, reducing costs by allowing project
sponsors to learn from past efforts and design future
projects with increased efficiency. In addition to reducing costs, coordinated efforts reduce adverse impacts of
projects, such as ecological disturbances or disruptions to community resources, by better integrating or
timing actions to acknowledge and address ecological
and community constraints and opportunities.

A regional framework such as the NCRP has the
potential to achieve greater benefits than a series
of individual efforts. This may occur as coordination
among stakeholders to identify opportunities to extend
and connect projects, resulting in economies of scale
unachievable individually. The NCRP also helps target
resources to projects with the greatest benefits. The
organizational capacity offered by regional coordination provides resources and support to projects that might
168 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 not materialize on their own, and over time helps identify and support the implementation of projects that yield
greater benefits region-wide. For the rural and sparsely populated North Coast, individual diverse communities
working together cooperatively at the regional scale has allowed the region to identify and further its unique goals and priorities for consideration by the State and DWR.

For these reasons, over time, the NCRP regional
framework of cooperation among individual autonomous
communities has the potential to support projects that
generate greater levels of benefits for the region’s
communities with the same (or fewer) technical,
organizational, and financial resources. This is especially the case for Economically Disadvantaged Communities
and Tribes, which may lack resources and/ or expertise
to obtain funding for projects on their own. Often, these communities do not have the financial resources to
meet funding match requirements, but through the
NCRP’s project bundling framework, projects that
have large matching funds availability compensate
for the smaller, more disadvantaged communities
that might have no matching funds available.

Working collaboratively also has greater potential to
reduce costs and adverse impacts to ecological and
community resources in the region than implementing
individual projects without coordination. These
“threshold effects” contribute to strengthening the
economy of the region, which in turn increases regional coordination and broadens stakeholder participation
over time. This regional cohesion will serve residents
of the North Coast well when adapting to anticipated
impacts of climate change and working to reduce
GHG emissions — lessons learned in one area can
be readily communicated with others and likewise,
resources can be used to maximize climate readiness.

4.3.1.1 INTEGRATION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECT

IMPACT/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The NCRP regional framework also has advantages
when it comes to assessing the benefits and impacts of
individual projects. By integrating the analyses of benefits and impacts across a suite of regional projects, those
projects that can achieve the highest level of benefit
for their costs become more evident. An integrated
and consistent analysis of project-level benefits and
impacts allows data collection and monitoring standards to mature and evolve in ways that better support the
assessment of benefits and impacts over time. This
process helps regional managers direct funds and other
resources to those projects that will have the greatest benefits over the long run. It also helps educate and
encourage project applicants to design projects more
effectively, leading to more efficient project outcomes.

Finally, lessons learned and planning opportunities
through the NCRP have led to technical assistance
and improved capacity for disadvantaged and Tribal
communities that otherwise may have lacked the
resources and/ or staffing expertise to participate.

4.3.1.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS & BENEFITS

TO THE REGION & BEYOND
Projects implemented through the NCRP produce
benefits throughout the region and have the potential
to generate benefits that spill over into adjacent
regions. Adjacent regions may realize the value of
benefits produced in the North Coast directly, as some
ecological effects (e.g., carbon sequestration, salmon
population enhancement) are not strictly confined to the boundaries of the watersheds that make up the North
Coast region, and thus have the potential to improve
ecological and economic conditions across a wider
area. Water supply and water quality improvements in
certain parts of the region (e.g., the Trinity WMA) have the potential to provide benefits across a much wider
area as other regions become more dependent on the
exports and provision of resources produced in the North Coast. Benefits may accrue to other regions indirectly
as lessons learned in the North Coast from project
implementation, inter-organization coordination, and
data collection and management yield best practices
that other regions throughout the state adopt.

While adverse impacts arising from projects implemented under the NCRP are likely to be minimal and shortterm in nature (compared to benefits, which are more likely to be long-lasting), they have the potential to
materialize both within the region and in adjacent areas.

Whenever possible, the project analysis and review
process used by the NCRP seeks to minimize the adverse
impacts through careful project design and assessment.

The benefit-cost analyses of projects submitted for
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 169
implementation through the plan explicitly account for
adverse impacts as part of the analysis of costs. The cost analysis monetizes adverse impacts where possible so
they can be directly compared with monetized benefits.

4.3.2 QUALITATIVE & QUANTITATIVE

INDICATORS
Projects proposed through the NCRP produce a wide
variety of benefits and impacts that can be measured,
both in biophysical and economic terms. Some of these
measures are qualitative in nature and others can be
assessed quantitatively (see Appendix M, Table M-63
Indicators of Benefits and Impacts of NCRP Projects).

From an economic perspective, projects comprise
actions that enhance or create the basic resources
that underpin the ecological and economic health of
the Region. Economists refer to these basic resources
as forms of capital, and categorize them into four
groups: natural capital, human-built capital, human
capital, and social capital. Most projects that are part of the NCRP are designed to improve the natural and
human-built capital in the Region, but produce benefits that bolster human and social capital as well. Adverse
impacts of projects also act on these forms of capital
by reducing the availability of some resources, usually for a short period of time and over a limited geographic area. When adverse impacts occur from projects in
the Plan portfolio, the net effect on the different forms of capital is designed to be positive in the long run.

4.3.3 NCRP IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS

BENEFITS SUMMARY
Following is an overview of potential economic,
social, ecological, and cultural benefits provided by
NCRP implementation projects funded by Proposition
50 and Proposition 84. Content was developed
from information provided by project proponents in
reports, contracts, grant proposals, with research
and analysis by ECONorthwest, an economics
consulting firm. Consistent with widely accepted
professional standards, ECONorthwest considered
a broad suite of goods and services including those
values derived from indirect or non-use of resources.

Where sufficient detail exists, the project sponsors’
estimates of expected or realized benefits were used.

Note: because not all projects could quantify their
benefits, and because the economists erred on the side
of caution (underestimating rather than overestimating
when calculating benefits), the benefits listed are at
the low-end of the continuum of estimates of benefits
provided by implementation of the 88 projects evaluated.

Three projects were not evaluated because Final
Reports on these projects had not been submitted.

The quantification of benefits represents the NCRP’s
best effort to present a realistic description of the
value accruing from NCRP project implementation.

Given that over half of the projects are currently in
progress, project scope may change with enhanced or
more limited funding, and the predictions of benefits
— even those based on the best available science and
socio-economic data — are inherently variable.

4.3.3.1 MONETIZATION OF IMPACTS & BENEFITS
Monetization of impacts (costs) and benefits is
conducted by project sponsors when they propose
specific projects to become part of the integrated plan.

Project proponents are provided with a list of suggested economic unit values to apply to the physical units
associated with the indicators of benefits and impacts
their projects may generate. Project sponsors may also
use custom values if they have information that can
support them (see Appendix M, Table M-66, Estimated
Project Benefits for Water Supply, Quality, and Services).

Not all benefits and impacts can be monetized. Both
the screening analysis and the benefit-cost analysis
explicitly acknowledge this. Limitations of monetization arise both from project sponsors’ ability to adequately measure the biophysical effects of projects, especially over the long run, and in economists’ ability to assign economic values to goods and services that materialize
outside the market economy. Non-market valuation
approaches provide good information to assign values
to many of these effects, allowing them to be assessed
alongside market effects. Some effects (especially those related to cultural services derived from the environment) are impossible to adequately value in monetary terms
for all stakeholders. These benefits and impacts are
described qualitatively, using details to characterize the importance of the effect, such as its timing, magnitude, duration, and the populations that it would affect.
$23,444,608
$757,151
$102,662,273
$459,338
Monetary Benefits of
Habitat Improvement
Fishery Improvement
Protect/Enhance
Recreation
Habitat Restoration
Invasive Plant Removal
170 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

4.3.3.2 CRITICAL IMPACTS OF NOT

IMPLEMENTING PROJECTS
Projects implemented through the NCRP address a wide
variety of challenges facing the ecological resources
and human communities across the North Coast.

Without the NCRP supporting the implementation
of these projects, the ecological and socioeconomic
challenges would continue to mount, further eroding
the basic resources that support economic vitality
in the Region. Funding these projects now will help
avert a range of impacts that would occur if the
projects were not implemented. These include:
• Decreases in drinking water supply reliability,
especially in disadvantaged communities and
Tribal communities that have few other options
to access capital needed to repair aging water
and wastewater systems. With supply reliability
already an issue, decreases will impact the
resilience of communities throughout the region
to the increased variability in storm events and
increased and more severe drought events
predicted in the climate vulnerability analysis.
• Degradation of water quality and riparian
habitat that adversely affects salmonid
populations and the livelihood of communities
dependent on healthy commercial, recreational,
and Tribal fisheries resources.
• Reductions in surface and groundwater supply
availability and increases in water scarcity
that affects the production of agricultural and
ecological goods and services, leading to loss
of economic resiliency and increased conflict
throughout the Region as well as vulnerability to
climate change impacts including longer, more
severe, and more frequent drought events.
• Increases in the spread of invasive species that
impair habitat function and reduce the value of
goods and services produced by the Region’s
ecosystems, especially as climate change reduces
the fitness of native plants and animals.

Critical impacts, if not addressed in a coordinated and timely way, would have cumulative and long-term adverse impacts that translate to economic costs within and
outside of the region and make the entire region more
vulnerable to anticipated impacts of climate change.
11 21
20 24
11 1
NCRP Project Sponsors
Local Government
Local Nonprofit
RCD
Water/Wastewater
Tribe
State

4.3.3.3 IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS BENEFIT SUMMARY
NCRP projects include integrated local and regional
solutions to water and wastewater infrastructure,
stream and watershed enhancement, greenhouse
gas emissions reduction, energy independence,
forest health and local economic development. NCRP
projects are selected via a rigorous and transparent
process of scientific and technical review provided
by the NCRP Technical Peer Review Committee.

Impacts from these projects were minimal and generally
resulted from temporary disruptions to ecosystems
and infrastructure during project construction. Any
adverse impacts resulting from these actions were
remediated as reconstruction efforts were completed
and ecosystem restoration matured over time (see
Appendix M, Table M-64 & M-65, Benefits and Impacts
of Proposition 50 & 84 Implementation Projects).

PROJECT COMPOSITION
91 NCRP IRWM Implementation Projects Total
• 21 Proposition 50 Round 1 projects
• 4 Proposition 50 Round 2 projects
• 18 Proposition 84 Round 1 projects
• 12 Proposition 84 Round 2 projects
• 11 Proposition 84 Drought projects
• 25 Proposition 84 2015 projects
Project Type
• 53 water/wastewater infrastructure
projects (53/88 = 60%)
• 64 projects that provide water supply
reliability or improve water quality for
municipal, domestic, agricultureal, Tribal,
or recreational uses (64/91 = 70%)
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 171
Impacts & Benefits to DACS
The majority of the projects produced benefits that
directly or indirectly benefited the North Coast Region’s DACs and/ or Tribes. Projects in DACs have improved
water supply reliability, shored up critical infrastructure, and enhanced the resiliency of the surrounding
ecosystems these communities depend on. The projects
produced tangible monetary benefits for the communities, such as reduced operations and maintenance costs
and avoided replacement costs. They also produced
benefits that are not quantifiable in monetary terms, but are economically important because they enhance the
quality of life for people in these communities. Examples of the benefits include opportunities for education,
training, networking, and cultural preservation.

Impacts & Benefits to Sensitive Habitats & Species
Well over half of the projects (62.5%) directly enhanced salmonid populations and their habitat. The projects
accomplished this through water quality improvement
efforts (e.g., by reducing sedimentation), water supply and infrastructure projects such as off-stream storage
that increased water available for instream flows at
critical times during the year, and riparian and forest restoration activities that improved salmonid habitat.

Socioeconomic Benefits
Approximately 45% of the projects protect the agricultural and resource-dependent heritage of farmers, ranchers,
Tribes, and other residents of the North Coast. About 34% provide for social health and safety by improving access for emergency vehicles, improving impacted drinking
water quality, and protecting public health through
contaminant reduction. Thirty-six projects (41%) reduce local conflicts in areas where tensions exist between
competing beneficial uses of water and thirty-two
projects provide an education/ technology component
that improves the human capital and potential of the
North Coast. Approximately 613 jobs were created and
maintained through implementation of these projects.

Together, these projects provide between $449,480,000
and $1,302,714,000 in 2014 dollars to the North Coast
Region, providing a cost/ benefit ratio of between
$1 cost to $5 benefit and $1 cost to $14 benefit.

These figures are provided as a range in order to
present the most accurate picture of estimated
benefits from NCRP project implementation.

Because of limitations in assigning economic value
to many benefits, these are likely underestimates
of the true value of project implementation.

4.4 DATA MANAGEMENT &

INFORMATION SHARING
The NCRP regularly collects and analyzes data and
scientific information related to built, natural and
human capital. This information is evaluated by NCRP
staff and the Technical Peer Review Committee, and
used to inform planning, decision making and project
prioritization. The NCRP also places a strong emphasis
on sharing data with partners and the community makes
data available to the pubic via NCRP website sections:
• The Region: informational story maps, animations
and interactive climate change maps
• Planning: project and policy planning
tools, small community toolbox,
monitoring resources and protocols
• Resources: assessments, analysis
and expert reports
• Data: interactive data map and downloadable
geospatial data to assess landscape and
human factors impacting ecological and
social health in the North Coast region
The Data Management Plan for the North Coast Region
was developed as part of a process intended to result in more efficient, effective, standardized data acquisition, input, analysis, and dissemination throughout the Region.

The over-arching goal for the NCRP Data Management
Plan is a streamlined and easy to use framework that is fully compatible with ongoing and newly-emerging state
systems that will objectively assess and improve, through an adaptive management process, the performance
of the NCRP Plan, its implementation projects, and
other regional water management activities.

Limited economic resources in the North Coast Region
encourage efficiencies in accomplishing common goals
and objectives. Sharing data and successful technology, and developing replicable materials and programs
for region-wide dissemination are proven models for
effective implementation of the NCRP. Using the NCRP’s
cooperative, regional association and infrastructure, the NCRP identifies best practices underway throughout the
Region, analyzes results achieved based on their success, and develops demonstration models and corresponding
metrics and materials to replicate and distribute proven and tested programs. This approach provides rural North Coast communities with an established framework and
the organizational capacity to ensure that those entities that desire these tools, methods, policies, and planning models have access to them through the NCRP and
NCRP Plan. It also generates large amounts of data.
172 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

4.4.1 IDENTIFYING & ADDRESSING

DATA GAPS
The NCRP regularly develops science-based assessments
and plans that fill data gaps in the region and reflect the shared goals, objectives, strategies and priorities for the North Coast Region. Supported by a Strategic Growth
Council Sustainable Communities grant, the NCRP
significantly enhanced the climate change data informing its planning and implementation framework. The NCRP
released a number of technical reports and assessments
that formed the basis of key guidance and planning
documents. Technical reports, assessments and strategy
plan can be found on the North Coast Integrated Regional Planning — Healthy Communities, Functional Watersheds
and Viable Economies webpage. Geospatial data from
these assessments have been made available for
download via the NCRP website as ESRI map packages
(see https://northcoastresourcepartnership.org/data/).

Data Gaps Identified by the North
Coast Data Management Plan
Indicator Categories:
• Landscape Condition: composition,
connectivity, land use
• Biotic Condition: ecosystem/community
measures, species and population measures,
• Organism Condition: Individual organism measures
• Chemical and Physical Characteristics:
water and soil concentrations of nutrients,
inorganic/organic chemicals
• Hydrology and Geomorphology: surface/
groundwater flow, dynamic structural
characteristics, material transport/distribution
The degree of data paucity varies for these data
categories: for example, data for chemical and physical characteristics of water are relatively abundant, current, and available (more so for surface than groundwaters).

So too are data on biotic condition: data for condition of populations and communities are more readily
available than for individuals. Biotic data primarily relate to salmonids, but increasingly relate to bio-indicators like benthic macroinvertebrates (prey for fishes) and
algae blooms. Data gaps become apparent, however,
in the realms of surface/groundwater interactions,
water use and supply, and climate uncertainty.

Data Gaps Identified by Synthesis of North
Coast Water/Land Use Plans
While there is a substantial amount of planning and
watershed information available for the North Coast,
the region lacks complete coverage. Many very thorough
watershed-specific assessments have been conducted;
however, the entire region can benefit from additional
and enhanced existing conditions reports and analyses.

In general, coastal and populated areas contain more
plans and programs than sparsely populated and inland
areas. Locations or subjects around which there is
controversy, for example the Klamath basin or the Potter Valley diversion of water from the Eel to the Russian
River, typically generate a greater number of studies
and planning documents than less contentious areas.

On the coast, detailed watershed assessments by the
CDFG Coastal Watershed Planning and Assessment
Program are lacking for Alder Creek, Bear River, Brush
Creek, Elk Creek, Freshwater Creek, Garcia River,
Greenwood Creek, Gualala River, Mattole River, Salt River, Scott River, Shasta River, and South Fork Eel River. In the Klamath WMA, data coverage is weak or lacking for
the Middle Klamath, Lower Klamath and Upper Butte
and Lost River Hydrologic Units (HUs). In the Humboldt
Bay WMA, data coverage is weak or lacking for the
Mad River, Redwood Creek, and Trinidad HUs. Data
coverage is also weak for parts of the Eel River WMA.

There is a dearth of current information about recent and current conditions such as the 2007–2009 or 2012–2019
droughts, precipitous salmonid population decline, and
economic conditions. Current land and water resource
planning documents in the North Coast lack detailed
planning information and specific management strategies for coping with extended drought. There is also limited information about climate change, although more
effort has been directed toward projected conditions
and adaptation measures in recent years. Although
general predictions about future climate and weather
conditions for the state have been developed, detailed
predictions specific to the entire region are lacking.

Regional planning documents also lack recent data
regarding and proposed strategies for contending with
the salmon fisheries collapse. In order to implement
adaptive management strategies in response to changing
conditions, the most recent salmonid population and
habitat monitoring data should be readily available in
order for planners and decision makers to act promptly.

4.4.2 DEVELOPMENT & MAINTENANCE

OF PROGRAM DATA
The NCRP periodically documents project benefits
through the NCRP website, via an Impacts and Outcomes
webpage that provides programmatic summary statistics
for the region as well as data for individual projects.

NCRP implementation projects are analyzed after each
funding cycle and the NCRP Project Benefits Summary is
updated and posted to the website. This benefits summary is distributed to relevant state agencies. At all times, the NCRP maintains open communication channels with
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 173
state agencies and serves as a conduit to disseminate
information between local and state/federal levels.

The listing below describes the data management
responsibilities related to the project and program evaluation.

Data Management and Dissemination Task Frequency
Responsible Party: Project Sponsor
Develop Monitoring Plan, determine relevant state agency/ program/portal for environmental monitoring upload Upon grant award Compile, maintain, and upload project monitoring
information to relevant state agency/program/portal
Quarterly or as
dictated by grant
agreement
Perform quality assurance and quality control
to ensure validity of monitoring data Ongoing
Provide project interim implementation reports
and final project report to Humboldt County
Quarterly or as
dictated by grant
agreement
Responsible Party: NCRP Staff
Consolidate and present regional information,
including detailed analyses of socioeconomic factors
(including economic benefits) related to project
implementation as appropriate or required
Upon conclusion
of grant cycles
or periodically
Develop spatial data layers of project locations
and other attributes specific to the North Coast
region as appropriate and add to the NCRP website
interactive application and for download
Periodically
Obtain and provide spatial data layers of interest for
planning efforts in the North Coast and add to the NCRP website interactive application and for download
Periodically
Provide project application data on NCRP website Periodically Compile and provide grant application, meeting,
conference, and workshop materials online in
the NCRP website’s resource library
Periodically when
appropriate

4.4.3 PROJECT PERFORMANCE — QUALITY

CONTROL AND BENEFITS
Each project proponent will develop a monitoring plan
according to the DWR contract guidelines to track project performance. These plans will describe tools used to
monitor project performance (see Appendix N, Table N-68, Monitoring Protocols for NCRP Evaluation) for monitoring protocols chosen for consistency with State Data
Clearinghouses such as GAMA, CASGEM, CEDEN, and
SWAMP) so that data collected will conform to statewide requirements for data collection and reporting including units, standardization, and metadata format. The
monitoring plans will include QA/QC measures; many of
the NCRP recommended monitoring protocols provided in
include QA/QC measures. The plans will also set interim targets to track the project’s progress toward meeting
the benefits claimed and indicate where and which data
will be collected and the types of analyses to be used.

The plans will also describe and justify monitoring tools and targets and provide a discussion of how monitoring
data will be used to measure project performance.

In an effort to avoid duplication of effort and in recognition that most project proponents are disadvantaged
communities with limited resources, statewide data will not be collected at the regional level, but instead, as described above, project proponents will be required in their monitoring plans to upload relevant information to statewide databases. In addition, the NCRP will require submission of project-specific metrics as determined
from the project application and scope of work. These
metrics will be synchronized with other reporting
requirements and reported on a regular basis and will
document physical benefits for each project as they
accrue. Data will be quantitative and will include physical units of measure as provided in detail in. Examples
include: acres of habitat restored, tons of sediment
prevented from entering stream system, acre-feet of
water per year left instream, number of participants
in workshops or programs, number of households
with access to improved water supply reliability, etc.

4.4.4 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
Data collection techniques are varied to capture
the widest range of applicable information. The
Preliminary Implementation Project Application will
provide a mechanism for including projects on an
on-going basis into the NCRP Plan, which allows
for continual identification of need in the region.

The Preliminary Implementation Project application
requests information such as organization, project type, goals and objectives, statewide priorities addressed,
funding status, location, and benefits. Project reporting contributes to statewide databases and also provides
quantitative information relevant to plan performance,
which will be collected on a regular basis as described above. Project reporting includes quantitative benefits information relevant to Plan performance evaluation.

Meeting, conference, workshop, and other events are
posted in the Calendar section of the NCRP website
and a monthly listing of other funding opportunities is compiled and posted to the NCRP website. Stakeholders
are invited to provide information to staff regarding their organization/event and that information is uploaded.

Special topics are identified by stakeholders in the
Region and once determined to constitute a need by a
significant number of stakeholders, a topic is researched by NCRP staff with findings presented to the PRP,
which decides upon further action, if any. This process (and the data it generates) is documented during
meetings and on special topic web pages as relevant.

4.4.5 DATA MANAGEMENT AND

DISSEMINATION
The data collected through the methods described
above will be compiled and disseminated at several
levels and all of the data will be made available on the NCRP website through specific pages, such as the NCRP
Projects Page, interactive mapping application or through 174 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 the North Coast Resources Library. This furthers the
RWMG’s efforts to share collected data by providing the information in an easily accessible website and in multiple ways to ensure the information is available for a wide
range of uses and to a variety of interested parties.

Project Level
The NCRP website contain the NCRP Project Benefits
Summary dedicated to providing benefits information
and plan performance measures that highlight
achievements in summary statistics and graphic
format. Additionally, specific North Coast project
location data is made available on the NCRP website
interactive data map and project fact sheets and are
available at: https://northcoastresourcepartnership.
org/projects/ Implementation project videos
are available through YouTube links:
• Shasta Water Association & Araujo
Dam Restoration projects: http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=6A2I5kF4sjk
• Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Project: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6BoI4peVL4
• Newell Water System Renovation: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKnbtYgvLkk
• Yurok Lower Klamath Restoration: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3T6G_PG-gQ
• Lower Mid-Klamath Habitat Protection Road
Decommissioning Implementation Project: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOhLp5cw7Po
• Gualala River Watershed Council: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLndRkL5PhI
• Raw and Recovered Water for Irrigating Public
Agencies — Trinity County Waterworks District #1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05v-hfx-gb4
• Forsythe Creek Sediment Reduction Program:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCzTS8nyDI
• Mid Van Duzen River Ranch Road Sediment
Reduction Program: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=8xV2Bho-8j0
• Sonoma County Water Recycling and Habitat
Preservation Project Phase 2A: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=eYUVw6d5tys
Regional Level
The NCRP website also includes a web portal that houses and makes public plan performance data and analyses,
educational materials; and monitoring and assessment
protocols and data sources relevant to the North Coast
region. Additionally, spatial data is made available
through an interactive map application that includes
commonly used layers and project specific data for
download as a set. The NCRP’s entire spatial data catalog consisting of over 300 data layers can be downloaded
as map packages, based on the following topics:
• Boundaries and Districts
• Climate Change
• Critical Habitat
• Energy Potential
• Fisheries
• Hazards & Risk
• Hydrology
• Land use & Landcover
• Protected and Public Lands
• Socioeconomic
The website, special handouts, and meetings, workshops, and conferences are used to disseminate data and
information on a regional level. The website and the
NCRP Plan (available through the website) provide
descriptions of the NCRP process, participants, identified needs, and planning and implementation projects, etc.

Related materials are provided through the North Coast
Resource Library. Additionally, North Coast Plans, Policies and Reports is made available in the NCRP Resource
Library and is a comprehensive list of plans and guidance documents and includes municipal plans, climate
planning, natural resources and watershed plans and
assessments, state agency plans and documents, and
relevant federal planning documents, including species
recovery plans and salmonid recovery planning. The list is provided as an excel spreadsheet with: links to the
document website, a brief summary, and agency author.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 175

4.5 PROJECT & PROGRAM

MONITORING & EVALUATION
This section and Appendix N, “Project & Program
Monitoring & Evaluation” describe the framework and
proposed processes to establish a standardized Plan
and project performance monitoring system based on
measurable indicator data, and to evaluate performance
based on objective benchmarks. An evaluation of the
NCRP Plan from 2006 through present is provided.

4.5.1 STATUS OF EXISTING STATE AND

AGENCY MONITORING PROGRAMS
Watershed and water quality monitoring is currently
conducted by a number of state agencies, each with
its programmatic mission to fulfill. Watershed and
water quality monitoring in the North Coast is vital for evaluation of the effectiveness of sediment reduction
programs, instream habitat restoration programs, fish
passage projects and other watershed enhancement
projects. On-going monitoring is critical to understanding how land use practices such as road building, timber
harvest, irrigated agriculture, and land conversion impact the aquatic resources and habitats of the North Coast
Region. Equally important is the compliance monitoring
of public wastewater treatment facilities to ensure
the health and safety of water quality for beneficial
uses. In keeping with its commitment to adaptive
management, the NCRP uses existing and proposed
monitoring efforts to inform management decisions and
guide changes to management, policy, and decisionmaking in the North Coast Region (see Appendix N, Table N-69, Monitoring Plans of the North Coast Region).

Data gaps exist throughout the North Coast Region.

Although numerous assessment efforts, such as the
North Coast Watershed Assessment Program (NCWAP)
and individual watershed assessments have been
conducted, and the SWRCB, DWR, and NCRWQCB
conduct monitoring on several waterways, most of the
watersheds, rivers, and streams in the region have
not been adequately assessed or monitored using
standardized, scientifically accepted protocol. It is a goal of the NCRP to further identify these watersheds, rivers and streams and to prioritize them for future assessment and monitoring programs. Key monitoring programs
with applications to NCRP project and process evaluation are briefly described below with other important and
relevant programs described in (see Appendix N, Table
N-68, Monitoring Protocols for NCRP Evaluation).

4.5.1.1 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
• California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring (CASGEM)
This program was established in 2009 to
track seasonal and long-term groundwater
elevation trends in groundwater basins
throughout the state. Its mission is to establish
a permanent, locally-managed program of
regular and systematic monitoring in all of
California’s alluvial groundwater basins.
• Proposition 1 Monitoring and Maintenance
Reporting
These project-specific templates encompass post
project monitoring and maintenance and post
project performance. Primary and secondary
benefits of the project must be identified and
then monitored using quantitative metrics.

Performance measures and success/failure
criteria are also required. The monitoring and
maintenance plan template also require frequency
and duration of monitoring and reporting,
frequency and duration of maintenance activities,
responsible party, and adaptive management
strategies for when problems are encountered.

4.5.1.2 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
• Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
(SWAMP)
Trends in surface water quality and habitat,
the effectiveness of control strategies, TMDL
implementation, and nonpoint source pollution
are monitored as part of the statewide Surface
Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP),
which is administered by the SWRCB. The goals of
the program include statewide monitoring that is
consistent and systematically applied through the
development of data quality assurance protocols
and centralized data management. SWAMP data
are housed on the California Environmental Data
Exchange Network (CEDEN).. Other surface water
monitoring programs that are managed as part
of the SWAMP program include Bioaccumulation
176 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Monitoring Program, Bioassessment Program,
Freshwater CyanoHABs Program, and Stream
Pollution Trends Monitoring Program. The SWAMP
monitoring approach utilized by the NCRWQCB
incorporates both long-term trend monitoring
at permanent monitoring stations and rotating
site-specific monitoring closely related to the
TMDL development and implementation schedule
(NCRWQCB 2013). The regional board also
commissions water quality studies periodically, such
as the 2018 Russian River Watershed Monitoring of
Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs).

The permanent monitoring stations established
by the NCRWQCB includes sites located along the
Smith, Klamath, Scott, Shasta, Trinity, Mad, Eel,
Gualala and Russian Rivers and Redwood Creek
(NCRWQCB 2013). These sites record core metrics
that will be used for long-term water quality trend
detection; they are sampled at the same frequency
and time each year. Selection of these indicators
is based on scientific, practical and programmatic
objectives and the amount of available funding.

The goal is to provide a broad, accurate view of
water quality and watershed health in the region.

The permanent stations’ data will be applicable
for trend analysis as well as testing yearly or
seasonal differences at station locations, among
different reaches in a given watershed, and between
watersheds.

Site-specific monitoring in the North Coast Region
rotates among the NCRWQCB designated WMA on
a planned schedule to support remedial actions,
develop TMDLs and collect information towards
the potential listing or delisting of waterbodies
under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Water
quality parameters measured in each basin are
based on specific watershed characteristics
and water quality objectives identified in the
individual WMA sections in the NCRWQCB
Watershed Planning Chapter (NCRWQCB 2013).
• Clean Water Team Citizen Monitoring Program
Through a partnership with many local Resource
Conservation Districts, the SWRCB is actively
promoting volunteer monitoring among landowners,
farmers, ranchers, and community members
through SWAMP. The “Clean Water Team Citizen
Monitoring Program” is a statewide program
developed by the SWRCB Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program to offer suggestions, guidelines
and protocols for volunteer monitoring efforts. This
program is increasingly being incorporated into
the SWAMP monitoring program to complete sitespecific monitoring in the North Coast Region. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program is a federal program that
is currently administered by the SWRCB to regulate
wastewater discharge to surface waters, stormwater
drains and groundwater. All wastewater discharges
in the North Coast Region are regulated through
NPDES permitting which requires self-monitoring
of relevant water quality data to be submitted to the
NCRWQCB for compliance evaluation in accordance
to the “Waste Discharge Requirement, General
Monitoring and Reporting Program” (SWRCB 1997).

4.5.1.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
• Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines
The CDFW provides a web page containing protocols
and guidelines from various sources that have
been tested and reviewed and are considered
to be appropriate for their intended purposes.

In some cases, the protocols and guidelines
represent what the Department believes to be
the best available methodology for the intended
purpose. Protocols and guidelines are grouped
by subject: plants, invertebrates, amphibians,
reptiles, birds, mammals, and monitoring.

4.5.1.4 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

FORESTRY & FIRE PROTECTION
• Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection’s Fire and Resource Assesment
Program (FRAP) assesses the amount and extent of
Calfornia’s forests and rangelands, analyzes their
conditions and identifies alternative management
and policy guidelines. The FRAP website provides
data on California’s forests and rangelands through
a variety of mapping tools and assessment reports.

4.5.1.5 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
• Marine Biotoxin Monitoring Program
The Environmental Management Branch of the
CDPH manages the Marine Biotoxin Monitoring
Program for bivalve shellfish. California has the
longest-standing biotoxin monitoring program in
the U.S., beginning in 1927 in response to a massive
paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) episode that
resulted in several deaths and over 100 illnesses.

Because PSP and domoic acid toxicity represents a
serious ongoing public health threat, the CDPH has
implemented a prevention program that consists
of coastal phytoplankton, coastal shellfish, and
commercial shellfish monitoring programs.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 177

4.5.1.6 INTERAGENCY PROGRAMS
• Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment
The Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and
Assessment (GAMA) Program is California’s
comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring
program that was created by the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
in 2000. It was later expanded by Assembly Bill
599 — the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of
2001. AB 599 required the State Water Board, in
coordination with an Interagency Task Force (ITF)
and Public Advisory Committee (PAC) to integrate
existing monitoring programs and design new
program elements as necessary, resulting in a
publicly accepted plan to monitor and assess
groundwater quality in basins that account for
95% of the state’s groundwater use. The GAMA
Program is based on interagency collaboration
with the State and Regional Water Boards,
Department of Water Resources, Department of
Pesticide Regulations, U.S. Geological Survey,
and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
and cooperation with local water agencies and
well owners. The GAMA website contains an
online mapping tool that integrates and displays
groundwater quality data from multiple sources
on an interactive Google-based map interface.
• Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership
The stated purpose of the Pacific Northwest
Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) is to
provide a forum for coordinating state, federal, and
Tribal aquatic habitat and salmonid monitoring
programs. The intent of the partnership is to
improve communication, share resources and
data, and use compatible monitoring protocols to
increase scientific credibility and provide greater
accountability to local stakeholders. The PNAMP
provides a monitoring resources website, which
is a network of information and tools to support
many facets of monitoring including a community
forum, a place to document methods, the ability
to describe projects and upload monitoring
locations, and tools for creating sample designs.

4.5.2 NCRP PLAN MONITORING &

EVALUATION APPROACH
NCRP staff work with project sponsors and responsible
parties prior to project implementation to develop simple monitoring plans to track project progress toward projectspecific goals according to DWR contract guidelines and reporting templates. The NCRP website and Appendix N,
Table N-68 “Monitoring Protocols for NCRP Evaluation”
provide a comprehensive listing of monitoring protocols for NCRP project evaluation and provide links to websites that contain the most relevant and useful (to state data integration efforts) monitoring protocols for NCRP
implementation projects. Most of the SWAMP, GAMA,
and/or CEDEN comparable and compatible monitoring
protocols listed have been used in NCRP projects.

The NCRP approach to monitoring, evaluation, and
adaptive management and improvements ensures that:
• The NCRP is making progress toward Plan
Objectives using measurable indicator metrics
• The NCRP is implementing projects
listed in the NCRP Plan
• Each implementation project complies with
applicable rules, laws, and permit requirements
• Implementation projects demonstrate a
commitment to long-term monitoring and
consider management options that include
climate change adaptation and mitigation
NCRP Plan performance is directly related to
implementation project performance. To measure
how closely the NCRP is meeting its stated objectives,
the success of the individual projects in achieving
their specific project goals must be evaluated.

The indicator data collected by project sponsors as
part of project monitoring, and by the NCRP as part of
Plan update/evaluation/adaptive management is used
to systematically and objectively evaluate success. The indicator data types are a subset of, and compatible
with, the measures used to conduct the formal project
impact/benefits analysis. In addition to ecological and social indicators, the NCRP has developed a suite of
economic indicators including the valuation in dollars
of natural capital and working landscapes. Data are
monitored via protocols established by and compatible
with existing statewide systems (see Appendix N, Table
N-68, Monitoring Protocols for NCRP Evaluation).

4.5.2.1 INDICATOR METRICS FOR

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Both the NCRP and its projects are evaluated by
monitoring a suite of indicator data metrics that are
directly associated with each objective, and comparing
the results to baseline, benchmark, or desired
conditions. A listing of indicators recommended for the NCRP and projects is presented below. A preliminary
framework for using indicator data to calculate project and Plan performance is provided in the table below.
178 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 TABLE 14. INDICATORS TO MEASURE NCRP PROCESS AND PROJECT SUCCESS

PROCESS SUCCESS MEASURES PROJECT SUCCESS MEASURES
GOAL # NCRP OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE

INDICATOR(S)

QUANTITATIVE

INDICATOR(S)

PROJECT-LEVEL

PRIORITY (EXAMPLE) PROJECT-LEVEL INDICATOR METRIC (EXAMPLE) 1 Objective 1 — Respect
local autonomy and local
knowledge in Plan and
project development
and implementation
Inclusion of
projects that meet
goals stated in
local plans.

Number of NCRP
projects that meet goals
stated in local plans.

NA (Plan-level priority
and indicator)
Objective 2 — Provide
an ongoing framework
for inclusive, efficient
intraregional cooperation and
effective, accountable NCRP
project implementation

1. Publicly noticed,
publicly held
meetings that
provide opportunity
for public
participation;

2. Inclusion of
and opportunity
for public input
in planning and
project prioritization
process.

Number of publicly
noticed, publicly held
meetings that provide
opportunity for public
participation.

NA (Plan-level priority
and indicator)
Objective 3 — Integrate
Traditional Ecological
Knowledge in collaboration
with Tribes to incorporate
these practices into North
Coast Projects and Plans

1. Tribal involvement
in development of
project evaluation
process criteria

2. Inclusion of TEK/
Tribal considerations
into NCRP plans
and documents

1. Number of NCRP plans/
documents including
and recognizing TEK
principles/ priorities

1. Prioritized projects
recognizing TEK
principles and
incorporating into
implementation

1. Number of projects that work in collaboration
with Tribes to include TEK/ Tribal principles/
priorities in project implementation
2 Objective 4 — Ensure that
economically disadvantaged
communities are
supported and that project
implementation enhances
the economic vitality of
disadvantaged communities
by improving built and natural
infrastructure systems and
promoting adequate housing
Inclusion of DAC
considerations in
project prioritization
process.

Number of projects
implemented in DACs
Economic Benefits 1. Number of jobs created/ maintained through project implementation in DACs

2. Economic analysis of benefits provided by project
implementation in DACs (e.g., $80 per acre-foot per
year for environmental purposes) (Brown 2007)
Objective 5 — Conserve
and improve the economic
benefits of North Coast
Region working landscapes
and natural areas
Inclusion of projects
that benefit working
landscapes and
natural areas.

Number of projects
that benefit working
landscapes and
natural areas.

Economic Benefits 1. Number of jobs created/ maintained through project implementation in working landscapes and natural areas

2. Economic analysis of benefits provided by project
implementation in working landscapes and natural areas
(e.g., $80 per acre-foot per year for increased instream flow for environmental purposes) (Brown 2007)
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 179
TABLE 14. INDICATORS TO MEASURE NCRP PROCESS AND PROJECT SUCCESS

PROCESS SUCCESS MEASURES PROJECT SUCCESS MEASURES
GOAL # NCRP OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE

INDICATOR(S)

QUANTITATIVE

INDICATOR(S)

PROJECT-LEVEL

PRIORITY (EXAMPLE) PROJECT-LEVEL INDICATOR METRIC (EXAMPLE) 3 Objective 6 — Conserve,
enhance, and restore
watersheds and aquatic
ecosystems, including
functions, habitats, and
elements that support
biological diversity
Inclusion of projects
that conserve,
enhance, and restore
watersheds and
aquatic ecosystems
and ecosystem
function.

Number of projects that
conserve, enhance, and
restore watersheds and
aquatic ecosystems and
ecosystem function.

Watershed/ Habitat
Improvement

1. % survival of seedlings planted

2. Number of acres of revegetation

3. Number of acres of invasive species removed

4. Number of acres of permanent seasonal wetland

5. Number of linear feet of streambank stabilized
Objective 7 — Enhance
salmonid populations by
conserving, enhancing, and
restoring required habitats
and watershed processes
Inclusion of projects
that conserve,
enhance, and restore
salmonid habitat
and watershed
processes that
support salmonids.

Number of projects that
conserve, enhance, and
restore salmonid habitat
and watershed processes
that support salmonids.

Salmonid Habitat
Improvement

1. Number of river miles made accessible for potential rearing habitat

2. Habitat inventory (i.e. instream features — pools, riffles etc., large woody debris, substrate)
2a. Thalweg surveys to determine pool depth and frequency and channel degradation
2b. Cross-sectional surveys to determine thalweg degradation and bank stability
2c. D50 (gravel diameter) surveys to determine coarsening of spawning gravels

3. Percent canopy closure

4. Spawning surveys, snorkel surveys

5. % reduction in fisheries closures
4 Objective 8 — Ensure
water supply reliability
and quality for municipal,
domestic, agricultural,
Tribal, and recreational uses
while minimizing impacts
to sensitive resources
NA Number of projects
that provide water
supply reliability or
improve water quality
for municipal, domestic,
agricultural, cultural, or
recreational uses; number
of projects that provide
the above benefits to
Tribal communities.

Water Quality
Improvement

1. % reduction in sanitary sewer overflows

2. Percentage of volume of wastewater discharge that meets state water quality standards

3. Water quality monitoring: DO, temperature, contaminants, etc.

4. Post-treatment erosion cavity measurements (per DFW
Salmonid Habitat Restoration Manual, Part X: Upslope
Assessment and Restoration Practices)

5. % reduction in beach closures due to pathogen
contamination

6. Number of Low Impact Development techniques/ practices implemented

7. Number of projects implemented that provide water
supply or water quality benefits to Tribal communities
with respect to municipal, domestic, agricultural, cultural, or recreational uses or other uses deemed beneficial
and necessary to their community by the Tribe.

Objective 9 — Improve
drinking water quality and
water related infrastructure
to protect public health,
with a focus on economically
disadvantaged communities
NA 1. Number of drinking
water quality and water
related infrastructure
projects; 2. Number
of drinking water
quality and water
related infrastructure
projects implemented
in economically
disadvantaged
communities.

Water Supply
Reliability

1. Stream flow measurements

2. Amount of water supplied by alternatives – such as
offstream storage or recycled tailwater or wastewater

3. Reduction in system water losses

4. Number of new or improved drinking water connections

5. % of time that drinking water meets or exceeds
federal and state drinking water quality requirements
Objective 10 — Protect
groundwater resources
from over-drafting
and contamination
NA Number of projects
that provide alternative
sources of water to
groundwater use and/
or reduce groundwater
contamination.

Drinking Water
Improvement

1. Percent reduction of percolation from oxidation ponds to groundwater

2. Trends in groundwater quality

3. Trends in groundwater elevation
180 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 TABLE 14. INDICATORS TO MEASURE NCRP PROCESS AND PROJECT SUCCESS

PROCESS SUCCESS MEASURES PROJECT SUCCESS MEASURES
GOAL # NCRP OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE

INDICATOR(S)

QUANTITATIVE

INDICATOR(S)

PROJECT-LEVEL

PRIORITY (EXAMPLE) PROJECT-LEVEL INDICATOR METRIC (EXAMPLE) 5 Objective 11 — Address
climate change effects,
impacts, vulnerabilities,
including droughts, fires,
floods, and sea level
rise. Develop adaptation
strategies for local and
regional sectors to improve
air and water quality and
promote public health
NA Number of projects
(implemented by NCRP
or project proponents)
that assess climate
change effects, impacts,
vulnerabilities, and
strategies for local
and regional sectors.

Water Supply
Reliability

1. Number of projects that add rainwater catchment or rainy season diversion holding tanks

2. Number of projects that increase infiltration
or restore wetlands or floodplain hydrology
Objective 12 — Promote
local energy independence,
water/ energy use efficiency,
GHG emission reduction,
and jobs creation
NA Number of projects
(implemented by NCRP
or project proponents)
that promote local energy
independence, water/
energy use efficiency,
GHG emission reduction,
and jobs creation.

Energy Independence 1. Amount of energy generated using green technology

2. Amount of energy saved through water/ energy use
efficiencies

3. Percentage reduction in GHG emissions

4. Number of jobs created/ maintained
through project implementation
6 Objective 13 — Improve
flood protection, forest and
community resiliency to
reduce the public safety
impacts associated with
floods and wildfires
NA Number of projects
included in NCRP Plan
implementation that
improve flood protection
and reduce flood risk.

Number of projects
in NCRP Plan
implementation that
improve forest health
and reduce vulnerability
to wildfires
Public Safety 1. # acres floodplain restored to function and/ or hydrologic connectivity with surface water

2. # acres forest mechanically treated to removed ladder fuels or treated using prescribed burning techniques

3. # acres of highly flammable invasive species removed

4.5.2.2 PROJECT-LEVEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The evaluation of the individual prioritized projects
that implement the NCRP Plan is based on progress
toward stated goals of each project application and each project’s monitoring plan (project-specific, including
by whom, by what methods, and when). Project
sponsors have primary responsibility for development
of project-specific monitoring plans. Project-specific
monitoring plans will conform to SWAMP and other
state requirements mentioned below. They will include,
but not be limited to, the following elements:
• Project complies with all applicable rules,
laws, and permit requirements
• Clear, concise description of what is
being monitored for each project
• Measures to remedy or react to problems
encountered during monitoring
• Location of monitoring
• Monitoring frequency
• Monitoring protocols/ methodologies,
including who will perform the monitoring
• Data management and procedures
to track monitoring data
• Procedures to ensure the monitoring schedule is
maintained and adequate resources are available to
maintain monitoring through scheduled lifetime.

The evaluation of each project will compare pre-project target metrics with post-project monitoring results.

4.5.2.3 PLAN-LEVEL PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION METHODS
The evaluation of the Plan as a whole is based on
measurable achievement of NCRP implementation
projects and the overall progress of NCRP project
selection toward meeting the Goals and Objectives.

PLAN-LEVEL PERFORMANCE:

NCRP PROJECT SUCCESS
The level of project success bears directly on
determination of NCRP Plan performance as all projects
are required to align with the NCRP objectives. If all
projects meet their stated goals (e.g. as evidenced
by results of indicator monitoring) then NCRP
Plan performance can be considered “excellent.”
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 181
However, if only a percentage of goals are met, then
NCRP Plan performance may be less than excellent
and requires intervention. The NCRP proposes the
use of the following standard Plan performance
benchmarks to define “performance” level:

If 92–100 percent of project goals are met = EXCELLENT
If 85–92 percent of project goals are met = GOOD
If 75–84 percent of project goals are met is = FAIR
If 74 percent or fewer of project goals are met = POOR
Should the NCRP earn a Plan Performance rating of
less than 85% project-level goals met, project selection criteria will be re-evaluated to ensure that projects are of sufficient technical capacity to meet their stated goals.

PROCESS EVALUATION: NCRP GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The NCRP goals and objectives form the foundation
for development, implementation, evaluation, and
adaptive management of the Plan and its projects.

Below is a listing of each goal, associated objectives, and measurable “indicators” for each objective
that will be monitored to ensure success of the
NCRP planning process. A suite of 24 indicators
has been developed for the preliminary evaluation
process. Indicators may be either qualitative
(descriptive) or quantitative (numeric) metrics.

Of increasing importance are Objectives 11–14, which
address assessing impacts of predicted climate
conditions and efforts to prepare for and adapt to those conditions. As part of its adaptive management approach to plan review, the project prioritization process, and planning methods, the NCRP will put emphasis on these
Objectives and how well they are met as well as actively seeking and implementing new, relevant climate change
information, predictive tools, and methods of mitigating and adapting to climate impacts as they materialize.

Goal 1: Intraregional Cooperation
& Adaptive Management
Objective 1 — Respect local autonomy
and local knowledge in Plan and project
development and implementation.

1. Inclusion of projects that meet goals
included in local plans (qualitative)

2. Number of projects in NCRP that meet goals
included in local plans (quantitative)
These two indicators help determine the degree to which the NCRP is achieving Objective 1; if NCRP projects meet local goals, there is respect for those goals and the local knowledge used to develop them. Additionally, during
the application process, project proponents can be asked to name the local plans and the goals within them that
project implementation will meet, allowing the TPRC and PRP to quantitatively include this Objective in the project evaluation process and allowing NCRP staff a relatively easy way to quantitatively measure this indicator.

Objective 2 — Provide an ongoing framework for
inclusive, efficient intraregional cooperation and
effective, accountable NCRP project implementation.

1. Publicly noticed, publicly held meetings that provide opportunity for public participation (qualitative)

2. Inclusion of and opportunity for
public input in planning and project
prioritization process (qualitative)

3. Number of publicly noticed, publicly held
meetings that provide opportunity for
public participation (quantitative)
These three indicators help determine the degree
to which the NCRP is achieving Objective 2; if
public meetings are held and public input solicited
and considered during Plan/ policy formation
and the project prioritization process, then the
framework is providing for inclusive cooperation and
effective, accountable project implementation.

Objective 3 — Integrate Traditional Ecological
Knowledge in collaboration with Tribes to incorporate
these practices into North Coast Projects and Plans

1. Inclusion of TEK principles/ priorities in project
selection criteria (qualitative — presence of
TEK principles/ priorities in project selection
criteria; quantitative — number of criteria,
number of projects meeting criteria)

2. Inclusion of TEK principles/ priorities in NCRP
Plans and documents after 2019 (quantitative)
Goal 2: Economic Vitality
Objective 4 — Ensure that economically disadvantaged
communities are supported and that project
implementation enhances the economic vitality of
disadvantaged communities by improving built and natural infrastructure systems and promoting adequate housing.

1. Inclusion of DAC considerations in project
prioritization process (qualitative)

2. Number of projects implemented
in DACs (quantitative)

3. Number of jobs created/ maintained through
project implementation (quantitative)
These three indicators help determine the degree
to which the NCRP is achieving measurable support
for, and some of the economic benefits realized
by, DACs through the NCRP planning process.
182 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Objective 5 — Conserve and improve the
economic benefits of North Coast Region
working landscapes and natural areas.

1. Inclusion of projects that benefit working
landscapes and natural areas (qualitative)

2. Number of projects that benefit working
landscapes and natural areas (quantitative)
These two indicators help determine the degree to
which the NCRP is achieving Objective 4 through
prioritization of projects that improve working
landscapes and natural areas, which indirectly
provide economic benefits for these areas.

Goal 3: Ecosystem Conservation & Enhancement
Objective 6 — Conserve, enhance, and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, including functions, habitats,
and elements that support biological diversity

1. Inclusion of projects that conserve, enhance,
and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems
and ecosystem function (qualitative)

2. Number of projects that conserve, enhance, and
restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems
and ecosystem function (quantitative)
These two indicators help determine the degree to
which the NCRP is achieving Objective 5 through
prioritization and inclusion of projects that
conserve, enhance, and restore watersheds and
aquatic ecosystems and ecosystem function.

Objective 7 — Enhance salmonid populations by
conserving, enhancing, and restoring required
habitats and watershed processes.

1. Inclusion of projects that conserve, enhance,
and restore salmonid habitat and watershed
processes that support salmonids (qualitative)

2. Number of projects that conserve, enhance,
and restore salmonid habitat and watershed
processes that support salmonids (quantitative)
These two indicators help determine the degree to
which is achieving Objective 6 through efforts to include projects that enhance salmonid population through
restoration of ecosystems and ecosystem function.

Goal 4: Beneficial Uses of Water
Objective 8 — Ensure water supply reliability
and quality for municipal, domestic, agricultural,
Tribal, cultural, and recreational uses while
minimizing impacts to sensitive resources.

1. Number of projects that provide water
supply reliability or improve water quality
for municipal, domestic, agricultural, Tribal,
or recreational uses (quantitative)

2. Number of projects that improve water bodies
that support the cultural, spiritual, ceremonial,
or traditional rights or Lifeways of California
Native Tribes, including, but not limited to:
navigation, ceremonies, or fishing, gathering,
or consumption of natural aquatic resources,
including fish, shellfish, vegetation, and materials.

This indicator helps determine the degree to which
the NCRP is achieving Objective 7 through inclusion
of projects that improve water supply reliability or
water quality for multiple beneficial uses. Because of
the strict state and federal environmental regulations
governing project implementation, minimization
of impacts to sensitive resources is inherent in
CEQA/NEPA compliant project implementation.

Objective 9 — Improve drinking water quality and water
related infrastructure to protect public health, with a focus on economically disadvantaged communities.

1. Number of drinking water quality and water
related infrastructure projects (quantitative)

2. Number of drinking water quality and
water related infrastructure projects
implemented in DACs (quantitative)
These two indicators help determine the degree to
which the NCRP is achieving Objective 8 through
inclusion of projects that are focused on improving
drinking water quality and water-related infrastructure, particularly when those projects occur in DACs.

Objective 10 — Protect groundwater resources
from over-drafting and contamination.

1. Number of projects that provide alternative
sources of water to groundwater use and/ or
reduce groundwater contamination (quantitative)
This indicator helps determine the degree
to which the NCRP is achieving Objective
9 through inclusion of projects focused on
groundwater supply and quality protection.

Goal 5: Climate Adaptation & Energy Independence
Objective 11 — Address climate change effects, impacts, and vulnerabilities, including droughts, fires, floods, and sea level rise. Develop adaptation strategies for
local and regional sectors to improve air and water
quality and promote public health and safety.

1. Number of projects (implemented by NCRP or
project sponsors) that assess climate change
effects, impacts, vulnerabilities, and strategies
for local and regional sectors (quantitative)
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 183

2. Number of projects that incorporate strategies
for anticipated changes in precipitation
amounts and intensity (quantitative)

3. Number of projects that incorporate strategies that
address anticipated drought conditions, extreme
flooding events, or other climate change challenges
These indicators help determine the degree to which
the NCRP is achieving Objective 11 by pursuing or
including in the NCRP projects that assess climate
change effects, impacts, vulnerabilities and strategies.

Objective 12 — Promote local energy independence,
water/ energy use efficiency, GHG emission reduction,
carbon sequestration, and jobs creation.

1. Number of projects (implemented by NCRP
or project sponsors) that promote local
energy independence, water/ energy use
efficiency, GHG emission reduction, carbon
sequestration, and jobs creation (quantitative)
This indicator helps determine the degree to which
the NCRP is achieving Objective 11 by pursuing or
including in the NCRP projects that promote local
energy independence, water/ energy use efficiency,
GHG emission reduction, and jobs creation.

Goal 6: Public Safety
Objective 13 — Improve flood protection, forest and
community resiliency to reduce the public safety
impacts associated with floods and wildfires

1. Number of projects included in the NCRP
Plan that improve flood protection and
reduce flood risk (quantitative)

2. Number of projects included in the NCRP
Plan that improve forest health and
reduce risk of catastrophic wildfires
This indicator helps determine the degree to
which the NCRP is achieving Objective 12 through
inclusion of flood protection and forest health and
wildfire reduction projects in the NCRP Plan.

4.5.3 NCRP PLAN EVALUATION 2005–2019
The above described methods and criteria were used
to conduct Plan-level performance evaluations with
respect to the overall effectiveness of the suite of
completed prioritized implementation projects and
the process for selecting implementation projects
that together address the stated goals and objectives
of the NCRP. These evaluations were conducted
in August 2019; as more projects are selected,
implemented and finalized, further evaluations will be
performed to support adaptive management goals.

4.5.3.1 PLAN-LEVEL EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION
Using project-level performance evaluation techniques
(see 4.5.2.1, Table 14) NCRP Plan performance was
evaluated in August 2019 and January 2020 Completed
Proposition 84 projects (Round 1, Round 2, and Drought
funding opportunities) and Proposition 50 Round 2
projects were analyzed for success by comparing
pre-project success targets identified in monitoring
plan documents with post-project monitoring results.

The analysis consists of listing by each project the
target, the outcome, and whether the target has been
met, hasn’t been met, undetermined whether it’s been
met, or target exceeded. A simple scoring method
is applied to these values: 2 points for meeting the
target, 1 point for undetermined whether target is
met, 0 points for not meeting the target, and 3 points
for exceeding the target. The project’s score consists
of a simple comparison between points accumulated
and a perfect score (2 points per target) presented
as a percentage. For example, if a project scores 9
out of 10 possible points, it receives a score of 90%.

Where projects exceed possible points (by exceeding
one or more targets), a score of 100% is awarded in
an effort to not skew Plan performance evaluation.

In some cases, projects changed between development
of the monitoring plans and evaluation of success. If a target no longer applied to the project, it was removed from consideration. In other cases, a project sponsor had chosen a target too ambitious for the time frame under
consideration (for example, meeting TMDL goals by 2017); these targets were also removed from consideration. In
still other instances, conditions outside of a sponsor’s control impacted project outcomes. For example,
the severe drought (2011–2016) led to more streams
drying in the summer or greater plant mortality than
would have been expected given historical conditions.

In these cases, a 0 (target not met) was changed to
a 1 (undetermined whether target was met) and the
extenuating circumstance noted on the spreadsheet.

A limitation to this method is that it favors grey
infrastructure projects, which are less susceptible to
environmental conditions than green infrastructure
projects. Green infrastructure targets can be
impacted by drought, heat, ocean conditions (in
the case of salmonid targets), and other factors
out of the project sponsor’s control. NCRP staff
attempted to diminish this inherent flaw by evaluating
unmet targets for mitigating circumstances and,
when these were determined to impact targets,
changing a score from 0 to 1 as described above.

Only completed, signed off projects that had submitted
final reports as of August 2019 were scored. For each
funding cycle, scores were summed and divided by the
184 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 number of projects to determine a score for the NCRP
Plan. The NCRP received the scores presented in Table
15 NCRP Plan Score, Project Effectiveness for projects
completed under Proposition 50 Round 2 and Proposition
84 IRWM funding. Using previously developed metrics
to determine Plan-Level Performance (see above), the
NCRP Plan can be rated “Excellent” at this point in time.

Proposition 50 Round 1 projects represent the first
attempt by the State of California and the North Coast
Resource Partnership to implement integrated water
management. Unfortunately, post implementation project
monitoring did not occur in a standardized manner
and the state was still refining preferred methods
for identifying and clarifying methods for reporting
monitoring and implementation results. Thus, the
final project deliverables from the Project 50 Round
1 implementation projects vary widely with respect to
outcome and monitoring result reporting, making a
meaningful analysis infeasible. The NCRP, however,
realizing this deficit, has been continually refining the process of project selection, expected deliverables
identification, and plan development using adaptive
management techniques and is thus able to evaluate
projects implemented through Proposition 50 Round
2 and Proposition 84. The NCRP expects to continue
to refine this process to streamline project and Plan
effectiveness evaluation and further the value and
usefulness of integrated regional water management
in the North Coast and throughout the state.

TABLE 15. NCRP PLAN SCORE, PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS

FUNDING ROUND SCORE

NUMBER OF

PROJECTS

IN ANALYSIS
NCRP Plan Score, Proposition 50 Round 2 &
Supplemental (Note, 1 of the 4 projects changed
so significantly that its pre-implementation targets
could not be compared to post-implementation
monitoring. It was not included in the analysis)

87.22% 3
NCRP Plan Score, Proposition 84, Round 1 93.51% 18
NCRP Plan Score, Proposition 84 Round 2 (Note,
3 of the 12 projects have not yet submitted final
reports for this funding round. They are expected
in 2019 and are not included in this analysis)

95.78% 12
NCRP Plan Score, Proposition 84, Drought (Note, only
4 of the 11 Proposition 84 Drought Projects have
submitted final reports; the others are scheduled
for completion and close out in 2019. This analysis
only considers fully completed projects)

95.00% 6
Total Score 92.88% 39

4.5.3.2 NCRP PLAN PROCESS EVALUATION
Evaluation of NCRP institutional performance is based
on the efficacy of the NCRP in conducting the processes it uses to engage stakeholders and achieve process
transparency, inclusion, local autonomy, jurisdictional authority, adaptive management, and integration.

Indicators for the two objectives of Goal 1 “Intraregional Cooperation and Adaptive Management“ include provision
of ample outreach and input and judicious selection of
implementation projects that propose to meet NCRP
goals. Appendix B. provides tables that document NCRP
meetings, presentations, workshops, conferences,
and other approaches to stakeholder outreach with
participant numbers where relevant. The chart below
shows the NCRP’s progress in providing an inclusive
venue for stakeholder participation at NCRP general
meetings. Due to ever-expanding outreach efforts, the
number of participants at NCRP public meetings has
been increasing since the inception of the group in 2005.

The group schedules quarterly meetings, but only
holds these meetings when there is enough important
business to justify the enormous effort and resources
required for many of the PRP/TPRC and regional
stakeholders who attend. For many, depending on
where the event is held (locations vary throughout the
region to ensure equity; see Section 1.2.4 Stakeholder
Involvement), the meetings end up being 2 day meetings
when travel is factored in. This represents a huge
commitment and devotion to the NCRP, especially by the
PRP members, who generally attend each meeting.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 185
0 20
40 60
80 Metric for Obj. 2:
# Participants at NCRP
Public Meetings, 2005 to present
(Averaged by year)
Many of the PRP and TPRC members pay their own travel
expenses and volunteer their time; when considering just mileage over a 6 year period, estimated costs were nearly $28,000 and when time estimates were included, this
figure increased over $200,000 for a conservative estimate of $230,415 in-kind donated to the NCRP planning effort by PRP and TPRC members during the period from June
of 2012 through March 2018. When these figures are
considered, and acknowledging that other stakeholder
attendees make similar donations of their travel costs
and time, the fact that attendance is increasing shows
the strong commitment of all involved to make the
NCRP planning process inclusive and participatory.

Given that there are multiple demands for stakeholder
time and energy, it is likely that at some point attendance at meetings will reach a plateau. However, the increase speaks to the NCRP persistent outreach efforts and
the social capital the group has built through its work funding and supporting implementation projects vital
to many North Coast communities’ well-being.

To assess the effectiveness of the NCRP project
prioritization and planning process, all prioritized
projects were evaluated using metrics described in
Section 4.5.2.1 and the process described in Section

4.5.2.3 (see Table 16 NCRP Process Evaluation —
Plan Totals, below and Appendix N, Table N-71 NCRP
Process Evaluation by IRWM Funding Round). This
analysis shows a broad suite of projects that collectively strongly support implementation of NCRP goals and
objectives. It also highlights important characteristics of the North Coast, such as its largely disadvantaged
population base, its abundance of natural resources and community resiliency, and the strong commitment of
North Coast communities to preserve those resources.

Overall, about 95% of IRWM projects undertaken
in the North Coast have benefitted disadvantaged
communities with projects in Proposition 50 Round
2, Proposition 84 Drought, Proposition 84 2015,
and the current suite of prioritized projects for
Proposition 1 all being implemented for the benefit
of economically disadvantaged communities. The
fact that about 60% of projects overall are related
to drinking water quality or improving water
infrastructure also speaks to the disadvantaged
nature of the North Coast, with its numerous impaired
water bodies and ubiquitous failing infrastructure.

The importance of working lands and intact natural
areas is shown by the fact that nearly 80% of projects
benefit working landscapes and/ or natural areas.

Also evident is the commitment of the NCRP and
North Coast communities to salmonid habitat
preservation and the watershed processes that support
salmonids: about 66% of projects overall at least
partially benefit these culturally, economically, and
spiritually important North Coast species. Fully 20%
of the projects work in collaboration with North Coast
Tribes to include Traditional Ecological Knowledge
and/or Tribal concerns in project implementation
and 13% of projects are implemented at least
partially in support of cultural, spiritual, ceremonial, or traditional rights or lifeways of Tribes.

Although a long-term priority of the state, only about
8% of projects overall provide alternative sources of
water to groundwater use and/or reduce groundwater
contamination. This speaks to the lack of critically overdrafted or highly contaminated basins in the North Coast as well as the holistic view of many communities
with respect to water use. Many of the North Coast
projects related to watershed processes and riparian
restoration work to restore floodplains for groundwater recharge and/ or restore hydraulic connectivity by
reconnecting groundwater with surface water. The strong commitment to preserving and enhancing instream
flow for salmonids during critical summer months has
led to off-stream water storage as well as conjunctive
groundwater use in order to maintain or create the
cold water refugia necessary for salmonid survival. So
although the NCRP recognizes the critical need to reduce overdraft in other areas of the state, it has not chased funding available for such projects because they would
not match the needs of North Coast communities.

The ability and willingness of the NCRP to adjust
programmatic emphasis in response to funding
requirements while staying true to North Coast goals
and objectives is shown through the Objective 13
metric: Number of projects included in the NCRP Plan
that improve forest health and reduce risk of catastrophic wildfires. Although one project prior to the Proposition 1 funding solicitation addressed this metric, two
projects (10%) of the Proposition 1, Round 1 suite
of projects address it, in part because the NCRP
included forest health as a priority in the April 2019
regional proposal solicitation. It speaks to the large
amount of funding sources that currently exist for
186 Section 4 — NCRP Projects
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 forest health projects as well as the extreme need in the North Coast to address failing infrastructure that a larger percentage of the current project suite do not address this issue that is very important to North Coast communities (see Section 3.4.1 Natural Capital: Healthy Forests and Watersheds).

The NCRP has from its inception been a forward-looking group. The numerous projects related to climate resiliency and mitigation reflect this: 45% of NCRP IRWM projects promote local energy independence, water/ energy use efficiency, GHG emission reduction, and/or carbon sequestration, while nearly 60% incorporate strategies to address anticipated conditions. Over 23% of projects specifically relate to anticipated changes in precipitation amounts and intensity.

Although this evaluation of the NCRP Plan does not provide a pass/fail or other overall success metrics, the diverse array of project types and the multiple goals they address reflect the NCRP’s commitment to improving natural and built resources in the North Coast. This is a direct result of the NCRP PRP decision to pursue programmatic integration and project type diversity at the portfolio level and achieve this over time and through multiple rounds of funding. The result of this foresight and dedication is shown in the table below. It is a robust display that speaks to a long-term commitment to equity, transparency, and collaboration and should be celebrated by not only residents and stakeholders in the North Coast, but also the State of California, which is seeing integrated regional water management working well in real time for the benefit of all Californians.

TABLE 16. NCRP PROCESS EVALUATION — PLAN TOTALS
GOAL
# OBJECTIVE METRIC NCRP PROJECTS % ALL PROJECTS
NUMBER OF PROJECTS 111
1 1 Number of projects in NCRP that meet goals included in local plans 64 57.66% 3 Number of projects that work in collaboration with Tribes to include TEK/ Tribal principles/ priorities in project implementation 23 20.72% 2 4 Number of projects implemented in Disadvantaged Communities 105 94.59% 5 Number of projects that benefit working landscapes and natural areas 88 79.28% 3 6
Number of projects that conserve, enhance, and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems and ecosystem function 77 69.37% 7 Number of projects that conserve, enhance and restore salmonid habitat and watershed processes that support salmonids 73 65.77% 4 8
Number of projects that provide water supply reliability or improve water quality for municipal, domestic, agricultural, Tribal, or recreational uses 77 69.37% 8 Number of projects that improve water bodies that support the cultural, spiritual, ceremonial, or traditional rights or Lifeways of California Native Tribes. 15 13.51% 9 Number of drinking water quality and water related infrastructure projects 68 61.26% 9 Number of drinking water quality and water related infrastructure projects implemented in DACs 68 61.26% 10 Number of projects that provide alternative sources of water to groundwater use and/ or reduce groundwater contamination 9 8.11% 5 11
Number of projects (implemented by NCRP or project sponsors) that assess climate change effects, impacts, vulnerabilities, and strategies for local and regional sectors 4 3.60% 11 Number of projects that incorporate strategies for anticipated changes in precipitation amounts and intensity 26 23.42% 11 Number of projects that incorporate strategies that address anticipated drought conditions, extreme flooding events, or other climate change challenges 67 60.36% 12 Number of projects (implemented by NCRP or project sponsors) that promote local energy independence, water/ energy use efficiency, GHG emission reduction, carbon sequestration, and jobs creation 50 45.05% 6 13 Number of projects included in the NCRP Plan that improve flood protection and reduce flood risk 15 13.51% 13 Number of projects included in the NCRP Plan that improve forest health and reduce risk of catastrophic wildfires 3 2.70% NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 4 — NCRP Projects 187

NORTH COAST RESOURCE

PARTNERSHIP PLAN
Healthy Communities, Functional Ecosystems,
& Vibrant Economies

PHASE IV
January 2020

APPENDICES

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix A. Integration of NCRP Goals & Objectives 189
APPENDIX A.

INTEGRATION OF NCRP GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Per state IRWM Guidelines (DWR 2016), Table A-1 and Table A-2 demonstrate that the NCRP integrates into the Plan and processes the latest NCRP goals and objectives and (1) statewide IRWM priorities and (2) local project priorities1, respectively. The Phase I/II/III NCRP IRWM Plans includes equivalent tables for the original Plan objectives and projects.

Table A-1 Matrix of NCRP Objectives & Statewide IRWM Priorities

NCRP GOALS & OBJECTIVES
STATEWIDE INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PRIORITY Make Conservation a California Way of Life Increase Regional Self-Reliance and Integrated Water Management Across All Levels of Government Protect and Restore Important Ecosystems Manage and Prepare for Dry Periods Expand Water Storage Capacity and Improve Groundwater Management Provide Safe Water for All Communities Increase Flood Protection Goal 1: Intraregional Cooperation & Adaptive Management Objective 1 — Respect local autonomy and local knowledge in Plan and project development and implementation • •
Objective 2 — Provide an ongoing framework for inclusive, efficient intraregional cooperation and effective, accountable NCRP project implementation • Objective 3 — Integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge in collaboration with Tribes to incorporate these practices into North Coast Projects and Plans • • • Goal 2: Economic Vitality
Objective 4 — Ensure that economically disadvantaged communities are supported and that project implementation enhances the economic vitality of disadvantaged communities by improving built and natural infrastructure systems and promoting adequate housing • • •
Objective 5 — Conserve and improve the economic benefits of North Coast Region working landscapes and natural areas •
Goal 3: Ecosystem Conservation and Enhancement
Objective 6 — Conserve, enhance, and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, including functions, habitats, and elements that support biological diversity • • • Objective 7 — Enhance salmonid populations by conserving, enhancing, and restoring required habitats and watershed processes • • Goal 4: Beneficial Uses of Water
Objective 8 — Ensure water supply reliability and quality for municipal, domestic, agricultural, Tribal, and recreational uses while minimizing impacts to sensitive resources • • • • • • Objective 9 — Improve drinking water quality and water related infrastructure to protect public health, with a focus on economically disadvantaged communities • • • • Objective 10 — Protect groundwater resources from over-drafting and contamination • • • • Goal 5: Climate Adaptation & Energy Independence
Objective 11 — Address climate change effects, impacts, and vulnerabilities, including droughts, fires, floods, and sea level rise. Develop adaptation strategies for local and regional sectors to improve air and water quality and promote public health and safety • • • • •
Objective 12 — Promote local energy independence, water/ energy use efficiency, GHG emission reduction, carbon sequestration, and jobs creation • Goal 6: Public Safety
Objective 13 — Improve flood protection, forest and community resiliency to reduce the public safety impacts associated with floods and wildfires • • 1 Note that “project/local priorities” as used in this document are the project-specific priorities, as compiled by NCRP staff and project proponents, of locally-implemented projects, not necessarily of local entities per se). 190 Appendix A. Integration of NCRP Goals & Objectives
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table A-2 Matrix of NCRP Objectives & Local Project Priorities

NCRP GOALS & OBJECTIVES
LOCAL PROJECT PRIORITIES Salmonid Habitat Improvement Watershed and Habitat Improvement Water Quality Improvement Water Supply ReliabilityGroundwater ProtectionEnergy IndependencePublic SafetyEconomic Benefits Goal 1: Intraregional Cooperation & Adaptive Management Objective 1 — Respect local autonomy and local knowledge in Plan and project development and implementation • • •
Objective 2 — Provide an ongoing framework for inclusive, efficient intraregional cooperation and effective, accountable NCRP project implementation • • • Objective 3 — Integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge in collaboration with Tribes to incorporate these practices into North Coast Projects and Plans • • • • Goal 2: Economic Vitality
Objective 4 — Ensure that economically disadvantaged communities are supported and that project implementation enhances the economic vitality of disadvantaged communities by improving built and natural infrastructure systems and promoting adequate housing • •
Objective 5 — Conserve and improve the economic benefits of North Coast Region working landscapes and natural areas • • • • • Goal 3: Ecosystem Conservation and Enhancement
Objective 6 — Conserve, enhance, and restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, including functions, habitats, and elements that support biological diversity • • • • • • Objective 7 — Enhance salmonid populations by conserving, enhancing, and restoring required habitats and watershed processes • • • • • Goal 4: Beneficial Uses of Water
Objective 8 — Ensure water supply reliability and quality for municipal, domestic, agricultural, Tribal, and recreational uses while minimizing impacts to sensitive resources • • • • Objective 9 — Improve drinking water quality and water related infrastructure to protect public health, with a focus on economically disadvantaged communities • • • Objective 10 — Protect groundwater resources from over-drafting and contamination • • • • Goal 5: Climate Adaptation & Energy Independence
Objective 11 — Address climate change effects, impacts, and vulnerabilities, including droughts, fires, floods, and sea level rise. Develop adaptation strategies for local and regional sectors to improve air and water quality and promote public health and safety • • • • •
Objective 12 — Promote local energy independence, water/ energy use efficiency, GHG emission reduction, carbon sequestration, and jobs creation • • • • Goal 6: Public Safety
Objective 13 — Improve flood protection, forest and community resiliency to reduce the public safety impacts associated with floods and wildfires • • • Table A-3 ARB Scoping Plan Strategies Considered in NCRP Strategy & Goal Development

1. Create Inclusive Policies and Broad Support for Clean Technologies a. Continue to engage local organizations and invest in disadvantaged communities to ensure broad access to clean technologies; b. Ensure air pollution reductions happen where they are needed the most; c. Integrate across programs and agencies to ensure complementary policies provide maximum benefits to disadvantaged communities; d. Implement California Energy Commission and CARB recommendations to overcome barriers to clean energy and clean transportation options for low-income residents; e. Provide energy-efficient affordable housing near job centers and transit; and f. Implement AB 617 to dramatically improve air quality in local communities through targeted action plans.

2. Enhance Industrial Efficiency & Competitiveness
g. Evaluate and implement policies and measures to continue reducing GHG, criteria, and toxic air contaminant emissions from sources such as refineries; h. Improve productivity and strengthen economic competitiveness by further improving energy efficiency and diversifying fuel supplies with low carbon alternatives; i. Prioritize procurement of goods that have lower carbon footprints j. Support and attract industry that produces goods needed to reduce GHGs; and k. Cut energy costs and GHG emissions by quickly transitioning to efficient HFC alternatives NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix A. Integration of NCRP Goals & Objectives 191

3. Prioritize Transportation Sustainability
l. Connect California’s communities with a state-of-the-art high-speed rail system; m. Promote vibrant communities and landscapes through better planning efforts to curb vehicle-miles-traveled and increase walking, biking and transit; n. Build on the State’s successful regulatory and incentive-based policies to quickly make clean cars, trucks, buses, and fuels definitive market winners; o. Coordinate agency activities to ensure that emerging automated and connected vehicle technologies reduce emissions; and p. Improve freight and goods movement efficiency and sustainability to enable California’s continued economic growth.

4. Continue Leading on Clean Energy
q. Effectively integrate at least 50 percent renewables as the primary source of power in the State through coordinated planning, additional deployments of energy storage, and grid regionalization; r. Utilize distributed resources and engage customers by making net zero energy buildings standard, implement Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan to double existing building efficiency, and increase access to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy use data; and s. Reduce the use of heating fuels while concurrently making what is used cleaner by minimizing fugitive methane leaks, prioritizing natural gas efficiency and demand reduction, and enabling cost-effective access to renewable gas

5. Put Waste Resources to Beneficial Use
t. Develop and implement programs, including edible food waste recovery, to divert organics from landfills and reduce methane emissions; u. Develop and implement a packaging reduction program; and v. Identify a sustainable funding mechanism to support waste management programs, including infrastructure development to support organics diversion

6. Support Resilient Agricultural and Rural Economies and Natural and Working Lands w. Protect, enhance and innovate on California’s natural and working lands to ensure natural and working lands become a net carbon sink over the long-term; x. Develop and implement the Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to maintain these lands as a net carbon sink and avoid at least 15-20 metric tons of GHG emissions by 2030; y. Measure and monitor progress by completing CARB’s Natural and Working Lands Inventory and implementing tracking and performance monitoring systems; and z. Unleash opportunity in the agricultural sector by improving manure management, boosting soil health, generating renewable power, electrifying operations, utilizing waste biomass, and increasing water, fertilizer, and energy use efficiency to reduce super pollutants

7. Secure California’s Water Supplies
aa. Increase water savings by certifying innovative technologies for water conservation and developing and implementing new conservation targets, updated agricultural water management plans, and long term conservation regulations; ab. Develop a voluntary registry for GHG emissions from energy use associated with water; and ac. Continue to increase the use of renewable energy to operate the State Water Project 192 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX B.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT & INTEGRATION
Table B-4 Stakeholders & Participants in NCRP Planning Processes DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP / NCRP GOVERNING BODY MEETINGS 1/20/05 TPRC 25 Eureka Overview of proposed planning process, communication tools, application process 3/3/05 PRP 26 Fortuna Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission
4/28/05 PRP & TPRC 27 Eureka Themes emerging locally and regionally, long-term vision, overview of projects, project review process 6/2/05 TPRC 18 Arcata Project review & prioritization
6/8/05 PRP & TPRC 25 (3 via video
conferencing) Arcata Project prioritization
9/7/05 PRP & TPRC 23 Fortuna NCRP Plan Phase I submittal process, Day in the Capitol, IRWM process and strategies, proposal development and grant writing workshops and technical assistance 4/13/06 PRP 30 Redding NCRP Plan Timeline, State Process Recap, Planning Grant Update, NCRP Modifications for Step 2 Grant application, potential scenarios for budget reduction 5/11/06 TPRC 15 Redding Step 2 requirements and scoring criteria, project review and evaluation, PRP recommendations 5/15/06 PRP 19 Redding State process/workshops update, TPRC update, next steps for TPRC project recommendations and regional application
1/26/07 PRP & TPRC 23 Eureka IRWM program changes and approach, planning grant update, public outreach, NCRP evaluation process and lessons learned, new opportunities, Phase II discussion 3/22/07 DWR, PRP
& TPRC 35 Redding DWR IRWM efforts, Q&A with DWR, discussion of outcomes of DWR meeting, review of draft alternatives of planning process, future planning approaches 5/17/07 PRP 30 Eureka Evaluation process report, Phase II Plan, preservation of local autonomy, process and plan for future, tribal representation
4/23/08 PRP & TPRC 28 Redding
North Coast Integration with State Programs, California Water Plan Update, Prop 84 update, DOC Statewide Watershed Program, Sub-committee formation for integrated coastal issues, implementation update, Prop 50, Round Two, Step 2 application update 1/9/09 PRP & TPRC 23 Redding
Statewide Proposition 50 & 84 Stop Work Order, Prop 84 and 1E update, potential funding strategies, protocols for decision making, Regional Sediment Master Plan, RWQCB Basin Plan Amendment: Water Recycling, mechanism for ongoing project identification 6/25/09 PRP & TPRC 25 Eureka
RAP Update; North Coast Energy Independence Initiative updates: stakeholder meetings, webpage, ‘white paper’, legislative updates, funding opportunities; Project identification; Regional Master Sediment Plan; PRP Decision-making Approach 2/11/10 PRP & TPRC 48 Eureka
Tribal representation; MoMU revision; Prop 50 Supplemental Funding, Prop 84 & 1E updates; North Coast Energy Independence Initiative updates: NCEECBG and NCEIP grant proposals, climate/energy technical advisors; NCRP 2010 workshops & 2011 conference 6/24/10 PRP & TPRC 35 Ukiah
Tribal representation; Prop 50 Supplemental Funding, Prop 84 & 1E updates; North Coast Energy Independence Initiative updates: Biomass planning initiatives, NCEECBG award and NCEIP grant award/update, climate/energy technical advisors; NCRP 2010 workshops & 2011 conference 10/28 &
29/10 TPRC 25 Eureka Proposition 84 Round 1 requirements and scoring criteria, conflict of interest policy, project review and evaluation, prioritization, PRP recommendations 11/10/10 PRP 24 Eureka North Coast Energy Independence, MoMU revisions, TPRC project recommendations, nominations 7 elections 7/21/11 PRP & TPRC 38 Weaverville
NCRP Structure, Roles, Responsibilities, Staffing; Project budget under-runs and funding reallocation processes; Future Vision for NCRP: strategy, priorities, next phase of plan; Proposed Process for Updated Project Evaluation and Ranking Process 12/15/11 Sub-committee
Meeting 8 conference call Project Evaluation: Process description, criteria refinement, documentation, conflict of interest 12/19/11 Executive
Committee Willits
SGC Sustainable Communities Planning Grant; Project evaluation review process; Prop 84 Guidelines/PSP Scoping Comments; NCRP January 19th meeting planning, agenda refinement; NCRP roles discussion, leadership planning and regional relationship maintenance; Tribal Outreach; Planning grant project management & DAC grant planning 01/19/12 PRP & TPRC 27 Ukiah
SGC Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and interview input; PRP interview summary: next phase of NCRP Plan; NCRP Project Application, Review and Selection Process; Presentation:

Russian River Watershed Association, Update on Draft Phase II MS4 permit 06/11/12
Executive
Committee
meeting
10 Eureka
Humboldt County Staffing Changes & Updates; NCRP July Meeting, Yreka agenda review; IRWMP general timeline for future funding opportunities; Project Review and Selection Process updates; Conference discussion: themes, location; Orick project funding re-allocation - Humboldt projects; PRP/TPRC membership changes & openings NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration 193
DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT
07/19/12 PRP & TPRC 40 Yreka
Approval of NCRP resolution for Vice-chair Jimmy Smith; Strategic Growth Council Sustainable Communities grant; IRWM Program tentative schedule, funding opportunities & Guideline changes; NCRP Project Application, Review and Selection Process; Support & Technical Assistance to Rural & Small Water and Wastewater Service Providers; NCRP Proposition 84 Planning Grant, Draft outreach strategy, PRP input on staff planning activities, Conference planning; PRP Direction re. website, name, re-branding and logo refinement; presentations: Siskiyou Biomass Utilization Group: It’s Mission, Projects and Accomplishments; Modoc County: Sage Steppe Restoration on USFS/BLM Lands and Potential Biomass Solutions; Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District: Araujo and Shasta Water Association Dam Restoration Projects 10/18/12 PRP & TPRC 40 Eureka
NCRP Elections;NCRP Planning Sub-contracts: Proposition 84 Planning Grant & Strategic Growth Council; Tribal Outreach Coordinator RFP; Proposed Process and Criteria for Sub-contracts to counties and Tribes; Formation of ad-hoc committees; Draft NCRP Plan outline; North Coast NCRP Logo and Name; North Coast Resource Partnership Conference; NCRP Project Application, Review and Selection Process; NCRP Plan Proposition 84, Round 2 Project Implementation grant application development 1/3/13
Executive
Committee
meeting
8 conference call Planning for NCRP meeting, January 17; New PRP and TPRC members; Tribal Coordinator process & selection 1/17/13 PRP & TPRC 36 Ukiah
NCRP Plan Proposition 84, Round 2 Implementation Priority Project portfolio selection; NCRP Planning Sub-contracts; Proposed Process and Criteria for Sub-contracts to counties and Tribes; Formation of ad-hoc committees: Prop 84 Planning Grant, & SGC Planning Grant; Updates: Tribal Coordinator Consultant selection & process; NCRP Plan, Version 3 Review and Input Process; North Coast Resource Partnership logo; Project Presentation: Joseph Scriven, Mendocino County Resource Conservation District 3/22/13
Executive
Committee
meeting
8 conference call North Coast Resource Partnership Plan, Version 3; Planning for NCRP April 19; Review/ refine Draft Process and Criteria for Sub-contracts to Counties and Tribes 4/12/13
Executive
Committee
meeting
8 conference call Planning for NCRP April 19; New TPRC member - Sean Curtis, Modoc County; Dis-band Tribal coordinator ad hoc committee
05/19/13 PRP & TPRC 34 Yreka
State Water Resource Control Board presentation; Update on SWRCB priorities; North Coast Resource Partnership Plan, Version 3: Review and Input Process ; NCRP Plan schedule; North Coast partner and stakeholder interviews; Intent of the Plan and IRWM Program requirements; Review changes to the annotated NCRP Plan outline; NCRP Plan, Version 3: Content Development; PRP consideration of recommended approaches for representing diverse views/local autonomy in plan update; Review and provide input: NCRP Goals and Objectives; Tribal Coordinator Update; TPRC Project Review Process De-brief; Consideration of options for prioritization of technical assistance, NCRP DAC Water & Wastewater Service Provider Outreach & Support Program; Project Presentation: Modoc Newell Project; Water Plan Update/ Forum Meeting Update 07/18/13 PRP & TPRC 36 Weaverville
NCRP Plan, Version 3: Review and Input Process; NCRP Plan schedule review; North Coast partner and stakeholder interviews synthesis & discussion; Review changes to the annotated NCRP Plan outline based on Public Input; NCRP Plan, Version 3: Content Development; NCRP Planning Ad hoc Committee Report: proposal selection for planning sub-contracts to counties and Tribes; PRP consideration of recommended approaches for representing diverse views/local autonomy in plan update; Roundtable discussion: NCRP Goals and Objectives; Process for prioritization of technical assistance: NCRP DAC Water & Wastewater Service Provider Support Program; Strategic Planning – Innovative Financing & the Future of the NCRP; Opportunities for innovative financing:
upcoming Strategic Growth Council grant; NCRP Conference: discussion and input; Tribal Coordinator Update 3/10/2014 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 35 Bear River Tribal Water Meeting, NCRP orientation and DWR Tribal Liaison introduction 4/17/2014 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 38 Yreka
Proposed changes to practices/ policies regarding funding applications and plan development, Sonoma Clean Power Presentation, North Coast Tribal Engagement Process presentation, and panel presentation and discussion: Improvements to administration and invoicing of IRWM implementation project contracts. Prop 84 2014 Drought Project Solicitation and Regional Application, plan schedule, and finalization of NCRP Goals and Objectives. Other NCRP business. 05/17/14 PRP & TPRC 39 Yreka
NCRP Governance: PRP Decision Making and Role/Composition of Ad Hoc Committees; PRP Decision Making Process – Policy Clarification; Review composition of existing committees; Sonoma Clean Power presentation – potential applications to the NCRP; North Coast Tribal Engagement Process; Panel presentation and discussion: Improvements to administration and invoicing of IRWM implementation project contracts; IRWM Proposition 84 2014 Drought Solicitation; New legislation and program updates; NCRP Proposition 84 2014 Drought Project Solicitation and Regional Application; NCRP Plan, Version 3: Review Process and Content Development ; NCRP Plan schedule 6/17/2014 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 15 Garberville
NCRP Tribal Participation Update, Tribal Representative Selection, Election of Tribal Representatives, Upcoming Work, established process for revisions to the IRWM Plan update Tribal specific, corrections, additions, overarching edits, jointly written sections etc. 10/16/2014 NCRP Meeting 29 Fortuna
DWR update on funding, Cal Water Action Plan, AB 52, Tribal consultation for cultural resources, CASGEM legislation. Review of project review process; presentation regarding Tribal outreach, coordination and representation in North Coast region, NCRP nominations and Elections, and other NCRP business. 194 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT
1/15/2015 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 26 Ukiah Discussion of efforts to improve the “project selection and review process.” Member nominations and elections, planning grant discussion, Prop 1 Water Bond presentation, committee actions and other NCRP business. 4/16/2015 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 25 Yreka
Prop 84 2015 IRWM Project Solicitation NCRP Project Review and Selection Process, Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Management Plan and DWR Sustainable Groundwater Management Act presentations, planning grant update, NCRP business. 7/2/2015 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 34 Weaverville NCRP Vice-Chair nominations and election, draft 2015 NCRP Priority Projects, habitat impacts from cannabis cultivation presentation, Planning Grant update and other NCRP business. 10/15/2015 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 25 Loleta Presentation on Native American Governance, review of NCRP Management structure and roles. 12/11/2015 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting Redwood Valley Review of 2016 Draft Guidelines, Project development and TEK planning. 1/21/2016 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 32 Ukiah
Presentations on Prop 1 IRWM Program Guidelines and NCRP Disadvantaged Community Outreach Proposal Application, Storm Water Resource Planning Panel Presentation & Discussion, NCRP Goals & Objectives discussion, other NCRP business. 5/20/2016 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 20 Willits Capacity Building and Needs Assessment Program planning. 8/26/2016 NCTWC &
Tribal NCRP Loleta IRWM Update, DAC and URCs engagement and support 9/30/2016 NCTWC & Tribal
NCRP Meeting 8 Loleta NCRP portion of the meeting included orientation and upcoming tasks. 10/20/2016 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 7 Loleta TEK Panel final Coordination, Planning for PRP & TPRC Meeting 10/21/2016 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 41 Loleta NCRP honors and awards, Tribel Ecological Knowledge discussion, other NCRO business. 1/20/2017
Annual Tribal

PRP & TPRC
Meeting
19 Willits
Planning session to prepare Tribal Capacity Building and trainings, create tribal specific questions, reviewed DWR background materials, NCRP 2014 Needs Assessment results, Rose Foundation Community Learning Program Needs Assessment, Strategic Planning for Non-Profit Organizations questions to fold into our next Needs Assessment. 4/19/2017 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 12 Healdsburg NCRP Tribal Pilot criterion, DACTI and underrepresented Tribes support, Review Needs Assessment, Tribal Representatives’ Nomination and Voting, 4/20/2017 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 33 Healdsburg NCRP leadership, business, and 2017 NCRP Handbook. Nominations and elections, awards. Other NCRP business. 5/20/2017 NCTWC Meeting 15 Willits NCRP update and introduction to the DACTI Program in the NCTWC meeting 7/21/2017 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 19 Smith River Provide orientation of the Needs Assessment to Technical Assistance and DACTI Pilots, Workplan and budget, 11/30/2017 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 28 Loleta
NCRP new Representative orientation, planning for January 2019 NCRP PRP & TPRC Meetings, fire issues, green projects, FAQ development, IRWM project funding, Tribal Representation and Engagement in NCRP while supporting Tribal sovereignty government to government relations, TEK, Cannabis, DACTI 2017-2018 Workplan planning: Needs Assessment, Capacity Building, Grey Needs, Mapping 1/18/2018 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 16 Hopland Drought round proposal discussion, Needs Assessment review, Tech Assistance PSP and contract review, Tribal Tech Assistance review and selection process, Prepare for 1/19/19 NCRP PRP and TPRC Quarterly Meeting 1/19/2018 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 46 Ukiah
Presentations: North Coast Resiliency Strategies: Watersheds, Communities & Fire, California Economic Summit description, Russian River Watershed Pilot discussion, Prop 1 IRWM Round 1 Funding solicitation, and other NCRP business. 4/19/2018 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 11 Orleans
NCRP Quarterly Meeting prep, DACTI program updates and planning including Tribal Needs Assessments, Technical Assistance Circuit Riders, Tribal Capacity building workshops & technical assistance, DACTI Tribal Pilots, preparation for Nomination and voting for new Tribal Representatives, CA Russian River Pilot, Forest Service co-management vision, CA drought & fire preparedness, cannabis cultivation policies by county and the SGMA GSAs and IRWM connection 4/20/2018 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 40 Yreka Presentations: North Coast Resiliency Strategies: Watersheds, Communities & Fire Round 2, other NCRP business. 7/19/2018 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting Ukiah
DACTI Phase 1 workplan discussions an approval, tribal needs assessment and technical assistance circuit rider, Humboldt bay pilot, Tribal DACTI Pilots IRWM implementation round, Tribal Representative selection by district, IRWM DACIT over view of NCRP 10/18/2018 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 13 Weaverville
2018 Fire Season Round Robin: NCRP PRP & TPRC Members. Legislative Updates from Assemblymember Jim Wood, Tom Weseloh, Bruce Ross, and John Driscoll. State agency updates and priorities and discussion of opportunities and priorities for the NCRP. 10/19/2018 PRP and TPRC
meeting 76 Regional
Meeting included a Panel on State Agency Updates and Priorities featuring representatives from state offices including the Tribal Policy Advisor and Assistant Deputy Director from the DWR, the Executive Director from the Strategic Growth Council, Director of the California Department of Conservation, Resilience Program Manager of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and Undersecretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration 195
DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT
1/18/2019 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 17 Hopland
NCRP Orientation for new Tribal Representatives, DACTI Program Timeline & Budget Review, 2018 Workplan Approval, Tribal DACTI Technical Assistance Program, Technical Assistance Selection Process Document, Technical and Capacity-Building Needs Assessments, Green Project Needs Assessment Discussion, Tribal Pilot Project Discussion, NCRP IRWM funded Project Angelica Creek Fish Passage Project & Site Visit 3/1/2019 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 14 Ukiah Tribal Representatives Voting in New Representatives 4/18-
4/19/19
TPRC Project
Selection
Meeting
26 Crescent City NCRP TPRC project selection
4/25/2019 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 7 Orleans Planning for 4/26/19 PRP and TPRC NCRP meeting, review of nomination and voting processes, Russian River pilot, policy updates for the NCRP IRWM Plan Update. 7/8/2019 Tribal PRP &
TPRC Meeting 30 IRWM Plan Update, Russian River Pilot Development, Fire Block Grant Development 10/17/2019
Annual Tribal

PRP & TPRC
Meeting
28 Loleta
DACTI Report Needs Assessment, Planned Capacity Building Workshop and Technical Assistance, DACIT Tribal Pilots, Phase II IRWM Implementation Project Development Support, NC Tribal Resource Center Planning, Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program, Tribal Technical Consultants, Local and Regional Forest Health and Fire Resiliency Projects, Tribal Representation Review and Recommendations, NCRP Quarterly Meeting 10/18/2019 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 72 Loleta
Jimmy Smith Award, Legislative & Agency Updates: Watersheds, Communities & Fire Resiliency, Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program: Update From State And Local Partners Panel, Regional Forest And Fire Capacity Funding, Project Solicitation And Selection Process Improvements, Leadership Handbook, 2019 quarterly Executive
Committee 6 - 12 conference call or in-person Plan NCRP quarterly meetings; general governance; NCRP Plan review & discussion monthly NCRP planning
meetings 5 – 9 Rohnert Park NCRP working team meeting
Monthly
Tribal NCRP
Representative
& Tribal staff
planning
meetings
6-12 Conference call Tribal NCRP working team meeting
ongoing meetings,
presentation varies region-wide NCRP PRP & TPRC orientation; NCRP background

WORKSHOPS
12/03 public workshop 57 Humboldt Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission
11/04 public workshop 13 Del Norte Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission
12/04 public workshop 9 Del Norte Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission
12/04 public workshop 47 Mendocino Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission
12/04 public workshop 23 Trinity Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission
01/05 workshop:

RRWA 67 Santa Rosa Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission 02/05 public workshop
(BOS) 21 Siskiyou Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission 05/05 workshop:

RRWA 35 Santa Rosa Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission 05/05 workshop:

RWQCB 83 Santa Rosa Chapter 8, Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Program, NCRP Plan outline, Plan Review Process, Grant application submission 03/09 public workshop 19 Trinity North Coast projects and strategies for energy independence, climate adaptation, and GHG emission reduction 3/11/10 public
workshop: CBC 64 Fairfield California Biodiversity Council:Integrated Water Management in California Panel Discussion 9/22/10 public workshop 12/26 Crescent City
& Eureka NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 1 & 1E Grant Workshop 9/23/10 public workshop 6/14 Weaverville
& Yreka NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 1 & 1E Grant Workshop 9/29/10 public workshop 28/16 Santa Rosa
& Ukiah NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 1 & 1E Grant Workshop 11/15/12 public workshop 6 Weaverville NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant Workshop 11/16/12 public workshop 8 Yreka NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant Workshop 11/19/12 public workshop 8 Crescent City NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant Workshop 196 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT
11/19/12 public workshop 22 Eureka NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant Workshop 11/20/12 public workshop 14 Ukiah NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant Workshop 11/20/12 public workshop 30 Santa Rosa NCRP Plan Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant Workshop 2/28/14 GHD and RCAC 16 Sacramento Water & Wastewater Service Provider Outreach & Support Program Small Community Assistance Workshop 5/6/14 public workshop 4 Weaverville North Coast 2014 Drought Project Solicitation 5/7/14 public workshop 16 Yreka North Coast 2014 Drought Project Solicitation 5/8/14 public workshop 22 Eureka North Coast 2014 Drought Project Solicitation 5/9/14 public workshop 27 Santa Rosa North Coast 2014 Drought Project Solicitation 5/9/14 public workshop 12 Ukiah North Coast 2014 Drought Project Solicitation 10/2016 Celebration
Workshop 41 Sonoma County
Goals of the workshop were to enhance and expand understanding of the NCRP among elected officials and funders to positively influence perceptions of NCRPimpact and the need for regional investment, and to expand the circle of supporters of the NCRP. 01/14
– 01/18/19
8 public
workshops >90
Yreka,
Weaverville,
Willow Creek,
Crescent City,
Eureka, Ukiah,
Fort Bragg,
Santa Rosa
NCRP 2018/19 Proposition 1 IRWM Implementation Project Solicitation TRAININGS — NCRP WATER & WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDER OUTREACH & SUPPORT PROGRAM 05/23/12 Training: RCAC 9 Ukiah
Ethics/Conflict of Interest and Policies
• Assistance in identifying projects for future grant proposals; • Opportunities to discuss individual system needs and opportunities for coordination and sharing with neighboring service providers 05/24/12 Training: RCAC 23 Eureka
Sanitary Surveys
• Assistance in identifying projects for future grant proposals; • Opportunities to discuss individual system needs and opportunities for coordination and sharing with neighboring service providers 8/30/12 Training: RCAC 31 Willow Creek
Small Groundwater System Operation & Maintenance
• Assistance in identifying projects for future grant proposals; • Opportunities to discuss individual system needs and opportunities for coordination and sharing with neighboring service providers 9/5/12 Training: RCAC 23 Fort Bragg
Wastewater Treatment Techniques
• Assistance in identifying projects for future grant proposals; • Opportunities to discuss individual system needs and opportunities for coordination and sharing with neighboring service providers 9/26/12 Training: CRWA 17 Yreka
Budget/capital improvement, asset management, Leak Detection, Utility Management • Assistance in identifying projects for future grant proposals; • Opportunities to discuss individual system needs and opportunities for coordination and sharing with neighboring service providers 11/7/12 Training: CRWA 19 Yreka
Sampling, Emergency Procedures, Consumer Confidence Reports, Utility Management • Assistance in identifying projects for future grant proposals; • Opportunities to discuss individual system needs and opportunities for coordination and sharing with neighboring service providers 11/14/12 Training: RCAC 19 Crescent City
Safe Drinking Water Act
• Assistance in identifying projects for future grant proposals; • Opportunities to discuss individual system needs and opportunities for coordination and sharing with neighboring service providers 11/15/12 Training: RCAC 25 McKinleyville
Operations Plan & Emergency Response Plans
• Assistance in identifying projects for future grant proposals; • Opportunities to discuss individual system needs and opportunities for coordination and sharing with neighboring service providers 4/15/14 Training: RCAC
and GHD 12 Fortuna
Resources for Project Development, Planning and Funding • Small Community Toolbox Overview and Discussion
• Infrastructure and project development training (including how to develop a capital improvement plan and hire a consultant)
• Rates training (When and Why to Increase Rates)
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration 197
DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT
4/16/14 Training: RCAC
and GHD 17 Crescent City
Resources for Project Development, Planning and Funding • Small Community Toolbox Overview and Discussion
• Infrastructure and project development training (including how to develop a capital improvement plan and hire a consultant)
• Rates training (When and Why to Increase Rates)
4/22/14 Training: RCAC
and GHD 17 Healdsburg
Resources for Project Development, Planning and Funding • Small Community Toolbox Overview and Discussion
• Infrastructure and project development training (including how to develop a capital improvement plan and hire a consultant)
• Rates training (When and Why to Increase Rates)
4/23/14 Training: RCAC
and GHD 13 Ukiah
Resources for Project Development, Planning and Funding • Small Community Toolbox Overview and Discussion
• Infrastructure and project development training (including how to develop a capital improvement plan and hire a consultant)
• Rates training (When and Why to Increase Rates)
5/7/14 Training: CRWA
and GHD 7 Yreka
Project Development, Planning and Funding
• Small Community Toolbox Overview and Discussion
• Infrastructure and project development training (including how to develop a capital improvement plan and hire a consultant)
• Rates training (When and Why to Increase Rates)
5/8/14 Training: CRWA
and GHD 7 Weaverville
Project Development, Planning and Funding
• Small Community Toolbox Overview and Discussion
• Infrastructure and project development training (including how to develop a capital improvement plan and hire a consultant)
• Rates training (When and Why to Increase Rates)

CONFERENCES
11/05 conference
presentation 200 San Diego ACWA
9/07 conference
presentation 240 Santa Rosa CA Planning Commissioners
10/07 regional
conference 320 Fortuna North Coast Conference
11/07 conference
presentation 85 Los Angeles CA Water Policy Conference
05/08 conference
presentation 175 San Diego SWRCB Conference
06/9/10 conference
presentation 140 Sacramento EPA Conference
04/11 conference
presentation 60 Sacramento CARCD Conference
05/11 conference
presentation NCRP Conference: Healthy Watersheds and Vital Human Communities & Techniques for Regional Outreach 10/6/12 conference
presentation 64 Sonoma County Integrated Natural Resources ManagementSonoma County Green Infrastructure Initiatives & Integration of Multiple Objectives 10/13 regional
conference 168 Fortuna North Coast Conference
3/12/14 conference
presentation 80 San Diego Watershed Forum
4/2016 regional
conference 101 Yreka Ten Year Celebration of Collaboration & Positive Impact 8/11/2016 Regional
meeting 120 San Francisco CA Issues Workgroup meeting at EPA Tribal Meeting – provided NCRP update and outreach 8/24/2016 Regional
meeting 15 Rohnert Park Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma Tribal Programs Meeting (MLSTP) Meeting p provided NCRP update, outreach for new Tribal Representatives 1/12/2017 regional
conference 30 Sacramento Roundtable of Regional Summit
04/17/17 regional
conference 130 Santa Rosa Integrated Strategies for the North Coast: North Coast as a Source Region: Water, Carbon, Biodiversity & Rural Innovation; Return on investment in rural landscapes and communities 198 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT
8/27/2017 regional
conference 25 Sacramento 2018 DWR Plenary Meeting
4/4/18
– 4/5/18
regional Tribal
conference 200 McClellan Park Tribal Water Summit - Tribal NCRP panelists 01/13
– 10/14/19
regional
conference 146 Eureka Climate Science Symposium for the North Coast Region 7/10/2019 regional Tribal
conference 15 Ukiah Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma Tribal Environmental Programs (MLSTEP) Meeting 7/24/2019 regional Tribal
conference 250 Fort Bragg Regional Tribal Operations Committee Summer Meeting – Full Caucus 7/18/2019 regional
conference 150 Sacramento DWR Tribal Roundtable & SGMA Water Conference

MEETINGS & PRESENTATIONS
01/04 Presentation 25 Cloverdale League of California Cities 08/03 outreach varies Sacramento coordinated outreach to NC legislators and staff re: NCRP effort 04/04 outreach varies Sacramento coordinated outreach to NC legislators and staff re: NCRP effort 08/05 outreach varies Sacramento coordinated outreach to NC legislators and staff re: NCRP effort 10/05 Presentation 67 Eureka American Society of Civil Engineers – Redwood Empire Chapter 8/06
– 10/06 interviews 22 region-wide Stakeholder and Project Proponent Evaluation of NCRP Plan & NCRP Application Process, NCRP Phase I Plan 02/07 Presentation 23 Gualala Sea Ranch community
07/08 meetings &
presentations 33 Ukiah Eel-Russian Commission Meetings
09/08 Meeting and
presentation 27 Yreka Siskiyou water/wastewater entities 10/09
– 01/10
>12 conference
call meetings 5 – 16 region-wide Development of North Coast Energy Independence Program (regional PACE program), California Energy Commission grant proposal. Meetings with county administrators, supervisors, treasurers/auditors. 10/09
– 01/10
>25 conference
call meetings 3 – 16 region-wide Development of North Coast Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (NCEECBG). Technical Assistance to eligible cities/counties. 10/09 Meeting 18 Santa Rosa Sonoma County and North Coast Energy Independence Program (NCEIP) meeting 11/09 BOS
Presentation 34 Yreka Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background, NCEIP and NCEECBG 11/09 Meeting 6 Ukiah North Coast Energy Independence Program: Mendocino and Lake County participation 12/09 BOS
presentation 22 Crescent City Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background, NCEIP and NCEECBG 12/09 BOS
Presentation 16 Ukiah Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background, NCEIP and NCEECBG 12/09 meeting 8 Sacramento DWR disadvantaged community wastewater & water supply strategy 04/10 meetings,
presentation 15 – 40 Weitchpec, Ukiah
Tribal meetings and presentations: Tribal representation, NCRP partnership & NCRP Plan overview, opportunities for collaboration
4/10 presentation 35 Santa Rosa Applied Solutions presentation re. integration and collaboration for local governments 06/10 presentation 50 Roseland, OR Southern Oregon Clean Energy Alliance (SOCEA) presentation: NCRP background, NCEIP and NCEECBG 12/10 meeting 45 Santa Rosa NCEIP Ecology Action Meeting 12/10 BOS
Presentation 65 Sonoma County Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background, NCEIP and accomplishments (PRP Chair) 4/18/11 Tribal
Orientation 8 conference call NCRP presentation and orientation for Tribal representatives 06/11 Roundtable
Session 30 Ukiah Mendocino Futures presentation and panel discussion 9/11
– 12/11 Interviews 11 North Coast Technical Peer Review Committee formal interviews:NCRP Plan Project Review, Evaluation and Selection Process. 9/11
– 12/11 Interviews 16 North Coast Project Proponents interviews and public survey:NCRP Plan Project Review, Evaluation and Selection Process 12/11
– 2/12 Interviews 18 North Coast
Policy Review Panel formal interviews re. NCRP:
• the future direction, opportunities and constraints of the NCRP • policy-level criteria for NCRP project selection
• water management issues/conflicts facing the North Coast region and its individual communities • the needs, successful projects, local knowledge, constraints and opportunities for integrating energy independence into the NCRP
(see Table 5 Public Outreach & Plan Input Opportunities for participants) NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration 199
DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT
5/12 BOS
Presentation 28 Del Norte County Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background and accomplishments 7/12 BOS
Presentation 22 Modoc County Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background and accomplishments 10/12 BOS
Presentation 34 Mendocino County Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background and accomplishments 12/12 BOS
Presentation 34 Siskiyou County Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background and accomplishments 9/25/12 Tribal Council
presentation 30 Sherwood Valley Rancheria
NCRP PRP Tribal representative presentation: NCRP background, goals/objectives, accomplishments, Tribal participation/representation; Tribal projects 3/13/13 BOS
Presentation 26 Weaverville Board of Supervisor presentation: NCRP background and accomplishments 3/13
– 6/13 Interviews 42 North Coast
Professional Planner and Technical Staff interviews:
• Land Use and Water Planning
• Climate Change Vulnerability and Response
• Energy Efficiency and Security, Water Management
• NCRP processes & NCRP Plan integration
(see Table 5 Public Outreach & Plan Input Opportunities for participants) 2/4/14 Water Bond
Hearing 75 Eureka NCRP PRP Chair presentation: NCRP background, goals/objectives, accomplishments, Tribal participation/representation; natural/human capitol, support for IRWM program and bond initiatives 2/14/14 SWRCB Board
Meeting 45 Sacramento SWRCB presentation: NCRP background, goals/objectives, accomplishments, project benefits (Executive Committee) 2/14 US Forest
Service meeting 30 Fortuna NCRP PRP Tribal representative presentation: NCRP background, goals/objectives, accomplishments, Tribal participation/representation; Tribal projects 4/17/14 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 38 Yreka
Proposed changes to practices/ policies regarding funding applications and plan development, Sonoma Clean Power Presentation, North Coast Tribal Engagement Process presentation, and panel presentation discussion: Improvements to administration and invoicing of IRWM implementation project contracts. Prop 84 2014 Drought Project Solicitation and Regional Application, plan schedule, and finalization of NCRP Goals and Objectives. Other NCRP business. 5/1/14
Regional Tribal
Operations
Committee
65 Santa Rosa NCRP PRP Chair presentation: NCRP background, goals/objectives, accomplishments, Tribal participation/representation; Tribal projects 5/8/14
Eel Russian
River
Commission
45 Sonoma County NCRP overview; Guiding principles; NCRP 2014 Drought Project Solicitation; Upcoming schedule for the NCRP and NCRP Plan
6/2/14 Sonoma County
Water Advisory 20 Sonoma County NCRP overview; NCRP 2014 Drought Project Solicitation; Upcoming schedule for the NCRP and NCRP Plan 10/16/14 NCRP Meeting 29 Fortuna
DWR update on funding, Cal Water Action Plan, AB 52, Tribal consultation for cultural resources, CASGEM legislation. Review of project review process; presentation regarding Tribal outreach, coordination and representation in North Coast region, NCRP nominations and Elections, and other NCRP business. 1/15/15 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 26 Ukiah Discussion of efforts to improve the “project selection and review process.” Member nominations and elections, planning grant discussion, Prop 1 Water Bond presentation, committee actions and other NCRP business. 4/16/15 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 25 Yreka
Prop 84 2015 IRWM Project Solicitation NCRP Project Review and Selection Process, Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Management Plan and DWR Sustainable Groundwater Management Act presentations, planning grant update, NCRP business. 7/2/15 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 34 Weaverville NCRP Vice-Chair nominations and election, draft 2015 NCRP Priority Projects, habitat impacts from cannabis cultivation presentation, Planning Grant update and other NCRP business. 10/15/15 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 25 Loleta Presentation on Native American Governance, review of NCRP Management structure and roles. 1/21/16 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 32 Ukiah
Presentations on Prop 1 IRWM Program Guidelines and NCRP Disadvantaged Community Outreach Proposal Application, Storm Water Resource Planning Panel Presentation & Discussion, NCRP Goals & Objectives discussion, other NCRP business. 08/10/16

NCRWQCB
meeting
presentation
38 Santa Rosa NCRP Proposition 1 IRWM Funding & Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program 10/21/16 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 41 Loleta NCRP honors and awards, Tribal Ecological Knowledge discussion, other NCRO business. 4/20/17 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 33 Healdsburg NCRP leadership, business, and 2017 NCRP Handbook. Nominations and elections, awards. Other NCRP business. 200 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 DATE TYPE # PARTICIPANTS LOCATION SUBJECT
1/19/18 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 46 Ukiah
Presentations: North Coast Resiliency Strategies: Watersheds, Communities & Fire, California Economic Summit description, Russian River Watershed Pilot discussion, Prop 1 IRWM Round 1 Funding solicitation, and other NCRP business. 02/28/18
Legislative
and Agency
meetings
16 Sacramento NCRP Chair, Vice Chair and staff meetings with legislative officials and staff, and agencies leaders about the NCRP 4/20/18 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 40 Yreka Presentations: North Coast Resiliency Strategies: Watersheds, Communities & Fire Round 2, other NCRP business. 10/19/18 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 76 Weaverville
2018 Fire Season Round Robin: NCRP PRP & TPRC Members. Legislative Updates from Assemblymember Jim Wood, Tom Weseloh, Bruce Ross, and John Driscoll. State agency updates and priorities and discussion of opportunities and priorities for the NCRP. 4/26/19 PRP & TPRC
Meeting 42 Yreka
NCRP Nominations and Elections; Leadership Handbook, NCRP Goals and Objectives; NCRP Policies review and updates; NCRP Plan Review and Adoption Process; Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Funding; NASA Fire Evaluation Presentation; NCRP Proposition 1 Round 1 Implementation Funding: Priority Project Selection monthly
ongoing NCRP
Planning
updates
35 Santa Rosa Russian River Watershed Association meetings monthly NCRP planning
meetings 5 – 9 Conference call NCRP /NCRP Plan planning and program management ongoing meetings,
conference call Varies Region-wide RCDs
ongoing meetings,
conference call Varies Region-wide NC Tribal governments and EPA Departments monthly meetings,
conference call 9 – 12 Region-wide Tribal Engagement and Coordination ongoing presentation Varies Region-wide County Board of Supervisor and Tribal Council meetings regarding NCRP updates ongoing meetings,
conference call Varies Region-wide Technical assistance and support for project proposal development ongoing meetings,
conference call Round Table of Regions and DWR Disadvantaged Community Involvement Meetings quarterly meetings,
presentation Varies State-wide ARCCA Regional Collaborative Meetings Table B-5 Public Outreach & Plan Input Opportunities

NORTH COAST PARTNER AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

NAME TITLE/ ROLE/ORGANIZATION COUNTY/TRIBAL AREA
Policy Review Panel — NCRP Governance, Local Water Management, Energy Independence, 2011/12 Efren Carrillo County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Sonoma County Geri Byrne County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Modoc County
Gerry Hemmingsen County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Del Norte County Grace Bennett County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Siskiyou County Isa Mesa Jr. Environmental Coordinator, NCRP PRP Redwood Valley Rancheria Carol Cook Tribal Council, NCRP PRP Sherwood Valley Rancheria Jimmy Smith County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Humboldt County John McCowen County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Mendocino County Judy Morris County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Trinity County
Kendall Smith County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Mendocino County Leaf Hillman Natural Resources Director, NCRP PRP Karuk Tribe Marcia Armstrong County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Siskiyou County Roger Jaegel County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Trinity County Ryan Sundberg County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Humboldt County Other Leaders — NCRP Governance, Local Water Management, Energy Independence, 2011/12 Grant Davis General Manager, Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Javier Silva Environmental Director, NCRP TPRC Sherwood Valley Rancheria Jay Sarina County Administrator, NCRP PRP Del Norte County Zack Larson Smith River Advisory Council; NCRP TPRC member Del Norte County Project Proponent & Public — NCRP Project Evaluation and Selection Process, 2011 anonymous on-line surveys — 12 total North Coast
Lynne Rosselini Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration 201

NORTH COAST PARTNER AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

NAME TITLE/ ROLE/ORGANIZATION COUNTY/TRIBAL AREA
Laurel Marcus California Land Stewarship Institute Sonoma Mendocino David Edmunds Pinolleville Pomo Nation Mendocino County Barry Jarvis Indian Health Services Northern Region
Dennis Slota Mendocino County Water Agency Mendocino County Earl Crosby Karuk Tribe Karuk Tribe
Kathleen Morgan Gualala River Watershed Association Sonoma Mendocino Lauren Lubowicki Mattole Restoration Council Humboldt County Rebecca Crow GHD Engineers Humboldt County
Patty Madigan Mendocino County RCD Mendocino County
TPRC — NCRP Project Evaluation and Selection Process, 2011 Tom Weseloh Caltrout Humboldt County
Dale Roberts Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County
David Van Denover Weaverville CSD Trinity County
Patty Madigan Mendocino County RCD Mendocino County
Roland Sanford Mendocino County Water Agency Mendocino County Wayne Haydon California Geological Survey Sonoma County Sandra Perez Five Counties Salmonid Restoration Program; NCRP TPRC member Trinity County Koiya Tuttle Potter Valley Tribe Mendocino County
Kendall Smith County Supervisor, NCRP PRP Mendocino County Marilyn Seward City of Etna Siskiyou County
Kirk Girard Planning Director Humboldt County
Counties Departments: Land Use, Climate Change and Water Planning, 2013 Heidi Kunstal Building, Planning & Environmental Health Del Norte County John Miller Planning & Building Department Humboldt County Hank Seemann Public Works, Natural Resources Division; NCRP TPRC member Humboldt County Steve Dunnicliff Planning & Building Services Mendocino County Dennis Slota Mendocino County Water Agency (part of P&B Services) Mendocino County Dave Jensen Environmental Health Department Mendocino County Tom Peters Land Improvement Mendocino County
Sean White, General Manager Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District; NCRP TPRC member Mendocino County Greg Plucker Planning Division Planning Commission Siskiyou County Randy Akana Flood Control and Water Conservation District Siskiyou County Ric Costales Natural Resources Department Siskiyou County Scott Waite Land Development Siskiyou County
Richard Tinsman Senior Planner; NCRP TPRC member Siskiyou County Terry Barber Public Health/ Environmental Health Siskiyou County Kyla Burton, Environmental Compliance Specialist Public Works Siskiyou County Jennifer Barrett Planning Sonoma County
Sandi Potter Planning Sonoma County
Pete Parkinson Permit and Resource Management Department Sonoma County Suzanne Smith, ED Transport Authority/ Regional Climate Protection Authority Sonoma County Christine Sosko Environmental Health Sonoma County
Dale Roberts Sonoma County Water Agency; NCRP TPRC member Frank Lynch Planning Department & Planning Commission Trinity County Rick Tippett Transportation Trinity County
Municipalities: Land Use, Climate Change and Water Planning, 2013 Larry Oetker—Director City of Arcata Community Development Department Arcata Eugene M. Palazzo — City Manager City of Crescent City Planning Department Crescent City Eric Wier — Director City of Crescent City Public Works Department Crescent City Robert Wall — Director City of Eureka Community Development Eureka Mike Flockhart, Public Works Director City of Fortuna Public Works Department Fortuna Carol Rische Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District; NCRP TPRC member Humboldt Bay David Hull Humboldt Community Services District Eureka
Darrin Jenkins City of Rohnert Park Rohnert Park
Charley Stump, Director City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Ukiah Wes Scribner Weaverville Community Service District Weaverville Resource Conservation Districts: Land Use, Climate Change and Water Planning, 2013 202 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

NORTH COAST PARTNER AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

NAME TITLE/ ROLE/ORGANIZATION COUNTY/TRIBAL AREA
Brittany Heck, ED Gold Ridge RCD Sebastopol
Donna Chambers, ED Humboldt County RDC Eureka
Janet Olave, ED Mendocino County RCD Ukiah
Patty Madigan Mendocino County RCD; NCRP TPRC member Ukiah Earle Cummings, Director Sotoyome RCD Santa Rosa
Other Agencies: Land Use, Climate Change and Water Planning, 2013 Matthew Marshall Redwood Coast Energy Authority Eureka /Humboldt County Dana Boudreau Redwood Coast Energy Authority Eureka /Humboldt County Zack Larson Smith River Advisory Council; NCRP TPRC member Del Norte County Sandra Perez Five Counties Salmonid Restoration Program; NCRP TPRC member Del Norte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Siskiyou,
Trinity Counties
Propostion 1 NCRP Outreach & Involvement: Tribal Engagement & Economic Opportunity for Disadvantaged Communities Key Expert Interviews 2018
Mark Weller & Heidi Benzonelli Westside Community Improvement Assocation Humboldt Hillarie Beyer McKinleyville Family Resource Center Humboldt Brian Olson Eureka Community Resource Center Humboldt
Joyce Hayes Humboldt Senior Resource Humboldt
Esther Hutton Manila Community Resource Ctr/Redwood Coast Montessori Humboldt Jennifer Kalt Humboldt Baykeeper Humboldt
Susan Seaman Arcata Economic Development Corporation Humboldt Amanda Mager City of Blue Lake Humboldt
Justin McDonald Arcata Fire Disrict Humboldt
Greg Orsini McKinleyville community services district Humboldt Valen Castellano Big Lagoon CSD Humboldt
Melissa Kraemer CA Coastal Commission Humboldt
Becky Price Hall City of Trinidad Humboldt
Chris Drop Manila CSD Humboldt
Aldaron Laird Trinity Associates, Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Humboldt Larry Glass NorthCoast Environmental Center Humboldt
John Friedenbach HBMWD Humboldt
Sean Robertson Humboldt Bay Fire District Humboldt
Andrew Slack Save the Redwoods League Humboldt
Larry Oetker Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Humboldt Laurel Marcus CA Land Stewardship Institute Mendocino
Heidi Kunstal & Rosanna Bower Del Norte County Del Norte Doug Kern Mendocino Land Trust Mendocino
Kathleen Morgan Gualala River Watershed Council Mendocino April Newlander & Tasha McKee Sanctuary Forest Humboldt Nacole Sutterfield, Jon Olson City of Crescent City Del Norte Nick Goulette Watershed Center Trinity
Wes Scribner Weaverville Community Services District Trinity Mark Lancaster, Sandra Perez Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program (5Cs) Trinity 2018/2019 Disadvantaged Community Water and Wastewater Treatment System Survey City of Healdsburg Sonoma
Mountain View Mobile Estates, LLC Sonoma
Riverside CSD Humboldt
Six Acres Water Company Sonoma
Weott C.S.D. Humboldt
Albion Mutual Water Company Mendocino
Beach Creek MH Park Humboldt
Big Lagoon CSD Humboldt
Big Lagoon Park Water Co. Humboldt
Blue Lake, City of Humboldt
Boulevard Heights Mutual Water Sonoma
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration 203

NORTH COAST PARTNER AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

NAME TITLE/ ROLE/ORGANIZATION COUNTY/TRIBAL AREA
Burnt Ranch Estates Mutual Water Co. Trinity
Butte Court Mobile Home Park Del Norte
Cal Ore Trail Mobile Estates Siskiyou
Callahan Water District Siskiyou
Calpella County Water District Mendocino
Caspar South Service Company Mendocino
Cazadero Water Company, Inc. Sonoma
City of Arcata Humboldt
City of Cotati Sonoma
City of Fortuna Humboldt
City of Rohnert Park Sonoma
City of Santa Rosa Sonoma
Cloverdale, City of Sonoma
Covelo C.S.D. Mendocino
Covington Mill Mwc-Division B Trinity
Crescent City, City of Del Norte
Del Norte County Community Service Area Del Norte
Dorris, City of Siskiyou
Eureka, City of Humboldt
Fieldbrook Glendale C.S.D. Humboldt
Fort Bragg Municipal Imp Distrct Mendocino
Fort Bragg, City of Mendocino
Gasquet C.S.D. Del Norte
Grenada Sanitary District Siskiyou
Hills Ranch Mutual Water Company Mendocino
Holly Ranch Village Mendocino
Hopland Public Utility District Mendocino
Humboldt Bay MWD Humboldt
Humboldt C.S.D. Humboldt
Humboldt County Rid #1, Shelter Cove POTW Humboldt
Hunter Valley CSD Del Norte
Indian Creek Trailer Park Trinity
Jacoby Creek CSD — Combined with City of Arcata Humboldt Jedsmith Homeowners Assn. Del Norte
Journey’s End Mobile Home Park Sonoma
Lake Shastina C.S.D Siskiyou
Las Palmas Mobile Home Park Del Norte
Laytonville County Water District Mendocino
Lewiston Community Services District Trinity
Lewiston Park MWC Trinity
Loleta C.S.D. Humboldt
Manila Community Services Dist. Humboldt
Mckinleyville C.S.D. Humboldt
Meadow Estates Mutual Mendocino
Midway RV Park Humboldt
Miranda C.S.D. Humboldt
Mobile Home Estates Sonoma
204 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

NORTH COAST PARTNER AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

NAME TITLE/ ROLE/ORGANIZATION COUNTY/TRIBAL AREA
Montair Subdivision Homeowners Association Siskiyou
Myers Flat M.W.S. Inc. Humboldt
North Gualala Water Company Mendocino
Odd Fellows Recreation Club Sonoma
Orleans Mutual Water Co. Humboldt
Palomino Estates M.W.C. Humboldt
Pine Grove Trailer Park Del Norte
Pine Mountain Mutual Water Co. Mendocino
Point Cabrillo Highlands Mendocino
Point of View Mutual Water Co Mendocino
Redcrest Water Works Humboldt
Redwood Heights Water Association Sonoma
Redwood Park C.S.D. Del Norte
Redwood Valley County Water District Mendocino
Reservation Ranch Del Norte
Rio Dell, City of Humboldt
River Estates Mutual Water Company Mendocino
Round Valley CWD Mendocino
Rush Creek Mutual Water System Trinity
Russian River County Sanitation District Sonoma
Sawyers Bar County Water District Siskiyou
Seawood Estates Mutual Water Humboldt
Sebastopol, City of Sonoma
Seymour’s Mutual Water System Trinity
Shasta View Heights Owners Association Siskiyou
Shorelands Road & Water Company Mendocino
Siskiyou Co. Service Area #5/Carrick
(Functionally Part of City of Weed’s Water System) Siskiyou Sonoma County Mutual Water Company Sonoma
Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma
South Cloverdale Water Company Sonoma
State Line RV Park Modoc
Sunset Park Community Sonoma
Surfwood Mutual Water Corporation Mendocino
Sweetwater Springs CWD — Guerneville Sonoma
Sweetwater Springs CWD — Monte Rio Sonoma
Tennant C.S.D. Siskiyou
Treasure Creek Woods Mwc Trinity
Trinity Co. W.W. Dist #1 Trinity
Trinity Knolls Mutual Water Company Trinity
Tulelake, City of Siskiyou
Ukiah, City of Mendocino
Upper Russian River Water Agency
Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mendocino Weaverville C.S.D. Trinity
Weed, City of Siskiyou
West Park Properties Del Norte
West Water Company (PUC) Sonoma
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix B. Stakeholder Engagement & Integration 205

NORTH COAST PARTNER AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

NAME TITLE/ ROLE/ORGANIZATION COUNTY/TRIBAL AREA
Westhaven C.S.D. Humboldt
2018/2019 Tribal water and wastewater treatment operators survey and interview participants Karuk Tribe North
Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation North
Yurok Tribe North
Blue Lake Central
Cahto Central
Wiyot Central
Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Central
Potter Valley Tribe South
Redwood Valley Rancheria South
Pinoleville Pomo Nation South
Guidiville Rancheria South
Hopland Tribe South
Dry Creek Rancheria South
Kashia Tribe South
Yokayo South
206 Appendix C. Region Description
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX C.

REGION DESCRIPTION
Table C-6 Summary of North Coast Region Key Attributes

ATTRIBUTE DESCRIPTION
Total Area 50,246 sq. km. (19,400 square miles; 12,424,617 acres) Proportion of California (%) Approximately 12%
Length of coastline 547 km. (340 miles)
Counties in Region (all or portions) 10: Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino; large parts of Siskiyou and Sonoma; small portions of Glenn, Lake, Marin, and Modoc Counties in NCRP (all or portions) 7: Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Trinity Watershed Management Areas 6: Eel River, Humboldt Bay, Klamath River, North Coast Rivers, Russian/Bodega, and Trinity River Drainage Basins 2: Klamath River Basin (5 Hydrologic Units HUs) and North Coastal Basin (9 HUs) Hydrologic Units (HUs) 14: Klamath, Rogue, Smith, Trinity, Winchuck (=Klamath River Basin); Bodega, Cape Mendocino, Eel, Eureka Plain, Mad River, Mendocino Coast, Redwood Creek, Russian, and Trinidad (=North Coastal Basin) HUs Tribes/ Tribal Lands Yurok (most populous Tribe); Hoopa and Round Valley Reservations (two largest in area); others including but not limited to Karuk, Paiute, Pomo, Tolowa, and Wiyot; (256,280 acres) Land Ownership (% Region area) Private/ Other (50.20%), Federal (44.24%), State (2.43%), Non-Profit (0.85%), Special District (0.07%), County (0.06%), City (0.08%), Tribal Lands (2.06%) Total Population (2000, 2010, and 2015) The population of the entire North Coast Region was approximately 644,000 in 2000 (DWR 2005) and 675,845 in 2010 (US Census) and 679,741 in 2015 (American Community Survey 2015).

Percent of State Population Approximately 2%
Most Populous Counties (2010) Sonoma: 515,968, Humboldt: 133,138 Least Populous Counties (2010) Modoc: 9,547 (total population, including area outside of NC Region; Trinity: 13,442.

Population Change (2013–2050) Recent model predictions by the Department of Water Resources (DWR 2013) indicate that the regional population is expected to grow to between 763,300 and 1,185,600 by the year 2050 Highest Population Density
(persons per sq. mi.) Sonoma (307 persons/mi2), Humboldt has approximately 37 people per square mile Lowest Population Density
(persons per sq. mi.) Modoc (1), Trinity (4)
Median Age Range 41 (Humboldt) to 50 (Trinity); average median age = 45 Range of Education Attainment
(bachelor’s degree or higher) 15% (Del Norte) to Sonoma (33%) Range in Median Household Income (2016) $35,270 (Trinity) to $66,833 (Sonoma) Tribal Population (percent in 2010 census) 4.0% Region total; range 2.2% (Sonoma) to 8.8% (Del Norte) Disadvantaged and Severely
Disadvantaged (DAC, SDAC) Population
44% of Region total (2015)
36% of Region total (2010)
Economically Distressed Area (2016) 93.4% of Region total (11,598,962 acres) Severely Disadvantaged Area (2016) 49.81% of Region total (6,188,842 acres) DAC and SDAC Area (2016) 90.2% of Region total (11,204,991 acres) DAC and SDAC Area (2010) 84% of Region total (10,464,758 acres) Major Economic Sectors Tourism, recreation, logging, service (health, education), timber milling, aggregate mining, commercial/ sport fisheries, sheep/ beef/ dairy production, vineyards, wineries, wildlife/ resource management Land Use Types (% cover)
Conifer forest (60.28%), hardwood forest/ woodland (14.97%), shrub/ brush rangeland (10.54%), cropland/ pasture (3.57%), barren (0.86%), rural development (0.71%), non-forested wetland (0.48%), residential (0.1%), commercial/ service/ transportation/ communication/ other built (0.05%) Land Cover Types (% cover) Conifer forest/ woodland (60.31%), hardwood forest/ woodland (15.01%), herbaceous rangeland (7.26%), shrub (10.5%), herbaceous (7.3%), agriculture (3.57%), water/wetland (1.65%), barren/other (0.86%), urban (0.72%) Total Length of Rivers and Streams 34,586 kilometers (21,491 miles) Groundwater Basins and Subbasins 64
Designated Beneficial Uses of
Water for Hydrologic Units
28: Includes agricultural, municipal/ domestic, fisheries, flood attenuation, and recreation in bays, estuaries, minor coastal streams, ocean waters, wetlands, inland surface waters, and groundwaters, Tribal tradition and culture, Tribal subsistence fishing, and subsistence fishing Marine Managed Areas/ Critical Coastal Areas 21: Includes 19 Marine Protected Areas, 8 State Water Quality Protection Areas that are Areas of Special Biological Significance (CCAs may include designated “impaired” streams below) 303(d)-listed “Impaired” Streams (2016) 32,667 kilometers (20,298 miles) total stream length (94% of stream length) National Wilderness Preservation
System Areas 11 totaling 1,073,735 acres
Plant and Animal Species
Documented for the Region 526 species
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix C. Region Description 207

ATTRIBUTE DESCRIPTION
Listed (State/ Federal) Endangered
and Threatened Plant and Animal
Species Documented for the Region
86 threatened, endangered, or candidate species (34 plants, 52 animals) Protected Lands Percent Cover Approximately 49%
Table C-7 Land Owner Types of the North Coast Region
OWNERSHIP TYPE ACREAGE (%), 2007 ACREAGE (%), 2013
City 2,214.9 (0.02%) 5,387.75 (0.02%)
County 3,757.9 (0.03%) 4,567.39 (0.03%)
Tribal — 256,280 (2.01%)
Federal 5,743,166.6 (46.23%) 5,732,223.11 (46.23%)
Non-Profit 24,118.3 (0.19%) 62,622.42 (0.19%)
Special District 5,429.9 (0.04%) 8,804.68 (0.07%)
State 282,597.7 (2.27%) 291,877.01 (2.27%)
Private/Other 6,362,931.8 (51.21%) 6,317,931.75 (51.21%) Source: California Protected Areas Database (CPAD — www.calands.org) Table C-8 Municipalities & Census Designated Places of the North Coast Region COUNTY CITY/ TOWN NAME MUNICIPALITY OR CDP POPULATION (2010) Del Norte 28,610
Crescent City Incorporated municipality 7,643
Humboldt 134,623
Alderpoint Census-designated place
Arcata Incorporated municipality 17,231
Blue Lake Incorporated municipality
Eureka Incorporated municipality 27,919
Ferndale Incorporated municipality
Fortuna Incorporated municipality 11,926
Garberville Census-designated place
McKinleyville Census-designated place 15,177
Orick Census-designated place
Redway Census-designated place
Rio Dell Incorporated municipality
Scotia Census-designated place 850
Trinidad Incorporated municipality
Mendocino 87,841
Fort Bragg Incorporated municipality 7,273
Gualala Census-designated place
Laytonville Census-designated place
Mendocino Census-designated place
Point Arena Incorporated municipality
Ukiah Incorporated municipality 16,075
Willits Incorporated municipality
Siskiyou 44,900
Dorris Incorporated municipality
Etna Incorporated municipality
Fort Jones Incorporated municipality
Hornbrook Census-designated place
Montague Incorporated municipality
Tulelake Incorporated municipality
Weed Incorporated municipality
208 Appendix C. Region Description
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 COUNTY CITY/ TOWN NAME MUNICIPALITY OR CDP POPULATION (2010) Yreka Incorporated municipality 7,765
Sonoma 483,878
Cotati Incorporated municipality 7,265
Healdsburg Incorporated municipality 11,254
Rohnert Park Incorporated municipality 40,971
Santa Rosa Incorporated municipality 167,815
Sebastopol Incorporated municipality 7,379
Windsor Incorporated municipality 26,801
Trinity 13,786
Table C-9 Land Cover Types of the North Coast Region

TYPE ACRES NORTH COAST REGION PERCENT OF REGION
Agriculture 444,089.70 3.57
Barren/Other 107,291.68 0.86
Conifer Forest 7,143,268.13 57.49
Conifer Woodland 350,371.74 2.82
Hardwood Forest 1,771,367.86 14.26
Hardwood Woodland 92,812.37 0.75
Herbaceous 907,293.36 7.3
Shrub 1,310,707.48 10.55
Urban 89,839.43 0.72
Water 145,468.46 1.17
Wetland 60,243.89 0.48
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) Table C-10 Land Use Types of the North Coast Region

LAND USE ACRES NORTH COAST REGION PERCENT NORTH COAST REGION Barren 106,265.78 0.86
Bays and Estuaries 24.463169 0.0002
Commercial and Services 1,262.74 0.01
Conifer Forest 7,488,345.60 60.28
Cropland and Pasture 443,562.85 3.57
Hardwood Forest 1,860,305.72 14.97
Herbaceous Rangeland 901443.10 7.26
Lakes 134,826.53 1.09
Nonforested Wetland 60,035.73 0.48
Other Urban or Built-up Land 468.80 0.0038
Residential 12,844.50 0.1
Rural Development 88,387.65 0.71
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 1,309,724.06 10.54
Streams and Canals 7,950.75 0.06
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 4,641.78 0.04 Water 2,666.71 0.02
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix D. Tribal Profile 209
APPENDIX D.

TRIBAL PROFILE
North Coast Tribes are separate and independent sovereign nations within the territorial boundaries of the United States. The sovereignty of Tribes has been acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution. This sovereignty is inherent and flows from the pre-constitutional and extra-constitutional governance of the Tribe. Early federal policy and U.S. Supreme Court case law recognizes that Tribes retain the inherent right to govern within political boundaries (Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and that power to interact with Tribes is vested in the federal government. (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). This established governmental structure recognizes the sovereign and political independence of Tribal nations and its members. This right is also recognized by the State of California. Pursuant to the Executive Order B-10-11, the State “recognizes and reaffirms the inherent right of these Tribes to exercise sovereign authority of their members and territory.” The North Coast is the ancestral territory of North Coast Tribes. The majority of the North Coast Tribes have an inherent responsibility for managing their ancestral territories whether they currently have the capacity to or not. Therefore, North Coast Tribes’ jurisdiction goes beyond the gathering, fishing, and hunting rights that each individual Tribal member retains. Each North Coast Tribes exerts their jurisdictional authority according to their own traditional policies, laws, mandates and capacity.

The North Coast Region has a significantly higher percentage of Native residents (4%) than the state average (1.7%; US Census 2010). Thirty-two North Coast Tribal Nations are represented in the North Coast. Tribal lands totaling more than 250,000 acres are distributed throughout the North Coast.

Table D-11 Native Tribal Lands of the North Coast Region NAME TYPE AREA (SQ. METER) ACRES
Bear River Band — Rohnerville Rancheria 107,905 27
Cahto Indian Tribe — Laytonville Rancheria 788,833 195
Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community — Trinidad Rancheria 271,924 67 Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians Rancheria 19,262 5 Coast Indian Community of Yurok Indians — Resighini Rancheria 930,640 230.0 Coast Miwok/S. Pomo — Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 215,112 53.2 Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians — Coyote Valley Reservation 254,678 63 Guidiville Rancheria Rancheria 76,281 19
Hoopa Valley Tribe Reservation 355,983,910 87,966
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Rancheria 115,588 29
Karuk — Karuk Happy Camp #2 Reservation 723,579 179
Karuk — Karuk-Happy Camp #1 Reservation 8,067 2
Karuk — Karuk-Yreka Reservation 43,281 11
Karuk — Former SAC-196, 198 PDA’s Reservation 3,215 1
Karuk — Karuk Orleans Horn Property Reservation 341,335 84 Karuk — Orleans Karuk Tribal Office Reservation 18,855 5 Karuk Tribe — Karuk-Happy Camp Res’n Reservation 8,969 2 Kashia Band of Pomo Indians — Stewarts Point Rancheria 174,566 43 Manchester Band of Pomo Indians Rancheria 1,519,250 375 Smith River Rancheria 547,090 135
Elk Valley Rancheria 360,902 89
Blue Lake Rancheria 127,046 31
Pit River Tribe — XL Ranch Reservation 2,600,716 643
Pomo Indians — Sherwood Valley Rancheria 1,183,167 292
Pomo Indians — Potter Valley Rancheria 70,966 18
Pomo Indians — Redwood Valley Rancheria 327,299 81
Pomo Indians — Pinoleville Rancheria 432,874 107
Pomo Indians — Dry Creek Rancheria 326,346 81
Quartz Valley Indian Community Reservation 2,486,697 615 Round Valley Indian Tribes Reservation 439,018,462 108,484 Smith River Indians — Big Lagoon Rancheria 30,358 8
Wiyot Indians — Table Bluff Rancheria 59,832 15
210 Appendix D. Tribal Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 NAME TYPE AREA (SQ. METER) ACRES
Yurok Tribe Reservation 227,952,683 56,328
Total 1,037,129,688 256,280
Source: CalTrans & Bureau of Indian Affairs 2012
Table D-12 Native Tribes of the North Coast Region

TRIBAL NATIONS OF THE NORTH COAST REGION
Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria
Big Lagoon Rancheria
Blue Lake Rancheria
Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria Cahto Tribe of Laytonville Rancheria
Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians
Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians
Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians
Elk Valley Rancheria
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
Guidiville Rancheria
Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake
Hoopa Valley Tribe
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians of the Hopland Rancheria
The Karuk Tribe
Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria Klamath Tribes (Klamath, Modoc & Yahooskin)
Lytton Rancheria of California
Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester Rancheria Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley
Nor-Rel-Muk Nation
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
Pit River Tribe
Potter Valley Tribe
Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation Redwood Valley Rancheria
Resighini Rancheria
Round Valley Indian Tribes/Covelo Indian Community
Shasta Indian Nation
Shasta Nation
Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians
Smith River Rancheria
Winnemem Wintu Tribe
Wiyot Tribe
The Yokayo Tribe of Indians
The Yurok Tribe
Source: North Coast Resource Partnership 2014
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix E. County Profile 211
APPENDIX E.

COUNTY PROFILE
For the sake of presenting a comprehensive suite of descriptive data, the following analyses include information for counties in the Region that are not currently members of the NCRP/ signatories to the NCRP MoMU (i.e. Glenn, Marin, and Lake which account for just 2.2% of the Region area; Lake County is a signatory to the MoMU, but is not a participating member of the NCRP.) Table E-13 County Size and Relative Proportion of the North Coast Region

COUNTY ENTIRE COUNTY AREA (ACRE) COUNTY AREA IN NORTH

COAST REGION (ACRE) PERCENT OF COUNTY PERCENT OF NORTH COAST REGION Del Norte 649,371.60 649,371.60 100.0% 5.2%
Glenn 849,231.02 54,337.81 6.4% 0.4%
Humboldt 2,293,383.36 2,293,383.36 100.0% 18.5%
Lake 851,668.60 193,022.40 22.7% 1.6%
Marin 335,916.36 22,740.98 6.8% 0.2%
Mendocino 2,246,050.43 2,246,050.43 100.0% 18.1%
Modoc 2,690,175.61 751,456.09 27.9% 6.0%
Siskiyou 4,065,123.79 3,328,853.31 81.9% 26.8%
Sonoma 1,016,012.50 832,651.03 82.0% 6.7%
Trinity 2,052,349.97 2,052,349.97 100.0% 16.5%
TOTAL 12,424,216.98 100.0%
Source: US Census 2010
Table E-14 Land Owner Types of North Coast Counties

COUNTY LANDOWNER ACRES
Del Norte
Private Other 153,734.66
City 38.08
County 259.051
Federal 442,190.83
State 52,617.07
Glenn
Private Other 1,970.48
Federal 5,2456.33
Humboldt
Private Other 1,698,232.62
City 1,751.46
County 800.13
Federal 506,596.89
Non Profit 1,127.06
Special District 459.15
State 84,818.91
Lake
Private Other 27,950.39
Federal 164,348.90
State 79.70
Marin
Private Other 22,700.65
Non Profit 0.18
Mendocino
Private Other 1,808,411.54
City 121.45
County 11.193
Federal 299,637.38
Non Profit 41,926.07
Special District 115.68
State 95,553.44
212 Appendix E. County Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

COUNTY LANDOWNER ACRES
Modoc
Private Other 127,252.08
County 1.92
Federal 623,956.90
State 245.047
Siskiyou
Private Other 1,231,791.24
City 461.67
County 2.67
Federal 2,062,364.32
Non Profit 5,828.82
Special District 1,441.81
State 2,5483.58
Sonoma
Private Other 750,969.68
City 3,014.84
County 3,475.93
Federal 2,3306.82
Non Profit 1,3740.19
Special District 6,755.76
State 32,264.61
Trinity
Private Other 494,521.67
County 16.50
Federal 1,557,358.49
Special District 32.27
State 814.55
Source: California Protected Areas Database (CPAD — www.calands.org) Table E-15 Groundwater Basins of North Coast Counties

COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASINS SUB-BASINS
Del Norte
1-1 Smith River Plain
1-14 Lower Klamath River Valley
1-25 Prairie Creek Area
Humboldt
1-10 Eel River Valley
1-14 Lower Klamath River Valley
1-25 Prairie Creek Area
1-26 Redwood Creek Area
1-27 Big Lagoon Area
1-28 Mattole River Valley
1-29 Honeydew Town Area
1-30 Pepperwood Town Area
1-31 Weott Town Area
1-32 Garberville Town Area
1-33 Larabee Valley
1-34 Dinsmores Town Area
1-7 Hoopa Valley
1-8.01 Mad River Valley 1-8.01 Dows Prairie School Area 1-8.02 Mad River Valley 1-8.02 Mad River Lowland
1-9 Eureka Plain
Lake
1-48 Gravelly Valley
Marin
1-59 Wilson Grove
Formation Highlands

COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASINS SUB-BASINS
Mendocino
1-11 Covelo Round Valley
1-12 Laytonville Valley
1-13 Little Lake Valley
1-19 Anderson Valley
1-20 Garcia River Valley
1-21 Fort Bragg Terrace Area
1-37 Cottoneva Creek Valley
1-38 Lower Laytonville Valley
1-39 Branscomb Town Area
1-40 Ten Mile River Valley
1-41 Little Valley
1-42 Sherwood Valley
1-43 Williams Valley
1-44 Eden Valley
1-45 Big River Valley
1-46 Navarro River Valley
1-49 Annapolis Ohlson
Ranch Fm Highlands
1-51 Potter Valley
1-52 Ukiah Valley
1-53 Sanel Valley
1-56 McDowell Valley
1-61 Fort Ross Terrace Deposits
Modoc
1-2.01 Klamath River Valley 1-2.01 Tulelake
1-22 Fairchild Swamp Valley
Siskiyou
1-15 Happy Camp Town Area
1-16 Seiad Valley
1-17 Bray Town Area
1-18 Red Rock Valley
1-2.01 Klamath River Valley 1-2.01 Tulelake
1-2.02 Klamath River Valley 1-2.02 Lower Klamath
1-3 Butte Valley
1-4 Shasta Valley Shasta Valley
1-5 Scott River Valley
Sonoma
1-49 Annapolis Ohlson
Ranch Farm Highlands
1-50 Knights Valley
1-54.01 Alexander Valley 1-54.01 Alexander Area
1-54.02 Alexander Valley 1-54.02 Cloverdale Area
1-55.01 Santa Rosa Valley 1-55.01 Santa Rosa Plain
1-55.02 Santa Rosa Valley 1-55.02 Healdsburg Area
1-55.03 Santa Rosa Valley 1-55.03 Rincon Valley
1-57 Bodega Bay Area
1-59 Wilson Grove
Formation Highlands
1-60 Lower Russian River Valley
1-61 Fort Ross Terrace Deposits
2-19 Kenwood Valley
Trinity
1-34 Dinsmores Town Area
1-35 Hyampom Valley
1-36 Hettenshaw Valley
1-6 Hayfork Valley
1-62 Wilson Point Area
Source: California Department of Water Resources
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix E. County Profile 213
Table E-16 Land Cover Types of North Coast Counties

COUNTY LAND COVER TYPE ACRES
Del Norte
Agriculture 10,628.80
Barren/Other 8,510.29
Conifer Forest 487,921.47
Hardwood Forest 77,299.17
Hardwood Woodland 14.46
Herbaceous 5,401.47
Shrub 46,848.97
Urban 5,521.78
Water 5,482.20
Wetland 1,195.36
Glenn
Barren/Other 124.98
Conifer Forest 47,658.70
Hardwood Forest 3,150.19
Herbaceous 1,191.58
Shrub 2,229.93
Water 8.90
Wetland 61.60
Humboldt
Agriculture 45,241.74
Barren/Other 23,829.80
Conifer Forest 1,524,873.63
Hardwood Forest 359,476.27
Hardwood Woodland 22,806.12
Herbaceous 223,703.23
Shrub 57,672.81
Urban 19,441.99
Water 14,456.18
Wetland 2226.15
Lake
Barren/Other 996.99
Conifer Forest 106,502.63
Hardwood Forest 27,644.72
Hardwood Woodland 3,680.15
Herbaceous 3,554.28
Shrub 47,464.78
Water 2,122.29
Wetland 404.31
Marin
Agriculture 1,911.02
Barren/Other 23.57
Conifer Forest 9.34
Hardwood Forest 78.28
Hardwood Woodland 683.86
Herbaceous 19,074.16
Shrub 589.56
Urban 64.49
Water 196.37
Wetland 73.390
Mendocino
Agriculture 50,811.56
Barren/Other 11,058.47
Conifer Forest 1,134,790.82
Hardwood Forest 637,072.97
Hardwood Woodland 27,779.26
Herbaceous 233,775.61

COUNTY LAND COVER TYPE ACRES
Shrub 131,354.10
Urban 13,277.94
Water 5,560.26
Wetland 233.51
Modoc
Agriculture 47,977.17
Barren/Other 980.08
Conifer Forest 123,428.92
Conifer Woodland 180,084.51
Hardwood Forest 17.12
Herbaceous 6,263.46
Shrub 342,761.69
Urban 9.56
Water 42,876.60
Wetland 7,050.29
Siskiyou
Agriculture 187,325.83
Barren/Other 36,332.70
Conifer Forest 1,941,716.03
Conifer Woodland 170,262.10
Desert Shrub 2.67
Hardwood Forest 188,799.85
Hardwood Woodland 648.94
Herbaceous 207,459.24
Shrub 496,447.33
Urban 5,614.96
Water 45,896.69
Wetland 46,830.07
Sonoma
Agriculture 99,451.46
Barren/Other 4,450.07
Conifer Forest 206,174.03
Hardwood Forest 242,044.82
Hardwood Woodland 29,422.74
Herbaceous 160,894.71
Shrub 38,626.23
Urban 44,364.40
Water 7,804.20
Wetland 243.52
Trinity
Agriculture 742.12
Barren/Other 20,984.51
Conifer Forest 1,570,185.87
Conifer Woodland 25.13
Hardwood Forest 235,784.25
Hardwood Woodland 7,776.84
Herbaceous 45,974.75
Shrub 146,710.96
Urban 1,544.29
Water 21,064.79
Wetland 1,925.70
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALFIRE 214 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table E-17 E-Land Use Types of North Coast Counties

COUNTY LAND USE ACRES
Del Norte
Barren 8,285.01
Commercial and Services 87.62
Conifer Forest 487,409.75
Cropland and Pasture 10,575.65
Hardwood Forest 77,041.41
Herbaceous Rangeland 5,056.09
Lakes 3,077.47
Nonforested Wetland 1,191.36
Other Urban or Built-up Land 2.22
Residential 1,043.02
Rural Development 5,460.18
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 46,808.94
Streams and Canals 1040.57
Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities 380.51
Glenn
Water 1,364.16
Barren 124.98
Conifer Forest 47,658.70
Hardwood Forest 3,150.19
Herbaceous Rangeland 1,191.58
Lakes 8.90
Nonforested Wetland 61.60
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 2,229.93
Humboldt
Barren 23,570.04
Bays and Estuaries 24.46
Commercial and Services 445.67
Conifer Forest 1,522,566.31
Cropland and Pasture 45,192.59
Hardwood Forest 381,311.42
Herbaceous Rangeland 221,390.35
Lakes 9,014.01
Nonforested Wetland 2,179.67
Other Urban or Built-up Land 58.49
Residential 4,829.70
Rural Development 18,960.51
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 57,526.70
Streams and Canals 5,103.91
Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities 1,240.28
Water 313.80
Lake
Barren 989.65
Commercial and Services 22.69
Conifer Forest 106,477.28
Hardwood Forest 31,283.50
Herbaceous Rangeland 3,532.70
Lakes 2,122.29
Nonforested Wetland 403.42
Other Urban or Built-up Land 79.39
Residential 32.47
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 4,7426.75
Marin
Barren 23.57
Conifer Forest 9.34

COUNTY LAND USE ACRES
Cropland and Pasture 1,911.02
Hardwood Forest 762.14
Herbaceous Rangeland 19,071.93
Lakes 1,96.37
Nonforested Wetland 73.39
Rural Development 64.49
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 589.56
Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities 2.22
Mendocino
Barren 10,989.97
Commercial and Services 64.49
Conifer Forest 1,134,264.20
Cropland and Pasture 50,688.13
Hardwood Forest 664,278.02
Herbaceous Rangeland 233,046.60
Lakes 5,191.08
Nonforested Wetland 227.29
Other Urban or Built-up Land 89.18
Residential 1,308.33
Rural Development 13,070.23
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 131,338.09
Streams and Canals 329.14
Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities 789.72
Water 40.03
Modoc
Barren 980.08
Commercial and Services 38.47
Conifer Forest 303,460.28
Cropland and Pasture 47,900.66
Hardwood Forest 17.12
Herbaceous Rangeland 6,263.46
Lakes 42,876.60
Nonforested Wetland 7,042.72
Other Urban or Built-up Land 1.33
Residential 54.26
Rural Development 9.56
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 342,637.15
Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities 167.68
Siskiyou
Barren 3,6024.46
Commercial and Services 435.89
Conifer Forest 2,111,430.16
Cropland and Pasture 187,155.25
Hardwood Forest 189,276.43
Herbaceous Rangeland 206,740.25
Lakes 44,543.65
Nonforested Wetland 46,698.63
Other Urban or Built-up Land 95.41
Residential 760.80
Rural Development 5,203.76
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 495,987.42
Streams and Canals 404.53
Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities 1,631.25
Water 948.50
Sonoma
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile 215

COUNTY LAND USE ACRES
Barren 4,366.23
Commercial and Services 87.62
Conifer Forest 205,042.50
Cropland and Pasture 99,397.42
Hardwood Forest 269,688.65
Herbaceous Rangeland 159,197.19
Lakes 6,748.94
Nonforested Wetland 234.85
Other Urban or Built-up Land 135.66
Residential 4,470.31
Rural Development 44,110.65
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 38,579.31
Streams and Canals 1,055.03
Transportation, Communications,
and Utilities 361.61
Water 0.22
Trinity
Barren 20,911.56
Commercial and Services 80.28
Conifer Forest 1,570,020.41
Cropland and Pasture 742.12
Hardwood Forest 243,496.60
Herbaceous Rangeland 45,952.06
Lakes 21,047.22
Nonforested Wetland 1,922.81
Other Urban or Built-up Land 7.12
Residential 345.60
Rural Development 1,508.27
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 146,599.10
Streams and Canals 17.57
Communications and Utilities 68.50
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALFIRE 216 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX F.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

AREA PROFILE
Following are descriptions of each Watershed
Management Area (WMA, as defined by the SWRCB
WMI); see Watershed Management Areas Map.

Where possible, the WMA profiles describe of
a range of surface and groundwater conditions
and examples of some water-related issues that
have been identified by local stakeholders. Tables
that summarize select Region attributes at the
WMA (basin) level follow these descriptions.

Klamath Watershed Management Area
The Klamath WMA has been divided into three
sub-basins: Lower Klamath, Middle Klamath and the
Upper Klamath and includes the hydrologic basins of
the Klamath, Lower Klamath, Salmon River, Middle
Klamath, Scott River, Shasta River, Upper Klamath,
Butte Valley and Lost River. The Klamath River and its
estuary are designated as a Critical Coastal Area.

The Lower Klamath sub-watershed includes the
Klamath River and its tributaries downstream from
the Scott River, excluding the Trinity River. It covers 2,564 square miles and includes the Salmon and Blue
Rivers and the Klamath River delta/estuary (NCRWQCB
2005). This sub-watershed contains mountainous
terrain that has historically supported the silvicultural economy of the small communities along the Lower
Klamath River. Limited mining activities also occurred
in the Region historically. Salmon fishing has been
important in the Region since time immemorial by the
Karuk and Yurok Tribes, which have their ancestral
communities along the River. Today, recreational
fishing joins traditional fishing as an important part
of the area’s economic and social structure.

The Middle Klamath basin encompasses the portion of the Klamath River and tributaries between the confluence of the Klamath and Scott Rivers and Iron Gate Dam including the mainstem of the Klamath River and the Shasta and
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile 217
Scott River watersheds. The basin covers 2,850 square
miles (NCRWQCB 2005). Both the Shasta and Scott
Rivers receive water from precipitation and snowmelt.

The small towns in the watershed, including Etna, Fort
Jones, and Callahan, have historically had a silvicultural and agricultural economic base. In the 1800’s, the
alluvial plains were mined extensively and more recently, channeling for flood control has altered the morphological characteristics of these systems. Yreka and Weed
contain the largest populations in this sub-watershed.

The Upper Klamath basin encompasses the area
upstream of the Iron Gate Dam. Only a small part of this area is located in California. The primary sub-watershed in California is the Lost River watershed, which covers approximately 1,689 square miles and includes the Clear Lake Reservoir (NCRWQCB 2005). The area around Clear
Lake is characterized by high desert streams and is
sparsely settled. Land uses in the California portion of the basin are primarily crop agriculture, grazing, and lands administered for the National Wildlife Refuge. The basin is subject to many complex jurisdictional issues associated with water delivery and utilization of water infrastructure facilities including issues related to irrigation, hydropower, endangered species, Tribal rights and lake level
management demands for the Upper Klamath Lake. In
addition, the Irongate fish hatchery has an NPDES permit, which has a stipulated minimum flow requirement.

Trinity River Watershed Management Area
The Trinity River WMA drains an area of approximately
2,900 square miles of mountainous terrain. The Trinity
River is the largest tributary to the Klamath River; from its headwaters in the Klamath and Coast ranges, the
river flows 172 miles south and west through Trinity
County, then north through Humboldt County and the
Hoopa Valley and Yurok reservations to its confluence
with the Klamath River (NCRWQCB 2005). Much of
the WMA is prone to seismically induced landslides,
especially during winter months when soils are saturated.

Additionally, inner valley gorges are considered highly unstable. Groundwater resources are relatively plentiful throughout the WMA, but are not well defined. Annual
precipitation averages 57 inches/year with a low of 37
inches in Weaverville and Hayfork and a higher rainfall of 75 inches in Trinity Center and 85 inches in the Hoopa Mountains. There are occasional summer thunderstorms
that produce extensive runoff and may start wild fires.

The Trinity River watershed is primarily rural with human populations centered near Trinity Center, Weaverville,
Lewiston, Hayfork and Hyampom. Timber harvest has
traditionally been a large factor in the economy on
both federal and private land. The US Forest Service
(USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
manage approximately 80 percent of the land in the
218 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Trinity WMA; of the remaining 20 percent, about half
are industrial timberlands (NCRWQCB 2005).

In the early 1950s two major water-development features were installed above river-mile 112 and the community of Lewiston. This “Trinity River Diversion (TRD)” consists of Lewiston Dam and its reservoir and related facilities and Trinity Dam and its reservoir (known as Trinity Lake). The TRD project diverts a majority of the upper-basin’s water yield at Lewiston for power generation and to support
the US Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR) Central Valley
Project (CVP). The hydrologic changes produced by the
TRD project have altered stream-channel conditions and
instream habitat for many miles below Lewiston. Trinity River downstream of the TRD provides habitat not only
for anadromous salmonids and other native species,
but also the non-native brown trout (Salmo trutta).

Water quality in the basin ranges from the high quality, pristine waters that emerge from the Trinity Alps
wilderness to various degrees of impairment in the
mainstem and southern tributaries which are caused in
part by human activity. Timber harvest, road construction, and associated activities are recognized as sources of
sedimentation and high summer water temperatures.

Mining for gold, both currently and historically, is also a source of impairment. Recreational instream dredging
causes sedimentation, especially in the mainstem and
canyon areas, and legacy effects from historic gold mining include acid mine drainage and mercury pollution.

Humboldt Bay Watershed Management Area
The Humboldt Bay WMA encompasses waterbodies that
drain to the Pacific Ocean from Humboldt Bay north to
Redwood Creek. The major river systems in the WMA are
the Mad River and Redwood Creek; other waterbodies
include Humboldt Bay and Mad River Slough, and
coastal lagoons (Big, Stone, and Freshwater Lagoons)
and streams (Elk and Little Rivers and Freshwater,
Jacoby, and Maple Creeks). In the east, the terrain is
elevated hillslope with coastal plain occurring in the
west. Precipitation ranges from 32 to 98 inches annually.

Redwood Creek, the Kelpbeds at Trinidad Head, and
the Mad River are the Critical Coastal Areas that occur in this WMA (NCRWQCB, 2005). The streams support
production of anadromous salmonids, including steelhead and cutthroat trout, coho and Chinook salmon.

Mad River
The Mad River watershed has a long history of timber
harvest on both USFS and private land. Gravel mining
occurs in the lower portions of the watershed. Private
landowners conduct grazing and limited agriculture
in the flat areas around the bay. Humboldt Bay is an
important commercial and recreational shellfish growing and harvest area and provides the largest port between
San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon. Urbanized areas
include Trinidad, McKinleyville, Arcata, and Eureka
and rural residential areas are scattered throughout
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile 219
the WMA. The majority of the population lives in the
Humboldt Bay area cities of Arcata and Eureka.

The Mad River is CWA section 303(d) listed for sediment and temperature impacts. The primary issues for water
quality are forestry related, with urbanization and
associated industrial and public nonpoint sources. The
drinking water for most of the Humboldt Bay area is
supplied by Ranney Collectors in Mad River with other
coastal streams providing drinking water for other
communities. Mad River is continuously supplied with
water via releases from the Ruth Reservoir (with 48,030 acre-foot storage capacity), although these supplies are dependent on adequate precipitation and flows through
the season. The Eureka waterfront was the site of several industrial operations that left the soil and groundwater contaminated with heavy metals, petroleum products,
and pentachlorophenols (PCPs). The waterfront is now
undergoing redevelopment and decontamination efforts.

Redwood Creek
Redwood Creek flows into the Pacific Ocean near
the town of Orick and is located about 35 miles
north of Eureka. Redwood Creek drains a 285-mi2
area and is about 67 miles long. The watershed
is located entirely within Humboldt County.

Redwood Creek is a basin of mixed ownership and
contains a rich blend of industrial and non-industrial
timberlands, coastal and upland agricultural lands, state and federal national parks, other federal properties,
and the unincorporated town of Orick. Redwood Creek
supports three federally listed as threatened salmonids species as well as the non-listed coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and resident fish species (RNSP 1997). The
watershed also provides domestic water supplies to
rural communities and recreational opportunities. At
the coast, Redwood Creek discharges into a designated
Water Quality Protection Area (formerly known as
Areas of Special Biological Significance) (SWRCB 2001,
SWRCB 2003) and a Critical Coastal Area (CCC 2003).

Redwood Creek is a model watershed where government
agencies, private landowners, non-profit organizations
and the local communities are cooperating to restore
and protect water quality and the associated aquatic and riparian resources, and provide economic opportunity
to the Orick community. The watershed has a rich
history of scientific studies that spans decades and wellestablished cooperation between groups with seemly conflicting interests. The watershed is home to pioneering work in watershed restoration and erosion control.

The watershed is a mixed ownership of private (56
percent) and public (44 percent) lands. More than 90
percent of the private lands are managed for timber
production and ranching by eight private landowners. The upper two-thirds of the watershed contain vast expanses of timber and ranch lands managed primarily by seven
landowners. Timberlands have been maintained in
large unbroken tracts of lands, which have slowed rural residential development in upland areas (RNSP 2001).

Located along the coast, the small town of Orick is the only municipality in the watershed and has a population of about 315 people (HC 2003). Orick is located in the valley, relatively isolated from other north coast communities
and qualifies as a “disadvantaged community.” The Orick valley contains the coastal floodplain of Redwood Creek and is one of only two groundwater basins identified
in the watershed (DWR 2003). Orick is located in the
valley. Orick is the major socioeconomic center in the
watershed. It is located along U.S. Highway 101 and is the southern gateway to Redwood National and State Parks.

Redwood National Park and Prairie Creek Redwoods State
Park are located in the lower part of the Redwood Creek basin. This sub basin has been extensively researched
and is considered a “reference watershed” that displays nearly pristine conditions, and is home to significant
old growth stands of coast redwood. In 1982 the park
received international recognition when it was designated as both a World Heritage Site and International
Biosphere Reserve. The protection of streamside
redwoods along Redwood Creek was a central issue for
the establishment and expansion of Redwood National
Park and is linked to upstream watershed conditions.
220 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Eel River Watershed Management Area
The Eel River WMA encompasses roughly 3,684 square
miles (NCRWQCB, 2005). The Eel River and its tributaries comprise the third largest river system in California, and the largest river system draining to Humboldt County’s
coast. The main tributaries to the Eel River are the
Van Duzen River, the Bear River, Yager, Larabee, Bull
and Salmon Creeks. Lake Pillsbury is located near the
headwaters of the mainstem Eel. The upper watershed
is mountainous and soils are steep and highly erodible.

The Eel River is designated as a Critical Coastal Area.

In the west, the river meanders on a coastal plain and
is joined by the Salt River. Several dairies are located on the coastal plain, as well as several small towns.

Other communities in the watershed include Scotia,
Garberville, Laytonville, and Willits. In many of the alluvial valleys, surface and groundwater are closely connected, thus surface water withdrawals have a substantial
effect on local groundwater supplies. A Northwestern
railroad line following along the Eel River has fallen into disrepair due to numerous landslides and accidents.

Recently, reviving the railroad has been discussed, but the costs may outweigh the benefits (NCRWQCB 2005).

The rail line has negatively impacted water quality. The Eel River WMA is a well-known recreation destination
with numerous state and private campgrounds along
its length; beneficial uses include both water contact
and non-contact uses such as swimming and boating.

The river also supports a large recreational fishing
industry; it is the third largest producer of salmon
and steelhead in the State of California (NCRWQCB
2005). Due to the erodible soils, steep terrain, and
land use history, there is significant concern for the
viability of this anadromous fishery resource.

North Coast Rivers Watershed Management Area
The North Coast rivers not included in other WMAs are
included in this grouping. The major watersheds south
of the Oregon border include the Smith River, Bear River, Mattole River, Ten Mile River, Noyo River, Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, Greenwood, Elk and Alder Creeks,
Garcia River and Gualala River (NCRWQCB, 2005). The
twelve Critical Coastal Areas in the North Coast WMA
are the Mattole River, King Range National Conservation Area, Pudding Creek, Noyo River, the Pygmy Forest
Ecological Staircase, Big River, Albion River, Navarro
River, Garcia River, the Kelpbeds at Saunders Reef, Del Mar Landing Ecological Reserve, and Gerstle Cove.

Mattole River
The headwaters of the Mattole River begin in
Mendocino County, and it flows north 62 river miles,
through steep, forested lands in Humboldt County and
into the ocean ten miles south of Cape Mendocino.

Tributaries to the Mattole River include Mill, Squaw,
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile 221
Bear, Thompson, Honeydew, and Bridge Creeks. The
watershed encompasses approximately 304 square
miles and is subject to varying rainfall; near the coast, the river receives about 50 inches per year while near
the headwaters, about 115 inches of rain fall per year.

The largest communities are Petrolia, Honeydew and
Whitethorn, but the 2000-person population is scattered throughout the watershed. Small landowners — those
with less than 450 acres — own about 43 percent of the
watershed, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns
about 12 percent, and commercial timber companies
own most of the remaining land. Silviculture and
ranching are the predominant businesses; water quality
problems are those associated with timber harvest,
road building, forest conversion, and overgrazing. Fish species known to inhabit the Mattole River include
coho, Chinook, steelhead, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), and brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon fossor);
other species include the southern torrent salamander
(Rhyacotriton variegatus) and tailed frog (Ascaphus truei).

Ten Mile River
The Ten Mile River watershed covers approximately 120
square miles (NCRWQCB 2005). It is about eight miles
north of the City of Fort Bragg and shares ridges with
Pudding Creek and the North Fork of the Noyo River
to the south and Wages Creek and the South Fork of
the Eel River to the north. Elevations range between
sea level and 3,205 feet (NCRWQCB 2005). Near the
coast, the terrain is comprised of an estuary and a
broad river floodplain with more rugged mountainous
topography in the eastern portion of the watershed.

Most of the basin, except the northeast grasslands,
coastal plain, and estuary, is characterized by narrow
drainages bordered by steep to moderately steep
slopes. The watershed has abundant rainfall and cool
temperatures during the winter with dry, warm summers
interspersed with breezes and coastal fog. Precipitation in the western part of the watershed is about 70 inches per year while about 40 inches per year occurs in the
eastern part of the watershed (NCRWQCB 2005).

The watershed is entirely privately owned. Hawthorne
Timber Company, LLC, which is managed by
Campbell Timberland Management, LLC, owns
about 85 percent of the watershed. Three small
non-industrial timber owners and a few residences
make up the remainder of the ownership. The
watershed has a long history of timber harvest.

The cold water fishery that supports coho, Chinook,
and steelhead is the primary — and most sensitive —
beneficial use in the watershed. Protection of these
species is considered to protect any of the other
beneficial uses identified in the watershed that could
be impaired due to water quality (NCRWQCB 2005).

Noyo River
The Noyo River watershed encompasses the 113 square
mile coastal drainage system immediately west of the
City of Willits, flowing into the Pacific Ocean at the
City of Fort Bragg. The climate consists of moderate
temperatures — an annual average of 53 degrees F
— and an average annual rainfall of 40–65 inches.

Silviculture is the primary land use within the watershed.

Approximately 50 percent of the watershed is owned by
two commercial silviculture operations: the Mendocino
Redwood Company and Hawthorne Timber Company
(managed by Campbell Timberland Management). The
Jackson Demonstration State Forest (administered
by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection) encompasses about 19 percent of the
watershed. Critical Coastal Areas in the vicinity of the watershed include Pudding Creek, Noyo River, and the
Pygmy Forest Ecological Staircase (NCRWQCB 2005).

Minor land uses in the basin include ranching and
recreation. The mouth of the Noyo River contains a
marina and fish processing facilities in support of the local commercial fishing industry. The Noyo is the primary drinking water source for the City of Fort Bragg and
also provides habitat for steelhead, coho, and Chinook.

It is listed as impaired by sediment, due in part to
timber harvest, grazing, and related human activities.

Big River
The Big River watershed drains about 181 square miles
(NCRWQCB 2005). The watershed drains from east to
west, and shares ridges with the Noyo River watershed
to the north, the Eel River watershed to the east, and
the Little, Albion and Navarro Rivers watersheds to the south. The Big River estuary is located immediately
south of the town of Mendocino. The climate is
characterized by a pattern of low-intensity rainfall in the winter and cool, dry summers with coastal fog.

Mean annual precipitation is approximately 40 inches
near the western part of the watershed and about 51
inches at Willits to the east (NCRWQCB 2005). The
Big River is designated a Critical Coastal Area.

The predominant current and historic land use is
silviculture with less area used for ranching. The largest community is the Town of Mendocino. Together, the
five largest property owners — four private timber
companies and Jackson State Demonstration Forest —
own 83 percent of the watershed. Thirty-one property
owners own another 14 percent of the land (parcels
from 160 to 3,760 acres), and private residences make
up the rest of the land use. In 2002, most of the Big
River Estuary, and some associated upland areas were
added to the California State Park System. The Big River Parcel consists of 7,334 acres, which, when added to the surrounding State Park system, creates a 74,000-acre
222 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 wildlife corridor linking coastal and inland habitats into the largest piece of connected public land contained
entirely within Mendocino County (NCRWQCB 2005).

Coho, steelhead, and Chinook currently inhabit the
Big River watershed, but population numbers are low
compared to historic levels. The estuary and lower
river provide critical habitat for spawning, rearing, and staging for adult, juvenile, and smolting salmonids.

Albion River
The Albion River watershed drains approximately 43
square miles (NCRWQCB 2005). It drains primarily
from east to west, and shares ridges with the Big River watershed to the north and northeast and the Navarro
River watershed to the south and southeast. The Albion
River estuary is located near the town of Albion, about 16 miles south of the City of Fort Bragg. Elevations
range from sea level to 1,566 feet and the watershed is dominated by relatively flat marine terraces that extend several miles inland and are incised by gorges carved
by the major river channels and streams (NCRWQCB
2005). The climate in the watershed is characterized by a pattern of low intensity rainfall in the winter and cool, dry summers with coastal fog. Mean annual precipitation is about 40 inches near the western margin of the
watershed and about 50 to 55 inches to the east at Willits (NCRWQCB 2005). The main tributaries of the Albion River include Railroad Gulch, Pleasant Valley Creek, Duck Pond Gulch, South Fork Albion River, Tom Bell Creek, North
Fork Albion River, and Marsh Creek. The Albion River
estuary has been designated as a Critical Coastal Area.

Over half of the watershed (54%) is owned by Mendocino
Redwood Company. Smaller industrial timberland
ownerships, some ranches, and numerous smaller
parcels that are mostly residences comprise the other
half (NCRWQCB 2005). The predominant historic and
current land use is silviculture, with some agricultural and recreational uses. The Albion River estuary, which
remains open to the sea year round, is used as a
commercial and sport fishing harbor for small boats. The river and estuary have historically served as habitat for coho, chinook, and steelhead. Beneficial uses associated with the coldwater fishery are the most sensitive of
the beneficial uses in the watershed; protection of
these beneficial uses is thought to serve to protect
other beneficial uses harmed by excessive sediment.

Navarro River
The Navarro River watershed encompasses approximately
315 square miles. The Navarro River flows through the
coastal range, Anderson Valley, and into the Pacific
Ocean. The Navarro River watershed is the largest
coastal basin in Mendocino County. Rainfall averages
about 40 inches per year at Philo and mostly occurs
between December and March (NCRWQCB 2005). The
Navarro River is a designated Critical Coastal Area.

Land-uses in the watershed include silviculture (70%),
rangeland (25%), and agriculture (5%) with a small
percentage devoted to rural residential development
(NCRWQCB 2005). Timber production, ranching and
other agricultural activities are historic activities
that continue to the present day, while the fishery
has decreased. Anderson Valley today supports
orchards and a growing viticulture industry.

Greenwood Creek
The Greenwood Creek watershed encompasses
approximately 25 square miles and is located on the
southern Mendocino Coast with Greenwood Ridge as
its northern border, Clift Ridge as its southern border, and Signal Ridge as its eastern border. Greenwood
Creek is a Class I coastal stream and provides
habitat for steelhead and coho (NCRWQCB 2005).

Land use in the watershed is primarily for timber
production, viticulture, fruit orchards, residential
and some cattle ranching. Most of the watershed
is privately owned; Mendocino Redwood Company
holds about 60 percent as Timber Production Zone
(TPZ) land, and approximately 50 smaller landowners
own the rest of the land within the watershed
(NCRWQCB 2005). The only public land in or adjacent
to Greenwood Creek is Greenwood State Beach, which
contains the Greenwood Creek estuary, and a small
parcel owned by the Elk County Water District.

Garcia River
The Garcia River watershed encompasses approximately
114 square miles in southwestern Mendocino County
(NCRWQCB 2005). The river forms an estuary
that extends from the ocean to the confluence
of Hathaway Creek. The floodplains of the lower
portion of the watershed are primarily cropland.

The watershed contains the Garcia River and the
Kelpbeds at Saunders Reef Critical Coastal Areas.

The primary historic land uses include silviculture, dairy ranching, and gravel mining; these have not changed
during the past two decades. Timber harvesting remains
the dominant land use activity, but hillside vineyard
development is becoming a concern for production
of sediment as land is increasingly converted to new
vineyards. The entire watershed is privately owned by
multiple owners (NCRWQCB 2005). The river and estuary
provide habitat for salmonids and identified beneficial uses include commercial and sport fishing. The Garcia
River has been listed as impaired due to sediment.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile 223
Gualala River
The Gualala River watershed encompasses about 300
square miles; the Gualala River flows from Mendocino to Sonoma County in a north-south direction, reaching the
ocean at the town of Gualala. The watershed contains
mostly mountainous terrain; tributaries flow through
steep valleys with narrow floors that contain erodible soil.

Most of the annual precipitation occurs between October and April, with the greatest amounts in January. Rainfall averages about 38 inches per year at the coast and up to 100 inches per year on the inland peaks (NCRWQCB 2005).

The primary historic land uses are silviculture,
orchards, and ranching with timber harvest still an
important industry. Timber companies own about
one-third of the watershed; Gualala Redwoods Inc. is
the largest commercial owner, holding about 30,000
acres (NCRWQCB 2005). Orchards and ranching are on
the decline while the watershed has seen an increase
in hillside vineyard development, which threatens
to continue to impair water quality with respect to
sediment delivery. The Gualala River provides the
primary source of drinking water for the towns of
Sea Ranch and Gualala. The watershed supports an
anadromous fishery that includes coho salmon.

Russian/Bodega Watershed Management Area
The Russian/Bodega WMA includes the Russian
River and Bodega hydrologic units including
the Bodega Harbor, Salmon Creek, Americano
Creek, and Stemple Creek watersheds.

Russian River Hydrologic Unit
The Russian River hydrologic unit (HU) encompasses
1,485 square miles in Mendocino and Sonoma counties.

It is bounded by the coast ranges to the east and west.

The mainstem is 110 miles long and flows from north
of Ukiah southward through Redwood Valley to its
confluence with Mark West Creek, where it turns west,
passes through the coast range, and empties into the
Pacific Ocean (NCRWQCB 2005). The summer climate
is moist and cool near the coast with temperatures
increasing in the valley areas, which are isolated from the cooling coastal influence. During winter, average
rainfall ranges from 30-80 inches, depending on locale.

The reservoirs that provide flood protection and water
supply storage include Lake Sonoma (Warm Springs Dam)
on Dry Creek west of Healdsburg and Lake Mendocino
(Coyote Valley Dam) on the East Fork Russian River near Ukiah. A diversion from the Eel River via the Potter Valley Project for the purpose of power production provides
considerable benefit to the overall water storage in Lake Mendocino. The Russian River hydrologic unit supplies
drinking water for more than 600,000 people in Sonoma
and northern Marin counties. It also provides water
for agricultural, municipal, and industrial purposes.

Bodega Hydrologic Unit
The Bodega HU contains streams with headwaters in
the Coast Range that enter the Pacific Ocean south of
the Russian River. Salmon, Americano, and Stemple
Creeks and their associated estuaries are the main
waterbodies in this HU. The terrain is relatively steep and erodible and is sensitive to disturbance. Cooler
temperatures and relatively high winter rainfall due to coastal influences typify the climate of the Bodega HU.

Because of the Mediterranean climate, summertime
flows are often non-existent in Americano and Stemple
Creeks, while Salmon Creek flow is low but sustained.

Each of these watersheds have estuary area, however,
the Estero Americano (Americano Creek) and the
Estero de San Antonio (Stemple Creek) are prized for
their resemblance to fjords and the enhanced resource
values associated with isolated estuarine environments.

Both of these estuaries as well as the Bodega Marine
Life Refuge are designated Critical Coastal Areas.
224 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table F-18 Land Owner Types of North Coast WMAs

WMA NAME LAND OWNER ACRES
Eel Watershed Management Area
Private Other 1,567,965.96
City 251.53
County 247.95
Federal 711,027.69
Non Profit 1,091.79
Special District 107.12
State 75,370.61
Humboldt Watershed
Management Area
Private Other 492,869.19
City 1,548.39
County 518.80
Federal 203,748.23
Non Profit 35.26
Special District 443.02
State 19,647.80
Klamath Watershed Management Area
Private Other 1,603,741.62
City 461.67
County 4.589
Federal 2,865,237.28
Non Profit 5,828.82
Special District 1,441.81
State 27,568.19
North Coast Watershed
Management Area
Private Other 1,228,591.74
City 61.06
County 762.29
Federal 484,439.96
Non Profit 45,443.82
Special District 8.56
State 140,189.78
Russian Bodega Watershed
Management Area
Private Other 940216.02
City 3064.84
County 3017.26
Federal 52058.89
Non Profit 10222.72
Special District 6755.76
State 28286.07
Trinity Watershed Management Area
Private Other 484,154.22
County 16.50
Federal 1,415,711.06
Special District 48.40
State 814.55
Source: California Protected Areas Database (CPAD — www.calands.org) Table F-19 Groundwater Basins of North Coast WMAs

WMA NAME GROUNDWATER BASINS SUB-BASINS
Eel WMA
1-10 Eel River Valley
1-11 Covelo Round Valley
1-12 Laytonville Valley
1-13 Little Lake Valley
1-30 Pepperwood Town Area
1-31 Weott Town Area
1-32 Garberville Town Area
1-33 Larabee Valley
1-34 Dinsmores Town Area
1-36 Hettenshaw Valley
1-38 Lower Laytonville Valley
1-39 Branscomb Town Area
1-42 Sherwood Valley
1-43 Williams Valley
1-44 Eden Valley
1-48 Gravelly Valley
1-9 Eureka Plain
Humboldt WMA
1-10 Eel River Valley
1-25 Prairie Creek Area
1-26 Redwood Creek Area
1-27 Big Lagoon Area
1-8.01 Mad River Valley 1-8.01 Dows
Prairie School
1-8.02 Mad River Valley 1-8.02 Mad River
Lowland
1-9 Eureka Plain
Klamath WMA
1-14 Lower Klamath River Valley
1-15 Happy Camp Town Area
1-16 Seiad Valley
1-17 Bray Town Area
1-18 Red Rock Valley
1-2.01 Klamath River Valley 1-2.01 Tule Lake
1-2.02 Klamath River Valley 1-2.02 Lower Klamath
1-22 Fairchild Swamp Valley
1-25 Prairie Creek Area
1-3 Butte Valley
1-4 Shasta Valley Shasta Valley
1-5 Scott River Valley
North Coast WMA
1-1 Smith River Plain
1-10 Eel River Valley
1-14 Lower Klamath River Valley
1-19 Anderson Valley
1-20 Garcia River Valley
1-21 Fort Bragg Terrace Area
1-28 Mattole River Valley
1-29 Honeydew Town Area
1-37 Cottoneva Creek Valley
1-40 Ten Mile River Valley
1-41 Little Valley
1-45 Big River Valley
1-46 Navarro River Valley
1-49 Annapolis Ohlson
Ranch Fm Highlands
1-61 Fort Ross Terrace Deposits
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile 225

WMA NAME GROUNDWATER BASINS SUB-BASINS
Russian Bodega
WMA
1-50 Knights Valley
1-51 Potter Valley
1-52 Ukiah Valley
1-53 Sanel Valley
1-54.01 Alexander Valley 1-54.01 Alexander Area
1-54.02 Alexander Valley 1-54.02 Cloverdale Area
1-55.01 Santa Rosa Valley 1-55.01 Santa Rosa Plain
1-55.02 Santa Rosa Valley 1-55.02 Healdsburg Area
1-55.03 Santa Rosa Valley 1-55.03 Rincon Valley
1-56 Mcdowell Valley
1-57 Bodega Bay Area
1-59 Wilson Grove Formation Highlands
1-60 Lower Russian River Valley
1-61 Fort Ross Terrace Deposits
2-19 Kenwood Valley
Trinity WMA
1-35 Hyampom Valley
1-6 Hayfork Valley
1-62 Wilson Point Area
1-7 Hoopa Valley
Source: California Department of Water Resources
Table F-20 Land Cover Types of North Coast WMAs
WMA NAME TYPE (WHR13) ACRES
Eel WMA
Agriculture 4,4630.38
Barren/Other 20,522.82
Conifer Forest 1,254,520.47
Hardwood Forest 576,268.21
Hardwood Woodland 22,453.41
Herbaceous 260,219.18
Shrub 158,792.88
Urban 6,423.81
Water 10,638.37
Wetland 1,551.63
Humboldt WMA
Agriculture 12,300.08
Barren/Other 6,488.08
Conifer Forest 518,240.01
Hardwood Forest 84,656.35
Hardwood Woodland 3,622.55
Herbaceous 46,478.47
Shrub 26,508.74
Urban 13,763.20
Water 5,476.64
Wetland 1,250.96
Klamath WMA
Agriculture 235,705.75
Barren/Other 39,668.59
Conifer Forest 2,376,493.04
Conifer Woodland 350,346.61
Desert Shrub 2.67
Hardwood Forest 270,506.61
Hardwood Woodland 9,220.3909
Herbaceous 216,940.50
Shrub 853,362.52
Urban 5,954.11
Water 92,522.38
Wetland 53,520.52
WMA NAME TYPE (WHR13) ACRES
North Coast WMA
Agriculture 19,178.90
Barren/Other 17,262.32
Conifer Forest 1,326,623.44
Hardwood Forest 276,261.01
Hardwood Woodland 9,672.07
Herbaceous 161,341.05
Shrub 72,113.42
Urban 9,296.67
Water 5,930.09
Wetland 1,700.86
Russian Bodega WMA
Agriculture 131,002.27
Barren/Other 3,908.77
Conifer Forest 148,084.68
Hardwood Forest 365,092.12
Hardwood Woodland 39,326.77
Herbaceous 209,169.89
Shrub 84,953.47
Urban 51,733.82
Water 10,012.78
Wetland 316.91
Trinity WMA
Agriculture 1,272.31
Barren/Other 19,441.10
Conifer Forest 1,519,306.48
Conifer Woodland 25.13
Hardwood Forest 198,583.56
Hardwood Woodland 8,517.19
Herbaceous 13,144.28
Shrub 114,976.45
Urban 2,667.82
Water 20,888.21
Wetland 1,903.01
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALFIRE 226 Appendix F. Watershed Management Area Profile
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table F-21 Land Use Types of North Coast WMAs

WMA LAND USE ACRES
Eel WMA
Barren 20,421.63
Commercial and Services 118.09
Conifer Forest 1,253,917.79
Cropland and Pasture 44,592.13
Hardwood Forest 598,239.24
Herbaceous Rangeland 259,458.15
Lakes 8,081.96
Nonforested Wetland 1,550.74
Other Urban or Built-up Land 132.55
Residential 1,145.10
Rural Development 6,266.13
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 158,742.40
Streams and Canals 2,556.40
Transportation, Communications, Utilities 798.83
Humboldt WMA
Barren 6,331.51
Bays and Estuaries 24.46
Commercial and Services 305.57
Conifer Forest 516,429.07
Cropland and Pasture 12,281.85
Hardwood Forest 87,538.78
Herbaceous Rangeland 44,656.40
Lakes 4,720.50
Nonforested Wetland 1,205.14
Other Urban or Built-up Land 33.14
Residential 4,076.23
Rural Development 13,444.07
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 26,365.96
Streams and Canals 687.19
Transportation, Communications, Utilities 640.71
Water 44.48
Klamath WMA
Barren 39284.74
Commercial and Services 547.53
Conifer Forest 2726162.70
Cropland and Pasture 235458.67
Hardwood Forest 279509.28
Herbaceous Rangeland 216200.82
Lakes 87952.88
Nonforested Wetland 53378.19
Other Urban or Built-up Land 96.74
Residential 825.74
Rural Development 5527.56
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 852774.07
Streams and Canals 3062.57
Transportation, Communications, Utilities 1955.27
Water 1506.93

WMA LAND USE ACRES
North Coast WMA
Barren 17,057.72
Commercial and Services 90.96
Conifer Forest 1,325,779.68
Cropland and Pasture 19,100.62
Hardwood Forest 285,652.87
Herbaceous Rangeland 160,648.74
Lakes 4,656.45
Nonforested Wetland 1,693.96
Other Urban or Built-up Land 103.19
Residential 1622.80
Rural Development 9207.49
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 72065.61
Streams and Canals 158.34
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 426.10
Water 1115.30
Russian Bodega WMA
Barren 3,820.26
Commercial and Services 94.29
Conifer Forest 146,923.12
Cropland and Pasture 130,857.27
Hardwood Forest 402,336.18
Herbaceous Rangeland 207,386.07
Lakes 8,957.75
Nonforested Wetland 308.24
Other Urban or Built-up Land 73.39
Residential 4,826.81
Rural Development 51,339.96
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 84,906.55
Streams and Canals 1,055.03
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 716.55
Trinity WMA
Barren 19,349.92
Commercial and Services 106.30
Conifer Forest 1,519,133.24
Cropland and Pasture 1272.31
Hardwood Forest 207,029.36
Herbaceous Rangeland 13,092.91
Lakes 20,456.99
Nonforested Wetland 1,899.45
Other Urban or Built-up Land 29.80
Residential 347.82
Rural Development 2,602.44
Shrub and Brush Rangeland 114,869.48
Streams and Canals 431.22
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 104.30
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALFIRE NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas 227
APPENDIX G.

NORTH COAST REGION

PROTECTED AREAS
Table G-22 Protected Area Listing

AGENCY/ ENTITY NAME UNIT NAME LOCATION
California Academy of Sciences Pepperwood Ranch Natural Preserve Sonoma California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Atascadero Creek
Ecological Reserve Sonoma
California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Bracut Tidelands Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Butte Valley WA Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Cedar Point Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Cemetery Hole FA Trinity California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife China Point ER Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Crescent City Marsh WA Del Norte California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Deadwood Hole FA Trinity California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Eel River WA Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Eel River--Rio Dell FA Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Elk Creek Wetlands WA Del Norte California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Fay Slough WA Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Grass Lake WA Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Harrison Grade Serpentine Sonoma California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Healdsburg FA Sonoma California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Horseshoe Ranch WA Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Indian Creek PA Trinity California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Irongate FH Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Klamath River FA Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Klamathon Station Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Laguna De Santa Rosa ER Sonoma California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Laguna Wildlife Area Sonoma California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Lake Earl WA Del Norte California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Lewiston FA Trinity California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Little Butte ER Mendocino California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Little Red Mountain ER Mendocino California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Luffenholtz Creek FA Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Mad River FH Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Mad River Slough WA Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Mattole River ER Mendocino California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Mill Creek Mendocino California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Mud Lake WA Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Noyo River FA Mendocino California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Owl Creek ER Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Pebble Beach FA Del Norte California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Samoa Peninsula PA Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Shasta River FA Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Shasta Valley WA Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Sheepy Ridge WA Siskiyou California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Smith River FA Del Norte California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife South Fork Eel River FA Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife South Kibesillah Gulch FA Mendocino California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife South Spit Humboldt Bay Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Table Bluff ER Humboldt California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Theiller Sebastopol Meadowfoam ER Sonoma
California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Trinity River FA Trinity California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife WAukell Creek WA Del Norte California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Yorkville ER Mendocino California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Yreka Screen Shop Siskiyou CDF/ CAL FIRE Ellen Pickett State Forest Trinity

AGENCY/ ENTITY NAME UNIT NAME LOCATION
CDF/ CAL FIRE Jackson Demonstration
State Forest Mendocino
California Dept of Parks & Recreation Admiral William Standley State Recreation Area Mendocino
California Dept of Parks & Recreation Annadel State Park Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Armstrong Redwoods State Reserve Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Austin Creek State Recreation Area Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Benbow Lake State Recreation Area Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Bothe-Napa Valley State Park Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Caspar Headlands State Beach Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Caspar Headlands State Natural Reserve Mendocino
California Dept of Parks & Recreation Del Norte Redwoods State Park Del Norte California Dept of Parks & Recreation Fort Humboldt SHP Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Fort Ross State Historic Park Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Greenwood State Beach Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Grizzly Creek Redwoods State Park Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Harry A. Merlo State Recreation Area Humboldt
California Dept of Parks & Recreation Hendy Woods State Park Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Humboldt Lagoons State Park Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park Del Norte
California Dept of Parks & Recreation John B. Dewitt Redwoods State Reserve Humboldt
California Dept of Parks & Recreation Jug Handle State Reserve Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Kruse Rhododendron State Reserve Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Little River State Beach Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation MacKerricher State Park Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Mailliard Redwoods State Reserve Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Manchester State Park Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Mendocino Headlands State Park Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Montgomery Woods State Reserve Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Navarro River Redwoods State Park Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Patrick’s Point State Park Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Pelican State Beach Del Norte California Dept of Parks & Recreation Point Cabrillo Light Station Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Reynolds Wayside Campgrounds Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Richardson Grove State Park Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Robert Louis Stevenson State Park Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Russian Gulch State Park Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Salt Point State Park Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Schooner Gulch State Beach Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Sinkyone Wilderness State Park Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Smithe Redwoods State Reserve Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Sonoma Coast State Beach Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Standish-Hickey State Recreation Area Mendocino
California Dept of Parks & Recreation Sugar Loaf Ridge State Park Sonoma California Dept of Parks & Recreation Tolowa Dunes State Park Del Norte California Dept of Parks & Recreation Trinidad State Beach Humboldt California Dept of Parks & Recreation Van Damme State Park Mendocino California Dept of Parks & Recreation Weaverville Joss House State Historic Park Trinity
California State Coastal Conservancy Santa Rosa Plain Vernal Pool ER Sonoma California State Lands Commission California State Lands Commission Trinity California State University, Sonoma Fairfield Osborn Preserve Sonoma Cloverdale, City of Cloverdale River Park Sonoma
Cotati, City of Helen Putnam Park Sonoma
Cotati, City of Kotate Park Sonoma
228 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

AGENCY/ ENTITY NAME UNIT NAME LOCATION
Cotati, City of La Plaza Park Sonoma
Cotati, City of Sunflower Park Sonoma
Cotati, City of Veterans Park Sonoma
Healdsburg, City of Badger Park and Community Garden Sonoma Healdsburg, City of Gibbs Park Sonoma
Healdsburg, City of Healdsburg Rec Park Sonoma
Healdsburg, City of Plaza Park Sonoma
Healdsburg, City of Railroad Park Sonoma
Land Trust of Napa County McCord Sonoma
Other State Other State Siskiyou
Rohnert Park, City of Alicia Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Benicia Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Caterpillar Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Colegio Vista Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Dorotea Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Eagle Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Golis Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Honeybee Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Ladybug Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Magnolia Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Rainbow Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of San Simeon Park Sonoma
Rohnert Park, City of Sunrise Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of A Place to Play Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Alpha Farm Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Bellevue Ranch Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Bicentennial Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Brendon Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Brown Farm Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Brush Creek Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Coffey Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Colgan Creek Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of DeMeo Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of DeTurk Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Doyle Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Dutch Flohr Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Eastside Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Finley Community Center Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Fir Ridge Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Fountain Grove Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Francis Nielsen Ranch Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Franklin Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Fremont Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Galvin Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Haydn Village Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Hidden Valley Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Howarth Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Humboldt Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Jacobs Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Jennings Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Julliard Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Kelly Farm Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Live Oak Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Martin Luther King Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Matanzas Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Mesquite Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of North Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Northwest Community Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Oak Lake Green Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Olive Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Palm Terrace Sonoma

AGENCY/ ENTITY NAME UNIT NAME LOCATION
Santa Rosa, City of Paulin Creek Preserve Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Pear Blossom Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Peter Springs Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Peterson Lane Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Pioneer Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Rae Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Red Hawk Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Rincon Ridge Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Rincon Valley Community Park Sonoma Santa Rosa, City of Rinconada Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Sebastopol Railroad Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Skyhawk Parks Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Sonoma Avenue Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of South Davis Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Southwest Community Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Steele Lane Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Stone Farm Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Strawberry Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Tanglewood Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Upper Brush Creek Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Village Green Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of West Park Sonoma
Santa Rosa, City of Youth Community Park Sonoma
Sebastopol, City of Ives Park Sonoma
Sebastopol, City of Laguna Youth Park Sonoma
Sebastopol, City of Spooner Park Sonoma
Sebastopol, City of Willard Libby Park Sonoma
Sonoma County Agricultural
Preservation & Open Space
District (SCAPOSD)
Bath/Watt Sonoma
SCAPOSD Cloverdale City Park Sonoma
SCAPOSD Carrington Ranch Sonoma
SCAPOSD Clover Springs Sonoma
SCAPOSD Coopers Grove Sonoma
SCAPOSD Cramer Sonoma
SCAPOSD Cresta Sonoma
SCAPOSD Furber Park Sonoma
SCAPOSD Haroutunian Sonoma
SCAPOSD Haroutunian — North Sonoma
SCAPOSD Ho Sonoma
SCAPOSD Hood Mountain Regional Park Sonoma
SCAPOSD Indian Valley Sonoma
SCAPOSD Jacobs Ranch Sonoma
SCAPOSD Keegan & Coppin Sonoma
SCAPOSD Nunes Sonoma
SCAPOSD Oken Sonoma
SCAPOSD Quailbrook Ranch Sonoma
SCAPOSD San Francisco Archdiocese Sonoma
SCAPOSD San Francisco Archdiocese II Sonoma
SCAPOSD Skiles Sonoma
SCAPOSD Tarman Park Sonoma
SCAPOSD Taylor Moutain Ranch Sonoma
SCAPOSD Van Alstyne Sonoma
SCAPOSD Wilroth — Donation Sonoma
SCAPOSD Wright Hill Ranch Sonoma
SCAPOSD Young — Armos Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Andersen Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Crane Creek Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Doran Park Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Doran Regional Park Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Foothill Oaks Sonoma
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas 229

AGENCY/ ENTITY NAME UNIT NAME LOCATION
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Gualala Point Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Healdsburg Beach Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Maddux Ranch Regional Park Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Moms Beach Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Pinnacle Gulch Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Ragle Ranch Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Sea Ranch Trail Access Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Shiloh Ranch Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Soda Springs Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Sonoma Mountain Woodlands Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Spring Lake Park Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Spud Pt Marina Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Steelhead Beach Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Stillwater Cove Regional Park Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Sunset Beach Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Treadwell Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Unity Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Watson School/Wayside Park Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept West County Trail Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Westside Park Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional Parks Dept Wohler Bridge Fishing Access Sonoma Sonoma County Water Agency Hanson Aggregates Sonoma
Sonoma County Water Agency SCWA Sonoma
Sonoma Land Trust Freezeout Redwoods Sonoma
Sonoma Land Trust Laufenberg Ranch Sonoma
Sonoma Land Trust Little Black Mountain Sonoma
Sonoma Land Trust Spring Lake Regional Park Sonoma
Sonoma Land Trust White Rock Preserve Sonoma
Sonoma Land Trust Wild Turkey Hill Sonoma
The Conservation Fund, California Big River Salmon Creek Mendocino The Nature Conservancy Nelson Siskiyou
The Nature Conservancy Pygmy Forest Mendocino
The Nature Conservancy Sonoma Mountain Ranch Sonoma
US Army Corps of Engineers Lake Sonoma Recreation Area Sonoma US Army Corps of Engineers Lake Sonoma Wildlife Mgt Area Sonoma US Bureau of Land Management BLM Trinity
UD Bureau of Land Management Modoc National Forest Siskiyou US Bureau of Land Management The Geysers Sonoma
US Fish & Wildlife Service Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge Modoc US Fish & Wildlife Service Humboldt Bay NWR Humboldt
US Fish & Wildlife Service Lower Klamath National
Wildlife Refuge Siskiyou
US Fish & Wildlife Service Ma-le’l Dunes Cooperative
Management Area Humboldt
US Fish & Wildlife Service Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge Siskiyou US Forest Service Klamath National Forest Siskiyou
US Forest Service Mendocino National Forest Trinity
US Forest Service Rough River Siskiyou
US Forest Service Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity US Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest Trinity
US National Park Service Lava Beds National Monument Siskiyou US National Park Service Redwood National Park Humboldt US National Park Service Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity NRA Shasta University of California Bodega Marine Reserve Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Acorn Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Esposti Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Hiram Lewis Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Keiser Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Lakewood Meadows Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Los Robles Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Michael Hall Park Sonoma

AGENCY/ ENTITY NAME UNIT NAME LOCATION
Windsor, Town of Mitchell Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Old Vineyard Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Pleasant Oak Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Pueblo Viejo Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Robbins Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Sutton Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Vintage Oaks Park Sonoma
Windsor, Town of Wilson Ranch Soccer Park Sonoma
California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) www.calands.org Table G-23 Marine Managed Areas
CCA (TOTAL 21) MPA (TOTAL 42) ASBS/ SWQPA
(TOTAL 8)
Klamath River Pyramid Point SMCA Redwood National Park
Redwood National
& State Parks
Point St. George Reef
Offshore SMCA Trinidad Head
Redwood Creek Southwest Seal Rock SC Kings Range
Kelp Beds at Trinidad Head Castle Rock SC Jughandle Cove Mad River False Klamath Rock SC Saunders Reef
Eel River Reading Rock SMCA Del Mar Landing
Mattole River Reading Rock SMR Gerstle Cove
King Range National
Conservation Area Samoa SMCA Bodega
Pudding Creek South Humboldt Bay SMRNA
Noyo River Sugar Loaf Island SC
Pygmy Forest Ecological
Staircase South Cape Mendocino SMR
Big River Steamboat Rock SC
Albion River Mattole Canyon SMR
Navarro River Sea Lion Gulch SMR
Garcia River Big Flat SMCA
Kelp Beds at Saunders Reef Double Cone Rock SMCA
Del Mar Landing Rockport Rocks SC
Gerstle Cove Vizciano Rock SC
Bodega Marine Life Refuge Ten Mile SMR
Estero Americano Ten Mile Beach SMCA
Estero de San Antonio Ten Mile Estuary SMCA
Mac Kerricher SMCA
Point Cabrillo SMR
Russian Gulch SMCA
Big River Estuary SMCA
Van Damme SMCA
Navarro River Estuary SMCA
Point Arena SMR
Point Arena SMCA
Sea Lion Cove SMCA
Saunders Reef SMCA
Del Mar Landing SMR
Stewarts Point SMCA
Stewarts Point SMR
Salt Point SMCA
Gerstle Cove SMR
Russian River SMRMA
Russian River SMCA
Bodega Head SMR
Bodega Head SMCA
Estero Americano SMRMA
Estero de San Antonio SMRMA
Source: California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and State Water Resources Control Board 230 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table G-24 Beneficial Uses of Water
in the North Coast Region, 2019
Beneficial Uses of Water in the North Coast Region, 2019 table presents the designated “beneficial uses “of waters as assigned by the North Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board to the Region’s waterbodies (NCRWQCB
2011). The basis for the discussion of beneficial water uses, which follows, is Section 13050(f) of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which states:
“Beneficial uses” of the waters of the state
that may be protected against water quality
degradation include, but are not necessarily
limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural,
and industrial supply; power generation;
recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and
preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife,
and other aquatic resources or preserves.”
In 1972, the State Water Board adopted a uniform list
of beneficial uses, including descriptions, to be applied throughout all basins of the State. This list was updated in 1996, with additions for the North Coast Region in
20112. Waterbodies with designated actual or potential
beneficial uses include all major streams (i.e. Hydrologic Units, HU), minor coastal streams, ocean waters, bays,
saline wetlands, freshwater wetlands, estuaries, and
groundwater. The beneficial uses of any specifically
identified waterbody generally apply to all its tributaries. 2 In addition to the beneficial uses identified on the statewide list, the following uses have been identified in this Region: Three wetland beneficial uses, recognizing the value of protecting these unique waterbodies: Wetland Habitat (WET); Water Quality Enhancement (WQE); and Flood Peak Attenuation/ Flood Water Storage (FLD). The Native Cultural (CUL) use and Subsistence Fishing (FISH) use have been added, identifying the traditional and cultural uses of waters within the Region. See the North Coast Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2016, Table 2-1) for a full listing of North Coast beneficial uses by waterbody type and HU.

BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITION
Agricultural
Supply (AGR)
Uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching
including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing.

Aquaculture (AQUA) Uses of water for aquaculture or mariculture operations including, but not limited to, propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvesting of aquatic plants and
animals for human consumption or bait purposes.

Cold Freshwater
Habitat (COLD)
Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.

Commercial and Sport
Fishing (COMM)
Uses of water for commercial, recreational (sport)
collection of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms including, but not limited to, uses involving organisms intended for human consumption or bait purposes.

Estuarine Habitat (EST) Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of
estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., estuarine mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds).

Flood Peak Attenuation
/Flood Water
Storage (FLD)
Uses of riparian wetlands in flood plain areas and
other wetlands that receive natural surface drainage
and buffer its passage to receiving waters.

Freshwater
Replenishment (FRSH)
Uses of water for natural or artificial maintenance of
surface water quantity or quality (e.g., salinity).

Groundwater
Recharge (GWR)
Uses of water for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water quality, or halting of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.

Hydropower
Generation (POW)
Uses of water for hydropower generation.

Industrial Process
Supply (PRO)
Uses of water for industrial activities that
depend primarily on water quality.

Industrial Service
Supply (IND)
Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, or oil well repressurization.

Inland Saline Water
Habitat (SAL)
Uses of water that support inland saline water
ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation
or enhancement of aquatic saline habitats, vegetation,
fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.

Marine Habitat (MAR) Uses of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of
marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., marine mammals, shorebirds).

Migration of Aquatic
Organisms (MIGR)
Uses of water that support habitats necessary for
migration or other temporary activities by aquatic
organisms, such as anadromous fish.

Municipal and
Domestic Supply
(MUN)
Uses of water for community, military, or
individual water supply systems including, but
not limited to, drinking water supply.

Tribal Tradition and
Culture (CUL)
Uses of water that support the cultural, spiritual, ceremonial, or traditional rights or lifeways of California Native Tribes, including, but not limited to: navigation, ceremonies, or fishing, gathering, or consumption of natural aquatic resources, including fish, shellfish, vegetation, and materials.

Navigation (NAV) Uses of water for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private, military or commercial vessels.

Non-Contact Water
Recreation (REC-2)
Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with
water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible.

These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas 231

BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITION
Preservation of Areas
of Special Biological
Significance (ASBS)
Includes marine life refuges, ecological reserves and
designated areas of special biological significance, such as areas where kelp propagation and maintenance are features of the marine environment requiring special protection.

Rare, Threatened,
or Endangered
Species (RARE)
Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance
of plant or animal species established under state or
federal law as rare, threatened or endangered.

Shellfish Harvesting
(SHELL)
Uses of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of filter- feeding shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters, and mussels) for human consumption, commercial, or sports purposes.

Spawning,
Reproduction, and/
or Early Development
(SPWN)
Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish.

Subsistence
Fishing (SUB)
Uses of water involving the non-commercial catching or
gathering of natural aquatic resources, including fish and shellfish, for consumption by individuals, households,
or communities, to meet needs for sustenance.

Tribal Subsistence
Fishing (T-SUB)
Uses of water involving the non-commercial
catching or gathering of natural aquatic resources,
including fish and shellfish, for consumption by
individuals, households, or communities of California
Native Tribes to meet needs for sustenance.

Warm Freshwater
Habitat (WARM)
Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.

Water Contact
Recreation (REC-1)
Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible.

These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming,
wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs.

Water Quality
Enhancement (WQE)
Uses of waters, including wetlands and other waterbodies, that support natural enhancement or improvement of water quality in or downstream of a waterbody including, but not limited to, erosion control, filtration and purification of naturally occurring water pollutants, streambank stabilization, maintenance of channel integrity, and siltation control.

Wetland Habitat (WET) Uses of water that support natural and man-made wetland ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of unique wetland functions, vegetation, fish, shellfish, invertebrates, insects, and wildlife habitat.

Wildlife Habitat (WILD) Uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources.

Table G-25 Wild & Scenic Rivers

NORTH COAST WILD & SCENIC RIVERS
Albion River Eel River,
Middle Fork Mill Creek Smith River
Albion River,
The Lagoon
Eel River,
North Fork Monkey Creek Smith River (Middle Fork)
Bear Creek Eel River,
South Fork Muzzleloader Creek Smith River, Middle Fork
Black Butte River Eightmile Creek Myrtle Creek Smith River, North Fork
Blackhawk Creek Goose Creek New River Smith River, North Fork Tributary
Buck Creek Gordon Creek Packsaddle Creek Smith River,
South Fork
Bummer Lake Creek Griffin Creek Patrick Creek South Fork Rowdy Creek
Canthook Creek Gualala River Prescott Fork South Siskiyou Fork Cold Creek Hardscrabble Creek Quartz Creek Still Creek
Coon Creek Harrington Creek Rock Creek Stony Creek
Craigs Creek High Plateau Creek Rowdy Creek Trinity River Diamond Creek Hurdygurdy Creek Salmon River Trinity River, North Fork
Diamond Creek,
North Fork Jones Creek Salmon River, North Fork
Trinity River,
South Fork
Dominie Creek Kelly Creek Salmon River,
South Fork Van Duzen River
East Fork
Goose Creek Klamath River Savoy Creek West Branch Mill Creek East Fork Mill Creek Knopti Creek Scott River West Fork Patrick Creek
East Fork
Patrick Creek Little Jones Creek Shelly Creek Williams Creek Eel River Little Mill Creek Siskiyou Fork
Smith River Wooley Creek
Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
232 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table G-26 Impaired Streams that Flow Directly to Wild & Scenic Rivers

NORTH COAST IMPAIRED STREAMS FLOWING INTO WILD & SCENIC RIVERS Albion River Devils Elbow Creek Little North Fk Rodeo Creek Alder Gulch Division Creek Laurel Creek Salmon Creek
Ash Creek Don Juan Creek Limestone Gulch Salmon River
Beaver Creek Dona Creek Little Bogus Creek Salmon River, N Fk Big French Creek Doolittle Creek Little Ferry Creek Salmon River, S Fk Black Butte River Dora Creek Little Grider Creek Scott River Blue Rock Creek Dutch Creek Little Mingo Creek Steinacher Creek Browns Creek Dutton Creek Little Rock Creek Salmon Creek Butter Creek Eel River Little Twin Creek Salt Creek
Badger Creek Eel River, M Fk Logan Gulch Sand Bank Creek Baldy Creek Eel River, N Fk Lousy Creek Sandy Bar Creek Barker Creek Eel River, S Fk Low Gap Creek Sawmill Creek Bear Canyon Elk Creek Lumgrey Creek Sawmill Gulch
Bear Creek Eltapom Creek Mill Creek Smith Creek
Beaver Creek Eddy Gulch Maxwell Creek Sniktaw Creek
Big Bar Creek Elder Creek Mccann Creek Snipe Gulch
Big Creek Fish Creek Mcguffy Creek Somes Creek
Big Ferry Creek Fly Creek Mckinney Gulch Sulphur Glade Creek Black Oak Creek Fox Creek Meamber Creek Surprise Creek
Bloody Nose Creek Franklin Gulch Meamber Gulch Surveyors Canyon Bluff Creek Grass Valley Creek Middle Creek Swiss Gulch Boulder Gulch Gualala River Mill Creek Tenmile Creek
Bridge Creek Gualala River, N Fk Mills Creek Thompson Creek Brock Creek Garvey Gulch Mingo Creek Trinity River
Bull Creek Grapevine Creek Mitchell Creek Trinity River, N Fk Burger Creek Horse Creek Mowry Creek Trinity River, S Fk Cold Creek Hostler Creek Muddy Gulch Creek Tatu Creek
Cable Creek Hale Creek New River Thomas Creek
Cape Horn Creek Hawkins Creek Negro Creek Tish Tang A Tang Creek Caraway Creek Hayshed Creek North Fork Gulch Tom Martin Creek Carr Creek Hicks Gulch O-Farrill Gulch Townsend Gulch
Carson Gulch Hogshed Creek Oak Flat Creek Truss Creek
Cave Creek Hotelling Gulch Pacific Ocean Tunnel Creek
China Creek Howards Gulch Pat Ford Creek Tuttle Creek
China Gulch Hudson Creek Pelletreau Creek Van Duzen River Cody Creek Indian Creek Plummer Creek Willow Creek
Coleman Creek Icebox Creek Pothole Creek Wooley Creek
Connick Creek Independence Creek Prairie Creek Walker Creek Coon Creek Jack Of Hearts Creek Printer Gulch Walker Gulch Cronan Gulch Jackass Gulch Queatchumpah Creek White Hawk Creek Croy Gulch Jennings Gulch Rancheria Creek Whitney Creek Cummings Creek Johnson Creek Rattlesnake Creek Wilson Creek Deadwood Creek Klamath River Red Mountain Creek Wilson Gulch Deep Creek Kinsman Creek Robinson Creek Woodman Creek
Deep Gulch Kirkham Creek Rocky Basin Creek Yager Creek
Deer Creek Knownothing Creek Rocky Glen Creek
Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Protection Agency NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas 233
Table G-27 National Wilderness Preservation System Areas

NAME ACREAGE
Chanchelulla Wilderness 5,705
Lava Beds Wilderness 28,058
Marble Mountain Wilderness 221,161
Mount Shasta Wilderness 14,859
North Fork Wilderness 7,978
Red Buttes Wilderness 18,070
Russian Wilderness 11,065
Siskiyou Wilderness 154,751
Snow Mountain Wilderness 9,037
Trinity Alps Wilderness 499,894
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness 103,155
TOTAL 1,073,735 acres
Source: Bureau of Land Management
Table G-28 Threatened & Endangered Species

LATIN BINOMIAL COMMON NAME LISTED STATUS
Canis lupus Gray wolf
Federally listed as
Endangered
State listed as Endangered
Pekania pennanti Pacific fisher Candidate for Federal
listing: proposed Threatened
Ambystoma californiense
(Sonoma population) California tiger salamander Federally listed as Endangered
Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander Federaly listed as Threatened statewide
Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon Delisted — previously listed Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby Federally listed as Endangered
Fritillaria gentneri Gentner’s fritillary Federally listed as Endangered
Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields Federally listed as Endangered
Howellia aquatilis water howellia Federally listed as
Threatened
Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon Federally listed as Threatened
Alopecurus aequalis
var. sonomensis Sonoma alopecurus Federally listed as
Endangered
Aplodontia rufa nigra Point Arena
mountain beaver
Federally listed as
Endangered
Charadrius alexandrinus
nivosus western snowy plover Federally listed as
Threatened
Branta hutchinsii leucopareia cackling (=Aleutian
Canada) goose Delisted — previously listed
Rana boylii Foothill yello-legged frog State listed as
Special Concern
Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Federally listed as Threatened
Rana pretiosa Oregon spotted frog Federally listed as
Threatened
Thlaspi californicum Kneeland Prairie pennycress Federally listed as Endangered
Trifolium amoenum showy rancheria clover Federally listed as Endangered
Speyeria zerene myrtleae Myrtle’s silverspot buttefly Federally listed as Endangered

LATIN BINOMIAL COMMON NAME LISTED STATUS
Speyeria zerene hippolyta Oregon silverspot buttefly Federally listed as Threatened
Speyeria zerene behrensii Behren’s silverspot butterfly Federally listed as Endangered
Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis lotis blue butterfly Federally listed as Endangered
Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead — central
California coast ESU
Federally listed as
Threatened
Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead — northern
California ESU
Federally listed as
Threatened
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon —
California coastal ESU
Federally listed as
Threatened
Lupinus tidestromii Tidestrom’s lupine
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Cirsium ciliolatum Ashland thistle State listed as Endangered Trifolium trichocalyx Monterey clover
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Arctostaphylos densiflora Vine Hill manzanita State listed as Endangered Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop State listed as Endangered Chasmistes brevirostris shortnose sucker
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Empidonax traillii brewsteri little willow flycatcher
State listed as
Endangered — species
and all subspecies
Clarkia imbricata Vine Hill clarkia
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Eryngium constancei Loch Lomond button-celery
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Arabis macdonaldiana Mcdonald’s rock-cress
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Chorizanthe valida Sonoma spineflower
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Deltistes luxatus Lost River sucker
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Limnanthes vinculans Sebastopol meadowfoam
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Fritillaria roderickii Roderick’s fritillary State listed as Endangered Delphinium bakeri Baker’s larkspur
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Layia carnosa beach layia
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
western yellowbilled cuckoo
State listed as Endangered
Federal listed as Threatened
(Western DPS)
Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Astragalus agnicidus Humboldt milk-vetch State listed as Endangered Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
234 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

LATIN BINOMIAL COMMON NAME LISTED STATUS
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida Kenwood Marsh
checkerbloom
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Silene campanulata
campanulata Red Mountain catchfly State listed as Endangered Eriogonum alpinum Trinity buckwheat State listed as Endangered Dichanthelium lanuginosum
var. thermal Geysers dichanthelium State listed as Endangered Navarretia leucocephala
ssp. plieantha many-flowered navarretia
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Eriogonum kelloggii Kellogg’s buckwheat State listed as Endangered Federal ‘species of concern’
Rallus longirostris obsoletus California Ridgeway’s rail State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Lilium pardalinum
ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lily
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Phlox hirsuta Yreka phlox
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon — central
California coast ESU
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Castilleja uliginosa Pitkin Marsh Indian
paintbrush State listed as Endangered
Strix nebulosa great gray owl State listed as Endangered Carex albida white sedge
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle State listed as Endangered Federally Delisted
Orcuttia tenuis slender Orcutt grass
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Threatened
Lilium occidentale western lily
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Lasthenia burkei Burke’s goldfields
State listed as
Endangered Federally
listed as Endangered
Cordylanthus tenuis
ssp. capillaris Pennell’s bird’s-beak
State listed as Rare
Federally listed as
Endangered
Limnanthes bakeri Baker’s meadowfoam State listed as Rare Delphinium luteum golden larkspur
State listed as Rare
Federally listed as
Endangered
Blennosperma nanum
var. robustum Point Reyes blennosperma State listed as Rare Bensoniella oregona Bensoniella State listed as Rare
Calamagrostis foliosa leafy reed grass State listed as Rare Arctostaphylos bakeri
ssp. bakeri Baker’s manzanita State listed as Rare
Eriastrum tracyi Tracy’s eriastrum State listed as Rare Calochortus persistens Siskiyou mariposa-lily State listed as Rare Federal ‘species of concern’
Arctostaphylos bakeri
ssp. Sublaevis The Cedars manzanita State listed as Rare

LATIN BINOMIAL COMMON NAME LISTED STATUS
Chorizanthe howellii Howell’s spineflower
State listed as Threatened
Federally listed as
Endangered
Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt State listed as Threatened Monadenia infumata setosa Trinity bristle snail State listed as Threatened Pleuropogon hooverianus North Coast
semaphore grass State listed as Threatened
Plethodon stormi Siskiyou Mountains
salamander State listed as Threatened
Plethodon asupak Scott Bar salamander State listed as Threatened Oncorhynchus kisutch
coho salmon — southern
Oregon / northern
California ESU
State listed as
Threatened Federally
listed as Threatened
Riparia riparia bank swallow State listed as Threatened Vulpes vulpes necator Sierra Nevada red fox State listed as Threatened Lupinus milo-bakeri Milo Baker’s lupine State listed as Threatened Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk State listed as Threatened Gulo gulo California wolverine State listed as Threatened Grus canadensis tabida greater sandhill crane State listed as Threatened Astragalus claranus Clara Hunt’s milk-vetch
State listed as
Threatened Federally
listed as Endangered
Source: National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and US Fish & Wildlife Service Table G-29 Critical Habitats of the North
Coast Region (Non-Salmonid)
COMMON

SPECIES NAME CLASSIFICATION UNIT NAME SPECIES NAME
Baker’s larkspur Endangered Coleman Valley Delphinium bakeri Black Abalone Endangered
North Coast Region
— Coast of Sonoma
County and south
Haliotis
cracherodii
California
Red-legged Frog Threatened MRN-1 Rana draytonii
California
Red-legged Frog Threatened MRN-2 Rana draytonii
California
Red-legged Frog Threatened SON-1 Rana draytonii
California
Red-legged Frog Threatened SON-2 Rana draytonii
California Tiger
Salamander Endangered Santa Rosa Plain Ambystoma californiense Contra costa
goldfields Endangered Manchester Beach Lasthenia conjugens Pacific Eulachon/
Smelt Threatened Klamath River Thaleichthys pacificus
Pacific Eulachon/
Smelt Threatened Mad River Thaleichthys pacificus
Pacific Eulachon/
Smelt Threatened Redwood Creek Thaleichthys pacificus
Green Sturgeon Species of Concern Elk River Acipenser
medirostris
Green Sturgeon Species of Concern Freshwater Creek Acipenser medirostris
Green Sturgeon Species of Concern Humboldt Bay Acipenser medirostris
Green Sturgeon Species of Concern Jacoby Creek Acipenser medirostris
Green Sturgeon Species of Concern North Coast Region
Coastal Waters
Acipenser
medirostris
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas 235
COMMON

SPECIES NAME CLASSIFICATION UNIT NAME SPECIES NAME
Kneeland
penny-cress Endangered Mad River Basin Noccaea fendleri ssp. californicum Leatherback Endangered North Coast Region
South of point Arena
Dermochelys
coriacea
Lost River Sucker Endangered Lost River Basin Deltistes luxatus Marbled murrelet Threatened North Coast region Brachyramphus marmoratus
Northern
Spotted Owl Threatened East Cascades South Strix occidentalis caurina Northern
Spotted Owl Threatened Interior California Coast Strix occidentalis caurina Northern
Spotted Owl Threatened Klamath East Strix occidentalis caurina Northern
Spotted Owl Threatened Klamath West Strix occidentalis caurina Northern
Spotted Owl Threatened Redwood Coast Strix occidentalis caurina Stellar Sea Lion Endangered Sugarloaf Island Eumetopias jubatus
Tidewater Goby Endangered Big Lagoon Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Davis Lake/Manchester
State Park Ponds
Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Eel River Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Estero Americano Eucyclogobius newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Estero De San Antonio Eucyclogobius newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Humboldt Bay Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Lake Earl/Talawa Eucyclogobius newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Pudding Creek Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Salmon Creek Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Stone Lagoon Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Tenmile River Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby Endangered Virgin Creek Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Western snowy
plover Threatened Clam Beach/Little River
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened Eel River Gravel Bars
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened Eel River North Spit/Beach
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened Eel River South Spit/Beach
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened Gold Bluffs Beach
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened Humboldt Bay South Spit
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
COMMON

SPECIES NAME CLASSIFICATION UNIT NAME SPECIES NAME
Western snowy
plover Threatened Humboldt Lagoons
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened Lake Earl
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened MacKerricher Beach
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened Mad River
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western snowy
plover Threatened Manchester Beach
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Yellow larkspur Endangered Bodega Bay Delphinium
luteum
Yellow larkspur Endangered Estero Americano Delphinium
luteum
Yellow larkspur Endangered Estero de San Antonio Delphinium luteum
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency and CDFW
Table G-30 Critical Habitat for Marbled
Murrelet in North Coast Counties

COUNTY ACREAGE
Del Norte 116,859
Humboldt 410,249
Mendocino 99,929
Siskiyou 48,495
Sonoma 11,505
Total 687,023
Source: National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and United States Fish & Wildlife Service 236 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table G-31 Critical Habitats of Salmonids in the North Coast Region

BASIN STREAM NAME
COHO CRITICAL HABITAt

TBD (NOAA) TBD

CHINOOK CRITICAL HABITAT
Albion River Albion River Estuary, Albion and North Fork Albion Bear River Bear River mainstem, South Fork Bear River, Bear River estuary, Bear River mainstem Big River Big River Estuary, Big River
Eel River
Anderson Creek, Atwell Creek, Baechtel Creek, Bear Creek, Bear Creek, Bear Pen Creek, Bear Wallow Creek, Bell Springs Creek, Berry Creek, Bloody Run, Bond Creek, Bridge Creek, Broaddus Creek, Brock Creek, Bull Creek, Burger Creek, Burger Creek, Butler Creek, Cahto Creek, Canoe Creek, Carson Creek, Cave Creek, Chadd Creek, Chamise Creek, China Creek- trib to Redwood Creed, Connick Creek, Corner Creek, Cow CreekTrib of Bull Creek, Cox Creek, Cummings Creek, Cuneo Creek- Trib of Bull Creek, Davis Creek, Dean Creek, Dutch Charlie Creek, Dutch Henry Creek, East Branch South Fork, Eel River Estuary, Eel River, Elk Creek, Fiedler (Fielder) Creek, Fish Creek, Foster Creek, Grapewine Creek, Grub Creek, Haehl Creek, Harper Creek- Trib of Bull Creek, Hartsook Creek, Hely Creek, Hollow Tree Creek, Hoover Creek, Howe Creek, Huckleberry Creek, Indian Creek, Jack of Hearts Creek, Jewett Creek, Jones Creek, Jordan Creek, Kekawaka Creek, Kenny Creek, Larabee Creek, Lawrence Creek, Leggett Ck, Little Sproul Creel, Long Branch Creek, Long Valley Creek, Low Gap Creek, Mainstem Dobbyn Creek, mainstem Eel River, McCoy Creek, Michael’s Creek, Middle Fork Eel River, Middle Fork Yager Creek, Mill Creek, Mill Creek-Trib of Bull Creek, Miller Creek-trib to Redwood Creek, Monument Creek, Moody Creek, Mud Creek, Murphy Creek, North Fork Dobbyn Creek, North Fork Eel mainstem, North Fork Yager Creek, Outlet Creek, Piercy Creek, Pollock Creek — trib to Redwood Ck, Poor Mans Creek, Price Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Redwood Creek, Rock Creek, Rocktree Creek, Ryan Creek, Salmon Creek, Scott Creek, Seely Creek, Shaw Creek, Short Creek, Somerville Creek-tributary to Redwood Creek, South Fork Dobbyn Creek, South Fork Eel River, South Fork Redwood Creek, South Fork Salmon River, Spoul Creek, Squaw Creek, Standley Creek, Streeter Creek, String Creek, Strongs Creek, Ten Mile Creek, Tom Long Creek, Tomki Creek, Tostin Creek, Turner Creek, Twin Rocks Creek, unnamed trib to Eel near McCann, Upp Creek, Upper Van Duzen Mainstem, Van Duzen mainstem lower 2 miles, Warden Creek, West Fork Sproul Creek, Wheelbarrow Creek, Wildcat Creek, Williams Creek, Willits Creek, Wilson Creek, Woodman Creek, Yager Creek Elk River Bridge Creek, Dunlap Gulch, Elk River, North Branch of the North Fork, North Fork Elk River, South Branch of the North Fork, South Fork Freshwater Creek Little Freshwater, Lower Freshwater Creek, Ryan Creek, South Fork Freshwater Creek, Upper Freshwater Creek, Garcia River Garcia River, Garcia River Estuary
Jacoby Creek Gannon Slough, Lower Jacoby Creek, Middle and Upper Jacoby Creek Little River Carson Creek aka South Fork Little River, Little River, Lower South Fork Little River, Railroad Creek, Upper South Fork Little River Mad River Black Creek, Black Dog Creek, Cannon Creek (aka Canon Creek), Dry Creek, Lindsay Creek, Mad River, Maple Creek, Mill Creek, North Fork Mad River, North Fork Mad River, Squaw Creek, Sullivan Gulch, Unt, Warren Creek Maple Creek Maple Creek, North Fork of Maple Creek
Mattole River
Bear Creek, Blue Slide Creek, Bridge Creek, Conklin Creek, Dry Creek, East Fork Honeydew Creek, East Fork of the North Fork, Estuary, Eubanks Creek, Eubanks Creek, Gilham Creek, Grindstone Creek, Honeydew Creek, Mattole Canyon, Mattole Canyon, Mattole River mainstem, McGinnis Creek, McKee Creek, Mill Creek, North Fork Bear Creek, North Fork Bear Creek, North Fork, Oil Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, South Fork Bear Creek, Squaw Creek, Thompson Creek, Thompson Creek, Unnamed tributary to North Fork Bear Creek, Upper Mattole River, Upper Mattole River, Upper North Fork, Westlund Creek, Woods creek, Yew Creek Noyo River North Fork Noyo River, Noyo River Estuary, Noyo River, South Fork Noyo River Redwood Creek (Humboldt) Boyes Creek, Bridge Creek, Brown Creek, Emerald (Harry Weir), Godwood, Lacks Creek, Larry Dam Creek, Little Lost Man Creek, Lost Man Creek, Lower Redwood Creek, May Creek, McArthur Creek, Minor Creek, North Fork Lost Man Creek, Prairie Creek, Redwood Creek, Tom McDonald Russian River Austin Creek, Canyon Reach of Mainstem, Dry Creek, Feliz Creek, Forsythe Creek, Lower Mainstem, Mainstem at Mirabel, Mainstem in Alexander Valley, Mainstem in Ukiah Valley, Mark West Creek, Middle Reach of Mainstem, West Branch of Mainstem Salmon Creek (Humboldt) Salmon Creek (Humboldt)
Ten Mile River Middle Fork Ten Mile River, North Fork Ten Mile River, South Fork Ten Mile River, Ten Mile River and North Fork Ten Mile River, Ten Mile River Estuary Wages Creek Wages Creek

STEELHEAD CRITICAL HABITAT
Ash Creek Ash Creek
Austin Creek
Austin Creek at Cazadero, Austin Creek mainstem, Bear Pen Creek, Conshea Creek, Devil Creek, Kidd Creek, Lower Black Rock Creek, Lower East Austin Creek, Lower Gilliam Creek, Lower Gray Creek, Lower Mainstem, Lower Thompson Creek, Lower Ward Creek, Mainstem between Ward and Bear Pen, Red Slide Creek, Saint Elmo Creek, Schoolhouse Creek, Sulphur Creek, Upper Austin Creek, Upper East Austin Creek, Upper Gilliam Creek, Upper Gray Creek, Upper Ward Creek, Ward Creek Big Sulphur Alder Creek, Anna Belcher, Big Sulphur Creek, Frasier, Humming Bird Creek, Little Sulphur Creek, Lovers Gulch, Squaw Creek, North Branch Little Sulphur Creek, Upper Little Sulphur Creek Crocker Creek Crocker Creek
Dry Creek Angel Creek, Crane Creek, Dry Creek, Dutcher Creek, Felta, Foss Creek, Grape Creek, Mill Creek, North Slough Creek, Palmer Creek, Pena, Redwood Log, Salt Creek, Upper Pena Creek, Wallace, Wine Creek, Woods Creek Dutch Bill Creek Baumert Springs, Dutch Bill Creek, Duvoul Creek, Grub Creek, Lancel Creek, North Fork Lancel Creek Edwards Edwards
Estero Americano Ebabias Creek, Estero Americano
Fife Creek Fife Creek
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix G. North Coast Region Protected Areas 237

BASIN STREAM NAME
Forsythe Creek Bakers Creek, Eldridge, Forsythe Creek, Jack Smith Creek, Mill Creek, Seward Freezeout Creek Freezeout Creek, Unnamed Tributary
Gill Gill, South Fork Gill
Gird Gird,
Green Valley Creek Atascadero Creek, Green Valley Creek, Mainstem Green Valley, Purrington Creek, unnamed trib to Atascadero Creek Hobson Creek Hobson Creek,
Hulbert Creek Hulbert Creek,
Jenner Gulch Jenner Gulch,
Laguna de Santa Rosa Laguna De Santa Rosa,
Maacama Bear, Bidwell, Bluegum, Briggs, Coon Creek, Franz, Ingalls, Kellog Creek, Little Briggs, Maacama, Maacama, McDonnell Creek, Mill Stream, Redwood, Redwood, Yellowjacket Mariposa Mariposa
Mark West Creek Humbug Creek, Lower Pruit Creek, Mark West Creek, Middle reach of Windsor Creek, Pool Creek, Upper Mark West Creek, Upper Pool Creek, Upper Pruit Creek, Windsor Creek Miller Creek Miller Creek, Unnamed tributary
Oat Valley Creek Oat Valley Creek
Pieta Creek Pieta Creek
Pocket Canyon Mays Canyon, Pocket Canyon
Porter Creek Porter Creek,
Russian River Canyon Reach of Mainstem, Lower Mainstem, Mainstem Alexander Valley, Mainstem at Dry Creek, Mainstem in Ukiah Valley, Mainstem near Healdsburg, Russian River, West Branch Russian River Salmon Creek Coleman Valley Creek, Faye Creek, Finley Creek, Salmon Creek, Tannery Creek Salt Hollow Salt Hollow Creek
Sausal Sausal
Sheep House Creek Sheep House Creek
Smith Creek Smith Creek
Ward Creek Big Oat Creek, Blue Jay Creek, Pole Mountain Creek, Spring Creek Willow Creek Willow Creek
Source: National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and United States Fish & Wildlife Service 238 Appendix H. Hydrology
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX H.

HYDROLOGY
Table H-32 Hydrologic Units of the North Coast Region

HU NAME HA NAME HSA NAME
Bodega Bodega Harbor Bodega Bay
Bodega Head
Estero Americano na
Estero San Antonio na
Salmon Creek na
Cape Mendocino Capetown na
Mattole River na
Oil Creek na
Eel River Lower Eel River Ferndale
Larabee Creek
Scotia
Middle Fork Eel River Black Butte River
Eden Valley
Round Valley
Wilderness
Sequoia
Spy Rock
North Fork Eel River na
South Fork Eel River Benbow
Laytonville
Weott
Upper Main Eel River Lake Pillsbury
Outlet Creek
Tomki Creek
Van Duzen River Bridgeville
Hydesville
Yager Creek
Eureka Plain na na
Klamath River Butte Valley Bray
Macdoel — Dorris
Tennant
Lost River Boles
Clear Lake
Mt. Dome
Tule Lake
Lower Klamath River Klamath Glen
Orleans
Middle Klamath River Beaver Creek
Copco Lake
Happy Camp
Hornbrook
Iron Gate
Seiad Valley
Ukonom
Salmon River Cecilville
Lower Salmon
Sawyers Bar
Wooley Creek
Scott River Scott Bar
Scott Valley
Shasta Valley na
Mad River Blue Lake na
Butler Valley na
North Fork Mad River na
Ruth na

HU NAME HA NAME HSA NAME
Mendocino Coast Albion River na
Big River na
Garcia River na
Gualala River Buckeye Creek
Gualala
North Fork
Rockpile Creek
Wheatfield Fork
Navarro River na
Noyo River na
Point Arena Alder Creek
Brush Creek
Elk Creek
Greenwood Creek
Rockport Ten Mile River
Usal Creek
Wages Creek
Russian Gulch na
Redwood Creek Beaver na
Lake Prairie na
Orick na
Rogue River Applegate River na
Illinois River na
Russian River Lower Russian River Austin Creek
Guerneville
Middle Russian River Geyserville
Laguna
Mark West
Santa Rosa
Sulphur Creek
Warm Springs
Upper Russian River Coyote Valley
Forsythe Creek
Ukiah
Smith River Lower Smith River Mill Creek
Rowdy Creek
Smith River Plain
Middle Fork Smith River na
North Fork Smith River na
South Fork Smith River na
Wilson Creek na
Trinidad Big Lagoon na
Little River na
Trinity River Lower Trinity River Burnt Ranch
Helena
Hoopa
New River
Willow Creek
Middle Trinity River Douglas City
Weaver Creek
South Fork Trinity River Corral Creek
Forest Glen
Grouse Creek
Hayfork Valley
Hyampom
Upper Trinity River na
Winchuck River na na
Source: California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee (DWR) a.k.a. CalWater NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix H. Hydrology 239
Table H-33 Rivers & Streams of the North Coast Region
The Table below lists major named streams of the
Region, organized by basin Watershed Management
Area (i.e. basin). The total length of streams in the
Region is approximately 34,586 km. (21,491 mi.). The
total length of streams in each WMA (basin) is indicated in the table. Included is the subset of streams and
tributaries that are designated 303(d) listed streams,
meaning they are considered “impaired” due to water
quality issues (NCRWQCB 2016). Approximately
85% of the Region’s streams are listed impaired,
due primarily to temperature and sediment.

WMA
(TOTAL KM.

STREAMS)

STREAMS IN THE WMA BOUNDARY
Eel River
(8,350)
Chamise Creek, Estell Creek, Little Van Duzen
River, Pine Creek, Tom Long Creek
303d Listed Streams
Anderson Creek, Black Butte River, Cedar Creek, Cold Creek, Dobbyn Creek, East Branch South Fork Eel River, East Fork North Fork Eel River, Eel River, Elk Creek, Indian Creek, Larabee Creek, Lawrence Creek, Middle Fork Eel River, Mill Creek, Mitchell Creek, North Fork Eel River, North Fork Middle Fork Eel River, Outlet Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Salt River, South Fork Eel River, Spanish Creek, Tomki Creek, West Fork North Fork Eel River, West Fork Van Duzen River, Williams Creek Humboldt
Bay
(2,260)
Little River, Little South Fork Elk River, Lower North Fork Mad River, Lower South Fork Little River, Maple Creek, North Branch North Fork Elk River, North Fork Elk River, South Branch North Fork Elk River, South Fork Elk River, South Fork Little River, South Fork Mad River, Upper South Fork Little River, West Fork North Fork Elk River 303d Listed Streams
Boulder Creek, East Fork North Fork Mad River, Elk River, Mad River, North Fork Mad River, Pilot Creek, Redwood Creek Klamath
River
(9,056)
East Branch Lost River, East Fork Scott River, Lost River, Right Hand North Fork Salmon River, Saint Claire Creek
303d Listed Streams
Blue Creek, Bluff Creek, Bogus Creek, Boise Creek, Camp Creek, Deadwood Creek, Dillon Creek, East Fork South Fork Salmon River, Grider Creek, Gumboot Creek, Kidder Creek, Klamath River, Little North Fork Salmon River, Little Shasta River, Little South Fork Salmon River, Moffett Creek, North Fork Salmon River, Noyes Valley Creek, Parks Creek, Red Cup Creek, Roach Creek, Salmon River, Scott River, Seiad Creek, Shackleford Creek, Shasta River, Shovel Creek, South Fork Salmon River, South Fork Scott River, Summit Lake, Tectah Creek, Thompson Creek, Tully Creek, Willow Creek, Wooley Creek WMA
(TOTAL KM.

STREAMS)

STREAMS IN THE WMA BOUNDARY
North Coast
Rivers
(6,082)
Alder Creek, Applegate River, Bear River, Butte Fork Applegate River, Coon Creek, Diamond North Fork North Fork Smith River, Goose Creek, Greenwood Creek, Hare Creek, Little North Fork Big River, Little North Fork of South Fork Albion River, Middle Fork Applegate River, Middle Fork of North Fork Noyo River, Middle Fork Smith River, North Fork Albion River, North Fork Smith River, Prescott Fork South Fork Smith River, Siskiyou Fork Smith River, Smith River, South Branch North Fork Navarro River, South Fork Albion River, South Fork Bear River, South Fork Siskiyou Fork Smith River, South Fork Smith River, South Fork Winchuck River, Upper North Fork Mattole River 303d Listed Streams
Albion River, Big River, Buckeye Creek, Dougherty Creek, East Branch North Fork Big River, East Branch North Fork Mattole River, Garcia River, Gualala River, Little North Fork Gualala River, Little North Fork Navarro River, Little North Fork Noyo River, Little North Fork Ten Mile River, Mattole River, Middle Fork Ten Mile River, Navarro River, North Fork Big River, North Fork Garcia River, North Fork Gualala River, North Fork Mattole River, North Fork Navarro River, North Fork North Fork Navarro River, North Fork Noyo River, North Fork of South Fork Noyo River, North Fork Ten Mile River, Noyo River, Pudding Creek, Robinson Creek, Rockpile Creek, South Fork Big River, South Fork Garcia River, South Fork Gualala River, South Fork Noyo River, South Fork Ten Mile River, Ten Mile River, Wheatfield Fork Gualala River Russian
River/
Bodega Bay
(3,270)
Fife Creek, Morrison Creek, Porter Creek, Salmon Creek
303d Listed Streams
Big Sulphur Creek, Dry Creek, East Austin Creek, East Fork Russian River, Forsythe Creek, Franz Creek, Green Valley Creek, Little Sulphur Creek, Pieta Creek, Russian River, Sausal Creek, York Creek Trinity River
(5,567)
Grizzly Creek, Little Trinity River
303d Listed Streams
Browns Creek, Canyon Creek, East Fork New River, East Fork North Fork Trinity River, East Fork South Fork Trinity River, East Fork Trinity River, Eightmile Creek, Hayfork Creek, Mumbo Creek, New River, North Fork Trinity River, Reading Creek, South Fork East Fork New River, South Fork Trinity River, Stuart Fork, Swift Creek, Tish Tang Creek, Trinity River Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (2011 list)
and California Department of Fish & Wildlife
240 Appendix H. Hydrology
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table H-34 Water Resources & Water Use for North Coast Region Basins Adapted from NCRWQCB 2011

HYDROLOGIC UNIT
(HU) OR AREA (HA) WATER RESOURCE USES WATER SUPPLY SOURCES

SURFACE WATER

INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT

GROUNDWATER AREAS
(DWR DEFINED)

GROUNDWATER

INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT

KLAMATH BASIN
Butte Valley HA
Domestic, irrigation,
water table balance
Irrigation of 28,000 acres;
excess pumped to Meiss
Lake into Klamath River
No significant development/ (3) Bray Town, Butte
Valley, Red Rock Valley Groundwater pumping
Lost River Valley HA
Domestic (ground),
irrigation, managed
wildlife habitat (surface)
Surface water diversions
including via Klamath
River (OR) and Lost River
Klamath Project (Bureau
of Reclamation) irrigates
233,625 acres in CA/OR via
Clear Lake Reservoir, Tule
Lake, Lower Klamath Lake
Sump; excess pumped to OR
(Tule Lake Irrigation Dist.

Area) for use in CA/OR
(4) Fairchild Swamp, Klamath
River Valley, Modoc Plateau
Pleistocene Area, Modoc
Plateau Recent Volcanic Area
Groundwater pumping
(domestic)
HA-Lower Klamath HA Domestic, agricultural Surface water diversions, groundwater No significant development (1) Lower Klamath River Valley Groundwater pumping
(domestic, agricultural)
Middle Klamath HA
Domestic, agricultural,
power generation
Surface water diversions,
groundwater, springs
Four Pacific Power & Light
Co. hydroelectric reservoirs
in Upper and Middle
Klamath: John Boyle Dam
(OR), Copco #1, #2, and
Iron Gate; further major
development prohibited
(Wild & Scenic Rivers Act)
(2) Happy Camp Town
Area, Seiad Valley Groundwater pumping
Salmon River HA Domestic (surface) Surface water
diversions, springs No significant development None No significant development Scott River HA
Domestic, agricultural
(33,000 acres irrigated)
Surface water diversions,
groundwater, springs No significant development (1) Scott River Valley Groundwater pumping
(increases for irrigation have
prompted adjudication)
Shasta Valley HA
Domestic, agricultural
(primarily surface)
Surface water
diversions, springs
48,000 acres irrigated
by Montague Water
Conservation District (14,000)
and other irrigation districts
(1) Shasta Valley
Groundwater pumping,
increasingly for domestic
and agricultural
Smith River HA
Domestic, agricultural,
industrial from surface
and ground
Surface water diversions No significant development (1) Smith River Plain Groundwater pumping Trinity River HA
Domestic, agricultural,
industrial, power generation,
intraregional water export
Surface water diversions incl.
via CVP, groundwater, springs
Trinity River Division of
Central Valley Project
(largest in Klamath Basin):

Trinity Dam, Clair Engle Lake,
Lewiston Reservoir; some to
Sacramento Valley; further
major development prohibited
(Wild & Scenic Rivers Act)
(3) Hayfork Valley, Hoopa
Valley, Hyampton Valley Groundwater pumping

NORTH COASTAL BASIN
Bodega Harbor HA Domestic Groundwater No significant development (1) Bodega Bay Area No significant development Cape Mendocino HA Domestic Groundwater No significant development (2) Honeydew Town Area, Mattole River Valley
Groundwater pumping
(domestic)
Eel River HA Municipal, power generation,
interregional export
Surface water diversions,
groundwater; considered
“water surplus” unit
80,700 acre-ft. Lake
Pillsbury, Scott Dam, Van
Arsdale Dam, Potter Valley
Tunnel provide power and
water to Russian River unit;
Willits’ water from James
River via reservoirs; 400
AF reservoirs Lakes Emily
and Ada Rose, serving
Brooktrails Township
(15) Valley/ Town Areas:

Dinsmore, Eden Eel River,
Garberville, Gravelly,
Hettenshaw, Larabee,
Laytonville, Little Lk, Lower
Laytonville, Pepperwood,
Round, Sherwood,
Weott, Williams
Groundwater pumping
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix H. Hydrology 241

HYDROLOGIC UNIT
(HU) OR AREA (HA) WATER RESOURCE USES WATER SUPPLY SOURCES

SURFACE WATER

INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT

GROUNDWATER AREAS
(DWR DEFINED)

GROUNDWATER

INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT
Eureka Plain HA Municipal, industrial,
surface storage
Surface water diversion,
groundwater; “sufficient to
meet current projections”
48,030 acre-ft. Ruth
Reservoir on Mad River
exports water to Eureka
Plain subbasin
Eel River/ Salmon Creek
Area, Jacoby Creek/
Freshwater Creek Areas
Groundwater pumping
Mad River HA Municipal, industrial,
surface storage
Surface water diversion,
groundwater; “sufficient to
meet current projections”
48,030 acre-ft. Ruth
Reservoir on Mad River
exports water to Eureka
Plain subbasin
Eel River/ Salmon Creek
Area, Jacoby Creek/
Freshwater Creek Areas
Groundwater pumping
Redwood Creek HA Domestic, agricultural Surface water diversion, groundwater No significant development (3) Big Lagoon, Prairie Creek Area, Redwood Creek Valley Groundwater pumping Mendocino Coast HA Domestic (ground),
agricultural (surface, ground)
Surface water diversion,
groundwater; “reaching
existing capacity”
No significant development
(11) Town Area/ Valley:

Annapolis Ohlson Ranch
Formation Highlands Big
River, Branscomb, Gualala
River, Little, Fort Bragg
Terrace, Ten Mile River,
Groundwater pumping
(domestic)
Russian River
Domestic/ municipal (ground:

Rhonert Park, Santa Rosa,
Sebastopol, Ukiah, Windsor),
agricultural, industrial,
E-generation, local export
70,000 af from Lake
Mendocino and 212,000 af
from Lake Sonoma; power
generated at both dams;
“sufficient to meet currently
projected demands for
the foreseeable future”
Lake Mendocino (122,500
af) stores Eel River and
East Fork Russian River
water via Coyote Dam, and
Lake Sonoma (381,000 af)
stores Dry Creek water via
Warm Springs Dam; water
also exported to Marin Co.

Numerous, incl: Potter,
Ukiah, Sanel, MacDowell,
Cloverdale, Alexander
Valley & Area, Healdsburg,
Santa Rosa Plain & Valley,
Kenwood/ Rincon, Lower RR,
Sebastopol Merced Highlands
Groundwater pumping
(domestic/ municipal)
Trinidad HU Domestic, agricultural
Surface water diversion,
groundwater; “sufficient
to meet currently
projected demands for
the foreseeable future”
No significant development (3) Big Lagoon, Prairie Creek Area, Redwood Creek Valley Groundwater pumping
Source: North Coast Regional Water Quality Board (NCRWQCB) 2011 — North Coast “Basin Plan” Table H-35 AB 1249 Groundwater Contaminants on the North Coast The table and charts below document North Coast contaminant exceedences of state mandated concentration limits for chemicals of concern to DWR: arsenic and nitrate. See Water Quality Section 2.3.8 for descriptive text and information related to chromium 6 (hexavalent chromium) and perchlorate. These charts were developed in 2018 using SWRCB’s online mapping tool, available on the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (GAMA) website. For the most up-to-date information, please refer to the GAMA website.

NAME CONTAMINANT COUNTY
California-American Larkfield Well 6 Arsenic Sonoma
City of Sebastopol Well 4 Arsenic Sonoma
City of Sebastopol Well 5 Arsenic Sonoma
City of Sebastopol Well 9 Arsenic Sonoma
Delores Lane Water System Well 1 Arsenic Sonoma
Hawkins Water Co. — CalWater Service Well 2 Arsenic Sonoma Laytonville CWD Well 1 Arsenic Mendocino
Laytonville CWD Well 6 Arsenic Mendocino
Loch Haven MWC Well 1 Arsenic Sonoma
Loch Haven MWC Well 2 Arsenic Sonoma
Mount Weske Estates Well 1 Arsenic Sonoma
Shamrock MHP Well 1 Arsenic Sonoma
Shamrock MHP Well 3 Arsenic Sonoma
Western Mobile Home Park Well 6 Arsenic Sonoma
Valley Ford Water Association Well 1 Nitrate NO3 Sonoma Valley Ford Water Association Well 2 Nitrate N & Nitrate NO3 Sonoma Valley Ford Water Association Well 3 Nitrate N & Nitrate NO3 Sonoma 242 Appendix H. Hydrology
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 ARSENIC AS (ug/L)
California-American Larkfield Well 6
AS (ug/L)
City of Sebastopol Well 4
AS (ug/L)
City of Sebastopol Well 5
AS (ug/L)
City of Sebastopol Well 9
AS (ug/L)
Delores Lane Water System Well 1
AS (ug/L)
Hawkins Water Co. — CalWater Service Well 2
Laytonville CWD Well 1
AS (ug/L)
Laytonville CWD Well 6
AS (ug/L)
Loch Haven MWC Well 1
AS (ug/L)
Loch Haven MWC Well 2
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix H. Hydrology 243 AS (ug/L)
Mount Weske Estates Well 1
AS (ug/L)
Shamrock MHP Well 1
AS (ug/L)
Shamrock MHP Well 3
NITRATE N (MCL = 10 MG/L) &
NITRATE NO3 (MCL = 45MG/L) AS (ug/L)
Western Mobile Home Park Well 6
Nitrate (NO3) mg/L
Valley Ford Water Association Well 1 — NO3
Nitrate (N) mg/L
Valley Ford Water Association Well 2 — NO3
Nitrate (NO3) mg/L
Valley Ford Water Association Well 2 — NO3
Nitrate (N) mg/L
Valley Ford Water Association Well 3 — NO3
Nitrate (NO3) mg/L
Valley Ford Water Association Well 3 — NO3
244 Appendix H. Hydrology
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table H-36 Disadvantaged Community
Water & Wastewater Service Providers
The table below presents Tribal systems and
economically disadvantaged community public
water suppliers and wastewater treatment
operators in the North Coast Region.

WATER SUPPLY AND/ OR WASTEWATER

SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION
Bertsch-Oceanview CSD Del Norte County
Big Rock CSD Del Norte County
Butte Court Mobile Home Park Del Norte County
Crescent City Water District Del Norte County
Del Norte County Community Service Area Del Norte County Gasquet CSD Del Norte County
HRC CSD Del Norte County
Hunter Valley CSD Del Norte County
JedSmith Homeowners’ Association Del Norte County
Klamath CSD (Del Norte Community Development) Del Norte County Las Palmas Mobile Home Park Del Norte County
Pine Grove Trailer Park Del Norte County
Redwood Park CSD Del Norte County
Reservation Ranch Del Norte County
Smith River CSD Del Norte County
West Park Properties Del Norte County
Yurok Tribe Del Norte/ Humboldt County
Alderpoint CWD Humboldt County
Beach Creek Mobile Home Park Humboldt County
Big Lagoon CSD Humboldt County
Big Lagoon Park Water Co. Humboldt County
Briceland CSD Humboldt County
Carlotta CSD Humboldt County
City Of Arcata Humboldt County
City Of Blue Lake WSA Humboldt County
City Of Eureka WSA Humboldt County
City Of Ferndale Humboldt County
City Of Fortuna WSA Humboldt County
City Of Rio Dell Humboldt County
City Of Trinidad Humboldt County
Ferndale Del Oro Water Company Humboldt County
Fieldbrook CSD Humboldt County
Garberville Sanitary District Humboldt County
Garberville Water Company Humboldt County
Hoopa Valley Tribe Humboldt County
H umboldt CSD Humboldt County
Humboldt Bay MWD Humboldt County
Humboldt County RID #1, Shelter Cove POTW Humboldt County Loleta CSD Humboldt County
Manila CSD Humboldt County
McKinleyville CSD Humboldt County
Midway RV Park Humboldt County
Mill Creek MWC Humboldt County
Miranda CSD Humboldt County
Moonstone Heights MWA Humboldt County
Myers Flat MWS Humboldt County
Orick CSD Humboldt County
Orleans CSD Humboldt County
Orleans Mutual Water Company Humboldt County
Palmer Creek CSD Humboldt County

WATER SUPPLY AND/ OR WASTEWATER

SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION
Palomino Estates MWC Humboldt County
Phillipsville CSD Humboldt County
Redcrest Water Works Humboldt County
Redway CSD Humboldt County
Riverside CSD Humboldt County
Riverbend Mobile Home Park Humboldt County
Scotia CSD Humboldt County
Seawood Estates Mutual Water Humboldt County
Waddington WW Humboldt County
Weott CSD Humboldt County
Westhaven CSD Humboldt County
Willow Creek CSD Humboldt County
Albion Mutual Water Company Mendocino County
Anderson Valley CSD Mendocino County
Big River Vista MWC Mendocino County
Branscomb MWC Mendocino County
Brooktrails Township CSD Mendocino County
Calpella CWD Mendocino County
Caspar South Service Company Mendocino County
Covelo CSD Mendocino County
Covelo Mobile Home Park Mendocino County
Creekside Cabins & RV Resort Mendocino County
Dolphin Isle Marina Mendocino County
Elk County Water District Mendocino County
Fort Bragg Municipal Improvement District Mendocino County Hills Ranch Mutual Water Company Mendocino County
Holly Ranch Village Mendocino County
Hopland Public Utility District Mendocino County
Irish Beach Water District Mendocino County
Lake View Mutual Water Co. Mendocino County
Laytonville County WD Mendocino County
Little Lake Mobile Home Park Mendocino County
Meadow Estates Mutual Mendocino County
Mendocino City CSD Mendocino County
Millview County Water District Mendocino County
North Gualala Water Company Mendocino County
Pine Mountain Mutual Water Co. Mendocino County
Point Arena Water Works Mendocino County
Point Arena WWTP Mendocino County
Point Cabrillo Highlands Mendocino County
Point of View Mutual Water Co. Mendocino County
Redwood Valley County Water District Mendocino County
Ridgewood Water System Mendocino County
River Estates Mutual Water Company Mendocino County
Round Valley CWD Mendocino County
Seafair Road and Water Company Mendocino County
Shorelands Road and Water Company Mendocino County
Surfwood Mutual Water Corporation Mendocino County
Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Mendocino County
Ukiah, City of Mendocino County
Westport County Water district Mendocino County
Wildwood Campground Mendocino County
Willits City WWTP Mendocino County
Willits, City of Mendocino County
Willow County Water District Mendocino County
Woods, (The) Mendocino County
Woodside RV Park and Campground Mendocino County
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix H. Hydrology 245

WATER SUPPLY AND/ OR WASTEWATER

SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION
State Line RV Park Modoc County
Newell County Water District Modoc County
Cal Ore Trail Mobile Estates Siskiyou County
Callahan Water District Siskiyou County
City of Etna Siskiyou County
Copco Lake MWC Siskiyou County
Cove Mobile Villa Siskiyou County
Dorris, City of Siskiyou County
Fort Jones, City of Siskiyou County
Grenada Sanitary District Siskiyou County
Happy Camp CSD Siskiyou County
Happy Camp SD Siskiyou County
Hornbrook CSD Siskiyou County
Juniper Creek Estates Siskiyou County
Lake Shastina CSD Siskiyou County
MacDoel Waterworks Siskiyou County
McCloud CSD Siskiyou County
Montague, City of Siskiyou County
Montair Subdivision Homeowners Association Siskiyou County Oak Valley Acres POA Siskiyou County
Sawyers Bar County Water District Siskiyou County
Shadow Mountain MHP Siskiyou County
Shasta View Heights Owners Association Siskiyou County
Siskiyou Co. Rolling Hills MWC Siskiyou County
Tennant CSD Siskiyou County
Tulelake, City of Siskiyou County
Weed, City of Siskiyou County
Yreka, City of Siskiyou County
Armstrong Valley — Cal Water Service (PUC) Sonoma County Austin Creek Mutual (Springhill) Sonoma County
Belmont Terrace MWC Sonoma County
Blue Spruce Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
Bodega Water Company Sonoma County
California American Geyserville Water Works (PUC) Sonoma County California American Water Larkfield Sonoma County
Cazadero Water Company, Inc. Sonoma County
City of Cotati Sonoma County
City of Rohnert Park Sonoma County
City of Santa Rosa Sonoma County
Cloverdale, City of Sonoma County
Delores Lane Water System Sonoma County
El Crystal Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
El Portal Mobile Estates Sonoma County
Forestville Water District Sonoma County
Geyserville Sanitation Zone Sonoma County
Graton CSD Sonoma County
Hawkins Water Co — Cal Water Service (PUC) Sonoma County Healdsburg, City of Sonoma County
Heights Mutual Water Company Sonoma County
Huckleberry Mutual Water Company Sonoma County
Journey’s End Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
Magic Mountain Mutual Water Company Sonoma County
Michele Mutual Water Company Sonoma County
Mobile Home Estates Sonoma County
Mountain View Mobile Estates, LLC Sonoma County
Noel Heights — Cal Water Service (PUC) Sonoma County
North Star Mobile Home Park Sonoma County

WATER SUPPLY AND/ OR WASTEWATER

SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION
Pine Hill Terrace Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
Plaza Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
Rains Creek Water District Sonoma County
Rancho Del Paradiso — Cal Water Service (PUC) Sonoma County Redwood Heights Water Association Sonoma County
Rincon Valley Mobile Estates Sonoma County
Roseland Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
Russian River County Sanitation District Sonoma County
Russian River Mutual Water Co. Sonoma County
Santa Rosa Mobile Estates Sonoma County
Sebastopol, City of Sonoma County
Shamrock Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
Six Acres Water Company Sonoma County
Sonoma County CSA 41 — Salmon Creek Sonoma County
Sonoma County Mutual Water Company Sonoma County
Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County
South Cloverdale Water Company Sonoma County
South Park County Sanitation District Sonoma County
Sunset Park Community Sonoma County
Sweetwater Springs CWD — Guernville Sonoma County
Sweetwater Springs CWD — Monte Rio Sonoma County
Valley Ford Water Association Sonoma County
Wayside Gardens Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
West Water Company (PUC) Sonoma County
Western Mobile Home Park Sonoma County
Willowside Mutual Water Company Sonoma County
Windsor, Town of Sonoma County
Yulupa Mutual Water Company Sonoma County
Bucktail Mutual Water Company Trinity County
Burnt Ranch Estates Mutual Water Co. Trinity County
Covington Mill MWC — Division B Trinity County
Indian Creek Trailer Park Trinity County
Lewiston Community Services District Trinity County
Lewiston Park MWC Trinity County
Pine Cove RV Park Trinity County
Rush Creek Mutual Water System Trinity County
Salyer Heights WS, Inc. Trinity County
Salyer Mutual WC (formerly Riverview AC) Trinity County Seymour’s Mutual Water System Trinity County
Treasure Creek Woods MWC Trinity County
Trinity Center MWC Trinity County
Trinity Co. WW Dist #1 Trinity County
Trinity Knolls Mutual Water Company Trinity County
Trinity Village Mutual Water Co. Trinity County
Weaverville CSD Trinity County
Weaverville SD Trinity County
TOTAL NUMBER PROVIDERS 208
246 Appendix I. Socioecomic
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX I.

SOCIOECONOMIC
The data included in the following table are organized by North Coast counties to allow for comparison of statistics at varying scales.

Note: Unless otherwise stated, values are provided for the entire county, not for only the portion of the county within the North Coast boundary.

Table I-37 Socioeconomic & Demographic Attributes of North Coast Counties

ATTRIBUTE METRIC COUNTY REGION CALIFORNIA

DEL NORTE COUNTY
Area/ Size Land area in square miles, 2010 1,006.37 50,246 155,779.22 Population Size Population, 2018 estimate 27,828 na 39,557,045 Population Size Population, 2010 28,610 675,845 37,254,523 Population Size Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 -2.7% 6.20% Population Size Households, 2013-2017 9,683 12,888,128
Population Density Persons per square mile, 2010 28.4 239.1 Age Distribution Persons under 5 years, percent, 2018 5.60% 6.20% Age Distribution Persons under 18 years, percent, 2018 21.0% 22.70% Age Distribution Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2018 18.0% 14.3% Native Native, percent, 2018 9.30% 1.60%
Education High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 81.60% 82.5% Education Bachelor’s degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 14.40% 32.6% Employment Total employment, percent change, 2015-2016 -0.70% 1.90% Employment Percent employed, 2013-2017 43.5%% 63.0%
Economy Retail sales per capita, 2012 $6,814 $12,665
Per Capita Income Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2017 dollars), 2013-2017 $20,809 $33,128 Median Household Income Median household income, 2013-2017 $41,287 $67,169 Poverty Rate Persons below poverty level, percent, 2013-2017 24.6% 13.3%

HUMBOLDT COUNTY
Area/ Size Land area in square miles, 2010 3,567.99 155,779.22 Population Size Population, 2018 estimate 136,373 39,557,045 Population Size Population, 2010 134,611 37,254,523
Population Size Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 1.3% 6.20% Population Size Households, 2003-2017 63,315 12,888,128 Population Density Persons per square mile, 2010 37.7 239.1 Age Distribution Persons under 5 years, percent, 2012 5.30% 6.20% Age Distribution Persons under 18 years, percent, 2012 19.20% 22.70% Age Distribution Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2012 17.9% 14.3% Native Native, percent, 2012 6.30% 1.60%
Education High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 90.50% 82.5% Education Bachelor’s degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 29.40% 32.6% Employment Employment, percent change, 2015-2016 3.5% 1.90% Employment Percent employed, May 2013 58.4% 63.0%
Economy Retail sales per capita, 2012 $13,048 $12,665
Per Capita Income Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2017 dollars), 2013-2017 $25,208 $33,128 Median Household Income Median household income, 2007-2011 $43,718 $67,169 Poverty Rate Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011 19.7% 13.3%

MENDOCINO COUNTY
Area/ Size Land area in square miles, 2010 3,506.34 155,779.22 Population Size Population, 2018 estimate 87,606 39,557,045 Population Size Population, 2010 87,850 37,254,523
Population Size Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 -0.30% 6.20% Population Size Households, 2013-2017 34,182 12,888,128 Population Density Persons per square mile, 2010 25.1 239.1 Age Distribution Persons under 5 years, percent, 2018 5.9% 6.20% Age Distribution Persons under 18 years, percent, 2012 21.4% 22.70% Age Distribution Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2012 22.1% 14.3% NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix I. Socioecomic 247

ATTRIBUTE METRIC COUNTY REGION CALIFORNIA
Native Native, percent, 2012 6.30% 1.60%
Education High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 86.9% 82.5% Education Bachelor’s degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 24.8% 32.6% Employment Employment, percent change, 2015-2016 2.80% 1.90% Employment Percent employed, May 2013 58.4% 63.0%
Economy Retail sales per capita, 2012 $12,527 $12,665
Per Capita Income Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2017 dollars), 2013-2017 $27,093 $33,128 Median Household Income Median household income, 2013-2017 $46,528 $67,169 Poverty Rate Persons below poverty level, percent, 2013-2017 16.30% 13.3%

MODOC COUNTY
Area/ Size Land area in square miles, 2010 3,917.77 155,779.22 Population Size Population, 2012 estimate 8,777 39,557,045 Population Size Population, 2010 9,686 37,254,523
Population Size Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 -9.4% 6.20% Population Size Households, 2007-2011 3,638 12,888,128
Population Density Persons per square mile, 2010 2.5 239.1 Age Distribution Persons under 5 years, percent, 2018 5.00% 6.20% Age Distribution Persons under 18 years, percent, 2018 19.5% 22.70% Age Distribution Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2018 26.9% 14.3% Native Native, percent, 2018 5.0% 1.60%
Education High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2013-2017 85.50% 82.5% Education Bachelor’s degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2013-2017 16.60% 32.6% Employment Employment, percent change, 2015-2016 -0.20% 1.90% Unemployment Percent Employed, May 2018 46.5% 63.0%
Economy Retail sales per capita, 2012 $4,904 $12,665
Per Capita Income Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2017 dollars), 2013-2017 $22,052 $33,128 Median Household Income Median household income, 2013-2017 $39,296 $67,169 Poverty Rate Persons below poverty level, percent, 2013-2017 19.2% 13.3%

SISKIYOU COUNTY
Area/ Size Land area in square miles, 2010 6,277.89 155,779.22 Population Size Population, 2018 estimate 43,724 39,557,045 Population Size Population, 2010 44,900 37,254,523
Population Size Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 -2.6% 6.20% Population Size Households, 2013-2017 19,018 12,888,128 Population Density Persons per square mile, 2010 7.2 239.1 Age Distribution Persons under 5 years, percent, 2018 5.2% 6.20% Age Distribution Persons under 18 years, percent, 2018 20.1% 22.70% Age Distribution Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2018 25.5% 14.3% Native Native, percent, 2018 5.1% 1.60%
Education High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2013-2017 89.3% 82.5% Education Bachelor’s degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2013-2017 22.7% 32.6% Employment Employment, percent change, 2015-16 -3.50% 1.90% Employment Percent employed, May 2013 50.9% 63.0%
Economy Retail sales per capita, 2007 $9,663 $12,665
Per Capita Income Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2017 dollars), 2013-2017 $24,605 $33,128 Median Household Income Median household income, 2007-2011 $40,884 $67,169 Poverty Rate Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011 17.7% 13.3%

SONOMA COUNTY
Area/ Size Land area in square miles, 2010 1,575.85 155,779.22 Population Size Population, 2018 estimate 499,942 39,557,045 Population Size Population, 2010 483,878 37,254,523
Population Size Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 3.3% 6.20% Population Size Households, 2007-2011 190,058 12,888,128 Population Density Persons per square mile, 2010 307.1 239.1 Age Distribution Persons under 5 years, percent, 2012 5% 6.20% Age Distribution Persons under 18 years, percent, 2012 19.6% 22.70% Age Distribution Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2012 19.7% 14.3% Native Native, percent, 2012 2.2% 1.60%
Education High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 87.7% 82.5% Education Bachelor’s degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 33.8% 32.6% 248 Appendix I. Socioecomic
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

ATTRIBUTE METRIC COUNTY REGION CALIFORNIA
Employment Employment, percent change, 2013-2017 1.0% 1.90% Employment Percent employed, 2013–2017 64.5% 63.0%
Economy Retail sales per capita, 2012 $12,233 $12,665
Per Capita Income Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2017 dollars), 2013-2017 $37,767 $33,128 Median Household Income Median household income, 2013-2017 $71,769 $67,169 Poverty Rate Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011 9.3% 13.3%

TRINITY COUNTY
Area/ Size Land area in square miles, 2010 3,179.25 155,779.22 Population Size Population, 2018 estimate 12,535 39,557,045 Population Size Population, 2010 13,784 37,254,523
Population Size Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 -9.1% 6.20% Population Size Households, 2007-2011 5,462 12,888,128
Population Density Persons per square mile, 2010 4.3 239.1 Age Distribution Persons under 5 years, percent, 2018 4.3% 6.20% Age Distribution Persons under 18 years, percent, 2018 17.1% 22.70% Age Distribution Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2018 27.3% 14.3% Native Native, percent, 2018 5.2% 1.60%
Education High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2013-2017 89.8% 82.5% Education Bachelor’s degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2013-2017 19.50% 32.6% Employment Employment, percent change, 2013-2017 -3.0% 1.90% Employment Percent employed, May 2018 47.3% 63.0%
Economy Retail sales per capita, 2012 $5,372 $12,665
Per Capita Income Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2011 dollars), 2015-2016 $23,575 $33,128 Median Household Income Median household income, 2013-2017 $36,563 $67,169 Poverty Rate Persons below poverty level, percent, 2013-2017 20.3% 13.3% Source: US Census (www.census.gov)
Table I-38 Economically Disadvantaged Populations and Area in the North Coast

TABLE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS AND AREA IN THE NORTH COAST Population Area
County Total
Population
Population
living in EDC
%Total
Population
in EDC
Population
living in
SEDC
%Total
Population
in SEDC
Total Area
Area
considered
EDC
% Total
Area EDC
Area
considered
SEDC
% Total
Area SEDC
Participating
North Coast
Counties
Del Norte 27,787 18,059 65% 12580 45% 648,879 622,568 96% 568,048 88% Humboldt 135,030 91,013 67% 38811 29% 2,310,054 1,783,497 77% 850,106 37% Mendocino 87,516 55,522 63% 37240 43% 2,245,146 1,411,131 63% 969,604 43% Modoc* 1,713 1,713 100% 791 46% 751,022 751,022 100% 224,797 30% Siskiyou* 34,798 28,691 82% 15228 44% 3,326,050 3,185,515 96% 1,591,994 48% Sonoma* 377,683 92,036 24% 23526 6% 834,109 96,131 12% 18,282 2% Trinity 13,363 10,730 80% 8378 63% 2,051,353 1,551,288 76% 1,090,498 53% Other North
Coast
Counties
Glenn* 100.46 100 100% 58 58% 54,246 54,246 100% 32,346 60% Lake* 1,211.74 1,194 99% 1165 96% 191,944 191,658 100% 191,145 100% Marin* 540.00 540 100% 0 0% 22,677 22,677 100% 0 0%
North Coast Totals 679,741 299,598 44% 137,776 20% 12,435,479 9,669,731 78% 5,536,820 45% Table I-39 Historic & Projected Population Growth of North Coast Counties COUNTY 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 90-00
% CHANGE
00-10
% CHANGE
10 –20
% CHANGE
20–30 %
CHANGE
Del Norte 18,217 23,460 27,507 28,389 26,997 27,570 15% 5% 5% 2% Humboldt 108,514 119,118 126,518 134,998 137,711 140,779 6% 5% 5% 2% Mendocino 66,738 80,345 86,265 87,667 90,175 93,452 7% 6% 6% 4% Modoc 9,449 9,678 9,449 9,689 9,422 9,267 -2% -3% -3% -1.6% Siskiyou 39,732 43,531 44,301 44,862 44,186 44,406 2% -2% -2% .5% Sonoma 299,681 388,222 458,614 483,541 515,486 554,694 15% 14% 14% 7.6% Trinity 11,858 13,063 13,022 13,779 13,389 13,322 0% 0% 0% -.5% Source: Department of Commerce, CA Dept. of Finance 2012 NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix I. Socioecomic 249
Table I-40 Economically Disadvantaged Communities of North Coast WMAs

WMA NAME STATUS PERCENT AREA PERCENT DAC

OR SDAC
Eel WMA
DAC 19.15 81.89 SDAC 62.74
Not DAC 18.11
Humboldt WMA
DAC 29.13 49.66 SDAC 20.53
Not DAC 50.34
Klamath WMA
DAC 18.44 96.57 SDAC 78.13
Not DAC 3.43
North Coast WMA
DAC 28.92 59.84 SDAC 30.92
Not DAC 40.16
Russian Bodega WMA
DAC 27.3 29.34 SDAC 2.04
Not DAC 70.66
Trinity WMA
DAC 25.91 78.00 SDAC 52.09
Not DAC 21.99
Source: US Census 2010 and California Department of Water Resources 250 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX J.

CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT, 2014
More recent climate analyses commissioned by the NCRP are cited in the 2019 (DRAFT) Plan and available on the NCRP website (https://northcoastresourcepartnership.org/resources/; filter by Climate Resiliency).

These include: Climate Mitigation Report for the North Coast Region of California (2018), North Coast Regional Climate Adaptation Strategies (2018), Climate and Natural Resources Analysis and Planning for the NCRP (2018), Carbon Inventory Estimates for the North Coast (2017), NCRP Integrated Strategic Plan: Climate Change Mitigation, GHG Emissions Reduction and Energy Independence (2017), Emissions Assessment Roadmap for the NCRP (2017) and Biomass Energy in the North Coast Region (2017).

PROCESS TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL VULNERABILITIES
Approach to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
The assessment process and results will provide North Coast water resource managers with a clearer understanding of the combined relative sensitivity and adaptability North Coast sectors to potential future climate impacts. Detail and precision of this assessment is designed to match the information available as well as the likely resources available for these types of assessments in this Region. Because many climate change impacts involve complex system responses to projected climate changes, detailed studies often involving numeric models of other systems (hydrologic, ecologic, vegetation, fire) that use climate projections as inputs are often used to determine and quantify impacts. These modeling studies — combined with regional climate projection data and region-specific information relevant to the sectors defined such as topography, land-use, crop values, water supply source, water quality issues, etc. — formed the core of knowledge for identifying impacts and determining sensitivity and adaptive capacity which combine to specify vulnerability3.

Overview of Steps to Develop North Coast CCVA
The NCRP framework for determination of North Coast regional vulnerability to climate change includes the following steps (discussed in turn):

1. Identify a suite of sectors comprising regional water-related systems (built/ economic and natural/ ecosystem);

2. Use available data, scenarios, and models to create projections of regional climatic and hydrologic variables (by applying GHG emission scenarios and publically available data);

3. Analyze projected variables to determine likely regional impacts of climate and hydrology on the sectors

4. Determine sensitivity and adaptive capacity of sectors to projected changes in climatic/ hydrologic variables; and

5. Co-analyze sensitivity and adaptive capacity to determine and rank overall vulnerability of each sector.

Per recommendations of the DWR’s 2016 IRWM Guidelines, the USEPA/ DWR’s “Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning” (2011), and others, the next steps for developing this preliminary CCVA into fuller Climate Analysis (per) include vetting the preliminary list of vulnerability rankings with the NCRP and other stakeholders; identifying priority sectors for further analysis; develop local strategies to reduce sensitivity and/or increase adaptive capacity of these priority sectors; and conducting ongoing refinement of CCVA and climate analyses (e.g. using new downscaled data sufficient to provide high-resolution information) to inform local planning and implementation.

Determinations of sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability necessarily contain a degree of subjectivity based on the availability of relevant literature, understanding of cause and effect processes relating future climatic conditions to the current and future state of the systems involved. However, a relative scale from high to low along with a consistently applied process should provide reasonable scoring precision and accuracy. The steps taken to complete the vulnerability assessment are described briefly and in general terms in the sections below. 3 Other resources relevant to local climate change assessment as part of IRWM planning include: an academic report about how various IRWM regions are addressing climate vulnerability http://www.acwa.com/news/climate-change/new-report-examines-climate-change-and-irwm-regions; a case study from Sonoma County Water Agency www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/Front%20Matter-Final.pdf; a Vulnerability Assessment from East Bay Municipal Utility District http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm. getfile?p_download_id=498020; and the “Tribal Communities Climate Change Vulnerability Matrix” currently in development with DWR at [email protected] NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 251 STEP 1) Identify a suite of “sectors” comprising regional water-related systems A regional characterization had been created in the form of the previous versions of the NCRP Plan, which provides the physical, and water resource context for defining sectors and assessing impacts to specific components of each sector. The NCRP includes descriptions of the physical and biological characteristics, sensitive habitats, special designations, and current water management issues. The North Coast CCVA considered all these attributes in the vulnerability assessment, via definition of a list of sectors for analysis, that together subsume these descriptions to represent the Region’s preparedness for potential climate change effects.

Sectors have been defined in this assessment to readily align with existing resource management frameworks so that the information can be most efficiently integrated with statewide planning processes, as necessary and appropriate. Assessment of sectors herein includes consideration of the current status of the sector, how it changes over time, and what drives those changes. Sectors sometimes are closely related or may directly or indirectly feedback on one another. The sectors can be grouped into two broad systems: Natural/ Ecological (with sectors representing “green” infrastructure/resources and ecosystem function) and Built/ Human/Economic (with sectors representing “gray” infrastructure/resources and economic viability).

The list of sectors chosen for this preliminary vulnerability assessment is intended to be representative of the suite of North Coast attributes that support its waters, habitats, communities, and economies. A number of sources were referenced during CCVA planning to ensure the NCRP list of sectors is representative, compatible, and meaningful4.

Table J-41 Sectors Assessed for Vulnerability to Climate Change

SYSTEM SECTOR DESCRIPTION
Natural/ Ecological
Forests Forests are areas of the region with high densities of trees, which make up the largest type of land cover of the region by area. This sector includes consideration of the natural ecosystems that compose the forest environment.

Rangelands
Rangelands are natural landscapes in the form of grasslands, shrublands, woodland, and wetlands, and in this context also include pasture lands (which are grasslands that also function as open spaces and working landscapes). This sector includes consideration of the natural ecosystems that compose the different rangeland types.

Riparian
The riparian zone or riparian area is the interface between land and a river or stream. They are important natural biofilters, protecting aquatic environments from excessive sedimentation, pollutants, and erosion and provide shelter for aquatic animals and they shade the stream which regulates water temperatures. This sector includes consideration of the ecosystems that compose the riparian zone, with special consideration to cold water fish species. Several of the streams and rivers throughout region are federally designated ‘Wild and Scenic’ rivers.

Coastal
The coastal zone can be defined by the area of interaction of land and sea processes. This sector includes systems such as coastal lagoons, the intertidal zone, near shore currents, sea cliffs, and developed areas along the coast. It includes Critical Coastal Areas, Areas of Special Biological Significance, State Water Quality Protection Areas, and Water Management Areas across the North Coast Region.

Built/ Human /
Economic
Forestry Forestry includes the management, use, and conservation of forest for human benefit. This sector includes natural resource management and economic activities related to the forest environment.

Urban Urban areas of the region are characterized by higher population and structure density and extensive impervious surface coverage. This sector includes consideration of impacts on property, infrastructure, and development.

Fisheries Fish harvesting from the ocean and rivers is an important economic activity on the region. This sector includes consideration how ecological impacts may affect the activities or economics of fish harvesting in the region.

Water supply/ demand
Water supply is physical and programmatic infrastructure that exists in the region to meet residential, industrial, and agricultural water demands. This sector includes consideration of impacts on water supply sources, storage, and conveyance; and changes in patterns of needs based on seasonal temperatures and land-use.

Energy capacity/ demand
Energy capacity refers to the amount of energy that power plants are able to generate to meet the needs of customers. This sector includes consideration of climate change impacts on energy sources such as hydropower and changes to overall demands and timing.

Recreation
Abundant natural landscapes and waterways in the region provide excellent aquatic recreation opportunities.

This sector includes consideration of how impacts may limit those opportunities for direct experience in the regions coastal ocean, rivers, and wetlands as well as appreciation of wildlife that depend on these resources. 4 Guidance for development of list of sectors provided by: “Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning” (USEPA, DWR 2011)“California Adaptation Planning Guide: Defining Regional and Local Impacts” (CalEMA, CNRA, FEMA 2012); “Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers” (NOAA 2010); and “Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments” (Climate Impacts Group, Univ WA, et al. 2007). 252 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 STEP 2) Use available data, models, and scenarios to create projections of regional climatic/ hydrologic variables Available data were used to determine the direction and degree of change for regional climatic and hydrologic variables. Projected changes to climatic variables, and related responses in hydrologic variables, are presented in tables below for the Region’s counties and WMAs, respectively.

Climate Models
Climate science and associated models have historically been focused on large spatial scales, but have been more recently been applied to estimating future climatic conditions and expected hydrologic responses at regional and local scales (e.g. county, basin/WMA; Thorne et al. 2012a). There are numerous widely applied global climate models, each with variations in representation of the physical and chemical processes and interactions that drive climate patterns.

Therefore, climate scientists often use multiple models (rather than a single model) to evaluate potential future climate patterns and trends, since there is a large amount of uncertainty in the ability to model complex and dynamic systems such as climate. In this CCVA, projections of both climate and hydrologic changes have been derived from a number of different sources that have been published in the scientific literature. Analyses incorporate two global climate models: the Parallel Climate Model (PCM) and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GDFL) Model.

Climate projections have been regionally downscaled by independent studies to better represent future conditions in California and specific regions within the state including the North Coast using bias correction and special downscaling (BCSD) for a suite of several models and emissions scenarios made available by the California Energy Commission were downloaded for this assessment (available at www.caladapt.org) which are reported in Maurer et al., 2002.

Emission Scenarios
All projections of future climate, hydrology, and sea level by global climate models are very sensitive to future carbon and greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, which produce a range of projected change. Emissions scenarios are plausible descriptions, without likelihoods, of the future states of the world and are used to estimate future greenhouse gas emissions. They vary based on assumptions about the nature of population growth and economic development in the future and the resultant estimated rates of fossil fuel and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The two most commonly used emissions scenarios are the A2 and B1 scenarios, which provide a reasonable range of potential future emissions. A2 assumes a continued exponential increase in GHG emissions over the next 100-yrs, with some reduction relative to current rates. B1 assumes a significant global reduction in GHG emissions from industrialized and developing nations with the peak in global carbon emission reached in the middle of 21st century and then declining back to carbon emission rates of the 1970s. For the majority of references cited in this synthesis, the A2 and B1 emissions scenarios are used to bracket the high and low projections. Climatic model outputs are expressed in summary metrics that represent an overall shift in certain climate variables over decadal time scales (e.g., mean annual precipitation), changes in spatial patterns (e.g., temperature gradients), or ‘extreme event’ changes (e.g., magnitude, frequency, and return intervals).

Table J-42 Projected Changes to Climate & Hydrology of North Coast Counties

CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC VARIABLES

DEL NORTEGLENNHUMBOLDTLAKEMARINMENDOCINOMODOCSISKIYOUSONOMATRINITYREGION Actual evapotranspiration -0.24 +0.52 -0.09 -1.03 -1.69 -1.45 +0.16 +0.54 -2.00 +1.42 +3.42 Climatic Water Deficit +4.64 +5.50 +4.76 +5.76 +5.61 +5.74 +7.60 +6.95 +6.31 +6.20 -0.11 Excess water -12.57 -12.64 -10.99 -8.54 -3.68 -8.71 -3.02 -7.88 -5.98 -12.41 -6.43 Fire Risk +0.05 +0.07 +0.05 +0.07 +0.05 +0.06 -0.02 +0.03 +0.06 +0.07 +0.01 Maximum July Temperature +11.22 +10.39 +9.86 +9.78 +4.30 +9.39 +11.17 +11.88 +6.62 +10.12 +3.50 Minimum January Temp +5.25 +5.91 +5.18 +5.62 +6.69 +5.88 +6.76 +5.27 +6.56 +5.43 -1.13 Potential Evapotranspiration +3.34 +3.82 +3.15 +3.90 +3.33 +3.47 +3.78 +3.49 +3.73 +3.46 -0.27 Recharge -5.57 -0.21 -6.41 -1.87 -0.98 -4.82 -1.18 -3.09 -2.27 -7.03 -4.76 Runoff -6.43 -12.16 -4.08 -7.70 -3.90 -4.29 -0.13 -2.35 -4.77 -3.77 +1.00 Snowfall -3.56 -4.61 -4.62 -0.85 -0.09 -1.82 -3.14 -7.94 -0.20 -11.08 -10.88 Snowmelt -3.05 -3.67 -4.06 -0.57 -0.03 -1.44 -2.23 -6.81 -0.10 -9.69 -9.59 Snowpack -3.46 -6.62 -8.87 -0.65 0.00 -1.28 -9.00 -25.23 0.00 -25.31 -25.31 Soil water storage -5.86 -3.25 -14.56 -4.64 -8.33 -9.70 -2.86 -6.03 -11.00 -5.72 +5.28 Sublimation -0.51 -0.95 -0.56 -0.29 -0.06 -0.39 -0.84 -1.10 -0.10 -1.33 -1.23 Total precipitation -13.11 -13.06 -11.37 -11.54 -7.14 -11.29 -2.49 -6.45 -9.61 -11.03 -1.42 Source: United States Geological Survey, California Energy Commission after Thorne et al. 2012a NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 253 Table J-43 Projected Changes to Climate & Hydrology of North Coast WMAs

CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC VARIABLES
EELHUMBOLDT KLAMATHN. COAST RIVERSRUSSIAN/ BODEGA TRINITYREGION Actual evapotranspiration -0.31 +0.39 +0.43 -1.36 -2.07 +1.34 +3.41 Climatic Water Deficit +5.45 +4.74 +6.78 +5.58 +6.16 +5.95 -0.21 Excess water -11.19 -11.30 -7.54 -9.18 -5.55 -11.91 -6.36 Fire Risk +0.07 +0.04 +0.02 +0.06 +0.06 +0.07 +0.01
Maximum July Temp +9.59 +9.01 +11.68 +10.28 +6.67 +10.28 +3.61 Minimum January Temp +5.59 +5.07 +5.53 +5.62 +6.38 +5.34 -1.04 Potential Evapotranspiration +3.49 +3.08 +3.49 +3.51 +3.50 +3.34 -0.16 Recharge -5.61 -7.91 -3.07 -5.15 -2.38 -6.33 -3.95
Runoff -5.51 -2.62 -2.22 -4.39 -4.18 -3.93 +0.25
Snowfall -4.44 -5.72 -6.86 -1.42 -0.26 -10.89 -10.63
Snowmelt -3.75 -5.05 -5.81 -1.19 -0.13 -9.53 -9.40
Snowpack -6.96 -12.25 -20.48 -2.34 -0.01 -24.60 -24.59
Soil water storage -11.21 -19.90 -5.41 -8.60 -11.13 -5.45 +5.68 Sublimation -0.70 -0.64 -1.01 -0.24 -0.13 -1.29 -1.16
Total precipitation -12.39 -10.95 -6.31 -11.46 -9.25 -10.58 -1.33 Source: United States Geological Survey, California Energy Commission after Thorne et al. 2012 Incorporating Uncertainty
Because climate model outputs have a range of uncertainty and agreement among individual studies, this CCVA provides a measure of “confidence” associated with each of the climate/hydrology projections considered herein.

Confidence in the final “vulnerability” rankings (and priorities identified thereby) is limited by the quality and availability of region-specific data and peer-reviewed literature that were used to score the elements of vulnerability (as described below, vulnerability is a combination of each sector’s “sensitivity” and “adaptive capacity.” It must be noted that these determinations for both sensitivity and adaptive capacity are somewhat subjective; the credibility of results herein and strength of the CCVA conclusions is supported by the step-wise development process that includes definition of rankings (High, Moderate, Low) and the systematic application of matrices to produce a consistent assessment of the entire (and varied) Region. The table below defines the confidence ratings used for the CCVA.

Table J-44 Definitions for Climate Change Projection Confidence Ratings

CONFIDENCE RANKING DEFINITION
High General agreement of modeling studies has created consensus in the scientific literature.

Available information is directly relevant and applicable to local systems.

Moderate Scientifically supported but consensus is not present due to lack of information, moderate differences between studies, or limitations for drawing general conclusions from limited scientific information. Accessibility or application of information to local systems may be somewhat limited.

Low Limited information or conflicting results between studies, model outputs, or research findings.

Accessibility or application of information to local systems is very limited.

STEP 3) Analyze projected variables to determine likely regional impacts of climate and hydrology on the sectors
A suite of 48 potential impacts to sectors resulting from changes in climatic and hydrologic variables in North Coast Region were identified using the most credible and recently local and regional scientific literature and publically available datasets. Impacts are evidenced and documented as changes to the state, function, or structure of natural and human systems in the North Coast Region that are thought to be linked to climate (directly) and/ or hydrology (indirectly). Such changes have already been detected at global to local scales and are expected to continue (Moser et al. 2009), albeit in largely unpredictable ways. The potential climate-associated impacts listed in Table are not comprehensive, but instead focus on responses related to the health of watershed and aquatic systems in the North Coast Region for which there is a developed body of scientific information. Whenever possible, supporting information has been collated specific to the North Coast Region (or even to the county-level), and in other cases inference is drawn from anticipated impacts throughout the state and for neighboring regions. 254 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 STEP 4) Determine sensitivity and adaptive capacity of sectors to projected changes in climatic/hydrologic variables Sensitivity
For each impact identified, the sensitivity of sectors to projected impacts was determined via examination of the scientific literature, analysis of climate change projection data, and other sources specific to California or within the North Coast IRWM Region boundary. “Sensitivity” is the degree to which system components within each sector (e.g., wildfire regimes, salmonid populations, or stormwater conveyance) respond to climatic/hydrologic conditions (e.g., temperature and precipitation), including to potential system impacts (e.g., stream temperature increases or snowmelt timing changes). If the sector or sector component is likely to be affected by future climatic conditions then it is considered sensitive (on a relative scale). The table below (“Definitions for Sensitivity to Climate Change Impacts”) presents the definitions of the relative sensitivity scale. Questions considered when determining the relative degree of sensitivity include:
• What is the degree of exposure to climate change? For example, coastal areas are more exposed to sea level rise related impacts compared to inland areas. • Would the existing stressors in the system and future climatic conditions exacerbate these stressors? For example, the degree of urban encroachment on forests may be a stressor that promotes greater frequency of wildfire ignitions. • Is the existing balance of resource demand and supply such that climate may increase demand and/or reduce supply for water-related resources? Table J-45 Definitions for Sensitivity to Climate Change Impacts

SENSITIVITY DEFINITION
High System components are expected to respond measurably to an impact based on historical observations or modeling studies.

Moderate The response of system components to an impact has not necessarily been measured, but based on our understanding system function there are likely to be direct or indirect responses.

Low System components do not respond measurably to impacts and based on understanding of system function there are not likely to be direct or indirect responses.

Adaptive Capacity
For each impact identified, the adaptive capacity of sectors was determined via literature review and data analysis.

Projected climate/ hydrologic data sources are state or Region-specific. “Adaptive capacity” is the inherent natural ability of a sector or sector component to accommodate an impact that results from projected climate or hydrologic changes. For natural systems, the CCVA assesses the intrinsic ability of system components to adapt without any human intervention such as policy or management action changes. For assessment of human/built/economic sectors, adaptive capacity assessment may include consideration of the timeframe and level of effort or cost associated with management actions to increase resiliency to a climate change impact. The following table (“Definitions for Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Impacts”) presents the definitions of the relative adaptive capacity scale. In determining how adaptable a sector is to altered climatic/ hydrologic regime, the following questions are considered:
• What are current level of stressors and flexibility to respond to future stressors? Can or has the system adapted to historic climatic changes or inclement conditions? • Are there limiting factors that restrict the system’s ability to adapt? For example, sub-alpine species’ ability to adjust to future climate can be limited by elevation if they currently exist at the top of the existing elevations. • Are there any barriers to the system’s abilities to accommodate adjustments (legal, physical, biological) in response to future climate? • How do timescales of adaptation rate compare to the rate of climate changes? • Are there efforts currently underway that would increase adaptability from human/built/economic sectors? Table J-46 Definitions for Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Impacts

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY DEFINITION
High System components are expected to accommodate climate changes and expected impacts in ways that avoid negative consequences.

Moderate The system has some capacity to adjust, and the degree of negative consequences will depend on the magnitude of individual and cumulative impacts.

Low The system has little or no capacity to accommodate expected impacts so that negative impacts cannot be avoided NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 255 STEP 5) Co-analyze sensitivity with adaptive capacity to determine and rank overall vulnerability of each sector
In the context of this CCVA, “vulnerability” is the susceptibility of a sector to possible detrimental impacts due to changed climate. The vulnerability of systems to specific climate change impacts is determined for this assessment by combining the sensitivity and adaptive capacity ratings in the manner outlined in the matrix below (“Matrix to Determine Climate Change Vulnerability”). Sectors that have high sensitivity to climate changes and a low capacity to adapt are considered to be most highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. As sensitivity decreases the weighting of the adaptive capability is preserved, such that even a system component that is considered not sensitive to climate change but has a low ability to adapt is considered moderately vulnerable.

The column labeled ‘Comments’ in the Table below (“Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of the North Coast Region”) briefly documents specific elements of each sector’s sensitivity and adaptive capacity that lead to the final determination of vulnerability. The elements that were considered include physical exposure to the impact, existing stressors, observed or modeled responses, and barriers to adaptation strategies and actions.

Table J-47 Matrix to Determine Climate Change Vulnerability

ADAPTIVE

CAPACITY

SENSITIVITY
RANK High Moderate Low
High Moderate Low Low
Moderate High Moderate Low
Low High High Moderate

SECTORS ASSESSED FOR VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Checklist for Developing the List of Potentially Vulnerable Sectors DWR developed the following checklist to guide preliminary development of a climate change vulnerability assessment framework; the checklist represents a “minimum” effort at climate assessment per DWR IRWM Guidelines (DWR 2016). It will continue to serve as a discussion tool and to help identify data gaps, for questions that cannot be answered at this time. In the following list, bold italics indicate the question was considered of particular relevance (or was answered in the affirmative) during determination of vulnerability of the North Coast Region sectors.

I. DWR Checklist Sector: Water Demand
NCRP CCVA Sector(s): Water Supply/ Demand
• Are there major industries that require cooling/process water in your planning region? • Does water use vary by more than 50% seasonally in parts of your region? ü Are crops grown in your region climate-sensitive? Would shifts in daily heat patterns, such as how long heat lingers before night-time cooling, be prohibitive for some crops? ü Do groundwater supplies in your region lack resiliency after drought events? • Are water use curtailment measures effective in your region? ü Are some instream flow requirements in your region either currently insufficient to support aquatic life, or occasionally unmet? II. DWR Checklist Sector: Water Supply
NCRP CCVA Sector(s): Water Supply/ Demand
ü Does a portion of the water supply in your region come from snowmelt? ü Does part of your region rely on coastal aquifers? Has salt intrusion been a problem in the past? ü Would your region have difficulty in storing carryover supply surpluses from year to year? • Has your region faced a drought in the past during which it failed to meet local water demands? • Does your region have invasive species management issues at your facilities, along conveyance structures, or in habitat areas? 256 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 III. DWR Checklist Sector: Water Quality
NCRP CCVA Sector(s): Riparian, Fisheries, Recreation, Water Supply/Demand ü Are increased wildfires a threat in your region? If so, does your region include reservoirs with firesusceptible vegetation nearby which could pose a water quality concern from increased erosion? • Does part of your region rely on surface water bodies with current or recurrent water quality issues related to eutrophication, such as low dissolved oxygen or algal blooms? Are there other water quality constituents potentially exacerbated by climate change? ü Are seasonal low flows decreasing for some waterbodies in your region? If so, are the reduced low flows limiting the waterbodies’ assimilative capacity? ü Are there beneficial uses designated for some water bodies in your region that cannot always be met due to water quality issues?
• Does part of your region currently observe water quality shifts during rain events that impact treatment facility operation?
IV. DWR Checklist Sector: Sea Level Rise
NCRP CCVA Sector(s): Coastal, Urban, Agriculture
ü Has coastal erosion already been observed in your region? ü Are there coastal structures, such as levees or breakwaters, in your region? ü Is there significant coastal infrastructure, such as residences, recreation, water and wastewater treatment, tourism, and transportation) at less than six feet above mean sea level in your region? ü Are there climate-sensitive low-lying coastal habitats in your region? • Are there areas in your region that currently flood during extreme high tides or storm surges? ü Is there land subsidence in the coastal areas of your region? • Does part of your region lie within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District? ü Does aging critical flood protection infrastructure exist in your region? • Have flood control facilities (such as impoundment structures) been insufficient in the past? • Are wildfires a concern in parts of your region?
V. DWR Checklist Sector: Ecosystem and Habitat Vulnerability NCRP CCVA Sector(s): Forest, Rangeland, Riparian, Coastal, Forestry, Fisheries ü Does your region include inland or coastal aquatic habitats vulnerable to erosion and sedimentation issues? ü Does your region include estuarine habitats which rely on seasonal freshwater flow patterns? ü Do climate-sensitive fauna or flora populations live in your region? ü Do endangered or threatened species exist in your region? Are changes in species distribution already being observed in parts of your region? ü Does the region rely on aquatic or water-dependent habitats for recreation or other economic ü Are there rivers in your region with quantified environmental flow requirements or known water quality/quantity stressors to aquatic life? ü Do estuaries, coastal dunes, wetlands, marshes, or exposed beaches exist in your region? If so, are coastal storms possible/frequent in your region? ü Are there areas of fragmented estuarine, aquatic, or wetland wildlife habitat within your region? • Are there movement corridors for species to naturally migrate? Are there infrastructure projects planned that might preclude species movement? VII. DWR Checklist Sector: Hydropower
NCRP CCVA Sector(s): Energy Demand/ Capacity
ü Is hydropower a source of electricity in your region? ü Are energy needs in your region expected to increase in the future? • If so, are there future plans for hydropower generation facilities or conditions for hydropower generation in your region?
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 257

PROJECTED CHANGES TO CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
Climatic & Hydrologic Variables for the Region, Basins, and Counties Projected changes in climate and hydrologic variables are adapted from USGS 2012 at California Climate Commons and Thorne et al. 2012a. The GFDL A2 scenario was used to generate projected values.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT This appendix presents full and summarized results of the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA) that is being conducted for the NCRP. Where appropriate, formal assessment results are supplemented with results from interviews conducted with a diversity of local professional planners throughout the Region. Refinements will be ongoing.

Via analyses of the climatic and hydrologic variables described previously, vulnerability (=sensitivity X adaptive capacity) to 48 inter-related impacts was assessed. The Table below lists these impacts by sector and provides supporting evidence from the recent peer-reviewed scientific literature, a confidence rating, and a recommended (preliminary) vulnerability rating for each sector X impact combination. Vulnerability to projected climatic/ hydrologic conditions ranges throughout Region sectors (as well as spatially) from High to Low. Results suggest that the Region’s natural/ecological systems (particularly riparian, coastal, and forest systems) are more vulnerable than its built/human/economic systems; however, of the latter, vulnerabilities exist: in fisheries, forestry, infrastructure (e.g. water provision/treatment, flood management), and recreation. Conversely, agricultural sectors, including rangelands, may respond somewhat favorably to projected climate change “impacts.” For example, longer growing season and increased forage can be beneficial; however, complicating co-factors (e.g. reduced surface flows, increased drought frequency) may reduce the expression of these theoretical benefits.

The list below summarizes preliminary findings for “vulnerability” of North Coast sectors. Full results follow (see Table below. Note that in the list below, bold indicates a sector is leaning strongly toward an end of the spectrum. Refinement of the preliminary results in will ultimately allow the NCRP to direct North Coast resources toward implementation projects that directly or indirectly address regional climate change goals and objectives (while providing additional local benefits).

Natural/ Ecological Systems
• Riparian: High
• Coastal: Moderate-High
• Forests: Moderate-High
• Rangelands: Moderate
Built/ Human/ Economic Systems
• Agriculture: Moderate-High
• Fisheries: Moderate-High
• Forestry: Moderate-High
• Recreation: Moderate-High
• Urban/ Infrastructure: Moderate-High
• Water Supply & Demand: Low-Moderate
• Energy Capacity & Demand: Low
258 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table J-48 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA), North Coast Region *”Drivers Of Change” are listed for each impact to which they are most directly connected: Average maximum air temperatures (AMT), Air temperature variability (ATV), Annual precipitation totals (APT), Precipitation variability (PV), Sea Level (SL), Droughts (D), Potential evapotranspiration (PET), Groundwater recharge (GWR), Potential evapotranspiration (PET), Annual runoff (AR), Runoff variability (RV), Snow Pack (SP), Flooding (F).

SECTOR DRIVER* OF
CHANGE

EXPECTED

IMPACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SENSITIVITY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

OVERALL

VULNERABILITY

CONFIDENCE

RATING COMMENTS
Forest
AMT
ATV
PV
D
PET
Increased
wildfire
frequency,
extent, and
intensity
Fried et al. 2004
FRAP, 2010; Flannigan
et al., 2000
Westerling et al. 2006
Westerling and
Bryant , 2008
Lenihan et al., 2008
High Moderate High High
Forests are extensive throughout
the region indicating high exposure
to this impact. Current stressors
include encroachment at the urbanwildland interface. Forests will adapt to shifting wildfire regimes over the
long term but may not do so quickly
enough to avoid harm ecosystems.

Shift from conifer
dominance to
mixed evergreen
hardwood species
FRAP, 2010
Lenihan et al., 2006
PRBO, 2011
Lenihan et al., 2008
Barr et al. 2010
High Low High High
The majority of forests in the North Coast
region are conifer dominated, indicating
high exposure. Modeling studies generally
show that forest composition will shift
to mixed evergreen hardwoods rather
than adaptation of the conifers indicating
low adaptive capacity to this impact.

Shift in forest
species ranges
towards higher
elevations, loss
of subalpine
habitat
Lenihan et al., 2006
PRBO, 2011 Moderate Low High High
Primarily mountainous portions of
the region will be affected. Habitat
fragmentation may limit adaptation
in some areas as will the highest
elevations that occur in the region.

This impact may affect several rare,
threatened, or endangered species
that live in the region’s forests.

Increased tree
mortality due
to combined
effects to
insects, disease
and drought
Hansen and Weltzin, 2000
Shugart, 2003
Barr et al., 2010
High Moderate High High
Forests are extensive throughout
the region indicating high exposure.

Forests will adapt to changes over the
long term but may not do so quickly
enough to avoid harm to ecosystems.

Reduction of
coastal redwood
forest habitat
Flint and Flint, 2012 High Low High Moderate
Large portions of the region provide
redwood habitat that exists in a very
narrow zone of climate tolerance
indicating high exposure. Simulation
studies indicate dramatic contractions in
the geographic envelope that will support
redwood forest in simulation studies
indicating low adaptive capacity. Severity
of the reduction in suitable habitat is
dependent on CO2 emissions scenario,
which adds uncertainty to this impact.

Vegetation
production
increases and
timing changes
FRAP, 2010
Shugart, 2003
Hansen and Weltzin, 2000
Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
Forests are extensive throughout the
region indicating high exposure. Complex
interactions of enhanced CO2, temperature
increases, and hydrologic changes
contribute to uncertainty of changes.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 259 SECTOR DRIVER* OF
CHANGE

EXPECTED

IMPACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SENSITIVITY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

OVERALL

VULNERABILITY

CONFIDENCE

RATING COMMENTS
Rangeland
AMT
ATV
PV
D
PET
Conversion of
scrublands and
woodland to
grasslands
FRAP, 2010
Pierson et al., 2008 Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
Scrublands and woodlands are a smaller
portion of the region compared to forests
indicating moderate exposure. Modeling
studies indicate conversion may occur
in some areas rather than adaptation.

Limited information and contributes to
low confidence for this impact. Complex
interactions of enhanced CO2, temperature
increases, and hydrologic changes
contribute to uncertainty of changes.

Increased
stress on
drought
intolerant plant
species and
inundation by
invasive grasses
Cayan et al., 2006
Thorne, et al., 2012a Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Drought tolerant invasive species will
have a competitive advantage during
summer months in the future. No specific
modeling evidence for the region was
identified but this impact is directly
tied to future temperatures contributing
to moderate confidence. Complex
interactions of enhanced CO2, temperature
increases, and hydrologic changes
contribute to uncertainty of changes.

Vegetation
production
increases and
timing changes
FRAP, 2010
Shaw et al., 2009
Chaplin- Kramer, 2012
Cornwall et al., 2012
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012
Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
Rangelands are a smaller portion
of the region compared to forests
indicating moderate exposure. Complex
interactions of enhanced CO2, temperature
increases, and hydrologic changes
contribute to uncertainty of changes.

Riparian
AMT
ATV
D
RV
SP
GWR
Reduced
aquatic
habitat extent
and quality
with reduced
summer base
flows, stream
temperature
increases,
and increased
pollutant
concentrations.

Moyle et al., 2012a
Moyle et al., 2012b
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012
PRBO, 2011
NMFS, 2012
Medellín-Azuara
et al., 2008
Barr et al., 2010
NCIRWMP, 2007
High Low High High
The North Coast region has the highest
amount of high priority riparian zones
in the state: locations where high
value water supply coincides with other
threats which are areas that should
be prioritized for restoration. Riparian
areas provide habitat for several rare,
threatened, or endangered species.

Smith River and tributaries, Klamath
River and tributaries, Scott River, Salmon
River, Trinity River, Eel River, and Van
Duzen River are all federally designated
Wild and Scenic Rivers. These factors
indicate high exposure. Surplus moisture
delivered in winter is not expected to
provide a sufficient buffer to avoid
summer low flow reductions indicating
low adaptive capacity. Water bodies that
drain approximately fifty-nine percent of
the area in the North Coast Region are
listed as impaired due to sediment under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

AMT
ATV
Increased
thermal stress
on cold water
fish, amphibian,
and invertebrate
species and a
shift in thermal
spawning
conditions
to earlier in
the year
Porinchu et al., 2010
Melack et al., 1997
Parker et al., 2008
PRBO, 2011
Barr et al., 2010
NCIRWMP, 2007
High Low High High
Salmonids live within a narrow water
temperature range directly correlated
to air temperatures, outside of which
survival is affected. Current stressors
include riparian degradation with loss of
shade cover and reduced baseflow which
will limit adaptive capacity in the future.

Several rare, threatened and endangered
species may be negatively impacted
such as the Northern Red Legged Frog.
260 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 SECTOR DRIVER* OF
CHANGE

EXPECTED

IMPACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SENSITIVITY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

OVERALL

VULNERABILITY

CONFIDENCE

RATING COMMENTS
Riparian
RV
F
Increased
landslides
and sediment
loading to
streams
following
wildfires and
high intensity
rainfall events
FRAP, 2010
NCIRWMP, 2007 High Low High Moderate
Large proportions of the region’s
watersheds are forested and thus
exposed to this impact that results from
wildfire regime shifts. Some of the most
sensitive beneficial uses are currently
impacted by sediment. Those uses are
associated with the migration, spawning,
reproduction, and early development
of coldwater fish such as coho salmon
and steelhead trout. Uncertainty in
rainfall projections contributes to lack
reduced confidence in this impact.

AMT
ATV
D
RV
SP
GWR
Decreased
native fish
habitat
distribution
and population
declines
Knapp et al., 2001,
Pope et al., 2009
Moyle et al., 2012a
Moyle et al., 2012b
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012
NCIRWMP, 2007
High Low High Moderate
Populations of these fish currently are
low and habitat conditions generally are
poor; these circumstances are likely to
deteriorate further with projected climate
change. Coho salmon have experienced
a significant decline in the past 40
to 50 years. Coho salmon abundance,
including hatchery stocks, has declined
at least 70% since the 1960s, and is
currently 6 to 15% of its abundance
during the 1940s. Current stressors
include riparian degradation, sediment
delivery from logging roads, dams and
other hydro modifications. These stressors
can affect the migration, spawning,
reproduction, and early development
of coldwater fish such as coho salmon
and steelhead trout. Dependence of
salmonids populations on ocean dynamics
adds to uncertainty to this impact.

Coastal
SL Increased
coastal erosion
Cayan et al., 2008a
Cayan, et al., 2009
Bromirski et al., 2005
Laird, 2013
High Low High Moderate
A substantial portion of the region
lies adjacent to a coastline, indicating
exposure to erosion increases with sea
level rise. In the absence of coastal
armoring, there is very little natural
adaptive capacity that can mitigate beach
erosion or seacliff retreat. No specific
estimates of increased coastal erosion
rates were identified for the region.

SL
Landward
migration
of intertidal
marine species
with sea
level rise
Cayan et al., 2008a
Laird, 2013 High Moderate High High
If the coastal plains are not developed,
landward migration of intertidal species
with sea level is possible. The regions
beaches are rugged and mountains or
steep hills often extend to the shoreline.

In several areas there are limited
low-lying areas where intertidal marine
species can migrate. Additionally many
of the coastal low lying areas such as
Humboldt Bay and Crescent City have
been urbanized thus limiting adaptive
capacity near these locations.

SL
Reduced
extent of tidal
marshlands and
other wetlands
PRBO, 2011
Langley et al., 2009
Stralberg et al., 2011
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012
Laird, 2013
High Moderate High High
Tidal marshlands throughout the region
provide essential habitat for fish,
amphibians and migratory sea birds in
addition to buffering developed areas
from flooding indicating exposure to
this impact. Where landward migration
of tidal marshlands in not possible due
to local topography or urbanization,
tidal marshlands will disappear.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 261 SECTOR DRIVER* OF
CHANGE

EXPECTED

IMPACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SENSITIVITY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

OVERALL

VULNERABILITY

CONFIDENCE

RATING COMMENTS
Coastal
AMT
RV
D
SL
Shifts in sea
bird species
migration
patterns
PRBO, 2011 High Moderate High Low
The region is home to several species
of seabirds that use coastal wetlands
of the region for breeding, foraging
and resting indicating exposure to this
impact. Earlier onset of summer, habitat
and food availability changes will affect
migration patterns. Complex interactions
of seasonal temperature changes with
dynamics of the California current (also
subject to climate impacts) contribute
uncertainty of the severity of changes.

SL
Increased
frequency and
spatial extent
of flooding
of coastal
lowlands
PRBO, 2011
Bromirski et al., 2012 High Low High High
Since a large portion of the region
is coastline including several
developed areas there is substantial
to exposure to the increase of sea
level driven flooding risks.
-
Reduction in
shell forming
ability of
mollusks due to
higher ocean pH
Michaelidis et al., 2005
Shirayama &
Thornton 2005
Kleypas et al., 1999
Riebesell et al., 2000
Feely et al., 2004
Harley et al., 2006
High Low High High
Shellfish are abundant in the region
and there is substantial evidence to
indicate that they will not be able to
adapt to ocean chemistry changes
quickly enough to avoid negative
effects on species populations.

AMT
ATV
Changes to
the timing
and intensity
of coastal
upwelling
Cayan, et al., 2009
Bromirski et al., 2012
Pisias et al., 2001
Snyder et al., 2003
Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
Proximity of the region to coastal
currents indicates exposure to this
impact. Increasing temperatures will
stratify ocean waters, while the current
dynamics and winds will promote
upwelling. These two forces work counter
to one another contributing uncertainty
to the timing and severity of changes
to the California Current dynamics.

Forestry
AMT
ATV
PV
D
PET
Increased tree
mortality due
to combined
effects to
insects, disease
and drought
Hansen and Weltzin, 2000
Shugart, 2003
Barr et al., 2010
High Moderate High Moderate
A large portion of the region’s area is
subject to forest management indicating
exposure to this impact. Timber harvest
is a current stressor that may exacerbate
consequences of this impact. Complex
interactions of enhanced CO2, temperature
increases, and hydrologic shifts
contribute to uncertainty of changes.

Reduced conifer
timber harvest Hannah et al., 2011 High High Moderate Moderate Timber is in the top 2 grossing
agricultural industries in 5 of 7 of
the North Coast Counties indicating
exposure to this impact. Current
stressors include wildfires, human
encroachment into forests, insects
and disease. Timber harvest practices
can be altered to mitigate changes
indicating high adaptive capacity.

Increased
costs of fuels
management
and fire
suppression
Joyce et al., 2008 High Moderate High Moderate
Increasing wildfire risks and human
encroachment to forests exposes the
forest management to increased costs
to manage ignitions and damage from
fires. Enhanced practices resulting
from new research may reduce costs
and increase adaptive capacity.
262 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 SECTOR DRIVER* OF
CHANGE

EXPECTED

IMPACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SENSITIVITY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

OVERALL

VULNERABILITY

CONFIDENCE

RATING COMMENTS
Agriculture
AMT
ATV
PV
D
PET
Crop type
changes and
geographic
pattern shifts
Moser et al., 2009
Jackson et al., 2012a
Thorne, et al., 2012a
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012
Jackson et al., 2012b
Diffenbaugh et al., 2011
Jones et al., 2010
Barr et al., 2010
High Moderate High High
Climate is likely to become unsuitable
for high value crops such as grapes,
fruits and nuts indicating exposure to
this impact. Zones of suitability for fruits
and nuts will be reduced with rising
temperatures, especially wine grapes.

New or modified farming techniques
may mitigate the need to change
growing locations to some degree.

AMT
ATV
PV
D
PET
Enhanced
forage
production but
reduced forage
reliability during
drought years
Shaw et al., 2009;
Chaplin- Kramer, 2012
Cornwall et al., 2012
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012
Moderate Low High Low
Cattle ranching are one of the top 5
grossing agriculture industries in 6 of
the 7 North Coast counties that depend
on reliable forage production indicating
exposure to this impact. Complex
interactions of enhanced CO2, temperature
increases, and hydrologic changes
contribute to uncertainty of changes.

AMT
Longer growing
season with
shift towards
longer summers
Thorne, et al., 2012 High High Moderate High
While many crops in the region are
affected by this impact, growers
can adjust to changes simply by
planting earlier in the season.

AMT
ATV
PV
D
PET
Increased wine
grape yields but
reduced quality
Chaplin-Kramer, 2012
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012
Jones et al., 2010
Diffenbaugh et al., 2011
Jones et al., 2010
High Moderate High High
Climate changes will alter the economics
of wine producing regions. Willamette
valley in Oregon may become like Napa
is today. Exposure to this impact is
based on economic importance of these
crops. Growers can adapt with grape
breeding, but climate that will be as
warm as Napa will be in 2050 would
be a table grape region today rather
than some of the varieties that the
Napa region is currently known for.

AMT
PET
Increased
irrigation water
demand during
summer
Jackson et al., 2012a
Thorne et al., 2012a
Jackson et al., 2012b
High High Moderate High
Hotter, longer summers will mean that
that most crops will require more water
indicating exposure to this impact.

Current water demands for crops and
ecosystem services are the key existing
stressors that will be exacerbated
with projected climate changes.

Conservation practices or crop type
changes contribute to adaptive capacity.

SL
RV
Increased risk
of field damage
from flooding
in coastal low
lying areas
Laird, 2013
Cayan et al., 2008a Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate The greatest increase in the risk of
damage due to floods is in coastal low
lying areas. Only 2% of land is dedicated
to agriculture and urban land uses. Land
use maps indicate that much of the
agriculture in the region occurs in coastal
lowland areas such as Arcata and Crescent
City with some degree of exposure to flood
damage, but is a small percent of land use
in the region. Flooding damage will also
be dependent on rainfall pattern changes
which are less certain than sea level rise
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 263 SECTOR DRIVER* OF
CHANGE

EXPECTED

IMPACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SENSITIVITY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

OVERALL

VULNERABILITY

CONFIDENCE

RATING COMMENTS
Urban
SL
RV
Increased risk
of property and
infrastructure
damage from
flooding
Moritz and
Stephens, 2008
Jones and Goodrich, 2008
Laird, 2013
Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Low lying communities in the region
are anticipated to suffer an increase
in acreage flooded by 2100 by
approximately 17-18%. Relative to
other California coastal areas this is
a moderate increase, when compared
to more populous coastal areas of the
state which have projected inundation
increases of ranging from 30-46%
AMT
ATV
PV
D
PET
Increased risk
of property and
infrastructure
damage from
wildfires
Thorne et al., 2012b
Moritz and
Stephens, 2008
Jones and Goodrich, 2008
High Moderate High Moderate
Population increase in the future will
mean further pressure for development
to encroach into forests and greater
damage to property with increasing
wildfire occurrence and extent risks.

Crescent City City CouncilJanuary 17, 2023

Crescent City City Council
January 17, 2023