Crescent City City Council
January 17, 2023

Land-use planning policies are a means
of increasing adaptive capacity to
climate change and altered fire regimes
to mitigate risks of property damage.

SL
RV
Increased
erosion risk
for coastal
development
Cayan et al., 2008a
Cayan, et al., 2009
Bromirski et al., 2005
Laird, 2013
High Low High Moderate
The region contains about 400 miles
of shoreline all of which are at risk to
erosion with projected sea level rise.

The major developed areas on the coast
in the North Coast region include Santa
Rosa, Arcata, and Crescent City which
are all exposed to this impact. However,
much of the coastline is sparsely
populated and undeveloped relative to
other coastal regions of the state.

RV
Increased
winter
stormwater
conveyance
requirements
Jones and Goodrich, 2008
Cayan et al., 2009 Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
The possibility of more frequent
intense rainfall events may require
greater capacity requirements for urban
infrastructure. Adaptation actions such as
retrofitting culverts, bridges, and storm
drains would be a high cost endeavor is
required. Uncertainty surrounding rainfall
projections contributes to low confidence.

AMT
ATV
PV
D
PET
SL
RV
Greater
constraints
on land-use
and new
development
Moritz and
Stephens, 2008
Jones and Goodrich, 2008
Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
Increasing population creates greater
development pressure on ecosystems
at the urban-wildland interface.

Increased flooding and wildfire
risks may crate the need to place
constraints on development to avoid
unnecessary risks to life and property.
264 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
Water
supply/
demand
SP
Reduced spring
snowpack water
supply storage
Cayan et al., 2009
FRAP, 2010
Anderson, 2008
Mote et al., 2005
Hayhoe et al., 2004
Low Low Moderate High
Reduced snowpack is expected but
majority of watersheds in the region
are rain fed. While a snowpack loss
of 73 to 90% (estimated in the PCM
model in the Sierras) may stress aquatic
ecosystems with lower base flows in
summer months, much water supply
in the region is met with groundwater
sources and groundwater fed springs.

GWR
RV
D
AMT
SP
Increased risk of
water conflicts
between urban,
agriculture, and
ecosystems
Barr et al., 2010
PRBO, 2011
Elkind et al., 2012
NC RWQCB, 2011
High High Moderate High
Major water supply projects in the region
include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Klamath Project, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Russian River Project,
the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water
District Ruth Reservoir, and the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation Trinity Lake
Reservoir. The Klamath Project has
been extremely controversial because
to maintain adequate instream fishery
flow to ensure the survival of endangered
salmonid populations, coordination
between many jurisdictions is necessary.

Water to farms has at times been cut
off to prevent harm to the fisheries,
resulting in extreme controversy, and
in some cases, violence. Currently,
surplus surface water is exported
out of the region for use elsewhere
in the state, but reduced snowpack
storage may tax existing resources are
require changes to satisfy all existing
water supply needs in the region.

GWR
RV
D
AMT
SP
Increased
dependence on
groundwater
supply in summer
months
NC RWQCB, 2011
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012 High High Moderate Moderate
Most basins within the region depend on
groundwater or groundwater fed springs
indicating exposure to this impact. Current
resources are adequate to meet current
and projected needs indicating resilience
to changes and a high adaptive capacity.

GWR
SL
Increased
seawater
intrusion
to coastal
groundwater
aquifers
PRBO, 2011
NC RWQCB, 2011 Low Moderate Low Moderate
Rising sea level will increase the potential
for seawater intrusion indicating exposure
to this impact for coastal communities.

Given the adequate groundwater
basin recharge that occurs, saltwater
intrusion is not generally a problem
in North Coast groundwater basins.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 265 SECTOR DRIVER* OF
CHANGE

EXPECTED

IMPACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SENSITIVITY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

OVERALL

VULNERABILITY

CONFIDENCE

RATING COMMENTS
Energy
demand/
capacity
AMT
ATV
Increased
summer energy
demand during
heat waves
Hanuk and Lund 2008
FRAP, 2010
Barr et al., 2010
NCIRWMP, 2007
Low High Low High
The Iron Gate Reservoir in Siskiyou
County provides energy for a hydroelectric
facility owned by Pacific Power and Light
Company. Future electricity demand will
rise due to increased population and
needs for home cooling, refrigeration,
water (which requires energy to transport),
and power supplies for an ever-increasing
number of small electronics. At the
same time, efficiency and reliability of
power transmission and delivery is likely
to decline as power lines are stressed
with higher ambient temperatures and
increased risk from wildfires. As a result,
more brownouts and blackouts are
expected. Much of the region’s climate
is moderated by its proximity to the
ocean, reducing seasonal temperature
variation. Energy conservation and
energy efficient development will be
responses to mitigate increased demand.

SP
Reduced
hydropower
energy generation
capacity in
spring/summer
Madani and Lund, 2010
Vicuna et al., (2008)
FRAP, 2010
Ekstrom and Moser, 2012
Spears et al., 2012
NC RWQCB, 2011
Barr et al., 2010
Low Moderate Low Low
While hydropower is used in the region
indicating exposure to this impact, it is
not generated at high elevation dams.

While lake levels may be reduced in
summer months, the projected reductions
in snowpack would primarily affect
hydropower generation at higher altitudes.

Fisheries
AMT
ATV
Shift in marine
productivity
patterns as a
result of nutrient
upwelling
changes
Snyder et al., 2003 High Low High Low
Fishing is an important industry in the
region with economic exposure to climate
induced changes of ocean dynamics
and chemistry. Complex interactions
of seasonal temperature changes with
dynamics of the California current, and
productivity changes that may occur in
other fisheries contribute uncertainty of
the severity of the economic impacts.

AMT
ATV
D
RV
SP
GWR
Decreased
terrestrial cold
water fish yields
associated with
inland habitat
degradation
Knapp et al., 2001
Pope et al., 2009
Moyle et al., 2012a
Moyle et al., 2012b
NMFS, 2012
Barr et al., 2010
Medellín-Azuara
et al., 2008
High Low High Low
Increased erosion is likely to impact the
spawning of native fish such as lamprey,
suckers, salmon, and trout that build their
nests in areas of clean rocks and gravels.

Greater levels of fine-sediment input will
increase nutrient concentrations in aquatic
systems and contribute to algae blooms.

Current stressors on fish population will
limit adaptive capacity in the future.

SL
Landward
migration of
salmonid rearing
habitats
Cayan et al., 2008a
Laird, 2013 High High Moderate High
Rearing habitats will migrate landward
with sea level rise. As long as there are
not barriers near the coast to migration,
rearing habitats should be able to shift
upstream from their current locations.
—
Reduced oyster
and clam farm
productivity
due to ocean
chemistry
changes
Michaelidis et al., 2005
Shirayama &
Thornton 2005
Kleypas et al., 1999
Riebesell et al., 2000
Feely et al., 2004
Harley et al., 2006
High Moderate High Low
Interference with the shell building
ability of mollusks will expose oyster
and clam farms to greater mortality in
the future. Farms will may identify new
or modify existing practice to adapt
their businesses and remain viable.
266 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
Recreation
RV
SP
GWR
D
Shortened river
rafting, boating,
and sport
fishing season
and quality
Morris and Walls, 2009
Cayan et al. 2009 High Moderate High Moderate
Recreation activities that depend on
summer river flows and good water quality
are exposed to impacts as summer low
flows are reduced in rivers due to longer,
hotter summers and less snowmelt. There
is very little opportunity for adjustment
of these activities other than altering
dam release patterns upstream.

Shortened
backcountry
skiing season
Morris and Walls, 2009
Cayan et al., 2009
Goodstein and
Matson, 2004
Moderate Low High High
Opportunities for snow-dependent
recreation will be reduced along with
the snowpack decline. There is very
little opportunity for adjustment of these
activities with less snow pack available.

Reductions in
hunting and
wildlife viewing
opportunities
Morris and Walls, 2009
Cayan et al., 2009 Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
Hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities
are dependent on healthy animal
populations and associated habitats.

Potential habitat degradation in the
future exposes this recreation opportunity
to impacts from changing climate and
hydrologic conditions. New wild areas
may become more suitable or made
more accessible in response to changing
conditions. The extent of limitations
is uncertain since they depend on a
host of complex system responses
to changed climate conditions as
well as human behavior patterns.

Reduced wildland
recreation
opportunities and
viewshed quality
Morris and Walls, 2009
Cayan et al., 2009 Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
Wetland, riparian, and mountain areas
that support recreational fisheries and
unique bird populations in the region
exposed to climate change impacts
such as sea level rise and longer, drier
summers. New wild areas may become
more suitable or made more accessible
in response to changing conditions. The
extent of limitations is uncertain since
they depend on a host of complex system
responses to changed climate conditions
as well as human behavior patterns.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing 267
APPENDIX K.

FINANCING HISTORY & FUTURE FINANCING
Following are the tabular results of the NCRP-commissioned long-term implementation and financing assessment.

Table K-49 Summary of NCRP Use of IRWM Funds

IRWMP FUNDING CALL TOTAL IRWM AWARDS MATCHING FUNDS TOTAL INVESTMENT AWARDS AND LOCAL MATCH Proposition 50, Round 1 24,825,622 26,297,967 51,123,588 49% IRWMP Award and 51% Local Match Proposition 50, Round 2 & Supplemental $4,225,910 $986,220 $5,212,130 81% IRWMP Award and 19% Local Match Proposition 84, Round 1 $8,226,061 $3,552,194 $11,778,255 70% IRWMP Award and 30% Local Match Proposition 84, Round 2 $5,386,000 $3,576,447 $8,962,447 60% IRWMP Award and 40% Local Match Proposition 84, 2014, Dought $8,700,000 $4,456,634 $13,156,634 66% IRWMP Award and 34% Local Match Proposition 84, 2015 $14,270,339 $3,222,400 $11,047,939 77% IRWMP Award and 23% Local Match Total $62,411,532 $42,091,862 $104,503,393 60% IRWMP Award and 40% Local Match Table K-50 Summary of Funding and Financing to Date

APPLICANT PROJECT FUNDED

CAPITAL COSTS

SOURCE OF CAPITAL

FUNDING SOURCE OF

O&M FUNDING

O&M FINANCE

STATE CERTAINTY
AWARD
LOCAL
MATCH
PROPOSITION 50 ROUND 1
California Land Stewardship Institute Fish Friendly Farming Environmental Certification Program $213,510 $210,510 $3,000 Landowners Grant funded/ landowners California State Parks — North
Coast Redwoods District
Head Hunter/Smoke House Non-point
Sediment Reduction Project $273,146 $273,146 $0 Operating funds NA City of Crescent City Crescent City Wastewater
Treatment Plant Renovation $1,290,000 $910,000 $380,000 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted City of Etna City of Etna Water Supply $663,269 $593,936 $69,333 Utility Rates Partially secure City of Eureka Martin Slough Interceptor Project $14,525,971 $4,069,684 $10,456,287 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted
City of Santa Rosa Sonoma County Water Recycling and
Habitat Preservation Project $10,015,085 $4,004,603 $6,010,482 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted Covelo Community Services District Covelo Wastewater Facilities Improvement Project $1,094,068 $1,065,591 $28,477 Utility Rates Partially secure Graton Community Service District Graton Wastewater Treatment Upgrade and Reclamation Project $3,050,267 $1,116,648 $1,933,619 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted Gualala River Watershed Council Sediment Solutions for the Gualala: Phase III $159,574 $159,052 $522 Landowners Grant funded/ landowners
Humboldt County Resource
Conservation District Salt River Restoration Project $5,192,571 $1,573,878 $3,618,693 Operating funds Secure/annually budgeted Humboldt County Resource
Conservation District
Mid Van Duzen River Ranch Road
Sediment Reduction Program $581,986 $440,948 $141,038 Landowners, operating funds Landowner
maintenance
Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Integrated Water Management Program $2,935,674 $1,668,674 $1,267,000 Landowners, operating funds NA
Mendocino County Resource
Conservation District
Navarro Watershed Road Sediment
Reduction Project $1,180,884 $673,633 $507,251 Operating funds Landowner maintenance Modoc County Newell Water System Renovation $1,493,228 $1,485,228 $8,000 Utility Rates Partially secure Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife &
Wetlands Restoration Association Redwood Creek Erosion Control $567,971 $567,971 $0 Operating funds NA Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District Shasta Water Association Dam Restoration $2,632,177 $1,926,351 $705,826 Operating funds Grant funded/ landowners
Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District Araujo Dam Restoration $1,632,490 $769,903 $862,587 Operating funds Grant funded/ landowners
Trinity County Waterworks District #1 Raw & Recovered Water for Irrigating Public Agencies $1,027,394 $912,219 $115,175 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted Weaverville Sanitary District Weaverville Sanitary District Water Reclamation Project $306,688 $280,688 $26,000 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted Westport County Water District Water Supply Reliability Project $374,241 $374,241 $0 Utility Rates Partially secure PROPOSITION 50 ROUND 2 AND SUPPLEMENTAL
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Salmon Creek Sediment Reduction and Water Conservation Program $1,140,322 $725,322 $415,000 Operating funds, landowners Grant funded/
landowners
268 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

APPLICANT PROJECT FUNDED

CAPITAL COSTS

SOURCE OF CAPITAL

FUNDING SOURCE OF

O&M FUNDING

O&M FINANCE

STATE CERTAINTY
AWARD
LOCAL
MATCH
Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Program $1,321,554 $879,665 $441,889
Grant funded/
long-standing
program
Mendocino Land Trust Big River Lower Mainstem Restoration Project $662,169 $662,169 $0 State, federal,
and private
grants, operating
funds
Grant funded/
State Parks
budget
Mendocino Resource Conservation District Forsythe Creek Upslope Road Sediment Reduction Project $1,976,564 $1,791,564 $185,000 Landowners, operating funds NA PROPOSITION 84 — ROUND 1
City of Fort Bragg Waterfall Gulch Transmission Main $788,305 $550,000 $238,305 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted
Del Norte Resource Conservation District Del Norte Agricultural Enhancement Program $400,000 $255,000 $145,000 Operating funds Landowner maintenance
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Bodega Bay HU Water Resources Management Project $955,205 $700,000 $255,205 Operating funds Grant funded/ landowners Gualala River Watershed Council Gualala River Sediment Reduction Program $908,280 $600,000 $308,280 Landowners Grant funded/
long-standing
program
Happy Camp Community Services District Happy Camp Water Treatment System Upgrade $504,000 $253,000 $251,000 Utility Rates Partially secure/ current budget
Happy Camp Sanitary District Indian Creek Sewer Pipeline Crossing $617,065 $542,000 $75,065 Utility Rates Partially secure/ current budget
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Nissa-kah Creek Fish Passage at Hwy 175 $853,237 $803,000 $50,237 Operating funds NA Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District HBMWD-Blue Lake Fieldbrook Pipeline Support Retrofit $1,603,580 $700,000 $903,580 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted Karuk Tribe Camp Creek Habitat Protection-Road
Decommissioning Implementation Project $375,000 $300,000 $75,000 Operating funds NA Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Integrated Watershed Management Initiative $643,776 $300,000 $343,776 Landowners, operating funds Grant funded/
long-standing
program
Mendocino County Resource
Conservation District
Mendocino Headwaters Integrated Water
Quality Enhancement Project $746,577 $462,670 $283,907 Operating funds, landowners Landowner
maintenance
Mendocino County Resource
Conservation District Mendocino Jumpstart Integrated Water Plan $391,444 $337,330 $54,114 Operating funds NA Pinoleville Pomo Nation Ackerman Creek Habitat Restoration $226,950 $46,950 $180,000 Operating funds NA Redwood Forest Foundation Inc. Sustainable Forests, Clean Water & Carbon Sequestration Demonstration Project $328,040 $250,000 $78,040 Operating funds NA Sonoma County Water Agency
The Copeland Creek Watershed Detention/
Recharge, Habitat Restoration, and
Steelhead Refugia Project
$1,333,333 $1,000,000 $333,333 Operating funds Secure/annually budgeted
Sonoma Resource Conservation District Russian River Arundo donax Removal and Riparian Enhancement Program $295,000 $225,000 $70,000 Operating funds,
state, federal,
and local grants
grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
Sonoma Resource Conservation District Lower Russian River Water Quality Improvement Project $416,500 $375,000 $41,500 Operating funds, grants Grant funded Willow Creek Community Services District Hwy 96 Stormceptor $135,000 $110,000 $25,000 Operating funds Secure/annually budgeted
PROPOSITION 84 — ROUND 2
Big Rock Community Services District Big Rock CSD Stabilize Water Storage Tank $1,627,802 $875,221 $752,581 Utility Rates Partially secure/ current budget
California Land Stewardship Institute
Fish Friendly Farming and Fish Friendly Ranching
Environmental Certification in the Russian,
Navarro, and Gualala River Watersheds
$710,000 $190,000 $520,000 Landowners
grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
California Land Stewardship Institute Russian River Watershed Agricultural Water Conservation and Water Supply Reliability Program $1,529,579 $523,500 $1,006,079 Landowners Secure/annually budgeted Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Gold Ridge Coastal Watersheds Enhancement Project $1,529,579 $307,750 $1,030,000 Landowners, operating funds grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing 269

APPLICANT PROJECT FUNDED

CAPITAL COSTS

SOURCE OF CAPITAL

FUNDING SOURCE OF

O&M FUNDING

O&M FINANCE

STATE CERTAINTY
AWARD
LOCAL
MATCH
Gualala River Watershed Council Gualala River Sediment Reduction Program $539,280 $259,000 $280,280 Landowners grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ranney Collectors 1 & 1A Lateral Replacement $1,632,996 $666,624 $966,372 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted
Karuk Tribe (Declined Grant—withdrew) Lower Mid-Klamath Habitat Protection-Road Decommissioning Implementation Project $0 $0 $0
Mendocino County Resource
Conservation District
Mendocino County Working Landscapes
Riparian Demonstration Project $208,044 $184,800 $23,244 Operating funds grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
Salyer Mutual Water Company Larger Capacity Storage Tanks, Dedicated Main Line, Meters/Master Meter Project $210,000 $210,000 $0 Utility Rates Partially secure/ current budget Siskiyou County Siskiyou County Septage Pond Closure
& 2018 Sewer Plant Improvements $443,791 $389,775 $54,016 Operating funds current budget NA Trinity County Resource Conservation District West Weaver Creek — Channel and Floodplain Rehabilitation $523,200 $441,500 $81,700 Landowners, operating funds grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
Westhaven Community Services District Westhaven CSD Water Tank $380,000 $360,000 $20,000 Utility Rates Partially secure/ current budget
Yurok Tribe — Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program Restoration of Lower Klamath River Habitats $975,329 $640,630 $334,699 Operating funds grant funded/ ongoing program
PROPOSITION 84 — 2014 Drought
City of Rio Dell Rio Dell and Scotia Community Services District Emergency Water Intertie Project $783,000 $783,000 $0 Utility Rates Partially secure/ current budget City of Ukiah Ukiah Valley-Redwood Valley Water Supply
Reliability Intertie and Well Development $2,226,450 $1,554,450 $672,000 Utility Rates Secure/annually budgeted Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma-Mendocino Immediate
Drought Relief Project $1,685,000 $1,050,000 $635,000 Operating funds Secure/annually budgeted Lewiston Park Mutual Water Company Lewiston Park Mutual Water Company Meter Installation Project $224,604 $224,604 $0 Utility Rates Partially secure/ grant funded City of Ft Bragg Summers Lane Reservoir Project $1,764,840 $700,000 $1,064,840 Operating funds Partially secure/ current budget
Gualala River Watershed Council The Flow Bank — Protecting Stream Flow in the Gualala River $789,024 $594,226 $194,798 Landowners grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
Sanctuary Forest Mattole Flow Program: Storage and Forbearance $474,453 $255,200 $219,253 Landowners grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
Yurok Tribe Weitchpec Water Station Project $296,076 $201,770 $94,306 Operating funds grant funded/ ongoing program
Westhaven Community Service District Water Loss Reduction Project $608,500 $493,500 $115,000 Utility Rates Partially secure/ current budget
California Land Stewardship Institute
Agricultural Water Conservation and Water
Supply Reliability Program — Russian
and Navarro River Watersheds
$3,285,607 $1,970,190 $1,315,417 Landowners
grant funded
/ Landowner
maintenance
Crescent City Elevated Water Tank Rehabilitation Project $584,080 $438,060 $146,020 Operating funds Secure/annually budgeted
PROPOSITION 84 — 2015 Final
Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria Reclaimed Water Project $558,562 $558,562 $0 Operating funds Secure/ current budget
City of Weed Boles Fire Water System Rehabilitation
and Water System Restoration $1,299,000 $1,299,000 $0 Operating funds Secure/ current budget Del Norte County County Service Area #1 and Crescent
City Lift Station Rehabilitation $1,021,055 $815,195 $205,860 Operating funds Secure/ current budget Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Working Landscape Drought Resiliency Project $444,960 $332,460 $112,500 Operating funds, landowners
Grant funded/
landowners
Gualala River Watershed Council The Flow Bank Program — Phase II $763,803 $493,254 $270,549 Operating funds, landowners
Grant funded/
landowners
Happy Camp Community Service District Happy Camp Water Systems Upgrades — Phase I $290,000 $217,000 $73,000 Utility Rates Partially secure/ current budget
270 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

APPLICANT PROJECT FUNDED

CAPITAL COSTS

SOURCE OF CAPITAL

FUNDING SOURCE OF

O&M FUNDING

O&M FINANCE

STATE CERTAINTY
AWARD
LOCAL
MATCH
Hoopa Valley Tribe Hoopa Valley Public Utility District Conservation Project $131,253 $131,253 $0 Operating funds grant funded/ ongoing program Hoopa Valley Tribe Lower Supply Flood Risk Reduction and Fisheries Habitat Improvement Project $955,475 $655,475 $300,000 Operating funds grant funded/ ongoing program Hopland Band of Pomo Community Test Wells and Water Security Study $149,170 $149,170 $0 Operating funds Partially secure /grant funded
Humboldt County Resource
Conservation District
Restoring Stream Flow and Fish
Pasage on the Eel River Delta $187,869 $187,869 $0 Operating funds, landowners Grant funded/
landowners
Lewiston Park Mutual Water Company Lewiston Valley Drinking Water Interie Pipeline $558,000 $558,000 $0 Utility Rates Partially secure/ grant funded
Mattole Restoration Council Lower Mattole River and Estuary Enhancement and Drought Resiliency Project $693,529 $491,100 $202,429 Operating funds, landowners grant funded/
ongoing program
Mendocino Resource Conservation District Implementing on Farm Water Conservation Projects in the Navarro to Address Critical Low Flows $229,123 $187,480 $41,643 Landowners grant funded/ ongoing program Mendocino Resource Conservation District Water Conservation Technical Assistance to Mendocino County Tribes $137,670 $114,860 $22,810 Operating funds grant funded/ ongoing program Montague Water Conservation District Instream Flow enhancement through Water Conservation $1,655,585 $887,960 $767,625 Landowners grant funded/ ongoing program Northwest Resource Conservation
and Development Council
Trinity River Water Reliability and
Drought Resiliency Project $334,822 $334,822 $0 Landowners grant funded/ ongoing program Sanctuary Forest Mattole Flow Program: Mainstem and
Tributary Storage and Forebearance $383,250 $270,750 $112,500 Landowners grant funded/ ongoing program Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District Shasta River Drought Response and Irrigation Efficiency Project $347,092 $347,092 $0 Landowners Partially secure/ grant funded Resort Improvement District #1 Shelter Cove Water Recycling Project $103,500 $95,000 $8,500 Planning project No O&M Sonoma County Water Agency Northern Sonoma County Water Conservation Program $1,052,059 $475,031 $577,028 Operating funds, landowners Secure grant
funds/ ongoing
program
Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Russian River Coho Drought Resiliency Planning and Implementation Program $461,143 $343,800 $117,343 Operating funds, landowners grant funded/
ongoing program
Watershed Research and Training Center South Fork Trinity River- Spring Run Chinook Salmon Restoration Project $749,446 $621,446 $128,000 Landowners grant funded/ no O&M Weott Community Service District Additional Water Storage $75,000 $75,000 $0 Planning project No O&M Westhaven Community Service District Water Storage Tank and Roof Replacement Project $151,500 $151,500 $0 Utility Rates Partially secure/ grant funded
Yurok Tribe Yurok Watershed Restoration and
Drinking Water Security $962,674 $702,463 $260,211 Operating funds grant funded/ ongoing program Table K-51 Small Community Toolkit Elements

TOOLS BENEFIT TO SERVICE PROVIDERS
Cost Estimating Tools The cost estimating tools will assist service providers in developing budget level estimates for various types and sizes of infrastructure. While not a substitute for design, this information helps service providers understand budget level costs and begin initial dialogues on funding strategies.

Funding Program Summaries
FAQs
Capital Recovery Factor Tables
Compiled and synthesized from funding agency information and containing active links to funding program websites, this is a one-stop information shop for service providers. The capital recovery factor tables will allow service providers to translate total project costs to annual debt service needs providing a preliminary understanding of budget and rate impacts Institutional Summaries
Financing District Summaries
LAFCO Requirements
Building on the work contained in the Partnership’s System Needs Survey, the Institutional Summary and LAFCO summary provides an overview of public and private institutional options and the various legal and administrative steps required to form a public district.

The financing district summary provides an overview of commonly used borrowing structures (COPs, assessment districts, Joint Powers Authorities etc) and the steps required to use each borrowing structure, because grants cannot fund 100% of project costs.

Consolidated Preliminary
Engineering Report Template
List of CEQA/NEPA Exemptions
CEQA/NEPA Checklists
CEQA GIS Information
Almost every funding program requires some form of a preliminary engineering report and CEQA/NEPA document to process a funding request. But the requirements aren’t always aligned. The toolkit includes a proven consolidated report outline with maximum value and flexibility in developing preliminary engineering reports.

The summary of CEQA/NEPA exemptions and checklists will assist service providers in tailoring projects to minimize environmental impacts saving both costs and time. The CEQA GIS layers will help purveyors understand possible constraints that could impact their projects.

Technology Overviews The technology overview is a summary of common system issues, the types of technology used to resolves those issues and the pros and cons of each (first cost, operating costs, operator sophistication etc).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing 271
Table K-52 Disadvantaged Community Demonstration Projects

COUNTY APPLICANT AND ORGANIZATION TYPE DESCRIPTION
Del Norte Smith River CSD — Public Agency Developed a template to explore the feasibility of adding solar energy production to small water districts.

Humboldt Orleans CSD — Public Agency Study of water supply capacity and storage options to support Tribal housing.

Humboldt Orick CSD Public Agency Evaluate cluster wastewater systems. The feasibility study built on past investigation into a larger wastewater project.

Mendocino Pine Mountain Mutual Water Company — Mutual Assistance to secure funds to purchase a new tank and repair a well. Consultant services put them in a better position to secure grant funds.

Siskiyou Callahan Water District — Public Agency Evaluate water system filtration options Siskiyou City of Weed Feasibility study for wind and solar options to offset power consumption and cost.

Sonoma Graton CSD — Public Agency Feasibility study/cost estimation to repair aging collection system.

Sonoma Huckleberry Mutual Water Company — Mutual Assistance with securing financing for a filtration system and meters.

Sonoma Kashaya Utility District — Tribal Utility Evaluated extending water supply to adjacent land.

Trinity Lewiston Park Mutual Water Company Mutual Plan for an upgrade or a new water treatment plant to lift boil notice. Received guidance about how to consolidate with neighboring system.

Table K-53 Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program

COMMUNITY TOTAL FUNDS

ALLOCATED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL

PROJECT

SAVINGS
SIMPLE

PAYBACK
PERIOD
Humboldt County $397,762 Energy Efficiency upgrades including motors, VFDs, HVAC, boilers and controls, chillers, lighting & occupancy sensors and ozone laundry $162,089 5.2 Trinity County $81,911 HVAC replacement project on Library and Jail. -$1,234 0 Arcata $94,637 LED Streetlights, Energy Management Systems, HVAC Improvements, lighting retrofit, refrigeration projects $21,588 5.3 Blue Lake $25,000 Premium efficiency booster pumps $2,860 8.5 Eureka $141,208 Adorni lighting retrofit, heat pump water heaters, Eureka P.D. VAV boxes, Public works controls $17,030 10.5
Fortuna $62,756 Street lighting $4,039 19.4
Ferndale $25,000 Premium efficiency booster pumps $3,255 6.6 Rio Dell $25,000 Replacement of air conditioning/heating and ducting $935 44.3 Trinidad $25,000 City Hall Insulation & furnace replacement $0 45.9 Point Arena $25,000 Purchase and install (1) 30 HP Premium Efficiency Motor $872 21.3 Crescent City $44,555 Replace the 3 existing 125HP direct drive motors with 3 Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) controlled motors. $29,394 4.1 Etna $25,000 Insulation of town hall and replace (1) furnace $40,612 16.1 Totals $972,829 $281,440 5.3
Table K-54 Common Local Agency Funding Mechanisms

WATER OR SEWER RATES

BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS
(AKA PROPERTY BASED

FEES AND STORM

WATER RATES)

PARCEL TAX AD VALOREM

PROPERTY TAX SALES TAX
Loan Security Certificates of Participation Assessment Bonds Certificates of Participation General Obligation Bonds Certificates of Participation Election Requirements None Mailed ballot with
45-day ballot period
With any general or
special election
With any general or
special election Any election
Who Votes Not required Property Owners Registered Voters Registered Voters Registered Voters Approval Requirements Written protests do
not exceed 50%
Majority of Assessment
amount 2/3 of those voting 2/3 of those voting 2/3 of those voting Reserve Requirement Typically less than 10% Typically less than 10% Typically less than 10% Not required Typically less than 10% Term for Debt Less than 40 years Less than 40 years Per Ballot — can be indefinite Less than 40 years Per Ballot — can be indefinite Term for Operation
and Maintenance Indefinite Per ballot — indefinite Per ballot — indefinite Cannot be used for maintenance Per ballot
Additional Documentation Rate Study Engineers Report
272 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table K-55 Summary of Funding Agencies, Mandates and Eligibility

AGENCY MANDATE ELIGIBLE ENTITIES
Public
Systems
Private Non
Profits
Private
for Profit
Federally
Recognized
Tribes
Non
Recognized
Tribes
Successful
Partnering
Track
Record
with NCRP
Participants

FEDERAL
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Grants for Flood Control & Water Supply* Yes No No No No Yes Bureau of Indian Affairs Funding for climate change, fish and wildlife, natural resources No No No Yes No Yes Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) Grants for Water Supply Yes No No No No Environmental Protection Agency Funding for water quality protection, habitat enhancement, Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Federal Emergency
Management Agency Funding for flood and other natural hazard mitigation Yes Yes No Yes Not specified Fish and Wildlife Service Funding for restoration and habitat protection, special status species, wildlife and sport fish, Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Indian Health Service (IHS) Grants for Tribal Support No No Yes No No Yes National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration CSC, NMFS
Funding for climate change amelioration, coastal
resiliency, coastal and natural resource management, NPS pollution control, and sensitive species protection.

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes
US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) Grants and Loans for Rural Community Infrastructure, farm improvement programs Yes Yes No Yes No Yes STATE
Air Resources Board Grants, incentives, and credit programs to improve air quality Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes California Pollution Control
Financing Authority
Low cost financing to qualified waste and recycling
projects and other projects to control pollution. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes California Coastal Commission Funding for Local Coastal Program assistance, beach maintenance, coastal habitat restoration, and education Yes Yes No No No Yes California Energy Commission Funding for energy efficiency, planning and renewable energy Yes No No No No Yes Coastal Conservancy
Funding for public access along the coast, natural resource protection and restoration in the coastal zone, protection of coastal agricultural land, restoration of coastal urban waterfronts, and resolution of land use conflicts.

Yes Yes No No No Yes
Department of Food and Agriculture Specialty Crops Yes Yes Yes Yes Not specified
Department of Public
Health (CDPH)** Grants and Loans for Public Health Yes Yes No No No Yes Department of Pesticide Regulation Grants for IPM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Department of Fish and Wildlife Funding for fish and wildlife management, habitat management, and oil spill prevention and response Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Department of Water Resources Grants for Water Supply and Flood Control Yes No No Not Directly No Yes Housing & Community Development Grants for Housing and Community Development Yes Yes No No No Yes Infrastructure Bank (I-Bank) Loans for Economic Development Yes No No No No State WaterBoard Grants and Loans for Water Quality Yes No No Yes No Yes Wildlife Conservation
Board Programs
Funding for habitat restoration projects and
improvements to public access Yes Yes
Under
specific
cond-itions
No No Yes

REGIONAL AGENCIES
North Coast Resource Partnership Grants for Integrated Water Planning Yes No No Yes Within an
integrated
project
Yes

PRIVATE ENTITIES
California Special District
Association (CSDA) Loans to Supporting Special District Members Yes No No No No Christensen Fund Grants in support of biocultural diversity for climate change, indigenouse knowledge, and resilient landscapes in the Bay Area No No No Yes Yes David & Lucille Packard Foundation Grants for Conservation and Science Yes Yes No Not specified
Not
specified Yes
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation Grants to protect and restore wildlife and habitats Yes Yes No No No Yes NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing 273

AGENCY MANDATE ELIGIBLE ENTITIES
Public
Systems
Private Non
Profits
Private
for Profit
Federally
Recognized
Tribes
Non
Recognized
Tribes
Successful
Partnering
Track
Record
with NCRP
Participants
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Grants for Bay Area land conservation, innovative approaches to conservation challenges Yes Yes No Not specified Not
specified Yes
Pacific Gas & Electric
Company (PG&E) Rebates for Energy Efficiency and Renewables Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rural Community Assistance
Corporation (RCAC)*** Loans for Rural Community Assistance Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation
Grants for conservation, climate change
amelioration, energy, and SF Bay Area DACs No Yes No Not specified Not
specified Yes
*Water Supply mandate comes through the recently approved Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) ** On July 1, 2014, CDPH’s Office of Drinking Water will merge with Water Board. Plans are in place to transition funding programs at that time ***RCAC also has technical assistance contracts with USDA, CDPH and Water Boards and has an EPA grant to provide technical assistance Table K-56 NCRP Funding Opportunity Descriptions by Type

FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
The Army Corps of Engineers can provide flood control assistance and will soon be able to provide water supply assistance under the auspices of the developing Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The flood control programs are well established but require congressional budget authorizations in order to fund projects. Because of this, Corps programs can be less than certain and are most applicable to larger agencies and projects, where there are resources available to manage the federal process. The WRDA program is new but provides a promising venue for large water supply and water recycling programs. Like the flood control programs, WRDA is subject to congressional budget approval, reducing certainty and making it more appropriate for large agencies and projects.

The Bureau of Reclamation provides a number of grant opportunities including the WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, the WaterSMART Pilot and Demonstration Project Grants, WaterSMART Grants for Climate Analysis Tools, WaterSMART System Optimization Grants, the WaterSMART Cooperative Water Management Program and Water Recycling Grants. Like the Corps programs, the Bureau’s programs have a stable history, generally through the authorization provided by Tile XVI, but certainty varies with congressional budgeting cycles.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has several funding programs for rural and agricultural areas. The Rural Utility Service provides water and wastewater grants and loans that fund the planning, design and construction of water and waste disposal systems in rural areas and towns with a population not in excess of 10,000. The funds are available to public bodies, non-profit corporations and Tribes. The program funds renewable energy installations for water and wastewater utilities. The program is well developed and receives regular budget allocations, making funding available on an annual basis. Funding is indexed to median household income, with grants of up to 45% of project costs reserved for the communities most in need. Loans are typically secured by rates or assessments. RUS also has a national “Search Grant” Program that can provide up to $25,000 in grant assistance for the development of application materials. This program is highly competitive. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) also offers individual landowners assistance with its Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), which are funded annually through the Farm Bill and implemented locally by Resource Conservation Districts. Other programs include easement programs to conserve working agricultural lands, wetlands, grasslands and forestlands and Conservation Innovation Grants, which are meant to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has multiple grant programs to improve environmental quality, remove contaminants, empower communities, disseminate information, and provide funding for state administered drinking water, wastewater, pollution prevention, and wetlands protection grants. Many of these grant programs are well established and funded on an annual cycle.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides state and local governments with preparedness program funding in the form of Non-Disaster Grants to enhance capacity to respond to emergencies. It also provides hazard mitigation assistance to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures following a major disaster, and flood mitigation assistance to reduce or eliminate flood damage. These FEMA programs are well developed with regular budget allocations, with funding available on an annual basis.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provides funding for habitat conservation and restoration through the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. It supports projects throughout North America that involve long-term protection, restoration and/or enhancement of wetlands and their associated uplands habitats. The Act was passed to support activities under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and included funding mechanisms. The most recent reauthorization expired in 2012 and grant program appropriation has decreased, but additional program funding from fines, penalties, and other fees provided over $31 million in grant funds.

Indian Health Service (IHS) can provide grants for water resources and watershed improvements to Tribal communities. IHS can also assist when Tribal households have on-site costs, such as assessments or the cost of water and sewer laterals, as part of a larger community project. IHS funding is stable and proven and can provide a source of matching funds for projects that benefit Tribal communities. This funding source can fund renewable energy projects.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides grants for coastal communities to become more resilient to threats posed by coastal hazards such as storms, sea level rise, and climate change. It also provides funding for coastal and marine habitat restoration projects in support of listed species recovery. Funding has been steady for the past decade as NOAA has made an effort to use a habitat-based approach to promote species recovery and increase sustainable fisheries.

STATE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
The Air Resources Board (ARB) has hundreds of millions of dollars in grants available over the next several years to reduce emissions from on- and off-road vehicles and equipment. Typically, vehicle and equipment owners apply for funds. Other programs provide incentives for emissions reduction, demonstration projects, and clean air initiatives. The ARB also provides emission credit programs. Future programs relevant to the NCRP may derive from the sale of AB 32 cap and trade auction revenues.

California Pollution Control Financing Authority provides low-cost innovative financing to California businesses for qualified waste and recycling projects. Some pollution control projects qualify for tax-exempt financing. CPCFA assists small businesses with loans up to $2.5 million.

Recent assistance has included the purchase of clean air vehicles and conversion of animal waste to clean burning fuel. 274 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 California Coastal Commission provides grant funds for public access and coastal maintenance and restoration projects with a public education component. It also supports local government planning for sea-level rise, climate change and development of current Local Coast Programs consistent with the California Coastal Act.

California Energy Commission is administering four energy conservation, clean energy, and planning programs funded through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funding. It also provides efficiency services and an energy efficiency financing program. Low interest loans for energy in agriculture and energy efficiency are offered on a “no time-limit” basis. The CEC also offers rebates for solar installation and energy upgrades.

California Coastal Conservancy awards grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for projects that enhance public access, habitat protection and restoration in the coastal zone or affecting coastal areas, restoration of coastal urban waterfronts, protection of coastal agricultural land, and resolution of land use conflicts. Project stages generally funded by the Conservancy include pre-project feasibility studies, acquisition, planning, design, environmental review, construction and monitoring. Most projects are developed over time in coordination with Conservancy staff. A current opportunity is climate ready grants, which help to advance planning and implementation of climate change amelioration efforts for local governments.

The Department of Food and Agriculture disperses federal USDA funds for the Specialty Crop Block Grant. Specialty crops are fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops. A program objective is the expansion of stewardship practices, natural resource conservation, and the development of ecosystem services to improve environmental and financial performance of specialty crop growers. Funding is contingent upon passage of a Farm Bill yearly and available funding from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service and ranges from $50,000 to $400,000 per project.

The Department of Parks and Recreation offers grants for habitat conservation and land and water conservation. The Habitat Conservation Fund Program provides funding for acquisition, habitat enhancement, and increasing urban visitor use. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is administered by DPR for the National Park Service. The NPS has been required to manage the fund by law since 1964 when it was signed by President Johnson.

Land acquired in this way must be placed under federal protection to preserve outdoor recreational use of the site in perpetuity.

The Department of Public Health Safe Drinking Fund provides funding and financing for water system improvements necessary to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The funding source is stable and proven and accepts continuous applications for funding. The program can provide funding up to $30 million per applicant with provisions for grants for disadvantaged communities. Loans are typically secured by rates. The Safe Drinking Water Fund prioritizes projects by public health need and is most successfully used by communities with difficulties complying with primary and secondary drinking water standards.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife awards grant funds for projects that sustain, restore, and enhance California’s fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats. The Fisheries Restoration Grant Program has been ongoing since 1981 and has invested millions of dollars to support projects from sediment reduction to watershed education. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) includes grants for developing NCCPs and Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and provides funds for tasks associated with implementation of approved NCCPs. DFW is also the state sponsor of federal ESA grants that support conservation planning and habitat purchases.

The Department of Water Resources provides a range of matching grant programs, generally capitalized by bond sales. While DWR’s history as a funding agent is well proven, the availability of any particular source of funding is dependent on bond sales. The IRWM funding administered through the NCRP comes through DWR as a result of bond laws passed with Propositions 50, 84 and 1E. Because of this dependence on bond sales, DWR’s programs are less certain than the firmly capitalized revolving funds administered by CDPH and SWRCB. In its work with the DAC Targeted Grant Program, the NCRP has identified the following current DWR programs that could be utilized to provide financial assistance for projects throughout the Region:

Safe Drinking Water Contaminant Removal Proposition 50: provides grants of up to $5 million for pilot and demonstration projects and disinfection improvements for drinking water; Local Groundwater Assistance: currently expended but the program can provide grants of up to $250,000 for local groundwater development; California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law Proposition 81: Provides very limited grants and loans to disadvantaged communities in partnership with CDPH and been effectively used for leak detection, metering and to “make up the difference” around a Drinking Water SRF project.

Housing and Community Development block grants from the federal government, through the state to the counties, vary widely in their use for water and wastewater infrastructure. While the funding source is stable and has a long history, its primary focus is the development of affordable housing and counties will often limit the amount of block grant funds that are expended on infrastructure. Community Development Block Grants can be a good source of grant funding for on-site costs (assessments, construction of laterals) for low-income households as part of a larger community project.

I-Bank provides loans of up to $20 million for local public projects that meet tax-exempt financing criteria, promote economic development and attract long-term employment opportunities. Loans are typically secured by rates or assessments. I-Bank’s funding approval process is relatively rapid and it can be an effective source of funding for communities with strict, short compliance deadlines.

State Water Resources Control Board provides loan and grant funding for construction of sewage and water recycling facilities, underground storage tank remediation, watershed protection, and NPS pollution control projects.

The State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program provides loans of up to $50 million for water quality improvement projects, including wastewater, stormwater and recycled water. The Water Recycling Program provides $75,000 grants for recycled water feasibility studies. The SRF’s “Expanded Use Program” can provide for more flexible “principal forgiveness” options for disadvantaged communities. This program is proven and certain with a 20-year history of assisting communities. SRF loans are typically secured by rates or assessments. The Agricultural Drainage Loan Program addresses treatment, storage, conveyance or disposal of agricultural drainage that threatens water quality. SWRCB also offers several ongoing grant programs, including the Clean Beaches Initiative, Clean Water Act NPS projects, Small Community Wastewater, and the Stormwater Program; these programs are proven and stable.

The Wildlife Conservation Board administers a capital outlay program for wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation. The WCB selects, authorizes, and allocates funds for acquisition of land suitable for recreation and the preservation, protection, and restoration of wildlife habitat. Programs are grouped by type:
riparian, forest, inland wetlands, agricultural lands, rangeland, oaks, habitat enhancement, acquisition, tax credit, public access, and monitoring.

PRIVATE FUNDING OPPORTUNTIES
The California Special District Association provides a “pool” program that allows smaller agencies, which are members of CSDA, to access capital markets more effectively through a joint bond sale. Bond proceeds can fund the construction of projects and bonds payments are typically made from rates or assessments. This program is stable and can provide a relatively certain source of loan funding.

The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation supports more than 70 grant programs to protect and restore wildlife and habitat, including Acres for America, a wellknown partnership with Walmart Corporation. Priorities for this program include providing access, conserving critical plant and wildlife habitat, connecting existing protected lands, and ensuring the future of rural economies. The Bring Back the Natives/More Fish program funds activities that protect and enhance sensitive and listed fish species. In 2012, NFWF partnered with Wells Fargo to launch the Environmental Solutions for Communities initiative, which is designed to support projects that link economic development, community wellbeing, stewardship, and health of the environment. This five-year initiative is expected to provide a total impact of over $37.5 million. NFWF funding is stable and secure with a proven track record; several NCRP project proponents have successfully obtained NFWF grants.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix K. Financing History & Future Financing 275
Pacific Gas & Electric provides rebates for projects that generate renewable energy. While rebate funds typically cannot be used as security for loans or other types of debt, the rebates can reduce the overall cash demand for a renewable energy project and reduce payback time. Rebate programs are variable and rebate amounts have generally been reducing over time, however rebates can enhance the economics of an otherwise cost-effective renewable energy program.

Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) provides loans much like the CSDA program, which can be used for infrastructure improvements and paid back with rates or assessments. This program is proven and certain. In addition, RCAC writes annual grants to community foundations, which may support specific activities, particularly those targeted at disadvantaged communities. Examples include the Humboldt Area Foundation, which focuses on Humboldt County and the California Endowment, which supports drinking water for public schools. RCAC also writes grants to large banks, which must invest in infrastructure to support low-income housing through the various community reinvestment acts. While this targeted grant-writing activity is not as certain as the capitalized revolving funds, it can provide valuable assistance in certain situations.

Various Community and private family foundations may have an interest in funding research, planning or particular project implementation in the North Coast. 276 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX L.

NCRP PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT REVIEW & SELECTION GUIDELINES
The NCRP Plan describes the process steps and guidelines developed by the NCRP Policy Review Panel (PRP) and ad hoc committee, 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 (Spring 2019) NCRP Project Review and Selection Process Guidelines (NCRP Guidelines5) refine and update the process and are subject to continual review and refinement per recommendations of the PRP, TPRC, NCRP staff, and the DWR’s IRWM Grant Program Guidelines.

PROJECT LISTS
The NCRP process has identified through multiple rounds of proposal solicitation numerous projects from throughout the North Coast Region that address state, regional, and local objectives and priorities for water management. Proposed projects that are aligned with NCRP Goals & Objectives may qualify for formal NCRP endorsement and subsequent inclusion in the NCRP Plan. The project proponents then can work with NCRP members and staff to develop project-funding applications to appropriate sources.

The NCRP priority projects comprise a project portfolio consisting predominantly of the highest scoring projects recommended to the PRP by the TPRC for inclusion in the Plan and related funding applications. The PRP has the discretion to select additional projects to supplement high-scoring proposed projects so as to achieve regional equity, address integrated coastal watershed management, and respond to urgent public health problems. The NCRP website provides project summaries of the following funded projects at https://northcoastresourcepartnership.org/projects/.

IRWM Proposition 50 Funded Projects
These projects represent the specific actions, projects, and studies by which the first phase of the NCRP Plan was implemented. Monitoring measures are identified and will be used to provide feedback to the NCRP, which will continue to modify the NCRP Plan and project implementation and prioritization as new information and technology becomes available.

Table L-57 IRWM Proposition 50 Funded Projects

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT COUNTY
Proposition 50 — Round 1
California Land Stewardship Institute Fish Friendly Farming Environmental Certification Program Mendocino California State Parks — North Coast Redwoods District Head Hunter/Smoke House Non-point Sediment Reduction Project Humboldt City of Crescent City Crescent City Wastewater Treatment Plant Renovation Del Norte City of Etna City of Etna Water Supply Siskiyou
City of Eureka Martin Slough Interceptor Project Humboldt City of Santa Rosa Sonoma County Water Recycling and Habitat Preservation Project Sonoma Covelo Community Services District Covelo Wastewater Facilities Improvement Project Mendocino Graton Community Service District Graton Wastewater Treatment Upgrade and Reclamation Project Sonoma Gualala River Watershed Council Sediment Solutions for the Gualala: Phase III Mendocino Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Salt River Restoration Project Humboldt Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Mid Van Duzen River Ranch Road Sediment Reduction Program Humboldt Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Integrated Water Management Program Humboldt Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Navarro Watershed Road Sediment Reduction Project Mendocino Modoc County Newell Water System Renovation Modoc
Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife & Wetlands Restoration Association Redwood Creek Erosion Control Humboldt Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District Shasta Water Association Dam Restoration Siskiyou Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District Araujo Dam Restoration Siskiyou Trinity County Waterworks District #1 Raw & Recovered Water for Irrigating Public Agencies Trinity Weaverville Sanitary District Weaverville Sanitary District Water Reclamation Project Trinity Westport County Water District Water Supply Reliability Project Mendocino 5 The 2019 NCRP Project Review & Selection Process Guidelines https://northcoastresourcepartnership.org/proposition-1-irwm-round-1-implementation-funding-solicitation/ NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information 277

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT COUNTY
Proposition 50 — Round 2 and Supplemental
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Salmon Creek Sediment Reduction and Water Conservation Program Sonoma Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Program Humboldt Mendocino Land Trust Big River Lower Mainstem Restoration Project Mendocino Mendocino Resource Conservation District Forsythe Creek Upslope Road Sediment Reduction Project Mendocino IRWM Proposition 84 Funded Projects
Projects and their benefits are summarized in Appendix I.3. These projects represent the specific actions, projects, and studies by which Phase III of the NCRP Plan will be implemented. Monitoring measures are identified and will be used to provide feedback to the NCRP, which will continue to modify the Plan and project implementation and prioritization as new information and technology becomes available.

Table L-58 IRWM Proposition 84 — Funded Projects

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT COUNTY
/ TRIBE
Proposition 84 — Round 1
City of Fort Bragg Waterfall Gulch Transmission Main Mendocino Del Norte Resource Conservation District Del Norte Agricultural Enhancement Program Humboldt Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Bodega Bay HU Water Resources Management Project Sonoma Gualala River Watershed Council Gualala River Sediment Reduction Program Mendocino Happy Camp Community Services District Happy Camp Water Treatment System Upgrade Siskiyou Happy Camp Sanitary District Indian Creek Sewer Pipeline Crossing Siskiyou Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Nissa-kah Creek Fish Passage at Hwy 175 Hopland
Band of
Pomo
Indians
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District HBMWD-Blue Lake Fieldbrook Pipeline Support Retrofit Humboldt Karuk Tribe Camp Creek Habitat Protection-Road Decommissioning Implementation Project Karuk Tribe Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Integrated Watershed Management Initiative Humboldt Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Mendocino Headwaters Integrated Water Quality Enhancement Project Mendocino Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Mendocino Jumpstart Integrated Water Plan Mendocino Pinoleville Pomo Nation Ackerman Creek Habitat Restoration Mendocino Redwood Forest Foundation Inc. Sustainable Forests, Clean Water & Carbon Sequestration Demonstration Project Mendocino Sonoma County Water Agency The Copeland Creek Watershed Detention/Recharge, Habitat Restoration, and Steelhead Refugia Project
Sonoma
Sonoma Resource Conservation District Russian River Arundo donax Removal and Riparian Enhancement Program Sonoma Sonoma Resource Conservation District Lower Russian River Water Quality Improvement Project Sonoma Willow Creek Community Services District Hwy 96 Stormceptor Trinity Proposition 84 — Round 2
Big Rock Community Services District Big Rock CSD Stabilize Water Storage Tank Del Norte California Land Stewardship Institute Fish Friendly Farming and Fish Friendly Ranching Environmental Certification in the Russian, Navarro, and Gualala River Watersheds Mendocino
California Land Stewardship Institute Russian River Watershed Agricultural Water Conservation and Water Supply Reliability Program
Mendocino
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Gold Ridge Coastal Watersheds Enhancement Project Sonoma Gualala River Watershed Council Gualala River Sediment Reduction Program Mendocino Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ranney Collectors 1 & 1A Lateral Replacement Humboldt Karuk Tribe Lower Mid-Klamath Habitat Protection-Road
Decommissioning Implementation Project
Karuk Tribe
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Mendocino County Working Landscapes Riparian Demonstration Project Mendocino Salyer Mutual Water Company Larger Capacity Storage Tanks, Dedicated Main Line, Meters/Master Meter Project Trinity Siskiyou County Siskiyou County Septage Pond Closure Siskiyou Trinity County Resource Conservation District West Weaver Creek — Channel and Floodplain Rehabilitation Trinity Westhaven Community Services District Westhaven CSD Water Tank Humboldt Yurok Tribe — Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program Restoration of Lower Klamath River Habitats Yurok Tribe Proposition 84 — 2014 Drought Round
City of Rio Dell Rio Dell and Scotia CSD Emergency Water Intertie Humboldt 278 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT COUNTY
/ TRIBE
City of Ukiah Ukiah Valley-Redwood Valley Water Supply Reliability Intertie and Well Development Project
Mendocino
Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma-Mendocino Immediate Drought Relief Project Mendocino, Sonoma
Lewiston Park Mututal Water Company Meter Installation Trinity City of Fort Bragg Summers Lane Reservoir Project Mendocino Gualala River Watershed Council The Flow Bank — Protecting Stream Flow in the Gualala River Mendocino, Sonoma
Sanctuary Forest Inc. Mattole Flow Program: Storage and Forbearance Humboldt Yurok Tribe Weitchpec Water Station Yurok Tribe
Westhaven Community Services District Westhaven Community Services District Water Loss Reduction Project Humboldt California Land Stewardship Institute Agricultural Water Conservation and Water Supply Reliability Program — Russian and Navarro River Watersheds
Mendocino
City of Crescent City Elevated Water Tank (EWT) Rehabilitation (Wonder Stump Road) Del Norte Proposition 84 — 2015
Bear River Band Reclaimed Water Project
Bear River
Band of the
Rohnerville
Rancheria
City of Weed Boles Fire Water System Rehabilitation/ Water System Restoration Siskiyou Del Norte County CSA #1 and Crescent City Lift Station Rehabilitation Del Norte Gold Ridge RCD Working Landscapes Drought Resiliency Project Sonoma Gualala River Watershed Council Flow Bank Program — Phase II Mendocino Happy Camp CSD Happy Camp Water System Upgrades — Phase I Siskiyou Hoopa Valley Tribe PUD Conservation Project Hoopa
Valley Tribe
Hoopa Valley Tribe Lower Supply Flood Risk Reduction and Fisheries Habitat Improvement Hoopa Valley Tribe
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Test Well and Community Water Security Hopland
Band of
Pomo
Indians
Humboldt County RCD Restoring Stream Flow and Fish Passage on the Eel River Delta Humboldt Lewiston Park CSD Lewiston Valley Drinking Water Intertie Pipeline Trinity Mattole Restoration Council Lower Mattole River and Estuary Enhancement and Drought Resiliency Project Humboldt Mendocino County RCD Implementing On-Farm Water Conservation Projects in the Navarro to Address Critical Low Flows Mendocino
Mendocino County RCD Water Conservation Technical Assistance to Mendocino County Tribes Mendocino Montague Irrigation District Instream Flow Enhancement through Water Conservation Siskiyou Northwest CA Resource Conservation & Development Council Trinity River Water Reliabiity and Drought Resiliency Project Trinity Sanctuary Forest Mattole Flow Program: Mainstem & Tributary Storage and Forbearance Mendocino Shasta Valley RCD Shasta River Drought Response and Irrigation Efficiency Project Siskiyou Resort Improvement District #1 Shelter Cove Water Recycling Project Humboldt Sonoma County Water Agency Northern Sonoma county Water Conservation Program Sonoma Sonoma RCD Russian River Coho Drought Resiliency Planning and Implementation Program Sonoma Watershed Research & Training Center South Fork Trinity River Spring Run Chinook Salmon Restoration Project Trinity Weott CSD Additional Water Storage Humboldt
Westhaven CSD Water Storage Tank and Roof Replacement Project Humboldt Yurok Tribe Yurok Watershed Restoration and Drinking Water Security Yurok Tribe Table L-59 Proposed NCRP IRWM Proposition 1 Round 1 Projects NCRP 2019 PROPOSITION 1 IRWM ROUND 1 PRIORITY PROJECTS FUNDING AMOUNT COUNTY / TRIBE Blue Lake Rancheria, Water Storage Project $382,085 Blue Lake Rancheria Briceland Community Services District, Water Supply Enhancement Project $1,076,625 Humboldt City of Ferndale, California Street Sewer Replacement $326,750 Humboldt City of Willits, Improving Willits Water Supply Reliability and Drought Resiliency with Groundwater and Conjunctive Use $551,156 Mendocino County Service Area No. 1, Onsite Emergency Power Supply for Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations $807,641 Del Norte Covelo Community Services District, Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements $750,000 Mendocino NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information 279
NCRP 2019 PROPOSITION 1 IRWM ROUND 1 PRIORITY PROJECTS FUNDING AMOUNT COUNTY / TRIBE Eel River Watershed Improvement Group, Kenny Creek Instream Habitat Enhancement Project $176,077 Mendocino Fieldbrook Glendale Community Services District, Water Tank Seismic Retrofit Project $314,744 Humboldt Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District, Rainwater Catchment Rebate and Streamflow Enhancement Pilot Project $420,324 Sonoma Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, Ranney Collector 2 Rehabilitation Project $600,000 Humboldt Lewiston Community Services District, Water Distribution System Replacement Project $1,073,273 Trinity Mattole Restoration Council, Carbon Sequest Lower Mattole River and Estuary Enhancement Project Phase II $656,165 Humboldt Newell County Water District, Water System Improvements Project $461,607 Modoc Pacific Reefs Water District, Water Tank Replacement Project $386,274 Mendocino Sanctuary Forest Inc., Drought and Emergency Water Project $558,501 Humboldt Scott River Watershed Council, Scott River Headwaters Forest Health, Fire Safety, and Water Quality Improvement Project $632,370 Klamath Smith River Community Services District, Water System Emergency Generator Project $322,445 Del Norte Watershed Research and Training Center, South Fork Trinity River — Spring Run Chinook Salmon Restoration Project — Phase II $832,495 Trinity Weaverville Sanitary District, Sewer Improvements Project $691,000 Trinity Yurok Tribe , Upgrading Critical Infrastructure to Support Resource Recovery in the Blue Creek Sanctuary $937,268 Humboldt Total Amount $11,956,800
Contingency project: City of Trinidad, Trinidad-Westhaven Community Water Reliability, Security and Enhancement Project $831,389 Humboldt NCRP Projects
As of June 2019, the NCRP process has identified 335 projects from throughout the North Coast Region with a total project cost of $890,489,899 and a combined funding request of $517,741,023.

The current (Fall 2018) NCRP Project Review and Selection Process Guidelines (NCRP Guidelines) standardize the process for on-going project inclusion into the NCRP Plan.

Table L-60 NCRP Projects — All projects

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY /TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 50
City of Crescent City Crescent City Wastewater Treatment Plant Renovation Del Norte California State Parks — North Coast Redwoods District Head Hunter/Smoke House Non-point Sediment Reduction Project Humboldt City of Arcata Environmental Services Department Arcata Storm Water Master Plan Elements Humboldt City of Arcata Environmental Services Department Arcata Watershed Enhancement through I & I Reduction Humboldt City of Arcata Environmental Services Department Jolly Giant Dam Retrofit Humboldt City of Blue Lake Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant Humboldt City of Eureka Eureka Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Project Humboldt City of Eureka Mad River Pipeline Improvements Humboldt City of Eureka Martin Slough Interceptor Project Humboldt City of Ferndale Ferndale Drainage Improvements Humboldt City of Ferndale Ferndale Infiltration & Inflow Reduction Humboldt City of Ferndale Ferndale Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Humboldt City of Rio Dell Sludge Disposal and Handling Improvement Project Humboldt City of Rio Dell Stormwater Master Plan Humboldt
City of Rio Dell Valve and Fire Hydrant Replacement Project Humboldt City of Rio Dell Wastewater Disposal Project Humboldt
City of Rio Dell Wastewater Master Plan and Inflow and Infiltration Study Humboldt City of Rio Dell Water Treatment System Improvements Humboldt City of Trinidad Water Storage improvement Project Humboldt Fieldbrook Community Services District Water Storage improvement Project Humboldt Garberville Sanitary District (Garberville Water Company) Garbervillle Water Supply Reliability Project Humboldt Garberville Sanitary District (Garberville Water Company) Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Humboldt Gasquet Community Services District Gasquet Community Services District Water System Upgrade Humboldt Hoopa Valley Tribal Protection Agency Klamath-Trinity Water Quality and Water Supply Database and Hoopa Valley Tribe Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ranney Collectors Rehabilitation/Upgrade Humboldt Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Samoa Peninsula Pipeline Replacements Humboldt Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Water Supply Interties Humboldt Humboldt Community Services District CR Transmission Main Humboldt Humboldt Community Services District Steel Water Main Replacement Humboldt Humboldt County Department of Agriculture BMP for Control of Invasive Plants in Northcoast Watersheds Humboldt Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Eel River Cooperative Sediment Reduction Program Humboldt 280 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY /TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 50
Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Mid Van Duzen River Ranch Road Sediment Reduction Program Humboldt Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Salt River Restoration Project Humboldt Hydesville County Water District Infrastructure Upgrade Humboldt Loleta Community Services District Loleta I&I Humboldt
Loleta Community Services District Water Supply Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District Sewer Main Construction Humboldt Orick Community Services District Orick Community Services District Wastewater Treatment Sys. Humboldt Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration Association Redwood Creek Erosion Control Humboldt Redwood Community Action Agency Humboldt Bay Water Quality Improvement Program Humboldt Redwood Community Action Agency Humboldt Bay Watershed Plan Implementation Humboldt Redwood Community Action Agency KRIS Humboldt Bay Humboldt Redwood Community Action Agency KRIS Mad River Humboldt Redwood Community Action Agency Luffenholtz Creek Barrier Modification Designs and Sediment Humboldt Westhaven Community Services District Water Storage Improvement Project Humboldt Willow Creek Community Services District Hwy 96 Stormceptor Humboldt Willow Creek Community Services District Water Filtration Plant Humboldt North Coast Regional Land Trust Six Rivers to the Sea Humboldt County Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Integrated Water Management Program Humboldt, Mendocino
Mendocino National Forest Soda Creek Riparian Improvement Lake The Conservation Fund Big River/Salmon Creek Watershed Restoration Project Marin Bioengineering Institute Ten Mile Creek Watershed Outreach and Organizing Project Mendocino Bioengineering Institute Walker Creek Restoration Project Mendocino California State Parks Mendocino District Big River Focused Landform and Habitat Restorations Mendocino City of Ukiah Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Project Mendocino City of Ukiah Reclaimed Water System Mendocino
City of Ukiah Wastewater Secondary Treatment Upgrade Mendocino City of Ukiah Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project Mendocino City of Willits Willits Wastewater Treatment/ Water Reclamation Project Mendocino Covelo CSD (Community Services District) Covelo Wastewater Facilities Improvement Project Mendocino E Center, Mendocino Fisheries Program Hollow Tree Road Improvement Project Mendocino Mendocino County RCD Navarro Watershed Road Sediment Reduction Project Mendocino Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Navarro Watershed Upslope Road Inventory Project Mendocino Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Upper Rancheria Creek Riparian Enhancement Project Mendocino Mendocino County Water Agency Eel River Basin KRIS database Mendocino Mendocino County Water Agency Mendocino County Water Quality/Supply Database (KRIS) Mendocino Mendocino County Water Agency Russian River Basin KRIS Database Mendocino Mendocino County Water Agency U. S. Army Corps Coyote Valley Dam Feasibility Study Mendocino Mendocino County Development of Mendocino County Grading Ordinance Mendocino Russian River Unlimited 2005 River Clean-up and River Education in Schools Mendocino Westport County Water District Wages Creek Source Water Protection Mendocino Westport County Water District Water Supply Reliability Project Mendocino Mendocino County RCD Garcia Effectiveness Monitoring Mendocino Mendocino County RCD Sinkyone Road Restoration Project Mendocino Mendocino County Resource Conservation District BMPs for Invasive Plant Control in Coastal Watersheds Mendocino County Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Robinson Creek Restoration Demonstration Project Mendocino County Modoc County Newell Water System Renovation Modoc
Siskiyou County Siskiyou Co. Integrated Water Mgt/Coho Recovery Project Siskiyou California Department of Forestry California Forest Improvement Program Sonoma California Department of Forestry Sensitive Watershed Monitoring and Mapping Resource Sonoma California Land Stewardship Institue Fish Friendly Farming Environmental Certification Program Sonoma California Land Stewardship Institue Sediment Reduction and Habitat Improvements — 4 RRiver tribs Sonoma City of Cotati Low Water Use Demonstration Program Sonoma City of Rohnert Park Rohnert Park/Cotati Urban Recycled Water System Expansion Sonoma City of Santa Rosa Citywide Creek Master Plan Sonoma
City of Santa Rosa Colgan Creek Restoration Sonoma
City of Santa Rosa Development of Standby Water Supply Wells Sonoma NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information 281

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY /TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 50
City of Santa Rosa Prince Memorial Greenway Pierson Reach Restoration Sonoma City of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Creek B Street Outfall Retrofit Project Sonoma City of Santa Rosa Sonoma County Water Recycling and Habitat Preservation Proj Sonoma City of Sebastopol Sebastopol MWS Groundwater Management Program Sonoma Community Clean Water Institute Humboldt Bay Regional Water Quality Monitoring Project Sonoma Community Clean Water Institute Middle Reach Russian River Citizen Monitoring Project Sonoma Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Dutch Bill Creek Coho Habitat Enhancement Sonoma Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Laguna de Santa Rosa Restoration Program Sonoma Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Salmon Creek Watershed Assessment and Implementation Sonoma Graton Community Service District Graton Wastewater Treatment Upgrade and Reclamation Project Sonoma Gualala River Watershed Council Lower Fuller Creek Sediment Source Implementation Plan Sonoma Institute for Fisheries Resources Networked Watershed Library for the North Coast Region Sonoma Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation Laguna de Santa Rosa Cotati Reach Restoration Sonoma Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation Laguna de Santa Rosa Riparian and Wetland Restoration Sonoma LandPaths Dam Failure Prevention & Sediment Reduction Santa Rosa Creek Sonoma Occidental Arts and Ecology Center’s WATER Institute Dutch Bill Watershed Literacy Project: No Coho Left Behind Sonoma Occidental County Sanitation District Camp Meeker-Occidental Joint Wastewater Reclamation Project Sonoma Sebastopol Water Information Group (SWiG) Groundwater Studies in the Sebastopol Area Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Cloverdale River Park, Russian River Bank Restoration Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Shiloh Ranch & Foothill Regional Parks Erosion Prevention Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Storm Water System and Natural Resource Inventory Sonoma Sonoma County Water Agency Cook Creek Restoration Project Sonoma Sonoma County Monte Rio Community Wastewater Project Sonoma Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Russian River Arundo Removal and Habitat Restoration Project Sonoma Town of Windsor Sonoma County Airport Area Recycled Water Irrigation-Phase 1 Sonoma Sonoma County Implementing an Effective Storm Water Management Program Sonoma Gualala River Watershed Council Sediment Solutions for the Gualala: Phase III Sonoma and Mendocino
North Coast Resource Conservation & Development Council Rural Municipal Service Provider Techincal Assistance Progrm Sonoma /Marin / Mendocino /Lake
The Watershed Research and Training Center Hayfork Forest Health Phase II Trinity Trinity County Resource Conservation District East Branch Irrigation Ditch Piping Project Trinity Trinity County Waterworks District #1 Raw & Recovered Water for Irrigating Public Agencies Trinity Trinity County Trinity Drinking Water Source Sediment Reduction Project Trinity Weaverville Community Services District East Weaver Creek Booster Pump Station Trinity Weaverville Sanitary District Weaverville Sanitary District Water Reclamation Project Trinity Trinity County Resource Conservation District Reading Creek Water Conservation Project Trinity

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY /TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 84 ROUND 1
California Land Stewardship Institute Russian River Watershed Agricultural Water Conservation and Water Supply Reliability Program
Mendocino and
Sonoma
California Land Stewardship Institute Fish Friendly Farming Environmental Certification Program, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties Mendocino and Sonoma
City of Blue Lake Powers Creek Fish Passage Enhancement Project Humboldt City of Fort Bragg Waterfall Gulch Transmission Main Mendocino City of Fortuna Rohner Creek Flood Control and Salmonid Habitat Improvement Project Humboldt City of Montague Lift Station Upgrade Siskiyou
City of Rio Dell Rio Dell Stormwater Control Flood Reduction Project Humboldt City of Rohnert Park Rohnert Park Creek Master Plan Sonoma City of Rohnert Park Rohnert Park Urban Reuse Expansion Project Sonoma City of Santa Rosa Trash Exclusion Sonoma
City of Santa Rosa North Coast Regional Indoor Water Efficiency Program Potentially all in region
City of Santa Rosa Russian River Regional Cash for Grass Program Mendocino and Sonoma
City of Santa Rosa — Utilities Department Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Sonoma City of Santa Rosa — Utilities Department Sonoma County Water Recycling and Habitat Preservation Project Sonoma 282 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY /TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 84 ROUND 1
City of Trinidad Trinidad Westhaven Coastal Water Quality Restoration Program / OWTS Emphasis Humboldt City of Tulelake Tulelake Wastewater Project Siskiyou
City of Ukiah City of Ukiah Recycled Water Plan Mendocino Colgan Creek Restoration Project City of Santa Rosa Sonoma Del Norte Resource Conservation District Real-Time Weather Data for Irrigation Water Management Del Norte Del Norte Resource Conservation District Del Norte Agricultural Enhancement Program Del Norte Freshwater Conservation Trust Instream Water Dedications Potentially all in region
Gold Ridge RCD Bodega Bay HU Water Resources Management Project Sonoma Gualala River Watershed Council Gualala River Sediment Reduction Program Mendocino and Sonoma
Gualala River Watershed Council Gualala River Wood In the Stream Program Mendocino and Sonoma
Happy Camp Community Services District (CSD) Water Treatment System Upgrade Siskiyou Happy Camp Sanitary District Indian Creek Sewer Pipeline Crossing Siskiyou Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Nissa-kah Creek Fish Passage at Nokomis Road Mendocino Tribal Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Nissa-kah Creek Fish Passage at Hwy 175 Mendocino Tribal Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Russian River Tribal Watershed Group — Non-profit organization Mendocino, Sonoma and Lake
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ranney Collector 3 Lateral Replacement Humboldt Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ranney Collectors 1, 2, & 4 Lateral Replacement Humboldt Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District 15-inch Somoa Peninsula Pipeline Replacement Humboldt Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District HBMWD-Blue Lake Fieldbrook Pipeline Support Retrofit Humboldt Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ruth Hydro Plant Generator & Turbine Replacement Trinity Karuk Tribe Camp Creek Habitat Protection-Road Decommissioning Implementation Project Humboldt, Siskiyou Tribal
Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Integrated Watershed Management Initiative Humboldt, Mendocino
McKinleyville Community Services District Murray Road Water Supply Tank and Piping Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District Water Meter Replacement and Upgrade Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District Critical Emergency Drinking Water Supply Wells and Piping Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District Waste Water Management Facility Treatment System Improvements Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District Solar Pilot Project Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District Regional Intertie for Emergency Drinking Water Supply and Water Reliability Humboldt Mendocino County RCD Mendocino Headwaters Integrated Water Quality Enhancement Project Mendocino Mendocino County Water Agency Mendocino County Stormwater Retrofit, Water Conservation and Rainwater Capture Project Mendocino Mendocino County Water Agency Mendocino Jumpstart Integrated Water Plan Mendocino Occidental County Sanitation District Wastewater Reclamation and Storage Project Sonoma Pinoleville Pomo Nation Ackerman Creek Habitat Restoration Mendocino Tribal Redwood Community Action Agency, Natural
Resources Services Division The North Coast Stormwater Coalition’s Non-Point Source Pollution Prevention Program Humboldt, Mendocino Redwood Forest Foundation Inc. (RFFI) Sustainable Forests, Clean Water & Carbon Sequestration Demonstration Project, Redwood Forest Foundation Inc. Mendocino Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA) Russian River Friendly Landscapes (RRFL) and Low Impact Development (LID) Demonstration Project
Mendocino and
Sonoma
School of Performing Arts and Cultural Education (SPACE) SPACE Theater Water Efficiency Project Mendocino Siskiyou County Septage Receiving Pond Closure Siskiyou Siskiyou County Siskiyou County Septage Receiving Facility Siskiyou Smith River Community Services District Smith River Community Services District Infrastructure Improvement Plan — Phase 1 Back-up Power System Del Norte Sonoma County Water Agency The Copeland Creek Watershed Detention/Recharge, Habitat Restoration, and Steelhead Refugia Project Sonoma
Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Russian River Arundo donax Removal and Riparian Enhancement Program Sonoma Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Lower Russian River Water Quality Improvement Project Sonoma Town of Windsor Windsor Groundwater Exploration Project Sonoma Town of Windsor Esposti Park Well Connection Project Sonoma Willow Creek Community Services District Hwy 96 Stormceptor Humboldt NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information 283

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY /TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 84 ROUND 2
Big Rock Community Services District Big Rock CSD Stabilize Water Storage Tank Del Norte County of Del Norte Waste Water Lift Station Replacement Del Norte Smith River Community Services District Smith River Community Services District Infrastructure Improvement Project Del Norte California State Parks Benbow Dam Removal Humboldt
California Trout Elk River Recovery Assessment and Pilot Implementation Projects Humboldt Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ranney Collectors 1 & 1A Lateral Replacement Humboldt Humboldt County Resource Conservation District Humboldt Bay Nutrient Management Program Humboldt Mattole Restoration Council Mattole Watershed Integrated Climate Adaptation Initiative Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District Mad River Estuary Enhancement Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District McKinleyville CSD Radio-Read Water Meter Upgrade Humboldt McKinleyville Community Services District McKinleyville CSD Water Reliability Development Humboldt Redwood Community Action Agency Martin Slough Enhancement Project Humboldt Resort Improvement District #1 Teleraph Creek Barrier Removal and Channel Restoration Humboldt City of Trinidad Trinidad-Westhaven Coastal Water Quality Restoration Program Humboldt Westhaven Community Services District Westhaven CSD Water Tank Humboldt California Land Stewardship Institute Fish Friendly Farming and Fish Friendly Ranching Environmental Certification in the Russian, Navarro, and Gualala River Watersheds Mendocino/ Sonoma California Land Stewardship Institute Russian River Watershed Agricultural Water Conservation and Water Supply Reliability Program Mendocino/ Sonoma
Gualala River Watershed Council Gualala River Watershed Management and Enhancement Mendocino/ Sonoma Jug Handle Creek Farm and Nature Center Jug Handle Creek Farm and Nature Center Ecological Enhancement Project Mendocino Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Mendocino County Working Landscapes Riparian Demonstration Project Mendocino Siskiyou County Siskiyou County Septage Pond Closure Siskiyou Gualala River Watershed Council Gualala River Sediment Reduction Program Mendocino/ Sonoma Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Gold Ridge Coastal Watersheds Enhancement Project Sonoma Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation Restoring Sebastopol Railroad Forest Sonoma Occidental County Sanitation District/ SCWA Occidental Recycled Water and Restoration Project Sonoma Russian River Watershed Association Russian River Watershed Urban Creek Care Program Sonoma City of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation and Data Analysis Sonoma City of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa’s Russian River Friendly Landscapes and Low Impact Development Project Sonoma City of Sebastopol Public Works Arsenic Removal Pilot Project for Well 6 Sonoma City of Sebastopol Public Works Arsenic Treatment Implementation for Well 6 Sonoma Sonoma County Water Agency Regional Water Use Efficiency Program Sonoma Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Austin Creek Watershed Restoration Program Sonoma Sotoyome Resource Conservation District LandSmart Laguna: Achieving TMDL Compliance and Ag Water Quality Improvements in the Laguna de Santa Rosa Watershed Sonoma Town of Windsor Windsor Groundwater Banking Pilot Demonstration Project Sonoma Salyer Mutual Water Company Larger capacity storage tanks, dedicated main line, meters/master meter Trinity Trinity County Resource Conservation District West Weaver Creek — Channel and Floodplain Rehabilitation Trinity Weaverville Community Services District East Weaver Treatment Plant Improvement Project Trinity Weaverville Sanitary District Weaverville Sanitary District Water Reclamation Project Trinity Karuk Tribe Lower Mid-Klamath Habitat Protection-Road Decommissioning Implementation Project Karuk Tribe Yurok Tribe — Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program (YTFP) Restoration of Lower Klamath River Habitats Yurok Tribe Rural Community Assistance Corporation DAC/ Tribal DAC Implementation Circuit Rider North Coast region

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY / TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 2014 DROUGHT ROUND
California Land Stewardship Institute Agricultural Water Conservation and Water Supply Reliability Program Sonoma Mendocino Sonoma Resource Conservation District Agricultural Water Conservation Rebate Program Sonoma Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Rural Water Conservation and Drought Preparedness Project Sonoma Kelly Mutual Water Company New Well Sonoma
Town of Windsor Off-River Water Supply Program — Esposti Well Project Sonoma Yulupa Mutual Water Company Water Meter Project 2014 Sonoma Clear Creek Water Company Repair and Increased Efficiency of Water System Sonoma Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma-Mendocino Immediate Drought Relief Project Sonoma Mendocino Gualala River Watershed Council The Flow Bank — Protecting Stream Flow in the Gualala River Sonoma Mendocino 12th District Agricultural Association Redwood Empire Water Supply Improvement and Conservation Project Mendocino City of Ukiah Ukiah Valley — Redwood Valley Water Supply Reliability Project Mendocino 284 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY / TRIBE
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Implementing On-Farm Water Conservation Strategies Mendocino City of Fort Bragg Summers Lane Reservoir Project Mendocino Resort Improvement District No. 1 Telegraph Creek Drinking Water Diversion Habitat Protection Project Humboldt Westhaven Community Services District Water Loss Reduction Project Humboldt Sanctuary Forest Inc. Mattole Flow Program: Storage and Forbearance Humboldt City of Rio Dell Rio Dell Metropolitan Well Project Humboldt City of Crescent City Elevated Water Tank Rehabilitation Del Norte Yurok Tribe Weitchpec Water Station Yurok Tribe
Newell County Water District Newell Well Deepening Project Modoc Weaverville Community Services District Meter Reading Upgrade Trinity Lewiston Park Mutual Water Company Meter Installation Trinity Rush Creek Mutual Water Company Drought Relief Assistance Trinity

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY / TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 84 2015
Alderpoint County Water District Alderpoint Capacity Study Humboldt Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria Bear River Band of The Rohnerville Rancheria Reclaimed Water Project Tribal Brooktrails Township Community Services District Tank #3 Replacement Mendocino California Trout, Inc Elk River Sediment Remediation Pilot Implementation Projects Humboldt Caspar Community Caspar Water Project Mendocino
City of Arcata, Environmental Division City of Arcata Discharge Permit Compliance and Energy Conservation Project Humboldt City of Blue Lake Blue Lake Water Supply Protection and Creek Restoration Project Humboldt City of Dorris Dorris Water Storage Tank Siskiyou
City of Ferndale City of Ferndale Flood Management Plan Humboldt City of Santa Rosa Lower Colgan Creek Restoration — Phase 2 Sonoma City of Ukiah Ukiah Valley and Russian River Water Supply Reliability Project Mendocino City of Weed Boles Fire Water System Rehabilitation/Water System Restoration Siskiyou City of Willits Emergency Groundwater Supply Project Mendocino City of Willits Permanent Groundwater Supply Project Mendocino Del Norte County County Service Area # 1 and Crescent City Lift Station Rehabilitation Del Norte Fieldbrook Glendale Community Services District (FGCSD) FGCSD Water Storage Improvement Project Humboldt Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Working Landscapes Drought Resiliency Project Sonoma Gualala River Watershed Council Flow Bank Program — Phase II Sonoma / Mendocino
Happy Camp Community Services District Happy Camp Water System Upgrades — Phase 1 Siskiyou Hoopa Valley Tribe Hoopa Valley Public Utility District Conservation Project Tribal — Central District
Hoopa Valley Tribe Lower Supply Flood Risk Reduction and Fisheries Habitat Improvement Project Tribal — Central District
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Community Test Wells and Water Security Study Tribal — Southern District
Huckleberry Mutual Water Company Huckleberry Mutual Water Company Disinfection, Storage, Distribution and Intertie Planning and Execution Sonoma Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Humboldt Bay Spartina Control Humboldt Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) Ranney Collector 2 Rehabilitation Project Humboldt Humboldt Community Services District Ridgewood Water Reliability Improvement Project Humboldt Humboldt County Resource Conservation District (HCRCD) Restoring Stream Flow and Fish Passage on the Eel River Delta Humboldt Lewiston Community Services District (LCSD) Lewiston Community Services District Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Project Trinity
Lewiston Park Mutual Water Company (LPMWC) Lewiston Valley Drinking Water Intertie Pipeline Trinity Mattole Restoration Council Lower Mattole River and Estuary Enhancement and Drought Resiliency Project Humboldt Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens Water Infrastructure Project Mendocino Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Implementing On-Farm Water Conservation Projects in the Navarro to Address Critical Low Flows Mendocino
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Water Conservation Technical Assistance to Mendocino County Tribes Mendocino Mid Klamath Watershed Council Horse Creek Wood Loading, Floodplain Relief and Groundwater Recharge Project: Phase III Siskiyou Mid Klamath Watershed Council (MKWC) Mid Klamath Tributary Thermal Refugia Improvement and Groundwater Recharge Project Siskiyou Montague Water Conservation District Montague Water Conservation District- Instream Flow Enhancement through Water Conservation Siskiyou
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information 285

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY / TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 84 2015
Northern California Resource Center Scott River Water Yield Enhancement Siskiyou Northwest CA Resource Conservation & Development Council Trinity River Water Reliability and Drought Resiliency Project Trinity Palmer Creek Community Service District Palmer Creek Water System Reliability Project Humboldt Redwood Community Action Agency Martin Slough Enhancement Project Humboldt Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) Landscape & Irrigation Water Conservation for Low Income Senior and Multi-Family Housing Complexes Mendocino
Russian Riverkeeper Scarlet Wisteria (Sesbania punicea) Invasive Plant Removal Project Sonoma / Mendocino
Salmon River Restoration Council Taylor Creek In-Stream Barrier Removal Siskiyou Sanctuary Forest Inc. Mattole Flow Program: Mainstem & Tributary Storage and Forbearance Humboldt Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District Shasta River Drought Response and Irrigation Efficiency Project Siskiyou Resort Improvement District No.1 (RID) Shelter Cove Water Recycling Project Humboldt Sonoma County Water Agency Northern Sonoma County Water Conservation Program Sonoma Sonoma Resource Conservation District Russian River Coho Drought Resiliency Planning and Implementation Program Sonoma Trinidad Rancheria Trinidad Harbor ASBS Discharge Elimination Project Tribal — Northern District
Trinity County Waterworks Dist #1 TCWW Filter Plant Compliance Project Trinity Watershed Research and Training Center (WRTC) South Fork Trinity River (SFTR) — Spring Run Chinook Salmon Restoration Project Trinity Weaverville Sanitary District Weaverville Sanitary District Wastewater Reclamation Project Trinity Weott Community Services District Additional Water Storage Humboldt Westhaven Community Services District Water Storage Tank and Roof Replacement Project Humboldt Westside Community Improvement Association Jefferson Community Park and Urban Farm Sustainable Irrigation Project Humboldt Willow County Water District Willow County Water Security Project Mendocino Yurok Tribe Yurok Watershed Restoration and Drinking Water Security Tribal — Northern District

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY / TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 1 2019 IRWM IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
12th District Agricultural Association Drought Response and Water Efficiency Project Mendocino Blue Lake Rancheria Water Storage Project Tribal
Briceland Community Services District Water Supply Enhancement Project Humboldt California Trout Scott River Valley Managed Aquifer Recharge Siskiyou Conservation Biology Institute Fire Risk Reduction Decision Support for the Russian River Watershed Sonoma /Mendocino Covelo Community Services District Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Mendocino County Service Area No. 1 Onsite Emergency Power Supply for Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations Del Norte City of Dorris Water System Infrastructure Project Siskiyou Eel River Watershed Improvement Group Cuneo Creek Riparian Restoration Project Humboldt Eel River Watershed Improvement Group Kenny Creek Instream Habitat Enhancement Project Mendocino City of Eureka Storm Water Management and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Project Humboldt City of Ferndale California Street Sewer Replacement Humboldt Fieldbrook Glendale Community Services District Water Tank Seismic Retrofit Project Humboldt City of Fort Bragg Pudding Creek Water Main Relocation Mendocino City of Fort Bragg Storm Water Trash Capture Devices Mendocino Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District Rainwater Catchment Rebate and Streamflow Enhancement Pilot Project Sonoma Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ranney Collector 2 Rehabilitation Project Humboldt Lewiston Community Services District Water Distribution System Replacement Project Trinity Mattole Restoration Council Carbon Sequest Lower Mattole River and Estuary Enhancement Project Phase II Humboldt Mendocino Woodlands Camp Association Mendocino Woodlands State Park Sediment Reduction Project Mendocino County of Mendocino Mendocino County Coastal MS4 Area Trash Capture Devices Mendocino Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Forsythe Creek Floodplain and Riparian Restoration Project Mendocino Newell County Water District Water System Improvements Project Modoc Pacific Reefs Water District Water Tank Replacement Project Mendocino Round Valley County Water District Upper Grist Creek Watershed Restoration Plan Mendocino Sanctuary Forest Inc. Drought and Emergency Water Project Humboldt Scotia Community Service District Emergency Power Generator Project Humboldt Scott River Watershed Council Scott River Headwaters Forest Health, Fire Safety, and Water Quality Improvement Project Siskiyou Smith River Community Services District Water System Emergency Generator Project Del Norte Treasure Creek Woods Mutual Water Company Water Storage and Distribution System Improvement Project Trinity 286 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY / TRIBE
NCRP PROPOSITION 1 2019 IRWM IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
City of Trinidad Trinidad-Westhaven Community Water Reliability, Security and Enhancement Project Humboldt Weaverville Sanitary District Sewer Improvements Project Trinity City of Willits Improving Willits Water Supply Reliability and Drought Resiliency with Groundwater and Conjunctive Use Mendocino Watershed Research and Training Center South Fork Trinity River — Spring Run Chinook Salmon Restoration Project — Phase II Trinity Yurok Tribe Upgrading Critical Infrastructure to Support Resource Recovery in the Blue Creek Sanctuary Humboldt / Yurok City of Weed Automated Meter Reading Project Siskiyou

PROJECT SPONSOR PROJECT NAME COUNTY / TRIBE
PROPOSITION 1E IRWM STORMWATER FLOOD MANAGEMENT
City of Fortuna Rohner Creek Flood Control and Riparian Habitat Restoration Project Humboldt The Rohner Creek Flood Control and Riparian Habitat Improvement Project is a watershed-based, channel corridor-scale project with multiple objectives and benefits including habitat restoration and enhancement, water quality improvement and flood alleviation. The project is intended to provide immediate and substantial improvements to channel corridor function, reduce the frequency of flood related property damage and improve riparian habitat along a 1-mile stretch of creek which runs through the center of the City of Fortuna.

Sonoma County Water Agency Copeland Creek Enhancement and Restoration Project:

Detention and Recharge Basins Project Sonoma
The Project will provide habitat enhancement and restoration and sediment removal from Copeland Creek which will improve storm water management, surface water quality, the quantity and quality of habitat available for native wildlife, and enhance stream conditions to support fisheries. It also includes construction of storm water detention/groundwater recharge basins sited to capture runoff from the Copeland Creek headwaters which would reduce the impacts of future 100 year floods upon the downstream properties and structures. The regional and local impacts of a 100 year flood have been determined to affect at least one — quarter of the downstream City of Rohnert Park including Sonoma State University, Rancho Cotati High School, businesses, residences, and adjoining City arterial roadways, such as Rohnert Park Expressway, Snyder Lane, and Commerce Boulevard.

OTHER PROJECTS
Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District Groundwater Monitoring Implementation Program for the Shasta Valley GSA Siskiyou The purpose of this project is to provide technical assistance to the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Shasta Valley Medium Priority Basin 1-004 (the Basin) and the Basin’s public and private stakeholders, gather and submit pertinant data to the GSA to utilize in preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to satisfy the requirements set forth by the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). This objective will be accomplished by establishing a groundwater and surface water monitoring network in the Basin that will establish baseline conditions in the Basin, and to assess the complex interactions between groundwater, surface water, and irrigation practices in the Shasta Valley. Data will be collected and analyzed in accordance with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). The data and analysis will be summarized and submitted to the Shasta Valley GSA for the purpose of informing an effective GSP.

Table L-61 California Energy Commission Funded Projects — 2010 In 2010 the NCRP was funded a California Energy Commission Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant to address other challenges facing the region, including energy independence, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and job creation. Table L-60 lists all NCRP projects to date including those funded through the IRWM Grant program.

PROJECT NAME COST PROJECT SUMMARY

COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
Agricultural Farm Bureau
— Lighting Fixtures $4,746
The proposed project will replace the 2 existing furnaces with two 240 kBTU/hour furnaces each with AFUE of 90%. After the proposed changes the furnaces will use 4,080 therms/year. Energy savings will be 1,785 therms/year. Savings will be $1,731/year with a simple payback of 8.3 years.

Agricultural Farm Bureau
— Forced Air Furnace $14,340 Energy and power savings will be 5,794 kWh/year and 2.3 kW. Savings will be $916/year with a simple payback of 5.2 years.

Airport Lighting $4,434
The proposed project will replace 48 T12 fixtures with 48 T8’s, 1 incandescent exit sign with 1 LED exit sign, and 5 incandescent flood lights with 5 CFL flood lights. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 17,995 kWh/year with peak usage of 14.5 kW.

Energy and power savings will be 20,218 kWh/year and 2.8 kW. Savings will be $3,321/year with a simple payback of 1.3 years.

Animal Shelter Lighting $10,233
The proposed project will replace existing T8’s with higher efficiency T8’s. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 17,034 kWh/year and with peak usage of 9.1 kW. Energy and power savings will be 3,835 kWh/year and 2.1 kW. Savings will be $527/year with a simple payback of 19.4 years.

Arcata Veterans Building
— Forced Air Furnace $6,943
The proposed project will replace the two existing furnaces with two 120 kBTU/hour furnaces each with AFUE of 95%. After the proposed changes the furnaces will use 707 therms/year. Energy savings will be 414 therms/year. Savings will be $401/year with a simple payback of 17.3 years.

Clark Complex Lighting Project $2,056
The proposed project will replace 21 T12 fixtures with 21 T8’s. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 808 kWh/year with peak usage of 1.5 kW. Energy and power savings will be 745 kWh/ year and 1.2 kW. Savings will be $132/year with a simple payback of 15.6 years.

Courthouse Lighting $16,193
The lighting system will be upgraded through a combination of occupancy sensors and fluorescent lighting retrofits. Most of the existing fluorescent fixtures will be retrofitted, not replaced. The existing lamps and ballasts will be removed and disposed of. The new T8 lamps and electronic ballasts will be installed in the existing fixture with minimal physical modification of the fixture. Occupancy sensors can replace existing switches. Based on the reduction in hours of operation and higher efficiency lamps and ballasts the energy and power savings, resulting from lighting retrofits, will be 45,649 kWh and 11.5 kW, respectively.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information 287

PROJECT NAME COST PROJECT SUMMARY
Courthouse Parking Exhaust Fan $5,760
EEM-1: Install Demand-Controlled Ventilation System in Courthouse Garage. The proposed project will add Carbon Monoxide (CO) sensors to control the operation of two ventilation fans in the courthouse parking facility. These two fans currently run continuously, 8,760 hours per year. After the retrofit the fans will each run approximately 3432 hours per year. After the proposed changes the two fans will use 15,191 kWh per year.

Energy savings will be 23,583 kWh/year. Savings will be $2,731/year with a simple payback of 2.1 years.

Courthouse — Replace
CV with VAV $482,752 EEM-4: Replace Constant Volume Systems with Variable–Air-Volume Systems at the Courthouse Courthouse — Efficient
Motor Replacement
$67,901 EEM-5: Replace Old Low Efficiency Motors with Premium Efficiency Motors in the Jail and Courthouse Environmental Health Lighting $1,066
The proposed project will replace 18 T12 fixtures with 18 T8’s. This retrofit will effectively increase the efficacy (lumens/watt) of the lighting system, while maintaining current lighting levels. Typically, upgrading to third generation T8 lamps with electronic ballasts will also increase the quality of the light primarily through higher color rendering and significant reduction of flicker normally associated with older fluorescent lighting systems. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 976 kWh/year with peak usage of

0.9 kW. Energy and power savings will be 813 kWh/year and 0.7 kW. Savings will be $144/year with a simple payback of 7.4 years.

Eureka Veterans Hall Lighting $4,913
The proposed project will also replace 42 T12 fixtures with 42 T8’s, 17 incandescent exit sign with 17 LED exit signs, and 31 incandescent flood lights with 31 CFL flood lights. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 3,227 kWh/year with peak usage of

3.1 kW. Energy and power savings will be 7,647 kWh/year and 5.4 kW. Savings will be $1,347/year with a simple payback of 3.6 years.

Fortuna Veterans Hall — Furnace 3,784
The proposed project will replace the existing furnace with a 150 kBTU/hour furnace with AFUE of 95%. After the proposed changes the furnace will use 1,436 therms/year. The proposed project will replace an existing blower with a 95% efficient blower. After the proposed change the blower will use 419 kWh/year with peak usage of 0.46 kW.

Repair Garage Lighting $18,229
The proposed project will add an occupancy sensor to one CFL fixture, replace 26 metal halide fixtures with 26 T8 fixtures, replace 77 T12 fixtures with 77 T8’s, add occupancy sensors to 42 T8 fixtures and delamp four T8 fixtures from four lamps to two lamps. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 38,681 kWh/year with peak usage of 17.2 kW. Energy and power savings will be 31,486 kWh/year and 11.7 kW. Savings will be $5,555/year with a simple payback of 3.3 years.

Garberville Veterans Building
— Forced Air Furnace $33,401
The proposed project will replace the 3 existing furnaces with two 90 kBTU/hour furnaces each with AFUE of 95%. After the proposed changes the furnaces will use 479 gallons/year. Propane savings will be 262 gallons/year. Savings will be $609/year.

The proposed project will replace the 3 existing air conditioners with two air conditioners with capacities of 60 kBTU/hour and 48 kBTU/hours respectively each with SEER of 15. After the proposed changes the air conditioners will use 2,160 kWh/year.

Electricity savings will be 720 kWh/year. Savings will be $130/year. Simple payback for the overall project will be 45.2 years.

IT Building Lighting $4,287
The proposed project will replace 61 T8 fixtures with 61 higher-efficiency T8’s, add an occupancy sensor to one fixture, replace 5 incandescent flood lights with 5 CFL flood lights, replace 10 T12 fixtures with 10 T8 fixtures.

After the proposed changes the lighting will use 6,769 kWh/year with peak usage of 3.6 kW. Energy and power savings will be 3,014 kWh/year and 1.4 kW. Savings will be $414/year with a simple payback of 10.4 years.

Jail Lighting $20,681
The lighting system will be upgraded through a combination of exit sign replacements and fluorescent lighting retrofits. The existing fluorescent fixtures will be retrofitted, not replaced. The existing lamps and ballasts will be removed and disposed of. The new T8 lamps and electronic ballasts will be installed in the existing fixture with minimal physical modification of the fixture. Exit signs can be replaced with energy efficient signs.

Jail Ozone Laundry $35,000
Ozone laundry systems are quickly being recognized as being an energy efficient alternative to traditional systems because of their lowered hot water consumption. Two ozone laundry systems are proposed for this site. The ozone systems will be incorporated into four of the five existing machines that have a capacity between 50 and 55 lbs. Ozone will be produced on site and used as a cleaning agent.

The chemical properties of ozone make it a powerful oxidizing, cleaning and bleaching agent. No hot water is used during an ozone based laundering process, so significant hot water savings are possible. Based on current estimates, this project is expected to result in an annual savings of 4,190 therms. Other benefits of ozone laundry systems are decreased rinsing requirements and longer fabric life.

Jail — Replace Inlet Guide Vanes
with Variable Frequency Drives
$63,783 EEM-3: Replace Inlet Guide Vanes with Variable Frequency Drives for the Air Handling Units at Jail Jail — Efficient Motor
Replacement
see
Courthouse
Project
EEM-5: Replace Old Low Efficiency Motors with Premium Efficiency Motors in the Jail and Courthouse Library Lighting $6,217
The proposed project will add occupancy sensors to some fixtures, add daylight sensors to some fixtures, replace metal halide fixtures with T8 fixtures, and slightly delamp some overlit areas. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 33,482 kWh/year with peak usage of 9.2 kW. Energy and power savings will be 22,060 kWh/year and 1.2 kW. Savings will be $3,489/year with a simple payback of 1.8 years.

Motor Pool Lighting $5,572
The proposed project will replace 21 T8 fixtures with 21 higher-efficiency T8’s, eight metal halide high bays with eight fluorescent high bays, replace two incandescent lamps with two CFL lamps, replace one mercury vapor fixture with a CFL fixture, and utilize twelve wall and fixture mount occupancy. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 7,273 kWh/year with peak usage of 4.7 kW. Energy and power savings will be 5,944 kWh/year and 3.4 kW. Savings will be $1,065/year with a simple payback of 5.2 years.

Public Health Lighting $14,090
The proposed project will convert T12’s to T8’s, convert incandescents and incandescent floods to CFL, add occupancy sensors to some fixtures, and delamp some overlit areas. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 22,994 kWh/year with peak usage of 12.3 kW. Energy and power savings will be 21,527 kWh/year and 9.7 kW. Savings will be $3,798/year with a simple payback of 3.7 years.

Public Health Outside
Air Damper Repair
$776 EEM-2: Repair Outside Air Damper for Air Handling Unit on Public Health Building Roof 288 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

PROJECT NAME COST PROJECT SUMMARY
Public Works Building —
Forced Air Furnaces $10,500
The proposed project will replace the three existing furnaces with three 62 kBTU/hour furnace with AFUE of 95%. After the proposed change the furnaces will use a total of 1,905 therms/year. Energy savings will be 666 therms/year. Savings will be $646/year with a simple payback of 16.3 years.

Public Works Building
— Lighting $11,834
The proposed project will convert T12’s to T8’s, convert incandescents and incandescent floods to CFL, add occupancy sensors to some fixtures, and delamp some overlit areas. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 22,004 kWh/year with peak usage of 12.3 kW. Energy and power savings will be 21,527 kWh/year and 9.7 kW. Savings will be $3,798/year with a simple payback of 3.7 years.

Soils Lab Lighting $3,894
The proposed project will convert T12’s to T8’s, convert incandescents and mercury vapor lamps to CFL’s, add occupancy sensors to some fixtures, add daylight sensors to outside lights, and install lower wattage lamps in some overlit areas. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 5,948 kWh/year with peak usage of 12.3 kW. Energy and power savings will be 8,541 kWh/year and 1.9 kW. Savings will be $1,049/year with a simple payback of 3.7 years.

COUNTY OF TRINITY
Jail Furnace $10,636
The existing heating and cooling equipment will be replaced with a split heating and cooling heat pump system servicing one of the two inmate dorms at the Trinity County Jail in Weaverville. These dorms are described as F-dorm and G-dorm, these two dorms are same in size and construction built in 1982. The new system has an HSPF rating of 8 and a SEER rating of 13. Energy will be saved by increased efficiency on the heating and cooling equipment. Despite the increase in electricity use, the total energy savings of the project is estimated at 199 mmBtu (source Btu).

Library HVAC $45,573
The county is proposing to replace two HVAC roof pack units atop Weaverville Library and one split system serving conference room section of building. All three existing units are full propane heat/AC and are 19 yrs old. All three existing units will be converted to a air-to-air heat pump HVAC systems. The energy savings projected is 20,879 kWh per year and $22,367 per year at current rates with a simple payback (before rebates) of 6.8 years and a EECBG cost-effectiveness ratio of 9.56. Additional savings are projected with intangible savings from maintenance reduction and lowered personnel costs from repairing and maintaining the old pumps.

Murray Building —
Furnace Replacement $24,808
Trinity Co. is proposing to replace three gas split systems that are 23 yrs old of which two serve a county rental portion of the Murray building and one serves the Sheriff Sub station portion of building. The project would consist of determining new heating and cooling loads for the rental portion of building and replacing ducting as needed due to deterioration. The rental area is currently served buy two systems that previously handled a much larger area before remodeled to existing square footage. This portion of project would be sizing a single new heat pump system that would service this area independently.

CITY OF ARCATA PROJECTS
Alliance Pump Station Lighting $3,472
The proposed project will convert T12’s to T8’s and incandescents to CFL’s and, add occupancy sensors to some fixtures. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 1,721 kWh/year with peak usage of 1.5 kW. Energy and power savings will be 1,932 kWh/year and 4.0 kW. Savings will be $266/year with a simple payback of 13.0 years.

City Hall Air Conditioning $29,138
The proposed project will replace the 2 existing air conditioners with two air conditioners of capacities 24.2 kBTU/hour and 33.1 kBTU/hour respectively both with SEER’s of 15. After the proposed changes the air conditioners will use 9,432 kWh/year. Energy savings and power savings will be 5,727 kWh/year and 3.5 kW. Savings will be $788/year with simple payback time of 13.7 years.

Corp Yard Lighting Retrofits $20,690
The proposed project will do the following: Convert halogen to CFL; Convert high-pressure sodium to CFL; Convert incandescent to T8; Convert incandescent floods to CFL floods; Add motion sensors to CFL floods; Convert mercury vapor to T8; Convert T12’s to T8’s; Delamp overlit areas; Add occupancy sensors. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 21,418 kWh/year with peak usage of 12.2 kW. Energy and power savings will be 28,714kWh/year and 12.5 kW. Savings will be $3,954/year with a simple payback of 5.2 years.

D Street HVAC $6,740
The proposed project will replace the existing furnace with two 80 kBTU/hour furnaces with AFUE of 95%. After the proposed change the furnaces will use a total of 440 therms/year. Energy savings will be 260 therms/year. Savings will be $252/year with a simple payback of 26.7 years.

Foodworks Lighting $16,097
The proposed project will do the following: Convert T12’s to T8’s; Convert HPS to CFL flood; Convert Incandescent exit signs to LED exit signs; Convert metal halides to T8’s; Convert T12’s to T8’s; Add occupancy sensors to T8’s.

After the proposed changes the lighting will use 24,338 kWh/year with peak usage of 12.0 kW. Energy and power savings will be 21,064 kWh/year and 8.6 kW. Savings will be $3,798/year with a simple payback of 4.3 years.

Foodworks Refrigeration $12,199
On each refrigeration unit, some (and perhaps all) of the efficiency measures (evaporator fan controls, new motors, and door heater controls) will be installed. In all but one unit, the existing shaded pole evaporator fan motor is replaced with a EC motor. The EC motors are roughly 65% more efficient and realize savings through lowered kW demand. In total, the retrofits are expected to save 30,098 kWh/ year and 2.7 peak kW.

LED Streetlights $17,860
This project physically replaces the cobra-head component of a pole-mounted street light, in order to retrofit the fixture from HPS to LED technology. This is a one-to-one retrofit, with no other modifications required. The street lights in question use either 200-watt, 250-watt or 310-watt HPS lamps, with additional wattage necessary for ballast power. All energy savings are projected to result from the combined efficiency of the LED fixture head and electronic controller, in comparison to the HPS lamp and ballast combination. Each HPS-to-LED retrofit is expected to save 131 watts for a 200W fixture, 54 watts for a 250W fixture, and 185 watts for a 310W fixture.

Wastewater Treatment
Plant Automatic Aeration $5,659
As part of the treatment process aeration pumps in the treatment marshes pump in air to provide oxygen used by microorganisms to digest waste. Running the aeration pumps based on oxygen demand rather than on a fixed schedule will save 55,841 kWh and $7,668 per year.

CITY OF BLUE LAKE
Booster Pumps Replacement $24,246
The water pumping facility currently operates 6,000 hours per year (based on historical documentation). Two pumps operate daily pumping water from the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District line to two holding tanks owned by the city. The existing pumps are over 25 years old with one running at 54% efficiency and the other at 60%. The city plans to replace both pumps with premium efficiency motors and appropriately sized pumps. The energy savings projected is 21,155 kWh per year and $3,596 per year at current rates with a simple payback (before rebates) of 6.7 years.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix L. NCRP Project Information 289

PROJECT NAME COST PROJECT SUMMARY

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY
Variable Frequency Drive Pumps $120,000
The City is proposing to replace three existing inefficient water pumps (used for pumping potable water) with premium efficiency motors coupled with variable frequency drives. The energy savings projected is 214,553 kWh per year and $9,069 per year at current rates with a simple payback (before rebates) of 13.2 years.

CITY OF ETNA
Replace Furnace w/Heat Pump $40,612
The city is proposing to replace two old, inefficient fuel-oil boilers and hydronic heating system and one old A/C units with a state-of-the-art ground-coupled heat exchanger system which will provide heating and cooling for the building. The energy savings projected is 159 gals. of fuel oil per year at approx. $2,306 per year and 2,483 kWh savings worth approx. $224 at current rates with a simple payback of 17.6 years.

CITY OF EUREKA
Adorni Building — Replace
Electric Water Heaters
with Heat Pumps
$5,200 The proposed project will replace the two existing electric resistance tank water heaters with two air-source heat pump tank water heaters each with and Energy Factor (EF) of 2.35. By replacing the water heaters, energy savings will be 3,709 kWh/year and 6.4 kW.

Adorni Building —
Lighting Retrofits $31,930
The lighting system will be upgraded either through retrofits or fixture replacement. Linear fixture retrofits will replace T12 lamps with third-generation T8 lamps. Magnetic ballasts will be replaced with NEMA premium efficiency ballasts.

A combination of lamp count and ballast factor will be used to maintain existing light levels for the lowest energy consumption. Incandescent lamps will be replaced on a one-for-one basis with equivalent compact fluorescent lamps.

Fluorescent exit signs will be replaced with LED versions. Occupancy and photocell sensors will be used to control fixtures where appropriate. Replaced equipment will be disposed based on existing regulations, including recycling, e-waste, and universal waste. The energy and power savings will be 67,966 kWh and 14.7 kW, respectively.

City Hall Solar PV $119,903
The proposed Project is a 14.7 kW AC Photovoltaic Generation facility located at the Eureka City Hall. The project will be a roof mounted grid tied solar electric system, which will work concurrently with electrical energy supplied by the utility service provider during daytime hours. The total available building rooftop and/or land area footage meets the required installation area for the Project. The proposed 14.7 kW (AC) PV system will produce approximately 20,455 kWh per year.

Service Garage Lighting $23,092
The proposed project will convert T12’s to T8’s, convert metal halides to T8, convert high-pressure sodium exterior lights to CFL floods, add photocells to the exterior lights, add occupancy sensors to some fixtures, and delamp some overlit areas.

After the proposed changes the lighting will use 32,684 kWh/year with peak usage of 22.6 kW. Energy and power savings will be 18,186 kWh/year and 7.4 kW. Savings will be $2,876/year with a simple payback of 8.0 years.

CITY OF FERNDALE PROJECTS
Ferndale Elementary
School Lighting $12,539
The proposed project will convert T12’s to T8’s, replace incandescent lamps with CFL’s, control selected fixtures with occupancy sensors, and add daylight sensors to outside fixtures. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 22,307 kWh/year with peak usage of 17.9 kW.

Ferndale High School Lighting $29,766 The proposed project will convert T12’s to T8’s, replace incandescent lamps with CFL’s, control selected fixtures with occupancy sensors, add daylight sensors to outside fixtures. After the proposed changes the lighting will use 43,378 kWh/year with peak usage of 32.9 kW.

CITY OF FORTUNA PROJECTS
LED Street Lighting $78,412
This project physically replaces the cobra-head component of a pole-mounted street light, in order to retrofit the fixture from HPS to LED technology. This is a one-to-one retrofit, with no other modifications required. The street lights in question use either 70-watt or 100-watt HPS lamps, with additional wattage necessary for ballast power. All energy savings are projected to result from the combined efficiency of the LED fixture head and electronic controller, in comparison to the HPS lamp and ballast combination. Each HPS-to-LED retrofit is expected to save 47 watts for a 70W fixture, and 66 watts for a 100W fixture.

CITY OF POINT ARENA PROJECTS
Replace Wastewater
Treatment Pumps $18,775
Point Arena operates its wastewater treatment facility with an inefficient water pump which operates daily, pumping water from sewage and storm drain systems. The existing pump is 30 years old and runs at 55% efficiency. The city plans to replace the motor with a premium efficiency motor and rebuild the existing pump with stainless steel impeller (projected to yield 69% overall-pump-efficiency when calculated net efficiency at optimal load set-point). The proposed replacement pump is a 25 HP, 3600 RPM, premium efficiency TEFC motor with the existing rebuilt pump.

CITY OF RIO DELL PROJECTS
Air Conditioner & Furnace
Replacement $22,513
The proposed project will replace the three, existing old, slightly oversized 80 kBTU 80% AFUE furnaces with three efficient 60 kBTU/hour 95.5% AFUE furnaces. Four existing 24 kBTU 8 SEER AC units will be replaced with four 24 kBTU/hour 13 SEER units. Energy will be saved by increased efficiency on both units, by optimizing the furnace for the load, and sealing ducts.

CITY OF TRINIDAD PROJECTS
City Hall Insulation &
Furnace Replacement $24,600
The city is proposing to insulate the ceiling with R-21 blown-in insulation and R-24 spray-on foam insulation in the floor and replace (2) 25+ year old inefficient furnaces with (2) 95% energy efficient propane furnaces yielding 167 Therms combined savings. An additional independent ventilation system will be required to with provide sufficient fresh air for high-occupancy events when the building tends to overheat. The energy savings projected are 3,310 kWh and 161 Therms per year and $920 annual savings at current rates with a simple payback of 26.8 years. 290 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX M.

NCRP PROJECT IMPACT & BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Following are the tabular results of NCRP implementation project impact/benefit assessment.

Section 4.3 (“Impacts & Benefits”) provides the methodology and discussion for these results.

Table M-62 Minimum Estimated Annual Benefits, 2016 Dollars, by WMA

WMA WATER SUPPLY WATER QUALITY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Eel $14,226,182 $12,417,182 $1,682,674
Humboldt Bay $4,363,246 $38,222,417 $6,314,929
Klamath $8,530,995 $2,663,998 $24,892,450
North Coast $48,576,011 $44,430,923 $54,991,689
Russian/ Bodega $26,856,940 $22,673,317 $58,324,757
Trinity $4,229,047 $107,439 $7,875,927
Table M-63 Indicators of Project Impacts and Benefits

TYPE OF CAPITAL INDICATOR OF BENEFIT OR IMPACT PHYSICAL UNIT OF MEASURE ECONOMIC UNIT OF MEASURE6
Natural Instream Flow Gallons/Day; Acre-feet/Year $80-$120/acre-foot per year7 Water Quality DO; Temperature; Bacteria; Sediment; Meet/ exceed regulatory target (e.g., TMDL) Sediment: Up to $11 per ton of sediment8 Riparian, Upland, and/or Forest
Habitat Quality/Quantity
Acres; Linear measure; Measure of
function (e.g., number of plants;
tons of carbon sequestration)
Riparian Habitat: $120 per acre per year9
Wetland Habitat: $2,000–$4,000 per acre per year10
Carbon Sequestration: $15 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent sequestered (increases at a real rate of 2.5% per year) Salmonid Population Change in number of adult fish Project and species-specific values Human-Built Water Supply for Domestic Use Gallons/Day; Acre-feet/Year $80-$120/acre-foot per year11 Water Supply for Agricultural Use Gallons/Day; Acre-feet/Year $80-$120/acre-foot per year12 Water System Operations O&M effort/cost; Numbers of violations/fines Project Specific Wastewater System Operations O&M effort/cost; Numbers of violations/fines Project Specific Road Operations O&M effort/cost; Miles upgraded;
Miles decommissioned; Project Specific
Culvert Operations O&M effort/cost; Changes in risk/
probability of failure; Project Specific
Flood Control Number of structures affected; Other
infrastructure affected; Damage characterization Project Specific Critical Infrastructure Reliability Customers/day of shortage; Emergency response timing; Water Supply: $19–$27 per household per month13 6 For more information about the economic units listed here, see Table M-66 “Estimated Project Benefits for Water Supply, Quality, and Services” 7 West Water Research. 2013. 2013 California Spot Market Price Forecast. 8 Hansen, L. and M. Ribaudo. 2008. Economic Measures of Soil Conservation Benefits: Regional Values for Policy Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin No. 1922. 9 Chaibai, A., C. Travisi, H. Ding, et al. 2009. Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services’ Methodology and Monetary Estimates. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper No. 2009.12. 10 Woodward, W. and Y. Wui. 2001. “Economic Value of Wetland Services: A Meta-Analysis.” Ecological Economics. 37:257-270. 11 West Water Research. 2013. 2013 California Spot Market Price Forecast. 12 West Water Research. 2013. 2013 California Spot Market Price Forecast. 13 Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. 1994. The Value of Water Supply Reliability: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey of Residential Customers. August.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis 291

TYPE OF CAPITAL INDICATOR OF BENEFIT OR IMPACT PHYSICAL UNIT OF MEASURE ECONOMIC UNIT OF MEASURE6
Recreational Facilities Users/day; Measure of quality (e.g., congestion; uniqueness of experience, etc.)
$128 per camping day,
$54 per fishing day,
$28 per hiking day,
$33 per motorboating day,
$61 per mountain biking day,
$79 per picnicking day,
$25 per sightseeing day,
$33 per swimming day,
$89 per wildlife viewing day. 14
Energy Use KwH used; Carbon emissions $15 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (increases at a real rate of 2.5% per year)
Human Loss of life or injury Number of people affected Value of a statistical life or avoided cost of injury Skill development Number of people affected; Skills affected Project Specific; Typically, not monetized Education Number of people affected; Behaviors changed Project Specific; Typically, not monetized Social Conflict Resolution Describe effect Project Specific; Typically, not monetized Information Development and Sharing Describe effect Project Specific; Typically, not monetized Cultural Heritage Describe effect Project Specific; Typically, not monetized Table M-64 Benefits and Impacts of Proposition 50 Implementation Projects

TYPE OF

CAPITAL

INDICATOR OF BENEFIT

OR IMPACT
# OF
PROJECTS PHYSICAL CHANGE ECONOMIC VALUE15

BENEFICIARIES

DACS TRIBES
Natural
Instream Flow 7 Increased instream flows to benefit ecosystems and salmon; improved water management • •
Water Quality 17 Sediment reduction (442,000 yd3
stabilized)
Avoided TMDL Enforcement or other projects >$40 million • • Riparian, Upland, and/or Forest
Habitat Quality/Quantity
8 3
New habitat (332 acres)
Invasive species removed (214 acres)
Carbon sequestration
• •
Salmonid Population 18 Enhanced fisheries and fish populations Improved fish passage and new habitat for fish populations (153 miles) • • Human-Built
Water Supply for Domestic Use 4 Increased availability of water for municipal or domestic use; improved water management •
Water Supply for
Agricultural Use 3 Increased availability of water for agricultural use; improved water management • Water System Operations 3 Avoided water treatment costs and other O&M costs >$172,000 • Wastewater System Operations 3 Avoided wastewater violations $60,000 • Road Operations 7
Roads decommissioned (7.76 miles)
Roads upgraded (95 miles)
Avoided road maintenance costs
>$3 million •
Culvert Operations 8 Changes in culverts to improve fish passage • Flood Control 4 Flood damage reduction >$160,000 •
Critical Infrastructure Reliability 4 Enhanced firefighting capabilities • Recreational Facilities 8 Protect and increase recreation access • • Energy Use
Human Loss of life or injury
Skill development Education 10 Professional and volunteer training • • 14 Loomis, J. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands. U.S. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658. 15 These values represent a rough estimate of the value associated with some of the effects of the Proposition 50-funded projects, based on preliminary estimates of project outcomes. They may not accurately represent the present value of the benefits, discounted over time. 292 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

TYPE OF

CAPITAL

INDICATOR OF BENEFIT

OR IMPACT
# OF
PROJECTS PHYSICAL CHANGE ECONOMIC VALUE15

BENEFICIARIES

DACS TRIBES
Social
Conflict Reduction
and Resolution 5 • •
Information Development
and Sharing 8 Enhanced monitoring programs • •
Cultural Heritage 10 Enhanced salmonid populations
Agricultural preservation • •
Table M-65 Benefits and Impacts of Proposition 84 Implementation Projects

TYPE OF

CAPITAL

INDICATOR OF BENEFIT

OR IMPACT
# OF

PROJECTS

PHYSICAL CHANGE ECONOMIC
VALUE16

BENEFICIARIES

DACS TRIBES
Natural
Instream Flow 30 Increased instream flows to benefit ecosystems and salmon; improved water management
>$85 million • •
Water Quality 17 Sediment reduction (1,210,000 yd3 stabilized) Avoided TMDL Enforcement or other projects (34 projects) >$7.5 million • •
Riparian, Upland, and/or Forest
Habitat Quality/Quantity
20 New habitat (843 acres)
Invasive species removed (7 projects, 173 acres)
Carbon sequestration (22 projects)
>$100 thousand
>$360 thousand • •
Salmonid Population 38 Enhanced fisheries and fish populations Improved fish passage and new habitat for fish populations (4 projects, 9 miles)
>$23 million
• •
Human-Built
Water Supply for Domestic Use 39 Increased availability of water for municipal or domestic use; improved water management
>$27 million • •
Water Supply for Agricultural Use Increased availability of water for agricultural use; improved water management • Water System Operations 33 Avoided costs of emergency repairs Avoided costs
$2 million
>$38 million • •
Wastewater System Operations 2 Avoided fines $110,000 • • Road Operations 9 Roads decommissioned (71 miles)
Roads upgraded (11miles)
Avoided road maintenance costs ($636,000)
• •
Culvert Operations 3 Avoided failure $41,000 • •
Flood Control 7 Avoided flood damage $270,000 •
Critical Infrastructure Reliability 11 Enhanced firefighting capabilities Improved water supply reliability $17 million • •
Recreational Facilities 13 Protect and increase recreation access $700,000 • Energy Use 3 Reduced carbon emissions
Reduced energy costs $108,000 •
Human Loss of life or injury 2 Avoided loss of life and injury $20 million • Skill development Education 26 Professional and volunteer training • • Social Conflict Reduction and Resolution 31 • •
Information Dexdevelopment
and Sharing
7 Enhanced monitoring programs • •
Cultural Heritage 31 Enhanced salmonid populations
Agricultural preservation
Increased forest biodiversity
• •
16 These values represent a rough estimate of the value associated with some of the projected effects of the Proposition 84-funded projects. They are based on project proponents’ initial estimates of the physical effects of the projects before completion, and may not accurately capture the actual value of the benefits achieved by these projects. These values should not be summed to represent the total value of the Proposition 84-funded projects.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis 293
Table M-66 Estimated Project Benefits for Water Supply, Quality, & Services

WATER SUPPLY BENEFITS
Potential
Benefit
Physical
Amount
of Benefit
Suggested
Physical Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Suggested Economic Units Example of Applying Economic Units Increased Instream
Flow for
Environmental
Purposes
Gallons per year;
Gallons per minute;
Acre-feet per year
$80–$120 per acre-foot per year17
This value represents the market prices paid in
California water markets for water in 2013. This value
should be applied to the increase in the volume of
water that is left instream to support ecological
functions. The value of this benefit accumulates
over time. A higher value may be appropriate if water
is being made available for San Francisco Bay area
($160-$250) or Central Valley ($80-$280) users.

A project helps a farmer install drip irrigation
equipment. The farmer is then able to reduce
withdrawals from the river by one acre-foot per
year, which leaves more water instream to protect
habitat for salmon and other species. The value of
the benefit is $80 per year, for as many years as the
water is guaranteed to remain as instream flow.

Increased Instream
Flow for
Agricultural
Purposes
Gallons per year;
Gallons per minute;
Acre-feet per year
$80–$120 per acre-foot per year1
This value represents the market prices paid in
California water markets for water in 2013. This
value should be applied to the increase in the
volume of water available to agricultural users.

The value of this benefit accumulates over time.

A higher value may be appropriate if water is
being made available for San Francisco Bay area
($160-$250) or Central Valley ($80-$280) users.

A project covers irrigation ditches, which
reduces evaporation by one acre-foot per year.

This water is available to irrigate more acreage
than before. The value of this benefit is $57
per year, for as many years as the water is
available to meet agricultural demands.

Increased Instream
Flow for Municipal
Purposes
Gallons per year;
Gallons per minute;
Acre-feet per year
$80–$120 per acre-foot per year 1
This value represents the market prices paid in
California water markets for water in 2013. This
value should be applied to the increase in the
volume of water available to municipal users.

The value of this benefit accumulates over time.

A higher value may be appropriate if water is
being made available for San Francisco Bay area
($160-$250) or Central Valley ($80-$280) users.

A project provides rebates for water-efficient
toilets, which reduces per-capita water use and
overall water use by one acre-foot per year. This
water is available to meet municipal demands from
population growth than before. The value of this
benefit is $121 per year, for as many years as the
water is available to meet municipal demands.

Change in Timing
and Volume of
Instream Flow
Cubic feet per
second (cfs) over
a particular period
(document evidence
of scarcity during
this period)
Project specific / Not monetized
Water that provides an increased instream flow
during periods of scarcity is particularly valuable.

Other benefit categories (e.g., increased instream
flow for environmental purposes) already capture
some of the benefit associated with increased
instream flows. To the extent that increased instream
flows occur during periods of scarcity, those values
may underestimate the true value of this flow.

A project provides rain tanks that allow a farmer
to collect water during the wet season and replace
irrigation withdrawals during summer months. This
would increase the river’s flow during typically
drier periods, when water is more scarce and
additional flows are more critical for maintaining
fish habitat. The exact value of this additional
flow, above the average value provided for instream
flow for environmental purposes, may not be
known, but its importance should be described.

Increased Water
Supply Reliability
Number of household
customers;
Reduction in
frequency of water
shortages (e.g., once
in five years, once in
ten years);
Reduction in
magnitude of
shortage (e.g.,
10% reduction,
20% reduction)
$19–$27 per household per month18
These values represent how much households
are willing to pay to avoid specific types of water
shortages. At the low end, respondents said they were
willing to pay about $19 per month to avoid a 10%
shortage that occurs once every 10 years. At the high
end, they were willing to pay about $27 per month to
avoid a 50% shortage that occurs once every 20 years.

The lower value is appropriate for improvements in
reliability in situations where shortage is likely to
occur infrequently and/or for short periods of time.

The higher value is appropriate for improvements
in reliability in situations where shortage occurs
frequently and/or for longer periods of time.

A project that installs low-flow appliances results
in a decrease in per-capita water demand. This
reduces the likelihood the water utility must
enforce water rationing, mandating a 10 percent
reduction in water consumption when droughts
occur, which is about once every 10 years in the
watershed this utility depends on. This utility
serves 500 customers, so the value of this benefit
is about $9,500 per month or $114,000 per year.

This is a tricky benefit to quantify. Projectspecific conditions should be taken into account and may affect values considerably.
17 West Water Research. 2013. 2013 California Spot Market Price Forecast. 18 Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. 1994. The Value of Water Supply Reliability: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey of Residential Customers. August. 294 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

WATER SUPPLY BENEFITS
Potential
Benefit
Physical
Amount
of Benefit
Suggested
Physical Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Suggested Economic Units Example of Applying Economic Units Increased
Groundwater
Recharge
Percent increase;
Gallons per year;
Acre-feet per year
Project Specific/Not monetized
The benefits that arise from groundwater
recharge may be addressed by other benefit
categories (e.g., increased instream flow for
multiple purposes, improved habitat, avoided
costs, etc.) If other categories don’t cover
the benefit, describe specifics here.

A project diverts stormwater to constructed wetlands,
increasing recharge to the aquifer. This may produce
a wide range of benefits, including increased instream
flows, avoided pumping costs, avoided costs of
adapting to subsidence, etc. Where possible, address
this effect in these other, direct, benefit categories.

Avoided Water
Supply Purchases
Volume of water
purchased per year
(or at the frequency
purchases would
be avoided);
Project specific: $ per unit of raw
water purchased per year
This value depends on the types and costs of avoided
water purchases. It’s best to rely on information from
the project area. If water would have been purchased
yearly, the benefit accrues annually. If it’s every 5
or 10 years, value accrues periodically over time.

A project decreases water demand by installing
low-flow appliances. This decrease in water demand
means that the community no longer has to purchase
$100,000 worth of water from a neighboring water
district each year. The value of this benefit is
$100,000 per year. It could potentially increase over
time if water supply purchases would have increased.

Avoided Water
Supply Projects
Description of the
avoided project,
including physical
benefits, and
timing of actions
Project specific: Cost of avoided project(s),
including capital, replacement, and operations
& maintenance costs, as applicable.

This benefit is equal to the costs of other potential
future projects aimed at increasing/improving water
supplies that are avoided as a result of the project.

A project covers a reservoir, decreasing evaporation.

Since more water is available from the reservoir,
a planned expansion that would have cost
$500,000 no longer has to take place. The value
of this benefit would a one-time avoided cost
of $500,000. If the reservoir expansion would
have cost $500 per year more to maintain, the
annual avoided cost would be $500 dollars, and
is additional to the one-time capital cost.

Avoided Water
Shortage Costs
See also Avoided
Water Supply
Purchases,
Increased Water
Supply Reliability
Gallons per year;
Acre-feet per year;
Percent change in
frequency /severity
of water shortages
Project specific: Avoided costs
associated with water shortages
The value of this benefit may already be included
elsewhere (e.g., avoided water supply purchases,
increased water supply reliability). To the extent
that the project’s capacity to reduce costs
attributable to water shortages has not already
been captured, it could be included here.

A community increases the efficiency of municipal
water use resulting in a decrease in water
demand. This decrease in water demand results
in an avoided water shortage each summer.

Historically, the community had incurred costs
of $100,000 during its annual water shortage,
from lost business opportunities. This project
would have an annual benefit of $100,000.

Avoided Electric
Costs
Energy units (kWh)
per year;
Acre-feet of water
pumped per year
Project specific: $ per kWh per year
If a project specific change in electricity use is
available, it can be multiplied by local electricity
prices to estimate the value of the benefit. (PG&E
current rates for different customers can be found at:
http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/rateinfo.shtml)
A project decreases leakage from irrigation piping
resulting in a decrease in energy used to pump
water for irrigation. The value of the benefit
would be equal to the avoided electricity costs.

Avoided Costs
Associated with
Emergency Repairs
Project Specific Project specific: Avoided costs associated with labor and capital to make the emergency repair.

Insofar as the avoided costs have not been
included elsewhere, they can be included here.

To the extent that the project avoids costs
associated with emergency repairs, the value of
those costs may be included as a benefit.

For the past 10 years, emergency crews have
been called on to repair an old water pipe, on
average, every two years. A project that replaces
that pipe would provide a benefit equal to the
average annual costs of those avoided repairs.

Revenue from
Water Sales to
New Customers
Gallons per year;
Acre-feet per year
Project specific: $ amount of net increase in revenue A utility fixes leaky distribution pipes, which allows it to sell more water to meet demands
it currently cannot meet without developing
new supplies. The benefit is equal to revenue
earned from the additional water sales.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis 295

WATER QUALITY BENEFITS
Potential
Benefit
Physical
Amount of
Benefit
Suggested Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Potential Economic Units Example of Applying Economic Units Sediment Reduction Tons per year Project specific/Up to $11 per ton of sediment19 This value represents the sum of several avoided
costs associated with reducing sedimentation (e.g.,
avoided reservoir dredging, avoided flood damage,
avoided sediment filtration costs). The actual value
likely is less than $11 per ton, and depends on
the types of downstream users likely to benefit.

A project involves planting 100 trees in a previously
barren riparian area resulting in reduced sediment
from erosion. The project reduces sedimentation
to the stream by one ton per year. The annual
value of the benefit is $11 per year. Alternately,
the water treatment plant downstream can
document that it will spend $1,000 less per year
on treatment supplies to remove the sediment.

The benefit in that case will be $1,000 per year.

This is a hypothetical, project-specific benefit.

Decreased Water
Temperature
Avoided project;
Change in
maximum daily
temperature, by day
Project specific
To avoid double counting of habitat benefits, the
value of this benefit is equal to the costs of other
potential future projects aimed at reducing water
temperature that are avoided due to this project’s
impact. If there are not potential avoided future
projects, this benefit may still have biophysical value, but does not necessarily provide an economic benefit.

A project involves planting 100 trees along a
stream These trees shade the stream and decrease
the water temperature. Due to lower water
temperatures from this project, another future
project costing $100,000 is no longer necessary.

This benefit has a one-time value of $100,000.

Increased Dissolved
Oxygen (DO)
Avoided project;
Change in DO
concentration
Project specific
To avoid double counting, the value of this benefit
is equal to the costs of other potential future
projects aimed at increasing DO concentrations
that are avoided due to this project’s impact. If
there are not potential avoided future projects, this
benefit may still have biophysical value, but does
not necessarily provide an economic benefit.

A project involves planting 100 trees between a farm
and a stream. The decrease in nutrient runoff from
the farm improves dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the stream. Due to the improved dissolved oxygen
concentrations from this project, another future
project costing $100,000 is no longer necessary.

This benefit has a one-time value of $100,000.

Bacteria/
Contaminant
Reduction
Avoided project;
Change in bacteria/
contaminant
concentration
Project specific
To avoid double counting of habitat- and recreationrelated benefits, the value of this benefit is equal to the costs of other potential future projects aimed
at decreasing bacteria/contaminant concentrations
that are avoided due to this project’s impact. If
there are not potential avoided future projects, this
benefit may still have biophysical value, but does
not necessarily provide an economic benefit.

A project involves planting 100 trees between a
livestock operation and a stream. The decrease
in runoff from the feedlot reduces bacteria
concentrations in the stream. Due to the improved
bacteria concentrations from this project, a future
project costing $100,000 is no longer necessary.

This benefit has a one-time value of $100,000.

Additional Water
Quality Projects
Avoided
Avoided projects Project specific
To avoid double counting of habitat- and
recreation-related benefits, the value of this
benefit is equal to the costs of other potential
future projects aimed at improving water quality
that are avoided due to this project’s impact.

If the project improves water quality in other ways,
it provides a benefit by improving aquatic habitat
and recreational opportunities. To avoid double
counting, the value of habitat- and recreation-related
benefits are calculated elsewhere. To the extent
that this project can replace other efforts aimed at
improving water quality, it provides an additional
benefit equal to the costs of avoided projects.

Avoided Water
Treatment Costs
Gallons per year;
Acre-feet per year
Project specific: Difference in water treatment
costs per unit of water per year
If a local value for water treatment costs is
available, multiply it by the relevant quantity to
estimate the annual benefit. The mid-range cost of
drinking water treatment in the San Francisco area
is $65 per acre-foot per year (Chen et al. 2008).

A project involves lining a reservoir that holds
municipal drinking water, resulting in improved
water quality and decreased treatment costs
for the water supply. The value is the difference
between what the utility paid to treat the water
before the project and after the project.

Reduced
stormwater water
treatment costs
Gallons per
year; acre-feet
treated per year
Average cost per unit of water requiring reduced
treatment or not needing treatment
19 Hansen, L. and M. Ribaudo. 2008. Economic Measures of Soil Conservation Benefits: Regional Values for Policy Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin No. 1922. 296 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

WATER QUALITY BENEFITS
Potential
Benefit
Physical
Amount of
Benefit
Suggested Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Potential Economic Units Example of Applying Economic Units Avoided Culvert
Failures
Number of culvert
failures avoided
Project specific: Cost of avoided culvert failures
Use local values describing historical costs
associated with culvert failures to estimate the
value of reducing future culvert failures. These
might include costs of: fixing/ replacing pipes at
emergency rates; flood damage to land owners; and
user delays for motorists. This is a one-time value
applied when the culvert would likely have failed.

A project involves excavating and reinstalling one
culvert that is at a risk of immediate failure. Culvert failures in the area have cost an average of $10,000
per failure in emergency repairs and localized damage
to roads and structures. This one-time value can
be applied to describe the benefit of this project.

Flood Damage
Reduction
To determine
flood damage
reduction benefits,
see specific
instructions below.

Project specific
Calculate expected annual damage using
relevant model, such as U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers HEC-Flood Damage Assessment or
the Flood Rapid Assessment Model (F-RAM).

If the project decreases the frequency and/
or magnitude of potential future flood events, it
provides a benefit equal to the value of avoided
flood damages. The economic costs associated
with expected annual damage may include avoided
physical damage; avoided costs associated with loss
of functions such as income and wages; avoided
emergency response and cleanup; and avoided, but
unquantifiable, public safety and health impacts.

OTHER ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS
Potential
Benefit
Physical
Amount of
Benefit
Suggested Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Potential Economic Units Example of Calculating Economic Value Fishery
Improvement
See also Increased
Instream Flow for
Environmental
Purposes; Habitat
Restoration
Number of fish per
year;
Percent population
increase;
Density (fish/m^2)
Project and species-specific values;
Partially captured by other benefits
Some of the value of this benefit is captured in the
value of increased instream flow for environmental
purposes. If the project makes targeted efforts
to improve fish populations, there are several
species-specific values applicable from the
literature that reflect the commercial, recreation,
and existence values of improved fish populations.

These values are dependent on site conditions
and are not straightforward calculations.

A project installs 50 pieces of large woody debris
in a river resulting in a 5% increase in local
salmon and steelhead populations over 30 years.

The value of this salmon-specific benefit is based
on the commercial, recreation, and existence
value of this increase in fish populations.

Increased Quantity
or Quality of
Recreation or
Public Access
Number of
recreation days, by
type of activity
$128 per camping day,
$54 per fishing day,
$28 per hiking day,
$33 per motorboating day,
$61 per mountain biking day,
$79 per picnicking day,
$25 per sightseeing day,
$33 per swimming day,
$89 per wildlife viewing day.20
These represent the net value associated with a
day spent participating in different recreational
activities (not including the costs of participating
in the activity). Generally, increases in quality
of recreational opportunities are not easily
quantifiable, but should be discussed qualitatively.

A project creates a new hiking trail along a river.

This new trail attracts more individuals to hike in
the area and encourages people who already hike
in the area to take more hiking trips. Recreation
managers in the area count an average of 10 hikers
per day using the trail. Assuming all of these people
would not have gone hiking but for this new trail, the
value associated with the trail is approximately $280
per day or about $100,000 per year. It is important
to recognize that some of these people may have
hiked elsewhere, so they would have benefited from
their hiking trip either way. For this reason, it is
easy to overestimate this benefit, so care should
be taken to clearly document assumptions.
20 Loomis, J. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands. U.S. Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis 297

OTHER ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS
Potential
Benefit
Physical
Amount of
Benefit
Suggested Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Potential Economic Units Example of Calculating Economic Value Improved Fish
Passage
See also Fishery
Improvement;
Increased
Instream Flow for
Environmental
Purposes; Habitat
Restoration
Number of fish per
year;
Percent population
increase;
Density (fish/m^2)
Project and species-specific values;
Partially captured by other benefits
Avoid double counting with the value of increased
instream flow for environmental purposes (and, if
calculated, the improvement in fisheries). If the project makes targeted efforts to improve fish populations,
there are several species-specific values applicable
from the literature that reflect the commercial,
recreation, and existence values of improved fish
populations. These values are dependent on site
conditions and are not straightforward calculations.

A project installs an additional culvert under a
roadway resulting in 5 stream miles of new steelhead
rearing habitat. This is expected to increase
steelhead populations in the watershed by 10 percent
over 10 years. The value of this salmon-specific
benefit is based on the commercial, recreation, and
existence value of this increase in fish populations.

Habitat Restoration
See also Fishery
Improvement;
Increased
Instream Flow for
Environmental
Purposes
Acres of habitat type $120 per acre per year (riparian habitat)21 $2,000–$4,000 per acre per year (wetland
habitat)22; Project-specific
These values represent estimates of the total
annual economic value associated with riparian
and wetland habitat. Other values may be available
from the literature to apply to other habitat types
and may differ considerably from these values
(e.g., upland forest ecosystems, scrubland, etc.).

A project involves removing an abandoned
development alongside a river. In the process, trees
are planted and the native riparian conditions are
restored, increasing riparian habitat by one acre. The
value of that new habitat would be $120 per year.

Invasive Plant
Removal
Acres of habitat
improved $120 per acre per year (riparian habitat)6
2,000–$4,000 per acre per year (wetland habitat)7
To the extent that a project improves the functionality of habitat, it provides benefits proportional to the
incremental improvement of the habitat. To avoid
double-counting, habitat restoration benefits
should not be claimed on the same land that
receives benefits for removing invasive plants.

A project removes invasive blackberries from one
acre of a riparian area, resulting in better growing
conditions for native vegetation and improved wildlife
habitat. Biologists estimate the changes improve the
productivity of the landscape for supporting native
species, from about 50 percent of optimal function
to 100 percent of optimal function. The value of the
benefit would be equal to half of the value associated
with riparian habitat, or about $60 per year.

Flood Control
See also Flood
Damage Reduction
Area and type of
land protected;
Change in flood
probabilities
Project specific
In order to avoid double counting with previous
flood-related benefits, the value of this benefit
should be equal to historical costs associated
with past floods minus those costs already
accounted for in other benefit categories.

If the project decreases the frequency and/
or magnitude of potential future flood events,
it provides additional benefits beyond those
estimated by F-RAM. These benefits are equal to
avoided future flood-related costs (e.g., avoided
displacement, avoided injuries, avoided municipal
opportunity costs, avoided flood preparation costs).

Reduction in
Shellfish Closures
Number of days
per year of reduced
closures;
Change in quantity
of commercial
shellfish production;
Change in
shellfish-related
recreation days
Project specific
The value of this benefit relies on the type of shellfish closure, its duration, and its total effect on commercial shellfish production and recreational shellfish activity.

Historically, high bacteria levels in a river have
resulted in annual closures in a nearby shellfishproducing area. A project effectively reduces bacteria levels resulting in no more shellfish closures. The
value of the value of the benefit is equal to the
value of commercial and recreational shellfish
activities adversely affected by the closure.

Decreased
Operation and
Maintenance Costs
Project specific Project specific: Avoided costs associated with labor and capital for operations and maintenance.

If the project decreases any operation and/
or maintenance costs not accounted for in other
benefit categories, count those benefits here.

The value of the benefit is equal to the avoided
operation and maintenance costs per year.

A project upgrades a municipal reservoir, resulting
in a reduction in treatment and conveyance
costs of $50,000 per year. Insofar as these
values have not been accounted for elsewhere,
the value of this benefit is $50,000 per year.
21 Chaibai, A., C. Travisi, H. Ding, et al. 2009. Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services’ Methodology and Monetary Estimates. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper No. 2009.12. 22 Woodward, W. and Y. Wui. 2001. “Economic Value of Wetland Services: A Meta-Analysis.” Ecological Economics. 37:257-270. 298 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

OTHER ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS
Potential
Benefit
Physical
Amount of
Benefit
Suggested Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Potential Economic Units Example of Calculating Economic Value Avoided Costs of
Road Maintenance
Miles of road; Project specific: Average road maintenance costs per mile including labor and capital.

In order to avoid double-counting with
previous maintenance-related benefits, the
value of this benefit should reflect only those
avoided costs not yet accounted for.

A project re-grades a segment of roadway,
decreasing annual costs associated with runoff
and erosion. Historically, an average of $5,000 was
spent addressing problems related to poor grade.

The improvements reduce the annual maintenance
efforts by half for 10 years. The value of this
benefit is equal to $2,500 per year over 10 years.

Enhanced
Fire-Fighting
Capabilities
Area protected per
year;
Avoided costs
associated with
other sources of
water;
Avoided costs of
delays associated
with responding
to fires
Project specific
FEMA has developed a benefit-cost model that
uses project-specific characteristics to estimate
the value of avoided costs associated with natural
disasters such as fires. If the project improves firefighting capabilities, it provides a benefit equal to the avoided costs associated with bringing in water
from other sources to fight fires, the costs of delays
in responding to fires, and fire-related damage.

A project increases the annual storage capacity of
a pretreatment reservoir and reduces annual water
demand, expanding the community’s capacity to
provide water for fighting wildfires in the region.

The benefit is equal to the costs of fighting fire
associated with hauling water from farther away, and
potentially the damage avoided from being able to
respond to fires more quickly. If these benefits are
difficult to quantify monetarily, describe qualitatively.

Reduced Risk
of Wildfire
Amount of fuel
load reduced;
predicted reduction
in annual fire risk
Project specific; Non Monetized
This benefit may be difficult to quantify.

Factors to consider include probability of large
fire and changes in potential damage costs,
fire fighting costs, insurance costs, etc.

A project thins forests, reducing the risk of a
catastrophic wildfire. The benefit is equal to the
reduced annual probability of fire times the costs
associated with fighting fires, the costs of delays
in responding to fires, and fire-related damage.

COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL BENEFITS
Potential Benefit
Physical
Amount of
Benefit
Suggested Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Potential Economic Units Example of Calculating Economic Value Education or
Technology Benefits
Number of people
reached; Description
of effects of
technology (e.g.,
saved labor, better
accuracy, etc.)
Project specific; Not monetized
This benefit may be difficult to quantify in monetary
terms. If the project provides opportunities for
people to enhance their education or to develop,
test, or document a new technology in a way that
should result in water supply, water quality, or
flood reduction benefits it results in a benefit
associated with education or technology.

A project uses youth volunteers from the local
community to conduct stream restoration. The
students learn about the river’s ecosystem.

This represents an investment in the region’s
human capital, which may improve the individual
success of the students and the community’s
capacity to address related issues in the future.

Avoided Public
Water Resources
Conflicts
Describe and
quantify the
conflicts
Project specific; Not monetized
This benefit may be difficult to quantify in
monetary terms. Evidence of an effect may be
illustrated through reduced litigation costs or
reduced enforcement or regulatory costs.

A project provides opportunities for public
collaboration around water conservation efforts.

This allows stakeholders to share information,
identify and agree on problem definitions, and
address issues before they rise to official levels.

This may avoid short-run costs and builds a
region’s social capital, which may increase its
capacity to address similar problems more
efficiently and cost-effectively in the future.

Social Health
and Safety
Describe the effects Project specific; Not monetized
These types of benefits are difficult to quantify in
monetary terms. If the project reduces the public’s
exposure to water-related hazards not captured
by the benefit categories above, it might provide
additional benefits to social health and safety.

A project reinforces a critical water main whose
failure, given a seismic event, would disrupt the
fire-fighting capacity of the community. The benefit
is reduced risk of incurring emergency costs
and improved resilience if disruptions occur.

Other Social
Benefits
Number of people Not monetized
By and large, these types of benefits are
difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

Projects may also possess other social
benefits, for example, a project might redress
inequitable distribution of environmental
burdens or have a disproportionate beneficial
effect on disadvantaged communities, Native
Americans, or other distinct cultural groups.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix M. NCRP Project Impact & Benefit Analysis 299

CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
Potential
Benefit
Physical
Amount of
Benefit
Suggested Units
Estimated
Economic
Value
Potential Economic Units Example of Calculating Economic Value Carbon Emissions
Reductions
from Reduced
Electricity Use
Reduction in
emissions of CO2
equivalent (CO2E)
per year, in tons.

Reduced electricity
use per year in kWh.
$15 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent
(increases at a real rate of 2.5% per year)23
Reducing emissions has a benefit equal to the value
of these avoided costs. If the weight of avoided carbon dioxide equivalent is known, apply the first value to
the weight of avoided emissions. If only the amount of
avoided electricity is known, apply the second value
($22 per MWh) to the amount of avoided electricity.

The value of this benefit accumulates annually.

A project reduces leakage from irrigation piping
resulting in a reduction in electricity used to pump
and convey water for irrigation. The reduction in
energy use results in a reduction in electricity
generation, which reduces greenhouse gas
emissions by one ton of CO2 equivalent per year.

The value of the benefit is $15 for the first year,
increasing by 2.5 for every year thereafter.

Carbon Emissions
Reductions from
Other Reduced
Energy Use
Reduction in
emissions of CO2
equivalent (CO2E)
per year, in tons.

Reduced energy
use per year
(e.g., gallons of
diesel fuel). To
calculate emissions
reductions from
different energy
sources, go to
http://www.epa.
gov/cleanenergy/
energy-resources/
calculator.
html#results
$15 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent
(increases at a real rate of 2.5% per year)24
Reducing emissions has a benefit equal to the
value of these avoided costs. If only the amount
of energy is known, convert the energy to carbon
dioxide equivalent, and multiply by the value above.

A project reduces the need to transport water by
truck, resulting in a decrease in diesel used for
transportation, which reduces greenhouse gas
emissions by one ton of CO2 equivalent per year.

The value of the benefit is $15 for the first year,
increasing by 2.5 for every year thereafter.

Carbon
Sequestration
Number of trees
planted, by type;
Volume of CO2
sequestered per
year (in tons)
May use the Tree
Carbon Calculator
to estimate
carbon dioxide
sequestration
from tree planting
projects: https://
www.fs.usda.
gov/ccrc/index.
php?q=tools/
tree-carboncalculator-ctcc
$15 per ton of carbon dioxide sequestered
(increases at a real rate of 2.5% per year)25
If estimates of carbon sequestration are not available
but an estimate of number of trees planted is
available, use the following value estimates:
$0.64 for per hardwood planted per year;
$0.49 per conifer planted per year;
These values represent the average annual
value of carbon sequestered by different kinds
of trees, assuming a moderate growth rate over
50 years, discounted at a rate of 3 percent.

A project involves planting 1,000 coniferous
trees along a riparian area. As these trees grow
they sequester and store carbon dioxide. This
benefit is roughly equivalent to $490 per year.
23 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2014. California Air Resources Board Quarterly Auction 6, February 2014: Summary Results Report. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/february-2014/results.pdf; Nordhaus, W. 2008. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven: Yale University Press.; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. Appendix F. Electricity Emission Factors. Retrieved on October 29, 2012 from www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/emission_factors.html. 24 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2014. California Air Resources Board Quarterly Auction 6, February 2014:

Summary Results Report. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/february-2014/results.pdf; Nordhaus, W. 2008. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven: Yale University Press. 25 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2014. California Air Resources Board Quarterly Auction 6, February 2014: Summary Results Report. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/february-2014/results.pdf; Nordhaus, W. 2008. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven: Yale University Press.; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1998. Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from https:// urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/citations/method-for-calculating-carbon-sequestration-by-trees-in-urban-and-suburban-settings-1 300 Appendix N. Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX N.

PROJECT & PROGRAM MONITORING & EVALUATION
NCRP and staff work with project proponents and responsible parties to develop simple monitoring plans to track project progress toward project-specific goals. The NCRP intends to develop with and provide to project proponents a comprehensive listing, akin to a menu, of accepted monitoring protocols from which they may choose a suite to suit their project monitoring needs and available financial, human, and temporal resources.

It is not necessary, nor appropriate, for a project to use all the protocols in their monitoring and reporting).

In this way, monitoring/evaluation and adaptive management efforts for the NCRIWMP (and potentially other NCRP projects) will be based on a standard set of methods that can produce “apples-to-apples” comparisons between and among individual Plan projects, and of projects’ relative contribution to Plan success. The listing below describes the data management responsibilities related to the project and program evaluation.

Table N-67 Data Management and Dissemination

TASK FREQUENCY
Responsible Party: Project Proponents
Develop QAPP, 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 Nort Coast as appropriate and add to NCRP website interactive application Periodically Obtain and provide spatial data layers of interest for planning efforts in the North Coast and add to NCRP website interactive mapping application 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 library Periodically when appropriate Table N-68 Monitoring Protocols for NCRP Project Evaluation The following list of monitoring protocols for NCRP project evaluation provides 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 below have been used in NCRP projects.

SALMONID HABITAT IMPROVEMENT
• SWAMP Data Management System. Provides a database, templates, field data sheets, QAPP guidance and templates, and webinar trainings. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/swamp/bioassessment/sops.html
Standard Operating Procedures. Provides detailed SOPs for:
• Macroinvertebrate samples and associated physical and chemical data for ambient bioassessments • Stream algae samples and associated physical habitat and chemical data for ambient bioassessments • Field measurements and field collections of water and bed sediment samples • Lab processing and identification of benthic macroinvertebrates

6. CDFW Aquatic Bioassessment Lab. Provides a Benthic Macroinvertebrates Digital Reference Collection. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/OSPR/Science/Aquatic-Bioassessment-Lab

7. CDFW Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual. 2010. Provides assessment and monitoring methods as well as project evaluation and monitoring protocols. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/FRGP/Guidance

8. CDFW Qualitative Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring of Fisheries Habitat, 2006. Includes recommendations for field-tested monitoring protocols. http://cesonoma.ucanr.edu/files/27291.pdf

9. CDFW Protocols for Monitoring the Response of Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead to Watershed Restoration in California, 2006. Includes methods for all life stages. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/FRGP/Guidance

10. Monitoring the Implementation and Effectiveness of Fisheries Habitat Restoration Projects, 2005. Provides descriptions of study design, sampling considerations, and monitoring procedures. https://ucanr.edu/sites/cff/files/255193.pdf

WATERSHED/ HABITAT IMPROVEMENT
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix N. Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation 301

1. California Watershed Assessment Manual. Volume II. Provides sampling guidance, measurement techniques, and discusses limitations of and appropriate use of data. http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/Volume_2/TOC.htm Monitoring Methods. Provides detailed information about monitoring and/ or assessing:
• Water Quality
• Fluvial and Geomorphological Processes
• Periphyton
• Benthic Macroinvertebrates

2. California Rapid Assessment Method. Provides a “cost-effective and scientifically defensible rapid assessment method for monitoring the conditions of wetlands throughout California.” Provides access to data spatially in an interactive map, data entry, SOPs for several types of wetland habitats, and other informational and guidance documents. http://www.cramwetlands.org/

3. California Native Plant Society Vegetation Program. Provides Rapid Vegetation Assessment and Releve Protocol and field forms. Requests that those who use these protocols send a copy of their datasheets to update statewide CNPS database. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/protocol.php

4. CDFW Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines. Protocols from various sources that have been tested and reviewed by CDFW.

Survey and monitoring protocols provided for plants, invertebrates, specific amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Also provides a photo point monitoring handbook from the US Forest Service. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols

5. USDA Forest Service Photo Point Monitoring Handbook, 2002. Provides specific field procedures and concepts and analysis techniques. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr526/

6. SWRCB Methodology for On-the-Ground Photo Monitoring, 2014. Specific methodology for establishing and documenting monitoring points. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/resources4growers/photomonitoringprotocol30april2014_.pdf

7. SWRCB CWT Stream and Shoreline Photo Documentation SOP. Available as part of the Guidance Compendium for Watershed Monitoring and Assessment, this SOP provides an equipment list, methods, and forms. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_guidance.shtml

WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

1. SWAMP — Clean Water Team Citizen Monitoring Tool Box, 2014. Provides a tool box with templates to help manage and organize water quality monitoring data.

Field data sheets, calibration data sheets, advanced tools, and project monitoring. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_toolbox.shtml

2. SWAMP — Field Methods Course. This is a training resource for SWAMP Field Methods. Subjects include water quality, flow, water and sediment sampling, and physical assessments. http://swamp.waterboards.ca.gov/swamp/qapp_advisor/FieldMethods/start.html

3. SWAMP — CWT Guidance Compendium for Watershed Monitoring and Assessment, 2011. Comprehensive source for monitoring and assessment — from setting up the monitoring strategy to SOPs for water quality, nutrients, bacteria, biological communities, physical attributes, toxicity, and pollution. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_guidance.shtml

4. CDFW Quantitative Effectiveness Monitoring of Bank Stabilization and Riparian Vegetation Restoration, 2007. Reports on field testing specific protocols for bank stabilization and riparian vegetation restoration. http://cesonoma.ucanr.edu/files/27283.pdf

5. UCCE Sediment Delivery Inventory and Monitoring. Contains inventory worksheet and photo records to provide landowners with tools to inventory and monitor sites that have potentially deliverable sediment. https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8014.pdf

WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY

1. SWAMP — CWT Guidance Compendium for Watershed Monitoring and Assessment, 2011. Section 4. Provides methods and SOPs for measuring flow. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_guidance.shtml 302 Appendix N. Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table N-69 Monitoring Plans of the North Coast Region

DEPARTMENT/

COMMISSION/ BOARD PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/ PURPOSE PROGRAM APPLICABILITY State Water Resources
Control Board/ Regional Water
Quality Control Board
California Water Quality
Monitoring Council (CWQMC)
Mandated by SB 1070 to develop specific recommendations to improve coordination and cost-effectiveness of water quality and ecosystem monitoring and assessment; enhance the integration of monitoring data across departments and agencies; and increase public accessibility to information (web portals). Includes beach water quality, CA wetlands, bioaccumulation workgroups.

Statewide
Surface Water
Ambient Monitoring
Program (SWAMP)
Monitors and assesses condition of all surface waters. Current focus on bioaccumulation in fish; characterizing “stream health” throughout the state by use of benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) community composition and physical habitat assessments in highgradient streams; misc. special studies. SWAMP is “umbrella” and provides ambient context for additional monitoring efforts.

Statewide
California Rapid Assessment
Method (CRAM)
Methodology and software designed for assessing ambient conditions within watersheds, regions, and throughout the State. It can also be used to assess the performance of compensatory mitigation projects and restoration projects.

Statewide
California Wetland Tracker Web portal that provides information about the wetlands of selected regions of California (including North Coast).

Wetland information currently available for the North Coast region includes: Habitat (modern habitat map); North Coast Projects (exist but information has not yet been compiled) Statewide
California Integrated
Water Quality System
Project (CIWQSP)
Computer system the state uses to track water quality regulatory data. CIWQS makes data available to the public through reports that display the regulatory data that CIWQS contains.

Statewide
TMDL implementation
monitoring
Monitors water quality conditons in some individual
streams/ rivers of the North Coast. May include
numeric targets for water quality indicators.

Statewide (not
systematic)
Agricultural Waiver
Program monitoring
Facilities receiving waivers from waste discharge permits are required to monitor and assess effects of discharge on water quality.

Regional (North Coast)
Areas of Special
Biological Significance
(ASBS) monitoring
These are 34 ocean areas monitored and maintained for water quality by the State Water Resources Control Board Opens a New Window. . ASBS cover much of the length of California’s coastal waters. They support an unusual variety of aquatic life, and often host unique individual species. ASBS are basic building blocks for a sustainable, resilient coastal environment and economy.

Statewide
California Wetland
Monitoring Workgroup
T he California Wetland Monitoring Workgroup’s mission is to improve the monitoring and assessment of wetland and riparian resources by developing a comprehensive stream, wetland, and riparian area monitoring plan for California and through increasing coordination and cooperation among local, state, and federal agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations.

Statewide
Nonpoint Source Program
(NPS) ambient monitoring
Ambient water quality monitoring under the NPS Statewide (not systematic)
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permit ambient monitoring
Ambient water quality monitoring required under NPDES permits the permit program controls water pollution by regulating and monitoring point sources (e.g. stormwater, animal feeding facilities, sewer overflow) that discharge pollutants into waters.

Permit-specific
Grant project ambient
monitoring
Ambient water quality monitoring under various grant projects. Grant-specific Grant project effectiveness
monitoring
Effectiveness monitoring of grant-funded implementation projects. Grant-specific Pesticide Use Inventory Tracks pesticide/ hazardous waste use Statewide NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix N. Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation 303

DEPARTMENT/

COMMISSION/ BOARD PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/ PURPOSE PROGRAM APPLICABILITY Department of Pesticide
Regulation
Surface Water
Protection Program
Characterize pesticide residues, identify sources of
contamination, determine mechanisms of off-site to surface water, and develop site-specific mitigation strategies.

Statewide
na DTSC regulates and provides information about hazardous waste control and clean up. Collects and analyzes
data on water, soil, sediment concentrations.

Permit-specific
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Marine Protection Areas
Monitoring Action Plan
Addresses an important MLPA requirement to continue long-term monitoring to facilitate adaptive management of the MPA Network.

The Action Plan informs next steps for long-term monitoring by compiling work to date, as well as incorporating novel, quantitative, and expert informed approaches. The Action Plan prioritizes key measures and metrics, habitats, sites, species, human uses, and management questions to target for long-term monitoring and aid in the evaluation of the Network in meeting the goals of the MLPA.

Statewide (coast)
California Department of Wildlife
California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB)
Inventories the status and locations of rare plants and animals in California. Maintains current lists of rare species a database of GIS-mapped locations for these species.

Statewide (non-random,
not systematic)
Department of Wildlife
Marine Region
One of seven geographic CDFG regions. Specific statewide projects deal with fisheries and habitat management, environmental review, and water quality monitoring. The Project Review/ Water Quality Unit staff reviews activities that impact marine habitat and resources, such as dredging, new construction, and wave energy. Includes monitoring of marine invasive species.

Statewide (coast)
out to approximately
three nautical
miles , including
offshore islands
Biogeographic Information
and Observation
System (BIOS)
A system designed to enable the management, visualization, analysis and sharing of biogeographic data collected by the Department of Fish and Game and its Partner Organizations.

Statewide
Aquatic Bioassessment
Laboratory
Performs assessments of water quality based on organisms in the water. Field sampling protocols include targeted riffle and multiple habitat sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates (BMIs), fish and algae as well as associated physical habitat and chemical monitoring. Current research efforts focus on developing IBIs for different regions, developing objective reference condition selection methods and establishing quantitative tolerance values.

Statewide
California Statewide
Wetlands Inventory Initiative
The California Statewide Wetlands Inventory is a State Wetlands Conservation Policy (1993) initiative. Under this initiative, the wetlands inventory will compile U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory and other available data into a comprehensive statewide wetlands datalayer.

Invasive Species Program Involved in efforts to prevent the introduction of invasive species (plant, animal, microbe, terrestrial, aquatic) into the state; detect and respond to introductions when they occur; and prevent the spread of non-native invasive species that have become established.

Statewide
Office of Oil Spill
Prevention and Recovery
Administers the Scientific Study and Evaluation Program that investigates and evaluates new oil spill response and cleanup methods, potential adverse effects of oil spills, and development of natural resource damage assessment tools.

Statewide
Cooperative Research and
Assessment of Nearshore
Ecosystems (CRANE)
Involves the integration of several study (e.g., habitat mapping, life history research, oceanography) and sampling approaches (e.g., fishery-dependent and independent CPUE estimates, ROV surveys, plankton-larval surveys) in shallow rocky reef ecosystems.

Central California/
Monterey (only?)
Critical Coastal
Areas Program
Protects high resource-value coastal waters from polluted runoff.

Brings awareness to the marine litter problem and
provides a community event for direct involvement.

Regional Pilot Projects
California Coastal Commission
Coastal Cleanup Day
debris tracking Protects high resource-value coastal waters from polluted runoff.

Brings awareness to the marine litter problem and
provides a community event for direct involvement.

Emphasizes technology to measure and map surface currents.

Statewide (coast)
Coastal Oceans Currents
Monitoring Program
Statewide (coast)
Coastal Conservancy
Marin Invasive
Species Program
Updates on regulations, statutes, communications,
technical advisory groups, and legislation.

Statewide (coast)
304 Appendix N. Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

DEPARTMENT/

COMMISSION/ BOARD PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/ PURPOSE PROGRAM APPLICABILITY State Lands Commission
The Inventory, Monitoring,
and Assessment
Program (IMAP)
Evaluates the natural resources of the State Park System. Data are generally quantitative. Examples include measuring stream water quality; the distribution of various species of plants in an area; and counting the number of offspring of endangered animals.

The data can be used to make status assessments of a unit’s natural resources, such as what resources are present, where the resources are distributed, and how much of a resource is present.

Regional pilot projects;
not yet statewide
[as of 2008]
Department of Parks
and Recreation
The Fire and Resource
Assessment Program (FRAP) Provides a variety of products including the Forest and Range Assessment, a detailed report on California’s forests and rangelands. FRAP provides extensive technical and
public information for statewide fire threat, fire hazard, watersheds, socio-economic conditions, environmental
indicators, and forest-related climate change.

Statewide, including
monitoring at the
Caspar Creek watershed,
Judd Creek, SF Wages
Creek, Garcia River, Elk
River, Little Creek.

Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CalFire)
Monitoring Study Group The MSG has, and continues, to: (1) develop a long-term program testing the effectiveness of California’s Forest Practice Rules, and (2) provide guidance and oversight to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) in implementing the program.

Statewide
Integrated Water Resources
Information System (IWRIS) Data management tool for water resources data. Web based GIS application allows one to access, integrate, query, and visualize multiple sets of data. Some of the databases
include DWR Water Data Library, California Data Exchange Center (CDEC), USGS streamflow, Local Groundwater
Assistance Grants (AB303), and data from local agencies.

Statewide
Department of Water Resources
Division of Environmental
Services
Provides data related to drinking water quality and
provides a central focal point for the collection and
dissemination of water quality information.

Regional
(Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and the
State Water Project)
Division of Operations
and Maintenance
Routinely monitors chemical, physical and biological parameters including more than 40 sites and over 200 individual chemicals.

Both discrete grab samples and continuous automated station data comprise a comprehensive water quality monitoring program.

Regional (throughout
the SWP from the
Feather River drainage
in the north and to Lake
Perris in the south)
Real-time Data
and ForecastingComprehensive Program
Produces weekly reports with current and forecasted water quality conditions. Regional (Lower San Joaquin River)
Fish Passage Improvement
Program (FPIP)
Interdisciplinary team of biologists and engineers identifies and evaluates the potential to modify or remove structures that impede the migration of anadromous fish within the Central Valley.

Regional (Central Valley)
Flood Emergency
Response Information
Exchange (FERIX)
Provides participating agencies an online system to access and exchange current flood information in real-time through Web GIS interface. It integrates geo-referenced databases, a real-time data collection and exchange system, and a decision support system supporting other DWR programs, various hydrologic and hydraulic computer models and tools, and applicable flood-related documents.

Statewide
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The maps are updated every two years with the use of aerial photographs, a computer mapping system, public review, and field reconnaissance.

Statewide
Department of Conservation
California Geological
Services
Provides data on seismic, as well as landslide and
erosion hazards. It develops and maintains watershed
maps of geologic and geomorphic features.

Statewide
Marine Biotoxin
Monitoring Program
Surveys, classifies & monitors commercial shellfish growing areas Statewide (coast) NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix N. Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation 305

DEPARTMENT/

COMMISSION/ BOARD PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/ PURPOSE PROGRAM APPLICABILITY California Department
of Public Health
Drinking Water Source
Assessment and
Protection Program
Assess risks to public drinking water sources. Provides guidance and information to local communities to delineate the area around a drinking water source through which contaminants might move and reach that drinking water supply; to inventory possible contaminating activities that might lead to the release of microbiological or chemical contaminants within the delineated area; and to determine the possible contaminating activities to which the drinking water source is most vulnerable.

Statewide
California Beaches
and Recreational
Waters Program
The California Beaches Program provides guidance and methods for monitoring recreational beaches (ocean, and fresh water).

Statewide (coast)
na Collects data by testing the untreated, raw water in different types of wells for naturally-occurring and man-made
chemicals. GAMA compiles these test results with existing groundwater quality data from several agencies into a
publicly-accessible internet database, GeoTracker GAMA.

Statewide
Groundwater Ambient Monitoring
and Assessment (GAMA)
Environmental
Monitoring Program
Provides necessary information for compliance with flow-related water quality standards specified in the water right permits Regional (San
Francisco Estuary)
Interagency Ecological Program
na Provides a consistent scientific foundation for collaborative watershed restoration efforts and to better meet the State needs for protecting and restoring salmon species and their habitats.

NCWAP is one of the sources of data used in regional TMDL development to understand existing conditions within a watershed Regional (North Coast)
The North Coast Watershed
Assessment Program (NCWAP)
Anadromous Abundance Data collected by a variety of agencies and organizations and reflect current and historic abundance of
anadromous fish in a selected stream or river.

Statewide
CalFish
Anadromous Distribution Recently developed a method for deriving salmonid distribution from existing observation data. Distribution and Range datasets are now available for winter and summer steelhead and coho salmon.

Statewide
Passage Assessment
Database (PAD)
Contains information on actual, potential and remediated barriers to anadromous fish distribution.

Statewide
California Habitat
Restoration Project
Database
Contains data and information about stream restoration projects funded by a variety of agencies and organizations in California; the most complete source of California stream restoration projects’ data.

Project-specific
California Hydrography California Hydrography datasets fulfill California’s need of hydrography for visualization and mapping, as well as a common spatial base for in depth analysis of multiple data sets.

Statewide
Stream Habitat Database Historic and current reach summaries of in-stream habitat data. Regional (Del Norte to Santa Cruz counties)
California Ecological
Restoration Projects
Inventory; Watershed
Projects Inventory;
and Noxious Weed
Control Inventory
Online information resource for maps, models, reports, and other related information regarding environmental protection in California.

Statewide
Natural Resources
Project Inventory
na Forum for coordinating state, federal, and tribal aquatic habitat and salmonid monitoring programs. Includes
watershed and project effectiveness monitoring.

Pacific Northwest,
including Northern
California
Pacific Northwest Aquatic
Monitoring Partnership
na Annual reports website has the latest Watershed
condition evaluations, field protocols, watershed
boundary maps and data summaries.

Northern California,
Oregon, Washington
306 Appendix N. Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table N-70 Indicators to Measure Attributes of Social & Environmental Equity

ATTRIBUTE QUALITATIVE/ QUANTITATIVE INDICATOR EXAMPLE METRICS Quality of Life
Access to parks and open space # new public access points in DACs Access to water-contact recreation # of water quality warnings/ beach closures on public beaches — both coastal and inland — for DACs Presence of living wage jobs # FTE funded by NCRP project implementation Preservation of Local
Heritage and Autonomy
Projects that support/ maintain local
heritage or local autonomy
# local individuals — farmers, ranchers, property owners, voluntarily participating to implement TMDLs prior to enforcement/fines # DACs receiving assistance for critical water supply/ wastewater treatment infrastructure repair # energy efficiency and energy independence projects funded or enabled through the NCRP Community Empowerment Alliance building
# partners in NCRP/ signatories to MOMU
Increased levels of collaboration for project types (local to regional/state/Tribal/federal) Increased breadth/diversity of partnership — sections of community represented # of groups who come together to work on a project
# new connections formed between groups — e.g., WS/ WWTP outreach — documentation of meeting attendance, partnerships formed (potential resource pooling), etc.

Public Participation
Increased levels of participation
in decision-making
# meeting/ conference attendees
Increased breadth of participation (i.e., the extent to which participants reflect community diversity) # comments on draft NCRP documents/ policies
Increased number of grant applications # applicants
Public Knowledge Increased awareness of
community-wide issues
% knowledgeable survey respondents
# visits to NCRP website
# downloads of specific documents from NCRP website
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix N. Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation 307 Table N-71 NCRP Process Evaluation by IRWM Funding Round GOAL # OBJECTIVE METRIC PROP 50
ROUND
1 %
PROP 50
ROUND
2 %
PROP 84
ROUND
1 %
PROP 84
ROUND
2 %
PROP 84

DROUGHT
%
PROP 84
2015 %
PROP 1 % TOTAL ALL

PROJECTS
% ALL

PROJECTS
NUMBER OF PROJECTS 21 4 18 12 11 25 20 111
1 1 Number of projects in NCRP that
meet goals included in local plans

52.38% 75.00% 77.78% 75.00% 36.36% 64.00% 35.00% 64 57.66% 3 Number of projects that work in
collaboration with Tribes to include
TEK/ Tribal principles/ priorities
in project implementation

0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 8.33% 18.18% 32.00% 15.00% 23 20.72% 2 4 Number of projects implemented
in Disadvantaged Communities

90.48% 100.00% 83.33% 91.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 105 94.59% 5 Number of projects that benefit working
landscapes and natural areas

85.71% 100.00% 88.89% 83.33% 81.82% 76.00% 60.00% 88 79.28% 3 6
Number of projects that conserve, enhance,
and restore watersheds and aquatic
ecosystems and ecosystem function

85.71% 100.00% 94.44% 66.67% 45.45% 64.00% 45.00% 77 69.37% 7 Number of projects that conserve, enhance
and restore salmonid habitat and watershed
processes that support salmonids

85.71% 100.00% 83.33% 66.67% 45.45% 56.00% 45.00% 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

61.90% 25.00% 72.22% 66.67% 100.00% 72.00% 65.00% 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.

0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 8.33% 9.09% 12.00% 20.00% 15 13.51%
9 Number of drinking water quality and
water related infrastructure projects

57.14% 0.00% 44.44% 50.00% 90.91% 68.00% 75.00% 68 61.26% 9 Number of drinking water quality
and water related infrastructure
projects implemented in DACs

57.14% 0.00% 44.44% 50.00% 90.91% 68.00% 75.00% 68 61.26% 10 Number of projects that provide alternative
sources of water to groundwater use and/
or reduce groundwater contamination

0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 8.33% 0.00% 4.00% 25.00% 9 8.11%
5 11
Number of projects (implemented by NCRP
or project proponents) that assess climate
change effects, impacts, vulnerabilities, and
strategies for local and regional sectors

4.76% 25.00% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 4 3.60%
11 Number of projects that incorporate
strategies for anticipated changes in
precipitation amounts and intensity

9.52% 0.00% 22.22% 41.67% 18.18% 24.00% 35.00% 26 23.42% 11 Number of projects that incorporate
strategies that address anticipated drought
conditions, extreme flooding events,
or other climate change challenges

33.33% 25.00% 61.11% 58.33% 90.91% 64.00% 75.00% 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

28.57% 50.00% 61.11% 58.33% 36.36% 44.00% 45.00% 50 45.05% 6 13
Number of projects included in
the NCRP Plan that improve flood
protection and reduce flood risk

0.00% 0.00% 44.44% 25.00% 0.00% 12.00% 5.00% 15 13.51%
13 Number of projects included in the NCRP
Plan that improve forest health and
reduce risk of catastrophic wildfires

0.00% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 3 2.70%
308 Appendix O. Reports Commissioned for the NCRP
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 APPENDIX O.

REPORTS COMMISSIONED FOR THE NCRP
Since its inception in 2005, the NCRP has generated supplemental reports to inform NCRP decision-makers and stakeholders and to support the NCRP Plan and processes. Reports are commissioned at the request of and with approval from the PRP and TPRC and are generally produced by professional consultants, with the participation of NCRP staff and with advisory input from the PRP and TPRC. The reports produced or in development for the NCRP Plan (as of summer 2019) can be found at the NCRP website26. Reports include • Biomass Energy in the North Coast Region: Report, The Watershed Center, 2011 • Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the North Coast, 2NDNature, 2013 • Climate Change and Agriculture in the North Coast, Rose Roberts, 2009 • NCRP Energy Independence, Emissions Reduction, Job Creation, and Climate Adaptation Initiative, NCRP, 2011 • NCRP Regional Strategy for Small Disadvantaged Water and Wastewater Providers, Humboldt County, 2013 • Northwest California Sustainable Energy and Water Conservation Outreach, Five County Salmonid Conservation Program, 2010
• North Coast Floodwater and Stormwater Management Plan, NCRP, 2014 • North Coast Land Use and Regional Planning Report: Partners and Planners Interviews Synthesis, 2013 • A Review of Economic and Financial Issues for the NCRP, NCRP, 2009 • Healthy Watersheds, Vital Communities, Thriving Economies: Actionable Strategies for the North Coast Region, NCRP, 2018
• 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 North Coast Resource Partnership, 2018 • Carbon Inventory Estimates for the North Coast, Dogwood Springs Forestry, 2017 • North Coast Irrigation Water and Regtigation Management Tool, 2017 • A Review and Assessment of Potential Funding Sources for the North Coast Resource Partnership, 2017 • North Coast Resource Partnership Integrated Strategic Plan: Climate Change Mitigation, GHG Emissions Reduction and Energy Independence, 2017 • Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Roadmap for the NCRP, 2017 • Assessment to Improve late Spring/ Summer Stream Flows, Reduce Fire Intensity and Fire Related Carbon Emissions in the Trinity River Watershed, 2017 • Economic Valuation of Natural Capital and Economic Analysis for Trinity River Water, 2017 • Biomass Energy in the North Coast Region, The Watershed Research and Training Center, 2017 • Site Resilience and Critical Essentail Services Model Toolkit, 2016 • Guide for Tribal Renewable Energy Sovereignty Master Planning, 2016 • Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System Planning Model, 2016 • Planning Guide for Development of Tribal Environmental Protection Ordinances, 2016 • Model Tribal Environmental Enforcement Response Plan, 2016 • Technical Report for the North Coast of California Ecosystem Valuation, 2016 26 Searchable by filter on the NCRP website at https://northcoastresourcepartnership.org/resources/ NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix P. Published References 309
APPENDIX P.

PUBLISHED REFERENCES
Aitken, S., S. Yeaman, J. Holliday, T. Wang, and S. Curtis-McLane. 2008. Adaptation, migration or extirpation:
climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evolutionary Applications. Volume 1, Issue 1.

February 2008. Pages 95–111. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2007.00013.x/full American Meteorological Society (AMS). 2013. State of the Climate in 2012. Special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 94(8). 240 pages.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2014. 2014 Report Card for Humboldt County’s Infrastructure. 2014. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/09/ASCE-Humboldt-County-CA-Report-Card-FINAL1.pdf American Society of Civil Engineers. 2012. Infrastructure Report Card for America.

Anderson, J., F. Chung, M. Anderson, L. Brekke, D. Easton, M. Ejeta, R. Peterson and R.

Snyder. 2008. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources, Climatic Change. 89 (Supplement) Barr, B.R., M.E. Koopman, C.D. Williams, S.J. Vynne, R. Hamilton, and B. Doppelt. 2010. Preparing for Climate Change in the Klamath Basin. National Center for Conservation Science & Policy and The Climate Leadership Initiative. March. Accessed on: January 21, 2011.

Beever,E.A.,J.D.Perrine,T.Rickman,M.Flores,J.P.Clark,C.Waters,S.S.Weber,B.Yardley,D.Thoma,T.ChesleyPreston,etal.2016.Pika (Ochotonaprinceps) losses from two isolated regions reflect temperature and water balance, but reflect habitat area in a mainland region. Journal of Mammalogy 97: 1495–511.

Booth, D.B. 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage system—impacts, solutions, and prognoses. The Institute for Environmental Studies 7: 93-118.

Bowman, J. 2012. Supervisors praise groundwater plan. SiskiyouDaily.com. November 13, 2012. http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/article/20121113/NEWS/121119935/1001/NEWS Brabec, E., S. Schulte and P.L. Richards. 2002. Impervious surfaces and water quality: a review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning. Journal of Planning Literature 16:499- 514.

Brekke, L.D., E.P. Paurer, J.D. Anderson, M.D. Dettinger, E.S. Townsley, A. Harrison, and T. Pruitt. 2009.

Assessing reservoir operations risk under climate change. Water Resources Research, 45, W04411.

Bromirski, P. D, D. R. Cayan., and R. E. Flick. 2005. “Wave spectral energy variability in the northeast Pacific.” J. Geophys. Res., 110, C03005, doi:10.1029/2004JC002398.

Bromirski, P. D., D. R. Cayan, N. Graham, R. E. Flick, and M. Tyree (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 2012.

Coastal Flooding Potential Projections: 2000–2100. California Energy Commission. CEC-500-2012-011.

Brown, T.C. 2007. “The Marginal Economic Value of Streamflow from National Forests: Evidence from Western Water Markets.” In: M. Furniss, C. Clifton, and K. Ronnenberg, eds.

Advancing the Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Sciences Conference, San Diego, CA, 18-22 October 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-689.

Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. p. 458-466 Burge, D., J. Thorne, S. Harrison, B. O’Brien, J. Rebman, J. Shevock, E. Alverson, L. Hardison, J.

RodrÍguez, S. Junak, T. Oberbauer, H. Riemann, S. Vanderplank, and T. Barry. 2016. Plant Diversity and Endemism in the California Floristic Province. Madroño 63(2):3-206. www. 310 Appendix P. Published References
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 researchgate.net/profile/Sula_Vanderplank/publication/302633705_PLANT_DIVERSITY_AND_ ENDEMISM_IN_THE_CALIFORNIA_FLORISTIC_PROVINCE/links/59415fb0458515a36b571d55/ PLANT-DIVERSITY-AND-ENDEMISM-IN-THE-CALIFORNIA-FLORISTIC-PROVINCE.pdf Caladapt. 2011. Developed by the California Energy Commission. Data source is the 2008 Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Retrieved February 13, 2013 from www.cal-adapt.org California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2019. Research on Agricultural Emissions & Mitigation. Web page. https:// ww2.arb.ca.gov/research/research-agricultural-emissions-mitigation Accessed March 2019.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2018. Landfill Website. Accessed March 14, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/landfills/landfills.htm California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The strategy for achieving California’s 2030 greenhouse gas target. 132 pages.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. EMFAC Web Database. Last updated 2014.

Accessed November 15, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014/ California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. California’s Climate Plan. Revised September 25, 2010.

Accessed March 16, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cleanenergy/clean_fs2.pdf California Climate and Agriculture Network (CAN). 2015. Climate Solutions in California Agriculture. 8 pages. http://calclimateag.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Climate-Benefits-of-Agriculture-2015.pdf California Climate Change Center. 2009. Current and Future Impacts of Extreme Events in California. August 2009. 16 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-026/CEC-500-2009-026-F.PDF California Coastal Commission (CCC). 2003. Protecting coastal waters: state of California 2002 critical coastal areas draft strategic plan. 27 p.

California Department of Finance (CA DOF). 2017a. 2012-2016 American Community Survey (5 year estimates).

Excel spreadsheet. Available: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/ California Department of Finance (CA DOF). 2017b. Total Estimated and Projected Population of California: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 1-year Increments. Excel spreadsheet.

Available: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 1996. Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan. 234 pp.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 1998. California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2003. Interim Restoration Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring Protocols, California Coastal Salmonid Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation Program.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2004. Recovery strategy for California coho salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. 594 pp.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). 2016c. Agriculture Companion Plan to the State Wildlife Action Plan. 42 pages.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), CalEPA and California Natural Resources Agency. 2016. Healthy Soils Action Plan: An Interagency Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Drought Resiliency by Innovating Farm and Ranchland Practices. 6 pages. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/healthysoils/docs/CA-HealthySoilsActionPlan.pdf NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix P. Published References 311
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2019a. Top 20 Largest California Wildfires. www. fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Acres.pdf. Website accessed March 2019.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2019b. Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires. http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Destruction.pdf California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), California Natural Resources Agency, and CalEPA. 2017. California Forest Carbon Plan: Managing our Forest Landscapes in a Changing Climate.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. California’s groundwater — Bulletin 118, update 2003. 265 p.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2011. Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. In association with USEPA and US Army Corps of Engineers California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2012. Guidelines: Integrated Regional Water Management, Proposition 84 and 1E. 87 pages.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2013. Draft California Water Plan Update 2013. Volume 2 Regional Reports, North Coast Hydrologic Region and Volume 3 Resource Management Strategies.

California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013: Investing in Innovation & Infrastructure. Volume 2 Regional Reports: North Coast Hydrologic Region.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013.

California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk. 30 pages.

California Energy Commission. 2005. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. 2005. November 2005. 12 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF California Energy Commission (CEC). Undated. Background and Purpose Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI). Accessed March 13, 2018. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/background.html California Environmental Protection Agency State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2017. Impaired Water Bodies: Final 2012 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. Accessed February 2019. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2012.shtml California Financing Coordinating Committee. 2013. 2013 CFCC Funding Fair Program.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy:

A Report to the Governor in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. 200 pages. resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018d. Resilient CA.org:

Agriculture. http://resilientca.org/topics/agriculture/ Cannon Tom. 2018. Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon — Fall 2018 Update. Fisheries Blog: Science, Issues, Solutions. October 28, 2018. http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?p=2370 Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. Graham, and R.

Flick. 2009. Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for California: 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2009- 014-F. www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-008/CEC-500-2012-008.pdf Cayan, D. R., A. L. Luers, G. Franco, M. Hanemann, B. Croes, and E. Vine. 2006. Overview of the California climate change scenarios project, Climatic Change, 87(S1) 1-6 312 Appendix P. Published References
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Cayan, D. R., P. D. Bromirski, M. Tyree, M. D. Dettinger and R. E. Flick (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 2008a. Climate change projections of sea level extremes along the California coast. Climatic Change, 87 (S1), 57–73, DOI 10.1007/s10584-007-9376-7.

Cayan, D., M. Tyree, D. Pierce, D. Tapash. (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). 2012. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for California Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment.

California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-008 Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR). Undated. Streamflow Measurement.

Web page. Accessed March 2019. http://www.cemar.org/streamflow.html Center for Environmental Economic Development (CEED). 2002. A River in the Balance: Benefits and Costs of Restoring Natural Flows to the Eel River. Summer 2002.

Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic systems. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Undated. Climate Change and Extreme Heat Events. 20 pages. www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/pubs/climatechangeandextremeheatevents.pdf Chan, F., A. Boehm, J. Barth, E. Chornesky, A. Dickson, R. Feely, B. Hales, T. Hill, G. Hofmann, D. Ianson, T. Klinger, J. Largier, J. Newton, T. Pedersen, G. Somero, M. Sutula, W. Wakefield, G. Waldbusser, S. Weisberg, and E. Whiteman. 2016. The West Coast Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia Science Panel: Major Findings, Recommendations, and Actions. 40 pages. westcoastoah.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/04/OAH-Panel-Key-Findings-Recommendations-and-Actions-4.4.16-FINAL.pdf Chaplin-Kramer R. 2012. Climate Change and the Agricultural Sector in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Changes in Viticulture and Rangeland Forage Production Due to Altered Temperature and Precipitation Patterns. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-033.

Chavez, F. P., C. Costello, D. Aseltine-Neilson, H. Doremus, J.C. Field, S.D. Gaines, M. Hall-Arber, N.J. Mantua, B.

McCovey, C. Pomeroy, L. Sievanen, W. Sydeman, and S.A. Wheeler, (California Ocean Protection Council Science Advisory Team Working Group). 2017. Readying California Fisheries for Climate Change.

Chin, A. 2006. Urban transformation of river landscapes in a global context. Geomorphology 79:460- 487.

Chiono, Lindsay A., Danny L. Fry, Brandon M. Collins, and Scott L. Stephens, “Landscape fuel treatment effects on wildfire hazard, California spotted owl habitat, and forest carbon,” California Energy Commission, CEC-600-10-006, Jun. 2015.

City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Future Projections, and Reduction Target. 2014. 2 pp. http://assets.thehcn.net/content/sites/mendocino/Ukiah_CAP_GHG_Inventory_030413.pdf Climate Change. California Ocean Science Trust. 70 pages. www.oceansciencetrust.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Climate-and-Fisheries_GuidanceDoc.pdf Cornwell, William K., Stephanie Stuart, Aaron Ramirez, Christopher R. Dolanc, James H. Thorne, and David D. Ackerly (University of California, Berkeley). 2012. Climate Change Impacts on California Vegetation: Physiology, Life History, and Ecosystem Change. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-023.

County of Sonoma. Undated. Natural Gas Recovery Website. Accessed March 14, 2018. http:// sonomacounty.ca.gov/TPW/Integrated-Waste/Natural-Gas-Recovery/ Cushman, J.H. and K.A. Gaffney. 2010. Community-level consequences of invasion: impacts of exotic clonal plants on riparian vegetation. Biological Invasions 12:2765-2776.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix P. Published References 313
Deitch M.J., G.M. Kondolf, and A.M. Merenlender. 2009. Hydrologic impacts of small-scale instream diversions for frost and heat protection in the California wine country. River Res Appl 25(2):118–134.

Diffenbaugh, N.S., White, M.A., Jones, G.V. and Ashfaq, M. 2011. Climate adaptation wedges: a case study of premium wine in the western United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 6 (2011) 024024 (11pp) Du Sault, Laurence. 2019. The Karuk Tribe fights a growing wildfire threat and a lack of funding.

High Country News. March 12, 2019. https://www.hcn.org/articles/tribal-affairs-incalifornia-the-karuk-tribe-fights-a-growing-wildfire-threat-and-a-lack-of-funding Earth Economics. 2018. Greenprint Economic Chapter. 21 pages Ekstrom, J. A., and S.C. Moser. 2012. Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area: A Synthesis of PIER Program Reports and Other Relevant Research. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-071.

Elkind. E., N., in association with UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment and UCLA School of Law’s Environmental Law Center & Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment. 2011. Drops of Energy: Conserving urban water in California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. AgSTAR: Learn about Biogas Recovery. Last updated June 2017. Accessed March 15, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/agstar/learn-about-biogasrecovery#adworkErnst, C., R. Gullick, and K. Nixon. 2004. Protecting the source: Conserving forests to protect water. American Water Works Association (AWWA). Upflow 30(5) Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, K. Lee, W. Berelson, J. Kleypas, V.J. Fabry. 2004. Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science, 305, 362–366.

Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) 2012. California’s Forest and Rangelands:
2010 Assessment. June 2010: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/assessment2010.html Flannigan M.D., B.J. Stocks, B.M. Wotton. 2000. Forest fires and climate change.

Science of the Total Environment: 262: 221-230.

Fletcher, Angela and Jared Soares. 2016. Technical Report for the North Coast of California Ecosystem Service Valuation. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. Prepared for West Coast Watershed and North Coast Resources Partnership. 62 pages.

Flint, L.E., & Flint, A.L., 2012, Simulation of climate change in San Francisco Bay Basins, California: Case studies in the Russian River Valley and Santa Cruz Mountains:

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5132, 55 p.

Fried, J. S., M. S. Torn, and E. Mills. 2004. The impact of climate change on wildfire severity: A regional forecast for northern California, Climatic Change, 64(1), 169–191.

Ganz, D. J., D. Saah, K. Barber, and M. Nechodom, “Fire Behavior Modeling to Assess Net Benefits of Forest Treatments on Fire Hazard Mitigation and Bioenergy Production in Northeastern California,” 2007.

Gershunov A., Johnston, H. Margolis, K. Guirguis. 2011. The California Heat Wave 2006 with impacts on statewide medical emergency: a space-time analysis. Geography Research Forum, 31, 6-31. horizon. ucsd.edu/maltmn/sasha/ER2006%20Gershunov,%20Johnston%20et%20al%202011.pdf Go Solar California. Undated. California Distributed Generation Statistics. Download Data. Web page. Accessed March 2019. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/downloads/ 314 Appendix P. Published References
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Goodstein, E., and L. Matson. 2004. Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest: Valuing Snowpack Loss for Agriculture and Salmon. Elgar, E. Frontiers in Environmental Valuation and Policy.

Hannah, L., C. Costello, C. Guo, L. Ries, C. Kolstad and N. Snider. 2011. The impact of Climate Change on California Timberlands, California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2009-045-F Hannah, L., P.R. Roehrdanz, M. Ikegami, A.V. Shepard, M.R. Shaw, G. Tabor, L. Zhi, P.A. Marquet, and R.J. Hijmans. 2013.

Climate Change, wine, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 6 pages.

Hanuk, E. and J. Lund. 2008. Adapting California’s Water Management to Climate Change.

Prepared at the Public Policy Institute of California; November 2008.

Hansen, P. and J. Weltzin. 2000. Drought disturbance from climate change: Response of United States forests. The Science of the Total Environment. 262: 205-220.

Hare, S. R, N. J. Mantua, and R. C. Francis. 1999. Inverse production regimes:

Alaska and West Coast Pacific salmon. Fisheries 24:6–14.

Harley, D.G., A.R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner, C.J.B. Sorte, C.S. Thornber, L.F. Rodriguez, L. Tomanek, and S.L. Williams. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters 9:228-241.

Hayhoe, K. et al. 2004. Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(34), 12422.

Heat Adaptation Workgroup, California Climate Action Team (HAW CAT). 2013. Preparing California for Extreme Heat: Guidance and Recommendations. Developed by the Heat Adaptation Workgroup, a subcommittee of the Public Health Workgroup, California Climate Action Team. 30 pages. www. climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/Preparing_California_for_Extreme_Heat.pdf Hilty, Jodi A. and Adina M. Merenlender. 2004. Use of Riparian Corridors and Vineyards by Mammalian Predators in Northern California. Conservation Biology. 18(1): 126 – 135.

Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe, Tribal History. Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe, PO Box 1348 Hoopa, California 95546 (530) 625.4211.

Viewed online at: http://www.hoopa-nsn.gov/culture/history.htm Accessed on: Sept 6, 2012. Last update: 2003.

Horner, R.R. 2006. Investigation of the Feasibility and Benefits of Low-Impact Site Design Practices (LID) for the San Diego Region.

Hubertz, E. and L. Cahoon. 1999. Short-term variability of water quality parameters in two shallow estuaries of North Carolina. Estuaries and Coasts 22:814-823.

Humboldt County. 2014. Humboldt County General Plan: Volume II — Humboldt Bay Area Plan of the Humboldt County Local Coastal Program. 224 pages. humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/50844 Humboldt Waste Management Authority (HWMA). Greenwaste website. Accessed March 16, 2018. http://www.hwma.net/disposal-services/greenwaste Hurteau, M. and M. North, “Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 409–414, Oct. 2009.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pages. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix P. Published References 315
Jackson, L.V., R. Haden, S.M. Wheeler, A.D. Hollander, J. Perlman, T. O’Geen, V.K. Mehta, V. Clark, J. Williams, and A. Thrupp (University of California, Davis). 2012. Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in California Agriculture. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500- 2012-031.

Jackson, L., V.R. Haden, A. D. Hollander, H. Lee, M. Lubell, V.K. Mehta, T. O’Geen, M. Niles, J.

Perlman, D. Purkey, W. Salas, D. Sumner, M. Tomuta, M. Dempsey, and S. M. Wheeler. 2012a. Adaptation Strategies for Agricultural Sustainability in Yolo County, California.

California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-032.

Jacobs, Jeremy P. 2017. Climate change erodes thin safety margins at Calif. dam. Greenwire, Monday, May 8, 2017. https://www.eenews.net/special_reports/Damage/stories/1060054182 Johnstone, J. and T. Dawson. 2010. Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:4533-4538. www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4533.full.pdf Jones, G.V. and Goodrich, G.B. 2008. Influence of climate variability on wine regions in the western USA and on wine quality in the Napa Valley. Climate Research, Volume 35:241-254, 2008, doi: 10.3354/cr00708 Jones, G.V, Duff, A.A., Hall, A., and J. Myers (2010). Spatial analysis of climate in winegrape growing regions in the western United States. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 61:313-326.

Joyce, L., Blate, G.M., Littell, J.S., McNulty, S.G., Millar, C.I., Moser, S.C., Neilson, R.P., O’Halloran, K., Peterson, D.L. 2008. National forests. In: Synthesis and assessment product 4.4, Adaptation options for climatesensitive ecosystems and resources. Washington, DC: U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Keeley, Annika T H, David D Ackerly, D Richard Cameron, Nicole E Heller, Patrick R Huber, Carrie A Schloss, James H. Thorne and Adina M Merenlender. 2018. New concepts, models, and assessments of climate-wise connectivity. Environmental Research Letters. 13(7).

Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aacb85/meta Kleypas, J.A., R.W. Buddemeier, D. Archer, J.P. Gattuso, C. Langdon, and B.N. Opdyke. 1999. Geochemical consequences of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on coral reefs. Science, 284, 118–120.

Knapp, R. A., K. R. Matthews, and O. Sarnelle. 2001. Resistance and resilience of alpine lake fauna to fish introductions. Ecological Monographs 71:401-421.

Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, and D. R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States, Journal of Climate, 19(18), 4545–4559.

Konrad, C.P. and D.B. Booth. 2005. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance, paper presented at American Fisheries Society Symposium, American Fisheries Society.

Kormann, Carolyn. 2018. How Carbon Trading Became a Way of Life for California’s Yurok Tribe. The New Yorker. October 10, 2018. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/ how-carbon-trading-became-a-way-of-life-for-californias-yurok-tribe Krawchuk, M. and M. Moritz. 2012. Fire and Climate Change in California: Changes in the Distribution and Frequency of Fire in Climates of the Future and Recent Past (1911-2099). California Energy Commission Publication.

CEC-500-2012-026. www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-026/CEC-500-2012-026.pdf Krol, Debra Utacia and Allison Herrera. 2018. California wildfires weren’t always this destructive. High County News. November 15, 2018. https://www.hcn.org/articles/ tribal-affairs-california-wildfires-werent-always-this-destructive 316 Appendix P. Published References
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Laird, A., Trinity Associates. 2016. City of Eureka Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Report. 80 pages. www. eureka2040gpu.com/Links/pdfs/COE%20SLR%20Adaptation%20Plan_Final_161230.pdf Laird, A., Trinity Associates. 2015. Humboldt Bay: Sea Level Rise, Hydrodynamic Modeling and Inundation Vulnerability Mapping. 110 pages. humboldtbay.org/sites/humboldtbay2. org/files/Final_HBSLR_Modeling_InundationMapping_Report_150406.pdf Laird, A. (Trinity Associates). 2013. Humboldt Bay, Shoreline Inventory, Mapping and Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Prepared for: State Coastal Conservancy.

Langley, J. A., K. L. McKee, D. R. Cahoon, and J. A., C. J. P. Megonigal. 2009. Elevated CO2 stimulates marsh elevation gain, counterbalancing sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:6182-6186 Lenihan, J., D. Bachelet, R. Drapek and R. Neilson. 2006. The response of vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire in California to future climate scenarios simulated by the MC1 dynamic vegetation model. Sacramento, CA: California Climate Change Center, California Energy Commission. Publication # CEC-500-2005-191-SF.

Lenihan, J.M., D. Bachelet, R. P. Neilson, and R. Drapek. 2008. “Simulated response of conterminous United States ecosystems to climate change at different levels of fire suppression, CO2 emission rate, and growth response to CO2.” Global and Planetary Change 64:16-25.

Lohse, K.A., D.A. Newburn, J.J. Opperman, A.M. Merenlender. 2008. Forecasting relative impacts of land use on anadromous fish habitat to guide conservation planning. Ecological Applications 18: 467-482.

Loucaides, S., L.B. Cahoon and E.J. Henry. 2007. Effects of watershed impervious cover on dissolved silica loading in storm flow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:841-849.

Madani, K. and Lund, J.R. 2010. Estimate impacts of climate warming on California’s high-elevation hydropower. Climate Change (2010) 102:521-538; DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9750-8 Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 78:1069–1079.

Mathany TM, Dawson BJ, Shelton JL, Belitz K, 2011, Ground water quality data in the northern Coast Ranges study unit, 2009, Results from the California GAMA Program, U.S. Geological Survey Data-Series 609, 92 p. Viewed online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/609/pdf/ds609.pdf. Accessed on: Jul 17, 2012. Last update: Oct 19, 2011.

Maurer, E.P., A.W. Wood, J.C. Adam, D.P. Lettenmaier, and B. Nijssen, 2002, A Long-Term Hydrologically-Based Data Set of Land Surface Fluxes and States for the Conterminous United States, J. Climate 15(22), 3237-3251 Medellín-Azuara, J., J. J. Harou, M. A. Olivares, K. Madani, J. R. Lund, R. E. Howitt, S. K.

Tanaka, M. W. Jenkins, and T. Zhu. 2008. Adaptability and adaptations of California’s water supply system to dry climatewarming. Climatic Change 87:S75-S90.

Melack, J. M., J. Dozier, C. R. Goldman, D. Greenland, A. M. Milner, and R. J. Naiman. 1997.

Effects of climate change on inland waters of the Pacific Coastal Mountains and Western Great Basin of North America. Hydrological Processes 11:971-992.

Michaelidis, B., C. Ouzounis, A., Paleras, A. and H.O. Po¨rtner. 2005. Effects of long-term moderate hypercapnia on acid-base balance and growth rate in marine mussels Mytilus galloprovinciallis. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser., 293, 109–118.Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier . 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:39-49.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix P. Published References 317
Micheli, Elisabeth, Celeste Dodge, Tosha Comendant, and Lorraine Flint. 2018. Climate and Natural Resource Analyses and Planning for the North Coast Resource Partnership: a technical memorandum summarizing data products. The Pepperwood Preserve. 90 pages.

Miller, J., C. Skinner, H. Safford, E. Knapp, C. Ramirez. 2012. Trends and Causes of Severity, Size, and Number of Fires in Northwestern California, USA. Ecological Applications, Vol. 22(1):
184-203. www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/skinner/psw_2012_skinner001.pdf Miller, J., M. Maher, E. Bohaboy. C. Friedman, and P. McElhany. 2016. Exposure to low pH reduces survival and delays development in early life stages of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Mar Biol. 163: 118. doi.org/10.1007 Morello-Frosch, R., M. Pastor, J. Sadd, and S. Shonkoff. 2009. The Climate Gap: Inequalities in How Climate Change Hurts Americans & How to Close the Gap. 32 pages. dornsife. usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/The_Climate_Gap_Full_Report_FINAL.pdf Moritz, M.A., and S.L. Stephens. 2008. Fire and sustainability: considerations for California’s altered future climate. Climatic Change 87: S265–S271.

Morris, Jeff, Nick Goulette, and Lynn Jungwirth. 2017. Biomass Energy in the North Coast Region:

An Assessment and Strategy for Ecologically and Socially Compatible Development.

Morris, D. and M. Walls. 2009. Climate Change and Outdoor Recreation Resources. Resources for the Future, April 2009.

Moser, S., G. Franco, S. Pittiglio, W. Chou, and D. Canyan. 2009. The Future is Now: An Update On Climate Change Science Impacts And Response Options For California, California Climate Change Center.

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:39-49.

Moyle, P.B., J.V.E. Katz, and R.M. Quinones. 2011. Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: a status assessment. Biological Conservation 144:2414-2423.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Quiñones, and J. D. Kiernan. 2012. Effects of climate change on the inland fishes of California, with emphasis on the San Francisco Estuary region. California Energy Commission. CEC-500-2012- 029National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Public Draft Recovery Plan for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). National Marine Fisheries Service. Arcata, CA.

Moyle, P.B., J.D. Kiernan, P.K. Crain, R.M. Quinones. 2012. Projected effects of future climates on freshwater fishes in California. California Energy Commission Public Interest Research Program. Publication # CEC-500-2012-028.

Moyle, P.B., J.D. Kiernan, P.K. Crain, and R.M. Quinones. 2013. Climate Change Vulnerability of Native and Alien Freshwater Fishes of California: A Systematic Assessment Approach.

Mueter, F. J., R. M. Peterman, and B. J. Pyper. 2002. Opposite effects of ocean temperature on survival rates of 120 stocks of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in northern and southern areas. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:456–463.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, California Grape Acreage, 2007 Crop. Viewed online at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/ Grape_Acreage/200704gab tb00.pdf Accessed: Aug 13, 2012. Last update: Apr 2008.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, County Summary Highlights: 2002.

Viewed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_ Level/California/st06_2_001_001.pdf Accessed on: Aug 10, 2012. Last update: Mar 29, 2012. 318 Appendix P. Published References
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 National Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP). Undated. Drought in California from 200–2019. On Drought in California web page. Available: https://www.drought.gov/drought/states/california. Accessed April 2019.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Final Recovery Plan for Central California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. NMFS, West Coast Region, Santa Rosa, California. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). 2004. Sediment Waste Discharge Prohibitions and Action Plan Staff Report, September 29, 2004. NCRWQCB. 2005. Watershed Planning Chapter.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2016. US Climate Resilience Toolkit, Climate Explorer. toolkit.climate.gov/climate-explorer2/. Website accessed 17 October 2017.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (NOAA). 2017. National Centers for Environmental Information, Drought: Monitoring Economic, Environmental, and Social Impacts. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ drought-monitoring-economic-environmental-and-social-impacts. Website accessed 12 October 2017.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017b. Ocean Acidification. www.pmel. noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification. Website accessed October 29, 2017.

National Research Council (NRC). 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. 504 pages. www.nap.edu/read/12782/chapter/1
Newburn, David, and Peter Berck. 2011. Exurban development. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 62(3): 232-336.

Nickerson, John. 2017. Carbon Inventory Estimates for the North Coast Resource Partnership. Dogwood Springs Forestry. 33 pages.

Norgaard, Kari Marie. 2005. The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People. Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket # P-2082 on Behalf of the Karuk Tribe of California. 116 pages.

North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (NCIRWMP). 2007. Prepared by: The North Coast Regional Partnership, Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sonoma and Trinity Counties for the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Water Resources, July, 2007.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2004. Sediment Waste Discharge Prohibitions and Action Plan Staff Report, September 29, 2004.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQC) 2018. Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region. 203 pages.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region.

North Coast Regional Water Management Group (NCRWMG aka NCRP). 2007. North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, Phase I. 198 pp.

North Coast Resource Partnership (NCRP). 2014. Flood and Stormwater Management for the North Coast Hydrologic Region. 63 pages.

North Coast Watershed Assessment Program (NCWAP). 2005. Redwood Creek assessment implementation summary. 57 p.

Northern Hydrology and Engineering. 2015. Humboldt Bay: Sea Level Rise, Hydrodynamic Modeling, and Inundation Vulnerability Mapping. 106 pages. humboldtbay.org/sites/humboldtbay2. org/files/Final_HBSLR_Modeling_InundationMapping_Report_150406.pdf NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix P. Published References 319
Northwest California Resource Conservation & Development Council ‘s (NCRC&DC) Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program (5C). 2017. Assessment to Improve Late Spring/Summer Stream Flows, Reduce Fire Intensity and Fire Related Carbon Emissions in the Trinity River Watershed.

Northwest California Resource Conservation & Development Council ‘s (NCRC&DC) Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program (5C). 2017. Trinity County Forest Ecology and Watershed Hydrology and Economic Valuation of Natural Captial and Economic Analysis for Trinity River Water.

Owe, M., P.J. Craul and H.G. Halverson. 1982. Contaminant levels in precipitation and urban surface runoff. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 18:863-868.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2006. The Pacific Energy Center’s Guide to: California Climate Zones. October 2006. https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/about/edusafety/ training/pec/toolbox/arch/climate/california_climate_zones_01-16.pdf Pacific Institute. 2012. Sea Level Rise Data Downloads. Accessed April, 2013, from: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/data/ Packer, D.B., K. Griffin, and K.E. McGlynn. 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service National Gravel Extraction Guidance: A review of the effects of in and near stream gravel extraction on anadromous fishes and their habitats with recommendations for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-70. 27 pages.

Parker, B. R., R. D. Vinebrooke, and D. W. Schindler. 2008. Recent climate extremes alter alpine lake ecosystems.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:12927-12931.

Patton, J., T. Williams, J. Anderson, R.Burgette, T. Leroy. 2014. Tectonic land level changes and their contribution to sea-level rise, Humboldt Bay region, Northern California: 2014 Status Update. 17 pages. www.hbv.cascadiageo. org/HumBayVert/reports/USFWS/20141231/status_report_CG_HBV_USFWS_fall_2014_20141231.pdf Pederson, Rob. 2018. North Coast Census Metrics. Excel spreadsheet. Tukman Geospatial, produced for North Coast Resource Partnership.

Pierson, Jr., F.B., P.R. Kormos and C.J. Williams. 2008. Hydrologic and erosional impacts of pinyon and juniper encroachment into a sagebrush steppe communities of the Great Basin, USA. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of the International Soil and Water Conservation Organization, May 18-23, 2008, Budapest, Hungary.

Pisias, N.G., A.C.Mix, & L. Heusser. 2001. Millennial scale climate variability of the northeast Pacific Ocean and northwest North America based on radioloaria and pollen. Q. Sci. Rev. 20: 1561–1576 Plaven, George. 2019. Agency analyzes impacts of removing Klamath River dams. Capital Press, January 8, 2019.

Poff, N., B.P. Bledsoe and C.O. Cuhaciyan. 2006. Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States: Geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 79:264-285.

Point Blue Conservation Science. 2011. Projected Effects of Climate Change in California: Ecoregional Summaries Emphasizing Consequences for Wildlife. Version 1.0. http://data.prbo.org/apps/bssc/ Accessed 3/10/2013 Pope, K. L., J. Piovia-Scott, and S. P. Lawler. 2009. Changes in aquatic insect emergence in response to whole-lake experimental manipulations of introduced trout. Freshwater Biology 54:982-993.

Porinchu, D. F., S. Reinemann, B. G. Mark, J. E. Box, and N. Rolland. 2010. Application of a midge-based inference model for air temperature reveals evidence of late-20th century warming in sub-alpine lakes in the central Great Basin, United States. Quaternary International 215:15-26. 320 Appendix P. Published References
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 The Press Democrat. November 2, 2017. EPA work progressing with hazardous waste cleanup at destroyed Sonoma County homes. www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7593087-181/epa-finished-with-hazardous-waste?artslide=0 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). 2016. Energy and Water. PPIC Water Policy Center. http://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-water-energy-and-water/ Public Policy Institute of California. 2014. Paying for Water in California. March 2014.

Purkey, D.R., B. Joyce, S. Vicuna et al. 2008. Robust analysis of future climate change impacts on water for agriculture and other sectors: a case study in the Sacramento Valley. Climate Change 87:S109-22.

Redwood Coast Energy Authority. 2017. Resilience and Energy Assessment for Key Assets in Humboldt County. January 2017.

Redwood National and State Parks (RNSP). 1997. Redwood creek watershed analysis. Redwood National and State Parks. 100 p.

Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA). 2016. Regional Climate Protection Authority. rcpa.ca.gov/. Website accessed 17 August 2017.

Revelle, T. 2014. State: Ukiah Valley needs water monitoring. Ukiah Daily Journal, February 27, 2014.

Reza Environmental. Dec. 2016. Draft Resiliency to Climate Change Vulnerability and Natural Disasters. (Unavailable online)
Reza, Kate and Richard Tinsman. 2018. North Coast Regional Climate Adaptation Strategies. 51 pages.

Riebesell, U., I. Zondervan, B. Rost, P.D. Tortell, R.E. Zeebe, and F.M.M. Morel. 2000. Reduced calcification of marine plankton in response to increased atmospheric CO2. Nature 407:364–367.

Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. 2009. California Riparian Habitat Restoration Handbook. Second Edition, July 2009. 83 pages. http://www.prbo.org/~rhjvpb/rhjvHandbook.pdf Roberts, Rose. 2009. Climate Change and Agriculture in the North Coast of California:

Toward a New Agriculture for the 21st Century. 21 pages.

Roesner, L. and B. Bledsoe. 2003. Physical Effects of Wet Weather Flows on Aquatic Habitats: Present Knowledge and Research Needs. Water Environment Research Foundation Report 00-WSM-4Rep.

Rogers-Bennett, L., R. Dondanville, J. Moore, and L. Vilchis. 2010. Response of red abalone reproduction to warm water, starvation, and disease stressors: Implications of ocean warming. Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, 599–611. nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=60129 Round Valley Indian Tribes, A Sovereign Nation of Confederated Tribes, Round Valley Indian Tribes, 77826 Covelo Road, Covelo, California 95428, (707) 983-6126. Viewed online at:
http://www.rvit.org/index.html. Accessed: Sept 6, 2012. Last update: 2011.

Round Valley Indian Tribes, Population Projections 2010–2025. Prepared by: The Center For Applied Research, 1133 Filbert Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, (415) 310-1108. Viewed online at: http://www.rvitplanning. com/RVIT%20Population%20Projections.pdf Accessed on: Sept 6, 2012. Last update: Jun 2010.

Russell, N. & G. Griggs. 2012. Adapting to Sea Level Rise: A Guide for California’s Coastal Communities. University of California, Santa Cruz.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix P. Published References 321
Schrier, A., J. Bronfin, and J. Harrison-Cox. 2013. A Handbook for Understanding Natural Capital. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. 40 pages.

Segura, C. and D.B. Booth. 2010. Effects of geomorphic setting and urbanization on wood, pools, sediment storage, and bank erosion in Puget Sound Streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46:972-986. 2NDNature, LLC. 2013. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. 34 pages.

Shaw, R. M., Pendleton L., Cameron D., Morris B., Bratman G., Bachelet D., Klausmeyer K., MacKenzie J., Conklin D., Lenihan J., Haunreiter E., and Daly C. (2009) The impact of climate change on California’s ecosystem services.

California Energy Commission—California Climate Change Center White Paper, Sacramento, California.

Shirayama, Y. & H. Thornton. 2005. Effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on shallow water marine benthos. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 110, C09S08. (doi:10.1029/ 2004JC002618) Shugart, H., R. Sedjo and B. Sohngen, 2003. Forests and global climate change: Potential impacts on U.S. forest resources. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Simon, A., and M. Rinaldi. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The roles of excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response. Geomorphology 79:361-383.

Simon, A., M. Doyle, M. Kondolf, F. Shields Jr, B. Rhoads and M. McPhillips. 2007. Critical Evaluation of How the Rosgen Classification and Associated” Natural Channel Design” Methods Fail to Integrate and Quantify Fluvial Processes and Channel Response. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:1117-1131.

Sims, Hank. 2017. Audubon Society, Others File Suit to Stop Humboldt Bay Oyster Farm Expansion. Lost Coast Outpost. March 31, 2017. Available: https://lostcoastoutpost. com/2017/mar/31/audubon-society-others-file-suit-stop-humboldt-bay/ Settlement Proposal to Obama Administration (SPOA). 2013. Viewed online at: http://www. yuroktribe.org/resort/documents/1SPOA_REFERENDUM_PRESS_RELEASE_ FIN AL1.pdf. Accessed on Jul 9, 2013. Last update: Jan 2013.

Sonoma County Water Agency. Carbon Free Water Website. Accessed March 13, 2015. http://www.scwa.ca.gov/carbon-free-water/
Spears, M., Harrison, A., Sankovich, V., Soddell, J., and Brekke, L. 2011. Technical Memorandum 86-68210- 2010-03: Literature Synthesis on Climate Change Implications for Water and Environmental Resources. Prepared for the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation.

Snyder, M. A., L. C. Sloan, N. S. Diffenbaugh, and J.L. Bell. 2003. Future climate change and upwelling in the California Current. Geophysical Research Letters 30: Article No. 1823.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation,California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.313 pages.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2001. California ocean plan. 49 p.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2003. Areas of special biological significance California’s marine state water quality protection areas. 81 p 322 Appendix P. Published References
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2010. Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011. Resolution No. 2011-0047 To Adopt A Proposed Russian River Frost Protection Regulation and Associated Environmental Impact Report. 7 pages.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2013. Fact Sheet. Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (Small MS4) General Permit Renewal. Accessed February 2013. http://www. swrcb.ca.gov/publications_forms/publications/factsheets/docs/ms4factsheet_010413.pdf State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Undated. Fact Sheet. Storm Water Management in California. Accessed February 2013. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/stormwater_factsheet.pdf Stein, E.D., F. Federico, D.B. Booth, B.P. Bledsoe, C. Bowles, Z. Rubin, G.M. Kondolf, and A. Sengupta. 2012.

Hydromodification Assessment and Management in California. Technical Report 667. Commissioned by and for the California State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Program. 151 pp.

Stralberg D., M. Brennan, J.C. Callaway, J.K. Wood, L.M. Schile, et al. 2011 Evaluating Tidal Marsh Sustainability in the Face of Sea-Level Rise: A Hybrid Modeling Approach Applied to San Francisco Bay. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27388.

Sulek, Julia Prodis. 2019. Russian River flooding swamps two dozen towns. The Mercury News.

February 27, 2019. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/27/this-sonoma-countytown-got-20-inches-of-rain-in-48-hours-san-jose-averages-about-15-a-year/ Tanaka, S.K., T. Zhu, J.R. Lund, R.E. Howitt, M.W. Jenkins, M.A. Pulido, M.Tauber, R.S. Ritzema, and I.C. Ferreira.

Climate warming and water management adaptation for California. Climatic Change 76:361-387.

Thorne, J., R. Boynton, L. Flint, A. Flint, and T.N. Le (University of California, Davis and U.S. Geological Survey). 2012.

Development and Application of Downscaled Hydroclimatic Predictor Variables for Use in Climate Vulnerability and Assessment Studies. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-010. 95 pages.

Thorne, J., J. Bjorkman, and N. Roth (University of California, Davis). 2012b. Urban Growth in California: Projecting Growth in California (2000–2050) Under Six Alternative Policy Scenarios and Assessing Impacts to Future Dispersal Corridors, Fire Threats and Climate-Sensitive Agriculture. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-009.

The Times-Standard. July 25, 2013. Blue-green algae health advisory issued. www. times-standard.com/article/zz/20130725/NEWS/130729509
The Times-Standard. July 13, 2017. Public health warning issued after blue-green algae bloom found on Klamath River. www.times-standard.com/article/NJ/20170713/NEWS/170719918 Trinity Associates. 2018. Humboldt County Humboldt Bay Area Plan Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. https://humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/62872 Trinity River Restoration Program (TRPP). Current Restoration Flow Release Schedule Water Year 2018 Forecast and Release Schedule. Web Page. Available: http://www.trrp.net/restoration/flows/current/ Accessed April 2019.

Tsao, J. et al. 2006. Solar FAQs, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Science, http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf United States Census Bureau. 2010. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2010: Geographic Area, California and County Quickfacts at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/california_map.html US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Northern California Wildfires. response.epa. gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=12452. Website accessed 29 November 2017.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Appendix P. Published References 323
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Section 303(d) Impaired Waters, Region 9. Listing at http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/303d.html United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Hoopa Valley Tribe. 1999. Trinity River Flow Evaluation.

Final Report to Secretary US Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 300 pages plus Appendices.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. California Water Science Center, Seawater Intrusion. ca.water.usgs.gov/sustainable-groundwater-management/seawaterintrusion-california.html. Website accessed 30 November 2017.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. Potential Inundation due to Rising Sea Levels in the San Francisco Bay Region. Retrieved April, 2013, from: http://cascade.wr.usgs.gov/data/Task2b-SFBay/ U.S. News & World Report. November 29, 2017. California October Wildfire Death Toll Hits 44 as Man Dies. www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2017-11-29/ man-dies-of-injuries-raising-wildfires-death-toll-to-44 Vicuna, S., R. Leonardson, M. W. Hanemann, L.L. Dale and J. A. Dracup, 2008. “Climate Change Impacts on High Elevation Hydropower Generation in California’s Sierra Nevada: A Case Study in the Upper American River,” Climatic Change.

Vorosmarty, C.J., et al.. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467(7315):555–561.

Walsh, C., A.H. Roy, J.W. Feminella, P.D. Cottingham, P.M. Groffman and R.P. Morgan II. 2005. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure.

Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:706-723.

The Watershed Center (TWC). 2017. Biomass Energy in the North Coast Region: An Assessment and Strategy for Ecologically and Socially Compatible Development. Report to the North Coast Resource Partnership. February 2017. 57 pp. http://www.northcoastresourcepartnership. org/files/managed/Document/9632/BENCR%20draft%2002.09.2017.pdf Wayne P., S. Foster, J.Connolly, F. Bazzaz, & P.Epstein. 2002. Production of allergenic pollen by ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) is increased in CO2-enriched atmospheres. Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology 8: 279-282. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.475.1579&rep=rep1&type=pdf Weare, B.C. 2009. How will changes in global climate influence California? California Agriculture, 62(2) 59-65.

Werner A. and C. Simmons. 2009. Impact of Sea-Level Rise on Sea Water Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers. Ground Water, Vol. 47, No. 2:197–204. pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4fcd/62359aea0f96593d05a66768af917198eff6.pdf Westerling, A. L. 2006. “Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S.

Forest Wildfire Activity,“ Science, 313(5789), 940-943.

Westerling, A.L., and B. P. Bryant. 2008. “Climate change and wildfire in California,” Climatic Change, 87(S1), 231-249.

Wildlife Conservation Society. 2018. Impacts of Low Density, Exurban Development. Web page, accessed March 2018. https://northamerica.wcs.org/Wild-Places/Adirondacks/Wildlife-Connectivity/Exurban-Landuse-Impacts.aspx Woods, Denise. 2018. Climate Mitigation Report for the North Coast of California. For West Coast Watershed and North Coast Resource Partnership. 62 pages.

Yoon, J-H, S. Wang, R. Gillies, L. Hipps, B. Kravitz, and P. Rasch. 2015. Extreme Fire Season in California: A Glimpse Into the Future? American Meteorological Society. October 2015. S1-S5. www.researchgate. net/publication/283425168_Extreme_Fire_Season_in_California_A_Glimpse_Into_the_Future Zhang, Y., J. M. Wallace, and D. S. Battisti. 1997. ENSO-like interdecadal variability: 1900–93. J. Climate 10:1004–1020.