Crescent City City Council
January 17, 2023

Submitted to:

California Department of Water Resources
Submitted by:

North Coast Resource Partnership

NORTH COAST RESOURCE

PARTNERSHIP PLAN
Healthy Communities, Functional Ecosystems,
& Vibrant Economies

PHASE IV
January 2020

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements i

NORTH COAST RESOURCE

PARTNERSHIP PLAN
PHASE IV, January 2020
1 GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING APPROACH......................................................................................... 3

1.1 NCRP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 3

1.1.1 INTEGRATION OF NCRP GOALS & OBJECTIVES ............................................................................ 5

1.2 NCRP PLANNING APPROACH........................................................................................................................ 5

1.2.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. 5

1.2.2 LOCAL AUTONOMY & JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY..................................................................... 6

1.2.3 TRANSPARENCY & INCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 7

1.2.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................................... 8

1.2.5 LONG-TERM PLANNING................................................................................................................ 11

1.2.6 INTEGRATION ................................................................................................................................ 12

1.2.7 NCRP PLANS AND DOCUMENTS.................................................................................................. 12

1.3 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE....................................................................................... 15

1.3.1 POLICY REVIEW PANEL................................................................................................................. 15

1.3.2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ............................................................................................................... 15

1.3.3 TECHNICAL PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE ...................................................................................... 16

1.3.4 AD-HOC COMMITTEES .................................................................................................................. 16

1.3.5 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR......................................................................................................... 16

1.3.6 NCRP MOMU.................................................................................................................................. 16 2 NORTH COAST REGION ................................................................................................................................17

2.1 NORTH COAST REGION PLANNING BOUNDARY......................................................................................... 17

2.2 GEOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................................. 17

2.2.1 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES ................................................................................................... 17

2.2.2 PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES............................................................................................................... 21

2.3 BIOPHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES ......................................................................................................................... 22

2.3.1 GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................................ 22

2.3.2 CLIMATE......................................................................................................................................... 22

2.3.3 LAND COVER ................................................................................................................................. 24

2.3.4 PROTECTED AREAS....................................................................................................................... 25

2.3.5 WILDLIFE....................................................................................................................................... 28

2.3.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES & CRITICAL HABITATS...................................................................... 29

2.3.7 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 31

2.3.8 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 36

2.3.9 WATER QUANTITY.......................................................................................................................... 41

2.3.10 ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES............................................................................................................. 44

2.3.11 NATURAL CAPITAL VALUES .......................................................................................................... 46

2.3.12 LAND USE...................................................................................................................................... 47 ii Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

2.4 SOCIOECONOMIC ATTRIBUTES.................................................................................................................... 61

2.4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTE.......................................................................................................... 61

2.4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS..................................................................................................... 63

2.4.3 ECONOMIC SECTORS & TRENDS ................................................................................................. 66

2.5 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL VALUES................................................................................................................. 68

2.6 NORTH COAST TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................................... 69

2.7 POLICY LANDSCAPE .................................................................................................................................... 70

2.7.1 WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................ 70

2.7.2 WATER QUANTITY.......................................................................................................................... 71

2.7.3 STORM WATER PLANNING ........................................................................................................... 72

2.7.4 FLOOD RISK AND LAND USE PLANNING..................................................................................... 72

2.7.5 FOREST AND NATIVE VEGETATION REMOVAL ............................................................................ 72

2.7.6 AGRICULTURAL LANDS ................................................................................................................ 73

2.7.7 TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................................... 73

2.7.8 RESIDENTIAL AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS................................................................................ 73

2.7.9 WILD FIRE...................................................................................................................................... 73

2.8 IMPACTS TO NATURAL CAPITAL.................................................................................................................. 74

2.8.1 THREATS TO HABITATS, BIODIVERSITY & CORRIDORS............................................................... 74

2.8.2 NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES.................................................................................................. 76

2.8.3 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM DECLINE .................................................................................................. 78

2.8.4 SALMONID POPULATION DECLINE.............................................................................................. 80

2.8.5 IMPAIRED QUALITY OF WATERBODIES ........................................................................................ 82

2.8.6 WATER SUPPLY & DEMAND: 20 YEAR PROJECTION ................................................................... 84

2.8.7 ECONOMIC COSTS FROM DAMAGING NATURAL CAPITAL.......................................................... 87

2.9 IMPACTS TO REGIONAL BUILT CAPITAL ..................................................................................................... 87

2.9.1 BROADBAND ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................................... 88

2.9.2 ENERGY GENERATION AND CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE.................................................. 88

2.9.3 WATER AND WASTEWATER STORAGE AND CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE......................... 89

2.9.4 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 90

2.9.5 RESIDENTIAL AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS................................................................................ 90

2.9.6 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS .................................................. 90

2.9.7 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS FROM FAILING BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE.................. 91

2.10 FLOOD PROTECTION & FLOOD MANAGEMENT........................................................................................... 91

2.10.1 FLOOD HISTORY............................................................................................................................. 91

2.10.2 LIMITING FACTORS AND CHALLENGES....................................................................................... 91

2.11 CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY & UNCERTAINTY............................................................................... 94

2.11.1 EFFECTS OF CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC CHANGES ON WATER MANAGEMENT ........................ 95

2.11.2 EFFECTS OF CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC CHANGES ON SECTORS .............................................. 96

2.11.3 DISTRIBUTION AND MAGNITUDE OF CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC CHANGES ............................. 97

2.11.4 PLANNING FOR UNCERTAINTY ...................................................................................................100

2.11.5 SEA LEVEL RISE ...........................................................................................................................103

2.11.6 FLOODING AND VOLATILE WEATHER..........................................................................................104

2.11.7 LANDSCAPE SCALE DROUGHT....................................................................................................105

2.11.8 INCREASED FIRE RISK.................................................................................................................105 NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements iii

2.11.9 BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS ...............................................................................................................106

2.11.10 HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS...........................................................................................................107

2.11.11 DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ON ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ...........108

2.12 GHG EMISSIONS & REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES.................................................................................... 109

2.12.1 ENERGY SECTOR..........................................................................................................................109

2.12.2 FOREST AND NATIVE VEGETATION..............................................................................................112

2.12.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS ...............................................................................................................113

2.12.4 TRANSPORTATION........................................................................................................................113

2.12.5 RESIDENTIAL AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS...............................................................................114

2.12.6 WATER TRANSMISSION ...............................................................................................................114

2.12.7 WILD FIRE.....................................................................................................................................115

2.12.8 OTHER...........................................................................................................................................115

2.13 REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC CHALLENGES ............................................................................................. 116

2.13.1 LIMITING FACTORS AND CHALLENGES......................................................................................116

2.13.2 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES, PLANNING, AND STRATEGY............................................................117 3 NCRP STRATEGIES......................................................................................................................................118

3.1 NATURAL & WORKING LANDS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .................................................................. 118

3.1.1 NATURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................118

3.1.2 AGRICULTURE ..............................................................................................................................122

3.1.3 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE..................................................................................123

3.1.4 FLOOD ATTENUATION USING NATURAL SYSTEMS.....................................................................123

3.1.5 OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT..................................................................................................123

3.2 BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY........................................................................................................ 124

3.2.1 BROADBAND ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE .........................................................................124

3.2.2 ENERGY GENERATION AND CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE.................................................125

3.2.3 WATER AND WASTEWATER STORAGE AND CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE........................125

3.2.4 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................................................126

3.2.5 RESIDENTIAL AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS...............................................................................126

3.2.6 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS .................................................127

3.2.7 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS FROM FAILING BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE.................127

3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE & ENERGY INDEPENDENCE STRATEGY..................................................................... 127

3.3.1 GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION & ENERGY INDEPENDENCE STRATEGIES.................................127

3.3.2 GHG ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORKS..............................................................................................131

3.3.3 CARBON SEQUESTRATION & EMISSIONS AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES ........................................134

3.4 MULTI-OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR VITAL COMMUNITIES, WORKING LANDS & NATURAL SYSTEMS..... 134

3.4.1 NATURAL CAPITAL: HEALTHY FORESTS AND WATERSHEDS ....................................................135

3.4.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS: UPSTREAM INVESTMENTS & DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS..................136

3.4.3 BUILT CAPITAL: ENHANCING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMMUNITIES.....................................137

3.4.4 HUMAN CAPITAL: A PLACE FOR PEOPLE...................................................................................138

3.4.5 FINANCING AND INVESTMENT: EXPLORING TOOLS AND STRATEGIES....................................139

3.4.6 ECONOMIES OF SCOPE AND SCALE: INTEGRATING BUILT, NATURAL, & HUMAN CAPITAL ...140

3.4.7 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES....................................................................................141

3.4.8 COORDINATION OF LOCAL WATER & LAND USE PLANNING ....................................................147

3.5 MODEL PLANNING & POLICY ELEMENTS ................................................................................................ 151 iv Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

3.5.1 PLANNING AND POLICY TOOLS AND MODELS...........................................................................151

3.5.2 NCRP WATER & WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDER OUTREACH & SUPPORT PROGRAM.......154

3.6 LONG-TERM ECONOMIC & FINANCING PLAN .......................................................................................... 157

3.6.1 CHALLENGES TO FINANCING IN THE NORTH COAST REGION .................................................157

3.6.2 DESIRED OUTCOMES ..................................................................................................................158

3.6.3 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES CONSIDERED FOR THE NCRP........................................................159

3.6.4 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES LEVERAGING THE NORTH COAST AS A SOURCE REGION............161

3.6.5 ASSESS CURRENT NCRP GOVERNANCE TO ENSURE LONG-TERM FINANCIAL VIABILITY .....162

3.6.6 CERTAINTY AND LONGEVITY OF IRWM PLAN AND PROJECT FUNDING...................................162 4 NCRP PROJECTS..........................................................................................................................................163

4.1 PROJECT APPLICATION, REVIEW & SELECTION PROCESS ..................................................................... 163

4.1.1 OVERVIEW OF PROCESS STEPS ..................................................................................................163

4.1.2 PRIORITY CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................165

4.2 NCRP FUNDING.......................................................................................................................................... 166

4.2.1 PROJECT FUNDING HISTORY.......................................................................................................166

4.2.2 ONGOING NCRP PROJECT SUBMITTAL.......................................................................................167

4.3 IMPACTS & BENEFITS................................................................................................................................ 167

4.3.1 ADVANTAGES OF INTEGRATING REGIONAL PLANNING AND LOCAL EFFORTS:

THRESHOLD EFFECTS .................................................................................................................167

4.3.2 QUALITATIVE & QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS ..............................................................................169

4.3.3 NCRP IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS BENEFITS SUMMARY......................................................169

4.4 DATA MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SHARING..................................................................................... 171

4.4.1 IDENTIFYING & ADDRESSING DATA GAPS..................................................................................172

4.4.2 DEVELOPMENT & MAINTENANCE OF PROGRAM DATA.............................................................172

4.4.3 PROJECT PERFORMANCE — QUALITY CONTROL AND BENEFITS............................................173

4.4.4 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES................................................................................................173

4.4.5 DATA MANAGEMENT AND DISSEMINATION ...............................................................................173

4.5 PROJECT & PROGRAM MONITORING & EVALUATION...........................................................................175

4.5.1 STATUS OF EXISTING STATE AND AGENCY MONITORING PROGRAMS .....................................175

4.5.2 NCRP PLAN MONITORING & EVALUATION APPROACH .............................................................177

4.5.3 NCRP PLAN EVALUATION 2005–2019........................................................................................... 18 3 APPENDIX A. INTEGRATION OF NCRP GOALS & OBJECTIVES.........................................................189 Table A-1 Matrix of NCRP Objectives & Statewide IRWM Priorities ...........................................................189 Table A-2 Matrix of NCRP Objectives & Local Project Priorities.................................................................190 Table A-3 ARB Scoping Plan Strategies Considered in NCRP Strategy & Goal Development...................190 APPENDIX B. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT & INTEGRATION .......................................................192 Table B-4 Stakeholders & Participants in NCRP Planning Processes........................................................192 Table B-5 Public Outreach & Plan Input Opportunities ...............................................................................200 APPENDIX C. REGION DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................206 Table C-6 Summary of North Coast Region Key Attributes.........................................................................206 Table C-7 Land Owner Types of the North Coast Region.............................................................................207 Table C-8 Municipalities & Census Designated Places of the North Coast Region....................................207 NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements v
Table C-9 Land Cover Types of the North Coast Region..............................................................................208 Table C-10 Land Use Types of the North Coast Region.................................................................................208 APPENDIX D. TRIBAL PROFILE.......................................................................................................................209 Table D-11 Native Tribal Lands of the North Coast Region ..........................................................................209 Table D-12 Native Tribes of the North Coast Region .....................................................................................210 APPENDIX E.COUNTY PROFILE ......................................................................................................................211 Table E-13 County Size and Relative Proportion of the North Coast Region................................................211 Table E-14 Land Owner Types of North Coast Counties................................................................................211 Table E-15 Groundwater Basins of North Coast Counties.............................................................................212 Table E-16 Land Cover Types of North Coast Counties.................................................................................213 Table E-17 E-Land Use Types of North Coast Counties ................................................................................214 APPENDIX F. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA PROFILE ..............................................................216 Table F-18 Land Owner Types of North Coast WMAs....................................................................................224 Table F-19 Groundwater Basins of North Coast WMAs.................................................................................224 Table F-20 Land Cover Types of North Coast WMAs .....................................................................................225 Table F-21 Land Use Types of North Coast WMAs ........................................................................................226 APPENDIX G. NORTH COAST REGION PROTECTED AREAS...............................................................227 Table G-22 Protected Area Listing..................................................................................................................227 Table G-23 Marine Managed Areas ...............................................................................................................229 Table G-24 Beneficial Uses of Water in the North Coast Region, 2019.........................................................230 Table G-25 Wild & Scenic Rivers ...................................................................................................................231 Table G-26 Impaired Streams that Flow Directly to Wild & Scenic Rivers....................................................232 Table G-27 National Wilderness Preservation System Areas .......................................................................233 Table G-28 Threatened & Endangered Species ............................................................................................233 Table G-29 Critical Habitats of the North Coast Region (Non-Salmonid) .....................................................234 Table G-30 Critical Habitat for Marbled Murrelet in North Coast Counties..................................................235 Table G-31 Critical Habitats of Salmonids in the North Coast Region..........................................................236 APPENDIX H.HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................................238 Table H-32 Hydrologic Units of the North Coast Region................................................................................238 Table H-33 Rivers & Streams of the North Coast Region .............................................................................239 Table H-34 Water Resources & Water Use for North Coast Region Basins..................................................240 Table H-35 AB 1249 Groundwater Contaminants on the North Coast ..........................................................241 Table H-36 Disadvantaged Community Water & Wastewater Service Providers .........................................244 APPENDIX I. SOCIOECONOMIC........................................................................................................................246 Table I-37 Socioeconomic & Demographic Attributes of North Coast Counties .........................................246 Table I-38 Economically Disadvantaged Populations and Area in the North Coast ....................................248 Table I-39 Historic & Projected Population Growth of North Coast Counties .............................................248 Table I-40 Economically Disadvantaged Communities of North Coast WMAs.............................................249 APPENDIX J. CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT, 2014......................................250 Table J-41 Sectors Assessed for Vulnerability to Climate Change...............................................................251 Table J-42 Projected Changes to Climate & Hydrology of North Coast Counties........................................252 Table J-43 Projected Changes to Climate & Hydrology of North Coast WMAs ............................................253 vi Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table J-44 Definitions for Climate Change Projection Confidence Ratings..................................................253 Table J-45 Definitions for Sensitivity to Climate Change Impacts................................................................254 Table J-46 Definitions for Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Impacts....................................................254 Table J-47 Matrix to Determine Climate Change Vulnerability.....................................................................255 Table J-48 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA), North Coast Region....................................258 APPENDIX K. FINANCING HISTORY & FUTURE FINANCING ............................................................267 Table K-49 Summary of NCRP Use of IRWM Funds .....................................................................................267 Table K-50 Summary of Funding and Financing to Date ...............................................................................267 Table K-51 Small Community Toolkit Elements.............................................................................................270 Table K-52 Disadvantaged Community Demonstration Projects...................................................................271 Table K-53 Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program .....................................................................................271 Table K-54 Common Local Agency Funding Mechanisms.............................................................................271 Table K-55 Summary of Funding Agencies, Mandates and Eligibility ...........................................................272 Table K-56 NCRP Funding Opportunity Descriptions by Type ......................................................................273 APPENDIX L. NCRP PROJECT INFORMATION ..........................................................................................276 Table L-57 IRWM Proposition 50 Funded Projects ........................................................................................276 Table L-58 IRWM Proposition 84 — Funded Projects ....................................................................................277 Table L-59 Proposed NCRP IRWM Proposition 1 Round 1 Projects .............................................................278 Table L-60 NCRP Projects — All projects ......................................................................................................279 Table L-61 California Energy Commission Funded Projects — 2010............................................................286 APPENDIX M. NCRP PROJECT IMPACT & BENEFIT ANALYSIS........................................................290 Table M-62 Minimum Estimated Annual Benefits, 2016 Dollars, by WMA ....................................................290 Table M-63 Indicators of Project Impacts and Benefits .................................................................................290 Table M-64 Benefits and Impacts of Proposition 50 Implementation Projects .............................................291 Table M-65 Benefits and Impacts of Proposition 84 Implementation Projects .............................................292 Table M-66 Estimated Project Benefits for Water Supply, Quality, & Services..............................................293 APPENDIX N. PROJECT & PROGRAM MONITORING & EVALUATION.............................................300 Table N-67 Data Management and Dissemination.........................................................................................300 Table N-68 Monitoring Protocols for NCRP Project Evaluation.....................................................................300 Table N-69 Monitoring Plans of the North Coast Region...............................................................................302 Table N-70 Indicators to Measure Attributes of Social & Environmental Equity ..........................................306 Table N-71 NCRP Process Evaluation by IRWM Funding Round ...................................................................307 APPENDIX O. REPORTS COMMISSIONED FOR THE NCRP..................................................................308 APPENDIX P. PUBLISHED REFERENCES....................................................................................................309 NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 North Coast CWS with Wells having Consistently High Arsenic Levels Table 2 Generation capacity and number of plants by fuel type for the North Coast Region Table 3 Historic & Projected Population Growth of North Coast Counties Table 4 Economically Disadvantaged Populations in the North Coast by County Table 5 Economically Disadvantaged Areas in the North Coast by County Table 6 Economically Disadvantaged Populations in North Coast Watershed Management Areas Table 7 Economically Disadvantaged Area by Watershed Management Areas Table 8 Renewable Energy Opportunity Matrix by County and Resource Table 9 Projected Annual Discharge Extremes for Eel River, Redwood Creek, and Russian River: High Runoff Frequency Table 10 Biomass Facilities in the North Coast Region
Table 11 Renewable Electricity Generation Potential and Electricity Consumption Totals for the North Coast Region Table 12 Forty-five Days of 24 hour Average Air Quality Index (AQI) Values across NW California Table 13 Comparison of Funding Sources
Table 14 Indicators to Measure NCRP Process and Project Success Table 15 NCRP Plan Score, Project Effectiveness
Table 16 NCRP Process Evaluation — Plan Totals

APPENDIX A INTEGRATION OF NCRP GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Table A-1 Matrix of NCRP Objectives & Statewide IRWM Priorities Table A-2 Matrix of NCRP Objectives & Local Project Priorities Table A-3 ARB Scoping Plan Strategies Considered in NCRP Strategy & Goal Development

APPENDIX B STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT & INTEGRATION
Table B-4 Stakeholders & Participants in NCRP Planning Processes Table B-5 Public Outreach & Plan Input Opportunities

APPENDIX C REGION DESCRIPTION
Table C-6 Summary of North Coast Region Key Attributes
Table C-7 Land Owner Types of the North Coast Region
Table C-8 Municipalities & Census Designated Places of the North Coast Region Table C-9 Land Cover Types of the North Coast Region
Table C-10 Land Use Types of the North Coast Region

APPENDIX D TRIBAL PROFILE
Table D-11 Native Tribal Lands of the North Coast Region Table D-12 Native Tribes of the North Coast Region

APPENDIX E COUNTY PROFILE
Table E-13 County Size and Relative Proportion of the North Coast Region Table E-14 Land Owner Types of North Coast Counties
Table E-15 Groundwater Basins of North Coast Counties
Table E-16 Land Cover Types of North Coast Counties
Table E-17 Land Use Types of North Coast Counties

APPENDIX F WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA PROFILE
Table F-18 Land Owner Types of North Coast WMAs
Table F-19 Groundwater Basins of North Coast WMAs
Table F-20 Land Cover Types of North Coast WMAs
Table F-21 Land Use Types of North Coast WMAs
viii Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

APPENDIX G NORTH COAST REGION PROTECTED AREAS
Table G-22 Protected Area Listing
Table G-23 Marine Managed Areas
Table G-24 Beneficial Uses of Water in the North Coast Region, 2019 Table G-25 Wild & Scenic Rivers
Table G-26 Impaired Streams that Flow Directly to Wild & Scenic Rivers Table G-27 National Wilderness Preservation System Areas Table G-28 Threatened & Endangered Species
Table G-29 Critical Habitats of the North Coast Region (Non-Salmonid) Table G-30 Critical Habitat for Marbled Murrelet in North Coast Counties Table G-31 Critical Habitats of Salmonids in the North Coast Region

APPENDIX H HYDROLOGY
Table H-32 Hydrologic Units of the North Coast Region
Table H-33 Rivers & Streams of the North Coast Region
Table H-34 Water Resources & Water Use for North Coast Region Basins Table H-35 AB 1249 Groundwater Contaminants on the North Coast Table H-36 Disadvantaged Community Water & Wastewater Service Providers

APPENDIX I SOCIOECONOMIC
Table I-37 Socioeconomic & Demographic Attributes of North Coast Counties Table I-38 Economically Disadvantaged Populations and Area in the North Coast Table I-39 Historic & Projected Population Growth of North Coast Counties Table I-40 Economically Disadvantaged Communities of North Coast WMAs APPENDIX J CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT, 2014 Table J-41 Sectors Assessed for Vulnerability to Climate Change Table J-42 Projected Changes to Climate & Hydrology of North Coast Counties Table J-43 Projected Changes to Climate & Hydrology of North Coast WMAs Table J-44 Definitions for Climate Change Projection Confidence Ratings Table J-45 Definitions for Sensitivity to Climate Change Impacts Table J-46 Definitions for Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Impacts Table J-47 Matrix to Determine Climate Change Vulnerability Table J-48 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA), North Coast Region

APPENDIX K FINANCING HISTORY & FUTURE FINANCING
Table K-49 Summary of NCRP Use of IRWM Funds
Table K-50 Summary of Funding and Financing to Date
Table K-51 Small Community Toolkit Elements
Table K-52 Disadvantaged Community Demonstration Projects Table K-53 Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program
Table K-54 Common Local Agency Funding Mechanisms
Table K-55 Summary of Funding Agencies, Mandates and Eligibility Table K-56 NCRP Funding Opportunity Descriptions by Type

APPENDIX L NCRP PROJECT INFORMATION
Table L-57 IRWM Proposition 50 Funded Projects
Table L-58 IRWM Proposition 84 – Funded Projects
Table L-59 Proposed NCRP IRWM Proposition 1 Round 1 Projects NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements ix
Table L-60 NCRP Projects – All projects
Table L-61 California Energy Commission Funded Projects – 2010

APPENDIX M NCRP PROJECT IMPACT & BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Table M-62 Minimum Estimated Annual Benefits, 2016 Dollars, by WMA Table M-63 Indicators of Project Impacts and Benefits
Table M-64 Benefits and Impacts of Proposition 50 Implementation Projects Table M-65 Benefits and Impacts of Proposition 84 Implementation Projects Table M-66 Estimated Project Benefits for Water Supply, Quality, & Services

APPENDIX N PROJECT & PROGRAM MONITORING & EVALUATION
Table N-67 Data Management and Dissemination
Table N-68 Monitoring Protocols for NCRP Project Evaluation Table N-69 Monitoring Plans of the North Coast Region
Table N-70 Indicators to Measure Attributes of Social & Environmental Equity Table N-71 NCRP Process Evaluation by IRWM Funding Round

LIST OF MAPS
MAP 1 THE NORTH COAST REGION
MAP 2 ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
MAP 3 LAND MANAGEMENT
MAP 4 CITIES, TOWNS & OTHER POPULATION CENTERS
MAP 5 URBAN BOUNDARIES & URBAN GROWTH AREAS
MAP 6 GENERAL PLAN & COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES
MAP 7 SPECIAL DISTRICTS (WATER RESOURCE RELATED)
MAP 8 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
MAP 9 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREAS
MAP 10 AVERAGE MINIMUM JANUARY TEMPERATURE (1971-2000)
MAP 11 AVERAGE MAXIMUM JULY TEMPERATURE (1971-2000)
MAP 12 ANNUAL AVERAGE PRECIPITATION (1971-2000)
MAP 13 LAND COVER
MAP 14 NON-SOIL BIOMASS
MAP 15 PROTECTED AREA LAND MANAGEMENT
MAP 16 MANAGEMENT STATUS OF PROTECTED LANDS
MAP 17 SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL/ WILDERNESS AREAS
MAP 18 SALMONID EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS
MAP 19 CRITICAL HABITATS (NON-SALMONID)
MAP 20 SALMONID CRITICAL HABITATS
MAP 21 FLOOD ZONES
MAP 22 SEA LEVEL RISE & COASTAL INUNDATION
MAP 23 SURFACE WATERS
MAP 24 IMPAIRED WATER BODIES [303(D) LISTED]
MAP 25 GROUNDWATER BASINS & SUB-BASINS
MAP 26 AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF (1971-2099)
MAP 27 AVERAGE ANNUAL RECHARGE (1971-2000)
MAP 33 WILDFIRE RISK (1971-2000)
MAP 34 POTENTIAL WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
x Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 35 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE
MAP 36 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (MHI)
MAP 37 FIRE HISTORY
MAP 38 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
MAP 39 ELECTRIC POWER INFRASTRUCTURE
MAP 40 SEA LEVEL RISE IN ARCATA BAY, CRESCENT CITY, AND ENVIRONS MAP 41 PROJECTED COASTAL FLOOD EXTENT (2000-2100)
MAP 42 PROJECTED SUMMER TEMPERATURES
MAP 43 PROJECTED WINTER TEMPERATURES
MAP 44 PROJECTED PRECIPITATION
MAP 45 PROJECTED SNOWPACK (WARM/MODERATE RAINFALL SCENARIO) MAP 46 CLIMATIC WATER DEFICIT
MAP 47 PROJECTED RECHARGE
MAP 48 PROJECTED RUNOFF
MAP 49 FIRE THREAT
MAP 50 CARBON/BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS
MAP 51 NCRP PROJECT LOCATIONS IN THE NORTH COAST REGION

APPENDIX F WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA PROFILE
MAP F.1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREAS (WMAS)
MAP F.2 EEL RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
MAP F.3 HUMBOLDT BAY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
MAP F.4 KLAMATH WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
MAP F.5 NORTH COAST RIVERS WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
MAP F.6 RUSSIAN/ BODEGA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
MAP F.7 TRINITY RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements xi

ACRONYMS
5C Five Counties Salmonid
Conservation Program
AF acre-feet
ASBS Area of Special Biological Significance
BLM US Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
CARCD California Association of Resource
Conservation Districts
CCA Critical Coastal Area
CCC California Coastal Commission
CDF California Department of Forestry
CDFG California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CSD Community Services District
DAC Economically Disadvantaged Community
with an annual median household income
(MHI) that is less than 80% of the statewide
annual median household income.

DWR California Department of Water Resources
EDA Economically Distressed Area or community
with a population of 20,000 persons or less,
a rural county, or a reasonably isolated
and divisible segment of a larger area
where the segment of the population is
20,000 persons or less, with an MHI that
is less than 85 percent of the statewide
median household income, and with one
or more of the following conditions: (1)
Financial hardship; (2) Unemployment rate
at least 2 percent higher than the statewide
average; (3) Low population density.

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FS USDA Forest Service
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
JPA Joint Powers Authority
KRBFTF Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MMs management measures
MMA Marine Managed Area
MOMU Memorandum of Mutual Understanding
NCRP North Coast Resource Partnership
NCIRWMP North Coast Integrated Regional
Water Management Plan
NCRWMG North Coast Regional Water
Management Group
NCWAP North Coast Watershed Assessment Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPS nonpoint sources
NSO northern spotted owl
NWFP Northwest Forest Plan
PNAMP Pacific Northwest Aquatic
Monitoring Partnership
POTWs Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PRP Policy Review Panel
RNSP Redwood National and State Parks
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RCD Resource Conservation District
RWQMP Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan
SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency
SDAC Severely Economically Disadvantaged
Community with an annual household income
that is less than 60% of the statewide MHI.

SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SONCC Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast
SWAMP Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
SWQPA Stormwater Quality Protection Area
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWRP Storm Water Resource Plan
THP Timber Harvest Plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPRC Technical Peer Review Committee
TPZ Timber Production Zone
UCCE University of California Cooperative Extension
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geologic Survey
USDI U.S. Department of the Interior
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
xii Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to the Reviewers for all their
time and dedication to this project:

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP

POLICY REVIEW PANEL
Chair: Supervisor Judy Morris, Trinity County
Vice-Chair: Leaf Hillman, Director of
Natural Resources, Karuk Tribe
Buzz Ward, Social Services Coordinator,
Pit River Tribe (alternate)
Supervisor Gerry Hemmingsen, Del Norte County
Supervisor Chris Howard, Del Norte County
Supervisor Bob Berkowitz, Del Norte County (alternate)
Supervisor Steve Madrone, Humboldt County
Supervisor Mike Wilson, Humboldt County
Supervisor Rex Bohn, Humboldt County (alternate)
Supervisor Carre Brown, Mendocino County
Supervisor John McCowen, Mendocino County
Supervisor Dan Gjerde, Mendocino County (alternate)
Supervisor Geri Byrne, Modoc County
Supervisor Brandon Criss, Siskiyou County
Supervisor Ray Haupt, Siskiyou County
Supervisor Lisa L. Nixon, Siskiyou County (alternate)
Supervisor James Gore, Sonoma County
Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, Sonoma County
Grant Davis, Sonoma County Water Agency (alternate)
Brandi Brown, Redwood Valley Little River
Band of Pomo, Southern District
Nathan Rich, Water Quality Specialist,
Kashia Band of Pomo (alternate)
Supervisor Jeremy Brown, Trinity County

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP

TECHNICAL PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE
Co-Chair: Sandra Perez, Program Manager, Five Counties
Salmonid Conservation Program, Trinity County
Co-Chair: Dale Roberts, Engineer, Sonoma
County Water Agency, Sonoma County
Emily Luscombe, Cahto Indian Tribe
of Laytonville Rancheria
Jim Barnts, Director of Public Works, Del Norte County
Hank Seemann, Deputy Director, Environmental
Services, Public Works Department, Humboldt County
John Friedenbach, General Manager,
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
Joe Scriven, Project Manager/Fisheries Biologist,
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District
Sean Curtis, Modoc County Natural
Resources, Modoc County
Toz Soto, Senior Fisheries Biologist,
Karuk Tribe, Northern District
Megan Van Pelt, Resighini Rancheria (alternate)
Rick Dean, Deputy Director of Environmental
Health, Siskiyou County
Wayne Haydon, Certified Engineering
Geologist, Sonoma County
Chris Ott, Dry Creek Rancheria
Wes Scribner, General Manager, Weaverville
Community Services District, Trinity County
Mark Lancaster, Director, Five Counties Salmonid
Conservation Program, Trinity County (alternate)

NORTH COAST TRIBAL COORDINATOR
Sherri Norris, California Indian Environmental
Alliance, Tribal Engagement Coordinator

COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT NCRP

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT STAFF
Cybelle Immitt, Natural Resources Planning Manager
Denise Monday, Environmental Analyst
Julia Cavalli, Environmental Analyst
Lauren Rowen, Environmental Analyst

MEMORANDUM OF MUTUAL

UNDERSTANDINGS SIGNATORIES
Del Norte County:

County of Del Norte
Big Rock Community Service District
City of Crescent City
Del Norte Resource Conservation District
Gasquet Community Service District
Smith River Community Services District
Humboldt County:

County of Humboldt
Briceland Community Service District
City of Arcata
City of Blue Lake
City of Eureka
City of Ferndale
City of Fortuna
City of Rio Dell
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements xiii
City of Trinidad
Fieldbrook Community Service District
Fieldbrook Glendale Community Service District
Garberville Sanitary District
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation
and Conservation District
Humboldt Municipal Water District
Humboldt Community Service District
Humboldt County Resource Conservation District
Hydesville Community Water District
Loleta Community Service District
Mattole Restoration Council
McKinleyville Community Service District
Myers Flat Mutual Water System
Orick Community Service District
Redway Community Service District
Sanctuary Forest Inc.

Weott Community Services District
Westport County Water District
Westhaven Community Service District
Lake County:

County of Lake
Lake County Watershed Protection District
Mendocino County:

Brooktrails Township Community Service District
County of Mendocino
City of Willits
City of Ukiah
City of Fort Bragg
Covelo Community Service District
Eel River Watershed Improvement Group
Gualala River Watershed Council
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District
Mendocino County Water Agency
Mendocino Woodlands Camp Association
Noyo Watershed Alliance
Pacific Reef Water District
Redwood Forest Foundation Inc.

Redwood Valley County Water District
Resort Improvement District No. 1
Modoc County:

County of Modoc
Newell County Water District
Siskiyou County:

County of Siskiyou
City of Etna
City of Weed
Happy Camp Community Service District
Happy Camp Sanitary District
Montague Water Conservation District
Scott River Watershed Council
Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District
Sonoma County:

County of Sonoma
Circuit Rider Productions, Inc.

City of Cloverdale
City of Rohnert Park
City of Santa Rosa
City of Healdsburg
City of Sebastopol
City of Cotati
Dutch Bill Creek Watershed Group
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
Graton Community Service District
Gualala River Watershed Council
Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation
LandPaths
Occidental Arts and Ecology Center
Sonoma Ecology Center
Sonoma County Water Agency
Sebastopol Water Information Group
Sonoma Resource Conservation District
Town of Windsor
Westminster Woods Environmental Education Program
Trinity County:

County of Trinity
Lewiston Park Mutual Water Company
Lewiston Community Services District
Northwest CA Resource Conservation & Development Council Salyer Mutual Water District
Trinity County Resource Conservation District
Trinity County Water Works District #1
Weaverville Sanitary District
Weaverville Community Service District
xiv Table of Contents, Appendices & Acknowledgements
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 The Watershed Research and Training Institute
Willow Creek Community Services District
Tribal Nations:

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria
Blue Lake Rancheria
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
Hoopa Valley Tribe
Karuk Tribe
Kashia Band of Pomo Indians
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
Pit River Tribe
Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians
Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians
Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, (previously Smith River Rancheria) Trinidad Rancheria
Wiyot Tribe
Yurok Tribe
Other Entities:

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Trout Unlimited
Community Clean Water Institute
Russian River Watershed Association
North Coast Resource Conservation & Development Council Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands
Restoration Association
California State Parks
Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
Institute for Fisheries Resources
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
California Land Stewardship Institute
E Center
Botanical Dimensions
North Coast Regional Land Trust
The Conservation Fund
Redwood Community Action Agency
Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc.

PROJECT TEAM:

Sonoma County Water Agency
West Coast Watershed
Reza Environmental
California Indian Environmental Alliance
Tukman Geospatial
Woods Biological Research & Services
DowHouse
Second printing April 2006
Third printing July 2007
Fourth printing August 2014
Fifth printing January 2020
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 1 PREAMBLE
“The North Coast Resource Partnership Plan is by design a voluntary, non-regulatory, stakeholder-driven planning framework meant to emphasize shared priorities and local autonomy, authority, knowledge, and approaches to achieving Tribal, state, regional, and local priorities related to North Coast water infrastructure, watersheds, public health, and economic vitality. The NCRP focuses on areas of common interest and concern to North Coast stakeholders and on attracting funding to the North Coast Region, and recognizes unique local solutions in different parts of the Region.” [NCRP Section 1.2.1 “Statement of Purpose”]
A special acknowledgement of our state and local funding sponsors:
2 NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 1 THE NORTH COAST REGION
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach 3
1 GOVERNANCE AND

PLANNING APPROACH
The North Coast Resource Partnership (NCRP) is an
innovative, stakeholder-driven collaboration among
local governments, Tribes, watershed groups, and other
interested partners focused on integrated resource
planning and local project implementation in California’s North Coast region. The NCRP is led by locally elected
county and Tribal officials from the following North Coast counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Modoc,
Siskiyou, Sonoma and Trinity. Initiated in 2005, the
NCRP has worked collaboratively on water and energy
management challenges to: reduce conflicts; integrate
federal, state, regional and local priorities; and utilize a multi-benefit approach to funding for the highest priority project needs throughout the region. The overarching
themes of the NCRP include salmonid recovery,
enhancing beneficial uses of water, intra-regional
cooperation, energy independence and climate change
mitigation & adaptation, and enhancing public health
and economic vitality in disadvantaged communities.

The North Coast Resource Partnership
emphasizes the following:
• Creation of a sustainable environmental and
socio-economic framework for the North Coast,
by engaging in integrated planning for water
infrastructure and natural resources. Planning and
project focus areas include the recovery of salmonid
populations, enhancement of the beneficial uses
of water, support for energy independence, local
autonomy and intra-regional cooperation.
» Outreach, education and inclusion for
all interested stakeholders in the North
Coast region via the website, workshops,
conferences, meetings and printed materials.
» Transparent and inclusive communication
and decision making.
» Enhancement of water infrastructure
and natural resources values in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

MAP 2 ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES

1.1 NCRP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The establishment of NCRP goals and objectives was
accomplished with input from the Policy Review Panel
(PRP), Technical Peer Review Committee (TPRC), resource agencies, and stakeholders in the North Coast Region
during focused strategic planning meetings, as well as
ongoing stakeholder input to staff and PRP members
at public meetings, workshops and correspondence.

Input was considered by the PRP and a final set of
regional goals and objectives were selected. Per the
adaptive management approach of the NCRP, the PRP
reevaluates the objectives during periodic Plan updates to ensure that they continue to accurately reflect those priorities that address water and energy management
issues of greatest importance to those living in North
Coast communities (see Appendix A, Table A-1,Matrix of
NCRP Objectives & Statewide IRWM Priorities and Table
A-2,Matrix of NCRP Objectives & Local Project Priorities).

The NCRP places an emphasis on local autonomy,
allowing each county, Tribe or sub-region to address and implement NCRP goals and objectives in a way that works best locally. This approach has served the Region well in finding common ground within areas of potential conflict and respects local control, knowledge, and approaches
to achieving regional objectives. The NCRP framework
4 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 provides a means for local entities to address state and regional goals and objectives when implementing projects to meet local water, climate, and energy-related needs
and provides the structure and flexibility necessary to promote cohesion and accommodate unique planning
and implementation approaches region-wide. As part of
this framework, strategies adopted by the California Air Resources Board in its AB 32 Scoping Plan (see Appendix A, Table A-3, ARB Scoping Plan Strategies Considered in NCRP Strategy & Goal Development) were evaluated for
their applicability in meeting NCRP Plan objectives and goals related to protection and improvement of water
quality. The Strategic Growth Council in 2012 provided
funding to the NCRP to develop a Regional Climate
Mitigation and Energy Independence Plan, Regional
Climate Adaptation Plan, and a Regional Greenprint that voluntarily complied with SB 375 (Transportation planning) and implemented the intent of SB 732 (Regional Planning for Transportation, Housing and the Environment).

Through the process of Greenprint development (Healthy
Watersheds, Vital Communities, Thriving Economies:

Actionable Strategies for the North Coast Region), the
NCRP synchronized state priorities such as SB 375, AB 32, and SB 732 with local priorities and operating methods.

Additionally, specific instances where AB 32 has been
incorporated into planning strategies or implementation actions are documented throughout this plan. Other
state plans included in NCRP Plan development through
the years have included the State Water Resources
Control Board Watershed Management Chapter, North
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Plan, and the
Department of Water Resources California Water Plan,
the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wildlife Action Plan.

For the 2014 and 2019 updates, the original NCRP
objectives were subject to a process of revision and
refinement under the direction of the PRP and with
input from the Region’s stakeholders. Thirteen NCRP
objectives are now subsumed under six Plan goals. All
the objectives are interrelated, and are relevant at both the local and regional scale. Objectives are organized
thematically, by goals, and are not ranked or listed in order of priority. Although NCRP objectives are not
prioritized, NCRP project proposals that ultimately
implement the goals are prioritized. Prior to each funding proposal, the PRP gives direction and sets criteria in
terms of selecting projects. Due to the nature of the
funding opportunities, certain objectives are emphasized with each funding cycle. For example, the 2014 DWR
Proposition 84 RFP focused on drought adaptation and
projects that implemented NCRP objectives 8 and 10 were prioritized. Thus, through project prioritization, specific objectives are prioritized based on the critical needs of the region at that time, but the NCRP has the flexibility of prioritizing other objectives as needed. The project prioritization process is described in Section 4.1 Project Application, Review & Selection Process. The process to measure progress toward meeting the NCRP Goals and
Objectives are discussed in the Project and Program
Monitoring and Evaluation portion of the website and in Section 4.4 Project & Program Monitoring & Evaluation.

Goal 1: Intraregional Cooperation
& Adaptive Management
• Objective 1 — Respect local autonomy
and local knowledge in Plan and project
development and implementation
• Objective 2 — Provide an ongoing framework for
inclusive, efficient intraregional cooperation and
effective, accountable NCRP project implementation
• Objective 3 — Integrate Traditional
Ecological Knowledge in collaboration
with Tribes to incorporate these practices
into North Coast Projects and Plans
Goal 2: Economic Vitality
• Objective 4 — Ensure that economically
disadvantaged communities are supported
and that project implementation enhances the
economic vitality of disadvantaged communities
by improving built and natural infrastructure
systems and promoting adequate housing
• Objective 5 — Conserve and improve the
economic benefits of North Coast Region
working landscapes and natural areas
Goal 3: Ecosystem Conservation and Enhancement
• Objective 6 — Conserve, enhance, and
restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems,
including functions, habitats, and elements
that support biological diversity
• Objective 7 — Enhance salmonid populations
by conserving, enhancing, and restoring
required habitats and watershed processes
Goal 4: Beneficial Uses of Water
• Objective 8 — Ensure water supply reliability
and quality for municipal, domestic,
agricultural, Tribal and recreational uses while
minimizing impacts to sensitive resources
• Objective 9 — Improve drinking water
quality and water related infrastructure
to protect public health, with a focus on
economically disadvantaged communities
• Objective 10 — Protect groundwater resources
from over-drafting and contamination
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach 5
Goal 5: Climate Adaptation & Energy Independence
• Objective 11 — Address climate change
effects, impacts, and vulnerabilities, including
droughts, fires, floods, and sea level rise.

Develop adaptation strategies for local and
regional sectors to improve air and water
quality and promote public health and safety
• Objective 12 — Promote local energy independence,
water/ energy use efficiency, GHG emission
reduction, carbon sequestration, and jobs creation
Goal 6: Public Safety
• Objective 13 — Improve flood protection, forest and
community resiliency to reduce the public safety
impacts associated with floods and wildfires

1.1.1 INTEGRATION OF NCRP

GOALS & OBJECTIVES
NCRP goals and objectives form the foundation
for development, implementation, evaluation, and
adaptive management of the Plan and its projects. The
goals and objectives were conceived and developed
explicitly to address North Coast issues and provide
some resolution to conflicts inherent in considering
and addressing multiple resource and waterrelated priorities across such a diverse Region.

1.2 NCRP PLANNING APPROACH
Leadership, governance, policy and decision making
is provided by the NCRP Policy Review Panel (PRP).

The PRP consists of two representatives appointed by
each County’s Board of Supervisors and three Tribal
Representatives appointed by North Coast Tribes.

Scientific and technical review is provided by the Technical Peer Review Committee (TPRC), project staff, consultants, and the stakeholders within the North Coast Region.

The TPRC is comprised of technical experts appointed
by each County’s Board of Supervisors and Tribal
representatives. The TPRC reviews and evaluates the
development of NCRP Plans and proposed projects based
on technical and selection criteria approved by the PRP.

The NCRP approach to planning acknowledges and
incorporates the unique issues, information and
planning approaches of local areas (watersheds,
Tribal lands and counties) within a framework that
integrates local, regional and statewide priorities.

This flexible and adaptive approach allows the NCRP
to accomplish effective planning at a large scale
while retaining and enhancing high-resolution data
and planning at the local scale. The NCRP acts as a
nexus between statewide and local planning efforts.

The NCRP is committed to the ongoing refinement
of its associated plans, which are intended to be
“living documents” that incorporate new information
and monitoring feedback to reprioritize project
needs, reanalyze policy, and make other changes to
the NCRP structure and function as necessary.

Further, the NCRP is committed to communication
outside of the region and practices this by participating in statewide efforts. The NCRP participates in statewide planning processes including review of and comments
on draft state regulatory and grant documents,
participation in the Roundtable of Regions, and
one-on-one meetings and multi-agency meetings with
state and federal agencies. NCRP conferences include
speakers from state and federal agencies and the
state government, and outreach is conducted to these
entities to encourage attendance. Through pursuing
open dialogue at multiple levels of governance, the
NCRP is able to serve as an information, networking,
and coordination hub amongst the region, other
regional efforts, and federal and state agencies.

To this end, the NCRP was recognized as among the
leading regional collaboratives from across California
when it was invited to join the Alliance of Regional
Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA) as an
affiliate member. The NCRP attends ARCCA executive
committee meetings and attends quarterly meetings
on behalf of North Coast stakeholders. The group
proactively works together to advance climate adaptation statewide and increase local capacity to build community resilience through knowledge exchange, targeted
problem-solving, and implementation of joint campaigns
to break down silos across sectors and jurisdictions.

1.2.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The NCRP is by design a voluntary, non-regulatory,
stakeholder-driven planning framework meant to
emphasize shared priorities and local autonomy, authority, knowledge, and approaches to achieving Tribal, state,
6 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 regional, and local priorities related to North Coast water infrastructure, watersheds, public health, and economic vitality. The NCRP focuses on areas of common interest
and concern to North Coast stakeholders and on attracting funding to the North Coast Region, and recognizes
unique local solutions in different parts of the Region.

1.2.2 LOCAL AUTONOMY &

JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY
While the NCRP engages at the North Coast Region
scale, the framework has a strong inherent emphasis on
local planning, data gathering, issues analysis, project identification/ prioritization, and portfolio implementation.

The NCRP recognizes that the approaches and priorities
of local counties, Tribal lands, municipalities, and
watersheds vary throughout the Region: indeed, “one size does not fit all.” For example, policy and project priorities for integrated water and energy management in Rohnert
Park (Sonoma County in the south) may be very different from those in Etna (Siskiyou County in the north), yet both counties’ local communities value functioning watersheds, healthy communities, energy independence, and viable
local economies. Additionally, the NCRP recognizes that Tribes are sovereign nations, and as such, coordination with Tribes is on a government-to-government basis.

To support local autonomy, specific planning processes
have been developed to allow local entities and/ or
jurisdictions to “opt-out” of a specific Plan element they find unacceptable, but in a way that respects funding
requirements and does not jeopardize NCRP eligibility
or project funding opportunities. If a county or Tribe
chooses to opt-out of a particular Plan element, this
fact will be documented in the NCRP plans, relevant
funding applications and communications. Additionally,
the NCRP attempts to use language in its plans that
respects local autonomy and preferences while meeting
shared objectives and funding eligibility requirements.

Examples might include the use of the term “energy
independence” to document strategies and projects that
reduce GHG emissions and reliance on foreign oil, while still meeting state goals and eligibility requirements
related to “climate change adaptation and mitigation.”
Issues related to the jurisdictional authority of Tribal, local, regional, state, and federal governments often
are beyond the scope of this voluntary, non-binding
collaboration represented by the NCRP. The focus of
the NCRP is on resolving shared challenges facing
the economically disadvantaged North Coast Region,
including failing infrastructure, public health, energy independence, watershed function, and economic vitality.

The NCRP is strongly focused on planning towards project implementation. Decision-making authority for the NCRP
project-selection process is exercised by the NCRP
Policy Review Panel (PRP) as the governing body for
the regional NCRP process: individual county and Tribal appointees to the PRP do not determine the projects
that move forward from their particular county or Tribal area. However, all projects are subject to relevant local, regional, state, Tribal, and federal laws and policies; may not be in conflict with these laws and policies; and must meet minimum thresholds establishing their adherence
to these policies. Additionally, the project selection
process includes mechanisms requiring notification of
relevant local entities (including counties and Tribes). The NCRP explicitly recognizes the jurisdictional authority of private property rights: all projects submitted to the NCRP must have the documented permission of the
landowner on whose property the work will take place.

The NCRP intends that:
• The NCRP framework supports regional planning
while recognizing that “one size does not fit all”
• The NCRP framework respects local autonomy,
jurisdictions, and planning processes
• The NCRP incorporates the existing studies/
reports in the Region that have been produced
and are being planned by local and state entities,
some of whom are working to consolidate their
reports to identify local needs and data gaps
• The NCRP helps, rather than hinders, local planning
entities with local priority-planning activities that
are in alignment with NCRP Plan objectives
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach 7
• NCRP participants voluntarily comply with
AB 321 and SB 3752 and implement the intent
of SB 7323 for the planning, selection, and
implementation of NCRP projects to improve air
quality and reduce conventional energy use
• The NCRP framework has a strong inherent
emphasis on local planning, data gathering,
issues analysis, project identification,
prioritization, and implementation
• Land use planning should be developed by counties
(i.e. not stipulated in the NCRP or by the state),
all of which have developed their own land use
plans, planning processes, and planning priorities
To this end, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors
would like to strictly limit their participation to
regional opportunities to fund specific projects related to energy independence, water and wastewater
infrastructure and broadband infrastructure. The
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors wishes to retain
its independent sovereignty and jurisdiction over land
use policies and General Planning and does not want
to participate in regional planning or harmonization
regarding climate change, habitat assessment and
“protection of priority conservation areas, “model
ordinances or modular planning elements, “Regional
Greenprints,” or the valuation of “ecosystem services.” Resolve Jurisdictional Issues with
Watershed-Based Planning
The NCRP framework facilitates the utilization of a
watershed-based planning approach to address multiple
stakeholder concerns. The use of local physical boundaries alleviates pressure on local jurisdictional boundaries
in order to address sometimes-conflicting interests.

Watershed-based planning recognizes the fundamental
links between upland and aquatic resources, and the
functional links between land and water management
strategies. This approach, as demonstrated since the
NCRP inception, is a proven alternative to relying on
traditional jurisdictional boundaries. Rather than by
county, municipality, or special district, boundaries of watershed management areas (WMAs), watersheds,
IRWM planning areas, and local project implementation
areas, for example, may be applied as the physical
units for local land and water management.
1 California Assembly Bill No. 32 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/ bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf 2 California Senate Bill No. 375 (2008) at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf 3 Californai Senate Bill No. 732 (2007) at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_732_bill_20080930_chaptered.html

1.2.3 TRANSPARENCY & INCLUSION
Since its inception, the NCRP has maintained a strong
commitment to process transparency and stakeholder
inclusion. This has been achieved by ensuring that
all NCRP meetings are open and welcoming to the
public; have been properly noticed; have meeting
agendas and summaries on the NCRP website; and
that at each meeting there is sufficient time allotted
for public comment. Meetings are spatially and
temporally rotated throughout the Region to increase
opportunities for stakeholder attendance and to
provide for equitable local representation across the
Region. Meeting agendas, summaries and materials
can be found on the NCRP Resources web page.

NCRP Quarterly Meetings are held on the third
Friday of the months of January, April, July
and October in the following general locations
unless otherwise approved by PRP decision.
• January — Ukiah area
• April — Yreka area
• July — Eureka area
• October — Weaverville area
In November 2011, the NCRP and its partners adopted
a revised Memorandum of Mutual Understanding
(MoMU) agreeing that all NCRP meetings are subject
to and carried out in accordance with the Ralph M.

Brown Act. The Brown Act embodies the philosophy
that public entities exist for the purpose of conducting public business and as such, the public has the right to know how its decisions are being made. By formalizing
this provision in the governing documents, the NCRP
formally declared its intent to continue to conduct
its actions openly and to facilitate continued public
participation in its deliberations. The NCRP Leadership Guidance Handbook, which is reviewed and approved on
an annual basis, describes the governance structure,
goals/objectives, and policies and documents PRP
decisions made during the quarterly meetings.
8 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

1.2.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Since its inception, the NCRP process has been inclusive of all of the Region’s stakeholders and has provided
opportunities for a diversity of stakeholders to participate in all stages of the planning process and project
implementation. Stakeholder support and participation
is vital to implement projects that support NCRP Goals
and Objectives and identify local needs and the projects to address them. The NCRP uses a variety of strategies
to identify individuals and groups with a potential stake in regional planning and project implementation. The
NCRP outreach mechanisms address the range of water
management and stakeholder issues within the Region
and provide for a balanced geographical representation.

These efforts also promote access to, and collaboration with, people or entities with diverse viewpoints (see
Appendix B, Stakeholder Engagement & Integration).

1.2.4.1 PUBLIC MEETINGS & WORKSHOPS
The primary interface for stakeholder involvement
in the NCRP is through regular meetings and topicbased local workshops, which are announced to interested parties via the NCRP website and email
listserve. Since 2005, the PRP and TPRC have met
on an ongoing and regular basis to review the Plan
and NCRP process; discuss water, energy, climate
change, environmental, and economic issues related
to the North Coast; evaluate funding opportunities;
review legislative and policy issues; and discuss and
review North Coast projects. In 2011, the PRP adopted
a regular quarterly meeting schedule (third Friday of
January, April, July, October) that alternates between
Mendocino, Siskiyou Humboldt, and Trinity county
locations in an effort to make it easier for those with limited mobility to attend at least one quarterly meeting.

All PRP and TPRC meetings are open to the public and
public participation is encouraged. Prior to the TPRC
and PRP meetings, the meeting date, location, time,
and a preliminary agenda are posted on the NCRP
website and, in accordance with the Brown Act, meeting
agendas are publicly noticed at each meeting location.

Each meeting agenda designates time for the public
to comment on any items included on the agenda or
any other items of interest and that time period often
extends well beyond the time allotted on the agenda.

Meeting agendas, materials, summaries, and a list
of attendees are archived on the NCRP website.

Barriers to participation are related to the region’s
dispersed geography and mostly economically
disadvantaged status. To alleviate these issues,
meetings are rotated geographically and agendas and
meeting notes are provided on the NCRP website.

In addition to regular NCRP meetings, dozens of
facilitated workshops on priority topics have been
organized for stakeholders. Workshops are coordinated
by NCRP staff and have provided information pertinent
to regional water management planning to groups of
10-70 individuals. Topics have included local, regional and statewide goals and objectives; information
on the North Coast regional planning framework;
opportunities for input on NCRP Plan documents
and assessments; and opportunities for funding.

Finally, these regular and publicly-noticed meetings and workshops have been supplemented by a number of direct
meetings and coordination with local Tribes, watershed
groups, cities, and others to encourage representative
participation by all potential stakeholder groups. These meetings are scheduled as warranted and may be held at
the request of NCRP, or of the interested stakeholder(s).

1.2.4.2 NCRP WEBSITE
The NCRP website provides for information sharing
among a diverse audience across a large, rural,
decentralized region. The website was developed to
extend outreach capabilities while reducing or eliminating travel-related restrictions that could limit participation.

The website provides background information about
the North Coast region and NCRP process; links users
to NCRP programs and projects; and offers a library of
relevant planning documents and resources. An on-line
mapping feature allows users to view various watershed, natural resources, socio-economic, and jurisdictional
data as well as proposed project locations. Website
users also are alerted to public meetings, process
decisions, funding opportunities, and NCRP events.

1.2.4.3 EMAIL LISTSERVE
Email, e-blasts and e-newsletters have all proved to be an effective mechanism for communication between
North Coast stakeholders and the NCRP. The website
email listserve (approximately 1,500 members), which
interested stakeholders may choose to join via the NCRP website, is used to inform stakeholders of upcoming
NCRP events (meetings, conferences, workshops), share
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach 9
critical news items, access Plan drafts, and distribute information about potential funding opportunities.

All correspondence to stakeholders contains contact
information for NCRP staff so that questions or concerns can be addressed quickly and directly. The website and
e-mail listserve have been very successful at conveying large amounts of complex information to a wide variety
of stakeholders dispersed across the North Coast.

1.2.4.4 INTERVIEWS
Over the years, the NCRP has conducted periodic
interviews of NCRP leadership, project sponsors,
technical experts, and North Coast stakeholders to
solicit specific information to identify and evaluate
ongoing planning efforts, documents, and processes;
highlight data gaps and data needs; and foster
incorporation of local land and water planning
priorities. Interview results are summarized and posted on the NCRP website. Interview topics include:
• Local and regional vision, conflicts, goals,
constraints, and opportunities
• Priorities for economically
disadvantaged communities
• Priorities for local Tribes and Tribal lands
• Strategies for addressing climate
change vulnerability
• Priorities for energy efficiency/
independence/ security
• Priorities for integrated water management
• Storm and flood water management opportunities
• Identification of key water infrastructure
and watershed projects
• North Coast financing needs and solutions
• Forest health, wildfire risks, and
innovative management
• Access to drinking water, water quality
and infrastructure, and innovative
responses to water issues
• Flooding impacts and flood risk

1.2.4.5 NCRP CONFERENCES AND EVENTS
Multi-day regional conferences on NCRP-related topics
have been held in the North Coast in 2007 and 2013.

Nearly 250 stakeholders from the Region attended
each conference including, local and state elected
officials, Tribal representatives and leaders, local
governments, water/wastewater entities, advocacy
groups, non-governmental organizations, Resource
Conservation Districts, and business groups. During
both conferences, NCRP member agencies provided
scholarships to more than 40 entities to ensure that
no one who wished to attend would be excluded from
participating due to inability to pay the conference fee.

Throughout the conferences, state and federal agency
representatives played key roles in information
dissemination, participating in Plenary Sessions, panel sessions, as individual speakers, and as workshop
leaders. The conferences offered half-day technical
workshops including a grant-writing workshop which
provided practical, hands-on information for those
interested in submitting a grant application through
the NCRP process and other funding agencies.

In April, 2016, the NCRP held a Ten-Year Celebration
of Collaboration & Positive Impact in Yreka. The event
included project tours and an interactive session on
strategies to enhance the land and communities in
the North Coast region. Over a hundred individuals
representing state and local government and agencies
as well as water suppliers, wastewater treatment
operators, and other stakeholders attended the event.

Continuing the celebratory theme, in October 2016, the
NCRP held a Celebration Workshop in Sonoma County
for funders, elected officials, and project partners
and project proponents. This event was noticed on
the NCRP website with targeted individuals receiving
invitations; over a hundred stakeholders attended.

Goals of the workshop were to enhance and expand
understanding of the NCRP among elected officials
and funders, to positively influence perceptions of
NCRP impact and the need for regional investment,
and to expand the circle of supporters of the NCRP.

The April 2017 conference was entitled Integrated
Strategies for the North Coast and focused on the
North Coast as a source region for water, carbon,
biodiversity and rural innovation. The conference
consisted of morning speakers and three panel
sessions with facilitated audience discussion.

Increasingly, the NCRP quarterly meetings have become
venues for synchronizing state, federal and local
priorities. In October 2018, a NCRP quarterly meeting
was held that included a panel discussions featuring
representatives from state and federal legislatures
and agencies including the Tribal Policy Advisor
and Assistant Deputy Director from the Department
of Water Resources (DWR), the Executive Director
from the Strategic Growth Council (SGC), Director
of the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Resilience Program Manager of the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research (OPR), and Undersecretary
of the Department of Food and Agriculture. Another
panel comprised of Assemblymember Jim Wood
10 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 and staff from the offices of Congressman Huffman,
Assemblymember Dahle and Senator McGuire provided
an update on recent legislation affecting forest resource improvements, agriculture, and forest practice rules
and lead a discussion on State priorities related to
forest health, climate resiliency and rural community
benefits. During a subsequent session, when future
priorities for the NCRP were being discussed, the idea
of continuing to work in the “radical middle,” integration of Tribal communities, and renewed commitment to
the partnerships formed during the IRWM process.

Seventy-six stakeholders participated in this meeting.

In conjunction with the University of California, Berkeley, OPR and Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, the
NCRP co-sponsored the Climate Science Symposium for
the North Coast Region, held in Eureka in mid-December, 2018. The two-day conference consisted of presentations and panel discussions sharing information and outcomes
from the State’s Fourth Climate Assessment, panel
discussions identifying state funding strategies to build local climate resilience, interactive break-out sessions on technical, financial, and capacity-related barriers
and strategies to overcome them, and technical tools
and resources for climate adaptation planning.

1.2.4.6 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Early in the NCRP development process, the TPRC
became aware that many of the NCRP project funding
applications from disadvantaged communities and
rural areas were lacking the technical expertise evident in applications from entities with greater human
and financial resources. The PRP considered this
information when prioritizing projects and revised the
weight given to projects benefitting DACs, specifically those projects identified by the applicants and TPRC
as addressing threats to public health. This process
also brought awareness to the regional nature of these
issues: that these projects and communities weren’t
isolated, but spanned the entire North Coast Region,
and that the water supply, quality, and ecosystem
benefits from solving these individual problems would
yield results at local, regional, and statewide levels.

Since then, the PRP has consistently committed NCRP
staff and subcontractors to provide technical assistance to project proponents (or potential proponents) in need of it. Assistance has included project feasibility studies development, grant-writing technical assistance,
engineering support, GIS mapping, eligibility, economic analysis, and budgetary advice to project proponents
in need. Technical-assistance workshops were held
at different locations in the Region prior to NCRP
proposal solicitation rounds, in order to ensure
accessibility to a broad number of participants. Additional technical assistance was provided during the project
submittal process, including budgets, economics,
project evaluation, work plans, documentation,
and troubleshooting upload tool problems.

The NCRP Water and Wastewater Service Provider
Outreach and Support Program (WSWW) identified and
provided technical assistance for underserved rural
communities who faced daunting water supply and
wastewater challenges. In 2011, DWR awarded funding
for this pilot program to improve local capacity and
quality of services of small water supply and wastewater providers in the North Coast Region. The funding
enabled development of the NCRP Small Community
Toolbox, which provides resources to help with system
maintenance, replacement and upgrades as well as to
assist in the project development process. The Toolbox
is intended to help small utilities develop a “first order” understanding of what their options are, how they should begin to budget, where to find funding opportunities,
and how to get help. This resource is organized around
the steps associated with the “Utility Management
Cycle”. Tools contained in the Toolbox may be provided
as documents, maps, charts, or links to web resources.

The NCRP Economically Disadvantaged Community and
Tribal Involvement (DACTI) Program provides technical
assistance to disadvantaged and Tribal communities
using a “circuit rider” element to facilitate Peer to
Peer technical service. This model is offering the
following types of technical assistance services:
• Preliminary planning and engineering to upgrade
and enhance deteriorating infrastructure
• Assessments of pollution, public
health, and water supply threats
• Preliminary project design and feasibility analysis
• Development of funding strategies through
grants, loans, and/or rate recovery
• Circuit-rider programs to provide
on-site assessments
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach 11
• Provision of templates and procedures to improve
system operations and/or funding requests
• Preparation of applications for funding
• Permitting and environmental review
These services are meant to supplement existing efforts and coordination with the State Water Resource Control
Board (SWRCB) Proposition 1 Technical Assistance
program is built into the evaluation process.

The NCRP DACTI also includes administration of
needs assessment surveys and in-person interviews
developed to specifically address the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged and Tribal communities. Survey
responses are being used to develop topical workshops
and trainings tailored to geographic region, community
type, and needs identified through the survey and
interview process. Approximately 6–10 workshops will
be conducted and provide sessions on technologies
and activities relevant to the North Coast, current
challenges associated with permitting and environmental compliance, disadvantaged community strategies,
funding opportunities, integration of NCRP objectives
and interactive sessions to determine project priorities of North Coast economically disadvantaged communities.

The DACTI Program is also updating the existing
Toolbox Utility Management Cycle elements and
adding additional elements to respond to water-related
environmental resource management. The Program
provided Proposition 1 IRWM funding by assisting Tribes and disadvantaged communities to identify projects
that are competitive and responsive to state criteria
and requirements and assist with the development of
project proposals including solicitation of additional
support for engineering and other technical elements.

Finally, during the DACTI outreach and assistance process, the NCRP has identified appropriate demonstration
projects and innovative programs that reflect the
diversity of the region and provide an opportunity to
“beta test” the improved Small Community Toolbox,
provide substantive technical and engineering support to providers, and allow for the development of case studies to serve as examples for the North Coast Region.

1.2.5 LONG-TERM PLANNING

1.2.5.1 NCRP PLAN UPDATES & READOPTION
With respect to long-term planning, the NCRP is using
an adaptive management approach for goal and objective
and policy evaluation, project selection, and plan
implementation. As part of its adaptive management
framework, the NCRP updates Plans and reports as new
information is brought forward, regional assessments
are completed, project impacts and benefits are realized and documented, and statewide guidelines and priorities shift. As part of the update process, the PRP reviews
any new requirements or proposed changes to the
existing Plan and decides what elements need to be
included in updated drafts (e.g. draft outlines, annotated outlines, full drafts). NCRP staff works with the PRP
and TPRC to develop new draft language and/ or to
revise existing language. Draft elements are presented
at NCRP meetings and posted on the NCRP website.

Public comment periods/opportunities are made
available to stakeholders who wish to provide input on
these elements. The Plan is presented to respective
Tribal Councils and county Boards of Supervisors
for consideration and adoption/ re-adoption.

The NCRP demonstrates a commitment to an
adaptive management approach and flexible decisionsupport structure as seen, for example, in its ongoing improvement to governance structures and project
selection process, refinement of Plan objectives,
addition of key initiatives that meet North Coast
objectives, and exploration of financing alternatives.

The NCRP framework and planning process have
served as a vehicle for the identification of common
goals and a forum for discussion of contentious issues
as they emerge. With each successful negotiation and
milestone achieved, bonds between NCRP participants,
and individual commitments to the process are
strengthened. This forges the way for more complex
and inter-related future endeavors and increases
the likelihood of their successful negotiation.
12 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 The NCRP Leadership Guidance Handbook, which is
reviewed and approved on an annual basis, describes
the governance structure, goals/objectives, and policies and documents PRP decisions made during the quarterly
meetings as well as providing rules and guidance for
project prioritization in response to funding opportunities.

The handbook is the dynamic part of the NCRP Plan
which is updated yearly as part of the NCRP’s adaptive
management process. This allows the NCRP leadership
flexibility in adapting to changing environmental,
climatic, social, or political conditions without needing to allocate limited resources to completely revamping
more static sections of the Plan. During the yearly
update, the following sections of the Plan are reviewed:
• NCRP PRP, TPRC, Executive Committee
and Ad Hoc Committee membership
• Goals and Objectives
• NCRP Policies
• Project Review Criteria and Guidelines
• NCRP Projects
• Signatories to the Memorandum
of Mutual Understandings
• Integration of External Plans
As part of its long-term planning efforts, the NCRP
periodically examines funding and financing options.

The most recent, A Review and Assessment of Potential
Funding Sources for the North Coast Resource Partnership, was completed in July 2017 and is available on the NCRP website. For a more detailed discussion of how the
NCRP is ensuring long-term financial viability, please
see Section 3.6 Long-Term Economic & Financing Plan.

1.2.6 INTEGRATION
NCRP processes and plans integrate a combination of
physical, environmental, societal, economic, legal, and jurisdictional aspects of water and resource management into a single flexible program allowing it to function
as a unified effort. Three pertinent types of integration exhibited by the NCRP are stakeholder/ institutional
integration (e.g. engaging diverse stakeholders to
participate at all levels of the planning process), resource integration (e.g. combining or sharing multiple participant funds, data, protocols, and expertise; considering
both built and natural water resources), and project
implementation integration (e.g. identifying opportunities to benefit from economies of scale; considering the
needs of both specific local and overarching regional
interests, encouraging multi-benefit integrated projects).

The NCRP integrates long-term planning and highquality project implementation in a flexible, adaptive management framework that fosters coordination
and communication among all the diverse water
and watershed managers and users in the Region.

The Partnership acts as a nexus regionally — for
example the Small Community Toolbox was created
after extensive outreach to small community water
providers and wastewater treatment operators to
help with system maintenance, replacement, and
upgrades as well as to assist in project development.

It also serves as a nexus between statewide and
local planning efforts, helping to synchronize the
large, complex planning processes, regulations and
priorities at the state or regional level with the specific issues, data, concerns, and needs at the local level.

In addition, the NCRP integrates local plans into the
regional process planning process. The NCRP shall use
standard processes during Policy Review Panel meetings
to incorporate Storm Water Resource Plans and other
relevant and state-required plans into the NCRP Plan.

1.2.7 NCRP PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
Throughout the NCRP Plan, there is reference to policy
and guidance documents (e.g., Project Review and
Selection Process Guidelines) available on the NCRP
website (http:// northcoastresourcepartnership.org).

Because the NCRP uses an Adaptive Management
approach to governance, these policies and planning
processes are updated and approved by the NCRP PRP on
a regular basis that occurs more frequently than NCRP
Plan updates. The planning documents available online
are considered formal NCRP planning documents and
are referenced where applicable within this document.

As a “living document,” the NCRP Plan is intentionally
dynamic. Although the main body of the Plan is
revised every few years, Plan Goals and Objectives
and important policy and guidance documents are
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach 13
revisited annually and evaluated for continued relevance.

In the case of Project Review Guidelines, these are
updated to reflect current Goals and Objectives as
well as criteria specified by the Guidelines of the
solicitation to which the NCRP is responding.

The process for reviewing and potentially revising
Goals, Objectives, policies, and guidance documents
are transparent and inclusive. During a Policy Review
Panel meeting, a motion regarding review, revisions,
or additions is made and if seconded, a vote is taken.

In most cases, if unanimity is not reached, the PRP will discuss modifications that would result in unanimous
approval. Since the group’s inception in early 2005
through July 2019, the PRP have moved to pass 258
motions during meetings and 95% have been unanimous.

Plan elements contained in the NCRP Leadership
Guidance Handbook that are reviewed for
possible revision yearly include:
• Goals and Objectives
• NCRP Policies
• Project Review Criteria and Guidelines
• NCRP Projects
• Integration of External Plans

1.2.7.1 NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN
(formerly known as the North Coast Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan, North
Coast IRWM Plan or NCIRWMP)
The NCRP Plan has been revised four times since its
initial publication in July 2005. The current iteration (Phase IV) reflects local and regional priorities as
well as the 2016 IRWMP Guidelines and IRWM Plan
Standards. NCRP PRP members and Counties adopt
each iteration of the NCRP Plan at public meetings that have been publicly noticed through various media outlets, such as email, websites, and newspaper notifications.

Tribal partners adopt the NCRP Plan at Tribal Council
meetings which are noticed to their constituents. All
counties notice their Board of Supervisors meetings
at least 72 hours in advance to comply with Brown Act
requirements. Each member County, Tribal Council,
and project sponsor is expected to formally and
publicly adopt the Phase IV Plan by December, 2019.

The NCRP has a history of synchronizing statewide
planning priorities with local planning efforts to guide local project implementation, including Integrated
Coastal Watershed Management Plans and Storm
Water Resource Management Plans. These planning
documents are informed by the best available technical
information and local knowledge, and include input from interested stakeholders. Local plans that are integrated into the NCRP planning process can be found on the
NCRP Integrated Local Plans webpage and a list of
local plans incorporated by reference into the NCRP
Plan can be found on the NCRP Resources webpage.

1.2.7.2 NCRP STRATEGIC GROWTH

COUNCIL PLAN ELEMENTS
The NCRP in 2013 received funding from the Strategic
Growth Council to develop a strategic plan to guide
the region’s growth. The final plan consists of a series of documents that address strategies for continued
success (Healthy Watersheds, Vital Communities, Thriving Economies: Actionable Strategies for California’s North Coast Region), climate adaptation (North Coast Regional Climate Adaptation Strategies), climate mitigation
(Climate Mitigation Report for the North Coast Region of California), economic prosperity (North Coast Healthy
Watersheds & Vital Communities Economic Analysis),
and multiple technical assessment reports:
• Climate Modeling, Projections and Vulnerabilities:

Climate and Natural Resources Analysis and
Planning for the North Coast Resource Partnership,
USGS and Pepperwood Foundation
• Regional economic valuation of natural capital
and regional economic analysis: Technical
Report for the North Coast of California Ecosystem
Service Valuation, Earth Economics
• Regional renewable energy analysis and GHG
accounting framework: North Coast Resource
Partnership Integrated Strategic Plan: Climate
Change Mitigation, GHG Emissions Reduction
and Energy Independence, Redwood Coast
Energy Authority and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment Roadmap for the North Coast
Regional Partnership, Schatz Energy Lab
• Regional mapping of forest based carbon
sequestration (>4 Billion Metric Tonnes CO2e/
year): Carbon Inventory Estimates for the North Coast
Resource Partnership, Dogwood Springs Forestry
• Opportunities and constraints for biomass
energy in the region: Biomass Energy in the North
Coast Region: An Assessment and Strategy for
Ecologically and Socially Compatible Development,
The Watershed Research and Training Center
• Trinity County Forest Ecology, Watershed Hydrology
and Economic Valuation of Natural Capital and
Economic Analysis for Trinity River Water, March
2017. Trinity County RC&D Five Counties Program
• ECONorthwest produced a detailed assessment of
potential funding mechanisms that the NCRP can
14 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 use to produce an actionable financing strategy. A
Review and Assessment of Potential Funding Sources
for the North Coast Resource Partnership, July 2017

1.2.7.3 INTEGRATED COASTAL WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT PLANS
Four Integrated Coastal Watershed Management
Plans (ICWMPs) have completed in the North Coast
region, including planning processes in Trinidad,
the Mattole River watershed, the Russian River
watershed, and the Salmon Creek watershed. All of
the ICWMPs in the North Coast region emphasize a
programmatic approach and have specific objectives
related to reducing pollution in impaired waters
and sensitive habitats, including the Critical Coastal
Areas (CCAs), Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and
Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).
• Russian River Integrated Coastal
Watershed Management Plan
• Salmon Creek Integrated Coastal
Watershed Management Plan
• Mattole Integrated Coastal
Watershed Management Plan
• Trinidad-Westhaven Coastal
Watershed Management Plan

1.2.7.4 NORTH COAST REGION STORM

WATER RESOURCE PLANS
Storm Water Resource Plans (SWRP) are a requirement
for receiving grant funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by
voters after January 2014, per Senate Bill 985, the Storm Water Management Planning Act. SWRP’s encourage
the use of storm water and dry weather runoff as a
resource to maximize water supply, water quality, flood management, and other community benefits within
the watershed. On January 20, 2018 the NCRP Plan &
Storm Water Resource Plan Integration Process Policy
was approved by the PRP and can be found in the NCRP
Leadership Guidance Handbook, Policy Appendix and
the NCRP Integrated Local Plans webpage. North Coast
SWRPs incorporated into the NCRP Plan include:
• Final Russian River Storm Water Resource Plan
• Final Mendocino Coast Storm Water Resources Plan
• Final Eureka Area Watershed Storm
Water Resources Plan

1.2.7.5 NCRP Model Guidelines & Policies
These documents represent a wealth of localized,
specific information and tools for use by planners,
policy makers, and stakeholders in the region about
possible solutions to common issues and can be found
in the Resources section of the NCRP website.
• Planning Guide for Tribal Energy Sovereignty
• Model Tribal Environmental
Enforcement Response Plan
• Planning Guide for Development of Tribal
Environmental Protection Ordinance
• Yurok Tribe Water Resource: Land Use
and Residential Water Policies
• Trinity River Hoopa Valley LiDAR
Technical Data Report
• Site Resilience and Energy Assessment
Process for Key Assets
• North Coast Irrigation Water & Fertigation
Management Plan User’s Guide & Tool Version 1.0
• Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System
Planning: Options Evaluation Methodology, Disposal
Solutions Scenarios, Management Model Guidelines
• Humboldt County planning models: Environmental
Impact Report, Energy Consumption and
Conservation, Land Use Element, Community
Infrastructure and Services Element, Water
Resources Element, Energy Element, Safety
Element, Implementation Action Plan
• Mendocino County Water Emergency
Preparedness for Underserved Districts
• Mendocino County Integrated Planning and Outreach
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach 15
• Siskiyou County — Assistance for Small Community
Water and Wastewater Service Providers
• Trinity County Water Resources Planning

1.3 GOVERNANCE AND

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
The NCRP consists of a collaborative partnership
between the NCRP Policy Review Panel (PRP), the
Technical Peer Review Committee (TPRC), project staff,
consultants, and the stakeholders within the North Coast Region. With the exception of Modoc County, with one
representative, the PRP consists of two representatives appointed by each County’s Board of Supervisors
and three Tribal Representatives appointed by North
Coast Tribes as outlined in the ‘Tribal Representation
Process’ described in the NCRP (formerly North Coast
IRWM) Memorandum of Mutual Understandings and
in the NCRP Leadership Guidance Handbook. The
TPRC is comprised of technical experts also appointed
by each County’s Board of Supervisors and Tribal
representatives. The TPRC reviews and evaluates the
development of the NCRP Plan and proposed projects
based on technical criteria and the PRP is the governing and decision-making body providing policy level
direction and oversight for the NCRP planning process.

Seven counties and North Coast Tribes comprise the
leadership of the NCRP. Participating counties include:
• Del Norte County
• Humboldt County
• Mendocino County
• Modoc County
• Siskiyou County
• Sonoma County
• Trinity County
North Coast Tribes are represented by Tribal
Representatives elected by the Tribes within the
North, Central and Southern Districts through the
NCRP Tribal Nomination and Voting Process. There
are 34 Tribes in the region who are eligible to vote for the Tribal Representatives and are nominated by the
Tribal Councils of North Coast Tribes to fill the three PRP and three TPRC positions, and their alternates.

In total there are twelve Tribal Representatives,
including primary and alternate representatives.

1.3.1 POLICY REVIEW PANEL
The oversight, governing, and decision-making group
for the NCRP is the Policy Review Panel (PRP). The PRP
consists of two Board of Supervisors’ appointees and
alternates from each of the seven participating North
Coast counties and three Tribal representatives and their alternates selected by the North Coast Tribes according to the “Tribal Representation Process” developed by North Coast Tribes and defined in the NCIRWMP MoMU and
in the NCRP Leadership Guidance Handbook. In order
to ensure that all North Coast member Tribes are kept
informed and offered the opportunity to provide feedback at the policy level, the NCRP hired a Tribal Coordinator who is led by the Tribal Representatives, and is tasked with keeping lines of communication open and functioning between North Coast, NCRP member Tribes, the Tribal
NCRP TPRC and PRP Representatives and the full NCRP.

The PRP nominates and elects a Chair and Vice-Chair
on an as-needed basis and each position is brought
before the PRP for reconsideration and appointment
every two years. All NCRP PRP and their member
agencies are required to be signatories to the NCIRWMP
MoMU and in accordance with the IRWM Program are
required to formally adopt the North Coast IRWM Plan.

1.3.1.1 DECISION-MAKING
The PRP provides direction and ultimate oversight
to the NCRP planning process. Decision-making is
usually by consensus, with each member having one
vote. When decisions cannot be reached by consensus,
the majority opinion prevails as long as a quorum
(one half or more) is present, and dissenting opinions
are documented in the NCRP Leadership Guidance
Handbook and reflected in NCRP documents and plans.

The group works diligently to transact its business and arrive at decisions and often will continue to modify an option until it is acceptable to all NCRP members.

1.3.1.2 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
The PRP is committed to transparency and inclusion,
supporting input from stakeholders from throughout
the Region, as well as information sharing via the NCRP website, meetings and workshops. Because many
NCRP members are representatives of economically
disadvantaged communities (DAC), DAC participation is
built into the NCRP planning process. All NCRP meetings and activities are in compliance with the Brown Act;
therefore, meetings are noticed in advance, provide for substantial public input, and are summarized on the
NCRP website for easy access. At PRP meetings, staff
and consultants provide background, reports, analysis,
and facilitator services as requested by the PRP. The
PRP welcomes public input, and agendizes public
comment prior to each decision at its meetings. There is no financial requirement for participation in the NCRP.

1.3.2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The NCRP Executive Committee (EC) is a Standing
Committee whose actions are subject to the Brown
16 Section 1 — Governance and Planning Approach
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Act. The EC is composed of the PRP Chair, PRP ViceChair, a third member nominated and approved by the PRP and a fourth member nominated by the Tribal
representatives and approved by the PRP. The PRP
reconsiders the third and fourth member’s appointment
every two years. The EC provides day-to-day leadership
for the NCRP, including signing letters of support;
represents the NCRP to legislators and key agency
partners; and makes time-sensitive decisions. Any time
sensitive decisions made by the EC on behalf of the
NCRP reflect previous PRP direction and are consistent
with PRP approved goals and objectives. Decisions are
made by unanimous or majority vote. When majority
vote cannot be reached, the decision is brought before
the full Policy Review Panel for consideration. EC
decisions are reported via email or are provided during updates to the full PRP at regular NCRP meetings.

1.3.3 TECHNICAL PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Technical Peer Review Committee (TPRC) is
composed of technical and scientific staff appointed
from each county Board of Supervisors and North
Coast Tribes. The TPRC has two primary areas of
responsibility: (1) provide technical peer review of NCRP Plans and other technical documents and (2) review and
recommend a prioritized slate of NCRP implementation
projects, based on technical considerations and the
criteria established by the PRP and funding agency.

The TPRC also nominates and submits prospective
Co-Chair nominees for PRP selection and approval every
two years. Expertise on the TPRC includes, but is not
limited to: agriculture, county planning, ecology, energy, engineering, fisheries, geology, forest management,
traditional knowledge, and water infrastructure.

1.3.4 AD-HOC COMMITTEES
The NCRP PRP forms ad-hoc committees on an as
needed basis to address short duration issues or topics.

An ad-hoc committee is not subject to the Brown Act
and is disbanded once the topic has been addressed
and outcomes or recommendations have been reported
to the PRP. NCRP ad-hoc committees consist solely
of less than a quorum of the PRP and TPRC and may
include members of the PRP, TPRC and staff.

1.3.5 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
In 2005, the NCRP authorized Humboldt County to act
on its behalf as the regional applicant and contract
administrator of grant funds for the NCRP. Individual
project proponents, under contract with the County of
Humboldt, are responsible for project implementation. To date the County of Humboldt has successfully managed
over $69 million in grant funding for over 90 North Coast implementation projects. The Regional Administrator
team provides quality assurance and quality control (QA/ QC) on all invoices and progress reports submitted by
sub-grantees and compiles reports and invoices for the
granting agency. The Regional Administrator tracks costs; maintains auditable files; and ensures accurate, current, and complete financial reporting and records. In addition, the Regional Administrator acts as the liaison between
the project proponents (sub-grantees, sub-contractors)
and the granting agency to streamline communications.

1.3.6 NCRP MOMU
In addition to the formal relationship of counties and
Tribes as PRP and TPRC members, and the substantial,
regular and intentional outreach to economically
disadvantaged communities, the NCRP invites
participation from all of the Region’s stakeholders. In 2010, the NCRP’s PRP revised the Memorandum of
Mutual Understandings (MoMU) to expand representation
on the PRP and TPRC to include Tribal representatives;
require the PRP and TPRC’s adherence to the Ralph
M. Brown Act thereby formalizing an historic practice
of open, transparent, and inclusive meetings and
deliberations; meet new stormwater, flood management,
groundwater, and climate change considerations
required by DWR and of interest to stakeholders
throughout the North Coast Region; and satisfy
requirements for future grant funding applications. As
of 2019, over 140 agencies, special districts, Tribes,
non-governmental organizations, watershed groups,
and other stakeholders have signed the MoMU signifying
their support for and participation in the NCRP.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 17
2 NORTH COAST REGION
The North Coast Region represents a large and diverse
portion of the state, encompassing a suite of coastal and inland areas, floodplains and uplands, urban centers and rural communities, and numerous land cover, habitat,
and land use types. This diversity is exemplified by the wide variety of human-built and natural attributes that comprise the Region. From north to south and east to west, the North Coast exhibits a range of geologic, hydrologic, climatic, ecological, resource, political, jurisdictional, socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural characteristics.

Although consisting of diverse attributes, the Region
as a whole may be characterized as relatively rural,
economically disadvantaged, and rich in natural resources and intact landscapes, as compared to the state as a whole.

2.1 NORTH COAST REGION

PLANNING BOUNDARY
Prior to development of the first iteration of the NCIRWM Plan (2005), extensive thought, discussion, and debate
contributed to the determination of the North Coast
regional boundary. The Policy Review Panel made a
decision early on to focus on watershed boundaries and
to align the NCRP planning boundary with the hydrologic boundary of the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Region 1. Although the Region contains all of Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino Counties, it contains
only portions of the others that drain to the Sacramento River or San Francisco Bay. NCRP staff encouraged
counties not fully within the northeastern boundary of
the NCRP to connect with other IRWM efforts underway
in the Northern Sacramento Valley and Lahontan
funding areas and has, during discussions with DWR,
encouraged the state to set monies aside for these
developing IRWM efforts occurring in Tribal jurisdictions, rural and/or economically disadvantaged communities.

Under the direction of the PRP, NCRP staff has engaged
in an ongoing dialogue with Lake County about their
participation and gave a presentation to the County Board of Supervisors in 2007, inviting their participation. Since only a small portion of the county (23%) is within the North Coast Region and most of those lands are federal, Lake County has not chosen to actively participate in the NCRP. The county is currently pursuing IRWM planning and projects located outside of the North Coast. Lake County is a signatory to the NCRP’s MoMU and is supportive of the NCRP. Marin County, which only has a small portion (7%) in the North Coast
Region, also pursues planning and project implementation outside of the North Coast Region. Marin stakeholders
participate in the San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP, as
do the communities located in the southern portion of
Sonoma County outside of the North Coast hydrologic
region (18% of Sonoma County) (NCRWQCB 2018).

The following subsections describe, quantify, and
illustrate these and other regional and local features, and summary inform summary information by
Watershed Management Area, Tribal lands, and
county (see Appendix C, Regional Description, Table
C-6, Summary of North Coast Region Key Attributes).

2.2 GEOGRAPHY
The NCRP planning boundary is equivalent to the
hydrologic basin delineated by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) as “North
Coast Region 1”. The Region encompasses approximately
19,390 square miles (50,220 square km), including
approximately 340 miles (547 kilometers) of coastline,
abundant wilderness, agricultural areas and some
urban centers. Coastal, upland, riparian, and aquatic
habitats support diverse plant and wildlife populations, including some of the last viable salmon runs in the
state. Several designated Stormwater Quality Protection Areas (formerly Areas of Special Biological Significance), Marine Protected Areas, and Critical Coastal Areas
occur along the North Coast. The Mediterranean climate
varies from moderate and foggy along coasts to hot and
dry inland (i.e. regularly in excess of 100 degrees F).

The Region is divided into two natural drainage basins, the Klamath River Basin and the North Coastal Basin;
six Watershed Management Areas (Eel River, Humboldt
Bay, Klamath, North Coast Rivers, Russian River/Bodega
Bay and Trinity River Watershed Management Areas);
and numerous watersheds and groundwater basins.

Overlying the watershed, groundwater, and other physical boundaries are the jurisdictional boundaries of the
various North Coast counties, Tribes, municipalities,
and special districts. The Region includes all of the
counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino; major portions of Siskiyou (82%) and Sonoma (82%);
and small portions of Glenn (6%), Lake (23%), Marin
(7%), and Modoc (28%) counties (NCRWQCB 2018).

2.2.1 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
The North Coast Region contains a number of
jurisdictional, administrative, and ownership boundaries.

These include federal, state, regional, county, municipal, Tribal, water district, special district, RCD, RC&D, and LAFCO boundaries. Each of these jurisdictions has a
particular thematic and geographic scope and there
is some degree of overlap or conflict between some
boundaries. The NCRP planning approach includes a
strong emphasis on local autonomy and jurisdictional
authority and strives to achieve a balanced representation of relevant jurisdictional and administrative requirements and concerns at all scales, from local to federal.
18 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

2.2.1.1 LAND OWNERSHIP
The North Coast Region includes considerable privatelyowned land and land within the federal, state, and local jurisdiction (see Appendix C, Regional Description, Table C-7, Land Owner Types of the North Coast Region). Land
ownership for the North Coast Region is as follows4:
• Private/ other entities — 51%
• Federal — 46%
• Tribal — 2%
• State — 2%
• Special districts — 0.07%
• Counties — 0.03%
• Cities — 0.02%
• Non-profit entities — 0.19%
MAP 3 LAND MANAGEMENT

2.2.1.2 FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS
On a federal level, the North Coast Region is contained within the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
Region Nine, which covers the entire Pacific Southwest; the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 5 (equivalent to the state of California); 4 Source: California Protected Areas Database is a GIS inventory of all Californian lands held in fee ownership by public agencies and non-profits, developed and maintained by GreenInfo Network. https://www.greeninfo.org/services/gis-services and NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Southwest Region, which includes California coasts and
portions of the eastern Pacific and Southern Oceans. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Region 8 includes all of California, plus Nevada and the Klamath Basin. For the U.S. Bureau of Reclamations (USBR), the North Coast is
part of the Mid-Pacific Region, which covers the northern two-thirds of California, most of western Nevada and part of southern Oregon. The Federal Emergency Management
Area (FEMA) places California in Region IX, with Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands. The only federal water boundary in the Region is the Klamath Project,
which is administered by the US Bureau of Reclamation.

On a state level, the North Coast Region has the same
boundaries as SWRCB Region 1 “North Coast Region”.

According to the DWR, the North Coast Region is partially contained within its North Coast and Central Districts.

According to California Department of Fish & Wildlife
(CDFW) boundaries, the North Coast Region spans
portions of three units: the North Coast, North Central, and Bay Delta Regions. According to the California
Biodiversity Council bioregional boundaries (developed by the Inter-agency Natural Areas Coordinating Committee), the North Coast Region includes portions of the Klamath/ North Coast, Bay Area/Delta, and Modoc bioregions.

MAP 4 CITIES, TOWNS & OTHER POPULATION CENTERS
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 19

2.2.1.3 TRIBAL JURISDICTIONS
North Coast Tribes are separate and independent
sovereign nations within the territorial boundaries of
the United States. The sovereignty of Tribes has been
acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution. This sovereignty is inherent and flows from the pre-constitutional
and extra-constitutional governance of each Tribe.

Early federal policy and U.S. Supreme Court case
law recognizes that Tribes retain the inherent right
to govern within political boundaries (Worcester v.

Georgia (1832) and that power to interact with Tribes is vested in the federal government (Cherokee Nation v.

Georgia (1831). This established governmental structure recognizes the sovereign and political independence
of Tribal nations and its members. This right is also
recognized by the State of California. Pursuant to the
Executive Order B-10-11, the State “recognizes and
reaffirms the inherent right of these Tribes to exercise sovereign authority of their members and territory.”
The North Coast is the ancestral territory of North
Coast Tribes. The majority of North Coast Tribes
acknowledge an inherent responsibility for managing
their ancestral territories regardless of whether they
currently have the capacity. Therefore, North Coast
Tribes’ jurisdiction goes beyond the gathering, fishing, and hunting rights, which each individual Tribal member retains. It is the intent of the NCRP Plan to document
and support (Goal 1, Objective 1) the fact that each
of the North Coast Tribes exerts their jurisdictional
authority according to their own traditional policies, laws, mandates, and capacity (see Appendix D, Tribal Profile).

2.2.1.4 COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
The North Coast Region comprises four entire counties
(Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity), major
portions of two counties (Siskiyou and Sonoma),
and smaller portions of four counties (Glenn, Lake,
Marin, and Modoc). An elected Board of Supervisors
governs each county (see Appendix E, County Profile).

2.2.1.5 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIONS
Being predominantly a rural region, the North Coast
is home to relatively few large population centers (i.e. cities, towns; municipalities). The boundaries of 25
incorporated municipalities and 9 “census-designated
places” fall within the North Coast Region boundary.

Most of these entities are signatories to the NCRP
MoMU. Urban boundaries and urban growth areas
have been designated near select municipal areas in
the Region (see Appendix C, Table C-8, Municipalities & Census Designated Places of the North Coast Region).

MAP 5 URBAN BOUNDARIES & URBAN GROWTH AREAS

2.2.1.6 GENERAL PLAN & COASTAL

PLAN ZONE BOUNDARIES
The General Plans of all North Coast counties and
many of its cities have designated specific local land
use/development categories, ranging from industrial
and commercial uses (relatively restricted to urban
centers), to agricultural and open space (comprising
the vast majority of the Region). General Plans are
fundamental to local resource planning in the Region and contents vary for different counties and municipalities.

The County General Plans that have been developed
for each of the North Coast counties includes, where
appropriate, a corresponding “County Coastal Plan.”
20 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 6 GENERAL PLAN & COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES

2.2.1.7 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Voters statewide have established various “special
districts” in order to fund and perform many functions, from libraries to cemeteries. A number of special
districts are natural-resource focused (e.g. fire, air, water), and a subset of these are intended to support
attributes and functions that are priorities of the NCRP including Community Service Districts, flood/drainage,
irrigation, reclamation, resource conservation, water
supply, and wastewater treatment providers. Special
districts are formed by local election and governed by
elected (or sometimes, appointed) boards. With regard
to “jurisdictional authority,” special districts serve their constituency based on identified need, not based on
political boundary. This allows special districts a level of flexibility not afforded to cities, counties, and other local jurisdictions. Coordination with these local water-related jurisdictions is essential to planning, implementing, and monitoring the projects that will realize the NCRP goals and objectives. Note that Resource Conservation Districts, a type of special district, are specifically addressed below.

MAP 7 SPECIAL DISTRICTS (WATER RESOURCE RELATED)

2.2.1.8 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
The Region has eleven Resource Conservation Districts
(RCDs), special districts authorized under Division 9 of the Public Resources Code. RCDs work in local communities
to implement water and habitat conservation and
restoration projects, often on private and agricultural lands, and as such are an integral part of the NCRP
stakeholder outreach and project identification and
implementation processes. North Coast Region RCDs
are Lava Beds/ Butte Valley, Shasta Valley, and Siskiyou RCDs (Siskiyou County); Gold Ridge, Sonoma RCDs
(Sonoma County); and Central Modoc, Humboldt County,
Marin County, Mendocino County, Trinity County, and
West Lake (respective counties). These RCDs primarily
occur entirely within the Region, but those in the
Northeastern and Southern portions extend beyond the
Region’s boundaries. In most cases, RCD jurisdictional
boundaries are shared with county boundaries, with the
exception of Sonoma, Siskiyou, and Modoc counties.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 21
MAP 8 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

2.2.1.9 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND

DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS
The Region has four Resource Conservation and
Development Councils (RC&D). The purpose of an
RC&D is to accelerate the conservation, development,
and utilization of natural resources to improve the
general level of economic activity, and to enhance the
environment and standard of living in authorized RC&D
area. An RC&D area covers several counties and is
locally defined and directed by a council consisting of public and private sponsors. Currently, Del Norte and
Humboldt counties do not have a RC&D council. The
authorized RC&D areas within the Region are as follows:
• Ore-Cal = Siskiyou County into Oregon
• North Cal-Neva = Modoc County
• Northwest California = Trinity, Del
Norte and Humboldt Counties
• North Coast = Sonoma, Mendocino,
Marin and Lake Counties

2.2.1.10 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIONS
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO) are
independent agencies established by State law. A LAFCO
in each North Coast county is responsible for reviewing, approving or disapproving changes in organization
to cities and special districts including annexations,
detachments, new formations and incorporations.

Much of the current authority for LAFCO came from
the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act (CKH Act) of 2000. The objectives
of LAFCO are to encourage the orderly formation of
local governmental agencies, to preserve agricultural
land resources and to discourage urban sprawl.

2.2.1.11 NEIGHBORING IRWM EFFORTS
The North Coast Region is bounded on its northeast
corner by the Upper Pit River Watershed and Upper
Sacramento-McCloud IRWM groups, to its east by the
North Sacramento Valley and Westside (Yolo, Solano,
Lake, Colusa) IRWM groups, and to the south by the San
Francisco Bay Area IRWM. The Upper Pit River IRWMP
includes small portions of Siskiyou and Shasta Counties and larger portions of Modoc and Lassen Counties. The
Upper Sacramento-McCloud IRWMP includes the Upper
Sacramento, McCloud, and Lower Pit River watersheds
as well as the Medicine Lake Highlands, a significant
groundwater recharge area lacking in streams that is of cultural significance to local Tribal groups. This group includes the southern part of Siskiyou and northern part of Shasta Counties and is called the Upper Sacramento
Regional Water Action Group. The Sacramento Valley
IRWMP encompasses a portion of the Sacramento River
Hydrologic Region and contains parts of Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Sacramento, and Placer Counties and
all of Sutter, Yuba, and Butte Counties. The Westside
IRWMP contains the Cache Creek and Puta Creek
watersheds and portions of Lake, Colusa, Napa, Solano
and Sacramento Counties and all of Yolo County. The San Francisco Bay Area IRWM contains all watersheds that
drain to San Francisco Bay and all nine Bay Area counties participate: Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties.

2.2.2 PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES
The NCRP process utilizes a hydrologic, basin-level
approach to regional water management planning
and project implementation. This approach integrates
planning and implementation for physical (as opposed
to jurisdictional) areas bounded by drainage basin,
groundwater, and/or watershed boundaries.

2.2.2.1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREAS
The Water Quality Control Plan (“Basin Plan”) for
the North Coast Region delineates two large natural
drainage basins covering the entire Region: the
Klamath River Basin and the North Coastal Basin.

For water management planning purposes, and
to promote the statewide goal of protecting water
through the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI),
22 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 the NCRWQCB has further divided the Klamath and
North Coastal Basins into six designated “watershed
management areas” (WMA). At the finer scale, the
Region’s WMA comprise 14 individual Calwater
Hydrologic Units and 42 composite Hydrologic Areas
(see Appendix F, Watershed Management Area Profile).

The NCRP utilizes WMAs as the broad-scale planning
unit for among other purposes integrating multiple
implementation projects within the Region’s basins. Using watershed-based (as opposed to strictly jurisdictional/ administrative) boundaries as the Plan’s geographic
planning unit also allows the NCRP to integrate with other regional, state, and federal planning, implementation,
and funding efforts that use a watershed-based
approach (e.g. including those already in place with
CDFG, CCC, SWRCB, Regional Boards, and DWR).

MAP 9 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREAS

2.2.2.2 GROUNDWATER BASINS
The North Coast Region contains 58 delineated
groundwater basins (plus nine sub-basins) totaling
approximately 1,015,139 acres, distributed across the
Region. Groundwater basins are designated by DWR
on the basis of geological and hydrological conditions, these usually being the occurrence of alluvial or
unconsolidated deposits (see Appendix F, Table F-19,
Groundwater Basins of North Coast Counties).

2.3 BIOPHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
The Region has abundant surface water and
groundwater resources. The North Coast geographically
represents 12% of the state, yet produces about 40% of
statewide runoff, replenishing stream flow, reservoirs, and groundwater stores and providing numerous
beneficial uses of water to people and ecosystems
(NCRWQCB 2011). Annual precipitation is greater in
this Region than in any other part of the state and
floods are a fairly regular phenomenon. The Region’s
watersheds drain to the Pacific Ocean from the
Oregon border in the north, south to Marin County.

2.3.1 GEOLOGY
The North Coast Region is characterized by diverse
geology, crossing four distinct Geomorphic Provinces.

The Coast Ranges of the western and southern coastal
area of the Region, consists of a folded, faulted, and
disrupted Complex of sandstones and mudrocks,
containing fragments of chert, limestone, and volcanic
rocks, forming northwest trending mountain ranges
and valleys, and river systems following the northwestsoutheast trending faults and geologic structures associated with the San Andreas fault system. To the
east in the northern coastal and interior region, the
Klamath and Siskiyou Mountains, form rugged topography
with an irregular drainage system, being underlain by
large metamorphic and intrusive blocks. Continuing
east, lies the Cascade Mountain range, consisting of a
narrow chain of volcanic cones on the east, and to west the wide Shasta Valley underlain by Quaternary terrace
and alluvium deposits and a debris avalanche from
ancestral Mount Shasta. The far eastern portion of the
Region, is part of the Modoc Plateau, a volcanic table land underlain by thick accumulations of lava flows and tuff beds and many small volcanic cones, cut by many northsouth trending faults. Occasional lakes, marshes, and sluggishly flowing streams meander across the plateau.

The soils underlying the Region have direct implications for maintenance of water quality and beneficial uses of waters. The California Geological Survey (formerly known as the California Division of Mines & Geology), the United States Geological Survey and the California Department
of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE) provide detailed mapping of the Region’s geology. Geomorphic features
affecting landslide potential, soil erosion, and stream bank erosion in sensitive watersheds have been mapped
mainly in Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties).

2.3.2 CLIMATE
Distinct climate zones characterize the North Coast
Region and are defined by the California Energy
Commission: Zone 1 (Arcata), Zone 2 (Santa Rosa), Zone
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 23
11 (Red Bluff), and Zone 16 (Mt. Shasta). Each zone
exhibits similar climate attributes, relative to surrounding zones. In general, the coastal climate is “oceanic” with regular precipitation and frequent fog; temperature does not vary greatly by season. Inland parts of the Region are less affected by the moderating coastal influence and
experience a more “Mediterranean” temperature regime,
with seasonal temperatures ranging from over 100
degrees Fahrenheit during the summer to below freezing
in winter. Farther inland, a “continental” climate prevails, with even more pronounced temperature extremes and
the potential for semi-arid conditions. For example,
in Eureka (Humboldt County), the seasonal variation
in temperature has not exceeded 63 degrees F for the
period of record. Inland, however, seasonal temperature ranges in excess of 100 degrees F have been recorded.

The North Coast receives more precipitation than any
other part of California. The Mattole watershed in
Mendocino County has the highest recorded rainfall and
has received as much as 125 inches of rain per season.

By county, average annual rainfall varies drastically:
in water year 2012 (Oct 2011-Sept 2012), precipitation
ranged from just 4.81 inches (38% of normal) in Mt.

Hebron (Siskiyou County) to 76.42 inches (114% of
normal) in Crescent City (Del Norte County). Some
high-elevation areas (e.g. north-central) of the Region receive and store significant precipitation as snowfall/ snowpack. Precipitation, temperature, and other
climate variables at any particular location vary from
year to year, with relatively wet years and dry years
(characterized by flooding and drought, respectively)
occurring at somewhat unpredictable frequencies.

MAP 10 AVERAGE MINIMUM JANUARY TEMPERATURE (1971-2000)
MAP 11 AVERAGE MAXIMUM JULY TEMPERATURE (1971-2000)
24 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 12 ANNUAL AVERAGE PRECIPITATION (1971-2000)

2.3.3 LAND COVER
The North Coast Region comprises a mosaic of
varied land cover/vegetation types, ranging from vast
forests and grasslands to smaller areas of urban and
agricultural lands. An understanding of the variation
in local land cover is vital to understanding the context of NCRP project planning and implementation in
different parts of the Region (see Appendix C, Table
C-9, Land Cover Types of the North Coast Region).

MAP 13 LAND COVER

2.3.3.1 LANDSCAPE SEQUESTRATION
The NCRP commissioned a carbon inventory estimate
that was produced in October 2017 (Nickerson 2017). The inventory quantifies above-ground carbon and carbon
stored in the soil in the major biological reservoirs in the North Coast using a landcover class analysis. This
inventory tiers from and adds to a statewide inventory
developed by the California Air Resources Board. Carbon inventories are presented in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
(CO2e), a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that would
have the same global warming potential when measured
over a specified timescale (generally 100 years).

Forest cover dominates landcover classes in the North
Coast with almost 70% of its surface area (~ 3.5 million hectares) in forest cover. Forested lands store almost 4 gigatonnes of CO2e, or 90% of the above-ground carbon
within the study area. The highest concentrations of
carbon are stored within the redwood belt, particularly in state and national parks as well as Jackson State
Forest. Wood products play a substantial role in
helping forests achieve their greatest contribution to
mitigating greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Harvested wood
products contain a portion of the carbon in trees and
keep it sequestered out of the atmosphere for long
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 25
periods of time. Wood fiber can also be a renewable
source of energy and replace fossil fuel energy.

Managed forests approach their maximum contribution
to mitigating GHGs when stocking levels support
healthy trees that are resilient to wildfire and pests and the healthiest trees are grown to a mature condition
before harvesting. The average timber harvest has
averaged 850,637 board feet a year over the timeframe
from 2012 to 2016. This amount represents 1,211,067
tonnes of CO2e in sequestered wood products and
landfill annually. This value is expected to increase as harvest volumes slowly increase in the future as forest inventories recover. Enhancing resiliency of forests
to wildfire and pests can be achieved by removing
biomass that historically was removed by more frequent
wildfire; investments in fuel reduction help to ward
off large scale losses of biomass from wildfire. The
removed material can be used to produce energy while
displacing energy production from fossil fuels and can
be used as feedstock for innovative wood products
such as cross laminated timber, which will increase
the proportion of carbon in long-lived wood products.

The next closest landcover types, in terms of surface
area, are grasslands and shrublands. Grasslands
constitute approximately 12% of the region and contain
approximately 4% of the carbon in the natural and
working landscapes; most of the carbon in grassland
ecosystems is found in the soil. Shrublands constitute
another 12% of the region and contain approximately
5% of the carbon in natural and working landscapes.

With respect to carbon sequestration in working
landscapes in the North Coast, orchards, vineyards,
and row crops were identified in addition to the range
(grasslands and shrublands) and forests. Orchards
constitute approximately 36 hectares, less than 1% of
the region, and contain less than 1% of the carbon in
natural and working landscapes. Most of the carbon
in the orchard landcover class (64%) is estimated to
be contained within the soil. Vineyards comprise less
than 1% of the surface area and contain less than 0.1%
of the carbon stock within the region. Approximately
89% of the carbon in vineyards is contained in the
soil. Row crops constitute approximately 1.6% of the
area of the region and contain less than 1% of the
carbon in the study area. More than 99% of the carbon
in row crops is contained within the soil pool.

Wetlands are estimated to be the most carbon
rich landcover classes within the study area on a
per-acre basis, however, wetlands comprise less
than 1% of the landcover and contain less than
1 % of carbon. Most carbon in wetlands is found
in the soil. Wetlands identified within the region
are found in Del Norte and Trinity Counties.

Urban areas contain carbon in trees, shrubs,
herbaceous material and soils. They comprise
less than 2% of the surface area within the region
and less than 1% of the carbon in the region.

Map 14 NON-SOIL BIOMASS

2.3.4 PROTECTED AREAS
Approximately 49% of the North Coast Region is
permanently protected by public agencies (e.g. federal, state, local), private entities, or non-profit organizations.

Nearly 300 protected areas including parks, preserves,
reserves, recreation areas, national/state forests,
private lands, and other sites in the North Coast Region.

Conservation easements offer one means through which
public agencies and non-governmental organizations
(NGO) can sell parcels and keep them protected while
retaining private or NGO ownership. Conservation
easements comprise approximately 100,000 acres in
Sonoma County alone. Functionally, “protection status”
for these lands varies, depending on a number of
factors, including how lands are managed: for example,
“protected lands” may be managed to mimic natural
disturbance processes, or for multiple uses including
resource extraction and recreational uses. Subsections
below address two main protected area designations
that are of particular relevance to the NCRP: Marine
Managed Areas (MMAs), including Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) and State Water Quality Protection Areas
26 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 (SWQPAs)/Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) and 303(d)-Listed Impaired Waters. Also protected
in the North Coast are Wild and Scenic Rivers and
National Wilderness Preservation System Areas (see
Appendix G, North Coast Region Protected Areas).

MAP 15 PROTECTED AREA LAND MANAGEMENT
MAP 16 MANAGEMENT STATUS OF PROTECTED LANDS

2.3.4.1 MARINE MANAGED & PROECTED AREAS
Legislative protection has been assigned to many of the North Coast’s estuarine, marine, and terrestrial coastal resources that are considered to be environmentally
sensitive and in need of protection or improvement
by federal, state, and/or local government actions.

Designation of the most significant of these as
Marine Managed Areas serves to protect water
quality and constituent ecosystems from further
degradation. In 2013, there were 21 Critical Coastal
Areas (CCAs) in the North Coast Region. Marine
Managed Areas include MPAs, SWQPAs, and ASBSs.

Developed pursuant to the California Marine Life
Protection Act (MLPA), MPAs have been established for
conservation and management of the natural marine
resources and allow specific recreation and commercial
activities. MPAs are primarily intended to protect or
conserve marine life and habitat, and are a subset of
MMAs. MPAs may be classified as marine parks, marine
reserves, or marine conservation areas. Pollution control and prevention measures for MPAs are set forth in the
policies adopted by State and Regional Water Quality
Control Boards. MPAs are generally subject to certain
fishery restrictions. Provisions allow non-commercial
take to continue, consistent with existing regulations, in MPAs other than State Marine Reserves, where
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 27
there is a record of ancestral take by a specific North Coast Tribe. There are 19 MPAs, seven special closure
areas, and one State Marine Recreational Management
area in the North Coast Region. These areas cover
approximately 137 square miles of state waters (see
Appendix G, Table G-23, Marine Managed Areas).

2.3.4.2 STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS &

AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
ASBS are a subset of SWQPAs, which, like MPAs, are a
subset of MMAs. ASBS are designated and monitored by
the SWRCB through its water quality control planning
process. In ASBS, water quality conditions are maintained to protect against impacts to marine aquatic life. A SWQPA is a non-terrestrial marine or estuarine area designated to protect marine species or biological communities from an undesirable alteration to natural water quality. In a SWQPA, point source waste and thermal discharges are
prohibited or limited by special conditions in discharge permits. Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) is controlled
to the extent practicable but no other use is restricted.

There are 8 ASBS in the North Coast Region, seven of
which are co-located with existing MPAs (SWRCB 2003).

2.3.4.3 IMPAIRED WATERS
Most of the streams and rivers throughout coastal
Northern California contain excessive amounts of
pollutants (e.g. sediment) and/or exhibit increased
water temperatures. These and other nonpoint pollution
sources result in a reduction in water quality and in
water quality impacts to the beneficial uses of those
waters. These waterbodies (or portions of them) are
defined “California Impaired Waters” per the Federal
Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). The North Coast Basin
Plan (NCRWQCB 2011) estimates there are 20,298
miles (32,667 km) of impaired streams in the Region
(approximately 85% of streams). The federal Clean
Water Act and CFR §130 require the state to identify
water bodies not meeting water quality standards and
update these lists biennially; to obtain the most recent information about water quality limited waterways in the North Coast, please see the North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) web page for the
Integrated Report. Each impairment designation requires development and implementation of a Total Maximum
Daily Load “TMDL” Plan to reduce pollution loads to
recommended levels, which approach background/
pre-resource extraction levels. Temperature and sediment are particularly widespread causes of impairment.

For the most recent TMDL plans and developments
please see the NCRWQCB Total Maximum Daily Loads
web page. Some of the most sensitive beneficial uses
defined for the Region are directly impaired by increased temperature and sediment, such as those associated
with the migration, spawning, and early development
of cold water fisheries (see Appendix G, Table G-24,
Beneficial Uses of Water in the North Coast Region).

2.3.4.4 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed
in 1972 to preserve designated rivers possessing
extraordinary scenic, recreation, fishery, or wildlife
values. The Act provides three levels of protection:
wild, scenic, and recreational. “Wild” rivers are free
of dams, generally inaccessible except by trail, and
represent vestiges of primitive America. “Scenic” rivers are free of dams, with shorelines or watersheds still
largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped,
but accessible in places by roads. “Recreational” rivers are readily accessible by road or railroad; may have
some development along their shorelines; and may
have been dammed in the past. Wild and Scenic Rivers
are a component of National Conservation Lands.

The volume of water dedicated to wild and scenic
rivers, called “statutory required outflows,” is the
largest component of dedicated water uses in the
Region (DWR 2013). In the North Coast, the Bureau of
Land Management manages 38 Wild and Scenic Rivers
comprising more than 2,050 river miles and 1,002,000
acres (see Appendix G, Table G-25, Wild & Scenic Rivers).

Further major developments on the Klamath and Trinity
Rivers or on the Smith River and any of its tributaries are forbidden by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; only
minor additional surface water development for local
use is foreseen, primarily because of the high costs
in relation to crops that can be grown in the area
(NCRWQCB 2011). Nine Wild and Scenic Rivers have
been 303(d) listed as impaired: Albion River, Albion River Lagoon, Eel River, Middle Fork Eel River, North Fork Eel River, Klamath River, Salmon River, Trinity River, and
Van Duzen River (see Appendix G, Table G-26, Impaired
Streams that Flow Directly to Wild & Scenic Rivers).

2.3.4.5 NATIONAL WILDERNESS

PRESERVATION SYSTEM AREAS
Approximately one fifth of the federally managed
land in the Region has been designated as National
Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) areas, under
the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. NWPS areas are administered by the US Bureau of Land Management,
US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, and/ or US National Park Service. There are 11 NWPS in the Region.

These areas are subsumed under “National Landscape
Conservation System” areas (see Appendix G, Table
G-27, National Wilderness Preservation System Areas).
28 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 17 SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL/ WILDERNESS AREAS

2.3.5 WILDLIFE
The North Coast region is a documented worldwide
“hotspot” for biological diversity, with a wide variety of ecosystems and habitat types — including forests,
rivers, shrub and grasslands, wetlands, lakes, salt
marshes, estuaries, coastal scrub and dune and near
shore marine. Extensive estuaries and varied shoreline
environments throughout the North Coast are areas of
high primary productivity critical to supporting marine fisheries and coastal biodiversity. There are over 526 plan and animal species in the North Coast region, and the
region is home to 86 state or federally listed threatened and/or endangered species of plants and animals. The
region retains some of the last viable runs of steelhead trout, Chinook and Coho salmon, though nearly 85%
of the region’s streams have impaired water quality.

The Region contains many species of concern, including
thirty federally endangered plant species, four federally endangered fish species (including salmonids), four
federally endangered bird species, and seven federally
endangered mammals (see NCIRWM Plan Appendix
H, Table 27; NCRP 2014). Additionally, the region’s
mountains, valleys, forests, and grasslands are home
to deer (Odocoileus hemionus), common garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), elk (Cervus elaphus), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), bear (Ursus americanus), southern
torrent salamander (Rhyacotrition vareigatus), mountain lion (Puma concolor) and many other wildlife species (see Appendix G, Table G-28, Threatened & Endangered Species).

2.3.5.1 CORRIDORS & CONNECTIVITY
The North Coast region’s ecological communities serve
as habitat for a large number of plant and animal
communities and its existing corridors of undeveloped
land allow for migration, dispersal, and genetic exchange between locations. The presence of these lands is likely to become extremely important as climate refugia for
wildlife to shift their ranges as current ranges become inhospitable due to increased temperature or other
factors (Keeley et al. 2018). Not all species, particularly plants, and wildlife endemic to specific habitat types, such as serpentine communities, will be able to shift
their ranges, but those that have the capacity to migrate will require movement corridors that aren’t blocked by
natural landscape features or human development.

In the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s State Wildlife Action Plan (2015), the Northern California
Coast, Coast Ranges, and Klamath Province are
generally considered to have sufficient connectivity
among plant communities and ecosystems with the
exceptions being Pacific Northwest Conifer Forests,
Subalpine Forest, Wet Meadows, Mountain Riparian
Scrub and Wet Meadow, and other upland grasslands
and meadows. Approximately 49% of the North Coast
Region land is permanently protected by public agencies (e.g. federal, state, local), private entities, or non-profit organizations. There are nearly 300 protected areas
including parks, preserves, reserves, recreation areas, national/ state forests, private lands, and other sites in the North Coast Region (see Appendix H, Table 19,
NCRP IRWM Plan 2014). Conservation easements
offer one means through which public agencies and
non-governmental organizations (NGO) can sell parcels
and keep them protected while retaining private or
NGO management. Conservation easements comprise
approximately 100,000 acres in Sonoma County alone.

Functionally, “protection status” for these lands varies, depending on a number of factors, including how lands
are managed. Extractive and recreational uses may
be permitted on some public and private “protected
lands,” depending on the specified management status
and protections afforded thereby; other protected lands are managed to mimic natural disturbance regimes
and maximize biodiversity. The ability of a protected
piece of land to act as a corridor is dependent on its
location in the landscape, with parcels that connect two or more larger, disconnected areas providing greatest
benefit to the region’s wildlife and ecosystems.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 29
Challenges to maintaining corridors and connectivity
in the North Coast are those associated with climate
change and human activity. Vineyards in the southern
part of the region and cannabis cultivation in Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity counties have been identified as drivers of habitat fragmentation, stream sedimentation, and water diversion. Dams and small-scale diversions
for agricultural and residential uses also impede
aquatic connectivity. Additionally, in areas like Humboldt and Siskiyou counties, there is increasing subdivision
of large landholdings into smaller parcels for rural
residential development, which removes and fragments
habitat, increases the spread of invasive species, and
increases demand for limited water resources.

The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project
(Spencer et al. 2010) identifies tracts of land in the
region which are vital to preserving corridors and
connections that will enable wildlife movement for
natural ranging (large megafauna, such as mountain
lions and bears), seasonal migration (mule deer, elk,
antelope), and climate refugees. Local models can
refine the recommendations of the Essential Habitat
Connectivity Project to prioritize areas for connectivity conservation by focusing on connecting areas of low
climate velocity (the speed at which zones of suitable
climate move across the landscape — generally
slower for mountain slopes than flat terrain), predicted refugia, climate analogs, or linking current to predicted future suitable habitats (Keeley et al. 2018). Riparian corridors, because of their existing importance as
natural movement corridors, should be prioritized.

2.3.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
& CRITICAL HABITATS
Biogeographic analysis documents a total of 526 plant and animal species within the North Coast Region boundary
(CNDDB, CDFW). Most if not all of the watersheds
within the North Coast Region support some “special
status” plant and animal species (e.g. those designated of special concern, rare, threatened, or endangered by
state or federal governments). Not all of these specialstatus species occur in every watershed and there are likely additional special-status species present
within the Region that are not yet accounted for.

2.3.6.1 FEDERAL & STATE LISTED SPECIES
Particularly relevant to implementing the NCRP and
its projects is consideration of a subset of special
status species: the Region’s 86 state- or federallylisted threatened and/or endangered species (46 plants, 40 animals). These plant and animal species
are currently (2013) on state and federal protection lists per the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA is
administered by two federal agencies: the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Enhancement of native salmonid species has been
a priority of the NCRP since its inception in 2005. In
theory and in practice, salmonids are a focal point for improving all beneficial uses of water: management
strategies and projects that benefit salmonids will
improve overall watershed health and quality of life
for all watershed inhabitants. North Coast salmonid
ESUs are well-studied and many comprehensive
sources and interactive web-based tools exist for
stakeholders interested in learning more about local
and regional condition, status, and needs (see Appendix G, Table G-28, Threatened & Endangered Species).

2.3.6.2 NORTH COAST SALMONIDS
Salmonids are fishes with cold-water requirements and
anadromous lifestyles; three salmonid species inhabit
the North Coast Region rivers, streams, estuaries,
and coastal/ nearshore environments: steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), Chinook (O. tshawytscha), and Coho (O. kisutch) salmon. The current status of
their populations (Evolutionary Significant Units, ESUs) under the federal and state ESAs is summarized below:
• Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU:

Federal and state listed endangered
• Southern Oregon/Northern California Coho
Salmon ESU: Federal and state listed threatened
• California Coastal Chinook ESU, Central California
Coast Steelhead ESU, Northern California
Steelhead ESU: Federal listed threatened
Because their life cycle is intricately tied to conditions of water quality and quantity, salmon and steelhead
are useful indicators of overall watershed health (DWR
and USACE 2013) and may be appropriately applied at
multiple geographic scales to address local stakeholder priorities. Recent numeric or narrative indicator for
salmonid habitat and population conditions are available for the watersheds of the North Coast Region (NMFS
2010). In addition to providing an indicator of watershed health, salmonids also serve important socio-economic
purposes. North Coast fisheries have traditionally
supported a commercial and recreational fishing
industry, and salmon have always been an important
component in the traditional North Coast Tribal cultural and spiritual practices, social structure, and economy. 30 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 18 SALMONID EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS
Population Trends
Abundance-trend information for salmonid populations
in stream systems along the Pacific central and
north coasts indicates an overall declining trend for
salmonid populations. North Coast salmonid ESUs
exhibit (1) low abundance (2) reduced distribution,
and (3) generally negative trends in abundance (NOAA
2005). Survival rates in the marine environment can
be strong determinants of population abundance. The
observed and reported increases in some salmon
populations and/or fisheries in recent years maybe
largely a result of a combination of more favorable
ocean and inland habitat conditions (i.e. increased
marine productivity, spawning and juvenile habitat)
leading to higher juvenile fish survival and significantly increased recruitment into North Coast streams.

Threats & Uncertainties
It is generally agreed that there is no single factor
responsible for the observed continued decline in
salmonid numbers and distribution. This is due to the
complexity of the salmon species life history and the
multiple ecosystems they inhabit during their life cycle.

Factors responsible for salmonid declines include a
combination of anthropogenic and naturally occurring
causes that may be exhibited both in freshwater, in
estuaries, and the ocean. Inadequate streamflow,
impaired water quality, loss of access to habitat, past poor land use practices, and ocean-atmosphere climate
variability are among the causes of salmonid decline.

Freshwater fishes are highly vulnerable to climate
change impacts, particularly native fishes and cold-water species, such as salmonids (Moyle et al 2013). Widereaching global and regional human activities constantly threaten to alter, damage, or destroy salmon habitat
from spawning reaches through to marine habitats.

Conservation Efforts
Congress established the Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund in 2000, in support of salmonid restoration nationwide. At the federal level, efforts to restore and conserve salmonids are led by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, a.k.a. NOAA), which is the entity with
ultimate jurisdiction over North Coast salmonid ESUs,
and that is charged with coordinating salmonid recovery in the North Coast. NMFS works closely with the state
Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) to implement
substantial, salmonid habitat restoration and ongoing
monitoring data collection and dissemination. NMFS
considers a wealth of available salmonid- and watershedrelated data, and has recently (2014) incorporated them into published recommendations that are specific to the stream basins of the North Coast Region. The CDFW in
2004 released the Recovery Strategy for Coho Salmon
and previously published the Steelhead Restoration
and Management Plan (CDFW 1996). The California
Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (CDFW
1994, 1998, 2010) is used as a guide by restoration
practitioners throughout California, including for the
implementation of several of the NCRP prioritized
projects. Local watershed initiatives that benefit
salmonids in the North Coast Region are numerous
and include captive-rearing in hatcheries; removal and
modification of dams that obstruct salmon migration;
restoration of degraded habitat; acquisition of key upland, riparian, estuarine, and coastal habitat; improved water quality; and maintenance of sufficient instream flow.

Critical Habitats
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the
federal government to designate “critical habitat” for
any species it lists under the ESA. However, a critical habitat designation does not set up a preserve or
refuge; it applies only when Federal funding, permits,
or projects are involved and to ensure projects are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its designated
critical habitat. Critical habitat requirements also do not apply to citizens engaged in activities on private
land that does not involve a Federal agency (see
Appendix G, Table G-29, Critical Habitats of the North
Coast Region (Non-Salmonid) and Table 30, Critical
Habitat for Marbled Murrelet in North Coast Counties).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 31
MAP 19 CRITICAL HABITATS (NON-SALMONID)
North Coast Salmonid Critical Habitat
Habitat factors related to water flow, water quality, and habitat complexity are known to be critical requirements for salmonid populations. Sedimentation, increased
water temperature, and chemical and biological pollution can reduce habitat viability and negatively affect at least some stages of the salmonid life cycle. Spawning salmon are known to require adequate surface flows in order
to return upstream to their natal streams and clean,
appropriately sized gravel in which to spawn; juveniles need intact complex habitat (a matrix of pools, riffles, large woody debris, and riparian vegetation) to provide shelter, food, cool water temperatures, and other factors necessary for survival; and smolts seek intact, unpolluted estuarine habitat to physiologically adjust to the salinity environment prior to outmigration to the ocean.

Salmonid population declines are believed to result
from a complex combination of numerous direct and
indirect factors in freshwater, estuarine, and/or marine environments. Although the ultimate and proximate causes are uncertain, most factors impacting salmonids are
expressed at the habitat level; protection and enhancement of the critical habitats salmonids might occupy is one
strategy with strong potential to facilitate salmonid recovery to sustainable population levels (see Appendix G, Table G-31, Critical Habitat of Salmonids in the North Coast Region).

MAP 20 SALMONID CRITICAL HABITATS

2.3.7 HYDROLOGY
Mean annual runoff in the North Coast is about 29
million acre-feet (maf), which constitutes about 41
percent of the state’s total natural runoff (DWR 2013), greater than any other single hydrologic region in
California. The estimated 2000-2010 water balance
for the Region’s four DWR-designated Planning Areas
is provided in the California Water Plan (DWR 2013).

The volume of water exported to other regions in the
state is generally greater than all the water the North Coast Region consumes for urban, agriculture and
wildlife refuges combined (see Appendix H, Hydrology).

There are fundamental physical and mechanistic
connections between groundwater basins and surface
water bodies, although they are frequently designated
“ground” and “surface” water for management and
planning purposes. Although the two forms appear
to be different supplies, they in reality, they form a
single water supply joined by the hydrologic cycle. This understanding has direct implications for the Region’s
domestic and municipal water supplies, which depend
heavily on a single ground-surface water supply. For
example, lowering of groundwater levels can impact
the surface water-groundwater interaction by inducing
additional infiltration and recharge from surface water systems, thereby reducing the groundwater discharge to
32 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 surface water base flow and wetlands areas. Extensive
lowering of groundwater levels can also result in land
subsidence (lowering of the ground surface) due to the
dewatering, compaction, and loss of storage within
finer grained aquifer systems (DWR and USACE 2013).

Beneficial management practices like “conjunctive water use” (storing excess surface waters in groundwater
basins for use during dry periods) and ecosystem
processes like water recharge also rely on this basic
ground-surface relationship. Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater has been utilized for decades
by numerous coastal and inland basins throughout the
North Coast Hydrologic Region, including the Eureka
Plain, Eel River Valley, Santa Rosa Valley, Smith River Plain, Wilson Grove, Big Valley, Tule Lake Valley, Scott Valley, and Shasta Valley (DWR 2013). Many agencies
have erected systems of barriers to allow more efficient percolation of ephemeral runoff from surrounding
mountains (see Appendix H, Table H-34, Water Resources
& Water Use for North Coast Region Basins).

Seasonal flooding is characteristic of much of the
Region, including along river floodplains and low-lying coastal areas. The intensity, distribution, and duration of precipitation are strongly correlated with flood potential.

Proximate factors may either facilitate or confound
effective management of flood levels, depending on how
water and land are managed. These factors may include
the size of the watershed drained; channel capacity;
infiltration and runoff rates; urbanization; dams and
reservoirs; snowmelt, stormwater runoff retention; and
natural and built infrastructure capabilities. Damaging floods occur relatively frequently in the Region, with
particularly destructive floods documented in December
1955, December 1964, February 1986, spring 1995, and
January 1997 and 2006 (NCRWQCB 2011, DWR 2013).

The extent and nature of impacts to stream morphology
from flooding depends on the channel geometry,
longitudinal slope, channel material type(s) and size(s), and the type and density of channel vegetation (Center
for Watershed Protection 2003, Roesner and Bledsoe
2003). For example, increased flows within a deep,
narrow channel may result in significantly higher shear stresses at the bed; this same increase in a wide, shallow channel may become predominantly overbank flow.

Where all other factors are equal, fewer impacts would
be expected where flows have access to broad overbank
areas (i.e., floodplains) during relatively common floods (Segura and Booth 2010), channel materials are more
resistant, and stabilizing riparian vegetation is present.

Conversely, where erosion and bank instability result in the loss of vegetation reinforcement, a positive feedback response may cause erosion to be accelerated.

A number of areas in the Region experience 100- and
500-year floods, as defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. In the North Coast, more
than 30,000 people (5% Region population) and $3
billion in assets lie within the 100-year flood zone.

Some 40,000 people and over $4 billion in assets are
exposed to the 500-year flood event (DWR 2013).

MAP 21 FLOOD ZONES
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 33
MAP 22 SEA LEVEL RISE & COASTAL INUNDATION

2.3.7.1 HYDROMODIFICATION
Changes in flow and sediment loads to streams and other watercourses associated with storm and flood events
can result in significant and long-standing impacts to
beneficial uses of North Coast waters. These changes
are collectively referred to as “hydromodification”.

Most jurisdictions in California are now required to
address the effects of hydromodification through
either a municipal stormwater permit or the statewide
construction general permit. The State and Regional
Water Boards have recognized the need to manage
and control the effects of hydromodification in order to protect beneficial uses in streams and other receiving
water bodies. This recognition has led to the inclusion of requirements for development of “hydromodification
management plans” (HMPs) in many Phase 1 and
some Phase 2 Municipal Stormwater (MS4) permits.

2.3.7.2 SURFACE WATERS
The North Coast Region contains numerous rivers,
streams, and creeks, some of which flow year-round and
others that were more or less seasonally intermittent
historically, or are now intermittent due to overdrafting.

A total of approximately 34,586 kilometers (21,491 miles) of rivers and streams drain watersheds of the Region
(see Appendix H, Table H-33, Rivers & Streams of the North Coast Region). The total length of streams varies across the Region’s WMAs and counties. They rank, from highest to lowest, of total stream length for WMAs is: Klamath
(9,056 km.), Eel (8,351 km.), North Coast Rivers (6,082 km.), Trinity (5,567 km.), Russian/Bodega (3,270 km.), and Humboldt (2,260 km.). The rank for counties is: Mendocino (7,798 km.), Humboldt (7,356 km.), Siskiyou (6,976 km.), Sonoma (2,481 km.), Del Norte (1,940 km.), Lake (937 km.), Modoc (801 km.), Glenn (174 km.), and Marin (71 km.).

Other than the extensive river and stream networks
referenced above, major natural freshwater bodies
are relatively rare in the North Coast Region. Major
natural freshwater bodies include Meiss Lake in
Siskiyou County, the Laguna de Santa Rosa in Sonoma
County, and historic Tule Lake in Modoc County. Small
natural lakes are few relative to other regions, and are particularly common (though again, not numerous) in
Siskiyou and Trinity counties. Human-built reservoirs and lakes (e.g. of all sizes and for flood control, recreation, agriculture, or other purposes) are numerous.

Extensive estuaries (brackish and associated with mouths of rivers) and varied shoreline environments occur
throughout the North Coast. Estuarine environments are
areas of high primary productivity and thus critical to the support of marine and coastal biodiversity. Coastal and estuarine habitats are critical for many species of waterfowl and shore birds, which feed and nest there.

Intertidal areas throughout the Region are used extensively as nursery habitat for many types of marine organisms,
including shellfish and fishes. Salmonids require estuaries as a staging area to physiologically adapt to environmental changes in salinity. Marine invertebrates and fish utilize the rich resources in tideland areas along the North
Coast, and serve as forage for seabirds and marine
mammals. Offshore coastal rocks are used for resting and reproduction by marine mammals and as nesting areas
by many species of seabirds. Examples are Lake Earl in
Del Norte County, Humboldt Bay and lagoons in Humboldt
County, and Bodega Bay in Sonoma County. Also included
in this category are the extensive estuarine environments of rivers at their confluence with the Pacific Ocean (e.g. the Smith, Klamath, Tenmile, Noyo, Albion, Big, Navarro, Gualala, and Russian Rivers, plus numerous smaller
waterways). These important areas include a number
of protected coastal and near-shore marine areas.

Various pollutants have compromised the quality of
many North Coast surface waters (lakes, estuaries, bays and others, in addition to rivers). These are designated as “impaired waterbodies” (or “waters” or “segments”)
under Section 303(d) of the California Clean Water Act.

The state publishes surface water monitoring results
for select water bodies throughout the Region; data
may be uploaded or downloaded from the Surface
Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP).
34 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 23 SURFACE WATERS
MAP 24 IMPAIRED WATER BODIES [303(D) LISTED]

2.3.7.3 GROUNDWATER
Use of groundwater resources is regulated through the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA),
a three-bill legislative package (AB 1739, SB 1168,
and SB 1319) signed into law in September 2014. This
bill creates a framework for sustainable groundwater
management with the goal of using groundwater “in a
manner that can be maintained during the planning and
implementation horizon without causing undesirable
results.” The act requires governments and water
agencies of high and medium priority basins (see
below) to halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. The act empowers
local agencies to form Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies to manage basins and requires them to adopt
Groundwater Sustainability Plans for high and medium
priority basins. The California Statewide Groundwater
Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, established
in 2009, tracks seasonal and long-term groundwater
elevation trends in groundwater basins statewide and is a tool to help achieve goals set out under the SGMA.

Groundwater resources in the North Coast Hydrologic
Region are supplied by both alluvial and fractured-rock aquifers. Alluvial aquifers are composed of sand and
gravel or finer grained sediments, with groundwater
stored within the pore spaces between sediment
particles. Fractured-rock aquifers, in contrast, consist of impermeable rocks with groundwater stored in
cracks, fractures, or other void spaces. The distribution and extent of alluvial and fractured-rock aquifers
and water wells vary significantly within the Region.

Alluvial groundwater basins and subbasins underlie
approximately 1,600 square miles (8 percent of the
region). Fractured-rock aquifers in the foothill and
mountain areas adjacent to the many alluvial groundwater basins also provide groundwater supply in the region.

Groundwater from fractured-rock aquifers tends to supply individual domestic and stock wells, or small community water systems. Fractured-rock aquifers, and the wells
that they supply, tend to have less capacity and reliability than wells in alluvial aquifers. However, localized
fractured-rocks within the Klamath, Butte, and Shasta
Valley groundwater basins tend to form some of the most highly productive fractured-rock aquifers in California.

Groundwater is functionally linked to surface water
although they may or may not be physically connected.

Groundwater basins do not always follow the same
boundaries as surface waters and groundwater sources
likely exist even where groundwater basins have not been identified (NCRWQCB 2011). The volume of groundwater
cached in North Coast basins is not fully quantified. In some areas (e.g. Klamath Basin), groundwater quality
may not be adequate to support use as drinking water,
due to naturally occurring elements (e.g. arsenic).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 35
Where feasible, North Coast groundwater is pumped
for consumptive uses related to agricultural, domestic, and municipal supply. In some areas, surplus pumped
groundwater is returned to the hydrologic cycle to
regulate the water table (e.g in the Butte Valley, via
Lake Meiss, to the Klamath River; NCRWQCB 2011).

The Department of Water Resources has identified a
minimum of 63 groundwater basins and subbasins
underlying the North Coast Region (DWR 2013).

Groundwater basins are unevenly distributed
throughout the Region’s WMAs and counties. The
two largest groundwater basins in the Region are
described in some detail below (see the California
Water Plan (2018) for details on other basins).
• The Upper Klamath River Valley Groundwater Basin
is the largest groundwater basin in the North Coast
Hydrologic Region, encompassing approximately
161,260 acres. It is the most heavily used of the
Region’s basins, and is shared with users across the
Oregon border. It is composed of two subbasins —
the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake Subbasins.

The primary water-bearing formations include
Tertiary to Quaternary lake deposits and volcanics.

Recharge occurs through infiltration of surface
water from channels, lakes and sumps of the Lower
Klamath and Tule Lake basins along with underflow
from adjacent, rapidly-replenished volcanic rocks.
• The Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin in
Sonoma County is the second largest groundwater
basin in the Region, encompassing approximately
79,000 acres. It is located within the larger 167,410-
acre Santa Rosa Plain watershed, which includes
all of the Mark West Creek watershed (161,410
acres) with areas to the northwest and south of the
Mark West Creek watershed boundary added to
include most of the Santa Rosa Plain groundwater
subbasin as defined by the California Department of
Water Resources. The Mark West Creek watershed
includes the Mark West Creek, Santa Rosa Creek
and Laguna de Santa Rosa basins. The four principal
aquifer units are the Glen Ellen Formation, Wilson
Grove Formation, Petaluma Formation and the
Sonoma Volcanics. Significant sources of recharge
are infiltration of precipitation, infiltration from
streams, and irrigation-return flow (USGS 2013).,
the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability
Agency is developing a Groundwater Sustainability
Plan, which is expected to be completed in 2021.

DWR ranks the Region’s groundwater basins and
sub-basins as “high,” “medium,” or “low” priority for
monitoring/ response. DWR currently requires compliance with CASGEM and the SGMA only in high and medium
priority basins, and restricts many of its funding programs to these same basins (Revelle 2014). There are no high
priority basins in the North Coast Region, but there
are seven medium priority basins, listed below (the 56
remaining basins are designated as low or very low
priority) (SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard Final
2019). For the most recent basin prioritization information, please check the SGMA Basin Prioritization Web Page.
• Tulelake (1-002.01)
• Butte Valley (1-003)
• Shasta Valley (1-004)
• Scott River Valley (1-005)
• Eel River Valley (1-010)
• Santa Rosa Plain (1-055.01)
• Ukiah Valley (1-052)
Substantial data on groundwater basins exist: however,
there are still data gaps related to the extent and function of groundwater basins; some basins are not documented
at all; and there is an imperfect understanding of the
role that the “recharge landscape” (i.e. the surrounding watershed) plays in the functioning of groundwater basins.

The state maintains a robust website for Groundwater
Management where updates to basin prioritization, the
SGMA Groundwater Management Program, CASGEM
Groundwater Monitoring, and associated groundwater
management information can be accessed. Additionally,
DWR publishes “California Groundwater Bulletin 118”
(updated 2003, and partially updated in 2016), which
presents comprehensive results of state groundwater
evaluations including of groundwater quantity, quality, and management strategies for each basin in the state.

In 2020 and every 5 years after, the DWR will release
comprehensive updates to Bulletin 118. The State
Water Resources Control Board monitors groundwater
quality at select wells throughout the Region.
36 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 25 GROUNDWATER BASINS & SUB-BASINS

2.3.8 WATER QUALITY
The present water quality within the Region generally
meets or exceeds state and regional water quality
objectives set forth in Section 3 of the “Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region” (a.k.a. Basin
Plan, NCRWQCB 2011). In most cases the water quality
is “sufficient to support, and in some cases, enhance the beneficial uses assigned to water bodies.” The Basin Plan continues “However, there are a number of present or
potential water quality problems which may interfere with beneficial uses or create nuisances or health hazards.” Assembly Bill 1249 went into effect January 1, 2015. It requires IRWM regions with areas of arsenic, perchlorate, nitrate, or hexavalent chromium contamination to
include a description of the location and extent of
contamination, and impacts to communities within
the region caused by the contamination. It further
requires a description of existing efforts being
undertaken to address the impacts and any additional
efforts needed (see Appendix H, Table H-35, AB 1249
Groundwater Contaminants on the North Coast).

2.3.8.1 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
The North Coast Region faces many water quality
challenges. The US EPA has listed 85 percent of the
Region’s rivers and streams as impaired (NCRWQCB
2011), per the Clean Water Act Section 303(d). The
federal Clean Water Act and CFR §130 require the
state to identify water bodies not meeting water
quality standards and update these lists biennially; to obtain the most recent information about water quality
limited waterways in the North Coast, please see the
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
(NCRWQCB) web page for the Integrated Report.

The majority of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
(benchmarks established by the EPA) are developed in
response to sediment and temperature. Sediment and
temperature are thought to be associated with salmonid
decline and impairment of beneficial uses (NCRWQCB
2011). The primary surface water impairment is NPS
pollution produced by a variety of sources including
stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation from roads, agriculture, and timber harvest, channel modification
activities, gravel mining and dairy operations, failing septic tanks and MTBE, PCE, and dioxin contamination
from gas stations and industrial activities (NCRWQCB
2011). The North Coast does not contain any known
contamination of arsenic, chromium 6, nitrate, or
perchlorate in surface waters (SWRCB 2017).

2.3.8.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Groundwater quality issues in the North Coast Region
include seawater intrusion and elevated nutrients
in shallow coastal groundwater aquifers; high total
dissolved solids (TDS), elevated mineral and heavy metal concentrations and alkalinity in groundwater in the
Modoc Plateau basins; and iron, boron, and manganese
in the inland groundwater basins of Mendocino and
Sonoma counties. Legacy pollution from abandoned
mines and historical lumber mills and present-day
forest and agricultural herbicide application also pose a potential threat to regional groundwater, as do septic tank failures throughout the Region. Additionally, there are numerous small wastewater treatment plants
operating in violation of waste permit discharges due to issues with aging infrastructure, equipment malfunction, limited capacity, or a combination of these problems.

In 2009, the USGS, in conjunction with the SWRCB,
collected groundwater data from 58 wells selected from
the California Department of Public Health database
within 34 groundwater basins located in the North Coast Region (DWR 2013). Randomly selected wells included
locations in Lake, Mendocino, Glenn, Humboldt, and
Del Norte counties. All detected concentrations of
organic constituents, nutrients, major and minor ions,
and radioactive constituents were less than healthbased benchmarks for the 30 wells sampled in the northern Coast Ranges. There were a few detections
of arsenic, boron, and barium in the 28 wells of the
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 37
interior basins, which exceeded MCLs or notification
levels (however, these are likely related to the area’s geology). The results of this study (Mathany et al.
2011) indicate that community drinking water systems
drawing from primary aquifer systems in the North
Coast region generally provide safe drinking water,
although there are exceptions, which are detailed below for arsenic, chromium 6, nitrate, and perchlorate in
accordance with AB 1249 (see Appendix H, Table H-35,
AB 1249 Groundwater Contaminants on the North Coast).

Arsenic
Arsenic is naturally occurring statewide (SWRCB 2013)
and is the most prevalent groundwater contaminant
affecting the North Coast region (DWR 2015). The
primary environmental source is weathering of arseniccontaining rocks, including a component of volcanic glass in volcanic rock, adsorbed to and co-precipitated with metal oxides (especially iron oxides), adsorbed
to clay-mineral surfaces, and associated with Sulfide
minerals and organic carbon. Stanford researchers
recently found that intensive pumping of groundwater
aquifers can increase arsenic levels in groundwater
basins in certain cases. The experiences of the Town
of Windsor reflect this: arsenic levels have been
found to increase with increased pumping (E. Cargay,
Town of Windsor; personal communication 9/ 2017).

Groundwater basins that contain alternating layers of
clay and sand, an arsenic source, and relatively low
oxygen content are vulnerable to increased arsenic
contamination when subsidence due to overdrafting
is greater than 3 inches per year (Garwaite 2018).

There are several Community Water Systems (CWS)
in the North Coast that rely on a groundwater
source determined to be contaminated with arsenic
at levels over the MCL (Table 1). These facilities
are using different methods to decrease arsenic
contamination which are briefly described in Table

1. Some communities that had problems with
arsenic contamination in the past have successfully
consolidated with city water systems; this may be a
solution for systems in close proximity to municipalities, especially those in the southern part of the Region.

TABLE 1 NORTH COAST CWS WITH WELLS HAVING

CONSISTENTLY HIGH ARSENIC LEVELS
County Facility Treatment Method
Humboldt Palomino Estates Mutual
Water Company
Triple media filtration
Mendocino Laytonville County
Water District
Coagulation/ oxidation
Sonoma Loch Haven Mutual
Water Company
Point of use arsenic removal
inside each residence, approved
by SWRCB, about 12 homes.

Sonoma Mount Weske Estates
Mutual Water Company
Working with SWRCB
Sonoma Sebastopol
Two methods:
• Blending water from adjacent
zone with low As levels
• Media filter system using adsorption
with Ferric Oxide and SORB 33
Sonoma Shamrock Mobile Home Park Precipitative process using FeCl3 Sonoma Town of Windsor
Currently, wells not potable due
to arsenic, treatment methods
under investigation. Alternative
sources are in use.

Sonoma Western Mobile Home Park
Two wells, one above MCL, one
below. Water from both sources is
blended in tank so water delivered
to homes is not above MCL.

Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium 6)
Chromium is a metallic chemical that is widely found in natural metal deposits, soils, and plants that generally occurs in the environment as trivalent chromium (Cr-3).

However, under certain environmental conditions,
Cr-3 will oxidize to hexavalent chromium (Cr-6), which
is a suspected human carcinogen. Groundwater can
contain both naturally occurring and anthropogenic
Cr-6. Naturally occurring Cr-6 may be associated with
serpentinite-containing rock (present throughout the
Franciscan formation or chromium containing geologic
formations, and can also indicate oxidation of natural Cr-3 from chrome-iron ore deposits. Anthropogenic sources
of Cr-6 include discharges of dye and paint pigments,
wood preservatives, metal-plating liquid wastes, and
leaching from hazardous waste sites (SWRCB 2016b).

In July 2011, after several years of study, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) established a public health goal for Cr-6 of 0.02 mg/L. This number represents a “de minimis” lifetime
cancer risk from exposure to Cr-6 in drinking water based on studies in lab animals. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) was then enabled to set a primary
drinking standard, which was proposed to be 0.010
milligrams per liter (mg/L) (equivalent to 10 mg/L). After public comment and review for compliance with the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Minimum Contaminant
Level (MCL) was set at 0.01 mg/L in July 2014. In
September 2015, SB 385 was signed by the Governor; its
38 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 primary purpose was to provide public water systems
with water sources above the State’s adopted MCL time to come into compliance without being deemed in violation.

The bill required a public water system to submit its
plan for achieving compliance within the shortest
period of time, not to extend beyond January 1, 2020.

On May 31, 2017, the Superior Court of Sacramento
County issued a judgment invalidating the Cr-6
MCL, finding that the CDPH failed to comply with the
requirement in the Safe Drinking Water Act for adopting an MCL. It found that the department “failed to properly consider the economic feasibility of complying with the MCL” and ordered to SWRCB to adopt a new MCL for
Cr-6. The SWRCB chose not to appeal the trial court’s
decision, but is instead focused on adopting a new
regulation more quickly. It will not enforce any compliance plans entered into by public water systems for Cr-6; the MCL for total chromium (Cr-3 and Cr-6) of 50 parts per
billion (equivalent to 0.05 mg/L) will remain in place.

The SWRCB contends that “hexavalent chromium
remains present in the water supply of many public
water systems, and continues to pose a threat to public health.” The Board will establish a new MCL which could be the same level as the invalidated MCL. It encourages public water systems that have already installed and
are operating treatment systems for Cr-6 to continue to do so. Operators who wish to discontinue treatment for
Cr-6 may request a change in their operating permit by
submitting a permit application. Public water systems
will be able to use all information and experience gained from working towards compliance of the invalidated MCL
to comply with the new MCL when it is adopted; SWRCB
will establish a new MCL for Cr-6 as close to the public health goal set by the OEHHA as is technologically and
economically feasible. New regulation development is
expected to be completed by mid-late 2019 (SWRCB 2017).

The SWRCB developed the online GAMA Program
that integrates and displays groundwater quality data
derived from different sources. Following is countylevel information from the GAMA Program database:
• Del Norte County
In the Crescent City area, a few locations have
exceeded the invalidated MCL (10mg/L) in the past
three years; these are located at the Pine Grove
Trailer Park, Northcrest Trailer City, and Butte Court
Mobile Home Park (GAMA Geotracker, accessed
July 2017). Las Palmas Mobile Home Park (MHP)
also exceeded the invalidated MCL in 2015 and 2017
(K. Pryor, Las Palmas MHP, pers. comm., 2017). Of
these locations, the Pine Grove Trailer Park and
West Park Properties showed a decrease in Cr-6
levels in 2017. At the current Health Advisory Level
(HAL-US) for Cr-6, which is 21 mg/L, West Park
Properties (GAMA Geotracker, accessed June 2018)
exceeded the HAL in March and September 2015,
but has not exceeded it since
The Las Palmas Mobile Home Park management
did extensive research and found seven alternatives
for treatment including the alternative to do
nothing and continue monitoring, but its efforts
were put on hold when the MCL was invalidated. Its
preferred option was to consolidate with the City
of Crescent City; however, costs to the MHP were
prohibitive. Since most state funding is funneled
towards 501 C3 NGOs, special districts, and local
governments, private entities have historically had
difficulty competing for grant and other funding,
and a small water supplier such as the Las Palmas
MHP does not have the capital reserves to enter
into such a project as an equal partner with the
City of Crescent City. West Park Properties is
looking into treatment methods for Cr-6 and is
also investigating options for consolidation with
the City of Crescent City (NCRP Economically
Disadvantaged Community Water and Wastewater
Service Provider Water Needs Survey 2018).
• Humboldt County
In the Eureka area, one well tested above the
invalidated MCL for chromium-6 during the last
three years, but none have tested above the
current MCL during the past ten years. The well
that tested above the invalidated MCL tested at
14–16 mg/L in 2014 and 2015 (GAMA Geotracker,
accessed June 2018); it was a water supply well
for a mobile home park (Mobile Estates FN)
that appears to no longer be in business.
• Sonoma County
Three locations in the Wilson Grove Formation
Highlands groundwater basin (1-59), Andy’s
Produce Market and Fircrest Mutual Water
Company each exceeded the invalidated MCL for
Chromium-6. Andy’s Produce Market exceeded
the Invalidated MCL in October and November
2014 (25 and 29 mg/L respectively) and quarterly
in 2015, 2016, and 2017 (ranging from 21–29
mg/L) (GAMA Geotracker, accessed June 2018).

One well in the City of Sebastopol exceed the
HAL in October 2015, however, 24 water samples
since them have shown no Cr-6 contamination
(GAMA Geotracker, access June 2018).

Nitrate
Nitrate is the most common chemical contaminant
in the world’s groundwater aquifers and in California
is a regulated drinking water contaminant with an
established MCL of 45 mg/L. It is produced in the
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 39
atmosphere from nitrogen and occurs naturally in
groundwater at concentrations below 2 mg/L.

At higher levels, nitrates are usually introduced into
ground water through human activities. High nitrate
concentrations in groundwater are usually associated
with use of fertilizers and/or human and livestock
fecal waste as well as the production of explosives.

In the North Coast, although nitrate is not a common
groundwater contaminant, nitrate levels in groundwater
along the coast have shown a steady increase in the past decade (J. Puget, NCRWQCB, pers. comm. June 2017).

In general, nitrates in shallow aquifers are problems
in the coastal groundwater basins (DWR 2015).

Nitrate dissolves rapidly in water and is difficult
to remove once dissolved; once nitrate enters
groundwater, it can remain there for decades. High
levels of nitrate in drinking water are associated with adverse health effects including methemoglobinemia
(infants under 6 months are at greatest risk), birth
defects, and certain types of cancer (DWR 2016c).

Perchlorate
Perchlorate is a regulated drinking water contaminant;
its MCL is currently 6 mg/L (0.006 mg/L). In July 2017, the SWRCB accepted the Division of Drinking Water’s
recommendation to establish a lower detection limit for the purposes of report perchlorate in drinking water in an effort to gather addition data to determine whether
to revise the MCL. Although naturally occurring in salts in thick unsaturated zones in the southwestern USA,
when found at levels above MCL (6 mg/L), perchlorate
contamination is generally due to industrial and military use. Perchlorate and its salts are used in solid propellant for rockets, missiles, and fireworks; their use can
lead to release of perchlorate into the environment.

It is also present in matches, auto air bag inflators,
nuclear reactors, electronic tubes, and lubricating
oils and is used in leather tanning, as a fixer for fabric and dyes, electroplating, paint and enamel production,
and other industrial uses. It is highly soluble in water, highly mobile and persistent once within groundwater
(SWRCB 2013d). Perchlorate is a chemical that
interferes with uptake of iodine by the thyroid gland,
causing disruption of thyroid hormone production,
which can impact metabolism and physical growth.

Perchlorate was detected in 14/58 monitoring wells in
the Northern California GAMA study unit (24%), with
9/28 wells in Northern California Coastal GAMA study
unit (32%), and 5/30 wells in the Northern California
Inland GAMA study unit (17%). In the Cascade Range
and Modoc Plateau GAMA study unit, perchlorate
was detected in 40 of 84 wells; however, for both
studies there were no perchlorate concentrations
in excess of MCL. No community water systems
in the North Coast have reported exceedances
of the perchlorate MCL in the past decade.

2.3.8.3 RECLAIMED/ RECYCLED WATER QUALITY
The practice of collecting and reusing (rather than
disposing of) “excess” water from storm runoff and
“used” water from municipal treatment plants is utilized in the North Coast to improve local water supply security.

Programs that capture urban runoff and/or reclaimed (i.e. recycled) water must incorporate protection of human
health and the environment per state and federal water
quality laws (e.g. recycled water criteria in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations) and the state Recycled
Water Policy. The level of treatment varies depending
upon the intended end use of the recycled water. For the most part, agriculture can usually utilize lower quality water than most urban users, but some crops will be
sensitive to certain constituents such as boron, and there may be perception issues with using treated wastewater
for some applications (e.g. irrigating crops). The quality of recycled water is of less concern for projects such
as recharging the aquifer that supplies the Geysers
geothermal facility in Sonoma and Lake Counties.

2.3.8.4 FLOODWATER/ STORMWATER QUALITY
During rainfall events, water runs across surfaces that may be contaminated by pollutants. The stormwater
runoff is often directed into storm drains, which then
discharge to nearby creeks and rivers. Stormwater
runoff is a significant contributor to regional and
local non-point source water pollution and impacts
both surface and groundwater supplies. Water
runoff from cities, highways, industrial facilities and construction sites can carry pollutants that harm
water quality and impair the beneficial uses of waters.

Urbanization also can reduce the quality of stormwater
runoff (Brabec et al. 2002) by increasing pollutant
loads (Owe et al. 1982), increasing nutrient loads
(Hubertz and Cahoon 1999), and diluting dissolved
minerals through increased runoff and decreased
infiltration and soil contact (Loucaides et al. 2007).

The California Flood Future Report (DWR and
USACE 2013) provides comprehensive information
about flood risks and integrated flood management
strategies with direct applications for the North
Coast Region. According to the report, common
pollutants contained in stormwater runoff include:
• Sediment: Construction or other activities expose
and loosen soils, while vehicles break-up pavement.

Excessive sediment in water can affect the
respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic
40 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 organisms, cause aesthetic impacts to receiving
streams and affect spawning habitat for salmonids.
• Nutrients: Sources include fertilizer, lawn
clippings, and car exhaust, which contain
nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen. An
overabundance of nutrients can accelerate the
growth of algae, which is a key factor in the
decline of water clarity in some waterbodies.
• Heavy metals and toxic chemicals: Sources include
cars (brake pads, engine wear, etc), pesticides
and herbicides. Maintaining and cleaning
transportation vehicles can release solvents,
paint, rust, and lead. These chemicals may poison
organisms or cause serious birth defects.
• Bacteria: Sources include failing septic tanks,
sewer overflows, decaying organic material,
and the improper disposal of household
pet fecal material. Some bacteria found in
stormwater runoff can result in disease. Beach
closures result from high bacteria levels.

The federal Stormwater Permit Program attempts
to curtail stormwater pollution by requiring specific
industries and municipalities to obtain a permit
for stormwater discharges. The permit regulates
permittee activities to ensure the proper management
of pollution sources. There are three types of
permits required under the federal program:
• Industrial Permits: Stormwater discharges to
surface waters from companies involved in
manufacturing operations, transportation facilities
where vehicles are maintained (maintenance
includes fueling and washing), landfills, hazardous
waste sites, and other similar operations must
be covered by a stormwater discharge permit.
• Construction Permits: The major pollutant expected
from construction sites is erosion-related, where
large amounts of sediment laden water flows into
storm drains. Construction activities that involve
more than one acre of land disturbance must
obtain a permit for discharges of storm water.
• Municipal Permits: Large cities or other
municipalities must obtain a stormwater permit
for discharges of urban runoff from municipal
storm drain systems. The only municipality
currently under a permit with the NCRWQCB is
Santa Rosa, with the County of Sonoma and the
Sonoma County Water Agency as co-permittees.

The permit for the City of Santa Rosa requires
specific practices associated with street cleaning,
roadside maintenance, toxic/sewage spill
responses, and public outreach, to name a few.

SWRCB has regulatory and permitting oversight over
stormwater. Cities and other jurisdictions that operate large, medium, and small stormwater systems as
well as specific industrial activity sites, including
constructions sites that disturb more than an acre
of land, must apply for stormwater permits. SWRCB
provides policy and regulatory oversight, on behalf of the federal government, drawing authority for stormwater
regulation from the federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) and from direction within the Clean
Water Act which puts the framework for regulating
stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit system.

The state has established an online database to allow
regulated entities to view reports and information on
water quality control efforts related to stormwater.

Realizing that more action was necessary with respect
to managing stormwater in the state, the California
Water Action Plan, released in January 2014, called for multiple benefit stormwater management solutions
and more efficient permitting programs. As a result,
in April 2014, the State Water Board formed a team
of State Water Board and Regional Water Board staff
(Initiative Team) to develop a Storm Water Strategic
Initiative to guide the Water Board’s Storm Water
Program for at least the next ten years. After extensive public outreach, review, and comment, SWRCB staff
created a strategy-based document called the Strategy
to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water
(STORMS). STORMS has led to the development Phase I,
II, and II projects; the latter phases incorporate lessons learned from earlier phases and expand upon the
realization that stormwater is an underutilized resource.

In April 2018, the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) adopted a resolution approving formation of
the California Stormwater Authority as a California Joint Powers Agency (JPA). The JPA is intended to provide
facilitation of collaborative stormwater management
efforts and develop tools to assist public and private
permittees to comply with municipal, industrial and
construction stormwater permits. This is one of several initiatives the SWRCB is implementing in an effort to
change the perception of stormwater from a nuisance
that mobilizes pollutants to a resource for groundwater recharge, among other uses. It is with this intent that the SWRCB is requiring IRWM plans to incorporate
local and regional Storm Water Management Plans
(SWMPs) (see Section 1.2.6 for the NCRP’s process for
incorporation of local and regional SWMPs). Optimization of stormwater resources include capture and use and
development of a monetary value for storm water as
well as increasing stakeholder collaboration to promote storm water as a resource, increasing Storm Water
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 41
Permit Compliance, and alignment with other statewide
planning efforts such as the Biological Integrity Plan.

Several entities in the North Coast have developed
Storm Water Resource Plans (SWRP) and these have
been incorporated into the NCRP Plan per the NCRP
Plan & Storm Water Resource Plan Integration Process
Policy, (see NCRP Leadership Guidance Handbook, Policy
Appendix and the NCRP Integrated Local Plans webpage).

The Russian River SWRP utilizes a metrics-based
analysis to demonstrate that proposed storm water
and dry weather capture projects and programs
satisfy the State’s water management objectives and
provide multiple benefits. Due to the wide variety
of potential benefits to different areas within the
watershed, the analysis weighs the importance of
each potential project benefits, normalizes the amount
of benefit expected into a point score, and sums the
total point value for all project benefits, allowing
for local control while optimizing regional benefits.

This methodology is open and transparent, allowing
input from the public and stakeholders and can be
adapted to analyze a variety of project proposals. Of
95 projects submitted for consideration, 51 met the
screening criteria and were then prioritized according
to the matrix described above. The prioritized
projects will provide multiple benefits including:
• Sediment reduction (27 million pounds per year)
• Flood mitigation (20 local sites)
• Riparian habitat restoration (46 acres)
• Wetlands restoration/ creation (44 acres)
• New urban green space (90 acres)
• Educating over 100,000 people
• Involving over 66,000 community members
• Improving recreational areas that collectively
receive over 1 million visitors per year
The Coastal Mendocino County SWRP encompasses three
coastal watersheds: Pudding Creek, Noyo River, and
Big River watersheds. The SWRP provides a framework
for identifying and selecting potential projects that use stormwater as a resource for multi-benefit projects that augment water supply, identify areas of concern, enhance water quality, reduce flooding, and create environmental and community benefits. The County of Mendocino
has a web page for submitting local project proposals
with a submittal deadline of December 31, 2019.

The Eureka Area Watersheds SWRP “facilitates a
watershed-based analysis of storm water issues and
opportunities within select watersheds that drain to
Humboldt Bay.” The Eureka Area Watersheds SWRP
is intended to maximize cooperation and collaboration
among state, regional and local agencies and
NGOs during the development and implementation
of storm water projects in addition to providing
guidance for the identification and prioritization
of those projects. The North Coast Stormwater
Coalition provides a web page for project proponents
to submit projects for inclusion in the SWRP.

2.3.9 WATER QUANTITY
According to the Basin Plan for the North Coast
(NCRWQCB 2011), the Region is abundant in surface
water and groundwater resources. Though the Region
constitutes about 12% of the area of California, it
produces about 40% of the annual runoff. This runoff
contributes to flow in surface water streams, storage
in lakes and reservoirs, and replenishes groundwater.

The potential for greater variability in precipitation, runoff, recharge, and other hydrologic variables as a
result of climate change, lends an additional degree
of uncertainty to local and regional water supply
forecasting. The potential impacts of climate change
on hydrologic variables related to water supply are
quantified and mapped in the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, which is available on the NCRP website.

MAP 26 AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF (1971-2099)
42 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 27 AVERAGE ANNUAL RECHARGE (1971-2000)

2.3.9.1 SURFACE WATER QUANTITY
The North Coast Region contains numerous rivers,
streams, and creeks, some of which flow year-round and
others that are more or less seasonally- intermittent.

Approximately 34,586 kilometers (21,491 miles) of
rivers and streams drain watersheds of the Region.

Surface waters are diverted to supply urban, municipal, and rural residential needs, agriculture, state and federal water supply projects, managed wetlands, required
Delta outflow, instream flow, and Wild and Scenic Rivers flow. Surface water supplies in the North Coast Region
are relatively dependent upon rainwater (as opposed to
snowpack, though snowpack represents a significant
source in Siskiyou and Trinity counties). In years when demand by water users remains stable and rainfall is
abundant, only local water quality issues and the need
for more adequate water-related infrastructure will
limit future water supply. In years of scarce rainfall, however, surface water supplies will be stressed and
several years of drought will likely produce more
water supply-related conflicts. Greater use of water
recycling for irrigation, improvements to water recycling technology, multi-benefit stormwater resource planning
and projects, increased judicious use of small-scale
rainwater harvest systems, and other compatible uses
such as the Geysers project may alleviate some of the
Region’s reliance on adequate rainfall amounts.

2.3.9.2 GROUNDWATER QUANTITY
There are 63 groundwater basins/subbasins delineated
in the North Coast Region, two of which are shared
with Oregon (DWR, Bulletin 118). These basins underlie
approximately 1,022 million acres (1,600 square miles).

There is limited large-scale groundwater development
in the North Coast Region due to the small number of
significant coastal aquifers. Most of the groundwater
development that has occurred comes from shallow
wells installed adjacent to rivers. There are, however, significant groundwater basins underlying the Klamath
River valley along the Oregon border and the southern
tip of the Region underlying Santa Rosa in Sonoma
County (DWR 2011). Groundwater may provide a
supplemental source in some localities. Despite the
limits on large-scale infrastructure development,
groundwater is used widely throughout the Region
for individual domestic, agricultural, and industrial
water supply (NCRWQCB 2011). Many rural areas rely
exclusively on private wells for residential water.

As with surface water, recharge to groundwater supply
is highly dependent on precipitation. The amount of
groundwater available varies yearly with precipitation, infiltration, and the amount of withdrawals from
groundwater basins. Withdrawals, in turn, are in part
dependent on the amount of surface water available for
municipalities that use both surface and groundwater
for supply needs. Groundwater is a significant water
source for some small rural communities that rely
on residential wells for water, but the total amount of groundwater use in the Region is small compared to
surface water use. In California, prior to 2015 when
the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (AB
1739), regulation of extraction and appropriation of
groundwater was the responsibility of local agencies.

Siskiyou County had developed several codes regarding
groundwater and a Groundwater Advisory Committee has
been appointed and is active for Scott Valley (Siskiyou County Code of Ordinances 2012) and much of the valley
is under adjudication. Adjudication for the Scott Valley includes a defined interrelated groundwater area.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) (AB 1739) creates a framework for sustainable
local groundwater management by requiring local
agencies to establish a governance structure known
as a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) prior to
developing groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs)
for groundwater basins or subbasins. Currently, the
North Coast has four GSAs developing GSPs for the five
groundwater basins/ subbasins designated medium
priority by the DWR (see section 2.2.7 Groundwater).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 43
Other communities may elect to develop GSPs; however,
they are not required for communities that rely on
groundwater basins with “low” or “very low” prioritization.

The California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring (CASGEM) Program has been tracking
seasonal and long-term groundwater elevation trends
in groundwater basins since 2009 and is now considered
a tool to help local communities monitor and adaptively manage to achieve goals developed in their GSPs.

2.3.9.3 RECLAIMED/ RECYCLED WATER QUANTITY
Recycled water is defined in the California Water Code
to mean “water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur.” Water reclamation is the process of treating wastewater, storing, distributing, and reusing the water. The practice of capturing or treating water (treated wastewater, captured stormwater) for
reuse in non-potable applications can reduce demand
on potable surface and groundwater supplies and
thereby increase local water supply security. Existing
uses of reclaimed water, including for landscape
irrigation and holding tanks for fire suppression, are
currently being used by the City of Santa Rosa, the
City of Arcata, the Town of Windsor and other entities
within the Region. The Region’s most significant
water reclamation project is operated in conjunction
with the Geysers steamfield in Sonoma County.

Geysers Recharge Project
The Santa Rosa Sub-regional Reclamation System
reclaims water, treats it to a tertiary level, and distributes it to agricultural users, golf courses, public and private landscaping, and The Geysers steamfield. Santa Rosa’s
reclamation system is one of the largest reclaimed
water agricultural irrigation systems in the country.

For the Geysers Recharge Project, reclaimed water is
piped through a 42-mile pipeline to injection wells in
The Geysers steamfield in Sonoma and Lake counties.

The wells inject the treated effluent into the geothermal field’s deep reservoir, where the water is heated by
geothermal activity to produce steam that is utilized to produce electricity at nearby power plants. The Geysers Recharge Project was chosen as a means to dispose of
treated wastewater during the winter months, when there is no demand for agricultural irrigation. The Sub-regional Reclamation System had previously been discharging
the unused water to the Russian River, but stricter water quality regulations removed this option. The Sub-regional Reclamation System is currently exploring other means
of reusing or disposing of current and future amounts of reclaimed water in order to best manage water resources.

In November 2003, the Geysers Recharge Project began
pumping 11 mgd of highly treated wastewater from the
Laguna Treatment Plant to The Geysers steamfields,
high in the Mayacamas Mountains. In January 2008,
the delivery was up to 12.62 mgd helping to generate
enough electricity for 100,000 households in Sonoma
and other North Bay counties. The proposed Geysers
Expansion Project builds on the Geysers Recharge
Project and will increase recycled water deliveries to
the Geysers steamfield up to 19.8 mgd or as much
as an additional 3,209 million gallons per year. Santa
Rosa has completed negotiations with Calpine, the
steamfield operator, and has signed a contract to
send more water to the steamfield (DWR 2013).

2.3.9.4 IMPORTED & EXPORTED WATER QUANTITY
The North Coast region does not import water, however
water transfers do occur within the Region. For example, Eel River water is diverted at the Van Arsdale Dam
into the Russian River (Potter Valley Project). The
North Coast generally exports more water to other
regions than the volume of water consumed within the
Region for agricultural and urban uses. Claire Engle
Reservoir (Trinity Lake) and the Trinity River Diversion (TRD) represent the only exportation of water outside
of the Region, supplying water to the Central Valley
as well as major urban centers in the San Francisco
Bay Area, including the Petaluma Aqueduct (DWR
2013). Prior to construction of the TRD, average annual discharge at Lewiston was approximately 1.2 million
acre-feet (af); following construction in 1963, instream flow releases were set at 120,500 acre-feet (af)/yr (10 percent of the average unimpaired inflow) (DWR 2013).

Since then up to 90 percent of releases from Lewiston
Dam have been diverted for agricultural use south of
the Bay Delta. The Trinity River Flow Evaluation (TRFE), completed in 1999 by the Hoopa Valley Tribe and US Fish & Wildlife Service, has recommended average annual
releases of 594,500 af, with 47 percent to be released
to the Trinity River and 53 percent to be diverted to the Central Valley (USFWS and Hoopa Valley Tribe 1999).

In March 2017, Northwest California Resource
Conservation & Development Council’s Five Counties
Salmonid Conservation Program (5C) completed an
economic valuation of natural capital and economic
analysis for Trinity River Water. In the report, they cite a range in value for agricultural irrigation to the Central Valley ranging from $47,000,000 to $5,397,000,000
annually. The total asset value of all ecosystem and
related services that could be quantified range from
$347,885,735,423 to $716,916,714,923 over the next
100 years, assuming a steady state in ecosystems in
the Trinity River watershed. The report also discusses
how local communities in the watershed are currently
uncompensated (except for reduced electric rates)
for the large quantities of water diverted from the
44 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 watershed for agricultural irrigation in the Central
Valley. Local government may be interested in obtaining some compensation for this large water export,
particularly given the local impacts that diversion
causes, including impacts to fisheries and local water
availability for both drinking water and crop irrigation.

The exportation of water also impacts flows required
for Tribal ceremonial purposes, such as the Hoopa
and Yurok Boat Dance ceremonies; in this case,
the value of flow in the Trinity River is priceless.

2.3.9.5 DESALTED WATER QUANTITY
Currently the North Coast Region does not
possess any desalination plants or have any plans
for development of desalination facilities.

2.3.9.6 FLOODWATER/ STORMWATER QUANTITY
The North Coast Region experiences more precipitation
than any other part of the state. Seasonal flooding is
characteristic of much of the Region. The intensity,
distribution, and duration of precipitation are strongly correlated with flood potential. Damaging floods occur
relatively frequently, with particularly destructive
events documented in December 1955, December
1964, February 1986, spring 1995, and January
1997 and 2006 (NCRWQCB 2011, DWR 2013).

According to DWR (2013), flooding is likely to become
more frequent, severe, and unpredictable under climate
change scenarios, as more precipitation is delivered
by intense storms, and as storms drop more of their
precipitation as rain rather than as snow. Storms and
snowmelt may thus coincide and produce higher winter
runoff from the landward (eastern) side. Meanwhile,
to the west, accelerating sea-level rise will produce
higher storm surges during coastal storms. In relatively developed coastal floodplains, storm related coastal
flooding might coincide with high tides and stream runoff, creating particularly severe flooding. The California
Water Plan (DWR 2013) provides a snapshot of the
communities, structures, crops, infrastructure, and
sensitive species exposed to flooding in the Region.

Section 2.2.8, Water Quality, Floodwater/ Stormwater
Quality briefly describes the three SWMPs that
have been incorporated into this NCRP Plan as
described in Section 1.2.6 Integration. These plans,
as an integral part of the multiple benefits they aim
to achieve, include goals, objectives, and projects
to limit flooding and capture storm water for later
use. One of the goals of the SWRCB’s Storm Water
Program is to change the perception of storm water
from a dangerous nuisance that leads to flooding and
water quality impacts to a potential resource that
when well-managed, can supplement existing water
supplies and provide a wide array of complementary
benefits, such as wildlife habitat, recreation, and
improved water quality. In incorporating these plans,
the NCRP is contributing toward achievement of this
and other goals of the state’s Storm Water Program.

2.3.10 ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
In addition to the key watershed attributes described
above (e.g. land features, vegetation, species, and
habitats) there is a suite of equally important, but less tangible elements that are fundamental to watershed
function: these are ecosystem processes. Natural
ecosystems are the result of the interactions of the
abiotic and biotic (nonliving and living) components that interact as a unit. The climate, location, soil, biota, and topography of the North Coast Region have contributed
to the development of large ecosystems that have come
to characterize it, including forests, rivers, estuaries, coastal tidelands, and — in portions of Siskiyou and
Modoc counties — treeless sagebrush steppe (CWP 2013).

The ecological processes that support North Coast
ecosystems may include, but are by no means limited
to water and nutrient cycling; streambed and sediment
dynamics; flood attenuation; wildfire; migration and
dispersal; habitat connectivity; genetic exchange;
pollination; and sequestration of atmospheric carbon
into soil and plant biomass. The North Coast Region
provides relatively clean air and water resources and
aesthetic resources which results in a high quality
of life for residents. In non-drought water years,
the Region receives plentiful rainfall to support
environmental resources and other beneficial uses.

Furthermore, the Region’s environmental resources
serve as habitat for a large number of plant and animal communities and large corridors of undeveloped land
allow for migration, dispersal and genetic exchange.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 45
MAP 33 WILDFIRE RISK (1971-2000)
MAP 34 POTENTIAL WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
With the exception of dammed watersheds, many
of the river systems in the North Coast Region still
possess intact fluvial geomorphic processes and the
habitats that form in response to them, although
many of those habitats have been impacted by timber
harvest, invasion of non-native plant species, or other intensive/extractive land uses. Additionally, in some
locations, the geomorphic and ecological processes
have been negatively affected by a variety of land use
changes including channelization, road development,
agriculture, gravel mining, and dam construction.

Forests store large amounts of water because of their
large size and physiological characteristics. They
are important regulators of hydrologic processes,
especially those involving groundwater, evaporation,
and precipitation patterns. Forests accumulate large
amounts of biomass and provide ecological services
that directly maintain and improve water quality. Forest cover is correlated to drinking water treatment costs:
the more forest in a source watershed, the lower the
treatment costs (DWR and USACE 2013). According
to the Trust for Public Lands (in Ernst et al. 2004):
• For every 10 percent increase in forest cover in
the source area (up to about 60 percent cover),
treatment costs decreased approximately 20 percent
• About half the variation in operating treatment costs may be explained by percent forest cover (the rest
by facility and management practice variation)
Riverine ecosystems are complex and result from the
physical, chemical, and biological processes acting
upon them. Many of the rivers of the North Coast
retain functional habitats and geomorphic processes
but are affected by land use practices and invasion
of non-native plants. The life cycle of salmonids is
closely interwoven with water quality and quantity
and, therefore, is an excellent indicator of the “health” of streams and rivers (DWR and USACE 2013).

Ecological processes should not be confused with
ecosystem services, although the two are interrelated:

When the ecological processes are operating normally,
they provide critical benefits (“ecosystem services”) to North Coast stakeholders. Services that are provided
by ecosystems include: water filtration and storage;
oxygen production and carbon dioxide removal; soil
improvement, crop pollination and food production;
flood control and risk reduction; fish and wildlife
habitat; outdoor recreation, spiritual fulfillment, and aesthetic enjoyment; and many others. Ecological
processes often overlap with ecosystem services
(e.g. water filtration and carbon sequestration
both involve functional forested watersheds).
46 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 The ecosystem services provided by working lands, open
spaces, and wilderness may be quantified and monetized
using a variety of accepted economic tools. In some
cases, economic valuation studies have demonstrated
that the conservation of natural infrastructure (such
as a forested intact watershed) is a more cost-effective method to deliver services (e.g. clean drinking water,
abundant water supply, flood attenuation) to human
communities than traditional built infrastructure. Also, built infrastructure generally depreciates in value over time, while a well-maintained natural capital investment appreciates in value. These ecosystem services provided by natural capital have the additional benefit of meeting multiple other objectives, including agricultural viability, recreation, scenic viewsheds, and the maintenance
of biological diversity. In some cases, land and water
stewards have begun to generate voluntary, marketbased incentives to assess, protect, and enhance the function of ecosystems (Schrier et al. 2013).

2.3.11 NATURAL CAPITAL VALUES
Natural capital is a vital resource in the North Coast
and to document its value, the NCRP commissioned
a regional economic valuation from Earth Economics.

The Technical Report for the North Coast of California
Ecosystem Service Valuation (Fletcher and Soares
2016), is available in its entirety on the NCRP
website. We provide a brief excerpt below.

California’s North Coast Region produces a multitude
of goods—timber, wild mushrooms, milk and cheese,
salmon, wine, and clean water, among others. These
products are bought and sold in markets—they have
economic value. Natural and working landscapes in
the North Coast region provide a suite of services and
benefits that—although less tangible than the goods
outlined above—provide economic value through flood
risk reduction, carbon sequestration, groundwater
recharge, recreation opportunities such as hiking and
camping, and the removal of air pollutants. An ecosystem that reduces the risk of flood damage, for example, also provides benefits by protecting local jobs, preventing
costs such as infrastructure repairs, reconstruction, and restoration, and by keeping people safe. The goods and
services of a healthy landscape provide a steady stream of benefits to residents, creating a stable, resilient, and prosperous economy and a healthy quality of life
The identification and monetary valuation of nature’s
goods and services provide evidence of the economic
importance of the North Coast’s landscape. Ecosystem
services are the beneficial conditions and processes
through which natural ecosystems sustain and fulfill
human life. Unlike ecosystem goods, ecosystem services
are not tangible items that you can hold. Flood risk
reduction, recreational value, aesthetic value, water
filtration to increase water quality, carbon sequestration, pollination, and wildlife habitat are a few examples of the services that ecosystems provide. By nature, many
ecosystem services are non-excludable. They cannot
be privately owned and are not traded in markets.

Natural flood risk reduction, for example, cannot be
owned or traded, unlike built infrastructure such as a
dam or levee. Flood risk reduction is a non-excludable
service because all downstream residents benefit
from the flood risk reduction provided by forested
land or dams upstream. Similarly, when one person
enjoys a view of the sunset, it does not prevent
another person from enjoying the same sunset.

Many ecosystem services, such as oxygen production,
soil regulation, and storm protection, either are not
or cannot be, sold in markets. However, markets
for some ecosystem services are possible and
slowly growing; water temperature trading and
carbon sequestration markets are examples.

Within the past decade, considerable progress has been
made to systematically link functioning ecosystems with human well-being. Earth Economics has developed a
framework to articulate and monetarily value some of
the critical services and benefits provided by natural
capital (ecosystems). Earth Economics conducted an
analysis to value natural areas of the North Coast Region.

Its report quantifies the valuable contributions to the economy that the working lands and natural systems
of California’s North Coast provide — not only internal to the North Coast region, but also services such as
carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and water supply
and quality that benefit all of California and the world.

Using a landcover analysis as a starting point, the
report then uses existing peer-reviewed economic and
ecosystem service literature to calculate monetary
values for each landcover type based on the economically quantifiable ecosystem services each landcover type
provides. Primary studies are selected from Earth
Economics’ Ecosystem Service Toolkit (EVT). The EVT
is one of the largest repositories of published, peerreviewed primary valuation studies, reports, and gray literature on the value of ecosystem services. Primary
valuations use techniques developed and vetted
within environmental and natural resource economics
communities over the last four decades. Using this
methodology, the value of working lands and natural
ecosystems of the North Coast region are approximately
$861 billion using a 3% discount rate or $1.3 trillion using a declining discount rate. These values demonstrate
that investment in natural capital can provide vast longterm benefits if these assets are conserved or enhanced.

Moreover, investment in natural capital can yield a
tremendous return on investment due to both the low cost of investment and the large amount of benefits received.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 47

2.3.12 LAND USE
The NCRP’s stakeholder-driven approach to regional
resource management acknowledges and incorporates
the unique issues, information, and planning approaches of local areas within a framework that integrates
statewide water resource-planning priorities. Regional
planning does not replace or supersede local planning;
rather regional planning should appropriately incorporate local planning elements (DWR 2012). Integrating land
use into water planning allows the NCRP to provide
local land planners with access to pertinent water
information from the NCRP Plan (e.g. regarding floodplain management, stormwater runoff management, or water
conservation), and for local land planners to share
pertinent land use information with the NCRP (e.g.
regarding land use changes that affect water resources, General Plan updates, and water supply needs). In this
way, land use and water management decisions, which
usually are under the purview of separate agencies but
are inextricably linked, may become better coordinated.

Text and tables herein are intended for informational
and facilitative purposes only; nothing in this
Section is intended to interfere with or supersede
the planning efforts of local entities (e.g.
counties, municipalities, Tribes, RCDs).

2.3.12.1 OVERVIEW OF LOCAL WATER &

LAND USE PLANNING
In order to gain insight into current planning efforts, needs, and opportunities, the NCRP in 2013 conducted
extensive interviews with dozens of professional
planners working in the North Coast on water and/
or land resource issues. Supplementary interviews
were conducted in 2018 in the North Coast and Trinity
WMAs to support ongoing planning efforts. The results
of those interviews are available through the NCRP
website. Twenty types of water or land use plans were
defined by NCRP staff, based on the interviews and on
extensive research into existing document libraries.

The NCRP website Resources section includes the
North Coast Plans, Policies and Reports as a sortable
and hyperlined excel spreadsheet. Approximately 900
relevant plans, assessments, and reports (as of March
2019) have been identified as relevant to North Coast
natural resources and water management planning.

Over 17 percent of identified plans were related to “Land Use Planning,” 13 percent were related to “Watershed
Assessment/ Restoration/ Management, about 12
percent dealt with “Salmonid Recovery,” and nearly 10
percent to “Water Quality Planning.” It is apparent that entities in some Watershed Management Areas have
developed a greater number and/or a more diverse
array of plan types than others. For example, Russian/
Bodega (216) and the North Coast Rivers (190) have
significantly more plans than Humboldt Bay (159),
Klamath River (150), Eel River (103), and Trinity River (82). Tribal entities have prepared 16 local plans.

The number of plans developed locally is not necessarily a reflection of local priorities; in many cases, this is simply an outcome of the economically disadvantaged
status of much of the North Coast. Entities with fewer
financial and human resources will produce fewer plans
because of resource limitations, not lack of interest/
need. The types of plans developed locally may reflect
local priorities: for example, Trinity County plans
are focused on state-mandated county planning (8),
watershed management and salmonid recovery (20), and
wildfire prevention and readiness (13), while Sonoma and Mendocino Counties are represented by a diversity of plan types in multiple categories. Tribal plans are moderately diverse, focused on traditional ecological knowledge,
water quality, water supply, and salmonid recovery.

2.3.12.2 INTEGRATION OF LOCAL WATER

AND LAND USE STRATEGIES
The NCRP and North Coast stakeholders (including
water resource and land use planners at all scales)
continue to consider a diverse range of opportunities
afforded the Region by participating in NCRP planning
and implementation. In support of NCRP goals and
objectives, the Plan addresses and integrates all or part of the following strategies, which are equivalent to staterecommended Resource Management Strategies (RMS) in the California Water Plan (DWR 2013): agricultural water management; city and county general planning; disaster
planning and emergency response; wildfire prevention and mitigation (including forest management); flood protection and floodplain management; groundwater management,
recharge, and conjunctive use; multi-purpose program
planning; salt and salinity management; stormwater
and runoff management; urban water management
and water supply assessment; water conservation
planning; and watershed management and restoration.

From its inception, the NCRP has fostered a collaborative, proactive relationship between land use planners and
water managers by stressing the interconnectedness
of watershed processes and the multiple benefits that
most projects provide, regardless of whether their
focus is on land or water resources. The composition
of the PRP makes such integration unavoidable: PRP
members are the decision makers for the region’s
counties and Tribes, thus through their participation
in the process, they each bring their own jurisdiction’s challenges, solutions, and lessons to the group for
others to use. For example, in the past few years,
wildfires and cannabis cultivation have been major
issues for some of the NCRP member counties and
48 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Tribes. Through NCRP meetings, these issues have been
explored with local, regional, and state stakeholders,
resulting in a broader exchange of information, more
feasible and locally-based solutions, and reducing the
likelihood of duplicative efforts. For example, discussions around wildfire prevention at an NCRP meeting led to
Humboldt County staff giving presentations on their fire reduction strategies to Sonoma County staff. The NCRP
will continue this model by continuing to bring both
water resource managers and land use planners to the
table to discuss mutual concerns, opportunities, and
strategies for optimizing resources and effort. As the
region continues to experience effects of climate change, such collaboration will become increasingly important
for regional self-sufficiency and self-determination.

Subsections below outline some of the major plans,
programs, and policies identified in the planning
synthesis that relate to these actions (i.e. RMS).

Opportunities for the NCRP to integrate with these
existing efforts, and their updates, are indicated
where appropriate. Formal integration of plans into
the NCRP is described in Section 1.2.6 Integration.

Agricultural Water Management
• Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows
in California Coastal Streams
The North Coast “Instream Flow Policy” (SWRCB
2014) establishes principles and guidelines for
maintaining instream flows for the protection
of fishery resources; may potentially introduce
widespread impacts for agricultural and
rural water users on the North Coast.
• NCRWQCB Water Quality Compliance Program for
Dairies & Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
This regional dairy permitting process was
developed by the North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) to regulate
concentrated animal feeding operations that
discharge into waters of the United States.
• NCRWQCB Agricultural Lands Discharge Program
This regional program of the North Coast
RWQCB addresses water quality impacts
associated with irrigated agricultural
lands in the North Coast Region.
• California Agricultural Water Stewardship Initiative
This initiative raises awareness about approaches
to agricultural water management that support
the viability of local agriculture, conserve water,
and protect the Region’s ecological integrity.

Launched in 2008, the initiative became a project
of the California Roundtable on Water and
Food Supply in fall of 2011. Their website is a
resource center for growers, ranchers, and others
interested in sound farm water management,
providing case studies and practices to promote
agricultural efficiencies and sustainability.
• Cannabis Cultivation
On October 17, 2017, the State Water Resources
Control Board (State Water Board) adopted the
Cannabis Cultivation Policy- Principles and
Guideline for Cannabis Cultivation (Cannabis Policy)
and the General Waste Discharge Requirements
and Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges of Waste Associated with Cannabis
Cultivation Activities (Cannabis General Order).

On December 18, 2017, the state’s Office of
Administrative Law approved the Cannabis Policy,
making the Cannabis Policy and Cannabis General
Order effective as of that date. The Cannabis Policy
will be implemented through the Small Irrigation
Use Registration (SIUR) Program and the Cannabis
General Order. Compliance with the Cannabis Policy
is required to obtain a license from the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) under
its CalCannabis Licensing Program. Growers also
need to comply with county cultivation regulations.
• Cannabis Cultivation Waste Discharge
Regulatory Program
Cultivators are required to enroll in the State Water
Board’s cannabis cultivation regulatory program if
growing more than 6 mature plants for personal
use, or over 1000 square feet of combined cannabis
and disturbed area, subject to additional conditions.
• Humboldt Agricultural Enhancement Program
This program assists local dairy operators in
the Eel River Delta and Humboldt Bay Regions
with implementation of operations management
practices intended to improve the quality of
ground and surface water resources. Includes best
management practices (BMPs) for animal waste
storage facilities, waste distribution systems for
nutrient management, and roof runoff management.
• University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Humboldt Del Norte Counties Livestock and Range
Management Program
This program informs livestock, range, and pasture
producers about a variety of topics related to
ranch, livestock, and rangeland management in
Humboldt and Del Norte Counties. It focuses on
efforts to keep livestock and rangeland healthy
and productive, but may have relevance to NCRP
effort at agricultural water management.
• Trinity County Resource Conservation District
Strategic Action Plan
The “agriculture” Strategic Area of the Trinity
County Resource Conservation District (RCD)
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 49
action plan provides a framework to promote
voluntary application of site-specific BMPs and
offers technical assistance with the goal of
improved water quality and soil conservation.
• Mendocino County Resource Conservation District
Mendocino County RCD provides coordinated
permitting services: they are a “one-stop
shop” for permitting. Projects qualifying for
streamlined permitting are covered by nine
standard USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Service restoration practices. The program is
based on a successful model developed for the
Navarro River watershed (there, a workshop
series was conducted with resources to help
farmers implement conservation practices).
• Sonoma Resource Conservation District
Sonoma RCD (serving majority of Sonoma County)
offers a Conservation and Stewardship Program that
works with agricultural producers to develop Farm
Conservation Plans and implement BMPs related
to water conservation and streamflow restoration;
watershed planning; habitat enhancement; and
agricultural and natural resources education.

Their Russian River Coastal Tributary Improvement
Program also has great relevance to the NCRP.

Sonoma RCD offers publications to guide water/
land management decisions, including for vineyard
frost protection, Russian River stewardship,
livestock grazing, and management to enhance
land/water quality for small properties.
• Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
The Gold Ridge RCD (serving parts of Sonoma
County) has worked closely with the NCRP
to produce the Integrated Coastal Watershed
Management Plan (ICWMP) for Salmon Creek. They
also have produced the “Nutrient Management
Planning Guidance for Small Coastal Dairies.”
• Del Norte Resource Conservation District
The Del Norte RCD hosts an Agricultural
Enhancement Program to improve resource
management by assisting local farmers improve
nutrient management and waste distribution
systems to meet standards for waste discharge
requirements and avoid enforcement fines.
• Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District
Shasta Valley RCD (serving central Siskiyou County)
has conducted and reported on projects related
to Shasta River instream flow assessment and
spawning gravel evaluation and enhancement plan.
• West Lake Resource Conservation District
West Lake RCD (serving western Lake
County) has conducted invasive plant
surveys and removals (i.e. Arundo donax) and
conducts trainings for stream monitors.
• North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project
Initiated in 2007, this project utilizes existing
network of RCDs, National Resource Conservation
Service, Farm Bureau, UCCE offices, and California
Agricultural Water Stewardship Initiative (described
above) to investigate expansion of or satellites
similar to “LandSmart” in Sonoma and Napa
Counties: a collaborative program to help land
managers meet natural resource management
goals. The collaboration between these different
entities expands each RCD’s capacity and increases
RCD capacity to better serve landowners and
provide access to various skills and expertise.

City and County General Planning
General Plans form the foundation for land and water
planning in the North Coast. Every city and county in
California must adopt a comprehensive long-term
General Plan in accordance with Section §65300 of the
California Government Code. There are seven required
elements of a General Plan (land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety):
water-related issues (e.g. water supply and treatment) are included in each General Plan’s “Conservation” element.

There are over 100 general planning documents in the
North Coast. These range from detailed, formal General
Plans for counties and incorporated municipalities
developed in accordance with state requirements, to local coastal plans, to informal “visioning” planning documents for neighborhoods or specific areas. Updates to General Plans are required by the state every 10 years: 2013 is the latest year for decadal updates. All projects must conform to regulations and ordinances in county general plans.

See North Coast Plans, Policies, and Reports, May
2019 on the NCRP Resources web page; it provides
the NCRP’s most recent list of planning documents
relevant to water and natural resources on California’s North Coast. The list will be periodically updated;
please check the website for the most recent version.

Disaster Planning and Emergency Response
Types of natural disasters recognized by local planners that are of concern to the NCRP (i.e. relate directly to land/water use and management) include dam failure,
drought, flood, landslide, severe weather, tsunami, and wildfire. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires
local governments to adopt a federally approved MultiHazard Mitigation Plans (HMP) to receive pre- and post-disaster mitigation funds. Three North Coast
counties and many Tribes have developed Hazard
Mitigation Plans to date. The level of concern with
various potential natural disasters varies for North
50 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Coast counties. To date (2019), all seven counties
have developed plans that include identification of
medium and high-risk hazards. These are for:
• Del Norte County Operational Area Hazard
Mitigation Plan Volume 1 — Area-Wide Elements
(2018) ranks earthquakes and tsunamis as
high risks, with severe weather, wildland fire,
flooding, and landslide ranked as medium risk.
• Humboldt Operational Area Hazard Mitigation
Plan, (March 2014) identifies risk of earthquake
and severe weather as high and risk of
flood, wildfire, and landslide as medium.
• 2014 Mendocino County Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan identifies dam failure, drought, earthquake,
epidemic/ pandemic, flood, hazardous materials,
hazardous materials: naturally occurring
asbestos, insect pests/ invasive species, landslide,
tsunami, wildland fires, and windstorm as
hazards for assessment. They are unranked.
• Modoc County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update (March 2016) identifies agriculture
hazards, drought and water shortage, severe
weather (all instances except extreme heat),
and wildfire as of high significance, and dam
failure, earthquake, erosion, flood, landslide,
levee failure, volcano, and hazardous materials
transport of medium significance.
• Siskiyou County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements
(Draft, 2018) identifies dam failure, drought,
earthquake, flood, landslide, severe weather,
volcano, and wildfire as hazards of concern and
avalanche, air quality/ smoke pollution, energy
shortages, hazardous materials, fish disease,
and noxious weeds as hazards of interest.
• Sonoma County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017)
identifies earthquake, flood, wildland fire, and
landslides as constituting the greatest risk to
the County based on past disaster events, future
probabilities, and degree of vulnerability. The HMP
also addresses secondary and tertiary hazards such
as winter storms, coastal erosion and bluff failure,
tsunamis, and post fire erosion and also discusses
the implications that climate change may have on
hazard trends, including sea level rise and drought.
• Trinity County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2016)
considers only dam failure and earth quakes
of high priority due to the need for immediate
notification and evacuation of people within
the predicted inundation zone of the Matthews
Dam in Trinity County, the failure of which
could be triggered by an earthquake.

Wildfire
Since the severe fires in Northern California in 2017
and 2018 that destroyed parts of Santa Rosa in
Sonoma County (Tubbs Fire), homes and businesses
in Potter and Redwood Valleys in Mendocino County
(Redwood Complex Fire) and nearly all of the town of
Paradise in Butte County (Camp Fire), much hazard
mitigation focus in Northern California communities
has been on fire preparedness and prevention. Most
communities, especially those in forested areas,
have prepared a fire safe plan; these plans are listed, summarized, and listed on the NCRP website (North
Coast Plans, Policies, and Reports, May 2019).

Fire severity prevention is an aspect of land management that can benefit from the NCRP’s Goal 1: Intraregional
Cooperation & Adaptive Management, Objective 3 — Integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge in collaboration with Tribes to incorporate these practices into North Coast Projects and Plans. Prior to European and American occupation of the North Coast region, many Tribes practiced setting fires to keep forests open for wildlife and to favor growth of plants that are useful for medicine, food, or cultural and spiritual practices. These practices are becoming more frequent
as land managers realize the multiple benefits to forest health, habitat diversity, and mitigation of fire severity.

Near the town of Orleans in the Six Rivers National Forest, foresters are using fire to increase biodiversity and support the ecology of the forests. Fire is used to stimulate the growth of plants that can withstand periodic drought
and that can also benefit from fires that accompany the droughts, promoting both ecological and cultural resilience (Krol and Herrera 2018). It is not always easy to obtain the permits necessary to conduct prescribed burns, however; the Karuk Tribe has had issues dealing with the multiple state and federal agencies governing the use of their Tribal territory. To engage in traditional burning, the Tribe must spend limited resources negotiating individual agreements with the multiple agencies that have jurisdictional power over their land. They have, however, initiated the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project in cooperation
with state and federal agencies to oversee the prescribed burning of 5,570 acres in the Six Rivers National Forest in 2019. Lands outside of that area, however, may be burned clandestinely if permits cannot be obtained (Du Sault 2019).

Even in contemporary society, prescribed burns provide
multiple benefits. The Yurok Tribe’s Forestry Programs
fire department has revived prescribed burns; after about six years, the landscape has opened and more wildlife
is using the burned forests. The Tribe is benefitting
monetarily from this improvement in habitat; for each
metric ton of carbon that the Tribe can prove its forests have sequestered from the atmosphere, the California Air Resources Board issues them one offset credit that they can then sell to polluting industries that need to comply NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 51
with the state’s GHG emissions cap. This program has
become the Tribe’s main source of discretionary income
and has helped them buy back nearly sixty thousand
acres in ancestral territory. The program is not without controversy, however; some Tribal members believe
that the Tribe should not facilitate industry pollution (Kormann 2018). It is important to note that prescribed fires do not prevent future wildfires; however, they
minimize the severity when those wildfires occur.

The Indigenous People’s Burn Network is a collaboration between the Yurok, Hupa, and Karuk Tribes; it seeks to
revitalize cultural burns while simultaneously revitalizing their unique cultures. FireScape Mendocino is a multistakeholder collaboration located in the Mendocino National Forest and surrounding areas comprised
of forest managers, ranchers, timber companies,
environmental advocacy organizations, and several
Tribes. Follow the Smoke is a group formed to develop
protocols to deal with the aftermath of fires and develop relationships with the National Park Service, California State Parks, and Bureau of Land Management so Native
people can gather traditional cultural materials after
a fire has passed through (Kroll and Herrera 2018).

These groups may be helpful to Tribes and others
seeking to implement prescribed burns for forest
health. Pepperwood Preserve, which has been using
prescribed burns on its property in the Sonoma Valley
in part using Traditional Ecological Knowledge, is in
the process of developing an online fuels management
toolkit. This North Bay Area research institution held a Living with Fire in California’s Coast Ranges Symposium in May, 2018, the results of which are available online.

In the aftermath of the Tubbs and Pocket fires, which
decimated parts of Sonoma County in October 2017,
Sonoma County Ag + Open Space embarked on a research
program funded by NASA. The research focused on
vegetative and soil response to the severe fires. USGS
researchers associated with the study found that soil
water infiltration rates recovered in one year through
all studied ecosystems and the major geologic types
where wildfires occurred. This reduces concern about
fire-related landslides in similar ecosystems with similar geology in the North Coast. FireSmart Lake Sonoma
convened watershed stakeholders to discuss source water protection and consider severity and risks associated
with wildfire as well as next steps in building resiliency.

Through a series of workshops, watershed stakeholders
developed a set of short and long term recommendations
for emergency preparedness, defensible space, fire
prevention and protection. Individual and collective
action was discussed at multiple spatial and time scales for landowners to protect private property. Resources
and technical assistance was shared by the region’s
RCDs, FireSafe Councils, and other organizations. .

Also, in response to these fires, FireSmart Lake Sonoma has increased its fire camera network to a network of
fifteen “pan-tilt-zoom” cameras that can detect fires in remote areas faster and pinpoint their location through triangulation as well as monitoring the rate of spread
and containment. The cameras are controlled by CalFire
and REDCOM (a provider of secure communication
software) and are available for public viewing. The
ALERTWILDFIRE consortium can assist other areas in
building fire camera infrastructure from the ground up
and/ or using existing infrastructure to rapidly deploy a system within a few months. Funding for these
efforts has come from a variety of sources, including
the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service,
utilities, state emergency services, counties, and NGOs.

In February 2019, the NCRP was awarded funding in
support of regional planning for priority fire resiliency opportunities through the California Department of
Conservation’s Regional Forest and Fire Capacity
Program. With this funding the NCRP will develop a
Regional Priority Plan that outlines a region-wide strategy for fuel load reduction and forest health, including a
list of priority forest health and fire resiliency projects, strategies, and tools. Based on the priorities identified in the RPP, NCRP staff and consultants will conduct
outreach to property owners and stakeholders in the
region, facilitate project development and permitting
to generate implementation-ready projects for funding
consideration by a variety of grant programs, and provide grants for demonstration projects that implement actions that maximize desired program outcomes. Sub-grants
for demonstration projects will be allocated based on
the project’s ability to achieve the goals of fuel load reduction, long term forest and ecosystem health, local jobs and revenue, workforce development, support for
local infrastructure, and capacity enhancement. Project evaluation criteria will include project readiness, the ability to model and share key practices, measurability, the testing of new and innovative methods and tools,
and the ability of the project to be scaled up and
applied to other areas in the region and state.

See North Coast Plans, Policies, and Reports, May 2019
on the NCRP Resources web page; it provides our most
recent list of planning documents relevant to water
and natural resources on California’s North Coast.
52 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Flood Protection and Floodplain Management
Flood protection and floodplain management planning
is incorporated into stormwater management efforts,
HMPs, and other local planning documents. Floodrelated elements are addressed in all the North Coast General Plans. Six plans outside of General Plans
address flood protection and floodplain management:
these are restoration/watershed enhancement plans
and address floodplain management in the context
of restoring natural hydrologic regimes or restoring
native vegetation buffers; one source (developed by
the Sonoma County Water Agency) provides flood
forecast and emergency, programs, and recharge
information from a water management perspective.

Groundwater Management, Recharge and Conjunctive Use
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) was enacted in 2014 in order to halt overdraft
and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels
of pumping and recharge. The long-term planning
required by SGMA is expected to provide a buffer
against drought and climate change, and contribute to
reliable water supplies regardless of weather patterns
in the State. Formed in 2009 to establish permanent,
locally-managed regular and systematic monitoring
programs in all of California’s alluvial groundwater
basins, the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring (CASGEM) program is now considered a
tool to help achieve the goals set out under SGMA.

As explained in Section 2.3.7, only groundwater basins
identified by DWR as “medium” or “high” priority are
required to comply with CASGEM and SGMA. The four
agencies that have notified DWR that they are the
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) for those
basins and their progress towards completing.
• Klamath River Valley — Tulelake (1-002.01)
The Tulelake Irrigation District Groundwater
Management Plan was developed in 2013 to
work cooperatively with landowners to most
efficiently monitor groundwater resources and
develop an efficient and effective conjunctive
use program during years when surface water
supplies are limited or not available. The
Tulelake Irrigation District is currently the GSA
for the Tulelake Subbasin and is undertaking
development of a Sustainable Groundwater
Management Plan. The County of Modoc, County
of Siskiyou, and City of Tulelake have also
indicated their intent to serve as GSAs for the
portions of the basin under their jurisdictions.
• Butte Valley (1-003)
• Shasta Valley (1-004)
• Scott River Valley (1-005)
The Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District has registered with
the Department of Water Resources to act
as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency
for the Butte Valley, Shasta Valley, and
Scott River Valley Groundwater Basins.
• Eel River Valley (1-010)
The Humboldt County Public Works Department
has submitted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Alternative; the alternative “provides information
demonstrating that the Basin has operated within its
sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years.”
• Santa Rosa Plain (1-055.01)
The Santa Rosa Plain GSA has 8 local agencies
participating through a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement. All 8 entities have water supply, water
management or land use responsibilities. The
seven members include the City of Cotati, City of
Rohnert Park, City of Santa Rosa, Town of Windsor,
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District, Sonoma
Resource Conservation District, the Sonoma
County Water Agency and the County of Sonoma.
• Ukiah Valley (1-052)
The Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency was created by a Joint Powers Agreement
to serve as the Groundwater Sustainability
Agency for the Ukiah Valley Basin.

Multi-Purpose Program Planning
In order to meet resource use challenges and pursue
increasingly integrated grant opportunities, most
planning entities in the North Coast utilize at least
some multi-purpose program planning. For example:
• Wetlands restoration to restore salmonid
habitat and ameliorate flooding
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 53
• Riparian restoration to cool stream water
temperatures and sequester pollutants, nutrients.
• Uplands restoration to alleviate
sedimentation, increase CO2 sequestration,
improve habitat, allow for recreation
• Failing infrastructure repair to conserve
water, increase water supply reliability,
improve environmental justice
Salt and Salinity Management
The SWRCB and local water and wastewater entities,
together with salt/nutrient contributing stakeholders, fund locally driven and stakeholder controlled collaborative processes to prepare salt and/or nutrient management
plans for each groundwater basin and sub-basin in the
North Coast. Presently, there is one salinity management planning effort in development for the North Coast: The City of Santa Rosa is leading the development of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain
Sub-basin. The plan has identified the need for additional monitoring wells in areas where there are data gaps.

Management of salt and nutrient pollution represents
another opportunity for regional collaboration/
cooperation using the NCRP framework (similar
to Water & Wastewater Service Provider Outreach
& Support Program, as described for groundwater
above). Salt and salinity management may become
more of an issue in the North Coast with sea level rise as coastal aquifers potentially experience salt water
intrusion; these plans will be vital in developing and
implementing mitigation and adaptation measures.

Stormwater and Runoff Management
Stormwater and runoff management are closely
related to flood protection and floodplain management,
but are not precisely equivalent. However, the State
has recently recognized that there is significant
potential for integration of stormwater/runoff
with (1) floodwater management, e.g. LID using
stormwater runoff (below) and (2) water supply
e.g. grey water and other reuse & conservation.

The California Stormwater Authority, formed in 2018,
is intended to provide facilitation of collaborative
stormwater management efforts and research services,
as well as develop tools to assist California public
and private permittees to comply with construction,
industrial, and municipal stormwater permits, including the challenge of funding programs and projects. The
California Stormwater Authority products and services
are expected to serve as key components to improve
surface water and groundwater quality and enhance
California’s water supply. This agency may be a
source of project funding and technical assistance.

Storm Water Resource Plans
Storm Water Resource Plans (SWRP) are a requirement
for receiving grant funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by
voters after January 2014, per Senate Bill 985, the Storm Water Management Planning Act. SWRP’s encourage
the use of storm water and dry weather runoff as a
resource to maximize water supply, water quality, flood management, and other community benefits within
the watershed. North Coast SWRPs incorporated into
the NCRP Plan (see Section 1.2.6 Integration) include:
• Final Russian River Storm Water Resource Plan
• Final Mendocino Coast Storm Water Resources Plan
• Final Eureka Area Watershed Storm
Water Resources Plan
It is important to note that many of the communities,
towns, and cities within the North Coast are not
required to develop stormwater resource plans
because they are “DACs with a population of 20,000
or less and” are not co-permittees “for a municipal
separate stormwater system national pollutant
discharge elimination system permit issued to a
municipality with a population greater than 20,000.”
Stormwater Management Plans & MS4 Permits
Thirty-seven stormwater management plans or
programs have been identified for North Coast
agencies/ municipalities. These range from formal
plans that comply with federal and state regulations
to more informal Low Impact Design Manuals, BMPs,
or informative web pages. The state and federal
governments issue Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permits, which require local agencies
to implement a suite of programs to prevent pollution;
improve and protect storm water quality; reduce storm
water runoff; and enhance the ecologic vitality of local creeks and waterways. SWMP/Programs are required
only for large and medium sized municipalities:
• MS4 permits require the discharger to
develop and implement a SWMP/Program
with the goal of reducing pollutant discharge
to the maximum extent practicable.
• In the North Coast, only the Cities of Santa
Rosa, Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Rohnert
Park, Sebastopol, Ukiah, and Windsor, Sonoma
County Water Agency and County of Sonoma
are regulated under an MS4 permit.

All municipalities serving populations less than
100,000 (small) are regulated by the Phase II Small
54 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MS4 permit. Most of North Coast communities
are in this category. Small MS4 permits:
• Eliminate need for the municipality
to prepare a SWMP/Program
• Specify actions necessary to reduce the
discharge of pollutants in storm water to
the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)
• Require implementation of LID Principles
• Incorporate Special Protections
for discharges to ASBS
• Incorporate implementation
requirements for adopted TMDLs
• Phase II Small MS4 permittees:

COMMUNITY COUNTY
Bayview CDP Humboldt
City of Arcata Humboldt
City of Crescent City Del Norte
City of Eureka Humboldt
City of Fort Bragg Mendocino
City of Fortuna Humboldt
City of Trinidad Humboldt
City of Ukiah Mendocino
City of Yreka Siskiyou
County of Mendocino
Cutten CDP Humboldt
Forestville CDP Sonoma
Guerneville CDP Sonoma
Humboldt County
Humboldt Hill CDP Humboldt
McKinleyville CDP Humboldt
Monte Rio Sonoma
Myrtletown CDP Humboldt
Occidental CDP Sonoma
Pine Hills CDP Humboldt
In addition to Stormwater Permits/MS4, there
are local collaborative efforts underway to
manage stormwater/runoff on a watershed basis,
including the NCRP’s Flood and Stormwater
Report for the North Coast Hydrologic Region.

North Coast Stormwater Coalition
The North Coast Stormwater Coalition is composed of
stormwater management staff from the participating
cities and counties on the North Coast, as well as
local, state, federal agency representatives, non-profit organizations, Tribes, SWRCB, and others. Members
are City of Arcata, City of Eureka, City of Fortuna,
County of Humboldt, County of Mendocino, City of
Fort Bragg, and Mendocino County Water Agency/
Mendocino County Planning and Building Services.

They meet monthly and provide public education,
outreach, events and workshops throughout the year.

Russian River Watershed Association
Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA) is a
coalition of eleven cities, counties and special districts in the Russian River Watershed that have come together to
coordinate regional programs for clean water, fisheries restoration and watershed enhancement. Members are
City of Cloverdale, City of Cotati, City of Healdsburg, City of Rohnert Park, City of Santa Rosa, City of Sebastopol, County of Mendocino, City of Ukiah, County of Sonoma,
Sonoma County Water Agency, and Town of Windsor.

Provides MS4 (Phases I & II) Permit support to member
agencies. RRWA also serves as a forum for sharing ideas and coordinating efforts to meet permit requirements.

Water Supply and Urban Water Management Planning
Urban Water Management Plans
Fourteen entities in the Region have prepared Urban
Water Management Plans (UWMPs) in compliance
with California Water Code §10610–10656, Division
6 Part 2.6. UWMPs are prepared every five years by
each urban water supplier that provides over 3,000
acre-feet of water annually or serves more than
3,000 connections. UWMPs are required to assess the
reliability of its water sources over a 20-year planning horizon during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

DWR provides workshops, webinars, online tools,
and a guidebook to assist in UWMP development.

North Coast UWMPs:
• City of Arcata
• City of Cloverdale
• Crescent City
• City of Eureka
• City of Fortuna
• City of Healdsburg
• Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
• Humboldt Community Services District
• McKinleyville Community Services District
• City of Rohnert Park
• City of Santa Rosa
• Sonoma County Water Agency
• City of Ukiah
• City of Yreka
Water Conservation Planning
Water conservation planning in the North Coast is
incorporated into other local planning documents;
there are not required “Water Conservation Plans” per
se. Water conservation planning may be addressed in
General Plans or UWMPs, or may be integrated into
plans with broader water/land management goals (e.g.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 55
farm Nutrient Management Plans and local watershed
plans) as part of a many-pronged approach to improve
water quality and supply reliability. There are at
least 52 plans in the North Coast with water supply/
conservation as the primary subject. These plans are vital to local project implementation and project proponents
frequently make use of their recommendations and
data to improve project planning and implementation.

Watershed Management and Restoration
There are numerous (146+) plans in the North Coast
to manage and restore watersheds and watershed
function. These include habitat restoration plans,
watershed assessments, and watershed restoration
and management plans. Another 111 plans have been
identified that focus on some aspect of salmonid recovery, including instream habitat restoration. The majority of these have been developed in the North Coast Rivers
(68), Russian/Bodega (55), Klamath (50), and Humboldt
(34) WMAs; most others span multiple WMAs. On a local
scale, these plans are vital to successful implementation of many of the projects included in the NCRP Plans.

Project proponents are required to integrate their
projects with these planning efforts to avoid duplicative efforts and ensure complementary implementation.

AGRICULTURE
Agriculture and working lands are an important part
of the North Coast Region’s economy, history, and
identity. Although not a geographically-large part of the Region’s area (herbaceous rangeland covers 7.26 %;
cultivated agriculture covers about 3.57%), agriculture looms large in the Region’s identity: the southern
part of the Region, “Wine Country,” is known for its
vineyards and fine wines, fresh organic vegetables, and artisanal cheeses while further north along the coast
are dairies, ornamental flowers, and bulb production.

Pasture, orchards, alfalfa, grain, and potato production accounts for much of the major inland agricultural
enterprises. The Region is also home to the “Emerald
Triangle,” portions of Trinity, Humboldt, and Mendocino counties where conditions are favorable for cannabis
cultivation, which was legalized in California in 2018.

TRIBAL LAND USE
While Tribal land use is similar to land use
that occurs elsewhere in the region there are
stewardship responsibilities of Tribes that are
unique, and each Tribes’ traditions and cultures are
interconnected to their traditional territories.

WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER

SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE
The North Coast Region is relatively large, rural, and rich in natural surface and groundwater sources. However,
the communities tend to be geographically isolated,
economically disadvantaged, and more-or-less dependent
on locally provisioned water for domestic and other uses.

In general, drinking water systems in the Region deliver water to their customers that meet federal and State
drinking water standards (DWR 2013). In other cases,
local water supplies are defined as “impaired” by the
state, meaning pollutants like sediment or chemicals have rendered them unsuitable for various beneficial uses,
including drinking water. Failing wastewater treatment
facilities in disadvantaged communities pose a threat to public health and impair water bodies. Throughout the
North Coast, there is great need to replace or upgrade
failing, aging systems with current technology and reliable systems. A number of Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) in the region are in chronic violation of permit compliance and currently may be under enforcement
orders. For many homeowners, a lack of adequate and
cost-effective septic pumping options for onsite systems can discourage regular maintenance and pumping of
tanks, which ultimately can harm local ground and
surface waters (see Appendix H, Table H-36, Disadvantaged Community Water & Wastewater Service Providers).

Communities in the Region are serviced by hundreds
of individual water supply and wastewater service
providers, but many of these are understaffed and
underfunded. Further, many of the systems are aging,
failing, or are otherwise are inadequate to service
local populations. The NCRP, via extensive surveying
of North Coast water supply and wastewater service
providers (see Section 3.5.2 NCRP Water Supply and
Wastewater Service Provider Outreach and Support
Program), has identified the following critical needs to support clean drinking water and healthy communities:

1. Assistance with securing funding and
navigating the process of replacing or
upgrading aging or failed infrastructure

2. Assistance with general water and wastewater
system infrastructure maintenance and repair

3. Technical training to support compliance with state
standards, especially drinking water standards
56 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

4. Assistance identifying funding opportunities
and preparing grant applications

5. Technical support to develop and maintain
maps of water and wastewater systems

2.3.12.3 FLOOD/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE
Flood and stormwater runoff volume is highly dependent
on watershed land cover and management. In relatively
undeveloped watersheds, only a portion of total
precipitation enters the stream channel. Instead, it
may be evaporated off the ground surface, intercepted
by vegetation, transpired from the soil, or infiltrated deeply into groundwater aquifers. Urban elements,
such as roofs, gutters, storm sewers, culverts, pipes,
impervious surfaces (e.g. parking lots and roads),
and cleared and compacted surfaces fundamentally
change the rate and character of flood/stormwaters
(Stein et al. 2012). Generally, the hydrologic changes
associated with development and urbanization
increases the speed with which water enters and
moves through the drainage system. Urbanization has
been shown to increase the magnitude of stormflows,
increase the frequency of flood events, decrease the
lag time to peak flow, and quicken the flow recession
(Konrad and Booth 2005, Walsh et al. 2005).

Traditional flood management in the North Coast
(as elsewhere) has been focused on built flood
control infrastructure projects such as floodwater
storage facilities and channel systems funded and/
or built by State and federal agencies. Winter floods
between 1935 and 1945 in Sonoma County spurred
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to develop
the area’s major flood management plan and to
construct Coyote Valley Dam, which impounded Lake
Mendocino upon its completion in 1957 (DWR 2013).

In 2013, flood management agencies were responsible
for operating and maintaining approximately 1,200 miles of levees, more than 110 dams and reservoirs, and other facilities within the North Coast Region (DWR 2013). The North Coast has four major flood management reservoirs:
• Lake Mendocino on the East Fork Russian River
• Lake Sonoma on Dry Creek
• Spring Lake off Santa Rosa Creek
• Matanzas Creek Reservoir on Matanzas Creek
Two smaller flood management reservoirs are kept
on Paulin Creek and Middle Fork Brush Creek; and
seven other reservoirs provide non-dedicated floodretention space. Other flood management projects include levees in the Eel River delta; levees and
channel modifications on East Weaver Creek, Redwood
Creek, the Klamath River, and the Mad River; and
channel modifications on Santa Rosa Creek. Measures
to mitigate the effects of tsunamis were part of
Humboldt Harbor improvements, the Crescent City
project, and Crescent City Harbor improvements.

Several large water supply infrastructure systems with
potential flood control functions are now established
in the North Coast Region (DWR 2013). These include
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Project, the
US Army Corps of Engineers Russian River Project5,
the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Ruth
Reservoir, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Trinity
Lake Reservoir, among other smaller projects for local
flood control. The Basin Plan for the North Coast region provides detailed descriptions of these facilities.

Built infrastructure systems alter or confine natural
watercourses with the indirect or direct intent of reducing the chance of flooding and thereby minimizing damage
to lives and property. This traditional approach is based on the flood control principle of conveying floodwaters rapidly to a discharge point. Activities under traditional flood management include physical modification of
stream channels, dam and surface impoundments,
catchments, levees, and other structures. A more current understanding of flood dynamics recommends the
application of an integrated approach6 that accounts for the flood management functions of intact ecosystems and natural hydrologic processes (“natural infrastructure”). 5 Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/ instream_flows/docs/ab2121_0210/adopted050410instreamflowpolicy.pdf 6 DWR Statewide Flood Management Program, which is explicitly integrated with the IRWM Program, including for the North Coast Region https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Flood-Management
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 57
Although potentially having negative impacts on human
communities, periodic floods have played, and continue
to play, a critical role in formation and maintenance of channel geomorphology and the hydrologic processes
that are necessary for proper ecosystem function and
watershed health across the North Coast Region.

Species and ecosystems in floodplain and riparian
corridors are well adapted to such events: However,
past and current land use practices have transformed
historic flow and sediment patterns. Forest management
practices are one of the most significant issues
impacting flood management in the Region (DWR 2013),
as is the impacts to floodplains from development
and agricultural reclamation. Maintaining the natural
attenuation and function of floodplains in this hydrologic region will help to protect more than 320 sensitive
species that rely on functional floodplain habitats.

In many cases, land use has resulted in the physical
and functional separation of many streams and rivers
from their historical floodplains. Changes in flow and
sediment loads to streams and other watercourses are
collectively referred to as “hydromodification.” Most
jurisdictions in California are now required to address the effects on water quality of hydromodification, through either a municipal stormwater permit or the statewide
construction general permit (Stein et al. 2012). In
addition to water quality, however, hydromodification
has reduced the adaptive capacity of riparian and
wetland ecosystems, which impairs their ability to
capture and manage stormwater runoff (CNRA 2009).

In urbanized or industrialized areas of the Region,
stormwater that would normally infiltrate into soils
or be captured by vegetation and topography instead
are intercepted by impervious surfaces or compacted
soils. In these cases, excess overland flow, or water
captured in storm drains, flows directly into water
systems, along with contaminants, sediment, and
other pollutants. Increased runoff and the alteration of peak discharge rates may also result in stream bank
erosion, modification of habitats, and increased flooding (NCRWQCB 2011). Increasingly, past and ongoing
modification of surface water systems contribute to
more frequent, widespread, and/or severe flood events,
and associated risks to water quality and public safety.

Built flood control infrastructure (can unintentionally adversely impact ecosystem function, including
salmonid habitat. For example, consider the Redwood
Creek estuary, where the summer water quality is
poor. Degradation of water quality in this estuary is
directly related to the construction of the Redwood
Creek Federal Flood Control Project. While these levees provide beneficial flood protection to Orick, they have significantly impacted estuary function by drastically
altering the physical setting of the estuary and sloughs (RNSP 1997, NCWAP 2005). The condition of this
estuary has been considered a major limiting factor to
anadromous salmonid production in the Redwood Creek
watershed (RNSP 1997, CDFG 2004, NCWAP 2005).

Although primary responsibility for flood management
might be assigned to a specific local entity in the North Coast Region, aggregate responsibilities are spread
among more than 100 agencies with many different
governance structures. Local plans, by design, address
local challenges and thus give some indication of
local needs. The NCRP has determined through active
outreach to stakeholders (e.g. interviews, surveys,
meetings, conferences, see Section 1.2.4, Stakeholder
Involvement) that “flooding”, “floodplain management”
and adaptation to sea level rise are among the highest
priority issues in the region, requiring urgent, coordinated action. Local jurisdictions of the North Coast (i.e.

Tribes, counties, municipalities) are at different stages of planning for flood and stormwater management,
with the entities some at-risk watersheds in the region presumably more prepared for flood events than others.

2.3.12.4 WATER STORAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
In the past, water storage infrastructure has mainly
been large public works or ponds and watering
holes associated with agricultural use. Large water
supply infrastructure systems include the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation Klamath Project, the US
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, among other smaller projects for
local flood control. In the past decade, site-specific
water storage has become increasingly common.

The Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration
(CEMAR) has conducted hydrologic studies of several
North Coast watersheds and shown that both average
annual rainfall and stream discharge are many times
greater than the human water need in those watersheds
(CEMAR undated). The challenge for water managers
comes from the Region’s climate: virtually no precipitation occurs during summer and fall, which are also periods of high water demand environmentally and for agriculture
and sub/ urban settings. The NCRP has incorporated
this information into its project prioritization process, effectively integrating the use of small-scale storage into the region’s water and natural resource management
strategies. These small-scale water storage projects
(tanks or ponds) divert ample winter streamflows or
capture rainwater directly to store for summer use. To
date, the NCRP has obtained implementation funding for
multiple small-scale water storage projects, including
agricultural-scale rainwater catchment systems in
the Bodega Bay HU, off-stream storage and rainwater
58 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 catchment systems in the Gualala River watershed,
water storage tanks in the Navarro River watershed,
slow flow pumps to collect wet season water in the
Trinity River watershed, a water storage and forbearance program in the Mattole River watershed, and Yurok
Tribe water storage tanks in the Klamath Basin.

2.3.12.5 ENERGY SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE
INFRASTRUCTURE: REGIONAL ENERGY PROFILE
The North Coast region has a diverse set of power
generation sources, with the majority coming from
renewable sources. Geothermal comprises the largest
fraction of power generation, followed by hydro, natural gas, biomass, and solar, respectively (Table 2). Several counties have hydroelectric generators that have been
affected in recent years by the historic drought in the Western United States starting in 2011 and continuing
through 2015. Biomass power has also decreased
slightly over the last few years. Power generation is
greater than power consumption; the region is a net
exporter of electricity. For example, in 2015 the region consumed 5,300 GWh of electricity, whereas about
6,200 GWh of electricity were generated, a net export
of 900 GWh. Of the 6,200 GWh that were generated,
approximately 5,800 GWh was from renewable energy
sources, predominantly geothermal (nearly 90%). This
5,800 GWh of renewable electricity slightly exceeds
the region’s total 2015 electricity consumption of 5,300 GWh. For a more detailed analysis of the region’s power infrastructure, see the NCRP Integrated Strategic Plan:

Climate Change Mitigation, GHG Emissions Reduction and
Energy Independence, available on the NCRP website.

TABLE 2. GENERATION CAPACITY AND NUMBER OF PLANTS

BY FUEL TYPE FOR THE NORTH COAST REGION
Fuel MW Number of Plants
Biomass 74.7 4
Gas 176.6 4
Geothermal 1368 13
Hydro 233 15
Landfill Gas 16 3
Solar 17.2 13
Total 1886 52
In addition to large-scale energy production, small
photovoltaic systems are prevalent throughout the North Coast, with the highest concentration found in Sonoma
County. As of December 31, 2018, at least 17,775 PV
solar systems — mostly residential rooftop — have been
installed in Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, and Trinity
counties. These installations are those with net energy metering agreements (Go Solar California undated).

The list below identifies some of the energy related
organizations and a brief description of services.
• Redwood Coast Energy Authority (RCEA) is a
joint powers authority in Humboldt County whose
purpose is to develop and implement sustainable
energy initiatives that reduce energy demand,
increase energy efficiency, and advance the
use of clean, efficient and renewable resources
available in the region. In mid-2017 RCEA plans
to launch a community choice energy program
to the vast majority of customers in Humboldt
County (http://www.redwoodenergy.org/)
• Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) is a Community Choice
Energy program in Sonoma County. In October
2016 the Board of Directors voted to include
Mendocino County in the service region (excluding
the city of Ukiah, which currently has a municipal
electric utility)(https://sonomacleanpower.org/)
• Trinity County Public Utility District is a
municipal utility of Trinity County, which supplies
residents with 100 percent hydroelectric
power through the Western Area Power
Administration. (http://trinitypud.com/)
• The Northern California Center for Alternative
Transportation Fuels and Advanced Vehicle
Technologies (NorthCAT) creates a physical and
virtual network of training and showcase centers
and informational resources for alternative fuels
and vehicle technologies. (http://northcat.org/)
• The Watershed Research and Training Center’s
(WRTC’s) mission is to promote a healthy forest and
a healthy community through research, training,
and education. The WRTC was formed in order to
rebuild the economy of Hayfork California based
on an ethic of land stewardship and restoration.
(http://www.thewatershedcenter.com/)
• Redwood Community Action Agency is a Humboldt
County based, private non-profit organization
that provides a wide range of services to low and
moderate income residents of Humboldt County.

The long-term goal is to develop programs
through which people can become self-sufficient
and empowered to improve their own lives.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 59
Their weatherization services also cover Del
Norte and Modoc Counties. (http://rcaa.org/)
• Community Development Commission of
Mendocino County is a public agency whose
mission is to provide opportunities for decent,
safe, affordable housing and a suitable living
environment to low-and moderate-income,
special needs households, and communities in
an effective, efficient, and respectful manner.
• Teaching Employment, and Community Health
Inc. (TEACH) is a broad based, multi-purpose
non-profit community organization that serves
the population of Modoc County. They offer a wide
range of programs including heating assistance
for low income households. (http://teachinc.org/)
• Klamath Alliance for Resource and Environment
(KARE) is a grassroots, non-profit located in Siskiyou
County dedicated to educating the public about the
environmental benefits of responsible management
of our natural resources on public and private
lands with the purpose to inform and educate the
public by providing science-based information on
forest eco-systems, environmental issues, and
the economic benefits of forest resources in our
communities. (http://www.klamathalliance.org/)
• Great Northern Services (GNS) is a community
organization serving Siskiyou County that seeks
to invigorate community by initiating positive
social change to improve economic conditions.

They offer a variety of services including
energy assistance and home weatherization
services. (http://www.gnservices.org/)
• Northern California Indian Development Council
is a private nonprofit corporation established
to research, develop, and administer social and
economic development programs designed to
meet the needs of Indian and Tribal Communities
to provide support and technical assistance for
the development of such programs, and the
conservation and preservation of historic and
archeological sites and resources. They are the
LIHEAP providers for 48 California Tribes, including
many in the NCRP Region. (http://www.ncidc.org/)
• Del Norte Senior Center is a provider of
LIHEAP and weatherization service to qualifying
low income households in Del Norte County
in addition to senior services. (http://www.
delnorteseniorcenter.org/home.html)
• North Coast Energy Services is a not-for-profit
organization that provides energy conservation,
consumer education and advocacy, home
improvement, utility assistance, job training, and
other services to people in need in Lake, Mendocino,
Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo Counties. (http://www.
northcoastenergyservices.com/index.html)
• The Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA)
is a Sonoma County agency that coordinates
community-wide climate solutions for a better
future. The RCPA is focused on securing
grant funding for GHG reduction programs
and projects, as well as leading countywide
climate planning efforts. (http://rcpa.ca.gov/)
Regional Programs and Policies
Below are listed some of the regional programs
and policies that promote energy efficiency and
renewable energy throughout the region.

Energy Watch is a program administered by PG&E. In
the NCRP region the following organizations provide
services under Energy Watch. Trinity County has its own municipal utility and Del Norte, Modoc and Siskiyou
Counties are outside of PG&E service territory and
therefore are not covered by Energy Watch programs.
• Mendocino-Lake Energy Watch
(http://mendoenergy.org/)
• RCEA administers the Redwood Coast Energy
Watch (http://www.redwoodenergy.org/)
• Sonoma County (https://sonomacounty.
ca.gov/General-Services/Energy-andSustainability/Site-Visits-and-Audits/) The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)
provides guaranteed loan financing and grant funding
to agricultural producers and rural small businesses
for renewable energy systems or to make energy
efficiency improvements. (https://www.rd.usda.gov/
programs-services/rural-energy-america-programrenewable-energy-systems-energy-efficiency).

Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing is a program
allowing for energy efficiency, water efficiency, and
renewable energy projects to be financed through a
voluntary property assessment that is attached to the
property, not the owner, and is paid back through the
property tax system. These programs are administered
by a variety of lenders and public agencies. Information on PACE financing and other programs is available
through the Sonoma County Energy Independence
Program (http://sonomacountyenergy.org/) or the
Redwood Coast Energy Authority’s PACE webpage (https:// redwoodenergy.org/customerprograms/financing/).

Community choice energy (CCE), also known as
community choice aggregation, is a program that allows
California cities, counties, and or joint powers agencies to purchase electricity on behalf of the customers in
60 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 their territories. Transmission and distribution and
their maintenance still remain the responsibility of the incumbent utility, as does billing, but CCEs are able
to determine their own energy supply mixes and rate
structures. Currently Sonoma Clean Power operates
in Sonoma County and will be expanding to Mendocino
County in 2017. The Redwood Coast Energy Authority is
scheduled to launch a CCE program in mid-2017. This
will mean that most of the population in the NCRP region will be served by a CCE or municipal utility by mid-2017.

2.3.12.6 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Throughout the North Coast, communities contend
with challenges associated with transportation. The
rural nature and widespread geography of North Coast
communities facilitated development of roads and
highways over non-motorized infrastructure; thus,
vehicle transportation is most commonly used for both
individual transit and freight transport. However, as
concern about GHG emissions and interest in healthy
lifestyles and walkable neighborhoods increases,
many North Coast communities are planning for
and implementing projects that improve public
transit and bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

Obtaining sufficient funding for maintenance, repairs,
and improvements is a challenge for many North
Coast communities. Throughout the region, the
condition of some roadways is compromised due
to this funding deficit. Additionally, private roads,
which have historically been lacking sufficient
maintenance, are in various states of repair.

All counties in the North Coast have developed
Transportation Plans and many communities have
developed Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans. Some also
possess airport, rail, and harbor plans. The challenge
facing the region is to operate and develop these
systems into the future so that they coalesce into
a safe, efficient, integrated intermodal system that
serves the mobility needs of people and freight while
fostering economic growth and development.

2.3.12.7 BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE/ ACCESS
Telecommunications infrastructure and services are
increasingly important for commercial competitiveness
and regional economic growth. Additionally, residents
increasingly rely on telecommunication for quality of
life, education, research, and access to health care and government services. Improved telecommunications
infrastructure also supports public safety and
emergency services by improving communications
and information availability. Additionally, broadband
enables online education and work telecommuting
opportunities, reducing the need for vehicle trips.

The North Coast region, with its rural nature and
dispersed population, lags in providing access to reliable telecommunications services when compared with
urban centers such as the San Francisco Bay area.

North Coast communities are so widespread that satellite internet (as opposed to phone line or cable connections) is often the most practical mode for those in rural areas.

However, the landscape can interfere with continuous
access. Mountainous terrain, proximity to the Pacific
Ocean, deep canyons, weather events, and winding
roads can all cause spotty satellite reception when
traveling through or visiting certain parts of the region.

In urban centers, residents and businesses have more
options. Cable companies offer bundled services that
include varying numbers of television channels and levels of internet data capacity. Additionally, all county libraries offer internet access through use of public computers.

Use is timed to ensure equitable access, and is only
available during hours of operation. In some county
libraries and municipalities, free Wi-Fi is available to the public 24-7. However, accessing these internet services requires proximity, which is not always readily available to residents of disadvantaged rural communities.

In August 2008, telecom and cable company
representatives stated that the remaining unserved
and underserved communities in the region do not fit
their “investment return models,” and no effort would
be made to expand services to them. Lack of adequate
access is a recognized issue in the region: the Broadband Alliance of Mendocino County and the North Bay/ North
Coast Broadband Consortium are two organizations
working towards equitable broadband access. Not only
are there issues with the widespread population and
challenging topographic conditions, but there are also
issues regarding equitable access to broadband service.

In both Mendocino and Sonoma County, a digital divide
is identified, where areas with a high population density have broadband access, but other portions of the County, its population, visitors, anchor institutions, government services, and transportation corridors are underserved.

In 2010, the Yurok Tribe used grant funding from the
USDA Rural Utilities Service and the California Consumer Protection Agency to bring broadband internet to its
Reservation. The Tribe’s Information Services Department developed A Rural Broadband Model: A Simplified Guide
to Rural Broadband Deployment to assist others through
the process. The document provides an example model
for replication, equipment needs list, and technology
recommendations based on site characteristics. Since
its initial foray into broadband provision, the Yurok
Tribe has teamed up with the Karuk Tribe to extend
high-speed broadband service in Tribal lands.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 61
In 2014, a $138 million initiative to extend high-speed Internet capacity to about 150,000 rural Northern
California households collapsed after nearly three years of negotiations. This new fiber-optic based network would have connected 16 northern counties and provided the
anchor for expansion of fast, affordable service. Also, in 2014, a major outage in August interrupted Internet
access for three days for a large part of Mendocino
County. This type of outage basically puts health care
professionals out of business until service is restored, affecting social health and safety. Additionally, loss
of Internet capacity slows business for those using
the Internet for sales, file storage, and general
communication, potentially affecting the local economy.

In March 2017, Inyo Networks, Inc. was awarded funding
through the California Advanced Service Fund of the
Public Utilities Commission to provide high-capacity
broadband backhaul infrastructure and interconnection
points to communities along the Highway 299 corridor.

The project will directly connect 307 underserved
households to last-mile Internet services using
underground and aerial fiber facilities. The infrastructure will provide internet access to as many as 102 schools, colleges, research institutions, hospitals, clinics, public safety offices, and Tribal concerns. It covers almost
2,400 square miles of rural Northern California between Redding and the California coast, encompassing
portions of Shasta, Trinity, and Humboldt counties.

Continued collaboration by the Broadband Alliance of
Mendocino County, Sonoma County, Redwood Coast
Connect, Tribes, and entities such as Community Service Districts (CSDs) will be necessary to develop suitable
infrastructure for reliable, complete broadband coverage on the North Coast. SB1191 expanded CSDs’ powers to
include broadband service. CSDs can offer an option for broadband service for those communities too small or
too remote to interest commercial providers. CSDs are
trusted community organizations with billing systems
and the administrative support in place to outsource
broadband operations. Additionally, CSDs are government agencies that are eligible to apply for many grant funds.

2.4 SOCIOECONOMIC ATTRIBUTES
Population density in the North Coast is low relative
to other portions of the state: less than two percent
of California’s total population currently resides in the North Coast Region, with most inhabitants concentrated
along the Pacific Coast and in the inland valleys
immediately north of the San Francisco Bay Area. The
largest urban centers are located in the Eureka area
of Humboldt County and in the Santa Rosa area of
Sonoma County; the latter has experienced the largest
population growth of all the counties within the Region.

Most of the Region (by area), and a significant proportion of its residents, are characterized by the State as
“economically disadvantaged communities”. As a
result of their rural location and financial challenges, economically disadvantaged communities often
experience deteriorated, inadequate, or defunct water
supply, treatment, and/or conveyance infrastructure
and associated impaired water quality. The lack
of quality water and wastewater infrastructure in
these disadvantaged communities impacts economic
vitality in a number of ways: causing communities
to use scarce financial and human resources to
temporarily shore up failing infrastructure while not
having the resources to comprehensively addressing
infrastructure needs; creating situations where small
communities are subject to fines and regulatory
actions that do not support the correction of the
underlying problem; and impacts to water quality (both
in drinking water and in stream systems) that affect
the ability of these communities to attract the financial benefits associated with recreational tourism.

Tourism/recreation and natural resources-based
industries (e.g. logging, timber milling, aggregate
mining, fishing, livestock, dairy, vineyards, and wineries) provide the foundation for the Region’s economy.

While resource-based industry remains a factor in
the regional economy, the North Coast is undergoing
economic transition, with an increasing focus on
service-based economies. This transition has been
and will continue to be difficult for much of the Region, because the economic resources needed to build or
update service-based infrastructure are limited.

2.4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTE

2.4.1.1 POPULATION SIZE, DENSITY, & DISTRIBUTION
The population of the entire North Coast Region was
approximately 644,000 in 2000 (DWR 2005) and 675,845
in 2010 (US Census) and 679,741 in 2015 (American
Community Survey 2015). This total continues to
represent approximately 2 percent of California’s total population. Regional population is unevenly distributed, 62 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 with the majority of people concentrated in the southern portion of the Region in Sonoma (307 persons/mi2) and
Marin (485 persons/ mi2) counties. The next highest
population densities are an order of magnitude less and in the coastal counties: Humboldt has approximately
37 people per square mile, Del Norte about 27, and
Mendocino County has roughly 25 people per square
mile. The remainder of the North Coast’s population
occupies the interior sections of the Region. Only about 1 person per square mile inhabits the part of Modoc
County contained within the North Coast Region, and
Trinity County) has just 4 persons/mi2.Trinity County’s population is at about 13,363, down about 300 from 13,786 residents in 2010 (up from 13,022 residents in 2000).

Urban boundaries occur primarily in Sonoma County,
which uses the boundaries to protect agriculture and
open space (see Appendix I, Table I-37, Socioeconomic
& Demographic Attributes of North Coast Counties).

According to projected urban growth data developed
by the California Resources Agency, Legacy Project
(now an archive, the Project was active until circa
2003), this urban boundary is expected to grow to
61,196 acres (42%) by 2020 and to 76,943 acres (78%)
by 2050; all in Sonoma County. The growth is expected
to continue in the Russian River watershed along the
mainstem (Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, and Cloverdale)
corridor and west along the Lower Russian River, with
a couple just north along the coast in Sonoma County.

MAP 35 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE

2.4.1.2 POPULATION GROWTH
The North Coast Region as a whole has experienced
steady population growth over the past two decades
and is projected to continue positive growth through
the year 2060 (CA Department of Finance 2018). The
Region’s other counties, however, are not projected
to increase as significantly if at all. Del Norte,
Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties’ populations all
are projected to experience only modest gains in the
next 4 decades and Siskiyou and Trinity counties’
populations are projected to stay relatively flat, with each expected to grow by less than 800 people, from
44,206 to 44,868 and 13,424 to 14,151 respectively.

Modoc County’s population is projected to decline
slightly, from about 9,500 (total) to about 8,600 (total).

Recent model predictions by the Department of Water
Resources (DWR 2013) indicate that the regional
population is expected to grow to between 763,300 and
1,185,600 by the year 2050. Over half of this growth is expected to occur in the Santa Rosa region as housing
pressure continues from the Bay Area. The slower
growth rates expected in the northern part of the
region are due to geographic isolation, lack of suitable transit corridors, and lack of adequate harbors.

However, despite low probability of urban development,
the lower cost of living associated with the North
Coast’s rural areas has led northern communities
within the Region to experience an influx of retirees
from larger, more urbanized settings. This has placed
pressure on existing community services, many of which
were already financially encumbered. Additionally, as
growing rural populations encroach into more urban
settings, some of these communities are at risk of
losing their local character and simply becoming
“bedroom communities” for the Region’s commuters.

There is also a rise in the migrant worker population
within the Region: the trend for both Modoc and
Siskiyou counties are that many of the migrant workers
are becoming permanent residents, while younger
non-migrant residents continue to leave the area. Modoc County now contains a county-operated migrant camp
(DWR 2013). The fall 2017 Pocket and Tubbs fires in the Santa Rosa area led to an immediate and short-term
housing shortage that increased property and rental
costs to levels beyond the means of many paycheckto-paycheck families. Many of these families left the area, but this population drop is likely temporary; when the housing supply is increased, they or others are
likely to return (see Appendix I, Table I-39, Historic and Projected Population Growth of North Coast Counties).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 63
TABLE 3. HISTORIC & PROJECTED POPULATION

GROWTH OF NORTH COAST COUNTIES
County
1980
historic
1990
historic
2000
historic
2010
historic
2020
projected
2030
projected
2040
projected
2050
projected
Del Norte
County 18,217 23,460 27,507 29,126 26,997 27,570 28,104 28,568 Humboldt
County 108,514 119,118 126,518 133,138 137,711 140,779 141,236 140,471 Mendocino
County 66,738 80,345 86,265 94,300 90,175 93,452 95,124 95,403 Modoc
County 9,449 9,678 9,449 9,547 9,422 9,267 9,061 8,746
Siskiyou
County 39,732 43,531 44,301 46,611 44,186 44,406 44,253 43,938 Sonoma
County 299,681 388,222 458,614 515,968 515,486 554,694 583,517 597,749 Trinity
County 11,858 13,063 13,022 13,442 13,389 13,322 13,232 13,319 North Coast
Region* 554,189 677,417 765,676 842,132 837,366 883,490 914,527 928,194 * excluding the portions of Glenn, Lake, and Marin Counties Sources: Department of Commerce, CA Dept. of Finance 2012 and 2017

2.4.1.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION
The median age for residents throughout California
is increasing. The state’s estimated median age has
increased slightly from 33 to 36, while the median ages in the six main counties in the North Coast Region are
estimated to approach the mid-40s (CA DOF 2017a).

While the Region’s overall birthrate continues to decline, estimates point toward an increasingly aging Region
population. Increasingly, retirees are settling in the North Coast as they value the area’s rural quality of life and high standard of living. Modoc*, Trinity, and Siskiyou* Counties have the largest proportion of residents age 65 and over (25%, 23%, and 21% respectively) (Pederson
2018). This may lead to an increase in the demand for
health-related services and related construction of
retirement, healthcare, and other facilities in these
remote areas. In contrast, the present lack and modest
projected increases of population age 25 and younger is indicative of locations that are unable to provide living wage jobs that retain local youth (CA DOF 2017b).

2.4.1.4 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
The North Coast Region has a relatively high rate of
people 25 years and older who are high school graduates and advanced degree recipients, matching (Del Norte
County) or exceeding (Humboldt (90%), Mendocino
(87%), Modoc (86%), Siskiyou (89%), Sonoma (87%),
and Trinity (91%) counties) the state’s percentage
of 82 percent despite the lack of proximity to major
centers of learning and related infrastructure.

The North Coast Region includes numerous state,
private, community, and vocational colleges that serve
to support secondary educational attainment; these
are more heavily concentrated in the southern part of
the Region. Sonoma County has more than the state
average of graduates with a Bachelor’s Degree or
higher (33.1% versus 32.0%), with Humboldt County
(28.2%) approaching the state average. In these areas,
intellectual capital is also migrating to the Region, with educated professionals drawn by the high quality of life, natural surroundings, and technical opportunities.

The other North Coast counties fall short of the state’s percentage (32%) of residents who hold a bachelor’s
degree or higher, likely due to a combination of lack
of institutions of higher learning in the northern
part of the region coupled with access issues (even
to attend online universities — there is a lack of
reliable internet service throughout much of the
region and a dearth of employment opportunities for
graduates. In Del Norte County, only about 15% of the
population 25 years and over has a bachelor’s degree
or higher while Modoc (18.3%), Trinity (20.1%), Siskiyou (22.2%) and Mendocino (24.1%) counties also have
significantly lower levels than the state average.

2.4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS

2.4.2.1 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD & PER CAPITA INCOME
The 2016 median household income (MHI) of most North
Coast Region counties was significantly below that
of the state average ($63,783 per year). This statistic alone indicates that much of the North Coast Region
is economically disadvantaged, as compared to the
general population of the state. Of counties comprising the NCRP, only one (Sonoma, at $66,833) exhibited
MHI above the state average. The other counties range
between $35,270 (Trinity) to $43,510 (Mendocino). Like
MHI, per capita income for all but one NCRP Region
county is below the state average of $31,458: again, only Sonoma County ($35,639) exceeds this. By contrast, Del
Norte and Modoc counties exhibit just 64 percent and 69 percent, respectively, of statewide per capita income.
64 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 36 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (MHI)

2.4.2.2 ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
A geographic information system (GIS) was used to
analyze U.S. Census block group data (2015) to determine economically disadvantaged status of the North Coast
Region and its counties relative to statewide MHI
($61,990) according to 2015 Census figures. Of the seven participating counties, three counties are completely
(Modoc) or nearly completely (Siskiyou and Trinity,
at 96%) designated as “Economically Disadvantaged
Communities (DAC)7” or “Severely Economically
Disadvantaged Communities (SDAC) 8.” SDACs are a
subset of DACs; that is, every SDAC has an MHI that
is less than both 80% of state MHI and 60% state MHI,
making it both economically and severely economically
disadvantaged. The total area of the North Coast Region area that is considered either DAC or SDAC is 90.2%
(approximately 11,204,991 acres). About 161,800 people
are living in DACs (but not SDACs) with another 138,000 residing in SDACs and the total population of the Region 7 The State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Services defines “Disadvantaged Community” as either places or tracts with a MHI of less than 80 percent of the 2015 statewide MIH. For 2015, the cut-off is $49,592. 8 The State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Services defines “Severely Disadvantaged Community” as either places or tracts with a MHI of less than 60 percent of the 2010 statewide MIH. For 2015, the cut-off is $37,194. considered to be living in either DACs or SDACs is
299,598, or about 44% of the Regional population (see
Tables 4 and 5). In 2016, 93.4% of the Region (11,598,962 acres) was considered an Economically Distressed Area9
by the state (see Appendix I, Table I-38, Economically
Disadvantaged Populations and Area in the North Coast). 9 Water Code §79702.(k) “Economically distressed area” means a municipality with a population of 20,000 persons or less, a rural county, or a reasonably isolated and divisible segment of a larger municipality where the segment of the population is 20,000 persons or less, with an annual median household income that is less than 85 percent of the statewide median household income, and with one or more of the following conditions as determined by the department:(1) Financial hardship.(2) Unemployment rate at least 2 percent higher than the statewide average.(3) Low population density.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 65
TABLE 4. ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS IN THE NORTH COAST BY COUNTY County Total Population Population
living in DAC
%Total Population
in DAC
Population living
in SDAC**
%Total Population
in SDAC**
Participating North
Coast Counties Del Norte 27,787 18,059 65% 12580 45%
Humboldt 135,030 91,013 67% 38811 29%
Mendocino 87,516 55,522 63% 37240 43%
Modoc* 1,713 1,713 100% 791 46%
Siskiyou* 34,798 28,691 82% 15228 44%
Sonoma* 377,683 92,036 24% 23526 6%
Trinity 13,363 10,730 80% 8378 63%
Other North
Coast Counties
Glenn* 100.46 100 100% 58 58%
Lake* 1,211.74 1,194 99% 1165 96%
Marin* 540.00 540 100% 0 0%
North Coast Totals 679,741 299,598 44% 137,776 20%
TABLE 5. ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED AREAS IN THE NORTH COAST BY COUNTY County Total Area (acres) Area considered
DAC (acres) % Total Area DAC Area considered SDAC** (acres) % Total Area SDAC** Participating North
Coast Counties Del Norte 648,879 622,568 96% 568,048 88% Humboldt 2,310,054 1,783,497 77% 850,106 37%
Mendocino 2,245,146 1,411,131 63% 969,604 43%
Modoc* 751,022 751,022 100% 224,797 30%
Siskiyou* 3,326,050 3,185,515 96% 1,591,994 48%
Sonoma* 834,109 96,131 12% 18,282 2%
Trinity 2,051,353 1,551,288 76% 1,090,498 53%
Other North
Coast Counties
Glenn* 54,246 54,246 100% 32,346 60%
Lake* 191,944 191,658 100% 191,145 100%
Marin* 22,677 22,677 100% 0 0%
North Coast Totals 12,435,479 11,204,991 90.2% 6,188,842 49.81% *Analysis includes only those portions of these counties that are within the North Coast Region
** Population and Area in SDAC are subsets of Population and Area in DAC; see text for details
Sources: All Population and County area data: American Community Survey (ACS) 2015 block group, North Coast Area Totals: (US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Data: 2012–2016).

When considering North Coast WMAs, the same pattern
is evident. The northern WMAs have much larger
percentages of population living in DACs and SDACs than the Russian Bodega WMA in the southern part of the
Region (see Tables 6 and 7). Eighty-five percent of the Eel, Klamath, and Trinity WMAs’ populations reside in a DAC
but only 27% (over ¼ of the population) of the Russian
Bodega WMA’s population lives in a DAC. Likewise, with
land area, just 17% (still a significant figure — nearly a fifth of the land mass) of the Russian Bodega WMA
contains communities considered disadvantaged.

Challenges associated with water for economically
disadvantaged communities are those described in
Section 2.7.5 Impaired Water Bodies and Section 2.7.6 Water Supply & Demand: 20 Year Projection. Aging infrastructure and lack of capital are issues that face most of the North Coast Region, particularly these communities, which
often don’t possess the technical expertise or staff
required to develop competitive funding proposals.
66 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 TABLE 6. ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS

IN NORTH COAST WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREAS
WMA Total
Population
Population
living in
DAC
% Total
Population
in DAC
Population
living in
SDAC*
% Total
Population
in SDAC*
Eel 48,240 40,902 85% 21,423 44%
Humboldt 97,992 59,585 61% 27,178 28%
Klamath 39,766 33,659 85% 18,626 47%
North Coast 1 26,612 16,884 63% 11,405 43%
North Coast 2 34,334 23,120 67% 9,132 27%
Russian
Bodega 416,573 111,659 27% 38,624 9%
Trinity 16,224 13,789 85% 11,388 70%
North Coast
Totals 679,741 299,598 44% 137,776 20%
TABLE 7. ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED AREA

BY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREAS
WMA Total Area
Area
considered
DAC
% Total
Area
DAC
Area
considered
SDAC*
% Total
Area
SDAC*
Eel 2,355,589 1,945,904 83% 1,619,208 69%
Humboldt 734,786 486,912 66% 163,705 22%
Klamath 4,502,147 4,361,613 97% 2,051,398 46%
North Coast 1 557,049 530,739 95% 476,219 85%
North Coast 2 1,342,599 599,338 45% 57,188 4%
Russian Bodega 1,043,886 174,989 17% 74,191 7%
Trinity 1,899,422 1,570,237 83% 1,094,912 58%
North Coast
Totals 12,435,479 9,669,731 78% 5,536,820 45%
* Population and Area in SDAC are subsets of Population and Area in DAC; see text for details
Sources: All Population and WMA area data: American Community Survey (ACS) 2015 block group; North Coast Area Totals: (US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Data: 2012–2016).

2.4.2.3 POVERTY STATUS & UNEMPLOYMENT
Unlike the definition of “economically disadvantaged”
status referenced above, one’s “poverty status” is not
based on one single dollar amount (e.g. %MHI). Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of
money income thresholds that vary by family size and
composition to determine who is in poverty. These poverty thresholds are the dollar amounts used to determine
poverty status. If a family’s total income is less than the threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically so the same thresholds are used throughout the United States. There is no adjustment to account for some parts of the country (or region) being more expensive to live in than other parts.

The North Coast Region’s poverty status is generally
higher than the rest of the state’s rate of 11.8 percent of individuals living in poverty (CA DOF 2017a). Of the seven NCRP counties, Sonoma (7%), Modoc (8.4%),
and Humboldt (11.2%) exhibit poverty rates below the
state average. For the other counties, poverty rates
are as high as 16.7 percent (Del Norte County).

Modoc and Sonoma counties have unemployment
rates (6.8% and 7% respectively) lower than that of
the state as a whole (8.7%), while Del Norte (10.4%),
Humboldt (9.5%), Mendocino (11%), Siskiyou (11.7%)
and Trinity (9.9%) have larger unemployment rates in
keeping with their high poverty status and large number of Economically Disadvantaged Communities. Modoc
County is an apparent anomaly; these statistics may
suggest that while similar percentages of inhabitants
are employed in Modoc and Sonoma County, Del Norte
employees are paid less for similar work, or that the
work they do, and related industries, are less profitable.

2.4.3 ECONOMIC SECTORS & TRENDS
The North Coast Region’s economy has historically been
one of resource extraction and agriculture. The majority of the region, except Marin and Sonoma counties, was
until the last twenty years, dependent upon the timber, fisheries, and agriculture industries as primary revenue and employment generators. This has proven problematic
for many communities reliant upon the timber and
fisheries industries, where harvesting has declined
significantly due to increased mechanization, stricter
environmental laws, declines in supply due to overharvesting and impacted environmental conditions, and increasingly competitive markets. Field crop agriculture has also suffered given the distance to market, inability to compete with production and lower costs in the Central
Valley, and limited infrastructure. The overall decline in living-wage natural resources based jobs over the past
twenty years has contributed greatly to the Region’s
overall profile as a high unemployment, low-income
area (Mendocino County Joint Agriculture and Tourism
Marketing Study 1997). The status of the North Coast
Region’s industries is assessed below using US Census
American Fact Finder 5-Year Estimates 2012–2016.

2.4.3.1 Agriculture
Despite its overall decline in the regional economy,
agriculture continues to be a significant industry for
the North Coast counties, providing approximately 7
percent of employment, much higher than the State’s

2.4 percent of all jobs. The agricultural sector includes timber harvesting, crops, aquaculture and fisheries.

Current agricultural strengths include grape growing,
almonds, and organic row crops. While organic crops
currently represent a small percentage of production,
they are growing significantly and capture more value
per dollar than traditional crops (California Department of Agriculture Crop Report 2003). It should also be noted that the growth in grapes is presently being tempered due NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 67
to the general perception that there are adequate grape plantings to meet demand for the foreseeable future.

There is also a very substantial underground economy
based on the cultivation and sale of marijuana — much
of which is illegally grown on public lands. Because of its federally illegal status and newly legal (2018) state status, it is difficult to assign an accurate dollar value to this economic sector. The water supply and quality impacts
associated with illegal cultivation of cannabis likewise are not well quantified, but anecdotal evidence from local experts indicates that these impacts are significant. The emergence of new laws regarding marijuana — nearly all
of which are in conflict with federal law — may provide more precise data regarding the economic contribution
of the legal elements of this agricultural enterprise.

For a more detailed discussion of cannabis cultivation
and its economic impact on the North Coast, please see
the North Coast Healthy Watersheds & Vital Communities
Economic Analysis, available on the NCRP website.

The trend for agricultural land in the past few decades has been one of transformation to urban uses. This
is in part due to low crop values and the high price
of surface and developable groundwater (DWR 2005),
but also can be attributed to an increased demand
for housing in the southern part of the Region, which
is close to the San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area.

The timber industry is presently in decline; however,
production, profits and employment may improve with the growing demand for building products from sustainable
forestry, affordable interest rates, and increased housing demand in the wake of the 2017 fire season. Although
land in agriculture has declined, agricultural water
use has not, reflecting the replacement of large tracts of un-irrigated orchards with smaller acreages of
irrigated vineyards (DWR 2005). Finally, fisheries have experienced dramatic declines with many commercial
fish seasons significantly shortened or eliminated
entirely in order to allow population level recovery.

2.4.3.2 Construction
The construction industry, contributing 7 percent
of jobs in the North Coast Counties, also plays an
important role in the Region, and represents slightly
more jobs proportionately than that of the State (6%).

Prior to the global economic crisis beginning 2008, a
widespread lack of housing supply and low interest
rates had spurred housing construction throughout
the Region. This had led to employment increases
in construction, as well as the timber and wood
manufacturing industries in the Region. The 2017 fires
in the Region caused a severe housing shortage in
the south portion of the Region, with 5,643 structures
destroyed in the Tubbs Fire alone (CAL Fire2018),
adding even more urgency to construction efforts.

2.4.3.3 Government Employment
Government is a significant employer in most of the
North Coast Region counties, and includes 24 percent
of all employment, in contrast to the State, where
government workers make up approximately 14% of the
population. While not on a major upward swing, public
agency employment is considered stable and unlikely
to decline markedly in the coming decade. Government
employees manage federal lands and programs, work for
local jurisdictions, and manage educational institutions.

Government workers comprise nearly a third of the
work force in Del Norte, Modoc and Trinity counties,
with Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity counties having
about one fifth of their workers in government. Sonoma
County, which is much more highly urbanized and
close to the Bay Area, is closer to the State’s ratio with

12.8% of the workforce employed with government.

2.4.3.4 High-Tech & Information Services
High-tech industries occur in the southern part of the
Region due to the proximity to the San Francisco Bay
Area. Additionally, professional consulting agencies
specializing in engineering, restoration, geomorphology, and other applied sciences occur throughout the
Region in response to the regulatory environment,
urban growth, and infrastructural development.

2.4.3.5 Manufacturing
Compared to the California average of 13 percent,
the North Coast Region has particularly low
manufacturing employment with only about 7 percent
of all jobs. The Region’s manufacturing center is in
Sonoma County, which shares the State’s 13 percent
rate for manufacturing jobs. Sonoma County is
a manufacturing center for telecommunications,
medical devices, and specialty food products, including the newly legalized cannabis food products.
68 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

2.4.3.6 Recreational Tourism
Tourism is strong in the Region, with arts, entertainment, food service and accommodations at 12 percent of
employment in North Coast counties, a slightly higher
rate than the State’s 10 percent. Trinity and Del Norte counties have the highest percentages of tourism
industry at 17.3% and 14.5% respectively. Only Modoc
County has a rate lower than the State’s; just 7% of
the county’s industry is attributable to tourism and
recreational activities. Retail trade, a sector linked to tourism, is also thriving in the Region, and just surpasses the state’s rate of 11 percent of all employment. A
survey of Willits Chamber of Commerce members
identified that over 30 percent of members established
their businesses in the area due to a positive tourism
experience (Willits Chamber of Commerce Membership
Survey, 2003). In the past decade, there has been
growing interest in the local, artisanal, organic food
movement and associated tourism element (e.g. winery
tours, cheese tasting, working-farm B & Bs, etc.).

2.4.3.7 Service Sector: Education,
Health, & Social Services
The service sector includes health, social services,
education, government, retail, and tourism related
businesses, and is the largest employer of the Region
with over 62 percent of employment in North Coast
counties. Within the service sector, the education/
health/social services industry cluster accounts for
25 percent of all employment, and exceeds that of the
state’s (21 %). This sector reflects the predominance
of hospitals and educational and governmental
facilities providing significant employment.

2.5 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL VALUES
Shared Values
The North Coast Region is comprised of counties,
jurisdictions, and Tribal communities that largely
embrace their cultural and social diversity. Most
counties include statements in the General Plans
that reflect their commitment to embracing diversity
and expanding public awareness. Identified shared
values of the North Coast Region include:
• A strong connection to the land
• Interest in retaining a rural quality
of life and small-town culture
• Scenic beauty
• Natural resource protection
• Outdoor recreation
• Protecting historic sites
• Honoring and encouraging public
awareness of diverse cultures
• Fostering a vibrant, sustainable economy
Without exception, all the counties included in the
North Coast Region have included statements in their
General Plans and related documents that indicate
their commitment to retaining the quality of life in
their jurisdiction. An example is Mendocino County’s
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy,
2004: “We believe that economic, environmental,
cultural, and social values are inseparably related.

The quality of life so valued by Mendocino County
residents depends upon economic opportunity for
all, while preserving the rural beauty and natural
resources, and a thriving, diverse community. Our
adventure is to use our creativity to find the balance.” Divergent Values and Water-related Conflicts
Water management issues at the regional scale cover
a range of water quality, watershed health and water
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 69
quantity concerns that occur widely throughout the North Coast. These issues have motivated state and federal
agencies to develop a suite of programs, policies, and
regulations to guide, encourage, and support protection and restoration of anadromous fish habitat, beneficial
uses of water (including protection and enhancement
of drinking water), and pollution prevention. Although
usually developed at a statewide, regional, or basin
(WMA) scale, many of the programs are implemented at
the local scale by local jurisdictions, watershed groups, Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) or other cooperative
coalitions, Tribes, or state or federal agencies. Therefore, although regional in scope, these issues ultimately
are addressed at the local scale by local entities, at
times in cooperation with state and federal partners.

While most residents share the shared values expressed
above, communities and individuals may differ in their
beliefs about how those values should be implemented,
thereby leading to conflicts. One leading area of
conflict is that of resource protection. For example,
although Tribal members, environmentalists and
farmers all have a deep connection to the land, they
have clashed over distribution of water in the Klamath
River Basin. Tribal interests want the adequate river
flow for cultural, subsistence, and environmental uses, environmentalists strongly believe that environmental
uses of water, which maintain salmonid fisheries are
the most important beneficial uses, and agricultural
interests believe that agricultural uses, which maintain their historic way of life, are the most important use.

In the North Coast Region, conflict most often
occurs between different types of resource users
when water scarcity or impairment occurs, whether
recreationalists, sport fishermen, commercial timber,
fish harvesters, or other interests are involved. Similar conflicts occur between historical preservationists
and development stakeholders when construction
projects are proposed in historically sensitive areas.

While these conflicts between stakeholders can
and do happen throughout the region, there are a
few well-known instances of conflict, including dam
removal and water rights issues in the Klamath
River watershed (described above and in Section 2.8.4
Salmonid Population Decline), the historic and continued diversion of the Eel River into the Russian River
watershed through the Potter Valley Project (Section

2.8.6 Water Supply & Demand: 20 Year Projection), and
the expansion of the mariculture industry in Humboldt
Bay (Section 2.8.5 Impaired Quality of Water Bodies).

While such conflicts seem intractable, with a group
such as the NCRP providing a proven framework for
conflict resolution and action towards agreed-upon,
shared goals, solutions can be developed. Indeed, the
history of the NCRP is in part a history of stakeholders who thought they had nothing in common learning
that by collaborating and engaging with sincerity and
honesty, mutually beneficial outcomes can be achieved.

2.6 NORTH COAST TRIBAL

COMMUNITIES
There are 34 Tribes in the North Coast. North Coast Tribal communities are each unique, however information from
the U.S. Census provides information at the county level.

In 2016, about 4.7% of the population in the region as a whole identified as Native American with slightly higher percentages on the northwest coast (Del Norte 5.34%
and Humboldt 5.15%) and lower populations inland and
to the south (Modoc 1.99% Sonoma 1.29%). Many Native
Americans live in Tribal or other communities that are
considered Economically Disadvantaged or Severely
Economically Disadvantaged communities. This data
set does not differentiate between North Coast Tribal
members and those who have moved into the region as
part of federal policies such as the Indian Relocation Act.

Many North Coast Tribes remain on their traditional
homelands and each has unique cultural lifeways
including distinct Tribal languages and relationships
with their traditional territories. Each Tribe’s culture has developed in relationship with their natural environment.

North Coast Tribes are known for different areas of
expertise and focus, including basketry, fisheries
management, Tribal science-based management of
natural resources, societal relationships, and use
of prescribed fires and other treatments related to
traditional ecological knowledge. Over a century of
discrimination and cultural suppression has challenged
Tribal bonds and most of those who identify as Native
American participate in contemporary American culture
in addition to individual participation in traditional
Tribal culture. Fortunately, in recent decades Tribes
have exercised resiliency and continue to practice
traditional ways and application of traditional ecological knowledge. Many North Coast Tribes maintain and are
continuing restoration of their language, culture, religious ceremonies and traditional environmental stewardship.

Water-related challenges for North Coast Tribes include those challenges facing the entire region (Section 2.8.3 Aquatic Ecosystem Decline, Section 2.8.5 Impaired Quality of Water Bodies and Section 2.8.6 Water Supply & Demand:
20 Year Projection) however for Tribes these are also a threat to the continuance of cultural lifeways impacted by climate change, legacy and emerging contaminants,
low stream flows, and lack of access to traditional
territories and cultural resources. These and other
challenges result in the loss of fisheries, wildlife, and plants for food, medicines and other cultural needs. As 70 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 communities that are often economically disadvantaged,
Tribes also contend with limited funding to repair and
update outdated and failing water supply infrastructure.

According to recent outreach efforts, septic issues in
flood prone areas are of increasing concern in several
Tribal communities; there may be an opportunity
for a regional approach in addressing this and other
shared issues on Tribal lands and other rural areas.

2.7 POLICY LANDSCAPE
Water management and socioeconomic issues at the
regional scale cover a range of water quality, watershed health and water quantity concerns that occur widely
throughout the North Coast. These issues have
motivated state and federal agencies to develop a suite of programs to guide, encourage, and support protection and restoration of anadromous fish habitat, beneficial
uses of water (including protection and enhancement of
drinking water, as well as Tribal cultural and subsistence fishing uses), and pollution prevention. Although usually developed at a statewide, regional, or basin (WMA) scale, many of the programs are implemented at the local scale by local jurisdictions, watershed groups, Joint Powers
Authorities (JPAs) or other cooperative coalitions, Tribes, or state or federal agencies. Therefore, although regional in scope, these issues ultimately are addressed at the
local scale by the Tribes themselves, by local entities, and at times in cooperation with state and federal partners.

2.7.1 WATER QUALITY
The overarching federal policy that protects water quality is the Clean Water Act, which sets the basic structure
for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. There are also federal laws regulating
small drinking water systems, spill prevention control, and pollutant discharges (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)). The NPDES addresses
water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. Program
areas that effect land use in the North Coast include:
animal feeding operations, industrial wastewater,
municipal wastewater, pesticide use, and stormwater.

Assembly Bill 885 (1999; authorized 2012) requires the
state to regulate the 1.2 million Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems (OWTS) (i.e. septic systems)
operating in California. As described in this Plan, these domestic systems, when inadequately maintained,
can contribute to significant septic leakage;
compound failures from inadequate waste treatment
infrastructure; and contribute to bacterial and
pharmaceutical impairment of natural waterbodies.

The state regulates water quality of surface and
groundwater, including sources for drinking and municipal water supplies (e.g. California Water Code, Water
Quality Control Act, Health and Safety Code, others).

Under the oversight of the USEPA Region IX, the State
and Regional Water Boards have primary responsibility
for maintenance of water quality in the North Coast
Region. This is achieved in part through establishment of specific, measurable water quality objectives for rivers, lakes, estuaries, and other waters in Water Quality
Control Plans. The Water Quality Control Plan for the
North Coast Region (NCRWQCB 2011) defines beneficial
uses for state waters, including for drinking water.

2.7.1.1 BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER
The California State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) regulates water quality in the state. In 1972
(updated in 1996), it adopted a uniform list codifying the various “beneficial uses” for waters of the state to protect water quality and supply to retain maximum benefits for current and future generations of water consumers and
stewards. On May 2, 2017, the State Water Resources
Control Board adopted Resolution 2017-0027, which
approved “Part 2 of the Water Quality Control Plan for
Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries
of California—Tribal and Subsistence Fishing Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions.” Within these provisions
the State Water Board established three new beneficial
use definitions for use by the State and Regional Water Boards in designating Tribal Traditional Culture (CUL), Tribal Subsistence Fishing (T-SUB), and Subsistence
Fishing (SUB) beneficial uses to inland surface waters, enclosed bays, or estuaries in the state. [source:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_
issues/programs/basin_plan/triennial_review/]
As of 2019, there are twenty -eight beneficial uses are designated within the North Coast Region, affording
protection to its bays, estuaries, minor coastal streams, ocean waters, wetlands, inland surface waters, and
groundwater (NCRWQCB 2011). The North Coast Regional
Water Control Board has included integration of three
new statewide beneficial uses as a project within the
workplan of the 2018 Triennial Review of the Basin Plan initiated by staff in 2017 (see Appendix G, Table G-24, Beneficial Uses of Water in the North Coast Region).

It is the intent of the NCRP to simultaneously support
as many beneficial uses of water as possible, through
implementation of the Region’s diverse portfolio of local projects. Protection of beneficial uses in the Plan Goals and Objectives emphasizes surface and groundwater
sources; agricultural, municipal, cultural, and wildlife uses; public health and safety; and economically
disadvantaged communities. The priorities placed on
particular beneficial uses is often best determined
at the local (e.g. county, municipality, Tribal) level.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 71
According to DWR (2013), irrigated agriculture in the
North Coast uses most of the Region’s developed
water supplies (81 percent of non-environmental water
use), while municipal and industrial use comprise
only about 19 percent. Approximately 422,300 acres in
the Region are irrigated (3.4 percent). Approximately
65 percent the Region’s irrigated agriculture is in the Middle and Upper Klamath River basins (including
Scott, Shasta, and Butte valleys and Tule Lake), above
the confluence of the Salmon and Klamath rivers.

With respect to drinking water, the State Water Resources Control Board (Resolution 88-63 ) defines “sources of
drinking water” as water bodies with beneficial uses
designated in Water Quality Control Plans as “suitable, or potentially suitable, for municipal or domestic water supply (MUN)” and that “all surface and ground waters
of the State” are “suitable, or potentially suitable”
for MUN uses, with the exception of (1) contaminated
waters that cannot reasonably be treated; (2) sources
that do not provide sufficient water to supply a single well a sustained average 200 gallons/day; (3) water
systems designated or modified to collect or treat waste, stormwater runoff, and/or agricultural drainage; (4)
groundwater aquifers regulated as geothermal energy
producing sources; and (5) certain site-specific cases.

Critically important to North Coast Tribes are two
relatively recently adopted beneficial uses (2017):
• Tribal Tradition and Culture (CUL): Uses of water
that support the cultural, spiritual, ceremonial, or
traditional rights or lifeways of California Native
American Tribes, including, but not limited to:
navigation, ceremonies, or fishing, gathering,
or consumption of natural aquatic resources,
including fish, shellfish, vegetation, and materials.
• Tribal Subsistence Fishing (T-SUB): Uses of
water involving the non-commercial catching or
gathering of natural aquatic resources, including
fish and shellfish, for consumption by individuals,
households, or communities of California Native
American Tribes to meet needs for sustenance.

These beneficial uses protect ancestral practices
including gathering basket-making materials and
fish harvest. A 2005 study of the Karuk People that
the elimination of traditional foods including salmon,
Pacific Lamprey, Sturgeon and other aquatic species
has had “extreme adverse health, social, economic, and
spiritual effects on the Karuk people (Norgaard 2005).” In 2017, in response to depressed salmon populations,
the federal government closed all ocean fishing for
salmon north of Horse Mountain near Eureka. The
subsistence quota for the Yurok Tribe was cut to zero
and only 650 ceremonial fish were allowed for over
6,000 Tribal members. Poor run size continued to be
a run size into fall of 2018 (Cannon 2018). North Coast region Tribes continue to use science and political
mechanisms to protect, enhance, and ultimately restore
the fisheries and the watersheds that support them.

2.7.1.2 Groundwater Quality Monitoring
The Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment
(GAMA) Program, created in 200, is the state’s
comprehensive groundwater monitoring program.

The main goals of GAMA are to improve statewide
comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring and
increase the availability of groundwater quality and
contamination information to the public and decision
makers. The GAMA Program’s online groundwater
information system integrates and displays
groundwater quality data from multiple sources
on an interactive Google-based map interface.

2.7.2 WATER QUANTITY

2.7.2.1 Groundwater Management
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) is a three-bill legislative package (AB 1739,
SB 1168, and SB 1319) that provides a framework
for sustainable groundwater management. SGMA
requires governments and water agencies of high
and medium priority basins to bring groundwater
basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge
by developing Groundwater Sustainability Plans.

2.7.2.2 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
The California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, implemented in 2009,
tracks seasonal and long-term groundwater elevation
trends in groundwater basins statewide. The program’s
mission is to establish a permanent, locally-managed
program of regular and systemic monitoring in all of the state’s groundwater basins. It is currently being used
as a tool to help achieve goals contained in the SGMA.
72 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020

2.7.3 STORM WATER PLANNING
The State Water Board is actively involved in initiatives to improvement the management of storm water
as a resource, and to that end has developed its
Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of
Storm Water (STORMS). The intent of STORMS is to
support policies for collaborative watershed-level
storm water management and pollution prevention,
removing funding obstacles, developing resources, and
integrating regulatory and non-regulatory interests.
• SB 985 amended Water Code § 10563(c)(1) to
require a public agency to develop a Storm Water
Resource Plan that prioritizes eligible projects for
implementation as a condition of receiving funds
from any bond approved by voters after January
2014. This bill does not apply to disadvantaged
communities with a population of 20,000 or less
and that is not a co-permittee for a municipal
separate stormwater system NPDES permit issued
to a municipality with a population greater than
20,000. The bill’s intent is to encourage use of storm
water and dry weather runoff as a resource to
improve water quality, reduce localized flooding, and
increase water supplies for beneficial uses and the
environment. Plans should prioritize projects that
will assist in attaining water quality improvement
outcomes and provide multiple benefits.

2.7.4 FLOOD RISK AND LAND USE PLANNING
A number of state laws were enacted in 2007
regarding flood risk and land use planning. These laws
encourage a comprehensive approach to improving
flood management by addressing system deficiencies,
improving flood risk information, and encouraging links between land use planning and flood management (DWR
2013). Local responsibilities for flood management
including adopting National Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, conforming to the International Building Code,
and enforcing building and land use restrictions.
• AB 70 (2007) Flood Liability provides that a city or
county might be responsible for its reasonable share
of property damage caused by a flood if the State
liability for property damage
has increased due to approval of new
development after January 1, 2008.
• AB 162 (2007) General Plans requires cities
and counties statewide to amend the land
use, conservation, safety, and housing
elements of their respective general plan
to address new flood- related matters.

2.7.5 FOREST AND NATIVE

VEGETATION REMOVAL
The federal government has multiple laws, regulations
and policies about forest management. These include:
• The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act —
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop
a program of land conservation and utilization
to correct maladjustments in land use and
thus assist such things as control of soil
erosion, reforestation, preservation of natural
resources and protection of fish and wildlife.
• The Endangered Species Act of 1973 — protects
animal and plant species currently in danger
of extinction (endangered) and those that may
become endangered in the foreseeable future
(threatened). It provides for the conservation
of ecosystems upon which threatened and
endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants
depend, both through Federal action and by
encouraging the establishment of state programs.
• Forest and Range Renewable Resources Planning
— establishes public land policy and guidelines
for the management, protection, development,
and enhancement of the public lands.
• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) — a
Forest Service site with information about The
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA).

State laws, regulations, and policies include:
• California Forest Practice Act — enforced
by the State Board of Forestry and
Fire Protection to regulate logging on
privately-owned lands in California.
• DFW Timberland Conservation Program
— helps to conserve natural communities
on timberland through environmental
review of timber harvesting plans.
• Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Wood Product
Carbon Accounting — requires the Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection to ensure the
rules and regulations governing the harvest
of commercial tree species consider the
capacity of forests to sequester 5 Million Metric
Tons (MMT) of CO2e annually by 2020.
• Lake and Streambed Alteration Program —
provides for review of projects that would alter
any river, stream or lake and sets conditions to
conserve existing fish and wildlife resources.
• North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board Forest Activities Program — addresses
NPS discharges associated with use of
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 73
forested landscapes including timber harvest,
fuels management, vegetation management,
salvage logging, road construction, livestock
grazing, and recreational use.

2.7.6 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Federal laws, regulations, and policies
regulating agricultural practices include:
• Clean Water Act Section 319 — addresses the
need for greater federal leadership to help
focus state and local nonpoint source efforts.
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System —
addresses point source pollution from concentrated
animal feeding operations, aquaculture,
pesticide use, and biosolid applications.

State laws, regulations, and policies impacting
agricultural practices include:
• Agricultural Lands Discharge Program —
addresses water quality impacts associated
with activities on agricultural lands.
• California’s Porter-Cologne Act — covers any
discharge activity that could affect the quality
of surface water, wetlands, or groundwater.
• Cannabis Cultivation Waste Discharge
Regulatory Program — contains enforceable
requirements for cultivators to ensure their
operations do not impact water resources
• Lake and Streambed Alteration Program —
provides for review of projects that would alter
any river, stream or lake and sets conditions to
conserve existing fish and wildlife resources.
• State Groundwater Management Act — requires
governments and water agencies of high and
medium priority groundwater basins to halt
overdraft and bring groundwater basins into
balanced levels of withdrawals and recharge.
• Water Quality Compliance for Dairies &
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations —
regulates waste discharge from dairies.

2.7.7 TRANSPORTATION
It is mostly state laws that impact NCRP projects and
policies with respect to transportation. These include:
• SB 64 — California Transportation Plan
(2015) — reduces greenhouse gas emissions,
increases sustainability, and helps prepare
the state transportation system to deal
with long-term climate change.
• AB 118 — Alternative Fuels and Vehicle
Technology Program (2007) — Assembly Bill
118 creates the Alternative and Renewable Fuel
and Vehicle Technology Program to provide
funding to public projects to develop and
deploy innovative technologies that transform
California’s fuel and vehicle types to help
attain the state’s climate change policies.
• AB 1092 — Building Standards: Electric
Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (2015) —
requires the Building Standards Commission
to adopt mandatory building standards for the
installation of future electric vehicle charging
infrastructure for parking spaces in multifamily
dwellings and nonresidential development.
• SB 1275 — Charge Ahead California Initiative
(2014) — establishes a state goal of one million
zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicles
in service by 2020. Establishes the Charge Ahead
California Initiative requiring planning and reporting
on vehicle incentive programs and increasing
access to and benefits from zero-emission
vehicles for disadvantaged, low-income, and
moderate-income communities and consumers.

2.7.8 RESIDENTIAL AND

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
State codes are relevant to NCRP
projects; these are listed below.
• California Building Standards Code — a
compilation of building standards adopted by
state agencies without modification from federal
code, building standards modified and adapted
to California’s ever-changing conditions,, and
building standards authorized by the California
legislature that have been created and adopted
to address concerns specific to California.
• CALGreen — is the first-in-the-nation
mandatory green building standards code
developed in 2007 in response to AB 32.

2.7.9 WILD FIRE
State regulations and codes are relevant to NCRP
projects with respect to wildfire, including:
• Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Areas Standards,
Regulations, and Information — provides
construction information and a directory of
WUI products that are compliant with Chapter
7A of the California Building Code and Chapter
R327 of the California Residential Code.
74 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Source: CalFire Perimeters v17_1 (2017)
MAP 37 FIRE HISTORY

2.8 IMPACTS TO NATURAL CAPITAL

2.8.1 THREATS TO HABITATS,

BIODIVERSITY & CORRIDORS
In the face of measurable changes to weather patterns
induced by the changing climate, land conservation
and habitat restoration are more important than ever
to protect biodiversity. Wildlife species will need to
migrate to access suitable habitat as habitat shifts
occur due to changes in soil moisture, weather events,
and temperature increases. The more habitat that is
available, the more likely that each wildlife species
will be able to successfully locate habitat conducive to its unique forage, shelter, and reproductive needs.

The North Coast region’s environmental resources
serve as habitat for a large number of plant
and animal communities and large corridors of
undeveloped land allow for migration, dispersal,
and genetic exchange between locations.

The Region contains many species of concern, including
thirty federally endangered plant species, four federally endangered fish species (including salmonids), four
federally endangered bird species, and seven federally
endangered mammals (see Appendix G, Table G-28,
Threatened & Endangered Species). Additionally, the
region’s mountains, valleys, forests, and grasslands are home to deer (Odocoileus hemionus), common garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), elk (Cervus elaphus), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), bear (Ursus americanus), southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotrition vareigatus), mountain lion (Puma concolor) and many other animal species.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 75
MAP 38 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Approximately 49% of the North Coast Region land is
permanently protected by public agencies (e.g. federal, state, local), private entities, or non-profit organizations.

The 2014 North Coast IRWMP lists nearly 300 protected
areas including parks, preserves, reserves, recreation
areas, national/ state forests, private lands, and other sites in the North Coast Region (see Appendix H, Table
19, NCRP IRWM Plan 2014). Conservation easements
offer one means through which public agencies and
non-governmental organizations (NGO) can sell
parcels and keep them protected while retaining
private or NGO management. Conservation easements
comprise approximately 100,000 acres in Sonoma
County alone. Functionally, “protection status” for
these lands varies, depending on a number of factors,
including how lands are managed. Extractive and
recreational uses may be permitted on some public and
private “protected lands,” depending on the specified
management status and protections afforded thereby;
other protected lands are managed to mimic natural
disturbance regimes and maximize biodiversity.

2.8.1.1 LIMITING FACTORS AND CHALLENGES
Land Use Practices
Land use practices that involved removal of riparian
vegetation, channelization, dam construction, and
other practices that led to channel incision, excessive sedimentation, increased stream temperature, and
loss of migratory passage in stream channels led to a
steady decline in salmonid populations. Sedimentation,
increased water temperature, and chemical and biological pollution can reduce habitat viability and negatively
affect at least some stages of the salmonid life cycle.

Spawning salmon are known to require adequate surface
flows in order to return upstream to their natal streams and clean, appropriately sized gravel in which to spawn; juveniles need intact complex habitat (a matrix of pools, riffles, large woody debris, and riparian vegetation) to provide shelter, food, cool water temperatures, and other factors necessary for survival; and smolts seek intact, unpolluted estuarine habitat to physiologically adjust to the saline environment prior to outmigration to the ocean.

Historically, habitat has been fenced off, native
vegetation removed, movement corridors interrupted,
and ecological function of many systems was destroyed
or severely impacted. For example, buildup of fuels due to fire suppression has led to changes in composition
and structure of forest and shrub land ecosystems;
accumulated fuel has caused catastrophic canopy fires
in systems such as oak woodlands that were formerly
more open and frequently experienced ground fires
that prevented fuel accumulation. Post-fire, lack of
groundcover can lead to increased sedimentation and in
extreme cases, landslides, when the rainy season occurs, exacerbating existing instream water quality issues and lengthening recovery time for the burned system.

Agriculture and Resource Extraction
Today, the major land uses in the Region that
impact wildlife habitat are resource extraction (e.g.
fisheries, timber harvest, and aggregate mining)
and agriculture (e.g. vineyards, rangeland, dairies,
row crops, and marijuana cultivation). Agricultural
lands use significant volumes of water and a large
portion of the water supply: irrigated agriculture
accounts for about 80% of the developed uses of
water supplies in the Region. Additionally, activities
associated with agriculture, including grazing,
fertilization, and soil disturbance can impact water
quality through sedimentation and nutrient loading.

In addition to impacting water quality, agricultural lands also provide forage and habitat for wildlife (NCRWQCB
2011), and it is important to note that agricultural and rangelands protect habitat from urban development
and provide connectivity between wildland parcels.

A 2002 study of vineyards in Sonoma County found
that while large predators were more likely to use
native habitat, their numbers and activity levels were
next greatest in vineyards adjacent to core habitat,
underscoring the importance of the agricultural buffer
76 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 and suggesting that riparian corridor restoration is
important on these lands (Hilty and Merenlender 2004).

Aggregate mining (in-stream and upland types) is the
mechanical removal of aggregates (i.e. sand, gravel, and cobble) from the Region’s river systems. Aggregates are used to make concrete and asphalt, and as road base/
sub-base and drain rock. Gold mining in streams also
occurs. Sediment suspension and changes to channel
morphology from aggregate and/ or gold mining has
degraded salmonid habitat and impaired water quality.

In recent years, the timber industry has declined as
a result of economic issues, changes in international
markets, and the expansion of environmental regulations (NCRP 2014). Regulations regarding timber harvest
currently moderate sediment and temperature impacts
to water bodies, but significant legacy effects from
past practices are still present. Failure to manage
national forests by thinning and harvesting has
caused an unnatural massive buildup of biomass that
has reduced water available to streams by canopy
interception of snow and evapotranspiration in addition to setting the stage for catastrophic wildfires.

Urban, Suburban, and Exurban Development
Exurban development affects both agricultural and
natural lands by fragmenting them as it “leapfrogs”
beyond incorporated areas into unincorporated areas.

Impacts from all types of residential development include loss of migratory/movement corridors, and stressors on
water supply, water quality, air quality, and vegetative community composition in surrounding habitat as native
plants are outcompeted by invasive landscape plants
and weeds associated with increased human traffic.

Exurban development has been identified as the
fastest growing land use in the United States (Wildlife Conservation Society 2018). It is particularly prevalent in areas of high amenity value surrounding protected
areas, and while not always visually obtrusive, it is
one of the more consumptive development patterns
with significant impacts to biodiversity and landscape
cohesion due to fragmentation caused by roads and
driveway networks as well as the development itself.

Studies have shown a significantly reduced survival
of native species with a corresponding increase in
nonnative species in areas of exurban development.

Additionally, exurban development was found to have
a larger overall impact on sediment levels in salmonid
spawning streams due to the tendency to “leapfrog”
into watersheds with intact habitat (Lohse et al. 2008).

Climate Change Impacts
Added to the existing stressors on native habitats and
wildlife in the North Coast are projected stressors
associated with climate change. These include warmer
temperatures, greater hydrologic variability, greater
evapotranspiration and the associated increased water
demand for landscapes and agricultural crops, variable
runoff and groundwater recharge, increased wildfire
risk, and shifts in natural vegetation types (Micheli et al. 2018). The shifts in vegetation patterns due to changing abiotic conditions will force wildlife to move to continue to live in habitat conducive to its needs. If such vegetation no longer occurs in protected areas, the wildlife
dependent on that habitat may have nowhere to survive.

2.8.1.2 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES,

PLANNING, AND STRATEGY
The North Coast Region is fortunate to contain multiple entities that recognize the threats that land use, current development patterns, and climate change pose to
native habitats and wildlife and who are studying how
to address these issues. The Pepperwood Preserve
in Sonoma County and other Bay Area and regional
organizations are sharing their work with local resource managers as data sets and case studies featured on the
California Climate Commons, which was established
by the multi-jurisdictional California Landscape
Conservation Cooperative. The Pepperwood Preserve’s
Terrestrial Biodiversity Climate Change Collaborative
(TBC3) is leading development of empirically-based
high-resolution climate-hydrology projections designed
to support site-specific conservation solutions.

2.8.2 NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES
People have long benefitted from the deliberate
introduction of plant and animal species from foreign
locations. These species have diversified diets and
supported cultural development for millennia. However,
species that have been introduced from outside
ecosystems (i.e. “exotic” species) can invade native
systems because they are no longer controlled by
their natural predators or pathogens and thus may
have a competitive advantage over native species.

In some cases [e.g. Giant Reed (Arundo donax) in
riparian ecosystems, bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in
freshwater ponds and streams, or yellow star thistle
(Centaurea solstitialis) in rangelands], the relatively rapid changes posed by invasive species can threaten
ecosystem function, trophic structure, agricultural
and other working lands, water delivery systems, and
flood control infrastructure. With specific respect to
integrated water/ land management, invasive species
may consume valuable water resources; upset ecological
and hydrologic processes; clog water delivery systems;
reduce floodplain capacity, weaken flood infrastructure, and increase flood danger; increase wildfire risk; degrade recreational opportunities; destroy productive range
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 77
and timberlands; change agricultural patterns; degrade
salmonid habitat; and disrupt resource-based economies.

There are estimated to be 482 invasive plant species
region-wide. Species frequently cited as of particular
concern to North Coast stakeholders and local
entities are Arundo donax (a.k.a. Giant Reed, Wild
Cane), Ludwigia peploides (a.k.a. Creeping Water
Primrose), freshwater zebra (Dreissena polymorpha)
and quagga (D. rostriformis) mussels, warm water
fishes, Sudden Oak Death (SOD ) (Phytophthora
ramorum), and agricultural pests such as Glassy-Winged
Sharpshooter (Homalodisca vitripennis), which is a
vector for Pierce’s disease, a lethal bacterial infection of grapevines for which there currently is no known
cure. The negative effects of some of these invasives
(highlighted below) are more pronounced than others.
• Arundo donax is robust perennial grass that is native to Asia and widely used locally for horticultural
purposes. It grows up to 30 feet tall in dense
bamboo-like stands. Arundo favors low-gradient
riparian areas, estuaries, and coastal streams.

Arundo establishment displaces native plants and
associated wildlife species because of the massive
stands it forms (Cushman and Gaffney 2010).

Establishment may alter hydrologic processes,
reduce groundwater availability, contribute
sediment to streams, constrict channel flows,
and/or exacerbate flooding. Arundo is considered
an issue of concern throughout the Region.
• Ludwigia peploides is a perennial freshwater
aquatic plant native to Florida that forms very
dense, virtually impenetrable mats that can grow
up to several feet tall. Vegetation mats restrict
fishing and boat access; out competes native
aquatic plants; and alters aquatic ecosystem
function. Ludwigia can be found in rice fields,
ditches, ponds, slow moving streams, and along
edges of lakes and reservoirs. In the North Coast,
Ludwigia is noted as a particular concern in the
Laguna de Santa Rosa (Sonoma County) .
• Dreissena polymorpha mussels are native to
Eastern Europe and Western Asia but they been
introduced into aquatic ecosystems and water
management systems throughout southern
California. They are not yet documented for the
Region. Mussels are introduced through ballast
water releases by boats and translocation of
contaminated boats to new areas. There is great
potential for these and other aquatic mollusks (i.e.
possibly New Zealand mud snail Potamopyrgus
antipodarum) to colonize and devastate built
infrastructure (e.g. by clogging pipes) if they invade
Region water supply reservoirs, and ecosystem
function if they are established into habitats.

It is anticipated that climate change effects (e.g. warming temperatures, increasingly variable precipitation) will cause shifts in the range occupied by both native and
introduced species: in many instances, this is exhibited as range expansion for the invader, and range reduction for the local species. Landscape disturbances, which
often are associated with extreme climate events
(e.g. wildfire, flood, drought), can favor or even be
facilitated by non-native species which may exhibit
greater tolerance of a range of environmental conditions that that of locally adapted species. It is common for
invasive species to produce large numbers of seeds
or young; to disperse or migrate effectively; and to
tolerate extreme conditions so as to colonize disturbed sites well in advance of native species (CNRA 2009).

2.8.2.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT
California food and agriculture regulations, numerous
state codes (e.g. California Department of Fish
and Wildlife Code, Harbors and Navigation Code,
Public Resources Code), and Senate and Assembly
legislation are meant to promote invasive species
management and control efforts. Assembly Bill 2631
(2004) proposed the creation of the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). Cal-IPC works voluntarily
with land managers, researchers, policy makers, and
concerned citizens to address invasive plant species
locally. Additionally, the 2010 303(d) list includes
non-native invasive species as a pollutant that impairs waterbodies: in the North Coast, Bodega Harbor HA
is listed as impaired by exotic species (crabs), which
will necessitate the development of a TMDL.

2.8.2.2 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
The only truly effective means of completely managing
invasive species impacts is to prevent their establishment and remove them from areas where they are established.

From a practical standpoint, preventing all new
occurrences of invasive species is virtually impossible:
eliminating invasive species from all North Coast
ecosystems would likewise be virtually impossible.

Instead, the NCRP aims to support targeted efforts to
combat the spread of or reduce the expressed impact
of local outbreaks of high priority invasive species that do harm to aquatic wildlife, water resources, and/or
water management systems. Effective management of
established invasive species will require collaborative, cross-jurisdictional efforts focused at the local watershed scale, and may best be integrated as part of existing
land and water management efforts underway by
counties, municipalities, and Tribes in the Region. Best Management Practices for the prevention and mitigation
of invasive species are established and can help guide
NCRP local project planning and implementation.
78 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Several organizations in the North Coast are actively
working to remove invasive species using a watershed
approach. North Coast RCD’s provide a valuable source
for NCRP interface with private landowners who might
be interested in removal of invasive species on their
properties. Weed Management Areas are another local
resource with potential to help address invasive plants.

WMAs are county-based groups composed of diverse
stakeholders interested in weed control and focused on
mapping, education, and on the ground control projects.

The California Department of Fish & Wildlife Aquatic
Invasive Species Program addresses cases of invasive
algae, invertebrates, and fishes in streams, bays,
wetlands, and coastal areas. There are numerous
resources available to help prioritize and implement
invasive species programs locally. The USDA Agricultural Resources Library provides a comprehensive “Invasive
Species Resources” list with web links to dozens of
agency, academic, and private programs, projects, and
tools to help North Coast entities to confront invasive species of priority to them, in a manner that is compatible with existing planning and implementation efforts.

2.8.3 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM DECLINE
Freshwater ecosystems occur throughout the North
Coast Region and consist of three types: lotic, lentic, and wetland ecosystems. Lentic ecosystems contain
slow moving water (e.g. pools, ponds, and lakes); lotic ecosystems are faster moving (e.g. streams and rivers); and wetlands are ecosystems in which soil is saturated
or inundated with water at least part of the year (e.g. freshwater marsh, vernal pools). Closely related to
lotic systems and addressed in this section are riparian ecosystems. For the purposes of this section, we define riparian areas as the land area encompassing the river
channel and its potential floodplain. The riparian zone is characterized by unique physical attributes that
distinguish it from the surrounding landscape. These
include river flooding, rich and productive soils, and a relatively shallow near-stream water table — attributes that, when coupled with weather events and fluvial
conditions, create a wide variety of growing conditions and subsequent heterogeneity of structural forms (e.g.
forests, shrublands, wetlands, meadows, grasslands)
that support a greater diversity of wildlife than any other habitat type (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 2009).

When fully functional, these aquatic-based systems
provide vital services to communities in the North
Coast, such as water supply, nutrient transport,
water quality, fish production, flood attenuation,
health benefits, and water-dependent recreational
opportunities. Many of these benefits are recognized
as having tangible monetary value. The abundant
freshwater ecosystems in the Region also provide
essential habitat for anadromous fish and other aquatic species as well as a majority of terrestrial wildlife.

The existence and functionality of the region’s aquatic ecosystems is fundamentally based on regional water
inputs and outputs. From an ecosystem perspective, two
main environmental water sources for the North Coast
are in snowpack and in precipitation runoff/ groundwater recharge. Major changes are expected in the availability of water for aquatic ecosystems, as both snowpack/
melt and recharge/ runoff are projected to decline and
climatic water deficits are projected to increase.

Some of the river systems in the North Coast Region
still possess intact fluvial geomorphic processes and the habitats that form in response to them, but many of these systems have been impacted to at least some extent
by timber harvest, mining, invasion of non-native plant species, or other stressors. In some locations, natural processes have been impaired by land use changes
including channelization, road development, agricultural activities, gravel mining, and dam construction. The
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
forest management, agricultural enterprises, construction activities, and other land uses, and regulations requiring riparian setbacks have lessened negative impacts,
and habitat restoration projects by Tribes, RCDs and
conservation groups have helped to protect and enhance
these stream systems. However, timber harvest, road
construction, agricultural activities, urban development, gravel extraction, and other human activities continue to cause habitat degradation. Forest management for timber harvest by both industrial and nonindustrial landowners has become a contentious issue with regard to how
logging practices and road building impact watershed
resources via sedimentation, and other cumulative effects.

2.8.3.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
Ten of the 14 hydrologic units in the Region include
water bodies impaired by excess sediment (DWR
2013). Sedimentation is a naturally occurring process,
and, when it is generated at natural levels, it is an
important component in the aquatic environment.

Sediment levels are naturally elevated during times
of high rainfall and runoff and aquatic organisms
possess life history strategies that have adjusted to
the natural timing, duration, and levels of sediment.

However, land use activities in the North Coast Region
have accelerated erosion processes and altered the
timing, duration, and amount of sediment delivery
to levels significantly outside the natural range.

Excess sediment has led to infilling of streams,
which adversely impacts drinking water supplies.

Additional problems associated with
excess sediment include:

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 79
• Decrease in the complexity of aquatic plant
communities by decreasing light penetration
• Unnatural aggradation of stream beds
which causes increased flooding
• Decrease in the availability of refugia —
isolated habitats that retain environmental
conditions that were once widespread
• Physical scouring of plants, insects, and other
invertebrates from the streambed, thereby reducing
food sources for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
• Transportation of sediment-adsorbed chemicals,
such as pesticides, from land to water
• Interference with disinfection of drinking water
• Interference with the delivery of water
supplies by added wear on water pumps

2.8.3.2 WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Legacy land use practices continue to impact
water quality. Historic timber harvest methods
caused extreme sedimentation and loss of canopy
cover and agricultural practices led to clearing
riparian vegetation, polluted runoff, and draining of
wetlands. These, combined with other legacy road
and infrastructure construction activities resulted in
many aquatic and riparian ecosystems that were once
suitable habitat becoming marginal or unusable.

Residential development and urban and suburban areas
also have a large impact on nonpoint source pollution
and water demand. Low density, exurban residential
development is the fastest growing land use in the United States and the zone of exurban development is much
larger than the combined footprint of urban and suburban development (Newburn and Berck 2011). It is particularly prevalent in areas of high amenity value surrounding
protected areas, a description which covers much of
the North Coast Region. Residential development of any
type has a large impact on aquatic ecosystems because
there is little to no regulation on use of pesticides,
fertilizers, or other pollutants such as cleaning supplies, automobile products, or other home and garden products.

Improper or excessive use of these environmental
contaminants can lead to serious impacts to the Region’s waterways that are difficult to diminish or ameliorate.

In addition to land use practices, channel modifications for flood control and water diversions for crop irrigation and drinking water supply have radically changed water
quality conditions in many water bodies in the region.

Ranney collectors — horizontal wells adjacent to or under the bed of a stream — provide the drinking water for
many of the northern communities in the region. These
collectors are actually collecting surface water, which decreases the amount of surface water available for other beneficial uses. Reduced natural flows from both Ranney collectors and instream diversions can result in increased temperature, decreased capacity to dilute contaminant
concentrations, and decreased dissolved oxygen.

The state’s legalization of medical and recreational
cannabis has drastically increased cannabis cultivation in the North Coast, especially in the “Emerald
Triangle:” Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties.

Unregulated (illegal) marijuana grows are ongoing
problems in federal and state lands where creeks
and streams are diverted, often running dry, and
cultivation techniques involving fertilizer, insecticides, rodenticides are improperly conducted, leading to
contamination of both waterways and the food chain.

In many coastal watersheds throughout the region,
significant, localized water diversions via riparian
right have impacted listed salmonids region-wide,
and affected water supply security for rural water
users, communities, and small municipalities. These
watersheds are approaching a population threshold
where population is large enough to create water
supply problems and aquatic ecosystem impacts, but
too small to create community-scale water systems.

2.8.3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Climate change is expected to exacerbate and compound
the challenges facing functional aquatic ecosystems.

Increased heat, decreased rainfall, and increased
frequency and intensity of precipitation events are
expected to add to existing impairments (e.g. increased water temperature, decreased dissolved oxygen, and
increased pollutant load) and threaten the survival
of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife as well as the
continued viability of those dependent on high quality
instream water supplies such as farmers, ranchers,
and water dependent recreation purveyors. Fire risks
are projected to increase across the region, increasing the probability of a “fire within the next 30 years” on 80 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 average by 40% end of century (Micheli et al. 2018).

In Del Norte County, a summer temperature increase
of 3° F is projected by 2050, increasing to as much as
6° F by 2100; this temperature is expected to increase
the fire risk by 250% by the end of the century (Earth
Economics 2018). Following wildfires, watersheds
experience increased landslides and sediment loading
to streams, diminishing water and habitat quality. Sea
level rise is projected to affect low lying coastal areas adjacent to the ocean and streams, especially during
extreme high tides, winter storm events and episodes
of large ocean swells. This increases potential for
saltwater intrusion in coastal groundwater basins; but
given the adequate coastal basin recharge that occurs,
saltwater intrusion is not generally expected to be
problematic in the North Coast (2ND Nature 2013).

The North Coast Climate Vulnerability Analysis (2NDNature 2013) found an increased risk of water conflicts between urban, agriculture, and environmental beneficial
uses of water due to expected changes in rainfall
coupled with increased heat events: this is of concern
because the Region has already been struggling with
conflicts between water users. For example, the
Klamath Project has been extremely controversial; to
maintain adequate instream fishery flow to ensure the
survival of endangered salmonid populations, water
to farms has at times been cut off to prevent harm
to the fisheries, resulting in extreme controversy and
conflict. Likewise, environmental groups in the Eel
River watershed are opposing relicensing of the Potter
Valley Project, which diverts the Eel River into the
Russian River watershed, providing irrigation water
for farmers in the Potter Valley and downstream in
the Russian River and also providing some electricity
through a hydropower plant. Such controversies will be
exacerbated if water availability decreases while demand increases as is projected by most climate models.

2.8.4 SALMONID POPULATION DECLINE
The Region’s native, naturally spawning populations
of steelhead, Chinook, and Coho salmon have all
declined dramatically in the past five decades and all
three are listed as threatened or endangered. Coho
in particular are considered “very close to extinction,” with only 2-3,000 individuals in the Southern OregonNorthern California Coast (SONCC) ESU (NMFS 2012).

Critical habitat has been designated for salmonids in
the North Coast (see Appendix G, Table G-31, Critical
Habitat of Salmonids in the North Coast Region).

The decline in salmonid population numbers
since the 1940s is considered to be a result of a
combination of human-caused and natural factors
that occur in fresh water, in estuaries, and in the
ocean. These include, but are not limited to:
• Water quality degradation, including sediment,
temperature, and chemical contaminants
• Habitat loss and degradation
• Impediments to migratory fish passage
• Reduced stream flows
• Non-native invasive species
• Hatchery fish, which can introduce
disease and genetic contamination
• Ocean conditions that negatively
impact marine productivity
Two interrelated but distinct types of factors are affecting salmon: those occurring on land and in freshwater,
and those occurring at sea. The former may be the
subject of and respond positively to management
efforts; the latter is, literally, beyond local solutions.

2.8.4.1 WATER & LAND USE IMPACTS TO SALMONIDS
According to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Office of Protected Resources, water storage, withdrawal, conveyance, and diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower purposes have greatly
reduced or eliminated historically accessible habitat and/ or resulted in direct entrainment mortality of juvenile salmonids. Modification of natural flow regimes have
resulted in increased water temperatures; changes
in fish community structures; and depleted flows
necessary for migration, spawning, rearing, and flushing of sediment from spawning gravels; and altered gravel
recruitment and transport of large woody debris. Physical features of dams, such as turbines and sluiceways, have resulted in increased mortality of both adult and juvenile salmonids and attempts to mitigate adverse impacts of
these structures have to date met with limited success.

Historic timber management practices caused extreme
sedimentation and loss of canopy cover, which caused
streams that were once suitable habitat to become
marginal or unusable; these legacy impacts continue
to affect North Coast streams. The implementation of
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and regulations
requiring riparian setbacks have lessened these negative impacts, however, timber harvest, road construction, and related activities continue to cause habitat degradation to a more limited extent. Management of timber lands
by both industrial and non-industrial landowners has
become a contentious issue with regard to how logging
practices and road building impact watershed resources, sedimentation, and cumulative effects (NCRWQCB
2004). Additionally, native cold-water species, such
as salmonids, are particularly vulnerable to potential
climatic and hydrologic changes (Moyle et al 2013).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 81

2.8.4.2 OCEAN CONDITIONS & MARINE PRODUCTIVITY
In recent decades, scientists have demonstrated that
there are (1) recurring, decadal-scale patterns of oceanatmosphere climate variability in the North Pacific Ocean (Mantua et al. 1997, Zhang et al. 1997), and (2)
correlations exist between these oceanic productivity
“regimes” and salmon population abundance in the
Pacific Northwest and Alaska (Hare et al. 1999, Mueter
et al. 2002). There seems to be little doubt that survival rates for salmonids in the marine environment can be
strong determinants of observed population abundance
trends. The observed and reported increases in some
salmon populations and/or fisheries (e.g. 2011/ 2012
Chinook in Klamath River) in recent years may, therefore, be largely a result of more favorable ocean conditions
leading to higher juvenile recruitment to North Coast
streams. The predicted changes to climate could affect
ocean productivity in unpredictable and uncontrollable
ways. According to NMFS (2005) “it is reasonable to
assume that salmon populations have persisted over
time, under pristine conditions, through many such cycles in the past. Less certain is how the populations will fare in periods of poor ocean survival when their freshwater, estuary, and nearshore marine habitats are degraded.”

2.8.4.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Three salmonid species inhabit the North Coast Region
streams, rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters: Steelhead (O. mykiss irideus), Chinook (O. tshawytscha), and Coho (O. kisutch) salmon. Populations of all three species
are listed as “Threatened” and/or “Endangered” and
thus protected by the US and state Environmental
Protection Agencies under the federal and state
Endangered Species Acts; the California Environmental
Quality Act; California Code of Regulations (Title
14 Natural Resources); Fish and Game Code; state
Forest Practice Rules, and elsewhere. Protection of
salmonid habitats is particularly addressed in section
Fish and Game Code 1600-1616 (Lake and Streambed
Alteration Program) and in state Forest Practice Rules
(Timberland Conservation Program). Water quality
and flow regulations also directly impact salmonids.

SWRCB adopted the North Coast Instream Flow Policy
on May 4, 2010. It applies to applications to appropriate water, small domestic use and livestock stock pond
registrations, and water right petitions. This policy
applies to water diversions from all streams and
tributaries discharging to the Pacific Ocean from the
mouth of the Mattole River south to San Francisco and
all streams and tributaries discharging to northern
San Pablo Bay. The policy area includes approximately
5,900 stream miles and encompasses 3.1 million
watershed acres (4,900 square miles) in Marin, Sonoma,
portions of Napa, Mendocino, and Humboldt counties.

2.8.4.4 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
The National Marine Fisheries Service is leading
salmonid recovery nationally and coordinating efforts
statewide, including in the North Coast. NMFS has
released a recovery plan for Coho (NOAA 2012) with
specific recovery and monitoring recommendations for
the Region’s watersheds; a multi-species salmonid plan
will be released in 2014. NMFS considered a wealth
of salmonid- and watershed- related data provided by
state agencies (e.g. CDFW) and other available sources, and has recently (2014) distilled them into Recovery
Steps that are specific to the stream basins of the North Coast Region. Salmonid recovery efforts are being led
at the state level by CDFW, which in 2004 released the
Recovery Strategy for Coho Salmon. The Department
previously published the Steelhead Restoration and
Management Plan (CDFW 1996) and created the California
Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (CDFW
1994, 1998, 2010), which is used as a guide by restoration practitioners throughout California and will be utilized for the implementation of several NCRP prioritized projects.

Locally, Tribes, watershed groups, and partnerships such as the Karuk, Hoopa, and Yurok Tribes, Five Counties
Salmonid Conservation Program (5C), Mattole Restoration Council, and the Shasta-Scott Recovery Team are working cooperatively with regulatory agencies, landowners, and other stakeholders to implement projects that benefit
salmonid habitat. Numerous local agencies, water
districts, and NGOs contribute to salmonid recovery via a diversity of conservation, management and restoration activities. The NCRP provides a unifying framework for
need identification and prioritization of these projects, a forum in which local concerns and state and federal
requirements may be exchanged and disseminated, and a
regional body for coordination and analysis of monitoring efforts. Recovery of listed salmonids in the Region also includes large-scale watershed-based recovery efforts
that have, in some cases, contributed to conflict over
82 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 agricultural water supply. The Klamath River Basin, for example, has long been a focus of attention by multiple state and federal agencies, Tribes, and stakeholders.

The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (KRBFT)
was authorized by Congress in 1986 and is oversaw a
20-year effort to restore salmonid fishery values to the Klamath watershed (NCRWQCB 2005). In April, 2016, the
US DOI, Department of Commerce, PacificCorp, and the
states of Oregon and California signed an agreement that, following a process administered by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission is expected to remove four dams
on the Klamath River by 2020. Under the agreement,
PacificCorp transfers its license to operate the dams
to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, which will
oversee dam removal in 2020 (US DOI 2016). The project
has been approved in a draft Environmental Impact
Report by the California State Water Resources Control
Board and has already been approved by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (Plaven 2019).

NMFS (2012) estimates that the recovery of just Coho
salmon could take 50 to 100 years with costs for
implementing the actions estimated at roughly $1.5
billion. However, there are associated benefits: “viable salmonid populations provide ongoing direct and indirect economic benefits as a resource for fishing, recreation, and tourist-related activities. Every dollar spent on Coho salmon recovery will promote local, State, Federal, and Tribal economies, and should be viewed as an investment with both societal (e.g., healthy ecosystems and clean
rivers where we and our children can swim and play)
and economic returns” (NMFS 2012). Additionally,
the salmonid recovery is important to the spiritual
and social well-being of local Tribal communities.

2.8.5 IMPAIRED QUALITY OF WATERBODIES
According to the SWRCB, the present water quality within the North Coast Region generally “meets or exceeds”
state and regional water quality objectives set forth in Section 3 of the North Coast Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2011).

The Basin Plan defines 27 Beneficial Uses of waters
that are protected by the state. The priorities placed on particular “beneficial uses” is perhaps best determined at the local (e.g. county, municipality, Tribal) level.

In most cases the Region’s water quality is “sufficient to support, and in some cases, enhance the beneficial
uses assigned to water bodies” (NCRWQCB 2018).

However, the Basin Plan also estimates there are
20,298 miles (32,667 km) of impaired streams in
the Region. Each designation of “impaired” requires
development and implementation of a TMDL Plan to
reduce pollution loads to acceptable levels. In many
cases, impaired waters flow directly into protected
areas, including the Marine Managed Areas, Wild and
Scenic Rivers, and Critical Habitats of federal and/or
state listed species, (see Section 2.3.4, Protected Areas).

Drinking and municipal water supplies are directly
impacted by the “impaired” quality of regional rivers,
streams, lakes, groundwaters, and other waterbodies.

This is because, with a few exceptions, the state considers drinking and municipal water supplies to be potentially “all surface and ground waters.” Impaired water bodies
cannot, by definition, support drinking/municipal uses.

Drinking water is of particular concern as it relates
directly to public health. Recognizing this, the NCRP has highlighted drinking water quality as a particular concern.

Two types of water pollution sources are commonly
defined: Nonpoint Sources (NPS) of pollution include
stormwater runoff from industry and urban areas and
runoff originating from roads, agriculture, timber harvest, construction sites, channel modification, and gravel
mining; and Point Sources of pollution (including bacterial and chemical pollutants such as MTBE, PCE, dioxins, and estrogens, as well as temperature) originate from failing POTWs, large-scale agricultural operations, and industrial facilities. In the North Coast, nonpoint sources currently present a more widespread issue, because point sources
are fairly discrete and have responded relatively well
to targeted efforts at improvement. Nonpoint sources,
particularly sediment from upland and instream erosion, and increased temperatures due to reduced flows and
removal of riparian vegetation are more numerous,
harder to identify, and are challenging to control.

Inadequate wastewater treatment and aging septic tanks
are widespread and common sources of bacteriological
contamination. Locally, shellfish harvesting beds in
Humboldt Bay have been closed multiple times due
to nonpoint source runoff, most often following large
rain events. Additionally, as the mariculture industry in Humboldt Bay is being proposed for expansion, questions regarding its legacy of and potential for environmental degradation have come into focus (Sims 2017). Mercury,
a legacy pollutant from mining and other industrial
activities, concentrates in fish tissue and has been found to be of concern in Lakes Pillsbury, Mendocino, Sonoma, and in the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Fish consumption
advisories for mercury have been issued for these
waterbodies by the Office of Environmental Health
and Hazard Assessment working in coordination with
California Department of Public Health — Environmental
Health Investigations Branch (see https://oehha.ca.gov/ fish/advisories). Additionally, fuel constituents, such as MTBE, chemicals from wood treatment at lumber
mills, agricultural (i.e. silvicultural) operations, and residential applications are region-wide water quality
issues. Reduced flows in rivers and streams can result in increased temperature and decreased capacity to dilute
contaminant concentrations. Decreased precipitation
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 83
and stream flow patterns (notable, reductions in both)
are expected under most climate change scenarios.

Resolution of impaired water quality is hindered
by lack of adequate funding, for nearly all North
Coast local entities. Funds are needed to develop a
Regional Water Quality Monitoring Plan; to conduct
comprehensive sub-regional watershed and groundwater
assessments; to implement upgrades that reduce
POTW permit violations; and to build new facilities
where the need exists, but infrastructure does not.

2.8.5.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Comprehensive water quality planning is mandated
by the Federal Clean Water Act (for navigable waters);
California Water Code (for ground and surface waters);
and the state’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act. The Clean Water Act requires states adopt water
quality standards and authorizes the preparation of
wastewater management plans. Under the oversight
of the USEPA Region IX, the State and Regional Water
Boards have primary responsibility for maintenance
of water quality in the North Coast Region, including
setting water quality objectives and standards, and
designating “beneficial uses” for water. The PorterCologne Act devises and adopts water quality control basin plans and authorizes the State Water Board
to adopt, review, and revise state water policy.

In 1972 (updated in 1996), the SWRCB adopted a uniform
list codifying the various “beneficial uses” for waters of the state to protect water quality and supply to retain maximum benefits for current and future generations
of water consumers and stewards. Three additional
beneficial uses were added by the SWRCB in May 2017
through resolution 2017-0027 which established three
new beneficial use definitions for use by the State and Regional Water Boards in designating Tribal Traditional Culture (CUL), Tribal Subsistence Fishing (T-SUB), and
Subsistence Fishing (SUB) beneficial uses to inland
surface waters, enclosed bays, or estuaries in the
state. Twenty-eight beneficial uses are designated
within the North Coast Region, affording protection to its bays, estuaries, minor coastal streams, ocean waters,
wetlands, inland surface waters, and groundwaters
(NCRWQCB 2011). The North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board is completing a triennial review
of this basin plan which will be competed in 2121.

To address stormwater quality (and supply) issues, the
US Congress in 1987 added Section 402(d) to the federal Water Pollution Control Act (a.k.a. Clean Water Act),
which requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from municipalities and
industries (including construction sites one acre or
larger), to the maximum extent practicable and utilize
technologies to achieve water quality improvement
(NCRWQCB 2011). The State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) regulate the runoff and treatment of
stormwater in industrial, municipal and residential areas of the Region. Cities and other jurisdictions that operate large and medium and small stormwater systems as
well as specific industrial activity sites must apply for stormwater permits. The SWRCB has embarked upon
a new Storm Water Strategy (STORMS), which seeks to
“lead the evolution of storm water management in California by advancing the perspective that storm water is a valuable resource, supporting policies for collaborative watershedlevel storm water management and pollution prevention, removing obstacles to funding, developing resources, and integrating regulatory and non-regulatory interests.”
In 2004, the NCRWQCB adopted Resolution No.

R1-2004-0087, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Implementation Policy for Sediment-Impaired
Receiving Waters in the North Coast Region, which
is applicable to all sediment-impaired watersheds in
the Region (NCRWQCB 2004). The goals of the TMDL
Implementation Policy are to control sediment waste
discharges so that TMDLs are met, sediment water
quality objectives are attained, and beneficial uses
are no longer adversely affected by sediment.

California Water Code (Section 10920) and Senate Bill
x7-6 (2009) require the establishment of statewide
groundwater monitoring by locally designated
“Monitoring Entities.” DWR addresses this requirement
through its statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring Program (CASGEM). DWR ranks the
Region’s groundwater basins and sub-basins (Map
17 “Groundwater Basins & Sub-Basins”) as “high,”
“medium,” or “low” priority. The current status of the
North Coast groundwater basins is described in Sections

2.3.7 Hydrology and Section 2.3.8 Water Quality.

2.8.5.2 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
Regional activities focus on continuing to regulate
point source discharges, reducing erosion and runoff
from confined agricultural and municipal areas,
maintaining groundwater cleanup programs, improving
public outreach and education, and promoting water
reuse and recycling programs. NPS water quality
issues are a primary concern and are being addressed
through the TMDL process, which is developed and
implemented at a watershed scale; the NCRWQCB
Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region;
and the SWRCB Nonpoint Source Program Strategy
and Implementation Plan. The SWRCB has indicated a
preference for voluntary compliance with regulations
and TMDL implementation, and many groups and
programs (e.g. local RCDs, the Gualala River Watershed
84 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Council, and Rangeland Water Quality Management
Plans) offer landowners technical assistance to address local NPS issues on their properties. A number of
NCRP projects include cooperative participation by
local landowners in nonpoint source pollution control.

Land cover and land use directly impacts or supports
source drinking water quality (DWR and USACE 2012).

Forest cover is correlated to drinking water treatment
costs: the more forest in a source watershed, the
lower the treatment costs (Ernst et al. 2004).

With regard to stormwater runoff, the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have regulated
the runoff and treatment of stormwater in industrial,
municipal and residential areas. The effort falls into
several distinct categories with the same goals to (1)
use stormwater as a resource and to (2) reduce harmful
pollutants, fertilizers, debris and other materials carried into storm drains, drainage systems and ultimately
the Region’s rivers, estuaries, and marine areas. Past
efforts to manage stormwater quality and quantity
have focused on controlling entry of pollutants into
waters, and implementing good management practices;
both these strategies remain critical. However, the
approach to stormwater has shifted, emphasizing
local strategies that aim not only to prevent floodrelated problems, but also to provide ecosystem and community benefits (DWR and USACE 2013).

Another effort at water quality improvement is a
collaboration of Tribes in the North Coast led by the CherAe-Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria (described in DWR 2013). This group was formed to
assist local Tribes interested in collaborating to develop an environmental assessment and implementation
plan for improving ecosystems and water quality in
order to meet or exceed federal and State regulations
regarding water quality. Tribes currently involved in
this collaboration include the Trinidad Rancheria in
Trinidad, Blue Lake Rancheria Tribe in Blue Lake,
Bear River Tribe in Loleta, and Big Lagoon Rancheria
in Arcata. One main function of the cooperation is to
assist the members in obtaining grant funding for
local water quality infrastructure improvements.

2.8.6 WATER SUPPLY & DEMAND:
20 YEAR PROJECTION
Water available to supply the many beneficial uses
defined by the NCRWQCB (2018) includes that which
comprises the Region’s groundwater basins, rivers,
streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, bays, and
reclaimed waters. Local water availability is a function of the volume of these sources; applicable regulations
that dictate water rights and water distribution; and
future conditions that influence long-term supply and
demand (e.g. population change, climate change). In
some notable cases (e.g. the Klamath Basin), the need
to secure water supply availability has led to prolonged, sometimes vehement, disputes between stakeholders.

Instream impoundments in the North Coast Hydrologic
Region have the potential to supplement water supplies, but often alter the natural pattern and range of flows
in a river, reduce a water body’s assimilative capacity for other perturbations, and sometimes result in
unintended water quality consequences (e.g., nuisance
algal blooms, including the production of toxic algae;
elevated temperatures; alteration of downstream
sediment delivery and sorting, etc.; DWR 2013).

Inter-basin water diversion for agricultural and human
use is occurring within the Region (e.g. from the Eel
to the Russian River watershed). Water is transferred
outside of the region: from the Russian River to supply municipal water for the North San Francisco Bay Area,
and from the Trinity River to the Central Valley for
agricultural uses. The Eel River diversion at Potter Valley provides power production and incidental supplemental
water to the Russian River. However, the associated
flow reduction in the Eel River has contributed to
reductions in fish spawning habitat and increased water temperatures (CEED 2002). Flows from the Trinity are
integral to the ecosystem health of the Lower Klamath
River. The Trinity River Division (TRD) of the Central
Valley Project (CVP) was completed in 1965 and has
received attention from the Secretary of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Native American Tribes, and a broad
spectrum of stakeholders. On December 29, 2000 the
Secretary of the Interior signed the Trinity River Record of Decision (ROD) to require higher releases to the Trinity River from Lewiston Dam. The Westlands Water District
and others filed suit to have the Trinity ROD set aside through an injunction. There have been multiple rulings from the Federal Court since that time, however, the ROD remains in effect as of water year 2018 (TRRP undated).

In coastal watersheds throughout the Region, significant, localized water withdrawals via riparian right have
impacted listed salmonids and reduced water supply
security. This is particularly the case for rural water users, communities, and small municipalities. Some
watersheds are approaching a local population
threshold where population is high enough to create
water supply problems and fisheries impacts, but too
small and dispersed to create community-scale water
systems. Balancing water demands while maintaining
existing and improving degraded salmonid habitat is
an important management challenge for the North
Coast Region. The use of small-scale diversion and
rainwater catchment on a household/farmstead or
neighborhood basis has been implemented effectively
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 85
through the NCRP in the recent past. By searching for
innovative solutions and bringing all parties together in a cooperative and collaborative enterprise for the benefit of the entire region, the NCRP provides an important
framework for developing and implementing creative,
efficient and equitable responses to the water supply
and instream flow challenges faced by the region.

Drought is a natural component of California’s climate.

Particularly severe drought years are documented
for 1976-1977, 1987-1992, 2000-2002, 2007-2009, and
2014–2017 (NDRP undated). In spring 2019, the governor
of California declared an end to a seven-year drought
by lifting the drought emergency in nearly all California counties. Prolonged periods of drought can increase
ecosystem vulnerability to pests and invasions by
non-native species. Reduced precipitation translates to reduced infiltration to groundwater basins and reduced
groundwater recharge. Droughts present immediate
and long-term challenges to water supply, water quality, food production, economic stability, and ecosystem
function. Drought conditions also increase risk of
wildfires, which impact water quality through release
of sediment and alteration of hydrologic processes.

It is likely that one of the major expressions of global climate change in the North Coast Region will be
increasing drought and an associated decrease in
water supply and water availability (see Section 2.11.7 Landscape Scale Drought). According to the California
Natural Resources Agency (2009), more frequent and
more intense drought conditions are expected as higher
temperatures cause soils and vegetation to lose water;
during the past century, shifts in runoff patterns have already diminished the percentage of annual runoff
that occurs during April through July. Changes in
precipitation, plus higher temperatures, are likely to
affect the amount of water in streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. More of the precipitation that does occur will fall as rain rather than as snow, and the snow that does fall will melt sooner. The state’s snowpack is expected to decline, disappearing entirely at lower elevations.

The lower snowpack will deliver less water to many
streams during the late spring. Stream flows typically
will increase in the winter and spring, and decline in
late spring, summer, and fall, changing the morphology
of river systems. Changes in storms, runoff, and water
temperature may lower the quality as well as the quantity of water in some streams in some months. Ecosystems
may change as these conditions decrease the suitability of water-related habitat for some species, and increase its suitability for others (e.g. non-native invasive species).

The resulting stress on some species, such as salmon
and steelhead, may cause extirpation in some areas.

With respect to water supply reliability, changes in
management to capture winter storm surge and store it
either underground or above ground poses an opportunity to buffer supplies against unpredictable climatic events.

Communities and individuals on a local watershed scale
are increasingly turning to water capture — rainwater,
stormwater, or diversion of extreme winter flows — to
store for use during the dry season. Although these
methods have been successfully implemented at the local scale in multiple North Coast watersheds, it is important to understand that this option is not a panacea for
drought and periods of low water; it may have unintended environmental impacts if not thoroughly researched and
designed to minimize alterations to the natural hydrologic cycle. To successfully prepare for the expected increases in drought length and severity, multiple methods,
including water conservation, water use efficiency,
and reuse must be more fully explored and utilized.

2.8.6.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT
California Water Code regulates ground and surface
water supply in the state. With specific respect to drought preparedness, the Urban Water Management Planning
Act (1983, CWC 10610-10656) requires that every urban
water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more
customers or more than 3,000 acre-feet annually, should make “every effort” to ensure the appropriate level of
reliability in water service sufficient to meet the needs of all customer types during normal, wet, or dry years. The Act introduces Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs,
which local entities across the Region have developed).

Water conservation to ensure water supplies to meet
growing demands is California’s state policy (Water
Code Sections 100 & 101). DWR and local jurisdictions
partner to ensure that (1) all local jurisdictions adopt a landscape water conservation ordinance and (2) ensure
that all fixtures be American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME)-certified. The effects of droughts
are increasingly being exacerbated by additional
regulatory requirements to protect listed fish species, especially with regard to water diversion (CNRA 2009).

SWRCB Resolution No. 77-1 (1977) requires State and
Regional Water Boards to encourage water recycling
projects using wastewater that would otherwise be
discharged to marine or brackish receiving waters or
evaporation ponds. The resolution also specifies using
recycled water to replace or supplement the use of fresh water or better water quality water, and to preserve,
restore, or enhance instream beneficial uses. In
subsequent decades, a number of additional regulations
have been aimed at encouraging or incentivizing
water and/or energy conservation to secure limited or
uncertain water supplies. SBx7-7 further requires:

1. Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) be
prepared and adopted by certain urban water
suppliers to support their long-term resource
86 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 planning and ensure adequate water supplies
are available to meet existing and future water
demands. Every urban water supplier that provides
over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves
more than 3,000 connections is required as
part of the UWMP to assess the reliability of its
water sources over a 20-year planning horizon
considering normal, dry, and multiple dry years
(CWP 2013). DWR reviews updated UWMPs to
make sure they have completed the requirements
identified in the Urban Water Management
Planning (UWMP) Act (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the
Water Code §10610 — 10656). Thirteen North
Coast urban water suppliers have submitted
2010 urban water management plans to DWR.

2. Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMP) be
prepared and adopted by water suppliers who supply
more than 25,000 irrigated acres. All of the North
Coast agricultural water suppliers supply fewer than
25,000 irrigated acres; as of August 2013, no AWMPs
had been submitted from the North Coast Region.

The state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act,
enacted in 2014, requires local governments and water
agencies withdrawing water from high and medium
priority basins to halt overdraft and bring basins
into balanced levels of withdrawals and recharge.

Groundwater Management Plans are required to chart a
path to sustainability within 20 years of implementation.

The SWRCB in 2018 rolled out its Strategy to Optimize
Resource Management of Storm Water (Storm Water
Strategy, STORMS) to “lead the evolution of storm water management in California by advancing that perspective
that storm water is a valuable resource, supporting
policies for collaborative watershed-level storm water
management and pollution prevention, removing obstacles to funding, developing resources, and integrating
regulatory and non-regulatory interests.” This strategy and associated programs is likely to serve as a planning and project implementation for the NCRP in the future.

The North Coast Instream Flow Policy was adopted by
SWRCB on May 4, 2010. It applies to applications to
appropriate water, small domestic use and livestock
stock pond registrations, and water right petitions. This policy applies to water diversions from all streams and tributaries discharging to the Pacific Ocean from the
mouth of the Mattole River south to San Francisco and
all streams and tributaries discharging to northern San Pablo Bay. The policy area includes approximately 5,900 stream miles and encompasses 3.1 million watershed
acres (4,900 square miles) in Marin, Sonoma, and
portions of Napa, Mendocino, and Humboldt counties.

The Water Conservation Act (2009 SBx7-7) requires all
water suppliers to increase water use efficiency in two sectors, Urban Water Conservation and Agricultural
Water Conservation. Under the Act, urban water suppliers to calculate their baseline water use and set 2015 and
2020 water use reduction targets. SBx7-7 supports a 20
percent reduction in the amount of water each person
uses per day (i.e. per capita daily use) by the year 2020.

The North Coast Hydrologic Region had a populationweighted baseline average water use of 147 gallons per capita per day in 2010. The projected conservation
target is 127 gallons per capita daily use. The water
conservation law has amended or repealed some sections
of the state Water Code and may affect local reporting
requirements under the Urban Water Management
Planning Act and other government codes (CWP 2013).

The state’s Recycled Water Policy (2013) supports
increased capture and use of recycled water from
municipal wastewater sources that meets the definition
in Water Code Section 13050(n): “Recycled water” means
water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource.” The SWRCB strongly supports recycled water as a safe alternative to potable water for such approved uses.

Severe water shortages have in extreme cases resulted in the declaration of a state of emergency, which allows the governor to direct the SWRCB to suspend certain state
water regulations; streamline water transfers; cease or reduce water diversions (including riparian and pre-1914 rights); or take other aggressive means to secure water emergency supplies. The California water rights system
is designed to provide for the orderly allocation of water supplies in the event that there is not enough water to satisfy everyone’s needs. As a result, every water right holder has a priority, relative to every other water right holder. When there is insufficient water for all, water diversions must be curtailed in order of water right priority.

State of drought emergency was declared in 2009 following a 2-year drought, and again in water year 2014, the
warmest year and third driest year on record for California.

2.8.6.2 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
California’s “Climate Adaptation Strategy” (2009)
recommends addressing water security/ water
availability/drought preparedness with “a portfolio
of measures implemented at the local and regional
level” in a coordinated manner (i.e. via a process such as the NCRP). These measures may include water
conservation, energy conservation, water reclamation
and recycling; groundwater storage; conjunctive use;
rainwater collection; Low Impact Development (LID)
techniques; water efficient landscape ordinances;
small surface storage; and climate adaptation
planning/ vulnerability identification. The NCRWQCB
is supportive of efforts to provide off-channel storage NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 87
for summer agricultural use as an alternative to
summer instream withdrawals, but the construction of
instream impoundments is not viewed in most cases
as supportive of water quality goals (DWR 2013).

In 2011, representatives from the State of California
and Oregon, USBR, Tribal organizations, and other
stakeholders (Klamath Basin Coordinating Council)
under Section 19.2 of the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement developed a Drought Plan for the Upper
Klamath Region. The Drought Plan identifies a number
of strategies that would be used to counteract the
effects of drought and extreme drought in the region.

Measures that could be implemented include voluntary
water conservation, additional stored water, the
use of groundwater and the reduction of diversions
(Klamath Basin Coordinating Council 2011).

The volume and adequacy of local groundwater supplies
represent a major data gap in the Region and the state
that the SGMA and CASGEM (California Statewide
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring) programs are in the
process of filling. In many areas of the North Coast,
security of groundwater supplies is of concern, in part because of the difficulty of determining the extent (and quality) of water within groundwater basins. CASGEM
requires local entities to assume responsibility for
monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations, in
order to remain eligible for water grants or loans from the state. Local planning departments in the North Coast Region (e.g. counties and municipalities) are addressing this major challenge by collaborating on groundwater
monitoring programs, streamflow improvement
plans, and base flow determinations in key rivers.

While groundwater development is being considered
by some parts of the Region as a potential future water source, both Sonoma and Modoc counties share a
concern over future groundwater development. The
Mendocino City Community Services District (CSD),
concerned that the groundwater basin that supplies
the Town of Mendocino with potable water was being
over-drafted, developed a groundwater management
plan that puts limits on new well development or the
increase in withdrawals of existing wells (Mendocino
City CSD undated). Sonoma County has recognized
that groundwater is scarce in large areas of the county where intensive rural development and the installation
of private wells has led to over drafting. Siskiyou and Modoc counties have voiced concerns over the large
number of deep, high output wells that have been recently developed to address current water supply challenges:
the long-term consequences of those wells are unknown.

Throughout the region, municipalities, water agencies,
Tribes, agricultural producers, and other stakeholders
are implementing water conservation measures, water
efficiency upgrades, water reuse projects, small-scale
water storage, greening of infrastructure and protection and enhancement of recharge areas to combat the effects of water shortages and to ensure water supply reliability.

Usually, these projects provide multiple benefits to the communities in which they are implemented. To review
the breadth of these projects and obtain an understanding of the many benefits they provide, please refer to the
tables and information in Section 4 and Appendix L,
NCRP Project Information. These projects represent
the effort of communities in the North Coast to respond to the challenges associated with climate change and
ongoing issues associated with water quality and water
scarcity. The NCRP provides a vital framework for the
ongoing success of the North Coast region in meeting
the challenges that the next 20 years are sure to bring.

2.8.7 ECONOMIC COSTS FROM

DAMAGING NATURAL CAPITAL
As described in Section 2.8, the natural capital of
the North Coast — the working lands, watersheds,
floodplains, streams, rivers, waterbodies and ecosystems — perform vital ecosystem services for North Coast
communities including water supply, water filtration,
carbon sequestration, crop pollination, and water
infiltration to groundwater aquifers. These services, some of which can be monetized using various economic tools
and methods, provide a conservative estimate of between $861 billion and $1.3 trillion in 2014 dollars. Excessive damage from human activities or climate change to these ecosystems and processes would limit the monetary
benefit that North Coast natural resources freely provide.

2.9 IMPACTS TO REGIONAL

BUILT CAPITAL
The 2009 California Statewide Adaptation Strategy report outlines future climate change impacts to infrastructure.

The report asserts “the most significant climate impacts to California’s infrastructure are predicted to be from higher temperatures and extreme weather events
across the state, reduced and shifting precipitation
88 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 patterns in Northern California, and sea-level rise.

Heavy precipitation and increased runoff during winter
months are likely to increase the incidence of floods
damaging housing, transportation, wastewater, and
energy infrastructure. The largest projected damages
will come from sea-level rise threatening large
portions of California’s coastal transportation, housing, and energy-related infrastructure” (CNRA 2009).

As of today, regional infrastructure already faces
challenges. As of 2014, the American Society of Civil
Engineers gave Humboldt County a grade of D+ for roads
and a grade of C- for bridges (ASCE 2014). Other counties in the region have their share of aging infrastructure.

While evaluating projected climate change impacts,
an opportunity exists to prioritize projects based on
infrastructure already showing signs of deterioration
and deficiencies in condition and functionality.

2.9.1 BROADBAND ACCESS AND

INFRASTRUCTURE
Telecommunications infrastructure and services are
increasingly important for commercial competitiveness
and regional economic growth. Additionally, residents
increasingly rely on telecommunication for quality of
life, education, research, and access to health care and government services. Improved telecommunications
infrastructure also supports public safety and
emergency services by improving communications
and information availability. Additionally, broadband
enables online education and work telecommuting
opportunities, reducing the need for vehicle trips.

The North Coast region, with its rural nature and
dispersed population, lags in providing access to reliable telecommunications services when compared with
urban centers such as the San Francisco Bay area.

North Coast communities are so widespread that
satellite internet (as opposed to phone line or cable
connections) is often the most practical mode for those in outlying areas. However, the landscape can interfere with continuous access. Mountainous terrain, proximity to the Pacific Ocean, deep canyons, and weather events can result in sub-standard connection speed and reliability.

For mobile internet users, similar connectivity challenges and sparse infrastructure also results in limited or
unreliable service for residents and visitors when
traveling through or visiting certain parts of the region.

In urban centers, residents and businesses have more
options, including stand-alone and bundled services,
and multiple delivery channels such as cable, satellite, microwave, fiber optic, and traditional copper telephone service. Dense populations also result in a healthy
competitive marketplace, encouraging affordable
pricing models. Additionally, all county libraries offer internet access through use of public computers.

However, accessing these internet services requires
proximity, which is not always readily available to
residents of disadvantaged rural communities who
may live and work miles away from public facilities.

Lack of adequate access is a recognized issue in
the region: The Broadband Alliance of Mendocino
County and the North Bay/ North Coast Broadband
Consortium are two organizations working
towards equitable broadband access.

Not only are there issues with the widespread population and challenging topographic conditions, but there are also issues regarding equitable access to broadband service.

In both Mendocino and Sonoma County, a digital divide
is identified, where areas with a high population density have broadband access, but other portions of the County, its population, visitors, anchor institutions, government services, and transportation corridors are underserved.

In 2014, a $138 million initiative to extend high-speed Internet capacity to about 150,000 rural Northern
California households collapsed after nearly three years of negotiations. This new fiber-optic based network would have connected 16 northern counties and provided the
anchor for expansion of fast, affordable service. Also, in 2014 a major outage in August interrupted Internet
access for three days for a large part of Mendocino
County. This type of outage basically puts health care
professionals out of business until service is restored, affecting social health and safety. Additionally, loss
of Internet capacity slows business for those using
the Internet for sales, file storage, and general
communication, potentially affecting the local economy.

In 2017, nearly $47 million was awarded to Inyo Networks, Inc. to construct a Digital 299 Broadband Project that
will provide high-capacity backhaul infrastructure
and interconnection points to communities along the
California State Route 299 corridor in Trinity, Shasta, and Humboldt Counties. In addition to providing muchneeded access to broadband, this project provides safety benefits because it will offer service to five community fire stations, two CAL FIRE stations, the Trinity County Sheriff’s office, and six medical and health institutions.

2.9.2 ENERGY GENERATION AND

CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE
California Energy Commission believes that California’s energy policies will “require substantial increases in
the generation of electricity from renewable energy
resources. Implementation of these policies will
require extensive improvements to California’s electric transmission infrastructure” to accommodate for a
flexible and responsive network (CEC undated).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 89
Extreme weather events can affect energy demand, impact energy production, and cause potential disruptions to
transmission and distribution infrastructure. As outlined by a report from the California Climate Change Center,
“potential for disruption of energy supply is particularly high during periods of extreme heat, when energy demand increases (for air conditioning, but also to meet needs such as pumping water for agricultural uses) and energy transmission infrastructure (e.g., transformers) can also be compromised” (California Climate Change Center
2009). When temperatures increase, fossil fuel-burning
power plants and transmission lines lose efficiency,
which calls for attention to either increase production or improve efficiency (CEC undated). Temperature increases also adversely affect the efficiency of solar panels.

MAP 39 ELECTRIC POWER INFRASTRUCTURE
The North Coast region’s renewable energy generation
potential can support local energy security and selfsufficiency as well as providing an important contribution to the large state-level effort to transition off of fossil fuels. However, a critical barrier to realizing the
potential is in many cases limitation and constraints on the region’s electricity transmission and distribution
grid. Many sites that could serve as small or mediumsize “community-scale” solar projects are limited by the local distribution grid’s ability to accept the
power, and significant offshore wind energy potential
of Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino Counties.

TABLE 8. RENEWABLE ENERGY OPPORTUNITY

MATRIX BY COUNTY AND RESOURCE
Del
Norte Humboldt Mendocino Modoc Siskiyou Sonoma Trinity
Biomass Low High High Medium High Medium High
Geothermal Low Low Medium High High High Low
Hydro Medium Medium Low Low Medium Low Medium
Solar High High High High High High High
Wave High High Medium Low Low Medium Low
Wind —
Onshore High High Medium Medium High Low Medium
Wind —
Offshore High High Medium Low Low Medium Low

2.9.3 WATER AND WASTEWATER STORAGE

AND CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE
In almost all instances across the North Coast
Region, wastewater collection and treatment systems
are owned and operated by local agencies (either
cities or special districts). There are some instances
where wastewater systems were installed to serve a
“company town” containing a lumber or paper mill and
the wastewater system is owned and operated by the
company. Over time, ownership of the utilities serving
company towns has transitioned from private to public
ownership as property has changed hands. Many rural
residents rely on wells and or Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems (OWTS) such as septic systems
for household wastewater disposal. Many public
wastewater treatment plants in the North Coast suffer
from aging infrastructure and lack of capacity, which
will only be further exasperated by climate change.

One of the central threats to water systems resulting
from climate change is sea level rise. Water systems in coastal areas face notable risks as sea levels increase the potential for salt water intrusion and for storm
surges and high tides to cause inundation of low-lying
areas. There are approximately 52 miles of shoreline
on Humboldt Bay that form a barrier protecting nearly
10,000 acres of low-lying areas from tidal inundation,
an area that contains amounts of water and wastewater
systems and lines along with other critical infrastructure.

Humboldt Community Services District’s Truesdale
municipal water pump station and inter-tie to the
City of Eureka water system, with the potential
tidal inundation area by 2070 of 3.3 feet (1.0 M)
of sea level rise (Trinity Associates 2018).

Water systems will also continue to be threatened
by the drought and extreme weather conditions
California. High elevation watersheds, such as ones
found throughout Trinity County, tend to store more
water in the form of snow with percolation into soils.

This natural storage is vital to help maintain consistent stream flows in the drier months. In recent years, the
90 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 region has experienced several very dry years and very
low, sometimes negligible, snowpack (NCR&DC and
5C 2017). Wildfires and the associate erosion impacts
also pose an increasing risk to water infrastructure.

2.9.4 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Throughout the North Coast, communities contend
with challenges associated with transportation. The
rural nature and widespread geography of North Coast
communities facilitated development of roads and
highways over non-motorized infrastructure; thus,
vehicle transportation is most commonly used for both
individual transit and freight transport. However, as
concern about GHG emissions and interest in healthy
lifestyles and walkable neighborhoods increases,
many North Coast communities are planning for
and implementing projects that improve public
transit and bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

Obtaining sufficient funding for maintenance, repairs,
and improvements is a challenge for many North
Coast communities. Throughout the region, the
condition of some roadways is compromised due
to this funding deficit. Additionally, private roads,
which have historically been lacking sufficient
maintenance, are in various states of repair.

All counties in the North Coast have developed
Transportation Plans and many communities have
developed Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans. Some also
possess airport, rail, and harbor plans. The challenge
facing the region is to operate and develop these
systems into the future so that they coalesce into
a safe, efficient, integrated intermodal system that
serves the mobility needs of people and freight while
fostering economic growth and development.

The impacts of climate change pose increasing risks
to the region’s transportation infrastructure. Sea level rise threatens costal roadways in the region along with the associated increases in erosion, as well as the
potential impacts from more extreme weather events
such as increased risks of flooding. The Humboldt Bay
Area Plan Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
identified approximately 38 miles of surface roads
vulnerable to tidal inundation by 1.5 meters of sea
level rise because of diked shoreline breaching or
overtopping, and backwater flooding effects from
stormwater runoff (Trinity Associates 2018).

2.9.5 RESIDENTIAL AND

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
Coastal areas in northern California experience the
coolest climate in California with the most heating
degree days according to PG&E’s guide to California
climate zones. Cool, wet winters and cool summers
with frequent fog and strong winds make it a climate
requiring a lot of heat for comfort with peak demand
in the winter, especially in Humboldt and Mendocino
coastal areas. Farther inland, as well as in Siskiyou
County, many microclimates exist in the varied geography affected by proximity to the ocean and elevations. Due to this climate, heating days dominate building needs, but some cooling is needed in the summer (PG&E 2006).

With an expected increase in the number and intensity
of heating degree and cooling degree days (Cal-Adapt.
org), a need exists for buildings to focus on energy
management and building maintenance, especially
given the region’s dependency on heat for comfort.

Increased risk of wildfire is a critical threat to
the region’s building stock, as evidenced by the
devastating 2017 Sonoma County Tubbs fire, which
was the most destructive wildfire in California
ever recorded, destroying 5,643 structures.

2.9.6 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG BUILT

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

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

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

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

There is a strong connection between water supply and
conveyance with energy use. At its core, the waterenergy nexus stems from the fact that there is both limited supply and high demand for energy and water.

Climate change has forced the water-energy nexus into
the forefront (North Coast Climate Mitigation, Adaptation, and Energy Independence Report (NCCMAEI)).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 91

2.9.7 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS

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

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

2.10 FLOOD PROTECTION &

FLOOD MANAGEMENT

2.10.1 FLOOD HISTORY
The floods of 1955 and 1964 were called “the disaster
of the century” and a “1,000 year event” respectively
(McGlaughlin, 2014). We are still living with impacts
of those events, from flooding in urban areas to the
significant devastation of blown out timber road
networks and the domino effect that has had on our
regional ecosystems and communities. Since 1960
there have been more than twice as many severe snow
and ice storms in the U.S. than occurred in the 60
years prior, and over the past century “the amount of
rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased
approximately 20% on average (Thomas and Peterson
2009).” Annual precipitation is greater in this Region
than in any other part of the state and floods are a fairly regular phenomenon. Damaging floods occur relatively
frequently in the Region, with particularly destructive floods documented in December 1955, December 1964,
February 1986, spring 1995, and January 1997 and
2006. In the North Coast, more than 30,000 people (5%
Region population) and $3 billion in assets lie within the 100-year flood zone. Some 40,000 people and over $4
billion in assets are exposed to the 500-year flood event (North Coast IRWMP 2014). As recently as the winter of
2019, California and the North Coast region experienced significant flood events (Goff 2017, Sulek 2019).

Significant risk to communities and infrastructure are
already a factor under current conditions, and flooding is projected to increase in most places (FEMA undated).

Transportation routes and low-lying communities
along all major waterways are vulnerable to flooding
(Houston, 2017). Low lying communities, especially those in low lying coastal areas close to estuaries or at the confluence of major waterways are at particular risk.

Rivers that flow directly into the ocean along the North Coast include the Russian, Eel, Mattole, Van Duzen,
Mad, Klamath, and Smith Rivers. Many communities
on these waterways have experienced a history of
flooding. Major tributaries of these rivers, including the Trinity River (which drains into the Klamath), also have significant potential to present flood risks to communities, transportation, and other vital built infrastructure.

Flood events in the Region have the potential to cause
widespread damage to personal property, infrastructure, and human health. According to DWR (2013) resources
vulnerable to flood risk in the North Coast Region include:
• 30,000 people exposed to flood risk (5 per%
cent of population) in a 100-year floodplain
with 40,000 people (6 % of population)
exposed in a 500-year floodplain
• $3 billion worth of structures (8 %) exposed
in a 100-year floodplain with $4 billion (10
%) exposed in a 500-year floodplain
• $80 million of crop value exposed in a 100-year
floodplain (108,000 acres or 25 % of crop
acreage). Within a 500-year floodplain in the
North Coast region, $90 million in crop value from
112,000 acres (26 % of crop land) is exposed
• 5,748 acres of Tribal lands are at
risk in the 500-year floodplain

2.10.2 LIMITING FACTORS AND CHALLENGES
Sea level rise contributes to flooding in select coastal portions of the Region, particularly in Del Norte and
Humboldt counties. Sea level has risen along the
California coast by several inches in the previous decade and models predict sea levels rising significantly this century. Rising sea level will affect roads, utilities, wastewater treatment plants, agricultural lands, outfalls and stormwater facilities and systems as well as large
wetland areas in addition to towns and cities. Higher sea levels can inundate low-lying coastal areas, accelerate erosion of bluffs, beaches, and other coastal features; flood areas near the mouths of rivers and streams;
increase the potential for levee failures; alter estuarine and aquatic habitats; and stimulate the intrusion of
saltwater into estuaries and freshwater aquifers. When
storms, winds, and high tides cause storm surges,
92 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 increases in sea level that appear inconsequential at
other times may lead to substantial damage to shorefront properties and infrastructure, and increase the probability of injury and death. Where land is rising due to tectonic lift, the rate of sea level rise may or may not be exceeded by the rate of coastal uplift. For example, at Humboldt Bay’s North Spit, sea level is rising by 18.6 inches per century (4.73 millimeters per year), the highest rate in California. At Crescent City, 80 miles north, sea level is dropping relative to the coastline by 2.5 inches per century. The shoreline at Humboldt Bay is subsiding,
whereas Crescent City’s coastline is rising (DWR 2013).

MAP 40 SEA LEVEL RISE IN ARCATA BAY, CRESCENT CITY, AND ENVIRONS MAP 41 PROJECTED COASTAL FLOOD EXTENT (2000-2100)
Tsunamis are an infrequent but severe source of coastal flooding. The North Coast was struck by a tsunami
in March 1964 as a result of an earthquake in Prince
William Sound, Alaska. The resulting 20-foot wave hit
Crescent City (Del Norte County). It damaged 289 homes
and businesses; 11 people were killed; and 3 were
never found. Damages were estimated at $16 million in
1964 dollars (CWP 2013). Crescent City was struck by
another tsunami in March 2011. Generated off the coast
of Japan, the wave struck Crescent City with an 8.1-foot wave, destroying much of the harbor and resulting
in one death near Klamath. There was also major
damage to docks and boats at Noyo Harbor. Estimated
damage in the Region was $24 million (CWP 2013).

Flooding is likely to become more frequent and severe
under climate change scenarios, as more precipitation
is delivered by intense storms, and as storms drop more of their precipitation as rain rather than snow. Runoff in the October–March period has been increasing along
with peak flood levels, as well as the variability among floods. Storms and snowmelt may thus coincide and
produce higher winter runoff from the landward side,
while to the west, accelerating sea-level rise is expected to produce higher storm surges during precipitation
events. In relatively developed coastal floodplains, storm related coastal flooding might coincide with high tides and stormwater runoff, creating particularly severe flooding.

The California Water Plan (DWR 2013) provides a snapshot of the communities, structures, crops, infrastructure,
and sensitive species exposed to flooding in the Region.

Significant development already exists in some at
risk areas; resources required to respond during an
emergency will be stretched thin where large amounts
of development/built infrastructure exist inside a
projected flood-risk area. Many routes are already
compromised during current weather events. The current
inundation zones in recently updated flood maps from
FEMA include significant portions of Highway 101. The
Russian River is one of the most flood-prone rivers
in California, routinely overflowing during wet years
and impacting local as well as major transportation
routes (WEF 2018). Flood exposure also occurs along
the coastline, Eel River, Elk River, Scott River, around Crescent City Harbor, and Humboldt Bay (DWR 2013).

Depending on the proximity of infrastructure to at risk areas, disruption of transportation routes, drinking
water supply, wastewater facilities (and risk of overflow), and communications facilities could occur with direct
impact on evacuation/strategic retreat activities,
communication, and eventual relocation efforts.

There is potential political resistance to planning for the future; given the many current challenges associated
with limited funding and prioritization of myriad
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 93
infrastructure, social services and other community
needs, it can be challenging for local elected officials and leaders to prioritize future risk planning.

2.10.2.1 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES,

PLANNING, AND STRATEGY
The region should conduct and infrastructure analysis of at-risk waterways and coastal areas to ensure reliability of baseline services and/ or needed relocation, plus
potential environmental and non-vital infrastructure
impacts if changes in land use and relocation efforts
do not occur. Although most communities/counties
have emergency plans developed, the level of analysis
regarding relationship between potential events is
unclear. Renewed communication with emergency
service providers and teams with regard to these
strategies would be beneficial. Additionally, coastal
urban areas and river corridor communities could
aggregate their planning efforts and share strategies to increase efficacy and efficiency. Although the specific long-term impacts of increased severity and frequency
of flooding events are as of yet unknown, communities
and tourism related businesses should be prepared for
a changing coastline and adapt their efforts accordingly.

The DWR report “California’s Flood Future:

Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk”
provides a powerful tool local jurisdictions may consult as they make their own flood management plans. The
NCRWQCB is supportive of efforts to address the causes
of increased flood potential. The further reduction in
natural hydrologic functioning via the construction of
hardened flood control channels is not viewed, in most
cases, as supportive of water quality goals (DWR 2013).

Current research offers new tools to help managers
assess the risks presented to local flood management
from climate change and to address the flood-control
constraints future climate may present (e.g. Brekke et
al 2009). The Region’s flood management systems (e.g.
basins or reservoirs for collection and storage; dams for release of excess and to maintain minimum flows) were
designed in the last century to strike a balance between water storage for dry months and flood protection
in winter and spring, when heavy storms, snowmelt,
and runoff can cause extensive flooding. Trinity Dam,
for example, has been identified at critically high risk for failure and downstream flooding in the event of a
“probable maximum flood” in part due to the lack of
an emergency spillway (Jacobs 2017). As precipitation
patterns become increasingly variable and unpredictable, it becomes more challenging for water managers to
respond, particularly if they continue to base their
operations on past climate and regulatory conditions.

Municipalities and other local jurisdictions in the Region are investigating or implementing Low Impact Design
(LID) projects as a technique to manage stormwaters
and reduce the severity of flooding locally. LID is a
sustainable practice that benefits water supply and
contributes to water quality protection. Unlike traditional stormwater management, which collects and conveys
stormwater runoff through storm drains, pipes, or other conveyances to a centralized stormwater facility, LID
takes a different approach. The LID approach involves
using site design and stormwater management to
maintain the site’s pre-development runoff rates and
volumes. Several entities in the NCRP have recognized
the utility of LID projects to achieve floodway protection simultaneously with habitat protection and improvement.

An effective flood management program will likely
include combinations of on-site measures (e.g. LID
techniques, flow-control basins), in-stream measures
(e.g. stream habitat restoration), floodplain and riparian zone actions (e.g. wetland restoration, setbacks), and
off-site measures. Off-site measures may include
compensatory mitigation measures at upstream locations
that are designed to help restore and manage flow and
sediment yield in the watershed (Stein et al. 2012).

Finding solutions to reduce residual flood risk in
California is a complex task that will require a mix of both old and new tools and approaches to flood management
and funding, evolution of existing planning processes
and policies, sustained action, and commitment from
agencies at all levels to achieve the desired result of public safety, environmental stewardship, and financial stability in the state. To accomplish these goals, the
public, policymakers, and agencies at all levels (local, state, federal) must work together to address the flood risk; evolve toward integrated water management; and
bring flood managers into the IRWM process as full
partners with other water management agencies (DWR
2013). Achieving effective flood management further will require that hydromodification management strategies
operate across programs beyond those typically
regulated by NPDES/MS4 requirements. The state’s new
STORMS program is one step in this direction: it calls
for optimizing the resource use of storm water, one
component of which is flood prevention and mitigation.

Successful strategies will need to be developed,
coordinated, and implemented through land-use planning, habitat management and restoration, and regulatory
programs such as STORMS. Substantial resources will be
necessary to realize these goals; therefore, opportunities for joint funding and leveraging of resources should be vigorously pursued from the onset. The NCRP is wellposition to implement a cooperative approach that will lend cohesion to and reduce potential conflicts from
the current fragmented efforts among regions and
jurisdictions. Such an integrated watershed-based
94 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 approach will likely take one or more permit cycles (i.e., at least ten years) to fully implement (Stein et al. 2012).

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

2.11 CLIMATE CHANGE

VULNERABILITY &

UNCERTAINTY
Interviews with North Coast planning entities
reveal concerns about a variety of climate-related
vulnerabilities that already are recognized locally:
identified vulnerabilities include sea level rise (28%), followed by agriculture, fire, and flood (11% each).

Science-based research specific to California confirms
the state’s ecosystems, households, businesses, farms,
and communities are vulnerable to numerous impacts
of climate change. This vulnerability is especially
apparent as changes in climate are predicted to affect
the quantity, quality and spatial distribution of California’s water resources. There is widespread agreement
among scientists about climate observations:

1. Climate change is partially the result of human
activities that emit heat trapping carbon dioxide,
methane, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs)
into the atmosphere. Past emissions will
continue to influence climate and additional
GHG emissions will accelerate these changes.

2. California has experienced loss of life and severe
economic damage, as well as ecological, social,
and cultural disruption from storms, drought,
wildfires, and other weather-related extremes.

3. Climate change impacts are expected to
intensify weather and climate events in
severity, duration, and variability.

Despite lack of agreement in the region about the
pace, causes, and solutions to anthropogenic climate
change, there is unanimous shared concern in the
NCRP about severe climate-related phenomena and
associated water management implications. NCRP
stakeholders and local planners consistently identify
two water- and climate-related challenges as priority
for the NCRP. These are (1) flooding/stormwater
management and (2) drought/water availability, and
the adequacy of infrastructure to deal with both.

The results of the North Coast’s Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment suggest the following relative vulnerability of sectors (both human-built and naturallyoccurring) to climate-energy-water impacts (see Appendix J, NCRP Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment).
“Natural” Sector Vulnerability
• Riparian: High [highest]
• Coastal: Moderate-High
• Forests: Moderate-High
• Rangelands: Moderate
“Built” Sector Vulnerability
• Agriculture: Moderate-High
• Fisheries: Moderate-High (both
“natural” and “built” elements)
• Forestry: Moderate-High
• Recreation: Moderate-High
• Urban/ Infrastructure: Moderate-High
• Water Supply & Demand: Low-Moderate
• Energy Capacity & Demand: Low [lowest]
The sectors that are identified as relatively
vulnerable at a particular location warrant further
analysis and consideration in local water, energy,
and climate planning and decision-making (DWR
USEPA 2011). The NCRP is actively addressing
priority vulnerabilities through existing Goals and
Objectives (Section 1.1 NCRP Goals and Objectives).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 95

2.11.1 EFFECTS OF CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC

CHANGES ON WATER MANAGEMENT
The North Coast currently faces challenges in meeting
the water-related demands of an increasing population
and increasingly regulated natural resources. In
California, the observed trend toward increased
hydrologic variability and more frequent severe weather events (Weare 2009) is expected to intensify in the 21st century. The climate vulnerability assessment conducted for the North Coast Region predicts that more variable
precipitation will create more inter-annual variability in stream flow, with potentially more frequent droughts and flood years with increases of greater than 50% more high and low values for annual discharge (Micheli et al. 2018). According to the California Natural Resources
Agency (2009), the state “can expect to experience
more frequent and larger floods and deeper droughts.

Rising sea level will increase salinity in near-coastal groundwater supplies.” However, according to one
study, California’s water supply and management
system appears physically capable of adapting to
significant changes in climate and population, albeit at a significant cost, requiring major changes in operation of groundwater storage capacity, water transfers, and
adoption of new technologies (Tanaka et al. 2006).

Listed below are some expected impacts to regional
water management systems during the 21st century.

Water Management Impacts Due to
Increased Temperatures
• Reduced water supply from snowpack accumulation
— in the North Coast, the observed geographic
extent of snow cover on April 1st has decreased
by 10% over the recent period (1981-2010)
relative to the historical average (1951-1980) and
the geographic extent of April 1st snow cover is
projected to shrink from approximately 60% to
30% of the project area by mid-century, and to
just 11% of the project area by end-century.
• Earlier snowmelt runoff leaving less stored
for dry months — for the North Coast, the
average “snow water equivalent” on April 1st,
a proxy for snow depth over these areas is
projected to decline from approximately 10” of
water (1951–1980) to just 1” by end-century.
• Reduced water quality due to increased water
temperature — North Coast summer season
temperatures are projected to increase on the
order of 3–5 °F by mid-century (2040-2069) and
6–9 °F degrees by end-century (2070-2099).
• Increased evaporation/evapotranspiration rates from
plants, soils, and waterbodies — in the North Coast,
climatic water deficits in soils are projected to
increase by approximately 10–19% by mid-century.
• Moisture deficits in non-irrigated agriculture,
landscaping, and natural system — the majority
of the area of the North Coast is projected
to experience water deficit conditions.
• Increased agricultural irrigation demand to avoid
crop losses and due to a longer growing season
• Increased urban water use, at the possible
expense of agriculture water
Water Management Impacts Due
to Precipitation Changes
• Reduced surface and groundwater supply
due to decreased precipitation
• Increased proportion of precipitation
falling as rain instead of snow
• Increased intensity of rainfall events with
more frequent and/or more severe flooding
• Increased frequency and persistence of droughts
• Reduced water quality due to higher
water temperature, lower flow, and
more concentrated sediment load
Water Management Impacts Due to Sea Level Rise
• Increased stress on coastal levees and
other flood management infrastructure
• Increased saltwater intrusion into estuaries,
bays, and coastal groundwater sources; drought
and groundwater extraction will exacerbate
saltwater intrusion because they reduce pressure
from freshwater resources that otherwise
supports the balance of coastal groundwater
basins by keeping the saltwater out
• Reduced surface and ground water
quality due to saltwater intrusion
• Increased freshwater releases from
upstream reservoirs to hold back salinity
intrusion, reducing freshwater supplies
• Reduced freshwater supplies due to salt
water intrusion into coastal aquifers
• Reduced viability of coastal agriculture
due to increased soil salinity
New analyses using fine-resolution hydrologic and
climatic datasets suggest that, in this century, all
North Coast counties and watershed basins (WMAs)
will experience (1) increased temperature, (2) reduced
precipitation, and (3) rising seas (Thorne et al. 2012a), all of which may exacerbate flooding and drought (Purkey et 96 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 al 2008). The magnitude of change will vary widely across the Region; however, the direction of change is clear. This will have widespread and direct effects on the viability of the Region’s natural and built systems and sectors.

The Climate Change Vulnerability Analysis (CCVA), assessed the region’s overall vulnerability with respect to reduced spring snowpack and water supply storage, increased
risk of water use conflicts, and increased dependence
on groundwater supply during summer is moderate
(see Appendix J, NCRP Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment). Although reduced snowpack is expected,
the 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. 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 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 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
and require changes to satisfy all existing water supply needs in the region. 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.

The CCVA considers the region’s overall vulnerability to increased seawater intrusion to coastal groundwater
aquifers low. 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.

2.11.2 EFFECTS OF CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC

CHANGES ON SECTORS
The potential effects of climate change on three
representative North Coast sectors (fisheries,
agriculture, and energy) are introduced below. See
Appendix J, NCRP Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment for more information and maps, including
an overview of the specific impacts and climate drivers to all 11 “natural” and “built” sectors comprising
the Region’s water management infrastructure.

The report also provides a preliminary listing of the
11 sectors, ranked by vulnerability (a combination
of sensitivity and adaptive capacity). For a related
assessment of vulnerabilities identified by and for
Tribal communities, please refer to https://cig.uw.edu/ our-work/decision-support/building-tribal-capacityfor-climate-change-vulnerability-assessment/

2.11.2.1 FISHERIES
Freshwater fishes are highly vulnerable to climate
change (Moyle et al. 2013). Species requiring cold
water (e.g. all salmonids, particularly Coho salmon)
are most vulnerable. Changes in global climate have
altered and continue to alter local hydrologic conditions.

These hydrologic changes are accelerating the declines
observed in many fish species, especially in regions
(like much of the North Coast) that experience arid or
Mediterranean conditions (Moyle et al 2011, Moyle et al 2012). Under present climate change scenarios, most
native fishes in the Region would experience population declines and restricted distribution. These impacts are not limited to freshwater environments, of course: coastal and marine systems are also expected to experience
major changes, with negative effects expected for marine organisms and habitats (Harley et al. 2006). As they
require both freshwater and marine habitats, salmonids
will likely experience stresses in both environments.

2.11.2.2 AGRICULTURE
Vineyard establishment and management have significant
implications for terrestrial and freshwater conservation, which may be significantly impacted by climate change.

Climate impacts to vineyards are relevant to the entire North Coast and to NCRP planning because they may be
illustrative of conservation implications of shifts in other agricultural crops (Hannah et al. 2013). Mediterranean
climate regions are most suitable for viticulture, but at the same time have very high levels of biological diversity, endemism (species occurring nowhere else), and habitat
loss. Potential impacts of climate change on historical patterns of viticulture suitability are predicted to be “substantial” by 2050 (Hannah et al. 2013). Climate change has the potential to drive changes in viticulture that will impact the Region’s ecosystems and threaten native
habitats: damage to freshwater habitats is generally
highest where water is already scarce (Vorosmarty et al. 2010). Changes in viticulture practices could affect land use (e.g. establishment of vineyards at higher elevations, leading to conversion of upland areas) and/or water
use (e.g. increased water use for irrigation and crop
protection, leading to freshwater conservation conflicts).

Damage to freshwater habitats is generally highest
where water is already scarce (Vorosmarty et al. 2010).

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 97
It is possible that some types of crops grown in certain areas could benefit from projected climate and hydrologic changes, but this would be the exception rather than the rule. Additionally, farmers may be able to convert their crops to different cultivars or other types of crops that are better adapted to projected conditions. The California Energy Commission’s California Climate Change
center provides more information about the effects of
climate on California agriculture (Jackson et al. 2012).

The NCRP report “Climate Change and Agriculture in
the North Coast of California” provides information
specific to the North Coast Region (described below).

Saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers can also
impact agriculture, especially in watersheds where
ditches and canals were built to drain coastal lands
to minimize flooding damage. These ditches and
canals could complicate the problem by acting as
conduits for saltwater and funneling it inland with
storm surges. Salt water also alters soil chemistry
and mobilizes nutrients which can contribute to
nutrient loading in adjacent water bodies.

2.11.2.3 ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
According to the California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CNRA 2009), the “largest projected damages” to
energy infrastructure are expected from sea level
rise inundating low lying coastal areas. Flooding
of inland infrastructure is also a concern. Other
potential challenges for energy infrastructure
development in the 21st century are listed below.

Due to Warmer Temperatures
• Changes to energy production
potential (e.g. hydropower)
• Changes to transmission capabilities
• Reduced transmission efficiency
• Increased energy demand for cooling
• Increased risk of brown outs and black outs
Due to Altered Precipitation Patterns
• Changes to energy production
potential (e.g. hydropower)
• Reduced summer flows requiring increased
water releases, reducing reservoir
volume and hydropower potential
• Increased flood damage to transmission
lines, from storm runoff and snowmelt
Due to Sea Level Rise
• Increased need for fortification from coastal
surges or relocation of built infrastructure
• Increased economic cost for required
fortification, relocation, and system upgrades

2.11.3 DISTRIBUTION AND MAGNITUDE OF

CLIMATIC & HYDROLOGIC CHANGES
The geographic, climatic, and hydrologic variability
among and between the North Coast planning
area watersheds is vast. Therefore, it is unwise to
extrapolate statewide or even region wide climate
predictions down to the local level (see Appendix J,
Table J-42, Projected Changes to Climate & Hydrology
of North Coast Counties and Table J-43, Projected
Changes to Climate & Hydrology of North Coast WMAs).

The fine-scale spatial distribution and magnitude of
the predicted changes in precipitation, temperature,
and other climatic and hydrologic variables across
the North Coast Region is illustrated in the USGS/
Pepperwood Preserve technical report, Climate
and Natural Resources Analysis and Planning for the
North Coast Resource Partnership (Micheli et al.
2018). Highlights of key findings by analysis area are
summarized below. Projected ranges represent values
for “business as usual” emissions across three scenarios including low, moderate, and high precipitation.

Historical and Projected Climate and Hydrology
• Summer season temperatures are
projected to increase on the order of
3–5 °F by mid-century (2040-2069) and 6–9 °F
degrees by end-century (2070-2099).
• Winter season temperatures are expected
to increase on the order of 5–7 °F by
mid-century and 8–11 °F by end-century.
• Warmer temperatures are projected to
increase rates of modeled actual evapotranspiration on the order of 4–11% by mid-century and 11–13% by end-century.
• Increased rainfall variability combined with
increased rates are projected to increase
climatic water deficits in soils, a measure of
drought stress, by approximately 10–19% by
mid-century and 16–32% by end-century.
• End-century projected water deficits
represent an effective loss of 3–6” of rainfall
equivalent from soils by the end of the dry
season relative to today’s conditions.
• The majority of the area of the North Coast
is projected to experience water deficit
conditions (drought stress on soils) exceeding
a standard measures historical variability
(1 standard deviation) by end-century.
• The observed geographic extent of snow
cover on April 1st has decreased by 10%
98 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 over the recent period (1981-2010) relative
to the historical average (1951-1980).
• The geographic extent of April 1st snow cover is
projected to shrink from approximately 60% to
30% of the project area by mid-century, and to
just 11% of the project area by end-century.
• The average “snow water equivalent” on April 1
st, a proxy for snow depth over these areas is
projected to decline from approximately 10” of
water (1951–1980) to just 1” by end-century.

MAP 42 PROJECTED SUMMER TEMPERATURES
MAP 43 PROJECTED WINTER TEMPERATURES
MAP 44 PROJECTED PRECIPITATION
MAP 45 PROJECTED SNOWPACK (WARM/MODERATE RAINFALL SCENARIO) NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 99
MAP 46 CLIMATIC WATER DEFICIT
Watershed Runoff and Stream Flow
• A water supply indicator comprised of recharge
plus runoff can be used to provide an overview of
potential impacts of climate change. A comparison
of this indicator for the 1920-2009 period to the
projected conditions for 2010-2099 suggests that
a high rainfall scenario (with on the order of 20%
greater rainfall than the baseline) would result in
only 4% more water supply, while the low rainfall
scenario could result in 13% less available water.
• Watershed resilience can be estimated in
part by comparing the relative dominance of
runoff or recharge on hydrology, with runoffdominated watersheds hypothesized to be more vulnerable in terms of water supply to more
variability in projected future conditions.
• Cumulative stream flow volumes for three study
basins (Russian River, Eel River, and Redwood
Creek) show the potential impact of low versus
high rainfall scenarios ranging from -25 % to
+40% of reference values for annual cumulative
discharge under 90 year projections.
• More variable precipitation is projected to create
more inter-annual variability in stream flow, with
potentially more frequent droughts and flood
years with increases of greater than 50% more
high and low values for annual discharge.
• The moderate rainfall scenario, although similar in
long term rainfall averages to historical conditions,
also features more low and high stream flow
years: thus all projections evaluated suggest great
inter-annual variability in available stream flow.

MAP 47 PROJECTED RECHARGE
MAP 48 PROJECTED RUNOFF
Groundwater Resources
• Average recharge is projected to decrease
under moderate and low rainfall scenarios due
to rainfall variability combined with increased
evaporative demand. In-situ regional recharge
is projected to decrease by approximately 20%
by end-century under low rainfall scenarios.
• Where available, groundwater recharge is estimated
to be a less variable supply of water from year-toyear than watershed runoff under projected futures. • Under low rainfall scenarios, rainfall is
projected to become a more significant
fraction of total potential water supply.
• Comparisons of spatial variability in historical
recharge rates can be used to assess the relative
100 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 vulnerability of groundwater basins in the North
Coast, and to inform recharge protection strategies.

Forest Ecology
• Approximately 65% of the region’s natural
vegetation is currently estimated to be prone to
climatic stress: by end-century, this is projected
to grow to approximately 85% of the project area.
• There is uncertainty about how native vegetation
may respond to unprecedented combinations
of temperature and rainfall in California.
• The projected extents of stress on vegetation are
similar for both high and low rainfall scenarios,
since high rainfall scenarios generate novel
climates for California vegetation in this region,
which absent data, are considered stress-inducing.
• There are likely to be vegetation species climate
“winners” and “losers,” with future conditions
likely favoring drought-adapted species, which
may promote expansion of chaparral and
shrublands at the expense of woody species.
• Long-term monitoring of native forest vegetation
is needed to better inform models with an
improved understanding of mechanisms
and trajectories of potential change.

Fire Risks
• With projected climate change the fire risk, as
measured by the 30 year average in the probability
of burning in a given year averaged across the
NCRP increases from 10% historically to 15% by
the end of century under both examined scenarios.
• Critical data gaps in fire modeling include the
short historical record available to calibrate
models and the challenges of incorporating
ignition risks attributable to urban development
expanding into wild land regions.

2.11.4 PLANNING FOR UNCERTAINTY
According to the California Natural Resources Agency
(2009), “The climate patterns that these [water and flood management] systems were based upon are different
now and may continue to change at an accelerated pace.

These changes collectively result in significant uncertainty and peril to water supplies and quality, ecosystems, and flood protection.” Most data and models indicate that
climate change is occurring relatively gradually and
will continue to do so. There is a chance, though, that significant changes will occur far more rapidly. For the North Coast, the two greatest uncertainties in localized climate-hydrology projections are 1) how fast projected changes will occur due to uncertainties in future rates of greenhouse gas emissions and 2) whether rainfall trends will increase or decrease overall (Micheli et al. 2018).

Prudent planning for climate change should explicitly
account for the possibility that abrupt changes will occur, perhaps with catastrophic consequences. Physical,
process-based watershed models (featuring well-mapped
topography, geology, and soils) can estimate the response of watersheds as a function of seasonal temperature and seasonal rainfall projections. However, there is inherent and undeniable uncertainty involved in documenting,
forecasting, and interpreting climatic and hydrologic data.

There will be no single “one-size-fits-all” solution to climate changes; solutions will need to be tailored to
local conditions (climatic, financial, and ideological, for a start). A recommended approach to “uncertainty” in
climate change planning, as for other situations that
lack full resolution of data, is to: (1) respond directly to confident projections (and identify less confident
projections as data gaps); (2) utilize an adaptive
management approach that calls for frequent input and
refinement of processes; (3) allow flexibility with a range of potential response actions that suit local conditions; (4) implement long-term monitoring; (5) prioritize ecosystem adaptability in restoration efforts; and (6) continually update and refine analyses using data specific to the
Region and of the finest resolution possible (Thorne
et al. 2012a). Adaptive management planning in the
context of climate change and other stressors should
consider the following principles (Micheli et al. 2018):

North Coast Adaptive Management
& Planning Considerations:
• Given the hydrologic effects of projected increased
temperatures across all climate models, water
conservation and long-term plans for water security
are increasingly important under projected futures.
• Protecting high value recharge zones will be
critical to enhancing water security by maximizing
subsurface storage in aquifers, a relatively resilient
form of natural water storage, where available.
• Effective watershed protection strategies can utilize maps of historical watershed behavior (rather than
utilizing models of projected future conditions)
for planning purposes, since the location of key
watershed structural elements, such as recharge
zones, are relatively fixed facets of the landscape.
• Communities need to innovate ways to capture
winter precipitation, storm water runoff,
and peak flows for use during dry seasons
and to recycle wastewater streams.

NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 101
• Land stewards should aim to increase soil moisture
holding capacity of soils where feasible through
vegetation management, soil amendments,
and approaches to sequestering carbon.
• Long-term vegetation monitoring sites,
coordinated with local weather and water
data stations, are needed to measure stress
and/or mortality, in locations identified
with high vegetation vulnerabilities.
• Managers should expand collaborative approaches
to landscape-level vegetation management and
treatments capable of reducing accumulated
fuel loads and associated fire risks.
• Communities should develop plans for post-fire
management that address strategies for native
vegetation resilience and mitigation of potential
impacts on watershed runoff and water quality.
• Climate adaptive strategies should be integrated into all aspects of hazard mitigation planning, including
responses to drought, flood, earthquake and fire.

Resiliency to climate volatility and natural disasters
starts with planning, and local planning departments,
health departments, and emergency managers should
work to incorporate risks associated with projected
climate change impacts into existing emergency
preparedness plans and/or develop new plans as needed.

While some impacts, such as wildfires and floods,
have likely already been addressed in existing local
hazard mitigation plans, risks should be re-evaluated
and plans periodically updated in light of evolving
climate models and trends (CEMA and CNRA, 2012).

Numerous municipalities, counties, Tribes and other
local jurisdictions in the Region are looking towards
development and implementation of climate action plans
and GHG inventories to accommodate climate change
adaptation and mitigation programs. When asked about
local resources that will be vulnerable to climate change impacts in the next 50 to 100 years, coastal interviewees responded that sea level rise; impacts to agriculture,
especially related to crop phenology changes; increased risk of forest fires and their environmental consequences; flooding events due to greater storm intensity; ocean
ecosystem changes; drought; salmonid populations;
and water quality impacts would be most susceptible.

Communities can increase resiliency for climate volatility and natural disasters through the development of social and community support networks. Each community
should consider building collaborative relationships
with neighboring communities and forming regional
partnerships to promote development of complementary
adaptation strategies and cohesive regional approaches.

Many climate change impacts and disasters extend
beyond jurisdictional boundaries, and these issues
are best addressed in collaboration with neighboring
jurisdictions to ensure complementary actions and
conservation of limited resources (CEMA and CNRA,
2012). Especially with respect to disaster resiliency,
neighboring communities should develop coordinated
first response actions that kick in during emergency
situations to best allocate limited resources and
avoid redundant actions (CEMA and CNRA, 2012).

In addition to academic institutions and state agencies, efforts by county, municipal, Tribal, and other local
entities can contribute significantly to knowledge about North Coast resources and issues. Local collaborations
in the Region are resulting in successful and informative ventures with direct applications to the NCRP. Regionally, counties and municipalities have placed emphasis on the need to conduct site-specific adaptation and emergency
response planning, particularly with respect to sea level rise, storm surges, and extreme precipitation events
that will result in coastal and inland flooding, causing damage to critical, low-lying or shoreline infrastructure.

To ensure public buy-in to climate adaptation measures, a robust public outreach program is necessary. As
with most aspects of climate adaptation and disaster
resiliency strategies, the most effective strategies
are tailored to fit local conditions, constraints, and
opportunities. Local government outreach for climate
change resiliency and disaster preparedness should
begin with identification of the most vulnerable
populations. This can be accomplished by incorporating
social and community engagement into local health
departments and prioritizing adaptation efforts where
vulnerabilities are highest and the need for safety
and resilience is greatest (CEMA and CNRA, 2012).

Finally, as with all planning and implementation efforts, monitoring results is crucial to determining success and adjusting management for optimal efficacy. Whenever
possible, communities should establish an ongoing
monitoring program to track local and regional climate
change impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness.

Climate change impacts vary spatially and uncertainties and contextual considerations make accurate prediction of impacts difficult. Adaptation strategies should be adjusted based on effectiveness of a strategy and adequacy of the strategy to address projected changes. Monitoring will
provide the data necessary to adjust course as necessary.

Monitoring can be labor and cost intensive, so
indicators should be chosen carefully. The most
severe impacts should be identified by each
community along with indicators that will measure
effectiveness of adaptation actions as well as
continued assessment of the expected impact.
102 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 MAP 49 FIRE THREAT

2.11.4.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT
In 2006, California’s legislature passed Assembly Bill
32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, which
mandates the California Air Resources Board achieve
significant reductions by 2020 in greenhouse gas
emissions from stationary (i.e. not vehicular) sources
such as power stations and refineries. AB 32 also
establishes a carbon trading market (i.e. “cap-and-trade”) to stimulate financial incentives to reduce emissions.

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection
Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act, SB 375,
Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) further supports the
State’s climate action goals to reduce emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning

2.11.4.2 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
The State of California has taken the lead nationally and globally in developing actions and policies to reduce
the emission of GHGs in an effort to slow changes to
climate and to reduce the risk of abrupt threshold
changes that would have catastrophic effects. The
NCRP recognizes that “reducing emissions” may be
achieved by focusing on energy conservation, water
conservation, local energy production, and green jobs
creation, all of which result in energy savings and GHG emission reductions and thus contribute to state goals.

The NCRP is investigating how observed and projected
climate change impacts are expected to affect Northern
California waters, communities, and economies,
including identifying and assessing potential responses to these impacts. NCRP-commissioned reports
investigate climate change implications in depth:
• Climate Change — Issues and Initiatives
provides an overview of expected changes to
weather and climate in Northern California,
as well as response initiatives including
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), Executive Order
S-3-05, and the Western Climate Initiative.
• Climate Change and Agriculture in the North Coast
of California identifies project-level agricultural
BMPs that will reduce GHG emissions and
increase soil carbon sequestration and economic
incentives and policy specific to agriculture.
• Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA)
for the North Coast Region outlines a process
framework for identifying and ranking the
vulnerability to projected climate change impacts
of the Regions built (“gray”) and natural systems,
and proposes an initial list of vulnerabilities to guide development of local and regional strategies to
adapt to impacts and/ or mitigate GHG emissions.

A CCVA developed separately from the NCRP effort,
addresses climate concerns specific to Tribes.
• Energy Independence, Emissions Reduction, Job
Creation, and Climate Adaptation Initiative describes
the NCRP-preferred approach of addressing
state and regional “climate change” needs with a
promising program aimed at aggressively promoting
local green energy independence and job creation.
• Climate and Natural Resource Analyses and Planning
for the North Coast Resource Partnership provides
analysis and planning support for climate change
adaptation, forest ecology and watershed hydrology,
and groundwater analyses and planning.
• Biomass Energy in the North Coast Region: An
Assessment and Strategy for Ecologically and Socially
Compatible Development presents a strategy
for how the region might advance biomass
utilization strategies, with particular focus on
biomass-to-energy projects, that are compatible
with protecting and enhancing water resources,
terrestrial habitat conditions, forest health and
resilience and climate objectives while also
improving the economic stability of the region
and advancing the overall environmental and
energy supply goals of California as a whole.
• Climate Mitigation Report for the North Coast Region
of California presents a suite of integrated strategies NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 103
aimed to improve the region’s inefficient or failing
infrastructure, to increase its resilience and reduce
emissions; and reduce GHG emissions from major
energy sources, as well as non-energy sectors.
• Carbon Inventory Estimates for the North Coast
Resource Partnership presents an inventory
estimate of carbon stocks in landcover
classes throughout the study area.
• NCRP Integrated Strategic Plan: Memo for
Technical Area 1 — Climate Change Mitigation, GHG
Emissions Reduction and Energy Independence
Report provides an overview of the energy
picture for the seven counties that comprise the
North Coast Resources Partnership (NCRP).
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Roadmap
for the North Coast Resource Partnership
Region establishes a set of key criteria,
and utilizes it to develop a GHG emissions
accounting roadmap for the NCRP region.
• North Coast Regional Climate Adaptation Report
is an effort to provide insight into the projected
effects of climate change on the region so that
North Coast communities can better prepare
for and respond to life in a changing world.

2.11.5 SEA LEVEL RISE
Rising sea levels threaten thousands of California
coastal residents and billions of dollars’ worth of
coastal property with increased risk of flooding, storm damage, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, and
wetland loss (NRC, 2012; CNRA, 2009; IPCC, 2007).

Consequently, California’s coastal communities will
need to build greater resilience to sea level rise by
minimizing potential vulnerabilities and adapting to
new sea level conditions. When considering different
adaptation strategies to implement, there will likely be tradeoffs between preservation of coastal ecosystems that need to migrate landward to survive inundation and the
protection of existing development and property rights.

It is important to note that changes in sea level are
not consistent around the globe, or even along the
California coast for that matter. This is due to several factors, including changes in land elevation, atmospheric pressure, and ocean circulation (IPCC 2013). As a result, sea level might be observed rising in one location
while falling in another. For this reason, scientists
track both changes in sea level and land elevation to
determine relative sea level change, or the change in
sea level relative to the land around it (NRC 2012). It is the rate of relative sea level change that is of most importance to communities potentially affected by
coastal flooding, including those in the North Coast.

In Crescent City, for instance, the land is being uplifted via plate tectonics faster than sea level is currently
rising, such that relative sea level has been falling by about 0.4 inch (0.97 mm) per year (Northern Hydrology
& Engineering 2015). At the same time, just 80 miles
south of Crescent City, in and around Humboldt Bay,
the land is subsiding due to plate tectonics, so relative sea level is rising faster there than anywhere else in
California, at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.23 inch (2.5 to 5.8 mm) per year (Patton et. al. 2014, Northern Hydrology & Engineering 2015, Russell and Griggs 2012). As a result, by the end of the century, sea levels in Humboldt Bay
are expected to be 19 to 68 inches (49 to 174 cm) higher than they are today (Northern Hydrology & Engineering,
2015). This is clearly an issue for the communities in
and around Humboldt Bay, and the cities of Eureka and
Arcata, at 39 feet (12 m) and 23 feet (7 m) above sea
level respectively, and the County of Humboldt have
already begun planning for the effects of sea level
rise on the region (Laird 2015, Laird 2016, Humboldt
County 2014). Coastal areas of Mendocino, Del Norte,
and Humboldt counties are expected to experience
about an 18% increase in land vulnerable to a 100-year
flood, while a 14% increase in land at risk of a 100-year flood is predicted around Bodega Bay on the southern
Sonoma coast (NCRP 2014, Reza Environmental 2016).

Planned retreat, also called strategic retreat,
managed realignment, managed retreat, set back,
or de-embankment, entails establishing thresholds
to trigger removal and relocation of development
threatened by rising sea levels. As part of this
process, actively maintained defenses against storm
surge and sea level rise will most likely need to be
adjusted over time, typically further inland and to
higher ground, in response to encroaching waters.

Planning for strategic retreat entails first identifying vulnerable properties and structures and then developing incentives, such as regulatory, tax, and market-based
tools, to encourage and achieve realignment. These
options, as identified by NOAA (Eastern Research Group, 2013), are listed below and described in more detail in the North Coast Regional Climate Adaptation Report.
• Transfer of Development Rights
• Zoning and Development Standards
• Purchase of Development Rights
• Rolling Easements
• Fee-Simple Acquisitions
• Preservation of Open Space
• Infrastructure Relocation
• Options for saltwater intrusion adaptation include:
104 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 • Diversify options for water supply
and expand current sources
• Aquifer recharge by freshwater injection
• Increase treatment capabilities to contend with
significant reductions in groundwater quality
• Installation of low-head dams across tidal estuaries
to impede the upstream movement of the salt
water-freshwater boundary in tidal estuaries
• Model and monitor groundwater conditions
• Monitor surface water conditions including
discharge, snowmelt, reservoir or stream level,
upstream runoff, streamflow, instream temperature
and overall water quality to incorporate into models
of projected supply or receiving water quality

2.11.6 FLOODING AND VOLATILE WEATHER
A recent report by the Ocean Protection Council indicates that as climate change accelerates over the course of
the century and the rate of freshwater input from the
major ice sheets increases, sea levels are expected to
rise faster along the California coast than elsewhere
in the United States (Griggs et al., 2017). Further, as sea levels rise, the rate at which the region’s dunes
and coastal bluffs are eroded is expected to accelerate (NRC 2010, RCPA 2016, Russell and Griggs 2012).

Along with sea level rise comes projected flooding of low lying coastal areas. This has the potential to redefine the coastline and impact the lives of many of those who live by it. Without proactive adaptive planning, low lying homes, businesses, and infrastructure can become badly
damaged or destroyed, resulting in severe structural and economic losses, displacement of individuals, and the
potential release of contaminants into the environment.

Low-lying roads that are not decommissioned and
rerouted in anticipation of sea level rise may become
impassable, impacting the flow of goods and people
and delaying emergency response times. The ocean’s
slow advance inland can also cause streams to “back
up” resulting in worse flooding upriver from the coast.

Moreover, when coastal flooding is combined with
extreme high tides and/or storm surge (i.e., an increase in sea level during large storm events), the extent of
flood impacts can be made substantially worse.

Also, at risk due to increased weather volatility are
the region’s dams. Trinity Dam has been identified
as particularly vulnerable to extreme flooding events
because it has no emergency spillway and the spillway
is does have is insufficient for a major flood. In the case of failure, about 3,500 people downstream would be
at risk. The dam is owned and operated by the Bureau
of Reclamation, which in 2000, reported that the dam
cannot safely pass the probable maximum flood (PMF).

The PMF is the largest precipitation event that could
conceivably occur, making it an extremely rare event,
but ever more likely in the face of climate change,
which is causing more intense storms, more rain
instead of snow and faster snowpack melting, putting
increasing strains on the regions dam infrastructure.

The Bureau of Reclamation has winter operations
restrictions to ensure there’s enough room in the
reservoir to accommodate peak inflows and flood
events, but the calculations for peak inflows and flood events were developed 41 years ago and should be
updated with more current information (Jacobs 2017).

To better understand the potential for future flooding
in the North Coast, Lisa Micheli, Celeste Dodge, and
Lorraine Flint modelled changes in flood frequency for
three North Coast drainages under different rainfall and temperature scenarios using annual flows that exceed
the 90th percentile per decade as an indicator of flood (see Table 9). According to their findings, the frequency of flooding is expected to increase in all three drainages under moderate and high rainfall scenarios and decrease under a low rainfall scenario. While it is not surprising that increased precipitation under a “warm, high rainfall” NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Section 2 — North Coast Region 105
scenario is likely to generate more frequent flooding,
the degree to which flood frequency could increase
is significant. Further, because the “warm, moderate
rainfall” scenario used in the model is based on 30-year precipitation averages comparable to baseline and recent conditions, the data suggest flood frequency in the North Coast is likely to increase based on warming alone.

TABLE 9. PROJECTED ANNUAL DISCHARGE EXTREMES FOR EEL RIVER, REDWOOD CREEK, AND RUSSIAN RIVER: HIGH RUNOFF FREQUENCY Basin
Historical
Record
(Time Period
Varies)
Hot, Low
Rainfall
(2010-2099)
Warm,
Moderate
Rainfall
(2010-2099)
Warm, High
Rainfall
(2010-2099)
Annual Cumulative Discharge Exceedances
of the 90th Percentile per Decade
Eel River 5 1 12 28
Redwood
Creek 10 5 19 29
Russian River 8 2 9 29
(Micheli et al., 2016)
The usual approach using structural/ built management
measures is now thought to provide less effective
protection from floods, compared to use of natural
infrastructure systems (e.g. a continuous riparian
buffer of native vegetation) (Horner 2002). The further reduction in natural hydrologic functioning via the
construction of additional hardened flood control
channels is not viewed, in most cases, as supportive
of water quality goals (DWR and USACE 2013).

2.11.7 LANDSCAPE SCALE DROUGHT
It is the forecast of drought that generates more concern in this country and around the globe than any other
climate change impact (Pew Research Center, 2017).

That may be because unlike rising seas or volatile
weather, the impacts of drought on the landscape are
so apparent and can be incredibly far reaching. Not
only do droughts make water levels in lakes, reservoirs, streams, and groundwater basins drop, sometimes
significantly, they can create food shortages, spur
wildfires, throttle economies, and drastically alter the living environment and people’s lives (NOAA 2017).

As temperatures in the North Coast continue to rise
throughout the 21st century (Micheli et al. 2018, NOAA
2016, Cayan et al. 2009), they are expected to influence the frequency and severity of droughts in several ways, such as extended dry seasons, decreased snowpack,
earlier snowmelt, increased evapotranspiration, greater variability in runoff and recharge, and increased water demand (Micheli et. al. 2018, Cayan et al. 2009).

Although nobody knows for certain how much
more often droughts will occur, the climate change
vulnerability assessment prepared for the region
indicates that drought frequency in the North Coast
could increase approximately 50% by the end of the
century (2NDNATURE, 2013). While this is hardly
encouraging, other forecasts are even less optimistic.

For example, Micheli, Dodge, and Flint evaluated the
same North Coast drainages for drought frequency
that they assessed for changes in flood frequency,
this time modelling annual flows that fall below
the 10th percentile per decade, and found that the
frequency of very low annual flows (i.e., drought) could potentially double in two of the three drainages by the end of the century with no change in precipitation.

But it is not simply the incidence of drought-like
conditions that matters when it comes to understanding
how this could affect the region. This is because
some droughts are not as severe or long lasting as
others, and it is the strain on the environment and
agriculture created by drought that is so potentially
detrimental. For this reason, Micheli, Dodge, and
Flint also modelled climatic water deficit (CWD), or
the amount potential evapotranspiration exceeds
available spoil moisture, for several watersheds in
the region. Because CWD integrates the combined
effects of rainfall, air temperature, topography, and
soil structure to estimate where and by how much
water demand will exceed availability, it serves
as an excellent measure of drought stress.

2.11.8 INCREASED FIRE RISK
Although there are several factors that affect the size and frequency of wildfires, the progressively warmer
temperatures and associated drought stress projected
for the region are expected to contribute to an increase in wildfire size and frequency that climate models predict will worsen over time (Krawchuck and Moritz 2012,
Yoon et al. 2015). Micheli, Dodge, and Flint note that
the probability of fire over a 30-year period is expected to increase across the region on average by 40% by
the end of the century (Micheli et al. 2018). Given that 15 of California’s 20 largest wildfires over an 85-year period have occurred since 2000 and 13 of the top 20
most destructive fires have occurred since 2007 (CAL
FIRE 2019 a & b), it’s not surprising that some scientists believe that the combined effects of increased heat and drought are already contributing to larger and more
frequent wildfires in California (Krawchuck and Moritz
2012, Yoon et al. 2015). Interestingly, however, a 2012 study of the Klamath, Mendocino, Shasta-Trinity, and
Six Rivers National Forests found that, although wildfire size and frequency have been trending upward, the
severity of wildfires has not been (Miller et al. 2012).

This lead the study’s authors to conclude that, under
appropriate conditions, fire could be more extensively
used in the region to achieve management objectives.
106 Section 2 — North Coast Region
NORTH COAST RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PLAN Phase IV, January 2020 Wildfire Hazard Potential