Project Funding and Support by California State Coastal Conservancy
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan
April 2003
Jenny Griffin Mendocino Land Trust
Thomas Scharffenberger Scharffenberger Land Planning & Design
A Project of the Mendocino Land Trust Mendocino County, California
Prepared by: Jenny Griffin – Project Manager, Mendocino Land Trust Thomas Scharffenberger – Scharffenberger Land Planning & Design
GIS:
Meagan Leslie and Brian Cohen – GreenInfo Network
Advisory Committee: Doug Albin – Department of Fish and Game Shirley Eberly – Redwood Coast Land Conservancy Bill Lemos – SONAR (School of Natural Resources) Moira McEnespy – State Coastal Conservancy Wendy Millet – The Nature Conservancy Rich Owings – Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens Renee Pasquinelli – Department of Parks and Recreation Dean Strupp – Dean Strupp and Associates (Appraisals) Dorothy Tobkin – Mendocino Coast Audubon Society Timothy Walls – Resource Conservation District Rixanne Wehren – Coastal Land Trust Doug Zanini – Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services
Plan Reviewers: Karyn Gear – North Coast Program Manager, State Coastal Conservancy Ruskin Hartley – Senior Conservation Planner, Save-the-Redwoods League Sonia Jacques – Senior Project Manager, The Trust for Public Land Ken Karlstad – Executive Director, Mendocino Land Trust Chris Kelly -- California Program Director, The Conservation Fund Scott Koller – Associate Wildlife Biologist, Department of Fish and Game Craig Mayer – Senior Conservation Planner, The Nature Conservancy
Plan Approval: Mendocino Land Trust Board of Trustees Adopted by Resolution, April 11, 2003 James W. McCummings, President
Cover Photos: John Birchard (www.birchardphoto.com)
______
For more information, or to order additional copies, contact: Mendocino Land Trust, Post Office Box 1094, Mendocino, CA 95460 (707) 962-0470 www.mendocinolandtrust.org
Table of Contents
Project Summary……………………………………………………………………………………1 Project Purpose and Planning Process………………………………………………………...4 Setting and Project Area…………………………………………………………………………..5 Critical Resources…………………………………………………………………………………..6 A. Biological Resources……………………………………………………………………6 B. Working Landscapes……………………………………………………………………9 B1. Agriculture……………………………………………………………………...9 B2. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries…………………………………..10 B3. Forestlands…………………………………………………………………...12 C. Public Coastal Access…………………………………………………………………13 D. Cultural and Historic Resources……………………………………………………...14 E. Scenic Resources……………………………………………………………………...15 Significant Land Use, Regulations and Designations, Patterns and Trends…………..17 A. Land Use………………………………………………………………………………..17 B. Land Use Regulations and Designations……………………………………………17 C. Patterns of Ownership…………………………………………………………………18 D. Economic and Regulatory Trends That Will Influence Land Use…………………19 Significant Threats to Resources………………………………………………………………22 A. Decline in Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat………………………………………22 B. Conversion of Agricultural Land and Working Forests to Residential and Other Land Use………………………………………………………………………..23 C. Overuse of Recreational Resources Resulting in Decline of Habitat…………….24 D. Other Threats…………………………………………………………………………..24 Conservation Opportunities and Partnerships………………………………………………25 A. Improving Water Quality through Watershed-Wide Planning Initiatives………….25 B. Helping Working Forests Become More Sustainable………………………………26 C. Providing Farmers with Incentives to Protect Resources………………………….28 D. Restoring Fish Migration by Removing Barriers……………………………………29 E. Increasing Coastal Access and Connecting Existing Public Land………………..29 Conservation Objectives, Goals, Threats and Strategies……………………...…………..31 Priority Conservation Areas……………………………………………………………………..41 Implementation Plan………………………………………………………………………………49
Figures Map Figure 1: Biological Resources (Sheets 1-5)…………………………...Following page 16 Map Figure 1A: Key to Sensitive Species and Communities……………….Following page 16 Map Figure 2: Forestry (Sheets 1-5) …………….……………………………Following page 16 Map Figure 3: Scenic, Agricultural, Recreational, and Cultural Resource Map (Sheets 1-5)…………… …………….………………..Following page 16 Map Figure 3A: Key to Cultural and Historic Resources…………………....Following page 16 Map Figure 4: Priority Conservation Area Composite Map…………………Following page 48 Priority Conservation Areas (Sheets 1-5) ……………..……Following page 48 Map Figure 5: Implementation Plan……………………………………………Following page 61
Tables Table 1: Mendocino County Shoreline Ownership and CCT………………………………….14 Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies……….32 Table 3: Summary of Priority Conservation Area Resources and Scores…………………...42 Table 4: Three to Five Year Implementation Plan by Priority Conservation Area…………..56 Table 5: Three to Five Year Implementation Plan Budget Summary………………………...61
References………………………………………………………………………………………….62
Appendices Appendix 1: Contact Information (Advisory Committee and Other Contributors)…………...65 Appendix 2: Mendocino County Access Offers…………………………………………………68 Appendix 3: Mendocino Winegrowers Alliance, Forest Conversion Resolution…………….73 Appendix 4: Potential Funding Sources…………………………………………………………75 Appendix 5: Summary of Critical Resources Protected by Implementation Plan Actions….81 Appendix 6: Mendocino Coast Natural Resources: Notes From A Birder…………………..82 Appendix 7: Water Export Resolution, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors…………..88 Appendix 8: Conservation Groups Active in the Mendocino County Coastal Zone………...89 Appendix 9: GIS Sources of Information………………………………………………………...93
Project Summary
Mendocino County’s coast exemplifies the state legislature’s definition of the coastal zone as a “distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people.”1 Famous for its spectacular rocky shoreline, commercial fisheries, and productive forests, the Mendocino coast is also home to many other ecological riches, from un-dammed coastal streams supporting endangered anadromous fish, to an unusually high diversity of rare species, to celebrated panoramic views along scenic Highway 1.
Mendocino County’s unique combination of coastal resources has been recognized as significant by a number of international, national and regional conservation organizations. The redwood region, which includes the Mendocino coast, was recognized as a “globally significant ecoregion” in an assessment by the World Wildlife Fund.2 The Worldwide Fund for Nature,3 National Geographic Society, 4 and Audubon Society have all recognized the coast for its wealth of biological resources.5 Recent regional studies by The Nature Conservancy and Save-the- Redwoods League have designated a number of Mendocino’s coastal watersheds as high priorities for conservation. Biological and scenic areas throughout the coast have been designated “Special Treatment Areas” by the California Coastal Commission.6 Mendocino County’s Garcia River was the site of the State’s first TMDL implementation project to protect water quality, 7 and many other federal, state, and local projects are underway to study and restore significant watersheds. The resource values of the Mendocino coast are also evidenced by the establishment of state parks, forests, reserves and preserves, including Sinkyone Wilderness State Park, MacKerricher State Park, Jackson Demonstration State Forest, Jug Handle State Reserve, Point Cabrillo Reserve, Caspar Headlands State Reserve, Russian Gulch State Park, Van Damme State Park, and Navarro Beach State Park, in addition to recent acquisitions including those at Wesport, Seaside Beach, South Noyo Bluffs, Caspar Headlands, Navarro Point, Big River, and Hearn Gulch.
Resources of the Mendocino coast are primarily threatened by human activities. The most significant threats include:
· Timber and agricultural practices which result in the impairment of water quality and the decline of salmonid and other aquatic species
1 State of California, California Coastal Act of 1976, Sec. 30001(a) 2 T.H. Ricketts, et al, Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment, 1999 3 Global 200 (Olson and Dinerstein, 1998), A Science-Based Global Ranking of the Earth’s Most Outstanding Habitats, World Wildlife Fund [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 1
· Reduction in Late Seral Redwood/Douglas fir forest habitat and the decline of wildlife and aquatic species dependent upon this forest successional stage · Poorly designed or maintained roads, resulting in water quality impairment and the decline of salmonid and other aquatic species · Inappropriate residential development, resulting in fragmentation of sensitive habitats, deteriorated cultural and historic sites and scenic resources, and the loss of opportunities to provide public coastal access and California Coastal Trail connections · Decline in forest cover,8 and conversion of agricultural and forested lands to residential and other land uses · Highly concentrated and/or improperly managed public coastal access, resulting in the reduction and/or degradation of sensitive coastal habitats and species.
The Mendocino Land Trust prepared the “Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan” (the Plan), sponsored by the State Coastal Conservancy, in conjunction with Scharffenberger Land Planning & Design and with the assistance of an advisory committee that included local and statewide conservation organizations, state and county agencies, private landowners, and local experts. The Plan was developed specifically to identify: · Critical resources of the Mendocino coast · Threats to critical resources · Priority conservation areas · Strategies for resource protection and enhancement, and for public access consistent with the protection of resources.
The primary long-term Plan goals are to protect and restore, where feasible, natural communities, working landscapes, and scenic viewsheds within Mendocino County’s most significant coastal watersheds and coastal terraces, and to enhance public access. This vision includes: healthy watersheds hosting coho, steelhead and other sensitive species at historic levels; economically viable and biologically compatible working forest and farmlands; protected wildlife corridors; increased public access to coastal bluff-tops, beaches and coves; and a system of trails linking communities, parks, preserves and coastal recreational sites, with appropriate safeguards for sensitive habitats.
To make this vision a reality, the following immediate actions are recommended: · Establish a model working forest conservation easement program in two critical salmonid watersheds · Acquire fee title (i.e., land purchase) or conservation easements on habitat- rich parcels in five significant coastal terrace areas, and secure funding for
8 Forest cover is one of three measures used to assess and describe the condition of California forests. (The Legacy Project, A Resource Conservation Strategy, Initial Assessment of the Health and Condition of California’s Lands and Natural Resources, December 2002)
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 2
on-going stewardship of acquisition lands · Acquire trail corridors to complete important segments of the California Coastal Trail, and either trail or wildlife corridors between public lands · Restore and enhance natural habitats, including removal of significant fish barriers · Provide incentives and assistance to farmers and timberland owners to improve management practices and resource protection · Research coastal wildlife corridors for purposes of future acquisition · Provide funding for Plan implementation and coordination, as well as early project development · Raise the visibility of Mendocino County’s coastal resources on local, regional and state levels to secure political support for funding conservation programs.
This is a critical time to protect Mendocino County’s coastal resources. There are a number of local, state, and national organizations and agencies committed to protecting and restoring the County’s coastal resources, and providing increased public access to the coast. The recent success of the Big River project has put Mendocino County’s coastal resources on the map with major conservation funding agencies and foundations.
Recent application of Clean Water Act9 regulations have required that local communities, landowners and agencies work together on a watershed basis to solve major interrelated issues of impaired water quality, deteriorating forests and reduced salmonid populations. Local and national conservation organizations can play a key role in these efforts by working with agencies and willing landowners to create model conservation projects and incentive programs that encourage conservation efforts throughout the region.
Additionally, increased public input into timber harvest plans, the deteriorated condition of working forests, and escalating land values will increase pressures to convert working forests to other land uses. These pressures may provide an opportunity for local and national conservation organizations to partner with forest landowners to find solutions that encourage long-term sustainable forestry practices.10
Finally, although the State economy has recently weakened, there are significant opportunities to obtain conservation funding from state agencies through the passage of recent bond initiatives. Some of the most recent priorities for state and federal funding programs are related to water quality protection and restoration of fish habitat, both key elements of the Plan. Additional sources of funding include private foundations, conservation-minded individuals, and donations of easements or fee title by local landowners. (See Appendix 4 for a summary of potential funding sources.)
9 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (as amended 1977), commonly known as the “Clean Water Act” 10 See discussion of “sustainable” on page 26
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 3
Project Purpose and Planning Process
The purpose of this Plan is to guide future conservation activities on the Mendocino coast. The planning process included the following key steps and provisions: · Identify critical resources, and criteria for selecting priority conservation areas · Create a GIS Conservation Lands Database to provide a working inventory of coastal resources, priority conservation areas, and key properties within conservation areas · Develop strategies and specific actions to protect priority conservation areas · Initiate contact with key landowners within priority conservation areas to assess interest and identify conservation strategies · Provide flexibility for future conservation opportunities.
The Plan was developed with numerous GIS layers including vegetation, rare species, floodplains, soils, topography, roads, public and private ownerships, aerial photographs, and watershed boundaries.11 Much of this information is reflected in the following maps, each of which includes five sheets (necessary to show the entire Mendocino Coast at a reasonable scale): Biological Resources (Map Figure 1); Forestry (Map Figure 2); and Scenic, Agricultural, Recreational, and Cultural Resources (Map Figure 3).
Mendocino County’s official Land Use Plan maps were also used to help with analyses, as were recently prepared regional studies by The Nature Conservancy12 and Save-the-Redwoods League.13 The collection of these data in an easily updated geographic information system represents a “first” for Mendocino County: the synthesis of all known, verifiable resource information onto one set of digitized maps, made publicly available for planning and conservation efforts.
To ensure the Plan had the benefit of the best and most current information regarding coastal resources and conservation needs, four workshops were conducted with a 12-member advisory committee and numerous interviews were conducted with additional experts (see Appendix 1).
11 Source of GIS data is included as Appendix 9 12 California North Coast Ecoregional Plan, June 2001, The Nature Conservancy 13 Strittholt, Heilman, and Noss, 1999, A GIS-Based Model for Assessing Conservation Focal Areas for the Redwood Ecosystem, Conservation Biology Institute
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 4
Setting and Project Area
The Mendocino coast lies within the North Coastal Basin Bioregion. It extends 131 miles between Humboldt and Sonoma Counties, from the Upper Mattole River Watershed in the north to the Gualala River Watershed in the south. One-third of Mendocino County’s population of 86,26514 resides west of the Coastal Mountain Range. Roughly at the center of the coastline is the historic town of Mendocino, an artist’s community and tourist Mecca. It lies approximately 165 miles north of San Francisco. Fort Bragg, 10 miles north of Mendocino, is the coast’s largest community (population 7,10015), the second largest city in the County, and is the hub for goods and services on the coast. Several small historic towns (Westport, Caspar, Albion, Elk, Manchester, Point Arena and Gualala) are connected by Highway 1. The northern-most fifth of the coastline is part of the remote and ruggedly beautiful Sinkyone Wilderness State Park and King Range Conservation Area, primarily accessible by hiking trails.
The primary geographic focus of the Plan is the 93,251-acre Mendocino County coastal zone, which is a relatively narrow strip of land along the entire coastline, generally one mile in width (with extensions further inland at significant watersheds). The Plan also includes resources immediately offshore. Since many important coastal resources are dependent on the health of entire coastal watersheds, the Plan focuses on these watersheds as well. Some, such as the Big River, Navarro River, and Garcia River watersheds, extend far beyond the relatively narrow coastal zone boundary. The coastal zone combined with priority areas identified outside the coastal zone is referred to as the “study area,” which totals approximately 784,500 acres. Data collection was focused primarily within the coastal zone proper, and was limited in the areas outside that boundary.
Two significant coastal watersheds - the Mattole River and the South Fork of the Gualala River - are largely outside of Mendocino County. These are identified as two-county priorities containing significant resources to be included in future implementation plans.
14 Census 2000 15 Labor Market Information Division of the California Employment Development Department, “County Snapshot – Mendocino, 2002,” [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 5
Critical Resources
The Plan identifies the following categories of critical coastal resources, or conservation targets, throughout the study area: · Biological · Working Landscapes o Agriculture o Fisheries o Working Forests · Public Coastal Access · Cultural and Historic · Scenic
A general discussion of each critical resource category is below. A detailed summary of goals, objectives, threats, and strategies for each category is included as Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (page 32).
A. Biological Resources (please refer to Map Figure 1, Biological Resources, and Map Figure 1A, Key to Sensitive Species and Communities, in the following pages)
The Mendocino coast supports a large amount of biological diversity for a relatively small area. Resources include 44 listed plant species, 26 listed animal species, and 10 special plant communities (as listed by the California Natural Diversity Data Base [CNDDB]). See Table 2 (beginning on page 32) for a summary of these communities, habitats, and species.
Other unique biological resources include:
· A rich diversity of conifer communities including redwood, Douglas fir, grand fir, bishop pine, Sitka spruce (including the southernmost stand) and pygmy forest that thrives on older marine terraces typified by Podzol soils.16
o Pygmy forest vegetation covers about 1,050 acres in the coastal zone, including areas in public ownership at Jug Handle State Reserve and Van Damme State Park.17 Pygmy forest, a relatively rare dwarf conifer community, results from a combination of impoverished, acidic soils with very poor drainage caused by an underlying hardpan. In pygmy forests, Mendocino cypress, Bolander pine, Bishop pine, and even redwood may grow only three to ten feet in100 years.18 Several rare species are associated with Pygmy forests, including Mendocino
16 Teresa Sholars, Biology 19, Rare Plants and Species of Special Concern Workbook, Fall 2002 17 County of Mendocino, Mendocino County General Plan, Coastal Element, November 5, 1985, revised March 11, 1991 18 Bob Lorentzen, Richard Nichols, Hiking the California Coastal Trail, Volume One, Oregon to Monterey
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 6
Manzanita, Mendocino Cypress, Coast Lily and Bolander Pine.19
o The redwood region, as mentioned on page one, was recognized as a globally significant ecoregion in an assessment by the World Wildlife Fund. Although not in danger of extinction as a species, old-growth redwood forests have declined in area by more than 95 percent since European settlement and are in danger of being lost as an intact, functioning system.20 Dominant among the coastal zone’s 55,518 acres of forestland, redwoods can grow more than 100 meters tall, five meters thick, and over 2,000 years old. Coast redwoods are among the largest living organisms on earth, and support a unique assemblage of flora and fauna.
· Areas of Special Biological Significance, designated by the State Water Quality Control Board, are the King Range National Conservation Area, the Pygmy Forest Ecological Staircase, and Saunders Reef Kelp Beds.21
· Areas of Special Biological Importance, designated by the California Department of Fish and Game, are:
o Heron Rookeries at Fort Bragg, Albion River, and Hathaway Creek
o Seabird Rookeries at Cape Vizcaino Rocks, Cottaneva Rock, Chris Rock, Goat Island, Saddle Point, Nose Rock, Gunderson Rock, White Rock, Sea Lion Rocks, Iverson Point, and Fish Rock
o Osprey Nest Sites near the mouths of most of the County’s streams
o Coastal Wetlands at Cottaneva Creek, Ten Mile River, Inglenook Creek Marsh, Sand Lake and Inglenook Fen, Lake Cleone, Pudding Creek, Noyo River, Caspar Creek, Big River, Albion River, Salmon Creek, Navarro River, Elk Creek, Alder Creek, Brush Creek, Manchester Beach Lagoon, Hunter's Lagoon, Garcia River, Hathaway Creek, and Gualala River
o The Big River Estuary was nominated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Significant California Ecosystem designation.22
· Many significant coastal estuaries, with a combination of saltwater, brackish and freshwater marsh habitats. The most significant, in terms of size, variety, and vulnerability to disruption, are at Ten Mile River, Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, Elk Creek, and Garcia River. The 1991 revised Coastal Element of the County General Plan called for acquisition of the wetlands at the Ten Mile and Big
19 Teresa Sholars, Op. Cit. 20 Save -the-Redwoods League, The Redwood Forest: History, Ecology, and Conservation of the Coast Redwoods, Reed Noss, editor, 2000 21 County of Mendocino, Op. Cit. 22 County of Mendocino, Op. Cit.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 7
Rivers, which the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified among the most productive in the state (wetlands at Big River were subsequently acquired as part of a 7,400-acre purchase in 2002). Both are large and relatively undisturbed, providing essential habitat for wildlife and migratory birds. The rich and productive Garcia River wetland complex includes a close association of salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes; estuaries, sand dunes, sand flats, and riparian vegetation. It is one of the few wintering areas for Tundra Swans along the coast of California and, with Hunters Lagoon to the north, provides an important habitat in the Pacific Flyway for many migratory bird species.23
· Federally threatened bird species include: Marbled Murrelet (also state listed as endangered) at three known locations (Ten Mile, Russian Gulch, and Alder Creek, plus radar detections at Albion River); Northern Spotted Owl throughout conifer areas including second- and third-growth areas (note: one of the highest densities in the State occurs on the westernmost 12,000 acres of the Big River Watershed24); and Western Snowy Plover. Snowy Plovers have not successfully nested on the Mendocino coast in two years due to disturbance by people and pets, but monitors are positioned to guard this season’s most likely nesting location on Ten Mile Beach. The California Audubon Chapter recently identified Important Bird Areas at the following general and preliminary Mendocino coast locations: 1) MacKerricher State Park / Ten Mile River / Bald Hill / Glass Beach; 2) Manchester Beach State Park / Garcia River Estuary / Garcia Flats; and 3) Mendocino North Coast river mouths (including Caspar Creek, Russian Gulch, Little River, Navarro River and Gualala River).25
· Offshore rocks and onshore rocky areas are important locations for seabird and marine mammal rookeries. Five in particular have been designated as major seabird rookeries because they provide habitat for rare species or have at least 100 nests: Cape Vizcaino, Goat Island, Devil's Basin Rocks, White Rock, and Fish Rock. Sea lions and harbor seals use the offshore rocks as rookeries as well, particularly at Bruhel Point, Laguna Point, Goat Island area, Sea Lion Rock, and Fish Rock. These mammals use the offshore rocks near Caspar Headlands, Buckhorn Cove and Devil's Basin as haulout areas--essential for molting, loafing, evading predators and as pupping grounds.26 Other habitats along the immediate shoreline and just offshore include extensive kelp beds, mussel shoals and tide pools. Bruhel Point, just north of Westport, supports a particularly extensive tide pool system. All of these offshore rocks, islands, exposed reefs and pinnacles are protected by the California Coastal National Monument, which was established by presidential proclamation on January 11, 2000. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers the monument, and jointly manages its resources with the
23 County of Mendocino, Op. Cit. 24 Conservation Strategies International, Draft Land Acquisition Evaluation for Department of Fish and Game, 2001 25 Dorothy Tobkin, Mendocino Coast Audubon Society, personal communication, 2003 26 County of Mendocino, Op. Cit.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 8
California Department of Fish and Game and California Department of Parks and Recreation. BLM is in the process of creating a resource management plan for the monument.
· The State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) designated the following areas as Underwater State Parks and Reserves:
o MacKerricher Underwater State Park o Point Cabrillo Underwater State Reserve o Van Damme Underwater State Park o Additional Underwater State Parks are proposed for Mendocino Headlands, Jug Handle and Sinkyone Wilderness.
· Anadromous fish, once abundant in this area, have declined for many years in large part due to habitat destruction (siltation and removal of vegetation), resulting in the federally threatened listing status of Coho, steelhead, and Chinook.27 The most important anadromous fish streams, in terms of miles of use, are the Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia and Gualala Rivers28 (as described under “Fisheries,” page 10). See Table 3 (beginning on page 42) for a summary of fish species and locations.
· Mammals include black-tailed deer, black bear, mountain lion, coyote, bobcat, gray fox, and ringtail. Roosevelt elk were once found throughout the coastal area, but are now found only in the extreme northern portion of the coast (Kings Range National Conservation Area).29
· A summary of coastal resources, from the perspective of a local “birder,” is included as Appendix 6.
B. Working Landscapes
Traditional industries of the Mendocino coast include timber, agriculture, and fishing. Not as economically significant as they once were, these industries continue to influence the resources and character of the Mendocino coast. Each of these working landscapes is discussed below (please also refer to “Economic Trends” beginning on page 19 for a more detailed discussion of that subject).
B1. Agriculture (please refer to Map Figure 3, Scenic, Agricultural, Recreational and Cultural Resources, in the following pages)
Mendocino coast agriculture represents a relatively small portion of the County’s
27 California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, “Conservation Planning,” [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 9
total gross value of agricultural production ($131 million in 2001 – note that no figures are available specific to the coastal area). Coastal agriculture consists primarily of cattle & calves, dairy farms, nursery products, irrigated and range pasture, and specialty vegetable crops including beans, potatoes, and peas. Twenty-two percent of the County’s farmers are registered as organic farmers, the third largest percentage statewide, and the number is growing rapidly.30 Countywide, vegetable production increased faster than wine grape production in recent years. Seventy percent of the County’s vegetable growers are located on the coast (mainly truck farmers, supported partly by farmers’ markets in Fort Bragg and Mendocino).
Two dairies, located in the Manchester farming area, are challenged by TMDL requirements and high transport costs because their sole milk buyer is located on the Sonoma coast. A possible solution to high transport costs is the potential for a local cheese factory on the coast, an idea being explored by the County Development Coordinator.31
Approximately nine percent (8,617 acres) of Mendocino County’s coastal zone is prime agricultural land, and approximately 30 percent (2,548 acres) of these lands are under active agricultural management. Prime and active agricultural lands are concentrated between Elk and Point Arena, particularly in the Manchester farming area, known as a “banana belt” with growing conditions comparable to the Salinas Valley. 32 Approximately 20 percent of eligible prime farmland and 50-60 percent of agricultural lands (active agricultural lands identified by CALVEG) in the coastal zone have been designated as Agricultural Preserve and are under Williamson Act contracts (a program which provides a preferential tax based on agricultural value in exchange for prohibitions to development for a period of 10 years).
According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, total acreage in farms in the County decreased 12 percent between 1992 and 1997 (from 725,118 to 638,566 acres), although during the same period the number of farms increased from 532 to 564.33 All types of farmland declined in amount, but they primarily included the non-irrigated lands and rangelands typical of the coast.
Coastal agricultural lands provide agricultural produce, open space values, and an attractive rural quality of life, all of which can increase the value of nearby properties.
B2. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Commercial fishing played an important role in the formation of the economic base of the Mendocino coast. Noyo Harbor was once a major commercial fishing port.
30 Dave Bengston, Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner, personal communication, March 26, 2003 31 Ibid 32 Ibid 33 USDA, California Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 Census of Agricultural Profile
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 10
For Europeans who settled the area, the natural harbor provided by the Noyo River estuary allowed access to a bounty of salmon in the ocean. Motorized salmon trolling vessels came into use in the 1920’s. Millions of pounds of salmon were caught and brought to market in Fort Bragg. Noyo Harbor remains an important commercial and sport fishing center, but closures related to depletion have dramatically changed its use.34 Currently, about 90 of its berths (40 percent) are taken up by commercial fishing boats – a major decline from five to seven years ago, when commercial boats occupied 75 percent or more of its berths.35
Commercial groundfish species include Cabezon, California sheephead, California scorpionfish, kelp and rock greenlings; and black and yellow, china, gopher, grass and kelp rockfishes. Deepwater fish are mainly dover sole, thorny head, and sable fish, plus petrale and rex sole. Other important commercial industries are crab and urchin, both in relatively good shape due to size limits, the absence of by-catch, and, in the case of crab, a prohibition against harvesting females.
Seasonal commercial harbors are also located at Albion River and Point Arena. The Coastal Act's policies stress the protection of fishing, boating, and necessary support facilities. The Mendocino County General Plan designation of the Noyo and Albion areas as Fishing Villages (FV) also affords some level of protection to these fishing industries.
West Coast fisheries (groundfish stocks and harvests) have significantly declined since the early 1990’s due to fishing pressure and natural changes in ocean conditions. In response, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce declared on January 26, 2000, that a commercial fishery failure exists, leading to the establishment of the Groundfish Disaster Relief Program by the U.S. Congress.36 At the same time, The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) was formed to oversee management plans and adopt federal regulations for numerous commercial and sport fisheries along the West Coast.37 PFMC management recommendations and corresponding federal regulations are anticipated in the very near future. Details of a new restricted access program for California’s nearshore fishery, expected to be launched April 1, 2003, are available online at www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/2002/150nsra_fsor.pdf.
There are many streams in the County's coastal zone used by salmon and steelhead for spawning. The most important anadromous fish streams, in terms of miles of use, are the Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia and Gualala Rivers38 (see Table 3 beginning on page 42 for a summary of species and locations). The major floods of 1955 and 1964 caused substantial damage to fish habitat in some streams
34 KRIS Mendocino, “The Noyo River Basin – A Brief Overview,” [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 11
through sedimentation, debris dams, stream-bank erosion, and loss of streamside vegetation. Recovery has been slow. Timber harvesting, urban development, road construction, and grazing also have had negative impacts on anadromous fish streams. Of particular concern are siltation, vegetation removal, and chemical pollution.
Designated recreational fishing access points include the following;39
· South Kibesillah Fishing Access · Noyo River Fishing Access · Big River · Navarro River Fishing Access · Albion River · Loran Station · Point Arena Light House
Recreational abalone diving is a popular activity on the Mendocino coast, and is regulated and monitored by the Department of Fish and Game. Regulations specify licensing and reporting requirements, season (currently April through November except July), gear restrictions, individual harvest amounts (currently 24 per season – down from 100 only two years ago), daily limits (no more than three per day) and size (not less than seven inches long). Access may be from any public coastal access, and divers frequently launch from local harbors and beaches.
B3. Forestland (please refer to Map Figure 2, Forestry, in the following pages)
Mendocino County is the second-ranked timber county in the state (after Humboldt County) with respect to timber volume and value.40 Put into context: California has more forest land than any state but Alaska, produces nearly 2 billion board feet (equivalent to 132,000 homes) each year, and is the third largest producer of wood products in the nation.41 Redwood, as described on page six (Biological Resources), dominates Mendocino coast forests.
Approximately 59 percent (55,508 acres) of Mendocino County’s coastal zone is forested. Three industrial timber companies own approximately 13 percent of this acreage: Mendocino Redwood Company, Hawthorne Timber Company/LLC, and Soper-Wheeler Company. Between the coastal zone and the coast range, the vast majority of all lands are owned by just two companies – Mendocino Redwood Company and Hawthorne Timber Company/LLC.
39 Designated by California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Conservation Board and the South Central Citizens Advisory Committee (County of Mendocino, Op. Cit.) 40 UC Cooperative Extension [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 12
Mendocino County forestlands, as described by Mendocino Redwood Company, “… have been heavily harvested dating back to the early 1850's by a variety of owners. Historical harvesting was conducted in a shortsighted manner, with a heavy reliance on clearcutting and burning…The abundance and diversity of forestland and aquatic species has also been reduced, especially the currently fragile populations of coho salmon, and marbled murrelets.”42
To analyze working forests and productivity levels, a GIS Forestry Map was prepared. The map shows two factors: annual timber production levels (provided by NRCS soil maps) and aspect (or slope). Forests on northern and eastern slopes are less exposed to sun and coastal winds, and tend to regenerate faster.43 The analysis is preliminary, as it does not take into account other important factors such as: history of timber harvest; existing access and timber harvest roads (most coastal forests are relatively accessible and have roughly the same density of timber harvest roads); sensitive biological habitats (these are shown on the biological resource map); needed buffers surrounding streams, rivers and other habitats; and eastern areas of the larger watersheds. Based on this preliminary analysis, it appears that most coastal forests have relatively high productivity rates, although productivity tapers off at the very northern and southern ends of the Mendocino County coast (especially north of Usal), and in areas further inland. There are pockets of poor productivity within the coastal forests: these typically represent marine terrace Podzol soils, which often support pygmy forest. Although there is not a clear pattern of aspect (coastal streams generally flow from east to west, but take many jogs), there appears to be a large area of northeast-facing slopes with highly productive soils along the north fork of the Gualala River and south fork of the Garcia River, and in similar areas in coastal tributaries to the Navarro River, Albion River, Big River, Noyo River, Pudding Creek and Ten Mile River.
C. Public Coastal Access (please refer to Map Figure 3, Scenic, Agricultural, Recreation and Cultural Resources, in the following pages)
The California Coastal Trail (CCT), a statewide trail planned to extend 1,197 miles from Oregon to Mexico, will include Mendocino County’s 131 miles of shoreline. A signature feature of the state and northern Mendocino County coastline is the “Lost Coast,” mostly accessible only on foot. The Lost Coast includes Sinkyone Wilderness State Park (7,312 acres in total, entirely within Mendocino County, and featuring 27.5 44 miles of trail) and King Range National Conservation Area (1,620 of its’ 54,000 acres are in Mendocino County). Although logged around the turn of the century, these areas provide some of the last remaining true wilderness in California that is adjacent to the coast.45 Other features of the County’s coast and CCT include
42 Mendocino Redwood Company, “MCR Fact Sheet & 4-Year Update,” [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 13
extensive dunes and sandy beaches, dramatic headlands, abundant tide pools, offshore sea-stacks, historic port towns, lighthouses, estuaries, vast stretches of undeveloped coastline, and breathtaking views.
Table 1: Mendocino County’s Shoreline Ownership and CCT Status46 Miles Percentage of Total Public Shoreline 50 38% Private Shoreline 81 62% Total County Shoreline 131 100%
Off-Highway CCT 50 39% Highway 1 CCT 52 40% Secondary Road CCT 26 20% No Data 3 1% Total Existing CCT 131 miles 100%
In addition to the CCT, numerous “spur” trails provide access to coastal areas. A few of these are the result of access offers (or “offers to dedicate” public access easements) that were required of developers in exchange for permits. The California Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, and County Planning Department regulate the process of accepting and opening these accessways. The Coastal Conservancy can also offer technical and/or financial assistance. See Appendix 2 for a complete list of access offers on the Mendocino coast.
Highway 1 (also known as “Route 1”) on the Mendocino coast has been legislatively designated as the Pacific Coast Bike route, and has seasonally high bicycle traffic volumes during the summer months. Recreational travel in general on the 103.5- mile section in Mendocino is expected to increase at three percent per year, uncompounded, during the next 20 years.47 The Department of Transportation plans to work with partners to identify and prioritize non-motorized needs on Route 1 and develop strategies to implement the improvements identified.48
D. Cultural and Historic Resources (please refer to Map Figure 3, Scenic, Agricultural, Recreational and Cultural Resources, and Map Figure 3A, Key to Cultural and Historic Sites, in the following pages)
Abundant cultural and historic resources are found throughout the Mendocino coast. These resources include both Native American sites, and remnants of European settlement such as cemeteries, schoolhouses, railroad lines, and logging camps. Archeological sites were described by Resolution of the County Board of Supervisors as “unique, irreplaceable phenomena of significance in the history of the County and in the understanding of the cultural heritage of our land and of all
46 Lorentzen, Op. Cit. 47 County of Mendocino, Op. Cit. 48 Caltrans, Draft Route Concept Report, Route 1 Corridor, Mendocino County, March 2003
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 14
humankind,”49 deserving of special protection and regulation. Those sites and areas subject to archaeological surveys have been mapped by the California Archaeological Sites Survey, and the data are kept in the Cultural Resources Facility at Sonoma State University. These records, the most complete available, show 79 archaeological sites, distributed mainly along creek and river mouths and near present settlements, particularly between Cleone and Mendocino. The maps also delineate 26 archaeological survey areas ranging from 0.1 to 1,400 acres, only some of which include archaeological sites. To protect sites and private property, the maps are confidential.
According to an archaeologist consulted in the course of the Plan,50 the best way to ensure that archaeological and Native American sacred/cultural resources are given adequate consideration is to improve upon the existing practice of requiring that permit applicants consult Sonoma State University prior to taking actions that could significantly harm them.
Map Figure 3A includes a summary of cultural and historic sites identified in this Plan.
E. Scenic Resources (please refer to Map Figure 3, Scenic, Agricultural, Recreation and Cultural Resources, in the following pages)
Scenic resources of the study area include beaches, dunes, high bluffs, sea-stacks, jutting headlands, wetlands, heavily wooded gulches, grassy upland terraces, pygmy forests, serene river estuaries, and coastal streams. Several 19th century villages, each with a distinct character, complement the natural landscape. The beauty and accessibility of the Mendocino coast have made it a heavily used tourist and recreational area. Scenic resources are the basis of the coast's tourist and retirement economies as well as an attraction to residents in general.
Other sites of visual importance include Special Treatment Areas (STAs). STAs were designated by the California Coastal Commission in 1977 to assure the protection of natural and scenic resources, while at the same time allowing management and orderly harvesting of timber resources. The following designated STAs for the following areas are identified in the Mendocino County Local Coastal Plan (see Coastal Element Land Use Maps for specific STA mapping of each area):
Usal Creek, Rockport Beach, Hardy Creek Knoll, Westport, Ten Mile River, Noyo River, Caspar and Doyle Creeks, Big River, Dark Gulch, Albion River, Navarro River, Navarro to Irish Beach Terrace, Elk Creek, and Gualala River.
STAs also include a designated scenic corridor “along both sides of Highway 1 from Ten Mile River to the Sonoma County line. The designated width of this corridor is a
49 Ordinance No. 1681, adopted 1976 (County of Mendocino, Op. Cit.) 50 Thad Van Bueren, personal communication, September 5, 2002
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 15
minimum of 200 feet running parallel to Highway 1 or inland to the first line of trees nearest the road. However, in no place does the corridor extend more than 350 feet from the shoulder of the road.”51 STA buffer zones were also located adjacent to all publicly owned preserves and recreation areas, including national, state, regional, county, and municipal parks. These buffer zones include those forested areas within the coastal zone within 200 feet of all such publicly owned preserves and recreation areas.
Although the County has designated STAs and “Highly Scenic Areas,” no organization has yet conducted a thorough viewshed analysis of the Mendocino Coast. Since viewshed protection is an important aspect of the Plan, a preliminary mapping of Highway 1 vistas was prepared in the course of Plan development. Rough boundaries of open, mostly undeveloped vistas from Highway 1 were mapped by hand during several site visits, and later digitized to the GIS base maps. These boundaries were later modified with the local expertise of advisory committee members and others.
51 County of Mendocino, Op. Cit.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 16
Significant Land Use, Regulations, Designations, Patterns and Trends
A. Land Use
Land use within the coastal zone, which generally lies within one mile of the coast, includes a mix of forestland (59%), agricultural land concentrated in the Manchester area (2.8%), state, federal, and county public land (18%), and urban uses (1.5%). Beyond the coastal zone the major land use is working forest, with scattered rural residences and several large state parks, preserves, and forests between the City of Fort Bragg and the Navarro River.
Urban land use includes: three commercial fishing harbors (Noyo, Albion, and Point Arena); the unincorporated towns of Westport, Cleone, Caspar, Mendocino, Little River, Albion, Elk, Manchester, and Gualala; and the two incorporated coastal towns of Fort Bragg and Point Arena. Until its recent decommissioning, the Georgia- Pacific Lumber Mill, located on the Fort Bragg Headlands, was the only significant industry on the immediate coast.
B. Land Use Regulations and Designations
The portions of Mendocino County that lie within the coastal zone are regulated by the Mendocino County Coastal Element and General Plan, and by the California Coastal Commission. Land use outside of the coastal zone is regulated by the County’s General Plan and supplemental zoning and subdivision ordinances.
The majority of the coastal zone falls within two County land use classifications: “Forest Lands – Coastal” and “Range Lands.” These lands have a minimum lot size of 160 acres. Most of the lands that are designated Forest Lands are also designated Timber Production Zone (TPZ). These lands are taxed at a preferential rate based on the capacity of the soil to produce trees. Prior to timber production zoning, forestland was taxed based on standing timber, which created a tax incentive to harvest. The primary permitted use on TPZ land is timber production and related uses, plus one single-family residence per legal lot. Conversions to other uses are regulated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, State Board of Forestry, County Board of Supervisors, and by the California Coastal Commission. To date, very few TPZ conversions have been permitted in Mendocino County. Timber harvests are regulated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, with review by State and Federal Agencies where there are potential impacts to threatened and endangered species, water quality or other critical resources.
Some coastal areas between the towns of Elk and Point Arena have an “Agriculture” designation. The major corresponding land use allowed is agricultural production, along with one single-family residence per legal lot. Minimum lot size is 60 acres. As described earlier, only about 20 percent of the eligible prime farmland on the
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 17
coast is designated as Agricultural Preserve through the Williamson Act (or California Land Conservation Act of 1965).
State Parks, preserves, and forests have an “Open Space – Coastal” designation. The major land use allowed is landscape preservation, associated with park and open space use, light agriculture and low impact recreation.
The “Rural Residential” designation occurs within and surrounding towns and villages. It allows for single-family residences, with a minimum parcel size ranging from 1 to 10 acres. Most of the coastal zone between Fort Bragg and the town of Mendocino that is not public land is designated as Rural Residential, as well as the coastal area west of Highway 1 between Saunders Landing and Gualala.
“Remote Residential” allows for single-family residences on lot sizes ranging from 20 to 40 acres. Prior to the Coastal Act and implementation of the Coastal Element of the County General Plan, a few large areas of the Mendocino coast were subdivided into 20-acre parcels. One of these subdivisions is the Westport Beach Subdivision, which includes most of the area east of Highway 1 between Little Juan Creek and DeHaven Creek. Other areas include headlands north and south of the Albion River mouth (west of Highway 1), south of Point Arena near Moat Creek, and interior areas south of Schooner Gulch.
In the recently adopted Fort Bragg General Plan Update, potential annexation areas are shown to the north and south of the City. Any annexations will require minimal fiscal impact to the City and will require the construction of all necessary infrastructure. The General Plan requires that any changes to the Georgia-Pacific Mill site be dealt with comprehensively in a Specific Plan process. Finally, the Coastal Access section of the City’s General Plan Update identifies a planned looped trail system connecting the Georgia-Pacific mill site, Noyo River and Pudding Creek, the City (at soon to be DPR-owned “Glass Beach”), and MacKerricher State Park (via the Pudding Creek trestle).
C. Patterns of Ownership
The County’s GIS parcel data was used in analyzing ownership patterns. Parcel size in the study area generally follows General Plan designations. Most of the County’s coastal zone has relatively large parcels: 39 percent of coastal zone parcels are greater than 320 acres, and 29 percent are between 20 and 160 acres. Exceptions include towns, the area between Fort Bragg and Mendocino, and the area between Gualala and Saunder’s Point.
Two industrial timber companies, Mendocino Redwood Company and Hawthorne Timber Company/LLC, hold the largest parcels. Both acquired their holdings from other industrial timber companies within the past five years. These two companies own most of the study area outside the coastal zone that is not in public ownership. Other significant industrial timber companies are: 1) Gualala Redwoods Company,
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 18
which owns most of the northern Gualala watershed lands; 2) Coastal Forestlands, whose large holdings stretch across both the Gualala and Garcia watersheds; and 3) Soper-Wheeler, which owns a 3,300+-acre coastal tract south of Usal Creek and 1,000 acres near Point Arena (formerly owned by Hawthorne Timber Company).
The exact number of legal lots is difficult to determine in large ownerships. Pre- existing separate parcels may be recognized by the Certificate of Compliance (CC) process that is a ministerial function of the County Planning Department. Although some resource lands (Williamson Act or TPZ) have limitations on creating parcels by CC that are less than the allowable zoning, no such limitations affect most properties smaller than 160 acres. Thus the exact number of legal lots is difficult to determine but the “perfection” of great numbers of parcels by the CC process would clearly increase the fragmentation of coastal habitat.52
Public ownerships primarily occurs in two types of areas: 1) stretches of very scenic coastline (King Range National Conservation Area, Sinkyone Wilderness State Park, Westport-Union Landing State Beach, MacKerricher State Park, Jug Handle State Reserve, Caspar Headlands State Reserve, Caspar State Beach, Mendocino Headlands State Park, Navarro State Beach, Greenwood State Beach, Schooner Gulch State Beach and Manchester State Park); and 2) forested watersheds (Jackson Demonstration State Forest, Jug Handle State Reserve, Russian Gulch State Park, the Big River Unit of Mendocino Headlands State Park, Van Damme State Park and Dark Gulch). These latter parks and reserves are clustered between the City of Fort Bragg and the town of Little River. There are relatively few public lands south of the Navarro River other than three small state beaches and Manchester Beach State Park.
D. Economic and Regulatory Trends That will Influence Land Use
Consistent with growth projections for California (projected to leap from 33.9 million to 46 million by the year 202053), the popular Mendocino coast will face increasing development pressure. By the year 2020, Mendocino County is projected to reach 116,700, an increase of 35 percent over current figures.54 Local Multiple Listing Service statistics reflect a scarcity of undeveloped residential property on the Mendocino Coast. Land sales by year for undeveloped residential property were 166 in 2000, 117 in 2001, and 112 in 2002. Today’s active inventory of undeveloped residential property is 95-99. For the past three years, therefore, there has been less than a one-year supply of undeveloped land (relative to the current sales rate), in contrast to a seven to ten year supply throughout the early 1990’s when there were generally 300 active land listings and sales were 30-50 per year.55
With the ocean on one side, and large timberland ownerships on the other, there is
52 Jim McCummings, Coast Real Estate, personal communication, March 27, 2003 53 Census 2000 [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 19
very little opportunity to create new parcels, resulting in substantial economic pressure to encroach on forest and agricultural land.
As discussed previously, traditional coastal industries will continue to contribute to the area’s economy; countywide, these industries employ 660 people with an annual payroll of $28 million (sixth on the list of County Industries, with Manufacturing first at over $138 million).56 Tourism, however, has already surpassed traditional coastal industries in economic importance, and creates a growing demand for parks, open space, and recreational opportunities. Support for parks, open space, and recreational opportunities is evident in recent public acquisitions at Westport Headlands, South Noyo Bluffs, Caspar Headlands, Caspar Beach, Navarro Point, Big River, Hearn Gulch, and, in the very near future, Glass Beach (a former City dump). According to the State’s annual report, “Travel Impacts by County,” visitors to Mendocino County spent $325.7 million in 2000, supporting nearly $100 million in payrolls, and 6,210 jobs.57 Total visitor spending increased $66.9 million a year or 26%, between 1996 and 2000.58
Recent low timber prices,59 depleted forests, increased regulations, growing public opposition to non-sustainable timber harvesting, and relatively high prices recently paid for timber lands by industrial timber companies, coupled with increasing land values in the vicinity of urban areas, combine to pressure these companies to accelerate harvest rates, reduce voluntary conservation measures, and consolidate ownerships.
According to The Campbell Group (parent company of Hawthorne Timber Company), current timberland ownership trends include a substantial rise in the volume of timberland transactions since 1995, an increase in the size of properties coming to market, an increased market presence (still, however, representing less than one percent of all pension fund assets), and a three-fold increase in acquisitions by financial investors.60
Conversions of forestland and agricultural lands to residential and other uses are increasingly being considered by timber and agricultural owners as a consequence of economic pressures (see more detailed discussion under “Threats,” below).
The California Forest Practice Act (1973), Timberland Productivity Act (1982), California Environmental Quality Act (1970), Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
56 1999 County Business Patterns for Mendocino, CA, US Census Bureau, [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 20
(1969) and California Endangered Species Act (1984) all strive to protect public resources. These laws and rules require that forest practices protect soil productivity and water quality, that practices be sustainable, and that stocking levels are maintained. These regulations have increased the cost of managing timberland, though many believe they are too weak and/or are not enforced. The balance between economic viability and ecological responsibility will not be easy to reach, but is clearly essential in order to sustain, in the long term, both working and healthy forests.
Finally, the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act have inspired programs to improve water quality and to stem the decline of threatened fish species by providing landowners and agencies opportunities to engage in whole watershed management. Several coastal watersheds are being approached in this manner, which has great potential.
With greater public attention to the protection of coastal resources, and greater collaboration among local and other agencies and organizations, the viability of coastal resources will be enhanced. As described by Peter Douglas, Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission, “We must not take for granted the coast as it exists today. Only public initiative, support and activism are responsible for the coast we know today.”61
61 Lorentzen, Op. Cit.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 21
Significant Threats to Resources
A. Decline in Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat
One of the greatest threats facing Mendocino County’s resources is a decline in the quality of water in coastal streams. Although this decline has affected a broad range of aquatic habitats, it has especially affected populations of anadromous fish species. A recent study by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board found that native coho salmon have declined by 80 to 90 percent from their numbers in the 1940’s. National Marine Fisheries Service data on commercial landings of coho indicate a decline from 3.6 million pounds in 1976 to 11,000 pounds in 1992. Many of Mendocino County’s large coastal watersheds, including the Navarro, Garcia and Gualala, either have no coho left, or have only very small populations. The study by the Regional Board also found steelhead trout numbers to be very low relative to estimates of past numbers. Due to this drastic decline in numbers, several years ago the U.S. Secretary of Commerce listed chinook, coho and steelhead as “threatened” throughout the central and northern coast of California.
In North Coast watersheds, one of the major causes of declining water quality and fish habitat is storm-water runoff and erosion coming from timber and rural residential roads. Other sources of decline in water quality include landslides, agriculture, gravel mining, highways, timber harvest areas, and contamination from septic leaching fields, among others.62
Poor timber harvest practices (particularly in their cumulative effect) can impact fish habitat by elevating stream temperature, primarily as a result of the loss of riparian canopy, and by generating sediment. Sediment in runoff from poorly designed or maintained roads and stream crossings degrades fish habitat by burying the gravels where eggs are laid, preventing oxygen from reaching eggs; by burying stream channels necessary for adult passage to upstream breeding areas; and by burying deep pools, necessary for refuge from predation and from heavy winter flows. The lack of woody debris and deep refuge pools (often formed as a result of large woody debris) are considered by some to pose an even greater threat than temperature increase to these species.63
Barriers to fish passage are another cause of the decline in fish habitat. Some of these barriers are natural, but most are not. The latter include dams and undersized, improperly installed, or un-maintained culverts. See “Restoring Fish Migration by Removing Fish Barriers,” below, for a more detailed discussion of barriers.
Coastal agricultural activities, such as cattle grazing and dairies, may also impact water quality and aquatic habitats. Lack of protective fencing in riparian areas can lead to destruction of riparian vegetation and to stream bank erosion by grazing
62 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Watershed Planning Chapter, January 2002 63 Tom Schott, USDA -NRCS District Conservationist, personal communication, February 24, 2003
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 22
cattle. Dairy waste may also directly affect water quality and aquatic habitats. TMDL studies and remediation may eventually correct these problems: TMDL remediation requires affected landowners to complete property management plans through UC Extension, to map activities within two years, and to correct problems within ten years (or face abatement orders through the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board).
Although there is only a limited amount of crop-growing agriculture on the coast, upper portions of some coastal watersheds support large areas of vineyards and orchards, such as the Anderson Valley in the Navarro watershed. There are also existing and planned vineyard areas in the upper portions of the Greenwood, Garcia and Gualala watersheds.64 Where winter runoff from these vineyards and orchards is not properly managed, fish and other aquatic habitats suffer increased sediment loads and contamination from agricultural chemicals. In drier months, decreased stream flow impacts the health of streams and rivers.
B. Conversion of Agricultural Land and Working Forests to Residential and Other Land Use
As described in “Economic and Regulatory Trends,” above, economic and regulatory pressures on agricultural and timber industries increase the threat of conversions of forested and agricultural lands to residential and other uses. Examples include a recently considered 10,000-acre forest-to-vineyard conversion spanning ridgetops between the Garcia and Gualala watersheds,65 and existing and planned vineyard areas in the upper portions of the Greenwood, Garcia, and Gualala watersheds.66
The cumulative and individual effects of large-scale conversions of forestland and agricultural lands will affect a number of critical resources including:
· Biological: Listed species, sensitive plant communities, wildlife habitat including critical wildlife corridors, and fish and other aquatic habitat. · Scenic Vistas: Pressure is especially great for residential development wherever there are existing or potential views of the ocean, which includes most of the coastal zone. Although land use regulations are relatively strong in the coastal zone, development standards, particularly with regard to scenic viewshed definitions and protection, could be improved. · Existing and Potential Public Access: Many farm and timber landowners currently allow informal public access to fishing and hunting areas, and use of trails. In addition, many of the owners of large working landscapes may be willing, as part of larger acquisition projects, to sell or donate public access to coastal areas and access to significant new sections of the California Coastal Trail. These opportunities may diminish over time as
64 David Evans, Regional Water Quality Control Board, personal communication, January 29, 2003 65 Tom Chorneau, “Company Scales Back Plan for Biggest Vineyard on Coast,” The Press Democrat, January 3, 2003 [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 23
large working landscapes are converted to residential estates, whose owners’ interests in privacy may make it more difficult to negotiate for public access.
While California’s current over-supply of grapes may temporarily lessen pressure for conversion of forests to vineyards, this is a significant issue that planning and regulatory entities and their partners in Mendocino County (including the Mendocino Forest Council) must address. The Mendocino Winegrowers Alliance, a non-profit organization of grape-growers and winemakers allied to develop and promote Mendocino County’s winegrowing industry, 67 passed a resolution in response to this growing threat that discourages forest to vineyard conversions (see Appendix 3).
C. Overuse of Recreational Resources Resulting in Decline of Habitat
Some sensitive coastal habitats are deteriorating because of inappropriate public access and/or because of concentrated public access. Examples include erosion on trails in general and in specific habitats including dunes, headlands, pygmy forest, and riparian areas; vandalism of cultural and historic sites; and reduced nesting habitat for the endangered Snowy Plover. Management should be improved to prevent further decline as public access to coastal areas increases.
D. Other threats
Other threats to Mendocino County’s coastal resources include: · Spread of invasive non-native plant species, such as pampas grass and scotch broom, which compete with native species and decrease biological diversity · Fungal diseases, such as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, leading to loss of species and decline in biological diversity · Loss or destruction of cultural and historic resources by earth moving activities due to an inadequate permit process, lack of enforcement, and the lack of a County Grading Ordinance (which is, however, currently in progress).
67 Mendocino Winegrowers Alliance, “About Us,” [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 24
Conservation Opportunities and Partnerships
Opportunities for protecting Mendocino County coastal resources include both current and potential conservation programs. Several local, state and national conservation organizations are involved in recent projects, including: watershed planning; fish barrier assessments and removal; securing coastal trail access and California Coastal Trail connections; and initiating a coordinated permit program designed as an incentive for best management practices and watershed restoration. Opportunities exist for collaborations on these projects between landowners, conservation organizations, agencies, local communities and watershed groups. A summary of conservation groups active on the Mendocino coast is included as Appendix 8. There are also new state funding sources made available through the passage of Propositions 40 (Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection) and 50 (Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coast and Beach Protection), and through increased state and federal spending for farmland protection (through the California Farmland Conservancy Program and Federal Farmland Protection Program), as well as funding for watershed planning as a result of mandates of the Clean Water Act. A complete list of potential funding sources for Mendocino County coastal projects is provided in Appendix 4. Finally, this is a pivotal time for conservation on the coast. The success of the Big River project has galvanized the local community’s involvement in and commitment to conservation, and has focused agency and foundation interest on Mendocino County’s diverse coastal landscape.
A. Improving Water Quality Through Watershed-Wide Planning Initiatives
A major focus of recent conservation funding programs (including Propositions 40 and 50) is on improving water quality and restoring water sources. Funding priorities tend to be within watersheds where watershed assessments or watershed plans have already been completed. Conservation partners can contribute to the planning process for coastal watersheds by helping to identify critical resources and issues, by targeting appropriate sites, and by identifying funding sources for protection and restoration.
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is in the middle of a five-year strategic planning process, the cornerstone of which is watershed planning. Some of the planning is mandated by Section 303d of the Clean Water Act. In Mendocino County, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies have been completed for all of the major watersheds. The State’s Porter-Cologne Clean Water Act mandates that implementation plans be prepared for impaired water bodies after the TMDL studies are complete. The first of these has been completed for sediment on the Garcia River watershed.68 Additional implementation plans have been initiated on the Ten Mile River Watershed (sediment and temperature) and on the Noyo, Big, and Albion River Watersheds (sediment only). These studies and plans attempt to bring
68 Available online
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 25
stakeholders together, to sponsor both projects and incentives designed to improve water quality and restore fish populations, and to bring landowners in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
In addition, the California Resources Agency launched the North Coast Watershed Assessment Program (NCWAP) in 1999, a multi-agency initiative to develop consistent, scientifically credible information to guide landowners, agencies, watershed groups, and other stakeholders in their efforts to protect and improve stream habitat conditions in the watersheds of the North Coast. NCWAP’s priority watersheds include the Mattole, Big, Albion, and Gualala Rivers. The Gualala River Watershed assessment has been completed, and assessments for Big and Albion Rivers are expected to be completed by the end of 2003. Among other applications, these assessments will provide an invaluable foundation for voluntary stewardship and will guide restoration efforts.
Timber companies are joining independent landowners and other stakeholders to form local watershed groups and begin the process of watershed planning. Additionally, the Department of Fish and Game and the Coastal Conservancy both provide funding programs for watershed planning. Recent studies funded by the Coastal Conservancy on the Mendocino coast include the Garcia, Mattole, Navarro, and Gualala River Watersheds. The Conservancy also funded the Gualala River Watershed Literature Search and Assimilation in 1995.
A few timber companies have established watershed restoration programs and are working with conservation partners to restore roads, stream crossings, and other sources of sediment that impact water quality and fish habitat. An example of this partnership is Mendocino Redwood Company and Trout Unlimited. To date the partnership has secured grants and contributed matching funds in excess of $2.2 million.69 Other timber companies are looking at ways of establishing similar watershed programs with conservation partners. Hawthorne Timber Company’s local manager, Campbell Timber Management Company, budgets up to $250,000 per year for restoration projects throughout the County and has collaborated with the Department of Fish and Game, Mendocino High School’s School of Natural Resources (SONAR), the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Mendocino Land Trust, Big River Stewards, Big River Citizen’s Advisory Committee, and Jughandle Creek Farm and Nature Center on monitoring, restoration, and other conservation projects.
B. Helping Working Forests Become More Sustainable
Research by agencies and private organizations including Save-the-Redwoods League, Pacific Forest Trust and The Nature Conservancy, is currently examining the coastal forest ecosystem and its critical ecological functions. Research is also being conducted by agencies and conservation organizations to define sustainable forest practices. Sustainability, as suggested by Reed Noss in “The Redwood
69 Craig Bell, Trout Unlimited, personal communication, November 13, 2002
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 26
Forest” (2000), must include “…sustenance of the structure, composition, and function of the redwood ecosystem in perpetuity, not simply a sustained yield of wood or other products.” Sustainability is a regional-scale property that depends on working forests as well as reserves.70
Consistent with timberland ownership trends discussed previously, Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) have emerged as a new managing entity and are being evaluated by conservation organizations. TIMOs utilize a combination of conservation easements, sales, tax benefits and harvest rates that are designed slowly to increase a forest’s standing timber in order to maximize profits. These methods have the potential to improve the viability of forest ecosystems and habitat over time.
To provide an incentive for forest landowners to implement working forest conservation easements based on sustainable practices, and to give a greater degree of certainty to landowners regarding future timber harvests, the Pacific Forest Trust (PFT), based in Santa Rosa, is exploring a concept with agencies such as National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would allow working forest conservation easements to satisfy Environmental Protection Agency requirements regarding protection of threatened and endangered species.71
PFT and others are also working to establish a carbon credit program for northwestern timber owners, and have worked with the California Resources Agency to establish guidelines for carbon-credit trades. PFT directors describe carbon-credit contracts as “…a tool to reduce green house gases and improve wildlife habitat by encouraging forest owners to manage their lands for older forests” with longer rotations or higher retention.”72 PFT has the first paid-for, forest carbon-storage program in the United States, and serves as the coordinating body in the Pacific states for developing forest certification standards consistent with international Forest Stewardship council standards and criteria.73
The current economic and regulatory climate for timber companies may provide opportunities and incentives for conservation when timberlands are offered for sale. Although there will likely be insufficient public funding for large-scale purchases, local and national conservation organizations could partner with private buyers to establish resource protection in working forests. In some instances, conservation organizations might consider long-term fee ownership (or community ownership – see below) of a demonstration forest, which could be managed and harvested using sustainable practices. This would provide not only a model for sustainable forestry, but also a steady stream of income that would increase the organization’s capacity to complete future conservation projects and monitoring. This model is being
70 Save -the-Redwoods League, Op. Cit. 71 Connie Best, Pacific Forest Trust, personal communication, March 13, 2003 72 Peter T. Parker, “Carbon Credits & The Family Forest,” Forest Landowner Spring 2001 Newsletter [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 27
explored by the Redwood Forest Foundation (RFFI), founded in 1997 per a recommendation of the Mendocino Forest Council in response to Louisiana-Pacific Corporation’s announcement in 1997 that it was divesting itself of its California assets. Securing tax-exempt public financing as a means of purchasing the timberlands is one of RFFI’s first challenges.74
Finally, many independent landowners who have already implemented sustainable harvest practices may be willing to sell conservation easements to conservation organizations.
There is the potential for conservation partners to establish a model conservation easement project on a small watershed or sub-watershed. Such an easement could be designed to maintain a sustainable harvest and protect critical resources, creating benefits for all stakeholders. The model would incorporate restoration projects with primarily working forest easements, and would encourage landowners and conservation partners in other watersheds to collaborate on similar projects.
C. Providing Farmers with Incentives to Protect Resources
An incentive-based program for farmers will be established in the summer of 2003 in the Anderson Valley. The Mendocino County Resource Conservation District (RCD), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Sustainable Conservation of San Francisco are working with landowners and other agencies to implement the ”Navarro River Watershed Permit Coordination Program” which may allow the RCD and NRCS to be the “one stop” permitting agency for future agricultural activities on farms for landowners who agree to implement a conservation plan and “best management practices” for soil and habitat conservation. At the end of the program’s first year, NRCS will evaluate its effectiveness. If it is determined that the program is worthwhile, there is the potential to expand it to include coastal agriculture.
Fish Friendly Farming (FFF) is a program of the Sotoyome RCD that is administered in Mendocino County. The program currently includes 11 grape-growers in the Russian and Navarro River watersheds that are working with the RCD to develop and implement conservation plans on their properties. FFF is unique in that participants in the program may opt to receive regulatory certification from NOAA Fisheries, DFG and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board stating that the grower is in compliance with all current regulations (valid for five years before a requirement to apply for re-certification).75 Expansion of this program to include coastal landowners (forest, agricultural, and others) should be explored.
74 Redwood Forestry Foundation, “Working Community Forests,” [online]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 28
D. Restoring Fish Migration by Removing Barriers76
The recovery of coastal salmon and steelhead populations depends on eliminating barriers and improving fish passage to historic habitat. The Coastal Conservancy has identified nearly 4,000 potential fish passage barriers to anadromous fish in streams and rivers throughout Mendocino County. This number will rise as the Coastal Conservancy’s assessment efforts continue. Of these sites, nearly 100 are known to be complete barriers. The actual number of complete barriers is undoubtedly much higher, as many sites await further assessment and analysis. Known barriers include, but are not limited to: Caspar Creek (North and South Forks), Bridge Creek (tributary to the south branch of the North Fork of Navarro River), Bull Team Gulch, Frykman Gulch, Schooner Gulch, James Creek, and 83 various road crossings. Just outside the Plan area another identified fish barrier is on Ryan Creek, a tributary to the Eel River.
The following list of potential barriers shows the total number of sites requiring attention, although most will need preliminary analysis to determine the severity of the barrier to fish passage: o Dams – 88 o Road Crossings – 196 o Diversions – 4 o Waterfalls – 87 o Log Jams – 54 o Grade Control Structure – 5 o Unknown Passage Type – 22 o Fish Passage Facility – 29 o Other – 4
The Coastal Conservancy will release a CD in April including an electronic version of the report,77 the complete passage assessment database, and a version of ARC Explorer software that will allow users to view all passage assessment data spatially with a geographic information system (GIS) platform.
E. Increasing Coastal Access and Connecting Existing Public Land
A recent source of funding for expanded coastal access is Proposition 40, which is designed, among other things, to provide for increased coastal protection. The Coastal Conservancy has additional funding programs for coastal access as well.
There is the potential to establish a continuous trail system linking public lands from MacKerricher State Park to Van Damme State Park by purchasing easements on a
76 Information in this section provided by Michael Bowen, Coastal Conservancy, personal communication, April 2, 2003 77 Coastal Conservancy, Assessment of Barriers to Fish Passage in California’s Coastal Watersheds, draft February 2003
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 29
few key parcels. In addition, there are several opportunities to connect key segments of the California Coastal Trail by working with just a few willing landowners, and in turn connecting the California Coastal Trail to the future interconnected system of State parks, forests, and preserves.
The recently updated General Plan for the City of Fort Bragg outlines a system of recreational trails surrounding the City. The recent decommissioning of the Georgia- Pacific mill site, which sits along most of the City’s waterfront, provides an unusual opportunity to secure sizeable new public access along the site’s coastal bluff tops and to several sandy cove beaches. It is likely that current or future owners will petition the City to convert the site from industrial uses to those providing a higher economic return. This will require a specific plan process, and provides the City with a unique opportunity to plan its waterfront from “scratch.” A trail through this site could be connected to a looped trail system that follows the Noyo River along the City’s southern edge, and returns to the coast beside Pudding Creek at the City’s northern edge. Much of the Pudding Creek and Noyo River trail alignments could follow existing trails and roads. In addition, these areas are currently held in a single private ownership.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 30
Conservation Objectives, Goals, Threats, and Strategies
As previously described, the Plan was developed with the assistance of an advisory committee including representatives from local and national conservation organizations, the Coastal Conservancy, the County, educators, appraisers, and other agencies. This committee was united in agreeing to a vision for the coast that includes the following:
· Natural communities, working landscapes and scenic viewsheds are restored and protected within Mendocino County’s most significant coastal watersheds and terraces · A comprehensive system of trails link communities with public lands, and include appropriate safeguards of sensitive habitats and cultural and historic sites · Healthy watersheds encourage populations of coho, steelhead and other sensitive species to return to historic levels · Working forests and farmlands are both economically viable and biologically compatible.
As summarized in Table 2 in the following pages, critical resources and their threats were analyzed both for the nature of the threat (often called the “stress” on the resource) as well as the cause of the threat (often called the “source” of the stress). Understanding both aspects of threats is critical in designing strategies that will either eliminate or ameliorate threats in the most cost-effective manner.
Based on the analysis of threats, long-term goals and shorter-term objectives were identified. These goals and objectives serve as statements of the expected condition of critical resources over various periods of time, and allow future evaluation of the relative effectiveness of the strategies.
Lastly, conservation strategies were selected, and represent a multiple-faceted approach to conservation. The strategies generally fall into the following categories: · Direct resource protection, either through purchase or donation of easements and/or fee, of conservation lands · Restoration and better management of resources (including improved practices for resource use) · Research · Education and outreach. The following table lists of these strategies, and includes a summary of goals, objectives and threats for each major category of critical resources. These strategies were the source of actions recommended in the Three to Five Year Implementation Plan (page 49), and will be the source of recommendations for subsequent implementation plans.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 31
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies
1) Critical Resource Categories i) Agricultural ii) Biological iii) Cultural and Historic iv) Fisheries v) Working Forest Lands vi) Public Coastal Access vii) Scenic Resources
2) Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies for Each Resource Category i. Agricultural Resources Summary of Critical Agricultural Resources: § Lands under active farm or ranch management § Lands with prime agricultural soils § Lands highly suitable for ranching § Lands adjacent to developed areas that are suitable for community agriculture operations, such as farmers markets, small family farms and/or ranches, and co- operatives
Goals: § Keep agriculture viable throughout the coastal zone of Mendocino County, consistent with the protection of natural resources
Objectives: § Protect clusters of farms (including dairies) in the area between Elk and Point Arena § Protect large blocks of grazing lands with multiple resource values § Secure incentives to encourage landowners to implement sustainable management practices compatible with the protection of biological resources § Initiate Mendocino County coastal agriculture marketing programs.
Threats: § Loss and fragmentation of agricultural lands due to decline of agricultural economics, regulatory disincentives, residential development, lot-line adjustments, and growth of second-home market
Strategies: § Establish partnerships with landowners, farm organizations (Farm Bureau, RCD and NRCS), and conservation organizations (local land trusts, American Farmland Trust, Coastal Conservancy, etc.) to protect, through easements, key farms between Elk and Point Arena and large resource-rich grazing lands throughout the coast § In cooperation with farm organizations: § Initiate and strengthen local farm marketing programs, such as farmer markets, farm product tour maps, purchase of locally-grown produce by school and prisons, and “Grown in Mendocino County” labeling programs § Provide outreach to: § Landowners regarding incentive programs for sustainable agriculture, habitat restoration and soil conservation (in collaboration with NRCS and RCD)
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 32
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (continued)
§ Landowners, tax and legal advisors, community foundations, real estate brokers and potential conservation buyers regarding estate and tax benefits of conservation programs
ii. Biological Resources Summary of Critical Biological Resources: § Special Plant Communities as listed by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB): § Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh § Coastal Brackish Marsh § Coastal Terrace Prairie § Fen § Grand Fir Forest § Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest § Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub § Northern Coastal Salt Marsh § Pygmy Forest § Sphagnum Bog § Other Unique Biological Communities and Habitats: § Freshwater wetlands and ponds § Riparian Areas § Estuaries § Marine Mammal Haul-out Sites § Nesting Seabird Sites § Kelp Beds § Mussel Beds § Native Conifer Forests § Old Growth and Late Seral Second Growth Redwood Forests § Dunes § Monarch Butterfly Over-wintering Areas § Migratory Bird Resting and Feeding Areas § Wildlife Corridors § Elk Habitats (historic, potential for reintroduction) § Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species (see Map Figure 1A, Key to Sensitive Species and Communities) § State Listed Animal Species (see Map Figure 1A) § Additional Animal Species of Concern (see Map Figure 1A) § Listed Plant Species (see Map Figure 1A)
Goals: (All) Biological Resources § Protect and restore the unique assemblage of Mendocino County’s coastal communities and rare habitats § Restore and/or enhance healthy populations of steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon throughout Mendocino County’s coastal watersheds
Objectives: Special Plant Communities § Protect large connected blocks of un-fragmented lands that support special plant communities
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 33
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (continued)
Objectives: Unique Biological Communities § Protect and, where feasible, restore large connected portions of estuaries and riparian systems, including those designated for special protection by the California Natural Areas Coordinating Council, including Big River, Albion River and Navarro River § Protect additional coastal wetlands designated by the California Natural Areas Coordinating Council (Cottaneva Creek, Ten Mile River, Pudding Creek, Noyo River, Caspar Creek, Big River, Salmon Creek, Elk Creek, Alder Creek, Brush Creek, Hunter’s Lagoon (aka Laguna Creek Lagoon), Manchester Beach Lagoon, Garcia River, and Gualala River) § Manage redwood and other conifer forests consistent with their ecological function § Protect existing healthy kelp beds, mammal haul-out sites, mussel beds and other coastal saltwater habitats, especially those within the State Underwater Park system § Protect nesting seabird sites, migratory bird resting and feeding areas and other special bird habitats, including Audubon Important Bird Areas § Identify and protect wildlife corridors between existing protected lands and between coastal and inland areas § Research Elk reintroduction and, if feasible, initiate
Objectives: Listed Animal and Plant Species § Protect and, where appropriate, restore large blocks of connected habitat that contain sensitive species, especially federally listed endangered or threatened species § Restore fish populations in the Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia and Gualala watersheds, all of which support multiple species of anadromous fish § Initiate restoration projects in smaller streams with significant anadromous fish populations, including: Pudding Creek, Hare Creek, Doyle Creek, Caspar Creek, Russian Gulch, Albion River, and Big Salmon Creek
Threats: Biological Resources § Loss and fragmentation of sensitive terrestrial habitats and species diversity due to: § Timber harvest methods which do not allow for healthy ecological function of coastal forests § Conversion of agricultural and forest land to residential and other uses § Non-sustainable agricultural practices § Overuse and/or inappropriate use of public recreational areas § Spread of exotic species § Spread of fungal diseases § Decline of sensitive aquatic habitats, especially those that support anadromous fish species, due to sedimentation of streams. Sources include: § Poorly designed and/or maintained timber and rural residential roads and stream crossings § Lack of road maintenance (including lack of proper road abandonment) § Timber harvests that do not maintain a proper stream setback § Insufficient stream setback for timber harvests and agricultural activities § Loss of deep pools necessary for juvenile fish survival due to increased flows, sedimentation and removal of large woody debris in or near streams § Rise in water temperature due to removal of riparian cover by timber and agricultural activities § Chemical contamination (from septic systems, pesticides, and herbicides) § Potential water export (see Appendix 7 for BOS Resolution opposing) § Decline of coastal saltwater habitats due to: § Chemical contamination and sedimentation (see above) § Potential off-shore oil drilling
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 34
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (continued)
Strategies: Biological Resources § Promote sustainable forestry practices throughout Mendocino County’s coastal forests by forming (or re-activating) a working group with representatives of forestry organizations, Mendocino Forest Council, agencies, conservation organizations, Jackson Demonstration State Forest, timber companies and independent landowners § Create, post, and distribute a summary of significant restoration and/or enhancement work that can be done (on private and public lands, by private individuals, non-profits, and agencies, to protect significant biological resources), and where to get funding § Initiate restoration plans, in collaboration with agencies and local groups, for the most biologically significant watersheds, including the Ten Mile River, Pudding Creek, Noyo River, Hare Creek, Doyle Creek, Caspar Creek, Russian Gulch, Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, Garcia River and Gualala River § Purchase and accept donations of easements and fee from willing landowners of large connected blocks of land which contain biologically significant: § Conifer lands in watersheds supporting multiple anadromous fish species § Estuaries and riparian areas, designated coastal wetlands, important coastal streams, or Important Bird Areas (designated by Audubon) § Coastal terraces areas § Give priority to acquisition of lands which are adjacent to existing parks and preserves or which provide buffers between agricultural or forestry uses and sensitive habitats § Create a model working forest easement that provides for viable and sustainable forestry practices plus habitat restoration § Provide outreach to: § Timber, agricultural and residential landowners, especially those in biologically significant watersheds, regarding best management practices and incentive programs for habitat restoration and water quality enhancement. § The general public, to increase awareness and appreciation of special plant communities, unique biological communities, and listed plant and animal species § Mendocino County Planning and Building Department regarding: § Mendocino Coast’s critical resources and potential impacts from construction activities. § Potential impacts to sensitive habitats due to forest to vineyard conversions § Collaborate with State and local DPR representatives regarding the impacts of recreational activities on sensitive bird, marine mammal and other habitats on DPR- owned land, and establish programs where appropriate to protect these habitats from human and pet disturbance § Work with local and state agencies to provide outreach to landowners, schools and other groups regarding the threat of exotic species to Mendocino Coast’s unique biological resources § Implement exotic species control programs § Work with wildlife organizations and agencies to: § Identify and protect large mammal wildlife corridors throughout coastal habitats § Research the feasibility of elk re-introduction and, if feasible, initiate a project § Work with the RCD and other agricultural organizations to promote ecologically sustainable agriculture that protects riparian systems, unique biological communities, and listed species
iii. Cultural and Historic Resources Summary of Critical Cultural and Historic Resources: § Significant cultural and/or historic sites § Designated rural villages and historic districts
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 35
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (continued)
Goals: § Preservation of Mendocino County’s coastal cultural and historic heritage
Objectives: § Protect cultural sites, historic sites, rural villages, and historic district scenic buffers § Increase public awareness of the importance of Mendocino County’s coastal cultural and historic heritage
Threats: § Loss or impairment of cultural and historic resources due to lack of awareness of important sites, and inappropriate activities such as development, cultivation or utility trenching. § Loss of cultural sites due to lack of maintenance and/or vandalism.
Strategies: § Work with archeological experts, native American groups, historic societies and the County department of planning and building services to determine where sensitive cultural and historic sites need protection on the coast, and provide this protection where appropriate, especially on lands with multiple-resource values § Coordinate with local historic societies, Native American representatives, and others to provide outreach to landowners and decision-makers regarding protection needs of important cultural and historical sites § Identify funding to update the Cultural and Historic Site Information sheet available through the County Department of Planning and Building Services; work with the County to make the revised information available
iv. Fisheries Summary of Critical Fisheries Resources: § Anadromous fish streams (see also biological resource notes) § Recreational fishing areas § Commercial fisheries and harbors
Goals: § Restoration of significant anadromous fish streams § Increased access to recreational fishing areas § Maintained and enhanced commercial fishing access to Noyo, Albion, and Pt. Arena harbors/facilities
Objectives: § Initiate or protection and/or restoration projects by 2013, on those watersheds supporting significant anadromous fish populations, including Ten Mile River, Pudding Creek, Noyo River, Hare Creek, Doyle Creek, Caspar Creek, Russian Gulch, Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, Garcia River and Gualala River § Obtain public access to additional appropriate rec reational fishing areas
Threats: § Decline of sensitive aquatic habitats from sedimentation caused by: § Poorly designed and/or maintained timber and rural residential roads and stream crossings
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 36
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (continued)
§ Lack of road maintenance (including lack of proper road abandonment) § Timber harvests that do not maintain a proper stream setback § Insufficient stream setback for timber harvests and agricultural activities § Loss of deep pools necessary for juvenile fish survival due to increased flows, sedimentation and removal of large woody debris in or near streams § Rise in water temperature due to removal of riparian cover by timber and agricultural activities § Chemical contamination (from septic systems, pesticides, and herbicides) § Potential water export § Blockage of anadromous fish streams at Highway 1 due to poorly maintained and/or designed Highway 1 crossings. § Potential salmon ocean ranching (and related potential spread of disease)
Strategies: § Create, post, and distribute a summary of important fisheries restoration work that can be done (on private and public lands, by private individuals, non-profits, and agencies) and where to get funding § Identify the most appropriate areas for fish habitat restoration and apply the most effective restoration techniques to restore anadromous fish populations (in collaboration with fish experts, agencies, conservation organizations, timber companies and independent forest landowners) · Initiate collaborative restoration plans for the most biologically significant watersheds, including the Ten Mile River, Pudding Creek, Noyo River, Hare Creek, Caspar Creek, Doyle Creek, Russian Gulch, Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, Garcia River and Gualala River · Purchase and accept, from willing landowners, donations of easements or fee title that provide for sustainable forestry practices and habitat protection in the most biologically significant watersheds § Promote new incentive programs that reduce sedimentation into streams and restore fish habitats in collaboration with forestry and agricultural organizations and with willing landowners § Identify and remove blockages of important fish streams at Highway crossings in collaboration with Caltrans and fish experts § Purchase or accept donations of public access easements to streams for recreational fishing in collaboration with willing landowners § Protect commercial harbors areas where they are threatened and support local fish marketing programs, in collaboration with anglers
v. Working Forest Lands Summary of Critical Working Forest Land Resources: § Conifer forests along river bottoms with deep alluvial soils (Class I) § Hillside conifer forests on Class II and III soils
Goals: § The sustainable harvest of the majority of coastal working forestlands § Reforestation of “lost” forestlands where appropriate
Objectives: § Sustainable timber harvest practices on over 50% of working forests within significant watersheds by 2013, including appropriate habitat buffers and protections
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 37
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (continued)
Threats: § Loss, conversion and fragmentation of working forest lands due to declining forestry economics, regulatory disincentives, and estate tax issues § Decline of forests due to aggressive timber harvest rates, mostly on industrial timber lands, which do not allow for proper regeneration of coastal forests § Loss of forests due to vineyard conversions § Decline of working forests and species diversity due to disease § Global competition (particularly anticipated in fir market)
Strategies: § Purchase and accept donations of working forest easements from willing landowners to provide for large areas of connected, sustainable working forests on highly productive soils § Collaborate with forestry organizations to provide outreach to landowners, tax and legal advisors, real estate brokers and potential conservation buyers regarding estate and tax benefits of conservation programs § Form a working group(s) with conservation organizations, foresters, independent timber owners, timber companies and agencies to promote new policies and incentives that promote sustainable forestry practices and habitat protection § Research the benefits of new timber ownership entities that combine tax benefits with sustainable forestry and conservation, and, if appropriate, encourage such entities to become established in coastal forests
vi. Public Coastal Access Summary of Critical Public Coastal Access Resources: § Off-highway “California Coastal Trail,” including access to coves, beaches, shoreline, and scenic bluff tops § Trail linkages between public lands where ecologically appropriate
Goals: § Provide public access to the majority of Mendocino County’s immediate shoreline § The “California Coastal Trail” is predominantly off-Highway 1 for the majority of the Mendocino Coastline
Objectives: § By 2013, public access to shoreline and beach areas will be increased by 20%, with appropriate protections in place to protect sensitive coastal habitats § By 2013, the total of off-Highway 1 CCT miles will be increased from 79 to 100 miles, or 50% to 75% § By 2013, a trail system around Fort Bragg will be completed
Threats: § Conflicts between public access and resource protection § Increased fragmentation of properties and increased number of landowners (decreasing project feasibility) § Inability to decrease private landowner liabilities related to public access easements § Insufficient funds to acquire public access via easements or fee acquisitions
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 38
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (continued)
Strategies: § Work with Coastal Conservancy and trail groups to build awareness of the state designated California Coastal Trail (CCT). Promote CCT’s “greenway” benefits to Mendocino County’s business/economic interests to secure additional sources of conservation funding § Work with the City of Fort Bragg, the Coastal Conservancy and trail groups to secure a looped trail system through the former Georgia Pacific Mill Site and around the city (along the Noyo River and Pudding Creek) § Collaborate with willing landowners to provide public access along the old Georgia Pacific Haul Road in Fort Bragg § Work with state parks, schools and civic organizations to build public awareness of vulnerability of sensitive coastal habitats and to develop appropriate safeguards to sensitive habitats such as snowy plover nest sites and marine mammal haul-out sites § Work with Surfriders, Mendocino Land Trust (which administers Mendocino County’s Coastal Cleanup Day), and other groups to develop and promote implementation of volunteer-based beach and coastal trail clean-up and maintenance § Purchase or accept donations of easements or fee to from willing landowners to increase public access to coves, beaches, shoreline, and scenic bluff tops, especially in the stretch of coastline between Elk and Point Arena § Purchase or accept donations of easements or fee from willing landowners to secure important off-highway sections of the California Coastal Trail, and to connect existing public land between Fort Bragg and Little River. The following are potential California Coastal Trail Linkages: § Southern end of Lost Coast (Usal Road to Westport-Union Landing State Park Vista Point, including Rockport Beach, 9.75 miles). § Coastal shelf between Westport and Abalobadiah Creek, including Bruhel Point (approx. 6.5 miles) § Former Georgia Pacific Mill site in Fort Bragg (2.3 miles) § Mitchell Creek connector (300 feet) § Albion Headlands to Navarro River (with alternative route from Navarro Bridge up to Navarro Ridge Road, 2.6 miles) § Saddle Point to Elk (4.1 miles - note: steep terrain in some spots may not always allow trail to be west of Highway) § Elk to Irish Beach (6.4 miles) § Irish Beach to Alder Creek at Manchester State Park (0.75 miles) § Manchester Park to Point Arena (3.6 miles) § Point Arena to Gualala (all opportunities to get trail off Highway 1)
Potential Trail Linkages between existing public lands between Fort Bragg and Little River: § Fort Bragg to Jackson State Forest via South Fork Noyo River § Caspar Headlands State Reserve and Caspar Beach State Park to Jackson State Forest via either Caspar Creek or Doyle Creek, consistent with the protection of sensitive habitats § Big River Unit of Mendocino Headlands State Park to Van Damme State Park
vi. Scenic Resources Summary of Critical Scenic Resources: § Open, mostly undeveloped scenic panoramic views visible from Highway 1 (Note: not just ocean views) § Visual buffers to rural villages or historic districts
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 39
Table 2: Summary of Critical Resource Goals, Objectives, Threats, and Strategies (continued)
§ Late seral forests viewed from public trails
Goals: § Maintain coastal visual resources
Objectives: § Maintain visual buffers surrounding the rural villages of Westport, Cleone, Caspar, Little River, Albion, Elk, Manchester, and the historic district of Mendocino, with allowances for future growth to occur in non-scenic areas § Protect coastal scenic resources
Threats: § Commercial, industrial, and residential development. § Degradation of scenic resources due to conversion of agricultural and timber lands to residential development
Strategies: § Purchase or accept donations of easements or fee title from willing landowners to secure important open viewsheds along Highway 1, especially in areas where there are multiple resource values § Work with County agencies and the Coastal Conservancy to provide outreach to landowners, real estate brokers and decision makers regarding the economic importance of protecting coastal viewsheds and visual buffers surrounding rural villages. Provide recommended design guidelines for construction activities within the viewshed and visual buffers.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 40
Priority Conservation Areas
Using an overlay of GIS resource and analysis layers, priority conservation areas were identified on “Priority Conservation Area” maps (please refer to Map Figure 4 at the end of this section). The priority areas were selected based on a number of attributes and criteria. One of the most important of these was the relative abundance and diversity of critical resources and critical resource categories. The analysis of priority areas was further refined to determine priority levels based on the number of attributes for each area, using a rough scoring system. “High Priority Conservation Areas” and “Priority Conservation Areas” were differentiated based on their cumulative scores. Table 3, below, provides a list of the priority areas, their various attributes or criteria, the individual scores assigned for each of their attributes, and cumulative scores for each priority area. Note: throughout the remainder of this report, the terms “priority conservation area” and “priority area” (without use of capitalization) include both “High Priority Conservation Areas” and “Priority Conservation Areas.”
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 41
Table 3: Summary of Priority Conservation Area Resources and Scores Note: This table summarizes critical resources occurring in each priority area. Scores leading to the ranking of areas as “Priority” or “High Priority” are included below each cell and are totaled in the far right column. See description of scoring system at end of table.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OTHER RESOURCES PLANNING STATUS SCORE Planning Cultural & Area of The Historic Nature Resources Conservancy Watershed Study Priority Area Listed Animals Listed Plants Special (See Map Current or Save-the- Status & Special Name and (See Map Figure 1A (See Map Figure Communities Agri- Figure 3A for Public Scenic (from Protection Redwoods Treatment Areas Priority Level Fisheries for Key) 1A for Key)) (See Tble 2) Special Habitats culture Key)) Forestry Access Highway 1) Status League (STA) Points Usal Creek/ FT: steelhead, Northern Spotted CNPS 1B: Pygmy Forest; estuaries; marine #3 Usal Landing highly existing public open space, Small portion SRL report STA at Usal Creek, Rockport Coastal coho Owl: FT ; Red tree CAME21, SIMA, Old Growth mammal haulouts; #4 Cape productive access to watershed, owned by DPR lists Rockport Beach, Terrace vole: Fed SC, CA HOMA3 sea bird sites; Viscaine & Usal Creek forest, and ocean Cottoneva, and Hardy Creek (High Priority) SSC, DFG SSC; Cottoneva Creek Rockport Bay and Sinkyone views; scenic Hardy, Juan, Knoll Southern torrent wetlands Wilderness overlooks at and DeHaven salamander: Fed State Park Hardy Creek & watersheds SC, CA SSC, DFG Juan Creek as "Top 10% SSC; Watersheds" Purple martin: DFG SSC
Score 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 18
Lower Ten Mile FT: steelhead, Tidewater goby: FE; FE: CHHO2 Northern Coastal estuary; salt, #9 Old Haul Rd. some highly existing open space, lower 4 km of MacKerricher TMDL (sediment) River/ coho, chinook Northern Spotted FT: ERMEM2 Salt Marsh; brackish, and #10 productive access to watershed, river are State Park: approved 2000 MacKerricher Owl: FT; Western CNPS 1B: LIMA, Coastal & Valley freshwater marsh; MacKerricher soils in north end of forest, and ocean proposed TNC Tier 1 (USEPA); Coastal Terrace Snowy Plover: FT; COCO2,CACA7, Freshwater riparian State Park eastern MacKerricher views aquatic priority; Implementation (High Priority) Northern Harrier: CHHO2, CAME21, Marsh; Grand Fir vegetation;Inglenook portion of State Park diversity Ten Mile Plan under DFG CSC; SIMA, CACR, Forest Fen; Sand Lake; zone CCT and management River: TNC development; STA Red tree vole: Fed CASA6, PHINC2, Inglenook Creek parking for area; portion of Tier 3 priority; at Ten Mile River SC, CA SSC, DFG ABUMB, HOMA3 marsh; Ten Mile northern zone in SRL lists SSC; Ferruginous CNPS 2: CALY3, River wetlands; access to MacKerricher Lower Ten Hawk: DFG SSC; CAVI, VIPA4 Lake Cleone MacKerricher State Park, Mile River Osprey DFG SSC; SP including River otter: PFBM Inglenook Fen Natural Reserve; Mackerricher Underwater State Park Score 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 22
Ten Mile FT: steelhead, Marbled Murrelet: FT, CNPS 1B: SIMA Coastal & Valley salt, brackish, and highly open space, lower 4 km of Ten Mile See notes above Watershed coho, chinook SE (presence CNPS 2: MICA Freshwater freshwater marsh; productive watershed, river are River: TNC under Lower Ten (High Priority) confirmed, nesting Marsh riparian forest; Ten forest, and ocean proposed Tier 3 priority; Mile suspected); Tidewater Mile River wetlands views aquatic SRL lists River/MacKerricher goby: FE; Northern diversity Little North Coastal Terrace Spotted Owl: FT; Red management Fork and tree vole: Fed SC, CA area Campbell SSC, DFG SSC; Creek Southern torrent salamander: Fed SC, CA SSC, DFG SSC; tailed frog: Fed SC, CA SSC, DFG SSC Score 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 16
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 42
Table 3: Summary of Priority Conservation Area Resources and Scores (cont.)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OTHER RESOURCES PLANNING STATUS SCORE Cultural & Historic Resources Watershed Study Priority Area Listed Animals Listed Plants Special (See Map Current TNC / SRL Status & Special Name and (See Map Figure 1A (See Map Figure Communities Special Agri- Figure 3A for Public Scenic (from Protection Planning Treatment Areas Priority Level Fisheries for Key) 1A for Key)) (See Table 2) Habitats culture Key)) Forestry Access Highway 1) Status Area (STA) Points Pudding Creek FT: steelhead, Tidewater goby: FE; FT: ERMEM2 estuary; highly watershed, forest, estuary/ lagoon Pudding Watershed coho Osprey: DFG SSC; CNPS 1B: PHINC2, Pudding Creek productive and ocean views is proposed Creek: TNC (Priority) River otter: DFG CAME21, BLNAR, wetlands aquatic Tier 3 priority PFBM COCO2 diversity management area
Score 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 10 Noyo River FT: steelhead, Northern Spotted Owl: CNPS 1B: PICOB2, Mendocino marine mammal highly existing Noyo watershed, forest, southern STA at Noyo River Watershed coho, chinook FT; Southern torrent CUGOP2, Pygmy Cypress haulout; Noyo productive River Fishing and ocean views; portion of (High Priority) salamander: Fed SC, CAME21, LIMA, Forest River wetlands; Access, public fishing village watershed in CA SSC, DFG SSC; CACA7 Fort Bragg access to Jackson Osprey: DFG SSC CNPS 2: CACR heron rookery mouth of Noyo Demonstration River and State Forest Noyo Harbor
Score 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 17 Caspar Creek FT: steelhead, Lotis blue butterfly:FE; FE: CHHO2 Mendocino estuary; riparian highly open space, rural Most of STA at Caspar & Watershed coho Purple martin: DFG CNPS 1B: Pygmy Cypress forest; Sitka productive & fishing village, watershed Doyle Creeks (Priority) SSC CAME21, PICOB2, Forest; Spruce forest; watershed, forest, included in CUGOP2, LIMA, Sphagnum bog Caspar Creek and ocean views Jackson CACA7 (not shown on wetlands Demonstration CNPS 2: CAAFL2, map) State Forest CACR
Score 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 14 Russian Gulch FT: steelhead, Northern Spotted Owl: CNPS 1B: Mendocino estuary; riparian highly existing beach watershed, forest, Russian Gulch DFG funded Watershed coho FT; Other notes: CAME21, PICOB2; Pygmy Cypress forest; late seral productive access at and ocean views State Park and watershed (Priority) Marbled Murrelet FT, CUGOP2 Forest second growth Russian Gulch Jackson assessment in SE (occupied CNPS 2: CACR redwood forest State Park; Demonstration 2002 to identify behavior) public trails State Forest major sediment and roads are major sources and throughout landowners in prioritize watershed in this watershed restoration State Park projects and Jackson Demonstration State Forest
Score 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 14
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 43
Table 3: Summary of Priority Conservation Area Resources and Scores (cont.)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OTHER RESOURCES PLANNING STATUS SCORE Cultural & Historic Resources Watershed Study Priority Area Listed Animals Listed Plants Special (See Map Current TNC / SRL Status & Special Name and (See Map Figure 1A (See Map Figure Communities Special Agri- Figure 3A for Public Scenic (from Protection Planning Treatment Areas Priority Level Fisheries for Key) 1A for Key)) (See Table 2) Habitats culture Key)) Forestry Access Highway 1) Status Area (STA) Points Big River FT: steelhead, Southern torrent CNPS 1A: CALI Grand Fir Forest; estuary; salt, #25 Mendocino highly existing public open space, rural Western Big River: TMDL (sediment) Watershed coho salamander: Fed SC, CNPS 1B: AGBL, Northern Coastal brackish, and Woodlands productive access along village, portion owned TNC Tier 1 awaiting USEPA (High Priority) Other listing: CA SSC, DFG SSC; CASA6, CAME21, Salt Marsh; freshwater State Park in western Big River watershed, forest, by DPR, priority approval; eulachon, Red tree vole: Fed SC, ABUMB, PICOB2, Coastal Brackish marsh; riparian portion of (DPR) and and ocean views northern Implementation boccacio, starry CA SSC, DFG SSC; ARME8, CUGOP2, Marsh, Coast forest, sea bird watershed through portion Plan under flounder Tailed Frog: Fed SC, LIMA, CACA7 &Valley nesting Mendocino included in development; STA CA SSC, DFG SSC; CNPS 2: CACR Freshwater colonies, marine Woodlands Jackson at Big River Northwestern pond Marsh; mammal State Park Demonstration turtle: Fed SC, CA Mendocino haulout (Goat State Forest SSC, DFG SSC; Pygmy Cypress Rock), Big River River otter: PFBM; Forest wetlands Tufted Puffin: DFG SSC; Purple Martin: DFG SSC
Score 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 22
Little River FT: steelhead, Southern torrent CNPS 1B: ABUMB, Mendocino estuary; late highly existing beach open space, Majority of SRL report DFG funded Watershed coho salamander: Fed SC, PICOB2, CUGOP2, Pygmy Cypress seral second productive access at Van watershed, forest, watershed lists Little watershed (Priority) CA SSC, DFG SSC; CACA7, LIMA Forest growth redwood Damme State and ocean views owned by DPR River assessment in Red tree vole: Fed SC, CNPS 2: MICA, forest Park, public Watersheds 2000- 2002 to CA SSC, DFG SSC CACR trails and as a "Top conduct roads 10% landowner throughout Watershed" outreach, identify watershed in major sediment State Park/ sources, and prioritize restoration projects
Score 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 15
Albion River FT: steelhead, Northern Spotted Owl: CNPS 1B: Mendocino estuary; marine highly existing fee open space, rural Approx. 400 Albion River: TMDL (sediment) Watershed coho FT; Marbled Murrelet: CUGOP2, PICOB2, Pygmy Cypress mammal productive access to river village, acres owned TNC Tier 1 awaiting approval (High Priority) FT, SE (radar targets SIMA, LIMA Forest; Northern haulout; riparian (except in and ocean watershed, forest, by DPR (Big priority by USEPA; detected Y2000); Red CNPS 2: CACR, Coastal Salt vegetation; areas of and ocean views River Unit); Implementation tree vole: Fed SC, CA SAOF3 Marsh; Grand Fir Albion River pygmy) approx. 200 Plan under SSC, DFG SSC; River Forest wetlands; heron acres owned development; STA otter: PFBM; Osprey: rookery by TNC at Albion River DFG SSC
Score 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 19
Big Salmon FT: steelhead, Southern torrent CNPS 1B: CAME21 Grand Fir Forest; estuary; Salmon highly open space, Big Salmon Creek Watershed coho salamander: Fed SC, CNPS 2: CACR, Mendocino Creek wetlands productive watershed, and Creek: TNC (Priority) CA SSC, DFG SSC; MICA Pygmy Cypress (except in ocean views Tier 1 priority tailed frog: Fed SC, CA Forest; Northern areas of SSC, DFG SSC; Coastal Bluff pygmy Purple martin: DFG Scrub forest) SSC Northern Harrier: DFG SSC
Score 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 12
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 44
Table 3: Summary of Priority Conservation Area Resources and Scores (cont.)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OTHER RESOURCES PLANNING STATUS SCORE Cultural & Historic Resources Watershed Study Priority Area Listed Animals Listed Plants Special (See Map Current TNC / SRL Status & Special Name and (See Map Figure 1A (See Map Figure Communities Special Agri- Figure 3A for Public Scenic (from Protection Planning Treatment Areas Priority Level Fisheries for Key) 1A for Key)) (See Table 2) Habitats culture Key)) Forestry Access Highway 1) Status Area (STA) Points Lower Navarro FT: steelhead, Northern Spotted Owl: CNPS 1B: LIMA Grand Fir Forest estuary; salt, grazing Navarro-by-the- highly existing open space, Portions at Lower TMDL (sediment Watershed coho FT; Osprey: DFG SSC; CNPS 2 : MICA brackish, and Sea, Captain productive Navarro River watershed, forest, mouth and Navarro & temp) adopted (High Priority) Other listing: Navarro roach: CSC; freshwater Fletcher's Inn; in western fishing access and ocean views along estuary River & by Regional Board lamprey Red tree vole: Fed SC, marsh; riparian #28 Fensalden portion of and Navarro owned by DPR Navarro 2001; CA SSC, DFG SSC; forest; marine Inn watershed Beach State River: TNC Implementation Tailed Frog: Fed SC, mammal Park Tier 1 priority Plan under CA SSC, DFG SSC; haulout; sea development; STA Southern torrent bird breeding at Navarro River salamander: Fed SC, site; Navarro CA SSC, DFG SSC; River wetlands River otter: PFBM
Score 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 22
North Elk Coastal American Peregrine CNPS 1B: AGBL, Grand Fir Forest sea bird grazing #31 Elk & some highly open space, conservation STA from Navarro Terrace Falcon: SE, DFG Fully SICARH, CASA6, breeding sites; Greenwood productive ocean views easement over River to Irish (Priority) Protected; Northern LIMA marine mammal #44 Cuffy's soils in southern Beach Terrace Spotted Owl: FT; haulouts; 5 Cove Cemetery eastern portion of zone Red tree vole: Fed SC, small creeks portion of CA SSC, DFG SSC; flow under zone Ferruginous Hawk: Highway 1 to DFG SSC; the Pacific Ocean
Score 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 13
Elk Creek FT: steelhead, Northern Spotted Owl: Grand Fir Forest estuary; riparian southern open space, STA at Elk Creek Watershed coho FT forest; salt, portion of spectacular (Priority) brackish, watershed watershed, forest, freshwater highly and ocean views marsh; sea bird productive breeding site; Elk Creek wetlands
Score 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 10
Alder Creek FT: steelhead Point Arena mountain CNPS 1B: CAME21 estuary; sand dairy; western open space Watershed beaver: FE; dunes; riparian irrigated portion of (agricultural (Priority) Marbled murrelet: FT, vegetation; fields watershed fields), watershed SE; Red tree Alder Creek has some and ocean views vole: Fed SC, CA wetlands; highly SSC, DFG SSC; Manchester productive Western Snowy Beach wetlands soils Plover: FT
Score 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 10
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 45
Table 3: Summary of Priority Conservation Area Resources and Scores (cont.)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OTHER RESOURCES PLANNING STATUS SCORE Cultural & Historic Resources Watershed Study Priority Area Listed Animals Listed Plants Special (See Map Current TNC / SRL Status & Special Name and (See Map Figure 1A (See Map Figure Communities Special Agri- Figure 3A for Public Scenic (from Protection Planning Treatment Areas Priority Level Fisheries for Key) 1A for Key)) (See Table 2) Habitats culture Key)) Forestry Access Highway 1) Status Area (STA) Points Garcia River FT: steelhead, Point Arena mountain CNPS 1B: CACA7, riparian Southwest open space Upper Garcia 1st TMDL in CA; Watershed coho. beaver: FE; SIMA, LIMA vegetation; portion (agricultural River: TNC TMDL (sediment) (High Priority) Hist oric: pink Northern Spotted Owl: CNPS 2: GLGR, Garcia River highly fields), watershed Tier 1 priority and salmon FT; Red tree vole: Fed CACA9 wetlands productive and forest views Implementation (Note: although SC, CA SSC, DFG Plan adopted by total score is SSC State Board 2001; relatively low, Coastal abundant coastal Conservancy resources included funded Watershed in Coastal Terrace Assessment & area, below, make Enhancement this a High Priority Plan (1992); watershed) Implementation Plan (sediment) being implemented Score 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 15 Garcia Coastal FT: steelhead, Point Arena mountain FE: LACO6 Northern Coastal estuary; salt, best #32 Pt Arena not existing Point open space Portions Point Arena See column Terrace coho. beaver: FE; CNPS 1B: LAMA, Bluff Scrub; brackish, and cultivated Lighthouse applicable: Arena (agricultural included in area: TNC immediately (High Priority) Historic: pink Northern Spotted Owl: CASA6, LIMA, Northern Coastal freshwater agriculture #43 Manchester most of this lighthouse fields), watershed Manchester Tier 3 priority above salmon FT; Behren's silverspot CACA7, AGBL, Salt Marsh; Coast marsh; riparian and dairy Schoolhouse zone is in fishing views State Beach, butterfly: FE; FRRO, SIMA, & Valley vegetation; on agricultural access, Loran Point Arena Red tree vole: Fed SC, CNPS 2: GLGR, Freshwater marine mammal Mendocino production Station fishing and CA SSC, DFG SSC; CALY3 Marsh; Coastal haulout; sea County access Manchester Western Snowy Brackish Marsh bird nesting site; Coast Rancherias Plover: FT Garcia River wetlands; Hathaway Creek heron rookery & wetlands; Lagoon Creek heron rookery & Laguna
Score 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 22 Schooner Gulch FT: steelhead Northern Spotted Owl: CNPS 1B: LIMA, Southern Pygmy southern existing beach watershed and Schooner Watershed FT; Red tree vole: FRRO, HOTEZ Forest portion access at forest views from Gulch State (Priority) Fed SC, CA SSC, highly mouth of Gulch at Hwy One Park and DFG SSC productive Schooner Beach at Gulch Creek estuary and on (DPR) bluffs above Pacific Ocean
Score 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 46
Table 3: Summary of Priority Conservation Area Resources and Scores (cont.)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OTHER RESOURCES PLANNING STATUS SCORE Cultural & Historic Resources Watershed Study Priority Area Listed Animals Listed Plants Special (See Map Current TNC / SRL Status & Special Name and (See Map Figure 1A (See Map Figure Communities Special Agri- Figure 3A for Public Scenic (from Protection Planning Treatment Areas Priorit y Level Fisheries for Key) 1A for Key)) (See Table 2) Habitats culture Key)) Forestry Access Highway 1) Status Area (STA) Points Gualala River FT: steelhead, Tidewater goby: FE; CNPS 1B: SIMA, Coastal Brackish estuary; riparian #40 Robinson highly ocean, Gualala Point Coastside TMDL (sediment) Northern coho Northern Spotted Owl: CAME21, CABO, Marsh; Coast & vegetation; Landing productive watershed, and Regional Park Gualala 2001; Watershed FT; Gualala roach: FRRO, SICARH, Valley Freshwater marine mammal forest views straddles River, Implementation (Joint County DFG SSC; River CACA7 Marsh haulout; Gualala Mendocino and Gualala Plan underway; High Priority) otter: DFG PFBM; River wetlands Sonoma River, & STA at Gualala Red tree vole: Fed SC, Counties North Fork River CA SSC, DFG SSC Gualala River: TNC Tier 1 priority
Score 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 20
1pt=steelhead 1pt=1-2 listed animals 1pt=1-4 listed plants 1pt=1-2 special 1pt=1-2 special 1pt=some 1pt=1 cultural & 1pt=highly 1pt=1-2 points 1pt= scenic 1pt=some 1pt=either 1pt=either a High 2pts=steelhead 2pts=3 or more listed 2pts=5 or more communities habitats 2pts=3 agriculture historic resource productive of existing 2pts=outstanding public TNC or SRL TMDL or a Special Priority=16 or and coho animals listed plants 2pts=3 or more or more special 2pts=out- 2pts=2 or more forest public access scenic ownership or planning area Treatment Area more points 3pts=steelhead, special habitats standing cultural & 2pts=highly 2pts=3 points conservation 2pts=both 2pts=both a TMDL Priority=15 or coho and "Most communities agriculture historic productive of existing easement TNC and and a Special fewer points important Fish resources forest & public access 2pts=significant SRL planning Treatment Area Scoring Stream" per large public area System Coastal watershed ownership Element (over and/or 25,000 conservation acres) easement
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 47
Although the type and relative diversity of critical resources varies among the priority areas, two distinct land types evolved from the analysis:
§ Larger watersheds, which consist mostly of working forests with rich biological resources, including remnant or persistent populations of anadromous fish populations; and § Coastal terrace areas, which include a greater diversity of critical resource categories, such as scenic viewsheds, coastal access, agriculture and special biological communities.
Most of the largest watersheds were found to be High Priority Areas, largely due to the greater diversity of resources at the mouths of large watersheds and within large interior areas. Also contributing to their higher scores was the fact that the County, various agencies, and national conservation organizations, prior to this study, had highlighted the resource values and relative significance of these watersheds.
Two coastal terrace areas had especially high scores as well: the Garcia Coastal Terrace (area between Manchester and Point Arena) and the Lower Ten Mile River/ MacKerricher Coastal Terrace.
In addition to the priority areas, the most significant and feasible segments of California Coastal Trail were added to the Priority Conservation Area Map (as a series of red dots with yellow centers) if they were not already included in a priority area.
Priority areas encompass the most intact remaining critical resources on the Mendocino County coast for which resource data are currently available and verifiable. If biological resources are protected, restored, and managed properly, these areas should provide sufficient natural habitats to sustain the coast as a high quality ecosystem into the future.
Note that areas not identified as priority areas on the map are either highly fragmented, or the known resource values are currently insufficient to warrant priority designation for the purposes of this Plan. Nonetheless, resources in these areas contribute to the overall health of the greater coastal landscape, and must not be left out of broader strategies, such as continued good management practices and proper land use planning.
The following maps show the priority conservation areas at two different scales: a composite map of the entire coast (Map Figure 4); and more detailed enlargements (Map Figure 4, Sheets 1 through 5).
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 48
Implementation Plan
The purpose of the implementation plan is to recommend specific projects and actions within priority areas that are feasible within the first three to five years of the Plan. The choice of projects was based on how well they accomplish the Plan’s goals and objectives. Projects are located in areas with an abundance of critical, and highly threatened, resources, and are often located in areas adjacent to or near existing public or privately protected lands. Each project or action incorporates one or more of the Plan’s strategies. Finally, projects and actions were identified based on their likelihood to succeed in a relatively short time, and on their likelihood to build the momentum of public support necessary to achieve the long-term goals of the Plan.
To increase the likelihood of success, the implementation plan recommends a limited number of projects within High Priority Conservation Areas, rather than recommending numerous projects spread throughout all priority areas. Although its focus is limited, the implementation plan is not meant to preclude worthy projects in other areas as good opportunities arise.
At the end of five years, projects and actions will be evaluated based on how effectively they met the goals and objectives of the Plan. At this time (2008), short- term objectives and strategies will be reevaluated, and a second three to five year implementation plan should be prepared and adopted.
The implementation plan considers many feasibility issues, such as available funding sources, project costs and the ability of local land trusts and partners to carry out the projects. Watershed projects were selected based on such factors as the existence of a watershed assessment or plan (or whether there is a willingness of stakeholders to implement a plan in the near future) and whether restoration efforts have been initiated. Trail or coastal access projects were identified based on factors such as the ability to fill large gaps in existing coastal access, opportunities to link public lands, and opportunities to affect the greatest number of people. Another criterion for project identification, especially for projects involving acquisition of easements or fee title, was the number of landowners involved and future transaction costs.
A summary of critical resources protected by specific actions of the three to five year implementation plan is included as Appendix 5.
All of the implementation plan acquisition projects (fee title and easement) are based on landowner willingness to participate. Although some landowners or landowner representatives were contacted to discuss their conservation interest in a general way, none of these specific projects have yet been presented to landowners. Considering that some landowners may be unwilling to participate, or may not be ready to participate within the next three to five years, the implementation plan
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 49
provides multiple project areas which can accomplish similar conservation goals and objectives.
Estimated budgets for acquisition projects provided below are preliminary, and are based on assumptions of value derived from a limited number of past sales in the area. Actual appraised values may vary quite widely from the estimated values provided in this report due to the specific qualities and limitations of each property appraised. In addition, with the current financial difficulties facing the State of California, it is likely that future State funding for conservation projects, beyond the amounts set aside by recent bond initiatives, will become increasingly scarce, and competition for these funds will be high. Therefore, to achieve the conservation objectives of this Plan, project partners will look at a number of financing options, including assistance from willing landowners in the form of donated value and matches to restoration or other conservation activities.
The implementation plan includes recommendations for general actions and projects, as well as for projects specific to priority areas. Projects that are specific to conservation priority areas fall within two general categories: critical watersheds and coastal terraces. The following list summarizes general implementation actions and projects, and is followed by a table providing detail on projects that are specific to priority areas (Table 4). Lastly, a graphic illustration (Map Figure 5) of the three to five year implementation plan may be found at the end of this section.
Action 1: Establish a Model Working Forest Conservation Easement Program in Two Critical Salmonid Watersheds
Discussion: A partnership is recommended among local and national conservation organizations, agencies, and private landowners to establish a model working forest easement program in the Big River and Ten Mile watersheds to sustain the ecological function and economic viability of working forests. The easement program would include the following key actions: · Complete a watershed assessment · Acquire conservation easement · Conduct restoration projects Prior to acquisition of an easement, watershed assessments would be completed by the partners. These assessments will require six to twelve months to complete, and will provide an overview of critical habitat, threats, and opportunities for restoration. Public funds for easement acquisition, and limited fee title if appropriate, would be initially targeted at one or more sub-watersheds. Matching funding for critical restoration work would be provided by landowners and agencies, based on a watershed management plan created by the partners. The model easement
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 50
program would include an in-stream monitoring component, and would be implemented in full compliance with agency requirements, such as endangered species protection and water quality protection. In anticipation of implementing future easement programs in other high priority watersheds, such as the Noyo and Albion, support should be given for initiating watershed assessments in additional watersheds where appropriate. Estimated Costs: $9,100,000 (please refer to Table 4, below, for detail) Potential Funding Sources: please refer to Table 4, below
Action 2: Purchase Conservation Easements and Limited Fee Title to Protect Scenic, Biological, Agricultural and Cultural/Historic Resources, and to Secure Trail and Coastal Access in Five Coastal Terrace Areas
Discussion: The purchase of conservation easements and limited fee title from willing landowners is recommended in the following five coastal areas: · Usal Creek/Rockport Coastal Terrace · Lower Ten Mile River/MacKerricher Coastal Terrace · Noyo River/Pudding Creek Watersheds/Fort Bragg Waterfront (areas surrounding City of Fort Bragg only) · Elk Creek Watershed (priority for western portion of watershed) · Garcia Coastal Terrace
Each of these projects encompasses a combination of resources values, including: · Sensitive biological resources, such as estuaries, riparian zones, important bird areas and marine mammal haul-out sites · Scenic resources · Working farms and ranches · Cultural and historic sites · Off-highway access to the California Coastal Trail · Access to beaches, coves and ocean bluff tops
In all coastal acquisition projects which provide public access, conservation partners must first evaluate sensitive biological habitats and establish measures to protect such resources from human disturbance where warranted. In addition, all coastal acquisition projects should evaluate and organize programs for removal of priority exotic plants from roads, trails and other corridors. Estimated Costs: $8,310,000 (please refer to Table 4, below, for detail) Potential Funding Sources: please refer to Table 4, below
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 51
Action 3: Acquire Public Access Rights and Open Accessways to Complete the California Coastal Trail in Additional Critical Areas
Discussion: In addition to the coastal terrace projects mentioned above, collaboration with willing landowners is recommended to acquire and open new segments of the California Coastal Trail (described in the soon-to-be released “Completing the California Coastal Trail” report prepared by the Coastal Conservancy). To avoid sensitive habitat areas such as estuaries, riparian areas, and wetlands, some trail segments may need to parallel Highway 1. Target segments are: · Usal Road to Westport-Union Landing State Park · Pudding Creek (complete retrofitting of the Pudding Creek trestle) · Trail segments connecting Russian Gulch State Park, Point Cabrillo Reserve, Caspar Headlands, Caspar State Beach, and Jug Handle State Reserve · Trail segments in the Albion Headlands · Manchester State Beach to the Point Arena Pier
Estimated Trail Acquisition Costs: $450,000 (assuming Pudding Creek Trestle funding already secured by DPR, and Usal to Westport segment included in Action #2, above); costs to open trails to be determined on an individual basis
Potential Funding Sources: State Coastal Conservancy; DPR; private foundations and donors; private landowners
Action 4: Purchase Trail and Working Forest Easements Between Public Lands
Discussion: Collaboration with willing landowners is recommended to purchase easements providing public access linkages between many of the public lands located between the Navarro River and Fort Bragg, including: · Van Damme State Park and Mendocino Headlands State Park (Big River Unit) · Caspar Beach and Caspar Headlands State Parks to Jackson Demonstration State Forest and Russian Gulch State Park · Van Damme State Park to Albion Ridge Road via County Airport, TNC Pygmy Forest Preserve and Enchanted Meadow Estimated Costs: $2,100,000 (please refer to Table 4, below, for detail) Potential Funding Sources: please see Table 4, below
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 52
Action 5: Remove Fish Passage Barriers
Discussion: Based on recent research by the Coastal Conservancy of barriers to fish passage (detailed under “Conservation Opportunities and Partnerships”), barrier removals are recommended at the following locations: · Schooner Gulch · Caspar Creek (north and south forks) · Bridge Creek (tributary to the South Branch of the North Fork of the Navarro River) Estimated Costs: $600,000 Potential Funding Sources: State Coastal Conservancy; RCD; Department of Fish and Game; Caltrans; private foundations and donors
Action 6: Re-activate the Mendocino Forest Council
Discussion: The currently inactive Mendocino Forest Council is an ad hoc group established by the County Board of Supervisors to inform the Board on forestry issues and to review proposed Sustained Yield Plans, among other tasks. Re-activation of this group is recommended, and participation by conservation partners to the fullest extent possible, in order to promote sustainable forestry practices throughout Mendocino County’s coastal forests.
Estimated Costs: Costs to be included in Action #9, Plan implementation Potential Funding Sources: See Action #9
Action 7: Support Coordinated Agricultural Permit Program to Protect and Enhance both Navarro River Watershed and Anderson Valley Sustainable Agriculture
Discussion: The Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Sustainable Conservation, and other partners are working to establish a coordinated agricultural permit program for farms in the Anderson Valley that will provide incentives to restore and protect stream habitats
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 53
and utilize Best Management Practices. If evaluation of the program shows it is effective, a similar program is recommended for coastal agricultural areas (see discussion on page 27). Estimated Costs: Costs to be born by agencies administering program Potential Funding Sources: Funding may come from existing budgets of the Mendocino Resource Conservation District and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, supplemented by additional grants78
Action 8: Provide Research to Assess Coastal Wildlife Corridors
Discussion: To provide connectivity for wildlife species’ population expansion, and to prevent population isolation (and diminished genetic health), collaboration with agencies and national conservation organizations is recommended to provide wildlife corridor research. Research should identify priority corridors for acquisition (fee title and/or conservation easement). Estimated Costs: $30,000 Potential Funding Sources: Department of Fish and Game, Legacy, the Landscape Connection, local and national conservation organizations, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, other wildlife organizations, private foundations and donors
Action 9: Provide for Plan Implementation and Coordination by Local Conservation Organizations and Partners
Discussion: Assistance in project development is recommended for conservation partners in order to implement the Plan. In addition, coordination by MLT of the various projects is recommended. At the end of five years, MLT should prepare a second three to five year implementation plan. Estimated Costs: Project development and pre-acquisition assistance for local land trusts and other conservation organizations: $450,000
Coordination and monitoring of Plan implementation for five year period, and preparation of subsequent three to five year implementation plan including
78 Tom Schott, USDA -NRCS District Conservationist, personal communication, February 24, 2003
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 54
reassessment, information update, and analysis (including GIS component): $30,000
Total Estimated Costs: $480,000
Potential Funding Sources: Regional Water Quality Control Board, private foundations and donors
Action 10: Raise the Awareness of Mendocino County’s Coastal Resource Conservation Needs at Local, Regional and State Levels to Secure Support for Funding Programs Recommended in the Plan
Discussion: In order to raise awareness about coastal resources, threats, and conservation opportunities, and to build support for conservation programs throughout the coast, it is recommended that MLT provide workshops for legislators, decision makers, landowners, County staff, realtors, local communities, schools, and others. In addition, to obtain funding, it is recommended that several adjacent projects with similar resource values be combined under a single conservation program. For example, projects in the Usal/Creek Rockport Coastal Terrace, Lower Ten Mile Watershed, Lower Ten Mile River/MacKerricher Coastal Terrace, Noyo River Watershed, Pudding Creek Watershed, Fort Bragg Waterfront were recently combined under a single “North Highway 1 Scenic Corridor and Watershed Protection Program” in a funding proposal submitted by MLT. Estimated Project Costs Prepare presentation materials: $15,000 Conduct 15 workshops at $1,000 each: $15,000 Total Costs: $30,000 Potential Funding Sources: Mendocino County, local land trusts and partners, private foundations and donors
The following table outlines priority areas, and specific projects recommended for them in the three to five year implementation plan. This table includes specific strategies, potential partners, and estimated costs. Given the focus in this table on priority areas, general actions (actions six through ten) occurring throughout the Mendocino coast are not included.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 55
Table 4: Three to Five Year Implementation Plan by Priority Conservation Area
Note: This table provides additional information on implementation plan actions 1, 2, and 4, specific to priority areas. General implementation plan actions (3 and 5 -10), which will be implemented throughout the study area, are not included below.
Work with Partners to Prepare Watershed Assessment Plans of Two Critical Watersheds (Phase 1 of Action 1)
Conservation Priority Area Affected Notes on Specific Strategies Potential Partners and/or Estimated Costs Funding Sources Involved Ten Mile River Watershed Work with willing landowners and Landowners, local and national $50,000 partners to prepare a watershed conservation organizations, DFG, assessment, and identify potential Friends of Ten Mile River, RCD, sub-watersheds for working forest Coastal Conservancy, other conservation easements agencies Big River Watershed Same as above (note DPR and MLT Landowners, local and national $50,000 have existing funds for watershed conservation organizations, DFG, planning in the lower watershed) Big River Watershed Alliance, DPR, Jackson Demonstration State Forest, Coastal Conservancy
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 56
Table 4: Three to Five Year Implementation Plan by Priority Conservation Area (cont.)
Establish a Model Conservation Easement Program In Two Critical Watersheds to Improve Water Quality and Protect Salmonid Habitat and Working Forests (Phase 2 of Action 1)
Conservation Priority Area Notes on Specific Strategies Potential Partners and/or Estimated Costs Affected Funding Sources Involved Ten Mile River Watershed Acquire working forest conservation Landowners, local and national 3,000 acres at $1,000/ easements and riparian buffers from conservation organizations, acre = $3 million willing landowners on parcels within Friends of Ten Mile River, Coastal the Little North Fork and Lower Ten Conservancy, RCD and other Mile River sub-watersheds (or others agencies, private foundations and designated by watershed assessment) donors Big River Watershed Acquire working forest easements and Landowners, local and national 4,000 acres at riparian buffers from willing conservation organizations, , Big $1,000/acre = $4 landowners within specific sub- River Watershed Alliance, DPR, million watersheds designated by watershed Jackson Demonstration State assessment Forest, Coastal Conservancy, DFG, private foundations and donors
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 57
Table 4: Three to Five Year Implementation Plan by Priority Conservation Area (cont.)
Implement Restoration Projects to Improve Water Quality and Salmonid Habitat in Two Critical Watersheds (Phase 3 of Action 1)
Conservation Priority Area Notes on Specific Strategies Potential Partners and/or Estimated Costs Affected Funding Sources Involved Ten Mile Watershed Negotiate landowner participation in Landowners, RCD, Coastal $500,000 to $1,000,000 watershed restoration. Restoration Conservancy, Mendocino Land might include road repair or retirement, Trust, private foundations and fish migration and habitat enhancement, donors, Dept. of Transportation etc. (potential mitigation funds tied to new Hwy. 1 bridge at Ten Mile River) Big River Watershed Same as above See list above under “Model $500,000 to $1,000,000 Conservation Easement Program” for this watershed
Purchase Conservation Easements and Limited Fee to Protect Scenic, Biological, Agricultural and Cultural/Historic Resources, and to Secure and Open Trail and Coastal Access in Five Critical Coastal Terrace Areas (Action 2)
Conservation Priority Area Notes on Specific Strategies Potential Partners and/or Estimated Costs Affected Funding Sources Involved Usal Creek/ Rockport Coastal Terrace Acquire trail easement from willing Landowners, DPR, Coastal Trail only: 6.6 miles X landowners from Usal Beach to Conservancy, RCD, Dept. of 100 feet of fee = 80 Rockport Beach; acquire beach Transportation, local and national acres X $3,000/acre = access, biological and timber conservation organizations, $240,000. Rockport easements surrounding Rockport private conservation buyers, Beach area: 300 acres Beach; open trails for public access private foundations and donors X $2,000/acre = $600,000 Costs to open trails: to be determined
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 58
Lower Ten Mile River/MacKerricher Acquire conservation easements from Landowners, DPR, Coastal 1,000 acres @ $2,000 Coastal Terrace willing landowners in scenic Conservancy, Dept. of per acre = $2 million viewsheds surrounding Ten Mile River Transportation, local and national (Trestle funding estuary; secure funding for Pudding conservation organizations, unknown) Creek Trestle; open Trestle for public private conservation buyers, access private foundations and donors Noyo River/ Pudding Creek Create a looped trail system Landowners (Hawthorne, GP, 8.0 miles of trail X 50 Watersheds and Fort Bragg surrounding the City of Fort Bragg by others), Coastal Conservancy, feet = 50 acres @ Waterfront acquiring from willing landowners trail DPR, City of Fort Bragg, $3,000 per acre = easements along Noyo River and Mendocino County Recreation $150,000 Pudding Creek; secure coastal access and Parks District, Dept. of Costs to open trails: to at former GP mill site in City of Fort Transportation, local and national be determined Bragg as part of Specific Plan conservation organizations, process; open trails for public access private foundations and donors
Garcia Coastal Terrace and Alder Acquire agricultural,, biological, scenic Landowners, CA Dept. of 2000 acres X Creek Watershed and trail protection easements from Conservation/CA Farmland $2,000/acre = willing landowners on parcels north Conservancy Program, $4,000,000 (excluding and south of properties under NRCS/Federal Farmland 1,800-acre project negotiation with SCC; secure CCT trail Protection Program, Coastal under negotiation) access to Irish Beach; open trails for Conservancy, DPR, DFG, Wildlife Costs to open trails: to public access Conservation Board, local and be determined national conservation organizations, private conservation buyers, private foundations and donors Acquire easements from willing MRC, Coastal Conservancy, 300 acres @ $2,000 landowners on lower Alder Creek to Wildlife Conservation Board, local per acre = $600,000 protect Old Growth and marbled and national conservation (note this may increase murrelet nest(s) organizations, private with higher timber conservation buyers, private values) foundations and donors Elk Creek Watershed Work with willing landowners to Landowners, Coastal 120 acres @ $6,000 acquire estuary and beach access; Conservancy, local and national per acre = $720,000 open trail for public access consistent conservation organizations, DPR, Costs to open trail: to with protection of sensitive resources Wildlife Conservation Board, be determined private foundations and donors
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 59
Table 4: Three to Five Year Implementation Plan by Priority Conservation Area (cont.)
Purchase Trail and Working Forest Easements Between Public Lands (Action 4)
Conservation Priority Area Notes on Specific Strategies Potential Partners and/or Estimated Costs Affected Funding Sources Involved Little River Watershed (upper-most Acquire easements from willing Private landowners, Coastal 400 acres @ $2,000 portion) landowners linking Big River and Little Conservancy, DPR, RCD, local per acre = $800,000 River Watersheds; acquire and national conservation easement(s) from willing sellers linking organizations, private Little River and Albion River conservation buyers, private Watersheds foundations and donors Caspar Creek Watershed Acquire easements from willing Private landowners, Coastal 250 acres @ $2,000 landowners linking Conservancy, Jackson per acre = $500,000 Caspar Beach and Headlands State Demonstration State Forest, local Parks to Jackson Demonstration State and national conservation Forest and Russian Gulch State Park organizations, private conservation buyers, private foundations and donors Albion Watershed (lower portion Acquire easements from willing Private landowners, Coastal 400+/ acres @ $2,000 between Airport and Albion Ridge Road) landowners linking Van Damme State Conservancy, DPR, Wildlife per acre = $800,000 Park with Albion Ridge Road via Conservation Board, County airport, TNC property, Enchanted Airport, TNC, local and national Meadow area and large area of pygmy conservation organizations, forest along Albion Ridge Road private foundations and donors
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 60
Table 5: Implementation Plan Budget Summary:
General Actions and Projects (Actions 8-10) $540,000 Critical Salmonid Watershed Projects: $9,100,000 Fish Barrier Removal Projects $ 600,000 Coastal Terrace Projects (excluding Stornetta property): $8,310,000
Additional Coastal Trail-Only projects $450,000 Corridors Between Public Parks and Preserves: $2,100,000
Total Estimated Implementation Plan Budget: $21,100,000*
*Note: this figure does not include project costs such as legal/title, survey, appraisal services, or project management. Note also that estimated budgets for acquisition projects provided in this report are preliminary, and are based on assumptions of value derived from a limited number of past sales in the area. Actual appraised values may vary quite widely from the estimated values provided in this report due to the specific qualities and limitations of each property appraised.
Budget Value Assumptions 79: Interior forests – large tracts: Fair Market Value: $3,000 per acre Sustainable Working Forest Easement Value: $1,000 per acre
Coastal terrace areas and smaller tracts of forest lands: Fair Market Value: $5-8,000 per acre Easement (biological, scenic): $2,000 per acre Trail easement (50-foot corridors): $3,000 per acre
79 Sources: Connie Best, Pacific Forest Trust, personal communication, March 13, 2003, and Dean Strupp, Dean Strupp and Associates Appraisal Services, personal communication, March 11, 2003
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 61
References
Bell, Craig, Trout Unlimited, personal communication, November 13, 2002
Bengston, Dave, County Agricultural Commissioner, personal communication, March 26, 2003
Best, Connie, Pacific Forest Trust, personal communication, September 13, 2003
Blencoe, Craig, RPF, personal communication, October 2, 2002
Bowen, Michael, Coastal Conservancy, personal communication, April 2, 2003
California Coastal Commission, California Coastal Access Guide, Fifth edition, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1997
California Department of Fish and Game, “DFG Seeks Nominations to Fill Seats on Pacific Fishery Management Council” [online]
California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, “Conservation Planning,” [online]
California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Region, “Groundfish Disaster Relief Program,” [online]
California Native Plants Society, “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants,” [online] http://www.northcoast.com/~cnps/cgi-bin/cnps/sensinv.cgi California North Coast Ecoregional Plan, June 2001, The Nature Conservancy
Caltrans, Route Concept Report, Route 1 Corridor, March 2003
Chorneau, Tom, “Company Scales Back Plan for Biggest Vineyard on Coast,” The Press Democrat, January 3, 2003
City of Fort Bragg, Draft Fort Bragg General Plan, August 2002
Coastal Conservancy, Assessment of Barriers to Fish Passage in California’s Coastal Watersheds, Draft, February 2003
Coastal Conservancy, Completing the California Coastal Trail, Draft, January 21, 2003
Conservation Biology Institute, “Pacific Northwest Conservation Assessment – A GIS-Based Model for Assessing Conservation Focal Areas for the Redwood Ecoregion,” [online]
Conservation Strategy Fund, Land Acquisition Evaluation for Department of Fish and Game, Draft, April 2001
Cooperrider, Allen, “Our Bioregion – The North Coastal Basin”, [online]
County of Mendocino, Mendocino County General Plan, Coastal Element, November 5, 1985, revised March 11, 1991
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 62
Evans, David, Regional Water Quality Control Board, personal communication, January 29, 2003 Forest Landowner Spring 2001 Newsletter, “Carbon Credits & The Family Forest,” Peter T. Parker [online]
Heidi Cusick, “Tax Revenues Job and Income in County Visitor Industry Up,” [online]
Jackson, Rodney, Cuffey’s Cove - The Ecology of the Roth Ranch, Elk, Mendocino County, California
Jarvie, Naomi, “Noyo Harbor and Its Fisheries,” The Mendocino Beacon, January 30, 2003, p. 2
Jenney, Hans, R.J. Arkely, and A.M. Schultz, The Pygmy Forest: Podzol Ecosystem and its Dune Associates of the Mendocino Coast
KRIS Mendocino, [online]
Labor Market Information Division of the California Employment Development Department, “County Shapshot – Mendocino, 2002,” [online]
Leonard, Keith, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, personal communication, January 27, 2003
Lorentzen, Bob, Richard Nichols, Hiking the California Coastal Trail, Volume One, Oregon to Monterey, Bored Feet Press, 2002
McCummings, Jim, Coast Real Estate, personal communication, March 27, 2003
Mendocino Coast Audubon Society, Important Bird Areas
Mendocino Redwood Company, “MCR Fact Sheet & 4-Year Update,” [online]
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca and J. Kents. “Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities,” Nature 403, pp. 853-858
National Wildlife Fund, “Global 200, A Science-Based Global Ranking of the Earth’s Most Outstanding Habitats,” [online] http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/global200/pages/home.html North Coast Watershed Assessment Program, Gualala River Watershed Assessment, March 2003
Oregon State University Libraries, “GovStats – USA Counties, Commerce Counties, and Agriculture.” [online]
Redwood Forestry Foundation, “Working Community Forests,” [online] http://www.rffi.org/white.htm
Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Watershed Planning Chapter, January 2002
Reid, Leslie M., Sue Hilton, “Buffering the Buffer,” USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep., 1998 Mendocino County Department of Public Health, The Rural Challenge Assessment, 2002
Rickets, et al., 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment, Washington D.C., Island Press
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 63
Save the Redwoods League, The Redwood Forest: History, Ecology, and Conservation of the Coast Redwoods, Reed Noss, ed.
Schott, Tom, USDA -NRCS District Conservationist, personal communication, February 24, 2003
Sholars, Theres a, Biology 19 Rare Plants and Species of Special Concern Workbook, College of the Redwoods, Fort Bragg Campus
State of California Resources Agency, A Resource Conservation Strategy, Initial Assessment of the Health and Condition of California’s Lands and Natural Resources 2002
State of California Resources Agency, First Annual Conservation Priorities Report, January 14 2002 State of California Resources Agency, Resource Status Assessment and Trends Methodology, July 3, 2002 State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, January 2003
State of California, California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 921
State of California, California Coastal Act of 1976, Sec. 30001(a) Stritthold, James R., Heilman, Gerald E., Noss, Reed. 1999. A GIS -Based Model for Assessing Conservation Focal Areas for the Redwood Ecosystem. Conservation Biology Institute. Corvalis, Oregon
The Campbell Group, “Introduction to Timberland Investment” [online]
Tobkin, Dorothy (Toby), Mendocino Coast Audubon Society, personal communication
U.S. Department of Agriculture, California Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 Census of Agricultural Profile
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 1999
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census 2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
University of California Cooperative Extension, Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’ Reports, Gross Values by Commodity Groups – California, 2000-01,
Van Bueren, Thad, personal communication, September 5, 2002
Walls, Tim, RCD, personal communication, March 27, 2003
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 64
Appendix 1: Contact Information (Advisory Committee and Other Contributors) Note: Individuals with names in bold served as Advisory Committee Members
NAME AFFILIATION SPECIALITY ADDRESSES PHONE Adams, Hillary Sierra Club Planning, history 1391 Cameron Road 707- 877-3527 Elk, CA 95432 Albin, Doug Department of Fish and Game Fisheries 1031-A South Main Street 707-964-7683 Fort Bragg, CA 95437
[email protected] Anderson, Chet Mendocino Land Trust, Board Conservation Planning, Water Quality PO Box 814 707-937-1707 Member, Lands Committee Mendocino, CA 95460
[email protected] Bell, Craig Trout Unlimited, Friends of the Garcia Garcia River, Fisheries PO Box 235 707-884-3012 Point Arena, CA 95468
[email protected] Best, Connie Pacific Forest Trust Forestry, Working Forest Easements 416 Aviation Blvd., Suite A 707-578-9950 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Bengston, Dave County Ag Commissioner Agriculture 579 Low Gap Road 707-463-4208 Ukiah, CA 95482 Blencowe, Craig Consulting Forester (RPF) Forester (SmartWood certified) 31471 Camille Drive 707-961-1300 Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Bowen, Michael State Coastal Conservancy Project Manager, North Coast 1330 Broadway, Floor 11 510-286-0720 Oakland, CA 94612-2530
[email protected] Budge, Nancy Forestry consultant Former Mendocino Redwood 5110 S Surprise Way #202 208-424-8814 Company Forester Boise, ID 83716
[email protected] Eagan, Michael Caltrans – Chief, Office of System and Transportation PO Box 3700 707-445-6398 Community Planning Eureka, CA 95502
Eberly, Shirley Redwood Coast Land Conservancy South Mendocino Coast PO Box 1511 707-785-3327 Gualala, CA 95445
[email protected] Evans, Dave Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality 5550 Skylane Blvd, Suite A 707-576-2220 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Fielder, Erica Friends of the Ten Mile Ten Mile area PO Box 1075 707-964-1467 Mendocino, CA 95460 Fitzgerald, Rebecca Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality 5550 Skylane Blvd, Suite A 707-576-2220 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Fostiak, Marie Westport Village Society Westport area PO Box 446 707-964-2872 Westport, CA 95448 (W) 707-964-7655 (H) Gear, Karyn California Coastal Conservancy North Coast Program Manager 1330 Broadway, 11th Floor 510-286-4171 Oakland, CA 95612-2530 Golec, Claire Department of Fish and Game Environmental Scientist 1031-A South Main Street 707-964-1597 Timberland Conservation Program Fort Bragg, CA 95437
[email protected] Gray, Linda Legacy, The Landscape Connection Conservation Planning, GIS PO Box 904 707-468-8228 Ukiah, CA 95482
Guisti, Greg UC Extension Wildlife/Forestry Advisor UC Cooperative Extension 707- 463-4495 Agriculture Center/Courthous e Ukiah, CA 95482 [email protected]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 65
NAME AFFILIATION SPECIALITY ADDRESSES PHONE Hanks, Herrick (Rick) Bureau of Land Management National Monuments Manager 299 Foam Street 831-372-6105 Monterey, CA 93940 [email protected] Hansen, Gladys Big River Watershed Alliance Big River 43300 Airport Road 707-937-5017 Little River, CA 95456 [email protected] Harris, Scott DFG, Willits Salmonids PO Box 1690 707-459-2238 Willits, CA 95490 [email protected] Hartley, Ruskin Save-the-Redwoods League GIS/Conservation Planning 114 Sansome Street, Rm 1200 415-362-2352 San Francisco, CA 94104-3823 [email protected] Hines, Dave National Marine Fisheries Services Fisheries, Wildlife 777 Sonoma Avenue 707-575-6098 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Hooper, John Oz, Point Arena landowner 415-626-8880 Hope, Dave Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality 5550 Skylane Blvd, Suite A 707-576-2220 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Horn, Steve State Coastal Conservancy, Deputy Regional Planning 1330 Broadway, Floor 11 510-286-4158 Executive Officer Oakland, CA 94612-2530 [email protected] Hubbart, Lori CNPS Botany PO Box 577 707-882-1655 Gualala, CA 95445 [email protected] Jacques, Sonia Trust for Public Land, Sr. Project Conservation Planning 116 New Montgomery 415-495-5660 Manager San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] Jani, Mike Mendocino Redwood Company Chief Forester PO Box 390 707-485-8731 Calpella, CA 95418 Katz, David Trout Unlimited, California Director Conservation Planning 1120 College Avenue 707-578-8347 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 707-543-5877 [email protected] Kelly, Chris Conservation Fund, California Director Conservation Planning 349 Elm Ave. 415-927-2123 Larkspur, CA 94939 [email protected] Koller, Scott DFG Wildlife PO Box 1690 707-456-0329 Willits, CA 95490 Lemos, Bill SONAR (School of Natural Resources, Teaching, wildlife PO Box 944 707-937-5871 Mendocino Unified School District) Mendocino, CA 95460 [email protected] Lorentzen, Bob Author of Trail Guides (local) and Trails, public access, California PO Box 1832 707-964-6629 “Hiking the California Coastal Trail” Coastal Trail Mendocino, CA 95460 Madigan, Patty Consultant, Navarro River Watershed Watershed planning, fisheries, PO Box 1697 707-964-0395 Coordinator Navarro Mendocino, CA 95460 [email protected] Marshall, Knox Campbell Timberland Management Area manager 90 West Redwood Avenue 707-961-3302 Fort Bragg, CA 95437 [email protected] Mayer, Craig The Nature Conservancy Conservation Planning 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor 415-281-0477 San Francisco, CA 94105 McCummings, Jim Mendocino Land Trust, Board Conservation Planning, Real Estate PO Box 726 707-937-1565 Member, Lands Committee Mendocino, CA 95460 McEnespy, Moira State Coastal Conservancy Project Manager 1330 Broadway, 11th Floor 510-286-4171 Oakland, CA 94612-2530 [email protected] Miller, Rick County Planning Land use planning, LCP, Historical 790 S Franklin St. 707-964-5379 Fort Bragg, CA 95437 [email protected] Millet, Wendy The Nature Conservancy Conservation Planning 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor 415-281-0477 San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected] Morris, Louisa Environmental Consultant Watershed management PO Box 674 707-937-6217 Mendocino, CA 95460 [email protected]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 66
NAME AFFILIATION SPECIALITY ADDRESSES PHONE Nelson, Dave Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality 5550 Skyline Blvd, Suite A 707-576-2220 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Nichols, Richard Coastwalk Trails, public access, California 1389 Cooper Road 707-829-6689 Coastal Trail Sebastopol, CA 95472 Owings, Rich Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens, Botany, wildlife, public access 18220 N Highway 1 707-964-4352 Executive Director Fort Bragg, CA 95437 ext 11 [email protected] Pasquinelli, Renee CA Dept of Parks and Recreation Resource ecology PO Box 440 707-937-5804 Mendocino, CA 95460 [email protected] Perkins, Linda Albion River Watershed Protection Albion River area, forestry, watershed PO Box 661 707-937-0903 Association planning Albion, CA 95410 Pjerrou, Mary Greenwood Creek Watershed Greenwood Creek PO Box 106 707-877-3405 Association Elk, CA 95432 Reimueller, Peter Friends of Schooner Gulch Schooner Gulch area PO Box 4 707-882-2001 Point Arena, CA 95468 Remick, Caroline Sustainable Conservation 121 Second Street, 6th Floor 415-977-0380 San Francisco, CA 94105 Rosales, Hawk InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness PO Box 1523 707-463-6745 Council, Executive Director Ukiah, CA 95482 Ruffing, Linda City of Fort Bragg Community Planning 416 N. Franklin Street 707-961-2827 Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Schott, Tom USDA – NRCS (District Resources, Conservation Planning 405 S. Orchard Avenue 707-468-9223 Conservationist) Ukiah, CA 95482 Schwindt, Patricia Moat Creek Managing Agency Moat Creek area PO Box 105 707-882-2617 Point Arena, CA 95468 Sholars, Teresa College of the Redwoods Botany, natural history PO Box 2340 707-937-4130 Mendocino, CA 95460 [email protected] Somer, Dick Mendocino Land Trust (Board Conservation Planning 13101 Sea Pines Lane 707-937-0675 Member), Lands Committee (Chair) Mendocino, CA 95460
[email protected] Stenberg, Denise Historian, Fort Bragg area 520 E. Fir Street 707-964-2404 Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Strupp, Dean Appraiser Land value, land use PO Box 53 707-964-0887 Mendocino, CA 95460
Tarbell, Judy Mendocino Land Trust (Board Conservation, community planning, PO Box 14 707-964-1323 Member), Lands Committee (Member) public access Caspar, CA 95420 [email protected] Tibbot, Emily The Nature Conservancy Government Relations 2015 J Street, Suite 103 916-449-2850 Sacramento, CA 95814 ext. 29 [email protected] Tobkin, Dorothy Fort Bragg Resident, Audubon Birds and habitat 159 Jewett 707-964-6216 ‘Toby’ Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Van Bueren, Thad Archaeologist Archeology PO Box 326 707-961-6096 Westport, CA 95488 [email protected] Walls, Tim Resource Conservation District Watershed planning 405 S Orchard Ave 707-468-9223 Ukiah, CA 95482
[email protected] Warner, Peter Department of Parks & Recreation Resource Ecology, Botany PO Box 440 707-937-9172 Mendocino, CA 95460 [email protected] Wehren, Rixanne Costal Land Trust GIS, public access, California Coastal PO Box 340 707-937-2709 Trail Albion, CA 95410 [email protected] Wooster, Ted Consulting Biologist, Retired DFG Biology, wildlife, NSO, RTV 6645 Yount St Yountville, CA 94599 Zanini, Doug Mendocino County Planning Land use planning 790 S Franklin St. 707-964-5379 Department Fort Bragg, CA 95437 [email protected]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 67
Appendix 2: Mendocino County Access Offers (Offers to Dedicate for Public Access) March 2003
Expir. Applicant Name Street Name, Town or City Type Date Permit Number APN Status Gardner 37032 Omega Drive, Westport Lateral 5/16/01 A-64-79 013-280-36 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Hicks 37022 Omega Drive, Westport Lateral 7/2/03 NCR-79-CC-1031 013-280-032 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Linsteadt 38950 Highway One (Main Street), Lateral 8/29/15 A-1-MEN-93-54 013-300-040, 013- Accepted 8/1/2000, Westport Village Westport 030-044, 013-330- Society 045, 013-320-001
Linsteadt 38950 Highway One (Main Street), Vertical 8/29/15 A-1-MEN-93-54 013-300-040, 013- Accepted 8/1/2000, Westport Village Westport 300-044, 013-300- Society 045, 013-320-001
Garcia 31400 Highway 1, Westport Lateral 12/1/02 NCR-77-CC-347 015-330-24 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Sabsay 30230 Highway 1, Ten Mile area Lateral 11/7/01 NCR-78-C-297 015-340-007 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Sabsay 30230 Highway 1, Ten Mile area Vertical 11/7/01 NCR-78-C-297 015-340-22 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Hack 30300 Highway 1, Ten Mile area Lateral 11/18/01 77-CC-328 015-340-05 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Robinson 30400 Highway 1, Ten Mile area Lateral 5/12/03 NCR-77-CC-394 015-340-29 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Accepted, 1/03, American Land Wallihan 29000 Camp 2 Ten Mile Rd Lateral 6/27/03 NCR-78-CC-690 015-140-57 Conservancy Wilke Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Lateral 12/24/01 80-CC-71 015-350-38 Accepted 12/21/2001, CA State Parks Jeffries Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Lateral 3/20/02 80-CC-97 015-350-39 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Horack Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Lateral 3/24/02 80-CC-96 015-350-14 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Patchett Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Lateral 3/24/02 80-CC-98 015-350-41 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Reese Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Lateral 4/16/02 80-CC-256 015-350-42 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks McNeely Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Trail 6/22/02 81-CC-305 015-350-43 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Jensen Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Lateral 10/7/02 80-CC-237 015-350-27 Accepted 6/10/2002, CA State Parks California Coastal Conservancy plans to McCormack 32590 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 10/12/03 1-81-142 015-035-33 accept Moseley Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Lateral 10/29/02 80-A-118 015-350-22 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Murphey 32824 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 11/5/02 80-CC-243 015-350-24 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Miller 32704 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 8/16/04 NCR-79-CC-130 015-350-29 Accepted 6/10/2002, CA State Parks Newman 32962 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 9/20/04 1-83-186 015-350-17 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Wallin 32932 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 9/27/04 1-83-050 015-350-19 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Perkins 32854 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 11/21/04 NCR-79-CC-247 015-350-23 Accepted 6/10/2002, CA State Parks
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 68
Expir. Applicant Name Street Name, Town or City Type Date Permit Number APN Status Dorn 32904 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 12/4/04 NCR-79-CC-168 015-350-21 Accepted 6/10/2002, CA State Parks Martin 31951 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 2/24/05 1-83-287 015-350-34 Accepted 3/18/2002, CA State Parks Aurswald Ocean Meadows Circle, Ten Mile Lateral 9/22/05 NCR-79-CC-302 015-350-40 Accepted 9/20/2001, CA State Parks Petersen 32724 Ocean Meadows, Ten Mile Lateral 9/21/03 1-81-119 015-350-46 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Goble 30731 Sherwood Rd, Ft Bragg Lateral 4/19/04 NCR-78-CC-808 019-630-02 Baumgartner 531 Cypress Street, Ft Bragg Lateral 7/31/02 80-P-19 018-320-11 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Schnaubelt 32410 N. Harbor Dr, Ft Bragg Lateral 12/6/03 NCR-78-CC-279 018-140-44 Schnaubelt 32410 N. Harbor Dr, Ft Bragg Vertical 2/5/04 NCR-78-CC-279 018-140-44 Accepted 1/03, American Land Spath 19000 Pacific Dr, Ft Bragg Lateral 1/10/03 NCR-77-CC-349 018-450-07 Conservancy Accepted, 1/03, American Land Ritchie 31451 Bay View Dr, Ft Bragg Lateral 5/22/03 77-C-167 018-450-15 Conservancy Tomcik 31451 Bay View Ave, Ft Bragg Lateral 9/14/04 1-83-064 018-450-15 Meyers 18950 Pacific Dr, Ft Bragg Lateral 12/6/03 NCR-78-CC-887 018-450-09 Carlson/ RCC 1250 Del Mar Dr, Ft Bragg Vertical 3/14/05 1-81-148-A 018-450-35 Emerson 18720 Cypress Road, Ft Bragg Lateral 9/21/02 NCR-77-CC-221 017-280-50 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Patterson 18760 Cypress Road, Ft Bragg Lateral 5/22/03 NCR-77-CC-393 017-280-52 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Trombetta 18750 Cypress Road, Ft Bragg Lateral 12/6/03 NCR-78-CC-932 017-280-51 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk authorized for acceptance, CA Coastal Booth 33610 Schoefer Lane, Ft Bragg Lateral 2/22/04 1-81-318 017-050-05 Conservancy Accepted 10/2/2001, CA Coastal Schoefer 33450 Shoefer Ln, Ft Bragg Vertical 10/7/01 88-CC-122 017-050-19 Conservancy authorized for acceptance, CA Coastal Shoefer 18050 Ocean Dr, Ft Bragg Lateral 7/13/04 79-CC-83 017-050-12 Conservancy authorized for acceptance, CA Coastal Domenici 18000 Ocean Dr, Ft Bragg Lateral 4/30/07 1-86-015 017-070-40 Conservancy authorized for acceptance, CA Coastal Werner 33580 Shoefer Ln, Ft Bragg Lateral 5/7/13 1-91-196 017-050-18 Conservancy Follette 33389 Pacific Way, Ft Bragg Vertical 3/10/14 1-92-212 017-320-51 EFS Associates 17200 Ocean Dr, Ft Bragg Vertical 9/21/10 1-89-028 017-320-46 Booth 16851 Ocean Drive, Ft Bragg Lateral 7/18/01 NCR-79-CC-304 017-360-19 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Day 16861 Ocean Drive, Ft Bragg Lateral 11/6/05 NCR-77-CC-016 017-360-22 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Day 16881 Ocean Drive, Ft Bragg Lateral 6/16/08 1-85-033 017-360-21 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Easterbrook & Burkes 33050 Jefferson Way, Ft Bragg Other 5/25/03 80-CC-246 017-370-20 State Parks plans to accept
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 69
Expir. Applicant Name Street Name, Town or City Type Date Permit Number APN Status Barrington 33150 Jefferson Way, Ft Bragg Other 4/14/10 1-81-084 017-370-04 State Parks plans to accept Lloyd 33100 Jefferson Way, Ft Bragg Other 7/30/01 NCR-80-CC-28 017-370-03 Accepted 7/29/2001, CA State Parks Trinity Development Corp 45260 Caspar Pt Rd, Caspar Lateral 9/4/05 A-325-78 118-010-34 Trinity Development Corp 45260 Caspar Pt Rd, Caspar Vertical 9/4/05 A-325-78 118-010-34 Accepted 12/7/1998, opened, Tree 45350 Pacific Drive, Caspar Lateral 5/27/01 A-303-79 118-010-24 Mendocino Land Trust Accepted 12/7/1998, opened, Tree 45350 Pacific Drive, Caspar Vertical 5/27/01 A-303-79 118-010-24 Mendocino Land Trust Crowther 45608 Caspar South Dr, Caspar Lateral 7/12/04 NCR-78-CC-975 118-400-03 Watson (Merrin) 14260 Headlands Dr, Caspar Lateral N/A A2-94-01 118-420-05, -06 Coughlan 14220 Headlands Dr, Caspar Lateral 10/22/11 1-89-215 118-420-08 Saul 14201 Headlands Dr, Caspar Lateral 2/2/11 1-89-221 118-420-01 Bartalini 14240 Headlands Dr, Caspar Lateral 7/19/11 1-89-214 118-420-07 Tillotson 14221 Headlands Dr, Caspar Lateral 7/14/15 1-92-121 118-420-02 Kiemele (Merliss) 14241 Headlands Dr, Caspar Lateral 8/13/16 1-91-195 118-420-03 Murphy 14261 Headlands Dr, Caspar Lateral N/A Co. CDP 61-99 118-420-04 Hall 45575 South Caspar Dr, Caspar Lateral 8/7/03 NCR-77-CC-432 118-380-06 Ross 45525 South Caspar Dr, Caspar Lateral 1/23/13 1-88-039 118-380-04 Ross 45525 South Caspar Dr, Caspar Vertical 1/23/13 1-88-039 118-380-04 Fughill 45550 Otter Point Circle, Caspar Lateral 10/3/01 80-CC-162 118-360-10 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Tennant 45525 Otter Point Circle, Caspar Lateral 1/20/02 80-CC-218 118-360-07 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Accepted 3/18/2002, CA Coastal Richards 45533 Otter Point Circle, Caspar Lateral 3/23/02 80-CC-252 118-360-08 Conservancy Howell 45431 Greenling Circle, Caspar Lateral 9/14/03 NCR-78-CC-807 118-390-04 Accepted, 1/03, American Land Davies 45100 Brest Rd, Mendocino Lateral 2/10/03 NCR-77-CC-363 118-240-08 Conservancy Accepted, 1/03, American Land Powers 45434 Indian Shoals Rd, Mendocino Lateral 6/14/03 NCR-77-CC-391 118-180-08 Conservancy Kibbe 45551 Cypress Drive, Mendocino Lateral 4/10/04 NCR-78-CC-905 118-230-11 Ferrero 45111 Cypress Drive, Mendocino Lateral 3/16/04 NCR-78-CC-970 118-230-23 Booth 45200 Fern Drive, Mendocino Lateral 9/24/01 NCR-80-CC-134 118-230-50 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Duran 45130 Fern Drive, Mendocino Lateral 3/23/02 80-CC-161 118-230-052 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Bowen 45150 Drifter's Reef Rd, Mendocino Lateral 9/23/02 A-179-77 118-020-28 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 70
Expir. Applicant Name Street Name, Town or City Type Date Permit Number APN Status Barham (Bishoff) 12801 Bishop Lane, Mendocino Lateral 12/20/02 A-177-77 118-230-03 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Bernhard 11400 Lansing St, Mendocino Lateral 8/2/03 79-CC-208 119-010-12 Accepted 9/23/1986, opened, CA Coastal Conservancy 8/2/03 Accepted 9/23/1986, opened, CA Bernhard 11400 Lansing St, Mendocino Vertical 79-CC-208 119-010-12 Coastal Conservancy Accepted 6/28/1996, opened, McMillen Brewery Gulch Lane, Mendocino Lateral 4/18/03 NCR-77-CC-246 119-310-01 Mendocino Land Trust Accepted 6/28/1996, opened, McMillen Brewery Gulch Lane, Mendocino Vertical 4/18/03 NCR-77-CC-246 119-310-01 Mendocino Land Trust Kimberly 7700 North Hwy One, Little River Vertical 12/20/10 1-89-151 121-280-16 Lambie 6380 North Highway One, Little River Vertical 12/15/01 NCR-80-CC-072 121-050-20 Expired (requirement of OTD=public agency acceptance) Thulin 7850 Highway One, Little River Lateral 3/12/08 1-86-202 121-280-06 Raymond 7300 Highway 1, Little River Lateral 5/21/08 1-86-188 121-280-10, -12 Glassman 7400 Highway 1, Little River Trail 9/21/02 NCR-77-CC-116 121-050-003 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Tremaine 7300 Highway 1, Little River Trail 10/3/02 NCR-75-CC-479 121-028-009 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Garote 6300 Highway 1, Little River Trail 10/6/02 NCR-77-CC-158 121-050-023 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Dennen 5150 Highway One, Albion Vertical 5/12/14 1-92-211-A 123-010-18 Wood 4550 Highway One, Albion Lateral 12/2/04 1-83-223 123-010-29 Wood 4550 Highway One, Albion Vertical 12/2/04 1-83-223 123-010-29 Accepted, 1/03, American Land Roberts 4330 Highway One, Albion Lateral 2/14/03 NCR-77-CC-415 123-010-20 Conservancy Accepted, 1/03, American Land Roberts 4330 Highway One, Albion Vertical 2/14/03 NCR-77-CC-415 123-010-20 Conservancy Leiben 2725 White Gull Court, Albion Lateral 12/2/01 NCR-80-CC-143 123-340-09 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Shaffron 2751 White Gull Court, Albion Lateral 7/6/04 NCR-79-CC-22 123-340-010 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Campbell 2300 Highway One, Albion Lateral 10/11/04 1-81-085 123-290-03 Coastal Land Trust plans to accept Campbell 2300 Highway One, Albion Vertical 10/11/04 1-81-085 123-290-03 Coastal Land Trust plans to accept Jauch 30951 Navarro River Rd, Albion Trail 5/7/05 NCR-77-CC-676 126-180-10 Frankel 3300 Highway One South, Elk Trail 9/12/01 79-A-73 127-040-01 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Matson 2800 Highway One, Elk Vertical 7/6/03 NCR-77-C-60 131-010-02 DiLorenzo 15170 Irish Beach Dr, Manchester Lateral 10/8/03 1-81-078 0132-050-003 DiLorenzo 15170 Irish Beach Dr, Manchester Lateral 10/8/03 51-78 0132-050-003 Fray 26300 S. Highway 1, Pt Arena Lateral 8/27/02 81-CC-307 027-341-07 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 71
Expir. Applicant Name Street Name, Town or City Type Date Permit Number APN Status Rubino 26600 South Highway 1, Pt Arena Lateral 4/10/07 1-86-022 027-341-08 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Auguste 28200 S. Highway One, Pt Arena Lateral 3/6/05 A-29-79 027-433-05 State Parks plans to accept Kesner 30150 Highway 1, Pt Arena Other 1/8/02 80-CC-138 142-031-008 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Linton 46661 Iverson Dr, Pt Arena Other 10/8/02 1-81-053 142-033-011 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Tweedie 30330 Highway 1, Pt Arena Other 11/16/02 NCR-77-CC-354 142-031-014 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Blumenthal 46651 Iverson Rd, Pt Arena Other 11/16/02 1-81-046 142-021-003 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Beihl 30230 S. Highway One, Pt Arena Other 12/24/02 1-81-035 142-031-010 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Stewart 35100 Highway One, Anchor Bay Lateral 6/28/05 1-83-117 144-011-17 Ellis 35300 S. Highway One, Anchor Bay Lateral 1/4/05 1-83-143 144-022-10 DeCosta 36300 Highway One, Anchor Bay Lateral 8/20/05 NCR-79-CC-176 144-130-27 Madison 32500 Highway One, Gualala Lateral 8/8/04 NCR-79-CC-128 142-170-07 Savoca 30700 Highway One, Gualala Lateral 5/25/04 1-83-076 142-051-08 Gaussoin 34010 Highway One, Gualala Lateral 11/18/07 1-86-167 143-130-01 Taylor 34100 Highway One, Gualala Lateral 5/22/06 1-85-019 143-161-19 Plath 32150 Highway 1, Gualala Lateral 8/15/01 NCR-79-CC-294 142-151-021 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Plath 32150 Highway 1, Gualala Vertical 8/15/01 NCR-79-CC-294 142-151-021 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Glasser 36650 Doubloon Way, Gualala Lateral 4/7/02 80-CC-259 144-290-09 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Chambers 36650 Doubloon Way, Gualala Lateral 3/26/03 80-CC-267 144-290-04 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Young 36620 Doubloon Way, Gualala Lateral 7/6/05 1-84-077 144-290-10 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Tremblay 36600 Doubloon Way, Gualala Lateral 3/31/06 78-CC-838 144-290-11 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Tremblay 36600 Doubloon Way, Gualala Other 3/31/06 78-CC-838 144-290-11 Accepted 4/30/2001, Coastwalk Bonham Hwy One & County Road 526, Gualala Lateral 6/26/23 A-1-MEN-00-51 144-170-01, 144- Redwood Coast Land Conservancy 140-03 plans to accept Bonham Hwy One & County Road 526, Gualala Vertical 6/26/23 A-1-MEN-00-51 144-170-01, 144- Redwood Coast Land Conservancy 140-03 plans to accept Witt 47061 Big Gulch Rd, Gualala Lateral 9/14/03 NCR-77-CC-466 145-121-19 Fager 38700 Old Coast Hwy, Gualala Lateral 8/18/03 NCR-78-CC-747 145-121-02 Accepted 10/4/1994, opened, Redwood Humber 39350 South Highway 1, Gualala Lateral 8/17/13 1-88-176 145-261-14 Coast LC Accepted 10/4/1994, opened, Redwood Redwood Emp. Title Co. west of Highway 1, Gualala Lateral 4/14/02 80-P-75 145-261-05 Coast LC Accepted 10/4/1994, opened, Redwood Bower 39140 Highway 1, Gualala Vertical 11/18/02 NCR-77-CC-115 145-266-01 Coast LC
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 72
Appendix 3: Mendocino Winegrowers Alliance (MWA) Position Paper on Vineyards in Our Environment
MWA recognizes that the best care of farm land will come from well informed, knowledgeable and caring landowners who are in the position to make the proper management choices. We believe that we need to take a proactive role in the development of reasonable regulations based on science and realistic economics. While we subscribe wholeheartedly to the concept of property rights, we also recognize that with these rights come responsibilities, especially for public trust resources of air, water and wildlife. MWA’s commitment to sustainability recognizes the need to protect the resources that grace our landscape, not only the ones with tangible economic values, but also the ones that are part of Mendocino’s heritage and help to give the great beauty and rich biological diversity to our area.
Land Clearing and Forest Conversions:
MWA discourages members from converting forested areas into vineyards. Rather, we encourage members to find parcels of land that have been historically farmed and are already mostly cleared or that can be prepared for planting with little removal of trees and vegetation. We especially recognize the uniqueness of our redwood forests, and encourage their protection and continued land use as sustainably managed forests rather than conversion to crop land. Similarly, we encourage our membership to protect and retain oak woodlands and oak trees. When planting grazing land, retention of mature oaks and other hardwood trees should be considered. Planting hedge rows, shelter breaks and wind breaks should be incorporated into our vineyards not only to enhance biodiversity but to help retain the beauty and wildlife habitat that we all enjoy as a feature of Mendocino County’s rural vistas. In this manner, we will retain a rural quality of life in our area that is rapidly being lost in neighboring counties that are under intense urban growth pressures.
Hillside Development and Soil Erosion:
Preventing soil erosion and protecting the water in our streams and rivers is extremely important. Developing vineyards on steep and erosive sites should be avoided unless well thought out and engineered water conveyances are designed into the project. We live in one of the most geologically unstable parts of the planet; coupled with our high rainfall, there is great potential for disaster when natural landforms are extensively reworked and recontoured. Sites that are less steep and easier to farm should be considered first when selecting places to plant a vineyard. Cover cropping and non-tillage farming systems, as practiced in Europe for 100’s of years, should always be used if possible.
Riparian Areas:
Clean water depends on stable streams and rivers. Waterways need to be protected by insuring that sufficient vegetation is present to stabilize the banks and stream beds. Stream bank set- backs should be based on the steepness of the ground, the
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 73
potential of soil erosion, safety for turning farm equipment around at the end of the rows, and preservation of riparian vegetation, which is very important for birds, wild life and fish. We encourage our members to be conservative in protecting and managing these important areas, and not to try to plant “every last square foot.” Growers should consider repairing and improving riparian areas that presently are unstable, denuded or otherwise not living up to their productive potential.
Fencing and Wildlife Access:
When laying out vineyards and fencing, the movement of wildlife through a member’s property should be considered. The abundant wildlife of our county is an important resource that needs protection and encouragement. Habitat is essential to wildlife’s survival. Fencing only the areas that need protection from deer and rabbits, while allowing wildlife access to riparian areas for water and shelter helps in protecting and enhancing the abundant and diverse animal life that we enjoy.
Archeological Sites:
MWA recognizes that people have inhabited Mendocino County for thousands of years before the arrival of European settlers, with many heretofore undisturbed archeological sites still present. As part of any site development plan, we encourage our members to determine if there are any archeological resources present, and work with the Mendocino County Archeological Commission to preserve and protect any areas found to contain cultural resources.
Continuing Education and Awareness:
MWA strongly encourages growers to be “students of life” and to never assume that they know it all. While we think that community and collective knowledge is important, we should not preclude the opportunity to learn more about the awesome world around us. New developments in farming, understanding of how natural systems work, and ways to preserve the natural treasures around us are constantly unfolding. We need to be there and take part in developing the body of knowledge that will allow us to be skillful producers and careful stewards of the resources that make wine growing possible in Mendocino County.
We think that good stewardship demands conservation of the resources that make Mendocino County unique. California has faced 150 years of deforestation and land uses that forever change the face of our state’s landscape. We are fortunate to live in an area that still retains much of its rural charm and rugged beauty. In order to preserve the heritage of our county’s natural beauty and biological diversity, we encourage our members to see their vineyards and farms as part of the natural landscape, and not as stand alone horticultural entities carved out of the landscape with the exclusion of native ecosystems. Should we all strive for this; we will be rewarded not only by increased property values and a beautiful place to live, but by protecting resources for generations to come.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 74
Appendix 4: Potential Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Funding Sources
The following is a list of potential public and private sources of funding for the protection of Mendocino County’s critical coastal resources.
1) Potential Federal Funding Sources a) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) i) Wetlands Protection Development Grants Description: $25K to $350K grants for planning, restoration, and stewardship studies for state, tribal, and local governments. Contact: Nancy Woo (Wetlands Coordinator) 415-744-1164, or EPA at 916-744-1702. Website: www.epa.gov/epahome/grants.htm ii) 205j Water Quality Planning Grants Description: Funds for watershed management planning projects to reduce and prevent water pollution. Eligible applicants: local public agencies and special districts water districts, Resource Conservation Districts, etc. iii) 319h Water Quality Non-Point Source (NPS) Grants Description: Implementation of non-point source pollution management practices. iv) Potential funds through penalty fees/ mitigation funds b) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) i) Management funds for National Marine Sanctuaries and Estuarine Reserves Description: acquisition, research and educational grants to create and conserve marine sanctuaries and estuarine reserves ii) Coastal Non-point Source Pollution Control Program Contact: (202) 260-9133 iii) Community-based Resources Grant Program c) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) NRCS offers watershed planning services that may lead to the commitment of financial resources for project implementation. Contact local NRCS for more information. Website: www.nrcs.usda.gov/NRCSProg.html i) Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Description: acquisition (of conservation easements), enhancement and restoration of wetlands on private property where wetlands constitute 15% of the overall property, and wetlands have been degraded by agricultural activities. Eligible applicants: private landowners. Funding limit for acquisition of easements: $2,000/acre. Contact: Daniel Mountjoy (831) 424-1036 ii) Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) Description: voluntary program for private landowners who want to develop or improve fish and wildlife habitat on their property. NRCS administers the program, providing technical assistance and up to 75% of the cost of the project. iii) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Description: offset payments for 10 year retirement of highly erodible agricultural lands.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 75
iv) Farmland Protection Program (FPP) Description: purchase of agricultural easements on farmland subject to development. Contact: Jim Kocsis, NRCS, 530-792-5605 d) North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) Description: federal funds to conserve North American wetland ecosystems and waterfowl and other migratory birds and fish and wildlife that depend on such habitats. Proposals require 50/50 nonfederal match and are accepted twice a year in March and August. Contact: for application, call 703-358-1784. Website: http://northamerican.fws.gov/granpro.html e) North American Wetlands Conservation Council i) North American Wetland Conservation Grants Description: grants to state agencies to carry out wetlands conservation projects, primarily for acquisition and restoration. Grants available to all coastal states, and require either a 25% or 50% match. Contact: Verlyn Ebert, USFWS, 503-231-6128 for application. Deadline is June. Website: www.fws.gov/cep/cwgcover.html f) The River Network i) Watershed Assistance Grants Description: funding to build capacity of existing or new watershed partnerships to protect and restore their watersheds. Contact: www.rivernetwork.org g) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) i) Land and Water Conservation Fund Description: portion of revenue from outer continental shelf leases and royalties appropriated for acquisition of land for conservation by the USFS, BLM, NPS, and USFWS. Contact: Congressional Representative or regional office of any of the federal agencies for specific information. Website: www.ahrinfo.org ii) National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants Description: Grants for acquisition, restoration and management of coastal lands or waterways Contact: Division of Federal Aid (503) 231-6128 iii) Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Description: Natural habitat restoration on private land. Up to 50% cost-share program to restore and enhance wildlife habitats on private land. Eligible applicants: private landowners. Contact: (916) 414-6446. Website: http://partners.fws.gov/index.htm h) Federal Farmland Protection Program Description: Request For Proposals for 2003 funding cycle has been issued, and up to $100 million nationwide is available this fiscal year for the purchase of agricultural conservation easements. Contact Jim Kocsis of NRCS at 530-792-5605 or [email protected]
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 76
2) Potential State Funding Sources a) Coastal Conservancy Grant funding for the acquisition, restoration, and enhancement of significant coastal and Bay resource and habitat lands. Grants also available for the preparation of plans for the enhancement and restoration of wetlands, dunes, rivers, streams, and watersheds. State and local agencies and non-profits may apply. Contact the Coastal Conservancy at 510-286-1015. Website: www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov i) Resource Enhancement Grants. Description: planning, acquisition, restoration grants to enhance and restore coastal resources ii) Proposition 12 (Riparian Habitat) iii) Natural Heritage Tax Credit Program b) Department of Conservation, California Farmland Conservancy Program Grant funding for projects which use and support agricultural conservation easements for the protection of agricultural lands. Planning grants also available to assess agricultural lands and develop criteria for prioritizing. Contact: Charles Tyson, ALSP Coordinator (916) 324-0862 Website: http://www.conserv.ca.gov/DLRP/cfcp/ c) Department of Education i) Environmental Education Grants Description: grants for environmental education programs. Non- profits and schools may apply. (Note: environmental education grant programs are also offered through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and EPA) Contact: Bill Andrews, Education Programs Consultant (916) 657- 5374 d) Department of Fish and Game i) Fisheries Restoration Grants ii) Fines Description: collected for fish and game code violations and administered by DFG committees. Contact local DFG for more information. e) Department of Parks and Recreation i) Habitat Conservation Fund Description: grants for acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat and significant natural areas. Local public agencies may apply. Contact: Odell King (916) 653-7423 Website: www.cal-parks.ca.gov ii) Proposition 12 (Riparian/Riverine) f) State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Federal Transportation Agency i) Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Grants (EEMP) Description: grants to mitigate environmental impacts from transportation facilities, including acquisition and restoration of resource/habitat lands. Limited to $250K. Eligible applicants: agencies and non-profits. Contact: Scott Clemons ii) Caltrans Mitigation Description: Caltrans frequently looks for wetlands projects that can be used to mitigate approved highway projects. Contact local Caltrans office.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 77
iii) Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21) Description: states are required to spend a minimum of 10% of their Surface Transportation Program funds on “transportation enhancements” such as the acquisition of scenic lands and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. Contact the Caltrans Transportation Enhancement Activities office at 916- 654-5275. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/TransEnhAct g) Department of Water Resources i) Proposition 13 (Flood Protection) ii) Proposition 13 (Urban Streams) Description: grants to assist communities in reducing damages from flooding, to restore environmental and aesthetic values of streams, and to encourage stewardship and maintenance of streams by the community. Website: www.dpla.water.ca.gov/environmenta/habitat/stream/usrp.html Eligible applicants: local governments in partnership with Non-profits. iii) Proposition 13 (Groundwater Recharge) iv) Proposition 13 (Water Conservation) v) Urban Streams Restoration Program h) California Resources Agency i) Coastal Resource Grants Program ii) Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEM) Description: EEM program statue allows for $10 million a year when approved by the legislature for the supplemental mitigation for highway work in three categories, on of which is resource lands. Grants are available for projects that mitigate the environmental impacts of new or modified transportation facilities. Grants are available for land acquisition, restoration enhancement and pollution reduction. Eligible applicants include any local, state, or federal agency, or non- profits. Deadline is November. Contact the EEMP Coordinator, California Resources Agency, 916-653-5656. i) State Water Resources Control Board (and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board) www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/npshome/html i) Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319(h) Non-point Source (see EPA, above) ii) Proposition 13 (Water Quality) iii) Proposition 13 (Water Recycling) iv) CWA Section 205(j) Planning (see also EPA, above) v) Revolving funds for low interest loans for water system development, sometimes used for resource conservation. Notes: No voter approval needed. Priority given to target watersheds identified by the Regional Boards. 40% non-federal matching grant required.
j) Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) Description: WCB acquires and restores wildlife habitat throughout California, and manages the Inland Wetlands program and the Riparian Habitat conservation program, below. i) Riparian Habitat Conservation Program Description: grants to protect, restore, enhance riparian habitat along rivers and streams. Eligible applicants: local and state agencies, non-profits. Contact: Scott Clemons (Riparian) (916) 445-8448
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 78
ii) Public Access Projects Description: development of public access projects (including acquisition and improvements) that utilize fish and game resources throughout the state. Eligible applicants: agencies and special districts. Contact: WCB 445-0137 k) Line item funding by local legislator
3) Potential Local and County Funding Sources a) Assessments Description: an assessment may also be referred to as a “special” or “benefit” assessment and involves the levying of a charge on property owners to provide financing for public improvements. b) General Obligation Bonds Description: cities, counties, and recreation and park districts have authority to issue bonds for park and open space purposes. If approved, bonds and the interest they incur are re-paid through an increase in property taxes. Current law requires passage by a 2/3-majority vote. Bonds issued to fund specific, popular projects are more likely to be approved. c) Local Park Districts Description: many local or regional park districts are actively involved in acquiring and restoring wetlands and riparian habitat. Contact the local park district office for more information at 707-937-5804. d) Resource Conservation District of Mendocino County i) Watershed Management Programs Description: help landowners and communities improve and sustain the health of watersheds. Contact: RCD 707-468-9223
4) Potential Private Funding Sources a) Community Foundation of Mendocino County Description: the Foundation’s mission is to match donor’s philanthropic interests with community needs and interests, and its vision is to be a significant force in improving the quality of life in Mendocino County today and for generations to come. Contact the Foundation for more information on existing funds, or on the possibility of establishing a short-term “expendable” fund to accomplish specific missions (e.g., the Big River Fund). Website: http://www.comunityfound.org/about.html Contact: 707-468-9882 or [email protected] b) The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Description: the Foundation’s Conserving CA Landscapes Initiative funds habitat protection and watershed projects primarily in the Central Valley, Sierra, and Central Coast. For more information and grant guidelines, call 650-948-7658. Website: www.packard.org c) Ducks Unlimited (DU)
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 79
Description: DU provides technical assistance, matching funds and help in securing grants for the completion of wetland habitat restoration projects on both public and private land. Call the Western Regional Office of DU at 916-852-2000. Website: www.caldu.com d) Hewlett Foundation Description: funds available for various conservation projects, with particular interest in resolving conflicts between development and open space. Planning, management, acquisition and pre-acquisition grants available Notes: Conservation Program has approximately $9-12 million annually for western North American projects, of which $1-2 million is typically spent on California projects. Contact: Michael Fischer (650) 329-1070
e) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Description: various grant programs for protection and restoration of sensitive fish and wildlife habitat, and plant species. Requires 2 to 1 matching funds. Maximum $200,000 grants. Contact: Eric Hammerling, (916) 484-1692 Website: www.nfwf.org
e) Private Conservationists
5) Other Resources a) “Funding for Habitat Restoration Projects – A Compendium of Current Federal Programs,” published by Restore America’s Estuaries. May be downloaded from the Internet at www.estuaries.org/funding.html or call 202-289-2380
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 80
Appendix 5: Summary of Critical Resources Protected by Implementation Plan Actions
Action and Affected Priority Areas Critical Resource Categories Protected Work with partners to prepare watershed Biological resources (riparian forest, anadromous fish, rare assessment plan, acquire easements and plants and animals); forestland implement restoration: Ten Mile River Watershed Work with partners to prepare watershed Biological resources (riparian forest, anadromous fish, rare assessment plan, acquire easements and plants and animals); forestland implement restoration: Big River Watershed
Purchase conservation easements, limited fee title, Biological resources (old and second growth redwood forests, and trail easements: marine mammal haul-out, rare plants and animals, riparian Usal Creek/ Rockport Coastal Terrace forest, anadromous fish), historic sites; California Coastal Trail connection; public access; scenic viewsheds Purchase conservation easements and limited fee Biological resources (coastal estuary, seabird breeding colony, title: Audubon important bird area, rare plants and animals, Lower Ten Mile River/MacKerricher Coastal anadromous fish, marine mammal haul-out, rare plants and Terrace animals, riparian forest), agriculture; public access; California Coastal Trail connection; scenic viewsheds
Purchase conservation easement to secure trail Biological resources (coastal estuary, anadromous fish, corridors: riparian forest), California Coastal Trail connection; public Noyo River/ Pudding Creek Watersheds and access; scenic viewsheds Fort Bragg Waterfront
Purchase conservation easement and limited fee Biological resources (coastal estuary, wetlands, riparian forest, and trail corridors: seabird breeding colony, Audubon Important Bird Area, marine Garcia Coastal Terrace and Alder Creek mammal haul-out area, rare plants and animals [including Watershed marbled murrelet and Point Arena Mountain Beaver], old growth redwoods anadromous fish); agriculture; public access; California Coastal Trail connection; historic sites; scenic viewsheds Purchase limited fee: Biological resources (coastal estuary, anadromous fish, Elk Creek Watershed riparian forest); public access; California Coastal Trail connection; scenic viewsheds Purchase Easements to Secure Trail or Wildlife Biological resources (anadromous fish, pygmy forest, rare Corridors Between Protected Lands: plants, riparian forest); public access Little River Watershed (upper-most portion)
Purchase Easements to Secure Trail or Wildlife Biological resources (anadromous fish, pygmy forest, rare Corridors Between Protected Lands: plants, grand fir forest, riparian forest, sphagnum bog); public Caspar Creek Watershed access
Purchase Easements to Secure Trail or Wildlife Biological resources (anadromous fish, pygmy forest, rare Corridors Between Protected Lands: plants, coastal estuary, riparian forest); public access Albion Watershed (lower portion between Airport and Albion Ridge Road)
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 81
APPENDIX 6: MENDOCINO COAST NATURAL RESOURCES NOTES FROM A BIRDER Dorothy “Toby” Tobkin, August 2002
(South to North) I. Rivers and Estuaries 1. Gualala River – The estuary is a loon, duck, and gull haven in winter, when a sandbar intermittently re-channels and narrows the mouth. The mouth usually closes in late summer. The north side of the estuary and river is privately owned, but there is easy access in a number of places. The south side is part of a Sonoma county park. It is a very “birdy” place, with excellent riparian habitat and a sizeable brackish marsh. 2. Schooner Gulch Creek – A small creek with good riparian habitat leading to a nice beach. Publicly owned (by State Dept. of Parks and Recreation). 3. Moat Creek – Similar to above. Public ownership. 4. Hathaway Creek (a.k.a. Gasker Slough)/Garcia River – “World-class” riparian from Hwy 1 west for about 1 mile. Very dense, broad, and “birdy.” Partial access via Miner Hole Rd. The mouth does not close. Gravel bars and sandbars a short distance upstream from the mouth offer roosting havens for large numbers of shorebirds and gulls in winter – probably the single largest concentration in the county. The estuary is also home to loons, grebes, and ducks, especially in winter. The shorebirds and ducks attract a number of classy raptors, such as Merlin, Prairie Falcon, and Peregrine Falcon. If not dredged (as has been the neighboring owner’s practice for some years) Gasker Slough floods most winters. Among other wonders, the flooded fields display 100’s of Tundra Swans, many species of geese and ducks (even sea ducks!), shorebirds, and gulls. 5. Lagoon Creek & Lagoon, Brush Creek – The creeks have pockets of good riparian growth. Lagoon Creek terminates in a lagoon that apparently has no aboveground outlet. It appears to seep into the extensive adjacent marshland. During the fall migration period, when the water level in the lagoon is low enough to expose mudflats and aquatic vegetation, a large number and variety of shorebirds, grebes, cormorants, herons, egrets, and ducks use the lagoon. The nearby Brush Creek wetlands are full of ducks in winter. The Tundra Swans go back and forth between the Garcia “flats” and the Brush Creek wetlands, as do many of the ducks. Lagoon Creek and its lagoon and marshlands are somewhat accessible from roads and trails in Manchester State Park. 6. Alder Creek – The riparian growth here is on private land and can only be viewed from a distance. The gravel bars and lower reaches of the river are accessible from Manchester State Park. The mouth closes in late summer. When it re-opens and broadens out it develops shorebird-friendly mud flats. 7. Irish Gulch Creek, Mallo Pass Creek, Mills Creek – terra incognita 8. Elk Creek – This privately owned area has good riparian, a small lagoon, extensive marsh, and small sandy bluff-backed beach. Some unusual birds have been seen here, by dint of using pullouts along Highway 1. 9. Greenwood Creek – Extensive riparian habitat is owned by the Mendocino Redwood Company east of the highway, and is part of a state park west of the highway. The creek mouth closes by mid-summer. Since the beach is a “front yard” for the town of Elk it is heavily used.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 82
10. Navarro River – There is a state park running from the mouth along the south side of the river for about ½ mile, and then along the north side for about 8 miles. The south side, west of the highway, has excellent riparian habitat, plus several brackish marshes, and at least one small freshwater marsh. Because the river is both depleted by excessive draw-off and is heavily silted, the mouth now closes as early as April contributing to over-heating and to algal growth. Department of Fish and Game has recently decided that the mouth may not be opened by human intervention (as it had been for many years). Waterfowl and gulls use the estuary in good numbers, from late fall on, especially once the mouth has opened. Harbor Seals haul out on the far shore once it has become safely inaccessible to people. There is a popular public campground running along the inner side of the large beach, below the steep bluffs. 11. Little Salmon and Big Salmon Creeks – This is a small treasure, with clear water and very good riparian habitat. It is both very “birdy” and very “fishy.” It is for sale. 12. Albion River – Access to the mouth requires paying a parking fee, and there is no public access up-river except by boat. The installation of a retaining wall plus extensive pavement (for parking) has doubtless caused contamination. The mouth stays open and offers a small boat harbor. There is very good birding a short distance upstream (e.g. at the Adventist-run Field Station). Land near the mouth is privately owned and includes camping facilities; upstream lands are largely owned by the Mendocino Redwood Company. 13. Little River – Runs through Van Damme State Park. The mouth usually closes in late spring or summer. The lower mile plus is somewhat degraded due to the presence of campgrounds and to heavy use. The large and very accessible cove is sheltered by rocky islets, which have nesting seabirds. In winter loons, grebes, and seaducks feed and rest in the cove. The cove is also heavily used by visitors, often in kayaks or wetsuits. 14. Big River – Now a state park – for 7 miles! The mouth does not close. The large sandy beach is very popular for dog and human play. At low tide there are mudflats exposed which extend some distance upstream. These seem remarkably lacking in shorebirds, relative to other nearby coastal mudflats, even during fall migration. There’s a freshwater marsh, more or less 2 acres, on the east side of the highway, north of the river. The condition of this marsh appears very poor, but nonetheless holds breeding Virginia Rails and Red-winged Blackbirds. Otters frequent the river. Osprey and herons nest fairly close to the mouth, as well as farther upstream. Much restoration work is needed, in a number of areas. 15. “Russian Gulch” Creek (unnamed on my maps) – Runs through Russian Gulch State Park. Heavy use by campers and the location of the campsites have had a negative effect on what must once have been a fine riparian area. It is still quite good in places. The beach is small. 16. Doyle Creek – Runs through a private campground, ending at Caspar Beach State Park, a heavily used sandy beach. 17. Caspar Creek – This creek is bordered by a very lush riparian habitat. It ends in a fairly broad estuary, remarkable for the number and the variety of shorebirds that use it, especially in the course of fall migration. The area is currently owned by the Mendocino Land Trust (MLT) and is destined to become a state park. The creek changes course seasonally, and the mouth narrows in late summer, but does not usually close. 18. Jughandle Creek – A state reserve, with good riparian habitat, a famous “ecological staircase” ending in pygmy forest, and a small, sheltered beach. 19. Mitchell Creek – Adjoins a small DPR holding with some nice riparian habitat.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 83
20. Digger Creek – Runs through the Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens. Very little of the habitat is still natural. The beach is tiny and rocky and hard to get down to. 21. Hare Creek – The mouth empties at a small sandy beach that can hold 100’s of gulls, especially in winter, and lots of shorebirds, especially in fall. The good-looking riparian habitat a short distance upstream is inaccessible. Access to the beach is obscure, not signed, known mainly to locals. 22. Noyo River – Used for supplying water and as a harbor by the city of Fort Bragg. Little natural habitat remains in the lower reaches. At about 3 miles up, the “Skunk” railroad runs along it. 23. Pudding Creek – The flow of this creek (more like a river) is controlled by a dam and gates just east of Hwy 1. The estuary to the west is popular with families, and with trainers of hunting dogs. Despite these sources of disturbance, when the mouth is open and tidal conditions are right, the estuary can hold lots of ducks and shorebirds. The mouth closes and re-opens many times during spring, summer, and fall. When it is closed in summer the water quickly fills with algae, becoming smelly and unattractive. Also there seem to be several sewage spills every year in the area, doubtless contributing to the algal growth. The estuary and large beach are part of MacKerricher State Park. The dam and gates belong to Georgia-Pacific, which is soon going to close its Fort Bragg facility, and will probably be selling it. This could lead to consideration of the possibility of returning Pudding Creek to its natural, undammed state. The “Skunk” railroad runs along Pudding Creek for about 3 miles before crossing (via tunnel) to the Noyo River. 24. Virgin Creek – This creek, which closes in winter, forms the south boundary of what has been the county’s best beach for shorebirds. The beach is part of MacKerricher State Park. For over a mile to the north (as well as to the south) the park proper is very skinny, and is bordered by motels and private homes, many of them being vacation rentals. The number of shorebirds seems to be diminishing, as the number of beach-goers increases. This is one of the very few places where Snowy Plovers have nested. A flock of 20-30 Snowy Plovers used to spend fall, winter, and spring there. In recent years they have abandoned the beach by late October. (Excessive siltation may be making it difficult for these short-billed birds to reach terrestrial food, and aerial sources seem to diminish in fall.) 25. Ten Mile River – The mouth usually closes in late summer, which sometimes leads to flooding of the extensive brackish marshlands, probably to their benefit. The lower estuary and the miles of beach and dunes to the south are part of MacKerricher State Park. The beach to the north, Seaside Beach, belongs to the Coastal Land Trust and is heavily used. Seaside Beach is still much abused by being driven on, as was the custom under its previous ownership. The present prohibition against driving on the beach is not enforced. When the river mouth is closed vehicles are sometimes driven onto Ten Mile Beach as well, sometimes for miles. There is need for a berm along the highway to keep cars out. Ten Mile River and beach provide very good habitat for migrating shorebirds, wintering gulls, and many ducks, plus loons and grebes and cormorants. Snowy Plovers have nested on this beach. A sizeable (up to 40) flock of wintering Snowy Plovers is now the only such flock in the county. There has never been much enforcement of the dogs-on-leash rule on this beach. Recently the beach has been posted with signs forbidding dogs between Ten Mile River and Inglenook Creek (about 1 ½ miles), but enforcement may prove lacking (due to personnel shortages and the remote location). A short distance up-river, east of the marshland, there are miles of very good riparian habitat, in private ownership.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 84
26. Abalobadiah Creek – The attractive sandy beach at the mouth of this creek is privately owned, as is the land along the creek. 27. “Chadbourne Gulch Creek” – This is a small stream, not shown on my map, which is bordered by a small amount of very good riparian habitat. The creek empties onto a long, narrow beach, which is owned by Cal Trans (as is the bit of riparian woods). Cal Trans might happily divest itself of this property were a suitable manager to come forward. The beach is heavily used by vehicles and by campers. 28. Wages Creek – The town of Westport draws its water (or some of it) from the creek. The mouth and the large, sandy beach onto which the creek empties are privately owned and used by customers of the private campground on the property. There appears to be good riparian habitat bordering the campground and upstream from it. 29. De Haven and Howard Creek – Both empty onto Westport Union Landing State Beach. The nice riparian habitat upstream is privately owned. 30. Juan Creek – A small stream, emptying onto a small beach, reached by a steep descent. It may be privately owned but is not posted and is used by the public. A short distance upstream there is very good riparian habitat also not posted for about ½ mile, after which there is a gate and ownership is asserted by a hunting club. 31. Cottoneva River and Rockport Beach – Mostly or entirely owned by Mendocino Redwood Company. Rockport Beach is said to be a “birdy” place – I’ve never seen it. As much of the river as can be seen from the highway shows good riparian habitat.
The remainder of the Mendocino Coast is virtually road less and is largely publicly owned. I am familiar only with the Usal area, which has a nice beach and extensive riparian habitat. The river ponds-up in a few places and is probably a good winter refuge for gulls and ducks.
II. Coastal Ponds I have no knowledge of any of the ponds south of Point Arena – not an area I know well.
1. “Cemetery pond” – This appears to be a natural pond, about 2 acres, located on the east side of Highway 1, about 1 mile north of Point Arena, across from a cemetery. In fall, winter, and spring it holds a good number and variety of grebes and ducks, plus coots. It is bordered by some pockets of marsh. It is privately owned and is for sale. 2. Stock ponds – There are at least 4 good-sized stock ponds on the farmlands between Miner Hole Road and Elk Creek. They all harbor some waterfowl in fall, winter, and spring. 3. Davis Lake – in Manchester State Park – is part lake, part wetlands and can be many acres in extent. A variety of ducks can be found there in winter. 4. Pomo Lake – In the Irish Beach subdivision – is about 2 acres, bordered by marsh, and usually has a few ducks. There is not much cover, so the ducks do not usually stay long, at least during the day, when people are often present. 5. Pond at Point Cabrillo – This is a small pond with marshy borders. The pond is pumped for the water to supply the Coast Guard residences. It is seldom used by waterfowl. 6. Caspar Pond – This approximately 2-acre pond gets at least some of its water from a culvert which appears to drain Fern Creek Road. The pond is on the east side of Highway 1 at Fern Creek Road. It is owned by Oscar Smith (Caspar Cattle Co.) and is for sale. On two sides there are small marshes. On a third side are willow clumps. On all sides there are many thistles, senecios, and other exotics. The area has become a dumping ground for
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 85
barnyard waterfowl, which people feed. Cattle sometimes feed (and defecate) near the pond. Up to 50 resident (non-migratory) Canada Geese regularly park here. Nevertheless, this pond has attracted some unusual wild waterfowl, and regularly attracts some more ordinary species. It is also popular with swallows. With restoration it could become an excellent small refuge. 7. Small pond on Joe Moura’s land – About 1 acre, with a tiny, woodsy island in the middle, adjacent to the Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens. Good for a few species of ducks and geese in fall, winter and spring, which has included Hooded Merganser. 8. Georgia Pacific logging pond – Seen from outside the gates it looks sizeable. It is said to be fed by a stream. It may well be used by wildlife. The entire property will probably be for sale soon. 9. Pond at “Ocean Lake Mobile Home Park” – This is a clean pond, about 2 acres, with a small marsh at the east end. It usually has a few ducks, grebes, and coots. 10. Haul Road pond – This is also about 2 acres, is privately owned, and is for sale. It is located between Virgin Creek Beach and Lake Cleone, just east of the Haul Road. It has marsh on 3 sides, is fed by 1 or 2 small creeks, and looks very clean. It has harbored good numbers and variety of waterfowl – once several Tundra Swans rested there. 11. Pond just north of Seaside Beach – East of Highway 1. This pond is also about 2 acres, and has marsh on three sides. It usually has a half-dozen or so waterfowl resting or feeding. It is privately owned. 12. Sewage treatment ponds at Westport – These ponds have ducks and shorebirds, sometimes in abundance, but can only be viewed in part, by dint of standing on the platform near the recycling containers, with permission.
III. Coastal Marshes (in addition to those noted in preceding sections) 1. Along the Gualala River, just north of the county line, there is a substantial marsh, probably brackish, of about 3 acres. Private ownership. 2. Gasker Slough marshes – At Miner Hole Road, on both sides of Highway 1, there is a large – 6 acres? – freshwater marsh. West of the highway it is less extensive and disappears in the vast riparian habitat. Privately owned. 3. The Laguna Creek/Brush Creek wetlands are surrounded by marsh, probably freshwater. It is especially extensive to the south of “Hunter’s” Lagoon. Privately owned. 4. There is a privately owned marsh of almost 2 acres at Elk Creek, west of the highway. It is probably freshwater. Fed by the creek. 5. At the Navarro River estuary there is an extensive marshland, west of Highway 1 and paralleling the road to the beach. This is probably brackish, at least part of the year. It is owned by the state Department of Parks and Recreation. 6. The “Bog Trail” in Van Damme State Park goes around a large wet area that is partly freshwater marsh, partly wet meadow, partly riparian, plus maybe some bog. 7. Jughandle State Reserve contains a several-acre freshwater marsh just east of Highway 1. 8. There are two small marshes along the Noyo River, a short distance upstream from the harbor. Both are somewhat degraded, by runoff and by exotic growth. The larger marsh,
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 86
on the north bank of the river, is for sale, together with its surrounding uplands. The area is remarkably “birdy.” 9. Lake Cleone , in MacKerricher State Park, has a freshwater marsh of 3-4 acres at its eastern end. The circumference of this freshwater lake is about 1 mile, making it the largest accessible body of water on the coast. In winter it is full of waterfowl, and is used for bathing and drinking by many species of birds. The surrounding area includes riparian woods, coastal scrub, and pine forest, as well as the marsh. A trail goes entirely around the lake – in many places unbuffered and closer than it should be to many kinds of nesting birds.
IV. A Few Miscellaneous Places 1. Point Arena cove – One of only 3 harbors along the Mendocino Coast. A hoist is used to get small boats (only) up and down from the long fishing pier. This cove has seabirds in season, and shorebirds on the rocky margins. It is popular with surfers and with fisherpersons (from the pier and from boats). For the last 8 years it has been visited, November-March, by a Laysan Albatross, which often hangs out so close to the pier it can be seen well with the naked eye. Since this is a deep-water species, seldom coming closer than 20 miles from shore, its accessibility in the Point Arena cove draws bird-watchers from near and far. 2. Caspar Cemetery Sitka Spruce grove – Off Point Cabrillo Drive, surrounding the small cemetery, is a fairly extensive grove of Sitka Spruce. While there are solo trees farther south, this is thought to be the southernmost grove of these trees on the continent. 3. Noyo Harbor – The harbor is deep enough to be used by large fishing trawlers. It is regularly dredged and is channelized with retaining walls. There is much hard pavement, the runoff from which surely goes into the river. There is a small sandy beach on the north side of the river mouth, and a short jetty, from which people fish. A few loons, grebes, and ducks take shelter in the harbor and river. A sizeable herd of California Sea Lions owns one of the boat docks. 4. Glass Beach Wetlands – Less well known than the beach, with its worn glass bits, and the bluffs, with their rare plants, is the wetlands. About 2+ acres in extent, densely packed with willows, very wet in winter, it has been a productive locale for bird-watchers over the years. It has also been much abused by small encampments of homeless men on its edges. 5. See previous section for a description of Lake Cleone , the largest accessible body of water on the Mendocino Coast. 6. Inglenook fen in MacKerricher State Park is the only known coastal fen in the state. 7. Bruhel point – This is an outstanding reef, fairly close to Highway 1, about 4 miles north of Ten Mile River. Cal Trans owns the surrounding property, which it recently “improved” – by removing many pine trees from what was probably once a tree farm, digging up a wetlands, re-arranging a parking area, etc., and re-planting with some kind of multi- purpose vegetation. Cal Trans would probably happily divest itself of this property. It used to be a very good birding spot albeit also something of a dump and an open-air bathroom.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 87
Appendix 7: Water Export Resolution, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Resolution Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING STRONG OPPOSITION TO EXPORT OF MENDOCINO COUNTY WATER RESOURCES TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the decline of salmon and steelhead populations along the Pacific Coast region from California to Alaska over the last decade has led to the listing of salmonid populations as "threatened" or "endangered", by National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act; and
WHEREAS, numerous watersheds that are tributaries to the Pacific Ocean are Significantly impacted by these listings, including the Gualala and Albion rivers; and
WHEREAS, coastal Mendocino County currently experiences chronic water shortages; and both the Albion and Gualala watersheds are contained in the "Critical Water Resources" groundwater designation in the "Mendocino County Coastal Ground Water Study" (California Department of Water Resources, June 1982); and
WHEREAS, winter flows from the coastal rivers are essential for proper ecological Functioning of the estuaries and near shore ocean conditions, resulting in improved fishery Conditions, and providing attraction flows for adult fish, and
WHEREAS, coastal Mendocino has suffered economically from greatly reduced fish stocks and resulting fishing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, coastal Mendocino is heavily dependent upon tourism and a non- Industrialized coastline; and
WHEREAS, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors does not support placing people At risk by providing unsecured water supplies, such as out of Basin water transfers that would Fluctuate with drought and local resource needs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors hereby states its strong opposition to the proposal to export water to southern California from the Gualala and Albion Rivers.
The foregoing Resolution introduced by Supervisor Colfax, seconded by Supervisor Campbell, and carried this 13th day of February, 2002, by the entire board with Supervisor Delbar absent (4 AYES, 0 NOES, 1 ABSENT)
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 88
Appendix 8: Conservation Groups Active in the Mendocino County Coastal Zone
Organization Contact Phone No. Mailing Address Zone Focus
Albion River Watershed Protection Association Linda Perkins 937-0903 PO Box 661, Alb. 95410 Albion River/Salmon Creek Watershed Preservation, Forestry Lawsuits
Anderson Valley Land Trust Joel Clark 895-3150 P.O. Box 1, Yorkville Pacific Northwest Audubon Society, Mendocino Coast Warren Wade 937-6362 14233 Hanson Circle, FB Coastal Conservation/Restoration
Audubon Society, Redwood Region Elias Elias, Pres 704-826-7031 PO Box 1054 Eureka, CA 95502 Big River Watershed Alliance Gladys Hansen 937-5091 43300 Airport Rd, Little River Big River Watershed Education and Litigation
1330 21st St., Suite 201 CA Biomass Energy Alliance 916-444-8333 Sacramento, CA 95814 California Watershed Cons./Rest.
Stan L. Dixon, Board PO Box 944246 CA Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 916-653-8007 California Policy/Education re: Forestry of Trustees Chair Sacramento, CA 94244
45 Fremont St., Suite 2000 CA Coastal Commission Information 415-904-5260 San Francisco, CA 94105 California Planning/Enforcing the Coastal Act of '76
Karyn Gear, North 1330 Broadway, 11th Floor, CA Coastal Conservancy Coast Project Mgr 510-286-4171 Oakland CA 94162 Coastal Zone & Watersheds Conservation/Restoration/Public Access
Debbie Sareeram, 801 K St., MS 24-01 Information/Services re: CA's Natural CA Dept. of Conservation 916-322-1080 California Deputy Director Sacramento, CA 95814 Resources
Pete Kalvass (Fort 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA Dept. of Fish and Game 964-9078 California Conservation/Restoration Bragg) CA 95814
CA Dept. of Forestry Information 964-5673 802 N. Main, FB California Forestry
Greg Picard, CA Dept. of Parks and Recreation 937-5804 PO Box 440, Men. Mendocino Sector Conservation/Restoration/Recreation Superintendent
California Native Plant Society Lori Hubbart, Pres 882-1655 PO Box 577, Gualala Coastal belt--Mendo& N.Son Preservation, Restoration, Education
California Ocean Sanctuary Gerri Morse 964-1530 14073 Pt. Cabrillo Dr., Men. Coastal Conservation
William V. Morrision, 100 Howe Ave., Ste 100 S CA State Lands Commission 916-574-1800 California Regulates tidelands up to 3 miles off-shore Legislative Liaison Sacramento, CA 95825
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 89
Organization Contact Phone No. Mailing Address Zone Focus
Campaign to Restore Jackson State Forest Vince Taylor, E.D. 964-5800 PO Box 1789, Fort Bragg Jackson Demonstration 95437 State Forest Coast Action Group Alan Levine 882-2484 PO Box 215, Pt. Arena Mendocino County Conservation/Restoration (Salmon/Water)
Coastal Conservation Committee Flo Ann Norvall 937-4376 PO Box 930, Men. Coastal
Coastal Land Trust Rixanne Wehren, Dir. 937-2709 P.O.Box 340, Alb. 95410 Coastal Public Access
PO Box 293, Comptche CA Comptche Land Conservancy Judy Garratt 937-4084 Comptche Area Conservation/Education 95427
Conservation Alliance Ron Nadeau 961-0165 16550 Franklin Rd., FB Mendocino County Preservation/Acquisition
Eel River Watershed Protection and Restoration PO Box 337, Potter Valley CA John Harnish 743-2642 Upper Eel River Watershed Conservation Association 95469
Environmental Protection Information Center Cynthia Elkins 923-2931 PO Box 397, Garberville 95445
Forest Advisory Committee Hans Burkhardt, PhD 459-9220 Emile's Station, FB Mendocino Nonexistent Committee - Avail. for Inquiries
Forests Forever 415-974-3636 54 Mint St, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94103
Friends of Botanical Gardens Linda Brown 937-1003 PO Box 1109, Men. Coastal Fundraising/Outreach
Friends of Daugherty Creek & Big River Els Cooperider 937-1662 18451 Orr Springs Rd., Ukiah Mendocino/Big River
Friends of the Eel River Steve Evans 923-2146 PO Box 2305, Redw ay 95560
Friends of Enchanted Meadow PO Box 271, Little River Albion River/Salmon Creek Friends of Fort Bragg Ron Guenther (Pres.) 961-1953 428 N. Harrison St., FB Noyo River/Pudding Creek Conservation/Litigation Friends of Salmon Creek 29874 Navarro Ridge Rd Friends of the Garcia River Peter Dobbin 882-3086 P.O.Box 916, PA 95468 Garcia River Research/Restoration/Protection
Friends of the Gualala River Tom Cochrane Pres. 785-3431 PO Box 1543, Gualala 95445 Gualala Conservation
PO Box 861, Boonville CA Appropriations/Litigation/Watchdog/Riparian Friends of the Navarro Watershed Steve Hall 895-2735 Navarro River 95415 Habitat
Friends of Schooner Gulch Peter Reimuller 882-2001 PO Box 4, Pt. Arena CA 95468 Schooner Gulch Issue-Specific
Friends of the Ten Mile Judith Vidaver 964-2742 P.O.Box 2330, FB Ten Mile River Public Access/Preservation
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 90
Organization Contact Phone No. Mailing Address Zone Focus
Garcia River Watershed Advisory Council Craig Bell 882-1947 PO Box 235, Pt Arena Garcia River
Glass Beach Access Committee Diana Stuart 964-0016 P.O.Box 769, FB Noyo River/Pudding Creek Public Access/Litigation
Greenwood Watershed Association Mary Pjerrou, Dir. 877-3405 P.O.Box 106, Elk 95432 Greenwood Creek/Elk Creek Restoration Gualala River Information Network Merry Winslow Gualala River Steelhead Project Gregg Warner 884-4322 PO Box 266, Gualala Gualala River
Institute for Sustainable Forestry Judy Wait 247-1101 PO Box 1580, Redway
InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council Hawk Rosales, E.D. 463-6745 PO Box 1523, Ukiah 95482 Sinkyone
18220 N. Hwy. One, Fort Education, Research, Conservation, Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens Rich Owings, E.D. 964-4352 Botanical Gardens vicinity Bragg, CA 95437 Restoration
Mendocino Coast Environmental Center Rod Jones 937-0709 PO Box 1932, Men. Mendocino Coast Nonprofit Clearinghouse
Mendocino Environmental Center Betty Ball 468-1660 106 W. Standley, Ukiah Mendocino Coast Resource Center re: Environmental Justice Mendocino CoastWatch Roanne Withers (Dir.) 961-1953 P.O.Box 198, FB Mendocino Coast Protection/Restoration Mendocino County Forest Council Henry Gundling 895-3781 PO Box 589, Philo 95466 Mendocino County Forestry
Mendocino County ReLeaf John Phillips 459-3015 26010 String Crk Rd,Willits Mendocino Defense Fund Lee Edmunson Mendocino/Big River PO Box 1094, Mendocino CA Conservation, Restoration, Education, Public Mendocino Land Trust Ken Karlstad, E.D. 962-0470 Mendocino County 95460 Access
Mendocino Watershed Service Craig Bell 882-1947 PO Box 255, Pt Arena
Claire Thorp, Assoc., National Fish & Wildlife Foundation 415-778-0999 28 Second St., SF CA 94105 Nationwide Conservation, Restoration, Education Dir. of Programs
Navarro River Watershed Protection Hilary Adams 877-3527 1391 Cameron Rd. Elk Navarro River Watershed
New Growth Forestry Meca Wawona 462-2114 PO Box 206, Ukiah Forestry
North Coast Environmental Defense Center Kimberly Burr, Esq 887-7433 PO Box 1246, Forestville
Northcoast Salmon Habitat Restoration Group Bob Abderson 138 S. Whipple, Ft Bragg
Ocean Sanctuary League Donna Zulim 884-3140 PO Box 1214, Gualala
Ocean Sanctuary of Sierra Club Mendo Lake Group Flo Ann Norvall 937-4376 PO Box 930, Men.
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 91
Organization Contact Phone No. Mailing Address Zone Focus
Pacific Forest Trust 578-9950 416 Aviation Blvd, Santa Pacific Northwest Conservation, Sustainable Forestry Rosa, CA 95403 Pacific Rivers Council David Bayles 345-0119 PO Box 10798, Eugene
Redwood Coast Land Conservancy Bill Wiemeyer 785-3327 PO Box 1511, Gualala Navarro to S. County Line Conservation
Redwood Community Action Agency Stephen Madrone 269-2069 904 G Street, Eureka
Redwood Coast Watershed Association Mary Pjerrou, Pr. Dir. 877-3405 PO Box 90, Elk Coastal Conservation/Restoration
Resource Conservation District-Mendocino County Meg Strzelecki 468-9223 405 Orchard Ave, Ukiah
Salmon Restoration Association Michael Maahs PO Box 1448, Ft Bragg
Salmonid Restoration Federation Jud Ellinwood 444-8903 PO Box 4260, Arcata
Sanctuary Forest Ben Moorehead 986-1087 PO Box 166, Whitethorn 114 Sansome Street #605 san Conservation, restoration, sustainable Save the-Redwoods League 415-362-2352 Francisco, CA 94104 forestry, education Sierra Club, Mendocino/Lake Group Mark Massara, Esq. Coastal
Surfrider Foundation North Coast Chapter Eric Austensen 824-0435
Ten Mile River Watershed Association Judith Vidaver PO Box 25, Ft Bragg
Carey Smith, Pacific 9317 NE Hwy 99, Suite D U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coast Venture 360-696-7630 Vancouver, WA 98665 Nationwide Fish and Wildlife Coordinator 770 Tamalpais Dr., Ste 310 US Forest Capital Joseph Euphrat 415-945-0808 State Forest Investment Services Company Corte Madera, CA 94925
1807 13th St., Suite 103, Wildlife Conservation Board Al Wright, Exec. Dir 916-445-1082 State Conservation/Restoration Sacramento CA 95814
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 92
Appendix 9: GIS Sources of Information
MAP FIGURE NAME (DATA) DATA SOURCE Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Audubon (Important Bird Areas) Sites provided by Dorothy Tobkin, Mendocino Coast Audubon, via MLT Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Bay Area Openspace Bay Area Openspace Council - GreenInfo Network 2003 Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Coastal Estuary provided by Tom/MLT Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Coastal Zone Boundary California Coastal Commission Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Countylines TIGER 2000 files Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Fish Data Data provided by DFG staff via MLT Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Flood Data FEMA 1999 Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Highways California Department of Transportation 2002 Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Kelp Beds CA DFG Marine Division 1999 Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Mussel Shoals Data provided by DFG via MLT Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Ocean USGS 100K DLGs Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Old Growth Redwoods Save -the-Redwoods League, CBI 2001, with modifications by local experts Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resourc es Species CDF&G: California Natural Diversity Database, 2003 Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Species Data provided by MLT, species added by Biologists (DFG, CNPS, DPR) Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Streams USGS 100K DLG Map Figure 1 - Bio.Resources Underwater State Parks Data provided by DPR via MLT Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Bay Area Openspace Bay Area Openspace Council - GreenInfo Network 2003 Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Coastal trail Digitized by GINFO from Hiking the California Coastal Trail: Volumes 1 & 2 Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Coastal Zone Boundary CA Coastal Commission Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Countylines TIGER 2000 files Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Existing Coastal Access Data provided by former County Coastal Access Coordinator via MLT Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Fish Data Data provided by DFG via MLT Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Highways Ca. Dept. of Transportation Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Historic Sites Data provided by MLT (source=internet research and local historians) Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map1_a USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map1_b USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map1_c USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map1_d USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map1_e USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map2_a USGS Digital Raster Graphics
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 93
MAP FIGURE NAME (DATA) DATA SOURCE Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map2_b USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map2_c USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map2_d USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map3_a USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map3_b USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map3_c USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map3_d USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map4_a USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map4_b USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map4_c USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map4_d USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map5_a USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map5_b USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map5_c USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map5_d USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map5_e USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. map5_f USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. O39123g6.tif USGS Digital Raster Graphics Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Parcels County of Mendocino California Vegetation (CALVEG & WHR), California Department of Forestry and Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Prime Agricultural Soils Fire Protection, 2000 Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Private Beach Data provided by former County Coastal Access Coordinator via MLT Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Public and Protected Lands County of Mendocino, CA Resources Agency 2002 Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Streams USGS 100K DLG's California Vegetation (CALVEG & WHR), California Department of Forestry and Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Vegetation Land Use Fire Protection, 2000 Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Viewshed Lines Data created/ provided by MLT/Scharffenberger Map Figure 2-Cultural Res. Watershed Lines Department of Fish & Game CALWATER2.2 Map Figure 3-Forestry Bay Area Openspace Bay Area Openspace Council - GreenInfo Network 2003 Map Figure 3-Forestry Coastal trail digitized by GINFO from Hiking the California Coastal Trail: Volumes 1 & 2 Map Figure 3-Forestry Coastal Zone Boundary CA Coastal Commission Map Figure 3-Forestry Countylines TIGER 2000 files Map Figure 3-Forestry Highways Ca. Dept. of Transportation
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 94
MAP FIGURE NAME (DATA) DATA SOURCE Map Figure 3-Forestry Hillshade USGS - Digital Elevation Model Map Figure 3-Forestry Ocean USGS DLGs 100k Map Figure 3-Forestry Public and Protected Lands County of Mendocino, CA Resources Agency 2002 Created with information on woodland productivity from USDA -NRCS California Map Figure 3-Forestry Soil Production Level State Office Map Figure 3-Forestry Streams USGS DLGs 100k Map Figure 4-Prior. Cons. Areas Coastal trail digitized by GINFO from Hiking the California Coastal Trail: Volumes 1 & 2 Map Figure 4-PCA Coastal Zone Boundary CA Coastal Commission Map Figure 4-PCA Countylines TIGER 2000 files Map Figure 4-PCA Elevation USGS - Digital Elevation Model Map Figure 4-PCA Government Protected Lands CA Resources Agency 2002 Map Figure 4-PCA Highways California Dept. of Transportation Map Figure 4-PCA Hillshade USGS - Digital Elevation Model Map Figure 4-PCA Ocean USGS DLGs 100k Map Figure 4-PCA Potential Ca.Coastal Trail Connector Data developed by MLT and Scharffenberger Map Figure 4-PCA Priority Conservation Areas Data developed by MLT and Scharffenberger Map Figure 4-PCA Public and Protected Lands County of Mendocino, CA Resources Agency 2002 Map Figure 4-PCA Streams USGS 100K DLG's Map Figure 4-PCA Watershed Lines Department of Fish & Game CALWATER2.2 Map Figure 5: PCA Composite Same as Map Figure 4 Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Coastal trail Digitized by GINFO from Hiking the California Coastal Trail: Volumes 1 & 2 Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Coastal Zone Boundary CA Coastal Commission Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Elevation USGS - Digital Elevation Model Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Elevation USGS - Digital Elevation Model Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Highways Ca. Dept. of Transportation Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Hillshade USGS - Digital Elevation Model Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Hillshade USGS - Digital Elevation Model Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Ocean USGS DLGs 100k Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Potential Ca. Coastal Trail Connectors Data developed by MLT and Scharffenberger Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Priority Conservation Areas Data developed by MLT and Scharffenberger Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Public and Protected Lands County of Mendocino, CA Resources Agency 2002 Map Figure 6 - Implem. Plan Watershed Lines Department of Fish & Game CALWATER2.2
Mendocino County Coastal Conservation Plan 95
Map Figure 1A: Key to Sensitive Species and Communities (Biological Resources Maps)
Map Code Scientific Name Common Name Protection Status* Animals: Fed CA DFG CNPS BSB Speyeria zerene behrensii Behren's silverspot butterfly FE Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk SSC Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook salmon FT Coho Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon FT GR Lavinia symmetricus parvipinnis Gualala roach SSC LA Phoebastria immutabilis (Note: not a listed species but an unusual occurrence) Laysan Albatross LBB Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis Lotis blue butterfly FE MM Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled Murrelet FT SE NR Lavinia symmetricus navarroensis Navarro roach SSC Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier SSC NSO Strix occidentalis caurina Northern Spotted Owl FT Clemmys marmorata marmorata Northwestern pond turtle SC SSC SSC O Pandion haliaetus Osprey SSC PAMB Aplodontia rufa nigra Point Arena mountain beaver FE PBEB Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Pale big-eared bat SSC PFA Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon SE Fully Protected PM Progne subis Purple Martin SSC RA Cerorhinca monocerata Rhinoceros Auklet SSC RLF Rana aurora aurora (Note: not listed as FT in Mendocino County) Northern red legged-frog Fully Protected RO Lontra canadensis River otter Protected FBM RTV Arborimus pomo Red tree vole SC SSC SSC RWM Error - please disregard Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead FT STS Rhyacotriton variegatus Southern torrent (seep) salamander SC SSC SSC TF Ascaphus truei Tailed frog SC SSC SSC TG Eucyclogobius newberryi Tidewater goby FE TP Fratercula cirrhata Tufted Puffin SSC TS Cygnus columbianus (Note: not a listed species but an unusual occurrence) Tundra Swan WSP Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western Snowy Plover FT Plants: Fed CA DFG CNPS AGBL Agrostis blasdalei Blasdale's bent grass 1B ARME8 Arctostaphylos mendocinoensis pygmy manzanita 1B ABUMB Abronia umbellata ssp breviflora pink sand-verbena 1B ANLU Angelica lucida sea watch 4 ASAG Astragalus agnicidus Humboldt milk vetch 1B BLNAR Blennosperma nanum var robustum Point Reyes blennosperma SR 1B CACA9 Carex californica California sedge 2 CAAFL2 Castilleja affinis ssp litoralis Oregon coast indian paintbrush 2 CABO Calamagrostis bolanderi Bolander's reed grass 1B CACA7 Campanula californica swamp harebell 1B CACR Calamagrostis crassiglumis Thurber's reed grass 2 CAFO Calamagrostis foliosa leafy reed grass 4 CALI Carex livida livid sedge 1A CALY3 Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's sedge 2 CAME21 Castilleja mendocinensis Mendocino coast indian paintbrush 1B CAPU Calystegia purpurata ssp saxicola coastal bluff morning-glory 1B CASA6 Carex saliniformis deceiving sedge 1B CAVI Carex viridula var Viridula green sedge 2 CEGLE Ceanothus gloriosus var exaltatus glory brush 4 CEGLG3 Cecmothus gloriosus var gloriosus Point Reyes ceanothus 4 CHHO2 Chorizanthe howellii Howell's spineflower FE ST 1B COCO2 Collinsia corymbosa round-headed chinese houses 1B CUGOP2 Cupressus goveniana ssp pigmaea pygmy cypress 1B ERMEM2 Erysimum menziesii ssp menziesii Menzies's wallflower FT SE 1B ERSU4 Erigeron supplex supple daisy 1B FRRO Fritillaria roderickii Roderick's fritillary 1B GLGR Glyceria grandis American manna grass 2 HOMA3 Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia 1B HOTE2 Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia 1B LACO6 Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields FE 1B LAMAM Lasthenia macrantha ssp. macrantha Baker's goldfields 1B LBL Usnea longissima Long-beard lichen 1 LIMA Lilium maritimum coast lily 1B LYCH Lycopodium clauafum running pine 2 MIBO Microseris borealis northern microseris 2 MICA Mitella caulescens leafy-stemmed mitrewort 2 PICOB2 Pinus contorta ssp bolanderi Bolander's beach pine 1B PHINC2 Phacelia insularis var continentis North Coast phacelia 1B PUPU Puccinellia pumila dwarf alkali grass 2 SICARH Sidalcea calycosa ssp rhizomata Point Reyes checkerbloom 1B SIMA Sidalcea malachroides Maple-leaved checkerbloom 1B SAOF3 Sanguisorba officinalis great burnet 2 TRCA Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella 1B VIPA4 Viola palustris marsh violet 2 Plant Communities: C&FM Coastal And Valley Freshwater Marsh Coastal And Valley Freshwater Marsh CBM Coastal Brackish Marsh Coastal Brackish Marsh CTP Coastal terrace Prairie Coastal Terrace Prairie Map Figure 1A: Key to Sensitive Species and Communities (Biological Resources Maps)
F Fen Fen GFF Grand Fir Forest Grand Fir Forest NCBS Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub NCSM Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh OG Old Growth Old Growth
PF Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest, Southern Pygmy Habitat Forest, Pygmy Forest Pygmy Forest PRF Pygmy Redwood Forest Pygmy Redwood Forest SB Sphagnum Bog Sphagnum Bog SSF Sitke Spruce Forest CALVEG Type Community Types Wetlands Red Alder, Tule-Cattail-Sedge, Wet Meadows, White Alder, Willow-Alder Bishop Pine Oaks/Bay California Bay, Canyon Live Oak Grand Fir Grand Fir, Sitka Spruce-Grand Fir Conifer Douglas Fir - Grand Fir, Mixed Conifer/Pine, Pacific Douglas Fir, Redwood, Redwood-Douglas Fir, Tanoak Grasslands Perennial Grass/ Forbes Agriculture Dune Pygmy Forest (PYF) Mendocino Manzanita North Coast Mixed Scrub Blueblossom Ceanothus, Chaparral, Coyote Brush, Mendocino Manzanita Exotics Eucalyptus, Monterey Cypress, Monterey Pine Water Unknown Urban (SEE NEXT PAGE FOR PROTECTION STATUS) Map Figure 1A (continued)
Protection Status* Fed CA DFG CNPS
Fed: FE=Fed Endangered; FT=Fed Threatened; SC=Species of Concern
CA: SE=State Endangered; SSC=Species of Special Concern; SR=State Rare; ST=State Threatened
DFG: SSC=Species of Special Concern; FBM=Fur Bearing Mammal
CNPS: 1A=Presumed Extinct in CA ; 1B=Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere; 2=Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA but more common elsewhere; 3=Need more information (review list); 4=Limited distribution (watch list)