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] <http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/global200/pages/home.html> 4 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 5 Mendocino Coast Audubon Society, Important Bird Areas, see page 8 6 State of California, California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 921, 1977 7 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Watershed Planning Chapter, 2002 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