Humboldt County Coastal Agricultural Lands

Home , Humboldt Bay, North Coast (California), Van Duzen River

NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY:

HUMBOLDT COUNTY COASTAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS

PREPARED BY THE: NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LANDTRUST

June 2005

NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY:

HUMBOLDT COUNTY COASTAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS

June 2005

Produced by: Ben Morehead, Projects Manager Northcoast Regional Land Trust P.O. Box 398 Bayside, CA 95570 707-822-2242 www.ncrlt.org

Project Funding: Provided through a planning grant by the California Farmland Conservancy Program, CA Department of Conservation 801 K. Street, MS 18-01 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-324-0850 www.consrv.ca.gov

Cover photo: Mad River winding through the Arcata Bottoms, unincorporated town of McKinleyville in background; Courtesy of Humboldt County Farm Bureau

NRLT Mission Statement

The Northcoast Regional Land Trust is dedicated to the protection of working landscapes, farms, forests and grazing lands, and to the preservation and protection of land for its natural, educational, scenic and historic values. We work with landowners on a voluntary basis to promote stewardship of Northern California's healthy and productive resource base, natural systems and quality of life.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST of MAPS and TABLES...... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2

PURPOSE and INTRODUCTION...... 7

BACKGROUND ...... 8

STUDY AREA and GIS MAPPING SOURCES ...... 12

RESULTS ...... 13 Conservation Opportunities ...... 13 Conversion Threats ...... 15 Agricultural Production Zones...... 18

CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 30 Agricultural Conservation Easements...... 31 Recommendations for Local Government...... 32

REFERENCES ...... 35

LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES

MAPS Map Page

1 Conservation Opportunities ...... 4

2 Agricultural Soils and Zoning...... 5

3 Opportunities and Threats...... 6

3a Agricultural Production Zone: Eel River Bottoms ...... 24 3b Agricultural Production Zone: Elk River...... 25 3c Agricultural Production Zone: Freshwater and Jacoby Creek...... 26 3d Agricultural Production Zone: Arcata Bottoms...... 27 3e Agricultural Production Zone: Blue Lake to Little River ...... 28 3f Agricultural Production Zone: Orick Valley ...... 29

TABLES Table Page

1 Strategic Conservation Areas (SCA) ...... 13

2 Agricultural Soils in SCA: Storie Index Rating...... 15

3 Principal Threat Factors in SCAs ...... 16

4 Extended Threat Factors ...... 17

5 Small Parcels within Agriculture Exclusive Zoning...... 17

6 Agricultural Production Zone SCAs...... 18

7 Williamson Act Preserves in SCAs ...... 19

8 Agricultural Production Zone, Agricultural Soils...... 20

9 APZs: Principal Threat Factors in Strategic Conservation Areas...... 21

10 APZ Agricultural Zoning, Small Parcel Threat ...... 22

11 Land Ownership within APZs ...... 23

1 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This North Coast Farmland Conservation Study, conducted by the Northcoast Regional Land Trust, assesses the conservation opportunities and land use conversion threats on Humboldt County coastal agricultural lands. Focusing on bottomlands along the Eel River, Mad River, greater Humboldt Bay and Redwood Creek, data from Humboldt County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping database were used to develop maps that present current agricultural resources and land use planning features. The map components, or layers, were analyzed to generate the farmland conservation target areas and associated results presented in this report. The report highlights the critical mass of functioning agricultural lands currently sustaining our local agricultural industry and economy. Non-agricultural land conversion threats emphasize land use planning factors and zoning ordinances.

In summary, over 64,000 acres of agricultural lands are highlighted as agricultural conservation opportunity areas, or ‘Strategic Conservation Areas’ (SCA) (Map 1). Approximately 34,000 SCA acres are located within non-agricultural land conversion threat areas. These agricultural conservation opportunity areas and land conversion threat areas create a baseline for prioritizing private agricultural land conservation projects and developing county programs and policies. Report results are grouped into six ‘Agricultural Production Zones’ (APZ). These APZs were created for descriptive purposes, based on geographic features, and are used to further define mapping analysis results into focus areas. The APZs include: (a) Eel River Bottoms: Ferndale, Fortuna, Loleta and surroundings (b) Elk River: lower Elk River watershed (c) Freshwater and Jacoby Creek: lower Freshwater Creek and Jacoby Creek (d) Arcata Bottoms: Mad River floodplain west of Arcata (e) Blue Lake to Little River: Blue Lake, Fieldbrook, McKinleyville and surroundings (f) Orick Valley: lower Redwood Creek bottomlands

Agricultural land use, agricultural zoning and soil productivity are the primary components that delineate the Strategic Conservation Areas (Map 2). This includes existing agricultural lands zoned by Humboldt County as Agriculture Exclusive, and adjacent agricultural lands zoned Agriculture General or Unclassified with a soil Storie Index Rating (SIR) of 60 or higher (prime and most productive soils). The Strategic Conservation Areas includes 59,159 acres of agricultural lands zoned Agriculture Exclusive, of which 27,502 acres are considered prime and productive soils. Also included are 3,410 acres of adjacent Agriculture General zoned lands and 1,755 acres of Unclassified zoned lands with prime and productive soils. Total SCA acreage includes approximately 7,557 acres of farms in Williamson Act agricultural preserves (Table 1).

These are Humboldt County’s best agricultural soils in large and interconnected acres. The existing dairies, pastures, farms and agricultural production infrastructure create the critical mass of agricultural lands necessary to sustain a commercial agricultural industry and economy in Humboldt County. SCA acreage ranges from over 45,000 acres in the Eel River Bottoms APZ to 776 acres in the Orick Valley APZ.

2 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Table 1: Strategic Conservation Areas Strategic Conservation Area (SCA) Total Acreage 64,324 Agriculture Exclusive (AE) Zoning Acres 59,159 AE Acres in SIR > 60 27,502 Agriculture General (AG) / Unclassified (U) Zoning Acres in SIR >60 5,165 % SCA in SIR > 60 51% Williamson Act (WA) Preserves in SCA 45 WA Acres in SCA 7,557 WA Acres in SIR > 60 3,197

Land conversion threat areas (Map 3) include factors that could potentially allow for non- agricultural land conversion within the SCA lands. These include local government land use planning jurisdictions and zoning ordinances deemed more allowable for future land conversion. It is assumed that SCA lands adjacent to lands used for non-agricultural purposes are more threatened with land use conversion. Principal land use conversion threats include a one-half mile buffer within and around city spheres of influence, a one- half mile buffer around select sections of Highway 101, lands within existing water service district boundaries, and agricultural lands outside of the federally designated 100- year floodplain (null flood hazard, more developable). These threats pose an immediate and or future risk to maintaining commercial agricultural production.

Based on the above threat criteria, 33,582 acres, or 52%, of the total 64,324 SCA acres are deemed threatened. This includes 21,877 acres of SCA agricultural land outside of the designated 100-year floodplain, 13,388 acres of SCA lands located within one-half mile of city sphere of influence boundaries, 7,403 acres located within water and sewer service district boundaries, and 4,088 acres located within a one-half mile portion of Highway 101. Some of the SCA lands contain more than one threat.

Results from this study will be used by the Northcoast Regional Land Trust to promote agricultural land conservation and outreach to agricultural landowners interested in land conservation incentives, such as agricultural conservation easements. It is the intention of the Northcoast Regional Land Trust to work with willing landowners to promote incentive-based private land conservation for agricultural, ecological and economic benefits. Additional recommendations in this report address local government land use planning, policy and program development. Key recommendations include promoting the Williamson Act’s Farmland Security Zone benefits to agricultural landowners and designating the defined Strategic Conservation Areas as ‘Farmland of Local Importance’. This designation would help local applicants in competing for funding from state and federal agricultural land conservation easement programs.

This report and additional maps are available on the Northcoast Regional Land Trust website: www.ncrlt.org .

3 L

l e R iv e North Coast Farmland Conservation Study m r 2ULFN +XPEROGW&RXQW\&RDVWDO$J/DQG&RQVHUYDWLRQ2SSRUWXQLWLHV Blue Lake to Little River B

u l S L w o o u i w n t 6WUDWHJLF&RQVHUYDWLRQ$UHDV 6&$ LQFOXGH k h Infrastructure Patrick Creek e le F r e k C o e re r S DJULFXOWXUDOERWWRPODQGV ]RQHG$JULFXOWXUH r e k k o $JULFXOWXUDO3URGXFWLRQ=RQHV $3= Joh on C L ns itt u Clam Beach le t k R h ([FOXVLYH $( DQG DGMDFHQWERWWRPODQGV e iver &RDVWDO=RQH e F r o C r ]RQHG$JULFXOWXUH*HQHUDORU8QFODVVLILHGZLWK k rie S &LW\-XULVGLFWLRQV i trawberry Cree L a k i r M t t SULPHDQGSURGXFWLYHVRLOV 6,5VRLOVUDQNLQJ a l P 6SKHUHVRI,QIOXHQFH th e R e R o r RIRUJUHDWHU 7KHVHDUHWKHFRXQW\¶V D C i k s v u r :DWHU6HUYLFH$UHDV e k e e e e e C e r r r PRVWSURGXFWLYHDJULFXOWXUHERWWRPODQGVLQ C e k C e r k 86+Z\ d e Orick Valley o e ODUJHLQWHUFRQQHFWHGDFUHV7KHGDLULHV o k 6WDWH+Z\ w reek SDVWXUHVIDUPVDQGDJULFXOWXUHLQIUDVWUXFWXUH Re d C n o t 2WKHUURDGV r FUHDWHWKHFULWLFDOPDVVRIODQGVQHFHVVDU\WR o Orick N Fieldbrook 6WUHDPV VXVWDLQDFRPPHUFLDODJULFXOWXUDOLQGXVWU\DQG ¤£101 :DWHU%RGLHV HFRQRP\LQ+XPEROGW&RXQW\7KHVWXG\DUHD Wi dow Conservation Opportunities White Creek Dolf Creek DVZHOODVUHSRUWUHVXWVDUHIXUWKHUFDWHJRUL]HG L in 6WUDWHJLF&RQVHUYDWLRQ$UHDV 6&$ d LQWRVL[$JULFXOWXUDO3URGXFWLRQ=RQHV $3= s a McKinleyville y :LOOLDPVRQ$FW5DQFKHV D (HO5LYHU%RWWRPV E (ON5LYHU 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles C Squaw r Cree e k e Zones F )UHVKZDWHU&UHHNDQG-DFRE\&UHHN k $JULFXOWXUH([FOXVLYH RXWVLGH$3= G $UFDWD%RWWRPV H %OXH/DNHWR/LWWOH Mill C reek $JULFXOWXUH*HQHUDO $* 5LYHU I 2ULFN9DOOH\0RVWQRWDOOSDUFHOV 5HFUHDWLRQ&RQVHUYDWLRQ VKRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHG*,6PDSSLQJUHVXOWV

7LPEHU3URGXFWLRQ8QFODVVLILHG DQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQDVVRFLDWHGUHSRUW k E e ss e 5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO e r x C

G l l u a &LW\3XEOLF)DFLOLW\ l c M H a d R h i v e Arcata Bottoms r e k l C re 1RUWKFRDVW5HJLRQDO/DQG7UXVW ± Mil 32%R[ k No ee %D\VLGH&$ isy Cr ZZZQFUOWRUJ ·|}þ299 J a n e 0LOHV gh k u s ee lo C Cr Blue Lake u g S r en lo l e arr h W S e e 3URGXFHGE\'RXJODV&KRZIRU15/7 i k com n Jolly Giant C s a 0D\ Li re D e c k M Leggit Creek Arcata N F Mad k 'DWD6RXUFHV&DOLIRUQLD6SDWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQ/LEUDU\DQG+XPEROGW&RXQW\&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV'HSW e R e iv r e

C r 7KLVPDSLVLQWHQGHGIRULQIRUPDWLRQGLVSOD\SXUSRVHVRQO\1RUWK&RDVW5HJLRQDO/DQG7UXVWDVVXPHVQROLDELOLW\RUUHVSRQVLELOLW\ Kelly LQWKHXVHRIWKLVPDS7KHGDWDUHQGHUHGLQWKLVPDSKDVQRWEHHQFRQILUPHGRQWKHJURXQGIRUDFFXUDF\FXUUHQF\QRU FRPSOHWHQHVV Sunny Brae Mad River

&DOLIRUQLD Manila

'HO1RUWH Gannon Slough

6LVNL\RX Bayside Puter Creek $UFDWD Cre ry ek a 2ULFN d n u %D\ o B

eek Cr ·|}þ96 Black Dog Samoa 7ULQLGDG

0F.LQOH\YLOOH :LOORZ&UHHN

$UFDWD (XUHND Freshwater & Jacoby Creek ·|}þ299 +XPEROGW Fairhaven Eureka )RUWXQD )HUQGDOH 7ULQLW\ 'LQVPRUH

36 Cutten ·|}þ Ja

c o

b y

C Freshwater r e Kneeland e Sw k ai ¤£101 n

gh *DUEHUYLOOH ree er C k hwat Elk River Fres Elk River R 0HQGRFLQR ya n L

Cr it E t e le

e l

k k F r R e

i s Fields Landing v h e w r a t e +XPEROGW%D\ r C k West Fork Bridge Creek B r e e re r C 3DFLILF i e d k er g S t o w a B e ut esh h F rk Fr e C o l 6RXWK l r C e N e o re k r e th k inn F h e or %D\ y C k W reek E c lk 2FHDQ M R Willow Brook iv Doe Creek e i r Elk R Fork North Branch North S al South Branch North Fork Elk Ri mo L n a k C ¤£101 e Cre re ek ek

c C lo ud C r e R ek E C ENC R W A L

i t t l e

S L o i tt u l t Fish Creek e h S F a o Loleta lm r o k n E C lk re R ek iv e r

r ek Rive re lt C Shaw Creek a h S c n i reek F Corner C

reek r C e ek gs Cre B lm tron la a k S n P or t Eel River Bottoms Little Palmer Creek F o th n or C N r ek e e k e r e Str C A k on gs e r l erry l P Sl e o C ug n h k l Port Kenyon e il e C Cr er M r n e oh r R e e p k o k o e C Coffee Creek re C n so Jam e Ferndale Fortuna k Yager C r ee S m i t h C re ek Waddington

k e Hydesville e r k ree C C n er o ar b ils B V W a n D u Carlotta re ek z e illiams C n W R i v Fiedler Creek e r 36 ·|}þ eek Cr s g n k i e C e ic r k Pr ee m k e re m e C Cu r l i C

O e ic r Flanigan Creek

Howe Creek Rio Dell North Coast Farmland Conservation Study m r e iv R e +XPEROGW&RXQW\&RDVWDO$J/DQG$JULFXOWXUDO6RLOVDQG=RQLQJ 2ULFN L i ttl

B S u o l u L w t h o in F w 7KLVPDSLOOXVWUDWHVWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRI o Patrick Creek k e Infrastructure le r r e k C k re ree k L S DJULFXOWXUDOVRLOVDQGWKHLUVXLWDELOLW\IRU J n C itt o ohnso le u &LW\-XULVGLFWLRQV Clam Beach R t k iv h DJULFXOWXUDOSURGXFWLRQDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH e e r e F r o C r 6SKHUHVRI,QIOXHQFH DVVHVVHG6WRULH,QGH[5DWLQJ 6,5 k rie S i trawberry Cree L a k i r M t t P a l 86+Z\ th e 6,5 *UDGH ([FHOOHQW R e R r D o C i u s v 6WDWH+Z\ 6,5 *UDGH :HOO6XLWHG k k e re e e r re e Cr e C C ee k d r k 2WKHUURDGV 6,5 *UDGH *RRG oo e dw e Re k 6,5 *UDGH )DLU3RRU e Cr ek 6WUHDPV n o t r o :DWHU%RGLHV 6RLOUDQNLQJVGHULYHGIURPD866RLO Orick N Fieldbrook &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH6RLO6XUYH\DUHJHDUHG ¤£101 :LOOLDPVRQ$FW5DQFKHV WRZDUGURZFURSSURGXFWLYLW\,Q+XPEROGW Wi dow Zones &RXQW\VRLOVUDQNHGDVµSRRU¶DUHFXUUHQWO\ White Creek Dolf Creek $JULFXOWXUH([FOXVLYH $( PDQDJHGDVSURGXFWLYHFRZSDVWXUH7KH McKinleyville 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles ua $JULFXOWXUDO*HQHUDO $* PDMRULW\RIWKHPRVWSURGXFWLYHDJULFXOWXUDO Sq w Creek VRLOVDUHORFDWHGLQ$(]RQLQJZKLOHVRPH &LW\3XEOLF)DFLOLW\ H[LVWLQ$*]RQLQJ8QFODVVLILHG]RQLQJDQG Mill C re Agricultural Soils (1965) FLW\V VSKHUHRILQIOXHQFHERXQGDULHV6RLO ek Storie Index Rating TXDOLW\FULWHULDDQGOLPLWDWLRQVDUHIXUWKHU E L s i GHVFULEHGLQWKHUHSRUW s n e d x s G a u y lc C M a h 1RUWKFRDVW5HJLRQDO/DQG7UXVW r d e 32%R[ R e i v k e r H %D\VLGH&$ a l l k C C ree r ill e M e ZZZQFUOWRUJ k ek Noi re W sy C 0LOHV a r ± r e n C 3URGXFHGE\'RXJODV&KRZIRU15/7 r 299 J e ·|}þ a e 0D\ n k e gh u s lo C 'DWD6RXUFHV&DOLIRUQLD6SDWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQ/LEUDU\+XPEROGW&RXQW\&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV'HSWDQG+XPEROGW u g S r lo l e h S e e &RXQW\$JULFXOWXUDO/DQG6RLOV%DVHGRQ6RLOVRI:HVWHUQ+XPEROGW&RXQW\PDS 6RLOGDWDFRYHUDJHLVLQFRPSOHWH i k com n Jolly Giant C Blue Lake s a DQGLVOLPLWHGWRDUHDVFRQGXFLYHWRDJULFXOWXUHJUH\ZKLWHDUHDVZHUHHLWKHUQRWVXUYH\HGRUGDWDLVQRWDYDLODEOH Li re D e c k 7KLVPDSLVLQWHQGHGIRULQIRUPDWLRQGLVSOD\SXUSRVHVRQO\1RUWK&RDVW5HJLRQDO/DQG7UXVWDVVXPHVQROLDELOLW\RUUHVSRQVLELOLW\ M Leggit Creek Arcata N F Mad k LQWKHXVHRIWKLVPDS7KHGDWDUHQGHUHGLQWKLVPDSKDVQRWEHHQFRQILUPHGRQWKHJURXQGIRUDFFXUDF\FXUUHQF\QRU e R e iv FRPSOHWHQHVV r e C r Kelly

&DOLIRUQLD Sunny Brae 'HO1RUWH Mad River Manila 6LVNL\RX Gannon Slough Jacob y C re Bayside Puter Creek e 2ULFN $UFDWD k Cre ry ek a d n u %D\ o ·|}þ96 B k 7ULQLGDG ree Black Dog C Samoa

0F.LQOH\YLOOH :LOORZ&UHHN

$UFDWD (XUHND

·|}þ299 +XPEROGW

)RUWXQD )HUQGDOH 7ULQLW\ Fairhaven Eureka 'LQVPRUH ·|}þ3 ek re C ·|}þ36 yan R Cutten

¤£101 Fres hwater C Kneeland r Swa e in e *DUEHUYLOOH k

gh 0HQGRFLQR ·|}þ1 Elk River L

it E t

le l

k F r R e

i s Fields Landing v h e w r a t e +XPEROGW%D\ r C

r ek e re 3DFLILF e C r k S te ou shw a 6RXWK th Fork Fre

B e ll inn C h e r %D\ k y e C e e W re re c ek k C 2FHDQ ge M Willow Brook id r North Fo B rk Doe Creek E i lk R Elk R ¤£101 iver Fork North Branch North

South Branch North Fork Elk Ri La ke C reek

c S C a l lo m u o d n C C r e re ek ek L i t t le S

t h

o L r i k t t E le l S k Fish Creek a R Loleta lm iv o e n r C r eek

k ee Cr Shaw Creek h c n i reek F Corner C hn S o er e k m reek R C re ith r C L C e Creek A gs W reek lm Stron a k R P or Little Palmer Creek F th E or N N C E k Salt River s Creek e C ng e R err tro r R P y Slo S e ug C as C h l il

e M e r

k e p B o la o n C to Coffee Creek n k e C k r e e e re r e C C Ferndale Fortuna Jameson k

e l l

A Ya ger Creek W

il li Waddington a m s C r e e k

Hydesville k ek e re e r C r be C Bar on V W ils a n D u Carlotta z e n R ek i Fiedler Creek e v e r r gs Creek C min e m ric P 36 u C k ·|}þ C Price ree e k re C l i

O Flanigan Creek

Howe Creek Rio Dell North Coast Farmland Conservation Study m r e iv R e 2ULFN L i ttl +XPEROGW&RXQW\&RDVWDO$J/DQG2SSRUWXQLWLHVDQG7KUHDWV Blue Lake to Little River B

u l S L w o o u i w n t 6WUDWHJLF&RQVHUYDWLRQ$UHDV 6&$ LQFOXGH h Patrick Creek k e Infrastructure l F e C r r o S ee k rk DJULFXOWXUDOERWWRPODQGV ]RQHG$JULFXOWXUDO L o $JULFXOWXUDO3URGXFWLRQ=RQHV $3= itt u Clam Beach le t ([FOXVLYHDQG DGMDFHQWERWWRPODQGV]RQHG R er h iv F &RDVWDO=RQH o r $JULFXOWXUDO*HQHUDORU8QFODVVLILHGZLWKSULPH S k &LW\-XULVGLFWLRQV trawberry Cree L k i M t t DQGSURGXFWLYHVRLOV 6,5VRLOVUDQNLQJRI a l 6SKHUHVRI,QIOXHQFH th e R e R o r RUJUHDWHU 7KHVHDUHWKHFRXQW\¶VPRVW D C i Orick Valley u s v 86+Z\ k e re e e Cr e r SURGXFWLYHDJULFXOWXUHERWWRPODQGVLQODUJH C ee k 6WDWH+Z\ r k e e LQWHUFRQQHFWHGDFUHV7KHGDLULHVSDVWXUHV k 2WKHUURDGV ree IDUPVDQGDJULFXOWXUHLQIUDVWUXFWXUHFUHDWHWKH C k n o 6WUHDPV t r FULWLFDOPDVVRIODQGVQHFHVVDU\WRVXVWDLQD o Fieldbrook Land Use Conversion Threats Orick N FRPPHUFLDODJULFXOWXUDOLQGXVWU\DQGHFRQRP\ ¤£101 &LW\+LJKZD\ PLOHEXIIHU LQ+XPEROGW&RXQW\7KUHDWVDUHODQGXVHDQG Wi :DWHU6HUYLFH$UHDV dow White Creek Dolf Creek ]RQLQJIDFWRUVGHHPHGPRUHDOORZDEOHIRUIXWXUH L 1XOO)ORRG+D]DUG in d ODQGFRQYHUVLRQ7KHVHLQFOXGH6&$ODQGV s Conservation Opportunities a McKinleyville y ZLWKLQPLOHRIFLW\VSKHUHVRILQIOXHQFH 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles C Squaw r Cree 6WUDWHJLF&RQVHUYDWLRQ$UHDV 6&$ e k e ERXQGDULHVH[LVWLQJZDWHUVHUYLFHGLVWULFWVDQG k 6&$3ULPH6RLOV 6,5! ODQGVRXWVLGHWKHGHVLJQDWHG\HDUIORRGSODLQ :LOOLDPVRQ$FW5DQFKHV Mill C QXOOIORRGKD]DUGPRUHGHYHORSDEOH 7KH reek Zones VWXG\DUHDDVZHOODVUHSRUWUHVXWVDUHIXUWKHU $JULFXOWXUH([FOXVLYH RXWVLGH$3=

FDWHJRUL]HGLQWRVL[$JULFXOWXUDO3URGXFWLRQ k $JULFXOWXUH*HQHUDO $* E e ss e =RQHV $3= D (HO5LYHU%RWWRPV E (ON e r 5HFUHDWLRQ&RQVHUYDWLRQ x C G l l u 5LYHU F )UHVKZDWHU&UHHNDQG-DFRE\&UHHN a l c 7LPEHU3URGXFWLRQ8QFODVVLILHG M H a h G $UFDWD%RWWRPV H %OXH/DNHWR/LWWOH5LYHU d R i v 5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPHUFLDO,QGXVWULDO e Arcata Bottoms r k I 2ULFN9DOOH\0RVWQRWDOOSDUFHOVVKRXOGEH C ree Mill &LW\3XEOLF)DFLOLW\ FRQVLGHUHG*,6PDSSLQJUHVXOWVDQG ek Noi re UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQDVVRFLDWHGUHSRUW W sy C a r re 299 n ·|}þ 1RUWKFRDVW5HJLRQDO/DQG7UXVW C r J e 32%R[ a e n k e %D\VLGH&$ gh u s lo C Blue Lake u g S r lo l e S h ± e e ZZZQFUOWRUJ i k com n Jolly Giant C s a Li re D e c k M Leggit Creek Arcata N F Mad k e R e iv 0LOHV r e

C r Kelly 3URGXFHGE\'RXJODV&KRZIRU15/7 0D\ Sunny Brae Mad River 'DWD6RXUFHV&DOLIRUQLD6SDWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQ/LEUDU\+XPEROGW&RXQW\&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV'HSWDQG+XPEROGW Manila

&RXQW\$JULFXOWXUDO/DQG6RLOV Gannon Slough 7KLVPDSLVLQWHQGHGIRULQIRUPDWLRQGLVSOD\SXUSRVHVRQO\1RUWK&RDVW5HJLRQDO/DQG7UXVWDVVXPHVQROLDELOLW\RUUHVSRQVLELOLW\ Jaco LQWKHXVHRIWKLVPDS7KHGDWDUHQGHUHGLQWKLVPDSKDVQRWEHHQFRQILUPHGRQWKHJURXQGIRUDFFXUDF\FXUUHQF\QRU by Bayside C Puter Creek re FRPSOHWHQHVV e $UFDWD k Cre ry ek a d n u &DOLIRUQLD %D\ o 'HO1RUWH B k ree Black Dog C Samoa 6LVNL\RX

2ULFN

·|}þ96 Freshwater & Jacoby Creek 7ULQLGDG Eureka 0F.LQOH\YLOOH :LOORZ&UHHN Fairhaven

$UFDWD ek re n C (XUHND ya R }þ299 ·| Cutten +XPEROGW

)RUWXQD Freshwater )HUQGDOH 7ULQLW\ Kneeland Swa in

'LQVPRUH l o

·|}þ3 gh ·|}þ36 ree er C k hwat Elk River Fres Elk River ¤£101 L

it E t

le l

k F r R e

i s *DUEHUYLOOH Fields Landing v h e w r a t e +XPEROGW%D\ r C k West Fork Bridge Creek B r e e re r e C id k er 0HQGRFLQR g S t o w a B e ut esh h Fork Fr e }þ1 C l ·| 6RXWK l r C e e re k e k inn h e %D\ y C W re c ek M Willow Brook Doe Creek 3DFLILF i Elk R Fork North Branch North

South BranchN North Fork Elk Ri L o a rt ke hF £101 Cree ¤ k o rk E lk Riv 2FHDQ M e r c S C a l lo m ud o C n r C ee re ek k

i t t l e

S L o i tt u l t Fish Creek e h S F a o Loleta lm r o k n E C lk re R ek iv e r

k ee Cr Shaw Creek h c n i reek F Corner C hn o er e k L reek R C re A C W r k e ree R m ongs C l tr E a k S P or N Eel River Bottoms Little Palmer Creek F th C r E k No e k C e ee k R r r Salt River Stro s C e C n g e erry S r h P l o C t u i gh l Port Kenyon l i

m M S r e p B o la k o n e C to Coffee Creek re n k C C n e o e r s r e e e Jam C k Ferndale Fortuna k n ee e Yager C r l l

il li Waddington a R m e s a C s r

C e e r k e

k e Hydesville e r k ree C C n er o ar b ils B V W a n D u Carlotta z e n R i v Fiedler Creek e r 36 ·|}þ eek Cr s g n k i e C e ic r k Pr ee m k e re m e C Cu r l i C

O e ic r Flanigan Creek

Howe Creek Rio Dell NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

PURPOSE and INTRODUCTION

Conservation means harmony between people and land. When land does well for its owner, and the owner does well by his land, when both end up better by reason of their partnership, we have conservation. Aldo Leopold

The Northcoast Regional Land Trust developed this agricultural land conservation study to highlight productive coastal agricultural areas in Humboldt County with the highest conservation values. Protecting these agricultural areas from land use conversion is necessary to maintaining a viable agricultural economy and industry in Humboldt County. This report, entitled ‘North Coast Farmland Conservation Study: Humboldt County Coastal Agricultural Lands’, assesses agricultural land conservation opportunities and land use conversion threats. The focus area is on bottomlands (i.e., low-lying, relatively level ground with floodplain soils) along the Eel River, Mad River, greater Humboldt Bay and Redwood Creek.

A primary goal of this study is to aid in the protection of productive agricultural lands and contiguous areas of farmland that support viable agricultural operations in Humboldt County. This report should strengthen local efforts to receive funding for agricultural conservation easements, a primary tool to conserve and protect farmland. This study highlights conservation target areas and could lay the groundwork for a county-wide agricultural farmland conservation program. Additional goals of this study are to encourage: • long-term conservation of productive agricultural lands for future generations, • voluntary and private stewardship of agricultural lands, and • local land use planning decisions that are consistent with county recommendations and policies addressing agricultural land conservation.

This study uses Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping and analysis to calculate conservation opportunities and conversion threats on agricultural lands, resulting in agricultural conservation target areas (Map 1), termed ‘Strategic Conservation Areas’ (SCA). Conservation opportunities include all lands zoned Agriculture Exclusive, defined as where “agriculture is and should be the desirable predominant use and in which the protection of this use from encroachment from incompatible uses is essential to the general welfare.” Dairies, grazing pasture, farms and agricultural production infrastructure comprise the majority of lands zoned Agriculture Exclusive and form the critical mass of lands necessary to sustain a viable agricultural industry and economy. In addition, prime and productive soils on adjacent ‘Agriculture General’ and ‘Unclassified’ zoned lands are also included as conservation opportunities (Map 2). Overall, these conservation opportunity areas include the county’s most productive soils in large and interconnected acres. Land use conversion threats include zoning and land use planning factors that are deemed more allowable for future land conversion to non-agricultural uses (Map 3). Principal threat criteria include adjacency to non-agricultural zoning, proximity to urban infrastructure services, and exclusion from restrictive floodplain jurisdictions. These conservation opportunities and conversion threats are combined on GIS maps and results include quantitative data clarifying acres of land in each category.

7 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

BACKGROUND

The Humboldt North Coast is not only defined by the grandeur and mystery of the ancient redwood forests, but also by its lush bottomlands – the alluvial plains of our area’s many rivers that make their way to the Pacific Ocean and Humboldt Bay. It is these fertile, green pastures that sustain a lively agricultural industry, one that further defines our rural economy and quality of life.

Humboldt County has a substantial agricultural industry and economy based around two large, contiguous agricultural areas: the Eel River Valley, including the Ferndale Bottoms, and the Arcata Bottoms. Adjacent and nearby smaller clusters of agriculturally productive lands include the coastal floodplains entering into Humboldt Bay, and agricultural lands north and east of Humboldt Bay, including Blue Lake and the Orick Valley. These areas, where prime and productive soils have been farmed since the early 1900s, are primarily zoned Agriculture Exclusive. The mild coastal climate, alluvial flood plain soils, year-round precipitation and high water tables combine to make these areas agriculturally productive and economically feasible for the small acreage producer and family business. These bottomlands are used as dairy farms, cattle pasture, flower farms, row crop farms and for feed production. These agricultural areas also provide a multitude of added benefits valued by the public including open space, community greenbelts, stunning aesthetics, habitat for species of migrating birds, salmon and other wildlife, local farmers markets and locally-grown products shipped around the nation.

But agriculture is threatened. The total amount of agricultural land in Humboldt County has decreased from 34 percent of total county acreage in 1964 to 25 percent in 2002. Humboldt County is loosing farmland and farming operations. There is increasing pressure to convert these productive and desirable bottomlands for non-agricultural uses, primarily residential, commercial development and alternative uses. Sprawling development on the outskirts of growing residential communities has and will continue to result in the loss of agricultural production.

Humboldt County government is paying close attention to the loss of agricultural land as it updates its County General Plan. The threat of agricultural land being converted to urban uses is identified as a primary concern in numerous county planning documents including the existing General Plan and General Plan Update reports. The existing 1984 Humboldt County General Plan has strong language and policies for protecting agricultural lands. The plan’s stated goal for agriculture in the county is “the optimum amount of agricultural land shall be conserved for and maintained in agricultural use to promote and increase Humboldt County’s agricultural production.”

An extensive set of policies address the conservation of agricultural resources. However, Humboldt County has been losing agricultural land to development and other non- agricultural uses due to the lack of a comprehensive agricultural land preservation plan that works with the issues facing agricultural landowners, as well as non-enforcement of existing goals and policies. Beyond general zoning ordinances and limited participation in the Williamson Act, few enforced policies or programs that address agricultural land protection currently exist in Humboldt County. Existing county policies include:

8 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

1. Agricultural lands shall be conserved and conflicts minimized between agricultural and non-agricultural uses through a variety of listed policy options including: a) formulation of logical boundaries separating urban and rural areas and when necessary, buffer areas to minimize land use conflicts; b) by focusing future conversions in areas where land use conflicts would not threaten the viability of existing agriculture; c) by promoting in-filling to achieve a more logical urban / agricultural boundary; d) by allowing development of uneconomical or marginally viable agricultural lands, or agricultural lands already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses to limit the market pressures for conversion of more productive lands; e) by assuring that public service facility expansions and non-agricultural development do not inhibit agricultural viability through degraded water supplies, access systems, air quality, and other relevant considerations, such as increased assessment costs; and f) by broadening the utility of agricultural preserves and the Williamson Act Program to accommodate and encourage intensively managed farms.

2. The conversion of economically viable agricultural lands shall be monitored and reported annually.

3. In-filling shall be encouraged for all development.

4. Prime agricultural lands should be retained in parcel sizes large enough to provide for an economic management base.

5. Areas with General Plan zoning designations of Agriculture Exclusive should not be annexed to cities or service districts providing sewer services unless it is in the public interest.

6. The conversion of agricultural land should only be considered where continued agricultural production is not economically feasible and proposed development is consistent with rural development section 2550.

In 2002, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors adopted the first comprehensive update to reflect major changes in the Williamson Act. The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, is a differential property tax assessment program providing agricultural property tax relief. Agricultural landowners who voluntarily enroll in the program enter into a contract with participating county governments in which they agree to keep their land in commercial agriculture for a 10- year period. The 2002 resolution states:

The County of Humboldt desires to preserve its agricultural land base in order to maintain a viable agricultural production economy within the county. The County desires to discourage the premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and to enhance the predictability of the future of viable economic agricultural production units in the County for those engaged in agricultural production. … . The County considers it is in the public interest to encourage the maintenance of a healthy and vibrant agricultural economy to ensure adequate healthful and nutritious food for the current residents of the County and State and for generations yet unborn.

9 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Although it is not experiencing the rapid population increase and intensive development pressures that other areas of California face, and despite strongly-worded policies advocating farmland protection, agricultural land is being lost to production in Humboldt County. An increasing amount of land being lost is prime or unique farmland located near residential centers. Threats to agriculture include growth of existing cities and unincorporated residential areas, rural residential development, as well as habitat protection projects that exclude agriculture. Residential subdivisions and non- agricultural development in and around agricultural areas result in the direct loss of farms and fragment remaining agricultural operations. Agricultural land is generally considered to be lost when it is rezoned into parcel sizes too small for commercial agricultural use or is converted to a non-agricultural use. Fragmentation can be defined as the breakup of larger tracts of agricultural land into smaller tracts intermixed with non-agricultural uses. Fragmentation often results in higher production costs due to an increase in real estate values, land lease costs and operational changes to address conflicts with adjacent landowners. In Humboldt County, dairy and beef agricultural producers have traditionally adapted to seasonal changes on their land by using adjacent higher ground during winter storms. An increase in non-agricultural land uses on adjacent higher ground has limited this option and threatens current agricultural operations. The conversion of land in agricultural areas generally discourages landowners from making investments in their operations or entering into new agricultural businesses. Landowners anticipate future conversion of their own land to non-agricultural uses. Subsequently, the reduction of a critical mass of agricultural land and producers in a given region weakens the viability of local agricultural support businesses.

Studies and trends indicate that rural, coastal California counties are very prone to population and development pressures. Humboldt County was recently ranked first in the nation in terms of natural resource amenity values sought after by an increasing number of urban, baby-boomer retirees, and has already been called out by national magazines as a top retirement hot spot with a plethora of outdoor recreation, natural beauty, small town community values and relatively cheap real estate. The county’s most productive soils are located along the coastal bottomlands surrounding Humboldt Bay and large river floodplains where the demand for residential housing, hobby farms, and public use is greatest. Residential housing prices are at an all time high. Community perception is that residential development and other non-agricultural land uses are depleting agricultural resources.

The acreage of leased pasture decreases every year due to small parcel development. The conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses diminishes the inventory of land available for commercial production and reduces the amount of contiguous land available for agriculture. Fragmentation puts additional pressure on business support services and industry infrastructure and drives up land values on agricultural lands. With the average age of local agricultural producers nearing retirement, fewer young farmers will be able to enter the industry due to escalating land values.

A study of Humboldt County’s past and present agricultural land conversion identified substantial amounts of agricultural land lost to production through zone reclassifications, subdivisions, and conditionally permitted uses which conflict with agricultural operations. Land is also being converted through the Certificate of Compliance process,

10 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY which involves recognition of historic parcels that may be substandard to minimum parcel sizes and densities established by the General Plan.

In response, there is increasing concern for the protection of agricultural land. Diverse community interests recognize the need to keep farmland in agricultural use. The success of local family-run agricultural operations goes hand in hand with the conservation of agricultural lands, which provide numerous and diverse public benefits from economic to aesthetic to biological. Results from a recent county-wide survey conclude that both producers and the public strongly value agricultural lands. • 83% of Humboldt County agricultural producers agreed that agricultural lands should be used by future generations for agriculture and not converted to non- agricultural uses. Producers want land to stay in agriculture. • 92% of producers agreed that current real estate prices have made it difficult to purchase or lease land for agricultural production; 84% agreed that residential development is reducing the amount of land available for production. • 91% of producers agreed that private agricultural lands provide ‘public benefits’ and 72% agreed that the conversion of private agricultural land is a community issue.

A significant majority of agricultural producers agreed that local government should do more to assist producers and protect productive agricultural land from being converted. • 81% agreed agricultural zoning is a good way to keep land secure for agriculture. • 78% agreed that growth boundaries should be developed around residential centers that promote residential growth within the boundary and promote exclusive agriculture use outside. • 77% supported agricultural conservation easements and the concept of a ‘Purchase of Development Rights’ program in which landowners would be compensated for giving up their right to subdivide land for non-agricultural uses.

Methods used to conserve agricultural land in California include: county general plans, agricultural zoning, preferential property tax assessments for agricultural lands (i.e., Williamson Act), agricultural conservation easements, purchase of development rights programs, urban growth boundaries, right-to-farm laws, economic development programs, local commissions and state executive orders. Agricultural zoning and the Williamson Act are the most utilized methods in California and in Humboldt County. Successful agricultural land protection programs combine several tools in a coordinated package, have commitment from landowners, citizens and politicians, are cost effective, and protect a critical mass of agricultural land over time.

A key conclusion in the 2005 report ‘Room to Grow?: An Assessment of the Potential for Unincorporated Humboldt County to Accommodate Future Projected Population Growth’ is that Humboldt County can accommodate rates of projected residential housing needs by developing higher density zoned lands within existing service areas without having to convert agricultural lands. In combination with this North Coast Farmland Conservation Study, these two land use assessment studies complement each other towards promoting the conservation of agricultural lands while allowing for future housing needs.

11 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

STUDY AREA and GIS MAPPING SOURCES

The study area includes Humboldt County’s coastal agricultural bottomlands and nearby alluvial floodplains ranging from Rio Dell in the south to the Orick Valley in the north. Six agricultural areas are defined as Agricultural Production Zones. These zones are defined by geographic features and are used to further define mapping analysis results into focus areas. They are not official or proposed jurisdictions, but are for descriptive purposes only. The Agricultural Production Zones (Maps 3a-3f) include: (a) Eel River Bottoms: Ferndale, Fortuna, Loleta and surrounding areas (b) Elk River: lower Elk River watershed (c) Freshwater and Jacoby Creek: lower Freshwater and Jacoby Creek (d) Arcata Bottoms: Mad River floodplain west of Arcata (e) Blue Lake to Little River: Blue Lake, Fieldbrook, McKinleyville and surround areas (f) Orick Valley: lower Redwood Creek bottomland

Data from Humboldt State University and Humboldt County’s GIS mapping databases were used to develop the maps that present current agricultural resources and land use planning features. The map components, or layers, were analyzed to generate the farmland conservation opportunity areas, threat areas and associated data tables presented in this report. Mapping layers include county zoning, water/sewer district service areas, land use planning jurisdictions, general ownership categories, soils, floodplain data, land topography, and agricultural lands participating in the Williamson Act. Soils data is derived from the 1965 U.S. Soil Conservation Service Humboldt County soil survey. Most, but not all, of the study area’s agricultural soils have been surveyed. Land zoned as Residential or Commercial (already developed) within incorporated cities and unincorporated communities were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Acreage results and related percentages presented in this report are based upon available data and are approximate.

12 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

RESULTS

CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES

The agricultural conservation target areas, defined in this report as Strategic Conservation Areas (SCA), total 64,324 acres (Table 1). This is based on agricultural land use, agricultural zoning and soil productivity (Map 1). It includes existing agricultural lands zoned by Humboldt County as Agriculture Exclusive, and adjacent agricultural lands zoned Agriculture General or Unclassified with a soil Storie Index Rating (SIR) of 60 or higher (defined in this report as prime and productive). These are Humboldt County’s best agricultural soils in large and interconnected acres. The agricultural SCA lands in this study area are primarily used for dairy and beef production, nursery, feed, floral and row crop agriculture. This critical mass of agricultural lands and agricultural infrastructure are necessary to sustain a commercial agricultural industry and economy in Humboldt County.

The agricultural lands considered Strategic Conservation Areas include 59,159 acres of agricultural lands zoned Agriculture Exclusive (AE), of which 27,502 acres are considered prime and productive soils (SIR >60) (Map 2). AE zoning covers a large majority of the county bottomlands and coastal alluvial floodplains adjacent to Humboldt Bay and the nearby Mad River, Eel River, Van Duzen River and Redwood Creek. Also included in the SCAs are 3,410 acres of Agriculture General zoned lands and 1,755 acres of Unclassified zoned lands with prime and productive soils. Forty-five farm and ranch ‘preserves’ (under Williamson Act contract) are located within the SCAs. These lands currently have voluntary contracts preserving private, commercial agricultural uses. These ranches contain 135 parcels and total 7,557 acres.

Table 1: Strategic Conservation Areas Strategic Conservation Areas (SCA) Total Acres 64,324 Agriculture Exclusive (AE) Zoning Acres 59,159 AE Acres in SIR > 60 27,502 Agriculture General (AG) / Unclassified (U) Zoning Acres in SIR >60 5,165 % SCA in SIR > 60 51% Williamson Act (WA) Preserves in SCA 45 WA Acres in SCA 7,557 WA Acres in SIR > 60 3,197

Agricultural soils are an important component defining the SCA lands. Map 2. ‘Agricultural Soils and Zoning’ illustrates the distribution of agricultural soils and their suitability for agricultural production as determined by the existing soils evaluation system for Humboldt County, the Storie Index Rating (SIR). The SIR methodology, used nationally and geared toward irrigated row crop productivity, includes: SIR 80-100% = Grade 1 = Excellent SIR 60-79% = Grade 2 = Well Suited SIR 40-59% = Grade 3 = Good / Fair SIR < 40% < Grade 3 = Fair / Poor

13 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Storie Index Grade 1 soils (SIR 80 to 100) are considered ‘excellent’, and are well suited to general intensive agriculture. They are easily worked, very productive, and irrigation is simple and efficient. Grade 2 soils (index rating 60-80) are moderately well suited for agriculture and Grade 3 (index rating 40-60) indicates only good to fair suitability. In Humboldt County, some areas with soils categorized as ‘fair’ are currently managed as productive cow pasture.

Humboldt County’s agricultural soils were mapped in 1965 in a cooperative project between the Department of Soils and Plant Nutrition, University of California, Davis, and the County of Humboldt utilizing the Storie Index Rating (SIR) classfication. The Natural Resource Conservation Service is currently in the process of mapping the soils in Humboldt County to the standardized Land Capability Classification System with a projected target completion date of 2008. This soils survey update will allow a larger amount of agricultural lands to qualify as ‘prime’ than the Storie Index allows. In addition, Humboldt is one of four (out of 58) counties in the state that is excluded from the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. With completion of the updated soil survey, Humboldt County will be eligible for this program, as well as other federal and state funding programs.

Most productive soils are often categorized as ‘prime’. Prime soil is defined as soil with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Within the SIR categories, the definition of prime has been adapted to include soils with an SIR ranking of 80 or greater. In Humboldt County, this excludes many highly productive agricultural areas that are considered excellent soils for use as pasture in dairy and beef production.

This study promotes an expanded definition of prime farmland. ‘Prime and productive’ farmland can be defined by a combination of productivity and location. Soils of moderate ratings, or even low productivity, should share the prime agriculture designation if such soils are surrounded by large expanses of undeveloped, productive soils. Such areas are important in a planning and zoning context since they are public goods and can contribute to community ‘quality of life’. Although different soil types affect farm productivity in many areas (i.e., Central Valley irrigated row crop farms), Humboldt County bottomlands with only moderate soils can be very productive. High water tables, late spring rains, the mild coastal climate and proper pasture management create strong opportunities for commercial agriculture.

In this study, soils with an SIR rating of 60 or greater are considered ‘prime and productive’ soils. The majority of these agricultural soils are located in AE zoning, while some ‘prime and productive’ soils exists in AG zoning, Unclassified zoning and within city’s sphere of influence boundaries. An SIR of 60 or greater qualifies agricultural soils as meeting the criteria for agricultural conservation opportunities targeted in the Strategic Conservation Areas.

86% of AE zoned lands within the study area, or 50,710 acres, are included in the existing soil survey data, while 8,449 acres of AE zoned agricultural lands were not included (Table 2). 54% of surveyed AE zoned lands contain ‘prime and productive’

14 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

(SIR >60) soils. Approximately 18,830 acres, 37% of the surveyed AE zoned area, have an SIR ranking 80 or greater. Map 2 also reveals that large portions of existing cities and residential communities in Humboldt County are built upon prime and productive soils. In addition, important agricultural soils are located within city Sphere of Influence boundaries, along major transportation highways and water service district areas.

Table 2: Agricultural Soils in SCA: Storie Index Rating (SIR) Total AE Acres Soil Surveyed, (Percent of Total AE in SCA) 50,710 (86%) Total AE Acres Not Soil Surveyed, (Percent of Total AE in SCA) 8,449 (14%) SIR 80-100 (Excellent Soil Productivity) 18,830 SIR 60-80 (Well Suited) 8,671 SIR 40-60 (Moderate) 10,016 SIR <40 (Fair / Poor) 13,193 Total AG Acres Soil Surveyed 13,184 AG Zoned Lands in SIR > 60 3,410 U Zoned Lands in SIR > 60 1,755 Acres in SIR > 60 within City Sphere of Influence 3,820

CONVERSION THREATS

Threat factors that could potentially allow for non-agricultural land conversion within the designated SCA lands include local government land use planning jurisdictions and zoning ordinances deemed more allowable for future land conversion (Map 3). These threats pose an immediate and or future risk to maintaining commercial agricultural production. It is assumed that SCA lands adjacent to non-agricultural lands are more threatened compared to agricultural lands further from away from urban or residential centers. Principal agricultural land use conversion threat factors used in this study include: • a one-half mile buffer within and around City Spheres of Influence jurisdictions, • a one-half mile buffer around select sections Highway 101, • SCA lands within existing water service district boundaries, and • SCA lands outside of the designated 100-year floodplain

Based on the above threat criteria, 33,582 acres, or 52%, of the total 64,324 SCA acres are deemed threatened (Table 3). This includes 21,877 acres of SCA agricultural land outside of the designated 100-year floodplain (null flood hazard, more developable), 13,388 acres of SCA lands located within one-half mile of city Sphere of Influence boundaries, 7,403 acres located within water and sewer service district boundaries, and 4,088 acres located within a one-half mile portion of Highway 101 (Fortuna to Eureka). Some of the SCA lands contain more than one threat. 5,408 acres, or 72 percent, of Williamson Act lands in SCAs are located within these threat areas.

15 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Table 3. Principal Threat Factors in Strategic Conservation Areas Total SCA Acres 64,324 Threatened SCA Acres 33,582 Null Flood, (Percent of Total SCA) 21,877 (34%) City Sphere of Influence ½ Mile Buffer, (Percent of Total SCA) 13,388 (21%) Within Water and Sewer Service District Areas, (Percent of Total SCA) 7,403 (13%) Within ½ Mile Highway (Fortuna to Eureka), (Percent of Total SCA) 4,088 (7%) Threatened AE Zoned Acres (Within SCA) Null Flood, (Percent AE) 18,414 (31%) City Sphere of Influence ½ Mile Buffer, (Percent AE) 11,713 (20%) Within Water and Sewer Service District Areas, (Percent AE) 5,449 (9%) Within ½ Mile Highway (Fortuna to Eureka), (Percent AE) 3,199 (5%)

Zoning requirements can change over time based on local politics, economic pressures and public support. Thus, it is assumed that AE zoned lands adjacent to non-agricultural lands or lands allocated for future development would be more threatened with land use conversion than AE zoned lands further away from urban or residential centers. Agricultural lands within and around City Sphere of Influence boundaries are identified as land most prone to agricultural land conversion. In these areas, AE zoning and existing commercial agricultural operations border non-agricultural development, primarily urban, commercial and residential. Land availability limits agricultural production and non-agricultural land uses confine existing operations. In addition, agricultural lands within water and sewer service districts are also identified as lands in which local government has or will provide residential water and sewer infrastructure; this will likely pose a threat to agricultural operations. Similarly, agricultural lands near Highway 101 from Fortuna to Eureka are deemed more at risk to future land conversion based on location, accessibility and residential / rural residential housing demands. The vast majority of lands along Highway 101, within our study area, have already been converted for non-agricultural uses.

The ‘null flood’ hazard threat addresses the distribution of areas zoned for agriculture and their correlation to areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as being prone to 100-year floods. SCA lands excluded from this flood zone delineation are potentially more prone to development and non-agricultural land conversion. In general terms, this flood zone delineation is used by local government to determine the feasibility of development on a specific parcel. Residential building is permitted in these designated floodplains subject to building permit approval. Approval can be granted with a county approved engineering report verifying the need for an elevated building foundation. Most AE zoned lands are within floodplain designation. Those agricultural lands outside of the 100-year floodplain are more prone to non- agricultural land conversion. Thirty-four percent of SCA lands, 21,877 acres, including the prime and productive soils in AG and U zoning, are located outside this floodplain delineation (null flood hazard). 31% of all AE zoned lands, 18,414 acres, are located outside the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain boundary.

16 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

The land use conversion threats used in this report are based on current land use planning facts and educated perspectives. In developing the threats criteria, efforts were taken to be both conservative yet realistic. The truth is that these threats are also subjective. For example, a one-half mile buffer around City Sphere of Influence boundaries was used versus no buffer or a one-mile buffer. Additional and expanded non-agricultural land use conversion threats on SCA lands would result in a greater percentage of SCA lands being ‘threatened’. Expanded threat criteria and results are presented in Table 4. These threat criteria go beyond present and immediate threats to address speculative development and agricultural land conversion into future decades: • 1.5 mile development threat buffer around City Sphere of Influence boundaries • 1.5 mile buffer around water/sewer service district boundaries • One-mile development buffer around federal and state highways 101, 36 and 299 • Null flood hazard (SCA lands outside floodplain delineation)

These threat criteria cover a large majority of the prime agricultural soils agricultural lands. 54,113 acres of the total 64,324 SCA acres are categorized as threatened under these extended threat criteria.

Table 4. Extended Threat Factors Total SCA Acres 64,324 Extended Threats SCA Acres 54,113 Threatened Acres Percent of Total SCA 84% Null Flood, (Percent of Total SCA) 21,877 (34%) City Sphere of Influences and Water Service Districts: 1.5 mile buffer (% total) 48,338 (75%) Federal / State Highway buffer, (Percent of Total SCA) 22,958 (36%)

In addition, small and historic (pre-AE zoning) parcels located within SCAs pose another type of threat to existing agricultural operations. Small parcels ranging from less than ten to twenty to forty acres are located throughout all of the agricultural SCA lands. While land zoned AE is most often zoned at 60 to 160 acre minimum parcel sizes, small parcels still exist throughout the agricultural bottomlands (Table 5). Small parcels in AE zoned areas are more prone to rural residential development which fragment existing operations and can lead to negative impacts on adjacent agricultural operations.

Table 5. Small Parcels within Agriculture Exclusive Zoning Small Parcel Threat Factor All APZ's # AE Parcels: < 10 acres 902 AE Acres: < 10 acres 2,441 % Total AE: < 10 acres 4% # AE Parcels: 10-20 acres 284 AE Acres: 10-20 acres 3,598 % Total AE: 10-20 acres 6% # AE Parcels: 21-40 acres 420 AE Acres: 21-40 acres 10,364 % AE: 21-40 acres 18%

17 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Addition threats include agricultural lands outside of the Coastal Zone boundary. The 1976 California Coastal Act requires counties to adopt separate policies and zoning for areas within the state-designated Coastal Zone which are often more restrictive in terms of land use than policies that apply to other areas of the county outside the Coastal Zone. These lands should also be considered more prone to non-agricultural land conversion based on less restrictive subdivision development requirements. It is assumed that the strongest land use conversion threats are listed as principal threats in Table 3 and that additional land use conversion threat factors are also addressed as extended or additional threat factors. Combined, these threats create a complicated land use planning dilemma for agricultural land conservation.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ZONES

Agricultural production areas of the county, as well as report results and maps, are grouped into six ‘Agricultural Production Zones’ (APZ). The APZs are used to further define mapping analysis results into focus areas of the county. Maps 3a through 3f include a more detailed perspective on the specified APZ. The associated tables break down results into each APZ. The APZs were created for descriptive purposes, based on geographic features and include: (a) Eel River Bottoms: Ferndale, Fortuna, Loleta and surrounding areas (b) Elk River: lower Elk River watershed (c) Freshwater and Jacoby Creek: lower Freshwater Creek and Jacoby Creek (d) Arcata Bottoms: Mad River floodplain west of Arcata (e) Blue Lake to Little River: Blue Lake, Fieldbrook, McKinleyville and surroundings (f) Orick Valley: lower Redwood Creek bottomlands

Strategic Conservation Area acreage ranges from over 45,000 acres in the Eel River Bottoms APZ to 776 acres in the Orick Valley APZ (Table 6). The Eel River Bottoms APZ is by far the largest APZ, containing over 45,000 SCA acres, or 70% of the total SCA acres in our study area. This is followed by the Arcata Bottoms with 6,643 SCA acres. Approximately 20 percent of the SCA acres in the Elk River APZ, Freshwater and Jacoby Creek APZ, and the Blue Lake to Little River APZ are zoned Agriculture General or Unclassified, compared to the Arcata Bottoms APZ being 99 percent zoned Agriculture Exclusive.

Table 6: APZ Strategic Conservation Areas All a. Eel River b. Elk c. Fresh./ Strategic Conservation Areas (SCA) APZs Bottoms River Jacoby SCA Acres 64,324 45,311 2,131 3,313 AE Acres 59,159 42,523 1,736 2,692 AG / U Acres (SIR >60) 5,165 2,789 395 621 Total SCA in SIR > 60 32,667 24,261 997 1,148 % SCA in SIR > 60 51% 54% 47% 35% % SCA in AG 5% 4% 19% 18% % SCA in U 11% 12% 0% 2%

18 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Table 6.(Continued): APZ Strategic Conservation Areas d. Arcata e. Blue Lake - f. Orick Strategic Conservation Areas (SCA) Bottoms Ltl. Riv. Valley SCA Acres 6,643 6,151 776 AE Acres 6,566 4,906 737 AG / U Acres (SIR >60) 77 1,246 39 Total SCA in SIR > 60 3,042 2,868 351 % SCA in SIR > 60 46% 47% 45% % SCA in AG 1% 12% 2% % SCA in U 0% 17% 14%

Over 7,000 acres (out of a total of 7,557 acres within our study area) enlisted as Williamson Act preserves are located in the Eel River Bottoms APZ. The Arcata Bottoms APZ is second with 201 acres. Williamson Act preserves contribute to protecting prime and productive farmland soils from agricultural land conversion. 72 percent of lands enrolled in this program are also considered threatened SCA acres. Results in Table 7. illustrate the need to increase educational outreach and enrollment in this program.

Table 7: Williamson Act Preserves in Strategic Conservation Areas All a. Eel River b. Elk c. Fresh./ Williamson Act (WA) Preserves in SCAs APZs Bottoms River Jacoby # Ranches 45 41 0 1 # Parcels 135 123 0 2 Acres in WA 7,557 7,053 0 204 Acres WA in SIR > 60 3,197 3,037 0 0 % WA in SIR > 60 42% 43% 0% 0% Acres WA in Threatened SCA 5,409 4,939 0 198 % WA in Threatened SCA 72% 70% 0% 97%

Table 7.(Continued): Williamson Act Preserves in Strategic Conservation Areas d. Arcata e. Blue Lake - f. Orick Williamson Act Preserves in SCAs Bottoms Ltl. Riv. Valley # Ranches 2 0 1 # Parcels 6 0 4 Acres in WA 201 0 98 Acres WA in SIR > 60 108 0 52 % WA in SIR > 60 54% 0% 53% Acres WA in Threatened SCA 201 0 71 % WA in Threatened SCA 100% 0% 72%

Soil productivity is a principal factor in determining Strategic Conservation Areas. Table 8. breaks down the APZs into soil classes based on the Storie Index Rating system. This study defines prime and productive soils as those with an SIR rating greater than sixty. This table correlates with Map 2. Agricultural Soils and Zoning. Most, but not all, of the agricultural lands in our study area have been soil surveyed. Efforts currently underway by the Natural Resource Conservation Service will generate new and improved soil information for all of the agricultural lands addressed in this report. The Eel River 19 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Bottoms APZ contains the most acres (21,472), and has the highest percentage (51%), of AE zoned lands with prime and productive soils.

Table 8: APZ Agricultural Soils All a. Eel R. b. Elk c. Fresh./ AE Zoned Lands: Soil Class: Storie Index Rating (SIR) APZs Bottoms River Jacoby Total AE Acres 59,159 42,523 1,736 2,692 Total AE Surveyed 50,710 37,804 1,422 2,062 % AE Surveyed 86% 89% 82% 77% AE Not Surveyed 8,449 4,718 314 630 % AE Not Surveyed 14% 11% 18% 23% AE in SIR > 60 27,502 21,472 602 527 % AE in SIR > 60 47% 51% 35% 20% 80-100: Excellent 18,830 15,191 316 65 60-80: Well Suited 8,671 6,282 286 462 40-60: Moderate 10,016 6,093 603 891 <40: Fair / Poor 13,193 10,240 217 644

All a. Eel R. b. Elk c. Fresh./ AG / U Zoned Lands: Soil Class: SIR APZs Bottoms River Jacoby Total AG Acres 13,184 4,439 1,123 1,842 AG in SIR > 60 3,410 1,631 395 585 U in SIR > 60 1,755 1,157 0 36 SOI in SIR > 60 3,820 2,086 227 696 CityL in SIR> 60 3,692 2,133 0 287 Note: ‘AE’ is Agriculture Exclusive zoning; ‘AG’ is Agriculture General zoning; ‘U’ is Unclassified zoning; ‘SOI’ is City Sphere of Influence; ‘CityL’ is within city limits.

Table 8.(Continued): APZ Agricultural Soils d. Arcata e. Blue Lake - f. Orick AE Zoned Lands: Soil Class: Storie Index Ranking (SIR) Bottoms Ltl. Riv. Valley Total AE Acres 6,566 4,906 737 Total AE Surveyed 6,294 2,815 313 % AE Surveyed 96% 57% 42% AE Not Surveyed 273 2,090 424 % AE Not Surveyed 4% 43% 58% AE in SIR > 60 2,965 1,622 312 % AE in SIR > 60 45% 33% 42% 80-100: Excellent 1,920 1,073 266 60-80: Well Suited 1,045 550 47 40-60: Moderate 1,686 744 0 <40: Fair / Poor 1,643 449 1

d. Arcata e. Blue Lake - f. Orick AG / U Zoned Lands: Soil Class: SIR Bottoms Ltl. Riv. Valley Total AG Acres 362 5297 121 AG in SIR > 60 77 710 13 U in SIR > 60 0 536 26 SOI in SIR > 60 529 281 0 CityL in SIR> 60 1,092 179 0

20 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Principal threat factors, defined in the Conversion Threats results section of this report, are defined within each Agricultural Production Zone in Table 9. Threatened SCA acres exist in all of the six APZs. While the Eel River Bottoms APZ has the largest acreage of threatened SCA (19,838 acres), the smaller APZs have a greater percentage of their SCA acreage as threatened. These smaller APZs have a higher percentage of urban infrastructure (i.e., city zoning, water / sewer service district area) and non-AE zoning (i.e., agricultural areas that are adjacent to or combined with other land uses). For example, approximately 92% of the agricultural land considered strategic for conservation in the Freshwater and Jacoby Creek APZ is considered threatened. It is 94% in the Orick Valley APZ and 89% in the Blue Lake to Little River APZ, compared to 52% in the Eel River Bottoms APZ and 40% in the Arcata Bottoms APZ. Table 9. also lists specific threats within each APZ.

Table 9. APZs: Principal Threat Factors in Strategic Conservation Areas All a. Eel R. b. Elk c. Fresh./ Threat Factors APZ's Bottoms River Jac. Total SCA Acres 64,324 45,311 2,131 3,313 Threatened SCA Acres 33,582 19,838 1,871 3,038 Null Flood in SCA 21,877 14,367 818 1,235 Percent of Total SCA 34% 32% 38% 37% City Sphere of Influence ½ Mile Buffer 13,388 5,531 1,597 2,301 Percent of Total SCA 21% 12% 75% 69% Within Water and Sewer Service District Areas 7,403 2,824 400 799 Percent of Total SCA 13% 7% 23% 30% Within ½ Mile Highway (Fortuna to Eureka) 4,088 4,088 0 0 Percent of Total SCA 7% 10% 0% 0%

AE Acres: Null Flood 18,414 12,629 552 787 % AE: Null Flood 31% 30% 32% 29% AE: City SOI ½ Mile Buffer 11,713 4,682 1,421 2,135 % AE: City Buffer 20% 11% 82% 79% AE: Water Srvc Area 5,449 2,230 258 368 % AE: Water Srvc Area 9% 5% 15% 14% AE: Highw ½ mile buffer 3,199 3,199 0 0 % AE: Highw ½ mile buffer 5% 8% 0% 0%

21 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Table 9. (Continued): APZs: Principal Threat Factors in Strategic Conservation Areas d. Arcata e. Blue Lake - f. Orick Threat Factors Bottoms Ltl. Riv. Valley Total SCA Acres 6,643 6,151 776 Threatened SCA Acres 2,643 5,462 731 Null Flood in SCA 443 4,299 716 Percent of Total SCA 7% 70% 92% City Sphere of Influence ½ Mile Buffer 2,446 1,514 0 Percent of Total SCA 37% 25% 0% Within Water and Sewer Service District Areas 87 2,729 564 Percent of Total SCA 1% 56% 77% Within ½ Mile Highway (Fortuna to Eureka) 0 0 0 Percent of Total SCA 0% 0% 0%

AE Acres: Null Flood 380 3,382 684 % AE: Null Flood 6% 69% 93% AE: City SOI ½ Mile Buffer 2,370 1,105 0 % AE: City Buffer 36% 23% 0% AE: Water Srvc Area 86 1,944 564 % AE: Water Srvc Area 1% 40% 77% AE: Highw ½ mile buffer 0 0 0 % AE: Highw ½ mile buffer 0% 0% 0%

Another important threat to consider is small acreage parcels (less than ten to twenty to forty acres) located within SCAs (Table 10). While land zoned AE is most often 60 to 160 acre minimum parcel sizes, small parcels still exist throughout the agricultural bottomlands. Small parcels in AE zoned areas are more prone to rural residential development, which can fragment existing operations and lead to negative impacts on adjacent agricultural operations.

Table 10. APZ Agricultural Zoning, Small Parcel Threat All a. Eel R. b. Elk c. Fresh./ Small Parcels APZs Bottoms River Jac. # AE parcels: < 10 acres 902 563 24 83 AE acres: < 10 acres 2,441 1,546 56 195 % AE: < 10 acres 4% 4% 3% 7% # AE parcels: 10-20 acres 284 173 13 28 AE acres: 10-20 acres 3,598 2,234 153 255 % AE: 10-20 acres 6% 5% 9% 10% # AE parcels: 21-40 acres 420 255 17 19 AE acres: 21-40 acres 10,364 6,599 338 433 % AE: 21-40 acres 18% 16% 20% 16%

22 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Table 10. (Continued): APZ Agricultural Zoning, Small Parcel Threat d. Arcata e. Blue Lake - f. Orick Small Parcels Bottoms Ltl. Riv. Valley # AE parcels: < 10 acres 106 105 21 AE acres: < 10 acres 298 312 35 % AE: < 10 acres 5% 6% 5% # AE parcels: 10-20 acres 32 33 5 AE acres: 10-20 acres 516 409 32 % AE: 10-20 acres 8% 8% 4% # AE parcels: 21-40 acres 58 56 15 AE acres: 21-40 acres 1,685 1,055 254 % AE: 21-40 acres 26% 22% 34%

Public ownership of agricultural lands, and the loss of commercial use to habitat restoration and public recreation, is a concern to agricultural producers. Within our study area, ninety-two percent, over 53,000 acres, of SCA lands are held in private ownership (Table 11). State-owned lands comprise approximately 5% and federally-owned lands comprise approximately 3% of SCA lands. The vast majority of state and federally- owned bottomlands are in the Eel River Bottoms APZ.

Table 11.: Land Ownership Within APZs All APZs a. Eel R. Bottoms b. Elk River # % of # % of # % of Owner Parcels Acres Total Parcels Acres Total Parcels Acres Total Private 2,070 53,539 92%1,323 38,043 91% 72 1,540 90% City 6 3 0%3 1 0% 2 < 10% County 25 126 < 1% 14 87 < 1% 0 0 0% Federal 44 1,732 3% 28 1,493 4% 0 0 0% State 49 2,751 5%36 2,073 5% 2 163 10% Unknown 6 21 0% 5 2 0% 0 0 0% Total 2,200 58,153 100%1,409 41,698 100% 76 1,703100% Note: Parcel count and acres are for AE zoned areas within SCAs

Table 11. (continued): Land Ownership Within APZs c. Fresh./Jac. Creek d. Arcata Bottoms e. Blue Lake-Ltl. Riv f. Orick Valley # % of # % of # % of # % of Owner Parcels Acres Total Parcels Acres Total Parcels Acres Total ParcelsAcres Total Private 152 2,505 95% 239 6,062 94% 239 4,668 96% 45 721 98% City 1 2 < 1% 0 0 0 % 0 0 0% 0 0 0% County 5 28 1% 3 11 < 1% 1 0 0% 2 < 1 < 1% Federal 0 0 0% 1 2 0% 10 222 5% 5 15 2% State 5 106 4% 5 409 6% 1 0 0% 0 0 0% Unknown 0 0 0% 2 19 <1% 1 0.3 < 1% 0 0 0% Total 163 2,641100% 248 6,484 100 252 4,890100% 52 737100% Note: Parcel count and acres are for AE zoned areas within SCAs

23 etFr rdeCreek Bridge Fork West North Coast Farmland Conservation Study South 3. Humboldt County Coastal Ag Land: Opportunities and Threats Bay a. Agricultural Production Zone: Eel River Bottoms

Infrastructure Willow Brook Agricultural Production Zones (APZ) Doe Creek Coastal Zone ¤£101 City Jurisdictions Spheres of Influence US Hwy SouthBranchNorthForkElkRi State Hwy Other roads Streams Land Use Conversion Threats Water Service Areas Beatrice Null Flood Hazard City/Highway (1/2 mile buffer) Conservation Opportunities Strategic Conservation Areas (SCA) SCA Prime Soils (SIR > 60) Williamson Act Ranches Parcels Zones Agriculture Exclusive (AE) Agriculture General (AG) Recreation/Conservation Fish Creek Timber Production/Unclassified Loleta Residential/Commercial/Industrial City/Public Facility ± 1:90,000

Northcoast Regional Land Trust PO Box 398 Fernbridge Bayside, CA 95524 707-822-2242 LAWRENCE CR www.ncrlt.org

00.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 Miles Little Palmer Creek

Produced by Douglas Chow for NRLT May 1, 2005 Newburg Port Kenyon Fortuna

Coffee Creek Fortuna Ferndale Pacific Ferndale

Waddington Ocean Rohnerville

Alton Hydesville

Carlotta

Fiedler Creek

·|}þ36

Rio Dell North Coast Farmland Conservation Study Infrastructure 3. Humboldt County Coastal Ag Land: Opportunities and Threats Agricultural Production Zones (APZ) Coastal Zone b. Agricultural Production Zone: Elk River Spheres of Influence City Jurisdictions US Hwy Eureka State Hwy Other roads Streams Eureka Land Use Conversion Threats City/Highway (1/2 mile buffer) wain Slo S ugh Null Flood Hazard Water Service Areas Conservation Opportunities Strategic Conservation Areas (SCA) SCA Prime Soils (SIR > 60) ¤£101 Williamson Act Ranches Parcels Zones Agriculture Exclusive (AE) Agriculture General (AG) Recreation/Conservation Timber Production/Unclassified Residential/Commercial/Industrial City/Public Facility ± 1:20,000

Northcoast Regional Land Trust PO Box 398 Bayside, CA 95524 707-822-2242 www.ncrlt.org

00.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Miles

Elk River Produced by Douglas Chow for NRLT May 1, 2005

Elk River

Fo North rk E lk R iver

ill W ow B rook h g North Coast Farmlandu Conservation Study lo Leggit Creek S 3. Humboldt County Coastal Agl Land: Opportunities and Threats ie n c. Agricultural Production Zone:a Freshwater & Jacoby Creek D c M reek y C Kell

Arcata

Sunny Brae Gannon Slough

Bayside

Arcata Bay Jac ob y C r e ek

¤£101

Eureka

F re shwater Creek

ek re Infrastructure C n Agricultural Production Zones (APZ) ya Coastal Zone R City Jurisdictions US Hwy State Hwy Spheres of Influence Other roads Streams Land Use Conversion Threats City/Highway (1/2 mile buffer) Null Flood Hazard Water Service Areas Conservation Opportunities Strategic Conservation Areas (SCA) SCA Prime Soils (SIR > 60) Williamson Act Ranches Freshwater Parcels Zones Agriculture Exclusive (AE) Agriculture General (AG) Recreation/Conservation Timber Production/Unclassified Residential/Commercial/Industrial City/Public Facility ± 1:36,000 Northcoast Regional Land Trust PO Box 398 Bayside, CA 95524 707-822-2242 www.ncrlt.org

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles

Produced by Douglas Chow for NRLT May 1, 2005 North Coast Farmland Conservation Study 3. Humboldt County Coastal Ag Land: Opportunities and Threats d. Agricultural Production Zone: Arcata Bottoms

Mill Creek

¤£101

a d R i v e r

Pacific Ocean

·|}þ299

ugh Slo l ie n a D c M

h g u lo S Mad River Slough om c is

L Arcata

Infrastructure

Agricultural Production Zones Conservation Areas Coastal Zone Strategic Conservation Areas City Jurisdictions Productive Sols (SIR > 60) Spheres of Influence Williamson Act Ranches US Hwy Parcels State Hwy Zones Other roads Agriculture Exclusive (AE) Streams Agriculture General (AG) Land Use Conversion Threats Recreation/Conservation City/Highway (1/2 mile buffer) Timber Production/Unclassified Null Flood Hazard Residential/Commercial/Industrial Water Service Areas City/Public Facility Water Bodies

Gannon Slough Northcoast Regional Land Trust PO Box 398 ± Bayside, CA 95524 707-822-2242 1:25,000 www.ncrlt.org

Arcata Bay 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Produced by Douglas Chow for NRLT May 1, 2005 L

l e North Coast Farmland Conservation Study

i v e 3. Humboldt County Coastal Ag Land: Opportunities and Threats r U e. Agricultural Production Zone: Blue Lake to Littlep River p e r South InfrastructureFork Li ttle River Agricultural Production Zones (APZ) Coastal Zone City Jurisdictions Spheres of Influence US Hwy State Hwy B S u o l u Other roads w t h in k F Streams Pa le o tr r ick Cr C k Land Use Conversion Threats ee re L k e i City/Highway (1/2 mile buffer) k r Creek tt Clam Beach the le a Ri L Null Flood Hazard ve o M r w Water Service Areas e r S Conservation Areas

u Strategic Conservation Areas

t wberry Creek h Productive Sols (SIR > 60) Stra F o Williamson Act Ranches r k L Parcels it t l Zones R e o R Agriculture Exclusive (AE) D s i u e v k C e Agriculture General (AG) e re r C ek r Recreation/Conservation e e k Timber Production/Unclassified Residential/Commercial/Industrial rton Creek City/Public Facility o N Fieldbrook ± 1:47,035

Northcoast Regional Land Trust PO Box 398 Bayside, CA 95524 707-822-2242 www.ncrlt.org

00.125 0.25 0.5 0.75Dolf 1 Miles Creek Produced by Douglas Chow for NRLT Wido March 31, 2005 w Wh ite C reek

k e L e in r d McKinleyville C s

l a

l i y C M r Squa e w Cree e k k

E s s e x G u ¤£101 lc ek h e r C l l

M R a d i v e r

reek Mill C

k ree N oisy C

ugh lo S l ·|}þ299 ie n a cD J M a n k e e s re C C r n e arre e W k Blue Lake Jolly Giant Cr ee k

Leggit Creek Arcata d NF Ma R iv er e k re C Kelly

Sunny Brae Gannon Slough

dRiver

a adUeCneso Threats Conversion Use Land Infrastructure 0 ot os amadCnevto Study Conservation Farmland Coast North .Arclua rdcinZn:OikValley Threats Orick and Zone: Opportunities Production Land: Agricultural Ag f. Coastal County Humboldt 3. ae evc Areas Service Water Hazard Flood Null buffer) mile (1/2 City/Highway Streams roads Other Hwy State Hwy US Influence of Spheres Jurisdictions City Zone Coastal (APZ) Zones Production Agricultural 0.125 1:15,000 ± 0.25 rdcdb oga hwfrNRLT for Chow Douglas by Produced ac 1 2005 31, March 0.5 Zones Areas Conservation giutr eea (AG) General Agriculture (AE) Exclusive Agriculture Parcels Ranches Act Williamson 60) > (SIR Sols Productive Areas Conservation Strategic iyPbi Facility City/Public Residential/Commercial/Industrial Production/Unclassified Timber Recreation/Conservation www.ncrlt.org 707-822-2242 95524 CA Bayside, 398 Box PO Trust Land Regional Northcoast 0.75 1 Miles ¤ £ 101 Orick

Prairie Creek NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

This North Coast Farmland Conservation Study highlights productive agricultural bottomland areas in Humboldt County with the highest conservation values in order to maintain a viable agricultural economy and industry in Humboldt County. The study identifies Strategic Conservation Areas within six Agricultural Production Zones. These conservation target areas have productive soils, agricultural infrastructure, have historically been used for agriculture, and face a variety of threats that can lead to non- agricultural land conversion. The Northcoast Regional Land Trust will: 1) focus its farmland conservation program efforts in these areas, and 2) urge local government land use planning efforts to address agricultural land conservation within these areas. Agricultural land conversion threat factors presented in this report should help prioritize conservation efforts.

Study results are based on mapping analysis criteria and data from the existing Humboldt County GIS mapping database. Data specific to individual properties were not included but would be necessary before on-the-ground conservation projects could be implemented. Specific properties within the Strategic Conservation Areas designation may not be applicable. Land use conversion threats included only land use, planning and zoning factors available in the GIS database. Important factors not included in this study are property and landowner-specific factors such as conservation attitudes and socio- economic considerations. In addition, this report did not address the wetland conservation, fish habitat and estuary restoration values some agricultural properties may provide. These values are also important and are necessary to consider when addressing property-specific farmland conservation measures.

The analysis of agricultural resource values on a specific property is a two-tiered process. First, this analysis of available GIS data created generalized target areas highlighted in this study as Strategic Conservation Areas. Critical agricultural resources identified include lands with prime and productive soils, property size and location, adjacent supportive or competitive land uses, and lands buffering non-agricultural developing areas that pose a land conversion threat. Land conversion threats within these areas highlight potential priority target areas.

This report will aid the Northcoast Regional Land Trust in providing spatial visualization and analysis of farmland conservation opportunities, but it will not be solely relied upon to prioritize specific properties for incentive programs, such as agricultural conservation easements. The GIS analysis in this study has resulted in a set of priority agricultural Strategic Conservation Areas. Specific properties must then be evaluated with respect to cost and landowner interest to determine where opportunities for conservation easements exist.

The second tier of analysis involves site-level and landowner-specific property information. This includes specific details about the land (i.e., commercial viability, production uses and capacity, additional natural resources) and the landowner (i.e., conservation attitudes, socio-economics). In addition, large-scale land description maps

30 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

may have on-the-ground discrepancies that would be addressed in this second-tier property-specific evaluation.

Higher priority criteria for specific properties included in Strategic Conservation Areas include production capacity, commercial use, prime and productive soils, commercial viability, strategic location (i.e. buffer from non-agricultural development), property size, agricultural land connectivity, adjacent land uses, natural resource values, landowner intent and commitment to agriculture, potential for diversification, and degree of threat or risk of loss without participation. Lower priority criteria for conservation of specific properties included in Strategic Conservation Areas include lands with low agricultural value, smaller acreage properties, adjacent land uses, complex title issues, debt issues or pending legal actions involving a specific property.

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

The primary goal of agricultural conservation easement programs is to preserve enough land in sufficient concentrations to support agricultural infrastructure and boost expectations that agricultural investments are justified. Five objectives for a successful program include: 1) the protection of a critical mass of farmland, 2) the maintenance of affordable land prices, 3) cost effectiveness, 4) sustained support from local government, agricultural associations and the general public, and 5) farmers must feel that they can make investments for a healthy business future. The nation’s best agricultural conservation easement programs are those with dedicated funding sources, preserve a certain number of acres per year, and therefore, maintain farmers’ faith in the program. In areas where conservation easement programs have been in use for ten or more years, regions of preserved farms are stabilizing local agricultural economies.

In 1996, the state of California established the Farmland Conservancy Program to protect farmland around the state by working with and funding local organizations and government entities to buy conservation easements. Several local governments use conservation easement programs as one important tool in a combination of land use planning policies and programs aimed at the conservation of agricultural lands (i.e., Marin and Sonoma Counties). Removing development potential from agricultural land allows young farmers to purchase agricultural lands at affordable prices.

Next steps from the Northcoast Regional Land Trust include outreach to specific agricultural landowners within specified target areas for agricultural conservation easements. By protecting strategic properties that can help to contain non-agricultural land uses, thousands of additional acres will likely remain in agriculture. The Northcoast Regional Land Trust will work cooperatively with willing landowners and conservation partners to conserve properties within these priority areas. Long-term results will be a clustering of protected lands to maximize continued agricultural viability and protect associated community values.

An agricultural conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement that allows a landowner to limit the type and amount of development on their property while retaining private ownership of the land. A conservation easement may be donated or purchased.

31 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

The landowner sells or donates only the development rights of some or all of the property that limits non-agricultural development or subdivision. This permanently protects agricultural uses of the land. Landowners retain all other rights and responsibilities that go with private land ownership, such as the right to sell the property. The land continues to be owned by the agricultural producer and stays on the tax rolls. An agricultural conservation easement does not permit public access. Easement value is determined through a mutually agreed upon professional appraisal process. Property owners can receive federal and state income tax deductions for the gift of a conservation easement. Conservation easements are beneficial to landowners and to the public for some of the following reasons:

• Conservation easements help keep land in the family because a landowner can generate needed capital without selling off the land. • Conservation easements can accomplish public land conservation goals while the landowner retains ownership of the land. • Conservation easements can have tax advantages for the landowner (estate, property, income tax) • Conservation easements are an efficient use of public funds. They protect conservation values of the land, but cost the public less money than buying land- in-fee.

In addition to an agricultural conservation easement program, a county-approved and initiated Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program would help decrease agricultural land fragmentation. TDR programs are administered by local planning agencies. A development rights market of agricultural land in specified areas is created. Rights can be bought and transferred to higher density development areas. As rights are bought and sold, the construction of new residential homes moves away from areas to be preserved for agriculture to areas that have been allocated for higher density development.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Stabilization of the agricultural land base is the fundamental goal for most county or state farmland preservation programs. The most successful way to deal with the loss of agricultural land is to develop a combination of complementary agricultural policies and programs before there is significant development pressure. A combination of policies and programs can work together to create a more comprehensive land protection program. A comprehensive system of targeting can help create a critical mass of unfragmented agricultural land and direct development to less productive lands.

Most of the agricultural lands highlighted in this study already have Agriculture Exclusive zoning. The purpose of agricultural zoning is to protect productive soils and to create a balance between maintaining and developing agricultural land. However, zoning alone is not a sufficient tool for protection and is criticized as being ineffective in the face of development and other pressures.

32 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

The Northcoast Regional Land Trust recommends that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors consider the following actions to help secure local farmland:

1) Approve ‘Farmland of Local Importance’ designation for the targeted Strategic Conservation Areas outlined in this report.

2) Consider zoning changes on prime and productive Agriculture General and Unclassified zoned lands, addressed in this report, to Agriculture Exclusive.

3) Promote Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone programs and benefits.

4) Assess the potential for a funded conservation easement program and a Transfer of Development Rights program.

5) Reevaluate agricultural zoning ordinances and urban growth boundary lines.

6) No net loss of prime Ag land enforced and evaluated through annual review of zoning conversions, presented in annual County Ag Commissioners Crop Report.

7) Address the public acquisition of productive agricultural land that is taken out of production.

8) Establish an agricultural zoning conversion ordinance with objective criteria to review zoning conversions and conditional use permit requests.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors could address these recommendations by appointing a Farmland Conservation Committee, or another local entity, to thoroughly evaluate them. These recommendations need local agricultural community input before being implemented. A Humboldt County Farmland Conservation Committee could provide a forum for discussing these recommendations and address landowner outreach strategies. In order for voluntary incentives to effectively preserve farmland, landowners need to be made aware of the programs, convinced that the programs are advantageous for their situation, and assisted in the enrollment process.

‘Farmland of Local Importance’ is a state and county-authorized category for farmland important to the local economy. The ‘Farmland of Local Importance’ designation is significant because it shows a commitment from the county, which allows local farmland landowners and landowner representatives to apply for, and rank higher in, state and federal agriculture conservation funding programs that many local farm properties could otherwise be excluded from. This includes federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, the state California Farmland Conservancy Program, and the Farmland Security Zone incentives within the Williamson Act. To categorize land as ‘Farmland of Local Importance’ a local advisory committee convened by the county board of supervisors, and approved by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, must initiate the process. A draft map is presented to the board of supervisors for their review. The board of supervisors may then approve or disapprove the ‘Farmland of Local Importance’ category request. Other state-defined categories include ‘Prime Farmland’, ‘Farmland of Statewide Importance’ or ‘Unique Farmland’.

33 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

The Farmland Security Zone designation allows property owners enrolled in the program to have the option of extended 20-year term contracts, and in exchange, receive an additional 35% tax reduction above the standard Williamson Act contract. The program is designed for prime lands or lands designated ‘Farmland of Local Importance’, and applies to lands lying within 3 miles of the adopted Sphere of Influence of incorporated cities. Landowners with prime agricultural lands in Humboldt County (primarily on the bottomlands) have not historically utilized the tax reduction benefits of the Williamson Act. After the passage of Proposition 13, values for prime agricultural lands were not significantly lower than Williamson Act contracts. The recent Board action to allow an additional 10% reduction to Proposition 13 base year values, as well as adopting the Farmland Security Zone program, could help increase representation among agricultural bottomland owners.

In conclusion, protecting agricultural land, for present and future generations, benefits producers, local industry and the public. In addition to commodities, Humboldt County’s coastal agricultural lands provide numerous community benefits such as open space, vistas, wildlife habitat, community greenbelts, and contribute to our rural quality of life. While population growth may not yet be a large problem in Humboldt County, the existing issue is land consumption and a growing demand in rural properties for non- agricultural uses. The time to address this issue of farmland conservation, the time to act, is before it is too late. With support from producers, the general public and local government, the time to act is now.

34 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

REFERENCES

American Farmland Trust. 1997. Saving American farmland: What works. American Farmland Trust, Washington, D.C.

Daniels, T. and D. Bowers. 1997. Holding our ground: Protecting America’s farms and farmland. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Daniels, T. 2000. Integrated working landscape protection: The case of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Society and Natural Resources 13: 261-72.

Handel, M. and A. Sokolow. 1995. Farmland and Open Space Preservation in the Four North Bay Counties. University of California, Agricultural Issues Center. 32p.

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. 2002. Revised guidelines for agricultural preserves (resolution #02-53). Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, Eureka, California.

Humboldt County Farm Bureau. 2000. Food, fiber and flowers: a special report on agriculture in Humboldt County. Humboldt County Farm Bureau, Eureka, California.

Humboldt County Farm Bureau. 2003. Humboldt County Agricultural Survey Final Report. Eureka, CA: Humboldt County Farm Bureau

Humboldt County Planning Department 2001. Humboldt County general plan update survey results. Humboldt County Planning Department Eureka, California. Available at: www.co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/gp/survey.results.htm.

Humboldt County Planning Department. 2003. Humboldt 2025 General Plan Update Agricultural Resources and Policies: A Discussion Paper for Community Workshops. Eureka, CA: Humboldt County Department of Community Development Services.

Institute for Local Self Government. 2002. Farmland Protection Action Guide: 24 Strategies for California. Sacramento, CA. www.ilsg.org

Morehead, B. 2004. The Role of Agriculture and Agricultural Land in Humboldt County, CA: Perspectives from Producers and the Public. Masters Thesis. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University.

Rilla, E. and A. Sokolow. 2000. California Farmers and Conservation Easements: motivations, experiences and perceptions in three Counties. U.C. Agricultural Issues Center, California Farmland and Open Space Policy Series, Research Paper 4. 49p.

35 NORTHCOAST REGIONAL LAND TRUST NORTH COAST FARMLAND CONSERVATION STUDY

Sherman, R. Milshaw, S. Wagner, R. and J. Freedgood. 1998. Investing in the Future of Agriculture: The Massachusetts Farmland Protection Program and the Permanence Syndrome. Northhampton, MA: American Farmland Trust. 75p.

Smith, M. and D. Giraud. 2000. Traditional land-use planning regulation and agricultural land conservation: A case study from a rural northern California county. Unpublished report. University of California, Cooperative Extension Service, Humboldt County, Eureka, California.

Smith, M.D. and S. J. Steinberg. 2005. Room to Grow?: An Assessment of the Potential for Unincorporated Humboldt County to Accommodate Future Projected Population Growth. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University.

Sokolow, A. 1998a. Steering a course to farmland protection. California Agriculture 52: 2.

WEBSITES

American Farmland Trust: www.farmlandinfo.org ; www.farmland.org

Humboldt County General Plan documents: www.planupdate.org

Marin Agricultural Land Trust: www.malt.org

Northcoast Regional Land Trust: www.ncrlt.org