Cover/ Introduction/ Resolution of Adoption

South County Regional Water and Wastewater Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update Adopted November 15, 2023 www.humboldtlafco.org Exhibits Exhibit A – Alderpoint County Water District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit B – Briceland Community Services District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit C – Garberville Sanitary District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit D – Miranda Community Services District Boundary and All Services Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit E – Miranda Community Services District Boundary and Fire Services Only Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit F – Phillipsville Community Services District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit G – Redway Community Services District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit H – Resort Improvement District No. 1 (Shelter Cove) Boundary and All Services Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit I – Resort Improvement District No. 1 (Shelter Cove) Boundary and Fire Services Only Sphere of Influence Map Exhibit J – Weott Community Services District Boundary and Sphere of Influence Map ´ Exhibit A HUMBOLDT £¤ 101 2Nd St 3Rd St 3Rd S t 4Th St Alder Ave Craig A ve tS niaM 5Th St 6Th St Ave e r Highland Alderpoint Rd v i R l e E SteelheadRd Alderpoint-River Rd dR reviR District Boundary District SOI (2023) Parcels 0 295 590Feet SOI Amended Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Alderpoint County Water District November 15, 2023 LAFCO Resolution No. 23-06 Map Date: 5/10/2023 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP ´ Exhibit B HUMBOLDT £¤ F e 101 rre n R d Briceland Thorne Rd n L a et Gr Orchard Rd Old Briceland Rd S ch o o l R d MillerCreekRd District Boundary SOI Parcels Out of Agency Service 0 250 500Feet Briceland CommSourcue: Ensri,i Mtayxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS UsSeOrI ACmoemndmedunity November 15, 2023 Services District LAFCo Resolution No. 23-06 Map Date: 10/31/2023 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP RoadARd ´ Exhibit C d R llim w a Rd S green Ever £¤ Quarry Rd HUMBO £¤ 10 L 1 DT Redway Dr 101 Barnes Ln Anita Rd Bear Canyon Rd Dr h er e dit WallanRd M Rd Creek Connick Leino Rd d R mtu Ki p m Ca SSprowelCreekRd E B £¤ 101 B enbow D r Blue Rock Rd ranch R d F Garberville Sanitary District a irw Garberville SD SOI Benbow Dam Rd a y D r Redway CSD Redway CSD SOI 0 1,000 2,000Feet Twin Trees Rd Garberville SanSoiutrcae: Ersriy, M axDar, Eiasrthsttarr Giecogratphics, and the GIS N U o S v sO e e m I rR b Ce e a r o f 1 fmi 5 rm , m 2 e 0 du 2 n 3 ity LAFCo Resolution Map Date: 11/17/2023 No. 23-06 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP ´ Exhibit D Us H wy 101 ¬« 254 Logan R d HUMBOLDT £¤ 101 Laurel Ave Acacia Ln Redwood Ln Holly Hill Ln School Rd Pl School St Mulder River Rd Orchard Ln Felt Rd Oak St egdirdlE A St Forest Grove Ln Jone Madrone Rd L n M aple H ills R d £¤ 101 BearButteRd District Boundary Parcels SOI (all services) Out of Agency Service 0 250 500Feet Miranda CommSuounrce:i Etsryi, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS U S s O er I A C m o e m nd m ed u nity November 15, 2023 LAFCO Resolution Services District No. 23-06 Map Date: 11/8/2023 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP ´ Exhibit E £¤ £¤ 101 101 HUMBOLDT Map Area £¤ 101 Miranda CSD Miranda CSD Fire SOI Salmon Creek FPD 0 0.5 1Miles Fire Services Miranda CommSuounrce:i Etsryi, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS UsSeOrI ACmoemndmedunity November 15, 2023 Services District SOI LAFCo Resolution Map Date: 11/17/2023 No. 23-06 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP ´ Exhibit F HUMBOLDT Spring Canyon Ln £¤ ¬« 101 254 £¤ n L 101 Canyo n Spring A d R e scen d llivs p illih in g L n P D e e rh o rn L n Crooked Ln District Boundary Parcels 0 300 600Feet Coterminous SOI Phillipsville CoSmourcem: Esrui, Mnaxari, Etayrthstar Geographics, and the GIS UsReer aCffiormmedm unity November 15, 2023 Services District LAFCO Resolution Map Date: 10/25/2023 No. 23-06 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP ´ Exhibit G HUMBOLDT £¤ 101 Rd Ranch Wood 222-161-002 Road A Camp Ravin CliffRd 222-222-004 Skyway Rd Oakridge Dr Dog woodLn w Av e £¤ 101 o Will e vA F o re st D r R edw ay D r P ar A ve kra P E m R pi u re s k A v L e n Evergreen Rd Rd ast Co Orchard Ln West Redwood Dr Barnes Ln Bear Canyon Rd District Boundary District SOI Parcels Garberville Sanitary District Out of Agency Service 0 1,000 2,000Feet Redway CommuSounrcei: Etsryi, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS UsSeOrI ACmoemndmedunity November 15, 2023 Services District LAFCo Resolution No. 23-06 Map Date: 11/17/2023 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP ´ Exhibit H RanchoLn West HUMBOLDT £¤ 101 Cougar Rd Kings Peak Rd MuskratCir Ridge Rd Otter Ln B ea ch R Spring Rd d eddenCt R Rd Cove Shelter R e Olson Rd d w o o d R d Low er Pacific Dr C ove Pt Landis R d H illside D r To th R d C o m b s R d Resort Impr. Dist #1 All Services SOI Parcels 0 1,000 2,000Feet All Services Resort ImproveSmourcee: Esnri, Mta xaDr, Eairsthsttarr Geiocgratph ic#s, a1nd the GIS USsOeI rR Ceaoffmirmmedu nity November 15, 2023 LAFCO Resolution Map Date: 10/12/2023 No. 23-06 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP ´ W Exhibit I ild e King s rR id ge P R e d a k R d C ountry Ln HUMBOLDT K e vin R £¤ 101 e g a R d S a d d le M o u n ta in R d P a c d R i h f a nc R i er c K Ett in P O c g s P e a k R d a ra d ise R id g e R d e a n Resort Impr. Dist #1 All Services SOI Fire Services SOI 0 0.5 1Miles Fire Services Resort ImproveSmourcee: Ensri,t M axDar, Eiasrthsttarr Giecogrtap hi#cs, 1and the GIS USsOeI rR Ceaoffmirmmedu nity November 15, 2023 Fire Services SOI LAFCO Resolution Map Date: 11/6/2023 No. 23-06 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP ´ Exhibit J HUMBOLDT £¤ 101 ¬« M 254 a e r p le D r S u n n y L n v i R l e E Kern Rd L u m St S e w e O a k S t ll D r P ari s h L n S pri n g St B irch S t Newton Rd £¤ R d 101 s S cho H ei g ht o l R ott d W e Weott CSD District SOI Parcels 0 400 800Feet Weott CommunSioutrcye: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS USsOeI rR Ceaoffmirmmedu nity November 15, 2023 Services District LAFCO Resolution No. 23-06 Map Date: 11/8/2023 Sources: Boundaries - Humboldt County GIS, Roads - US Census TIGER, Rivers - CA FRAP Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 HUMBOLDT LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Commissioners: Michelle Bushnell, District 2 Supervisor Steve Madrone, District 5 Supervisor Steve Ladwig, City of Trinidad Mike Losey, City of Fortuna Debra Lake, Fruitland Ridge Fire Protection District Troy Nicolini, Peninsula Community Services District Ali Lee, Public Member Alternate Members: Mike Wilson, District 3 County Supervisor Jack West, City of Trinidad Heidi Benzonelli, Humboldt Community Services District Gordon Johnson, Public Member Staff: Colette Santsche, AICP, Executive Officer Krystle Heaney, AICP, LAFCo Analyst/Clerk Amber Chung, Planning Technician Jason Barnes, GIS Analyst Ryan Plotz, Legal Council Acknowledgements: LAFCo would like to thank the board members, operators, administrative staff, and all other personnel of the following water and wastewater service providers for their assistance in preparing this MSR/SOI Update: • Alderpoint County Water District • Briceland Community Services District • Garberville Sanitary District • Miranda Community Services District • Phillipsville Community Services District • Redway Community Services District • Resort Improvement District #1 • Weott Community Services District Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 MSR/SOI Background .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1 Role and Responsibility of LAFCo ............................................................................................................... 1-6 1.2 Purpose of Municipal Service Reviews ....................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3 Purpose of Spheres of Influence ................................................................................................................ 1-7 1.4 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ........................................................................................... 1-8 2.0 Regional Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.1 Tribal Lands ................................................................................................................................................. 2-9 2.2 Population ................................................................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ......................................................................................... 2-12 2.4 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 2-15 2.5 Drought ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-16 2.6 Wildfires ................................................................................................................................................... 2-16 2.7 Seismic Activity ......................................................................................................................................... 2-17 2.8 Governance and Staffing .......................................................................................................................... 2-17 3.0 Alderpoint County Water District Agency Profile ................................................................................ 3-1 4.0 Briceland Community Services District Agency Profile ........................................................................ 4-1 5.0 Garberville Sanitary District Agency Profile ........................................................................................ 5-1 6.0 Miranda Community Services District Agency Profile .......................................................................... 6-1 7.0 Phillipsville Community Services District Agency Profile ..................................................................... 7-1 8.0 Redway Community Services District Agency Profile .......................................................................... 8-1 9.0 Resort Improvement District No. 1 (Shelter Cove) Agency Profile ....................................................... 9-1 10.0 Weott Community Services District Agency Profile ........................................................................... 10-1 Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 1.0 MSR/SOI BACKGROUND The Humboldt Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is preparing this Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) update for water and wastewater service providers in the southern portion of Humboldt County following the requirements of State law and LAFCo policies. LAFCo acts as the countywide oversight agency that coordinates logical and timely changes to local government boundaries. A primary objective for this MSR is to provide a recommendation for the SOI of the following agencies covered in this report: • Alderpoint County Water District • Briceland Community Services District • Garberville Sanitary District • Miranda Community Services District • Phillipsville Community Services District • Redway Community Services District • Resort Improvement District #1 • Weott Community Services District In addition to the agencies listed above, there are several Community Water Systems in the region that are most often associated with a small water company or mobile home park and not associated with a special district. The State Water Board (Drinking Water Division) oversees water systems that serve 15 or more service connections or 25 people daily for at least 60 days out of the year. Humboldt County Environmental Health (Land Use Division) regulates smaller systems under the State Small Water Systems Program, which serves water to 5 to 14 service connections and fewer than 25 people daily for at least 60 days out of a year. While not covered by this MSR, the following Community Water Systems are located in the South County region: Table 1-1: Non-District Community Water Systems Pop. Service Primary Water Name Served Connec. Source Source Del Oro Water Company – Benbow District Surface East Branch S. 399 113 (CA1200671) Water Fork Eel River Eel River Conservation Camp – CAL FIRE Surface Eel River 180 1 (CA1210800) Water Infiltration Gallery High Rock Conservation Camp – CAL FIRE Surface 80 1 Matthews Creek (CA1210801) Water Myers Flat Mutual Water System, Inc. Ground 330 100 2 active wells (CA1200538) Water Palomino Estates Mutual Water Company Surface Eel River 64 19 (CA1206002) Water Infiltration Gallery Redcrest Water Works Surface 116 35 Chadd Creek (CA1200544) Water Rivercrest Mutual Water Company Surface 17 7 S. Fork Eel River (State Small System) Water South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [1-4] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 Figure 1-1: Water Districts and Providers in Southern Humboldt South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [1-5] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 Water service providers in rural areas often face unique obstacles in the provision of services including remote service areas with limited population, alternative conveyance systems, limited storage capacity for fire response, limited technical staff, lack of funding, aging infrastructure, and more. This MSR will take a systems approach to review the current level of services and identify potential areas of opportunity to increase efficiency and resiliency in the region. This report is organized as follows: • A background section with additional discussion of LAFCo responsibilities, the legal requirements of MSR and SOI updates, and the methodology and data sources used. • A summary section with an overview of the County, a brief discussion of current or potential drought, earthquake, and wildfire impacts, and a summary of MSR findings. • Agency profiles including service reviews for each agency within the study area and recommended SOI changes where applicable. 1.1 ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF LAFCO LAFCos are independent regulatory commissions that were established by the State legislature in 1963 to encourage the orderly growth and development of local governmental agencies including cities and special districts. Today, there is a LAFCo in each of California’s 58 counties. Humboldt LAFCo is a seven-member commission comprised of two members of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, two City Council members, two Special District representatives, and one Public Member-At-Large. The Commission also includes one alternate member for each represented category. LAFCo is responsible for implementing the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (“CKH Act”) (California Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) for purposes of facilitating changes in local governmental structure and boundaries that fosters orderly growth and development, promotes the efficient delivery of services, and encourages the preservation of open space and agricultural lands. Some of LAFCo’s duties include regulating jurisdictional boundary changes and the extension of municipal services. This includes city and special district annexations, incorporations/formations, consolidations, and other changes of organization. LAFCo seeks to be proactive in raising awareness and building partnerships to accomplish this through its special studies, programs, and actions. The CKH Act outlines requirements for preparing MSRs for periodic SOI updates. MSRs and SOIs are tools created to empower LAFCo to satisfy its legislative charge of “discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing government services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances” (§56301). CKH Act Section 56301 further establishes that “one of the objects of the commission is to make studies and to obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies in each county and to shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities.” SOIs therefore guide both the near-term and long-term physical and economic growth and development of local agencies, and MSRs provide the relevant data to inform LAFCo’s SOI determinations. South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [1-6] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 1.2 PURPOSE OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS As described above, MSRs are designed to equip LAFCo with relevant information and data necessary for the Commission to make informed decisions on SOIs. The CKH Act, however, gives LAFCo broad discretion in deciding how to conduct MSRs, including geographic focus, scope of study, and the identification of alternatives for improving the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, accountability, and reliability of public services. The purpose of a MSR in general is to provide a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the services provided by local municipalities, service areas, and special districts. A MSR evaluates the structure and operation of the local municipalities, service areas, and special districts and discusses possible areas for improvement and coordination. While LAFCos have no direct regulatory authority over cities and special districts, MSR’s provide information concerning the governance structures and efficiencies of service providers – and may also serve as the basis for subsequent LAFCo decisions. The MSR is intended to provide information and analysis to support a sphere of influence update. A written statement of the study’s determinations must be made in the following areas: (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. (2) Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or continuous to the sphere of influence. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies. (4) Financial ability of the agency to provide services. (5) Status of and opportunities for shared facilities. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by Commission policy. This MSR is organized according to these determinations listed above. Information regarding each of the above issue areas is provided in this document. 1.3 PURPOSE OF SPHERES OF INFLUENCE In 1972, LAFCos were given the power to establish SOIs for all local agencies under their jurisdiction. As defined by the CKH Act, “‘sphere of influence’ means a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission” (§56076). All boundary changes, such as annexations, must be consistent with an agency’s SOI with limited exceptions. Pursuant to Humboldt LAFCo policy, a MSR is conducted prior to or in conjunction with its mandate to review and update each local agency’s sphere of influence every five years or as necessary. The MSR process is intended to inform the Commission as to the availability, capacity, and efficiency of local governmental services prior to making SOI determinations. LAFCo is required to make five written determinations when establishing, amending, or updating an SOI for any local agency that address the following (§56425(c)): South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [1-7] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. (5) For an update of an SOI of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. Service reviews may also contain recommendations for SOI or government structure changes needed to implement positive service changes. Where more detailed analysis of service options is necessary, service reviews may contain recommendations for special studies where there is the potential to reduce service gaps and improve service levels. 1.4 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES SB 244 (Chapter 513, Statutes of 2011) made changes to the CKH Act related to disadvantaged unincorporated communities, including mandating the incorporation of an SOI determination focusing on the topic. A disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) is defined as an inhabited territory containing 12 or more registered voters, where the median household income of the area is less than 80 percent of the State of California’s median household income. Pursuant to Section 56425(c) of the CKH Act, DUCs are acknowledged as social and economic communities of interest for making SOI determinations. 1.5 REVIEW METHODS The following information was considered in the development of this service review: Agency-specific data: responses to LAFCo Requests for Information o Demographic data: U.S. Census Bureau; Department of Finance; Department of Water o Resources Finances: budgets and audits; State Controller’s Office o Personal Communications with District staff and Boards o Information gathered was analyzed and applied to make the required determinations. All information gathered for this report is filed by LAFCo for future reference. 1.6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is contained in Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. Public agencies are required to evaluate the potential environmental effects of their actions. MSRs are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to §15262 (feasibility or planning studies) and categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15306 (information collection). CEQA requirements are applicable to SOI Updates. The CEQA lead agency for SOI Updates is most often LAFCo, unless an agency has initiated an SOI expansion or update. South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [1-8] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 2.0 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 TRIBAL LANDS Humboldt County is rich in tribal history due to its remote, hard to access location and varied topography. Within the geographical boundary of Humboldt County there are ancestral tribal lands for numerous peoples including the Bear River Band, Chilula, Hoopa, Karuk, Lassik, Mattole, Nongatl, Sinkyone, Tsnugwe, Wailaki, Whilkut, and Wiyot. A brief overview of each tribe located in the south county area is given below. Sinkyone The Indigenous Peoples of the southern Humboldt region have occupied it for nearly 8,000 years1. The ancestral tribal lands of the Sinkyone, or “Sinkikok” in the Sinkyone language2, extend from the main stem of the Eel River down to the South Fork Eel River, as well as extending from the Eel River in the east to the ocean in the west3. During the summer, the Sinkyone people would travel westward to the ocean. The coast provided cool ocean air, as well as a harvest of fish, seaweed, acorns, roots, seeds, nuts, bulbs, and berries2. The discovery of gold halted much of the Sinkyone’s way of life. This forced a new era of extermination and assimilation on the Sinkyone people and other tribes in the region. The Sinkyone land was eventually used by big timber companies to log much of the redwoods and Douglas firs2. In 1997, 3,900 acres of land was sold to the InterTribal Wilderness council. The council, under a conservation easement, established the Intertribal Sinkyone Wilderness Park. The park is used by local Indigenous Peoples for conservation of cultural and natural resources3. Lassik The ancestral tribal lands of the Lassik, or “Las’-sik” named after their last chief4, are located near the community of Alderpoint. The Lassik People are a part of the Athapascan family, which also includes the Sinkyone and Kuneste People5. The Lassik’s land extends from Ruth Lake down to the North Fork Wilderness, as well as extending from the North Yolla Bolly Mountains in the east to the South Fork Eel River in the west. Their homes were built in a conical form from the bark of the Douglas spruce4. Numerous villages were documented along Dobbyn Creek and the Eel River to the north of Alder Point6. As with most indigenous tribes, contact with European settlers halted the Lassik People’s way of life and nearly eliminated them. However, there are a few families that still reside on their ancestral land4. 1 James Roscoe, M.A., A Cultural Resource Investigation Report for Free Range Holdings. Accessed March 29, 2022 from Print. 2 Trust for Public Land, Return of the Sinkyone – Land and People. Accessed on March 29, 2022 from https://www.tpl.org/magazine/return-sinkyone%E2%80%94landpeople 3 California Department of Parks and Recreation, History: Native People. Accessed on March 29, 2022 from https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28172 4 Access Genealogy, Lassik Tribe. Accessed March 29, 2022 from https://accessgenealogy.com/california/lassik-tribe.htm 5 Access Genealogy, Athapascan Family. Access March 29, 2022 https://accessgenealogy.com/native/athapascan-family.htm 6 Baumhoff, Martin A. Anthropological Records 16:5 – California Athabascan Groups. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1958. South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-9] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 Mattole The Mattole people spoke a dialect of Athabaskan and lived up and down the Mattole River and its tributaries. The people primarily lived in simple family units that moved from location to location depending on food source availability. During certain times of the year they would gather in larger village areas to rely on stored food and hunting. While the Mattole generally stayed close to the river and coastline as salmon was a food staple, hunting and gathering did take place in the nearby hills, especially during the tanoak acorn harvest7. Wailaki The Wailaki are considered a portion of the greater Athapascan group. They generally occupied the North Fork Eel River valley and the main Eel River valley from Round Valley to Kikawaka Creek8. Many villages existed along the edges of the river and its tributaries including dozens of winter homes. People living in these villages would hunt elk, fish the streams, and gather from the abundant natural resources in the area including nuts, seeds, berries, roots, wild vegetables, and more. They had many political factions, each led by a chieftain, and a robust oral history that detailed events of various places such as where a young woman was refused by the man she loved and turned to stone. Nongatl The Nongatl (or Nung-kah-hal) occupied portions of the Van Duzen River basin which is a major tributary to the Eel River. The river runs along present day Highway 36 and joins the Eel River just south of Fortuna. The Nongatl utilized fire to harvest grasshoppers, drive game, and enhance the crop of wild grass seed in the area. They utilized two different types of dwellings including conical fir bark homes for the winter months and square brush enclosures for the summer months. They used weirs, traps, eel baskets, and spears to catch fish in the rivers which they dried for use during the winter months9. They also gathered acorns, seeds, fruits, and other foods to sustain them through the winter. 2.2 HUMBOLDT COUNTY POPULATION Humboldt County was established in 1853 and was included in the 1860 census. The area of the county was much smaller at the time and had a recorded aggregate population of 2,69410. Since the 1970’s, the county has seen steady population growth and the current population is approximately 136,463 according to the 2020 decennial census. Like most areas in the state, the highest population growth occurred from 1940 to 1960 (Figure 2-1). During this time the population of the county more than doubled from 45,812 to 104,892. From 2000 to 2010 the county saw a smaller population increase of approximately 6% which further declined to just over 1% from 2010 to 2020. 7 Cooskey, L. W. (2004). So... what happened to the Natives here? The Journal of the Mattole Valley Historical Society, 6(1), 4-5 8 Goddard, P.E. 9 Weigel, Lawrence E., Pre-Contact Cultural Ecology of the Nongatl Indians of Northwestern California. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vo. 4, No. 1, Perspectives on American Society, 1776-1976 (Fall/Winter 1976), pp. 55-63. Accessed from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44011700 on February 27, 2023. 10 Kennedy, Joseph C. G. – Superintendent of Census. Population of the United States in 1860 Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census. State of California Table No. 2 – Population by Color and Condition. Washington Government Printing Office 1864. South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-10] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 Table 2-1: Historical Population Data for Humboldt County & Select CDPs Humboldt Year County South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-11] tniopredlA PDC PDC wobneB ellivrebraG PDC PDC tteggeL ellivyelniKcM PDC PDC adnariM talF sreyM PDC ellivspillihP PDC PDC tsercdeR PDC yawdeR evoC retlehS PDC PDC ttoeW 2020 136,463 137 422 818 77 16,262 441 90 124 61 1,247 803 219 2010 134,623 186 321 913 122 15,177 520 146 140 89 1,225 693 288 2000 126,518 13,599 1,188 1990 119,118 10,749 1,212 1980 108,514 7,772 1,094 1970 99,692 1960 104,892 1950 69,241 1940 45,812 1930 43,233 Figure 2-1: Decennial Census Data for Humboldt County 140,000 130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Population growth projections are prepared for the state and its counties by the State Department of Finance (DOF) and were last published in July 2023, with a 2019 baseline. The DOF projects that the county population will decline at an average annual rate of approximately minus 0.4 percent per year between 2023 and 2043 and continue to decline thereafter. This decline is based on the County’s annual out-migration exceeding its in-migration and having an aging population, combined with annual deaths exceeding new births. However, DOF projections do not include other factors that could influence local or regional population changes, such as the recently reported Covid-19/telework out-migration from urban areas, possible future movements from congested areas such as the San Francisco Bay Area to less populated areas, and movements from rural areas to more urban areas. The DOF noitalupoP latoT Humboldt County Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 projections also do not reflect potential changes to regional economic conditions, such as the planned growth at Cal Poly Humboldt or wind energy related industrial development on the Samoa Peninsula, which could also influence future population growth. For the purposes of this review, a minimal growth rate of 0.2 percent will be used which is consistent with the growth rate shown in unincorporated potions of the county from 2010 to 201811. However, due to the rural and remote nature of many of the agencies in the south county region, it is unlikely that there will be substantial growth in the communities under review. 2.3 HUMBOLDT COUNTY DUCS Humboldt LAFCo has adopted DUC policy, which identifies 31 inhabited unincorporated “legacy” communities, including many in the south county region, for purposes of implementing SB 244. These legacy communities were defined as part of the Humboldt County 2014 and 2019 Housing Elements for areas not located within the SOI of a city. As of the last decennial census in 2020, the California MHI was $78,672. In order to qualify as disadvantaged, communities would need to have a MHI of less than $62,937. For the purpose this review, the California Department of Water Resources Disadvantage Community Mapping Tool (DAC Map) will be utilized to identify potential DUCs in and around the agencies being reviewed. The DAC Map relies on the American Community Survey 5-year estimates from 2016 to 2020. Unfortunately, there is no data available for a portion of the south county region. For these areas, the nearest block group or census tract will be utilized as an estimate. In 2020, Humboldt County was estimated to have 54,120 households and a MHI of $49,235 which is 62.6 percent of the state MHI12. Figure 2-2 below shows the MHI for census tracts throughout the county in 2021. Much of the south county region could be considered disadvantaged with two of the south county census tracts having a MHI that is less than 45 percent of the statewide MHI, classifying those areas as severely disadvantaged. The disadvantaged communities in the south county region are shown below in Figure 2-3. Due to the disadvantaged state of the area, it is important to carefully consider important services including water, wastewater, and fire/emergency response and to identify any gaps in service. 11 Humboldt County 6th Cycle Housing Element, Appendix G – Population Characteristics. Adopted August 19, 2019. 12 US Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table S1903 for Humboldt County. Accessed July 17, 2022. South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-12] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 Figure 2-2: Humboldt County MHI South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-13] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 Figure 2-3: Southern Humboldt Disadvantaged Communities South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-14] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 2.4 WATER RESOURCES Water resources in southern Humboldt County primarily consist of surface water diversions from rivers, small creeks, or springs. In some areas, wells are utilized to supplement surface water diversions. As with much of the state, surface water resources are becoming more unreliable as drought conditions continue in many areas. On average, creeks and rivers have been running lower which limits the amount of water available for diversion. Surface water also varies naturally throughout the year with less availability in the summer months when there is generally a greater demand for potable water supply. Several small groundwater basins exist within southern Humboldt County including the Pepperwood Town Area and Weott Town Area basins along the South Fork of the Eel River canyon. Additional basins include the Mattole River Valley and Honeydew Town Area. Groundwater can be obtained on a more limited scale from fractured rock formations throughout the region. Test wells are typically needed to determine how productive an area may be. Figure 2-4: Southern Humboldt County Groundwater Basins South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-15] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 Due to the fluctuating availability of surface water, it is becoming more important to have additional sources of water or increased water storage to support drier summer and fall months. This can include drilling wells, obtaining additional surface water rights, focusing on conservation, or developing additional raw water storage in reservoirs, ponds, or holding tanks. 2.5 DROUGHT Traditionally, Humboldt County is one of the wettest counties in California but many areas within the region are still susceptible to the effects of drought. The County formed a County Drought Task Force in 2021 to assist with addressing drought impacts and compliance with Senate Bill 552. SB552 sets forth drought planning standards and regulations, focusing on small water suppliers and rural communities. Small water suppliers and rural communities are increasingly vulnerable to drought and water shortages. Especially in recent years, the County has been experiencing notable effects from drought and large precipitation deficits. These effects include strained water resources, lower river levels, and increased fire potential. Severe drought has occurred in Southern Humboldt County as recently as 2021. In September 2021, the South Fork of the Eel River flows decreased to below 8 cubic feet per second (cfs) resulting in water restrictions for Garberville, Redway, and Miranda. Due to this, Redway Community Services District issued a Stage 3 drought declaration otherwise referred to as a water shortage emergency13. Prior to that in 2014, drought restrictions resulted in a curtailment order for Alderpoint County Water District. These water restrictions are likely to occur again in the future which makes early planning and consistent conservation messaging even more important. 2.6 WILDFIRES Wildfire is a natural occurrence and an integral feature of Northern California. Humboldt County’s landscape has historically been greatly shaped by fire and will continue to be in the future. However, many factors have increased the severity, frequency, and intensity of wildfire such as historic wildfire suppression, timber management, land development, and climate change. As such, wildfire has become increasingly dangerous for communities and has more severe effects on the environment’s ecosystems. Humboldt County has developed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, which contains information on the fire hazard severity levels of 14 different planning units throughout the County. Alderpoint Water District, Briceland CSD, Garberville Sanitary District, Redway CSD, and Resort Improvement District #1 are located within Planning Unit 13, Southern Humboldt. Planning Unit (PU) 14, Avenue of the Giants, contains Miranda CSD, Phillipsville CSD, and Weott CSD. These two areas have over 80% of their land in a high fire hazard severity zone, as identified by CAL FIRE14. Planning Units 10 (Eel), 11 (Mad-Van Duzen), and 12 (Mattole-Lost Coast) are in Southern Humboldt County and are adjacent to Planning Units 13 and 14; should these surrounding areas experience wildfire, the agencies being reviewed in this update could be affected by the impacts. A table outlining the fire hazard severity zones in acres and percentage is below. CAL FIRE is in the process of updating its fire hazard severity zones so these percentages may change in the near future. 13 Kemp, Kym. Sohum Towns Restrict Water Usage as Eel River Falls to Historic Lows. Redheaded Blackbelt, September 14, 2021. 14 Humboldt County Fire Safe Council, Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2019. South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-16] Humboldt LAFCO Adopted - November 2023 Table 2-2: Fire Hazard Severity Zones by Planning Unit in Southern Humboldt County Other % Planning Unit Very High % High % Moderate % Eel (PU 10) 2 0 133,267 70 24,138 13 65,653 35 Mad-Van Duzen (PU 11) 189,558 62 113,881 37 1,596 1 0 0 Mattole-Lost Coast (PU 12) 13,821 7 180,174 90 6,077 3 716 0 Southern Humboldt (PU 13) 58,028 13 120,897 82 6,780 5 0 0 Avenue of the Giants (PU 14) 19,508 13 120,897 82 6,780 5 0 0 2.7 SEISMIC ACTIVITY Humboldt County is located in the Mendocino Triple Junction (MTJ) region which is the point where the Gorda, North American, and Pacific tectonic plates meet. The Cascadia subduction zone, San Andreas Fault, and Mendocino Fracture Zone also all meet at the MTJ. Together, these high seismic activity areas result in the County being especially vulnerable to earthquakes and subsequent damage. The area has historically experienced intense earthquakes and was recently struck by a 6.4 magnitude earthquake at the end of 2022 that caused severe damage to human safety and property. In the event of an earthquake, major concerns relevant to this MSR include water line breaks, damage to control buildings, and slope failure such as landslides and rockfall. 2.8 GOVERNANCE AND STAFFING Governance and staffing can pose an issue for rural communities, especially when isolated and sparsely populated. Often, many small and rural communities struggle to fill board member and other government roles. Retainment of staff is also a significant issue for rural areas. Due to limited resources, other priorities often must take precedence over the recruitment of personnel and staffing services. Additionally, small service providers often receive a majority of their funding from service fees which typically do not supply a large enough income to plan ahead and support future capital improvement projects as needed. Due to limited professional service funds and staffing shortages, it can be difficult for a District to maintain transparency through the publication of annual budgets, audits, and other financial reports. However, this exacerbates an agency's financial strain as it is increasingly difficult, many times impossible, to be awarded grants and obtain loans without proper, consistent documentation of financial records. To assist with meeting financial reporting requirements and conducting successful staff recruitment efforts, rural communities and service providers may want to explore other governance options such as annexations, reorganizations, or shared staffing systems. South County Regional Water Wastewater MSR & SOI Update [2-17]