DOCSLIB.ORG

Carmel River Watershed Assessment and Action Plan 2016 Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carmel River Watershed Assessment and Action Plan 2016 Update Carmel River Watershed Assessment and Action Plan 2016 Update Carmel River Watershed Conservancy The Carmel River Watershed Assessment and Action Plan 2016 is an update to the 2005 Watershed Assessment and Action Plan for the Carmel River developed by the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy and many stakeholder agencies, non-profits and individuals. In 2004 the Conservancy received a $250,000 grant from the State Water Resources Control Board to conduct a thorough assessment of the watershed, which was completed and published in 2005. A major contribution came from the Watershed Institute of the California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB), with teams led by Drs. Doug Smith and Fred Watson. In addition, the Conservancy’s Acting Executive Director at the time, Clive Sanders, performed many of the tributary creek assessments with assistance from CSUMB graduate students. It is also a compilation of the 2005 Plan with the assessments that were conducted to support the 2005 Plan as well as other assessments and local planning documents conducted since then. As such, it incorporates text, graphics and data from many documents, which we did our best to acknowledge in context and in the references section, but it behooves us to list those principal resources up-front as well. We are very grateful for the contributions of the many researchers, agency staff and scientists that give this document a firm foundation for understanding the complexities, values and needs of the Carmel River Watershed. Environmental and Biological Assessment of Portions of the Carmel River Watershed. 2004. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Physical and Hydrologic Assessment of the Carmel River Watershed. 2004. CSUMB Watershed Institute (Smith, Newman, Watson & Hameister). A Vision Plan for the Carmel River Parkway. 2005. Kasey T. and S. Peterson for the Big Sur Land Trust. Wetland Habitat Types of the Carmel River Lagoon. 2006.CSUMB Watershed Institute (Casagrande). Carmel River Lagoon Enhancement Project: Water Quality and Aquatic Wildlife Monitoring, 2005-6. 2007. CSUMB Watershed Institute (Larson, Watson, Casagrande, and Pierce). Carmel River Lagoon Enhancement Project: Water Quality and Aquatic Wildlife Monitoring, 2006-7. 2007. CSUMB Watershed Institute (Perry, Watson, Casagrande, and Hanley). Proposed Scope of Work to Conduct Habitat Typing, Identification and Implementation of Priority Projects to Enhance California Red-Legged Frog habitat in the Carmel River Watershed. 2007. Coastal Watershed Council and Ecosystems West Consulting Group. Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. 2007. Water Management Group. Supplemental Carmel River Watershed Action Plan. 2007. Phillip Williams and Associates with Ecosystem Management International. Carmel Lagoon Water Quality and Steelhead Soundings: 2007. CSUMB Watershed Institute (Anderson, Clark, Croyle, Maas-Baldwin, Urquhart, & Watson). Ten-Year Summary of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s Bioassessment Program on the Carmel River. 2010. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. The Carmel River Bird Conservation Plan. 2013. Point Reyes Bird Observatory and Big Sur Land Trust. ________________________________________________________________________________ Carmel River Watershed Assessment and Action Plan: Update 2016. Shihadeh, Rami; Christensen, Thomas; and Carmel River Task Force members. Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and Carmel River Watershed Conservancy. Monterey County, CA. CARMEL RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND ACTION PLAN UPDATE 2016 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Purpose of and need for a watershed management plan ............................................... 5 1.2 Goals & objectives ....................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Watershed management planning history ..................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Stakeholder involvement in the watershed management plan ............................... 9 1.3.2 Related studies and management actions in the watershed .................................. 13 1.3.3 Projects in the watershed...................................................................................... 14 1.4 Overview of the watershed ......................................................................................... 14 2. SYNTHESIS OF WATERSHED CONDITIONS .............................................................. 17 2.1 Historical watershed conditions .................................................................................. 17 2.1.1 Cultural history .................................................................................................... 18 2.2 Land use ...................................................................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Growth trends ....................................................................................................... 22 2.2.2 Land Use Analysis Summary ............................................................................... 23 2.3 Climate ....................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.1 Climate change ..................................................................................................... 25 2.4 Geology and soils ....................................................................................................... 26 2.5 Geomorphology .......................................................................................................... 30 2.5.1 Mainstem and tributaries ...................................................................................... 32 2.5.2 Lagoon and estuary .............................................................................................. 33 2.5.3 Carmel River State Beach .................................................................................... 34 2.6 Erosion and sediment.................................................................................................. 34 2.6.1 Erosion ................................................................................................................. 35 2.6.2 Sediment .............................................................................................................. 36 2.7 Contributors of erosion and sediment ......................................................................... 39 2.7.1 Fire ....................................................................................................................... 39 2.7.2 Landslides ............................................................................................................ 40 2.7.3 Flooding ............................................................................................................... 42 2.7.4 Infrastructure and channel modifications ............................................................. 45 2.7.5 Dams .................................................................................................................... 45 2.7.6 Floodplain development ....................................................................................... 48 2.7.7 Roads.................................................................................................................... 49 2.7.8 Bridges and creek crossings ................................................................................. 49 2.7.9 Bank revetment .................................................................................................... 51 2.8 Water Supply .............................................................................................................. 52 2.8.1 Water resources monitoring ................................................................................. 52 2.8.2 Water Supply Management .................................................................................. 53 2.9 Water extraction ......................................................................................................... 55 2.9.1 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10, Order WR 2009-0060 and Order WR 2016-0016 .......................................................................................... 56 2.10 Surface and ground water hydrology .......................................................................... 57 2.10.1 Surface water hydrology ...................................................................................... 57 2.10.2 Ground water hydrology ...................................................................................... 64 2.10.3 Lagoon dynamics ................................................................................................. 66 2.11 Water quality .............................................................................................................. 69 2.11.1 Surface water quality condition in the mainstem and lagoon .............................. 71 page 1 January 17, 2017 2.11.2 Groundwater quality condition in the watershed and aquifer .............................. 77 2.11.3 Benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) ...................................................................... 78 2.12 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report
    Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report JUNE 2017 CENTRAL COAST WETLANDS GROUP MOSS LANDING MARINE LABS | 8272 MOSS LANDING RD, MOSS LANDING, CA Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report This page intentionally left blank Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report i Prepared by Central Coast Wetlands Group at Moss Landing Marine Labs Technical assistance provided by: ESA Revell Coastal The Nature Conservancy Center for Ocean Solutions Prepared for The County of Santa Cruz Funding Provided by: The California Ocean Protection Council Grant number C0300700 Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report ii Primary Authors: Central Coast Wetlands group Ross Clark Sarah Stoner-Duncan Jason Adelaars Sierra Tobin Kamille Hammerstrom Acknowledgements: California State Ocean Protection Council Abe Doherty Paige Berube Nick Sadrpour Santa Cruz County David Carlson City of Capitola Rich Grunow Coastal Conservation and Research Jim Oakden Science Team David Revell, Revell Coastal Bob Battalio, ESA James Gregory, ESA James Jackson, ESA GIS Layer support AMBAG Santa Cruz County Adapt Monterey Bay Kelly Leo, TNC Sarah Newkirk, TNC Eric Hartge, Center for Ocean Solution Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report iii Contents Contents Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................ viii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Artemisia Californica Less
    I. SPECIES Artemisia californica Less. [Updated 2017] NRCS CODE: Subtribe: Artemisiinae ARCA11 Tribe: Anthemideae (FEIS CODE: Family: Asteraceae ARCAL) Order: Asterales Subclass: Asteridae Class: Magnoliopsida flowering heads spring growth seedling, March 2009 juvenile plant photos A. Montalvo flowering plant, November 2005 mature plant with flower buds August 2010 A. Subspecific taxa None. Artemisia californica Less. var. insularis (Rydb.) Munz is now recognized as Artemisia nesiotica P.H. Raven (Jepson eFlora 2017). B. Synonyms Artemisia abrotanoides Nuttall; A. fischeriana Besser; A. foliosa Nuttall; Crossostephium californicum (Lessing) Rydberg (FNA 2017). C. Common name California sagebrush. The common name refers to its strong, sage-like aroma and endemism to California and Baja California. Other names include: coastal sage, coast sage, coast sagebrush (Painter 2016). D. Taxonomic relationships The FNA (2017) places this species in subgenus Artemisia . The molecular phylogeny of the genus has improved the understanding of relationships among the many species of Artemisia and has, at times, placed the species in subgenus Tridentadae; morphology of the inflorescences and flowers alone does not place this species with its closest relatives (Watson et al. 2002). The detailed phylogeny is not completely resolved (Hayat et al. 2009). E. Related taxa in region There are 18 species and a total of 31 taxa (including infrataxa) of Artemisia in southern California, all of which differ clearly from A. californica in habitat affinity, structure, or both (Munz 1974, Jepson eFlora 2017). Within subgenus Artemisia (as per FNA 2017), A. nesiotica from the Channel Islands is the most similar and was once considered part of A. californica ; it can be distinguished by its wider leaves with flat leaf margins (not rolled under).
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Climate Change Hazards
    January 11, 2017 King Tide at Its Beach source: Visit Santa Cruz County City of Santa Cruz Beaches Urban Climate Adaptation Policy Implication & Response Strategy Evaluation Technical Report June 30, 2020 This page intentionally left blank for doodling City of Santa Cruz Beaches Climate Adaptation Policy Response Strategy Technical Report ii Report Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Report prepared by the Central Coast Wetlands Group at Moss Landing Marine Labs and Integral Consulting Authors: Ross Clark, Sarah Stoner-Duncan, David Revell, Rachel Pausch, Andre Joseph-Witzig Funding Provided by the California Coastal Commission City of Santa Cruz Beaches Climate Adaptation Policy Response Strategy Technical Report iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Goals .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Planning Context .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Process ......................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan
    The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California A Project of California Partners in Flight and PRBO Conservation Science The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California Version 2.0 2004 Conservation Plan Authors Grant Ballard, PRBO Conservation Science Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science Tom Gardali, PRBO Conservation Science Geoffrey R. Geupel, PRBO Conservation Science Tonya Haff, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Museum of Natural History Collections, Environmental Studies Dept., University of CA) Aaron Holmes, PRBO Conservation Science Diana Humple, PRBO Conservation Science John C. Lovio, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Navy (Currently at TAIC, San Diego) Mike Lynes, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Hastings University) Sandy Scoggin, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at San Francisco Bay Joint Venture) Christopher Solek, Cal Poly Ponoma (Currently at UC Berkeley) Diana Stralberg, PRBO Conservation Science Species Account Authors Completed Accounts Mountain Quail - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Greater Roadrunner - Pete Famolaro, Sweetwater Authority Water District. Coastal Cactus Wren - Laszlo Szijj and Chris Solek, Cal Poly Pomona. Wrentit - Geoff Geupel, Grant Ballard, and Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science. Gray Vireo - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Black-chinned Sparrow - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Costa's Hummingbird (coastal) - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Sage Sparrow - Barbara A. Carlson, UC-Riverside Reserve System, and Mary K. Chase. California Gnatcatcher - Patrick Mock, URS Consultants (San Diego). Accounts in Progress Rufous-crowned Sparrow - Scott Morrison, The Nature Conservancy (San Diego).
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Resource Management Element
    Coastal Resource Management Element General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element C OASTAL R ESOURCE M ANAGEMENT E LEMENT Introduction This element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan includes policies for protection of the City’s coastal environmental resources including the character of its forest, beach and bluffs, water quality and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). As noted in the previous element (Access and Recreation), there is little private land located between the first public road and the shoreline. The City owns nearly the entire beach. This eliminates many of the potential conflicts that other communities face between development and resource preservation objectives along the immediate coastline. However, the City’s biological resources are found in a variety of other locations, and require protection under the Coastal Act. (LUP) Coastal Resource Management Background Environmental Setting The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is located in a region of California’s central coast that is known for its diversity of plants and plant communities. The region surrounding the city supports several different climatic, topographic, and soil conditions, resulting in a wide variety of habitats. This diversity of conditions supports many native plants and wildlife species. As an example of this diversity, 146 plant species reach their most southern and 156 plant species reach their most northern distributional limits in Monterey County, and at least 34 plant species are found only in Monterey County. (LUP) Residential development occurs on almost all land in the city, except for seven parks, several mini-parks, a compact centralized commercial area and some privately owned parcels in Pescadero Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Biological Resources
    3.4 Biological Resources 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the Proposed Project to have impacts on biological resources, including sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated to candidate, sensitive, or special status species (as defined in Section 3.4.6 below), sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional waters of the United States, wildlife corridors or other significant migratory pathway, and a potential to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the Orange County General Plan, the City of Lake Forest General Plan, Lake Forest Municipal Code, field observations, and other sources, referenced within this section, for background information. Full bibliographic references are noted in Section 3.4.12 (References). No comments with respect to biological resources were received during the NOP comment period. The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and zone change for development of Sites 1 to 6 and creation of public facilities overlay on Site 7. 3.4.2 Environmental Setting Regional Characteristics The City of Lake Forest, with a population of approximately 77,700 as of January 2004, is an area of 16.6 square miles located in the heart of South Orange County and Saddleback Valley, between the coastal floodplain and the Santa Ana Mountains (see Figure 2-1, Regional Location). The western portion of the City is near sea level, while the northeastern portion reaches elevations of up to 1,500 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Carmel Pine Cone, June 17, 2011 (Main News)
    InYour A CELEBRATION OF THE C ARMEL LIFESTYLE… D A SPECIAL SECTIONreams… INSIDE THIS WEEK! Volume 97 No. 24 On the Internet: www.carmelpinecone.com June 17-23, 2011 Y OUR S OURCE F OR L OCAL N EWS, ARTS AND O PINION S INCE 1915 BIG SUR MEN PLEAD Monterey activist sues over C.V. senior housing GUILTY IN 2009 DUI ■ Wants occupancy curtailed to save amount which wasn’t allocated and which the Peninsula does not have, Leeper said. By MARY BROWNFIELD water; developer says limits will be met Leeper is a well known local activist and protester on numerous subjects. A May 8, 2008, commentary by fellow IN A deal struck with prosecutors that would keep them By PAUL MILLER from getting maximum sentences, Big Sur residents Mark activist Gordon Smith in Monterey County Weekly accused Hudson, 51, and Christopher Tindall, 30, pleaded guilty to CITING THE danger to the availability of water for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and hit-and-run other developments in the Monterey Peninsula and potential See LAWSUIT page 28A resulting in death Monday in environmental damage to the Monterey County Superior Carmel River if a senior housing Court. project at the mouth of Carmel Deputy district attorney Valley is allowed to open at full Doug Matheson said Hudson capacity, Monterey activist Ed will receive a five-year Leeper is asking a judge to issue an prison sentence, while emergency order that the facility, Tindall’s sentence could be Cottages of Carmel, be limited to probation, or up to four years 56 beds.
    [Show full text]
  • Possible Correlations of Basement Rocks Across the San Andreas, San Gregorio- Hosgri, and Rinconada- Reliz-King City Faults
    Possible Correlations of Basement Rocks Across the San Andreas, San Gregorio- Hosgri, and Rinconada- Reliz-King City Faults, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1317 Possible Correlations of Basement Rocks Across the San Andreas, San Gregorio- Hosgri, and Rinconada- Reliz-King City Faults, California By DONALD C. ROSS U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1317 A summary of basement-rock relations and problems that relate to possible reconstruction of the Salinian block before movement on the San Andreas fault UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1984 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Boss, Donald Clarence, 1924- Possible correlations of basement rocks across the San Andreas, San Gregrio-Hosgri, and Rinconada-Reliz-King City faults, California (U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1317) Bibliography: p. 25-27 Supt. of Docs, no.: 119.16:1317 1. Geology, structural. 2. Geology California. 3. Faults (geology) California. I. Title. II. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1317. QE601.R681984 551.8'09794 84-600063 For sale by the Distribution Branch, Text Products Section, U.S. Geological Survey, 604 South Pickett St., Alexandria, VA 22304 CONTENTS Page Abstract _____________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction __________________________________________________________ 1 San Gregorio-Hosgri fault zone ___________________________________________ 3 San Andreas
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment 2730 Onyx, Los Angeles, California
    H AMILTON B IOLOGICAL February 6, 2020 Henry Suarez Yalla Yalla LLC 1030 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 201 La Cañada, CA, 91011 SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2730 ONYX, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Suarez, At your request, Hamilton Biological has prepared this biological assessment that the City of Los Angeles (the City) has requested in association with planning of a proposed residential project at 2730 Onyx Drive. The property covers 3.90 acres and is located in the eastern part of Los Angeles (Figures 1, 2). Figure 1. Regional Location Scale 1 inch = 2 miles Hamilton Biological Figure 1. The 3.9-acre project site is located in the in the eastern part of the City of Los Angeles. Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro. 316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 [email protected] Biological Assessment, 2730 Onyx Drive, Los Angeles Hamilton Biological, Inc. February 6, 2020 Page 2 of 15 Figure 2. Project Vicinity Scale 1 inch = 1500 feet Hamilton Biological Figure 2. The property is located west of North Mission Road /Huntington Drive North, and north of Commo- dore Street. The surrounding land uses consist of low-density hillside residential housing and light industrial. Natural open space of Ascot Hills Park lies a sixth of a mile to the east, and Abraham Lincoln Senior High School lies a quarter-mile to the southwest. Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro. The proposed project involves grading most of the site to construct 32 single-family res- idences and associated infrastructure. The goals of this study were: (1) to characterize the property’s vegetation; (2) to identify the plant and wildlife species observed on the property; (3) to evaluate the potential for any listed and otherwise sensitive plant or wildlife species to occur on the property; and (4) to determine whether implementation of the proposed project could entail any impacts considered significant under the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 6. Phase I
    PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND LIMITED PHASE II SOIL TEST¡NG MONTEREY-SALI NAS TRANSIT SOUTH COUNTY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACITITY KING CITY EAST RANCH BUSINESS PARK, APN 026-521.03I KING CITY, CATIFORNIA June8,2OI7 Prepared for Denise Duffy and Associates, lnc Prepared by Earth Systems Pacific 500 Park Center Drive, Suite L Hollister, CA 95023 Copyright @ 2017 Earth Systems Pacific 500 Park Center Drive, Ste.1 Hollister, CA 95023 Ph: 83L-637-2133 esp@eâ rthsystems.com www.ea rthsystems.com June 8,2017 File No.: SH-13325-EA Ms. Erin Harwayne Denise Duffy and Associates, lnc. 947 Cass Street, Suite #5 Monterey, CA 93940 PROJECT: MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT - SOUTH COUNTY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY KING CITY EAST RANCH BUSINESS PARK, APN 026-521.-O3L KING CITY, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase ll SoilTesting Dear Ms. Harwayne: As authorized by Denise Duffy and Associates, lnc., Earth Systems Pacific (ESP) has completed this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Limited Phase ll SoilTesting at the above- referenced site. lt was prepared to stand as a whole, and no part should be excerpted or used in exclusion of any other part. This project was conducted in accordance with our proposal dated April 12, 20L7. lf you have any questions regarding this report or the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. I declare that I meet the definition of an Environmental Professional as defined in 40CFR 3L2.tO. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the subject site.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Version of Palos Verdes
    Selected Plants Native to Palos Verdes Peninsula (C.M. Rodrigue, 07/26/11) http://www.csulb.edu/geography/PV/ Succulents (plants with fleshy, often liquid-saturated leaves and/or stems. These features can be found in a variety of life forms, including annual herbaceous plants, vines, shrubs, and trees, as well as cacti) Herbaceous plants (non-woody, though there may be a woody caudex or basal stem and root -- annual growth dies back each year, resprouting in perennial or biennial plants, or the plant dies and is replaced by a new generation each year in the case of annual plants) Extremely tiny plant. Stems only about 2-6 cm tall, occasionally as much as 10 cm, leaves only 1-3 mm long (can get up to 6 mm long), fleshy, found at the plant's base or on the stems, shape generally ovate (egg-shaped), may have a blunt rounded end or a fine acute tip. The leaves are arranged oppositely, not alternately. The plant is green when new but ages to red or pink. Tiny flower (0.5- 2 mm) borne in leaf axils, usually just one per leaf pair on a pedicel (floral stem) less than 6 mm long. Two or 3 petals and 3 or 4 sepals. Flowers February to May. Annual herb. Found in open areas, in rocky nooks and crannies, and sometimes in vernal ponds (temporary pools that form after a rain and then slowly evaporate). Crassula connata (Crassulaceae): pygmy stonecrop or pygmy-weed or sand pygmyweed Leaves converted into scales along stems, which are arranged alternately and overlap.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Final Environmental United States Department of Impact Statement Agriculture Forest Service Strategic Community Fuelbreak May 2018 Improvement Project Monterey Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest, Monterey County, California In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]